►
Description
City of San José, California
Police & Fire Department Retirement Plan Board of January 6, 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://sjrs.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=918107&GUID=D1988C4B-563B-458D-BB5D-5F7393E42BE1
A
A
A
A
D
Hey
I
just
got
on
linda.
How
are
we
doing
on
headquarters,
recording
stopped.
E
A
D
All
right,
let's
go
ahead
and
call
this
meme
to
order,
and
we
start
as
always
the
roll
call
first
one.
This
is
andrew.
He
texts,
roberto
and
I
about
half
an
hour
ago,
he's
on
duty
and,
and
he
said
with
all
of
the
of
his
fellow
workers
out
on
kovid.
He
might
come
in
and
out,
but
we
shouldn't
count
on
him.
Sanita
are
you
here.
D
Okay,
howard,
are
you
here,
I'm
here
drew
that's
great.
That's
right!
You're,
here
right!
Yes,
yeah,
happy
new
year,
happy
new
year
to
you,
brother,
dick
you're,
here
right,
yes,
franco.
D
Happy
new
year
youtube
dave
durango,
I'm
chair
lanza.
I
am
here
sunita,
the
sleeping
bag.
Are
you
here
now
sunita
esm
happy
new
year
happy
new
year?
That's
great!
We
have
seven
out
of
nine
members
and
let
me
damn
we
gotta
look
at
the
agenda.
I
think
we've
got
a
closed
session
this
morning.
According
to
this,
we
go
straight
into
closed
session.
Roberto
wright,
sound
good
to
you.
D
All
right
whoever's
driving
go
ahead
and
take
us
into
the
closed
session.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
So
I'm
saying
to
myself
in
my
mellifluous
tones
we
don't
have
to
wave
sunshine
on
anything.
Maytag
council
reminded
us.
We
we've
got
a
meeting
right
after
this,
and
we've
got
that
internecine
meeting
where
we
give
ourselves
30
more
days
per
state
loss,
so
we're
going
to
aim
to
end
this
meeting,
11,
30
and
I'll
sort
of
keep
track
of
time.
In
the
background,
let
me
know
how
we're
doing
right
now.
D
I
don't
see
any
impediment
to
making
that
target,
but
I
may
I
may
rush
us
along
to
something
I
don't
think
we'll
have
to
it's
a
pretty
short
agenda.
I
remind
everyone
that
we're
over
zoom
sort
of
slightly
protocol
four
things
we're
going
to
take
about
we'll
go
round
robin
to
see.
If
there
are
any
comments,
I'll
go
around
robin
to
take.
The
vote
in
general
go
feel
free
to
jump
in
interrupt.
D
We've
been
doing
this
for
almost
two
years,
and
I've
had
no
problems
that
motherboards
do
so
don't
hesitate,
just
go
ahead
and
jump
in
and
interrupt
the
speaker.
If
you
have
a
temporal
question,
you've
got
some
in
this
more
high
level
strategic.
You
can
sort
of
wait
to
the
end.
I'm
looking
at
this
to
make
sure
I
got
it
all.
Did
I
miss
anything?
Michelle
is
kind
of
it
right.
D
Great
thanks
michelle
all
right.
We
are
on
to
item
one
consent
calendar.
Does
anybody
want
to
pull
anything
or
make
any
comments?
Anything
in
the
consent,
calendar.
D
D
I
I
have
a
motion
by
sanchez
taken
by
lee,
going
around
the
room:
heavy
votes,
sunita.
E
You
pervu
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
good
morning
and
happy
new
year
to
all
trustees,
staff
and
consultants.
We
will
keep
our
investment
section
brief
and
to
the
point.
The
only
item
we
have
today
is
an
approval
of
some
revisions
that
we've
made
to
the
investment
policy
statement,
which
was
actually
approved
by
the
by
the
ic
in
december,
but
before
we
get
to
that,
as
always
performer
performance
on
these
are
unaudited
numbers.
E
As
of
january
4th
fiscal
year
to
date
for
the
pension
plan
was,
we
were
up
5.16
and
healthcare.
Trust
was
up
2.46
percent.
Of
course.
This
does
not
take
into
account
the
terrible
day
the
markets
had
yesterday,
but
with
that,
I'm
actually
going
to
go
on
to.
Unless
anyone
has
questions,
I'm
going
to
turn
this
over
to
laura
to
talk
about
items
2b
and
2c.
H
Good
morning,
everyone
happy
new
year,
it's
nice
to
see
you
all
virtually.
I
have
just
some
some
brief,
mostly
sort
of
procedural,
nothing
changing
in
terms
of
strategic
or
risk
language
in
the
investment
policy
statement,
which
is
up
on
your
screen.
So
you
know
it's
best
practice
from
a
fiduciary
standpoint
to
review
your
investment
policy
statement
regularly
and
we
always
tend
to
catch.
H
You
know
a
few
small
wording
issues
and
that
sort
of
thing
in
terms,
in
addition
to
to
some
updates
that
are
always
needed
whenever
there
are
asset
allocation
changes
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
the
first
real
change
in
this
redline
version
is
on
page
six.
H
H
You
can
also
see
under
public
markets,
you
had
active
strategies,
excluding
hedge
funds,
at
a
ten
percent
limit
and
then
hedge
funds
at
a
10
limit
which
was
a
bit
redundant.
So
we've
we've
removed
the
hedge
funds
line.
Now
we
just
have
active
strategies
and
have
changed
them
to
a
15
instead
of
a
10
limit,
which
we
think
is
is
reasonable
for
your
investment
risk
planning.
H
So,
on
page
26,
you
know
we
always
update
regularly
benchmarks
when
there's
changes
in
availability
and
also
you
updated
your
asset
allocation,
so
these
targets
and
appendix
they
needed
to
change.
So
you
can
see
some
target
changes.
This
just
goes
along
with
the
asset
allocation
that
you
adopted
during
the
year.
H
Eventually
it's
been
in
process
for
some
time
and
that
is
changing
to
suffer
so
you
used
to
have
live
war
three
month
that
was
essentially
a
cash
bench
benchmark
and
now
we're
changing
that
to
sofer
plus
one
and
a
half
which
is
a
bit
harder
to
beat,
but
we
think
reasonable.
We've
talked
about
some
of
these
benchmark
changes
in
the
past
as
well.
You
might
recall
that
for
core
real
estate
we
used
to
have
a
equal
weighted
benchmark.
We
recommended
changing
it
to
a
cap
weighted
benchmark
which
is
more
commonly
used
under
the
treasuries.
H
The
long-term
government
bonds.
Essentially,
the
bloomberg
barclays
u.s
long
treasury
is
the
same
benchmark
as
the
bloomberg
berkeley's
u.s
long
10,
plus
it's
just
easier
to
get
the
data
for
the
one
versus
the
other,
and
it's
essentially
the
same
thing.
And
then
you
can
see
under
the
the
lcpp
the
low
cost,
passive
portfolio
asset
class
benchmarks,
then
the
third
column
under
immunized
cash
flows.
H
You
can
see
the
removal
of
the
ice
bank
of
america
merrill
lynch
three
months
month,
t
bills
and
the
insertion
of
the
bloomberg
barclays
government
credit
one
to
three
year,
which
again
is
harder
to
beat.
So
we
think
you
know
these
definitely
aren't
changes
that
are
motivated
by
trying
to
look
better
relative
to
the
benchmark,
since
they
will
be
slightly
harder
to
beat
going
forward.
H
But
we
think
these
are
the
most
appropriate
benchmarks
and
with
that
outline
of
some
brief
changes
on
page
27,
the
next
slide
just
has
the
commodities
allocation
and
commodities
benchmark
which,
as
you
know,
was
added
recently.
But
those
are
the
suggested
updates
and
these
were
approved
by
the
investment
committee
recently.
H
We
have
this,
this
sums
up
the
pension
ips
changes,
and
then
we
have
some
suggestions
that
are
similar
on
the
healthcare
trust
as
well.
D
Okay,
let's
go
ahead
and
do
that
let's
go,
you
know
I
I'm
not
gonna
do
where
I'm
rob
and
if
anybody
has
any
questions
on
this
before
we
vote
just
jump
in.
C
Well,
I
do
have
a
couple
of
clarifying
questions
jump
in.
I
think
you
it's
the
first
change
you
have
in
here
remove
the
approval
by
the
board,
and
I
was
wondering
what
motivated
that.
H
That's
mainly
motivated
by
the
the
fact
that
it's
reviewed
annually,
but
doesn't
necessarily
always
make
sense
to
bring
it
to
the
board
if
there
aren't
edits,
and
so
this
says
rather
than
saying
it
will
approve
it
just
says
it
will
be
reviewed
at
least
annually.
If
there
is
a
year
where
there's
not
an
asset
allocation
change,
or
you
know
the
removal
benchmark
or
something
like
that,
it
might
just
be
reviewed
by
the
staff
and
or
the
investment
committee.
H
So
what
does
it
mean
to
change
it
to
strategy?
That's
a
good
question.
A
manager
versus
strategy
is
a
little
bit
squishy.
For
example,
you
have
two
artisan
global
advisor
strategies.
H
Artisan
is
sort
of
a
boutique
of
boutique
structure
where
they
have
separate
investment
teams
that
are
completely
autonomous
and
don't
really
rely
on
a
broad
organization
for
anything,
and
so,
for
example,
that's
that's
an
area
where
you
know
each
strategy
is
independent,
and
so
we
think
it
makes
sense
to
have
them
be
considered
separately
for
concentration
limits
rather
than
you
know,
the
firm
as
a
whole
is
not
holding.
H
C
But
I
wonder
if
we're
making
it
not
a
nitpick
but
the
the
wording
too
broad
shouldn't
it
be
strategy
by
manager
or
something
like
that,
because
strategy
could
mean
couldn't
strategy
mean?
