>> a recommendation is there a second. >> second. >> commissioner now it is the mind if you know of comments. >> on the motion (laughter). >> you can also have an opportunity to keep it in sync so the past wraurltz are done at the unit value; is that correct. >> correct. >> seeing nothing he will all in favor, say i. that passes unanimously thank you very much call item 10 please. >> this is a recommendation (inaudible). >> commissioners at the deferred compensation committee there's been discussion on whether we should pair down the options for the participants there's been

various reasons two many options they might be frozen u.s. bancorp unable to see which ones but the prominently one at the october 15th committee meeting aging let me see presented actually two or three options with respect to the mid cap funds and the recommendation before you now is the option that the committee choose and that would be to implement element the mid cap value and investment options those if approved similar investments are available within the remaining options we also wanted to make sure that the boards knew that if, in fact, the members or planters in the fund wished to remain in one of the option you can, in fact,

invest in them throw the self-brokerage option we have some members of the public they were interested in the mid cap funds with respect to how we're going to handle any transition from the target bay funds their current e currently held we're not presenting anything to the board because in our next deferred compensation committee meeting we'll be reviewing the guide path easements and we anticipate a recommendation where to map the assets and bring it ca back to the board for the next meeting. >> anything to add. >> this elements two funds the mid cap has 1.67 cap and it is tiny it reflect that many of our

planters is overwhelmed when they looked at the target fund and the brokerage city is one the goal so really simplify the roster for the average participants that research has shown they go into paralyze and if they're two conservative they're not happy with the donation but to simplify the line up low participation and the low funds has experienced personnel changes and put them under watch and performance is similar to that fund it allows us to eliminate funds that are

under watch. >> just doing smith and combining it gives the manager to move the ability between two has been been discussed. >> we could create something for the white label a accomodation between what we discussed among the committee meetings not going two year down the simplification. >> what do you think about it. >> angela's has small we don't have compensation plans that have any idea cap we only see small caps we're comfortable with the mid cap as the case mid cap 4 that option is the

stability low priced stock fund of all the funds really in the universe it's hard to pinpoint that style it moves around and shows very tun ethnic it is s a good fund for participants that wants it to move around. >> i'd like to add one point from the participants those folks who have money in the growth funds we'll be transferring that to the core fund you, however, the participants get a 60 day nose and thirty days they'll get 60 days notice to move the money if it, it's there are on the day of the transfer want to put that read into the record. >> we'll opening it up for public comment for this public

comment any questions. >> anyone want to entertain a motion of adoption? discussion on the motion all in favor, say i. your passes unanimously thank you very much call item 12 >> - 11 sorry. >> this is an item (inaudible). >> commissioners have you before you the monthly manager report which is self-explanatory we're happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you after it's submitted i'll open up for public comment and if not close public comment and open up for questions. >> i want to make one comment on the final page or the next to the last to 6 since we've rolled

out the bowl measure 3 hundred and 36 folks that go open 0 gold maker and make up the gold maker ems gold maker was a product or tool that was significant and plays a significant part in our recommendation and credential as far as the third party in october we have 2 hundred and 64 hosts e votes who enrolled in gold maker. >> commissioner driscal. >> where did they move the money from and please report that at the come on committee to share that with the full board. >> yes. i'd like to do that. >> great call item 12. >> actually -

>> jen even though the services corridor it's been a long multi process and research project called for back in 2006, the research report was viewed and the engross draft and issued in june of 2012 we've got ann harper here to present this to the board and also have phil on the phone in washington, d.c. testifying to the academy i'd like to mentioned that bill was on the implementation committee for the gadz be standards and great reach for the board.

