I'm sorry. Okay. All right. I'd like to call the meeting for what's with 12 5 to order. Roll call please. Here here. Here here. Jacob. Here. The last thing we can sorry. Albert. Okay. We have a quorum approval of minutes from September 5th. I make a motion to approve the minutes from September 5th. Seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. Motion carries. All right, new business. Since we have the city manager here, I'd like to move his item, which is number, what number are we? 4B. 4 D is in doubt. D. Okay, so let's bring up Mr. Scott and we're going to go to 4D first please. Letter from retiree. Yes. Okay, good morning everyone and thank you. Okay. Good morning, everyone. And thank you so much. Thank you so much for moving the item up and for hearing me. I just wanted to have been to the board before about this issue. And I was resigned just to leave it alone, but the more I've looked at it, the more I realize that something wrong was done and I'm here in front of the board again just to speak about this issue. I served the city of North Miami Beach for a very very long time. In fact, there's a time when I may have been away and I didn't touch my pension. Even when I was vested, I continued to serve this city. When I decided to retire, I left with dignity. And I tendered my letter of retirement. And the last year of retirement here in the city of North Miami Beach was the 24th of February, 2021. When I decided to file for my pension, which would have been effective March 1st, I was told that I could not, that I had to wait for a period until beginning November 1st. The reason given at that time is that I continued to receive H check from North Miami Beach through that period. What that simply was was a term of my agreement with my attorney and the then village, the then I work for village of Miami shores. So if I go in between village and city, it's just time spent there. So when time, when the arrangement, the agreement was made and the commission voted on it, it was that instead of getting a lump sum payment, I wanted it in weekly payments. You'll be aware that in those weekly payments nothing was taken from my check that is my contribution to the pension neither did the city make any contributions to the pension plan on my behalf because it's true. My employment with the city was severed at February 24, 2021. And so I'm here today just to say, and what has compounded this a little bit more when I'm here is that when I look at my pension, the way my pension was calculated, my pension was calculated with a last day of employment, being the 24th of February. That's the salary, the compensation that's used in the formula for my pension. So I'm here today to say that there's a gap between March 1st and October 3rd of 1st that I think needs to be shorter and to make me whole. Okay, do we have any input from staff or from our board? One board first. Brett, you want to make a comment please? If you can in your agenda packet, please go to the ice miller legal opinion. As Mr. Scott has said, this was brought to the board prior. And what he was asking for could have grave tax implications on the plan in jeopardized a tax qualification status. And that's why the board at the time authorizes to install with special tax council. I met Mr. Scott's request is to whether or not the board and plan could allow him to have his retirement benefit paid back to the day he was requesting even though he was working for the city as a as a consultant but still in essentially the same capacity as he was before he retired. So does everyone have that in their packet? Because I really would like to, yes we do. I'd like you to read this. I don't know if you've had a chance to read this, but I'll go through it. And shorten, probably Greg, you're the only one who was on the board at this time when we did this, but it should ring about. So, you know, I won't go through the facts, but if you go to pay, you know, you see the facts that Mr. Scott said. He was working as a city manager. He resigned and then the next day, he was hired as a consultant. He was essentially in the same capacities he was. There was a prearrangement for all of this. And Ice Miller talks about when you're asking to have an end service distribution essentially if he were to get his pension benefit on the day he was requesting while he was still working as a consultant as the city manager would that be considered an end service distribution and there's only certain instances under the fact law work. You can continue to work and still get your pension benefit from the same employer. And our plan specifically states that you're not allowed to receive your pension benefit while you're working for the city. And then, I smell it goes on to talk about the situations where you have to have a bona fide separations from service. If you look at Roman No. 3 overview of federal law. And essentially what they say is employees to retire on one day in order to qualify for a benefit under the plan. The explicit understanding between the employer and the employee that they are not separating from service with the employer are not legitimately retired. Accordingly, because these employees would not actually separate from service and cease performing services for the employer. So I smell or did a very long analysis, as I said, the board authorizes the Council with Special Tax Council. And they looked at the facts and circumstances under Mr. Scott, the fact that he didn't have a bona fide separation from service, he retired and was hired as a consultant on the very next day. There was a pre-arranged rent. He was still paid in the same manner as he was a city manager. He was still on the health insurance benefits. The letter goes in detail on all this and I'll address any questions from the Board by doing cards to board to read if they haven't already and essentially if you go to the end you'll see part four Mr. Scott's separation from service. And here's what I smell it said. Based upon all the information we received, Mr. Scott clearly resigned his position as City Manager effective February 23, 2021. However, he clearly also continued to remain with the city under the consultant agreement through October 31, 2021. Whether or not he remained an employee of the city or intended to remain an employee, as a matter of federal law, a book of