Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/99211851/COLA-History
Timestamp: 2017-08-18 15:09:56
Document Index: 332832941

Matched Legal Cases: ['§6', '§2', '§ 1', '§1', '§14', '§14', '§ 1', 'art 11262', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§3', '§ 11261', '§1', '§1', '§ 1', '§ 11261', '§ 411', '§1', '§ 1', '§2', '§ 6', '§2', '§1']

COLA History | Actuarial Science | Pension
Uploaded by Ken Rudominer
MEMORANDUM To: Board of Trustees Lynn Wenguer, Plan Administrator Stephen H Cypen, Es Alison S Bieler, Esq May 23, 2012 Review
of Cost-of-Living Adjustment ("COLA")
From: Date Re:
Background In this memorandum we review the history of the COLA and discuss the impact of various Plan amendments and Florida Law on the COLA This memorandum supplements our April 12. 2011. letter to the Board The April 12th letter, attached as Exhibit A, reviewed the legal considerations regarding a retiree's eligibility to participate in a COLA As with our April 12th letter, this memorandum does not address whether the amount of any previous COLAs were property calculated, as that determination is made by the Plan's actuaries Documents provided: Pension Office History of the COLA: • The Plan's original COLA provision was enacted on December 5 1972 ("Original COLA"). The Original COLA did not contain a provision automatically repealing the COLA on a date certain The Original COLA provided as follows Section 31-15. Exhibit B sets forth the documents provided to us by the
(6) Cost-of-living Adjustment To the extent possible, as provided herein all benefits under this System being paid on a monthly basis shall be adjusted each year in order to reflect the change in cost-of-livmg Any year's adjustment may be up to, but shall not exceed, the percentage increase in the cost-oMiving as measured by the Consumer Price Index, or other similar index as determined by the Board, provided however, that in the event that prior years' adjustments during the past three (3) years were not equal to the full percentage increase in the index being used the differences involved may be
cumulative and applied in addition to the current year's adjustment, subject to a total adjustment in any year of 4% This adjustment must be made to the extent of at least 50%. up to a maximum of 100%. of the excess investment earnings for the year over and above the amounts required in the actuarial interest assumption used for purposes of the System's regular actuarial valuation and determination of required contributions The procedures and methods to be followed in the determination of this benefit adjustment shall be as established and as subsequently modified from time to time by the Board, with the advice of the System's actuaries. Ord. No 72-94, §6. 12-5-1972 According to the records provided by the Pension Office, no adjustments were paid under this provision until calendar year 1983 1
The Original COLA remained unchanged until July 24. 1986. With the passage of Ord No 86-58. the City Commission repealed the Original COLA and established a new COLA benefit ('New COLA") The New COLA included a sunset clause automatically repealing the COLA "on July 1, 1991. unless readopted by the City Commission." The New COLA also established a different formula for funding the adjustment The formula, originally set forth in Section 31-15(6) of the City Code, read as follows: (6) Cost of living adjustments
(2) The amount of the cost of living adjustment shall be added to each monthly benefit paid after the effective adjustment date Such amount shall be equal to a percentage of the basic monthly benefit excluding any previous cost of living adjustment The percentage amount of the adjustment shall be one of the following, whichever is less: (a) A percentage which is not greater than the percentage increase in the Consumers' Price Index (United States. All Urban Consumers, or such other index as approved by both the Board and the City commission) for the calendar year immediately preceding the effective adjustment date; or V Exhibit C, provided by the Pension Office, sets forth all COLAs paid by the Plan since the Original COLA'S adoption in 1972 -2-
