Recording in progress.

Okay, so it's four o'clock and I call you over to the City of Cellulator Finance Committee meeting.

Today is Wednesday on the second says four o'clock.

Would you please take their role?

Mayor Gonzalez.

Vice Mayor Miguel Salton.

And Councilmember Eggler would not be present today.

And would you please take your answer?

After each agenda item is presented, the mayor will ask for committee member comments and then take public comment.

You will have two minutes for your comment.

The compound member will appear for the convenience of the speaker and attendees.

There you are.

The floor is yours.

Yes, thank you.

Felicia Silva, Assistant Finance Director, Mayor Gonzalez.

Finance Committee here to present the fiscal year 2027 proposed master fee schedule update.

We do bring this forward every year to update the council council approved fees while we ensure cost uh accessibility while trying to maximize cost recovery.

Um the authority to be able to charge the fees.

We're looking at proposition 26, California government code 66014, and the key point here is we are allowed to charge fees for um cost recovery of services, but reasonable fees.

Um, so always looking at the estimated reasonable cost for our fees.

And uh additional authority, we have proposition 218.

Um we see this um governing our fees associated with our utilities such as wastewater and uh store water.

We also have development impact fees, um, which are fees that are um designed to mitigate the impact of um development on the community.

Um so for example, we have our our park um acquisition and improvement fee and traffic um mitigation fees or impact fees.

Um where we've been and where we're headed.

Uh we did do an in-depth um fee study that we presented to council last year.

This um presentation uh to council with proposed fees built on that fee study.

Um it also incorporates um any fees that were approved throughout the year to give us the quote unquote master fee schedule.

Um typically, again, looking at um trying to make sure that we're balancing cost recovery and accessibility.

Um we adjust by inflation for most of our services for uh fees that are related to construction related activities.

We have what we call the construction cost index for the Bay Area that we use, which um is set at 2.8 percent, and then we also have some fees that are governed by um state statute or municipal code that uh may have a cap or may other um lies be um inflated based on that governing information, and then um some other fees may be updated uh regarding uh market alignment and or direct cost um depending on again looking at um our estimated reasonable cost and um trying to maximize cost recovery what we can.

I do want to point out that the revenue impact associated with the recommended fees are included in the proposed fiscal year 2027 mid-cycle budget.

In addition to fees, um we also have um three um taxes that are um by uh chapter two of the municipal code um allowed to be adjusted for inflation, and that's our business license tax, uh, our emergency medical services tax, and as well as our emergency communication system access tax.

Again, looking at that uh CPI um index for uh our region in the Bay Area, we're proposing a three percent CPI increase.

And what we're asking from finance committee today, we're asking that um finance committee recommend that the master fee schedule be presented to um city council for adoption by resolution, and we're also recommending that the three percent CPI um increase that we're proposing for those three taxes be presented to city council for adoption of ordinances.

And with that, I'm here to answer any questions.

And we also have some of the departments here for any questions regarding specific fees.

Do we have any questions?

Okay.

So we'll pass the floor over to the Vice Mayor.

Thank you for all your work into getting us to hear today.

And do we have the city managers office here to discuss parking can be they're coming out?

Thank you.

And I know that the parking uh, the new parking fees, and it has all been revamped due to usage and kind of just up, just bringing it up to the I don't know when was the last time I think we're reviewed, but what we have here today, I did want to elevate some of the concerns from uh the downtown businesses that they came to council, particularly around the East 14th, um the East 14th delineation, um the east side of East 14th of the best building is having parking years, but not the other side.

Um I do know I do notice that there are some um the zones have been changed and the hour maximum has been changed.

Can you talk a little bit about um the best building lot three, downtown core, the one, two, three.

There's through two downtown corps and a downtown run and the downtown south.

Can you tell a little bit about what that um what's the delineation of those zones?

Uh certainly there is a map available on MarcusL.com that has kind of a map overview of where those different areas are with regards to the best building.

I can talk about that and have to provide some information, as well as the relationship of that parking lot to the west side, because this in this schedule, as you correctly noted, there's been some feedback from the business community highlighting those distinctions.

And so, what I would say is the west side, the references I understand it, is related to basically the parking lot by the safety and washing class.

And the reason that those stalls are free is because of what's the existence of what is known as the Marea, which is an acronym, but essentially it's a historic agreement between the City of San Leandro and the Regent City Center that goes back many decades, sort of a long time ago in a very different world.

