Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-2005 Minutes Minutes of the Quarterly Meeting of the CITY OF OCOEE GENERAL EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD Held on May 11, 2005 At 150 N. Lakeshore Drive Ocoee, FL 34761 Vice Chairperson Mary Anne Swickerath called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m. Roll call showed that all of the existing Trustees,Jean Grafton,Mary Anne Swickerath,Thomas Hendrix, and Russ Wagner were present, constituting a quorum. It was noted that there was also a vacant chair due for which an election was currently being held and would not be completed until May 18, 2005. Attending the meeting by invitation were Attorney H. Lee Dehner, Mike Sebesta and his assistant, representing TRUSCO, Mike Callahan representing Merrill Lynch, and Jo Ann Lacey, Recording Secretary of the Meeting. Three General Employee Members were also in attendance. Vice Chairperson Swickerath introduced new Trustee Russ Wagner and invited him to tell those in attendance about himself. Trustee Wagner stated that he is the Planning Director for the City, overseeing all new public facilities including parks and schools, and has been with the City of Ocoee for 11 years. He also stated that he had previously worked as Planning Director for the City from 1985 to 1988. He indicated he had an interest in being on this Board because he was getting closer to his own time of eligibility for retirement and would like to know more about the plan. He said he is happy to be on the Board and is looking forward to a productive session. Vice Chairperson Swickerath then called for review of the Minutes of the Quarterly Meeting held on March 16, 2005 and the Special Meeting held on April 15, 2005. Copies of those Minutes had been previously circulated to the Trustees. The Trustees were asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes. There being none, it was on motion by Trustee Grafton, seconded by Trustee Hendrix, unanimously RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the General Employees Pension Board of March 16,2005 and the Special Meeting of April 15,2005, be and they are hereby approved as amended. Vice Chairperson Swickerath then asked for the Money Manager's Report from Mr. Sebesta. He called the Board's attention to Tab I for an overview of the investment markets for the quarter ended March 31, 2005. He reported that the equity markets had struggled because of concerns about the cost of oil, increasing inflation and the short- term interest rates increasing. He advised that the Fed had raised the rates seven times since last June. He stated that the Fed is doing these increases to slow the economy down and allow it to grow at a reasonable rate. He reminded the Board that the last quarter of 2004 was a very strong stock market and the first quarter of 2005 was a bit of a pull back in both the stock and bond markets. He advised that in this last quarter the S&P 500 was down 2%,NASDAQ down 8%, and International was down .1%, still a decrease but out General Employees Pension Board Board Meeting—May 11,2005 Page 2 (50, performing most indices of stocks. He said that there are now the first signs of growth style beginning to outperform value style. He reported that the relationship had been in favor of value for the better part of the last five years but that is changing as was been evidenced in the last quarter, and TRUSCO's strategy is that they like the large cap growth portfolio because they think it will outperform value going forward. He stated that they are beginning to see signs that the small-cap sector is probably going to begin to show real declines going forward and they have taken some of the gains from over that last number of quarters in the small-cap arena and are reallocating to some of the other sectors. He then reported on some of the S&P 500 sectors,particularly energy. He stated that the price of oil reached a new high for the past quarter with a gain in that sector alone of 17.6% for the quarter. He stated that this plan does not have an overweight in the energy sector and that is one of the reasons it under performed the S&P. He said that TRUSCO tends to sell to strength, so they are selling the energy sector and taking the gains but that has reduced the weighting in the energy sector overall. He then referred to information technology being down 7.3%and said that this type of stock has generally not been a good performer over the last number of quarters so they are looking for that sector to show significant improvement going forward. He reported that over the last six months the portfolio has still had positive gains on the bond side. He then called attention to commodities stating that in energy, crude is dominating the markets and is very much on the minds of investors. Mr. Sebesta stated that the consumer has been a very strong contributor to the growth of the economy for the last number of quarters as part of the recovery from the recession of 2001 and 2002. He said that this rebound by the consumer was primarily a result of tax cuts and the tax cuts combined with the lower interest rates for refinancing