H
Yeah,
I
think
it's
a
valid
question.
I
think
I
think
whenever
your
staff
is
looking
at
a
new
manager,
you
know
it's
it's
something
that's
considered
of
you
know.
Is
this
too
much
with
one
manager?
So
you
know,
I
think
I
think
that's
something.
H
That's
part
of
the
process
that
won't
be
impacted
by
this
language,
but
you
know
if
we
were
to
have
a
scenario
where,
for
example,
one
of
your
your
active
managers,
one
of
the
key
people
left
and
in
the
short
term,
you
wanted
to
transfer
those
assets
to
an
existing
strategy.
While
you
search
for
someone
new
or
something
like
that,
this
just
gives
your
team
the
flexibility
to
do
that.
C
C
C
H
So
these
percentages
are
of
the
total
fund,
so
I
don't
think
that
they
would
be.
H
C
C
D
I
thought
I'll
entertain
a
motion
to
approve
item
2b,
so
move
santa's,
emotion
by
dick
drove
a
second.
D
J
Thanks
laura
good
morning,
everybody
basically
similar
edits
here
on
the
healthcare
trust
side,
so
I'll
just
pause
where
there
are
some
red
line
items
so
similar
to
how
commodities
was
added
to
the
pension.
You
see
investment
grade
bonds
added
here
at
the
bottom
of
page
four
and
then
long-term
government
bonds
added
at
the
top
of
page
five.
Just
because
those
are
new
asset
classes
introduced
with
the
most
recently
approved
asset
allocation
so
same
as
commodities
for
the
pension.
J
Similar
idea
here
on
page
10
to
change
the
active
strategies
limit
from
10
to
15
percent
that
also
aligns
with
the
vehicle
level
commingled
fund
active
limit
that
you
that
was
already
there
so
more
consistent
and
more
flexible
to
make
that
change
same
as
the
pension
and
then,
finally,
here
on
page
11,
you
see
the
new
asset
class
targets
that
were
adopted
back
in
the
spring
of
last
year,
as
well
as
new
benchmarks,
they're
in
in
the
third
column,
and
then
on
the
on
the
very
bottom
same
as
pension.
J
Just
some
slight
tweaks
to
you
know
the
mix
of
certain
benchmarks
or
clarifying
that
msci
benchmarks
are
net.
That
type
of
thing,
so
all
in
all,
very
similar
changes
versus
pension.
D
Go
once
going
twice,
you
want
this
one
to
prove
to
peru.
D
Great
I'll
entertain
a
motion
to
approve
item
2c
santos,
some
move.
I
drive
a
second.
D
Dave
I
miss
chairland's.
I
vote
I
as
well
is
chiron
online.
D
Are
you
out
there,
brother
yeah?
I
am
hey,
let's
go
and
do
this
bill.
You've
got
two
items
on
the
agenda.
3A
and
4c
and
roberto
said:
why
don't
we
just
go
ahead
and
take
those
let's
pause
as
we
did
after
3a,
and
then
you
can
go
right
into
4c.
So
if
you
need
an
or
anybody
else
to
get
on
you,
let
them
know
what
the
timing
is.
K
K
Sounds
good,
let
me
get
the
right
screen
up
here.
K
All
right,
there's
for
item
3a,
there's
two
items
in
your
packet:
one
is
the
powerpoint
presentation
and
the
other
is
the
full
valuation
report.
I'm
just
going
to
go
through
the
powerpoint,
but
we
can
take
any
questions
you
have
on
the
full
evaluation
report.
K
As
I've
done
the
last
few
months,
just
keeping
track
of
our
schedule
of
presentations
here,
we're
here
today
with
the
final
pension
valuation
results
and
the
draft
opeb
valuation
results
we'll
be
back
in
february
with
the
final
evaluation
results.
I
understand.
Siegel
will
be
back
in
february
with
their
audit
results
for
the
pension
plan
and
then
their
audit
results
for
the
oped
plan
in
march.
K
The
schedule
for
now
last
month
we
presented
the
preliminary
results.
They
look
very
similar
to
these.
There
was
one
change.
We
in
our
final
peer
review.
We
figured
out
there
was
an
adjustment
to
the
new
beneficiary
mortality
table
that
was
entered
into
our
system
incorrectly.
K
We've
corrected
that
it
added
about
14
million
in
liability
out
of
the
5.2
billion.
So
it's
just
a
little
tick
on
on
these
numbers.
The
chart
here
shows
the
liabilities
as
a
stacked
bar.
The
blue
is
for
people
currently
receiving
benefits.
The
gold
is
for
people
who
are
no
longer
working
for
san
jose,
but
are
entitled
to
a
benefit
in
the
future,
and
the
red
portion
of
the
bar
is
for
the
active
members.
K
K
K
On
the
right
hand,
side
you
can
see
the
individual
numbers
by
tier
on
both
market
and
actuarial
basis.
I
think
the
thing
I
would
note
is
the
tier
two
liabilities
are
still
very
small
compared
to
the
whole
system.
So
it's
really
all
driven
by
tier
one,
but
tier
two
is
about
124
percent
funded
right
now,
with
the
investment
returns
and
tier
one
is
77
on
an
actuarial
and
86
on
a
market
value
basis.
K
These
two
charts
are
showing
the
contribution
rates
in
aggregate
and
contribution
amounts.
The
rates
on
the
left
and
the
amounts
on
the
right
you'll
see
that
the
purple
bars
represent
the
member
contributions
and
the
city
normal
costs.
K
Those
are
the
costs
of
benefits
attributable
to
the
current
year
of
service,
and
I,
comparing
last
year
to
this
year's
results,
you'll
see
the
city
amount
went
down
a
little
and
the
member
amount
went
up
a
little,
that's
primarily
reflecting
the
change
from
tier
one
membership
to
tier
two
membership,
where
the
normal
overall,
normal
cost
is
lower,
but
the
members
are
paying
fifty
percent
of
it.
K
The
big
change
this
year
due
to
the
investment
returns,
is
this
interest
on
the
ual,
so
the
city's
contribution
pays
the
normal
cost
and
then
they
make
a
payment
on
the
ual
that
we
split
between
the
interest
on
that
unfunded
liability
and
a
principal
payment
paying
it
down,
and
we
calculate
that
interest
on
the
ual
based
on
the
market
value
of
assets
and
so
that
dropped
significantly
in
the
last
two
years,
which
also
means
that
the
portion
of
the
city's
contribution
since
we
smooth
to
determine
the
total
contribution.
K
K
K
We're
getting
we
showed
this
last
month
that
it's
going
to
be
a
recurring
theme
for
a
while,
where
we
have
smoothed
the
assets.
The
market
value
is
4.7
billion,
but
the
actuarial
value
is
only
4.2
billion
and
we
developed
the
contributions
based
on
the
4.2
billion,
and
so
that
means
we've
got
500
million
dollars
in
deferred
investment
gains
that
we
haven't
recognized
yet,
and
that
provides
a
pretty
significant
cushion
going
forward
against
adverse
experience.
K
To
get
started,
we've
shown
this
chart
several
times
over
the
last
several
years.
Looking
at
the
actual
amortization
payments
scheduled
for
tier
one
for
the
being
paid
by
the
city
and
in
general,
the
gold
bars
represent
payments
on
gains
and
losses
that
we
experience
and
the
purple
bars
are
assumption
changes,
and
so
we've
got
a
mix
of
golden
and
purple.
There's
also
a
couple
benefit
changes
mixed
in
in
green
and
the
line
represents
the
net
payment
that
we're
projecting
forward.
K
K
K
The
funded
percentages
here
we're
showing
are
on
the
market
value
basis,
so
87.
Now
we
get
to
100
on
the
baseline
projection.
In
2029,
we
overshoot
a
little
bit
and
end
up
about
103
percent,
funded
on
the
right-hand
side,
we're
just
focusing
on
the
unfunded
liabilities.
K
You
look.
Historically,
those
relationships
are
reduced,
they're
reversed,
I'm
sorry.
The
unfunded
based
on
the
market
value
was
actually
higher
it
in
the
past,
but
this
shows
how
much
of
that
chunk.
We
are
recognizing
expected
to
recognize
over
the
next
four
years
until
they
get
back
to
the
the
same
amount
and
how
that
progresses
forward
to
2029
and
again,
if
all
assumptions
are
met
on
the
contribution
side,
we've
got
rates
on
the
left.
Dollar
amounts
on
the
right.
K
So
you
can
see,
there's
quite
a
change
from
the
prior
evaluation
recognizing
the
exceptional
investment
returns.
K
That
change
really
is
reflected
in
the
next
five
years,
where
we
are
stepping
down
the
the
contributions,
as
the
actuarial
value
of
assets
recognizes
all
of
those
gains.
K
K
So
those
are
the
baseline
projections,
what
we
expect
if
all
assumptions
are
met,
but
we
know
that.
L
K
Happen,
and
so
we
want
to
talk
about
the
sensitivity
and
every
year
we
have
mentioned
to
this
plan
the
issue
about
planned
maturity
and
that
mature
pension
plans
are
more
sensitive
to
risk.
Now,
in
the
last
year,
our
sensitivity
to
risk
worked
in
our
advantage.
We
got
a
lot
of
mileage
out
of
the
exceptional
investment
returns
because
of
our
maturity,
but
that
works
both
directions,
and
so
what?
What
do
we
mean
by
that
maturity?
And
how
does
it
translate?
K
Well,
we've
shown
this
chart
in
the
last
month
and
we
show
it
periodically
and
every
prior
evaluation,
where
we
look
at
the
the
ratio
of
retirees
and
inactives
to
the
active
population,
and
the
idea
is
at
some
level,
the
active
population,
the
payroll,
the
contributions
on
their
payroll
from
the
city
have
to
support
both
the
active
benefits
and
the
inactive
benefits,
and
so
the
higher
this
ratio,
the
more
sensitive
you
are
to
those
sorts
of
changes.
