►
Description
City of San José, California
Federated City Employees' Retirement Plan Board of November 19, 2020
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda https://sjrs.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=813736&GUID=2A0B0DD8-3881-4657-9ED1-2D168B004C5D
A
B
A
I've
been
on
the
whole
time
just
quietly
yeah
I
saw.
D
B
Okay,
I
I
did
get
a
reminder
note.
Last
month,
I've
got
to
announce
it,
but
when
entering
the
meeting
remind
attendees
that
pre-meeting
conversations
can
be
heard
by
the
public,
it's
not
being
recorded,
but
they
can
be
heard
by
the
public,
but
we're
not
really
having
pre-meeting
conversations.
So
it
wasn't
really
an
issue
today,
but
I
did
want
to
put
that
out
there
for
future
reference.
B
Let's
see
so
with
that,
I'm
going
to
call
to
meeting
call
to
order
the
meeting
of
the
board
of
administration
for
the
federation
city,
employees,
retirement
system
and
the
federated
city,
employees,
healthcare,
trust
november,
9..
Excuse
me
november
19th
2020
and
excuse
me
inside
a
couple
things
around
on
my.
E
B
B
Yes,
okay,
so
before
we
jump
into
the
agenda,
let
me
do
the
ground
rules
again
this.
In
accordance
with
the
governor's
executive
order,
we
go
out
to
brown
act
during
shelter
and
place
all
speakers
please
clearly
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
audio
recording
all
presenters.
Please
show
presentations
in
full
screen
mode
to
avoid
inadvertently
sharing
personal
or
confidential
material.
B
B
B
Okay.
So
with
that
we'll
jump
into
orders
of
the
day,
are
there
any
changes
to.
C
B
B
Trustee,
yes,
thank
you
very
much
trustee
orr,
okay,
any
discussion
public
discussion.
Let's
do
a
roll
call
vote,
trustee
horowitz
hi.
Thank
you.
Trustee
jennings.
F
B
A
G
B
Is
there?
Do
you
have
a
motion
and
second
anything
to
pull
or
should
we
have
motion
second
to
approve
the
consent
agenda
as
as
listed
so
motioned?
Okay,
thank
you.
Trustee
kelleher
for
the
motion.
B
G
A
B
Thank
you,
trustee
son,
hi,
okay
and
just
checking
one
more
time,
trust
your
horowitz.
Are
you
good
with
that?
One
too.
B
Item
two
death
and
survivorship
notifications,
this
time
I'll
ask
you
ask
for
a
motion
of
a
moment
of
silence
for
those
who
serve
the
city
and
have
recently
passed.
B
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Good
morning
trustees,
I
do
have
some
numbers
that
I'd
like
to
share
with
you.
We
did
get
preliminary
performance
information
from
makita
for
the
for
the
first
quarter
of
the
fiscal
year,
which
is
the
third
quarter
of
the
calendar,
and
the
fed
plan
was
actually
up
6.2
percent
compared
to
the
policy
benchmark,
which
was
5.5
in
the
investable
policy
benchmark
at
5,
and
the
good
news
is
that
it
puts
us
in
the
fourth
percentile
of
our
peer
group
and
year
to
date.
E
This
is
the
calendar
year-to-date
number.
We
are
at
5.1
percent
versus
3.7
for
the
benchmark
for
the
investable
policy
benchmark
and
four
percent
for
the
policy
benchmark,
which
actually
puts
us
once
again
in
the
first
percentile
of
our
peers,
so
really
very,
very
strong
performance.
E
In
october,
the
plan
was
actually
negative,
0.82
and
never
november
month
to
date,
as
of
the
day
before
it
was
up
6.37,
giving
us
a
fiscal
year-to-date
return
of
12.13.
E
So
this
is
from
july
1st,
through
a
couple
of
days
ago,
up
12.13
again
very,
very
strong
performance,
both
on
an
absolute
basis
and
on
a
peer
relative
basis,
but
just
a
word
of
caution:
there's
still
considerable
headwinds
out
there.
As
far
as
the
markets
go,
we
still
we're
still
not
back
to
pre-pandemic
economic
activity
levels.
E
We
have
a
gridlock,
and
so
we
don't
have.
We
don't
see
a
stimulus
bill
anytime
soon,
so
there's
still
a
lot
of
issues
and
considerable
headwinds
as
far
as
the
markets
are
concerned.
The
one
silver
lining,
of
course,
is
that
we
do
have
a
vaccine.
Finally,
and
hopefully
that
will
be
rolled
out
in
the
next
several
months,
but
again
so
strong
numbers,
but,
as
you
all
know,
those
numbers
could
vanish
in
a
jiffy.
E
C
This
is
trustee
jennings.
I
my
question
is
visit
one.
This
is
great
news.
This
makes
I'm
sure
all
of
us
quite
happy
as
to
where
we
were
when
we
ended
the
fiscal
year
or
the
what
second
quarter
of
the
calendar
year
compared
to
this
is
from
july.
Through
now,
right.
C
E
Yeah,
the
markets
continue
to
be
very
strong
right,
as
we've
seen
from
july,
through
you
know,
through
november,
and
with
the
with
the,
with
the
exception
of
october,
when
there
was
a
slight
downturn
in
the
market.
Otherwise
markets
continue
to
be
strong.
E
I
think
a
lot
of
this
is
an
anticipation
of
fiscal
and
monetary
stimulus.
I
think
the
markets
were
relieved
that
we
actually
have
a
clear
winner
in
the
election.
I
think
that
was
hanging
over
the
market
a
little
bit,
and
so
there
was
a
bit
of
a
relief
rally
when
there
was
a
clear
winner
and-
and
we
continue
to
you
know-
have
an
overweight
to
growth
assets
so
that
that
that's
definitely
helped
our
clients.
B
Any
other
questions
or
comments
from
mr
palani.
B
Okay,
moving
on
then
to
item
four
old
business
deferred
continued
items,
mr
pena,
if
you
don't
mind
I'll,
take
a
first
crack
at
this
and
then
you
can
supplement
since
I,
it
was
really
my
oversight,
no
no
worries
so
for
for
the
board
items
for
a,
and
I
think
we'll
want
to
take
action
on
them.
Mr
mr
pena,
do
we
want
to
take
action
on
them
together
or
yeah.
B
Okay,
great,
thank
you
so
last
month,
when
the
board
discussed
the
compensation
increases
for
this
ceo
and
cio,
resulting
from
the
performance
appraisal
and
I'll
just
remind
you
that
the
performance
appraisal
discussion
is
a
closed
session
item.
But
the
compensation
discussion
was
a
public
item.
B
B
Well,
I
should
say:
first
we
have
been
trying
to
connect
our
performance
appraisals,
our
performance
appraisals
and
the
processes
that
we
use
for
the
ceo
and
cio
to
what
the
city
has
been
doing
with
its
management
employees
and
those
two
memo
or
the
memo
there.
That's
the
same
memo
on
482
and
4b2.
B
B
Yes,
so
our
board
decision
last
month
was
to
a
little
further
down
linda
the
next
table.
B
Yes,
that
mpp
awards
great
yes,
when
we,
when
we
granted
the
performance-based
compensation
that
level
of
compensation
only
go
comes
with
additional
executive
leave
of
five
days,
so
chair
of
police
and
fire-
and
I
we
you
know
in
our
work
to
on
the
performance
assessment
as
well
as
the
performance-based
compensation.
We
we
dealt
with
those
things,
but
we
did
forget
to
take
care
of
the
additional
executive
leave.
B
It
just
required
a
specific
action
on
behalf
of
the
board.
So
while
we
did
the
first
two
parts,
we
didn't
take
care
of
that
last
one.
So
this
there's
nothing
in
this
agenda,
these
two
agenda
items
that
affects
appraisal
or
the
the
compensation,
but
we
are
just
trying
to
because
we
didn't
specify
it
in
the
in
the
memo
earlier.
We
want
to,
you
know,
take
care
of
this
last
piece
of
business
with
related
with
with
regard
to
the
performance
appraisals.
B
So
if
you
have
any
questions,
please
let
me
know
otherwise
we're
really
looking
for
almost
an
administrative
action
motion.
Second,
to
approve
the
five
days
of
executive
leave
for
the
ceo
and
the
cio.
A
Hi
this
is
trustee
orr.
I
moved
to
approve,
as
outlined,
adding
the
five
days.
B
H
E
B
Hey
trusty
orr.
A
E
B
Okay,
good!
Thank
you
very
much
for
everybody
for
that
and
then
let's
go
on
then
to
item
five
new
business.
5A
is
the
oral
update
from
the
ceo
of
retirement
services,
mr
pena.
I
I
I
We
expect
the
new
senior
auditor
to
join
us
on
monday
november
30th,
and
so
I
will
make
sure
that
I
will
provide
a
little
more
background
on
the
hiring.
I
do
december
meetings
but
wanted
to
let
you
know,
starting
on
the
november
30th
we're
going
to
have
a
c,
a
new
senior
auditor
on
board.
I
I
do
know
he
has
extensive
experience
and
he
is
joining
us
from
the
city
of
palo
alto.
So
we
are
very,
very
excited
about
about
the
edition.
I
also
wanted
to
remind
you
boar
that
there
is
a
public
seat
that
is
coming
up
for
reappointment.
I
There
were
two
applications
that
were
accepted
by
the
city
and
at
this
point,
the
interview
for
the
public
seat
for
the
federal
board
is
scheduled
by
the
city
council
at
their
december
first
meeting,
in
which,
at
which
time
they
will
be
appointing
the
making
this
election
and
appointing
the
person
they
select
to
the
federal
board.
I
There
is
also
the
process
for
the
retiree
seat,
which
technically
the
appointment,
ends
on
november
30th.
I
You
also
should
receive
an
email
from
staff
yesterday,
stating
that
as
soon
as
you
receive
your
ipad
to
you
know,
acknowledge
that
to
staff
and
also
retain
your
own
ipad
in
the
envelope
with
which
address
that
was
provided
with
the
package
of
the
new
ipad.
I
I
also
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
you
may
recall,
I
think
it
was
september
where
prabhu
and
his
staff
presented
to
you
board
the
investment
expense
report
for
canada
year
2019
and
prabhu
actually
presented
a
shorter
version
to
to
that
report
to
the
city
council
on
october
27th,
which
I
think
he
was
very
well
received.
I
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
that,
but
last
october
29th
council
harvey
liedman
provided
field
trade
training
to
trustees
and
staff.
It
was
about
two
two
and
a
half
hours
training.
I
thought
it
was
very
informative,
obviously
very
helpful
and
much
appreciated.
I
I
also
wanted
to
share
with
you
that
I
did
my
best
to
sound
just
like
bill
hallmark
the
last
couple
of
weeks
and
two
trainings
that
I
provided
to
some
of
you
that
join
me
on
some
actual
concepts
and
and
information.
Hopefully,
you
found
it
to
be
very
educational
and
helpful
for
today's
discussion
with
chiron.
I
Lastly,
I
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
we
have,
as
you
know,
we're
going
through
the
health
care
open
enrollment
for
retirees
in
the
month
of
november,
and
that
is
being
somewhat
challenging,
because
we
have
have
some
no
need
that
we
have
some
vacancies
and
stuff.
I
You
may
also
know
I
shared
with
you
by
email
last
week
that
our
benefits
managers-
unfortunately
it
will
be
only
for
six
months
until
may
of
2021,
so
we
worked
through
the
mayor's
office
and
the
budget
office
for
the
city
to
freeze
our
last
senior
benefit
analyst
position,
and
so
we
just
gave
the
approval.
Yesterday
we
were
given
the
approval
yesterday.
B
I
We're
going
to
work
with
hr
to
try
to
search
and
bring
on
board
as
quickly
as
possible.
Another
senior
benefit
analyst
for
the
pension
side.
We
just
recently
conducted
that
same
search
for
the
healthcare
side.
As
you
know,
our
healthcare
senior
benefit
analyst
left
employment
last
september,
and
so
in
terms
of
the
open
enrollment
I
wanted
to
let
you
know
we
have
received
about
120
federated,
open,
enrollment
reforms
and
benefits.
They
are
really
mostly
for
re-enrollment
in
their
health
in
lieu.
I
I
won't
bore
you
with
explanation
as
to
what
that
means,
but
it
that's
that's
a
that's
an
issue
that
it
doesn't
continue
automatically
from
year
to
year.
Members
have
to
sign
up
every
year,
open
enrollment
ends
on
november
30th
we
have
been
in
communication.
I
We
had
a
presentation
by
staff
to
the
retirement
group
this
earlier
this
month
that
I
I
believe
it
was
very
well
received
and
we
have
been
trying
very
hard
to
keep
our
membership
uprise
on
the
upcoming
vendor
presentations
and
what
the
virtual
office
hours
are
and
again
open.
Enrollment
ends
on
november
30th,
and
just
just
a
reminder
that,
obviously
our
office
is
not
really
open.
I
In
terms
of
welcoming
members
to
the
office,
but
we
will
be
closed
in
terms
of
not
even
having
staff
working
only
for
the
thanksgiving
holiday
that
will
be
november
26
november,
and
if
you
bear
with
me,
I
have
one
more
announcement.
If
I
can
find
it
here,.
I
Lastly,
I
wanted
to
mention
staff
continue
to
work
remotely,
obviously,
because
of
the
open
enrollment
and
the
benefits
area,
and
the
impact
that
we
have
had
with
vacancies
in
the
benefits
group
is
being
a
real
challenge.
We
actually
had
a
a
meeting
zoom
meeting
yesterday
with
our
benefit
stats,
and
I
just
want
to
tell
you
more
a
couple
of
things.
The
first
one
is
that,
despite
those
challenges,
the
staff,
whether
it's
benefits,
accounting
administration,
I.t
investments,
have
continued
working,
remotely
and
and
actually
completing
and
achieving
of
the
core
duties
of
the
office.
I
But
I
wanted
to
specifically
key
in,
even
though
all
our
staff
is
working
hard
through
these
working
him
only
you
just
heard
recently
from
our
cio
the
most
recent
investment
results.
I
wanted
to
give
kudos
to
the
benefit
stats
publicly
because
they
have
it's
a
very
strong
team.
I
They
have
worked
very,
very
well
together
and
especially
with
a
couple
of
things,
and
you
know,
with
the
open
involvement,
the
police
have
fire
side,
cost
of
living,
increase
increases
is
for
is
doing
february
and
the
one
in
the
federation
is
in
april.
I
So
that
increases
as
we
get
close
to
the
end
of
the
year,
increases
the
the
retirement
requirements
from
members
and
so
they've
been
very,
very,
very
busy
and,
as
I
wanted
to
publicly
thank
them
for
the
engagement
and
the
commitment
and
for
the
hard
work
and
dedication
for
our
membership.
So
with
that.
That
concludes
my
comments.
I
appreciate
you
giving
me
the
chance
to
give
you
a
five
to
seven
minute
update
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
pena.
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments
for
mr
pena?
B
I
will.
I
will
confirm
the
staff
did
a
great
job
at
the
retiree
association
meeting,
they're
they're,
very
thorough.
We
really
appreciated
the
the
team
effort,
bringing
the
providers
in
as
well
as
a
different
benefit
staff,
and
then
I
didn't
realize
roberto
that
that
was
not
you
at
the
actuarial
training.
I
thought
that
was
bill,
hallmark
doing
that
training
for
us.
B
Thank
you
very
much
again
for
that.
Okay,
five
b
is
the
oral
update
from
the
city
council
liaison
to
the
board
is
council
member
davis
with
us
this
morning.
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
linda.
I
appreciate
that
5c
presentation
of
preliminary
2020
pension
actuarial
evaluation
results
and
discussion
in
action
on
amortization
payment,
increase
rate
and
economic
assumptions
for
the
june
30
2020
actuary
evaluations.
B
Can
I
turn
that
over
to
bill
and
jackie.
