brief of appellants frs and local 73
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
1/131
Appeal No. ED100209
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALSEASTERN DISTRICT
The Firemens Retirement System of St. Louis, et al.Plaintiffs/Appellants,
vs.
The City of St. LouisDefendant/Respondent
________________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court of City of St. LouisState of Missouri
The Honorable Robert H. DierkerCause No: 1222-CC02916
Consolidated with 1322-CC00006
JOINT BRIEF OF APPPELLANTS
By: /s/ Richard A. BarryRichard A. Barry, Esq., #255921750 South Brentwood Blvd., Suite 295St. Louis, MO 63144(314) 918-8900E-mail: [email protected] FOR APPELLANTS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 73,
et al.
By: /s/ Kara D. Helmuth
DANNA MCKITRICK, P.C.Daniel G. Tobben, #24219Kara D. Helmuth, #621837701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 800St. Louis, MO 63105-3907(314) 726-1000/(314) 725-6592 faxE-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected] FOR APPELLANTS
THE FIREMENS RETIREMENT
SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
2/131
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................ iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................... viiSTATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................... 1I. Firefighter Membership in FRS and Operation of the Plan ............................................ 1II. Citys Ordinances, Creation of FRP, and Procedural History of First Trial................. 4
III. Board Bill 109 and the Dual Plan System .................................................................... 8III. Trial Courts Judgment................................................................................................ 12POINTS RELIED ON............................................................................................................. 19ARGUMENT........................................................................................................................ 24I. The Trial court erred in declaring Board Bill 109 valid andconstitutional, because the Trial Court erroneously concluded that the City
could enact a pension plan for its firefighters, without any statutory
authorization, based upon its home rule powers, in that a) Article VI 25 of
the Missouri Constitution prohibits cities from granting public money to
private individuals, except that the general assembly may authorize; b)
Article VI, 19(a) of the Missouri Constitution does not grant the City the
authority to ignore permissive enabling legislation and enact conflicting
ordinances, and c) the provisions of 87.120 R.S.Mo.et seq.demonstrate an
intent by the state to pre-empt the City from adopting a pension plan
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
3/131
ii
except in conformance with its provisions..................................................................... 24A. Standard of Review ........................................................................................... 25
B. Article VI, 25 of the Missouri Constitution .................................................... 26C. Home Rule Authority ........................................................................................ 28D. Permissive Nature of Chapter 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.and Limitations on theCitys Authority......................................................................................................... 33E. Pre-Emption of the Field by the Missouri General Assembly .......................... 37
II. The Trial Court erred in declaring Board Bill 12 as amended byBoard Bill 109 valid, and that the City had authority to effectively amend
Chapter 4.18 RCC (which established and governs FRS) without the
General Assembly first amending the enabling statutes, 87.120 R.S.Mo. et
seq., because under Article VI 19(a) of the Missouri Constitution the City
may not adopt an ordinance in conflict with state statute on the same
subject matter and the amendments to Chapter 4.18 by Board Bill 109 fail
to conform to the enabling statutes, in that Board Bill 109 a) violates the
exclusivity clause contained in 87.130 R.S.Mo. [4.18.020 RCC] with
respect to years of service and contributions; b) violates 87.250 R.S.Mo.
[4.18.220 RCC], which provides that all firefighters shall receive benefits
as provided by sections 87.120 to 87.370; c) improperly amends the
definition of average final compensation as set forth in 87.120(3) R.S.Mo.
[4.18.010(C) RCC]; d) improperly amends the definition of membership
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
4/131
iii
service and creditable service to include a cut-off of accrual as of February
1, 2013 contrary to 87.120(8) and (14) R.S.Mo. [4.18.010(G, M) RCC];
and e) the Trial Courts fiction of the Citys reservation of the right to
terminate FRS is not found in Chapter 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.at all or
even in Chapter 4.18 RCC, which only reserves the right to repeal or
amend FRS....................................................................................................................... 41A. FRS and the Newly Created FRP.................................................................. 43
B.
Case law is clear that to amend FRS the City must first have enabling legislation
passed by the Missouri General Assembly. ............................................................... 43C. Conflicts Between Chapter 4.18 RCC and Board Bill 109 or ImplicitAmendments of the Same........................................................................................ 46D. The Trial Courts Fiction of Termination is Not Based on Chapter 4.18 RCCor 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq......................................................................................... 59
III. The Trial Court erred in declaring Board Bill 109 valid andconstitutional because the Trial Courts declaration was based upon the
erroneous conclusion that requiring adoption of enabling statutes as a
pre-requisite to the City amending or terminating FRS would violate
Article VI, 22 of the Missouri Constitution in that: a) such conclusion
misconstrues Article VI, 22 and is contrary to governing precedent; and b)
87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq. does not violate Article VI, 22 of the Missouri
Constitution as the City was not required by 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq. to
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
5/131
iv
enact any pension plan for City firefighters.................................................................. 70A. Article VI, 22 is not violated by holding that it authorizes the City to enact only
one pension system. ................................................................................................... 71B. The power of City to be free from state legislative interference is not as great asthe City or Trial Court would like it to be, and the Trial Courts ruling was erroneous
on this point. .............................................................................................................. 73IV. The Trial Court erred in declaring Board Bill 109 valid andconstitutional because Board Bill 109 impairs the contractual rights of all
firefighter members of FRS, including those with over twenty years of
service as of the effective date of Board Bill 109, and beneficiaries, in
contravention of Article I 13 of the Missouri Constitution and Article I
10 of the United States Constitution, in that a) the Trial Courts
conclusion that the Contracts Clauses prohibit only impairment of
contractual rights of firefighters for services rendered by them prior to the
effective date of a change in benefits, such that benefits for all firefighters,
even those who are vested under the terms of the plan, could be reduced on
a prospective basis is incorrect as a matter of law; b) Board Bill 109
removes the Citys ultimate guarantee for the payment of benefits due to
firefighters upon retirement, or to their beneficiaries, as provided under
Chapter 4.18 RCC, and instead limits the Citysliability for the payment of
benefits to the assets in FRP; c) Board Bill 109 requires a 9%
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
6/131
v
nonrefundable contribution to FRP when a firefighter exits the DROP
program and resumes regular status for accruing service time; and d)
divests firefighters of contractual rights to benefits based upon
compensation paid or service rendered after the effective date of an
amendment that reduces future benefits. ...................................................................... 75A. Contracts Clause Framework ............................................................................ 77B. The terms of Chapter 4.18 constitute a contract between the City and the
Retirees and Members of FRS. .................................................................................. 79
C. Board Bill 109 constitutes a significant impairment of the contractual rights ofFRS Member and Beneficiaries ................................................................................. 85D. Significant and Legitimate Public Purpose and Reasonableness of the
Adjustment................................................................................................................. 90E. The Trial Courts reasoning that the Contracts Clauses only operate in the past
and not the future is erroneous as a matter of law, and ruling that Board Bill 109 is
valid on that basis was in error. ................................................................................. 91V. The Trial Court erred in declaring Board Bill 109 valid and
constitutional because Board Bill 109 impairs the contractual rights of
firefighters with less than twenty years of service, in contravention of
Article I 13 of the Missouri Constitution and Article I 10 of the United
States Constitution, in that these firefighters have already contributed
substantial service to the City at least partially in reliance on the pension
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
7/131
vi
benefits as provided by Chapter 4.18, and in that Board Bill 109 a) requires
firefighters to contribute 9% of their salary on a non-refundable basis to
FRP instead of 8% of salary on a refundable basis to FRS and b) applies an
actuarial reduction to service rendered after the effective date of Board Bill
109 if the firefighter retires before age 55, as compared to FRS which
provides that a firefighter could retire with 20 years of service, regardless
of age, without a reduction in benefits. .......................................................................... 96A. Vesting and Protection of Benefits for Firefighters with Less than 20 Years ofService ....................................................................................................................... 97B. Trial Courts Reasoning is Erroneous............................................................. 107C. Unreasonable Reduction in Benefits for Those Firefighters with Less than 20
Years of Service....................................................................................................... 110
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 113CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE......................................................................................... 115CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................................ 116
ABBREVIATIONS USED THROUGHOUT THIS APPELLANTSBRIEF
A Appendix
LFLegal File
STr Supplemental Transcript
Tr Transcript
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
8/131
vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234 (1978) .................................... 78, 90
