Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 09G_03/11/2004 i`sS-"�--� °r /� lr ,an �A y . � '�,,,,;�,, � �'IL�.,��CxE t��' TEQUESTA �� � � t U�i�i;� f3 �. ��._ �_�f) I��eyue,t�t Drir°e. Suite 30G { ,r��vv.. s� ,, •� ,- � v � � � a � � �,an�� ?.:�1?<- t_ . . • {Sb 1 � 5 'S-h20t� 3 �; - 3 '`� . �r :�i � � %+ _" . .,. _ ,YC ...�t.. TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Ttquesta General Employees' Pension Trust Fund Board of Trustees held a regutar meeting at the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Teyuesta, Florida, on Sepfember 10, 2003. The meeting was called to order at 9:0� a.m. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Boardmembers in attendance at the meeting were: Vice Chair Jeff Newell, Vice Chair Carl Hansen, Boardmember Thomas Paterno, and Boardmember Greg Corbitt. Also in attendance were Dan Gallagher, Human Resources Department, and Attorney Bonni Jensen. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Vice Chair Hansen a motion to approve the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Corbitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Boardmember Corbitt made a motion to approve the minutes of the 8/12/03 and the 8/19/03 meetings as submitted. Boardmember Paterno seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. IV. PRESENTATION a) Peter V. Van Beuren, Northstar Capital Management Company — presentation BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES September 10, 2003 PAGE 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- of proposal to include the General Employees' pension funds with those of the Public Safety Officers' pension funds for investment purposes Mr. Van Beuren describecl his company's investment services, explaining they had been involved with the Vitlage of Tequesta since 1997 when they were employed lo manage the entire pension fund. Later when the funds were separated for legal reasons, they continued to manage the Public Safety Officers' fund. Now that the General Employees' fund had grown to a more reasonable size for investment, Attorney Jensen had suggested that he explain how they could be of service to the General Employees. Mr. Van Beuren provided background on his company, explaining that in 1997 they were associated with Loomis Sayles & Company of Boston, and in 2000 his team had made an offer to them and had acquired their business, Northstar Capital Management, which was a Subchapter S corporation. - - There was currently an investment team of 11 individuals, and Mr. Van Beuren was one of the four partners. The company managed fixed income and equities, and was a(arge cap quality growth equity manager. The accounts they managed were $5 million plus so the benchmark used was the S& P 500. In order to discipline themselves and maintain consistency of performance, they maintained a model portfolio on a daily and weekly basis. A key aspect of the companies they used was defined as wealth creators. These companies were leaders in their field. Quantative screening was done for earnings, growth above average, high return on equity—these were companies that consistently were above average income over a longer period of time. Values of these companies were determined by R.O.E., P.E.G. to growth rate. The model portfolio contained 30-35 companies, and the Public Safety fund followed that criteria. Mr. Van Beuren advised that his company constructed the portfolios of its clients based on their model portfolio. Mr. Van Beuren directed attention to the handout booklet on pages 12 and 13 which listed current companies in their model portfolio, except Lexmark, whch had been sold the previous day and another company had been added. Over the past 3-5 years these companies had perfarmed better than the benchmark, with the earnings of the model companies growing at 22% compared to the S&P growth of –1.77°�0. Mr. Van Beuren explained that with only $300,000 it would be difficult to outperform an index. If joined with the Public Safety fund for investment purposes and if the General Employees allocated 4O°lo to fixed income, he felt they could invest in five bonds at $25,O00 each, which would be laddered and over time the holes could be filled in. Mr. Van Beuren explained that while performance in the public safety fund had been high over the long term, the past few years had been the second deepest bear market in our lifetimes, and large BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES September 10, 2003 PAGE 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cap companies had taken the brunt of that in recent years. Recover of large cap companies had been slow, but the economy would recover from the recession and over time things would smooth out. The cost of services from Northstar Capital was discussed. Mr. Van Beuren explained that the Village was on an older fee schedule of 9% on the first $2 million. 4-5 years ago they had raised their fee to 1% on the first $2 million, but would charge .9% on the first $2 million to the General Employees' pension fund based on their good relationship with the Village. A minimum fee of $2,000 had been set, and they would also combine the two funds and pro-rate the fee, making the General Employees' fund fee $2,700. Mr. Newell commented the Board understood they must diversify and grow their $30O,000, and must have a money manager to do that, but the Board did not want to see whatever gains were made paid out in fees. Mr. Newell asked if in the beginning something could be done to benefit the fund and as the fund grew then adjustments could be made. Mr. Newell asked how much of the fund's gain would be going to the cost to do this. Mr. Van Beuren responded he did not know the fund's percentage of expenses, and explained that .9°�o was a very good rate. Mr. Van Beuren advised that this size fund warranted investment in mutual funds; however, over his career individual stock selections had been better if the correct companies could be identified and