Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-16 - Agendas - Final 1 Ir • POLICE PENSION AND RELIEF FUND AGENDA January 16, 2003 A meeting of the Fayetteville Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board was held on January 16, 2003, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 1 . Approval of July 18, 2002 minutes Approval of October 17, .2002 minutes 2. Approval of retirement for: John R. Brown Approval of retirement for Melvin W. Stanley 3 . Review of the pension list • 4. Investment report 5 . Other business Police Pension Minutes 1 � r July 18, 2002 Page 1 of 4 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE POLICE PENSION AND RELIEF FUND JULY 189 2002 A meeting of the Police Pension and Relief Fund Board was held on July 18, 2002 at 1 :30p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Coody, Eldon Roberts, Hollis Spencer, Jerry Friend, Randy Bradley, Heather Woodruff, Kit Williams and Marsha Farthing. MINUTES Mr. Bradley moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Roberts seconded. The motion carried unanimously. PENSION LIST Ms. Woodruff stated Chief Watson had been added to the retirement list. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Roberts stated there had been some miscommunication on how the widows are being treated on the fund. In 1999 when they went for a benefit increase, they had opted to • make the benefit increase a non-spousal benefit because of the cost. When the benefit increase was granted in 1999 they moved everyone to 90% of salary. They had all been under the assumption that, the widows would revert back to 50% of salary. The actuaries had been counting the widows at the same benefit level that they were after the police officer passed away. The law had two parts to it. The actuaries were operating off the one premise of the law that says that a spouse that becomes a widow after the raise in benefits she would continue to draw the same amount. There was one person that they had not treated that way. The actuary was telling them that if her husband and been alive and received the 90% benefit, then she should receive that too. Mr. Williams stated he will ask the Attorney General for an opinion. Dr. Mashburn moved to have Mr. Williams ask the Attorney General for an opinion on 24-11 -425. Mr. Roberts seconded. The motion carried unanimously. INVESTMENT REPORT Ms. Elaine Longer, Longer Investment, stated the S&P and the NASDQ was down and the Dow was off about fifty. She thought a lot of companies that were coming under increased scrutiny would be restating earnings. She had been concerned about some of the actuary assumption behind some the defined benefit plans, were really to high. During the ten years where the bull market was getting 20% the pension plans became over funded based on their actuary assumption of 10%. The companies recaptured those • overfunded pension gains back into their corporate earnings. Now that they were sitting there 9 to 10% return assumption and the market was saying 6% is here they should be. Police Pension Minutes July 18, 2002 b .. Page 2 of 4 • The corporations that did not adjust downward are going to be accused of not being quiet honest with their shareholding public. She thought they were going to see the push to adjust these pension assumptions downward so that they could create greater returns, so that would work in reverse on the earning side because of the unfunded pension liability. Mr. Friend asked how some retirements have become over funded. Ms. Longer stated they could recapture that back into their earrings because their liability is the discounted present value of their future obligations. When they were using a discount rate of 10% and the market was clicking along at 20% they can get over funded. They technically can bring that back in and recapture it in earning because their only liability was what they were obligated for. Conversely, when they get the 10% discount rate that gave them a lower present value. If they take the discount