Ask the PBA

[Matt Puckett]

I just went back and reviewed comments from yesterday's appropriations meeting. $500 million is the yearly required costs to pay back the entire amortized UAL if it remains on its current schedule. They may very well just put that into the UAL rate for all employers. I also went back and read the governor's recommendation of $552 million for the state's portion of the normal costs rate and the UAL rate. So that $500 million figure for the state's portion could include both rate payments.

I will get clarification.

Matt,

Crazy they are trying to use money that could be used to help the crazy pay disparity between the State Officers and the County Officers to help the County people by wanting to fund County employed teacher pay raises (Gov Scott) and that 500 million for FRS from state revenues (The Legislature). Someone needs to just show them a simple chart or something showing the disparity in most of the state while they keep trying to use the money on most everyone but the State Officer pay issue.

Matt,

Crazy they are trying to use money that could be used to help the crazy pay disparity between the State Officers and the County Officers to help the County people by wanting to fund County employed teacher pay raises (Gov Scott) and that 500 million for FRS from state revenues (The Legislature). Someone needs to just show them a simple chart or something showing the disparity in most of the state while they keep trying to use the money on most everyone but the State Officer pay issue.

THEY DON'T CARE!!!! As long as we keep getting thousands of applicants lining up for the job it will never change

Matt,

Crazy they are trying to use money that could be used to help the crazy pay disparity between the State Officers and the County Officers to help the County people by wanting to fund County employed teacher pay raises (Gov Scott) and that 500 million for FRS from state revenues (The Legislature). Someone needs to just show them a simple chart or something showing the disparity in most of the state while they keep trying to use the money on most everyone but the State Officer pay issue.

THEY DON'T CARE!!!! As long as we keep getting thousands of applicants lining up for the job it will never change

The tally politicians have us right where they want us. They want us to be underpaid and will continue to take what little we have left in benefits. It will only get worse.

[Matt Puckett]

So how does the state make the local or county agencies pay their portion of the UAL? Do they raise their (employee) contribution levels or make the individual county of municipal govt on the FRS pay their portion outright? I guess by either taxes or higher employee contribution levels.

The answer is employers will pay it back through a higher UAL contribution rate which is separate from the normal costs blended rate that is paid by contributions from employers and employees. I suppose someone could argue that requiring an increase to the UAL rate will increase local taxes, but I am not sure that applies to all local governments.

The Legislature is just discussing paying $500 million towards the portion of the UAL that applies to state government.

Not how I read it. Weatherford is saying he wants the state to pay that 500 million this year from the state revenues period this year to shore it up. It will go to the whole FRS fund which is mostly local employees not state employees taking a huge chunk of money that could be used to start addressing our pitiful pay compared to most local officers. Weatherford has not discussed the counties etc. picking up any of that tab this year from what I have heard him say so far and just talks about the state money being used so far.

This comment is taken from the legislative 3 year budget forecasters

Consequently, in order for the FRS to be funded on an actuarially sound basis for Fiscal Year 2013-14 and future years, the FRS contribution rates should include the cost to amortize the UAL, as calculated in the valuation report or subsequent special studies, in addition to the funding already provided to fund the Normal Costs. To accomplish this, the additional annual liability associated with the UAL for Fiscal Year 2013-14 is $537.06 million, of which $447.68 million is General Revenue. This amount is based upon a June 2012 special study prepared by the FRS’ actuary and represents the amount required to fund the UAL in Fiscal Year 2013-14 and thereafter.

This goes back to my original statement on the $500 million payment. The $447.68 million was projected upward in December.

[quote=Matt Puckett]

So how does the state make the local or county agencies pay their portion of the UAL? Do they raise their (employee) contribution levels or make the individual county of municipal govt on the FRS pay their portion outright? I guess by either taxes or higher employee contribution levels.

The answer is employers will pay it back through a higher UAL contribution rate which is separate from the normal costs blended rate that is paid by contributions from employers and employees. I suppose someone could argue that requiring an increase to the UAL rate will increase local taxes, but I am not sure that applies to all local governments.

The Legislature is just discussing paying $500 million towards the portion of the UAL that applies to state government.

Not how I read it. Weatherford is saying he wants the state to pay that 500 million this year from the state revenues period this year to shore it up. It will go to the whole FRS fund which is mostly local employees not state employees taking a huge chunk of money that could be used to start addressing our pitiful pay compared to most local officers. Weatherford has not discussed the counties etc. picking up any of that tab this year from what I have heard him say so far and just talks about the state money being used so far.

This comment is taken from the legislative 3 year budget forecasters

Consequently, in order for the FRS to be funded on an actuarially sound basis for Fiscal Year 2013-14 and future years, the FRS contribution rates should include the cost to amortize the UAL, as calculated in the valuation report or subsequent special studies, in addition to the funding already provided to fund the Normal Costs. To accomplish this, the additional annual liability associated with the UAL for Fiscal Year 2013-14 is $537.06 million, of which $447.68 million is General Revenue. This amount is based upon a June 2012 special study prepared by the FRS’ actuary and represents the amount required to fund the UAL in Fiscal Year 2013-14 and thereafter.

This goes back to my original statement on the $500 million payment. The $447.68 million was projected upward in December.[/quote:3avb1zzw]

Matt,

This still shows the State is taking the brunt, or should I say all, of the contribution requirements. The State workers are being punished to pay for this. It still does not explain what percentage is the responsibility of the counties and municipal workers that are part of FRS and make up the largest percentage of FRS workers. The 500 million should be divided by the portion of the FRS consumed by different areas, (ie: State, County, municipal).