(b) A percentage increase, the actuarial present value of which can be fully funded by the amount of excess gains existing at the end of the immediately preceding calendar year (the term "excess gains." as used in this subsection (6), means an amount of money equal to one-third (1/3) of the sum of all actuarial gams and losses of the System for the preceding three (3) calendar years, including the calendar year immediately preceding the adjustment). The applicable percentage, as specified in subsections (6)(a) and (b) above, shall not exceed five (5) percent unless a greater percentage is approved by the City commission The actuary for the System shall calculate and certify to the Board both the amounts of the excess gains and the cost of living adjustment that such excess gams will fund in full. For this purpose, actuarial gains or losses in a given calendar year shall be based upon the actuarial assumptions used in the official actuarial valuation as of January 1 of that year and shall exclude gains or losses related to changes in Plan benefits, changes in actuarial assumptions, or both Actuarial present values shall be based upon the actuarial assumptions used in the official actuarial valuation as of January 1 preceding the effective adjustment date
See Ord No 86-58, §2 7-24-1986 Similar to the Original COLA, the New COLA contained a catch-up provision in the event that the three previous COLAs were less than the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") The New COLA also enlarged the maximum overall percentage increase from 4% to 5%
On May 19, 1987. Ord No C-87-36 was passed This ordinance amended the distribution methodology the Board could use to pay out any available COLA funds Rather than adding the adjustment to the monthly benefit, on the next two occasions when a COLA was due the Board was authorized to pay the adjustment as a lump sum In addition, after making two lump sum adjustments the Board was then authorized to use a distribution method which allowed for a graduated percentage adjustment based upon length of retirement The graduated percentage adjustment was required to be added to a retirees monthly benefit amount The only restriction placed on the Board's selection of a particular distribution method was that the total sum paid could not "exceed actuarial equivalent of the amount generated by the applicable computation formula " See Ord No. C-87-36 § 1
According to records provided by the Pension Office, no COLAs were paid for calendar years 1987 and 1988 See Exhibit C The City Code was re-codified in 1990 and the Plan was transferred from Chapter 31 to Chapter 20 of the City Code. On May 5. 1992, Ord. No. C-92-20 again amended the distribution methods the Board could utilize This amendment gave the Board the discretion to select any distribution methodology, subject to 2 limitations First, as long as the total sum paid out by the Board did not exceed the actuarial equivalent of the amount generated by the applicable computation formula, the Board could pay all retirees the same monthly adjustment or pay a graduated percentage based upon length of retirement Second, the adjustment was to be added to the monthly benefit payment The ordinance also extended the New COLAs sunset provision to July 15. 1994 On July 6, 1994. the New COLA'S sunset provision was extended to July 15. 1997 by Ord No C-94-26 According to records provided by the Pension Office, no COLA was paid for calendar year 1994 See Exhibit C On July 16. 1996, Ord. No C-96-35 amended the formula for determining the amount of funds available to finance any adjustment in the event that the Board elected to allocate and recognize investment earnings over a period of three years or more The ordinance revised Section 20-129{f) as follows Section 20-129 Retirement dates and benefits
(2) The amount of the cost of living adjustment shall be added to each monthly benefit paid after the effective adjustment date Such amount shall be equal to a percentage of the basic monthly benefit, excluding any previous cost of living adjustment The percentage amount of the adjustment shall be one of the following, a. or b.. whichever is less a A percentage which is not greater than the percentage increase in the Consumers' Price
