Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Res 75-98
RESOLUTION NO. 75-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMI'SSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, OPPOSING ANY OVERRIDE OF THE GOVERNOR'S VETO OF HOUSE BILL 3075 RELATING TO POLICE AND FIRE PENSIONS; REQUESTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP A NEW, COMPROMISE BILL DURING THE 1999 LEGISLATIVE SESSION; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PROVIDE COPIES OF THIS RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Governor Lawton Chiles vetoed House Bill 3075 relating to Police and Fire pensions on the basis that it was confusing, contained conflicting provisions, and would lead to extensive litigation resulting in a waste of taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, the Florida League of Cities commissioned a study by Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP regarding the potential fiscal impact of HB 3075 on Florida cities sponsoring police or firefighter pension plans; and WHEREAS, the Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP study determined that the passage of HB 3075 could result in significant increased costs for Florida cities; and WHEREAS, any override of the Governor's veto of House Bill 3075 will result in the imposition of a significant unfunded mandate for Florida municipalities and circumvent the local collective bargaining process; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach supports the Governor's veto of House Bill 3075; and WHEREAS, the Delray Beach City Commission requests the opportunity to develop a new, compromise bill during the 1999 legislative session which would also clear up the ambiguities in the bill which was vetoed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach hereby supports the Governor's veto of House Bill 3075 relating to Police and Fire pensions. Section 2. That the City Commission finds that any override of the Governor's veto of HB 3075 could result in significant cost increases to Florida cities, thereby constituting an unfunded mandate. Section 3. That the City Commission requests the opportunity to develop a new, compromise bill durin9 the 1999 legislative session which would also clear up the ambiguities contained in House Bill 3075. Section 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to furnish copies of this resolution to the appropriate officials. Section 5. That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 1st day of December, 1998. ATTEST: ~+~ - Cit~ c~erk , - 2 - Res. No. 75-98 01/12/1~SS 23:37 0000000000 WILLIA~ ANDREWS PAGE 02 PALM BEACH COU~.TY LEG] SLAT!VE DELEGATION HOUSE OF R,EEKES~ATIx?ES Dst. M~rm'b~- Stsff Telephone 7g Rick Min~o~ C~ce Wright 561-279.-1633 5353 ~'. A~'aic ]~m~gel~a Jennmgs 561-2?9. ~ 634 F~ ~0~-.A 561-595-1380 23.00 Virginia Av~. 561-595~i'J82 F&x F~, Pi~e, Fi, 3a982 82 Tom W~- C~oly'n Timm~nn 56~-223-5~i~ 957 S. Fed~l Janet Skoinick 561-22'1~6 Fax Sr~.~ FL 3499a Chn~u F~ely ~6[-625-51.03 Fax No~h Pa!m B~ch, ~408 ~ Ad~;e G~nc l~mes }l~r, Jr. 561~837-5252 330 Clem~is S~, ~!~B Ju~m ~umi¢ S~ I-.g37..525a F~ West Pal~n ~ach. FL 33401 ~anc Walker 561-~2.1658 140 Nm-th 1.~e 56i..~'2-1659 Fa~ Pahok~c, Fl. 33476 Corinne 'l~!~a 561-681-25~ Fax W~ Palm B~c'h, EL 33401 g6 Ed Heale~'. Sosa~ gu~her 56 i-4.~-3950 3 ~o' S. Congas. ~* O~i[ Aa~'~s P~ ~ckea 561-279-1616 777 E. Atlatmc Art. ~226 Cha~aa Ca~y Ru~n~ 56!-279- ~6!g F~x D¢Itay ~ach, FL 33483 88 S~e Jacebs Gigi Roilim 56t-4.33,.36~ 9~1 S Congr~ R.~holle Clm~an 561~33-3668 Fax 89 Cu~ ~vm, ~na Si~b~ 561 ~37- I } I 8 ~ ! 77 Gla,~, Ro~ K~5~ Snyaer 561-637-7~0 F~ ~ca Rat~. FL 91 ~bby Sm;de~cm J~n Kuc~nsk~ 954-958-5500 ag00 NE 20'~ Terr. #401 B~ Cm'ra~ 954..958-5505 Fax F~. I.,uderdae, FI, 33308 01/1~/1999 29:97 0000000000 WILLIAM ANDREW~ PAGE 01 Florida House of Representatives William F. Andrews R e.l~l.l~ to: Oontmlttee~ 0 SUBJECT: IF THERE IS A pROBLEM 'WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL t56'1)279-1616. STATE OF FLORIDA ffice ( oUernor ._JUN' 2 THE C~ITOL T~LAHASS~, ~ORIDA 3~-~1 LA~N ~ ~o~ June ld, 1 ~8 Honorable Jay Alperin C e~- d~~ l~q ' 100 Northwest 1 Avenue ~ Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Dear Jay: Tha~ you for your letter asking me to veto Ho~ Bill 3075, an~'act relating to municipal firefighters' pension aM police officer's retireme~~d~ Your opinion helped me in making my decision. As I'm sure you've heard, I did veto this bill. It had some merit. And all of us want to be sure police and firefighters, who do so much for us, are treated fairly. But there were unclear provisions in the bill which might have opened up a whole new round of litigation and wrangling between local governments and the representatives of firefighters and police officers. It unaccountably removed a number of municipalities from having to comply with its provisions. It also would have colored the tone of collective bargaining and muddied local finances for officials, employees, and taxpayers. Lieutenant Governor Buddy MacKay and I understand the difficulties