Code Compliance Hearings

to show up somewhere to put on back of me for a couple seconds and just before stretch >> okay down again. Thank you. >> doing things. It's good to be here. It's really good to be here for 12 back meeting tonight. didn't bring much. did here in have enough people. go get who would say Liz here said I graphic or another citizenship. time >> concern 12. be Good afternoon. Go ahead. Call this meeting to If I could ask everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. pledge allegiance to the flag United States of America and to the Republic for stands. nation under God. with justice for all. Go ahead and read the pledge of civility. We may disagree, but we will be respectful of one another. We will direct all comments to issues will not engage in personal attacks. >> And I will call senior pension analysts mentor Mister Anthony, Fair for the role. Chair Billingsley. Vice Chair Sullivan. Secretary Graves. Treasures your claim. I'm here. >> on this as well. >> Thank you. Thank Do we have any public input? So move on to item 6.1 approval of the minutes from the employer retirement account Committee regulate Quarter meeting quarterly meeting of February. 26 to 2026. >> All right. You read them Make that motion to approve the minutes. Second, it. I have a motion by Secretary Shailagh rakes a second by Treasurer Kelly we have a vote. Roll call vote chair Billingsley. Yes. Vice Chair Sullivan. Secretary Graves. Yes, Treasure Strickland. Yes, number belongs. Yes. Motion passes unanimously for Moving on to item number 7 quarterly investment I will call on Mister Trent Harris for presentation Corvallis Financial Advisors for the report for Porter and the March 31st of this page We've got it. All right. So this just shows just been engaged And looking >> What I like to focus on local advisor there. The second January February and March. Those are meetings I actually had with, you know, participants so. Numbers look good. A lot of people coming here on site or over phone. You know Client care center contacts looks like the dropped off March, which is good. They're actually reaching out to me. As far as a mobile app and Web surprising. But it looks like a lot of people are in the other as opposed to the mobile app. Thank you to be the other way around. But that's good. More more capabilities on on the Web. that's why. But strong continue to be engaged. So I think one. Questions on. He's a really nice charts. Thank you so much. Thank you. Mister Ayres move on to 7.2 and I will call on Mister Howard, their principal for their capital group to give the quarterly investment analysis for for the Quarter ending March 31st. >> Thank you. And good afternoon. It's good to be here in more ways than you can imagine. So I know we're going to be going through Q one. And it's just kind of a little bit of a of a look back, if you will, hopefully this little summary first, 2 pages, I believe we just give you quick snapshot, but we kind of started the year similar to what we didn't you want to last year 2025? When the market dropped about 4% release the S and P 500 pulled back about 4%. We actually saw that again at the beginning of this year. It's interesting because after K'waun and to the market just totally reversed itself and went right back up. it was a modesty kind if you will. I you know, we we still here look at, you know, where where the markets trading. And it's really just, you know, we talk about a narrow market. It's only just a few companies, few stocks that are really driving everything. So when you look at some of the signs and especially the tech-heavy ones that have actually done so well over the last few years, they actually pulled back quite a bit in the 1st quarter. And then all of a sudden after a little bit of that cold that we actually all, you know, spike back up. And then, of course, we're seeing a little bit of volatility again over the last few weeks, if you will. But overall, I think, you know, the market continues overall. I mean, it still looks pretty healthy if you will. But I think the market still expects still a lot you know, investment to be going in that in that area, if you will. A lot a lot of infrastructure is what we're seeing and hearing about, especially with the data centers and everything that's needed to keep supporting a I so that continues to do well. But I still think that, you know, we're still hearing and seeing a lot of the same concerns that we ended last year with which is inflation, obviously wage growth wage concerns, if you will, employment. And then, of course, what happened towards the latter part of the 1st quarter was the Persian golf issue that that we really need to kind of fix out. You know, we need to fix that. Like, like right away. I think. Those continue to be pretty much a lot of like the headwinds that we're still faced with. If you look at the market as of late last night, I think now we're up about around 6%. So from the end of the 1st quarter till last night. The market