including architects and housing experts rated the proposals in the spring of this year. following a subsequent vetting of the two remaining highest ranking proposals, before you is the final recommendation for reward of an exclusive negotiating agreement. the most responsive bidder is a team led by the kelsey's, supported by mercy housing on the architectural firm. their proposal is to develop 102 units of affordable inclusively designed rental housing on the site in a building of six stories over basement that would be no heavy vicki akil are parking bikes. twenty-one of those units will be set aside for the disabled which would be a substantial increase of new construction, affordable units tailored specifically to the disabled community. fifty-one of the units would be priced for occupants at no more than 100% of ami, 30 units at 80, and ten for disabled only at 50% and 11 for disabled only at

13. the unit mix would be 90 studios , five one, five two-bedrooms. in addition to the inclusive housing for the disabled which is the kelsey's founding mission, staff supports this project due to the extreme affordability levels achieved, the integrated garden design and as well as seeing all the energy and sustainability targets which was the focus of the global competition. laying out the milestones to ensure the proposal remains fiscally viable while the project enters the entitlement phase. the proposal assumes no initial funding from the city and anticipates the use of our standard long-term ground lease we deploy routinely for affordable housing projects. the negotiation term of the ena is 45 months.

during which the development team must meet the community outreach design, entitlements and fundraising goals as stated in the agreement. if they remain in conformance to have the opportunity to secure ground lease from the city. that ground lease will come before the board, and the mayor for approval. i will be prior to two advancing the project. the current for late 2023. if you have any questions i am a from the kelsey. >> could we have the bla report please? >> the proposed resolution would approve an exclusive negotiating agreement between the city mercy housing for surplus city property on grove street and van ness avenue. we are reporting on this because the negotiating agreement does set the rent for the future ground lease which is subject to

board approval of 15,000 per year. considering this to be low market rent. it is consistent with the city policy to have ground lease set in these terms. we will be reporting further on this project when it comes forward for the actual ground lease including any kind of city finance that might be added to the project. we recommend approval of this resolution. >> thank you very much. >> if it comes back to final approval for the ground lease, at a later date, is that the term that at 15,000? so we are being made aware of what the ground leases being proposed that we still have to prove it at a later date gulf that is correct. >> okay, i happen to, two nights before this made public i happened to bump into a family

that was talking about what the city was doing on behalf of the disabled community and what we could do to build more housing and more accessible housing. i was really encouraged and excited to see this announcement made public right after that. make sure to refer them to this. obviously it is a few years out. i think the location has been sitting there for some time. what a wonderful way to provide something for a community that is completely, almost invisible even in the affordable housing world, right? we have very little of the housing. i think there is one site south of market. to have this in an area on civic center that is accessible to many different things in transportation as well as a seat of government, i think is a i'm really hopeful that everything will be done to expedite this process.

we appreciate the department of real estate putting this offer proposal and negotiating good faith in them mercy and kelsey coming forward with a great proposal. hopefully we will be able to realize this very quickly. >> thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item number four? public comment is i would like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. thank you very much. madame clerk can you please call item number five. >> item five, 191110. resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $350,000 from the san francisco public health foundation to participate in a program, entitled "california community reinvestment grants program," for the period of october 1, 2019, through september 30, 2021. >> thank you very much. >> thank you.

this is a grant program that applies partnership with the san francisco public health foundation a total of a two-year grant for $650,000. $300,000 will go to the san francisco public health foundation and grin of $50,000 to the department of public health. the population this will serve is the present rancheria population and in partnership with transitions clinic network. they are both here to answer any questions you might have. the source of original funding from this is in california, the adult use of marijuana act, proposition 54 passed in november of 2016. it created the program to provide local communities that were heavily impacted by the war on drugs with grants reinvestment program to help those communities. the funding is the cannabis and tax excised revenue. the program is building on existing partnership between the

