holiday system because stuff does slow down. so we apologize for that, but in my 18 years' of doing this, we have never found a really good way to incorporate these add-backs. so i don't mean that as a rationalization, but it's just the factors. >> commissioner. >> three questions, how much is the add-back? and what are the monies going to be used for? are they getting the money and if not today, when do you expect them to get the check? >> is that? >> three questions, yes. >> the add-backs are varied. first of all, we have to go back to the supervisors, and get a little feedback of what they intended the funding to be for. and then we have to fit that into our existing service categoris and compare with it

our gap analyses of the needed services that the department feels are prioritized. so there is that little dance that going on about where is best place to put the funding? and how to make sure this intended district gets a fair didn't opportunity to compete for it? there has to be a full and open competitive process. you are can't just give the money that. is one. once we make the awards they have to fit it into the budget coordinate with the staff to make sure we're getting accountability for the public dollars. that is the process and sometimes it takes a little longer than we will all would like. i will say that the add-back funding is available for the

year. the encumbrances essentially we can't get all of the awards in front of you until january. once you approve these modifications, based on nofas, we'll add it in. if it's an urgent case we have the ability to pre-fund them ahead of your authorization from the existing funding that that organization gets. now the add-back funding is good for this fiscal year, and next fiscal year. they are all good for the immediate fiscal year, and the next one. and we'll see what comes out in the budget, because we're on a two-year budget cycle. so the expectation is for those truly urgent and i don't know of too many that we put in that category, but those funds have been available. it's funding that we're taking out of the existing grants that we'll back-fill once the process is complete.

we have have to go through a whole process that takes time. >> i asked you three questions and you answered one. how much are we talking about? half a million dollars? i know, you don't have a definite. >> i don't have the exact amount in front of me. >> not exacty. >> overall, $2.5 million. >> $2.5 million. >> okay. my second question, how are you going to use the $2.5 million? >> that was the subject of our notices of funding availability, where the non-profit partners submitted proposals of how they were going to spend the money and how it was going to serve their clients. that goes through a review and a whole process. once we make an allocation of a specific set of funds based on a proposal received, then the daas, the staff sits down and works out details of how they are going implement or expand on the services that they are

providing to use this funding. >> commissioner serina. >> thank you, dave, we'll be able to have a full discussion next month when those are put before the commission. >> that is correct. >> and the emergency procedures that the department has made available to the contractors so essential services are not denied because of the process themselves. so i think we can have the discussion next month. >> in most cases it was addition of services that we already have in place. there are new locations and of course, those take longer to identify the site and identify the contractor and put the parameters into place. >> i'm sure that is why the financial committee they've been trying to look for a date and coordinate with the staff. so they can get this going. thank you very much. you have one other question, commissioner loo. >> since the money is coming in late, and if they can't

spend the money, can the money be carried over to another year? >> it's basically a two-year funding amount. so yes, in certain cases we can request it to be fund ed or allow acceleration. they still have the full fiscal year amount to use this and some of it we may be able to roll over into next year. they have gotten total funding for a two-year period. >> thank you. >> commissioner sims. >> just quickly, i want to say that while i have great sensitivity for non-profits and ngos operating on limited budgets and stretched beyond imagination to accomplish the good work that they are working on, i am as a kind of good government advocate, comforted to know that your department is as thorough as you are, and as careful as you are in the allocation of these funds and

not -- we're not at-risk as the general public to see those funds being pushed around by the whim of any single elected official. so thank you for doing the good work. >> thank you, we appreciate that thought as well. >> i remember that process. thank you. any other general comment from the public? hearing none, we'll move on. old business? we don't have any. new business? so here we are. the last item, the department requests authorization to modify the grant agreements with the non-profit service providers for the record period of july 1, 2014, through june 30, 2015 in an aggregate amount not to exceed $393,993. the purpose of this increase is to help compensate the non-profit service providers for the increased costs

