Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-21 - Agendas - Final Police Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Agenda April 21 , 2005 A meeting of the Fayetteville Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board will be held on April 21 , 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes • Approval of the January 20, 2005 Meeting Minutes and March 31, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes 3. Approval of the Pension List lie • Approval of February, March and April, 2005 Pension List 4. Longer Investments • Investment Report 5. Old Business • Benefit Increase • Hiring of Attorney for TIF 6. New Business • Affidavits — Non-return • 2005 Elections Randy Bradley, Tim Helder, and Dr. Mashburn • Willadean Arnold Deceased February 7, 2005 • Freida Skelton Deceased March 13, 2005 • Income Tax Refund Letter • Parking Tags (Ready for Distribution) • i J VIA 96 v � o �nY v9v E w � .+ O p G ► m m a 2 E : : O y C ` m v H m m U m : 'O L Z to v H m m V m t 7 y CO cc C LL = A N ^ CO cp C LL 2 A y ` O O sac c O O 'O C 3 0 o api 0 m £ m C 3 0 0 $ W m £ tp R H O M M Vl K -� H D -mi V1 O Of C w CD 2 C 7 LL m � a c W c 0 CL c m \ N C N E � � c IL \ m m C « do m r O C 3 m 0 -0 C yma, NT l C U. W Vt0A7 =E r 0 V$ E c c R LL pD � d� F �c6 81Vl 7 a h G'. J � N C M r ` E ° E °o an d o V v $ f.1 H m d m : a L 7 y V m N U m 'c '� C 7 y y c c 9 LL m w M 41 c c i LL m 0 N ` O O G O c = 9 O O o O 9 = C 3 0 o m ° c° 0 E f m o 3 0 0 ® m m E m o U) O O N 1x .5H o N U) 2 2 W MMI 0 F D m O m C i.+ d d 'O C 7 LL w 9 C N J O IL , n, c CU E v 0 a m c 5 m c r o v ° c d ' m E o T ° V 0 m d V. m m .p L 7LL co h V F m U m 9 L 7 y R c 0 E c 0 Police Pension Meering Minutes January 20, 2005 Page I of 10 Police Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes January 20, 2005 A meeting of the Fayetteville Policemen' s Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees was held on January 20, 2005 at 1 : 30 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Randy Bradley, Tim Helder, Jerry Surles, Jerry Friend, Dr. Mashburn City Clerk Sondra Smith, City Attorney Kit Williams, Marsha Farthing, Trish Leach, Eldon Roberts, Elaine Longer and Kim Cooper. ABSENT: Mayor Coody Randy Bradley called the meeting to order. Approval of the October 21 , 2004 Meeting Minutes: Tim Helder moved to approve the Minutes. Jerry Surles seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Approval of Pension List for November and December 2004 and January 2005: Sondra Smith: The December Pension List shows that Eldon Roberts' s gross amount is different than his year to date amount. Trish was nice enough to explain that to me today. The amount is different due to the fact that his year to date amount is a prorated amount for the month of December. The gross amount is the amount he would have received if he had been on the Pension List the entire month of December. The January list does have the 3% COLA added to the amount. Jerry Friend moved to approve the Pension List. Jerry Surles seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Approval of Eldon Roberts Retirement: Sondra Smith moved to approve Eldon Roberts retirement. Tim Helder seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Police Pension Meeting Minm� lanuary 20. 2005 Page 2 of 10 Investment Report, Loneer Investments : 11 1 Elaine Longer: Just as a review for the year it was kind of a topsy furry year 'following a big year Iasi year. We were up about 28% in the markets last year coming off a three year bear market . For last year because of the Iraq war situation and the uncertainty about the election outcome and everything that was going on with rising energy prices, the Federal Reserve raising interest rales, the market just stayed in a holding pattern all the way through October 31 ". As recently as October 31 " there was no return in the stock market indices on any of them. Then President Bush won reelection , crude oil prices broke from $55 a barrel back down to about $42 and with that the market did a year end rally. It is interesting that stocks did out perform bonds in the other asset classes last year as we had expected going into the year but we had to wait until the bottom of the ninth inning before it actually happened. Given the fact that no one had made any money going into that that kind of caused a lot of money to come off the side lines and go into the stock market . What we are seeing in January is that some of that return that we had in November and December really borrowed from the first quarter return in 2005 . January the market indices are down any where from 2 % to 2 . 5% to 4% on the NASDAQ. That is basically a little bit of giving up the part that we had in November and December. President Bush getting reelected did elevate some of the concem about whether or not the dividend tax treatment would change in 2008. That will become permanent law most likely because he has a Republican House and Senate as well . That has really spurred a lot of dividend increases; we are seeing it affect corporate behavior. A lot of the stocks that we can buy right now yield 3% and 4%. I still think coming into this year that stock will be the asset of choice. 11 is going to be bumpy again; I don' t think it is going to be another 28% or 30% year. 1 think it is going to be like last year where you work for every percentage point that you get. Stocks should out perform bonds this year given the currently available information. The last meeting that I attended we did mention that we were up to the limit on your asset allocation equity wise at 50% and you are still hovering right there at the 50% range. We went into the election thinking that with the increase in earnings that we had seen last year of over 20% and the fact that the market did nothing the valuation in the stock market had improved to the point that we thought it would go higher rather than lower. On Page 5 you will see that the year end valuation on the total portfolio is about $ 10.9 million. The income yield which is just the dividends and the interest income that comes in on the bonds is at 3 .6%. So you have a 50% growth component on the portfolio but your overall income yield is the equivalent of a five year treasury. That is a real good balance still between growth and income. Page 6 has your largest holdings, Minnesota Mining & Mfg. , Citigroup, Walmali Stores, General Electric and Johnson & Johnson. On Page 7 we show the industry breakdown. We had been overweight on capital goods and energy and underweight in consumer; finance and technology most of last year. We have changed our weighting a little bit corning into this year taking some profits on some .of our cyclicals and adding to some of our more defensive stocks out there like Clorox, Sara Lee, Kraft Foods, Colgate Palmolive, and names like that that you haven' t seen in the portfolio in a while. We are really trying to emphasize some of the dividend yield that is available out there thinking Police Pension Meeting Minutes 8 Januoy 20. 2005 Page 3 of 10 that this year, if it is a year like last year; a good part of your total return is going to be the dividend income. We have changed our industry allocation a little bit but nothing dramatic. Page 12 shows the breakdown on the fixed income part of the portfolio. On the bonds the weighted average yield to maturity is still a 5 .2% and the weighted average maturity is six and a half years. By comparison the 10 year treasury yields about a 4. 