The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07.a. CCCERA updateI.. Q• Central contra Costa Sanitary District February 3, 2011 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: JAMES M. KELLY, GENERAL MANAGER?Nk FROM: RANDALL M. MUSGRAVES, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION fA� SUBJECT: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION (CCCERA) 1/12/2011 BOARD MEETING Attached is a copy of the January 12, 2011 CCCERA Board meeting agenda, with attachments. The CCCERA Board directed CCCERA staff, and legal counsel, to respond to the District's letter and to the Moraga- Orinda Fire District's letter. There was no date provided for their response to the District. This is item #6 on the agenda. In addition, the CCCERA Board adopted the 2009 Contribution Rates, item #8 , which includes de- pooling retroactively to December 31, 2002. There were no handouts for item #8. Item #7 Future Contribution rates due to the implementation of the change to the Compensation for Retirement Purposes Policy was sent to staff, to report back within 30 days, to evaluate the feasibility of developing the rates for new hires (after January 1, 2011) in a timely manner. The Actuary, Segal Company, had proposed that a three year time period be granted to collect data in an effort to accurately determine the impact of reducing compensation calculated in the highest twelve months for retirement and to determine employer and employee contribution rates for employees hired after January 1, 2011. A Safety Union representative spoke objecting to the length of time and challenged the ethics of overcharging employees and employers for three years, until the Actuary can better determine the rates. The CCCERA Board expressed concern with the length of time Segal company staff had proposed and asked staff and the Segal Actuary to propose a solution that more accurately charges employees and employers within a shorter time period. The CCCERA Board agreed to continue their past practice regarding active death and disability processes, item #9 . In summary, a consultant CCCERA hired to assist with their application to the. IRS had recommended to formalize their past practice for these processes. CCCERA legal Counsel reviewed the matter and determined that CCCERA's processes were consistent with. current law and the intent of the law. Employees Fbtirement Association 1355 willow wav SIIItP. 9`J') r.nncnrcl r.a 9459n 925.52 RETIREMENT BOARD MEETING FIRST MONTHLY MEETING 9:00 a.m. January 12, 2011 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 1.3960 fax 925.646.5747 Retirement Board Conference Room The Willows Office Park 1355 Willow Way Suite 221 Concord, California 2. a. Recognition of Sharon Venegas - 20 years of service. b. Recognition of Karen Davis - 10 years of service. 3. Public comment. 4. Approve minutes from the November 23 and December 8, 2010 meetings. 5. Routine items for January 12, 2011. a. Approve certifications of membership. b. Approve service and disability allowances. c. Accept disability applications and authorize subpoenas as required. d. Approve death benefits. 6. Consider and take possible action to direct staff to respond to correspondence received from Contra Costa Central Sanitation District and Moraga Orinda Fire Department. 7. Presentation and discussion with Segal regarding future contribution rates as a result of changes to Compensation for Retirement Purposes policy. 8. Consider and take possible action to adopt contribution rates as outlined in the CCCERA 2009 Actuarial Valuation. 9. Consider and take possible action to continue active death and disability process with changes as recommended by fiduciary counsel. The Retirement Board will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Board meetings who contact the Retirement office at least 24 hours before a meeting CLOSED SESSION 10. The Board will go into closed session under Gov. Code Section 54957 to consider recommendations from the Medical Advisor and/or staff regarding the following disability retirement applications: Member a. Melody Caughrean b. Jon Mudrock c. Wendy Downing d. Kevin Berenson e. Shatrina Thomas Type Sought Non - Service Connected Service Connected Non - Service Connected Non - Service Connected Service Connected Recommendation Non - Service Connected Service Connected Non - Service Connected Non - Service Connected Service Connected 11. The Board will continue in closed session under Gov. Code Section 54957 