And in that document basically establishes that we're prohibited from charging for parking in those areas in perpetuity, and there's no sunset date to it, and this is the legacy of legacy document that goes back before any of us were here or involved with the city of San Lando governance.

So that's a challenge.

Um vis-a-vis the best building parking lot, which is city-owned, is not subject to the Marea.

Um, that is currently charged at a dollar an hour currently.

Um, and which is um was actually modified in in deference based on feedback from the business community.

We are also actively evaluating that law in particular and in coordination with our city manager and others to explore that rate going forward, and I would go through the fee schedule here, of course.

You know, essentially setting up a ceiling for lack of a better term.

Um so based on data and usage and analysis, which is ongoing.

We're actively exploring.

I also said we're actively exploring what's going on with the best of the best building parking lot and where to go from there.

Related to that, we also conducted um a public meeting with about I think it would say it was over a dozen, maybe 15 to 18 business owners who um self-identified as business owners with concerns about downtown parking, we're having them a few weeks ago.

We allowed them to error their concerns.

Uh we provided some information on the parking program in general, and then we agreed that they're going to kind of you know cooperate with themselves among themselves following the meeting, and based on the view that we provided, and we are deliberating currently on our side as well.

And we're gonna regroup again with the auditors for other modifications to the program to further address address the concerns they have.

But that is where it's important fees collected to ensure in order to ensure basically that the parking fund is solvent and is no longer requiring the several hundred thousand dollars of year of subsidy from the general fund that's consistent with the financing earlier direction and the council's earlier direction to ensure that that budget is balanced.

And so we're basically what I can say is this new paradigm is consistent with that with that feedback.

We've brought now after significant amount of work over the past year or two.

We've now brought that budget back into the black.

So it no one requires the subsidy and these fees that are aligned in the proposal or tonight are part of that, I guess big bigger package for lack of a better term.

And you have to question about the zones and whatnot, there has been a modification.

A lot of that is based on you know an analysis of vacancy rates and where people are parking and kind of maybe you know kind of the idea with this practice that the downtown, the core, the core that's closest to the main business area should be the most, you know, product terms should cost the most.

And then as you get further out to the outsider areas, it costs less.

With that said, the best building lot because it should be insured being an off-street area as opposed to on-street parking.

We are focusing on that and acknowledging that there's you know number of spaces that are typically available there, uh, but we're also kind of at the beginning stages right now of this new paradigm.

So we're collecting that data right now, and typically best practices to look at these things for at least a year to observe how the turnover is how people adopted to the new rates, and we have the ability to optimize that over time or modify it.

These are cap integrated caps, and so to the extent you know, demand is low, that's an opportunity perhaps to tweak the rates, etc.

So I don't know if that addressed that was a development response, but does that capture the I appreciate the context?

Um I'll leave the parking feet there.

Thank you so much.

Um I don't have any other questions on the fees.

Um, I don't know, Mayor, if you want to have any comments.

I have one question then before we take public comment.

It was a reference, and I it might have just been a contextual reference reference to stormwater, and I was looking through the presentation to see if I could find one.

Is there any change to stormwater in this?

There is no um change that is presented as part of this fee study.

If so, it would come separately under uh two eighteen notice.

Thank you.

Okay.

With that being said, can we go to public comment on the side?

We did not receive any cards.

Thank you.

So we'll close public comment on the side of the discussion at this point.

Okay, so I'll turn the council member vice mayor.

Are you comfortable uh providing a recommendation to the full city council that they report the staff recommendations?

Okay, so we are by consensus with this forward to city council with uh unanimous agreement with this present staff's recommendation.

So this time we'll move to item two B.

Nicole Vasal was here to introduce the item and bring anyone forward to the thank you.

Um Mayor and the River Committee.

Uh, the item that we're discussing this afternoon in the quarter for uh 2025 calendar year investment reports that was through December 21st, 2025.

Uh, this afternoon we have a meet fight with PFM, um, who is the managing director um with uh PMA who uh managed the city park all the way out.

Um and so uh I will turn it over to Monique.

We have a few slides and then have opportunity answering questions that the committee may have.

Thank you.

Thank you so much uh for having me.

We're really excited to deliver uh this report to the committee.

Uh this is the first uh full quarter of performance uh that we are reporting on.

