Minutes 04-13-00 MINUTES OF THE AGENDA PREVIEW CONFERENCE
HELD :IN CONFERENCE ROOM "B"~ CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
ON THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2000 AT 5:00 P.M.
PRESENT
Gerald Broening, Mayor
Bruce Black, Commissioner
Charlie Fisher, Commissioner
Kurt Bressner, City Manager
Nicholas Igwe, Assistant City Attorney
Sue Kruse, City Clerk
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Broening called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Bressner announced that Mayor Pro Tem Sherman was out of town. He explained that his
understanding of the purpose of this meeting was a Commission planning session. Mayor
Broening added that this conference also offers the Commissioners an opportunity to add items
to the agenda so as not to surprise anyone during a regular meeting.
II.A. ADMINISTRATIYE - Appointments to be made
Mayor Broening announced his intention to make most of his appointments on Tuesday
evening. Commissioner Fisher explained that the appointments are always in a state of flux
due to term expirations or removals due to absence.
II:I.A ANNOUNCEMENTS & PRESENTATIONS_- Announcements
Mayor Broening requested that Meg Hooper or a representative from the Recreation
Department make the announcements since most of them are recreation related.
Ill, B, 2.
Presentation of check to the City of Boynton Beach in the
amount of $1,900 for the upcoming Youth Expo - Laura Henley-
Shepherd, Washington Mutual Bank
Commissioner Fisher recommended that Shanna St..John, Chairperson of the Advisory Board on
Children & Youth, be invited, to accept this check. ]:f Ms. St. John cannot be present, a
representative from Recreation or Parks should accept it.
Mr. Bressner recommended that Wayne Segal be present at this meeting to take photos of the
presentation. Mr. Bressner has requested that Mr. Segal use the digital camera so that these
could be put on the City's web page.
MEETING MZNUTES
AGENDA PREVZEW CONFERENCE
BOYNTON BEACH, FLOI~DA
APRIL 13, 2000
TV-B.1 - Award the "PURCHASE OF ONE (1) GASOLTNE POWERED 18 FOOT
ALUMINUM BODTED STEP VAN"~ Bid #044-2110-00/C.1D, to Steve
Moore Chevrolet, LLC Of Greenacres, Florida, in the amount of
$37,895 plus the additional under body condenser for the Air
Conditioner unit for $2,100, for a grand total of $39,995
Diane Reese, Finance Director, reported that this van is for Police Department use and the
money comes from Forfeiture Funds.
IVlr. Bressner requested that all future Agenda :Item Request Forms indicate when purchases are
made from Forfeiture Funds.
IV-B.4 - Approve Change Order #3 to Purchase Order #000924 in the amount
of $22,793 for Temporary Custodial Support utilizing the City's
Annual Bid for Temporary Labor Services from Tandem Staffing, BTD
#076-2510-99/SP. This Change Order will bring the Bid's total
estimated expenditures to $62,599
Commissioner Fisher confirmed with Mr. Bressner that this issue related to the contracting out
of cleaning services for the buildings and parks.
Mr. Bressner advised that this is an interim recommendation to cover the costs associated with
the transition relative to the custodial contract. The projected total amount allocated was
$96,000. This Change Order covers an additional $22,000 through .lune Ist when the other
contract takes over.
TV.B.7.- Award .Bid #039-2516-00/KR, "PURCHASE AND ZNSTALL SIX (6)
UT]:LITY BODTES AND TWO (2) TRUCK MOUNTED HYDRAULTC
CRANES" to Rayside Truck and Trailer in the amount of $61,701
Mr. Bressner explained that in this particular case, the lowest bidder (Fontaine) was not
selected because Fontaine could not meet all specifications. IVlr. Sugerman explained that
Fontaine did not offer the type of utility body that was requested. Rayside Truck and Trailer
met all specifications.
lq/.B.8 - Approve the piggyback of BROWARD COUNTY BTD #P-S-98-113-B-1
for the EMERGENCY INSTALLATION AND REPATR SERVICE FOR
WATER AND SEWER REPAIR awarded to W. 3ackson & Sons
Construction Co. of Pompano Beach, Florida for the rehabilitation of
Lift Station #306 not to exceed the quotation of $40,124
Mr. Sugerman directed the Commissioners to the Fiscal Tmpact section of the agenda item
request form that indicated $14,914,929.48 in the CTP R&.R Sewer Account. He explained that
the Commissioners would hear more about this account during the Utility Rate Study workshop
meeting that would be held on Monday evening. He reminded the Commissioners to bring their
Utility Rate Study books with them to the meeting.
2
MEETI'NG MZNUTES
AGENDA PRL=VZEW CONFERENCE
BOYNTON BEACH~ FLOI~DA
APRZL 13~ 2000
Mr. Bressner and Ms. Reese requested copies of the Utility Rate Study booklets prior to
Monday's meeting.