Alumax Foils, Inc. v. City of St. Louis,
959 S.W.2d 836 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998) ................................................. 35, 36, 37, 38
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
v. City of Benton, Arkansas, 513 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2008) ............ 77, 78, 79, 90, 91
Atchison v. Retirement Board of the Police Retirement System
of Kansas City, 343 S.W.2d 25 (Mo. 1960) ........................................................... 44
Bakenhus v. City of Seattle,
296 P.2d 536 (Wash. banc 1956) ........................................................... 23, 101, 102
Baker v. Retirement Board of Allegheny County,
97 A.2d 231 (Pa. 1953)......................................................................................... 104
Bender v. Anglin, 60 S.E.2d 756 (Ga. 1950) ................................................................... 103
BHA Group Holding, Inc. v. Pendergast, 173 S.W.3d 373
(Mo.App. W.D. 2005) ...................................................................................... 54, 55
Burlington Fire Fighters Assoc. v. City of Burlington,
543 A.2d 686 (Vt. 1988)................................................................................. 82, 103
Cape Motor Lodge, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau,
706 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. banc 1986) ........................................................ 30, 38, 65, 66
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Swanger,
157 F. 783 (W.D.Mo. 1908) ................................................................................... 93
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
9/131
viii
Citizens Bank and Trust Co. v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.,
639 S.W.2d 833 (Mo. banc 1982) .......................................................................... 55
City of Springfield v. Belt, 307 S.W.3d 649 (Mo. banc 2010) .......................................... 30
City of St. Louis v. State, 382 S.W.3d 905 (Mo. banc 2012) ....................................... 21, 73
Civil Service Commnof City of St. Louis v. Members of Bd. of Aldermen
of the City of St. Louis, 92 S.W.3d 785 (Mo. banc 2003) .......................... 21, 71, 73
Cloutier v. State, 42 A.3d 816 (N.H. 2012) .......................................... 23, 82, 101,102, 103
Denbow v. State, 309 S.W.3d 831 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) .......................................... 55, 56
Educ. Employees Credit Union v. Mutual Guarantee Corp.,
50 F.3d 1432 (8th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................. 78
Edwards v. City of Ellisville,
2013 WL 5913628 (Mo.App. E.D. 2013) .................................................. 67, 68, 69
Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co.,
459 U.S. 400 (1983) ................................................................................... 77, 78, 90
Ewing v. Miller, 335 S.W.2d 154 (Mo. 1960) ................................................................... 95
Firemens RetirementSystem of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis ,
754 S.W.2d 21 (Mo.App. E.D. 1988) ................................................... 20, 36, 44, 46
Firemens Retirement System v. City of St. Louis, Missouri,
789 S.W.2d 484 (Mo. banc 1990) ................................................. 19, 21, 27, 44, 72
Firemen's Retirement System v. City of St. Louis,
ED86921, 2006 WL 2403955 (Mo. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2006) .......................... 45, 62
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
10/131
ix
Fraternal Order of Police v. City of St. Joseph,
8 S.W.3d 257 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999) ................................................... 108, 109, 110
Gates v. City of Springfield, 744 S.W.2d 487 (Mo.App. S.D. 1988) .......................... 66, 67
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181 (1992) ......................................................... 78
George v. Brewer, 62 S.W.3d 106 (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) ................................................. 95
Halpin v. Nebraska State Patrolmens Retirement System,
320 N.W.2d 910 (Neb. 1982) ....................................................................... 101, 103
Hickey v. Pension Bd. of City of Pittsburgh,
106 A.2d 233 (Pa. 1954)....................................................................... 104, 105, 106
Home Builders Association of Greater St. Louis, Inc. v.
City of Wildwood, 32 S.W.3d 612 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) ...................................... 95
In Interest of L.W.R., 818 S.W.2d 727 (Mo.App. 1991) ................................................... 26
Kansas City v. Brouse, 468 S.W.2d 15 (Mo. banc 1971) ...................................... 12, 31, 32
Kemmerer v. ICI Americas Inc., 70 F.3d 281 (3d. Cir. 1995) ......................................... 108
Klamm v. State ex rel. Carlson, 125 N.E.2d 487 (Ind. 1955) ......................................... 100
Levinson v. City of Kansas City,
43 S.W.3d 312 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001) ......................................... 19, 30, 34, 35, 108
Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys v. Barton County,
311 S.W.3d 737 (Mo. banc 2010) .......................................................................... 70
Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) ........................................................ 25
Olson v. Cory, 636 P.2d 532 (Cal. 1980) .................................................................. 82, 103
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
11/131
x
Oregon State Police Officers Assn v. State of Oregon,
918 P.2d 765 (Ore. 1996) ..................................................................... 22, 82, 83, 94
Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. banc 2012) ........................................................ 25
Police Pension & Relief Board of City & County of Denver v. Bills,
366 P.2d 581 (Colo. banc 1961) ................................................................... 103, 106
Pyle v. Webb, 489 S.W.2d 796 (Ark. 1973) .................................................................... 105
Rothschild v. State Tax Commission of Missouri,
762 S.W.2d 35 (Mo. banc 1988) ............................................................................ 55
Sanders v. City of St. Louis, 303 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. 1957) ................................................ 32
Singer v. City of Topeka, 607 P.2d 467 (Kan. 1980) ................................. 82, 101, 103, 104
Snow v. Abernathy, 331 So.2d 626 (Ala.1976) ............................................................... 103
Southgate Bank and Trust Co. v. May,
696 S.W.2d 515 (Mo.App. W.D. 1985) ................................................................. 26
Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Director of Revenue,
94 S.W.3d 388 (Mo. banc 2002) ............................................................................ 55
Springfield Ry. Co. v. City of Springfield, 85 Mo. 674 (Mo. 1885) .................................. 93
State ex inf. Hanna ex rel. Christ v. City of St. Charles,
676 S.W.2d 508 (Mo. banc 1984) .......................................................................... 30
State ex rel. Breshears v. Missouri State EmployeesRetirement System,
362 S.W.2d 571 (Mo. banc 1962) .............................................................. 22, 81, 93
State ex rel. Dreer v. Public School Retirement System of the City of St. Louis,
519 S.W.2d 290 (Mo. 1975) ........................................................................... 23, 100
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
12/131
xi
State ex rel. Kansas City v. Public Service Commn,
524 S.W.2d 855 (Mo. banc 1975) .......................................................................... 79
State ex rel. Phillip v. Public School Ret. Sys. of City of St. Louis,
262 S.W.2d 569 (Mo. banc 1953) ............................................ 22, 23, 78, 79, 80, 81
.................................................................................................... 93, 98, 99, 108, 109
State ex rel. Sunshine Enterprises of Missouri, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment
of City of St. Ann, 64 S.W.3d 310 (Mo. banc 2002) ............................................... 25
State v. Miller, 50 Mo. 129 (Mo. 1872) ............................................................................. 93
Sylvestre v. State, 214 N.W.2d 658 (Minn. 1973) ................................................... 103, 106
TDV Transp., Inc. v. Keel, 966 S.W.2d 347 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998) .................................. 95
Teson v. Vasquez, 561 S.W.2d 119 (Mo.App. E.D. 1977) ................................................ 26
Trantina v. Bd. of Trs. of the Firemens Ret. Sys.,
503 S.W.2d 148 (Mo. App. 1973) .......................... 7, 20, 36, 41, 44, 45, 62, 63, 108
Wagoner v. Gainer, 279 S.E.2d 636 (W.Va. 1981) ................................................ 103, 105
Washington Assn of County Officials v. Washington Public
Emp. Ret. Sys. Bd., 575 P.2d 230 (Wash. banc 1978) .......................................... 101
Wehmeier v. Public School Retirement System of Missouri,
631 S.W.2d 893 (Mo.App.E.D. 1982) .............................................................. 22, 81
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article I, 10 ................................................................................................................ 75, 77
MISSOURI CONSTITUTION
Article I, 13 ................................................................................................................ 75, 77
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
13/131
xii
Article VI, 19 ............................................................................... 20, 28, 29, 32, 60, 62, 66
Article VI, 22 ................................................................................................. 21, 71, 72, 73
Article VI, 25 ....................................................................................................... 19, 26, 72
REVISED STATUTES OF MISSOURI
71.010 ................................................................................................................................ 30
87.170 to 87.175 .................................................................................................................. 2
87.005 ................................................................................................................................ 59
87.006 ................................................................................................................................ 59
87.120 .................................................................................................................... 32, 57, 58
87.125 ............................................................................................ 19, 24, 26, 33, 64, 65, 68
87.130 .................................................................................. 1, 20, 48, 60, 65, 68, 83, 84, 85
87.135 ................................................................................................................................ 58
87.170 .............................................................................................................. 2, 53, 65, 111
87.175 .......................................................................................................................... 65, 88
87.177 .............................................................................................................................. 104
