It's uh 3001. Welcome to the uh pension board meeting of February 24th. Um I call this meeting to order as a brand new chair. And my is my microphone working? Can we hear it? Yeah. Um, so
we're we're uh I'm going to kind of fumble my way through this, so you guys bear with me as I as I'm going through the learning process here. Um, first off, we have uh call to order and can we get a roll call? >> Nick Curry
>> here. >> Dan Jansen >> here. >> Christine Hoffman >> here. >> Greg Clefner >> here. >> Eddie Vgara >> here. >> David Cohill >> here. >> John Patrick >> here. Matthew Groky >> here. >> John Gutilla here.
>> Jason Sharp >> here. >> George Canler, John Wiggins >> here, >> John McDaniel >> here, >> Lance Huish De W. >> Okay. Um, what if you'll look on your
agenda, you'll see we have a oath of office. The oath has already been given to our newest member, Greg Kfner. Greg, welcome aboard. >> Thank you. appreciate appreciate you stepping up the plate and helping out our uh pension board and our city. Um so thank you and you did have your oath of
office, correct? >> I did. Yes. >> Any words of wisdom for us? >> Not yet. >> Okay. >> Let me get through my first meeting. >> There you go. There you go. Uh we need to get an approval of minutes for the minutes of the joint quarterly pension board meeting held on November 18th,
2025. >> So moved. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. Got a first and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose. Okay. Uh there's no old business. New business. Consideration by
general employees, police officers, firefighters, and board of trustees consultants reports. >> Good afternoon. >> Hello. >> Uh for the record, George Canler has joined us. So, we have a quorum and the
firefighters number four. Oh, sorry about that. >> Page number four. I think you should have a loose leaf page tucked in. I'll kind of reference that in in just a second. Um, but before on page four, just a quick review and again, this is the first quarter of our new fiscal
year. Um, and the markets really continued in in positive fashion the way they had the the prior few quarters. So, if you look in the upper right hand corner of page number four, you'll notice all the bars are pointed to the right, meaning positive returns. The S&P 500 was up 2.7%.
Those yellow or orange bars, which represent international, were up somewhere around 5%. And then the red or pink down at the bottom for fixed income, we're up, depending on the benchmark, about 1%. As you move down and look on the bottom right hand corner, the 12 months that
correlate to 2025, again, similar story, very positive returns out of domestic stocks, the S&P was up about 17.9%. International was up in excess of 32%. And then fixed income was up somewhere six or 7% again depending on the
benchmark. So 2025 was another very good year really across most of the major asset classes. If I could now take a second and and look at that loose leaf page that I or a couple pages that I tucked into to the handout just to give
you a little bit more perspective on on both the equity and bond markets. So the first page looks at the S&P 500 for the last 100 years. And what we do, this is a histogram of the the last 100
calendar, you know, uh, year performance measures for the S&P 500. So that second column from the right, there's a 15 on it. You'll see that the top number underneath that 2025, we were at 17.88%.
That very strong S&P 500 return. If you look at the the column on the right that has the 38 on top of it, the two numbers at the top, 23 and 24, you can see we're at 26 29 and then 2555. So this is now the third year in a row
with very strong double-digit performance out of the S&P 500. Um, interesting point to to kind of note the average or annualized return of the S&P for the last 100 years is about 10 and a half percent.
But interestingly, only 7% of the time or seven times out of the last 100 years has the return of the S&P in a single calendar year been within 2% plus or minus of the average.
So the next time you're watching CNBC and they some analyst is on there and they say, you know, what do you think the S&P is going to do next year? And invariably they'll give you a number like 9 10 11%. the 93% probability that they're wrong. Right? Usually, and how
we get to the average of n or 10 and a half percent is you you pair a 25 or a 17 or a 30 with a neg five, a negative 10 and and some of those numbers in between. You blend them together and you get that average of 10 and a half. But
very rarely do you actually get a return in 12 months that's close to 10 and a half. So again, just thought you you'd find that interesting. Um, if you flip over to the next page, it's the same kind of information, but now looking at the bond market. And not surprisingly, you know, we kind
of view the bond market as the lower risk asset class. And you'll see a lot less variability in this in this histogram. Um, so 2025, our 7.3% rate of return is listed there in the third column from the right onto the 17. So
kind of smack dab in the middle, if you will, of the of the normal distribution of returns. Now, as compared to the equity markets, you only have a negative return, at least over the last h 100red years, a negative return in fixed income uh 11%
of the time. So, a relative minority. And of that, the vast majority of those negative returns are just between zero and negative -2 and a half percent. So, even when you have losses in fixed income, they tend to be pretty small. I have to point out though what we went
through just a few years ago, 2022 was not only the worst year for the bond market in the last hundred years, it was the worst by a factor of four. You know, again, the previous worst year was negative -292 and we were down over 13%. So significant uh you know downside
performance or or struggle performance over that period. Um but again, things have have certainly recovered nicely. So again, just wanted to give you a little bit more perspective on some of that historical information. Um, with that, I'm going to jump back to the the
main quarterly book. Do you want me to page through the slides or are we better just going on paper? >> Okay. Um, there's a lot of of supporting background information. I'm going to skip over most of that. If you put touch on page 11, we often talk about interest rates.