if somebody could be held accountable for performance. If the money was put into pools it would be very difficult for the Board to understand how that pooi was doing because information would be old when received and they would not know the manager. Here the Board could identify with a local company and someone who could come before them to report. Mr. Newell advised the Board must know where they stood, and explained that in this fund when an individual left they took their contribution with them if they were not vested. The Board must look at the costs of the money manager and consider how to get a better return. Mr. Van Beuren explained this was not done on a scientific basis and the best measurement was to look at the historical record and discipline of the money manager the Board was considering. They tried to manage risk on an intelligent basis with a process that got them there and he did not know of any model that was perfect. Chair Newell commented he needed a comfort level. Mr. Van Beuren explained that year-to-date this model was up about 14%, which hopefully would continue for the balance of this year and possibly go even higher, and history must guide them in this area. Vice Chair Hansen agreed with Mr. Newell, commented the fund was now rnaking 1.9°l0 and if 9% went for fees, plus there were other costs such as the attorney, then what wou(d be left. Mr. Hansen commented they were dealing with other peop(e's money and needed suggestions that would show the employees the Board was doing BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES September 10, 2003 PAGE 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- something for them. Boardmember Paterno asked if there were trading or other fees in addition to the .9°�0. Mr. Van Beuren explained the other fee would go to the broker, which if it was still Prudential, his company had negotiated a rate with Fred Kinney at Prudential which was lower than their regular fee-15 cents on trades up to 1,000 shares and 10 cents on trades over 1,000 shares or a$55 or $60 minimum ticket. Mr. Paterno asked if there was any possibility of reducing that for the Village by using an online service. Mr. Van Beuren indicated that was doable, but he did not know if that would meet the control standards of the Village, and suggested he might go back to Prudential and ask if they would reduce their fees. Mr. Paterno noted that Prudential had online trading and online trading could reduce the fee 90°�0, with which Mr. Van Beuren agreed. Discussion ensued regarding fees. Mr. Van Beuren explained if the total was over $2 million, the fee would be .006. Mr. Paterno questioned the difference in gross versus net shown on page 18, to which Mr. Van Beuren responded he did not have the answer but would check it out. Mr. Paterno commented that basically the fee would be .009 plus any trading fees, and asked if there was any other way to trim without trimming Mr. Van Beuren's money. Mr. Van Beuren responded his firm was giving the fund a pretty good consolidated rate-- that there were only two fees, theirs and the brokerage fees--and he could explore the brokerage side. Mr. Van Beuren confirmed that no options were used, they were long the whole way and they adjusted rates by raising the cash component. Mr. Paterno asked what terms were used in laddering bonds. Mr. Van Beuren explained that if they went 10-12 years in the intermediate range then they would try to ladder them if there were sufficient funds, having bonds maturing every year. In recent years there had not been that much product to perfectly do that. They also tried to buy bonds where the call feature fit into the ladder. Mr. Van Beuren advised they traded bonds if they were corporate credits. Mr. Paterno asked what fee Mr. Van Beuren was referring to when he had indicated the fee wou(d be pro-rated if this fund joined with the Public Safety fund for investing. Mr. Van Beuren explained it was Northstar's fee. They would allocate $300,000 against $2,300,000 which would be this fund's percentage of the fee. It would be less than 9/10 of a percent because they would get into the 6/10 fee by joining public safety. Mr. Newell indicated he would like hard numbers in an example. Mr. Van Beuren responded he could write a letter of proposal saying this is what it would cost on a quarterly basis, but returns changed every day. Discussion ensued. Mr. Newell asked Mr. Van Beuren to put a proposal together based on today's figures. Mr. Van Beuren indicated he would do that for costs but could not tell what the returns would be, and he would send that to Mr. Gallagher's attention. Mr. Paterno commented that the cost using $30O,O0O at BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES September 10, 2003 PAGE 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9%was $2700 per year; divided by 4 it would be $675 per quarter at this point. The $300,000 was now earning l.9°lo and in order to get the same return 2.8�/o would have to be earned to accommodate the fee, and if Mr. Van Beuren invested into bonds at 5.6°�o that would net approximately 3-1/2% above what they were getting now, so even if he just took the money and put it into bonds the fund would get about 3% more than they were getting now, based on real numbers. If he put half the money inta bonds then the fund would get 1-1/2P�o more than now including his fee, and he could put the other half into the market and let it go. Mr. Gallagher commented the Public Safety fund was paying Northstar in the neighborhood of $15,000 annually, using round numbers; by combining the two funds that would take the total over $2 million so the percentage would be reduced, making the annual fee around $13,500 and the General Employees' fund portion would be around $2250 a year, and there was no one to decide daily what to do with the fund and he thought it was a very nominal fee for that service from someone who did it every day. Other costs would include the recording secretary