to evaluate the Retirement Chief Executive Officer's performance. OPEN SESSION 12. Consider authorizing the attendance of Board and/or staff: a. Spring Conference, Council of Institutional Investors, April 3 — 5, 2011, Washington, DC. b. Principles for Trustees, CALAPRS, March 22 — 25, 2011, Palo Alto, CA c. Pensions, Retirement Security, and Strategies for Investment, Harvard, March 16 — 18, 2011, Cambridge, MA. d. Pensions the 13'', Klausner & Kaufman, March 20 -- 23, 2011, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. e. Trustees Roundtable, CALAPRS, January 28, 2011, San Jose, CA. 13. Miscellaneous a. Staff Report b. Outside Professionals' Report c. Trustees' comments The Retirement Board will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Board meetings who contact the Retirement Office at least 24 hours before a meeting }A. Rand Br2dity MOMP-Orinda Fie District Phone; (925) 258 -4525 Fire Chief 33 Orinda Way IF= (925) 258 21inA CA 94563 r December 23, 201 "Board of Retirement Contra Costa County Employees" Retixment Assn. 13 55 Willow way, Suite 221 Concord, CA 94520 Re: CC ERA "Depooling"' Lww MEETING DATE JAN 18 2011 AGENDA ITEM Dear Messrs. rs. 'belles, Gaynor, Ham Caber, Gioia, Holc ombe, Buck Remick, and Pollace llr s. Viram ntes and 1 . l aramore: i � G iven the significant pudic policy issues desc - bed below, we, as Board members of the Moraga Fine Distric request the CCC RA Board respond to our quesdons as are agenda item for the CCCERA January 11, 201 Board meeting. Our purposels to seek clarification as to CCCERA's perceived authority for decisions. We are - eIy coned with respect to CCEItA's decision on recent Matter of �g is nt public policy ral import. W lir a that CC must fonnalin its decision -fig proce so it parent to the Distd as an employer sneer, as well as to the pudic. As a public agency board we have a fiduciary duty to our taxpayers. CCCA's decisions which affect the District's fmances must provide for our pardcipation prior to eco .ing fr l0 This would allow our Board to give the proposed decision or p change the and careful consideration that is due. In sum, there are three Issues Bch have caused us grave concern: CCCERA's failure to apply the compensation I imitations approved b a 2003 court decision affecting all 193 #Act retirement plans; 2 CC ERA's "depooHng" decision adopted in October 2009; a s (3) CCCERA s decision to retroactively apply the depo.ng decision to 2002. T three issues are interrelated as CCC ' un at al decisions have created an unanticipated t avo�da le fi nancial dilemma for our D istrict During tins relevant tie period of 2002 to date the District detrimentaUy relied on CCCERA's policies. Personnel were hired; terms and conditions of cmploy ent were negotiated; pension obligation bonds were succe sfffly sought; and gener the Di ct s program and 11nancial planning decisions relied upon CCCE A's representations. We estimate that ILMplemeatation of CCCERA's retroactive depooling decision wiH res ,lt in a unftnded liability of 4.9 rnluion dollars for our DlstricL Furthermore, CCCE A's failure t implement the 2003 judicial limitations on elements of compensation created a s1 cant mancial liability for the District In re Retirement uses (2003) 110 CalAppAth 426 [l Cal.Rptr.3d 790] SMnce ? 003 fi - six 6 of the District's seventy-five employees have been hired.. We believe it is incumbent that CCCERA communicate Its authority for the above decisions, and adopt transparent effective policies to prevent a recurrence of these problems. To that end, we would appreciate responses to the foUow ng questions: 1. October 13, 2009 "Depoolin" lecion: What regulation, bylaw, statutory or other authority did CCCERA rely upon? 2. Why did CCC not obtain consent or other form of approval from its employer ram? 3. What authority does CCCERA possess to imilaterally decide to effectLate the dep ' decision retroactively to 20027 . 