[Applause] ni Curry here hereis here here Eddie here David here Marvin Ry here John here Jason here here Ed Dawson John McDaniel lsh here W here okay we have to do the approval minutes the minutes for the Fe February 27 2024 for theion meeting just a Voice vote so all in favor Coury of visitors anybody back here who wants to address the board then we have our legal upate we have in David Robson phone there Theiss of um and um in the past been filed on paper now it's beened to the form basically the information request on the form is not changed it's just the format just as the electronic format that's different um the form still on Ju and personal addresses personal phone numb and you also avoid any person account information Etc I think that you have in your packet a memo from our office that that that explains all of the um explains the new um with a link directly to it to the site which you can file it um if you have any questions to answer later line is Du July so if you haven't already filed please do so quickly and that's really all we have in the way legislative update for this year I've got a quick question for you Mr Robson I think I know the answer to it also you an official imag that counts for the form one as well I will verify that for believe have to fil okay let me know later I've already done the form for this okay I got my postcard yesterday about filing electronic anybody I is there a place we can go online to to verify and see that we've got it filed as you're saying that I'm remembering I think I follow it online the Flor ethics a confir at the end um I don't believe that there's any place that you can go Che your St I hav not aware of them actually keep filing statuses that you go into I think there is I think when you uh log into the Florida ethics website they you have to create an account and then you file either your form one or your form six and once you do that you'll be provided a link you back and visit at any time it's one of those as you're filling it out you can stop Midway pause say come back day City usually follows close to the deadine and make that everyone needs F and then start okay thank you very much pleas thank you thank you I need to ask permission police I'm allow to sit in your spot we have aam out back um I'm here to present um the annual exu should look like this you may have received them online as well but um I'm going talk about all three systems at the same time um purposes of the these and bear in mind these are October 1st 2023 so any experience um whether that be member activity or investment activity um in in the last seven eight months now um is not reflected in my reports so U we first and foremost we determin the annual required contributions for the fiscal year beginning October 1st 2024 so so we're deliberately projecting forward one fiscal year so that the budgeting process um can adjust itself the needs to for U purposes of allting appropriate amount to for uh General police and firefighter Retirement Systems uh bearing in mind that um there's only six six more years that based on the inter loal agreement with firefighters of Jack Jacksonville Beach um and the consolidation with Jacksonville the employer city of Jacksonville the next six years the city of Jacksonville Beach expects the owner be making contributions to firefighter retirements um and that would be the fiscal year anying 2030 so um we also are going to look at the um the funded raos of the system as as of October 1st 2023 and um I I'll caution to you that um we we moved away um at least police and general Poli moved away from 100% funded ratio um the markets have recovered substantially since then so as we sit here today it's probably not quite as dramatic as what you're going to see and I encourage you to ask questions I think there's a few trustees that I have not met previously only questions during this presentation but um you certainly can anytime contact us and he'll put you in touch with me or we'll discuss whatever your needs or concerns are with respect to actal matters we're also going to hopefully sufficiently explain and this is where you need to ask questions if we don't sufficiently explain what the major drivers of change were between valuation as of 2022 and 2023 and we're also going to look at assessing certain risk and Trends beyond the more obvious contribution amounts the city the funded ratios this is the financing diagram um the the next two slides are a little bit primer and a little bit reminder um this financing diagram is is for open plans um the the reason that you spend so much time on on the on the assets is because you're accumulating um assets with with the purpose of ping about half half of the the benefit requirements you know in an open plan you're not trying to accumulate assets go there other uh city city services and projects um that deserve a lot of attention you know so we're seeking to contribute the appropriate amount under the Florida Statutes and also on actual standards to F the benefit promises that we're making to all the members covered by the plan this this diagram uh Al illustrates negative cashs so to the extent that the contributions don't don't meet that lower half the dotted red vertical lines with arrows to the extent that those contributions are are less than the amount needed for dispersements for benefit payments in case that is um that's called negative cash flow and the point here is that's always been anticipated um we never would have needed pre ass of the contributions were always greater for benefits there's no point in in that particular exercise so so negative cash flow some of the times appears on the cross with very negative connotations in our case completly expected and manageable to the extent that um it's it's not so negative ex why you have cons collectively we'll make sure that that doesn't happen and um eventually left hand out of U graphing so long um I think the last time I graphing class was was actually um for engineering access the Y AIS um I was buying time so you know you put you have a bunch of stacks you get older it's not that your memory is any worse you have a bunch of stacks you have to get deep into the stack some of the times to find what it is looking for so um anyway the Y AIS is pretty irrelevant that firefighter's payroll is going away for the firefighter specifically so percent of active uh employee payroll becomes undefined for firefighters once once they no long have any active members or any payroll um and you know because they're closed um ultimately they actually are expecting their you know their trust to the CL because again we're not trying to accumulate um assets without a purpose let see this um and also guess if you need me to speed up um give me a signal for that too um so pres present values any anybody who uh hasn't seen a presentation before the X-ray basically takes thousands of these present values so basically we we look at every every month and what the chances are it's a lot it's basically the foundations of actual science started with life insurance so the The Exchange and the agreement between an individual and sure is are are you alive in in the simplest sense premium so um if and and a month later we check again are you alive and um so on and so forth you know for for years you're paying a premium and then one day um you're not alive and uh they and they pay you the face value of the policy to to your beneficiaries uh or or state so uh we have two primary uh issues every month that we're looking at um an investment return so so that um we're making an assumption as to what we can expect to achieve on average from a diversified portfolio um invested with the fors investment policy statement secondly the probability that money will be paid so if somebody is pay status um he might say there's no probability we have to pay them anything but but they everyone's making contributions into the retirement system so if if somebody uh puts active employment even if they're vested they're they're allowed to request an immediate refund of their member contributions so so that's a transaction as well but we have to account for you take thousands of these and combine them I I would I would to say that just about anybody could probably look at uh one person decrementing 10 years from today and and the math wouldn't be all that challenging the challenge is uh when there's thousands of those calculations and we combine them all um do do they still make sense is it reasonable so what is the investment re return to use for and uh General employees and police officers Retirement System using 7.2% and that's what you see in in the example here but if if I needed $11,000 a a year from today um to to pay a debt um if if in fact I could expect to earn 7.5% I only need $930 today and I invest it I earn 7.5% on the $930 a year from today when um this is from CAD sh move some Rocco $1,000 and and I would have it so uh then finally uh introductions the present value future benefits um is the totality of uh what we're looking to to fund for the the assets um presently are less than that we have an unfunded liability we're not trying to pay that off in a sing year so we have an ammonization policy but um we make a payment against that every single year there's uh the retirement system and the Florida Statutes um and and you all as for of trustees with fiduciary responsibilities take take um the the payments towards the unfunded VAR so uh if St pay mayt off to you're not making your car payment you're not making your house payment the bank or the lender is not going to be very happy and they're um they're they're going to come and disrupt your life um if you don't make those pan so um we have an amortization policy that makes those panis um the blue and the purple combin if they uh is anyone color by okay um the the uh but the blue and the purple combined that would be the P service liability so that's the liability that already exist then the remaining um guess um that's for hun but um the the presid does anybody um look good at all colors maybe they would know um what what shade of green those are but the present v noral um the present very future normal costs uh have have uh yet to be worked you know it's the future normal costs those are the active future working lifetimes of your existing active members so they're um they're working those each year the yearly normal cost if we pay those we're we're not going to expect to ACW any additional debt because we're we're making a payment for each subsequent year as as X work and they're providing services to your community um so we're matching up the service they providing with the community with service occurred under the Retirement Systems and then uh here's the next few slides these are uh before we responsible for protecting and if you add the uh the retired members that's there's 262 total members and that's um Pro probably less than half of how many households are depending on the benefits that are in Pay status right now so so um an awful lot of people are relying on uh the retirement system um to provide income to their hous there's 16 investive members and uh we look at the