D
Good
morning,
yes,
bill,
jackie
and
steven
we're
all
three
gonna
tag
team
this
so
good
morning.
Everyone-
and
I
will
say
that
I'm
not
gonna
even
attempt
to
be
roberto
today,
that's
too
much
too
tall
of
an
order,
but
we're
here
to
present
the
preliminary
2020
evaluation
results
and
then
review
the
economic
assumptions.
D
At
the
end,
we're
going
to
ask
you
to
make
a
decision
about
the
economic
assumptions,
and
so
that's
where
we're
headed.
Let
me
see
if
I
can
get
my
slides
to
advance
there.
We
go
just
we're
at
the
beginning
of
our
actuarial
season
here,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
lay
out
the
the
preliminary
schedule
today
we're
giving
the
preliminary
results
and
then
the
review
of
the
economic
assumptions.
D
D
We
will
also
be
bringing
back
the
opeb
assumptions
so
today
we're
focused
primarily
on
the
pension,
although
some
of
it
will
carry
over
to
the
opeb
and
then
at
the
january
board
meeting
we
bring
back
the
final
open
evaluation,
so
you'll
be
seeing
us
for
the
next
couple
months,
but
to
start
off
before
we
get
to
the
preliminary
results
of
this
valuation,
roberto
asked
us,
and
I
think
this
is
really
good-
to
go
back
and
kind
of
set
the
stage
for
it
by
looking
at
how
we
got
to
where
we
are
today-
and
you
start
that
by
looking
back
in
2001,
this
plan
was
103
funded
and
today
were
51
funded
and
the
city's
contribution
from
that
2001
valuation
was
only
13.8
percent
of
pay
and
right
now
the
contribution
is
about
59
of
pay.
D
So
there
are
a
couple
things
on
these
charts.
I
I
want
to
point
to
right
now,
but
the
key
question
is:
how
did
we
get
from
these
early
well-funded
positions
to
where
we
are
today?
D
One
thing
to
note
here:
the
blue
is
the
liability
for
members
who
are
not
working
for
the
city
of
san
jose
and
the
red
is
the
liability
for
members
who
are
currently
working
for
san
jose
and
back
in
2001.
That
proportion
was
about
50
50.,
it's
not
50,
50
anymore,
it's
dominated
by
the
inactive
liability
and
then
when
we
were
fully
funded
on
the
contribution
side,
you're
primarily
paying
the
normal
cost,
which
is
the
light
purple,
is
the
member
contribution
in
the
dark
purple's
the
city's
contribution.
D
D
D
We
make
assumptions
about
all
sorts
of
things
to
project
what
those
future
benefits
are:
retirement
rates,
mortality,
salary
increases
and
so
forth,
and
and
from
that
we're
assessing
how
much
assets
we
should
have
right
now,
and
then
we
are
estimating
the
investment
earnings
and
adjusting
the
valves
for
the
contributions
to
decide
how
much
contributions
need
to
come
in.
D
So
as
we
go
back
in
time,
the
top
graph
is
is
expanding
out
that
first
graph
on
funded
status,
where
we
were
103
funded
in
2001.
D
It
had
dropped
to
55
percent
and
from
there
we
had
some
ups
and
downs
as
we
go
forward
and
we'll
talk
about
what
has
happened
in
this
interim
period.
But
the
big
hit
was
clearly
the
great
recession
and
you
can
see
that
down
here,
we're
just
showing
the
unfunded
liability
and
the
unfunded
liability
was
pretty
minimal,
195
million
in
2007
and
then
2009
it
jumped
to
1.1
billion.
D
So
that
was
really
where
we,
you
know,
got
hit
hard
and
then
from
there
we've
bounced
around
a
little
bit,
but
it
has
grown
to
about
2.1
billion
as
of
the
last
valuation.
So
we've
added
another
billion
funds
in
that
last
decade.
G
Can
I
this
is
a
trustee
song?
Can
I
interject,
and
you
know
kind
of
cut
in
a
little
bit
so
between
2007
and
2009,
we
saw
this
a
huge
change
in
the
funded
status
and
then
huge
increase
on
funding
liabilities.
Is
that
the
same
period
when
the
city
implements
the
pay
cuts?
And
then
we
see
a
big
exodus
of
the
city
employee
during
that
period,.
D
So
this
chart
is
showing
the
contributions
and
again
the
purple
are
the
the
normal
cost.
The
light
purple
is
the
employee,
the
dark
purple,
the
city,
and
then
the
gold
is
the
the
city's
payment
on
the
ual
and,
and
you
can
see
the
the
contributions
remain
relatively
low,
but
with
the
2009
valuation
that
set
the
contributions
going
forward,
and
so
we
started
seeing
an
increase.
D
And
then
in
2013
we
saw
a
huge
increase
and
they've
climbed
ever
since,
and
so
that
has
a
number
of
effects.
You
know
it
helps
the
the
pension
plan,
obviously,
but
it
is
a
strain
on
the
city's
budget.
D
D
This
is
where
you
see
the
the
drop
in
the
membership
happen,
and
then
tier
two
is
created
and
the
lighter
blue
is
the
tier
two
members
coming
in,
and
so
after
2012
the
active
membership
kind
of
stabilized
and
has
started
growing,
but
we're
not
we're
not
back
to
where
we
were
in
2009..
D
Meanwhile,
the
retirees
have
grown.
The
number
of
retirees
have
grown
significantly
during
that
period,
and
so
this
is
one
of
the
things
we
look
at
is
called
the
support
ratio.
D
It's
just
the
ratio
of
the
the
people
who
aren't
working
for
the
city
to
the
people
who
are
working
for
the
city
that
are
in
the
plan
and
and
that
grew
dramatically
that
ratio
and
that
just
you
look
at
that,
because
these
active
members
have
to
support
the
benefits
for
all
the
inactive
members,
as
well
as
the
actives,
and
so,
if
you're
having
to
carry
not
just
your
own
benefits
but
multiples
of
other
benefits.
That
makes
the
system
much
more
volatile
and
sensitive
to.
D
Changes
so
from
the
valuations.
This
chart
looks
at
what
were
the
changes
in
each
valuation.
What
what
caused
the
unfunded
liability
to
go
up
from
valuation
to
valuation
and
it's
broken
into
different
sources.
So
the
the
gold
are
the
investment
gains
or
losses.
So
anything
above
the
line
increases
the
unfunded
anything
below
reduces
it.
So
gold
are
the
investment
losses.
D
The
gray
is
our
liability
experience.
So
that's
differences
from
our
assumptions
on
mortality
retirement
salary
scale,
those
sorts
of
things,
the
the
purple
are
assumption
changes
and
that's
a
pretty
significant
piece.
D
There
are
some
benefit
changes
which
are
green.
This
was
the
elimination
of
the
srbr.
The
supplemental
retiree
benefit
reserve,
which
reduced
some
some
costs
immediately
and
the
red
is
contributions,
and
here
what
we
mean
is
not
just
total
contributions,
but
contributions
that
are
high
enough
to
reduce
the
unfunded
liability,
so
they
first
have
to
contributions.
First
have
to
pay
for
the
benefits
being
earned
in
the
year.
D
C
Up
that
again
bill
bill,
can
you
go
back
to
what
you
were
talking
about
the
red
line
again.
D
Yeah,
so
the
contributions
that
are
made,
we
first
use
them
to
pay
for
the
new
benefits
that
are
being
earned.
D
Then
we
use
them
to
pay
for
the
interest
on
the
unfunded
liability
and
then
pay
down
the
unfunded
liability
so
like,
if
you
think
about
your
mortgage
payment,
there's
a
huge
chunk
of
your
mortgage
payment,
that's
just
paying
the
interest
on
the
mortgage
and
then
there's
a
little
sliver
early
on.
That's
pa,
reducing
the
principal
amount
of
the
mortgage,
and
you
have
something
similar
going
here,
but
because
this
red
is
above
the
line,
what
it
means
is
the
contributions
were
less
than
that
interest
on
the
unfunded
liability.
So
it's
like
in
your
mortgage.
C
Yes
and
then
just
one
other
question,
the
liability
experience
if
you
look
at
the
bottom,
that's
161
million.
Is
that
right,
yeah
if
I
ran
so
the
liability
experience,
does
that
include
the
the
increase
in
the
retirees?
C
Does
that
address
trustee
sun's,
a
question
that
she
had
said
where
you
know
we
had
a
big
influx
of
retirees?
Would
that
be
captured
in
that.
D
I
Bill,
if
I
may
just
judy,
you
may
recall
in
the
wonderful
training
that
we
provided.
We,
we
spoke
about
the
demographic
assumptions
and
then
we
spoke
about
the
the
experience
study,
which
actually
compares
the
assumptions
that
we
have
with
the
actual
experience
that
is
happening
year
to
year.
That's
exactly
what
bill
is
referring
to.
We
have
some
assumptions
at
the
time
on
how
many
people
retire
on
the
annual
basis
and
what
he's
saying
is
hey.
We
were
expecting
10,
but
30
retire,
so
that
delta
of
30
10
to
30.
I
I
D
One
thing
I
would
point
out
here
is:
at
the
same
time
we
were
getting
a
lot
of
retirements.
D
D
The
place
this
liability
loss
came
in
was
in
2009
in
prior
years
and
primarily
there.
There
are
some
mixed
in
here,
but
there
were
some
assumptions
on
the
number
of
people
who
would
take
refunds
on
mortality,
variety
of
assumptions
that
we
changed
and
made
some
significant
changes,
and
so
you
can
see
those
assumption
changes
hitting
in
these
years
as
well
and
there's
the
assumption
changes
were
both
those
kinds
of
assumption
changes,
but
also
reducing
the
discount
rate.
Okay
and.
D
C
D
I
I
So
I
tried
to
explain
the
fact
that
back
in
2010,
when
the
board
decided
to
implement
a
30-year
close
in
the
demonstration,
meaning
that,
instead
of
being
a
30-year
opening
day
where
every
year
their
motivation
was
amortized
over
30
years,
close
ended
meant
that
from
that
point
forward
every
year,
that
mutilation
will
get
it
one
year
smaller.
So
it
will
go
from
30
in
2010
to
29
and
2011
to
28
and
2012,
and-
and
this
also
I
couldn't
explain
it
from
the
mathematical
standpoint.
I
But
it's
my
understanding
that
whenever
you
do
that,
usually
the
the
actual
contribution
required
by
the
plan
sponsor
is
not
enough
to
cover
the
unfunded
liability
until
so
many
years
down
the
road
right.
I
don't
know
if
it
depends
on
the
size
of
them
from
the
liabilities.
So
if
the
size
is
small,
they
start
paying
the
interest.
I
They
start
paying
enough
to
cover
the
interest
on
some
portion
of
the
principle.
After
the
first
couple
of
years,
and
if
it's
a
large
unfunded
it
takes
longer,
but
what
I'm
hoping
that
you
can
explain
is
twofold
that
explanation
about
how
long
it
takes
to
start
making
enough
payments
to
cover
both
the
interest
and
portion
of
the
principal,
but
also
the
concept
that
I
think
is
more
important
to
me
that
the
city
was
actually
paying
the
amount
of
contributions
they
have
been
required
to
pay.
I
D
I
think
the
illinois
teacher
system-
it's
been
over
75
years
since
they've
got
what
the
actuary
suggested.
They
should
contribute
so,
but
that
is
not
the
situation
in
san
jose
san
jose
has,
as
far
as
I
know,
always
paid
what
the
retirement
board
said
they
needed,
and
so
the
issue
was,
as
roberto
indicated,
that
the
amortization
policy
was
a
30-year
rolling
as
a
level
percent
of
pay.
So
it's
over
30
years
and
then
each
valuation
you
reset
it
to
30
years,
and
so
you
know
to
use
the
mortgage
analogy.
D
It's
like
refinancing
your
mortgage
every
two
years
and
then
every
year
over
the
30-year
period.
D
D
But
here
we
we
set
the
amortization
payments
to
increase
each
year
and
so
that
back
loads,
the
amortization
payments
and
the
idea
behind
that
is
to
keep
those
payments
a
level
percentage
of
pay,
because
payroll
is
going
to
grow
each
year.
D
The
when
you
do
that
over
a
long
period
like
30
years
in
the
first
years,
you
are
not
paying
the
interest
on
the
unfunded,
and
so
that's
what
was
happening
here.
The
red
is
really
small,
because
there
wasn't
much
unfunded
and
and
relative
to
other
things,
it's
still
small
each
year,
but
in
2009
we
said:
okay,
we're
going
to
stop
the
rolling
bit
and
just
pay
it
off
over
30
years,
so
we'd
go
30,
29
and
just
fix
it.
D
Well,
it
takes
about
10
years
on
that
schedule
before
you're
paying
more
than
the
interest,
and
so
you
can
see
these
red
slices
tend
to
get
smaller
and
smaller
and
then,
finally,
in
2019
we
paid
more
than
the
interest
and
started
paying
it
down,
and
so
it's
been
that
transition
part
of
the
well.
D
The
bulk
of
this
214
million
contribution
issue
here
was
us
getting
the
transition
from
that
30-year
down
to
20
years
and
going
forward,
and
so
we've
crossed
that
threshold,
and
now
we
are
paying
more
than
the
interest
and
paying
it
down.
D
C
Hey
bill
trustee
jennings
again.
E
C
Just
curious,
but
is
there
like
a
simple
like
little
excel
sheet?
You
could
do
with
you
know
just
a
simplistic
if
the
dollar
was
this
and
the
interest
is
that
this
is
what
it
would
be.
You
know
putting
it
with
the
level
percent
of
pay
versus
just
the
level
of
percent
of
the
dollar.
Do
you
I
mean
yes,.
D
C
D
D
If
you
did
a
30-year
amortization,
depending
on
your
assumption
on
payroll
and
interest
you,
your
initial
payment
may
only
be
seventy
thousand
dollars,
so
you
pay
seventy
thousand,
but
the
interest
was
a
hundred
thousand.
That
means
the
principal
went
up
by
thirty
thousand,
just
using
very
simple
math,
so
we
can
put
together
an
exhibit
with
some
actual
numbers
so
that
you
can
see
how
that
works.
D
But
that's
that's
that
dynamic
and
what
was
going
on,
and
so
once
we
close
the
amortization
that
payment
amount
increased
each
year
and
eventually
it
gets
up
to
more
than
the
interest
and
you
start
paying
it
down.
D
D
I
C
I
I
H
A
quick
question
trustee
horowitz
here
at
the
bottom
there's
a
comment:
approximately
493
million
of
the
assumption
change
is
due
to
changing
economic
assumptions.
Can
you
explain
that
I
would
have
thought
that
was
all
of
the
change.
D
Right,
I
was
just
getting
to
that.
That's
a
perfect
segue,
so
the
775
million
for
assumption
changes
is
a
combination
of
all
sorts
of
different
assumption.
Changes
about
493
million
is
economic
assumptions
which
is
primarily
reducing
the
discount
rate,
but
we
also
reduced
wage
inflation
at
the
same
time
and
when
we
did
that
we
didn't
necessarily
break
out
the
two
impacts,
so
I
couldn't
separate
them.
D
So
that
was
one
piece
that
was
pretty
significant.
There
was
mortality,
changes
were
pretty
significant
and
there
were
a
variety
of
other
small,
smaller
pieces
that
contributed
to
it.
So
the
the
assumptions
used
prior
to
2010
or
11
prior
to
2011
2011's,
when
we
started
really
addressing
some
of
those
we're
not
as
strong
as
we
would
like.
H
I
I
would
have
guessed
that
changes
in
mortality
and
refund
assumptions
would
have
been
part
of
the
liability
experience.
D
So
the
you
know
the
2003
2005
7
and
9
liability
experience
is
a
significant
part
of
the
the
liability
loss.
I
Just
I
say
the
question
just
a
reminder:
the
difference
between
whether
something
is
going
to
be
in
the
assumption,
assumption
changes
bucket
versus
the
library
experience
bucket
is
the
assumption.