K
Well,
what
has
happened
to
this
system
is:
we've
had
kind
of
a
natural
growth
in
the
number
of
retirees
that
was
accelerated
somewhat
in
the
great
recession,
but
it's
fairly
typical
in
terms
of
the
growth
of
the
number
of
retirees.
K
What
really
accelerated
the
maturation
of
this
system
was
in
the
great
recession
the
active
employment
dropped
and
we're
still
about
15
percent
below
the
active
employment
from
2021
or
from
2010.
I'm
sorry,
so
we
have
leveled
off
and,
to
a
certain
extent,
have
started
to
to
increase
that
employment
level
slowly,
but
at
the
same
time
that
the
retirees
have
grown,
and
so
the
this
support
ratio
grew
rapidly
during
the
great
recession.
It's
now
somewhat.
L
K
It's
about
200,
large
public
pension
plans
across
the
country,
and-
and
so
you
can
see
that
our
liability
leverage
ratio
and
our
asset
coverage
ratios
are
off
the
charts
compared
to
to
other
plans.
Now
most
normally.
These
leverage
ratios
are
higher
for
police
and
fire
plans
than
for
general
plans,
which
is
why
we
added
the
combination
here
so
that
you
can
see
what
it
is
on
the
sponsor
itself,
but
it's
still
very
high,
and
so
what
that
means
is
on
the
liability
side.
K
If
you
have
a
a
leverage
ratio
of
20
and
we
make
an
assumption
change
that
changes
the
liability
by
five
percent,
that
change
is
equivalent
to
a
hundred
percent
of
payroll
five
times
twenty,
and
we
have
to
amortize
that
as
a
percent
of
payroll,
now
we're
not
going
to
do
the
full
100
of
payroll
in
one
year,
but
over
a
period
of
time
we
have
to
pay
off
100
of
payroll.
K
If
your
liability
leverage
ratio
was
only
10,
that
would
only
be
50
percent
of
care,
so
it
would
be
much
more
affordable
for
that
same
change
in
assumptions
that
caused
a
5
increase
in
liability.
K
We've
most
frequently
seen
this
with
assumption
changes
with
I'm
sorry
with
discount
rate
changes,
so
we'll
show
you
that
impact
in
just
a
second
on
the
asset
leverage
ratio.
This
is
really
showing
your
sensitivity
to
investment
returns
immediately
and
it's
the.
K
Scenario,
if
you
beat
or
miss
your
investment
expected
investment
return
by
10
percent
and
you
have
a
ratio
of
10,
that's
100
of
payroll
at
20,
that's
200
percent
of
payroll
so
and
we're
approaching
20
for
the
pollution
fire,
and
so
that
really
swings
our
amortizations.
K
K
So
one
way
we
look
at
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
those
is
just
comparing
our
con.
This
is
what
we
showed
earlier
with
the
contributions
members
at
about
13
percent
of
pay
and
the
city
at
81.5.
K
So
that's
a
pretty
significant
impact
for
a
100
basis.
Point
change
in
discount
rate
now
that
that
change
you'll
note
changes
every
single
component
here
in
the
contribution
rates,
it
changes
the
normal
cost.
It
changes
the
interest
on
the
unfunded
liability
and
it
changes
the
amount
of
the
principal
you
pull.
K
But
if
we
had
that
loss
it
would
increase
to
81.1.
That's
because
of
all
the
smoothing
we're
doing
that.
It
only
goes
up
that
much
the
place
that
it
really
shows.
The
volatility
is
that
interest
on
the
ual
would
go
from
12
up
to
43,
so
we
would
suddenly
much
less
of
our
contribution
would
go
to
paying
down
the
ual
and
more
of
it
just
to
paying
the
interest
on
the
ual
and
the
ual
would
be
much
larger
and
then,
as
we
smooth
in
those
asset
losses,
the
contribution
rate
would
go
higher.
K
So
we
wanted
to
show
a
few
other
projection
scenarios
and
look
at
the
sensitivity
and
part
of
it
is
to
understand
in
the
immediate
term
how
much
that
500
million
dollars
that
we
haven't
recognized
tells
us
so,
on
the
left
hand,
side
here
we're
showing
the
the
contribution
calculated
in
this
valuation
as
a
dollar
amount
and,
on
the
right
hand,
side
as
a
rate
of
pay
and
comparing
it
to
what
would
be
the
contribution
in
the
next
calculated
in
the
next
valuation
or
a
full
range
of
investment
returns
from
a
positive
30
percent
to
a
negative
15.
K
So
you
can
see
what
the
impact
is.
The
diamond
in
the
center
here
is
what
we
expect
it
to
do.
So
that's.
If
we
get
6.625
percent
and,
like
I
said
on
the
prior
side,
we'd
expect
it
to
drop
to
72.3,
that's
dropping
to
about
194
million
from
212
men.
So
a
pretty
significant
drop
in
the
city's
contribution
expected.
F
K
F
Quick
question
just
so
that
you
know
not
only
members
can
understand,
but
for
clarification
when.
A
F
K
Okay,
and
because
of
that,
what's
what
I
think's
interesting
here,
we
have
a
very
strong
downward
pressure
on
city
contributions
in
the
short
term
in
20
it
if
we
get
a
return,
that's
better
than
negative
13.5
percent
and
all
other
assumptions
are
met.
K
K
So
we
used
makita's
10-year
capital
market
assumptions
and
looked
at
the
range
of
returns
over
one
year
and
over
five
years
and
we
just
picked.
We
created
one-year
shock
scenarios
using
the
95th
and
5th
percentile
returns
and
then
here
kind
of
moderate
scenarios
looking
at
9.6
and
1.9
returns.
K
And
so
on,
the
left
side
here
we're
showing
the
city's
aggregate
contribution
rate
across
all
across
both
tier
1
and
tier
2.
and
the
the
green
well.
The
blue
line
is
our
baseline
and
the
green
lines
are
the
positive
scenarios,
the
one-year
shock
or
the
five-year
month.
Moderate
and
the
red
lines
are
the
negative
scenarios.
K
The
five-year
moderate,
negative,
one-year
shock
negative,
I
think,
what's
what's
interesting,
is
there's
in
all
these
cases:
you're
seeing
downward
movement
initially
and
even
in
the
negative
in
the
five-year
moderate
we
go
down
quite
a
bit
before
we
go
back
up
and
the
peaks
that
we're
getting
in
these
scenarios,
which
only
run
one
year
or
five
years,
are
still
below
what
the
city
is
paying
this
year.
K
And
there
is
this:
just
really
strong
downward
trend
and
the
positive
scenarios
have
it
dropped
very
quickly
now.
The
reason
we
end
up
with
just
kind
of
this
lower
limit
here
is
in
these
scenarios,
your
the
plan
is
becoming
fully
funded
and
we
have
a
minimum
contribution
of
the
normal
cost,
so
all
of
them
are
are
hitting
that
all
the
positive
scenarios
are
hitting
that
down
here.
K
Tier
2
members
pay
50
of
the
ual,
so
their
contributions
also
move
around,
but
we
wanted
to
show
you
it.
It
looks
here
like
they're
moving
a
lot,
but
you
need
to
pay
attention
to
the
scale.
The
scale
is
quite
different
here,
essentially,
almost
all
of
them
fall
between
14
and
a
half
and
15
and
a
half
percent
of
pay.
K
So
it's
a
potential
swing
of
one
percent
of
pay
in
the
near
term
for
tier
two
members
based
just
on
investment
returns.
K
So
here's
our
stochastic
projections.
K
And
the
spray,
because
we
don't
really
know
exactly
where
it's
going
to
go.
We
have
a
general
idea,
but
there's
this
potential
spray
around
where
contribution
rates
may
go.
What's
changed
is
this
year
that
hose
is
pointed
downward,
so
we
can
still
have
rates
that
go
up,
but
the
predominance
of
rates
is
going
to
drop
at
least
initially.
D
D
K
Does
it
is
pretty
remote,
so
you
know
I
think
next
year
2024
it's
a
very
remote
possibility
that
they
would
go
up.
But
when
you
get
out
five
years
you're
getting
to
something
more
in
line
of
one
in
ten
or
something
like
that.
K
Yeah,
so
you
know
the
the
returns
we've
had
are
going
to
bring
us.
You
know,
there's
a
strong
pressure
to
bring
us
down
and
then
there's
volatility
around
that
landing
point
with
future
returns
and
so
getting
us
all
the
way
back
to
where
we've
been
it.
It
takes
quite
a
bit.
D
Does
that
find
the
final
thought?
I'd
really
two
questions
here
bill?
D
Does
that
imply
to
you
that
we
should
get
more
conservatives
so
that
we
decrease
the
probability
of
bad
news
or,
as
you
said,
gustro
you
get
around
90
95
funded
things
change
I
mean.
Does
this
imply
to
you?
A
change
in
strategy
bill,
just
sort
of
say,
hold
the
course
for
a
bit
or
is
that
a
fair
question.
K
Well,
I
think
that's
a
real
policy
question
for
the
board,
but
as
we
approach
a
hundred
percent
you'll
notice,
there's
no
there's
a
four
down
here,
so
you
start
getting
to
the
point
where
good
investment
returns.
Don't
change
your
contributions
in
the
near
term.
The
bad
investment
term
returns
do,
and
so
would
it
make
sense
when
you
start
approaching
that
to
try
and
do
something
to
take
these
bad
returns
off
now.
K
I
think
this
is
something
that
we
should
maybe
do
at
a
retreat
to
talk
about
some
possibilities,
because
this
shows
you
one
of
the
problems
that
we
have
to
address,
and
I
have
some
thoughts
on
how
to
get
around
this,
but
the
traditional
way
to
do
it
would
be
to
make
your
investments
more
conservative,
which
would
also
reduce
your
discount
rate.
