The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDocumentation_Pension General _Tab 09_05/05/2008~a~i~~~«.t-- -~ ~ Table 1: Summary of Responses RESPONSE TO RAISING MULTIPLIER -GENERAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RESPONSES Remain at 2% 1 6 2'94 17 65 2% ardless of who funds the increase 2 . . onl if no additional cost to me 2.2% 21 61.76 , 6 17.65 No res onse TOTAL 34 100.00 Tahlp 2' Individual responses sorted by Date of Hire h N Employee Title Hire Date Remain at 2% o 2' funds theliencrease addit onal Bost to me onse res x 1. Terriault, Michelle Adm. Assistant 05/01/00 10/01/00 x 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Couzzo, Michael Jackson, Wa ne Fors he, Jod Sudell, Michael Gload, Michelle Villa a Mana er Laborer Finance Director Water Plant O erator Senior Accountant tomer Service Su er C 12/11/00 01/22/01 09/10/01 10/31/01 12/03/01 x x x x x 7. 8. Rebecchi, Renee Corbitt, Gre . us Parks and Rec Director rmit Licensin Tech P 01/14/02 10/01/02 x x 9. McGuinniss, Maureen e Water Plant O erator x 10. Gibbs, Robert Assistant Adm 01 08105 x 11. 12. S ei I, Ma Weinand, Ja ueline . Communications Officer Su ervisor c R 06/13/05 10/06/05 x x 13. Worle ,Kathleen . e Communications Officer 10/10/05 x 14. Luscavich, Tara Senior Accountant 10/25/05 x 15. Rahim, Monica CD Director 10/31/05 x 16. Hardin ,Catherine Code Enforcement 03/27/06 x 17. Petrick, Jose h Clerk Utili Billin /Acct 05/22/06 x 18. 19. Ferina, Lorraine Reid, Merlene . HR Mana er 06/05/06 x x Service Tech Trainee 06/12/06 20. 21. Dittmeier, Chris Paris, Walter Service Tech Trainee to Villa e M r Asst Exec 10/17/06 11/03/06 x x 22. Telfrin, Debra . . Maintenance Worker 11/13/06 x 23. 24. Morales, Carlos McWilliams, Lori Villa a Clerk 01/03/07 x x Service Tech Trainee 02/05/07 25. 26. Mesa no, Steven Barbera, Kath n Police Records Clerk 06/25/07 x Employee 30. 31. Asa, Debra :fer, Kenneth Deanna Berg, Brad am, Kyle nati. Tatiana 34 ~ Fitzer, Raymond Table 3: Comments received Title Communications Sup. Maintenance Worker 1 Office Assistant _ Water Plant Trainee Accountant HR Technician/ReG Evidence Custodian Hire Date Remain 2.2% regardless of who 2,2%, only if no No at 2% funds the increase additional cost to me res of x 10/1 /07 10/1 /07 x 10/1 /07 x 10/29/07 x 11 /13/07 x 11 %13/07 x 1 /24/08 x 2/13/08 x Hire Date cczmmtn ~ a 1. Em to ee Corbitt, Greg Title Parks and Rec Director 01/14/02 I would like to have the members of the board look at the following options in this order 1. Changing to FRS, 2. Using the same multiplier as Public Safety with a step plan, 3. Add a DROP plan, 4. Something for vested employees vs non-vested unicipality offering FRS to 2. Ferina, Lorraine Utility Billing/Acct. Clerk 05/22/06 alltemployees? dls th s something Councie el ds to vote on 3. Fitzer, Raymond Evidence Custodian 2/13/08 I'd like the employee's average changed to best 3 year average and look at accepting prior federal, state and local years of work applied. to vesting. No monetary contribution on the Village's behalf, but the employee could begin employment vested in the plan. The Village could also offer a new employee to "buy" into the plan to count towards vesting... 4. Gload, Michelle Senior Accountant 10/31/01 I would like the board to look at other options also, such as 1. Enrolling in the FRS, 2. The benefits of a higher multiplier, such as 3%, 3. Using a step method with the multiplier (similar to Public Safety) after vesting would be a second option forme in u G 5. Mayo, Deanna Office Assistant 1011/07 g p o 6. McWilliams, Lori Vllage Clerk 01/03/07 Would like to consider FRS for employees 12/03/01 Can we get the FRS plan 7 Renee Rebecchi Customer Service Super. . , 8 Mary l ei S Adm. Assistant 01/08/05 . g. , g p Worley, Kathleen Rec. Supervisor 10/06/05 If our benefits are low, especially compared to the FRS -why don't we switch to FRS? I would like to know if that is an option. If it is an option - I don't want to do it if it means I would take a loss for what I have alread ut into the current Ian Laur, Betty rom: Reid, Merlene nt: Friday, April 18, 2008 2:20 PM o: Steven Palmquist (steve.palmquistt~gabrielroeder.com) Cc: McWilliams, Lori; Laur, Betty; Archive Subject: Gen Pension Fund -Memo re Raisign Multiplier.doc Attachments: image001.jpg; Gen Pension Fund -Memo re Raisign Multiplier.doc Steve/Bonni Please review the attached letter which is to be sent to members of the