clinic network, the san francisco department of public health. who has long supported this programming. the funding will allow the department of public health to hire. for approximately 200 transition clinics in new and existing clients. they will recruit new patients within 12 months are released from state or federal prison through the transitions clinic behavioral care and health worker services. the project funding at the san francisco public health foundation, $300,000 over two years will provide or allow the establish of the community advisory board rancheria wellness group. job support such as 100-dollar muni cards. as well as finding some of the admin straight of overhead. as a department we would use the three and a $50,000 to fund 1.0

full time social worker and this would be a temporary exam position. there would also be about $1,400 for reprocessing training for those clinical social workers. 17% indirect rate. please let us know if you have any questions or would like further information. >> no bla report on this? any questions or comments by colleagues? seeing him. any public comments on? seeing him. i would like to move this to the bar with a positive recommendation. we can take that without objections. madame clerk any other business before us today? >> i would like to correct the statement that i made earlier, at the beginning of the meeting. items acted upon today will appear on the december 10 board of supervisors meeting, not december 3. no further business. >> thank you very much. we are adjourned.

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's elected assessor. when i meet with seniors in the community, they're thinking about the future. some want to down size or move

to a new neighborhood that's closer to family, but they also worry that making such a change will increase their property taxes. that's why i want to share with you a property tax saving program called proposition 60. so how does this work? prop 60 was passed in 1986 to allow seniors who are 55 years and older to keep their prop 13 value, even when they move into a new home. under prop 13 law, property growth is limited to 2% growth a year. but when ownership changes the law requires that we reassess the value to new market value. compared to your existing home, which was benefited from the -- which has benefited from the prop 13 growth limit on taxable value, the new limit on the replacement home would likely be higher. that's where prop 60 comes in. prop 60 recognizes that seniors on fixed income may not be able

to afford higher taxes so it allows them to carryover their existing prop 13 value to their new home which means seniors can continue to pay their prop 13 tax values as if they had never moved. remember, the prop 60 is a one time tax benefit, and the property value must be equal to or below around your replacement home. if you plan to purchase your new home before selling your existing home, please make sure that your new home is at the same price or cheaper than your existing home. this means that if your existing home is worth $1 million in market value, your new home must be $1 million or below. if you're looking to purchase and sell within a year, were you nur home must not be at a value that is worth more than

105% of your exist egging home. which means if you sell your old home for $1 million, and you buy a home within one year, your new home should not be worth more than $1.15 million. if you sell your existing home at $1 million and buy a replacement between year one and two, it should be no more than $1.1 million. know that your ability to participate in this program expires after two years. you will not be able to receive prop 60 tax benefits if you cannot make the purchase within two years. so benefit from this tax savings program, you have to apply. just download the prop 60 form from our website and submit it to our office. for more, visit our website,

for more, visit our website, >> we shall start with the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stand, one nation under god, with liberty and justice for a all. >> item two, role call. (role call).

>> the standard rules will be applied to include public comment restricted to three minutes. i'll recognize commissioner cas irirkcasiado to make a statemen. >> thank you to darlene for a member's issues, one of our elderly members called in and said that he was having trouble finding his sister, checking on her well-being. staff routed that phone call to me and we were able to fe get te police department and fire department to respond. his elderly sister was found on the floor next to her bed with a broken hip.

to make a long story short, had she laid there another 24 hours, she would not be with us but she in the hospital recovering. so i want to thank staff for their attention to duty and quick response and the family is very, very, very pleased. but the take away that i want here is that when someone calls in and they're worried, let's act on it all of the time like we did here because time is of the essence and her brother, the one who call in here, he was actually concerned because he didn't want to break down her door because he was afraid she would be angry if he broke down the door and went in. i assured him we wouldn't do that and the fire department put a ladder to the second floor and got in through an open window. so the door wasn't broken. so i want to express those

sentiments and on behalf of tom milburn and his family, thank you to everyone participated and darlene, thank you for your quick response. >> that takes us to item 3, closed session and do we need public comment to go in? any public comment regarding us going into closed session? we will not start the open public session again before 2:30. (closed session. >> all those in favour, say aye. item 4, public comment. >> i'm john stenson. i'm a 44-year member of our