1 %. We still have a real good income yield without having a lot of maturity risk. This is the number that we watch to really look at the flexibility that we have in the portfolio should interest rates rise. Although the Federal Reserve increased interest rates last year in short maturities the longer maturity bonds did not increase in yield in fact the ten year treasury closed the year at close to the same interest rate as it had traded at on December 3 '1 , 2003 . So, we haven't had an increase in the '.10-30 year yield but we do have a lot of maturities in the one to three year area, in fact 33% of the bond portfolio. So if we have the chance this year where interest rates do increase we are structured to be able to capitalize on it roll some of our maturities forward and capture higher rates. Page 13 summarizes your realized gains and losses and income and expenses. The realized gains last year which is just the portion of stock appreciation that we realized by selling the stock is $251 ,000. Your net income, which is just dividends and interest net of your expenses, is $312,000. Those two are the components of total return that go into increasing your book value on your portfolio which is what the State looks at in their actuarial study. That increases your historical cost or your book value on the portfolio by about $560,000. • Page 14 shows your contributions and distributions for the year. The equity return for the year on Page 15 was 7.4%, fixed income was 2 .7%. That' s because of the slight decline similar to 2003 in the price of bonds in a rising interest rate environment. It doesn't take away from the fact that the income earned was still 5 .2%. Bonds do have price fluxions given the changing interest rates so the total return was 5.5%. Your compounded return on total portfolio inception to date is still a 7.2%. To give you a comparison on the indices for that year, the S&P was up over 3% the DOW Industrials were up 5.3%. We were in the middle between the DOW and the S&P. I would just like to briefly review the important parts of the investment policy as it pertains to the asset allocation and also the individual securities. We monitor everything in your policy in terms of credit quality on the bonds. The credit quality of the stocks that we own and then the percentage of the portfolio invested in an individual stock or an individual corporate bond. Everything that is in your policy we monitor to make sure that your portfolio is in compliance. The only thing that we like to review annually in particular is the asset allocation. Right now equities are 35% to 50% in your policy; we are currently at 50%. At this point in time I don't see any reason myself to change that. Jerry Friend : Did you say our current policy is 50%? :Elaine Longer: 50% is the maximum, 35% on the low end and 50% on the high end. Randy Bradlcy: What is your opinion on it? Elaine Longer: I like being at 50% we have had a couple of situations where market appreciation pushed us up to about 53%. The only thing that I would say is in the minutes if we Police Pension Meeting Minutes January 20. 2005 Page 4 or 10 could maybe have the flexibility during the bear market to go under 35% for a while. There seemed to be no reason to be in a hurry to buy just to meet that 35 % low water mark so we dipped under the 35% for a while. 1 would just say if we could have some flexibly as appreciation takes place if we go over 50% not to exceed 504-i, plus 5% or something like that. That keeps us form having to sell when we would otherwise be buying. That would be the only thing. Kit Williams : So you would like 25% to 55%? Elaine Longer: 1 think the 35% to 50% is okay but maybe we could say with a plus or minus 5% at either end . Where 50% is our target but if market appreciation takes us over that target rather than having to sell and sit with cash balances when '1 think that is not the place to be. It gives us just a little bit more flexibility. Jerre Friend : Is the 35% to 50% cost? Elaine Longer: No that' s market . We use market because that is the indicator of what your true risk is. Jerry Friend : We need to move to give 5% lead way on the top and the bottom so that we dont lose money trying to stay in the game. Kit Williams : That is just in the Equities, Number 3? • Elaine Longer: Yes. 1 would say 35% to 50% plus or minus 5% on each end . We are still going to shoot for 50% but it helps when it creeps up to 53 % and I don 't really particularly like cash then I don ' t have to sell to get back to 50%. Kit Williams : A temporary increase or decrease of not more than 5% will be allowed with reports to the Board at the next quarterly meeting. Elaine Longer: That would be great. Jerry Friend : ,Are you sure we need to say approval because there is really nothing we can do. A discussion followed on how the wording of the change should read . Kit Williams : When site reports to you it is still your responsibility and your duty. If she is just reporting to you she has the absolute power to do it. I want you to either approve it or else say no go back to 50%. Jerry Friend : Okay. I like that. Jerry Friend moved to change the policy in the Equity Portion to read the Manager can operate outside the Equity guidelines by not mare that 5 % with a report on the variance to the • Board at their next quarterly meeting. The Board will then authorize or reject the variance for the next quarter. Tim Helder seconded the motion . Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Mayor Coody was absent. • I Police Pension Mccling Minutes ! January 20, 2005 Page 5 of 10 Jerry Friend : You don' t bum u against the same thin 1n bonds? � y p p against g Elaine Longer: We did during the bear market. We received the temporary waiver to go below the 35% on equities which bumped us higher on the fixed income but we got out of that. Jerry Friend : So you don't need to do that for the bonds? Elaine Longer: No. Jerry Friend : It sounds like every company is becoming foreign or global or something. Are we running into any problems there at all? Elaine Longer: No. The only thing that is restricted in your portfolio on the foreign side would be stocks that are not traded in American depository. A lot of the big foreign stocks trade on the US market, on the US Stock Exchange. 1 think the reason your policy was written that way was to keep away from any kind of liquidity risk in buying a foreign that is not easily traded . That probably dates back 20 year I would guess because that is almost nonexistent. I would have a hard time finding a stock like that at this point. Widows Benefits : • Kit Williams : 1 wrote you a letter on October 20, 2003 and enclosed the Attorney General 's opinion about this new act that did authorize this for the first time. When the title of the act said clarifying the law it made it sound like this had always been the law and that is not the way we had interpreted it. We had interpreted the law for a long time as saying 50% that was the limit a surviving spouse could get period, that was it and it couldn' t be more. The legislative changed the law in 2003 and now you have to go back through the regular process like you do for any benefit increase but you can grant them a percentage of what your benefits are now. I would guess that they would be entitled to the 3% COLA too. That would probably come into play also. I did see the letter the former director of the Arkansas Police and Fire Pension Review Board wrote in 2003 based upon a study that was done in 2001 . I think that is too long ago now, that was four years ago and you have had a number of people retire and you only have one person paying in now so on a cash flow basis that might make some difference. There have been changes in the portfolio fortunately because of Elaine Longer' s good work; we haven't had the big losses that some portfolios have seen. You have also increased benefits for 5 years with the 3% temporary COLA so that is another significant change that was not done before this study was completed. This needs to have an actuarial study completed before any kind of benefit increase should be completed including the widow benefits. You do have the right under State law now if you want to initiate the procedure if you want to increase the widow's benefits above 50%. Eldon Roberts: You' re saying we need to do a valuation by Little Rock to raise the benefits? • Kit Williams : 1 think you would have to do that. I think you would have to go by State Statue 24-11 - 102. That is what the Attorney General said and I agree with him. 13011CC PMMOn Meeting Minmes Januan i0, 2005 Pape 6 of 10 r Sondra Smith : 1 have enclosed a copy of that State statue with your agenda . Jerry Friend : When is the next time that we are to have an actuarial study completed? Randy Bradley: We have it completed every two years. We did not have it done last year. Tim Helder: When they do an actuarial study do they also do a cash flow analysis or is that something we have to request? Randy Bradley: You have to request it . Kit Williams : If you ever want to increase you have to specifically ask for that and state what you are proposing to increase. Eldon Roberts : The cost is $ 1 ,500 to $ 1600 to have the cash flow evaluation completed about benefit increases. Randy Bradley: We were approved at one time to go to 100% of benefits for the pensioners but we elected to go to 90%. That was in 2001 . Eldon Roberts: That also included widows. Jerry Friend: At that time the 50% law was in effect. • Eldon Roberts: But we asked them if that 100% that they were allowing us to go to did that cover widows because it did not specifically spell that out in their letter. They wrote back and said it did include the widows. Kit Williams : Which is pretty strange because the law did not allow it at that point in time. Jerry Friend : We evidently did not increase the widow ' s benefits. Kit Williams: I don' t think you did. 1 think now when we do a resolution everyone has to sign it . Sondra Smith : 1 found the resolution that was completed in 2003 to increase the benefits with the temporary COLA. If there was a resolution before that point in time 1 can search our records. Kit Williams : I don't think there was. We didn't even know this until October 20, 2003 . Eldon Roberts : Even though we thought we could grant benefit increase to widows, I think the law still stated that if you add all the benefits together for widows at that time they could not be more than 50%. So we stayed at that levet . To my knowledge no widow has received more than 50% of what her husband had drawn. Sondra Smith : So there was not a resolution passed to increase the widows? • Eldon Roberts : Not other than the 3 % COLA . Police Pension Meeting Minutes January 20, 2005 ° Page 7 of 10 Kit Williams: If you want to do it you can pass the motion and we will draft a resolution and you will have to appropriate the money to do it. Sondra Smith: Kit, we don't actually pass a resolution until we have a cash flow study completed . Kit Williams : Is that right? So we just ask for the actuarial study is that what we do first? Sondra Smith : We ask for the study, see if we qualify and then do the resolution. Kit Williams : Okay so you just need to pass a motion to pay for an actuarial study 1 guess. Sondra Smith : Cash flow evaluation. Jerry Friend: I would not mind us asking for a cash flow study but I would really like to see our actuarial study before we actually move to change any thing. Randy Bradley: I am almost positive it due this year. Sondra Smith : They will do one after the end of the 2005 year. We will not get a copy of the report until about mid year 2006. Marsha Farthing: I may have to have one done anyway, I am going to talk to the auditors because of our new GASB 34 accounting rules and how we will have to book your unfunded liability or asset which ever way it comes out. Sondra Smith : There was a copy of the last actuarial report in your October packet. It was completed at year end December 31 , 2003 . The next one will not be completed until after December 31 , 2005. This one states we are not sound in any of the areas. A cash flow could be a different result. Eldon Roberts : Jerry you might not be drawing your 90% of salary benefit right now if we used the actuarial evaluation to determine that we could do that. The State has allowed this second method which is called a cash flow evaluation. To me that just means the money coming in will pay for the money going out. If you are going to tie all this to actuarial soundness there is no need to spend $ 1 ,600 to have a new study. Jerry Friend : But, if we are getting one anyway is what I am saying. 1 would like to see what the actuary has to say in their report. Sondra Smith : I don't think it will be much different than the 2003 report if you are doing an actuarial study. The only concern I have on the 2003 report, which 1 mentioned before, is the necessary employer's contribution of $ 1 ,678, 182 .00. That scares me. iJerry Friend : That is what shows on the accounting end. Sondra Smith : Yes. Police Pension Mceling Minutes hatlary 20, 2005 Page 8 of 10 I Jerry Friend : Well it doesn' t make be comfortable. Sondra Smith : If you increase the widows benefits that number will go up. Jerre Friend: Yes it will go up. Eldon Roberts : Any benefit increase makes that number go up. Sondra Smith : The City has to book from the actuarial study not the cash flow study. Eldon Roberts: What I would like to see this Board do is to go ahead and ask that a cash flow evaluation be completed now. It will cost $ 1 ,500 to $ 1 ,600. That would allow a benefit increase to the widows, While we are asking also ask if we can we go to 100% of salary for current and future retirees. Once you get the answer that is when you need to decide if you want to do it or not . Just because you get the answer that says you can doesn't mean that it happens. We will have a couple of questions answered that we want to know the answers to. Then this Board can decide. Dr. Mashburn : Did they say we could have a 100% before? Eldon Roberts : Yes they did, yes they sure did. We didn't do it and I have no problem with that. The actuaries in the first sentence said you can go to 100% of salary but however to practice financial responsibility if you do 90% the fund will be sound for a number of years. 1 • was on the Board then and we opted to take the 90%. We could have gone to 100% then but we didn't. Tim Heider: Have there been any other benefit issues other than the widows and the amount of percentage that retirees get through the years? Randy Bradley: The COLA. Sondra Smith : With that 3% temporary COLA, correct me if 1 am wrong Eldon that does put some people at over 100% of benefit. Tim Helder: Not yet. Jerry Friend : Some people are already over. Eldon Roberts: That' s not an issue any longer because that cap has been removed . That 100% of salary cap has been removed . So that is not an issue if someone is lucky enough to get 105% of their salary. I also studied this spousal benefit increase before 1 letl and 1 think in there somewhere it says that if a widow ' s husband was never alive to draw the 90% benefit she cant either. It is only for the widows whose husbands have been elevated to the 90% of salary. There is no widow on ;the books right now whose husband was drawing 90% of salary when they deceased . They were 611 drawing less than 90%. The way I read that it would be from here forward. To my knowledge r • Police Pension Meeting Minutes Januay 20. 2005 u Page 9 of 10 there has not been a police officer die that was drawing 90% of salary that left a widow. We might need to get .Kit to look at that. Jerry Friend : Those would not amount to much anyway if we raised them to 100%. Tim Helder moved to pay for a cash flow study. Jerry Surles seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Mayor Coody was absent. Sondra Smith : I will ask them the following: 1 . Can we increase widow' s benefits to 90% of the deceased pensioner' s salary amount and will it apply to all widow' s or to only the widow' s whose husbands were receiving 90% of salary when they deceased. 2. Can we increase benefits to 100% of salary for all future and current retirees? 3 . Can we do both increase the widow' s benefits to 90% of the deceased pensioners salary amount and increase benefits to 100% for all future and current retirees. 4. Can we increase benefits to 100% of salary for future and current retirees and can we also increase the widow's benefits to 100% of salary and will it apply to all widow' s or to only the widow' s whose husbands were receiving 100% of salary when they deceased. • 5. Can we do any of the above and if so which ones can we do. I will have a Cash Flow study completed. Dr. Mashburn : We have just reached the point during the past three years to where we have leveled off and are not gaining at the rate we had been gaining. If it goes on up, which probably it wi1L if we should take a big hit and our fund becomes less then the cash flow might not cover the retirement. I think we should be careful and not crowd the edges. Jerry Friend : I agree with Dr. Mashburn that whatever we do we need to be financially responsible. Randy Bradley: We need to get this study completed and then decide. Eldon Roberts: That' s right. That's when you need to make a decision is after we get the information back from Little Rock. They may say no you can't do either one of those two things. Jerry Friend : If they say yes go for it 1 am not going to automatically vote for it. I will tell you that up front. I want them to explain to me the difference between the actuary and cash flow and why one is okay and the other one is not before 1 vote. Sondra Smith : Would you like for me to put that in the letter too. Jerry Friend : No. Police Pension Meeting Minutes Januar. 20, 2005 Page 10 of 10 Jerry Surles : 1 enjoyed getting that 90% raise; 1 couldn' t believe it to tell you're the truth. 