diversefied and continues to do a very nice job in this scenario. we have seen very snies casnic, particularly for the month of march. so i'll pause there and really see if there's any questions. happy to walk-through any of the materials as needed. . >> commissioner driscoll? >> i was going to recognize committee chair bridges. she might want to make a comment. >> i did. can you hear me okay? >> yes. >> yes, to commissioner driscoll and to the board, the deferred comp committee did listen to all participants that were brought in. we reviewed them in detail in terms of the due diligence that was done with our consultants, and i would say that given the information that we received,

and based on the thorough research with my consultants, i, at this time, would like to recommend to the board that we retain galliard for the stable value fund. >> okay. is there a second for that motion? >> supervisor safai. i'd like to second that. >> thank you. before we call the question, we'll ask for any public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who are currently in the queue who wishes to provide public comment on this item, please dial one-zero. when it is your turn to speak, the system will prompt you automatically. those who are not in the queue, please follow the instructions on the screen. moderator, do we have any callers on the line?

>> operator: madam clerk, there are no callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. president driscoll? >> thank you. [inaudible] [roll call]

>> clerk: 7-0, motion passes. >> next item. >> clerk: item number 7, discussion and possible action on coronavirus aid, relief, and economic security act, c.a.r.e.s. act, impact on the sfdcp. >> commissioners, as you're aware, march 27, president signed a coronavirus aid, relief, and economic security act, commonly called c.a.r.e.s. act, a lot of it targeted to individuals and businesses. and part of this c.a.r.e.s. act were entitlements or some options that would be provided to participants in, for example, a deferred comp program.

so what we have presented to you are the three options that are now available under c.a.r.e.s. one is not optional, and we have invited brian merrick to just give the board a brief overview of the changes in required minimum distribution. this is not optional, this is law now. and then, after that presentation, we'll go into the two options that are available to the retirement board to direct staff to pursue an implement that would provide immediate aid, or at least access to deferred comp accounts for our participants. and with that, i believe that brian is still on the phone. >> yes, i am. can you hear me, sir? >> yes. >> okay. very good. thank you. for the record, brian merrick, and i'm going to share my

screen, if you can see this. what you should see on your screen is washington watch. can the commissioners see this? >> not yet. >> okay. let me just try this again. desktop. >> we see it now. >> okay. very good. i will not go through this. this is more for reference, but with the c.a.r.e.s. act that was enacted at the end of march, as mr. huish mentioned, part of the act pertained to retirement plans. and this provides some of the background related to that act. this is a presentation that we walked through our retirement plan clients, including the director of this plan, to give some updates on some of the relief plans of the government in response to the covid-19 crisis. what i'm going to focus on

specifically is the waiver of requirement distributions for 2020, which i'm displaying here. as most of you know, you know, once a plan participant reaches the age of 70.5 prior to 2020, they're required to start taking distributions from the 457 plan. earlier this year, that number was changed to the minimum age of 72. however, with this act, the i.r.s. is waving any minimum ages in 2020. so what this means is that we will not be forcing out distributions from participant acts in 2020. that said, for anybody who was

has, on their own, requested ongoing, periodic distributions from their plan, we will continue to honor those. so for example, someone might be taking monthly withdrawals or annual withdrawals that may be to satisfy r&bs, maybe to satisfy their retirement compensation. we will be honoring those, but we won't force distributions out on anyone. in addition to that, if someone has already taken an r.m.d., required minimum distribution in 2020, they will have the opportunity to roll that money back into the plan if they choose to do so. so we will identify all individuals who are -- you know, would normally be subject to a required minimum distribution in 2020, and we'll be sending them a letter, letting them know of this cares act provision, you know, the fact that they will not be required to take a distribution, and what their

options are. so with that, i will stop and see if you have any questions, otherwise, turn it back over to mr. huish. >> more to add, jay? >> yes -- well, not on the required minimum distribution. if we're clear on that, that's something that voya is prepared to do -- >> i have a question. >> okay. >> this is al. i appreciate the information and the update. the question i'm getting from a lot of -- some of the retirees is they're helping their children. there's issues with children have been laid off, there's dangers of houses -- the credit unions are using emergency loans similar to what they used

