Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-13 POPB MINUTES.. POLICE PENSION BOARD MEETING Ju ly 13, 2000 The regular meeting of the Englewood Po li ce Pension Board was called to order by Chairperson Norm Wood, at 1:35 p.m. in Administrative Services Conference Room, City of Englewood Civic Center, 1000 Englewood Parkway. Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Nom1 Wood , Chairperson Tom Burns , Mayor Frank Gryglewic z , Director of Finance and Administrative Services Ralph "Rick" Forbes, Employee Representative James Phelp s, Council Appointee Gary Condreay, Employee Representative (Notice) L. Gary Kass on, Fonner Englewood Police Officer Dan Brotzman, City Attorney Carol Wesco at, Recording Secretary A quorum was present. * * * * * APPROVAL OF MINUTES MAYOR BURNS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2000 AND THE TELEPHONE POLL OF MAY 25, 2000. MR. GRYGLEWICZ SECONDED . Ayes: Nays: Absent: The motion calTied. OLD BUSINESS Wood, Bums, Forbes, Gryglewicz, Phelps None Condreay * * * * * Consideration of request from L. Gary Kasson. Chairperson Wood reviewed L. Gary Kasson's request to receive service credit for the time he was with the Lakewood Police Depaiiment. Mr. Brotzman reviewed his opinion as presented in the memos regarding Mr. Kasson's request. Mr. Brotzman stated that if Mr. Kasson and Bob Holmes are in the same situation they should receive the same treatment. Mr. Brotzman said that the Board needs to make a factual finding to determine if Mr. Kasson and Mr. Holmes are in the same situation. Chairperson Wood clarified for the Board members that it is possible for prior service with another municipal police depaiiment to be added to service in Englewood's Plan. He further stated he believed in dealing with Mr. Holmes, that in order for prior service with other cities to count toward Englewood benefits, the member must retire from Englewood. Mr. Holmes retired from Englewood with service credits from other cities. Chairperson Wood said he understood that the plan document in effect at the time Mr. Kasson was employed indicated that Englewood is not responsible for the prior service at other agencies, only for Englewood service time . Mr. Brotzman clarified that the Board should make a factual finding to determine if Mr. Kasson's situation is the same as Mr. Holmes. Chairperson Wood stated that Mr. Kasson earned a defened vested benefit with the City of Englewood. Mr. Brotzman said that the Englewood service time is an absolute, but the question is, should Mr. Kasson receive credit for the time he was in Lakewood. Discussion ensued related to issues including the refund of employee contributions he and Mr. Holmes received from previous employers. Chairperson Wood recalled that at the time Mr. Holmes left Littleton the Colorado State Statutes did not pem1it a refund of employee contributions. The Statutes had changed by the time Mr. Holmes left Lakewood and he received a refund. Mr. Holmes did not transfer the funds to Englewood. There was no provision in the Statutes requiring the refunds to be transfened to a new employer's plan to receive service credit. The case law at the time considered this issue a problem with the Statutes that needed to be addressed by the Legislature. Discussion ensued clarifying the process of transfening pension service credits from city to city as a police officer changed employers . Mr. Gryglewicz said that both Mr. Kasson and Mr. Holmes received refunds from previous plans and neither paid the refunds to Englewood. He does not see a big difference between Mr. Holmes' situation and Mr. Kasson's. Chairperson Wood said that the big difference was the specific wording of Colorado State Statutes and the case law that was based on the decision of the State Supreme Court, which decided that money transfer was not relevant for the award of service credit. Police Officers Pension Board 2 , . '· Mr. Gryglewicz said from his perspective it is critical that the plan be funded, but in this case the only difference between the two people is that Mr. Holmes retired from the City and Mr. Kasson did not. Discussion ensued regarding retirement plans for police officers hired after 1978 . Chairperson Wood re viewed the 1988 Eng lewood Municipal Code § l-6E-7-4, the paragraph explains the benefits earned for a member leaving prior to eligibility. He said that he is sure when the ordinances were written there was no requirement to transfer pension funds. Discussion followed regarding Mr. Kasson's service with Englewood and Lakewood . MR. GRYGLEWICZ MOVED TO ACCEPT L. GARY KASSON'S REQUEST FOR SERVICE CREDIT FOR THE TIME SERVED WITH THE LAKEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT. MR. FORBES SECONDED. Mr. Brotzman clarified ifthe Board members fe el Mr. Holmes and Mr. Kasson's circumstances are the same, they should vote yes. If the differences discussed indicate their circumstances are not the same, they should vote no . Mr. Gryglewicz asked if the circumstances or the plan requirement that he retire from the City be most important. Mr. Brotzman said, both, the circumstances as well as the plan requirements. Chairperson Wood re viewed the situations th at the Board is familiar with ... he felt that in this paiiicular case they can equate the Bob Holmes situation with the Kasson situation. Obviously, there are similarities , like with service, leaving prior to vesting , refund of contribution, employment with the City of Englewood ... those are obvious. Mr. Brotzman stated that he did not think vesting was the same, Mr. Holmes vested at Lakewood and Mr. Kasson did not. Chairperson