I'm going to thank you, Meg. Kelly. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All we're not going to know that. You can get it. You can get it. I like it. Oh, I'm going about to go. I'm bad. I have not seen you on a while. No. I'm going to be spending my time with you in the next few weeks. Yes. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Oh no, do you got no sleep when you're snows? But you touched it. I'm gonna be going to the toilet. I mean I really think of your sports studies going on. I'm like I didn't really get out of that. We could work. Great school. I was like, you touched it. I'm gonna be going to the toilet. I mean, I think every school studies was going to be like, I didn't really get out of that. Grade school? We're in a relatively dinner table. I don't know. That was awful. I don't know how to get out of that. No. When we did it, no. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Oh, man. I can't read straight through.. The last last part was like, we was quick. I mean, it was. I can make a motion. We've been getting a terrible last. Oh, I'm not good. I hope you're doing it. We do. You can do some ahead. I'm I have a volunteer. I can read this. I can see the little lives of the volunteer. I think working on that in our service. I'm not worried. Marshal was in the office. I think working on that, I'm not aware. Marsha was in the right soul. You get everything. Oh my god, I have some case. I feel like you have no medical dosage. I mean, I just don't think I guess about just probably you're like a lot of complaints. I mean, this is not very nice. It's not very nice. It's not very nice. We're all investment. We want to. We're going to start like as couple. Well anyway, I it's unfortunate to block the compliments we're directed to. Yeah. So it's like a toll game. The basic backhand. Basically, thank you. You're off the hook on the motions. Matt is. That's it. You get. I think it's like you get You're not going to get such a big. Yes. Exactly. He's never asked. It's time for you. Oh, yeah. Good job. Thank you. Very good. All right. With that, I will call the meeting to motion. It's a motion meeting to order at five. Yeah. Yeah. Ship. I'm going to call roll of the trustees. Honey here. Here. Here. Her. President. And they have to hear. Now. Here. Here. Here. All set trustees for them. Thank you. For those of us who are not trustees, they'll just make the announcement of this year. So we have staff, Cindy, Megan, Chris, and Sharon. We'll do introductions in a little bit. You also Robert Burrell from Seagull Consulting Actuaries. justesti Fingerpoodle, and on the call we have here in Barla and Mary-Nine. Next item on the agenda is the virtual, or as you recall, nobody's in my name virtually, so we can see that. Connie, do you want to go ahead and go around and do introductions for five minutes? Sure. So as Megan mentioned, Sharon, welcome to our very first meeting. Sharon is our new HR director for the city. So just thought we'd go around. I know many of us have met you individually, but we'll just go around the room and then we'll go to the people on the phone, on the online. So I'm Connie Vidberg, an actuary by background, an actuary by background, and I'm a citizen representative to the German board. And I'm being brief, I I see Director and the City Manager representative for the board. I'm Bob Parker, Trustee with the board. I am the VAM Jackson, Councilor Pointe, and the new city. I'm Dr. Trustee for. I'm city council member and I believe on to the retirement board. I'm Robert Barra from Segal Consulting. We are your head to the okay factories and be helpful to anyone that you can get. Thank you. I'm not sure if she knows where. I'm, final. So a council of committee is in the forest. I think again, I see. Sharon and I have been working on several things, but today the hat I'm wearing wearing is pension plan and the distributor. That's it. Thank you. I see you. We'll just have Mary and Karen introduce themselves and then I'll turn it over to you in case you have anything you want to say. So Mary? Hello, I'm Mary Nye with Mariner Institutional and I am the investment consultant for the the basic the police op-ed and the 401 and 457 plans. Here in. Hi, good evening. I'm Karen Bowen the city's chief financial officer. Try it over to you, Sharon, if there's anything you want to say or background you want to share? Well, thank you everyone. What you're being here did start January 27th and it's been a wonderful experience and I really appreciate everyone's support. And I hope to see more of you in the future and I'm looking forward to the scene. Okay, thank you. Well, we're just moving right along on the agenda. The additions? Hi, every seat. No additions in advance and I'll let you know if anything comes in. 5 5 30. All right. Before I guess we get in, I didn't give my little field. So I want to do a couple things so that we can keep our meeting moving smoothly. The first thing which is to get a volunteer as I look over at you, Mac. Volunteer to be the motion maker for the evening. Volunteer. Thank you. Is everyone want to volunteer to be the seconder for the evening? Yes. Thank you. All right. We will take a break at seven o'clock. I'm guessing we'll go past two hours. You know, but we'll take a break at seven o'clock, maybe 10 minutes or so. Of course, if you need to get up and take a break, please feel free to do so. And then we are expecting that Charlie, Charles Collier will join us around six-ish. And as many of your memories are, Trustee 22 years, I think he wasn't able to join us at that last meeting, so we'll just give him a formal thank you when he's able to join us. So whenever he joins us, we'll pause what we're doing and then give our thanks to him. All right, now on to the minutes. So I'll give you a chance to review the minutes from our last quarter meeting from the November 7th, 2024 meeting. If there are any amendments, you'd like to voice now. Please do so otherwise. But the number seven to twenty twenty four minutes has presented. On second. Thank you. I'll call the. Funny. Yes. Gary. Yes. Her. Yes. And yes. Matt. Yes. Nate. Yes. And Tom. Yes. Thank you very much. It's free. All right. Good. All right. Well, we thank Mary for joining us. I know Skidville didn't work out as I understand it for you to be here in person. But we appreciate you joining us virtually. Nice to have this technology. Thank you IT department. So we have look over the regular reports and then some people have some updates as well. So Larry, can I just turn it over to you? Yes, thank you. Thank you. So I will review what we call our all plans report. So this is a report that summarizes information from the police report, the basic report, the OPEV report, as well as the 457 and 401. So that way you're not flipping, which being books, hopefully all the information that you want is in this one book. We do send out the reports for each one of the plans. If you have paper copies, they should be there in front of you. But we also have electronic copies. So if anyone's interested in doing a deep dive, let me or Cindy, I know we can get you the information that you need. So in the all plans book, if you turn to page three, the page numbers are on the bottom left. I always do a quick review of the markets first, and then we dive into the specifics of each plan. So the markets, the charts on the right side are probably the easiest thing to look at. The chart on the top right is information for the last three months ending December 31st. So this is all fourth quarter information. You can see there the blue bars are US equity, the gold and yellow bars are international equity and then the pink salmon bars are fixed income, US fixed income. So the blue bars on the chart on the top right, you can see there the US equity returns for the quarter were about 2.4% for the S&P 500 which which is the dark blue bar. That's kind of the broad market, 2.4 for the quarter. Russell 3000, which is an all-cap and Russell 1000, which is a large cap, we're very close at 2.6 and 2.7. Mid-cap and small cap, which are right underneath that, you can see there they're just barely under basically at 0.6 and 0.3. So if you recall my comments from last quarter, a mid cap and small cap had outperformed large cap and that was the first time they had done that several quarters. So now we see a reversal back to what we've seen previous quarters where large cap is now outperforming mid cap and small cap. The Gold Yellow bars are international and you can see there. It didn't really matter whether you were in developed markets or emerging markets for a combination of the bolts. You got roughly the same return between negative 7.6 to negative 8.1. So international markets were impacted. Partly because the US dollar was pretty strong and also the announcement of potential tariffs coming in through the end of December. So the international markets were a little little leery of what was going to happen. And so that's why you saw a big negative return there. And then the fixed income markets, you can see there they're all hovering around negative 3% as a general average. Fixed income markets were kind of when the Fed came out and said that they probably will not be reducing rates as much as they thought they would. The fixed income markets kind of didn't like that news. And so that's why you see a slight negative return for the quarter there. Now, if you look at the one year returns that's chart on the bottom right, obviously a little bit different story. You can see the US returns were very strong for 12 months ending December. S&P 500 again, the blue bar, positive 25% for the year. So this is two years in a row where we've had over 20%. Last year, S&P was over 20% now this year. So two years in a row, a gentle reminder that I think I've mentioned before, the long-term average of the S&P 500 is 10%, a positive 10%. So when the long-term average is 10%, and then you're getting a year of 25% in the year before it, over 20, you know, I don't know if 20-25 will be a year of correction, but you know two years in a row of doubled digit returns, especially over 20% is very nice to see, but it's also a little bit unusual. We're also 1,000, the see there are 24% and then the mid cap and small cap is a strong 15% and a strong 11 and a half percent. So good returns for the year in the US markets. International markets, partly because of what you saw on the top quarter chart there, the fourth quarter returns were pretty bad. That kind of reduced the one-year numbers. And so here you can see that one-year numbers are between positive 3.8 to positive 7.5, emerging markets doing the best for the year. And then fixed income, the pink bars there, you can see they're all hovering roughly around 1% a little bit below a little bit above. But again, the quarter, the fourth quarter really impacted the one-year returns. Last thing I'll point out is a very bottom part there, the black bar, the three months. But again, the quarter, the fourth quarter really impacted the one year returns. Last thing I'll point out is a very bottom bar there, the black bar, the three-month cheval, which is a measure of cash and cash was at 5.3%. So we're still getting a decent return on cash, which is nice to see. So those are my quick remarks on the markets. Oh, I will mention, if move forward to the date to page 12, I will mention January was a pretty good month in returns. They range from 2 to 4%, depending on where you were in the sectors or the major asset classes. So January was good February. It's been a bit volatile, but I think domestic equity and international equity is higher than where we were at the end of December fixed income is roughly flat for right now. So we'll see what the rest of it really brings. So those are my remarks on the markets. Are there any specific questions on the general market? No, okay. Then we'll move over. Now this is beginning specific for the false church plans. So on page 12 and 13 we have a summary of all the plans. This is basically your market values and cash flows for the different time periods. So on page 12, this is the one quarter information. And so for those of you who are new, beginning market values on the far left. And then for the first three bars, police, basic and OPEP, beginning market value, then the cash flows. So this would be all cash flows, net flows coming in and out. And then the return on investment is the middle column and then you're ending market value as of December 31st. And then the growth's returned for the quarter on the far right. So just a quick summary, police was a little over 46.6 million in the beginning of the quarter about a little bit more than half a million was taken out of the quarter, taken out of the fund for the quarter. And then the return on investment there, you could see is a negative 241,000. So we did have the negative return. And then the ending market value, you can see there are a little over 45.8 million with the gross return there of a negative 0.52. Basic beginning market value 141 million. You took about 1.6 million out of the fund net investment. Retro-not investment growth is about 744,000 negative. And so the ending market value there is at 138.9. I'm going to round up their million. And the growth return here is a negative 0.53. Police and basic, again, for those that are new, police and basic have the same investments. Allocations are also the same, but the cash flows. So we might take monies out of police or basic at different times and different amounts. So there will be the difference in returns there, but basically you should see roughly the same return for both those plans because of the same investments and allocation. Open. You can see they're trying to a little over 22 million, about 22,000 out of the fund. Richard on investment was 113,000 and then ending market value there at 21.9 million. And the girls return there of a negative 0.52 here. Opeb roughly the same allocation. There are there's a asset class or two that we don't have an op-ed that we do have in place and basic But also the investments are all passive So instead of going with active managers, we have index funds here But interestingly enough this quarter you can see the returns are very close and very similar for all three funds It's just not something we usually see so we wanted to point that out and then on the bottom there the 401A and the 457 we just simply showed the market values at the beginning and the end. And so you can see the 401A went up a little bit in market value in the 457 went down a little bit in market value. I believe there was a couple of participants that took some monies out. I'm still trying to verify that with mission square, but I think that's the reason why you saw the market value increase in the 457. Page 13 is the one year information. I'm not necessarily going to go through that, but you can just see what the numbers are. But your return on investment that middle column was really strong. You can see those numbers are 5.6 million, 16.7 million, and 2.5, 2.6 million. So you did have good growth in 12 months ending December. So those are the plans all kind of combined. And now I'm going to go into the specific plan. So this is the police plan. And if you move forward to page 17, so page 17 is the allocation. The previous page shows the allocation in the major asset classes or investment buckets, but page 17 shows it with the individual managers. So here we can see that the managers with their the allocation that you currently have is meeting the investment policy, target and ranges. Again, for those that are new, if you look at the top of that page and look at JPM, which is JP Morgan equity, that gray bar is the range, investment policy range, the left side of the gray bar is your minimum, right side is your maximum, the black line in the middle is your target, and the triangles where you currently are. So you can see here, the green triangle you are above target but within range. So as long as you see a green triangle, that's what we like to see. Whenever you see a red triangle, it's not necessarily bad. It's just that we need to be made aware that the reason why that triangle's red. So in the case if you go right below that, the Vanguard equity income fund partly because markets have generally been good and so that's why that triangle has moved up and out of range. And same thing with the fixed income, the northern tross fixed income markets haven't been that strong in fixed income and so you've moved out of range there. Normally we end up there is a request for cash on a semi-regular basis so when there is a request for cash we always look to take the managers that have the largest overweight and that does tend to rebalance the portfolio. Most times as of late that fixed income just hasn't been rebalanced so So there is going to be a move to take some monies out of one of the larger overweights and move some money into fixed income. So that is on the table to happen when we do the next cash request, which is I believe sometime in March. So hopefully at the next meeting, we'll see less red, but we'll never know what the market's what it going to do, but that's kind of how to look at this page. So in general for police, we do see most of the investments within range and the ones that are out of range. We hope to take care of by the next cash requested in March. Page 1920 and 21 is the performance of the fund. So like I said, police and basic have the same performance. So I'm just going to focus on the police page here on the top of page 19. If you look at the that blue shaded bar across the top, that is your total fund return. As well as your ranks, the second column from the left is your quarter return. So the police fund had a return as I mentioned earlier of a negative 0.52. So basically half a percent negative. The number right below that is your policy or index. So if you were 100 percent passive, you would have had a return of negative 0.63. So you did a little bit better than the passive index, which is nice, so that in some of your active managers added value and helped beat the benchmark. The third number right below that, we call it the all master trust total fund median. We take your fund and compare it to other institutional funds to see how your performance rates versus other institutional plans. And so the average institutional plan had returned on the negative 1.09. So you did much better, half a percent better, basically. And so if you go back to that blue bar and look at the number in parentheses, the 33, that is your rank. The ranks are one is the best, 100 is the worst. And so you're ranking 33, so you're basically in the top third of the universe. So it's nice to see that the ranks are strong, but also it's nice to see that the numbers better than the policy. So there are going to be times when you're going to be below the policy. And there are going to be times where you're going to be below median. But hopefully over time, long term numbers, they end up being strong on both versus the policy and the median or the index of the universe. Excuse me. If you look at the one year number there really nice return 13.59. So you had a nice return well above the actual rate of return and you're ranking eighth so you're basically top death style. And then if you look along there, the three to fifteen year, you can see what the numbers are basically 3.6 to 9.3 percent and then the ranks are basically top 20 or better top death style. So very competitive performance on an absolute basis and then also on a relative basis, which are your ranks. The basic plan also has very similar numbers. So if you are curious, you can look at the basic page, but the numbers are very similar. Performance, we do show the performance of all the individual managers here. I know Connie has created an exhibit. So if it's okay, maybe we'll talk about the individual managers when we speak to that page. If that's okay with you, Connie. Yeah, no, that's fine. I think one thing I want the retirement board to to know their two performance metrics of the top of this page. There's one. One thing I want the retirement board to know, you know, there are two performance metrics of the top of this page. There's one in the blue bar, and there's one in the gray. When I report to city council, I focus on the gray bar, not the blue bar, because the gray bar is comparing ourselves to ancient plans that have a similar investment