Loading...
10/17/1994 TRUSTEES OF THE EMPLOYEES' PENSION FUND MEETING October 17, 1994 The City Commission, meeting as the Board of Trustees of the Employees Pension Fund, met in regular session at City Hall, Monday, October 17, 1994 at 10:03 A.M., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Chairperson Richard Fitzgerald Trustee Sue Berfield Trustee Arthur X. Deegan, II Trustee Fred Thomas Trustee Also Present were: Elizabeth M. Deptula City Manager Pamela K. Akin City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk ITEM #2 - Minutes: Trustee Fitzgerald moved to approve the minutes of the October 3, 1994, meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Request for Acceptance into Membership: The City Manager presented the recommendation of the Pension Advisory Committee to approve membership for the employee(s) listed below: a) Judith Horton b) Loren Pratt c) Joseph Hill d) Linda Ratcliffe e) Amy Crane f) Robert Furman g) Rodney Cornwell h) Curtis Jenney i) Lana Bullian j) Kent A. Walker k) Michael Cieslak l) Dana Belson Trustee Thomas moved to accept the recommendation of the Pension Advisory Committee. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 - Request for Pension: The City Manager presented the recommendation of the Pension Advisory Committee that Edgar E. Padgett be granted a job-connected disability pension under Section(s) 2.397 and/or 2.399 of the Employees' Pension Plan. Edgar E. Padgett, was employed by the City on April 29, 1975, and began participating in the Pension Plan on October 29, 1975. On May 6, 1994, he suffered a myocardial infarction while on duty which is the basis for his request for a job-connected disability pension. Mr. Padgett has submitted letters from Dr. Scott B. Baker, dated June 10, 1994, and Dr. Douglas J. Spriggs, dated July 7, 1994 and September 6, 1994. An independent medical evaluation (IME) was performed by Dr. Pankaj H. Gandhi who submitted a report dated September 9, 1994. The letter from Dr. Baker states, "It is my feeling that based on these objective tests that ... he is permanently and totally disabled to perform as a combat Fire Fighter." The letter from Dr. Spriggs states, "Mr. Padgett suffered a myocardial infraction in early May of 1994 ... Based on his present medical status I believe the patient is permanently and totally disabled to perform as a combat Fire Fighter." The IME report states, "Mr. Edgar Padgett had sustained anterior wall infarction on May 6, 1994, in Clearwater, Florida, while he was working as a Firefighter. After closely reviewing his case history and ... testing, I would classify him as permanently and totally disabled to perform as a combat firefighter ... Mr. Padgett can perform light duty work without any increased stress or heavy physical exertion firefighting demands. In the absence of light duty job classification he is considered medically disabled." Under the Firefighter's "heart and lung" bill, there is a presumption that any heart or lung problem incurred by a Firefighter is job-connected. Mr. Padgett's request for a job-connected disability pension was approved by the PAC at its meeting of September 21, 1994. This pension will be effective at the expiration of his vacation and sick leave accrual. Based on an average salary of approximately $33,400 over the past five years and the formula for computing job-connected disability pensions, Mr. Padgett's pension will approximate $25,050 annually. Charts from Finance which take into consideration mortality rates and age reflect the "present value cost of financing" this pension will be approximately $279,654. When Mr. Padgett was originally employed, pension deductions were not taken for the first six months and employees contributed to Social Security. When employees were given an option to buy back their first six months of service, Mr. Padgett chose not to exercise such option. Trustee Berfield moved to accept the recommendation of the Pension Advisory Committee. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Approve changing the asset valuation method used in the Employees Pension Plan from a market value approach to a five year moving average of assets valued at market value method In the past, a market value approach has been used in the actuarial valuation of the Employees Pension Fund. This approach uses the current market value of plan assets. As part of actuarial valuation, the rate of return on investments is assumed to be 7%. Due to market conditions, the actual investment return has varied in the past eight years from a high of 28.52% in 1991 to a low of 6.21% in 1990. This volatility causes fluctuations in the contribution required by the City. When the rate of return has been low, the contribution required by the City has been high. Conversely, when the rate of return has been high, the contribution required by the City has been low, however, as required by ordinance, the City must still contribute an amount equal to the amount contributed by the employees (6% of payroll) which has caused a large credit balance to accrue (currently estimated at $4,897,904). As discussed at the Trustees' November 29, 1993 meeting, and with approval, effective January 1, 1994, the actuarial value of assets will be based on a five year moving average of assets valued at market value. Under this method, any difference between the actual rate of return on investments for a given year and the expected rate of return is spread over five years. The use of this derived value of plan assets rather than current market value will produce a more stable funding pattern for the plan by partially