►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
No
she's,
like
I,
keep
saying
flipper.
Is
anyone
here
old
enough
to
remember
flipper.
B
A
A
D
C
C
C
G
C
C
I'll
second,
any
discussion
or
questions
all
in
favor,
aye,
aye.
G
G
G
C
A
C
F
F
Right
as
a
ministerial
function,
Council
should
officially
I
guess
bless
the
appointment.
Okay
at
a
subsequent
meeting,
I,
don't
know
how
you
guys
typically
do
it,
but
that's
exactly
right.
G
B
D
I
guess
you'd
like
for
me
to
address
is
which
this
might
it's
first
report
in
a
while
and
might
be
the
last
report
for
a
little
while
that
looks
good.
So,
let's,
let's
talk
about
it
and
enjoy
it.
So
what
you
do
have
in
your
packets
would
be
as
of
December.
31St
I
can
just
run
over
the
dollars
real
quick
started
with
8.1
million
for
the
quarter.
D
D
None
okay,
I,
don't
know
if
I've
got
the
same
as
you,
but
page
13
..
If
you
do
want
to
look
at
the
actual
return,
so
obviously
by
the
480
000
increase
and
as
I
already
alluded
to
a
really
really
strong
quarter,
the
fund
was
up
5.89
percent.
So
again,
that's
our
first
fiscal
year
quarter.
So
we're
off
to
a
really
nice
start,
and
all
of
that
was
actually
in
October
November,
which
were
two
fantastic
months.
D
December
actually
pulled
back
a
little
bit,
so
all
of
those
returns
and
more
were
actually
just
made
in
October.
November
I
think
we
kind
of
had
two
major
events
going
on
that
helped
give
us
a
little
bit
of
a
Tailwind
for
the
quarter,
one
as
everybody
probably
recalls.
We
had
the
big
national
elections
and
kind
of
forget
your
political
leanings.
For
a
moment.
The
one
thing
we
got
from
that
which
historically
has
always
been
a
bit
of
a
boost
and
liked
by
the
investment
world.
D
D
Nothing's
going
to
get
done,
and
so
essentially
you
have
fiscal
and
monetary
policy
set
for
the
next
two
years
right
until
we
get
to
a
new
which
would
be
a
presidential
cycle
that
time
and
then
we'll
we'll
see
all
the
humps
and
bumps
just
from
that,
so
that
that
kind
of
helped
I
think
give
us
a
little
bit
of
a
boost
and
probably,
more
importantly,
at
the
time
there
was
pretty
much
broad
consensus
that
we
were
getting
towards
the
end
of
the
fed's
tightening
cycle.
D
All
of
these,
not
so
fun
interest
rate
hikes
that
we've
been
experiencing
last
year
and
now
into
this
year,
that
that
was
coming
to
an
end
that
maybe
there'd
be
a
quarter
point
hike
in
January
and
then
that
would
be
the
end
of
it
and
then
the
best
of
all
scenarios,
maybe
even
by
the
end
of
23.
You
might
actually
see
a
lesson
you
might
even
have
the
the
FED
loosening
it
back
up
a
little
bit
that
was
kind
of
the
the
best
case
scenario.
D
Well,
unfortunately,
the
only
thing
that
really
ended
up
playing
out
accurately
was
we
got
the
quarter
point
rate
hike
in
January
since
then,
and
this
is
where
things
kind
of
get
get
a
little
wild
is
we
continue
to
have
very
good
economic
data
which
turns
out
that's
really
bad.
As
far
as
the
fed's
concerned,
January
was
actually
a
fantastic
month
again
it
was
a
huge
month,
but
then
February.
D
We
were
starting
to
continue
to
see
really
strong
labor
markets,
really
good
consumer
spending,
which
is
interesting
because
consumer
confidence
is
terribly
high,
but
the
spending
is
still
there,
and
that
would
just
really
is
just
too
much
too
much
good
news
for
the
for
the
fed
and
so
they've
kind
of
told
us
all
along
or
not
told
us
how
long.
H
J
D
Said
all
along,
we
will
continue
to
fight
inflation,
it's
Public
Enemy
Number
One
until
we
have
it
under
control
and
because
we
were
getting
that
good
news.
The
Fed
was
pretty
much
leading
us
to
believe
that
the
the
rate
hikes
were
going
to
continue
and,
as
I
believe
was
just
confirmed
by
one
of
our
trustees
just
a
few
minutes
ago.
They
did
raise
it
again.
A
quarter
point
this
afternoon,
which
falls
in
line
with
what
most
people
expected.
D
I
I
think
the
general
consensus,
probably
without
having
here
everything
that's
gone
today,
will
will
get
at
least
two
more
quarter
point
hikes,
probably
and
then
we'll
kind
of
see
from
there,
but
that's
going
to
continue
to
provide
a
strong
headwind
to
the
market.
It's
going
to
most
likely.
You
know,
they're
not
going
to
be
bouncing
back
in
a
strong
way.
Now
again,
we've
got
a
great
report
from
this
December
quarter,
but
I
don't
think
it
means
we've
rallied
and
we're
out
of
it.
D
As
a
matter
of
fact,
unfortunately,
with
the
fed's
continued
fight
against
inflation
in
the
continued
rate
hikes,
it's,
it's
almost
seems
impossible
or
inevitable
that
we
won't
end
up
in
a
recessionary
environment
which,
of
course,
is
going
to
make
market
growth
stagnant,
probably
or
very
slow
growth
at
best,
if
not
again,
some
more
more
down
markets.
Now
that
said,
hopefully,
last
year
being
down
13.
Hopefully
that
is
the
worst
of
it
and
we're
certainly
not
predicting
that.
D
But
I,
don't
think
you
know
we're
just
you
look
at
this
port
report
and
enjoy
it
I,
don't
think
it
means
we're
off
and
running
again
and
going
back
to
high
growth,
like
we've
been
kind
of
really
blessed
to
have
and
had
a
really
great
run
in
the
last
12
years
up
until
last
year.
D
So
it's
it's
good
news,
but
it's
cautionary
good
news
in
this
report,
so
just
just
also
to
let
the
board
know,
because
the
hot
real
hot
topic,
of
course
over
the
last
week
or
so
has
been
the
banking
industry.
Silicon
Valley
Bank
was
a
big
concern
to
everybody.
D
We
sent
out
a
memo,
don't
know
if
everybody
had
the
chance
to
to
see
it
if
he
didn't
and
want
to
get
it
make
sure
you
let
me
know,
but
we
did
put
together
our
Consultants
of
course,
from
day
one
was
was
on
top
of
this
talking
with
investment
managers
kind
of
finding
out
what
impacts
that
would
all
have
towards
your
all's
fund.
D
I
can
say:
good
news
is
that
we
had
no
direct
exposure
in
the
debt
or
Equity
markets,
so
there's
really
no
direct
impacts
whatsoever
kind
of
the
closest
issue
we
we've
had
as
a
real
estate
manager
has
a
joint
venture
partnership
where
the
other
entity
just
did
banking
at
SVP
they've,
since
moved
all
of
their
accounts
out,
moved
them
into
another
bank.
So
we
were
pretty
much
unscathed
from
a
direct
standpoint.
Now
how
the
you
know,
I,
don't
believe
the
dust
is
settled.
