Thank you. And we have several items on our agenda and we are actually going to at the suggestion of some folks on the board, flip our agenda so that we can do all of our business first. I need to be out of here at 10, the chief will take over the chair and we appreciate your understanding for the financial folks from Callen. And do we need a motion to flip the agenda or? No, we don't need one. All right, very good. Is that okay with everybody? We do have a quorum and so we'll go right, I guess we'll start right with the treasurer's report and roll through the business. We have Chad Hancock that's going to be doing the treasurer's report. Okay, welcome Chad. Good morning. You should have in your packet all the various financial documents for the month of November to December, the change in that position, the flow of funds through the checking account as well as the letter of transmittal. The value of the plan as of this morning was $812,361,268.34, which compares to last month at $801,634,278.83. So we're at another high for our fund. That's good news. Yes. Thank you. Are there questions? Motion to accept the report and approve the transfer letter. Do I hear a second? Second. All right. Thank you very much. Any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? Aye. All right. That motion passes. Thank you, Chad. Next is minutes for August, September, October, November, December. And I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve the minutes as printed. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Are there any questions about any of those minutes or any changes or additions? No. All right. Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Now, Susan, I'll let you lead us through new business action items. Item number one on the new business is ghost-time purchases for Mike Titlow, Noel Warren, Charles Hopkins, and Juan Ramirez. I need a motion to approve. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Is there any question? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Item number two, widow's benefit for Patricia Cox. All the information is in your packet. I need a motion to approve. All right. We have a motion and a second. Thank you. Is there any question? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. Now, on number three, Susan, I have been informed that they are still working out some language on this. Yes, Keith was going to do an update, and that's when he just informed me that they're working on some language, so they're still going back and forth on that. So we'll postpone that until the March meeting. Okay. Very good. Item number four is proposed legislation statute changes, and Lieutenant Bastian is going to go over that. Okay. Thank you. As the board's discussed in the past, there's certain cleanup language that we were hoping to change in KRS that addresses some minor issues, but more importantly, clarifies our procedural, what we do procedurally, and codifies it within the revised statutes. So you should have all the proposed changes in your packet. I'll walk through each one in kind of a numerical order here. 67A440. There were changes made in the past that included removing a remarriage clause. Section two, there's still a reference to remarriage, and for the purposes of just cleaning up the language, recommend deleting that so that there's no doubt on what the intent of the law is. 67A450. There is clarifications on how death benefits are paid, whether someone dies before they qualify for active duty service, or they die on or after the day they qualify for service. The intent being that if somebody's already paid into the pension and qualified for a service retirement, we don't want to encourage experienced leadership and members to leave just out of fear that they may not qualify for their pension. So that's what the 67A450 clarifies. 67A460, I think we'd gone back and forth in the past on it, and I'm not sure how the board stands on it. This was removing your ability to convert a service retirement to a disability and then back to a service. I don't know that this is something we need to address immediately unless the board feels otherwise, but I'll follow whatever the board's recommendation is on 67A460. 67A462 clarifies the type of jobs that would not be compatible with maintaining a disability in retirement rating, and specifically authorizes the board to perform investigations and to remove disability benefits from someone who does engage in employment that's contrary to their disability, or engages in these jobs that have been specified as contrary to their disability. 67A492, this is clarifying how survivor benefits are paid between the minor children and the spouse. So it's just clean up language. Again, this isn't an actuarial issue. This is just a matter of clarifying procedurally what we do and ensuring our procedures are codified in the state law. 67A530, this is clarifying the elections of the retired representatives for the pension board. Clarifying that only fire retirees elect the fire representative and only police retirees elect the police representative. And then specifying the date from a practical standpoint. And then 67A560 is codifying in the state law that the purpose of this pension is to qualify with internal revenue service regulations that make it a qualifying pension. And therefore exempt the members from social security. And gives the board the ability to adopt regulations that are consistent with maintaining our tax preferred status with the internal revenue service. And then the