Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-16 - Agendas - Final Police Pension And Relief Fund Agenda October 16, 2003 A special meeting of the Fayetteville Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund Board was held on October 16, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 1 . Approval of the minutes of a special meeting on September '10, 2003 . 2. Approval of Pension List 3. Investment Report 4. Other business R) It ` Police Pension Seplembei 10, 2003 Page 1 or 13 • Minutes of a Special Meeting Of the Police Pension Board of Trustees September 10, 2003 A meeting of the Fayetteville Police Pension and Relief Fund Board was held on September 10, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Coody, Jerry Friend, Tim Helder, Dr. Mashburn, Jerry Surles, Randy Bradley, City Attorney Kit Williams, Steve Davis, Marsha Farthing and Amber Wood. ABSENT: Sondra Smith, City Clerk. Mayor Coody: Called the Meeting to order. Steve Davis led a discussion about a letter from the Municipal League regarding the pension compliance with GUST. Jerry Friend: I will move that we have the attorney, Craig Westbrook look at this and give us advice on what we should do or do it for us and authorize payment not to exceed $200.00 • for our part of it. Mayor Coody: Is there a second to the motion? Tim Helder: Second, Mayor Coody: We have a motion and second to hire Mr. Westbrook with a cost not to exceed $200.00 to do this work. Shall the motion pass? All in favor say aye. Mayor Coody: The motion passed unanimously. Kit Williams: We need to discuss the resolution that was passed at the last special meeting. I wasn't aware that you all we're going to make that resolution. I have researched the law about what we have to do, and of course when we're doing pension stuff my advice is that you have to be very strict to follow the law as it goes along. In my reading of the statute there's several things that must be done prior to any benefit increase and one of them as it states here, "the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Relief Fund" I 'm quoting the statute, "shall adopt a resolution of not less than '/ of the membership of the Board of Trustees outlining the proposed increase in. benefits." After that then they have to send this resolution down to LOPFI and have them look at it and agree and pass on it. It says that the Executive Director will then determine the actuarial evaluation has been made in accordance of the provisions of the subject. It has to be an actuarial evaluation and .l think that they might be able to use the one that we've already • done, I'm not positive but I think they probably can, 1 hope they can. Then the Executive Director can state the actuarial findings and writings of the Board of Trustees and certify the appropriate action has been taken. The Board 's trustees can go forward in compliance with her Police Pension -, September 10, 2003 Page 2 of 13 findings and grant the benefit increase, but we have to follow it step by step. The first step is that we have to pass a specific resolution requesting this be done and then we can move forward. Eldon Roberts : Kit I might add that I got that information right out of the mouth of one of the actuaries that the study that was just performed that Steve had asked for, about when we were looking at merging with LOPFI, is current up like July or August, somewhere right around in there. Kit Williams: That will be good enough. Eldon Roberts: They' re not going to charge again to do another study. Kit Williams: Good. Eldon Roberts : That one will work and 1 got that right out of the mouth from the actuary. Kit Williams: So I think what this board needs to do to get the ball really rolling is to pass a resolution outlining the proposed increase in benefits and then we'll pick up the ball from there and start going through administrative hoops. Tim Helder: Now will you draft the resolution? Is that how this works? Kit Williams: Yes. And your resolution is to increase the benefits by 3% C.O.L.A .. temporary 3% C.O.LA. Tim Helder: Temporary compound. Kit Williams: Temporary but compound C.O.L.A. Tim Helder: Yes. Jerry Surles: Did we not do that last time? What'd we do last week, last time? Tim Helder: We didn' t do a resolution to that effect we just passed it. Kit was then able to research this so what he just said, you have to do this resolution to stay in strict compliance of the law. Kit Williams: I 'm just concerned that if we don 't jump through every hoop exactly as its stated in the statute that they could say no we' re not doing the right thing. Dr. Mashburn: I'll agree with that. Kit Williams: I will draft a resolution assuming that we need a recorded vote, we will need three fourths of the membership so instead of just saying aye, 1 want everybody to vote by their names so she can get your name down on the tape that you're voting in favor of this so that it's e clear that three fourths of the members of the Board of Directors have approved it. v }_ Police Pension _� . September 10, 2003 Page 3 of 13 ® Tim Helder: Before we do that though, we were going to implement this October 1 , we don' t have any idea but obviously we can't do it by then. Kit. Williams : Let' s just say as soon as possible. Tim Helder: Can we leave it open-ended? Kit Williams: I think we ought to leave it "as soon as it is approved' or something like that. Randy Bradley: Before we do that we need to undo what we did? Kit Williams: I don't know. I guess you could reconsider your previous motion, make a motion . to reconsider your previous motion and table it indefinitely. Jerry Friend: Because we're going to do it again now. Dr. Mashburn : I make a motion we rescind our last action Mayor Coody: Make a motion to reconsider the last vote and that requires a second and a vote, and then you can make a motion to rescind. Kit Williams : So a motion to reconsider? ® Randy Bradley: I second it. Mayor Coody: We have a motion to reconsider the last vote. All in favor say aye. Mayor Coody: So now we're going to reconsider the last vote. Now if you want to make a motion on rescinding your action. Randy Bradley: I make a motion that we rescind the last action, the 3% cost of living raise. Tim Helder: Second. Mayor Coody: We have a motion and second to rescind the 3% COLA. All in favor say aye. Mayor Coody: Does that take three fourths of the Board? Kit Williams: No, the resolution that you're going to be proposing takes a three fourths vote. Mayor Coody: The motion passed. Kit Williams: They want to move to pass a resolution to request an increase of a temporary 3 % ® compounded COLA as soon as approved by the State Pension Board, the Executive Director of Arkansas Fire and Pension Review Board. Tim Helder: And then to take effect do we need that wording in there Kit on this voting? Police Pension September 10. 