D
Unfortunately,
yet
we'll
see
you
know
fingers
crossed,
maybe
maybe
it
won't
turn
out
to
be
anything
other
than
a
blip,
but
certainly
we
could
have
indirect
impacts.
Meaning
just
is
the
market
experience
some
turmoil
last
week
and
things
like
that.
Those
can
still
impact
you,
but
directly
speaking,
we
didn't
have
any
negative
impacts
to
the
fund,
which
is
very
happy
to
report
on
that.
D
I
Hey
the
administrative
budget
report
for
fiscal
year,
23
has
it's
coming
in
just
as
expected
for
this
point
in
time,
the
report
presented
is
through
December
31st
2022.
During
this
period,
the
first
quarter
we
had
a
Administration
fees
of
about
4
800,
and
then
we
also
have
legal
fees
that
we
paid
out
just
a
little
over
four
thousand
dollars
total
88.10
again.
This
is
basically
in
line
with
this
point
in
time
of
the
year.
C
Next
item
is
the
change
in
method
of
determining
the
Actuarial
value
of
assets.
Okay,.
I
D
Yeah
be
happy
to
so
I
would
I
would
say,
probably
just
having
the
valuation.
The
next
item
on
the
agenda
and
this
I'll
just
be
part
of
the
same
conversation.
D
Going
into
the
vowel,
it
is
probably
better
to
just
rip
the
Band-Aid
off
for
those
of
you
that
if
everybody
hasn't
already
seen
and
aware,
we
start
there
and
then
that
will
kind
of
give
the
understanding
of.
Why
there's
been
a
methodology
change.
D
So
if
you
do,
if,
if
you're
trying
to
pull
up
on
the
screen
or
or
look
page
one
dash
one
in
the
valuation
itself,
the
new
con,
the
new
minimum
required
contribution
rate
to
the
plan
is
55.11
percent
and
that
that
particular
page
that
1-1
just
shows
you
the
math
of
of
how
you
get
to
there.
D
More
importantly,
or
not,
more
importantly,
but
just
the
the
following
page
after
that
page
1-2
gives
you
a
pie,
chart
to
kind
of
show
you
the
changes
from
what
it
has
been
to
the
new
upcoming
contribution
rate
and
and
for
the
21-22
plan
year.
The
city's
contribution
was
roughly
26,
27
percent.
Now
of
that,
the
chapter
money
made
up
roughly
11
and
a
half
percent
of
that
yeah
this
this
chart
right.
D
There
will
show
you
that,
and
then
the
city
would
be
was
on
the
hook
for
the
other
15
and
a
half
percent
that
the
Top
Gear
buddy
didn't
make
up
with
the
new
increase
the
expected
chapter
money
now
again,
obviously
that
that
varies
from
year
to
year.
We
don't
know
exactly,
but
if
it
were
to
Hold
Steady
about
12
and
a
quarter
percent,
and
then
the
rest
of
the
city's
part
would
end
up
being
42.82.
D
So
the
the
city
is
essentially
going
to
have
a
has
a
55.11
contribution
rate,
as
we
said
now.
All
of
that,
unfortunately,
can
be
contributed
to
the
investment,
the
the
investment
World
from
last
year
right,
the
the
down
13
plus
percent.
D
Unfortunately,
the
market
just
didn't
didn't,
give
us
anything
but
a
bloodbath
essentially
last
year,
and
this
is
the
results
of
that
one
of
the
kind
of
interesting
things
and
and
I
have,
and
this
is
directly
from
Chuck,
because
when
I
started
to
see
all
these
valuations
come
out,
there
was
a.
There
was
a
what
I
found
to
be
a
very
unique
kind
of
an
oddity
that
I
was
noticing.
Essentially,
the
better
a
plan
was
funded,
the
better
they
were
doing
the
way
bigger
increase.
They
saw
in
their
minimum
contribution
rate.
D
As
a
result,
the
the
less
well-funded
a
plan
was
the
less
they
would
see
increases
now
this
is
all
else
being
equal,
and
so
that
kind
of
kind
of
left
you
scratching
ahead
a
little
bit
and
I
can
see
the
looks,
and
so
he
explained
it
I
thought
pretty
well
to
me,
which
is
essentially
let's
say
you:
you
have
nine
hundred
dollars
of
assets,
but
you
have
a
thousand
dollars
in
liability
right.
D
So
you
you
owe
a
hundred
dollars
and
of
course
you
pay
for
that
over
time,
right,
you're,
essentially
making
mortgage
payments.
Now
now,
all
of
a
sudden,
let's
say
because
the
Investments,
you
still
only
have
nine
hundred
dollars,
that's
kind
of
the
best
case.
We
actually
ended
up
with
less
in
this
case,
but
let's
say
you
only
have
900,
but
your
liabilities
increase
to
1100..
D
Well
now
you
owe
two
hundred
dollars
of
a
shortfall
liability.
So
you
you
can
double
your
contributions
as
a
result,
whereas
if
somebody
else
started
out
with
had
say
400
in
liabilities
right,
they
only
had
six
hundred
dollars
in
assets
but
owed
us,
but
still
had
a
thousand
in
liabilities
and
started
out
with
four
hundred
dollars
of
of
payments
that
they
had
to
make.
D
But
now
they
have
Eleven
Hundred.
Well,
they
only
added
a
hundred
dollars
to
the
400,
so
the
the
increase
was
actually
lessened
because
they
already
owed
so
much
more,
essentially
right,
so
the
better
funded
you
are,
the
less
you
owed
any
sort
of
additional
change
to
your
liabilities.
Any
increases
magnified
because
you
actually
owe
so
much
less
up
front.
D
Does
that
make
kind
of
make
sense,
whereas
if
you
already
had
a
huge
gap
that
you
were
funding
for
then
adding
some
extra
to
that
is
is
less
impactful
from
a
percentage
standpoint,
and
and
so
what
that
means
is
because
you
all
were
over
you're
still
over
100
funded,
actually
I
think
you're
at
a
hundred,
even
with
all
of
this
page,
1-6
you're
still
at
103,
funded
and.
D
Were
even
that
much
higher
last
year,
therefore
well-funded
very
healthy
plan,
the
the
funding
percent
or
the
contribution
percentage
takes
a
bigger
hit
as
a
result.
So
it's
it's
kind
of
a
like
I
said
it's
a
it's
a
head
scratcher
until
it
gets
explained,
and
then
you
kind
of
go.
Okay
makes
a
little
more
sense,
hopefully
to
everybody
before
I
continue
on
to
the
Assumption
part,
just
any
questions
about
that,
or
does
that
kind
of
make
a
little
bit
of
sense?
A
lot
of
sense.
D
The
math
ends
up
working
yeah.
No,
it's
we've
had
we
had
another
plan,
I
forget
what
they
ended
up
this
year,
but
they
were
160
plus
percent
funded.
Last
year.
Their
contribution
percentage
went
up
over
40
percent
this
year.
D
Oh
yeah,
it's
a
great,
that's
actually
a
great
question.
It's
a
really
good
question,
especially
in
this
time
period.
So
what
a
hundred
percent
so
funding
as
it's
presented
in
these
valuations
is
only
referencing
how
you
stand
as
of
this
point
in
time,
so
as
of
September
30th
2022,
this
plan
is
a
hundred
and
three
percent
funded
based
on
accrued
liabilities.