K
K
So
we
need
to
think
about
how
how
different
strategies
might
work
to
manage
those
negative
risks,
and
I
think
we
would
like
probably
like
to
manage
those
negative
risks,
and
so
one
possibility
I've
been
working
with
but
have
not
implemented
for
anyone
and
would
need
to
work
closely
with
your
investment
people
over
it.
It
is
a
mechanism
where
we
could
bifurcate
the
valuation
and
isolate
a
portion
of
the
in
pace
status,
liability
that
might
be
matched
up
with
a
fixed
income
board.
D
Phil's
kind
of
suggesting
is
sort
of
what
what
guys,
what
my
pension
does
right.
You
know.
I've
got
some
piece,
that's
putting
food
on
the
table
and
painting
electric
bills,
some
which
I
earned
from
previous
companies
I
started.
Then
I
got
the
rest
of
my
portfolio
where
I'm
actually
playing
the
game.
Harvey,
go
ahead,
jump
in
up
you're,
unmuted
harvey.
D
A
Okay
bill:
could
you
put
that
I'm
glad
drew
I'm
glad
you
asked
that
question
and
well
I'm
glad
you
put
slide
12
back
on
the
screen,
because
I
wanted
to
ask
you
about
that.
D
A
D
A
So
the
the
this
slide
shows
these
two
charts
as
independent
variables
as
as
two
different
scenarios.
One
focused
on
this,
the
sensitivity
of
the
discount
rate
and
the
other
sensitivity
to
an
investment
loss.
A
And
then
I
wanted
to
ask
you
about
the
interdependence
of
these
two
because
of
these
two
charts,
because
a
board
decision
to
take
risk
off
the
table,
for
example
by
intentionally
dropping
the
discount
rate
and
therefore
taking
some
risk
out
of
the
portfolio
not
dropping
the
discount
rate,
because
the
market
forces
you
know
the
market
returns,
don't
support
it,
but
a
conscious
decision
to
change
our
investment
mix
to
as
I'll
say
colloquially.
Take
some
risk
off
the
table.
A
That
would
have
a
direct
impact
on
the
likelihood
of
the
other
chart
happening.
The
likelihood
of
the
state
of
a
two
standard
deviation
loss
and
I'm
wondering
whether
or
not
you
could
demonstrate
for
the
board
not
today,
perhaps
but
at
a
retreat
or
whatever
demonstrate
the
interdependence
between
those
two
things
to
show.
A
You
know,
while
it's
true
that,
if
we
were
to
drop
the
discount
rate,
the
pressure
would
be
on
the
city's
contribution
rate
going
up,
that
it
would
take
risk
off
the
table
and
make
it
highly
unlikely
that
we
would
have
those
outsized
two
standard
deviation
losses.
Does
that
make
sense,
and
is
that
something
that
you
think
that
could
be
demonstrated
so
that
even
someone
like
me
could
understand
it.
K
Yeah,
absolutely
the
it
doesn't
change.
The
likelihood
of
a
two
standard
deviation
loss,
but
it
changes
the
size
of
a
two
standard
deviation
loss.
So
you
know
if
our
standard
deviation
is
14.
Now
that
two
standard
deviation
loss
is
28.
K
K
K
K
So
there
would
be
a
lot
of
details
to
work
out
with
that
strategy,
a
fair
amount
of
coordination
on
with
the
investment
side
to
make
sure
we
could
do
it.
I
I
have
some
thoughts
on
how
to
make
that
easier,
but
that's
why
I
think
it
would
be.
E
K
E
K
At
a
retreat
and
allow
some
time
before
that
to
work
with
prabhu
and
laura
and
others
to
come
up
with
an
actual
strategy
on
how
we
could
implement,
I
think
the
question
for
the
board
would
be:
do
we
wait
till
we're
100
funded
to
implement
start
implementing
that
or
do
we
want
to
look
at
some
sort
of
glide
path
into
it
that
might
start
somewhere
before
100.
D
K
Well,
I
don't
think,
there's
a
magic
line
that
you
cross.
It's
not
a
bright
line,
and
so
certainly,
I
think
anywhere
in
the
the
90
range.
It
would
be
reasonable
to
start
thinking
through
the
glide
path
approach
and.
D
D
K
D
Maybe,
as
far
as
I'll
reach
out
to
you
after
this
meeting,
maybe
this
is
something
to
turn
over.
The
investment
committee
and
prabhu
thanks
bill
keep
going.
K
I
I
I
do
think
you
know
we're
at
87
percent
now,
but
if
the
market
behaves
like
it
did
yesterday,
this
discussion
could
be
moved
for
a
while.
So
it's
something
we
need
to
monitor
and
think
through
what
the
best
approach
would
be.
K
All
right,
so
we
wanted
to
show
tier
one
versus
tier
two
on
these
stochastic
projections,
and
I
set
the
scales
to
be
the
same
so
that
you
can
get
this
sense
and-
and
the
main
point
here
is:
it's
still
all
about
tier
one.
That's
where
the
volatility
is.
That's
where
the
assets
are.
K
The
tier
2
is
growing
very
rapidly,
but
it's
very
small
right
now,
and
so
the
volatility
and
investment
returns
does
not
have
much
impact
because
the
liabilities
are
growing.
The
payroll
is
growing
all
of
that's
going
on
there.
So
really
all
this
volatility
discussion
is
really
about
tier
one
right
now,.
K
Then,
to
kind
of
lead
to
that
discussion,
we
were
getting
to
about
what
happens
if
we
just
continue
this
path.
What
are
we
seeing
in
terms
of
the
ual
and
funded
status?
K
This
is
just
looking
at
the
ual.
Of
course.
We
project
this
nice
smooth
path
to
2029,
where
we
get
fully
funded
and
stay
fairly
close,
but
the
volatility
around
that
is
significant
and
one
of
the
things
to
note
here
is
there's
less
volatility
of
the
ual
going
up,
because
when
the
ual
starts
going
up,
we
increase
contributions
to
pay
it
down,
so
that
helps
create
kind
of
this
limit
to
how
much
the
ual
can
go
up.
K
That's
assuming
the
city
can
pay
all
those
contributions
on
the
other
side.
If
we
just
kept
the
same
policies
in
place,
we
get
to
a
limit
where
contributions
are
zero
and
if
we
continue
to
have
good
investment
performance,
we
can
just
develop
this
huge
surplus
that
provides
a
cushion
against
future
contributions.
K
But
there's
no
immediate
gain
to
it,
because
the
contributions
are
stuck
at
that
normal
cost
level
and
then
just
to
look
at
the
the
probability
from
these
stochastic
projections
of
being
80,
funded
or
higher
or
100
funded
or
higher.
There
is
a
possibility
of
getting
to
a
hundred
percent
next
year.
It's
not
huge
but
over
time,
given
our
contribution,
structure
and
investment
structure.
K
That
probability
increases
we're
currently
over
80
percent,
but
there's
also
the
probability
that
we
drop
below
80
with
those
with
the
investment
volatility,
but.
K
So
that's
all
we
had
for
this
presentation.
There
are
some
details
in
the
appendix
here
on
the
contributions.
There's
also
the
full
report
that
has
a
lot
more
tables
of
detailed
numbers
and
so
forth.
So
take
any
questions
you
may
have.
D
Yeah
go
ahead.
Floor
is
open
for
questions
for
bill.
I
know
we're
asking
questions
if
anybody
wants
to
jump
in,
go
ahead.
Jump
in
mr.
D
Happy
new
year
dick
floor
is
open.
Anybody
want
to
jump
in.
C
I
guess
maybe
this
is
in
the
same
lines
as
what
drew
was
asking
for
before,
but
given
the
you
know
the
the
fantastic
reserve
of
this
500
million
that
we
have
so
to
speak,
how
do
we?
How
do
we
preserve
that
to
reduce
our
risk
profile
in
the
future?
I
mean
by
the
way
I
thought
this
is
fantastic.
C
I
think
this
presentation
is
really
superbly
done,
and
I,
a
lot
of
my
questions
are
sort
of
you
know
feel
like
they've
come
to
light
so
to
speak
in
answers.
So
I'm
just
wondering
if
that's
sort
of
something
you
thought
about
the
500
million,
how
to
how
to
make
it
a
a
reserve
that
continues
to
be
there.
K
So
it's
just
a
it's,
not
really
a
reserve,
except
in
our
actuarial
funding
method
of
smoothing
out
the
investment
returns.
K
We
just
spread
it
over
five
years,
so
the
plan
here
would
be
to
recognize
it
over
the
next
five
years,
which
is
what's
driving
the
contributions
down.
K
K
So
the
the
other
way
we're
using
it
is
once
we
recognize
it.
We
amortize
those
gains
as
a
reduction
in
contribution
over
15
years,
and
so
that's
what
each
of
these
little
bars
is
and
we,
if
we
wanted
to
save
more
in
reserve,
we
could
stretch
that
amortization
period
out.
That
would
have
the
effect,
though,
of
increasing
contributions
in
in
the
short
term.
K
So,
given
how
high
the
contributions
have
been,
I
I
think
it
does
make
some
sense
to
just
follow
what
we're
doing
right
now
and
get
some
gradual
relief
to
the
city.
K
But
at
some
point
there
is
the
question
of:
can
we
reduce
some
of
the
risks
and
use
the
funded
status
here
to
to
reduce
those
risks,
while
keeping
the
contributions
at
a
at
a
reasonable
level?
And
I
think
that
is
kind
of
the
next
frontier.
We
need
to
explore
some
some
possibilities
for
that,
and
and
that's
the
kind
of
thing
I
was
just
talking
about
about
bifurcating
the
portfolio.