Wood said that he did not think Mr. Holmes had vested. Ms. Wescoat stated that she thought Mr. Holmes had been with Lakewood for five years, and Lakewood had a five year vesting requirement. Chairperson Wood did not remember that Mr. Holmes had vested at Lakewood. He said that if Mr. Holmes had vested , he would have been required to leave his contributions with Lakewood's plan . Chairperson Wood said that Mr. Kasson's situation is different in that he left Englewood with a vested retirement as opposed to full -tenn, statutorily eligible retirement. The Plan specified Mr. Kasson's benefit from Englewood when he left the City. Whereas, the Board had to research Colorado State Statutes to calculate the service credit for Mr. Holmes' retirement. Their situations are entirely different. Ayes: Nays: Absent: Burns, Forbes Wood, Gryglewic z, Phelps Condreay The motion was defeated. 3 P o li ce Offi cers Pen s ion Board Mr. Gryglewic z explained his vote ... the facts of Holmes and Kasson are similar other than the fact that the Plan specifically req u ired retirement from the City. Other than that they have very similar circumstances . Chairperson Wood agreed . Mayor Burns asked if Mr. Kasson were to go to another department and retire from there, is it their determination if he should receive City of Englewood service credit. Chairperson Wood explained that anyone who left after April 1978 was under a totally different set of circumstances. Mr. Kasson stated that he is under the State plan, PERA. He said that when he w ent to work for the State it ended any relationship between his Englewood service and the State. The State assumes no obligation for his Englewood service. He stated that Englewood and Lakewood are municipalities and there has been some statutory r ecognition to prov ide credit for people who have moved from one municipality to another. He said he has examples that hav e not been provided to the Board , but said there is a cl ear separation between his municipal service and his service with the State. Chairperson Wood asked for an example. Mr. Kasson said Craig Camp left Northg lenn to become a chief in Littleton . The discussion with Mr. Camp agreed with everything determined b y the Board, except whether the interpretation by Mr. Brotzman and the Board for statutory retirement is 20 or 25 years . Mr. Kasson said he did not want to rehash to whole issue, since the Board had already voted . Mayor Burns clarified that Mr. Camp worked at another municipality. Mr. Brotzman said that if Mr. Kasson had gone on to Littleton or another municip ality, we would not be reviewing the matter. Mr. Gryglewic z said that Mr. Kasson would continue working for the State even as he is drawing his pension benefit. Mayor Burns clarified the question, would he receive credit for working at another city. He asked if Mr. Kasson draws a vested benefit from Englewood and works for the State .. .if he is retired from Englewood in the same sense if he retired while on duty at Englewood. Mr. Gryglewicz said that he would not receive the full benefit he would have received if he stayed 20 years . In his case ten -and-one-half-years from Englewood, and three from Lakewood, if he were granted Lakewood service credit. .. so his benefit would be bas ed on thirteen-and-a-half-years of service . Now it will be ten-and-on e-half because that is the time he actually served with Eng lewood . Mayor Burns clarified that if Mr. Kasson would have stayed here over twenty years then his time at Lakewood would have counted and he could still work for the State after that. He has not fully retired with "full period" retirement, but is just receiving a vested benefit. .. that is the difference. Chairperson Wood said, yes ... because the Plan document at the time specified the reduced benefit if you left prior to eligibility to retire . The Mayor inquired what th e Plan document had said before that. Chairperson Wood said, the Plan provided a reduced benefit based upon your years of service with the City of E nglewood . The Mayor asked if it was with Engl ewood and any other depaiiment. He said that he was attempting to get at the le gal issue, rather than the factual issue . P o li ce O fficers P en s ion Board 4 . , \ Chairperson Wood commented that it could be a legal issue, and he told Mr. Kasson that this decision was not final. IfMr. Kasson chose to pursue this ... his understanding of the way the Board works is that this is an informal hearing and he has the right to request a formal hearing with witnesses, attorneys, delegates , or whatever to support his claim. The Board could conduct a fu ll hearing based upon the items presented and if that is unfavorable to Mr. Kasson he still has the right to pursue it through the courts. Discussion followed clarifying the process of a formal hearing, the amount of the additional benefit requested and the availability of documentation. Mr. Kasson left at 2:23 p .m. NEW BUSINESS FPP A quarterly and annual reports. The Board reviewed the quarterly and annual statements from the Fire and Police Pension Association . Review of January 1, 2000 Actuarial Report Mr. Gryglewicz reviewed the actuarial report and the proposed retiree increase. The Board found a couple of errors in the repo1i. A corrected report will be requested from FPP A. MEMBERS CHOICE No items were discussed MAYOR BURNS MOVED TO ADJOURN. MR. PHELPS SECONDED. Ayes: Nays: Absent: The motion carried. Wood, Burns, Forbes, Gryglewicz, Phelps None Condreay The meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m. Carol Wescoat Recording Secretary 5 Police Officers Pension Board