last is 67A660. Which the primary purpose is to permit the statutory re-hearing that a member who's denied disability benefits is entitled to. To permit that to happen in closed session. I think there's been a little back and forth on the board on 67A660. And I will say we've received information from people in Frankfurt that attempting to exempt part of our meeting from the open records or the open meetings laws is going to raise significant red flags in Frankfurt. Both potentially from the Attorney General's office and potentially from government transparency organizations. And therefore we may be involving other people in the pension that don't have necessarily a vested interest in the pension. So based on the information I've received, I would recommend that we not move forward with 67A660. As it's written, until we can do additional research. The information I received is the only executive board that has a blanket exemption for any portion of their meetings is the parole board. And the opinion that I received is that it would be extremely difficult for this to go through without attracting a lot of attention. So with the exception, the only other one that I'm not sure if we want to pass yet is 67A460. So what I would like to do is A, open discussion on 67A460 and 660 specifically. And then B, entertain a motion to approve those items that we wish to move forward with in Frankfurt and attempt to get the KRS updated. All right. So you'd rather, do you want to vote on the others to clear those off? That may be, are there any questions about any of the others? Yes. On 660, they fixed the time for re-hearing and conducting closed session. It's my understanding that we do need to adjust that time frame. Would it be wise to just strike the portion on closed session? And not, so that it syncs up with open meetings. I can, if the board wishes, we can make that adjustment. Please. Is that something you can do today? Keith, will we be able to, since we printed these, will we be able to make adjustments to these during the session and make those proposals moving forward? Or should we? You mean as a practical matter, can we have a new copy of this just with the changes we want? Well, what the suggestion was is so the 67A660 has two changes in it actually. One is changing it from a 20 day limit to just schedule it at the next board hearing. And then the second is the closure for the re-hearing. If we just delete the closure from the re-hearing and keep the other wording, I think that would be consistent with the intent of publishing the agenda in advance. Would it not? From the standpoint of being able to approve just a portion of the recommended changes. You're fine to modify these any way you want to today. As long as the board agrees with it. And this is short. I mean, it's pretty obvious to me what we would strike. Anything that pertains to the closed session. Okay, so I'll make a motion on 67A660 that we keep the portion striking within 20 days. And the insertion of at the board's next scheduled regular meeting held. And exclude the insertion of KRS 61-810 notwithstanding the re-hearing may be conducted in closed session unless requested by the member that the re-hearing be open to the public. So I'll make that motion. Second. Okay, and we have a second. Did you do that, Roger? Okay, we have a second on that piece only. Is there discussion? Is everybody pretty clear on what we're doing? We don't want to get ourselves in trouble with closed hearings, closed sessions. And we do want to be consistent with the law there. All right, all those in favor of making those changes to 67A660, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, done. Next, Madam Mayor, if you'll permit, I make a motion that the board approve as printed the adjustments to 67A440, 67A450, 67A462, 67A492, 67A530, and 67A560. The adjustments as printed. Do I hear a second? All right, we have a second from Commissioner Armstrong. Now, are there any questions? Actually, I do have a question. With 67462, I guess in the future, we would clarify what positions or what jobs they would be able to have, is that correct? Is this just giving us the leeway to determine what we're going to say that these folks on a disability or? The way I read this is it is clarifying that if you are either elected, paid, or volunteer for a sworn position as a police officer, or a firefighter, or a paramedic, or any other position considered to be public safety that might qualify for hazardous duty, that that's considered an occupation contrary to a disability retirement. I'm okay with that, thank you. All right, other questions? Yes. One question I do have, I believe there are some jurisdictions throughout the state where police or firefighters positions are considered non-hazardous duty. I think each government has the ability to choose whether they're hazardous or non-hazardous. You're right, they did choose from a pension standpoint, but the fact would remain that a firefighter would still qualify for hazardous duty. A city may choose to enroll the firefighter in non-hazardous CERS, but it's still qualified for hazardous CERS. Keith, you look like you're ready to say something. Just to make sure everyone understands what this amendment is doing. My understanding is this was drafted because there have been situations, for example, where a police officer who is out on disability may decide to work for a fire department someplace else. This is saying that if you're in a public safety position and you retire on disability, you cannot