just completely reversed itself. However, we keep hearing and reading about some of the issues. So it's like more of the same, I guess. yes, impeded smoke. That's not actually did really for for the quarter. So it loses much and actually perform very well in positive territory and then also international markets that really well as well as far as the bond markets. They were pretty flat, if you will. So we did see a lot of movement there. So overall, it's been kind of little bit of a volatile start to beginning of the year and volatility it mean to the bottom, but also to the top because we absolutely so right at the end of the 1st quarter, the market just went right back up. Okay. So that's kind of a little bit of the 1st quarter overview of what we went through. I'm talking a little bit about the watch listed fund and specifically our criteria. So what we have is we we've adopted an investment policy statement right in the investment policy statement is basically a working document simply stated that says, hey. As a committee, here's what we're going to look at here. The criteria that we're going apply just as a reminder, just basically a working document that says, here's what we're going to look at. And here are the specific criteria that we want to consider when evaluating the funds, whether we want to add a fund will replace a fund to close it, etcetera. So what we utilize 5, 3.60, software. They're the they are the developers of the software. And they just went recently through an upgrade. If you will. So as you can see. We currently have the 5 year up down capture ratio as a criteria which we've been utilizing. Under the new software. The new software criteria for the 5 year up down. Capture this not specifically aligned with what we were using. So with this upgrade, what we try to do is look for the closest 5 year up down, capture risk measure that we can find within the new software and that would be the 5 year out for okay. So basically both of them work a little bit intention and the way it works is that when you look at the up down capture, the uptown gives you 2 sets of numbers. means in a good market. How much of the market this the fund capture? Does it capture 100% of the market or maybe 110% of the market, which means that out-performed in a down market. How much of the down does the fund does it capture 100% of the downpour, the losses or 110% of the losses? So we're all we're always sensitive to losing money, right? Were always more sensitive to losses and we are gains. So the 5 year of cap of them catch a good 2 sets of numbers. The alpha, which kind of words along with that basically is one number. And it basically tells you on the 5 year given its risk level. Did the fun perform better or worse than expected over that period of time? So we're not looking at 2 different data points. We're looking at one did that fund manager did that team performed better than expected. So for this particular report in from all reports moving forward, the recommendation would be to replace the 5 year of down catcher in our investment policy. With the 5 year measure. And what I will say, it's it doesn't mean that because I like the 5 Europe down capture a show. I like looking at that. But just because we change the IPS to the 5 year out, that doesn't mean that we're not going to look at 5 year of down catcher either because, you know, when you look at an investment, when you look inside of it, there's so many different data points and there's not 3 or 5 points that in a vacuum we can say this is good, bad or indifferent because there's so many different things to look at. But my point is, if we can update the IPS to align with the software, which is fine. It doesn't mean that we're not going to look at the 5. Europe down captures well, because we will include that. I will keep, including that in my in my notes, if you will, because I think it is important. Risk factor to look at. >> with the saying that could we just put both? >> We could put both. But the the the 5 year up down capture that. >> And 5, 3, 6, use utilizing is looking at a different benchmark. So to be consistent rather than change the benchmark, I'd rather use the alpha as unexpected measure of whether that fund perform better or worse. Because it kind of gets us almost to the same ending point. Because the alpha >> is the Beta is the risk measure. And the author tells you the bay to the did the fund perform better or worse than expected? So, for instance, if a fund has a lower beta. Okay. So the market is 1.0, 0, 0, That's the market risk. Beta. If a fund has a higher beta than 1.0, 0, 0, that means that the fund is taking more risk. And the question is or the participants or the investors getting rewarded for that extra risk. And that's with the Alpha tells you. So what we always want to the end result is we want to lower beta than the market, but we want to high which means the fund managers were really good. They took the less risk, but they overachieved the expected return, which