Obviously, the the fixed income portion of our portfolio is is quite sensitive. And so if you focus on the bottom right hand corner of page number 11, what you'll notice is the most recent update to the Treasury yield curve. And the gray line is where we finished the year
1231. And what I want to highlight there is on the left half of that graph, how much lower the gray line is compared to the red line where we were three months ago. And of course, the red line is below the blue and or the yellow line where we were three and six months
before that. So you can see how interest rates over the last nine months have really come down in particular on the left hand side of the graph. Now the Fed had been cutting rates in the in the latter half of last year which is a big part of that move.
But the other thing that's interesting is way over on the right if you look at the 20 and the 30-year plots those rates have actually climbed slightly. So you've had a steepening of the curve at the long end and then on the left hand side you have the left end uh the short end of the
curve coming down. So we are seeing a normalization of the yield curve. It's really been about two two and a half years where we've been talking about this yield curve being inverted or having almost this U shape right and very simply the way I describe the the yield curve it's
the way the bond market feels about the future. So if if today is much higher than two or three or four years from now, it's kind of the bond market indicating that they don't think, you know, the the economic environment in a few years is going to be all that robust or all that great.
So with that said, you know, we haven't had a recession. We've had some pretty strong market returns, and now we have a a normalizing yield curve. It's not quite there yet, but it is moving in that direction. So again, the bond market is beginning to kind of signal
they think it it's it's it's a little more normal, a little more traditional in shape and more positive in the future. So again, still some work to do, but but headed in the right direction. Um, if there aren't any questions on kind of again the the big macro environment,
let's start to talk about the plan. If you go to page number 14, always uh make sure to touch on this page a history of your plan going back to 1987 when you had 11.8 million in the uh in the trust fund. So again, as a reminder,
the blue line represents our actual market value. So that 11.8 million has grown to 140.15 million as of 1231. The red line represents the the hypothetical um you know feeless return
or feeless of of the assumed rate of return. So if you had you each year had you just earned the assumed rate of return of the plan you'd have $17.9 million. So you've outperformed your assumed rate of return
collectively to the tune of of about 22 23 million. The other thing we like to point out on this graph are those kind of blue or gray bars down along the bottom. That represents your net cash flow. And so you can see um in roughly 2009 we kind
of crossed over the the zero line, meaning um the net cash flow is is is negative. And so all of that 11.8 8 million that you had in 200 um and 8 or excuse me 1987 has been paid out of the
system and then since that time you paid an additional $39.3 million out more than you've brought in in contributions. But again, all the while we've continued to grow that top line or that blue line
asset up to that 140.15. And and really just sort of graphically this this is the sweet spot of of pension investing. You build up a nest egg that's able to grow at a rate that is faster than it has to pay out those
benefit payments and cash flows. Um and so you know there are a lot of pension funds that are still earlier in their life where they're they're somewhere in here. They're still growing or on they're on a a cash positive basis. They're putting in more than they're taking out. But eventually you'd expect them to look something like yours where
where again you built up that nest egg and it's it's growing at a rate to to cover all those cash flows. U the next few pages uh get into the asset allocation of the plan. If you go to page 17, I think that's the easiest way um to see the allocation relative to
our investment policy. And what you'll notice, we're fractionally underweight to domestic equity, over a little bit to international, just fractionally under to domestic. Global fixed is right in line. And then we are a bit underweight in real estate.
Um part of that is the draw down from JP Morgan. Part of that is relative performance. And also we've made an uh the decision or to to hire Stockbridge. So that we've made a commitment there and as that kind of gets in and ultimately gets called that will help
kind of bring that back up toward uh toward the the proper balance. But in the grand scheme of things are looking very good in terms of of the relative allocation. Um just to give you a quick update um mentioned the assets as of uh
December were 140.15 million. Um as of this morning the the assets were 141.9 million uh which is an increase of about two and a half percent. So the period you know early 2026 we're again positive
roughly 2 and a half%. So and when we when we flip ahead a couple of pages you can see what that that's going to do to our our fiscal year period. So page 21 brings all of this together. So again, the macro environment was positive.