and attorney, and insura�ce. Mr. Gallagher recommended going with Mr. Van Beuren's company. Mr. Paterno commented if the money stayed where it was earning 1.9°�o the fund still had all those costs, and he did not want to drag this out for 6 months and lose out on potential earnings. Chair Newell requested Mr. Van Beuren prepare a proposal, which Mr. Van Beuren stated he would do that day and would submit it to Mr. Gallagher. Attorney Jensen advised a motion was not needed. Mr. Van Beuren advised he would look into on-line trades to save money. V. CONSENT AGENDA a. Payments to be reviewed and approved 1) Business Services Connection — Minutes of 8/12/03 -$118.25 2) Business Services Connection — Minutes of 8/19/03 -$150.50 3) Hanson, Perry & Jensen, P.A. -$429.86 MOTION Vice Chair Hansen made a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Boardmember Paterno seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES September 10, 2003 PAGE 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a) Review of Final Revision of Pension Plan Document and Propused Statement of Investment Policies and Objectives Chair Newell reported he had read the termination chapter and did not understand it. Attorney Jensen explained it contained the procedure to pay out the money in the event of termination of the fund, and that everyone was immediately vested once a determination to terminate the fund was made. Mr. Newetl asked if the language could be simplified and clarified. Attorney Jensen advised that the language could be simplified for explanation purposes and a summary plan description in simple English would be required to be provided to employees. Attorney Jensen commented that first retirees would be paid, next the active employees would be divided into two groups—those with six years service and those with less than six years service. Those with six years service would be paid first and then those with less than six years. Payouts could be made in lump sums, a substituted monthly benefit from a substituted trust program, or an annuity. Discussion ensued. Attorney Jensen discussed the current lawsuit in the Town of Lake Park where there had not been enough money to pay all the participants, and advised that the Attorney General had determined the town was responsible, and commented that no matter who won there was certain to be an appeal. Mr. Gallagher noted there was another dispute in another town, where there was a$1 million lawsuit. Attorney Jensen confirmed that the language in the plan document would not be changed but there would be a supplemental explanation. Mr. Paterno expressed his opinion that the actuary's assumptions were incorrect and he did not feel comfortable changing from 10 to 6 years vesting if the assumptions were wrong. Chair Newell commented the plan had been revised changing from 10 to 6 years. Mr. Paterno commented there had been a 13°�o increase in salaries and the actuary was assuming 6%, and the Board was basing the change on his report. Mr. Newell commented the original intent was to keep employees because employees did not stay ten years. By changing to six years it would be more incentive for employees to stay longer. Mr. Gallagher indicated the Village Council had said they would consider six year vesting but no proposal had been made to the Council yet. The first step would be to go to the Village Council and ask them to consider revision of the plan. Vice Chair Hansen asked if the Council could accept 6 years but not the rest of the revisions, to which Chair Newell responded they could accept any one section and reject others. Mr. Paterno asked if the Board sent it to the Council with 6 years if they had the obligation to inform them the actuary was not correct. Attorney Jensen advised if the Board thought the BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES September 10, 2003 PAGE 7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- actuarial report was incorrect then they should get it fixed at this level. Mr. Newell commented it shou(d be sent back to Mr. Palmquist to look at the numbers to be sure they were correct. Mr. Paterno asked if he was the only one �.vho thought it was off. Mr. Newell commented that was not his area of expertise, but if Mr. Paterno was uncomfortable the Board needed to look at it and make sure it was right. Mr. Paterno commented salary increases averaged 13.1%, the assumption was 6°l0, making it off by 5.1°l0, and the Village would have to pay more money. Mr. Gallagher commented he had just negotiated with the CWA contract calling for a 4-1/2°,�o increase, 3°�o merit and 1-1/2% COLA. The next three years called for 3°lo plus a CPI adjustment, so 13°�e increases were highly unlikely. Mr. Paterno commented he had other concerns about investments, which for the last three years were way below average, and although he thought they woutd go up next year, he had that concern. Mr. Corbitt suggested prolonging the change from 10 to 6 year vesting to have time to get hard facts. Mr. Newell commented if the Board felt the need to leave vesting at 10 years for the time being, they could do so, and Mr. Paterno had raised an issue the Board should consider. Mr. Corbitt noted it was fact that the investments had been negative the past three years. Mr. Gallagher stated assumptions were causing the problem. Mr. Paterno commented he was being more conservative with other people's money and he did not want to do something not in their best interests. The goal was to make sure this fund went on and that there was no legal issues draining it, and he would rather make it right now. Attorney Jensen advised the returns should improve with stocks and bond rates improving, and once S°�o return was exceeded that offset what the Village had to contribute. Mr. Paterno commented he agreed with going to 6-year vesting, but was concerned about the spouses because they were only provided reduced amounts. Chair Newell asked if the Board wanted the actuary to re-do the