rate to 6%then it really pushes up what their present value is under future liability. She had talked with Eldon earlier this month because they had dropped below the weighting range of equity. They had been holding at 35% to 33%, trying to hold that lower range. They had been using options and hedgings. They had a very strict sale discipline, which has really helped them to get through this bear market. Technically, they were under their policy guidelines. They had the opportunity to sell right and they felt that the reserves are prudent at this time. As conditions improve they could go back up to policy range. It would take a motion by the board to allow them to be in violation of the policy on the equity side until they feel that the condition is right. Their second • option, if they wanted to stay within their policy range, would be to use the S&P Index Fund to get them back up into range. There was some much single issue stock risk out there right now, that she thought it was best to accomplish it through an index fund. Their equity range was 35% to 50%. They were currently at 20%. Approximately 15% under weighted. The money was currently mostly in bonds. They had 5% in cash reserves. They were earning about a 6.2% income rate of return. They felt that as long as they could keep putting it into bonds, they could always pull back out of bonds. She thought there would be a time to go back in and start rebuilding the equity side, but right now the equity markets were off 9% on the S&P and about 9% on the NASDQ, so they were not loosing anything by not being in there. Mr. Friend moved allow Longer Investment to be in violation of their investment policy I ntil Longer Investment felt that the environment was conducive to increasing the equity weighting. Mr. Roberts seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Longer stated looking at their account from where the still market started, 12/31/99 through June 30 of this year. During that time the S&P was down about 33%, the NASDAQ was off about 64%. Their stocks have gone down about as much as the S&P . stocks about 36%, but the asset allocation has held the portfolio together. From that point through June 30 their total portfolio was down 4.4%. When they look at their historical returns, in the good times they had 29%, 19.6%, 19.6%. A 4% decline in a terrible market like this is not unrecoverable. When they get through this, they had every bit of • flexibility in this portfolio to run again. At this point they had the defensive team on the field. Their income that came in on just interest .and dividends off bonds and stocks was Police Pension Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 3 of 4 • their cash flow that comes in regardless of the market is about $481,000 on the total portfolio. That represented an income yield of 5%. That was on the whole account for the years, which was approximately $40,000 per month. That did not include the tumback and the matching funds etc. Mr. Roberts stated he doubted that they were bringing in what they were spending. Ms. Longer stated their distribution ran between $55,000 and $65,000 per month. Their income cash flow on their bond part of the portfolio was approximately $40,000 per month. To satisfy their actuary assumption they had to achieve a 6%. rate of return. Their historical rate of return has run about 7.5%. Their combined portfolio was at 20% equities. ' Their corporate bonds represented about 15% of the portfolio and the yield on the corporate bonds was about 6.5%. They had been very cautious on the corporate bond market. They had seen an increase tide of corporate credit risk. Very thing that was in the bond portfolio is high investment grade. Government bonds and government agencies. The treasuries represented about 15% of the portfolio with a 6.2% yield on treasuries. Government agencies which was a combination of federal home loans, federal national mortgage, represented about 42% of the portfolio with a yield of about 6%. They had a very good