►
Description
City of San José, California
Federated City Employees' Retirement Plan Board of January 20, 2022
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://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=924033&GUID=626A8DEB-AA8F-4D40-8463-A993EEF6FC6E
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Okay,
trustee
orr
understood
she
would
be
absent
today,
trustee
kelleher.
B
This
okay,
let
me
I'll
circle
back
vice
chair
jennings.
A
A
B
And
I
am
here
trustee
horowitz,
so
thank
you
for
that.
We
will
move
forward
to
the
a
few
ground
rules.
We
are
continuing
to
meet
virtually
at
this
meeting
and
are
doing
so
pursuant
to
ab361.
B
As
such,
all
votes
will
be
roll
call
votes.
If
you
are
not
speaking,
please
be
on
mute
to
cut
background
noise
for
discussion
items.
Each
trustee
will
have
a
turn
to
speak
in
roll
call
order
more
than
once
it
desired,
and
the
public
will
also
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
on
each
item
after
trustees.
B
The
public
will
also
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
again
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
on
any
other
item,
not
on
the
agenda
that
is
within
the
subject.
Jurisdiction
of
this
board
orders
of
the
day,
I
hope
to
take
a
break
around
10
o'clock
and
of
course
we
will
have
a
brief
recess
at
1pm
to
accommodate
the
civic
center
tv
broadcasting
system.
B
B
B
Okay,
thank
you,
I'm
sure
we'll
hear
more
from
you
as
we
move
forward
here
we
will
item
5d.
This
is
discussion
potential
action
on
the
siegel
presentation
on
the
actuarial
audit.
This
will
be
heard
after
10
a.m,
and
with
that
do
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
the
orders
of
the
day.
B
Trustee
keller,
second,
any
discussion:
all
those
in
favor
trustee,
chandra,
aye,
trustee,
kelleher
aye
vice
chair,
jennings
hi,
trustee
linder,
hi
and
I
vote.
I
it
passes
unanimously.
B
B
Trustee
jennings
has
moved
to
wave
sunshine.
Do
we
have
a
second.
B
We
have
a
second
from
trustee
kelleher,
any
discussion
hearing.
None.
We
will
vote
trustee,
chandra,
aye
trustee
keller,
hi
trustee
jennings
hi,
trustee
linder,
hi
and
I
vote.
I
that
passes
unanimously.
A
B
Lender
trustee
motion
by
trustee
linder
do
we
have
a
second.
A
B
Vice
chair
jennings
aye,
trustee
linder
aye
and
I
vote
I
that
also
passes
unanimously.
This
brings
us
to
item
number
two
death
and
survivorship.
We
will
have
a
moment
of
silence
for
those
who
have
served
the
city
and
who
have
passed.
F
We
have
a
very
short
agenda
for
investments
this
morning
and
but
before
we
get
to
that,
I'm
I
did
get
performance
estimates
from
from
makita,
but
I
have
some
clarifications,
so
they
will
get
back
to
me
on
that.
So
I
will
hold
off
on
sharing
those
numbers.
F
As
let
me
wait
to
hear
back
from
laura
and
jared
on
the
numbers,
the
numbers
seemed
a
little
high,
given
the
recent
sell-off,
so
I've
asked
them
to
double
check
the
numbers,
but
so
the
only
the
only
agenda
item
this
morning
is
you
know
we
have
3b
and
3c
which
cover
the
investment
policy
statement,
and
for
that
I'm
actually
going
to
turn
this
over
to
senior
investment
officer.
Jay
kwon.
G
And
just
for
clarification
for
the
record
if
we
could
take
items
three
b
and
three
c
separately,
so
we
can
make
sure
we
were
clear
on
the
action
item.
A
Great
thanks,
so
that
will
require
separate
motions
after
the
discussion
of
each
ips,
but
first
just
a
a
quick
intro
here.
These
are
routine
items
generally
considered
best
practices
to
review
the
ips
periodically
and
obviously
update
as
necessary.
A
So
just
for
just
for
clarity,
all
right
ips
stands
for
investment
policy
statement,
and
these
are
essentially
the
rules
that
govern
how
the
investment
program
runs.
So
if,
if
you
ever
have
a
free
evening
and
there's
there's
nothing
left
in
the
netflix
queue,
you
might
consider
flipping
through
the
ips.
A
Alternatively,
you
could
save
yourself
some
time
here
and
listen
as
jared
and
laura
from
makita
will
walk
through
the
updates
for
us.
So
we
we
normally
would
have
run
through
the
ips
revisions
at
an
ic
meeting
first,
but
our
december
meeting
got
cancelled
so
instead,
staff
and
makita
had
one-on-one
calls
with
some
of
the
trustees
from
the
ic
the
so
that's
trustee's,
chandra
and
orr
just
to
walk
through
the
changes
ahead
of
time.
I
Thank
you,
jay
jared's
gonna
share
the
screen,
the
redline
version
of
the
ips.
So,
as
jay
mentioned,
we
look
at
this
regularly
at
least
annually,
and
we
did
a
major
overhaul
a
few
years
ago,
adding
a
lot
of
risk
policy,
language
working
with
cortex
and
having
a
lot
of
ad
hoc
meetings,
and
the
idea
is
that
the
investment
policy
statement
hopefully
doesn't
change
a
huge
amount
year
to
year,
because
your
general
strategy
stays
the
same.
I
But
we
do
have
you
know
a
regular
read
of
it
and
and
making
sure
that
there's
you
know
we
always
catch
something
small
and-
and
you
know
sometimes
benchmarks,
change
and
whatnot.
So
you'll
see
that
so
I'll
just
highlight
a
few
changes.
Not
too
much
is
that
material.
But
on
page
two
you
can
see
that
we've
deleted
that
it
will
be
reviewed
by
the
board
of
administration
in
a
year
where
nothing
changes,
it's
probably
fine
to
have
it
reviewed
annually
by
staff
and
or
the
investment
committee.
I
Next
material
change
here
you
can
see
that
there
was
a
bit
of
redundancy
and
we
said
that
active
strategies
were
limited
to
10,
excluding
hedge
funds,
and
then
hedge
funds
were
also
limited
to
10.
So
there's
really
no
reason
to
differentiate
between
those
two.
If
they
had
the
same
limit,
we
are
suggesting
changing
the
active
strategy
limit
to
15
from
10.
That
would
make
it
consistent
with
all
of
the
other
categories
you
see
here,
separately,
managed,
accounts,
commingled
funds
and
whatnot.
I
Also,
we've
changed
it
from
management,
firm
concentration
limit
to
strategy
limit
for
your
consideration,
mainly
because
there
are
some
large
asset
management
firms
that
have
various
different
strategies
that
are
managed
by
completely
different
teams
in
different
locations.
That
is
the
case,
for
example,
with
artisan
with
which
you
have
two
strategies:
growth,
large
cap,
growth,
equity
and
large
cap
value
equity.
Those
are
completely
separate
teams,
one
in
wisconsin,
one
in
san
francisco.
We
we
think
it
makes
sense
to
to
limit
by
strategy
and
not
just
management
firm.
I
The
next
significant
changes
are
in
pages
26
and
27..
I
So
here
the
libor
benchmark
is
going
away.
It
will
no
longer
be
offered
in
the
near
future.
This
has
been
a
change.
That's
been
in
the
works
for
some
time,
so
sofer
is
the
replacement
for
libor,
and
so
we
wanted
to
sort
of
future
proof
via
the
investment
policy
statement
for
when
that
change
happens.
So
you
can
see
here
that
market
neutral
strategies
we're
recommending
changing
from
libor
three
month,
which
is
essentially
just
a
cash
benchmark
to
sopher,
plus
one
and
a
half
which
is
slightly
harder
to
beat,
but
we
think
it
is.
I
It
makes
sense
for
that
mandate
and
then
immunized
cash
flows.
You
can
see
used
to
have
a
three-month
t-bill,
essentially
cash
as
well,
and
we
recommend
moving
to
the
bloomberg
barclays
government
credit
index
one
to
three
year
again,
a
bit
harder
to
beat,
but
more
representative
of
what
your
investments
are
doing
on
core
real
estate.
You
can
see
here
and
we're
recommending
changing
from
the
equal
weighted
version
of
the
naked
reef,
odyssey
benchmark,
which
is
a
open-ended
core
real
estate
benchmark
and
changing
that
to
a
cap
weighted.
I
The
nacreef
odyssey
is
just
essentially
a
universe
of
core
real
estate
funds.
It's
not
investable
by
equal
weighting.
It
you
end
up
giving
more
weight
to
perhaps
some
niche
risky
strategies
in
the
benchmark
by
calculating
it.
It's
more
representative
of
the
market
as
a
whole
and
we're
recommending
lagging
it
one
quarter,
because
the
valuations
that
you
receive
from
your
managers
are
lagged
one
quarter,
so
that
is
more
apples
to
apples.
I
The
last
adjusted
benchmark
change
is
on
the
next
slide,
and
this
is
really
just
essentially
a
naming
change.
The
return
stream
historically
is
the
same
between
the
bloomberg
barclays,
us
long
treasury
and
the
bloomberg
barclays
treasury
10
plus
these
are
essentially
the
same
benchmark,
but
for
whatever
reason,
the
u.s
long
treasury
is
more
available
on
on
databases
that
we
all
use.
B
And
I
I
I'm
not
seeing
anybody's
hands
so
please
speak
up
if
your
hands
are
raised.
B
All
right
it
appears
there.
There
are
no
questions.
Do
we
have
a
motion
then,
to
accept
these
proposed
changes
to
the
ips.
B
Trustee
keller,
thank
you.
Any
discussion
on
the
acceptance
of
these
proposed
changes.
B
So
hearing
none,
we
will
have
a
vote
trustee
chandra
aye
trustee
keller.
I
vice
chair
jennings
hi,
trustee
linder.
A
I
So
jared
pratt
will
discuss
the
suggested
updates
to
the
healthcare
trust.
Okay,.
A
All
right,
thanks,
laura
good
morning,
everybody,
basically
the
same
updates
here,
there's
actually
one
that's
different,
but
if
I
scroll
down
here
to
page
four,
you
see
one
category
addition
here
just
to
describe
what
this.
A
And
this
is
because
the
healthcare
trust
had
an
asset
allocation
adopted
earlier
in
2021,
where
investment-grade
bonds,
as
well
as
long-term
government
bonds,
were
added,
and
so
there's
just
language
here
to
describe
what
their
purpose
is.
The
pension
didn't
have
that
because
the
asset
allocation
didn't
change
last
year
and
then
other
changes
here
are
very
similar.
I
B
Thank
you
trustee
challenger
motion
to
accept.
I
will.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
I
could
not
see
that
the
the
person
who
has
her
hand
up
would
you
like
to
speak.
J
Thank
you.
I
am
trying
to
learn
as
much
as
I
can
with
what's
happening
in
our
city
and
I'm
I'm
so
I've
I've
ahead
of
time.
J
Please
forgive
me
for
my
ignorance
and
I
appreciate
your
patience,
but
when
you
moved
the
hedge
funds
up
to
15,
the
comment
was
because
everything
else
to
kind
of
move
it
up
to
alignment
with
that,
like
I
said,
I'm
a
little
bit
ignorant,
but
I'm
pretty
good
in
math
and
I'm
not
sure
how
this
works,
but
if
all
of
them
go
up
to
15
I
mean
6
can
go
up
to
15.
If
we're
saying
100
of
something,
then
one
is
10
right.
J
So
I'm
just
curious
if
someone
could
discuss
or
comment
or
just
leave
it
alone,
but
the
thought
had
come
to
me.
Does
that
mean
that
if
you
allow
the
hedge
funds
to
go
up
to
15,
something
else
will
automatically
by
default,
go
below
that
and
then,
if
we
do
that
on
a
regular
basis,
is
that
something
that
we
would
want
to
then
say
we
should
probably
vote
on
that
if
that's
consistently
going
10
or
below.
Thank
you.
I
Sure
that's
a
good
question.
I
think
if
we
take
a
look
at
page
26
actually
you'll
see
the
weight
in
the
portfolio
to
hedge
funds
is
quite
low,
so
market
neutral
strategies
there
has
a
target
of
three
percent.
So
that's
the
hedge
fund
portion
of
the
total
fund,
so
the
the
15
limit
is
unlikely
to
ever
reach
that
it's
on
on
the
slide.
That
was
just
up
a
moment
ago.
That's
really
just
a
strategy
limit.
I
You
know
I
I
can't
see
it
ever
being
breached
or
or
getting
close
to
that,
because
the
target
weight
for
hedge
funds
in
the
total
portfolio
is,
is
only
three
percent
right
now,
so
these
are
just
manager
limits
it.
You
know
just
sort
of
in
in
some
scenario
in
the
future,
where
the
board
voted
to
change
things
in
the
portfolio.
I
B
B
D
Okay,
hopefully
you're
seeing
my
presentation.
B
D
So
I
wanted
to
start
with
just
reviewing
our
schedule
quickly.
We've
run
through
a
lot
of
actuarial
information
over
the
last
several
months.
We're
here
today
to
present
the
final
opeb
valuation
results.
A
little
later
on.
The
agenda.