engine phones. today i would like to comment on public comment. i would like to comment because i think you need some reforms that need to be made. the first reform that i would like you to make is that i would like you to change your starting time from 10:0 1:30 to 2:00 p.m. i don't think you have started one meeting on time and the second one is to put an end to closed-door meetings. a few months ago a public commenter said he did not like you having secret meetings and i agree with him. the third reform that you need to make is if any of our members ask you any questions about how you are investing our money, you should answer those questions. and in the past meetings, i've asked you what were the

retainers ended june of 2019 and how much money you paid in management fees and performance fees to get those? and i also ask mr. kocher to give a written report on large pension forms like coffers, the state of new jersey? did he ever give you a report like that? i don't think so. another question i would like answered is, what is your managers definition of protection? my definition is not losing any money. please ask your hedge fund manager what his definition is. thank you. >> any further public comment? that takes us to item 5, approval of the minutes of the october 9th meeting.

any corrections, deletions or additions? the motion to adopt the minutes is in order. all those in favour say aye. and item six, consent calendar. any members of the board that would like removed for separate consideration? please remove item 6d, shall not be considered until there's a change in that operation, 6d, d as in delta. any questions? motion to adopt is in order. to be removed.

>> to remove it from the consent calendar, that's the own way under policy they can travel. >> i understand. the travel request will be canceled to begin with and therefore, no need to vote on it. >> oh, your travel request? >> yes. >> ok, got it. it's just one item. >> thank you for the clarification and does not take a motion to remov item to remova consent calendar. >> got it. >> any further questions, motion to adopt is in order. and seconded? you got it. all those in favour, say aye. >> and before we move to item 7, i will make a note to call item- >> public comment? >> excuse me, public comment, thank you.

no public comment. if things keep going along swimmingly, i will not need to pull 10 and 11 off but that sequence will be taken out of order. item 7. >> item 7, action item. recommendation to hire any pc as general investment's consultant. >> very good. board members any pc's five-year tenure is coming up in june of this year is staff requested and the board approved a recommendation that we issue an rfp for general consulting services. we received two bids and we are remming to again, reup, with any pc, and they are a deeply resourced firm with more than 600 billion in aum with public pension plans, including many

our size and larger. and allen continues to express a desire to serve for the term of our recommendation. i'm going to ask kurt and anna to further walk through a recommendation and we'll answer any question. >> i'll talk a little bit about the process and then our conclusions. as bill noted, you'll recall at the june 12th board meet, be they issued an rf. for investment service servicest was received from nep c. we formed an evaluation team comprised of bill, anna and myself and it included a thorough review of the submitted proposals, on site meetings and reference calls with both current and former clients.

this work occurred over the past few months but was augmented by similar work confirmed by bill and me on the retiree healthcare trust which issued an rfp earlier in the year to which nakita and an nepc responded and they had an opportunity to present on october 16th. it's a meeting, ibelieve, most of you were able to attend. it was divided into three primary duties, total funded policy and allocations. public market's oversight and performance measurement. and in addition, there were matters to esg and governance and why we only received two responses to our rfp, both makita and nepc were suitable. both are well resourced with

experienced staff is both developed sophisticated methods for allocation and both aligned on a variety of matters but ended the day, we give a slight edge to any pc and our recommendation is that the board retain nepc as our general investment consultant. >> board members? >> i make a motion to adopt the recommendation. >> second. >> and any board questions? >> i have one question. why are those two firms responding? >> a couple of things. well, one is there has been a lot of consolidation in the industry. the number of large consulting firms is probably no more than half or less than it was eight or ten years ago. there's a variety of reasons for that. and the big one is that most of