Change
is
just
actually
changing
the
assumption
of
what
the
impacts
on
the
numbers
versus
you
have
an
assumption,
and
you
have
an
actual
experience,
and
then
you
compare
the
two
that
one
year
and
the
difference
between
what
you
actually
experience
on
the
data
and
the
assumption
that
goes
on
the
liability
experience
does
that
makes
is
that
right.
D
So
each
hold
on.
Let
me
go
back
here
so
each
year
the
the
investment
experience
and
the
liability
experience
we
put
into
one
bucket
and
we
call
that
an
experience,
gainer
loss
and
we
now
amortize
that
over
20
years
the
any
assumption
changes
we
put
into
another
bucket
and
we
amortize
that
over
25
years,
and
so
we
do
that
each
year
going
forward,
we
started
doing
that
in
2009,
and
so
this
chart
captures
our
projected
future
payments
on
those
amortizations
broken
out
for
each
year.
D
So
we
just
started
with
that
as
as
one
bucket
and
then
each
of
the
these
little
purple
pieces
are
the
assumption,
changes
that
were
enacted
and
the
gold
are
the
experience,
gains
and
losses
that
are
primarily
the
investments
and
the
line
is
the
nat
payment.
So
this
is
how
we're
projecting
the
the
payments
to
look.
You
can
see
as
a
dollar
amount.
It
increases
because
we
have
it
increasing
each
year,
the
payments
increasing
each
year
by
2.75
percent.
D
The
bottom
shows
our
projected
balance
of
the
ual
by
each
of
those
same
buckets
and
the
net,
and
so
now,
where
we
are,
we
are
projecting
it
to
just
work
its
way,
downward
and
eventually
get
paid
off,
so
we're
looking
mortality.
C
Is
it
so
you
go
from
like
2039
2040,
where
you
don't
have
it
an
unfunded,
actual
liability
anymore?
Is
that
because
people
just
died
off
or.
D
No,
it's
because
we've
paid
for
the
through
the
contributions
we've
paid
off
the
unfunded
liability.
So
this
assumes
all
of
our
assumptions
are
met
in
the
future
and
so
in
the
future.
We'll
actually
keep
adding
new
pieces
to
this,
which
could
be
either
charges
or
credits
depending
on
whether
we
have
a
gain
or
loss,
and
so
the
picture
will
will
change
each
year,
but
right
now
with
all
of
our,
if
all
of
our
assumptions
are
met,
this
is
the
schedule
of
the
ual
payments
and
and
you'll
see
you
know.
D
Yeah,
so
this
is,
you
know
this
is
the
you
know
about
two
billion
in
unfunded
liability
that
we
have
and
how
it
gets
paid
down
to
zero.
Okay,
gotcha.
G
C
G
D
Yeah,
because
the
that
was
the
the
year
that
we
changed
from
that
30-year
rolling
to
closing
it,
and
so
we
just
with
the
30-year
rolling
you
just
looked
at
the
whole
ual,
you
didn't
look
at
each
of
these
little
buckets,
and
so
all
we
did
is
we
converted
the
unfunded
in
2009
into
one
bucket
and,
and
it
was
you
know,
paid
off
on
the
30
years
since
then
any
of
the
other
stuff
we've
we've
shortened
the
amortization
period.
G
D
You-
and
this
is
just
tier
one-
that
I'm
focusing
on
tier
two
has
its
own,
but
since
it's
younger-
and
there
are
only
a
few
buckets
that
are
really
small
and
we're
just
doing
those
over
a
10-year
period.
So
it's
a
very
different
picture
for
tier
two,
but
the
big
part
of
the
ual
is
tier
one,
and
so
this
is
looking
at
the
tier
one
piece.
H
D
Yeah
they're
both
they're
both
closed
the
the
only
difference
is
the
gain
loss
we
do
over
20
years,
but
the
assumption
changes
we
do
over
25
years
and
the
rationale
for
that
goes
back
to
the
the
issue
we
were
talking
about.
The
gain
loss
just
captures
a
a
one-year
effect,
whereas
the
assumption
changes
capture
the
estimated
affected
for
all
years
in
the
future.
D
So
if
you
want
to
kind
of
sum
up,
what
the
key
factors
were
the
way
I
look
at
it
at
least
investment
returns
were
a
key
part,
primarily
the
2008
and
2009
losses.
The
investment
return
piece
of
that
was
about
640
million.
D
Then
the
discount
rate
changes
so
we'll
talk
later,
but
interest
rates
declined
really
forcing
changes
in
the
discount
rate
and
we've
lowered
that
from
eight
and
a
quarter
to
six
and
three
quarters
and
that's
a
huge
component
strengthening
the
other
assumptions.
So
we're
talking
about
the
refunds
and
the
mortality
and
some
other
pieces
that
that
was
not
insignificant.
It's
it's
less
significant
than
the
other
two,
but
it
was
not
insignificant
and
then
the
the
insufficient
contributions
added
about
200
million.
D
So
that's
it's
not
as
significant
as
the
other
pieces,
but
it's
important
lesson
I
think,
for
for
the
board
to
think
about
and
explains
why
we've
changed
our
policies
and
shortened
those
amortization
periods.
D
The
other
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
the
recovery
is
a
slow
process,
a
lot
of
times.
People
want
to
make
a
decision
and
have
it
fixed
overnight.
I
this
does
not
get
fixed
overnight.
It
takes
a
long
time
and
particularly
because
the
ual
is
2
billion,
which
is
pretty
large
compared
to
the
supporting
payroll
or
to
the
city's
budget
that
has
to
support
it
and
pay
it
off.
D
F
Morning,
everyone,
you
know
for
the
record
when
you
second
state
our
name,
so
I'm
jackie
king,
I'm
from
chiron
with
bill.
F
F
If
you
want
to
see
more
preliminary
results,
so
a
couple
of
key
things-
and
this
is
going
to
build
on
what
bill
was
talking
about
with
all
the
different
you
gain
loss
bases-
is
that
well
the
investment
returns,
and
this
is
for
the
fiscal
year
ending
june
30th
2020
the
market
value.
We
saw
an
investment
return
of
4.3
cent
and
on
an
actuarial
value
a
basis,
and
this
is
the
smooth
value
of
the
assets.
F
Luckily,
it
was
not
as
bad
as
everyone
possibly
anticipated
a
little
earlier
in
the
calendar
year,
so
you're
going
to
see
an
investment
loss
of
68
million
dollars
which,
when
compared
to
liabilities,
is
not
it's
not
a
huge
basis
on
the
liability
side,
and
this
is
now
looking
at
the
actual
experience.
C
Sorry,
okay,
why
would
the
salaries
grow
more
than
what
you
expected
because
the
colas
are
or
is
it
because
yeah
I
mean,
is
this
just
for
a
year
or
is
this
over
the
five
years.
F
No,
this
is
over
the
last
year,
cola
that
would
that
would
come
in
with
your
with
your
retiree
members.
This
is
the
salary
for
your
active
members
right.
So
what
we
saw
is
that
even
you
had
an
active
member
growth
and
that,
combined
with
the
pay
increases
that
the
actives
got
was
higher
than
the
current
assumptions,
so
that
those
two
things
combined
together
resulted
in
the
salaries
the
total
salary
has
been
higher
than
what
we
we
had
projected.
There
would
be.
C
Okay
but
again
my
question
since
I'm
an
employee,
I
kind
of
know
this
a
little
more.
The
colas
were
three-year
contract.
So
that's
something
we
already
knew
your
assumptions
normally,
for
you
know
what
someone
might
get.
I
mean
steps
and
all
that
that's
pretty
probably
standard
for
your
models.
Is
it
that
we're
bringing
in
people
at
a
higher
range
than
what
maybe
you
had
originally
estimated.
I'm
unsure
why
you
would
have
a
difference.
I.
D
C
F
Yeah
so
there's
two
parts
to
our
salary
increase
assumption.
We
have
the
the
wage
increase
wage
increase,
which
is
what
those
are
the
negotiated
contracts
and
that's
where
we
did
see
those
increases
happen,
and
then
we
had
the
second
part,
which
is
the
step.
The
merit
increases
and
that's
where
we
saw
the
biggest
growth.
You
know
some
people
got
two
increases,
but
generally
the
promotional
increases
or
the
merit
increases
were
higher
than
the
current
assumption.
G
Consistently,
I'm
having
a
little
bit
of
difficulty
wrapping
my
head
around
the
free
liability
loss,
so
if
the
salary,
if
the
rating
increase
is
higher
than
we
had
expected,
that
would
increase
our
liabilities
right,
yes
and
then
how
do
I?
Why
do
you
term
it
as
a
liability
loss.
F
We
terminated
a
liability
loss
because,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
actual
liabilities
calculated
for
this
valuation
were
higher
than
what
we
expected
them
to
be.
So
whenever
you
have
that,
when
your
liabilities
are
higher
than
what
you
expected,
you
have
that
loss,
because
we
weren't
factoring
in
that
higher
piece
of
the
liabilities.
F
If
your
liabilities
came
in
lower
than
we
expected,
it's
kind
of
that
would
be
a
gain
because
kind
of
a
windfall
for
the
plan,
because
you
kind
of
had
that
little
bit
of
extra,
you
would
have
less
of
an
unfunded
liability
than
what
you
expected
and
the
opposite.
The
opposite
goes
with
the
investments.
F
G
Okay,
so
intuitively
I
can
just
say,
your
liability
loss
term
is
actually
it's
actually
can
be
included.
As
increase
in
unfunded
liability.
Then.
F
Yeah,
it's
an
increase
above
what
we
expected
so
you're,
basically
going
to
have
a
higher
unfunded
liability
than
we
assume
so
you're
going
to
have
that
extra
base
there
that
you're
going
to
have
to
pay
down.
G
F
Okay,
any
other
questions
I
just
want
to
touch
on
the
third
bullet.
I
know
we've
touched
on
the
fourth
round
a
bit,
the
third
bullet.
This
one
is
going
to
be
classed
as
an
assumption
changed.
So
at
the
last
experience
study
you
know,
the
current
assumption
for
the
mortality
is
that
we
have
a
mortality
improvement
scale.
So
that's
where
you're
projecting
that
mortality
is
going
to
improve
over
time.
You
know,
which
is
what
you
generally
see.
So
we
have
these
projection
scales
there.
F
They
do
get
updated
on
a
regular
basis
and
at
the
last
experience
study,
the
assumption
was
set
that
we're
going
to
use
the
most
recent
projection
scale
available
and
there
was
one
updated
this
year
it's
called
mp2020
mortality
projection
scale,
and
so
we
have
updated
from
the
mp2019
to
the
mp2020
scale
and
this
reduced
the
liabilities
by
30
million.
So
that's
going
to
offset
that
44
million
of
it.
F
F
So
now
a
little
more
info,
you
saw
the
the
graph
on
the
left
bill
had
shown
you
the
comparison
from
2001
to
2019,
now
we're
showing
you
from
last
year
to
this
year's
preliminary
value.
F
So
if
you
look
the
total
funded
status
state
exactly
the
same
53.1
percent,
you
can
see
that
your
inactive
population
is
growing
as
well
as
you're
active,
but
because
your
liabilities
increased
and
your
your
assets
increased,
you
had
your
funding
ratio.
Staying
the
same,
if
you
look
in
the
in
the
the
table
to
the
right,
you
can
see
that
the
bulk
of
the
liabilities
are
really
in
tier
one.
Still,
you
can
see.
You've
got
4.2
billion
dollars
up
there,
but
for
tier
two
you
still
only
got
110
million.
F
Another
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
is
bill
mentioned
this
earlier
on,
but
you
can
see
how
a
huge
chunk
of
your
liabilities
are
sitting
with
your
inactive
participants,
so
you're
in
pay,
which
are
your
current
retirees
and
your
deferred
vested
participants
and
in
total
for
the
plan
about
75
percent
of
the
liabilities
are
for
inactives
right
now.
F
F
So
for
the
asset
value,
you
know
you
have
your
market
value,
which
is
in
about
2.2
billion
dollars,
but
for
the
valuation
purposes
we
use
the
arterial
value,
which
you
smooth
investment
gains
and
losses
over
five
years.
F
F
What
happens
is
this
loss
now
gets
spread
over
five
years,
so
you
recognize
20
percent
of
it
now
and
you
defer
80
of
it
over
the
next
four
years.
So
that's
what
happens.
So
that's
how
you
have
your
58
million
dollar
loss
you're,
deferring
46.6
of
it
so
you're,
only
recognizing
20
and
then
next
year,
you'll
have
recognized
40
of
it,
and
you'll
still
have
the
first
60
percent
go
to
the
bottom
there.
F
You
can
see
that
in
total
for
the
last
five
year
gains
and
losses,
the
total
deferred
loss
right
now
is
93.5
million
dollars.
And
that's
why
your
actuarial
value
is
slightly
higher
than
your
market
value,
because
you're
still
recognizing
some
of
the
losses.
C
F
So
their
total
deferred
gain
lost.
That's
looking
at
the
gains
and
losses
over
the
last
five
years,
so
the
game,
the
games
and
losses
of
the
last
five
years
so
all
of
those
fiscal
year
in
2016
2020.
How
many?
How
much
of
that
gain
lost,
is
still
deferred
to
a
future
year
and
has
not
been
recognized
yet
so
you
can
see
the
fiscal
year
ending
2016
zero
percent
of
that
is
not
deferred.
So
we've
recognized
just
the
snapshot.
C
Understand
yeah,
2008
2009
are
no
longer
in
that
because
the
five
years
you
know
prior
to
five
years,
at
least
for
this
aspect
of
the
actuality
right.
C
G
G
Hi
this
is
a
trustee
sound.
I
have
a
question
I
think
I
heard
some
information
probably
inconsistent
to
what
you're
showing
on
the
chart.
Maybe
I
heard
it
wrong
earlier.
I
heard
bill
said
the
gain
or
loss
are
amortized
over
20
years,
but
this
chart
showed
gaining
a
loss
all
over
all
amortized
over
five
years.
I
know
it's
definitely
the
case
for
tier
two
tier
one.
The
same.
Oh,
did
I
hear
something
wrong.
F
F
D
F
This
this
graph
is
showing
you
the
contributions.
Both
the
chart
on
the
left
shows
the
rates
and
the
chart
on
the
right
shows
the
amount.
Earlier
we
mentioned
that
the
purple
bar
is
at
the
bottom.
These.
This
is
representing
your
normal
cost
contributions
for
the
city
and
the
members,
so
this
is
covering
the
benefit
accruals
for
the
upcoming
year,
the
gold
bars
at
the
top
represent
the
payments
to
pay
off
the
unfunded
liability.
F
So
you
can
see
that
the
total
city
contribution
rate,
even
though
your
ual,
you
know
increased.
F
What
you
see
is
that
we
also
had
that
increase
in
the
pay
payrolls
so
because
you
had
both
of
those
they
kind
of
you're
expecting
more
contributions
to
come
in.
So
that's
why
your
total
city
contribution
rate
decreased,
even
though
the
amount
increased
it's
the
rate
is
decreasing
and
that's
attributable
to
the
increase
in
expected
payroll
coming
in.
I
F
Yes,
that's
correct,
and
so,
when
we
get
to
it,
we'll
show
you
some
of
the
impacts.
If
you
were
to
change
some
of
the
assumptions
but
right
now,
these
are
the
preliminary
evaluation
results
that
we're
showing
you
right
now.
These
are
on
the
current
assumptions,
assuming
no
assumption
changes
for
this
valuation.
F
F
This
is
just
showing
a
little
more
detail
for
the
numbers
on
the
previous
slide,
we'll
shift
down
to
the
bottom
of
the
graph
there.
You
can
see
that
the
contribution
amount,
the
aggregate
contribution
amount
for
the
city
increased
about
11.1
million
million
dollars.
F
We
had
pre.