2003 Page 4 of 13 Kit Williams: I will put it in there to take effect as soon as possible, to take effect as soon as approved by the Pension Review Board. Eldon Roberts: It' s up to you all. We discussed this at the first of the year. It seemed like a better number then the first of November but that' s up to the Board. Kit Williams: It depends on how long Tim Helder: Suppose it didn't happen . I mean if we put a date and they are not able to get this resolved with Catherine. Kit Williams: Yeah because she can't do anything. Randy Bradley: We'd have to come back. Eldon Roberts: I do expect that by the first of the year all these hoops can be gone through. And then you have the first of the year every year as the exact time that, the COLA would be implemented in the future but it' s up to the Board. Kit Williams: Well we could say the first of the year but that does leave a problem if they don't get it approved. Eldon Roberts : I would think so . We could always come back. O Tim Helder: I think 1 ' d prefer to do it as soon as they can do it. Randy Bradley: I think the first pay period and file an approval or something. Jerry Friend : We could say effective the first of the year and if they don't do it until February maybe we could come back. Eldon Roberts: We could do that. Jerry Friend: So as soon as they could get it done to be effective the first of the year. Kit Williams : Let me ask one question of our accounting? Do you need any kind of lead time when you're figuring this? Marsha Farthing: Not too much. Kit Williams: So as soon we hear that they've approved it you'd be able to probably get it in the next pension payment? If it's not more than a week a way. You can still do that? Steve Davis : We would need to know what it was based on. Marsha Farthing: Yes that would be the big kicker is what you are basing it on for the 3%. Police Pension - September 10, 2003 Page 5 of 13 • Eldon Roberts: What number are we taking the 3% of? Kit Williams: Wouldn't it be the current one? Marsha Farthing: Are you going to include the money they receive for additional years, are you going to base it on their salary, or 90% of their base salary? Or what options? Kit Williams: My understanding was that they were going to do it on whatever the benefits ! were at this time. There'd be a 3% on the current benefits whatever they were but I don't know though. Let' s be sure of what we're asking the board to approve. Tim Helder: What is LOPFI's based upon? What is their COLA? Is it on the salary that they retired at? Steve Davis: I'm not sure. Eldon Roberts: I'm really not sure. And no where in this material that I've got from the actuary does it tell me or does it mention what number you pay the 3% on. Tim Helder: Does it say to mirror all what LOPFI? Kit Williams: Let' s stay with the actuary they probably figured out where it's feasible. ® Tim Helder: Okay. Eldon Roberts: I can call them. I can find out. Kit Williams: Whatever the actuaries, how they figured it out. Tim Helder: Which would reflect what LOPFI does because they would be basing it on the same method, I am sure and that' s fine. Kit Williams : So we're going to base the 3% on what the people that looked at this said, we could legally do that, on there figures okay. And we'll find out. Eldon Roberts: I can probably find out probably today. Kit Williams: Why don't you let me know because I'll just put that in the resolution rather than making it convoluted. Steve Davis: There's a danger in that you could be a rabbit chasing your tail. You know the actuaries calculated, based off a set perimeter. They may assume three or four scenarios and averaged them. I think you need to tell them what you want it calculated on, because it can make a difference. © Kit Williams : What about just current benefits? Cost of living is generally on whatever you're getting at this point in time. Police Pension September 10. 2003 Page 6 of 13 Eldon Roberts: If we call and ask them how did you figure that? How did you compute this 3%, to be 3% of what, and they can specifically tell me without it being hostigeous, an average of four different numbers, if they could say we did it off this one number then we could deal with that. Is that right Steve? If they did it off just one number? Steve Davis: If they do it off just one number though. Kit Williams: Let' s say if they didn't do it off one number we still need to have our decision made here. Would it be satisfactory to just have it 3% of the current benefits, so it would be 103% of what everybody is getting right now, the first year in this. Jerry Friend: That' s sounds like the highest scenario. Tim Helder: 1 think that's right. Tim Helder: Actually it would be the lowest. Eldon Roberts: The highest would be 3% of the salary when they retired. Tim Helder: It would be the salary that you were earning at the time you retired. Eldon Roberts: That'd be 100% of salary. Tim Helder: So the lowest scenario would be to go with 3° of your current pension. Steve Davis: Of your benefits. Jerry Friend : Okay. Tim Helder: That would be the worst case scenario. The best case would be if they were figuring it off your salary at the time of retirement. Eldon Roberts : You're 100% of salary when you retire. Steve Davis : The way that LOPFI works is that if somebody retires in August they get a COLA the next July. Kit Williams : And it is based off their salary though. Steve Davis : It's based on their formula. It' s a formula based on their salary. They don't get any additional money based on longetivity or years above 20 or 28. That doesn't work. Jerry Friend : To me that' s kind of an important question and 1 don 't know how, is there some way we can make this motion and then settle that later: To me we need to talk to them or somebody Police Pension . . September 10, 2003 Page 7 of 13 ® Tim Helder: Eldon' s going to make that call this afternoon but I would say and tell me if this sounds bad to word it that the 3% would be based on no less than the current benefits of the retired people. Tim Helder: It could be more but at no less than what the current is. Kit Williams: The problem is as long as that's not above anything the actuarial will look at. I mean I don't know how they look at it. Jerry Friend : That's what my worry would be. It would be above what they figure it. Tim Helder: What' s your recommendation? I mean I don't know, as far as wording, as far as today how do we leave it. Kit Williams: I think that, that can hopefully be your ceiling, I mean your floor, and your ceiling would be whatever if there's a good figure that we can use that the actuarial used. Is that what you all would agree with me if the actuarial used a different figure like ending salary then will put that in the resolution. If the actuarial use benefits or some sort of combination of stuff it' s going to be very difficult to figure out then, we're going to go back to the benefits. Jerry Friend: If this is the floor, I mean I like cushion and they figured it on salary to me it would be safer to use the floor, a lower amount, and it wouldn't hurt, I mean the difference isn't ® that much except in the hole it would be quite a bit after all the benefits for each person. fJerry Surles: I don't why they would figure it on your retirement salary. Why would they go back to that point to figure the 3%? Jerry Friend: I think LOPFI does. Jerry Surles: I wouldn't think so. Steve Davis: I think it' s based on benefits. Tim Helder: What were we thinking whenever we did this resolution to go to LOPFI? Because all we put in here was adopt a 3% compounded cost of living to be applied annually. Eldon Roberts: I was thinking about what we draw. Tim Helder: I think we were all in our minds thinking it was based on what the retirement package is now, and I think that's what got this study done. Kit Williams : That's what I thought it was. Eldon Roberts: So you think 3% of your current benefit. ® Kit Williams: That's what I thought it was. Police Pension September 10, 2003 Page 8 of 13 Tim Helder: So we could word it where, worst case scenario is based on that if they figure it on more I guess that' s fine to go up as long it doesn't go below what we all had intended. The other thing there Kit, is it for full paid Fayetteville Police Pension Relief both current and future. Eldon Roberts: Be