Active population there's 300 if you out across the total com is not shown but um that way I can't be accused of reading off the slide but but the total up there just Bing us to that so there's 347 active members um again these these are all households with dependence and that's why this is so important you know we're easily um talking about you know 700 to a, if not more uh individuals that in some way have uh Financial dependence on on the retirement system and its ability to pay benefits so now uh benefit security for members is accomplished by accumulating assets uh to fund the benefit phaces value assets uh the third bullet there there are differences between um the market value and the assumed return um that are being faced in over fouryear period this this is this is for budgeting purposes it's it's unbiased and it always converges to Market we're not we're not trying to uh uh adjust our expectations you know based on the current situation if there's a budget surplus or a budget shortfall we're independent of that this this me this method is to mitigate radical changes in contribution requirements in 2022 was you know terrific year up and then it's 21 excuse me and and 20 22 you know was a pretty bad year now 23 was pretty flat so uh if you mark to mark it in 2021 one City's contribution rate would have um gone down considerably and the following year would have gone up considerably and this this is um used primarily to to moderate uh and that's the fourth bullet um even the closed uh firefighters retirement system still has on the order of a 50-year Time Horizon to to pay the last beneficiary of the of the last m so um significant time R yet ahead of this is a little bit of looking forward this is a summary of of the method as um as it's appeared the if if we're smoothing over four years and that means we're only smoothing 1/4 of the 23 experience so in 2024 we must still have some 23 experience to recognize we also have 22 and 21 experience to recognize this is um for all three of the systems you'll see under 2024 uh Rel relatively large negative number so these are notes for next year uh the employer contributions are uh like a off um in the ABS offsetting gains and uh funny progress uh will will slow our regress um and we we'll see that a little bit in the projections in a moment uh the calculated contributions and these are as percents of pay so uh if you look at the bottom row the 15.5 to3 for the General Retirement System is actually down a little bit from 1582 last year but we have uh negative experience as we're going to discuss that's because the payroll total payroll went up 20 23% a lot so 15.82% you'll you'll see very soon that does not correspond to a reduction in the dollar contribution because because the payel went up so significantly a lot of that was retroactive during the pandemic there were a lot of pay freees uh minimal minimal pay increases um police um was pretty stable you see the 12.64 that compares 12.38 last year um fire went down um from 53% to 47% and it uh and the fourth column here um is is not a total I actually um got a little bit concerned um that's um that's the firefighters converted to dollars on this particular page and the reason is within a few years we're not going to have any payroll so so the percents will become less and less meaningful so side by side um we converting that to Dollars and ultimately that's the only thing you'll see for firefighters dollar contributions now the next slide um calculated contributions here I'm going to um talk about each retirement system uh from left to right the general employee the general system the salaries so I said the pil went up 23% uh but that's not representative of uh the same members that were there at the beginning of the year and the end of the year um and uh there there were 18 members that um eight there's 18 more members than last year so there's 261 General employees compared to 241 so some of the 23% pay increase was because the group size increased but uh it's I I'll use the word staggering it's there's um on average the people that were there at the beginning and end of the year their salaries went up 20.8% that's not an actal calculation it's just looking at the that were there at the beginning of the year and what their P reported in 2022 was does may may have some additional commentary but um there there was a very high degree of salary increases to the extent that we're assuming more moderate historical saling increases and your uh benefit ultimately is determined based on Final um that has a very substantial um in effect on the liabilities and increases the liabilities dramatically relative to what we assume um we did have and I'm not talking about funding value I'm talking about market value assets we did have a market value assets game although it was relatively modest in 2023 we had a mortality gain um amongst the retirees we had um retirement gain so fewer people wanted to pay status than we assumed for the general employees and the projection which you'll see in a moment if you look at the second to last row uh that's involed for General 2,839 477 that was projected to be 2,678 th000 last year that difference is entirely to the salary experience um that were uh that's what wasn't expected last year when we did our projections last year we knew that U we were going to have to recognize uh some of the investment experience over the remaining three years uh from 22 um two years for 21 and one year for 2020 we knew about that um what we didn't know about is the salaries going incre and police looks awfully similar they had it uh for the people that were there uh at the beginning of the year and also at the end of the year they had sour increases to 20.7% so substantial loss but they also had a mortality gain market value of assets gain and and a retirement gain and what is a retirement um it's not always the case but if somebody doesn't retire their life expectancy generally doesn't increase so they retire a year later we don't owe them any money for for the year that they chose to effectively defer their retirement you know so that's what I mean by retirement we assumed three people are going to retire only two people retired you know so so the retirement system is not making dispersements for the additional number and you might say well that get a raise they're going to get additional service but they're not going to get 100% of the benefit for for that first year they wait extra year if I could just comment on the Sal quick the measurement dates that were looking at for salaries here are October 1st 2022 to September 30th 2023 we had coing increases in July for the city of 3% July so that only had a 3mon impact on the prior year but of course full years worth of impact and that was compounding on the next increase that we had of a minimum of 8.45% we had the employes so that's 3% and then when you check into account employees normal raises the extra hiring that we had and also structural changes in the city that in some promotions and things that all those factors kind of came together to make that 20 I know you're sitting here as an employee you're thinking I don't remember a 20% um so that's that's kind of how it all kind of comes together thanks so uh but um the in the case of police we actually projected 738,000 and what you see up there in B is 731 th000 um and that's um uh that's not an increase I mean it's basically the same as the projection how is that possible I mean the experience verbally sounded to me almost like same as general well um three things happen the uh chapter 1185 um that is for any new trustees the state is makes additional contributions for Public Safety officers and specifically police um uh that's to AFF a statute um enumerated this chapter 185 so so to the extent that the chapter 185 money went up to $35,000 and um we we don't expect it to regress we expect it come in you know at least as much as it did the prior year and since um it's Loosely related to inflation you know and the overall tax base of the community um we expect it to stay the same or increase so so it came in at $35,000 so and that's an offset to the city's contribution so when you get to that b 731 you got a $35,000 uh offset if you will because we expect in fiscal year 20125 the chapter 185 money is going to be $35,000 higher than it was 2022 so that's that's a part of it but that's only about a third of it the the other two pieces are um we talked about the um the the purple piece of the pie earlier and you know paying the amation payments well those are over closed periods some of them end you know and when they do end um you don't owe those payments anymore and um you had two separate bases they were both about $37,000 each and those were paid off um effective with valuation so in the 2023 valuation basically you have 33,000 33,3 33 specifically 35 from chapter 185 37 and 37 um and uh so so you had $109,000 contribution requirement that um that you had in the 2022 report you 202 so that's why your contribution doar do go up unfortunately that's not right way to repeat itself at least we don't we don't think it will as we speak here today so when you see the projection you're going to you're going to see a prediction that your contribution go up next year because of unrecognized losses and fny value the firefighters um the um you only get um 60% of the attention today I guess there's only three trustees but uh whatever attention you need um I'll stay out for that comment need to um but as as far as their experience they did not have the dramatic increases their their s increases um with 5.9% um they also had a mortality gain um they had the market value gain um it was a little bit bigger because the firefighters assim return is 65% um and uh they they actually had a little bit of a retirement loss so I I believe we expected someone to retire and they did um they uh their their benefit was a little bit higher um than average that they anticipated so um so their experience was consistent uh in fact even a little bit better so the 131 um compares to what we projected last year 1 83,000 um however as far as the city of Jacksonville Beach um it go down the the Box on the lower left that has a fire contribution requirement that topped was the second row of the Box city of Jacksonville Beach 77 653 you know for fiscal year ring 20125 um that's identical this 2024 this is part ofal agreement they established close 10e contribution amount that 2025 figures as I said earlier has 6 years left last payment official year 2030 then projections alluded to um primarily I'm going to focus on uh the right hand column in uh FAL year 25 to 26 um if if you'll call and I'm going to actually go back to you uh you remember this slide where we we saw those negative numbers under 2024 so so we have losses to recognize um you you very depending on how the last four months of this this year go um if it's sta you'll certainly have offsetting gains um but until until the fiscal year is over um we don't know so those recognized losses are going to push the contributions up um the cursor is poting actually to for General um the the dollar contribution this