is good. So to that point, I think that would really line well for for an update. And so what we will do because we are working with the 5, 3, 60. I don't know if the city with other consultants. They're going through this upgrade as well. But we are still working with it by 3.60. There's some good stuff that they did within their software upgrade. And there's some things were like, man. I wish you guys would cap that because we're all about data. We love data. And when you look at the fun fact sheets that are now being provided or generated, there's some things that they were providing that we wish they would've kept. But it doesn't mean again that we're not going to look at it through external sources. You know. So with that said, we're still working with the 5, 3, 60. But for the most part, everything was captured except for this one race measure. So just to confirm sober, replacing the up down. The and are now yes, and that's going to go. And that's weighing in on the risk criteria and their scores. Yeah, basically it's just another risk measure. Look at it to aligns with is how much risk that you take out dew perform better or worse. Given your U.S. level of data. So they working. Kind of together. Just confirms well, beta, the market is at 1.0 right out a is there baseline 1.0 like it's the same thing with Vegas. A few outperform the market. Your bubble one. Yeah, that's correct. Absolutely. So like when you look at some fact sheets, you'll see the 3 year out the negative one. That means that the fun with 41% worse than expected given its risk levels. So, you know, when you look at an investment, you look at cost what we thing. You look at how much risk to fund managers. Take a look at portfolio. You look at turnover. And then when you factor the beta and all these other metrics, the alpha is how did the front perform given its beta all of these other things? But based on its data risk level didn't perform better or worse. So you always want your out the on your 3, 5, year to be positive. If you have a negative out the and that means that the funds not really generating much value to the investor to the participant. We need to have a motion to new. I just Miss or I think >> Howard, help me out. I make this motion helping work best. So we want to update our risk measure 2, take out the 5 year Alpha measure and replace it with the excuse me. Take out the 5 year up down, capture and replace it with a 5 year measure. Yes, exactly. I mean, mission, out a second. >> So that very share Billingsley. Yes, but Vice Chair Sullivan. Secretary, great. Yes treasure. Strictly yes and member, but just motion passes unanimously 4 to 0. thank you for that explanation yes. Yeah. And so you know, we we want to be as consistent as possible with on this. >> So that was, you know, that's the one thing that we are working with the 5, 3, 60 on set. They started changing the benchmarks that your group, C and S and the like. Then so I'm really we have to do this with clients. But we thought it was important because maintain consistency as as everybody worked with them. All right. go through a couple of the funds that we had and watch list. So. Start with her for dividend growth. Excuse me. So as of the end of 1st quarter and innovate in from going too fast, just throw something at the right to have lot of data here to go through. as of the end of the 1st quarter, we had about 1.2 million dollars within the DC plan on this particular funding represented about 4% of the assets, less than 4% of the essence. So a little patience is still needed with Hartford growth. We've had on watch list for a while. We're just waiting for it to turn around. The fact of the matter is it isn't the large cap value category. But the fund is really designed for more growth, more capital appreciation, if you will. And it's in the name growth. So it's got some dividend income strategy built into it, but also growth for Capital appreciation. And I believe it is more growth driven and that's more of their primary focus is growth capital appreciation with a secondary focus on defense, if you will. But with that we had a good last year of 2025, the fun did pretty well. But it has been teetering back and forth. as you look at the beginning of this year, it again underperform the value category for the most part was positive. This particular fund lost almost about 3% was down 2.8, 6%. During the period when the category was good writes, It doesn't seem like. Hartford's really getting it done consistently is what thing is. I mean, we're meeting every 90 days and when you have a fund that on off on off, you're trying to figure out what's going on there like it. We want consistency with any investor right? So I think with that said, we've been patient, you know, we did. We trying create knee reaction with any investment because the markets change pretty quickly. Things move right. So with that said, when you look at the trailing returns and Hartford growth, I think from a timing standpoint, we've