TV.B, 9 - Award the bid for the ANNUAL B:ZD FOR CUSTODTAL SERVTCES FOR
CTTY FACTLTTIES to Golden Mark Maintenance in the amount of
$112~620 (TABLED ON MARCH 7, 2000)
Mr. Bressner reminded the Commissioners that this item had been tabled at the March 7th City
Commission meeting while we awaited final verification of numbers and a sign-off from the
bargaining unit with regard to the hours of work. When Mr. Bressner advised that it was his
understanding that there had been a verbal sign off on the hours of work, Attorney Igwe said
he received a Faxed copy of the union's acceptance of the changes. They have agreed with the
work hours of 5:15 a.m. to 1:45 p.m.
Mr. Sugerman quoted from the union's response as follows: "This change and all others
are acceptable." A more formalized document will be provided to the Commissioners.
Mr. Bressner referred to Point #2 on the Agenda Item Request Form wherein it stated that the
proposed work hours would be from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. with one hour for lunch. The union
has now agreed to 5:15 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. with 30 minutes for lunch. Mr. Bressner advised that
Point #2 of the Agenda Item Request Form would be corrected for the record with respect to
the hours of work.
Mr. Sugerman pointed out that the memorandum in the agenda packet is the tabled item. He
would prepare a new document for the Tuesday night meeting. Mr. Bressner requested that
the union's letter be attached to the Agenda Item Request Form.
1~/.C.1. - Proposed Resolution No. R00- Re: Approving the full release
of surety in the amount of $27~645.20 for the water improvements at
the project known as Stanton Magnetics located at 2700 (~uantum
Boulevard
Mr. Bressner questioned whether a bill of sale is provided to the City that conveys the title of
the water system to the City. Mr. Sugerman responded affirmatively, but stated he was
uncertain whether that had been done at this point.
Mr. Bressner asked if a maintenance bond is provided. Mr. Sugerman and Ms. Byrne were not
able to respond to that question. Mr. Bressner explained that if the water system had been in
place for a couple of years, we could assume there were no material defects in the system.
However, he questioned who would assume responsibility if the system were just installed and
tested and defects emerge after the surety were released. Although Mr. Sugerman said he did
not know the specific answer to the question, it is his belief that by accepting the improvements
and releasing the surety, the City would assume responsibility.
3
MEETZNG MTNUTES
AGENDA PREV/EW CONFERENCE
BOYNTON BEACH, FLOI~DA
API~L :l. 3f 2000
Mr. Bressner explained that in many communities, it is customary to require a Letter of Credit.
That Letter of Credit is then exchanged for a maintenance bond of 10% or 20% of the value of
the public improvements with the understanding that the bond would remain in effect for 12 to
24 months to cover any problems with the public improvements. This could be accomplished
through an Ordinance change to the Subdivision Code. Mr. Bressner recommended reviewing
the Code to require a maintenance bond to protect the City.
:LV-C.2. - Proposed Resolution No. R00- Re: Approving the full release
of surety in the amount of $9,520.96 for the water and sewer
improvements at the project known as Via Lugano
:In reviewing this item, Mr. Bressner noted that the "Explanation" referred to the fact that the
water and sewer systems have operated successfully through the one-year warranty period and
the system had passed inspection. Therefore, the surety, representing 5% of the total system
value, is requested for release. Mr. Bressner felt this was an indication that there may be
something in place to protect the City.
Ms. Byrne advised that the last building on the site at Via Lugano was recently completed and
believes the final Certificate of Occupancy triggered this.
~ZV.D.1 through D.8 - Ratification of Planning & Development Board Action
Ms. Byrne reported that all items were reviewed by the Planning & Development Board and
were approved unanimously with the exception of:
Quantum Park Business Center (Lots 32-38) - Vote was 6-1.
Dwight Braddy - Approved staff's recommendation for denial with a 6-1 vote.
With respect to the Overlay District, Mr. Bressner confirmed with Ms. Byrne that it was not
ready. Ms. Byrne advised that a draft copy was circulated the day after the meeting. She was
not certain whether Mr. Greene had yet reviewed it. She is hopeful it would go forward to the
Planning & Development on May 9th.
Mr. Bressner requested that he and the Commissioners be provided with copies of the draft so
that it can be reviewed and input could be offered.
Em
Approve the donation of $2,500 from the Law Enforcement Trust
Fund to the Boy Scouts of America
When Commissioner Fisher questioned whether there is an application available for
organizations to use to be considered for a donation, Lt. Patrick Leonard reported that he was
unaware of an existing application. Lt. Leonard believes someone probably made the proposal
directly to Chief Gage from the Boy Scouts.
MEETI'NG MTNUTES
AGENDA PREVZEW CONFERENCE
BOYNTON BEACH, FLOP~DA
APRIL 13~ 2000
Mr. Bressner offered to follow up on this item with the Chief to determine if there is a way for
other organizations to apply for a donation. Commissioner Fisher said he would like the Youth
Council and/or other programs in the City to be considered.
Fm
Approve funding for Housing Rehabilitation Case #2-98-013, Wretha
Belle Watson, residing at 119 NW 5th Avenue, in the amount of
$12,420.
