You are on page 1of 13

{\rtf1 \ansi\ansicpg1252 {\colortbl\red0\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\ red255\green0\blue0;\red0\green255

\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blu e255;\red255\green255\blue0;\red0\green255\blue255;\red128\green0\blue0;\red0\gr een128\blue0;\red0\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green128\blue0; \red0\green128\blue128;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;\red255 \green255\blue255;\red255\green239\blue206;\red255\green255\blue194;\red255\gree n255\blue208;\red224\green255\blue191;\red224\green255\blue223;\red224\green255\ blue255;\red194\green239\blue255;\red224\green241\blue255;\red224\green224\blue2 55;\red232\green224\blue255;\red241\green224\blue255;\red255\green224\blue255;\r ed255\green224\blue245;\red255\green224\blue230;\red255\green255\blue255;\red255 \green225\blue220;\red255\green225\blue176;\red255\green255\blue127;\red241\gree n241\blue180;\red194\green255\blue145;\red193\green255\blue213;\red164\green255\ blue255;\red161\green226\blue255;\red192\green225\blue255;\red191\green191\blue2 55;\red210\green191\blue255;\red225\green191\blue255;\red255\green193\blue253;\r ed255\green192\blue228;\red255\green192\blue206;\red247\green247\blue247;\red255 \green192\blue182;\red255\green194\blue129;\red255\green255\blue53;\red241\green 241\blue128;\red127\green255\blue127;\red130\green255\blue202;\red127\green255\b lue255;\red130\green224\blue255;\red130\green192\blue255;\red159\green159\blue25 5;\red194\green159\blue255;\red226\green159\blue255;\red255\green159\blue255;\re d255\green159\blue207;\red255\green159\blue169;\red239\green239\blue239;\red255\ green159\blue159;\red255\green159\blue113;\red255\green255\blue0;\red224\green22 4\blue116;\red65\green255\blue50;\red66\green255\blue199;\red66\green255\blue255 ;\red0\green191\blue255;\red82\green145\blue239;\red128\green128\blue255;\red192 \green130\blue255;\red224\green129\blue255;\red255\green127\blue255;\red255\gree n130\blue194;\red255\green130\blue160;\red225\green225\blue225;\red255\green128\ blue128;\red255\green129\blue65;\red255\green225\blue24;\red225\green225\blue64; \red0\green255\blue0;\red0\green255\blue178;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green16 1\blue224;\red33\green129\blue255;\red97\green129\blue255;\red161\green96\blue25 5;\red192\green98\blue255;\red255\green95\blue255;\red255\green96\blue175;\red25 5\green96\blue136;\red210\green210\blue210;\red255\green64\blue64;\red255\green6 6\blue30;\red255\green191\blue24;\red225\green225\blue0;\red0\green225\blue0;\re d0\green225\blue173;\red0\green224\blue224;\red0\green130\blue191;\red0\green128 \blue255;\red65\green129\blue255;\red130\green66\blue255;\red193\green64\blue255 ;\red255\green66\blue249;\red255\green64\blue160;\red255\green64\blue112;\red192 \green192\blue192;\red255\green31\blue53;\red255\green31\blue16;\red255\green129 \blue0;\red191\green191\blue0;\red0\green194\blue0;\red0\green193\blue150;\red0\ green193\blue194;\red65\green129\blue192;\red0\green98\blue225;\red65\green65\bl ue255;\red66\green0\blue255;\red194\green0\blue255;\red255\green34\blue255;\red2 45\green43\blue151;\red255\green34\blue89;\red178\green178\blue178;\red224\green 31\blue37;\red225\green32\blue0;\red226\green98\blue0;\red161\green161\blue0;\re d0\green160\blue0;\red0\green159\blue130;\red63\green128\blue128;\red0\green96\b lue160;\red0\green65\blue194;\red0\green33\blue191;\red65\green0\blue194;\red129 \green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue128;\red255\green0\blu e65;\red162\green162\blue162;\red194\green0\blue0;\red255\green0\blue0;\red191\g reen65\blue0;\red128\green128\blue63;\red63\green128\blue63;\red0\green130\blue8 0;\red0\green96\blue98;\red0\green64\blue128;\red0\green31\blue226;\red64\green6 4\blue194;\red64\green0\blue162;\red96\green0\blue161;\red224\green0\blue224;\re d223\green0\blue127;\red194\green0\blue65;\red143\green143\blue143;\red160\green 0\blue0;\red225\green0\blue0;\red161\green63\blue0;\red98\green98\blue0;\red0\gr een96\blue0;\red0\green96\blue60;\red0\green64\blue65;\red0\green47\blue128;\red 0\green0\blue255;\red32\green32\blue160;\red34\green0\blue161;\red64\green0\blue 128;\red161\green0\blue159;\red192\green0\blue127;\red159\green0\blue15;\red128\ green128\blue128;\red96\green0\blue0;\red194\green18\blue18;\red130\green66\blue 0;\red66\green66\blue0;\red0\green66\blue0;\red0\green64\blue35;\red0\green50\bl ue63;\red0\green32\blue96;\red0\green32\blue194;\red34\green34\blue192;\red0\gre en0\blue128;\red31\green0\blue127;\red128\green0\blue128;\red130\green0\blue64;\ red128\green0\blue0;\red95\green95\blue95;\red64\green0\blue0;\red161\green31\bl ue18;\red96\green66\blue0;\red33\green33\blue0;\red0\green33\blue0;\red0\green32 \blue31;\red0\green32\blue65;\red0\green32\blue79;\red0\green0\blue224;\red0\gre en0\blue161;\red0\green0\blue97;\red31\green0\blue98;\red64\green0\blue95;\red98

