Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 06B_06/10/2004 TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta General Employees' Pension Trust Fund Board of Trustees held a regular meeting at the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida, on February 10, 2004. The meeting was called to order at 8:34 a.m. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Boardmembers in attendance at the meeting were: Chair Jeff Newell, Vice Chair Carl Hansen, Boardmember Thomas Paterno, and Boardmember Greg Corbitt. Also in attendance were Dan Gallagher and Attorney Bonni Jensen. Assistant Village Manager Bob Garlo attended and was seated in the audience. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Boardmember Corbitt made a motion to approve the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Paterno seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chair Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of December 10, 2003 and September 10, 2003 as submitted. Boardmember Corbitt seconded the motion, � which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. IV. ELECTION OF NEW EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE Chair Newell announced that Assistant Village Manager Bob Garlo had been elected by the employees, however, since Mr. Garlo was not a member of the General Employees' Pension Plan, being in the Florida Retirement System plan, he was not eligible to serve as a member representative. Discussion ensued. Attorney Jensen advised that since there BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES February io, 2004 PAGE 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- was a member currently serving as the fifth member, Mr. Corbitt, he could be elected to fill the vacant position and Mr. Garlo could then be appointed as the fifth member, since the fifth member was not required to be a participant in the plan. Attorney Jensen explained that Mr. Corbitt would need to resign after this meeting in order to run for election by the General Employees. If no one elected to run against him, Mr. Corbitt would be elected by default. It would not be necessary to go through the election process if a notice were posted that applications were being taken from anyone interested in being the employee trustee and if only Mr. Corbitt signed up he would automatically be elected. At the next meeting Mr. Garlo could be appointed to the fifth member position. Mr. Corbitt could submit a written resignation after this meeting, which could be received and filed at the next meeting. Boardmember Paterno suggested that Mr. Corbitt not resign until it was known that no one else wanted to run against him, so he could remain on the board. Attorney Jensen advised there were no resign to run laws for this Board. Chair Newell reported Mr. Garlo was willing to serve and the one item that disqualified him, that he was in the FRS, had only been realized the previous day. Vice Chair Hansen expressed his opinion that Mr. Garlo would be a good addition to this board. V. ELECTION OF SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Vice Chair Hansen asked what being secretary would involve. Attorney Jensen advised the secretary could sign checks and minutes; there was no ongoing responsibility because staff was available to handle minutes, etc. The secretary could run the meeting in the absence of chairpersons. Chair Newell requested that election of a secretary be deferred until the next meeting when there would be a full board. MOTION Boardmember Corbitt made a motion to defer election of a secretary to the board to the next scheduled meeting. Vice Chair Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. VI. PRESENTATIONS a) Presentation by Oppenheimer Representative This item had been deferred to the next meeting at the request of the Oppenheimer representative. Chair Newell commented that he and Mr. Gallagher had had a lot of discussions on NorthStar and how they managed the fund's investments. Chair Newell reported that his brother was in this business and he had asked him to look at BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAI. EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES February �o, 2004 PAGE 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- this. Mr. Newell's brother felt the investments that had been made were below average, and because of this, Mr. Gallagher had through an RFP been in contact with other firms. Mr. Gallagher commented there was some discontent when he sent out the listing of investments that Mr. Van Beuren had made after the funds were transferred from the bank. Mr. Gallagher reported he had received two responses from the RFP, for monitoring only. The thought had been that the current money manager would be monitored, then an intelligent decision could be made if they were doing a good job or not. Jeff Swanson of Merrill Lynch, which monitored 90 municipalities in Florida, and David West of Burgess Chambers & Associates, had been the two who had responded to date. Mr. West had been at the FPTTA convention, and that company also had extensive background in monitoring. Mr. Gallagher reported he had sent out 15 RFP's with a February 20, 2004 deadline. After that time the board could review the list of those who responded and consult with Attorney Jensen, and make selections. If Northstar did not get