report 2.89 million uh is expected to go 3,95 you know that that's a number for the general employees trustees to remember if it doesn't look like that next year you deserve an explanation why whether it's higher or lower and here we see police just because we have uh stability in the the city's contributions this year we don't expect those events to repeat themselves at least not until they happen so 765,000 projected to go to 855,000 next year and uh no surprise there's um in any case city of Jacksonville Beach that that figure remains constant there's only five I don't have an explanation for that I'm going to figure that out um there there may be a missing amount um in in the sixth position so my apologies um but if we just focus on next year we expect um the contribution requirement to to be identical for the city of Jacksonville Beach and actually slightly down for for the city of Jackson 5,3 and the funded ratios as of 2023 um if if you remember the Poli Poli in the general Place had pretty similar experience and yet the police officer's contribution uh didn't go up very much but that was external to the funded ratio the liabilities went up more than expected in almost equal measures so it shouldn't be surprised when we look at funded ratios we moved away from 100% which is not the we hope for 84% to 80.5% for General that's exactly 4% 3.6% we moved away from 100% from police officers that's where the experienced similarities um are demonstrated moved similarly um the the firefighters improved because they have um such an aggressive imization policy city of Jacksonville Beach is putting in U some substantial um contributions and it moved their funded ratio from 78% to 83.2% and the last three slides um I'm going to move through pretty quickly I think I've taken enough time unless uh anyone has questions the uh column 12 is um is the best column to focus on the what's not on this the absolute best risk measure is is when the auditor presents the audit report you want you want them to say that the plan sponsor made the contribution requirements so so the ACT comes up these contribution requirements we all know for roughly a year and a half a year and a half from today will be ex sitting at fiscal year end far enough past fiscal year end 2025 and we'll be able to reflect on whether those contributions were made that's the most important aspect of the entire process as far as the ACT is concerned does the audit report demonstrate that biggest red flag you need the contribution uh requirements to be met uh that's an immediate indication of a credit risk um with with regard to your ability if you want the a rake to your neighbor and they have a for sale sign up there's a flight RIS and I want my rake pay you can't have it for the rest the rest of the year anymore um so those but in column 12 um uh a very important met to to pay attention to is the negative cash flow we saw that at the very beginning in the financing diagram we expected negative cash flow we got it for uh the general employees um it's less than 5% and and I'm not the expert in the room but uh that that's generally pretty comfortable and safe problem police rather uh you'll see that that the last row there count 12 1.9% so even less negative cash flow um a great situation and firefighters um it's positive it's positive 1.3% but uh after fiscal year end 2030 that's that's going to change rather dramatically so uh the firefighters trustees um need to be aware of that and and uh all all the Professionals in particular the investment consultant and possibly some of the money managers that you're going to be drawing uh money from u in order to meet the benefit payroll you know those uh those people all need to be part of the discussion such that uh when you stop getting the $77,000 annually from the city of Jacksonville Beach that's there there are no disruptions with regards to investment performance you're not you're not going to run out of money overnight but you could impair investment I don't have any more questions BR I only have one question uh the FRS mity table how often very soon um excellent question the um the most important thing to know is that um you have two years to adopt it it's it's a statutory requirement um so you have to adopt it but um if if FRS suddenly um adopted a new mortality table or maybe did two weeks ago and it hasn't been publicized yet um you the retirement system was still be fine using um the mortality ass that that we're using presently the it's my understanding that an experience study is underway and I would expect uh this fall will know um what the new mortality table recommendation is to the extent that that fors adop the flo retirement system abbreviations can be frustrating people use a lot of the uh we I guess it's just me um at the moment but I don't expect that it's going to dramatic increase in El freenes because because one thing we know the pandemic may be over but um now we have an endemic situation with SAR CV2 we didn't have that five years ago so maybe we returned to you know the normal situation and yes we expect uh the people being born today for generational Improvement U with respect to their life expectancies but um but they'll be exposed to an additional risk because now now we an additional know risk position so I um I I'll be in contact UM with all of your advisers you know if we think it's going to be a substantial increase we'll certainly discuss that in advance of adoption and you'll be well aware an impact of this sign I'm new at this so I can to ask stupid question under your 5year projection employee contributions on the police total employer contributions Milli 44 goes down to 938 on 2030 how is that you probably covered that not qu paying attention so which Poli we this go go to page I'm sorry no no worries no at all the um the ma the Major Impact with respect to um the what you see is the fourth number I'm going to go back U there there's a relatively dramatic decrease from um 92,000 to 729 and um that that's when you're going to be paying off um there's a there there's a stantial 4year base um the presid has a contribution amount of $266,000 annually um and that that will be fully amortised in four years and that's that's why it steps down in that manner we we'll also be close to that time frame um will be fully recognized that would the other systems as well just were absolutely true but um that's that's the primary driver Robson send answering there's not any more questions then we vote to accept the report roll call motion to accept the Actuarial report second David cohill yes John Patridge yes Rudy Dean yes John Gilla yes Jason motion to approve second heor canler yes L hsh yes Debbie White Nick Curry yes Dan Jansen yes Christine Hoffman Brandon rasma yesari yes okay next up compy good afternoon everybody my name is Megan I am senior audit manager on the jaon engagement I have Barbara boy to partner on the engagement with me as well uh I am a little slow technologically soer don't know yeah that's what Chang you say on the bottom yeah there's a I think the bottom button is a green laser the green okay fantastic thank you all right so we just got done with the presentation by the actuaries uh whereas actuaries are looking forward to your net present value of your future liabilities uh aers typically look back our purpose is to issue an opinion on financial statements are materially accurate and reported under us generally accepted accounting principles um in your case since you're public pension you also have requirements from the governmental accounting standards for so we're going to be looking at things a bit differently you just received the October 1st 2023 Actuarial valuation our T pension liability Within These financial statements is going to be bed on the October 1st 2022 actual evaluation rolled forward to September 30th 2023 using some assumptions related to inflation investment returns and salary increases so just you're aware his numbers are not going to affect the numbers you're about to see up here so we have some standard required Communications that are associated with the statements that we issued and the most important thing to know on these financial statements for all three plans is that there was an unmodified opinion on the financial statements for all three and that's the highest level of assurance that you can receive from an outset CPA firm that your financial statements are materially accurate as report there are some other required Communications that came along with uh with the financial statements uh they are in a separate that's within your found financials and they just require for the required Communications are items regarding accounting practices policies and estimates uh they document significant accounting practices and policies and whether there are any changes in those from prior years there weren for any of the plans for the significant accounting estimates the main ones we use are the fair value of Investments and the actal assumptions that are used in estimating that annual pension cost and the total pension liability as disclosed in the financial statements we had no difficulties that we encountered during the course of the audits uh there were no corrected or uncorrected misstatements and we had no disagreements with manag performance our a so the state fuci is going to be a summarization of your cash and cash equivalent your Investments any of your assets that are available to pay the benefits of the plan we have a summarization of the general employees and you can see the trend going from 2019 through 20120 and the important thing to note particularly is trend of the Investments over that period of time in 2021 you had the substantial recovery postco 2022 a little bit of a pullback due to inflationary pressures and this year you can see that the Investments are starting to come back to your Statewide levels and your net position restricted for available to pay benefits has increased by 6% from the prior for the police officers the investment showed the same general Trend and that plan had a 7.2 increase from the PRI for the firefighters there was an 11.2% increase I'm not really sure what's driving that to have such an outside effect but it's potentially a result of that particular plan being closed and the requ contrib to the team it ALS it also could be that because it's a closed population and there's negotiations going on with Jacksonville that's um nobody's leaving so there there's no there's no dispersements that would definitely make sense all right does anyone have any questions on the statements of fiduciary net position for any of the plans all right we also present something called the statement changes in produc your net position that is going to be your ins and your outs that's going to be your plan administrative expenses any net investment income that you have realized any contributions employ and employer as well as state contributions uh as applicable for the police fire plans and then your benefits and refunds so as you can see the general trend for the change in fiduciary n position has kind of followed along with the investment income so in years