\green0\blue66;\red98\green0\blue18;\red79\green79\blue79;\red208\green177\blue1 61;\red224\green161\blue117;\red210\green176\blue106;\red192\green194\blue124;\r ed130\green193\blue104;\red129\green192\blue151;\red127\green194\blue188;\red113 \green178\blue207;\red177\green177\blue210;\red159\green159\blue224;\red192\gree n161\blue224;\red226\green159\blue222;\red239\green145\blue235;\red226\green159\ blue200;\red241\green143\blue188;\red47\green47\blue47;\red127\green96\blue79;\r ed161\green98\blue82;\red128\green98\blue16;\red130\green130\blue63;\red63\green 98\blue31;\red60\green97\blue62;\red55\green96\blue94;\red16\green65\blue96;\red 66\green66\blue130;\red98\green96\blue161;\red98\green65\blue129;\red96\green49\ blue129;\red96\green33\blue98;\red98\green33\blue82;\red129\green63\blue98;\red0 \green0\blue0;}{\fonttbl{\f0\froman Tms Rmn;}{\f1\fswiss Helv;}{\f2\fmodern Cour ier;}{\f5\fnil \fcharset0 Brush Script;}{\f6\fdecor \fcharset0 Times New Roman;} } {\info{\title C:\NotesExports\RtfExport-SCSC87976 and SC87977.rtf}} \viewscale100\paperw12240\paperh15840 \margl720\margr720\margt720\margb720 {\footer \pard \b {Page {\field{\fldinst PAGE}{\fldrslt 1}} of {\field{\fldinst NUMPAGES}{\fldrslt 1}}}} \pard\plain\noproof {\sectd \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \tx0 \tx90 \tx810 \tx1530 \tx2250 \tx2970 \tx3690 \tx4410 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \s a0 \plain \i \b \f1 \fs20 \cf2 This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li 90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f5 \fs48 \cf0 Opinion \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f5 \fs48 \cf0 Sup reme Court of Missouri \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf4 Case Style: \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Thomas G. Neske, et al., Respondents v. City of St. Lou is, et al., Appellants. (consolidated with) Firemen's Retirement System, et al., Respondents v. City of St. Louis, et al., Appellants. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf4 Case Number: \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 SC87976 and SC87977 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf4 Handdown Date: \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 03/13/2007 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf4 Appeal From: \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. David Dowd \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf4 Counsel for Appellant: \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Jay A. Summerville, Jeffery T. McPherson and Deanna M. Wendler Modde \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf4 Counsel for Respondent: \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 James C. Owen, Katherine S. Walsh, Daniel G. Tobben, Da vid R. Bohm and Jeffrey R. Schmitt \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf4 Opinion Summary: \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \i \f1 \fs26 \cf2 This summary is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Co mmunications Counsel for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither revi ewed nor approved by the Supreme Court and should not be quoted or cited. The op inion of the Court, which may be quoted, follows the summary. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi 360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \ plain \f1 \fs20 \cf9 The City of St. Louis's Police Retirement System ("PRS") an d its Firemen's Retirement System ("FRS") are administered by separate boards of

trustees that hire an actuary to conduct a valuation of the retirement systems' assets and to calculate the city's contributions. Based on the actuarial evalua tion, the boards submit the contribution amounts to the city's board of estimate and apportionment ("E&A"). This board reviews and revises the city's yearly pro posed budget and submits the budget for the approval of the city's board of alde rmen. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi 360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf9 The PRS trustees certified to E& A that the city's payable amount for fiscal year 2003-2004 was more than $9,500, 000. E&A's proposed budget allocated more than $4,100,000 as the city's contribu tion to the PRS, and that amount was adopted by the board of aldermen. The PRS trustees then sued the city, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damag es, alleging that the city was required by section 86.344 to pay the amount cert ified. The parties all moved for summary judgment. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi 360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf9 The FRS trustees certified to E& A that the city's payable amount for fiscal year 2003-2004 was more than $8,900, 000, and for fiscal year 2004-2005 was more than $13,700,000. E&A's proposed bud get for fiscal year 2003-2004 allocated more than $1,880,000 as the city's contr ibution to the FRS and more than $190,000 as the city airport commission's contr ibution to the FRS. E&A's proposed budget for fiscal year 2004-2005 allocated mo re than $1,860,000 as the city's contribution to the FRS. All of these amounts w ere adopted by the board of aldermen. The FRS and individual members of the FRS trustees sued the city seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, al leging that the city was required by section 87.355 and Chapter 4.18, City Code to pay the amount certified. The parties all moved for summary judgment. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi 360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf9 The trial court found in the PRS and the FRS's favor, holding that the city was required to pay both of them the entire amount certified. The trial court rejected the city's contention that th e PRS and the FRS's claims were barred by the Hancock Amendment, art. X, section 21 of the Missouri Constitution. The city appeals. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi 360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf9 The city argues that the Hancock Amendment is violated if the city is required to pay the entire amounts certifi ed by the PRS and the FRS for the years at issue because those amounts exceed th e amount the city paid in 1981. The city also argues that it should not be requi red to pay the entire amounts certified for the years at issue to the PRS and th e FRS because paying those amounts would violate art. VI, section 26(a) of the M issouri Constitution by forcing the city to become indebted beyond its income. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi 360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf9 \tab AFFIRMED. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi 360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf9 Court en banc holds \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf9 : (1) Art. X, section 21, of the Missouri Constitution, p revents the state from requiring local governments to begin a new mandated activ ity or to increase the level of a previously mandated activity beyond its 1980-1 981 level without sufficient appropriation to finance the costs. This portion of the Hancock Amendment is violated if both (a) the state requires a new or incre ased activity or service of a political subdivision and (b) the political subdiv ision experiences increased costs in performing that activity or service without funding from the state. In this case there is no new or increased activity. Bef ore the Hancock amendment was adopted, the city was required to pay the funds de termined by the actuarial formula. The change in the certified amount derived fr om the actuarial calculations is not the measure of whether Hancock is violated. The city has not been mandated to bear new responsibilities in relation to this activity. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi 360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf9 (2)\tab Where there is no mandat e that the city take on a new responsibility, but only a continued responsibilit

y for it to fund an existing activity according to a previously-existing formula , there is no Hancock violation. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi 360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf9 (3)\tab The PRS and the FRS boar ds of trustees do not have unlimited discretion in determining the amount reques ted by the city, but rather request and certify the amount that an actuary deter mines is required for the systems to remain actuarially sound. The city cannot e vade its responsibilities to the groups by refusing to pay them the amounts requ ired and then arguing it has spent the monies elsewhere. Payment of the amount c ertified by the respective boards of trustees does not violate art. VI, section 26(a) of the Missouri Constitution. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi 360 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf9 (4)\tab The statutes and ordinan ces relating to the PRS and the FRS require the city to make its annual contribu tion of the actuarially-determined amounts certified by the PRS and the FRS boar ds of trustees. The opening clauses in sections 86.337 and 87.340 set forth the minimum amount payable to the PRS and the FRS. The city is required to contribut e more than the minimum amount ordinarily payable whenever the amounts certified , when combined with the assets in the systems' reserves, are insufficient to co ver the pension and other benefits payable during the current year. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf4 Citation: \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf4 \par Opinion Author: \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Mary R. Russell, Judge \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf4 Opinion Vote: \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 AFFIRMED. All concur. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf4 Opinion: \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \i \f1 \fs26 \cf2 This slip opinion is subject to m odification until the Court has ruled on the parties' motions for rehearing, if any, and will become final only after the Court issues its mandate. To see when the Court issues its mandate, please check the docket entries for the case on \plain \i \f1 \fs26 \cf4 Case.net \plain \i \f1 \fs26 \cf2 . \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li90 \ fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f6 \fs26 \cf0 \tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City of St. Louis \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 (FN1) \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 appeals the trial court's determination that it was requi red to pay the entire amount certified by the City's Police Retirement System (" PRS") and its Firemen's Retirement System ("FRS") in past fiscal years. The tri al court's decision is affirmed, as there is no Hancock Amendment violation in t hat there is no new or increased activity required of the City, there is no conf lict with Mo. Const. art. VI, section 26(a), and the City is required to pay the entire amount certified. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li 90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Background \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The PRS and the FRS are created and governed by statute. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 (FN2) \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The PRS and the FRS are administered by separate boards o f trustees. The boards of trustees hire an actuary to conduct a valuation of th e retirement systems' assets and to calculate the City's contributions. On the basis of the actuarial evaluation, the boards of trustees submit the contributio n amounts to the City's Board of Estimate and Apportionment ("E&A"). E&A is tas