4. As you are aware, elements of compensation under the County tnployee , Retirement Law of 193 7, Go emment Code Sec. 31450 et seq., were determined in 1 997 by the Supreme Courts decision in Ventuia County Deputy Sher M' Assn. v. Board of cerement (1997)16 Cal. th 483 [66 Cal.Rptr.2d 344]. On what basis did C CBRA apply the Veatura decision to active employee members, without finposffig the stations subsequently approved four years Iater by the In re Retirment Cases decision? Wby CCCERA waited unt 1 2011 to implement a second tier for Ventura benefits? In of r view, the above evinces a strong need for the CCCERA Board's adoption of regulations or bylaws which clearly delineate the dedsion-making procedures for fixture policy Recognizing t1at we, as an elected District Board, also have fiduciary and public policy obligations t the public t C our goal is t hnprove the worng relaonship between employer meer and you as the CCCERA Board. We look forward t your response, If the Board bas any questions or need firther clarification, please contact me at 925 -4599. k A 0-- 1 - - For the Board: Randy Bradley Fire ref Central Contra Costa Sanitary Distfict Protecting p heallh and the e n vimnmen 501-9 Imhoff Fla lartinc!Z C4 94553-43-q2 Jt!;C BOA O S: Aficim December 27, 2010 DEC 2 7 2010 � � D. HAND DEUVERED MAW . AAMA NEWL Honorable Members of the Board LUPW It WLUIU Contra costa County Employees' Retirement PHONE. (925 228-9.500 FAX 676 -7211 1355 Willow Way, Suite 221 ww.cen&afsaxmS Concord, CA W20 Dear Members of the Board: The central contra costa Sanitary District CCCSD" Board of Directors thanks CCCERA for the information it has provided and for delaying action on its consideration of retroactive d t allow Cc� review CC cERA's proposed rate adjustments. ccCSD has spent subst ntlai effort in evaluating the retroactive - pooling derision of CCCERA and the implementaflon o those decisions through the proposed member rates, to be implemented July 1 l 2011. The cumulative impact of CCCER 's actions or inactions and the de- pooling methodology would increase. CCOM's unfunded liability (and hence burden our ratepayers ) b y $20 million This poten al unfunded ilabilit y would result in a substantial increase in CCCSD's cost of operations beg inning in u 2011. As part our review to ensure CCCERA was con ecty calculating our liabil' ccc�� renewed our �! pracdces of reporting final annual salary (FAS) to CCCERA ( folkWing CCCERA Policy "Determine which Pay Items are Torn n ati n' for Retiremen ruses `folio' . Based on this revie w we concur With CCe RA's analysis that the vest n��o ' of e y J pay codes that make up the FAS are being correctly reported memorandum from Harvey Leiderman to Marilyn Leedom dated September 16, 2010), and hence the retiremen benefits comply v4th eDDERA s " Policy s , The CCDSD Board has s ignifiewA concerns about decisions CCCEPA made that led to the Proposed de- pooling ac ion, although we are willing to consider paying our fair share of the de pooled retirement costs, as appropdately determined. CCCSD rejects the proposMon that all of the current occur tances which have led t de - pooling could not have been avoided or ameliorated. We contend it is the CCCERA Board, not the employer, that has the constitutional y i an statutory duty to manage retirement funds and to determine whether and how much th fund is obligated to pay to individual retirees. I . Central contra costa Sanitary District further contends that subsequ to the July 11 1 2 d ecision , re R etirement uses (2003) 1 Cai.AppAth 426, 457-460, CCCERA had b oth of the opportuity to and obligation to modify its "Foli as i ultimately did on l � y arch 10, 2010. It is worth noting that CCCERA lack of action after 2003 led to much of eDDSD's and other employers' accrued de- pooling unfunded liability. We %ontra ° with you to administer the fund and your failure to either track or consider charges in the law at that time detimentall impact � p ctd CCCS D and other employers. For example, approximately 90 of DDCSD s 250 employees h e been hired since January 2004, and could have been covered by the second tier policy adopted K= Letter to CCCEA Board December 27 201 Page 2 this year, We would like to know why the decision to set a second tier r was delayed for years and only o=rred when "spildngs became a matter of public controversy. y Given the significant public Policy change by CCCEA to move from a Pooled system to a de. pooled system by employer and to do so retroactively, and the resultant unanticipated liability and costs to CCCSD and several other employers, we, as Board memt rs of CCrSD • reques th the CCCERA Board respond to our questions set forth on Attachrnen t an agenda item for the CCC I A January 12, 2011 Board meeting and ( 2) the CCCEA Board make this letter available for distribution at the ee of the public record. rr� Ong s part The purpose of our letter is to seek a statement and understanding from the OCCA Board as,to its perceived authority for certain decisions and the proom used to