D
You'll
have
siegel's
presentation
on
their
audit
of
the
pension
valuation
results,
and
then
I
believe,
next
month,
siegel
will
be
back
with
their
audit
of
the
opec
valuation
results,
so
we're
almost
through
the
the
primary
actuaries
schedule
of
presentations
for
the
opeb
valuation,
it's
very
similar
to
the
pension
valuation,
but
has
some
differences.
D
The
total
liability
for
the
opeb
we've
talked
about
the
last
couple
months
includes
both
an
explicit
subsidy
and
an
implicit
subsidy
due
to
the
actual
cost
of
providing
health
care
to
retirees
compared
to
the
premiums
that
implicit
subsidy
is
paid
by
the
city
as
a
part
of
their
active
health
premiums.
So
the
focus
of
our
funding
is
on
what
we
call
the
explicit
subsidy
and
we
fund
for
it
in
a
115
trust.
You
just
reviewed
the
investment
policy
statement
for
that
trust.
D
D
Last
month
we
presented
some
preliminary
results.
We
do
have.
I
apologize,
but
we
have,
in
our
final
review,
found
an
assumption
that
we
are
proposing
to
change
that.
Will
that
does
affect
the
results.
We
will
go
through
that
very
shortly,
but
it's
still
very
good
news.
We're
moving
from
54
percent
funded
to
66
percent,
funded
on
the
explicit
subsidy
on
the
right
hand.
Side.
Here
you
see
the
contributions
compared
to
the
prior
year.
D
They
are
going
down
for
the
city
from
19.9
million
to
18.3
million.
That
is
higher
than
what
we
had
shown
in
the
prior
in
the
preliminary
results.
But
it's
still
going
down.
Members
are
paying
their
fixed
rate.
Their
total
dollars
goes
down
because
we're
getting
as
members
retire,
the
population
that's
eligible
for
full
benefits,
is
a
closed
group,
and
so,
as
members
retire,
we
get
a
smaller
group,
contributing
the
normal
cost
is
the
cost
of
benefits
attributable
to
the
next
year
of
service
and
the
member
contributions
currently
exceed
that
normal
cost.
A
D
That's
market
value
and
actuarial
value
on
the
opeb
valuation.
We
do
not
use
a
smooth
actuarial
value,
we
just
use
a
market
value
and
instead
to
smooth
the
contributions,
we
have
a
smoothing
mechanism
built
into
the
amortization
methods.
D
D
Okay,
you
get
to
hit,
hear
the
pension
actuary,
explain
the
change
in
the
healthcare
assumption.
I
guess
so.
One
of
the
issues
we
or
the
change
that
we
saw
is
that
for
medicare
eligibles
we
have
been
just
projecting
the
premiums
with
the
trend
assumption
only
and
we
have
a
proposed
change
to
project
them
with
trend
plus
a
little
bit
more
to
account
for
the
aging
of
the
covered
population,
and
so
it
as
you
may
recall,
health
care
costs
increase
with
age,
and
we
focus
a
lot
of
that
on
the
pre-65
group.
D
D
In
the
past,
this
didn't
make
as
big
a
difference
for
this
plan,
because
the
subsidy
is
limited
to
the
lowest
cost
pre-medicare
plan
and
historically
some
or
many
of
the
medicare
premiums
were
close
to
or
higher
than
that
limit,
and
so
the
additional
premiums
due
to
the
aging
of
the
population
would
effectively
not
be
paid
by
the
plan,
because
the
plan
payments
are
capped,
they
would
have
been
picked
up
by
the
retirees,
and
so
there
wasn't
an
additional
liability
for
the
plan.
D
But
over
the
last
several
years
we've
seen
medicare
premiums
have
not
gone
up
as
much
as
expected.
In
fact
they
went
down
this
last
year
and
so
we've
gotten
significant
gains
on
the
liability
side
due
to
those
going
down,
and
so
now
the
the
aging
of
that
population
is
becoming
more
material
to
the
costs
of
the
plant.
So.
E
This
is
our
vice
chair
jennings.
Can
you
help
me
understand
why
the
medicare
costs
have
come
down?
I
mean,
what's
the
driving
factor
there?
Well,
that
is.
D
Really
the
question
for
our
health
care
actuary,
but
were
some
in
the
last
year.
Part
of
it
was
the
removal
of
attacks
and
some
federal
changes,
as
well
as
some
cost
controls
that
medicare
has
managed.
So
that's.
D
D
Across
the
country
yeah.
E
So
do
medicare
costs
go
up
to
the
to
the
people
who
are
paying
it
based
on
age.
I
didn't
know
that
was
the
case.
D
No,
these
are
not.
These
are
not
the
actual.
Let's
separate
this.
This
is
the
the
medicare
plans,
not
medicare
itself
right,
so
the
plans
charge
a
premium
and
the
premium
is
based
on
the
average
cost
for
the
year
for
everyone
covered
by
the
plan,
and
so
you
pay
the
same
premium,
whether
you're
65,
75
or
85,
but
it
reflects
that
average,
but
over
time
we're
expecting
to
have
more
75
and
85
year
olds
and
fewer
65
year
olds,
and
so
the
average
cost
is.
We
expect
to
go
up
just
due
to
that
aging.
D
E
D
No
no,
these
are.
These
are
policies
you
purchase
to
supplement
what
medicare
pays
for.
E
Oh,
it's
that
piece:
okay
right
to
supplement
it
all
right.
I
understand
that,
like
I
don't
know
when
you're
in
medicare
there's
this
other
piece,
you
can
buy
supplemental
pieces
right.
D
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Please
proceed
bill.
D
Yeah,
so
this
change
increases
the
liability
by
about
28.5
million
dollars.
D
D
The
only
thing
updated
from
the
prior
chart
is
the
the
current
year
and
it's
the
purple
bar
because
we've
incorporated
that
assumption
change,
and
so
the
the
net
gain
this
year
is
about
60
million
dollars
and
on
the
right
hand
we
break
that
out
into
its
pieces,
and
so
the
unfunded
liability
went
from
256
million
down
to
195
million,
and
the
first
group
of
pieces
all
remain
the
same
from
the
prior
month.
The
only
changes
this
purple
bar
is
is
now
29
million
dollars
higher
than
it
was
last
month.
D
D
D
D
All
the
other
members
who
all
the
other
employees
who
participate
in
the
viba
also
are
covered
under
this
plan,
but
only
in
the
case
of
a
catastrophic
disability.
So
if
they
and
catastrophic
disability
is
the
term
in
the
municipal
code,
but
it
really
means
a
service-connected
disability
in
the
pension
plan.
So
if
those
members
suffer
a
service
connected
disability
and
use
up
their
viva
account
balance,
then
they
get
covered
by
this
plan
and
so
there's
a
very
small,
ongoing
liability
for
for
that
group.
D
But
that
group
is
growing
significantly
and
the
other
groups
are
relatively
stable,
we're
getting
some
continued
growth
in
the
members
in
pace
status,
and
then
a
small
group
have
elected
in
blue,
show
the
history
on
the
right
graphically,
and
so
this
dark
blue
is
the
the
group
that's
fully
eligible.
We
expect
that
to
get
smaller
and
smaller
over
time
as
it
shifts
into
the
green
group,
that's
in
pay
and
receiving
benefits.
D
The
teal
group
on
the
bottom
is
the
group
eligible
for
only
eligible
for
catastrophic
disability
and.
E
Can
I
ask
another
question
in
regards
to
the
number
in
teal:
is
that
the
entire
account
of
people
eligible
for
it
not
who
is
drawing
on
it?
Just
the
people
quote
eligible.
D
So
we
take
into
account
for
these
2285
employees
the
we
make
assumptions
about
the
probability
of
them
becoming
disabled,
okay
and
drawing
down
their
viva,
and
then
we
apply
the
liability.
D
D
Okay,
so
this
is
just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
the
the
distribution
by
age
of
the
active
group
on
the
left
and
the
retired
members
on
the
right
again.
The
dark
blue
is
those
members
who
are
eligible
for
full
benefits
and,
and
you
can
see
the
youngest
age
group
we
have
that's
still
covered-
is
30
to
34,
but
that's
a
pretty
small
group,
most
of
the
members
are,
are
older
and
approaching
retirement
age.
E
That
confused
me
a
little
and
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
a
little
more,
the
30
to
34
35
to
39.
So
the
active
members
are
the
members
that
are
in
tier
one.
Otherwise
they
wouldn't
be
in
this
group
right
right.
E
Okay-
and
these
are
actually
active
members,
so
that
means
someone
if
they're
in
the
30
to
34,
let's
say
they're
30
they
would
have
had
to
have
they.
They
would
need
to
be
in
tier
one
right
so,
but
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
they
have
15
years.
So
that
means
yeah,
so
they
would
have
had
to
be
as
a
full-time
city
employee.
As
of
2000-
and
I
don't
know
well.
D
E
D
D
They
would
have
been
hired
at
a
a
very
young
age.
I'm
not
sure
any
of
them
in
this
group
are
age
30.
They
might
be
closer
to
34.
E
So
if
they're
34,
they
could
have
been
hired
at
24,
something
like
that
right.
Okay,
all
right
just
wanted!
I
I
just
it
was
hard
to
wrap
my
head
around
that
because
it
seemed
too
young
yeah.
D
D
Yeah
so
that
that
group
will
be
around
a
while,
so
they're
gonna
disappear
entirely,
but
they
they
will
be
getting
smaller
and
smaller
and
smaller
as
members
retire
or
leave
the
city.
D
And
then
here
you
can
see
the
distribution
of
retired
members,
we've
separated
it
between
those
who
have
medical
coverage
and
those
who
have
dental
coverage.
We
have
more
members,
elect
the
dental
coverage
and
I'm
not
sure.
D
Well,
the
members
who,
like
I
think
the
dental
is
fully
covered.
So
there's
not
a
big
cost
implication
to
taking
the
demo.
D
H
D
Disappears
after
a
while,
because
it
only
goes
to
age
65
or
gets
very
small
after
a
while,
but
you
can
see,
we
have
we're
expecting
significant
increases
in
the
benefits
paid
out
over
the
next
20
years,
but
then
we're
expecting
significant
drops
in
the
benefit
payments.
D
The
the
other
thing,
I
note
is
just
the
scale
on
this.
The
peak
is
under
50
million
dollars
a
year,
whereas
the
current
contribution
is
about
18
million
to
this
plan,
but
the
contribution
to
the
pension
plan
is
over
200
million.
D
So
it's
in
terms
of
the
whole
city.
It's
a
much
smaller
obligation
than
the
pension
plan
for
the
that
catastrophic
disability
group.
There
will
be
ongoing
payments.
There
are
none
so
far
the
payments
only
go
to
age
65,
they
don't
continue
after
65,
and
so
even
in
our
projections,
it's
just
a
very
small
piece
at
the
bottom.
D
Just
five
years
ago
we
were
only
35
funded
and
now
we're
66.
D
Projecting
things
forward
expecting
the
actuarial
liability
to
peak
in
about
10
years,
and
so
then
the
liability
itself
will
start
going
down,
even
as
the
assets
continue
up
following
our
funding
plan.
Now
this,
of
course
assumes
all
assumptions
are
met.
We
know,
not
only
do
we
have
investment
volatility,
but
there's
significant
volatility
in
health
care
costs
on
the
right
hand,
side
we're
showing
the
projection
of
the
contributions
with
the
city,
contributions
and
gold
and
the
member
contributions
in
purple.
D
As
I
said
before,
the
member
contributions
are
just
a
fixed
percent
of
pay
for
a
closed
group,
and
so
it
declines
as
those
people
retire
and
then
the
city
contributions
are
what
we
determine.
D
It
was
20
million
last
year,
18
million
we're
projecting
for
or
we're
calculating
for
2023
and
then
to
harvey's
question
about
the
the
smoothing
effect
we
have
it
built
into
the
amortization,
and
so
you
can
see
the
the
next
couple
years
we're
projecting
it
to
go.
The
contributions
go
down,
that's
of
the
effect
of
our
smoothing.
D
If
we
were
fully
reflecting
the
market
gains,
the
contribution
would
have
dropped
further
this
year,
but
by
smoothing
it
in
the
amortization
we
make
that
gradually
go
down,
and
then
it
looks
relatively
level
or
declining.
But
actually
the
city's
contribution
is
increasing
during
this
time
period,
because
they're
making
up
for
the
decline
in
member
contributions.
D
So
that's
all
we
have
for
this
I'll,
take
any
other
questions.
People
have
and
then
I
guess
we
need
you
to
adopt
the
valuation.
E
I
have
one
more
just
because
I
mean
this
topic
is
kind
of
interesting
to
me,
being
a
employee
as
well
as
a
future
retiree
right
and
why
I
know
you're
filling
in,
but
why
would
the
healthcare
costs
be
going
down
or
is
it
because
it's
what
the
city
has
just
negotiated
with
the
healthcare
providers?
Is
that
the
reason.
D
D
So
in
the
medicare
plans
we
did
see
a
drop
this
year,
but
compared
to
our
expectations,
we've
been
expecting
six
to
eight
percent
increases
in
health
care
costs
each
year,
and-
and
we
have
not
seen
that
and
it's
a
combination
of
a
number
of
factors,
but
it
does
include
the
city
negotiating
the
the
plans
and
structuring
the
lowest
cost
health
plan
in
particular
to
to
manage
those
costs.
