WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 2
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=siiQJ7RyKLw
Video-2: youtube.com/watch?v=Ksuo5IC-5j4

Part: 1

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:26.519
--------- forum. We have three members here, myself, Gomez, >> Jack, we have all three here. So, we have a quorum. >> Yes. Any public comments? Yep. Councilman Allwater. >> They have a microphone.

2
00:00:32.880 --> 00:01:05.119
Thank you. >> Let's put that down. >> Uh just for the record, Bob Aer, vice mayor of Indian River Shores. Almost exactly one year ago, I did a presentation looking at our real estate exposure and doing a comparison between

3
00:01:05.119 --> 00:01:22.560
a real estate uh a reindex fund versus our private funds real estate uh holdings. And I'm not, you know, my recommendation at time was to uh have our exposure and in a refund. I'm not going to go over that. What what you

4
00:01:22.560 --> 00:01:40.240
have in front of you is the uh returns of the Vanguard real estate index fund, the Admiral shares, the institutional shares would actually have a slightly higher return. A comparison against the holdings in the uh public uh safety

5
00:01:40.240 --> 00:01:57.360
fund. And just as a as a check to make sure things weren't there wasn't something odd about the returns on the Vanguard REIT uh index fund, I did not provide those, but I pulled up Fidelity's read index fund. Returns are almost exactly the same. And as you can

6
00:01:57.360 --> 00:02:12.080
see here, you know, looking at one-year returns, the public safety real estate is in red. You know, under underperformed uh by about 9 percentage points. you look back three years a substantial difference in five years. So

7
00:02:12.080 --> 00:02:27.840
I just wanted to uh make you aware of again the positive differential of the reed index funds relative uh to or the private funds and you're getting those returns having daily liquidity. If you guys decide you want to be out of real

8
00:02:27.840 --> 00:02:42.959
estate, you could call, you could go on the computer 359 this afternoon and do it. And the expense ratio, I think, is seven or eight basis points compared to to I believe 110 on both. So, just wanted to point that out. Thank you.

9
00:02:42.959 --> 00:03:04.480
>> Thank you, Vice Mayor. >> New business, we have a trustee vacancy update. Troy. >> Uh, so, uh, most of you know that, um, uh, Tom Vanderventor, uh, trustee, longtime trustee here, stepped down. Um, and so I've reached out to the city

10
00:03:04.480 --> 00:03:20.400
since he was council appointed, asked them to, uh, do their normal process to, uh, post the notice. Um, and then when they do find somebody to have that person be approved by council. So, that that process has already started. And, um, obviously we wish Tom the best.

11
00:03:20.400 --> 00:03:36.480
anybody that has personal contact with him. Um I've told him that we wish them the best. Thank him for his service. I sent him his form one and form one F to complete uh which trustees that are he has to do a normal form one like you all would but because he's leaving he also has to do the form one F. So he's got

12
00:03:36.480 --> 00:03:52.319
those and it looks like that he's all good to go and has that all taken care. >> So that's where that >> could you just you said the process has started. So >> um >> so the notice has already been >> there's a notice. Could you just explain the process a little bit more so I have

13
00:03:52.319 --> 00:04:09.120
a better understanding as to how the word is put out that we >> sure would when it's a council appointed uh seat so there's two council appointed two member appointed and then one fifth trustee so the two council appointed uh when we do have an opening I notify the city the city then uh drafts their

14
00:04:09.120 --> 00:04:25.919
nomination notice and their request you know for for people to apply to uh fill the position uh once those come in they then um bring them before council and the council makes a decision, you know, based on who they would like to have as that to fill that position. Once they

15
00:04:25.919 --> 00:04:41.120
have filled that position, ratified them, that's they now come back in and they're now a board member, you know, we ratify when they get here. >> So that's for the two council appointment. And so if it's a member of like we're getting ready to do right now, right? >> I'll explain that that one, you know, as we go forward. >> Thank you.

16
00:04:41.120 --> 00:04:57.680
>> Sure. Um, so moving straight along, uh, we'll go right down into the term update. Albert just expired uh this past 15th. Uh I've already made contact with him, but just to confirm, Albert, do you wish to serve again? >> Yes, I'm planning on serving again. >> So, being that Albert wants to serve

17
00:04:57.680 --> 00:05:13.360
again, uh we're going to do the normal process is to post a notice to all members. Um uh and from that point, if uh if it's just Albert that uh is nobody else puts in, have will be continue as the member elected. If a second or third person puts in, we have a run-up

18
00:05:13.360 --> 00:05:28.800
election. Whoever gets the most amount of votes uh is the person who's going to be the next member elected person. So that's how it works. So um I've noted that that you wish to serve again and so that will that notification uh nomination notice will go up shortly.

19
00:05:28.800 --> 00:05:49.440
Okay. Um and then we'll move straight down uh into the proposed 2027 meeting dates. [clears throat] Your tablet uh that is going to be It's going to be page uh four, sorry, page six of 111.

20
00:05:49.440 --> 00:06:06.000
>> So for the proposed meeting dates, we do it always in quarter 3. Uh even though it seems very early to start looking at 2027 because we have so many different people to to corral and to uh get schedules aligned with, we have to do it in this quarter. Uh we also have the chambers here that we have to uh contend

21
00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:21.199
with making sure that we get access. So, this is what uh Bonnie's firm has put together for the meeting dates. Uh they are very similar to last year's um and uh obviously if we needed to change, you know, something happens where say we have, you know, two of our trustees have

22
00:06:21.199 --> 00:06:36.639
to go to a certification school, we can always adjust these later, but as long as there's nothing outstanding right now that would prevent us from getting a motion, then we'd be looking for those. >> I'll make a motion for approval on it. >> Okay, perfect. >> I'll second that motion. >> Okay.

23
00:06:36.639 --> 00:06:54.639
>> Okay. Vote. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion approved. >> Appreciate that. Okay, moving straight down into the next item, which is the proposed 2026 2027 [clears throat] budget. Uh that should

24
00:06:54.639 --> 00:07:11.680
be the next page. So, if you remember, uh Will, you weren't here for last year, so I'll give you the the full version of this. So, the number on the on the right side, that is what we're proposing for our budget for this year. uh the the one on the left side if you look at that the actual expenses that is what we have actually spent up until the date on

25
00:07:11.680 --> 00:07:28.160
there which is 6:30 the quarter I'm sorry the fiscal year ends 9:30 so we still have three months of bill maybe more like four months of bills to still come in because some are still pending uh that we just haven't didn't get uh you know uh through uh that have already been uh paid. So that's where we're kind

26
00:07:28.160 --> 00:07:44.400
of standing right now. The way this works is this is not a budget we're trying to get to. This is where we're trying to make sure we don't go over. So that 181,000 that's taking real numbers, historical numbers and current numbers and then building in um a cushion on top of it. Say we have an anomaly where we

27
00:07:44.400 --> 00:08:00.960
have uh more actuary studies or more attorney you know issues, opinions that need to get done or uh something comes where I've got a special meeting or more that we've got to go to. So basically we're looking at real numbers and then putting a cushion on top of those to make sure if we go over our budget that we do the state has to get involved and

28
00:08:00.960 --> 00:08:17.599
come into a meeting and that ends up you know it's just not a necessary thing and Bonnie can explain this to you. You know >> I just wanted to say so this is like a forecast. It's not really a budget. They call it a budget in the state statute but they want you to take into account

29
00:08:17.599 --> 00:08:34.959
things that you think you might have to deal with because you are fiduciaries. Right. You can't say to somebody, "Oh, we can't process your application because we didn't budget for it, right? You have to anticipate that you might have odd things that happen." And I

30
00:08:34.959 --> 00:08:50.399
think, you know, Troy did a really good job at going through all of the odd things, but you need to you need to add in what if. >> And and Troy had mentioned that the state could get involved. You go over budget. I mean, is that on a line item

31
00:08:50.399 --> 00:09:06.880
or that's just a total budget? >> The state >> that's I assume >> the state says that if you go over Yeah. >> then you have to come back in, you have to redo your budget and you and you have a filing requirement. So, you have to file it with the the town. Um, you have to make it available to your membership.

32
00:09:06.880 --> 00:09:21.920
So, those all of those postings will have to be done again. And if if you're not in compliance, it is something that they can sure >> um look at on your inner report. And have we approved next year's budget or that's still >> that's what we're doing right now. >> This is next year's. Yes.

33
00:09:21.920 --> 00:09:36.640
>> Yeah. We had this discussion >> October 1st >> um the last time >> I thought so >> and was my understanding too that if we don't >> it's not a budget like >> Yep. >> a budget budget. And we've we've never come close. I think we had a lot of activity this year just because of all

34
00:09:36.640 --> 00:09:52.560
the 175185 stuff going on and what have you. And uh I don't think historically we've ever gone over. Not not not that not not that I know of. >> That's our goal to keep you right under that budget. >> Um

35
00:09:52.560 --> 00:10:08.000
I'm [clears throat] I'm um I think it's where we're spending wise we're actually really close to what we were the following year if I remember right but I could be wrong. Um I'm going to make a motion for approval. Before we do that, just I just had two questions because

36
00:10:08.000 --> 00:10:23.600
two items that um relatively close. Insurance. Do we have any sense as to whether if there's one more billing period for insurance that it could put us over budget >> the whole year? >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, there's just a cushion built in on top of that. >> And same, >> you approved that at the last meeting. >> And same question for the actuary. Do we

37
00:10:23.600 --> 00:10:40.560
have additional expenses coming up this this fiscal year? >> I'm going to go ahead and I'm not sure if if uh I got with Doug on this. Uh that is his his normal projection. So if you want to table this until I think that's going to be sorry

38
00:10:40.560 --> 00:10:55.120
>> I uh >> does that include the statement at the end of the year statement that says if you work these many this this long with this contribution your pension would be X >> yeah the member statement is that included already or you haven't done that yet?

39
00:10:55.120 --> 00:11:10.720
>> Yeah, I I think there's enough margin. >> Okay. >> So then yeah, otherwise everything is pretty standard. There's nothing that stands out. um just for your will the IME physician fees um if an officer gets hurt we have a disability hearing and stuff so that that is just for the IME

40
00:11:10.720 --> 00:11:28.760
fee um which you know that's generally between what five and 7,000 something like that I put in the 10,000 if you had two it might be 14 this kind of hedges the bet in between the two um you know so that's that's the reason that's I just want to explain to you

41
00:11:29.200 --> 00:11:54.560
>> so than that I have a motion do I have a second now I'll second it. >> All approved. >> I >> I Any opposed? None. Motion carries. >> Bonnie, were you real quick, were you here when, and I know we've already

42
00:11:54.560 --> 00:12:13.440
voted. I'm just morbid curiosity. Were you here when we actually had an officer um go out early on a disability? Probably 8 years ago, maybe seven years ago. >> Yeah, I'm going to say yes. >> And that's what that would apply to.

43
00:12:13.440 --> 00:12:28.880
>> So, right. So, they make an application to us. Um they're charged with that application of providing us with a doctor's note that says that they're disabled from performing the functions, that they are likely to remain for permanently continuous sleep. Okay. >> And it was job related. >> That's what I thought.

44
00:12:28.880 --> 00:12:46.079
>> They need to provide us that. But then we gather all the records based on the questions that we ask of the applicant >> and we then send all of those records to the IME doctor who will then who works for you independent, right?

45
00:12:46.079 --> 00:13:02.079
>> And so he's going to give you the truth of the matter and >> Okay. >> And that's what that >> Thank you. Uh item four, approval of minutes. Uh I'll make a motion to approve the

46
00:13:02.079 --> 00:13:20.880
minutes. Have a second. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I. None opposed. Motion carries. Any old business? No. Okay. Move on and we move to Foster

47
00:13:20.880 --> 00:13:36.639
and Foster. Doug, what do you got for us? Yeah, that's fine. Um, here's a question for the trustees. I There's this plus there's another item. Both are business for the actuary. >> Did you maybe want to hear your investment report first and then you can

48
00:13:36.639 --> 00:13:54.320
bore yourselves with the the actuary business stuff? >> Yeah. You I just saw the order and thought >> I I don't have an issue with this. Anybody else? >> No issue. >> None whatsoever. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, if I consent, we'll move straight on to president. >> All right. Good afternoon, everyone.

