If there are any questions, or anything, I'll just talk you through them right now. I don't know what's going on with the microphone here. All right, we'll go ahead and get started. Welcome everybody to the Tuesday, May 26, 2026 pension board meeting. Uh meeting is adjourned.
Madam Clerk, uh first thing first order is uh oaths of office. Uh I have verified that all the members that were requiring oaths of office have taken them. Does everybody agree? Yes. Yes. Okay. Good deal.
I welcome Steve. Uh So, uh Madam Clerk, roll call, please. Nick Curry. Here. Dan Jansen. Here. Christine Hoffman. Greg Kleffner. Here. Eddie Vergara. Here.
David Cahill. Here. John Patridge. Here. Matthew Grocky. Here. John Gotstilla. Here. Jason Sharp. George Chandler. Here. John Wiggins. Here. John McDaniel. Here.
Lance Hewish. Here. Steve Shadow. Here. All right, we'll uh move on to approval of minutes of the general employees. I need a motion and a second. So moved. Second. Madam Clerk. Nick Curry. Yes.
Dan Jansen. Yes. Greg Kleffner. Yes. Eddie Vergara. Yes. Police officers. So moved. Second. Got a first and a second. Any questions come Madam Clerk.
David Cahill. Yes. John Patridge. Yes. Matthew Grocky. Yes. John Gotstilla. Yes. Jason Sharp. Yes. And then firefighters, need a motion and a second. So moved. Second. Got a motion I
got a motion and a second. Any questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. George Chandler. Yes. John Wiggins. Yes. John McDaniel. Yes. Lance Hewish. Yes. Steve Shadow. Yes.
All right. Uh no old business, moving on to new business. Um make a note here, we're going to have to rearrange the presentation of new business. Uh one of the individuals um that's listed in item A has not arrived
for the meeting yet. Um they're running a little bit behind from our previous engaged meeting. Am I correct in that? Yes, that's correct. They were at a meeting They were at a meeting in Orlando this morning and it ran a little longer than they expected, so they've got Dustin and Sugarman and
Scott Gunn. So he's he's on the way and I think should be about 45 minutes late, something like like that, so we're just going to push them back in the agenda a little bit until uh they're both here. Um so moving on to the auditors if we
Yep, so we're going to move on to item 1C. Um approve Purvis Purvis Gray & Company uh auditors and independent auditors. Looking to you, Dustin. All right.
Uh everyone Hello. good afternoon. My name is Megan Camp. I am an audit director on this engagement with Purvis Gray & Company. Um Dustin, would you mind verifying that you can hear everything correctly and that the presentation is showing appropriately
before I get started? Perfect. Um I also have Barbara Boyd, a partner on the engagement with me here as well. Barbara, do you have any comments before I start? No, just good afternoon, everyone. All right. Well, uh, thank you very much
for allowing us the opportunity to perform this audit and to present our results to you. Uh, as a part of our annual audit engagement for the City of Jacksonville Beach, we also, uh, do these three audits of the pension
plans, the general employees, the police, and the firefighters. Uh, we prepare the financial statements as well as the associated required communications for these engagements, and that's what we're going to be presenting to you today.
As part of the required communications, uh, let's first off just say, uh, good job to everyone in the, uh, financial reporting side. There was an unmodified opinion on the financial statements. That is the highest level of assurance
that you can receive from a CPA firm. Uh, we also prepared the other, what we call the SAS 114 letter, the communication with those charged with governance. This includes a discussion of accounting practices, policies, and
estimates associated with your financial statements. There were no changes in any of the significant accounting policies from the prior year. Uh, as part of this communication, we do, uh, go over what some of the sensitive disclosures related to your
financial statements would be, and that would be that the detail of the total of the net pension liability and fiduciary net position are the result of an actuarial valuation, so that is considered to be an estimate. As with
any other estimate, those results could change. Um and the description of the actuarial assumptions underlying those valuations are also included in those sensitive disclosures. As far as the more
significant accounting estimates, we do disclose the fair value of financial instruments uh as being >> [snorts] >> a significant estimate as as a result of a very large uh
investment in a real estate trust. Uh those are assets that are valued at net asset value. So, any change in the valuation of the underlying of the underlying assets of those
uh portfolios could potentially influence the net asset value per share of your investment in these funds. We also disclose uh the significant estimate for the actuarial assumption used in estimating the annual pension
cost and the total pension liability. Uh we are pleased to say that there were no difficulties encountered in performing the audit. There were no corrected or uncorrected misstatements, and we had no disagreements with management.
So, if no one has any questions, we'll just go ahead and move on into the numbers. Um the total pension liability did increase by approximately $7 million this year. Um
that was that's simply a result of the changes in the actuarial estimates. Um The net pension liability, however, actually went up only about 3 million. Your plan fiduciary net position as a
percentage of total pension liability for the general employees plan is sitting at about 83.38% your covered payroll for the year was 21.2 million and your net pension liability as a percentage of the covered payroll has
gone up just a bit to 72.83 up from 65% last year. For the police, you can see the same general trends occurring as there weren't uh you have a blended plan so the entire
the entire investment portfolio of the plans together is put into the same asset. So, you're going to see typically your investment trends are going to track along with each individual plan in the
same general proportional manner. So, your net pension liability did increase a bit in the current year for the police plan about 4.4 million and the plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of total pension liability
for the police plan is 89% down from about 99.43 last year. Your covered employee payroll for the police plan went from about 6 million in the prior year to around 7.4 million in the current year. So, that's going to
affect some of your underlying actuarial estimates as well. Net pension liability as a percentage of covered employee payroll because of the large shift this year turns out to be 60.4%
versus 3% last year. So, for the firefighters' plan you do see there there was a little bit less of an impact on the total pension liability and the net pension liability stayed
relatively stable year over year. That is because the city of Jacksonville is they they have somewhat different employee structure than the city of Jacksonville Beach does. So, the firefighters plan as it is
now based on city of Jacksonville employees um is going to shift just a bit. So, the plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of total pension liability for this plan also stayed relatively
stable 92.8 up from 92.3. Covered employee payroll only went up approximately $170,000 this year and each of the two total pension liability and net pension liability
uh there there was only about a $2 million increase in the total pension liability there. The net pension liability as a percentage of covered employee payroll actually went down for this particular
plan from 77% to around 73%. We also prepare other required supplementary information as a part of these financial statements. So, as far as the general employees plan and the only thing anyone is is ever really
concerned about is that the actuarially determined contribution to maintain the benefits is in line with the actual contribution that was made. So, in this current year there was no contribution deficiency or excess on
the general employees plan. And the actual contribution as a percentage of covered payroll has stayed relatively stable over the past 3 years. It has gone up about a percentage point this year for the general employees.
For the police officers plan, there was an excess contribution of approximately $94,000. And uh as the covered actual contribution as a percentage of covered payroll
uh actually went down about two percentage points in this current year. For the firefighters plan, we break out our other supplementary information between the city of Jacksonville Beach and the city of Jacksonville. So, for
the city of Jacksonville Beach, you do have that annual required contribution of 707,000. And that is just to fund the over the course of 10 years the actuarially determined net pension liability at the
date the plan was assumed by the city of Jacksonville. And we also have beginning in 2021, the city of Jacksonville's actuarially determined contribution versus actual. And there was no contribution deficiency
or excess on their part, either. Um they have also, similar to the police plan, experienced a decrease in the actual contribution as a percentage of covered payroll. So, in the current year, there uh there
was a positive, not as good as last year, but a still very positive investment income that uh did affect that actuarially determined contribution in a positive way.
Um it the investment returns were still higher than the expectations. So, that's always going to going to have a positive reflection. >> [snorts] >> So, actuarially determined versus actual for the overall plan between the city of Jacksonville Beach and city of
Jacksonville. Uh around 41% of total covered payroll. We also include some notations here regarding the 2021 uh contribution to fit deficiency that was
rectified in 2022 by city of Jacksonville. Those are just some historical notations that we include in the other supplementary information. We did also want to highlight the investment returns on the plans. Again,
last year was was just one of those significant outlier years. Um there has been substantial market volatility over the past few years as you can see starting in 2020. However, still very positive returns um it positively
impacting those actuarial valuations related to the liability associated with all of the plans. And each of the individual plans is going to share the same money weighted rate of return net of investment expense as a result of
being lumped into that larger portfolio. And as far as the presentation, that is all we have. Um does anyone over there have any questions for us? Any questions for purpose, Greg?
Yep. Steve. Uh sorry. Sorry, I I didn't mean to test your typing muscles today. >> [laughter] >> Me either. Sorry, D. Um I don't know whether it's uh for you or for Brad. These guys might be able to fill me in. The one thing I
don't see in here is chapter 175 money. And I know when we had the separation that there was discussion about that money. The money >> And there is also an option if anyone does have any questions, um you are more
than welcome to I can give you my cell phone number and you can call me on my cell phone and I could just mute the audio on this presentation and you could put it on speaker if anyone has anything they would like to ask and you don't want to go through the hassle of typing
it. More than happy to do that for you. Dustin, do you want you want to do that? Yes. Yes, go ahead, sir. Yeah, your mic. Hit your mic. Green. Um
the um, you wouldn't want to drive with me. I can't tell the difference between red and green. Uh So the uh um Chapter 175 was suspended as far as far as the retirement system
is concerned. Those Those monies are being collected because of the interlocal agreement that combined uh, the fire They're going into the Jacksonville. The city of Jacksonville is is collecting for these zip codes. They are Good
afternoon, this is Megan. So, Brad, are they not putting any of it back into these guys' pension fund? Well, I suppose indirectly they they are. I mean, to the extent that they're the balancing item now, you know,
the interlocal agreement fixed the amortization schedule for the city of Jacksonville Beach. And uh, the larger city of Jacksonville um, is is now the guarantor of any Cuz
that 175 was to buy extra benefits. Those type of things and now that we suspended it wasn't to make it whole. It was to set aside for the pay for the extra benefits, if I remember that discussion correctly. >> This uh
again, I mean this this wasn't a decision I Right. >> I I I made myself. It's but they with respect to um additional premium tax revenues um as far as this retirement system is
concerned, you know It's all Jacksonville. I understand that. Those those dollars are unavai- unavailable to um for funding purposes. Okay. However, you know, if there's any sort of a shortfall, 100% of the shortfall and due to
um actuarial losses, investment, you know, performance underperformance um benefit changes, those would all go 100% directly to the city of Jacksonville. Right. I understand that on our side and everything. It's just you we hate to see
that 175 money still being collected and some of it is collected from our zip codes out here at the beach. And then these guys our pension plan out here at the beach to buy extra benefits for them. I mean, I know it's all a negotiated for for those, but it seems
like it'd be nice to be able to say, "Okay, we know this amount of 175 money was raised from this area." That'd give them negotiating Yeah, I mean they they they don't even report to us I can see that the specific allocation of first year
or two at most after they had a local agreement, we still actually saw that amount. Mhm. Um in terms of how much was being collected um and and the zip codes associated with the property tax um um for the fire rescue.
the property tax. But and we don't the They don't even report that to us, man. They To my knowledge uh I mean, I haven't seen it itemized. So, we don't even we don't even we just see you have amount that goes to the city of Jacksonville in
its entirety. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? See you none. All right. Seeing no no further questions, we're going to move to approve the Purvis Gray & Company independent auditors September 30th, 2025 audit audited financial statements.
We'll start with the general board. I need a motion and a second. So moved. Second. Got a first and a second. Any questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. Nick Curry. Yes. Dan Jansen. Yes. Greg Kluepfel. Yes.
Eddie Vergara. Yes. Police officers. So moved. Second. Got a first and a second. Any questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. David Coughlin. Yes. John Patrick. Yes. Matthew Grocki. Yes. John Gotstella.
Yes. Jason Sharp. Yes. And firefighters, first and second. So moved. Second. Got a first and a second. Any questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. George Chandler. Yes. John Wiggins. Yes.
John McDaniel. Yes. Lance Hughes. Yes. Steve Shadow. Yes. All right. Shall we move on to GRS Consulting? Okay. GRS, you have the floor. Uh we're going to we're going to
practice right and green again. Uh I'm going to need an escort out of town. Um please. So um This this is this issue a small
spiral binder should be and and the board materials. This is um summarizes all all three of the actual evaluations so similarly to um the the auditor's report.
The What is it? Page two. This is a basic um retirement funding equation and this this applies to all the defined benefit um retirement systems. And and this this balance um
has to be achieved and so um in terms of the expenses and benefits the um the the those are are going to happen um for the most part with or without our influence. But um
investment return and and Brandon will um be your expert in in that category. And contributions the the uh city of Jacksonville Beach contributions and the city of Jacksonville for the firefighters. The ultimately those are determined and
uh they follow funding policy. So if you go this is a new slide um slide three. Um the role of the actuary. So um success is always having the money on hand to pay every benefit promised.
Um not based on the assumptions it's it's based on reality what um what's actually being paid. The challenge is that we do not know if we were successful until the last benefit is paid. So the role of
the service provider uh of the pension actuary that that being myself and Gabriel Roeder Smith and Company determine and assess the appropriate amount and pattern of contributions based on the funding policy remember from the prior slide the contributions
are determined based on the funding policy that includes the amortization policy asset valuation method um actual assumptions help monitor progress towards success and provide advice on how to improve
your chances of success so then uh slide four the purposes of actual evaluations determine the contribution amounts uh under under the funding policies the funding policy for the fire fighters retirement system differs
uh a little bit in that the interlocal agreement requires that their assumed rate of return uh be identical to the Jacksonville uh police police and fire pension fund so so that particular assumption is is not
actually within the uh control or purview of of the board of trustees it's uh it's set by the interlocal agreement uh so the then um determine the funded ratios
the accounting information which is the information that feeds into the purpose grade audit report that that you just saw explain the changes uh year over year to the best of our ability assess um certain risks
and and trends and these are if if accepted you know the contribution requirements that that I'll be presenting uh late later in this presentation that's that's for the
the for the fiscal year if if if those were for the current fiscal year ending September 30th 2026 it'd be very disruptive to the budget process for uh um uh for the next fiscal year is typically completed
you know by by May each year. So so we project the contribution requirement into the subsequent fiscal year. So that fiscal year would be the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026 ending September 30,
2027 for for all three retirement systems. And this is a little bit of math but the the concept of a present value there's there's two things I wanted to mention
here. First is that second bullet the present value of $1,000 payable 15 years from now at 7 and a quarter which is our assumed rate of return for the general and police retirement systems.
You only need $350 right now today. And if you invest that and you earn 7 and a quarter 15 straight years you'll achieve your objective to have that $1,000. So
what what if what if you only earn 7%? The figure you see there underneath the $350 would no longer be a valid number to
accumulate to a thousand you need $362. And if you divide I guess the numerator 362 divided by 350 that's a 3.4% increase in liability. What if what if you wanted to go to a full
dedicated bond portfolio and I'm not wandering into any sort of investment advice I'm just um saying that if if you went into um a bond portfolio that to uh to be
ultra conservative your liabilities. And And those the US Treasuries um as of September 30th, 2025 were on the order of it's uh depend depends on uh the length of the Treasury itself, 1
year um 5-year, 10-year, 30-year. Um but it roughly speaking, it you know, they average around 4 to 5%. So, your liabilities would go up 35%. Um if if you didn't take um a a a little bit
of of the risk in with your investment policy statements. So, bear bearing that in mind, it's um it's well worth all the time and effort that you put into um the investments and diversification and portfolio developments and asset
allocation. So, having mentioned present values, then if you go to slide six, the um this is a this is a diagram. So, so,
we have we have this idea of that present value is another word for liabilities. So, um I'm not your investment advisor. I'm not your tax advisor. I'm not your legal advisor. Um but I am your liability specialist. So,
once once we determine the liabilities taking a a bunch of present values that the assets we have accumulated uh fund a substantial portion. You see the blue. Then we have um the present value of future normal costs. Those are the future careers of
your active members re- remaining in the in the system for the firefighters. Um And not only your current actives, but um future police officers and general employees that you should hire. So, that's another portion of the liabilities we're trying to fund and the
unfunded liability um is is the purple section. What you'll notice is you have the accumulated assets. We don't have to fund the unfunded liability um in in a in a single contribution um or single fiscal year. So, we just have
a yearly amortization payment and likewise we we don't have to fund the present value of future normal costs. Um we're just funding the yearly normal costs, which is effectively the cost of 1 year's of additional active service. So, an active
member that participates 1 more year, there's a liability associated with that. If we make that contribution um we we won't be sliding backwards with respect to um the the new accruals that we know and anticipate. Then arguably the most important
aspects, the next two slides um seven and eight. By by uh General, Police, and Fire, you can see there's uh 199 retired members and beneficiaries for General, 46 for Police, 23 for Fire.