ked with reviewing and revising the City's yearly proposed budget and with submi tting the budget for the approval of the City's Board of Aldermen. Section 5.14 .030, City Code. This litigation arose after E&A failed to approve the full con tribution amount that the PRS and the FRS trustees certified as the City's payme nt. This opinion jointly addresses the City's appeals in both the PRS the FRS c ases because the issues are similar. \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li 90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Facts Relating to the PRS \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li 90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab The PRS trustees certif ied to E&A that the City's payable amount for fiscal year 2003-2004 was $9,575,8 92. E&A's proposed budget allocated $4,115,600 as the City's contribution to th e PRS, and that amount was adopted by the Board of Aldermen. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The PRS trustees then su ed the City, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, alleging tha t the City was required by section 86.344 to pay the amount certified. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 (FN3) \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The parties all moved for summary judgment. The trial co urt found in the PRS's favor, holding that the City was required to pay the enti re amount certified. It also concluded that the City lacked standing to assert its Hancock Amendment argument, and rejected its other arguments. The City appe als. \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li 90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Facts Relating to the FRS \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li 90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The FRS trustees certified to E&A that the City's payable amount for fiscal year 2003-2004 was $8,913,102, and for fiscal year 2004-2005 w as $13,765,477. E&A's proposed budget for fiscal year 2003-2004 allocated $1,88 4,356 as the City's contribution to the FRS and $193,799 as the City Airport Com mission's contribution to the FRS. Those amounts were adopted by the Board of Aldermen. E&A's proposed budget for fiscal year 2004-2005 allocated $1,862,061 as the City's contribution to the FRS, and that amount was adopted by the Board of Aldermen. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The FRS and individual m embers of the FRS trustees then sued the City, seeking declaratory and injunctiv e relief and damages, alleging that the City was required by section 87.355 and Chapter 4.18, City Code to pay the amount certified. The parties all moved for summary judgment. The trial court found in the FRS's favor, finding that the Ci ty was required to pay the entire amount certified. The court rejected the City 's contention that the FRS's claims were barred by the Hancock Amendment. The c ourt found that the City waived its ability to raise the Hancock Amendment by no t pleading it as an affirmative defense and because it lacked standing to assert a challenge based on the Hancock Amendment. The City appeals. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \ li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \keepn \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Jurisdiction \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li 90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab These cases were transf erred to this Court by the court of appeals pursuant to Rule 83.02, as the cases present issues of general interest and importance. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Mo. Const. art. V, section 10. \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li 90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Standards of Review \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Appellate review of summ ary judgment is \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 de novo \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 , and the decision may be affirmed on different grounds th

an those relied on by the trial court. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 ITT Commercial \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 , 854 S.W.2d 371, 387-88 (Mo. banc 1993). \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 In general, constitution al provisions are subject to the same rules of construction as other laws, excep t that constitutional provisions are given a broader construction due to their m ore permanent character. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 StopAquila.org v. City of Peculiar \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 , 208 S.W.3d 895, 899 (Mo. banc 2006). This Court is requ ired to give due regard to the primary objectives of the constitutional provisio n under scrutiny, as viewed in harmony with all related provisions. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 State ex rel. Upchurch v. Blunt \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 , 810 S.W.2d 515, 516 (Mo. banc 1991). \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Hancock Amendment Cla ims \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li 90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City argues that the t rial court erred in entering judgment in favor of the PRS and the FRS because re quiring the City to pay the entire amounts certified violates Missouri's Hancock Amendment. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 (FN4) \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \l i810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 In relevant part, the Hanc ock Amendment states: \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \p ar \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Th e state is hereby prohibited from reducing the state financed proportion of the costs of any existing activity or service required of counties or other politica l subdivisions. A new activity or service or an increase in the level of any ac tivity or service beyond that required by existing law shall not be required by the [G]eneral [A]ssembly or any state agency of counties or other political subd ivisions, unless a state appropriation is made and disbursed to pay the county o r other political subdivision for any increased costs. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \l i90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Mo. Const. art. X, section 21. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Mo. Const. art. X, secti on 21 prevents the State from requiring local governments to begin a new mandate d activity, or to increase the level of a previously mandated activity beyond it s 1980-1981 level, without appropriation of sufficient state monies to finance t he costs of the new or increased activity. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Fort Zumwalt Sch. Dist. v. State, \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 896 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Mo. banc 1995). This portion of the Hancock Amendment is violated if both (1) the State requires a new or increased activity or service of a political subdivision and (2) the political subdivisio n experiences increased costs in performing that activity or service without fun ding from the State. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Miller v. Dir. of Revenue \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 , 719 S.W.2d 787, 788-89 (Mo. banc 1986). \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City argues that the Hancock Amendment is violated if the City is required to pay the entire amounts certified by the PRS and the FRS for the years at issue because those amounts e xceed the amount the City paid in 1981.

\plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 (FN5) \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 This argument fails because despite the fact that the do llar amounts certified for the City to contribute to the PRS and the FRS are gre ater than the dollar amounts certified for the 1980-1981 fiscal year, the City's requirements to pay are unchanged--the City is still required to pay the entire amounts certified by the PRS and the FRS boards of trustees. There is no new o r increased activity. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The Hancock Amendment is aimed at limiting taxes by controlling and limiting governmental revenue and ex penditure increases. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 See \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Boone County Court v. State of Mo. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 , 631 S.W.2d 321, 325 (Mo. banc 1982). \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 (FN6) \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The amendment's official ballot title stated that it pr ohibited "state expansion of local responsibility without state funding." \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Id. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The increased cost of funding the PRS and the FRS is not an expansion of the City's long-existing responsibility. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City has been requir ed to fund the PRS and the FRS pursuant to an actuarial formula that has not cha nged since Hancock's adoption in 1981. The City does not challenge the actuaria l formula used to calculate the City's payments. Inevitably, the amount require d by the formula fluctuates, yielding varying dollar figures at any given actuar ial assessment as more police and firemen are employed, as more retire, as wages are altered, and as a function of inflation. Hancock's mission to control taxe s is not thwarted if the actuarial formula yields increased certified amounts pa yable to the PRS and the FRS. The change in the certified amount derived from t he actuarial calculations is not the measure of whether Hancock is violated. Th e question is whether the City has been mandated to bear new responsibilities in relation to this activity. It has not. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City argues that \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 State ex rel. Sayad v. Zych \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 , 642 S.W.2d 907, \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 (FN7) \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 controls the PRS and the FRS cases. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Zych \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 is distinguishable insofar as the arguments in \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Zych \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 focused on the actual dollar amount appropriated in 19801981. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 (FN8) \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 In the PRS and the FRS cases, the focus is not on whether the dollar amounts requested of the City have increased, but rather on whether there has been any alteration to the long-used actuarial formula that produces t he dollar amounts at issue. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Where there is no mandat e that the City take on a new responsibility, but only a continued responsibilit y for it to fund an existing activity according to a previously-existing formula , there is no Hancock violation. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 See State ex rel. Pub. Defender Comm'n v. County Court of Greene County \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 , 667 S.W.2d 409, 414 (Mo. banc 1984) (finding there was n o new or increased activity in violation of Hancock where the county's existing statutory obligation was not changed by the challenged action).