associated with providing the services on behalf of the department of. could i have a motion to discuss? >> so moved. >> second. >> commissioners, dave curto again we're asking your authorization to modify the non-profitgants that we have under the daas portfolio for a cost of doing increase -- a cost of doing business increase of 1.5% granted by the mayor's office in the budget process. traditionally, the board of supervisors usually matches this every year. this year, the board of supervisors did not. so our contractors had an expectation of getting one around 3%. but daas was again very fortunate to get other add-backs and allows to us modify grants by 1.5% that carries forward into the future. this process we're in the

process now, we have notified the contracts. they have to go in and allocate 1.5% throughout the existing budgets. so the total amount this year is $393,993 in an aggregate amount spread between probably 150 different daas grants. >> i heard 50. >> there abouts. >> our general policy of how we allocate the cost of doing business adjustments an salaries, benefits, et cetera, hard costs we generally only apply these to county general fundss and we never allow the

cost of doing business to apply to a brand-new program that we're starting up or something that was a result of an rfp or even an add-back funding because the contractors gets an opportunity to negotiate the first-year budget and will forward costs that they anticipate. so it kicks in during the second year of operation. any questions that i can answer? >> i was wondering how many organizations that you distributed and you said approximately 150. okay. >> commissioner sims. >> one, was there any rationale with the board of supervisors this year for their resistance to match the mayors? >> i think they had other targets items that they had taken a higher priority over matching the cost of doing business. i know it was discussed at the open budget hearings and non-profit partners expressed

dismay at not getting the add-backs as was done many times in the past. it was a different set of priorities coming from the board of supervisors this year. >> okay. any questions? hearing nonely call for the vote. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? ayes have it and so the motion is carried. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. >> next we have public comment. do we have any public comment on this? hearing none, announcements? public comment? we have already done that. can i have a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded that we adjourned the meeting. thank you. [ gavel ].

>> i'd like to call a police join me in the pledge. >>

america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all roll call please yes. >> mr. nolan commissioner bridges commissioner driscoll commissioner melberger commissioner paskin-jordan commissioner stansbury a quorum is present. >> thank you next item public comment any members of the public would like to address the public on a non-calendared item. >> good afternoon david. >> good afternoon. >> on those (inaudible) my question is how will the -

minutes question and the special meeting open december 3rd be put into a agenda item important this - (inaudible) some other first question then i just want to - >> great, thank you. >> good afternoon claire. >> hello. >> address the comments - the

membership (inaudible) and hedge fund (inaudible) up here to do today is to - sign off and hopefully everything (inaudible). >> kimberly. >> good afternoon. i do (inaudible) let the chair know and the board that has been satisfied (inaudible) the board

(inaudible) sociowe can - that is the amount (inaudible) available for (inaudible) to take more for we understand this - (inaudible) that appeal

(inaudible) and maximum effort we would like to have (inaudible) at least in the next quarter (inaudible) thank you. >> thank you any other speakers? seeing none, i'll close. item number 2. >> item 2 approval the minutes of the san francisco retirement board meeting. >> i'll 0 move adaptation.

>> any public comment on the minutes all in favor, say i. sure. >> i want to make one minute if i could after the first, the good holding police spoke in opposition and presented a petition of 3 hundred signatures that is the first case under general public comment to release 3 hundred signatures in opposition to hedge funds and it's not not minutes. >> is it that or that - >> and present 3 hundred signatures who was the second of the motion. >> i was. >> any other comments all in favor, say i. passing passes unanimously thank you item 3 please. >> okay.

>> i'll entertain a motion of adaptation. >> i move toe adapt. >> opening it up for public comment on the consent calendar any questions or comments seeing none, all in favor, say i. passes unanimously thank you item 4. >> 4 is the (inaudible). >> i would ask the chair unless he has anything compelling we can accept it as submitted unless you feel that it is you would like to share something that was a public meeting we all attend. >> i think 12 people attended commissioner stansbury was not there and commissioner paskin-jordan so again, i suggest there are documents regarding the infrastructure and natural resources on the agenda