49
00:13:54.320 --> 00:14:10.399
Brad, how are you? >> Good. I have uh three potential things for you. One is our normal quarterly report. Uh two is an educational presentation on a a new potential asset class. >> Um that is

50
00:14:10.399 --> 00:14:27.120
>> new potential with what? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear that. >> Asset class type of investment. >> Thank you. uh uh infrastructure that I think is um fits a similar billing to kind of the real estate in terms of an income alternative and I'll get into it uh why

51
00:14:27.120 --> 00:14:42.240
I think it's uh potentially a good idea. Now the there's the no free lunch. So we'll go through the positives and and the the negatives and then we can make a decision whether or not you think it's interesting. And then um I've also have

52
00:14:42.240 --> 00:14:58.079
a fee proposal for you all. Um we have worked under the same agreement since you hired us in December of 2016. We've made the same amount of money for that entire time and uh I keep pushing off or

53
00:14:58.079 --> 00:15:14.480
I kept pushing off uh management about asking for a raise until we got things I think in a better position. Um, and I feel like we have. So, I'm coming today to ask you for to consider increasing

54
00:15:14.480 --> 00:15:31.920
our fee. So, um, figure we start off with the, uh, the June, uh, 30th quarterly report and then we can kind of take it from there to where you guys want to take it. But if you're going on the tablet,

55
00:15:31.920 --> 00:15:48.000
you can go to page three or 12 of 11. and it's page three of the hard copy, but it ended up being particularly for equities just a gang buster quarter. You

56
00:15:48.000 --> 00:16:05.120
can see the S&P 500 was up 15%. Uh small cap stocks, the Russell 2000 was up over 20 in blue on the upper right hand side. International stocks, the overall market was up 14 and a half. You can see emerging markets up 24%.

57
00:16:05.120 --> 00:16:20.959
uh bonds positive but you know not uh not not much there uh 7%. Um and despite everything that's going on geopolitically,

58
00:16:20.959 --> 00:16:38.079
um you know, once you got the ceasefire announced and once you had and and most importantly, I think earnings have been so strong for the vast majority of the S&P 500 that the the market has just kind of ignored

59
00:16:38.079 --> 00:16:54.399
some of those risks over there, risk of inflation. oil prices which are going up and down depending upon what's happening in the straight but we've had two quarters in a row of 20 plus% earnings growth for the S&P 500 which is

60
00:16:54.399 --> 00:17:09.919
absolutely phenomenal. We've had I believe seven or eight um quarters in a row of double digit earnings growth. Um well we only had about a quarter of the S&P 500's report so far this quarter. We're at right now

61
00:17:09.919 --> 00:17:26.880
tracking at 25% earnings growth. And you can just pick up whatever earnings report that you want and just look at it and it's like, okay, Goldman Sachs record uh revenue record, you know, Micron, you know, they they're making more profits

62
00:17:26.880 --> 00:17:42.000
than they did in revenue two quarters ago. Um, Alphabet just reported, you know, Netflix, whoever. It just it's it's really really phenomenal. Now, there's risk associated with that, right? Because it's getting it's priced in. We've been on a tremendous tremendous

63
00:17:42.000 --> 00:17:56.880
run, but there were a couple years where the market was going up and it wasn't all that supported by earnings growth, but it's absolutely supported by the earnings growth right now. The question is is the market's always talking like just thinks, okay, what's next, right?

64
00:17:56.880 --> 00:18:12.799
They kind of get really excited and then really pessimistic at at certain times. Um and it's there's certainly you know an optimism about continued earnings growth um uh coming through but the numbers are supporting that from an

65
00:18:12.799 --> 00:18:29.039
economic perspective you have unemployment the last unemployment report came in at 4.2%. which is again if you go long-term history very very very low um you know a little bit up from the uh the low that

66
00:18:29.039 --> 00:18:45.280
we hit a couple years ago after the kind of COVID demand but still tremendous uh you had you did have the increase in inflation right during uh particularly the headline number that includes uh gas and food prices but that's starting to come come moderate now economy continues

67
00:18:45.280 --> 00:19:01.520
to grow there's you know some you know there's always some signs of of of um weakness, but on the whole just everything is is kind of tracking really well. And that's kind of now reflected in what you see here. This bounce back after a negative quarter for the quarter

68
00:19:01.520 --> 00:19:19.600
ending uh March 31st. We have a new Federal Reserve chairman uh right now has not done any action. They meet tomorrow. Uh futures are 65% stay the same, 35% hike. So, we'll see what

69
00:19:19.600 --> 00:19:36.799
happens uh there. Um you know, the bond market went up a bit, then it's coming down. So, but still kind of under 5% for the 10-year. So, I mean, all in all, things seem pretty solid. You know, the the worry is, you

70
00:19:36.799 --> 00:19:53.440
know, you know, when does the party stop and and do we get if we get into an economic slowdown, then every all of these companies that are spending billions, hundreds of billions of dollars on AI infrastructure, do they start batting down the hatchets? And what is the the kind of the second order effects of that? But we're not we're not

71
00:19:53.440 --> 00:20:13.440
seeing that right now. Um page four of the hard copy next page uh 13 of the shows you the breakout between value and growth. So this was a a quarter where you had growth stocks

72
00:20:13.440 --> 00:20:29.760
generally a modest win versus value stocks. But very interestingly the is you know the returns for the one-year period where you saw value stocks you know the Russell 3000 which is the broad-based value stock index up almost 30% versus about 18 for the growth stock

73
00:20:29.760 --> 00:20:47.120
index. And part of that is due to um you might have heard some of these names like Micron and Intel and SanDisk and Western Digital which are all chip or memory related companies and there is

74
00:20:47.120 --> 00:21:03.600
just an unbelievable supply demand imbalance where they can just write whatever price they want for this stuff and are getting it. So they were all in the value index which is interesting. They're kind of like AI plays but that you know benefited the a lot of those companies switched out into the growth

75
00:21:03.600 --> 00:21:19.919
index actually because they do a reconstitution in June. So that that that's kind of interesting. We'll see how that goes. Um, but I think that's a big driver of what you saw the the value names over the last year do better than the growth names. Um, same thing with emerging markets. I

76
00:21:19.919 --> 00:21:42.559
just highlight some of these returns. If you go to page eight of the hard copy, we talked about that index being up 24%. And if you, this is busy page, but on the lower right hand side you could see

77
00:21:42.559 --> 00:21:59.600
that starts the the the emerging market countries. You can see Taiwan up 50% for the quarter and 100% for the last year. Korea almost 90% for the quarter and 200% for the year. And

78
00:21:59.600 --> 00:22:15.120
that's a very very concentrated index now because there's three companies Taiwan Semiconductor SKH Highix and Samsung which are all chip related just again benefiting from AI demand. Um it's now almost 40% of the index just in

79
00:22:15.120 --> 00:22:29.600
those four stocks very very concentrated but obviously you can see the numbers reflected in what the returns were for those countries led by those companies. Any questions about overall

80
00:22:29.600 --> 00:22:46.960
economy? What's been going on this quarter? Kind of flat. I think the S&P 500 is down about 1% since June 30th. Um bonds are down a little bit because rates of the 10 years has gone up a bit. Um uh reflecting potential rate

81
00:22:46.960 --> 00:23:08.520
increases for the Fed, but kind of flat right now. Not not anything dramatic. In terms of uh rate increases, twothirds are saying stay flat and one/3 potential increase is priced in for tomorrow. Yeah. >> Okay.

82
00:23:11.360 --> 00:23:29.520
>> All right. So, let's get into the plan. Uh flip to page 13 of the hard copy and 22. So, we ended the quarter at uh 21.45 $45 million. This goes back to to 2013. We started

83
00:23:29.520 --> 00:23:44.880
working with you all at the end of 2016, but always like this kind of longer term view or, you know, we had about $10 million to start back then. We've actually paid out $5.6 million in net cash flows and more that's come in, you know, more that's gone out in benefit

84
00:23:44.880 --> 00:24:00.080
payments and etc than has come in. $17 million gain over time leads to that $21 million. And when you say paid out 5.6 million, is it is that the net or that's what >> you take the contributions from the town, from the members, and from the

85
00:24:00.080 --> 00:24:17.279
state minus what has been distributed out from the pension and that's where you get that negative $5 million over time. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Next page just shows you the side by side of March 31st versus June 30th. So

86
00:24:17.279 --> 00:24:36.159
we went from 20 basically $20 million to 21.45. 45. Like I had mentioned, as you would expect, our equities went up a bit. We were at 64% in domestic equity and we're at 67.7. Where that lies relative to our

87
00:24:36.159 --> 00:24:53.200
investment policy statement targets is on page 26 of the tablet, page 17 of your hard copy. So we're within our investment policy statement allowable ranges for all asset classes. We are as you you would expect

88
00:24:53.200 --> 00:25:08.559
a bit overweight. Our de our equity bucket at at 68% right now but still within policy um fixed income is actually a little bit over but you know we're underweight the real estate by 5%. Um and we're underweight our noncore

89
00:25:08.559 --> 00:25:23.679
fixed income which is the floating rate given um you know still don't think it makes sense to put money into real estate this time, which is why I'm kind of talking about this potential new investment because my thought would be we reduce our target to

90
00:25:23.679 --> 00:25:40.320
real estate, introduce a new target for this new investment and it it it fills a a similar role in terms of it's a a fixed income income generating asset that uh you know provides diversification. It doesn't act like bonds. It doesn't act like stocks.

91
00:25:40.320 --> 00:25:56.480
Doesn't act like real estate. provides kind of a diversification benefit as well as kind of these structural tailwinds I think in these assets that makes sense as well. So just a couple just couple quick questions on the domestic equity. The the range is that

92
00:25:56.480 --> 00:26:12.480
70%. Is that where the policy is at the high end? >> That's the max. If it goes over 70, then I mean there's language that says it gives you an out, but if it goes over 70, I'll always come and say I think we should rebalance. >> And when was the last time that we rebalanced? It was sometime I don't

93
00:26:12.480 --> 00:26:28.880
think it was a year ago, but it might have been nine months ago where we took some equity money off the table. We have so you can >> And when was that? I mean, >> flip to page 20 and 21 of the the hard copy. >> Yep. >> So, last quarter,

94
00:26:28.880 --> 00:26:46.559
we had to raise some cash. There's been um some larger uh I don't know if it's dropped or whatever exit payments that have come in over the last year. So, so page 20 shows you the quarter for the activity. So you can see we we sold $33,000 of equities

95
00:26:46.559 --> 00:27:04.640
to fund cash needs uh during the quarter. And then page 21 of the hard copy, which is 30, shows you um what we've done fiscal year to date since um 101. So, we've sold $768,000

96
00:27:04.640 --> 00:27:20.799
of equity during the fiscal year primarily to fund receipts and dispersements, which is where we pay out our benefits because you can see we >> we we've gotten 48,000 fiscal year to date and contributions come in, but we've had to pay out 1.7 almost 17 1.75 million

97
00:27:20.799 --> 00:27:37.840
>> in benefits during that time. and and I appreciate that but um and my recolle recollection could be wrong but maybe was dispersements related but I thought we were having strong performance in equities we were getting up to the higher limit of the benchmark and we

98
00:27:37.840 --> 00:27:53.520
made a conscious decision to say let's take some of the equity money off the table move it to fixed income and I'm just I just wanted to remember >> we have to go back and look we did we've done that periodically now did we do that in the >> the June 2025 quarter where We added

99
00:27:53.520 --> 00:28:10.159
money to fixed income at that time. I'd have to go back and look. >> Okay. >> For the the last three quarters, which this this reflects, it's we sold equities and it went to cash to pay out basically the >> I'm just trying to figure out like consistently managing the portfolio

100
00:28:10.159 --> 00:28:26.080
last time where we at 68% and we thought, wow, that's kind of high, >> right? >> And if here we are at 68%. if we thought it was high a year ago, you know, is that up for discussion today to say >> absolut absolutely. Okay. So, um I did want to to bring up that because I do

101
00:28:26.080 --> 00:28:41.440
think, you know, after a 15% quarter, my instinct is, hey, you know, where we're at fiscal year, >> we're now, you know, above our return assumption, we're at 9%. You know, should we take a little bit off the table and put it into something a bit safer? The other thought is also now

102
00:28:41.440 --> 00:28:56.880
this is a longer term thing because if you decide to do the infrastructure it takes a couple quarters to get that money invested but that would be uh that would be my recommendation to fund that that investment out of our overweight to equities to get us a little bit closer

103
00:28:56.880 --> 00:29:13.240
to our target and then we go into some >> so with the flow of your presentation we we are going to be discussing in more detail >> consideration around >> reducing our equity exposure >> correct >> okay yes we we can hold off then thank Thank you. You're welcome.