when the markets are doing well Investments are doing well typically you're going to realize a significant change in that position now these past few years have have just been a whirlwind as we all know we're hopefully reaching some stability but in the future you really shouldn't be seeing these kinds of swings that you've seen from 21 through 23 and you'll note that on all of the plans the stock market historically has always increased whenever it's gone down it's always come back up so you see the same trm in the police officer plan with these two years being a bit more stable and then these three fluctuating quite a bit you're back to the average that you be in 2020 and 2019 and for the firefighters you see the same 1.7 million of positive change in that position around what you saw in 2020 and 2019 so does anyone have any questions on the statement of changes in year net position no that's all we've got we look back can't change the numbers from what they actually were question question from anyone discusss questions you have anything to ask just well one thing that the most important thing that briad wanted to hear is whether you made your contributions you said you should make your contributions and you did yeah there were even small excesses a dollar3 we like to see that better over than under okay we have to vote to accept the report motion John Patridge yes David coohill yes Rudy Dean yes John gotilla yes Jason Sharp yes right firefighters G kler yes zsh yes Deb White yes Nick Curry yes Dan Jansen yes Christine Hoffman Brandon marisma Eddie marara yes okay Brandon is up with hand Formerly Known asally Mariner institutional bigger better stronger and and know there's not a problem with the printer that people are supposed to be blurry on the front although I will apologize I did have a little bit of of a print and shipping issue so the the hard copies that you have in the front of you are an abbreviated version of the report essentially the pages that we focus on but we will um not very glossy either they're not very glossy although they didn't used to be either but outside of the cover you I think you'll notice a lot of similarities so let's go ahead and and jump into the report um I'm going to start uh if you're following on the paper essentially be the first page in but page number four um in the upper right hand corner what you'll see uh the three months ended March 31 were were fantastic if you recall back the fourth quarter the first quarter of our new f scho year ending 1231 was also really strong but it was really dominated by the last 6 weeks you know the FED came out in the middle of November said we're done raising rates we're probably going to cut beginning in June and they kind of hinted at somewhere between four and six cuts the market got really excited bond yields fell stock market went up get to January 1st um well January through the end of March stocks continue to do incredibly well the S&P 500 was up 10.6% just for that 3mon period um small caps were up 5.2 which is a nice return but less than half of what large caps did the noticeable thing down at the bottom though in green you'll see fixed income was negative so as we went from January February into March um the inflation numbers stayed kind of high and the unemployment stayed very low and so the the market became less enthusiastic or was coming to grips with the fact that they probably weren't going to get Cuts beginning in June and it probably wasn't going to be 4 to six you know I think the current sort of consensus is probably starting in August or September and it's between zero and two cuts by the end of the year so all that to say as the market was kind of digesting that information interest rates did actually kind of go back up a little bit um and you can actually see that on the next page of the the hard copy um this going to be slide number 11 down in the bottom right hand corner the yellow line is where we were at the end of the year you see the that is quite a bit down the page from either the gray line or the green line the prior two quarters but the Blue Line the most recent quarter end you can see that that has moved up off of the yellow line so again just graphically demonstrating how rates did move back higher again within the quarter and this will be somewhat telling when you get to the fixed income portfolio because again Rising interest rates means falling bond prices so the next page um they we're going to touch on is page 14 um this looks at your your total um fund assets over time again we have your information going all the way back to 1987 when you only have 11.8 million in total between the three PLS but you can see the blue line um it moves obviously up to the right along the page you finish the order at $11.5 million and we compare that to the red line which is the theoretical um kind of feess assumed rate of return if there was a an investment product that you could put that money in that just got you your assumed rate of return with no fees you would have had $104.4 million so by by investing with your active managers asset allocating and such you've created quite a nice spread or gain relative to your assumed rate of return that cumulative assumer return um of approximately $17 million and again the other thing I like to point out these blue bars down at the bottom represent the cumulative net cash flow and so what you can see is obviously through time you were fairly stable to Rising on a on a cash flow basis then it started to roll over meeting you were negative cash flow um there in in 2008 or so you actually had on a cumulative basis spent out all of the 11 .8 that you that you had back in 1987 and now since then youve you've spent an additional 38.8 million in sort of that cumulative net negative cash flow yet you're still growing your assets and like I said up over $121 million which ultimately is kind of The Sweet Spot of of pension plan investing even though you're paying out those benefit payments and that negative cash flow you're growing your assets at a faster rate than you are paying out those those expenses any questions on that um next couple Pages get into the uh the asset allocation um I'm going to focus on page 17 these blue bars because it shows um how we're allocated relative to your investment policy targets and what you'll notice is we are quite a bit overweight to domestic equity and and a lesser degree to International but on a combined basis as of March we were sitting at about 65.6% which is above our hard cap for the ordinance um just so happens we did have to make a distribution for for pension expenses just a few weeks ago um because we were in excess of that Equity cap we did take that was $2 million that was needed from the equity portfolio but even after that we're still sitting um right at about 65% peeled off 2 million of equity um in the last few weeks yet we're still sitting right near that that kind of hard cap of 65% um but what that really means is there's going to be a lot of good news to follow in in the report because we just talked about Equity being up 10 plus percent for six months they're up 20% and we've had a little more equity in the portfolio than the policy so that's going to lead to some really good news that we'll touch on here in just a second I guess let's go ahead and I'm to skip ahead to the next page 21s one too far so in the upper left hand corner we we talked about the environment being good and you did even better um so if you look for the quarter we were up 6.32% beating the policy of 5.01 and you plac in the 13 percentile or in other words you beat 87% of the public funds around the country for that 3mon period if you take it up BR probably agree that the most important number on the page is that second column the fytd or fiscal year to date so we're always looking in that rolling calar fiscal year excuse me this is now the six month number 15.14 versus 14.5 and placing in the 29th percentile so excellent absolute performance when we're assuming either 7 and A2 or 6 and A2 in the plan in 6 months you more than double that and obious viously beating the Benchmark at the same time the 29th percenti is also very good just one thing to kind of keep in mind if you if you go down just a couple of lines you'll see that your total Equity portfolio earned 22.52% just in 6 months as a general rule your plan has less Equity exposure than your peer group so in a period where equities are incredibly strong where you generally have a slightly smaller allocation to equity that's why even though you outperform that the fiscal year were a little lower in that Universe again still 29th is very strong but just kind of given that Equity performance and the underlying performance you you might think it should be just a little bit higher but you're you're getting that asset allocation effect in terms of that performance if you take this out uh to 5 years 8.1% each year for the Last 5 Years and placing in the 40% very solid in the upper half U As you move down the page you've got the individual managers you can kind of see where that out performance came from all spring your your large cap growth manager 16.45 versus 11.4 so excellent quarter for the fiscal year 32.3 versus 27.2 so they've had a really good kind of turnaround if you recall it was about nine months ago they were here um they had been underperforming for you and you can actually see that in the longer term like the three-year number 5.38 versus 12.5 um but but certainly have kind of turned a corner at least the last few quarters and are doing significantly better the next strategy is JP Morgan Equity income U this is our value strategy 7.4 versus 8.9 and behind also in the fiscal year 16 a half versus 19% but on the three-year basis they are outperforming 8.3 versus 8.1 then we've got our small and midcap strategy with eaten Vance or Atlantic Capital excellent quarter 9 vers 6.9 um and just slightly ahead for the fiscal year 216 versus 21.2% on the next page we've got our International Equity up at the top and on a relative basis your International all of your international funds did really really well now a lot of these numbers um are are less than are domestic Equity domestic did better than International but your set of inter International managers did really well DFA 7% versus 6 excuse me 4.7 Euro Pacific was up 7.4 versus 84.8 excuse me wcm did even better 11.8 versus that 4.8 um so very good relative performance and again collectively that works out to be just under 8% from our International strategies um then down below we get into fixed income um we have two different U portfolios one term um they were up 78 basis points versus their Benchmark of 42 um and then the Saw Grass portfolio 62 basis points to the negative versus their Benchmark of 84 basis points again we talked about interest rates moving up which means falling bond prices um so Sawgrass certainly was not immune to that their portfolio to decline but they did outperform by 22 basis points slightly protecting Capital um in that that down again if you if you take that out to the fiscal year you'll notice that portfolio is up 5.9% so really what you're