yield. The way that they had been able to manage that was by a ladder approach. The income yield on their bonds has not changed over the last three years. The stock portfolio, there was a lot of reserves in there. they were yielding 6%, with very few exception all of their bonds that had been • purchased are trading above the purchase price. So they had earned not just the fixed 6.2% coupons, but also a capital appreciation while they wait out the storm. Realized Gains year to date, market was at—$81 ,000; -net - income was at $ 171 ,000, the bond portfolio, in the fixed income side of the account their yield was at 6. 1 %. weighted average maturity, yield on cost was 6.2%. their weighted average maturity. The average annual return has been about 9% on equities, and 7. 1 % on fixed income and 7.5%. This three year period that they were going through was a once in a generation type of an event. The last time that they had three years back to back of negative market was in the 30's. The equity return year to date was - 18%. That compares to the S&P of - 14.5%. NASDQ was down 25%. Total was 2.3%. The stock part of the portfolio where they had allocated reserves to the actual stock component of the portfolio was down 8.5%. . In response to questions, Ms Longer stated that a couple of years ago they had asked for an update on the cash flow analysis that lead to the increase of benefits, there were two way in which the fund can be evaluated. One was the actuary report, which is done by the State, it was more of a static picture. The other was a cash flow analysis which takes in more of the cash flows coming in from all the various sources and by that valuation model, they actually had 5 million dollar over funding. Mr. Roberts stated the actuary evaluation showed them to be in a sad state of affairs. Carrio had refigured all of figures using the cash flow method and Carrio had stated that they were alright. There was two different ways of doing this. • Ms. Farthing stated she would like to know if they would be making up the short fall. To her it looked like they were going to be taking out money than they were putting in. Police Pension Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 4 of 4 • Ms. Longer stated she was not involved in their projections. She did not know all of the assumptions or projections. Meeting adjourned at 2: 15 �,.. • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE POLICE PENSION AND RELIEF FUND BOARD OCTOBER 17, 2002 A meeting of the Fayetteville Police Pension and Relief Fund Board was held on October 17, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Eldon Roberts; Randy Bradley, City Clerk Heather Woodruff, and City Attorney Kit Williams. MINUTES There was no approval of the July 18, 2002 meeting due to lack of a quorum present. PENSION LIST STATE BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT INVESTMENT REPORT The combined portfolio report as of September 30, 2002 has an 18- 19% equity. The third quarter • was down, it was the worst quarter since 1987, this caused a wash out at the end of September. It is good that we have bonds in treasuries and agencies. Last week Ford started to trade as junk bonds and General Motors bonds-were downgraded this week. We got out of these bonds last year causing you to be unexposed to these corporate bonds. You have only about 11% of corporate bonds and they are all investment grade bonds, causing no credit risk. The stock investment is 43%. All the bonds are trading above the price we paid for them so they are all convertible to cash which can be used to add to the stock side. We have flexibility to continue to switch from the fixed income to the equity and back. The top five holdings are high quality type stocks, it is a very blue chip equity portfolio. Realized gains and losses: This year we have had net losses over gains, we have never had a year like this before, we have always tried to keep it pretty much evened up. The net income has been enough to offset the gains so that net the book value of the portfolio has not gone down. Fixed income, securities and total portfolio: The yield on the book value as of September 30 was 5 .9%, on June 30 it was 6. 