D
Hey
bill,
you
sort
of,
let
me
just
jump
in
sending
them
back
to
you,
you
sort
of
said
the
thing
about
talking
to
the
people
are
other
pension
funds
in
a
similar
circumstance.
After
the
record
returns
of
last
year,.
K
Yeah
to
varying
degrees,
so
for
federated
they're,
not
as
well
funded,
and
so
they
didn't
get
as
big
of
a
bounce
out
of
the
investment
returns
and
largely
what
they're
seeing
is.
Instead
of
projected
increases
in
contributions,
the
projection
is
now
flat.
K
They're
now
112
funded,
and
so
it
is
creating
a
much
steeper
drop
in
their
contributions
and
another
one
they're
like
100
203
funded,
and
you
know
they're
debating
whether
they
want
to
continue
down
this
type
of
downslope
or
if
they
just
want
to
drop
everything
down
to
the
normal
cost.
Right
now,.
C
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
think
the
perhaps
mike
was
thank
you
bill.
That
was
very
helpful.
I
I
think
it
sort
of
ties
into
what
you
asked
before.
Should
we
take
some
risk
off
the
table
and
given
how
much
this
board
before
my
joining,
did
such
a
good
job
of
moving
swiftly
when
the
market
was
down.
It
sort
of
certainly
begs
the
question
I'll
leave
it
to
the
investment
committee
to
I
guess
debate
that
just
one
last
thing
bill.
C
K
Yeah,
I
think
in
the
report.
It's
we
disclose
the
standard
deviation,
which
I
think
is
13
point
something
and
we
assumed
a
geometric
return
of
6.625
with
that
and
we
used
a
log
normal
distribution,
our
our
model
treats
each
year
as
an
independent
identically,
distributed
return,
which
is
a
fairly
simplified
model.
I
think
a
lot.
K
G
Yeah
thanks
thanks
bill.
I
thought
it
was
really
interesting.
Work
enjoyed
enjoyed
the
presentation
now
and
I
agree
with
the
what
everyone
has
talked
about
in
terms
of
taking
risk
off
the
table
and
when
that
has
to
be
evaluated
in
the
threshold,
and
I
think
it's
going
to
be
an
important
important
decision.
I
actually
do
have
a
question
on
this:
the
stochastic
analysis,
not
technical,
but
if
you
can
go
back
to
slide
17
real
quick,
and
I
hope
this
is
a
fair
question
bill.
G
What
what's
been
the
what's
been
the
sort
of
the
trend
of
using
this
analysis
of
all
the
volatility
in
the
blue,
going
back
historically
to
when
you
analyzed
prior
prior
circumstances.
In
other
words,
if,
if
you
can
roll
back
a
few
years,
what
was
what
were
the
results
like
in
terms
of
you
know
between
the
95th
and
25th
percentile?
How
did
that?
How
did
that
look-
and
you
know
historically
and
then
just
sort
of
get
a
sense
of
you
know
how
tomorrow
might
look
like.
K
Yeah,
so
you
you
can
get
a
sense
of
the
direction
it
was
pointed
by
looking
at
these
historical
rates.
But
if
you
just
go
back
a
couple
years
here
or
even
last
year,
it
was
pointed
much
more
directly
out,
and
so
you
get
actually
a
wider
range,
because
the
dam,
the
good
returns
on
the
bottom
side,
were
not
limited.
K
So
the
the
range
still
reached
from
down
to
around
20.
But
I
think
we
went
up
above
130
percent
of
payroll
on
the
high
end
of
the
risks.
G
Okay,
so
I
guess
in
in
general
would
would
you
say
that,
in
terms
of
like
the
dark
streak
in
the
in
that
in
that
cloud,
was
if
you,
if
we
had
done
this
analysis,
you
know
in
2015
or
whenever
that
was
did,
did
it
track
did?
Did
the
analysis
track
to
roughly
to
where
it
went
eventually.
K
Well,
so
last
year
the
dark
streak
would
have
followed
roughly
this
2020
projection.
So
it
was
much
more
straight
out
and
then.
G
K
There
was
a
bend
down
instead
of
being
pointed
down
with
a
similar
spread
around
that
that.
A
K
All
right-
and
so,
if
you
go
back
a
little
bit
for
there,
was
always
this
downward
trend
starting
out
here
around
2029,
because
that's
when
we
paid
off
some
of
the
prior
investment
losses.
D
If
not
I'll,
entertain
a
motion
to
approve
these
final
pensions,
in
fact
I'll
make
the
motion.
I
move
that
we
approve
these
final
pension
val
valuation
results.
Do
I
have
a
second.
D
D
K
All
right,
let
me
hold
on
a
minute
here.
I
get
myself,
get
the
right
presentation
up.
K
Okay,
so
this
part
we're
presenting
the
preliminary
actuarial
evaluation
results
on
the
opeb
evaluation,
and
I
have
mike
shining
with
me
he's
our
health
care
actuary
and
he's
going
to
help
me
with
this
presentation.
K
Just
quickly
start
out,
we
talk
a
lot
with
the
opeb
about
the
explicit
subsidy
in
the
implicit
subsidy.
The
implicit
subsidy
is
the
cost
of
the
retiree
health
care,
that's
above
the
average
premium
rate,
so
it
gets
paid
as
a
part
of
the
city's
active
health
premiums
on
a
pay-as-you-go
basis.
K
The
focus
of
the
board
is
on
pre-funding,
the
explicit
subsidy,
which
is
the
premium
subsidy
provided
by
the
opec
plan.
So
we
are
really
focused
on
just
that
explicit
subsidy
in
this
presentation
that
the
funding
mechanism
for
the
oped
is
slightly
different
or
slightly
more
complex.
I
guess
than
the
pension
in
that
there
are
two
different
trusts.
K
K
The
other
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
we
talk
about
adjusting
the
valves
for
the
contributions
changing
the
level
of
contributions
for
the
opeb
system.
The
employee
contributions
are
fixed,
and
so
we
do
not
adjust
those
those
are
set
in
statute.
K
K
K
I
we
just
tracked
the
market
value
of
assets
for
the
opeb
plans,
and
so
the
pension
or
the
police
oped
plan
went
from
32
funded
to
40.5
funded
and
the
fire
oped
plan
went
from
28
funded
to
39
and
a
half
funded,
so
the
funded
ratios
are
much
lower
than
the
pension
plan,
but
the
dollars
are
also
much
smaller
so
that
the.
K
The
contributions
here,
the
member
contributions
have
been
going
down.
That's
because
we're
a
closed
group
for
making
member
contributions.
K
That's
just
slightly
above
the
member
contribution,
so
most
of
the
city
contribution
is
going
to
pay
off
the
unfunded
liability
and
the
members
are
covering
most
of
the
normal
costs,
there's
a
small
normal
cost
for
the
city,
especially
since
we
reduced
the
discount
rate
from
six
and
a
quarter
to
six
percent.
K
So
that's
the
other
thing
that
has
kept
the
contributions
level
this
year.
We'll
turn
it
to
mike
to
take
us
through
the
rest
of
this.
L
And
then
we
showed
the
number
of
deferred
vested,
which
are
unchanged
for
police,
and
it
went
up
percentage-wise
a
lot,
but
from
one
to
three
for
fire,
and
then
we
have
those
that
are
actually
getting.
The
benefit
currently
went
up,
which
makes
sense
because
basically
it's
the
people
that
are
no
longer
contributing
the
act,
full
benefits
essentially
moving
into
the
retiree
category.
L
L
We
would
have
expected
it
to
be
more
in
the
range
of
eight
percent,
so
in
total
we
take
it
all
together
to
get
essentially
really
good
news.
So,
even
with
the
drop
in
the
discount
rate,
the
overall
liability
went
up
by
just
under
two
percent
for
police
and
essentially
was
unchanged
for
a
fire,
and
so
then
we
build
in
the
impact
of
the
significant
increase
in
the
assets
due
to
the
really
good
returns.
L
And
so
this
actually
shows
where
that
whole
change.
So
again,
the
total
ual
decreased
by
59
million.
But
you
know
what
was
the
actual
source
of
everything
and
a
big
piece
of
it
was
the
investment
returns
that
were
much
better
than
expected
and
the
other
piece
of
it
that
was
good
was
the
liability.
Experience
was
better
than
expected,
which
again
was
caused
primarily
due
to
premiums
not
going
up
anywhere
near
as
much
as
we
expected
them
to
we've
been
that
had
some
slight
decreases.
L
The
total
contributions
made
we're
still
not
quite
enough
to
cover
the
tread
water
amount,
which
is
really
the
increase
in
the
unfunded
liability
due
to
interest.
But
it's
really
small
so
we're
getting
to
the
point
where
actually
we're,
starting
to
significantly
make
contributions
greater
than
what's
needed
to
maintain
the
level
of
the
ual.
So
it
will
continue
to
decrease,
and
then
29
million,
due
to
some
assumption,
changes
that
were
around
some
of
the
changes
and
demographic
assumptions
needed
to
be
consistent
with
what
they've
done
with
the
pension
plan.
They're.
L
For
purposes
of
op,
it
really
shows
the
volatility
is
really
due
to
more
so
the
liability,
experience
and
investment
experience
than
anything
else,
which
is
very
different
from
the
pension
plan.
So
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
this
actually
gives
us
kind
of
in
this
historic
picture
over
the
last
five
years
is
to
you
know.
Overall,
the
uil
decreased
by
76
million
dollars,
and
we
actually
had
a
93
million
dollar
decrease
due
to
liability
experience,
which
is
premiums
lower
than
expected
over
that
period.
L
L
We
actually
then
had
a
53
million
dollar
reduction
due
to
the
benefit
changes
in
what
happened
in
2017
due
to
measure
f,
the
implementation
of
the
viva
and
all
of
those
program
changes
really
dropped
it.
Overall,
we
actually
had
27
million.
