# Police & Fire Pension Board Meeting - August 13, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · August 13, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6515 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6515?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-08-13 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: February 14, 2026 - **Length**: 19,409 words - **Speakers**: Mayor > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government's Police and Fire Retirement Fund Board held a meeting on August 13, 2025, presided over by the Mayor. The board worked through 3 agenda items during the session, each of which was approved: the Treasurer's Report, the Callen Reports, and a matter concerning International Equity Structure. A total of 12 motions and votes were taken over the course of the meeting. No public comments were heard. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the Board meeting on 2025-08-13: - Commissioner Hensley - Commissioner Armstrong - Commissioner Trey - Officer Jennings - Lieutenant Abel - Tommy Puckett No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took the following actions at the August 13, 2025 meeting. All votes were conducted by voice vote. - **Agenda Reordering:** Commissioner Hensley moved, seconded by Commissioner Armstrong, to move the Callen presentations to the end of the agenda. The motion passed. [timestamp: 0:02:57] - **Treasurer's Report:** Rock moved to accept the Treasurer's Report. The motion passed. [timestamp: 0:06:10] - **July Meeting Minutes:** Commissioner Hensley moved, seconded by Commissioner Armstrong, to approve the minutes for the July meeting. The motion passed. [timestamp: 0:06:40] - **Military Time – Jackson Dameron:** A motion to approve military time for Jackson Dameron passed. [timestamp: 0:07:11] - **Widow's Annuities – Lida Rogers and Leslie Christman:** A motion to approve widow's annuities for Lida Rogers and Leslie Christman passed. [timestamp: 0:07:41] - **August Disbursements:** Commissioner Hensley moved to approve disbursements for August. The motion passed. [timestamp: 0:08:11] - **Service Retirement – Officer Christopher Buzzard:** A motion to approve service retirement for Officer Christopher Buzzard, seconded by Officer Marlin, passed. [timestamp: 0:08:52] - **Service Retirement – Officer Adam Rader:** A motion to approve service retirement for Officer Adam Rader passed. [timestamp: 0:09:24] - **Service Retirement – Firefighter Eddie Raymond:** A motion to approve service retirement for Firefighter Eddie Raymond passed. [timestamp: 0:09:24] - **Disability – Jacob Webster:** A motion to approve disability for Jacob Webster passed. [timestamp: 0:09:55] - **Asset Allocation – Mix 2 with U.S. Bias:** Commissioner Trey moved, seconded by Tommy Puckett, to adopt Mix 2 with a U.S. bias for asset allocation. The motion passed with one nay vote from Officer Jennings. [timestamp: 1:00:51] - **International Equity Structure – Mix 2:** Commissioner Trey moved, seconded by Officer Jennings, to adopt Mix 2 for the international equity structure. The motion passed. The Board conditioned the approval on the subcommittee returning with manager selection and allocation recommendations. [timestamp: 1:34:03] ## Contested Items - **Asset Allocation Mix:** The board held a split vote on the question of adopting Mix 2, a proposed asset allocation approach characterized by a US bias. The vote was not unanimous, with one board member voting against the proposal. The remaining members voted in favor, and Mix 2 with the US bias was adopted as the outcome of the vote. No additional details are available in the record regarding the specific objections raised by the dissenting member or the arguments advanced in support of the proposal. ## Treasurer's Report [timestamp: 04:03] The Treasurer presented the financial reports for the month of June. The presentation noted a credit to the pension fund resulting from June being a three-payroll month. The Treasurer also reported on the balance held in the investment account. No additional concerns or debate were noted during this portion of the meeting. The Treasurer's Report was approved by the Board. ## Callen Reports [timestamp: 1:16:33] Callen presented two studies to the Board: an asset liability study and an international equity structure study. Key speakers on this item were John Perrone and Jim O'Connor. The centerpiece of the presentation was a recommendation regarding asset allocation. Callen advised the Board to shift to **Mix 2 with a US bias**, based on the findings of the asset liability study. The international equity structure study accompanied this recommendation, providing additional context for how the portfolio's equity exposure should be oriented. The Board approved the recommendation. ## International Equity Structure [timestamp: 1:03:30] The Board took up a discussion item on restructuring the international equity portfolio, with **John Perrone** leading the presentation. The agenda item focused on evaluating the current composition of the international equity allocation, with consideration given to replacing underperforming managers and adjusting the overall structure of the portfolio. The discussion centered on the performance of existing managers within the international equity sleeve and whether changes to manager selection or allocation weightings were warranted. The Board weighed the merits of the proposed restructuring as part of its ongoing oversight of the investment portfolio. Following the discussion, the Board **approved** the item. > *Note: Additional detail on the specific managers under review, proposed allocation changes, and any concerns raised during deliberations was not available in the source materials for this meeting.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to move the Callen presentations to the end of the agenda - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to accept the Treasurer's Report - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve minutes for the July meeting - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve military time for Jackson Dameron - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve widow's annuities for Lida Rogers and Leslie Christman - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve disbursements for August - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve service retirement for Officer Christopher Buzzard - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve service retirement for Officer Adam Rader - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve service retirement for Firefighter Eddie Raymond - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve disability for Jacob Webster - **Motion** — passed (0-1): Motion to adopt Mix 2 with US bias for asset allocation - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to adopt Mix 2 for international equity structure --- ## Full transcript Look, now that you mention it, our special guest plays exactly like how a great singer Look, now that you mention it, our special guest plays exactly like how a great singer I'd like to go ahead and call to order the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government's Police and Fire Retirement Fund Board, and this is August 13th, 2025, and before we go through our agenda, I would like to call on Commissioner Hensley for a motion to rearrange a few things. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to move the Callen presentations to the end of our agenda today. We have some folks in the audience that I think would like to go ahead and get their business heard first. Okay. Is there a second? Second. All right. Commissioner Armstrong seconds. The motion is to move the, and I believe that Susan just let you know, and is that all right with you? You have no problem, to move the Callen reports to the end. So is there any discussion? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. We will go ahead and do that then. Thank you very much, and so that brings us right to the Treasurer's Report. Welcome. It's a good one. Good morning. It's a good one, right? Yes, it's a good one. You should have been handed today the various financial reports for the month of June, also the transmittal letter. I would like to point out on the transmittal letter, due to the payroll accrual in June, which essentially was making June a three-payroll month, there is a credit to the pension fund. So what will happen is when next meeting in September, we will have July and August numbers for you. So that credit will be applied to whatever balance is there for the July and August numbers. August is also a three-payroll month, which is fortuitous for us, because what will happen is those amounts together will be probably less than if everything was all smooth and easy, two-payroll month every time. But I just wanted you all to know what's going on. There will be no transfer for the June payroll. It will happen in September for July and August. That will be our next transfer where we pull funds from our investments to cover the payroll. That was a convoluted way of the explanation, but does that make sense? Is everybody kind of following what I'm saying? Yes. And then you have our account number. Yes. Oh, yes. And so the balance in the investment account, as of yesterday morning, was $1 billion, $23 million, $230,000, $229.84, which compares to last month of $1 billion, $14 million, $440,000, $445.36. All right. Do I hear a motion to accept? This is usually you, Rock. Motion to accept the balance, and we will likely approve the transfer letter next month or the month after. Yes. Thank you. All right. Any questions? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you very much. Can you get us that kind of balance next month? Three months in a row? All right. Okie doke. We do have minutes for the July meeting, which are in your packet, and I'll entertain a motion to approve them. Move to approve. Thank you. And Commissioner Hensley, Commissioner Armstrong seconds. Are there any corrections, additions, anything at all? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Now we have a few items of new business, retirements, tributes. I'll ask Susan to roll us through that. Yes, Mayor. Item number one is military time for Jackson Dameron. I need a motion to approve. Is there a motion? So moved. All right. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. Any questions or comments? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That passes. Thank you very much. Item number two is widow's annuities for Lida Rogers and Leslie Christman. I need a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Thank you. Any questions about those? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Item number three is disbursements for August. They are listed on your agenda. I need a motion to approve. Do I hear a motion? Commissioner Hensley? All right. Thank you. We have a second. And are there any questions about the disbursements? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Next on the agenda are service retirements. We have Officer Christopher Buzzard, Division of Police. Service retirement effective August 8th, 2025. I need a motion to approve. Do I hear a motion? So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Competition here, right? Officer Marlin? Second. Any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That passes. Next, service retirement is Officer Adam Rader, Division of Police. Service retirement effective August 9th, 2025. Need a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Thank you. Any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All right. Is anyone opposed? That one passes. Thank you. Next, service retirement is Firefighter Eddie Raymond, Division of Fire. Service retirement effective August 9th, 2025. I need a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Thank you. Are there any questions? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Next on the agenda are disabilities. We have Jacob Webster, Division of Police. Medical reports are completed and distributed. I need a motion, please. Do I hear a motion? Motion to approve and set at the appropriate rate. All right. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Any questions about that one? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. Thank you. That passes. Next on the agenda are tributes. Frederick Rogers, Division of Police, passed away on July 13th, 2025. Jeff Cornett, Division of Police, passed away on July 22nd, 2025. Daniel Vincent, Division of Fire, passed away on July 25th, 2025. Robert Christman, Division of Fire, passed away on July 27th, 2025. Thank you. Before we go to our subcommittee updates, we've done our retirements and disability and our tributes. Are there any comments? Yes. I just want to thank the people that are retiring on service. There is life after the police department, unless you're me. I'm down here now more than I was when I was working. But anyway, I always thank them. Officer Webster, sorry for the things happening. It's a dangerous job, and all of us somewhere along the line usually ends up getting injured. And unfortunately for yours, you're going to end your career. But there is life after that, okay? As far as the tributes, Fred Rogers, I worked with Fred. Fred was kind of a funny guy, you know? He was a character. He was enjoyable to work with, and he will be missed. Jeff, I knew Jeff. I just never got to really work with him. We were always either on different shifts or different sides of the town or something to that effect. And he was kind of the opposite of me. He was rather quiet. But he was a fine officer, and he will be missed. Thank you. Any other comments? Yes, ma'am. On behalf of the Division of Fire, Chief Wells isn't here. I'll try to do my best efforts here. First of all, I'd like to congratulate and thank them for their service, all the retirees, especially you, sir, and Firefighter Eddie Raymond. As far as tributes go, our condolences to the surviving spouses, widows, and family members. I don't personally or haven't personally had knowledge of these firefighters, but I've heard great things, especially about Chief Christman. I believe there was a lot of great stories about that gentleman. Thank you. Any others? Yes. I had the pleasure of working, in fact, directly beside Detective Rader. He was my deskmate for the past six months or so. I knew him for several years prior to that. He's an excellent detective, an excellent person, so he will be missed. Same for Detective Bazaard. He was a longtime member of our Forensic Services Unit, a fingerprint expert, considered by most to be one of the best. We thank him for his service, and he will be severely missed. As far as Officer Webster, I've had the pleasure of working with him both here at the department and elsewhere. He will be missed as well. I want to thank him for his service and wish him well in his future endeavors. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes, Rob. Thank you, Mayor. Of the four that passed away, I'd worked with three of those. I worked with Fred Rogers forever ago, a super nice guy. Danny Vincent worked in the garage most of the time when I was on the fire department. Again, a super nice fellow, and heard a number of things about him, about how he volunteered with the Fraternal Order of Firefighters on fundraisers. Had the pleasure of working underneath Robert Christman for a number of years. You couldn't ask for a nicer fellow. All of those will be missed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else? I will add my voice to those who have already spoken. Thank you for your service. Really appreciate you, and also appreciate our officers and our firefighters who are retiring. As far as the tributes, I often think about, you know, Chief Wells always gives the number of years of service, and it's got to be a lot. And it represents so much dedication to our community and the dedication of the families and those who support them. So I want to offer my sympathies to those families who have lost a loved one, and my appreciation for their service to help our community stay safe and strong. With that, we will go on to our subcommittee reports. Are you going to the podium, Tommy? I mean, you're welcome to if you really want to. I have nothing to report for either committee. Okay, that's great. Now I can get up. Now. Okay, Trey, do you have organizational subcommittee? Yes, ma'am. The organizational subcommittee completed its three of three meetings. I think Callan's here with us to kind of present the narrowings of our findings and all that. So it does sound like after talking to John, we may have some more meetings coming up in the future, but for now. All right, thank you very much. Okay, we will go back to the beginning. And we have our Callan reports, and I will ‑‑ John, are you going to lead us off as usual? Thank you. Welcome. Good morning, all. It's a pleasure to be here and see you all. As Trey mentioned, we did quite a bit of work with the subcommittee, so we're going to be presenting some information on that today. I'm joined by John Perrone, who is a member of our Capital Markets Group, and this group is responsible for generating our asset liability studies, our structure work that we use to assist trustees in structuring an investment program. Also, Jim O'Connor is here today as well. There are two books that you would have received from Callan, white-covered books. The first is the 2025 Asset Liability Study and International Equity Structure Study. So that's going to be the first topic or topics that we are going to address. John Perrone is going to kick it off. He's going to talk about the Asset Liability Study. And again, the objective here is to review the overall asset allocation in the context of understanding your liability structure as well. That information is provided by your actuary that we've incorporated into the study. And then talk about, evaluate if there are any modifications to that asset allocation. Again, asset allocation is one of the most significant decisions trustees can make in terms of driving the performance and the volatility of an investment program. Then we're going to talk about the International Structure Study. So this is, again, a component of the asset allocation that we're going to review. We're going to talk about the manager structure in place and then discuss some opportunities for modifications. Then we're going to turn to the quarterly performance update. Jim O'Connor is going to cover the total fund performance as well as going through the manager performance. So that is the agenda for this morning. And if there are no questions at the outset, I will turn it over to John Perrone, who is a native of Lexington. Thank you. Yes, we're glad to have him back in his hometown. Welcome back. Thank you, ma'am. Good to see you all in person. Is about 40 minutes feel about right for the asset allocation? I think the manager structure piece will be much quicker. Is that feel about right? Is that what works for you? Yeah, I think that will be. Obviously there's a pretty hefty report, but my intent is really to hit kind of the key eight pages or so with an eye toward what we're trying to do here today is set the plan's asset allocation. So I think that will work. I'm including kind of discussion and questions because we've obviously worked with the we've had three meetings with the investment subcommittee as well. Right. I know this is the first time for some of us, and obviously you in particular, right, that you've seen this work. Okay. That sounds fine. Okay. So let's see. Okay. So I just want to start with the executive summary. So I'm kind of starting with some of the answers and also some of the kind of decision points. So top order. Okay. We modeled your plan as of the middle of this year. Right. So on the asset side we have the most recent asset value in there where you guys are north of a billion dollars on the asset side. So that's embedded in our analysis. But so the plan's about 73% funded right now. Okay. Obviously over time the objective is to get to fully funded. Your actuarial investment return, which underpins the actuary's projections, is 7%. And we'll dig into kind of the meat of this in a second. But based off Calum's projections for asset returns over the next decade, kind of good news that we project that your current policy we expect will outperform that 7% bogey. Okay. And then turning very high level to kind of some of the analysis, the asset liability analysis, that, again, think of yourselves as 73% funded right now. And our asset liability projections are going out over the next ten years, out to 2035. So what we're projecting on average, okay, with the current policy, that the funded ratio will go from 73% to 90% over the next decade. And there's obviously two things at work. Right. There's obviously investment returns that are compounding the pot of money you all have to pay out benefits. But also obviously you guys are making material contributions on an annualized basis, you know, on the order of kind of 50% of payroll, right, on an annual basis. So that kind of combination of investment returns plus kind of topping up the money with the contributions, kind of that central trajectory for the plan is up over the next decade. Okay. Now let's turn our attention briefly to the asset side. And I was here back in 2021. That's when we did the last Dale study. And what's changed in terms of the underlying market environment is the most material change is that you get a far higher return on bonds now than you did four years ago. So, for example, when we ran the asset liability study back in 2021, our projections for the Bloomberg aggregate, so you guys' investment grade bonds, it was less than 2%. Okay. And fast forward to today and now our forecasts are approaching 5% for the expected returns of bonds. Right. And so how does that affect you guys? Well, I mean, you think about what is the risk mitigator in your portfolio? At the end of the day, it's those investment grade bonds that are going to provide protection, right, when inevitably there's periods where the equity market goes south, right? And so you want to have kind of the defense there in terms of the bonds. So today bonds are providing both that defense in terms of diversifying the portfolio, but also providing expected return, you know, pushing 5%, right? And so that's kind of a link to where we're going in terms of the potential recommendations and the mixes we look at. What we're going to be doing primarily is, again, thinking about the current policy, the current policy, you're already hitting the actual return target and expectation. But we want to examine some mixes that have a little bit less risk, a little bit less equity exposure to, again, kind of protect the portfolio on the downside. Okay. And at the bottom of this slide, and this will be clear when we present the mixes here in a minute, but we'd say if the board is interested in making a change, we would recommend incrementally increasing the fixed income exposure on the order of, so basically taking some money away from equity, say 4% or 5%, and putting that into the investment grade fixed income. Okay. And so that's where we ultimately want to get to is making a decision on do we want to retain the current policy or migrate to one of the alternatives we're going to show in a second. Okay. Does that make sense for 30,000 feet? Okay. So let's dig in a little bit more. Just one brief process slide. And so, again, what are we doing? Asset liability study. Okay. We're starting with asset modeling projections. So for the different asset classes in your portfolio, we're projecting expected returns, risk correlations, how they all fit together, and then ultimately creating a set of potential policy mixes for you to adopt. Okay. And so that left side of the chart, we're going to hit that in some detail in like one minute. Okay. So that's the asset side. And then on the other side, right, you have your annual actuarial work that's done by Kavanagh McDonald, right? So what we're doing here is marrying the asset side with the liability side because ultimately what we want to know is when we look at these different investment policies, what are the potential implications for your funded ratio? Because at the end of the day, that's kind of the key metric that we want to look at here. Okay. So we're going to marry those things together and then, again, with the ultimate objective of picking a final target mix. Okay. So that's enough kind of setting the table. Let's kind of dig into the meat of it now. So we're going to talk about that asset side again that you see on the left-hand side here. Let's start by taking a look at what your current asset allocation policy is. So you see that depicted in the pie chart. Your portfolio right now is composed of 63 percent in equity. You're diversified, right, in the sense you've got both U.S. equity and non-U.S. equity in the portfolio. Right. In the equity, that's kind of the key driver of your portfolio's returns over time, right? Now when you look at the green, that's your fixed income. So the fixed income is currently 23 percent. And, again, that core fixed income, that's what I was talking about upstream. I was talking about, hey, this is the asset class that provides defense in periods where equities do poorly. Okay. So, again, right now it's at 16 percent. We're going to examine alternatives that on the margin increase that a bit. And you've got an allocation to high yield as well, real assets. And then, lastly, you have the private real estate portfolio, which you had a policy that's coming in at 9 percent. Right. So if you think about alternative asset classes, that's kind of the one alternative asset class you have right now is the real estate allocation. Okay. So that's what we've got now. Again, well diversified structure. And the expected return of the portfolio, again, based off Cal's projections, and we'll kind of go under the hood here in a sec, and I'll show you where these numbers are coming from. But the expected return, a little bit more north of 7.1 percent. You can see the risk of the portfolio here as well. And, again, I think the idea of the risk will be clear when I show you some projections downstream. Okay. And then, again, you can see, remember I mentioned on the executive summary that our base point, we're starting modeling the portfolio at the end of June 30th of this year. And you can see the funded status projected at 73 percent. Okay. So that's our starting point. But now let's talk a little bit about the asset returns that kind of went into this calculation. How did we get to the 7.1 percent? Okay. And so what we see here, this reflects Calum's projections over the next 10 years on an annualized basis for the asset classes in your portfolio. And you can see both the expected returns and the risks. Let's focus on the expected returns. And a couple things to point out here that you see the U.S. equity and the Russell 3000 is the broad universe of U.S. equity, so both large cap, mid cap, small cap. You see a forecast a little bit north of, let's say, 7.25 percent for the U.S. equity. And compared to previous years, like what's kind of under the hood of that? Why are we saying 7.25 percent? It's because we're making an adjustment to our U.S. equity forecast downward based off the high level of U.S. valuations. Okay. And, I mean, that's a record high yesterday, right? We saw it in the paper. We're pushing 6,500. So we've made a downward adjustment in the U.S. equity expectation to reflect the fact that valuations are high. And, again, we're not trying to tactically time the market. What we're looking at here is forecast what we expect over the next decade. So that's the U.S. equity. When you move out to international equity, we're forecasting slightly higher expected returns for the international equity market than domestic. And, at the end of the day, in terms of what's under the hood, that's really being driven