i suggest it you have not attend look at those documents with due diligence we the different groups from infrastructure made their presentation and someone was involved in the infrastructure program at the california state towards a portfolio that made a suburb presentation so if you haven't had a chance to review the information. >> any questions seeing none i'll open up for public comment seeing none, closed next item, please. >> review and approval for the questioning question for the core plus fixed income. >> thank you, norman and good

afternoon, commissioners i'll ask leslie to brief us in rational for this recommendation. >> thank you, commissioners this is for the investment advisors this is a key progress to extend since 2007 since the core plus managers have been in place the 3 current managers that are two portfolios one of which was formally managed by r d o and now ohio beggar is beating their best tracks to performance wise things are well but organizational changes and some personnel change with the retiring of the head of north america income it is time to refresher that part of the portfolio to look at other things in the marketplace until

we look at the other process and see if there's any questions. >> great the chair will open up for a motion and open it up for questions. >> want to make that motion. >> thank you a second. >> now i'll open up for questions. >> yeah. >> you mentioned that performance leslie you mentioned performance was not an issue i'll be looking at the performance for the one year number before the benchmark before 80 odd points they've out performed for 5 years bye 90 basis points so the performance is excellent historically i understand the issue in terms of

the turnover but in terms of the trembles i don't see it usually. >> ask. >> you want. >> go ahead. >> there's no preconception we'll terminate the managers it they meet the requirements and qualifications alleys may end up being retained and so we expect them to be part of the process and there's no expectation or no preconception that any of them will be termed we wanted to look at other alternatives. >> i'll talk about the allocation the consensus among the staff and i believe the board reduce the fixed income from 25 percent of assets to 15

percent wrong number $2 billion so, so if we're going to be over that time local government dating 023 builds in bond how to hire a manager particularly we'll belogically the portfolio assets so we'll might hire a manager for example but fixed income will be a source of capital i'll vote no on the motion i suggest 0 recuse use those managers as a source of capital last time we raised the staff took money away from premise ma to me performance trumpets the issue of staff turnover and turnover for the fund i know it's american people's important issue but to me the performance triumphs so i'll vote against the motion i

think reducing the fixed income and the performance for the managers certainly boo above their benchmarks and staff has better things to do so i don't see it. >> other questions. >> no questions. >> i wanted to wait. >> my comment commissioner melberger is i think it is great there are good past performance but we have a consultant to let us know earlier if there are staff that mediate or could impair in the future it makes sense to relook at a firmer if there are indications something maybe happening if they

>> this are being an sfooel good thing how difficult

everyone expected interest rates to start rising and they've done the opt on the long end i think we are at a tenuous moment in fixed income markets but the current environment could last for a while i wouldn't want to premise this search that, yes interest rates with are going up and we want to be sure we have managers that are flexible in managing through all kinds of investments and the other parts of the portfolios are dlavend we've been through incredibly positive credit cycle this portfolio is very credit incentive so we want to be or even a portfolio and endorse to count. >> similar thoughts i think

that is important and valuable right now to have the managers at the helm on the one hand having a growth scare in the economy throughout international china even so i think it is valuable to have managers he helm rather than when the return market is going to give you you and the endorse is going to give you. >> yes i'll concur we should do an evaluation so in the this is more my concern so given that i think that is important before this recommendation. >> commissioner driscoll. >> i support the resolution to

h pr s p one the reduction to premium was not regarding the performance we monitor how much of the managers that we're a part of we have our own discipline in the wait and sub areas they've crossed that it was one reason they became the source and two their excellent managers in he remember of that core area even if it is report that two different portfolios from the same company are allowed to manage the portfolio with their independent strategies i'm not sure when a when that will continue but to revisit this part of the fixed income portfolio and our fixed income portfolio is aggressive looking at what we're doing

below so if we want to get return not to that is safeties versus do we had an rfp yes and a agency to the allocation change if it goes forward it will take one to two years and where the money will be before the reallocation is done that may fact a long period of time do we want to constraint it in one marry that's why i'm supporting this research. >> opening it up for public comment on item number seeing none i will close pub public comment and commissioner melberger. >> one comment i wish that view point would be shared we had a major