Uh so we're excited to tell you uh what we've been working on uh with staff.

Um so I'm going to start by just making a couple of comments about the economy at large and using the portfolio that we manage on behalf of the city as a backdrop.

Um the fourth quarter, 2025 had a lot of major events.

Um primary reply was that the US government was shut down for 42 days during the quarter between October 1st and November 12th.

Um the impact of that uh significantly to the market was halting the collection of key economic indicators.

That required the Federal Reserve, who sets the overnight target rate to rely on survey based and anecdote evidence and private data reports to inform their decision making.

A couple of other things during the quarter, the labor market softened a bit.

And inflation moved lower, but did remain above the Fed's 2% target.

So practically what that resulted in is the Fed making a decision during the quarter to deliver two 25 basis point cuts to the Fed funds target rate, lowering the Fed funds target range to 3.50 to 3.75%.

During the quarter, interest rates on maturities under 10 years essentially lowered and longer term maturities increased.

Our activity during the quarter was focused on a few things against this backdrop.

One, working with the city to rebalance the liquidity portion of the portfolio with the core portion of the portfolio.

We helped move approximately $8 million from the portfolio to liquidity investments to show up the city's liquidity position.

We also worked to diversify the portfolio into different sectors allowed by the city's investment policy.

We made significant movements to sectors like the corporate sector, other sectors allowed by your policy, including certificates deposits, commercial mortgage backed securities, which were federal agency securities as well, and some commercial paper.

So really diversified again into some sectors a lot higher policy and reduced the US Treasury allocation to fund those purchases.

The portfolio yield held steady at 4.16%, which is a very attractive yield versus the market.

We are managing the city's portfolio against a benchmark, which is a zero to five year treasury index.

If you look at the duration distribution in the bottom right, which is very similar to a maturity distribution, you can see how the portfolio stacks up to the benchmark on average or slightly longer than the benchmark duration, but really investing around two years on average for the city.

In terms of return for the portfolio, we're really happy with the first quarter performance.

We were essentially two basis points ahead of your benchmark.

Since we are through the first quarter, we do have another update excellent performance for the first quarter as well.

So in a really really good position.

In typical fashion, green generally means good, red generally means bad.

And this isn't necessarily like this is horrible, it's more our views, our outlook on these various categories.

So I'm gonna ask you to pause for just a second.

If I had another council member here, I'd be able to continue.

Thank you.

Thank you for pausing.

We're back.

Thank you.

Consumer spending, I'm gonna jump around this a little bit.

Umer spending has been the you know really foundation of the economy for the past couple of years and still has been both in the fourth quarter and the current quarter.

Um we're seeing significant spending that continues to drive the US economy, and that's something that the Fed is taking into account.

Um I'd like to make some notes on the first quarter of this year, because as I mentioned, um what a difference a couple of months make.

Um, after the end of the fourth quarter, um, you know, geopolitic geopolitics has really overtaken macroeconomic fundamentals as the market's primary focus.

At the end of the year, we expected to see two more rate cuts, perhaps in 2026, maybe one in 2027.

Um the expectation for that has essentially disappeared as the Fed grapples wouldn't be implications from the conflicts in the Middle East.

Um those are basically influencing near-term inflation risks, but one of the things that's really important about that is there's nothing the Fed can do about the conflict in the Middle East.

And so what that really means is their policy with regard to rate changes is on hold until that resolves itself.

Um so during the first quarter of this year, they did not make any moves with regard to interest rates, and rates have been in a range of 3.5 to 3.75% at the bottom of the curve.

Um the good news is that the two-year area of the curve where we're investing on behalf of the city on average has risen by 32 basis points during that same period.

So we've been able to invest um in the first quarter in some really higher yielding investments and taking advantage of those rate movements.

Uh, we've continued our strategy of diversifying the portfolio into the different sectors allowed by our investment policy, and you know, these uh indicators, labor market, inflation, uh, those have gotten a bit softer uh since the board, but again, consumer spending has held strong, so we're still fairly positive, and we're waiting to see like the that is if this issue um in the Middle East resolves itself, I think it's still a view for the most part from economists and market participants that this is a temporary issue that if resolved quickly should not have lingering effects on the inflation story for the long term.

So I'll pause there for questions and perhaps go back to the portfolio exhibit um as an anchor.

