BREAKING: COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS CONFIRMS COLORADO PERA PUBLIC PENSION COLA BENEFITS AS CONTRACTUAL. The Colorado Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded an initial District Court ruling that denied the contractual status of public pension COLAs in Colorado. The Court of Appeals confirmed that Colorado PERA pension COLA benefits are a contractual obligation of the pension plan Colorado PERA and its affiliated public employers. A huge victory for public sector retirees in Colorado! The Colorado Legislature may not breach its contracts and push taxpayer obligations onto the backs of a small group of elderly pensioners. The lawsuit is continuing. Support pension rights in the U.S. by contributing at saveperacola.com. Friend Save Pera Cola on Facebook!

WILL COLORADO SPRINGS STIFF COLORADO PERA FOR $61 MILLION AND FORCE THOSE COSTS ONTO OTHER COLORADO MUNICIPALTIES? MORE LITIGATION COMING FOR COLORADO PERA. Here are a few excerpts from a Gazette Telegraph article regarding the upcoming (August 28) Colorado Springs election on the question of the proposed Colorado Springs Memorial Hospital lease: “This week, registered voters in Colorado Springs should get a ballot asking a simple question: ‘Shall the City of Colorado Springs be authorized to lease the Memorial Health System to the University of Colorado Health system?’” “Q: What is that $185 million for pensions about? A: Two years ago, the state’s Public Employees Retirement Association told Memorial that it would owe $246 million for future retiree liabilities if it were to leave the system. Later estimates pegged that number significantly lower, but PERA still says whoever owns Memorial will have to pay up to exit the system. City Attorney Chris Melcher maintains that since Memorial has always paid its dues to PERA in full, the city’s actual liability should be zero — no different, he argues, than Memorial would pay if a single employee left the system. It may take litigation to resolve the dispute, but if the city can bring the final bill in for less than $185 million, it will keep the difference.” (My comment: The ability to read should be a minimum qualification for a city attorney’s position.) “Q: What happens to Memorial employees’ pension plans? A: UC Health would switch employees to a new defined benefit pension plan it’s setting up. Memorial employees will have the same retirement plan as employees at other UC Health hospitals. UC Health has outlined what the retirement plan will look like, but hasn’t provided final details to employees.” “Those plans ran aground in January 2011, though, when PERA told Memorial it would cost $246 million to leave the pension system. Dr. Larry McEvoy, then Memorial’s CEO, said such a huge bill would cripple an independent Memorial before it even got started. Memorial’s leaders tried to negotiate with PERA through the summer of 2011, but made no headway.” Link to the full Gazette Telegraph article: http://www.gazette.com/articles/registered-142694-deal-simple.html (My comment: Memorial Health System is a local government affiliate member of Colorado PERA. I think this measure will be supported by Colorado Springs voters and the City will fight out the level of PERA obligations in court. Colorado Springs will attempt to force all other members of the Local Government Division to eat this $61 million debt [probably higher right now.] How will the PERA Board of Trustees handle this matter? It appears to be their fiduciary duty to ensure that the PERA trust funds are made whole; however, we have seen that the PERA trustees have a peculiar understanding of their fiduciary duty. If Colorado Springs is successful in dumping its PERA obligations, perhaps other municipalities would like to dump their PERA obligations. It amazes me the extent to which Coloradan elected officials will go to avoid public sector debts, first Colorado PERA, and now the City of Colorado Springs. This will be very interesting litigation to follow. It bears on the nature of vested PERA member benefits.) Here is current Colorado law addressing termination of PERA affiliation: “Any political subdivision within the state of Colorado or any public agency created by such a political subdivision that is an employer affiliated with the association pursuant to the provisions of section 24-51-309 and that is assigned to the local government division may make application to the board to terminate the affiliation of the employer with the association. The application shall be made by submitting to the board an ordinance or resolution that has been adopted by the governing body of the employer and that has been approved by at least sixty-five percent of the employees of the employer who are members. Such employee members of the employer shall be notified in writing of the provisions of section 24-51-321 prior to a vote on an ordinance or resolution to terminate the affiliation of the employer with the association. All applications for termination of affiliation shall comply with the requirements set forth in this section, and, except as otherwise provided in this part 3, all applications meeting such requirements shall be approved by the board. Applications which do not meet the requirements of this section shall not be approved by the board. Upon approval of such application, the effective date of termination of affiliation shall not occur earlier than sixty days or later than ninety days after the date upon which such application is submitted to the board.” (My comment: Has Memorial Hospital submitted the resolution required in Colorado law? Were Memorial employee members notified of the proposed termination of affiliation? Did 65% of Memorial employees approve the plan? Has the Colorado Springs City Attorney even read this statute or the germane case law? What is the opinion of the Colorado Municipal League on this matter?) Here are some statements from the group opposing the Memorial lease: “If the lease is allowed, more than five thousand employees will cease to be eligible to contribute to Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado (PERA), the public pension fund for most state and school employees in Colorado. This may be devastating to PERA's future funding of all retirees in our community.” “Employee Health Care and Retirement benefits change on October 1, 2012. Employees as of October 1st (or when MHS is formally taken over) will no longer be employees of Memorial and therefore will no longer be entitled to contribute to their PERA accounts or carry the same health care benefits. While there does not appear to be many concrete answers on this issue it could mean: “- Employees vested in PERA may not transfer that status over to the new retirement plan.” Here is the website for the group opposing the Memorial Hospital lease: http://ourcityourcare.com/ Here’s a link to the group supporting the Memorial Hospital lease plan: http://greatcitygreatcare.com/ Here’s a Gazette Telegraph editorial in favor of the proposal: http://www.gazette.com/opinion/memorial-142699-health-ballots.html Here is a link to the Colorado PERA local government PERA affiliation guide: http://www.copera.org/pdf/5/5-22.pdf Visit saveperacola.com or Friend Save Pera Cola on Facebook to learn more about the Colorado General Assembly’s attempt to breach pension contracts.

Awesome place to LIVE!!!