exhausted heart patients. It's like our participants deserve more. We've got 1.2 million of their money out there so with that said, I did bring a few alternatives. To the committee for consideration. Now again, let me let me lay this out as well within the large cap value category. We have the Vanguard Equity Income Fund in the same category large value, large cap value stocks and in the large value area within income. That is more. It's a very conservative strategy fund okay. Didn't strategy. So it's more conservative enough and that's built more for capital appreciation. With that said, we have the Hartford Fund which were which we're covering right now. We have to be in Garden Income fund. So when you scream the investments, you know, we go into this blind. We look at all the investments in the universe within the categories and we screen them based on our IPS right? So with that said, when these funds meet our screening criteria, that's when we start going from this to this. We start looking at, OK, let's take a look inside to see how these funds are built because the one thing you don't want is you don't want to replace. A fund with and a new fund that looks similar to what we already have is that it looks like we have That makes sense. So with that said, the Fidelity Fund that's also noted here. And I think the Columbia Fund, it's also noted yet Columbia Dividend Income fund. They scored extremely well, but they're all there are also built very much like Arctic with the income based on their their mandate. What they're looking for. The other fund that really scored well, is this BNY Mellon dynamic Value Fund? Great scores. Great criteria. Measures fun. Looks to be doing. Really good management team has been in place for a while right It does the concentration of 81 stocks, I think with the Hartford Fun, we had 130 stock. So it's a little bit tighter as to the number of stocks that are being held here. But overall, the fund managers appear to be doing really good and they're not dividend strategy focus. This is a pure large cap value play. And it's actually doing really, really well. They've done pretty well with it, the expense ratio. So if we look at this particular fund that looks a little bit more similar in build like Hartford, which what the recommendation is to replace not overlap or 2 people. Kate, what we already have. But from an expense standpoint, performance looks good risk looks really good. But from an expense standpoint, it's the same. So in this regard, you know, it's not like we're going to swap it for something that's that significantly more cost, even though it's performing better. So the cost is pretty much at the same price point, if you will, as the Hartford Fund, it does have better risk-adjusted performance. The alpha. We talk about Alpha and Beta. Did you perform better or worse than expected given the amount of risk you took, you know, in the market, you're always going to take risks. But if a fund manager takes more risks that you want the outcome to be really good because you need to reward your investors, right? So in this regard to be at this BNY Mellon Fund looks really, really good on all of the risks measures. The other 2 funds look good. But I think they overlapped vanguard. So with that, I think now is as good a time as ever to replace hard for dividend growth with the BNY Mellon if I can say P and one male and dynamic value fund. I know we can go to vote here. Sorry. When I look at these. On a year-to-date basis. The Hartford growth and continues to underperform. So if I were to look at the next meeting, Hartford in growth is going to be on our watch list again when we need 60, 70 days. So we're going to kick in this one again. So I think based on what it's doing right now as of 2 nights ago market close, which was Tuesday did he continues to underperform most likely it's going to be on our watch list again. So with that said, yeah, I think it's time. To close our for dividend growth and moved to line. And that the city's police officers pension plan has had a multi-decade placement with BNY Mellon. >> That is a separately managed account. Not a mutual fund that the management team is the same people. Just if need that for the committee's consideration. >> We have us. We have several that we're going to look at today. Do we want to vote on them one by one or do we want to wait till would be OK? So do we have a motion to replace the heart for dividend growth? With the BNY Mellon Dynamic Value Fund? I make the motion. do a roll. Call. Vote. He shared the one you made the motion. sorry. I'll that. motion on the table by Secretary Greg's do a roll call. Vote treasure. Excuse me, chair Billingsley. Yes, element. Secretary, great U.S. treasure stricken. Yes. And member belongings, yes, motion passes unanimously 4 to 0. Thank you. The >> Just looking at the next one, we have JP Morgan Growth Advantage Fund. As of the The 1st quarter just under $500,000 representing just under 2% of the total assets. This is