by the difference in valuations between the U.S. and international. And, I mean, I don't want to hide anything here. We all know that international equity has been massively outperformed by U.S. equity over kind of the past 10, 15 years. That if you look at this year, year to date, though, that the international equity is up 20% and change, whereas S&P as of today was up about 10%. So it's kind of like the international equity is finally pulling its weight after an extended period of actually, you know, you would have been better off just being purely in the U.S. Okay. But the point is that both those equity numbers, let's call them 7 and change. What we want to do is compare those to what you can get on fixed income. Because that's really your key decision at the end of the day is how much equity versus fixed income. And if you're in a world where fixed income is only giving you 1 or 2%, as much as you would like to defend some characteristics of fixed income, you just can't have that much. Right? And that's kind of embedded in the fact that you guys have 18% in this core fixed income right now. That's a logical response to the fact that, hey, I'm not getting paid to hold this stuff. Right? But, again, now things are different. You can see the U.S. core fixed income, see 4.75% is our projection there. So, again, if you think about what's the incremental return Calum thinks she'll get for being in equity versus fixed income, you can see now that's looking like something like 2.5% extra return. Right? Whereas you're obviously taking a lot more risk in equity. So, again, that's kind of why on the margin we think it makes sense to potentially increase the fixed income allocation. You see the other asset classes, the alternatives shaded here. What I would say is that, and, again, we mentioned we've had three meetings with the subcommittee over the past three months. And as part of the asset liability process, we explored with the subcommittee the potential to add some new asset classes to the portfolio. So, for example, you see those last three at the page. Private equity, private credit, private infrastructure. But at the end of the day, those asset classes all have some hair on them, if you will. For alternatives, A, you're tying your money up for an extended period of time. High fees, right? And just adding complexity to the portfolio. So the ultimate decision was, okay, these are interesting, but for now let's create the portfolios based off our current asset classes. Okay? Okay. Okay, so those are our expected return forecasts. Okay, so let me pause here. So this is the key slide, one of the two key slides in the whole presentation. Okay? Because these are the asset allocation mixes we're going to examine in the asset liability study. So I want to pause and make sure everybody's on board of what we're doing here. Okay? So you see shaded in yellow that current portfolio. So we saw that upstream. And so what we've done is, and, again, think of fixed income as like the dial you use to adjust the risk of your portfolio. So if you focus on that third row where it says core fixed income, you can see what we've done as we move to the left. You see the arrow, more fixed income, more conservative. You can see we're incrementally ratcheting up the allocation of core fixed income across those mixes. Okay? And then for completeness, we also created a mix, see that mix three, that is actually more aggressive than where you are now. But we would not recommend that because it's kind of putting all your eggs in one basket in terms of being very equity centric. Okay? So at the end of the day, I think we're kind of focusing on comparing the current to those kind of two flavors of mix two. Where, again, like I mentioned, on the margin, given return expectations, given equity valuations, we think it makes sense to incrementally tweak things from current to mix two, one of those two flavors. I mean, ultimately it's obviously y'all's decision at the end of the day. But and so what's going on as we move from current to mix two, okay, you see we're adding fixed income either 4 or 5%, right, going from 16 to 20 in mix two U.S. and 16 to 21 or 5% increase in mix two. So all this differing there really is where are we taking the money from to fund fixed income. Okay? And you can see in mix two U.S., it's that one right in the middle of the table, what we're doing is we're taking 4% from international equity and using that to fund fixed income. And in contrast, mix two, now we're adding 5% fixed income and now the funding you can think of as being balanced, kind of taking 3% from the U.S., 2% from the international. Okay? And what you can see here is as the mixes, right, as you go from mix one up to mix three, you can see the risk here measured in terms of standard deviation obviously increases as you increase the equity allocation. The expected return obviously increases as well. Right? So that's kind of the rub, right? You know, if you think about a measure of portfolio efficiency, you see that under that mix characteristics, that third line which is sharp ratio. So think of that as basically how much return you're going to get per unit of risk. Okay? And so the intuition here is as you get more and more diversified, that your risk adjusted return is going to go up, and you can see that as you move to the left because you're more diversified. You have a more balanced portfolio. Okay? And then that last row, okay, that's linked to this decision between mix two and mix two U.S. And what that's showing is it's the U.S. In each of those mixes, what's the U.S. equity percentage as a percentage of U.S. plus international? Okay? And you can see your current policy has 64% weighting to the U.S., the other 36 in international. If you think about how your global equity is split up, and so we've created this mix to U.S. where it has a little bit higher allocation to U.S. equity. Okay? Let me pause there because I've hit a lot of stuff real fast. Any questions? Are there questions so far? Okay. Actually, let me do one little detour because I think it's going to come up anyway. Let's just take a quick look at how the global equity market has changed in terms of the weighting between U.S. and international. And I want to say that it's about page 30, so I'm going to try to do some quick flicking here. Yeah, here we go. Page 30? Okay. Okay. So what you see here, right, if we went back in time two decades ago, the U.S. was about half of the global equity market. Right? So think of the global equity market as equal parts U.S. and non-U.S. Okay? And you see a dip down in 2008, right? That's a global financial crisis, right? Where the U.S. did relatively poorly, so that allocation in the U.S. shrank. And again, we look at those kind of next 15 years after the global financial crisis in 2008, that's what we've been talking about. This is a period of U.S. ascendancy where the U.S. equity market has been on a tear, right? And as a result, as the U.S. grows and grows, its fraction of the global equity market is going to increase. And you can see now it's all the way up to that 64%, which ties out to what your current policy is. So the only thing I wanted to show here is that let's take, for example, the last time we did this was 2021. Okay? And so you set a policy of 64% U.S. as a fraction of the total. And if you look at what the actual U.S. weight was as a fraction of the total, we're talking about, say, 60, a little bit like that. So I guess my point is that you guys have always had a bit of a home bias in your portfolio in terms of being a little bit more overweight to the U.S. than it's weighting as part of the global market. And so the idea of mix two U.S. that I showed you upstream is to, again, to incrementally reintroduce that kind of overweighting to the U.S. Okay? Okay. So sorry, a little detour there, but I think that context will help things downstream. Okay? So here's our mixes. And, again, in terms of making a decision, I think, at least my understanding in the discussions with the subcommittee, we're really kind of talking about mix two, mix two U.S. and current. You know, it's like Goldilocks, right? You know, mix one doesn't hit your actual return assumption, you know, too conservative. So that one got bumped out. And, again, mix three kind of feels like going the wrong way. In a world where you're getting a lot, you're getting paid for fixed income, you wouldn't want to, you know, divest out of it, I would argue. Okay. So we've got expected return and risk. So I just want to show one slide in terms of trying to ‑‑ because these are pretty abstract. These are just numbers, right? So it's easier, I think, in general to visualize using projections. So what I want to show here, just go to the next slide. So based off these mix ‑‑ yes, ma'am? Can we take a quick break? And I have a question. Yes, ma'am. From Commissioner Armstrong. Well, thank you so much for the presentation. I guess my question is, in the recommendations here in that graph, if we could go back to it for just a moment. The first page? No, page 12. Oh, I'm sorry, the mix. The graph we were just on. Right there. Yes, sir. In all three of these, well, I guess four scenarios, high yield, private real estate, and real assessments all remain the same. Is there a specific reason why you're not making any recommendations regarding those? Yes, because what we're trying to do is we're trying to identify, hey, what is the thing we think is most important for you guys to fix and focus on that, that we'd argue that in terms of the sizings of your real estate, and the real estate, to be honest, it's a liquid. If you're targeting 9%, it's like a super tanker to change it, right? So it doesn't make sense to change that. High yield, we think an allocation on the order of 7% makes a lot of sense. So, yeah, we think those allocations are fine as is. And, again, we're not kind of going all the way from 0% equity to 100% equity, right? We're in a pretty narrow range. And so within that narrow range, we think those allocations, those other three asset classes make sense. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions before he goes on? Okay. Okay. All right. So we're going to take these mixes, and we're going to look at it. And so now we're kind of migrating from like there's the world of expectation where you always get what you project, right? And then there's the real world where you have an expectation, but there's investment risk, right? And you end up generally better or worse than what that projection is. And so that's the intent of looking at this table. So what we're looking at is for these mixes, what do we think the investment return would be over any one year over the next 10 years? Okay. So we're trying to understand kind of a shorter rise and what potential risk is embedded in these structures. All right. And again, just to let me just remember Mix 1 had 26% fixed income, and then Mix 3 was 15% less or 11%. Just to orient you guys, right? So the Mix 1, you can see that median. So on average, and this is what we showed on the previous slide, on average Mix 1 doesn't get you to a 7% return, whereas all the other mixes do hit a 7% return or greater. But the key point here is visualizing not just what happens on average, but kind of upside and downside. And so the way we've depicted that is in terms of percentiles. So we have like a really, really good case, which is the 2.5 percentile, kind of a one time in 40 where the market just rips. Okay. And you can see, look at your target, up 35%, right? But again, that's kind of an extreme positive event. But I think on the flip side and probably even more important is you want to have an idea, what am I going to get on average? But if things go south, how bad could it be, right? So it's really want to focus your attention on that downside. See that 97.5 percent percentile? So even Mix 1, right, what we're saying is there's a chance that this Mix 1 underperforms or comes in with a total portfolio return of negative 13%, right? And that's a portfolio that even has pushing 30% fixed income. And so obviously as you increase the equity percentage, you can see kind of the bars which show the variability of outcomes. Like the average goes up, but then it gets stretched out, right? You see how Mix 3, for example, that downside is now close to negative 17%, whereas Mix 1 is negative 13%. Anyway, just a way to kind of try to translate these abstract numbers of standard deviation into actual projections. This is an asset projection. And where we're going in a little bit is we're going to start doing asset liability projections in this kind of probabilistic fashion where we say we expect the finding ratio to be X. But in a good situation, it could be Y. In a bad situation, it could be Z. Okay? So with that, I think we're going to turn. Let me pause here. So we're going to kind of wrap up the asset section, and I'm going to briefly talk about the liabilities and then marry them together. That's kind of the grand finale. So that's where we're going. Any other asset questions? Any other questions? All right. Okay. So the actuary reliability. Again, we work with your actuary, Kavanaugh and McDonald. And so, as you all know, the latest actual evaluation was actually of June 24. And so we work with them to kind of roll that, update the liability value to be this year. All right. So you see all the simulations, all the work is starting mid-year this year. Okay? And so you see the market value of assets. And just kind of under the hood, like the Kavanaugh actuary report. Now I'm looking at the table in the upper right. See the actuary liability. Kavanaugh and McDonald valued liability at the middle of last year, which is the most recent report, 2024. It was roughly $1,350,000,000. So you can see there's some growth in the liability, about 2% change growth year to year, based off our projections, working with their model. And again, you'll get your final, final report from Kavanaugh and McDonald, but it should be quite