87.182 .................................................................................................................................. 2
87.195 to 87.220 ................................................................................................................ 58
87.250 .................................................................................................................. 84, 86, 110
87.295 .................................................................................................................... 2, 88, 111
87.360 ...................................................................................................................... 2, 85, 87
95.540 ................................................................................................................................ 39
105.691 ............................................................................................................................ 104
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
14/131
xiii
169.430 .............................................................................................................................. 80
577.023 .............................................................................................................................. 55
REVISED CITY CODE
4.18.010 ....................................................................................................... 2, 57, 58, 84, 86
4.18.015 ............................................................................................................................... 1
4.18.020 ........................................................................................... 1, 47, 48, 54, 83, 84, 85
4.18.030 ........................................................................................................................... 107
4.18.050 ............................................................................................................................. 58
4.18.055 ............................................................................................................................... 1
4.18.120 ........................................................................................................... 2, 53, 84, 111
4.18.130 ................................................................................................................. 2, 88, 110
4.18.131 ....................................................................................................................... 2, 111
4.18.210 ............................................................................................................................... 2
4.18.220 ................................................................................................... 57, 84, 85, 86, 110
4.18.260 ............................................................................................................. 2, 4, 88, 110
4.18.325 ............................................................................................................. 2, 84, 85, 94
4.18.345 ................................................................................................... 60, 61, 62, 63, 107
4.18.385 ..................................................................................................................... 87, 110
4.18.145 to 4.18.270 .................................................................................................... 58, 86
4.19.010 ............................................................................................................. 9, 12, 29, 52
4.19.020 ..................................................................................................................... 52, 111
4.19.030 ................................................................................................................... 5, 9, 110
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
15/131
xiv
4.19.040 ............................................................................................................................. 52
4.19.060 ................................................................... 5, 9, 52, 76, 88, 89, 107, 110, 111, 112
4.19.070 ....................................................................................................................... 59, 92
4.19.080 ............................................................................................................................... 9
4.19.120 ....................................................................................................................... 11, 87
4.19.140 ............................................................................................................................. 89
4.19.160 ........................................................................................................... 10, 11, 86, 87
4.19.170 ................................................................................................................. 11, 87, 94
BOARD BILL
Board Bill 109 1 .................................................................................................... 8, 43, 62
Board Bill 109 2 ........................................................................ 8, 9, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 85
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
16/131
1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In 1959 the Missouri General Assembly adopted 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.
authorizing the City of St. Louis (City) to establish a pension system for its firefighters
according to the specific provisions and requirements of that enabling legislation.
4.18.015 RCC(A252) In 1960, the City, by ordinance, created the Firemens Retirement
System (FRS) pursuantto that enabling legislation, which is codified in Chapter 4.18 of
the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis. (RCC) 4.18.015 RCC(A252)
Plaintiffs in this case are the Firemens Retirement System of St. Louis (FRS) and
its duly appointed Board of Trustees. (LF19) The Board of Trustees consists of two
mayoral appointees, the comptroller ex officio, the chief of the fire department ex officio,
three active firefighters elected by the membership, and one retired firefighter elected by
the retired firemen of the City. 4.18.055 (A253) Plaintiff-Intervenors are the
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 73 (IAFF Local 73), three individual
active firefighters and one retired firefighter. (LF538-539) This brief is filed on behalf of
all Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors.
I. Firefighter Membership in FRS and Operation of the Plan
Pursuant to the terms of Chapter 4.18 RCC, firefighters must belong to FRS as a
condition of their employment with the City. 4.18.020 RCC; 87.130 R.S.Mo. (A252) As
part of firefighters orientation, which occurs after they are hired but early in their training,
FRS staff or Trustees make presentations to the firefighters, which includes information
concerning FRS and the benefits provided to firefighters under it. (Tr.Vol.I, pg. 252,
258-259, 275-276; STr.73-74) Firefighters are given a copy of the enabling legislation and
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
17/131
2
the implementing ordinances, and must sign the registry at FRS confirming their
membership and participation in FRS as a condition of their employment. (Ex5, Ex30;
Tr.Vol.I, pg. 18, 252, 385, 394-395; S.Tr. 71, 73-74, 83; STr. 73-74)
St. Louis firefighters have been required to contribute 8% of their salary on a
post-tax basis to FRS throughout their careers as a condition of employment, which helps
fund their retirement from FRS. 4.18.260 RCC; 87.295 R.S.Mo.(A268)
In the absence of disability, a firefighter must work a minimum of 20 years in order
to be vested in the pension benefit provided by FRS. 4.18.120 RCC and 87.170 R.S.Mo.
(A256; STr 71) Firefighters who retire with 20 years or more of service receive a pension
plus a return of contributions without interest. 4.18.120, 4.18.130 RCC (A256-257);
87.170 - 87.175 R.S.Mo. After 20 years, a firefighter may accrue additional benefits in the
DROP plan. 4.18.131 RCC (A257) 87.182 R.S.Mo. Any firefighter who terminates
employment prior to 20 years receives a return of his contributions, plus interest, in lieu of
receiving any type of annuity benefit under FRS. 4.18.010(A) and 4.18.210 RCC (A251,
267). All benefits under FRS are made obligations of the City. Specifically, 4.18.325
RCC provides that the payment of all benefits granted under the provisions of this chapter
are hereby made obligations of the City. 4.18.325 RCC (A270);87.360 R.S.Mo.
Any rights accrued under FRS cannot be transferred to a different retirement plan,
even if the firefighter goes to work for another fire department, or in some other job or
capacity for the City of St. Louis. (STr 21) Firefighters do not pay into or receive benefits
from Social Security for their work for the St. Louis Fire Department. (Ex. 29; Tr. Vol. I,
pg. 21; A39) Thus, the pension benefits are the firefighters safety net. (STr. 72 "So my
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
18/131
3
whole life my whole retirement plans are based on the pension benefits I have been
promised when I was employed. My contribution return, my multiplier, DROP plan. I
mean that's what's going to make or break me in my retirement.").
As noted by firefighter Jeffrey Glorioso, who had previously worked as an EMT in
the City (and was a member of the Employees Retirement System), he compared the FRS
plan to other municipalitiespension plans, and relied on the FRS plan in accepting a job
with the St. Louis Fire Department. (STr. 70-71) Firefighter Brian Doane testified that
when he first began working at the Department, he was told the pension "was backed by
law" and it was implied that the pension benefits were guaranteed. (Tr.Vol.I 276) The
firefighters relied on these benefits throughout their employment at the St. Louis Fire
Department. (STr. 74-75 "I have considered employment in some of the other surrounding
fire departments that have higher pay, but based on calculations of what pension benefits
would be at those places compared to where I am now, my decisions were that it was in my
best interest to stay with the St. Louis Fire Department in the current pension plan I am in
rather than start over elsewhere."). While the Trial Court did not find that any firefighter
relied on the existence or continuation of FRS in accepting employment with the City,
[t]he Court [did]find that some firefighters have elected to remain in the City service,
instead of seeking other employment, in part due to the pension benefits under FRS.
(A39)
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
19/131
4
II. Citys Ordinances, Creation of FRP, and Procedural History of First Trial
On May 8, 2012, the City enacted Ordinance 69143 (Board Bill 270)1, which
purported to conditionally repeal the provisions of all ordinances governing the FRS and to
freeze benefits under FRS, upon the adoption of a successor plan. (A39, 69-70)
On July 21, 2012 the City enacted Ordinance 69183 (Board Bill 11), which
amended 4.18.060 RCC regarding the powers and duties of the FRS Trustees. (A39-40) It
stated, the Board of Trustees [of FRS] shall have no duty or authority to contest or
challenge actions taken by the City with respect to the establishment, design, amendment
or termination of the FRS, or any other action taken by the City in its capacity as settlor of
the FRS or employer of plan members; and shall not authorize the expenditure of any assets
of the FRS to fund any such contests or challenge. (A76) Board Bill 11 also contained an
emergency clause which made it immediately effective upon the signature of the Mayor.
