Pension refund

For those of you that receive the paperwork from the city re: the refund of your pension money. The amount doesn't seem like it is correct. We paid 7% of our pay, yet the amount they say they are refunding is approx $2100/month.

If you paid 7% of your gross pay into the fund, you should be getting back the same amount. Multiply your annual wages times 7% for each year. Add it up. That is what you are owed in a lump sum--PLUS INTEREST ON THE MONEY.

THE INTEREST RATE SHOULD BE ABOUT THE SAME AS THE INTEREST RATE EARNED ON DROP FUNDS--plus punitive damages, plus legal fees. If your lawyers can't figure out how much was stolen from you, for God's sake hire an economist and let him figure it out for you. :roll: :roll:

This is relatively straight forward economics. :shock: :shock:

I got mine and it's correct about 7% of pay with no interest and no punitive money. Just my contribution, Oh well, better then nothing.

If the money the city intends on repaying you is not correct, then you will have to determine the money that you feel you are owed and prove that was the amount you contributed. I would suggest you look at your old pay stubs or your tax returns from the years you were employed. You may also be able to see your employment records with the city. That would likely take some time though. The matter of interest is yet to be decided. If the court finds in our favor for the interest, you will receive another check for the amount due. I have a list that was generated by the city in 2007. If you would like to know how much you are owed from that list, contact me.

For all of those receiving a refund, the quicker you complete the paperwork, the quicker you will receive a refund. I suggest you make copies of whatever you are mailing back and you send it certified mail to ensure delivery.

As always, if you have questions, feel free to call or email me.

Ed Remia

How long does it take for them to mail you yuor check? I sent my paperwork in 2 weeks ago when I got it.

[FD Bro']

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politic...illion/1129402

St. Petersburg gives up police pension legal fight to tune of $1.5 million

By Jamal Thalji, Times Staff Writer

In Print: Thursday, October 21, 2010

ST. PETERSBURG — The city has capitulated in its four-year legal battle with former officers who sued to get back money they paid into the pension fund while on the police force.

In the coming weeks the city will pay back 351 former officers a total of $1.5 million — which doesn't include interest, the officers' legal fees or what the city itself spent in an ultimately futile fight.

The plaintiffs said the city's refusal to give back their money violated state pension law. Two courts agreed in what has become an expensive defeat for St. Petersburg.

It is a defeat that will soon be codified in law: The city has drafted a new ordinance that the City Council will vote on Nov. 4 that is supposed to finally align the pension plan with state law.

"It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit, we weren't trying to get blood out of a stone," said Edward Remia, a former St. Petersburg police officer and now a Hillsborough County sheriff's deputy who stands to get more than $10,000 from the city.

"We did our homework, we read the statute. It was quite clear that we were entitled to that money, and if we wanted it back we should get it."

But the city argued that the officers signed away their rights to that money when they joined the force. New hires had to agree to give up their pension contributions if they left before working 10 years, which is when they would have become vested in the city's pension plan.

The city has since learned the hard way that that was "contrary" to state law, according to the 2009 ruling by Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Linda R. Allan. She noted it was the only pension plan in the state that made officers "forfeit" their contributions. The city lost its appeal to the 2nd District Court of Appeal in July.

The city's pension board decided not to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. So did the City Council, voting unanimously Aug. 5.

"Had we appealed it and lost, we would have owed more in attorneys' fees to the other side," said City Attorney John Wolfe. "We thought it wasn't worth spending the extra money."

The refund will come out of the police pension fund. Attorneys' fees will be decided in February. Neither side could say Wednesday how much they each spent on the legal battle.

But in December a judge will decide whether the city also has to pay the interest it earned from the plaintiffs' $1.5 million.

So why did the city decide to fight in the first place?

"Because we thought we were right," Wolfe said. He said the city was armed with a favorable opinion from the Florida Division of Retirement. But at trial he said the city was surprised to learn that the agency stepped outside of its authority in giving that opinion.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Jean Kwall, wonders if the city won't soon be violating state law again. That's because the new ordinance says officers have to ask for their money back after five years.

"You're supposed to just get it back," she said. "But they're requiring people to ask for their money back, which seems inconsistent with the language in the state statute."

Wolfe said the new ordinance is in accordance with state law. He said that provision gives officers a chance to retain their seniority in the pension plan if they later decide to return to the force.

Mayor Bill Foster said he also wanted to see the legal fight end.

"I'm not going to try and second-guess," he said. "Anytime that you're dealing with large dollar sums you have to look at one's legal rights. I guess the city's position at the time was they breached their contract and they're not entitled to a refund."

But in the end, the mayor noted: "It's their money."

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL – Alex Sink didn’t rule out proposing a state income tax as a way to pay for the $12.5 billion in new spending she includes in her economic plan.

During Monday night’s statewide CBS debate, Rick Scott questioned Alex Sink on how she will pay for the $12.5 billion dollars in spending she proposes in her economic plan. Scott asked “What tax does she have to raise? She’s already backed taxes in payroll and sales and cable and water. Is she going to have to propose an income tax?”

Unable to provide a clear answer, Alex Sink first claimed that she would not support any tax increases then immediately said she would consider an internet sales tax down the road. “But, down the road, as I work with the legislature on many of these issues of fairness, we do have to address the fairness issue because our local retailers are very disadvantaged on the sales tax issues…”

Rick Scott spokesman Trey Stapleton said “This is another prime example of Alex Sinks failure to provide Floridians with a clear plan that will turn the state around. If you believe Sink’s Obama math, you can increase spending without providing a way to pay for it. You don’t have to be a 4.0 math major to know that the only way you can pay for these proposals without cutting spending is through increased taxation or federal stimulus money. Both fit into Sink’s liberal ideology.”

Don't forget that the city has NOT been funding their portion of the pension for as long as I have been here. So not only has the pension not had the money from the city but, the interest and income that money would have made compounding over the years has been lost.

I don't want to hear the city complaining about the lack of money in the pension. It's their fault. When the city was flush with money because of increased housing values they didn't make up the pension funding.

Don't forget that the city has NOT been funding their portion of the pension for as long as I have been here. So not only has the pension not had the money from the city but, the interest and income that money would have made compounding over the years has been lost.

I don't want to hear the city complaining about the lack of money in the pension. It's their fault. When the city was flush with money because of increased housing values they didn't make up the pension funding.

Thats completely false. Although the city did allegedly use some money from or intended for the pension fund, .is currently nearly 100% funded and doing very well.

Thats completely false. Although the city did allegedly use some money from or intended for the pension fund, .is currently nearly 100% funded and doing very well.

Except for the $15 million + they lost recently, right? That money is supposed to be placed in a safe interest bearing account, not placed in the speculative market.