Do
investment
gains
so
we
actually
had
positive
investment
experience
over
this
whole
period
of
time.
L
We
did
have
an
11
million
dollar
loss
through
the
asset
method
change,
because
we
essentially
when
we
moved
into
the
new
programs
and
the
plan,
became
closed.
We
went
from
using
smooth
value
of
assets
like
we
do
for
the
pension
plan
just
using
the
market
value,
so
therefore
kind
of
an
immediate
recognition
of
prior
losses.
L
The
next
chart
really
shows
where's
the
liability
coming
from
and
the
dark
blue,
the
blue
numbers
are
the
actual
retirees
they're
in
a
the
yellow
number,
which
you
can
hardly
see
are
those
small
number
of
vested
terms.
So
people
have
left
the
city
can
come
back
to
get
a
benefit
at
some
point
in
time
and
then
the
actives.
L
So
it
really
shows
that
almost
70
percent
of
the
liabilities
associated
with
retirees
are
actually
currently
getting
the
benefit,
and
the
other
interesting
issue
is
from
a
long-term
point
of
view.
Two-Thirds
of
your
benefit
is
really
associated
with
the
benefit
they'll
get
paid
while
they're
eligible
for
medicare
and
only
27
is
the
benefits
pre-medicare
and
then
a
small
amount
for
a
dental
so
and
overall
think
of
it
as
the
liabilities
really
being
driven
by
the
retirees
and
on
a
long-term
basis.
It's
driven
by
what
happens
in
medicare,
so
as
changes
happen
in
medicare
over
time.
L
L
The
next
page
is
the
summary
of
what
the
contributions
around,
and
this
shows
again
if
we
start
from
the
top
at
the
bottom,
for
the
explicit
subsidy,
the
total
contributions
for
the
members
go
down
and
that's
really
just
a
function
of
as
they
retire,
there's
less
members
and
since
their
contributions
are
fixed,
if
less
members
are
going
to
get
less
money,
the
city's
contribution
is
actually
going
up
slightly.
It's
going
up
for
fire
or
fire
from
11
million
to
11
million.
L
Essentially
the
difference
about
60
thousand
dollars,
so
not
much,
and
then
the
fire
or
the
police
is
going
up
by
about
700
000,
so
again,
fairly
minor
increases
when
we
compare
it
to
the
city's
estimated
cap
again.
Last
year,
the
contributions
were
five
to
six
hundred
thousand
dollars,
above
with
the
city's
optional
cap.
L
We're
really
getting
much
closer
to
the
cap
share
because
again,
the
city
can
cap
its
contributions
to
the
plan
they've
chosen
so
far
not
to,
and
hopefully
that
will
continue
to
happen
as
long
as
we
keep
it
close,
and
then
we
show
the
implicit
subsidy
piece
of
it
just
to
show
it
as
bill
said.
That's
being
paid
for
by
the
active
members
for
the
premium
that
actually
declined
slightly
for
fire
and
increased
slightly
for
the
police,
but,
as
you
see
from
a
total
kind
of
contribution
point
of
view,
it's
it's
not
really
a
significant
number.
L
L
D
Thanks
the
the
floor
is
open
and
I
noticed
when
we
look
through
the
crowd.
We've
got
two
folks
that
aren't
members
of
the
border
city
staff,
joe
and
radica
journalists.
I
welcome
you,
the
floor's
open,
if
you
folks
have
any
questions
jump
in
too
floors
open
anybody
got
anything.
D
Going
once
going
twice
all
right
I'll
make
the
motion
that
we
approve
the
chair.
I
I
Hi,
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
clarification
here.
I
I
believe
mr
hallmark
said
that
these
are
preliminary
numbers
and
that
they
will
be
back
next
month
with
the
final
for
approval.
D
Yeah
thanks
folks,
I
just
want
to
say
yeah,
it
says
discussion,
not
action,
so
we
received
that
good
job
bill
and
company
and
we're
fine
with
that,
peru.
Why
don't
you
go
ahead
and
do
3b
and
then
we'll
take
a
five
minute
break
after
you're
done
with
that,
thanks
for
catching
me
on
that
mayjack.
E
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
what
3b
does
is
requesting.
Let
me
just
take
a
look
at
this.
E
Yes
is
for
the
board
to
approve
a
budget
to
hire
compensation
consultants,
so
just
by
way
of
background
the
jpc
met
last
month,
and
this
is
an
ongoing
project
in
terms
of
looking
at
the
compensation
levels
of
both
the
investment
team
and
the
ceo,
and
we
were
told
that
the
jpc
has
the
authority
to
hire
compensation
consultants,
but
the
board
has
to
approve
the
dollar
amount,
the
budget
to
up
for
the
jpc
to
hire
these
consultants
and
just
by
way
of
background,
the
last
compensation
study
was
done.
E
You
know
somewhere
around
four
or
five
years
ago,
and
so
we
did
discuss
a
couple
of
different
options.
One
was
mclargon
who
was
acknowledged
as
the
industry
leader
in
compensation
consulting
and
and
the
the
jpc
also
looked
into
the
idea
of
perhaps
looking
at
incentive
compensation
plan
for
the
investment
team
and
the
other.
The
other
firm
that
we
considered
was
coffin
associates.
E
Trustee
sunzeri,
who
resigned
from
the
board
last
year,
was
actually
in
extensive
discussions
with
with
cough
up
until
the
middle
of
last
year,
especially
to
look
at
the
benefits
package
for
the
ceo,
and
it
was
decided
that
more
data
points
more
data
is
better
than
less
data
and
therefore
that
we
would
actually
hire
multiple
consultants,
and
at
least
two
in
this
case,
so
the
we
took
this
to
the
federated
board
last
month.
E
At
that
point,
we
had
not
got
back
proposals
from
both
mclargon
and
cough,
and
the
federated
board
approved
a
dollar
amount
of
105,
not
exceeding
150
000,
to
hire
these
two
consultants,
and-
and
this
is
of
course
an
an
upper
number
and
after
that,
both
mclogan
and
cough
came
came
back
with
proposals.
E
Mclargon,
of
course,
is
a
very
comprehensive
proposal,
including
the
creation
of
an
incentive
plan
and
that
their
proposal
came
in
at
seventy
thousand
dollars
and
coffin
associates
was
an
extension
of
the
work
that
they
were
doing
and
that
they
came
in
just
under
twenty
thousand
dollars.
So
so
the
actual
amounts
that
they
proposed
were
about.
E
Ninety
thousand,
so
we
approved
so
the
fed
board,
approved
150,
000
and,
and
you
can
approve
the
same
amount
or
a
lower
amount,
given
the
fact
that
we
know
that
both
these
consultants
came
in
at
90.,
it'll
be
nice
to
have
some
room
in
case,
there's
some
additional
work
that
the
jpc
wants
them
to
do.
E
F
Yeah,
just
to
add
to
that,
I
just
want
to
make
it
clear
to
the
board.
I
think
it
may
be
helpful
to
approve
the
150
just
as
federated
to
keep
it
consistent
and
provide
some
flexibility
that
was
suggested,
but
I
want
the
board
to
understand.
This
is
a
combined
cause,
so
it's
not
150
per
plan.
It
will
be
combined,
so
the
total
amount
will
be
shared
by
the
two
plans.
So
if
it
comes
to
say
120,
then
it
will
be
paid
60
by
one
plan
and
60
for
the
other.
Just
so
that
is
clear.
D
D
D
Why
don't
we
run
in
that
mode
where
you
kind
of
have
training
bills
on
for
a
couple
years,
and
then
you
know
come
back
and
we're
all
about
now
right,
five,
six
years,
then
we'll
take
training
wheels
off,
but
you
know
in
conversations
with
some
of
you
and
and
with
prabhu
and
with
roberto,
I'm
not
sure,
that's
the
right
thing
to
ask
for,
and
you
can
sort
of
see
it
here
in
peru's
pitch.
I
know
in
talking
to
federated
as
well
to
anurag
and
to
the
folks
there.
D
The
right
thing
may
not
be
to
ask
for
more
autonomy
from
the
city,
but,
as
peru
suggests,
to
set
up
an
incentive
compensation
system
and
to
continue
to
give
the
city
oversight
on
that.
We
don't
know
yet.
This
is
all
very
nascent
and
in
fact
what
peru
is
asking
for
is
a
budget,
so
we
can
work
with
professionals
who
know
mclaughlin.
D
It
could
be.
You
read
their
proposal,
so
they
can
tell
us
what
other
systems
do
as
as
roberto's
law
pointed
out,
and
then
you
know,
drew
we're
going
to
come
up
with
this
great
idea
and
then,
depending
on
who
gets
elected
in
november
or
in
june,
that
this
whole
thing
may
hit
a
roadblock.
D
So
I
would
ask
the
board
to
approve
this.
It's
really
kind
of
a
fact-finding
thing
as
much
as
anything
else,
and
then
a
couple
of
this
proves
says
we
we
have
to
update
the
numbers.
In
any
case,
we
in
fact
we
should
have
updated
them
a
year
or
two
ago,
but
I
think
the
pandemic
made
that
kind
of
work
hard.
So
floor
is
open.
If
you
have
any
questions
for
peru
or
for
me
or
for
roberto.
G
This
is
howard,
just
one
quick
question
and
I
I
think
it's
a
great
idea.
My
question
is:
is
there
a
particular
reason
why
the
cycle
was
was
the
last
one
three
or
four
years
ago.
G
The
question
is,
is
it
should
it
be
done
more
frequently
or
what
was
the
reason
for
that
that
duration
between
reviews
or
analyses
for
you
know,
market
rates
and
things
like
that.
F
I
think
that's
certainly
a
policy
question
for
the
board,
but
I
can
tell
you
the
the
rationale
behind
the
last
com
study.