Only
so,
if
you
stop
the
plan
at
that
point
said
we're
going
to
pay
out
everybody,
what
they've
already
earned
just
an
actual
equivalent
we're
going
to
pay
lump
sums
at
that
point.
D
You'd
have
three
cents
left
over
for
every
dollar.
You
owe
that
does
not
account
for
the
expected
right
because
we're
not
closing
the
plan,
so
we
expect
accrue
more
liabilities
as
people
continue
to
work
and
earn
more
benefits
and
that's
what
we're
funding
for.
So
no
that's.
That's
a
really
good
point,
yeah
why
we
continue
to
put
any
money
in,
but
because
we're
we
still
have
to
fund
for
the
expected
future
liabilities
that
we're
going
to
occur.
D
Well,
here's
the
so
here
now
gets
into
this
the
Assumption
part
of
the
conversation,
the
Assumption
or
I'm.
Sorry,
not
the
Assumption,
the
methodology
change.
This
is
actually
the
the
lesser
of
two
evils.
What
Chuck
did
do
and
it's
up
to
the
board
whether
or
not
they
want
to
accept
this?
You
all
are
actually
in
control
of
of
telling
the
an
actuary
what
methods
and
assumptions
to
use
as
long
as
they're
legal.
D
So
he
he
thought
it
was
best
to
make
this
change
it's
up
to
you
all
as
a
board
to
say
yes,
we
agree
or
not,
but
he
added
what
he
call
a
smoothing
or
a
phase-in
technique.
So
what
he's
doing
now,
instead
of
recognizing
all
of
the
gains
or
losses
in
a
given
year,
he's
smoothing
them
out
and
averaging
over
a
five-year
period,
and
he
did
that
because
we
would
have
you
would
have
this
plan
would
have
actually
as
it
was,
it
was
not
being
implemented.
This
plan
had
it
had.
D
He
not
put
that
into
place,
would
have
been
over
50
percent
extra
and
would
have
been
somewhere
in
the
vicinity
of
75
percent
contribution
rate
this
year.
So
that
was
he
it's
a
tool.
He
keeps
in
his
kind
of
his
Hip
Pocket
to
use
for
a
rainy
day.
We
we
had
a
rainy
day
and,
and
so
that's
why
he
he
implemented
it
in
this
valuation.
Now
again,
it's
up
to
the
board
whether
or
not
they
think
that's
appropriate,
bearing
in
mind
the
city's
budget.
D
If,
if
you
were
to
disagree
with
that
change,
that's
going
to
have
a
you
know
a
very
sizable
impact
on
the
city.
Obviously
it's
going
to
have
one
anyway.
The
good
news
and
chuck
would
absolutely
want
to
convey
this
to
you
all
as
well.
D
Hopefully
you
know
in
the
next,
maybe
not
this
year,
but
over
the
next
year
or
two
Market
recovers.
We
start
to
see
positive
ears.
That
number
can
can
very
quickly
come
right
back
down
and
we
would
expect
it
to
over
time
it
just
I
mean
it
was
an
unprecedentedly
bad
year
last
year,
and
this
is
the
unfortunate
kind
of
results
you
you
get
out
of
it,
but
hopefully
we
can
see
those
numbers
drop.
D
Maybe
I
would
you
know,
theoretically
they
could
drop
just
as
fast
they
could
drop
in
one
year
too.
Now
that
means
we'd
have
to
make
20
plus
percent
this
year,
probably
not
likely,
but
over
the
next
couple
years
the
the
market
settles
starts
to
grow
again
like
we
would
assume
it
will,
then
those
numbers
we
would
expect
to
come
way
back
down,
but
for
the
next
little
period
of
time.
While
that's
happening,
this
is
kind
of
what
you
get
out
of
it.
So.
A
D
Can't
so
he
always
has
this
page
in
there.
Oh
I'm,
sorry,
actually
it's
very
easy
because
he
did
not
make
any
assumption
changes.
That's
a
it's!
A
methodology,
change
is,
is
all
so
it
doesn't
so
this
particular
page.
It's
he's
always
got
this
page
in
there.
Even
in
years.
There's
no
assumption
changes
are
made.
So
that's
why
it's
the
same,
because
there
were
no
assumption
changes
made.
D
From
so
prior
to-
or
it's
not
not
looking
back
to
the
prior
valuation,
there
are
no
changes
in
this
report
from
that
prior
report.
Assumption
changes,
so
an
assumption
is:
when
are
people
going
to
retire?
How
many
disabilities
do
we
assume
will
happen
over
the
lifespan
of
the
plan?
How
what
is
our
assumed
rate
of
return
on
investments?
Those
are
assumptions.
D
D
We'll
show
you
the
math,
where
he's
averaging
out
gains
and
losses
over
the
prior
four
years
now.
So
this
will
be
the
fifth
year
now
so
he's
going
to
do
a
five-year
smoothing.
A
In
this
lovely
smoothie
is
getting
us
to
the
50,
some
odd
percent
versus.
D
D
Yeah
and
that's
why
a
lot
I
mean
this
is
a
very,
very,
very
common
practice.
A
lot
of
plans
already
have
this
implemented
the
whole
concept
generally
for
why
a
plane
would
have
this
is
to
keep
the
city's
Budget
on
a
More
Level
playing
field,
because
obviously
the
the
markets,
as
we
all
know
it's
up
and
down.
Even
if
you
look
out-
and
you
say
well-
we're
we're
assuming
seven
percent
and
we've
hit
seven
percent
on
average.
D
Well,
if
you
look
at
any
given
year,
we
probably
never
actually
hit
seven
percent
right
so
by
adding
Us
by
using
smoothing
it's
just
helping
that
City
for
budgeting
purposes,
because
it
means
the
contribution
rate
shouldn't
fluctuate
as
much
from
any
one
year
or
another
in
the
case
that
you
all
weren't
using
is
because
it
wasn't
really
needed,
because
the
contribution
rate
was
low
enough,
that
it
wasn't
causing
any
issues,
and
so
therefore,
you
keep
it
as
a
tool
for
a
moment
like
this
in
time.
D
So
he's
he's
now
utilizing
that,
but
that's
going
forward
this
now
this
will
stay,
the
board
could
say:
hey,
we
don't
want
to
use
it
anymore,
but
what
the
state
probably
would
not
do
is
allow
you
to
just
jump
back
and
forth
use
this
method.
One
year,
two
years
change
come
back
to
it
every
you
know,
if
you're
changing
it
on
a
regular
basis,
odds
are
the
state's
not
going
to
approve
this
report
when
it's
provided
to
them.
So
you
wouldn't
want
to
do
that.
But
that
said
a
handful
of
years.
A
A
But
I'm
looking
at
table
2C,
okay,
where
he
does
the
adjustments
and
then
it
comes
out
to
right
there.
That's.
D
D
We're
going
to
recognize
and,
and
what
he's
doing
is
so-
and
maybe
this
will
help
to
to
show
the
impact
of
that.
If
you
look
about
halfway
down
there,
you
see
Actuarial
value
of
assets
as
October
1
2022
is
just
under
8.3
million.
Well,
the
actual
market
value
was
just
under
seven
and
a
half
million.
If
you
look
just
a
few
lines
up
from
there,
so
what
what
this
does
it?
D
It
actually
gives
the
plan
an
Actuarial
value
that
is
greater
than
its
market
value,
which
means
now
the
liabilities
that
we
have
to
fund
for
we've
closed
that
Gap.
