Ask the PBA

" 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."

So Weatherford wants the State from State revenues to make up this 500 million difference this year even though the Counties have way more employees in FRS.

Well we are way underfunded and paid compared to the counties and as far as I know this can wait to be made up equally with some FRS changes and they aren't required by law to absolutlely pay that 500 million in this year's budget.

[quote=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:8dvf95ig]

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.[/quote:8dvf95ig]

I understand the issue, but what I don't agree with is even if the State did not set the funding right, we all know where this started. This started when the 3% kicked in. The counties were not required to contribute the 3% that was increased by employees to the FRS. So in a way, this was created by giving the counties a 3% reduction in the costs associated with the FRS. This goes back to the argument that the 3% that was taken from everyone in FRS was not really used to shore up the FRS, it was used to give additional funding to the counties as they were not required to increase payments to the fund by 3%. That is why most county workers who were on FRS were given a 3% pay increase to offset the 3% reduction. That was money the State should have required the counties to contribute to FRS instead of letting them spend it locally. If that had happened, then they would have shored up the FRS and this issue would be much smaller right now. So in essence, our 3% did in fact go to the general revenue fund and not the FRS. So this should be brought back before the courts, or appealed to the US supreme court because it was taxation at its finest. No representation or fair taxation happened. A group of people were singled out for a new tax imposed by the State. The money was not taken for its intended purpose.

So again, I am not against you on this Matt as I know you are just the messenger here on this, but PBA needs to make sure the bill for the UAL is fairly distributed, with the counties picking up the 3% they were never forced to contribute over the last 2 years since the 3% payment to FRS was being taken from our checks.

[Matt Puckett]

I understand the issue, but what I don't agree with is even if the State did not set the funding right, we all know where this started. This started when the 3% kicked in. The counties were not required to contribute the 3% that was increased by employees to the FRS. So in a way, this was created by giving the counties a 3% reduction in the costs associated with the FRS. This goes back to the argument that the 3% that was taken from everyone in FRS was not really used to shore up the FRS, it was used to give additional funding to the counties as they were not required to increase payments to the fund by 3%. That is why most county workers who were on FRS were given a 3% pay increase to offset the 3% reduction. That was money the State should have required the counties to contribute to FRS instead of letting them spend it locally. If that had happened, then they would have shored up the FRS and this issue would be much smaller right now. So in essence, our 3% did in fact go to the general revenue fund and not the FRS. So this should be brought back before the courts, or appealed to the US supreme court because it was taxation at its finest. No representation or fair taxation happened. A group of people were singled out for a new tax imposed by the State. The money was not taken for its intended purpose.

So again, I am not against you on this Matt as I know you are just the messenger here on this, but PBA needs to make sure the bill for the UAL is fairly distributed, with the counties picking up the 3% they were never forced to contribute over the last 2 years since the 3% payment to FRS was being taken from our checks.

Here's the basic issue with what you are arguing. The Legislature is required to fund the system on an actuarial basis and the actuary is stating that in order to keep the amortization schedule and properly fund the UAL almost $500 million from general revenue is required. Everything else you state will not change that.

I do think you make some good points in your argument. The 3% offset could have been used to help properly fund the UAL rate. Here's the problem - it wasn't. The Legislature is not hiding from that fact and they are talking about how to move forward the right way.

Now what ultimately happens on this subject is still part of the appropriations process and that will take time to become completely agreed upon. There are billions that go from the state and federal revenues into local government. This issue is something that actually helps your bottom line in retirement.

I understand your frustrated with pay disparity in your county. We are working on that issue.

As I keep stating, be patient. Both the House and Senate are working on the budget allocations.

[Matt Puckett]

This week's Capitol Report
http://www.flpba.org/

[Matt Puckett]

I understand the issue, but what I don't agree with is even if the State did not set the funding right, we all know where this started. This started when the 3% kicked in. The counties were not required to contribute the 3% that was increased by employees to the FRS. So in a way, this was created by giving the counties a 3% reduction in the costs associated with the FRS. This goes back to the argument that the 3% that was taken from everyone in FRS was not really used to shore up the FRS, it was used to give additional funding to the counties as they were not required to increase payments to the fund by 3%. That is why most county workers who were on FRS were given a 3% pay increase to offset the 3% reduction. That was money the State should have required the counties to contribute to FRS instead of letting them spend it locally. If that had happened, then they would have shored up the FRS and this issue would be much smaller right now. So in essence, our 3% did in fact go to the general revenue fund and not the FRS. So this should be brought back before the courts, or appealed to the US supreme court because it was taxation at its finest. No representation or fair taxation happened. A group of people were singled out for a new tax imposed by the State. The money was not taken for its intended purpose.

So again, I am not against you on this Matt as I know you are just the messenger here on this, but PBA needs to make sure the bill for the UAL is fairly distributed, with the counties picking up the 3% they were never forced to contribute over the last 2 years since the 3% payment to FRS was being taken from our checks.