General Employees pension plan and give me your feedback. Steve - I am anticipating that employees will need to understand exactly how they will be affected financially, in order to make a decision of this type. Is there an approximate 9'o increase that I can tell them in respect of their increase in contribution, should the Village not choose to fund the change? Merlene Merlene Reid, SPHR Human Resources Manager Village of Tequesta 345 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, fL 33469-0273 Tel: (561) 575-6200 x256 ~x: (561) 575-6203 • • Memo To: Members of the Tequesta General Employees Pension Trust Fund From: Meriene Reid, H.R. Manager Dane: April 21, 2008 Re: Request for Feedback on Raising the Pension Multiplier At the meeting of the Pension Board on August 6, 2007, a motion was passed to recommend an increase of the pension multiplier from 2% to 2.2%. It was further requested that this decision be shared with the employees in the General pension fund, to get their feedback for presentation to the Council. A copy of the section of the Minutes is attached for your information. What is a multiplier? A multiplier is a percentage of wages. It is a key number in determining what the annual • pension will be. The current multiplier of 2% means that the formula for calculating an employee's retirement amount is 2% x years of service x the employee's 5-year average. A change to 2.2% will result in an increase of each person's pension by 10%. Please note that the change would affect the employee contribution if it is not funded by the Village. It is estimated that each employee's contribution rate would have to increase by about 1.5% of compensation. Please respond by Thursday, Apri124„ 2008, indicating whether or not you are interested in having the multiplier raised by completing the sections below and returning to the Human resources department. NOTE: This is not a mandate to the Board to raise the multiplier, but simply to indicatie your inben~t in the various options provided below. NAME DEPARTMENT I wish to have the multiplier remain at 2% I wish to have the multiplier moved to 2.2% regardless of who funds the increase. wish to have the multiplier moved to 2.2%, only if there is no additional cost to me. Other Comments • Laur, Betty rom: Steve.Palmquist@gabrielroeder.com nt: Monday, April 21, 2008 2:17 PM Reid, Merlene Cc: McWilliams, Lori; Laur, Betty; Archive Subject: RE: Gen Pension Fund -Memo re Raisign Multiplier.doc Attachments: image001.jpg Your memo looks good to me. If the employees have to pay for the increased multiplier, their contribution rate would have to increase by about 1.5% of compensation. The exact amount would have to be determined. Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to regulations issued by the IRS, to the extent this communication (or any attachment) concerns tax matters, it is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax- related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed within. Each taxpayer should seek advice based on the individual's circumstances from an independent tax advisor. J. Stephen Palmquist, ASA, MAAA, FCA, EA Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company One East Broward Blvd., Suite 505 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone:954-527-1616 Fax:954-525-0083 Steve. patmq uist~gabrielroeder. com ~e above communication shall not be construed to provide tax advice or legal advice unless it contains one of the following phrases, or substantially equivalent language: "This communication is intended to provide tax advice" or "This communication is intended to provide legal advice. " Notice of Confidentiality This transmission contains information that may be confidential and that may also be privileged. tJnless you are the intended recipient of the message (or authorized to receive it for the intended recipient), you may not copy, forward, or otherwise use it, or disclose its contents to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. ___ .. __ ..._ ~._ ,... ~..Y ...,._ ... ..__.._ . ..____ ...- ....