sure to get that future. Tim Helder: Future would be people that retire later. Kit Williams: You're still talking about the old plan though. Tim Helder: Yes, there are still three people on it that could retire in the next year. Kit Williams : No. We're not going let them. Tim Helder: In the event that that happens, we need to make sure there is wording to include them. Kit Williams : Okay. Tim Helder: So we don't have to meet again to make it for them. Kit Williams: You don't what to let them sit and squirm . Randy Bradley: Let's simplify it. Kit Williams: Surely the actuarial has taken that into account. Eldon Roberts: What the future retirees. But this Board has an option of probably voting one way or the other. Marsha Farthing: I have a question. if somebody retires say in December will they get the COLA then in January or are you going make them be in the plan a year and a month before get the COLA? Tim Helder: How many more do we have? Steve Davis: Three. Randy Bradley: Three is what we're talking? It would be kind of a hardship on whoever was doing the calculations to keep up with that one year and a month. Tim Helder: Let's set a date. Randy Bradley: Every January the COLA would come in, is that right? Tim Helder: Instead of on the anniversary. ` a Police Pension September 10, 2003 Page 9 of 13 Randy Bradley: So if they would retire in February then they would get a raise the next January. i Eldon Roberts: Well what about in December? Kit Williams: Do you have a lot of extra work at the end of the year or does it make any difference to you. This January date is that going to be a problem for you to go back and figure this? Jerry Friend: Would you rather do it in March or some time like that. Kit Williams: February or something like that? Marsha Farthing: January through April is bad for us. It's not going to matter to me. Kit Williams : So you'd just soon do it January 1 . Steve Davis: Actually, you know if you get the retired list, you do your retirement list for December early in the month right? Jerry Surles: Yeah. tDr. Mashburn: When does LOPFI do theirs? I mean if you're going to set this and then LOPFI takes it over then its going to be completely different. Steve Davis: It will be a completely different thing. Randy Bradley: It'll be different. Eldon Roberts: They are July 151 but that' s the state' s fiscal year and that's just when they opt to do theirs is July 151 Kit Williams: But they do it on the date of retirement? They do the same for everyone. Steve Davis: All COLAs are implemented July lst. Jerry Friend: So if we received a COLA in January then move to LOPFI we'd get another one. Eldon Roberts: You'd be better off. Tim Helder: Well I tend to agree with Jerry I think to simplify things I think January. If somebody is fortunate enough to retire before then, then just kick it in. But to simplify things January would be my suggestion. • Kit Williams: Okay I'm putting that down if that 's your consensus, January 1 . Mayor Coody: Alright so what course other action do we need to take? Police Pension September 10. 2003 Page 10 of 13 Tim Helder: Authorizing Kit to draft a resolution. Kit Williams : Right and pass by 75% of everyone who votes by stating their name. Mayor Coody: is there a motion. Randy Bradley: Did you make a motion? Tim Helder: Yes. Jerry Surles : 1 second. A 3% compounded COLA based on current benefits. Tim Helder: It's a five year temporary 3% compounded COLA to take affect January 1 and it will affect both current and future. Mayor Coody: It that your motion. Tim Helder: Yes it is sir. Mayor Coody: Is there a second? Jerry Surles: Second. Mayor Coody: One by one, lef s start over at this side. Do you want this motion to pass? Jerry Friend: Yes. Tim Helder: Yes. Dr. Mashburn: Yes. Jerry Surles: Yes. Randy Bradley : Yes. Mayor Coody: I guess that ' s 75%. Kit Williams: You have to vote to Mayor. Dan Coody: Yes. Kit Williams: Okay and the total membership of the board, is there anybody not here besides Sondra? Tim Helder: Sondra. Kit Williams : The motion passed unanimously. f Police Pension September 10, 2003 Page 1 I of 13 • OTHER BUSINESS : Kit Williams: I have written to Jan Judy and I actually talked to her and she' s passed the letter on about the change in the law now authorizing widows to be paid more than 50%. They had previously been restricted to 50% of the ending salary of the retiree. It looked to me like the language was crystal clear. I thought they were limited to that, and in fact that's what we always did when the pensioner would die he might be getting 90% then the widow would only get 50%. We had to face that couple of times last year, the year before and we talked about it and wrote a memo to you that the law is clear. They changed the law, Act 274 of 2003 now allows the surviving spouse to receive more than 50% of the police or firemen' s pension ending salary. Mayor Coody: Is there a ceiling? Kit Williams: There's no ceiling except probably 90% which is same thing that most of the people have. The thing that bothered me about it is that the Act is entitled to clarify the authority and in state law when you look at supreme court cases dealing with interpreting acts, the title of the act is looked at if there' s any confusion, they can look at the title and see what the legislature means. A clear meaning of the word clarified is not changing, not giving, it' s just making clear what's already there, I think that's a misnomer. I think that's what the act did, I think it actually changed the law, an argument could be made by a widow that we have always had the authority, we just didn't know we had the authority. This act clarified the fact you always had that authority and in order to give the widow benefits you have to go through the same procedure we • just went through, pass a resolution, actuarial tables are checked out and sent down there and it's authorized, of course every time we've done a benefit increase that's what we've done. We've never tried to do one for widows so I think we're okay but I'm asking the attorney general to clarify that himself and to say no that in fact it changed the law and that no widow can claim that she should get 90%. ' Jan Judy and I talked this weekend and she said yes she has that on to the attorney general so he can inundate this. This legislative session had a ton of questions, so it might be a while before we hear back but I think he'll say that we're okay and we do not need to make any back payments or any current payments to widows at this point in time until this board decides to pass a resolution to ask for that. Dr. Mashburn : Now clarify clarify. Tim Helder: I think all they did is muddy it up a little bit. Kit Williams: If they had just said an act of change I wouldn't have been concerned at all, but they tried to make it sound better, I think that is only reason they put clarify in there. Eldon Roberts: Kit, my take on that is if any police officer dies today on this benefit program, they are drawing 90% of their salary. Kit Williams: Right. • Eldon Roberts: Their widow would continue to draw at 90% salary, I think. Kit Williams: Well I guess we'll find out. Police Pension , Scra mber 10. 