1 %. Rather than extending out into the longer maturities that did not offer much yield for the amount of risk that we were tasking we ended up investing about $450,000.00 in shorter maturities with about a 3% yield. So temporarily the yield dropped a little on the fixed income side. The total portfolio that includes your stock has an income yield of 5%. We target trying to keep that income yield at 4% on the total portfolio. The weighted average maturity is 6.9 years and the weighted average duration is 5.2 years. The duration is the measure ofprice fluctuation • when interest rate increases. If interest rates go up the price value of your bonds will drop. • Performance history summary: Amortized returns are holding together very well, because we have not lost money in the stock market. For the year 2002 your stocks alone are down 36% but with the bonds the total account, is down 4.2% for the year. Holding the principle together is the most important part. This market through last week was the worst Bear market since the depression. . Investment policy is back to 25% or so equity weighting that is moving toward the lower end of your policy guidelines and your return objective is still intact. Total portfolio is about $ 10 million. Meeting adj°bidmed at 2: 15 pm • • APPLICATION FOR PENSION PURPOSES • DATE December 30th 32002 Board of Trustees Police Pension and Relief Fund Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Gentlemen: 1 John R . Brown have been employed by the Police Department of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, from May 18th x1981 to July ; 4th 1983 Second Employment May 1st 1984 January 19th 2003 I hereby request all benefits due me from the Police Pension and Relief Fund as of January 20th 2003 My beneficiary is Roxann Brown My,T0�t�sjfpr retirement are Voluntary j ' b I � r putaa �n Signature John R . Bro 5ubsefl6`ed ' d vgrn to before me this day of ro a Y„ IL-017/�NotaryPublic � Q�l� , s l h n ,o h�}?'dmsudass�oll expires,, ©l-fll - ngors - — - - — City Treasurer's Office The annual salary of the above applicant for pension purposes is: $ 509169 . 28 Computation of Retirement Benefits Ninety per cent (90%) of applicant's annual salary ---------------------- $ 459152 . 35 Additional annual benefits per AR Code Anno, 24- 11-422 --------- $ *Additional annual benefits per AR Code Anno, 24-11 -432 -------- $ *(Payable only at age 60 with 26 or more years of service) Total annual retirement benefits ---________—_________...—.......___ $ 45 , 152 . 35 Total monthly benefits (1/12 of total annual retirement benefits) -------- $ 39762 , 70 City Treasurer Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 220 • Notary Public My commission expires: APPLICATION FOR PENSION PURPOSES • DATE jaminx9 20 ; 20 w Board of Trustees Police Pension and Relief Fund Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Gentlemen: I, Melvin W. Stanley have been employed by the Police Department of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, from July 20 . 19111 to January 19 , 2003 I hereby request all benefits due me from the Police Pension and Relief Fund as of _1120/2ona My beneficiary- is Lori A Stanley My reasons for retirement are 21 1 12 years of aervice , wok e y . . 46�j''s Signature Sulb'scnbeii'9rfd swom to before in this o�_ day of N _ . Notary Public • . syr -. My comrtrgsion expires City Treasurer's Office The annual salary of the above applicant for pension purposes is: $ 552861 . 12 Computation of Retirement Benefits Ninety per cent 90% of applicant's annual sal ------ $ '50 , 275 . 01 Additional annual benefits per AR Code Anno, 24- 11-422 ----------- $ 240 . 00 *Additional annual benefits per AR Code Anno, 24- 11432 ------------ $ *(Payable only at age 60 with 26 or more years of service) Total annual retirement benefits ---------------------- ----- $ 50 , 515 . 