--------~..e__... From: Reid, Merlene [mailto:mreid@tequesta.org] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 2:20 PM To: Palmquist, Steve (FLPi) Ce: McWilliams, Lori; Laur, Betty; Archive Subject: Gen Pension Fund -Memo re Raisign Multiplier.doc Steve/Bonni Please review the attached letter which is to be sent to members of the General Employees pension plan and give me your feedback. Steve - I am anticipating that employees will need to understand exactly how they will be affected financially, in order to make a decision of this type. Is there an approximate 9'o increase that I can tell them in respect of their increase in contribution, should the Village not choose to fund the change? ~rlene Merlene Reid, SPHR Human Resources Manager • BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING MINUTES February 4, 2008 PAGE 5 that the motion be restated so it was clear what the board was asking. The maker of the motion, Secretary Mangum, stated he was asking Human Resource Director Reid to go to the union and tell them the Board wanted an answer yes or no to the question will they waive that right and do so with all expediency. The Board's request was that the union waive that right. Board Member Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 3-0 vote. Human Resource Director Reid commented there had also been a question regarding raising the multiplier, and she was going to send that out to the union as well, requesting their feedback on this matter, moving from 2% to 2.2%, which this board had previously discussed and asked that she discuss this with the members; however, she had held off discussing it with the members to see if they wanted to raise it until the union considered it. Perhaps at this time she could send both items to the union, telling them they had two matters-waiving their right, and requesting feedback on raising the pension multiplier. Board Member Hansen expressed his opinion this would be a negotiation matter. Chair Harding agreed, stating the issues • should not be mixed; the one issue should be totally clear and when it was resolved the other could be raised. Chair Harding asked if the multiplier issue could be discussed with staff to get their feedback and then take it to the union; she did not want to go to the union with a second subject right now, because she thought the matter of paying interest on contributions should be kept very clear. Ms. Reid stated she would only take that item to the union at this time; because the union represented some of the staff she did not recommend going to staff with the second issue at this time. VIII. CONSENT AGENDA Board Member Hansen made a motion to approve the consent agenda with Item 10 pulled for discussion. Secretary Mangum seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 3-0 vote. Therefore, the following items were approved on the consent agenda: 5. Ratification Of Invoices Paid Since Last Quarterly Meeting: • Business Services Connection, Inc. Recording and Minutes of 11.5.07 meeting $ 332.20 • • Hanson, Perry ~ Jensen, P.A. $ 1,041.24 • TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND MINUTES OF REGULAR QUARTERLY BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING AUGUST 6, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta General Employees' Pension Trust Fund Boazd of Trustees held a regular quarterly meeting in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 345 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on August 6, 2007. The meeting was called to order at 8:02 a.m. by Chair Catherine Harding. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Board members in attendance at the meeting were:. Chair Catherine Hazding, Secretary Archie C. Mangum, Jr., Board member Merlene Reid, and Board Member Cazl Hansen. Also in attendance were Monitoring Consultant Dave West from Bogdahn Consulting, Actuary Steve Palmquist of Gabriel, Roeder and Smith Company, Attorney Bonni Jensen, Pension Coordinator Lori McWilliams, and Accounting Clerk Monica Rahim. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • Chair Hazding announced two additions to the agenda: Under VI (9) Reimbursement to Catherine Harding for travel expense to attend FPPTA pension seminar - $320.22 and Under IX (19) Presentation by Attorney Jensen regarding reduction of Dana Financial Advisors fees. MOTION: Board member Hansen made a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Secretary Mangum seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. III. APPROVAL OF NIINUTES MOTION• Boardmember Reid made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2007 regular quarterly meeting as submitted. Boardmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. IV. PRESENTATIONS Presentation by Steve Palmauist, Gabriel. Roeder & Smith Company, regarding