2003 Page 12 of 13 Eldon Roberts: That first paragraph says "they shall draw the amount attached to the rank of the salary of their spouse at the time of his death. Kit Williams: Yeah that' s right. It was contradictory. Dr. Mashburn: To do that you're going to change the actuarial figures tremendously. Kit Williams: It will. Eldon Roberts: It will make a lot of difference depending on how the actuary. Jerry Friend: I think they figured that didn' t they? Kit Williams: No. Mayor Coody: if the fund is unsound now with benefits going up, is it going to be bankrupt next week instead of seven years out? Kit Williams : Let me respond to what you said there because this is an issue we might have to face, because somebody is going to die and there' s going to be a widow out there. it says it did not repeal § Fl , it says the sum total of pension to be paid the surviving spouse of a deceased police officer shall not exceed one half of the salary attached to the rank the police officer held at time of his or her death, this is what they added, "however the limit on the sum total amount under subdivision of F1 of this section may be exceeded through benefit increases authorized under § 24- 11 -102 ." All the benefit increases have been authorized under that and that's where a widow could come in and say well you know you exceeded benefits so 1 should get that, to me that' s not clear though. The better reading I think is that this board would have to say that they want to raise the widow benefits, surviving spouse benefits to the same level as the pensioners themselves and send that down to the board and get it approved . But your interruption is arguable, and that' s one reason I asked the attorney general to try to clarify this because to me, usually when the legislature is going to clarify something they just muddy it up. Eldon Roberts : But if this board sent that information down there that thev wanted to raise the widow's benefits to the amount that was being received by their spouse that would in fact do the same thing we' re talking about . You couldn' t go back and raise those people that didn' t get the 90% benefit increase, you couldn't raise those people because they never get it to start with, but it could raise the current ones from the time we went 90% of salary because that's what their husband was drawing at the time of his death. You see where I'm going there? Kit Williams: Yeah. 1 just think it's not clear and I'll let the attorney general speak on it and hopefully he will give us an opinion early enough because we're not the only pension plan looking at this. Some other pension plans have 75% benefits and so they may very well come forward and make some claims, and this very well might be decided actually in court despite what the attorney general says. Steve Davis: To answer the Mayor's question, under one calculation the plan's actuary is not sound; under the cash flow calculation the pian is actuarially sound. - Police Pension September 10, 2003 Page 13 of 13 iMayor Coody: To date? Steve Davis: With the compound 3% COLA Eldon Roberts: Temporary compound. Kit Williams : That' s based upon the turnback funds being increased? Is that what makes it a cash flow thing. Steve Davis: I assume that's my conclusion since they were so adamant that it would be in our best interest to retain full control of the pension plan for another three to five years. Kit Williams: Okay I will draft up the resolution as it was stated. Actually you decided 3% of benefits didn't you. I' ll just go ahead and draft it then just like that with a starting date of January 1 , 2004, current and future members, temporary compound COLA . Mayor that will be for your signature as Chairman of this Board. Jerry Surles: Five year temporary COLA. Mayor Coody: Alright. Kit Williams: Because that's what the actuarial said right. Five years. rMayor Coody: So that' s all taken care of. Kit Williams: Yes. Jerry Surles: I move that we adjourn . Mayor Coody: Meeting adjourned. Meeting Adjourned at 10: 15 AM Sondra Smith Secretary POLICE PENSION FUND October 2003 6800.9800 680MM 5335-00 53350.5 Future EMP# NAME GROSS YTD Wages Suppl. YTD Suppl. SUppl Fed Tax ST. TAX NET 154 ALLEN, CHARLES 2,229.53 20,065.77 200.00 300.00 325.20 220.00 66.89 2,467.84 152 ARNOLD, WILLADEAN 838.00 7,542.00 200.00 300.00 325.20 1 ,363.20 • 130 BAYLES, DON 1 ,369.31 12,323.79 200.00 300.00 325.20 1 ,894.51 107 BLACK, JOE P 970.99 8,738.91 200.00 300.00 325.20 100.00 20.00 1 ,376.19 120 BOWEN, J R 598.19 5,383.71 200.00 300.00 325.20 10.00 1 ,113.39 147 BRADLEY, GERALD 4,157.85 37,420.65 200.00 300.00 325.20 940.53 17.32 3,725.20 139 BRADLEY, RANDALL 2,467.20 22,204.80 200.00 300.00 325.20 382.00 100.00 2,510.40 167 BROWN, JOHN 3,762.70 31 ,586.12 200.00 325.20 600.00 200.00 3,487.90 157 CARROLL,RONALD L 1 ,816.69 16,350.21 200.00 300.00 325.20 250.00 105.00 1 ,986.89 151 COLE, RUSTON 2,644.53 23,800.77 200.00 300.00 325.20 600.00 200.00 2,369.73 109 COOPER, ADRIAN 550.71 4,956.39 200.00 300.00 325.20 1 ,075.91 111 DAY, LUCILLE (Deceased) 700.00 100.00 0.00 108 DENNIS, WARREN 1 ,187.71 10,689.39 200.00 1300.00 325.20 0.00 1 ,712.91 160 DUGGER,GARY 2,729.07 24,561 .63 200.00 300.00 325.20 300.00 120.00 2,834.27 125 FLOWERS, HAROLD 744.10 6,696.90 200.00 300.00 325.20 1 ,269.30 140 FOSTER, BILLIE D. 2,766.68 24,900.12 200.00 300.00 325.20 300.00 120.00 2,871.88 148 FRIEND, JERRY 2,719.53 24,475.77 200.00 300.00 325.20 725.00 150.00 2,369.73 161 HANNA, JANICE 1 ,688.55 15,196.95 325.20 175.00 50.00 1 ,788.75 145 HANNA, MARK 672.56 6,053.04 200.00 500.00 325.20 1 ,197.76 162 HASKINS, IRENE 374.85 3,373.65 200.00 300.00 325.20 900.05 103 HELDER, TIM 5,036.02 29,153.78 200.00 325.20 750.00 250.00 4,561 .22 146 HUTCHENS, BERNICE 874.85 7,873.65 200.00 300.00 325.20 130.00 1 ,270.05 143 JOHNSON, CHARLES 2,118.14 19,063.26 200.00 300.00 325.20 42.67 2,600.67 103 JOHNSON, WENDELL 675.55 6,079.95 200.00 300.00 325.20 1 ,200.75 118 JONES, BOB 2,847.00 25,623.00 200.00 300.00 325.20 0.00 3,372.20 144 KILGORE, DONALD 1 ,765.31 15,887.79 200.00 300.00 325.20 19.72 2,270.79 129 LAWSON, FORREST 1 ,352.48 12,172.32 200.00 300.00 325.20 350.00 1 ,527.68 150 LITTLE, PATSY R 350.00 3,150.00 200.00 300.00 325.20 875.20 • 153 LORCH, DONNA G 350.00 3,150.00 200.00 300.00 325.20 875.20 156 MARTIN, KENNETH 3,185.49 28,669.41 200.00 300.00 325.20 500.00 140.00 3,070.69 128 MCCAWLEY, LARRY 1 ,461 .94 13,157.46 200.00 300.00 325.20 180.00 20.00 11787.14 116 MCCHRISTIAN, MARIE 350.00 3,150.00 200.00 300.00 325.20 875.20 126 MCWHORTER, KAREN 485.02 4,365.18 200.00 300.00 325.20 1 ,010.22 136 MITCHELL, MICHAEL 1 ,988.56 17,897.04 200.00 300.00 325.20 150.00 2,363.76 141 MUELLER, ROSEMARY 1 ,780.38 16,023.42 200.00 300.00 325.20 2,305.58 158 MUNSON,ANGELA 3.621 .36 32,592.24 200.00 300.00 325.20 500.00 183.00 3,463.56 112 MURPHY, JAKE 350.00 3,150.00 200.00 300.00 325.20 0.00 875.20 137 PERDUE, LARRY 2,003.55 18,031.95 200.00 300.00 325.20 200.00 25.00 2,303.75 164 PERSHALL, ROBIN 1,315.53 11 ,839.77 325.20 290.00 92.00 1 ,258.73 132 PHILLIPS, HOMER GENE 1,513.40 13,620.60 200.00 300.00 325.20 300.00 1 ,738.60 105 PRESTON, GEORGE DAVID 1 ,381 .37 12,432.33 200.00 300.00 325.20 100.00 100.00 1 ,706.57 135 RICKMAN, LOREN 1 ,924.54 17,320.86 200.00 300.00 325.20 230.00 65.00 2,154.74 104 RIGGINS, RAYMOND C 1 ,440.01 12,960.09 200.00 300.00 325.20 125.00 25.00 1 ,815.21 159 SCHUSTER,JOHN H. 2,689.07 24,201 .63 200.00 300.00 325.20 340.00 110.00 2,764.27 122 SKELTON, FRANK 713.67 6,423.03 200.00 300.00 325.20 1 ,238.87 123 SPENCER, HOLLIS (Deceased)* 2,373.30 100.00 0.00 168 STANLEY, MELVIN 4,209.58 35,337.44 200.00 200.00 325.20 1 ,100.00 300.00 3,334.78 155 STOUT, BETTY 415.25 3,737.25 200.00 300.00 325.20 0.00 940.45 133 SURLES, JERRY 2,347.50 21 ,127.50 200.00 300.00 325.20 412.50 50.00 2,410.20 142 TAYLOR, DENNIS 1 ,780.38 16,023.42 200.00 300.00 325.20 105.00 40.00 2,160.58 106 UPTON. FRANKLIN 911 .84 8,206.56 200.00 300.00 325.20 10.00 1 ,427.04 163 WATSON, RICHARD 