a good rating or if the board was not happy with them, then they could get someone else. Mr. Gallagher advised it might be the board's problem if Northstar Capital Management was too limited by the policy, and that could be changed. Mr. Gallagher advised he had two financial management companies he had been talking to, but he thought monitoring was more important at the present time. Vice Chair Hansen asked how the monitoring would be done. Mr. Gallagher responded that the companies would submit proposals then come for interviews, then the Board could make a decision. Attorney Jensen clarified that at the point the Board selected someone they would provide reports as often as the Board wanted, probably quarterly., on analysis of the fund's return. The monitor could review the investment policy guidelines and if another money manager was needed would help the Board select an investment manager. As time went on they would tell the Board how well the manager was doing and would provide the Board with a report card on a quarterly basis. Attorney Jensen advised that monitoring service charges varied—some companies charged a flat fee, some soft dollars, and some a hard dollar conversion, and some on a percentage of capital, but that would be shown in their proposal. Chair Newell introduced Bob Garlo to the Board. Mr. Gallagher advised that he had information from A. G. Edwards defining soft and hard dollars and would provide that to the Board. Chair Newell requested that Attorney Jensen explain ex-parte communication. Attorney Jensen explained with an RFP process the Board should refrain from BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES February �o, 2004 PAGE 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- speaking to anyone making a proposal under that process, or bring the information forward at a meeting if they had an individual conversation. Chair Newell commented his brother was in the business and asked what he should do if his brother became part of the process. Attorney Jensen responded if Chair Newell's brother became part of the RFP process, Chair Newell might have to recuse himself from all votes in the process, but his brother was not in the current RFP process. MOTION Vice Chair Hansen made a motion to move forward with the RFP process and the interviewing stage when that became appropriate. Mr. Gatlagher requested clarification whether the board was instructing him to get a list together of the interested parties to submit to the Board for their selection of 2 or 3 or how many they wanted, or suggesting that he interview and designate the companies that were 1, 2, and 3. Chair Newell indicated this was just getting a consensus to continue with the RFP process. Boardmember Paterno seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. b) Presentation of materials from Elias Asset Management This item was not considered at this meeting. VII. CONSENT AGENDA Boardmember Paterno requested that Consent Agenda Item b) Approval of new applicants, be pulled for discussion. Discussion ensued as follows: Boardmember Paterno commented when someone got hired there was an application form for the pension and it was someone's responsibility to get that form to the Board by the next meeting; however, one of the forms presented today was eight months old. Mr. Gallagher responded that the process was a new employee was immediately put on the pension rolls and deductions were made starting with the first paycheck. At that time a copy should be made available to Mr. Gallagher so that he could include it as part of the next meeting. Mr. Gallagher advised he was not offering excuses, but there had been a breakdown in that area, and in the future there should be no delay. Chair Newell advised that Mr. Garlo was recently appointed HR Director. Mr., Garlo explained that all mechanisms were now in place to expedite forms for the next meeting. Boardmember Paterno asked if any employees were determined, by their duties or classification, to participate in the fund, and if there were any exempt from this pension fund who were doing duties as a General Employee. Mr. Garlo responded that was driven by their job BOAR.D OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES February �o, 2004 PAGE 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- description—that all General Employees were in the fund. Boardmember Paterno asked if anyone was being paid or doing duties, that was not in the fund. Chair Newell responded there were only two plans—General Employees, Public Safety Officers; and Florida Retirement System—that when the Village made the change from FRS some err�ployees had remained in FRS. Mr. Garlo advised that everyone who had been in FRS stayed there. Chair Newell commented anyone in FRS could not be in the General Employees Pension. Mr. Gallagher commented there were certain part-time contract employees such as himself and he did not participate in either pension fund. Attorney Jensen clarified that all full-time employees had to participate in General or Public Safety as a c�ndition of employment, but some General Employees could be FRS if they were in FRS previous to these plans being established and had stayed in FRS. Attorney Jensen advised there would be a date after which it was mandatory that all employees be in General or Public Safety. Mr. Paterno requested a list of