Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-28 - Agendas - Final Firemen's Pension and Relief Fund Meeting Agenda April 28, 2005 A meeting of the Fayetteville Firemen's Pension and Relief Fund will be held at 11 :00 a.m. on April 28, 2005 in Room 326 of the City Administration Building 1. Approval of the Minutes: • March 31 , 2005 Special Meeting Minutes — Joint Session between the Policemen's Pension and the Firemen's Pension. • March 31,2005 Meeting Minutes 2. Approval of the Pension List: • May 2005 Pension List 3. Old Business: • Hiring an attorney for the TIF lawsuit • 2005 Elections 4. New Business: • Nichols & Campbell, P.A. - Income Tax refund for Retirees S. Longer Investments: • Report I I i i i I f 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. Highway 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. jA 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 Firemen's and Policemen's 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, I 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. I don't want you to spend much on attorney'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 Firemen's and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 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 after 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. I 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. I 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. I 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. I'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 I 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 can't 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 1 .8. 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 16 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. I 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 I 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 Meeting 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 Firemen's and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31, 2005 Page 8 of 16 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 I 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 I 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. Firemen's and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 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 I'm 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 I 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 I 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. I've 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 Minutes { March 31,2005 r 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 I think that they would be working to cooperate with us. I don't think anybody would want to delay and run up the clock. I 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. I'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 I 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 I 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. We'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. 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. a 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 Pension 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 I have a conflict because I 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 I 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: I 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: I 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. Firemen's and Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31, 2005 Page 13 of 16 Eldon Roberts: Wait a second the police has quorum. Kit Williams: I 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: I 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: I 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. 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 Board of Trustees Special Joint Meeting Minutes March 31,2005 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 ... ....... .... ..... .. .. .. . ...... Firemen's.Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes March 31,2005 Page 1 of 3 Firemen's Pension and Relief Fund Meeting Minutes March 31, 2005 A meeting of the Fayetteville Firemen's Pension'and Relief Fund was held at 12:00 AM on March 31, 2005 in Room 111 of the City Administration Building Marion Doss called the meeting to order Present: Pete Reagan, Robert Johnson. Marion Doss, Danny Farrar, Ronnie Woods, City Clerk Sondra Smith and City Attorney Kit Williams. Absent: Mayor Coody Approval of the February 24, 2005 Meeting Minutes: Pete Reagan moved to approve the Minutes. Robert Johnson seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Approval of the April 2005 Pension List: Sondra Smith: Lonnie Napier has moved from the DROP portion for April to the regular pension list. Also Floyd Carl deceased. Marion Doss: Is Pauline Skelton still living? Sondra Smith: I think so, I will check. Robert Johnson: Are those the only changes to the list? Sondra Smith: Yes. Robert Johnson moved to approve the Pension List. Pete Reagan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Longer Investments: A copy of the investment report was given to the Board. Firemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes March 31,2005 Page 2 of 3 Old Business: Siined Investment Policy A copy of the revised signed investment policy was given to the Board. NCPRES Conference Sondra Smith: I have attached a copy of Pete's travel request, it shows the approximate cost of his trip to the conference. New Business: Floyd Carl Death Certificate A copy of Floyd Carl's death certificate was given to the Board. Affidavits — Non-return Sondra Smith: We have a problem with some of the pension folks not turning their affidavit's in to us. I think we should set a policy. Without the affidavit if a pension person lives out of state there would probably be no way of knowing when someone deceased. I would like this Board to set a policy stating if we do not receive the affidavits by a date specific, then we hold their checks until we receive the affidavit. Pete Reagan moved that the Board set a policy that when the affidavits are sent to the pensioners if they are not received within a 30 day time period of the due date that is stated on the notice that all retirement payments be stopped until such affidavit is received by the City Clerk. Robert Johnson seconded the motion. Marion Doss: Is 30 days enough time for you Sondra. Sondra Smith: We usually give them a long deadline. We send the affidavits out in December and we usually give them until the end of January to return them. I think that 30 days after the due date should be sufficient. The affidavits protect the Pension Board from people drawing a pension check that are not eligible to draw a check. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. 2005 Elections Sondra Smith: Robert and Ronnie are you willing to serve another term? Firemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes March 31,2005 Page 3 of 3 Robert Johnson: Yes. Ronnie Wood: If elected yes. Sondra Smith: I will send the nomination letter out. After we receive the nominations I will send the election forms out. Do they go to everyone receiving a pension check? Marion Doss: Yes. We represent all of the people on the pension list. Lonnie Naaier's retirement Danny Farrar: Do you have everything from him. Sondra Smith: Yes. Don't we need to vote on his retirement? Pete Reagan: When we approve the pension list we are approving his retirement. Meeting Adjourned at 12:20 FIREMEN'S RELIEF AND PENSION May 2005 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE FIREMEN'S RELIEF FUND FOR THE MONTH OF MAY. YOU ARE HEREBY INSTRUCTED TO ISSUE CHECKS TO THE PAYEES, IN THE AMOUNTS SHOWN, AND FOR THE PURPOSE SO STATED. DATE OF Regular Mo Year To Date EMP#RETIREMENT NAME Benefit Reg Benefit Fed Tax St Tax Net 79 11/99 ARMSTRONG (DILL), PAMELA 1,759.94 8,799.70 300.00 100.00 1,359.94 177 4/04 BACHMAN, EDDIE 2,542.28 12,711.40 479.27 119.82 1,943.19 74 3/86 BAIRD, JULIA 1,749.59 8,747.95 350.00 145.00 1,254.59 2 3/75 BLACKARD, PAUL 106.09 530.45 106.09 63 5/72 BOLAIN, ANN 106.09 530.45 106.09 68 7/99 BONADUCE, MICHAEL 2,901.71 14,508.55 475.38 2,426.33 44 9/86 BOUDREY, BETTY MRS. 2,405.26 12,026.30 300.00 