6,811 .00 61 ,299.00 200.00 200.00 325.20 1 ,950.00 400.00 4,986.20 110 WATTS, BEULAH (Deceased) 2,100.00 300.00 0.00 149 WILLIAMS, JOYCE 1 ,217.07 10,953.63 200.00 300.00 325.20 217.07 1 ,525.20 134 WITT, DON 1 ,524.09 13,716.81 200.00 300.00 325.20 115.00 64.00 1 ,870.29 127 WOOD, PAUL J 1 ,363.72 12 273.48 200.00 300.00 325.20 0.00 1 ,888.92 Is 96 442.42 852 157.72 10,200.00 15,200.00 17,235.60 12,657.10 3,075.60 108,145.32 '$200.00 paid rm death benefits 68049800 68DD-9800 533500 5335-05 Total Year to Date 852,357.72 15,200.00 867,557.72 POLICE PENSION FUND November 2003 s600.98W 61W0-9t1W 5335-00 533505 FMre EMP# NAME GROSS YTD Wages Suppl. YTD Suppl. Suppl Fed Tax ST. TAX NET 154 ALLEN, CHARLES 2,229.53 20,065.77 50.00 300.00 32520 220.00 66.89 1 ,992.64 152 ARNOLD, WILLADEAN 838.00 7,542.00 50.00 300.00 325.20 888.00 130 BAYLES, DON 1 ,369.31 12,323.79 50.00 300.00 325.20 1 ,419.31 107 BLACK, JOE P 970.99 8,738.91 50.00 300.00 325.20 100.00 20.00 900.99 120 BOWEN, J R 598.19 5,383.71 50.00 300.00 325.20 10.00 638.19 147 BRADLEY, GERALD 4,157.85 37,420.65 50.00 300.00 325.20 940.53 17.32 3,250.00 139 BRADLEY, RANDALL 2,467.20 22,204.80 50.00 300.00 325.20 382.00 100.00 2,035.20 167 BROWN, JOHN 3.762.70 31 ,586.12 50.00 325.20 600.00 200.00 3,012.70 157 CARROLL,RONALD L 1,816.69 16,350.21 50.00 300.00 325.20 250.00 105.00 1 ,511 .69 151 COLE, RUSTON 2,644.53 23,800.77 50.00 300.00 325.20 - 600.00 200.00 1 ,894.53 109 COOPER, ADRIAN 550.71 4,956.39 50.00 300.00 325.20 600.71 111 DAY, LUCILLE (Deceased) 700.00 100.00 0.00 108 DENNIS, WARREN 1 ,187.71 10,689.39 50.00 300.00 325.20 0.00 1,237.71 160 DUGGER,GARY 2,729.07 24,561 .63 50.00 300:00 325.20 300.00 120.00 2,359.07 125 FLOWERS, HAROLD 744.10 6,696.90 50.00 300.00 325.20 794.10 140 FOSTER, BILLIE D. 2,766.68 24,900.12 50.00 300.00 325.20 300.00 120.00 2,396.68 148 FRIEND, JERRY 2,719.53 24,475.77 50.00 300.00 325.20 725.00 150.00 1 ,894.53 - 161 HANNA, JANICE 1 .688.55 15,196.95 325.20 175.00 50.00 1 ,463.55 145 HANNA, MARK 672.56 6,053.04 50.00 500.00 325.20 722.56 162 HASKINS, IRENE 374.85 3,373.65 50.00 300.00 325.20 424.85 103 HELDER, TIM 5,036.02 29,153.78 50.00 325.20 750.00 250.00 4,066.02 146 HUTCHENS, BERNICE 874.85 7,873.65 50.00 300.00 325.20 130.00 794.85 143 JOHNSON, CHARLES 2,118.14 19,063.26 50.00 300.00 325.20 42.67 2,125.47 . 103 JOHNSON, WENDELL 675.55 6,079.95 50.00 300.00 325.20 725.55 118 JONES, BOB 2,847.00 25,623.00 50.00 300.00 325.20 0.00 2,897.00 144 KILGORE, DONALD 1 ,765.31 15.887.79 50.00 300.00 325.20 19.72 1 ,795.59 129 LAWSON, FORREST 1 ,352.48 12,172.32 50.00 300.00 325.20 350.00 .1 ,052.48 150 LITTLE, PATSY R 350.00 3,150.00 50.00 300.00 325.20 400.00 • 153 LORCH, DONNA 350.00 3,150.00 50.00 300.00 325.20 400.00 156 MARTIN, KENNETH 3,185.49 28,669.41 50.00 300.00 325.20 500.00 140.00 2,595.49 128 MCCAWLEY, LARRY 1 ,461 .94 13,157.46 50.00 300.00 325.20 180.00 20.00 1 ,311.94 116 MCCHRISTIAN, MARIE 350.00 3,150.00 50.00 300.00 325.20 400.00 126 MCWHORTER, KAREN 485.02 4,365.18 50.00 300.00 325.20 535.02 136 MITCHELL, MICHAEL 1 ,988.56 17,897.04 50.00 300.00 325.20 150.00 1 ,888.56 141 MUELLER, ROSEMARY 1 ,780.38 16,023.42 50.00 300.00 325.20 1 ,830.38 158 MUNSON,ANGELA 3,621 .36 32,592.24 50.00 300.00 325.20 500.00 183.00 2,988.36 112 MURPHY, JAKE 350.00 3,150.00 50.00 300.00 325.20 0.00 400.00 137 PERDUE, LARRY 2,003.55 18,031 .95 50.00 300.00 325.20 200.00 25.00 1 ,828.55 164 PERSHALL, ROBIN 1 ,315.53 11 ,839.77 325.20 290.00 92.00 933.53 132 PHILLIPS, HOMER GENE 1 ,513.40 13,620.60 50.00 300.00 325.20 300.00 1 ,263.40 105 PRESTON, GEORGE DAVID 1 ,381 .37 12,432.33 50.00 300.00 325.20 100.00 100.00 1 ,231 .37 135 RICKMAN, LOREN 1 ,924.54 17,320.86 50.00 300.00 325.20 230.00 65.00 1 ,679.54 104 RIGGINS, RAYMOND C 1,440.01 12,960.09 50.00 300.00 32520 125.00 25.00 1 ,340.01 159 SCHUSTER,JOHN H. 2,689.07 24,201 .63 50.00 300.00 325.20 340.00 110.00 2,289.07 122 SKELTON, FRANK 713.67 6,423.03 50.00 300.00 325.20 763.67 123 SPENCER, HOLLIS (Deceasedr 2,373.30 100.00 0.00 168 STANLEY, MELVIN 4,209.58 35,337.44 50.00 200.00 325.20 1 ,100.00 300.00 2,859.58 155 STOUT, BETTY - 415.25 . 3,737.25 50.00 300.00 325.20 0.00 465.25 133 SURLES, JERRY 2,347.50 21 ,127.50 50.00 300.00 325.20 412.50 50.00 1 ,935.00 142 TAYLOR, DENNIS 1 ,780.38 16,023.42 50.00 300.00 325.20 105.00 40.00 1 ,685.38 106 UPTON, FRANKLIN 911 .84 8,206.56 50.00 300.00 325.20 10.00 951 .84 163 WATSON, RICHARD 6,811 .00 61 ,299.00 50.00 200.00 325.20 1,950.00 400.00 4,511 .00 110 WATTS, BEULAH (Deceased) 2,100.00 300.00 0.00 149 WILLIAMS, JOYCE 1 ,217.07 10,953.63 50.00 300.00 325.20 217.07 1 ,050.00 134 WITT, DON 1 ,524.09 13,716.81 50.00 300.00 325.20 115.00 64.00 1 ,395.09 127 WOOD, PAUL 1 ,363.72 12,273.48 50.00 300.00 325.20 0.00 1 ,413.72 • _ 96 442.42 852 157.72 2,550.00 15,200.00 17,235.60 12,657.10 3,075.60 83,259.72 '8200.00 paid for death bene8ls 6800-9800 6BW9800 5335-00 5335-05 Total . Year to Date 852,357.72 15,200.00 867,557.72 1 T a z • � 3 0 3 m m o T y n � 2 O 3 m D m c3 d pna oN' � O m A V � � N m ID D m < o J � o a S m O � O rn � nm ♦ � n n N O � m 0 c A o J (D � m 3 c m m A � O • a � m m m - 0 3 3 A o m fn $ s n F ^ J U y S F m O F C F O A c 3 m ^ o J m n 3 5 0 ❑ y D D g S a ❑ ❑ ❑ p vO � � � O o 0 m o o c m 0 < '; .m+ N Y= m ❑ 3 y. o J o o N 0 00 N P_ OVERBEY, GRAHAM, STRIGEL & WESTBROOK, PLC • Attorneys at Law 8315 Cantrell Road, Suite #240 Little Rock, AR 72227-2423 EIN 71-0806490 City of Fayetteville C/o Ms. Michele Bechhold 113 West Mountain Administration Building Fayetteville AR 72701 September 26, 2003 Invoice # 10326 In Reference To: Retirement Plan SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH DATES SHOWN: • 9/11 /2003 Telephone conference with Ms. Michelle Bechhold regarding GUST amendments for old fire and police plan Amount Total Fees: $90.00 OCT 0 2 2003 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE • Police Pension September 10,2003 Page 1 of 13 • Minutes of a Special Meeting Of the Police Pension Board of Trustees September 10, 2003 A meeting of the Fayetteville Police Pension and Relief Fund Board was held on September 10, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Coody, Jerry Friend, Tim Helder, Dr. Mashburn, Jerry Stifles, Randy Bradley, City Attorney Kit Williams, Steve Davis, Marsha Farthing and Amber Wood. ABSENT: Sondra Smith,'City Clerk. Mayor Coody: Called the Meeting to order. Jerry Friend: I will move that we have the attorney, Craig Westbrook look at this and give us advice on what we should do or do it for us and authorize payment not to exceed $200.00 for our part of it. • Mayor Coody: Is there a second to the motion? Tim Helder: Second. Mayor Coody: We have a motion and second to hire Mr. Westbrook with a cost not to exceed $200.00 to do this work. Shall the motion pass? All in favor say aye. Mayor Coody: The motion passed unanimously. Kit Williams: We need to discuss the resolution that was passed at the last special meeting. I wasn't aware that you all we're going to make that resolution. I have researched the law about what we have to do, and of course when we're doing pension stuff my advice is that you have to be very strict to follow the law as it goes along. In my reading of the statute there's several things that must be done prior to any benefit increase and one of them as it states here, "the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Relief Fund" I'm quoting the statute, "shall adopt a resolution of not less than '/4 of the membership of the Board of Trustees outlining the proposed increase in benefits." After that then they have to send this resolution down to LOPFI and have them look at it and agree and pass on it. It says that the Executive Director will then determine the actuarial evaluation has been made in accordance of the provisions of the subject. It has to be an actuarial evaluation and I think that they might be able to use the one that we've already. done, I'm not positive but I think they probably can, I hope they can. Then the Executive Director can state the actuarial findings and writings of the Board of Trustees and certify the appropriate action has been taken. The Board's trustees can go forward in compliance with her findings and grant the benefit increase, but we have to follow it step by step. The first step is that we have to pass a specific resolution requesting this be done and then we can move forward. 