So
we
have
to
put
less
money
in
this
year.
Over
a
long
period
of
time,
the
Actuarial
value,
typically
in
a
healthy
plan,
will
be
less
than
the
market
value.
D
But
in
this,
in
these
cases,
where
you
come
off
of
a
historically
bad
year,
like
we
had
I
mean
this
is
a
really
a
one-off
scenario
that
we're
talking
about.
If
you
look
back
historically,
you
end
up
actually
with
a
higher
historical
vow
or
a
higher
Actuarial
value,
which
is
what
allows
that
contribution
rate
to
be
kept
lower
than
it
otherwise
would
be,
because
now
the
gap
between
what
it's
saying,
what
he's
showing
our
assets
to
be
versus
what
our
liabilities
are,
so
that
unfunded
part
that
gaps
closed.
D
D
D
I
D
And
that
has
been
roughly
looks
like
the
last
few
years.
Give
or
take
it's
been
in
that
50
000
range.
Is
that
what
I
saw
70.?
Oh?
Is
it
okay?
Sorry,
so
you'll
be
able
to
deduct
that
from
from
the
city's
contribution,
and
then
the
city
does
have
now:
it's
not
a
big
one,
but
it's
good
to
just
note:
there's
an
advanced
employer
contribution
or
a
yes,
an
advanced
employer,
contribution
of,
and
actually.
D
No,
that's!
Okay,
so
you
see
there's
a
advanced
employer
contribution
of
44
901.
What
that
is
is
that's
a
credit.
The
city
has
with
the
plan
it's
kind
of
like
a
rainy
day
fund,
so
the
city
could
choose
if
they,
if
they
so
wanted
to
utilize,
some
or
all
of
that
this
year
to
help
offset
their
costs
as
well.
So,
in
other
words,
if
the
city
was
like
yes,
we
want
to
take
advantage
of
all
that
they
would
just
put
44
whatever
that
minimum
required
is
minus
44
901.
D
When
Chuck
goes
to
do
the
evaluation
next
year,
he
sees
that
there's
a
shortfall
of
44
901,
then
he'll
just
deduct
it
automatically
from
that
advanced
employer
contribution.
So
that's
that's
there
as
well
too,
so
we
always
recommend
when
cities
have
the
capability
to
always
carry
any
sort
of
extra
Advanced
employer
contribution
for
exactly
for
an
event
like
this
to
help
offset
an
unplanned
budget
crunch.
F
D
I
D
Well
again,
it
goes
back
to
two
things:
one,
it's
historically
bad
I
mean
even
0809,
actually
weren't
this
bad
a
little
bit
of
that
being
it
was
kind
of
spread
out
over
two
different
fiscal
years.
D
We
hopefully
won't
see
again,
combined
again
with
the
fact
going
into
that
math
equation,
where
you
have
a
a
well-funded
plan
that
takes
a
bigger
hit
than
a
less
funded
a
plan,
that's
80
percent
funded.
Would
all
else
being
equal
would
have
actually
taken
a
smaller
increase
than
this
plan,
because.
I
D
Yeah
no,
as
I've
mentioned,
we've
we've
seen,
I
mean
there
and
I
I
couldn't
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
break
down
the
the
specific
I
mean.
We've
seen
some
plans
that
didn't
have
any
increases,
but
they
had
some
other
things
going
on.
Maybe
weren't
as
well
funded
some
of
these
things
along
those
lines.
But
then
we've
seen
like
I
mentioned
one
of
one
of
the
best
plans
we
work
with
well-funded.
D
C
Market
value
versus
the
Actuarial
value,
so
most
of
the
years
are
relatively
even
except
for
this
last
year.
There's
a
big
difference
there.
Why
is
that?
So
such
a
big
difference.
D
Because
that's
that's
got
that's
experiencing
the.
D
Let
me
go
back
to
that
other
page,
real,
quick,
let's
see
so
if
you
go
back
to
2.1
or
2-1
again
at
the
top,
because
80
percent
of
that
one
is
being
recognized
60
of
the
prior
year,
forty
percent
of
Prior
twenty,
so
we're
we
are,
we
are
absorbing
the
bulk
of
it
still
next
year,
only
60
of
that
law,
so
those
numbers
are
gonna
that
that's
why
it
looks
so
different
there
again,
just
being
just
also
just
being
implemented.
This
methodology
change
as
well.
Okay,.
D
D
It's
a
few
more
pages
from
there.
I
did
down
the
way
you're
going
perfect,
oh
nope,
that
was
it
right
there
yep.
So
you
can
see
the
prior.
So
prior
year,
26.12
percent
there
was
a
51.5
increase
due
to
the
Investments.
You
did
have
an
extra
3.18
due
to
demographic
experience.
That's
kind
of
a
catch-all,
so
in
other
words,
maybe
raises
were
greater
than
expected
or
you
had
you
know.
If
you
have
a
disability
case,
you
know
a
new
person
who
goes
on
disability
some.
You
know
some
sort
of
unfavorable
experience.
D
The
plan
gets
categorized
in
there,
so
you
had
a
55
and
a
half
percent
increase,
but
then
because
the
methodology
change
that
brings
it
back
down
27.5
percent
so
and
again.
Otherwise,
if,
if
you
don't
make
the
change
you'd
be
at
80
percent,
just
over
80
percent
on
your
minimum
required
contribution,
so
that
would
be
roughly
another
what
175,
000
or
so
that
would
be
added
to
the
required
contribution
this
year.
So
I'd
go
up
over
a
half
million.
B
C
B
C
D
Yeah
so
119
000
plus
chapter
money
made
up
79,
so
it
would.
It
was
supposed
to
be
give
or
take
200
000.,
but
the
city
only
had
to
end
up
paying
119
because
of
the
chapter
money
made
up
almost
80
of
it.
D
I
I
H
D
G
I
B
I
F
D
D
Depending
on
where
he's
at
now
I,
yes,
theoretically,
that
would
help
I
will
tell
you
that
the
actuary
would
probably
tell
highly
recommend
you
don't
unless
you
had
to,
he
would
say
if
the
city
has
to,
because
otherwise
they're
in
Dire
Straits,
then
maybe
but
I
do
know
enough
about
that.
He
would
strongly
recommend
you
don't
unless
you
have
to,
but
yes
that
that
certainly
could
be
a
depend
on
what
he's
using
right.
Now,
Assuming
he's
not
using
a
too
long
of
a
term
now.
C
So
then,
the
next
item
is
approving
the
fmptf
invoice
for
the
Actuarial
evaluation
report.
I'm.
H
D
D
The
expect
right
expect
a
rate
return.
Yeah
I
can
so
just
as
a
quick
refresher.
This
is
a
new
item.
We've
had
to
do
for
a
few
years
now
so,
as
we
discussed
we're
using
the
actuaries
using
6.75
as
your
assumed
grade
return
or
expected
rate
of
return
on
your
assets,
your
Investments,
the
state.
D
So
even
though
you
just
approved
a
valuation
that
says
that's
what
you're
expecting
the
state
decided
they'd
like
for
you
to
make
a
separate
motion
and
I
can
give
you
the
motion,
and
somebody
can
so
move
it
unless
you
have
conversations
or
questions,
but
usually
that
number
will
match
what's
in
the
valuation,
because
otherwise,
when
you
send
that
to
the
state
you're
saying
well,
we
expect
to
make
this.