home mortgages and taking cash out to spend on retail sales was the stimulus for the fiscal monetary policy. He said that the Federal government would not be in the position to cut taxes again any time soon given the budget deficits and interest rates are increasing so what is left has to be job growth. He said this provides a self-sustaining nature, which will not accelerate consumer expenditures but will keep them at a moderate pace. He stated also that businesses are beginning to spend more, but overall, inflation is the main thing to watch for. He called attention to four items,which TRUSCO has labeled as"Headwinds"which are forces leaning against growth. Those"Headwinds" are: interest rates; energy prices;the Federal deficit; and,the U.S. dollar. As he had already touched on the first three items, Mr. Sebesta explained the concern about the U.S. dollar. He stated that the dollar has depreciated against most international currencies and that would,typically, make U.S. exports more attractive. He said there has been little evidence of that to date, however, the most recent trade deficit number that came out was much smaller than had been expected so that could be a sign that the market is finally beginning to see the impact of the lower dollar. He further explained a chart in their report comparing the weak U.S. dollar with the Chinese Yuan. He explained that the Chinese paced their currency with the U.S. dollar, so even though the dollar is depreciating with some of the major trade General Employees Pension Board Board Meeting—May 11,2005 Page 3 tlibr partners and has made U.S. goods more attractive to others, such as Japan, it has not to China because China is not allowing their currency to strengthen against the U.S. Dollar. He said that if China would allow their currency to strengthen against the U.S. Dollar and float freely against the dollar, that would make Chinese product that the U.S. buys more expensive and would make U.S. products sold to China more affordable to the Chinese so we would begin to see a rebalancing of the trade deficit with China. He stated that the U.S. buys a lot of things from China but they don't buy much from the U.S., but as the U.S. tries to become a bigger trading partner, the Yuan becomes a much bigger issue. He said that China is hosting the Olympics and as that gets closer, it is expected that the Yuan will float more freely and that will be a positive to the U.S. economy. He summarized the economy in general as having a lot of negatives which has caused the stock market to react negatively, however, there are more positives and the economy will continue to grow. He reiterated that job creation would continue to grow and that will ultimately drive the economy and the stock market to higher levels. Trustee Wagner stated that everything he reads indicates that the economy is going to level out a bit in the long term and that China is burgeoning and they are buying a lot of cars and people are making a lot of money and everything indicates that energy and natural resources will be strong going forward, so he asked if we should be watching that and reallocating rather than getting out of the energy sectors and trying to capture profits as Mr. Sebesta has indicated that TRUSCO is doing. Cor Mr. Sebesta responded that there are two sides to every argument and that TRUSCO's portfolio managers believe that oil is overstocked,the stocks are overextended and the valuations are out there. He said that oil is very much supply and demand driven. He said if you overlay the concerns about the Middle East putting more constraints on the supply of oil,you get good news,that there are lower prices and there will be a lot of retracement of prices of some of the energy stocks. He said that TRUSCO tends to take the other side of it and a lot of it is reflected in the performance of their funds. He said that the demand is definitely there for China for oil,that there has been a big spike up for prices as China's economy continues to grow and they are using a lot of the supply of oil. He also stated that inventories are at a reasonable level and, in fact, inventories are high domestically for gas, petroleum and oil. He said that a lot of the supposed risk is artificial and that people perceive that there might be something happening to the supply chain which can cause prices to go higher. He said that for the U.S., supply has not been an issue,that there is plenty of gas, there are no lines at the gas stations, and that with some good news, a break here and there, energy stocks will go down. Trustee Wagner again stated his point that he felt it would make sense to be watching that and take advantage of that when the stocks go down. He said that for the very long term because oil spikes every few years but there are so many countries in the world now using oil, he thinks that is something we should stay into and not shy away from. Attorney Dehner asked Mr. Sebesta to give an update on an observation that Larry Cole had made at the last meeting about the fact that this portfolio has as much as 5%less exposure to equity than similar portfolios that he monitors. Mr. Sebesta