Okay, so it's graciously let us reverse okay.

Um the benchmark.

Can you tell me what that means?

Yeah, that's a great question.

So I would consider the benchmark a proxy for investment returns essentially and investment characteristics.

The benchmark that we utilize in consultation with staff is the zero to five-year US Treasury index.

Practically what that is is it's a basket or holdings of all the U.S.

treasuries in the market, um, every single one of them with a maturity between zero and five years.

And so using that basket of securities as a proxy, we can look at the maturity range of the investments in that category that are treasuries.

We can look at the duration of that category.

And so when we compare the portfolio to that benchmark, what we're really saying is we don't want the city's portfolio to be too far afield of this benchmark in terms of duration and maturity characteristics.

It is a US Treasury index, meaning it only comprises US Treasuries, because that gives us a really clear picture of the additional value we're getting for investing outside of the treasury sector vis-a-visifying into corporate notes, commercial paper, and other types of securities.

Okay, so just uh understand our portfolio has 28% of its value in securities that are under a year of duration.

Whereas this is uh I guess just um bonds that would mature in less than a year or key bills.

Yeah, it's 26% of the benchmark.

Yeah, I would I would continue the first part of your sentence by saying whereas in the treasury market, 26% of the US Treasury market um with maturities between zero and five years is in the zero to one year category in terms of duration as a duration less than a year.

As a duration less than a year.

So say the full last sentence.

Of the US Treasuries with maturities under five years, 26% has a duration less than a year.

You're talking about the entire flow through the system.

Yep.

Okay.

So this benchmark represents all the US Treasuries with maturities under five years.

Okay, so the uh median security is less than two years.

Yes.

And for that benchmark of conceptually risk-free assets, its average return is at the 3.76 in the north.

Well, these these portfolio, these portfolio statistics in the top left represent the city's portfolio.

So the portfolio has a yield at cost of 4.16%.

And that tells you that if you held all the securities until their maturity, you don't do anything with the portfolio, you will have earned 4.16%.

The yield at market tells you what a you know third-party buyer would yield if they purchased your portfolio from you today.

If I just invested in this benchmark, what would my return be?

So return for the benchmark is represented on this page.

And this is the return over the quarter.

Um that interest plus the change in market value translates into a total return number of 1.12%.

The benchmark over the same period returned 1.10%.

Um of the things I do point out is that although it's a treasury benchmark, a lot of the volatility in the market had an impact on changes, and so not only is the income track here, but the market value change in the Treasury index is tracked as well.

And when interest rates decline, uh market values rise.

And so we've seen a lot of market value volatility pushing treasury yields and returns higher over the period.

But this is the metric that you are going to look at when you're comparing the portfolio to the benchmark.

Um for comparison purposes, over the first quarter of the year, um, the city's portfolio returned 53 basis points over the first quarter, and the benchmark returned 43 basis points over the quarter, and that's for um the quarter ending March 31st, 2026.

Um so that's not yet represented here because this is third quarter kind of fourth quarter returns.

Okay, so if we can go back to the first slide.

So given credit quality here in the Southwest quadrant, given this quality distribution, what should we expect as the risk premium over the treasury index?

That is a great question.

So if we had the return or the market yield of the benchmark, I could tell you that right away.

One of the things I will speak on, um, and we included in our full quarter report in the packet, it essentially helps you see what the excess returns are over the period for various sectors.

So for example, during the quarter looking at uh various indexes, and we sort of adjusted it because the hard to get a zero to five agency ABS sector.

Um during the quarter, US Treasuries return for one to five year, just to get a sense of the market, uh 5.74 for the year ending 1231 2025, whereas the corporate A to AAA index returned 6.31% for the year.

Over the quarter, all of the sectors were fairly even.

And so when we have a US Treasury turn of 1.12, the corporate index only returned 1.19.

And that really reflects a lot of the volatility about what was happening during the first quarter of the year.

And so we really like to look at you know risk premiums over a longer run framework just to get a better sense.

And as I mentioned, I think the first quarter you started to see the benefit of that diversification.

One of the things I will point out in terms of using securities other than treasuries is that higher income premium that you get, the additional income does help to shoulder some of that volatility.

This past quarter, there was positive market value gains in the portfolio.

Some quarters you'll see negative market value gains, negative market value losses in the portfolio, and the higher income from the diversification helps settle some of that volatility.