increasing multialier • Steve Pahnquist provided a handout of his report and explained he had been requested to determine the financial impact of determining the plan's multiplier. This was a defined benefit plan and funding for benefits was being done as promised by the pension ordinance. • BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2006 PAGE 2 Mr. Palmquist commented The multiplier was now 2%, and to figure the retirement benefit for an employee the formula was 2% x years of service x the employee's 5-year average pay = retirement amount; fora 20-year employee it would be 2% x 20 years = 40%, so their pension would be 40% of pay for the rest of their life. The task assigned to him was raising the 2% in increments of,1, up to 2.5%. The figures used were from the last actuarial report, as of 10-1-2005, since the board only had an actuarial report done every other year. The present value of future benefits for those in the plan October 1, 2006; for each .1 % increase the present value rose approximately $83,000-$84,000. The difference in each .1 % increment was approximately $9,000 annually. If the multiplier were raised to 2.5%, that would mean a 25% increase in everyone's pension. The increases would be the same whether the Village or the employees paid for the increase. Mr. Palmquist confirmed the pensions would be higher, the present value of future benefits would be higher, and annual cost would be higher, and when people retired more would come out of the pension. The extra money coming in would be enough to pay for the extra benefits. Board Member Hansen questioned what would happen if ten people retired at the same time, if money was taken out at a greater rate. Mr. Palmquist explained that would not be an issue because all pension plans in Florida were funded on the basis of pre-funding, building enough money during an employee's career so that by retirement no more money would have to be put into the fund. Also, the different multipliers would all beretroactive-if someone had six yeazs of service, that extra percentage would count all the way back to the date of hire. Boazd member Reid asked what the multiplier for Public Safety was; the response was 3%. Mr. Palmquist advised looking at the Village's competitors for employees, one ofwhich would be all governmental entities covered by the Florida Retirement System--county and school board-their multiplier was 1.6% but they also had other very valuable features the Village did not have, employees under FRS did not have to contribute out of their pay and retirees received a 3% COLA every yeaz. Boazd Member Reid commented she could send an email to other towns to ask the amount of their multiplier. Chair Harding asked if additional funding would be needed to pay catch-up to make this retroactive. Mr. Palmquist explained that would be up to the Village Council with the board's recommendation, and explained any time there was a change to the plan with employees paying the whole thing there was a fairness issue: younger employees would not like the plan amended and then a long term employee retiring the very next day and having a windfall included in their benefits, so they might want people with significant amounts of service to put in a little extra because they wouldn't have had to pay for that extra benefit over past years. Board Member Hansen asked if pension plans were becoming more scarce • in the business world, which Mr. Palmquist confirmed, except for mega-companies. Mr. Palmquist advised if the board increased the multiplier they would be going against the trend in the private sector, but in the public sector it was just the opposite. Mr. Palmquist ~r ~ #~ ~ • BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2006 PAGE 3 confirmed the plan would increase $9,000 for each . l %, which would come from payroll. Attorney Jensen asked about unfunded liability, to which Mr. Palmquist responded even raising the multiplier to 2.5%, the funded ratio accrued liability would still be over 100%. Boazd Member Reid asked why an actuarial report was only done every other year and the upside of having an annual evaluation. Mr. Palmquist advised keeping in mind he had a vested interest in that annual reports meant more revenue to his company, but that aside, approximately 90% of governmental plans had annual evaluations-it was just a more up to date tracking method, a better handle on funding progress in the plan, and