That's 268 uh retirees and beneficiaries. We have 14 vested members and on slide eight um we have 357 active members. So, if you add those three numbers together, that's six
Well, I guess it's nine numbers that you see, but if you add them all together, that's 639 uh members uh covered by these retirement systems, but most likely, I mean, these are people in households um
with uh beneficiaries and dependents. Um and most of these people are local are local. Um I didn't say local. I I I I I need to announce it better. Um but any anyway, um
So, th- th- this is a big deal. This is your community. And and and you have a lot of people impacted, thousands. Impacted and benefit security is of paramount importance. So,
then uh we have a couple of slides. A a description of the funding value of the assets. The the most important aspect here is the fourth and last bullet. Um this method
i- isn't necessary uh other than other than it moderates contribution uh stability for for the local employers. So, we have a long-term time horizon. The asset valuation method um cuts off y- y-
the auditor mentioned that uh we had a little bit of an outlier at a 20-something. With a 26% return in 2024. If if you recognize that in 2024, your contribution rates, you know, would have
dramatically declined. And then if you had a shortfall, which some of those years you saw you actually had negative returns, loss of principal, then the contribution rate would you know, skyrocket uh upward. And that would be very disruptive um to the budgeting process on and the and the
um long-term viability of the retirement system. So, if we look at slide 10, um I'm going to focus on actually not this most recent year, but 26, 27, 28.
Um you all three systems, because they're pooled assets, you you'll notice those are the next 2 years, 26 to 27, those are big positive numbers. Those are unrecognized gains. So, we have a lot of unrecognized gains.
Um and you can think of those as savings against future adverse experience. So, if you have more retirements than we assumed or higher salary increases than assumed or investment losses, we we have we have allowed for tax in
the next few years to against dramatic contribution rate increases or amounts. The whether they're not recognized yet because they they'll happen in 20 That's a
excellent question. They'll happen in 2026. That those amounts that you see and then in 2027. And um And specifically, those are the valuations, you know, so next next year we'll recognize 2026.
Um there'll be new experience to combine with that, but and then uh we get to slide 11. These are um contribution rates. Um but for the most part, the city
budgets and contributes um on a projected dollar contribution basis. So, um the those those rates are useful in terms of uh human resources and you know, the the cost of fringe benefits to to
um pay the pay the amounts, but the more important slide um and these would become uh slide 12. So, um if if the reports are adopted by the three boards today, these these will become um
the invoice, you know, for uh the local employers. And uh Typically typically this the city of Jacksonville Beach as well as the City of Jacksonville have contributing um
in the first week of October. The interlocal agreement requires the contributions to be made in the in the first week of October, but um for the general employees you'll notice that um that's 140 Excuse me, 30 roughly $135,000
um savings if the city puts the money in sooner because and general revenue if it's parked in general revenue and it depends on when um starts the tax revenue become available. But, if you have the money available, you put it to work.
You If you're allowed to pay it quarterly, but then you don't have any investment opportunity. Um If So, if you put it in early, you get a credit. Um and if you if you look at general employees uh additively, that's $180,000 in savings um
for the city's budget if they put it in in early October as opposed um to quarterly. And the amount for the retirement system um it is
that level dollar amount at 707,600 um 53. So, so the difference um affected just the City of Jacksonville. Yeah. Brett, we have a question. We're still
on page 11, slide 11. Sure. We're just wondering why they the fire went down to 675. The contribution. That's the Um that's that's an adjustment because it's taking place in the future fiscal year and and you're
you're comparing it to this year's evaluation payroll, but some of those people won't be there. If if if you're an open group It stays the same. It stays same. But, because you're a closed group, it we're we're comparing it to the
the current payroll. And the current payroll won't won't exist in its entirety based on our projections. We expect some turnover. And if speaking of which, you have 19 Um average service for the firefighters
retirement system is 19.8 years service. So, this that's um it's a group with a lot of seniority and and you know, so we're expect We're not expecting any much in the way with withdrawals. We expect everybody to to retire.
So, What's that? We did have like two members that requested. I see. And uh so, but year-over-year, there were two major things that that happened for Well, first of all, the experience study
um what was performed and adopted for the first time for the October 2025 valuations. And we went from 7 and 1/2 uh in last year's results to 7 and 1/4, and there were some other assumption changes including uh increasing the salary scale
assumption. Um the the uh salaries have been uh uh in- increasing sub- substantially the last few years, and we we've seen that not not only locally, but across the
state across across the nation that um there was there was a lot of uncertainty at the beginning of the pandemic and a a lot of pay freezes, hiring freezes. And a lot of the budgets have rebounded. Um And
uh with that, there's there's been arguably you know, some catch-up uh salary increases. So, there um And it it And so, the experience study was a big factor. Um We we also had a benefit provision
change, which um the maximum dollar pension benefit went from for the general and the police officers went from $100,000 to $110,000 effective October 1st, 2025. $111,000 effective 20 October 1, 2026.
And a year later, October 1, 2027, it goes to $112,000. So, that um that affected the police um more so than than the general police because the average um the average pay for um police officers about
$103,000 as of the evaluation date. And uh whereas as the general police, it's $77,000. So, um the maximum dollar if if you if you if you have a cap on the maximum benefit, it's going
to be sooner and more often uh by by uh higher-paid individuals. And so, so it had more of an impact on the police officers um
the salaries went up uh 9.9% versus 3.9% for general employees. And uh 13.9% versus 4.2% for police officers. So, um yeah, nice nice raises. There's nothing
actuarial about that. Um it's just the the benefits that are being provided. We look at the people that were there at the beginning of the year and the people that were at the end of the year and what their pensionable earnings were. And and divide those two. So, um that
arguably is uh a good in- indication of uh the financial strength that management uh views itself to be and you know, the able to grant it um, that those types of phrases. And not to be left out, the
firefighters, um, on average had 11.3% increases versus 4%. So, um, let's see. The withdrawal, um, interestingly, the the police officers,
um, had a little bit of an actual gain overall, um, general and fire had experienced losses because they had a little bit of an a short fall relative, um, to our assumed rate of return.
Um, and the firefighters had no no deaths. Um, there aren't a lot a lot of firefighters, so don't jump to the conclusion that they're all immortal. Um, it's probably not true. Um, the just because it's only one year
period. We need a lot We need more time to to decide, um, if that's true or not. But, um, the as as a free basing, we we've talked about that before, but, you know, I mean, it's I I
Yeah, I don't Yeah, I don't I I still wouldn't recommend that just, um, but, um, the the the police officers say I had um, uh, no withdrawal. Uh, excuse me. No retirements. They had
no retirements. So, so, although we assumed one and a half new police officers would retire and go on a base status, nobody did, so we got to keep the money fully invested, um, for for for those people. And, um, and there were about
twice as many people who stepped aside, um, having a version to words that start with D for the new trustees, um who haven't heard me. So, I um I call it stepping aside and so, with with regards to the retirees
and beneficiaries, we expect that uh roughly two people to step aside. Uh 1.1 Excuse me, we expected 1.1 two um two are no longer um in paid status. More importantly, uh the benefits
associated with with uh those people's. If it was a 90-year-old with uh $500 a month pension, that's probably not that much of a release of liability and and wouldn't necessarily be a gain, but we had uh
$75,000 in paid status uh release. And uh our assumption predicted that there would be 35,000. You know, so those two things combined, no new retirees and um
uh uh uh uh uh uh fewer people on the line of pension rolls with most importantly, associated lesser benefits. Um overall, um and that led that led to a gain and then
uh we can go to projections on um page 13 and um boy, you know, the these look terrific. Um and if if you look at the funded ratio for for the three systems,
um they're they're all uh projecting, you know, ver- very favorable trends. Remember the asset evaluation method with the um unrecognized gains and the recognized
gains roll. Um the um when when we recognize those they're going to produce actual gains and upward pressure on the funded ratios and downward pressure on on contribution requirements and and um that's
demonstrated across all three systems and and the police officers is most dramatic because a lot of their legacy liabilities are being paid off in the next uh in the next few years. Um
and and relatively speaking their their assets um are a larger percent uh of payroll. So, if you have uh investment gains, the police officers um will experience
a mod- a modestly higher impact. Uh but it goes in the other direction, too. You know, so there's more volatility. You know, you get the positive um when you have investment gains. Um but you have more severe negatives in that if if you have investment losses.
And then uh rather When it hits 100% though, what happens? It'll It'll still fluctuate up and down, you know. The experience is still ongoing. >> So, when they hit 100% though, I mean, I
know we had a while back with the goal it wasn't 90% years back when we were on it. But at some point, the benefits might have to increase to go cuz you don't want to go beyond 100%. And uh there's
I'm not sure um if if you're aware, but in you know, the last 15 years, the the state has has required maybe 20 years now, but the the state requires that you can't reduce the local employers in particular can't
reduce contributions. If you if you're over 100% that's you're not allowed to use any of that money um to uh contribute less. Right, but it's going to add benefits. That's uh um
that's subject to you know the the negotiations >> labor and the negotiations >> management. But but the opportunity the opportunity Right, with the city. Right. Uh the opportunity improves Yeah. you know for >> side that doesn't work with for for sitting down with the brothers on
brother's side. >> for those discussions. So, um One of the things So, if you go to slide 14 um one of the things too um uh
put a smile back on on your faces as I suppose, improve your moods. Um you say, "Well, 76.1 uh we're we're falling we're falling away from 100%. Um and and all three. Um but you know,
police officers and the general retirement systems fell away from 100%. But we became far more conservative with with higher uh benefits. So, we're we're in a great position and and the trends are all indicative
you know, we we we have such a dramatic upward trajectory from this point. In the absence of benefit changes, we don't expect to have to change the mortality table um due to statutory requirements for 4 years. And uh
we don't know that there'll be benefit increases but if um if if there are no benefit increases and no uh assumption changes, then um you're you're in a far better position
uh in in terms of achieving, you know, the upward trend toward back toward 100%. So, we'll re- we'll reverse this. Even if you have a shortfall, if you're projecting a 5% increase year-over-year, and some some
unexpected negative experience happens, you'll still 2 or 3% progress. So, you're you're going to you're going to see that turn around. Um and finally, there's some risk measures um and
uh if if you look at 15, 16, and 17 for for your respective retirement systems, payroll uh it is is up uh pretty dramatically um
it even for the closed firefighter group, um you know, for for for the 5 years that you see. Um so so, in terms of the volatility measures in columns 8 and 9, those are all trending downward. Those Those are all good things. Um and then
to tee it up for Brandon, um net investment cash flow, column 12. And And I NICF is an abbreviation for net investment cash flow. We um we accumulate assets so that we can have
uh negative cash flow. That's um not unexpected. The The firefighters um have had positive uh cash flows over the the
last 5 years, but um it even the general employees that have um slightly more negative cash flows, it's you the average system that you might compare yourselves to has negative cash flows on the order of 5%.
And and we would typically as the actuary, you know, raise red flags until you start uh approaching 10 negative 10% consistently. If it was temporary um you know, for known reasons
um but um that's the um that's the situation, you know, as in terms of in terms of your cash flows, you can um you can stay fully invested um
with um with these smaller negative cash flows because the investment return and your buy um uh um distributions can can make up that difference because you have accumulated these assets purpose- purposefully
um leading leading up to the day when that's the whole idea. We are we're not trying to accumulate assets uh such that we we end with $500 million um um when the last beneficiary is paid their last benefit um because that means
that you uh uh you you didn't have that money available you know, for for for decades. It was tied up in the retirement system. You know, waiting for the day it would could revert back um since you can only pay out benefits from the retirement
systems um for reasonable expenses and and of course benefit payments. So, I any questions? Any questions for Brian? Sorry for the length. That's Uh assuming the expected rate of return of
7.25% in terms of red and green, we'd be in the green, right? Never mind. What? Um What Was he asking a question or >> [laughter] >> I'll be
All right. So, I I guess we >> we're very as our liability specialist and not your investment consultant, we're very comfortable with with 7 and 1/4 um And ultimately, if if you adopt uh these
reports, then uh we'll we'll have to um write a letter to the the division of retirement um what the the board's um
expectation uh for the short term, the intermediate term, and and the long term thereafter. Um and those are usually set to be 7 and 1/4 for general uh equal to the assumption, 7 and 1/4
for police officers, and 6 and 1/2 for firefighters. So, I I I believe uh it's um the these are the full reports. Uh
the the first order of business uh if if the board so chooses would be to uh make have a motion to adopt the October 1st, 2025 actuarial valuations and then proceed to
um the state filing requirement. Right. All right, I think the next step is we'll move to approve his his uh actuarial report. And we'll start with the general board. We need a motion and a second. So moved.
Can I get a second from general employees? Second. I got a first and a second. Any questions? Madam Clerk, roll call. Nick Curry. Yes. Dan Jansen. >> Yes. Greg Klettner. Yes. Eddie Vergara. Yes. And police.
So moved. Exactly. You got a first and a second. Any questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. David Cahill. Yes. John Patridge. >> Yes. Matthew Brokey. Yes. John Gotstilla. Yes.
Jason Sharp. Yes. And firefighters. You got a first and a second. Questions or comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. George Chandler. Yes. John Wiggins. Yes. John McDaniel. Yes. Lance Hewish. Yes.
Steve Shadow. Yes. All right, moving on. This I'll let Dustin kind of jump into this. We're going to discuss the GRS GRS Consulting new actuary service agreement as to whether or not we're going to go
forward with RFP. I'll let you jump into the details of that. Thank you, sir. Dustin, could you get you to turn on your microphone? Basically, I'm just going to read my memo and then take any questions that you guys might have. Um All three of the retirement systems have
utilized GRS Consulting as my actuary for more than 30 years. To the best of my knowledge, there's never been a formally executed written agreement between the boards and GRS Consulting. I know at some point we did have like a statement of work. Um but during a 2013 board meeting, um
Pedro stated that no formal contract existed at that time and a draft agreement was written up, but we can't find that it was ever executed. Um last month, um Brad contacted me about um possibly signing a new contract and
having an annual fee increase of up to 3% to be tied to uh CPI with a cap at 3%. Um in response to our request that um that they prepare that uh formal
agreement. Uh they did perform prepare those agreements. I had those sent to Sugarman Suskind who um in the interim uh what we'll be talking about later, what's been going on with legal, has been uh still serving as our legal representative. So, I had
them review those contracts. So, what you're seeing in here has been reviewed by them. But, separately, the city um as our plan sponsor uh adopted a procurement manual in December of 2025,
which states that um it applies to all departments, employees, and boards. Uh the procurement manual further provides that the contracts meeting or exceeding $50,000 require a formal request for proposal or RFP process um
due to the ongoing nature and anticipated value of escrow services, the city's position is that this arrangement would meet the threshold for an RFP. So, it's not just a one-year amount of um a contract. It is whatever is
expected to be continual. Um and though this agreement in here doesn't necessarily have a three-year, five-year term. It's just kind of an ongoing term. It is assumed that it would continue on um for long enough to meet those thresholds of
the $50,000. Um However, previously, I had um years ago gotten an opinion from uh Pedro Ferrera that um the city is not or the pension boards
themselves are separate legal entities and not subject to the city's um procurement policies. And so, I I verified that um now with David Robertson who just walked in, welcome. And
he agreed with Pedro's previous stance and also confirmed it with Pedro again. So, it is their opinion that the boards don't necessarily have to follow the procurement process, but the city has a policy that says that
we should and they would prefer us to. So, I just wanted to lay all that out to let you guys know where where you stand and what your options are. You could approve the contracts as they're
written. You could ask for some sort of amendment to the contracts and approve those or you could go through the RFP process and basically ask me to set up some sort of
selection committee, ideally which would have if we went that route, it would have one member from each board, probably myself and then maybe a representative from the city from finance as well.