replied that the General Employees Pension Board Board Meeting—May 11,2005 Page 4 guidelines say 60/40 and that their recommendation is to be moderately overweight in equities and at any given time a portfolio may be a percent or two higher or lower. He said he is comfortable and was comfortable with the current allocation at the time of this report. He reported that he did make some allocation in the last quarter as had been discussed. He said he trimmed a percent from the small-cap growth fund, added a percent to the international fund and added two percent to the large-cap portion of the portfolio, all of which essentially added 2-1/2%to the equities. He reported that his current target is between 62 and 63%equities relative to fixed income and the difference there is there are separately managed hi-grade growth and hi-grade value portfolio managers within the portfolio. He advised that the reserve cash is included in the reserve fund that is really part of the large-cap and it is their decision to have a bit more cash, within a percent or two, at any given time. He stated again that he had no real concerns about the current allocation and that it was his intention the last time this was discussed to be where they were. He reminded that these reports are just one snapshot in time and what would really be better would be to show an average for the quarter in order to get a better idea. He stated that this fund is targeting 62-63%. He stated that, at the end of March, TRUSCO had an investment policy group meeting which is where decisions on investments allocation and asset allocations are determined. He said this investment policy group makes recommendations on various asset classes, gives asset allocation targets and the investment managers meet and talk about the strategy changes of the investment policy group and they continue to recommend a moderate overweight. He said that when he rebalances each quarter,typically a couple of times during the quarter, he reallocates as needed at that time. He said that stocks continue to sell off relative to bonds so in early April he reallocated back up to 63%equities relative to bonds. He stated that there is a constant process of monitoring the allocations. Mr. Dehner then asked Mr. Sebesta about TRUSCO's position on AIG. Mr. Sebesta briefly discussed AIG and then advised that TRUSCO has trimmed a little but still has exposure to MG. He then mentioned GM. He said that GM was recently downgraded to junk status by the S&P, and advised that GM is not owned in any of the existing portfolios but that there is some exposure to Ford. He said that is being watched but wanted to mention it as there is some risk in it. He reminded that they strive to have a well diversified fixed income portfolio and what they try to do is have a low risk portfolio and when there is negative news, it does not always negatively impact the portfolio. Mr. Dehner asked if there were any quality of governance issues with respect to any of the other companies in the portfolio either on the fixed or the equity side. Mr. Sebesta advised that there were none and stated that there is a quality of governance report behind Tab VI in their report. He then called attention to the performance for the quarter. He stated that the return for the quarter was down 1%, but for the fiscal year to date was still up 5.41%. He stated that the current quarter could be difficult, as it was not off to a good start. He explained that at some point through the year they do expect to get some positive returns from the equity market and that bonds have held up so far. He also said that small-cap growth has been solid over the last number of quarters and that they will Lir continue to pare back the exposure on the small-cap side. General Employees Pension Board Board Meeting—May 11,2005 Page 5 Vice Chairperson Swickerath asked the Board for any other questions. There being none, she thanked Mr. Sebesta for his report and called upon Mr. Mike Callahan for the Monitor's Report. Mr. Callahan said that he had a complex message to deliver. He stated that the question a lot of their clients as asking is what is the outlook for the future. (He handed out a chart from Merrill Lynch, which showed the S&P 500 Forward P/E Ratio 1995 through 2004.) He said the answer to that was dependent on what you define the future as being but, on a near term basis,he said that domestic stocks in general are more attractive than they have been in years. He explained that the chart showed the price to earnings ratio of the S&P 500 and that the P/E ratio is the price per share divided by the earnings per share. He said the purpose of that particular equation is to give a valuation of how many dollars of earnings you are buying when you buy a share of stock and what is that ratio and how attractive is that ratio over a long period of time. He said this chart shows periods in time when the P/E ratio was a lot less attractive than today. He reported that he had seen another chart on which there were earnings estimates compiled from analysts for all of the average earnings of all of the various companies of the S&P 500 