We
had
expected
to
increase
7.8
million
at
the
last
valuation
with
all
the
projections,
so
it
increased
slightly
more
than
we
expected,
and
this
was
due
to
the
lower
than
expected.
Investment
returns,
as
well
as
the
salary
increases
other
member
growth,
which
all
contributed
to
the
increase
in
the
unfunded
liability.
C
F
We're
talking
about
the
active
participants
active
okay.
So
when
we
do
these
valuations,
we
typically
expect
the
active
population
to
remain
constant.
So
when
you
have
an
increase
in
your
actual
population,
it's
higher
than
what
the
current
assumption
is.
C
F
C
And
who
knows,
but
you
know,
without
salary-
increases
we're
not
going
to
hire
people
with
salary
decreases,
it's
very
difficult
to
get
people
to
want
to
come
and
join
the
city
when
they
can
go
to
other
municipalities
for
more
money.
That's
true,
and
also
I
mean
the
one
other
thing
is
the
salary
increases
the
higher
the
salary,
the
higher
the
amount
money
that
comes
into
the
pension
from
the
city
contribution.
D
It
does
a
little
bit.
We
have
set
the
the
tier
one
ual
contribution
as
a
dollar
amount,
so
increasing
payroll
doesn't
change
the
amount
that
comes
in,
but
it
does
for
the
tier
one,
normal
costs,
and
it
does
for
tier
two
and
most
of
when
you're
adding
members
you're,
mostly
adding
tier
two
members,
so
right
right,
adding
adding
dollars
to
the
tier
two
program
and
adding
liability
for
those
members
to
the
tier
2
program.
D
So
but
those
should
offset
so
it
should.
You
know
it
should
typically
work
out
to
be
neutral
on
the
tier
two.
C
D
And
that's
why
the
the
aggregate
percent
is
going
down
while
the
dollar
amount
is
going
up
because
you're,
just
dividing
by
that
large,
it's
a
larger
amount,
but
an
even
larger
payroll
that
we're
dividing
by.
G
F
F
Okay,
so
based
on
the
preliminary
results,
these
are
the
projections
that
we
have,
so
you
can
see
to
the
left
of
both
graphs.
You've
got
these
darker
bars,
that's
the
historical
numbers
for
the
plan
and
then
to
the
right
of
that.
The
lighter
bars.
Those
are
the
projections
based
on
the
current
assumptions.
So
these
are
assuming
that
all
the
current
assumptions
are
made
going
forward.
F
F
You
can
see
that
the
green
line
shows
that
bacterial
value
and
the
market
value
is
the
blue
line
over
time,
because
we're
assuming
that
you're
going
to
earn
6.75
percent
you're.
Not
we
don't
expect
any
gains
and
losses
on
it
and
that's
why
the
two
lines
join
together
and
are
equal
going
forward.
F
You
can
see
right
now.
The
funding
percentage
is
53,
but
it's
projected
over
time
to
go
as
high
as
84
by
2035..
F
The
graph
at
the
bottom
shows
your
projected
contributions,
so
the
purple
bars,
those
are
the
member
contributions,
the
gold
bars
or
the
city
contributions,
and
the
red
line
is
what
we
projected
from
last
year's
valuation,
and
I
guess
the
key
takeaway
is
we're
sitting
pretty
close
to
what
we
projected
from
last
year.
So
there's
not
too
much
change.
As
far
as
that,
we
haven't
seen
any
huge
shifts.
D
Assumptions
all
right,
so
we
review
the
economic
assumptions
every
year
and
we
review
the
demographic
assumptions
about
every
four
years.
We
just
did
that
in
2019,
so
we're
not
looking
at
those
assumptions
for
a
few
more
years.
D
These
assumptions
are
going
to
be
used
in
the
2020
evaluation,
which
sets
contributions
for
the
fiscal
year
ending
2022
the
2021
contributions
are
already
set,
we're
going
to
look
at
four
assumptions:
the
price
inflation,
wage
inflation,
both
of
those
will
be
used
in
both
the
pension
and
the
opec
valuations,
and
then
we'll
look
at
the
amortization
payment
increase
rate.
Remember
we're
talking
about
how
much
those
payments
increase.
We'll
look
at
that
for
the
pension
plan
and
the
discount
rate
for
the
pension
plan.
J
Okay,
good
morning,
everyone
for
the
record.
My
name
is
stephen.
Hastings
with
chiron
first
slide.
I'm
going
to
cover
here
is
regarding
price
inflation,
so
price
inflation
is,
is
a
building
block
or
a
foundation
for
all
the
other
economic
assumptions,
and
those
include
wage
inflation,
which
is
the
price
inflation
piece,
plus
a
real
growth
assumption
the
expected
return.
It
has
a
price
inflation
piece,
plus
a
real
return
and
then
the
ultimate
health
care
trend
also
reflects
price
inflation,
plus
a
real
per
capita
gdt
gdp
growth.
J
Now
for
for
this
plan,
in
particular,
there's
limited
direct
impact
on
the
valuation
and
that
that
there
are
several
reasons
for
that
one,
the
tier
one
cola
is
fixed
at
three
percent,
regardless
of
actual
inflation.
So
we
just
use
a
three
percent
assumption
there.
J
The
tier
one
guaranteed
purchasing
power
provision
which
helps
me
help
certain
retirees
maintain
75
of
their
purchasing
power
that
that
impacts
very
few.
J
Some
that
were
that
retired
back
in
the
70s
or
early
80s
during
a
period
of
high
inflation,
so
very
little
impact
there
and
then
its
impact
on
the
415b.
So
the
benefit
limits
you
know
there's
little
impact
there,
not
not
not
the
you
know.
It
impacts
a
few
of
the
retirees
for
tier
two
colas
they're
equal
to
inflation
up
to
a
maximum,
but
that
that
maximum
varies
from
1.25
to
2,
depending
on
service,
and
that's
currently
under
the
assumption,
so
that
that
you
know
there's
not
a
real
impact
there.
J
Now
given,
given
the
fact
that
there's
volatility
you
would
expect
the
coal
is
to
be
somewhat
less
than
those
those
maximum
amounts,
but
for
conservatism
building
in
a
little
margin,
we,
you
know,
continue
to
recommend
using
the
two
percent.
You
know
one
percent
one
point:
two:
five
percent
up
to
two
percent
based
on
the
service.
You
know
continuing
to
use
those
assumptions.
J
We
look
at
price
inflation
surveys,
so
there's
really
two.
I
guess
types
of
data
that
we're
looking
at
here,
one
being
expert
opinion
and
the
other
being
what
you
know,
what
we're
actually
seeing
public
plans
use
in
terms
of
their
assumptions
and
there's
well,
I
might
know,
there's
a
bit
of
a
lag
there
right.
We
won't
have
the
latest
assumptions
available,
but
on,
on
the
left
hand,
side
we're
showing
first
the
a
survey
of
economic
forecasters.
J
J
So
you
can
see
that
you
know
the
bulk
of
those
predictions
being
lower
than
the
current
assumption
of
2.5
percent.
J
But
if
we
look
at
the
the
horizon
survey,
which
is
the
second
column,
that
is
a
survey
of
in
investment
consultants,
so
I
believe
that
the
current
survey
has
39
total
participants,
investment,
consulting
firms
and
the
assumptions
there
there's
a
little
bit
more
spread,
but
they're
also
a
little
bit
higher,
with
1.7
being
the
median
minimum
on
up
to
three
percent
within
the
median
being
2.1
percent,
and
I
believe
makita
is
at
2.2
for
20
years
yeah,
so
we're
showing
the
20-year
forecast
results
and
then
the
third
column
public
plan
database.
J
So
this
this
is
public
plans
around
the
country,
the
range
there,
you
know,
there's
a
wider
range,
but
the
range
runs
from
1.75
to
3.75
percent,
with
the
medium
being
2.5.
So
that's
that's
exactly
what
the
current
assumption
is
and
then
the.
J
J
Well,
we
oh
one.
One
other
thing
we
want
to
look
at
is
the
break
even
what
we
call
the
break-even
inflation.
So
so
here
we're
looking
at
look
at
it
so
treasury.
You
know
the
yield
on
a
regular
treasury
security
which
includes
inflation
and
then
compare
that
to
tips
which
are
treasury,
inflation-protected
securities.
J
And
if
you
take
the
difference
between
those
two,
you
know
you
would
expect
that
that
would
represent
inflation.
So
so
here
you
can
see
we're
showing
for
the
various
durations
we're
showing
what
what
those
differences
you
know.
Regular
treasury
versus
tips
have
been
over
several
periods,
so
2010,
2019
and
2020,
so
so
so
10
years
ago,
last
year,
and
then
the
current
year,
and
you
can
see
that
there's
there's
been
a
significant
drop
from
from
last
year
to
this
year.
J
You
know
the
the
inflation,
the
implied
inflation.
There
is
one
percent
on
up
to
1.6
at
the
30-year
duration.
So
again,
a
drop
of
20
to
60
basis
points
from
last
year
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
makita
is
assuming
2.2
inflation
over
20
years.
J
You
know
that
I
guess
the
big
question
is:
how
long
are
these?
You
know:
is
this
a
blip
or
how
long
will
these
these
lower
rates
stick
around,
but
but
the
bottom
line
is
we're:
we're
proposing
a
reduction
in
the
current
assumption
from
2.5
to
2.25,
given
given
the
data
we're
seeing.
E
C
So
all
right,
so,
first
of
all,
you
know
we
just
put
like
what
it's
three
trillion
dollar
tax.
You
know
package
out
just
in
what
february,
or
what
april
april
may
somewhere
around
there
and
we're
looking
to
do
that
again
without
increasing
taxes,
and
we
also
previously
put
a
huge
tax
reduction
for
industry
before
that.
So,
aside
from
the
intake
into
the
government
for
the
what
is
it
you
know,
the
you
know
in
all
the
imports
tariffs,
I'm
not
seeing.
C
I
mean
to
me
those
are
inflationary,
moves
right,
okay
and
I'm
curious
why
our
inflation
is
going
to
be
less
it
just
you
know.
Those
things
to
me
are
concerning.
D
C
And
then,
when
you
your
prior
screen,
when
you
were,
you
know,
looking
at
the
you
know
different
people's
takes
the
professional
which
I
understand.
You
know
the
bankers
were
much
more
conservative
of
an
inflation
than
the
investors
and
then
you
know
et
cetera.
So
can
you
help
me
make
sense
of
that?
If
that
is
making
sense
to
you
what
I
just
said.
D
Yeah,
so
let
me
jump
in,
I
think,
you're,
seeing
those
that
infusion
of
money
into
the
economy,
but
it's
in
reaction
to
a
significant
amount
of
slack
in
the
economy,
and
so
as
long
as
there's
that
slack,
you
wouldn't
get
an
inflation
bump
out
of
it,
and
what
the
forecasters
are
saying
is
the
reason
their
assumptions
are
so
low.
Is
they
don't
think
that
that's
that
stimulus
is
enough
to
drive
higher
inflation,
at
least
over
the
next
10
years?
D
D
So
you
do
have
those
stimulative
effects.
You
have
what
expectations
are
for,
what
federal
reserve
policy
will
be
going
forward,
but
we're
what
we're
seeing
in
the
data
and
expectations
is
still
much
lower
inflation.
Now
those
expectations
could
be
wrong.
There's
no
doubt
they.
They
could
be
wrong,
but
right.
The
weight
of
the
expectations
are
low.
C
D
C
Okay,
do
we
I
read
through
this,
and
I
didn't
see
anything
that
showed
what
our
inflation
rate
has
been
do
and
I
wasn't
sure
if
I
wasn't
just
seeing
it
is
there
anything
that
shows
what
inflation
has
been
over
the
last
10
years
or
so
in
here.
A
J
You
know
we're
looking
at
us
recommending
a
small
that
the
25
basis
points.
You
know
we're
and
that's
again,
given
the
uncertainty,
because
the
data
could
back
up
a
larger
decrease.
But
given
the
uncertainty,
we
think
a
small
move
is
appropriate
and
again.
J
J
It
doesn't
have
a
large
impact
on
this
plan
in
particular,
okay,
so
so
moving
to
slide
21..
B
J
On
this
earlier,
but
I
think
a
little
bit
but
on
this
slide
we're
going
to
discuss
wage
inflation
so
so
wage
inflation
can
be
thought
of
as
the
annual
across
the
board
increases
in
wages.
So
so
the
the
three
percent
current
assumption-
and
you
know,
what's
provided
in
the
bargaining
agreements
so.
E
J
There
are
also
individual
salary
increases
over
the
course
of
a
member's
career
in
excess
of
of
wage
inflation
and.
J
As
part
of
you
know,
when
we
do
our
experience
study,
we
look
at
you
know
the
impact
of
promotions
and
longevity
increases
those
sorts
of
things.
So
we're
not
talking
about
that
here
here,
we're
talking
about
just
the
the
across
the
board
wage
inflation
that
somebody's
going
to
get
regardless
of
of
promotion,
that
sort
of
thing
and
it
generally
exceeds
price
inflation
over
the
long
term
by
some
margin.
J
Historically,
it
has-
and
there
are
reasons
for
that-
you
know-
increases
in
productivity,
just
a
general
increase
in
purchasing
power
and
as
far
as
the
valuation
we
use
wage
inflation
to
one
it's,
it's
a
minimum,
individual
salary
increase
and
two
it's
it's.
The
rate
of
payroll
growth,
that's
assumed
over
time,
so
the
current
assumption
is
is
three
percent,
and
that
represents
a
2.5
percent
price
inflation
plus
half
a
percent
real
wage
growth,
so
growth
over
and
above
price,
inflation.
J
So
here
we
do
look
at
historic
data
in
the
table
at
the
top
and
we're
showing
the
left
side,
local
governments.
So
that's
that
would
be
nationwide
over
several
periods.
Through
march
of
2020.
J
We
show
a
five-year
period
10-year
period
20-year
period
and
what
we're
comparing
is
the
wage
growth
at
the
top
to
the
inflation
and
then
the
delta
of
those
two
is
what
you
would
see
as
your
real
wage
growth.
Now
you
can
see
on
on
the
left.
That's
1.29
percent
over
five
years
point
eight,
seven
percent
over
ten
years
and
point
five
percent
over
twenty
years,
and
then,
when
we
look
on
on
the
right,
we
look
at
san
jose
federated
data.
J
There's
you
know
a
slightly
different
picture
and
they
there
are.
There
are
reasons
for
that,
one
being
the
pay
cuts
back
aft
during
the
time
of
the
great
recession
and
another
being
that
the
inflation
in
the
region
was,
it
was
higher
than
you
would
see
on
on
the
left
side,
there
sort
of
the
national
picture,
but
the
result
is
actually
some
some
negative
real
growth
being
shown
there.
D
Yeah,
so
this
is
the
actual
inflation,
and
this
side
is
u.s
inflation
over
5,
10
and
20
years.
This
side
is
bay
area
inflation,
which
has
been
higher
and
unusually
higher.
If
you
look
historically
bay
area,
inflation
has
had
periods
where
it
was
significantly
higher
than
u.s
inflation,
but
probably
never
as
much
as
this.
C
D
Merit
pieces
is
separate.
D
J
J
Yeah,
yes-
and
there
were
you
know,
as
I
said,
there
were
some
anomalies
there,
but
yes,
so
well,
as
we've
mentioned,
there's
a
three
percent.
Well,
the
bargaining
agreements
have
three
percent
for
fiscal
year,
ending
2021
and
that's
you
know,
in
line
with
the
current
assumption.
J
J
But
but
given
the
data
we
were
thinking,
they
were
too.
We
recommend
considering
two
different
alternatives,
one
being
just
continuing
with
the
three
percent
over
all
years,
and
if
the
price
inflation
was
lower,
25
basis
points,
that
would
mean
that
the
real
wage
growth
would
increase
from
point.