work another public safety position, hazardous duty or not, and keep your disability retirement. So not even a desk, at a desk somewhere? If it's considered a public safety position, that would be correct. Now clerical, if it's, you have people in the police department who are not technically police officers. They do other types of jobs. So if it's a public safety position, like a police officer, like a firefighter, but like a court security officer, if you're working for a sheriff department, etc. Then if you're out on disability here, it would be a disqualifier to continue your disability pension. Is that clear? And that makes sense. Go ahead. No, I understand what we're going after. My one concern is that where it says, the position that otherwise qualifies for hazardous duty retirement or death benefits. I guess maybe they would all potentially qualify under the death benefits, but not all of those positions qualify as hazardous duty retirement under CERS. So I'm just looking for a little more clarification on that specific language. Because I know, for instance, Berea Police is considered non-hazardous. I didn't draft this. I'm assuming when it was drafted that it achieved the purpose that everyone wanted to achieve, and that is a qualifier on it. And if you want to change it, then you can certainly suggest that change. I think the intent is to, the way it is worded, it basically says if you leave here as a police officer or a firefighter, you cannot go anywhere else and be a police officer, firefighter, or paramedic. And then regardless of whether it's covered by a retirement plan or not. And then it includes any other position considered to be public safety that would qualify for hazardous duty or death benefits, meaning there might be another job title out there that each city can choose, we want this to be a hazardous duty or a non-hazardous duty, therefore it qualifies for hazardous duty. I don't think Berea can choose a permit clerk and make that a hazardous duty position. It has to qualify under CERS as a hazardous duty position. And I think that's what it's saying, is if it's the type of job that could qualify for hazardous duty or death benefits, that's a public safety job too, and that's also included. Not just simply add in the or non-hazardous duty. I would make a motion that we do that, and that covers it both, because it's a public safety position that's either hazardous or non-hazardous duty. Where are you putting that? In section two, where it's. Down at the bottom of section B, where it's underlined, where it says hazardous duty retirement. Okay, and so you would. Keith, do you think that, I'm just worried that putting in the non-haz, if it qualifies for non-hazardous duty, that would also be a clerical position, qualifies for non-hazardous duty. It opens up the definition of, or the debate about what is public safety and what is not public safety. So you're going to, to the extent you're trying to end arguments about, I can do this job or I can't do this job. You're potentially opening a category where there's still going to be debates about whether or not it's the type of position that would disqualify. So, for example, there might be someone who wants to work for a rescue squad, or an emergency dive team, or something like that, where it may qualify. They're not specifically banned from being a dive team member. However, if it's a public safety job, and they could, based on their description, get either hazardous duty through CERS or a death benefit through the state of Kentucky based on the position, then it's considered to be a public safety. So I think that, I believe the wording covers exactly what we want it to cover. To the point, from the fire department perspective, I can say that I feel like, yes, that we're right, that it does cover. Because even as a volunteer, there's no retirement being paid in most cases, but you are entitled to those death benefits regardless. I mean, once that pager, or radio, or phone notification goes off, at that moment, if you were killed actively responding to that fire or participating as a public safety person, you're covered, you get those death benefits, you're secured those death benefits. I think, too, a second point is that by not doing that, we may have, in the sense of the fire department, we may have a paramedic who would leave the fire department on a disability. They're not able to do our job out here as we do it in the field. However, they may utilize that, as we've seen before, in maybe a hospital setting, something that's not necessarily emergent. But technically, they're still carrying over that licensure, that certification. And then I feel like we do open ourselves up to a loose definition then, saying whether they're getting paid retirement or they're not, they're not entitled to death benefits at that point, so. It's a valid argument, I'll concur with it. Okay, so- I know the answer to this, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Are we going to grandfather people in who now fall under this? Or are we going to wait to see if they're honest the next time they turn it in, and then we say, by the way, we were just discussing some people that may fall into this that are retired. My personal opinion is that we send out notification to people that we think are, if this law passes, that we send out notification people and say, this law recently passed, and just make them aware of it. So that they're on notice that if they want to maintain their disability benefits, they probably ought