1 was glad that I received it and if I am going to gel it, then I think my wife should get it 2005 Meeting Schedule : A copy of the 2005 meeting scheduled was handed out to the Board . Parking Permits: Parking has ordered the hang tags they are not here yet. When they come in I will mail them to you. Jerry Friend : I really don' t mind putting a couple of quarters in the meter. Other: Kit Williams: Since you are a taxing and leveling entity the Mayor being the Chairman of this Board was notified that the tax increment financing district if that is passed will limit the growth of the millage within that district . The growth of the millage within that district will go to whatever public work is being done in that district. Right now there has been only one district approved and that is the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment District and that includes most of the square down to Sixth Street and up to Maple. There is a thought that that district might be increased to include the entire downtown master plan area which takes it almost to the university. If they do that then any of the increase in value from the property over 25 years would be going to the TIF district and not to this pension plan. There will be a hearing on amending the plan next Tuesday night at 5 : 30 at the City Council chambers if anyone would like to come and speak for or against this. You just need to know this as a taxing entity. Sondra Smith : 1 show Randy Bradley, Tim Helder, and Dr. Mashburn ' s terms end at the end of May, 2005 . We need to do elections in May. Jerry Friend: Doesn' t the Board elect the doctor? Sondra Smith : Yes the Board elects the doctor. Jerry Friend and Jerry Surles terms end May 31 , 2006. Meeting Adjourned at 2 :50 pin Firemen's and Policemen`s Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31 , 2005 • Page I of 16 Special Joint Meeting of the Firemen's and Policemen' s Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes March 31 , 2005 A special joint meeting of the Fayetteville Firemen's and Policemen' s Pension and Relief Fund Boards was held at 11 :00 a.m. on March 31 , 2005 in Room 111 of the City Administration Building Randy Bradley of the Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees called the meeting to order. Present: Randy Bradley, Jerry Friend, Jerry Surles, for the Police Pension Board; Marion Doss, Danny Farrar, Robert Johnson, Pete Reagan, Ronnie Wood, for the Fire Pension Board; City Clerk Sondra Smith, City Attorney Kit Williams and Eldon Roberts. Absent: Mayor Coody, Tim Helder, and Dr. Mashburn. • Hiphway 71 East Square Redevelopment District: A discussion on hiring legal counsel to represent the Pension Boards' regarding the declaratory judgment suit for the Highway 71 East Square Redevelopment District. Kit Williams: The reason I asked that a special meeting be called jointly between you all is that the City, to protect itself from illegal exaction suit on this TIF District that the City Council has formed, had to file a declaratory judgment action. A declaratory judgment action asks the courts to tell us how to divide the tax increment pursuant to the constitution and the state law. It is very unclear exactly how to do that. If we had not done that and we had just asked the assessor to guess about which way is the right way to interpret it, more likely than not we would have been challenged in court by taxpayer groups saying she guessed wrong. No matter which way she guessed, they would have said she guessed wrong, and so I did not want that to happen. To prevent that from happening, I filed a declaratory judgment action to do two things: number one, to say the tax increment in this district, that is questionable, should not be distributed until a court has decided how constitutionally it should be according to the law and the constitution. The attorney general is going to be involved with the suit. The county has already filed their answer. The school board is going to file their answer. The library is going to file an answer and I thought at one point that the same attorney that is representing the library could represent the pension plans because you all are setting in almost the identical position. A constitutional amendment was passed by the people for all three of your groups, for the library, police pension fund and fire pension fund authorizing the citizens to vote a mil for the • funds. The question would be "Did Amendment 78, which had this general repealer clause that Firemens and Police neds Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31 . 2005 Page 2 Of 16 says any constitutional provision in conflict with this is repealed, did it actually go back and repeal the provisions within the amendment for you all ' s group that says that it will be used only for police and fire pension funds?" I can tell you that the courts don 't like these general repealer clauses. And if they can read the constitutional amendments together so they' re saying they' re not in conflict ; then the previous constitutional amendment won't be repealed to this effect. That' s the argument the library' s going to make. That' s at least one of their arguments that the general repealer did not affect the original constitutional amendment that allowed the people to vote for the library mil or allowed the people to vote for police and fire pension mils. So basically this is not going to be a trial. I don't think there' s any disputes about any facts. I think we can stipulate to all the facts. It will just be arguments presented to the court from various sides saying the mil should be in the district or the mil should not be in the district, and they should so remain with the taxing entities which would be the library, pension boards, schools, or whatever. I thought that the attorney for the library board, who is already up to speed on this, 1 thought it would be nice for you all to hire him because he already- knows what' s going on . He' s already educated himself. The library board indicated that, no, they want him all to themselves, and they don't want him to represent anybody else even though you certainly are not in conflict with them and won't be in conflict with each other. You'd be making the same arguments, but if they have instructed their attorney that he can't represent even a similar situated party, which is what you • all are then you would have to find somebody else. I would hope that what you would do is hire the same attorney because you all are basically identical . 1 don't want you to spend much on attomey' s fees. You simply need to have somebody there making the same argument that the library is going to make: that the general repealer clause doesn't affect the amendment where you all got your right to have the millage. So it' s not a difficult case for an attorney to represent You, but you need to have somebody on your side. I 'd be happy to make the argument . I 'm required to by the trust indenture that your tax increment will be included in the district and the library' s tax increment; everything but the debt service increment for the school district is included in. I need to make the argument that the 25 mils that the attorney general opined was not in the district will be in the district. And that' s why the attorney general has agreed to come in the case and argue this. We need to get everything to the Supreme Court and let them decide. I would hope that you all would choose an attorney. I know that in the past you all have used Martin & Kieklak . You can 't in this particular case because Kieklak is a JP on the county side and there would be some potential conflict. The county millage is almost certainly in and therefore it is to the county' s benefit to get more millage in so that the debt gets paid off sooner and they would get their increment back. So there would be a conflict with that particular firm, that is one firm that you could not retain for this particular lawsuit . Apart from that I can 't think of any other firm that would be potentially out from the conflict of interest situation. I know that in the past there have been some attorneys that have represented the city for certain things. You're free to determine who you want to use one way or another. It' s pretty much up to the board . I do recommend that you try to retain an attorney, but when you do you should also try to keep the costs at a fairly • Firemen's and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31 , 2005 • Page 3 of 16 minimal level. In other words your attorney just needs to appear in circuit court and make the argument and then write a kind of "me too' brief to the Supreme Court, but I wouldn't send the attorney down there to try to make an argument that's already going to be presented to the court by other attorneys. Whoever you talk to you might try to see if they would agree to a top end of what they would charge on their hourly rate or maybe if they would do a cap on the top end so that you would not be out any more money than you have to. I'm open to any questions about that. I just wanted you to hopefully work together on this. It cuts your costs in half by working together. Eldon Roberts : Who is the school ' s attorney? Kit Williams : Rudy Moore is the school ' s attorney and he' s too involved. The library's attorney is Vince Chadwick, he