(A77)
On July 29, 2012, the City enacted Ordinance 69245 (Board Bill 12), which created
the Firefighters Retirement Plan (FRP), which purported to be the successor plan
referenced in Board Bill 270, and which adopted a comprehensive substitute pension plan
for City firefighters. (A40) Board Bill 12 transferred all members of FRS into FRP and
required a 9% non-refundable contribution to FRP after the effective date of the ordinance.
1Appellants recognize that all Board Bills were enacted as Ordinances. However, the
ordinances were primarily referenced at trial by their corresponding board bill numbers,
and Appellants will do the same here.
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
20/131
5
Board Bill 12, 4.19.030(B) 4.19.060(C) (A90, 97) It also applied an actuarial reduction
to benefits for post-effective date service for all firefighters who retired prior to age 55.
Board Bill 12, 4.19.060(D) (A97-98)
Board Bill 12 provided for the merger of the assets of FRS into FRP, with the same
individuals who were trustees of FRS to serve as trustees of FRP. (A40, 84-85) It
contained similar language as contained in Board Bill 11 regarding the duties of the FRP
Trustees, and made the Trustees liable to the City for any damages to, or expense incurred
by, the City as a result of any action by the Board of Trustees in contravention of this
paragraph. (A135) The terms of Board Bill 12 were to be codified as Chapter 4.19 RCC.
(A40)
On June 12, 2012, before Board Bills 11 and 12 were signed into law by the Mayor
of the City and became effective, FRS and its Trustees filed suit against the City under
cause number 1222-CC02916, seeking an injunction to halt enforcement of the ordinances
and a declaration from the Trial Court that Board Bills 270, 11 and 12 were
unconstitutional, as the City does not have authority to repeal Chapter 4.18 and enact
ordinances conflicting with 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.; Board Bills 270 and 12 violate the
constitutionally protected contractual rights of firefighters; and Board Bill 11 violated the
City Charter, the federal and Missouri Contracts Clauses, and the open courts provision of
Article I, 14 of the Missouri Constitution. (LF18-53)
On July 6, 2012, the Trial Court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the
enforcement of Board Bill 11 in part. (A40; LF170-174) Specifically, the Trial Court
found that FRS and its Board of Trustees must have the ability to seek a declaratory
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
21/131
6
judgment from the court when the duties of the system and its board are altered or
materially affected by the action of the City, and the balance of hardships and the public
interest favored not placing the Trustees in the Hobsons choice of terminating the
litigation or continuing it at their own expense. (A172-173) Therefore, the Trial Court
ordered that the City was preliminarily enjoined from enforcing the provisions of Board
Bill 11 that would prohibit plaintiffs from proceeding with this action at the expense of the
retirement system. (LF174)
A hearing was held on FRS and Plaintiff-Intervenors Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order on August 21, 22, 24, and 27, 2012 with respect to Board Bill 12 and 270.
(Tr.Vol.I) Before Board Bill 12 became effective, a consent temporary restraining order
was entered by the parties on August 24, 2012 enjoining the enforcement of Board Bills 12
and 270 until October 1, 2012. (LF567)
The Trial Court entered a preliminary injunction with respect to Board Bills 12 and
270 on September 28, 2012. (LF586-615) Parts of this preliminary injunction were later
incorporated by reference into the Trial Courts final judgment in this case, and will be
more fully set forth below. (A52) Briefly, the Order prohibited the enforcement of Board
Bill 12 because the Trial Court found that firefighters with over 20 years of service in FRS
on the effective date had a contractual right to their pension benefits, which was
substantially impaired by the merger or transfer of assets from FRS to the new plan,
without a corresponding unqualified obligation of the City to fund accrued and vested
benefits; and the alteration of the deferred retirement option plan (DROP) to the
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
22/131
7
disadvantage of firefighters with 20 years service who have not attained the age of 55.
(A29)
In the Citys Post Hearing Brief Regarding the Ending of the Current
Firefighters[sic] Pension Plan, the City stated that the reason it did not simply freeze
benefits accrued in FRS and enact a new plan for future accruals (the dual plan option),
was:
The dual plan option, however, would have required the City to only repeal
certain sections of the Current Plan, leaving in place those provisions
necessary for it to meet its obligations to fund the already accrued benefits
and for the plan to be administered with respect to those accrued benefits.
Nothing in Chapter 4.18 suggests the Citys right to effect such a partial
repeal. Nor do any of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Missouri or the
Missouri Court of Appeals construing the Current Plan suggest that partial
repeal is a permissible option. This is especially so because a partial repeal
could be viewed as an amendment to the Current Plan, not permitted by
Chapter 87 R.S.Mo., rather than a repeal of the Current Plan. See, e.g.,
Trantina v. Bd. of Trs. of the Firemens Ret. Sys., 503 S.W.2d 148, 152-53
(Mo. App. 1973) (noting in dicta that amendments to the Current Plan that
change benefits must be in accordance with Chapter 87 R.S.Mo.).
(LF571)
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
23/131
8
After additional evidence was heard by the Trial Court on October 22, 2012 the
Trial Court closed the evidence in the case, but stated that the City [would] be permitted to
petition to reopen the record if Board Bill 12 [was] amended. (See, STr; LF632)
III. Board Bill 109 and the Dual Plan System
Relying in part on the Trial Courts preliminary injunctionorder, the City enacted
Ordinance 69353 (Board Bill 109) on September 28, 2012, which amended Board Bill 12
in several significant respects. (Hereinafter Board Bill 12 as amended by Board Bill 109
will collectively be referred to as Board Bill 109; A40) Board Bill 109 repealed the
conditional repeal of the FRS ordinances contained in Board Bill 270 and repealed the
provisions of Board Bill 12, which provided for the merger of FRS plan assets into FRP.
(A41)
The City preemptively filed a counterclaim under cause number 1222-CC02916
asking the Trial Court to declare Board Bill 109 valid and constitutional. (LF637-641)
Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors also filed suit claiming the invalidity of Board Bill 109
on January 2, 2013 under cause number 1322-CC00006. (LF669) The two cases were then
consolidated on January 3, 2013. (LF938)
Under Board Bill 109, Chapter 4.18 RCC continues in existence, as does FRS.
Board Bill 109, 1-2 (A176-178) Board Bill 109 made FRP into a wrapplan, where
FRS benefits are frozen as of February 1, 2013, and all benefits due to future service and
salary increases will be accrued under FRP. Board Bill 109, 2(A-C) (A176-178) Kim
Nicholl, the Citys expert actuary, explained the dual system this way: [t]he benefits that
have accrued to date, based on service and salary as of the effective date of Board Bill 109,
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
24/131
9
will be paid from FRS. Any future accruals, including future salary increases on behalf of
service already rendered, will be paid from FRP. (Tr. Vol. III, pg. 41-42) Board Bill 109
states that [t]he benefit accrued under this plan is earned only because of years of service
after the Effective Date (although vesting, eligibility for retirement, and the rate of accrual
for benefits attributable to years of service after the Effective Date is based on total years of
service as a firefighter with the City of St. Louis.) Board Bill 109, 4.19.010(B) (A185)
Firefighters currently in DROP will continue to accrue their DROP benefit under
FRS, and, upon their exit from the DROP program, will become members of FRP. Board
Bill 109, 2(C) (A178) Retirees, beneficiaries, widows, and disabled firefighters (i.e., all
persons in pay status) remain in FRS.Board Bill 109 4.19.010(U) (A42, 188)
Firefighters with at least 20 years of service as of the effective date of Board Bill
109 will contribute 8% of their compensation to FRP, while those firefighters with less
than 20 years of service as of the effective date will contribute 9% to FRP. Board Bill 109,
4.19.030(B) (A191) Any firefighter who retires from the department and receives a
benefit from FRP, shall receive a refund of his contributions to [FRS] made before the
Effective Date without interest; provided that contributions to the Plan made on and after
the Effective Date by a Participant who had fewer than twenty full Years of Service as of
the Effective Date are not refundable. Board Bill 109, 4.19.060(C) (A198-199) There is
no explicit provision in Board Bill 109 that states that contributions made by firefighters
with over 20 years of service to FRP are refundable upon retirement. Board Bill 109,
4.19.060(C) (A198-199) compare4.19.080(B)(5) and 4.19.060(D); Tr.Vol.III, pg.