We earned 1.8% gross of fees relative to the policy of 2.06. So we're a little bit behind the the the policy return, and we placed in the 60th percentile. For the one-year period, 2025, we were at 12.18, a nice rate of return for 12
months, but that was behind the policy of 14.49, and we placed in the 85th percentile. Really two big reasons for that. we've been talking about them for for a period. One was the um some of the underperformance in in the growth portfolio was certainly an impact.
Obviously, we we took some action earlier in the year to to address that. Uh but then the other one is down at the bottom of page 21. The eatance small and midcap portfolio. You can see both for the quarter negative 67 basis points
versus a positive 2.2 and for the year negative 5.6 6 versus a positive 11.9. Um we did talk about that somewhat last time. Um and it essentially the the the trend that was in place has continued.
It has been a very difficult period for small and midcap managers that buy companies that make money. As silly as that sounds, um you know, if you look at that from a broader term perspective, companies that that earn money, that
make money, tend to outperform companies that lose money four to one. That makes sense, right? You know, if you if you lose money continually, you're not really in business for for long periods of time. So, generally speaking, the earners outperform non-earners four to
one. For the last nine or 12 months, negative earning companies or companies losing money have outperformed companies that make money eight to one. It's been just completely reversed in particular in small cap. >> Yeah. Um
some of it I think some of it is small cap companies tend to be more interest rate sensitive and so as you as you kind of left you know the liberation day part early in the year there was a lot more euphoria. you the market started to be um more optimistic about interest rate
cuts. And so if you were a small cap company that was really struggling, you had a lot of debt on your balance sheet, um all of the euphoria about about upcoming Fed cuts is a bit of a lifeline. And so, you know, we thought maybe you were going out of business in
in March, but now with these potential cuts, you know, all of a sudden maybe and so you see you saw this kind of jump in junk, right? Or or lower quality. Um and and that is certainly playing a part and and and so all that to say it's
certainly disappointing to see these kind of performance numbers out of eaten vance and and you don't see this here but a number of their peers are are very similar story really really struggling in terms of relative performance um but you know I've had additional conversations with our research analyst
that kind of covers this space I was actually with Eaten Vance just Wednesday of last week and they talk about their portfolio being like this is a a four standard deviation event in terms of how cheap and how much their earning stocks
have underperformed the rest of the market and sort of they're they're saying it is just an incredible sort of opportunity and it echoes like our analysts that point like they see this as a huge buy huge opportunity like these are very inexpensive stocks and
they would not expect this to continue but with that said it's difficult when you sit here and look at the report and say oh my gosh they are so far under for the last 12 months is painful. Um but but just wanted to give you a sense that that it's not like something's broken in their process or all of a sudden they're
doing something very different. The quality earning companies they buy are just being ignored completely by the market. And and we hope that that is a short-term phenomenon because if that if that continues for an extended period then you start to have that bubble
conversation, right? If if companies that don't make money drive the market for two, three, four years, that becomes truly unsustainable. So So again, just wanted to to provide a little bit of context to to what you see in that that large underperformance, which really
accounts for for the entire total fund underperformance for the year. Um, if we flip over to page 22 now to really contrast that, we we look at our newest portfolio, um, DFA International Value. Um, so they
were 8.4% for the quarter versus 5.2. And look at the year, 45.2% versus 40.6. So, not only did they outperform very nicely, but that was by far the best performing um, asset within
the plan. Keep in mind that we took those funds from Europacific Growth and WCM. So over the last 12 months, those funds earned 29% and 21%. So a lot of outperformance by taking those dollars,
diversifying into that DFA fund. Um so that has has paid off quite nicely. Um WCM very volatile manager. We've seen that for over time. Now over over the longer periods they perform extraordinarily well but they have been hurt somewhat similarly the way Eat and
Vance has so you see big underperformance in the quarter. Um not quite as bad for the year um but but certainly a relative underperformer. The good news is that's a relatively small allocation so it has has less of an impact. Um as we move down we get into fixed
income and our fixed income has done quite nicely. So we've got bare short-term right in line with the index and then sawrass uh 1.1 versus 96 and for the year 8 and a half% versus their benchmark of seven. So again relative to
some of those equity returns those aren't you know huge numbers but for fixed income you know in a portfolio that's generating call it four and a half to 5% income for us to finish the year with an eight and a half% rate of return is is quite a nice return out of fixed income. And then uh last couple of
pieces we have PIMCO diversified. That fund continues to do really well. 2 point uh not uh excuse me 2.3 versus.35 and for the year 10 and a half versus 8.4. Again there's international component that's a diversified portfolio
non US. So some of the for the same reasons that international had a really good year also helped the the the returns of the PIMCO portfolio. Um and and so far here in 2026, we're continuing to see that international doing really well compared to uh to the
domestic market. Big part of that is the dollar falling in value. You know, if you go if you went to to kind of the end of 2024 and look backwards, we really had 10 years of dollar strength really hurt international returns to the point where I actually had a number of clients
say, you know, we've been international for a long time. the returns been half of the domestic market. Should we just get rid of international and put it all in the US? Invariably, you know, 2025 happens and all of a sudden international doubles that of the US market. So glad they they didn't do
anything, but it's interesting to kind of see that dynamic. Then the last piece of the portfolio, again, we mentioned JP Morgan 135 versus 107 and for the year 4.8 versus 3.8. Um, so again, not huge performance out of real estate, but now
positive. We're really on about six quarters of positive performance. Um and and what you if you talk to those managers, what you tend to see is they feel like, you know, things are pretty stable. You're kind of getting income right now. That's that's most of the return at four and a half 5%. And and
for the next, you know, 18 months starting to get some incremental appreciation on top of that income. So you know expecting or hoping somewhere in that kind of seven to 8% kind of return for say the next 12 or 24 months.