Ms. Byrne reported that the City has done very well with this program. The bids come in very
tight and the Construction Coordinators work hard to keep those costs in line.
ZV.G. - Approve Change Order #5 for Post, Buckley, Schuh and 3ernigan, the
consultant for the design and contract administration for the Gateway
Boulevard Road :Improvement ProJect, and Change Order #12 for
Smith and Company, the contractor for this project
Mr. Bressner reported that the contractor has requested flexibility with respect to the hours of
work as a way to speed up the project. However, there are associated costs since the
consulting engineer involved with inspection and verification of quantities intended to work a
certain number of hours. Those additional costs could amount to $30,000. The contractor
indicated to the City that he would incur the additional costs of the service in exchange for the
flexibility. There will be no additional costs to the City.
Mr. Bressner requested that' staff secure clarification that these additional hours would not
impact the community. Mr. Sugerman noted that the back-up information indicated that they
would work overtime in the afternoon. At the present time, they stop work at 4:00 p.m. This
approval will give them the opportunity to work beyond that time. He said he would not
imagine that they would work after dark.
Mr. Bressner requested specific proposed hours and that information will be given to the
Commissioners.
XI.B.I.- Proposed Ordinance No. O00-12 Re: Amending Land
Development Regulations, Article ~[:[, Chapter 21, Section 3. to allow
billboards in public use districts on property owned by the City and
adjacent to ~-95 as a conditional use ('7'ABZ~2)
Commissioner Fisher questioned whether or not any additional information had been received
with respect to the billboard issue. IVls. Byrne responded negatively and Mr. Bressner suggested
keeping this item on the table to allow some additional dialogue on this issue. IVlr. Bressner
said he offered suggestions for staff's investigation.
In response to Commissioner Fisher, Mr. Bressner advised that the Commission could table this
issue to .~une 6th SO that it would not appear on every meeting agenda.
MEE'I'ZNG MTNUTES
AGENDA PREV]:EW CONFERENCE
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
APRZL 13, 2000
XZ.B.2. - Proposed Ordinance No. O00- Re: Amending Chapter 18, Article
ZV, Pensions for Firefighters; creating a new Section 18-222 entitled
"Deferred Retirement Option Plan"
Mr. Bressner offered to provide the Commissioners with an analysis that was prepared on
November 10, 1999 that explains the DROP Plan. Mr. Bressner explained that the DROP Plan
involves people committing to retirement at a date certain. During the intervening time, their
dollars are put into an investment package of their choice. When they leave, there is a
disbursement instrument.
Chief Bingham explained that the employees are banking the money with interest and they can
take that money with them. This plan is designed so employees must be 20 years on the job to
participate. The total time on the job plus time in the DROP cannot exceed 25 years. From an
administrative perspective, it provides a planning mechanism.
Mr. Bressner asked if there is an eligibility list for ranks or if there is a level where the employee
becomes exempt and is appointed by the Chief.
Chief Bingham explained that in the Fire Department, there are competitive promotions up
through the rank of Battalion Chief. The Fire Chief appoints Deputy Chiefs and the Fire Chief is
appointed by the City Manager.
Lt. Leonard advised that there is competitive testing in the Police Department up to the rank of
Captain. Beyond that, the Police Chief makes the decision.
Fire Chief Bingham explained that this particular DROP Plan is designed so that once an
employee decides to enter the DROP, if he/she is injured on the job, he/she is terminated the
day before the injury occurs.
XIII. OTHER
· Commission Meetings in the Field
Commissioner Black reminded the Commissioners of a discussion at a previous Agenda Preview
Conference regarding taking City Commission meetings "on the road". He would like the first
road meeting to occur in May. He said he checked with Brian Miller yesterday at Village Royale
on the Green. That complex can accommodate 700 people and they are equipped with
microphones and podiums. Commissioner Black suggested having these meetings "on the
road" once every quarter.
Commissioner Fisher felt May was too soon to redirect people out of the habit of coming to City
Hall. He would like to provide as much notice as possible and plan to take the meeting on the
road either on May 16th or JUne 6th.
Commissioner Black disagreed and felt that regardless of when this occurs the City Manager's
Office would receive complaints. He pointed out that we could make sure the meeting is well
MEE'I'~NG Mt'NUTES
AGENDA PREVt'EW CONFERENCE
BOYNTON BEACH, FLOI~DA
API~L 13, 2000
advertised in the newspapers. Mr. Bressner agreed that we could properly publicize the
meeting and people will still feel "disenfranchised".
rvlr. Sugerman questioned whether there would be sufficient parking at Village Royale on the
Green. Commissioner Black assured everyone that there is sufficient parking in the area. Mr.
Bressner said staff would investigate all of the issues associated with using this facility and
report back to the Commission on Tuesday. He wants to make certain that Village Royale on
the Green will provide the facility free of charge.
Chief Bingham pointed out that it would be necessary to assure that the facility is handicap
accessible.