104
00:29:20.640 --> 00:29:37.440
>> Since we're on here, we can just go through the rest of the numbers. You can see uh for the quarter just all the activity in the pension there on page 20 of the hard copy 29. uh kind of talked about that we got some money back from our uh redemption that we have outstanding with uh with

105
00:29:37.440 --> 00:29:53.679
Intercontinental. So, we got 81,000 there. So, that all went into our our money market account, which is what receipts and dispersements is. Um we had just shy of 93,000 come in in contributions from members and from the town. And then we paid out over

106
00:29:53.679 --> 00:30:11.279
627,000 in benefits. Um, you can see uh we're in mostly now either ETFs or institutional mutual funds, but you still pay a few of the investments directly, which was about $11,000. You had $40,500 of other expenses and

107
00:30:11.279 --> 00:30:33.600
then $2 million return on investment between capital gains and dividend income in the quarter. Any questions about that? 22 shows the performance. So it was a good quarter. Net of fees, we were up 10.1%

108
00:30:33.600 --> 00:30:50.159
uh ahead of the policy index and ahead of your your peer group at 22%. I mentioned this in my my uh my letter uh supporting the fee increase. You know, we've talked about

109
00:30:50.159 --> 00:31:07.919
this a lot, right? We had a portfolio that we had no growth stocks up until late 2020 into the portfolio which worked against us as you know the Amazon and the Microsofts uh for the last you know 15 years have done really really well but starting about five years ago

110
00:31:07.919 --> 00:31:24.480
you know that's when you know we we made the changes and then we made incremental changes to get more into the index and more kind of where we're at right now and you know I'm pleased with you know while we're you still behind our policy index you can see over the last five years. Net of fees 7.3% basically kind

111
00:31:24.480 --> 00:31:40.720
of top quartortileish percent which is relative to that national peer group of other public pension funds. Um which which is nice to see. In terms of your investments, they did exactly what you would expect. They they matched all the indices for the domestic equity. The

112
00:31:40.720 --> 00:31:57.519
Russell 1000 value fund was up uh about 14% for the quarter. It's been up 27% for the year. That's the 10,00 growth ETF was up 17 about 17%. That's a relatively new one. If you remember, we had an active fund that wasn't performing. So, we got rid of that a few

113
00:31:57.519 --> 00:32:14.000
quarters ago. And then our Fidelity 500 index fund where we have the bulk of the money up 50% matching what you would expect for those. Next page shows you the uh income oriented funds uh matting the pier in line with uh the the policy index. They

114
00:32:14.000 --> 00:32:30.240
were up 75%. um gross of fees and a little under net of fees, you know, over time. You can see net of fees, they're they're above the benchmark over all time periods. You know, another thing that we did that was timely, right? If you remember back in in uh you know, about to look at the

115
00:32:30.240 --> 00:32:46.159
letter, I forget if it was late 2021, we went and got more conservative as as inflation was going. So, we reduced duration. We told Manning the pier based on our recommendation, hey move from aggregate back and reduce reduce

116
00:32:46.159 --> 00:33:03.519
interest rate risk to an intermediate mandate and then in 2023 when interest rates in the 10 year hit 5% we move back into an aggregate that that benefited which is why your fixed income returns over all time periods are basically in the top decile over the long term.

117
00:33:03.519 --> 00:33:20.559
The floating rate funds did okay. you got about 2% out of those those funds for the quarter, you know, for the one-year period. Better returns than core fixed income is again, you know, credit, right? Corporate bonds. These are these are corporate bonds. Um

118
00:33:20.559 --> 00:33:36.480
there's there's appetite for risk. You know, the the spread between a a Treasury bond and a corporate bond is the lowest it's basically ever been in history. Um uh and you know we benefited from having a little bit of of credit exposure there in addition to what

119
00:33:36.480 --> 00:33:52.799
Manning Pier has. And then lastly the real estate is kind of the same story that I've been telling you for the private real estate for the last few quarters. We're basically clipping the rent coupon from uh these investments. you know the give and takes

120
00:33:52.799 --> 00:34:08.320
from a capital appreciation but we basically six or seven quarters of kind of flat values and u uh but not going down. We had that obviously two-year thing and you know happy to address we went through a very exhaustive history

121
00:34:08.320 --> 00:34:24.320
of that last uh was it last quarter or the quarter before um where I did that presentation and we spent you know 45 minutes going through the history of that. be happy to answer any follow-up questions of that. Um, but so that's what it is now. Um, glad glad

122
00:34:24.320 --> 00:34:40.320
it's over. Again, it's it's added value relative to the source. If you remember, we took the money from fixed income when rates were very very low um back in in 2017. And despite a really tough twoish peear period where you've had the kind

123
00:34:40.320 --> 00:34:55.200
of the worst commercial real estate market since the financial crisis um you know still has you know provided diversification benefits and and has done okay. Um so that's the investment kind of

124
00:34:55.200 --> 00:35:19.280
summary. Any questions about anything that I went through there? So the good news is you know particularly for you guys right you have a pension that we don't do smoothing so every fiscal year if we

125
00:35:19.280 --> 00:35:36.160
beat the return assumption it's good for the town they don't have to put money in if we are under they have to put more money in. So right now we're tracking at we're above the the the 675 return assumption right now with about you know twoish months to go. So not one would

126
00:35:36.160 --> 00:35:52.079
we'll get to that return assumption for you guys this year. I wish I could guarantee that for you guys but I cannot. Didn't you say at [clears throat] one point in the past that it takes time to move this money out of these real estate funds that we have that sometimes it can

127
00:35:52.079 --> 00:36:08.800
take six even months or longer in order for it to move it? >> Yeah. So, we we initially put in a redemption and we've added to it, but the initial one occurred back in I have to go back and look at the date again, guys, but it was

128
00:36:08.800 --> 00:36:25.359
in 2022. Real estate was up, private real estate was up 20% and stocks and bonds were both negative. So, it became overweight. So, we we submitted a $150,000 redemption, which was approximately 10 to 15% of our investment in each of those funds. And

129
00:36:25.359 --> 00:36:40.880
then the market completely froze. it went down there was no liquidity and and um you know we've been getting principal has been much better so we got all of our money back that we asked for from principal intercontinental much slower they were they were giving drips and drabs and then there's been quarters

130
00:36:40.880 --> 00:36:58.160
where they've given 10% of what the queue is and I think last quarter we just got a letter they're giving 8% so a little bit more uh but we still they still owe us I have to the exact number I would have to get you but yes you those funds own office buildings and

131
00:36:58.160 --> 00:37:13.440
owns apartment buildings. Um, so unlike a REIT, which you know the vice mayor was was talking about, right? The the it's a less liquid asset class by nature of how it works. >> So I've never been a fan of that. Um, I

132
00:37:13.440 --> 00:37:29.599
remember very explicitly he said it's like the Roach Motel. Once you check in, you can't check out. Um, that resonated with me. Why can't we move it into this uh vanguard? >> Why can we? How? And you'll excuse my

133
00:37:29.599 --> 00:37:45.520
ignorance because I I I don't understand, but I'm I'm looking at the numbers and >> Sure. >> Can we move it? >> So, >> can we get out of it? >> So, we already we've already asked for most of our money back. So, we could ask for the rest of it back. So, a couple quarters ago, I went through the the the

134
00:37:45.520 --> 00:38:03.359
investment case of why you do private real estate versus REITs. And the the summary is is that a REIT is a sector focused equity fund where you get equity risk and little diversification relative to

135
00:38:03.359 --> 00:38:18.720
the main part where we have 68% of our pension in which is equities. So from my perspective and that the numbers play this out, right? Private real estate provides a diversification benefit to stocks and

136
00:38:18.720 --> 00:38:33.839
bonds. It does not act like either of them. REITs act like stocks and flows with stocks. So a year ago when we had this conversation, my what I said was if you're going to go out of

137
00:38:33.839 --> 00:38:49.920
real estate, don't go into REITs. buy more equities because you're getting the same risk and I'd rather have a more diversified exposure. But I believe there's value in private real estate because of the inflation protection, because of the

138
00:38:49.920 --> 00:39:06.240
diversification benefits relative to stocks and bonds that it still plays a a long-term role in in in a pension. We have we're in a even despite paying out a lot of money, we have no liquidity needs where we need to get that money,

139
00:39:06.240 --> 00:39:23.119
right? we can pay every single one of our bill because 95% of our our pension is accessible tomorrow. We could put a a request in for a trade, they sell it and we get the money tomorrow. So that's the the high level. Now that

140
00:39:23.119 --> 00:39:38.880
>> you could do that you could do that with the RE too. So to answer directly your question, if the board wanted to, >> you could say, "Let's submit a full redemption to uh all of the the private real estate." Um and then once we get

141
00:39:38.880 --> 00:39:52.960
the proceeds, we could buy this. Absolutely. That you could absolutely do that if you >> I'm just looking at the numbers and I mean the numbers don't lie. We're not long-term wise. We're we're getting it

142
00:39:52.960 --> 00:40:10.480
handed to us. So if you need a motion um >> with some discussion after >> S&P 500 returns over this time period you would have done much better by having that in the S&P 500 versus the read index which is kind of the point what I'm saying is you're buying a a a

143
00:40:10.480 --> 00:40:27.599
sector fund that that gets you a correlation of 08 which is very very high. So so like when equities go up and down rates go up and down. So it it it's it's it's almost like a REIT

144
00:40:27.599 --> 00:40:44.240
and the private real estate are two different things in my in my mind. >> Yes. With the REIT being better than the private real estate, >> but not better than the S&P 500. Right. >> Right. I'm not debating that. I'm just looking at what's in front of us in

145
00:40:44.240 --> 00:41:00.160
prior discussions. So, I'm going to make a motion that we pull it all out and then uh we can have a discussion and then if someone wants to second it and we'll vote on it. How about that? >> Anybody in in agreeance with that? >> I'll second that. >> Let's discuss it.

146
00:41:00.160 --> 00:41:15.119
>> Well, before we make a decision to pull it all out, I'd like to get an update in terms of there's two real estate funds. >> Um and it's in here. I need to point it to it. What's the value in each? What do

147
00:41:15.119 --> 00:41:31.599
we already have in terms of requests? >> And I think we're getting out of it slowly but surely, >> right? >> Even if we want to get out of it right away, >> we're only going to get out of it slowly but surely at the pace that they want to let us out, >> right? Which is

148
00:41:31.599 --> 00:41:51.680
>> why we're having this discussion. Like we I think we've probably waited long enough that we should >> Yeah. So, so go to page 16 of the report because that shows you how much money we have uh on the left hand side and the two real estate funds >> intercontinental and principal.

149
00:41:51.680 --> 00:42:06.000
>> Correct. >> Yep. >> So, principal has given us everything that we've asked for. >> Okay. >> So, we could give a a direction say, "Hey, we want to do a full redemption of the $300,000." Roughly speaking, I have to go back and

150
00:42:06.000 --> 00:42:21.680
and get this number for you guys, but Intercontinental owes us about $350,000. >> So, we don't have 731,000 in there. That would be less 300,000 roughly. >> We've already submitted a request for

151
00:42:21.680 --> 00:42:37.599
$350,000. Last quarter, they gave us 80. >> Yeah, that's right. That's my That's my whole point. Like, why why are we waiting if it takes that long to get out to get it? Let's just get it so we have it that we can do something. >> You can't get it.