to show the estimate for the quarters. He said that the analysts significantly underestimate what the earnings growth is and gave an example as the last quarter in which the earnings were 14% and had been estimated to be 7%. He said that, typically,the difference between what the analysts think and what actually happens is anywhere from 4 to 7 full percentage points per quarter. He said his message is that he is not sure things were as bad in the market as prices might suggest for the last quarter. He said that on a relative valuation basis and what is actually occurring, stocks are more fairly priced than they have been in many years and are probably creating opportunities to add to the stock position of the portfolio. He referred to the graph under Tab I of his report, which shows the value of the fund as calculated by Merrill Lynch. That value is $11,350,820 as of March 31, 2005. He stated that the total of the quarter is $129,507 negative, however, the fiscal year to date is still positive at$567,607. He said this is not terribly different from what is seen in other plans. He then called attention to the pie chart on page two of his report,which shows the allocation between the various funds TRUSCO manages. He said this shows an increase in international equities,taking money out of the small-cap sector. He called attention to page 3 on which the chart shows the same allocation over time but it marks what happened on any given quarter and said that the little valley where things bombed around October 1, 2004 is indicated there. He continued on with his report stating that for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,the total fund return was at a negative 1.1%,yet for the fiscal year to date, there was a positive 5.4%. He reminded that that is an actual number,not annualized. He encouraged that if, for the second half of the year,that 5.4% can be duplicated,the number will be close to 11.0% at the finish of the fiscal year. He reminded the Board that as has been TRUSCO's history, when the markets go up,they usually don't go up as much but when the markets go down,they usually don't go down as much either. He said that was a big protector for this fund about three years ago when there was a significant decline but as there was a significant market rally in the last Cir couple of years,this fund has not kept up quite as much. c General Employees Pension Board Board Meeting—May 11,2005 Page 6 Mr. Callahan called attention to the fiscal year to date return for the total fund of 5.4% with a 79th percentile ranking. He pointed out the target index of 5.5%and a 73"1 percentile ranking. He then explained that the target index means that had the funds money been invested in the index funds on the same proportion as the policy targets the allocations for stocks and bonds,the target is what the return would have been. This fund is a little below that. He said that the reason for this was that the fund started the fiscal year with a lesser allocation in stocks than the target index and that is why Mr. Cole brought this up when he attended the last meeting because in a period like the first quarter,that is a big difference when stocks go up so quickly, if you have a little less than the target it will have a significant impact on the portfolio and that is what caused the fund to have a below average return. He stated that TRUSCO is not being looked at to explain how this happened because they must be judged on a long term basis. He said they could not be judged on any particular short term decision because sometimes they guess it right and sometimes they don't. He reminded that what needs to be judged is what is going to happen. He said if you look out of the 5 and 6 year period,the returns are a little above average and that gets back to the traditional TRUSCO style which is, when things are bad,they are not really as bad and it is a little more consistent. He said that the percentile ranking here is comparing public funds to other public funds and that they don't show the best or worst times of any of the time periods,just a snapshot. He commented that when the results for this fund are ranked to other pension funds,the average of that group currently runs at about$118 million, so when this fund is compared, it is an a disadvantage because, at $11 million,this is one of the smaller ones and there are less options available. He said that needs to be taken into consideration because there is no way to quantify that or adjust it for a smaller fund. Mr. Callahan then explained the chart on page 7 regarding the total fund risk. He explained that this chart is to answer the question of what is the quality of the return and the risk and the relationship between the risk and the return of the portfolio. He explained their definition of risk is the standard deviation of return, which is the variability of the return by its own average. He said this fund has a little less return than the index but it also had less risk and the risk was not more than was appropriate for the term. He went on through the report stating that the next several pages covered the characteristics of the various