Index (United States, All Urban Consumers, or such other index as approved by both the Board and the City commission) for the calendar year immediately preceding the effective adjustment date, or b A percentage increase, the actuarial present value of which can be fully funded by the amount of excess gains existing at the end of the immediately preceding calendar year (the The term "excess gains." as used in this subsection (f), means an amount of money equal to onethird (1/3) of the sum of all actuarial gains and losses of the System for the preceding three (3) calendar years, including the calendar year immediately preceding the adjustments-provided however, if investment earnings for the calendar year immediately preceding the adjustment are allocated and recognized by the Plan's actuary over a period of three or more years, then the term "excess gains" as used herein shall mean an amount equal to the sum of all actuarial gains and losses of the system for the calendar year immediately preceding the adjustment. The applicable percentage, as specified in subsections (f)(2)a and (f)(2)b. above, shall not exceed five (5) percent unless a greater percentage is approved by the City Commission. Ord No. C-96-35§1
Ord No C-96-35 also contained the following recital clause 'WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission that upon adoption thts amendment be applied to the July 1. 1996 cost of living adjustment determination made by the Board of Trustees on the basis of the year ending December 31. 1995 actuarial report for the Retirement System" On September 17. 1996. the New COLA's sunset provision was extended to July 15. 2000 by Ord No C-96-47 On July 18. 2000, the New COLA's sunset provision was extended to July 15. 2005. by Ord No C-00-34
According to records provided by the Pension Office, the last COLA adjustment received by retirees was paid in 2001 for calendar year 2000. See Exhibit C. On July 6, 2005. the New COLA's sunset provision was extended to July 15, 2006, by Ord No. C-05-16. This ordinance further provided that "no cost of living adjustments shall be granted based upon the Plan's performance in calendar year 2005 " On July 18. 2006. the New COLA'S sunset provision was extended to July 15, 2007, by Ord No C-06-23 The ordinance further provided that "no cost of living adjustments shall be granted based upon the Plan's performance in calendar year 2006 " On July 17, 2007. the New COLA'S sunset provision was extended to July 15, 2008, by Ord No. C-07-64. The ordinance further provided that "no cost of living adjustments shall be granted based upon the Plan's performance in calendar year 2007." On April 15, 2008, the New COLA was amended by Ord. No. C-08-17 to provide that "no cost of living adjustment may be granted, authorized, paid or distributed during calendar year 2008 " The ordinance did not extend the New COLA's sunset provision. The New COLA's sunset provision has not been extended by the CityCommission beyond July 15. 2008 Therefore the New COLA stands repealed as of that date 2
Applicable Florida Statutes: The Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters Retirement System ("Plan") is currently set forth in Chapter 20 of the City of Fort Lauderdale City Code The Plan is a defined benefit plan governed by Chapters 175 & 185 of the Florida Statutes The Plan is also governed by the "Florida Protection of Public Employee Retirement Benefits Act" (Act") The Act ts set forth in Part VII of Chapter 112 of the Florida Statutes The Act was adopted in 1978 by the Florida Legislature for the purpose of implementing §14. Art. X of the Florida Constitution 3 The Act establishes minimum
Employees first eligible for normal retirement on or after July 15. 2008. are precluded from receiving a COLA. See Mavo Clinic v- Dept of Prof. Reg.. 625 So 2d 918, 919 n.2 (Fla 1st DCA 1993).
§14. Art X of the Florida Constitution provides State retirement systems benefit changes—A governmental unit responsible for any retirement or pension system supported in whole or in -6-
standards for the operation and funding of public retirement plans in Florida Legislature's intent was set forth in Chapter 78-170. Laws of Florida § 1:4 112 61 Legislative intent —It is the intent of the Legislature in implementing the provisions of s 14, Art. X of the State Constitution, relating to governmental retirement systems, that such retirement systems or plans be managed, administered, operated, and funded in such a manner as to maximize the protection of public employee retirement benefits.