J
You
know
point
five
percent
point:
seven,
five
percent,
the
other
alternative-
would
be
to
to
lower
the
the
wage
inflation
assumption
in
line
with
the
reduction
to
price
inflation,
and
in
doing
so,
though,
we
would
take
a
select
and
ultimate
approach
where
you
know
we're
not
we're
not
going
to
lower
it
for
2021,
because
that's
already
locked
in
so
so
it
would
be
a
three
percent
assumption
for
one
year
and
then
2.75
percent
thereafter,
and
that
that
would
keep
the
0.5
percent
real
wage
growth,
assuming
the
price
inflation
assumption
drops
a
bit.
C
Can
I
ask
one
more
question:
since
inflation
for
the
bay
area
is
higher,
I
mean
unless
the
housing
prices
start
really
going
down,
and
I
don't
know
if
we've
really
seen
that
happen,
I
mean
with
the
pandemic.
You
know
people
can
work
remotely
people
who
might
be
leaving
the
bay
area
to
go
somewhere
else,
but
so
far
we're
not
seeing
a
decrease
in
pricing.
C
D
But
we're
the
price
inflation
we
look
at
on
a
national
basis.
I
think
part
of
the
justification
for
potentially
increasing
the
spread
between
price
inflation
and
wage
inflation
is
to
recognize
that
there
is
a
difference
between
the
national
price,
inflation
and
the
bay
area
and
the
bay
area.
Inflation
affects
your
wage
increases.
D
But
it
doesn't
affect,
for
example,
the
the
investment
returns
which
have
a
price
inflation
building
block.
C
And
that's
part
of
your
investment
model.
D
Yeah,
so
I
mean
steven
mentioned
the
makita
assumption
of
2.2,
and
we
want
to
maintain
some
consistencies
with
their
assumptions
as
well
so
and
they're
looking
at
national.
So
there
is
this
weird
piece
where
the
the
bay
area
inflation
has
been
higher:
it
can't
it
can't
remain
that
much
higher
than
national
inflation
indefinitely,
and
if
you
look
at
it
historically
it
comes
back.
D
C
D
Yeah,
so
your
argument
would
push
towards
the
three.
This
is
why
we're
kind
of
of
two
minds
on
the
the
wage
growth.
Your
argument
would
push
towards,
leaving
it
at
three
percent
for
all
years,
recognizing
that
difference
in
inflation.
D
C
Well-
and
I
think,
I'm
kind
of
in
a
unique
position,
because
I
see
kind
of
both
sides,
but
I
I
do
believe
that
the
city
who
is
our
you
know
funder
of
this
pension,
is
going
to
work
to
try
to
not
go
for
three
percent,
I'm
sure
they're
going
to
try
to
make
it
as
low
as
possible.
C
So
I
understand
the
2.5
2.75
based
on
that.
It
doesn't
really
look
like
it's
to
the
benefit
of
the
employee,
but
that's
a
different
story.
Right.
D
Right,
we're
not
trying
to
take
a
slide
in
the
bargaining,
we're
just
trying
and
we're
not
trying
to
provide
any
justification
for
where
the
brain
ends
up
we're
just
making
an
assumption
about
what
will
happen
in
the
future,
and
it's
not
just
you
know
the
the
other
argument
would
be
we.
We
would
expect
the
city
to
try
and
draw
a
hard
line
in
the
short
term,
but
this
is
really
a
longer
term
assumption,
and
so
what
would
we
expect
longer
term.
D
Five
even
longer.
J
J
Yeah,
that's.
That
was
a
point
I
wanted
to
make
that
you
know
we.
We
want
to
take
near-term
considerations
into
account,
but
it's
also
a
very
long-term
assumption.
When
you
look
at
the
the
you
know,
payoffs
of
the
plan
over
100
years
or
whatever,
but
and
so
we
revisit.
C
C
J
C
Right:
okay,
thank
you.
Okay,.
H
Trustee
horowitz
here,
I'd
like
to
ask
a
a
clarifying
question
based
on
the
issues
that
trustee
jennings
raised.
So
the
tier
two
colas
range
from
one
and
a
quarter
to
two
percent
is
that
based
on
national
inflation
or
local
local
inflation
or
based
on
some
other
formula.
D
But
and
we're
not
we're
not
suggesting
any
reduction
in
that
assumption,
we're
still
assuming
that
they
just
get
the
maximum
allowed
under
the
plan.
D
Well,
we
don't
have
any
retirees
who
have
enough
service
to
qualify
for
a
two
percent
cola.
So
that's
right.
J
J
Okay,
okay,
I
think
we
can
move
on
to
slide
23..
So
there's
one
one
more
piece
related
to
increase
assumptions,
and
that
is
the
amortization
payment
increase
rate.
J
The
target
is
to
have
have
the
contributions
via
level
percent
of
of
payroll
and
in
doing
that,
the
amortizations
are
typically
have
a
inflation
assumption
that
is
in
line
with
with
the
payroll
increase,
although
in
certain
situations
and
in
in
the
case
of
this
plan,
there's
actually
a
25
basis,
point
difference
and
what
that
does
is
it
builds
a
little
conservatism
so
that
if
your
payroll
growth
is
less
than
assumed,
you
know
there's
there's
less
of
a
back
loading
impact,
and
so
I
think
as
of
several
years
ago,
that
there
was
a
decision
by
the
board
to
lower
to
lower
that
to
2.75
versus
the
three
percent
payroll
growth
assumption,
and
you
know
so
again.
J
If
the
payroll
grows
slower
than
the
2.75
percent
per
year,
then
the
payments
become
a
larger
percentage
of
payroll.
So
so
so
we
we
suggest
maintaining
that
25
basis,
point
margin
based
on
you
know,
whatever
the
assumption
ends
up
being
so
so
that
it
would
be
2.75
percent.
If
there's
no
change
to
the
wage
inflation
and
no
change
to
the
yeah,
the
wage
inflation
of
three
percent
and
then
2.5.
D
So
really
the
concern
here
is:
we
don't
want
the
amortization
payments
to
grow
faster
than
the
city's
revenues
in
the
city's
budget,
because
then
it
just
becomes
a
bigger
and
bigger
piece
of
their
budget
and
we
kind
of
use
payroll
growth
as
a
proxy
for
how
fast
the
budget
or
revenues
were
up,
and
so
just
building
a
little
bit
of
a
margin
over.
What
we
expect
will
make
that
payment,
hopefully
a
slightly
declining
percentage
of
their
payroll
or
their
budget
over.
D
D
So
changes
in
the
discount
rate
will
change
things
more
than
any
of
the
other
assumptions,
and
if
you
think
back
to
that
initial
tank
thing
diagram,
the
more
investment
returns,
we
expect
to
get
the
less.
We
have
to
contribute
where
actually
the
more
investment
returns,
we
actually
get
the
less
we
have
to
contribute,
but
in
terms
of
budgeting
we
start
with
an
amount
that
we
expect
to
get
and-
and
that
affects
how
much
we
contribute
today.
D
So
the
higher
expected
return
makes
results
in
lower
contributions
initially,
but
over
time
it
depends
on
what
those
actual
investment
returns
are.
D
We
have
the
the
history
from
when
it
was
eight
and
a
quarter
all
the
way
down
to.
We
changed
in
2018
to
six
and
three
quarters.
D
D
D
D
now
prior
to
2014.
A
lot
of
this
is
the
hangover
from
the
2008
nine
losses
that
we
were
recognizing
over
five
years.
So,
even
though
the
market
returns
were
really
good,
we
had
that
huge
loss
that
that
we
were
still
smoothing
and
recognizing
and
since
then,
we've
been
much
closer
to
the
assumption,
and
so
it
hasn't
been
a
huge
swing,
but
we
still
have
not
hit
the
assumption
on
a
five-year
basis.
D
D
C
Nice
question
the
the
ones
the
22
that
are
at
the
seven
percent.
C
Are
you
able
to
see
how
they're,
if
they're
achieving
that,
I
mean
it's
easy
to
say
that's
what
it
is
and
then
you
achieve
four
percent,
you
know,
and
you
just
don't
want
to
take
that
hit.
So
you
just
hold
to
that
level.
C
D
Well,
so
the
seven
percent
is
their
expectation
for
that.
I
know
the
future
right,
not
their
not
what
they
had
in
the
past
and
in
fact,
if
you
go
back
a
year
that
there
wouldn't
be
22
that
we're
assuming
seven,
they
were
assuming
an
even
higher
than
that
now
whether
they
were
achieving
it
in
each
of
their
years.
We
don't
have
that
data.
That
would
require
a
little
more
in-depth
look
at
their
reports
and
stuff.
D
D
The
the
full
list
is
in
the
appendix
to
this
presentation,
so
you
can
look
up
and
yeah
and
see
if
my
recollection
was
correct.
Thank
you.
D
So
one
of
the
things
I've
mentioned
this
before,
but
I
really
can't
emphasize
it
enough.
One
of
the
real
drivers
of
the
reduction
in
discount
rates
and
expected
returns
has
been
the
decline
in
interest
rates,
and
so
you
can
think
of
your
expected
return
as
a
risk-free
rate,
which
I'm
kind
of
using
the
yield
on
the
10-year
treasury
as
a
proxy.
For
that
you
can
use
other
proxies,
but
they
would
show
a
similar
pattern
and
then
anything
above
that
is
sort
of
the
expected
risk
premium
for
investing
in
risky
assets
and
back
in
1995.
D
D
The
question
is:
is
that
drop
in
the
yield
on
the
10-year
treasury,
a
short-term
blip
or
is
it
moving
to
a
new
level?
And
we
don't
know
the
answer
that
yet,
and
so
I
think
you
see
some
cautious
movements
in
capital
market
assumptions
and
we
don't
think
you
should
overreact
to
this,
but
we
should
be
aware,
because,
if
the
yield
on
the
10-year
treasury
stays
below
one
percent,
as
we
go
forward,
there's
going
to
be
more
pressure,
significant
pressure
to
reduce
our
expected
return
if
it
bounces
back,
that
pressure
would
be
alleviated.
D
So
we
looked
at
makita's
assumptions
and
makita
updated
their
assumptions
as
of
june
30th,
I
believe
to
call
them
their
post
pandemic
capital
market
assumptions,
because
the
markets
change
so
much
between
beginning
of
the
year
and
mid-year,
and
they
provide
assumptions
over
a
10-year
time
horizon.
In
a
20-year
time
horizon
and
using
their
assumptions,
we
calculated
a
median
expected
return
over
those
periods
of
6.1
and
7.1
percent.
D
D
D
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
trying
to
make
sure
your
asset
classes
fit
the
asset
classes
they
have,
and
these
are
not
post-pandemic
assumptions,
but
the
median
we
would
get
for
your
asset
allocation
based
on
those
is
about
seven
and
a
half
percent.
H
D
No,
no!
No,
so
this
is
like
on
the
equity
side.
These
are
based
on
expected
returns
for
like
index
funds
as
opposed
to
active
management,
and
so
what
that
implicitly
implies
is
that
if
you
hire
an
active
manager
and
pay
them
additional
fees,
we
expect
their
additional
investment
returns
to
recover
those
fees,
but
we're
not
anticipating
that
they
earn
any
more
than
that.
C
Okay
and
our
asset
allocation
is
75
percent
equity,
25
non-equity,
so.
I
Bill
prabhu
can
speak
to
this,
but
I
just
wanted
to
sort
of
speak
to
trustee
jennings
comments.
The
asset
location
is
not
75
equity
based
it's
75
growth
and
within
growth.
I
We
do
have
an
equity
component
and
private
markets
and
everything
else,
but
I
don't
want
you
know
the
the
the
trustees
or
the
general
public
to
think
that
it's
75
equity
base
again
prabhu
can
speak
more
to
that
and
then
I
do
have
a
question
for
you
bill
on
the
table
here
on
the
median,
the
7.1
percent.
That's
the
calculation
by
chiron
and
you're,
saying
below
makita's
is
about
twenty
percent
higher,
or
is
that.
I
E
E
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think
I
think
yeah
I
mean
to
be
exact.
The
75
is,
isn't
growth
not
equity,
but
I
think
trustee
jennings
was
sort
of
making
a
generalization
that
75
percent
were
in
risk
assets
and
and
to
that
extent
that
is
correct,
yeah.
C
E
Well,
not
so
the
the
remaining
25
is
not
all
in
bonds,
as
you
can
see
from
this
allocation.
So
we
do
have
you
know
a
few
other
asset
classes.
We
have
core
real
estate,
for
example,
and
we
have
some
other
asset
classes
in
there.
C
So
I
mean
because
when
I
was
seeing
that
that
helps
drive
where
we
might
want
to
go,
and
if
we're
you
know,
we've
just
changed
our
you
know
assumptions
and
we're
also,
if
we're
striving
more
than
one
percent,
you
know
it
just
helps
you
know
and
I'm
getting
a
little
confused
with
you
know
putting
it
all
together.
I
guess.
D
So
yeah,
I
think
when
you
put
it
all
together,
there's
there's
a
range
of
expected
returns
based
on
the
the
level
of
risk
in
the
portfolio,
but
we're
expecting
the
median
to
be
about
6.1
over
the
next
10
years
in
7.1,
over
20..
D
Okay
and
generally,
we
would
like
our
discount
rate
assumption
to
be
equal
to
or
greater
than
or
less
than,
the
median
so
that
we
have
at
least
a
50
chance
of
achieving
the
return.
But
these
things
move
around
from
year
to
year.
So
we
don't
want
to
overreact,
but
we
do
want
to
stay
close
to
the
median,
and
so
I
put
this
historical
chart
together
where
this
isn't
applying
to
your
current
asset
allocation.
D
But
this
is
makita's,
10
and
20
year
assumptions
on
your
asset
allocation.
At
the
time
we
we
did
the
review
in
each
of
these
years,
so
back
in
2016,
their
10-year
assumption
was
5
and
their
20-year
was
7.2
and
we
were
using
6.875
and
going
forward.
You
can
see
how
these
capital
market
assumptions
move
around
a
bit
and
actually
in
in
2019.
D
Well,
typically,
the
capital
market
assumptions
are
based
on
market
conditions.
In
december,
and
so
in
2019
that
was
based
on
december
2018
assumptions,
fair
market
conditions,
which
was,
I
don't
know,
if
you
remember
then,
but
december,
the
equity
markets
just
tanked
and
interest
rates
spiked
up,
and
so
those
that
caused
an
increase
in
future
assumptions,
but
that
reversed
itself
pretty
quickly
so
now
yeah
here
these
are
showing
makita's
numbers,
6.4
7.3
for
the
10-20
year,
and
so
the
question
is:
where
do
we
set
our
assumption?
D
Historically,
we've
talked
about
pension
plans
being
real
long-term
propositions,
but
there's
been
a
lot
more
movement
to
recognize
the
importance
of
the
short
term,
and
so
one
way
to
think
about
that
is
all
the
benefits
that
we're
valuing
40
of
that
value
is
paid
out
in
the
next
10
years
and
70
in
the
next
20
years.
D
D
We
do
see
warning
lights,
going
forward
with
the
low
interest
rates,
and
so
given
those
warning
lines,
it
would
also
be
reasonable
to
read
it
slightly,
reduce
that
discount
rate,
but
the
current
6.75
also
remains
reasonable.
C
One
more
question:
so
a
pension
plan
is
very
dependent
on
its
discount
rate
and
previously
at
least
the
federated
had
not
changed
it
that
frequently,
what
is
reasonable
for
a
pension
plan
to
be
changing
its
discount
rate,
because
I
assume
it's
somewhat
disruptive
in
the
overall
piece
of
it.
So
is.
D
It's
a
very
good
question.
The
the
issue
is
when
you
change
the
discount
rate,
it's
moving
the
contributions
around
both
the
member
contributions
and
the
city
contributions,
and
one
of
our
objectives
is
to
keep
those
contributions
as
stable
as
we
can,
while
still
being
responsible
in
funding
the
system,
and
so
we
don't
want
to.