\par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li 90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 No Conflict with Mo. Cons t. art. VI, section 26(a) \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City also argues tha t it should not be required to pay the entire amounts certified for the years at issue to the PRS and the FRS because paying those amounts wou ld violate Mo. Const. art. VI, section 26(a) \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 (FN9) \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 by forcing the City to become indebted beyond its income. The City contends that paying the amounts certified cannot be done without exc eeding its revenues because it has already appropriated and transferred the fund s for the fiscal years at issue. The City supports its argument by suggesting t hat a requirement that it pay the entire amount certified has the possibility of impairing or wholly destroying the City's other budgetary obligations. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City cites \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 State ex rel. Field v. Smith \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 , 49 S.W.2d 74 (Mo. banc 1932), for the proposition that a statute that gives a City board unlimited power to determine the City's appropr iations is void as an improper delegation of the legislative power to tax. The concerns at issue in \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Field \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 are inapplicable to the PRS and the FRS. The PRS and the FRS boards of trustees do not have unlimited discretion in determining the amou nt requested by the City, but rather request and certify the amount that an actu ary determines is required for the systems to remain actuarially sound. As prev iously noted, the City does not challenge the actuarial calculations in these ca ses. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City essentially arg ues that it can evade payment of the amounts certified by refusing to appropriat e the money owed during the fiscal year when it is due. This argument fails. T he City did not show that it lacked sufficient income in the years at issue with which to pay the amounts certified to the PRS and the FRS. Its payment of the entire amount certified would have necessitated making different choices with it s budget, but such choices are necessary when dictated by statute. The City can not evade its responsibilities to the PRS and the FRS by refusing to pay them th e amounts required and then arguing it has spent the monies elsewhere. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Payment of the amount ce rtified by the PRS and the FRS boards of trustees does not violate Mo. Const. ar t. VI, section 26(a). \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li 90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City Must Pay the Ent ire Amount Certified \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City contends that i t is not required to pay the full amounts certified by the PRS and the FRS becau se its lesser payments were adequate as a matter of law in that they provide eno ugh money to cover the benefits owed. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City states that sec tion 86.344 does not mandate that it pay the entire amount certified by the PRS because section 86.337 provides that, notwithstanding the certified amount, the City's payment is sufficient if, when combined with the retirement system's asse ts, there is enough money to provide benefits payable during the current year. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Similarly, the City argu es that section 87.355 and section 4.18.320, City Code do not require that it pa

y the entire amount certified for the FRS because sections 87.340 and section 4. 18.305, City Code indicate that the payment is sufficient if, when combined with the retirement systems assets, there is enough money to provide benefits payabl e during the current year. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The primary rule of stat utory construction is to determine the legislature's intent by considering the p lain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute and by giving each wo rd, clause, sentence, and section of the statute meaning. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 State ex rel. Womack v. Rolf, \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 173 S.W.3d 634, 638 (Mo. banc 2005). In ascertaining the meaning of a city ordinance, the same statutory construction rules are applied. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 State ex rel. Killingsworth v. George, \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 168 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Mo. App. 2005). The legislature's i ntent is also determined by considering the whole act and its purposes and by se eking to avoid unjust or absurd results. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Id. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 In determining the meaning of a particular statute, this Court may look to the established policy of the legislature as disclosed by a g eneral course of legislation. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Id. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 All consistent statutes relating to the same subject are c onstrued together as though constituting one act, and "[t]he rule of constructio n in such instances proceeds upon the supposition that the statutes in question are intended to be read consistently and harmoniously in their several parts and provisions." \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 State ex rel. Rothermich v. Gallagher \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 , 816 S.W.2d 194, 200 (Mo. banc 1991). \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Section 86.344 (applying to the PRS) provides: \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li 810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 On or before the first day of March of each year the board of trustees shall \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 certify to the board of estimate and apportionment of the city the amounts which will become due and payable during the year next followin g for expenses pursuant to subsection 2 of section 86.343 and the cost of benefi ts as determined pursuant to section 86.337. The amounts so certified shall be a ppropriated by the city and transferred to the retirement system in equal paymen ts in the first six months of the ensuing year. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li 90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl240 \ sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Section 86.337 (applying to the PRS) provides: \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li 810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb 0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The total amount payable to the retirement system f or each fiscal year shall be not less than the normal contribution rate of the t otal compensation earnable by all members during the year; provided, however, th at the aggregate payment by the said cities shall be sufficient when combined wi th the assets of the retirement system to provide the pensions and other benefit s payable during the then current year. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 (FN10) \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \p lain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Section 86.337, RSMo 1994. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \l i810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \s