So again looking better um you know where again for the last couple years that was the that was the negative in the portfolio as they were facing the draw downs. Um but again generally speaking overall still a very positive environment. Again I mentioned in the the six or so weeks since the end of the
quarter we're up enoughly roughly two and a half%. So that puts us, you know, in the neighborhood of um, you know, four and a half or so percent on the fiscal year. Obviously a long way to go. Um, but but certainly things seem to be kind of moving along in in in reasonable
direction. Um, let me pause there, see if anybody has questions, comments on anything that I've covered, anything that I've skipped over on the Eden Vance. Did you say is it your
analyst team that sees them as a buy or was it advances of people? >> Well, it's it's sort of both. Um so when when I was with them they were sort of demonstrating in that from a valuation perspective and like a valuation spread the price of their securities compared
to like large cap that was sort of the four standard deviation like they're their portfolio is incredibly cheap compared to uh to normal right and then separately just when when talking to our analyst team about not only their portfolio um but also some of their
other peers that that we that we are are covering you know is the same sort of message is these portfolios I think are are very strong fundamentally and we expect them to do very well but for the
last you know 6 n 12 months the market just hasn't cared but we think that is a relatively shortterm phenomenon where again typically as I mentioned before if you just you know strip it down to just
earners versus non-earners. You know, earning companies and and that's what eaten advance is. It's quality earning companies. They tend to, you know, outperform 4 to one versus companies that lose money. But in this last period that the the companies that have lost
money are out earning 8 to one as compared to the earners. So kind both. Um the only other thing uh that's kind of listed on the agenda, you know, we we talk about potential for rebalancing. Um, oh, sorry.
>> No, go ahead for a minute. >> Okay. Um, if you go back to to page 17, as of the end of the quarter, we were really relatively in line only in total about 1% over um our our equity uh target.
And, you know, with the the most recent kind of price adjustments, we're still right about in that same ballpark over by roughly one one and a quarter% on a total fund basis. So there's no need to rebalance. Um Greg, just for your benefit, we have we have a hard cap in the ordinance. So we can't we can't let
the equity exposure run too far. Um so we always want to make sure we're aware of that situation in particular when when equities are running. Um but but we are we have room from that from that cap. Um the other thing that I would highlight too is with the the commitment
to real estate as that money gets called in or as you know they they ask for those funds any barring you providing any other instructions um we will the way we would handle it is let's just say they called a million
dollars right we would look to the portfolio and strip it from any overweights to help bring it back as opposed to if I took it from uh elsewhere where in the portfolio then any overweights would become larger and then after your next meeting then we'
we'd be that much closer to our cap and we'd have to take some action. Um so so just as a general you know understanding um we would we would kind of pull it from the overweights to help keep us rebalanced or or in line. Uh just a question. So the ordinance
controls the um asset classes basically is that >> there is a there is a hard cap on our equity exposure >> equity only or is there does it also say this much fixed income? >> It really does not that really the primary is equity exposure is kept. Um,
now that is not a a legal requirement like that's not a state or or any >> but the ordinance could change >> but the ordinance can further restrict and that's what our ordinance does is it does provide that hard cap. >> Have we ever considered alternative investments which seem to be getting I mean private equity things like that.