D
On
the
other
hand,
we
want
to
recognize
long-term
trends
and
stay
current,
so
we
have
made
frequent
changes
over
the
last
10
years,
probably
changing
every
every
couple
of
years
prior
to
that
probably
didn't
change
much
at
all
for
long
periods
of
time
and
and
that
was
really
to
follow
those
long-term
trends.
So
it
is
a
balance,
and
I
think
that's
why
we're
saying
that
right
now
the
675
still
remains
reasonable.
D
A
Hey
bill,
this
is
trustee
orr.
Do
we
show
on
one
of
these
pages
the
sort
of
it's
a
really
real
rough
sensitivity?
Analysis
if
we
were
to
like
look
at
it
at
a
6.5
or
a
6
discount
rate
versus
a
7?
Is
it
on
this
set
in
the
next
one?
Where
is
it?
How.
D
So
we
put
together
estimated
cost
impacts
for
various
assumptions,
so
this
first
column
is
the
675
with
the
wage
inflation
at
three
percent
for
all
years
and
the
amortization
growth
at
2.75.
So
we
would.
This
does
include
a
reduction
of
the
price
inflation
to
two
and
a
quarter,
but
no
other
changes
and
so
doing
that
does
not
change
these
numbers.
Much
from
what
we
saw
in
the
front
of
the
presentation,
it's
still
53
funded,
the
members
average
rate
is
7.7,
cities,
rate
57.4
and
202
million
dollars.
D
If
going
across
here
is
the
impact
of
just
reducing
the
discount
rate,
and
so,
if
we
I'm
just
going
to
jump
to
the
r
column
here
at
six
and
a
half
that
would
reduce
the
funded
percentage
to
51.5,
it
increases
member
rates
about
50
basis
points
increases
the
city's
rate
to
59.7
or
210.1
million.
So
it's
about
an
8.1
million
dollar
increase
in
the
city's
contribution.
D
The
lower
set
is,
if
you
reduce
the
wage
inflation,
so
we
do
three
percent
for
the
first
year
and
then
2.75
and
then
also
reduce
the
amortization
growth
to
two
and
a
half,
and
that
provides
it's
interesting
that
provides
that
kind
of
a
mixed
picture.
The
the
wage
inflation
change
reduces
our
normal
cost,
and
so
that
would
normally
reduce
our
cost,
but
changing
the
amortization.
Growth
changes,
the
the
payment
structure
and
loads
it
more
to
the
front.
D
D
We
could
isolate
some
of
these
changes,
but
I
I
think
this
probably
gives
you
enough
of
a
sense
of
the
the
changes
and
we
can
talk
about
what
combinations.
I
I
think
the
interactive
is
going
to
be
very
helpful.
I'm
sure
trustees
will
gain
a
lot
of
information
from
that,
but
before
we
you
do
that
at
some
point
just
want
to
confirm
something
and
then
ask
a
question.
The
member
rate
that
you
see
here
is
a
combined
rate
of
tier
one
and
tier
two.
It
is
I
I
wonder
if
you
have
the
data
to
share
between
tier
one
and
tier
two,
because
we
know
tier
two
is
higher,
so
I
don't
know
if
you
have
that
data
on.
I
Do
you
know
if
you
don't
have
it
now?
That's
fine,
but
if
you
do
that,
that
may
be
helpful
to
provide
that
information.
D
I
don't
know,
maybe
jackie
see
if
you
could
pull
it
up,
because
we
have
it
in
our
papers.
But
since
I'm
sharing
my
screen,
I
don't
want
to
go
fumbling
through.
I
I
I
was
just
asking
the
question:
I
think
it's
really
up
to
the
trustees.
If
it's
not
something
that
they're
interested
in
pursuing
that's
fine,
I
just
figured.
I
asked
the
question
in
case
he
will
at
some
point
it
will
come
up
only
because
I
think,
as
bill
indicated,
instead
of
the
two
approaches
and
a
little
surprising
on
the
impact
and
not
a
huge
impact,
but
there's
that's
a
difference.
Three
basis
points
on
a
member
rate.
You
know
it
is,
it
could
be
some
somewhat
sizeable
to
some
people,
so
I
just
figured.
I
asked
the
question.
C
Is
uninteresting,
I
I
think,
since
that
has
a
bigger
impact
on
the
employees.
Let's
see
what
that
would
do.
I
D
C
Bill
as
she's
doing
that,
one
other
question
in
your
professional
judgment
is:
if
we
were
going
to
change
the
discount
rate,
would
you
recommend
that
we
do
this
gradual
approach
from
6.75
to
6.25
and
if
that
doesn't
work
the
year
the
following
year,
6.5
or
is
it
better
if
we
were
to
choose
to
do
this
just
to
bite
the
bullet
and
go
all
the
way
to
6.5
and
not
mess
around
with
it
for
another
year
or
two.
D
D
H
Bill
this
is
trustee
horowitz
help
me
understand
something.
When
we
speak
of
discount
rate,
we
often
use
it
interchangeably
with
the
expected
rate
of
return
on
our
investments,
but
how
do
we
account
for
the
discounting
our
four
billion
dollars
of
liabilities
at
the
discount
rate
versus
our
investment
return
on
two
billion
dollars
of
assets.
D
Right
so
the
the
four
billion
dollars
is
measured
by
discounting
all
the
projected
future
payments
back
to
today
at
the
discount
rate
of
6.75
the
assets
we
assume
will
accumulate
at
six
point,
seven
five
percent,
and
so
we
take
that
difference
and
set
up
the
and
that's
where
the
amortizations
are
built
to
close
that
gap
going
forward.
D
F
Okay,
so
if
we're
looking
at
the
top
left
block,
so
the
6.75
that's
the
base,
that's
the
baseline
numbers
with
the
two
point,
two
five
percent,
the
breakdown
of
that
is
tier,
one
would
be
two
point:
nine
percent
members
and
sorry
tier
one
would
be
two
point.
Three
and
tier
two
would
be
two
point:
nine.
D
B
Bill
just
just
to
nudge
us
towards
action.
Could
we
kind
of
go
back
and
forth
with
this
slide
and
the
next
slide?
Yes,
because
that's
and
and
before
you
jump
into
that
roberto
and
jenny,
the
agenda
only
has
the
price
inflation,
wage,
inflation
and
expected
rate
of
return.
It
doesn't
include
the
amortization
payment
increase
rate.
D
F
D
So
these
are
the
the
decisions
we
need
come
down
to
these
four
assumptions
and
we're
suggesting
that
the
price
inflation
based
on
the
data
be
reduced
to
two
and
a
quarter,
but
then
looking
at
alternatives
for
all
of
the
other
assumptions,
including
just
keeping
the
assumptions
where
they
are
so
on
the
wage,
inflation,
keeping
it
at
three
percent
going
forward.
The
alternative
is
to
recognize
the
three
percent.
D
That's
in
the
current
bargaining
agreement
for
the
next
year,
but
expect
after
that,
that
those
wage
increases
would
average
2.75
and
then
the
amortization
payment
increases.
We're
suggesting
you.
You
tie
that
to
the
wage
inflation
assumption,
but
but
you
don't
have
to,
but
that
would
result
in
either
a
275
or
2.5
percent
increase
in
amortization
payments
each
year
and
then
the
discount
rate
again
the
675.
D
We
think
it
is
still
reasonable,
but
there
are
the
warning
signs,
and
so
it
would
also
be
reasonable
to
to
take
a
step
towards
a
lower
discount
rate.
C
Okay,
so
I'm
going
to
ask
one
more
question:
I'm
a
little
confused
again
about
the
amortization
payment.
I
know
you
just
went
over
that,
so
I
apologize
I
just
what
and
I
know
you've
probably
showed
us
a
slide
on
that.
Can
you
just
refresh
what
that
is.
D
Yeah,
so
when
we
set
up
the
amortizations
they're,
not
a
level
dollar
amount
each
year
they
the
payments
on
them
increase
each
year
and
under
the
current
assumption
they
point
increase
five
percent.
D
We
do
that
to
try
and
keep
the
payments,
a
level
percentage
of
pay
or
a
level
portion
of
the
city's
budget,
and
we
don't
want
them
to
be
an
increasing
percentage,
and
so
that's
why
we,
while
we
think
pay,
is
going
to
go
up
by
three
percent.
D
D
We're
doing
2.75,
and
so
we're
just
saying
if
you,
if
you
think
wages
aren't
gonna
in
payroll,
is
not
gonna
go
up
as
fast
that
then
maybe
you
should
reduce
that
to
2.5,
but
if
you
think
payroll's
still
going
to
go
up
by
our
3
assumption,
then
just
leave
it
at.
D
Yes,
so
we
can,
we
can
change
it
next
year
and
I
think
that
that's
part
of
why,
in
particular,
the
the
6.75
we
think
is
still
reasonable,
because
we've
seen
this
huge
drop
in
interest
rates,
but
we
want
to
be
cautious
about
how
we
react
to
that
because
it
it
may
not
be
a
permanent
change.
It
may
just
be
a
temporary
change.
C
D
A
All
right,
I
think
it
just
kind
of
goes
back
to
that-
we're
looking
at
really
long
time
periods
to
make
assumptions
on
figures.
For
now
for
this
annual
review
that
it's
helping,
you
know,
we
look
at
inflation,
we're
looking
at
10
20
year
time
periods,
so
right,
that's
helpful
or
not.
I
think
the
maybe
just
underlined
is
that
these
are
all
assumptions
we'll
never
get.
I
don't
know
if
we'll
ever
actually
hit
anything
on
target
and
to
be
fair
for
the
team
at
chiron.
Thank
you
for
putting
this
all
together.
A
D
Right
exactly
we've
tried
to
put
factual
data
here
and
best
estimates
looking
at
a
variety
of
experts,
but
ultimately
it
comes
down
to
a
judgment.
It's
not
there
isn't
like
a
mathematical
formula.
We
can
plug
things
into
and
get
you
the
right
answer,
we're
talking
about
an
uncertain
future
and
just
trying
to
make
our
best
estimate
of
it.
H
D
So
if
we
keep
wage
inflation
at
three
percent
and
the
discount
rate
is
6.75,
changing
the
price
inflation
from
2.5
to
2
and
a
quarter
does
very
little
in
terms
of
the
liabilities
because
it
only
affects
it
reduces
our
projection
of
some
of
the
largest
benefits,
because
those
benefits
are
limited
by
the
415
limit,
which
is
tied
to
price
inflation.
D
It
also
reduces
the
amount
of
guaranteed
purchasing
power
benefits
that
the
plan
would
have
to
pay,
but
those
are
in
the
scheme
of
the
overall
plan.
Those
are
very
minor
impacts,
so
it's
it's
more
about
trying
to
make
sure
our
price
inflation
assumption
stays
consistent
with
what
we're
seeing
in
market
data
and
other
assumptions
and
tracking
how
our
other
assumptions
differ.
G
This
is
trusted
sun.
I
have
a
question
on
the
wage
inflation.
I
was
looking
at
a
slide
number
22..
You
have
given
out
the
san
jose
saturated
waging
weight
growth
for
the
5
year
10
year
and
20
years.
I
know
the
10
year
and
20
years
have
all
those
dramatic
years
of
a
wage
deduction.
D
Yeah,
I
don't
so
I
don't
have
what
it
would
be
if
we
took
those
across
the
board
wage
cuts
out.
But
if
you
look
at
the
last
five
years
that
doesn't
include
those
across
the
board
wage
cuts.
So
that's
been
about
2.9
percent.
D
D
Okay
and
so
right
now,
our
real
wage
growth
assumption
is
about
0.5,
but
if
we
reduce
price
inflation
to
two
and
a
quarter
and
leave
wage
inflation
at
three
we'd
be
moving
to
0.75,
which
is
closer
to
what
local
governments
have
seen
in
the
last
10.
G
B
Years
bill
would
you
mind
putting
the
the
board
decision
slide.
Thank
you.
B
So
does
anyone
have
a
a
leaning
towards
one
or
the
other
amongst
these
four
items.
C
C
But
if
that
ever
happened
we
would
our
discount
rate
would
kind
of
be
thrown
out
in
the
bankruptcy
court
and
they
would
go
with
what
they
actually
think
we
would
get
and
that's
quite
low.
So
basically,
that
kind
of
like
was
shocking
to
me,
and
that
makes
it
so
we
should
be.
C
I
felt
a
conservative
edge
come
out
of
there.
So
if
I'm,
if
I'm
going
to
divorce
myself
from
the
impact
this
does
to
the
city
and
only
consider
what
is
best
for
the
pension,
I
would
move
to
the
6.5.
C
I
think
the
6.75
is
not
attainable
and
we
keep
on
showing
that
we
have
losses
as
to
the
wage
inflation.
I
think
we
should
be
looking
at
the
bay
area
because
that's
what
it's
about,
I
think
the
city
is
going
to
push
very
hard
for
minimal
increases,
and
I
know
it's
long-term
versus
short-term.
I
would
like
to
hold
to
the
three
percent,
because
I
think
that's
the
only
way
we're
going
to
keep
employees
in
this
city,
but
probably
three
percent
and
2.75
thereafter
might
be
realistic
and
quiet.
Price
inflation.
C
I
mean
again
that's
nationwide.
The
economist
in
me
makes
me
very
nervous
about
what
has
happened
in
this
government
so
far.
Inflation
is
always
something
you
know,
but
we
have
been
in
a
d.
What
a
de-inflation-
or
I
forget,
what
the
word's
called.
I
mean.
We've
been
worried,
so
that's
where
we
have
been
and
if
all
the
other
areas
are
showing
that
it
is
not
something
to
be
concerned
of.
K
Yeah,
I
would
agree
trustee
jennings.
This
is
trustee
kelleher,
that
we
need
to
divorce
herself
from
the
impact
to
the
city
and
think
only
of
the
beneficiaries,
we're
fiduciaries
to
our
beneficiaries,
we're
not
fiduciaries
to
the
city
and
towards
that
end,
I
think
that
we
should
move
the
discount
rate
down
to
six
and
a
half
percent
to
be
as
conservative
as
possible
in
terms
of
price
inflation.
K
The
fed
is
going
to
continue
with
their
current
actions
until
they
get
to
a
target
inflation
rate
of
two
percent.
So
you
know
if
the
fed's
just
trying
to
get
to
two
percent,
I
think
we're
being
very,
very
conservative
at
two
and
a
quarter
in
terms
of
wage
inflation.
K
I
don't
really
see
a
lot
of
inflationary
pressures
given
the
economy
and
the
unemployment
rates
that
we're
seeing
nationwide
and
in
the
bay
area,
and
so
if
we
were
to
do
the
wage
inflation
at
three
and
then
two
and
three
quarters,
I
think
that
the
amortization
payment
logically
should
go
to
two
and
a
half
percent,
so
that
that's
my
short.
B
No,
can
you
hear
me
yes
now
we
can
yeah
okay,
so.
K
B
So
trustee
kelleher,
I
believe,
then
your
your
suggestion
with
regard
to
this
chart.
It
would
be
to
move
the
price
inflation
to
the
2.25.
It
would
be
on
the
wage.
Inflation
would
be.
The
second
bullet
point,
3.0
down
to
the
2.75
amortization
payment
increase.
We
maintain
the
25
basis,
point
delta
and
the
discount
rate
would
be
6.5.
B
Other
other
reactions.
G
I
would
have
liked
to
put
in
some
of
my
comments
or
not
so
I
would
just
go
bullet
by
bullet
price
inflation.
Wise,
I
would
say
I
agree
with
assessments
by
all
the
parties
on
the
inflation.
I
think
2.25
percent
from
a
nationwide
standpoint
of
view
is
reasonable.
Considering
our
cpi
is
below
2
1.
G
I
am
kind
of
concerned
that
in
the
past
we
have
experienced
the
real
experience
on
razor
insulation
is
very
different
from
our
expectations,
but
I
understand
that's
a
forecast.