to find a new job. That it's in effect and- Yeah. The whole intent of the law is to prevent those things from happening. And to say, well, certain people get to do it and certain people don't, is contrary to, I think, what the intent of the law is. Okay, other discussion, questions? All right, there is a motion on the floor, with a second. And if there are none, no more, let's take the vote. All those in favor, and the vote would be to, it includes the change to the, is that 440? Which one did we change? We've already voted. We've already done 660, so this is the rest of the packet with the exception of 67A, 460. Yes, and this vote would be to forward this on- Correct, as written. Yes, okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thank you for your work on that. The last one, and I'll totally defer to the board on this, was, and I don't know if we need to clean this up or clarify it, in talking with a couple of board members, I think there was some confusion on why we felt this was important, and I can't answer that question. Is this 460? I'm sorry, yes, 67A, 460, the adjustments to section four. So, I'll just follow the board's pleasure on this. I'm not going to actively recommend it because I don't know, I don't remember what it was trying to solve. And without being able to answer a question intelligently on why we're doing it, I don't think I can, in good conscience, introduce it. So, I'll defer to anyone else who wants to address it. Commissioner? I have a question. I've been on the board about two years or so, but how frequent is this occurring? I remember one, specifically, recently since I've been here. Is it something that, not that it changes the fact that it may need to be addressed, I just wanted to know the frequency of it. We've only had one since I've been here, and that's 17 years. Well, unless there's any overwhelming desire to go forward with this, I would certainly recommend we hold on it, particularly since you have studied these inside and out, right? Is everybody- I won't take too much credit. Well, is everyone okay with holding on that, not taking any action on it? Okay. All right. Thank you very much. You are welcome. So, we are moving right along. Now, on item five, we have resolved the conflict with the mayor's budget hearings in the March meeting. Pension board meeting, so they're not conflicting with each other. So, that issue is resolved, and I think, Commissioner, you said the mayor's budget hearings have been moved to the afternoon for public safety. Yes, ma'am, we've been able to resolve that by moving those meetings to the afternoon. Okay. Thank you for your assistance in that. Okay, very good. All right. Item number six is disbursements for February. They're listed on your agenda. I need a motion to approve. Do we hear a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Second. All right, thank you. Are there any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Retirements and disabilities. We have a service retirement for Officer Timothy Ball, Division of Police. Service retirement effective February 15th, 2020. I need a motion, please. So moved. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Are there any comments or questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Disability, Eric Campbell, Division of Fire. Third doctor's report has been completed and distributed. I need a motion, please. Motion to approve that. All right, we have a motion to approve at 50% and a second. Is there any question? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Next item is tributes. Lydia Latimer, widow of James Latimer, Division of Police, passed away on January 8th, 2020. James Cox, Division of Police, passed away on January 12th, 2020. And Ronald Lee Edwards, Division of Fire, passed away on January 12th, 2020. Thank you. Are there any comments to the tributes? I'd like to make a comment about Lieutenant Cox. I think for most of us, he retired a long time ago. But for me, is the way I remember him is he was just one of the lieutenants that never lost his cool, was always calm, was always steady. And when you asked him a question about something, he'd give you a straightforward answer and send you on your way and say, don't bother me again, rookie. But I was sad to hear about his passing. And he was a solid rock when he was here, and he's one of the people that I looked up to. So I just want to make sure that people are aware of that. Thank you. Very nice. Other comments? Tributes? On behalf of the police department, I'd like to extend our condolences to James Latimer and his family on the loss of his wife. Yes. Anything else? Ron Edwards worked at the Division of Fire, but on the 3rd Platoon. I briefly knew him, but again, I'd like to express our condolences on behalf of the Division of Fire and this board. Thank you. Anything else? I just want to say that, of course, I so appreciate the service of the members of Division of Fire and Division of Police, particularly James Cox and Ronald Edwards. You know, we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, right? And I love that this pension board also recognizes the widows. And we all understand that family and family support are so critical in these kinds of positions, so. Anyway, we so appreciate these folks. All right, do we have any subcommittee updates? I know Tommy's not here. There's no updates on Tommy's two committees, and then the organizational subcommittee, we're waiting for Tommy to come back from vacation. So we'll be scheduling that meeting