portfolios in which TRUSCO has made investments. He explained that the reason they use a number of portfolios is trying to give broader diversification. He said that this is a definite advantage for a fund of this size. Discussing the bond results, he reminded the Board that TRUSCO had brought in a whole new bond team to run the portfolio and that Merrill Lynch,though satisfied that these people were experienced and professional bond managers, had watched them in this particular environment over the last couple of quarters and, so far,their returns were above average. He then moved on to the international equity index fund relative to other managers. He explained that this fund has recently done better than most of the other active managers. Referring to page 21 under Tab V, he assured the Board that operations are within the prescribed guidelines and by the investment policy. As far as achieving the goals he explained that some are achieved and some are not and those that are not are the ones just (1. discussed. He explained that near terms have been lagging, relative results have been lagging and that is probably because of the way TRUSCO does their specific stock A General Employees Pension Board Board Meeting—May 11,2005 Page 7 selections. He then referred the Board to the page showing the fund ranking for the prior 12 months with their other public pension fund clients in Florida and stated that this fund is a little below average. Trustee Wagner asked if, after looking at all of the different charts,the answer was still that the equity market aspect is where this fund was lacking. He stated, in other words, in the bond market this fund is doing well but that is a fairly small number as far as actual return so it leads one to wonder what is missing. He said international appears to be good so,he asked if it is domestic equities that are the problem. Mr. Callahan responded that there are two issues that are affecting this fund and causing it to be below average. He summarized that by saying that the two issues are: first, the asset allocation issue when the allocation of stocks is lower versus that target in particular; and second, is which stocks they owned in a given time period and how those stocks performed. He said that he knew the next question would be, if this fund could do better and if someone else were hired, could they do better. He said that there is a 50% chance that the fund could do better. He said it would be easy to recommend that someone else be hired for this fund,however, it would cost a fee for the recommendation and he added that that is not the Merrill Lynch position in this case. He said that TRUSCO is able to give this fund diversification and that is very valuable and Merrill Lynch thinks keeping this manager is about the smartest thing for this fund. Trustee Wagner stated that his comment was not necessarily a reflection on TRUSCO. He said he understood that this Board has apparently given some direction or followed their recommendation on the percentage allocation and his question would be to know if TRUSCO has different results with different plans they manage funds for and are they doing it differently for someone else than for this plan and are getting a better return in which case, should they be given different directions in order to produce better results. Mr. Callahan responded that the direction does not need to change. He explained that they have not been restricted in any way that is not a prudent instruction. He said that some TRUSCO clients have better results and some have worse and Merrill Lynch has been critical of that but TRUSCO has addressed this over the past year and progress is being made in that regard and that this is something they will be watching and will bring up if necessary but he assured the Board that there has been improvement and that they are trying to make certain all clients are getting near the same results. Mike Sebesta explained that the investment policy group which he had mentioned earlier was developed for this reason and that some of the return issues were because each client was being managed by a different manager and one of those clients might be in Jacksonville, one in Miami, and one in Ocoee. He said that having the investment policy group is for these managers and their chief economist, strategists, and equity guys to make a determination broadly of where everyone should be from an asset allocation standpoint and that all of the clients with a particular asset allocation such as 60/40 (kw should roughly be in line with the recommended target. He said that it would not be General Employees Pension Board Board Meeting—May 11,2005 Page 8 (re uncommon to be a couple of percent off one way or the other but consistently over time over several quarters they should all be pretty close in line. Trustee Wagner stated that he felt more knowledgeable after these explanations but still wondered if there should be some direction to change allocations. Mr. Callahan responded that the policy does allow them some leeway. He explained that thought the target is 60/40,they have the ability to go up to 70 at any given