All
temptatively
supported
for
three
percent
for
for
this
current
this
year,
fy
in
2021,
and
we
can
move
to
2.75
thereafter.
But
my
request
is
that
carrot.
Cairo
needs
to
do
better
on
picking
up
all
the
other
experience
and
you're
in
your
presentation
as
you're
saying
all
the
other
wage
inflation
beyond
this
assumption
is
picked
up
together
as
meri
race.
G
So
we'll
hope
we
can
do
better
job
on
that,
so
that
we
would
not
see
a
very
big
difference
between
the
actual
experience
and
then
the
expectation
now
going
to
the
third
bullet
point
amortizing
payment.
I
do
agree,
you
should
go
hand-in-hand
with
the
payroll
growth,
so
if
we
drop
the
wage
inflation
alternative
by
quarter
basis,
point
quarter
percent
to
the
following
fiscal
years.
We
should
drop
the
amortization
by
another
quarter
percent
to
2.5
and
regarding
the
discount
rate
that
is
going
to
contribute
to
a
major
increase
in
the
city's
contribution.
G
G
If
we
look
at,
if
we've
adopted
all
the
three
changes
on
the
top
and
also
adopted
the
increase,
dropping
the
discount
rate
from
6.75
to
6.5
percent,
that
will
increase
the
city's
contribution
by
over
8
million
dollars.
Mind
you,
we
are
in
the
corona
virus
pandemic
and
the
cities
is
expecting
a
major
revenue
decreases.
Although
we're
not
seeing
some
of
the
realization
in
this
current
year,
meaning
current
fiscal
year
2021,
we
do
expect
someone
may
come
in
to
play
in
the
future
fiscal
years.
Eight
point:
that's
8.7
million,
almost
9
million.
G
H
If
we
are
looking
at
nationwide
inflation,
I
think
even
two
and
a
quarter
is
much
higher
than
recent
experience
and
much
higher
than
10
20
and
30-year
market
expectations,
which
are
more
in
the
1.6
range
and,
as
trustee
kelleher
pointed
out,
the
fed
is
targeting
hoping
desperately
to
achieve
two
percent
and
has
failed
to
do
so.
H
So
I
think
two
percent
is
probably
a
more
accurate
description
of
nationwide
inflation
and
and
maybe
even
lower,
I'm
not
sure
it
has
a
huge
effect
on
on
on
the
numbers,
based
on
what
the
actuaries
have
said.
H
H
I
have
no
comment
on
the
amortization
payment.
I
agree
with
the
actuaries
proposal
here
and,
as
for
the
discount
rate,
I
think
we,
as
a
taxpayer,
I'm
very
reluctant
to
to
consider
a
reduction
in
the
discount
rate.
However,
we
do
have
a
significantly
new
situation,
post-pandemic,
where
the
risk-free
rate
is
is
zero
or
if
we're
using
the
10-year
treasury,
0.8
percent
and
all
other
rates
that
we
earn
in
the
market
are
based
on
that
new,
lower
risk-free
rate.
H
So
it
is
reasonable
and
prudent,
I
believe,
to
lower
the
discount
rate,
I'm
a
bit
ambivalent,
whether
we
should
go
down
12
and
a
half
or
50
basis
points,
so
I'm
persuaded
below.
In
that
point
I
take,
I
certainly
take
the
point.
Trusty's
son
has
made
about
the
effect
on
the
city
budget
and
but
in
life
I've
also
been
one
to
face
up
to
realities
and
bite
the
bullet
when
the
bullet
is
there
to
be
bitten,
so
that
that's
my
thinking
on
these
points.
B
A
This
is
elaine,
I
don't
mind
the
don't
mind
the
dog.
Sorry,
I'm
gonna
keep
it
really
short.
I
am
looking
at
basically
external
market
commentary,
economic
assumptions,
along
with
our
consultants
and
experts
and
looking
at
some
of
our
peer
plans
to
a
degree,
so
I
really
enjoyed
and
value
what
everyone
has
raised
to
date.
A
Particularly,
I
appreciate
what
you
said:
trustee
son
about
the
city
and
the
various
trustees
regards
to
where
our
obligations
lie,
which
is
obviously
to
the
members
into
the
plan,
so
I
would
just
quickly
say,
with
the
price
inflation
I
would
agree
on
the
2.25,
the
wage
inflation,
the
second
option
at
a
three
percent
with
a
reduction
agreed.
I
would
also
support
amortization
payment
increase
as
as
laid
out
and
then
with
the
discount
rate,
I
probably
would
go
to
6.625.
A
I
would
take
a
minor
a
smaller
step
in
that
direction.
I
think
it's
appropriate
and
relevant
to
where
our
risk
profiling,
where
our
pension
plan
characteristics
lie
today.
Thank
you.
C
C
C
You
know
that
that's
a
step
in
recognition
and
somewhat
minimization
of
the
impact
to
the
city
in
a
very
bad
time,
because
this
is
a
very
bad
time
and
it,
and
if
there
is
major
reductions
in
staffing,
that's
I
mean
I
guess
that
helps
with
wage
inflation,
but
it
also
doesn't
help
with
probably
and
more
people
joining
the
the
either
retirement
they'll
retire
and
they'll
probably
be
tier
one
employees
or
the
reduction
in
the
contribution
that
they're
making,
because
I'm
sure
that's
where
the
city
would
have
to
go.
C
They
don't
really
have
the
money
to
make
that
big
influx
and
they
do
try
to
pay
what
we
put
forward.
So
I
think
that's
a
good
compromise.
You
know
in
doing
both
and
then
I
I
keep
to
the
other
things
I
said
I
mean
I
would
love
to
keep
the
salaries
at
three
percent.
You
know
overall,
as
an
employee,
I
think
that's
and
I
will
I
agree
with
trustee
horowitz
that
the
council
has
changed.
There
will
be
a
push.
There
could
even
be
a
strike
by
the
unions.
C
C
But
you
know
they
might
accept
a
2.75,
it's
possible.
Who
knows
that's
not
what
the
employees
need,
and
you
know
you
know.
I
I'm
on
two
fences
there,
but
I'm
trying
to
do
the
pension
perspective
and
from
the
pension
perspective
I'll
keep
with
what
I
said,
but
I
do
on
the
discount
rate
yeah.
C
I
think
if
we
went
to
6.625
that
shows
that
we're
paying
attention
we
have
another
year
to
look
at
it
and
then
we
can
see
how
we
change
it
thereafter.
So
I
guess
that's
my
two
bits.
B
Thank
you
trustee
jennings,
my
personal
reactions
actually
they're
very
much
in
line
with
trusty
horowitz,
I'm
good
on
the
price.
Inflation,
as
as
chiron
is
asking
us
to
consider
the
wage
inflation.
B
Yet
you
know,
despite
the
conditions,
the
just
my
observation.
Having
been
involved
with
the
city
for
40
years,
is
you
know,
we've
we've?
The
city
has.
B
Been
more
generous
with
the
employees,
I
think
the
the
change
in
the
council
is
definitely
a
factor
and
I
do
think
it.
It
would
be
worth
waiting
one
year
for
the
outcome
of
all
the
contract
negotiations
before
making
the
change
from
the
status
quo.
B
Amortization,
the
25
basis,
point
delta
still
makes
sense
and
then
the
discount
rate
again
like
trustee
horowitz,
I
think
it's
a
change
would
be
appropriate.
I'm
less!
B
I
don't
feel
as
strongly
one
way
or
the
other
regarding
6.25
or
the
6.5,
I
mean
all
three
6.75
and
all
the
way
down
to
6.5.
I
think
chiron
is
suggesting
to
us
that
all
three
are
reasonable
and
we
wouldn't
be
violating
our
duty
by
going
with
any
of
them.
I
do
think
moving
in
the
direct
downward
direction
is
more
realistic
and
relieves
a
little
bit
of
pressure
from
the
investment
staff
on
their
performance,
so
but
again,
whether
for
me,
whether
it's
6.625
or
6.5,
I'm
I'm
fine
I'd,
be
fine
either
way.
B
So
is
anyone
interested
in
making
a.
B
Yes,
with
regard
to
these
decisions
that
are
in
front
of
us
on
this
powerpoint
slide.
B
Okay,
should
we
do
do
you
want
to
take
a
shot
at
a
whole
package,
trustee
kelleher.
K
Sure,
and
I
would
also
motion
that
we
move
the
wage
inflation
from
three
to
two:
seven:
five,
the
amortization
payment
to
two
and
a
half
percent
and
change
the
discount
rate.
All
the
way
down
to
six
and
a
half.
B
Okay,
very
good,
thank
you
any
discussion.
B
B
With
regard
to
trusty
or
with
regard
to
wage
inflation,
which
which
were
you
suggesting,
keeping
the
3.0
or
the.
A
No
key,
so
it
was
really
a
point
for
discussion.
I
wasn't
making
a
second
motion
really
just
to
ensure
that
we
as
a
group
could
come
to
alignment
on
the
discount
rate
modification.
E
H
To
I
don't
know
whether
to
phrase
this
as
an
alternative
motion,
but
I
think
the
consensus
discount
rate
would
be
6.625,
but
I
I
also
agree
strongly
with
with
trustee
castiano
that
we
should
keep
the
assumption
at
three
percent
for
wage
inflation,
at
least
until
this
next
year
plays
out,
and
we
see
the
results
of
negotiation,
it's
really
impossible
to
forecast
that
number.
Without
that
knowledge,
and
certainly
the
price
inflation
we
should.
I
I
forget,
actually
what
trustee
kelleher
was
in
his
motion.
H
It
should
be
at
least
a
quarter,
if
not
two
percent
yeah.
So
so
I
would
propose
two
percent
flight
price
inflation,
three
percent
wage
inflation,
the
amortization,
no
change
and
a
discount
rate
of
6.625
6.625.
Yes,.
C
I
Motion-
I
I
just
I'm
sorry,
mr
chair,
I
want
to
jump
in
here
and
please
counsel
jenny
to
to
hopefully
step
in,
I
think,
you're,
correct
chair.
Then
we
can
discuss
different
emotions,
but
I'm
a
little
confused
as
to
what
motion
it
will
be
discussed
right
now.
There
was
a
motion
initially
on
the
table
by
trustee
kelleher
and
it
was
second
by
trustee
horowitz.
I
believe
I
have
a
mistake
and
understatement.
I
Please
correct
me
and
then
I
hear
a
second
motion
by
trustee
horowitz
second
by
trustee
jennings,
but
the
two
motions
are
not
the
same,
so
I
I
I
just,
I
think,
as
a
pony
discussion,
I'm
confused.
So
I
wonder
if
anybody
else
might
be
confused,
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
very
clear
understanding
what
each
motion
is
or
if
it's
really
complicated,
which
it
could
be.
I
Maybe,
instead
of
making
motions
for
all
the
decisions,
maybe
we
should
just
concentrate
on
having
emotion
for
each
one
of
the
four
decisions
that
will
probably
make
the
discussion
a
little
easier
to
behave.
That's
just
a
recommendation.
Obviously
your
board
can
proceed
any
way.
You
feel
a
fee,
but
I
just
wonder
jenny.
I
If
you
have
any
because
of
your
experience,
dealing
with
motions
and
public
settings
and
boards,
whether
you
have
any
comments
instead
of
how
they
should
be
approached
or
do
you
have
any
suggestions,
but
I
do
think
that,
because
there
are
so
many
different
thoughts
on
all
the
four
points,
maybe
we
should
consider
making
a
motion
individually
for
each
one
of
them
and
then
tackle
them
individually.
So
once
you
you
agree
on
the
price
inflation,
then
you
move
to
wage
administration
discount
rate.
I
B
Yeah
yeah
I
mean
I,
I
was
offering
the
opportunity
to
create
a
you
know
one
motion
for
all
four
but
yeah.
I
I
to
the
extent
anyone
is
confused.
I
think
yeah
you're
right.
I
think
we
ought
to
break
it
up.
I'm
sorry,
jenny.
I
didn't
mean
to
interrupt
you
if
you
were,
if
you
were
going
to
respond
to
roberto.
A
No,
that
that
that's
fine,
I
agree,
I
think
it.
You
have
two
motions
on
the
table.
You
could
certainly
continue
to
talk
about
all
four
components,
but
it
might
be
helpful
just
given
what
what
you're
hearing
from
each
other
to
you
know,
move
forward
as
just
been
suggested.
H
Trustee
horowitz,
I
happily
withdraw
my
motion.
If
that
will
aid
the
vote
on
each
individual
item.
B
Okay
and
thank
you
trustee
horowitz,
all
right,
I
said,
was
that
trustee
kelleher.
B
Okay,
well,
thank
you
both
for
that.
So,
let's
go
back
to
price
inflation.
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
for
for
what
we
want
to
do
on
price
inflation.
G
Before
we
have
a
motion,
can
I
ask
chiron
for
some
information,
so
there
is
some
opinion
on
the
table
to
drop
the
price
inflation
from
two
and
a
quarter
percent,
as
recommended
to
two
percent.
I
wonder
I
want
to
hear
from
chiron
if
there's
any
concerns
or
problem
with
that.
D
I
think
we
normally
wouldn't
make
that
significant
of
a
move
at
a
single
at
once.
Two
percent
is
still
you
know,
based
on
the
data,
clearly
a
reasonable
inflation
assumption.
So
in
that
sense
I
wouldn't
have
a
problem
with
it
and
the
impact
on
the
valuation
of
just
the
price.
Inflation
is
not
that
significant.
C
Okay,
so,
based
on
that
I'll
put
a
motion
forward
to
take
the
price
inflation
down
to
two
point:
two:
five
percent.
B
A
B
Thank
you
trustee
son
hi.
Thank
you.
I
also
vote.
I
that
motion
carry
six
to
zero
wage
inflation.
Can
we
do
wage
inflation
and
the
amortization
payment
increase?
I
I
haven't
heard
any
discussion
about
altering
the
0.25
delta.
G
H
B
K
On
the
political
nature
of
the
wage
and
the
historic
tendency
of
the
city
to
be
generous
are
quite
valid,
and
so
that
may
trump
any
economic
concerns
I
had
so.
I
certainly
support
keeping
it
at
three
percent
for
a
year.
Great
thank.
B
B
A
G
B
I
also
vote
I
so
that
motion
carries
six
to
zero
and
again
that
covers
the
wage,
inflation
and
the
amortization
payment
increase.
And,
lastly,
the
discount
rate
is
a
motion
in
a
second
for
the
discount
rate
change.
B
I
I
don't
I
think
in
in
the
trustee
canada,
in
the
joint
meeting
that
both
boards
had
with
the
city
council.
I
think
they
they
they
kept
their
comments
to
the
current
budget
that
ends
on
june
30th
2021.
I
So
since
this
decision
that
you're
making
here
this
morning
is
really
for
2022
fiscal
year,
meaning
the
one
going
from
july
1st
21
to
june
30
2022,
the
the
city
hasn't
really
made
any
any
estimates
on
that.
So
they
do
expect
to
have
a
deficit,
but
they
haven't
spoken
as
to
the
range
of
that
possible
deficit.
So
it's
a
long
way
of
telling
you
that
we
don't
have
an
answer
for
your
question.
C
I
could
probably
add
a
few
tidbits
just
because
I
work
on
the
budget
a
lot
and,
of
course
part
of
it
depended
on
the
election
and
it
also
still
probably
depends
on
the
senate,
because
the
city
intends
to
continue
meeting
their
obligations
towards
the
pandemic
and
serving
the
residents
in
this
time
of
need,
and
so,
if
a
new
package
comes
forward,
that
will
help
the
city.
If
it
doesn't,
it
will
draw
more
on
some
of
the
city's
resources
they're
trying
to
plan
accordingly.
C
But
that's
one
thing
in
the
in
their
plan:
they
ended
the
year
with
meeting,
in
fact
exceeding.