seeing is a little bit of a give back the huge performance we had within the fourth quarter um the last piece within the fixed income is PCO Diversified 1.3 to the positive versus their Benchmark which is negative 1.9 so a fantastic relative quarter for the fiscal year 9.25 versus 6% again lot of really good relative performance um across the the stable managers um with the kind of the biggest exception if you will uh for the for the fiscal year is our real estate portfolio so real estate we've talked about this in the past they continue to face valuation pressure um with hiking interest rates and really a lack of transaction activity U continue to face right pounds and unfortunately JP Morgan has been writing down their portfolio even more than kind of the peer group you see for the quarter they were down 5.5 versus The Benchmark The Benchmark is really an average of their kind of 31 or 32 peers which were down about 2.2% for the last 12 months 16.5 versus 11.7% so obviously you can see the the asset casss in general is negative but J has has down a little bit more time in that space AB really the last of the quarterly report let me pause there see if I anyone has questions comments anything else yeah you said the average plan has a higher equity percentage than we what what's the average plan actually I'm sorry you are you no I take it back you are slightly in the upper half of the of the broader group so this is the it's on page electronic I didn't print this particular page but you can see the 55.4 is in the 13 percentile I mean International you're down at the bottom near the near the 80th percentile in terms of the the allocation so bottom half here definitely the upper half but it's it's not a dramatic difference in terms of that the percentage to get down to the medium about 12% but you notice obviously no Alternatives and and lower in real estate so those are biger differences okay any additional questions on the quarterly report need to approve the or you want to just do that at the end we'll do it at the end okay very good so the other item um I don't actually is in the electron the so it's also inside of your agenda book um it's not in here so as a followup from last time um in your in your book and I also have some some loose copies if you'd like um but right after the um GRS presentation and per presentation we have a drafted IPS um we talked about you know potentially looking at some some alternative exposure as well as expanding um the the fixed income kind of exposure within their fund and I was asked to bring an IPS to kind of have something to talk about really what that looks like what that could look like um and so there's there's two different versions the first one is a track change version It's a relatively um small number of changes but if you look at page number two what I did is I took 2 and a half% of our domestic equ looks like this see that it's in your in your agenda book got that okay so I looked at and and again this goes off the asset allocation we discussed last time where we we looked at a few different Alternatives um but taking 2 and a half% from our domestic Equity exposure in particular in large gap and adding a subsection of alternative Equity really that that references private Equity as as an asset class additionally down in the fixed income section reducing our Core US fixed income by 2 and a half% adding uh replacing that two and a half with an alternative fixed income subcategory and then the last kind of change is in the core fixed income changing the Benchmark from the marrow Lynch a better to the Bloomberg Barclay aggregate B so those are kind of the two or three different things we had discussed last time sort of incorporating what that would look like in an IPS and then included again just a little bit of a footnote down at the bottom where the alternative Equity would default back to traditional Equity if it was UN funded if it you know if it was carved out um and then if you flip over to page number three the corresponding change relative to six income again I'm just showing how we change the actual allocation from the mar Lynch domestic Master a or better which is our current a or better um Benchmark and then changing it to the aggregate bond which includes Triple B so again that is still investment grade it's just taking you from right now you're essentially the top three categories and it's the top four that Encompass investment grade so by changing the Benchmark you're just including that that last or that fourth rating section that currently is is not allowed bys that's really the extent of the changes the other um kind of quick handout again is really information that you saw from from last time but I wanted to to just kind of bring it back to show the asset allocation impact of what is shown there in the IPS so if you go to page number two of that other handout you can see our current policy project out and again based on the capital marget assumptions we utilize the GP Morgan assumptions these are forward looking for the next 10 to 15 years your current Target allocation is projected to earn an annualized 7.53% with a volatility or standard deviation of 10.72% and a sharp ratio I call this the efficiency measure of 70 kind of per unit of risk I was just those numbers here the current policy and then on the right hand column this looks at taking again 2 and a half% from public Equity putting into private Equity 2 and a half% from from fixed income putting that into private fixed income or we call direct lending um and then also again expanding to to the triple be and what that is projected to do is return to 7.71% risk actually declin I'm sorry that 89 based 10.89 so it goes up but goes up less than the return goes up so the sharp ratio ever so slightly increases up to 0.71 also just to kind of give you some perspective in dollar terms an additional um you know 18 basis points works out to be about $22,000 a year in terms extra return assuming that was realized as as pretty good here within the asset allocation um so just a couple other things that that we wanted to to talk about Brad actually had mentioned that in 2030 the kind of the funding particular with the fire so that's that's one thing these other asset classes alternative private Equity private credit they're certainly a lot less liquid you make commitments and those those monies are invested you don't really have access to them capital is returned so that to slightly complicate the conversation again we're talking about relatively limited amounts but that is a consideration to be aware of as the plans mature and in particular the fire is needing more cash flow any additional Capital that you have invested with Alternatives that have limited liquidity can can add pressure to the rest of the system what's the exposure of how long this going to be talk about so most most of the alternative funds are are essentially 10 years you some are eight plus a couple of extensions or but somewhere in that 10 year range um for closed end vehicles um on the on the private credit side we are starting to see more what call kind of open-ended or Evergreen funds so that is a possibility um where you're kind of locked for two or three years and then after that you have liquidity on an ongoing basis um but some of those are also closed in which would be a similar seven to 10 year type of of and coming back to your alternative Equity um just because is my why do we P from the large cap because you've got a just that's where I did it because of the um it's the majority of your assets and it's also the kind of the lower returning um you have a reasonable but not large allocation to small cap it's also the lower risk right it is the lower risk correct so if you took it from small cap you would have a slight positive change in terms of terms of reduced volatility again there's not a dramatic difference between large cap and small cap but but in those kind of fine degrees there would be a slight positive risk benefit by taking small cap but you'd also get less of a return benefit just to give you an idea if you flip back one page in the asset allocation book it shows you what the expected returns are so large cap is expecting 88.2% see that on the far left hand side actually 8.19 small cap midcap or 9.07 and 9.08 so you'd be you'd be you know taking a little bit from what's earning projected to earn over nine and replacing it um with what was close to ear point2 so you get a little bit less return benefit from doing that but you would to your point have a little bit more risk benefit correct um and again all the asset classes are shown here we're really only kind of looking at the private Equity U and the direct lending is the the other one in that right hand section those are the two that I'm adding into the mix and then the other points just to also consider um you know these would be uh different asset classes certainly compared to what you've done in terms of liquidity the way you make commitments and the way money is called so there would be additional administrative complexities as well as for the city from an audit perspective um you know a lot of times you're getting the the final numbers out of your private funds 90 days or so after the end of the quarter um so that can kind of slow audit processes down with the need those final numbers to include in the in this the city books but um just wanted to again make sure it's not strictly just a kind of risk and return equation there are there are more factors that go in um and then as well as kind of potential costs um certainly from an administrative standpoint or a Consulting standpoint if you really kind of go down the alternative Road and you have multiple managers you're getting multiple Capital calls and dealing with that then ultimately you would want to to adjust the feed according to that change of That's Not Just adjustment Fe for that's can you speak to the addition on the city and how much extra that is for the way that alternative assets Finance I can't speak from from underlying cost perspective but it is additional workload um again as compared to to the current uh portfolio you know you're valued within 30 days you're getting those statements so audit processes outside of real estate none of your investment requ Capital calls and and we don't have any outstanding commitments to real estate currently so you're in a situation where you're not subject to any Capital calls um these type of investments just as an example you commit $2 million to fund X at some point over the next three years you're getting Capital calls on average once every three months from each fund but but the the Cadence the amount does vary and they they give you a letter and you have somewhere between eight and 10 business to send out money in so once that comes in you then have to you know look at the portfolio get the cash if the cash is not available ultimately send that in you know finance department has to authorize of direction to move all those funds and so there's definitely a an administrative element to to the just the ongoing investment and then you do on the back side you've got kind of the audit