So the short answer or the short just contextual reason for the question is that I would never judge anything on one quarter.

That doesn't make any sense.

But understand the risk premium that we should be earning because we're not in fully in US Treasuries.

That's important, and that's totally model level.

We can say we should give them this risk profile on X percent and double A and X percent and AYC.

We should be able to have an estimate that we are going to get 75 BIPS basis points above the risk-free.

Whatever that number happens to be, I don't know what it is, but that's what finance experts will tell us, such as yourself.

And so that we can then as a council have an expectation of how we will do better or worse as things evolved.

In the past, one of the things that I've struggled with is we were always beating benchmark.

So what?

Well, of course, we're beating benchmark because we're making riskier investments than benchmark.

Our duration is different than benchmark.

And so what I hope that we can get in in the future as we continue this relationship is an understanding of what we should be expecting.

But the market tells us that we should be expecting, and then how uh performance is comparing to that, and maybe some discussion about why we will just force a weighted in such and such, and that sector took a hit this quarter.

So um, thank you for that feedback, Mayor Gonzalez.

Um, perhaps next time I'll work with staff, we can do a deeper dive into some of the exhibits in the quarter report.

We talk about spread products, um, sector spreads versus treasury as a baseline, and we can talk a little bit more about expected returns for diversified portfolios and how we're prepping the uh city's portfolio to continue to be a strong performer vis-a-divid.

Okay, so let's go to your public comment on the center.

We have not received any comments.

Okay, it's such an interesting topic.

Thank you very much for coming to join us.

And so at this point in time, we will move forward with a recommendation to be accept the investment report, and then we're going to move the council or recommend the council adopt this investment report by resolution.

You have unanimous consent of this question.

At this point in time, we've got item two C.

Item two C is the OPED trust and trusted investment report through the end of last year with this structure, which is solo presented.

Thank you, Mayor Gonzalez, members of finance committee, which is the assistant finance director here to present the um calendar year 2025 quarter four report.

So this would be from October through December 2025.

Um, we're looking at our um other post-employment benefit, uh also known as OPEP, and pension trust investment report.

And uh these funds are held separately in trust for um those um future benefits.

Um, so it is different than the uh cash um cities cash report that uh we just heard from our other investment advisor.

Um, and with that being said, moving on to what we saw in the uh fourth quarter, and um it was um a little sluggish.

Um we're looking at um for our OPEB trust, um, we had um earnings of uh 1.54, about 370,000.

If we're looking at the calendar year, um much more favorable 10.73% and returns of 2.4 million and inception to date um a little over 5%.

Moving on to the pension trust, um again looking at uh Q4 calendar year, so October through December 2025, um, or um return on investment of about $688,000 or 1.89% for the quarter, uh, one year return uh 12.86%, and then inception to date return of 4.64%.

Um so that being said, um looking again just at the quarter, a little sluggish, and um looking ahead to Q1 in the uh next calendar year, the current calendar year, so from January to March, um we are seeing that geopolitical conflict impact return, so um, we would expect to see some negative returns, um, but our investment advisor um they're actively managing the portfolio, and again they have the long-term view that um the market will correct and we will continue to see um more favorable uh returns as we move forward in the calendar year.

And with that, um happy to answer any questions you might have.

And uh this investment report we are just uh we're asking committee to accept the report.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

I just wanted to add a comment to this particular item um to kind of set the stage.

It's something that we bring to you on a quarterly basis, um, but we are planning um at the next finance committee in Maine to bring forward um a much deeper dive on both um the OPEP and the pension trust.

Um I think it's been um a little over a year, and so I want to bring that item back for a deeper dive on um where we stand with uh both of those uh trusts um and strategies and ways and way that we want to potentially use that either in the near future or um in the later term.

Um and then uh subsequently in June, we are planning to bring forward uh for discussion different ways in which we can amend our investment strategies.

Um I know that's been a conversation as we've presented these quarterly reports in the past.

So the next two uh finance committees will focus more heavily on the city's pension and OPEB uh trusts, um, and today is really just kind of an overview of the performance of the quarter ending uh December 31st, 2025.

Thank you for addressing my questions.

I do have one other question because this is all also tie then into uh our caliper's unfunded liability.

Um will we at that time or soon thereafter be getting another report from CalPRS?