01 Total monthly benefits (1/12 of total annual retirement benefits) --------- $ 49209 , 58 City Treasurer Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 20 • Notary Public My commission expires: POLICE PENSION FUND JANUARY 2003 fifioaesoo 6WO-9800 6335-00 5335-05 i4,_,*. _EMP# NAME GROSS YTD Wages Suppl. YTD Suppl. Fed Tax ST. TAX NET • 154 ALLEN, CHARLES 2,229.53 0.00 50.00 0.00 220.00 66.89 1 ,992.64 152 ARNOLD, WILLADEAN 1 838.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 888.00 130 BAYLES, DON 1 ,369.31 0.00 50.00 0.00 1 ,419.31 107 BLACK, JOE P 970.99 0.00 . 50.00 0.00 100.00 20.00 900.99 120 BOWEN, JR 598.19 0.00 - 50.00 0.00 10.00 638.19 147 BRADLEY, GERALD 4,157.85 0.00 50.00 0.00 940.53 17.32 3,250.00 139 BRADLEY, RANDALL 2,467.20 0.00 50.00 0.00 382.00 100.00 2,035.20 157 CARROLL,RONALD L . 1 ,816.69 0.00 50.00 0.00 250.00 105.00 1 ,511 .69 151 COLE, RUSTON 2,644.53 0.00 50.00 0.00 600.00 200.00 1 ,894.53 - 109 COOPER, ADRIAN 550.71 0.00 50.00 0.00 600.71 111 DAY, LUCILLE _ 350.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 400.00 108 DENNIS, WARREN 1 ,187.71 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 1 ,237.71 160 OUGGER,GARY 2,729.07 0.00 50.00 0.00 300.00 120.00 2,359.07 125 FLOWERS, HAROLD 744.10 0.00 50.00 0.00 794.10 140 FOSTER, BILLIE D. 2,766.68 0.00 50.00 0.00 300.00 120.00 2,396.68 148 FRIEND, JERRY 21719.53 0.00 50.00 0.00 725.00 150.00 1 ,894.53 161 HANNA, JANICE 1 ,688.55 0.00 1175.00 50.00 1 ,463.55 145 HANNA, MARK 672,56 0.00 672.56 162 HASKINS, IRENE 374.85 0.00 50.00 0.00 424.65 146 HUTCHENS, BERNICE. 874.85 0.00 50.00 0.00 130.00 794.85 143 JOHNSON, CHARLES 2,118.14 0.00 50.00 0.00 42.67 2,125.47 103 JOHNSON, WENDELL 675.55 0.00 50.00 0.00 725.55 118 JONES, BOB 2,847.00 0.00 - 50.00 0.00 0.00 - 2,897.00 144 KILGORE, DONALD 1 ,765.31 0.00 50.00 0.00 19.72 1 ,795.59 129 LAWSON, FORREST 1 ,352.48 0.00 50.00 0.00 200.00 10202.48 ' 150 LITTLE, PATSY R - 350.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 400.00 • 153 LORCH, DONNA G 350.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 400.00 156 MARTIN, KENNETH 3,185.49- - 0.00 50.00 0.00 500.00 140.00 2,595.49 128 MCCAWLEY, LARRY 1 ,461 .94 0.00 50.00 0.00 180.00 20.00 1 ,311 .94 116 MCCHRISTIAN, MARIE 350.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 400.00 126 MCWHORTER, KAREN - 485.02 0.00 50.00 0.00 535.02 136 MITCHELL, MICHAEL 1 ,988.56 0.00 . 50.00 - 0.00 150.00 1 ,888.56 141 MUELLER, ROSEMARY 1 ,780.38 0.00 50.00 0.00 1 ,830.38 158 MUNSON,ANGELA 3,621 .36 0.00 50.00 0.00 500.00 183.00 2,988.36 112 MURPHY, JAKE 350.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 400.00 137 PERDUE, LARRY 2,003.55 0.00 50.00 0.00 200.00 25.00 1 ,828.55 164 PERSHALL, ROBIN 1 ,315.53 0.00 290.00 92.00 933.53 132 PHILLIPS. HOMER GENE 1 ,513.40 0.00 . 50.00 0.00 300.00 1,263.40 105 PRESTON, GEORGE DAVID 1-,381 .37 0.00 50.00 0.00 67.43 196.37 1,167.57 135 RICKMAN, LOREN 1 ,924.54 0.00 50.00 0.00 230.00 65.00 1,679.54 104 RIGGI NS, RAYMOND C 1 ,440.01 0.00 50.00 0.00 125.00 25.00 1 ,340.01 159 SCHUSTER,JOHN H. 2,689.07 . 0.00 50.00 0.00 340.00 110.00 2,289.07 122 SKELTON, FRANK 713.67 0.00 50.00 0.00 763.67 123 SPENCER, HOLLIS 1 ,186.65 0.00 50.00 0.00 150.00 36.65 1,050.00 155 STOUT, BETTY - 415.25 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 465.25 133 SURLES, JERRY 2,347.50 0.00 50.00 0.00 412.50 50.00 1 ,935.00 142 TAYLOR, DENNIS 1,780.38 0.00 _ 50.00 0.00 . 105.00 40.00 1 ,685.38 106 UPTON, FRANKLIN 911 .84 0.00 50.00 0.00 10.00 951 .84 163 WATSON, RICHARD 6,811 :00 0.00 1 ,950.00 400.00 4,461 .00 110 WATTS, BEULAH 350.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 400.00 149 WILLIAMS, JOYCE 1 ,217.07 0.00 50.00 0.00 217.07 1,050.00 134 WITT, DON 1 ,524.09 0.00 . 