all employees and which plan they were in. Boardmember Paterno commented he had become concerned after going to the conference where cases had come up in reference to this subject and gave an example of an employee who had been performing duties of a policeman but was not in that pension fund and had sued. Mr. Paterno expressed concern for the fund if something like this happened. Attorney Jensen advised it was a good idea to clear up things like this now before anyone retired. It was clarified that the list Mr. Paterno was asking for was to include all employees and the plan each was in, plus anyone not participating. Boardmember Paterno advised there could be a problem of an ernployee opting to get out of the plan. Chair Newell reported that had come up, with several employees of the General Pension wanting to get out, but that had now quieted down possibly due to more confidence in the way the Board was operating more aggressively, but the Board was being watched. Chair Newell explained that under the Village ordinance, membership was mandatory for full-time employees and they could not opt out. Attorney Jensen clarified that Boardmember Paterno should be provided with a list of current employees and all participants in the plans so that he could know the status of each one, and any employees not in any plan. Mr. Paterno commented the members of the Board could be sued personally. Mr. Gallagher indicated there was $2 million liability insurance coverage. Mr. Gallagher indicated he had a census report from which he could cull out General Employees. Boardmember Paterno expressed concern if someone got hurt who was not paying in, the fund might not have enough to pay disability. Chair Newell advised that Boardmember Paterno had recently attended the Florida Public Trustees seminar, and he would like every Board member to attend because of the knowledge they brought back. Boardmember Paterno reported a lot of different issues had been covered, and he had four pages of items brought to his attention. He had BOA.RD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES February 10, 2004 PAGE 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- attended 18 classes and there were a lot of things that meant nothing now but could be a crisis if they happened. Mr. Paterno read items from his list, highlighting things discussed and two that he particularly felt should be discussed—whether there was a waiver of recourse in the insurance policy, because the insurance company could pay out then come back to each individual member to recoup their money. The other item was whether the Village indemnified the trustees against losses, because the Village could sue the trustees if they thought the trustees had not invested properly. Mr. Gallagher advised this fund had piggybacked with Public Safety and split the cost of a surety bond. Mr. Gallagher provided a current statement from Wachovia Securities showing the fund was up to $2.5 million and suggested insuring for that amount. Attorney Jensen advised that the pension plan document had a provision with regard to liability, that the Board was not liable for sufficiency of the fund to meet payment of benefits, and the municipality was responsible for making the fund whole. Attorney Jensen explained there were no specific provisions that indemnified the Board of Trustees, mainly because governmental entities could not indemnify, but they could provide fiduciary liability insurance which covered : the trustees. The law provided that a Board could not legislate itself out of responsibility for acting outside its fiduciary responsibilities, and the Village had done what it could through its ordinance to protect the trustees. Attorney Jensen indicated she would get a copy of the insurance binder to find out if there was a waiver of recourse and that would be sent out to all the trustees. Boardmember Corbitt expressed his opinion that the Board was spending a lot of time and money holding meetings, etc., and if the pension was changed to FRS a lot of these problems would be avoided such as being sued, money being spent on meetings, insurance, recording, training at seminars, employee time and Village money, legal fees, monitoring fees, getting employees to serve on the Board, and according to Mr. Paterno there was a lot of work involved and the Board was really behind, Chair Newell commented that FRS was expensive, and the Village Council had made this decision because of the cost. FRS was currently at 18% and going up to 23% next year for Public Safety, but was less for General—the multiplier was less for General. Vice Chair Hansen commented he was on the Village Council at the time this pension plan was set up, and they were told then there were many municipalities leaving FRS and going to do it themselves and at that time it had been a no brainer to leave. Mr. Corbitt commented he did not like the possibility he could be sued and that might deter a lot of employees from serving on the Board. Chair Newell responded he understood because when he went to the seminar he had come back horrified that he had liability, but there was insurance in place to cover that and as long as the Board was doing what they were supposed to do they were okay. Mr. Corbitt commented he did not have a comfort zone yet. BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES February �o, 2004 PAGE � --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Boardmember Paterno advised Boardmember Corbitt just to ask about anything he was not sure about that was his duty to the fund, and that everybody had to go to education within the law, and he felt it might cost a lot but to do their job everyone should go yearly to protect the fund, and if the fund was a little under funded indirectly the Village was going to pay for the trustees to go, so he should not worry about that because the fund would be intact, and education would be good for them. There being no further comments, Chair Newell called for a motion on the Consent Agenda, which included the following items: a) Payments to be reviewed and approved 1) Hanson, Perry & Jensen P.A. -$877.84 b) Approval of New Applicants for l Quarter (October — December 2003) Terri Katz Hire Date 6-4-03 (Not previously approved) Tresha Thomas Hire Date 10-1-03 c) Approval of Beneficiary Changes for l Quarter (October — December 2003) None d) Request for Withdrawal of Contributions (Employees terminating employment with Village of Tequesta) for l Quarter (October — December 2003) None e) Ratification of withdrawals made since the last meeting on two signature basis Business Services Connection — Recording Meeting 12/9/03 -$33.87; Minutes of 12/9/03 - $90.32 Business Services Connection - Reimbursement of bank charge for deposited item returhed - $7.00 (Check for payment of 9/30/03 minutes was returned account closed) MOTION BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES February �o, 2004 PAGE 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vice Chair Hansen made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Boardmember Paterno seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. VIII. FINANCIAL REPORTS a) Statement of Accounts (October – December 2003) and b) Progress Report by Finance Department – Cash Flow Report for the First Quarter (October – December 2003 Mr. Gallagher advised he had just distributed the current report from Wachovia which covered the month of January, in addition to the end of the year statements and cash flow statements provided in the packets. Mr. Gallagher advised he was in the process of doing a report taking the cash flow information for years 2000, 2041, and 2002 to see how successful the investments had been and when finished he would distribute that report broken down to show how General had done and how Public Safety had done. Mr. Gallagher advised in evaluating Northstar's performance to keep in mind that the money for this fund was in a bank money market account for a year while the market was doing well, and the return would have been much better if that money had been in equities. Chair Newell commented that the fund had been diversified but it was too early to discuss the investments that had been made. Vice Chair Hansen commented the 1.9% at the bank was far below the 8%. Attorney Jensen explained that the 8% was an assumed rate calculated by the actuary as a goal over the long haul—typically a generation of workers—to determine how much the municipality needed to contribute. Attorney Jensen commented the longest amortization was 40 year and she would look at the investment policy to see what length of amortization the actuary was using. Vice Chair Hansen asked what if the benchmark was unrealistic, to which Chair Newell responded the board was looking into that now. Mr. Gallagher commented that was why the board was going through the exercise of obtaining a monitor to see if they should be doing better or why they did not do better. A monitor could evaluate Northstar and relate to the economic factors outside and whether they took advantage of those factors. Mr. Gallagher indicated things he would like considered was Northstar buying stock and selling it perhaps onlythree months later, and also the yield from the companies in which they were investing and if their could have been a better yield with another company. The key factor was how to get closer to the 8% goal. Vice Chair Hansen commented as trustees for a pension fund, they were working within a very conservative framework and should question if 8% was realistic. Discussion ensued. Mr. BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES February �o, 2004 PAGE 9 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corbitt commented if the fund was only returning 1% he would like to take his money out. Chair Newell advised the return was not yet known since the money had just been invested, which was why a monitor was needed to make an evaluation. Mr. Gallagher commented the low returns had been going on about two years as a result of being in a low interest money market account only making .7% and then transferring to another bank that paid 1.9%. Chair Newell commented that investing was another step in the process and should be an improvement. Mr. Gallagher advised that Northstar, formerly Loomis Sayles, had been with the Village a long time and it would behoove the trustees to look at them over the last ten years. In 1999 it was dictated that General must split from Public Safety and it was accomplished in October 2000, and General only had $105,000 at that time and pay their own costs and make their own investments. Mr. Paterno asked why Mr. Van Beuren was not present because he had wanted to ask him some