localities face as they attempt to plan for the future. Please contact us again anytime. With kind regards, I am S;,ncerely, LAWTON CHILES LC/hdw RECEIVED ' __'1 CITY CLER.K MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: ~CITY MJ~AGER SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #~/~/- REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 75-98 (OPPOSING ANY OVERRIDE OF THE GOVERNOR'S VETO OF HB 3075) DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 1998 This is before the Commission to consider approval of a resolution opposing any override of Governor Chiles' veto of House Bill 3075 relating to Police and Fire pensions. A concerted effort to this end is expected during the upcoming legislative session. Included in the backup material is a copy of the study by Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP concerning the potential impacts of HB 3075. This study was commissioned by the Florida League of Cities. I especially call your attention to Exhibit IV of the report which estimates that the increased annual cost to Delray Beach would be $760,000 if HB 3075 were to become law. As an alternative, the resolution requests the opportunity to develop a new, compromise bill during the 1999 legislative session which would also clear up the ambiguities in the bill which was vetoed. Recommend approval of Resolution No. 75-98. ref:agmemol4 FR!OH : PHOIIE: ~10. : rio,.,. 2.4 19'_a.E: 12:45F'r,1 F'2 TALKING POINTS KEY REASONS NOT TO OVERRIDE THE VETO OF HB 3075 (POLICE AND FIRE PENSIONS) 1) ACCORDING TO PRiCE/WATER.I-IOUSE COOPERS, LLP, I-FB 3075 IS ESTIMATED TO COST LOCAL LAW PLANS UNDER. CHAPTERS 175/185, F.S. AT LEAST $50 MILLION DOLLARS EACI-I YEAP~ FOR THE LIFE OF THE LOCAL PLANS_ 2) lAB 3075 REQUIRES INCREASED PENSION BENEFITS, INCREASED PENSION COSTS, AND PROVIDES NO NEW FUNDING TO CITIES. THE STATEiVfENT THAT THE BILL PROVIDES "ADDITIONAL STATE Mt. NIES TO COVER BENEFIT INCREASES IS MISLEADING AND INACCURATE. ADDITIONAL PR.EMIUM TAX DOLLARS ARE ASSUMED TO BE A FUNDING SOURCE, IN ACTU.A_RIAL FUNDING, FOR CURRENT PENSION COSTS. 3) THE LEGISLATURE HAS RF_.J.F. CTED PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING, EVE..N IF THE CITY PROVES THAT NEW COSTS ARE REQUIRED AS A RESULT OF t-lB 3075. 4) TIlE FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF GOVEILNM'F. NT CONDUCTED A COMPARISON STUDY OF POLICE .AND FIRE PENSION BENEFITS IN STATE AND LOCAL RETIREMENT PLANS THROUGHOUT 'IT-IE SOUTHEAST. LOCAL LAW PLANS IN FLORIDA, UNDER. CHAPTI-?.';RS 175 AND 185, F.S., EXCEEDED MINIMUM BENEFITS IN MOS]' CATEGORIF_,S, AND OVERAl WlZ. I.L EXCEEDED ALL OTHER PLANS. 5) lib 3075 DISCRIMINATES AGAINST GENERAL EMPLOYES BY REQUIRING TI-IAT 100% OF PREMIUM TA_X DOII.&RS RECEIXrED BY CITIES MUST BE USED FOR BENEFITS ABOVE GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION BENEFITS. TI-~FO~, IF YOU INCREASE KETIREM-ENT BENEFITS FOR GENER.AL EMPLOYEES, THEN YOU WILL LIKELY ALSO I--IA.VE TO AUTOMATICALLY INCREASE BENEFITS FOR POLICE AND FIRE, .Ef,'EN 1/-* YOU _dIRE PtCESEIWIT~Y MEETI'NG 3~iI. NIiMUM BEJXIEFI'T.Y SE T B Y.[M IF'. FROM : PH~]~E ~0. : ~Io,.,. 24 1998 12:46PM P5 6) I. tB 3{7t75 AUTI...IORJZES 'I'HE INDEPENDENT 'BOARD OF TRUSTIZSS FOR POL, ICI_-'~ AND FllVdE PENSI'ONS 2'0 TAKI=~ zM_.L Ok' THE PIL1EMIUM ]"AX DO~..L?~RS OU'[' OF TIdE BASIC PLAN. THE. SE MON lES MAY BE PLACED IN'FO A NEW SUPPI.E~v[I:£NTAL PI_~-IN, LEAVING THE CITY TO ¢{AKE UP THF. DIFt-'ERF_NCE IN THE BASIC PI.AN, OVER. TI. 1.E LIFE (_-)F THE PLAlq. 7) I-t-B 3075 IS CONFUSING .AND CONTAINS SO MANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS TI4_.AT TIlE GOVERNOR VETOED IT, SAYING IT WOULD LEAD TO EXTENSIVE LITIGATION. LEGAL CH_AI, LENGES WASTE TAX'PAY-ER DOI.LAR~g. 8) H'B 3075 REVERSES GAINS MADE BY CITIES OVER. THE PAST TWELVE lEARS IN .ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND THE COURTS. 9) lib 3075 REQUIRES TI-IAT THE CITY M-EET MINIMUM BENEFITS IN ET, ACH CATE, GORY OF BENEF.[TS, EVEN IF AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE BENEFITS NOW PR. OVIDED ARE RICHER TI.LAN TIq-g AGGR.15]GATF~ 'VALUE OF THE MINIMUM BENEFITS REQUIRED BY I.AW. 10) I-IB 3075 REQUIRES ELIGIBILITY FOR TOTAL AND PERMANENT DiSA.BiLITY, EVEN THOUGH THE POLICE OFFICER OR FIREFiGHTER IS NOT TOTAI~LY AND PERlxL/~NENTLY DISABLED AND COULD WORK IN ANOTI-tiER CAPACITY IN THE CITY. 11) SPECTR~UM RESF_ARCH _AND CONSULTING CONDUCTED A POl'J~ Tt--I_AT SHOWS THAT OUT OF 856 REGIS'FElLED VOTERS: A MAJO~'IW BF__,LIEVED TI-I..AT POLICE AND FIRE PENSION PI.A.NS WERE EITHER ABOUT RIGHT OR TOO GENER..'OUS, WI-I"I-I AS MANY AS ONE TI-IIRD BELIEVING THAT THE PLANS WERE TOO GF_2'qEROUS. MOST WOULD OPPOSE INCRF. ASED LOCAL PROPERTY TAX.ES TO FUND BETI'.ER POLICF~ AND FIRE PENSION PLANS. 