>> bill can you hear us? >> that's a no. >> (laughter). >> bill try speaking. >> hi can you hear me. >> yes. >> some of us can. >> okay. so we're here to provide an overview of our report and answer questions you may have we have a slightly different format but briefing summarize the report and what it is used for and explain how it is comparing. >> this report is used four only accounting purposes there's a complete diversion from 9 and it reports the information for the gadz by financial statements

all the schedules and notes to the disclosures and the information that needs to be provide by our automatic where are and included schedules for gadz by the 68 the standards informative the city's financial statements so the first reporting diet for the retirement system under the new gadz by standard is june 30th, 2014, whereas for the city they're not required to implement until june 30th, 2015, so the city then has a choice to whether or not use november i'm sorry 2018 or 2015 as their masturbating so the gadz but if clicked in the report if the city elected to have a june 2015 date tha there's one report for

that purchase i've talked about that between the funding and now i'm going to give highlights to the changes and difference in the old gadz by and new gadz by and how they differ first item is really all different terminology under gadz by so you're used to hearing actually accrue ability under gadz by those have been replaced with new terms and total pension liability the net pension liability is the u a l or unfunded address call the fiduciary net position so it's just a terminology change and some of the calculations are a little bit different you have to get used to a new set of verbiage so starting with the total

pension liability when is the accrued liquidate in gadz by criteria is that the systems that have something like your supplemental this differs from the liability we don't include the explicit colonel la for when do recognize a colonel la when their granted we advertise that over 5 years a little bit different of colonel la issue and the pension lobbied you see in the report the june 20th o 30th 2014 the liability from the june 30th information data we

use 2014 data there a little bit different in the timing of the liability that is calculated the net pension liability or the unfunded under gadz by is calculated for all systems needed to use the value of market assets there's no longer the term actual value of assets what talking about gadz by they've thrown that term out and everything is recorded on a value basis that gives me more uniformity another big difference is the annual pension expense that the city is to report on their financial statement and the city the expense is no longer their contribution that was made to the plan for that year there's an independent

calculation and independent of funding that's also the reason why we're giving you a completely separate report for accounting so it's divorced from the funding expense under the new system is more volatile it was the acceptance of the employer contribution and in some years it will be close to the actually contribution and other years far away the main reason for the volatility is because of the timing of what you recognize the losses so some changes are changes in benefits and combadz by says you have to have a faster recommendation for the pieces and investigative losses to recognize the funding

policies calls for 20 years we're www.roanokecountyva.gov the dates you're going to see that apprehension spent be more up and down with the market and especially, since we're volley ball things on a market basis as well pension expense for 2014 is viewed lower than the contribution it was made and the expectation we're showing in the report was one hundred versus the actual contribution of $533 million the difference is mostly due to the good investment return for june 30th in 2014 which was about 17 percent so at this time i ask answer specific questions about the reports or a couple of exhibits i could show you the schedules

to after overview with figures and stuff to our questions. >> opportunity to look at our full report and the exhibits so that's i'll open up for public comment on item 12. >> seeing none, i'll close public comment and i'll open it up for questions by the excision commissioner driscal. >> i'll mark you may have answered the questions i want to clarify another set of schedules we want to push and schedules is different from what the city does the san francisco control that briefed on this great

they've been briefed okay their decision is there a schedule? those schedules and disclosure of more information i noted the discount rate from 7.8 to 7.2 i'm not sure how that occurred those changes will not trigger a change in the contribution rate because i'm asking the cash flow question >> it has not effect on the flow. >> so the difference of the amortization is a good disclosure by doesn't effect the city. >> no. >> with the controllers help do the bond agencies; right you have to explain a myriad of changes we've not had to explain this in particular because we've not been a resort and most

public plans were not recorded i'd like to take you back to who we first started talking about the gadz by respirates requirements that was a test you can use our assumed return and we want you to project how far anti your money will take you in paying benefits and any part of that stream of benefits for every employee at a give point in time that's not payable you'll have to use the municipal bond rate in that he 2012 we are that at an assumed point of return we were 6 points apart the city said they have no interest in getting the investment return fin tuned we

were evangelist this given year this has nothing to do with how i fund a pension but and you report is part of the reason 7.258 in 2013 we closed the funding policy on the on the u a l and the gains and losses and changes that helped to get the interest rate to be higher as the funding rate. >> this is an excellent question the bond rating agencies will be pleased we didn't have a shortfall that required us to have used an assumption less outstanding our assumed rate so those are

excellence results for this year i'm glad we're pursuing this you've brought up the supplemental colonel la my question is the spill cola a prospective base or a illuminate about the supplemental cola. >> it's not a utility on a contingency base they're going to eastern the expected return no cola in the future in reality we know the markets don't have that rate so we will go be paying a supplemental cola that's an assignments so we we grant the supplemental cola that benefit that liability is a loss to the plan it gets amortized over 5 years we're recognizing

