►
Description
City of San José, California
Police & Fire Department Retirement Plan Board of June 1, 2023
This public meeting will be held at San José City Hall and also accessible 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=1105479&GUID=2568186B-9B72-4568-B7F2-0DACF9F6B30F
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
Everybody,
remember:
there's
a
mic
button
to
press
it
before
you
speak
for
the
tape,
all
right,
let's
go
ahead
and
go
through.
Let's
call
the
meaning
to
order
and
let's
do
a
roll
call.
I'm
chair,
Lanza
I'm
here,
Sunita
are
you
here?
Yes,
yes,
Andrew!
You
here
here:
David
Kwan,
yes,.
E
B
Great
thanks:
ashwa
are
you
here
here
dick
you're
here,
yes
and
then
turn
over
to
maytech,
Dave
and
Franco
are
at
a
conference,
go
ahead.
Maytag.
E
Yeah,
we
can
see
it
all
right,
so
I'm
going
to
walk
you
through
some
of
the
traditional
Brown
act,
questions
to
qualify
your
participation
to
to
participate
teleconferencely.
F
E
And
did
you
post
the
agenda
at
a
location
where
it
could
be
publicly
seen
at
the
location
from
where
you're
teleconferencing
from.
F
F
B
We
have
no
other
orders
a
day,
but
we
do
have
a
need
to
wave
sunshine
on
item.
2G
do
I,
have
a
motion
to.
B
I'm,
a
second
by
Gardner,
all
in
favor
aye,
bye,
hearing,
none
that
goes
and
closed
session.
B
J
A
K
E
Did
chair
lenza,
would
you
like
to
do
orders
of
the
day
or
grocery.
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
L
B
Closed
session,
some
of
it
requires
signatures
will
report
what
happened
at
our.
A
B
By
Garden
here,
I
have
moisturized
sandwich
thing
in
my
garden
here
as
Maytag
points
out,
we've
got
two
on
the
phone,
so
we'll
go
around
the
room.
Franco.
J
J
F
B
M
We
do
have
somewhat
lengthy
investment
section.
This
morning
we
will
be
discussing
331
performance.
Veris
has
a
very
important
presentation
to
make
and
so
on,
but
before
that
I
do
want
to
inform
the
board.
We
had
an
opening
for
an
analyst
role
and
I'm
thrilled
to
be
on
thrilled
to
announce
that
our
offer
was
accepted,
and
this
young
man,
I,
think
is,
is
calling
in
because
he's
still
at
Cal
Poly
finishing
up
his
Masters,
so
Harrison
Pierce
are
you
there
Harrison.
M
Yeah
I
think
we
can
see
you
so
so.
Harrison
got
an
undergrad
in
in
economics
and
finance
last
year
and
continued
for
a
year
to
get
a
master
of
science
in
business
Analytics
and
grew
up
in
the
small
town
of
Sutter
California,
which
I
had
to
look
up
in
the
map
which
is
outside
of
Yuba
City,
and
he
actually
even
got
a
high
C
on
J's,
very
tough
tests
for
incoming
applicants,
which
yeah,
which
I
believe
is
a
record.
Nobody
gets
everyone
fails
at
this.
M
F
M
Welcome
all
right,
and
so
with
that
I
believe
I
believe
varis
goes.
First,
am
I
right,
yes,
Prabhu.
N
Usually
did
I
miss
you
on
audited
numbers.
Oh.
M
Have
to
find
it
actually,
they
came
from
Jared
or
Laura,
while
I
looked
that
up
so
I'm
going
to
sort
of
introduce
the
the
next
agenda
item
so
I
believe
I,
Eileen's,
Marks,
here,
hi,
Mark,
hello
and
and
I
believe
Eileen's
online
am
I
right.
She
is.
M
She
is
yes,
okay,
so
so
we
did
this
very
important
exercise
a
few
years
ago
on
on
what
a
risk
tolerance
should
be
for
the
for
the
fund
for
the
plan,
and
it
was
time
to
revisit
that
and
so
that
very
important
exercise
after
a
gap
of
five
years
was
conducted
by
Varys
and
Eileen
will
share
the
results.
She
polled
trustees
and
they
did
some
other
work
and
she's
going
to
share
those
results
with
you,
while
I'm
still
struggling
to
find
my
performance
numbers.
O
M
P
Great
thanks
Babu,
so
for
those
of
you
don't
recognize
me,
my
name
is
Mark
gazelle
and
I
work
at
Veris,
I
support,
Eileen
and
other
senior
Consultants,
mostly
with
quantitative
tasks.
P
After
putting
in
a
considerable
amount
of
work
into
the
design
and
execution
of
this
risk.
Tolerance
survey
I
know
that
Eileen
very
much
wanted
to
present
the
results
in
person,
but
it
was
not
to
be
so.
She's
asked
me
to
summarize
the
results
for
you.
However,
if
the
gods
of
connectivity
are
kind
to
us
this
morning,
we
have
both
Eileen
and
Danny
Sullivan.
P
On
the
line
to
help
answer
any
questions
you
may
have
also
I
know
you
have
a
full
agenda
today,
so
I'm
going
to
speak
quickly,
but
I'll
be
sure
and
pause
halfway
through
and
at
the
end
for
for
questions
and
comments.
P
The
last
time
we
did
one
of
these,
for
you
was
in
2018
and
as
a
rule
of
thumb,
we
recommend
doing
it
every
five
years
and-
and
why
is
this
well
aside
from
the
general
benefit
of
fostering
greater
understanding
between
board
members?
P
The
survey
also
provides
us
with
support
for
setting
the
risk
limit
established
in
the
in
the
investment
policy
statement
and
that
that
limit
is
currently
expressed
as
a
12
standard
deviation
of
annual
total
fund
return
and,
roughly
speaking,
this
means
that
in
two
out
of
three
years,
the
fund's
total
return
should
be
within
12
percent
of
the
long-term
average
expected
return,
spoiler
alert.
C
P
So,
to
cut
to
the
chase,
we
saw
nothing
in
the
survey
that
indicated
changing
that
12
number
or
any
other
aspect
of
your
investment
policy,
with
one
notable
exception
which
I'll
come
to
shortly
and
because
of
this,
I
won't
dwell
on
the
survey
process.
Only
noting
that
the
survey
was
constructed
in
collaboration
with
your
investment
staff
and
conducted
in
December,
with
a
very
good
response
rate
and
a
decent
sample
size
in
the
follow-up
interviews
which
were
conducted
in
January.
P
P
B
So
let
me
just
note
that
what
Mark
said
is
really
significant,
because
it's
our
long-term
plan,
if
it
returns
Alpha
roughly
30
basis
points
that
would
take
that
6.65
draw
from
seven
percent,
which
is
slightly
higher
than
the
median
of
our
plans.
And
so
this
is.
Our
key
strategy
is
to
have
the
base
portfolio
reflect
the
increase.
The
decreased
risk,
tolerance
to
San
Jose,
but
have
Alpha
make
up
a
gap,
so
we
can
hear
rails
thanks.
Mark.
P
Thanks
Mr
chair,
so
in
sort
of
congruence
with
that
the
board
is
generally
comfortable
with
a
complex
investment
program
and
finally,
the
trustees
expressed
confidence
in
staff
and
comfort
with
the
current
governance
structure.
P
So
the
remain.
This
is
sort
of
a
two-part
presentation.
The
remainder
of
the
presentation
takes
us
from
the
survey
results
to
our
recommendation.
Of
no
change
in
the
current
risk
limit
is
fairly
Technical
and
quantitative,
so
this
is
a
good
place
to
pause,
to
invite
any
additional
comments
or
questions
regarding
our
general
conclusions
or
anything
noteworthy
that
you
may
have
noticed
among
the
individual
responses
which
are
presented
completely
in
the
the
appendix
to
this
deck.
B
So
for
you
Mark
and
on
Jared,
so
part
of
the
thing
five
years
ago
was
to
look
at
how
risk
rotates
in
the
macro
economy.
Are
you
seeing
any
I
mean
there
is
some
risk,
obviously
from
inflation
that
just
popped
up,
but
are
you
seeing
any
any
significant
changes
in
Risk
over
the
last
five
years.
P
It
does
tend
to
drift,
I
mean
these.
Are
these
are
long-term
Factor
models,
so
I
may
have
to
punt
here
and
see
if
my
my
wrist
directors
on
the
line
Danny,
do
you
have
any
additional
insights
on
that
one.
Q
Yeah
I
mean
what,
when
we
looked
at
this
back
yeah,
it
was
about
five
years
ago.
One
thing
that
we
did
in
the
development
of
the
risk
limit
was
looked
at.
How
a
theoretical
portfolio
had
changed
through
time,
going
all
the
way
back
to
the
the
0.708
GFC
and
what
we
found
was
we
can
build
in
that
buffer
such
that
we
don't
want
to
necessarily
be
making
changes
in
the
middle
of
a
drawdown
event,
so
that
was
I
think
that
was
all
built
into
the
way
we
constructed
these
risk
limits
initially,
but.
C
I
think
if
I
could
add,
I
think
the
question
was
kind
of
what
does
that
risk
landscape
look
like
today
compared
to
when
we
did
this
five
years
ago
and
I
think
Mr
chair
at
that
time,
we
were
looking
at
lower
levels
of
volatility
compared
to
today
right
because
what
happened
is
we
went
into
the
covid
shock?
Volatility
was
elevated
and
it's
remained
elevated
and
and
while
the
covet
or
while
the
pandemic
has
subsided
and
and
the
perception
of
risk
associated
with
that
should
have
subsided.
C
We
now
have,
unfortunately,
uncertainty
with
regards
to
inflation
and
rates
and
potential
economic
Fallout
from
trying
to
rein
in
inflation.
So,
as
a
result,
we
are
in
a
heightened
volatility
environment
compared
to
the
last
five
and
even
10
years.
R
Yeah,
so
if
I
could
ask
a
question
page
four,
where
you
say,
strategic
decisions
should
be
evaluated
or
a
fairly
long
time.
Horizon
agree
with
that.
Now,
the
the
second
part
of
it
implies
asset
allocation
review
should
be
less
frequent.
Now,
trustees
did
not
actually
say
that
you're
just
saying
it
in
place
right
that.
C
Was
everyone
indicated
a
desire
to
sort
of
put
a
stake
in
the
ground
and
kind
of
stay
with
that
for
some
period
of
time
and
not
to
be
sort
of
second
guessing?