11 2~ 'DE: 12:4~ FL LEAGUE OF CITIE~i ~ 6156124]]??4 RIC ATE OU$ mPE Pr ieew~¢rho u~Caaper~ LLP PERSONAL&. Tampa ~L 33~2-5147 ~ovember 20, ~998 Telephane (813) 229 0221 Fec~imJle (8~3] 229 3~6 Ms. Carol Mamhncr Assistant Director of Legislative Affairs Florida Lc~uc of Citi¢~ 301 S. Bronough St., 4t~ Floor Tallahas~ee, FL 32301 Dear Carol: We are pleased to present our report to the League of Cities regarding the potential impact of KB 3075. We reviewed thrc~ specific aspects of HB 3075 that affect pension benefits for police officers and firefighters. These issues involve the definition of compensation for pension purposes, disability benefit offseta for workers compensation or Social Security benefits and redirection ot'invmium tax funds by pension boards. We re,4ewed the actuarial valu~tbn rel~rt$ for 34 eitieg ~pon~oring police or firefighter pe~on plans. In addition, we revirared 8¢veral actuarial impact statements or letters regarding actuarial cost estimates. We tiao spoke directly to approximately 20 city employees regarding the cities' police and fir~fighters' pension plan provisions and the benefit and cost implications of the proposed bill. Our comments mad calculations arc based on a review of thc proposed bill and discussions with you and numerous rgprescntatives at the cities involved in our study. One point that seems 'particularly important and unusual for legislation that could have such a significant £mancial impact is the numb~ of issues that are unclear. ¥irmally ¢veryone we spoke to :egarding the i~IOpOaCCl bi][ gfipl~e,d~ {;0Ilc~rll ~Y~;r ~;h~ f{~ ~hat numerous areas of the bill are open to interpretation and could have greatly different impact depending on how they arc interpreted, This concern was twofold - fa'aL that some aspects of the bill could result in significant added cost to the cities ~nd see. xm~ that the bill could lead to excessive litigation regarding its tmcbar provi$iom. Out coat calculations in this r~port are b~ed on an intorpretation of ~ome of these unclear provisions. For example, thc bill con, ns language that might permit pension boards to redin:¢t premium tax ~. Our calculations show the impact if this language is interpr~d to permit ~on and the boards choose to ctivert 100% of the funds. 11 24 'B8 12:45 FL LEAGIJE OF CITIE~i ~ 615E, 1245~?74 IIC1.542 [~03 Ms. Carol Marchner November 20, 1998 Page Two One of thc re.~or~ that somo oft. he provisions of the proposed bill. could result in significant cost increases to the cities is thc effect of leveraging. In the numerical example below we show how bec~ttse of lcvcr~g/ng a 10% incr~¢ ha benefits cast result in a 60% increase in costa to a city. There ~ two factot~ in the determination of the cities' funding requirements that rosu!! in leveraging. The first factor is that the cities, must tired whatever is required aRer the premium tax funds ~ cmp[oyce contributions are taken into account. This means flint the ci~des b¢~r full responsibility for any ¢o$t in~reases wkile the other two funding sources ate uncha~lge~l, l'he second factor that r~sultz M lever~ging of coats is tho £act that when benefits ate increased under the proposed bill, the increase applies to benofits that have already been f'~ded arid were fully paid for prior to the legislation. Art example of the leveraging effect is described below: A~sume for example purpos,s that the current plan assets are equal to 50% of the present vMue of future benefits und,r the plan. Of the 50% that remains to be f~ded, one-third is c.~vere~! by employe~ contributions, one-third is coveted by premium tax refund~ and one-third is paid lay the City sponsoring the pl~. lfth¢ proposed bill increases the present value of benefits by 1 OM, the nntutal expectation ,,¥~uld be that the City's cost woulcl inereas~ by 10%. Unfortut~ately, far fi.om correct. The City's costs in this ex~-a~ple increase by 60%. Tkis example is illt~'trated numerically below:. Prior to L~gislatio~ P~¢~¢nt Value of Benefits $30,000,000 $33,000,000 PI~ Assets $15,000,000 $15,000,000 Pt~¢nt Value of Benefits Yet to be Funded $1 $,000,000 $1 g,000,000 Employee Portion $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Clmpt~rPortion $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 City Portion $ 5,000,000 $ 8,000,000 City's Annual Cost $ 500,000 $ gO0,O00 As. you can aec ~ the ex,pie above, due to the leveraging effect, even though ~h~ present v~ue of benefits ix~reased by 10%, ~e Ciw's ~ing requiremem incma~d bi 60%. ~0 CiW ~ to m~ up for ~e f~t ~t fl~e o~er sources of ~di.ng (~e pl~ sse~, employ~ ~nMbutiom md pm~ ~ ~) do not increase 10% automatically ~ a reset of lcg~ladon. ~e Ci~ ~ to cff~fively m~ up for t~c 10% that each of these so.cee does not inc~c ~ weU ~ i~ o~ 10%. [n ~e exmple a~ve we lmve ~s~ed ~at ~e City's annul ~ding requ~ement would foully o~ten~ of ~e ~fl~ bestir liability, or $500,000 per year b f0r the $800,000 ~r it. ~e poim of~e illus~ation is t~t due to the MgMy leveraged ~aition of~y of ~, p,~io~ plus Mvolv~, ~e cost impact to ~e cities of ~y benefit incre~e l~cs ~ ~ wo~d ~ exacted at firat gl~c~. 11 24 9E: 12:45 FL LEAISUE gF CITIE~_g -* 615612433??4 110.542 Ms. Carol Marchner November 20. 