The Act expressly preempts any conflicting provisions found in any local retirement plan, including Fort Lauderdale s Plan It provides, in relevant part 11262 Application—The provisions of this part are applicable to any and all units, agencies, branches, departments, boards, and institutions of state, county, special district, and municipal governments which participate in. operate, or administer a retirement system or plan for public employees, funded in whole or in part by public funds The provisions of this part supplement and, to the extent there are conflicts, prevail over the part by public funds shall not after January 1, 1977. provide any increase in the benefits to the members or beneficiaries of such system unless such unit has made or concurrently makes provision for the funding of the increase in benefits on a sound actuarial basis
Section 112.61 currently reads as follows 11261 Legislative intent—It is the intent of the Legislature in implementing the provisions of s. 14. Art X of the State Constitution, relating to governmental retirement systems, that such retirement systems or plans be managed, administered, operated, and funded in such a manner as to maximize the protection of public employee retirement benefits Inherent in this intent is the recognition that the pension liabilities attributable to the benefits promised public employees be fairly, orderly, and equitably funded by the current, as well as future. taxpayers. Accordingly, except as herein provided, it is the intent of this act to prohibit the use of any procedure, methodology, or assumptions the effect of which is to transfer to future taxpayers any portion of the costs which may reasonably have been expected to be paid by the current taxpayers Actuarial experience may be used to fund additional benefits, provided that the present value of such benefits does not exceed the net actuarial experience accumulated from all sources of gains and tosses This act hereby establishes minimum standards for the operation and funding of public employee retirement systems and plans Fla Stat § 112.661 (2011). -7-
provisions of existing laws and local ordinances relating to such retirement systems or plans. Fla. Stat. § 112.62 (Emphasis added.) In July of 1994. the Legislature amended the Act to address concerns related to the funding of retirement benefits using actuarial experience The following limitation was added to Section 11261 Actuarial experience may be used to fund additional benefits, provided that the present value of such benefits does not exceed the net actuarial experience accumulated from all sources of gains and losses See Chapter 94-259. Laws of Florida. §3. To date, both Fla Stat. §§ 11261 & 112.62 remain unchanged
The COLA is a contingent benefit. Both the Original COLA adopted in 1972, and the New COLA adopted in 1986. authorize payment of a COLA only when and if certain criteria have been met The Original COLA provided that an adjustment would be given to the extent possible " It further provided that This adjustment must be made to the extent of at least 50%, up to a maximum of 100%, of the excess investment earnings for the year over and above the amounts required in the actuarial interest assumption used for purposed of the System's regular actuarial valuation and determination of required contribution SeeOrd C-72-94 §1 Similarly, the New COLA provided that retirees would receive a COLA equal to the lesser of the CPI or 'a percentage increase, the actuarial present value of which can be fully funded by the amount of excess gains existing at the end of the immediately preceding calendar year." See Ord 86-58 §1. Accordingly, under either provision receipt of an adjustment in any particular year was a contingent, rather than a guaranteed, benefit Dept Mgt. Svs. v. City of Delray Bch.. 40 So. 3d 835. 841 (Fla 1st DCA 2010); see also Williams v. Scott, Case No 2011 CA 1584 (Fla. 2nd Cir. Ct. March 6. 2012) (finding that a straight percentage COLA was a guaranteed benefit that could
not be changed)5 Further, although worded differently, the funding contingency of both COLA provisions can generally be described as requiring payment of a COLA only when certain criteria have been met
The Board's authority to determine the manner by which it would distribute available COLA funds changed over time. Through the years, the City Commission amended the methods the Board could use to distribute any available COLA funds For example, in 1987 the Commission authorized the Board to first pay the COLA twice as a lump sum and thereafter to pay the COLA in equal amounts to all retirees or as a graduated benefit based upon length of retirement.6 At no time, however, was the Board ever given the authority to modify the Plan's formula for determining the amount of funds available to finance the COLA