115-116. Paul Payne, City Budget Director and one of the team involved in drafing Board
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
25/131
10
Bill 109, admitted that there is not an explicit provision regarding post-effective date return
of contributions for firefighters with over 20 years of service, but stated it would a be
good-faith interpretation of the language. (Tr.Vol.III, 106, 115-116)
Board Bill 109 also provides that firefighters coming out of DROP (who have to
have over 20 years of service as a condition of entering DROP) will thereafter contribute to
FRP at the rate of 9%. Board Bill 109, 4.19.060(E) (A201). Paul Payne testified that this
was simply an error in the bill. (Tr. Vol. III, pg. 94-95)
Under the terms of Board Bill 109, FRP will indemnify the Board of Trustees
against all liabilities and claims other than liability for acting outside the scope of the
persons authority, including but not limited to liability for directing payment of
benefits that are not made pursuant to a reasonable, good faith interpretation of the explicit
terms of the Plan. (A239-240) Paul Payne admitted that FRP cannot grant any benefits
that are not explicitly provided for, and if the Board of Trustees of FRP did so it would be at
their own risk because they would not be indemnified. (Tr.Vol.III 114)
An actuarial reduction of benefits for firefighters who retire or enter DROP before
age 55 with less than 20 years of service on the effective date is also to be applied to
post-effective date service under FRP. Board Bill 109, 4.19.060(D) (A199) Board Bill
109 does not explicitly state that the actuarial reduction does not apply to firefighters with
over 20 years of service. 4.19.060(D) (A199) Paul Payne stated that there is no provision
in Board Bill 109 that addresses whether or not there is an actuarial reduction for
firefighters with over 20 years of service. (Tr.Vol.III, 117)
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
26/131
11
Board Bill 109 also provides, no employee shall have a contractual right to any
benefits relating to, based upon service rendered or compensation paid after the effective
date of an amendment that reduces future benefits. Board Bill 109 4.19.160 (A243)
This provision applies to all firefighters, including those with over 20 years of service.
Board Bill 109 4.19.160(A243)
Two separate sections of Board Bill 12 provided that the Citys liability to pay
benefits under FRS was limited to plan assets. 4.19.120(C) and 4.19.170(B) (A230, 243)
Board Bill 109 revised 4.19.120(C) to provide that [t]he payment of all benefits accrued
under this Plan is hereby made an obligation of the City. (A230) However, it did not
amend 4.19.170(B), which still provides, [a]ll benefits to be paid to a Participant or his
beneficiary under this Plan shall be paid solely out of the Trust Fund, and the City assumes
no liability or responsibility therefor. (A243)
Board Bill 109 created an immediate, unfunded, accrued actuarial liability in the
new FRP plan of over $65 million, according to the calculations of the Citys expert
actuary, Kim Nicholl, although Ms. Nicholl testified it would not need to be paid on day
one of FRP, as it is based on projected salary increases and service. (Ex. 65; Tr.Vol.III, 21)
At the time of trial, no money hadbeen appropriated by the City for FRPs start-up costs.
(Tr.Vol.III, 105)
Board Bill 109 provides that [t]he provision of this Ordinance shall supersede any
other ordinance or part of an ordinance to the extent such other ordinance or part of an
ordinance conflicts herewith. Board Bill 109, 4.19.170(E)(A245) It also states that it
was enacted by the City pursuant to its authority under the home rule charter provisions of
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
27/131
12
the Constitution of the State of Missouri and the laws of the State of Missouri.
4.19.010(A) (A184)
III. Trial Courts Judgment
A. Order with Respect to Board Bill 12
With respect to the issue of whether or not the City can enact its own pension plan
without enabling legislation, the Trial Court found that Article VI, 19(a) gives
constitutional charter cities all powers which the general assembly has authority to confer
upon any city. (A11) Therefore,
Mo.Const. art. VI, 25 does not operate as a limitation on the authority of a
constitutional charter city to enact pension legislation for its employees. On
the contrary, 25 is a grant of authority to the General Assembly to in turn
authorize cities to create pension systems. Since the General Assembly has
this authority to grant cities that power, the plain terms of 19(a) authorize
constitutional charter cities to enact pension legislation with or without
enabling legislation.
(A14-15)
One of the seminal cases that the Trial Court relied upon for the proposition that a
constitutional charter city can enact its own pension system without enabling legislation
wasKansas City v. Brouse,468 S.W.2d 15 (Mo. banc 1971). (A15) Specifically, the Trial
Court found that Brouseshows that charter cities had the power to adopt pension plans
even before Article VI, 19(a) of the Missouri Constitution was enacted, and that there was
no reason to believe that 19(a) was a restriction on that home rule authority. (A16) On
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
28/131
13
the contrary, 19(a) and 25 construed together give the City plenary legislative authority
over municipal pensions unless the General Assembly expressly limits or restricts that
authority. (A16)
In analyzing whether or not 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.limits the Citys authority to
enact its own pensions system, the Trial Court found that FRS enabling legislation has been
repeatedly held to be permissive. (A16) The Trial Court found that the permissive
character of the enabling legislation leads ineluctably to the conclusion that 87.125 does
not mandate that the City may adopt only one form of a firefighters pension system, i.e.,
that authorized by 87.120 et seq. (A17)
[N]owhere in the FRS enabling legislation is there a legislative command
that if the City chooses to adopt a firefighters pension system, it shall
conform to the enabling legislation. The language subject to in 87.125
does not amount to a mandate that the City can adopt one form of a
firefighters pension system and no other. Rather, that language means only
that if the City chooses to adopt the system contemplated by the enabling
legislation then it must do so subject to the statutory standards. It does not
preclude action under the Citys constitutional charter authority.
(A17)
The Trial Court ultimately found that this was not only consistent with the
permissive character of the FRS enabling statutes, but also required by Article VI 22 of
the Missouri Constitution. (A17) It reasoned that if Chapter 87 R.S.Mo. meant that the
City could adopt only one form of a pension ordinance, such legislation would plainly
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
29/131
14
intrude on the powers and duties of the Board of Aldermen of the City with respect to a
matter of purely municipal concern. (A18)
As such, the Trial Court concluded that if the City chooses to adopt the pension plan
authorized by the state statutes, it must conform to the enabling legislation. (A19)
However, [i]f the City choosesto adopt its own pension system under authority of article
VI, 19(a), it may do so without reference to 87.120 et seq. (A19)
Even though the Trial Court found that the City had the right to enact its own
pension plan, the Trial Court did not permit the City to merge the assets of FRS into a new
plan, because when the City acts within the context of the FRS, it must conform to the
enabling legislation insofar as that legislation prescribes the manner of action. (A20-21)
In the Courts view, so long as there are vested members of the FRS, the City is not free
simply to transfer those members and the assets of the FRS to another plan. Section 87.125
is explicit that the assets of the FRS are to be managed and controlled by the trustees of the
FRS, not some other entity. Furthermore, the City is not at liberty to impair the vested
rights of the FRS members. (A20)
With respect to the contract claims, the Trial Court found that retirees and those
firefighters with over 20 years of service had a contractual right entitled to protection.
