CITY OF DELTONA, FLORIDA FIREFIGHTER S PENSION PLAN BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH

Transcription

1 CITY OF DELTONA, FLORIDA FIREFIGHTER S PENSION PLAN BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012 A Regular Meeting of the Firefighter s Pension Board of Trustees was held on Tuesday, in the City of Deltona s 2 nd Floor Conference Room at 2345 Providence Blvd., Deltona, Florida. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Chairman James Koczan Present Secretary John D. Adams Present Board Member Earl Mac Deyette Present Board Member Bill Snyder Absent Board Member Kurt Vroman Present Plan Administrator Lisa Spriggs Present Also present: Susan Helberg, City of Deltona Finance Department and Chris Nabicht, Plan Member. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES & AGENDA: A. Adoption of Minutes February 21, 2012: Chairman Koczan asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes from the February 21, 2012 Firefighters Pension Board of Trustees Meeting. Motion was made by Mr. Vroman, seconded by Mr. Deyette to approve the minutes from the February 21, 2012 Firefighters Pension Board of Trustees Meeting as submitted. Chairman Koczan asked if there was any discussion and there was none. B. Additions or Deletions to the Agenda: Chairman Koczan asked if there were any additions or deletions to the meeting agenda. Ms. Spriggs stated Mr. Vroman had asked to discuss line of duty disability with regard to taxes and some language that may need to be addressed. Mr. Vroman suggested adding this under New Business. Chairman Koczan asked if there was any other discussion or requests and there were none. Motion was made by Mr. Vroman, seconded by Mr. Adams to approve the agenda with the addition of the discussion of line of duty disability regarding taxes and other related language that may need to be addressed under Item 8A. Chairman Koczan asked if there was any other discussion and there was none. 4. PRESENTATIONS: None 5. MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Nabicht stated for the record Salem is charging retirees a $3.00 check charge per month for checks to the insurance company for the insurance premium and where we were with the discussion with Salem regarding this issue. He stated he had read the contract which states they would pay all invoices and that is just another invoice. He stated in addition to that the insurance company is charging the retiree $10.00

2 Page 2 of 6 to invoice Salem which is a total of $13.00 because Salem cannot do an electronic transfer. He stated United Healthcare has said they can do quarterly premiums so he will be starting to do that to cut down on some of the annual costs. He stated Ms. Spriggs had been tasked to follow up on this with Salem and he asked if Ms. Spriggs would be addressing that in her report. Ms. Spriggs stated she would address it now. She stated she had spoken with Lynn Skinner at Salem; they can do the ACH however they cannot do the quarterly as they are not set up to do that. She stated they had not done the ACH before but they can set that up for automatic distribution. She stated she spoke to them about the $3.00 charge and that it wasn t in the original contract; their answer was it is their standard charge for processing any distribution out of the pension and it wasn t addressed in the contract as it is not an invoice of the plan. There were questions by the Board Members so Ms. Spriggs will ask Ms. Skinner to attend the next meeting. Mr. Adams suggested if they can t drop the charge he would be for looking for another company. Mr. Vroman agreed and offered a motion if it is in order. Chairman Koczan stated a motion would have to come under regular business and recommended having Ms. Skinner attend a meeting to answer questions and have legal counsel check the contract. Ms. Spriggs has asked the attorney to do that and she will convey this back to Ms. Skinner. 6. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES: A. Consent Approval of Listing: Ms. Spriggs listed one invoice from Christiansen & Dehner for the month of February in the amount of $ She pointed out that the previous balance that showed on the invoice had been paid. There were no other questions or comments. Chairman Koczan asked for a motion. Motion was made by Mr. Deyette, seconded by Mr. Vroman to approve the invoice in the amount of $ as submitted for payment. Chairman Koczan asked if there was any other discussion and there was none. B. Other Submissions: Ms. Spriggs stated she received a letter from Atalanta Sosnoff indicating a shortage of $40.00 on the last payment they received and a request for payment. She stated they had enclosed a copy of the check showing the shortage. She stated she will check with Salem before it is processed for payment. 7. OLD BUSINESS: None A. Investment Policy: Ms. Spriggs stated based on the discussion at the last meeting about what happened to the changes proposed to the investment policy and the investment restrictions within the ordinance that were sent to the City; she had gone back and created a timeline which is included in the meeting packet. She stated she had also included some other documentation to go along with it. She stated it was interesting revisiting it and what she found was this was a second time a timeline had been done; two years earlier a timeline had been done regarding the P.L.O.P. and D.R.O.P. She stated this had gone back to January 15, 2010 but that was not when it was distributed to the City. She stated this all started when the Board had begun to transition from Principal to a manager type program. She stated at that time the Board began a full discussion of the investment policy in total reviewing the policy brought forward by Bogdahn on January 19, She stated there was a lot of discussion regarding flexibility. She stated Mr. Dehner was at that meeting and had asked if the Board wanted him to rewrite a new investment policy with broader language to allow more flexibility. She stated the other thing the Board continually discussed was real estate investment and the 65% at cost restriction in the ordinance which conflicts when you are rebalancing investments; it needs to be at market. She pointed out