The Legislature's 1994 amendment to the Act preempts the Plan's COLA
As discussed above, the Florida Legislature amended the Act to limit how actuarial experience could be used to fund benefits As of July 1. 1994. 'actuarial experience may be used to fund additional benefits provided that the present value of such benefits does not exceed the net actuarial experience accumulated from all sources of gains and losses See F la Stat § 1 1 2 6 1 ' Prior to July 1. 1994. both the Original COLA formula and the New COLA formula limited the accumulation of actuarial
The inclusion of the sunset provision as part of the New COLA further demonstrates that it was not intended to be a continuing benefit See Fla. Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster. 984 So 2d 478. 490 (Fla 2008) ("To be vested, a right must be more than a mere expectation based on an anticipation of the continuance of an existing law )
Prior to 1987 the COLA could only be added to a retirees monthly retirement benefit
There is no indication that the Legislature intended the amendment to Fla Stat. § 11261 to apply retroactively to benefits previously granted by a public pension plan Generally, a substantive statute will not operate retrospectively absent clear legislative intent to the contrary Coventry First LLC v. Fla. Off, of Ins. Reg.. 30 So 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA2010). Even if the Legislature intended retroactive application of Section 112 61, it would violate the constitutional ban on impairment of contracts Yamaha Parts Distributors. Inc. v. Ehrman. 316 So. 2d 557 (Fla 1975) Moreover, retroactive application of the amendment would likely violate the anti-cutback rule of the Internal Revenue Code See IRC § 411(d)(6) (Generally, a tax-qualified retirement plan may not be amended to reduce or eliminate a participant's accrued benefit.). -9-
experience and the sources of gains and losses8 Beginning on July 6, 1994, any COLA calculations were now subject to the Acts requirement concerning actuarial experience 9 See Metropolitan Dade Cntv v. Chase Fed Housing Corp.. 737 So. 2d. 494, 504 (Fla 1999) (finding that if the Legislature intends to comprehensively regulate an area of statewide concern, then it has the authority to prevent local government from acting contrary to its intent). On July 16, 1996. the City Commission amended the New COLA's formula to add an alternate definition for the term "excess gains See Ord No. C-96-35 §1 The amendment stated that excess gams were to be calculated as an amount equal to the sum of all actuarial gains and losses of the system for the calendar year immediately preceding the adjustment" in the event that the fund's investment earnings were allocated over a period of three or more years by the Board Because the alternate definition of excess gains is limited to only the prior calendar year, it too is in conflict with Act. Conclusion. Our review of the documents provided by the Pension Office indicates that the Plan's actuaries determined the availability of COLAs in a manner consistent with applicable law.K
The Original COLA provided that a COLA would be paid to the extent of at least 50%, up to a maximum of 100%, of the excess investment earnings for the year over and above the amounts required in the actuarial interest assumption used for purposes of the System's regular actuarial valuation and determination of required contributions." See Ord No 72-94 § 1 Similarly, under the New COLA retirees would receive an adjustment equal to the lesser of the CPI or "a percentage increase, the actuarial present value of which can be fully funded by the amount of excess gams existing at the end of the immediately preceding calendar year" See Ord. 86-58 §2 The New COLA further defined the term "excess gains" as "an amount of money equal to one-third (1/3) of the sum of all actuarial gains and losses of the System for the preceding three (3) calendar years, including the calendar year immediately preceding the adjustment)."
On July 6. 1994, Ord No C-94-26 extended the COLA's sunset provision to July 15, 1997 Because the COLA is contingent rather than guaranteed, and because the City Commission re-adopted the COLA by extending it to 1997 the Act preempts the formula as of July 6. 1994 the effective date of Ord No C-94-26 Williams v. Scott. Case No 2011 CA 1584 (Fla. 2nd Cir. Ct. March 6. 2012) is pending before the Florida Supreme Court Oral argument has been scheduled for September 5, 2012 The Court's ruling may impact this Memorandum s conclusions.