has the same interest as you, the school board has different issues. I don 't think he could and I would not recommend Rudy either. Eldon Roberts: What are we trying to gain here losing absolutely zero tax dollars? That' s what we're trying to gain? Kit Williams: Less than 5% of the city value is in this district and then it's only the growth on • that. Eldon Roberts : Right. Kit Williams: So you're talking about a very small amount of money over the long term and that's one reason I don't want you to spend much money on an attorney to represent you. You could spend more money on the attorney than you would ever lose in the increment. I don't want that to happen. Eldon Roberts: What do you feel like the chances are that we're going to be successful in this court battle? Are we going to pay an attorney' s fee and still lose the battle too? We've got to weigh what this attorney is going to cost versus what we're going to lose. We could lose both and the attorney's fees and the court cost. Jerry Friend : How long is the TIF? Kit Williams : Normally a TIF lasts 25 years and if they pay off the debt earlier than 25 years they can do further projects. Really the tax increment, the growth is at the very end. The very end is where you get a substantial amount of money that each taxing entity would be losing because it takes a long time for growth to rise up but every year it's more and you stack it on each other. The City Council, on request of Mayor Coody and the school board, passed a resolution that said that they will not fund any further projects after this initial Mountain Inn project. So its $3 .5 million and we get $300,000 back from the sale of the land. They will use • Firearm's and Peliceme's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees special Joint Meeling Minutes- March inutesMarch 31 . 2005 Page 4 of 16 • $ 180,000 that for sidewalks and the $ 120,000 goes back for the debt. So the whole debt is actually less than $3 .4 million afler we pay it back . Jerry Friend: But that debt doesn 't affect us at all. Kit Williams : The debt does not affect you except that the debt will be paid by the tax increment that is in the district. Jerry Friend : But if we pay it off first, early or something. Kit Williams : Once it gets paid off then there will be no new projects and that keeps the back end from being a big loss. Jerry Friend: So we have to take what we get from the tax and take 5% of it. Eldon Roberts: Just the growth amount, Jerry. Kit Williams : Five percent. Jerry Friend: Five percent of all the growth. Kit Williams: Actually 4.7% so it's even less than 5% but then you take that and then it' s just a • growth within that. 1 think that it' s probably in your benefit to work out some sort of agreement with an attorney. There are lots of good attorneys out there. I know that on occasion that Jim Rose has worked with the city at very reasonable rates almost as a public service and he also was involved in the incinerator case. He knows a little bit about these sorts of tax issues. I have not talked to him. He might be someone you would want to consider and of course Fayetteville is full of attorneys. I ' ll leave that up to you all but I would think that it would be in your own best interest to have an attorney. This attorney can basically file what I call a "me too" brief where he looks at what the library says and says yeah us too. That's exactly our situation, we've got the same constitutional amendment, it says it' s suppose to be used for police and fire pension only and so Amendment 78 did not repeal it and that ' s his argument. The same argument is made on the circuit court level and the Supreme Court level . It' s not a real complicated case and the big thing is that there's not a fact issue. That' s when trials get more expensive, you've have to do depositions, you have trials and courtroom time. 1 think that we can stipulate to all the facts. The facts really are not what are in dispute. The dispute is what does the law mean? What does the law require? How do these constitutional amendments interact with each other? I don' t think from your prospective that it would be a difficult or expensive case. 1 think that you all certainly could consult with, or interview two or three firms, or two or three attorneys, or whatever. How the city has to select professionals like attorneys is that you are supposed to select the most qualified and then negotiate price. So that' s what you would initially do. You could select several amongst yourself, just people that you' d think would be good attorneys, and then look at your top selection and then certainly talk to your top selection and say well we have very little money at stake here and we don' t think it's a very complicated case. 1 ' d be happy to _ Firemen's and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31 , 2005 Page 5 of 16 • talk with whoever you select and explain the issues to them. You need to ask what will it cost us for you to do this and if they say well I'll have to charge you $ 150 an hour and I don' t know how long it will take and I just cant top end, then say thank you very much and you take a look at your second most qualified attorney and see if there is a better financial situation for you down the line. Eldon Roberts: Kit, did I understand you say the TIF can go for 25 years? Has there been a projected time line on this one? Kit Williams: There has been a projected time line under almost what I consider the worst case scenario with only about three mils in the TIF; I think it was in the 20 year time. That assumes that the city will never raise any millage itself and of course the City Council can and probably is going to have to increase millage in order to make expenses in the future. All those mils would go in without any question. The school board is asking for almost 5 mils right now to be voted on in May. There is no question that if that passes all those mils are going to be in the TIF. So as you see that would even in the worst case scenario be doubling and tripling the amount of money coming in, and of course when you do that you pay off much faster. My gut feeling on how the courts will finally decide this is that there' s going to be at least 7.66 mils in the TIF right now except that you all • and the library might actually be out but that' s only I .S. So that would still be far more than the three that they thought were in there. I will be personally shocked if it' s not paid off in a dozen year but you know who knows. We're still waiting for the Supreme Court. Jerry Friend: You said the worst case scenario but there's probably a worst one what if the whole thing just blows up and explodes. I mean what would happen then? Kit Williams: Well if the country went into a depression and property values didn't go up then it could be a long time. The law says that the TIF will be existence until the bonds are paid. So if the property value went down and there was not increment then it would go on and on until finally inflation would do it. Actually even that is some what protected because right now the assessments on property in the TIF district are doubled what they're paying because you can only increase the amount you are paying, 5% residential and 10% commercial so there's already built in growth at current property values right now. It just takes a while for the taxes to catch up because of the other amendments that slow down growth. So I really think that because it's such a small amount of money and a fairly large TIF District with other buildings like the Terminella building and you see the other ones that are being proposed. I think the chances are extremely good that it will be paid off. Jerry Surles : What happens if we decide to just take our lumps and go on about our business and just ride? The school board wins, the library board wins, are they going to go ahead and take our money? • Firemen s and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31 , 2005 Page 6 of 1-6 • Kit Williams : No, I don ' t think so . I think that probably the Supreme Court would look at the library' s arguments and see if they apply to you. However it could concern me because as the city attorney I want a final resolution on everything and I 'd hate to get to the Supreme Court and say you didn't get this other party. This other party never said anything about their interest so we're not going to decide this case until they get their argument in. So it would be better for you all at least to have someone in there making an argument for you. I can't do it because I 'm representing the City and I 'm under the requirement of the Trust Indenture to make the arguments that say you 're millage is in . 