book to qualified retirement plans, he did not experience a bona fide separation from service until October 31, 2021. Instead, Mr. Scott remained employed by the city as a consultant under the terms of the consultant they agreement. Because the retirement plan does not allow for an in-service distribution and considering that the board's policies that the city specifically prohibits prearranged arrangements for re-employment, Mr. Scott was not eligible to commence his retirement benefit under the plan until his consultant agreement expired and he separated from the city. Therefore, his retirement benefit should not have commenced until November 1, 2021. And the board based its decision on our recommendation and not legal opinion of special tax council, ice and melon, it's our position with the board, should continue to stand by this opinion. Otherwise, as they said, you could jeopardize your tax qualification status of the plan. And if you go to the letter that it also talks about that under the overview of federal law, again, Section 3, they say it is of great importance that the retirement plan maintains qualified status in order to provide important tax advantages to retirement plans members retirees and beneficiaries. In particular the primary advantages of retirement plan maintaining its qualified status include and they talk about a list of five items in there. And they talk about if the board were to allow Mr. Scott was requesting you could jeopardize your tax qualification status and lose these benefits due to their not being an actual bona fide separation from seris and the plan specifically not allowing for insurid distributions. I'm happy to answer any questions like I said. This was a very formal opinion that the board authorized us to different special tax council because it was a very important question And as I said has very impactful tax implications that the could jeopardize the tax qualifications status of the plan had Micros got through question granted Thank you. Yep. Board Member. This is Greg Williams. There is no other way around this to be able to assist Mr. Scott with this. I mean, we would definitely jeopardize our tax services and would have put the city in some serious jeopardy or something as you was saying, does absolutely no way around to assist him. Well, I mean, we're not looking for a way around. He's requesting that have his retirement benefit retroactively to be it while he was filming so on with this setting, in particular, until you have a legal opinion for a special tax council making it very clear, none of those facts and circumstances that have sent a legal opinion, that he should not be allowed, and he absolutely can jeopardize the compromise and that of the plans that you allow to have. Thank you. How about turning my mic on? I guess my concern, I guess the settlement or the agreement isn't in here as far as when he became a consultant. Because in my mind, a consultant from the HR world is somebody who is like a 1099 employee not getting a weekly paycheck as an employee. But as I checked records, he was receiving a weekly paycheck and still on our payroll. I'm assuming the issue, because I don't have the agreement, is that in the agreement, it didn't say that the city would contribute still to his pension through the end of his consulting agreement. I think the issue may break me from wrong. I don't know if that's the issue as much as the IRS rule would be that there needs to be a separation of service. And unspecified period, they don't necessarily say for how long, but one of the key factors is not only do you separate service, but that there was no prior agreement to then return in that capacity. Well, one of what I'm saying is because from the moment that he left on February 24th and as been let me know if I'm incorrect. We didn't contribute anything else to his pension through November, which if we would have, it would have increased your benefit. Correct, there's nothing would be correct. And so the reason that we didn't contribute is because, maybe the wordage in the settlement didn't, or the agreement didn't specify that we would still contribute, because he still got every other benefit that an employee would get minus. And so that's kind of my concern is I haven't seen the agreement, but that's the only thing that we didn't put money towards was his pension, where he had health insurance. And I mean, every other condition, mine is I think a leave. And so that's only my concern is if we didn't put money in from February 24th to the end of November, he was still technically an employee. And so we should have been putting in. I think I understand your argument, but that might be slightly separate, which is, I don't think you're arguing that your benefit should have been higher. It's that you should have started receiving it sooner. Through the chair. Yes, sir. It's implicit. I think in the end of the letter that I sent to you, that argument is also made. The argument is made and the trustee is right in terms of what she was saying. I think what is not really understood here is that you really have in the time to step into the world of separations of city managers. In separation of city managers, their concessions made, there are agreements that are reached between attorneys. And the agreement that was reached between my attorney and the then city attorney was that rather than getting a full, one full check that I would get it in periodic payments. Yes, I did not accrue any leave time, annual or sick, which is an essential part of being an employee. I did not have any city equipment. I could not log on or log off of your system. I was locked out. I didn't have an ID that said I was an employee. There are many things that just separated me from being an attorney, from being an employee. The fact that I had health insurance is part and parcel of any separation between a city attorney and a municipal government. It's just a part of it. The thing that was done is that I wanted to be given a check every single week than Lump sum. And I'll tell you this. And you can check the records. I wasn't called for one second to be a consultant here. Yeah, but pursuant to the consultant agreement, you were paid your regular salary, sub-achivable, applicable taxes, and the same manner of paid to regular employees. You were paid for your crew