>> We we we definitely have and actually we had um a little bit of a presentation slasheducational just last quarter on on private equity. Um uh but there's there's limitations. You know, again, the ordinance doesn't prohibit us from
doing it, but like private equity would count against the equity number. >> Um and and there there has been some conversation in previous years um where where the the city is maybe not in favor of some of those alternatives. So that
is also something to keep in mind. Um but as of as of right now the ordinance does not prohibit those. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We we've we've had discussions but it's u but but nothing has really moved forward outside of the the real estate.
>> Okay. >> Didn't didn't we vote uh to carve off it's it's in our investment policy statement now that we can have alternatives up to 5%. >> Correct. We did. Correct. We just voted
on that I believe last year. >> Yes. Yes. At the big meeting. >> So we to that point we did sort of within the investment policy sort of carved a a holding area or a bucket but there's nothing targeted. But we did
kind of create a space within the in the policy to potentially house you know some. >> You're right. If we did private equity then we'd have to reduce the equity. >> Correct. But there's also like commodities and other things you could potentially do too. Certainly. Yeah. Okay.
But that was really everything that I wanted to to bring to your attention today. Again, kind of the the 10,000 foot view. Uh generally consider uh continuous strong performance. Um things moving in the right direction. Um and and hopefully, you know, whether it be
the Supreme Court getting involved with this tariff discussion, it it doesn't unsettle the markets too much and and we can kind of continue on this this positive direction. >> Very good. Uh for the record, uh welcome Lance Hish. Uh he's joined us now. Um
and we need to approve uh Brendan's investment consultant quarterly investment performance report. I we can start with the general board. Second. >> Got a first and a second. Roll call.
>> Nick Curry. >> Yes. >> Dan Jansen. >> Yes. >> Christine Huffman. >> Yes. >> Greg Cluckner. >> Yes. >> Eddie Veraro. >> Yes. >> Please. >> Second. >> Got a motion. A second. Roll call.
>> David Cohill. >> Yes. >> John Patrick. >> Yes. >> Matthew Groky. >> Yes. >> John Gutsilla. Yes. >> Jason Shart. >> Yes. >> And the firefighters >> motion. >> Second. >> First and a second. I have cler
>> George Canler. >> Yes. >> John Wiggins. >> Yes. >> John McDaniel. >> Yes. >> Lance. >> All right. Next up, we have a possible action. Brandon, do you want to talk about this? >> It's just a placeholder.
>> Oh, it's a placeholder in case we needed it. Yeah. >> Yeah, that's kind of referencing the >> Okay. All right. Pension administrator's report, Dustin.
>> Thank you. >> Yep. Uh quite a few things on the pension administrator's report this time. I'll jump right into it here. Um uh in between the meetings there was a question from one of the board members about u possible ethics training and I
know since I've been here we hadn't done that on the board. So, I did inquire with the pension attorney and the city attorney about one, what the requirements, if there were any requirements on the board uh for ethics training and to what would be available.
And um Pedro, our pension attorney, I think he's on the call here and listening in. He he said there uh unlike the city council where there are some required ethics training, there are no requirements on um board members. Um but
he did um provide some links um which I provided here in um the pension administr to the state trainings that are available. And then I also spoke with the uh city attorney and found that he
had been um doing some shorter trainings with uh some of the other boards at the city. So he is kind enough to schedule to come at our August meeting since our May meeting is our our big one with you know uh financial
reports um budgets and and many other things. So he's going to come to the August meeting and do a 15 to 20 minute ethics training um for the boards. Um moving on our credited service
purchases. So, as a recap, since we do have new member here, back in October, the city council passed an ordinance to allow for um the general employees board pension plan to allow employees to
purchase up to three years of credited service. um providing that they met certain requirements such as former military service or prior service in um some sort of municipal, state or federal employment of which they were not
entitled to receive pension. So after that at our last board meeting we adopted some forms and uh rules and guidelines for how to make this process happen. So after we did that, I uh asked
the pension attorney since we have adopted this in the ordinance and we have a procedure for it, do we need to have these approved each time that it happens um in the way that we approve retirements or is this now an
administrative function and um Prager said that basically this is now since we have adopt formally adopted this process that it's just an administrative function and then I can just advise you guys of where we're at in this process, how many people are doing it and some
other things. There are some um we'll see later there's some invoices as well that are tied to this because uh you know the pension board pays for the and we expected at the beginning of this first six months when it's open up to all employees um that there were going
to be some initial costs with the calculations of these um from the the actuaries but after that there won't be near as many as it would just be the new hires that have the opportunity Um, so, um,
>> just out of curiosity, are those pre-tax dollars for the people that do that or? >> Yes, they are pre-tax dollars. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, 14 members have submitted uh, applications. We have two members that have completed their purchase their lumpsum payment and then another five
members that have elected to an option of some form of either two, three, four or fiveyear uh payment plans over the deductions through payroll um to make those credit service purchases. Um that does not mean that those that
haven't made that option, they still have that option available to them. Um, which is actually something I need to get clarification from Pedro on because as I've been doing this I realized in the ordinance it seems we seem to give them six months to apply but there
is no timeline for them to make a decision on whether they want to do this or not. Um, so I do need to get some sort of clarity. we may need to adopt a rule at our next meeting or something like that because you don't want someone who
applied in the first six months come back five years later and saying no I want to do it so that that doesn't seem right so we'll get some clarity with him on that >> in general how much are those >> it's completely dependent upon each
employees individual situation I've seen from someone purchasing two years that's early on in their career and it was I think 11,000 up to someone who was right near the end of their career and a relatively high earner would be 116,000.