1998 Page Three Of the cities who provided a~tuarial reports for review, the non-employee funding requiremem averaged I5.2% of payroll. As we have discussed, this compares very favorably to the typical private ~.etor retirement iran cost of 4-5% of payroll. Of course, there are important reasons ttmt pubtie safety employees have earlier retirement ages than most other employee, s, so one would expect to ~e higher retirement plan teams. However, the difference between the 4-5% typlc, al private ~.ctot cost and the 15.2% for the group we reviewed appears to mu~h greagr than is necessary to provide for the early retirement factor. Compensatign~.finition - Exhibit I We reviewed the actuarial valuation repons of the 33 individual police pension plans we received. Of the eitie~ with police pension plans, several already had an actuarial impact statement or other east estimate p,fformed. For five cities we were unable to determine whether compensation would be ~ffbcted by ~ 3075 b¢cause the actuarial rel:~ wan not specific. Sixteen of the 28 cities we were able to vefi~y would be affec~d by fig change in police compensation mandated by IdB 3075. We received compensation information from 15 and performed an actuarial cost estimate based on this information. The estimated impact of the proposed change in the definition of compensation is displayed on Exhibit I. In order to ~timatz the cost impact of flee change in the delhaition of eomtnnsation we requested information directly from file cilia. We asked them what increase in compensation they would expect from the change required by I-IB 3075 based on actual salaries of theix police officer. Attached after Exhibit IV is a sample copy of the letters we seat to the Cities requesting salary i~ormafion. We used the l~reentat~e i~er~e in cx~mpensation they reported to estimate the present value of be~xefits and calculated the annual funding increase based on the actuarial cost method and assumptions contained in the valuation reports provided. Di~abi!_i~ BenefiLOffsC,.s -_Exhibit II We reviewed the actuarial valuation reports of the 34 individual cities we received. Of these, several ha~ an actuarial cost estimate performed regarding this change. Ttfirteen plans of those we ~evlewed have disability benefit~ that ar0 offset for $0dal §~ufity or workers compensation benefits to some degree and could be impacted by this change. We performed cost estimates for the seven of these thirteen plans that appear to have a material eom impact. Baaed on the ~fonnation available from those who lind actuarial studies performed we made estimates of the potential impact on the plans that did not. These zesults are displayed on Exhibit II. In order to ~stimate the cost impact of the elimination of the disability offsets, we followed a similar approach to that described in Exhibit I. Where possible, we made adjustments to the results preaemed in the actuarial valuation reports based on the assumptions and methods used by the current actuary. 11 24 98 12:45 FL LE~GI_IE OF CITIES + 615G124]]?74 I10.]~2 DO~ Ms. Carol Marchner November 20, 1998 Page Four ?remium_Tax~R~funds - Exhibit III HB 3075 includes language which could result in local pension boards diverting the premium tax refunds from the existing pension plans to provide other retirement benefits. We renewed the actu~al feOofl~ ~t0vided and mmmrized tl~e amoum of rcv0nuc cities involved could lose under this provision, Please note that the premium t~ revere c~mates sho~ in this report ~e based on 1996 and 1997 amounts; 1998 actual amounts will probably b~ greater. This information is displayed o~ Exhibit III, The total potential co~t impact of all three of thc chaflg~s described above is $25~g42~000 for the 30 ci6es we evaluated. In addition, if thc pension boards f~r ~hc other cities that sponsor i~w police and rite p~nsion plans were to redirect their premium tax &nds, another $29,826,000 of increased ~ would be p~sed to these cities. Based on the three provisions of the bill discuss~ in this repo~, as much as $55,668,000 in increased costs could be c'rc~ted for Florida Pl~s~ note that all of our ~cula~ions are b~ed at least in pan on the work pe~ormed by the actuaries for the pinna in this study. We used the results ottlaeir valuation repo~s to prepare our cost e~fimat~. In ord~ m estimate the impact of the elimination, of the disability offset~ we ~sumed that 50% of disabled employees would qualify Ibr Social Security disability or Workers Comp,nsation ben~fit~, We nlso ~ssumed that each of,hese benefits would equal 25% of employee~' ~mpensation. We would be happy to respond to any questions or comments regarding this repo~ m your conve~en~. Please give u~ ~ call if you have any questions or commeats regarding the repoa or would like m schedule a meeting to regiew it in detail. Ve~ truly yours, Stephen M. Me~ P6ncipal Associate of the Society of Emolled Actu~ ~96-4342 S lmb Enclosures 11 2q-q:--: i2:45 FL LEI-:41313E OF '-ITIES ~' F~%F~'m-'''-"-'~ ..... ~ _ _,~.:..~- ..... , , .