So I would recommend that we uh revisit that either the end of the summer or early uh fall after the updated actuaries are released from CalPRS, it's typically in July or August that we receive that information, and so once we have the updated information, which will incorporate the most recent um returns on their investments, and I think would be at the time to have a conversation and bring CalPRS here to provide a presentation for committee.

And the last one was approximately two years ago, would have been December, November of 24.

So that sounds that sounds accurate, yes.

Okay, if we could at some point before that talk about what it is that they'll be discussing, so that the presentation is not just a CAN presentation, but it really helps us address the questions that we have.

That would be useful.

Yeah, we absolutely can have some of those conversations to prime you and be ready for that that kind of technical conversation.

Okay.

Um questions, I don't need questions, public comment.

Do we have any?

So we're closing public comment on this item.

And you're asking us to adopt it, but those are distinction for this order.

We're not recommending to the city council.

Um no, this is for committee acceptance.

Okay, is that by a policy?

Explain the difference to me.

Um both items are requesting that the council uh accept, or excuse me, the committee accepts the report.

Um, the investment uh report that uh Monique Spikes provided um with there are specific government codes that require the council adopted by resolution.

Um so that's why there's a little bit of a difference in that request and recommendation.

Okay, then I will add a question.

I'm going to start with city manager, but it may come to you very quickly.

Would it be good practice for the city council to accept this as well?

Yes, the council can accept this as well.

That wasn't my question.

My question is is it good practice?

Well, I know they don't like creating bureaucracy and headache, right?

But if it's good practice, that's why if you don't know right now, I want to get back to that fine too.

But it's I think it's an important question about governance.

Um I prefer to talk about that technology because it's an I think deeper conversation.

Perfect.

We'll come back to that later.

So with that, um you have consensus from committee members seeing that we have consensus that we as a committee accept accept this.

Okay.

So with that, we are done with item two C Moving to public comments.

Items are not on our agenda, opening it.

Do we have any?

We do not.

Closing it.

Uh, on item number four.

Um do you have any comments?

Okay.

My comment uh is the second by that the Apple for 2B, I think it was.

That was a request to make us more liquid.

And I didn't know if that was just uh like an errant comment or if there has been a conscious decision to make this more liquid.

Thank you for that question.

Um there was a need um in the end of the calendar year for uh an increase of liquidity uh for the city.

Um there was a number of changes that took place with the last couple of years in the investment strategy.

Um and so um one in particular was um investing in our portfolio with our previous um investment manager, um, and we were making certain payments to um CalPR on a quarterly basis.

Um we found it to be more lucrative and in a way to save the city more money to make the annual prepayment rather than invest those into the portfolio.

And so as a result, um we are right-sizing our portfolio to match the city's liquidity needs.

Um PFMAM uh is a new uh uh managing director for us for our portfolio.

We believe that the amount that is currently in the portfolio is the adequate amount uh to allow us to have the liquidity needs that we needed at the time, um, and I don't anticipate that we will liquidate any more funds in that portfolio the near future.

Okay, so the with respect to that, I would ask that we just have a brief 15-minute conversation at some other point to better understand the details.

I understand the concept.

Correct.

But because there's so much money involved, I think it'd be useful to just flesh out the details a little bit.

And the second element of that, so setting aside liquidity for the purpose that was described, there's just a general comment.

That is we're holding funds.

Again, this is a lot of money, as we're holding funds and we're setting our term structure.

The duration, it strikes me should at least somewhat mirror what we when we expect to use the funds.

And I'm unclear if that's consciously being done, not being done.

Um so if you want to discuss that a little bit now, or we can talk to you offline, but just that that concept of how we're determining duration.

I appreciate the question.

I think we can have a more in-depth uh conversation, but just high-level cons uh uh comment uh here is that when we moved to PFM and we did change our strategy from a zero uh to three year investment strategy to a zero to five, with exactly uh uh the comment that you made that we were uh trying to be thoughtful in our investments that uh longer term duration uh investments uh had higher yields, um but wanting to ensure that we had funds available should the city need them from liquidity needs.

But I'm happy to have further conversation on how we came up with that mix in a uh offline conversation, but wanting the record to reflect that we have changed our strategy for that reason.

Thank you.

Uh that's all that I have on number four.

I think we were clear, correct?

So our time of adjournment is for retirement.

We are recording stop.

Recording stop.