Colorado § 31-30.5-210 - Plan amendment.

§ 31-30.5-210. Plan amendment.

(1) No modification of any provision of an old hire pension plan established pursuant to this article may be made after December 1, 1978, except as may be authorized by subsection (2) of this section.

(2) Upon the request of an employer and with the approval of sixty-five percent of the active and retired old hire members, the board of directors of the fire and police pension association established pursuant to section 31-31-201 (1), shall permit the modification of any provision of an old hire pension plan established pursuant to this article, if the board determines that such modification will maintain or enhance the actuarial soundness, as defined in section 31-31-102 (1), of such fund. In addition, upon the request of an employer, the board shall permit the modification of any provision of an old hire pension plan necessary to comply with state or federal law. Such modification may be made without the approval of the active and retired old hire members. This subsection (2) shall not be construed to authorize the board to allow a modification of any such old hire plan so as to change the nature of the plan from a defined benefit plan to a money purchase plan or to adversely affect the pension benefits of active or retired old hire members.

Source: L. 96: Entire article added with relocations, p. 865, § 1, effective May 23. L. 2003: (2) amended, p. 827, § 2, effective April 1. L. 2005: (2) amended, p. 135, § 2, effective August 8.

Editor's note: Provisions of this section were formerly numbered as §§ 31-30-805 (10)(a) and 31-30-1005 (6).

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. Since § 31-30.5-210 is similar to § 31-30-1005 as it existed prior to the 1996 amendment that relocated parts 3 through 10 of article 30, relevant cases construing the provisions of those sections have been included in the annotations to this section.

Legislative intent under former provision. Although this part does not specifically state that a city will be solely liable for making pension funds actuarially sound, it is apparent that this was the legislative intent. City of Colo. Springs v. State, 626 P.2d 1122 (Colo. 1980).

Fact that the general assembly increased the mandatory municipal contribution in this part does not mean that the general assembly intended in § 31-30-503 that cities should be totally financially responsible for pension funds. City of Colo. Springs v. State, 626 P.2d 1122 (Colo. 1980).

Section prevails over § 31-30-503 under former law. This section has a later effective date than § 31-30-503 and therefore prevails. City of Colo. Springs v. State, 626 P.2d 1122 (Colo. 1980).

Governing body controls amount of employee contribution. The governing body of the municipality has control over the amount of the employee contribution up to the prescribed maximum. City of Colo. Springs v. State, 626 P.2d 1122 (Colo. 1980).

Health insurance benefits may also be provided to retirees covered by the Policemen's and Firemen's Pension Reform Act. The provisions of this act indicate that the fund's administrative board may contract with carriers to provide this type of coverage. The act does not specify the manner in which these benefits are to be funded, nor does it specify the extent of coverage which may be provided. Colo. Springs Fire Fighters v. Colo. Springs, 784 P.2d 766 (Colo. 1989).

Rules promulgated by fund's administrative board to enable it to review whether an employer had elected to continue rank escalation benefits after January 1, 1980, fit squarely within the board's express statutory authority under subsection (1)(j). Pueblo v. Fire and Police Pension Ass'n, 827 P.2d 597 (Colo. App. 1992).

Hearing held by fund's administrative board to review and ascertain the character or nature of the city's determination regarding continuation of rank escalation benefits was critical to the board's ability to carry out its statutory obligations, first, to members eligible for benefits under pension plans affiliated with FPPA and, second, to the state in distributing its contributions to such plans. Pueblo v. Fire and Police Pension Ass'n, 827 P.2d 597 (Colo. App. 1992).

Actions taken by fund's administrative board under its rules were limited to interpreting acts taken by the employer, and the dispositive actor in setting the scope of pension benefits, undisputably a local policy issue, continued under the rules, to the city as the employer. Pueblo v. Fire and Police Pension Ass'n, 827 P.2d 597 (Colo. App. 1992).

As "gatekeeper" of state moneys, fund's administrative board must insure that employers maintain a level of annual contributions to pay earned benefits to present and future plan members and see that no state moneys are used to fund a continuation of full rank escalation benefits after January 1, 1980. Pueblo v. Fire and Police Pension Ass'n, 827 P.2d 597 (Colo. App. 1992).