3 Page 3 of 6 that a couple of other changes were requested however these changes were made by the State so they trump the ordinance. She stated the ordinance still says 10% foreign securities and the State Statute says 25%. She stated at that meeting the Board decided to move forward with the broader language and include a draft. She added this was at the same time that Mr. Dehner was rewriting the entire ordinance to include the Internal Revenue Code provisions that were being put in place so our ordinance would be in compliance; the ordinance was blessed by the Board at the April 20, 2010 meeting and submitted on April 20 th. She stated moving forward to May 17, 2010 the Board directed her to forward the ordinance with a cover letter that this was an ordinance the Board had approved and at the same time the Pension Attorney was directed to meet with the City Manager to discuss the ordinance as well as other pension matters to bring her and the new City Attorney up to date. She stated the Plan Attorney received a memo dated June 15, 2010 from Jim Lynn the City s Pension Attorney and at this time the Board was not aware the City had a Pension Attorney as the memo had not been distributed to the Board. She stated on June 30 th she conveyed to the City that the Board was forwarding an ordinance for the Commission s approval via the Quarterly Report. She stated on July 10 th the Board had a meeting where they had discussions regarding the need to update the plan with the IRS provisions and the lack of response by the City. She stated at that same meeting the Board directed Mr. Dehner the plan s Pension Attorney to contact Mr. Lynn the City s Pension Attorney since there were some time sensitive items in the ordinance and Mr. Dehner did have discussions with Mr. Lynn. She followed up on August 2 nd with an to the City Manager regarding the Board s discussions at the previous meeting. She stated the ordinance was placed on the agenda on September 7, 2010 without her knowledge or Mr. Dehner s knowledge however she did believe Mr. Dehner was aware of Mr. Lynn s position on all the items. She stated Mr. Lynn s letter to Mr. Dehner did not oppose the changes but had advised the City it should give careful consideration to making any changes and not give authority to the Board. She stated the ordinance was adopted by the Commission at the second reading on September 20, 2010 with all of the proposed changes to the investment provisions being excluded. She stated at the January 18, 2011 meeting the Board discussed the ordinance that was adopted and had asked her to contact the plan attorney who was now Scott Christiansen to ask why the changes were left out. She stated Mr. Christiansen confirmed the proposed investment provisions and the buyback provisions had been omitted from the ordinance leaving only the IRS provisions. She stated Mr. Christiansen also confirmed that Mr. Dehner was aware of what was conveyed to the City and the memo from Mr. Lynn. She stated she was then directed to meet with the Mayor prior to the upcoming joint workshop meeting with the Commission scheduled for April 19, 2011 which she did on April 14, She stated at that joint workshop the Board and its advisors planned to bring the Commission up to speed on the plan. She stated a lot of information was brought to go over with the Commission including the premium tax dollars that were available for use to enhance benefits for the members, the organizational part of this Board s influence and what the Board believed their role was but unfortunately the Board was unable to go over a lot of the information because some of the Commission Members left and the Mayor called the meeting. She stated Mr. Christiansen had also provided a draft ordinance with the new broader language for investments and the buybacks for military and fire service for discussion; this was the ordinance that was the original ordinance that had been given to the City but not adopted; it also was not discussed. She stated moving forward to September 30, 2011 the plan attorney had been asked to provide an ordinance for discussion and approval at the October 18 th meeting that was the result of a request from the July meeting. She stated the Board instructed the attorney to draft an ordinance that just had the items included that were needed, striking out the comingled funds administered by State Banks and the up to 25% at market language. She stated in addition a provision allowing the Board to determine the date of disability to avoid those on disability from going without compensation if terminated by the City before the Board could hold a hearing and approve the disability was included in that draft. She stated this would be re-submitted to get the basics and then go back and try to broaden the language later and at the January 17, 2012 meeting the Board directed the plan attorney to forward the scaled down version of the ordinance to the City in accordance with the direction from the City Manager; this was done on January 25, 2012 per the memo to City Manager, Faith Miller from Mr. Christiansen. Chairman Koczan asked that the January 25, 2012 memo and draft ordinance be included on the April 17, 2012 agenda for follow-up. Ms. Spriggs stated she would update the timeline to cover any gaps that were discovered through the discussion today. Chairman Koczan stated to finalize this