in the fires from santa rosa, etc. so just so i know there's retirees watching today. so if a retiree has money in the account and has a deferred camp, and that retiree, what you're saying, could take money out to -- to help their children, and he or she would then have to declare it over a three-year period. is that correct? >> commissioner casciato, we haven't gotten to that point yet. these are the required minimum distributions. we will be talking about the coronavirus withdrawals, which are not, you know, the u.e.s, but they're self-certified related to circumstances that you just described, having to help out children or grandchildren related to the

coronavirus. but we just wanted to sort of covered the required change first, and now, we'll enter into a discussion on something that would help the retirees get access to their accounts in order to mitigate any -- any -- any hardships related to covid-19. >> but i -- just to clear, because i know some people are watching, this is -- issue is for 2020 only, correct? >> the required minimum distribution is for 2020. now what you're talking about is the coronavirus related distribution, and that, again, is a temporary type of distribution. it is only available between -- it's for calendar year 2020, there through december 31, 2020, and it would be to a qualified individual, which is

a participant as well as anyone who, because of the virus, experienced any kind of adverse financial consequences. and so that is optional for the retirement board to consider and approve, and certainly, we've talked to voya and the folks at voya would be prepared to have that available to plan participants in a couple of weeks. >> and also, does that have a redeposit clause, same as the minimum distribution? >> yes, that they are treated as rollover contributions back into the plan. in the retiree's case, because they are not in payroll, they would have to make over-the-counter distributions back into payroll, but yes,

they can redeposit that money back into the plan. and certainly, staff is prepared, if the board wants to direct us to pursue either one. the other option is, again, for a temporary fix f, for 180 days -- >> where is the record keeper? >> they're on the line. >> this is supervisor safai. i have a question? >> yes? >> they wei'm looking at the n here. was it as simple as doubling the existing numbers here or was there consideration why we would be asking for or limiting

it up to $100,000? >> we've not taken any action on this. >> no, i understand. i'm looking at the recommendation. i see that. i know we haven't taken any action. i'm just looking at what's recommended? >> yes. as we pointed out in the presentation, it can be up to $100,000. if you wanted to go from $50,000 to $75,000, that would be acceptable. staff has not taken any action except on the measure of this emergency temporary increase for loans, up to 100% or $100,000, and that's in combination with any other loans that they might be taken, the 1 $100,000 limit, if they have a $50,000 loan

outstanding, they would be able to access an additional $50,000. >> okay. thank you. >> it leaves us with the c.a.r.e.s. act for other plans. >> certainly. and i would just say anecdotally, we've had some requested whether the board would be considering this and whether the board would consider offering these options as a temporary fix for financial distress related to covid-19. >> besides the r.m.d. and the c.r.d., is there anything else that we need to cover or is there going to be a one-action motion? >> well, i think there's two

motions. one is extending the loans to $100,000 or 100%, that does not help retirees because they are required to take loans against the plans. so for retirees, fixing or extending the loans up to $100,000 or 100%, and then, the second item, approving implementation of the coronavirus distribution, which, again, is not a u.e., it's not a typical u.e. it's a very specific pandemic relief, and it will go away, so i would ask if the board really wants to open up and be, as president driscoll said, be as --

[inaudible] >> -- it would be to make a motion what was presented in the coronavirus distribution. >> the board several options. we can do one motion, or several. one and three, two and three. >> well, i would make an extended motion. jay, would you provide us with an extended motion that takes it up to the $100,000? >> that you would direct staff to implement the full provisions of the c.a.r.e.s. act, which includes temporary loan extension up to $100,000 or up to 100% of the account, as well as implementation of the coronavirus related distribution for qualified participants to take temporary