Is
the
boar
ensue
in
a
search
from
a
new
cio
and
that's
how
the
board
ended
up?
Selecting
prabhu
planning,
and
so
the
compensation
study
at
the
time
was
that
that
was
the
basis
for
the
study,
even
though
he
also
included
the
ceo
position
and
investment
professional
positions
as
well.
I
Yeah,
I
have
one
actually,
so
what
what
dollar
amount
are
we
seeking
from
this
board
in
terms
of
authorization.
D
And
and-
and
you
can
and
give
us
the
summary
of
what
the
budget
looks
like
from
the
attachments
so
far
for.
E
D
D
Yeah
we
wanted
to
you
know
I
asked
for
move.
We
should
vote
on
last,
but
let's,
let's
mirror
what
federer
had
already
voted
on.
Just
keep
it
simple.
Just
I'll
make
the
motion
again.
I
move
that
we
approve
up
to
150
000
by
both
us
and
federated,
for
the
studies
that
peru's
outlined.
Is
there
a
second
to
that
motion.
D
Thanks,
I'm
franco:
let's
go
around
the
room:
sanita
hi,
howard,.
G
D
A
D
A
D
A
D
Get
back
to
it
poor,
a
over
to
you,
roberto.
D
All
right,
let's
see
pam
foley,
are
you
out
there?
I
see
yes,
I
am.
Why
don't
you
go
ahead
and
jump
in
the
way
it's
merged
with
alberto?
Are
you
on
go
ahead,
pam?
You,
you
jump
in
and
we'll
get
to
work
after
you.
B
Okay,
great
happy
new
year,
everybody
really
interesting
reports.
Today,
I
I
love
hearing
all
of
the
information
and
the
data
and
and
some
of
the
positive
things
I
know
the
market
went
nuts
yesterday
in
the
wrong
way
and
that's
just
a
sign
of
the
volatility.
So
I
appreciate
how
you're
all
managing
that
just
some
some
updates.
B
We
haven't
had
a
city
council
meeting
yet,
but
it
has
been
a
month
since
my
last
report,
so
I
wanted
to
give
you
some
information
you
know
covet
is
really
affecting
us
all,
and
so
we
have
delayed
coming
back
to
the
city
from
until
july
or
january,
31st
or
february
1st,
so
we're
actually,
our
staffs
are
staying
away
from
city
hall
at
the
time
being,
permitting
is
being
done
virtually
and-
and
some
of
the
other
functions
that
were
in
person
now
are,
are
virtual
for
the
time
being,
redistricting
we're
almost
done
with
redistricting.
B
B
Also,
we
do
have
a
study
session
next
friday
on
the
budget.
It'll
be
a
preliminary
discussion
on
the
budget,
so
it's
actually
really
good
to
get
your
idea
or
get
the
read
on
what
might
be
the
unfunded
liability
effects
on
the
general
fund,
as
that
has
a
tremendous
impact.
B
The
other
thing
coming
to
council
next
week
is
the
charter
commission
has
concluded
its
work
and
one
of
its
recommendations
will
be
to
move
the
mayor's
race
from
to
be
connected
to
the
presidential
rate,
prime
presidential
race,
which
means
we
need
to
take
that
to
the
vote
of
the
mem
of
the
public,
and
so
that
will
be
submitted
on
on
tuesday
will
vote
on
it.
B
If
approved,
then
it
will
go
on
the
ballot,
and
that
means
the
result
will
mean
that
those
four
for
those
six
or
seven
people
running
for
mayor
right
now
will
only
have
a
two-year
term
and
then
have
to
run
again
in
2024
for
a
four-year
term
and
potentially
two
four-year
terms.
So
it
could
be
ten
years
for
a
mayor,
potentially
the
we
have
moved
because
of
covid.
B
We've
moved
back
to
virtual
city
council
meetings
that
will
be
on
the
11th
and
whether
we
continue
will
really
depend
on
omicron
and
how
pervasive
it
is,
and
we
know
how
easy
it
is
to
to
pass,
and
I
would
encourage
you
all
to
get
your
booster
shots
if
you
haven't,
the
city
will
be
looking
at
imposing
booster
requirements
on
its
employees
and,
of
course,
the
exemptions
are
in
place
and
also
in
our
facilities.
B
Remember
we
passed
a
regulation
several
months
ago
requiring
those
entering
any
of
our
facilities
with
a
capacity
of
50,
50
people
or
more
to
be
fully
vaccinated,
and
now
that
will
be
a
booster
shot
will
be
required
in
that
as
well,
although
that
has
to
be
approved
by
city
council
on
the
11th
as
well.
B
D
Yeah
I
hear
you
pam
happy
to
hear
you
floors
open
any
questions
for
councilman
foley.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
good
morning
to
everyone
and
a
happy
and
healthy
new
22
year
to
all
I
think,
following
up
on
the
council,
member
only
comments
the.
F
Actually
has
paused
his
return
of
employees
to
work
on
sites.
We
had
anticipated
studying
the
year
with
two
days
a
week
welcoming
employees
back
and
giving
the
latest
variant
and
increases
of
the
community.
F
We
pause
that
plan.
We
will
keep
you
posted,
we'll,
continue,
monitoring
the
situation,
and
certainly
I
will
reach
out
an
email
communication
to
the
board
with
any
updates
on
that
plan.
But
that
said
we,
you
know
the
office
remain
closed,
but
we
are
still
open
for
appointments
for
drop-off
and
we
are
trying
to
schedule
virtual
meetings
with
members
as
well.
F
We
we
had
a
number
of
staff
that
were
actually
going
to
the
office
one
or
twice
a
week,
but
we
have
had
a
couple
of
employees
that
either
has
set
the
positive
for
the
new
variant
or
have
been
exposed
to
people
that
have
tested
positive,
and
so
the
number
of
employees
going
to
the
office
have
diminished
decreased
considerably.
F
Nevertheless,
again
as
things
develop,
we
will
keep
you
posted.
As
you
know,
the
year
just
ended
last
september
31st.
That
means
that
we
need
to
issue
the
10.99
r
for
all
our
benefit
payments
and
obviously
we're
working
on
that
process
and
again
we
expect
them
to
be
issue
and
delivered
by
the
demand
they
guarantee
purchasing
power
benefit.
That
was
recently
a
couple
of
years
ago.
F
Reintroduced
by
the
city
is
due
at
the
end
of
this
month,
and
so
we
are
working
on
it
for
those
members
that
are
impacted
by
this
benefit,
where
they
lose
from
the
day
of
retirement.
F
F
I
also
wanted
to
let
you
know,
given
the
inflation
last
year,
it
impacted
the
415
the
10
year,
revenue,
co,
14
cost
section
limit
that
we
are
allowed
to
pay
on
an
annual
basis
by
15
000.
So,
since
we
have
been
monitoring,
this
limit
has
been
the
highest
one-year
increase,
and
so
there
are
a
handful
of
employees
in
the
police
and
fire
plan
that
are
impacted
by
this.
F
We
are
working
on
the
calculations
and
expect
to
issue
letters
to
those
employees
by
the
end
of
the
month,
but
this
fifteen
thousand
dollar
increase
will
mean
that
some
of
them
may
even
get
the
full
amount
they
entitled
to
this
year
or
others.
There
were
maybe
reviews
they
may
be
receiving
less,
but
nevertheless
more
that
they
were
receiving
in
2021.
F
Lastly,
I
wanted
to
let
you
know
dave
wilson.
A
trustee
of
your
board,
who
is
at
the
meeting,
was
the
only
employee
that
reapplied
for
the
position
of
the
trustee
for
the
police,
and
so
the
city
is
working
through
the
process
to
make
sure
that
they
they
have
to
actually
bring
to
the
city
council
a
resolution
to
be
approved
so
that
he
can
be
officially
appointed
in
the
meantime,
as
council
to
your
board
has
reminded
us
considerably.
F
Lastly,
mr
chair,
we
do
have
some
vacancies
at
the
office,
a
couple
on
the
benefit
side
and
a
couple
of
information
technology,
and
we
are
working
diligently
through
the
search
process
to
try
to
fill
those
positions
as
soon
as
possible.
With
that.
That
concludes
my
comments.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Mr
thank
you.
D
Thanks
roberto
floor's,
open
anybody
have
any
questions
for
roberto.
D
If
not,
we've
already
done
item
4c
when
when
chiron
went
3b4c
so
maytech.
I
have
my
script
in
front
of
me.
It's
item
4d
over
to
you.
I
Thank
you.
Everyone,
as
councilwoman
foley
mentioned
omicron,
is
eminent
and
around
and
very
contagious
with
the
backup
materials
I've
provided
with.
You
provides
the
evidentiary
support
for
this
board
to
me
virtually
for
the
next
30
days.
The
evidentiary
support
is
one
the
ongoing
proclamation
of
state
of
emergency
due
to
the
covenant
19
pandemic
and
number
two
would
be
the
city
council's
resolution
to
to
continue
social
distancing
on
in
city
facilities.
I
D
Let
me
go
ahead
and
then
and
incorporate
those
two
into
a
formal
motion
which
I'll
read
and
then
ask
for
a
second
a
move
that,
based
on
the
information
presented
just
now
by
counseling,
provided
with
our
board
backup
materials.
It
appears
that
the
following
factual
findings
justify
the
continuation
of
the
zoom
virtual
meetings
under
ab361.
D
As
maytag
said
number
one.
The
governor's
proclamation
of
the
state
of
emergency
continues
due
to
the
kobe
19
pandemic
and
two
san
jose
city
council's
recent
resolution
continues
to
impose
or
recommend
measures
to
promote
social
distancing,
the
city
in
city
facilities.
Therefore,
I
moved
that
we
adopt
these
two
factual
findings
to
the
election,
to
use
the
ab361s
abbreviated
teleconferencing
procedure
for
the
next
30
days
of
this
board.
