ies there is a quote done deal quote/unquote with the retirement board some of the board members they think there's a commitment to purchase the down payment loans without having brought it to the retirement board for approval sf dr s is preceding are due diligence but we certainly have not begun to discuss this recommendations with the retirement board any way you can so often the announcement will help me get the full retirement board to support it when it comes before them later this year unquote and some of that with my apologies i took out a few phrases i kept it to a 50 word limit for inclusion

but the rest is pretty much a direct quote of e-mail to mr. elliott. >> i've had spotty results are transparency with the mayor's office of housing a year ago inkwooig about the down payment loan we gave me information and now will not tell me how many of the fiscal year 2013-2014 loans that were not issued under deploying were revolted over to the next year and not tell me how many of the applications were received this year you have to be very, very

careful with the mayor's office of housing. >> r.c. sf president i'm very, very supportive of the of having the headquarters building and, of course, to having health services as part find tenants in the same building i'd like i'd like to say that i think that times is wasting when i look at the blocks of city hall i see a lot of development and missed opportunity for this board to have co-invested with other entities or purchased buildings with the city retirement agrees and turned them down with

buildings for rehab you should look not to surplus them but to tell you land that the department sit on in close proximity where you make arrangements for example, 101 grove if you projected the health department the first 5 floors and went to to the limit and maybe accepted the property and give them a floor and make a deal with the department you could build the city department city administration building on that site without having to purchase land and you offer them space and build and you have it. >> and that wouldn't take 5 years if you don't do it now there will become surplus land so i see the did you not in our

neighborhood for us to have that kind of thank you administration building and have those resources available despite the luxury headquarter but that can be don't think sooner rather than later and i think creativity and staff pursuing this should think creativity that's how we're going to get sooner rather than later. >> thank you. any other speakers. >> seeing none i'll close public comment. >> all in favor, say i. >> passes unanimously thank you item 10. >> item 10 the investment committee report a discussion item. >> commissioner paskin-jordan. >> should we accept it as

summit okay open up for public comment on item 10 seeing none i'll close public comment call item 11. >> the chief financial officer report. >> our r j the board approved last most for one hundred and 25 million it closed we we got the application t p y or g we requested $100 million and we got it allocations subsequent to the board package going out a and the capital select which the board approved in january we requested from the gp $50 million we got $40 million that closed last friday any questions on the c i o. >> questions. >> commissioner melberger.

>> yeah. i have a couple of comments amendment on r j capital on february 11th i was asked and the next one i was there and voted one more time on february 11th i excused miff early and the next one i was present and i voted in favor. >> all right. >> open up for public comment on item 11. >> none public comment is closed. >> thank you for the report could you call item 12. >> report on the san francisco contemplation plan for the period ending 2015. >> good afternoon, commissioners deputy director this evening he wanted to talk

about to you about the second half of the performance and angela is here in the interest of time would you see the commissions preference to have a presentation or have it submitted. >> we'll accept it as submitted questions or comments. >> commissioner melberger. >> yes. on page although the d.c. plan first of all i love this report because this is one of summarizes the conflict of interests altered back and package 34 of angeles report the d cc p under the benchmark 11 percentage points. >> correct. >> that is. >> one hundred percent. >> that's for the 21 year let

me check that. >> that's a big number and the total value for $10 million negative numbers there was $10 million detraction. >> a $10 million shortfall schmoosed the benchmark. >> can you comment on the mid cap growth portfolio 10 percentage. >> yeah. that's. >> fund we're very concerned with and the mid cap value are both being eliminated so part of the specification of the line up and take care of the manager of the fund under review and the manager we have 0 concerned with a corn had a change in managers so that's a red flag performance i'm sure you're aware of performance is explainable by

affliction as well as having international x portion it will be gone. >> no, thank you that is good news i want to discuss the variable amenities those are variable amenities. >> their institutional or they're all i think institutional funds. >> in terms of the regulation are they regulated by the fcc. >> the fcc. >> yeah. in their 1940 open-end. >> is there a death benefit associated with those accounts. >> i'm not sure i understand the question sew if someone device is there a possibility of