~. i 10. ].42 POE, EXHIBIT I Police Compensation Definition Change ....... Estimated Revised Current Annual Increase ($) An~ual Estimated Cit'~ .C.i.tv l~undine Tn Annual Citt ]~undfi~e._,_Cit¥ r;undine [ncrense (%) Bay Harbor Island8 $ 206,000 $ 39,000 $ 245,000 19% ~oeal~aton $ 1,454,000 $ 300,000 :g 1,75~,000 21~ Goral$pring~ $ 650,000 $ 750,000 .... $ 1,400,000' lt5% bay'tona'i~each $ 1,s24,000 S ~36,000 $ ~,7~"61000 1~% DelrayB~a~h $ 1,247,000 ' '$ 212,0'00 $ 1,459,000 17% 'Ft. Lauderdale $ 6,294,000 $ 936,000 $ 7,230,000 15',,~ Ia~ksonville B¢~¢h $ 349,000 $ 206,000 $ 555,000 59% Kissimmee $ 43,000 $ 3i~,000" $ 8 ],000 $$% Larso $ 0 $ 400,000 ~ 400,0.00 NIA Miami Shores $ 190,00b $ 121.000 $ 311,000 64% Oakland Park $ 125,000 - $ 330,000 $ 455,000 ........ 264% -Orlando $ 7,601,000 $2,025,000 $ 9,629,000 27% Sameord $ 67,000 $ 72,000 $ 139,000 107% Tailahassee ..... $ 8,212,0-~0 $1,277,000 $ 9,489,~)00 16% 'Tampa J $ 3,073,000 $ 2273500 ~ 3,300,000 7% TOTAL $31,035,000 $7,172,000 $38,207,000 23% 11 2~ 'BE: 12:45 FL LE~GI_IE OF CITIEEi ~ _,1_b1=43~.,, ,4 I10.]42 EXHIBIT II Elimination of Dissbilit3, Benefit Offsets Estin~a ted Current Annual Increase ($) Revised Annual Estimated _C_it,/ _ .City Funding In Annu. a!.Cj.ty Iqmding _ City F_undin~ Increase (%) Coral Springs $ 650,000 $ 4:2,000 $ 692,000 6.0% D~l~ayBeach $ 1,2~7,000' $ 43,000 --'$ l,~.'9O,00O 3.0% -Ft. Lauderda[e $ 6~2~4,000 $220,000 -- '$ 6,514,000 3.0% ~allandale ~; 981,000 $ 68,000 $ 1,(~49,000 7.0% LaudcrKill' $ '543~000 $ ]9,0__00 __ $ .562~000' 3.0% Orlando $ 7,601,000 $ 30,000 $ 7,63],000 0.4% Tamarac $ I,'055,000 $ 401000 $ 1,095,000 4.0% TOTAL $18, 37 ! ,000 ~462,000 $18,833,000 3.0% 11 's,:~ 'aF: 12:45 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES EXHIBIT Ill Diversion of Premium Tax Funds Estimated Current Annual Increase ($) Revised Annual Estimated Ci~ City Fu'nding In A.n.al City Funding Citx. Fundl,ng Increase ¢%1 Bay Harbor l~Iands $ 206,000 $ ] 8,000 $ 224,000 9% ltoeaRaton ~' $ 1,454',00b $ 1',635,000 $ ~,O~9,0O0 112% Brooksville "' i 26,[00 $ 48,000 $' '-68,000 240% Casselben'y $ 9,000 $ 0 $ 9,000 0% Coral Springs - -- $ 650,000 $ 450,000 ~ 1,I0b, 000 69% DaYt°naBeach $ 1,524,000 $ 415,000 $" 1,939,000 - 27% 'Delrayl~e~ch $ 1,247,000 $ 505,000 $ 1,752,000 40% Dunedin $ 120,000 $ 95~000 '- $ 218,000 82% Pt. Lauderd~lc $ ~,~,099 ~- 2,332,000 $ 8,626,000 37% · Gainesville'- $ 2,053,000 $ 704,000 S 2,75;/,000 34~" Hallandale- - ' $ 981,000 $ 279,000 ~ 1,2'60,000 28% lacksonv~lle Beach $ 349,000 $ 140,000 $ 489,000 40% Kissimmee $ 43,000 '--- $ ~68,000 $ 311,000 623% Larg~ -- $ 0 $ 636,000 " $ 636,000 N/A LaUderhill $ 543,000 $ 284,000 $ 827.000 52% Miami Shores $ 190,000 $ 29,00© $ 219,000 1 Oakland Park $ 125,000 $ 129.000 $ 254,000 103% Ocoee - $ 548,000 -- $ 851000 ...... $ 633,000 16% Orlando $ 7,601,000 $ 3,08~,000 $t0,685,000 41% OrmondB~aeh $ 144,000 $ 264,000 $ 408,000 183% -- P~latka $ 199,000 $ 99,000 $ 295,00--~ PembrokePine~ ' ' $ 1",508,000 $ 858,000 "' $ 2,366.000 57% Port Orange $ 98,000 $ 196,000 $ 294,000 200% Riviera. B~eh $ 820,000 .~ 113,000 ....... $ 603,000 16% Sanford $ ....... 67~00 $ 248,000- $ 3 [5,000 370;/0 St. Augustine $ 0 $ 196.0~) Tallahassce $ 8.212,000 $ 1.,218,000 l $ 9,430,000 15.~.,~ ;l'amarac " $ 1,055,000 ~'- $ 357,000 $ 1,412.000 34% Tampa ' ~ 3,073,000 $ 3,n72,ooo $ 6~45,000 113% Tarpon Springs $ 81,000 $ 78,000 $ 159,000 96% TOTAL $38,914,000 · $1 g,208,000 $57,12~,000 477,~ 'd .-I Iq ',,'.L ' Mci 0¥:~ 9G-OZ-II 11 '--'" "_~ q'-'_ ,.:, 12:4'5_, FL LERGUE OF E ITIES --,' 6156124._Z~?74 IIEI. 3.42 P©q_ EXHIBIT IV Total - All Three Changes E~[imated Current Annual Increase ($) Revised Annual Estimated ~it'y City lrundinll In Annual City Fundiuff City Fu.ding [ncrense (%) BayHm'bor Islands $ 206,000 $ 57.000 $ 263,000 28% Bocal~ton $ 1,454,000 $ 1.935,000 $ 3,389,000 133% Brool~villo $ 20~000 S ag,000 $ 68,000 240% Casselberry $ 9,000 $ 0 $ 9,000 0% Coral Springs $ 650,000 $ 1,242,000 $ 1.892,000 191% DaytonaBeacb $1,524,000 $ 651,000 $ 2, i75,000 43% D¢lray Beach $1,247,000 $ 760,600 $ 2,007,000 61% Dunedin $ 120~000 $ 98,000 $"' 218,000 82% Ft. L'auderdale $ 6,294,000' $ 3,488,000 $ 9.~82.000 55% Gaine~ville $ :2,053,000 $ 704,000 $ 2,757,000 34% Hallandale $ 981,000 $ 347,000 $ 1,328.000 35% lacksonville Beach $ 349,000 " $ 346,000 $ 695,000 99% Kissimmee $ 43,000 $ 306,006 $ 349,000 712%' Largo $ 0 $ t,636,~0 $ 1.,036,000 "N/A Lauderhill $ 543,000 $ 303,000 $ 846.000 56% Mi~--~'mi Shore~ $ 190,000 $ 150,000 $ 340,000 79% Oakland Park $ 125,000 $ 459,000 $ 5841000 '367% Oc, oee $ $48,000 $ 85,000 -- ~ 633,000 16% Orlond~ $ 7,601,000 $ 5.142,000 $12,743,000 68% OrmondBeach $ 144,000 $ 264,000 $ -408,000 183% Palatka $ 199,000 S 99,000 $ 298,000 50% Pembroke Pine $ ],~Ol~,000 $ 858,000 $ 2,366,000 57% Pon Orange $ 98,000 $ 196,0-~0 $ 294,000 200% Riviera Beach $ 520,000 $ 83,000 $ 603,000 16% Sanford $ 67,000 $ 320,000 $ 387,~o0 478% St. Augustine $ 0 $ 1'96,000 $ i 9~,000 N/A Tallahassee $ 8,212,000 $ 2,495,000 $10,707,000 30% Tamarac $ 1,055,000 $ 397,000 $ 1,452,000 38% Tampa $ 3,0'~3,000 S 3.699.060 $ 6,77'2,00'6 126% Tat, pon Springs $- -I~1,000 --- $ 78.ooo $ 159.000 96% ToiAL $3 8,914,000 [25.842.000 $~;4, ?'~,000 66% 0I/5 11 ~2.( ~8 12:45 FL LEAGUE OF ,]ITIE'_=i ~ 6156124.