questions. Chair Newell explained he had not invited Mr. Van Beuren to do a presentation at this meeting, because he had felt there were things the board needed to discuss without Mr. Van Beuren present, but he would invited to the next meeting. Mr. Paterno commented the board had come a long way in the 8 months he had been on the board, going from .7% to 1.9% to 2%. Mr. Paterno advised that the even pages of the cash flow statement were missing so he could not evaluate it, but it showed $108,000 sitting in cash uninvested and he had wanted to Mr. Van Beuren about that, and that was 1/3 of the fund's money getting less return than before it was given to Northstar; but on the positive side, some of the stocks purchased were providing a dividend and that was moving in the right direction. Mr. Paterno felt that 8% or more would be reached this year, but, and over a few years the low returns would probably be made up, but he would like to speak to Mr. Van Beuren at some point. Attorney Jensen verified that Mr. Paterno could contact Mr. Van Beuren on his own. Mr. Paterno wanted to know the duration of bonds and would like more information and not to be over conservative. Mr. Paterno commented Mr. Van Beuren might not be the best for this fund but was better than what they had, with which Chair Newell agreed. Attorney Jensen advised that the actuarial valuation for year ended 9-30-03 showed the fund's average return was 9%. Mr. Paterno commented the idea was to average above 8% and this fund needed to be invested with someone who took a little less risk—not high risk, and that might mean a little less interest sometimes which could be taken up another time. IX. NEW BUSINESS BOA.RD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES February �o, 2004 PAGE io --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a) Clarification on difference between what was approved by Village Council for Public Safety and for General Employees Attorney Jensen provided a spreadsheet comparison showing the differences and discussed those differences. The spreadsheet is attachzd to lhese minutes as "Exhil�it "A". Age of retirement in this fund is 30 years service regardless of age or age 65 regardless of years of service. The Public Safety officers can retire at age 55 with 6 years service or age 62 with 25 years of service. Both plans allow prior military service to be purchased. The amount of the benefit is 2% per year of service for General; the Public Safety officers have a tiered benefit so they get 3% if they stay 6 years or 18%, 3.5% for the next 4 years which is 14%, 4% for the next S years which is 20%, 2.5% for the next 6 years or 16%, then 2% for the next year—so if they stay 25 years it is 75%, which is equivalent to 3% for 25 years, which was what their benefit was before. That was using their dollars from the 175 and 185 funds and their average final compensation was the same as General, which was the best five of the last 10 years of service. There was a difference in salaries—for General Employees it is base which includes regular pay, vacation pay, sick pay, and tax deferred items of income, and excluding lump sum payments, overtime, bonuses, and longevity bonuses; but for Public Safety officers it is total cash compensation. The normal form ofpayment is ten years certain for General; Public Safety is the same. Optional forms of payment are the same as Public Safety. General's early retirement is age 50 with 6 years service with a 5% per year retire early deduction; The Public Safety has a 3% per year. Attorney Jensen explained these were both subsidized early retirements meaning that the fund bears some cost of people leaving early under both scenarios. Public Safety has a minimum benefit requirement under Chapters 175 and 185 pf the 3% and they are required to use their 175 and 185 money to buy that down. The General Employees were receiving a subsidized early retirement, just not as subsidized because they did not have the 175 and 185 money available to them. General does not have a drop program, which the Public 5afety has—this is a benefit allowing a member to retire early and continue to work with benefits not paid to the member but accruing in a separate account and invested with the assets of the pension fund. Mr. Corbitt commented FRS has a drop program for all employees. Attorney Jensen clarified the Public Safety's COLA is a part of their normal benefit and is not the drop, and FRS has a cost of living adjustment. Attorney Jensen explained both funds have day one coverage for both in-line-of-duty and non-line-of- duty disability benefits. The General Employees benefit from being unable to perform as a General Employee is a more stringent standard than not being able to perform as a police officer or firefighter. Both have a 42% minimum benefit or the BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES February io, 2004 PAGE 11 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- accrued benefit if that is greater. Non-duty disability benefit is a 25% minimum for both funds. Death benefits are different for General and Public Safety. Before retirement in-line-of-duty, General Employees receive the accrued benefit that was paid at what would have been retirement date; Public Safety 50% of average final compensation to the spouse for life. Non-line-of-duty is the same which is the