the board by going over the actuarial report every yeaz became more familiaz with the terminology. Attorney Jensen stated she did not have a vested interest in whether an annual actuarial evaluation was done, but expressed her opinion that it was really important to have one annually because in the bad years it kept from having really bad surprises. `The downside was there was a cost. Mr. Palmquist was requested to provide the cost of doing the evaluation annually, which he stated he would provide in writing. • Boazd member Hansen asked what precipitated raising the multiplier. Attorney Jensen reminded the boazd they had made a motion requesting Mr. Palmquist to figure the cost of raising the multiplier. Pension Coordinator McWilliams advised it was requested at a staff meeting by the Village Manager, who requested it be looked into. Chair Harding asked if this could be an option or if every employee would have to do it. Mr. Palmquist advised it could be anoption byoffering aone-time opportunity to pay more to get a higher multiplier. Anyone electing not to do it would stay where they were, with all new hires paying the higher amount so there would be a dwindling number of people at the lower benefit. It would be hard for a young family to pay more, but a few years down the road they would wish they had gone to the higher amount. The next step would be to fmd out which employees were interested and re-doing the figures. In comparing pension benefits with other towns, the Village was low in benefits, especially compared to those with FRS because although their multiplier was low, the employees not having to pay and the annual COLA increase for retirees were very valuable. Mr. Palmquist described the fairness concept again. Board member Hansen commented in the example given by Mr. Palmquist of a 20-yeaz employee only getting 40% of salary was not much. Mr. Palmquist agreed, but noted they would also get Social Security, which typically provided 30%-40%. The number of long-term employees in this plan was discussed: there might be one in the 10-year category. How to proceed with this matter was discussed. Mr. Palmquist advised this was the time to make a change when most employees in the plan were not long term, so that it was a less expensive proposition. Secretary Mangum asked for more clarification on the amount of Social • Security; Mr. Palmquist advised the government changed the rules in 1983--it was a lower percentage for higher paid people and a higher percentage for lower paid people. • BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING MINUTES August 7, 2006 PAGE 4 Board Member Hansen suggested passing on to the Village Council a recommendation to increase the multiplier to 2.2%. Chair Harding commented she saw no reason the Village Council would object since this would be paid entirely by the employees. Mr. Palmquist advised he had seen cases where the elected officials objected even with the employees paying for the increase because there was no guarantee the municipality would never have to pay. Chair Harding asked if the recommendation could be backed up with a report that most likely the Village would never have to pay. Mr. Palmquist responded a statement could be included in the amendment that the increase would be recalculated every five years to see if it was still adequate, so that the municipality would not be asked to make up the difference. Attorney Jensen advised this request did not come from the employees and asked if the board wanted to send this back to staff to see if they were interested. Discussion ensued. Board member Reid indicated she would be the person on staff who would contact staff to see who was interested in this. Secretary Mangum commented he was all for increasing retirement benefits but there would be disparity because younger employees might not feel they could afford it while those closer to retirement would jump at it, and recommended not more than • 2.25%. MOTION: Board Member Hansen made a motion to make a recommendation to increase the employees' portion of contribution to the pension fund, with no ezpense to the municipality, to 2.2% multiplier, and take that decision and present it to the employees involved to get a consensus to be part of that and if there was positive feedback to present it to the Village Council. Board Member Reid seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Mr. Palmquist confirmed that the next