impact because of of slower valuations slower statements so what is what is the fees that you would project on something like this for the underlying investment or for or for kind of the monitoring and and inclusion in the portfolio yes um so typically um I mean obviously they're they're varying degrees but but somewhere in the um kind of one and a quarter to one and a half basis points percent no not basis points plus most of them will have what's called carried interest which essentially means a a a return share so the way most of these funds will be say okay they'll do a 8% preferred rate of return so they'll charge call one and a half% then the first 8% of return comes to you okay any return above that if their carried interest is 10% for every 1% above the they get .1% and you get .9 that so just as an example if they if the carry was uh 8% excuse me the preferred and then they earned 18 so they earned 10 on top they would get the 1.5 plus 1% the 10% of the share but again if you want to go down this road if you ultimately get to the point where you consider looking at funds we'd obviously show you all the schedu the the different preferred Returns the carried interest all of those things so you you have that when making that information but yes as a as a general rule these are more expensive um than than your traditional just fee based laal strategies did you say originally ear that the additional as a number stand in would be about 200 200,000 yeah if you just take the you know the different the 7.71 against the current portfolio multiply that against the you know $118 million where you kind of sit today it works out to be you know around $200,000 between your additional fees and possible additional fees daughters and the city ficial fees you could easily eat all that up again I can't speak to the auditor and and what it looks like on your side U obviously any increase in fee from from ours would be relatively small compared to that um but there is that additional component that I can't answer for the same thank you for taking the initiative together I think it's really helpful to kind of see what it might look like but passing this right now wouldn't change anything we would have to take action to go into each individual new asset class correct all this would essentially do is is incorporate that well there's two different parts of that one part is the including the alternative potential alternative sleeve but you see how it's written that essentially if you don't fund it it just stays where it is the only component that kind of practically speaking change right away would be the quality restriction that's in place on the bond portfolio and that would obviously essentially appli to Saw Grass where they would be be able to invest in the entirety of the investment grade universe as opposed to the restricted por so before we delve into a new asset class not just the expansion we would do like we did with real estate and look at look at M cost and what the impacts are going to be on the fund cost and potentially do interviews and hear from these different strategies or um we could do a deeper dive on the education just strictly from the Mariner perspective where we just kind of educate on the asset class implementation how that looks so yes um any any sort of action here today does not does not start that implementation it just kind of carves out the section where you could do it and then ultimately you'd have to go down that road to decide if you want to do feel very comfortable with this plan or this proposal it seems like it's an expansion of our options but not but still pretty conservative in terms of kind of from a municipality perspective that that we can feel good about this and any thoughts from you Justin or U one thing we talked about in our meeting was the possible an alternative debt scenario possible delay reporting pushing back the auditor possibly or something like that can you speak to that a little bit well yeah that was just kind of referencing the valuation you get those statements instead of you know 15 to 30 days after the end of the the period it can be you know in the neighborhood 90 days and so in many cases I can't speak for for your Auditors or at least the city getting ready in many cases they'll start in you know November or December in that process um and if you're not going to get any material till the first of the year you know it's potentially a 30 or 45 day delay if not more till they get that information then obviously thats the city's books C all that there's definitely a component to that so we should consider that before we move into that a lot of a lot of time we see just a delayed valuation so that the number that's used for the September 30th number May for June valuation and then you look at the subsequent whenever you do receive it and if there's not a material difference then you just keep the September you know the June valuation on there figgy backing off what you said I agree with the mayor it looks like good to look into it at a conservative level my concern obviously lies with once we open that door what happens if it's not well maintain I guess we start taking too big of a piece of the pie plus the fees seem to be a little price Qui question Brandon uh the investment policy it says that our portfolios are expected to R in the top 48 percentile are we meeting that with our per portfolio you you are um depending on the time period I obviously three and five years what the IPS the three year you're not you're in the 59 your benchmark is in the 45th so just to kind of give you an idea even know we're slightly underperforming and on the 5 year we're right at the 40% longer term seven year and 10 year under 28 and 33rd it just says three and five whacky five years so sorry it's been a wacky five years it it certainly has and and again the other thing to it's not like you you would be required to approve this today in order to proceed with the conversation now obviously before implementing or potentially implementing you would have to change the policy because they do currently allow you know again private equ if the policy doesn't put um but takes about 31 days once you pass it for that to become you know effective and so you could defer the decision on on the IPS until after you hear more or potentially look at some other ideas and decide if at that point you're interested in moving forward you could then then change it you know it doesn't necessarily have to be something that's done now um but but to the to the mayor's point the way it's written now this does not compel you to do it it just kind of creates a place for it to sit uh should you ultimately rece that was going to be my question we could pass it today but nothing's going to change unless we decide to change it right aside aside from the bond quality yeah but in terms of an asset allocation again because you can see the way it's written any unfunded commitment stays where it is and you have to make a decision in order to fund this so if you never make that decision to fund it then effectively you stay where you are I think you did mention that this could create problems for the firefighter board get smaller and smaller we might have money TI into something that's harder to get to immediately would that raise uh some of the concerns that other boards raised about decoupling uh firefighter board from the other two that's going to get into a deeper kind of cash flow and maybe even Actuarial discussion I I think think at the scale that we're talking about here it's it's probably it's a relatively low risk type of issue given your limited real estate and ultimately we're talking about a total of potentially 5% um so still relatively Meed in the grand scope of things and again as a collective pool you sort of have the benefit at the cash flow of of the other plans or the asset size to be a little bit more flexible but but as that becomes a different issue as as your um demographic and liabilities relative to the size of the fund different that we put a little bit more pressure so we would want to make sure we're monitoring that and making sure it doesn't get too far out of whack because again the issue becomes you you wind up having commitments to Alternatives let's just say for the sake of argument it's 10% but it's not tremendously liquid you need money for these benefit payments you're paying down assets and all of a you find yourself at 20 or 25% because you can't access that portion of the portfolio and then now you're you're you're much more committed to these alternative than you were intending to be and that's that's where some of that pressure come from also would be a factor of the type of vehicle that you utilize in a situation like that you may that may help lead you toward the type of vehicle with with more regular liquidity as opposed to a closed in vehicle where you you're effectively locked up for for 8 to 10 years that would be something we might keep in mind okay any other questions comments related to the IPS draft one question I the fourth paragraph page one which wased Chang I didn't highlight it because ref last time I don't in terms of referencing so the question at hand to do we want to move forward with allocating this or at least the potential of allocating it we can pass that we not any addition correct this was you we did not prepare any additional you know information your potential consideration of Investments this was more just again what it what it could look like in terms of of being in the investment policy again relative to the Alternatives the one kind of almost immediate change if you will is the the bond quality so you're saying SRA could take action immediately upon passing this yeah 31 days after this is file becomes effective then then it kind of opens up and allows them to just you know the the portfolio that would be the only immediate change again anything else in the Alternative Care this would the action that the board that still has to take in order to to implement any open the door changes in the nature of the plan so have to be Rush have you receed any feedback from staff um just mainly concern over the requirs and additional just the unknown of how much extra this is going to be on M stff tracking reporting all that all those I on the fees I'm sorry think we I need some more information before I can make well there's no fees now and we would decide we would vote before we put anything into these new out classes would have the Fe now we're just voting to change the allocation asset allocation we could allocate okay you it that way I would never problem but I want to accept it launch all this information here we're but we're not but even I mean even just an asset class there would be more specifics on who would manage who the management would be and what the cost to the fund would be do doesn't that have to go to you FKS counil no no it just comes to us but we would debate that like we've done in the past where we've had different fund managers come in and make presentations and we look at what the cost to the fund will be and I think that would be the time to ask the more specific questions