close to this number. So again, the funded status right now, 73%. Again, with the current policy, I mentioned that your expected return is greater than the actuarial target. You can see those two kind of compared in the tables at the bottom of the page. And just a reminder, the current policy is set up where you have an amortization policy. Now it would be over the next 18 years with a goal of hitting full funding over that period. And that's linked to why there's significant contributions. coming into the portfolio, that the actual, as you're all aware, kind of the actual determined contribution now is on the order of 50% of payroll right now, but again, the big part of that is trying to make up that deficit, right? So about 35% of that 50% is coming from trying to claw back the deficit over time, okay? So that's a liability, and again, so we're going to marry these two things together, and I think I'm going to, since we've already talked about different probability levels, so now we put it all together, and so what we're doing, we're going to basically do 2,000 simulations here, which reflect good capital markets, where equity's running, bad capital markets, you know, differences in inflation, so we have 2,000 simulations here, and then we're going to look at those simulations, and that's going to tell us, on average, what do we expect in the good state of the world, what do we expect in the bad state, okay? So let's see, I'm going to go ahead and jump to, this is the other kind of key slide, in terms of, so we looked at the input table in some detail in terms of those mixes, and so what we're looking at here is 10 years from today, if you adopt these different asset mixes, what are our projections for what we expect your funding ratio to be, and also potential good and bad outcomes, okay? So to orient you guys, let's focus on the target, right? And you can see that, again, we're 73% right now, the expectation is the target is going to take us to 90% over time, but again, that's assuming, actually under the hood, that's assuming that you're kind of getting that 7.1% that Cal is projecting for the current target over time, okay? That's embedded in that 90%, and so you can see, in periods when the market does well, when capital market returns are good, capital market returns are bad, you can see that material variability in the outcomes, right? So that bad state of the world, down to 50% funded, right? So what we're seeing here, so I guess it's important to focus kind of on the tradeoff between the blue, which is the expectation, and the red, which is kind of the downside. So let's, again, projections, the target will take you to 90% over time, that if you were to de-risk, either to Mix-2 or Mix-2-US, you can see that the expected funding ratio is pretty similar, that it's actually, to a point of rounding, it's the same for the Mix-2-US as the current, but then the downside, let's just focus on that Mix-2-US, for example, you see how the downside is a bit better, right? Because it's a more conservative portfolio, so again, that downside funded ratio projection, 52%, and this is a really downside, right? So I'm not trying to scare you guys, but again, we want to present what the potential outcomes are to make an informed decision here, right? Okay, and so Mix-2-US, you see how the downside is 52% versus the target of 50% right now, okay? So let me pause here, this is, again, we had a series of discussions, and in the third series of discussions of the subcommittee, we had some pretty fertile discussion around this, right, that, you know, people, let me pause there and kind of push it back to you guys to hear y'all's thoughts, if you don't mind. Okay. Are there thoughts, questions, anything? Ma'am, I can recap at the end, I don't have any questions at this juncture, but it's not wrong. I think this particular slide, in specific, during that last meeting was a little more eye-opening between those two mixes, moving into fixed income, so, yeah, I still agree with that. Yeah, because I guess the way I envision it, it's kind of two forks, right? It's kind of stay with current mix or go to one of the flavors of Mix-2. So the first decision is do we want to increase fixed income a little bit, right? If you don't, then you're done, you're back at the current, right, retained, and again, there's nothing broken with current mix, we just think that you can create a more diversified portfolio without too much of a hit on the downs, I mean, in terms of what you expect by adding more fixed income, okay? So, yeah, fixed income, increase, stay the same, and then the second fork is kind of do you want to have a modest U.S. bias consistent with what you guys have had historically, or do you guys want to stay kind of the current weights that mimic the market? So those are kind of the two decisions, and again, the most important, I'd argue, is the first decision, so. Do you have anything else you want to highlight? I mean, those are the primary, I mean, we did some projections on contributions and things like that, but again, like, this is kind of the meat of the decision here. Does it make sense to de-risk? I guess I would ask, let's see, Commissioner Trey, who else served on the, Tommy, what, do you have a, okay, all right, first, thank you for your work. Do you have a recommendation from your committee, subcommittee? That's my first question. I mean, if you don't, that's fine, if you. Mayor, yes, this is my thoughts on it. Mixed three, I would love to go, because we'd make more money for the city and so forth, but there's a lot more risk. The current one we've got has been, our track record is very, very good, you know, we beat our benchmarks and all that, but even, but because of the unknown that, you know, you're looking at, I always, this is not my money, so I want to be a little bit cautious. So I'm very, I think I like the mixed two U.S., that's, I don't want to, I don't think I want to do, change anything with the U.S. equity, because the market is booming right now. I'm thinking it's going to boom for another year or two, so let's catch what we can there. International's has not done nearly as well as what we had expected, so that is my thoughts on it right there. Okay, and so I think what I understand is the committee is not making a recommendation as a committee, is that correct? That was, you said that was your personal committee agreement. Well, I think, Trey, we discussed what we liked, you know, we didn't come up and say, we didn't do a vote, I don't think, to say this is going to be the recommendation that we want. That's okay. consensus of, I believe it was mixed two U.S., if I'm not mistaken, is that correct, Aaron? As the chairman of the committee, I will say that, yes, I think what we deducted from it was either stay the same, or we're tired of, not really tired of, kind of taking a bath, so to speak, in some of that other international. And at that point, and I advocated for this then and even beyond that, Ethan was a proponent of kind of going toward a more aggressive approach, being that it is institutional investing and that we're looking for long term, long after I closed my eyes for the last time, that it's probably behooved of us to look into a more fixed income portfolio. So that is, if we dial back to several pages, even the recommendation from our friends at Callen to look at one of those two mixes. When you go to that last slide, the slide 23, as we went to, if you look between the mixed two, mixed two U.S., that's where we see a potential, you know, higher upside to one over the other, but a, you know, a same downside potential, but the better upside to doing one over the other on those two mixes. So I think the recommendation was coming out of subcommittee to either stay the same or look to one of those two, kind of narrowing it down to the pigeon hole of which one of those we wanted to go to. And if I can echo Tommy, I think I do fall in line with the U.S. bias, so if we're whipping a vote here. Do any of the, before we go on, do any of the other committee, subcommittee members want to weigh in? You don't have to. I just want to give you an opportunity. Okay. All right. I think the only thoughts that I have at this point is are we making a change for change's sake or are we making a change because it's better? And I don't really know either way. Obviously we want our returns as high as possible, but that's, we don't want to open ourself up to undue risk. And I think that's kind of, that's what everybody wants, it's just a matter of how we think best to get there. And what I would say is, again, vis-a-vis when we did the study last time, we say things have changed, again, in terms of you're getting paid a lot more for fixed income, and again, that's, again, under the hood, what's kind of motivating the idea to increase that fixed income. And I would echo that, too. I mean, we haven't seen these kind of numbers in fixed income in a decade or more, and it only makes sense from our perspective, at least my perspective of our fund in an institutional investing environment, that we don't get too risky in this. We're here for the long haul. We're not here to make money overnight. We're not day trading. We're not gambling. I like to gamble a little. We're not gambling, right? So, it's, yeah, and again, the weight of this is beyond this 12 people. It's people that have already retired. It's people who aren't even hired yet. So, making these incremental changes could have a very lasting effect. You're arguing for the marathon, not the sprint. Yes, ma'am. Although, I'm not good at either, by the way, for running. But I think that's what you're saying, is we are in it for the really long haul. Commissioner, did you want to add anything? I think just the subcommittee, I don't think we came out with a really strong front runner. I think we all had preference, slight preferences, but I think it's because they're all good options. I don't know that anybody felt just 100% for or against any of them. So, I think that that lends to the strength of the advice and the information that we were given, and the time that we were able to kind of look over these and weigh them all. I feel very comfortable and confident in the investing environment that we're in right now, which again speaks to the guidance that you all have given us. I think we have consistently over performed where we've been. And if we can take a little bit of risk off the table, that's usually the camp that I fall in. I'm not the gambler. And being that we are in the institutional investing game for the folks that have not yet come, I'm perfectly comfortable with that if that's the will of this board. And I would also be comfortable staying the same. So I did not have a gut strong reaction. I think these are incremental changes for the fund, albeit if this would be a recommendation that our investment folks are bringing to us. I think that that's what we hire them to do, so I would be inclined to listen. Okay, Commissioner Armstrong, you look like you want to say something. Yeah, I do have a general question. I'm sorry if it's already been answered. So, is the board recommending the change? It's just there's a debate, for a lack of a better term, on which change to make. Is that what I'm hearing? Okay. Actually, I know you may have not have done a formal vote, but are you saying, is the board recommending that we make the change, but there's a little bit of, again, lack of a better term, debate, discussion about which change we should make? Yes, sir. I think just in my, again, I'll use the term whipping the vote, was that there are at least a couple folks probably here that are okay to leave it the same. And I think the other folks are in the camp of mixed too with the US bias. So, I'm prepared to make a motion if we're done with the discussion. Second. Let's hear his motion first. I thought you were making the motion. Let's hear his motion first, I think, because then we can discuss your motion. I think that, yes. And I think that I move that we adopt the mixed too with the US bias. I'm moving forward. And Tommy Puckett seconds. Second it now. Right. Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor to adopt the mixed too with the US bias. And I'll entertain any discussion by the board members. Yes, Tommy. I mean, you know, the current has worked really, really well. And we're only talking about a small tweak. And I think there's a, I would rather tweak for safety than, you know, than not. So, that's what the little tweak is. It's going to be a little more safe for us. The returns are going to be minimal change, it looks like, unless all of a sudden, international goes booming, which I just don't see in my crystal ball anyway. So, that's, I think it's just time for a little bit of a tweak. Okay. Any other points that anyone wants to make in the discussion of the motion? Okay. I don't see any. So, let's take a vote on this to adopt the mixed too with the US bias. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? We have just one nay. Officer Jennings, I almost promoted you. I've done that before in the board. Oops. Okay, that motion passes. Thank you very much. I think your work is done here, maybe. Yeah, no, thank you, ma'am. It's great to see you again and hope you'll, you know, I'm sure one of these days you'll be back. Oh, definitely, yeah. Probably in April or October, I would guess. Thank you, John. Okay. Okay, so I'm going to transition over to John who's going to dig into the international equestructure. So, again, it was a pleasure working with you all. Very good. Great to see you. Welcome. Before we start, I need to excuse myself. I have a meeting, another meeting to go to. Well, we will, you will not break the quorum. Good. Thank you very much for being here. Okay. Okay, great. So, this is going to be a little more granular. We're going to get into the international equity structure. So, again, focusing in on one portion of the portfolio that represents about 23% of the overall allocation. The numbers here for construction purposes were as of 3-31, but they're, I guess, at that point in time, international equity represented about 208 million. As of June 30th, it's 233 million. So, again, as John alluded to the international equity markets have performed well, resulting in an increased value. But, again, the structural components are still relevant at the 3-31 values. The current structure, it's comprised of more of a core satellite where we have three managers. We have Acadian. We have Bailey-Gifford. And we have Capital. I'm sorry, this is located on page 35 of the same book that you were looking at. Yes. Are we all there? Okay. Perfect. All right. So, let's, 35 is the executive summary. Again, we start with the overview, three active managers that comprise the international sleeve. And the current structure, we've got Bailey-Gifford and Cap-Guardian. Their performance has been disappointing, to say the least. So, our thoughts there, structurally consider alternatives. Bailey-Gifford and Cap-Guardian also have a growth bias. So, when we talk about growth stocks versus value stocks, in the non-US equity realm over the last year, value stocks have considerably outperformed growth stocks. The idea here is that a structural modification to create a greater degree of balance might provide a more stable long-term path. When we take a look at Acadian, this is your core international equity manager and responsible for most of the outperformance. Again, we're going to dive into a little bit of what's unique about their particular approach. And then, lastly, the overall tracking error. Tracking error gives you some sense of the level of dispersion of your managers collectively versus the index. And the idea here is, you know, one of the first considerations is should we be invested passively or actively? And, you know, our conviction is active management in the non-US equity realm. We've seen that whether we're looking at small cap emerging markets or developed markets, we see that active management, these are less efficient markets and that value can be added through active management and we've got some information to share with you on that front. And then, you know, the idea here is what can we do to kind of make it a streamline the portfolio. Right now, we have capital group is responsible for the emerging markets. So these are the smaller markets across the board. That particular index or benchmark, the biggest players are India and China. So the decision to how much to allocate in the portfolio is driven by the trustee. How much do we put in capital group? One of the modifications we're thinking about is broadening the discretion for the international equity managers where they make the determination of how much should go into developed, how much should go into emerging markets. They've got boots on the ground. They're in a position to make that more shorter-term orientation or movements within the portfolio. So we see that we've got two alternative structures that we've proposed here. One is to maintain the current program with a dedicated emerging markets manager replacing capital group with someone that's a little more core-oriented, a little less growth-oriented to keep the maintain an overall balance and replace Bailey Gifford as well. Bailey Gifford, again, is an all-cap manager but very much a growth orientation. So, again, lighting up on the growth component. Alternative two is to replace, again, both Bailey and Cap Guardian but in this case taking your core manager which is Acadian and complementing them with a value manager and a growth manager. And maybe perhaps it's worth defining, you know, when people talk about a growth manager or a value manager, what do they mean? Well, a core manager is a blend of both and that's what you have with Acadian. A value manager sees securities that are on sale. So the securities, the companies have disappointed the market for whatever reason. It could be litigation. It could be poor management. It could be in connection with some uncertainty in their product line, et cetera. It could be their debt structure. But the value manager sees through, says, you know, the market has overreacted to this bad news and they're on sale and they see a long-term value proposition in buying them on sale and holding them until the market understands that it was a very short-term issue that's been resolved and the value increases. Growth stocks are different from the standpoint. They are the darlings of the market. When you take a look at the overall market, they have earnings on the upside and surprise the markets. The market is very exuberant about the outlook for this particular security and therefore they're willing to pay above market rate or valuation for that manager because their impression is that they've outperformed what the market expected and they're going to continue to outperform. So that's a growth manager. And they go in cycles in terms of outperformance, underperformance, who does well, values done well in the last year in the international markets. But, you know, as you know, we talk about the concentration in tech companies, the growth indexes tend to be more heavily concentrated in technology stocks. The value, more in the financial stocks. So again, one's a little more defensive. The other one's a little more aggressive. So the idea is to get a blend of the two. So that kind of gives you the landscape. So when we do this structure analysis, what are we trying to do? Well, one of the objectives is to outperform this benchmark. And how do you outperform the benchmark? You construct a portfolio that's different from the benchmark. So some level of tracking error is expected or even encouraged. But when you have a little bit too much and I think 3.3 was the number that we saw when we looked at your overall portfolio, pairing that back a little bit, reducing that growth bias makes a lot of sense to us. So that's the thesis behind the recommended changes. So turning to page 37. Here at the outset I said, you know, an initial decision is active or passive, right? So what we see is whether you're looking at growth managers or value managers or the EFA managers, which is a developed market or emerging markets, if you see the average gross excess return over the benchmark, and this is a result of looking back over 20 years of history of active versus passive management, you see that the core manager generates an average of 1.26% over the benchmark. If you look at the growth managers, 1.3%. So again, both of those are healthy premiums over the passive benchmark. Therefore, so this is our rationale and our demonstration of the value of having active management in non-US, which is exactly the program that you currently employ, okay? Page 38, this is kind of interesting because when we throw around these acronyms and these indexes, it gets a little confusing. And if you look to the far right, that tells you this is the MSCI, which is the firm that generates these indices, all country, world index, X, United States, IMI, which means it just has a small cap component. So it's an all cap index, and you see that about 7% of that index is emerging markets, and about 13% is small cap. So the idea here is that what you have with Acadian currently is a developed market index with IMI, okay? So they've got small cap in there. What we're looking to do here, and they have a product offering with a track record to include them to broaden their mandate from just developed markets to include emerging markets as well, okay? We've worked with Acadian. They're a quantitative manager. They have models. They've generated strong performance, not only on the developed markets, but also on the emerging markets front. So again, it's experience that you've had and extending the mandate, okay? Turning to the next slide. This is showing you, again, what is the current structure. So we see that Acadian is developed, all capitalization, represents about 49% of your international equity allocation. Bailey Gifford, which is your growth manager, you can see it represents about 18%. And the cap guardian is your sole emerging markets manager at 33%. So as we look at the diagram to the right, you can see in the taupe, you can see the Acadian US all cap. So that is right on the line of core, right? So this represents capitalization along the left vertical axis. And then we have value, growth, and core along the horizontal. And the idea here is that when we look at the blue, which is the lex current, you see you're a little bit on the growthy side as opposed to right on the core dot. And what we'd like to do is kind of move that over just a little bit. You see that the blue Acquiax USIMI is right on that core. In other words, it's style neutral, okay? Cap Guardian is in orange, Bailey Gifford is in green. Both of those have a growth bias with Bailey Gifford, a significantly more growth orientation. Are we good? Portfolio characteristics over the past five years, 0.8% under. And that's due to a large part of performance of Bailey Gifford, but also as well with Cap Guardian. So what we're looking to do, here we see that the tracking error is 3.3%. So think of how do you come up with a tracking error? What you do is you would look at the, if you were to plot all the dots, let's call it monthly or quarterly performance for the portfolio and for the index, and then look over the standard deviation or from that index to give you some metric to tell you how different are we of the benchmark. Okay, so I'll stop there, take a pause, answer any questions you might have. What questions do you have? Okay. No. I'm not gonna devote a whole lot of time. I think we've reviewed Bailey Gifford in the past on a number of occasions. We've had them in. Unfortunately, the recent performance, again, this is as of 3.31, but in 6.30 when Jim reviews the performance, you're gonna see that they underperformed again. While they had good, strong one year performance, you can see, this is Acadian, I apologize. Over the last year, Acadian was up 11.2%, up over 6% for the three years and over the last five years. At about 14% versus 11.5 for the benchmark. So you can see when you read this chart, these little numbers, these blue dots and the number in parentheses is their percent. And you can see that Acadian's been a real strong performer over the last year in the top decile, over the last five years in the 27th percentile. That means they've outperformed 73% of the international equity managers. Over the last ten years, they're in the ninth percentile, so they've outperformed 91%. So real strong performer, and we think that when we look at their capabilities, they are a quantitative manager, in other words, quantitative managers rely on models to, they may look at fundamentals, but they do it in a quantitative fashion. So their models extract information in all the companies, and then they make their determination on how much to allocate to each of these companies, okay? So, check the box there. Bailey Gifford is on the next page, page 41. You can see over the last first quarter, they were up 2.7 versus 6.9%. And what we've seen to these folks is while they've had fits and starts, through 2020, they had really strong outperformance. 70 stock portfolio, really growth oriented. But since 2021, they have fallen in hard times to a significant degree that has really eliminated the long-term outperformance. So from that standpoint, they're a candidate for replacement to modify and come up with a solution that's a little less aggressive on the growth front. And we're a little bit more style neutral, okay? Yes? Right. Let's go, there's Bailey Gifford. We all had our heads in our books. That's right. But thank you. Yes. That's right. Okay, so let's go to Capital Guardian. So Cap Guardian is a multi-manager approach to investing. And what they do is they have an assigned number of portfolio managers that independently create portfolios. And then they combine them to a single portfolio. And their approach has been to, they've exhibited a growth bias. Like a number of the other Capital Guardian products, their strategies, they're introducing more portfolio managers that have more of a value orientation. But that's a recent development. The performance, as you can see, that they've had even if you go out ten years. 