152
00:42:37.599 --> 00:42:53.599
We We If they would if if because here's here's here's here's here's the reason. >> Oh, I'm sure there I'm sure there's a reason. I'm just saying like just like it's our I get it. I understand perspective, right? Like you have put in

153
00:42:53.599 --> 00:43:10.000
a request and ask for your money back. So they need to go into the market and say okay we have this apartment building and we need to sell it and is the is the price is it are we getting a price that so that's where the the friction comes

154
00:43:10.000 --> 00:43:26.319
in for for the lack of of liquidity. So if you even if and principal has been better, right? So there's a chance that if we say principal give us our 300,000 because the last time we g we asked for 300,000 they gave it to us the next quarter. So we could potentially get

155
00:43:26.319 --> 00:43:41.359
that. It just kind of really depends on the market. But we for the intercontinental they have the ability they're paying out some but they just have the ability to based on market factors to to give it when uh to you know

156
00:43:41.359 --> 00:43:58.319
>> protect protect their fund investors. They have $10 million in the fund and they don't want to sell assets at fire sale prices and disadvantage the rest of the investors because some investors want their money back. >> Does [clears throat] that make sense? >> This does. So with Intercontinental

157
00:43:58.319 --> 00:44:15.040
the current request is 300 or was 300 and we got 80. >> I have to go go look at at what what the out was percentage rather than >> but roughly I know that we got all of our money from principal and we have $300,000 left. So I think if we get all

158
00:44:15.040 --> 00:44:32.430
the money from Intercontinental, we would have $300,000. >> So So let me let me ask this. Uh, I'm going to ask the gentle the vice mayor if he wishes to uh weigh in on this conversation as to what his thoughts are on this.

159
00:44:32.430 --> 00:45:02.800
[snorts] Well, Mr. Mr. Hess and I have just a a difference of opinion. You know, he talks about the being a different asset class. It isn't. If you go back to my presentation, it invests in the same type of assets as

160
00:45:02.800 --> 00:45:19.599
the private fund. The only difference why it has less volatility in a private fund, they don't price the assets properly. the market reacts to how how the real estate market is changing over time and and in in real time. So he is

161
00:45:19.599 --> 00:45:34.160
correct. They're going to have more vol the uh reindex fund is going to have more volatility because it's time that's why you have to look at the long-term returns. Remember when there was a

162
00:45:34.160 --> 00:45:50.000
period after COVID when the private funds had this humongous return and they got hammered with withdrawals. Why did that occur? Because the inst the

163
00:45:50.000 --> 00:46:06.720
people like yourself looked at it and realized the fund was mispriced. It was priced way too high. They wanted to get out. Of course, they couldn't get out. Now some of it he's correct the liquidity of the assets is difficult but they were massively mispriced and and

164
00:46:06.720 --> 00:46:21.839
everybody and his brother was trying to get out. So that that that's why you have to look at the long-term returns and the thing is the long-term returns on the private funds should be better because you're paying more to get them

165
00:46:21.839 --> 00:46:38.640
have them managed. number one. And number two, you're giving up liquidity and you got to be paid for that. It's just like the infrastructure that he's going to talk about. Uh not to jump ahead on that, but it's it's a less liquid asset. You got to get over the

166
00:46:38.640 --> 00:46:55.119
long term, get higher returns. Look at that sheet of paper. You're not and you're giving up all your flexibility in terms of not being able to get out what you want. You got to beg them to get your money back. That's realistically view what it comes down to. You know,

167
00:46:55.119 --> 00:47:10.800
when I ran SEC uh funds, if I was buying buying a less liquid security, I had to get paid for it because I know on the back end, it's going to be more difficult to get out. The bid offer spread is going to be wired. That's all. So,

168
00:47:10.800 --> 00:47:48.240
>> thank you, Vice Mayor. >> [clears throat] >> Do you have any any other questions or discussion? Um, so Brad, with the Intercontinental, you said you'd have to get back to us in terms of what the current redemption

169
00:47:48.240 --> 00:48:06.720
request is. >> I I think you said it was 300 and we got 80, but >> it's roughly we they still owe us 300. >> Okay. >> Is th,000 even after the the 80, right? Because it would be equated to >> do we have any history with

170
00:48:06.720 --> 00:48:21.040
intercontinental or do you know the history with intercontinental? We said rather than have a request for 300 we want to request 730. Would they have given us 80 or would they have given us a percentage?

171
00:48:21.040 --> 00:48:38.800
>> No. So they they evaluate their entire redemption queue every quarter and say we're going to pay out x% of that. >> So of your request you >> Right. Yeah. Okay. Right. So, um, so the more you have in, the more you

172
00:48:38.800 --> 00:48:54.400
will get out, but not as a percent. Does that make sense? [clears throat] >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> I'm I'm It's curious to me if I look at the >> Well, I guess those are quarterly performance, so it's recent, but principal was more able to meet our

173
00:48:54.400 --> 00:49:08.640
redemption request. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yet their performance is >> less >> less than intercontinentals. And again, maybe I'm looking at too small of a window, >> but >> yeah, let me let me look get where you're at.

174
00:49:08.640 --> 00:49:29.400
>> I'm just looking at page 16. >> Those are both of them. Overall, >> go to No, >> that's the done better than Intercontinental. So go to page 24 of the the hard copy. >> Okay. [snorts] And that is >> 33. >> 33.

175
00:49:36.319 --> 00:49:52.160
>> So all all time periods principal has done better. At one point Intercontinental was doing better and then they just because of their the office exposure they over the last couple years >> what it has them both at a tenure at 3.83. >> That's the that's the index. We don't

176
00:49:52.160 --> 00:50:17.119
have the 10 year track record for a year. >> Oh, I see. Okay, I got you. Okay, >> I mean you one consistently under the other one in terms of like the math. >> Yeah. To watch when we >> if we have one consistently under who's

177
00:50:17.119 --> 00:50:31.280
giving us more liquidity, principal wins hands down. It's not even close, right? >> Yep. >> Yeah. If we have one consistently underperforming, the other one meeting goals, then if you are going to make a withdrawal, it should be from the one that's underperforming and then move

178
00:50:31.280 --> 00:50:48.960
that to something that clearly is. >> I think part of the problem is is that we only meet quarterly and we've we put this off and then we take a chunk. We put it off and then we take a chunk and then we take it we put it off and it just

179
00:50:48.960 --> 00:51:04.880
keeps underperforming. >> Mhm. >> So that's why I'm saying let's just ask for it now. If it takes eight months, then we just take our licks and and move it to something that's going to perform better. That that I mean, >> specifically from the one that's

180
00:51:04.880 --> 00:51:20.319
consistently >> except we don't know what will perform better cuz past performance is no guarantee of future results. True. So, >> well, this the whole stock market's basic like that. So, I mean, no one thought the S&P 500 no one

181
00:51:20.319 --> 00:51:34.880
thought the S&P 500 was going to reach what it did or the Dow or anything else, but I feel like this uh real estate discussion has been going on every meeting or every quarter. It goes on and on and on and on and we ask and so we ask for 300,000. Do we get 80 grand? I

182
00:51:34.880 --> 00:51:51.680
mean, that we could be putting it in something. >> Yeah. I I I the spirit of what you're saying I agree with. Right. we're we're spending a lot of time on which is now it's money. It's real money but as a

183
00:51:51.680 --> 00:52:07.599
percentage it's getting smaller. So um >> it is but it's still a million dollars. What what a million 54 in theory? >> Yep. >> I mean that's still a million dollars worth of money. The total our total pension fund is what 21 >> minimize that. Well, I guess what I'm

184
00:52:07.599 --> 00:52:31.760
saying is I think action one way or the other is is is needed and I would support that. >> Okay, that's a good start. >> So, I I'm going to stick with my motion that I I want to pull it all up. I don't

185
00:52:31.760 --> 00:52:50.240
want to wait. And like you can deem me impatient, I guess. But >> request a full redemption of the Intercontinental Y >> and the principal funds. >> Yep. >> Is there a happy medium where you can keep one in and remove the other?

186
00:52:50.240 --> 00:53:09.200
>> Are you asking me? >> Mhm. >> Would you make a motion? >> Um, this is for discussion. [laughter] I want to hear everybody's opinion. Once we have a a consensus, then we can make a motion to to make action. But as of right now, I'm open to opinions.

187
00:53:09.200 --> 00:53:28.480
>> Wh which is the the one that's underperforming is actually paying us out? >> No, I saying that. Yep. >> I mean, >> principal has more. >> If I had to go split it 50/50, I would say I would take the one that's underperforming out.

188
00:53:28.480 --> 00:53:44.400
>> But that's the [clears throat] one that's paying out less, right? I just don't like it all the way altogether to be honest with you. >> The way these funds work right now, we could we could ask for our money, but it's just they have they dictate unfortunately when we get it out. >> I wish we would have removed some of this into the REIT last time and and not

189
00:53:44.400 --> 00:54:00.400
even be having this discussion to be honest with you. But >> okay, so in order to prevent the same lament at the next quarter, >> right? We could literally be in the exact same spot. >> Correct. So, I'm going to stick with my motion >> just because this is the third or fourth meeting we've had. This is

190
00:54:00.400 --> 00:54:16.480
>> Vice Mayor, do you remember how many meetings ago it was that you gave that presentation? Four. At least a year ago, right? >> My presentation was July 22nd, 2021. >> So, ago. >> Okay. So, one year >> went back on my computer an hour ago or

191
00:54:16.480 --> 00:54:31.680
whatever. >> Okay. So, I'm I'm >> I'm sticking with my motion. and call me the bad guy, but I'm sticking with my motion >> to fully withdraw from both. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> I'm I'm done with it. I'm just done with it. >> What is the motion again? Fully withdraw >> of the Intercontinental

192
00:54:31.680 --> 00:54:50.880
and the uh principal the the total real estate fund. >> I would propose a second motion to only do the one that's underperforming. Either way, we're going to be in the situation where we're going to be waiting an undetermined amount of time to get our funds back, but you have one

193
00:54:50.880 --> 00:55:07.680
that is doing consistently. Granted, it isn't a guarantee, but you have one that has been meeting our expectation, one that hasn't. So, it would seem imprudent to just x them both. >> I would. >> So, well, >> okay. So, so the way it works is you're you either second my motion or nobody does and then you make your own motion,

194
00:55:07.680 --> 00:55:21.920
then someone seconds that. >> Okay. >> He can ask you to amend your motion. >> Okay. Would you consider amending your motion to to my motion? >> And just to clarify that, what we currently have a request in for either 300 or

195
00:55:21.920 --> 00:55:39.280
>> $220,000 for Intercontinental and and if I understand your amendment to the motion, it is to ask for a full liquidation of Intercontinental >> if if Intercontinental, if I understand it correctly, intercontinental intercontinent excuse me, I'm having a stroke. >> Yeah. >> Um [laughter]

196
00:55:39.280 --> 00:55:55.200
check check. Um, if Intercontinental, if Intercontinental is indeed the one that is underperforming consistently, that would be the one that I would consider. >> All right. I I will amend my motion to completely withdraw all the funds out of the

197
00:55:55.200 --> 00:56:10.640
Intercontinental Real Estate >> and confirming, Brad, that is an underperformer relative to um principal. >> Correct. >> Yep. information >> and we're going to motion where where's that to put that money?

198
00:56:10.640 --> 00:56:32.240
>> I'm sorry. >> So, just >> so I need a second on the mo the motion. >> I will second your amended motion. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I. >> None opposed. Passes. >> All right. We'll get that done for you guys.