If
you
will
and
those
are
sort
of
that's
what
I'm
inferring
based
on
the
discussions
and
the
responses?
And
so
as
we
thought
about
the
results
and
what
the
implications
are
not
related
just
solely
to
the
risk
limits,
but
more
broadly
the
strategic
decision-making
and
policies
around
that
strategic
decision
making.
C
C
I
want
to
distinguish
that
from
updating
your
asset
allocation
policy
with
current
assumptions,
because
your
Consultants
always
update
their
Capital
Market
assumptions
annually.
So
it's
important
for
you
to
understand
how
your
policy
is
doing
under
those
revised
annual
assumptions.
But
that
should
be
more
as
a
you
know,
sort
of
just
read
visit
Brief
Review
as
opposed
to
a
decision
point
or
process
which
involves
making
a
decision
so.
B
C
One
year
would,
it
is,
is
very
frequent
compared
to
how
often
your
fear,
your
peers
undertake
that
exercise,
but
in
particular
based
upon
the
responses
related
to
and
and
we
want
to
separate
strategy
from
implementation,
because
there
was
a
distinction
between
the
time
Horizon
that
the
respondents
associated
with
strategic
versus
implementation.
So
remember,
strategic
is
owned
by
the
board,
and
that
is
reflected
in
your
investment
policy,
as
well
as
your
in
your
asset,
outpatient
policy,
as
well
as
in
your
risk
targets.
So
the
UNIF,
the
the
there.
C
Preference
for
not
revisiting
strategic
decisions
in
or
changing
strategic
decisions
in
less
than
a
five-year
Horizon
and
in
some
cases
more
than
10
years,
implementation
has
to
do
with.
Okay,
we've
set
our
asset,
outpatient
policy.
Implementation
is
actually
delegated
to
staff
right,
because
staff
then
selects
the
strategies
that
ultimately
are
employed
to
implement
or
affect
the
asset
allocation
policy
and.
S
C
The
preference
that
we
saw
by
the
committee
was
well.
We
want
to
kind
of
look
at
that
more
frequently,
maybe
three
to
five
years,
and
that
is
appropriate.
Actually,
implementation
decisions
should
be
viewed
as
shorter
term
relative
to
that
strategic
decision,
which
is
that
should
be
encompassed
a
longer
term
period.
D
A
question
here,
you
know:
whole
concept
of
ass
allocation
to
me
is
a
little
gray
and
fuzzy
sometimes
I
mean
the
distance
past
I,
always
think
of
ass
allocation
at
high
level
as
stock
bonds.
But
you
know
when
you
look
at
the
overall
allocation
of
the
plan.
It's
not
so
much
divided
along
the
stock,
Bond
sort
of
Spectrum.
It's
kind
of
you
have
growth
and
zero
beta
and
then
within
growth.
It
could
be
almost
a
lot
of
different
things,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
the
whole
definition
of
you
know.
D
Strategic
asset
allocation
means
anymore,
so
I'm
just
highlighting
that
that's
somewhat
great
to
me.
So
in
some
sense
you
could
still
have
ass
allocation
decision
in
some
sense,
depending
how
you
define
it
on
a
more
frequent
basis.
But
in
another
sense
you
could
say
that
it's
not
being
changed
that
much
from
a
you
know:
growth
assets.
J
R
I,
don't
think
we
should
make
changes
which
is
kind
of
what
we
did.
We
reviewed
and
didn't
make
any
changes,
but
within
those
buckets
you
know
we
may
find
that
Emerging
Markets
are
less
attractive
than
developed
or
more
attractive,
right
and
I
think
we
should
have
the
flexibility
in
an
annual
basis,
at
least
to
make
those
change.
Yeah.
M
No
I
agree,
I,
think
I,
think
Eileen's
Point
here
not
to
detract
from
the
more
important
discussion
around
the
12
risk.
Target
is
that,
having
observed
us
go
through
our
SAA
process
for
a
couple
of
years
and
the
extent
to
which
we
do
a
deep
dive
into
this,
and
there
was
some
short-termism
that
creeps
into
this
debate
from
time
to
time.
I
think
she's,
trying
to
emphasize
the
point
that
you're
looking
at
this
way
too
often
compared
to
your
peers
and
I.
Take
that
advice,
which
is
good
advice.
M
What
I
would
like
to
do
with
that
takeaway
is
to
bring
it
to
the
IC
for
a
more
in-depth
discussion
in
August,
and
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
change
what
we
do
currently.
But
I
would
like
to
look
we're
always
trying
to
improve
our
governance
and
to
establish
ourselves
as
long-term
institutional
players.
M
So
my
goal
there
is,
after
having
a
discussion
with
the
IC,
of
course,
it's
the
ICS
decision,
but
to
put
some
language
in
the
IPS
that
does
not
force
us
to
actually
revisit
SAA
on
an
annual
basis
and
make
changes,
but
to
set
the
tone
that
SAA
is
longer
term,
but
we
have
the
flexibility
within
that
longer
term
framework,
as
you
pointed
out,
to
make
changes,
and
at
least
for
future
investment
teams
and
boards.
That
can
be
a
guiding
principle.
Okay,.
C
The
fact
is:
is
you've
got
sub
betas
they're
still
betas
within
those
broader
beta
buckets,
and
it's
the
betas
that
typically
are
not
Revisited
on
that
frequent
of
a
basis
in
terms
of
revising
those
exposures.
Typically,
it's
more
of
a
three
to
five
year
as
opposed
to
annual,
because
what
what
we
don't
want
is
sort
of
the
tail
wagging
the
dog.
We
don't
want
short-term,
xcng,
sort
of
risks
or
levels
of
volatility
to
to
drive
that
strategic
decision.
C
So
I
understand
that
that
confusion,
I
I,
agree
as
a
trustee
that
that
probably
is
confusing
but
I
think
as
a
trustee.
The
best
way
to
think
about
asset
allocation
is
beta
allocation
and
all
those
sub-asset
classes
in
main
NASA
classes
are
victims.
T
C
So
that's
versus
the
benchmarks,
that's
the
active,
the
expectation
of
value
added
from
all
of
the
strategies
that
are
being
implemented.
So
it
refers
to
the
expectation
of
that
implementation,
effort
to
add
30
basis,
points
which
makes
sense,
because
a
lot
of
your
public
assets
are
in
depth
and
and
you
have
appropriate
benchmarks
for
your
private
assets.
C
So
you
don't
have
that
Misfit
that
a
lot
of
funds
have
so
I
I
think
30
basis
points
is
certainly
a
reasonable,
so
I
think
there's
a
good
alignment
of
trustee
expectations
and
probably
that
reflects
a
good
understanding
of
how
the
investment
program
is
constructed.
P
T
P
P
Okay,
good
discussion:
if
there
are
no
other
comments
or
questions,
we're
going
to
turn
to
our
recommendation
to
keep
the
12
risk
level,
I'm
gonna
skip
to
page
seven,
and
so
these
are
current
risk
limits
set
in
the
in
the
investment
policy
statement,
and
you
can
see
halfway
down
there
to
the
right.
Is
that
12
number
for
total
fund
absolute
volatility?
P
But
there
are
other
metrics
here
that
relate
directly
to
the
sensitivities
expressed
in
the
survey
most
notably
a
five
percent
probability
of
falling
below
a
60
funded
ratio
and
recall
that
funded
ratio
was.
It
was
a
primary
of
concern,
so
we've
got
that
limit
in
there
and
also
a
30
average
drawdown
for
the
three
worst
historical
scenarios
in
our
risk
model.
P
So
on
page
8
I'm
here
with
chiron's
existence,
we
show
where
you
are
in
relation
to
those
limits.
On
this
page
we
take
various
theoretical
levels
of
drawdown
in
total
fund
value
over
to
the
left
there
and
translate
those
into
impact
on
funded
ratio
and
contributions,
and
you
can
see
that
it
would
take
a
30
percent
drawdown
in
order
to
get
you
down
to
a
60
fund
ratio.
P
P
C
VAR
is
another
measure
it's
sort
of.
If
that
happens,
then
what
is
the
average
loss
so
again?
That
95
percent
number
is
is
to
put
that
in
layman's
terms,
that's
a
one
in
20
year
and
then
the
99
number
is
one
in
100
years,
so
you
can
kind
of
see
where
we're
getting
up
close
to
the
30
percent.
P
If,
if
we
consider
the
the
one
percent
probability
that
that's
an
27
drawdown
and
we
are
actually
kind
of
bumping
over
the
the
policy
guidelines
there
for
the
average
of
the
three
worst
at
12
risk
level,
it's
a
32
percent
draw
down
in
the
IPS
sites.
A
30
drawdown
so
looking
at
taking
this
as
a
whole
is
sort
of
the
reason
we're
not
recommending
an
increase
in
the
12
risk
level.
P
In
case
you're
wondering
very
quickly
on
page
10,
what
are
the
three
worst
scenarios?
So
you
look
over
there
to
the
left
and
they
are
the
covid-19
shock
which
produced
a
according
to
the
risk
model,
would
produce
a
minus
20
return.
P
The
2000
through
2003
is
it's
called
here,
Tech
crash
in
recession,
but
if
you
recall
it
was
dot
com
bust,
followed
by
the
Iraq
War.
So
it
was,
it
was
a
prolonged
bear
Market
that
produced
a
minus
20,
almost
24
percent
draw
down,
and
then
of
course,
the
the
global
financial
crisis
in
around
2008,
which
was
the
sharpest
drawdown
of
the
three
hey.
B
M
A
M
H
B
B
M
It's
hard,
it's
a
hard
question
and
it's
hard
to
time.
This
I've
been
quite
frankly,
I
mean
in
in
hindsight
in
January
2022.
M
We
should
have
lowered
our
beta,
but
it's
it's
such
a
difficult
call,
I
regret
not
doing
it
now
we
could
have
lowered
our
beta
a
little
bit,
but
I
think
we
were
also
trying
to
accomplish
another
goal,
and
that
was
you
know.
As
varus
has
pointed
out,
our
risk
has
been
historically
very
low
right.
We
have
this
appetite
for
12
percent,
but
we
were
at
nine
for
the
longest
time
right
and
it
came
in
very
handy
in
in
March
of
2020.
M
The
the
problem
is,
if,
if
you
it's
very
hard
to
go
back
to
that
nine
percent,
and
then
you
know
and
and
then
again
re
and
justify
taking
risk
back
up
again,
because
I
found
his
just
from
a
behavioral
perspective,
it's
easy
to
cut
risk.