1 think you could probably get an attorney to go forward and make your arguments. It' s possible that the court would even order that your attorney fees be paid. Eldon Roberts : Irregardless of what happens in all this we' re going to continue to draw our tax dollars off of this TIF District the amount we've always been drawing. Kit Williams : Oh yeah. Eldon Roberts: That' s a true statement. Kit Williams : It does not go in. Eldon Roberts: We're only dealing with the increase. • Kit Williams: The increase of 5% within the whole district which is 5% of the whole town. So you 're going to get 95% of the growth regardless, you're going to get 100% of the current base regardless and the only question would be what about the growth within that 5%? So it's a fairly small amount and that' s why I also think an attorney, especially someone that's kind of been helpful to the city in the past would be willing to do this at a fairly nominal charge just to make sure that everything will be presented properly. Marion Doss: I kind of thought the way it was right now the Mountain Inn is not worth anything so we're not getting anything for it. But 1 realize the whole district as it grows and as it' s worth something, we still wouldn't be getting anything until the bonds are paid off? Kit Williams : You're talking about the millage increase on the Mountain Inn? Marion Doss: Yeah. Kit Williams: The Mountain Inn is figured into the base so you 're getting a little bit from the Mountain Inn now but not much . It wouldn't even be done unless we do the TIF District but yes its growth, its value increase is going to be within the district, that' s one of the big things within the district that helps it grow especially early on. That' s going to be a $22 million project and so you go from a $ 1 million or less to $22 million and that's a lot. The Mountain Inn itself is paying for a lot of this district. • Firemen's and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Mecting Minutes March 31 , 2005 • Page 7 of 16 Jerry Surles: Would 95% of $20 million be a lot more than 100% of $ 1 million? Kit Williams: The Mountain Inn is totally within the district and so all of its increase is going to be captured by the district. All the increase in the district, which is now about 5% of the total value of Fayetteville, but all the growth within the district, would be captured by the number of mils that are dedicated into the district so all of that growth goes into the district. Apart from the 25 mils that the attorney general says that growth doesn't and that's of course half of it right there. Jerry Surles : Did I understand you to say that we' d only lose about 5%? We're getting 100% now up to this point then the TIF comes in and we'd be down to 95%. Correct? Kit Williams : You'd actually continue to get 100% of the base. Jerry Surles: That' s what we get now. Kit Williams : You get 100% of the base but you don't get the advantage of increase in the TIF District unless the court says you're entitled to it and that could be significant because there's enough to pay off three million dollars. I mean not your millage alone but if you'd look at the figures that the University of Arkansas Business Forecasting Unit did, there are big increases in • value coming for that district. Part of it would be the Mountain Inn, part of it the Terminella Building and part of it is the old library now that it' s been converted into private use which means it will go on the tax roles instead of not being on the tax roles and then some of these other projects that have been planned down there. I think it would be worth pretty substantial money for you all even at combined of only eight tenths of a mil that' s going to be still a substantial amount of money within the longevity of the district. I can tell you this, you're almost going to have to have a lawyer, and you're a named party. I have to obtain service. Jerry Surles: You mean that you have already filed a lawsuit against us. Kit Williams: That's right. Jerry Surles: And you're sitting here telling us what we need to do. Kit Williams: Well I'm telling you that you have to get a lawyer. Marion Doss: Kit it looks to me like you should to be representing us as a city pension fund and the developers representing the TIF District. Kit Williams: The TIF District is not the developer's district. The TIF District is the city' s district, the city is the one issuing the bonds, and it's the city that obtains the money that's going to do the project and decides what the project is. Then the city sells the property that has been acquired and demolished to the developers at slightly above the appraised value that has been • Fmcmen s and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees special Joint Meeling Minutes March 31 . 2005 Page 4nf le ' already determined in order for them to go forward with their project. It is the City Council that made the decision to go forward not the developers. Marion Doss: They' re actually doing it for the developers for enticement. Kit Williams : They're doing it to get the project accomplished, that' s right; if the project doesn't go forward then this development would not go forward. I'm required by the Trust Indenture to file this suit and go forward. There was a question in my mind actually about whether or not 1 even needed to name you. You're the city really to some extent but I felt like it was much better to have all the bases covered so that we don't expose ourselves to an illegal exaction suit. That's the only way that we could have substantial money loss if we didn't do this declaratory judgment suit. I think the school is wrong. The school district has told the assessor that they' re entitled to four and half mils that were never passed by the voters for them . This is additional millage that was never passed, but they want the increment on these four and half mils. I think that ' s wrong. I think they will lose on that. If this went for 25 years, that would be like $ 17 million dollars. So how much attorney's fee do you get for $ 17 million dollars? They would get a third. That' s five million dollars. That' s enough to inspire lots of attorneys to come after them. So to try to avoid that, that' s why I filed this declaratory judgment. • Jerry Friend: So if we pay an attorney with a contract and happen to win accidentally and I don 't know how and we got five million dollars. Kit Williams: Well you don't recover extra money. The declaratory judgment is just going to say 1 don't want any of these disputed mils distributed and that's virtually almost all of these. Eldon Roberts : We want to keep getting them. Kit Williams : None of the increment distributed. Jerry Friend: Let's say we did. Could that attorney then say okay you owe me a third of that. Kit Williams: Oh no. Jerry Friend: Not if we' ve contracted. Kit Williams: The one third I'm talking about is the taxpayer' s attorney if they file an illegal exaction case and then they claim they get a percentage of what is recovered. Jerry Friend: Been there, done that. • r Firemen's and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of T`ustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes Match 31, 2005 Page 9 of 16 • Kit Williams : Usually it' s not a third, I've seen it be a third. Hopefully, it would be less, but even so 17 million you take 15% or 20%. That' s still a lot of money. Eldon Roberts: Do you feel comfortable in telling this board what you think the bottom and top number should fall in between. Kit Williams: You're talking about for attorney fees? Eldon Roberts: Yes, sir. Jerry Friend: For the amount of work you think that will have to do. Kit Williams : They would have to do two things. They' d have to file one brief in the circuit court and probably show up for the oral argument whatever that would be. They' ll have to spend a little bit of time agreeing to the stipulated facts that Fro going to prepare and propose so that we don't have to have any evidentiary hearings. We just say that this was the ballot, this was the ordinance it' s nothing that 1 think is in dispute. They'd have to spend a little bit of time reviewing that, a little bit of time doing some research and then they'll have to file a brief in the Supreme Court. It can be pretty short; it probably would be in their case because they would be following along the arguments that the library is going to make. • Eldon Roberts: You talking about the State Supreme Court 1 guess. Kit Williams: Really there' s not going to be a final decision until the State Supreme Court gives us the final decision. If we stopped at circuit court that really wouldn't protect us. Eldon Roberts: We want a contract. This