b0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Section 87.355 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 (FN11) \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 (applying to the FRS) provides: \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \p ar \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 On or before the first of March of each year the board of trustees shall \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 certify to the proper city authorities the amount which wi ll become due and payable during the year next following to the general reserve fund. The amount so certified shall \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 be included by the city authorities in their annual budget estimate. The amount so certified shall be appropriated by the city and transfe rred to the retirement system for the ensuing year. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \p ar \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Se ction 87.340 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 (FN12) \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 (applying to the FRS) provides: \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \l i810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \s b0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The total amount payable in each year to the gener al reserve fund shall be not less than the sum of the rates percent known as the normal contribution rate and the accrued liability contribution rate of the tot al compensation earnable by all members during the year, and the aggregate payme nt by the city shall be sufficient when combined with the amount in the fund to provide the retirement allowances and other benefits payable out of the fund dur ing the then current year. The city may contribute at any time from bond issue o r other available funds an amount equal to the unfunded accrued liability as cer tified by the actuary in which event no further accrued liability contribution w ill be required or may contribute any lesser amount which will be used to propor tionately reduce future accrued liability contributions. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li 90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \ sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City argues that the amounts certified need n ot be paid because the use of the word "shall" in these provisions is not intend ed to make the contribution amount mandatory. This Court disagrees. Generally the use of the word "shall" connotes a mandatory duty. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Bauer v. Transitional Sch. Dist. of the City of St. Lou is, \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 111 S.W.3d 405, 408 (Mo. banc 2003). Whether the use of the word "shall" in a statute is mandatory or directory is primarily a function of context and legislative intent. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Id. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The statutes and ordinan ces relating to the PRS and the FRS, when taken as a whole, support the view tha t actuarial soundness is the principle at the heart of the PRS and the FRS fundi ng provisions. Actuarial soundness requires the City to make its annual contrib ution of the actuarially-determined amounts certified by the PRS and the FRS boa rds of trustees. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Additionally, the City's proposed construction of the statutes fails to account for the principle that o ne part of a statute or ordinance should not be read in isolation, but rather in the context of the whole act, and should be read to harmonize all provisions an d give effect to every word, sentence, and clause of the legislation, if reasona bly possible. This Court construes the opening clauses in sections 86.337 and 8

7.340 to set forth the minimum amount payable to the PRS and the FRS. The secon d clauses--stating that the City's payments are sufficient if they provide the p ayable benefits when combined with the monies in the retirement funds--are inten ded to modify the first part of the sentence. The second clauses establish that the City is required to contribute more than the minimum amount ordinarily paya ble whenever the amounts certified, when combined with the assets in the systems ' reserves, are insufficient to cover the pension and other benefits payable dur ing the current year. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 The City must pay the en tire amount certified by the PRS and the FRS. \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qc \li 90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Conclusion \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl480 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 For the foregoing reason s, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi720 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \ tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 A ll concur. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \ul \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 Footnotes: \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \tab FN1.\tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 The City and the other defendants are collectively referre d to in this opinion as "the City." \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \tab FN2.\tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 The statutes relating to the PRS are sections 86.200 to 86 .366, RSMo 2000 (and, where amended, RSMo Supp. 2006). Sections 87.120 to 87.37 0, RSMo 2000 (and, where amended, RSMo Supp. 2006), are relevant to the FRS, and pursuant to the enabling authority of these sections, the FRS is governed by Ch apter 4.18, Revised Code of the City of St. Louis (hereinafter "City Code"). St atutory references in this opinion are to RSMo 2000, except where otherwise indi cated. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \tab FN3.\tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Members of the PRS trustees also sued the City individuall y, alleging that the appropriation amount impaired the obligation of their contr acts of employment. The court found in the City's favor on this claim, and this issue is not on appeal. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \tab FN4.\tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Mo. Const. art. X, sections 16 to 24. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \tab FN5.\tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Specifically, the City alleges that payment to the PRS of $9,575,892 for 2003-2004 would violate Hancock because the funding level for the PRS in 1981 was $5,886,755. It alleges that payments to the FRS of $8,913,102 for 2003-2004 and $13,765,477 for 2004-2005 would violate Hancock because the fu nding level for the FRS in 1981 was $8,713,700. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \tab FN6.\tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 In \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Boone County \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 this Court found that the state statute mandating a $100

salary increase for county collectors was "an increase in the level of any activ ity" such that it violated Hancock unless the state funded the increased costs t o the counties. 631 S.W.2d at 325. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \tab FN7.\tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 In \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Zych \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 , this Court was asked to determine if the Hancock Amendme nt was violated where the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners sought payment by the City for a certified budget amount for 1982-1983 that was greater than t he amount certified in 1980-1981. 642 S.W.2d at 908-09. The City argued that t he Police Board, as a state agency, could not compel the City to appropriate an amount of money above the amount appropriated by the City for use by the Police Board as of the effective date of the Hancock Amendment. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Id \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 . at 909. The Court concluded that as a state agency, the Police Board could not require the City to increase its level of activity in re lation to the Police Board beyond its 1980-1981 amount. \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Id. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 at 911. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \tab FN8. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 The majority in \plain \i \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Zych \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 opined: \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li450 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Th e level of the City's activity in relation to the Police Board required by exist ing law upon the adoption of article X, section 21, was the amount certified by the Police Board for the fiscal year 1980-81. . . . . It would be unconstitution al for the Police Board to require the City to appropriate any more than $66,634 ,713, the budget certified as of the effective date of the Hancock Amendment. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 \tab 64 2 S.W.2d at 911. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \tab FN9.\tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Mo. Const. art. VI, section 26(a) states: \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li450 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 No county, city, incorporated town or village, school district or other political corporation or subdivision of the state shall become indebted in an amount excee ding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year plus any unencumb ered balances from previous years, except as otherwise provided in this constitu tion. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \tab FN10. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Prior to an amendment in 2000, this section read: \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li450 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Th e total amount payable in each year to the general reserve fund shall be not les s than the sum of the rates percent known as the normal contribution rate and th e accrued liability contribution rate of the total compensation earnable by all members during the year; provided, however, that the aggregate payment by the sa id cities shall be sufficient when combined with the amount in the fund to provi de the pensions and other benefits payable out of the fund during the then curre nt year. The city may contribute at any time from bond issue or other available funds an amount equal to the unfunded accrued liability as certified by the actu ary in which event no further accrued liability contribution will be required or any lesser amount which will be used to proportionately reduce future accrued l

iability contributions. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \tab FN11.\tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 City Code section 4.18.320 precisely tracks the language o f sections 87.355. \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf0 \tab \tab FN12.\tab \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 City Code section 4.18.305 precisely tracks the language o f section 87.340. Further, City Code section 4.18.290 provides: \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li810 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf2 Contributions to and paym ents from the general reserve fund shall be as follows: On account of each membe r there shall be paid annually into the fund by the City an amount equal to a ce rtain percentage of the earnable compensation of the member to be known as "the normal contribution" and an additional amount equal to a percentage of his earna ble compensation to be known as "the accrued liability contribution." The [perce ntage rates] of the contributions shall be fixed on the basis of the liability o f the Retirement System as shown by actuarial valuations. \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\qj \ li90 \fi-90 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \b \f1 \fs20 \cf4 Separate Opinion: \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \f1 \fs20 \cf0 None \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \plain \i \b \f1 \fs20 \cf2 This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflec t the final opinion adopted by the Court. \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 \tx0 \tx90 \tx810 \tx1530 \tx 2250 \tx2970 \tx3690 \tx4410 \par \pard \ltrpar\li90 \fi0 \ri0 \sl240 \sb0 \sa0 } }