It's
very
hard
to
put
back
risk.
M
I
think
what
you're
suggesting
is.
We
have
some
kind
of
more
programmatic
way
of
saying
this
is
a
time
to
build
up
our
liquidity
and
our
cash.
You
know,
and
then
this
is
a
time
to
redeploy.
It
I
think
it's
it's
possible
Drew.
We
should
have
done
it
in
Jan,
2022.
B
M
I
mean
it's
just
the
current
markets:
environment
I
was
just
we're
talking
to
Laura
during
the
break.
Look,
we
have
the
war,
we
have
high
inflation,
we
have
the
fed's
actions,
we
have
debt
ceiling,
we
have
cr,
we
have
Silicon
Valley
Bank
collapse,
we
have
crisis
after
crisis
in
them
and
the
s
p
has
been
so
resilient
right.
So
how
do
you
time
this
thing?
M
But
but
look
as
I
I
philosophically
I
agree
with
that
that
when
the
market
gets
very
expensive,
you
cut
beta
and,
and
you
keep
some
dry
powder
and
then
you
know
when
you
have
one
of
those
drawdowns
you,
you
know
you're
going
to
have
those
drawdowns
again
and
then
you
redeploy
it
in
fact,
last
year,
when
we
had
those
discussions
at
the
IC,
the
s
p
was
at
3
400
and
we
said:
okay,
maybe
the
drawdown's
done
it's
too
late
to
do
it
now
or
maybe.
B
D
D
Questions
can
answer
this.
The
whole
risk
measure
you
mentioned
of
nine
percent
how's
that
how's
that
measure.
Can
you
enlighten
me
being
the
newest
member
of
the
board
I'm
not
familiar
with
how
that's
measured.
M
That's
just
absolute
return,
so
standard
deviation
of
the
absolute
returns.
D
Yeah
I
mean:
is
it
done
using
a
risk
model?
Are
we
using
the
bar
risk
model
on
the
overall
entire
portfolio
and
that's
how
we're
measuring
the
current
risk
of
the
portfolio
yeah,
exactly
yeah
got
it,
and
when
we
do
that
that
do
we
do
we
like
use
any
exponential
weighting
of
the
risk
or
risk
factors,
or
do
we
just
do
a
like
a
long-term
average?
Just
I,
don't
know
it's
I
know
I
know
it's
a
technical
question,
but
no
you're
technological
guy,
I'm.
M
M
C
It's
important
to
know
we
are
employing
bar
and
we
are
loading
all
of
your
Holdings
and,
and
we
actually
do
a
fair
amount
of
work
and
Danny
can
describe
this
in
more
detail
but
capturing.
If
you
will
the
risks,
specifically,
the
exposures
in
your
private
markets
portfolios
in
order
to
come
up
with
an
X
TNT
total
portfolio
risk
expectation,
so
that
that
11.2,
and
even
that
9.4,
that
we
refer
to
on
slide
11..
Those
resulted
from
an
ex-anti,
not
not
a
historical
or
traditional
return,
bottle
to
risk
testing.
M
Yeah,
so
you
can
look
at
it
exposed
you
can
look
at
it
excited
and
there's
a
distinction
between
absolute
risk
and
relative
risk.
So
the
obviously
we
look
at
our
tracking
error
too
right
so
and-
and
that's
that's
an
important
part
of
this
and
again
once
again,
it's
with
private
markets.
You
know
we
it's
very
hard
to
look
at
any
any
kind
of
meaningful
tracking
error
and
part
of
the
reason
why
our
tracking
error
is
so
low
and
you
can
actually
question
that
is.
D
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
just
want
to
get
a
better
handle
understanding
all
the
risk
number.
That's
that's
out
there,
because
I
see
that
we're
trying
to
get
under
10,
oh
12
or
be
around
12,
and
when
I
see
a
number
like
9.4,
whoa
or
really
far
below
you
know,
given
the
beta
exposure,
we
have
that
doesn't
sound.
You
know
maybe
right
and
then
I
see.
D
Maybe
this
expected
risk
of
1.2,
and
so
you
know,
what's
the
difference
and
what's
causing
the
the
discrepancy
and
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
Ben
handle
it
on
this
whole
thing,
because
that
leads
into
my
me
trying
to
understand
the
draw
down
risk
associated
with
this
portfolio
and
how
risky
this
portfolio
is.
That's,
that's!
That's!
Where
I'm
coming
from.
M
Thank
you,
yeah
and,
and
our
our
objective
has
been
you
know,
for
a
long
time
to
take
less
this
than
our
peers,
partly
because
of
the
the
maturity
of
our
plants
and
how
much
our
sponsor
is
affected
by
drawdowns.
So
we
are
very
cognizant
of
that
and
when
we
come
up
with
our
numbers,
we
tend
to
be
either.
You
know,
on
par
with
our
peers
or
lower
than
our
peers,
and
historically,
we've
been
lower
than
our
peers.
B
And
that
was
the
observation
that
drove
the
development
of
the
alpha
program,
starting
in
2014
was
if,
if
every
pinch
button
should
be
different,
which
we
believe
it
is
and
if
every
city
plan
has
inherently
more
or
less
risk
subject
to
drawdowns,
we
are,
as
you
remember
from
that
chart,
that
bill
puts
upward
the
riskiest
in
the
state,
maybe
one
of
the
riskiest
in
the
country.
Because
of
what
purpose
it
was
such
a
high
ratio
of
regards
the
active.
B
B
But
it's
a
pain
in
the
butt
to
go
to
conferences
and
say:
oh
we're
at
6.675,
and
they
say
everybody
says
you
suck
and
we're
like
we
don't
suck.
Every
plan
is
different,
so
really
as
much
for
emotional
reasons
as
anything
we
came
up
with
Alpha
play
in
his
way,
and
so
you
know
it's
kind
of
interesting
as
we
talk,
but
it's
the
way
I
think
about
it.
You
may
everything.
May
be
different
is
that
we
don't
set
discount
rate
based
on
risk,
which
is
set
the
discount
rate
to
match
our
peers.
B
We
should
set
the
core
rate,
as
varus
says
at
12
6.675,
whatever
it
is,
and
then
we
should
try
to
fill
in
the
Gap
by
aggressively
pursuing
Alpha
and
in
fact,
if
you
remember
when
I
presented
the
state
Council
I
would
argue
that
if
we
generate
more
basis
points
of
alpha,
we
should
lower
the
core
return
lower
the
risk.
So
we
might
might
go
with
back
to
a
lower
Vol.
If,
if
you
can
generate
50
base
points
of
Alpha,
then
Vera
says
look
I,
think
you're
sure
you're
maximum
Vol
is
12..
B
M
10
years
and
if
I
can
just
add
not
to
beat
this
to
death,
that's
a
great
Point
Drew,
but
Dave,
as
you
know,
active
risk.
It's
better
to
take
active
risk
than
absolute
risk,
because
active
risk
on
top
of
absolute
risk
adds
very
little
to
Absolute
risk
because
of
the
way
the
math
works.
So
it
actually
begs
for
higher
tracking
error,
because
that
does
not
necessarily
it's
not
a
one-on-one
with
absolute
risk.
C
I
could
answer
your
question,
though,
to
clarify
the
the
9.4
that
you
refer
to
that's
not
today.
That
is
what
the
risk
profile
of
the
portfolio
was.
We
initially
established
the
12
risk
limit
five
years
ago.
The
asset
allocation
was
very
different,
then
and
then
to
the
point
that
the
chair
and
Prabhu
have
made
San
Jose
had
a
much
lower
risk
profile
relative
to
its
peers
and
then
that
changed,
obviously
with
the
shift
to
the
current
asset
allocation
in
2020.
C
D
B
It's
important
point:
I
mean
that
is
the
whole
point
is
our
risk
is
unusual.
So
therefore
we
had
a
guy
named
Darren
and
at
the
offsite
wherever
did
this,
he
kicked
off.
We
went
around
the
room
saying:
what
do
you
think
and
I
can
remember
its
exact
words?
He
said
this
is
an
important
meeting
quote.
We
don't
have
a
culture
of
risk.
We
do
now
and
you're
part
of
that.
So
dig
dig.
T
One
I
mean
one
mechanical
follow-up
and
one
sort
of
more
conceptual
one.
I
remember
when
we
did
the
SAA
discussion,
Makita
had
adjusted
up
the
wall
on
the
private
markets
does
Varys
do
that
to
address
what
David
was
talking
about
for
these
risk
numbers.
C
So
again,
our
risk
is
Holdings
based
so
and
we
try
to
and
and
I
guess,
I
Look
to
Danny,
maybe
to
specifically
describe
what
we
do
in
the
private
markets.
But
we
do
try
to
align
the
risk
models,
given
the
risk
exposures
that
are
observed
in
your
portfolio,
so
not
just
a
generic
assumption
related
to
risk
for
private
Equity,
but
really
more
honed.
C
It's
not
it's
not
perfect,
not
as
not
as
robust
as
your
public
markets
risk
forecasts,
but
be
any
I,
don't
know
if
you've
anything
to
add
to
maybe
provide
further
understanding
of
how
we're
modeling
the
private
markets
yeah.
Q
So
we
leverage
within
Barra
we
leverage
their
actual
their
private
Equity
model
when
we're
looking
at
the
private
equity
assets
within
the
portfolio
and
that
actually
de-smooths
the
returns
within
private
Equity
to
get
to
to
try
to
get
at
the
true
volatility
of
those
assets,
because
you
know
they're
appraisal
based
right.
So
if
we
use
the
actual
quarterly
returns,
then
the
discussion
has
already
been
had
in
this
meeting.
It
basically
underestimates
the
risk
in
those
portfolios,
so
the
the
model
that
we
use
within
Bara
tries
to
capture
the
true
volatility
by
de-smoothing.
D
M
T
Okay,
we
can
change,
is
offline,
but
I.
Think
Danny's,
answer
about
smoothing,
not
smoothing,
but
not
smoothing,
is
different
from
what
I
remember
hearing
what
Laura's
talking
about
private
markets,
but
again
this
is
too
technical
for
about
discussion.
Let
me
ask
my
second
question:
it's
probably
more
the
the
discussion
today
would
increasing
I
mean
we
seem
to
be
in
the
middle
of
the
road
in
terms
of
conservative
aggressive.
If
I
look
at
page,
nine
would
increasing
the
risk
tolerance
risk
limit
to
13
percent.