~,~?74 I~0.]42 [~10 October 2, 1998 City of Address CiTy . , FL Dear We have been retained by the Florida League of Cities to assist in evaluating the potential impact of liB 3075 on cities' pension costs. One provision in particular that we are evaluating is the change in the definition of compensation mandated by the bill. As you are probably aware, the bill defines police compensation or ~alary to mean '~total .cash remuneration" including overtime, but excluding payments for extra duty or special detail work performed on behalf of a second party employer. Overtime can be iimked to 300 hours per year. The change would l~regumably alto require cities to include terminal leave payouts and other items in police officers' pay for pension purposes. In order to estimate the cost impact of this change we need to get an estimate of the increase or decrease in compensation for police officers that your city would realize under the language of the bill. We would like to get as precise and accurate an e~imate e~ possible, however, a reasonable approximation will be sufficient for now. For example, if it is possible to have your payroll department perform an analysis comparing t;urr~n: pan,ion eomp, ensation to a version that meets the new definition, that would be ideal. If not, an e.~timate ba~ed on several individual employees would be acceptable if you believe that it is representative of the group as a whole. If you are not comfortable that you can provide a ~ingle estimate of the increase, two or three estimates will be fine. For e~;ample, you may wish to say that the change in compensation will result in a :2.5% increase under one scenario, a 4.0% increase under- another one and a ?.4% increase under a third. We need your best estimate of the expected impact of this change ot~ pension compensation. One of our consultants will be calling within the next week to discuss this issue and to get your estimated change in cgmpensation under the bill. We need to have this information a~ 166~ as possible, '!fyou have any questions r0garding ~hb information, please give me a call at ($13)-218-41:29, otherwise we will be contacting you shortly. Very truly yours, Stephen M. Metz PrinCipal SM3,1/gm cc: Carol Mm'elmer, Florida League of Cities bi_b1=.4_,:,, ,4 IlO. 342 [~11 2.4 9,:-_', 12:45 FL LEI-~GLIE OF CITIES --, - ~,- -' "~":'-"~ ~SOLI~IO~ NO. ~4~ A ~E30~lTT~ON O~ TEE C~T~ COUNCIL O~ ~K~ OF APO?~, FLORIDA, O~POSZNG PRO~OS~ HOUSE BILL NO. 30T5 ~C~ ~ ~G~S TO C~EaS 175 ~ 185 OP ~ORIDA STA~ES BY RSQUIRIN~ LOC~ ~W P~SION P~S TO ~ET ~L ~QUIR~S OF STATE P~SION P~S~ PROVID~N~ FOR ~ EPFECTI~ DA~. ~S, police officers and f~refig~ter unions have legisla~ion for 1998 =hrou~h Hou6e Bill No. 30~S, makin~ a nu~er o~ changes to Chapters 17~ and 18~, Florida S=acute~, concerning police and firefigh~er pension plans~ and ~S~S, House Bill No. 3075 con~a~n~ an alternative ~ompliance option =ha= a~ears =o be in~ended to allow overtime, ~e~lnal leave pa~en~s and outer ~o~s o~ ~ay =o ~e excluded ~rom com~ensation fo= pension pu~os~ if plan benefit~ e~al or ~he sta~uto~ minimu~ benefitE; and ~R~S, local law plans for police o~ficers and firefigh=ers meeu m~nl~m re~irem~nu~ o~ ~.S, chapter~ 175 and 18~, but var~ ~rom =he S=a=u~e~ ~6 they deem necs~fla~ under their local law plans; and ~ER~S, House Bill No. 3075 would reverse court and ad~lnistr~tive rulings and require lo=al law plan~ =o comply =he ~ame re~iremence a~ chapter plans which could result increased cosn~ to local governments; and ~S, no comprehensive study has been done to dete~ine the cost ~o local ~overnments of complying with this legislation nor does ~he legislation give local government credit for pension ben~ius u~at exceed chaDter law results l~ a "en~ ~n" to obtain benefits without collec=i~ bargaining, and circumvents ~he local Pension Board powers; and ~ER~S, a Tri-City meetins was held Nove~er 10, 1997, and officiuls from kpopka, Ocoee, and winter Garden agreed ~o oppose the passage of House Bill No. 307S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLED BY ~ CI~ CO.OIL OF ~ OF ~OP~, FLORIDA, that: 1. The City of Ap~pka strongly opposes the proposed House Bill No. 3075 re~arding police o~flcers and firefighters pension plans; and ~. The City of Apopka urges the local governments of the state to adopt a resolution re~es=in~ that the Legislature not pass House Bill No. 307~. 3. Copies of ~hls resolution be provided to the appropriate officials. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of uhe City o£ Ap~pka, Florida, this :lPTH of NOV~-MBER , 1997. ( S ~AL ) , ~ -- _. .'