10 please. if no one else - carr oil will accept the report as summit i'm on up for comments from staff. >> i have a question this is a supplemental there's two conditions for the supplemental the fund earners more than the actual rate of return and it refunded prop c was involved in that second requirement it be totally refunded the second requirement would it be rue refunded how does that effect the system if indeed that hurdle is not met the act war will be

returned is there is an indication how that will be effected. >> because there was no co-payable we didn't calculate because of the value that would have been distributed so we do not have that figure available it's something if we could develop - well, it's a little bit complex to develop it depicked different participanted. >> on that sub i appreciate you're trying trying to be accurate but two years a supplemental was paid, however that would have meant a shift in the liability numbers for that

calculation for the full amount with the remainder lies with those people a measurable will liability right that's lived for thederm grasping either one of those two years a ball park it's a lawsuit; right? at any time a curiosities question that's a suggestion bill and maybe one for - >> we have not calculated the number and in particular not for this year so certainly. >> go back to. >> certainly looking at and i can answer that after the meeting it will be in the evacuates report. >> thank you nothing more the chair will entertain a motion. >> i move we adapt the recommendations for the supplemental. >> second. >> second.

>> i'll on up for public comment on item 10 if not all in favor, say i. passes unanimously thank you item number 11 please. it is the connective assumptions. >> the actual services coordinator in light of the time of the meeting i want to give time for the presentation i'll introduce billing and ann i'll ask if anybody needs - >> does anyone need a walk through? then we'll up, up for questions >> i have an interest in this

over the years i will be supporting staff recommendations is used you look at the rate of returned you have to look at the global picture of where we're going i'm not a fan of bringing the rate of return down i want everybody to look at page 9 at our actual returned from 945 on that's a simple enough reason not to deposit the returned we have to look at the live connective conditions of our main customer the city look at how we're changing our allocation and where we're going it is an opportunity to take a nudge down and look at the long term term. >> like to share mr. makras

opinion and optimistic for the future but year to date 10 plus 2 we'll see how fast we can get back to the oriental number those are forecasted for thirty or 40 years correct is that how we're looking at those numbers? and if i were asked to show the arc on the power point side show is that a followup question >> the difference in the arc. >> it's going to map in 2017 i'm a little bit unclear so we have the frontals of the funding status. >> that's based on how you looked the finish if it's available thank you. >> it will be part of the

stress test present at next month's meeting. >> i'll wait. >> the testing of whatever the economics assumption is adapted. >> outcomes. >> cal went down to 7 and quarter can i address that why i mean the year assumption seven hundred and a half but just if you know uterus why they went down to 7 and quarter. >> i have to recall i know i had discussions with allen the chief act write a combination of the expected rupture on their penalized he knows that allen is suggested they've consider a margin for what is called a margin for adverse to reduce below their exception i can't recall whether it this year's a

7 and a half or 7 and a quarter. >> what's the funding status do you know. >> well cal percent is actually a con glorification of separate independent funds i don't recall off the top of my head. >> we're much better funded. >> i know you are. >> i will say for the curve fund their largest of trusts that fund is 7.5 for each fund they have adapted different actuary summaries but for the - >> i have a number as of 6 slash thirty 2014 a number for the plan. >> is that actual value or

market. >> i'm sorry the state s 66 i'm reading the wrongs line 66 percent through the state fund and that's in the awe peculiarities of our report page 22 if you get want to look at it the survey. >> just brought it up we also seem to compare ourselves to cal percent but they're in a different situation. >> that's actual value. >> 66 of market and wow. >> that's of 6 slash 0 thirty 2013 and 84 is compatible for san francisco. >> i know sometimes increase an advantage of being smaller there are things we can do they can't. >> yeah. i have a few comments

here can you walk me through why we're lowering the rates because we had a great year 18.73 was the total return i recall for the 12 months in june 30th, 2014 we were involved in asset be 4r50ib89 studies and the portfolio depending on what you choose hopefully, the one that are 7 point zero our current assumption is 7 point of the 8 is the current rate assumption. >> what's the mill for . >> when when you ask the actuary. >> i do not know if it statement is correct they didn't

recommend 7 point. >> now. >> why are rechanging that to a lower number. >> last year, we recommended 7 and a half. >> so why are regoing roar. >> you earned 2.7 but we didn't base our assumption on what you earned last year but future we used as the basis for the analysis the terms for a range of portfolios their considering from your investment and those - the part we look at 7 and a quarter to 7.6-hundred there's a range of assumes goes but given the 7.6 return we normally recommend an expected return at or lower than the concept return of portfolio so with the 7.67