on what the additional management cost would be internally and there wouldn't be any other book work unless do that right don't have to worry about it except that we get that extra Bond Fund in there that we don't currently have I make a motion accept with the exception of Sol grass this just gives us more flexibility correct correct again it's sort of the beginning of carving out of plates for that to to be but it that only happens if you make that secondary implementation decision second de white yes yes camon yes second quick uh just go back because obviously this is accepting language that you proposed which includes reverting back to the language that Pedro had made a comment that we can still vote as a board to so Us in general decide to go with this new vehicle fire says that they can't tie up their money there's nothing in this based on what Pedro said in one of the prior meetings preventing us from doing correct so this says here pulled got the Investments P had made the comment at one of the prior meetings that there's nothing technically stopping us from deciding if General decides and police decide that this new um alternative Equity style investment is right for us right for our plans fire decides it's not for them there's nothing precluding us from going into that vehicle of fire says no that's my concern is I'll what Dr cber said earlier is I just I mean we passed something and we're still dragging that ball in Chain of we have three different boards with three different life cycles and three different goals I we we heard that we've got a bunch of amortization which I guess in the actu world is mortality is that what that means people dropping off the plan uh those are separate it's called layer anization um um there's a series of newsletters I can forward point but this year recent um B basically you you have a bunch of Deb that it's it's not directly related mortality mortality is only one of the main components Investments if you had um I'm not sure why I'm using my hand so much we had three car parents and they were all on different schedules you pay off one of the cars first that's what I was talking about with the organization policy but I was just trying to you know use your comment and the numbers that you presented to say we're all in different as boards different outlooks and I just I don't like again I've got I'm happy that we're going with the alternative Equity I'm happy that we're giving sass more flexibility I look at what we're supposed to be meeting with the benchmarks at a three and five years we're not meeting so clearly something's not working um and I'm just I'm going to go back to what Pedro had said a couple meetings that even even with the language that was there's nothing you know stopping us as a board voting with General if fire decides to stay sort of out of that asset class you're talk about funding class fing that class that alternative I'm just saying that you know at some point General has a different Duty its members are the different phase we aren't completely different on police they are as well um we all have different consideration short-term longterm long after I'm dead term and I just I still think the the pulled and have required all three boards to vote on one it's we're all headed in different directions and we've already seen it in the past for sometimes we cannot come to a consensus and that's my fear I don't think we've ever not come to a consensus because we didn't agree I mean we were close in the JP Mor fire we were close but isn't aren't all of our goals to maximize the fund for our retirees I mean how is how well they are their timeline might be different but the goal is still the same our goal is to take the money that we have now and to make as much as we can from it 100% so but that that's all of our Collective goals now at some point yes we are going to have to talk about winding this one down but we're not there yet I mean I think that we have a collective duty to the I agree City goals Duties are all the same the path to which we get there may be slightly different should it be though we have that 40 it says here in the IPS three and five year must be the 4th percentile of our peer grou 5year total fund 5year Vanguard Total stock market three and 5e eaten Vans no other domestic Equity is Meeting those benchmarks but that is true for all three funds for all three of us I agree with that okay but there's been no movement I'm saying we're but that's still the truth for all three of us not one or the other and the reaction to that should be could and should be Collective each individual maybe it's looking at it from a standpoint of we all have the same goal within maximizing our return with X or a certain level of risk fire May perceive that the lack of liquidity has a different level of risk than the other two boards but that's perception not management but it would affect your decision right where it can also impact the decision to you know collectively stand about $120 million so allocating 2 and a half% you know is a sizable amount of money but within the alternative world is not a huge commitment if any of the boards are looking basis so you start stripping out plans that 2 and half% which should get you roughly $3 million if all the second I about two and a half% of a $30 million Fe and that allocation is maybe $1 million you you can start to run into some issues where if you wanted to allocate you might not be able to so you get some collective benefit kind of opening up sort of the investment universe or your Collective size but if they were to start to be more fragmented you have some some considerations being able to access these asset classes and properly Diversified with that that smaller asset my comment when when I when I said I agree with the mayor I like the alternative asset class but once you open that door caned really quick well I think that that might be something that when we if we are considering any of these alternative asset classes that when we see what they cost let's look at it from the cost of okay if one plan did it because I think it's probably going to cost Le the more we invest in any given class May cost less to actually manage it potentially at your asset level no no you would not be subject to any really fee breaks at you know three or four or5 million versus one um you know it's kind of separate versus combined um you're not going to you're not going to receive any fee benefit there you just have the ability you know many times the funds just have minimums or the the allocation amount you know again let's just use 25% on a $25 million fund you know you need to be able to access a certain amount of capital if you're if if you're only committing if you're trying to commit $400,000 that could be an issue you just sort of don't have access as a pool you can make those motion discussion David coohill no John Patridge no Rudy Dean yes John gotilla yes Jason Sharp yes so Nick Curry no Dan Jansen yes Christine Hoffman yes Brandon maresma yes Eddie vagara no for clarification is that for item e did we just vote on item e yes thank you okay we accept the reports offic I did have one other element that I want to come back to we talked about the asset allocation when we went through the report back as a 331 we took $2 million out we're essentially still right at that 65% kind of upper limit because our equities have done so well um so just in dollar terms we are overweight Equity U by 665 million that's the current spread above the above the 60% Target and so I wanted to kind of throw out there any um the discussion about rebalancing historically when we've been at or near 65% back um and so in dollar terms taking it all the way back to Target like I said would be 6.65 million um and obviously the areas that we're underweight um are real estate which given the fact that you're still looking at write Downs I wouldn't suggest trying to allocate there right now we might have that discussion another six months or so but the two areas would be International Global fix as well as as the domestic fix do we have a more recent number than March 31st not in print but but that's what I was just referencing okay so that is the so yeah the the current overweight we're we're currently sitting at 54.8 5% Equity as compared to 55.5 and our our International is at 10.8 so we're over by8 so we've kind of doubled that overweighted International and we're slightly less on the domestic side do do you know if our international bond position is currency hedge I do not believe that it is I would vote against going into International bonds without a currency Edge I was going to agree with against interational Mr chair do we have a motion in a second on the floor for item C from police that they approve his uh consultant report which I think is separate from the issues we're talking about thought we did that we do all that D is what we're talking D is what you opened up we balance correct that's okay so we can finish up city oh I think he's you're right don't cop I got to keep things in a straight line so roll call on the police board for item C David cohill yes John Patrick yes Rudy Dean John gotilla yes Jason Shar yes move second Nick Curry yes Dan Janson Christine hin Randa maresma Eddie vagara yes okay on yeah do you have any drops or F cash payouts we we had a r of them um and that is why they recently down um I have no one how much what was the number of six the overweight from Target currently when you combine International equity and domestic Equity sitting at 6.65 million where would you recommend ping that from the vast majority of that from from domestic which would be in particular cap so that's the Vanguard all spring and JP Morgan our overweight are with Vanguard and all spring so I would recommend taking kind of the first say 3 million from from those two we want to go beyond that incorporating J Morgan Eden Vance the smaller midap is sitting right at 10% where it's supposed to be so where where the overweight lies is in the large I'm actually happy to see all 322 fiscal year and that's the again just the broader discussion in the last seven months our Equity portfolio is up north of 20% and so this is a great opportunity to be able to pull some of those those bu off the table do we have with all spring it's 18.2 million as of this morning it's 18.8 million as of the uh the end of the quarter we get whole a million out for this cash flow um so they're actually up a little bit in terms of performance when you have you subtract out the million dollars that was Tak SPL it up that oh absolutely yeah uh so and again you know to me the the primary underweight is in domestic or domestic fix s um interest rates although they've kind of Ratchet back up you know here recently I think 12 months from now 18 months from now they're probably lower than they are today so allocating there um but you could we or do we want to split maybe with be but whatever we allocate kind of between saw grass in the bar portfolio makes the most sense of the destination so then the only question would be how much I get a full rebalance of 6.65 maybe we do half of that 3.3 heard a comment that