report. Mr. Paterno commented it did not need to be re-done, just updated by plugging in current numbers. Attorney Jensen advised if the numbers were changed the actuary would have to make a presentation to the board and a recomrriendation. Mr. Gallagher advised there had been a major catch-up in salaries, which should not occur again. Vice Chair Hansen commented they were talking about an average of 13.1 % during the 90's when things were booming compared to 6°Io in the future, and asked what Mr. Paterno saw wrong in that assumption. Mr. Paterno responded that with the CWA contract at 4% it was probably cut and dried, and investments were a little low, and he just wanted to bring these things to the Board's attention. Mr. Gallagher commented that salaries had now been brought up to date, so that had been taken care of and no one would require any major adjustment. Mr. Gallagher explained that if an individual did an outstanding job which was documented, it was BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES September 10, 2003 PAGE 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- up to the Village Manager to give a performance rating bonus, and there might be one or two out of the whole Village in a year. Mr. Gallagher noted that the employee evaluati�n form had been completely revised. Mr. Paterno commented with that information the 13.1 % should change next year, down to 6°l0 or less on average, so he was okay with that and with the 6-year vesting. MOTION Vice Chair Hansen made a motion to forward the revised plan to the Village Council for review. Boardmember Corbitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Chair Newell asked if the Village Council would be given a current actuarial report. Attorney Jensen advised they must be given an actuarial cost study. Attorney Jensen advised that review of the Proposed Statement of Investment Policies and Objectives should be tabled until the proposal from the management company had been reviewed. b) Comparison of General Employees' Pension Plan with Public Safety Officers' plan and FRS as requested by Boardmember Corbitt Mr. Uallagher stated he must defer that to the next meeting because he had not had time to make the comparison. Mr. Gallagher noted it was obvious that the Village was contributing 7.47% and FRS was 18% this year and around 22°�o for next year, so from the standpoint of taking that to the Council he personally felt it was a waste o:F time, but he would make a comparison as requested by the Board. VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS Chair Newell noted there was not a mechanism in place in the cash account to replenish the $2,000, and the Board needed to make a decision how that would be done. Mr. Paterno asked if the bank would move the money if it got to a certain amount. Mr. Gallagher commented he had asked that they automatically bring it up to $2,000 again, but they needed signatures. The frequency of ineetings was discussed; Mr. Gallagher � advised that once the current issues were resolved the meetings would be quarterly. Mr. Paterno recommended putting in as much as was needed for expenses for each quarter and the Board could vote every quarter to replenish it. Mr. Gallagher agreed, commented he BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES Septernber 10, 2003 PAGE 9 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- did not see expenses exceeding $2,000 with the current costs, however, with Mr. Van Beuren's bill that might change. It would be pro-rated with Public Safety but General Employees would have their own bill. Chair Newell commented that could come under Consent Agenda when it was time to replenish. Mr. Gallagher indicated he would work out the details with the bank and report to the Board. Chair Newell confirmed with Attorney Jensen that when she made the final copy of the revised plan she could provide an additional summary sheet outlining the changes for the Village Council. Items to be discussed at the next meeting included Mr. Van Beuren's proposal, plus the tabled item on investment policy, plus the FRS comparison. Mr. Gallagher stated he would present numbers on the FRS comparison. Mr. Gallagher asked if there was a requirement to have an audit firm to audit the records. Attorney Jensen advised the records must be audited but could be done by the Village's auditor or an RFP could be done, but that would increase expenses. Mr. Gallagher clarified he was talking about a monitor for the money manager. Attorney Jensen responded most of the monitors would perform on a soft dollar basis so the fund could direct trades through them for purposes of having monitoring done. Mr. Gallagher reported he had contacted A. G. Edwards and Effron for the Public Safety fund. A. G. Edwards wanted to take over the complete activity of investing, Effron taok the numbers and_compared against other managers and were very reasonable, which might satisfy the requirement. Attorney Jensen noted there were some people on the list she had provided that would do that on a hard dollar basis, for $1,000 or whatever. Mr. Gallagher noted that might be something to consider down the line. MOTION Mr. Corbitt made a motion to set the date of the next meeting for 9 a.m. on September 30, 2003 at 399 Seabrook Road to consider tabled items of the proposal from Northstar Capital Management Company, review of the proposed statement of investment policies and objectives, and comparison with the FRS plan. Vice Chair Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. _ _ VIIL COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS IX. ADJOURNMENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES September 10, 2003 PAGE 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vice Chair Hansen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 a.m. Boardmember Corbitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Respectfully submitted, : t __ -='` Betty Laur Recording Secretary DATE APPROVED: - , ,; . .