D
However,
we've
also
just
nationally
been
in
a
period
the
last
five
years
where
health
care
costs
haven't
risen
as
much
and
if
you
went
back
to
the
five
years
before
that
health
care
costs
went
up
more
than
we
expected
right.
So
you
you
know,
we
we've
had
a
good
run
for
five
years
on
those
costs
and
don't
know
you
know
whether
our
projections
will
be
correct
going
forward
or
if
they'll
be
high
or
if
they'll
be
low,
there's
volatility
on
both
sides.
E
A
D
Percent
in
the
pre-medicare
groups,
the
premiums
went
up,
but
not
as
much
as
we
had
expected.
E
B
Thank
you
harvey.
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
bill.
My
recollection
is
that,
before
the
115
trust
was
created
that
there
was
a
there
were
funds
in
what
we
call
the
401
h
account
in
the
pension
fund
that
had
been
segregated
for
medical
subsidies
as
well.
A
D
So
you're
right
in
the
recollection,
originally
this
plan
was
funded
solely
through
the
401
h
account
within
the
pension
trusts.
D
There
are
limits
on
contributions
to
401h
accounts
and
the
plan
was
butting
up
to
those
limits
which
caused
the
city
to
look
into
and
to
establish
the
115
trust
so
that
we
could
fully
fund
the
the
health
care
benefits
the
for
a
while.
We
had
both,
but
all
benefits
were
paid
out
of
the
401
h
account
and
so,
and
no
no
new
contributions
went
into
the
401h
account
and
so
a
couple
years
ago,
all
of
those
funds
in
the
401h
account
had
been
depleted
and
paid
out
in
healthcare
benefits.
D
A
B
Okay,
trustee
jennings,
has
moved.
Do
we
have
a
second
trustee
kelliher
seconds?
We
have
a
second
from
trustee
kelleher
discussion
of
the
motion.
Do
trustees
have
any
comments
on
the
motion.
A
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
I
have
as
always
prepared
some
comments.
I'm
going
to
be
short
this
morning.
C
As
you
know,
there
has
been
an
increase
of
comic
cases
across
the
nation
and
the
bay
area
and
california
as
well
the
omicron,
and
so
I
share
with
some
of
you
by
communication
that
our
office
actually
paused
our
plan
to
return
to
the
worksite.
C
We
were
hoping
that
by
now
we
were
having
staff
coming
into
the
office
two
days
a
week,
so
we
pause
that
approach
and
not
only
that
the
office
remain
closed,
but
we
also
have
been
hit
like
anybody
else,
with
cover
cases
with
staff,
so
there's
a
very,
very
limited
number
of
employees
that
may
actually
stop
by
the
office
from
time
to
time.
C
These
days
and
again,
the
office
have
been
closed,
but
we
are
still
accepting
appointments
for
virtual
meetings,
and
everything
else
also
wanted
to
let
you
know
with
the
first
month
of
the
year
we
are
working
on
issuing
the
retirees
10.99
are:
does
the
form
similar
to
the
w-24
for
regular
employees
that
are
still
working
is
to
let
them
know
the
total
amount
of
their
benefits?
C
They've
received
for
2021
and
so
we're
working
through
it
and
they
should
be
issued
before
the
end
of
the
month,
as
required.
There's
also
the
guarantee
purchasing
power.
That
was
a
benefit
that
was
sort
of
picked
up
again
by
the
city
a
few
years
back.
Is
it
allows
for
retirees
that,
given
the
increase
in
cpi
have
actually
lost
more
than
25
of
the
purchasing
power,
sunday
retirement?
C
We
also
should
be
issuing
the
january
newsletter
later
this
month.
We
actually
have
some
changes
to
be
made
to
the
newsletter,
most
specifically
one
having
to
do
with
information
about
the
fact
that
we
are
passing
our
return
to
the
worksite.
C
We
do
have
still
some
vacancies
at
the
office
and
we
are
performing
interviews
and
doing
searches.
For
example.
We
are
interviewing
for
the
network
technician,
but
we
are
still
in
the
process
of
searching
for
not
only
an
I.t
manager
for
also
for
staff
technicians
at
the
benefit
staff
and
other
than
that.
The
last
I
want
to
mention
is
the
city
did
request
that
we
reach
out
to
our
vendors
to
provide
the
city
information
on
the
vaccination
status
and
boost
the
status.
C
And
lastly,
I
do
want
to
welcome
two
new
employees
to
our
office.
Gretel
calderon
is
a
benefit
staff,
specialist
and
eric
sang
an
investment
officer
with
our
investment
staff.
That
mr
chair
concludes
my
comments.
I'm
happy
to
entertain
or
answer
any
questions.
E
I
do
have
a
question
in
regards
roberto:
are
you
saying
that
vendors
that
work
for
the
worth
the
city
have
to
meet
our
vaccination
standards.
C
I
don't
you
know,
that's
a
good
question.
I
believe
they
do,
but
don't
call
me
that
I
do
know
the
city
requesting
information
on
on
the
vaccination
status
of
the
vendors.
I
know
I
don't
know
if
it's
barbara
orlinda
that
has
worked
on
that.
More
specifically,
I
don't
know
if
you
can
actually
have
more
specific
comments
on
that.
J
Oh,
I
am
so
sorry
I
was
needed.
Yes,
the
latest
communication
from
the
city
for
vendors
and
consultants.
B
B
E
C
Oh
so
say,
for
example,
well,
julie,
and
obviously,
if
I
misspeak
corrupt
me,
especially
kyron,
who
is
on
board
at
the
meeting,
so
as
you
know,
the
cost
of
living
or
cpi
has
been
really
low
over
the
last
20
years
or
so,
but
before
that
in
the
70s
and
80s
and
90s
was
really
high
and
so
retirees
that
actually
have
been
retired
for
a
long
time
that
actually
experienced
cost
of
living
increases.
C
I'm
sorry
cpi
increases
on
the
annual
basis
that,
where
even
in
the
double
digits,
when
that
happens,
they
lose
purchasing
power
from
their
original
benefit,
and
so
there
is
a
calculation
that
you
make
based
on
their
original
benefit.
C
C
D
Yes,
that's
basically,
what's
going
on
really,
we
only
have
12
or
13
people
who
receive
this
right
now
and
most
of
them
retired
back
in
the
70s
or
80s.
So
it's
a
very
small
group
right
now,
that's
affected.
D
Obviously,
if
cpi
stays
above
three
percent
for
an
extended
period
of
time,
we'd
see
more
people
come
into
the
group.
E
B
C
I
you
know
I
haven't
heard
anything
lately
unless
they
just
actually
addressing
when
the
city
actually
approved,
moving
forward
with
the
process
with
the
certification,
unless
it's
sort
of
like
a
delayed
news
on
that,
I
really
haven't
heard
anything
from
the
city
on
the
pob
for
almost
a
month
now,.
E
I
believe,
just
speaking
because
I'm
also
in
the
union
and
as
a
union
member,
they
are
notified
that
this
is
going
out.
I
think
it's
just
part
of
what
the
city's
going
through
for.
E
Yeah,
like
you,
gotta
notify.
So
if
you
were
like
starting
your
own
company,
you
would
have
to
notify
that
this
is
your
name
that
you're
going
to
do
and
it
has
to
go
into
newspapers
and
it
all
goes
through.
I
don't
know
if
it's
superior
court,
but
it's
part
of
that
legal
process.
I
believe
moving
forward.
So
I
think
that's
what
julia
cooper
is
doing.
That's
my
what
I
believe
is
happening.
B
B
D
So,
every
year
we
provide
this
five-year
projection
primarily
for
the
city's
budgeting
process,
and
it
just
summarizes
the
contributions
and
rates
both
for
pension
and
opeb
that
you've
approved
in
the
valuation.
D
There
are
two
things
I
think
we
should
note
for
the
board.
One
is
on
page
two
of
the
letter
we
added
a
new
table
to
show
some
of
the
sensitivity
of
pension
contributions
based
on
our
stochastic
projections,
so
that
the
city
in
their
five-year
budgeting
process
has
some
sense
of
the
potential
volatility
of
those
contributions.
D
Then
the
other
piece
that
affects
you
more
directly
is
most
of
these
are
based
on
contributions
being
made
throughout
the
year.
But
the
city
has
the
option
of
making
a
contribution
at
the
beginning
of
the
year
and
in
the
past,
they've
never
implemented
this,
but
they've
asked
us
what,
if
they
made
them
semi-annually,
we
provide
them
here.
D
Those
beginning
of
year
amounts
assuming
that
the
board
approves
the
full
discount
rate
to
the
beginning
of
the
year.
I
think
this
will
come
back
to
you
in
something
like
the
march
time
frame
to
decide
what
discount
you
want
to
actually
give
the
city
if
they
make
a
beginning
of
your
contribution,
but
for
now
we've
given
them
the
amounts
assuming
a
full
discount.
G
May
I
ask
a
question,
please
sure
sure
so
here
it
is
assuming
that
we're
providing
a
full
discount.
Is
there
anywhere
noted
in
this
document
that
acknowledges
that
we
have
not
approved
the
the
discount,
the
semi-annual
discount
rate?
That's
provided
in
this
chart
any
caveats
so
in
the
chart
you
have
the
beginning
of
the
year
and
then
semi-year
semi-annually.
K
B
Okay,
did
you
have
anything
further,
mr
hallmark
nope?
That's
it!
So!
Are
there
any
questions
from
trustees
on
these
projections.
B
No
doubt
no
doubt
5d
discussion
and
action
on
the
siegel
presentation.
I
understand
they
are
not
yet
available
to
us.
Is
that
correct.
H
Mr
chairman,
we
would
we
had
asked
roberto
to
work
with
you
to
see
our
colleague
andy
young,
who
is
the
principal
consultant
on
the
case,
is
with
another
client
and
expects
to
be
there
until
10
o'clock,
and
that's
why
we
had
originally
asked
to
have
our
item
held
till
10
o'clock,
and
I
will
be
checking
with
andy
right
now
to
see
how
he's
doing
at
that
other
meeting.
B
Okay,
well,
let's
just
assume
we'll
hold
it
till
10
o'clock
at
this
point
in
time.
Thank
you,
sir,
and
we
will
proceed
then,
with
item
5e,
we
will
return
to
the
skipped
items
after
the
10
o'clock
hour
and
after
our
break
so
item
5e
is
the
authorizing
the
ceo
to
execute
a
second
amendment
to
the
agreement
with
cortext.
C
Some
of
you
also
know,
especially
those
of
you
that
are
members
of
the
joint
personality
committee
that
cortex
have
continued
providing
some
of
those
services,
especially
as
it
relates
to
the
joint
personnel
committee.
In
fact,
at
the
last
meeting,
the
joint
presidential
committee
requested
some
further
changes
to
the
annual
performance
review
process
of
the
ceo
and
cio,
which
cortex
is
working
on.
C
So
the
goal
of
this
amendment
is
a
chair
which
actually
asks
for
thirty
thousand
up
to
thirty
thousand
dollars
per
plan,
so
thirty
thousand
dollars
for
federated
and
we
will
put
forward
the
same
request
for
police
and
fire
is
so
that
we
can
extend
the
contract
for
cortex
services
through
the
canada
year
2022.
C
I
suspect
the
the
contract
is
generally
in
nature,
so
I
suspect
the
bulk
of
that
those
services
will
be
related
to
the
further
work
that
is
needed
not
only
with
finalizing
the
jpc
the
project
on
the
performance
review,
but
also
working
with
both
boards
in
the
implementation
of
the
first
process
after
fiscal
year.
End
of
2022,
of
course,
there
are
also
some
options
to
use
quarters
for
other
services,
as
both
boards
see
fit
going
forward
again.
C
But
the
goal
here
is
so
that
quarters
can
provide
the
services
that
are
needed
for
both
board,
especially
as
it
relates
to
the
jpc
changes
for
the
annual
review
process
and
the
implementation
of
the
process.
Our
performance
review
for
the
first
year
2022.
C
So
I
I
actually
asked
council
and
what
you
see
attached
is
the
amendment
to
the
contract,
and
so
I'm
happy
to
entertain
any
questions,
and
I
certainly
recommend
you
board.
I
B
So,
just
to
clarify
this
contract
would
include
both
cortex's
work
on
further
revisions
to
the
evaluation
process,
as
well
as
their
participation
as
a
neutral
party
in
the
process
when
we
go
to
compile
inputs
from
trustees
for
this
next
evaluation
season.
C
Yes
again,
the
contract
is
is
general
in
terms
of
the
specific
services
for
yes
and
they
can
provide,
in
addition
to
those
services,
any
other
services
available
to
the
boards,
of
course,
up
to
the
thirty
thousand
dollar
figure
for
current
year
for
the
canada
year,
2022.-
okay,
oh
I
wanted
to.
C
I
have
one
more
comment,
so
that
is
clear
with
everyone
cortex
as
an
organization
continue
providing
services,
but
tomi
anushi
is
no
longer
no
longer
part
of
cortex,
so
these
particular
services
will
be
provided
by
walter
viola,
who
actually
worked
closely
with
tomi
anushi
over
the
last
three
or
four
years
at
cortex,
as
well
as
jenny,
who
also
worked
with
tom
and
continue
providing
some
services
for
cortex.
So
I
wanted
to
make
it
clear
that
we
are
not
going
to
be
working
with
tommy
anushi
going
forward.