mix so that's 70% more or more inequities. So I mean for those who went and read the City Council report which I'm sure you all read the age and word by word. Just named it. So what you know what I reported to City Council and I focus on the seven year numbers is you know so looking at this chart I would say that we're in the top 30% because we're ranked you know 28th on that metric so I would not go to the City Council and say we're in the the top desa, I would say we're in the top 30%. Just giving you a sense that there are different ways of looking at the performance. Both are still good, but just wanted to bring that to your attention. Okay, great. Okay, thank you, Connie. So I'm finished with my comments on police, so we'll move forward to the basic. And basic if you turn to page 25. And again, this is allocation with the individual investment managers. So I, you know, I'd like to just point out here, very similar look in the fact that most of the managers are within range or are very close to target. And again, the only two on this one is the Northern Trust. So again, we will make that extra move to move some assets out of an overweight manager into Northern Trust. So we will do that in March when there is the cash request. So that's pension plan. So that's what Mary's referring to. So mid-Morage will be for April 1, May and June. And so that's what we'll do to rebalance. That's what the call for cash is just so we have that foundation. Thank you. Okay. Okay, so now I'm going to go to OPEP. So if you turn to page 33. So OPEP begins same thing. We're looking at the individual investments here and here you can see we do have everyone within investment policy range. We did move monies I think two quarters ago, fair member, correctly and that those are some big moves to get all the investments within investment policy range. So we have been within range for the last couple of quarters so we're good there. And then on page 34, performance of OPEB. And And again, if you look at the first, the blue shaded bar across the top there, this is the total fund for OPEB. And again, second column for the left for the quarter, return was a negative point five two ranking basically 30th of the universe, better than the policy and better than the average plan. And here OPEB numbers are also very competitive, the one year number 13.24 rank 9th. And then three to 10 year number, you can 4.1 to 8.7, basically top-down-style performance. And these are all passive or index funds, what we call index funds. And so here we have domestic equity international emerging markets and domestic fixed income. So what we don't have here are real estate and infrastructure funds and specific emerging market funds, probably because at the time in real estate and infrastructure, there weren't passive indices. And then emerging markets, excuse me, we do have emerging markets here. So we do have international and emerging markets in this one. So forgive me for that. But the allocation is slightly different from that point of view and the fact that there's certain asset classes that we don't have in OPED that we do have in basic police. Are there any questions on the OPEC report? I'm not seeing any. Okay. So I'm looking at the agenda here and so the agenda has broken it out where basic police and op-ed are 7a and then to find contribution to 7b. So before I dive into 7b, are there any questions in general for basic police and op-ed? So I'll go through so one of the things that I did when I was looking at the returns was looking at, I looked more closely at each of our managers. So can we scroll back up to? Yep. Oh, I did a sorry number. If you want that or you want the book, I have. That's a good question. if you you just leave up the summary. So I typed up some notes from my perspective of what I was seeing, and I was looking specifically at which of our managers. So I looked at the page that had the ranking by manager. So it was right below our ranking as a total plan. And I was looking at, you know, this is a long term commitment. So I'm looking at seven year numbers where we have them. Otherwise, the five year numbers for some of our managers where we don't have the full seven years. Looking at where, which managers are we below the 50th percentile, or close to the 50th percentile? And then we're three that stood out for me. The first was JPM equity, which was ranked sixth-steenth over the five-year period. That's one where we only have five years of performance, not seven. Shrouder, which is one of our international equities, is ranked 48th over seven years. So now, below my 50% of it, very close and five years was 53rd. And then Claire and which is a real estate and ranked 57th over five years. So I did a deeper dive. So in our report, Mary also gives us a year by year ranking. So you can see not just the consolidated of seven years, but what happened in 2024, 2023, 2022, et cetera, et cetera. And one of the things that we've talked about as a retirement board is we are looking for fund managers that will protect in the downside. So if it's a gangbuster here and they're not and they're below median, but in a down year they're doing better than median, that's a good fund for us. So, you know, when I looked at a deeper dive at JPM equity, yes, on a five-year basis, they're below the 50th percent of, but when I look here by year, they're doing what we want them to do, which is they had good downside protection in some down years. And in the down year 2022, some of the good years, they were, they gave up, they weren't as high. But from my perspective, I was okay with that. This is where we, you know, we want to look at some of these funds and go, are they still good or do we want to put them on a watch list? So this is kind of why I'm looking at this for plumber. Stroder, I was not as excited about. There was a doubt really down here in 2022. What I saw was that the index was 25 negative 25% and they were at minus 28. They did a little better in 2020, which is another down year, where their rating return, excuse me, was minus 8% versus minus 3.4. They did a year ago. This time, a year ago, their 7-year ranking was 38. So they've dropped from 38 on a 7-year basis last year to now 48. Looks like some of this was they had a really good year that sort of as you move the seven-year time period they lost one of their good years and this year was 2024 was so so but this is one where Mary I wanted to get your perspective. Is this a fun that we should be, you know, there are many other things that Mary looks at besides return, like the manager, just what is their process, good, which obviously we don't get in these reports. So, you know, Mary, what is more perspective of this? Because just looking at the returns, I'm thinking I would want to put them perhaps on a watch list. Okay. So Connie, all your comments I agree with, your comment about how they rank 38th, on the seven-year period last year and then this year, they dropped in good years, so that's why I picked up kind of a media over year, and so that's why they're seven-year rank dropped a little bit. That's very true. I looked at the year by year performance on Schroeder, and there was only one, two, three. There are four time periods when the index was negative. They did not defend well in 2022. I've reached out to get some more analysis, but what I could see so far is it looks like stock selection for them in 2022 just did not help. I know Taiwan's semiconductor and Samsung Electrics were two names that they held that just really hurt them that year, but I'll get a little bit more analysis because 2022 is a bit of an anomaly they did underperform quite a bit. But in 2020 and in 2016 those were negative years and they protected. I think they gave, index was negative 12, they were negative 10. In 2020, the index was negative 3.4 and they were a negative 0.8. So, really good defense of this, you know, 3% to percent defense of this there. And then in the out markets, looking at the numbers, for the most part, they're ranking above median and even in the up markets. So I think 2024 is kind of dragging down the current performance when you look at it on an annualized basis. So I know that there hasn't been much changed there from a team point of view. So there hasn't been big turnover on personnel and philosophy is the same. I did reach every now and then we sit in on these calls. I know I think Shrouda I said in on a call a couple quarters ago and there were there were not any significant changes. So I will reach out to the research analyst that follows them and confirm that and make sure that there haven't been any changes on the philosophical time side ownership side or team professional side. So I will double check with that. But you know year by year I think the performance is competitive. I just think it's 2024 that's dragging them down because 2023 they did better than the benchmark about 2%. They were a little bit below the in the median. So the're ranking 61. So we'll see, you know, if 2025 is a good year and then they have 24 bad year and 23 good year, then that three year number kind of sandwiched by two good years. So we'll see how it goes, but I will follow up with you once I get more information talking to our research team as well as reaching out to shoulder as well. But I see answer your question Connie. I'm not concerned at this point, but will I like to see 2025 and see how how how things go for them. I know that was a lot of numbers and you didn't necessarily have them in front of you. Cindy, do you mind pulling up? You have to go to the plan specific report to get the results in by year. So, yeah, Cindy, if you open up maybe the basic book. And then go to page 28. And then 28. So I'll page 28. If you see the first gray bar across the top that's as total international, the third one down or the manager right above the second gray bar is Schroeder. And so this bar did you walk? There you go. There you go. There you go. So the second column from the left. So the 2024s on the left and then the older time periods go to the right. So these are the numbers I was looking at. So for 2024, shorter was a positive 10.97. So let's just say 11%. The index was 12.55 and the average international market manager was 11.7. So they were below the index and just just below the average manager there. In 2023, they were, I'll read the numbers just in case you can't see them on screen. 3.79 was there. Their return, the index was positive 1.75 and the average emerging market manager was 4.82. So they beat the benchmark by 2% over 2%, but versus other emerging market plans, they were basically third-core tile. 2022 is what Connie is mentioning here. Negative 28.56 is there. Return the index is negative 25.2 and the average emerging market manager was negative 27.94. So underperformed the benchmark pretty close to the average emerging market plan. And then 21, there are 3% over the index and then ranking 37, 2022, excuse me, 2020. Here you could see they were basically negative 0.8 when the index was negative 3.39 and the average average emerging manager was negative 2.66 so the rank was 39. So, you know, and then looking at 2019, 2018, if you just look at the numbers in parentheses 45, 26, 14, 2016 ranking 58 and then 2015 ranking 41. So, they're in general, their ranks are fairly good in long- term history and their performance versus that benchmark is pretty good, pretty competitive. I mean, even in strong years like 2017, the index was 23.75 and they were positive 26.19. So they've added value in general in the older time periods. It's just that 2024 that I think is just dragging them down. So like I said, I'd like to see how they do in 2025, plus talk to the Mariner Institutional Research Team and then also reach out to Schroder just to confirm that there have been no changes at the firm. That sounds good. So when we start to see, well, and I'm talking like I want to turn this over to my bag because this is your area of expertise. But the way I look at it is, once I start seeing some concerns, we're not doing anything immediately to, you know, hold the trigger and say we're getting rid of them. It's just a way of saying, hey, we need to pay more attention to this one. Because if there's an issue that we'll want to, you know, over the next maybe even year or two. think of, you know, it would be at least a year probably before we say, okay, we're done. But it's like to like start putting them on a, you wanna watch seven look at them, look at them closely. Again, but then anything to add, well, I'm only got 10 years out of the 10 years they out before I'm seven, 10 years. Okay. So I'm here one of the years, they underperformed it. It was, you know, 41 versus 39. So I see it just, I see what you're saying and you know, we should definitely keep an eye on them if, you know, we think that they're not performing as they should be, but with Mary's explanation and then looking at these numbers, you know, I feel fairly confident that the research analysts are keeping close eye on the ones that they are in, I guess, not in charge of whatever they, it was that they were seeded. Okay. So I don't think I've provided any answer or intended, but in total, I see that they got for one set of techniques. That's great. Okay. So from your perspective, less of a concern that I'm feeling less of a concern. Okay. and it does come down to, you know, if you look at it here by year, you know, it's what they're holding, what's performing, underperforming. And, you know, with emerging markets, it could be one. Like you said, tie one, semi-conductors. Yeah, sometimes that performs in a big way, and sometimes on the forms in a big way forms a big way. So it's with that ashrata and the same with JP margin, it's with your whole. And I don't know what other emerging market funds, I don't know what they're doing. Sure. And they could be doing the same. We're better. But we have the average, or not the average, that we have the median. Right. So we have some of what I'm sorry to do it. Right. How many funds are in the universe, Mary? I think you've said before, but I don't recall. Yeah, I'd have to double check with the emerging market universe. Yeah, I know the overall broad universe is about 1700 funds, but the individual sub funds. So for example, the emerging market equity universe, I'd have to get the numbers. I don't know it off the top of my head. Okay. Okay. So the other one I highlighted was clarion since we're on this page. We can just look at it here. It's towards the bottom and in the real estate section. So here looks like looks like the most recent two years, 2024, which is the number, yeah, that one, 9.48, the first number on the left, yeah, there you go. They got hurt in that year, that's 2024 and 2023. They're also low. But if you look at the prior years, the prior four years, they have pretty strong rankings. So I got comfortable with, okay, maybe they've had, you know, two years where they've had struggled, but just an overall looks, you know, looks good. So I got myself comfortable that we're good there. Mary, anything to add? And I'm sure real estate has been a rough, a rough place to be. Yes, it has. And quite honestly, that's all based, those returns are based on valuation. So it's just the valuation of the properties. It's not as if they've really made too many changes to the portfolio. It's just that they do valuations on the properties once a year and it's a rotating cycle. And so it's just the valuations are coming in lower. So the returns that you see for Clarean in 2021, when they ranked 22, for the most parts, the same properties that they have in 2024 when they're ranking 62. So it's just, it's more, it's more real estate the asset class and not necessarily Clarion as the investment manager there. Okay um, you know, I wanted to, as I mentioned to Megan and Chris before the meeting, I just wanted to document that we as a retirement board looked at these sort of took a deeper dive, given their results and got comfortable with where they were or put the the model risk to follow up. So I think we got comfortable and maybe just shoulders the one to provide some follow up. Okay, great, thank you. You're welcome. Oh, please. And Mary, with the new, with the economy being what it is and a change of administration. Are there any trends that we should be looking for, looking looking for or looking to change or watch? Or is there something typical with the change of administration? Not just this one, but typically with the change of administration. So normally, normally, normally, no, only because when there's a change of administration, especially this administration, there's just so many things going on that it is hard to, and you're seeing them in the stock market, the stock market has been very volatile, it goes up, and then it goes down the next day, and then goes up the next day. So it's more of, you know, kind of wait to see what the trends are and what the decisions are and what policies are going to be in place. And then from there, if we feel that the policy is going to stay in place, you know, then maybe start looking at potentially making changes to the portfolio. But normally we don't make a lot of changes when an administration comes in, probably because when we looked at the long-term performance of the markets with, and I believe I've showed you this chart, but basically we did it analysis where we plotted the, again, the S&P 500 because that's the major US stock market. We plotted that and how that has performed with each administration, whether it was a four-year or eight-year, whether it was a Republican or a Democrat. And for the most part, the stock market has gone up. I mean, there were a couple times, depending on, you know, with one president, the stock market went down, you know, there was the depression, so the stock market went down with that presidency. And I think there was one other time that I think the stock market was flat from when that president began and when the term ended. But for the most part, if you look at that chart, no matter what president it was and how long they were in the office, from the beginning of their time period to the end of their term, the stock market had gone off or had trended upward. So the stock markets in general don't care who's in office. They tend to adapt to changes that are being made. Stock markets like consistency. So when there is uncertainty, that's when the markets get a little volatile. But once there's some consistency and then the stock markets, you know, can basically see a trend, then then the markets tend to do well. So right now it's now we're trying to just see what's happening in the market. And then once things settle and we see what policies are going to take place then the markets can move from there. And then we can also look also we are scheduled to do an asked allocation study in November. So by then maybe we'll have a better idea of what is staying in place and then maybe we could to treat the portfolio if we needed to at that time. Thank you. Other questions? All right, you're invited. Thank you, Ms. Okay. So now Cindy, if we could go back to the all plans book and I will start item seven, which is the Define Contribution portion of the report. Page 37. So here there's two plans of 457 and the 401A. So they're set up where we show look at the allocation and then we show market values. So, on page 37, this is the allocations of where the participants have selected to put their assets. Left side is September quarter, right side is December quarter. So here, you know, here we're just simply reporting on what the participants have done. And so if you look at the pie pieces, the two biggest pie pieces are the blue, which is equity 42.4% of the assets participants money is an equity and then 40.3% of the assets are in target date funds. And then if we turn to page 38, we also look at the investments from an active and a passive point of view or active or index funds. And here the blue piece of the pie is the active. And so 77.3% of the participants money are an active funds. So that means the participants are selecting actively managed funds based on whatever, however they get to that decision, but the predominant piece the pie is inactive. And so that's for the 457. Page 39 on the left shows all the fund options that are available to the participants and then we do break it down the second and third column from the left is the December market values and