50.00 2,055.26 45 9/86 BOUDREY, HOWARD 2,028.43 10,142.15 2,028.43 49 7/88 BOUDREY, JACK 1,599.64 7,998.20 287.68 50.00 1,261.96 4 6/67 CARL, FLOYD JR, (Deceased 2/28/05) 0.00 212.18 5 5/72 CASELMAN, ARTHUR 127.31 636.55 127.31 57 5/90 CATE, ROY 1,736.80 8,684.00 1,736.80 6 4/68 CHRISTIE, ARNOLD 106.09 530.45 106.09 8 10/76 COUNTS, WAYNE 106.09 530.45 106.09 77 11/99 DILL,GARY JOHN 1,759.95 8,799.75 100.00 1,659.95 11 2/76 FARRAR,ALONZO 969.77 4,848.85 969.77 38 5/84 FRALEY, JOSEPH G. 1,716.62 8,583.10 200.00 15.00 1,501.62 170 5/03 FREEDLE, LARRY 3,705.58 18,527.90 500.00 100.00 3,105.58 92 03/02 GAGE,TOMMY 2,521.06 12,605.30 226.00 50.00 2,245.06 34 6/79 HARRIS, JAMES E. 106.09 530.45 106.09 70 11/99 HARRIS, MARY RUTH 106.09 530.45 106.09 182 10/04 JENKINS, EILEEN 1,736.65 8,683.25 350.00 100.00 1,286.65 93 06/02 JENKINS, JOHN 1,736.66 8,683.30 350.00 100.00 1,286.66 86 07/01 JOHNSON,ROBERT 2,983.95 14,919.75 500.00 100.00 2,383.95 64 4/95 JORDAN, CHARLIE 2,208.69 11,043.45 2,208.69 76 5/88 JUDY, JAN 1,599.64 7,998.20 200.00 50.00 1,349.64 37 3/84 KING, ARNOLD D. 1,478.03 7,390.15 265.00 35.00 1,178.03 54 5/89 KING, ARVIL 1,661.37 8,306.85 130.00 50.00 1,481.37 12 3/60 LANE, HOPE MRS 106.09 530.45 106.09 13 10/67 LAYER, MERLIN 442.93 2,214.65 442.93 173 12/03 LEDBETTER, DENNIS 3,665.83 18,329.15 650.00 200.00 2,815.83 181 10/04 LEE, VIOLA LOUISE 106.09 530.45 106.09 51 10/88 LEWIS, CHARLES 1,599.64 7,998.20 75.00 25.00 1,499.64 40 9/85 LOGUE, PAUL D. 2,784.74 13,923.70 325.00 75.00 2,384.74 50 9/88 MASON, LARRY 1,583.74 7,918.70 137.61 25.00 1,421.13 39 4/85 MC ARTHUR, RONALD A. 1,702.66 8,513.30 150.00 50.00 1,502.66 35 2/82 MC CHRISTIAN, DWAYNE 106.09 530.45 106.09 15 4/77 MC WHORTER, CHARLES 1,295.64 6,478.20 150.00 1,145.64 29 8/81 MILLER, DONALD 1,266.09 6,330.45 125.00 25.00 1,116.09 73 2/00 MILLER,KENNETH 3,087.40 15,437.00 325.00 75.00 2,687.40 42 2/86 MOORE, JAMES H. 106.09 530.45 106.09 176 4/04 MORRIS, DIXIE E. 122.00 610.00 122.00 62 10/68 MORRISON, ELIENE 132.61 663.05 132.61 48 7/88 MULLENS, DENNIS W. 2,127.48 10,637.40 2,127.48 184 3/05 NAPIER, LONNIE 3,415.81 6,831.62 110.00 88.00 3,217.81 46 5/88 OSBURN, TROY 1,844.33 9,221.65 200.00 38.00 1,606.33 81 02/01 PHILLIPS,LARRY 2,684.55 13,422.75 2,684.55 53 2/89 POAGE, LARRY 2,278.35 11,391.75 300.00 100.00 1,878.35 22 4/73 REED, JOE 106.09 530.45 106.09 172 12/03 SCHADER, MADGE 1,345.64 6,728.20 1,345.64 41 9/85 SCHADER, TROY 1,480.57 7,402.85 57.00 1,423.57 83 03/01 SKELTON, KIMBERLY 1,182.03 5,910.15 125.00 25.00 1,032.03 66 8/98 SKELTON, PAULINE 413.75 2,068.75 413.75 82 03/01 SKELTON,KELLY 1,182.03 5,910.15 125.00 25.00 1,032.03 36 5/76 SPRINGSTON, CARL 782.71 3,913.55 70.00 17.00 695.71 DATE OF Regular Mo Year To Date EMP#RETIREMENT NAME Benefit Reg Benefit Fed Tax St Tax Net 90 03/02 STOUT, IMOGENE W. 745.44 3,727.20 745.44 165 12/02 TATE, RALPH 3,561.26 17,806.30 300.00 100.00 3,161.26 65 3/66 TUNE, BILLIE SUE 132.61 663.05 132.61 27 3/71 TUNE, MILDRED MRS. 132.61 663.05 132.61 71 1/00 WARFORD,THOMAS 2,429.83 12,149.15 300.00 2,129.83 28 7/68 WATTS, DONALD 424.36 2,121.80 424.36 88 01/02 WOOD,RONNIE D 2,987.52 14,937.60 800.00 200.00 1,987.52 52 9/88 WRIGHT, RANDALL 1,642.08 8,210.40 200.00 25.00 1,417.08 90,572.16 442,825.55 9,537.94 2,157.82 78,876.40 DROP DATE DROP EMPLOYEES NEW BENEFITS 07/01/00 REAGAN,PETE 3,432.73 01/01/01 DOSS,MARION 5,220.30 03/01/03 MAHAN, MARSHALL 3,958.53 03/01/03 PIERCE, JOEY 3,540.95 03/01/03 SHACKLEFORD, GLEN 3,540.95 04/01/03 O'NEAL, TEDDY 4,000.96 05/01/04 FARRAR, DANNY 4,034.33 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE ABOVE OBLIGATIONS ARE JUST AND CORRECT; THAT NO PART THEREOF HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PAID; THAT THE PENSION PAYMENTS SO CHARGED ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACTIONS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FIREMEN'S RELIEF AND PENSION FUND; THAT THE SERVICES OR SUPPLIES FURNISHED, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WERE ACTUALLY RENDERED OR FURNISHED; AND THAT THE CHARGES MADE THEREFORE DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT ALLOWED BY LAW OR THE CUSTOMARY CHARGE FOR SIMILAR SERVICES OR SUPPLIES SECRETARY CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF , 2005. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES : YTD 6810-9810-5335-00 6810-9810-5335-06 YTD Column Difference 0.00 "I'E'VILLE" FAY E ,i THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS KIT WILLIAMS,CITY ATTORNEY , DAVID WIRTAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCEA LEGAL L DEP ARTMENT TO: Police Pension Board Fire Pension Board FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: April 21, 2005 RE: Legal representation for boards in the Declaratory Judgment suit Pursuant to your request, I . contacted Jack Butt, Conrad Odom, and Jim Rose and asked that they, submit a proposal for joint representation of your two bodies. Enclosed is a copy of one of those letters, plus a follow-=up letter after I learned that the legislature had passed an amendment to the TIF law. All three experienced and highly qualified attorneys kindly submitted letters proposing how they would anticipate handling your representation. I have attached these letters and urge your careful analysis of each: Your boards can operate as a professional selection committee to select your choice as the best attorney to represent you. I do not think you could go wrong selecting any of these fine lawyers. KIT WILLIAMS FAYETTEVILLE CITY:ATTORNEY DAVID J.:WHITAKER Assistant City Attorney Judy Housley Office Manager THE.CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; ARKANSAS Phone .(479) 575-8313 113 W. Mountain, Suite 302 FAX (479) 575-8315 Fayetteville,AR 72701-6083 April 14, 2005 Honorable Jack Butte P.O- Drawer 1868 Fayetteville, AR 72702-1868 Dear Jack` The legislature passed .the TIF statute amendment .with an' emergency clause, and the Governor signed this new law on April `12 th . (I think): The new ' law-. appear s to remove the: library and--police and ,f re pension Tillages :from: TIF districts. Thus, your potential representation of the-pension boards would appear to Have been made strongerand easier.now. We do not.close the bonds . until , next week and so thisnew Iaw may, be the controlling law. The redevelopment distract and pro�ect :plan were enacted by ordinance p ionto the ..passage of the new law. Regardless, they-will 'probably` be controlled by this new law as the protect plan, ordinance did not have an emergency clause and .willhio't be effective until after the ,TZF Statute amendment became 'law. .(See A.C.A. 14-55-203) Attached 1s a copy.of the nein TIF Iaw amendment. I would recommend that any attorney representing the pension .boards still make a short argument about the constitutional issue even though your legislative argument.. is now much stronger that . the . County Assessor's Certification of the Total Ad Valorem Rate and. Applicable Ad Valorem Rate. should be adjusted to remove the pension boards' millage'from the district. �...�' KIT;WILLIAMS Fayetteville City Attorney KW/jh Enclosure KIT WILLIAMS FAYETTEVILLE CITY ATTORNEY . DAVID J: WHITAKER Assistant City. Attorney. . Judy Housley Office Manager THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS- Phone (479) 575-8313 113 W. Mountain; Suite 302 FAX (479) 575-8315 Fayetteville, AR 72701-6083 April 13, 2005 Honorable Jack Butt R.O. Drawer 1688 Fayetteville; AR 72702-16.88 Dear Jack: The Fire Pension Board and Police Pension Board. met jointly and asked that I invite you and .two other: respected attorneys to submit a- proposal for representation of the. two Boards jointly. n.'the Declaratory Judgment action I filed for the City. Enclosed.is a copy: of.that Declaratory Judgmentcomplaint. As you see both pension boards are:named parties:: All other'parties have. or will :voluntarily ,enter appearances (without summons-being' is ued) and ,will probably be able.to. agree to stipulated facts.to frame the legal issues. ,Most of those will be "indisputable" facts such as: ballots that- approved;school millage, abary millage, and the-pension millage, the Assessor's Certification of the. ad: :valorein' rates :and base value of the district, City ordinances,, etc: The