Commissioner Fisher requested a screen for a computer-generated PowerPoint presentation.
Discussion of Teen/Family Center
Commissioner Fisher would like to discuss the feasibility of a Teen/Family Center. He would like
the commission to discuss investigating this issue with respect to time and resources.
Commissioner Black was of the opinion that this topic could be addressed in the district
meetings that are planned for the future.
Mayor Broening recalled that the teen center concept existed in the Visions 20/20 Plan.
addition, he is aware of work done by Planning on the Municipal Center.
Mr. Bressner said he would pull the excerpts regarding this issue from the Visions 20/20 Plan
and include them in the agenda packets.
· CIP Progress and Proposed Neighborhood Meetings
Commissioner Black referred to flow charts provided by Mr. Hawkins with respect to time lines
for neighborhood meetings. Commissioner Black asked how the process would begin to
conduct those meetings.
Mr. Bressner felt it might be appropriate to announce a proposal at a public meeting and
develop a framework for these meetings.
Follow up on Action Items from Last City Commission Meeting
1. Mr, Bressner said he would contact Dee Zibelli to discuss her concerns about the demise
of Royal Palm Clubhouse.
2. At Commissioner Black's request, Mr. Bressner will investigate the location of the
handicap parking spaces at the Senior Center.
Mr. Bressner notified the Commissioners of the following:
MEE'r~NG MtNUTES
AGENDA PREVI'EW CONFERENCE
BOYNTON BEACH, FLOR.I:DA
APR.I:L 13, 2000
1. Youth in Government Day - April 27th - Various functions throughout the day
2. Chamber of Commerce social with City Officials - April 19th at 6:00 p.m.
When Mr. Sugerman advised that April 19th is the first evening .of Passover and the Chamber of
Commerce might not be aware of this religious holiday, Mr. Bressner pointed out that the social
event might have to be rescheduled.
3. Quarterly Meeting with the Chamber of Commerce - May 3rd at 6:30 p.m.
.,
An effort is being made to schedule an Orientation for the Commission and City
Manager at the beginning of May. The City Manager's Office will work with the
COmmissioners on scheduling.
Mr. Bressner reminded the Commissioners that he would work out schedules for
regular individual meetings with each of them.
AD3OURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting properly
adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
A'I-FEST:
Cit~ Clerk
D(('put')J City Clerk
(T~to"Ta pes)
C~'Y OF~/;~I3OYNTON BFACH
Vice Mayor ~-
~ayor Pro Tern
Memorandum
To~
From:
Date:
Re:
Honorable Mayor & City Commission
Kurt Bressner~, A ,~
City Manager ~-
April 14, 2000
Drop Proposal for Firefighters' Pension Fund
Handicapped Parking at the Senior Center
Pursuant to your request, attached is a copy of the November 10, 1999 Drop
Pension Workshop Summary for the Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund.
Also attached is an e-mail explaining the subject of handicapped parking at the
Senior Center.
Please let me know ff any additional information or farther clarification is
requested.
KB:jc
Attachment
c: Central File
Weise, Carisse
From: beBeck, Bill
Sent: Wednesday, April :17, 2000 9:38 AM
To: Weise, Carisse
Subject: RE: Handicap Parking O Senior Center
The present parking spaces were laid out to comply with the Federal Americans
With Disabilities act, ADA. This requires that the spaces must be of specific
sizes and have the shortest accessible route of travel from an "adj'acent" p.arking
area. The only way spaces could be located in front of the building is if a 5 foot
wide access isle could be provided and then all of the curb would also have to
level with the road. This is not the case at the Senior Center. The ADA also
would not allow for the spaces to be across the road as this would cause the
person to cross traffic, even if a crosswalk was painted ,as long as the rear lot
was available.
]:n the second phase the main entrance will be on the north side of the building
and the present parking spaces will be immediately adjacent to the entrance.
A "passenger loading zone" could be marked right at the present south
entrance where the curb cut exists with the understanding it is not 'in full
complience" with the ADA. ]:t would be for one vehicle only.
P
..... Original Message .....
From: Weise, Carisse
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 8:38 AM
To: DeBeck, Bill; Roberts, Christine
Cc: Barden, Georgeanne
Subject: Handicap Parking @ Senior Center
Good Morning!
At the Agenda Preview Conference of March 30th, Commissioner Black
questioned the location of handicap parking at the Senior Center. The
question is "what do we need to do to get handicap parking spaces
painted on the street in front of the current entrance to the Senior
Center"?
Please respond to Wilfred and copy me, also. Feel free to contact me
if you have any questions. Thank you and have a great day!