time or down to 50 if they so choose. Vice Chairperson Swickerath asked if there were other questions and then called upon Attorney Dehner. Attorney Dehner asked Mr. Callahan about the letter dated April 18 from Larry Cole as to the additional $5,000 charge for the additional portfolios. He stated that the letter had not been specific enough and asked Mr. Callahan to make a specific proposal for the Board to consider and approve. Mr. Callahan stated that originally the Merrill Lynch bill was typically paid when TRUSCO traded with them. The money was in co-mingled funds in order to help get diversification and that worked fine. He stated that from those co-mingled funds they continued to direct the plans percentage of those commissions to the extent they could to Merrill Lynch and still get a good execution and that was then used as an offset on the Merrill Lynch billings. He explained that it was determined by the SEC that they could not do that anymore,that if they were going to direct commissions they could only do that from funds that were specific to the plan, not co-mingled and at that time they set up all separate accounts so they could continue to direct the commissions to pay the Merrill Lynch bill. He said that the ultimate result was that the Merrill Lynch workload was increased because each of the funds had to be analyzed for each client instead of being done once for everyone involved with the co-mingled funds, therefore,they were requesting an increase from $8,750 annually to $13,750 annually. He added that this would be predicated on the fact that this Board and Police and Fire continue to meet on the same day,that if that changed,the fee would increase because of more travel time. Trustee Wagner asked if this was a reasonable fee as compared with other funds. Attorney Dehner assured that the fee was reasonable, in fact, lower than several. Trustee Hendrix asked Attorney Denner if it was, therefore, his recommendation that this is a reasonable fee to which Attorney Denner answered yes. Following a brief discussion, it was on motion made by Trustee Grafton, seconded by Trustee Hendrix, unanimously RESOLVED that the request for an increase by Merrill Lynch from $8,750 to $13,750 annually be and is hereby approved,such increase to cover all portfolios in the Ocoee General Employees' Pension Fund, including any additional portfolios and/or mutual funds added for a period of not less than one year, retroactive to April 1,2005. Additionally,Attorney H. Lee Dehner is hereby directed to prepare an agreement reflecting this resolution. General Employees Pension Board Board Meeting—May 11,2005 Page 9 L Attorney Dehner said he would prepare the agreement as has been directed by the Board and then send it to Mr. Callahan for execution in triplicate and will ask that it then be forwarded to Secretary Grafton for execution by the Chairman and the Secretary. Vice Chairperson Swickerath returned to the Agenda and asked Trustee Grafton for her comments regarding the consideration of asset allocation change to increase the international investments cap. Trustee Grafton said she had brought up this change at the last meeting because she had heard so many discussions about it at the FPPTA conference and in discussions with the Board about increasing the allocation from 10%to 15%. Attorney Dehner said that input such as was received from Larry Cole at the last meeting and from Mike Callahan at this meeting as far as the allocation would be needed. He said that from the legal side there was a restriction by Ordinance to a maximum of 10%international securities at cost and that is a parameter that, by policy, cannot be exceeded per Ordinance. Mr. Callahan stated that, if there were a way to change the Ordinance easily,he would advise that it be done, that according to present guidelines, TRUSCO cannot exceed 10% at cost. He said that he would suggest giving them up to 20%on foreign stocks. There was a general discussion of changes to the plan including conforming to Mr. Callahan's recommendations to increase international to 20%at market and to remove the A-rated or better bond restriction, allowing some lower quality bonds at the discretion of the investors. Mr. Callahan was asked if there was a time factor associated with the increase to international and he advised that doing it as soon as (hy possible would be better, but there was no rush as TRUSCO was not currently up to their full 10% at present. Attorney Denner stated that all of this could be considered for the restatement of the plan. Trustee Wagner asked what that restatement was about and Attorney Dehner advised that the Plan was last consolidated and restated in the late 1990s and that since then there had been numerous amendments. He said that when that has happened, generally the Plan is consolidated and restated so that everyone has the entire Plan in one document again and that it is time to do that consolidation. He added that the restatement would also include some new Federal compliance items that had been discussed. Trustee Grafton asked when that would be done to which Attorney Denner responded that it would probably