But
we
approve
this
in
a
report.
Then
they're
going
to
raise
their
eyebrow
and
go
so
generally.
D
F
That's
required
for
by
112
So,
they
have
it's
the
David,
the
statutes
I
guess
maybe
five
years
ago
or
so,
and
we
have
to
provide
these
these
figures
now
every
year,
so
you're
actually
provides
that
and
then
in
theory,
we're
supposed
to
be
posting
that
on
on
the
website
and
all
that.
D
So,
if
you're
looking
at
Gatsby
I,
would
you
probably
just
ignore
that,
because
gasby
report
I
probably
is
at
seven
but
that's
got
nothing
to
do
with
with
what
we're
talking
about
right
now.
This
particular
item
is
just,
in
my
opinion,
Sergeant
Pedro.
If
you
have
different
it's
kind
of
just
busy
work,
it's
just
you
got
to
check
the
boxes
and
exercise
it
I,
don't
think
it's
terribly
impactful.
Unless
again
you
were
to
tell
the
state.
D
This
particular
legit,
so
I
know
the
actuary
files,
the
report
with
States.
They
have
60
days
to
do
that
after
the
board
accepts
it
and
they
do
that
generally.
Within
a
few
days,
I'm,
not
100
sure
who
historically
has
done
that
letter.
I,
don't
know
if
you
all
have
or
if
the
actuary
has
okay
I.
D
F
It's
an
email
now
that
you
can
send
them
and
so
I
don't
know
it's
I
thought
it
was
usually
the
the
consultant
would
usually
send
that,
but
the
the
Financial
Consultant,
but
it
doesn't
have
to
it-
could
be
whomever.
C
G
F
No,
it's
a
separate
letter.
It's
a
separate
letter.
It's
an
additional
disclosure,
that's
required.
So
in
separate,
and
apart
from
the
valuation
report,
we
have
to
advise
or
publish
essentially
to
not
only
the
state
but
in
theory
the
public
that
we
anticipate
that
for
this
year,
the
next
several
years
and
the
long
term
thereafter,
we
believe
we're
going
to
make
the
6.75
return,
and
so
what
Jeremy
is
saying
is,
even
though
we
already
do
that
as
part
of
the
valuation
report
you're
not
necessarily
required
to
match
the
two
numbers.
F
But
if
you
don't
then
you're
going
to
get
a
question
from
the
state
saying
well,
why
are
you?
Why
do
you
think
you're
going
to
make
X
but
you're
funding
at
y?
Why?
Why
is
there
a
difference?
And
so,
if
we
have
a
good
explanation,
we
can.
We
would
just
have
to
address
that,
but
it's
usually
just
easier
to
match,
and
then
you
know
if
you're
gonna.
F
So,
for
example,
some
of
our
plans
have
have
a
different
rate
of
return
because
they've
already
taken
the
action
saying:
okay,
this
report
we're
going
to
have
this,
but
then
next
year
we're
going
to
lower
it
by
a
quarter
percent
and
then
the
following
year
we're
going
to
lower
about
another
quarter
percent,
so
they
they
say
we're
anticipating.
You
know
whatever
it's
going
to
be
two
years
from
now,
let's
say
so
we
just
have
to.
D
C
G
I
Okay
attached
in
the
packet
is
an
invoice
for
the
from
the
fppta
for
the
annual
dues.
We
did
have
this
budgeted
for
a
thousand
dollars,
so
this
comes
in
under
budget
and
we
went
ahead
and
paid
that
in
January
because
we
didn't
you
know
so
it
wasn't
late
and
actually
it
was
late.
It
was
June
December,
but
we
paid
it
in
January
in
any
case,
so
we
are
presenting
it
to
the
board
to
be
ratified.
F
Yes,
so
I
think
at
the
last
meeting
I
had
I
had
suggested
just
based
on
kind
of
where
the
plan
is
and-
and
you
know
what
what
the
expected
workload
I
guess
so
to
speak,
would
be
going
forward
that
we
would
be
happy
to
reduce
the
fee
by
20.
F
If
you
know,
if
that's
agreeable
to
you
guys,
I
would
I
have
no
no
qualms
about
it
at
all
and
would
certainly
love
to
continue
working
with
you.
Guys
and
I
mean
I've,
never
lost
a
client
because
of
fees.
So
I
definitely
don't
want
to
now,
but
obviously
I
understand.
G
B
G
C
We
appreciate
your
work,
nothing
and
then
the
next
item
is
considering
services.
G
I
Administrative
Services
Department
currently
prepares
the
agenda
for
the
meeting.
We
monitor
the
statutory
requirements
and
keep
an
eye
on
everything
and
make
sure
that
all
the
requirements
have
been
met
and
all
the
reports
have
been
filed.
It
currently
takes
three
people
from
our
staff
to
prepare
the
agenda
and
just
to
try
and
keep
up
with
everything,
and
then
the
city
clerk's
time
as
well
and
Kristen
know
to
record
the
minutes.
We
also
have
to
have
our
I.T
staff
to
do
the
live
streaming
of
the
meeting.
I
Jeremy
has
a
significant
level
of
expertise
in
this
area
that
you
know
we
don't
necessarily
have
he
does
this
for
a
lot
of
different
plans,
the
fmptf
would
you
know
for
a
fee,
they
would
take
this
over
from
the
city
and
they
would
basically
make
sure
everything
has
been
on
the
agenda.
They
will
make
sure
their
reports
are
ordered.
Jeremy
can
correct
me
if
I
miss
something
you
can
take.
D
It
yeah
no
sure
and
I'd
rather
and
I'm
gonna
I,
always
like
to
err
on
the
under
promise
over
deliver
than
vice
versa,
so
for
full,
clear
vacation,
just
kind
of
going
back
to
some
of
the
things
you
mentioned.
What
we
can
do
is
we
can
take
over
90
plus
percent
of
of
the
workload
that
the
city's
having
to
do
putting
together
agendas,
communicating
with
trustees,
making
sure
that
we
do
check
all
our
boxes.
Each
quarter.
D
Of
course,
you've
got
you've
retained,
strong
Legal
Services,
as
well
as
of
a
few
moments
ago,
who's
going
to
help
you
to
make
sure
those
boxes
are
checked,
but
we
certainly
do
have
the
expertise
and
knowledge
to
to
assist
with
all
that,
so
we'll
be
preparing
the
agendas
to
make
sure
everything's
done
in
a
timely
manner,
we'll
record
the
meeting,
provide
the
minutes
so
on
and
so
forth,
where
I
do
want
to
not
over
promise
is
depending
upon
the
needs
requirements
of
the
city,
slash
the
board.
G
D
Or
or
things
along
those
lines,
so
certainly
I'll
bring
a
recorder
we'll
we'll
and
we
do
all
the
record
keeping
so
we'll
keep
all
the
records
we'll
keep
copies
of
the
minutes.
Of
course,
we'll
provide
the
audio,
so
I'll
take
the
audio
recordings
and
we'll
certainly
provide
that
to
the
city
if
they
want
it.
Additionally,
although
if
they're
going
to
continue
to
do
that,
they
may
have
their
own
copy,
so
we
can
pretty
much
do
everything
else.
D
Occasionally
we're
still
going
to
need
the
city.