vacation and sick leave hours earned. You were also permitted to continue to participate in the city's health insurance plan on the same terms as an employee participating as the city manager from one year. You were also allowed to keep your current city issue vehicle. So again, and Jeremy hit on it, the whole issue with the IRS is there wasn't a bona fide separation of service. When Mr. Scott resigned, there was a pre-arrangement in things that go shady for him to remain on with the city as a consultant. It's very black and white, the legal opinion from Ice Miller as to the facts and circumstances. The federal law has applied in what the opinion is. This was looked out very carefully by the board, which is evident by being authorized to consult with special tax counsel. Is there anything that's brought before the board that's any different from the facts and circumstances that were reviewed prior? And again, there was a bonafide separation from service that's required in order for the board to allow what Mr. Scott requesting. If I may. Yes, your mind. There's one statement. There are several statements made there that I'd really like to speak on. And I think that statement was made that things didn't change. I was even allowed to keep the vehicle. That was a part of the negotiations with my attorney. And the entire city attorney and the entire commission at the time. This had nothing to do with whether or not I was being given a vehicle to drive to and from city hall. Just to make it clear, I gave that vehicle to my wife. But, see, Mr Scott, by you telling the bull how all this was negotiated and pre-arranged by the city and your city attorney, that goes to the very impact of there not being a bonafide separation from service. This was all pre prearranged and negotiated so that you can continue on as a consultant right before you resigned. What you're admitting to is showing that there was no bonafide separation from service. And that's what this all boils down to. And while he was a consultant, yes, he wasn't able to get his pension benefit, but he was still paid his regular salary from the city. And then as soon as his consult and agreement ended, he was able to begin getting his retirement benefits on November 1st and accordance with what Ice Miller Special Tax Council advised? Well, I think even Ice Miller uses the word cord and can and may. And there were no other terms that were just absolute. There were verbs that were used that were very absolute in nature. And I just want to make one of the corrections to a statement that you made where you said the board made a decision back then. The board made a decision based on my saying that I rested. OK. But I'm just saying that I don't recall where anyone was when this was being done. But I'm telling you what was done and the nature of what was done. And OK, I'll save the last part. Brett. Brett? Yep. All right, so in the commission manager roles, when a manager is let go, they're let go. Doesn't matter if they become a consultant after or anything. There's a termination date that happens and the negotiation is their contract which calls for the car being given or anything, whatever the benefits of that is. As Mr. Scott is saying is that he decided instead of getting a check, he asked for it in monthly payments or weekly payments and that's neither here nor there. But the other thing is, okay, let's say we hold up what the decision was and don't move any further, but why haven't we paid him from the 24th to the February to the October? So we need a calculation and to make him all of waiting that long. No, no, no. He got paid as regular salary from the city. He was requesting that his pension benefit begin when he resigned from city manager rather on November 1st. If you gave him that, that would be the insurface distribution of the item. I know it said shouldn't be allowed. didn't deal out? If I may, through the chair, I did not get a regular salary from the city. What I got was weekly installments of an arrangement that was made through October 31st. I didn't get a regular salary. If I'd gotten a regular salary, I would have been a crew in sick time, I would have been a crew in vacation time, I would have been charged, I would have been accruing sick time, I would have been accruing vacation time, I would have been charged, I would have been paying my percentage into the pension plan and the city would have been paying theirs. None of that was done. It was simply an installment payment to me. And if I may go further since I'm on the record about the vehicle, that vehicle was signed over to Esman Scott. Signed over to me for X amount of dollars that I don't remember now. It is a part of the agreement and what someone needs to look into. It's just an age man. Hold on. Say that again, Brett. Again, all this boils down to and shows that there was a prearranged rent. He didn't truly separate from service. There was no bona fide separation. And that's what's required in order for the board to grant his request. If you look at page. An ice Miller opinion actual ice Miller page 105. It's 105 in your pocket. It says, the termination of employment means that the plan member is no longer working for the same employer, whether it's a regular employee, a part-time employee, a seasonal employee, contractual employee, independent contractor or otherwise. And he's hired a consultant agreement that had all these free arrangements and conditions to show that there was no bona fide separations from service. Now does the city have anything that he's terminated on the 24th? He resigned. On the 24th. Yeah, he resigned on, I think with February 24th. I retired. Right, so if he resigned on the 24 with February 24th. I retired. Right. So if he resigned on the 24th and left our service, whether we signed an agreement to give him outside employment or whatever else, then that's not an employee. He wasn't doing anything the employee did, which was pay federal withholding. You paid federal withholding? I do. The federal withholding, if I, who should go first? He's a leprat, leprat. Again, I think you guys are missing. The crux is a bona fide separation from service. Whether he resigned on February 24th, he did, but the next day, he was acting as a consultant for the city and that shows that there was a prearrangement and not a bona fide separation