Weise, Carisse
From:
Sent:
To:
,Subject:
Rumpf, Michael
Tuesday, April 04, 2000 10:40 AM
W¢ise, Carisse
FW: Handicap Parking ~ Senior Center
Carisse, given Dan's rather thorough response, let me know if anything further is needed at this
time. This project did not go through site plan review but only the variance (for awning setback)
and the permit process given the minor modifications. Time is minimal so I don't want to spend
time researching it if additional information is not needed. Thanks, Mike. '
, Original Message---
From: Johnson, Don
Sent: Tuesday. April 04. 2000 10:27 AM
To: Weise, Carisse; Greene. Quintus
Cc: Byme, Nancy; Marttila. Doris; Rumpf, Michael; DeBeck, Bill
Subject: RE: Handicap Parking @ Senior Center
BILL DEBECK OR MIKE RUMPF PROBABLY WOULD BE THE BEST TO CHECK THIS WITH. I
WILL TRY TO HELP. 1 .THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD IS NOT THE CI'I'Y'S PROPERTY.I
WOULD ASSUME THAT ANY EXISTING PARKING THERE iS FROM THE OLD
RESTAURANT. 2. WE PERMITTED PHASE 1.ONLY WHICH IS WHAT IS OPEN AND BEING
USE CURRENTLY.THIS PHASE DID NOT INCLUDE REDOING THE EXISTING PARKING LOT
WHICH IS ON THE NORTHSIDE. 3.PHASE 2 WHICH WILL BE DESIGNED AND PERMITI'ED
WILL HAVE THE MAIN ENTRANCE INSTALLED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THE PARKING LOT WILL BE REDESIGNED AND NEW HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES
SHOULD BE PLACED NEXT TO THAT ENTRANCE. DON
----Original Message~
From: Weise. Cadsse
Sent: Tuesday. April 04, 2000 8:26 AM
To: Greene, Quintus; Johnson, Don
Cc: Byme, Nancy; Marttila, Doris
Subject: Handicap Parking ~ Senior Center
Good iiorning! At the last Agenda Preview Conference of Ntarch 30,
2000, Commissioner Black questioned why the handicap parking spaces at
the Senior Center are not located across from the entrance on the south
side. Per Wilfred, please review this concern and respond back to
Wilfred with a copy to ~Toyce and myself.
Thank you for cooperation.
Have o greet day!
BOYNTON BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION
NOVEMBER 10, 1999
PRESENTED BY:
ROBERT D. KLAUSNER
DROP WORKSHOP
I. WHAT IS A DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PLAN (DROP)
A DROP plan is a deferred receipt of retirement
benefits from a defined benefit plan. During the DROP
period, the employee is permitted to continue working and
receiving full pay while accruing in an account for later
distribution, the full value of an employee's retirement
payments.
II.
WHY DID IT START?
DROP began as an inducement to employees to
retire on a date certain. Traditionally, employees
retire on a fixed percentage, usually less than 100% of
pay while employed. As many employees had economic
difficulty living on a full pay, the thought of living on
a fraction of that salary was a tremendous deterrent to
retirement. This led to an agin9 workforce and an
absence of upward mobility. In the end, employees were
denied the opportunity for a meaningful retirement. DROP
allowed employees to get a head start on retirement by
enjoying a tax-deferred savings plan which allowed the~
to continue working while "banking the cash value of
their retirement payments.
III.
HOW DOES DROP WORK?
There is no DROP formula applicable to everyone.
It is a plan design feature which is structured to meet
the needs of the members of the plan. In general, when an
employee reaches eligibility for retirement, the employee
is offered an opportunity to enter the DROP. In many
cases, this is an agreement to separate from service
after an agreed upon maximum period of participation.
DROP periods range, on the average, from two to five
years in duration.
Upon entry into the DROP an employee "retires"
from the plan. The retirement benefit, including any
optional feature (survivorship, etc.)is calculated as if
the employee had actually separated from service.
Employees do not earn additional credited service and
average final salary is fixed at the time of entry into
the DROP.
In many plans, if an employee dies or becomes
disabled while in DROP, it will be presumed that employee
had already separated and the DROP will be paid as an
ordinary retirement benefit. In other plans, employees
(or survivors) will have the option of leaving DROP and
taking advantage of disability or death benefits.
Upon separation from service at the end of the
DROP, employees are presented with a variety of payment
options for the DROP account. These include lump sum,
periodic payments, annuity, and roll-over to another
qualified retirement plan.
-2-
IV.
WHAT HAPPENS TO DROP MONEY WHILE THE EMPLOYEE IS
STILL WORKING?
The key word is that benefits are ~deferred." In
order for the DROP to work, employees may not have actual
or constructive receipt of the DROP assets while still
actively employed. During the DROP period, the employees
~account" is invested. It can receive a fixed rate of
return; it can ~float" with the investment return of the
plan; or it can be self-directed. Even at a relatively
modest return of 8% per year, a DROP account can grow by
nearly 47% over a five year period. There is no ~right"
way to invest DROP assets. It is a factor of design that
must take into account the needs of the members.
HOW POPULAR IS DROP?
DROP was, until the 1990's, a regional concept
confined mostly to funds in Louisiana. Since that time,
it has taken on increasing popularity in the South and
the West. At the close of this decade, DROP is now a
national trend. The reason is clear. It is one of the
very few genuine ~win-win" propositions for employers and
employees.