So, So, before we open it up to discussion, Brad, do you have anything you want to weigh in before the respective boards comment? >> Oh, uh Not really. I mean, we Um I was probably supposed to be born
about 50 years sooner than I was because um our agreements uh have been more or less a handshake and uh uh but we haven't requested an increase in probably 15 years. Um you know, and then
inflation is catching up with us. So, I'll kick off the conversation from my chair. I'm only one person on three boards. Um some of my thought process was first off, I think we should have something contractual in place. That I think
that's very important, especially moving forward. Um secondly, we're not meeting the city's threshold and without having a multi-year contract that I don't know if it fits the bill for doing an aggregate over the time.
Uh I think the city's attorney, I would imagine, uh cuz it sounds to me like we don't meet that threshold. So, and then, of course, our legal our legal advice is that we don't have to. Um I say that we go ahead and get a
contract with them, approve it, and then hence forward that we have something in place that if we hit that 50,000 threshold, then we go through an RFP process. But if we don't, we can go from the contractual year-to-year basis. I'm not opposed to a committee, either. I
think that's it kind of kicks the can down the road a little bit, but um that's just my thoughts. If it was the city's provisions, yeah, what about multi-year kind of arrangements versus single year? I get if it was 50,000 in a single year.
But I would argue that for things like auditors and actuaries, things we ought to be doing multi-year contracts. You don't want to change those every year. Agreed. So, how does the city's procurement guidelines deal with multi-year kind of arrangements? What? Like we have the CFO
in the room, but uh just correct me if I'm wrong, but I I believe it is their opinion that whatever the expected length of the contract is, if it's not defined, um so I I think it further than that, it's where making a collective decision as three boards
um to select presumably select one uh provider. So, that would be all three of those moneys combined for potentially multiple years um is their view on what the value of the the decision being
made is. I'm getting picture guessing. And can you clarify because on exhibit A that you sent out do I add all those up and is that for all three plans or um is that for each plan?
Is that for each plan? I'm pretty I'm pretty sure you're looking at something that's So, it's like 85 specific to each plan. 8450 for the actual evaluation 2950 for GASB 75 >> You add those and then multiply by three? Well,
Is that total for all three plans? They're different per plan. They're slightly slightly. Oh, okay. So, there's Okay, I didn't get that. It's 25 grand, give or take. Put them together. Yeah, that's what's the What's the total
annual? Well, if you add the three together If you add the three together, it's it's over 50, I'm pretty sure. No, I'm I mean, it's 80 84 and 2 minutes 30. We have the the invoices on the agenda. Yeah.
Yeah, that's true. Um Three separate boards, three separate bills is under 50,000. I'm doing the math just saying. Yeah. I'm not sure exactly what the total would be, but it's it's less than them.
Um less than 40,000 for the three combined, but again For one year. It is a I I explained what the position of the city is the position of the city the the board's attorneys is that
you are three separate legal entities. You are making though you are kind of making a joint decision, officially legally it is a single decision being made by each board and if you so choose one board could decide to go off
and get their own I'm going to add to that by the fact that we vote individually on each independent contract. So. I mean I don't Look, as a as a former professional services provider I I think the idea of having bids
periodically is not a bad idea and I think living within the spirit of what the city would like to do makes sense over some period of time. I just don't think we necessarily want to open up every year and have different the potential of having their different auditors and different
actuaries every year. I don't think anybody would think that's a great >> Right. Yeah, no, definitely not. Right. So, if you did like three years or something like that, the city might want to think about for those kind of things sort of refining the guidelines a little bit. Mhm. But living within the spirit of
something that makes sense and so having some kind of a bid process every three years or so is probably not a bad idea. But Our I believe our insurance policies run on a three to five year cycle. >> Right. So, it's
done for a time frame. Three Three years Every three years would be a lot to go through all our providers. We would do We would do nothing else, but I do agree that that doesn't sound bad. 10 years sounds a lot better though.
>> [laughter] >> Well, 10's a long time to secure services for on the one hand, but but look, it's really up to the city. Whatever the city No, it's not. Technically, it's up to us as the board, I guess. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, I would Yeah, I'd say it's up to us, not the city.
But I think living as part of the city is probably not the worst idea for us to sort of at least give fairly much weight to what the city's position is on this. I mean, we could do whatever we want, I guess, but we That would be my
I mean, you may want to engage counsel for some of this conversation, but just one quick thing from my take. Even if you had a 10-year contract, you know, to sort of have longevity in place, you have the ability to end the contract after 30 or 60 days notice.
So, you at any point along the way, even if it was a 10-year agreement, if after 2 years they were no longer providing the service you require, I I think Please get an official opinion, but I think you could change it. So, you you kind of can bridge both sides of that. You have the flexibility.
You're not completely locked in. Well, the question then becomes is is there Do you find yourself in a legal juggernaut, you know, with with their attorney and our attorney? So, maybe this is something that we should have more input from the city, at least from David Meggitt, you know, and and
actually, you know, as to their points. Um bear in mind, you know, it the legal findings from the pension attorneys are that we don't have to engage in that. So, I think in there lies the where we got to we got to wash this out.
Well, we will have a David is supposed to be at the next meeting getting an ethics discussion anyways, so if we wanted to have him >> When do we need to have somebody When do we need to have somebody hired is another question. Well, this agreement was set to be
effective October 1st. Um So, if we if we made a decision in August, that would be fine. How How long does this agreement go for? It's just kind of >> [laughter] >> How long are we locked in for?
No, we just we just turn in 60 days. No, there's no lock-in. We can just terminate within 60 days. >> the purpose of a contract? >> To just have some structure. I mean, just to have some structure of what services are being provided and what what our guarantees are and then the
rate structure is really And there's nothing saying we can't do a one-year contract right now and then watch out all the details >> That is true. So, that is an amendment you could make. You could say uh we you know, emotions are approved this
with uh the making of a one-year contract if you so choose. How about I'll make the motion for I think I have to do it just for the general plan. Do you then I'll make the motion that we uh sign this contract for
one year pending input for the future on multi-year awards and how the city would sort of like to deal with a potential loan. So, with RFP RFP process, yes. Neither He's got a motion. You got a second? I'll second it.
I'll second. I don't want to deal with it now and just keep on kicking the can down the road since we have until October. We have time to do an RP if we want to do an RP or make amendments or whatever. No. So, let's just just do it at 60-day one year. And actually 90 90
days, what? It goes out for 90 days or something. We meet quarterly. I don't know there's time for that. I don't That's what If I had to do it what kind of speed it take, we would recommend it an RP process to take about 90 days
because we would have to put the solicitation together and then we are required to advertise for 30 days and then we would want to give this to the selection committee time to review the responses and rank the choices and then
recommend to council to formally award. And so the timeline for that is between 90 and 120 days. Yeah, I feel that window is a little narrow right now. Um Right. Well, we have a motion We have a Yeah, that was my reason for the do it this year is get
by this year so we have time to do it. To hash it out. Sure. So, we have a motion and a second on an amendment for the general board. Madam Clerk, can you give me a roll call on that? Nick Curry. Yes.
Dan Jensen. Yes. Greg Klopfer. Yes. Eddie Vergara. Yes. And then moving on to the They need to make their own motion or Yeah, they they would have to make basically the same motion. On the fire
side, I'd like to make the same motion. We do the one-year contract, give everybody time to review and set up for down the road. >> Or an RFP down the road. Okay. Got a motion and a second. Second. Got a motion and a second for the fire fighters. Madam Clerk, roll call.
George Chandler. Yes. John Wiggins. Yes. John McDaniel. Yes. Lance Hewish. Yes. Steve Schadow. Yes. And then police officers. Motion to approve for this year and then do an RFP before the next fiscal year.
For discussion to see about an RFP. >> For discussion to see about an RFP for the next fiscal year. Got a motion and a second. Yeah, I'll second. Okay, got a motion and a Madam Clerk, roll call. David Coghill.
Sure. John Patrick. Yes. Matthew Brockie. Yes. John Gastello. Yes. Jason Sharp. Yes. All right, that takes us back to the original um
motion to approve GRS Consulting to sign a new actual service agreement uh or direct pension administrator to create a request for proposal. Um Can we just do that? Yeah, well, we did the a motion to amend that. So, I guess
what we would do is I'm not sure. I think that takes the place of that. Is that anyone? Well, that's I guess satisfactory. Okay. All right, so do we want to since uh
legal is here now, do we want to move back to the We'll go back. Yeah. If you refer back to your agenda to new business 1 A. Dustin, do you want to take it from there? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
So, similar situation where we have my memo here because there is quite a background to this um and what has happened. So, um as the boards were aware of because I sent some emails, uh Mr. Herrera departed uh Sugarman, Suskind, Rasco,
and Herrera and joined Jones Walker LLP. Mr. Herrera has served as lead counsel for the city's pension plans for at least the 10 years um that I've been working here, and he's the um been the primary attorney actively involved in day-to-day legal support for the retirement systems.
Uh following his departure, of boards we received correspondence from uh Mr. Herrera requesting that the boards consider transferring legal services to this new firm. The boards also received correspondence from Sherman and Reilly as well
requesting that the retirement systems remain with their firm. I believe it's part of the bar's standards of if your primary attorney leaves, you have the choice of staying with the firm or staying with the attorney. So,
just some points for continuity of service and institutional knowledge, Mr. Herrera has been directly involved in the administration legal guidance of these retirement systems for at least 10 years. He has substantial institutional knowledge regarding prior ordinance
amendments historical board actions, collective bargaining impacts, actuarial matters, credit service purchases, drop divisions, disability matters, and ongoing legal unique to these plans. At this time,
the board should also recognize that the other attorneys at Sherman and Reilly have historical knowledge of the retirement system as well. In particular, Deborah Robinson was involved in significant projects affecting the plans including securing favorable IRS determination
letters in 2014 and assisting with the comprehensive pension ordinance language rewrite that we did in 2019. For existing relationship with firm and the retirement systems, we have also had a long standing relationship with Sherman and Reilly
as well for more than two decades. And it it may even be I'm not really sure how far it goes back. It could be more than 30 years. One, Mr. Herrera was a primary day-to-day contact in recent I said recent years, but at least 10 years. The
firm has itself historically served as the legal counsel for the boards and has represented that they remain capable. They have represented they remain capable and prepared to continue providing legal services to the plans.
For operational and transition considerations, um considerations, regardless of which direction the board choose, um they may be transition can be the transition considerations are minimal, I believe,
because both entities have prior knowledge of our um operations here. Um fiduciary responsibility of the boards, each serve in a fiduciary capacity, and should make decisions based on what they believe is in the
best interest of their respective retirement systems and um plan participants. Considerations may include continuity, responsiveness, depth of legal resources, municipal pension experience, cost structure, conflicts, and long-term support
capabilities. Certainly, SESCO Bracewell have offered a 25% discount on our current fee structure uh in the letter to the boards. Um Pedro Herrera of Jones Walker made a verbal representation to match that offer.
Um from an administrative and operational standpoint, um I believe um it would be beneficial for the boards to make a decision on these two options at uh this meeting. Um this all of this kind of did occur a couple of months ago.
Um so, we're a little behind, I would say, on making this decision than what some other plans um have made. Um And if you could just They're going to give a presentation, um each of these about, you know, basically
why you should consider going with their firm. And at the end, if you could just make a selection um for for me just to provide some clarity. That would be optimal. Um Um so, you guys can both come up and David, if
you wouldn't mind going first, I'll get out of the way here. And David Robinson. Just make sure you use the microphone. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is David Robinson. I'm a partner with Sugarman and Susskind and I've
been with the firm for 32 years. Just a little bit about my background, I grew up in Los Angeles, went to Georgetown University Law Center for law school, and then came down to Florida and began practicing at Sugarman and Susskind back in 1994. So, um
Bob Sugarman, of course, is one of the founding attorneys in this field in the public sector pension field. Um I began to learn with Bob immediately upon my arrival in the firm in 1994. So, I've been practicing public in the in the public pension sector
for 32 years, for for my entire career. I'm also active We have in our in our firm, we also have a private sector practice and a public and private sector collective bargaining practice. I practice across all three of
our practice areas and and I believe that that gives me a complete perspective on each. Um As Dustin mentioned, the real question for you today is is continuity and and and we've been the attorneys for for all of
for these boards pretty much for the entirety of my career. Um I I um and as Dustin also mentioned, I've been very much involved in in many of the larger projects that that these boards that you're that the boards
have gone through over the years. Um There were I prepared all of the determination letter applications for the Internal Revenue Code and then 2 years back when when it was decision
was made to restate all three of the plans that was entirely my work to restate to go through find all the language that that wasn't clear that was that wasn't up to date etc. for all three plans
completely restate them bring them up to date clarify language that needed to be clarified and that was completely my work. So though it's not my face that you've seen at the at the meetings for these past few years. I'm very familiar with your plans Sherman and Sterling has very deep
institutional knowledge with regard to your plans. And as Dustin said we would like to continue to serve as your attorneys. We've it's been a very long time more than two decades and we hope and believe that you've been
satisfied with the services that you have received and we're prepared to continue those services. You'll see in in in the information that we sent we've offered a 25% fee discount. That's quite simply to recognize we recognize
that you're meeting me for the first time. So that fee discount would remain in place for 2 years. It's to give you the opportunity to get to to familiarize yourselves with me to see that the face has changed but the level of services
that that that were that you'll receive continues and that's been the case at Sherman and Sterling all along. Bob's been doing this work for 50 years. I've been at the firm for 32 years. We've had many attorneys come and go but the level of the services that we that
we give and that we're known for has never changed and I hope that that you have all experienced that over the years that you've been on the board, and and that will continue. So, I will be your primary contact person if you decide to stay with us, and we hope that you will.
Um and I'm backed by some very talented, capable attorneys. We hired recently uh 2 years ago we uh we hired an attorney from um she grew up in Florida, went to Cornell undergrad, graduated from University of Florida, um and she's been
involved in our public sector pension practice now for 2 years. She's very capable. Um uh very talented, so we're very happy about uh very pleased and excited about her. We're in the process of hiring um a new associate as well. So, um
Pedro's made his decision to leave, but for us life goes on at Shutts & Bowen as I said it's not the first time that attorneys have left, and um and and life goes on. We continue the services continue. Bob and Howard have had a very long tradition of finding and hiring
very capable people, and and that continues. Um so, um if you have any questions for me, I'm I'm happy to answer them. I'll start I'll kick it off. Uh so, Mr. Shutts has retired, is that correct?
>> No, Bob has not retired. So, there's some Bob still handles some meetings uh there's some we have a couple clients that Bob is for which Bob is still the principal contact. Um so, he's mostly retired, but he's still is still active uh and he's still in the
firm as a resource for us, which we think which our feeling is that it's a it's a very valuable resource. So, sure. And And you seem a very powerful contact as far as single representative is concerned. And you did kind of touch on the depth chart and just a little bit by hiring somebody
new. Yes. Um absence of you, do we have some experience that would be able to come to the table? Yes, so we have So, Veronica would be my primary backup, but we also have two other people who two other attorneys who are both experienced in public in the public
sector pension area. One of them is Marcus Braswell who's one of the name partners in the firm and then also Jose Javier Rodriguez who's who's also a former former Florida senator and a former US
assistant secretary of labor. So he's he's been with the firm for almost 10 years now. So as I said I'll I'll be your your primary backup. I personally prefer to attend meetings in person, but the board always has the
the choice of whether you wish to have virtual appearance or not, but um if for whatever the only reason you would see anyone else would be if you know in a in in a rare circumstance that that I just not kind of like that. >> first step in the retirement process?