>> So there's a large span in there. Um there was we did receive a letter from the department of management services uh directly to the police board. I provided that letter here. Um they did approve all the actuarial
evaluations. Um they accepted those. They did recommend that the board considered lowering the current uh 7 and a half% investment rate of return. um they gave some recommendations in there, but I think
um our actuaries had already talked about that at our last May meeting, and I'm haven't talked with uh Brad Armstrong in a bit, but I'm I'm sure at our May meeting that's probably going to come up. I'm I'm not sure that it would be to
the level of what the state recommended here. Um I think most likely not. Um, but I I think the state has a different view than what the actuaries are seeing. >> What did the state recommend?
>> What's that? >> What did the state recommend? >> It is right there on a couple pages over. They recommended somewhere between 5.6 to 6.2%. >> Yeah, that's uh I don't really understand it myself,
especially when you can look at the plan and see that it's returned. It's done better than the seven and a half. >> It's simple. It's it's helpful in the seven and a half focal the plan. >> Seven and a half's a little on the high side probably plans. I mean, it's just less conservative, >> right? >> And the state, you know, the state plan
is is assuming a lot more than that. I think they're 6.55 or something. So, they're their own plan they're doing more than they're suggesting. >> Well, it also depends on what their mix of investments is too. So, >> yeah. >> Right. and funded status and there's so
many things that go into it. >> Interesting. >> Um, next meeting I'll be bringing in the budget. Um, if there is anything that you guys think that I should increase from prior year's budget, um, please let
me know in between now and then if you want to take some time to review last year's budget. But um the only thing I really seeing that I'm definitely planning on increasing is some extra um actuarial calculations. There always
seemed to be something every year that we didn't necessarily plan for whether it's adjustments for mortality tables or impact statements or now these calculations for um
the credit service purchase. So, um, whenever I have something that has not been budgeted for is why is when I bring it in an invoice. If it's something we planned for, we just, you know, use that as administrative process and pay the invoices. But it's when it's something
that was not budgeted for and we didn't plan for, then I bring these separate invoices to the boards for approval. >> And it's why I've got you there because I don't see anything that would fall in line. Um, and it it's probably just an
aging thing for me because I'm getting super old. Can you recap whether or not the we've we've addressed the renewal process for you know annually for the pension other words so that somebody who dies off is not continually getting paid
and Oh yes. So um we have two things going on. We've done the um the annual letters now that I'm sending out in u May of each year the proof of life forms and so I'm sending those out and we have
the new software which is um been much better online. >> So death audit software. So I'm doing that online where but it's not them doing it online. It's like I upload all the information of our um retirement
population and this this one actually works much better because in the previous software I had to upload it the all of the information each time. This time they have a login and that they have a database of our um our people and I just receive a report each week saying
hey we've got so and so passed away. So far each time um since we got the new software, we have already known about it before the software flagged it. But the software has been flagging it pretty quick. Um but generally unless it's
someone who didn't have much of a connection here and moved off and retired somewhere else, um generally we hear about any retirees passing pretty quickly. But um so yeah, we are are the proof of life letters notorized or they have to send them to you?
>> They do. So they either there's two options. One is um to either have it notorized, which is what most people do because frankly most of them still live around this area. They come into the city, we have notaries here and they do it that way. Um there is there
are um there's a form that I send out also with it. Send out two forms. One has a spot for two witnesses >> um to sign as well and it can't be a family member. Um so because we do have some members that are immobile and
getting a notary to that person or you know is problematic. So that's why we provide that option of two witnesses as well. >> Thank you. Um continue education the uh next FBA
conference is actually the annual conference June 29th to July 1st at the Renaissance Orlando. Uh, please let me know if you're interested. I already got two names down um that are interested in going.