hourly thing scares me to death because it could go on. Kit Williams: You could do an hourly thing with a maximum something like that if you wanted to. I would think that it would be pretty reasonable for an attorney who realizes that it doesn't have to go to trial. Eldon Roberts : That' s a given now it doesn' t have to go to trial. That's a given? Kit Williams: From my prospective it is, I 'm dealing with other attorneys I can't imagine there's any facts in dispute. It' s just what the law means at this point in time I think. There are other attorneys involved and until I've got every attorney to sign off on the stipulated facts, I can't tell you that every body is going to do it. I think that they will. Pete Reagan: So you're working with whom? Kit Williams : Rudy, Vince Chaddick and George Butler and then whoever you all get. Pve • worked a lot in the past with them and I don't think that there will be any problem. I think we all Firemen s and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees ' special Joint Meeting M inures March 31 , 2005 Page 10 of 16 • have an interest to keep the costs down for our government that we' re working for. Nobody has an interest to run the clock. I don ' t know exactly what Rudy' s situation is if he gets paid by the hour. Vince I 'm sure gets paid by the hour, but 1 think that they would be working to cooperate with us. 1 don' t think anybody would want to delay and run up the clock . 1 would think that you all combined could probably get a contract in the $5,000.00 level as a cap. It' s possible that you could get it less than that. 1 'd hate to tell you. I know that in earlier cases when the city hired outside counsel like on the incinerator case; we paid unbelievable amounts of money. Jerry Friend : You got that. Kit Williams: When I first got on the City Council, one of the first things 1 did was we fired those out of town counsels who were just milking us. Dale Evans, Kent Hirsch and the rest made about $2 .6 million 1 think off the incinerator case. Well it' s pretty hard to argue with that because we paid our own attorneys more than that to lose. So it' s pretty hard for us to come up and say that' s too much money, judge, because we had voluntarily paid outside counsel more than that (which really stuck in my craw), because a lot of the stuff they did was delay tactics. Marion Doss : Kit, we' re not the only city in the state that has a TIF. Kit Williams: We're about the only one. The only other one that has this going forward is Jonesboro and that' s going to be kind of a different issue probably. Everybody else went belly • up as soon as the attorney general said 25 mils were out. So we are the test case. Jerry Friend: Is there any danger of this one stopping? Kit Williams : Well I don 't think so. We haven't actually done the bond closing yet on the TIF. That comes later in April and purchasing the property. W'e're already working towards doing a demolition contract. Jerry Friend: Who's the owner of that property? Kit Williams: Its not just the Mountain Inn we are dealing with, the owner of the Mountain Inn is Stella Moga but we're also taking the county courts building, the county owns that. And then we're taking the old Niblock Law Firm. You probably shouldn't use them because there' s a potential conflict there maybe. Jerry Friend : Does the government say that we're going to sell this for $300,000? Kit Williams : Yes. Jerry Friend: But it' s going to cost us $3 million. Whoever owns it anything they get goes toward tearing it down first? Kit Williams : We buy buildings, all four buildings. • y Firemen's and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31 , 2005 • Page 1 I of 16 Jerry Friend: The owner walks off with money? Kit Williams: Including the Redbird Cafe $2.6 million. Then we spent almost $900,000 tearing it down and getting the site ready for development. $ 1 .2 million is going to the Mountain Inn. Jerry Friend: The owner of that walks away with money? Kit Williams: She walks away with $ 1 .2 million. Jerry Friend : That' s ridiculous Kit. Kit Williams : It is ridiculous. We could have condemned the building. Jerry Friend: And tear it down. Kit Williams: But the problem with that is we would not have gotten ownership of the building until the court case and the Supreme Court decision on our condemnation efforts against her, which would probably be two years out. This project is contingent not only on the TIF District and us getting this land together and selling it to them for $300,000 but also $8 million in federal • tax credits that if they're not spent this year they' re lost. They won't be spent on this project so this project would not go unless we can get a good title. The City Council decided to buy the Mountain Inn. Jerry Friend: I know. I know. Marion Doss: There are certain developers that have a lot of things going on right now in Fayetteville. Jerry Friend: And it sticks in my craw. Big time. Kit Williams: I think you almost have to get a lawyer to represent you jointly. I would just urge you to have a stiff enough contract so that you end up not paying any more than you have to and you definitely have a cap at the top of it. Your lawyer will not need to go to Little Rock to argue before the Supreme Court. That could be part of your contract that you don't expect your lawyer to go down there. One thing the Arkansas Supreme Court will limit the arguments and you've got such a tiny bit and the library will be covering it anyway. He could go down there and all he'd be doing is sitting in the audience watching. That's pretty expensive watching. So you can limit your expenses that way by limiting what your lawyer would be doing for you. I 'm sorry that the library decided they didn't want Vince to represent you because he already knows probably all the issues involved in this and he's a fine lawyer and would do good job but since they bowed up • Firemen s and Policemen's Pnrsion and Relief Fund Board of Trustees ' special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31 , 2005 Page 12 of 16 • their back and said they didn't want him to work for anybody else. You' ve got to do what your client is telling you. Marion Doss: I thought maybe it was in the contract with him or something. Pete Reagan : Let me ask you a question Kit on the assistant city attorney. Kit Williams : Okay. Pete Reagan : Can we use him? Kit Williams : I wish that would be true but if 1 have a conflict because 1 am already on the other side then anybody in my office would have the same conflict. Pete Reagan : You're in different offices there. You' re on one side and he' s on the other. Kit Williams: It ' s just like what 1 said about Martin. Why couldn ' t Mark Martin do it because he' s just sharing an office with Ken Kieklak, it's because Kieklak is on the Quorum Court Mark is not, it's because they are in the same firm, if one person has a conflict they both have conflicts. So the assistant city attorney can' t argue against me. Randy Bradley: Is this going to be in writing by our meeting in three weeks from today? • Eldon Roberts : How soon do we need to get an attorney? Kit Williams : 1 would hope that you would move quickly because really we can't go forward with the case until everybody' s got their attorney in line and file their appearance. Jerry Friend : That' s cool. We won't get an attorney and the TIF can 't happen. Kit Williams: No. The TIF is going forward. What you're saying is the illegal exaction can't happen. The TIF is going forward. Pete Reagan : So you 're saying within a week, two weeks? Kit Williams: Yeah, I would hope that you all could do that if you would. Randy Bradley: 1 personally don 't want to take any action at all until all the board members are here. Kit Williams: Sure. In fact I don 't think we have quorum except for fire. I don 't think the police has quorum. So you can 't take official action. Of course you wouldn't take official action until you hire somebody any way. Fimnteri s and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of hustees special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31 , 2005 Page 13 of 16 • Eldon Roberts: Wait a second the police has quorum. Kit Williams : 1 hope that in your regular meeting of the fire pension you look at this and decide what you want to do. We will probably need another special meeting with the police then at some point in time to decide what you're going to do. Sondra: Randy when' s our meeting in April? Randy Bradley: Three weeks from today. Kit Williams : That would work for you to . actually hire somebody at that time rather than deciding to hire somebody. You know you all could meet together when you interview. Pete Reagan : We'll have to get together to interview. Kit Williams: Do you want the purchasing office to send a little notice for attorneys to apply or how do you want to try to handle that? Jerry Friend: Are attorneys bound to not apply for something they're not an expert in? • Kit Williams : You could pay a lot of money for someone to become an expert. Jerry Friend: Right. We don't want to pay to educate somebody. Sondra: You had suggested Jim Rose. Kit Williams: I think Jim would probably do a good job. Eldon Roberts: Jim's always been fair by us at the police department. Randy Bradley: If he didn't treat us right he'd be in trouble. Jerry Friend: Didn't you say that Odom had a conflict? Kit Williams : No, that would be Niblock. Conrad would do a good job for you too. In fact it's always better to interview more than one any way. if you wanted to you could actually have the purchasing officer invite those two attorneys if that' s what you wanted to do. Jerry Friend: Has Jack got a conflict? Kit Williams: Jack Butt? No he does not. I think most attorneys don't, very few would have a conflict. • Firemen s and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31 , 2005 Page 14 of 16 • Randy Bradley: Can we get this in writing? I can ' t remember all these facts of what we are dealing with. Sondra Smith : I can transcribe them next week. Pete Reagan : Can we interview three attorneys if we come up with three names. Can we have them talk to you Kit about what the requirements are going to be? Jerry Friend: You could tell them what they're up against and then we could interview them. Kit Williams : The only thing is I can only talk to you all since you are not represented parties, I can recommend that you get an attorney and that ' s what I 'm doing. Apart from that I can't really give any advice. Jerry Friend: You can tell the attorney how much work you expect that they are going to have to do. Do we need a motion of some kind? Like name some names. Jerry Surles: Can we not go ahead and pick out three attorneys. Jerry Friend: Yeah, I think we can. Jim Rose. Jack Butt. Kit Williams : Conrad Odom too. • Pete Reagan: With the Odom Firm? Jerry Friend : 1 think those three will be good . Pete Reagan : I think rather than interview them I think they could submit something in writing. Jerry Friend: That makes more sense. Eldon Roberts : 1 think they should be contacted and let them call Kit and let him tell them what it' s about. They should be able to give us some numbers. Kit Williams: What I would ask them to do is just submit what they believe would be required to represent you. Pete: Second . Marion Doss : Sounds good to me. Sondra Smith : You said Jim Rose. Jack Butt and Conrad Odom. Kit Williams : The Odom Firm. e - Firemen's and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31 , 2005 Page 15 of 16 Eldon Roberts: They'll be able to get a hold of these other attorneys and talk business won' t they to get a feel for what they need to do. Sondra Smith : So do we have a motion and second? Pete Reagan : Second. Sondra Smith : Who made the motion? Jerry Friend: I think I did. Kit Williams: Jerry Friend made the motion. Pete made the first second I believe. Pete Reagan : Yeah I did. Randy Bradley: I want to make an addendum to that motion. I want to nominate Pete to be the one that gets a hold of these attorneys here in town and gets them in touch with Kit. Kit Williams: I don't have any problems contacting them myself. In fact I'll probably see a • couple of them at lunch today. Jerry Friend: Who else thinks this TIF deal is terrible. Jerry Surles: Sounds to me like a bunch of attorneys are going to get money out of it to me. Sondra Smith: I'm going to do a roll call vote on receiving a proposal from Jim Rose, Jack Butt or Odom Law Firm. Jerry Friend moved to receive proposals from Jim Rose, Jack Butt and the Odom Law Firm. Pete Reagan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Coody, Tim Helder and Dr. Mashburn were absent. Eldon Roberts: If the number that comes back from these folks doesn't suit you I would certainly go elsewhere. I don't think you're going to be bound by these three. Jerry Friend: Oh no. Eldon Roberts: I think they need to know that up front too, say this is not a give me thing, we're not just going to give you a blank check. We're going to check elsewhere if we're not satisfied. Jerry Surles: Well apparently we need an attorney one way or the other. Firemen's and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Bomd of Tmsices Special Jain( Meeting Minutes Mamh i I , 2005 Page 16 of 16 • Eldon Roberts: I think $5,000 is ridiculous. Jerry Friend: Not as ridiculous as tearing down a building for somebody. Marion Doss : For $900,000. Meeting Adjourned at 11 :50 AM • 0 F� POLICE PENSION FUND February 2005 6600-9800 6800-9800 . 5335-00 533505 EMP# NAME GROSS YTD Wages Suppl. YTD Suppl. Fed Tax ST. TAX NET •154 ALLEN, CHARLES 2,365.31 4,730.62 50.00 100.00 220.00 66.89 2,128.42 152 ARNOLD, WILLADEAN 889.03 1 ,778.06 50.00 100.00 939.03 -` 130 BAYLES, DON 1 ,452.70 2,905.40 50.00 100.00 1 ,502.70 107 BLACK, JOE P 1 ,030.12 2,060.24 50.00 100.00 100.00 20.00 960.12 147 BRADLEY, GERALD 4,411 .07 8,822.14 50.00 100.00 940.53 217.32 3,303.22 139 BRADLEY, RANDALL 2,617.46 5,234.92 50.00 100.00 382.00 100.00 2,185.46 167 BROWN, JOHN 3,991.85 7,983.70 50.00 100.00 600.00 200.00 3,241 .85 157 CARROLL,RONALD L 1 ,927.33 3,854.66 50.00 100.00 250.00 105.00 1 ,622.33 151 COLE, RUSTON 2,805.59 5,611 .18 50.00 100.00 600.00 200.00 2,055.59 109 COOPER, ADRIAN 584.25 1 ,168.50 50.00 100.00 634.25 108 DENNIS, WARREN 1 ,260.04 2,520.08 50.00 100.00 0.00 1 ,310.04 160 DUGGER,GARY 2,895.27 5,790.54 50.00 100.00 300.00 120.00 2,525.27 125 FLOWERS, HAROLD 789.41 1 ,578.82 50.00 100.00 839.41 140 FOSTER, BILLIE D. 2,935.17 - 5,870.34 50.00 100.00 300.00 120.00 2,565.17 148 FRIEND, JERRY 2,885.15 5,770.30 50.00 100.00 725.00 150.00 2,060.15 161 HANNA, JANICE 1 ,791 .39 3,582.78 0.00 175.00 50.00 1 ,566.39 145 HANNA, MARK : 713.52 1 ,427.04 50.00 100.00 763.52 162 HASKINS, IRENE 397.68 795.36 50.00 100.00 447.68 169 HELDER, TIM 5,342.71 10,685.42 50.00 100.00 750.00 250.00 4,392.71 180 HOYT, RICK 6,826.97 13,653.94 50.00 100.00 1 ,100.00 410.00 5,366.97 146 HUTCHENS, BERNICE 928.13 1 ,856.26 50.00 100.00 130.00 848.13 143 JOHNSON, CHARLES 2,247.13 4,494.26 50.00 100.00 42.67 2,254.46 103 JOHNSON, WENDELL 716.69 11433.38 50.00 100.00 766.69 118 JONES, BOB 3,020.38 6,040.76 50.00 100.00 0.00 3,070.38 144 KILGORE, DONALD 1 ,872.82 3,745.64 50.00 100.00 19.72 1 ,903.10 129 LAWSON, FORREST 1 ,434.84 2,869.68 50.00 100.00 350.00 1 ,134.84 150 LITTLE, PATSY R 371 .32 742.64 50.00 100.00 421 .32 153 LORCH, DONNA G 371 .32 742.64 50.00 100.00 421 .32 156 MARTIN, KENNETH 3,379.48 6,758.96 50.00 100.00 500.00 140.00 2,789.48 128 MCCAWLEY, LARRY 1 ,550.97 3,101 .94 50.00 100.00 180.00 40.00 1 ,380.97 116 MCCHRISTIAN, MARIE 371 .32 742.64 50.00 100.00 421 .32 126 MCWHORTER, KAREN 514.56 1 ,029.12 50.00 100.00 564.56 136 MITCHELL, MICHAEL 2,109.67 4,219.34 50.00 100.00 150.00 2,009.67 141 MUELLER, ROSEMARY 1 ,888.80 3,777.60 50.00 100.00 1 ,938.80 158 MUNSON,ANGELA 3,841.90 7,683.80 50.00 100.00 500.00 183.00 3,208.90 112 MURPHY, JAKE 371 .32 742.64 50.00 100.00 0.00 421 .32 137 PERDUE, LARRY 2,125.57 4,251 .14 50.00, 100.00 200.00 25.00 1 ,950.57 164 PERSHALL, ROBIN 1 ,395.65 2,791 .30 0.00 190.00 67.00 1 ,138.65 132 PHILLIPS, HOMER GENE 1 ,605.56 3,211.12 50-00 100.00 300.00 1 ,355.56 105 PRESTON, GEORGE DAVID 1 ,465.49 2,930.98 50.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1 ,315.49 135 RICKMAN, LOREN 2,041 .75 4,083.50 50.00 -100.00 230.00 65.00 1 ,796.75 104 RIGGINS, RAYMOND C 1 ,527.71 3,055.42 50.00 100.00 125.00 25.00 1 ,427.71 183 ROBERTS, ELDON 6,844.68 13,689.36 0.00 1 ,244.00 400.00 5,200.68 159 SCHUSTER,JOHN H. 2,852.83 5,705.66 50.00 100.00 340.00 110.00 2,452.83 178 SKELTON, FRIEDA T. 378.57 757.14 50.00 100.00 428.57 168 STANLEY, MELVIN 4,465.95 8,931 .90 50.00 100.00 1 ,100.00 300.00 3,115.95 155 STOUT, BETTY 440.54 881 .08 50.00 100.00 0.00 490.54 133 SURLES, JERRY 2,490.47 4,980.94 50.00 100.00 450.00 150.00 1 ,940.47 142 TAYLOR, DENNIS 1 ,888.80 3,777.60 50.00 100.00 110.00 0.00 1 ,828.80 106 UPTON, FRANKLIN 967.38 1 ,934.76 50.00 100.00 10.00 1 ,007.38 163 WATSON, RICHARD 7,225.79 14,451.58 50.00 100.00 1 ,950.00 400.00 4,925.79 149 WILLIAMS, JOYCE 1 ,291 .19 2,582.38 50.00 100.00 217.07 1 ,124.12 134 WITT, DON 1,616.90 3,233.80 50.00 100.00 115.00 64.00 1 ,487.90 127 WOOD, PAUL J 1 ,446.77 2,893.54 50.00 100.00 0.00 1 ,496.77 114,974.27 229,948.54 2,550.00 5,100.00 14,933.60 4,140.60 98,450.07 6800-9800 6800-9800 533500 533505 Total Year to Date 229,948.54 5,200.00 235,148.54