M
Not
really
I
think
I
think
what
would
give
me
more
comfort
with
tactical
allocation
is
to
if
we
have
an
opportunistic
bucket
I,
don't
think
the
risk
limit
is
what's
preventing
me
because
I
know
that
if
I
want
to
take
more
risk,
I
can
come
to
the
board
and
say
you
guys
decided
12.
Can
you
please
raise
it
to
13
because
there's
opportunity
there
right
I
mean
it's
the
board
mandate.
J
M
T
But
I
guess
the
SEC
follow-up
to
that
is
given
our
funded
status.
I
understand,
there's
also
the
maturity
of
the
plan
and
I
also
understand
that
we
are
outlier
versus
the
peers,
but
let's
sort
of
keep
all
that
aside,
should
we
be
taking
more
risk
to
bridge
that
Gap?
Should
we
allow
more
in
the
plant,
you
know
to
go
to
13,
for
example,.
M
Yeah
I
mean
I'm,
not
sure
that
decision
is
independent
of
the
impact
on
our
sponsor.
To
some
extent,
if
you
were
to
tell
me
that
there
were
no
considerations
and
we
not
worried
about
drawdowns
and
the
impact
it
will
have
on
our
sponsor.
The
answer
is
yes,.
T
Okay,
that's
fair
I
mean
yeah,
we
have
a
pretty
strong
sponsor
I,
don't
know
what
the
rating
of
San
Jose
the.
N
Radio
San
Jose
is
very,
very
strong
from
the
crazy
standpoint,
but
but
so
let
me
just
add,
because
we
keep
referring
to,
we
are
different
than
our
peers
and
and
that
part
of
the
equation,
I
think
as
as
Prabhu
suggested,
cannot
be
taken
outside
of
the
equation.
To
answer
that
question,
because
when
Cameron
comes
before
you,
the
the
reason
we
are
very
different
is
because
we
are
very
much
sure
our
membership,
so
our
ratio
of
actual
active
members
versus
those
that
are
already
receiving
a
benefit
or
defer
is
much
higher
than
our
peers.
N
What
that
means
is
that
investment
gaining
losses
have
a
much
higher
impact
in
the
plan
than
our
than
our
peers
got
it,
and
when
that
happens,
then
that's
really.
What
draw
the
this
board
to
start
a
lower
risk
framework
and
approach,
because
they
figure
hey
when
things
go
sour,
we
it's
going
to
be
impacting
us
and
the
plan
sponsoring
a
lot
more
than
it
impacts
all.
T
M
Of
each
other
yeah,
let
me
let
me
just
add
this:
before
Harvey
gets
upset.
We
are
fiduciarist
to
our
beneficiaries,
not
to
our
sponsor
and
every
decision
we
make
is
for
our
beneficiaries,
and
so,
if
I
feel
like
that,
there's
opportunity
in
the
market
that
will
enhance
our
returns
and
favor
our
beneficiaries.
I
will
come
to
the
board
and
ask
for
greater
risk.
B
You
yeah
so
I
was
on
led
the
effort
on
graving
on
a
curb
and
Vince
led
the
effort.
Grading,
absolute
Vince
drove
and
Vince
was
chairman
drove
the
meeting
where
various
presented
this
about
five
years
ago.
So
let
me
tell
you
what
the
rationale
for
grading
on
the
curve
is.
So
there
was
a
New
York,
Times
Reporter,
who
published
a
book
a
few
years
ago,
the
wisdom
of
crowds,
and
so
it
can
be
shown
that
a
sufficiently
large
number
of
educated
people
are
very
smart
right.
B
B
Then
we
computed
an
asset
allocation
to
match
that
discount
rate,
and
then
we
said
well
if
we
wanted
to
feel
the
same
level
of
pain
as
our
peers,
how
much
less
risk
we
have
to
take,
because
we
inherently
are
more
prone.
We
feel
the
pain
greater
and
that
number
ended
up
being
somewhere
between
a
25
and
50
basis.
Points
which
led
us
to
go
to
6.675
if
the
medium
was
seven,
it's
interesting.
You
know,
Bill
Hallmark
sent
an
email
to
me
two
months
ago.
B
The
meetings
now
that's
6.9,
so
there
is
possible
as
a
feedback
loop
there,
because
once
we
we
went
down
before
anybody
else.
Did
people
started
following
us
down?
Well,
did
they
just
follow
down
or
did
they
follow
us
I
mean?
Who
knows,
everybody
was
going
down.
Everybody
realized
this
so
on
a
curve
at
2550
basis,
points
below
our
peers,
pain
gets
normalized.
B
Of
course,
then
you
asked
the
right
question
which
so
we
were
were
you
here
at
that
first
meeting
with
mayor
licardo
when
he
said
well,
I
know
you
have
a
lower
discount
rate,
but
we
have
a
really
strong,
City
and
good
point
Sam
right.
So
there's
no
right
answer,
but
it
does
seem
like
we
should
take
a
little
less
risk
than
our
peers
and
the
question
Tavares
and
then
to
me
with
with
Grant
and
Kirby,
is
what
the
heck
does
that
mean
and
can
you
quantify
it,
which
is
why
we're
here.
P
So
thanks
everyone,
that's
an
important
discussion
and
and
I
think
we've
had
a
good
one
today,
unfortunately,
I've
just
lost
my
battery,
so
I
think
I
think
Eileen's
going
to
finish
up
on
on
page
12
for
oh
she's,
already
sharing
the
screen.
P
So
in
general,
our
conclusions
are
that
you're
still
aligned
on
on
your
definition
of
key
risks
and
prioritization
of
of
those
risks.
Fundastatus
volatility
and
drawdown
risk
remain
keyboard
concerns
and
we
think
that's
right
thinking.
P
There
appear
to
be
a
shared
vision
of
how
to
invest
the
assets,
strategic
versus
tactical
planning,
staying
well
Diversified
and
utilizing
private
markets,
then
the
the
issue
we're
kind
of
leaving
hanging
is
is
whether
the
board
should
revisit
the
the
language
regarding
the
frequency
of
SAA
reviews.
B
M
All
right,
thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I'm,
assuming
there's
no
action
required
since
the
risk
tolerance
level
is
unchanged.
Yeah.
Okay,
with
that
I
believe
we
will
now
go
to
discussion
of
our
performance
and
I
am
going
to
invite
I.
Think
it's
Paul
dakit
instead
of
Casey
Boyer
this
time
from
newburger
Berman
Paul,
it's
all
yours.
V
Hello
and
thanks
for
your
time
today,
I'll
try
to
be
relatively
quick.
As
Prabhu
said,
this
is
Paul
daggetts
I'm,
a
managing
director
with
newberger
I've,
been
a
new
burger
for
19
years
now,
I've
worked
on
the
city
of
San
Jose
mandate,
since
it
began
in
June
of
2017..
V
V
Summary
on
the
usual
formats,
the
fourth
quarter
was
relatively
quiet,
both
in
terms
of
private
Equity
markets
and
activity,
but
also
in
in
terms
of
valuation
movements,
and
so
really
just
talk
about
the
progression
of
your
private
Equity
portfolio
on
the
left,
of
course,
is
your
legacy
portfolio
in
the
middle
is
the
new
burger
mandate
since
2017
and
on
the
right
is
the
combination.
V
First
of
all,
in
terms
of
activity,
we
made
two
primary
fund
commitments,
one
secondary
and
two
new
co-investments
in
the
fourth
quarter
of
last
year,
so
some
activity
in
that
regards
and
committed
a
total
of
just
under
47
million
dollars
in
those
transactions
the
amount
of
contributed
Capital
towards
the
bottom
of
the
page,
205
million,
but
increased
by
about
11
million
during
the
course.
V
So,
as
I
mentioned,
it
was
relatively
quiet
and
distributions
were
even
quieter,
essentially
unchanged
during
the
quarter
and
then
in
terms
of
valuations
again,
I
mentioned
that
Q4
in
private
equity
in
general,
and
more
specifically
in
your
portfolio,
there
wasn't
a
large
valuation
change,
so
the
Legacy
almost
exactly
the
same
at
1.6
times
and
9.8
irr.
V
So
obviously,
the
combined
funds
were
the
same
so
as
I
mentioned,
really
just
relatively
quiet
quarter
for
the
portfolio
after,
of
course,
what
was
a
year
where
evaluations
did
move
around
a
little
bit,
but
ultimately
underlying
performance
of
the
portfolio
in
terms
of
the
newberger
portfolio
was
good
I'll,
just
move
forward
to
the
a
bit
more
detail
on
returns.
V
V
Another
Top
Line
primaries,
which
is
just
over
70
of
the
portfolio,
continues
to
have
good
returns.
Secondaries
and
co-investments
really
doing
their
job
as
well.
Secondaries
are
four
percent
of
the
portfolio
co-investments
26,
but
you
can
see
the
irr
is
very
strong,
as
you
would
hope,
but
also,
in
particular,
the
DPI.
The
amount
of
capital
distributed
back
from
these
Investments
is
is
also
higher
than
in
primaries,
which
is
the
job
of
these
types
of
Investments.
Are.
V
Numbers
these,
these
tvpi
numbers
are
on
a
gross
level,
but
after
fund
returns
was
was
the
question
how
they're
different
to
the
overall
mandate.
B
V
Question
to
answer,
because
obviously
vintages
are
different
and
every
portfolio
is
different,
but
I
would
say
broadly
speaking,
yes
for
a
program
of
this
profile
and
age,
and
you
know
in
a
way
a
better
way
to
look
at.
This,
of
course,
is
the
program
as
a
whole,
which
is
the
next
section
down
where
you
can
see
the
net
irr
and
multiple
for
the
program
over
time,
and
obviously
the
Vintage
is
2017.
But
we've
invested
every
year
since
2017,
including.
K
V
Year
but
those
are
the
net
return
multiples
and
these
are
show
the
benchmarks
from
Burgess
and
where
this
mandate
currently
benchmarks.
So
and
again,
this
is
quite.
S
V
V
This
mix
of
primaries
co-investment
secondaries
for
the
Vintage
profile-
these
are
I
think
typical,
is
is
a
reasonable
word
to
use,
but
but
see
there
will
be
differences
in
different
programs.
V
And
obviously
we
would
particularly
the
primaries
we
would.
We
would
expect
those
to
continue
to
develop
over
time
and,
let's
see
the
goal
is
not
a
multiple
of
1.5
times
and
a
23
irr
I
think
is
good,
but
we
would.