funds will have two major arguments that'I am-`. aware of to keep their millage from being affected by the TIF district: (1) Constitutional issue: Amendment 3:1 provided that the electors can pass a millage (up . to 2) for the police; and fire pensions. Fayetteville citizens voted to assess one.. mill divided between the two pension boards. This. was rolled back to .4 mill each as ,a result of the.Property Tax Rollback suite by Evans and Hirsch. . Article 16 §11 states,that "no moneys arising: from a_ tax levied :for any. -purpose shall be used for any . other purpose:" Amendment �8.:(authar zing TIFs) tafes: "Anyprovision of the Constitution of the State ,of-Arkansas in .conflict ,with .this section: . is repealed insofar as it is in .conflict with this: amendm6fit. As: you know; general repealer Ianguage. is not favored .by the Courts. It is arguable that such eneral 'repeal did not_re eal the language in g P P _ Amendment..31 that the cities ,may annually `thereafter, levy a tax from which .there shall ..be created a Fund to :pay.Retirement`.Salar. es to policemen and firemen theretofore or thereaffter earned . .." (2) Statutory issue The ..statutory -definition of "Total ad valo"rem rate" given ;in the TIF - statute is. ``tlie total millage;:.rate of all county, eity, school and other: local: general property ;taxes .levied . :. ". A.C.A. §I4-168-301` (17). 'The library has (asserted its. -millage ,is a special, not, general tax and hence would fall outside the definition of taxes susceptible. to TIF financing. You`might make that same argument or the Police and Fir ePension.Board millage: If you are interesting in helping the pension boards by;representing-them in. this :Declaratory 3udgmep. case, please submit a proposal of representation that will be considered by .the pensiori`boards: As" well as any. others submitted: Since he amount of'inillage.will lie very low; (the increase, in , :reillage value of. :8 mill In .:a ` distr ct including less than 5%0 of: the city propertyvalue), the boards -are interested in in how your time; iii representing hem in this issue can be kept- to a nimmium. Please also send a standard type of resume showing experience, qualif cations; etc I hope. you will consider representing the::pension boards as I cannot; because I must r resent the Ci 'in this Deelarato . Jud crit action. I will do �P ' ry. gm everything T can to expedite aid simplify this case.:. With kindest regards; KI WILLIAMS Fayetteville LCity Attorney ;Enclosure DAVIS,WRIGHT, CLARK, BUTT& CARITHERS, PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19 EAST MOUNTAIN ST. P. O.BOX 1688 FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 72702-1688 SIDNEY P.DAVIS,JR TILDEN P.WRIGHT III PHONE(479)521-7600 TAMERON C.BISHOP - '. CONSTANCE G.CLARK FAX(479) 521-7661 ERIC R GRIBBLE WM.JACKSON BUI1'II 171tQ.//WWW-aavlsWnCASEYD.LAWSONgbflaw.cOm I.R CARROLL KELLY CARI HERS TISHA M.HARRISON DOHA.TAYLOR JOHN G.TRICE WRITER'S DIRECT E-MAIL MISSYLEFLAR MARK W.DOSSEIT )butt@daviswrigbtlaw.com CHAD GOWENS April 20, 2005 RE: Representation of Fire and Police Pension Board v. City of Fayetteville (Washington County Case No. CIV 05-559-2 Mr. Kit Williams Fayetteville City Attorney 113 W. Mountain, Suite 302 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-6083 Dear Kit: Thank you for offering an opportunity to bid on representing the Fire and .Police Pension Boards in the above matter. My firm and I would be pleased to independently represent those entities and aggressively determine and address any issues arising out of this lawsuit that affect them, consistent with their best interests. These circumstances relate to our bid: as you can easily understand, there are no "expert" lawyers on TIF Districts in Arkansas, much less, Northwest Arkansas and we, as others, will be learning from a standing start on this particular area of the law. While I think everyone is interested in gaining clarification of the law, any firm that represents the Police and Fire Pension Boards will need to zealously understand and represent their interests in litigation so they do not suffer any prejudice from