them with cambridge being the exception, their business is primarily around corporate plans and public pension plans who don't pay very much. buas a result, that puts a premm on cost control. and therefore, as a result of that, synergy is a scale and so there's been a lot of consolidation. there are probably some other reasons. we do know of a couple that we did talk with a couple of firms about why they chose not to reply. >> without naming the firms, can you maybe give you feedback that you heard? >> the two i recall that i spoke to that i thought would respond and considered responding asked questions during that phase where they can ask questions and they looked at our meeting

schedule and didn't feel they could adequately commit to senior resources meet a monthly meeting schedule, two of them. >> is that because of the day of the month? because they already have other commitments? >> in one case, that was it. the senior consultants they wanted to assign, had relationships. >> they meet at those times. >> the other is monthly versus quarterly. >> that's unusual. that's a big commitment. >> and what other feedback did you receive? >> another one was we own learneonlylearned about this afe fact. our returns have been pretty good and that we were probably, quote, unquote, satisfied with our existing services. and that was the second. there were some other things related to just some dynamics related to spurs that were also

some reasons for pause and we could talk off-line. >> you don't have to mention the firms. we know this is not you and we won't kill the messenger, but tell us what people perceive, yes. >> it's difficult. >> difficult board. >> difficult board. >> in what way? >> what you find online. >> this right here. [ laughter ] >> another one is being in the line of fire of esg. that's another one. so these are some things that people think about. >> there's one consulting firm i know of as a business to no longer work with public plans and they feel a lot of their research, both for asset allocation and management research is for priority work.

>> quite number of years ago, not related to spurs, they made a decision to no longer do business with public pension plans because they were sued for a large amount of money. and more recently, there's a public pension plan in the southeast and they sued everybody under the cover. and and i looked at that and thought nobody will do business folk. folks. i won't go too long but it's gad to knogood to know some of these things. going back to esg and board dynamics, other than the fact we're looking at esg and whatever those board dynamics might be, i don't know if it's the way we talk to people or individual personalities or

politics, can you maybe just give us more color around those two items? >> it's perceived political interference. >> where politics trump investment decisions. >> yes. >> ok. >> and that goes for both esg and the board dynamic? >> i would say yes. >> ok. that's helpful and good to know. thank you for sharing. >> board questions. i have a couple the first question is from experience working with nebc, anything positive if terms of the collaboration working with nepc because as the allocation recommendations, they do things in the manager selection area. >> there's always room for

improvement and we speak with them, allen and dan, and allen and dan are very responsive and helpful when we bring those things up. overall, an nepc and allen have been very good business partners. >> any reluctance on their part to collaborate? >> no. >> any reluc reluctance on stafo collaborate with nepc? >> as the way this nice report was written, it's a glowing report, very similar to the one written five years ago which, perhaps, you were the author. but let me ask this question about makia, since the name on the first page, nothing is discuss. did you find any strengths in makita that did not appear?

>> i'll answer that and i'll ask kurt and anna to opine, as well. makita made a strong presentation and they were excellent. they established themselves they would be a very, very good business partner. i did two on-sites with them, one in san diego and one in boston and in back-to-back weeks, they did a terrific job. the differences, in my opinion, are marginal, but there is a slight edge in terms of resources, plans about our side, and allen is a distinguished and experienced consultant. there are not going to be too many allen martins in the industry. so the differences were marginal

and we couldn't find an important reason to make a change. nepc has proven to be a very, very good business partner. kurt? >> the candid answer was no, there wasn't anything that makita demonstrated that was sitly better than nepc did or that we want to adopt. noted, this is very close and both quite capable. but no, there wasn't anything that makita did exceptionally well or for that matter, deficient in. >> they were very similar. one is a little bit larger in many dimensions. >> i would add to that, that even within nepc, we don't leverage everything. for us, it was a good exercise to learn more about capabilities that we are not leveraging fully. >> i'll make two observations.