We
would
hope
that
multiple
will
continue
to
increase
and,
of
course,
second
losing
co-investments
and
part
of
the
job
is
to
help
with
that
g-curve
mitigation,
and
that
is
what
they
have
done
to
date.
V
So
I
think
with
with
that
summary
trying
to
keep
it
fairly
brief
I'm
happy
to
take
any
other
questions
that
anybody
has.
R
So
one
question:
maybe
it's
for
Dinesh,
but
so
we
don't
actually
see
the
performance
of
the
quarter.
But
if
I
look
at
the
Makita
report
and
look
at
private
equity
for
the
quarter,
it's
a
minus
6.8
I
think
would
that
actually
tie
into
the
new
burger
performance
for
the
quarter?
Is
that.
K
No
because
there's
a
lag
especially
for
the
year-end
numbers,
year-end
numbers
are
audited,
so
they
won't
correlate
since
there's
a
45
to
60
day
lag
and
for
the
year-end
results,
which
is
the
Q4
report
for
newburger
that
actually
wasn't
available
until
much
later
so
April.
So
it
won't
be
included
in
the
Makita
report
that
we'll
see
later.
K
K
Q1
but
the
q1
Q4
performance
for
the
new
burger
fund
of
one
was
not
available
by
that
time,
so
that
was
not
captured
here,
we'll
see
it
in
the
Q2
Makita
report.
Oh.
R
V
V
K
V
D
Paul
made
this
more
director
to
you:
what's
your
expectation
going
forward
for
2023,
as
relates
to
the
value
here
at
tvpi,
just
because
you
know
you
hear
so
much
about
the
private
Market
valuation
resetting
and
I've
certainly
seen
some
of
that.
You
know
resetting
resetting
going
down
actually
so
expectationally.
What
do
you
think.
V
Yeah
I
think
and
I
presume
the
question
pertains
to
the
existing
portfolio
as
opposed
to
new
transactions
in
the
marketplace.
Yeah.
V
Yeah
I
mean
I
think
that
existing
then
the
valuation
methodology
is
likely
to
continue
so
and-
and
that
includes
public
markets
as
as
one
input,
typically
in
a
valuation
along
with
sometimes
DCF
and,
of
course,
comparable
transactions
in
private
markets,
but
I
think
that
methodology
will
continue
throughout
the
year
and
so
I
wouldn't
expect
any
change
there.
So
really
the
two
variables
are:
what
do
the
public
markets
do?
V
You
know
that
is
one
factor
and
secondly,
of
course,
the
performance
of
the
companies
in
the
portfolio
and
again
it's
a
it's,
a
pretty
significant
portfolio
at
this
point
in
time,
so
I'm
generalizing
but
I
think
portfolio
performance
at
the
underlying
company
level
held
up
quite
well
during
2022
and
if
that
continues
in
23
I
would
expect
putting
all
those
things
together
valuations
to
be
relatively
stable.
V
You
know,
there's
not
a
sort
of
a
catalyst
for
I
hope,
that's,
not
a
catalyst
for
a
downward
movement
and
equally
I
think
that's
probably
true
on
the
upward
side.
So
I
would
expect
you
know,
within
a
single
digit,
bound
valuations
to
be
relatively
stable
this
year.
T
K
So
when
this
program
was
originally
established
with
Newbery
or
Berman,
there
was
no
separate
Venture
Capital
allocation,
so
we
were
making
both
buyout
and
Venture
allocations
within
this
program.
But
once
we
created
a
dedicated
Venture
Capital
asset
allocation
Target,
then
that
was
separated
out
and
we
we
stopped
making
Investments
through
here
that
were
venture.
T
So
for
the
new
burger
under
the
mandate
now
no
longer
makes
we
see
commitments.
T
K
Correct
yeah,
so
there
is
a
like
see,
that's
nine
or
ten
percent
of
the
overall
program
that
is
Venture,
slash
growth.
So
there
is
a
possibility
to
still
make
growth
Equity
Investments
that
are
in
between
that
line
between
buyout
and
growth,
but
going
forward
there
will
be
no
more
Venture
Investments
and
those
Venture
Investments.
We
continue
to
monitor
with
newberger.
T
And
then
one
other
question:
if
you
look
back
at
page
two,
the
we
had
44
million
in
distributions
and
40
million
commitment
remaining.
So
is
the
44
million
within
the
reinvestment
period
or
is
so?
Is
there
84
million
dollars
of
dry
powder
or
40
million
dollars
of
tripod.
K
So
the
way
to
look
at
this
is
that
the
commitment
remaining
is
commitments
that
we've
made
based
on
our
pacing
plan
that
have
not
been
committed
to
underlying
Investments.
Yet
so
that's
where
we
work
together
with
newburyment
to
find
primary
funds,
co-investments
secondaries,
to
invest
throughout
the
year.
So
that's
that
40
million,
the
44
million
of
distributions
that
have
been
distributed
back
to
us
are
just
Capital
that
that
has
been
returned
from
Investments
that
have
been
realized.
So
those
are
different
numbers
and
I.
Think
what
you're
getting
at
is
the
uncalled
dry
powder,
which.
K
A
V
That
could
be
the
cause
of
those
that
the
public
Investments
throughout
the
year.
K
One
quick
note
before
Laura
begins:
I
wanted
to
share
an
update
on
the
private
markets
report
that
is
worth
noting,
since
it's
usually
buried
in
the
footnotes.
So,
as
you
know,
we
show
peer
benchmarking
to
compare
our
Returns
versus
pure
Universe
of
similar
strategies
that
began
investing
in
the
same
vintage
year.
Historically,
we
used
a
provider
called
Cambridge,
but
last
year
Cambridge
began
increasing
their
prices
restricting
usage
so
that
our
Consultants
could
no
longer
use
them
in
public
reports
for
us,
so
neuberger
and
Makita
both
switched
to
different
providers.
K
Newberger
switched
to
a
group
called
Burgess
Nikita
has
been
reporting
based
on
a
group
called
prequent
and
internally
in
our
team,
we've
been
looking
at
the
universe
of
different
providers.
We
recently
contracted
with
a
group
called
Burgess,
which
is
what
newberger
was
using,
and
this
is
the
first
report
that
actually
shows
Burgess
data.
We
found
that
Burgess
had
a
really
large
Universe
of
over
10
trillion
dollars
of
private
assets
that
they
capture
within
their
their
Universe,
better
data
quality
and
also
some
interesting
functionality
for
us
to
drill
into
the
underlying
data.
K
O
Good
morning,
I
suppose
it's
still
morning,
it's
nice
to
see
the
sun
in
San
Jose,
since
we've
had
Meg
Ray
and
clouds
in
San
Diego
for
about
a
month
now
we
have
three
reports
for
you
today:
the
public
version
of
the
private
markets
report,
the
pension
fund,
total
fund
report
and
the
health
care
trust
as
well.
So
if
we
take
a
look
at
the
slide
on
the
screen
here,
let
me
see.
O
So
if
you
had
put
the
same
amount
of
money
called
by
the
private
markets
program
into
the
relevant
public
market
index,
so
a
high
yield
index
for
private
debt,
a
real
estate
index
for
Real
Estate
Etc,
you
can
see
that
your
program,
irrs,
are
outperforming
the
public
market
equivalent
in
every
case,
and
the
total
private
markets
program
has
an
internal
rate
of
return
of
10.2
as
well.
Is.
O
And
then
we
get
into
the
individual
program
so
starting
with
private
debt,
you
can
see
on
page
two,
the
53
and
the
irr
of
6.4
percent.
The
target
for
private
debt
is
four
percent,
and
the
current
allocation
is
quite
close
to
that.
O
As
of
the
end
of
December
at
4.4,
there
were
no
new
investments
in
this
program
during
the
quarter
that
we're
looking
at
and
if
we
look
at
individual
funds
in
the
program
you
can
see,
especially
those
that
were
committed
and
have
vintages
since
2017
are,
with
one
exception,
all
significantly
outperforming
their
peer
irr
and,
as
Dinesh
mentioned,
these
peer
IRS
are
now
from
Burgess,
which
is
a
group
that
Makita
has
a
lot
of
respect
for
as
a
peer
provider.
Eagle
Point
income
is
the
only
one
that
falls
below
that.
O
They
had
a
number
of
fixed
rate,
Investments
that
didn't
adjust
for
inflation,
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
for
that
lower
irr.
Moving
along
to
the
real
assets
program,
starting
on
page
8
of
53.
You
can
see
that
this
is
a
less
mature
program
than
private
debt.
It
currently
has
an
allocation
of
2.2
percent
of
the
overall
plan.
Relative
to
a
four
percent
Target,
so
the
team
and
Makita
are
continuing
to
look
at
new
opportunities.
O
O
There
was
one
new
investment
in
dra
fund
11
of
27
million,
and
when
we
take
a
look
at
individual
returns
historically
for
funds,
you
can
see
why
your
staff
and
Makita
wanted
to
continue
to
commit
to
dra
and
re-up.
Given
past
returns
there,
and
you
can
see
some
some
strong
irrs
relative
to
peers
in
the
real
estate
program
as
well.
O
The
last
one
that
I'll
take
a
look
at
from
a
program
level
is
Venture
Capital.
So
this
is
also
a
quite
new
program,
as
you
all
know,
less
than
one
percent
of
the
total
plan,
as
at
the
end
of
December
relative
to
a
four
percent
policy
Target,
there
were
no
new
commitments
during
the
quarter
that
were
evaluating
and
you
can
see
the
individual
fund
commitments,
most
of
which
don't
have
meaningful
returns.
Yet,
given
their
vintage
years
on
page
22.,.
O
Okay,
great
so
I
will
move
to
the
next
item.
O
All
right
here
we
have
the
total
fund
quarterly
review
for
the
pension
plan,
as
of
the
end
of
March,
just
to
lay
the
groundwork
in
terms
of
market
performance
through
the
end
of
March.
You
can
see
here
on
page
five
2022
returns
for
major
indexes
on
the
left.
O
It
was
a
challenging
year,
as
you
all
know,
with
negative
double
digit
returns
for
both
bonds
and
equities,
The,
only
positive
major
asset
class
being
the
Bloomberg
commodity
index,
and
then
we
really
saw
that
reverse
in
the
fourth
calendar
quarter
of
2022,
and
you
can
see
year-to-date
2023
on
the
right.
You
can
see.