VI. HOW MUCH ACCEPTANCE HAS DROP RECEIVED WITHIN THE
WORKPLACE?
DROP has proven wildly popular. In many
jurisdictions DROP participation approaches 100%. Where
disability is no longer available, service disability
retirement rates have plummeted, thereby creating a
positive actuarial experience for the plan.
-3-
VII.
WHAT ABOUT DIVORCE?
DROP assets are part of an employee's retirement and
are generally considered marital property. In all but a
handful of places, plans do not provide in-service
distributions to former spouses of members. DROP assets
are no different. They are not subject to distribution
until the employee is otherwise eligible to take actual
control of the retirement benefit. Once an employee
separates, however, DROP benefits are subject to
distribution the same as any other retirement payment.
DROP assets are simply deferred monthly benefit payments.
While Florida courts have not dealt with DROP issues,
they have dealt with distribution of marital interests in
a retirement plan. There are two particular cases of
importance.
In Board of Trustees v. Vizcaino, 635 So.2d 1012
(Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the First District Court of Appeal
expressly held that the provisions of the Retirement
Equity Act do not apply to a state or local government
plan. This had the effect of providing that a pension
was exempt from court orders requiring direct payment to
a non-employee spouse. As a result, many pension plans
have developed their own orders for how to deal with
distribution of marital interests in the plan.
The second case of significance is Boyett v. Boyett,
703 So.2d 451 (Fla. 1998). In ~, the Florida
Supreme Court addressed the question of how to value the
distribution of retirement plan assets. The Court held
that the valuation of a vested retirement plan could not
include any contributions made after the original
judgment of dissolution. This means that monies
contributed to the plan after the date of divorce would
not be subject to marital division. The unanswered
question is whether or not deposits into a DROP account
will be considered the deferred receipt of existing
-4-
benefits or an entirely new benefit which arose after the
divorce. Secondly, the Court held that the present value
of vested benefits had to be determined without regard to
any penalty for early retirement, when the distribution
was deferred. In other words, if the divorce takes place
at a time when a member can only retire by taking an
early retirement penalty, that penalty will not be
assessed and it will be presumed for the purposes of
distribution that the member was eligible for retirement
and the distribution will be based on the value and
benefits accrued at the time of the distribution. Again,
the question is whether or not DROP will be treated as a
separate element or as part of the benefit which accrued
during the course of the marriage.
VIII.
IF DROP IS SUCH A GREAT
EVERYONE DO IT?
IDEA,
WHY DOESN'T
There is no reason for a plan not to include a DROP
provision. It is, after all, an option. DROP may not be
for everyone. It may cause an employee to retire too
soon or it may deprive an employee of the chance to
include recent pay raises in the salary calculation. All
of these factors weigh in both plan design and the choice
of when, or if, to participate.
IX.
WHAT IS THE KEY TO A SUCCESSFUL DROP PROGRAM?
There are two critical elements in the success of a
DROP program; design and employee education. DROP plans
are not hard to create. They should, however be thought
out, step by step, as to entry date; maximum
participation; investment; separation; death and
disability; payment options. Once the thought process is
completed, the actual structure of the DROP is simple
legislative drafting.
-5-
Employee education is also critical. Prospective
retirees should be shown the financial implications of
DROP. This can be done by showing a side-by-side
comparison of the expected lifetime value of a retirement
benefit including DROP and one which occurs later, but
with a higher accrual and salary. Both individual and
group counseling is advisable. In the case of self-
directed DROP, providing some investment education is a
valuable service to the employee.
There has been a substantial amount of recent
litigation over trustee liability on employee benefit
selections. A Missouri appeals court addressed the
degree to which a retirement system can be held
responsible for an unfortunate selection of a retirement
option by a retiree. A city employee retiring for poor
health was presented with retirement options. He had
been married and divorced and remarried the same
employee. Because he had not been married for 2 years at
the time of his retirement, the employee was not eligible
for a joint and survivor annuity. The employee selected
a life option even though a ten year certain benefit (120
guaranteed payments) was available. The employee elected
the life option as he operated under the belief that the
ten year certain was also governed by the 2 year arrlage
- m
rule. The employee died 6 months after retirement. The
widow sued the retirement system claiming breach of
fiduciary responsibility in the manner in which the board
had explained the benefit. The court held that the fund
has a duty to provide retirees with sufficient
information to make an informed decision on electing a
particular retirement option but is not required to give
advice on which option a member should choose. A
member's unilateral mistake of fact is not enough to
create liability for the fund or to warrant allowing the
employee to retroactively change his/her decision. Ri~
v. Missouri Local Government Employees Retirement Syste~,
981 S.W.2d 585 (Mo. App. 1998). In a similar case, a
Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation judge suffering from
-6-
terminal cancer met with retirement counselors to discuss
V '
arlous retirement options. After a complete explanation
of all available options, the judge selected a benefit
which provided no survivorship. The judge died 6 weeks
after beginning retirement. The surviving spouse
attempted to set aside the retirement option claiming
that her husband's illness prevented him from making a
meaningful decision. The court held that the evidence in
the case showed that while the judge was ill, there was
no evidence of mental infirmity and that an after-the-
fact attack on a knowing waiver of survivorship rights
would not be permitted. Despite the substantial
forfeiture of benefits, the life-only benefit was upheld
and the widow's claim was dismissed. .Stevenson v, State
Employees, Retirement Board, 711 A.2d 533 (Pa Cmwlth
1998). ' ·
Similar issues are presented in counseling employees
regarding DROP. As noted previously, DROP is not for
everyone. A young retiree may well give up the
opportunity to accrue a substantially higher benefit
which, over time, could yield a greater lifetime benefit
than would be accomplished upon entry into the DROP. It
is critical that retirement funds run parallel
projections showing both the effect of the DROP as well
as the impact of continued service and accrual of
benefits. Projections should be run on an individual
basis as certain employees may have recently received a
raise or a promotion which could substantially impact on
average final compensation if the employee were to delay
entry into the DROP program.