C
I
don't
know
the
the
specific
transaction
I
do
believe
he's
actually
setting
the
the
full
ownership
of
it
where
the
death
transaction
has
taken
place
or
whether
he
has
received
full
payment.
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that,
but
he
will
no
longer
be
part
of
cortex.
Obviously
there
is
a
a
business.
This
is
a
professional
relationship
and
I'm
sure
he
will
be
available
to
walter,
for
you
know,
questions
or
or
thoughts,
but
he's
no
longer
a
part
of
the
ownership
of
cortex
research
applied
research,
okay,.
B
We
have
a
second
from
trustee
chandra.
Is
there
any
trusty
discussion
of
the
motion?
B
B
B
B
I
would
expect
the
actual
workload
of
the
governance
committee
to
be
quite
light
this
coming
year,
although
I
underlined
the
word
expect
not
knowing
what
may
happen
and
also
that
vice
chair
jennings,
take
chair
responsibility
for
the
governance
committee
and
later.
A
I'm
sure
it's
my
internet
connection,
but
everything
is
frozen
for
me.
B
Okay
is
that
is
that
an
issue
with
your
computer
trusty
keller.
A
B
B
Let
me
describe
it
then,
in
full,
verbally,
so
under
the
investment
committee
we
have
trustee
chandra
as
chair
and
membership
of
trustee
orr
and
myself
for
the
audit
committee
trustee
kelleher's,
chair
with
julie,
jennings
and
then
later
this
year,
when
our
new
trustee
prachi
avasti
takes
her
seat.
A
B
A
Am
encouraged
by
your
selections
for
the
various
committees
and
I'm
very,
very
confident
that
you've
made
wise
decisions.
Okay,
well,.
G
One
comment
or
question
on
the
joint
on
the
jpc.
I
believe
chair
trustee
orr
is
the
chair,
not
the
vice
chair,
and
then
we
had
elected
a
trusty
melon
to
be
the
chair
at
the
last
meeting.
Oh
actually,
I
take
that
back.
She
is
vice
chair
he's.
G
B
Yes,
I
believe
I
believe
this
is
correct.
Yeah.
B
Right,
right
and
and
and
and
and
perhaps
for
the
new
trustees
clarification,
the
joint
personnel
committee
is
joint
with
our
our
sister
board,
the
police
and
fire.
So
it
meets
together
with
members
of
the
police
and
fire
committee.
So
that's
why
they
have
the
chairmanship
of
that
committee
that
joint
committee
for
this
coming
year
and.
A
C
Right
now,
she
is
on
leave
strategically
her
and
we
expect
her
back
either
late
march
or
early
april.
I
believe.
C
And
mr
chair,
if
I
two
things,
if
I
I
know,
you're
gonna
ask
the
trustees
for
the
comments.
If,
if
you
want
me
to
wait
for
that,
I
could,
but
I
would
like
to
offer
a
suggestion.
If
you
don't
mind
not
at
all,
please
go
ahead.
I
think
it
looks
like
you
have
you.
C
You
play
full
with
not
only
being
the
chair
of
the
board
but
the
different
committees,
and
so
I
was
going
to
recommend
to
perhaps
add
trustee
kelleher
at
the
governance
committee
instead
of
having
you
there,
but
that
would
allow
you
to
be,
of
course,
as
it
is.
You
are
the
chair
of
the
board
and
also
participate
in
three
other
committees.
C
B
I
I
made
these
suggestions
on
the
assumption,
which
of
course
can
be
proven
very
wrong
that
the
governance
committee
will
have
a
light
load
this
coming
year.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
any
feelings
or
comment
on
that.
C
C
G
Completely
right
well,
well,
I
think
I
think
the
vice
chair,
because
trustee
orr
was
not
at
the
last
jpc,
so
we
didn't
have
a
chair
to
elect,
so
we
took
things
out
of
order
and
had
trustee
menon
menon
from
firebee
the
vice
chair.
So
that
was
my
recollection,
but
oh.
A
B
For
2022.,
okay,
okay,
so
if
staff
can
correct
that
that
issue,
that
would
be
great
and
as
to
the
prior
comment
of
mr
pena,
I
for
fear
of
putting
the
trustee
keller
on
the
spot.
B
A
B
Okay
and
with
the
the
the
unconfirmed
promise
that
there
will
be
a
low,
a
a
low
meeting
load
for
governance,
then
I
would
suggest
that
mr
trustee
kelleher
be
substituted
for
myself
on
the
governance
committee.
B
Okay,
so
are
all
the
various
changes
understood
by
the
trustees.
D
B
Are
there
any
comments,
questions
or
ideas
on
the
committee
assignments.
B
Okay
hearing
none,
we
can
entertain
a
motion
to
accept
these
committee
assignments
as
amended.
B
B
So
hearing
none,
we
will
vote
trustee,
chandra
hi
trustee
keller.
I
vice
chair,
jennings
hi,
trustee
linder
hi
and
I
vote
I
as
well,
and
so
the
committee
assignments
carry.
C
I
think
is
what
we
usually
call
maytag's
show
the
california
rebuild
361.
B
Okay,
can
maybe
we
can
get
that
in
before
the
break.
B
Okay,
I
may
tech,
you
have
the
floor,.
G
So
as
this
boards,
while
we're
based
on
the
several
times,
we've
done
this
over
the
past
several
months,
ab361
allows
this
board
to
continue
to
meet
virtually
under
abbreviated
teleconferencing
procedures
under
the
brown
act
if
it
is
able
to
make
two
factual
findings
supported
by
the
evidence.
G
Those
two
factual
findings,
as
I
believe
relevant
here
for
this
board,
are
one
that
the
governor's
proclamation
of
the
continued
state
of
emergency
due
to
kova
19,
continues
and
number
two
that
the
city
council
continues
to
recommend
social
distancing
at
city
facilities,
which
the
city
council
passed
a
resolution
at
its
january
11th
meeting.
So
if
the
board
accepts
those
two
factual
findings
by
majority
vote,
this
board
may
continue
to
meet
virtually
for
the
next
30
days.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
council,
chen,
so
under
ab361,
this
board
is
a
legislative
body
must
make
certain
factual
findings
if
we
elect
to
continue
to
meet
virtually
for
the
next
30
within
the
next
30
days,
based
on
the
information
presented
by
council
and
provided
our
board
provided
to
our
board
and
as
backup
material,
it
appears.
The
following
factual
findings
justify
continuation
of
virtual
meetings
under
ab361
one.
B
We
have
a
motion
from
trustee
keller.
Do
we
have
a
second
yeah
trustee
chandra?
Second,
we
have
a
second
from
trustee
chandra.
Is
there
any
discussion
from
trustees?
Any
comment
from
the
public
hearing?
None.
We
will
have
a
vote,
trustee
chandra
hi
trustee
keller.
I
vice
chair
jennings
hi,
trustee
linder
and
I
vote.
I
emotion
carries.
K
A
A
B
B
Yes,
so
let's
see
is
council
member
davis
present.
B
Okay
is
the
full
compliment
from
siegel
now
available
for
their
presentation.
H
Mitch,
chairman
andy,
is
still
in
his
meeting,
but
we
can
proceed
and
then
and
he
can
join
us
or
actually
roberto,
it's
kind
of
your
cause.
You
know
andy
has
a
lot
of
familiarity
with
the
plan,
but
I
think
that
I
do
have
my
other
two
team
members
here
and
also
bill
hallmark
is
here
and
we
do
these
audits
in
a
very
cooperative
way.
So
I
believe
that,
with
assistance
in
my
team
and
and
mr
hallmark,
we
could
proceed
but
roberta.
What
would
be
your
preference.
C
I
think
that
will
be
fine,
I
mean,
unless
you
have
any
knowledge
that
andy
will
be
available
in
a
minute
or
two.
I
think
it
would
be
okay
for
us
for
sega
to
kick
off
the
discussion
and
then
andy
can
join
when
he's
available.
H
Yes,
I
want
to
say
the
it
must
be
hot
and
heavy
over
there,
because
andy
is
is
non-responsive,
which
means
he's
clearly
in
discussion
and
or
maybe
their
their
chair
isn't
quite
as
efficient
getting
through
the
agendas
as
yours
is
here
with
mr.
B
Well,
with
that
statement
of
flattery,
I
guess
we
can
proceed.
I
thought
you'd
like
that.
H
Let
me
take.
B
C
Okay,
yeah
and
before
you
you
kick
a
paul
I
wanted
to
just
if
you
allow
me
just
a
minute,
I
wanted
to
let
the
the
boar
and
the
public
know
that
this
is
the
second
time
around
that
we
go
to
this
process.
I
believe
trustee
chandra
may
have
been
here
the
first
time
around,
but
the
first
audit
was
actually
completed
for
the
june
30th
2016
valuation.
C
So
this
is
the
second
time
around.
The
goal
is
to
complete
an
actual
audit
on
a
five-year
basis.
That's
why
seagal
is
here
today
because
they
are
auditing,
both
the
pension
valuation
and
the
hope
evaluation.
As
of
june
30th
2021
and
as
paul
indicated,
and
as
I
presented
to
you
more
a
few
months
back
when
you
approve
the
contract
with
signal.
C
There
are
not
that
many
outstanding
players
in
this
area-
and
I
think
both
sigal
and
chiron-
are
two
of
the
of
the
top
firms
in
the
public
actuary
industry.
So
I
think
that
you
know
we
have
very
strong
firms
and,
as
paul
indicated
in
san
jose,
kyron
is
the
actual
actuary
and
seagull
does
the
audit,
but
there
are
other
locations
or
the
cities
or
counties.
C
C
G
Sorry,
I'm
sorry
to
jump
in
in
chair
horowitz,
if
I
may,
after
siegel
and
chiron
have
made
their
presentations.
I
would
like
to
provide
some
comments
to
the
board.
H
H
H
Let's
find
out
here
see,
there's
that
and
share.
So
are
you
seeing
the
document
there?
Yes,
yes,
we
are
all
right.
So
I'm
going
to
jump
right
to
the
summary
results
and
recommendations
which
is
here
on
it's
page
4
of
the
physical
document,
but
it
is
actually
listed
as
page
1
of
the
document
and
when
we
were
prepping
for
this
andy
described
this.
He
said
this
is
going
to
be
kind
of
a
feel-good
meeting,
because
this
is
really
oh.
Here
comes
andy
boy,
you
know,
timing
is
everything.
H
H
H
Here
in
california,
though,
we
tend
to
audit
each
other,
we
go
back
and
forth,
and
I
also
told
them
andy
that
you
described
this
as
a
feel-good
meeting,
because
you
like
it
when
you
do
an
audit
and
there
you
find
some
things,
but
fundamentally
we
have
matched
the
valuation
results,
because
that's
really.
The
reason
that
audits
are
done
at
the
first
pass
is
to
just
to
make
sure
that
there's
nothing
in
the
actual
calculations
of
the
numbers.
H
So
you
can
go
through
the
audit
in
detail
and
you'll
see
numbers
like
99
and
101,
so
the
actual
crunching
of
the
numbers
is
is
a
very
close
and
substantial
match
and
andy
as
I
go
through
if
you
would
just
chime
in
anywhere
along
the
way.
If
you
want
to
add
anything
so
now,
we
start
looking
at
really
more
sort
of
what
goes
into
the
valuation.
H
One
thing
that
we
have
commented
on
and
we
did
get
some
some
follow-up
information
on
this
from
from
bill
hallmark,
is
there's
a
requirement
of
the
actual
standards
of
practice
that
you're
and
that
your
assumptions
are
consistent,
in
particular
with
the
economic
assumptions
as
bill
and
chiron
described
in
their
slide
presentation.
H
There's
an
there's,
an
assumption
for
price
inflation
that
actually
drives
other
assumptions.
It's
a
component
of
the
cost
of
living.
It's
a
component
of
wage
growth,
both
overall
wage
inflation
and
individual
salary
increases,
and
it
is
one
of
the
drivers
of
the
components
of
your
investment
return.
H
So
we
like
to
be
as
clear
as
possible
that
the
same
price
inflation
is
being
used
consistently
across
all
three
of
those
applications:
cola,
wages
and
investment
return,
or
if
they
are
different,
they
can
be
different.
But
then
that
should
be
identified,
and
usually
that
is
what
the
standards
call
a
margin
for
adverse
deviation.
H
Now
we
did
get
some
follow-up
information
from
chiron.
It
looks
like
if
you
look
at
the
assumptions
that
are
used
by
by
both
horizon
and
by
makita,
and
those
are
the
inflation
assumptions
that
go
into
your
development
of
your
expected
return.
They
are
quite
close
there.
You
know
your
your
your
inflation
assumption
for
colas
and
for
salaries
is
2.25
two
and
a
quarter
percent
and
the
makita
assumptions
are
run
in
the
range
of
of
2.1
to
2.3,
and
the
horizons
is
2.13
and
2.24.
H
So
these
are
all
in
that
same
ballpark
of
the
2.25,
but
we
would
like
to
see
that
made
a
little
more
explicit
in
the
presentation
of
the
economic
assumption.
I
think
we
made
a
similar
comment
five
years
ago
five
years
ago.
I
think
there
was
actually
a
little
more
of
a
difference
between
the
two
here
when
you
actually
get
down
to
nuts
and
bolts,
they
are
all
quite
close,
but
just
a
little
more
explicit
demonstration
of
that,
we
think
would
be
helpful
to
the
user.