one, there's an issue of cost of change. if you don't think there's enough value going through the cost of change and there tore t, don't change. but in terms of the product that makita discussed called cassie which utilizes a system or board of trustees, in terms of a better fix on an organization really wanted as opposed to the start way it's done, does it have value or is it just a bunch of hooey in. >> i think it has an excellent value and an excellent product that they put together and we did -- we scored them highly. and that's one way where nepc, i think we can leverage more. we worked with the jeanette and

worked a number of times with them. so i think we can put it together but it doesn't have the presentation that makita put together. as an asset liability study toolkit that differentiates makita. we think nepc has all of the components in it and maybe not the front side but has all of the components and we are also looking and leveraging other ways to look at liability studies. not just within our consultants. so we feel it's different but not enough to make this switch. >> well, i didn't ask it for the issue of switching. the question is, when the consultant has a product or service that someone else doesn't have, do we want it?

president, driscoll, i would say that in this recommendation, we reserve the right to come back to the board at any time if we have identified a tool or an asset that our current consultant is not providing go through another rp or rfi process to identify it. we have done that on the reporting side, on the private market side, hiring two separate consultants. even though we had two responses here, we believe that if there comes a need for a tool or something we know is out there that is beneficial, we would come back and basically either do an rfi or rfp to identify folks to produce this and i think we look at consultants differently than five years ago when we hired nepc and certainly, you know, the staff's recommendation speaks for itself. however, if, in fact, there's a

tool that is identified that we believe nepc does not have, we would come back and also recommend that we would engage them on a project basis to deliver that tool. >> thank you. yes, there is the issue of project work which is different from the issue of -- is there a difference to justify a cost as part two? and since kyron does work for us but you've supervised their other work and they are doing good work, similar to what nepc is doing but i will continue to talk to kyron because the whole subject of risk management which comes up again is again is again we have not so much mastered but it looks like questions we should be answering to give clearer direction to consultant and staff. as for this general

recommendation, the way we are set up in our structure, it is awkward we're asking staff to do the due diligence on a consultant that the board will use in deciding whom staff will work with. it appears to be b a conflict we can't get around. we've discussed it and are they a good firm or not? just putting that on the table now and more concerned about assessing how much risk this board is willing to accept when we set up the acid allocation mix which is scheduled for the next six, seven months. >> february. >> a bit of coin coincidence of events going on. >> i would add that we work with other firms to look at acid liability studies and other toolkits. it's not just consultants but we have access to one of the best acid liability studies through the couple of managers we engage

in, especially on the global macro side that have this type of acid liabilities and we do intend to review that in addition to the acid liability studies we will start with. >> i forget, was a motion to accept staff agency recommendation made? you had a question? >> excuse me. >> i, too, work with nepc and makita currently and here and with another group and i would agree with staff that the differences between the two are very -- i mean it's so small that it's not even worth it because they're so similar in what they offer in terms of the services. my question, and i coup hav dona problem with your recommendation retaining nepc is the concession planning. allen is marquis in the industry and leads the industry by far on

any executive managers on the consulting side. i know at some point, he'll probably think about this didn't i'm not sure if they talked about possession planning with you at nepc. >> allen has indicated that he's going to continue to serve and doesn't plan on retiring any time soon. it is a deep team. we know dan very, very well. and we don't know sam, as well. met sam several times and you're likely to see sam over time become more involved in the spurs. and the same kind of succession planning has occurred elsewhere throughout the industry. recently, makita acquired or merged together with pca. >> that's correct. >> pca was really had one key

guy who owns the vast majority of the firm. and he's beyond retirement age. and there was really no obvious off parent there. of option apparent there. it was the merger. it makes it more difficult to recruit and retain, especially through a whole career. now we're fortunate that allen -- allen is very experienced. he was experience experienced po becoming a consultant is dan has now served both at allen builder and through nepc and quite experienced and sam is experienced, as well. so it's a problem not just at

nepc but throughout the industry. >> i agree. >> wilshire had the same thing. >> it's something we need to monitor, for sure. >> and so we do that in a couple of ways. cambridge is a deeply resourced team. so we're not just totally dependent on one consultant. tory cove is relatively deeply resource team and you have a strong staff and you have a relatively deep staff. so we're able to execute on our strategy because we have multiple sets of eyes. >> a motion is made and any public comment?