be in the last quarter. He stated that the reason for this delay is that in June there would be meetings with IRS and committee staffers from Washington to work out the required language that is to actually go into an Ordinance as well as the Summary Plan Description and the tax notice package that is provided to a member who is leaving. He said that,with respect to investments, on the recommendation of the Plan's consultants that they be permitted to go higher than the 10%international, he could do an Ordinance quickly and put that forward for adoption by the City. After a brief discussion about how this would need to be done, it was on motion by Trustee Grafton, seconded by Trustee Wagner, unanimously RESOLVED that Attorney H. Lee Dehner be and is hereby directed to prepare an Ordinance, in accordance with the verbal 0 General Employees Pension Board Board Meeting—May 11,2005 Page 10 recommendation of Mr. Callahan from Merrill Lynch,such recommendation to be provided to Attorney Dehner in writing by Mr. Callahan,to increase the international equity limit from 10% at cost to 20% at market, to submit said Ordinance promptly, and to send said Ordinance to the City Manager, requesting that it be set forth for the first meeting after receipt. Attorney Denner advised that when the Ordinance is sent to the City Manager, requesting a schedule for bringing to before the City Manager, he would also ask for guidance from the City Manager as to whom he may request in terms of having an individual there to address the Commission. He suggested that since this would be dealing with an investment change, it would be his recommendation that Mr. Callahan be present to address the Commission specifically on the issues and that it might be helpful if Mr. Sebesta, if he supports the change,be present also. He then told Mr. Callahan that a policy amendment could be considered at the next quarterly meeting if this Ordinance is completed and approved by then. Mr. Callahan said he would redraft the policy to include a few minor wording updates. Attorney Dehner asked that that proposed policy be sent ahead of the next quarterly meeting and then if the Board wanted to take favorable action to adopt that policy, it could be all set to be filed with the Division,the Actuary and with the City. He reminded that the effective date of a policy change is 31 days after the policy is filed with the City. A general discussion followed regarding a change to the Ordinance limitation on equity being 60% at cost. It was suggested that this limitation be changed to 70%at market. Trustee Wagner mentioned his concern about whether this is a typical percentage. He was assured that for Florida funds this limitation is an average 65%, that 70% is on the aggressive end but that it would be unlikely that it would ever be there, it would just give that flexibility. Trustee Wagner expressed his thought that that would need to be explained adequately to the City Commission,that it was just flexibility, not automatic. Mr. Callahan explained that they would draft the policy for a target of 65%, not to exceed 70%. It was then, on motion made by Trustee Wagner, seconded by Trustee Grafton, unanimously RESOLVED that the Ordinance limitation on equity investments being 60% at cost, be and is hereby increased to 70% at market, with a policy target of 65%, not to exceed 70%,and that Attorney H. Lee Dehner is hereby directed to prepare said Ordinance to be submitted for approval by the City Commission. Vice Chairperson Swickerath then called attention to the next Agenda item, Discussion of Contractual Pension Administrator. Attorney Denner reported that there had been a discussion about a contractual pension administrator at the last meeting and it was the desire of this Board that he send out requests for proposals to firms in the state that provided those services. He said he had not yet done that because he had been waiting to receive some local names from former Trustee Ed Bishop. There was a general discussion regarding the services provided by a contractual plan administrator. The concern expressed by Trustee Grafton was that, until now, there had always been someone in house to talk to the members when they were ready to deal with their questions and she wondered how that could be done if the plan administrator was in in General Employees Pension Board Board Meeting—May 11,2005 Page 11 (00 another part of the state. Attorney Denner explained the variety of ways a plan administrator could work including through websites or arranging for space in the area. Trustee Wagner asked why it had been decided to go out of house for these services and it was explained that the former City Manager would not allow the HR Director to have an additional person to assist with the administrative duties of the plan and it became impossible to handle it all so, after that, these duties were being handled by Trustee Grafton as Board Secretary, and it was the general feeling that there should really be someone permanently assigned to handle these duties. It was also discussed that most funds of this size are administered in house. Trustee Wagner asked