I
think
some
of
the
the
revenue
forecasts
they
thought
they're
getting
ready
in
december
to
go
forward
with
their
five-year
forecast
where
they're
looking
at
the
revenue
side
of
it
they're
still
somewhat
conservative
and
will
be
conservative
on
what
they
anticipate.
I
don't
anticipate
them
changing
their
forecast,
much
just
with
the
pandemic
as
it
stands.
C
So
it's
been,
you
know,
prepare
for
reductions.
I
mean
that's
kind
of
what
the
approach
has
been
to
the
departments.
Jay
might
have
a
little
more
input
just
on
his
knowledge
and
contacts
within
the
city
as
well.
B
Well,
thank
you
trustee.
No,
I
don't
have
any
more
actual
detail,
so
I
I
don't
really
know.
C
Okay,
then
I
basically,
I
think
the
departments
are
preparing
for
reduction
targets
and
the
unions
are
preparing
for
a
very
tough
negotiation.
E
G
I
have
a
question
to
to
kyram
bill.
This
is
the
trusty
sun,
so
the
city's
contribution
towards
the
retirement
it's
based
on
the
valuation
of
for
the
retirement
for
the
fiscal
year
2020
22,
is
based
on
the
valuation
study
ended
june.
30
2020.
am
I
correct.
D
G
So,
in
a
way
if
the
city's
investment
experience
for
this
current
fiscal
year
is
below
the
the
expected
rate
of
return,
6.75
percent
is
actually
not
going
to
add
to
the
city's
contribution
for
2022.
G
B
I
thank
you.
Trustee
jennings.
E
K
Love
to
go
to
six
and
a
half,
but
if
16.625
is
on
the
table,
I
think
we
definitely
need
to
reduce
the
rate
so
I'll
vote.
E
I
I
I
G
I
I
I
When
you
were
out-
and
she
approached
you
somehow.
B
Body
internet
connection,
unfortunately
so
did
did
you
folks
move
forward.
B
G
Oh
okay,
I'll
already
I'll
repeat
what
I
just
said.
I
will
I
vote
no
on
better
online
motion.
I
really
wish
we
could.
We
could
have
tabled
this
until
next
year
or
maybe
later.
B
Okay,
so
that's
a
no
vote
for
trustee
sun.
I
am
voting
I
on
that
one,
so
that
motion
carries
five
to
one
all
right
bill.
Anything
else
that
we
need
to
tackle
right
now
on
this
agenda
item.
I
Jay
before
bill
goes,
I
suspect
that
we,
I
may
get
questions
for
the
city.
Could
you
call
this
the
screen
again
and
show
me
the
numbers
how
they
may
look
now
with
the
motions.
I
D
We're
in
this
okay
quadrant,
the
only
thing
is
these
are
these
are
estimated.
I
I
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you.
Thank
you
bill
and
thank
you
chair
for
allowing
me
to
ask
the
question.
Thank
you.
I
I
appreciate
it
and
by
the
way
I
want
to,
I
want
to
congratulate
the
board
for
first
of
all,
kyron
strusty
or
indicated
they
do
excellent
work,
providing
you
with,
I
think,
very
good
data
for
you
to
make
an
informed
decision,
and
I
want
to
applaud
the
board
for
having
a
meaningful
discussion
and
asking
the
right
questions
and,
and
you
know,
taking
action
on
the
recommendations
so
great
job,
everyone.
So
much
appreciate
on
behalf
of
the
plan
members
much
appreciated.
Thank
you.
B
Yes
and
yeah
bill
jackie
and
stephen.
Thank
you
very
much
for
really
the
great
work
and
yeah.
You
know.
I
think
it
it
helped
a
lot
in
our
being
able
to
reach
a
decision
this
month.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
that.
B
Thank
you
all
right,
so
we
will
go
on
to
next
items.
The
item,
six
committees,
reports
and
recommendations,
starting
with
6.1
investment
committee
last
night,
was
october.
27Th
next
meeting
is
on
the
22nd.
B
Mr
chandra
is
not
here.
So
is
there
I'm
sorry
trustee
or
do
you
have
a
oral
update
for.
A
B
B
Yeah,
sorry,
I'm
I
switched
devices
so
61b
minutes
from
august
25,
that's
receiving
file
minutes
from
august.
I'm
sorry,
that's
joint
investment
committee
and
the
minutes
from
august
25
federal
investment
committee.
That's
also
receiving
file.
So
thank
you
very
much
item
6.2
the
governance
committee.
Their
last
meeting
was
on
the
20th
next
meeting.
It
is
on
december
17th.
Trustee
horowitz
is
her
oral
update.
H
B
K
Okay,
so
my
oral
update
is
that
we
are
recommending
that
grant
thornton's
auto
report
be
approved
by
the
board
and
also
we
made
a
motion
to
accept
the
comprehensive
annual
financial
reports
for
fiscal
year,
2019
2020
and
recommend
approval
to
the
board.
B
Okay,
so
justin
kelleher,
I'm
sorry.
I
need
to
move
something
surrounding
my
screen.
I
Jay,
so
tracy
keller
had
provided
a
very
short
description
of
what
transpired
at
the
meeting
he's
correct.
There
are
a
couple
of
actual
actual
action
items
that
we
are
looking
for.
You
board
to
take
action
on
in
on
this
meeting
today.
I.
D
I
E
I
E
I
B
Benji
before
you
do
that
roberto,
should
we
go
through
b,
c
and
d,
the
receiving
files
first.
I
Yes,
I'm
sorry
trustee
chair,
I
mean
yes
chair
casana,
you
could
do
that.
That
information
was
provided
to
the
to
the
committee
and,
yes,
you
can
receive
a
file
b,
c
and
d.
Yes,.
B
Okay,
so
yeah,
b,
b
minutes
from
august
20th
joint
audit
committee
receive
and
file
the
quarterly
travel
analysis
receive
file
and
the
update
on
the
city
auditor's
report.
So
you
can
file
so
yeah
benji.
Please.
E
Okay,
so
the
first
item,
item
e
is
grant
thornton's
report
on
how
the
audit
went.
Basically,
there
were
no
issues,
everything
went
smoothly.
This
presentation
also
goes
over
any
past
adjustments
and
the
main
ones
are
just
related
to
the
timing
of
when
we
receive
the
statements.
The
second
report
is
the
report
on
the
internal
controls.
E
They
were
the
same
internal
control
findings
from
last
year.
There
are
three
levels:
one,
the
highest
level
is
a
material
weakness
and
we
didn't
have
any
material
weaknesses.
We
did
have
two
significant
deficiencies,
which
were
a
repeat
of
last
year's.
The
first
one
is
out
of
our
control
because
it's
over
the
city's
control
over
fms,
but
the
second
one
is
over
leveling,
which
we
have
implemented
procedures
this
year.
E
So
hopefully
that
will
be
gone
next
year,
so
we're
just
hoping
for
the
board
to
accept
and
approve
this,
the
reports
from
grant
thornton.
Do
you
want
me
to
go
over
the
ef
also.
B
F
E
The
audit
committee
presentation
and
the
report
on
the
internal
control.
B
Any
public
discussion:
okay,
let's
do
the!
Let's
do
the
roll
call
vote,
trustee
horowitz.
E
F
B
E
This
is
the
kafir
for
last
fiscal
year,
fy20,
there's
no
new
standards
or
pronouncements
that
were
implemented
last
year.
So
it's
pretty
much
the
same
as
last
year
we
did
get
an
unqualified
opinion,
which
is
the
highest
opinion
we
can
get
on
an
audit,
and
so
this
is
not
the
final,
because
we're
still
going
through
formatting
before
it
goes
to
print.
But
all
the
contents
should
be
remain.
The
same.
B
Okay,
very
good,
thank
you
so
on
this
one,
we're
looking
for
a
motion,
a
second
to
approve
the
federated
city,
employees,
retirement
systems,
kafir
motion
in
a
second.
G
I
Discussion,
yes,
mr
chair,
I'd
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
make
two
comments.
I
I
actually
made
in
the
audit
committee
but
number
one.
I
want
to
thank
grant
thornton.
They
do
excellent
work
and
they
have
been
a
partner
of
the
last
few
years
and
over
my
25
years
experience
with
public
plans.
I
think
that
they
are
probably
the
best
organization
that
I
have
encountered
during
financial
audits,
so
put
us
to
the
end
for
the
professionalism
and
the
work
so
much
appreciated.
I
So
all
the
areas
benefits
administration,
accounting,
information,
technology
and
and
investments,
but
I
want
to
key
in
obviously
on
the
accounting
group
and
and
their
manager
benji
and
the
rest
of
her
staff
for
doing
an
excellent
work
on
working
with
across
the
sections
in
the
office,
but
also
maintaining
a
good
working
relationship
with
not
only
grand
theft
auto
with
the
city
as
well
so
kudos
to
everyone
for
a
job.
Well
done.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
Very
good,
thank
you
for
those
great
words.
So,
let's
see
if
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
any
disc,
any
other
discussion
by
the
board
by
the
public.
Okay,
roll
call,
vote,
trustee,
horowitz.
D
F
B
Okay,
I
also
vote.
I
that
motion
carries
six
to
zero.
Thank
you
benji
again,
and
your
team
and
working
with
john
at
the
grant
authority
of
the
folks
all
right,
6.4
joint
personnel.
Yes,
thank
you,
6.4
joint
personnel
committee.
Our
last
meeting
was
november
10
and
the
next
meeting
is
tbd
trustee
orr.
Would
you
like
to
give
the
oral
update.
A
Yes,
hi
sorry
about
the
noise
again
you've
all
seen
that
draft
of
the
ceo
and
cio
performance
procedures.
It's
still
a
work
in
progress.
We
are
looking
to
continue
to
align
it
to
the
city's
framework,
but
also
you
know,
modify
and
customize
it
for
the
investment.
A
A
As
we
try
to
align
the
language
and
to
incent
the
appropriate
performance,
incentivized
behaviors,
so
we'll
provide
an
update
to
the
board
once
we
further
review
this
at
probably
by
q1
we'd
like
to
start
the
performance
process
and
actually
put
it
into
effect
july
1st
of
next
year.
So
we'll
keep.
E
A
Apprised
or
feel
free
to
send
me
questions.
B
Thank
you
very
much.
Trustee
orr,
okay,
6.4
b
minutes
from
september
28th
is
receiving
file
minutes
from
6.4
c
minutes
from
october.
20Th
is
receiving
file
item
64d
discussion
and
action
on
the
committee's
recommendation
to
engage
coffin
associates
for
a
new
ceo
compensation
study
for
an
amount
not
to
exceed
twenty
five
thousand
dollars
to
be
split
between
the
boards,
the
police
and
fire
boards
and
the
federated
city
awards.
And
mr
pena
you're
gonna
introduce
this
item.
Yes,.
I
I
think
the
last
work
that
they
accomplished
along
with
the
boards
was
actually
the
implementation
and
thank
you
to
the
city
for
their
work
on
this
implementation
of
the
defined
benefit
plan
for
the
cio
position
and
the
rest
of
the
investment
professional
staff,
and
that
was
accomplished
towards
late
this
summer,
and
so
I
think
they
shifted
the
the
the
duties
now
to
work
on
a
possible
benefit
study
for
the
ceo
position
and
that's
what
this
particular
item
is
referring
to.
I
They
wanted
to
watch
your
board
approval
to
spend
some
funds
on
engaging
confident
associates
on
performing
a
new
compensation
study
for
the
ceo.
The
amount
here
is
not
to
accept
25
000
to
be
split
between
each
board.
I
did
reach
out
to
cough
and
and
and
the
dollar
figure
is
going
to
be
considerably
less,
probably
in
the
10
000
to
12.
000
dollar
range
about
half
of
it,
but
nevertheless
that
was
the
original
recommendation
by
the
committee
and
masking
newborn
to
approve
that
amount
with
understanding.
I
That
is
to
be
split,
the
total
figure
between
both
both
boards.
So
with
that,
I'm
happy
to
actually
answer
any
question,
but
I
you
know
I'll
defer
to
both
of
you,
trustees
in
the
committee
trustee
or
his
device
chair,
although
she
wasn't
actually
in
attendance
at
the
meeting
that
this
was
requested
and
also
trustee
castilla
who's.
Also
a
member
of
the
apc.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman,.
B
Any
questions
for
for
mr
pena
or
for
trustee
or
myself
about
on
this
matter
and
if
not
then
entertain
a
motion
to
to
to
engage
coffin
associates
for
the
dollar
amount
listed
below.
G
This
is
trustees.
When
was
the
last
time
we
studied
the
ceo
compensation.
I
G
I
I
No,
the
the
the
measure,
what
measure
the
one
I'm
thinking
about,
whatever
measure
that
provided,
you
actually
g,
I
think
it
was
that
actually
provided
your
boards,
the
responsibility
for
hiring
and
firing
the
security
positions
for
the
ceo
and
cio
doesn't
address
the
timing.
I
It
does,
however,
indicates
that
whenever
the
boards
want
to
come
forward
to
the
city
council,
that
the
board
should
entertain
a
survey
of
plans
across
the
nation-
and
so
I
think
he's
absent
on
on
the
interval-
that's
you
know
just
to
answer
your
question
and
that's.
I
think
that's
really
that
particular
decision
is
really
up
to
the
boards
as
to
how
often
they
would
they
would
like
to
accomplish
something
like
that.
K
Sure
I
said
is
this
something
we
need
to
do
and
present
to
the
the
city
in
order
to
affect
the
compensation
changes
that
we
agreed
on
last
month.
I
No,
no.
This
is
separate
from
that
those
those
those
approvals
are
based
on
the
current
compensation
range.
I
I
just
want
to
make
clear
that
you
know
when,
when
it
says,
see
a
compensation
story,
I
think
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
the
full
jpc.
I
apologize
for
that
noise.
That's
our
birth;
they
they
are
looking
for
a
total
composition
study,
not
just
salary
but
really
benefits,
and
I
think
I
think
that
the
jpc
was-
and
I
I
believe,
trustee
cassidy
is
part
of
the
aha
committee.
I
B
Yes,
yeah
trustee
kelleher,
it
is
independent
of
the
performance
review
and
then
the
compensation
and
then
today's
executive
leave
recalling
a
conversation
we
had
between
federated
representatives
on
the
jpc
and
the
police
of
fire.
B
I
don't
know
how
much
you
all
know
about
it,
but
I
believe
mr
pena
is
the
only
employee
in
retirement
services
without
a
pension
plan
and
that
you
know
it's
happened
for
it's
that
way
for
reasons,
but
so
he
doesn't
have
that
component
of
his
compensation-
and
I
shouldn't
say
him,
but
his
position
at
this
time
does
not
have
that
component
of
compensation
that
other
positions
do.
So
we
wanted
to
look
at
that,
so
we
have
a
better
understanding
about
where
to
go
in
the
future.
With
this,
I.
C
Thought
it
was
approved
that
he
and
could
use
calpers.
I
You
were
correct,
trustee
jennings,
that
was
the
approval,
but
it
was
in
terms
of
the
actual
positions,
so
it
did
include
prabhu
because
he
joined
after
metro
g
but
because
I
joined
earlier
than
that,
it
didn't
include.
It
include
my
position
going
forward,
but
not
myself.
I
K
I
think
that
certainly
makes
sense
to
do
given
in
light
of
the
that
information.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
I
can
have
a
motion
a
second
to
approve
the
jpc's
recommendation
to
engage
coffin
associates
still
motioned
by
trustee
kelleher.
Thank
you
trustee
kelleher.
B
Thank
you
trustee
jennings
any
discussion,
any
public
discussion.
Okay,
let's
do
a
roll
call
vote,
trustee
horowitz.
H
I
assumed
mr
pena
was
never
going
to
retire,
but
I
will
approve
it.
B
All
right
can
we
just
drop
this
item
then
trustee
jennings.
G
B
B
Okay,
any
further
public
or
retiree
comments.