the 5th consecutive quarter to JP Morgan growth advantage. It's been a launch. Again under the old under great serious. It's like change, great area. But it looks like it's still doing what he's doing. And it has historically been a good fun. I think we'll a few more growth advantage if you go back. I mean, it just requires a lot of patients. We do have a half a million dollars. It is participant money. We're mindful of we watch. We're waiting for this thing to turn around. It hasn't turned around, although we did you pretty well in the 1st quarter. So while it's in the large category of growth stocks, right, growth not value growth. It actually didn't lose as much as the category which So it at the downside. >> God bless you. But on the upside, when the markets good, it just doesn't provide a lot of value. And again, that goes back to Uptown catcher during an up market. How do you look it down to look good. But on the up when he provided to the investor and that's again, part of Alpha, that's part of a a so at the end of the day, JP Morgan growth advantage, I think it's a really solid fun, but it just requires a lot of patients on that. Year date it. You know, the markets turn around. We're all well aware of that, right since the quarter end. So on the upside, it's up about almost 4% from January through Tuesday's market close very to Santa But the fund is now back to the bottom. Half of this pier. Come on. You know, we we want a little more upside. You and we've we've had young watch for a while. >> So the recommendation was to keep on. Watch. However, if we know in the next quarter, again, this thing's going to be on the watch list. Does it make sense to make the replacement now as well? Because we're going to be talking talking about this one as well. So there's couple of other alternatives that are provided these funds. Also, men are screening criteria that out you're focused equity fund. Some fund. It is a high octane growth fund. It had 2 solid, incredible years. As you can see it last year was up over 40% the year before that it was up over 50%. >> It's not but it looks good right on But when you go inside the kitchen to see what they're doing and how they're doing it, it's not really do for a lot of DC retirement plans, if you will. But it does screen Wellstone event, someone seizes and says why don't we have this one Looks good. But is it really maybe for some folks, but not everyone. But I still had to present it because it does look very, very good. So you're focused, equity fund, some other things, it only holds 48 stocks. Okay. So it's highly concentrated. It's it's a it will be there doing a great job with this particular fund. But it's high growth. High risk high return. 61%. I mean, these are the things you look at, right. 61 1% of the money in the fund is dedicated to just 10 stocks. So if those one or 2 of those stocks it's going to bring all the other boats down with it. So high risk high return, much higher risk than what we taking Morgan. But still a very, very good fund. If the committee is so interested in looking at that and that particular fund rate there, it's up over 11% year to date, which is in the top 22% of its category continues to do well. So they're doing good. The other fund, which you might be familiar with is the Fidelity Contra Fund. If you remember that name Bility Contra, there's a lot of young people here so Friday to myself. You never the fatality Magellan Fund the Contra Those like Fidelity flagship funds many, many years ago. So it's it's a bit he myth of a fund. Will Danoff is the manager on this funds like Wall Street, totally respected. The fun did did. They didn't have some good years, but it actually has turned around. Infidelity Contra looks really good. It's a little different then the JP Morgan Large cap Growth Fund. It's broadly diversified. So I think it has over 300 stocks compared to smaller stock holdings within JP Morgan and it's not waited so much in technology because again, you don't want funds that almost look identical to each other. They did that too much technology or too little of concentration, if you will. So the Contra fund looks really good on score. It looks really good on risk. Low risk. Very good on Okay. So it looks really good when the markets do well. And about half of the assets are invested in the top 10 stocks with the other half of the assets invested in the other 290 stock. So it's much more diversified. What we have a JP Morgan looks like. They're doing much better and they're not relying too much technology. Okay. So it looks like it's more of the core large cap holding, if you will. And other thing that's nice about the Contra Fund. And we think that a lot of it is due to its size. You know, when the investments have a lot of money coming in. They if you will pricing pressure poinar expense ratio for the Contra Fund is very low, which is actually 45 basis that also is in advantage point to have a fun like that. The Deli Contra Fund. It's doing well, but that's not