H
H
Your
board
has
a
practice
review
and
economic
assumptions
every
year
going
way
back
working
with
some
of
the
other
public
retirement
systems
back
20
years
ago.
That
was
a
more
common
practice,
but
by
now
the
the
clearly
most
established
practice
is
to
do
reviews
of
assumptions
not
with
every
valuation,
partly
because
they're
they're
intended
to
be
longer
term
assumptions.
So
we
make
that
suggestion,
but
we'd
also
suggest
just
as
a
matter
of
timing.
H
The
way
it
works
now
is
the
review.
The
assumptions
is
done
fairly
late
in
the
year
and
that
can
sort
of
bump
up
against
actually
getting
the
valuation
done.
So,
as
we
described
here
in
the
in
the
second
full
paragraph
on
this
page
that
you
know
because
the
capital
market
assumptions
are
available
earlier,
you
could
start
this
process
somewhat
earlier,
and
that
would
give
you
really
more
time
for
deliberation
of
the
economic
assumptions
and
still
allow
chiron
to
produce
their
evaluations
on
the
usual
schedule.
H
And
again,
this
is
the
sort
of
thing
that
we
will
now
having
made
this
suggestion.
We'll
leave
this
to
to
you
and
chiron
to
see
if
you
can
find
a
let's
just
say,
a
more
relaxed
schedule
that
that
does
not
in
any
way
impair
the
the
the
currency,
the
the
recentness,
the
up
to
datedness
of
the
economic
inputs
that
go
into
this
discussion.
K
Yeah,
in
this
case,
I
think
it
would
be
beneficial,
hopefully
be
beneficial
to
the
board,
and
not
only
that
for
but
for
our
other
stakeholders
right
at
the
city,
the
employer,
because
any
changes
in
the
actuarial
assumptions
could
translate
into
increasing
contribution
rate
and
the
same
could
be
hold
true
for
our
members
as
well,
because
our
active
members
also
share
in
part
of
the
course
of
the
program.
K
H
You
andy
we
had
on
the
demographic
data,
that's
part
of
what
we
review.
There
was
a
little
bit
of
slippage
between
the
two
data
sets,
and
so
we
we
make
a
suggestion
here.
This
is
really
again
down
in
the
weeds
that
that
kyren
could
provide
a
copy
of
the
final
membership
data.
That
way
you
can
review
and
and
and
identify
any
discrepancies
between
now
and
before
the
next
actual
evaluation.
H
There's
also
there's
a
procedural
issue
here
about
the
way
salaries
are
projected.
Chiron
uses
two
different
approaches.
We
made
the
same
com
comment
on
the
276
2016
valuation
and
there
has
been
some
progress
in
that
direction,
but
that's
still
something
that's
a
little
unusual
from
what
we
would
see
from
most
valuations.
H
Now
we
get
into
an
interesting
one
about
basically
plan
provisions.
We
know
that
there
were
some
changes
in
the
municipal
code
that
happened
right
before
the
valuation,
one
in
particular
has
to
do
with
suspending
contributions
when
members
have
30
years
of
service.
Well,
whenever
you
earn
a
pension
plan,
there's
usually
two
kinds
of
services
benefit
service
and
there
is
eligibility
service,
and
so
the
question
was
which
type
of
service
do
you
have
to
have
30
of?
H
In
order
for
this
to,
in
order
to
have
your
contribution
suspended
andy,
maybe
you
could
elaborate
on
that.
I
know
we
did
get
a
comment
back
from
bill,
but
maybe
you
can
comment
on
sort
of
which
way
we
went
which
way
bill
went.
I
also
had
also
had
the
effect
of
when
we
tried
to
estimate
the
cost
impact
of
this.
We
got
two
different
answers.
You
know
24
basis
points
here
and
11
basis
points
there.
So
andy.
If
you
could
walk
us
through
that
one.
K
Yeah
we
use
the
eligibility
service
which
is
actually
longer
than
the
benefit
service
that
the
service
that
is
used
to
determine
the
actual
benefit
amount
for
the
active
members
when
they
retire.
So
as
a
result
of
using
that
that
thing,
which
is
longer,
we
capture
more
people,
more
members
who
could
potentially
have
over
30
years
and
therefore
will
not
be
required
to
make
a
contribution.
So
that's
the
reason
why,
as
paul
has
indicated,
our
impact
might
be
magnified
a
little
bit
because
have
we
not
used
the
higher
number
of
years
of
service?
K
And
I
know
that
bill
and
his
crew
has
come
back
with
a
calculation,
and
maybe
it's
only
one
half
of
what
we
calculate.
K
We're,
not
saying
that
our
number
is
the
absolute
right
number,
but
we
just
want
to
be
sure
that
the
trustee's
aware-
because
this
is
such
a
new
newer
feature
of
the
municipal
code
so
by
by
all
means-
make
sure
that
when
they
do
the
mixed
valuation
they're
going
to
follow
exactly
how
staff
would
have
taken
the
service,
be
a
benefit
or
eligibility
to
determine
who's,
not
required
to
make
contributions
going
forward.
So,
that's
that's
something
that
we
just
we
we're
not
saying
that.
I
don't
know.
E
I
have
a
question
vice-pier
jennings.
It
pertains
to
that
item
and
I'm
just
curious,
and
I
mean
it
should
be
part
of
the
calculation.
I
guess
so.
If
someone
is
working
past
30
years,
they're
not
contributing
to
the
retirement
anymore,
because
they're
past
the
30
years,
but
let's
say
they
have
they
keep
they
want
to
work
right,
so
they
keep
on
working.
They
have
32
years,
their
retirement
would
be
based
on
their.
E
It
would
still
be
based
on
their
highest
salary
and
if
their
highest
salary,
let's
say
they
promote
and
is
now
you
know,
five
thousand
more,
that
you
know
75
percent,
you
know
tier
one
would
be
calculated
on
that
higher
amount
right.
H
H
It
really
does
not
affect
the
benefit
calculation,
except
that,
if
you
have
a
if
there's
a
feature
where,
when
the
member
dies,
they
get
a
refund
of
their
contributions,
they
would
get
a
refund
of
less
contributions,
but
the
basic
benefit
formula,
the
salaries
that
are
included
in
the
service.
Those
are
those
are
unchanged.
I
think
they're,
really
two
very
separate
calculations
and
roberto.
I
see
you're,
not
in
your
head.
I
think
you
agree
that
that's
the
administrative
practice
right,
okay,.
K
And
I
think
we
confirmed
that
the
higher
salaries
are
pick
up
in
calculating
the
value
of
the
benefit.
So
there's
no
doubt
in
our
mind
that
the
value
of
the
benefit
has
been
taken
into
consideration.
So
it's
just
a
matter
of
now
that
we
have
already
calculated
the
value
of
the
benefit,
so
who's
going
to
be
paying
for
that
normal
cost
that
would
otherwise
be
paid
by
the
member.
Had
the
member
not
have
the
30
years
of
service.
That's
the
question.
H
K
On
the
member
contribution,
I
think,
there's
a
companion
item
on
the
red
time
indefinitely.
Again,
it's
very
small,
and
so
it's
only
things
that,
for
example,
another
auditing
firm
coming
in
with
a
pressure
price,
would
pick
up
on.
So
it's
a
small
benefit.
We
don't
want
the
trustee
to
be
allowed,
but
we
understand
from
talking
to
to
bill
and
his
crew
that
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
taken
into
account
the
next
valuation.
H
Sometimes
you
find
something
that
you
just
have
to
fix
it
now
and
then
you'll
find
other
things
that
we
think
they
should
be
fixed,
but
they
can
be
fixed
either
in
the
next
evaluation
or
in
the
next
experience
study,
and
then
there
are
some
things
where
it's
just
an
agree
to
disagree,
and
so
really
all
of
these
changes
are
are
really
falling
in
that
middle
category.
There
are
things
that
chiron
has
said
they
will
look
at
in
future
evacuations
and-
and
we
are
very
comfortable
with
that
result.
H
Okay,
so
now
the
rest
of
this
is
where
we
sort
of
this
is
just
a
really
high
level
summary
of
how
close
our
numbers
match.
I'm
not
going
to
read
through
this.
You
know
you'll
sometimes
hear
people
refer
to
that.
There's
a
five
percent
standard
that
the
actuarial
audit,
the
number's
supposed
to
come
within
five
percent.
That
is
something
of
an
urban
myth.
It
actually
traces
back
to
old
irs
rules.
I'm
you're
not
gonna
believe
this
when
you're
changing
valuation
software.
H
If
you
on
your
pension
plan,
if
you
come
within
five
percent,
you
don't
have
to
file
with
the
irs
that
it's
a
change
in
funding
method,
I'm
not
making
this
up,
but
that
five
percent
floats
around.
H
We
actually
like
to
get
closer
to
five
percent,
and
so
we've
really
had
a
very
tight
match
here:
andy
anything
on
the
just
the
quantitative
match
that
would
be
worth
highlighting,
but
I
I
really
think
that
it's
just
it's
just
it's
really
just
such
a
successful
audit,
when
you
at
least
get
the
numbers
together,
then
you
can
talk
about
disclosures
on
assumptions
and
also,
you
know,
find
things
like
you
know,
new
plan
provisions
that
need
to
be
incorporated
appropriate.
K
Yeah,
I
think
the
only
comment
is
similar
to
what
paul
you
mentioned
earlier
on.
We
did
observe
some
differences
as
part
of
our
2016
audit
and
again
I
don't
want
the
board
to
be
overly
alarmed,
because
our
contributions
are
rates
are
higher.
Current
rate
is
lower.
Therefore,
there's
some
contribution
missing
from
system
we're
not
implying
that
at
all.
I
think
different
firms
use
different
methods.
We
have
our
own
software,
they
have
their
own
software,
so
unless
we
use
the
same
people
same
software,
otherwise
the
numbers
would
not
be
exactly
the
same
right.
H
And
another
thing-
and
obviously
this
is
a
slightly
self-serving
comment
because,
as
roberto
said,
we
go
back
and
forth
with
audits
when
the
audit
actuary
and
your
incumbent
actually
have
different
numbers,
you
don't
really
know
which
one
is
more
right.
You
just
know
that
they're
a
little
bit
different,
and
so
you
know
when
we
go.
We
do
this
the
other
way
you
know
just
because
the
audit
actually
comes
with
a
number
that's
higher
or
lower.
It
simply
means
that
we
have
different
valuation
systems
trying
to
come
up
with
the
same
number.
H
H
So
with
that.
Mr
chairman.
That
concludes
our
prepared
remarks.
I
understand
that
your
general
counsel
wants
to
add
something,
but
we
are
open
to
any
comments
or
questions
from
trustees
or
anyone
else
to
whom
you
give
the
chair.
B
H
G
There's
any
questions
I
can
point
to
the
particular
areas
of
the
report
that
we
can
zoom
in
on
for
the
board's
review.
I
just
wanted
to
go
through
the
report
and
identify
a
number
of
the
discrepancies.
G
I
mr
angelo
and
mr
young
have
highlighted
them
here
in
this
presentation,
but
for
the
benefit
of
the
board,
I
would
like
to
walk
through
them
one
by
one,
so
the
board
is
aware
and
also
go
through
the
number
of
recommendations
that
segal
has
provided
in
its
report
and
then
conclude
with
my
recommendation
to
the
board
on
the
next
question
of
action.
So
just
walking
through
the
discrepancies
just
for
the
board's
notification.
G
Mr
angelo
had
mentioned
that
there's
one
discrepancy
is
that
the
tier
one
members
with
more
than
30
years
of
service
were
under
measure
f,
are
to
stop
paying
contributions
after
the
30
years
of
service
and
that's
how
the
system,
as
I
understand
it,
has
been
operating.
So
if
a
member
is
up
to
30
years
of
service
30
year
31
of
service,
they
no
longer
pay
the
contributions
here
in
chiron's
actuarial
evaluation.
They
did
not
apply
that
so
there's
a
discrepancy
there.
G
The
value
the
monetary
value
of
that
discrepancy
is
not
provided
in
this
report,
so
I'd
be
interested
to
see
how
that
materially
affects
the
fund.
Monetarily
number
two.
The
second
discrepancy
here
is
in
how
tier
two
member
members,
death
and
survivorship
benefits
are
calculated
for
the
system
and
the
way
siegel
has
calculated
it.
It
is
the
refund
of
contributions
with
interest.
My
understanding
from
reading
the
report
and
bill
you
can
correct
me
is
that
chiron
does
not
use
that
metric
as
for
those
that
population
of
members,
rather,
they
treat
it
as
a
pre-retirement
annuity.
G
So
there's
a
discrepancy
in
the
value
of
that
benefit
and
the
actuarial
evaluation
and
their
in,
but
the
the
monetary
value
of
that
discrepancy
is
also
not
provided
in
the
audit.
I'd
also
be
interested
to
see
what
that
would
be.
H
Miss
chin,
if
I
made
sure
I'm
not
sure
what
you
mean
by
the
monetary
value,
but
I
think
for
both
of
those
what
we
did
was
to
quantify
what
would
be
the
change
in
the
employer
and
the
member
contribution
rates
if
those
were
so
here,
for
example,
the
top
of
page
3,
we
mentioned
that
if
we
assume
that
the
cessation
occurs
when
the
member
has
30
years
of
eligibility
service
not
benefit
service,
that
that
would,
on
average
increase
the
employer
contribution
rate
by
24
basis
points
and
decrease
the
average
member
rate
by
the
same
24
basis
points.