If
you
have
you
know
at
the
end
of
the
year,
we
have
to
make
sure
all
of
our
numbers
are
correct
from
payrolls.
So
there's
there's
a
couple
items
still,
but
but
as
far
as
it
just
relates
to
having
board
meetings,
making
sure
everything's
taken
care
of,
we
could
take
that
responsibility
from
them.
It's
hopefully
it's
a
nominal
fee
in
girl's,
mind
it's
a
750,
of
course,
so
three
thousand
dollars
a
year
to
add
that
and
then
hopefully
you
all
are
all
aware
of.
D
Presumably
it
would
be
Stephanie
Forbes
who's
kind
of
doing
the
day-to-day
behind
the
scenes.
Administrative
part
of
your
plan.
If
we
move,
if
you
all
decide
that
full
service
makes
sense,
you
like
do
that
she
may
continue
on
or
we
may
use
somebody
else.
D
Who's
got
a
little
more
extra
free
time
because
it
does
it's,
it
does
require
some
extra
work
but
and
then
the
other
part
is
of
course
I
am
therefore
here
every
meeting,
hopefully
that's
a
positive,
but
as
a
result,
you
know
we'll
we'll
make
sure
all
everybody's
schedules
lined
up
so
I'll,
be
here
at
every
meeting
to
answer
questions
and
do
everything
that
we've
we've
just
discussed
so.
I
H
And
to
free
you
guys
up
for
three
thousand
dollars
a
year,
I
think
it's!
It's
absolutely
a
no-brainer
reasonable
yeah.
Just.
A
Because
I'm,
an
annoying
stickler
is
that
coming
out
of
City
budget
or
the.
A
We
get
it
free
now
in
around.
We.
I
F
G
C
I
would
make
a
motion
to
accept
the
fmptf's
proposal
for
taking
over
the
administrative
duties
as
proposed.
G
C
F
I
D
D
Yeah
certainly
I
mean
within
reason,
which
I
assume
it'll
be
reasonable.
Yeah
we're
we're
happy
to
make
reasonable
amendments
to
to
an
agreement.
Okay,
yeah
and
that's
not
meant
to
be.
It's
meant
to
be
simple.
It's
not
meant
to
be
all-encompassing.
So
if
you're
looking
on
there
and
saying
hey,
we'd,
really
like
it,
if
you
all
did
X
as
well,
assuming
it's
not
something
that
is
labor
intensive
and
creates
a
lot
more
work,
then
that
would
just
be
part
of
it.
D
We
don't
we're,
not
charging
you
for
faxes,
and
you
know
paper
or
anything
like
that,
so
it
would
only
be
if
you
asked
us
to
do
a
big
project
or
said
hey.
We
really
need
this
thing
else
and
it's
going
to
add
hours
and
hours
of
work,
which
hasn't
happened
with
any
other
board,
so
I
don't
expect
it
to,
but
outside
of
that,
that
just
kind
of
everyday
stuff,
that's
intended
to
be
all
encompassing
of.
I
D
Huge
caveat
though,
and
hopefully
the
board
would
be
amenable
to
this
is
just
to
make
sure
we
can
work
with
my
scheduling
and
I
actually
have
not
looked.
Would
this?
Would
you
all
want
this
to
go
into
effect
starting
next
meeting,
ideally
because
we
probably
need
to
look
at
dates
and
make
sure
that
I'm
I
haven't
even
looked.
D
Is
that
something
we
want
to
look
at
now
or
just
send
out
some
emails?
If
I've
got
any
conflicts
over
the
next.
H
G
J
So
if
you
could
take
over
that
Duty
as
part
of
this,
that
would
be
absolutely
excellent.
I
think
it'll
be
much
easier
now
that
you're,
you
know
that
we
have
a
little
bit
between
the
firefighters
scheduling
and
the
attorney
scheduling
it's
a
pain
in
the
patootie.
So
if
you
would
do
that,
that
would
be
absolutely
incredible
and
then
you
would
definitely
be
going
with
your
schedule.
So.
D
What
I
can
say
is
I
already
expected
to
do
that,
so
absolutely
we're.
We
will
take
over
scheduling,
so
Communications
and
working
on
scheduling
would
come
through
us.
So
that
is
no
problem
at
all.
So
then
so
then
yeah,
unfortunately
June
8th
either.
If,
if
you
need
to
keep
that
day,
we
might
have
to
kick
it
a
quarter
or
if
y'all
would
be
willing
to
look
at
a
different
date.
Unfortunately,
I
will
be
down
in
the
Miami
area,
so
that
could
be
a
little
difficult.
F
That
was
actually
one
thing:
I
was
gonna,
I
was
gonna,
ask
and
I
should
we
talked
about
it
at
the
last
meeting,
but
I
didn't
say
it
at
this
meeting.
So
I
just
wanted
so
with
I
was
going
to
reduce
it
effective
four
one
with
the
with
the
next
retainer
April
1
would
be
the
the
next
reduction.
Okay,
I
didn't
say
that,
but
hopefully
that's
that's.
Okay,
we'll
we'll
make
it
effective.
F
As
of
the
you
know,
next
week,
I
guess
or
whatever
it
is,
and
then
the
second
thing
is
I
know
we
talked
about
it
before
and
it's
up
to
you
guys
it's
easier
for
me
to
fit
in
meetings
if
I
can
attend
remotely,
but
I
know
that
I
enjoy
being
welcomed.
So
I'm
happy
to
be
here
as
well.
It's
just
it's
just
a
little
bit
more
challenging
to
to
coordinate
the
schedule,
but
so
it's
it's.
F
If
you
guys
are
okay
with
me
attending
one
or
two
meetings
remotely
then
you
know
I
can
work
with
Jeremy
on
the
dates,
but
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
out
there
because
I
don't
know
we
didn't.
We
talked
about
it
two
meetings
ago,
but
but
we
didn't
talk
about
it
now,
so
I
didn't
want.
B
F
B
F
D
D
C
G
D
F
G
B
C
C
D
I
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
so
attorney
update.
F
Okay,
so
I
will
try
to
keep
my
comments
as
brief
as
possible.
Just
two
things
really
I
wanted
to
go
over
with
you.
F
First
I,
don't
know
if
you've
had
a
chance
to
take
a
look
at
a
special
report
that
we
prepared
regarding
the
secure
act,
2.0
it's
as
exciting
as
it
sounds
so
essentially,
if
you
guys
recall
going
back
back
in
2019,
the
first
iteration
of
the
secure
Act
was
passed
by
by
Congress,
signed
by
the
president
and
effectively
what
it
did
was
it
increased
the
required
minimum
distribution
age
for
qualified
plans
so
from
AIDS
70
and
a
half
to
age,
72
and
essentially,
as
a
qualified
plan
right.
F
These
retirement
accounts
they're,
essentially,
tax
deferral
mechanisms
right,
so
you
take
salary,
you
put
it
away,
and
this
retirement
account
there's
a
qualified
plan.
You
don't
have
to
pay
taxes
on
that
money
as
your
salary,
with
the
thought
being
at
some
point
down
the
line.
When
you
take
the
money
out,
you
take
a
distribution,
Uncle
Sam
gets
his
cut
and,
and
you
get
your
you
get
your
money
right-
that
Line
in
the
Sand
originally
was
age,
70
and
a
half.