elsewhere supplemental colas as they happen. >> under gadsby by you have to value the plan so the utility is removing the second hurdle anothers value but it is volley ball as written in the charter and some should be overturned by a court of law. >> this is referring to all cola plans with the feature. >> i want to i understand eir regardless of the latitude an attractive pay bank but if we get to the one hundred percent pay out that requires a lot of for thought are we're going to wait until itors we talked about funding page 4 as the cola

assumptions based on one hundred percent funding level and 2015 the zero is 2020 and that's the assumption. >> all the assumptions are calculating the gadsby by liability so in our funding evaluations we're assuming zero. >> right. right and so something we can going forward. >> okay. so again it's a large group if it's combined with the basic cola group i'll stop with that. >> commissioner. >> i want to expand an commissioner driscal page 4 the probability so 2020.25 percent so the liability in cola.

>> this isn't the probability but the toll amount that will be paid. >> and actually, i should correct it page 6 is the 2014 assumptions and page 4 were the 2013 so again in 2015 there would be zero and 2020 this would be the basis point costs of colas going forward. >> there's no probability per say. >> that's it there's a probability but we take the probability and multiple it by the 1.5 percent the amount of supplemental cola for the majority of plan members most people get a certain amount so the probability multiples 1.5 percent. >> how would you do the

probability. >> do the reserve math. >> okay. thank you. >> questions seeing none, chair will entertain a motion to accept the report. >> so moved. >> is there a second. >> second. >> decision seeing none, all in favor, say i. it passes unanimously thank you would you, please call item 15 >> item 15 discussion item and review of the campaign and this is - and under the san francisco campaign and conduct code offers of the 710 north are to file the statements of economic interests and leaving the office forms as

part of the code our department has a specific list of employees and officers and as well as a reporting disclosure category and historically this is also included consultant but the consultant compliance with the form seven hundred fm there will require a filing with the department but sponsoric over the years so i have determined with the communication with the city attorney's office this will be an embellishment requirement and letters will go out requiring the consultants to file their form seven hundred with us as immediately by the end of the year as well as on an annual basis what the law requires is that folks who are managing our consulting relationship pravrpd

participating and making presentations for the board those are the folks that are required to file the form seven hundred i'll report back to the board the consultants we are looking at are the general consultant and advisory are real assets and approve entity consultants and torrey our private equity assets reporting consultant and finally irony which is the boards actuary. >> i'll open up for public comment on item 12. >> seeing none, i'll close public comment open up for questions. >> dr. jewish the consultants

once the form is filed it will be open for every member of the public to review as our seven hundred forms with the department or the ethnics commission. >> it only be required to be filed with the commission secretary and maintained in files here and as far as where they're a public document i believe they would be a public document. >> subject to disclosure. >> whether he talk about the public document is it available on line or as we walk into the office in a binder. >> for commission members and the department head those go the the nithsd commission they put the seven hundred form online i don't believe the other depths do that for their staff and others who file directly with

the department those are moipd directly at the department they were public recorded and can be requested introduce a public record process. >> we'll have the capacity to have them online as public documents. >> other questions. >> i have a question and maybe i've addressed that and i missed it for the consultant are we talking the individuals that comes up with us we're not talking about the firm. >> for k iron and we have a new gentlemen gentleman that is a form seven hundred form as well but anyone who either managers the account or firm and participants in coming to recommendations or presenting recommends that's clearly defined in the code so that's

where we're going it will be multiple folks for each the consulting. >> and in their case if they have one employer they'll have one entry angela. >> actually, two ann harper and leslie couch individually filing the 7 hundreds representing their relationships with the board. >> i'm trying to understand are we are going we're going to receive one number from them are we seeing every client and portion of their salary how do that work. >> the filing of the individuals they'll have to dloe the same level 0 as commissioners i'm not familiar with the number they'll have to

disclose but filing out the same seven hundred form you and i fill out with the department or the ethnics commission. >> i mean pleasing pled by one commission so i have one entry is their entry to be similar and laj la one line item is that what we are expecting or additional information. >> i don't think so the one line item it's multiple disclosures. >> i understand the investments i'll talking about incomes. >> commissioner they have the same requirement disclose their income and guests the various columns i'll assume if