charging the participants as much its Jake and more in just under performing right now. So with that in and year to date, it's doing pretty good. So from January through Tuesday, it's up almost 9%. And it's still in the top half of its category. So it's still doing pretty good in both down work. It's enough markets is looking pretty good. So we have. How much did we had half a million JP Morgan and spent on watch for a while. The recommendation here is, you know, yes, we could be patient. But if we look at it for the next meeting, we're going to be talking about taking more growth advantage again, I think that the Deli Contra Fund would be the best replacement right now moving forward and give the participants the opportunity to not delay this any longer. So with that said, that's the recommendation for that particular fund. OK? Thank we have a motion to close the JP Morgan Growth Advantage funded, replace it with the Fidelity Contra Fund. >> Make that motion second. It. You roll call that. Chair Billingsley. Yes, Sullivan. Secretary, great Treasure strictly yes. And number belongs. Yes. Motion passes unanimously 4 to 0. All right. Next, moving right along the valid. 100. >> This is just basically replacement of what we currently have. The current funding we have is the valid 100 Index fund, which replicates the performance of the Nasdaq 100 current thing about 42 basis points. >> whenever we can look for an alternative, that's the same funding, then go index strategy. We want to make sure that we get something a lower cost than we do it. And this is so here the recommendation just replacing the ballot a 100 index won it. 42 basis points with victory. 100. The 29 based play. So there's good savings there for the participants. have a motion to. Close the Valley, Nasdaq 100 and replace it with the Vic Tree. Nasdaq 100. >> Make the motion. I'll second. We'll do a roll call. Vote. Chair Billingsley. Yes, Sullivan Secretary, great U.S. Treasure Strickland. Yes. And number belong us. Yes. Motion passes unanimously 4 to 0. All right. Next on American CENTURY, growth, 617,000 as an indicator, one less than 2% of total DC plan assets. >> This will be the 5th quarter as well. Feeling criteria. You know. So is there something better? Is there an alternative out there to consider? Absolutely. You know, it's like growth category that particular category Q one actually did pretty good. But this particular fund dropped about 3%. So it's it's basically not doing what we want to do again, more patients. But you know, how much patience do we have here? The one-year return is in the court aisle. And that's benchmarked against like over 500 other investments that are in the There are better alternatives for participants. And I think we've been patient keeping this fun on the watch list for a while. Getting out of breath here and go figure. They do invest 130 stocks. So it is stout fewer as well. So it's a very focused small cap growth fund. It's been a calendar, stable performer, but currently underperforming year day, when you look at the fun January through Tuesday's market close, it is still in the bottom half of its peer group, even when the market is actually performing much better. The peer group category is performing much better. So with that said, the other alternative is that I that I'm bringing to the table. BlackRock Advantage looks really good. This one looks a little bit more like an index fund. you know, black broadcasting like systematic internal like they like technology. Basically, it's not all actively managed by managers, but it looks like they use a little more systematic, some if you will, into their style for this particular fund. It's got good trailing returns. Good It's it looks a little bit more like an index fund. So I don't want to go directly to a hybrid funding, if you will, to replace a small cat growth. And if you will. So with that said, yes, over 600 stocks. With a with a second weighting in technology because we know what technology has been doing lately. So really good low You option, if you will. Everything looks really good on that particular fund year to date, January through Tuesday, it's up over 16%, which is great. And that puts it in the top. 25 1% of its peer group, looks really good. The Carolina chart will small cap growth fund. I'm also very strong. This is a few or small cap growth fund are not trying to replicate an enormous amount of stocks. They are very growth trend and it's just pure small-cap growth option similar to what we have with American century, right? Where have the American century right now? American citrus looking for him. So the Caroline funds. Built a little bit more similar to what we currently have. I believe the >> It does have the >> behind a lower concentration of stock. So they're not managing as many stocks, but actually doing a pretty good job with What's interesting also is they do have some the calf exposure. So when you look at Capitalizations, you have large can't make happen, smoke small-cap