Xe
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DROP PLANS.
While Florida courts have yet to address the issue of
DROP, courts in two states have considered various legal
implications of the plans. Not unexpectedly, Louisiana
courts have engaged in a comprehensive analysis of DROP
-7-
in a variety of areas given the fact that DROP plans have
existed in Louisiana for nearly 30 years. Some of the
leading cases are set forth below:
In Page v. Grambling State University, 722 So.2d 329
(La. App. 1998), the assistant director for financial aid
entered the 3-year DROP but was terminated after one
year. He brought an action against the university
seeking damages for breach of contract and also seeking
injunctive relief. As an executive, the assistant
director served at the will of the employer and was
subject to discharge with or without cause. The employee
argued that his entry into the DROP in essence was a
contract of employment for a specific term and he could
not be terminated during his DROP tenure. The court
determined that as a matter of law, nothing guaranteed
the employee continued employment or altered the at-will
rule. The court did send the case back to the trial
court to determine whether the parties, by their specific
conduct in that case, had somehow modified the rule about
at-will employment.
In Schlosser v. Beha~, 722 So.2d 1129 (La. App.
1998), the court considered the distribution of the
former wife's rights in her former husband's pension.
The husband was employed as a New Orleans police officer
for the 8 years of their marriage. Following the
divorce, the employee remained in the department for an
additional 20 years. Shortly after the officer retired,
the former wife appeared from what the officer called his
"distant past" seeking her legal interest under
Louisiana's community property law. Under the community
property law, the former wife was entitled to the value
of one-half of the pension credit earned during the time
of the marriage. The former wife claimed an interest in
the DROP account which began accruing 3 years before
actual separation. After completion of the DROP, the
officer took advantage of a continued work provision and
deferred his receipt of retirement benefits for an
-8-
additional 3 years while continuing to work as a police
officer. The former wife claimed a community property
interest in the DROP benefits as well as the right to the
immediate receipt of her share of retirement benefits
even though the continued employment by the former
husband delayed their distribution. The trial court
found that since the officer did not enter the DROP
program until 17 years after the termination of the
marriage, the former wife had no community share of the
DROP. In addition, the trial court correctly held that
there was no obligation to pay any of the community
property share of the pension benefit until the employee
actually began collecting his pension checks.
The issue of termination rights was again addressed
by the Louisiana Court of Appeals in Smith v. Evangeline
Parish School Boar~, 663 So.2d 281 (La. App. 1996). In
1989, Smith was appointed as principal of an elementary
school. His contract was to expire in June, 1992. In
May, 1992, the school board voted not to renew Smith's
contract. He was not given written notice as required by
his contract. Despite that fact, Smith accepted a job
offered by the school board as a high school teacher.
Some months later, Smith applied for retirement which was
granted. The following year, Smith filed suit against
the school board based on the fact that he had not
received proper written notice of the non-renewal of his
principal's contract. Among the elements of damages was
his inability to participate in the DROP plan. The court
held that Smith's voluntary entry into the retirement
plan rather than protesting his non-renewal at the time
constituted a waiver of any rights to claim re-
employment. It also constituted a waiver of any right to
participate in the DROP.
The question of reinstatement of a former DROP
participant was addressed by the Missouri Court of Appeal
in Firemen's Retirement System v. City of St. Loui~, 911
S.W.2d 679 (Mo. App. 1995). In this case, the Firemen's
-9-
Retirement System sought an injunction against the city
and the personnel department employing as a firefighter
an individual who had retired from the fire department
and was receiving benefits. The firefighter had retired
after 30 years of service and began receiving his pension
benefits. The following year, the firefighter was
rehired. Shortly after rehire, the firefighter elected
to join the DROP plan and attempted to alter his
beneficiary status within the retirement system. The
system denied his request for participation in the DROP
and demanded that the city terminate the employee. The
appeals court held that so long as the firefighter
terminated the active receipt of benefits, he was not
only eligible for re-employment, but would be considered
a member of the retirement system. As he met the
requisite years of service for DROP participation,
nothing prohibited the firefighter from entering the DROP
program. The court held that if there is an inequity or
conflict, it should be resolved legislatively and not in
the court.