Time, real soon. My daughter's in her second year of university, so I'm Absolutely. That's all for me. >> [laughter] >> Question. Yes. I do believe life goes on, so I do like that comment. How often will we see you, sir?
So I'm >> Where do you live now? I live in in Coral Gables. So I and I I believe you you meet quarterly. My preference I I know that in the past it's been that come where we generally only attend the the May meeting, but
my preference would be if there's particularly if there's any matters of any any weight or importance on the on the agenda that I would just come to some of your quarterly quarterly meetings as well. I have a question. Go ahead, Steve. I've got a I've got a couple of things and I
just put back on the board that I'm used to the Bob Sherman being over here when we have meetings. Uh I'm real disappointed that you know, you're having to come forward, Orlando. You've got you know, we all know I-4 traffic, whatever happens, that the people 7 mi down the road could send representatives to sit
here and be with us till you got here. Bob could came up here and did that. I'm a big local and small company guy. I don't I'm not a big fan of big corporations. You see that done with everything else. But, so, I the other side this, you know, it
it shows you say you have a backup, but your backup couldn't be here today on a very important day. Well, so I I understand your your your concern and and I don't like to arrive late at meetings and as I said, my preference is always to be in appearance in personal appearance
because of you know, we're sort of in in we have been and today is sort of kind of the last day of it, but for the last two and a half months we've been in particular circumstance where um with Pedro's leaving, there's been a lot of uh specially scheduled
uh meetings that have been held. So, because of that, sort of exor- extraordinarily and exceptionally today, um I had to cover a meeting that and with a conflict that ordinarily would not occur. So, I I I under- But, you have the backup that's 7 mi down the
road. Somebody could have came up here and did that. That's just disappointing on my part. I understand. Um but, we thought it was important for me to come and and be here and um I I understand your I understand your your concern and and your disappointment. Um and hopefully that would never happen again.
And as I said, my uh I don't like to arrive late at meetings and my preference is always to be in private person. All right. Any other questions? Yep. Yes, sir. >> when it comes to the fee discount, the 25% that includes all hearings, uh having you in person, will that same
discount roll over for everything? Absolutely. Yes. Mhm. And it's not it's so, it's in place for at least 2 years. Uh Um and and it could be extended. There's no limit to it. Um and as I said, it's a it's a to give you a chance to to to see that
uh faces have changed, but um services are still there. If um obviously the last several years we've had we've had Pedro. Um is there a checks and balances to make sure someone's not getting overwhelmed or making sure we're getting the attention we need as a board? Specifically for hearings or meetings,
things like this. Yes, I think um so, first of all, I think if we Dustin will will will speak to it, but um even in this uh since uh February when when Pedro made his decision to leave, I think uh Dustin will tell you that I've been very responsive with him.
Um I and that's just who I am. That's my my I'm detail-oriented. I like I don't like to make clients wait um to receive responses to questions. So, um I I don't expect that there'll be any problem. And And as I said, we have we
have this the attorneys backing me up to make sure um that work is getting done promptly and and and uh and and and accurately. So, um I don't I don't think that would be a problem. Mhm. >> [clears throat]
>> That 25-year or that 25% discount that just makes me think you've been overcharging us for the last couple years. No, I can't Certainly I I I The only thing as as I said, it's we understand that this is a change for
you. Um and we just want to make it easy for you to to to to familiarize yourselves as I said, to familiarize yourselves with me and to and and to understand that we've been your firm. We've been your attorneys for a very long time.
We've always given good service. And to give you that time period to see that those that that good service will continue. And well. I agree with the good service in the long time. That's all good. Yeah, I hope it can work out. I like I like Shipman. I like you guys.
Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? All right. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much presenting to the board. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome Pedro. Hello. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to make sure I'm on green.
Uh so, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity. Uh I I won't take up too much of your time. Uh I know the last thing you want is a an actuary and multiple attorneys on the same agenda, so. Uh just
uh maybe just starting off I guess obviously you've you've you've heard and you've been discussing. I did make the decision to leave my prior firm. Uh it was not an easy decision, and certainly not something that I was anticipating or expecting. I had been there.
I left February 27th 28th, I think. Uh And uh in March early March would have been 22 years that I would have been at my prior firm. Um I was my name was on the door. I was uh um not not
not envisioning that my life would would you know, career path would kind of take me in this direction, but um unfortunately I think it just became necessary uh to to really make a change in in ultimately I think what I think um is the best interest of of the
clients that that that I was and and am representing now. As as you as you may know, obviously I've been working with your old for a number of years, but about 15 years ago or so, maybe maybe 16 now,
Bob Sugarman chose me to essentially kind of serve as his successor and and really handed over the reins to me for the public pensions side of the of the practice of the of my old firm. Which as you guys may or may not know,
my old firm had essentially three different practice groups, union side labor, private sector benefit funds, and public sector benefit public sector pension plans such as yourselves. Myself and Madison Levine, which which you guys have a bio of her,
we were responsible for the public pension side of the practice, meaning between her and I we were the primary attorney for for all of our clients, and we were responsible for I don't know, 99% of the work
that resulted from those from those pension funds. Myself, there's there's there's I've seen many of you, but but there's a reason I've I've been selected fortunate enough to be a speaker at the FPPTA these many years as kind of the
the disability expert so to speak. It's a terrible title, but I've I've also one of two attorneys who who are on the permanent panel for the state for the division of retirement. They host this a school as well for public pensions and and myself and
another attorney are are are fortunate enough to be chosen and and and address those trustees. I'm a speaker at the International Foundation of Employee Benefits. I'm a speaker at the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys, which is where public pension plan
attorneys go to learn. And and I've really dedicated my career to this and only this. Uh And and I take, you know, a great a great deal of not only professional pride but personal pride in in in what I I hope I've been able to achieve with my boards and my clients,
which is really ultimately securing uh retirement and and and being able to retire with dignity for for public employees. My My parents are both teachers or retired teachers and so I've I've kind of seen first hand the benefit of a defined benefit and and
it's something that I believe in. Obviously professionally but but also on a personal level. And so frankly it was just a point in time where at my old firm um uh you know, the structure was was such that my my old partners I think um
being effectively retired Bob Sugarman, although I understand now he's he's kind of started practicing again to to a limited extent. I'm not sure but since I've my departure I think he's he's come back on but but he was he was been gone for for quite a number of years. Ken
Harrison which you may know as well was has been retired for a number of years. Um, and so and and Howard Suskin he was kind of in charge of the the private sector plan practice. Um, he's you know, close to 80 and and about about there as well. And so I think uh despite my best
efforts the past several years to try and garner some more resources, some more attorneys, some more staff for for the public pension plan practice. You know, I think I think my partners felt that that the resources uh were
better allocated elsewhere. And so to to the extent that I can say kind of tongue in cheek we outgrew my prior firm. I think it really just there was no there's no easier way to put it than that really. I think nothing um against my former partners. I think it was just
a a difference in terms of the time horizon. Um, and so, you know, unfortunately or fortunately, I'm uh I'm 47. I feel every bit of it, but but I have a long long ways to go uh in my career. And And Madison is is even younger than I am. And And she's been working with me now for for about 10
years. Um and so, we we've already hired another associate uh who's going to be joining us in in our practice group. Um and and he's he's been with us now and he's going to be uh again, exclusively for for public pensions uh and so, um we now have three
full-time attorneys devoted to public pension plan practice and two two paralegals. Um and my firm now, Jones Walker, uh it's a large national firm by 300 or so attorneys, uh 30 offices, um has has really provided us with uh
kind of cart blanche in terms of how how I want to structure and how I want to price it, uh staffing, etc. Um so, it's it's been really positive. Exactly what what I I felt like we needed. Um and and fortunately, I'm I'm, you know, again, humbled to say that in
the past 2 months or so, I've been having this kind of awkward discussion with with many of my former clients. And and uh we have about 65 uh of my former clients uh have decided to come over and and join uh Madison and myself at Jones
Walker. Um as recently as earlier today, uh I was in a meeting with a fund in Orlando. Um and and they they they decided to to join us as well. So, um it's been it's been really positive and and really humbling, but but um but I think something, you know, from from
your perspective, obviously, as fiduciaries, uh it it's you you should you should be aware of who's representing you and the capabilities. Um and and uh you know, obviously, fees we've discussed or you briefly discussed fees, I'm sure.
Um my my firm, my prior firm did offer a fairly significant discount uh which as fiduciaries you you should and and and and are required to to consider uh and I think Dustin uh told you before but I'll I'm happy to
reiterate. I'm I'm a terrible poker player and so I've never lost a client over fees in my 20 some years and uh so I'm certainly not going to start that now and and so uh I'm going to agree to whatever fee you guys think is reasonable. Um so I'm showing you my cards uh ahead of time
but again my my purpose here is is not to uh to generate revenue frankly. It's uh it's really just It's something that I believe in. I've been I've been working with you guys for a long time and and I'd love to continue the relationship so um from my perspective I think my firm
offers uh really uh in terms of experience and capabilities from a firm wide perspective uh unmatched resources um and and you know again uh anything that you all questions that you may have I'm I'm happy to address happy to happy to speak
to uh I'll go ahead and kick it off. >> Please. I'll ask you the same questions. Um in terms you kind of answered both of my main questions in terms of retirement. I guess it's not coming up anytime real soon so um For me no. Yeah. And then secondly so
>> Unfortunately or fortunately yeah. Right. Well I tell I tell everyone I'm retired now. If I knew it was that good I would have done it first and not waited. Um so in terms of if if Pedro's not available for a meeting who's going to
be who's going to be the face for Jacksonville Beach and who sir how available are they and what what experience level are they? It's a good question. So Madison Levine you have you have her bio as part of your materials. Um again she's been She was with my prior firm for
uh about eight years uh before we switched so and and she's been only practicing public pension law. So, uh if I'm not available, she would be she would be my backup. Um and and again, I think just in terms of
experience, if you go by um and again, not not that my old firm is the only comparison, but um both of us have more experience than than than the other associates or the other attorneys at the prior >> out of town as well? She's uh she's in Miami as well. Yes,
sir. She's Both uh she's based out of Miami as well. Um but uh so she she's she's represented as the primary attorney for her career with us. Um and she continues to represent as a primary attorney of several pension plans. So, so she's very
well experienced, very well versed in in kind of what we're doing and how we do it. Um she's been training and learning under me for for a number of years. And again, it's it's not something where uh you know we we practiced immigration law and and
and you know, so for example, you know and I understand my prior firm now is looking to hire somebody else and uh David Robinson I think has moved back from from Europe and and is going to be living here now full-time. Um but again, uh you know
it's just something where I needed uh I have needed for many years uh support and unfortunately, I wasn't able to get that with my prior firm. So, you feel like there's a there's a sufficient depth chart as far as experience behind you.
I I certainly do. Yes, sir. Uh you know, again, at the at the very least, it's about um you know, eight plus years uh I would say of just doing public pension work. Um that's that's who's backing me up. Um and so, uh again, like I mentioned also, we we did already hire a
new associate um and and they're going to be kind of learning the ropes, but um but for purposes of, you know, myself and who my backup is, that's how that would look. Anybody else Questions? Yeah, quick question. Uh Peter, when did you start um
as the council kind of the sole council for your prior firm for these three boards? Um I want to say it was probably about maybe Bob, I I would if you guys recall, I know I know you
do, Dave. I I want to say it's about 15 years. Probably is is is about right. Um I was coming with Bob Sugarman since I joined the firm. Uh I would kind of tail him to many uh to to the majority of our clients. Um and about 20
about 2012, 2013, uh I kind of I kind of took over. Um you know, handling the majority of of the clients and and uh you know, Bob uh you know, I think effectively retired, I would say maybe right about COVID, just after just after COVID. Um and so, and
Ken Harrison was a little bit shortly thereafter, so um in terms of the the public pension practice uh we've been we've been running pretty lean for a number of years. Um and and I think it was just something where uh you know, fortunately we had we had I
you know, Madison and I were able to grow the practice and and and have, you know, a number of clients such as yourselves uh trust us with with their representation, but but it was it's to a point where we needed to have to your point, right? We needed to have more succession. We needed to have I
thought I thought we needed to have more of a succession. We needed to have more capability to address our different clients, and and it just uh uh it it wasn't something that that was able to happen. Jason? What you just said, it wasn't able to happen, and it sounds like you're
already getting based on the list we see in the uh the paperwork you've given us it's getting bigger and bigger what you guys are uh you know, attorney for. Is there a plan for that as far as are they open for you to get more people into the building so you're not stuck in kind of the same boat you were? No, right.
Exactly. No, and so the answer to your question is is yes, they are. And that's exactly why, you know, they they I said I needed an associate almost immediately and and we've already hired one, right? I said I need an additional paralegal and we already have one. So, so in terms
of staffing, you know, I'm already at more than I was previously. And then to your point, you know, right now, I think we're representing about 67 or so clients,
which is about Don't quote me on it, but just about 20 or so less than I was working with previously. And so, you know, that's that's freed up time as well. But I think just from an administrative
standpoint, and I know this doesn't matter to you guys, but but just in terms of addressing the kind of the time, right? I was responsible for a number of administrative functions for the firm, right? So, I was responsible for negotiating the office
lease and talking to the build-out for the contractor and who, you know, and the office, the copy machine and the lease, right? And reviewing all the bills, not only for my group, but for for the other practice groups, right? And so, a lot of those kind of administrative
tasks I no longer have to do, which I'm I'm very thankful for. And so, you know, that I didn't really realize how much time it took up, but but it's freed up a large chunk of of my time. And you know, ultimately Madison's time
as well. So, um you know, to that end to your question, I think it's a great question, but but I think that's what I saw most in in my prior firm was the need to be able to draw on other attorneys um and and just it wasn't there, right? The other
you know, my prior firm now I think has four four full-time attorneys um uh and they're all, you know, they're all still like their own practice groups and now that I think they're adding public pension to to some of their associates. So, um it's just it it's
it's it it's as someone who's done it and and did it for a number of years and and ran myself uh pretty pretty ragged as you guys can probably attest to seeing me in the conferences and things like that. Um it it's it's unmanageable to a certain extent and and certainly um I think not
the best way to operate. Lance, may I catch you off guard? I tend to listen more than I talk. >> I think always Jones Walker, are you going to be the representative or is Madison and Levine going to be? Now, I want I want to be clear. Are you going >> No, no, I to be the other end of Yeah, I apologize. I thought I said that, but
no, I I I will continue to work as your primary attorney. Uh Madison will be backing me up, uh but but I'll you know, the the intention is uh to borrow an investment phrase, right? Same people, same process, uh same fees, potentially different uh
different letterhead. So, yes, sir. That's uh that's the expectation. Steve, I was a little harsh on the gentleman before, so it's your turn. The Patriot >> [laughter] >> So, what branch of Morgan & Morgan is this? Not Not Not Morgan & Morgan, but It's a
national company, so Yes, sir. My My concern is you don't have much control over there. You have some leeway in the group, but what's going to be controlled is that you're going to have the mission values and what's set for the corporation
throughout the you know, I I worry about how much decision-making you'll be able to have. You're going to have a policy set by them. Just like the city has its We all got find. So that's that's one. What is the value of what is your your philosophy of Jones
and Walker's philosophy on? Um I mean I think it's difficult to to answer maybe what the what the firm philosophy is. It They practice in all areas uh and so um maybe maybe a better way to address it
would be um to whatever extent obviously, you know, I can't guarantee that in any way other than, you know, potentially as part of the engagement letter, but um the the reason why I joined Jones Walker as opposed to
uh maybe selecting another firm uh or uh or even potentially >> the one who said you were the one Yeah, you said you were the one there for supposed to be with Bob and them. I remember back back then that looks like. So that was you know, that was big and I never
realized it sounds like you weren't getting support and there's issues going on there and you have more things that that you need to require which is a benefit to us, too, on that. So plus the things I just worry about um small local town guy. My local town is
in Miami. It's a it's a good thing. You live in Miami. Madison's in Miami. I appreciate it. I mean, you know, I so I guess maybe one one way to address it I my office is in Miami, my home is in Miami, but um you know, I've been doing
this now for 22 years. So uh you know, my office is is kind of my home. Yeah, I travel quite a bit. Um so fortunately um you know, I've I've I know what it takes and and and I'm I'm very familiar with it and and so I don't think anything on that front's going to
change. Um in terms of uh kind of the firm's approach to the practice area and and myself and our group um you know, obviously I I can't I can't I can't give you anything in writing but but you
know, the assurances that [clears throat] I've been provided and the reason kind of going back to my earlier comment, the reason why I joined the firm was uh they really assured they assured me that uh it's it's my it's my shop, my show to run. I choose my clients, I choose the fees. You know,
I'm not looking to raise fees, increase fees. I don't have a minimum that you guys that I have to bill. Now, surely the fee structure right that that goes through. Uh not as not as not as not as fixed as maybe some of the other firms are as you would think. And so so that's that's
going to be part of your engagement letter. Our fees are set in that. And so that's that's not something um that that I've been told and and not something that I'm telling all of my clients because it's just that's not my understanding. So, I get to I get to set my fees, I get
to staff it with whomever I need. Um and so you know, from from Jones Walker's perspective, uh you are no no smaller, right, than than you were previously, right? You're one of my clients. You you heard you would be one of my clients, I apologize.