360 versus 382 for the benchmark. Again, it's not a huge underperformance, but it is underperformance. And we've seen a pattern here where they have had portfolio manager changes and now they're introducing new style portfolio managers. So given the uncertainty surrounding that, we think it's an opportune time to make a change structurally where you have it. These folks are a dedicated emerging markets manager that by broadening the mandate and hiring managers that do both developed and emerging, they make the determination how much goes into emerging markets. Okay, any questions about that? Is there a cost to us associated one greater than the other, by chance? Is there a cost associated with it? That to us, like what is there, I mean, I don't know if these are the way to work it, right, is that what I'm looking for? Yeah, typically they are comparable if you're looking at a developed markets all cap versus an emerging markets. There may be a modest increase, but certainly not to the degree that it would be a deterrent. And we do the search, and again, there's grounds for negotiation there, too, when you say, okay, if we're broadening the mandate, let's talk about duration, size of the portfolio. Right now, Cadian represents about 49% of the portfolio. We would be paring that back a little bit to 45% under the new structure, but they still have a significant. So right now, they've got 116 million, it would be 105 under the alternative that's posed here. So again, a reduction, but not a material one, okay? Page 43 is the- I think there are a couple more questions. Okay, sure. With the Cadian having done so well, why would we be pairing back with them, just out of curiosity? We thought that in terms of maintaining a style neutrality, we ran it, not a material change, it's kind of like going to a 45-55 blend in terms of core versus your combined satellites. We think that at that point, it's more art than science. If it's a question of making it 45 and 27 and a half, 27 and a half, it could just easily be 50, 25, 25. So I guess we don't have strong conviction, but when we did the modeling, it provided a nice excess return. Isn't that reflected in your two alternatives, the difference? Yeah. Cadian. Yeah, they just seem to have done well over the last ten years, over performed. Year over year over year over year, so I don't know that it might not behoove us to keep them strong. Okay. Maybe. Yep, it's certainly the differential between 45 and 50. What we're striving for is that balance that exists between the core and the satellites. So certainly comfortable doing that. We've seen active management growth has been stronger than active management value. So the core managers are a blend of both. We want to capture a portion of that growth excess return if it goes forward. But again, I think at that point, it's more art than science. Commissioner Armstrong, did you have a question? Okay. Any other questions? All right. Let me get on the right page, okay. Okay, so let's look at the alternatives here. You can see one is to replace just Cap Guardian and Bailey and supplant them with new managers. But you see the emerging manager, All Cap, still would have a 30% weighting, right, under alternative one. So that's a dedicated emerging markets. So this is the big difference between the two in my mind, is that alternative one is you are replacing what you have, and then you're tweaking the allocation. I would say under mix two, what we're doing is enlisting managers that will be making that developed markets, emerging markets decision for you, and they've been successful and there's a big debate that do you really benefit from having a dedicated emerging markets manager versus having it embedded within a broader portfolio. And we don't see compelling information to tell us one way or the other. So given the manager greater discretion to determine whether emerging markets are more attractive, less attractive, we think that that's something that can be accomplished in a broad mandate, okay? I think that originated my question about fees, having it more actively managed than not, and that doesn't change that, so. It doesn't because your emerging manager is, dedicated emerging managers, their fees tend to be a little bit higher. So when you eliminate that and you put it into the broader mandates, you might have an uptick in their particular fee structure, but overall, we would expect it to be consistent. Okay? Makes sense, thank you. So I think that that highlights the opportunities that exist. And again, the one is to take a look at mix one or mix two. I guess our recommendation would be to consider one of those two alternatives and our leaning is a little bit stronger on mix two. Mayor, I'm sorry. Yes, go ahead. I was going to add that we did review this in the subcommittee. I think this is the one thing that we all agree that we have to make a change here. Yeah, okay. There we go. I would agree. All right, we've got some ground there. But looking at them, they both have compelling arguments and they brought both of those here today. So I'll leave it at that from the subcommittee. Okay. Yes, Commissioner Armstrong. Again, just for clarification, you all agreed on that. There wasn't a vote on whether mix one or mix two. Were those presented during the board meeting? You mean during our subcommittee? Yes, I'm sorry. Excuse me. Yes, we've had discussions over these as well. Maybe not in length as much as with John Perrone and the fixed income assets, but yeah, we did, and I think we all agree that there needed to be a change. Bringing it back to the full board for this would be more of an, I think I have an idea of how the vote would go, but yeah. Maybe I should do a better job of getting votes made. Hey, thank you. Okay, anyone else? Yes, Tommy. Yeah, we discussed this in the committee. I think my consensus is I like alternative two. I didn't really realize that, I'm a big proponent of diversification, and I didn't realize that I've been upset with Belly, and John's well aware of that, I've bent his ear a few times over it for quite some time. But I didn't realize that Cap and Belly was in the growth, and I'm a real believer in diversification, because when growth is down, value's up usually. So you want to capture that area. So I definitely believe we need to get rid of those two and replace them with a value, or two new managers and a value, one in a value. If we did that, since I've been here for through most of the interviews of all our money managers and so forth, you would make us some recommendations, like four or five for each one, something like that. That would come back, I guess we would probably go to our committee, and we would narrow that down. And we usually do it to three, but since we're going to be doing possibly two, could you narrow it down to maybe two per area? Certainly. Or let us narrow it down to two. Yeah, yeah. That saves time for the whole board, for the people coming in here to be interviewed. So what we often do is, our process is to look at the funnel of managers, and through our global management research group, winnow that list down, go to our search committee. And depending on how many managers the client wants to see or interview, we certainly can come out of committee with five selected managers for each group. One for the value manager, complement to Acadian, one for the growth complement to Acadian. And then share that with the subcommittee, and then if the subcommittee, we want to winnow that down to two candidates for each, we can certainly do that. And if it's a thing that you want to use our research to make that determination, or to interview a subset. I think that to Tommy's point about having to interview three managers at a board level for each strategy. That's six managers, that's 45 minutes, that's a heavy lift for any board. It's too many. Yes, so, yes, so. We'll just say it right out. Yeah, yeah, so through the subcommittee, we can certainly winnow that list down. So that when it comes to the board, if you want to interview one or two in each of the strategies, it's a little more manageable. Mm-hm, does that sound, that sounds good. I would like to hear again, based on Commissioner Hensley's comments about Acadian. Why you recommended alternative two. Preference, you had a, in the beginning you said you had a preference. Yep. We all agree we need to make the, I think everybody agrees on the Bailey. Move. And I want to know one more time. Why retain Acadian? Well. Or why not weight it more heavily? Why reduce it? Yeah. Let me, yeah. So this is actually the second iteration, because we actually, the original mix too that we shared with the subcommittee, it was 40, 30, 30. So we already tweaked it 5% to recognize, hey, this is a strong manager, we don't necessarily want to penalize him. But the other dynamic is. You need to stay by the mic, because we're being televised. Yeah, yeah. So if you have three managers in the portfolio, it's a balancing act, because you want to give the other two managers enough money that they can move the needle and make an impact. So that was the idea of trying to have a little bit more than 25% each of those two managers. And again, we shared the evidence upstream that we think both that value space and the growth space is a very fertile area to add active management. So we think we can find managers that are going to beat those two benchmarks, right? So we just want to give the other two managers enough latitude to impact the overall portfolio. And again, as John said, it's an art, there's no right answer. So we already incrementally tweaked up Acadian to reflect the fact they're doing well. I mean, to be honest, if it were 50, 25, 25, that really wouldn't change things. If that makes more sense, that's a fine solution as well. Okay, thank you for that. Yes, Commissioner Armstrong. I have a question on that page, the last sentence. Arcadia has indicated they are receptive to this change, Sharping Belt Alternative 2. What exactly does that mean? So their mandate would change from right now, their portfolio is invested only in developed markets but not emerging markets. And our question was, Acadian has a number of strategies where they have a limit on the level of assets that they'll take on. And we cleared it with them that if we were going to modify this mandate from a all cap developed to an all cap that included emerging markets, whether they had the capacity to take that mandate on, and they agreed to that. And during that conversation, you talked to them, I'm assuming, or maybe you didn't, about the reduction in the allocation from 49 to 45? We didn't discuss manager or specific information when we when we had that discussion with them. Sure. All right other questions, comments, motions? I'll make a motion that we move to adopt the mix 2 as recommended by our friends and I think the vibe from our subcommittee meeting. Is there a second? All right. Officer Jennings. Let's have conversation about the motion. Is there any? Already had my say. Pardon me? I've already had my say. Okay. Anybody else want to weigh in? I guess the only conundrum I'm having here is obviously Arcadia has done an excellent job. I understand splitting the resources kind of thing but taking away that amount it's something about it I like that they've done such a good job for us and we're kind of on a winning horse and now we're going to you know take away a little bit from them so that that makes me leery but if the board feels that this is appropriate I'm not going to vote against it but there's something to them having a track record that has been excellent and done well by us and then we're not going to we're going to not only we're going to take away not add or even keep at which seems a little counterproductive to me to be honest but again if the board feels that it's appropriate I'm fine with that discussion or that vote. Commissioner Ansley. I'd like to make a couple comments and then perhaps a friendly amendment. I would like to reiterate I think maybe already reiterated what Commissioner Armstrong has said and I think that we probably as a subcommittee will now have some work to do with looking at who we would be moving towards so I think that we probably will have some time in the uninvesting and reinvesting this will take some time to make these changes so I think maybe we could give some thought as to the allocations so perhaps my friendly amendment would be that we move in the direction of mixed to and bring back to the board once we make the decision on the managers the allocation at that time would that work for you all? Certainly. We don't I don't think we do friendly amendments we just do amendments. I would like to make an amendment. It is friendly in nature. We know you're friendly and all right Lieutenant Abel's friendly and but but I think we don't get to this kind of amendments. What's your amendment? I would like to make an amendment that we move the direction of mixed to without allocation that the selection of the managers move into the subcommittee for a recommendation to the full board and we consider the percentage allocations at the same time as we're considering the recommendations for the managers. Okay is there a second to the amendment? Thank you. Is there any discussion of the amendment? Yes. Okay. Just for clarification purposes that final allocation then would come back to the board this board again for a vote. Yes that's what I understand. That's just just to make sure everyone yes. Any other comments? I would like to pass the chair to Commissioner Hensley for my comment. Mayor. Thank you. I agree with this because I also have a concern about lowering our Acadian allocation when they have really there's no complaint about them I don't think and not knowing who the others would be exactly that would bump up I am supportive of this amendment. Thank you. Give the chair back. Okay I'll take the chair back. Other comments? All right let's vote on the amendment to the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? Okay I think the amendment passed which means the motion on the floor is going to give you a little more work but you your your subcommittee lieutenant Abel will bring back to us the mix that you discuss as well as your recommendation. Okay is there any comment on the amended motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right you know that's kind of how we make the sausage right? That's right. That motion passes. Perfect. So what else do we want to do here? Well I'm going to and thank you certainly that structure that approach is not uncommon so you know at the end of the day it's determination who the who the candidates would be to fill those sleeves and what that looks like from a portfolio structure standpoint in terms of looking historically how they would have performed and the characteristics certainly is a valid piece of that. So that concludes the the structure and the asset liability portion of the presentation. I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Jim O'Connor to touch on the performance. Okay thank you so much. I have one question. Yes. What would be our timeline on doing this? Great question so you know it's going to be contingent upon the the search itself is six to eight weeks in terms of working through select getting the funnel of the managers which we have in our database getting that down to five or six candidates that will come out of our search committee. So we would our expectation would be that at the November meeting we would have completed the search and worked with the subcommittee to come with the recommended candidates and the allocations. Second question. Yeah. You know whenever we do this how long will it be taking to get you know to get the money from you know the people that were firing and over to them? It's not going to be like real estate or anything? It is not like real estate we're talking about public securities here that's a so there's a legal review of the documents certainly but the transition going from the legacy managers to the new managers much yeah it's not comparable to the real estate. Just want to make sure. Yeah certainly. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate you. All right Jim O'Connor welcome. Thank you. Good morning everyone and thank you for turning over the slides. So we've been talking for about an hour so thank you for your time and attention today. We got a little bit more ground to cover. In the interest of time I'll kind of move through the performance review. I think overall it's pretty positive and I think one thing I'll just share is we did not coordinate our outfits with the red tie and the blue suit. I come down from our rooms this morning I'm like okay like spider-man meme. So I may have just aged myself there a little bit. So why don't we just do a really quick performance overview and I'm going to advance the slide. I'm going to jump ahead here. I know this is a little bit of ancient news at this point but wanted to just set the backdrop on how the capital markets did in the 2Q. So despite the ongoing tariff uncertainty, the lingering inflation concerns, and the elevated geopolitical tensions that really reverberated throughout the globe, markets advanced. So you can see the returns of the major indices that we have here listed on this page. So for the the quarter ending the S&P 500 was up about 11%. Russell 2000 which is US small-cap names were up about eight and a half percent. If you look outside the US basically everywhere ex-US in the globe was up 12% and emerging markets was up 12% so not a big deviation between developed and emerging markets. Fixed income returns were much more subdued. You can see up only about 1.2% and then the the last major indice that I just want to point out is real estate. So that's the night creep property index that 1.2% was 100% of that was income. So appreciation was zero in the real estate markets. Have we reached the bottom in real estate remains to be seen but it seems like there is a little bit of appreciation at least over the last year which you see had about 4.2% return. So really strong returns from equity both US and non-US. Fixed income a little bit more subdued but was up over 6% over the last year and real estate again continues to chug along up about 4% over the last year. Excuse me. So with that any questions on performance? Nope I think everybody's ready to roll. All right let's keep it rolling. Slide three I just want to touch on one thing. You saw leadership over the last calendar years. You could see large-cap US has been the darling. That leadership has changed year to date so this is through 630 and the best performing asset class is non-US equity up about 20% or close to 20%. Second is emerging market equity. So we see that leadership change versus US and non-US. Short period of time certainly but I like this mosaic just to give you a sense of historical performance. I'm going to jump ahead quite a few slides. We've got a number of capital market slides here over the next several slides but I want to turn your attention to slide 11. So this is looking at the asset allocation at the end of June 30th versus the policy long-term targets and what I'll say here is domestic equity was overweight its long-term target followed by non-US equity which was more or less in line with its target as was domestic fixed income. We continue to have an underweight in real estate as assets get returned from JP Morgan and rebalanced into LaSalle. We look to shorten that percentage difference over the next several quarters. Real assets is slightly below its long-term target and you can see cash is a little bit above its target which is actually at 0%. So all in all policy targets are pretty close to their long-term targets and what I'll say is domestic equity continues to be the source to pay benefits so we look to rebalance from that asset class as it as it runs up and continues to do well. Turning to slide 12 kind of in line with Chad's Treasury report you can see the market value at the end of the quarter was up about a billion 21 million a little bit higher now so spoiler alert performance in the capital markets in July and so far into August have done pretty well so we'll continue to see assets rise at the total fund level but the investment returns for the quarter were very strong 66.5 million in the positive on an aggregate level and then the net new investment columns you can see the cash flows going out to the magnitude of about 7.9 million so a net increase quarter-over-quarter of about 58.5 million driven primarily by the strong performance of the capital markets. The one thing I'll just add here is the you'll see in the line item the LaSalle property fund that capital was called in April so you can see the 5.6 million dollars that was put to work. We'll track their performance on an ongoing basis on the next few slides until we have a full quarter of performance to show you all. I'm gonna jump I'm gonna skip slide 13 and go to 14 I think this is a key slide let's get to the point how did the total fund do on the second quarter the fund was up over 7% on a gross of fee basis the policy target was up about 7.39 percent so a modest under performance of about 35 basis points but if you look at your ranking relative to other public fund plan sponsors you ranked in the 45th percentile so above the peer group median of our database that we're showing here. Peer group ranking over the trailing one and three year periods is pretty similar right around the median. Over the five and ten year period you are outperforming your long-term target up about 8.6 and 8.2 percent respectively. Peer ranking is a little bit mixed over those periods but over the long term as we've discussed here the the fund has been doing quite well outperforming its target and outperforming peers over the long term. Year-to-date I'd be remiss not to mention that on slide 15 the fund is up 6.4 percent so trailing the policy target of 6.65 percent and ranking in the 62nd percentile of peers. If you look back over the last nine calendar year periods the fund the total fund has outperformed its benchmark eight of the nine last calendar year periods the one exception being 2022. Any questions on performance there? Any questions? No questions okay we'll keep moving along. On slide 16 I'll just highlight a couple things I'd like to just talk about the performance of the composites so domestic equity did trail its target as did international equity we had mixed results in both of those composites Dodging Cox and Jennison outperformed Neuberger Berman underperformed this quarter. Just a reminder on their performance patterns when markets in small cap tend to run up they are likely to underperform and trail so a lot of the you know more lower quality and volatile names outperform this quarter they tend not to hold them so they're not going to keep up when markets tear. Conversely when markets do go down in small cap they tend to protect on the downside. We talked about non-US equity at some length here so I'm not going to get into that too much but we did see some outperformance from Acadian and they've done quite well over the last year up over 25 percent their benchmark is up 18 percent so significant outperformance. Capital Group has rebounded as well outperforming over the quarter in the last year and as John mentioned Bailey Gifford continues to trail over the last quarter in a year affecting their longer-term results. The domestic fixed income composite outperformed its target the core managers Siegel Bryan and Hamill and Optimum underperformed slightly but Mackay Shields having the presence of high yield in your fixed income composite actually was beneficial as it was a risk on quarter as I mentioned in high yield tends to outperform core fixed income when you see a run-up in the equity markets. And then just wrapping up with real estate and real assets JP Morgan outperformed this quarter and have outperformed over the last year so nice rebound from them but you could see the three-year number and the five-year number lagging and then from a real assets perspective that's the PIMCO diversified real assets finished in the red this quarter commodity prices were really the the one spot in the market that did not do well down about four percent they have exposure to REITs as well and TIPS so this is a more diversified approach so it's not down as much as the commodity index but I think the point here is this is a inflation sensitive strategy that we would think would perform between a stock and a bond and you can see over the longer term they have done that and they have outperformed their benchmark so pretty pleased with them in that regard. Okay I know I went through that pretty quickly any questions on performance? Any questions? All right we don't have questions. All right great well I just have if you if I can have 30 more seconds of your time when I give you two manager updates sorry on page 20 just want to make the board aware that JP Morgan has extended their fee credit program so just for you for just a real quick recap excuse me you are taking advantage of the fee credit program currently and so they announced that they are extending that through June 30th 2026 so it was supposed to expire at the end of the year this is a tactical move we're not surprised by this and I think we're going to continue to work with staff and work with JP Morgan to make sure that your redemption requests don't exceed 20% so you could take advantage of the fee credit and then last but not least just a quick update on the Jenison large-cap growth portfolio management team Kathleen McCrayer head of growth equity and portfolio manager one of the portfolio managers announced her intention to retire in mid-2026 I think in you know certainly this is a notable event but they do have a team approach and while you know she certainly contributed to the performance of the portfolio and and the growth of it and you know the growth of assets our research team is confident in the the rest of the portfolio management team and the additions that they've made to the team so she's going to stay on as an advisor for I guess another year and a half and transition her coverage to Natasha and then when she rolls off when Kathleen rolls off Natasha will be a named portfolio manager so that's something that we're going to keep an eye on like we do with all of your managers but just wanted to make the board aware of that change going on with Jenison very good thank you that was more than 30 seconds but thank you so much for your time any any final questions all right thank you very much we appreciate all of you and all of this information and that kind of brings us to the end of our meeting I believe unless anyone has anything for the good of the whole all right I'll entertain a motion to adjourn all right thank you all those in favor say aye we are adjourned thank you very much really appreciate you you leave shit alone you ain't gonna run Pharr you ain't gonna run Pharr you aint running Pharr you think you can run me because I've been running for oh so long took me back darling to that time in my car and you cried all night cause we'd gone too far can I ever get you back get you back you ain't getting home so get back, get you back get you back, get you back you ain't getting home so get back, get you back can I ever get you back I'm getting tired laying around here at night thinking about some other guy holding you tight he may have money and a brand new car may he treat you like a movie star and no matter what he ever do for you he could never love you like I do so if I leave her and you leave him can we ever get it back again get you back you ain't getting home so get back, get you back get you back, get you back you ain't getting home so get back, get you back can I ever get you back oh, oh, oh oh, oh, oh I'm getting tired laying around here at night thinking about some other guy holding you tight so get back, get you back get you back, get you back again I'm getting tired laying around here at night thinking about some other guy holding you tight so get back, get you back get you back get you back, get you back again no river way no first of spring no song to sing in fact, here's just another ordinary day no April rain no flowers bloom no wedding Saturday within the month of June no river way no song to sing in fact, here's just another ordinary day no April rain no flowers bloom no wedding Saturday within the month of June no wedding Saturday no wedding Saturday no song to sing where we are now and where are we going so first I wanted to start off with Mr. Ed Holmes could you tell us how you got involved in the Lexington Community Land Trust well gladly, what we did was we were hired about 22 years ago to develop an urban village plan for the South End Park neighborhood which is known as South End Park so we were fortunate enough to do the original plan for what you see now and so it grew from there we started with a plan then we implemented the plan with the funding from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for the new Davis Park so what was here where we're standing right now what was here previously originally there was some vacant dilapidated housing and then other housings that residents lived in you had Harry Gordon still which was over here a lot of non-compatible land uses that didn't work well together and so the Transportation Cabinet bought the entire 25 acre site and eventually deeded it to the land trust okay and so this was a historic neighborhood very well established been around a long time so it was a really big change for the area when that happened absolutely and the highway came through yeah and what you see now, Oliver Lewis Way is the highway that connects