Do
I
have
a
second
for
my
motion.
C
D
Hi
dave
hi
and
I
am
chair,
lands.
I
vote
I
as
well
as
we
as
we
all
know,
the
the
lists
of
retirees
in
december
january
long
this
one.
Oh,
my
god,
it
might
be
a
horse
which
number
and
this
one
goes
out
all
the
way
to
t
which
is
pretty
far
into
a
26
elder
alphabet.
D
So
without
further
ado,
the
retirements
of
cheryl
c
acosta
police
officer
police
department,
effective
jan
22
2022,
with
25.84
years
of
service
joseph
s,
I
did
police
sergeant,
police
department,
effective
january
22nd,
2022,
29.9
years
of
service
with
reciprocity,
amador
g
bueno,
police
officer,
police
department,
effective
dan
22nd,
2022,
27.59
years
service
with
reciprocity,
the
scott
burke
fire
captain
fire
department,
effective
jan
9,
20,
22,
28.96
years
of
service
with
rest
crossing.
D
James
e
cowan
fire
department,
fire
captain
fire
department,
in
fact
jan
8
22
2022
26.69
years
service,
michael
del
bondo,
fire
captain
fire
department,
effective
dan
22,
22
24.06,
your
service
chris
harmont
fire
inspector
fire
department,
effective
dan
22,
2022,
27.01,
your
service,
paul
l,
hickey,
police
officer,
police
department,
effective
dan
22,
2022,
dan
22,
2022
25.82.
D
We
had
a
lot
of
guys
with
real
service
25.82
years
service,
I'm
edward
s,
legleu
fire,
captain
fire
department,
in
fact
jan
9
2022
27.5,
three
years
service,
jose
martinez,
police
officer,
police
department,
effective
jan
22,
2022
25.00,
three
years
service,
kyle,
okey
police,
sergeant
police
department,
effective
jan
22,
2022
29.1,
one
year's
service,
christopher
pueller,
fire
engineer,
fire
department,
effective
dna,
2022,
25.93
years
service,
kelvin,
pham
police
officer
police
department,
effective
dan
22,
20,
22
27.4
in
your
service,
jimmy
l,
robnett
police
officer,
police
department,
factory,
jan
1,
2022
22.75
year
service
with
reciprocity,
jeff
silva
fire
captain
fired
a
lot
of
fire
captains,
retiring
fire,
captain
fire
department,
effective
jan
22,
2022
25.5
year
service,
william
g
thornton,
battalion
chief
fire
department,
effective
dan
22,
2022
26.89,
your
service,
barry
torres
police,
sergeant
police
department,
defective
dan
22,
2022,
31.61
years
of
service,
good
for
you,
barry
nathan,
trang
police
officer,
police
department,
jan
22,
2022,
26.26
years
service,
eric
c
weskett
fire
captain
fire
department,
effective
jan
9,
22,
24,
24.
D
D
Dave
hi
I'm
chair
lanza,
but
I
for
those
of
you
that
may
be
watching
this
on
tape.
All
you,
firefighters,
are
retired,
dick,
unfortunately,
santos
are
your
retiree
trustee
had
to
go
to
funeral
and
god
bless
andrew
gardner,
the
vice
chair
and
your
active
member
who's
on
call,
because
so
much
of
his
your
department,
his
department,
your
department
is
out
sick.
I'm
sure
they
would
say
that
that
andrew
would
say.
D
I
worked
for
many
of
you
and
dick
would
say
many
of
you
worked
for
him,
so
we
hope
you
enjoy
a
long
retirement.
Franco
dave
anything
you
want
to
say.
A
Yeah
from
wilson
I
worked
with
and
around,
and
even
for
some
of
the
people
coming
up
for
retirement
or
that
we
approved
just
now
and
they're
all
outstanding
people.
I
wish
from
a
very
long
long
retirement
and
enjoy
it
well
earned.
G
D
D
Hi
I'm
lanza
and
I
vote
I
as
well.
Well,
thankfully,
we
had
a
month
in
which
a
lot
of
people
retired,
but
thank
god
and
all
the
folks
died.
So
I
will
announce
these
these
two
members
that
have
passed
along
pass
on
sorry
and
then
we'll
have
a
moment
of
silence:
a
notification
of
the
death
of
neil
jameson,
firefighter
retired
january
30th,
1993
died
november.
D
Out
of
the
family
of
firefighter
jameson
again
are
active
and
retired
members.
Unfortunately
ones
are
the
funeral
ones
on
duty.
We
pass
along
on
behalf
of
the
board
and
the
system,
our
sincerest
condolences,
anything
you
want
to
say,
frank
or
dave
about
gary.
A
This
is
trustee
wilson
night
to
his
family
and
all
the
people
that
know
him
again
are
sincerest
condolences,
looks
like
he
had
a
good,
long,
retirement
and
god
blessed
him
and
and
moving
on
to
a
better
place.
That's.
D
Great
nicely
said:
thanks
dave
all
right,
we
are
on
schedule
we're
going
to
get
done
a
little
bit
early.
That's
great
investment
committee,
I'm
eshvar
over
to
you.
F
Yes,
so
we
had
a
meeting
on
december
17th
last
month
and
the
highlights
of
that
we
did
analysis
of
transactions,
both
foreign
exchange
and
equity
transactions,
and
they
looked
fine.
It
had
an
overview
of
the
private
markets.
F
It's
a
pretty
comprehensive
review,
the
usual
risk
overview
by
and
then
the
investment
policy
which
we
just
discussed
here
at
the
board
was
also
discussed
at
the
investment
committee
meeting.
That
was
it
and
we
also
you
know,
kind
of
reviewed
the
manager
decisions
for
the
second
half.
D
Great
that,
thank
you
esther.
That's
great.
Let
me
note
for
the
record
that
we
will
receive
and
file
the
minutes
of
the
november
4th
and
august
22nd
august
26th
meetings.
Audit
risk
committee
already
used
nintendo.
C
We
only
met
to
approve
ab361.
I
don't
believe
we
had
a
meeting
in
the
interim,
so
nothing
to
update.
D
Yeah,
I
think
that's
right
soon.
Let
me
for
the
record,
reflect
that
we
receive
and
filed
the
minutes
of
october
21st
and
november
4th
governance
committee
over
to
you,
franco.
F
It
it's
probably
gonna,
be
I'm
gonna,
guess
if
not
later
this
month
february
or
so,
but
we're
still
working
on
it.
D
Thanks
thanks,
franco,
let
me
note
that
we
receive
and
file
the
minutes
from
the
special
meeting
of
november
4th,
where
we
bought
ourselves
in
30
days,
disability
committee
I'll
go
ahead
and
report
since
dixon.
Here
we
we
had
a
couple
of
disabilities
that
you
all
approved
during
the
consent
calendar
nothing
really
to
report
the
the
the
good
news.
D
I
suppose
the
minor
report
is
that
we're
still
in
this
transition
trying
to
implement
what
the
city
council's
asked
us
to
do
in
terms
of
evaluating
disabilities
and
we're
sort
of
in
the
interim
patching
with
with
band-aids
and
bailing
wire
and
ceiling
wax,
and
the
good
news
is
the
bailing
wire
and
ceiling
wax
is
working
very
very
well.
So
we
have
full
control
the
process.
We
were
a
little
worried
there.
I
think
roberto
is
too,
but
that
hasn't
come
to
pass.
D
Let
me
note
for
the
record
that
we
will
receive
and
file
the
minutes
from
november
4th
on
october
12th,
j
joint
personnel
committee.
Let
me
let
me
cover
that
one
too
andrew
and
ashford,
and
I
were
at
that
meeting.
D
So
there
are
sort
of
three
there
are
sort
of
three
things
going
on
and
you
see
two
of
them
on
the
agenda.
The
third
was
what
prabhu
did
earlier
in
the
agenda,
so
the
three
items
were
we
got
to
come
up
with
a
governance
structure.
We
elected
the
chair
of
the
committee,
who
is
from
the
federated
side
and
when
the
jpc
meets
at
noon
today
we
will
elect
a
vice
chair.
It
will
be
one
of
andrew
or
ashfar
or
myself.
I
I'm
hoping
it's
you
ashfar.
D
Let
the
second
thing
we
talked
about
and
we're
gonna
now
talk
some
more
about
it
is.
Is
this
transition
to
a
a
more
full-blown
performance
evaluation
system,
the
so-called
mock
system
that
we've
all
taken
place
in
and
the
mock?
Then
next
year
becomes
the
real
thing
we
sort
of
practice
the
this
year?
That's
what
mark
is
then,
of
course,
we
already
proved
the
other
thing.
Let
me
note
for
the
record
that
we
received
and
filed
the
minutes
of
the
april
30th
meeting.
Hey
roberto.
D
F
D
So
I
guess
the
discussion
I
agree.
The
discussion
so
far
is
that
at
the
last
jpc
meeting
we
thought
the
mock
went
very
well.
We
gave
about
a
dozen
items
of
feedback
and
we
will
discuss
I'm
sure
those
things
here
so
stay
tuned
next
month,
we'll
probably
bring
it
back
to
the
board
for
do.
We
need
formal
approval
on
that
roberto.
F
No,
not
really
we
just
wanted
to
keep
the
borah
prize.
I
think
the
the
one
area
that
we
needed
particular
approval
was
move
up
to
section
number
three,
which
was
the
request
on
the
compensation
studies.
D
D
I
D
I
Yes,
that
would
be
great,
but
before
you
do
that,
I
do
want
to
open
it
up
for
public
comment.
D
Sure
yeah
I'll
go
through
the
thing.
Are
there
any
agenda
items
anyone
wants
to
propose
for
next
month?
D
Hearing
none
this
meeting
is
now
adjourned.
Our
next
meeting
is
february
3rd.
Over
to
you,
may
tech.