(A27-28) Those rights were substantially impaired by combining the assets of FRS with a
new plan which imperiled the ability of the retirees and vested members of FRS to obtain
their full benefits, given that Board Bill 12 expressly limits the Citys obligations to pay
benefits to the assets in the Plan. (A29) However, the Trial Court found that firefighters
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
30/131
15
with less than twenty years of service had no contractual rights, as the City had reserved the
right to repeal or amend Chapter 4.18. (A28)
B. Judgment on Board Bill 109
After reopening the evidence and having a new trial with respect to Board Bill 109,
the Trial Court rendered its Judgment on June 3, 2013, and adopted by reference many of
the opinions it expressed with respect to Board Bill 12. (A35)
First, the Trial Court recognized that FRS and its Trustees have standing to seek
declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the enforceability of ordinances affecting the
operation of the FRS, including whether ordinances impair the obligation of contract,
given the fiduciary and administrative duties of the FRS trustees owed both to the City of
St. Louis and the members of the FRS. (A51) The Trial Court noted that the standing of
FRS on the issue of impairment of contract is academic, as some of the FRS trustees
themselves and the individual intervenor plaintiffs are subject to the dual plan system and
so unquestionably have standing to claim impairment of contract. (A51-52)
With respect to the Citys power to adopt its own pension plan subject to local
control,the Trial Court adhere[d] to its view that the City has the authority to terminate
the FRS and replace it with the FRP. (A52) While the Trial Court acknowledged that the
City was still bound by 87.125 R.S.Mo. and could not move the FRS funds to FRP, the
Trial Court rejected the argument that once FRS was established under the enabling
legislation, it cannot be terminated by the City without amendment of the enabling
legislation as inconsistent with the overriding authority of Mo.Const. art. VI, 19(a) and
the proper construction of the enabling legislation. (A52-53)
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
31/131
16
The Trial Court also found that the dual plan system was consistent with 87.130.1
R.S.Mo., because [u]nder the dual plan, City firefighters hired before February 1, 2013,
receive one pension benefit by reason of years of service for which they are entitled to
benefits under the FRS, and another pension benefit for years of service under the FRP.
Before February 1, 2013, firefighters made contributions only to FRS. After February 1,
2013, firefighters make contributions only to the FRP. (A54) It concluded that the dual
plan system does not prohibit what the enabling legislation permits nor permit what is
prohibited. (A55) Instead, the dual plan system supplements the legislation by providing
the means whereby the FRS is terminate and the FRP provides pension benefits in the
future. (A55)
In support of this reasoning, the Trial Court held that pension benefits have been
construed as compensation under Article VI of the Missouri Constitution, and if the City
could not change FRS without enabling legislation, then 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.would
violate Article VI 22 of the Missouri Constitution. (A55) As such, the
Citys efforts to meld the continued operations of the FRS and the FRP do
not constitute impermissible amendment of R.C. Ch. 4.18; rather, they
harmonize Ch. 4.19 with Ch. 4.18, and preserve pension benefits for
firefighters whose benefits have not otherwise vested. To be sure, the dual
plan system does affect how the FRS will operate in the future. But the
ordinance provisions that affect the FRS are necessary and proper to secure
the orderly termination of the FRS.
(A56)
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
32/131
17
The Trial Court adhered to its position that firefighters whose rights had vested
under the terms of FRS have a contractual right entitled to protection under the contracts
clauses. (A57) However, those rights were not impaired by Board Bill 109, in the Trial
Courts view, as theordinances generously preserve benefits which were not vested as of
February 1, 2013, and ensure that benefits vested as of that date are protected and will be
paid by FRS. (A58) The scriveners error in not repealing 4.19.170(B) that limits the
Citys liability to the assets in the plan was immaterial to the Courts analysis. Whether
the City has effectively obligated itself to fund the FRP in the future is not a ripe justiciable
question before the Court. The contracts clauses operate in the past, not the future. Only
the FRS benefits in existence as of February 1, 2013, are subject to constitutional
protection, to the extent they were vested at that time. (A58)
The requirement of a 9% contribution when a firefighter with over 20 years of
service exits DROP, was also not an impairment of contract in the Trial Courts view, as
[t]he Court perceives no impairment of contract insofar as the dual plan system treats
contributions to and benefits of the FRP after February 1, 2013 differently than
contributions to and benefits of the FRS before February 1, 2013. Thus, the Court
perceives no impediment to imposing a 9% contribution rate on all active firefighters for
services from and after February 1, 2013. (A60)
The Trial Court adhered to its prior position that the Citys reservation of the right to
amend or repeal Chapter 4.18 RCC was sufficient to preclude creating a contract with
employees who were or are not vested. (A59) There was one exception in the Trial
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
33/131
18
Courts view: such firefighters have a right to the refund of contribution to the FRS made
prior to February 1, 2013. (A60-61)
As such, the Trial Court found that Board Bill 109 was valid and dissolved the
preliminary injunction previously granted. (A64) Board Bill 11 was declared invalid and
of no force or effect insofar as the plaintiff trustee act to manage FRS. (A64) The City was
granted judgment against Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors on all claims alleged in the
Petitions and Counterclaims in the consolidated cases.
Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors both sought an injunction pending appeal, and a
stay of execution pending appeal. (LF1040-1098) However, both motions were denied by
the Trial Court and by this Court. (LF1386-1387) Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors both
then filed this appeal. (LF1388-1524)
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
34/131
19
POINTS RELIED ON
I. The Trial court erred in declaring Board Bill 109 valid and constitutional, because
the Trial Court erroneously concluded that the City could enact a pension plan for
its firefighters, without any statutory authorization, based upon its home rule
powers, in that a) Article VI 25 of the Missouri Constitution prohibits cities from
granting public money to private individuals, except that the general assembly may
authorize; b) Article VI,19(a) of the Missouri Constitution does not grant the
City the authority to ignore permissive enabling legislation and enact conflicting
ordinances, and c) the provisions of 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.demonstrate an intent
by the state to pre-empt the City from adopting a pension plan except in
conformance with its provisions.
Firemens Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis, 789 S.W.2d 484 (Mo.
banc 1990)
Levinson v. City of Kansas City, 43 S.W.3d 312 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001)
Article VI, 25 Missouri Constitution
87.125 R.S.Mo.
II. The Trial Court erred in declaring Board Bill 12 as amended by Board Bill 109 valid,
and that the City had authority to effectively amend Chapter 4.18 RCC (which
established and governs FRS) without the General Assembly first amending the
enabling statutes, 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq., because under Article VI 19(a) of the
Missouri Constitution the City may not adopt an ordinance in conflict with state
statute on the same subject matter and the amendments to Chapter 4.18 by Board
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
35/131
20
Bill 109 fail to conform to the enabling statutes, in that Board Bill 109 a) violates the
exclusivity clause contained in 87.130 R.S.Mo. [4.18.020 RCC] with respect to
years of service and contributions; b) violates 87.250 R.S.Mo. [4.18.220 RCC],
which provides that all firefighters shall receive benefits as provided by sections
87.120 to 87.370; c) improperly amends the definition of average final
compensation as set forth in 87.120(3) R.S.Mo. [4.18.010(C) RCC]; d)
improperly amends the definition of membership service and creditable service to
include a cut-off of accrual as of February 1, 2013 contrary to 87.120(8) and (14)
R.S.Mo. [4.18.010(G, M) RCC]; and e) the Trial Courts fiction of the Citys
reservation of the right to terminate FRS is not found in Chapter 87.120 R.S.Mo.
et seq. at all or even in Chapter 4.18 RCC, which only reserves the right to repeal or
amend FRS.
Trantina v. Bd. of Trustees of the Firemens Ret. Sys. of St. Louis, 503
S.W.2d 148 (Mo.App. 1973)
Firemens Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis, 754 S.W.2d 21 (Mo.App.
E.D. 1988)
Article VI, 19(a) Missouri Constitution
87.130(1) R.S.Mo.
III. The Trial Court erred in declaring Board Bill 109 valid and constitutional because
the Trial Courts declaration was based upon the erroneous conclusion that
requiring adoption of enabling statutes as a pre-requisite to the City amending or
terminating FRS would violate Article VI, 22 of the Missouri Constitution in that:
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
36/131
21
a) such conclusion misconstrues Article VI, 22 and is contrary to governing
precedent; and b) 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.does not violate Article VI, 22 of the
Missouri Constitution as the City was not required by 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.to
enact any pension plan for City firefighters.
Civil Service Comn of City of St. Louis v. Members of Bd. of Aldermen of the
City of St. Louis, 92 S.W.3d 785, 788 (Mo. banc 2003)
Firemens Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis, 789 S.W.2d 484, 487 (Mo.