eliminating the effect of unusual market fluctuations. Two valuations were prepared this year using both the market value approach as used in the past and the proposed five year moving average method. Comparison of the funding requirements under the two methods are as follows: Past Method Proposed Method (Market Value) (Asset Smoothing) Variance City Ordinance Required Contribution (estimated, equal to employee contribution of 6%) $2,322,658 $2,322,658 -0- Minimum Actuarial Required Contribution (Florida Statutes) $2,263,618 $2,563,746 $300,128 Increase (decrease) in credit balance currently estimated to be $4,894,904 $ 59,040 ($ 241,088) ($300,128) The increase in the minimum actuarial required contribution for the proposed method as compared to the past method is due to a 9.29% actual rate of return on investments in 1993 compared to the assumed rate of 7%. Only one-fifth of this positive variance of 2.29% is recognized in the current year under the proposed method, whereas the entire positive variance is reflected in the past method. The benefit to the City will become more apparent in any year in which the actual rate of return is less than 7%. The increase in the city contribution under this scenario will not be as much as if the past method were used due to realizing only one-fifth of the negative variance in each of the next five years. Trustee Thomas expressed concern regarding the ability to accurately forecast the market over a five year time frame. Steve Metz, the plan's actuary, indicated the only difference between the current process and the proposal is that the difference between the estimated rate of return and the actual return will be spread out over a five year period. Trustee Thomas questioned what would happen in the event of a severe down turn in the market. Mr. Metz indicated this method would provide for an automatic spreading out of the effect. He emphasized the Trustees have the ability to re-evaluate the method each year and to change it. The City Manager stated this method will have no effect on how the plan's funds are invested. Trustee Thomas indicated he wanted to be assured that if there is a serious "hit" the plan would still be able to collect its contribution. Mr. Metz indicated this would not change that. Trustee Fitzgerald questioned if the City's contribution would be constant over the five year period. Mr. Metz indicated adjustments would be made each year, however, the "pain" or benefit would be spread out. Trustee Deegan questioned how the contribution required by Florida Statute was computed and whether this was a flat fee. Mr. Metz indicated the actuarial study each year determined the amount needed to meet the statute requirement. Trustee Deegan questioned if the proposal would effect the amount needed to meet state requirements. Mr. Metz indicated it would. Trustee Deegan questioned references to increases in the contribution if the rate of return was greater than estimated. It was indicated this was actually less of a decrease than the current method, not an actual increase in the amount of contribution. Trustee Deegan questioned an entry in the summary from Mr. Metz which seems to indicate an increase in the expected employee contribution when the narrative indicates this should be a decrease. Mr. Metz indicated brackets should have been placed around the figure 357,530 indicating it is a decrease. Trustee Berfield questioned if this method is similar to income averaging. Mr. Metz indicated it was. Trustee Thomas questioned if there was a triggering devise to call for re-evaluation in the event of an extraordinary up or down turn. The City Manager indicated this method is not subject to change based on ups or downs in the market. Trustee Thomas expressed concern regarding there being no trigger for re-evaluation. Ms. Deptula indicated the change would be in the investment process. Trustee Deegan questioned if the assumption on return could be changed. Ms. Deptula indicated she would be reluctant to do without an evaluation of all assumptions. Mr. Metz indicated this is the purpose of the actuarial report. Chairperson Garvey questioned if the City Manager was comfortable with this recommendation. Ms. Deptula indicated she believed this to be the appropriate action at this time. Trustee Fitzgerald indicated this is not irreversible. Mr. Metz said the Division of Retirement would not be comfortable with changes only when it benefits the City. Chairperson Garvey stated it is the responsibility of the City to assure the plan is secure. Trustee Deegan indicated this will not be hurting anyone in the plan. Trustee Deegan moved to approve changing the asset valuation method used in the Employees Pension Plan from a market value approach to a five year moving average of assets valued at market value method. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #6 - Other Business: H. M. Laursen, Human Resources Director, indicated an employee wished to address the Trustees. As background, Mr. Laursen indicated Pension Plan Policy established the procedure to be used in order for a reinstated employee to buy back pension credit. That policy provides that in order to buy back credit the monies withdrawn must be returned plus interest. This employee was terminated, the termination was overturned on appeal and the employee does not feel they should have to pay the interest in order to buy back the pension credit. The City Manager questioned what has been done in the past. Mr. Laursen indicated the policy has been adhered to, he emphasized there has not been a lot of opportunity to exercise the policy. The Chair questioned the employee having been terminated. Mr. Laursen confirmed this and indicated the Hearing Officer recommended overturning the appeal and imposing a 20 day suspension instead. The Chair questioned how long the employee was off the payroll. Mr. Laursen indicated approximately 11 months. Trustee Thomas questioned if the City Attorney was aware of the case. Mr. Laursen indicated Assistant City Attorney Miles Lance had been involved with this case. Trustee Berfield questioned if the employee should be allowed to speak. The City Attorney indicated as we were no longer in litigation the employee could speak. Mr. Laursen indicated the employee is here today because there is a 90 day time frame in which the buy back must be requested. The meeting recessed from 10:31 a.m. to 10:35 a.m. Linda Ratcliffe stated she was wrongfully fired and had to take her pension funds out to live on. She stated she was not informed the interest would be due should she be reinstated and want to buy back her credit. She requested the Trustees allow her to re-enter the plan without paying the interest. Mr. Laursen indicated he fully informed Mr. McQuire, Ms. Ratcliffe's attorney, of the requirements to re-enter the plan. Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney, indicated it was not mandatory for the funds to be withdrawn and if Ms. Ratcliffe wants to buy back in she should pay the interest. Trustee Thomas questioned if a document is signed when funds are withdrawn from the plan. Mr. Laursen indicated there is but he did not know if it referenced the requirements for re-entry. Trustee Thomas questioned if there was any conversation with the employee reminding them of the requirement. Mr. Laursen again stated Ms. Ratcliffe's attorney was fully informed. Chairperson Garvey questioned if Ms. Ratcliffe had received back pay. Mr. Laursen estimated she had received $22,000; Ms. Ratcliffe indicated she had only received $16,000. Trustee Berfield questioned if Ms. Ratcliffe's attorney should have been aware of this. Mr. Laursen reiterated he had multiple discussions with him. Trustee Deegan questioned if the attorney was aware of the requirement when Ms. Ratcliffe actually withdrew the funds. Mr. Laursen indicated he did not know. Trustee Deegan felt there were two questions; when she withdrew the money did she know interest would be due if she wanted to buy back credit and should she pay the interest now that she is reinstated. The Chair questioned if there had been one other case. Mr. Laursen indicated he believed so. He stated the policy has only been in effect since 1991. Trustee Deegan stated he believed the employee was "forced" to take out the funds due the long time it took to resolve this case. He felt the City should bear some responsibility as Mr. Ratcliffe was inappropriately dismissed and not working was not her choice. He felt it appropriate to waive the interest. Trustee Thomas felt the City was remiss in not having a form that clearly states the ramifications of withdrawing the funds. Chairperson Garvey questioned if the policy should be changed. Trustee Thomas stated the policy is correct; the application was not. He did not like that this individual was not told of all her rights and responsibilities Trustee Deegan moved to waive the interest for this instance. The motion was duly seconded. Mr. Laursen was provided with a copy of the form which employees sign when withdrawing funds. He read from the form a statement that indicates interest will be due if the employee is reinstated and wants to buy back credit. Trustee Deegan stated he still felt it appropriate to waive the interest in this case. Charles Pollick, stated if an employee is wrongfully terminated and wins an appeal to be reinstated, that person should not be harmed in any way. Trustee Thomas stated the employee should go back into the plan under the same terms and conditions as other employees and paying the interest puts her on equal footing with those that have been contributing and earning interest. He stated keeping the pension fund whole is the issue. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the City had taken this to Circuit Court and lost would attorney fees have been allowed? The City Attorney indicated this would not be a fees case. Chairperson Garvey stated that while she had empathy for Ms. Ratcliffe's situation she questioned what would happen the next time someone came forward saying they had a hardship. Trustee Berfield questioned if Ms. Ratcliffe worked at all during the year she was not working for the City. Ms. Ratcliffe indicated she worked for approximately two weeks which were deducted from her pay. The City Manager suggested this item be continued. Trustee Berfield stated she would like to see the form Ms. Ratcliffe signed. She felt Ms. Ratcliffe should have her attorney present. She indicated she wanted to give this some thought as she understands the employees position but does not want to set a precedent. She requested pertinent information be provided. Trustee Thomas agreed seeing the form Mr. Ratcliffe signed was critical to his decision. He stated it was his position the employee should not benefit or be harmed by the decision. Upon the vote being taken; Trustees Deegan and Fitzgerald voted "Aye", Trustees Berfield and Thomas and Chairperson Garvey voted "Nay." Motion failed. Trustee Deegan stated the subject can be brought up by a member on the prevailing side if additional information persuades them to do so. The City Manager stated the pertinent information will be provided. ITEM #7 - Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 11:02 a.m.