stocks typically have a high risk high reward profile, right? As these are companies that they're at the freshman level trying to get to the junior varsity and then the varsity level. So with this particular fund, it's got cap exposure. And I think that is by design to kind of take some of the risk off. So we look at the bait on this phone. It is a low-risk, beta, but because of the it's small cap stocks pulled back significantly because they've got about 20% and mid cap. It's going to be that don't bring the night. It's not going to lose as much. So I think my strategy that's that's pretty interesting. And I think for small cap growth play, this could be a good complement to what we currently have. And then the other one is the Columbia, I think yet Columbia small-cap growth. When you look at the criteria on this particular, we back tested right it with whatever we look at particular fund. We also back tested to see how would have this fund done over the last 8 for 12 quarters if we had, if we had it on the menu. So when you back tested. For a 12 quarters 3 years right now it's been an on off on off as well. So it hasn't been consistent. Like maybe Carillon, but it more looks a little bit like what we have with American century. So the Columbia funds pretty Its standard deviation. You know, we look at that stuff that needs to improve. The capture needs to approve as well. So when you look at all these things, it is a good fun. The Columbia fun is good, but it's a highly aggressive, small cap growth fund. The expense ratio is 83. So it's got a higher expense ratio. So I don't think we want a higher risk higher expense to the participants. I don't know. I don't think so. So with that, I think that that the the replacement, 4 American century, small-cap growth could be the Caroline. growth. >> Caroline Fun family is a subsidiary of Raymond James and that headquartered in St. Petersburg. Just right up the street. have a motion to close the American Century. Small cap Growth fund replace it with the Carolina chart. Well, small cap growth fund. >> I make that motion second. Do roll call. chair Billingsley. Yes, yourself. Treasure Strickland yet Secretary Grace. Yes, it's art. remember Bolanos. Yes, motion passes unanimously. That's what counts for And the last he's oh, sorry, they'll >> the last we have is the lines, funded collation fund. And you know, if you're not an equities and you're not going to be in place far as I'm concerned. So we don't have a lot of attraction is fun. We get out. We had $40,000 is in the one. But this fund is not broken. I mean, it's just it's just underperforming is what it is because it's it's not a risk factor. But it's just underperforming. It is a high quality bond fund that we have. It's significantly triple a rated, if you will. You know, when you look at credit quality in the bond market, so you want high quality so you don't have the risk of defaults. So we look at some of these other funds specifically. Like DFA. And it's it's interesting like when you look inside and you learn about with these fund managers are doing to get you all to get return. It's like it's it's really interesting to learn this stuff. But yes, a really good long-term track record. They did have a difficult calendar year last year. He probably would say why are we talking about it? But overall, it looks pretty good right now. You take the good, the bad and put it all together. And that's how you get your criteria. Your scores, if you will. But he did have difficult year last and it did as well in 2021. But overall, the health of the expected return again, based on the risk. They took these pretty good. have 714 securities. The big thing about this fun, 70% of their holdings is is is it's international. It's an it's allocated to none us debt. So it's not your mainstream core Treasury, U.S. government-backed Inflation-protected fund. They are moving outside of the U.S. 70% of the assets are invested outside debt. A lot of its corporate. So you do have corporate credit risk there in the international markets. So how are they doing it? How are the generating an extra half a percent return? they're just taking a little bit more risk right? And that's how they're getting it done. So it's a really good fun. It screening criteria that we look inside again. Funds are achieving higher yields for what, for, for, for the sake of getting a brisk. So that's what you have with tfa. It's a little bit of a high respond. And when you look at it, the the Triple B rated paper, which is getting towards the bottom triple be rated is the single heaviest weighted allocation. So international paper that's being purchased here. You have a lower quality. So again, just risk on top a risk. But it is achieving a really good return. So it is you need is different and how it's building constructed. But it does sit in the same category as what we have with Lindbergh's Alliance Bernstein and then the other one is the same one or dad that inflation it meant living out of