Um and so that's that's my client and you're going to be treated the same as as I would treat you otherwise. Um hopefully better um that than than before. But um but you know, again, they they're committed to the space. Uh they have represented public pensions
before. They currently represent two large statewide plans. Um so um you know I I think I mean you know and and and I'm sure the majority of you guys know, Florida is a little bit unique in the sense that it offers local agencies, local governmental agencies the ability
to have its own pension fund, right, for its own public employees. So, just like here, you have one for fire, one for police, one for general, one for elected officials potentially. Um Texas, Georgia, Michigan, Illinois um have similar laws, but the majority of
the states have kind of just one large statewide fund for public employees similar to that of ours. So, my firm does have exposure to the space. Uh but represent large, you know, the statewide plans. And so, this was uh you know, kind of I think in their
minds and my minds uh you know, a kind of a natural extension of that. And and so, they're they're the firm is excited to have this as as part of its uh as part of its uh practice groups. And and so, you know, they've been very supportive of me and Madison.
I hope [clears throat] I hope they will continue to be. Thanks, Pedro. Thank you so much, Pedro. Any more questions? Nope. No more questions? All right. Pedro, if you'll just give us a few minutes, I'd appreciate it. Thank you for your presentation. Absolutely. Thank you so much. And again, I apologize for making you guys talk to a bunch of
attorneys. >> [laughter] >> Okay. All right, respective boards. I'll let you guys kick it off. Uh please Do you want to read the whole thing? Cuz Dustin gave us three options in his memo. Would you like me to read the whole one? However you want. Yeah, sure.
All right, I make a motion to uh make a motion for the police board to assign current engagement contract to Pedro Barrera Jones Walker and our file be transferred to Pedro. Second. All right, we have a motion and second
from the police board to uh take on Pedro. Do let's if it's okay before we go to a vote go to the different boards and see what everybody's Sure. opinions are. Fire. We are also going to go Pedro. All right. You got so you got a motion
and a second. Okay. I'll make the motion. So you have a second so you got a motion and a second and then uh I'll make the same motion. All right. Let's a second. I was going to ask you a question first cuz you actually dealt with
David and Pedro, right? Yep. Have you noticed any differences in their services between the two or how they react to email It's a It is a difficult situation because I know Pedro was a bit overworked and under represented and the
uh over under you know, staffed, yeah. So there was, you know, in the past I've had some delays in getting responses from Pedro. However, the quality of his his work is always
um been there and his knowledge is, you know, unparalleled, I would say. Um so I think this solves the problem um that may have been um there for him um I haven't had enough experience with
David to make an assessment on and you know, in the last couple months yes, he's been very attentive but to the extent that he knows what's on the line here you know, that we're going to be choosing and so I'm going to be sitting here in this moment telling you whether he's done a good job or not and
he's done a fair um a fair job um answering all my my questions and and stuff but um I don't He's definitely not as familiar with our plan as as Pedro has been even though he did the pension rewrite,
that was six years ago. You know, Jensen. Kind of going with what you said. We've dealt with Pedro at the pension conferences and he's very he's always approachable. There's others at that firm Suskin that we're not at all.
As far as coming up here, he's said he'd come up here, but there's also more money to have those guys come up here, too. So, obviously they come up here every single time we have to pay them every single time to be up here. And do we need them >> We we get one they get they come one per their contract they come up here one
time per year without charging us any more than that. They would charge us for flights and hotels and all that. >> hearings go when it comes to pensions and getting all the answers from Pedro has been great. We've been through two of them I think recently and
it's been perfect as far as response on his part and give us the right the right information to make the right my best educated guess, so it's been good. I think you I mean look at the leaflets that you get from these two. I think that just kind of
shows where each firm is. I don't know. It's just like I said, I mean 25% is a lot, but when you spend 10 to 11 grand a year, at the end of the day it's not a ton. >> Yeah. I mean that's not a quick I mean and to John's point from earlier,
we can cut him loose at any time. I mean the contract's not fixed, so I I personally the reason I was so quick to make the motion is that our issues have been with Pedro's service. I don't think it's necessarily been with Pedro, with
potentially and I do believe that it's the lack of support at the firm. So, that's why I was inclined to stay with the individual and see if the resources of the larger firm provide you know, any gaps in that service level that Dustin was saying.
Cuz personally I haven't seen it on the board from Pedro individually. Everything's been timely and prompt. Well, he certainly offers continuity, that's for sure. He keeps it keeps the same thing there to go. And I'm a little concerned myself with um
with Robinson's transparency. Um the fact that Sherman has been retired and he kind of made it sound like he wasn't and he just really got back into the game. Just and then it sounds like it's temporary. So, I think there was a little bit of transparency right there
that I was I did point that out in one of my emails to you guys that that was a concern of mine that they in the letter from Bob Sherman he represented that he was you know, going to be attending meetings and things like I know that guy's been retired for 5 years. Like
That was the part where the partner was saying Yeah. Is Steve here right too? This one scared me yesterday. All right. Or rearrange your own schedule, right? Yeah. All right, so we as we're standing right now, we have a motion but we need a second from the general board.
>> I'll second. You've got a motion and a second. All right. Madam Clerk, we can Madam Clerk, we'll take a roll call starting with the police. David Cobell. Yes. John Patridge. >> Yes. Matthew Grocky. Yes. John Gastello.
Yes. Jason Shirk. Yes. Moving on to fire. George Kenley. Yes. John Wiggins. He had to leave >> John Daniel. Uh yes from me. Lance Hewish. >> Yes.
Steve Shadow. Yes. General Nick Curry. Yes. Dan Jansen. Yes. Greg Klessner. Yes. Eddie Vergara. Yes. Okay, just for the record, John Wiggins
did have to leave early for pending uh responsibilities. Okay. Pedro, congratulations. Now we're going to be moving on to serious business. Thank you. And thank you all. I really I I truly appreciate the the vote of confidence. I hope
I really do. Thank you so much. But you you get this one on the house. You >> [laughter] >> All right, next up is a discussion of 2026 legislative update on legal matters provided by legal counsel counsel selected, which is Mr. So
as you guys are likely aware, there's been [clears throat] a few Florida sessions now. So Florida regular session obviously concluded. No issues, no bills or amendments that would have or do affect our plans. There was a special session called
initially and and really for the purpose of the new congressional maps. So those were those were approved, adopted, and signed by the governor. Uh, and then there was a second special session called, which is going on now. Uh, really primarily for purposes of the
budget, although there are some some other bills that are being introduced and and approved. Um, so but all that being said, nothing that affects uh, local law plans such as ours. Um, and and so really nothing on the on the legislative front uh, at the state
level uh, that would affect that would affect us or or affect you all. There is a change, however, uh, and and what I'll do is I'll send Dustin a a special report that we prepared. Uh, there there was a change uh, well, recently as of April 20th. Uh,
the uh, Department of Labor had issued uh, a final rule regarding a recent amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act. And so it's a federal law, obviously you guys have heard of it. Um, but how does it apply to us? Uh, it applies to public agencies really with respect to uh,
what's posted on on the web, on the internet, web content, uh, and mobile apps, right? And so the Department of Labor issued a rule uh, requiring that public agencies abide by um, requirements for documents that are posted and and web apps
uh, that have uh, you know, things included, right? So that they are accessible, quote unquote, to those with disabilities, hearing impaired, visual impaired, etc. Whatever the case may be. Um, so as a public agency under the under
the federal statute, we are uh, required to abide by the Americans with Disabilities Act in every way, shape, or form, right? As a practical matter, however, uh, it really doesn't touch us and and frankly the majority of local law plans. Uh, however, it does affect
obviously our partner, the city. Uh, I'm sure the city is already well aware uh, of the requirements and and and is working on that on its front. Um, but uh, I did want to just update you guys in terms of and obviously the city is is aware. Um, The requirement the final rule was going
to go into effect April 20th of 2026 April 24th of 2026 for public agencies with greater than 50,000 population. For those with less than 50,000 April of 24th of 2027. On April 20th you know not to wait till the last
minute or anything the Department of Labor actually issued an extension. And so they've extended each deadline respectively by a year. So now greater than 50,000 is April of next year greater less than 50,000 is April of 2028. So technically we do not have to
comply with those requirements until the following year although I know the city likely as many agencies are are kind of early adopters and they've been they've been working through this. So my recommendation long story short to to each of our clients and to you each of
the boards is in the interest of maybe you know being a good partner to to the city who is not only obviously post everything on on its website but also our records custodian is to ask your service providers those of us on this side of the table that if
we're going to give you things right if we're going to give you documents that they already be in an accessible format or an ADA compliant format and that avoids you know having hopefully avoids having the city needing it to kind of convert documents and add resources and
time to something that maybe we could we could take care of on the front end. So again nothing necessarily actionable but but maybe just as a recommendation just be you know direct your providers if we're going to give you guys things that that they that need
to be posted for example specifically that they be provided in an accessible format. Sure. I guess we go back to Brad being born 50 years earlier. Um Um no, that sounds good. I I know I I do my best to try to keep up with all the
bills that come through the through the Senate and the House annually. And it's the number 1,700 or something. It's ridiculous. And it's hard to weed out those that pertain directly to us, but I I try to do my best. So, thank you. Thank you for staying on top of things and we would
expect that in the future as well. Any questions for Pedro? I have one question for Pedro. Yeah, please. Disability pensions, non-duty and duty, are getting more popular. And that's your special of expertise. And you said the combinations, how far does the city have
to go to accommodate people? Cuz that seems to be coming up more and more. Like and I know that's a loaded question and I don't want to drag on, but like and and whose responsibility is that? Cuz we've seen the disability cases, did the employee not do the right thing or did the employer not do the right thing?
>> That's right. Um So, there's two different two different kind of uh It's it's it's the lawyer in me, it's you know, depends. Uh there's there's two different kind of overlapping laws, let's say. So, you have labor law, right? Which the
city is required to to abide by as, you know, in in in accordance with its its employees, right? So, if any member, obviously that applies to us for disability, uh is first and foremost an employee of city of Jacksonville Beach. And so, uh how far, to answer your question, how far does the city have to go to
accommodate an employee? Um I'm not even going to approach that in terms of kind of giving you a a substantive answer because I think it really does depend on the employee and the circumstances affecting their illness and or injury. Um I'm not
I'm not as familiar with with with the specific policies in terms of accommodation of employees um as maybe I should be. Um but but for for purposes of what kind of when it touches our our our end of the spectrum, right? When it touches your your table.
Um State law is very clear in terms of for for general employees that the standard is a little bit different, but but the but but the requirement is essentially the same, right? So, uh for for general employees, it's it's essentially the gainful employment standard, right? Similar to Social
Security, right? They cannot work. Um doesn't matter what job, they just can't work under, right? Like everything that that a general employee would would would be potentially asked to do. Um for police and fire, obviously, it's it's
very specific to they can't be a police officer and fire. I know it doesn't necessarily matter, but they can't be a firefighter, right? Um and so, uh those are very specific job job-related job-specific uh disability requirements. Um so, for our purposes,
if the employee, regardless if there is an accommodation present, if they are either unwilling to take that accommodation, which pursuant to your ordinance, there's there they may not be able to. Um but um if they are unable to take
that accommodation is a better way to put it. Uh then, you know, I think the board would be would be looking at whether they're totally and permanently disabled, right? From from useful and efficient service as a as an employee. Um
I- if if if it's a question of the the totality, right? Or the permanency of it, then that's something that this board that you all would address directly and your medical providers, your physicians, would address directly, right? Is this something that's permanent or is it going to get better, right? With through
treatment, rehab, surgery, whatever the case may be, are they going to get better? And then this board can look at that and say, "Well, you know, regardless of where they are, they they can they can still work. They're going to be in a position where they can work, and so,
they're not entitled to disability benefit. And that could that's not mutually exclusive from having been terminated because they can't do the job. Uh right? Or or maybe they're not willing to take an accommodation. Both can be true. Um
I just want to touch cuz everybody at some point in this room is going to be a part of probably a disability. >> Uh yeah, I understand. And it just we've had some in the past where you know, I personally like question myself, did the city fail or did the employees fail or was that not offered?
>> And it could And it could be somewhere in between or could be neither. Um and so I think for purposes of when we're evaluating it, right? I think this board is going to be focused on um the the facts, the medical record, right? In terms of what is their illness
or injury. And and what what is the what is the expectation? What's the what's the prognosis? Are they going to get better? Are they plateaued? Is this as good as it's going to get? Are they only going to get worse, right? That's the that's the analysis that that you all
whether it's police, fire, or general are going to be looking at and evaluating. Somewhere in there, right? You're going to I would imagine there could there are going to be instances where uh well, they can still work. But maybe they choose not to. And so the board
that's that's that's the employee's decision. But that could be taken into consideration by the board when you're looking at well, are they totally disabled? Are they permanently disabled? And if they can work, then probably not, right? Or vice versa, you know, maybe they really want
to work, but but they just can't physically, emotionally, whatever the case may be. And so that again, you're going to look at it and say, well, I know they really want to work. Um but they just can't. And and maybe maybe the city can accommodate them. But maybe in the best interest of
everybody else involved, they should go for disability because they're not going to be able to work or they're not going to be able to do their duties. So, it's it's each disability decision that you guys look at, just like with any decision, right? It's very fact specific. Um you're going to be focused
exclusively on what the record says, you know, lawyers love paper, right? So, what the record says, what the medical reports say, um and the facts and circumstances surrounding their specific illness or injury. Um I know it doesn't answer your question. Specifically,
but but it's a good question. It's a good question and it comes up. And I think I think that's part of the process, anyway, right? It's part of your It's part of your ordinance, right? It's It's they they should they should be, I think, if I recall correctly. But just to clear up that I drove, the city could offer
go with Nick's thing. Since the linemen are underneath the general employees now, the linemen could be offered, say, all right, you can't climb anymore. You're going to be in utility billing, and that would meet the disability requirement of keeping As long as right as long as it's the
same, you know, same pay and benefits. >> Right. You can't lower the pay or anything, but can change the job. And some of that might be guided by the city's policies, too, and ordinances that are in place, too. So, there's a lot of There's a lot of mitigating factors, I think. >> That's exactly right. So, it's it's it's exactly. So, it it's
they the disability decision and the employment decisions, while related, um they're certainly not mutually exclusive, and so you can have similar decisions, you can have maybe
what seems like a conflicting decision or action, but but really is not. And so, we you know we Ultimately, we're going to have to look at each case individually, but I think to the question of you know, is the city doing what it's supposed to be doing? Is the employee doing what they're supposed to be doing? You're going to look at that, and and I
would always advise you to look at that as part of your deliberations and part of part of the hearings that you're going to go go through when you're when you're making these determinations. And and ultimately, right, the city is looking at things through a different kind of lens really just in terms of employment law and and, you know,
everything that follows. And we're looking at it, you know, more so through pension law and disability and and kind of what follows there and and you know, if you look at the Venn diagram, they're going to overlap a little bit, but but but but they certainly could be different. Let me jump in. The outcomes could be different. Yeah, let me jump in here
now. So, we've got a full schedule in front of us and we got less than an hour and a half left right now. So, we got to And there's a meeting that takes place in this room right after ours. So, we kind of have to jump on the agenda. Pay for anything? Is there any other last ones? Quick questions or readers'
digest? Last comment and I'm going to shut up. Quit while I'm ahead. Uh reminder, I know I know I know Dustin's going to remind you guys anyway, but your form ones, your financial disclosure forms, they are due July 1. So, uh if you haven't done it already, uh
you know, send a little note to yourself a little reminder to get that done. >> That's a good one. Will we have an agreement from you similar to what Sugarman for for us to sign at the next meeting? Uh yeah. So, I can we'll we'll have a an engagement letter. It'll be essentially the same as what you guys
have had, terminable upon notice um with the uh with the fee discount for each of the plans. Um and we'll guarantee that for 2 years. And uh you know, obviously any anything after that uh it's only if I come to you
asking for a raise or or you guys come to me asking to give me a raise. Um But all options are on the table. All options are on the table. All options are on the table. But but yeah, I'll get I'll get that over to you guys. All right. Thank you so much. And that'll be presented at the next quarterly meeting.