H
So
we
have
quantified
the
impact
here
as
it
would
affect
both
employer
and
member
contributions.
Similarly,
for
the
pre-retirement
death
benefit
here
we
have
quantified
that
it
would
be
again
a
14
basis,
point
shift
between
employer
and
employee
contributions.
So
I
see.
G
G
So
there's
the
amount
of
the
discrepancy
for
that
one,
but
as
to
the
tier
one
members
the
contribution,
the
effect
of
the
percentage
of
difference
in
the
contributions.
Could
you
point
to
me?
Is
there
a
monetary
value
attributed
to
that.
A
H
Isn't
for
the
death
benefit?
There's
a
change
in
the
present
value
of
future
benefits.
The
contribution
issue
does
not
change
the
present-day
future
benefits.
It
only
changes
the
contribution
rates.
So
that's
where
we've
quantified
that,
in
terms
of
contributions
you
could
you
could.
I
guess
you
could
apply
those
numbers
to
the
current
payroll
and
then.
H
That'd
give
you
a
dollar
amount,
but
there
again
that's
not
comparable
to
5.4
million.
5.4
million
is
a
present
value.
We
would
we.
We
are
not
aware
of
practice
that
would
try
to
take
the
present
value
of
the
shift
in
contributions.
I
guess
the
other
thing
is
important.
To
notice
is
that,
while
for
the
death
benefit,
there
actually
is
a
change
in
the
value
of
the
benefits
for
the
contributions,
the
change
in
the
benefit
value
doesn't
doesn't
change.
This
actually
gets
to
the
vice
chairs
question.
H
So
all
we're
really
now
is
saying
it's
coming
out
of
a
different
pocketbook.
It's
coming
out
of
a
member
about
employer,
pocketbook
and
not
out
of
a
member
possible,
but
there
is
no
change
in
the
present
value
of
future
benefits.
So
there
really
is
no
comparable
metric
to
the
5.4
million
that
you
see
there
for
the
deathbed.
G
H
D
D
Our
understanding
is
that
it's
based
on
benefit
service,
because
the
intent
was
when
people
maximize
their
benefit
multiplier.
Then
you
cut
off
employee
contributions,
and
so
so
the
our
calculation
of
the
impact
was
11
basis
points
instead
of
24.
I
think
primarily
because
of
that
difference
in
interpretation.
D
The
other
piece
that
is
unresolved,
I
think-
and
we
may
need
council's
input
on,
is
under
the
the
san
jose
charter.
Does
that
get
spread
among
the
other
employees
who
have
less
than
30
years
of
service
or
does
it
get
shifted
to
the
city?
D
H
And
siegel
agrees
with
both
of
those
observations.
I
think
andy
checking
on
this.
I
think
that
we
took
a
look
at
what
if
it
was
triggered
by
benefit
service
and
not
eligibility
service,
and
I
think
we
came
with
a
number:
that's
comparable
to
chiron's,
11
basis
points
and,
and
then
the
other
really
is
a
matter
of
it's
it's
a
legal
question.
H
D
And
then,
on
the
tier
two
pre-retirement
death
benefits.
We
also
would
want
some
input
from
council
on
that,
because
the
the
difference
boils-
and
this
is
a
very
good
finding
from
the
audit
to
clarify,
but
the
seagull.
As
I
understood
it,
we
looked
at
the
benefit
summaries
that
are
published
on
the
web
and
talked
with
the
city.
D
We
looked
at
the
municipal
code
and
there
are
discrepancies
between
the
municipal
code
or
at
least
our
interpretation
of
the
municipal
code
and
the
benefit
summaries,
and
that's
largely
what's
driving
this
difference,
and
so
we
in
one
case
one
of
the
differences.
The
city
in
their
emails,
acknowledged
that
the
municipal
code
says
something
different.
That
they've
identified.
C
D
As
I
can't
remember
what
they
said,
an
oversight
that
needs
to
be
corrected,
and
so
we
need
to
know
whether
that
is
an
oversight
and
we
should
be
valuing
the
other
interpretation
or
we
should
be
valuing
what
the
current
municipal
code
says
and
then
the
other
piece
was
a
difference
in
interpretation.
D
G
Yeah
and
that's
for
our
fiduciary
duties
lie,
and
so
one
thing
what
I'm
jumping
ahead
here:
one
of
my
recommendations
just
to
preview.
What
I'm
going
to
recommend
to
the
board
is
that
the
board
defer
action
on
this,
adopting
the
segal
audit
and
allow
chiron
to
provide
a
written
response
to
the
discrepancies
and
the
recommendations
so
that
the
board
has
a
full
understanding
in
writing,
based
on
the
evidence
and
information.
G
G
Chiron
had
nine
fewer
actives
and
was
missing
27
salaries
for
active
members,
and
so
one
of
the
recommendations
here
is
that
chiron
provide
us.
The
whole
data
set
that
they
used
so
that
we
can
take
a
look
at
that
to
see
how
they
came
to
those
you
know
fill
those
gaps.
G
Another
thing
too,
mr
angelo
touched
on
is
that
chiron
used
two
different
salary,
starting
salaries
between
the
two
city,
retirement
plans
for
police
and
fire
and
federated
that's
unusual
in
in
the
industry.
As
I
understand
it
from
the
report,
and
so
we
would
request
that
crime
provide
a
justification
for
why
they
did
that
or
explanation.
G
So
we
would
better
understand
the
rationale.
There
was
a
difference
in
the
employee
contributions
and
that
was
in
part
due
to
chiron's
use
of
the
tier
1
members
being
continuing
to
contribute
benefits
beyond
the
30-year
mark,
even
though
measure
measure
f
says
otherwise.
So
that's
one
discrepancy
as
we've
already
discussed,
so
we
don't.
We
won't
belabor
that
point
another
one
here.
If
we
can
please
turn
to
page
11
of
the
report.
G
Yes,
right
here,
so
item
number
six,
it
right
here
yep
it
discusses
this
500
post
retirement
death
benefit
for
tier
one,
and
it
looks
like
it
resulted
in
a
in
a
change
or
actuarial
increase
in
liability
of
3.1
million
if
chiron
could
also
explain
or
address
how
how
we
got
that
figure,
and
another
thing
too
I
wanted
to
raise
was
that
it
was
unclear
on
the
reciprocity.
G
Right
under
observations
a
little
higher
right
so
point,
one
chiron's
valuation
report
does
not
state
precisely
how
the
reciprocity
and
percent
of
refund
of
contribution
assumptions
are
applied
in
combination
with
evaluation
program,
we
would
like
to
see
how
these
assumptions
are
applied.
So
a
further
explanation
on
that
and
a
written
report
would
be
useful
for
us
to
understand,
because
reciprocity
is
an
important
concept
in
determining
service
credits,
and
so
that's
kind
of
the
discrepancies
from
a
high
level.
G
G
G
G
G
The
next
time
around
we
go
with
the
board,
so
my
recommendations
at
this
point
to
the
board
for
action
is
that
the
board
should
not
rush
through
this
and
then
to
provide
chiron
an
opportunity
to
provide
a
written
response
to
the
discrepancies
for
the
board's
consideration
and
to
defer
action
of
accepting
a
seagulls
audit.
At
this
point,
do
you
have
any
comments
or
questions
from
the
trustees.
B
E
The
one
concern
I
had
is,
as
I
I've
read
through
this
a
bit
in
the
detail,
and
I
understand
that
overall,
in
the
scheme
of
things,
it
is
not
significant.
E
Okay,
I
I
get
that
the
one
piece
that
concerned
me,
though,
was
that
the
employees
that
are
paying
the
percentage
for
this
coming
year
are
paying
more
than
what
the
audit
results
show,
and
that
is
the
one
that
is
most
concerning
to
me
because
it
impacts
people,
it
impacts
their
paycheck,
and
I
guess
that's
the
one
I
would
want
to
know
more
about.
E
E
I
guess,
as
you
might
say,
insignificant
you
know
from
an
audit
standpoint,
but
when
it
impacts
someone's
paycheck,
if
it
if
it
impacts
it
like
five
dollars
or
something,
maybe
people
don't
care,
but
if
it's
more
than
that
you
know,
then
I
I
just
think
that
those
people
might
care.
G
And
if
we
could
roll
down
to
page
three
just
to
go
to
so
the
full
board
knows
what
trustee
jennings
is.
Speaking
of
it's
the
second
bullet
point
from
the
the
list
of
action
items
so
siegel's
total
employee
contribution
rate.
It
explains
the
delta
there's
a
delta
of
eight.
What
are
about
point
eighteen
percent-
and
this
again
is
relating
to
the
discrepancy
of
the
tier
one
and
tier
two
issues
that
I've
outlined.
H
Right,
so
I
guess
a
couple
important
comments
here.
First,
I
wanna
stress
the
fact
that
I
think
it's
important
to
look
at
these
results
symmetrically.
I
know
there
will
we've
we've
been
through
audits
many
times,
and
sometimes
you
know
it's.
If
a
member
rate
comes
in
the
audit,
if
the
auditor's
member
rate
comes
in
lower,
it
gets
a
different
level
of
attention
that
if
it
comes
in
higher,
so
we
have
to
make
sure
whatever
we
do,
we
will
be
doing
it
the
same
way,
whichever
direction
it
goes.
H
Second
it'll
be
very
clear.
I
and
I'm
saying
this
as
the
audit
actuary.
There
is
no
presumption
that
that
your
incumbent
actuaries
is
less
valid
than
ours.
What
we
have
is
two
different
calculations,
but
with
two
different
numbers,
and
I
think
also
this
particular
one
is
probably
exaggerated
because
it
includes
the
30-year
issue.
So,
first,
we
need
to
neutralize
the
effect
of
the
30-year
issue
and
then
see
number
one.
Are
those
numbers
now
so
close
that
they
fall
into
miss
jennings,
that
you
know
that
five
dollar
range?
H
But
second,
you
know
you
have
an
firm
that
has
been
consistently
doing
your
evaluations
for
many
years
and
so
and
then
you
have
a
firm
that
comes
in
and
does
an
audit
every
five
years,
and
I
will
say
this
having
been
on
both
sides
of
this
conversation
to
some
extent,
I
think
you're
you're
going
to
get
more
actual
consistency
by,
if
necessary,
deferring
to
the
number
from
the
incumbent
actuary,
especially
if
it's
something
we
have
not
been
able
to
identify
a
particular
reason
for
so
again.
H
I
just-
and
I
I'm
I'm
saying
this
honestly-
that
I
would
hope
that
chiron
would
be
saying
the
same
things
if
our
rules
were
reversed,
that
you
know
at
some
point.
We
identify
these
things,
but
the
fact
that
we
came
up
with
a
different
number
doesn't
mean
your
number
is
wrong.
It
means
that
two
firms
went
for
the
same
number
and
got
slightly
different
answers.
We
can't
emphasize
that
enough.
Yeah
well,.
G
May
I
respond
to
that
just
briefly.
My
understanding
and
remember
to
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
here
is
that
the
there
is
a
difference
in
these
the
system's
actual
operations
for
these
two
items,
as
opposed
to
how
chiron
is
calculating
it,
and
so
no
is
that
is
that
correct.
H
G
And
I
understand
that
so
I'm
just
saying
right,
so
I'm
raising
that
to
the
board.
As
you
know,
as
as
coming
out
of
this
actuarial
exercise,
there
are
fiduciary
duty
considerations
like
we
need
to
sort
this
out
from
an
operational
standpoint,
so
we
align
with
the
actuarial
projections.
That's
my
main
point
here.
I
G
If,
if
chiron
is
able
to
respond
to
these
discrepancies
in
writing,
and
then
we
can
work
with
staff
to
figure
out
what
the
operations
are
and
legal
counsel
can
look
at
these
provisions
and
determine
what's
right,
we
owe
that
fiduciary
duty
to
our
members,
yeah
and.
H
As
I
say,
the
the
one
that
that
by
share
jennings
raised
happens
to
touch
on
something
that
is,
that
is
really
a
matter
of
plan
interpretation.
You
know
municipal
code
versus
plan
summaries
so
that
those
are
questions
that
go
beyond
the
actuary's
expertise.
E
And
from
that
standpoint
I
I
concur,
because
I
didn't
get
that
in
reading
that-
or
I
didn't
see
that
piece,
but
if
there's
an
interpretation
of
unicode
versus
what
is
been
practiced,
that's
a
different
thing
and
part
of
accounting
rules
are
consistency
too,
very
good.
Yes,
I
do
agree
with
that,
and
I
do
concur
with
your
point
that
you
know
what
is
plus
is
minus
and
and
so
it's
like
the
absolute
right
and
and
so
then
that's
kind
of
like
a
policy
decision.
E
Do
you
fix
it
every
single
time
or
do
you
take
it
and
move
forward,
but
usually
audit
reports,
at
least
from
my
understanding,
and
I
can
be
corrected
on
this-
probably
by
barber
or
someone
you,
you
do
basically
accept
the
findings
and
then
later
the
the
person,
the
group
that's
audited,
might
come
back
with
their
audit
comments,
just
like
we
do
in
the
audit
committee,
and
that
is
an
outstanding
thing
that
gets
fixed
over
time.