199
00:56:32.240 --> 00:56:50.240
>> Thank you. as we can. [sighs] >> Is it hot in here? Cuz >> I feel like I just went into labor. >> Huh. >> So then, [clears throat] you know, once you might surprise us and by the end of the year, we get all of our money, then

200
00:56:50.240 --> 00:57:05.920
we can determine where does it go, right? So, we can make that decision. >> Well, you know, it's close to Christmas, so miracles do happen. >> That's that's true. Now >> as uh the vice mayor had mentioned this this educational presentation I have is

201
00:57:05.920 --> 00:57:23.520
for another private investment. This is not something that you can get you know you invest in it and you can't get access to it uh tomorrow. It's different than real estate, but it has similar liquidity characteristics in that they're open-ended funds and they

202
00:57:23.520 --> 00:57:40.000
traditionally you can put money in and out on a quarterly basis, but the fund controls again kind of if something crazy were to happen um they control the ability to to get the money in >> and this infrastructure. Would you like

203
00:57:40.000 --> 00:57:56.799
me to even go through this with you or you guys just done with considering private investments and let's just kind of roll with fully liquid vehicles going forward? [snorts] >> I like what you just said. Yes. Let's let's

204
00:57:56.799 --> 00:58:11.920
let's um let's just get a clarification. Is there is there a a a liquid way to invest in infrastructure? >> Yeah, same with RE. So, you could find a a fund that's listed infrastructure. Um,

205
00:58:11.920 --> 00:58:28.079
and uh uh I'd have to go talk to our research team about it. It's it's the same positive and negatives that that >> the RES have that there's higher correlation to equities. >> Higher correlation to equities, but you get more liquidity, >> but you can move them at the end of the day. >> Mhm.

206
00:58:28.079 --> 00:58:44.079
>> Right. where you're saying that this plan that you have set up, you wouldn't be able to move anything or or change anything other than quarterly, >> right? >> Like >> you can make a request quarterly, >> right? >> You might not get everything you

207
00:58:44.079 --> 00:59:00.880
request, >> but again, and I'm just regurgitating what vice mayor said, the rate you can move at the end of the day. I want this gone, you move it, >> right? >> Okay. I I I'll I'll make a motion to table it

208
00:59:00.880 --> 00:59:16.559
only because we're looking at three of us here. Our fourth member is not here. Um I may or may not be sitting here. I think it would only be fair to have who we're going to have for the next at least year up here up to speed and

209
00:59:16.559 --> 00:59:34.160
everybody voting as a whole versus >> just kind of the fragmented uh board that it is right now. So, I just I need a second on a uh on the table. >> Do you need a motion or can we just table it?

210
00:59:34.160 --> 00:59:51.680
>> I think you just consistent. >> Thank you. >> All right. Now, I get to ask you guys for for money, [laughter] which is awesome. >> Awesome. >> All that. >> Um, so

211
00:59:51.680 --> 01:00:07.280
>> you have a letter in front of you. Yes. >> I mean, I I saw a preview of it and um you have a 10-year track track record with the plan. >> Is that right? >> We were hired December of of 2016. That's when our contract started.

212
01:00:07.280 --> 01:00:22.079
Correct. >> And the three of us, our tenure is much shorter. So, I'm I'm wondering if for discussion here, um, another member, Fred Gartner, he I think he's been a

213
01:00:22.079 --> 01:00:39.280
trustee for at least five, six years or so. >> I think he I think he should have the opportunity to weigh in on that agree discussion. But but if it be worth I mean I did a little homework and and I guess it's relatively common to have a

214
01:00:39.280 --> 01:00:56.799
CPI adjustment annually >> in in in the business you're in which >> that's basically what the ask is right $25,000 you can go to the BLS inflation adjustment website$25,000 December of 2016 is about $35,000 in

215
01:00:56.799 --> 01:01:12.559
today's dollars. So that that's basically what we're asking for is to inflation adjust >> and then inflation adjust to get us up to today and then to do it annually going forward. >> But >> I think that's a reasonable request, but I think I I think Yeah, I I think we

216
01:01:12.559 --> 01:01:31.280
should have a larger qu larger group of people here to weigh in on that. >> Yeah, I I agree with that. >> Agreed. Perfect. >> All right. Anything else from me? >> Uh no. Does that bring us up to Bonnie?

217
01:01:31.280 --> 01:01:47.520
>> Yes. So, um I don't have any report to you all. Um but I do have a request. Um we are trying to make sure that if necessary we have access to the readonly access to your portfolio that's held at

218
01:01:47.520 --> 01:02:03.520
the custodian so that we would be able to look at your holdings if necessary. And why does that become necessary? because sometimes we need to look at, you know, whether you're properly filing for any claims that you have, although you don't necessarily hold the

219
01:02:03.520 --> 01:02:19.680
individual stocks. Um, and so, you know, that's why we're asking for the readonly access so that we have it available to us if we need it. >> And why would why would you have not have had that in the past? Has anything changed or >> I think we just didn't ask for it

220
01:02:19.680 --> 01:02:37.839
initially. So we didn't get added on to the to the to the people who could have access to it when you originally came aboard and actually they may have preceded us. Feel like [snorts] I feel like they came first or second. I

221
01:02:37.839 --> 01:02:52.799
think the first hire that you had was Manning and Nier. Um, and then I think >> you needed to have Salem Trust at the time when you hired Manning appear and I think I came right after them is my kind

222
01:02:52.799 --> 01:03:14.359
of timeline remembrance. >> I'll make a motion to have uh to provide access. >> Second. >> Have second. >> I'll second that. >> All [clears throat] in favor? I >> I >> not opposed. Pass it.

223
01:03:16.319 --> 01:03:31.520
>> I don't have anything else unless you have questions. >> No. Uh, are we moving on to Troy or >> back to Doug? >> Going back to Doug. >> I knew that you would want to hint. No,

224
01:03:31.520 --> 01:03:47.440
no. >> Watching you, Doug. I knew you want to what Brad had to go over that was very important. I wanted to let you guys deal with that first. Um, two things I'm here. One is a followup [clears throat] on the proposal

225
01:03:47.440 --> 01:04:03.760
we brought up at the April meeting uh, regarding the cyber security program and the other is I have to do like Brad did and ask for a raise. We'll deal with that after. Um, I'll give you the cliff

226
01:04:03.760 --> 01:04:18.559
notes from my presentation in April. I think you've probably warmed up or you you've had time to think about what the proposal was. So, I'll I'll quickly rehash that. We had acquired an actuarial firm uh bunch of actuaries

227
01:04:18.559 --> 01:04:34.799
about a year ago and with them it was there's similarities and differences with your type of a plan. They have pension boards of trustees. They have pension plans um where you get a lifetime check for you you know your

228
01:04:34.799 --> 01:04:50.960
life at retirement and the board is comprised of management and union. One thing that's a little different is that they have a three-letter government agency that oversees them differs from yours. You guys are under IRS. They're under

229
01:04:50.960 --> 01:05:06.240
Department of Labor. And so when we got to talking with the actuaries that came with this firm we acquired said, "Hey, tell us about what you guys have to go through. You know, we want to see what's different and say Florida public sector pension." And one

230
01:05:06.240 --> 01:05:23.520
of them is that the trustees for these their so-called Taft Tartly plans have to require their vendors every year to essentially prove they're up to snuff with respect to cyber security.

231
01:05:23.520 --> 01:05:40.559
Because up until about five years ago, the Department of Labor did not have this requirement. So, if you would ask all of your vendors from time to time, which probably you would not ask because it wouldn't be on your radar, hey, um you are you guys secure?

232
01:05:40.559 --> 01:05:56.240
And I'm sure every vendor would maybe pause and say, uh yeah, you know, and then you'd all part ways. The question is, are they secure with respect to best practices? And that's the point of this exercise. And so you

233
01:05:56.240 --> 01:06:13.119
might think, yeah, all right. You know, you all have you all your vendors have cyber insurance. We're required to. By the way, your vendors would be your actuary, your plan administrator, your investment consultant, your custodian, your auditor, your attorney,

234
01:06:13.119 --> 01:06:29.839
and your money managers. The town would not be included. and mutual funds, unless you wanted to put them through this exercise, would not be included. They they'd all say, "Yeah, but here's

235
01:06:29.839 --> 01:06:46.559
the thing. Think about cities, you know, like, well, you would never consider a city to be at risk, right? A municipality." I'm sure if we had the city of Coco here a year ago and said, "Hey, do you guys go through a

236
01:06:46.559 --> 01:07:01.599
practice like that?" Well, no, our IT department got us all buttoned down and uh and yet in January of 2026, there was a ransomware attack and I'm sure they're probably trying to figure out where the weak point was or maybe multiple weak

237
01:07:01.599 --> 01:07:19.280
point. I have no idea. All I know is we we're the actuary for those three pension plans. And I was getting ready to go into a meeting and was told you you got to meet elsewhere because the the city shut down for a little while. Um, and so we brought this proposal to

238
01:07:19.280 --> 01:07:35.520
you back in April. We asked the actuaries with these tapartley plans, who do you guys use? Are do they follow the best practice for the Department of Labor? And they gave us a company name they're using. It's Fox Point Solutions.

239
01:07:35.520 --> 01:07:52.079
We said, "Okay, we talked to that those folks." And in fact, we talked to an attorney that came with this acquisition who was a former investigator with the Department of Labor. So, we kicked the tires on this pl on this company and that's who we're bringing to you for a

240
01:07:52.079 --> 01:08:08.559
recommendation. As I've been going through this exercise the last few months, uh I learned something new almost every time. I was making this exact presentation to uh the the city of Arcadia police and fire pension plan, very small plan in Dotto

241
01:08:08.559 --> 01:08:25.040
County. And as they were trying to grasp what I was getting at, I saw the lights go off with the finance director. She's a trustee. And she said, "Oh, well, we have to do this every year and we're audited and we use Fox Point." I thought, "Well, that's very

242
01:08:25.040 --> 01:08:39.520
interesting." Um, so those are the cliff notes what I'm bringing to you. It's a it's just a quick followup without running you through every little detail. The final little bit and then I'm going to turn it over to you just for follow-up questions

243
01:08:39.520 --> 01:08:56.400
and to gauge your interest. Um, while the Department of Labor requires this an annual survey of the vendors, we're suggesting for now you just do it this one time. we can revisit if the best practices change

244
01:08:56.400 --> 01:09:12.319
only because um I I honestly think you're probably going to your vendors will pass but we don't know a baseline and that's the point of our recommend recommending at least this one time of getting a baseline. So, god forbid something does

245
01:09:12.319 --> 01:09:28.159
happen, there is a weak point with one of your vendors and there is a breach, you can show any of the retirees or the active members coming that you did your due diligence. Um, and included in this survey is you will have a presentation from Fox Point

246
01:09:28.159 --> 01:09:42.480
where you will look at each of the vendors. Ideally, they're all passing green, but if there's any yellows or reds, you will have a conversation with Fox Point and ask what the recommendations are to get any of those vendors up to snuff.

247
01:09:42.480 --> 01:09:58.159
The cost of this is the the lowest. We The pricing is based in a tier. We went to Fox Point in advance and paid them several hundred,000 not knowing if we'd get any plan in Florida saying yes because we wanted Fox

248
01:09:58.159 --> 01:10:15.199
Point to give us a a good rate that we could pass along. And so you guys are small enough, you're at the the lowest rate and that would be a $10,000 for the study. So that is it. Questions, comments,

249
01:10:15.199 --> 01:10:30.400
happy to answer. So, what I hear is you're recommending a kind of a a one-time checkup for $10,000 and Fox Point. Is it is it an annual checkup or what are they are they

250
01:10:30.400 --> 01:10:46.239
ongoing or what if you continue on with them? If you say, you know what, this is more than a one time. Is it an annual physical? >> If you want to get to the annual physical, so to speak, um we'll we can talk about that later. I I think it

251
01:10:46.239 --> 01:11:02.880
might be less than 10,000 if you wanted to go through it every year if you commit to something longer. >> Um I don't have a hard answer what it would be annually going forward what the cost would be. >> And what has your experience been with um plans that have said yeah let's go ahead and go forward or has there been enough

252
01:11:02.880 --> 01:11:17.840
time since you've been presenting this? >> It's been very interesting. I think Bonnie would say the same thing. Uh everybody in the world was trying to wrap their heads around this. I first started rolling it out in April and a lot of plans had to really think

253
01:11:17.840 --> 01:11:33.120
about it. It's like most of them tabled until this round. So some of them start right with yes, we think it's a good idea. For the plans I manage, I've had about a 40 to a 50% say yes. And initially most were tabled. now have been on the tour

254
01:11:33.120 --> 01:11:49.760
again with this round in July and have they finally warmed up to it and said we're yes, we would like to do this baseline. So it's it's it's about it 40 to 50% have said yes for my plan so far. And has there been enough time this for

255
01:11:49.760 --> 01:12:06.120
plans to say yeah let's do it where they Fox Fox Point's been able to do it and you've gotten certain percentage of green yellows and reds the first not for the Florida plans the first reports have not yet been delivered. >> Okay.