40 Police Pension . September 10, 2003 Page 2 of 13 • Eldon Roberts: Kit I might add that I got that information right out of the mouth of one of the actuaries that the study that was just performed that Steve had asked for,, about when we were looking at merging with LOPFI, is current up like July or August, somewhere right around in there. Kit Williams: That will be good enough. Eldon Roberts: They're not going to charge again to do another study. Kit Williams: Good. Eldon Roberts: That one will work and I got that right out of the mouth from the actuary. Kit Williams: So I think what this board needs to do to get the ball really rolling is to pass a resolution outlining the proposed increase in benefits and then we'll pick up the ball from there and start going through administrative hoops. Tim Helder: Now will you draft the resolution? Is that how this works? Kit Williams: Yes. And your resolution is to increase the benefits by 3% C.O.L.A., temporary 3% C.O.LA. • Tim Helder: Temporary compound. Kit Williams: Temporary but compound C.O.L.A. Tim Helder: Yes. Jerry Surle: Did we not do that last time? What'd we do last week, last time? Tim Helder: We didn't do a resolution to that effect we just passed it. Kit was then able to research this so what he just said, you have to do this resolution to stay in strict compliance of the law. Kit Williams : I'm just concerned that if we don't jump through every hoop exactly as its stated in the statute that they could say no we're not doing the right thing. Dr. Mashburn: I'll agree with that. Kit Williams: I will draft a resolution assuming that we need a recorded vote, we will need three. fourths of the membership so instead of just saying aye, I want everybody to vote by their names so she can get your name down on the tape that you're voting in favor of this so that it's clear that three fourths of the members of the Board of Directors have approved it. • Tim Helder: Before we do that though, we were going to implement this October 1 , we don't have any idea but obviously we can't do it by then. >. Police Pension September 10, 2003 Page 3 of 13 • Kit. Williams: Let' s just say as soon as possible. Tim Helder: Can we leave it open-ended? Kit Williams: I think we ought to leave it "as soon as it is approved" or something like that. Randy Bradley: Before we do,that we need to undo what we did? - Kit Williams: I don't know. I guess you could reconsider your previous motion, make a motion to reconsider your previous motion and table it indefinitely. Jerry Friend : Because we're going to do it again now. Dr. Mashburn : I make a motion we rescind our last action Mayor Coody: Make a motion to reconsider the last vote and that requires a second and a vote, and then you can make a motion to rescind. Kit Williams: So a motion to reconsider? Randy Bradley: I second it. . Mayor Coody: We have a motion to reconsider the last vote. All in favor say aye. Mayor Coody: So now we're going to reconsider the last vote. Now if you want to make a motion on rescinding your action. Randy Bradley: I make a motion that we rescind the last action, the 3% cost of living raise. Tim Helder: Second. Mayor Coody: We have a motion and second to rescind the 3% COLA. All in favor say aye. Mayor Coody: Does that take three fourths of the Board? Kit Williams : No, the resolution that you're going to be proposing takes a three fourths vote. Mayor Coody: The motion passed Kit Williams: They want to move to pass a resolution to request an increase of a temporary 3% compounded COLA as soon as approved by the State Pension Board, the Executive Director of Arkansas Fire and Pension Review Board. • Tim Helder: And then to take effect do we need that wording in there Kit on this.voting? Police Pension September 10, 2003 Page 4 of 13 • Kit Williams: I will put it in there to take effect as soon as possible, to take effect as soon as approved by the Pension Review Board. Eldon Roberts: It' s up to you all. We discussed this at the first of the year. It seemed like a better number then the first of November but that's up to the Board. Kit Williams: It depends on how long Tim Helder: Suppose it didn't happen. I mean if we put a date and they are not able to get this resolved with Catherine. Kit Williams: Yeah because she can't do anything. Randy Bradley: We'd have to come back. Eldon Roberts: I do expect that by the first of the year all these hoops can be gone through. And then you have the first of the year every year as the exact time that; the COLA would be implemented in the future but it's up to the Board. Kit Williams:. Well we could say the first of the year but that does leave a problem if they don't get it approved. • Eldon Roberts: I would think so. We could always come back. Tim Helder: I think I'd prefer to do it as soon as they can do it. Randy Bradley: I think the first pay period and file an approval or something. Jerry Friend : We could say effective the first of the year and if they don't do it until February maybe we could come back. Eldon Roberts: We could do that. Jerry Friend: So as soon as they could get it done to be effective the first of the year. . Kit Williams: Let me ask one question of our accounting? Do you need any kind of lead time when you're figuring this? Marsha Farthing: Not too much. Kit Williams: So as soon we hear that they've approved it you'd be able to probably get it in the next pension payment? If it' s not more than a week a way. You can still do that? • Steve Davis: We would need to know what it was based on. Marsha Farthing: Yes that would be the big kicker is what you are basing it on for the 3%. Police Pension September 10, 2003 . Page 5 of 13 Eldon Roberts: What number are we taking the 3% of? Kit Williams: Wouldn't it be the current one? Marsha Farthing: Are you going to include the money they receive for additional years, are you going to base it on their salary, or 90% of their base salary? Or what options? Kit Williams: My understanding was that they were going to do it on whatever the benefits were at this time. There'd be a 3% on the current benefits whatever they were but I don't know though. Let' s be sure of what we're asking the board to approve. Tim Helder: What is LOPFI's based upon? What is their COLA? Is it on the salary that they retired at? Steve Davis: I'm not sure. Eldon Roberts: I'm really not sure. And no where in this material that I've got from the actuary does it tell me or does it mention what number you pay the 3% on. Tim Helder: Does it say to mirror all what LOPFI? Kit Williams: Let's stay with the actuary they probably figured out where it's feasible. Tim Helder: Okay. Eldon Roberts: I can call them. I can find out. Kit Williams: Whatever the actuaries, how they figured it out. Tim Helder: Which would reflect what LOPFI