A
If
this
were
a
financial
audit
in
the
ordinary
course,
the
audit
would
come
down
and
management
would
submit
their
comments
and
the
whole
package
would
then
go
to
the
board
for
review,
and
I
think
that's
what
my
colleague
is
suggesting
that
we
follow.
That
protocol,
give
chiron
an
opportunity
to
submit
their
response
to
the
audit
and
then
have
the
board
consider
both
of
those
at
its
next
meeting,
if
that's
appropriate.
A
That
gives
them
enough
time
so
that
we
we
treat
it
as
a
formal
audit
and
in
management
or
if
you
will
actuary
response
and
then
we
can
proceed
and
that
that
all
will
also,
I
think,
smoke
out
those
legal
interpretations
that
both
actuaries
are
are
struggling
with,
because
the
planned
document
here,
the
municipal
code,
apparently
on
a
couple
of
areas,
is
open
to
interpretation
and
we
should
probably
try
to
tie
that
down,
particularly
since
vice
chair
jennings,
you
raised
a
very
important
point.
A
It
looks
in
here
like
there's
upwards
of
a
half
a
percent
of
pay
difference
to
members,
and
you
know
that
could
be
a
few
hundred
dollars
a
year
to
our
members,
and
so
you
know
we
really
do
owe
them
the
obligation
of
drilling
down
on
this
and
making
sure
we're
doing
it
right.
C
No,
I'm
just
going
to
say
I
agree
with
all
the
comments
you
know
again
when
you
look
at
this
audit.
If
you're
comparing
this
to
a
financial
audit,
it
would
be
an
unqualified
opinion
with
some
findings
which,
as
was
was
well
explained
by
the
by
chair
journeys
and
by
council
litterman.
You
know,
hopefully
we'll
get
the
responses
by
kyron
and
then
you
board
can
take
action
and
whatever
the
next
step
should
be.
C
I
just
wanted
to
sort
of
put
put
it
this
thing
in
context,
in
the
sense
that
we
usually
go
to
your
board
or
come
back
to
your
board
in
the
month
of
april,
and
I
don't
know
if
benji
is
in
the
meeting
or
barbara
that
can
correct
me,
but
we
actually
issue
a
resolution
where
we
ask
you
board
to
adopt
the
contribution
rates
so
whatever
decision,
especially
on
the
30-year
stop
that
may
or
may
not
have
an
impact
on
the
member
contributions
and
the
pay
contributions.
C
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we
address
that
issue
before
the
april
meeting.
Because
again,
your
board
will
actually
take
action
on
resolution
to
adopt
the
contribution
rates,
because
this
valuation
is
for
the
contribution
rates
that
are
coming
up
for
the
fiscal
year
july,
1st
2022
to
june
30th.
2023
and
again
it
will
also
impact
the,
although
again
to
a
lesser
extent
right
because
of
the
size
of
the
contributions
it
could
impact.
C
Also,
the
five-year
projections
provided
by
cairo
to
the
city,
but
again
that
will
be
a
lower
dollar
value
impact,
whether
it
is
up
or
down
because
of
the
size
of
the
contribution
by
the
city,
but
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
was
understood,
we'll
try
to
move
through
this
as
quickly
as
we
can.
But
I
don't
see
any
any.
C
I
know
council
suggested
otherwise,
but
I
think
it
will
be
appropriate
for-
and
I
can
stand
corrected
by
someone
for
the
board
to
adopt
the
the
findings
by
by
sega
on
the
pinch
evaluation,
with
understanding
that
there's
further
work
to
be
completed.
So
thank
you.
B
C
B
C
Yeah,
that
is
correct,
but
he
is
you
finish
with
counsel
and
I
will
certainly
follow
his
advice.
B
I
I
I
would
defer
to
the
person
with
with
less
hair
to
to
make
this
dent.
A
No,
but
this
has
been
very
helpful
and
thank
you
very
much
council
for
your
recommendations.
Yes,.
B
You're
here,
yes,
I'm
I'm
gratified
that
the
the
total
dollar
amounts
are
not
are
not
significant,
but
this
is
certainly
something
we
need
to
resolve
in
terms
of
the
benefit
for
individual
members
and
retirees.
B
So
so
I
think,
following
council's
recommendation,
I
suggest
we
not
take
action
this
month
on
the
siegel
report
and
we
await
with
with
great
anticipation
the
response
from
chiron
to
these
various
issues
that
need
to
be
resolved.
C
Will
be
back
next
month
in
any
case,
to
present
the
findings
on
the
opec
valuation,
so
they
will
be
available
and
on
a
side
note
I
just
wanted
to
always.
I
did
work
with
paul
and
andy
for
a
long
long
time
in
prior
jobs,
and
it's
always
a
pleasure
to
see
them
so
welcome
both
and
it's
great
to
see
you
guys
and
thank
you
for
your
work.
A
If
I
may
sponsor
that,
I
I
think
in
the
ordinary
course
chiron
can
take
the
audit
findings
and
recommendations
and
respond.
A
G
D
Yeah,
I
appreciate
that
I
I
I
would
like
to
get
at
least
an
outline
of
your
concerns,
because
I
think
you
raised
some
issues
that
I
hadn't
thought
were
issues
needing
a
response.
B
And
when
you
say
you,
mr
hallmark,
you
are
referring
to
council
chin.
G
Certainly
I
could
I
could
pull
that
together
for
the
benefit
of
the
group.
H
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
your
kind
words
again
the
this
is
why
we
do
actuarial
audits,
and
this
is
why
they're
they're
recommended
as
an
industry
practice.
B
And
and
speaking
for
myself,
this
is
the
first
time
I've
heard
the
word
urban
myth
and
actual
report
in
the
same
sentence.
It
was
very
exciting
for
me.
H
B
I
I
looking
forward
to
that
immensely.
So
if
there
are
no
further
comments
or
questions
from
trustees,
I
believe
we're
ready
to
move
on
to
the
next
agenda
item.
H
C
Everyone,
mr
chair,
I
think
councilmember
davis
had
joined
the
meeting.
I
think
I
do
see
her.
B
I
Last
friday
that
talked
about-
and
I
forgive
me
if
roberto
already
discussed
this-
but
we
had
a
study
session
last
friday
to
introduce
the
budget
process,
and
it
was
really
a
very
good,
a
very
good
look
at
the
different
aspects
of
the
budget
and
kind
of
the
proportions
of
what
we
spend
our
our
funds
on.
What's
discretionary
and
what's
not
in
the
general
fund
and
and
that
really
kicked
off
the
budget
process
for
us
a
lot
earlier
than
we
than
we
normally
do
it.
I
So
that
was
a
very
productive
study
session
or
very
helpful
study
session.
I
thought
and
we
will
be
commencing
additional
budget
information
with
the
february
release
of
the
five-year
forecast.
B
Please,
okay:
we
are
up
to
committee
reports
6.1
the
investment
committee
chaired
chandra.
I
believe
we
did
not
have
a
meeting
of
the
investment
committee
at
the
last
correct.
A
Yeah,
we
did
not
have
a
meeting
on
december
17
that
was
canceled,
but
the
main
issue
that
we
were
going
to
discuss
ended
up
getting
discussed
today,
which
were
the
changes
to
the
ips
for
both
healthcare
and
federated
plan.
And
so
our
next
meeting
is
scheduled
for
february
22nd.
A
Unfortunately,
because
we
missed
the
last
meeting,
we'll
have
to
figure
out
a
way
to
meet
in
person.
So
we
can
renew
our
ab361
virtual
meetings
and
that's
something
that
the
cio
and
the
committee
are
working
on.
B
Right,
thank
you.
I
would
challenge
our
our
council
to
see
if
there
is
some
way,
some
special
side
codicil
to
the
ordinance
where
we
might
still
be
able
to
meet
remotely
in
order
to
resume
our
ab361
meeting
schedule.
A
Me
excuse
me,
mr
chair,
mr
chair
jill
borders,
how's.
B
Your
hand
up.
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
Thank
you.
I
can't
see
those
myself
miss
borders.
Please
go
ahead.
J
Hi,
thank
you.
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
the
right
time
under
6.1
for
investment
committee,
but
one
of
my
main
concerns
is,
and
I
and
I'm
thinking
it
it
might
be
under
this.
J
So
I
thought
I'd
mention
it
now
as
public
comment,
then
I
have
been
doing
a
lot
of
reading
and
trying
to
make
the
connection
between
you
know,
of
course,
the
humanitarian
crisis
that
we
see
all
around
us
in
our
city
and
trying
to
make
sort
of
deeper
connections,
and
so,
when
I'm
reading,
whether
it's
bloomberg
news
or
wall
street
journal
or
whatever,
all
these
articles
about
how
large
global
investment
firms
are
sort
of
scooping
up
lots
of
single-family
homes,
lots
of
real
estate,
lots
of
assets
that
have
to
do
where
people
live
and
pay
rent.
J
I'm
very
concerned
that
we're
not
making
a
connection,
and
so
I
would
hate
to
find
out
in
10
15
years
that
the
pension
plans
of
our
city
have
been
contributors
to
the
housing
crisis
that
we
see
all
around
us
every
day
and
the
increasing
costs.
So
it's
fabulous
that
you
know
we
changed
the
15
hedge
fund
thing
to
go
up.
J
If
we
wanted
it
to
go
up
and
and
all
these
hedge
funds
scooping
up
real
estate
but
to
make
the
larger
connection
is
what's
important
to
me
and
I'm
wondering
if
in
the
investment
committee
could
just
sort
of
make
a
mental
note
that
I
think
the
future
will
include
all
these
kind
of
protests
and
things
against
pension
plans
and
and
things
like
that,
investing
in
individual
real
estate.
J
So,
for
example,
you
know
15
years
ago,
it
might
be
this
problem
in
the
world
that
they're
asking
to
divide
divest
from-
and
I
would
I
would
bet
I
would
bet
on
it-
that
in
10
years,
you're
going
to
have
people
asking
and
begging
their
cities
to
divest
from
investments
that
hold
real
estate.
That
then
impact
the
housing
costs.
So
that's
my
comment
and
just
something
to
consider
and
think
about
as
you
look
at
investments
and
what
you
choose
to
invest
in
for
your
pension.
Thank
you.
B
Hey,
thank
you,
ms
borders.
The
that
discussion
is
not
agenda,
so
we
cannot
discuss
this,
but
it
is
something
for
us
to
be
aware
of.
I
would,
I
would
simply
add,
as
a
side
comment,
the
sort
of
firms
who
are
engaged
in
the
activity
you're
describing
tend
not
to
be
hedge
funds,
but
private
equity
funds,
which
are
quite
different.
B
A
All
right,
as
chairman
of
the
audit
committee
similar
the
last
meeting
we
had
was
regarding
361,
so
we
just
have
to
file
the
minutes
from
november
18
and
december
16th,
and
so
that's
our
report.
B
Okay,
thank
you
joint
personnel
committee,
so
chair
or
is,
is
not
present
and
we
did
have
a
meeting
at
on
january.
6Th.
There
are
minutes
to
receive
and
file.
I
apparently
don't
need
a
vote
on
that.
B
C
Yeah
so
I'll
defer
to
prabhu,
but
I
do
remember
you
bore
approve,
I
believe
I'd
like
to
say
it
was
up
250
000,
to
display
right.
I
think
that
what
prabhu
actually
was
able
to
get.
D
C
Both
firms
that
was
approved
at
the
apc
with
the
contract
was
in
the
range
of
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
so,
but
I
believe
that
police
and
fire
at
the
last
meeting
did
approve
the
same
amount
of
federated
deed
for
consistency
purposes,
so
you
are
correct
that
was
approved
already.
C
I
think
the
reason
this
is
in
here
and
again
I
I'll
defer
to
prabhu,
who
has
been
working
on
this
diligently
is
just
to
let
you
know
these
were
the
issues
both
the
e
and
f
that
were
discussed
at
the
last
jpc
and
the
jpc
did
approve
the
moving
forward
with
both
mclaughlin
and
with
our
coffin
associates
for
both
of
that
work
on
compensation
review
and
then,
of
course,
as
you
might
recall,
chair
horowitz
on
e,
the
committee
had
a
chance
to
discuss
the
evaluation
process
in
detail
and
there
were
some
suggestions,
I
believe
by
yourself
to
to
look
at
the
process
and
have
some
review
some
changes,
and
so
I
believe
you
approve
of
cortex
contract
this
morning.
C
B
I
guess
I
was
just
wondering
if
there
is
a
vote
necessary
for
item
d
under
the
jpc
committee.
I
I
believe
we
had
voted
in
the
affirmative
to
approve
a
range
for
mclaughlin
and
ace
and
ka
at
the
last
meeting,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
if
there's
a
need
for
a
vote.
F
Yes,
so
yeah
I'll
defer
to
council
on
that,
but,
as
I
understand
from
council's
remarks
at
the
last
jpc,
the
amounts
need
to
be
the
budgeted
amount
needs
to
be
approved
by
the
board
and
the
actual
hiring
of
the
consultants
have
to
be
approved
by
the
jpc,
which
the
jpc
did
and
just
to
refresh
everyone's
memory.
Both
boards
actually
approved
up
to
150
000
for
the
two
compensation
consultants.
F
B
Okay,
so
then
I
defer
to
council
if,
if
an
additional
vote
is
then
necessary
at
this
point,.