The
Bloomberg
commodity
index
was
then
the
worst
performing
asset
class,
so
a
very
different
Market
environment,
which
I
think
you
know
indicates
to
me
how
difficult
it
is
to
make
tactical
decisions.
O
Given
the
stark
contrast
here,
if
you
take
a
look,
non-us
developed
equities
were
the
strongest
asset
class
year
to
date
and
if
I
take
a
look
at
index
returns
that
are
are
not
on
this
page,
but
are
more
recent.
So
the
quarter
through
the
end
of
May,
so
the
first
two
months
of
the
second
calendar
quarter
of
2023.
We
saw
pretty
flat
returns
for
a
diversified
portfolio
of
60,
equity
and
40
bonds,
which
a
lot
of
folks
use
as
sort
of
a
proxy
for
the
market
as
a
whole.
O
We
saw
the
S
P
500
up
two
percent
in
the
first
couple
months
of
this
calendar
quarter,
while
emerging
markets
were
negative.
Bloomberg
commodity
index
continued
to
be
more
negative
for
the
past
last
couple
of
months
down.
Another
6.4
percent,
while
the
bond
market
as
a
whole
was
just
slightly
negative.
So
it's
interesting
to
me
that
we
had
you
know,
year
to
date
through
the
end
of
March,
in
this
chart
that
you
see
where
we
had
a
global.
O
You
know
or
Regional
banking
crisis
and
some
other
Market
factors
that
were
quite
negative
and
you
see
very
strong
returns
and
now
we're
seeing
you
know
flat
slightly
negative
returns
in
in
what
has
been
perhaps
a
more
docile
Market.
Although
we
did
have
the
debt
ceiling
Weighing
on
markets
getting
into
individual
plan,
asset
allocation
and
performance
I'll
skip
to
the
watch
list.
As
you
know,
in
your
investment
policy
statement,
we
put
managers
that
have
a
lagging
return
relative
to
The
Benchmark
for
the
three
or
five
year
period
on
a
watch
list.
O
And
Market
environment
I
think
you
know,
there's
idiosyncratic
factors
with
these
managers
in
their
portfolios
and
you
know
can't
guarantee
that
things
turn
around.
But
our
Research
indicates
that
you
know
most
strong
managers
do
have
three-year
periods
about
performance
interspersed
with
their
stronger
returns.
O
We
can
take
a
look
at
the
total
plan
value
as
of
the
end
of
March,
the
the
the
numbers.
Here
you
can
look
at
growth
at
3.2
billion,
low
beta
at
723
million
and
other
at
636
million,
and
allocations
quite
close
to
policy
targets
getting
into
performance
on
the
next
page.
Here
you
can
see
quite
strong
returns
relative
to
generally
all
benchmarks.
Please
ignore
the
alternative.
Investable
Benchmark.
O
We
were
messing
around
in
our
system
with
with
some
Benchmark
calculations
and
obviously
that's
an
incorrect
Benchmark
since
nobody's
going
to
beat
a
53
return
for
a
one-year
period,
we'll
be
sending
a
a
new
version
of
this
for
posting
over
to
your
staff,
but
during
one
of
the
rounds
of
edits
that
we
do
on
this
report,
every
quarter
with
your
staff
that
snuck
in
there
somehow.
O
So
if
you
take
a
look
at
all
of
the
benchmarks,
that
should
be
there-
the
policy
Benchmark
The,
investable,
Benchmark,
the
low-cost
passive
portfolio
and
just
a
diversified
portfolio
of
60,
Global,
equities
and
40
Global
bonds.
You
see
really
strong
returns
for
your
plan,
the
quarter
to
date
up
a
positive
3.8
percent
for
that
first
calendar
quarter
of
the
year
the
one
year
period.
Well,
it
was
down
negative
three
percent.
You
know
we
did
just
look
at
those
market
returns
which
were
much
more
significantly
negative.
O
If
you
look
at
the
peer
relative
Returns,
the
plan
is
above
median
for
the
quarter
and
in
the
top
quartile
for
the
one-year
period,
also
at
or
above
medium
for
the
the
three
and
five
years
we
have
a
lot
of
individual
performance
data
in
here
which
I'm
going
to
allow
you
to
peruse
at
your
your
leisure
and
I'll.
Take
a
look
at
overall
plan
statistics
to
a
greater
degree
on
page
58.,
so
looking
at
the
total
fun
for
the
trailing
one
year
period.
O
Again,
you
see
on
the
left
that
the
return
ranks
above
median
you
see
in
the
second
box
here
that
the
standard
deviation
ranks
below
median
and
that
results
in
Risk
adjusted
returns
in
the
third
and
fourth
column
here
that
are
top
quartile
and
we've
seen
that
Trend
persist
for
some
time
now.
O
In
your
plan,
taking
we
have
more
slides
here,
we
have
more
peer
relative
information
as
well
and
then
a
variety
of
other
major
Benchmark
returns
and
statistics
in
the
rest
of
the
presentation,
but
with
that
I
will
take
any
questions
that
anyone
might
have
on
the
pension
plan
performance.
T
B
T
O
That
was
that
was
you
have
been
with
both
of
those
managers
for
more
than
that
period
of
time,
so
everything
is
for
your
plan
independently.
So
that
was
something
that
was
added
through
a
city
audit
request
a
few
years
ago
that
they
wanted
the
the
reporting
to
have
a
watch
list
included.
T
Yeah
so
I
mean
that's
fine,
but
it's
good
information,
I
guess
I'm
more
and
I'd
like
to
know
whether
we
want
why
we
want
to
continue
with
them
or
not
sure.
O
I'll
highlight
one
of
them:
Artisan
Global
opportunities
here,
so
you
can
see
the
three-year
return
at
11.9
fell
below
the
msci
equity
growth
index
at
14.7.
So
that's
why
that
manager
is
on
the
watch
list.
If
we
look
on
the
far
right,
you
see
the
since
Inception
return,
which
is
well
above
both
the
pier
median
and
above
the
Benchmark
here
as
well
and
in
the
15th
percentile.
If
you
also
look
at
quarter
to
date,
quarter
to
date
returns
while
below
the
Benchmark
are
significantly
ahead
of
global
equity
on
a
peer
relative
basis.
O
So
this
is
a
manager
that
we,
you
know
you
all
have
been
invested
in
since
2013.
So
for
a
10-year
period
that
has
done
well
over
that
long
Market
cycle
The
Artisan
managers
were
reduced
in
asset
size
recently,
mainly
because,
even
though
these
are
two
separate
investment
teams,
there
was
a
bit
of
concentration
there
with
4.7
percent
of
the
portfolio
and
Global
opportunities
and
6.2
percent
in
global
value,
and
we
like
to
keep
an
eye
along
with
your
staff
on
on
how
large
each
individual
manager
position
gets.
D
M
M
I
happen
to
know
their
CEO,
so
I
also
talked
to
them
and
I
also
talked
with
their
portfolio
manager,
and
so
it's
it's
a
continuous
evaluation
of
their
process
of
their
style
and
whether
we
have
conviction
or
not,
I'm
generally
less
concerned
about
underperforming
managers
than
I
am
about
turnover
of
portfolio
managers
and
other.
You
know,
firms
firm
level.
You
know
changes
that
could
impact
portfolio
performance,
so
I'm,
really
what
I'm
really
looking
for
is
high
conviction
and
sticking
to
their
style
and
whether
that
style
fits
in
with
our
overall
portfolio.
D
A
question:
do
you
have
a
report
that
shows
kind
of
an
attribution
as
to
what's
contributing
to
the
outperformance
of
our
fund
versus
like
I?
Don't
know
the
Benchmark
it
up
here
so
that
we
know
that
when
we're
out
performing
it's
due
to
the
allocation
to
X,
do
we
have
something
like
that?
Yes,.
O
I
I
apologize,
so
we
do
have
some
attribution
analysis
for
different
time
periods.
You
can
see
on
53
of
77
here
the
one
year.
So
we
see
the
green
bars
are
the
selection
effect
and
the
blue
bars
are
the
allocation
effect.
Having
any
allocation
to
cash
over
the
last
year
was
a
positive
given
negative
returns
in
the
market
environment.
But
if
we
look
at
the
total
fund
on
the
top
there,
we
really
see
a
pretty
equal
or
you
know,
significant
contribution
from
both
allocation
and
selection
to
the
outperformance
relative
to
the
policy
benchmark.
O
My
assumption
is
because
it
wasn't
in
cash,
so
during
2022,
if
you,
if
you
know
most
of
the
time
if
we
leave
excess
cash
in
cash,
it's
a
drag
on.
A
O
During
up
markets,
but
in
2022
it
was,
it
would
have
been
positively
more
in
cash
and
less
in
an
overlay.
H
D
O
See
you've
had
some
frictional
cash,
so
you,
if
you
look
at
the
actual
asset
allocation,
there
wasn't
a
big
allocation
to
cash.
You
can
see
that
it
was
actually
a
negative
current
balance
because
of
the
overlay,
but
whenever
you
switch,
managers
hold
some
cash
for
some
time
that
represents,
you
know
a
cash
return.
You
do
have
the
immunized
cash
flows,
which
are
a
significant
portion
of
the
plan,
almost
13
percent.
So
that's
a
you
know:
a
big
holding
in
cash
equivalent,
short-term
Bond
type
assets.
O
O
O
O
You
can
see
the
total
quarter,
return
at
3.8
percent
for
the
first
quarter
of
2023,
bringing
the
fiscal
year
to
date
to
5.4
and
then
the
one
year
to
negative
4.3,
so
a
slightly
more
negative
one-year
return
relative
to
pension,
given
that
you
don't
have
those
diversifying
asset
classes
on
the
illiquid
side,
but
that
one
year
was
quite
close
to
median
and
you
see
the
fiscal
year
was
close
to
the
top
quartile
in
terms
of
individual
asset
allocations.
O
We
see,
you
know
mainly
index
funds
in
your
portfolio,
and
so
you
see
returns
quite
close
to
the
individual
indexes
and
also
a
low
tracking
error.
You
can
see
some
of
the
the
individual
stats
and
also
a
Top
decile,
Sharp
Ratio,
or
risk
adjusted
return
in
that
third
box
there
for
the
one
year
period,
so
Healthcare
trust
holding
up
well
like
your
pension.
B
M
M
S
A
packet
you
have
a
memo
from
me
regarding
the
subscriptions
that
need
funds.
Added
to
these
are
the
seven
vendors
that
provide
data
services
to
the
investment
program.