777 ARTHUR GODFREY ROAD P O BOX 4O2O99 MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 331400099 www. cyp«n.coin
MIAMI: 30* «3Z.3ZOO FACSIMILE:: aOS S3S OOSO
• HOWARD: •S4.SZ2 MOO
e-MAn. info«cyp*n com
VIA EMAIL and REGULAR US MAIL
Board of Trustees City of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters' Retirement System 888 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 202 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316
Police and Firefighters' Retirement System {"Plan")\Cost of Living Adjustment ("COLA")
Dear Trustees The purpose of this letter is to advise the Board on the current state of the law as it applies to the automatic repeal of the Plan's COLA The Plan's COLA provision was originally enacted on December 5, 1972, and did not provide for the automatic repeal of the COLA on a date certain See Ord No. 72-94, § 6, 12-5-1972. Such automatic repeal provisions are commonly known as "sunset provisions." The Plan's original COLA provision remained unchanged until July 24, 1986. when it was amended to include a sunset provision repealing the COLA "on July 1. 1991, unless readopted by the City Commission" See Ord No 86-58 §2 7-24-1986 Since the sunset provision was originally inserted into the Plan's COLA provision in July of 1986. it has been extended six times by the City Commission The last extension occurred on July 17 2007 See Ord No 07-64, §1 It is currently set forth in City Code Section 20-129(0. "Retirement Dates and Benefits," and reads as follows
Board of Trustees April 12,2011 Page 2
(f) Cost of Living Adjustments
The provisions of this subsection (f) are repeated on July 15. 2008. unless readopted by the Citv Commission: provided, however, that nothing herein shall permit reduction of any cost of living adjustment previously granted and being received by any retiree or beneficiary as of such date of repeal; provided, further however, that no cost of living adjustments shall be granted based upon the Plan's performance in calendar year 2007 and provided further that no cost of living adjustment may be granted, authorized, paid or distributed during calendar year 2008. (Emphasis added-} As you are aware, the City Commission has not voted to extend the COLA again Consequently, the Plan's COLA provision was automatically repealed on July 15, 2008 In Florida, it is well-established that a public employee's right to benefits under a retirement system cannot be reduced once the public employee retires or becomes eligible for normal retirement. The public employer cannot amend a retirement system to reduce a retiree's right to receive benefits in place at the time of retirement. Further, if an active employee is eligible for normal retirement at the time the public employer amends the retirement system to reduce benefits, the employee's right to receive the unreduced benefits is legally protected. State ex. Rel. Stringer v. Lee. 2 So. 2d 127. 132-3 (Fla. 1941); O'Connell v State of Florida. Deot of Admin.. Div. of Retirement. 557 So. 2d 609 (Fla 3d DCA 1990) In the case City of Fort Lauderdale v. Citv of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighter Retirement System, Case No CAGE 04-3578 (Fla 17th Cir Ct. 2007) percuriam affirmed 983 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), the court was asked to decide whether employees who were eligible for normal retirement, and did not retire prior to the City's repeal of the Plan's "additional benefits clause," were bound by the City's repeal of the clause Both the trial court and the appellate court found that active employees who were eligible for normal retirement prior to the repeal of the Plan's "additional benefits clause" were not bound by the repeal In other words, the employees had a right to receive the benefit of the Plan's 'additional benefits clause" because they were eligible for normal retirement prior to the clause's repeal by the City Commission
Board of Trustees April 12, 2011 Page3
The State of Florida's Division of Retirement also recognizes that certain active employees have the right to receive unreduced retirement benefits despite benefit reductions made by the public employer On September 1. 2010. Sarabeth Snuggs. the State Retirement Director for the Division of Retirement wrote to the Chairman of the San Carlos Fire Control District and advised . . . When a member has reached normal retirement, entered DROP or is retired, his benefits may not be reduced. For active members who are not eligible for normal retirement or are not participating under a DROP option, the employer may prospectively change the plan No such change may adversely affect the value of the benefits already earned by an active or terminated vested member This same analysis and reasoning apply to the Plan's COLA provision Members who retired prior to July 15. 2008, regardless of whether the member began to receive benefits immediately upon separation, remain eligible for a COLA- In addition, members who were eligible for normal retirement prior to July 15. 2008, but remained actively employed with the City after this date are eligible for a COLA In closing, it should be noted that this letter only addresses the issue of eligibility to participate in the COLA. It does not address the question of whether a COLA is actually due and payable at a particular point in time as that is determined by the Plan's actuaryShould you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us Very truly yours.