make those deci se ecx�on a we can perform our due diligence as a Board and to enure this is a lawful change We hoe n public policy. .. p that your response t this request will satisfy our concerns and make CCC ' lA s decision rnaldng PrOCeSs more transparent to CCCSD as an e mployer mern rnern . * mem ber, to other employer member as wel as to the public. It is kcal that future deci sions which aff CCCD ftnnieil and policy stags allow for ow timely input prior to be min g final. Notwithstanding these comments- and the questions set forth in the ate • chrnent� the pro fess i o nal manner In which you and your staff have dealt wtth our inquiries and concerns . a d on this rr�atter � P� We look forward to CCCEFWs response to this letter and the uestion , . attachment s pr�eser�ted �n the . I the Board has any questions r needs further ciarifica ion lease c K Ma na g er, � p ontact ,des �. �f y� at (925) 229-? . ))Michael F. ' P.. President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District cc: Ms. Marilyn Leedom, Executive Director Attachm nt A: Questions to CCCERA Board Of Directors regarding de-pooling ATTACHMENT MENT 1 October. 13, 2009 " Do- pooling" Decision Please Identify the authority CCCERA relied upon to unilateral! y implement its October 14, 2009 "de pooling' decision. To prevent an confusion seeks � � our ueor� the following. a. Did CCCERA rely on any California constitutional uth if rrty so, please specify. b. Did CCCERA rely on any California statutory autho ' if ■ � , lease specify. o- Did CCCERA rely on its own regulations, bylaws or other autho if so, p specify. d, Is there any authority CCCERA relied upon other than the a bove ? -- �. Does CCCERA believe that its Board has unfettered uth ' to . r�ty make policy decisions, without seeking input andlor approval from its employer ployer embers? if so, wharf authony does the Board rely u p. on for this conclusion? 2. Is it CCCEFWs position that its " e- it ' decision did not g require consent or other form of approval from its employer members If so what is for that the auth conclusion? 3 . When did the CCCERA Board commence its discussion of ado r� " Ong e� p ooling" Please provide a list of dates when this issue was discus the Board including ad by g publicly noticed open and dosed session meetings. lie RetroactWe Effort of'` -p ling" Decision 'l. Please identify the authority CCCERA relied upon t Unilaterally ater dude to effectuate the "de decision retroactively to 2402. a. Did CCCERA rely on any California donstlMonal auth s ec. ify o� If o, please p . b. Did CCC rely o n any California statuto utho sp ecify, ry r`t if o please G" Did CCCERA rely on its own regulations, bylaws or o please specify.. � other authonty� if so, d. Is there any authority CCCERA relied up on other th an the above' e. Do you assert that the CCCERA Board has unfett authority to m ake policy decisions, Mthout seeking input and/or approval roan its empl mamba If so, what authority does the Board r upon for t y p his conclusio 2 . Under the County Employees Retirement Laver Go p rovides � � F vernrnent code Sec, 31 p statutory authority to, on a ore- time basis, amortize urn actu obligations funded accrued l gations far 30 years, for the purpose of determining contribution rates. In � d ec i s i on � * rig employer riming its decision to apply e-� ooli r roast ve � . ly to �00�, did the Board consider exercising its a uthortty under Govemme nt bode Sec. 31453.67 if so, did the Soared decide that this section was irrelevant or not necessary? To the extent that the Board responds that no request was forthcoming from the Board of Supervisors, please advise whether, as part of the Board's "de- pooling" decision - making, any discussions have taken place with respect to the Board's powers afforded by the above statute. [tin implementation of "in re Retirement cases" Limitations on Deportable cornpensadon 1. Please identify and list any and all documents, including but not limited to settlement agreements, policy directives, etc. by which CCC RA decided to implement the compensation benefits as identifiedin the Supreme court's decision Ventura ura County Deputy SheriffsAssn, v. Board of Retirement firer ent (1997) r.