actuarial report would be as of October 1, 2007 and he would provide the board with the cost of providing that report annually. Presentation By Monitor Dave West, Bogdahn Consulting, LLC, explained his report was as of June 30, which had been a good period; more recently the stock market had experienced turmoil, but this fund had no issues to report and her not held any shares of American Home Mortgage. Mr. West reviewed the figures and advised that $34,000 in investment gains had been added for the quarter. The return yeaz to date was 10.48%, above the target return of 8%. Fixed income and equity returns were reviewed. One quarter had been low during the year due to the stocks that were in the portfolio at that time. Boazd Member Hansen asked the cost of doing • business, to which Mr. West responded that Mr. Palmquist would be integrating all of the cost in his actuarial report and would address that question, that Bogdahn Consulting looked at the investment portion, taking inflows and outflows and time weighting them for the R Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company 301 Fast Las Olas &Ivd. 954.527.1616 phone Consultants & Actuaries Suite 200 954.525.0083 fax Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 2254 www.gabrielroeder.com August 3, 2007 Ms. Betty Laur Village of Tequesta 345 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469 Re: Proposed changes to General Employees Pension Trust Fund Dear Betty: Enclosed is the Supplemental Actuarial Valuation Report which shows the financial effect of incrementally increasing the Benefit Multiplier by one-tenth of a percent, from 2.0% to 2.5% for • Tequesta General Erployees' Pension Trust Fund. This report is intended to describe the financial effect of the proposed plan changes. No statement in this report is intended to be interpreted as a recommendation in favor of the changes, or in opposition to them. The calculations are based upon assumptions regarding future events, which may or may not materialize. They are also based upon present and proposed plan provisions that are outlined in the report. If you have reason to believe that the assumptions that were used are unreasonable, that the plan provisions are incorrectly described, that important plan provisions relevant to this proposal are not described, or that conditions have changed since the calculations were made, you ~houla contact the author of this report prior to relying on information in the report. If you have reason to believe that the information provided in this report is inaccurate, or is in any way incomplete, or if you need further information in order to make an informed decision on the subject matter of this report, please contact the author of the report prior to making such decision. In the event that more than one plan change is being considered, it is very important to remember that the results of separate actuarial valuations cannot generally be added together to produce a correct estimate of the combined effect of all of the changes. The total can be considerably greater than the sum of the darts due to the interaction of various plan provisions with each other, and with ttie assumptions that must be used. r~ LJ Ms. Betty Laur Page 2 r 1 L_J We welcome your questions and comments. Respectfully submitted, ;7 J. Stephen Palmqui~t, ASA Senior Consultant and Actuary JSP/tb Enclosures • • Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company • SUPPLEMENTAL ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT Plan Village of Tequesta General Employees Pension Trust Fund Valuation Date October 1, 2005 Date of Report August 3, 2007 Report Requested by Pension Board Prepared by J. Stephen Palmquist Group Valued All active employees Plan Provisions Being Considered for Change Present Provision Before Change Normal Retirement Benefit 2% of AFC multiplied by Credited Service; maximum benefit is 100% of AFC. Proposed Changes Normal Retirement Benefit 2.1% (or 2.2%, or 2.3%, or 2.4%, or 2.5%) of AFC multiplied by Credited Service; maximum benefit is 100% of AFC. Participants Affected All active General Employees Actuarial Assumptions and Methods Same as October 1, 2005 Actuarial Valuation Report with no exceptions. Some of the key assumptions/methods are: Investment return - 8.0% per year Salary increase - 6.0% per year Cost Method -Aggregate • mortization Period for Any Increase in Actuarial Accrued Liability NA Summary of Data Used in Report NA Actuarial Impact of Proposal(s) See attached page(s). Special Risks Involved With the Proposal That the Plan Has Not Been Exposed to Previously None Other Cost Considerations None Possible Conflicts With IRS Qualification Rules None ~rc.