Am I reading into this wrong? It is just what it seems is that the State is now funding the liability and the counties are getting off scott free (pardon the saying), when they make up the largest expense and burden to FRS.

It should be proposed that the liability should be absorbed by the percentage of placement in the FRS and the expected salary payments upon retirement. Meaning agencies like Broward SO that have deputies retiring on FRS at 85K a year because of OT and other issues, Teachers etc: that make significantly more and also make up the largest number of users of FRS should be expected to pay the portion applicable to their respective footprint on the FRS. It should not basicaly be coming off the backs of the underpaid state workers.

My 2 Cents on this. Let me know if I am misunderstanding the issue here, as that may be possible.

Matt,

Crazy they are trying to use money that could be used to help the crazy pay disparity between the State Officers and the County Officers to help the County people by wanting to fund County employed teacher pay raises (Gov Scott) and that 500 million for FRS from state revenues (The Legislature). Someone needs to just show them a simple chart or something showing the disparity in most of the state while they keep trying to use the money on most everyone but the State Officer pay issue.

THEY DON'T CARE!!!! As long as we keep getting thousands of applicants lining up for the job it will never change

The tally politicians have us right where they want us. They want us to be underpaid and will continue to take what little we have left in benefits. It will only get worse.

**** Scott and his cronies are going to make sure it gets worse for state employees.

[Matt Puckett]

[quote=Guest]

So how does the state make the local or county agencies pay their portion of the UAL? Do they raise their (employee) contribution levels or make the individual county of municipal govt on the FRS pay their portion outright? I guess by either taxes or higher employee contribution levels.

The answer is employers will pay it back through a higher UAL contribution rate which is separate from the normal costs blended rate that is paid by contributions from employers and employees. I suppose someone could argue that requiring an increase to the UAL rate will increase local taxes, but I am not sure that applies to all local governments.

The Legislature is just discussing paying $500 million towards the portion of the UAL that applies to state government.

Not how I read it. Weatherford is saying he wants the state to pay that 500 million this year from the state revenues period this year to shore it up. It will go to the whole FRS fund which is mostly local employees not state employees taking a huge chunk of money that could be used to start addressing our pitiful pay compared to most local officers. Weatherford has not discussed the counties etc. picking up any of that tab this year from what I have heard him say so far and just talks about the state money being used so far.

This comment is taken from the legislative 3 year budget forecasters

Consequently, in order for the FRS to be funded on an actuarially sound basis for Fiscal Year 2013-14 and future years, the FRS contribution rates should include the cost to amortize the UAL, as calculated in the valuation report or subsequent special studies, in addition to the funding already provided to fund the Normal Costs. To accomplish this, the additional annual liability associated with the UAL for Fiscal Year 2013-14 is $537.06 million, of which $447.68 million is General Revenue. This amount is based upon a June 2012 special study prepared by the FRS’ actuary and represents the amount required to fund the UAL in Fiscal Year 2013-14 and thereafter.

This goes back to my original statement on the $500 million payment. The $447.68 million was projected upward in December.

Matt,

This still shows the State is taking the brunt, or should I say all, of the contribution requirements. The State workers are being punished to pay for this. It still does not explain what percentage is the responsibility of the counties and municipal workers that are part of FRS and make up the largest percentage of FRS workers. The 500 million should be divided by the portion of the FRS consumed by different areas, (ie: State, County, municipal).

Am I reading into this wrong? It is just what it seems is that the State is now funding the liability and the counties are getting off scott free (pardon the saying), when they make up the largest expense and burden to FRS.

It should be proposed that the liability should be absorbed by the percentage of placement in the FRS and the expected salary payments upon retirement. Meaning agencies like Broward SO that have deputies retiring on FRS at 85K a year because of OT and other issues, Teachers etc: that make significantly more and also make up the largest number of users of FRS should be expected to pay the portion applicable to their respective footprint on the FRS. It should not basicaly be coming off the backs of the underpaid state workers.

My 2 Cents on this. Let me know if I am misunderstanding the issue here, as that may be possible.[/quote:16jh1x00]

I understand what you mean, but the point here is the Legislature has short funded the UAL for a few years. They set the rates not the local governments. The actuaries don't care about the politics. All the study states is what amount is necessary and how it is to be funded. We are playing catch up on the UAL.

The UAL requires funding in order to pay it down. The economic advisors have advised the amount necessary and calculated the proportions.

And let's not forget that those legislators who failed to fund it are from and elected by those local areas. They were elected to represent those districts. These shortages shouldn't just be paid out of the state revenue, everyone in the FRS should pay their fair share. What's gonna happen is if we let Boy Wonder get his way with the pension reform, our contribution levels will continue to go up.

Just like them using state funds to pay county teachers. Total horse crap!!!

And let's not forget that those legislators who failed to fund it are from and elected by those local areas. They were elected to represent those districts. These shortages shouldn't just be paid out of the state revenue, everyone in the FRS should pay their fair share. What's gonna happen is if we let Boy Wonder get his way with the pension reform, our contribution levels will continue to go up.

Just like them using state funds to pay county teachers. Total horse crap!!!

With that proposal you would swear the Governor doesn't even know the counties set the teachers salaries not the state.