&a1.0 483, 66 c 1. Rptr. d 304# _ z Please ide t y and list any and all non - attorney client privileged documents which the hoard considered Frith respect to whether ft Board should adopt, or refrain from adopting, the compensation 11mi ations approved by the Court of Appeal in In re Retirement Cases (2003)11 o cal.App.4t' 4263 1 cal. ptr.3d 730, 3. Please identify and list any Board decision to refrain from adopting the compensation limitations sat forth the In m Re ramenf Cases decision. If none is identified and listed, what was the Board's decision-making procedure, if any, for evaluating the legal impact the above 2003 court of Appeal decision? Is it accurate to conclude that the CCCE A Board has voluntarily applied the Ventura decision to all then and currently active employee members sire that 1997 decision without imposing the limitations approved by the In re Retirement Cases court's 4, We understand that the Board received a legal opinion on or about October 21 2009 related to CCC RNs treatment of final compensation and retirement benefits. Please describe the decision- making process resulting in the Board's policy to implement the Court of Appeal limits on compensation, effective in 2011.' lv. Future Decision-making Press Please identify the decisjorimmaking protocols under which CCCE A currently operates. Further, we assume that the CCc RA Board will have future policy decisions to consider; these decisions, similar to the those above, may potentially involve significant financial impact on members, including, but not limited t, contribution rates and addressing unfunded iiabile. 1564067.6 Y 'rSEGAL THE SEGAL COMPANY 100 1A Street, Suite 500 Sari rrandsca, CA. 941 04-4308 T F 415.263.3299 www.segalcozorr January 5, 2011 M s. Mmilyn Leedom Chief Executive Officer Contra Costa. County Employees' Retirement Association 1355 Villow Way, Suite 221 Concord, CA 945 20 MEETING DATE JAN 1.2 2011 AGENDA ITEM - �t q__ Re: Contra. Costa County Employees' Retirement Amocia Lnpact on Future Actuarial Valuations of Changes in Pay Items that are Considered "Compensation" for Retirement Purposes Dear Marilyn: As requested, we are providing info lion on our recommendat�i ons as to how changes in pay its that are considered retirement "Compensation" for new members would be reflected in future actuarial valuations. bate that for purposes of this letter and the annual actuarial V aluation we use ` pay" as a broad term that includes such sterns as vacation sellbacks, adm i n isftafive leave sellbacks and terminal pay items during the final avers a pay Prod. Background In 1997 the Board adopted a polio ' ed which pay items are considered pensation for retire m.ent purposes. Under that policy, various types of terminal pay were included in the de 'an of compensation for refirement purposes. This policy still applies to members with membership dates before January 1, 2011. In March 20 10, the Board adapted a change to this policy for members with membership dates on or air January 1, 2011. Under this amended policy, certain tmminal pay elements are no longer included in the determination of compensation for retir=ent purposes, X Ales of the termirW pay elements that are no longer included are as follows: a. For each year of the fnai compensation period, leave amounts sold back during any twelve- month period that were accrued over two or more fiscal or calendar y ears, and that exceed the amount that was both wed and cashable during service in that twelve- month period. Senefrts, ,Compensabov. and FAR Qonsul inn CHRms "hout the [ham[ SUMS and Coda +AC F ounding Men*er of the IIIbWtinatiiomf Group of Actuaries and Consuftwts, a global aMfMvn of Mependwd firms lbs. Wrilyn Leedom January S, 2011 Page 2 b. incentives, bonuses and othcr payments to the went they may not be received in cash dadng service, but only upon i on or rctirement C, Conversion of in -kind benefits and other advantages to cash during the fsl ca `on period. Current Terminal Pay Assumptions The contra ion rates - od in the acWarial valuation reflect the anticipated impact th�rt terminal pay will have on expected future benefit payments. The currant assumptions for terms pay (as a percentage of fit 1 average gay excluding such wuninal pay) are as follows. Gen eral Tier 1: 12. 10 Geneml Tier 2 . 