256
01:12:06.400 --> 01:12:22.960
>> Do they give a presentation first before we agree to do this and pay them the 10 grand? >> Uh some a few plans have said we'd like to talk to them privately. Sometimes it's been an offline between a trustee and a representative from Fox Point. Uh

257
01:12:22.960 --> 01:12:40.320
I I'm not aware that any have had a formal presentation from Fox Point during the deliberation process and you mentioned best practices. What entity has recommended this as a best practice? And what is a best practice again please? Um, Foxpoint

258
01:12:40.320 --> 01:12:57.199
is a an IT specialist company and their survey follows the best practice recommended by the Department of Labor with respect to cyber security. >> 12 standards that they have. >> Department of Labor has 12 standards. >> Yes. >> Yeah. 12 standards

259
01:12:57.199 --> 01:13:11.840
>> and they check all those 12 standards. >> 30 total questions in the 12 categories >> for each of our vendors. >> Yes. And how many vendors do we have? >> Or >> I'm going to throw out eight to 10. I I don't know how many money managers you

260
01:13:11.840 --> 01:13:30.320
might have. >> I'd be interested in seeing a formal presentation. >> Yeah. If I was going to get a checkup, I would be interested in knowing am I getting blood work, an ultrasound. Vice Mayor,

261
01:13:30.320 --> 01:13:46.560
>> so I I looked these guys up. M for New York. So is that their main operation? How many like out in the middle of nowhere and >> actually didn't live too far from there. So I'm very familiar with that area. Leroy. Yeah. >> Is it the middle of nowhere?

262
01:13:46.560 --> 01:14:02.480
>> It is the middle of nowhere. It's outskirts. I mean it's not downtown Buffalo or Rochester. I can tell you that. >> How how many professionals do they have? I mean sounds, you know, things like that and be able to make a make a decision. >> Correct. Well, I think that's why we your website.

263
01:14:02.480 --> 01:14:16.560
>> Yes, sir. And I and I think that's why we tabled the last time cuz we didn't I I never heard of them, but that doesn't mean that they're not good at their job. I mean, there's a lot of places I haven't heard of. But is there a way we can get I mean either

264
01:14:16.560 --> 01:14:33.920
we we do our own research or they we can I would love a presentation or some one-on-one or something saying like, "Hey, this is what we have. This is what we do. This is our success rate. This is what we find." I mean, >> yeah, >> if they're going to make be make a presentation, I think it would make

265
01:14:33.920 --> 01:14:49.280
sense for the for us all to have it be privy to that. >> Yeah, we should we should all be present. And I I don't want to write a $10,000 check for essentially a questionnaire. I don't want to minimize what it is that they do, but I'd be very very interested in seeing the proof in the pudding. Troy and I will reach out

266
01:14:49.280 --> 01:15:05.600
to our contact >> and let them know that you would like >> at the I'm thinking the next meeting a notice meeting >> for them to basically give the give a brief >> brief >> in that very brief I'll tell them look I got these paper cliff notes

267
01:15:05.600 --> 01:15:20.960
>> I need 100 slide PowerPoint >> basically they want to see who you are essentially and ask their own questions. Yeah. So, let let us Troy and I reach out to a rep there and um I can't imagine they would say no. So, we'll get that set up. >> Fantastic. >> I think it's a good next step.

268
01:15:20.960 --> 01:15:38.159
>> Yeah, happy to do it. And then any other questions or comments on Fox Point? >> No, sir. >> Okay. So essentially kind of like in the same vein that Brad brought up, you

269
01:15:38.159 --> 01:15:54.719
graciously uh about five years ago agreed we had a we had an increase and then there was CPI attached to it, whatever inflation is. And that CPI expired. It was a

270
01:15:54.719 --> 01:16:10.960
three-year and it expired, I think, two years ago. And so I've been asked to come back and and see if the board's willing to entertain another three years of CPI. >> Do you know what it was? >> Is there is there a fixed the CPI? Is it fixed or is it

271
01:16:10.960 --> 01:16:28.239
>> uh it's based on the June 30th consumer price index? >> I got you. >> We we agreed to have a >> CPI I'll call it escalator for the next three years three years ago and that's expired. So do we. >> So either you're asking he's asking us to agree to another one.

272
01:16:28.239 --> 01:16:44.239
>> You could say, "Hey, look, we love you foster and foster actuary. You're awesome. Let it rip CPI forever into the future. Or make me prove it and come back every 3 years and [laughter] revisit. I'm happy either way. That's what happens when you weigh the

273
01:16:44.239 --> 01:16:59.120
gavvel at me. >> Forever and forever and ever seems to be like a long period of time. Good for another I'm good for another three years if that's what we were doing. I mean I wasn't here on the board five years ago. So do you need a motion for that? >> I I would think so.

274
01:16:59.120 --> 01:17:15.280
>> Okay. I'll make a motion to uh extend his CPI for the next 3 years. >> I'll second that motion. >> All in favor? >> I I good car. >> I'm sorry. >> Great. Thanks guys. Appreciate it.

275
01:17:15.280 --> 01:17:31.199
Needed all three of you for that one. [snorts] [laughter] Look, I even gave you gavvel. Come on. >> Yeah. >> Oh, >> I can do math. >> Hey yo, >> yeah. Got 100% agreement. I love it. >> Well, we got to have that.

276
01:17:31.199 --> 01:17:50.239
>> Yeah. [laughter] >> That that's it for me. >> Okay. >> Are we Troy? Are we finally a Troy? >> So, we are down to um >> the renewal of the >> FPVA. It's a very simple thing. We do this every year. Uh I believe this is

277
01:17:50.239 --> 01:18:06.960
the fourth year in a row they have not increased um the cost. It's still $750 for the plan. Um and this allows you guys to go to the FPVTA um trustee schools and a conference in the summer. So if there's no question motion to

278
01:18:06.960 --> 01:18:24.960
approve FPBTA membership >> I'll make the motion to approve. >> I'll second it. And I have to do I um where's the the code? I thought it was usually on the agenda to get into the pad. >> Oh, thanks for this cyber security stuff. We got two codes on. [laughter]

279
01:18:24.960 --> 01:19:04.719
>> Okay, >> it's two factor now. >> Oh, yeah. >> Two chances to uh keep people out. It should be in Beautiful. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, we got motion. Did we get

280
01:19:04.719 --> 01:19:21.040
>> We got a second motion. So, >> all in favor? I I >> Motion carries. Okay. Okay, so we're going to run through this real quick. Uh, coming up is the uh the 55th annual Police Officers and Firefighters Pension Trustee Conference September 15th through the 17th at the Shores Resort

281
01:19:21.040 --> 01:19:36.239
State Shores. That is a free conference. Uh, that is not part of FPBTA. Um, for FPBTA, we sign you up for that. Um, and then, uh, we send you a link to sign up for the hotel. this one. If you go to the very last page, I believe of the uh

282
01:19:36.239 --> 01:19:53.280
um of the tablet, uh there should be a brochure and there's a a click a link that you can click on for your hotel and to register for the conference. You do that on your own. Um no need to contact us unless you're going to if you do register, let us know. This way I can let the analyst know that your uh fees

283
01:19:53.280 --> 01:20:11.199
and your expenses are going to be coming in and we can send you the form to uh to uh put all those uh expenses on. I don't I don't want you guys to get too excited about this. >> Mariner is is um lucky enough to be asked by the

284
01:20:11.199 --> 01:20:28.560
Department of Retirement to present these conferences and I will be doing the investment session for the new trustee day this year. That's the first Oh, we're going. >> So, no holding don't go, you know, >> it's going to be awesome. [laughter]

285
01:20:28.560 --> 01:20:44.480
Have no doubt. actually uh had an opportunity to go to the Florida League of Cities when they had a conference uh when I sat on council a long time ago and uh they're good networking. You learn a lot of things. You get to talk to people about how things are going on their end

286
01:20:44.480 --> 01:21:00.719
versus yours. So um I appreciate the uh information. I'll be going. >> This is your 175 185 money, right? So these are the people who run are the people who decide. Additionally, it is a free the conference itself is right

287
01:21:00.719 --> 01:21:15.600
>> because it's paid for out of that 175 and 185, >> right? >> Awesome. >> And especially for the new person that that comes on, assuming they have no experience, whatever. I would definitely recommend that especially that first day, even if they can't make all three, the first day, you're going to get a

288
01:21:15.600 --> 01:21:32.080
reader's digest version of what your responsibilities are as a trustee. So, from the consultant to the attorney to us, um, it just is going to give you that basic I I went to the first day. I think I don't know if Bonnie spoke of that one or not, but um, it's just a very good here's what you're supposed to

289
01:21:32.080 --> 01:21:48.000
look for for the consultant. Here's what you're supposed to look for expecting the attorney, you know, and just what your fiduciary responsibility is to the membership. So, a very good um, so that one. And then the next one is just going to be the FPVA trustee school. Uh, September 27th, that's in Orlando. That

290
01:21:48.000 --> 01:22:03.679
one you just have to uh let me know that you want to go. I will get uh the analyst to send you the link for the survey and you fill out the survey before you go and then you get signed up. They send you a confirmation that you're signed up. You can book your hotel. >> Yeah, I'm going above. >> We're going to take a five minute

291
01:22:03.679 --> 01:22:07.960
recess. >> Thank you.

Part: 2

1
00:00:00.400 --> 00:00:15.080
I need to wait for her to get this code, so I can open up that email that I got into Well, I just got it. >> Oh, good. >> There we go. >> Yeah, welcome to the law enforcement world. Everything is two-factor code and >> So,

2
00:00:15.080 --> 00:00:30.840
we have to do that with every almost every investment manager out there now. And they send us tens of emails every day. They have a whole different group that like does that for them [laughter] to access it, but

3
00:00:30.840 --> 00:00:53.120
me, it's just me and I have I have to change my password almost every time I have to go in there because something goes wrong. So, it's fun. >> While he's doing that, we can go ahead and do the trustee discussion part.

4
00:00:53.120 --> 00:01:10.280
Anything you guys want to discuss that you can't discuss outside of here because of sunshine laws? >> This is the time to discuss nothing else. >> Uh I just >> Do you >> I don't have anything. >> Okay. >> I do when you're done. >> This is going to take about a

5
00:01:10.280 --> 00:01:27.120
microsecond. >> Mhm. >> And you you can guess which uh retiree this is. Uh I would like to see Foster and Foster develop an electronic system for pension distributions and accounting. Everyone

6
00:01:27.120 --> 00:01:43.400
has ACH deposits, but we still get a paper receipt in the mail. Not efficient. >> So, Sterling Trust has a system that they can work with the retirees on. I don't know if it does Do you know,

7
00:01:43.400 --> 00:01:59.200
does it eliminate the the ACHs that come to their house or is it >> I don't know if that eliminates >> Actually, I think it >> I mean, the pension I mean, they have a pension report portal. >> Yeah, they do have a pension report portal, so you can get that set up. >> Okay. Yes. And didn't she do a

8
00:01:59.200 --> 00:02:15.680
presentation or I feel like she did. >> Um It would have been about a year ago, but she was it was a when was it I met >> I don't I don't remember, but but we had and >> Who would Who would be the point of contact? >> I would get with our our person. It's

9
00:02:15.680 --> 00:02:31.959
Inez Garcia has taken over now >> Okay. >> this account. So, I can see when she she does go to she's one of our Salem Trust is the only bank custodian that has somebody go to a meeting once a year to make face, you know, contact. She's in the process of getting with me on meetings to go to

10
00:02:31.959 --> 00:02:46.880
you know, to her yearly's. >> Okay. >> So, I will see if I can I want to put on my notes to contact her to see if she can make it to the next quarterly meeting and she can go over Salem's, you know, pension or the >> Okay. I will advise them as such. Thank you. Mr. Gomez, what do you got?