what the cost of this type of service would be and was advised by Attorney Denner that for the secretarial service portion of it which consists of preparation of the agendas,taking and transcribing the minutes, etc., it could easily cost $500-$600 per month, while full administration services could cost$2,000-$4,000 per month. Trustee Wagner indicated that he felt that would be a lot of money to come out of the retirement fund and if there was a possibility that the City might absorb some of those costs he felt it would be more beneficial to have someone in house who is trained and accessible. Trustee Wagner asked if would be possible, before going ahead with the requests for proposals,to have a formal meeting with the City Manager and discuss it with him, formalize the request and see if the City can add a position and absorb at least some of the cost. Following more discussion, it was, by general consensus, decided that the City Manager could be invited to the work session of the Board to discuss the matter. Vice Chairperson Swickerath then called the Board's attention to getting the new signatures for TRUSCO for the custodial work. Trustee Grafton indicated she included the resolution in the packets she had distributed for review and that she had the one that would need to be signed. She reminded that this would need to be done again once the current election was certified. There was a general discussion of whether two signatures were required to get money from the custodian because for the last year, only former Trustee Bishop had been approving the bills. It was decided that further discussion of this matter would be taken up at the work session and it was on motion made by Trustee Grafton,seconded by Trustee Wagner, unanimously RESOLVED,that the resolution that is presented in the Trustees' packets be and is hereby approved for signature and shall be forwarded to TRUSCO when fully executed. Vice Chairperson Swickerath next called for approval of payment of the invoices included in the Trustees' packets. Secretary Grafton indicated that there was an additional invoice from Merrill Lynch that had not been available when the packets were prepared. Following a brief discussion, it was on motion made by Trustee Grafton, seconded by Trustee Hendrix,unanimously RESOLVED that all invoices be and are hereby approved for payment as presented. L 1 1 General Employees Pension Board Board Meeting-May 11,2005 Page 12 Co• Vice Chairperson Swickerath next called upon Secretary Grafton for any correspondence. Secretary Grafton reported that there were a couple of things from SunTrust stating that they were changing their procedures along with a complete report of the monies they spent as of October 1, 2004, along with some advice, none of which required any Board action. She then explained that, Mr. Phelps, a Pension Plan member was in the audience and had a question. She explained that he is retiring after having been with the City for two years and wanted clarification of the policy as to whether he is entitled to retirement benefits on the strength of his age, which is 67, even though he is not vested. Attorney Dehner checked the Ordinance and actuarial evaluation report and stated that Mr. Phelps is entitled to retirement benefits and that possibility was factored into the evaluation report. He further explained that the normal retirement age is age 60, irrespective of years of credited services so he would be, upon retirement, eligible for benefits based on his years of credited services. He said there is sometimes confusion with vesting and explained that the significance of vesting is that is the period of time an employee has to work after which they can terminate and be eligible when otherwise early or normal retirement age is attained and that eligibility for retirement and vesting do not have to coincide. Vice Chairperson Swickerath next asked the Board to set a date for the special session to certify the current election and to review the operating rules and procedures and the summary plan description. Attorney Dehner reminded that in order to take action, this would have to be called a special meeting. Following a discussion of dates of (by availability, it was decided that the special meeting and work session would be held on Wednesday, June 8, at 9:00 a.m. Vice Chairperson Swickerath then asked Attorney Dehner for any comments. He advised that most everything had already been covered but he did want to remind the new Trustees of the obligation to file financial disclosures, Form F-1, with the Supervisor of Elections in the County in which they reside by July 1. He also stated the former Trustee Bishop would need to file on within 60 days of stepping down and because he stepped down between January 1 and June 1, he would also need to file one for that. Vice Chairperson Swickerath asked the Trustees for any additional comments. Trustee Hendrix again welcomed Trustee Russ Wagner and said he felt he would be an asset to the Board. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo Ann Lacey, Recording Secretary of the Meeting Approved by: Mary Ann Swickerath, Vice Chairperson 1-)