3 .50 % General Fier 3: 7.5 0% Safety Tier A: 11.25% Safety Tier C: 3.75% For &tmmining the cost of the basic bereft {i.e. non -COLA component), the cost of this pay element is cuzrontly recognird in the valuation as an em only cost and does not affect member contribution ratzs. Dote that the member Basic contribution rate is not affected by the ternikal pay assu�npdon and there is only a relatively small Cost -of- rLiving (COL) component for membem As a rem the great majority of the contribution rate impact of the tinal pay assumption is borne by the employer. It is important to note that the amended Board policy reduces but does not eliminate the inclusion of pay m compensation earnable anticipated above. This means that the Board action will not reduce the terminal pay assumptions by the full amounts shown above. Recommendation for Ref eedng Ganges in Terminal Pay in Rataxe Aetnarinl Valgations duce the December 31, 2009 actuarial valuation only included member with membership dates before January 1, 2010, it was not necessary to reflect any possible change to the terminal pay assumption since none of those curreut members would be affected. The same would hold true for the Deoeraber 31, 2010 values of yak we will be wmpleting in 2011. However, there are members with membership dates after January 1, 2011 for which member and employer oontributions are curreudy being colleted.. s 114995VI s7.01 s _ lbs. Marilyn Leedom January a, 2011 Page 3 Since the level of terminal pay for members with membership dates on or after January 1., 2011 will be lower based on the amended Board policy, it is at least theoretically possible that a separate terminal pay assumption could be developed for these new members. This would result in derent employer cont6bution rates and could result in ` " y different member contribution rates for these new members as compared to members with membership dates before January 1, 2011. Ultimately this could result in twice as many separate employer and member rates as are currently iu effect. We recommend not wing any adjustment to the M pay assumption for new members until the December 31, 2012 experience study at the earliest. 'Phis is based on the fallowing reasons: It is not known how much the amended Board policy will lower terminal pay for new members as compared to current members. The actual impact will not be known until new _ members retire many years in the future. Also as noted above the amended policy will reduce but not eliminate the terminal pay assumptions* For members, the maximum impa on contribution rates would be only a relatively small amount One passibility is to try to track t pay information on a prospve basis for future retirees as if it was determined under the amended Board policy, even though in the near future those reties will have membership dates before January 1, 2011, This will allow us to better assess the possible impact of the Board policy far new members at the next experience study. At that time, we can determine whether a new separate pay assumption should be applied to new members or if another method to handle this would be more practical given the a of the actual impact. Our last recommendation concerns whether to have t employer contribution rates made on behalf of members with membership dates before or after January 1, 2011. while the total employer cost would reftect any new difference in terminal pay, this does not necessary mean that separate employer contribution rates are needed. We recommend that even if new termfiW pay assumptions are developed for new members, we would still only determine one employer contribution rate for each employer that would be contnbuted an behalf of all employees for that employer. That total employer contribution rate would be determined on a combined basis including both old and new members. This specific recommendation is based partially on administrative oonsiderations, but is also based on the fact that theoretically the same amount of employer contributions would be collected whether (1) there is one combined rate for each employer that would be applied to compensation for all employees of that employer or (2) there were two rates that would be applied to separate employee populations of that employer, :5 1 f MID5337.a13 Ms. Margr Lee January fir, 2011 ' 4 Fly het us k now if you have an c a w e l oo bad. to &smssing this wih your Board.. Sincerely, --7 Z 4� Pahl Angelo, FSA, EA, MAA.A Senior Vice President and Acvary John Monroe, ASA, EA., AZAAA Vice President and Associate Actuary WAZ 5114995v'l/05337.013 ReedSmi"t,h From. Harvey L, Lelderman Direct Phone +1415 659 5914 Email: HLeiderman@readsm'l'th.com MEMORANDUM Read Smith LLP 101 Second Street Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel +1415 543 8700 Fax +1416 3918269 www.reedsmith.com To: Board of Retirement MEETING DATE Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association JAN 1.2 