11
00:02:46.880 --> 00:03:48.760
>> Uh just a brief PowerPoint presentation. I'll try to be as brief as possible. I am going to have to transition to a different seat though because the cord does not reach the seat. So, uh please give me a moment. All right. And I think that might be my fault. One

12
00:03:48.760 --> 00:04:54.200
second. >> Cuz I don't have um All right, there we go. >> It's probably that probably wasn't the right one. I just don't >> Oh, did it pop up? >> Your device is going to sleep mode if that's okay. Oh, my screen keeps coming on and off here, but I don't know.

13
00:04:54.200 --> 00:05:12.880
>> All right. Okay. So, um this is just a brief thing that I've noticed here in my short tenure at at the Shores. It's just something that I wanted to bring. If I'm not mistaken, I spoke to Bonnie about this in a uh pension review

14
00:05:12.880 --> 00:05:28.440
meeting that we had with the with the union during negotiations, but it turns out that from what I understood, it falls under the purview of this board. So, um basically just going to touch on the 175-185 monies. Uh forgive me for the for the blandness of the presentation, but I

15
00:05:28.440 --> 00:05:45.400
just wanted to do a high-level. Um >> [clears throat] >> and in the event that there's anyone here that's not familiar with how it's laid out, this is my understanding of it, and I wanted to get you guys opinion on this. So, as far as I understand, the monies are collected from local municipalities, tax contributions, state collected tolls, etc., and allocated to the public

16
00:05:45.400 --> 00:06:01.480
safety agencies in the form of the chapter 175 which concerns firefighters and EMS and chapter 185 which is law enforcement. And then typically speaking I've worked for the fire departments. These monies are allocated by the agencies pension boards into shares and used to support the to fund or bolster

17
00:06:01.480 --> 00:06:17.720
higher multiplier numbers. So in the event of agencies that use the Florida retirement system, they usually have a multiplier of 3% St. Cloud Fire Rescue where I used to work at they have a multiplier 4% fantastic multiplier. Um or other higher

18
00:06:17.720 --> 00:06:33.880
monthly payouts. So generally speaking the employees don't really see the 175 >> The 175 and 185 monies >> Mhm. >> come from the insurance premium >> Mhm. >> that are written on the the the insurance within the town of

19
00:06:33.880 --> 00:06:49.320
Indian Shores. >> Mhm. >> So not tolls, not from other municipalities. It's only here. So the police officers get a [clears throat] share of the car insurance. And the firefighters get a share of the fire and the house insurance.

20
00:06:49.320 --> 00:07:04.480
>> Perfect. Okay. So but as far as the the distribution is concerned we're accurate. They use it to bolster. >> doesn't actually get a share of the money [clears throat] at all. >> Okay. >> Um the the money that's that goes for

21
00:07:04.480 --> 00:07:20.400
theirs their territories is all part of the state's general budget. >> Okay. Which so it does eventually trickle down into their retirement correct. >> They make allocations to the the you

22
00:07:20.400 --> 00:07:35.600
know where the money comes from from the state but the local municipalities make contributions into FRS as well. So that comes from the local municipal budgets. So they don't they don't actually get straight the 175

23
00:07:35.600 --> 00:07:50.920
>> Yeah, correct. That's that's that drives my point home. Essentially they they basically don't see it. They they feel it. Unlike us here at Indian River Shores, we have a slightly different methodology, correct? Okay. So, um generally speaking with respect to those agencies as compared to us,

24
00:07:50.920 --> 00:08:06.840
uh those agencies regardless of tenure, each employee is going to receive their individual share of whatever that might be, right? So, it's not withstanding. So, as opposed to Indian River Shores, I correction, their their longevity is being rewarded though because the longer they are there, they

25
00:08:06.840 --> 00:08:22.400
have more of these shares that accumulate over time. So, when we have a comparison, if any given calendar year, any given fiscal year, employee A that's been there 20 years is going to receive the same shares as employee E that's been there 1 year or what have you.

26
00:08:22.400 --> 00:08:38.520
Um but over time, their longevity is being rewarded. With Indian River Shores though, we have something a little bit different. And the main reason why I want to point this out is because we are currently experiencing a very significant a trying time with both recruitment and

27
00:08:38.520 --> 00:08:54.000
retention. And I the reason why I bring this forward is I I think that we can make this the diamond that it used to be in the past. Uh from from what I understand and the lieutenant would has been here a lot longer than I, uh it's been my understanding that this agency

28
00:08:54.000 --> 00:09:10.680
was the place to be. Someone had to die or retire before you even had a hope to get your foot in the door. Um and now we have over the last 4 months or so, we've lost almost 30% of our combat personnel. So, I really think that we need to do whatever we can to

29
00:09:10.680 --> 00:09:25.360
try and entice new people to come here. Um currently, Indian River Shores isn't like a normal fire department. We have triple certified personnel. So, Indian River Shores enjoys both the 175 and 185 uh

30
00:09:25.360 --> 00:09:41.800
funds, but our pension multiplier is 2% as opposed to the FRS. Um so, the major difference between Indian River Shores and other public safety agencies is that our plan document has an elected verbage in there. It was a choice to put in this

31
00:09:41.800 --> 00:09:58.040
particular verbage, which is that the disbursement is conducted per credited year of service. And the reason why I bring that is because we don't have an even distribution. We have this weird stratification that occurs. So, the way that stratification

32
00:09:58.040 --> 00:10:12.800
works out is if you have employee if let's say we have a total of 51 shares that the 17518 funds get awarded to the to the agency. Uh an a a employee with let's say 20 years of service is going to receive out

33
00:10:12.800 --> 00:10:28.360
of that total 51, they will receive 20 of that 51 shares. An employee with 15 years of service will receive 15 and so on and so forth until you got the the employee at the very bottom that only receives one share. Now, the numbers that I'm pulling are public record, but

34
00:10:28.360 --> 00:10:43.839
I I did not include them in this just merely for the sake of their privacy, but the fiscal numbers that I pulled from the year 2024 indicate that the top five participants in the plan as we have it receive 76

35
00:10:43.839 --> 00:11:01.839
almost 75% of the entire dispersal leaving the rest out of 23 participants, leaving the rest of the 18 to divide amongst themselves the remaining 25%. So, to me that seems a bit off, a bit much, and I think that

36
00:11:01.839 --> 00:11:16.480
there are alternative options that we need to consider. Um what [clears throat] we have is this kind of uninten- unintended double dip situation. So, you have with this weighted allocation you have not only uh let's say employee

37
00:11:16.480 --> 00:11:33.400
A with 20 years of service, they're getting this much larger cut from the top and because they've had more years of service, they have this additional compounding interest on top of that. If we considered maybe making it an even

38
00:11:33.400 --> 00:11:50.120
distribution, now you still have that reward from for a longevity because you have Let's say I walked in today or I have a year's worth of service. I have, you know, how long have you been in serving at the department? >> Uh 12 years in August.

39
00:11:50.120 --> 00:12:06.360
>> Okay. So, he would have 12 additional shares in the fund collecting interest. And I would have my one share. And as time increase, that would continue to accumulate shares over someone that came into the door. Unfortunately, that's not what we have right now.

40
00:12:06.360 --> 00:12:21.800
So, I think that this would be one small thing that we could do to encourage new members. And then another point of concern is that if a member were to separate prior to vestment, they forfeit any contributions that the state or that that the town has

41
00:12:21.800 --> 00:12:38.880
collected. And then that forfeiture gets recycled through the same washing machine. So, once again, a massive chunk of whatever it is that that individual has accrued just gets separated to the top participants and then everyone else is dividing pennies. So, it just it just seems like a strange

42
00:12:38.880 --> 00:12:55.760
election that was made when that was created. Um the top two balances if this is fiscal year 2024 2025, we can presume that the numbers were much higher. I didn't have them available to me. Unfortunately, I do apologize for that. But the largest two members in the year 2022,

43
00:12:55.760 --> 00:13:12.560
member one had $475,000 $679 in their account. The second member had $399,177 $177 in their account. So, approximately almost a million dollars of the interest. >> just keep in mind and I'm not negating

44
00:13:12.560 --> 00:13:27.920
what you're saying. That that number is actually the interest that the fund made at one uh what 2024, I think it made 22.1%. >> Correct. >> So, you made they made we made 22.1% interest on that money. >> Mhm.

45
00:13:27.920 --> 00:13:44.720
>> But you are correct. You do have several top members that are have a big disparity between the money that they have versus people that we're bringing here and I will validate you 100% correct. We are are having as as many agencies are and almost all

46
00:13:44.720 --> 00:13:59.800
agencies across the United States right now are having issues with hiring people and and retaining them and what brings people depending on the generation that we're talking about brings people to an agency is

47
00:13:59.800 --> 00:14:15.560
uh not necessarily always money. I obviously that helps, but also benefits which >> Correct. >> tend to draw and I will say like that for my myself as an example. So I came in 2014. >> Mhm.

48
00:14:15.560 --> 00:14:32.839
>> I had 12 years with the sheriff's office and I came over here because of >> [snorts] >> the benefits and the uh three 24-hour shifts a week. So I was working 20 hours 20 days a month versus working 10 days a month. And at the time

49
00:14:32.839 --> 00:14:49.200
that suited my needs and how I needed it. So I mean I'm I'm I'm 100% on board with what you're saying, but I mean interrupt you. >> No, no, no, not at all. And again, just to be clear, I'm not proposing that any any members current balances be touched in any way, shape or form. That

50
00:14:49.200 --> 00:15:03.320
that would be in poor taste and extremely unrealistic. But looking forward into the future, this might be something that we might consider. The main reason why I would bring this up is um actually we talked about some of these.

51
00:15:03.320 --> 00:15:24.760
Uh let me just make sure I touch base on Okay, we actually discussed that. If we had a scenario with the equal allocation just using the numbers, 2024 numbers, we would be looking roughly at about 12,000 144 per member as opposed to I I believe

52
00:15:24.760 --> 00:15:42.240
my most recent balance I've been here on here only 3 years. But my most recent balance was about 3,000 and I believe my disbursement was maybe about $900. So again not a massive issue

53
00:15:42.240 --> 00:15:59.000
but we still we would still get that benefit of longevity. It's just going to be more beneficial to more of the members at the same time as opposed to the current structure. Um I'm proposing this for consideration for

54
00:15:59.000 --> 00:16:15.040
financial year 2027. So we're already late this this fiscal year is basically closed. There's no reason to try to rush into anything right here right now. But I would like for the the board to consider this change moving forward. If I'm not mistaken this is something that would have to be drafted into a Well, first

55
00:16:15.040 --> 00:16:30.760
we'd like to >> to be It would have to be an ordinance There would need to be collective bargaining over it. So the bargaining parties would need to bring to us this specific change. >> So do we need Do we need to make

56
00:16:30.880 --> 00:16:48.680
a request of the pension I'm sorry not the pension the request to the union that we are recommending that for the 2027 year that the 175185 monies are equally distributed amongst all the members of the the pension of the 175185

57
00:16:48.680 --> 00:17:05.040
fund versus the way that it's set up and then they would have to go to the town and request the town to change the ordinance stating that it needs to be this way. >> So >> So there would have to be an either an amendment to the ordinance or a new ordinance written in three readings and

58
00:17:05.040 --> 00:17:20.319
>> Two two readings. >> Two readings? Okay. >> There would have to be two readings. The parties would have to negotiate over whether they waived the bargaining over it or they they They to sit down and have a whole bunch of discussions. >> Um

59
00:17:20.319 --> 00:17:35.600
>> But this wouldn't cost the town any money at all. We're just basically saying >> So pensions are a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. So >> Okay. >> You know, the parties can say we don't want to we don't have to talk about it

60
00:17:35.600 --> 00:17:58.840
cuz it's not the city could say town. It's not going to cost us anything. We don't care. It's your money and you divide it up yourself. >> Understood. >> I don't know I don't know how it's all going to come out, but those things have to happen. I mean I guess the board could say

61
00:17:58.840 --> 00:18:16.160
you know, here's something to consider. We see or it has been brought to our attention that there may be inequities in the current system. I mean we we don't really have a dog in the fight. Again, you know, we're the stewards of the money and we make sure that it gets

62
00:18:16.160 --> 00:18:31.280
paid in accordance with the rules that we have. And the town and the union together change the rules. So >> So this that was really my question. What what what

63
00:18:31.280 --> 00:18:49.320
Is that is this within the scope of the pension board? >> We don't really have a have a hook to get into involved in it. So I mean when we suggest benefit changes it's usually in the form of you know, we there's a problem we see

64
00:18:49.320 --> 00:19:04.520
that nobody else can champion. Nobody else can bring it up. So for example, there's something happening with with a retiree situation.