Um, and then upcoming elections. Congratulations again to Mr. Kfner. Welcome aboard. And uh, today we have uh, both of our fifth member selections
from our police and fire board um, making their selections. So, Mr. Gustella has uh indicated that he would like to continue on as the police board. Um if if you if the board sees fit. Um
and the other position is for what was Debbie White's position and we know that we haven't seen her in several meetings and there's some extenduating circumstances with that. So probably expect that position to be filled with someone else especially since we didn't
receive any confirmation from her or anything that she would want to continue. So that's coming up here pretty shortly in the agenda. Um next quarterly meeting May 26 like I said it's the large meeting. So that one
starts at 2 o'clock instead of 3:00 so that we generally get done by 5. So, I'm not pushing anyone over time that they need to get out or anything. Any questions for me? >> Yes. So, I mean, I don't have the
formula either. It is an actuarial calculation that's done by the actuary. That's what we're paying for in these invoices. It's rather complex. It has to do with their how much they're earning, how much u what age they are, what their
actual scenario is going to be. Because for some people, buying three years of service doesn't mean they get to retire any earlier. It just means that they have three extra years of service. So, they'll still hit their age before they reach 30 years of service. But for some
people, when they buy three years of service, it may mean that they reach 30 years of service before they now reach their age. So they would actually start receiving a pension check earlier, which means it's going to cost them a lot more to make that purchase. So
>> they can retire. >> Yes. Yeah. But still that it would cost more if they're retiring three years earlier than they otherwise would have because they would be receiving a pension presumably three years longer.
>> They have a lot of former military. >> Yeah. >> Question. >> Yeah. They have until April 20th to make their application
as it was passed on October 20th. So, all right. That's all from you. >> That's all for me. Any other questions? All right. Moving on to consideration by general employees board of trustees. Uh we need to approve the summary plan
description for general employees retirement system as provided by Sugarman Suskin Brazwell and Hera. Can I get a motion? >> So moved. >> Second >> discussion or question? >> Sure. Sure. >> On page
third page of that option one year certain life retirement benefit for life. Everyone else where they have They're not taking the regular pension. It says reduced. That one doesn't say reduced, but I assume it is. >> I'm sorry. I didn't quite follow that. I
missed >> option one. So, you basically your benefit options. >> I'm trying to figure out where where you >> Oh, okay. Option option one. Okay. >> Okay. >> Yes, sir.
>> So, 10 years in life, isn't that also a reduced benefit >> for number one? >> Yes. for >> all the others say reduced. >> Yeah, >> that one doesn't say >> it. It Yeah, it is reduced. It is a slight reduction. Generally le less than
2% but yes it is it is a reduction. >> You just might want to say reduce since it's >> a agreed sir. I think we can add that in as a uh scribers error on it. motion. Discussion
discussion. >> Do we need to make a motion on that script? Sot. >> Okay. All right. All right. Let's move for a vote. We got a first and a second. Move for a vote. >> Nick Curry, >> yes. >> Dan Jensen, >> yes.
>> Christine Hoffman, >> yes. >> Greg Klener, >> yes. Eddie Bgara. >> Yes. All right. It's approved. This approved GRS counseling consulting rather Brad Armstrong payment of invoice number 498208
to GRS consulting in the amount of 4,300. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Got a first and a second. Madam, any discussion? explain. >> I was just going to, you know, point out
some details of uh how that that was for seven calculations at $570 uh $75 per uh person. And then one uh person decided to change their calculation from three years to two years to make it a little less uh costly for them. And so
that's a revision in there as well, which which got to the 4,300 Any discussion? >> Madam Cler, welcome. >> Nick Curry, >> yes. >> Dan Jansen, >> yes.
>> Christine Hoffman, >> yes. >> Greg Klepner, >> yes. >> Eddie Veraro, >> yes. >> All right, move to Oh, I don't move. Let's approve GRS Consulting Brad Armstrong. payment of invoice
number 497577 to Gabriel Rotor Smith and company in the amount of 3,300. Dustin. Yes. So, this is for the um actuary impact statement for both the credit service
purchase and um the changing of the uh cap from um of 100,000 to 110. and then 111 112 over the three-year period.
Not much more to say about it than that, I think. Approve. >> Second. >> Got the first and second. Any questions, comments? Madam clerk, roll call. >> Nick Curry, >> yes. >> Dan Jansen, >> yes. >> Christine Hoffman, >> yes. >> Greg Clifner, >> yes.