Alison S. Bieler For the firm ASB/arc Enclosures cc: Lynn Wenguer, Plan Administrator
EXHIBIT B Documents Provided by Pension Office
Documents prepared by Pension Office • Cola Timeline of Commission and Pension Board Actions • Cost of Living Timeline • Schedule of Cost of Living Adjustments Board Minutes: • July 10, 1991. pages 1 and 2 • Januarys, 1992 • March 11. 1992: pages 1 and 2 • April 15, 1992, page 4 • March 9. 1994, page 4 • February 8. 1995; page 4 • April 10, 1996; pages 2 and 3 • May 2. 1996; page 3
June 12. 1996. pages 2 and 3 August 14. 1996: page 3 June 13, 2001. pages 3 and 4 November 13. 2002. page 6 January 8, 2003, pages 4 and 5 April 11. 2007; page 4 May 9, 2007: page 6
October 3. 2007: page 4 November 14 2007. pages 4, 5 and 6 March 12. 2008; pages 4 and 5 April 9. 2008, page 6 May 7. 2008: pages 4 and 5
City Commission Minutes: • Commission Meeting Minutes June 21. 1994 pages 24, 25 and 26
City Ordinances: • Ordinance C-72-94 • Ordinance C-86-58 • Ordinance C-87-36 • Ordinance C-87-41 • Ordinance C-87-107 • Ordinance C-88-93 • Ordinance C-90-48 • Ordinance C-91-48 • Ordinance C-91-80 • Ordinance C-91-86 • Ordinance C-91-90 • Ordinance C-92-19 • Ordinance C-92-20 • Ordinance C-94-26 • Ordinance C-96-35 • Ordinance C-96-47 • Ordinance C-00-34 • Ordinance C-05-16 • Ordinance C-06-23 • Ordinance C-07-64 • Ordinance C-08-17
Correspondence: . Letter dated May 27. 1983 from Leonard Olivier, to P Pension Board Members . Letter dated March 14. 1984 from H G Boggs & Assoc to Leo . Letter dated Apr,, 16. 1984 from H.G. Boggs & Assoc to Leonard Ohv* . Memorandum dated May 3. 1984 from Leonard Oliver, to Pohc Pension Board Members . Memorandum 84-54 dated May 3 1984 from Damon R Adams. Financ D.rector to Constance Hoffman City Manager . Memorandum 84-313 dated May 4. 1984 from Constant* Manager to Leonard Olivien . Letter dated April 18. 1985 from Len Olivieri tc Letter dated April 25. 1991 from H.G Boggs & Assoc to Lenny Dinner . Memorandum dated March 27. 1992 from H G Boggs & Assoc to Lenny Olivieri (re Cost of Living Adjustment)
Memorandum dated March 27, 1992 from H G Boggs & Assoc to Lenny Olivier! (re: Use of Asset Smoothing Technique) Memorandum 92-101 dated March 24, 1992 from George L Hanbury, City Manager to Mayor Jim Naugle
Letter dated April 14. 1992 from Len Olivieri to George Hanbury. City Manager • Memorandum dated April 29, 1992 from H G Boggs & Assoc. to Lenny Olivieri • Letter dated May 1. 1992 from H.G Boggs & Assoc to Leonard Olivieri • Memorandum dated April 2. 1993 from H.G. Boggs & Assoc to Lynn Wenguer • Memorandum dated May 27 1993 from H.G. Boggs & Assoc to Lynn Wenguer • Correspondence dated June 29, 1995 from Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company to Lynn Wenguer • Cost of Living Adjustment from 1996 from Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company dated July 9, 1996 • Excerpt from 1996 Actuarial Valuation Results from Gabriel, Roeder. Smith & Company dated July 9. 1996 (2 pages) • Correspondence dated August 8. 1996 from Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company to Lynn Wenguer • Correspondence dated June 11. 1997 from Gabriel. Roeder. Smith & Company to Lynn Wenguer • Correspondence dated May 4. 1999 from Gabriel, Roeder. Smith & Company to Lynn Wenguer • Correspondence dated May 9, 2001 from Gabriel Roeder. Smith & Company to Lynn Wenguer Actuarial Experience Studies: • 1997 - 2001 Experience Study - Stanley Holcombe & Associates • 2002 - 2006 Experience Study - Stanley Holcombe & Associates Actuarial Valuation Reports: • 1990 Actuarial Review - H.G Boggs & Assoc • 1991 Actuarial Review - H.G Boggs & Assoc • 1992 Actuarial Review- H.G Boggs & Assoc • (Revised July 9. 1992) • 1993 Actuarial Review - H.G Boggs & Assoc. • 1994 Actuarial Valuation - The Segal Company • Summary Pages from 1994 Actuarial Valuation - The Segal Company