percentages. So you have an idea of roughly what funds the participants have selected and the columns to the right are all the time periods. But here you can see if you are interested in the individual funds and where the participants are putting their money. You can see where that is. I will make a note that if you look the third from the bottom, Western Asset Core Plus, there was a decision to replace that fund. This report is as of December 31st, that fund Western Asset was removed out of the lineup mid-January. So the next quarter you will not see it. So participants can no longer pick Western. And if anyone was in Western, it was mapped to the fund right above at the Fidelity U.S. Bond index fund. And so that change was made partly because of the recommendation we made because of Western is having so many issues. So that's why you do see it in this report because it is a December report. Those are my quick comments on the 457. Are there any questions there? I will speak to performance after we finish the 401A. So 401A, page 41. Same thing, the allocation by asset classes. Again, on the right side, the biggest pie piece here is the target date funds at 64%. So in the 401 plan, many of the participants are selecting the target date fund, which is the default. And then the next largest piece of the pie is the equity at 28.5%. And then the next page 42, very similar picture to the 457. We have 78.1% in the after funds. And then on page 43, same thing. It's the list of investments and then the allocation by market value and percentages for each fund. And then page 44. So page 44 is a summary of the performance, if you recall, the performance is shown in a table format with every single performance return and rank in universe. And then it is also summarized in pages after this where we highlighted red, green or yellow, green meaning the funds performing as expected yellow, caution. There's a few time periods that it's either not meeting one of the criteria and then red, it's meeting, it hasn't met that criteria for more quarters. So this page summarizes, there's a lot of information. So this page summarizes the current border, which is on a far right, but it also gives you the previous time periods, which was a request by the board. So you can see historically how things have changed. So if you look on the far right, I know it's tough to see. But if there, if there was any yellow or red, I have denoted it here. And so you can see the first one is the Vanguard equity fund, which we spoke to. There's only one time period or one metric where it is yellow. And that's based on performance, which we've already kind of spoke to. The next one is MFS growth. We've spoken about MFS growth multiple times. MFS growth is, so the index, as you know, is very much tilted to technology and consumer services. There's seven names that are very heavily weighted in that index, and MFS is not waiting some of those names as much as the index. So when they're underweight, some of the big tech names and tech has been doing well in the last few quarters in the last few years, that's why MFS is underperformed. Again, for those that are new, we have looked at this quite a few times. We're still comfortable. I actually reached out to the analyst, research analyst at Marinor to make sure that they Again, for those that are new, we have looked at this quite a few times. We're still comfortable. I actually reached out to the analyst, research analyst at Marinor to make sure that they had not changed their opinion on our MFS and MFS along with many other large cat managers, similar to them, are struggling in the ranks because they just don't look like the index. These managers don't believe that you should hold 10 or 12% in any one of these names. They don't feel that the stock will give you that much return. And so that's why they're underweighting. So until we see the markets not being so concentrated or so nearly focused, hopefully we'll see MFS and some of those other large-cap managers start to look a little bit better. The other two yellow ones are touchstone and all spring. I'll make a note on all spring because all spring actually moved up last quarter. There were only two time periods where it was in the yellow and now it's four time periods, which is in the yellow. I didn't look at them. It basically its performance, they struggled this quarter. So selection and industrials hurt them and they were slightly overweight materials which hurt them. Also I was looking, they are a little bit more concentrated in financials. And then when I looked at the universe that they're compared to and some of the managers, the top performing managers in that universe, their concentrations were more in technology and industrials. And so again, similar to the large cap, large cap growth space, you know, technology took a lead in that. And so those managers that were at market weight or overweight in technology did well in the universe and all spring is underway technology. So kind of the same story that you see for MF as you'll see for all spring. So you know, I will keep an eye on that, but I'm not too concerned right now with all spring. I will like to point out American funds Euro Pacific, which is your international manager. They were a little bit of red last quarter. They were yellow and in this quarter because they had a decent fourth quarter return that kind of they added a good quarter dropped off a bad quarter kind of what Connie saw one of the other managers. And so that now you see all those time periods are now in the great. So we did see some nice and nice positive move there. Western, it's on the page because, you know, there's still, I'm still reporting it because it's still December, but Western will be removed, but it was all performance issues there. So that is kind of a summary of the investments, especially to the ones that we're popping up as yellow or red. Are there any questions on the 457 or 401A? I think I had some observations, but Mary addressed all of them, so I don't think we need to go over them. Questions from the group? All right. Thank you. So, as you know, don't need agenda seven, the little I wanted to provide an update on the work that Baroner has been doing with our school system. In terms of whether or not it makes sense for the school to find contribution savings plans to consolidate with Vision Square and ask the board formally to do fiduciary oversight. So the school system contracted with Marinor to do a similar analysis as we did on our mission square and so forth. So Marinor just and Mary just presented the reports to the school looking at the school systems. They have coverage and poya between those two record keepers six plans. And needing to do a lot of analysis. One of the key things they need to do is make sure the platform that's being administered on is consistent. So the schools are right now looking at how to review their existing platforms and assess that. Then. is consistent. So the schools are right now looking at how to review their existing platforms and assess that. Then probably a year from now, be in a position to come back and ask more formally whether the retirement board would consider providing similar papers like as we do on the general government's plan. But if we did that, the intent is to be on the same line-ups so that you're looking at the same funds, just more participants and more dollars. So this is a preliminary update that the first part of the analysis is done in other schools, we're doing their internal review. And we estimate it could be like a year out before I can say, well, I'll come back to the retirement board. That's part one of my announcement. Part two is that you can see Kristen Michaels is not here tonight. She actually had a meeting conflict otherwise she would have been here, but she has just announced her departure from the car school system to go to another school system. She's going back to Fairfax County Public School. So February 28th, regrettably for the city and for us, our work with Pearl on the retirement will be her last day with the city, so she asked me to share that with you all and thank you for the collaboration and the partnership when I know a staff will be missing working with Kristen and she's been a good collaborative partner on the retirement world and a mother. That's on the certificate. They don't know. She hasn't been a good partner, so I will definitely miss working with her. Questions or comments on that update? Moving right along item number eight. So I'm Monday. I gave that annual. to the City Council. Mostly come rain, covering investment returns and funded status, always cover the water sale money because that's an interest. So that's that separate part of money that We have an offensive, that we track separately and a lot of complicated details there, but always a lot of interest. And then there's also stats about the defined contribution plan, which I went over briefly. And then there's many pages of descriptions of all the things that we have done over the last 12 months, and there I just highlighted a couple of them. The same council was very appreciative and wanted me to express their appreciation to all of you for all the work that we are doing. They feel like the plans are in good shape and good stewardship of the city's finances. So greatly appreciative of everything that we are doing. Questions that came in were mostly about the water sale money and about more about the city side. So, you know, we have this account. There are rules about how much the city can use each year to offset contributions. We have a rule in place that they can only use 825,000 per year. The city has been using 640,000. So as those of you who follow all the stuff, it's always a challenging, but jeer. But I think I get the census might be a more challenging budget here. So that was a lot of discussion there. So not really decisions that we make because the city decides how much up to the limits, up to the rules that we have set. It's really up to this city to decide how much they want to. So I suspect there'll be more discussions there. And then I did get a question about do I see any storm clouds coming or any things that I wanted to warn them about and I just said I think we're in good shape and I think we have a lot of good opportunities going forward. So didn't really see any storm clouds coming. Questions? You can mention yesterday. Before you jump to them, I do have the full report if you want. Connie just commented on how appreciative Council was for the whole retirement board which totally concur with. They also were very appreciative of the chair leadership. So I wanted to make sure that we pass that on. There was one two things that I highlighted and stated. So there were no questions at that. I know. Well, in some ways it was just, I mean, I just said our fossil fuel involvement last time we reported or calculated it was set 7% in this again at 7%. So in some ways it was not much news there. Happy to be able to say, you know, that it hadn't changed. So I guess that gives you a sense of the focus on budget versus fossil fuel. And the city manager is presenting the budget on March 24, so I can say that is where all of our businesses and the other questions on yes. Not a question, but just a comment. Thank you. I thought the report was very well done, comprehensive, with a lot of information, you know, and it wasn't too long, but it was really full of a lot of good information. So I appreciate all the work that went into that. So thank you. I'll give you a second hand. We have our employee town hall, our monthly employee town hall next Tuesday. So we will highlight for the employees the report and give them the link of people on the full thing. I put on the screen just as a reminder, this is the full ESG report that we put in the retirement board packet. It was summarized for council, but Connington and Mary had done a fair amount of analysis to get to the fact that it stays 7%. So we wanted to provide you the with actual chart details. Because it is a council strategic priority to focus on energy and also fields of particular. This there be having questions. Any questions on that item? It isn't the imprecise calculation. So, you know, in the memo, we do talk about 7.2 versus 6.9, but when we report to council, we say 7 because I just don't think I'm not sure if it's even really reasonable to say it's exactly seven, but I can't round any further than that. So, you know, but I think last year the city council was pleasantly surprised to see that it was only at seven. I think we're in good shape. Okay. Cindy wanted to talk about the open investment policy update? Sure. This is, yeah, I just wanted to officially close the loop for the retirement board, because you all had adopted the change on the implicit subsidy or the contribution in implementing the investment policy plan. And that went to council December 9th, so it's officially adopted by council. So it is the policy. I put that final copy in your packet just for your records and for us to on the record here, officially close that. that loop for the last meeting of the year. Again, cola. Sure. Um, so, stevele was a big help in calculating the cola adjustments. It's the cost of living adjustment for the retirees or beneficiaries of the plan receiving that one plan of the. So, that was all calculated and confirmed. I'm a low stream phase for implemented for the January 1st pension and checks for all calculated and confirmed. I mean those teams is very implemented for January 1st, and from checks for all of our containers and both basic and please put that in. And the whole number is saying a lot of work, but that is. We did put the memo in the packets and we would have them for the and the annual thing we wanted to make sure that we reported it out. Very appreciative of the Seagulls help Megan and I on this calculation. And also want to note that US Bank was able to do a bulk upload with a spreadsheet. The Megan didn't have to go in and enter every individual page. It takes a work to get that spreadsheet in a format that will work this year, hopefully going forward. So I also want to thank Megan for the work to make sure I went off. I think we have seen one term it's 1.25% so it came in at 1.2% so great actuary. All right. Moving right along on training. So after or well, we have a training policy that each trustee goes to a in-person training. You know what I realized as I couldn't even find my copies of the training policy. So I just want every three years in person, 12 hours of training every three years and the mandatory for the shared training. So and then one of the things that we, one I should say, have a new trustee, a new as has an interesting training in their first year. And the idea here is that we wanna make sure that we're learning from others and hearing what the new ideas are. So that we're, you know, we learn a lot by the people who come in here, but by going to these trainings, like, you know, I think you get to learn more from other people and hear what other plans are doing, so that's very good learning for all of us. So we ask that if you go, then you come back to the group and report back a couple things that you learned that you want the group to know to learn from so we can all leverage the learning that you got from those conferences. So that training was in right after our last week, a well-after-beneuve-eating San Diego. And I've written down in our youth, written down from you. Thank you. May the end of the firm and Cindy, you attended virtually. So if I can ask, I'll go this way. If you have a couple things from the training that you would like to share that you learned, that you would like us to know that we could learn from. Well, let's start with what I feel is most important. It was the conferences, I said that Tim was sitting around based around cyber security. And it was interesting to learn that the Department of Labor actually does these are noise audits to their to pension hold it or plan holders actually doing these hot audits and there they have a cyber security framework that they want you to appear to. So one of the recommendations was to review the Department of Labor Labor guidance and God for their cybersecurity program that they recommend. So I went for some review their program and luckily we have some work to do. I'm not going to go in detail to all the some of the volunteers, some of the work that we have to do. But I am happy to say out of the 12 recommended practices, best practices that they're recommending. Where do you, if not meetings, where are you close to doing nine out of 12? So I think we're doing, we're doing, actually a better job on that job if we're doing it. So I'm pretty happy with that. That was one of them that was after Math of a Department of Labor Cyber Audit that I wanted to mention. Another one that I wanted to mention is not so I don't know if it was too heavy one, so I was like, the security was a deep dive to asset performance and understanding how attributioning one of the things that they recommended in that particular session was. So once a year and have an executive meeting to discuss consultants' performance in a closed session, I thought that was, I was like, wow, since we being been having a thing we've done at, you know, to have a closed session, sorry Mary, sorry, sorry, sorry Robert, but we have a closed session. No worries, no worries. What we talk about them is like have a real hard, hard discussion of their performance and what we really think about them, you know, and how they're going. So I thought that was interesting, interesting suggestion. And more of the cybersecurity stuff, but I'll leave the debt to get a floor to some other, so I'm attending to Van Herre. Before we turn it over, did they come up questions and they give you any template or ideas about this closed session? What we would cover or how we would conduct that discussion? Oh, glad you asked. I have to go to my notes one hour. They did. And I don't need you to go out to the, I'm just thinking it's, what is it I had a hold. I did. It's not to go through the notes, but yes, it did. So we can discuss it. Is then if we went into closed session, would that be an appropriate time to talk through the cyber security? Or would you not? Is that not appropriate to even discuss with retirement retirement board just given the sensitivities of? Due to the sensitivity, I will be hesitant to speak to people below, on some of the water ability just because we just can't trust it, that information is going to go out. But I can, but one of the things they are and then as far as they have a site, a written cybersecurity program, and the boy should have that and we should review it. So that's one of the things, but a couple of these things of them speak with the risk manager. And when the other happens, we're going to have some discussions on it. So it'll be more to come on it. So I don't know if we'll put that in a lay report from the member. Why not put on a And it's coming up on the agenda for policies which we've working on a cybersecurity policy is one thing like picked up that we need to do and that could be a high level that's not security risk and it might reference the plan that as we know the city serves as our IT for staff and plan, that's what we could tie it in. The closed session for consultants for review and contract negotiations should be the Virginia closed session, don't want to go, but I'll have to look to make sure we've learned it. If the genius is a little stripped on what can be done of course. Oh, one last thing. And we already think Cindy has already already made some headway on this, is from the understanding of cyber liability insurance, that there was a recommendation that all contracts need to be addressed cybersecurity obligations, which I think that's what we're doing from now on, right? We're requiring that. Yes, so for all the pension, RFPs and subsequent contracts, we've embedded the cybersecurity that they have insurance and they have a program. I've now have that under review citywide because I think that's important because there's things that are specific consultants, but there's things that HR does that have the director in direct relationship and those conference also need to have the cybersecurity as everything else. So we already make it headway on that. We're also, we have cybersecurity now under our city policy which does cover our work