sometime in March. Okay, he did guarantee to me he would be here in March, so we're going to hold him to that. Now, I would like to go back to our Calen folks and thank you for your patience and for allowing us, it looks like we're going to finish before ten anyway. So, it's all yours, the floor is yours. Morning all. Morning. I'm going to kick it off, give a very brief update on the capital markets and how they did in the fourth quarter as well as the calendar year 2019. Touch on some high level performance highlights for the total fund. And then I'm going to turn it over to John to talk about the individual investment managers within the pension fund. So what we saw in 2019 were three rate cuts by the Federal Reserve. And in this quarter particular, we saw a fueled risk appetite. So many of the major asset classes posted above average returns, some in the double digit range. Unemployment finished at a 50 year low at 3.5% and GDP was around 2%. Inflation was benign. And generally speaking, manufacturing here in the US was relatively weak. So what does this all mean? US equity as measured by the S&P 500 was up 9.1% this quarter. Versus small cap names, which is measured by the Russell 2000, was up 9.9%. So we didn't see a very big difference between large and small cap. But for the year, the S&P 500 was up 31.5%. And a lot of that was fueled by tech. In fact, Apple and Microsoft contributed 15% of that return in 2019. We talk about the style, growth versus value. We saw growth outperform value this quarter. It's closing out a decade long trend of growth outperforming value. Growth was up 10.6% as measured by the Russell 1000 growth. And the Russell 1000 value was up 7.4%. Turning to non-US equity, we saw similar strong returns. The developed markets, which is measured by the MSCI IFA index, was up 8.2%. Emerging markets were up 11.8%. And for the year, the MSCI IFA index was up 22%, so very strong returns abroad as well. Turning to fixed income, I mentioned there were three rate cuts this year. The Bloomberg aggregate index was relatively flat, up 0.2% for the quarter. And for the year, up 8.7%. Investment grade credit was the strongest performing sector within the aggregate index. And high yield fixed income, which is not a component of the aggregate index was up 2.6% for the quarter and 14% for the year. And in your packet here, you can see some of those highlights in the first section of the reports. We have the sector returns that I just mentioned at the bottom of the page and then some of the major indices can be found on the following pages. Are there any questions about the capital market overview before I move to the total fund return? I think we're good to go. Great. So turning to page 15 of the book, here we have the actual fund asset allocation versus the target asset allocation. And you can see for the quarter, the actual weights were very closely aligned with the target asset allocation. So the percent differences here in the table in the middle of the page, you'll see that most of the asset classes were in line with its target. The one exception being the domestic equity composite was slightly overweight versus target. But within policy ranges, so no issues there. Turning to page 16, you can see a snapshot here of the market value change from quarter to quarter. So at the end of September, the fund was at about approximately 760 million. Fast forward to the end of the year, December 31st, the fund was at 804 million. So we saw 49.3 million in investment returns and approximately 4.8 million of withdrawals within the fund. So a net increase over the quarter, driven by strong market returns. And then just to wrap up on page 17 here, we're showing the periodic returns of the total fund. So I'll bring your attention to the returns for the last quarter. The fund was up 6.52%, and you compare that to the total fund benchmark, which was up 6.05%. Putting the fund in the fifth percentile of Calen's public fund database. You're bringing us lots of good news. It continues to get better as well over the longer time periods as well. In particular, the three and five year periods, you can see that the total fund has outperformed the benchmark over both those time periods. And ranked in the top decile of peers as well. So with that, if there aren't any questions, I will turn it over to John to give a little bit more detail on the underlying investment managers. Are there any questions? All right, thank you so much. John, welcome. Good morning all. Let's turn to page, I'm going to pick up where Jim left off. Let's turn to page 21. And we've got the roster of the investment returns on page 21, where we list the buy asset class as well as buy manager. And these are net-a-fee returns. So as you scan down to the bottom, again, you see the net-a-fee basis for the quarter, the fund was up 6.45% versus the benchmark at 6.05. Up 20.78%. So let's call it 20.8% for the calendar year 2019. And performing the 19% for the custom benchmark. So extraordinary returns when you look at a blended fund that has both, has public equities, real estate, fixed income to see a total fund return in excess of 20%. So these are pretty much numbers that you're not going to see very frequently. So again, coming off a very difficult 2018, where the fourth quarter was down so much. The expectations for 2019 were tempered somewhat. We saw a 180 degree change with the Fed in terms of their policy, cutting rates again. In an environment where rates are being cut, it encourages to invest in risky assets. Because