F
The
setting
every
Community
up
for
retirement
enhancement,
the
whole
purpose
of
it
was
you
know,
just
demographics.
People
are
working
longer,
people
are
living
longer,
unfortunately,
or
unfortunately,
cost
of
living
continues
to
increase,
and
so
people
are
are
generally
working
later
into
their
lives.
And
so
the
thought
was
to
allow
folks
to
be
able
to
Shield
some
more
money
from
from
income
tax
and
maybe
put
some
more
away
for
for
retirement.
So
that
happened
back
in
2019..
F
F
now
for
purposes
of
our
plan
administratively,
practically
speaking,
this
doesn't
really
play
any
kind
of
a
role
because
you
know,
as
you
guys
are
aware.
Obviously
our
members
retire
much
sooner
than
that
and
they
begin
taking
distributions
well
before
they
hit
that
that
age,
so
practically
administratively
fiscally
from
an
Actuarial
standpoint.
It's
not
going
to
impact
the
plan
because
again
we're
already
anticipating
we're
going
to
make
these
payments
out
to
the
individuals
well
before
at
their
normal
retirement
age,
which
is
you
know,
15
years,
16
years,
18
years,
potentially
before
this.
This
required
rmdh.
F
However,
obviously
in
your
other
lives,
if
you
have
another
qualified
account,
if
you
you
know
457
plan,
for
example,
a
Deferred
Comp
with
the
city
401K
an
IRA-
something
like
that
this.
This
would
obviously
come
into
play
on
in
that
realm,
and
so
it
may
be
something
that
you
want
to
talk
about
with
your
with
your
financial
plan
or
your
tax.
Planner
whomever
may
be,
there's
also
a
couple
of
other
changes
for
First
Responders.
F
F
There's
a
provision
that
allows
for
First
Responders
to
use
up
to
three
thousand
dollars
of
their
pension,
tax-free,
provided
it
is
applied
towards
paying
for
health
insurance
right.
So
historically,
however,
the
the
only
caveat
was
that
the
pension
fund
needed
to
make
the
payment
directly
to
the
insurance
carrier.
In
other
words,
the
individual
couldn't
realize
that
money
wouldn't
receive
that
money.
F
Technically,
the
the
pension
fund
would
make
that
three
thousand
dollar
payment,
or
or
you
know
whatever
it
was
up
to
three
thousand
dollars
to
United
Healthcare
to
whomever
it
may
be,
and
then
on
the
on
the
1099r
that
the
retiree
receives
every
year.
It
would
just
be
three
thousand
dollars
less
right.
The
the
total
income
would
be
three
thousand
dollars
less,
and
so,
therefore,
you
have
that
that
lower
tax
taxable
amount.
F
This
addresses
that
and
now
allows
for
the
individual
to
make
the
payment
directly
rather
than
having
it
solely
come
from
the
pension
fund
and
and
again
here.
It
may
not
have
been
a
problem,
but
what
was
happening
in
other
places
where
potentially
it
was
the
planned
sponsor
that
was
making
the
pension
payments.
They
would
generally
only
provide
this
service
to
its
retirees.
F
You
know
if
a
payment
was
missed,
then
or
the
retiree
could
potentially
be
without
insurance,
and
so
most
places
didn't
want
to
take
on
that
extra
liability
that
extra
administrative
burden,
and
so
what
would
end
up
happening
was
individuals.
Retirees
would
end
up
staying
on
the
city's
plan,
even
though
it
was
probably
more
economical
it
would.
It
was
prop
they
could
probably
find
cheaper
or
you
know,
quote
unquote
more
affordable
health
care
than
the
private
Marketplace.
F
So
this
I
think
goes
to
address
that,
and
hopefully
we'll
give
some
some
retirees,
some
added
flexibility
and
still
taking
advantage
of
the
benefit,
but
you
know
potentially
also
finding
more
affordable
health
care,
so
they
kind
of
get
it
on
both
sides
and
that's
part
of
the
secure
act.
Correct.
F
Also,
another
change
for
certain
plans
around
the
country.
If
you
are
receiving
a
line
of
duty
or
service
connected
disability
benefit.
That
benefit
is
generally
tax-free.
F
F
The
plan
would
automatically
convert
the
benefit
from
a
disability
retirement
to
a
normal
form
of
benefit
right
to
a
normal
retirement,
and
so
what
would
happen
on
the
tax
side
is
now
that
individual
they're
still
disabled,
but
now
they
they
would
lose
that
that
the
tax
benefit
right,
the
favorable
treatment
of
that
disability,
retirement
being
non-taxable,
and
so
now
they
were
being
taxed
on
this
money,
but
really
nothing
has
changed
right.
They
still
remain
disabled.
F
Favorable
tax
treatment
or
tax
exemption
so
again
again
doesn't
affect
this
plan
specifically,
but
just
just
kind
of
goes
towards
addressing,
maybe
a
disconnect
in
the
way
plans
were
administered
and
the
way
the
tax
code
would
view
them,
and
then
just
on
that
last
page
of
Special,
Report
I
provided
a
couple
of
other
Provisions
that
are
that
are
that
are
new
with
this
secure
act
again
they
don't.
They
don't
affect
this
plan,
it's
really
more
on
the
defined
contribution
side.
F
F
Okay,
we
will
potentially
need
to
amend
the
plan
to
comply
with
the
new
required
minimum
distribution
age,
the
rmdh
we
did
it
before
when
it
changed
back
in
2019,
so
we're
likely
going
to
have
to
do
it
again.
I,
don't
know
if
you
guys
is
the
fmptf.
Are
you
guys
going
to
have
kind
of
a
an
Omnibus
Amendment
or
something
yeah.
F
F
That'll
flow
through
they
should
they
should
be
doing
it,
but
you
know
just
so.
You
guys
are
aware
that
that
may
be
something
that's
coming
again:
it's
not
going
to
have
any
fiscal
impact,
Actuarial
impact
on
the
plan,
but
just
something
that
needs
to
be
done
to
continue
compliance
with
the
Internal
Revenue
code.
F
Okay,
any
questions
on
that,
no
all
right
and
then
fast
forward,
a
little
bit
to
Florida
legislative
session.
It
began
I
guess
about
two
weeks
ago
now,
a
week
and
a
half
ago
there
has
been
one
bill,
filed,
House,
Bill,
3
I,
don't
remember
the
Senate
Bill
counterpart,
but
House
Bill
3.
It's
been
coined
the
anti-woke
ACT.
F
But
essentially,
if
you
guys
recall
last
summer,
there
was
a
lot
of
news
about
some
administrative
policies
that
the
State
Board
of
administration
here
in
Florida
made
changed
the
SBA
which
is
administered
by
the
governor
and
two
appointees.
One
of
them
is
the
CFO
and
I
believe
that
the
other
is
the
CEO,
but
nonetheless
they
made
an
administrative
change
to
all
SBA
assets,
primarily
that's
Florida
retirement
system,
FRS,
but
obviously
there's
other
assets,
unclean
property,
the
the
529
account
and
other
state
state
funds
whereby
Investments
were
only
to
be
permitted
permissible
allowed.
F
If
the
determining
Factor
was
quote,
unquote,
pecuniary
factors
right,
and
so
what
that
means
is
that
they
they
could
only
make
investment
decisions
based
on
price
fees.