2011 Date: December 20, 2010 AGENDA ITEM Subject: Active Death/Disability Applications .14-- 9- - � As explained in the legal analysis contained in our Confidential Memorandum to the Board of this same date, we believe that CCCERAis current practice relating to active death/disability applications reflects a reasonable interpretation of its governing law. The practice is also consistent with the Legislature's policy to allow active members to m aximiz e their survivors' benefits in the event of the members' untimely demise. Accordingly, we do not believe that the Board needs to adopt any additional written policy in connection with its application for a tax determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service. We understand tax counsel agrees with this assessment. Going forward, we recommend that CCCERA's practices be revised as follows: 1. The member should make a written election of Optional Settlement 2 (effective upon vesting), obtain the written consent of his current spouse (if possible) and file the election form with the Board at some time during active service. The member may change his election during his final pre- retirement processing with CCCERA staff, if Option 2 is no longer appropriate for his particular marital, parental, health or economic situation. 2, A member who elects Optional Settlement 2 during service should also execute a written authorization for CCCERA to file on his behalf an application for non-- service connected disability if, immediately prior to his death, he is permanently incapacitated for non - service connected reasons. 3. The Board should proceed to make a formal determination whether the member was permanently incapacitated for the performance of duty at the time it filed the application for non - service connected disability. For members who currently have the active death/disability form on file with CCCERA, we believe the systern may continue to honor those forms, but should still separately file a formal disability application on behalf of the member if and when appropriate, and make the determination of disability, as indicated in steps 2 and 3, above. For new applicants, we recommend that the application form be revised consistent with steps 1 and 2, above. A proposed revised form is attached to this Memorandum for the Board's consideration. Memorandum to CCCBRA Board of Retirement December 2 0, 201 a Finally, we recommend that staff regularly advise active members oftheir choices in this regard, through inclusion in the member benefit handbook, informational postings on its website and discussions in employer and employee meetings and member retirement interviews. �2_ c5t 11 . zr� o" LtL Employees' Fbtirement Association 1355 willow way suite 221 concord ca 94520 925.521.3960 fax 925.646.5747 ELECTION OF OPTIONAL SETTLEMENT ALLOWANCE 2 AND AUTHORIZATION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR NON-SERVICE CONNECTED DISABILITY RETIREMENT IN THE EVENT OF M EM 3ER! S DEATH DURING ACTIVE SERVICE To the Board of Retirement: Election of_Opt oval Settlement Allowance 2 In accordance with the provisions of the County Employees Retirement Law of 1 937 C'CERL and the by-laws and regulations governing the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association ( "CCCERA "), I hereby elect Optional Settlement Allowance 2, pursuant to CERL Section 31762 or successor section. I understand that this election is binding on me unless I withdraw this election before the first payment of any retirement allowance is made to me, and that I may make another election of an optional settlement allowance at any time, or choose to receive the unmodified allowance, under CERL. Authorization to File Non - Service Connected Disability Retirement App lication In accordance with the provisions of CERL, I hereby authorize CCCERA to file an application for a non - service connected disability retirement on my behalf in the event that I am permanently incapacitated by reason of m' jury or other disability leading to death while I am an active member of CCCERX I understand that, if granted, this will entitle my survivors to receive a non - service connected disability retirement survivor continuance under Optional Settlement Allowance 2. Social Security Number: BENEFICIARY Il\'FORMATION (Please Print) Name Address City, State & Zip Code Date of Birth Social Security Number Relations to Member Signature of Member Signature of Consenting Spouse, if any Signature of Adult witness