here, but I'm working with the council of governments which is the federal to, DC, Maryland, or maybe a collaborative cybersecurity add-on policy. And then I'm working with Siegel to look at having a review of the city's cybersecurity insurance policy, which isn't paid for by the plan, but with benefit to plan. Also, one slide jump to one of the things I learned is the importance of also having fiduciate bond coverage for the pension, which we don't currently have. So I'm having SEGLE assess that also. So, fiber security and that is certainly too is my learning sort of a training and I had another one that you're talking. So we have the general public officials policy. You've always been covered from that. And we have a cybersecurity, but we want to do things on the computer on the computer. What if that is a option? So I may actually be coming back to you. That would be a high priority yet. Yeah, here. The terms of the cybersecurity umbrella, you know, we're talking about city systems, I guess, and then the board and so forth. What about like Mission Square that holds our counts on some of the investments? And then we have a new city system that we can access and do some things with. Does that umbrella cover that beyond the contract or the insurance or is there relationship even in terms of cybersecurity? No. Is any of them? Yeah. Early was it this week? Yes. We had some light discussion on it because what I was hearing, it didn't on that. Should we talk about this now? Let's just say we're working. I don't work any hard for fire. But your things like mission square and the contracts and our fund managers, that's all the stuff we need to review. I would say we started with our specific contractors because we upload a lot of data to Segal for example. Every time we do the evaluations, they're getting a lot of personal identification information. When we do US bank, so all of those have the cybersecurity fees built into it. And then we're expecting. OK, I'm just kidding, the personal end of it. So in other words, you have a member account. And then they've got 100,000 of funds. And, you know, I'm wondering if, you know, how, you know, we're protecting that through our contracts with Mission Square, or I guess we have this new, you know, city system where you go in and you can modify, know, certain things in your counts, but anyway. So I'm just kind of doubly in that well. So they also, because of some of the regulatory oversight, they also have good time. of security. But I think it's as you were picking up at the conference, it's a much stronger higher focus now, which is good. So we're we just thought it at first. So yeah, you know, think the improvement show right now to talk too much about it but we are working on it. Yeah, but there is a lot of ability there. Sure. And that's what you asked. And you're looking at it. So I mean, you know, it's just the, yeah, it's a good question. You understand what I'm saying? It's that that's the personal and all my money's sitting there and I want to, you know, a reasonable level of rejection. So, I'm going to come. Interesting. Yeah, thanks for sharing with me. Give me a thought. Yeah. I'm sorry. That's really why when late was helping her get into Z-scaler, which is our much improved security system to address, getting into systems. And I was joking that Nate needs to change hat sometimes. He's a trustee looking after the participants for cybersecurity. And then his day job is to be the CTO to look at the organizations. And each vendor has a silent security policy. We're going to be asked to make sure that they do. I think more just as importantly, the insurance part of it. And that we would be, if anything happens for then, but then has a negative impact on the city, that we will be made whole, if you will, from based, you know, with that insurance, that it doesn't matter, insurance stuff, it just covered then, but it would trickle down to any impact. So we started them with all our pension RF fees and now we're looking at citywide, but it is you write the policy in their processes for their own and their cybersecurity. And then also that they carry the insurance and they have the city broad city, which includes this, and it's a short, and it's cybersecurity, not just federal liability. But the city has in the last two years doubled our cybersecurity, and then my current renewal on ought to do it again, because how the money does out there when ransom is just. It's definitely a lot of talk at the conference. And to that, I mean, actually I came out of it with a lot of questions more than something to share, but the so the city probably does the know before whatever number for you. Yeah. Is that something that maybe the trustees should be doing? Even though we don't have a city, for most of us don't have a city email, I'm just wondering. Right now, we were probably crying no before if you are going to access city devices. So you don't necessarily have to be employed, but if you want to access the network, you will have to think it know before training. Okay. But I'm all training everybody. Yeah. So yeah. I was just thinking of it because there are like so many rules I guess, you know, as far as Virginia saying how meetings should go or we can't email more than two feet a little. No, we can't meet with more. Oh, the four year rules. No more than three and we can't have a one-product email meeting yet. So is that going to be, and I don't know why I'm looking at you, but the trustees, the handbook, the onboarding? Is that going to be some of that kind of core stuff and all our policies? Yeah. And out of that, I mean, so it was like, I felt like it was having on cybersecurity and processes. And there was a lot of push to having the onboarding, the trustee, and I know that's being worked on, but is it also being worked on as it as being an electronic being available electronically? Yeah, I'm looking at both, because everything that's, so I'm gonna do it as an electronic PDF and have a chapter and thank you. But then it brought me simple from the tree of the dividers. And then if a trustee was a hard copy, we'd be glad to print it out. But I want to have it as a PDF by chapters or something so we can easily update it when we have to do the policy or something like that. But if somebody really wants a hard copy because that's how you work and think that's totally fine. We could accommodate it. But because they had mentioned electronically and then somebody and I wish I listened harder to this but a trustee portal which I don't know I mean that's like and if there was a trustee the portal then we'd have to do the know-for-jeware, whatever. I have to do that whole thing. What is it trustee portal to? It's probably able to get in and just look at any of the documents, plan documents, you know, anything, you know, it's probably similar to what I do with the Lown County Credit Union Board of Directors and some chair there. We have a portal and so our board packets are put there in the core documents. And so instead of me emailing them out, are you going to the website? You can go to that portal. For the most part, everything you all access is on the website, except to plan some research there, not the full plan. So there may be some value to it, but I will tell you there's a cost to it. And then you have to look at the cybersecurity of that because now you are going to access them to either something in the cloud or the network and then they're going to have it from the file. So in the future, if we find the need, we can explore. Yeah, I think because unlike like corporate plans, I mean, most of our all of our eating materials have to be public and online and so hopefully 95% of what we would need, we'd be able to find online. That's an interesting. interesting, I thought it was interesting. I was like, oh, you know, it's not exciting, but just, you know, it would have to be, it would have to be put together and that will be more for a much larger municipality. We have to remember this conferences for public and private plans because it was having around the on the risk of heavy arrests. So the longer the effort stops, one of the out on a website, so that's quite a lot. But there's always best practices for that. But I was trying to, you know, it's like I know the arrest stop when I was trying to not listen to that and I felt like that was 80%. I couldn't find any public plan people. I didn't know where my people were. I could find out the next day there was like a... Reception. Yes. Did you go? How do you do about it? Yeah, they talked about it in one of our sessions. Was I in that session? No. No. It makes sense. That was it. Yeah, because it was like I heard the next day and it was like I finished lunch one day and there was like this special spot for people and public money. Every night it was one, every night. You know what I told you? I was feeling really left out. So, when I asked for comments and everything afterwards, it's like, you know, you couldn't told me, you know, something about public plans, so I could speak to people, speak up to plain people. But anyway, and a lot of the other stuff that I listened to was practice, you know, best practice, you know, for trustees. And I found I didn't learn a lot in that other than I should say that a lot is done here already. Somebody that gets fairly impressive how much it's done here. And the biggest thing was and we all know this is to be cautious about minutes. Just give it just and not able to gain a little bit of weight in the ground. My only pushback on that is that we want to be able to show to be notice things and consider things which is why like I hit put together the thoughts on the investment returns. Just documenting, we looked at this. We just determined that we were right. I guess I'll have to look at my notes, but I just wrote this down. And it, so that's minutes, but maybe more policy-driven. How needs to be a little bit more gentle. And I think that's the case on it. I guess you know, two seconds. That's an interesting balance because you need to document to show you do jail legends. And if you have end up in a court case, you can show that you had the process and you were executing it, even you know, it wasn't the desired thing that just got sued on. So I think it's a balance. So we haven't done a high level. We actually have a fair amount of details, but most of those details are from documents that are public documents which way the investments or the policies. I mean, honestly, I mean, when they were saying, you should do this, and you should do this, the board should do this, whatever I'm like, you can't do it. You can't do it. Okay. But, you know, I just, I came back with questions. And one of them was, and I remember you talking about signing things with Marshall. If Marshall would have gave, if something needed to be signed, he'd come in and sign. What is it that you're signed? Like what things do you see? When Marshall comes in, therefore, the investment liquidation trades predominantly. So right now we have four, well three trustees that need to adopt the signatures now that we have some new people but we have Matt and Nate and Connie and it was Marshall so I'm going to need to get a new trustee that can counter signs. The retirement board has adopted a policy resolution that anytime I'm signing off on a trade or caring is my backup is a second signature. And that second is signature has to be a trustee. And there's Jonathan. And so the what the predominant thing is as you're coming in to be the second signature on our trade. And when whatever trustee comes in to do that signature, you get the background on what the recommendation was from a mayor and and that's based on what we determined we need. Let's say it's for the next quarter, for being versatile to city. So I show you all the background and show you the mayor, I show you the documents, answer any questions and then get a signature. And that is what goes to US bank to do the treatment. So that's the predominant thing the signatures have been and they have less of authorizing. Yes. So actually we will be updating that. It goes for all of our current managers. I have to re-up northern trust and then I'll, the new signatures. I think it was being done. It's just, you know, it was one of those things and said, hmm, yeah, I said there. I'm asking the question. And then any of your other questions, hang on to them. We'll go to Rome. And then if it's important for the group, and do enough things. I do not want it. I will send it to you. We will need to discuss it. I will send you that. You want to pause here? Yeah. I don't know if you know my word. I'm just going to just try to just join in. So on a. Hey, Charlie. Can you hear us? Please. You are on mute. We can give us a thumbs up or something in the react button or something. Rejecting the understandable message. I know I can use that but let me see if I can. It's just commuter love. Not a minute. You know, a minute in case he needs a question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. So we are glad to have a participant observe in the retirement board meeting. Very engaged in city things like our employee advisory committee and some special colleagues. Welcome. All right. Charlie dropped off for a second, but now he gets down and back. And Charlie, I'm seeing you as unmuted. Do you want to try to say hello? Can you hear us. That's good. I'm going to try something by keeping you on the phone and putting you on speaker phone. Okay. All right. So chair, I think we have Charlie on the phone. I'll turn it over to you. Charlie, thank you for joining us. How are you doing? Oh. I'm going. I'm going. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay also, like I said, now you get back on my feet, but I'm just carefully, really, really sure, and hopefully I will. I'm a good health, so I'm not like, really good with a passion, yeah. So anyway, I'm like, again, regarding to the health, and like I say, I've really worked with armed just sort of city and sort of the people with that on the counter for it. And yeah, congratulations to you all with your vote. I can't make a new plan to put by place. It's a Gary. Yeah. Thanks, Arlene. Thanks. Yeah, Gary. Yeah. Congratulations, Gary. Thank you. Thank you for reaching out and mentoring me and helping me with the my interest in enjoying the board and serving and you've got huge shoes after 22 years and a legacy. So I'll thank you, I've known you for decades for your service on the board for all employees. And I'm pleased to be here and thank you for encouraging me. Yeah, Charlie, I want to add my thank you. 22 years is a really long time and I very much appreciate you and I have had different conversations over time like one-on-one, some good conversations during meetings and you're always willing to ask those questions and just not accept what is as well just to always do it that way, you know, you brought the discipline, and we're looking at those. I remember you talking about, you were sort of our historian and could remind us of, okay, 15 years ago, this is what happened and this is the... I remember you talking about, you were sort of our historian and could remind us of, okay, 15 years ago, this is what happened and this is the lesson, I think most importantly, and this is the lesson that we learned. So let's put things in place to address that. And I think I've told you in the past, the funding policy that we have in place, which I think is serves the city really well, is directly related to the things that you talked about of how detrimental the contribution holiday was. So, you know, you have had an outsized impact, I would say, on the strength and financial stability of these plans. I know I was telling the group earlier today. You know, the city council really appreciates the stewardship that we are. have over this plan and just, you know, they have confidence that we are taking good care or something that they don't have to worry about because they know it's in good hands. And it's really been in your good hands for 22 years. So again, just really appreciate it. And on a personal note, have enjoyed working with you and your sense of humor. And we don't always agree, but I like that we don't always agree because it's good to get different perspectives. So I am glad that you are in good health and you have a whole team here that's cheering you on as you continue to improve in your health. But most of all, I want to say just thank you for your service. Well, thank you. Like I say, thank you. It's said, you both from my heart, because you're all blah, blah. You're the Greek telecommunicate and you stay in touch with me. And say, these down at home, stay any job. I'll say that Richard, you're going for long time and Richard did a good job. But I'll take what the truth, Jax and I have to do it right. I've done a lot of things, jobs that are retirement forward or for effort of keeping paperwork good lunch, making sure they're placed compliant and done all the other activities that they go along with that management. I'm sorry, you've done a lot of things, job, because you take time, work and family, become here and do these special things for the retirement board and people that are sitting and pulling these and stuff. So, as I've just said, through time, it's just something to good hands. I'm going anywhere I'm sure. Again, I got all the golfers in the world and everybody who's serving, they make a... You know, at the heart, the joy of the week back to get times more. But if one has just in a later time and time, okay, so anyway, but I thank all of you. I really do the bottom of my heart. I will not forget all of you are always remaining in my heart always. And likewise, you will remain in my heart. Did we did the certificate of appreciation get to Charlie? Charlie did confirm he received it in the mail. Okay. Yeah, if that is not. So thank you for all the help that you get back to your meeting. Okay. I don't know if it's too long, but Cindy and Fata hope they had touched the word, Connie, off day in touch with you at the city too. All right. You better otherwise I'll miss my happy new years and all the holiday emojis you sent. Thank you. Thank you. But y'all told, did you wish me a meeting and I hope you had good Tuesday quickly? All right. Thank you, Charlie. Thank you. Thank you, Charlie. Thank you. Thank you. Bye bye. Thank you. I didn't want to say it while we had Charlie, but I do want to share the Charlie. Thank you. I didn't want to say a while we had Charlie, but I do want to share the delicate Simon from our general assembly. He always takes care of our staff and does recognition to employees at a long time served. and he also does citizens and so when the general assembly finished the service April, we will have a proclamation from the Senate and the House for Charlie as well as Marshall. And Delicates Simon likes to come and present it in person and we do it in front of the House so we can make a big deal. And so once we get that scheduled, we'll let you all know. We'll make it work so Charlie can be virtual unless the go to games, go and get them. And hopefully more children can come personally. So I'm very excited about that. And thank you for reviewing drafts with Big Time and Big It. So that'll be a nice treat that will be. That will be fun. I would like to attend that. I'm never gets scheduled. It's an easily summer like in July because it takes a while once they approve it because they've doing a nice job and I would see. I will share screen again. All right. Yes. So the conference was very informative. Similar to that. I had a lot of questions. Along with some comments that I did learn. I learned a lot about. D.B. versus find benefit versus contributions. There was a lot of talk about whether you can take the DC plan and turn it into a DBE plan. There was a lot of unions there, right? So there were a lot, there were a lot of talk about that that was interesting to I guess you can answer that to at some point. For this year, a lot of ability in short, whether we have it and whether it is an individual, whether it is the trustees individual responsibility or whether it is the retirement or it's. It. Good. So the cities insurance, public official coverage will cover you as an individual in your work on the board and the board is itself. However, it doesn't preclude you from being sued individually. And so that would be a personal choice if you want to