the outcome. Finally, while this case might give itself to a contingent fee, it is not of the type which lends itself to that and our proposal thus contemplates an hourly fee. Because of the other circumstances noted above, it is very difficult to project with any certainty the amount of time it will take us to become familiar with all TIF related issues, including the statutory and constitutional issues you note, to discuss the ramifications with our client, and to conceive and present their position properly before the trial court and, inevitably, the appropriate appellate court. Estimating the total dollar amount of the fee is thus practically impossible. If I must guess, it would be in the range of$5,000 to $107000. With that in mind, here is our proposal: I wouldbe the supervising partner for the litigation and delegate as much of the work as I could to junior partners, associates, paralegals and research clerks in order to keep the fees as low as possible while the work is still performed at the most competent level: my rate is $175 per hour (this would apply also to senior partners Davis, Wright, Clark and Carithers, though it is unlikely they would be involved); the rates of John Trice and Mark Dossett, $150 per hour; the rates of associates Tameron Bishop, Eric Gribble and Casey Lawson $125 per hour, and the rates of J. R. Carroll, Tisha Harrison and Chad Gowens $110 per hour. We bill on an itemized, monthly basis with time kept in increments of one-tenth. There is no charge for fax or copies less than 20; increments of copies greater than 20 are billed at 15¢ each and overnight express at cost. For a full firm resume I would refer you to our website, www.daviswrightlaw.com but I have printed off for your convenience the homepage and resumes for the lawyers most likely to work on this project. I am eager to be of service to the Pension Boards in this matter and look forward to your response. Sincerely, DAVIS, WRIGHT, CLARK, BUTT & CARITHERS, PLC eamlacksonutt, II WJB/jbw Enclosures cc: Partners ODOM & ELLIOTT, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW - MEMBERS OF THE FIRM MAILING ADDRESS (479)442-7575 BOBBY LEE ODOM P.O. DRAWER 1868 FAX(479).442-9008 DON R.ELLIOTT,JR. FAYETTEVILLE,AR 72702 RUSSELL B.WINBURN JEFFERY J. BOEN ADMINISTRATOR J.TIMOTHY SMITH STREET ADDRESS CONRAD T. ODOM I E. MOUNTAIN ALAN L. LANE FAYETTEVILLE,AR 72701 MATTHEW L. LINDSAY April 20, 2005 Via Hand Delivery Kit Williams City of Fayetteville Attorney's Office 113 W. Mountain, Suite 302 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Fire Pension Board and Police Pension Board Proposal Dear Kit: Thank you for your letter of April 13, 2005. Please let this letter serve as my proposal to represent the Fire Pension Board and Police Pension Board jointly in the Declaratory Judgment action the City filed on the TIF issue. Our law firm is a civil litigation law firm with a large portion of our practice devoted to labor law issues. We have the highest rating allowable as rated by Martindale Hubbell. Listed in the Martindale Hubbell as one of our clients are Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 29 of the United Association of journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO. In addition to the experience that we have in labor law issues, it is my familiarity with the issue at hand. As you are aware, I previously served on the City Council from 1992-1994. After that I served for 6 years on the Planning Commission and most recently completed the unexpired term of Bob Davis representing Ward 3. During my time on the City Council I became very familiar with TIF district issues. This is a complex issue which requires understanding not only of the issues involved in the TIF district but the needs of the Fire Pension Board and Police Pension Board. My hourly rate is $150.00 per hour with a minimum 1/6`x' hour calculation. ® 12 5= Kit Williams April 20, 2005 Page Two I would be happy to present to the Boards any additional information that they deem necessary and interview if their desire. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Conrad T. Odom CTO/amr