>> the future, you shouldn't hire any investment consultantseconconsultantsconsur without taking investments like hedge funds. they are 11 proceeding 11% for 0 years. you don't have to go back. you have to consider three investments, nothing else, stock, funds and real estate.

there's 12.88% and year-to-date 25.54%. you could give mr. kocher, $500,000 pay raise and i could give him the best investment advice there. it would get you more than 7.4% retained and you board members have billions of dollars of high risk to help get 7.4% retainer and that's completely ridiculous. you get that retained with a passive investment in stocks, bonds and real estate. item 7. all those in favour say aye and opposed? ok, before we move to item 8,

let mr. nuclea mr. martin know e to come back in. >> adoption of amendments to the environment, social and governance procedures, esg and for the san francisco city and county employee's retirement system. >> very good, board members. we were doing a sweeping eval of all of our policies and procedures throughout the plan and the first of these to come to you is, we do have some recommended amendments to our esg policy and you'll see the recommendation followed by -- no, it's not a red line but a black line and so that you can see the changes. there's a handful or so of these and i'll ask her to introduce the item and andrew can walk it through in detail. >> andrew describes it has social investment policies referring to esg procedures and

there were certain policies written into the trust's overall statement. given we're now 18 months into the development of our esg efforts, we believe it's time for spurs to mend our procedures to reflect the three-pillar platform and have a board adopt that. >> thank you, kurt. good afternoon, commissioners. and this is kurt and we're presenting a few updates to the esg policy. we tried to include, one, the black-line version showing the edits as well as a clean version what the new policy what look like and the existing policy, i poly, was last reviewed by the former esg committee in september of 2016 and it was last updated in march of this year in the appendix to update

the investment restrictions and they were opted in 2018. the suggested updates that we're recommending today are meant to reflect as kurt said, the organization of our three pillar esg framework. so it includes a bit of a reorganization of the levels one, two and three terminology that we previously used in our esg pol i. policy. it doesn't cut out any aspect of the activities or actions but reorganizes them within our current three-pillar approach to esg. and the future updates to the investment policy statement will remove the relatively lengthy section that discusses and repeats a lot of the esg policy information that's in this policy and will instead likely point to this policy as the

basis for spur's comprehensive esg's policies and practises. i'll stop there and happy to answer questions on specific changes and i will note that nepc did reviewer the propose rs before they were submitted. >> we've been discussing all of the parts of the portfolio? >> yes. >> everybody understands what you're trying to lead us to? >> yes. >> great. >> board questions?

>> this is an action item and is there a second. >> seconded and no further questions, i'll call for public comment. i'll call the question, all those in favour of adopting? aye and opposed? >> chief investment officer reports. >> to begin our returns we were up 1.2% and public equity was down in the fiscal year, down about 1.5% but it was up 2.5% for the month of october. nothing else particularly remarkable about the month, but public equity is now up 20% for the year and in terms of

closings, emr 3, which is natural investment, the board approved 50 until april and we did close at 50 million. pag, which is an asia-based direct lending and senior debt strategy, the board approved 100 million in september and if we closed at 100 million. the personal update, williamson who served over a year has relocated to atlanta. his wife was born in georgia and his wife also has, i think it's a brother and sister in atlanta. and an opportunity became open in atlanta and so, he has relocated. and we have begun to recruit or we will soon recruit for his

replacement. we currently have an opening for a security analyst in venture capital and we think we are close to sealing a deal there. and we will soon begin, very soon, a search for security analyst for public equity. after, as you know, recall the unfortunate passing of mark coleman and we will begin searching for our inaugural manager of investment operations. regarding beau's departure, a current member of our team and ed has been with the spurs for four years and ed will step in, into the private equity role. ed has terrific experience in education and he's now served spurs for four years and he has 12 years' total experience, including six years at haul capital. haul capital is one of the