I spoke with one of the forecasters today. The $500 million is only the state's portion of the UAL. Each local government and other participating employers will have a share of the UAL, too. So the total UAL payment is much bigger.

[quote=Matt Puckett]

I understand the issue, but what I don't agree with is even if the State did not set the funding right, we all know where this started. This started when the 3% kicked in. The counties were not required to contribute the 3% that was increased by employees to the FRS. So in a way, this was created by giving the counties a 3% reduction in the costs associated with the FRS. This goes back to the argument that the 3% that was taken from everyone in FRS was not really used to shore up the FRS, it was used to give additional funding to the counties as they were not required to increase payments to the fund by 3%. That is why most county workers who were on FRS were given a 3% pay increase to offset the 3% reduction. That was money the State should have required the counties to contribute to FRS instead of letting them spend it locally. If that had happened, then they would have shored up the FRS and this issue would be much smaller right now. So in essence, our 3% did in fact go to the general revenue fund and not the FRS. So this should be brought back before the courts, or appealed to the US supreme court because it was taxation at its finest. No representation or fair taxation happened. A group of people were singled out for a new tax imposed by the State. The money was not taken for its intended purpose.

So again, I am not against you on this Matt as I know you are just the messenger here on this, but PBA needs to make sure the bill for the UAL is fairly distributed, with the counties picking up the 3% they were never forced to contribute over the last 2 years since the 3% payment to FRS was being taken from our checks.

I spoke with one of the forecasters today. The $500 million is only the state's portion of the UAL. Each local government and other participating employers will have a share of the UAL, too. So the total UAL payment is much bigger.[/quote:30hv6wse]

Where am I going wrong ? I am not the poster you responded to but how I understand it that 500 million Weatherford is pushing is for the FRS period (It won't go to any separated portions for state employees - it will just be a 500 million injection into the FRS from state funds and not county etc funds) to help shore it up some. Governor Scottt had 300 million in his budget last year to do the same thing but the legislature didnt put it in the final budget. If this goes through they will be using 500 million from the pool of state money that could help our pitiful pay issue. I understand it needs some funding to stay in good shape but the legislature needs to do their duty aand handle it by everyone having skin in the game and not just using state money to pay 500 million this year while the counties etc. aren't throwing in extra like the stae wants to this year.

[Matt Puckett]

[quote=Guest]

I understand the issue, but what I don't agree with is even if the State did not set the funding right, we all know where this started. This started when the 3% kicked in. The counties were not required to contribute the 3% that was increased by employees to the FRS. So in a way, this was created by giving the counties a 3% reduction in the costs associated with the FRS. This goes back to the argument that the 3% that was taken from everyone in FRS was not really used to shore up the FRS, it was used to give additional funding to the counties as they were not required to increase payments to the fund by 3%. That is why most county workers who were on FRS were given a 3% pay increase to offset the 3% reduction. That was money the State should have required the counties to contribute to FRS instead of letting them spend it locally. If that had happened, then they would have shored up the FRS and this issue would be much smaller right now. So in essence, our 3% did in fact go to the general revenue fund and not the FRS. So this should be brought back before the courts, or appealed to the US supreme court because it was taxation at its finest. No representation or fair taxation happened. A group of people were singled out for a new tax imposed by the State. The money was not taken for its intended purpose.

So again, I am not against you on this Matt as I know you are just the messenger here on this, but PBA needs to make sure the bill for the UAL is fairly distributed, with the counties picking up the 3% they were never forced to contribute over the last 2 years since the 3% payment to FRS was being taken from our checks.

I spoke with one of the forecasters today. The $500 million is only the state's portion of the UAL. Each local government and other participating employers will have a share of the UAL, too. So the total UAL payment is much bigger.

Where am I going wrong ? I am not the poster you responded to but how I understand it that 500 million Weatherford is pushing is for the FRS period (It won't go to any separated portions for state employees - it will just be a 500 million injection into the FRS from state funds and not county etc funds) to help shore it up some. Governor Scottt had 300 million in his budget last year to do the same thing but the legislature didnt put it in the final budget. If this goes through they will be using 500 million from the pool of state money that could help our pitiful pay issue. I understand it needs some funding to stay in good shape but the legislature needs to do their duty aand handle it by everyone having skin in the game and not just using state money to pay 500 million this year while the counties etc. aren't throwing in extra like the stae wants to this year.[/quote:3ggv1e7p]

You're not going wrong. This is complicated stuff. The state is not throwing extra money at the UAL, but because the Legislature short funded the UAL more money is required. The state must pay about $500 million out of general revenue in order fund its portion of the UAL. The general revenue pays for more than just state employees so the proportion of general revenue is high (I just learned that today). However, it is the appropriate portion. The other funding will come from local government and other participating employers. The UAL requirement is larger than $500 million, but so far the Legislature has only discussed its portion.

Having said all of that, this does not mean that the Legislature will completely fund the $500 million UAL requirement.