Okay, very good. All right. So, um uh moving right along. Brendan thanks you for all of your patience, sir. Happy to be here. Yeah, see you everybody again. [laughter] So really quick before we jump actually into the investment part on the tail end of of the actuarial
evaluation that you approved and Brad referred to this by motion each board also needs to set the expected rate of return for next year next several years in the long term thereafter and by by a separate motion and I'm going to recommend that you use the same rate that you did as the assumed rate in
the valve. So for police and general 7 and a quarter percent and for fire 6 and a half percent. So we do have that on our agenda further on yes sir. So the recommendation is in front of you so now when you get to it. Yes sir. Yes sir. Thank you. All right. So we've got
the the 331 report for you. There's actually three books the the 331 is the thicker one. And and I'm actually going to try to go through this very quickly because this information is already incredibly stale but it is important to kind of understand where we are. This is the
halfway point in our fiscal year. So just really quickly if you open up the page number four upper right hand corner you'll see that the S&P 500 was down 4.3% for the quarter international was down roughly 1% and
fixed income was negative. Everything was actually moving along pretty swimmingly through the month of February or really till the 27th but then when Pedro announced that he was leaving his firm the US decided to bomb Iran the same day and things changed. Maybe not a
coincidence. Yeah yeah. Just merely pointing it out yeah. And so we wound up you know finishing the quarter in in rather negative fashion with with obviously everything that was happening geopolitically. So that is captured here in the report.
Essentially the day after this was printed so to speak the markets began to recover. So where we are today looks nothing like this but it is at least uh to know where we stood back then. The other thing I wanted to highlight really quickly, page number five, looking at the equity markets. Generally
speaking, we've been talking about growth in the Mag 7, doing incredibly well for the last number of years. Contrast the blue bars, which represent growth stocks, and the red bars, which uh represent I'm excuse me, I misspoke. Blue is value,
red is growth. So, in the quarter, there was a roughly 12% difference between growth and value. Growth really got hammered, and value held up, at least stayed positive. Um now, completely flipped again April and early
May, when growth started to do better. But just interesting how how parts of the market had really been flip-flopping in terms of relative performance. Um with that, let's go ahead and and now jump into plan specific information. Um
Page 14 kind of again tracks the assets of the plan over time. The red bar is your um if you had invested the plan assets in a portfolio that returned exactly what your assumed rate of return has been over time,
you'd be sitting at just over $120 million, but your actual uh plan assets are $137 million as of the the end of the quarter. So, you do have a nice spread over that assumed rate. And then of course, with the next report, you'll you'll see that adjustment down to that to the 7 and
1/4. Page 17 looks at the asset allocation relative to target. Little bit behind or underweight domestic equity, and slightly over in uh international. And then fixed income, relatively on track. A little bit of an underweight to real
estate. Part of that is we're slowly redeeming from the the real estate portfolio, and the real estate portfolio has not performed nearly as well as the rest of the portfolio. So, the other part of the portfolio has grown. So, therefore, as a kind of a a percentage, real estate has shrunk.
Now, we have made previously made the decision to hire a new manager. That paperwork I think it is done. Maybe it needs to be executed. Maybe it's already executed. So, you you've already taken the step to begin to kind of backfill within real estate, but you know, that it'll take a
little time cuz we signed the papers, then we have to wait for them to call the money and so on. But, just wanted to to make you aware we've already addressed sort of that underweight to real estate. It'll just take a little time for that to work its way in. So, with all of that said, let's go to page 21. Sure.
It depends how you You're talking about like sales, like sales on a company. So, like a Coca-Cola sells a lot outside the US. So, that doesn't count. It's It's where the company It's where it's domiciled. Yeah. That's That's it at the end of the day and
Correct. But, but the Put it this way. When the state is looking at the 25% limitation for police and fire, it's not going to be percentage of sales and the like. It's It's where it's domiciled. That's That's going to be the trigger. So, that's that's why we categorize it that way.
Um again, page 21. Reminder, this is the halfway point of the fiscal year. So, for the quarter in this sort of negative environment, we were down 2.06, just slightly more than the policy of one negative 1.95. All of that was in the domestic equity
portfolio. So, you'll see we were down three and a half versus our policy of 3.34. And really, that was primarily due to two managers. Winslow large cap growth was down almost 12% versus that benchmark of call it negative 9.8. And
then, Eaton Vance, one we've talked about previously, continues to struggle mildly. -4.8 versus 2.04. Those two really combined are the reason that the total fund was behind. If you flip to to page 22 and 23, what you'll
notice is collectively all of the other parts of the portfolio were beating their benchmarks. Your international was outperforming, your fixed income was outperforming, your global fixed was outperforming, and your real estate was outperforming. So, you know, outside of that domestic equity, you really had a
lot of positive relative performance. But, some of those gaps in the domestic portfolio really were were were kind of pulling that average down. With that said, I mentioned things have changed pretty dramatically in April and then heading
into to the month of May. Just in the month of April, the portfolio was up 5.2%. On a market value basis, kind of back of the envelope math, we're up an additional 95 basis points in the month of May. So, if you kind of add those two
together, you know, in the report, our fiscal year number was essentially flat, -30% or next excuse 30% 30 basis points. As of today, it's sitting more like 5.75%. So, again, dramatically different from from what you're seeing here.
In that regard though, again, some of the the two primary areas of of sort of underperformance going back to this quarter were were Winslow Large Cap Growth and Eaton Vance. Winslow did incredibly well in April. They were up over 12% while the benchmark was up, I think it was 10 and
change or 11%. Uh now to contrast that, Eaton Vance was positive, but not nearly as positive as the benchmark. So, they continued to struggle. Uh so, I do have additional information to talk about that, but before I get there, I just want to pause. Quarterly
report, any of these updates, asset allocation, answer any questions if you have any. Um speaking of our quarterly return coming up, what what we end this fiscal year, going back to the actuary too, um our four-year smoothing will drop off
our big negative year that we had in 2021 of like 15.something percent. So, um actuarially, uh you know, our target is 7.25 now, but anything that we finish above
that year that we're dropping off is going to increase our smoothing rate over that four-year period. So, Just to maybe help everybody see that, if you go to page 24 in the large book, we show all the performance on a trailing fiscal year basis. And so, if you look at the top line for
24, you'll see FY22 at the top, -15.9%. So, that's what's what Dustin's referring to is going to fall off at the next valuation. So, as long as the year that we're currently in finishes somewhere better
than -15.9, you'll have some level of improvement on that four-year smooth. If it were to close today at, you know, call it a roughly 5.5%. You're talking about a significant improvement. I tend to skip over that, but thank you
for pointing that out. We have all of that sort of trailing data so you can kind of go back and see what would be falling off in the in that data. Okay. Any other questions any related to the kind of the reporting asset allocate anything? From an asset allocation perspective, we're really right on
target. We're a little bit underweight domestic equity, that's kind of rebounded. So, we're we're just a couple of points over, but nowhere near our our cap and generally looking in in very good shape as it relates to the to the overall allocation. So, have a couple additional items for you.
One, talking about Eaton Vance. We we had talked about that previously. That's a portfolio that has has struggled. You you've had them for a long long time. Over the long term, they've still done very nicely for you. But the last couple of years in
particular have have really started to to erode some of that longer term performance. So I put together a review looking specifically at that that that part of the portfolio. So if you flip it, again, this is the small mid cap review book.
If you flip over to page number two, we show the Eaton Vance portfolio that we're currently in and it is a mutual fund, 81 basis points. Then we do have three other active portfolio options that we're we're showing you. And Corera advisors or
Encorera Felen mid small and mid cap. Slightly more expensive at 100 basis points. Reinhart Partners, also more expensive at 95 basis points. There is an actively managed Vanguard small mid cap portfolio. So Vanguard is usually
known for for just passive index funds, but they do have a number of actively managed options. And so I'm showing you here the Vanguard strategic equity. So although it's actively managed, it is is quite a bit cheaper than you
typically see for active managed funds at 17 basis points. And then we also have a State Street small mid cap is an is an indexed portfolio, but just to to mention, it's indexed, but the index is slightly different than the Russell 2000. So excuse me, the 2500. So it
doesn't match exactly the Russell 2500, but it is a passive portfolio that is only three basis points. Questions so far? Okay. Maybe that one of the quickest So When we invest in funds, I assume
we're invested in the institutional because there's a lot of funds that Correct. Yeah, we're going to be in the the cheapest share class that would be available to us. Exactly. Uh and and just to be honest, typically we we do benefit even as an example if
you have a a fund with a $5 million minimum, that's typically an omnibus situation. So, your custodian, you use Salem Trust. They have If they if let's say they've got, you know, other clients that have
collectively $8 million in it, you could add two and it effectively you you essentially qualify for that better share class. Exactly. Uh but I mean a plan of your size generally you're going to qualify on your own, but you you do have that that capability as well.
Uh page three, yeah, we're a lot of numbers on these next few pages. I really want to just highlight a couple of quick things. One is the very top line on page number three, the number of holdings. Gives you a sense as to how concentrated these managers are. So, Eaton Vance has 57 positions, at least
as of 3 31. And Core Equity is at 100. Reinhart, more concentrated at 37. Vanguard, 610. Uh State Street, it shows it kind of weird as one because it's in the it's it the one holding is the index fund which
holds all the securities in the index, but looks a little wonky. And then the actual the Russell 2500, interesting only has 24 or 11. Uh uh But just like the Russell Right. Um
That that was really everything that I wanted to highlight on that page. Obviously, there's there's a lot of additional information. If you go to page number five, just sort of visually to me this gives a somewhat of a representation of the type of portfolio. So, it might be easiest to start looking
at the grid on the left. Cuz this shows kind of the the average return as of today. Um the Eaton Vance is that sort of light blue, so they're right in the middle, left and right. And but they're also the highest up in terms of that um those those vertical or
excuse me, the horizontal lines. So, on average, the Eaton Vance has larger cap securities than most of these other firms. But, they're right in the middle between growth and value. To contrast, that Ancora is kind of near the bottom
along with Rhienhart. They tend to be smaller, so they tend to buy the smaller companies or or have a larger percentage of those. And both of them lean a little bit more toward the value side. And then Vanguard and State Street are again are also there in the middle just
slightly smaller, if you will, than than Eaton Vance, but larger than than Ancora Thielen, uh but right there with the the index. And then on page six, it gets into trailing performance, kind of how you're used to seeing it. Um and certainly we we already know that the Eaton Vance portfolio is has
certainly struggled, in particular the last eight two years. You're seeing through 331 negative performance versus the benchmark that that's pushing close to 10%. Now, you will also notice that Rhienhart and Ancora are also underperforming. They're doing better
than Eaton Vance, but they're they're not outperforming the index. Um I think we talked about this last time, but just to make sure that that we did. One of the issues we're seeing in small cap in particular is companies of I don't want to call it zero quality,
but very low quality are what have been driving the returns for the last year and a half. If you just kind of pan back and you if you if you distill small cap companies into companies that make money and companies that lose money, typically companies that make money
outperform companies that lose money four to one. Not really a shock, right? If you If you're losing a bunch of money and you do that over time, you're probably not going to Your stock's probably not going to do great. Over this most recent period, stocks that lose money, or companies that lose money, have been outperforming companies
that make money 8 to 1. And so you you you have a bunch of company or of businesses there they're out there trying to buy companies that are profitable, earning money, reasonably priced. The market has not been all concerned. That's That's a Just
as a very general statement, that's why you're seeing very disappointing performance. Okay? Okay. I didn't want to make it seem like it was it was, you know, we're the one strategy that's struggling. Now, they are struggling more.
Well, I mean, that's certainly a part of it. But what's interesting, you know, and I was having this conversation earlier, like within large cap, really generally speaking, what's been getting the the big focus is the biggest, highest earning companies with these high growth rates. You know, but
these are the most profitable businesses and and that's where the money's have been flowing. But in small cap, it's like forget about earnings, we're going to wait It's going to flow to the companies that aren't making any money. There's There is There is that, you know, and and again, over the last 15,
18 months, there was a good portion of that where interest rates were coming down and there were prospects for future cuts. So, if you've got a company that's losing money and needs to borrow money to survive, and then the market says, "Hey, we're going to start giving you cheaper money and you know, allow you to borrow
easier." And say, "Oh, hey, we might have gone out of business, but now we have a chance, so maybe this you know So, there there's certainly some of that. But those things tend to be short-term phenomenon. But again, I just I just want to make sure you have some context to to what
you're seeing. Um but in terms of of longer-term performance Oh, yes, sir. Two different things. I would not say they're happy with their losses. What what I would say is and I'm saying again, not just with Eaton Vance, but a number of their peers
that are in a somewhat similar circumstance. They're incredibly frustrated, one, but two, incredibly optimistic about their portfolios. Because they're seeing like the broad small-cap market get more
expensive when it's not earning money. They're in businesses that are growing and are cheaper. And so they're like, you know, normally I'm just throwing this out as an example. Normally we we have, you know, $2 of earnings and when we're trading at
10 time 10 time multiple. Now we're getting $3 of earnings and we're trading at seven time multiple. And so that that doesn't mean it won't be cheaper tomorrow. But they say normally if you're in that type of portfolio at that type of valuation, it tends to be really good
going forward. That's the you know, but again, they're incredibly frustrated that, you know, they've got businesses that they think are doing great and the stock market just does not care. Um So again, when you when but when you look at these these different portfolios, you obviously see varying
degrees of performance out to about five years, um it's it's somewhat of a mixed bag. The Vanguard portfolio has actually done very very well. Um but then even and CoreAthelan and Rinehart doing quite a bit better than than the benchmark. So even though kind
of the one and two-year numbers are behind over that slightly longer period, um still doing well. Eaton Vance still struggling over the five years. Again, they they haven't underperformed for five years, but because the last two years have been so bad, it sort of taken
away all of that prior outperformance. And you really need to get out to to about a 10 years with with which is kind of where their performance begins to sort of start seeming reasonable again. But again, when you look at a trailing basis like this, it's certainly painful. Just for reference, uh page number seven
shows the individual calendar years. Um, so this is a way of reference to, you know, cuz I I sometimes see that and someone's like, "Well, wait a minute, the 10-year number's behind. We've been sitting in a portfolio that's struggled for 10 years." No, not necessarily. Um, you can see as an example, you know, through through
the individual years they've had some very good years. But the severity of the underperformance the last few um has really pulled that down. Uh, I do not. Um, but it's probably I mean, it's heavily weighted towards like kind
of three-year performance. So, it it's doesn't look good. I've never seen an analysis, but I've always just from a sort of contrarian standpoint, I wonder if you always sold five star funds and bought two star funds, how you would do.