does because they would be basing it on the same method, I am sure and that's fine. Kit Williams : So we're going to base the 3% on what the people that looked at this said, we could legally do that, on there figures okay. And we'll find out. Eldon Roberts: I can probably find out probably today. Kit Williams: Why don't you let me know because I'll just put that in the resolution rather than making it convoluted. Steve Davis: There's a danger in that you could be a rabbit chasing your tail. You know the actuaries calculated, based off a set perimeter. They may assume three or four scenarios and averaged them. I think you need to tell them what you want it calculated on,.because it can make a difference. • Kit Williams: What about just current.benefits? Cost of living is generally on whatever you're getting at this point in time. Police Pension September 10, 2003 Page 6 of 13 Eldon Roberts: If we call and ask them how did you figure that? How did you compute this 3%, to be 3% of what, and they can specifically tell me without it being hostigeous, an average of four different numbers, if they could say we did it off this one number then we could deal with that. Is that right Steve? If they did it off just one number? Steve Davis: If they do it off just one number though. Kit Williams: Let' s say if they didn't do it off one number we still need to have our decision made here. Would it be satisfactory to just have it 3% of the current benefits, so it would be 103 % of what everybody is getting right now, the first year in this. Jerry Friend : That' s sounds like the highest scenario. Tim Helder: I think that's right. Tim Helder: Actually it would be the lowest. Eldon Roberts: The highest would be 3% of the salary when they retired. - Tim Helder: It would be the salary that you were earning at the time you retired. tEldon Roberts: That' d be 100% of salary. Tim Helder: So the lowest scenario would be to go with 3% of your current pension. Steve Davis: Of your benefits. Jerry Friend: Okay. Tim Helder: That would be the worst case scenario. The best case would be if they were figuring it off your salary at the time of retirement. Eldon Roberts: You're 100% of salary when you retire. Stcve Davis: The way that LOPFI works is that if somebody retires in August they get a COLA the next July. Kit Williams: And it is based off their salary though. Steve Davis: It's based on their formula. It's a formula based on their salary. They don't get any additional money based on longetivity or years above 20 or 28. That doesn't work. Jerry Friend: To me that's kind of an -important question and I don't know how, is there some way we can make this motion and then settle that later. To me we need to talk to them or somebody Police Pension September 10, 2003 Page 7 of 13 Tim Helder: Eldon's going to make that call this afternoon but I would say and tell me if this sounds bad to word it that the 3% would be based on no less than the current benefits of the retired people. Tim Helder: It could be more but at no less than what the current is. Kit Williams: The problem is as long as that's not above anything the actuarial will look at. I mean I don't know how they look at it. Jerry Friend : That's what my worry would be. It would be above what they figure it. Tim Helder: What's your recommendation? I mean I don't know, as far as wording, as far as today how do we leave it. Kit Williams: I think that, that can hopefully be your ceiling, I mean your floor, and your ceiling would be whatever if there's a good figure that we can use that the actuarial used. Is that what you all would agree with me if the actuarial used a different figure like ending salary then will put that in the resolution. If the actuarial use benefits or some sort of combination of stuff it's going to be very difficult to figure out then, we're going to go back to the benefits. Jerry Friend : If this is the floor, I mean I like cushion and they figured it ori salary to me it would be safer to use the floor, a lower amount, and it wouldn't hurt, I mean the difference isn't thai much except in the hole it would be quite a bit after all the benefits for each person. Jerry Surle: I don't why they would figure it on your retirement salary. Why would they go back to that point to figure the 3%? Jerry Friend: I think LOPFI does. Jerry Surle: I wouldn't think so. Stcve Davis: I think it's based on benefits. Tim Helder: What were we thinking whenever we did this resolution to go to LOPFI? Because all WC put in here was adopt a 3% compounded cost of living to be applied annually. El:! on Roberts: I was thinking about what we draw. Tim Heider: I think we were all in our minds thinking it was based on what the retirement package is now, and I think that's what got this study done. Kit \Vif1iams: That' s what I thought it was. - El:iun Roberts : So you think 3% of your current benefit. Ki ' Williams: That' s what I thought it was. Police Pension September 10, 2003 Page 8 of 13 Tim ! [elder: So we could word it where, worst case scenario is based on that if they figure it on more I guess that' s fine to go up as long it doesn't go below what we all had intended. The other thing there Kit, is it for full paid Fayetteville Police Pension Relief both current and future. Eldon Roberts: Be sure to get that future. Tin: I [elder: Future would be people that retire later. Kit Williams: You're still talking about the old plan though. Tin, I fielder: Yes, there are still three people on it that could retire in the next year. Kit \t'illiams: No. We're not going let them. Tim ) [elder: In the event that that happens, we need to make sure there is wording to include them. Kit Williams: Okay. Tim . H elder: So we don't have to meet again to make it for them. Ki ( \`r i11iams: You don't what to let them sit and squirm. • Randy Bradley: Let' s simplify it. Kit Williams: Surely the actuarial has taken that into account. Eltlun Roberts : What the future retirees. But this Board has an option of probably voting one wa V C .lie other. Ms : : '•ur Farthing: I have a question. If somebody retires say in December will they get the Col . then in January or are you going make them be in the plan a year and a month before get the LA? Tir, ; [elder: I-Iow many more do we have? sh•� e Davis: Three. Ra : . . ' v Bradley: Three is what we're talking? It would be kind of a hardship on whoever was doe , :he calculations to keep up with that one year and a month. dCr: Let's set a date. Ra ; : : i :, Bradley . Every January the COLA would come in, is that right? • Ti : . . : :'c=dcr: Instead of on the anniversary. Police Pension September 10, 2003 Page 9 of 13 • Rq ; , Oy Bradley : So if they would retire in February then they would get a raise the next Jant : :ry. Eldon Roberts: Well what about in December? Ki ! \Villianfs: Do you have a lot of extra work at the end of the year or does it make any diff : encc to you. This January date is that going to be a problem for you to go back and figure thi > Jere )i riend : Would you rather do it in March or some time like that. Kit 'Williams : February or something like that? Mi: : dia Farthing: January through April is bad for us. It's not going to matter to me. Kit Nilliams : So you'd just soon do it January 1 . Ste-, Davis: Actually, you know if you get the retired list, you do your retirement list for Dec: :l•, bcr early in the month right? Jv; . v Surle : Yeah. Dr. . . , tstshburn: When does LOPFI do theirs? 