We
are
questioned
to
add
funds
for
one
year
to
continue
services
and
the
cost
of
the
subscription
is
split.
50
50
between
the
Federated
and
the
police
and
fire
plans.
S
Yeah
so
the
don't
pay
half
of
these
yeah,
so
the
column
actually.
B
D
B
I
have
a
second
by
Quan.
Let's
see
we
got
around
Robin
again,
let's
see
here
we
go.
M
B
M
N
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
so
I
have
a
short
or
update
for
you
this
morning.
I
do
want
to
I'm
sure
you
have
noticed
that
in
the
administrative
staff
we
have
some
new
faces,
and
so
I
wanted
to
Welcome
to
the
staff
Edith
aldama,
which
I
just
made
this
morning
welcome
Edith
and
also
Cheryl
Alero,
who
is
also
there
with
us,
she's,
been
here
before,
but
she's.
Now,
a
member
of
the
staff
on
a
permanent
basis.
So
congratulations
and
welcome
to
both.
N
These
are
the
two
new
staff
Specialists
that
were
hired
through
the
personal
process
that
we
initiated
a
few
months
back,
and
one
of
them
will
be
in
charge
of
the
police
and
fire
board
meetings,
the
other
one
Federated
and
they
both
will
be
reporting
to
Michelle
San
Miguel,
which,
as
you
know,
is
an
act
team
executive
assistant.
And
although
you
cannot
tell
right
now,
she's
so
excited
to
be.
N
Me
directly
these
days,
I
also
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
as
we
do
every
summer
we
have
our
office
picnic
plan,
for
you
know
this
Friday,
but
next
Friday
June
9th
it
will
be
held
Outdoors
at
the
Kelly
Park.
It
will
be
in
the
afternoon
so
I
I
think
at
this
point
Barbara,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
will
are
considering
having,
as
we
do
in
the
past
close
the
office
for
the
afternoon.
That's.
U
N
Thank
you
and
I
wanted
to
let
you
know
also
in
the
summer
that
they
close
the
office
will
be
closed
on
Monday
June
19th.
You
know
servant
of
Juneteenth
day
and
also,
as
you
know,
probably
Monday
July
4th
in
observance
Independence
Day.
That
concludes
my
update,
Mr
chair,
but
I'm
happy
to
address
any
questions.
Any.
W
Thank
you
really
interesting
presentation
today,
a
lot
of
complicated
terminology
that
I'm
trying
to
get
my
hands
around.
But
it's
helpful
very
useful
for
me
just
briefly
we're
in
budget
season
right
now
and
we
will
be
adopting
a
budget
June
20th,
which
has
impact
on
all
of
the
services
that
we
offer
in
the
city
the
priority
being
Public
Safety,
making
sure
that
we
have
a
robust,
Public,
Safety,
all
aspects
of
Public,
Safety
Pro,
be
it
police,
fire
and
Street
improvements
to
make
our
streets
safe.
W
You
may
have
seen
our
vision,
zero,
Strat
new
marketing
campaign
to
encourage
people
to
slow
down
called
slow
down.
San
Jose.
We
have
real
impactful
billboards
with
a
picture
of
a
bicycle,
helmet
upside
down
and
a
little
shoe
in
the
middle
of
a
crosswalk.
So
that
is
a
visual
to
encourage
you
to
please
slow
down,
not
just
when
you're
driving
in
the
city
of
San
Jose,
but
when
you're
driving
everywhere,
because
we
lost
65
lives
to
Street
fatal
pedestrian
fatalities
last
year.
And
we
don't
want
to
break
that
record.
W
We
want
to
decrease
the
amount
of
people
that
we
lose
on
our
streets.
So
so,
please
drive
safely.
The
other
focus
on
the
budget
is
homelessness
and
affordable.
Housing
on
June
6th
next
Tuesday's
council
meeting
will
be
approving
two
inter-emergency
interim
housing
facilities.
One
will
be
in
my
district
on
near
Valley
Water
property,
thanks
to
the
cooperation
from
them
actually
not
near
on
Valley
Water
property
and
the
other
not
sure
where
it
will
be.
W
But
a
proposal
is
in
District
4,
so
North
San
Jose,
but
it
it
could
be
in
South,
San
Jose
too.
No,
we
I
don't
know
about
that
one.
Yet
that's
the
priority
and
of
course
getting
the
budget
is
really
critical,
because
that
enables
us
to
move
forward
in
with
our
services
that
we
offer
no
since
we're
in
budget
season.
That
is
the
main
focus
and
if
you
have
any
questions
about
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
it.
B
Any
questions
for
our
friend
councilman
Foley
good,
once
good
thanks
Pam
thanks
over
to
you,
Roberto.
N
Yeah,
thank
you,
Mr,
chair
and
actually
I'm
going
to
turn
this
over
to
our
deputy
director
Barbara
Heyman
Barbara.
U
With
Marty
Boyer
of
communications
advantage
to
extend
the
term
of
the
agreement
through
to
June
30th
2024,
no
additional
budget
is
being
requested
at
this
time.
Miss
Boyer
primarily
works
with
ORS
with
our
newsletter
and
our
social
media
posts
and
per
board
policy.
The
CEO
is
authorized
to
enter
into
a
contract
up
to
fifty
thousand
dollars
in
value
over
the
term
of
the
contract.
U
Any
contract,
Above
This,
requires
board
approval
and
board.
Approval
is
also
required
for
any
contract
that
would
result
in
a
cumulative
contract
value
with
a
single
vendor
of
over
50
000
over
two
consecutive
years,
which
is
the
case
for
this
agreement.
B
Year,
because
this
is
the
fourth
year
good
great
any
questions
entertain
a
motion
to
prove
you
almost
from
Santos
to
have
a
second.
B
Again
sang
by
Gardener
and
we
will
do
it
again.
How
do
you
vote
Franco.
J
H
B
Hi
I'm
chairlands
I
wrote
I,
that's
unanimous
I
guess
you
have
is
that
you
as
far
you've
got
that's
JPC
right.
It's
over
you
ashwan.
R
Yeah,
okay,
thank
you
drew
so
last
meeting
we
went
over
the
salary
discussion
and
the
adjustments
that
we
made.
R
The
second
part
of
you
know
looking
at
incentive,
compensation
was
incentive,
compensation
and
I
think
this
was
I
would
say
more
challenging
in
the
sense
that
we
don't
have
as
many
reference
points
if
you
will
right
and
before
I
start.
Let
me
first
of
all
thank
a
couple
of
people.
R
First
of
all,
Drew,
who
kind
of
initiated
all
of
this
and
I
think
this
discussion
started
last
year
when
Elaine
of
the
Federated
was
the
chair
and
in
Elaine
and
Drew
were
kind
of
you
know
running
this
yeah
and
then
you
know,
Elaine
left
and
you
know,
I
took
a
you
know.
I
was
I,
guess
a
substitute
chair
as
a
vice
chair
and
then
I
took
her
as
a
chair
and
I
think
we
had
a
lot
of
things
to
look
at
and
reaching
consensus,
and
you
know
all
of
that.
R
So
it
was,
you
know.
I
would
say
somewhat
of
a
tough
assignment.
Second
I'd,
like
to
thank
Andrew
and
Andrea
I
would
say,
is
like
the
Christian
McCaffrey
I
mean
he
does
a
little
bit
of
everything
right,
very
good
at
a
lot
of
different
things:
the
football
player,
so
he
he.
You
know
the
salary
survey
which
he
discussed.
R
He
was
helped
me
a
lot
in
terms
of
this,
the
incentive
compensation,
and
so
so
thank
you
to
Drew
and
Andrew
and
Javi
Javi
was
useful
in
kind
of
connecting
us
with
Orange
County,
which
actually
has
a
program,
and
actually
he
brought
two
of
the
trustees
to
present
before
the
JPC,
so
that
was
great
and
I.
R
Think
one
of
the
attachments
here,
which
is
the
consideration
so
in
centercon,
the
kind
of
things
that
we
looked
at
was
also
something
which
you
know
which
Harvey
Drew
up
and
Makita
helped
us
with
various
calculations
in
terms
of
trying
to
see
if
we
did
have
this
incentive
compensation
historically
based
on
some
of
the
metrics
we're
looking
at,
which
had
not
resolved
as
yet,
you
know
kind
of
what
they
would
look
at
so
so
thank
you
to
a
lot
of
people.
R
You
know
who've
done
a
lot
of
work
on
this,
so
you
know
so,
like
I
said,
there's
there's
only
two
plants
in
California
which
actually
have
this
and
potentially,
which
is
San
Bernardino
and
Orange
County,
and
so
we
use
them
as
a
reference.
San
Francisco
supposedly
has
a
plan,
but
we're
not
sure
what
the
details
are.
So
so
there's
less
data
in
terms
of
what
what
we
have,
but
the
thinking
here
you
know
which,
like
you
said
when
Drew
kind
of
talked
about
this,
was
you
know?
R
How
do
we
incentivize
to
keep
our
staff
and
make
sure
that
kind
of
the
change
in
performance
where
we
have?
You
know,
we
think
we
have
good
performance
right,
that's
maintained,
so
that
was
kind
of
the
thinking
and
it's
an
incentive
comp
where
you
know
if
the
performance
is
not
there,
you
know
the
pay
is
not
there
right.
So
this
is
salaries
there,
and
this
is
on
top
of
that,
and
so
that's
those
are
the
kind
of
thinkings.
R
Now
the
the
one
of
the
attachments,
the
considerations
We've,
the
JPC-
went
through
a
lot
of
more
with
all
of
these,
but
we're
only
at
kind
of
step.
Three,
so
one
two
and
three
that's
what's
been
approved
by
the
JPC,
the
rest
in
terms
of
the
actual
performance
metrics.
R
You
know
and
there's
different
thinking,
absolute
relative
combination
of
the
two.
All
of
those
we
have
not
come
to
a
decision
in
terms
of
what
we
use,
but
what
we
decided
was
that
we
will
have
a
maximum
in
terms
of
what
the
incentive
comp
could
be,
that
the
JPC
is
approved
and
we
get
the
boards
to
approve.
And
then
we
take
it
to
the
city
council,
that's
kind
of
where
we
are
and
specifically
in
terms
of
what
was
what
was
discussed
and
approved.
R
We
said
we're
going
to
have
three
positions:
investment
officers,
the
senior
senior
investment
officers
and
the
CIO
positions
they
would
be
cover
covered
by
the
the
incentive
comp
and
the
maximum
would
be
30
for
iOS
40
for
the
senior
iOS
and
50
for
the
CIO,
and
this
again
used
the
two
systems
that
we
talked
about.
R
San,
Bernardino
and
Orange,
County
and
I
think
this
kind
of
puts
us
kind
of
in
the
middle
of
the
range
of
those
two
so
I
think
we've
designed
something
which
is
kind
of
in
the
ballpark
of
what
people
are
actually
doing
are
doing
and
I
think
it's
a
step
forward
for
us
in
terms
of
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
do
in
terms
of
improving
governance.
R
B
Sure
so
pervert
ashfar
said
this.
This
will
be
a
program,
I
think
I
think
Orange
County's,
it's
three
or
four
pages
long.
That
is
yet
to
be
fully
fleshed
out,
but
I
think
as
far
as
right.
We,
the
JPC,
would
like
the
board's
support
for
these
numbers,
since
they
are
sort
of
the
backbone
of
the
program.
I.
Imagine
our
program
will
look
a
lot
like
Orange
County
is
this,
for
it
said
there
aren't
a
lot
of
benchmarks,
we'll
probably
you
know,
take
take
best
practice
out.
G
G
Not
the
moment,
I
think
eschuar
covered
pretty
much
the
thought
of
the
JPC
and
and
how
we
went
through
this
process.
Thanks.
B
Fine,
as
you
said,
right
Harvey,
the
county
delegated
a
lot
to
the
board
of
Orange
County
right
they're,
their
own
District.
So
so
all
the
way
down
I'll
go
ahead
and
make
the
motion
then
I
move
that
the
board
endorse
on
these
three
levels
set
by
the
JPC.
B
G
And
we
can
put
comment
yeah
sure,
just
for
a
procedural
just
for
people
that
weren't
on
the
JPC.
You
know
if
we
approve
this,
this
will
go
to
city
council.
We'll
present
this
with,
along
with
the
salary
ranges
that
we
approved
last
month,
and
then
it
will
get
feedback
from
city
council.
Hopefully,
city
council
will
approve
it,
they
might
be
receptive,
they
may
not
might
not
be
receptive.
So
just
because
we're
approving
it
here,
we
there
still
might
be
some
work
to
go
right.
B
B
F
R
T
N
I
I,
don't
know,
I
think
right
now,
the
the
after
the
June
meeting
the
first
meeting
of
council
when
they
get
back
after
July,
it's
August,
8th.
N
They
usually
they
yeah.
As
of
June
30th,
they
kick
in
the
first
pay
period
in
October
yeah,
so
it
really
depends
if
you
do
establish
an
incentive,
Compensation
Plan.
It
depends
on
the
timeline
yeah.
A
B
B
It
thank
you
yeah
yeah,
that's
that's
a
good
point.
Let
me
go
ahead
and
repeat
those.
So
the
recommendation
of
the
JPC
matching
what
San
Bernardino
Orange
can
do
was
to
break
it
up
into
Chief
investment
officer
which
is
Provo
and
then
seeing
your
investment
officers
and
regular
investment
officers,
and
the
recommendation
was
a
maximum
incentive
comp
up
50
for
the
CIO
40
for
the
senior
I
o
and
30
for
the
investment
officer
and,
as
ashfar
said,
those
all
sit
somewhere
in
between
Orange
County
and
San
Bernardino.
B
So
there's
so
much
for
my
land.
Second,
by
Santos
on
table
any
further
questions.
B
Not
here
man
and
then
I'm,
Julian's
I'm,
chairman
I,
vote
I
as
well.
A
good
good
job,
Esther
I
started
by
the
way,
as
far
has
done
a
great
job.
That
committee
is
definitely
made
up
of
cats
and
as
far
as
the
lead
cat
herder,
it's
a
it's
actually
really
hard
to
do
this.
Because
that's
where
I
said
there
really
is
no
reference
point.
We
are
San
Jose,
I,
guess
Laura
you'd,
probably
be
we're
kind
of
out
there
right
we're
sort
of
leading
the
charge.
B
So
as
far
as
had
to
herd
a
group
of
cats
who
are
a
very
dark
room,
good
job,
oh
on
to
retirement,
we
have
a
long
list
today.
Bear
with
me
the
service
Tournament
of
we
got
13
or
14.
B
Brian
s,
Anderson
Police,
Lieutenant,
Police,
Department,
effective
July,
8th
2023,
with
25
by
two
eight
years
of
service
Joe,
a
Favorito
Jr
fire
captain
fire
department,
effective
July,
6,
2023,
25.19
years
of
service,
John
M,
Hudgens,
police,
Lieutenant,
Police,
Department,
effective
May,
13,
2023,
32.05
years
of
service
good
for
you,
John
with
reciprocity,
Scott,
R,
Johnson,
police,
Lieutenant,
Police
Department.
In
fact,
July
2023
27.3
we're
losing
a
lot.
B
All
these
people
over
25
years
released
a
lot
John
Murphy,
a
police,
Sergeant,
Police
Department
in
fact:
July
20
22
20
July,
22nd
2023,
with
27.34-year
service,
Albert,
C,
Morales,
police,
Sergeant,
Police,
Department,
June,
24th,
2023,
27.7
three-year
service
with
reciprocity,
I'm
Edward
R,
Schroeder,
Deputy
Chief
of
Police
Police
Department,
effective
June,
10,
2023,
28.84
years
of
service.
It's
unusual
to
read
a
list
this
long
with
no
one
less
than
25.
B
Christopher
M
stiba
or
siba
Police
Department
police,
Sergeant,
Police,
Department,
July,
8,
20,
23,
26.84-year
service,
Jared,
thoni
or
Tony
police
officer
police
department,
defective
July,
22nd,
2023
25.84
year
service,
Doug,
T,
Tron,
police,
Sergeant,
Police,
Department,
effective
July,
1st
2023
27.28
year
service,
Michael,
Van
dalen.
We.
B
Him
fire
captain
fire
department
of
active
July,
22nd
2023
26.27
year
service
with
reciprocity,
oh
there's.
Finally,
the
last
one
is
20.:
Darren
Wallace
Battalion
Chief,
Fire,
Department,
effective
June,
24th,
2023
26.88,
your
service
and
Todd
Wellman
police
officer
police
department,
effective
June,
24,
2023,
20.03
years.
The
service
will
have
a
motion
to
approve
I
am
almost
by
Santos.
I
have
a
second
second.
B
I
have
a
second
by
Gardener:
let's
go
around
Franco
Sunita
hi
Andrew.
E
H
F
Trustee
Wilson
I
worked
with
all
these
guys
on
the
PD
side,
we're
losing
a
lot
of
experience
25
to
30
years
they've
taken
care
of
the
the
last
25
to
30
years.
B
Yeah
we
thank
you
all
one
and
all
for
your
service
all
right.
Let's
do
we
got
200
for
best
best.
We
have
Phil
M
craft
police
officer,
police
department,
effective
June,
22nd,
2023,
11.43
years
of
service
and
Mark
Hawk
police
officer
police
department,
effective
July,
27,
2023,
16.26
years
of
service,
entertained
motion,
so
I'm
a
motion
by
Santos,
so
I
have
a
second.
J
J
B
Hi
I'm
chairman
lanzarbert
I,
as
well
over
fortunate.
I
B
Have
a
small
death
notification
list,
we'll
we'll
read
the
names
and
they'll
have
a
moment
of
silence:
notification
of
the
death
of
William
E
Anderson,
Police,
Officer,
retired
November,
14
1967..
Well
at
least
you
got
to
enjoy
his
retirement
died,
May
4th
2023,
leaving
no
survivorship
benefits
notification
of
death
of
Joseph
and
fowles
fire.
B
Captain
retired
January
31st
2004
died,
April
3rd
2023,
survivorship
benefits
to
Mary,
fouls
spouse
and
the
notification
of
death
of
Peter
R
Torres
fire
engineer,
retired
September,
12
2004
died,
March,
29
2023
survives
your
benefits,
the
Deborah
Torres,
the
spouse,
love
of
a
moment
of
silence.
I
B
It's
not
great
and
because
we're
no
longer
under
coveted
restrictions,
we
have
no
minutes
to
receive
a
pile
Sunita
audit
committee,
yeah.
T
Thank
you.
We
had
a
joint
audit
committee
meeting
on
May,
18th
I
believe
the
couple
of
updates
from
that
one
is
the
last
item
on
the
city
auditor
report
has
been
AB.
Staff
has
resolved
and
closed
that
from,
and
congratulations
for
resolving
all.
T
B
T
Right,
the
other
item
to
update
was
there
was
a
presentation
by
our
internal
auditor
uman
to
the
the
committee
around
an
audit
for
procurement
and
contract
oversight.
The
audit
committee
heard
his
concerns
and
his
findings,
and
we
are
still
deliberating
on
on
on
the
on
the
report
and
we
will
come
back
to
the
board
in
a
couple
of
months.
After
we've
met
again.
B
T
B
And
then
you
have
the,
let
me
see
it's
Jenny.
Is
that
right
on
your
agenda?
Sorry,
look
at
7.2
D,
didn't
we
do
that
last
minute,.
N
B
That
was
quick
because
we
only
approved
higher
hiring
them
last
meeting
any
comments
on
the
plans.
It's
a
pretty
straightforward
events.
B
B
Around
we
go
Franco
hi,
hi,
Sunita,
aye,
Andrew.
B
Hi
I'm,
Joe,
Lanza,
I,
say
I
as
well
as
Roberto
said,
make
no
the
fact
that
we
receive
and
filed
the
minutes
of
Feb
16.
Franco
anything
to
report
from
governance.
I
B
B
Great
and
we'll
note
that
we
receive
and
filed
the
minutes
from
April
3rd,
any
public
comment.
B
Yeah
I
said
yeah
I
know,
I
did
I
did
make
that
note
and-
and
we
will
report
out
next
month,
some
of
it
the
reports
we're
dealing
with
things
were
negotiating
and
we
haven't
quite
signed
off.
N
And
I
just
wanted
him
and
remind
all
of
you.
This
is
your
last
born
meeting
of
the
fiscal
year.
July
is
it's
dark,
so
we
don't
meet.
The
next
meeting
will
be
your
first
Thursday
August
and
Barbara,
correcting
my
mistaking
I
think
from
now
on.
If
not
all
most
of
our
meetings
will
go
back
to
the
wing
room
right.