65
00:19:04.520 --> 00:19:20.600
I'm trying to think of of So death benefits. The death benefits in the state statute are very unfair because they provide a death benefit only if you're vested

66
00:19:20.600 --> 00:19:37.720
which means that someone who gets killed in the line of duty in their one to nine years of service gets nothing but a refund of contributions. That to me is inequitable. >> Agreed. >> And unless it's brought to the attention

67
00:19:37.720 --> 00:19:54.000
of of all of the parties and there's nobody really to bring to their attention that like there are other choices that can happen and you don't want to be in the circumstance of having to change the benefit because somebody actually dies and you realize there's a

68
00:19:54.000 --> 00:20:08.480
problem. So I mean that's a place where we generally get in we, the pension board, generally gets involved in in that process to bring it to everybody's attention. Um

69
00:20:08.480 --> 00:20:25.720
but I think you could go to the union and make that same discussion point. Um and so that you know, there's somebody that's available to raise that particular issue. >> Well, well being that the the union just

70
00:20:25.720 --> 00:20:41.560
closed their contract negotiations recently which is somewhat a moot point because can an article of and and I'm not a union guy, I'm just asking out of curiosity, but can an

71
00:20:41.560 --> 00:20:56.920
article such as this be opened if it the town and the union agree to it? >> Sometimes they do a memorandum of understanding >> Okay. So would it would it hold more weight if the board voted as a whole and said, "Hey, we noticed this. There there's a

72
00:20:56.920 --> 00:21:12.440
hiring and retention problem. We think this may be a good idea." and tell the send that to the union said >> Well, hiring and retention really is kind of isn't the bill but you know, it's your club it's your club. >> there's there's a

73
00:21:12.440 --> 00:21:27.800
I mean however you want to label the verbage but we can just say we foresee a problem with the potential pension benefit here as the multiplier is a 2% which is not the norm but we do have the benefit of this 175

74
00:21:27.800 --> 00:21:44.400
185 money. We think this would be a good idea and we present that as a a whole as a board versus we leave it up to to a new pension board member to just go and say, "Hey guys, guess what? This is a great idea." >> but I guess what I'm trying to say to

75
00:21:44.400 --> 00:22:00.000
you is it's not really Yes, it is a pension benefit but it's not a pension issue. It is the inequity is a member issue, right? It's amongst the

76
00:22:00.000 --> 00:22:16.000
members. It's amongst the union members >> So >> about how it's allocated and you would like a change to how it's currently allocated. >> I I believe um when I asked about this initially um when the when the

77
00:22:16.000 --> 00:22:30.440
175 185 distribution was initially set up, wasn't that voted in the place by this board? >> I >> With that specific verbage? >> I was not here at that time >> [clears throat] >> but this plan is based on the League of

78
00:22:30.440 --> 00:22:45.680
Cities original plan. So when the the town um decided that it wanted to offer pension benefits, they went to the League of Cities and they adopted their plan. I believe

79
00:22:45.680 --> 00:23:04.000
and I don't know Doug, you might know. >> Where where the share plan came from? It was in place when we took over as the actuary. >> Yeah, it was in place when I came too. >> That's that's not a normal way to do it at all. >> So So you had >> I I didn't >> the the >> League of Cities a was kind of a one-stop shop.

80
00:23:04.000 --> 00:23:18.440
>> Mhm. People that have been here longer more money. >> They were the administrator. >> everybody gets a fair amount. >> They were the money manager, they were the consultants, they were the actuary. So, all you know, kind of all of that stuff

81
00:23:18.440 --> 00:23:36.120
existed. So, I'm I am not exactly sure where it came from. The language may have been drafted by the League of Cities because they drafted the rest of the document. >> Um my consultation with some of the members that were Excuse me. [clears throat] That were

82
00:23:36.120 --> 00:23:51.760
in place when this was put into play. They said that they were presented with the option to either do the equal distribution or to go for this weighted option. And that this committee made the decision to go with the weighted option. So, that's why I brought it up here.

83
00:23:51.760 --> 00:24:07.520
>> It's more stats cuz I've never heard of it on this way before. >> Yeah. >> Never. >> Um so, we we've got a we a lot of unint- I hope unintended consequences, but one of the unintended consequences that potentially someone with seniority could it by making

84
00:24:07.520 --> 00:24:24.160
Someone with seniority could benefit by making an untenable environment if we have the same washing machine going on and you got people coming in and leaving and if if I'm just making all the money every time they come in and they leave or make it impossible for them to stay they just leave. Um it's >> It's not going to be popular with senior

85
00:24:24.160 --> 00:24:40.240
people I would think. >> Well, I well, I would hope it >> Well, it's not if you look at the if you look at the share balances. >> Let me let me tell you Let me tell you what. It's not about popularity. It's about doing the right thing. And I sit in the top three, okay?

86
00:24:40.240 --> 00:24:57.600
Great for me. There's still a a large portion of time between me and the second person and the first person. So, they obtain more units more money than I do. Call it a bad decision on my part. It's not a good business decision, but

87
00:24:57.600 --> 00:25:15.840
I speaking from being in the administration of this uh department for since 2016-17, I think I've been part of the administration. I think it's fair because I watch people that are new within a few

88
00:25:15.840 --> 00:25:31.400
years, this gentleman included, that work nonstop versus other people who have been here a long time that don't work at the same speed. And I understand that as you age, I'm 54 years old, I still work nonstop. I think that

89
00:25:31.400 --> 00:25:47.760
doing something like this is only going to benefit the town as a whole because at the end of the day, that is our sole purpose here is to give the citizens the best service that we can 24/7. >> Correct. >> And I and I think that this

90
00:25:47.760 --> 00:26:04.760
I'm 100% 100% behind this. I stand to lose a lot of money. It's not about that. It's about doing the right thing for the people that we serve. And people can disagree with me all they want. I don't care. I'm I'm talking to you as a senior person with 12 years, believe it or not. Like I'm I'm a senior person, right?

91
00:26:04.760 --> 00:26:20.480
>> I've only got a few years on here. I've got a few people under me, and I don't believe that my year of service is worth any more than theirs. Um they're here, they show up, they do the job regardless. You got one day on, you got 20 years on, like we're all here to do the job and they protect the citizens. So this this

92
00:26:20.480 --> 00:26:37.200
this whole setup is just very strange to me. >> So that's basically it. Just just something for the consideration of the board. Um just a just a oddity that I noticed and I I wanted to bring to the attention or or I didn't notice anyone else

93
00:26:37.200 --> 00:26:54.480
championing it, so I figured I'd be the one as as Bonnie put it. That's all. >> That's a good catch. I didn't understand why the sheriff dollars were so high. So >> Well, that explains it. >> They're They're more than that because what we had over $300,000 in

94
00:26:54.480 --> 00:27:10.960
disbursements last year alone. >> Correct. That's 24 data. That's not 25. >> 25 data. And I would suspect that it's probably going to be somewhere around that this coming year. And then the following year it may be less depending on you know, I'm not trying to go down a

95
00:27:10.960 --> 00:27:25.440
rabbit hole, but depending on this property tax stuff and everything else, but either way, um Brad, are you good? >> Yeah, whenever you guys are done with this, I'm ready to go. >> Oh, do we need I guess

96
00:27:25.440 --> 00:27:42.520
So, do we need to make a motion? Do we need to vote on this? What what's the proper way with this? >> Maybe just a something between the city and the the union maybe to try to open that back up. >> Can we make a suggestion to the union that we

97
00:27:42.520 --> 00:27:59.280
>> The city and the union that sounds >> Yeah, we can make suggestion both that we're in agreement with this, but I can probably need to vote on it. >> You know, we don't have a dog in the fight, right? So, so if we are saying [snorts] that something

98
00:27:59.280 --> 00:28:15.000
should be looked at, then you should say it to both of the parties who have a decision >> Okay. >> making authority. >> Well, you want to make a motion? >> Sure. I'll make a motion. Actually, maybe it would be appropriate to wait for all the members. So, I would also be fine with tabling

99
00:28:15.000 --> 00:28:33.560
this, bringing this to their attention, and then seeing if they would um like to make that recommendation to the union. >> You good with that, Joe? >> Yes. >> Okay. And we'll just table it for the next meeting. >> Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for indulging. >> Appreciate it. Bring it home, Brad.

100
00:28:34.154 --> 00:28:49.840
>> [laughter] >> But I do know what the aggregate bond ETF current yield is, which is at 4.94%. And Manny AP Year's portfolio is very well structured like that. So, that's what you're roughly looking at.

101
00:28:49.840 --> 00:29:08.120
>> They might have a small floating rate advantage. Did you get a chance to look at what floating rates are yielding right now? The floating rate fund >> Let me see what was that? I'm sorry. >> And Manning and Napier, I mean, we we can't make a real assumption as to what the uh duration or average maturity would be, but I

102
00:29:08.120 --> 00:29:48.720
think that's important. >> Yeah. Mhm. Yeah. >> That share plan arrangement was in place back in 2007. At least at least uh cuz that's the earliest plan I have. >> And I

103
00:29:48.720 --> 00:30:06.360
I I'm would be pretty positive that most of the members that voted on that are in fact, none of them work here anymore. They're all retired. >> Probably. >> And they were very pro me me me me me.

104
00:30:06.360 --> 00:30:21.880
And uh I don't Again, that's not my leadership style, and I'm not going to speak about anybody else's, but I I think that uh it whether right, wrong, or indifferent, I think giving the mere suggestion that we think it needs to be looked at to the

105
00:30:21.880 --> 00:30:59.520
town and union probably be the uh appropriate way to handle it, in my opinion. >> That brass getting us an answer. >> I think we're at We're looking at about It's hard It's hard to read this fact sheet for for the Aristotle fund, but it looks like

106
00:30:59.520 --> 00:31:15.280
>> So, you're figuring out where to put this money? >> They're at about 8% right now. >> Yeah. Eight? >> That's the yield for that. >> 8%? >> Floating rate. >> Floating rate, 8? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm sorry, the air conditioning whistle

107
00:31:15.280 --> 00:31:35.240
thingy here is so loud. I'm I'm catching like every third word. I apologize. >> So, I'll make a motion I mean, we we already did the liquidation or this has to be one motion. The We want to reduce the equity exposure by 3%

108
00:31:35.240 --> 00:31:52.560
um equal parts from each of the three equity managers and allocate it to the floating rate funds equal part Aristotle and remind me the other floating >> and PIMCO. >> PIMCO.

109
00:31:53.120 --> 00:32:09.800
>> And my my my thinking is that we don't know where rates are going. >> Mhm. >> They're capturing higher yields on the floating rates right now. If we go into the Manning and Napier fixed income and rates shoot up, we're going to lose some principal. So, it's a safer way to go. >> Absolutely. >> And when we get together in 3 months,

110
00:32:09.800 --> 00:32:25.200
maybe we have more real estate money and we have a larger cash position than we want. Go to cash into our floating rate position and we figure out how to allocate it at that time. >> Agreed. >> So, my motion is on the on the front end to reduce the equity exposure by 3%

111
00:32:25.200 --> 00:32:41.960
equally between the three equity managers and allocate that money to the floating rate equally between the two floating rate managers. >> I'll second it. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. Motion carries. >> Limited order

112
00:32:43.320 --> 00:32:58.760
Thank you. Uh, next meeting is October 27th, 2026, 2:00 p.m. Everybody good with that? Any changes on that? Doug? >> No, I'm good.

113
00:32:58.760 --> 00:33:06.440
You got it scheduled. We're going to try and set up that Fox Point for you, okay? >> Even better. Okay, great. We're adjourned.