repayable distributions from their sfgcp accounts. >> and that covers it all inclusively, correct? >> yes. >> okay. so i'll make that form of a motion. >> okay. i'll second. >> just one -- yeah, just before we call for the vote, i don't know if there's -- the screen is acting weird, so i don't know if somebody's sharing a screen. i've got a double overlap, but any way, let's go on with the vote. >> anymore -- excuse me. before we go public, anymore board member questions? anymore comments from our subject matter experts? we' we'll now open it up to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who are currently in the queue who wishes to provide

public comment on this item, please dial one-zero. when you are prompted to speak, the system will prompt you automatically. those not in the queue, please follow the instructions on the screen. moderator, do we have any callers on the line? >> operator: madam clerk, there are no callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. president driscoll? >> please conduct a roll call vote on item 7. [roll call]

>> clerk: 7-0, motion passes. >> next item. >> clerk: item number 8, discussion item. update to retirement board on retirement services, deferred compensation, and investment divisions' activities since the shelter in place order on march 16, 2020. >> commissioners, i've asked each deputy director for the divisions to prepare an update on our reaction to and how we have maintained service levels since the shelter in place order on march 16. i will say also, in addition to -- i'm going to call on each of the division managers and

diane to report, but i also want to let you know that we participate in the disaster service worker program with the city, and for folks who have been furloughed, working away from the office or who cannot telecommute or do their job w remotely, we have made them available, serving as disaster service workers around the city, certainly frontline, and we expect that would continue. but i just wanted to let you know that we have actually finally received our shipment of laptops, which i don't know what day it is today, but seemed like last week or even earlier, we were able to deploy them out to staff to enable them to work from home.

we'll start with karen, if karen's on the line. >> i am. i am. can you hear me? >> yes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. commissioner driscoll, in the interest of time, i see what time it is, do you want me to go through my memorandum or would you like me to just take questions from the board? >> you do not need to go through the whole memo because the assumption is we have been updated, but answer the question is if we've been meeting all the updated demands and then field the questions. >> we have had a significant uptake in members requiring services or retirement counseling, and we have met all of that. we have -- all of our operations are now up-to-date and running.

there is really no team that isn't staffed, particularly now that we have the laptops, and i'm happy to take questions. >> and i will sigh that on the -- march 16, the day after the shelter in play order, karen and her team had started doing telephone counseling to all folks who had booked retirement counseling appointments, and now, we've doubled the size of that team. and so for team who had appointments because they were going to be retiring soon, we were able to host those. we've also posted an e-mail address on the website for folks, who, because of the situation, may want to change their retirement dates, between now and july 1. so i would ask you that if you know anyone that wants to

retire between now and july 1, to get ahold of us, and we'll make sure they get retired in a timely manner. >> i'm happy to take any questions. >> yeah, commissioner -- or brian stansbury here. i just have one question for you guys. going forward, is there going to be some sort of a review about trying to put together a lesson to learn through all of this and have a war plan up on the shelf so that we can refer to this the next time something like this might pop up? >> jay, do you want to take it? we actually have in place a plan, which we did implement, as soon as the shelter in place

order was announced. what we hadn't had planned, or planned out, i should say, was operations all the way down to the level of, for example, who was going to pick up the mail. now that we do have that, and we will incorporate all of the positives that we have developed into our disaster recovery plan so that, yes, absolutely, going forward, there won't be any delays. but i have to say, i'm pretty impressed with the teams. we really didn't have any significant delay in getting any of our business conducted. >> great. i'm happy -- go ahead, i'm sorry. >> no, i was going to say, we do have desktop exercises, and we certainly had not envisioned anything like covid-19, but we

certainly had envisioned not having access to the building, losing our resources. we certainly will update it after this. we did have a plan to implement which got us a head start. >> i'm glad to hear that. i think this is -- you know, this is something that we've talked about before, jay, and, you know, i know it's always just a matter of time and resources, but at some point, we should sit down and talk about the scenarios where we can't come into the office or the systems are hacked, there's a loss of data, things are deleted. and we should be thinking about these things so that we're ready for them when they do happen, but i'm glad that things have been going so smoothly. thanks for the report. >> and next, we'llav