prevalent ocos in the country, managing $33 billion, a deep shop. they serve many of the prominent endowments and foundations around the country. they have, probably, a couple hundred clients or so. and a very deep investment team and the team serves as generalists. so ed gained a terrific experience. the founder of haul capital, katie haul, was the long-time chair of the princeton investment board and printton is rivals with yale, as one of the very top investment offices in the country. so he's had terrific training and from somebody who herself is a real distinguished entrepreneur and investor. and ed is also a graduate in santa clara and nba from

northwestern. in lieu of the changes, and to kind of give the board snapshot, there's a work picture of our current work chart, you do see that included in here and we really have -- it says 21 but we have 20 positions right now and we have four that are open and three that i eluded to and a fourth. we do have an spm that we will recruit for sometime after the deal with the three existing or soon to be announced recruitments are completed. you'll see it's well-resourced team and we do a lot of activities. this is a more complicated investment structure than many public pension plans. and we do more across risk management, esg, and we include absolute return, natural resources, private credit and so, it looks like a well-resourced team and but, in

fact, it's about two people deep in everything we do. senior person and a mid or lower-level person. and you did see earlier today -- well, i can't speak to that because it was done if private, closed session. so anyway, that's the current status and you see the current vacancies that we also have. in addition to that, we do have a budget for several interns and we currently have one intern right now and she is exceptional. and we've had one or two others in the past and they've all worked out really, really well. and so, we periodically do fill those, as well. and those are priorities, i should say, as well, to be fully staffed. >> and of those, we regularly advertise on the tweegle

foundation website. we have not had any interest in our ours and we're not sure if it is what we can pay them or whether it's just the nature of -- i mean, we're getting folks who are doing it during the summertime or working and so, we continue to advertise at the tweegle foundation. >> maybe there's a conflict or maybe we're not attractive. i don't know what the problems are. >> our hr director, grace tem talked to the folks, saying they're jobs are seasonal and it was posted after everyone was place. >> after graduation and everything. >> so we're trying to make sure that we can synchronize with where people will be available and need the time, which i believe we've done. i mean, as bill indicated, i

don't think we've ever had three working at the same time, but we have three vacant positions. we've been sourcing most of them through david francel's connection with a program at uc berkley and we have come close to -- we actually offered one of our fellows an analyst's job and found out that we cannot compete with other job offers that an intern or fellow receives upon graduating. and again, we want to make sure that the board understands we're serious about this and we have budget money. we're spending it, but we probably, in the scope of things, need to recope some positions. and so that we can be able to snag some of the talent that we're actually helping to train. >> thank you. i really appreciate it.

so thank you to you and mr. coverg and the rest of the staff for the position. i really appreciate it. >> as we conveyed earlier in year with our liabilities going from 28 to 40 billion over the next eight years, and our aum, which was 17 billion, and even 11 billion in 2008, it was $11 billion in joh june of 2009d now we're at 27. with the rising liabilities, rising aum, the speed at which private market managers are coming back to market, they used to come back every four years and now it's two, two and a half, private credit or less than that. with the rising number of things that we do, which ha, which hasd

or diversification, the numbers allen showed in the september board package is not only return at the top, but our volatility of the returns is in the lowest 15%. so our risk adjusted returns are outstanding and we have really reduced the amount of volatility, but what you see is there will be need to be changes. the size of the team will have to grow or we'll have to change our approach. we'll have to be more simplistic about what we do. do or continue to do to require more resources. and then in addition to that is to have an investment operation's group and do more separate accounts. so this is a snapshot in time, but we do see our future of where we need to go and that for us to continue to do what we

have done, for that to be sustainable, is we need to change as we yo. grow. the last item i'll point out is item number six and you see the calendar of acid class updates and we are formalizing this and the first that you saw esg last month and you will see each of the classes coming throughout 2020. with that, i'll turn it over to the board for questions or comments. >> regarding your summary rather, the 429.$1 billion, how much is equitized? commissioner, can you tell me what page you're on. >> you don't have the page numbed but it's the table with all of the numbers, the weights, numbers, dollars.