In Stubbs v. Stubby, 610 So.2d 892 (La. App. 1993),
the court considered whether a Baton Rouge firefighter
who became divorced while in the DROP plan owed a special
community interest to his former wife in those monies.
Under the terms of the divorce decree, the wife was
entitled to 14% of the husband's retirement benefits
based on the years of marriage. The wife contended,
however, that because the husband joined the DROP plan
during the term of the marriage, that it became part of
the community property and therefore she was entitled to
50%. The appeals court held that the DROP account was
merely the delayed receipt of previously earned benefits
and did not constitute a separate benefit attributable to
the marriage. While the wife had claimed that the DROP
account consisted essentially of a defined contributio~
plan separate and apart from the defined benefit plan,
the court disagreed finding that the same percentage of
distribution applicable to the main benefit was also
applicable to the DROP.
XI.
THE CASE FOR A SELF-DIRECTED DROP
Most DROP plans either grant interest on
accumulations at a fixed rate or at the actual earnings
rate of the plan. Increasingly, plans are offering an
additional alternative; self-directed investment.
The case for self-directed investment finds support
generally in the different risk tolerances of retirees.
Allowing the benefit to float at the rate of the fund
means that the member's investment portfolio runs at the
same risk tolerance as the fund which may be
substantially greater than that which the member can
absorb. Conversely, a fixed rate while guaranteeing a
return, may be far below the risk tolerance which a
member is willing to take in order to enhance the value
of the account.
By providing a selection of mutual funds and letting
the member direct their own investment, the board takes
itself out of any responsibility for gains or losses on
investment return and leaves the decision and the risk
parameters to the member.
XII.
QUESTIONS AND CONCLUSION
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS
PRESENTATION, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT US AT
ROBERT D. KLAUSNER, P.A., 10059 N.W. IsT COURT,
PLANTATION, FLORIDA 33324; TELEPHONE: (954) 916-1202; FAX
(954) 916-1232.
Memorandum
From:
Date:
Re:
Honorable Mayor & City Commission
City Manager ~/~
April 14, 2000
Preliminary Discussion of Teen/Family Center
Staff has reviewed the Vision 20/20 document and determined that there are no
specific referrals to a youth/teen/family center. It might have been referenced in
a pre-Vision CRA masterplan document, which Vision 20/20 has superceded.
If the Commission is interested in pursuing this, they could refer the matter to
the Advisory Board on Children and Youth, with possible coordination with the
Parks & Recreation Board, to study the feasibility of a dual use facility or shared
use of city facilities.
KB:jc
c: Central File
From;
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bressner, Kurt
Thursday, April 13, 2000 6:32 PM
Costello, Joyce; Kruse, Sue
Sugerman, Dale; Hawkins, Wilfred; Byrne, Nancy; Igwe, Nicholas; Collins, Sue;
Reese, Diane; Segal, Wayne
Follow-up Needed for Commission Agenda
Recap of items needed based on discussion with Commission:
Announcements
For all the Park and Rec Announcements it was suggested that staff make the announcements
with as a promo for the events. We also need a photo op of the presentation from the Youth
Expo w/the bank and Shauna St. John for the internal and external web page. (Wilfred/Wayne)
Consent Agenda Items
B9 -- Need corrected agenda summary sheet with the hours of work per item 2 on sheet to reflect
union sign off and letter from union (Dale and Wilfred)
Item G: Need to verify the proposed hours of work the contractor is suggesting to make sure it is
not before or after the ordinance hours or at a time that is inconvenient to the neighborhood.
(Dale)
XI Legal -- A. 1 Recommended that this item be tabled to 6/6/00 by motion to allow staff to work
on issue.
A-2: DROP Proposal for Fire Pension -- Commission would like copies of the 11/10/99 Drop
Pension Workshop SummarY. (Joyce -- copy in KB's Out basket.)
NEW Agenda Items (Do these appear in XIII "Other"??
1. Proposed Commission Meetings in the Field -- First one is proposed for 5/2/00. at Village
Royale on the Greens. Staff needs to provide information to CM to make a verbal report as to:
(Wilfred)
Seating
Parking
ADA
Sound System (who provides)
Cost (got to be free)
Notification Procedures to Public -- what are we doing?
Screen for computer presentation anticipated for CRA recommendations.
2. Preliminary discussion of Teen/Family Center
Staff will need to obtain and copy excerpts of the Vision 20/20 Plan for this topic for Commission
and final packets. (Joyce)
3. CIP Process and Proposed Neighborhood Meetings (Wilfred)
A short memo with flow chart is needed to be included in final packet.
Meeting Schedules Review:
All ok except possible conflict with Chamber Social on 4/19th due to Passover conflict. (Joyce)