>> Eddie Bura, >> yes. >> All right. Next up, we approve the application for retirement. Tammy Leonard, operations administrator, Beaches Energy, effective March 1st, 2023. Separation date, February 27th,
2026. Meets age service requirements for backdrop retirement 33 years and three months of service. >> So move second. >> Just discussion. Why do we I heard you say it before, but why do we approve
retirements? It would seem like that would be administrative. >> It's more just a cursy area and gives the board an opportunity to thank um people for service in this situation like this. >> In theory, we can't not approve them. That's right. >> Correct. >> Sometimes we make a fuss about it
though. >> Nice to have that on the record. >> All right, we got a motion in second. And any other comments, questions? Madam clerk, roll call. >> Nick Curry, >> yes. >> Dan Jansen, >> yes. Christine Hoffman, >> yes. >> Greg Clifner,
>> yes. >> Eddie Barara, >> yes. >> All right. Next up, consideration by police officers board of trustees to approve the summary plan description for police officers retirement system as provided by Sherman, Susant, Brazwell, and Hera. >> So moved. Second.
>> Got a first and a second. Questions or comments? >> Madam Cler, roll call. >> David Khill, >> yes. >> John Patrick, >> yes. >> Matthew Groki, >> yes. >> John Gotella, >> yes. Jason Sharp. >> Yes. >> All right. Next up, select fifth member
of the City of Jackson Beach Police Officers Retirement System Board of Trustees for a two-year term commencing on April 1st, 2026 and expiring on March 31st, 2028. The fifth member is currently John Gusta Gustilla.
>> Got it. Okay. Term expires on 3:31 2026. Make a motion to uh nominate John Gustilla to continue to serve as fifth member for the police board. >> All right. >> We got a nomination for for John Gustilla. Any other nominations?
>> Second. >> All right. I take that as a first and a second. Questions, comments? Madam Cler, roll call. >> David Cohill. >> Yes. John Patridge. >> Yes. >> Matthew Groki. >> John Gutilla. >> Yes.
>> Jason Sharp. >> Yes. >> Congratulations, John. You pass. Well, you don't get $200 there. We're going to approve the GRS Consulting Brad Armstrong payment of invoice number 497572
to Gabriel Rotor Smith and Company in the amount of $3,300. Dustin, any comments? >> Um, same thing. This was uh for the calculation of the the range of the cap from 1,00 to 110 then 11 then 12. Um
>> yeah I think that's about it. Any questions on that? >> And the backdrop too. >> And the backdrop. Yes. And the backdrop of the raising of the backdrop from 3% to 3.5%. Yes. As well. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. We have a first and a second. Questions comments.
>> Madam clerk. Roll call. >> David Cohill. >> Yes. >> John Patrick. Yes. >> Matthew Gr. >> Yes. >> John Gutilla. >> Yes. >> Jason Sharp. >> Yes. >> Moving on to consideration by firefighters board of trustees. We're going to approve the summary plan
description for firefighters retirement system provided by Shikman Suskin Brazwell and Hera. Can I get a motion? >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. >> George Panley.
>> Yes. >> John Wiggins. Yes. >> John McDaniel. >> Yes. >> Lance Huish. >> Yes. >> All right. And then let's select the fifth member of the City of Jacksonville Beach Firefighters Retirement System Board of Trustees for a 2-year term
commencing on April 1st, 2026. Expiring on March 31st, 2028. Fifth member is currently Deborah White. Term expires on March 31st, 2026. Desmond. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Um we do have three
applicants um that have applied here. Mr. Adam Petrus, David Weissmont, and Steve Shadow. All their applications are provided here. All members have been interviewed by the city council. Um
did did your reach out to Mr. Petus at all? No. Um the city clerk did reach out to Mr. Petrus within the last couple weeks and didn't receive confirmation back that he's still interested. But though I will say that he did he did seem very interested before um and is a
very qualified candidate as well and um other than that m most of you know Mr. Shadow and he's here today. So um of these this is the fifth member is to be selected by the other members of the fire board. So
this is completely up to the four of you. So, one of y'all can give a nomination. >> Any other nominations? >> All right, Madam Clerk. Roll call. >> George Kandler. >> Yes. >> John Wigan. >> Yes. >> John McDaniel.
>> Yep. >> Lance Hughes. >> Yes. >> Motion approved. Congratulations, Steve. You are now a member, but you don't get a microphone. Okay. Right. Uh any other items for discussion today?
Seeing none, I don't have any courtesy of the floor. So, uh let's move for adjournment. >> So move. >> Second. >> Got a first and a second. Meeting is adjourned.