1990)
City of St. Louis v. State, 382 S.W.3d 905 (Mo. banc 2012)
Article VI, 22, Missouri Constitution
IV. The Trial Court erred in declaring Board Bill 109 valid and constitutional because
Board Bill 109 impairs the contractual rights of all firefighter members of FRS,
including those with over twenty years of service as of the effective date of Board
Bill 109, and beneficiaries, in contravention of Article I 13 of the Missouri
Constitution and Article I 10 of the United States Constitution; in that a) the Trial
Courts conclusion that the Contracts Clauses prohibit only impairment of
contractual rights of firefighters for services rendered by them prior to the effective
date of a change in benefits, such that benefits for all firefighters, even those who
are vested under the terms of the plan, could be reduced on a prospective basis is
incorrect as a matter of law; b) Board Bill 109 removes the Citys ultimate
guarantee for the payment of benefits due to firefighters upon retirement, or to their
beneficiaries, as provided under Chapter 4.18 RCC, and instead limits the Citys
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
37/131
22
liability for the payment of benefits to the assets in FRP; c) Board Bill 109 requires
a 9% nonrefundable contribution to FRP when a firefighter exits the DROP
program and resumes regular status for accruing service time; and d) divests
firefighters of contractual rights to benefits based upon compensation paid or
service rendered after the effective date of an amendment that reduces future
benefits.
State ex rel. Phillip v. Public School Ret. Sys. of City of St. Louis, 262 S.W.2d
569 (Mo. banc 1953)
State ex re. Breshears v. Missouri State Employees Ret. Sys., 362 S.W.2d
571 (Mo. banc 1962)
Wehmeier v. Public School Ret. Sys. of Missouri, 631 S.W.2d 893 (Mo.App.
E.D. 1982)
Oregon State Police Officers Assn v. State of Oregon, 918 P.2d 765 (Ore.
1996)
V. The Trial Court erred in declaring Board Bill 109 valid and constitutional because
Board Bill 109 impairs the contractual rights of firefighters with less than twenty
years of service, in contravention of Article I 13 of the Missouri Constitution and
Article I 10 of the United States Constitution; in that these firefighters have already
contributed substantial service to the City at least partially in reliance on the pension
benefits as provided by Chapter 4.18, and in that Board Bill 109 a) requires
firefighters to contribute 9% of their salary on a non-refundable basis to FRP instead
of 8% of salary on a refundable basis to FRS and b) applies an actuarial reduction to
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
38/131
23
service rendered after the effective date of Board Bill 109 if the firefighter retires
before age 55, as compared to FRS which provides that a firefighter could retire
with 20 years of service, regardless of age, without a reduction in benefits.
State ex rel. Phillip v. Public School Ret. Sys. of City of St. Louis, 262 S.W.2d
569 (Mo. banc 1953)
State ex rel. Dreer v. Public School Ret. Sys. of the City of St. Louis, 519
S.W.2d 290 (Mo. 1971)
Bakenhus v. City of Seattle, 296 P.2d 536 (Wash. banc 1956)
Cloutier v. State, 42 A.3d 816 (N.H. 2012)
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
39/131
24
ARGUMENT
I. The Trial court erred in declaring Board Bill 109 valid and constitutional,
because the Trial Court erroneously concluded that the City could enact a
pension plan for its firefighters, without any statutory authorization, based
upon its home rule powers, in that a) Article VI 25 of the Missouri
Constitution prohibits cities from granting public money to private individuals,
except that the general assembly may authorize; b) Article VI, 19(a) of the
Missouri Constitution does not grant the City the authority to ignore
permissive enabling legislation and enact conflicting ordinances, and c) the
provisions of 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq. demonstrate an intent by the state to
pre-empt the City from adopting a pension plan except in conformance with its
provisions.
Section 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.is the enabling legislation authorizing the creation of
FRS, which has been in operation in its present form for over fifty years. These statutes
require that every firefighter employed by the City be a member of FRS as a condition of
their employment, and sets forth very detailed provisions regarding specific benefits that
they are to earn as a result. Section 87.125 R.S.Mo. authorizes the City to enact these
provisions through ordinances, and states the City is hereby authorized, subject to the
provisions of sections 87.120 to 87.370, to provide by ordinance for the pensioning of
members of any such fire department (emphasis added)
The Trial Court found this language authorizing the City to take action subject to
the statutory provision does not amount to a mandate that the City can adopt one form of a
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
40/131
25
firefighters pension system and no other. Rather, the Trial Court that language means
only that if the City chooses to adopt the system contemplated by the enabling legislation
then it must do so subject to the statutory standards. (A17; emphasis added) In enacting
Board Bill 109, the City completely ignored Chapter 87 R.S.Mo. The Trial Court found
the creation of FRP was permissible based upon the Citys status as a constitutional charter
city. In effect, the Trial Court held that the City can create a pension system for St. Louis
City firefighters, the very topic 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.addresses, but that it is completely
free from the terms, restrictions, and conditions laid out therein by the General Assembly.
Essentially, the Trial Courts ruling has converted Chapter 87 R.S.Mo., and any other
permissive enabling legislation that the Missouri General Assembly may adopt, into mere
suggestions or guidelines for constitutional charter cities such as the City. The Missouri
General Assembly does not waste its time enacting statutes that are merely suggestions. To
hold otherwise is a perversion of the meaning of permissive legislation and is contrary to
the Missouri Constitution and case law interpreting it.
A. Standard of Review
The judgment in a court-tried case will be reversed if there is no substantial
evidence to support it or it is against the weight of the evidence, or if the trial court
erroneously declared or applied the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc
1976). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, and no deference is given to the trial
courts conclusions on such questions. Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36, 43-44 (Mo.
banc 2012). Once the contents of a municipal ordinance have been established, the
interpretation of that ordinance is a pure question of law. State ex rel. Sunshine Enterprises
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
41/131
26
of Missouri, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of City of St. Ann, 64 S.W.3d 310, 312 (Mo. banc
2002). Although an appellate court should give due recognition to the trial courts opinions
as to the credibility of witnesses, Teson v. Vasquez, 561 S.W.2d 119, 128 (Mo.App. E.D.
1977), this rule of deference does not apply where the credibility of witnesses is not at
issue. In Interest of L.W.R., 818 S.W.2d 727, 732 (Mo.App. 1991). The courts
conclusions as to the legal effect of the facts are entitled to no deference. Southgate Bank
and Trust Co. v. May, 696 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Mo.App. W.D. 1985).
This standard of review is applicable to all points.
B. Article VI, 25 of the Missouri Constitution
Article VI, 25 of the Missouri Constitution is the starting point for any analysis on
municipal authority to enact a public pension system. It states in part that:
No county, city or other political corporation or subdivision of the state shall
be authorized to lend its credit or grant public money or property to any
private individual, association or corporation except that the general
assemblymay authorize any county, city or other political corporation or
subdivision to provide for the retirement or pensioning of its officers and
employees. (emphasis added)
This constitutional provision makes clear that no city may enact a public retirement or
pension system without authorization from the Missouri General Assembly. With respect
to the City, that authorization has been given in 87.125 R.S.Mo., which states:
Any city in this state that now has or may hereafter have seven hundred
thousand inhabitants or more and that has an organized fire department is
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
42/131
27
hereby authorized, subject to the provisions of sections 87.120 to 87.370, to
provide by ordinance for the pensioning of members of any such organized
fire department
(emphasis added) As such, the City is permitted to enact a pension system for its
firefighters, but only subject to the provisions of 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.
This principle was confirmed and addressed by the Missouri Supreme Court
twenty-three years ago in litigation between FRS and the City, Firemens Retirement
System v. City of St. Louis, Missouri,789 S.W.2d 484 (Mo. banc 1990) (FRS 1990). In
that decision the Court stated:
Article VI, 25, of the Missouri Constitution prohibits charter cities
generally from granting public money to any private individual, association
or corporation, but specifically provides that the General Assembly may
authorize cities to provide for the pensioning of its officers and employees.
Section 87.125, enacted pursuant to article VI, 25, of the Missouri
Constitution, authorizes cities to provide by ordinance for the pensioning of
firemen. The City created FRS under authority of 87.120, et seq., by
enacting chapter 4.18 of the City code. St. Louis, Mo., Rev.Code 4.18.015.
Id. at 486 (emphasis added). Thus, even though it is a constitutional charter city, the City is
subject to the confines of 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.
Given that Board Bill 109 was enacted without any enabling authority from the
Missouri General Assembly, and contradicts 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq. in many respects, it
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
43/131
28
violates this Missouri constitutional provision. As such, the Trial Court erred in finding
that Board Bill 109 was valid and constitutional.