from service. That's what the focus is on. Not whether he was an employee and independent contractor. It's the arrangement that was had between the city, Mr. Scott and his attorney, to the day after he resigned, to have this new consulting agreement in place, that had all the factors that he was negotiated within the consulting agreement. It's really important that the board understands the bona fide separation, and that's why, I was hoping that the board had read the ice miller letter, and that was why it asked Lord to include it, because they do a great job explaining what it means to have a bona fide separation from service, and that just wasn't the case in ice miller's opinion due to the circumstances here. And that's what I have the problem, and I think we're grappling with the problem is, is that if you're removed from your position, if you resign from your position, you're no longer employed. Well, not I guess employed could be you could have taken it lesser something. But do we have your separation agreement? I'm pretty sure it's there somewhere. If I may, if you do have page 105 available. Yes. If you go towards the bottom two thirds, the paragraph that starts with the IRS is issued both. If you go down to the last two lines, it says members no longer working for the same employer, whether as a regular employee, a part-time employee, a season employee, or and here's the one that pertains, a contractual employee. And in this case, it was a contractual employee. And that's, and again, this isn't your attorney or us or you all pushing back against him. It's the IRS could come in and say, hey, you've just kind of blown up the tax qualification status of the plan because you didn't follow IRS code. It's not that we're saying we don't want him to potentially get some sort of benefit. It's just protecting. Is ice millers still a, they're an extraordinarily reputable firm on this. We utilize them all the time. Well, they don't work for the board at the pension board. At the time, the recommendation was that Brent go and reach out to them for them to provide this level of research and report on it. I can just tell you as a side note, when we have tax implication issues that we want opinions on, ice millers typically who we will go to there. I mean, that's the kind of the top of the chart. So yeah, we would heavily rely on their opinion. And just to take it a little farther, for the same thing, you all are, in this particular instance, the trust that the plan that you all have is part of the Florida Municipal Pension Trust Fund. So we are also very cognizant because it's not just the assets of this plan, it's the assets of everybody that's in the trust that could be jeopardized by this. So we have to be extraordinarily cautious and mindful of these regulations as well. And so that's, I think, again, I think the issue, it's the bonafide separation that the IRS does unfortunately clearly stayed on it, I think. It sounds like we were saying earlier, Mr. Williams about getting... As a result, as a result. Yes. Installment Scott. Yes. installment payments. Yes. That was pursuant to be the next agreement that came in once he retired as being a contractual employee, right? Okay. No. That, if I may, that was the case. I just want to be on the record as well that as much as ice miller is a reputable that Esman Scott is also a reputable. Oh we know that Esman. Okay and with with with regard to the the payments I'm sorry just if you just repeat that. You mentioned the payments that you're receiving after your separation of city manager into the consulting role. Just those were payments that you were receiving in connection with the new with your consulting duty. No, they weren't. They were not and I said that. I said it was a matter of there was a payout that was due and I chose at the village attorney, the city attorney at the time. There was an agreement and agreement with the commission that I would get my payout in weekly. You keep saying city attorney, your city manager. City attorney at the time because my attorney negotiated with the city attorney who was hands up to not at the time and in consultation with the commission. Okay. So I chose to get it in that format and it was agreed upon. Do we have, again, do we have that agreement? I may have it, I have to wait for it. But we don't have it. Not, not, you know, not in this particular pack. I have it in HR. You have it. I have to wait for it. But we don't have it. Not not not you know not in this particular back. I have it in HR. You have it. Yes. I just pulled it up. Um. Yeah. I can have it print out. Yeah, we're just reading the beginning of it. Is this a separation agreement? Is it what are they call it? It's a consulting agreement. Consultant in me. He was hired on, he was hired on as a consultant. What went on behind the scenes between the city attorney and Mr. Scott is what it is, but the ice mill reviewed the actual contract. So he reviewed this document? Yes. And that's where his opinion is from. They certainly based part of that opinion on that. Yes. Because if you look at the letter, he talks about the facts, the release agreement. Under the terms of the release agreement, Mr. Scott remained in consultant for the city. And according to the terms of a the release agreement, Mr. Scott remained in consultant for the city. And according to the terms of a separate consultant agreement, the consultant agreement was effective from February 23rd, 2021 until October 31st, 2021. Additionally, the consultant agreement provided that Mr. Scott would advise on a reasonable, as the basis, shoulder at the time permitting by consultant with projects and related projects that were commenced during his tenure at City Manager. Thank you, Board Member. And again, for the bona fide separation, he resigned or retired from the city on February 23rd, 2021. His consultants in agreement was effective on the exact same day that he resigned, which again goes to the crux of the opinion of Ice Miller that there was no bona fide separation of service. It was pre-arranged and negotiated to have him resign and then come on as a consultant, which again is the whole issue of not having bona fide separation from service. And if I may, let me stop. OK, the question's from the board, and all of us would like to help, obviously. But unfortunately, if we're