a payoff to an satellite is there a potential for a death pay out. >> fifb me for saying can i help you out i think your missing a part. >> their one hundred there's are invested that's dropped to $99 and death happens does the insurance kick in and give them dollars. >> okay. so there's no death benefit associated with it. >> no. >> okay. thank you that's it very good. >> i'll save my question for another debate i'll open up for public comment on item 12. >> speaking for mitch another colleague asked a question why

there are no socially responsible fund available in the deferred complain and asked that alternatives be considered nchlts socially with thoughtful investments this particular individual said he she is inclined to take her funds and move them to have the option to invest so she'll have responsible fund the one thing i'll say if this is a problem there are concerns with the amounts of money because the f c i u are the investment of fossil fuel and energy it is likely that organization will, in fact, get behind. >> membership and request our members get a third combing

investment and those retirees will make similar kinds of moves into deferred combing he ask in order to keep and perhaps entice more investment in deferred koemsz for our members thank you very much. >> millennial or anything else want to address the commission see commissioner driscoll and we have in the brokerage window that are responsible mature fund. >> what an a which which one is in the line up. >> vanguard.

>> van guard replaced calvert another major fund so, please if you're communicating them let them know it's been there 20 years. >> any other comments by commissioners, thank you very much for the report item number 13. >> discussion item the management report. >> i'll accept it as submitted and open it up for questions or comments by commissioners. >> i have one committee last month we voted for the gilmore decision the one thing we talked about was it is and means and catch up provisions etc. might be at our next meeting we'll talk about the concerns of the targeted mailings we might send out to people that

currently have gilmore decisions on account >> we're looking at it and are looking at it from the first slide so we'll look at it again. >> thank you very much. >> anyone else i'll open up for public comment on item 13 seeing none, public comment is closed thank you very much for the report item number 14. >> negligent item 14 the july 2015 evaluation report. >> i'll offer the same on behalf of the janet if you want to accept the full report it is consistent with the results that were report to you that you adapted last month or otherwise janet is here to answer questions that board members have related to the report. >> i'll open up for questions or comments by the commission.

>> i'll say there's no significant changes from what we've seen absolutely no difference from what we presented. >> at the last meeting. >> the full blown report. >> commissioner melberger. >> if i could ask a dumb question i've heard prop c can you address that and tells you in terms of how much of the cost is shared by the members versus the city. >> and again, i don't know the phrasing. >> absolutely that is actually a table on page 34 the board summary section one page 4 the current is showing the rate of before investment great before the cost sharing investment the net employer is 8.0 percent

that's the the first 122.08 approved last month by the board and cannabis dispensary ran estimates for the city that will reduce to 19.4 percent as you can see the aggregate between the police and other tiers 17.54 percent that rise to 11 plus after the cautionary so. >> 30 nature percent roughly. >> as prop c that's the extra amount that the folks make and the one hundred thousand make a certain level and the people over that make a higher level but that you additional

contributions that are required from the employees that is basically cost sharing that percentage with the employer. >> so 3 and a half percent from the employees and additional. >> so on the overcame instead of paying 7.5 percent they're paying 11 percent so folks are paying 11 and a half some are paying 11 and a half but they're making 11. >> in the contribution section of the report table 5 dash 2 of the report really has a lot of daily there that is shows what the base employee and employer rates are before and after cost sharing and that's the investment.

>> thank you very much that is helpful am i reading this right the city's contributions goes down and the 625 versus 524 and after investment it is 527 go to the next. >> okay. great the next one. >> yeah. page 4. >> page 26. >> page 26 has that there will the anticipated employer cost before and after the cost sharing that is bans an estimated payroll. >> but the employer contribution is projected to be reduced $18 million from 704 down to 624 for the two years

ending in 2016 that's the coming fiscal year sew would it be the next set of lines the net employer that's the net employer contribution. >> that's correct. >> okay. >> that's correct. >> 83.5 so the city will be contributing 83 and a half million dollars. >> okay. >> their based on estimated payroll. >> so those are okay. >> thank you very much for a clean presentation. >> any other questions. >> nice presentation. >> chair will entertain a motion of adoption chair will entertain a motion of adoption. >> i recommend we move to approve. >> seeing none, public comment is closed all in favor, say i.