the last 12 criteria. Quarters looks pretty good on. A risked basis. This one has 17575% turnover. Which means they're super active. They're trading quite a bit on this particular fund. Again, higher risk. But they have 700 security so that it's it's it's a lot of paper that they hope that they're very active in their trading. That's typically on the higher end of the training cycle, if you will. Again, they're holding a lot of corporate paper as well. She had a little bit of corporate risk there. They don't have a lot of us government back securities. Okay. So with that said, we've got 3 alternatives. We the one I just mentioned, Lord add that the one prior to that, which was DFA and then the other one is banned are no fan guard is a short-term inflation protected fund. And here's why. I think Vanguard would be the better fit here because again, we talk about risk and you know, whether it's this category or any of the category, if the participants aren't really fully aware of how much risk some of these funds state, we don't want to put that on anyone else, especially at the committee. So when you look at performance risk expense, what we pay in overall, you know, what is the more appropriate or logical and reasonable option? I think knowing that Alliance Bernstein. Is a high quality it isn't broken, but it's just not performing at the level. We like considering also that we have $45,000 and the ad fund will obviously most likely be on the watch list when we come again in a couple of months, if you will, again, the short-term inflation fund looks very similar to the Alliance Bernstein Fund where 99.9%. Of its credit quality is triple a rated. So high quality paper. I don't think we want take more risks than we have to not for $45,000 clearly, but even for a million dollars or more if we had to. Plus, also with the Vanguard I think a significant decrease in costs and fee for any of the participants. Now we're in the future that might want to look at this. You go to 6 basis points which is extremely low. So we stay with high quality. We lower the expense and it looks like we can try to replicate some of the better performance that Vanguard Spring in the lines from seeing right now. So with that said, with making all these other changes. Alliance Bernstein would be recommendation to close and replace that with vanguard, short-term inflation. We have a motion or close the Alliance, Bernstein, Bond, Inflation Strategy Fund and replace it with the vanguard, short-term inflation. >> Protection fund. With the a second. We have a motion on the table to roll call vote chair Billingsley. Yes. Vice Chair Sullivan. Secretary, great U.S. Treasure Strickland. Yes. And number of allies, yes, motion passes unanimously. >> So last few pieces. You see the top 5. So those 5 represent 64% of total plan, DC plan assets. 19.9 million. And of those obviously using fidelity up 2 basis points. That's the lowest index on the 5500 that we can get right now. And then, of course, we will reduce the Nasdaq 100 feet by replacing that, which is good. Nothing else on the watch list there. So those 5 which represent a significant weight or till 10 of the DC plans look really good right there. We did drop to about 31.2 million at the end of the 1st quarter have to believe based on the market's turnaround were actually that some are much higher than that, at least a little So we look pretty good there. and we've come a long way. 32 million for the DC plan too many participants that we have in a DC plan actively contributing as this total that >> as of the last payroll, we have 171. As time goes on. That just will continue. She creates there are significant number of folks that opted out of the plan, right, that are still currently employed. But as well, we're also seeing is a lot of folks when they separate from service, they choose to retain their assets and the plan because they're super confident in what this committee And coupled with the high level of service we get from. That was representative. Many of the You if it's helpful and, you know, we provided compares >> similar funds that are on the 4.57 plan if you want to look at that, but get an idea of what's being replicated in the 4.57 plan. They some the many on the plan looks like. Pretty good. Thank you, sir, for So it's very informative. Thank you. move on to unfinished business. It could any new business. >> We'll work with our representatives for Valor Corporation place by the middle of July that way, when the board meets in November, have a full quarter worth the performance to review. Thank you for that. Any other matters. >> I will update the IPS not come forward it to We share. All right. Sounds was. want say thankful to you on notice such a good job really appreciate all the work that do also guiding us in the right So we really appreciate You know. your time and yes, being on this committee. A lot of participants rely on us right >> well, pressure lot of money on millions. Yeah. thank you. Yes, thank you very much.