Standard
deviation,
Alpha,
those
kinds
of
metrics
that
are
that
are
in
those
reports
that
you
that
we
that
we
see
on
the
quarterly
basis,
empirical
data
right.
That
was
the
only
factors
that
could
be
utilized
when
a
fiduciary
was
making
a
decision.
They
made
that
decision
at
the
again
at
the
board
level.
F
This
law
essentially
codifies
that
or
would
codify
that,
and
it
would
apply
to
local
Pension
funds,
obviously
such
as
ourselves.
It
applies
to
FRS,
it
applies
to
any
state
public
fund,
and
so
it
would
require
it
actually
goes
towards
amending
the
definition
in
chapter
112
of
a
fiduciary.
To
now
include
that
fiduciaries
will
only
look
at
these
pecuniary
factors
when
they're
making
these
decisions,
and
so
what
that
excludes
right
is
those
environmental,
social,
corporate
governance.
F
Those
ESG
factors
that
I'm
sure
you
guys
have
heard
about
and
read
about
anything
that
takes
into
account
something
like
that
right,
something
other
than
these
pecuniary
factors
would
be
impermissible
would
be
actually
a
breach.
Now,
if
this
law
passes
of
your
fiduciary
responsibilities-
and
it
also
allows
for
provides
the
Attorney
General
with
actually
prosecutorial
powers
or
authority
to
criminally
prosecute
folks,
who
may
do
something
like
this,
so
it
not
only
applies
to
Pension
funds.
It
also
applies
to
State
agencies
that
issue
bonds
so
City.
F
Obviously,
if
it's
going
to
issue
a
bond,
anybody
who's
issuing
a
bond,
any
kind
of
taxing
Authority
I
would
be
issuing.
A
bond
would
need
to
follow
the
same
pecuniary
factors
only
and
they
would
not
be
able
to
look
at
anything
else.
So,
for
example,
if
there
was
a
bond
being
issued
for
some
sort
of
environmental
purpose
or
some
sort
of
governance
or
I,
don't
know
those
would
be
essentially
impermissible
and
not
allowed.
F
Similarly,
qualified
public
depositories
so
Banks
trust
companies,
any
any
institution
that
holds
public
assets
here
in
Florida
they
have
to
be
designated
by
Statute
as
a
qualified
public
depository.
They
have
to
kind
of
meet
certain
requirements,
and
so
this
would
be
one
of
those
requirements.
So
if
you
do
house
public
funds
for
those,
you
know
if
you're
a
bank,
those
short-term
investment,
the
stiff
vehicle
that
or
the
sweet
vehicle,
anything
else
that
the
bank
utilizes
using
public
funds
similarly
would
have
to
follow
these
pecuniary
factors
only
exclusively
and
nothing
else.
F
So
it's
pretty
broad,
it's
pretty
far-reaching.
It
would
require
similarly,
our
investment
management
agreements
which
which
right
now
you
know
we
don't.
We
don't
really
have
individual
manager
agreements,
but
if,
at
some
point
we
did
it
would
require
certain
boilerplate
language
to
be
included
or
disclaimers
to
be
included
in
those
Investment
Management
agreements.
F
Similarly,
with
proxy
voting
again,
we
don't
really
have
that
here
with
our
plan,
because
we're
part
of
the
fmptf,
but
if,
if
you
know
in
any
kind
of
a
separately,
managed
account
typically
as
a
as
an
equity
holder,
right,
you're,
a
shareholder,
you
own,
a
piece
of
the
company
so
anytime
there's
some
sort
of
corporate
action
that
needs
to
take
place,
usually
an
annual
on
an
annual
basis.
They'll
send
out
these
these
elections
and
you
have
to
kind
of
vote,
that's
usually
designated
or
delegated
rather
to
your
investment
manager.
F
But
if
there's
any
kind
of
a
proxy
voting
policy,
then
this
would
have
to
be
incorporated
as
part
of
that.
So
you
know
it's
it's
pretty
extensive.
It's
pretty
far-reaching.
My
understanding
is,
it
does
have
bicameral
support,
so
it
is
going
to
pass
I
mean
I'm
sure
you
guys
have
seen
it
as
well.
The
the
Florida
legislature
is
pretty
pretty
lockstep
with
what
the
governor's
policies
are.
F
So
this
is
not
expected
to
be
to
be
any
kind
of
impetus
and
it
is
going
to
pass
so
we'll
keep
you
posted,
but
that's
truly
it
there's
a
bill.
Also,
I
guess,
on
the
FRS
side:
I'll
just
quickly
address
it,
just
in
case
anybody's
interested.
They
are
proposing
lowering
the
retirement
age,
normal
retirement
age
for
Florida
retirement
system,
as
well
as
increasing
or
providing
a
cola
again
and
extending
the
drop
from
five
years
to
eight
years.
F
So
you
know
obviously
keep
you
guys
posted
on
that
as
well,
but
so
far,
that's
it.
Those
are
the
only
bills
that
really
have
been
introduced.
I
mean
I,
say:
that's
it
a
little
bit
facetiously,
but
so
far.
That's
it.
F
So
the
fppta
is
going
to
have
its
annual
conference.
I
want
to
say
it's
June
29th
had
those
dates.
I
can
look
at
them
real,
quick
and
then
the
state,
the
division
of
retirement
typically
puts
on
typically
puts
on
a
a
school
in
the
spring.
So
they'll
put
one
on
in
the
fall,
usually
in
Orlando
this
year
it
got
canceled
because
of
the
well.
Actually
it
got
canceled.
Then
it
was
postponed
until
later
in
December
and
then
they'll
typically
hold
one
in
in
springtime.
F
Usually
it's
on
fsu's
campus
up
in
Tallahassee,
so
they'll
they'll,
typically
wait
till
spring
semester
ends,
so
it's
usually
May
early
may
maybe
mid-may
this
year.
However,
when
I
was
speaking
to
the
folks
at
the
DOR
at
the
at
the
winter
school
over
in
December,
they
actually
but
the
way
that
it
was
they
were
leaning,
they
may
not
be
holding
the
spring
school.
They
just
they
they
don't
have.
F
The
attendance
I
think
is
what
they
were
saying
to
justify,
having
two
schools,
so
they
may
just
end
up
having
one
School
per
year,
so
there
hasn't
been
anything
announced
yet
for
the
May
school,
but
there
may
be
one
so
if,
as
soon
as
I
hear
something
I'll
I'll
send
it
along,
but
other
than
that
really
would
just
be
the
fppta
in
the
summertime.
F
G
C
You
and
before
we
adjourn
I,
just
if
you
guys
will,
we
would
like
to
say
thank
you
to
Anne
she's
retiring
for
all
the
work
she's
done
for
us
and
also
introduce
Kristen
our
city
clerk.
E
Yes,
I
would
Kristen
Garcia
the
new
city
clerk
here,
it's
my
second
week
on
the
job
and
very
big
shoes
to
coming.
G
E
And
I
was
the
I
was
at
city
of
Temple
Terrace
for
the
last
almost
seven
years
as
their
Deputy
city
clerk.
So
any
questions
you
have
for
me.
Let
me
know:
welcome.
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you
with
that
next
meeting
is
June.
8Th
tentatively
just
need
a
motion
to
adjourn
I'm
motion
to
a
chair
a
second
so.
F
I
have
the
dates
it's
June
25
through
the
28th
at
the
at
the
Rosen
Center
in
Orlando.