C. Home Rule Authority
The Trial Court rationalized its opinion by analyzing Article VI, 25 in conjunction
with Article VI, 19 of the Missouri Constitution. Specifically the Trial Court found that
Article VI, 19(a) gives constitutional charter cities all powers which the general
assembly has authority to confer upon any city. (A11) Therefore, the Trial Court
concluded,
Mo.Const. art. VI, 25 does not operate as a limitation on the authority of a
constitutional charter city to enact pension legislation for its employees. On
the contrary, 25 is a grant of authority to the General Assembly to in turn
authorize cities to create pension systems. Since the General Assembly has
this authority to grant cities that power, the plain terms of 19(a) authorize
constitutional charter cities to enact pension legislation with or without
enabling legislation.
(A14-15)
However, the Trial Court and the City take this grant of authority beyond
permissible bounds. Article VI, 19(a) still states that the Citys authority is limited by city
charter and statute. As set forth more fully below, Board Bill 109 conflicts with state
statute in numerous respects, specifically Chapter 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq. Therefore,
Board Bill 109 is beyond the power of the City to enact under its constitutional charter
authority and is invalid and unconstitutional.
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
44/131
29
1. Home Rule Charter Authority under Missouri Constitution Art VI, 19
Board Bill 109 explicitly states that the City is establishing the New Plan pursuant
to its authority under the home rule charter provisions of the Constitution of the State of
Missouri and the laws of the State of Missouri.4.19.010(A)(A184). However, the City
chose those provisions of the Missouri Constitution and statutes that it wanted to follow
and those that it wanted to ignore, and its rationale was adopted by the Trial Court.
All constitutional charter cities derive their power from Article VI, 19 of the
Missouri Constitution, which provides in part that [a]ny city having more than five
thousand inhabitants or any other incorporated city as may be provided by law may frame
and adopt a charter for its own government. The scope of the Citys charter authority is
set forth in Article VI, 19(a), which provides:
Limitations on the Powers of Charter Cities: Any city which adopts or has
adopted a charter for its own government, shall have all powers which the
general assembly of the state of Missouri has authority to confer upon any
city, provided such powers are consistent with the constitution of this state
and are not limited or denied either by the charter so adopted or by statute.
Such a city shall, in addition to its home rule powers, have all powers
conferred by law.
Mo. Const. Art. VI, 19(a)(emphasis added). These limitations have been further codified
in state law, which provides:
Any municipal corporation in this state, whether under general or special
charter, and having authority to pass ordinances regulating subjects, matters
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
45/131
30
and things upon which there is a general law of the state, shall confine and
restrict its jurisdiction and the passage of its ordinances to and in conformity
with the state law upon the same subject.
71.010 R.S.Mo.(emphasis added).
Consequently, the City is not authorized to enact any ordinance which is
inconsistent with or contravenes the limitations set out in the Constitution, statute, or the
citys charter itself. City of Springfield v. Belt,307 S.W.3d 649, 653 (Mo. banc 2010).
Under 19(a) a constitutional charter city is prohibited from exercising its home rule
power in a manner that is inconsistent with a state statute. State ex inf. Hanna ex rel.
Christ v. City of St. Charles, 676 S.W.2d 508, 513 (Mo. banc 1984). Thus, any exercise of
power by the City which is inconsistent with state statute, including 87.120 R.S.Mo. et
seq., exceeds the powers of the City, and, therefore, is unconstitutional and void.
The test for determining if an ordinance conflicts with state law is whether the
ordinance permits what the statute prohibits or prohibits what the statute permits. Cape
Motor Lodge v. City of Cape Girardeau,706 S.W.2d 208, 211 (Mo. banc 1986). This rule
applies even to permissive enabling legislation. Levinson v. City of Kansas City,43
S.W.3d 312, 319-320 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001).
Even though Chapter 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.is permissive state enabling legislation,
as will be discussed in Point II, infra, Board Bill 109 conflicts with Chapter 87 in numerous
respects and prohibits what is permitted and permits what is prohibited. As such, it is
byeond the Citys home rule charter authority and is invalid.
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
46/131
31
2. Kansas City v. Brouse, 468 S.W.2d 15 (Mo. banc 1971) Distinguished
The principal case the Trial Court relied upon for the proposition that a
constitutional charter city can enact its own pension system without enabling legislation
was Kansas City v. Brouse,468 S.W.2d 15 (Mo. banc 1971). (A15) The Trial Court
determined thatBrouseheld that charter cities had the power to adopt pension plans even
before Article VI, 19(a) of the Missouri Constitution was enacted, and that there was no
reason to believe that 19(a) was a restriction on that home rule authority. (A16) While
the Court inBrouse did allow a city to enact a pension system where there is a total lack of
state legislation relating to pensions for municipal judges, it does not stand for the
proposition that enabling legislation from the Missouri General Assembly is a mere
suggestion, which can be cavalierly ignored.
In Brouse the Kansas City charter had provided since 1925 that the city had the
authority to exercise all powers relating to pensions which may be permitted by the
constitution and the laws of Missouri. Brouse,468 S.W.2d at 16. In 1945 the Missouri
Constitution was amended to include Art. VI 25, discussed above. Id. On November 8,
1966, the electorateof Kansas City approved an amendment to the city charter, which
provided for a system of retirement benefits for the citys municipal judges. Id.at 17. The
city, through the director of finance, subsequently refused to make the retirement payments
to individual judges at retirement, contending that there was no enabling legislation from
the General Assembly for Kansas City to pay retirement benefits. Id. The court
determined that such enabling legislation was not necessary in that circumstance. Id. In so
holding the court reasoned that [w]hen matters of this nature are adopted in a charter as
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
47/131
32
prescribed by a Constitution, such charter provisions have the force and effect of a statute
of the Legislature and can only be declared invalid for the same reason, namely, if they
violate constitutional limitations or prohibitions. Id. (emphasis added).
In this case, Board Bill 109 is an ordinance, not a part of the St. Louis City Charter.
Therefore, Board Bill 109 does not carry the same weight as the judicial pension system
involved inBrouse. Sanders v. City of St. Louis, 303 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Mo. 1957) (The
charter is the citys organic law and bears the same relation to its ordinances that the
constitution of a state bears to its statutory enactments) The Trial Court failed to
recognize this distinction and merely stated that the pension plan at issue in Brousewas
created by city ordinance. (A15)
More important, however, is the fact that there was no enabling legislation present
inBrouse, whereas here there is not only enabling legislation, but legislation that is very
specific as to the benefits that are to be provided to St. Louis firefighters. See, 87.120
R.S.Mo. et seq. The Court inBrousenoted that the charter of Kansas City, which is where
the amendment adopting the judicial pension was found, had to be consistent with and
subject to the laws of the state. 468 S.W.2d at 18 (citing, Mo. Const. Art. VI, 19).
However, because there was no enabling legislation, it was not out of harmony with the
policy of the state as declared by its laws, was consistent with the constitution, and
therefore, the pension system was valid. Id.
Even thoughBrousepermitted Kansas City to adopt a judicial pension through its
city charter without state enabling legislation, it recognized that a pension system must be
in accordance with state legislation to the extent that it exists. It does not lend support to
-
8/12/2019 Brief of Appellants FRS and Local 73
48/131
33
the proposition that the City can simply ignore the policy established by the Missouri
General Assembly in 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.and enact an entirely new and inconsistent
system under the guise of local control.The Trial Court ignored this difference.
D. Permissive Nature of Chapter 87.120 R.S.Mo. et seq.and Limitations on the
Citys Authority
While the Trial Court erred in first concluding that 19(a) and 25 construed
together give the City plenary legislative authority over municipal pensions unless the
General Assembly expressly limits or restricts that authority (A16), it also erred in
concluding that Chapter 87 R.S.Mo. does not act as a limitation on the Citys authority to
enact its own pensions system for City firefighters.
In analyzing the issue, the Trial Court first noted that the simplest form of limitation
on a constitutional charter citys authority is that created by express statutory language,
such as an express mandate that any municipal legislation must conform to the enabling
statute by stating that the statute shall be satisfied. (A14) Section 87.125 R.S.Mo. states,
that any qualifying city is hereby authorized, subject tothe provisions of sections 87.120
to 87.370, to provide by ordinance for the pensioning of members of any such organized
fire department (emphasis added) The Trial Court found that this language
authorizing the City to take action subject to the statutory provision does not amount to
a mandate that the City can adopt one form of a firefighters pension system and no other.
Rather, that la