Cuz you're tending you know, you're selling high and buying low as opposed to exactly. Um, and just the kind of some last quick thing. If you go to page number 11, again, a lot of numbers here, but I this gets into some of the statistics.
So, the top half of page number 11 is the trailing seven-year look. That's the longest period we have for all of the managers. Right, uh the the Reinhart Genesis doesn't have the 10-year number. But so the third line down is standard deviation. This is the measure of the the roller coaster, so to speak, the ups
and downs, right? As a percentage. Um so the market has a benchmark or the volatility of 21%. So you can see I'm going from the right, State Street 21.8, Vanguard 20.8, 20.2 for Reinhart. Eaton Vance,
generally speaking, is a lower volatility manager and only 18%. Um but lately that's been at the expense of return. Beta, the next line down, is that kind of another another way to it ties in with standard deviation, but it's the
sort of the multiplier on the market. And so at 0.8, we that's essentially 20% less risk than the benchmark. Um and you can see the Anchor deal at 98, Reinhart at 91, 98 for Vanguard. So tho- those are much closer to kind of
market levels of risk. Um and then the last two numbers that that I I tend to like are the bottom two numbers on the page. It's the up and down capture ratio. The way I describe it, it's how good is your offense and your defense. So the up capture ratio, when the market's positive,
how much of that up move are you getting? And of course, I mean we'd all like a thousand percent, right? If the market's up 10 points, we want to be up a hundred. And then the downside capture is when the market's going down, how much of that are you capturing? And of course, we want zero or actually we want it to
be negative, right? If the market's down 10, we want to be up 20. But what you you tend to have are managers that that have sort of either a lower up capture and also a low down capture or they're high and high, right? And it it tends to
go with beta. High beta means high up capture, but also high down capture. And low beta tends to mean low up and also low on the down. And so you can really see that Eaton Vance at about 77% each. Yeah, 77 on the way up, but I'll 77 on the way down as compared to say
Vanguard, which has been at least over the last 7 years, 103 on the up, they're getting more than the the up market move, and 94% on the down. So, not surprisingly, they have kind of the better performance because of that kind of positive spread between the two.
Threw a lot of things at you. Let me pause for a second, see if anyone has questions on anything that I've covered. No questions, but comments State Street seems to be looking at them from 35,000 ft. The ones who've just been toting the line kind of straight down the middle
for the most part. I mean, they've had some Well, that's that's an index. That's what they're supposed to do. Yeah. Yeah, they're just kind of owning everything. Right. And I mean, slightly a slightly different construction methodology than the Russell 2500, but you're you're getting you're getting that just passive exposure.
Um But That's that's kind of my default is why why have this discussion about who's going to win and who's going to lose. Yeah, let's just Cuz our ability to guess the winners and the losers is probably not just If you invest it in the index, if you'd done that State
Street which is effectively an index, we'd be ahead of where we are. I I'd agree with you until I saw the statistics on page 11 that Vanguard actually has the lower tracking tracking error than State Street does.
Yeah, no, that's Vanguard They're They're closer to the index than the index is. Right. And they have a great I mean, all their their alpha, their information ratio, all their statistics Well, they got a low low price on that. That'd be That's
a number. You know you're going to get a low price, right? So, my default would be the index, but in this case, Vanguard is called by its actual Vanguard. Or you could do both. No, don't. >> [laughter] >> Yeah. Well, I mean, I
we we we we like all of the the strategies. As a as a general rule, now, again, the last few years has been very difficult for for active managers, but as a general rule, we feel like active managers in small cap generally have a better opportunity than than as
compared to say large cap. Um but at the same time, you know, it's it's it's hard to argue with three basis points. Yeah. Is that complete here? You all right? On on this I mean, happy to I I this is brought up this has
been an ongoing discussion, so sure. I wanted to make sure >> Is there a decision to make on this or is this a a discussion? There is a potential decision to make if we do not want to give Eaton Vance more time. Can them. I would agree, why give them
more time? Then the question is what do we do? Does this fall under H for the rebalancing? This was So the agenda would probably say either action or this may get an G. So I don't have the agenda. But I can
get So what direction would we give you? Or do you We'd have to make a So so the just so you know, you're in a in a mutual fund. Right. So really the the action should you want to do something different, and I'm just going to say make that if if it was State Street Index Fund, that's what you want to do,
you'd make the motion to terminate um the Eaton Vance or sell the mutual fund and move those proceeds into the State Street um mid cap fund. Or if there's any other is what percent of the funds are on the best of this
We have a combined investment fund. Yes. Yes. So, do we So, do we vote this? Well, we Somebody leads and each board would have to approve it. And if not all if all three boards did not approve the same thing, then we we're kind of at a
stalemate. Yeah, that's the way to go back to the drawing board. Right. We We do it board by board. You know what they say, great minds think alike. So, we've all agreed on the same thing. Right. Yeah. I I'll make >> John, what's your thoughts? I can give you the answer
Stay tuned to the three star basis of two star. That settles it. There you go. >> [laughter] >> Well, except Except for Vegas. What country? One devil's advocate comments even though I heard it roasted in Vegas, but are we about to sell them before they do
actually rebound? >> [cough] >> From your own like asking you specifically What what what what are your thoughts? Cuz you said that there still some of Our Our analyst that covers this space
is very supportive of the strategy. Of like the And thinks of the advance. Okay. And and and and a handful of others that are in a similar whether they might be small cap specific but this is SMID in particular. But
but thinks the strategy is likely to do very well. How soon? >> [laughter] >> Well, did he think that for the last six years? >> Yeah, I mean but but but that's your point. Yes. Six months ago, yeah, the answer would be still would have been yes. He is very
excited. Thinks it's going to do well and here it is six months later and it's done worse. It like the the trajectory of the recent performance has been worse. And not to complicate things, but just for a food for thought, what about splitting the baby, you know, and get
becoming more diversified between index and Vanguard. I don't think you got a reason to split it between Vanguard and State Street. You're you're buying you're buying the same thing. Forgive me if maybe I misunderstood. What about taking half of what you have
the Vanguards and go to go to go to the index and that way you leave a piece to potentially meet some of that recovery. The the the argument is >> [laughter] >> The argument is is when we have a recession
everything goes to crap and and profits matter and and quality matters is the index is going to tank and and Eaton Vance is going to hold their value. That's the argument. If you could predict the future
then we would know what to do. The index is the broad nature of index versus being able to pick funds that are geared toward what we need, which is essentially a fund in perpetuity. You know, I'm sitting here as a contributor and as a member of this fund that will collect my pension as are two
people over there, the two people over there, and I need my fund to be here for me, and to be here for my family. My dad had a heart attack 5 years ago. Statistics show after I retire. And then for the officers that we're hiring today, for their families in the future.
>> So, I apologize. You don't have these numbers on your screen or anywhere, but I just pulled up the book from 12 months ago. Eaton Vance was outperforming by 200 basis points on the one year,
by 4% on the three years, by 2% on the five year, by 2 and 1/2% on the seven year, and by 3% on the trailing 10 year, 12 months ago. Every single trailing period date out to 10 years, they were outperforming.
12 months later, every one of those numbers is behind. And so, it trailing performance is incredibly endpoint sensitive. The last 12 months have been dreadful. And that's what has made the last 10
years look horrendous. But again, just 12 months ago when you looked at their performance, you're like, they are fantastic. They have been great for us for 10 years. What did Vanguard look like 12 months ago? I don't I don't have I'd have to
Yeah. So, I apologize. I don't I don't have that information. But but that's that's the frustrating part. Well, okay. So, the the you mean the Russell Well, the Russell 2500 is not That's not the Vanguard cuz that's an actively managed fund. Well, do you just want to look up the
ticker? Yeah, but if you just look Yeah. Well, but as of 12 months ago I I I have to get open up a new software pro- or a different software program and and reset the start date. Yeah. Um So, I just I I want to make sure to
highlight that those long-term numbers can change very, very quickly. And and sort of the the hope is that they would change to the positive very quickly from here. But I certainly can't tell you for sure
if that's going to happen. Again, our analyst looks at it. If generally speaking, if if if you have a consistent investment process that works well over time and you don't change it just because you have 15 15 months of poor performance, it tends to you know, come
back. But I can't tell you when and by how much. But your adjectives are strong. Abysmal. >> [laughter] >> Um yeah. But again, I I know it's sitting in your in your position, it's
very hard to look at that performance and not do anything about it. Right. And and that's again, want you to have information so you can, you know, review it and potentially make a decision or make no decision with the at least information and not just say we
looked at that performance and kind of said, "Oh well, we hope it gets better." Some people might even say double down at 80 minutes. You know, what do you get 20 Yeah. Not suggesting that in any way, but I mean, occasionally you hear people have gone into inside information and
you you know, what help help turn back. They know Yeah. >> [laughter] >> Can we call the ambulance? Sorry, your your mic wasn't on for Why why is Well, occasionally, you know, you'll say that your people know people
there and there's just something going on. Kind of like, you know, what happened with with uh Pedro. Some kind of dysfunction in the firm. >> People leaving, changes >> [laughter] >> Have you guys heard anything about that? Yes, that's straight. No.
Yeah, it it it's there's not some, you know, collapse of the strategy or or all the people that were the decision makers have left or you know, something we would have already had that conversation. This is this is just a straight straight performance issue.
How about we make I'll I'll just try this. I'll make a motion for the general fund that we move half of the mid cap out of Eaton Vance and into the Vanguard fund. How much money are we talking having for you? 12 million dollars now. 12 12 yeah.
As of this morning it was 11.6 million. >> [laughter] >> Okay. >> [laughter] >> I withdraw my motion >> [laughter] >> and move I'm just trying to progress the discussion and make a motion to move it
all to the Vanguard fund. Brendan, I think typically the way we've done this in the past is we've looked at it in two stages. We've looked at the sell to get out of a fund and then we've looked at our options to move into it. Um just that's the way we've typically done it before we've made the decision to
move out and we've kind of held that money in space often times in the same meeting and then we've made the decision once Brendan kind of goes through a lot of the um and maybe in some other options. That is correct. That's correct. That's correct. And and I would support that as
well. That that move to to sell out there and then make a decision. So that would be to me the most logical thing would be to go to the index fund. And then you could if you as a long term solution consider Vanguard or one of the other options. Okay. I think Vanguard is just as similar as
the index. It's basically part of the index anyways. So, I think that's a fine middle ground. Is there a cost? I mean, I see if these are mutual funds, is there a cost to get in and out? No. Is there any benefit to using a transition manager? No. Okay.
There's There's nothing to transition. It's a single purchase that settles on the same day you buy into the new one. Anytime we sell something, just expect me to ask that. Very good. No, well, it's a very good question. You have a portfolio with with 200 individual
securities, you don't want to sell 200 securities, give the money to somebody else who's going to repurchase half of what you just sold. You know, that's where this transition discussion would make sense. But, a mutual fund, it's single security to single security, and you you just sell. Also, Vanguard has
610, Eaton has 57, so there's at least 550 that Vanguard has that Eaton doesn't. True. So. I'd like to second the motion on the general board to terminate Eaton Vance and move it all into Vanguard. All right, we got a motion second. What
about on the the police board? Are you guys not going to vote? Yep. Then we'll go ahead and vote. Motion seconds on the the general to to sell everything in Eaton Vance and move it to Vanguard. Are we doing both stages at once?
Yes. >> Yes. Yeah, cuz he said it was just a It's the easiest one. Madam Clerk, roll call. Nick Curry. Yes. Dan Jansen. Yes. Greg Klapthor. Yes. Eddie Raga. Yes. Police.
Yes. So, moved. Second. We have a first and a second. Any other questions? Madam Clerk, roll call. David Cahill. Yes. John Patridge. >> Yes. Matthew Grohki. Yes. John
Gotstilla. Yes. Jason Sharp. >> Yes. And fire. I make a motion to get us the out of Eden and transfer all of Vanguard. Got a motion and a second. Second. A motion and a second. Any other questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. George
Cantler. Yes. John John McDaniel. Yes. Lance Huish. >> Yes. Steve Shadow. >> Yes. Understood. All right. I think we need to step back and approve the quarterly investment performance report by board. Let's start with the
general. Need a motion and a second. So moved. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any other questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. Nick Curry. Yes. Dan Jensen. >> Yes. Greg Klettner. Yes.
Eddie Bergara. Yes. And please. Motion to approve. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any other questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. David Cahill. Yes. John Patridge. >> Yes. Matthew Grohki. Yes. John Gotstilla. Yes. Jason Sharp. Yes. And
fire. Motion to approve the quarterly report. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. George Cantler. Yes. John McDaniel. >> Yes. Lance Huish. >> Yes. Steve Shadow. Yes.
All right, motion carries. Dustin, we're on to possible action rebalance or allocation of portfolio assets in accordance with statement of investment policy and consultant's recommendations. We kind of covered that in the book when I mentioned [laughter] where where where pretty tight to our targets. Okay.
>> So, there there was no need to to do anything as related to rebalancing. Okay. Good. All right. And then we're moving on to pension administrator's report, Dustin. You're on. I didn't Oh, you admit was this a separate agenda item or is this this part I'm sorry.
Or was that not agenda? It was not agenda. Oh, it's not agenda. All right. I'm taking it home. Okay. Wait, maybe just Sure. Should I hit that? No, don't worry. We've got music. Can I just mention what's in front of me as a sort of take
home? Sure. Sure. So, just this is essentially kind of a follow-up to a discussion we had a few meetings ago where we did it somewhat of an education on on private equity. Um and it was it was requested that I I
bring this back just to to kind of update on on the topic. Again, just to to put it in context, the small mid cap portfolios that we were just talking about, those are mutual funds that were available 2 years ago and they're going to be in all likelihood available 2 years from now.
In the private investment world, typically a fund is only fundraising for 6 to 12 months and then it's gone. You see the performance how it goes, but that particular fund is gone. So, this book, which gets a kind of a little bit of a refresh on the
history, also shows three funds that are currently in market. But they won't be in the market 2 years from now. So, I just wanted to kind of mention the timeliness of that like if there was interest in pursuing say private equity and in particular any of
the funds that are shown in here, they have a a limited shelf life. Now, you'd likely be able to get back to them maybe 2 or 3 years from now when they open up their next fund, but it is a sort of a limited time sort of offer, if you will. So, just want to to
highlight that three fund of funds um private equity exposures kind of get diversified by not only US and non-US exposure, as well as the type um what we call primary investments, sometimes co-investments, secondaries. So, these are these are ways to get into
private equity in a very diversified fashion with multiple kind of portfolio types as well as multiple sub managers. The the risk tolerance? I I mean, this is certainly going to be higher than say your domestic equity,
cuz this is illiquid money. You're essentially locking this up for 10-plus years, but we would expect it to outperform. But, there it does take on additional level of risk for what the illiquidity, it's not marked to market. Um and so, it is a
a bit of a jump from kind of the current portfolio in terms of that the risk and returns at point. Hey, Brendan, you you keep bringing us um you know, cap- uh capital raising funds. Um are there any evergreen funds that we
can look at? I know TPG has one, KKR has one. They They They didn't 5 years ago, right? But, it's becoming a really more prevalent as they reach I guess they're designed for retail, but
That That I think that's really the key. Um most of of those type of portfolios are are kind of designed for retail investors, and when we when our research team is is stacking them up and comparing them to kind of these type of managers, the terms, the
fees, the expenses don't really justify some of the the the benefits of of additional liquidity. And so, we we tend to prefer these type of investments. Also, those tend to be much larger kind of funds, which
generally, I think there's a there's somewhat of a preference towards some of the smaller end kind of lower to mid-market from from our standpoint. So, we we haven't really underwritten those. We don't don't feel that those are like the best suited for institutional investors.