getting our attorney now, and the attorney then giving us the other opinion that says that we can't do it, we're not we're not attorneys except for Jacob, you know, the rest of us are not attorneys up here. So I rely on ice miller, I reside on bread, and if they're all saying that we can't do it, then I'm sorry, I don't think we can. I mean, it's up to the board to vote, but you know, it doesn't look like, you know, as much as we'd like to do it for you that they're saying the contractual agreement is when you became the contract employee whatever or you left and you had another agreement to be to still be part of us for six months. That's even though you weren't city manager anymore, you were a consultant, it clearly talks about consultant in here. And that's the issue that I think we're all, you know, having a problem with. If it didn't say the word consultant clearly, then I think there would be a gray area, but there is no gray when it says consultant. And you know, board board members do you have? You're seeing that it says independent contractor. Right. Yeah. So there for a question and please I mean I understand doing it for Esmond but Esmond is okay. I'm not hurting. I just want to say that for the record. When something is just wrong, it's just wrong. And if it is that I'm a consultant at that time, then what happens in terms of my pension? If we separate those, should my pension, if, if, indeed, I was a consultant, should those dollars that I'd gotten as a consultant, should those have been factored into my, my pension payments? Or the other question is, should the city, should they have been making payments on my behalf to the pension and should I have been contributing to that? That's a question I have. I must say, I'll answer it. Based on my knowledge, if they're saying that a contractual agreement is still employment, then yes, they should have been during that time. That should have been during that time. That should have. I did not. Because it's a contract. Therefore, it's a negotiated item, and it just wasn't negotiated as part of the contract. So not to say it couldn't have been, but it wasn't. Right. Board members, do you have a motion? I, the mate May through the chair. Please one last one because we got to move on and I appreciate it. You know, give me all the time you need. I appreciate that. If the if no pension payments were being taken out of my check at that time or no pension payments were being made out of my check at that time, or no pension payments were being made on my behalf. Doesn't it stand to reason that on the 23rd or 24th of February, whatever those nuances are, that effective March 1st, I would have been eligible for my pension? That's a question I'm asking. Because I've heard. I've heard. I think it's been answered that your contractual agreement didn't say to keep paying pension and didn't say that to keep doing it. So. I mean, not enter into the consulting agreement and the pre-arrangements. He would have been eligible to begin collecting his pension benefit on March 1st. He made the decision to enter into this consulting agreement with the city, which in turn did not result in the bona fide separation of service, which again resulted in him being eligible to get his pension benefit. As soon as his consultant agreement ended and that's what had happened, had there not been the consulting agreement in the pre-arrangement, he would have been able to. But he was not because he opted to get entered into the consulting agreement. We can't change the facts or circumstances or try to move the goalpost here, the facts or what they are in the circumstances or what they are. And as I said before, it was looked at very carefully, it wasn't taken lightly by the board, and the first ask, which is why we consulted with special tax council, these are very complicated questions because they can jeopardize the tax qualifications status of the entire plan, which is why we consulted a special tax council, and looked at this very carefully. And the last question is, are you presently, Mr. Scott, are you presently receiving your pension from us? As of November 1st. As of November 1st. Yes. Okay. Board members. November 1st of 2021. Yeah. Yeah. Do we need a motion on this or are we just Brett? Do we need a motion on this? Yeah just Brett do we need a motion on this? Yeah, I think you should make a motion to deny Mr. Scott's request. We're going to the legal opinion issued by Ice Miller and the recommendation of your council. Anybody want to make it? Greg? Um, I just, I'm looking at the recommendation from the IRS and the jeopardy that it puts the city in and the recommendation from Ice Miller kind of puts us in a very unique situation where we don't have a whole lot of choices just based on the IRS. You know, I was hoping that there might have been some other means that we can look at this thing and perhaps be able to do some justice to Mrs. Scott. But given the jeopardy that it will put the city in and the board and the pension, we have no other choice but make a motion and God knows not in my heart, but we don't have much choice to make a motion, but to deny the claim that Mr. Scott is requesting. Based on the ice miller. Based on the ice miller. The legal opinion and recommendation of your special tax counsel and general counsel. Yes, yep, in recommendation of the general counsel and the ice miller recommendation. I'll second that any discussion. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you, Asman. No problem. Happy all the days. And there's one question. When's your next meeting? March is in the back of the. March 6th. Okay. I'll be in the agenda. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Yeah, I know. All right, let's move to the back to the please give that legal opinion by ice muller read everybody, especially if Mr. Scott's going to bring this before the board again because it really gives a good explanation as the analysis and all the facts and the background and the federal law. So again, if it is on the agenda, please include the opinion in the packet and everybody please give it a read because it was it was a very instructive and informative analysis by ice noran I think because I understand most of this board is new so this was all a new issue but it but it will give you a good back on the understanding of why ice-nower made the opinion that it did in the light of the facts and circumstances. Yeah, and we do have it in our package right now also, so we do have it. I'm sorry. One side is comments are stopped. I contacted Lauren Jeremy and I said, you know, please include this opinion from Isomellers or the board can see it because we have almost a whole new board and I guess that. I know I'd be citing it and referencing it today for the reasons obviously that we just discussed. All right. Let's move to the back to the regular order of business, ratification of invoice and payments. Anybody want an agreed to pay? I make a motion so a per per. Anybody second? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Retirement and lump sum approvals for approvals. No, no new lump sums or retirees this quarter. Quarterly investments returns. You're up. Okay. Does Brett need to stay? Oh, yes, I would recommend keeping, since he's your board attorney. Okay, come on for the meeting. I'll still have a, Are you up for that, Brett? I'll stay, I'll stay on them. I'm hanging in there, hope I don't sound too bad. Okay. Oh, a bridge is for the record too. Jacob is back at this meeting again. So I don't know if there's anything that you want to address. I don't know if there's going forward. Do you happen to know how this may work for you all? I don't have an update at this time. You know, I filed the, you know, the F1 form and everything. So yeah. Will he for his own sake and safety, he'll have to file a new form one. No, Jacob already filed a form one. No, but then he filed a form one F after the last meeting. No, but then he filed a form one F. After the last meeting. No. Can't give you ever filed a form one F, have you? I just filed the form that we discussed. Yeah, remember after the last meeting when we thought he that was just a one-time meeting? No, that was that was the form one that we were discussing that he needed a file. Right, but then we talked about if he wasn't going to return to file the form 1f. Which, you have any different files? Why is there once? Just once. Oh, OK. OK. Yeah. OK. I thought you'd also file the form 1f. No, no, no. I think Jacob's fine. He filed the form 1 after the last meeting. And now he's here at this one. We just continue status quo. Yeah, yeah, no, that's all good. I just want to make sure there wasn't a one file. Jacob, you do file a four and one app, right? Just four and one. Correct. Oh, good. Yeah. So if Jacob keeps coming, that's fine. It's just status quo. That just file four and one next year. Correct. Everyone else. Just in the event that I'm not coming to the next one, and we'll cross-operate. Yeah, we get there. Cool. Hopefully for you. Yeah, if you get replaced, so, you know, reach out to us, but that's why you won't want to flip flop, you know what I mean? Because we're not going to want to keep filing a form one and form one F. I think maybe internally if you guys can kind of decide to probably be invested in just, you know what I mean? Yeah. Okay. All right. I will jump to some good news then. So the investment report you have here will be as of September 30th, which of course quarter end, but is your fiscal year end as well. So these are the numbers we'll book for the year. Start with your dollar amounts first. You had you started the quarter with just over 21 million. You had 8600 and change in contributions come in earnings increase of a little over 1. 21 million. You had 8,600 and change in contributions come in. Earnings increase of a little over 1.1 million paid out 432,000 in distributions, had 19,000 expenses, 24,500 in other column. And your ending balance was 21,778,320.89 cents and as normal the following few pages are the accounting for that. So I'll ask if you have any dollar questions or counting questions before I move to the investments. No question. No. Okay. No sir. Keep going. What's going on? Well that's yeah. So the market was very good to us yet again that very, very good to us this year. So the quarter you finished up 5.36% your fiscal year number 21.01%. So a huge year. I'll also add, but I'll caveat it with a all else being equal and I'll stress all else being equal. Certainly that could help to potentially push that contribution rate back down anytime you have this sort of excess return over your assumed rate. That's always a good thing. Just as far as the investments themselves, it was pretty much a great year across the board. Fixed income was up a lot. Equities were up huge. The only place that did have a negative return for the year was real estate. But again, it's not due to the manager. They actually outperformed very, very well. Even in a down market, it's just real estate's last couple years has had big headwinds with the rising interest rates, all the impacts from COVID, especially as it relates to office space. However, there is some good news there as well. The last quarter we did get a positive return. It was only 18 basis points or 0.18%. But at least the movement was towards the positive side. I think the outlook now is more positive in real estate. The thought is that they kind of hit that bottom and now they're kind of back on the rise again. A lot of that of course can be contributed to. Hopefully that they kind of hit the bottom of the office struggles where people are slowly starting to return to work, not that will necessarily ever, who knows if we ever go back to what it was pre-COVID, but I think people have a better handle on what office space may look like going forward. And then of course interest rates finally starting to come down. That's going to always help any sort of real estate portfolio as well. Going forward, you know, as we sit here today October, we were kind of following a similar trend, which is even though things have been up, it's been a roller coaster ride to get there. It's not been just a steady climb month over month. We've had really big months and really bad months. And we've done it again. October saw a big sell off. November was a huge month. So here we are, you know, five days into December and we're up for the December quarter but it hasn't been just a slow steady increase. It's been a kind of a roller coaster so we know you're working. Well I'm we've we've hired good portfolio managers who are doing a good job you know at the end of the day you know the market only gives you so much to work with you know you're not you're not going to make 20% if the markets down 10. You just hope that relative to the overall market conditions your managers can outperform a little bit. And that said, everybody hopefully made money this year. Anybody that didn't probably did not have a good year. But certainly we're very pleased with the individual managers of the different portfolios we have. So you know the outlook we'll see certainly won't predict but the outlook at least in the near term seems to be seems to be positive so we'll see what happens but do we need a motion? No no it's just information only. Yes, sir. Yeah, certainly if you have any questions or anything, they'll be happy to. Any questions for them? No, no, no. No questions. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you. All right, discussion, update on diseases. Member, do a return of contributions. Yeah, that's the bonnest day. Ron's still working with the wife's attorney. There's still some back and forth regarding interest occurring and whatnot. So Ron's still still handling that and that's all there is to report on that item for now. Okay, but you did get in touch with somebody and you're moving forward with it, right? Yeah, yeah. Ron's been in communication with her attorney. Yep, they're going back and forth. All right, great. Yep. All right, discussion of ad hoc, Cola. We have two you want to do it, or are you? Yeah, I was just going to say this is regarding the board policy that we bring this up once a year. We currently only have two retirees in this category, but it's just a discussion to see if the board wants to recommend an ad hoc cola for these two. Have we done it in the past? We have not. So this would be the first meeting where we've discussed it. The policy was adopted last year. Board members. Any questions? I'm sorry. Board members. Three questions. Motion. How about you concerned with the precedent or? I just wanted to see what we've done in the past but since this is the first time. And so every year we would have to have discussion in vote. Yeah, I think the initial decision is whether or not you want to look at providing it, because then you would have to determine, if you say no, of course that's the end of it. If you say yes, then you have to kind of come up with what that is and what the cost so you're going to have to have the actuary do a cost study based upon whatever it is you'd like to see as a possible option to provide. And then at that point in time you could decide whether or not to move forward with it. So I think that would be your process. So this is something that we're looking at to we, turn to move forward with this. This allows you to kind of look into a little bit more further, look at the percentages and all that stuff. Yeah, it's all right. Oh, go ahead, Brent. Yeah, because so obviously this board is tasked with administering the benefits negotiated. And your adoption agreement, there's a section that states that the City Council is fast with the authority to decide whether or not a cost of living adjustment will be awarded for that particular fiscal year and each year thereafter. And that's the ad hoc COA. As Laura had said, there was a policy that was passed by the Board of Requested. This just be put on the agenda at the first meeting after the close of the prior fiscal year. So, you know, it's on the agenda. It's just a discussion by the Board of Trustees. A bother to request or not. You can make a motion not to request. You can make a motion to request. Or you can just leave it as B, but if you are going to request it to the City Council, I mean I would before the City Council, before you went I wouldn't go and do all these cost studies and everything and then before it even gets to the City Council because it's ultimately the City Council authority and their decision in the end. It would literally just be the board asking the City Council to look at it and that's it. So, Jacob, you want to take note of this? I guess see if we want to approve it. All right. So there is actually no action needed by us? Well, if you're going to, if you're going to, if you're going to reclact that the City Council granicola, then I think you should make a motion to form the request of the city council that ad hocola be granted to retirees, beneficiaries, retirees and beneficiaries of the plan. Procredited service earned on or after February 1, 2013 for that particular fiscal year. If you're not, then I don't think anything needs to be done. Okay, Greg, Jacob. Any questions? No, I... I think we should turn it over to the City Council because they have the final word. And at least we can pursue it with them and see where they're at lands. Yeah, they won't understand why we're asking for 2013, but... Well, that's because that's pursuant to your adoptive agreement. That's the only time that the ad hoc call for credit service earned honor after February 1, 2013. Oh, okay. That's where they have the authority to grant ad hoc basis by the City Council. It's section L, cost of living adjustment and your adoption agreement. And there is a cost of living now, right? There is, yes, and that's for credit service. Commencing October 1, 2003, I believe, through January 31, 2013. That's 2.25% and then it ended and then that's where after that, it's an ad hoc basis at the discretion of the City Council. That's my understanding. Okay. We're clear? Everybody clear? Yes. 