have additional. That's also why we want to look at bonding in the fiduciary oversight to encourage to give some more personal cup of matting. We have to come through the city and then we have to do more of more cloud more information on that by the main meeting, but if there's something that we want to proceed sooner, we can consider. Yeah, so that's I can bring up in a moment the. coverage you have for the law. Also, do we have benefits of peel committee? Are you speaking for disabilities or for like, for the specific example? It wasn't a specific example. They were just it was was in one of our sessions, if they were saying the speaker was saying that that should be something to be discussed is whether or not we have a benefits appeal committee. Her vote would have been a benefits appeal committee will be a purge for the women, yes. I? I guess the pinnacle on what if there was a situation and there was a decision I was made that was not in the best interest but was not made in favor an appeals process, right? So is there a plan of the disability? Is there is a disability? I guess did you download the PowerPoint for that presentation? Yeah, I have it. I sure do want to send it to me. Let me look at it and see if they're talking about public plans or a RISSA. I would say there's not a retirement board of Pills Committee instructor. If in the process of determining and submitting pension stuff and our interpretation, we would have a process where, I was like, Megan did it and the employee didn't agree. And we have the A.D.R. Director and then we have up to me this sort of an internal review, but the pension plan is pretty specific on eligible for criteria. So that does a lot of structure for an appeal process because you got fit within those terms. I mean in an oversupply and you could still have people appealing and decision about yes you're eligible're eligible for retirement. No, you're not eligible for early retirement. So, I mean, an irisoplan would have. So I'm pulling up the plan document to see what it says. Oh, interesting. I just Google to appeal all good faith, good faith determinations by the retirement board or its designate, designate are inclusive and biting on all persons and there's no right of a feel except it's provided above. So it is addressed in the plan dot in and so we should look at that and maybe that's something we could ask our new legal support to me. You know, RISSA plan absolutely has to have an appeal process. I don't know how it works for public things. I don't know even now. I can see it says, I'll say the attention plan really pulled off that. Yeah. Within the pension plan, like you said, the terms are normally very stated and to be qualified to do it. with the extension potential of disability like the ability to argue is the one area in which at half-seated fuels and potentially quadru as well, different purchase but has a quadru. I could see where there could be situations where, you know, depending on how the service is defined or pay is defined, people could disagree without things that have been interpreted. True. But in general, the administrative procedures take precedence, which is why of course, the support that you're administrative procedure follows the plan. So yes. So if you said me that PowerPoint PowerPoint that we're with that in this, just close the loop and with Grun doing their review of the pension plan, we can have that. I don't think there are any factors. For the current governmental liability coverage, which includes public officials, each occurrence goes up to a million dollars and then we also have medical damage. And that kind of subsets, it's not as relevant to you all, but right now is a million dollars for each and current. You don't have to worry about the main issues Accessions come all are not reselling properties. Anything else, please? Um, questions, do we have any third-party vendors? Yes. And then are we asking our primary vendors for vendor assessments? So we're assessing or we're asking for their assessment of the vendors of the third party. So are we just relying on sort of their expertise with the vendors? All right. So the way you just defined it when I was saying third party, I think in like my contract with Seville or Mariner. And we directly, even though Mariner oversees all our investment funds, those are directly with us so they're not a sub. I quickly go through and I not sure that we have any sub that we would have to get an assessment on. Now we since they're all under contract we do the city's assessment of contracts for compliance and performance. I think Nate's point about that being a more formal report out in the Tribune Department Board in closed session is satisfied with the performance is one that we can enhance on. I learned a lot about IV&Rs, I'm encouraged, but I reported that that was interesting. How much we should have in our reserves, we should have at least 12 months in reserves. Don't know what we do with auto-enrollment versus auto-escalation. I mean, there were just, there were every between the keynote speakers in every session that I attended. It was first of all a lot. I could. The new trustee for this all day, it was just a lot of... Yeah, it was a lot, but it was good. It was good. It was a lot of information, but it was good. So I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I know we had talked about like the process of attending, like you know once, once every couple of years. And I think, verse believe, whether it's virtually, whether it's in person, I think for me, attending, especially because I'm new at it, attending like yearly, you know, is that I attend other conferences yearly. And that's sort of how I've gotten my rhythm and to understand. And so I think we need to think about it, right? I know, like I said, not necessarily in person every year, but this is valuable information because prior to this, you know, I'm learning a lot, right? So I'm coming here and I'm listening to a lot of different things and a lot of different numbers and things like that and And it was all new to me. And as you go and as you learn different policies and processes, the language becomes easier to understand. The terminology is easier to follow. And for me, without this conference, I was still sort of being new in the out of, you know, I'm listening, I'm here, but I don't necessarily understand and get what everybody is saying or even the questions to ask, right? So this was extremely, extremely invaluable to me. We will be doing the training policy at the main meeting. That's our annual time to update the budget. And we set that practice several years ago of what I said earlier once every three years in person. I am also researching another training opportunity because the board was clear that the next foundation meeting in Hawaii was not where we were sending people in person for good presents and everybody else was seven minutes there's going Yeah, I mean, I like I know I even have my little you know, pineapples. And they gave me macadamia and that's one of the trainings I'm looking at is specifically focused around public plans and so that and it will be on the East Coast and maybe in DC so it may be something where I'd be easy to use more people more frequently. And also the virtual one, well, it's not as ideal as going in person because you don't get the network. I was able to do it. I think I got a 17 or 18 sessions. It's all good information and you can download it. And, you know, well, I'm not live, so I don't get to do the Q&A. They record the Q&A, so I still get the Q&A. I just can't throw one in. And so it could be a balance of virtual women person. We have access to recordings so that if, to your pointer that even just getting used to the lingo takes time, and if you can be listening to sessions and you don't have to wait all year, is that something that we have access to? For the foundation, you have to register for virtual and it's for a certain hearing time, so like my access is already ended, which is why I like to listen to as many as I can and damn hold our points. But there are other things like Seagull has newsletters and webinars. Mission Square has newsletters and webinars. Grim, I'm starting now to get their e-newsletters and stuff. So there's probably some other resources that we could access for. Sort of the webinar and recording kind of piece. I mean, I think it's a good idea to talk about the training and what's appropriate. I don't know, maybe when we start like re-adducting the training policy, I'll tell you that there was a lot of discussion, you know, I guess on the historian, about the whole going to Hawaii and just what the public perception would be, you know, what's the end line of retirement work pays for, you know, two trustees, three trustees to go to Hawaii for training. And I, you know, that's where the annual training is. So I I understand it is just I think when we initially had that discussion it was, that's not going to look. That's not going to sound good when there are other options that we could go to. So that was the rationale for, we'll go to the trainings, but only in let's say the 48. That's going to be interesting. Well, yeah, it's coming back, I guess, to New Orleans, and then say, Antonio. They have recently already happened one, I think on the 24th in Chicago. It's another from the, from the federal advocate that get all their emails and they're having something, someone, one of their conferences in Chicago, next week, so they constantly have them or different sort of conferences and trainings throughout the years. That's the more regional health. They do have some great webinars. They also have, it's a time commitment, but they have an excellent certification, and it's four courses and their free predatory each.ecy, I think they usually ran five to six hours so I did that early on when I joined this process because I didn't have retirement background and it covered The gamut, very intense, but it was a good certification But you know, I can pull out some of the webinars and some of the other resources and you can share with me as access to many of our free so it's just scheduled in New York time. Anything else? Let's see. Good. Thank you. Cindy. I think we've covered a lot of the items that I had on my list. So the one I will grow in is sort of tied to cybersecurity, but it's the old artificial intelligence. There was a lot of sessions on AI. And a lot of what they were talking about is there's pluses problem, but what platform do you use? Is it having ethics? Does it check its citations? Is it just social media? And to make sure that when you launch into it, you have policies wrapped around it in parameters. There were some scenarios and examples where the staff asked the AI to summarize the plan, and they posted the plan summary, and it had gone out and researched everybody's plan, and what it summarized was not the actual adopted plan for that employer. And so obviously created a whole lot of confusion and dizzy and the wrong benefits and eligibility. And so they were just like reinforcing whatever you do. And product needs a human being, reviewing it for you. So for me, it was like, okay, this is an involving field. We're going to do the human side of things for a while. We're going to let it evolve. And that was another conversation Nate and I just had because as an organization, we don't have policies wrapped around, even for us, who's doing the social media presence, who's doing this document or that. And so it's like, for the retirement board and you all, I'm just gonna see us not doing that yet, let some of the industry and other policies wrap around. But that was really eye opening to me to kind of hear how different people were starting to use. I think there's advantages to it that could be helpful, but it has to be done with parameters and criteria wrapped around it. And then I always enjoy doing some of the fundamental reminders like actual, where all calculations and valuations and all those terms that come in Robert liked to throw out in the two hats, setler versus administrative and all that foundation stuff is capable of. And I think I mentioned this in our January meeting, but it also gave me an opportunity to observe our new, what principal lawyer to a presentation that we were getting David Williams grew on the chat front. And it was on AI. So, whenever we go fill that path, we have somebody who's the one. All right, I wrote down a few things for follow up. One is the idea of having a closed meeting where we would discuss the sort of the performance of our outside vendors and consultants. Benefits of PL Committee, fiduciary insurance, I wrote down her some of the things around, like the Ottoman enrollment and auto adepth, that's like a whole big plan features, but then water training should look like, for sort of follow up, near term follow up discussions. Did I capture all the biggest ones? That's my guess. So, and on a quick note for auto enrollment on the defined benefits plan, that's a lot of enrollment. The defined contribution right now is not an auto enrollment. And internally we've had some discussion about that because it's one way to get people really looking forward to their future and investment and they have to take an action to not versus I'll get to it sometime and six months later they've forgotten to do it unless it's a reminder from the onboarding process. And one more question which may be more of a question for finance. I know right now with contributions it has to be a dollar amount and not a percentage amount. I know that there has been some questions from some of my guys about will that be a consideration in the future of a percentage versus a dollar amount? It pretty much is the finance budgeting kind of, definitely like a finance systems question. Answer I've been given is that our European can't do that. I just can't know. But, um, I'll just do my first. Can I ask the clarify question? Are you asking about. How you an employee say, I want to save X amount from my paycheck? Yes. Oh, also right now, the system only has for a flat and dollar figure for paying instead of a percentage of pay. OK. And so for my guys sometimes with snow, their pay checks are bigger. So doing that and having more taken out like a 10% versus that, that was one of the questions that I've been asked. Question. That's a great question. And we have Karen on board to hear that. And we have the department that's overseeing the ERP system going forward. Get in some room. Can you put that on our follow list as well? And then I think you had one other question. Phil, please send it to me and her to send me your follow. Okay. It is 7 on 4. Okay, it is 7 on 4 and I said we would take a break around 7 o'clock. So how about we restarted it? Take a break, we started 7.15. Thank you. It's starting. Oh, okay. It's time. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm hearing a story recording. We have one trustee still on the back so we won't. We'll go off for another minute. So, me. So. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. or you will have the chair again. I am. I am. I'm going to defer that motion because it's supposed to be for the main meeting after the election. Are there social elections? We're going to give Tom another minute to get back. What kind of elections are you going to wait for us to get back? Oh, so we can start the meeting again. I'm just saying, I'll jump back. Should we start the meeting? I'll call us back into order as of 1718. OK.. Do we have elections for the employee? Yes, coming up. Yes, so that's what I asked. Great. Right. Maybe the item number 12 is already. We are ready to restore that. So we have two elected positions in these terms of funding for the project and Gary Kohler, because Gary actually took over the, you know, he's just been elected. He took over the remainder of the term for Charlie Collier, who's going to be coming up for election in his spring. So both theories, position and backs position are going to be up for election. In March, we will hold those elections. So all members of the police plan will be able to vote on their representative, members of the basic plan will vote on their representative, and then by the main meeting, we'll have that term filled. Of course, gentlemen are welcome to that again, we hope to do. And we'll see where those cards fall. And then also on the term front, and I think I'm going to come up for reappointment to hear from the Senate for interest. It's through equals 30th of this year to come, I'm sure that you are going to build a council to be a council. Go ahead and go find out. I do. And we've had on the agenda that we were gonna elect officers, chair, advice chair of the board, but we actually are gonna defer that to May to coincide with the new terms that you usually do. All right. The simility and pre-retire my job and events. Guy, you are sent a memo on this topic. I'll just leave you cap and then open it up for questions. But this is a topic disability benefits from, right now we're focused on the pension plans so the basic and the police plan. had raised the question about the disability benefits that we have and as you see in the summary of the benefits, you know, like the multiplier and that benefit is higher than the formula. So he was asking us to look at that and, you know, it's taking us a couple of years to get there but Segal and City staff had represented a summary of those benefits compared us into jurisdictions around us back in May and we had some recommended next actions so that was in that presentation and then the key pages were in the last page of the memo that we sent out. Hegel also provided some, a memo recently sort of highlighting, hey, these are some considerations for when you think about this benefit sentence, you take a look at what the benefits are that are provided. I was such a mentioned back in I think it was 2021, but City Council asked us to think about our benefits and were we. Where are their places where we should think about those who are, you know, I don't remember the exact words, but in a stressful situation, were there anything that you as a board could be thinking about sort of the vulnerable populations? And so that's where the whole, what are we doing in disability and what are we doing for death benefits also came up? So from that, I was trying to think about like what are the next steps? How do we move this forward from a lot of the discussions into, you know, doing some analysis and thinking through what we want to do? So put together this memo, summarizing And we're on thinking we want to take the next step. One of which is let's start with, well, what is our criteria for making decisions about any changes we want to make? So in here's a line, some evaluation criteria. Based on that, here would be the next steps and then also just you know which includes some pricing and then a proposed time like. So what I'm wanting from the board and hoping what we can get from today's discussion is, you know, do you at least agree with the initial evaluation criteria or looking at possible changes? These are not, once if we say yes, those look good, we can change them in the future, it's just that we need something to kind of move forward in our decision making process. The next item, what do we need the proposed next steps? Do you agree with the proposed next steps? And really that's looking at, the next steps are based on the criteria. We have information on the proposed criteria one and two. We need to gather information on three and four. How do we do that? Part of that next step is to ask Eagle to give us a proposal for doing some of this analysis that we're outlined here. Another one is to sit down with HR and get sort of your perspective on some of these issues. In fact, like what, 10 days?. A full understanding. And then the proposed timeline. And the proposed timeline is let's make some decisions here today. Let's try and get some things done between this meeting and the next meeting. So we can make some at least preliminary decisions at may. And you know, maybe we'll come back at May and say we need to do this additional analysis or we need this additional additional information but I think what I'm trying to get is I would like to move this forward. So without them going to pause and see if if people have questions or comments. I think a hard fund actually figuring out. people have questions or comments. Well, I did a