G
Well,
I
believe
the
two
attachments
that
are
provided
for
this
item
are
the
scope
of
work
for
the
positions
and
the
detailed
information
that
these
or
that
these
two
vendors
would
do
and
purview.
When
I
was
looking
at
it,
looked
like
a
scope
of
work,
it
didn't
look
like
an
actual
contract.
Is
that
your
recollection
as
well.
F
We
yeah,
we
don't
have
a
contract,
yet
I
mean
we
have
a
letter
of
engagement
from
both
firms.
That's
all
we
have
at
this
point.
G
Okay,
well,
in
light
of
that
letter
of
a
scope
of
work,
my
recommendation
would
be
to
defer
action
on
this.
B
B
And
this
is
a
similar
situation
in
that
I
think
we
had
some
discussions
at
the
jpc
about
making
further
changes
and
modifications
to
the
evaluation
program,
so
I'm
not
quite
sure
we're
ready
to
have
these
approved
by
the
full
board
as
of
yet
trustee
chandra.
Is
that
your
recollection?
Yes,
I
agree.
B
C
That
is
correct
and
again
I
think
our
practice
is
for
the
to
include
whatever
items
were
discussed
at
the
committee
level,
so
that
the
board
is
aware
of
it
and
then
I
just
kind
of
want
to
make
a
point
of
a
comment
that
was
made
by
cio
palani,
which
I
believe
is
absolutely
right.
C
You
sort
of
defer
action
on
d,
which
is
okay.
I
think
the
way
my
understanding,
the
jpc
jpc
committee
works
or
the
ap
committee
works-
is
that
the
boards
have
delegated
authority
to
those
to
that
committee,
and
so
they
did
approve
moving
forward
with
this
work
and
the
scope.
I
think
it's
okay,
as
you
indicated,
to
request
any
comments
by
trustees
so
that
you
can
share
them
with
the
committee.
C
When
you
meet
again,
there
were
no
comments,
but
nevertheless
the
committee
is
moving
forward
with
the
scope
of
work
as
as
explaining
these
attachments.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
pena.
A
B
Questions
notions;
okay,
hearing,
none
we'll
move
to
agenda
item
number:
seven:
we
have
the
cortex
report.
B
C
Good
question:
first
of
all,
I,
as
you
all
know,
I'm
a
member
of
the
board
for
calipers,
and
I
I
highly
support
your
attendance
to
the
general
assembly
at
this
point.
Mr
chair
calabrese
is
moving
forward
with
an
in-person
conference.
C
The
board
discussed
the
issue
earlier
this
week.
There
were
two
comments,
so
two
offices
myself
for
san
jose
and
another
office
for
the
north,
with
some
hesitation
about
the
in-person
assembly,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
unless
things
get
worse
and
there's
an
issue
where
we
will
have
to
actually
cancel
the
conference,
we're
moving
forward
with
an
in-person
general
assembly,
not
very
troubling
person,.
E
I
would
like
to
add
a
comment
to
that
just
one.
I
am
very
pleased
by
the
cortex
report
and
really
appreciate
having
that
always
included
in
our
agenda
and
I
do
look
over
it.
I
have
strong
opinions
about
what
I
think
on
remote
access.
I
think
trustee,
kelleher
and
chandra
also
feel
the
same
way,
and
I
am
surprised
I
I
did
attend
a
meeting
and
I
think
it
was
southern
california.
E
I
don't
know
it
was
fresno,
but
one
of
these
areas
which
have
been
coming
in,
I
know,
there's
a
different
point
of
view
of
in
you
know
of
that,
but
I
will
tell
you
that
the
only
items
I
looked
at
and
considered
were
the
virtual
classes.
E
I
was
not
considering
anything
else
as
much
as
I
would
love
to
travel,
and
that
would
be
nice.
I
just
don't
think
it's
safe
and-
and
I
think
I
get
a
lot
out
of
the
virtual
ones
too.
So
if
you
have
any
chance
to
pass
that
on
I
mean
they
might
not
really
we're
not
huge.
You
know
we're
not
the
big
player
in
that,
but
I
can
tell
you
I
think
most.
The
trustees
feel
the
same
way.
A
My
social
circle,
despite
having,
I
think,
probably
10
or
11
positive
cases,
everything's
mild,
and
hopefully
this
omicron
you
know-
will
give
us
hurt
immunity
or
something,
but
I
certainly
don't
want
to
do
anything
in
person
anytime
soon.
C
No,
that's
I.
I
appreciate
your
comments.
I
orderly
understand
where
you're
coming
from
and
support
it.
I
was
unfortunately
on
the
minority
in
my
board
meeting.
C
C
C
We'll
see
what
happened.
I
certainly
understand.
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
caliber
kind
of
meeting.
In
fact,
I
am
going
to
be
heading
one
specific
discussion.
Where
are
we
supposed
to
have
trustee
prabhu?
I'm
sorry
he
was
a
trustee,
but
no
longer
he's
a
cio
trustee,
ceo
palani
and
also
trustee
from
police
and
fire
drew
lansa.
So
we
in
fact
have
a
meeting
next
week
to
discuss.
But
again
at
this
point
it's
an
in-person
conference.
C
I
think
he
has
very
good
discussions.
I
didn't,
but,
but
I
do
respect
your
hesitation
to
attain.
In
fact,
I
mentioned
to
the
board
of
calipers
that,
if
things
didn't
improve,
I
certainly
would
not
be
attending
myself
at
the
general
assembly.
So
again
point
one
taken
and
I
would
certainly
keep
you
posted
about
the
conference
and,
of
course,
you
you
can
decide
whether
and
if,
if
we
do
offer
the
options
of
virtual
at
this
point,
it's
not
an
option.
C
I
don't
know
if
that
would
change
eventually,
but
at
this
point
that's
not
an
option.
So
thank
you,
mr
chair.
B
Well,
I
would
encourage
you
through
your
your
position
on
that
board,
to
to
encourage
them
to
offer
a
hybrid
option
for
this
conference
so
that
those
who
wish
to
attend
virtually
could-
and
I
echo
all
the
the
sentiments
of
my
fellow
trustees-
I
did
notice
that
all
of
the
the
meals
on
the
brochure
were
listed
as
taking
place
out
of
doors
and
with
the
risk
of
belaboring.
The
point
I'm
wondering
if
the
actual
conference
meetings
will
be
taking
place
indoors
or
out
of
doors
or
have
you
thought
through
that
amount.
C
They
are
indoors,
but
of
course
we
expect
a
lower
attendance
and
certainly
there
will
be
requirements
in
terms
of
spacing
and
there
will
be
requirements
in
terms
of
showing
your
vaccination
status
and
then
there's
some
color
coordinating
approaches
where
you
know,
if
green
means,
you're
willing
to
say
hello
to
people
yellow
is
you
have
to
be
careful
red?
Is
don't
even
look
at
me,
so
all
that
stuff
right
I
mean
it's.
C
Not
it's
not
simple,
I'm
not
sure
to
what
extent
we're
gonna
be
able
to
meet
that,
but
yeah,
the
the
actual
discussions
will
take
place
indoors
to
the
extent
that
we
can
keep
everyone
with
mass
and
with
the
space
as
recommended
by
cdc
and.
E
I
just
want
to
add
one
more
piece.
I
know
I'm
singing
to
the
choir
here,
but
for
those
who
don't
know,
I
have
been
also
elected
on
a
separate
piece
to
be
the
ifpte
camp
president.
That's
the
union
for
managers
within
the
city
of
san
jose,
and
so
I
get
these
notices
of
omicron
cases
that
have
been.
You
know
where
someone
has
tested
positive
put
it
this
way
and
and
it's
like
crazy-
I
mean
I
get
like
one
two,
three
four.
E
You
know
four
or
five
a
day
across
the
city
of
san
jose,
so
you
know
the
community
centers,
the
police,
anybody
that
is
a
manager
like
a
senior
analyst
or
anybody
within
that,
and
you
know
I
mean
it's
like
you
kind
of
want
to
say.
Oh
we're
coming
back
to
the
office.
How
many
times
have
we
done
that?
Where
we're
coming
back
to
the
office
and
then
oh
by
the
way,
now
we're
not
so
we
kicked
this
can
down.
E
We
play
this
30-day
game
that
we
need
to
do
because
of
the
governor,
but
this
is
a
continual
thing,
and
sometimes
I
have
a
feeling
that
people
are
like
that.
You
know
they're
like
ostriches
right,
their
heads
in
the
ground
and
they're
just
hoping
the
world
will
get
better,
and
I
I
find
that
whole
process
frustrating
I'm,
not
the
type
of
person
who
likes
to
kick
the
can.
E
So
I
think
those
who
know
me
who
listen
to
me
go
off
know
I'm
that
type
of
person
just
frustrating
again,
I'm
singing
to
the
choir.
I
know
that
guy.
B
I
think
our
concerns
have
registered
with
mr
pena
right
for
him
to
convey
those
to
the
calipers
board
in
in
any
way
possible.
Yeah.
F
F
B
A
Jill
borders
has
her
hand
up,
and
I
would
like
to
say
jill.
Thank
you
very
much.
This
is,
I
think,
the
third
time
you've
raised
your
hand,
it's
great,
to
have
your
participation.
B
J
Okay,
thank
you
and
thank
you
for
saying
that,
because
I
was
feeling
a
little
bit
bad
about,
maybe
even
being
here,
but
I'm
trying
so
hard
to
learn
about
what
it
is
that
I
can
do
on
any
level
to
sort
of
educate
myself
on
what
can
be
done.
But
I
hope
that
now,
since
it's
public
comment
time
that
I
have
the
right
spot
to
say
all
this
information
first,
thank
you
for
all
of
the
work
that
you
do
and
and
working
for
the
city.
J
J
So
thank
you
for
that
and
then
I
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
yeah,
I'm
trying
I
watched,
deb
davis,
commented
on
it
and
explained
that
what
from
just
a
public
perception
these
these
circle
kind
of
graphs,
that
show
that
there's
almost
it
seems
like
almost
half
of
the
budget,
there's
nothing
that
the
public
can
do
right.
J
It's
all
money,
that's
tied
up
in
things
that
we
can't
touch
because
it
have
to
do
with
employee
benefits
and
pensions
and
unfunded
liabilities
and
all
this
stuff
that
they
talk
about,
and
I
think
the
perception
becomes
and
can
become
a
negative
toward
people
that
have
worked
in
the
city.
That
is
a
huge
concern
that
I
have.
I
have
concern
with
this
because
in
conversations
just
everyday
people,
there
isn't
a
sense
of
gratitude
for
those
that
work
in
the
city.
So
I
want
to
number
one.
Thank
you.
J
J
I
know
we've
moved
toward
like
tier
one,
to
tier
to
tier
tier
two
of
all
these
different
things
and
benefits,
but
it'd
be
interesting
if
we
could
sort
of
make
sure
that
the
public
does
not
become
negative
and-
and
I
don't
know
how
to
do
this-
but
so
that
so
that
we
recognize
that
we
need
more
workers
and
we
need
people
to
work
for
the
city
and
we
want
it
to.
We
want
to
elevate
the
people
that
do
work
for
san
jose
and
appreciate
them.
So
that's
on
my
mind.
J
I
just
wanted
to
share
that
with
you.
I
think
it's
really
important
as
we
look
at
that.
We
continue
to
look
at
the
challenges
our
city
faces
and
the
city
council
continues
to
have
to
say
out
loud.
We
don't
have
the
money
for
that.
We
don't
have
this
for
that.
We
don't
and
then
they
show
these
graphs
and
it
can
become.
The
perception
can
become,
I
think,
I'm
worried
about
the
public
and
how
they
perceive
our
council,
as
well
as
all
the
people
that
work
for
the
city.
J
So
I'd
like
to
figure
out
how
we
can
move
toward.
I
don't
know
some
kind
of
solution
of
how
much
work
you
guys
do.
Okay,
thank
you.
Have
a
wonderful
week,
bye-bye.
J
E
Jill,
I
just
want
to
say
I
appreciate
that
comment
as
a
city
employee,
and
I
have
the
same
concern.
E
Because
it
is
a
challenge,
I
think,
roberto
also
has
that
challenge.
You
know
he
listed
the
vacant
positions
he
has,
and
I
really
do
feel
that
until
the
city
pays
their
employees
a
competitive
wage
they're
going
to
continue
to
have
these
vacancies
and
they're
going
to
have
people
not
taking
jobs
with
the
city,
but
going
to
other
municipalities
that
pay
as
much
because
tier
two
is
now
pretty
equal
to
other
retirement
systems.
E
So
it
is
a
challenge
and-
and
I
don't
know
how
to
get
residents
really
to
recognize
that
they
should
take
their
hard-won
taxes
and
put
it
into
employee
salaries
when
they
want
to
take
it
and
put
it
into
services
that
services
equate
to
people
who
provide
them.
So
that
is
a
challenge,
and
I
appreciate
your
comment.
B
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
public
comments.
Of
course,
we
we
cannot
discuss
them
at
length
if
they
are
not
agendized,
but
it
is
food
for
thought
and
something
we
all
need
to
consider
and
if
there
are
no
other
public
or
retiree
comments,
this
meeting
stands
adjourned
trustees.
Please
stand
by
for
your
various
committee
meetings
immediately
following
this
adjournment.