Newtown Pike eventually it would connect over to the University of Kentucky but in order to do that they had to displace residents living here and we were able to bring them back in brand new housing, park, community center and hopefully some additional commercial will be moving in so yeah that was really difficult on the neighborhood and it was kind of a big project with the federal government the state government and the local government and now we have the land trust and the land trust has grown over time but what is its purpose? well the purpose when we were trying the highway department in the city was working with us trying to figure out what was the best vehicle that would keep this neighborhood intact in terms of the cohesiveness of the people that lived here and keep it affordable and they did not want the University of Kentucky encroaching upon it, acquiring the land or even speculators coming in so the best way to do that we found out was a land trust where the land is permanently affordable it's owned by the community so that they really control who can actually purchase in the neighborhood so the land trust grew out of those initial meetings and we created the land trust and made a composition of board members from the neighborhood, local government and the federal highway administration that's right, well it's been an honor to serve on the board for the past few years and we have a lot of different things going on on this land right now so we're in the brand new community center and then we have the park a really nice park over here and we have the new workforce development center where we're going to be in just a little bit and then we have affordable housing so we have apartments and we have houses and I think there's some new opportunities as well so I wanted to also introduce the brand new executive director Jonathan Wright of the Lexington Community Land Trust Jonathan, welcome we're so glad to have you can you tell us a little bit about the future and what's ahead for the land trust sure, and thanks for having me I have been the executive director of the Lexington Community Land Trust for about a month now so I'm still just getting settled in but I'm excited about both what's going on at the land trust now and what we have on the horizon for the future so as you mentioned the community center just opened the neighborhood the neighbors around here have already since that ribbon cutting been stopping in every day and kids from the neighborhood who are out of school for the summer coming to our gym to play basketball using the community computers and that's been really great to see just in the last week or two beyond that we still have a couple of lots here in Davis Park that are remaining to be redeveloped as part of that original Newtown Pike extension project and the original project that created the land trust we should see we're working on those plans every day right now and hopefully in the next few months to a year we'll see dirt moving on those lots and some additional housing built down here as well as the commercial space that we have finished as well and some really exciting potential plans for those sites sort of on the horizon right now beyond that my vision for the land trust has always been and really a lot of my job going forward will be helping the land trust grow beyond Davis Park so that we can replicate the success that the land trust has seen already in this neighborhood in other areas of Lexington always with the primary goal of promoting the development of affordable housing including where it's appropriate utilizing the traditional land trust model where we sort of always own the dirt and can guarantee the permanent affordability of housing through that but also by partnering with other non-profit organizations and affordable housing developers throughout Lexington in whatever makes sense for the particular neighborhood or the particular site that we're trying to help redevelop and sort of grow the supply of affordable housing so lots of really exciting stuff on the horizon for the land trust as I mentioned I'm just getting started but really excited for what the future holds well thank you both for being with me today to share a little bit about what's going on here and we just kind of wanted to educate the public and let them know what was the land trust and what are all the offerings here and mainly we want to have affordable housing we want to keep it affordable and continue to provide much needed housing to our residents Good afternoon once again I'm council member Jennifer Reynolds and we are in the 11th district on the Lexington Community Land Trust and we are at the city's Workforce Development Center and I have some great folks with me today and we'll be talking about what goes on here and in the nearby area so first I want to introduce Amy Glasscock she is a wonderful asset to the city Amy tell us kind of your title and your role so I'm the director of business engagement for the city of Lexington so I oversee the Davis Park Workforce Center here and so I help individuals that come into Lexington whether they're looking for employment or looking for a better job and connect them with employers or connect employers with job seekers just trying to find the best opportunities for them that's awesome and you hold sometimes different workshops here right and you have different resources for the public what are some of those things so every Wednesday we have Work Ready Wednesday that's from 1 to 3 o'clock the first and third Wednesday we bring in our partners and so they come in and also tell about the services that they offer as well and then the second and fourth Wednesday we have different workshops such as resume workshops or financial literacy just different options for people to learn about resources whether it be life or professional skills available to them we also have job fairs so we bring in employers sometimes it's a community resource fair just different opportunities for individuals to learn about the resources and employers that have opportunities available for them that's wonderful that you're working so hard to connect folks with employment and this space here would be available possibly to a community partner who wanted to put something on for that population it is so we have two rooms available we have a large community resource room with tables and chairs holds about 50 people and then we have a smaller room that holds about 20-25 people and in these rooms you can have any event that you'd like to have such as trainings workshops meetings we've had everything from different city meetings to youth groups have come in here and met that is amazing and do you feel like since the center has opened that it has really been able to reach a lot of folks or that slowly but surely people are hearing about what you all are doing here absolutely when we first the first couple weeks we were open we started advertising the work ready Wednesdays and you know people just hadn't heard about us we had one or two people show up for the workshops but now like last week we had about 20 people come for a work ready Wednesday so people are starting to find out about that but not only that but the use of our room we have the colleges universities wanting to use the room we have even you know some we're going to have a camp this summer so yeah so lots of different exciting things going on so people are really starting to find out about the center and the uses for it and that it's a free space to use with good parking easy to get to just lots of opportunities here that's awesome and are there opportunities to drop in during the day do people have to make an appointment what are kind of the hours so we say that the center is open from 9 to 3 for just drop ins but if you want to make an appointment that's fine as well our hours are longer if you want to make an appointment and we have a resource room available in our smaller room so computers are there all day long people can come in check their emails get on the internet if they need to look for jobs work on their resumes whatever they want to do they can go into the room work on those things have access to free wifi if they need it okay that's great and then in terms of the city you have an office here I do and that is staffed by how many people is it just yourself or are there multiple how many people we have May and Tara Estes here and one of us is here every day of the week okay that's awesome that's great well it's so wonderful that the city you know built this on the land trust and that it's being used to really help the community so thank you for all your work that you've done on it as well and then we have another aspect to the land trust and that is affordable housing that we mentioned previously but AU and Associates has been pivotal in the latest development so Brandon Shetler is that right that's correct we are so glad to have you with us can you tell us a little bit about AU and Associates and your project here on the land trust yeah so my name is Brandon Shetler I am the director of development for AU Associates we are a local affordable housing developer located right here down in downtown Lexington over by Rep Arena this is actually our second phase of affordable housing on the Lexington Community Land Trust site we previously about 10 years ago did 14 units right down the road quads, duplexes and two single family houses so when they approached us to do a larger multifamily housing that is development especially affordable that is right up our alley and we couldn't be more excited to show you the final product that's great and you all have an office in this building right on site we do we have an on site property manager who's here Monday through Friday normal business hours 8 to 5 and they're here to take questions we also have on site maintenance that way if a resident has any needs we can address it right away and is there still room in the new apartments or are they all filled we actually are still leasing there are 73 units total we are right at 60 units occupied so we still have some room left in the units both 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units are left available so if someone wants to lease a unit and it's affordable housing how do they qualify so this project is 60% of the area median income so the area median income of Lexington for a family of 4 is roughly $105,000 so obviously that's a lot more than a single family so obviously when you are qualifying we ask for different income verifications and there is a third party qualifier to make sure that you're under that 60% limit and then the rent is obviously 60% of the fair market value as well so both the income and rent are both assigned by the IRS yearly based on the area median income of Lexington so someone who is under 60% of the area median income they are eligible to live at the facility okay great and I think we're going to put some resources on the screen so if someone wants to look into leasing one of those units or they want to look more into the workforce center and how they can be involved or anything involved with the land trust then we'll put that on the screen as well so anyone can be involved in the Levin District so thank you so much thank you thank you I'm honored today to recognize the historic St. Paul AME Church a true pillar of Lexington's history and faith as they celebrate 205 years I want to take a little time to reflect not just on what has been done recently but to understand the full journey of what they continue to do for our community right here in the heart of the first district we're sitting here at the historic St. Paul AME in the heart of the first district and I'm sitting with Priscilla Sullivan Miss Priscilla Sullivan and we're here to talk about all the great things happening at the historic St. Paul AME both from the past but all the way up to the present so let's talk about a little bit about as we talk about that history let's talk a little bit about how become a spiritual and historical landmark historic St. Paul was established when the members of Hill Street Methodist Church left and formed their own church okay it was in 1820 they were able to purchase the land for $280 they built the building in 1826 and of course they finally owned it in 1826 and the building was founded in 1827 from a banker named Charles Wilkins who was also a salt pelter and a trustee at Transylvania University it is I believe that their strategic location of where their place is that they were a place of worship but also a place where they can help the enslaved the building itself has an enclosed hidden area above the ceiling and that's where they were able to hide the enslaved this was a well-kept secret okay this area the hidden area was known to the community I believe until 1978 and that is when sister Lillian Gentry our historian at that time was looking for grants to preserve the 20-foot windows that we have because there was Gerard Clark who is the character George Harris in the Harriet Beecher Stowe Uncle Tom's Cavern he came here I believe twice I do know twice in his writing one to get one of his brothers who had already died when his wife passed after the Civil War he came back here and lived and when he passed his funeral was held here he became the first man of color to be able to lie in state in the state of Kentucky and so those associations that we can clearly say that those who were in the slave so in this community from pre-Civil War all the way through today our church has been very involved in education social justice and that's basically what is founding of the African Methodist Episcopal Church that is beautiful that is amazing that is amazing we are standing here in the sanctuary of the historic St. Paul AME Church I'm Dr. Justin White we're here this morning to present to you the historic St. Paul AME Church I'm Dr. Justin White we're here this morning to present to you the historic St. Paul AME Church I'm Dr. Justin White we're here this morning to