4 Page 4 of 6 timeline the Board needs to find out where this ordinance is with the City and address any priorities for future ordinance amendments. B. Declaration of Rate of Return: Mr. Vroman asked to table this item until the April meeting to be able to have more clarification on Item 7A that was just discussed. Ms. Spriggs stated at the last meeting she was asked to draft a letter regarding the 7.75% rate of return recommended by the State and the need for more flexibility with the investments to get better returns and forward it to the City Manager and the Mayor. She stated she had held off on that pending discussion realizing that going from the original ordinance to now we had revised it a lot. Chairman Koczan stated he believed Ms. Spriggs should hold off until she gets feedback from Mr. Christiansen on any communication with the City on the last revision of the ordinance. He suggested she draft the letter while working with Mr. Christiansen for the April meeting so the two can be pulled together. Mr. Vroman suggested if we do not have a reading on the January 25 th ordinance by the next meeting then we need to go back and re-address all of Mr. West s concerns before he personally would be willing to address the rate of return. Chairman Koczan suggested the Board needs to have the two documents being discussed today plus the feedback from the attorney to be able to make an informed decision at the April meeting. There were questions on when the deadline for filing the required rate of return is and Ms. Spriggs stated she would have to check however, Mr. West had stated at the previous meeting that you could change the rate of return at any time; you would just have to have another valuation done by the actuary. Chairman Koczan stated he recalled we have well into April to file so he felt there would be time but as good stewards of the plan we will need to adhere to the budget cycle which would be the end of September. He added it would not be fair to the City for us to come in on September 1 st and say we need to raise your rate. He was made aware that the budget is presently being worked on. There were concerns expressed and Chairman Koczan stated he trusted that Ms. Spriggs will have a good conversation with Mr. Christiansen and make sure that contact is made with the City if we have not received any contact from them. Ms. Spriggs asked if the biggest concern at this time is just getting the proposed revisions which are the basics that are on the table done. Chairman Koczan answered let s get that ordinance through as Mr. West s portion will impact what the Board does with the rate of return after receiving the new information regarding the impact of the 7 ¾% versus the 8% on the City if the Board follows the State s guideline. Ms. Spriggs asked to clarify that Chairman Koczan is asking for a tentative understanding of where the City is by the April meeting. Chairman Koczan stated that was correct that the City should be pushing that ordinance through. Mr. Vroman commented hopefully the January 25 th ordinance will be on the agenda for 1 st reading by the April meeting and then we can address the other issues as a follow-up at our April meeting. It was suggested that bullet points from these conversations with the numbers that are out there and their impact on the City be included in the next Quarterly Report before the Commission which will be in April to make sure the Commission is receiving all the information. Mr. Vroman asked if it would be better to address this with the Quarterly Report or at a joint workshop meeting. Ms. Spriggs stated a joint workshop had been requested however she had not received any word on a date. Chairman Koczan suggested the Quarterly Report presented to the Commission should be educational. 8. NEW BUSINESS: A. Discussion on Line of Duty Disability: Mr. Vroman brought up the subject of Ron DeGaetani who retired a couple of years ago and his difficulty doing his tax returns as it is unclear what portion of his monthly retirement benefit is taxable. He stated Mr. DeGaetani told him he receives a W-2 from Salem showing the disbursements with the taxable amount unknown. Mr. Vroman stated he had called around to friends who are members on other pension boards regarding how they receive their W-2 and was told by a member in Orlando his W-2 says non-taxable; the