1994 Actuarial Valuation - Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company 1995 Actuarial Valuation - Gabriel. Roeder. Smith & Company (Revised July 11, 1996) 1996 Actuarial Valuation - Gabriel. Roeder, Smith & Company 1997 Actuarial Valuation - Gabriel. Roeder, Smith & Company 1998 Actuarial Valuation - Gabriel. Roeder, Smith & Company 1999 Actuarial Valuation - Gabriel, Roeder. Smith & Company 2000 Actuarial Valuation - Gabriel. Roeder. Smith & Company 2001 Actuarial Valuation - Gabriel. Roeder, Smith & Company 2002 Actuarial Report - Stanley Holcombe & Associates 2003 Actuarial Report - Stanley Holcombe & Associates 2004 Actuarial Report - Stanley Holcombe & Associates 2005 Actuarial Report - Stanley Holcombe & Associates 2006 Actuarial Report - Stanley Holcombe & Associates 2007 Actuarial Report - Stanley Holcombe & Associates 2008 Actuarial Report - Stanley Holcombe & Associates 2009 Actuarial Report - Stanley Holcombe & Associates 2010 Actuarial Report - Stanley Holcombe & Associates 2011 Actuarial Report - Stanley Holcombe & Associates
COu oytd
1982 to Present Year Ended Year Paid (No COLA granted prior to 1982) 1982 1983 1983 1984 1985 1984 1986 1985 1987 1986 1988 1987 1989 1988 1990 1989 1991 1990 1992 1991 1993 1992 1994 1993 1995 1994 1996 1995 1997 1996 1998 1997 1999 1998 2000 1999 2001 2000 2002 2001 ' 2003 2002 2004 2003 2005 2004 2006 2005 2007 2006 2008 2007 2009 2008 2010 2009 2011 2010
1982- 1989 COL As paid w/ 13th check CPI 3 90% 3.80% 400% 3.80% 1.10% 4 40% 4 40% 4.60% 6.10% 3 10% 2 90% 2.80% 270% 2.60% 3.50% 1.70% 1 60% 2 70% 3 40% 1.60% 2.40% 1.90% 3.30% 3.40% 2.50% 4.10% 0.10% 2.70% 1.50%
COLA % 4% 4% 4%' 4% 2%
COLA Payment Formula $564 base plus $346 for each year of retirement $564 base plus $346 for each veaf of retirement $564 base plus $346 tor each year of retirement $564 base olus $346 for each vear of retirement $271.34 base plus $173 for each vear of retirement No excess gains $1500. 00 base plus $714.78 for each vear of retirement Flat amount $26.82 per month Base of $149. plus $57. for each year of retirement/12 Base of $20.95 plus $7.64 for each year of retirement per month Base of $12.50 plus $4.80 for each year of retirement per month No excess gains Base of $10.57 for each year of retirement Base of $7.56 for each year of retirement Base of $3.71 for each year of retirement Base of $3.59 for each year of retirement Base of $6.01 for each year of retirement Base of $7 20 for each year of retirement None None None None None None None None None None
0.00% 4.10%' 2% 3.10%' 5% 2 70% 0% 5% 3.60% 1.70% 1.60% 270% 340% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
$400.000 $484.480 $400.200 $416.290 $260.530 $0
$2271.474 $877.298 $1.843,082 $3.469,413 $2.232,570 $0 $5,757.285 $4,251.394 $2.733,524 $2.746,766 $4,768,389 $6.104,722 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0
Documents Similar To COLA History
Nirvana Plus Details
Ponno Jonatan _Professional Resume
AFC3440 Unit Guide 2013 S2-1
More From Ken Rudominer
Fort Lauderdale Police and Fire Pension Securities Monitoring
Recapture11-10
Fort Lauderdale Police and Fire Pension 1st Quarter 2011 Investment Review
GASbletter
Recapture11-2010
Ftpol Vote Report 101011