50.00 0.00 115.00 64.00 1 ,395.09 127 WOOD, PAUL 1 ,363.72 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 1 ,413.72 • 85,320.77 0.00 2,450.00 0.00 10,174.53 2,458.62 75,137.62 6800-9800 6800-9800 5335-00 5335-05 Total Year to Date 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 - POLICE PENSION FUND FEBRUARY 2003 6800-9800 6600-9800 5335-00 533505 _ EMPN NAME GROSS YTD Wages Suppl. YTD Suppl. Fed Tax ST. TAX NET 154 ALLEN, CHARLES 2,229.53 0.00 50.00 0.00 220.00 66.89 1 ,992.64 • 152 ARNOLD, WILLADEAN 838.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 888.00 130 BAYLES, DON 1 ,369.31 0.00 50.00 0.00 1 ,419.31 107 BLACK, JOE P 970.99 0.00 50.00 0.00 . 100.00 20.00 900.99 120 BOW EN, J R 598.19 0.00 50.00 0.00 10.00 638.19 147 BRADLEY, GERALD 4,157.85 0.00 50.00 0.00 940.53 17.32 3,250.00 139 BRADLEY, RANDALL 2,467.20 0.00 50.00 0.00 382.00 100.00 2,035.20 'BROWN, JOHN 5,247.22 600.00 200.00 4,447.22 157 CARROLL,RONALD L 1 ,816.69 0.00 50.00 0.00 250.00 105.00 1 ,511 .69 151 COLE, RUSTON 2,644.53 0.00 50.00 0.00 600.00 200.00 1 ,894.53 109 COOPER, ADRIAN 550.71 0.00 50.00 0.00 600.71 111 DAY, LUCILLE 350.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 400.00 108 DENNIS, WARREN 1 ,187.71 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 1 ,237.71 160 DUGGER,GARY 2,729.07 0.00 50.00 - 0.00 300.00 120.00 2,359.07 125 FLOWERS, HAROLD 744.10 0.00 50.00, 0.00 794.10 140 FOSTER, BILLIE D. 2,766.68 0.00 50.00 0.00 300.00 . 120.00 2,396.68 148 FRIEND, JERRY 2,719.53 0.00 50.00 0.00 725.00 150.00 1 ;894.53 161 HANNA, JANICE 1 ,688.55 0.00 175.00 50.00 1 ,463.55 145 HANNA, MARK 672.56 0.00 672.56 162 HASKINS, IRENE 374.85 0.00 50.00 0.00 424.85 146 HUTCHENS, BERNICE 874.85 0.00 50.00 0.00 130.00 794.85 143 JOHNSON, CHARLES 2,118.14 - 0.00 50.00 0.00 42.67 2,125.47 103 JOHNSON, WENDELL _ 675.55 . 0.00 50.00 0.00 725.55 118 JONES, BOB 2,847.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 2,897.00 144 KILGORE, DONALD 1 ,765.31 0.00 50.00 0.00 19.72 1,795.59 129 LAWSON, FORREST 1 ,352.48 0.00 50.00 0.00 200.00 1 ,202.48 150 LITTLE, PATSY R 350.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 400.00 153 LORCH, DONNA G 350.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 400.00 • 156 MARTIN, KENNETH 3,185.49 0.00 50.00 - 0.00 500.00 140.00 2,595.49 128 MCCAWLEY, LARRY. - 1 ,461 .94 0.00 50.00 0.00 180.00 20.00 1 ,311 .94 116 MCCHRISTIAN, MARIE 350.00 ' - -0:00-- --50:00---- - 0.00 400.00 126 MCWHORTER, KAREN 485.02 0.00 50.00 0.00 535.02 136 MITCHELL, MICHAEL - 1 ,988.56 0.00 50.00 0.00 150.00 1 ,888.56 141 MUELLER, ROSEMARY 1 ,780.38 0.00 50.00 0.00 - 1 ,830.38 158 MUNSON,ANGELA 3,621 .36 0.00 50.00 0.00 500.00 183.00 2,988.36 112 MURPHY, JAKE 350.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 400.00 137 PERDUE, LARRY 2,003.55 0.00 - 50.00 0.00 200.00 25.00 11828.55 164 PERSHALL, ROBIN 1 ,315.53 0.00 290.00 92.00 933.53 132 PHILLIPS, HOMER GENE 1 ,513.40 0.00 50.00 0.00 300.00 1 ,263.40 105 PRESTON, GEORGE DAVID 1 ,381 .37 0.00 50.00 0.00 67.43 196.37 1 ,167.57 135 RICKMAN, LOREN 1 ,924.54 0.00 50.00 0.00 230.00 65.00 1 ,679.54 104 RIGGINS, RAYMOND C 1 ,440.01 0.00 50.00 0.00 125.00 25.00 1 ,340.01 159 SCHUSTER,JOHN H. 2,689.07 0.00 - 50.00 0.00 340.00 110.00 2,289.07 122 SKELTON, FRANK 713.67 0.00 50.00 0.00 - 763.67 123 SPENCER, HOLLIS 1 ,186.65 0.00 50.00 0.00 150.00 36.65 1 ,050.00 STANLEY, MELVIN 5,870.38 1 ,100.00 300.00 4,470.38 - 155 STOUT, BETTY 415.25 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 - 465.25 133 SURLES, JERRY 2,347.50 0.00 50.00 0.00 412.50 50.00 1 ,935.00 142 TAYLOR, DENNIS 1 ,780.38 0.00 50.00 0.00 105.00 40.00 1 ,685.38 106 UPTON, FRANKLIN 911.84 0.00 50.00 . 0.00 10.00 951 .84 163 WATSON, RICHARD 6,811 .00 0.00 1 ,950.00 400.00 4,461 .00 110 WATTS, BEULAH 350.00 - 0.00 50.00 0.00 - 400.00 149 WILLIAMS, JOYCE 1 ,217.07 0.00 50.00 0.00 217.07 1 ,050.00 134 WITT, DON 1 ,524.09 0.00 50.00 - 0.00 115.00 64.00 1 ,395.09 127 WOOD, PAUL J 1 ,363.72 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 1 ,413.72 • 96,438.37 0.00 2,450.00 0.00 11 ,874.53 2,958.62 84,055.22 _ 6800-9800 6800-9800 5335-00 533505 Total Year to Date 0.00 0.00 0.00 'Stanley, Melvin: gross will go to $4209.58 in March, 2003 " Brown, John: gross will go to $3762.70 in March, 2003