the compelling reasons or the return you get from the fixed income is minimized or mitigated. So the headlines are very strong performance for the year. But also when you look at the 10 year return, 10.55%, again, outperforming the benchmark. But that's a net-a-fee return. So again, strong returns from our managers. What is the headline? The headline for the quarter is you've got 12 managers, seven of them outperformed. One is in the index, and you have five with marginal underperformance. What we saw on the underperformance side is, I'll highlight a few of those. Neuberger-Berman, so if you look under domestic equity, the third manager listed returned 6.02% versus the Russell 2000, which is a small cap index, which was up 9.94%. But scan over to the one year period where they were up 29.76% performance versus 25.5. So what happened in the quarter? Neuberger-Berman is investing in a space that's volatile, certainly in small caps. But what they don't hold are the biotech in some of the low earning or no earning healthcare stocks. So that was the primary detractor. We saw a lot of volatility this year, and they've been able to capitalize and certainly generate a return in the area of 29.7% is an extraordinary feat. As we look over the five year basis, as well as the three year, we see substantial outperformance by Neuberger-Berman. So again, they continue to do what they do, investing in small cap stocks that are high quality and avoiding the no earner or the more speculative portions of that asset allocation. As we scan downward, you do see a few red numbers on the quarterly page. As you see, Siegel, Bryan, and Hamill, flat for the quarter and Optimum Quantum Invest Corporation also being negative for the quarter. What's taken place, particularly when we talked about Optimum generating negative return, they're about 80% US Treasuries. So again, we have risk in the portfolio, and we look to mitigate that. The fixed income is your block, if you will, to the strong markets as they increase in the risky behavior. So the fixed income managers that you have have looked at the Fed posturing and the liquidity that's been injected in the economy as being played out. So they're taking a very defensive position a la 80% Treasuries. So again, significant overweight. And as investors feel better about the economy, they are going to gravitate towards risky assets away from the safe haven like treasuries. We also saw our real assets up 155 versus the CPI, which is essentially flat over the last year, generating a 14% return. Here's a manager that invests in three sleeves. It's role in the portfolio is to be an inflation hedge, if you will, in an environment where there's really very low inflation Expected as well as compared to historical means. They've got a three sleeve portfolio that invests in commodities, tips, and REIT stocks. So they've generated now performance within that by being a little bit longer duration on the tip side. But in commodities, selectively being more defensive, guarding against while the energy prices in oil got pummeled the last year. They've actually added value through security selection. So again, certainly. Sorry, it lists the 12 year performance as 14, or 12 month performance as 14 and a quarter percent. Is that a typo? It doesn't seem to be in line with any other return they've had. Yeah. So, so goes the, if we turn to, let's see, let me get you the page number here, we can go to that. Certainly the bump in commodity prices within the year, not necessarily the last quarter. Let's take a look at real assets, that's page 88. And if you look over on page 88, the graph on the bottom left hand side, you can see that while they had a very strong quarter, they also had a very strong quarter in the first quarter of the year, suffered in the third quarter as we look over the last year at 14.25 versus 13.38. I guess what's contributing there is, again, when we look at fixed income and the TIPS allocation. Fixed income assets on the investment grade side were up over 8%. So that's certainly contributing to the outperformance. But I'll certainly check that return. It does seem large, but when we look at the, you know, the returns on a relative basis, it stands to reason the fixed income would be a considerable return boost, if you will. In addition, we've got REIT stocks that were up considerably, not necessarily the fourth quarter, but throughout the year. So that's two-thirds of the portfolio that potentially were north of 7%. Other questions? I'll verify that number for you. So anyway. I guess I'm just, maybe I'm not, like the cumulative returns on the lower right corner of page 88 shows that our fund in the negative numbers throughout 2019. So I guess I'm just not understanding how we could have a 14% return when it's running a cumulative relative loss. Right. So this is a, so relative return is again, if the index is up 13.4%, then you've got that one and a half percent outperformance, if you will. And you can see that for the better part of this year, if you look 29, that's a relative return. So that certainly is north, but I understand your point in terms of on a relative basis. Yeah. Can confirm that the return is correct. You know, what's driving it over the trailing year is the REIT component of the fund, which was up 23% on an absolute basis. Thank you. Other questions on the managers? Jim touched on the peer performance, performing strongly. If you want to turn to page, turn to 25. This is kind of the five year projection in terms of how it's performed. This