5 Page 5 of 6 City of Miami says the same. He stated his concern is that it is his understanding that Christiansen & Dehner does not want to give out tax advice so he believes the plan should hire a tax attorney to give advice when the W-2 s go out to explain what portion is taxable and what portion is not. He stated he believes the first 60% of the retirement benefit is taxable and anything above that is non-taxable and that needs to be addressed on the W-2. He stated his other concern is whether we are using an average final compensation or a final compensation because average final compensation may not be compliant with the IRS. He stated he recalled the word average is used in the ordinance. He asked that Mr. Christiansen review that to make sure the ordinance is IRS compliant to receive the line of duty non-taxable and give clarification to his concerns. Mr. Deyette stated he prepares taxes and recommends each retiree go to their own tax preparer as each has their own situation; there is nothing that covers everything. Ms. Spriggs stated we have discussed this before and the W-2 is not only tagged as taxable amount unknown it is also tagged disability which means the taxability is made when you file your taxes based on your situation. She stated she is not real versed in this but did read up on it adding she is not sure if the word average makes a difference. She confirmed we are using average because it is in the ordinance. She stated the disability in this pension is no different than normal retirement and is actually a pension disability so that is probably why Christiansen & Dehner advises the retirees to seek their own tax advice. She stated there are so many interpretations and the code is not clear so using final compensation could be a real key in making it a disability versus a disability pension in which case you would have to change the program. Mr. Vroman stated he believed they would only have to address it under the line of duty compensation part. Ms. Spriggs stated she will follow-up with Mr. Christiansen and have him talk about that issue as well as whether the plan being IRS compliant at the April meeting. 9. PLAN ATTORNEYS REPORT: None 10. PLAN ADMINISTRATION REPORT: Ms. Spriggs stated she did not really have a report but there had been a lot of questions regarding custodial risk brought up by the auditors. She stated she wasn t sure if it had been resolved as Salem had talked with the auditors directly. She stated she would follow-up on it but she did not feel it was so much that the plan was at risk but it was more in the documents in the investment policy statement in Salem s contract regarding clarity on how the investments are held. She stated the concern was if Salem went out of business would the plan lose its money. She stated how that would be most secure is if the money was in the plan s name but there was a portion of the Salem contract that indicated that certain things did not have to be in the plan s name. She stated she would need to clear that up with Mr. West as he has been copied on all of this and she was not clear if that portion referred to was the liquid cash fund. She added that the investment manager s contracts are very clear and what happens is the investments are put in the plan s name with Salem as the custodial agent of record for any of the securities the investment managers are purchasing on your behalf. She stated she was not sure if the Goldman Sachs fund which is the liquid cash fund can be put in the plan s name. She stated that is the area we have to look at and she wasn t sure if the auditors had a comment on that. Ms. Helburg stated they did not however they did want that issue to be followed up on. She stated the audit was approved by the Commission last night so copies will be available. 11. BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS: Mr. Deyette asked how many of the members present had attended the pension school reminding them each member had to attend all three sessions. He stated a lot of the questions on everyone s minds could be answered by attending. It was determined that everyone had attended with the exception of Mr. Snyder. Mr. Deyette recommended the conference in May in Tallahassee. Chairman Koczan asked that there be discussion regarding the State conference in May at next month s meeting as a reminder. Mr. Vroman recommended it for Mr. Snyder since it will be his first but asked if there was anything from FPPTA on any schools; no one had received anything as of yet but FPPTA does have a website. Mr. Deyette furnished a

6 Page 6 of 6 copy of the notice for the State conference in Tallahassee so that it could be scanned and forwarded to the other members. Mr. Deyette commented this was a very good meeting and very informative. Mr. Adams commented that he would not be able to go to Tallahassee. Mr. Vroman commented the plans did not get hit during the legislative session and he was sure Mr. Christiansen would bring us up to date. He commented one other thing he would like to have addressed are Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the September 30 th ordinance and that we come up with military veterans and public safety gratitude and honor buyback program language that can be submitted to the City. He stated he believed this program should be explained a little better to the Commission as there are some veterans on the Commission. Chairman Koczan commented that he would certainly be onboard with that one and the flip side of that is if the troops in Afghanistan are being pulled out the next year or so the potential infusion of veterans back into the workforce is going to be huge and they will need to have some opportunities. He shared an that he had received that asserted defined benefits recipients are a plus to the economy in that they infuse dollars into the local economy. He thanked everyone for the very informational meeting. There were no other comments. 12. CONFIRMATION OF THE NEXT MEETING DATE, TIME AND LOCATION: Next meeting will be April 17, 2012 at 3:00 P.M., 2 nd Floor Conference Room. 13. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Koczan asked if there was any further business and there was none. Motion was made by Mr. Vroman, seconded by Mr. Adams to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m. ATTEST: James Koczan, Chairman Janet Day, Admin. Assistant II