But, if there is one in particular, you know, we can look at that. But, as they approach us or as we find them, they the terms sort of underneath the hood don't look nearly as favorable as as a lot of these types of portfolios.
I Yeah, I agree. You know, some of these here, you don't you put your capital work and and they sit on it while they find their companies. You know, the This wasn't an agenda item, correct? Correct. We need to move on to agenda items so we can get to the next We got
employees that want to get their benefits. In that case, can we put this This is pretty important. We've been trying to discuss this for 2 years, 3 years? Um so, if we can put this on the agenda for next and maybe pick some evergreens, too, just to throw
them in there. That would be great. Yeah, Dustin, if you'll just add that to the next quarterly meeting agenda. Thank you. All right. Yeah, in the interest of time, we've hit the 5:00 hour. So, we've probably a little bit over 30 minutes. Then, we got to get out of here. So, I'll
You're up. All right. Thank you, Brenda, for helping set speed record here because the truth about pension plans budgets are that um they don't really matter very much. >> [laughter]
>> Um That's because uh most of the decisions most of the funds that are in here most of most of the decisions have already been made. All right. So, these are either decisions that have already been made or revenue and and things that's out of your control. So, for instance, the
revenue side, um if you're looking at your plans individual budget, here the revenue is, you know, our estimated 7.25% return that we're assuming. And so, that's just a guess what the market is going to do over the
next year starting October 1st. So, I mean, you know, that's just a guess. The member contributions is a number that's actually
derived by GRS as well as what the city contributions are for what needs to be made to the pension plan so that it's adequately funded going forward. Again, these are not These are numbers that are in our budget, but nothing that we are in control of.
The expenses for pension administrator wages, those That's my wages including taxes and insurance and things, and that's stuff These numbers I get from finance department that's estimating
what that would cost and these how my salary is split out, it's 38.73% to the general plan, 13.75 to police, and 9.02 for fire. It's basically split out amongst how much time I spend on
each of those plans and then the other percentage for doing the city work outside of the pension plans. So, you know, keep going down the list. The actuarial services, um, these are fees that have already been agreed
agreed to or just my estimation of what we expenses we might incur. So, I've got a $2,500 increase for both the general police and fire and um, this is, you know, for the estimated
potential increase and the Also, we had some ongoing fees that uh keep coming up like the calculations of um uh credit service purchases. So, now um for the general fund and police plan,
anyone that's hired um has 6 months to make a decision on if they want to make a purchase of credit service if they qualify and that comes with a fee of about I think it's $575. There's a
Yeah, we're we're past the 6-month point where every city employee had the option. So, that the budget going forward doesn't include that, but I do have some kind of contingency there for new hires. um Legal services, I left that the same
even knowing that both of those had um given a an option of uh 25% discount. And the main reason I did that is because um I I do know of a couple of scenarios
potentially coming down the line um that would could be disability hearings. Um and so, I just wanted to kind of leave a contingency there for those potential um because as we approved I think we did a little over a year now
in the the services contract, disability hearings are not included as part of the retainer services. So, we're getting 25%, but we might be spending 25% more if there's a a disability and hearing in any individual fund. So,
um Moving on down the line there, legal services and investment services. So, um a 3% increase built in annually, to the Mariner service contract. All of the
the whole section down below that says contract services. So, these are all the fees that are associated with investment decisions that we've previously made. And really, no matter what we budget, the fees are going to come in under whatever they are based on performance and how much
what the fee structure we signed on for. Um Moving on to the down the line, pension benefits, these are entitlements that the um retirees are entitled to, or they are people that have left the
the city before their 10-year mark, and they're pulling out their uh contributions that they had made. Um So, this is really my best guess on what that looks like. So, if if someone does back drop, this is included in here, and it's really hard to estimate
um this. I look at what our most recent data is on at the time that I prepared the budget on what um how much our retirees are getting each month based on who's passed away, who and new retirees, and then I look at what
Generally, I know usually 6 months ahead of time before somebody's going to retire. So, I'm looking at it, who are new retirees are uh potentially coming up, and then and just making my best estimation on that. On on that line,
probably the the number that jumps out that's just kind of an outlier is for the fire fund. And that's really because of the budget was kind of behind um before, and so I'm catching up a
little bit. Plus, we have a fire retiree this year. Um he's on the agenda today, McLain, >> [laughter] >> and then I know of another potential retiree, I would say likely in the next year. So,
that's that's two new retirees and just kind of catching the budget up to actual. And it percentage-wise it throws it off because you're talking about two new retirees and a little extra catch-up there on what is existing, like 20 below 22 retirees or something like that. So,
it's like 10% of the expenses, you know, going up. So, that's it just kind of has an outsized impact in the fire fund. Other than that, this is the section where the decisions that the budget that we're
setting here actually has some control of spending. This is travel and training. Really though, some costs that have gone up, we've not been hitting the wall on what our budget has been for travel and training.
So, I've left these the same. I think potentially in the future years we could increase these depending upon participation in FPPTA events and things like that. Like I don't know, Steve, you just signed on. If you want to start going and we've got a few others going, then
maybe, you know, we'll we'll maybe increase the the budget for travel and training for fire, but as it stands it seems adequate. Other than that, you know, the rest of this is pretty minimal number-wise compared to the rest of the
pension plans. Liability insurance that is to protect the board members themselves as if we were to be sued for any reason. We do have the death audit software that's in there for
$1,000. I am going to look into um Pedro mentioned that Salem Trust has their own they contract with a um a death audit software themselves now as may provide that as a benefit to us
as our custodians. So, I will look into that as well. So, we may not even need that. We'll see. I do like the death audit software that we have now. It has been working very well. Um and it's been identifying um
We don't have anybody that's passed away that we didn't know of ahead of time and recently in the past year, but but those people have been showing up on the death audit report uh in a timely manner. So.
Um Are there any questions on these budgets on your in particular budgets? No questions. No questions. All right. I conclude you. I need a um Okay. We'll motion. So, we're going to move to
approve the 2027 proposed annual budgets by board. Start Start with a second. Got a second. We got a first and a second. Any questions? Madam Clerk, roll call. Nate Curry. Yes. Dane Jansen. Yes. Greg Klapner. Yes.
Eddie Vergara. Yes. Police. Motion. Second. Got a motion second. Any questions? Comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. David Colburn. Yes. John Patridge. Yes. Matthew Grocky. Yes. John Gastello. Yes. Jason Sharp.
Yes. Motion passes. Firefighters. So moved. Second. Got a first and a second. Any questions? Comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. George Cantler. Yes. John McDaniel. Yes. Lance Hewish. Yes.
Steve Shadow. Yes. And then the approval of the proposed revision in your proof of life verification. Yes, so last year we did proof of life for the first time in I think 5 years. Um those forms were created a long time ago. They um
there were two forms that were to be sent out as an option for the retirees to complete. One required notary signature and one required two witnesses that could not be family members. Um this creates a couple of different
problems. One is that not a huge portion, but several of our retirees are in nursing homes and other things and um obtaining a notary signature or even two witnesses that aren't um
uh family members and then going through the mailing process and things it's it's uh kind of burdensome to some and I I hear about it. Um uh uh uh And the
the other thing is that a lot of the retirees know that we have the notaries here. They've done this over the years, so they come in um at random times for a couple months. Uh they're just showing up um at the city and
get pulled out of meetings and I mean we're talking about almost 300 uh retirees that we have. Um so there's a lot of people that just show up at random times, so I I talked with Pedro and David about this honestly um about what we could do
and what the requirements were. They said there were no legal requirements on the um proof of life form, so I asked them about changing this to just be retiree signature and a witness signature and them still providing us
the contact information. Um and they um both signed off on that and said that that they felt that was adequate in combination with us having the death audit software. So what what for context for you cuz you
weren't here a couple years ago, year and a half ago, we had we discovered there were we had some death audit software but we don't bring it since then. That that one was did not do quite the job and we had two retirees that continued to receive their
families to receive benefits for an extended period that they were not entitled to. And so that was part of the reasoning in bringing back the proof of life form as well as updating contact information because what was
happening is people would pass away and you know, I didn't have good contact information for them anymore. So feel free to do whatever you want with this obviously. I If you decide not to if you feel more comfortable keeping the forms the way
they were, that's fine with me. So not that big deal but I do I do feel like it would be a more efficient process to I'm good with keeping them as I mean I'm for making the revision. I would suggest similar to what they do
across the ditch maybe an event once a year twice a year where a notary's made available and they can come in on a certain date and time or during the whole day. Say hey, we're opening up the doors today and tomorrow and to come in here and get your letter verified. Put out notification for them and
something to that effect. I mean it's always an option. I can actually do that and I that may cut down on people coming in at random times too. Yeah, there you go. All right, we'll go by board. I'll move to approve the proposed revision to the annual
proof of life verification form. General? You moved. I can't move. Oh, I'll move. You got a motion second. Got a motion and a second. Any questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. Nate Curry. Dan Jansen. Yes.
Greg Klettner. Yes. Eddie Vergara. Yes. Motion passes. Please. Motion. Second. Got a motion second. Any questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. David Kohal. Yes. John Patrick. Yes. Matthew Grocky. Yes. John Castillo. Yes.
Jason Sharp. Yes. So, the motion carries. We'll find out. Second. Got a motion second. Questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. George Chandler. Yes. John McDaniel. Yes. Lance Hewish. Yes. Steve Shadow.
Yes. Other information? Um Yeah, we'll go through this quickly. Um FPTA meeting at the end of June, there will be another one in October timeframe. That'll be a school. Uh this one's the annual conference. I'm not
sure if it's for or not. If someone still wants to go, I I can check on it, but we do have I think three that are signed up to go to that one. Uh form one. Um everyone needs to do their form one. Um I'd say at least
I don't know if you have to do it again or not. Check with the city city clerk's office on that. I think once you've done it, you've done it cuz it goes to the state. Right. So, as a new I'm not sure if you're I don't know.
I would say check on it. Um securities litigation and fraud monitoring. So, this is something we we know we did some 6 months ago and made a decision to go with Saxon White and Will Pope & Associates. And um since that time they have been granted
access to our to Saxon White & Associates, so they can see what our uh investments are. Um they both sent along some information here. The information from Saxena White would
is more like here's our online system that you can go look at your your stuff with whereas Wolf Popper is has a more custom and I think they just gained access
recently so they may come to at the next meeting with more of a report. But Wolf Popper gives us indications they you know we have detected no losses related to litigation alleging violations of federal securities laws and you do not need to take any action
at this time. So that's pretty definitive they've they've looked at our investments what we've been investing and when we were invested in them and they've determined that there's nothing for them to really pursue at this time but they will continue monitoring for us.
And they've provided a report on there as well. Do I have I have a quick question though. I got an email a month ago I thought I sent it but it was from the FPTA. Oh yeah. Saying that my account was set
up with a new user. But I tried to log on and it told me I wasn't registered. So we pretty much manage those for everyone and we were just updating contact information and that account is just established so that if you decide you
want to go we'll enroll you with that account. >> not going I just can ignore that. Yes absolutely and you don't need to do anything and we try and handle everything for everyone including the travel documents and all that so
it's just as less confusing as possible. Yeah, I think that's I think that's it. We have our our next meeting August 25th, 3:00 p.m. Um we'll have like I said David Meggitt will be at that meeting doing ethics
discussion and talk. And pretty good that and some evergreen stuff. Yeah. All right, so moving thank you Dustin. Um so moving along well, I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to handle the expect expected rate of return for both general employees and fire first and then we'll go through the
retirements. So starting with the general board consideration approve the set expected rate of return to 7.25% for the next year, the next several years and the long-term thereafter. I need a motion and a second.
I'll move. Got a motion, can I get a second? Second. Got a motion and second, any questions, comments? Madam Clerk roll call. Nick Curry. Yes. Dean Janssen. Yes. Greg Kletchmer. Yes. Eddie Vergara. Yes. Motion carries
police. Motion. Second. Got a motion and second, questions, comments? None. Madam Clerk roll call. David Coble. Yes. John Patridge. Yes. Matthew Gronke. Yes. John Costello. Yes. Jason
Shaw. Yes. Motion carries and to approve the set expect expected rate of return to 6.5% for the next year, the next several years and the long-term thereafter for the firefighters. So moved. And a second. Got a motion and second, questions,
comments? Madam Clerk roll call. George Chandler. Yes. John McDaniel. Yes. Lance Hewish. Yes. Steve Shado. Yes. Okay, the motion carries Consideration by General Employees
Board. Approve the GRS Consulting, Brad Armstrong. Okay, very good. Um I'll reread this. Approve GRS Consulting, Brad Armstrong payment of invoice number 499640 and invoice number 501062
to GRS Consulting in the amount of 3725 and 2600 respectively. Need a motion and a second, General. So moved. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. Nick Curry. Dan Jansen.
>> Yes. Greg Klafka. Yes. Eddie Vergara. Yes. I think that covers the cost of him not being able to hit the button to >> [clears throat] >> Um Next, We need to approve application for retirement, Kenneth Watson, Systems
Operations Supervisor, Beaches Energy, effective 5/1/26. Separation date 41026. Meets eight service requirements for normal retirement. 15 years, two months of service. So moved. Second. Got a motion and a second. Questions,
comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. Nick Curry. Yes. Dan Jensen. >> Yes. Greg Cliffner. Yes. Eddie Vergara. Yes. All right, move along. That carries. That passes. Approve application for back drop retirement, Tammy Leonard, Operations Administrator,
Beecher's Energy, effective 3123. Separation date 22726. Meets eight service requirements for back drop retirement. 33 years, three months of service. Get a motion. So moved. Second. Got a motion and a second.
Questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. Nick Curry. Yes. Dan Jensen. >> Yes. Greg Cliffner. Yes. Eddie Vergara. Yes. Motion passes. Move to approve application for vested retirement, Ronald Street, Database Administrator, Information Services, effective 3126.
Separation date 7612. Meets eight service requirements for vested retirement. 11 years, five months of service. Get a motion. So moved. Second. Got a motion and a second. Questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. Nick Curry. Yes. Dan Jensen. Yes. Greg Cliffner. Yes.
Eddie Vergara. Yes. Motion approves. Approve application, vested retirement, Rachel Hall, Police Dispatcher, Police, effective 6126. Separation date 1823. Meets eight service requirements for vested
retirement. 20 years of service. Can I get a motion? Can I get a motion? Motion approved. Need a second. Police Dispatcher. Is that general? Too. That's Is that general plan? Yeah. That person is a general She's a person general work at the police department.
So, I'll second her if it didn't get a second. Okay, got a motion and a second. Any questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. Nick Curry. Yes. Dan Jansen. Yes. Greg Kleffner. Yes. Eddie Vergara. >> Yes. All right, motion passes. Moving to firefighters, we need to approve application for retirement, Matthew
McLaren, lieutenant fire effective 5 1 26 separation date 4 10 26. He meets age service requirements for normal retirement, 21 years and 9 months of service. >> So moved. Second. Got a motion, second. Any questions, comments? Madam Clerk, roll call.
George Kedler. Yes. John McDaniel. Yes. Blaine Hewish. Yes. Steve Shadow. Yes. I'm going to open the floor to courtesy of the floor for anybody visitors that wanted to speak I'll make a motion to adjourn. Okay, we'll move to adjourn. Can I get a
motion to adjourn? Moved. Seconded. All right, motion All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Meeting adjourned. Is that it?