accrued benefit paid at what would have been retirement date. After retirement, the benefit is paid at whatever you selected at retirement. There is no cost of living increase for either plan. General does not have a monthly supplemental benefit; Public Safety just added that which is $5.00 per year of service per month, capped at $150 per month. They pay for that out of their 175 and 185 money. General could ask for that benefit, but it would have to come out of their fund. Termination benefit—if less than 6 years service you get a refund of your contributions, and participants in both plans contribute 5%. If General wanted a drop-deferred retirement option plan—they could request it from Village Council, but it would have to come out of their fund. Boardmember Paterno explained there was a tax on homeowners insurance that every homeowner in the Village paid, and that was the source of the Public Safety 185 and 175 dollars, which they could use for additional benefits, since they were in high risk jobs. Attorney Jensen advised that because retirement for General Employees was age 65 or 30 years service, one would have to work until age 70 or have 35 years of service to get the benefit of a drop plan, and at some point it lost its value. Attorney Jensen advised that when Mr. Palmquist did his next actuarial evaluation, there were back drops, which if you work all the way to retirement you could pretend you retired 5 years ago, and get a lump sum. General also has a provision in their plan that says they can offer other types of benefits. A member could say give me $50,000 in cash, leveraging my future benefits, which was an option this fund has. Mr. Corbitt asked what a General employee would receive after 25 years, and the answer was 50%. Mr. Corbitt asked why there was such a difference since Public Safety got 75% after working 25 years. Mr. Garlo commented it was because their jobs were high risk. Attorney Jensen advised that the FRS was less than 2% per year for General Employees. Mr. Corbitt commented he was trying to compare apples to apples and was not seeing that. Attorney Jensen responded that unfortunately it was not apples to apples---everyone was an employee of the Village, but Police and Fire got extra money that did not impact the Village paying benefits at all—it is a rebate from the State. Mr. Paterno commented the extra money received from the insurance tax had to be used for extra benefits, which was because of the high risk. Mr. Gallagher commented Public Safety got around $75,000 a year extra. BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAI� EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES February lo, 2004 PAGE 12 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- b) Consideration of setting a schedule for quarterly meetings Mr. Gallagher commented he thought it would be appropriate to follow the Public Safety schedule to minimize costs to the attorney by having the meetings the same day. This would make the quarterly meetings in February, May, August, and November, which would work out well since the fiscal year end was 9-30 and the figures would be ready for the November meeting. Chair Newell commented no problem but this board needed a good 2-hour window for their meeting. Discussion ensued regarding having 2 hours and starting at 8:30 a.m. Vice Chair Hansen asked if four meetings a year was enough at this point since members needed to be appointed to have a full board and monitoring firms were being discussed., and it could be November until this Board got to where they wanted to be. Chair Newell pointed out there could always be a special meeting. Mr. Paterno asked if there was anyone in the Village who could spend more time on this board's business so at the meetings they could be more streamlined and take less time. Mr. Gallagher responded he was addressing that with the Village Manager at the present time. Mr. Paterno asked if the Board should address the Village Manager to ask for help for Mr. Gallagher. Chair Newell commented when the Board elected a secretary that person possibly could assist Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Garlo commented he had just been talking with Fire Chief Weinand about having a pension administrator, and in the past it had always been the Finance Director. Mr. Garlo reported he had had this conversation with the Finance Director, and his idea was to have her or her staff as administrator to assist in these responsibilities, and he was willing to talk to the Village Manager about that. Attorney Jensen advised no motion was necessary to establish the quarterly meeting schedule. c) Discussion of payment of invoices Mr. Gallagher indicated he had been concerned with so much time between receipt of invoices and payment, but he believed this problem was now resolved since everything was current as of today and would now be on a quarterly schedule. Mr. Corbitt requested that signatures be streamlined for checks so that he was not being called every other day to sign. Attorney 3ensen advised that a facsimile signature stamp could be used—the process just needed to be set up. Chair Newell commented if Mr. Garlo became a boardmember he could sign since he was in the same building as Mr. Newell. Mr. Paterno indicated he would be happy to come by one day a week on a certain day to sign checks, if needed.