~'~o~ H. Land, Mayor ~,1_b1=4._~, ,4 110. _'342 [~12 2.4 98 12:4~ FL LERGIJE ElF ,]ITIEg; -, - ~- '~ ~ ~"' Achier,trig Sert,ice Th~vu. gh Dedication RESOLUTION 98.05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SEMINOLE, FLORIDA, IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL 3075 AND SENATE BILL 270 WHEREAS, House Bill 3075 and Senate Bill 270 attempts to state mandate new minimum benefits for fire and police pensions; and. WHEREAS, the fiscal impact of the proposed legislation has not been determined by actuarial study as mandated by state statutes for similar changes proposed by local retirement plans; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Seminole City Council that such legislation will have a financial impact on our annual operating budget; and ',, .... wHEREAS, thc adoption of such legislation will impose a significant unfunded mandate for Florida municipalities and circumvent the local collective bargaining process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council to strongly express our opposition to House Bill 3075 and Senate Bill 270. The adoption of such legislation will require a property tax increase and/or the City to consider a discontinuance of our existing retirement plan with implemenlation of a more fiscally responsible alternative. APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON MARCH 24, 1998. D-'~ie K. Ree~r,' Mayor- ATTEST .-- City Cler'~/ 746~i RIDGE ROAD · SEMINOLE, FLORIDA 33772-52~6 · TEl, (813) 391-0204 · FAX (813) 391-5458 .ll 2.4 '.~E', 12:4% FL LERGt_IE FIF_ E ITIE'E; '-* ~_,'~" =,,¢ ~-' '~-":~'-'~~ _ _, ~.=.,_,._,, , ~ f I0. U,-",42 PI _-;-', es,"eT/].gs@ 1~: 3~ '354-761-5667 CITY COMM..T.$SON PAGE ti)2 R~$ObUTION NO. 98-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMIS$IOM OF THE CITY OF FORT LAUD~RDALE, FLORIDA, URGING THE GOVERNOR TO VETO MOUSE BILL 3075 AMENDING CHAPTERS 175 ANO 18~ OF THE FLORIDA,~TATUTE~J ,, WREREA$, Mouse Bill 3075 amending Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes represent~ ~n unwarranted intrusion into ~he ~ome Rule Powers of municipalities; and WHEREAS, House Bill 3075 w~ll cost the taxp&yer~ of the City of Fort Lauderdale ~un~reds of thousands of dollars in increased pension contributions without providing ~he City with a corresponding alternative r~vemue generating mechanis~; and W~BR~AS, our ~ystem of governance is predicated on a delicate system of checks and balances, an integral pore&on of which i$ foun4 in the collective bargaining system for ~ublic employee~ and Houae Bill 3075 circumvents that coll~ctive bar~alning pro~es~ thereby dramatically eroding a ~ign~ican= portion of our system uf check~ balamces; W~EREA~, Article X, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution provides: "A governmental unit responsible for any retirement or .pension system supporte~ i~ whole or im ~art by public funds shall not after January 1, 1977, prouide any increase in the benefits to the members or beneficiarie~ of such ~y~tem unless ~uch un~ has made concurrently ~kes provision for the funding of the iflcrease in benefits on a sound actuarial ba~i~" an~ Mouse Bil~ 3075 fails to make any provisions for afl actuarial impa~t ~tudy prior to its a4optiofl; fails provide for an inc~eased.funding for the increase in benefits authorized by such Bill; prohibits the municipality from increasing the employee contributions, without ~heir consent, to pay for the increased benefit~; municipality without providing any alternative funding source not previously available to the muntcipali~y: and W~REAS, the Legislature has faile~ t~ cause a s~a~eme~ of the actuarial impact to De ~erf~rmed ~rior to the passage of M~u~e 307~ w~ere the L~glslature pursuant to Section 112.63, Florida vould o~nerwise require a municipality to perform such statemen~ of retirement benefits; amd I9~-79 - =- ~ ~--,-- l~O, ~4= [;14 24 ,~,o_, 12:A5 FL LE~GLIE OF EITIE~i ~ bl_,bl=4-,J, ,4 05/87/1998 12:33 954-751 -566 7 CITV COm~I SSON PAGE 03 RESO~UTIO}I NO- 98-79 PAG~ Z WHeReAS, HOUse Bill 30~5 Upon enactment would immediately increase benefit formula6 for reciting police officer6 and firefighte~$ based on credit for prior Nears service, but would prohibit exacting additional employee contri~uti~n~ corre~pondin~ to t~e increase im benefits without the em~loyee~' consent, the net efZe~t of which is to shift the burden of fun4ing the lncreame in benefits found in House 3075 to future municipal =axDayers; and WHEREAS, House Bill 30~5 is replete with ambiguities and uncertainties that will spawn litigation that the taxpayers will have to underwrite for untol~ years into the future; and W~REAS, House Bill 3075 iS contrary to the best interests of the citizens of the City of Fort NOW, T~EREFORE, BE IT RESO~V~O BY TH~ CITY COMMISSION OF T~E CITY OF FORT LAUD~RDALE, FLORIDA: ~T.~t_~. That on the basis of ~he foregoing recitations, the City respectfully urges the Govermor to veto House ~ill 3075 a=t~mpting ~ amend Chapter 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. ADOPTED this the 5th day of May, 1998. JIM NAUGLE ATTEST: 98-79 .11 24 9'.B 12:45 FL LE~GLIE OF ,]ITIE$ ~ 615612433774 f10.542 i~t5 APR-5~-199~ 15:17 ~ROM CITY OF l~AhlI;~ TO 18502223806 P.D2 RESOLUTION NO; 64~98' ..... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DANIA,. FL~RII~ OPPO~.ING PROPOSED HOUSE BILL $CI75 WHICH !MAKers C~HANGE~ TO CHAPTERS 175 AND 185 OF FLORIDA.' .S~ATUTES BY REQUIRING LOCAL LAW PENSION PLANS TO MEET !.ALL REQUIREMENTS OF STATE PENSION PLANS;'i :PROVI01NG AUTHORIZATION A~ND DIRECTION i'o THE CITY' CLERK TO TRANSMIT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS:. RE$OLU'..