1.mean if you're going to set this and then LOPFI taL r i [ over then its going to be completely different. Steve ] ) avis : It will be a completely different thing. Ra ,•.., Lindley: It'll be different. E; . : n Ro ;; erts: They. are July Is` but that's the state's fiscal year and that's just when they opt to heirs is July 151. Ki ! ` 1' : iiia nrs: But they do it on the date of retirement? They do the same for everyone. St. ) avis : All COLAs are implemented July 151. Jer Friend : So if we received a COLA in January then move to LOPFI we'd get another one. EN , n Roberts: You'd be better off. Tin : ) . cider: Well I tend to agree with Jerry I think to simplify things I think January. If so, : body is fortunate enough to retire before then, then just kick it in. But to simplify things 1am . : ry would be my suggestion. Ki ; Wi II iams : Okay I'm putting that down if that' s your consensus, January 1 . Ma % o i Coody: Alright so what course other action do we need to take? Police Pension September 10, 2003 Page 10 of 13 Tir. Fl 1dcr: Authorizing Kit to draft a resolution. Ki ; W :? iiatns : Right and pass by 75% of everyone who votes by stating their name.. M:_,. o3 Coody: Is there a motion. R:3 : dy L' radley: Did you make a motion? Ti ; , ,: Aider' Yes. Jcrry 5i : ir1e: 1 second. A 3% compounded COLA based on current benefits. Tir, . 11 1 ,11er: It's a five year temporary 3% compounded COLA to take affect January 1 an : i : : 1 affect both current and future. Min or oody: It that your motion. Ti . ci 'aer: Yes it is sir. M ' :,, nr C•.ro(Iy: Is there a second? Jcr v S , ; , lc: Second. M : : or Cnody: One by one, let's start over at this side. Do you want this motion to pass? JC;' . '\' l -; "j1d : Yes. Ti ; : H :_ ; . cr: Yes. Dr. Mn :,; : 5urn : Yes. Jc: . y : ; ; : IC : Yes. R :! . td) ? : :idley : Yes. M :: ; or '.. Mdy : I guess that' s 75%. K ; . +V; i'' : Allis: You have to vote to Mayor.. D :; C:. . :. v : Yes. Ki - \\' : . . : ms: Okay and the total membership of the board, is there anybody not here besides ' Stn 11.11 ., . . Ti ri ; . r: Sondra. Police Pension September 10, 2003 - Page I 1 of 13 • Ki ; ms: The motion passed unanimously. OT '. 1 : . i USINESS: Kit Wl: . ; ms: I have written to Jan Judy and I .actually talked to her and she's passed the letter Oil : !bo he change in the law now authorizing widows to be paid more than 50%. They had pe% m, been restricted to 50% of the ending salary of the retiree. It looked to me like the 1311 , s crystal clear. I thought they were limited to that, and in fact that's what we always did lic pensioner would die he might be getting 90% then the widow would only get 50%. W,.. I'ace that couple of times last year, the year before and we talked about it and wrote a MC ; :o You that the law is clear. They changed the law, Act 274 of 2003 now allows the S1.11 " 1 � House to receive more than 50% of the police or firemen' s pension ending salary. IV :: • : ady: Is there a ceiling? K 'V . ❑ is : There's no ceiling except probably 90% which. is same thing that most of the pe : , . : c v. The thing that bothered me about it is that the Act is entitled to clarify the authority ars law when you look at supreme court cases dealing with interpreting acts, the title of th_ ,oked at if there's any confusion, they can look at the title and see what the legislature mc:: :I . clear meaning of the word clarified is not changing, not giving, it's just making clear W, :dy there, I think that's a misnomer. I think that's what the act did, I think it actually ch: . law, an argument could be made by a widow that we have always had the authority, • Vil n 't know we had the authority. This act clarified the fact you always had that au: . i . i ;Id in order to give the widow benefits you have to .go through the same procedure we Ju . cough, pass a resolution, actuarial tables are checked out and sent down there and it's at! of course every time we've done a benefit increase that's what we've done. We've ne : eo do one for widows so I think we're okay but I'm asking the attorney general to cl , iimself and to say no that in fact it changed the law and that no widow can claim that sl . het 90%. Jan Judy and I talked this weekend and she said yes she has that on to the av :eral so he can inundate this. This legislative session had a ton of questions, so it M , Yhile before we hear back but I think he'll say that we're okay and we do not need to M -. ack payments or any current payments to widows at this point in time until this board dc : :ass a resolution to ask for that. Dr urn : Now clarify clarify. V I think all they did is muddy it up a little bit. K . is : If they had just said an act of change I wouldn't have been concerned at all, but tb, i make it sound better, I think that is only reason they put clarify in there. U arts: Kit, my take on that is if any police officer dies today on this benefit program, the• ; , ving 90% of their salary. . • K ; As : Right. Ei . i rts : Their widow would continue to draw at 901/o salary, I think. Police Pension September 10, 2003 Page 12 of 13 r Ki '. is : Well I guess we'll find out. El . :: rts: That first paragraph says "they shall draw the amount attached to the rank of the . their spouse at the time of his death. Ki ; i is : Yeah that's right. It was contradictory. Dr. : rn : To do that you're going to change the actuarial figures tremendously. Ki . s : It will. Elks rts : It will make a lot of difference depending on how the actuary. Jet . d : I think they figured that didn't they? Ki ; '.V 1s : No. M . yn; dy: If the fund is unsound now with benefits going up, is it going to be bankrupt ne IN lstead of seven years out? • K: , a : Let me respond to what you said there because this is an issue we might have to fac .a somebody is going to die and there's going to be a widow out there. it says it did no, : e ., Fl , it says the sum total of pension to be paid the surviving spouse of a deceased po r shall not exceed one half of the salary attached to the rank the police officer held at tin- . Or her death, this is what they added, "however the limit on the sum total amount ur, ision of PI of this section may be exceeded through benefit increases authorized un •, t: 102." All the benefit increases have been authorized under that and that's where a w; , ,i come in and say well you know you exceeded benefits so I should get that, to me th:. _ air though. The better reading I think is that this board would have to say that they wi I q the widow benefits, surviving spouse benefits to the same level as the pensioners the . s . ::nd send that down to the board and get it approved. But your interruption is ar - F .I that's one reason I asked the attorney general to try to clarify this because to me, us. I:. the legislature is going to clarify something they just muddy it up. El . rts: But if this board sent that information down there that they wanted to raise the w . . fits to the amount that was being received by their spouse that would in fact do the sal c're talking about. You couldn't go back and raise those people that didn't get the 96 I; i acrease, you couldn't raise those people because. they never get it to start with, but it , . ni the current ones from the time we went 90% of salary because that's what their hi; .i drawing at the time of his death. You see where I'm going there? K , Yeah'. I just think it's not clear and I'll let the attorney general speak on it and he will give its an opinion early enough because we're not the only pension plan lo: n . . s. Sonic other pension plans have 75% benefits and so they may very well come fo: 1, i make some claims, and this very well might be decided actually in court despite wi aey general says.