>> i. >> passes unanimously item number fooefrp. >> item 15 presentation of a june 2015 financial statements. >> as we presented to the board we every year under prosecute go an external audit selected by the controller's office every year we have the audit firm come and present the results of the audit as well as communications and have andy from the accounting firm to walk us through the presentation or bans the time although we only see here once a year may allow the report to be submitted.

>> sorry. >> hi i am from the firm it is up to you what you will let me go through i want you to know that the audit was clean and we didn't have any management comments for n this reporting process. >> with that i'll take questions. >> was under a document. >> it was a spiral bound in our packet. >> i didn't get it. >> okay. we have copies of that upstairs. >> then i'll continue the item. >> okay. it hadn't been distributed for review if it's a large document i'd like to extend the cutterscy for people to review that open up for public comment on item 15 seeing

none, public comment is closed. item 15 will be continued to the next board month to month call item 16. >> discussion item report open the board retreat held this year. >> we can accept the memo as submitted all the commissioners were present for the retreat i'll open up for public comment on item 16 seeing none, public is closed anyone have comments or questions of staff seeing none we thank you very much jay for the item and 17 is continued until the next meeting call 18. >> 18 action for the review and approval for the 43 election. >> we submitted that is a

disability applicant that's been award a 90 percent disability with regard from the workers' compensation board of appeals he was not 50 yoovenldz with at least 24iers of service the chapter adjusted we grant him a percentage of the benefit that is award by workers' compensation so we'll ask you to approve an increase of his disability from 50 to 90 percent until he becomes qualified for service. >> the chair will entertain a motion for adoption. >> i'll move we accept it is there a second. >> questions or comments

seeing none, open up for public comment on item 18. >> thank you, my only question is this retroactively you go back a adjust it 90 percent or. >> it's retirement. >> thank you very much. >> seeing no other public comments item 19 please. item 19 the discussion the executive director report. >> hopefully, you'll accept it as summit beef been live with the website a couple of weeks now and again we are sent out mailings i believe to the retiree groups and as being sent ousted this week or next week to the activity folks to create their own account and log into their new website.

>> great questions or comments of the executive director none open up to public comment seeing none, public is closed item number 20. >> item 20 is retirement board member reports. >> okay. the chair will accept them as submitted unless someone as a compelling report to share. >> none open up for public comment on item 20 seeing none, public comment is closed and accept the reports as submitted call item 21. >> item 21 discussion for the retirement board member order. >> commissioners any items. >> i'd like to bring up one

comment through the public i think what i'm hearing the board has to disclosures it so i'll suggest if that's the case we'll dispose of it and get it out so it didn't come as he a reoccurring issue we disclose those kinds of issues so i know that's and under what authorities. >> i thought the retirement board has the authority in the code of conduct that's cruel do hear those kinds of comments let's dispose of it on that issue. >> this is the complaints brought up they've been vested in front of the supervisors and press it would be nice to close the door and that's good so

those are my thoughts on it. >> that is up to the executive director i don't plan on calendaring an item the board of supervisors approved our colleague a complaint that's been filed with the ethics commission. >> commissioner driscoll. >> we talked about the duty of loyalty and one the letters we were handed last month basically asserted that the board and or staff yielded the duty of their responsibility but whether this is something we should clear up we should talk about. >> in a letter from a we have

to talk about the duty of loyalty we have a duty of loyalty i'm bringing this issue maybe we should talk about that. >> i believe that would be an appropriate to do a followup to the retreat not a followup item. >> you were hoping to do it in other sections in future months. >> for i median we're blending it i building we can get more out the thought retreat it brings lots of discussion but basically, it airs out issues but concludes nothing at the end of the day i'm not being critical our sponsor was driving us with the program but a good

follow-up to take some action items on what we had the most interest in but, yes, i would to look to the chair and put thought both that and come back with a recommendation with the commission on follow-up to the retreat so we can benefit the dialog and turn that into some action items. >> seeing - open up for public comment on item 81 point of order seeing none, public comment is closed i believe our next item is closed session can a you, please call it. >> action item closed session. >> open up for public comment on the commission going into closed session no one as i understand. >> thank you for coming. >>

and there's nothing to report i will entertain a motion on whether or not to disclosures or notice disclose open up for public comment seeing none, public comment is closed all in favor, say i. i. >> passes unanimously seeing no other business before the commission we'll adjourn at