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 right. All right. All right. All right now and she recommended me contact. I think it's Beverly. Absent. Absent and she's unable to at this time. So kind of running out of options. I'm not sure where the board wants to go with this. Well, we had some discussion on possibly changing that seat to something else so that we can have a full board. Correct? Yeah, and that would have to be done with the city council, the city council would have to do that. So if you're at a, if you're at a dead end with the possibility of filling that seat, because there's just no retirees available, then I think it would be prudent for the board to ask the city council to look at possibly changing that seat. I think you're right, Chair. What are we discussed for out who would be out, you know what I mean? For someone eligible who are there to be candidates like, but I think you should ask the city council to look at that if we've exhausted all possibilities for anybody that could fill that seat as a retiree. Okay, I don't think we're there yet. think we may be there. I know she has sorry. The Lord has a lot of hours. Invested in just trying to find somebody. To fill the seat and it's been several of the retirees can't because they're either city manager and attorney. A position where they can't have dual off. I think we may be there. I know she has sorry. The Lord has a lot of hours invested in just trying to find to fill the seat and it's been. And several of their retirees can't because they're either city manager and attorney, you know, a position where they can't have dual off of this holding. So, and I've sent out several emails and spoken to several and I haven't caught one yet. I can try. I can keep trying if you'd like. So do we do a request to Jacob as a city attorney or do we do a letter to them? How do we request? No, you can just direct and ask Jacob to bring it to the City Council or proper authorities to look into this due to the issue and it makes sense because Jacob sits on this board currently and he can explain the situation and the city council can see if they can come up with a solution. That's fine. I could just be your, you know, requesting the Jacob work on that. Jacob, is that okay? Yeah. I'll speak with Joe about this also and yeah. Thank you. All right. also and yeah. Thank you. All right, review and approval of meeting dates. The next meeting date is March 6th, one after that, June 5th, September 4th, and then December 4th. And these just follow the historical meeting dates that the sports done. Yeah. Everybody okay with them? Yep. See any conflicts? Not at all. Not at first time. Okay, attorney report. Yep, I'll just make this real quick. I just wanted to bring to the board's attention two statues that passed that are going to require, it's not anything applicable right now, but that's due with human trafficking and businesses that do business with foreign countries of concern. And moving forward, if there's an instance where this board has to enter into or renew a contract with the service providers, we're gonna have to get two affidavits with the service providers, we're going to have to get two affidavits by the service providers stating that they do not use coercion for labor or services under Florida Statute Section 787.06 and also that they don't do any business with a foreign country of concern if that service provider has personal information of the plan members, and the foreign countries of concern are the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cuba, the Venezuelan regime of Nicolas Maduro, or the Syrian Arab Republic. And like I said, there's nothing that needs to be done at this time. There are just two statutes that passed this year that were aware of that will now have to implement with getting signed after David's Hermit Service providers. Sure to be a circumstance where that's wanted. And that's it. I just wanted to make the board aware of it in case you heard a bit. that's a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good opportunity to have a good holiday too. We wish you the merry and feel better. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Trustees, have anything to say? No, sir. I don't know. I'm just happy holidays. Yeah. Happy holidays, everybody. Planned administrator. Only one additional thing. And I've started this off with all of our members. Just remember, we just made 21% this year. We do have and I think I might have mentioned the last meeting that we're going to be bringing this forward. We do have fee increase, hopefully everybody saw the letter that did go out ahead of time as well. Certainly I want to highlight the fact that it's been 21 years since our last fee increase. Again, the cost of doing businesses caught up to us as well. And so to continue operating as we have been offering the same services, etc. We've had to increase our fees. That fee increase will go into effect January 1st. What Lord did put together would be kind of just an example. Why haven't you asked for them and be from all that time? Well, I actually appreciate that question. No, because we haven't needed to. We are certainly a big thing to note is we are a nonprofit organization. So we don't have to continue to drive profits at all times. If we're making enough to pay salaries, keep the lights on, then we're good. It's just things finally got to the point where we need to charge a little more to continue to do that. And I've certainly told everybody I'm very hopeful that we go another 21 years. That means that's the only time I'll have to have this conversation with you in my career. But that's the only time I'll have to have this conversation with you in my career. So, but that's yeah, it's just, we only do it if need be, not just because we see an opportunity to. Again, on the last page it does show an example of, because it's a percentage of assets based as how our fee schedule works. So of course, there can be fluctuations depending on your asset size. So just to kind of give you full disclosure, you can see what the dollar amount impact would be. We just used the September 30th. Again, it won't start till January 1st, but had it been an effect on September 30th, it shows you what the difference in actual dollars would be. Roughly just under a $1,500 increase for the quarter is what it would have looked like had it been in place. So certainly if you have any other questions or- Board members, any questions? No. Not at all. I think you guys give us great service. We appreciate you so much. Thank you. No. Not at all. I think you guys give us great service. We appreciate you so much. Want to make motion. Thank you. Make a motion that the increase passes, I mean, to go into fruition. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? All right. Thank you all so much for the. Thank you. You're welcome. Yeah. Public comments. Oh, great meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Happy holidays. All right. Next meeting is March 6th. Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. 6th is their motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. A second. All in favor? All adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Everybody have a happy holiday. You too.