~ ~-- tephen Palmquist, ASA AAA, FCA Enrolled Actuary 05-1560 ~1 ~J • • TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND SUMMARY OF VALUATION RESULTS As of October 1 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 COVERED GROUP Valuation 2.1 % Benefit Multiplier 2.2% Benefit Multiplier 2.3% Benefit Multiplier 2.4% Benefit Multiplier 2.5% Benefit Multiplier A. Number Included in the Valuation 1. Active Members 24 24 24 24 24 24 2. Inactive Members 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Covered Annual Payroll $ 1,098,039 $ 1,098,039 1,098,039 1,098,039 1,098,039 $ 1,098,039 LONG RANGE COST C. Actuarial Present Value of Projected Benefits 1,885,568 1,968,773 2,052,308 2,136,113 2,220,191 2,304,552 D. Actuarial Value of Assets 602,280 602,280 602,280 602,280 602,280 602,280 E. Actuarial Present Value of Future Contrib. 1. Total C - D 1,283,288 1,366,493 1,450,028 1,533,833 1,617,911 1,702,272 2. Portion Assigned to Unfunded Frozen Actuarial Accrued Liability (UFAAL) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Portion Assigned to Future Normal Costs 1,283,288 1,366,493 1,450,028 1,533,833 1,617,911 1,702,272 CURRENT ANNUAL COST F. Annual Payment Needed to Amortize UFAAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 As % of B ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ G. Annual Employer Normal Cost 84,961 92,977 101,102 109,228 117,353 125,479 As % of B 7.74 % 8.47 % 9.21 % 9.95 % 10.69 % 11.43 H. Interest on F + G from Valuation Date to Contribution Date(s) 3,551 3,886 4,226 4,566 4,905 5,245 As % of B 0.32 % 0.35 % 0.38 % 0.42 % 0.45 % 0.48 I. Required Employer Contribs: F + G + H 88,512 96,863 105,328 113,794 122,258 130,724 As % of B 8.06 % 8.82 % 9.59 % 10.36 % 11.13 % 11.91 J. Year to which Contributions Apply 1. Plan Year Ending 9/30/06 9/30/06 9/30/06 9/30/06 9/30/06 9/30/06 2. Employer Fiscal Year Ending 9/30/06 9/30/06 9/30/06 9/30/06 9/30/06 9/30/06 3. Assumed Date(s) of Employer Contribs. Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly K. Required Employer Contribution for Fiscal Year Ending 9/30/07 92,042 100,721 109,514 118,307 127,100 136,008 As % of '06-'07 Payroll 8.06 % 8.82 % 9.59 % 10.36 % 11.13 % 11.91 • • • TEQUESTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION TRUST FUND DERIVATION OF EMPLOYER NORMAL COST As of October 1 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 Valuation 2.1 % Benefit Multiplier 2.2% Benefit Multiplier 2.3% Benefit Multiplier 2.4% Benefit Multiplier 2.5% Benefit Multiplier A. Actuarial Present Value of Projected Benefits for 1. Active Members a. Service Retirement Benefits $ 1,535,255 $ 1,612,014 $ 1,688,779 $ 1,765,540 $ 1,842,302 $ 1,919 066 b. Vesting Benefits 42,024 43,635 45,287 47,010 48,760 , 50,581 c. Disability Benefits 248,383 251,185 254,272 257,560 261,095 264 840 d. Preretirement Death Benefits 40,636 42,669 44,700 46,733 48,764 , 50,795 e. Return of Member Contributions 19,270 19,270 19,270 19,270 19,270 19 270 f. Other _ _ _ _ , g. Total 1,885,568 1,968,773 2,052,308 2,136,113 2,220,191 2,304,552 2. Inactive Members a. Service Retirees & Benefits _ _ _ b. Disability Retirees _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c. Terminated Vested Members - _ _ _ _ _ d. Total _ _ _ _ 3. Total for All Members 1,885,568 1,968,773 2,052,308 2,136,113 2,220,191 2,304,552 B. Actuarial Value of Assets 602,280 602,280 602,280 602,280 602,280 602,280 C. Unfunded Frozen Actuarial Accrued Liaiblity (UFAAL) _ _ _ D. Actuarial Present Value of Projected Member Contributions 567,010 567,010 567,010 567,010 567,010 567,010 E. Actuarial Present Value of Projected Employer Normal Costs: A3 - B - C - D 716,278 799,483 883,018 966,823 1,050,901 1,135,262 F. Actuarial Present Value of Projected Covered Payroll 11,340,206 11,340,206 11,340,206 11,340,206 11,340,206 11,340,206 G. Employer Normal Cost Rate: 100 x E/F 6.32 % 7.05 % 7.79 % 8.53 % 9.27 % 10.01 H. Annual Payroll of Active Members 1,098,039 1,098,039 1,098,039 1,098,039 1,098,039 1,098,039 I. Assumed Amount of Administrative Expenses 15, 565 15,565 15,565 15,565 15, 565 15, 565 J. Employer Normal Cost: (G x H) + I 84,961 92,977 101,102 109,228 117,353 125,479