hard time actually figuring out what development, especially the summary of the comparisons. So it was really hard to prepare. And somebody is buying it like for dubbies. No, no, no. Like to say, I, there's a lot of different stuff. But sort of I died prior to the time. What actually happened. So yeah, let's start there. So if you died while you were once you were eligible for retirement. Well, if I died tomorrow. If you're not eligible for retirement. The benefit to your, the benefit would be you've made employee contributions, your earning interest on those in the plan. And we're just talking about the pension plans. Those contributions and the earnings, the interest would be returned to your beneficiaries. It sounds like the city also provides some life insurance coverage, which is not really the purview of the retirement board, but based on this, it's two times your pay, so that would go to your beneficiaries as well. But from a pension perspective, that's not a lot of. There's now really true that. I didn't understand about that. What did they held the money in there until it would have been 55. Or do they have to take the money out now? I believe the way this man has written now is that if you're not eligible for retirement when you pass away, your beneficiary only receives your contractions. It couldn't happen. So then after I get 55, then what do this? So if you pass away after your eligible retirement, then your beneficiary would receive a pension that as if you had retired the day before you get it. If you had a surviving spouse, it would receive 100% survivor or that was complicated. I don't know how to say that contract. I'm not sure what it says if you're not married. It's then you need a different survivor bedding wish. Yeah, and I don't have it. The bell is charters way too small. How I print the. Are you looking at that? The chart with with a different solution. Do you want to pull up the, is that the one you're looking at now? Yeah. Yeah, this is something from this. So I think one of the next steps is going to be getting more detailed. Like you're saying I think this doesn't. Oh, so I'm sorry. So if we go down to the BRS hybrid, then the pre-retirement debt, what on earth does 100% JNS calculate? It's a pretty good answer. That means... So 100% joint answer value. Well, what does that mean? So a joint-conservator benefit means you have one amount paid to both you and your spouse while you both living and stays at 100% of that amount to the survivor. So you know that and you were getting a hundred dollars. Now this is not when you die. This is just like your regular retiree. You're getting $100 a month while you retire then you pass away and You have a spouse that's about to continue to get the $100 a month until this year's bell. Thanks to 100% Jay. That's 100% Jay. Join survivor. If your spouse died before you then then when you passed away, it stops. So then the VRS hybrid says, free retirement, they get, we get the return of contributions and they get retirement. That's right. Okay. Prior, calculated if the person on age, age 55. Okay, so that's better than what we have. Much better. And then so they're all different. They are all different. I think that the headline would be the pre-retirement death benefits from the city's pension plans are not competitive or even close to competitive with what is being provided to other children. So we want to look at. That's what we want to look at. So the So the, so we definitely should have a study of what would now, what would Cigo do? Is Cigo paid under 10,000? So Cigo would say, if we implemented and were the, what we've asked them to price is similar to the VRS. What that would cost. What that would cost. Well, how much would that increase the cost of the plan? And there's going to be lots of different pieces. There's going to be a, well, this change would apply to all the superceivive in the past, right? So there's going to be like a one-time bump in the value of the cost of the plan. then there's going to be, well, the benefits every year benefit that you earn in the future is also going to cost over a bit more. Now, it's not going to be a lot because we don't expect very many people to pass away before they're eligible to retire. So I'm thinking this is a big protection that we can provide for employees at a relatively small cost. But we can't go to council and say, I don't think it's a small cost. We got to come with some options. Those that cost $10,000 to do. Yes, actually. So you have so yes, and that's really just because of the timing ball. So we have to modify the valuation program that we're using to value benefits. But then even more importantly, we have to test that we're making the right changes. And the testing really is what takes most amount of time. So what's the mean to change the same thing over the full-eat time? No, over time. That's what I mean. You're in the full-eat time. Yeah, yeah. So it's not just a computer program that runs it. Well, it's like, yeah, I mean, you can plug it in. But do you know the results unless you're tested it? That's what Matthew does take the Yes. Yes. Yeah. Whether you program it or not, you have to go through and validate that what the computer system is. I do have that one. That's why I'm asking. Us. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. But that is on the. pre-retirement. The benefit that people are providing if you are eligible to retirement, if you look down the list, it's pretty consistent or competitive with the other jurisdictions. So right now we're not recommending any additional benefit. Like if you pass away when you're 60 and still employee, what the city provides is fairly competitive with the surrounding jurisdictions. So we're only looking at if you passed away before. So that's on death. On disability, I will tell you that there's not enough, there's more detail to the disability benefit in the plan that is summarized here. So one of the steps is going to be providing more detail. Like there is a difference in the disability benefit if you become disabled while on duty versus what happens if you get disabled while you're home not working. So that needs to be incorporated into this and then it's even more complicated because there are relevant policies that the long-term disability insurance that the city provides. That one, that is definitely one where we're gonna need more HR input. For the sales put complicated, Adam, you're in Elmer Sherry talking about the plan. The city has insurance for long-term disability, but right now the pension plan pays primary. So let's say your total benefit granted is 60% of A. If the pension plan pays 20% of A, then insurance only has to pay for the difference. And we want to ask, well, what if the pension plan is secondary so that the insurance pays 60% and then the plan would pay zero because you're already getting everything? That's not really a retirement board curb you for say because that's really around the insurance, but Sherry mentioned that she thought maybe we were essentially paying for it to be to be primary, but it, like it maybe our insurance doesn't change if that change is cost doesn't change, if that change is made then by the way, not figure-manager. So I'm sorry. I think our vision would decrease the benefit multiplied from two to one place seven. Is that live? So really. So that one is more to be consistent with surrounding jurisdictions usually, the benefit you get in long-term disability, if you become disabled, is more similar to the regular formula and the regular formula. 1.0% of A. What this description is missing is that if you become disabled, you continue to earn benefits as if you were still employed all the way until, I think it's your normal retirement date. So at years two, you get a little bit more than your three. You get a little bit more. I think it doesn't change the same while you're disabled. But then when you reach normal retirement age, it's carefully based on your service that includes this disabled. So at that time you get up full of time. As if you continue to be employed. So the idea is before you are eligible for retirement, really it's the insurance that's covering you. Insurance stops when you can become eligible for retirement. So that's when the retirement plan really has to kick in and take care of you. Is there a different percentages for police? Or disability? But then rise, Robert? No, that's not what I do not. Great question. Because we have a different multiplier for our retirement. No, no, no. And I think part of the first bullet of the two percent versus one percent is when we did amend the basic and I want to verify the police. It went to one percent in one place and the intent was also to do it in disability but never got changed. So part of it is to take one percent from 1.7 percent. Did you see one? Yeah, I'm fine. Stop sharing because if I do that, I'll start sharing the value. The value I should be 40 is where I go. But I know that the duty disability benefits are different from the regular disability benefits. Even within the police plan, I still don't know what the multifiers are. Yeah, it's usually come disabled due to the police one. And while I do, your benefit before no retirement is a 66% of your average compensation. So that's not everybody. That's if you become disabled while I'm doing. If you become disabled, not on duty, then it's two percent. I understand that it's, you know, times-converged compensation, not to exceed 50%. So I think it's even more basic. Because that's the same as the basic. Very good. You're a non-service-related. It's 2% of the final compensation in basics. Okay, and then multiplier for the regular play, just regular employees is 220% if you're hired before 2012, is 2.6% times final average pay in your heart after 2,000 of 1, 1,120 total total. So it's lower before the retirement, in part, because really, we want the insurance, it's like a draw. Picture. I would draw this picture of retirement insurance coverage, We'll fix. After retirement, the retirement plan is supposed to take care of you. And so if you became disabled now, you would get a retire before after 2.6% time to find a language bay. As if you have to work, you were disabled. So from the probably retirement plan after retirement, it would be just like you had not become disabled. Find out. What is the two in the 1.7? So that's really for the basic plan. So it was so forget me. I'm not on the question. You are well and each one has come to some issues. So if the multiply is being decreased based on 2% to 1.7%, would you increase it? In the police, you bring it from 2% to 2.6. That would be a discussion point for us. That is not a significant part of the, I mean, we're asking you to price something, but that's not the bulk of the cost. The bulk of your cost is. But that's the period time at that point. So why do we want to decrease? In the basic plan, we need to make it consistent with the regular 12-year-long. the basic plan, make it consistent with the regular formula. In the basic plan, a formula is 1.7% of pay. So the question should the disability benefit be consistent? So it used to be 2%. And then if I reduced to 1.7%, 90% time frame of 2011. Yeah, and I think the intent was to do the disability, but it didn't get done. It was a different section. So, administrative oversight. I was, we weren't hearing the kinds of looking at the records. That's what we thought. So then, you can align it and then have the other question about which of the percentages be and so forth. But yeah, so that was why that one specifically called out. So the percentages should be what they are currently, what does somebody who's still working? And they're not on either the basic or the police. Definitely not on the basic. I think that's easy. Yes, to begin consistently happened. Only one section was updated when it went to California. Remember anything that you all analyze and recommend. You all would adopt this amendments to the pension plan. and doesn't come effective till council is used as a doctor. Isn't it more that we make recommendations to council to make changes and then they say yes, we know. Yes, we know. Yeah, you all definitely need to approve a recommendation, I guess. Yes, yes. What was the driver to the skater start the discussion even to be of his or her a problem the need to address or was just a potential. Yeah, it grew good. So it was really two different discussions. So on the disability side, it was a discussion of, did we have this oversight with me made the changes back of 2012? And also did it make sense to have a benefit formula? Again, now we're focused on the basic plan. A bigger benefit if you become disabled, than if you did not become disabled, at least prior to returning. And that was a concern of, is that the right structure to have? What was the time on community? That was where did the concern come from? One of the trustees just noted it as, we need to be pr with the money and the plan and so we should look at it. It was not specific. It was no specific person or anything else. So it wasn't a weekend to track employees in all church city because Fairfax has something. Right. You know, it was just, uh, a, as we look at these things, we want to continue to be prudent. And this doesn't seem like a structure that we would want. Okay. Do you want to give more money to, if you become disabled, this is a, this is a, if you will, a crude way of saying because this isn't exactly how it works, but do you want to pay more money to someone if they become disabled than if they're just a regular person who terminates employment? Yeah. So, I mean, the difference would be, let's say, the other group has a higher risk. I mean, we're talking about basic employee plan and a police plan. Is there a higher risk in that class on a disability basis? Public safety does have a generally, you know, have a higher rate of disability incidents. You understand that you have a comparability thing that we're talking about so far. But remember this is within the same plan. So in this case the 1.72% are both within the basic plan. The question around the police plan is similar but in that case it's actually reversed because they're giving a lower percentage for disability versus regular retirement. So really the board has two questions basically. The first being for the basic plan, do you want to harmonize the percentages so that it's 1.7 for both retirement and disability? And then the same question over on the police plan, do you want to harmonize it so that they're paying the same percentage as for those two benefits as well? Under our questions. Yeah, I just want to pause you for a second. That right now, we're really asking, do we want to look at what the price is? We're not saying that we will or will not. It's just one of the pieces of data that we've created. Which is deciding whether to look at it or not? Do we want to ask Cecil to present and do we want to have discussions and share in about each our considerations? If you say no, then we stop there. I think we should look at before eligibility for retirement. Yes. but like Roberts word harmonize. Harmonize, there you go. That is, yes, I agree. I get it. Did you call for the plan document? I mean, I have the police for me. I mean, I could call for the basic. No, I just wanted to confirm in the police plan, it really is 2%. It's non-service really an disability it's 2% I'm not sure that was ever intentional either but do police get that 66 and 2.3 forever or does it end at retirement? We're talking about a workers come 66 and 2.30. No, that's a disability. Disability. Disability insurance is 60% income until retirement age or until. But in the pension plan, it says 56 and 2 thirds of your average call until no more retirement date. And then at no more retirement, you would get a benefit as if you had just knocked into stable-dont continue with the service related. For the service related here disabled on duty. And we should do this study. Okay. I wanted to see you. That's a question. Yeah, that is fine. Unfortunately, but do people have other? I didn't have one more question. What's the pain for here? What is the, I'm sure you're going to pay, I think it's 15,000 now in this. What I'm still sorry, I'm just not clear. But I'm paying to get an assessment of the additional costs or implementing a increase in disability in death thumb. So Robert, correct me if I'm wrong. So if you priced out how this would cost you to be for both. It's about $15,000 in-ish dollars for them to do the analysis to come up with. If we made this improvement in the pre-retirement death benefit, what would that cost? I'll have to add on the liability. All right. Pam, how would it? You did it. You did it. Yeah. In fact, on cost, I'm going to go actually, I'll link it up for a second. Please bear with me. An impact on the contribution about the amortization payment. And yes, okay. Most of the cost. So while we asked for a price to do for premium time and death and disability, I'm guessing 80 to 90% of the cost is for ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... the participant if you change the multiplier? And then, Robert gives me what it means to change the multiplier down by 0.3%. Well, it's the same to increase it 0.3% or if I want to know what it means to increase it 0.6%. I take what you gave me for down and multiply it by 2%. So the disability part is very... simpler. Thank you. This is more than just in, if you're looking beyond the input, right? Because this isn't just an academic exercise. And you're looking for something, an answer that will be a means to it, whatever end it is that best for. So this is to help us analyze, is this an appropriate change? Is it affordable? I mean, when we go in front of, or when we make our recommendation to city council, you know, they're going to, if we say, well, this is the right thing to do. But if they say, why? Why is this the right thing to do? Well, and we would talk about that, but let's just use the Pre-Retirement Deck benefit, for example. One reason to do it would be, We're not competitive with surrounding jurisdictions and if someone passes away prior to being a- benefit, for example. One reason to do it would be we're not competitive with surrounding jurisdictions and if someone passes away prior to being eligible for retirement or the plan could be doing more and those plans do do more for those people. So there would be a competitive and a argument here but then then they're going to say, well, what's the cost? And so that's really what we're asking Seagull to do. It becomes a is the benefit, it's worth the cost. I mean, I don't want to sound heartless. Yeah. Because that is a very sensitive thing. But I just, yeah, I just wanted to tell you what's the end goal versus the interim $15,000 to get a bit of information. The end goal is to be able to together a recommendation to counsel. We think this is we should do this because of these reasons and here's what it would cost or you know we may come to the conclusion for whatever reason I'm not saying this is where we go of this is going to cost the city I'm making this up right this is going to cost them the city $100 million so it's not I think to frame so yeah yeah so the I wasn't sure when you said the benefit, if you meant the benefit, like I was benefit, the payable from the plan, but you know, I mean, the benefit to, to whatever the outcome, what it, how does that benefit the city, the employees, that, you know, whoever it is that, you know at. The value we get out of it is understanding the cost of that change. Because the cost information is valuable. That's fine. Just try to get that next step. Good questions. Yeah. Yeah. So in terms of you know, the steps to get to that point. So our advising company within performance, do they scope it based on our objectives that you've outlined here? Then the scope comes back. We confirm that contract. How does it kind of work? All right, so we've given Segal some basic outlines. So we have a sense of how much it would cost. I've an actuary. I do this stuff for corporations. So I know what I should be asking for and what I have to be getting for Robert or Robert. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no what I should be asking for and what I have to be getting from Robert or Robert. Okay. Peace and interesting. So yeah, so we would be authorizing me today is yes, this is something we want to move forward with. We're willing to pay up to this amount or this service. So we authorize you to finalize the details with Robert, get the proper scope. We only asked this a Robert left two days ago. So that's why we didn't have the proper scope. And finalize the details with Robert up to the sum up. Now he comes back and says, Oh, I didn't realize that's what you wanted. It's going to cost 16,000. And you only authorized we have to 15. Well, then everything stops and we wait till the next meeting likely. There's another wrinkle because there's's always another wrinkle. Berk, I'm sure that this is really payable from the plan in which case, the analysis done by Robert's team has to find a budget somewhere else. So I think having the retirement board say, yes, this has worked this amount of money. I think it's important is good, but there'll be another step to get by the money to do the well. But I still want the retirement board to say, yay or nay, we're interested in this analysis. That's sort of the motion on the annotated agenda screen. It's yes, we want to do it. This is the criteria that we like. You'll notice that the next steps are outlined and timeline. You'll notice that the chair is going to ask for a trustee to join her on a committee of two, which makes it a workable working group and not a public meeting. And then the last piece is what the chair is referring to is that you would authorize up to a certain dollar amount. When we wrote this, the preliminary number was 10, 15 would allow both plans. So for the purpose of the day, other motions was 15,000. If deemed administratively eligible and not an employer set by function, that's the piece that Connie is referring to is it eligible to be paid out of the plans because it's administrative. For those of you that just went to the training, you may have heard administrative versus sub-work. So if it's administrative, we can charge you to the plan because we're implementing the plan. This is a change to the design and terms of the plan, which probably makes it a settler function where they change by the employer, which cannot be charged to plan. That we need all the final legal review on and I didn't do the legal review to be new if we were proceeding. If it can't be charged to the plan, then the question will be to my employer, city partners, is it something HR or the city that you're trying to pay for? It's kind of to the cost benefit analysis. So that's the part that's not done yet, but if you all want to proceed and we set up this motion, then we can proceed, but if it can't be charged with a plan, then yes, that stops. Then to the other part of Gary's point of sort of like the steps, if the board approves it, unless they we figure out who's going to fund it, then we get the final quote, honey and the trustee partner agree. Then it goes back into our normal procurement process and doing a change order for to sort of earn. That stuff you're familiar with on the day jobs. So the contract from the city's fiscal management. So the likelihood of finding that money outside of the pension funding? Is that a high probability or is it not? Or I'm just kind of, and I know you can't commit to it, but. Yeah, certainly we do typically that, you know, I don't engage in. Only one time since I've been the pension plan administrator have we had a. that could be charged with plan, everything is fed administrative. And in that case, the time board recommended we proceed with it and the city attorney, because it was a legal function paid for. So to answer the question, can we find it? I'm not putting the new HR director totally on the spot. I know it's not city and that current cost that are in our budget. So it doesn't exist there. So we'd have to work with our finance director who's still on the meeting in the city attorney to see whether it's, you know, available somewhere in the city or the city attorney Germany. Well, my last question is I'm splitting airs now in this go be such that it could be paid by the plan versus outside funds or are we not in close? It's not a scope. Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, sell our versus administration yet. So. So right. So the laws that govern pension plans say what you can pay out of a pension trust in what you can't. And so that's the whole administrative versus separate. And you know we need a lawyer to weigh in but generally they say if you're're going to make plan changes like we're talking about here, some people, many people say that that cannot be played out of a trust. So I would say, lightly, we will need to find, and we give it, I'm not, I'm like 90% odds that we have to have the funding for it outside. All right, that's asked. Here's what we call bridge. Can you read the Department of Labor rules on this? They define set alert as creating a plan, terminating a plan, doing design changes. So not being a lawyer, my layman says we're doing design changes because we're changing the benefits. But we will certainly have to have that formally confirmed by attorney. which will be if you all proceed with this one first steps will be to our city attorney and then of course, taking to work with HR as part of the conversation. So 98% chance we can't pay this out of the trust. I still think so you know anything that the trust has to be approved by the board. And anything 10,000 or we have a purchasing policy under 3000 if it's the issue can't wait until the next meeting. The plan administrator can approve or an expense. Three to 10,000 still wanted to go to the retirement board, but if you can't wait till the next meeting, the vice chair or the chair can approve it. Anything, I don't know if it's 10,000 or 10,000 who won it above. That cannot, there's no other path than the retirement board. So even though 19% chance it can't be paid out of the trust and therefore our approval doesn't really, I mean, we're not approving any might. I think it's still good policy to have us say, yes, we think it's worth pursuing. I would prefer taking a request for funding to the city manager and appropriate departments because the retirement board is acted on doing this. If you all say, you don't think it's worth doing, yes, they're not gonna black me the money. I mean, I don't feel comfortable that as a plan to plan a administrator with that path that I would go ask for. So I think foundationally, you all need to decide whether to proceed or not, authorize as we propose the motions and the partnership but the funding source will be resolved before executed. I put the purchasing policy up there, just in case you wanted to. In two graphics. Here's the, so there's kind of two parts to this. Is the part where you're changing the multiplier for disability. You said that was probably a lot cheaper than the other. Does that more than mine were retirement board and they would fund that part of the? We can't fund that part of the data because it's a planned change. So that's a 90% of likelihood that we cannot fund with that idea. So then, let's say we said, can we look at both of these things and they said no, we're not going to pay for that right now. Can we just do the cheaper option? Just look at the disability. Yes, I'm like going to two part. Yeah, that's a good question. A part of it would depend on what how it changes the quote, obviously a lower dollar amount to see if you're defined in a full dollar, higher dollar. It's kind of like two different things, isn't it? Yes, we would just find... We could ask for the two different things. I'm assuming if we just did the disability that's much lower than how we've had be priced at combined. So we could sort of modify this motion that you would do the full amount, but also ask that it be priced and considered in part one and part two. And then it would help to know if part one is the disability, that's your priority. You know, we would start with that, then we could do the free retirement and definitely the more costly analysis function. But if we do the last costly function, at some point the costlier one would need to be done. So why wouldn't we move forward with both or attempt to? And I guess that my question is, does the only reason not to move forward with this is the cost of it, no matter the pace? That seems like a good question. I guess if you're gonna spend money, you wanna know why you're spending it, right? Well, no, I know that, but I think the underlying reason why the work was studied is what's important to improve. And I'm processing, sorry, I'm just repeating what you said to underlying people. So it started, we were talking about what we wanted to look at and you know, harmonizing benefits and whatever. But then we've gotten to the point where it's about the cost of it. So what I'm saying is it sounds to me like we're thinking we change in these benefits or the plan or whatever is a good idea. But maybe not it might cost too much. Well that's why I'm funny. I think I hear what you're saying let me make sure and I think that's why I said even if it can't be paid for the plan I would want to know does the trustees feel like we should proceed because the first question is is this a needed and right thing to do? Then the timeline and process, yes, we have to figure out the cost. And if it's a settler function paid for by the employer, they would want to know does the retirement board want this done or not? And then the question is, can we find the money or not? We can't find the money or not. Obviously, I would have to report back. In the scope of things, it's not a large dollar amount, but in a tight budget, it's obvious. So, my question is, are we trying to make the decision now? We want to let the equal decision to turn out whether or not it's actually so learned. You cannot make the decision, whether it's administrative or set work, we will need a legal determination on that because that would be definitely important documentation in the minutes. So I guess when I'm asking you, you want to make a decision to proceed, right? And regardless of the funding source, but it won't be charged against the plan if it's not properly eligible. Right. So that's what I mean. Just seeing that we just get the hung up on that one thing. Maybe we'll pass that is which bucket is a kind of question is do we want to move forward? Yeah. The question is do we want to follow the right? And that happened to find out how much it all cost. And we say yes, we want to follow the right? That happened to find out how much it own cost. We say yes, we want to be forward, we have to find out how much it would cost. Right, right now, do we want to move forward with the analysis? And what we know of the cost is that we believe the upper end is 15,000. I want to work with Robert. I have some ideas about how we'll get to this less expensively like would we only price out one of the plans and I'll give you an example if we figure out for the basic plan that the cost is 0.1% of pay. Could we say roughly for for the police payments going to be in that same fall work? And therefore we don't need to do the full analysis for, well, now eventually Robert would have to program this whole thing. So eventually he would have to do it for both plans, but once it's implementation, then it becomes likely payable from the plan. So that's where you're authorizing need a work with Robert to figure out how to best students. Or we wait, I mean, or we can wait until the next meeting or just aware that we don't, we wait until the next meeting. What will we know? Yeah. Well, we can come back, at least it can be charged to the plan or not. Yeah, and we would have more limitations that we could do in these four different ways. But, Going back to the driver and the time is time of the essence or is this something that has been going on for a year or for years and I can do what and I'm not just just a question. I don't know anything. I think anything is this like this needs to be done now or is this something that doesn't need to be done now? I'll give you my personal opinion and then I look to others. I worry about some employee passing away before they are eligible for retirement and the family coming back and saying, well, what's my protection from the pension plan? And we have to say, here's the money, your spouse, parent, put into the plan with interest. Here you go. As opposed to, we're sorry for your loss. And here's how the pension plan will step up and protect you. And... Or they just the pension plan, correct? The employees are eligible for a life insurance. Life insurance? But this is a new and a new entity that continues like for the spouse's life. And Chris and Katie, the example in the schools, there was an employee at Stowee in maybe who passed away very unexpectedly, long service, and that person's in VRS. And so the protections that you're seeing here were in place. And a devastating event for that family, and they lost its paycheck and everything else, but the pension plan is providing a new year. This plan, if you're not eligible for retirement, thousands, and there's no one you'll be for the first time, you know, was eligible for retirement. I mean, there's just like nothing for that spouse with that one. What's not happening? Pardon? It's not happening. It's not the country. I mean, they will get the return of contributions. Yes, yes. They will get the return. But they don't trust me and knew it and they have value of this children's life. Here's your thousand dollars a month increase with half of inflation for as long as you live You know, I mean this is a value we get from like social security, right? You know you have something that will continue to pay you for the rest of your life So I worry I worry my personal perspective is I worry about Employee passes away before they're eligible to retirement and we can't do anything for them from the plane. We can just give the city gifts on their two times pay of life insurance and the risk of employee contributions are just not of you double our amount. Five percent of your pay per year with interest. I mean if you work 20 years, 50% of your pay and that's not like the value of the investment. We want the cities that benefit benefits to be on par. So that's a long way of answering your question. What's the driver? What's the driver? What's the time pressure? It's, it's, it's that. Again. My. Stand ahead of death. What's that? I said stand ahead of death. Yes. So I want me to do. So, I do have a quick question. I'm. there was two, there was another comment. Maybe here to back. I want to maybe Oh, think Charlie boarded up. I think that if participants would be 40 were invested. And diet, they would get, they would get the whole benefit. Remember that conversation? You died before you were invested? Yeah, well, I remember there's something about that conversation. You only get the return of your contributions with interest. Okay, so I'll leave the room. That's where I went. Some of them, I bet, the Charlie didn't fight. It was served, I think. They were meeting downstairs and it was in service or out of service. Yeah, it was just. What are that? And I was just making sure one time into this. And I think sort of the timing perspective, the participant and the family. And if it is the key piece, there's nothing regulatory. This is you have to decide this month of this year. Legal. That said, this has been on sort of the work plan to do for several years. and so it's an open-ended workflow question and as you all know at every quarterly This has been on sort of the work plan to do for several years. And so it's an open-ended workload question. And as you all know, at every quarterly meeting, you have a heavy lift of a workload on your work plan. And so part of this was to let's get a plan in place. Let's work it. Let's resolve it. Make a decision and go, no, go. Move on. If you all decide to do the analysis we come back and you decide to make the changes, there's still a lot of work to be done because we have to work with our outside attorney to do these plan amendments which will by the way they're working on now so there's some value to running it concurrent. After that whole legal review, you have to go through the council review. So even if you decide this month or may to proceed, we're probably still, you know, eight, 10 months out, people will go to the council at least, three of them, three of them. And we did a deep dive on these benefits in May of 2024, but it's complicated, right? So if we put it down and we decide to pick it up any year, we'll have to start from scratch. Things would have changed so you'd have to update it besides refreshing the brain themselves. I'll get back myself on that. Do others want to comment? I think we're somewhat forward. So there are four things on the four items in the motion. One of the things that is moving forward with it. So let's start there. People feel comfortable with moving forward. I've seen nods here and now they not very I'm not seeing any. Yes. Yes. Sure. You can say no. I am sure I got to have to ask the question. Absolutely sure. That's the spend money we should. Yes. Absolutely. I don't want to become sure. I feel anything. I just don't. So people don't know tablets like four houses down front. I like sitting for a long time. We want to retain our neighborhood. Okay. So generally, if we want to go forward, there are other parts to this, which is, does the framework of the criteria, and it extends, hopefully that's not a big, not controversial, what would roll through it. Maybe one of the harder ones is, and we've talked about next steps, people who say they want to go forward with that, There's the timeline, go for that, that's not controversial. But the last one is which of the employees wants to raise their hand and partner with me on this. And the reason I'm asking is because we're talking about plant changes. And I think it's important that the employee voice voice to be very prominent is when we think through these things. I'm looking to the four of you to say, oh, it's time to think of a big. That's a great question. That I was gonna ask, do you need someone, and I've met you, the only one from police, but do you need someone for both?, would you need Matt? And would you need someone from the general size since their plan is different? I feel like things are peril enough that no, but I'm going to throw that question back to the foreview. Is- We're talking about the same pre-retirement death benefit. The same pre-retirement death benefit is involved with the basic plan and the basic end of the case. The only different thing is the disability. I think it should be a one-on-one meat pork, the current percentages. And that's how to get those out. We should align with partners. You said. Pardon us. That's going to be a word. The one. The number eight Robert. The number eight robber. I'm a cheater. This is a boy trusted to not consult. What time? Time of day is flexible. I work from home. So I can do a during the day. We prefer to do a during the day. Between now and the main meeting, if I said 8 to 10 hours, is that sound crazy? So, don't forget the trustee work. No, obviously we've had to work with Robert on the analysis and make sure we get that. So, I'm looking at this as I'm doing the heavy lifting around preparing an analysis, but I need the voice of an employee to say, yes, this makes sense. No, it doesn't make sense. Employees will be happy with that. Employees will be unhappy with that. It just doesn't feel right to me to be a non you know, a non-employee making all these analysis and recommendations. So could be. I don't mind doing it. I don't see the time, but I don't mind it. I think honestly with all of our schedules, it is not a heavy lift, but it would be too. In case one can't make that one of the sessions is not a lost cause, right? And bringing people up to speed. Oh, I totally agree with that. I just want to make it clear. We can overcome this. But as soon as you have three, it's a public meeting. So we'll be posting it. And we'll be advertising it. We'll be doing medits. And we love you. Let's talk you to the same airline. This only for you to meet. So if the long as one is one, if it's a certain point, then you also have free and you have to have two for a core. Sorry. I'm going to have to do the Virginia law thing. Do you want me to trade off also? Just thanks, hey. Yeah, then someone wasn't at the last meeting, so then you have to get them up to speed. I mean, with two people, I'm hoping we can find... Okay. Let me say daytime meeting. That's, I can do it. It's not wrong. Well, administratively, we will overcome that. I just want to let you know that you won't be having small informal meetings noodling it. It'll be a public meeting recorded. And that said we can do what we did before after the small noodles and before big meetings. The one on one briefings when we were talking about the complexity of implicit subsidies we can do two bad things. So I just want you to know if they've triggered a public meeting we will accommodate that if that's what you really want. It just changes the dynamics. Okay. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. I have a lot. Okay. Um. lot. Okay. Let's go back to some of the other items on. So we've got someone who is raised very hands. We have yesterday one before. Let's just go to the other five of the switches. The initial criteria for evaluating and putting together, this is for how we'll come forward in May with whatever you would have put together. So we'll be looking at prevalence of practice. I mean, we have that information. It's not as detailed as I think it needs to be. I mean, your questions were right on point of really more details here, right? There are nuances about what happens if you're on duty occurrence, off duty occurrence. So that's one. Support for those under stress, I mean, I just put that there because City Council has mentioned that clearly we know that if a participant passes away or becomes disabled that is a participant or participant's family that is understress. So that's sort of given. Cost is a consideration and then eighths are considerations. So those are the as a preliminary placeholder those are the four criteria that I am recommending. What about the time and service with the city? Does that matter? It does. I would put that into the category of prevalence of practice and competitiveness. So we need to be in time, sir sir because what you're so like say somebody that's been here for you know to retire probably. But your house will be tired. I agree, eligible for group. So say somebody that's been here six years just after they were vested versus somebody that's been here about 18 years. Is it the same benefit for their spouse? Does it probably shouldn't be? No, and it wouldn't be because the benefit formula is based on service. And the same thing, the benefit formula is based on, hey, so we wouldn't be different for someone who's earning 30,000 versus 60,000. Okay. Good routine. Okay. Any other questions about the initial criteria? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Now, I'll give you another one. I guess the timeline from basically, um, so I'm going forward. Anyone have any issues with, um, so I'm going to wrap this up. At least an initial analysis before and time for the May meeting. That's really maybe I should look at you. I'm going to give it a while now. I think we have agreements on the four items that we were asking for for students. Thank you all for being patient with the discussion. Matt, there is a. I'm not approval of one initial criteria for assessing possible benefit changes to the next steps outlined as number one through four. Three, February to April 2025, time line or employee trustee named and pre to serve serve with the chair for this review and five authorized the chair and plan administrator to finalize the Seagal scope and fee quote and authorize the chair to approve up to 15,000 if deemed administrative eligible and not an employer settler function. I second the motion. Discussion? Yeah. So the terms of the classes that I brought up earlier, like public safety versus is that, is that, it's not really in the criteria now, should it be? I would have been, for me that is not even criteria, because it's part of prevalence of practice, competitive with other jurisdictions. But I've noted down this. I just think the difference between public safety, group versus regular, yeah. These listed employment type public safety versus none. Hello, thank you. Any questions? Other discussion? Just a quick question on that. If deemed administrative, eligible, and not an employer, settler function, I mean, I'm fine with it, but is that what you want? Were we just talking about whether it's an administrative function versus an audit administrative? Is it all I'm thinking? You don't want to authorize me to make the administrative. You can only authorize her to place charges against the pension plan. I didn't know if this was limiting. I think it's I think it's good. Okay. Good question. So in employment type public safety, we talking about sworn officers only all we're talking about non sworn officer for as is on dispatch. They're basically the basic plan. So we have I think we're really talking about sworn officer. So all in the police plan or let's define this and not the police plan. No, it's fire departmenting the police plan. We're not sorry. I'm not. Fire Marshall. Yeah, he's in the police. Yeah, that's for not carrying a goal. That was a better question for. So then I guess it is one of. When you're thinking basic, you're also thinking Northern Virginia Criminal Justice Academy, and you're also thinking about school employees that are qualifying for VRS. That's sort of a full basic, it's not just general government. Are we ready to call the vote? It's been moving second. Okay. Funny, then scary. Yes. Her. Yes. Nothing. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes Appreciate those long to be on the first. Yeah, that's. That was an report and a good productive conversation. 14 chair. I am ready for number 14. Yeah, number 14 is an update to the work plan. And after I reviewed the changes, would ask for retirement rules consideration to adopt this as opposed. You will see no changes to the annual activities. The special projects do have changes if it's blue and struck out is because we're moving it or deferring it. And then if it's in blue but not struck out, that's where I'm putting the new task. A lot of things have to be delayed because one, the law firm didn't come on board to your January special meeting. So obviously they didn't have a legal review for today. So we'll have that for May. That then bumped them doing the review of the IPSS. I so want to do the. morning manual for trustee. So I must have done the panel was coming back with some resources because it's now for May and not today because we can't find it. And then in May we will I've added approving the fiduciary training with TAS, for TAS 3 would grow because you've only approved the expenditure for the the Pension Plan review that's doing now. And that is an administrative function, because it's implementing and training you all. well, so that one's a little bit. And then the next RFP that needs to be done, because you all have directed that we do one year, would be the financial services RFP. And because we're so immersed in the legal work now, put that out, we're realistic timeline of starting in November. services RFP and because we're so immersed in the legal work now, put that out, the realistic timeline of starting in in the approach, you know, the draft of changes. So those are the major changes and then the work plan always has a status update from the meeting with your company. Glad to entertain any questions or revisions. It was presented or as a minute. As presented because in the packet I presented it. But if you all have any other changes, then you have to do the second. Ready? Any questions, comments? Looks like we are ready. I'm looking to approve. I'm over approval of the revised 2025 work plan adoption as present. Okay. Okay, I'll call the vote. Connie. Yes. Erie. Yes. Eric. Yes. I think. Yes. Matt. Yes. Nate. Yes. And Tom. Yes. Thank. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Everybody. All right. You may not be the next item. Oh, I know we talked about and we have moved to the timing of these meetings to start at five o'clock. I do want to ask is it better to do these during the day? I mean, but then you don't have commitments during the day in general. Tom, correct, you don't. Or generally. Generally. And I work from home. So I have a lot of flexibility. So the question really to avoid these is, would you want to do these in the afternoons or more? Yes. I would. I would. I think it would, but I think the issue becomes an immediate like today. We don't have a time structure because we run up against so many other meetings. What I don't want is we schedule this from, let's say, end to one. And then, I have another meeting at one o'clock and we're still discussing important things. That's the thing. Even it does take a lot of time, but because we've been here since five o'clock, right? It's three and a half hours. It's very rare that I can block off a three and a half, four hour window in my day. As I'm not even, it's not really possible. So, but I have to mention, we have a lot of those meetings now in our calendar. Yeah, two and three hours. Yeah, it's blocked off. I would love to do them during the day. I just, what if we changed to the end of the day, like three o'clock? Or even four? I mean three or four, like I need to work, I've been in versus six this morning. So, you know, so the earlier at the end of the day, the better. Three or four, you're back in an up and out. For me it doesn't really matter. For me it does. Because then I might be getting some time at a whole bit family. So I personally would welcome like a three or four blocks stuff. I mean, five o'clock is better than the six. Five was great. So anything earlier than that. You know, okay. Very popular. Yeah, I'm good with three. Yeah, I do three. I mean, uh, Wednesdays and Thursdays are heavy days for me, but I could do a three or four rather than a five. I'd rather, you know, do do, you know, some of this meeting during work time. Yes. Okay. Three o'clock. We need a motion. Okay. There you go. I can move approval to change the 2025 meeting start times from 5.3pm. By second. I will call the vote. I'll call them. Yes. Carrie. Yes. Yes. And then, yes. Then, yes. Thank you. Yes. And Tom. Yes. Thanks. Is that better for our vendors as well? We need next time. It's the same law already, right? It will be fine. I think it will be fine. Is that what going to be fine for Seagull and I suspect it will be fine for for her. I mean, she just flies in so we'll just have to work for her her flights, but she's accommodated us. We'll also have to find the room. And I appreciate staying on Thursdays because it's after council practical theoretical deadline and no court so I that should help. Can I get back to you sharing? I'm sorry. The policy is better timed out. I'm sorry. 3 o'clock means. OK. I'm excited. I love 3 o'clock. OK. the policy. The policy is that our time down. The policy is that our time down. The policy is that our time down. The policy is that our time down. The policy is that our time down. The policy is that our time down. The policy is that our time down. The policy is that our time down. The policy is that our time down. The policy is that our time down. The policy is that administrative fiduciary policies that we've been starting to work on over time. And I think I'll on the right one. So I'll bring up the policies in a minute, but when you pack it, we do want to review the ethics, purchasing and administrative. The administrative one is the new one that you just approved last November. I have on the screen now the reason that I'm bringing it up now even though you just saw it in November is that the policy says call policies will be reviewed the first quarter of the calendar year, I'm K.A. February so I just want to give everything on cycle. So that one has no changes from what you saw in November. The purchasing policy also has no changes to the content. All of these will have the most current date, so we document when they've been re-adopted. The only thing I've added to this one, which we're doing on all policies now, which actually was a recommendation out of last year's foundation training, is to make sure that we document when they're going to be updated and it's changed by the majority of the board and these administrative implementation policies do not supersede the board's plan documents. So that was a specific recommendation from one of the sessions from the conference last year. And then the other policy is a really important one that you all do every year looking at ethics and conflict of interest. And as you will see on the motions, the first motion is to approve the three policies as presented. The second is more of a certification that the chair will go around for the ethics policy to make sure you all are read reviewed and will comply with the ethics policy to make sure that we document that. So with that chair, glad to entertain any questions on any of the three policies. Any questions on the three policies? All right, ready for the first motion is just of re-approving the policy. I move approval of the ethics purchasing second. I can call the vote. Yes. Gary? Yes. Sir? Yes. And then? Yes. Matt? Yes. Nate? Yes. And Tom? Yes. Thanks. All right. I send you that. And the other thing that we do every year is requiring each person to affirm and positive that you have read and will comply with the ethics policies. I won't make each of you say that, but that is when you say yes, that is what you are confirming. So I'll just start by saying I confirm that I have read the view and will comply with ethics policy and none will ask each of you in turn to just confirm with it yes. Go down the list. Gary? Yes, I read it. Yes. Say, if you're going to confirm? Yes. The van? Yes. Nathan. Yes. Sharon? Yes. Matt? Yes. Nate? Yes. Tom? Yes. And me? Yes. Mrs. Loft. Mrs. Loft? So as we did last year, what you can have? 10 submitted email. And And Kira. Thank you. All right. Thank you, everyone. Not much to say here. Except regarding learning the importance of the administrative policies, the early five minutes of the strike, and that these policies are continuously being developed. We don't have any new ones to present for you review this meeting, but there will be one at the main meeting that's in the old equivalent. And I've already planned to do cybersecurity and I just have been forced. Any questions? Then we'll go on to item 18. This is the disability re-evaluation. As you all know, we have one specific story which received a disability campaign. So that retiree has been contacted for updated medical information. In the term there, we disabled status. There were status remains the same, remains unchanged. There's not been any employment since starting their disability retirement. And we'll report out with another update that at future meeting with the closed session for this story. Question how often do they have to verify? I know they're good. This is a recurring annual task of the entire board of field. We emerge disability. We skipped a look for the February meeting. We just needed more time to work with the participant to get the documentation. So we're repeating but targeting may. So they provide a certification of some type? Or... see. And there. That. Okay. All right. All right. All right. So consent agenda. As you all know from 19 be we're underway with the plan amendments with groom. They're going to. The preliminary report ends at the spot and then then March will have follow-up with them and the target goal depending on what they identify is either a briefing in May or maybe some plan of end of language for you all to talk about. The rest of the plan of administrative report is chock full of a lot of stuff. I will flag that we included the presentation from groom that includes an overview of their firm, their policies and links to the primary attorneys we work with that you will know me they are. They will be here at the main meeting so you can agree to it. the executive summary of the administrative report. We will be here at the main meeting so you can see what we can read through the part of the attendees. The executive summary of the Administrators report lists the major functions that happened over last quarter since the November meeting and this is provided to trustees as part of your fiduciary oversight to oversee the plan administrator. And so you'll see a lot of those listed there and by the entertained questions. In particular, we are continuing fiduciary best practice recommendations which has come from a previous annual training as well as things we pick up from like conferences which is talked about. Legal Service RFee is completed. Yay, next one will be the the financials. We've also continued to up our communication with employees from townhold and things like that about the pension plans as well as the fine contributions for FITZ7. As we mentioned before, date nine been talking about cybersecurity. IT is on a lot of board maintenance team with this other hat to implement enhancements, new security systems mentioned that were coordinating with purchasing contracts and also working with emergency management on the physical security. And in end of March, we're doing a tablecloth exercise with emergency management, RT and our insurance provider all around cybersecurity. What would we do if a worst case thing happened and everything went down? But you will will all that means are we still paying our vendors doing our investments and the participants getting money. So we're going to prove that that and have after action learning. And um, one of five is number seven for no before training, which is for all staff. So my fan brought that one up. And then we have provided the charts that show the activity work from our HRP, may and Chris right now on our work with active employees in our lease, or those are about to be tired. You see, we're continuing on the totals to be very busy, both with onboarding new employees, off-boarding employees, void retiring, 27, this last period. Included the financials as we did the last time and working with finance. We're trying to work with a report that comes out of our financial system that aligns to their quarterly reports versus what we were doing before where it tied to your meetings but it didn't tie to the normal quarterly financials. And so this is our second time reporting out what our assets are, what's still being paid out to employees was out to the city for then voices we pay in advance and then we get reimbursed. And so glad to entertain any questions on those. Then we have a voice had the trustee training document. This quarter includes everybody even on current trustees now because of Charlie and Kevin and Marshalls, for example, terms ending. So for the main meeting when we re up the training plan and policy, this will be updated to the new current training and three-year cycle. But it does document and show a whole lot of good commitment to being informed and trained trustees. And then the rest are just a lot of attachments being included, like I said, the groom presentation but we also included the new 2025 mission square education plan, which for our agreement they provide us that this is also shared with Detroit. It could all give you all their goals. What's available? Who comes on site and and when that is always appointments are well booked. And so it provides this for you all what the education plan is that we work with the staff and then it also includes all the webinars and wellness tools. So with that, that's a quick overview of the mentioned plan administrators report and grant answer any questions or accept approved consent agenda. You know I have the one and it's yes. So there's one date on this report. No, the risk change change. That's right. Yeah, I need to change the fiscal year. I have to cancel adopted IPS language on the SETS 2020 before. So when you read the message, it doesn't make you do. Other questions or evidence? Okay, okay. I believe approval of the consent agenda as amended. Second. Thank you. Motion's been moved in second. I'll call the vote. Connie. Yes. Here. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anything else we need to cover? Discuss. All right. Well, it's a 48. No, it's not John the I'm like, I'm a single question. What a line for you. I was just for the body. Yes, very. Yes, the band. Yes, thank you. The one time is a big Thank you. The one time is eight feet away. I'm thinking, wait a minute. No, we're not. Thank you. Thank you everyone. I'm going to start the long meeting. I appreciate it. I think we're hanging in there. Thank you. That's customer number.