you rather not go with P go on so so what do you think about um you like the number 3.3 which is half of the overweight is collectively about 3.3 um with all you all of it coming from all com like I said I mean I was I mean up until starting to see that all spring was finally bouncing back I mean they' just been relative struggle even though it's the better performing area L relatively to their poup CRA but ATS you might want to up a little bit that's why you do you do p the Big Bus let me throw let me throw something out there 3.3 1.3 from olpr one from Vanguard one from JP Morgan value with all of it going into just the domestic fix income comfortable with the full amount going to sound can you repeat that please 1.3 million coming from all spring 1 million coming from Vanguard Total stock and 1 million from JP Morgan Equity income going to Saw Grass fixed income make a motion that we uh reimplement that rebalance second John Patrick yes David cohill yes Rudy Dean John gotilla yes Jason Sharp yes we do the rebalance second Gaylor camer yes lsh yes Debbie White yes second Nick Curry yes Dan jamson Christine Hoffman yes brandom RMA Eddie vagara yes okay we have the administrator report say we were a all right so we're moving on to the budget we my report budget this year Revenue side is always just a guessing game on how much uh we currently have in assets what I did was I I took our um quarter ending balance and looked at what the split was between the general policeing fire as for as what percentage of the total plan assets each had and assumed a 7% return just kind of being one of the conservative side of our normal 7.5 assume greater return um we'll get more into the specifics of that um so also on the revenue side we have member contributions which are always at big 7.9% then uh that's actually increase not decrease bought that after I printed uh 21.6% increase for General and that's a lot of what the city contributions a lot of what Brad has talked about those various factors mostly due to salary increases and then the tax revenues um we received a little bit uh more um that about 304,000 more than was expected to poli5 on the expense side it's going to be very similar to last year we don't have any big um pushes that we're making for anything and the main changes are going to be um the estimates of what our uh payouts through the retirees are going to be so we don't have any you know kind of optional were inies or anything I know a couple years ago we had said the pension Administration software and we had budgeted for that and stuff like that and then the city ended up can't work so that's no longer in the budget we'll look at these individually by uh General employees right now estimated investment earnings uh increase year over year of 13.3% that's again mainly due to the investment return that we had last year and one of these numbers plan by plan you're going to see a very similar um estimated increase in member contributions of 22.8% that's again representative of the um payroll increases that we've had and the size of the employee base uh going up by a decent Mark there um and then the city contributions reflected there as discussed so overall it kind of adds up to uh you know a significant increase in total revenue budget there of up to just north of 9 million on the expense side um the Personnel Services that's basically my salary um increases for the the split for plan along with insurance I actal costs no estimated increase we have our ongoing contract them and sug susine for the legal so no estimated increases there um $500 increase for the investment so that's Mariner they have a built-in 3% contractual year year to year ongoing uh increase there um if at any point the board would like for me to look at you know we just kind of on going contracts with these existing um Representatives legal investment matal if anyone you know wants me to investigate changes and going out for need to be directed to do so um the other increases so $400 increase which you know is 133% that's you know fairly immaterial as far as all this concered that that is the um death benefit software I'm estimating increase as far as percentage wi and what that's going to cost our our current um provider was bought out and it seems like everything else on the market is going to be signant management custodial fees um increase that's again representative of um just the increase in plan assets not necessarily an increase in percent of fees anything like that and then mention benefits you know we had several people retire in the last year from the general plan and we were already kind of close to actual on the budget so we definitely had to increase the budget that l so that LE at overall 6.3% increase in expenses which when you look at it you know increasing estimated uh 17.45% revenues only 6% expenses that's that's good that's what you want is that increase correct on the I read other on the expenses General 133% you're right that's on let me go back where I that's from 400 to that 400 700 yeah so 300 to 700 is 133% increase 600 um moving on to police if there's no further questions on um so so we Mark the the budget each year just the same the budget um for taxes is going to be what the prior actual receipt was so that's what the 78,000 there represents again investment investment earnings is just a increase in plan assets um plus 7% M contributions going up not quite as much as um the general plan um that's you know salary still went up but the total number of employees didn't go the police and also some of the police honestly we're working so much overtime they contributed so not all of their salary was being was going toward pension so that kind of impacts the budget as well we don't receive those contributions um reading to an overall 13.6% increase in projected Revenue increase police on the expense side around the same percentage for Personnel Services same for Actuarial no increase legal no increase investment again 3% increase and same for over on the death benefit like I said these be pretty much the same on the uh expense side the um the jump here and pension benefits those that we did have just this fisal year already we've had three police officers retired um so that's increase of at least estimated 150,000 and pension payouts there plus little room in the actual what weed any further there budget of we don't get the taxes from them anymore so your Jacksonville gets the 175 taxes investment earnings increasing being high the high percentage um you can see city of Jacksonville's estimated um contributions there and and the cityal beach staying flat and member contributions not not estimated to uh increase very much these are these are coming straight off the ACT overall that leads to inrease 6 48% and total revenues for firefighters on the expense side much of the same 7.55% Personnel Services again % pretty consistent there um I did I know we do estimate that um there going to be our first firefighter retire since they left the city in 2019 um but there the actual um for we've been estimating something like that for a while and happen so it's kind of already built into the budget our actual I think was it's in here somewhere was like 79 ,000 for actual pension that's paid out budgeting 945 so we had some room in there so I didn't increase it this year even though I do have an additional retire possibly to detailed uh budgets are in here as well anyone has any moref question accept the budget second from the police Bo second John Patridge yes David cohill yes Rudy yes John yes Jason sh yes Gaylord camer yes Lance hsh yes Debbie White yes second Nick Curry yes Dan Jon Christine Hoffman Brandon maresma eddar okay now we're going to vote on the expected rate of return for the U portfolio with the police officer board it's at 7.5 discussion motion reason to change it no an annual exercise you have to do really only CES issues if you don't match your assumed greater return from your valuation so recommend you that for you David cohill yes John Patridge yes Rudy Dean yes John gotilla yes Jason sh okay General second Nick Curry yes Dan jansson yes Christine Hoffman yes brand Eddie yes Gaylor kler yes lsh yes debie white yes denn did you do you did the budget did you do that item B you more for your report we don't need to approve it but I can no did you have more to add you did the budget did you do the rest of your side uh yes I have a little bit more to add um for the report but nothing that needs to be approved okay all right consideration for retirement this is General employees board um Le and bass permit specialist Planning and Development effective 3124 separation date February 18th 24 me service requirements for normal retirement 10 years eight months motion second Nick Curry yes Dan Janson Christine Hoffman gr maresma yes Eddie vgar yes okay and general board Wayne Vicki utility plan operator Public Works uh backdrop retirement effective April 1st 2022 separation date March 2924 meets age service requirements backdrop 27 years 7 months of service second Nick Curry Janson Christine Hopman brand eddar yes James Greek General supervisor Public Works effective April 1st 2024 separation date March 4th 2024 meet age and service requirements for early retirement 29 years one month second Nick Curry yes Jon Christine Hopman Brandon marma Eddie marara yes and Carol GIS administrator Information Systems effective January 1st 22 separation date March 4th 24 meets AE service requirements for normal retirement 32 years two months Nick Curry Dan Jansen Christine Hoffman Brandon maresma Eddie B yes finally Lynn Gardner uh operation support specialist features energy effective June 1st 21 separation date May 31st 24 meets age service requirements for backdrop retirement 33 years five months of service second Nick Curry Dan jamson Christine Hopman Brandon Marna Eddie V yes just real quick I just want to give a software update that it has been rolled out to the general and police got pretty good responses back I think guys we did the beta test and everything and now now we do those fire is coming next they're still working on it it's a little bit uh different from just on the the way they receive the information from US versus us getting it from jacksonv filtering through US hang out there it's being um so once we get the fire up and running and get that out to those employes then we'll um start adding the backdrop portion to the benefit calculations working with gers to to get that done as well but yeah overall pretty good um response from the employees they like being able to run their calculations and see their projected retirements and it's been very helpful I've already noticed people coming to me instead of you know instead of not knowing anything they're coming with better questions and they more when they get there instead of coming in BL so it's been good any further discussion John is this your first meeting yes it is Sir well welcome to the group thank you for your service appreciate thank you this is the dooy of a first meeting not always like this he taught me a lot yesterday speaked course yesterday all right motion to adjourn all in favor I