even at that level we'll be coming back and recommending 7 and a half your current is 7 and a half we expect 7 and quarter if increase the ongoing portfolio next year we'll try to indicate next year when we came back come back we'll be likely go to recommend a lower discount because write want to recommend something else greater than. >> if the record is clear so the current it shows the right one is 6 point zero periods of time that's with 5 percent hedge funds and the other amount of fund and infrastructure next to resources in the 09 portfolio so let's say for example if we adapt that flub it effect the number we use for our actual

return their forecast long term numbers based on the 7.25 or the mixed number 3 that has an expect return of 6 point doer. >> on slide 20 given the urban sincerity of the allocation we recommend 7 and a half and what i just said even if you do you want e daughter the portfolio that earners 7.6 that's our recommendations if but if you adapt a conservative represents you may recommend a lower number okay one last question the differences between our assumptions here and the assumptions we've used last year do you have a round number guess on the effect of the

contribution of dollars and let me move to the dollars to explain we ran on the assumption of the 2013 evaluation and the recite of the pay was 26 periods of time he have the data for 2014 already and using the salary fathoms from that data and projecting it forward a year we that the effect will be approximately $16 million on the city's contributes. >> one of. >> $16 million an increase in the city's contributions of $16 million we not finished the evaluation for that number it should be considered a ball park. >> does that reflect the cost sharing provisions so with the cost sharing provision. >> no i don't think we were

changing the levy of cost sharing. >> but it rnths the 60 base points reflects like you say the employees will bear the same level of cost sharing and it is the cost difference on the budget. >> correct and that's where some caution is in order we haven't done the full evaluation of knowing where the full rate will come out but where weer right now with our estimates moving 60 points don't change. >> the chair will entertain a motion. >> he recommend we adapt. >> is there a second. >> second. >> second. >> discussion? you just finished (laughter) >> can i say vote no on it are

not. >> yes. >> we had a great number the average for the pensions were 7.50 and reading page 2 of your report we have one of the best portfolios of that we justify a higher rate of currency but the medium of 7.5 which we do based on that what worked last year so, anyway great. >> opening it up for public comment on item 11. >> all in favor, say i. i'll close public comment four to one thank you. >> thank you could i please call item number 12. >> an action item (inaudible).

>> as a clean of what of the talked about (inaudible) i have (inaudible) the visibility appeal board came back (inaudible). >> great, thank you there i'll entertain my motion. >> great questions or comments seeing none i'll on up for public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. all in favor, say i. >> i.

>> passes unanimously thank you item number 13 please. >> we have put (inaudible) previous (inaudible) details. >> item 13 is the travel expense report for the period ending for the period beginning october 1st and through december 31st for the quarter we had expenditures of 325 hundred some cent and to the last page of the chart in the budget we have a budget of over $700,000

and duo to date less than 70 thousands of expenditures so i'll courage board members who have opportunity to travel the money and budget is there when we don't spend the money they tend to want to cut it i encourage united states to use the appropriate funding. >> and i'll add i'll answer my questions anyone might have. >> okay. we'll accept it as presented we'll opening it up for public comment if no one we'll close public comment. >> and item 14 the complort. >> just wanted to remind everyone we're on for the board retreat on the significantly and

7th we'll be calling a committee next week is fine the members of the committee are mr. melberger and the chair to finalize the agenda and arrangement we are most linkage going to be selecting between a private and hotel vendor for a location but be sure to provide the information i wanted to report on the something i reported on earlier that is a new requirement of the consultants file form seven hundred i believe we received the form seven hundred from all the consultant so we'll have let them know under those part find an annual process sometime when the board files at the same time they'll be filed with us that's we've preside you with the

educational opportunity is lettuce forward calendar and some of the questions that the president had previously on the san francisco headaches and the report for the march meeting and so we've added those 2 to 3 the calendar i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. at this time. >> any questions. >> commissioner. >> yeah. the board retreat you finally listed the agenda i haven't seen is. >> there's one in process as do you knows what the copies are generally. >> i think that is focus. >> the theme or focus. >> the decision michael those types of topics we have you any guest speakers.

>> actually we haven't confirmed the speaker but pursuing a speaker out of the college of business. >> i'll on up for public comment on executive director's report seeing none i'll clots it next item. >> item 15 discussion and or comments. >> anything commissioners great seeing none, we'll - >> i have one first of all i want to regarding wendy wanted to say glad you one the renomination grace under pressure if any of us were in the shoes we wouldn't have done as well and i'll say as we - i wanted to

echo mr. makras comments of congratulations. >> anything else if not public comment. >> i'll close public comment. >> call the next item. >> closed session for the directlyal purposes and california (inaudible). >> thank you. i'll on up for public comment for the commissioners going into closed session seeing none i'll close. i ask everyone to clear the room to