is an attribution table, and I would direct your attention to that line on the bottom. The total, so your five year annualized return, again, this is not cumulative, it's an annualized return, 8.7% versus the target return of seven and a quarter. We see 146 basis points of outperformance. The asset allocation is near zero, which stands to reason. As we need to draw down money for withdrawals, etc., we take from the most over allocated asset class to keep you close to your targets. That's why when Jim went through, you saw that you were very tight to the benchmark with the modest overweight to domestic equities, given the strong run they've had. That's been the source of funds, and when that takes place, your asset allocation is going to be near, maybe a little nudge over, a little less in terms of the asset allocation. But the manager effect, 147%, 1.47%, certainly strong performance. If you turn to page 26, this gives you the floating bar chart. And when you look at the bars, you see the blue dot, and they're numbered to the right of it. That's telling you how it has performed versus peers. And if you look over the last one, three, five, two years, quarter, each period of the total fund has outperformed its peers. So for instance, in the last three year period, generating a 10.9%. That's gross fees, by the way, because the universe is gross. But that's in the 9th percentile, meaning that you outperformed 91% of the funds. That's a combination of both of your allocation, but the fact that your active management has done particularly well. Five years, similar story, except you're in the 5th percentile, meaning outperforming 95% of the funds in that universe. So it's been a great year, we look forward to ongoing. The Fed position is that Chairman Powell spoke this week, that it's going to be steady as you go. No anticipated rates from his standpoint, but it's going to be data dependent. The market is looking to price in one more cut, so we'll see what happens. I may be overly optimistic in terms of what it does to the markets. Any questions? Questions? Thank you. All right, thank you very much. We really appreciate it. We always want you to bring good news. Okay, we are down to additional information. Our last item, John is going to give a very brief report on Medicare Part B. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I know that each of the, I know the Mayor has talked with each of the members here regarding the Medicare B and the issue that we kind of discovered with regards to the reimbursement. And just wanted to inform the board that the Mayor has talked with all of our council members. And there will be some budget amendments coming forward. And I know this doesn't take a board action, but we do want to put this on the agenda for next month to fully inform the board of the situation. And possibly the cost and how we might do that shared or whatever of possibly a forensic audit. So we want to make sure we get this on the agenda for next month. And we also are, good news, we are expecting Commissioner to be back next month. So we're hopeful Bill will be back next month. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Is there anything else for the good of the board? I have a quick question. We're going to put this on the agenda for March. Who should I list as presenting it or discussing it? I think what we want to put on is discussion of a forensic audit. And the possibility of sharing the cost of that. I'm not sure who the proper person would be. Would it be Commissioner O'Mara? I think it might be good just to put Department of Finance. Okay. But I'm quite confident Bill will be back. Thank you. We really want to have that discussion with him here. And can someone remind me of the date for the March meeting? Did we just change it? Do you have that? No, we did not change it. It stayed the same. Okay. Do you have that, Susan? March 11th. March 11th. Thank you, March 11th. All right. So just to clarify, so we'll get a full report next month then about the issue? I know we've all spoken individually, but the membership may be watching has no clue what we're talking about. The full report is, I mean, what we intended was for March to be a time when we're all here to talk about the cost of a forensic audit. And whether we want to do that, and whether we can share the expense with the pension board. Okay, then- There's no written report, as far as I know, on this whole thing. Okay, well, would that be in the case then, I guess, for the benefit of members who may be watching? Could you go a little more in-depth about what we're talking about? About what happened? Not a whole lot more depth to do. No, I would like to, next month we would like to explain what happened and then talk about the audit. Yeah, because we will need a vote on the audit. Right, okay, well that was my question, was there going to be a more in-depth, detailed discussion about it next month? Yes, and I think what we need to bring, the administration needs to bring the cost of a forensic audit. I don't know what it would be right now, of the fund. And any details that we need to know about that, what that would look like, so yeah, we're good with all that. Is there anything else for the good of the whole chief? I just want to thank Tim Ball for his 20 years and then some service and just to express that he will be missed. Thank you. Anything else? I see nothing, so is there a motion to adjourn? All those in favor, say aye. Okay, we are adjourned. It's five till ten. Last one. 15 seconds