[quote=Matt Puckett][quote=Guest]

I understand the issue, but what I don't agree with is even if the State did not set the funding right, we all know where this started. This started when the 3% kicked in. The counties were not required to contribute the 3% that was increased by employees to the FRS. So in a way, this was created by giving the counties a 3% reduction in the costs associated with the FRS. This goes back to the argument that the 3% that was taken from everyone in FRS was not really used to shore up the FRS, it was used to give additional funding to the counties as they were not required to increase payments to the fund by 3%. That is why most county workers who were on FRS were given a 3% pay increase to offset the 3% reduction. That was money the State should have required the counties to contribute to FRS instead of letting them spend it locally. If that had happened, then they would have shored up the FRS and this issue would be much smaller right now. So in essence, our 3% did in fact go to the general revenue fund and not the FRS. So this should be brought back before the courts, or appealed to the US supreme court because it was taxation at its finest. No representation or fair taxation happened. A group of people were singled out for a new tax imposed by the State. The money was not taken for its intended purpose.

So again, I am not against you on this Matt as I know you are just the messenger here on this, but PBA needs to make sure the bill for the UAL is fairly distributed, with the counties picking up the 3% they were never forced to contribute over the last 2 years since the 3% payment to FRS was being taken from our checks.

I spoke with one of the forecasters today. The $500 million is only the state's portion of the UAL. Each local government and other participating employers will have a share of the UAL, too. So the total UAL payment is much bigger.

Where am I going wrong ? I am not the poster you responded to but how I understand it that 500 million Weatherford is pushing is for the FRS period (It won't go to any separated portions for state employees - it will just be a 500 million injection into the FRS from state funds and not county etc funds) to help shore it up some. Governor Scottt had 300 million in his budget last year to do the same thing but the legislature didnt put it in the final budget. If this goes through they will be using 500 million from the pool of state money that could help our pitiful pay issue. I understand it needs some funding to stay in good shape but the legislature needs to do their duty aand handle it by everyone having skin in the game and not just using state money to pay 500 million this year while the counties etc. aren't throwing in extra like the stae wants to this year.[/quote:37x0o6mm]

You're not going wrong. This is complicated stuff. The state is not throwing extra money at the UAL, but because the Legislature short funded the UAL more money is required. The state must pay about $500 million out of general revenue in order fund its portion of the UAL. The general revenue pays for more than just state employees so the proportion of general revenue is high (I just learned that today). However, it is the appropriate portion. The other funding will come from local government and other participating employers. The UAL requirement is larger than $500 million, but so far the Legislature has only discussed its portion.

Having said all of that, this does not mean that the Legislature will completely fund the $500 million UAL requirement.[/quote:37x0o6mm]


Matt,

That is what scares me here. They may not fund the UAL out of the budget, but I do see a sky is falling report coming out soon and a convenient time to increase our retirement contributions. I see the argument happening. We need 500 million more to fund the overpaid workers of this states benefit they get that the private sector does not. We are not raising taxes to pay for this. We will just make the system more fair and increase employee contributions to pay for their own retirement like the private sector. They get this money back and it is for their own benefit. This will help to bring the public sector in line with the private sector. (And votes were just bought again) I see a 5-7% increase in our contribution coming soon.

Please tell me this thought has crossed your mind.

[quote]That is what scares me here. They may not fund the UAL out of the budget, but I do see a sky is falling report coming out soon and a convenient time to increase our retirement contributions. I see the argument happening. We need 500 million more to fund the overpaid workers of this states benefit they get that the private sector does not. We are not raising taxes to pay for this. We will just make the system more fair and increase employee contributions to pay for their own retirement like the private sector. They get this money back and it is for their own benefit. This will help to bring the public sector in line with the private sector. (And votes were just bought again) I see a 5-7% increase in our contribution coming soon.

Please tell me this thought has crossed your mind.[quote]

How about good news - the state economists just agreed that the revenues for this year will up an extra $3.5 billion. The sky is not falling.

That is what scares me here. They may not fund the UAL out of the budget, but I do see a sky is falling report coming out soon and a convenient time to increase our retirement contributions. I see the argument happening. We need 500 million more to fund the overpaid workers of this states benefit they get that the private sector does not. We are not raising taxes to pay for this. We will just make the system more fair and increase employee contributions to pay for their own retirement like the private sector. They get this money back and it is for their own benefit. This will help to bring the public sector in line with the private sector. (And votes were just bought again) I see a 5-7% increase in our contribution coming soon.

Please tell me this thought has crossed your mind.[quote:3uhk762e]

How about good news - the state economists just agreed that the revenues for this year will up an extra $3.5 billion. The sky is not falling.

[/quote:3uhk762e]

Though that is good news, the governor proposed a budget that was the largest in State History accounting for that increase with virtually no pay increases for State Workers, so, What's your point.

Just because there is a surplus does not mean we are getting squat, as has been evident in years past when we ran surpluses in State Budgets and got nothing. It is hard to believe anything good is going to come of this when we have gotten so little from this bunch of politicians.

Keep up the fight, but not to be to negative (years of State Work will do that to a person), but I will believe it when I see it.