~ON. TO THE BROWARD COUNTY LEGISLATIVE' DELEGATION, THE CiTY COMMISSION OF EACH CITY IN BROWAR~D C.0, UNTY, iTHE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES AND THE aROWARD COLiN'FY LEAGUE OF CITIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFUCT,.q;~ PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY: FURTHER, PROVtDINGI' FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, WHEREAS, police officers and fireflghtsr. ~nion. s have prOPoSed legislation for 1998 through House Bill 3075, making a number o~' Changes ltd Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. concerning police and flrefightet p~nsioh:: plans; a~d. WHEREAS, House Bill No. 3075 contains anl. alternative, compli~r~ee option that appears to be intended to alloW overtime,, terminal 'ieavei Payments a,d other forms of pay to be excluded from compensation for Pension purposes .if plan benefits equal or exceed the statutory minimumi benefits; 'and' WHEREAS, local ~law plans roi~ police officers and flr. efig~ters meet minimum requir;ements of F.S.. Chapters 175 and 18S, but may vary from the Statutes as they deem necessary under their local law planS; and WHEREAS, HOuse Bill No. $.075 would .rever~e 'court :and admimstrative rulingls and require local law plans to comply with:, the seine requi~ments as chapter plans which could result in increased costs ,to loCal gO,vemments; and WHEREAS, no comprehensive study has been done to determine !the cost ~o local governments of complying with this legislation .nor doe~:,the: legi~lation give loCal government credit for pension benefits that exceed ch~13ter law ieeUlts in a ; 1 RESOLU~rlON ND.J: 64-98. A~R-30-1998 15:18 FI~QM CITY 0~ DAt4IA TO 18S0222380~ P. "end run" to obtain benefits without collective bargaining, ;.{and ;Ircumver~tS the local ..... Pension Board powem; and .' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RIESOLVED~BY THEiCIT~. CoMM'IS~ION OF THE CITY OF DANIA, FLORIDA: ~ The ~foregoing "WHEREAS" clauses, i[are hereby ratified and conflrme~l as being true and correct and are hereby'm~de ~ ~p~::~ic part of.this Resolution. Seclio.n 2. The =City of Oania, Florida ,trongiY o.13p .~ses !he proposed House Bill No. 3075 regarding, police officers and firefightem per'siOn ~lan~,. Sectior) 3. The City of Dania, Florida urges'the"i~3cal !govemments of. the State to adopt a resolution requesting that the Leg[Slatur~ noti Pass House Bill No. 3075. . Seq~ion 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed ~'~ fo~ard certified copies of this Resolution to tile members of the Broward COUn~ Le~.'islative Delegalton, the City Commissions of each municipality in B¢owa~,d C~3unty, the Broward County League of Cltie~ and the Florida League of Cities;[ " ,~ection 5. All resolutions or parts of resolutions iai conflict with this reSolution are repealed', to the extent, of such confliot. .Se¢!;ton 6. If any clause, section, other part m" app icatl~ of this. Resolution is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unc )nStilOtional or invalid, in part or al~plication, it ~hail not affect the validity of t! e: re~aining po~tioos or applications of this Resolution. i Se._ction 7~ This resolution shall be in force and. take effelCt immediately upon its i3assage and adoption. : PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS. 28'h DAY O:1= APRIL~.!ig981 'MAYOR-COMM .I~S~IONI APPI~OVED)S ~'O FORM AND CORRECTNESS: C TY 2 R£SOLU'rlON N01 6~,o98: TOTAL. P. 03 RESOLUTION NO. 98-09 A R~SOLUTION OF TI~ CITY OF DAYONA BEACH SHORES, FLORLDA, OPPOSING PROPOSED ROUSE BILL NO. 30-/$ WglCH MAKES CHANGES TO C1;IAPTER~ 17~ AND IS5 OF FLORIDA STATUES BY REQUrRiNG LOCAL LAW PENSION PLANS TO MEET ADDITIONAL REQULZ~MENTS; PROVIDING FOR A.N EIrFECTIV~ DATE- WHEREAS, local law plans for police orate, and fireflghters meet minimum requirements of F. S, Chapters 1'/5 and 185, but may vary from the Statutes as they deem necessary under their local law plans; nnd WBI~REAS, House Bill No. 3075 would reverse court and admlnistrntive rulings and require local law plans to comply with the same requirements as chapter plans which could result in increased costs to local governments; and WHEREAS, no comprehensive study has been done to determine the cost to Ideal governments of complying with this legislation; and WtlEREA$, the legislation does not give local government credit for pension benefits thnt exceed the statute minimums; and WH[REA$, the result in a "end run" is to obtain benefits without local Council approval, and circumvents the local Pension Board powers. NOW, THEREFORe. BE IT RI~SOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY DAYTONA BI~ACH SHORI~S, FLORIDA that: 1. The City of Daytona Beach Shores strongly opposes the proposed House Bill No. 3075 regarding police ofl~cers and fireBghters pension plnn$: and 2. The City of Daytona Beach Shores urges the Legislature not to pass House Bill No. COURT 9o 12:45 FL LEAGUE OF ,-ITIE~; ~ bl_,b,l=.45.--4, ,4 Approved as to Form and legnlity: