20120208 Supp~ MIAMI BEACH
City Commission Meeting
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
City Hall, Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive
February 8, 2012
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
Vice-Mayor Deede Weithorn
Commissioner Jorge R. Exposito
Commissioner Michael G6ngora
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
City Manager Jorge M. Gonzalez
City Attorney Jose Smith
City Clerk Robert E. Parcher
Visit us at www.miamibeachfl.gov for agendas and video "streaming" of City Commission Meetings.
ATTENTION ALL LOBBYISTS
Chapter 2, Article VII, Division 3 of the City Code of Miami Beach entitled "Lobbyists" requires the
registration of all lobbyists with the City Clerk prior to engaging in any lobbying activity with the City
Commission, any City Board or Committee, or any personnel as defined in the subject Code
sections. Copies of the City Code sections on lobbyists laws are available in the City Clerk's office.
Questions regarding the provisions of the Ordinance should be directed to the Office of the City
Attorney.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
C7 -Resolutions
C7C A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager Pertaining To The Ranking Of
Firms, Pursuant To Request For Qualifications (RFQ) No. 18-11/12, For A Construction Manager At
Risk Firm To Provide Pre-Construction Services And Construction Phase Services Via A
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Amendment For The South Pointe Park Pier Project;
Authorizing The Administration To Enter Into Negotiations With The Top-Ranked Proposer, The
Weitz Company; And Should The Administration Not Be Successful In Negotiating An Agreement
With The Top-Ranked Proposer, Authorizing Negotiations With The Second-Ranked Proposer,
TGSV Enterprises, Inc.; And Should The Administration Not Be Successful In Negotiating An
Agreement With The Second-Ranked Proposer, Authorizing Negotiations With The Third-Ranked
Proposer, H. A. Contracting Corporation, And Further Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To
Execute An Agreement For Pre-Construction Services.
(Capital Improvement Projects/Procurement)
(Memorandum & Resolution)
1
Supplemental Material, February 8, 2012
C7 -Resolutions
C?D A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute An Agreement With
Corzo Castella Carballo Thompson Salman, PA (C3TS), In The Negotiated Amount Of $308,152 For
Basic Services; And A Not To Exceed Amount Of $194,930 For Other Direct Services; And An
Additional Not To Exceed Amount Of $20,000 For Approved Reimbursables; All For A Total Fee Of
$523,082, For A Design Criteria Professional To Prepare The Design Criteria Package For The Palm
And Hibiscus Neighborhood, Pursuant To The Request For Qualifications (RFQ) No. 35-1 0/11; With
Previously Appropriated Funding From Storm Water Fund No. 431, Water & Sewer GBL Series Fund
No. 420, GO Bond Fund No. 376, Neighborhood GO Bond Fund No. 384, Pay As You GO Fund No.
302 And Savings From The Nautilus Row Improvement Project Fund Nos. 423 And 424.
(Capital Improvement Projects)
(Resolution)
C?K A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And The City Clerk To Execute A Letter Of
Agreement Between The City Of Miami Beach And Florida Power And Light (FPL), Memorializing
Certain Conservation And Sustainability Initiatives, And Educational Projects The FPL Has Committed
To Undertake In Conjunction With The City Of Miami Beach.
(Public Works)
(Memorandum & Resolution)
C?L A Resolution Approving A One-Time Only Subordination Of That Certain Mortgage And Security
Agreement, In The Amount Of $2,864,642, Dated July 5, 2011, Given By MBCDC: Meridian Place,
LLC, A Florida Limited Liability Corporation, As Mortgagor, To The City Of Miami Beach, As
Mortgagee, In Favor Of A Commercial Lender, To Be Determined By MBCDC, For An Amount Not To
Exceed $980,000; And Further Authorizing The City Manager To Execute All Applicable
Documentation.
(Real Estate, Housing & Community Development)
(Resolution)
2
ii
Supplemental Material, February 8, 2012
R7 -Resolutions
R7E A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Issuance Of Towing Permits To Beach Towing Services,
Inc., And Tremont Towing Services, Inc.; Said Permit Terms Commencing On March 1, 2012, And
Expiring On February 28, 2015; And Further, In Conjunction Therewith, Approving Amendment No. 2
To The Administrative Rules And Regulations For Police And Parking Towing Permits; Said
Amendment Providing, Among Other Things, For An Increase To The Permit Fees And Certain
Maximum Allowable Towing Rates; Providing For Certain Enhancements, Public Benefits, And Other
Additional Conditions And Requirements, As Requested By The City And Set Forth In This
Resolution, And All Of Which Shall Be Provided By Permittees In The Manner Prescribed By, And
Within The Timeframes Outlined In Amendment No. 2, As A Condition Of The City's Approval Of This
Resolution And As Consideration For The City's Issuance Of The Permits; And Also, Providing, As A
Further Condition Of Approval Of This Resolution And Consideration For Issuance Of The Permits,
That Beach Towing Services, Inc., On Behalf Of Itself And Including All Related Persons And Entities,
As The Plaintiff And Petitioner In Those Certain Lawsuits Filed Against The City (As Such Lawsuits
Are Set Forth In This Resolution), Dismiss With Prejudice Such Actions That Remain Pending With
Prejudice, And To Execute A Covenant Not To Sue, In A Form Acceptable To The City Attorney, In
Any Administrative Or Judicial Actions, For Itself And All Persons Or Entities Related To It, And Not
To Solicit Or Encourage The Filing By Any Other Person Or Entity, Of Administrative Or Judicial
Actions, Claims Or Issues That Were Or Could Have Been Raised In These Cases; And Also
Providing. As Further Consideration For The City's Approval Of This Resolution And Issuance Of The
Permits. That The City Commission Direct The City Administration And Permittees To Meet To
Discuss And, Within Ninety (90) Days Of Approval Of This Resolution. Have The City Administration
Present Draft Language And An Accompanying Recommendation. To The Finance Citywide Projects
Committee On The Following Additional Initiatives: 1) Temporary Storage Of Towed Vehicles: 2)
Defamation Provision; And 3) Penalties/Fines Schedule.
(Requested by Finance & Citywide Projects Committee)
(Legislative Tracking: Parking Department)
(Revised Resolution)
R9 -New Business and Commission Requests
R9K Budget Advisory Committee Pension Reform Initiative Status Report.
(Budget & Performance Improvement)
(Memorandum)
3
iii
Supplemental Material, February 8, 2012
Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency
1A A Resolution Of The Chairperson And Members Of The Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency (RDA)
Approving The Modification Of The Terms Of That Certain Mortgage And Promissory Note, In The
Amount Of $1,500,000, Dated February 5, 2007, Given By MBCDC: Meridian Place, LLC, A Florida
Limited Liability Corporation, As Mortgagor, For Funds Advanced To MBCDC By The RDA For The
Acquisition Of Meridian Place, 530 Meridian Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida; Said Modification
Restructuring The Repayment Terms To Be Consistent With Other Affordable Housing Loans From
The City, Which Defer The Repayment Of The Debt During The Documented Affordability Period;
Further Approving A Subordination Of Said RDA Note And Mortgage, In Favor Of A Commercial
Lender, To Be Determined By MBCDC, For An Amount Not To Exceed $980,000; And Further
Authorizing The Executive Director To Execute All Applicable Documentation.
(Real Estate, Housing & Community Development)
(Resolution)
4
iv
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Accepting The City Manager's Recommendation Pertaining To The Ranking Of Firms For
A Construction Manager At Risk For The South Pointe Park Pier Project, Authorizing The Administration To
Enter Into Negotiations, And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute An Agreement For Pre-
Construction Services.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Ensure well-des!gned quality capital projects
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): The 2009 Customer Satisfaction Survey
indicated that 79% of businesses rated recently completed capital improvement projects as "excellent" or
"Qood.n
Issue: I Shall the Commission Adopt the Resolution?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
On December 14, 2011; the City Commission approved the issuance of an RFQ for a Construction Manager
at Risk Firm to ProVide Pre-Construction Services and Construction Phase Services Via a Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP) Amendment for the South Pointe Park Pier Project.
The scope of work for this project consists of the demolition of the existing pier and construction of a new
pier. The pier project will include the construction of the pier structure, platform, turtle friendly lighting, fish
cleaning stations, seating and shade structures and the lighting, landscape and irrigation work for the
entrance plaza.
RFQ No. 18-11/12 was issued on December 19, 2011, and the Procurement Division uploaded the
document to Bidnet, as well as e-mailed the RFQ, sending it to over 240 firms. This outreach resulted in the
receipt of proposals from the following four (4) firms: H. A. Contracting Corporation; Link Construction
Group; TGSV Enterprises, Inc.; and The Weitz Company.
An Evaluation Committee appointed by the City Manager reviewed, listened to presentations, participated in
Q&A with the Proposers, and scored and ranked each of the proposals. Based on the published
evaluation criteria, the Committee unanimously ranked The Weitz Company as the top-ranked proposer,
and further ranked TGSV Enterprises, Inc. as the second-ranked proposer, and H. A. Contracting
Corporation as the third-ranked proposer.
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the resolution.
Adopt the Resolution.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
Financial Information:
Source of Amount ·AccQunt
Funds: 1
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
No funds beinQ expended at this time.
Manager City Manager
MIAMI BEACH 5
C7C AGENDA tTfiM ---<--=--
DATE J.-ff-/L
~ MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: February 8, 2012
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAY AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF FIRMS, PURSUANT TO REQUEST
FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) N0.18-11/12, FOR A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
AT RISK FIRM TO PROVIDE PRE-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND
CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES VIA A GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE
(GMP) AMENDMENT FOR THE SOUTH POINTE PARK PIER PROJECT;
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE TOP-RANKED PROPOSER, THE WEITZ COMPANY; AND SHOULD THE
ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE TOP-RANKED PROPOSER, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
SECOND-RANKED PROPOSER, TGSV ENTERPRISES, INC.; AND SHOULD THE
ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE SECOND-RANKED PROPOSER, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE THIRD-RANKED PROPOSER, H. A. CONTRACTING CORPORATION, AND
FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Ensure well-designed quality capital projects
ANALYSIS
The scope of work for this project consists of the demolition of the existing pier and construction
of a new pier. The pier project will include the construction of the pier structure, platform, turtle
friendly lighting, fish cleaning stations, seating and shade structures and the lighting, landscape
and irrigation work for the entrance plaza.
The Capital Improvement Project (CIP) staff has studied the use of Construction Management
at Risk (CMR) project delivery method for this project in lieu of a standard Design-Bid-Build
process, and recommended the CMR option as the most advantageous project delivery method
to successfully complete the construction of the new pier facility. One of the most important
distinctions between the CMR project approach and the Design-Bid-Build is that the CMR is
selected based on the CMR firm's qualifications. The CMR approach will give the City the added
value of having a qualified contractor evaluate the project documents for any inconsistencies,
errors and omissions between the various design disciplines and constructability of the project.
The CMR delivery method will allow the opportunity for the Architect and CMR to work together
in identifying the most practical, economical way to demolish and construct the pier while
complying with numerous jurisdictional agency requirements for the project. Since this is a
6
Commission Memorandum-Construction Management at Risk for the South Pointe Park Pier Project
February 8, 2012
Page 2 of4
complex permitting process and the Construction Manager will be working in environmentally
sensitive areas while constructing the pier, the design consultant has identified various
deductive-alternates to assist the City in the approval of the GMP for adherence to the project
budget.
This is a time-sensitive project, partially funded by the Florida Inland Navigational District grant,
which requires the construction commencement by no later than September 30th, 2012 and this
requirement shall be made a condition of the CMR's contract. The projected date for the final
GMP negotiations is projected for June 2012 with Commission approval for contract award on
July 18, 2012.
The Mayor and City Commission at its December 14, 2011 meeting authorized the
Administration to issue an RFQ for a Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) firm to provide pre-
construction services and construction phase services via a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
amendment for the South Pointe Park Pier Project
RFQ PROCESS
RFQ No.18-11/12 was issued on December 19, 2011 and the Procurement Division e-mailed,
as well as uploaded the RFQ to BidNet, sending notifications to over 240 firms. A non-
mandatory pre-proposal meeting to provide information and respond to questions from
prospective proposers was held on January 5, 2012. On the due date of January 18, 2012, four
(4) proposals were received from the following firms:
• H. A. Contracting Corporation
• Link Construction Group, Inc.
• TGSV Enterprises, Inc.
• The Weitz Company
On January 12, 2012, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No 009-2012,
appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following individuals:
Maria Cerna
John Conrad
Dwight Kraai
John Oldenburg
Matilde Reyes
Morris Sunshine
Elizabeth Wheaton
Sr. Capital Projects Coordinator, CIP Department
Resident and SOFNA Homeowners Association Member
Leadership Academy Graduate and CIP Oversight Committee Member
Assistant Director-Parks, Parks and Recreation Department
Sr. Capital Projects Coordinator, CIP Department
Resident and Waterfront Protection Committee Member
Environmental Specialist, Public Works Department
The Committee convened on January 30, 2012, and was provided with an overview of the
project information relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government in the
Sunshine Law. John Conrad was nominated as the chairperson. The Committee listened to
presentations and participated in question and answer sessions with each of the four (4)
proposers.
The Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal pursuant to the evaluation
criteria established in the RFQ for a total possible of 1 00 points as follows:
• The experience, qualifications, quality control and assurance plan, and portfolio of the
Principal Firm -20 points
• The experience, qualifications and portfolio of the Project Manager, as well as his/her
familiarity with this project and a thorough understanding of the methodology and design
approach to be used in this assignment -25 points
7
Commission Memorandum -Construction Management at Risk for the South Pointe Park Pier Project
February 8, 2012
Page 3 of4
• The experience and qualifications of the professional personnel assigned to the Project
Team as well as their familiarity with this project and a thorough understanding of the
methodology and design approach to be used in this assignment -20 points
• Willingness to meet time and budget requirements as demonstrated by past
performance, methodology and approach -20 points
• Past performance based on quality of the Performance Evaluation Surveys and the
Administration's due dilligence based upon reference checks performed of the Firm(s)
clients - 1 0 points
• Risk Assessment Plan that reflects a clear understanding of project objectives; a
thorough review of existing conditions; familiarity with the project site; a thorough
understanding of all permitting and regulatory requirements and impacts; and other
considerations that may impact the design and construction of the proposed
improvements - 5 points
The Committee discussed each of the proposals and the corresponding presentations, and
proceeded to score and rank them as follows:
FINAL RANKING
Weitz TGSV H. A. Link
Maria Cerna 1 (97) 4 (78) 2 (90) 3 (81)
John Conrad 1 (100) 2 (86) 3 (85) 4 (74)
Dwight Kraai 1 (100) 2 (85) 3 (75) 4 (55)
John Olden 1 (94) 2 (89) 4 (78) 3
Matilde 1 (86) 4 (63) 2 (7 3
Morris Sunshine 1 (65) 2 (50) 4 3
The Committee unanimously ranked The Weitz Company (Weitz) as the top-ranked firm. Weitz
is a 156 year-old construction management company that has been building in South Florida
since 1978.
In the past five (5) years, in the State of Florida alone, Weitz has completed over $595 million
worth of work utilizing the Construction Manager at Risk delivery method. This encompasses
over 50 projects for clients including, but not limited to: Palm Beach County Facilities and
Development, Florida Power & Light, South Florida Water Management District, the City of
Miramar, the City of Sunny Isles Beach, the School Board of Broward County, the Kravis Center
for the Performing Arts, Palm Beach Atlantic University, the Scripps Research Institute and
Broward County.
For this project, as well as several in the past, Weitz has teamed with The Murphy Construction
Company (Murphy). Murphy was established in West Palm Beach in 1925, and has a solid
reputation in the marine construction industry working on numerous piers, bridges and water
control structures. Over the years, Murphy has performed work in both the public and private
sectors throughout the State of Florida, including projects for the Florida Department of
8
Commission Memorandum -Construction Management at Risk for the South Pointe Park Pier Project
February 8, 2012
Page 4 of4
Transportation, Bellsouth, Florida Power & Light, South Florida Water Management District, the
Port of Palm Beach, and numerous county and municipal government agencies.
The proposal submitted by Weitz, as well as the presentation and question and answer session
by both Weitz and Murphy to the Committee, demonstrated that they have a strong
understanding of the various elements of the project, including a very thorough understanding of
the environmental risks, and they provided solid solutions, confirming that the Weitz-Murphy
team has extensive experience in pier construction. See Attachment A, for previous related
projects.
Weitz further took the initiative to develop a project-specific website, to provide project updates
and pertinent information, including progress reports, and public information about the project, in
addition to photos, for anyone to view. This site is subject to any modifications requested by the
City.
The second-ranked firm was TGSV Enterprises, Inc. (TGSV). TGSV and its partners have been
providing General Contracting and Construction Management services in South Florida for over
35 years. The firm has provided construction management services to the Miami-Dade Aviation
Department, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami-Dade County and Hamilton Risk Services.
For this project, TGSV partnered with Ebsary Foundation Company (Ebsary) for the marine
aspect of the work. Ebsary has been in business for 85 years and has worked on projects to
include, but not be limited to: the Port of Miami Wharves Strengthening, the City of Miami Large
Vessel Mooring Facility, Miami-Dade Seaport Floating Dock, and the Indian Key Dock
Replacement. While the Committee was impressed with Ebsary's marine credentials, the firm
had not built a pier of comparable magnitude or Atlantic conditions to date. The Committee
opined that there did not appear to be a thorough understanding by the TGSV team of the
specific project complexities during the question and answer session.
H. A. Contracting Corporation (H.A.C.C.) was founded in 1983 and is a family-owned business
that represents four (4) generations of General Contractors, and has performed job order
contracting for the City of Miami Beach over the years.
H.A.C.C. gave a cohesive presentation to the Committee, along with the marine contractor
Bunnell Foundation, Inc. (Bunnel), with which they partnered for this project. The Committee
articulated that Bunnel was a good marine company, however they did not demonstrate to have
undertaken a pier project of this complexity previously.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve the attached
resolution, which recommends the acceptance of the ranking of firms and authorizes the
Administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked proposer, The Weitz Company,
and if the Administration is unable to negotiate an agreement with the top-ranked proposer,
authorize the Administration to negotiate with the second-ranked proposer, TGSV Enterprises,
Inc., and if the Administration is unable to negotiate an agreement with the second-ranked
proposer, authorize the Administration to negotiate with the third-ranked proposer H. A.
Contracting Corporation, and further authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an
agreement for pre-construction services.
Attachment A: The Weitz Company, previous related projects.
T:\AGENDA\2012\2-8-12\South Pointe Park Pier-CMR\RFQ 18-11-12-South Pointe Park Pier-MEMO.doc
9
RESOLUTION NO.------
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER
PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF FIRMS, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR
QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) NO. 18-11/12, FOR A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK
FIRM TO PROVIDE PRE-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
SERVICES VIA A GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE (GMP) AMENDMENT FOR THE
SOUTH POINTE PARK PIER PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP-RANKED PROPOSER, THE WEITZ
COMPANY; AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN
NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOP-RANKED PROPOSER,
AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE SECOND-RANKED PROPOSER, TGSV
ENTERPRISES, INC.; AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN
NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SECOND-RANKED PROPOSER,
AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE THIRD-RANKED PROPOSER, H. A.
CONTRACTING CORPORATION, AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission at its December 14, 2011 meeting, authorized
the Administration to issue an RFQ for a Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) firm to provide pre-
construction services and construction phase services via a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
amendment for the South Pointe Park Pier Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 19,2011, RFQ No. 18-11/12 was issued and notices sent to
over 240 firms; and
WHEREAS, on the specified due date of January 18, 2012, the Procurement Division
received responses from H. A. Contracting Corporation; Link Construction Group, Inc.; TGSV
Enterprises, Inc.; and The Weitz Company; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2012, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No.
009-2012, appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following
individuals:
Maria Cerna -Sr. Capital Projects Coordinator, CIP Department;
John Conrad -Resident and SOFNA Homeowners Association Member;
Dwight Kraai -Leadership Academy Graduate and CIP Oversight Committee Member;
John Oldenburg -Assistant Director-Parks, Parks and Recreation Department;
Matilde Reyes -Sr. Capital Projects Coordinator, CIP Department;
Morris Sunshine -Resident and Waterfront Protection Committee Member;
Elizabeth Wheaton -Environmental Specialist, Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, the Committee convened on January 30, 2012, and was provided with an
overview of the project, information relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance, the Government
in the Sunshine Law, listened to presentations and participated in a question and answer session
with each of the Proposers, and discussed and evaluated the proposals based on the evaluation
criteria as outlined in the RFQ; and
WHEREAS, the Committee unanimously ranked The Weitz Company as the top-ranked
proposer; and
10
WHEREAS, the Committee further ranked TGSV Enterprises, Inc. as the second-ranked
proposer and H. A Contracting Corporation as the third-ranked proposer; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager concurs with the Committee's recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission
hereby accept the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking of firms pursuant to
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 18-11/12 for a Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) firm to
provide pre-construction services and construction phase services via a Guaranteed Maximum Price
(GMP) amendment for the South Pointe Park Pier Project; authorize the Administration to enter into
negotiations with the top-ranked proposer, The Weitz Company; and should the Administration not
be successful in negotiating an agreement with the top-ranked proposer, authorize the Administration
to negotiate with the second-ranked proposer, TGSV Enterprises, Inc.; and should the Administration
not be successful in negotiating an agreement with the second-ranked proposer, authorize the
Administration to negotiate with the third-ranked proposer, H. A Contracting Corporation, and further
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement for pre-construction services.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of-------' 2012
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK MAYOR
T:\AGENDA\2012\2-8-12\South Pointe Park Pier-CMR\RFQ 18-11-12-South Pointe Park Pier-RESO.doc
11
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
JUNO BEACH, FLORIDA
CJUILDING TYPE & DELIVERY METHOD
'ier I Marine Construction, Hard B1d
CLIENT
'8hn Chesher, Director
aim Beach County Capital Improvement
2633 Vista Parkway
West Palm Beach FL 33411
i61) 233-0270
CONSULTANT
"alph Hahn & Associates
FJiph Hahn, PE
LSOO S. Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attachment A
SIZE
1,000 linear feet
ESTIMATED I FINAL COST
$2.1 Million I $2.2 Million
START I COMPLETION DATE
10/1997 -2/1999
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Murphy Construction completed the construction of the 1 ,000-ft Juno
Beach Fishing Pier in March 1999. The pier was constructed from the
top down, meaning the crane walked out onto the structure as it was
being built. Concrete piles. concrete caps, and concrete beams make up
the substructure. with an infill of wood decking designed to break away
in the event of a major storm. The pier also contains two shelters and
a bait house. Murphy Construction worked closely with Bridge Design
Associates on the design of the pier.
12
DANIA BEACH, FLORIDA
BUILDING TYPE & DELIVERY METHOD
Pier I Marine Construction, Hard Bid
CLIENT
Kristen Jones, Park Director
City of Dania
100 W. Dania Beach Blvd.
Dania, FL 33004
(954) 924-6800 ext. 3730
CONSULTANT
Bridge Design Associates
Brian "Rheault, PE
1402 Royal Palm Beach Blvd, Bldg 200
West Palm Beach, FL 33411
Ph: (561) 791-1995
Fax: (561) 791-1995
SECT10M D: PREVIOUS SJMILAR .PROJECTS
SIZE
1,000 linear feet
ESTIMATED I FINAL COST
$1.9 Million I $1.9 Million
START I COMPLETION DATE
1/1994 -9/1995
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Murphy Construction constructed the 20-ft by 1 ,000-ft Dania
Municipal Pier 1994. The structural design allowed the crane to
walk out onto the pier as it was being constructed, resulting in
substantial savings in time and cost. The pier was built on one year,
and utilizes concrete piles, concrete caps, concrete beams, and a
break-away wood deck. Murphy Construction worked closely with
Bridge Design Associates on the design of the pier.
23
r ,,
r
r
r
r
LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA
BUILDING TYPE & DELIVERY
METHOD
Pier I Marine Construction. Hard Bid
CLIENT
Karla White, Project Manager
City of Lake Worth
1900 2nd Avenue North
La.ke Worth, FL 33461
(561) 586-1720
CONSULTANT
Bridge Design Associates
Brian Rheault. PE
1402 Royal Palm Beach Blvd. Bldg 200
West Palm Beach, FL 33411
Ph: (561) 791-1995
Fax: (561) 791-1995
24
SIZE
Demolition of existing pier and reconstruction of 700 linear feet
ESTIMATED I FINAL COST
$2.8 Million I $3.7 Million*
START I COMPLETION DATE
1/2007 -10/2009
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 2007. Murphy Construction won the competitive bid to rebuild the Lake
Worth Pier after 2004 hurricanes destroyed most of the structure. The project
involved the demolition and removal of the old pier-much of which was on the
ocean floor-and the reconstruction of over 700 linear feet. The "top down"
construction was accomplished as the crane and support equipment advance
span by span, walking on newly built spans to the end. Critical elements of the
project were safety controls and minimization of the construction footprint. as
the existing pier restaurant and adjacent beaches remained open.
*MCC was issued several change orders for aesthetic upgrading as well as
pile jackets on new and exiting piling.
.;. ._ ...
'i
..!'-· . ·-.
. ;;.
14
SECTJON D: PREVJOUS SJMlLAR PROJECTS
'';;~ ... ~i}:.;;i;_..::4
.. J ./ •
J WEITZ
I
··.,· • .>.·>_ :··-·.·> ·'J
' •: . j
-·;
'
. ···· .. ....,
.•• ..r:•
-)
: j
.j
'": \
'
PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII
BUILDING TYPE & DELIVERY
METHOD
Pier I Marine Construction, Design-Build
-· CLIENT
Dennis K. Djou
NAVFAC Hawaii
(808) 4 74-3220 x256
dennis.djou@navy.mil
CONSULTANT
Wood Harbinger
Bruce G. Alward, P.E.
3009 112th Ave. NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004
Ph: {425) 822-9499
Fax: (425) 822-4338
ESTIMATED I FINAL COST
$86.1 Million I $87.8 Million
START I COMPLETION DATE
812008 -1212010
PRO.JECT DESCRIPTION
The work consisted of the construction of
a new magnetic silencing facility including
a new non-magnetic concrete drive-in
deperming pier for submarines and a new
4.405 sf rectifier building and a new 205 sf
generator building.
The scope of work included :
" Pile.,Supported Pier and Waterfront
Berthing Structure
" Greater than 1,500 If of Berthing
" 130.000 cy of Dredging including both
Ocean Disposal and Upland Disposal
" 100% Completed in 2010
» 8,000 sf of Marine Demolition
" Included Design-Build Portion of Work
~ :~~v~::~~e~a~~r~;~~~~:r~o~' ~~f~r~~:~:: ·•·
Requirements ·· -"·'--·· · --
.-:.:.:., ~-:.~:-_:~ .. ~-:-~~~~. •. " Rece1ved "Excellent" Past Performance
Ratmg and Letter of Appreciation at the
completion of .the pro1ect. 25
r
f l
r·
L
[
r
L
....... ·~ ·--.. ~-· ... -~ •,
JIJ::.K?;_i;~?.
;;~\:i~~~,::t
t_g~~~~;;:'
·:-::::"!-:8:::.:-
~~:=~:--;;1:~
. :.
t-:..:··~·.::·:. ..... .
.:.;., ... : .. _ ... -
26
BUILD liN GOOD COMPANY.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
BUILDING TY.PE & DELIVERY
METHOD
Pier I Marine Construction, Hard
Bid
CLIENT
Brian Lippert
US Department of the Interior
National Park Service, Denver
Service Center
(303) 969-2234
brian_lippert@nps.gov
CONSULTANT
URS CorporationContact Steve Brock
600 Montgomery Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-2728
USAPh: (561) 791-1995
Fax: (561 )791-1995 The Weitz team designed under-deck work platforms to provide a safe
and stable working environment during the pier upgrades.
ESTIMATED I FINAL COST
$10.8 Million I $11.8 Million
START I COMPLETION DATE
9/2002 -9/2004
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The work consists of the Structural Upgrade of Pier 2, and incidental related work. Work includes,
but is not limited to, the demolition and removal of existing wood fender piles and timberwork,
removal of abandoned underdeck utility lines. steam lines, including hangers and other below deck
hardware, and the staged removal of existing underdeck domestic water distribution lines and
sanitary sewer lines. The project included extensive utility work, which was sequenced to maintain
service to the facility. Dredging mud from around caisson to elevation -17.0 MLLW was required,
as well as surface preparation of caisson jackets including fiber reinforced polymer on caissons.
and concrete caisson haunch repair and fiber reinforced polymer application. Furthermore, the
work involves the installation and injection of caisson jackets including fiber reinforced polymer on
caissons. and installation of vertical fiber assembly, repair of the concrete perimeter girder, and
concrete soffit deck repair including reinforcement and application of corrosion inhibiting compounds.
Finally, the project consists of concrete seawall repair and replacement. temporary removal and/
or relocation of active underdeck utility lines during construction while maintaining the facility as
operational. and the construction of new plastic pipe and timberwork fender system .
16
i
SECTJOi\1 D: PREVlOUS SlMJLAR PROJECTS
WEI-:FZ BUU .. D IN GOOD COMPANY.
. . ~ . . .; .
.,. •• ·: • ·"' •• :·; '··:.-, .... • • ~ •• ·.·;.-"' •• .r.·"'. • • '::-' •• -~:-: •• _.;:;-:: : • ··'"x'.·-:~· .. .::. .. -:.·{· . v·. • .·.:;.-:. . ""· :-· -::·:·:··: ..••• ·:;. •.·.· ,.·: • ·; .-: .c •• .,.· ·; :-: •• ·.::.·:·: •••• "~ .::··. '·: ...... •.;.:. ;•.:· •• •• ··:..-"' • '"''-'·:. ·-·~ ., ·:,:-'; •••• • •• -•,··.:;.;: •• ·.'•· •• • ... ··-..::. •:· • ..., •• •• .r •• ·: <.;.. "'.·
.Y : , ·.: · . .., P:~193. WATER.FRONT IMPROV.EMENTS I70R K'10-K1 'I FLE-~T INDUSTRIAL . ·.:·".:··.·.···.· .:. '/ ·.t:·• ._._.,._ .-,..~~: .. .-;:.·.· .... ···.· .. · .·""'.t ..... "' .•• ,,.,.·.? .• ._-· .... ::-···· :.-." ••• ., .·.,..·"· .:.-••••• •• • .<"· ... Y ...... • •• ··"···. • ••• ·~~··.···· -.·: • ·.; _. • •• ,·,J'· "•
PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII
BUILDING TYPE &
DELIVERY METHOD
Pier I Marine Construction,
Hard Bid
CLIENT
Calvin Lee, ARIECC
US Department of Navy
(808) 473-4585
calvin.g.lee@dla.mil
CONSULTANT
Architects Pacific
Leslie Ono
938-C Kapahulu Ave.
Honolulu, HI 96816
Ph: (808)737-8853
Fax: (808)735-8863
ESTIMATED I FINAL COST
$28.3 Million I $30.0 Million
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
START I COMPLETION DATE
5/2004 -2/2006
The scope of work included practically every aspect of wharf construction including: wharf demolition
(of approximately 240 feet of existing Supply Wharf K11). pile driving, reinforced concrete wharf pile
caps and deck construction, sheet piles, bulkheads, fender pile systems, high voltage electrical
system including power mounds on the wharf edge, h1gh mast lighting system, fuel lines and risers.
storm water system, sewer system, electrical duct banks with precast concrete manholes, fire hydrant
system, asphalt paving, concrete paving, building demolition. hazardous waste abatement, building
site civil work. as well as construction of a 48,000 SF warehouse and office space with ATFP provisions.
The Waterfront Improvements for K10-K11 project consisted of the following distinct elements as
described below in further detail:
l A new reinforced concrete wharf on concrete piles with the capacity to support heavyweight
supply container loading and unloading operations;
2. A wharf staging area, consisting of a pile-supported concrete rei!eving platform and concrete
slab-on-grade; and
3. A new steel-framed WharfTransit Shed.
Other scope h1ghl1ghts include
.. Pile Supported Pier and Waterfront Berthing Structure
.. 100% Completed 1n 2006
" 11.875 sf of Manne Demol1t10n
.. Fully compl1ed vv1th State of HI 401 Water Oual1ty Cert1hcat1on Requ1rements
" Received "Outstand1ng" F1nal Performance Evaluat1on Rating and
Marv1n 1\Jl. Black Partnermg Award
.. Pro1ect Completed 7 Months Ahead of Schedule
17
27
r L
[
r L
f
L
f ,.h,_ ..
*~;;~:~;.·
•• <":<·-:~ ·----if~::;%-~ ....
K.Ji.J
,:.: ..... ~-..,;.;.._.;._,.._:_
~",,<oP~---·-;.. ·,·. '¥ •••• , ........ _._
;:,.
-~~-.. ·-~--~--
···-... ,·
30
BUILD IN GOOD COMPANY.
CORAL SPRINGS, FL
Pump Station #1
BUILDING TYPE & DELIVERY METHOD
Water Management I Municipality, CM at Risk
CLIENT
Craig Wrathell
Sunshine Water Control District
6131 Lyons Road, Suite 100
Coconut Creek, FL
(954) 426-2105
CONSULTANT
Rhon Ernest-Jones
181 Group
12500 West Atlantic Blvd.
Coral Springs, FL 33071
(954) 344-9855
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Pump Station #2
SIZE
(2) 2,300 SF pump station facilities
ESTIMATED I FINAL COST
$6.6 Million I in progress
START I COMPLETION DATE
5/2011 -expected 6/2012
The replacement of the Sunshine Water Control District's Pump Station 1 and 2. which includes the
demolition and removal of existmg buildings, headwalls, piping, equipment. and wiring. The construction
of new buildings and structures, which includes the Installation of new pumps, generators, electrical
controls, bar screens, pump discharge and bypass piping, flap-gates, and all associated appurtenances.
18
I
E
--~
WE; IT?. BUILD IN GOOD COMPANY"
~ -: . ..~
•• T' · ... _, TURKEY POINT. FLORIDA
. -____ ..
;·t
-~'
; ·: ... :.····' ·-~
·. :-·· .. :~
. ~-..... :· -......... )
··--·-_,
)
\
···--I ;
BUILDING TYPE & DELIVERY
METHOD
Nuclear I Industrial, CM at Risk
CLIENT
Wyatt Jenkins
Florida Power & Light
700 Universe Blvd.
Juno Beach, FL 33408
(561) 625-7119
CONSULTANT
NIA
START i COMPLETION DATE
1212008 -412009
ESTIMATED I FINAL COST
$1.1 Million I $1.2 Million
FEATURES
··"":·
SIZE
36 micropiles
FPL Turkey Point spent fuel handling crane upgrade -this project increased the structural
capacity of the spent fuel handling crane Weitz installed (36) 60' micropiles that socketed into
bed rock. The piles went 1n the cooling equipment area and required us to "thread" the piles
between the open cooling lmes, the emergency reactor cooling tanks and piping as well as
extens1ve fire suppression and electncal equipment . This JOb was completed 1n the radiation
controlled area of the plant The job was being performed in the radiation control area of
the operating nuclear power plant.
31
r l
f L
Years Experience: 20
Years with Weitz: 05
SECT~ON E: QUAUf.T~CAT~ONS OF PROJECTTEiU\'!1
.Jim Wells -Vice President
RESPONSIBILITIES
As Vice President for The Weitz Company, Jim Wells is responsible for ensuring clients receive
the best possible value on their construction projects.
Jim leads the team, his primary responsibility is to guarantee that client expectations are
met. As an officer of the company, Jim is able to make a commitment on behalf of The Weitz
Company and allocate resources to follow through on them.
EDUCATION/REGISTRATION
* University of Florida, B.S. in Aerospace Engineering
• Duke University FUQUA School of Business, Program for Mgr. Dev.
~ State of Florida Professional Engineer License No. 52818
• Certified Florida General Contractor License No. CGC059427
" LEED Accredited Professional
PROJECT EXPERIENCE (PARTIAL)
Jim has more than 20 years of construction industry experience and is very familiar with working under various contracting
methods i~cluding design/build, construction management, hard bid and engineering-procurement-construction jobs. He
has worked: on various project types including education, commercial, government and industrial.
Broward County New Family & Civil Government/ Program
Courthouse LEED Silver Manager 675,000 SF $280 Million VP
Sunshine Water Control District Pump Stations 1 Government/ CM at Risk 4,600 SF $6.3 Million VP
& 2 Replacement Industrial
FL
Village of Wellington, Municipal Complex, Wei-Government/ Design 55,000 SF $10.5 Million VP
lington, FL LEED Gold Build
Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Education/ CM at Risk 113,000 SF $27 Million VP
WWHO Office/LEED Precon
FL
FPL Turkey Point Industrial General Installed 36 $1.2 Million VP
Cask Crane Piles -in RCA Contractor 60' micro
South Homestead FL es
FPL Putnam Plant Boiler Industrial Engineer N/A $49.0 Million PE
Replacement Procure
Palatka, FL Construe-
34 ...
20
I
' ' t
~
PI ~
~
~ ~
Martin Murphy -Project Executive
RESPONSIBILITIES
As Project Executive for Weitz-Murphy, Martin Murphy is responsible for ensuring the overall success of the project
during the preconstruction and construction phase, as well as the satisfaction of the client. His duties include contract
administration, monthly executive meetings with the client and general project oversight.
Martin will be the project team leader, assuring that all communication between the owner, architect/engineer and field
staff is administered in a timely and orderly fashion.
Years Experience: 30
Years with Weitz: 22
EDUCATION/REGISTRATION
., Florida Southern College, Bachelor of Arts
"' Board of Oi~ectors, East Coast Chapter of the Associated General Contractors
* Secretary /Treasurer of the Florida Prestressed Concrete Association
e ACI Level I & II Certified for concrete inspection
* PCI Level Ill Certification
The Weitz-Murphy Team, lead by Project Executive Martin Murphy, provides the unique expertise needed for your pier .
replacement project. Martin has more than 30 years of construction industry experience and is very familiar with working
under various contracting methods including design/build, general contractor and construction management.
Lake Worth Municipal Pier
Lake Worth, FL
Juno Beach Fishing Pier
Juno Beach, FL
Dania Municipal Pier
Dania Beach, FL
45 1h Street Bridge over Florida Turnpike
Palm Beach County, FL
Indiantown Road (SR 706) Tunnel
Palm Beach County, FL
Little Blue Heron Bridge
Singer Island, FL
Marine I Pier
Marine I Pier
Marine I Pier
Roadway I
Bridges
Roadway I
Bridges
Roadway I
Bridges
Hard Bid
Hard Bid
Hard Bid
Hard Bid
Hard Bid
Design-Build
1 ,000 LF Pier $3.7 Million Proj.
Exec.
1,000 LF Pier $2.2 Million Proj.
Exec.
1, 000 LF Pier $1.9 Million Proj.
Exec.
(4) 130-foot beam $4.7 Million Proj.
spans Exec.
4,000 SF $1.6 Million Proj.
Exec.
Demolition of $10.2 Million Proj.
Existing & New Exec.
Construction
35
r
r • ll
[
r L
r
L
Years Experience: 14
Years with Weitz: 09
SECTION E: QUft.UFICATlONS OF PROJECTTEAf~t
.Jonathan Sharon -Project Manager
RESPONSIBILITIES
As Project Manager for Weitz-Murphy, Jonathan works closely with Project Superintendents to
ensure the overall success of a project during the construction phase. His duties include project
pre-planning, scheduling, cost control, subcontractor management, contract negotiations and
administration, staging and logistics planning and project reporting.
Jonathan will be the project team leader assuring that all communication between the owner,
architect/engineer and field staff is administered in a timely and orderly manner.
EDUCATION/REGISTRATION
., University of Florida. Bachelor of Science in Biology
o OSHA 10-Hour Construction Safety Certified
• LEED Green Associate
., State of Virginia Certified General Contractor
LEED
GREEt~
ASSOCIATE
PROJECT EXPERIENCE (PARTIAL)
Jonathan has more than 14 years of construction industry experience and is very familiar with working under various
contracting methods including general contractor and construction management. He has worked various project types
including recreational, local government, commercial, and education.
Sunshine Water Control District Pump Government/ CM at Risk 4,600 SF $6.3 Million PM
Station 1 &2 Replacement Industrial
Coral Springs, FL
Walker Elementary Education CM at Risk 18,0000 SF $9.8 Million PM
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Dania Elementary School Education CM at Risk 18,000 SF $7.0 Million PM
Sunrise, FL
City of Miramar Regional Park Public Park I CM at Risk 120-Acre Site $17.8 Million PM
Miramar, FL Recreational 12,000 SF
Sunny Isles Beach Government CM at Risk 57,032 SF $15.5 Million APM
Government Center Building
Sunny Isles Beach, FL 57,206 SF Garage
FPL Turkey Point Industrial General (36) 60' micro $1.2 Million PM
Cask Crane Piles -in RCA Contractor piles
South Homestead, FL
36 ~~~~-22
~
' fll
f:
~
~
~
~ ~
!ll!i ~
37
r
r
r
r
[
[
!
Jl
" "
Years Experience: 09
Years with Weitz: 02
SECTiON E: OUAUFiCATtONS OF PROJECTTEAM
Derek Bixby -land-Side Project Superintendent
RESPONSIBILITIES
As Project Superintendent for The Weitz Company, Derek works closely with Project Manager
to ensure the overall success of a project during the construction phase. His duties include
project pre-planning, field supervision, subcontractor management, staging and logistics
planning, quality controL and daily project reporting.
Derek will work closely with Eric Fox, Water-Side Project Superintendent, to ensure that the
work is well coordinated and expedited from both land and water.
EDUCATION/REGISTRATION
• University of Florida, Bachelor of Science in Biology
• OSHA 10-Hour Construction Safety Certified
e LEED Green Associate
"' State of Virginia Certified General Contractor
PROJECT EXPERIENCE (PARTIAL)
Derek has more than 9 years of construction industry experience and is very familiar with working under various contracting
methods including general contractor and construction management. He has worked various project types including
recreational, local government, commercial, healthcare, and education.
Sunshine Water Control District Pump Government I CM at Risk 4,600 SF $6.3 Million PS
Stations 1 &2 Replacement Industrial
Coral Springs, FL
Broward Health Department Renovation Bid I Build 18,000 SF $2.3 Million PS
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Florida International University Renovation Bid I Build 24,000 SF $1.1 Million PM
Miami, FL
Miami-Dade Department of Renovation Bid I Build 112,000 SF $1.8 Million PM
Laboratories
Miami, FL & Lantana, FL
Tampa International Airport Parking Renovation Bid I Build 100,000 SF $800,000 PM
Garage I Parking
Tampa, FL Structure
Vista Verde at Coconut Creek Residential CM at Risk 325,000 SF $16.8 Million PE
Coconut Creek, FL
Lauderdale One Residential CM at Risk 185,000 SF $34.5 Million APS
Fort Lauderdale, FL
38 ~~~~-
24
I
£
t.
t
~
t
&;
(::
~ Derek Bixby ~ Land-Side Project Superintendent
! PROJECT EXPERIENCE (PARTIAL) Continued:
Sonata Beach Club
Pompano. FL
White Oak Development
West Palm Beach, FL
Wellington Green Mali
Wellington, FL
Residential
Office
Retail
CM at Risk 310,000 SF
CM at Risk 1,500 SF
CM at Risk 1.3 Million SF
$54 Million APS
$100,000 APS
$108 Million PE
39
r
L
f '
L
SECTIOI\1 E: QUAUHCATIONS OF PROJECTTEAM
Eric Fox -Water-Side Project Superintendent
RESPONSIBILITIES
As Project Superintendent forWeitz-Murphy, Eric Fox is responsible for overseeing all water-side work from pier demolition
and clearing through to completion of the new pier. His duties include project pre-planning, field supervision, subcontractor
management, staging and logistics planning, quality control, and daily project reporting.
Eric will work closely with Derek Bixby, Land-Side Project Superintendent, to ensure that the work is well coordinated and
expedited from both land and water.
Years Experience:
Years with Weitz:
15
9
EDUCATION/REGISTRATION
• Palm Beach Community College, Associate of Arts
• Intermediate MOTTraffic Safety Certificate
PROJECT EXPERIENCE (PARTIAL)
Eric has more than 15 years of construction industry experience and is very familiar with working under various contracting
methods including general contractor and construction management. He has worked various project types including
recreational, local government, commercial, healthcare, and education. ·
451h Street Bridge over Florida Turnpike Roadway I Hard Bid (4) 130-foot beam $4.7 Million PS
Palm Beach County, FL Bridges spans
Indiantown Road (SR 706) Tunnel Roadway I Hard Bid 4,000 SF $1.6 Million PS
Palm Beach County, FL Bridges
Lake Worth Municipal Pier Marine I Pier Hard Bid 1 , 000 LF Pier $3.7 Million PS
Lake Worth, FL
little Blue Heron Bridge Roadway I Design-Build Demolition of $10.2 Million PS
Singer Island, FL Bridges Existing & New
Construction
40
26
I
RESOLUTION NO. -----
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH CORZO CASTELLA CARBALLO THOMPSON
SALMAN, PA (C3TS), IN THE NEGOTIATED AMOUNT OF $308,152
FOR BASIC SERVICES; AND A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF
$194,930 FOR OTHER DIRECT SERVICES; AND AN ADDITIONAL
NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $20,000 FOR APPROVED
REIMBURSABLES; ALL FOR A TOTAL FEE OF $523,082, FOR A
DESIGN CRITERIA PROFESSIONAL TO PREPARE THE DESIGN
CRITERIA PACKAGE FOR THE PALM AND HIBISCUS
NEIGHBORHOOD, PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST FOR
QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) NO. 35-10/11; WITH PREVIOUSLY
APPROPRIATED FUNDING FROM STORM WATER FUND NO. 431,
WATER & SEWER GBL SERIES FUND NO. 420, GO BOND FUND
NO. 376, NEIGHBORHOOD GO BOND FUND NO. 384, PAY AS YOU
GO FUND NO. 302 AND SAVINGS FROM THE NAUTILUS ROW
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND NOS. 423 AND 424.
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2011, the Mayor and City Commission approved the
issuance of Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 35-1 0/11, for a design criteria
professional to prepare the design criteria package for the Palm and Hibiscus
Neighborhood Right of Way Improvement Project (the Project), which is intended to be
a design-build contract; and to serve as the City's representative during the selection of
the design-build firm for the Project, concerning the evaluation of the responses
submitted by the design-build firms; review and approve for compliance of the detailed
working drawings for the Project; and for evaluation of the compliance of the Project
construction with the design criteria package; and
WHEREAS, the RFQ was issued on June 16, 2011, with an opening date of July
14, 2011 and a pre-proposal conference was held on June 21, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Selection Committee convened on August 4, 2011, and was
provided with presentations from all proposers with the intent of focusing the discussion
on the Scope of Service relative to these projects and the methodology and approach to
be utilized by the proposer in order to represent the City of Miami Beach on said
projects; and
WHEREAS, after considering the review and recommendation of City staff, the
City Manager exercised his due diligence and recommended that the Mayor and the
City Commission authorize negotiations with the top-ranked proposer, Camp Dresser
and McKee, Inc (COM); and should the Administration not be successful in negotiating
an agreement with the top-ranked proposer, authorizing negotiations with the second-
ranked proposer, Corzo, Castella, Carballo, Thompson, Salman, PA (C3TS); and
27
Agenda Item C 7 D
Date .;1.-&-IZ::-
should the Administration not be successful in negotiating an agreement with the
second-ranked proposer, authorizing negotiations with the third-ranked proposer,
Calvin, Giordano; and Associates, Inc; and further authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute an agreement upon conclusion of successful negotiations by the
Administration; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2011, the City Commission approved Resolution
Number 2002-24853, authorizing the administration to enter into negotiations with the
top-ranked proposer, Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc (COM); and should the
administration not be successful in negotiating an agreement with the top-ranked
proposer, authorizing negotiations with the second-ranked proposer, Corzo, Castella,
Carballo, Thompson, Salman, Pa (C3TS); and should the administration not be
successful in negotiating an agreement with the second-ranked proposer, authorizing
negotiations with the third-ranked proposer, Calvin, Giordano, And Associates, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the City was not successful in negotiating a fee with COM, and
consequently, on November 22, 2011, the City terminated negotiations with COM and
commenced negotiations with C3TS.
WHEREAS, the Administration has successfully negotiated a fee with C3TS the
amount of $308,152 for the basic services; and a not to exceed amount of $174,930 for
other direct services; and an additional not to exceed amount of $20,000 for approved
reimbursables.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby approves and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an
Agreement with Corzo Castella Carballo Thompson Salman, PA (C3TS), for the
Planning, Design, Bid and Award, and Construction Administration Services, in the
negotiated amount of $308,152 for basic services; and a not to exceed amount of
$174,930 for other direct services; and an additional not to exceed amount of $20,000
for approved reimbursables; all for a total fee of $523,082 for the Palm and Hibiscus
Islands Neighborhood Improvement Project, pursuant to the Request for Qualifications
(RFQ) no. 35-1 0/11, with previously appropriated funding from Storm Water Fund No.
431, Water & Sewer GBL Series Fund No. 420, GO Bond Fund No. 376, Neighborhood
GO Bond Fund No. 384, Pay As You Go Fund No. 302 and savings from the Nautilus
ROW Improvement Project Fund Nos. 423 and 424.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS __ DAY OF _____ .2012.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
--------~......a F()ti EXECUTION
MAYOR
28
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach Approving and Authorizing The
Mayor and The City Clerk To Execute A Letter Of Agreement Between The City Of Miami Beach And Florida
Power And Light (FPL), Memorializing Certain Conservation and Sustainability Initiatives, and Educational
Projects That FPL Has Committed to Undertake in Conjunction With the Cityof Miami Beach.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
I Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
Issue:
Item Summary/Recommendation:
Following first reading approval of the proposed new Franchise Agreement between FPL and the City on
December 14, 2011, the parties met several times to discuss additional options and opportunities related to
conservation and the implementation of sustainability initiatives within the City. As a result of these meetings,
the City Administration and FPL have developed a letter agreement (See Attachment "A"), to be executed
between FPL and the City, to memorialize those certain conservation and sustainability initiatives, and
educational projects, that FPL is committed to undertake in conjunction with the City.
The projects include:
• A donation to fully fur)d the installation of solar panels with backup batteries to power the lighting for the
Henry Flagler Memorial on Monument Island.
• Agreement to partner with the City to work with the Miami-Dade County School District to allow for the
implementation of solar demonstration programs at three (3) schools in Miami Beach.
• Conduct three (3) Home Energy Makeover Initiatives (HEMI), at buildings managed by Miami Beach
Community Development Corporation, one each at: 710 Jefferson Avenue, 259 Washington Ave, and
542 Jefferson Avenue. There are a total of 68 residents that live in these three (3) buildings.
• Conduct a Non Profit Energy Makeover (NEMO) in one of the buildings being revitalized by the Miami
Beach Development Corporation.
• Conduct energy audits on key City owned facilities.
• Encourage citizens to participate in FPL's Home Energy Surveys.
• Fund two (2) City employees to attend LEED certification classes.
• Investigate the potential of installing a renewable wind turbine demonstration project at South Pointe
Pier.
• Partner with Miami Beach to implement FPL's educational Energy Conservation Program for the
schools. This program targets K-8 grades.
• Partner with Miami Beach during the planning process of the Department of Energy grant awarded to
the South Florida Regional Planning counsel for electrical vehicles ("EV) charging and infrastructure
installations. The goal of the project is to develop comprehensive plans and streamline local regulations
(including permitting) to facilitate and expand the penetration of electric vehicles in this region.
The Administration recommends approval of the Resolution.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I None
Financial Information:
Source of 1 .... 1 Amount l \}> 1
Funds: f~·--___ 1_~~-----------~'----------------~~------------~
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin
Fred H. Beckmann, P.E., Ext 6012
n-Offs:
T:\AGENDA\2012\2-8-1
MIAMI BEACH AGENDA ITEM _(_~J=-K~--
DATE ,2.-3·f 'l. 29
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager() or<{
DATE:
SUBJECT:
February 8, 2012 U
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH APROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT (FPL),
MEMORIALIZING CERTAIN CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY
INTIATIVES, AND EDUCATIONAL PROJECTS THAT FPL HAS
COMMITTED TO UNDERTAKE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH.
BACKGROUND
Following first reading approval of the proposed new Franchise Agreement between FPL and
the City on December 14, 2011, the parties met several times to discuss additional options and
opportunities related to conservation and the implementation of sustainability initiatives within
the City. As a result of these meetings, the City Administration and FPL have developed a letter
agreement (See Attachment "A"), to be executed between FPL and the City, to memorialize
those certain conservation and sustainability initiatives, and educational projects, that FPL is
committed to undertake in conjunction with the City.
ANALYSIS
The projects include:
• A donation to fully fund the installation of solar panels with backup batteries to power the
lighting for the Henry Flagler Memorial on Monument Island.
• Agreement to partner with the City to work with the Miami-Dade County School District
to allow for the implementation of solar demonstration programs at three (3) schools in
Miami Beach.
• Conduct three (3) Home Energy Makeover Initiatives (HEMI}, at buildings managed by
Miami Beach Community Development Corporation, one each at: 710 Jefferson Avenue,
259 Washington Avenue, and 542 Jefferson Avenue. There are a total of 68 residents
that live in these three (3) buildings.
• Conduct a Non Profit Energy Makeover (NEMO) in one of the buildings being revitalized
by the Miami Beach Development Corporation.
• Conduct energy audits on key City owned facilities.
• Encourage citizens to participate in FPL's Home Energy Surveys.
• Fund two (2) City employees to attend LEED certification classes.
• Investigate the potential of installing a renewable wind turbine demonstration project at
South Pointe Pier.
• Partner with Miami Beach to implement FPL's educational Energy Conservation
Program for the schools. This Program targets K-8 grades.
• Partner with Miami Beach during the planning process of the Department of Energy
30
Commission Memorandum-FPL Renewable Projects
February 8, 2012
Page2of2
grant awarded to the South Florida Regional Planning counsel for electrical vehicles
("EV) charging and infrastructure installations. The goal of the project is to develop
comprehensive plans and streamline local regulations (including permitting) to facilitate
and expand the penetration of electric vehicles in this region.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends approval of the Resolution.
JMG/DRB/FHB
Attachment "A": FPL letter dated February 1, 2012, detailing renewable energy projects
T:\AGENDA\2012\2-8-12\FPL Renewable Energy-MEMO.doc
31
FPL ..
POWERING TODAY.
EMPOWERING TOMORROW."
February 1, 2012
Honorable Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor, City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Dear Mayor Bower,
ATTACHMENT "A"
Florida Power & Light Company, 9250 West Flagler Stroot, Suite 5202, Miami, FL 33174
The City of Miami Beach (City) and Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) have enjoyed a
long and mutually beneficial partnership, including efforts related to conservation and the
implementation of sustainability initiatives within the community. We applaud the City's
leadership in this area and look forward to continuing our work together on sustainability
projects.
I have listed below a number of conservation, sustainability and educational projects that FPL is
committed to undertake in conjunction with the City. These projects will help the City, its
residents, and the larger community of FPL customers realize a greater use and achieve a better
understanding of the value and benefits of conservation and sustainability initiatives. We are
proud to be able to work with the City in implementing this shared vision of the future, and we
are excited to continue our partnership with the City as we move forward with these solar
projects and other conservation measures.
In an effort to memorialize the projects we plan to undertake in conjunction with the City, I offer
the following summary:
1. Flagler Monument is a standalone monument which is located on Monument Island. Flagler
Monument is illuminated by the use of flood and spot lights. Electricity is currently provided via
electric cable laid underwater directly on the bed surface, extending from the mainland to the
island. On many occasions electric service has been interrupted when the cable has been cut by
boat anchors, resulting in great expense to the City to restore electric service. The City has asked
FPL to fund the cost to install solar panels with backup batteries to power the Monument. Based
on documentation provided to FPL by the City, FPL has agreed to undertake the process
necessary to obtain the funding to implement this solar lighting system. This process will be
initiated during the second quarter of2012.
2. The City has asked FPL to implement solar programs at 3 schools: Miami Beach Senior
High, Nautilus Middle, and Feinberg-Fisher. Based on the Demand Side Management Program
standards approved by the Florida Public Service Commission, the Miami-Dade County Public
School district ("MDCPS") will select the order of schools for solar installations. FPL will
partner with Miami Beach in an effort to reach agreement with MDCPS to achieve this objective
by2014.
an FPL Group company
32
The Honorable Matti Herrera Bower
February 1, 2012
3. The Miami Beach Development Corporation, a non-profit located in North Beach, manages
and operates over 300 housing units designated for low income residents and senior citizens.
FPL will conduct Home Energy Makeover Initiatives ("HEMI") at 710 Jefferson A venue, 259
Washington Ave, and 542 Jefferson Avenue for a total of3 HEMis. The 3 identified buildings
are home to approximately 68 City residents. HEMI is FPL's signature community program that
offers free upgrades to improve the energy efficiency in as many as 50 customers' homes in one
day. HEMI can save a family as much as 25 percent a year on its electric bill. The HEMI
program provides for a range of energy conservation measures including changing light bulbs,
compact fluorescent lighting, weather stripping and many other conservation measures. FPL will
complete the 3 HEMis (1 HEMI at each of the 3 identified locations) during the 1st quarter of
2013.
4. The Miami Beach Development Corporation is revitalizing several existing buildings. FPL
will conduct a Non Profit Energy Makeover (''NEMO") in one of the building owned by this
organization. NEMO events promote free Business Energy Evaluations and involve local
contractors to help local nonprofits save on electric bills so they can continue to help others.
FPL will complete one NEMO at a location identified by the Miami Beach Development
Corporation during the 1st quarter in 2013.
S. FPL will conduct energy audits on key City owned facilities. The audits will identify cost
effective energy saving measures, make recommendations, and identify related incentives.
FPL will work with City staff in a timely manner to complete energy audits at key City facilities
that would qualify and benefit from an energy audit. Also, as other appropriate City owned
facilities are identified, FPL will conduct energy audits as requested.
6. FPL and the City will encourage citizens to participate in FPL' s Home Energy Survey.
7. FPL will pay for 2 City employees to attend LEED certification classes at a price not to
exceed $2,000. FPL will provide funding for these classes during the 3rd quarter of2012.
8. FPL is investigating the potential of installing a renewable wind turbine demonstration project
at South Pointe Pier. Specific details are not yet available as FPL is awaiting feedback from the
manufacturer.
9. FPL will partner with Miami Beach to implement its educational Energy Conservation
Program for the schools. This program targets K-8 grades.
10. The Department of Energy (DOE) has awarded a grant to the South Florida Regional
Planning Council for electric vehicle ("EV'') charging and infrastructure installation. The
objective is to address technical, commercial, market and regulatory barriers to support EV
infrastructure and vehicle adoption. The goal of the project is to develop comprehensive plans
and streamline local regulations (including permitting) to facilitate and expand the penetration of
electric vehicles in this region. FPL has been selected as a major participant in this project and
welcomes the opportunity to partner with Miami Beach on the leading edge of this key planning
process.
33
..
The Honorable Matti Herrera Bower
February 1, 2012
These forward looking sustainability initiatives represent examples of the longstanding
partnership between the City and FPL on matters that are important to the City, its residents and
FPL. We welcome the opportunity to continue to work together on these important projects and
objectives.
cc: Manny J. Rodriguez, P.E.
Regional Director, Miami-Dade County
I have read this letter agreement and fully understanding same, agree to
be bound by the terms and conditions contained herein.
Florida Power & Light Company
By:
President
Print Name
Date
34
City of Miami Beach
By:
Mayor
Print Name
Date
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
z.. c~{ l-z...-
oa•
RESOLUTION NO.----
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH AND FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT (FPL), MEMORIALIZING
CERTAIN CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES, AND
EDUCATIONAL PROJECTS THAT FPL HAS COMMITTED TO UNDERTAKE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH.
WHEREAS, following first reading approval of the proposed new Franchise Agreement
between FPL and the City on December 14, 2011; the Administration and FPL met several
times to discuss additional options and options and opportunities related to conservation and
the implementation of sustainability initiatives within the City; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these meetings, the City Administration and FPL have
developed a letter agreement (See Attachment "A"), to be executed between FPL and the City,
to memorialize those certain conservation and sustainability initiatives, and educational projects
that FPL has committed to undertake in conjunction with the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA that the Mayor and City
Commission approve and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a Letter of
Agreement between the City of Miami Beach and Florida Power and Light (FPL), memorializing
certain conservation and sustainability initiatives, and educational projects that FPL has
committed to undertake in conjunction with the City of Miami Beach.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of February, 2012.
ATTEST BY:
Robert H. Parcher, City Clerk
T:\AGENDA\2012\2-8-12\FPL Renewable Energy-Reso.doc
Matti Herrera Bower, Mayor
35
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
L-3-IZ-
Date
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
36
RESOLUTION NO. ______ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING A ONE-TIME ONLY
SUBORDINATION OF THAT CERTAIN MORTGAGE AND SECURITY
AGREEMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,864,642, DATED JULY 5, 2011,
GIVEN BY MBCDC: MERIDIAN PLACE, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED
LIABILITY CORPORATION, AS MORTGAGOR, TO THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, AS MORTGAGEE, IN FAVOR OF A COMMERCIAL LENDER,
TO BE DETERMINED BY MBCDC, FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$980,000; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE ALL APPLICABLE DOCUMENTATION.
WHEREAS, in order for MBCDC to be able to acquire the property known as
Meridian Place, located at 530 Meridian Avenue (the Property), it was necessary for
MBCDC to request a loan, in the amount of $1,500,000, from the Miami Beach
Redevelopment Agency; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2007, a Mortgage and Security Agreement and a
Promissory Note, in the amount of $1,500,000, were executed by MBCDC: Meridian Place,
LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation; said Mortgage and Note securing the funds
provided to MBCDC by the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency (RDA) for the purchase
of the Property (the RDA Mortgage); and
WHEREAS, in order to complete the total rehabilitation of the Property, which when
completed will provide 34 affordable housing units for income-eligible households, and to
meet HUD's national objective, MBCDC obtained funding directly from U.S. HUD, the State
of Florida, Miami-Dade County, and the City of Miami Beach U.S. HUD HOME and
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, to cover the costs of construction;
and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2011 a Mortgage and Security Agreement, in the amount of
$2,864,642, was executed by MBCDC: Meridian Place, LLC, as mortgagor, securing the
City's HOME and CDBG funds (the City's Mortgage); and
WHEREAS, since MBCDC's acquisition of the Property, MBCDC has been
conducting a phased rehabilitation of the Property, and the project is now 70% complete;
and
WHEREAS, in order to proceed and to complete the rehabilitation of the Property,
MBCDC must seek commercial bank loan financing, in an amount not to exceed $980,000;
and
WHEREAS, one of the conditions of the commercial bank loan is that the bank be
granted a first mortgage position for the amount of the loan; and
37
r'"~1L ·Agenda Item---:::-'"'....:......,-__
Date 2-fj-1 Z,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the current terms of the City Mortgage, the funding
provided by the City is intended to be superior in dignity to all other liens, titles, claims,
agreements, and/or other encumbrances; and
WHEREAS, based on the Administration's analysis of the project, and the
necessity of completing it and making affordable rental housing available to income-eligible
households, it recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve a one-time only
subordination of the City Mortgage to a commercial bank, to be determined by MBCDC, in
an amount not to exceed $980,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby approve the one-time only subordination of that certain Mortgage and
Security Agreement, in the amount of $2,864,642, dated July 5, 2011, given by MBCDC:
Meridian Place, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, as mortgagor, to the City of
Miami Beach, as mortgagee, in favor of a commercial lender, to be determined by MBCDC,
for an amount not to exceed $980,000; and further authorizing the City Manager to execute
all applicable documentation on behalf of the City.
PASSED and ADOPTED this ___ day of ____ , 2012
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor Matti Herrera-Bower
T:\AGENDA\2012\FEBRUARY 8\RDA\MERIDIAN RCA LOAN AMENDMENT RESO.DOC
38
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
6 FOR EXECUTION
RESOLUTION NO.------
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
OF TOWING PERMITS TO BEACH TOWING SERVICES, INC., AND
TREMONT TOWING SERVICES, INC.; SAID PERMIT TERMS COMMENCING
ON MARCH 1, 2012, AND EXPIRING ON FEBRUARY 28, 2015; AND
FURTHER, IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO.
2 TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR POLICE AND
PARKING TOWING PERMITS; SAID AMENDMENT PROVIDING, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, FOR AN INCREASE TO THE PERMIT FEES AND CERTAIN
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TOWING RATES; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN
ENHANCEMENTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS, AND OTHER ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS, AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY AND
SET FORTH IN THIS RESOLUTION, AND ALL OF WHICH SHALL BE
PROVIDED BY PERMITTEES IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY, AND
WITHIN THE TIMEFRAMES OUTLINED IN AMENDMENT NO. 2, AS A
CONDITION OF THE CITY'S APPROVAL OF THIS RESOLUTION AND AS
CONSIDERATION FOR THE CITY'S ISSUANCE OF THE PERMITS; AND
ALSO, PROVIDING, AS A FURTHER CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF THIS
RESOLUTION AND CONSIDERATION FOR ISSUANCE OF THE PERMITS,
THAT BEACH TOWING SERVICES, INC., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND
INCLUDING ALL RELATED PERSONS AND ENTITIES, AS THE PLAINTIFF
AND PETITIONER IN THOSE CERTAIN LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST THE
CITY (AS SUCH LAWSUITS ARE SET FORTH IN THIS RESOLUTION),
DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE SUCH ACTIONS THAT REMAIN PENDING WITH
PREJUDICE, AND TO EXECUTE A COVENANT NOT TO SUE, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, IN ANY ADMINISTRATIVE OR
JUDICIAL ACTIONS, FOR ITSELF AND ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES
RELATED TO IT, AND NOT TO SOLICIT OR ENCOURAGE THE FILING BY
ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY, OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL
ACTIONS, CLAIMS OR ISSUES THAT WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN
RAISED IN THESE CASES; AND ALSO PROVIDING, AS FURTHER
CONSIDERATION FOR THE CITY'S APPROVAL OF THIS RESOLUTION AND
ISSUANCE OF THE PERMITS, THAT THE CITY COMMISSION DIRECT THE
CITY ADMINISTRATION AND PERMITTEES TO MEET TO DISCUSS AND,
WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS OF APPROVAL OF THIS RESOLUTION. HAVE
THE CITY ADMINISTRATION PRESENT DRAFT LANGUAGE AND AN
ACCOMPANYING RECOMMENDATION, TO THE FINANCE CITYWIDE
PROJECTS COMMITTEE ON THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL INITIATIVES:
1) TEMPORARY STORAGE OF TOWED VEHICLES; 2) DEFAMATION
PROVISION; AND 3) PENAL TIES/FINES SCHEDULE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 106, Article V, Division 2 of the Miami Beach City Code, provides
for the issuance by the City Commission of towing permits, for the towing of vehicles identified
by the City as requiring removal from the public way; and
39
Agenda Item R 1 E
Date ~-3 .. J 2-
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2006, the Mayor and City Commission approved Resolution
No. 2006-26100, issuing towing permits to Beach Towing Services, Inc., and Tremont Towing
Services, Inc. (also referred to herein as the Permittees); and
WHEREAS, the term of Permittee's permits expired on August 31, 2011 and, since then,
said permits have been on a month to month term; and
WHEREAS, the outside date for expiration of the aforestated month to month term is
June 30, 2012; and
WHEREAS, Permittees have been meeting with the City with regard to the City's
issuance of new towing permits to Permittees; and
WHEREAS, if approved, the new permits would have a three (3) year term, commencing
on March 1, 2012, and ending on February 28, 2015; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the aforestated issuance of the new permits, Permittees
are also requesting an increase in the Permit Fee, as currently set forth in Section 3 of the City's
Administrative Rules and Regulations for Police and Parking Towing Permits (the Rules and
Regulations), as well as certain increases to the Maximum Allowable Towing Rates, as set forth
in Section 22 of the Rules and Regulations; all as more particularly set forth in Amendment No.
2 to the Rules and Regulations, attached and incorporated as Exhibit "A" hereto; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2011, Permittees and City staff jointly presented an
analysis to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC) regarding Permittee's
request for the aforestated rate increases; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2012, the FCWPC continued its discussion regarding towing
permits and, at that time, Permittees presented a further, modified analysis of their request to
the Committee; and
WHEREAS, the FCWPC recommended approval of issuance of a three (3) year police
towing permit (the Permit or Permits) to Permittees, along with Permittee's proposed rate
increases (as set forth in Exhibit "A"); provided, however, that the issuance of the permits and
the approved rate increases, as set forth in this Resolution, be subject to and conditioned upon
Permittees' agreement to, and compliance with, the following terms and conditions (all as more
specifically set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto):
1) Enhancements
• Uniforms -Permittee shall be required to provide all employees with
uniforms, which shall be approved by the City Manager or his designee.
• Employee Drug Screening -Permittee shall perform drug test screening on all
employees, and provide pass/fail results to the City Manager or his designee,
upon request.
• Driver's License Screening -Permittee shall perform driver's license
screening on all employees with driving responsibilities.
40
• Permittee shall reduce the storage requirement within the City limits from
seven (7) days to one (1) day.
2) Technologicallmprovements
• By the end of the first Permit year (i.e. February 28, 2013), Permittees shall
have procured, installed, and implemented Global Positioning System (GPS)
tracking devices on all vehicles. Any such GPS tracking devices must be
accessible to the City for monitoring purposes.
• At the end of the first Permit year, and provided that Permittee has complied
with the above requirement, the City Commission shall review and, following
such review, may elect, in its sole and reasonable discretion, to require
Permittee install the following additional technological upgrades; one (1)
each during the second and third Permit years, respectively: a) towing
software (which, at a minimum, includes dispatch tracking software that is
accessible to the City for monitoring only purposes); and b) in-vehicle
cameras (to monitor and record tows in real time).
3) City of Miami Beach Resident Discounts for Public Tows
• Effective as of the commencement of the term of the Permit, or as of March
1, 2012, Permittees shall commence providing a twenty percent (20%)
discount to City residents for public tows.
• Discounts may be applied two (2) times per Permit year, per resident, per
Permittee; resulting in a total up to four (4) resident discounts annually.
• The discount benefit shall "reset" each Permit year, for as long as the Permit
is in effect.
• The 20% discount shall also apply to the City's fee.
4) In order to clarify and strengthen the City's existing audit rights, as set forth in the
Rules and Regulations, Permittees shall meet with City staff including, without
limitation, the Chief Financial Officer and City auditor, to develop and implement
systems, procedures, and controls for the City's financial audits of Permittees'
operations pursuant to the Permit (i.e. for police-public tows-only).
5) Establishment of a procedure for indexing towing rates to assist the City in
determining rate increases in the future, utilizing a Consumer Price Index -based
analysis; and
WHEREAS, the City has been a party to the following litigation arising out of disputes
between Permittees:
1) Beach Towing Services, Inc. v. The City of Miami Beach, Case No. 11-37364 CA 31,
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, General Jurisdiction Division (complaint challenging the
adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-3617 on robotic and mechanical parking);
2) Beach Towing Services of Miami, Inc. v. The City of Miami Beach, Case No. 11-465
AP, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division (petition for writ of certiorari
challenging the Board of Adjustment's opinion upholding the decisions of the
41
Planning Director with respect to a towing garage in the 1-1 district);
3) Beach Towing Services of Miami, Inc. v. The City of Miami Beach, Case No. 11-466
AP, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division (petition for writ of certiorari
challenging the Board of Adjustment's opinion upholding the decisions of the
Planning Director with respect to a towing garage in the 1-1 district; and
WHEREAS, Beach Towing Services, Inc., has already dismissed without prejudice Case
No. 11-37364 CA 31 but, as a further condition of the approval of this Resolution and as
consideration for the City's issuance of the Permits, has agreed to, and shall, within five (5) days
of adoption of this Resolution: (i) dismiss with prejudice such actions that remain pending; and
(ii) to execute a covenant, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, not to sue the City, its
officers and employees, in any administrative or judicial actions, for itself and all persons or
entities related to it, and not to solicit or encourage the filing by any other person or entity, of
administrative or judicial actions, claims or issues that were or could have been raised in these
cases; and
WHEREAS. as further consideration for the City's aooroval of this Resolution and
issuance of the Permits. the City Administration recommends that the City Commission direct
the Administration and Permittees to further meet to discuss and, within ninety (90) days of
approval of this Resolution. have the City Administration draft language. with an accompanying
recommendation. for review and consideration by the Finance and Citywide Projects
Committee. with regard to the following initiatives (which were agreed upon. in concept. by
Permittees):
• Temporary [Towed] Vehicle Storage -The Administration recommends an
amendment to the City Code allowing for temporary storage of towed vehicles
during high impact in the City;
• Defamation Provision (video/audio depiction of public tows) -This provision is
intended to develop protections for the City from potential defamation that may
arise from towing service providers intending to either pursue on their own or
engage a third party to film depictions of public property tows: and
• Penalties/Fine Schedule -The existing Permit allows the City Manager to
suspend the Permit for a period of time as a penalty. The
Administration recommends a fine schedule. as a financial disincentive. for
violation(s) of the Permit. Fines for typical violations may include. but are not
limited to. employees out of uniform; illegal storage of vehicles;
overcharging/assessment of drop fees; violations of the conditional use
requirements. etc.; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission and Permittees hereby acknowledge that, while
Permittees' compliance with some of the requirements imposed upon Permittees as a condition
of approval of this Resolution (as such requirements are set forth herein and as such may also
be more specifically described in Exhibit "A") hereto may not be required until after the City's
issuance of the Permits, they are intended to be conditions subsequent to the approval of this
Resolution (and to the City's issuance of the Permits) and, as such, in the event of a Permittee's
failure to comply with any or all of such conditions, the City may suspend or revoke Permittee's
Permit.
42
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby authorize and approve the issuance of towing Permits to Beach Towing
Services, Inc., and Tremont Towing Services, Inc.; said Permit terms commencing on March 1,
2012, and expiring on February 28, 2015; and further, in conjunction therewith, approving
Amendment No. 2 to the Administrative Rules and Regulations for Police and Parking Towing
Permits; said Amendment providing, among other things, for an increase to the Permit Fees and
certain Maximum Allowable Towing Rates; providing for certain enhancements, public benefits,
and other additional conditions and requirements, as requested by the City and set forth in this
Resolution, and all of which shall be provided by Permittees, in the manner prescribed by and
within the timeframes outlined in Amendment No. 2, as a condition of the City's approval of this
Resolution and as consideration for the City's issuance of the Permits; and also, providing, as a
further condition of approval of this Resolution and consideration for issuance of the Permits,
that Beach Towing Services, Inc., on behalf of itself and including all related persons and
entities, as the plaintiff and petitioner in those certain lawsuits filed against the City (as such
lawsuits are set forth in this Resolution), dismiss with prejudice such actions that remain
pending with prejudice, and to execute a covenant not to sue, in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney, in any administrative or judicial actions, for itself and all persons or entities related to
it, and not to solicit or encourage the filing by any other person or entity, of administrative or
judicial actions, claims or issues that were or could have been raised in these cases; and also
providing, as further consideration for the City's approval of this Resolution, and issuance of the
Permits, that the City Commission direct the City Administration and Permittees to meet to
discuss and, within ninety (90) days of approval of this Resolution have the City Administration
present draft language and an accompanying recommendation to the Finance Citywide Projects
Committee on the following additional initiatives: 1) temporary storage of towed vehicles: 2)
defamation provision: and 3) penalties/fines schedule.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this----day of------'' 2012
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
F:\ATIO\AGUR\RESOS-ORD\TOWING PERMIT RESO (2-6-12).doc
43
MAYOR
· APPROVED AS TO
'FORM & LANGUAGE
.&F()A EXECUTION
'2--~-\Z....,
bate
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
44
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachR.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager ~~
February 8, 2012 .. -0
BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE P ION REFORM INITIATIVE STATUS REPORT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The attached report has been placed on the agenda at the request of the Budget Advisory
Committee.
JMG/KGB
45
; Agenda Item 'R q K
Date Z.-i-/2-
Letter to Commission
From Budget Advisory Commission
Status Report on Pension Reform Recommendations
January 24, 2012
In early 2011, the Mayor approached the City's Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) regarding undertaking
a study of pension reform for the City's pension plans. The "Mayor's Charge" to the BAC was "to
develop recommendations that address the benefits and funding concerns associated with the City's
pension plans. While the BAC will examine all retirement benefits, the focus will be to address the Fire
and Police pension system, as this plan has a significantly greater cost to the City than the General
Employees' pension plan."
More specifically, the requested deliverable work product was "to develop a series of written,
implementable recommendations that address the long-term sustainability of the Fire and Police
Pension Plan. An explanation of the recommendations, cost implications, impacts to the City and its
employees, advantages, and disadvantages should be included. Recommendations may be split into
short-term and long-term objectives. Subsequently, the BAC may provide additional recommendations
regarding other pension benefits in the City."
While the direction provided by the Mayor did not have specific dates, the desire was to have the
recommendations in time for the contract negotiations for the contract period October 1, 2012 through
September 30, 2015, and initial discussions centered on a desired goal of January 2012 for preliminary
recommendations.
The Committee has accomplished much to date:
• An understanding of the City's current pension plans benefits and costs for the Fire and Police
Pension Plan and the Miami Beach Employee Benefit Plan (for non sworn employees) from the
perspective of legal counsel, the City actuary, and the pension plan administrator for each of
the City's pension Plans (the Fire and Police Pension Plan and the Miami Beach Employees
Retirement Plan).
• Solicited input from the City's bargaining groups and employees
• Surveyed comparative jurisdictions in the region regarding pension plan costs and benefits
• Developed draft policies and guidelines to guide management of the City's pension plans into
the future, a copy of which is attached for your review
• Defined draft options for evaluation based on 5 major categories
o Florida Retirement System
o Define Benefit similar to FRS, including a social security equivalent
o Hybrid Plan with both a defined benefit and defined contribution component
o Changes to the existing plan with a combination of past service benefits and benefits
earned prospectively
o Freezing the existing plan and defining new benefits
46
Letter to Commission
From Budget Advisory Commission
Status Report on Pension Reform Recommendations
January 24, 2012
Page 2 of 2
We are still evaluating the cost impacts of these alternatives and hope to have recommendations in
February. Copies of items related to the above accomplishments are also provided for your review.
Sincerely
Marc Gidney
Budget Advisory Committee Chairperson
47
Purpose:
Miami Beach Pension Plans
To develop recommendations that address the benefits
and funding concerns associated with the City's pension
plans. While the BAC will examine all retirement benefits,
the focus will be to address the Fire and Police pension
system, as this plan has a significantly greater cost to the
City than the General Employees' pension plan.
Work Product: Develop a series of written, implementable
recommendations that address the long-term
sustainability of the Fire and Police Pension Plan. An
explanation of the recommendations, cost implications,
impacts to the City and its employees, advantages, and
disadvantages should be included. Recommendations
may be split into short-term and long-term objectives.
Subsequently, the BAC may provide additional
recommendations regarding other pension benefits in the
City.
Scope of Work: The BAC shall examine the following:
• the City's current pension plan funding and benefits
as it pertains to Fire and Police
• additional pension plan alternatives and programs
applicable to the City's public safety workforce
• make recommendations to ensure sustainability of
the Fire and Police pension system; and
• subsequently provide additional recommendations
regarding other pension benefits to the City.
In order to determine how the City can continue to provide affordable
pension benefits to its employees in the long term, the BAC should make
every effort to maintain a focus on the important and complex issues
outlined in the Scope of Work. However, the BAC may choose to direct the
Administration to assist in identifying and/or collecting more specific
guidelines to be developed within the Scope of Work, as appropriate.
48
~
c.
o
Ci
t
y
of
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
&
Op
t
i
o
n
s
Ap
r
i
l
26
,
20
1
1
Ja
m
e
s
W.
Li
n
n
Le
w
i
s
,
Lo
n
g
m
a
n
&
Wa
l
k
e
r
,
P.
A
.
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
J.
Ti
e
r
n
e
y
Ac
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
Co
n
c
e
p
t
s
U'
l
0
Bi
e
:
Pi
c
t
u
r
e
•
Th
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
,
li
k
e
ma
n
y
Florida
ci
t
i
e
s
,
is
fa
c
i
n
g
ex
t
r
e
m
e
ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
o
f
:
•
De
c
l
i
n
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Va
l
u
e
s
•
In
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
Co
s
t
s
f
o
r
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
•
On
e
o
f
th
e
la
r
g
e
s
t
an
d
fa
s
t
e
s
t
gr
o
w
i
n
g
costs
fa
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
is
th
e
co
s
t
o
f
it
s
employee
pe
n
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
s
.
U'
l
..
.
.
J
o
.
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Go
a
l
:
70
%
o
f
Sa
l
a
r
y
a
t
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
M
o
s
t
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
:
-
So
c
i
a
l
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
-
De
f
i
n
e
d
Be
n
e
f
i
t
a
n
d
/
o
r
De
f
i
n
e
d
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
-
Pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
/
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
:
-
De
f
i
n
e
d
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pl
a
n
pl
u
s
45
7
(d
e
f
i
n
e
d
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
)
Pl
a
n
-
Pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
/
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
3
U'
l
1\
,
)
Ci
t
y
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
La
s
t
Ye
a
r
(F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
0
)
•
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
:
$1
7
.
1
M
(2
5
.
2
%
of payroll)
•
Fi
r
e
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
Pl
a
n
:
$2
3
.
3
M
(3
9
.
3
%
of payroll)
To
t
a
l
An
n
u
a
l
Ci
t
y
Co
s
t
:
$4
0
.
4
million
U'
l
(
,
.
)
Ci
t
y
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
Th
i
s
Ye
a
r
(F
Y
2
0
1
0
-
2
0
1
1
)
•
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
:
$1
4
.
5
M
(2
0
.
6
5
%
o
f
payroll)*
•
Fi
r
e
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
Pl
a
n
:
$3
4
.
4
M
(6
6
.
6
6
%
o
f
payroll)
To
t
a
l
An
n
u
a
l
Ci
t
y
Co
s
t
:
$4
8
.
9
million
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
ov
e
r
pr
i
o
r
ye
a
r
:
$8
.
5
mi
l
l
i
o
n
(+21%)
[G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
de
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
$2
.
6
mi
l
l
i
o
n
;
Fi
r
e
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
Pl
a
n
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
$1
1
.
1
mi
l
l
i
o
n
]
*
Fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
ba
r
g
a
i
n
e
d
be
n
e
f
i
t
ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
in 2010 5
U'
l
~
en
s
i
o
n
Co
s
t
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
1.
No
r
m
a
l
C
o
s
t
-
lo
n
g
t
e
r
m
co
s
t
i
f
no
Unfunded
Ac
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
Ac
c
r
u
e
d
Li
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
('
'
U
A
A
L
'
'
)
2.
UA
A
L
A
m
o
r
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
-
le
g
a
c
y
cost
ca
u
s
e
d
by
:
~
Ac
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
lo
s
s
e
s
~
Pl
a
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
6
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Fi
r
e
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Br
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
(F
Y
20
1
0
-
2
0
1
1
)
•
No
r
m
a
l
Co
s
t
:
$
16
.
6
M
(3
2
%
o
f
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
•
Am
o
r
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
:
$
16
.
8
M
{3
3
%
o
f
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
•
To
t
a
l
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
:
$
33
.
4
M
{6
5
%
o
f
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
•
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
Ad
j
.
+$
3.
0
M
(
6%
o
f
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
U'
l
U'
l
•
Es
t
.
Bu
y
b
a
c
k
s
+$
2.
6
M
(
5%
o
f
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
•
Pr
e
m
i
u
m
Ta
x
:
-$
12
0
K
(-
0.
0
2
%
o
f
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
•
M
e
m
b
e
r
Co
n
t
:
-$
5
.
1
6
M
(-
10
%
o
f
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
•
Ne
t
Ci
t
y
Co
s
t
:
$
34
.
4
M
{6
6
.
6
%
o
f
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
•
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Bo
n
d
:
$
4
.
5
M
To
t
a
l
Ci
t
y
Co
s
t
:
$
38
.
9
M
Av
g
.
Ci
t
y
Co
s
t
p
e
r
A
c
t
i
v
e
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
:
$
81
,
3
8
0
7
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Br
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
(F
Y
20
1
0
-
2
0
1
1
)
•
No
r
m
a
l
Co
s
t
:
•
Am
o
r
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
:
•
Ad
m
i
n
.
Ex
p
.
~
•
To
t
a
l
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
:
$1
3
.
7
M
$
8.
7
M
$
.7
M
$2
3
.
4
M
•
Me
m
b
e
r
Ca
n
t
:
-$
8.
9
M
•
Ne
t
Ci
t
y
Co
s
t
:
$1
4
.
5
M
•
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Bo
n
d
:
$
48
5
K
To
t
a
l
Ci
t
y
Co
s
t
:
$
15
M
(1
9
%
of
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
(1
2
%
of
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
(
1%
of
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
{3
2
%
of
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
(1
2
%
of
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
{2
0
.
6
5
%
of
pa
y
r
o
l
l
)
Av
g
.
C
i
t
y
Co
s
t
p
e
r
A
c
t
i
v
e
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
:
$1
2
,
9
9
8
8
U'
l
...
.
.
.
.
.
un
d
St
a
t
u
s
•
Ac
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
Va
l
u
e
o
f
As
s
e
t
s
I
Ac
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
Ac
c
r
u
e
d
Li
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
{v
a
l
u
e
o
f
cu
r
r
e
n
t
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
)
.
•
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
me
a
s
u
r
e
o
f
h
o
w
mu
c
h
o
f
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
{e
a
r
n
e
d
an
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
)
w
o
u
l
d
be
funded
at
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
p
o
i
n
t
in
t
i
m
e
.
•
Fu
n
d
e
d
St
a
t
u
s
o
f
Ci
t
y
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
s
as
o
f
10/1/09
{p
e
r
GA
S
B
25
)
:
Fi
r
e
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
-
Ac
t
.
Ac
c
r
u
e
d
Li
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
$7
8
5
mi
l
l
i
o
n
$5
5
2
million
-
Ac
t
.
Va
l
u
e
o
f
As
s
e
t
s
:
$5
1
8
mi
l
l
i
o
n
$4
2
0
million
-
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Fu
n
d
e
d
:
66
.
0
%
76
.
2
%
9
U'
l
co
Fu
n
d
e
d
St
a
t
u
s
•
Fu
n
d
e
d
St
a
t
u
s
o
f
Ci
t
y
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
s
as
o
f
1
0
/
1
/
1
0
(per
GA
S
B
25
)
:
*
Fi
r
e
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
-
Ac
t
.
Ac
c
r
u
e
d
Li
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
$8
2
1
mi
l
l
i
o
n
$5
7
8
mi
l
l
i
o
n
-
Ac
t
.
Va
l
u
e
o
f
As
s
e
t
s
:
$5
2
6
mi
l
l
i
o
n
$4
3
1
mi
l
l
i
o
n
-
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Fu
n
d
e
d
:
64
.
0
%
74
.
6
%
*
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
nu
m
b
e
r
s
fo
r
10
/
1
/
1
0
10
U'
l
c.
o
Fu
n
d
e
d
St
a
t
u
s
•
Fu
n
d
e
d
St
a
t
u
s
o
f
Ci
t
y
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
s
as
o
f
1
0
/
1
/
9
(b
a
s
e
d
on
ma
r
k
e
t
va
l
u
e
o
f
as
s
e
t
s
di
v
i
d
e
d
by
present
va
l
u
e
o
f
ac
c
r
u
e
d
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
:
-
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
Va
l
u
e
o
f
Ac
c
r
u
e
d
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
:
-
M
k
t
.
Va
l
u
e
o
f
As
s
e
t
s
:
-
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Fu
n
d
e
d
:
Fi
r
e
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
$7
2
7
mi
l
l
i
o
n
$5
0
5
mi
l
l
i
o
n
$4
9
4
mi
l
l
i
o
n
$3
5
0
mi
l
l
i
o
n
68
.
0
%
70
%
*
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
nu
m
b
e
r
s
fo
r
10
/
1
/
1
0
1
0
'
)
0
en
s
i
o
n
Le
e
a
c
y
Co
s
t
-
T
h
e
UA
A
L
Issue
•
To
t
a
l
Un
f
u
n
d
e
d
Ac
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
Ac
c
r
u
e
d
Li
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(U
A
A
L
)
of
Ci
t
y
pe
n
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
s
as
o
f
1
0
/
1
/
1
0
wa
s
$4
4
2
million:
)
-
Fi
r
e
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
:
$2
9
5
mi
l
l
i
o
n
)-
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
:
$1
4
7
mi
l
l
i
o
n
•
By
la
w
th
e
Ci
t
y
is
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
fu
n
d
i
n
g
th
e
UAAL-
ev
e
n
i
f
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ar
e
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
employers,
an
d
ev
e
n
i
f
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
pe
n
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
s
ar
e
cl
o
s
e
d
,
fr
o
z
e
n
o
r
te
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
.
1
0
'
)
..
.
.
J
o
.
Ke
y
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
Fi
r
e
&
Po
l
i
c
e
Pl
a
n
*
•
F
o
r
m
u
l
a
:
3%
x
fi
n
a
l
av
g
.
sa
l
a
r
y
x
ye
a
r
s
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
u
p
t
o
15
ye
a
r
s
,
plus 4% x
fi
n
a
l
av
g
.
sa
l
a
r
y
x
ye
a
r
s
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
a
f
t
e
r
15
ye
a
r
s
,
up
t
o
90
%
max. [26.25 yrs
=
90
%
]
•
Sa
l
a
r
y
:
ba
s
e
pa
y
pl
u
s
OT
,
lo
n
g
e
v
i
t
y
,
s
h
i
f
t
di
f
f
.
an
d
ex
t
r
a
ca
m
p
.
•
Fi
n
a
l
Av
g
.
Sa
l
a
r
y
:
av
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
hi
g
h
e
s
t
2
ye
a
r
s
•
N
o
r
m
a
l
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Da
t
e
:
Ag
e
50
w
/
1
0
yr
s
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
o
r
11
Ru
l
e
of 70" {age+
ye
a
r
s
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
=
70
)
•
N
o
r
m
a
l
Fo
r
m
o
f
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
:
75
%
j
o
i
n
t
&
su
r
v
i
v
o
r
a
n
n
u
i
t
y
•
D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
D
e
a
t
h
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
•
CO
L
A
:
2.
5
%
p
e
r
ye
a
r
,
c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
•
DR
O
P
:
3
ye
a
r
s
/
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
•
Sh
a
r
e
Pl
a
n
:
l
u
m
p
su
m
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
in
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
pe
n
s
i
o
n
•
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
:
10
%
*
Do
e
s
n
o
t
re
f
l
e
c
t
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
h
i
r
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
July 2010,
w
h
i
c
h
ar
e
in
li
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
13
0
'
)
1\
,
)
Po
l
i
c
e
/
F
i
r
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
3.
0
/
4
.
0
%
(
9
0
%
af
t
@
r
2.
0
%
(9
0
%
'a
f
t
e
r
4
5
26
vr
s
)
yr
s
)
No
r
r
n
.
Re
t
.
Da
t
e
Ag
e
50
w/
1
0
yr
s
or
Ru
l
e
o
f
70
4,,~
l
g
a
l
Av
s
,
C
O
m
p
.
Hig
h
~
s
t
2 yr
-
s
CO
L
A
2.
5
%
an
n
u
a
l
Ag
e
50
w/
1
0
yr
s
or
ag
e
52
w
/
2
5
yr
s
Hi
g
h
5
of
la
s
t
10
yr
s
No
n
e
;,_
a
v
r
s
/
i
n
v
e
s
t
~
d
ra
t
e
·
.
No
n
e
Sh
a
t
e
Pl
a
h
Ye
s
~j~iD
~
i
J
9
Y
~
f
!
~
a
s
~
"
¥
,
:
:
·
.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
•
;
iQ
%
...... >~Er·.·
Ci
t
y
Co
s
t
66
.
6
%
No
n
e
.r
o
.
r
>
i
~7
0
? .
,:
;
P
f
c
t
l
f
f
l
t
l
J
'
i
f
t
{
;
J
I
M
..
g~~
Q
~
~
.
0
To
t
a
l
Co
s
t
81
.
8
%
?
S.
o
%
(90% after 30
vr
s
)
Ag
e
55 w/10 yrs or
25
and out
Hi
g
h
s
3%
annual
t:
··· ..
.
.
.
·~J· 6". s' ot
3
yr
s
... · o'. 70
No
n
e
0%
(now)
23
.
2
5
%
23
.
2
5
%
Ch
.
17
5
/
1
8
5
Pr
e
m
i
u
m
Ta
x
e
s
•
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
s
17
5
&
18
5
,
F.
S
.
pr
o
v
i
d
e
f
o
r
a
re
b
a
t
e
of the
st
a
t
e
ex
c
i
s
e
ta
x
on
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
an
d
ca
s
u
a
l
t
y
insurance
pr
e
m
i
u
m
s
t
o
ci
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
po
l
i
c
e
an
d
firefighter
pe
n
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
s
.
~
•
Th
e
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
mo
n
i
e
s
mu
s
t
be
us
e
d
exclusively
f
o
r
fi
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
an
d
po
l
i
c
e
pe
n
s
i
o
n
s
,
an
d
the local
pe
n
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
mu
s
t
co
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
of
Ch
.
17
5
&
18
5
.
•
Pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
e
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
in
ex
c
e
s
s
o
f
th
e
"frozen
a
m
o
u
n
t
"
mu
s
t
be
us
e
d
f
o
r
ex
t
r
a
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
5
Ch
.
17
5
/
1
8
5
Pr
e
m
i
u
m
Ta
x
e
s
•
In
20
1
0
th
e
Ci
t
y
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
a
to
t
a
l
o
f
$2
million in
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
(P
T
)
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
-
ab
o
u
t
3.
8
7
%
of payroll.
(F
i
r
e
-
-
$1
.
4
6
M
;
Po
l
i
c
e
-
$6
0
3
K
)
a>
•
Th
e
Ci
t
y
is
ab
l
e
t
o
us
e
$1
2
0
K
o
f
th
e
pr
e
m
i
u
m
tax
~
mo
n
e
y
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
ea
c
h
ye
a
r
t
o
of
f
s
e
t
the City's
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
th
e
pe
n
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
.
Th
i
s
is
the "frozen
am
o
u
n
t
.
"
•
Th
e
re
s
t
o
f
th
e
PT
mo
n
e
y
--
$1
.
9
mi
l
l
i
o
n
last year -
we
n
t
t
o
"s
h
a
r
e
pl
a
n
s
"
fo
r
fi
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
s
and police
of
f
i
c
e
r
s
.
Ch
.
17
5
/
1
8
5
Pr
e
m
i
u
m
Ta
x
e
s
•
A
"S
h
a
r
e
pl
a
n
"
is
a
de
f
i
n
e
d
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
w
i
t
h
individual
ac
c
o
u
n
t
s
wh
e
r
e
a
pr
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
t
e
sh
a
r
e
o
f
th
e
premium tax
pr
o
c
e
e
d
s
ba
s
e
d
on
te
n
u
r
e
ar
e
de
p
o
s
i
t
e
d
ea
c
h
ye
a
r
.
•
Th
e
fi
r
e
an
d
po
l
i
c
e
sh
a
r
e
pl
a
n
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
lu
m
p
su
m
payout to
~
re
t
i
r
i
n
g
fi
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
s
an
d
po
l
i
c
e
of
f
i
c
e
r
s
on
to
p
of their City
pe
n
s
i
o
n
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
-
th
i
s
is
an
ex
t
r
a
be
n
e
f
i
t
.
•
Fo
r
ex
a
m
p
l
e
,
in
20
0
7
,
av
e
r
a
g
e
am
o
u
n
t
s
fo
r
th
o
s
e
members who
ha
d
th
e
mo
s
t
ye
a
r
s
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
:
•
Fi
r
e
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
•
Po
l
i
c
e
$
55
,
0
0
0
1
0
'
)
0
'
)
Ch
.
17
5
/
1
8
5
Pr
e
m
i
u
m
Ta
x
Is
s
u
e
s
•
Un
d
e
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
la
w
an
d
St
a
t
e
no
n
-
r
u
l
e
po
l
i
c
y
,
the "City"
wi
l
l
lo
s
e
PT
mo
n
i
e
s
if
:
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
~T
h
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
pl
a
n
is
cl
o
s
e
d
,
fr
o
z
e
n
o
r
te
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
;
or
~T
h
e
Ci
t
y
jo
i
n
s
FR
S
;
or
~B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
ar
e
re
d
u
c
e
d
be
l
o
w
Ch
.
17
5
/
1
8
5
minimums
•
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
me
m
b
e
r
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
s
collective
ba
r
g
a
i
n
i
n
g
an
d
be
n
e
f
i
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
.
(R
e
m
i
n
d
e
r
:
on
l
y
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
is
us
e
d
t
o
of
f
s
e
t
co
s
t
of the
Ci
t
y
'
s
De
f
i
n
e
d
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pl
a
n
fo
r
Po
l
i
c
e
an
d
Fi
r
e
;
balance
o
f
$1
.
9
mi
l
l
i
o
n
an
n
u
a
l
l
y
go
e
s
t
o
~h
a
r
e
pl
a
n
s
)
.
18
0
'
)
...
.
.
.
.
.
Ke
v
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
•
Fo
r
m
u
l
a
:
3.
0
%
x
FA
M
E
x
ye
a
r
s
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
(h
i
r
e
d
be
f
o
r
e
1
0
/
1
/
1
0
)
;
2.
5
%
x
FA
M
E
x
ye
a
r
s
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
(h
i
r
e
d
o
n
/
a
f
t
e
r
1
0
/
1
/
1
0
)
•
Ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
:
ac
t
u
a
l
sa
l
a
r
y
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
OT
up
t
o
10
%
o
f
re
g
.
pa
y
(T
i
e
r
A); base pay inc.
lo
n
g
e
v
i
t
y
,
b
u
t
ex
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
OT
sh
i
f
t
di
f
f
.
,
et
c
.
(T
i
e
r
B)
•
Fi
n
a
l
Av
g
.
Ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
:
2
hi
g
h
e
s
t
ye
a
r
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
1
0
/
1
/
1
0
;
th
e
n
5
highest years
ph
a
s
e
d
-
i
n
ov
e
r
3
ye
a
r
s
•
N
o
r
m
a
l
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Da
t
e
:
Ag
e
50
w
/
5
yr
s
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
-
Ti
e
r
A;
Ag
e
55 w/5 yrs-Tier
B
(h
i
r
e
d
be
f
o
r
e
1
0
/
1
/
1
0
)
;
Ag
e
62
w/
S
y
r
s
se
r
v
.
Or
Ag
e
55
w
/
3
0
yrs serv. (hired
o
n
/
a
f
t
e
r
1
0
/
1
/
1
0
)
•
N
o
r
m
a
l
Fo
r
m
:
50
%
jo
i
n
t
&
su
r
v
i
v
o
r
an
n
u
i
t
y
t
o
sp
o
u
s
e
(h
i
r
e
d
be
f
o
r
e
10/1/10);
li
f
e
an
n
u
i
t
y
{h
i
r
e
d
o
n
/
a
f
t
e
r
1
0
/
1
/
1
0
)
•
DR
O
P
:
3
ye
a
r
s
{5
ye
a
r
s
i
f
hi
r
e
d
o
n
/
a
f
t
e
r
1
0
/
1
/
1
0
)
•
CO
L
A
:
2.
5
%
(1
.
5
%
i
f
hi
r
e
d
o
n
/
a
f
t
e
r
1
0
/
1
/
1
0
)
•
M
e
m
b
e
r
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
:
1
2
%
-
Ti
e
r
A;
1
0
%
-
Ti
e
r
B
{h
i
r
e
d
be
f
o
r
e
10/1/10); 10% if
hi
r
e
d
o
n
/
a
f
t
e
r
1
0
/
1
/
1
0
*T
i
e
r
A
-
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
hi
r
e
d
pr
i
o
r
to
bi
f
u
r
c
a
t
i
o
n
in
ea
r
l
y
19
9
0
'
s
.
*T
i
e
r
B
-
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
hi
r
e
d
af
t
e
r
bi
f
u
r
c
a
t
i
o
n
in
ea
r
l
y
19
9
0
'
s
.
0
'
)
co
W
h
a
t
Ar
e
t
h
e
Op
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
Re
d
u
c
e
Ci
t
y
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Co
s
t
s
?
•
Ke
e
p
cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ci
t
y
pe
n
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
,
bu
t
:
~
Re
d
u
c
e
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
fo
r
ne
w
an
d
/
o
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
~I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
•
Te
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
,
fr
e
e
z
e
o
r
cl
o
s
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
pension
pl
a
n
,
an
d
se
t
up
a
lo
w
e
r
co
s
t
pl
a
n
/
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
-
Hy
b
r
i
d
Pl
a
n
-
F
R
S
-
De
f
i
n
e
d
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
20
0
'
)
c.
o
Ke
y
Co
n
c
e
p
t
s
•
''
C
l
o
s
e
'
'
-
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pl
a
n
cl
o
s
e
d
to
ne
w
members;
cu
r
r
e
n
t
me
m
b
e
r
s
st
a
y
in
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pl
a
n
un
t
i
l
they retire
or
le
a
v
e
th
e
Ci
t
y
;
fu
t
u
r
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
jo
i
n
ne
w
plan.
•
''
F
r
e
e
z
e
'
'
-
ac
c
r
u
e
d
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
o
f
cu
r
r
e
n
t
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
in
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pl
a
n
"f
r
o
z
e
n
"
an
d
pa
i
d
ou
t
at
re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
;
all
cu
r
r
e
n
t
an
d
fu
t
u
r
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
jo
i
n
ne
w
pl
a
n
.
•
''
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
'
'
-
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pl
a
n
li
q
u
i
d
a
t
e
d
;
accrued
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
pa
i
d
ou
t
to
pl
a
n
me
m
b
e
r
s
;
Ci
t
y
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
an
y
de
f
i
c
i
t
;
al
l
cu
r
r
e
n
t
an
d
fu
t
u
r
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
join
ne
w
pl
a
n
.
2
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
Le
g
a
l
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
•
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
an
d
employee
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
ma
n
d
a
t
o
r
y
su
b
j
e
c
t
s
o
f
collective
ba
r
g
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
•
Ac
c
r
u
e
d
pe
n
s
i
o
n
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
(b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
ea
r
n
e
d
in the
pa
s
t
)
ca
n
n
o
t
be
re
d
u
c
e
d
or
ta
k
e
n
aw
a
y
.
•
Fu
t
u
r
e
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
ca
n
be
re
d
u
c
e
d
fo
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
employees
wh
o
ha
v
e
no
t
re
a
c
h
e
d
re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
st
a
t
u
s
.
•
Ci
t
y
is
ul
t
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
un
f
u
n
d
e
d
pension
li
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
So
c
i
a
l
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
•
Ci
t
y
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
do
e
s
n
o
t
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
in Social
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
.
~
•
In
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ch
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
the City's
pe
n
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
s
,
th
e
fa
c
t
th
a
t
th
e
Ci
t
y
does not
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
in
So
c
i
a
l
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
mu
s
t
be taken
in
t
o
ac
c
o
u
n
t
.
3
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
1\
,
)
Co
m
m
o
n
De
f
i
n
e
d
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Plan
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
•
Re
d
u
c
e
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
r
f
o
r
f
u
t
u
r
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
•
Pu
s
h
ba
c
k
n
o
r
m
a
l
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
da
t
e
•
Li
m
i
t
pe
n
s
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
-
Ov
e
r
t
i
m
e
-
Ex
t
r
a
/
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
Pa
y
s
•
Ex
p
a
n
d
av
e
r
a
g
e
fi
n
a
l
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
pe
r
i
o
d
•
Re
d
u
c
e
Re
t
i
r
e
e
CO
L
A
NO
T
E
:
Th
e
Ci
t
y
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
al
l
o
f
th
e
ab
o
v
e
fo
r
ne
w
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
in the General
Pl
a
n
hi
r
e
d
on
or
af
t
e
r
10
/
1
/
1
0
.
Th
e
Ci
t
y
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
a
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
a reduction to
th
e
re
t
i
r
e
e
CO
L
A
,a
s
we
l
l
as
mi
n
o
r
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
be
n
e
f
i
t
mu
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
r
,
the normal
re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
ag
e
an
d
th
e
fi
n
a
l
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
pe
r
i
o
d
fo
r
ne
w
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
hired
on
or
af
t
e
r
10
/
1
/
1
0
in
th
e
Fi
r
e
an
d
Po
l
i
c
e
Pl
a
n
.
L4
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
(
,
.
)
20
1
1
Le
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
Af
f
e
c
t
i
n
g
Lo
c
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
s
SB
11
2
8
I
HB
72
4
1
•
Ne
w
li
m
i
t
s
on
pe
n
s
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
•
Ne
w
ru
l
e
s
fo
r
us
e
o
f
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
17
5
/
1
8
5
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
mo
n
i
e
s
•
Ne
w
fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
ra
t
i
n
g
pr
o
g
r
a
m
fo
r
lo
c
a
l
pension
pl
a
n
s
•
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
t
o
st
u
d
y
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
pr
e
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
2
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
28
(L
o
c
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
s
)
•
Pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
s
in
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
o
f
ov
e
r
t
i
m
e
in
ex
c
e
s
s
o
f
300 hours
an
d
pa
y
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
un
u
s
e
d
si
c
k
or
an
n
u
a
l
leave in
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
pe
n
s
i
o
n
pu
r
p
o
s
e
s
af
t
e
r
7/1/11.
•
Fo
r
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
wh
o
ar
e
su
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
collective
ba
r
g
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
th
i
s
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
ta
k
e
ef
f
e
c
t
for the
fi
r
s
t
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
e
d
af
t
e
r
7
/
1
/
1
1
.
•
Th
i
s
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
ap
p
l
y
t
o
al
l
lo
c
a
l
go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
pe
n
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
po
l
i
c
e
an
d
fi
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
plans
un
d
e
r
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
s
17
5
an
d
18
5
.
6
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
SB
11
2
8
:
Us
e
o
f
Pr
e
m
i
u
m
Ta
x
Revenue
Fo
r
sh
a
r
e
pl
a
n
s
t
h
a
t
ar
e
le
s
s
th
a
n
70
%
f
u
n
d
e
d
*
:
•
Pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
in
ex
c
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
20
1
0
amount
mu
s
t
be
us
e
d
t
o
pa
y
do
w
n
th
e
DB
pl
a
n
'
s
actuarial
ac
c
r
u
e
d
li
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
un
t
i
l
th
e
fu
n
d
e
d
ra
t
i
o
re
a
c
h
e
s
80%* .
•
A
f
t
e
r
fu
n
d
e
d
r
a
t
i
o
*
re
a
c
h
e
s
80
%
al
l
pr
e
m
i
u
m
tax
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
go
t
o
sh
a
r
e
pl
a
n
.
*
SB
11
2
8
fu
n
d
e
d
ra
t
i
o
=
ma
r
k
e
t
va
l
u
e
of .assets
di
v
i
d
e
d
by
pr
e
s
e
n
t
va
l
u
e
o
f
ac
c
r
u
e
d
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
;
GASB
25
fu
n
d
e
d
ra
t
i
o
=
ac
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
va
l
u
e
o
f
as
s
e
t
s
divided by -...
ac
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
ac
c
r
u
e
d
li
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
HB
72
4
1
:
Us
e
o
f
Pr
e
m
i
u
m
Ta
x
Revenue
•
Re
w
r
i
t
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
17
5
an
d
18
5
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
on {/extra
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
"
an
d
th
e
us
e
o
f
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
.
•
Al
l
pl
a
n
s
wo
u
l
d
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
me
e
t
Ch
.
17
5
/
1
8
5
minimums.
•
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
ab
o
v
e
th
e
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
an
d
th
e
us
e
of
premium tax
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
wo
u
l
d
be
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
bargaining.
~
•
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
st
a
t
u
t
o
r
y
la
n
g
u
a
g
e
co
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
ue
x
t
r
a
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
"
and
th
e
us
e
o
f
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
e
s
de
l
e
t
e
d
.
•
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
de
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
11
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
revenues"
(r
e
v
e
n
u
e
wh
i
c
h
ex
c
e
e
d
s
th
e
am
o
u
n
t
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
for calendar
ye
a
r
19
9
7
)
is
re
t
a
i
n
e
d
,
as
is
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
allowing
lo
c
a
l
go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
th
a
t
do
no
t
me
e
t
th
e
st
a
t
u
t
o
r
y
minimum
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
to
us
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
to
in
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
fu
n
d
th
e
co
s
t
o
f
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
.
8
H
7
•
liD
up
o
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Pl
a
n
s
•
An
n
u
a
l
am
o
u
n
t
o
f
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
to the
su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
pl
a
n
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
bargaining;
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
,
th
e
an
n
u
a
l
am
o
u
n
t
o
f
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
revenues
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
th
e
su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
pl
a
n
sh
a
l
l
no
t
be
le
s
s
than the
am
o
u
n
t
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
fo
r
ca
l
e
n
d
a
r
ye
a
r
19
9
7
pl
u
s
50% of the
:::
:
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
.
•
Re
q
u
i
r
e
s
ea
c
h
pl
a
n
sp
o
n
s
o
r
t
o
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a defined
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
pl
a
n
by
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1,
2011 (except
pl
a
n
s
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
by
sp
e
c
i
a
l
le
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
ac
t
wo
u
l
d
have until
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
1,
20
1
2
to
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
pl
a
n
)
.
Such plans
wo
u
l
d
be
fu
n
d
e
d
in
th
e
sa
m
e
ma
n
n
e
r
as
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
above,
su
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
th
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
an
y
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
bargaining
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
in
ef
f
e
c
t
on
Ju
l
y
1,
20
1
1
.
9
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
co
en
s
i
o
n
Re
f
o
r
m
:
W
h
a
t
Ot
h
e
r
Lo
c
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
Ha
v
e
u
o
n
e
St
u
a
r
t
(2
0
0
7
)
-
Al
l
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
•
Al
l
Ci
t
y
pe
n
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
s
te
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
•
Ci
t
y
jo
i
n
e
d
FR
S
fo
r
al
l
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
•
Ci
t
y
pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
pa
s
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
cr
e
d
i
t
un
d
e
r
FRS for
al
l
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
30
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
c.
o
ns
i
o
n
Re
f
o
r
m
:
W
h
a
t
O
t
h
e
r
Lo
c
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
Ha
v
e
Do
n
e
Ft
.
La
u
d
e
r
d
a
l
e
(2
0
0
7
)
-
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
•
Cl
o
s
e
d
ge
n
e
r
a
l
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
DB
pe
n
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
•
Se
t
up
de
f
i
n
e
d
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
fo
r
ne
w
hires 3
co
0
en
s
i
o
n
Re
f
o
r
m
:
W
h
a
t
O
t
h
e
r
Local
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
Ha
v
e
Do
n
e
Co
r
a
l
Ga
b
l
e
s
{2
0
0
9
)
-
Po
l
i
c
e
•
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
by
po
l
i
c
e
officers
by
S
%
•
Re
d
u
c
e
d
pe
n
s
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
(e
x
c
l
u
d
e
OT
in excess
o
f
30
0
hr
s
.
an
d
lu
m
p
su
m
pa
y
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
co
m
p
.
time)
co
..
.
.
J
o
.
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Re
f
o
r
m
:
W
h
a
t
O
t
h
e
r
Local
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
Ha
v
e
Do
n
e
Na
p
l
e
s
{2
0
0
9
)
-
Fi
r
e
•
"S
t
o
p
&
Re
s
t
a
r
t
"
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
;
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
e
s
City
ca
n
us
e
t
o
of
f
s
e
t
Ci
t
y
pe
n
s
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
fr
o
m
$7
7
6
K
t
o
$1
.
67
mi
l
l
i
o
n
pe
r
year
•
"S
h
a
r
e
Pl
a
n
"
se
t
up
w
i
t
h
ex
c
e
s
s
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
3
co
1\
,
)
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Re
f
o
r
m
:
W
h
a
t
O
t
h
e
r
Lo
c
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
Ha
v
e
Do
n
e
Ho
l
l
y
w
o
o
d
{2
0
0
9
)
-
Fi
r
e
•
Re
d
u
c
e
d
13
t
h
ch
e
c
k
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
f
o
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
•
Re
d
u
c
e
d
pe
n
s
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
f
o
r
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
employees
{e
x
c
l
u
d
e
co
m
p
.
ti
m
e
an
d
bl
o
o
d
ti
m
e
pa
y
o
u
t
s
;
70%
ca
p
on
va
c
a
t
i
o
n
le
a
v
e
pa
y
o
u
t
s
;
no
OT
in
ex
c
e
s
s
of 300
hr
s
.
ov
e
r
3
ye
a
r
av
e
r
a
g
e
)
•
Re
d
u
c
e
d
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
an
d
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
for
n
e
w
hi
r
e
s
{2
t
i
e
r
pl
a
n
)
•
"S
h
a
r
e
Pl
a
n
"
f
o
r
al
l
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
fu
n
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
increases
in
p
r
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
3
co
(
,
.
)
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Re
f
o
r
m
:
W
h
a
t
O
t
h
e
r
Lo
c
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
Ha
v
e
Do
n
e
Po
r
t
Or
a
n
g
e
(
2
0
1
0
)
-
Fi
r
e
[
N
o
t
Ye
t
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
]
*
•
Re
d
u
c
e
d
wa
g
e
s
by
6%
(i
m
p
o
s
e
d
in
li
e
u
o
f
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
pe
n
s
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
)
•
Re
d
u
c
e
d
pe
n
s
i
o
n
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
f
o
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
an
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
~
Pu
s
h
ba
c
k
no
r
m
a
l
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
da
t
e
~
Re
d
u
c
e
pe
n
s
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
(e
x
c
l
u
d
e
OT
)
~
Ex
t
e
n
d
fi
n
a
l
av
e
r
a
g
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
fr
o
m
3
t
o
5
ye
a
r
s
~
Re
d
u
c
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
fr
o
m
90
%
t
o
80
%
~
Re
d
u
c
e
CO
L
A
~
Re
d
u
c
e
DR
O
P
ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
*
li
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pe
n
d
i
n
g
3
co
~
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Re
f
o
r
m
:
W
h
a
t
O
t
h
e
r
Lo
c
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
ts
Ha
v
e
Do
n
e
Pa
l
m
Ba
y
(
2
0
1
0
)
-
Fi
r
e
[C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Ac
t
i
o
n
9/
1
5
/
1
0
;
Not Yet
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
]
*
•
Wa
g
e
fr
e
e
z
e
•
Re
d
u
c
e
fu
t
u
r
e
pe
n
s
i
o
n
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
t
o
Ch
.
17
5
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
~
2%
be
n
e
f
i
t
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
r
~
No
r
m
a
l
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
-
ag
e
55
w
/
1
0
yr
s
se
r
v
i
c
e
o
r
ag
e
52
w
/
2
5
yr
s
.
se
r
v
i
c
e
~
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
=
fi
x
e
d
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
co
m
p
(e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
OT)
~
5
ye
a
r
fi
n
a
l
av
e
r
a
g
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
~
No
CO
L
A
I
no
su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
•
Al
l
fu
t
u
r
e
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
go
e
s
t
o
sh
a
r
e
pl
a
n
*
li
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pe
n
d
i
n
g
6
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Re
f
o
r
m
:
W
h
a
t
O
t
h
e
r
Lo
c
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
Ha
v
e
Do
n
e
Co
r
a
l
Ga
b
l
e
s
{
2
0
1
0
)
-
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
[C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Ac
t
i
o
n
8
/
3
0
/
1
0
-
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
]
*
•
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
fr
o
z
e
n
•
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
ch
a
n
g
e
s
fo
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
an
d
fu
t
u
r
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
:
~
Re
d
u
c
e
d
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
r
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
{t
o
2.
2
5
%
with 75%
~
ma
x
.
)
~
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
pe
n
s
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
by
5%
~
5
ye
a
r
fi
n
a
l
av
e
r
a
g
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
{p
h
a
s
e
d
in
)
~
De
l
a
y
re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
ag
e
{t
o
Ru
l
e
o
f
80
;
ag
e
65
w/
5
y
r
s
;
or age
62
w
/
1
0
yr
s
)
~
Re
d
u
c
e
d
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
*
li
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pe
n
d
i
n
g
3
co
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Re
f
o
r
m
:
W
h
a
t
Ot
h
e
r
Lo
c
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
nt
s
Ha
v
e
u
o
n
e
Mi
a
m
i
(
2
0
1
0
)
-
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
(A
l
l
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
*
[F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
ur
g
e
n
c
y
d
e
c
l
a
r
e
d
-
Ci
t
y
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
ad
o
p
t
e
d
wage and
be
n
e
f
i
t
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
8/
3
1
/
1
0
]
:
•
La
t
e
r
no
r
m
a
l
re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
ag
e
en
•
5
ye
a
r
av
e
r
a
g
e
fi
n
a
l
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
•
Re
d
u
c
e
be
n
e
f
i
t
fo
r
m
u
l
a
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
(3
%
)
•
No
r
m
a
l
fo
r
m
o
f
be
n
e
f
i
t
:
li
f
e
an
d
10
ye
a
r
s
ce
r
t
a
i
n
(P
F
)
;
life annuity
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
)
•
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
ca
p
on
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
*
li
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pe
n
d
i
n
g
3
co
...
.
.
.
.
.
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Re
f
o
r
m
:
W
h
a
t
O
t
h
e
r
Lo
c
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
Ha
v
e
Do
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
Pa
l
m
Be
a
c
h
(
2
0
1
1
)
-
Fi
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
[Town Council
im
p
o
s
e
d
wa
g
e
an
d
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
4
/
2
1
/
1
1
]
:
•
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
fr
o
z
e
n
•
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
ch
a
n
g
e
s
f
o
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
an
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
:
~
Re
d
u
c
e
d
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
r
f
o
r
f
u
t
u
r
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
(t
o
1.
2
5
%
)
~
De
f
i
n
e
d
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
on
t
o
p
o
f
DB
pl
a
n
,
w
i
t
h
To
w
n
contribution
ma
t
c
h
(4
%
/
4
%
to
t
a
l
8%
ma
x
.
)
~
No
r
m
a
l
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
u
n
d
e
r
DB
pl
a
n
de
l
a
y
e
d
t
o
ag
e
65
(
b
u
t
DC plan
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
ma
y
be
g
i
n
at
ag
e
59
an
d
on
e
-
h
a
l
f
)
~
Jo
i
n
t
&
Su
r
v
i
v
o
r
A
n
n
u
i
t
y
ab
o
l
i
s
h
e
d
;
re
p
l
a
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
li
f
e
annuity
(
m
e
m
b
e
r
ma
y
pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
su
r
v
i
v
o
r
be
n
e
f
i
t
)
~
No
CO
L
A
~
To
w
n
w
i
l
l
w
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
f
r
o
m
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
in
C
h
.
17
5
9
co
co
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Re
f
o
r
m
:
W
h
a
t
M
i
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
Ha
s
Do
n
e
Mi
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
(2
0
1
0
)
-
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
•
Wa
g
e
fr
e
e
z
e
•
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
ch
a
n
g
e
s
f
o
r
al
l
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
:
~
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
pe
n
s
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
by
2%
~
5
ye
a
r
fi
n
a
l
av
e
r
a
g
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
(p
h
a
s
e
d
in
)
•
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
re
d
u
c
e
d
pe
n
s
i
o
n
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
f
o
r
hi
r
e
s
a
f
t
e
r
10/1/10:
~
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
No
r
m
a
l
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Ag
e
~
Re
d
u
c
e
d
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
r
fr
o
m
3%
t
o
2.
5
%
~
Re
d
u
c
e
d
Re
t
i
r
e
e
CO
L
A
f
r
o
m
2.
5
%
t
o
1.
5
%
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Re
f
o
r
m
:
W
h
a
t
M
i
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
Ha
s
Do
n
M
i
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
(2
0
1
0
)
-
Fi
r
e
an
d
Po
l
i
c
e
*
•
Re
d
u
c
e
d
wa
g
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
--
no
CO
L
A
'
s
fo
r
2.
5
ye
a
r
s
•
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
ch
a
n
g
e
s
fo
r
al
l
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
:
~
No
re
t
i
r
e
e
CO
L
A
fo
r
at
le
a
s
t
2
ye
a
r
s
fo
r
DR
O
P
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
~
~
Of
f
-
D
u
t
y
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
pe
n
s
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
~
Si
c
k
le
a
v
e
se
l
l
ba
c
k
•
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
re
d
u
c
e
d
pe
n
s
i
o
n
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
fo
r
hi
r
e
s
a
f
t
e
r
10/1/10
~
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Ag
e
~
Pu
s
h
e
d
ba
c
k
hi
g
h
e
r
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
r
(i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
fr
o
m
3%
t
o
4%) to year 20
in
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
ye
a
r
15
~
Fi
n
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
fr
o
m
2
t
o
3
ye
a
r
s
~
Re
t
i
r
e
e
CO
L
A
de
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
fr
o
m
2.
5
%
t
o
1.
5
%
*
li
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pe
n
d
i
n
g
41
Hy
b
r
i
d
Pl
a
n
{d
e
f
i
n
e
d
be
n
e
f
i
t
plan
pl
u
s
de
f
i
n
e
d
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
plan)
Is
s
u
e
s
t
o
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
•
Re
d
u
c
e
d
co
s
t
ov
e
r
t
i
m
e
~
•
Sh
a
r
i
n
g
o
f
ri
s
k
be
t
w
e
e
n
Ci
t
y
an
d
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
•
De
f
i
n
e
d
be
n
e
f
i
t
ba
s
e
p
l
a
n
-
gu
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
benefit
•
De
f
i
n
e
d
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
on
t
o
p
o
f
DB
plan
•
So
c
i
a
l
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
is
s
u
e
42
Jo
i
n
FR
S
fo
r
Ne
w
Hi
r
e
s
Is
s
u
e
s
to
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
•
Re
d
u
c
e
d
co
s
t
ov
e
r
t
i
m
e
(F
R
S
ra
t
e
s
li
k
e
l
y
go
i
n
g
up
)
•
Ci
t
y
mu
s
t
jo
i
n
So
c
i
a
l
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
as
a
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
jo
i
n
i
n
g
FRS
•
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d
FR
S
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
•
No
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
FR
S
(y
e
t
)
~
•
P
o
r
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
-
ea
s
i
e
r
f
o
r
Ci
t
y
t
o
at
t
r
a
c
t
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
fr
o
m
other
FR
S
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
(b
u
t
al
s
o
ea
s
i
e
r
f
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
FR
S
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
to hire
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
aw
a
y
)
•
No
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
sa
v
i
n
g
s
-
-
ma
y
ta
k
e
ma
n
y
ye
a
r
s
t
o
ac
h
i
e
v
e
co
s
t
sa
v
i
n
g
s
;
Ci
t
y
st
i
l
l
mu
s
t
pa
y
o
f
f
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
pl
a
n
li
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
and
ma
y
sh
o
r
t
e
n
am
o
r
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
pe
r
i
o
d
,
th
e
r
e
b
y
in
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
cost in
th
e
sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
•
Lo
s
e
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
•
St
a
t
e
le
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
se
t
s
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
an
d
co
r
)
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
3
CD
1\
,
)
J
I
I
I
fo
r
mp
l
o
y
e
e
s
II
F
Is
s
u
e
s
to
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
•
M
a
y
re
d
u
c
e
Ci
t
y
co
s
t
ov
e
r
ti
m
e
(F
R
S
ra
t
e
s
li
k
e
l
y
go
i
n
g
up)
•
Ci
t
y
mu
s
t
jo
i
n
So
c
i
a
l
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
as
a
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
jo
i
n
i
n
g
FRS
•
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ci
t
y
pl
a
n
s
fr
o
z
e
n
o
r
te
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
•
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d
FR
S
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
•
No
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
fo
r
FR
S
(y
e
t
)
•
Po
r
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
-
ea
s
i
e
r
fo
r
Ci
t
y
to
at
t
r
a
c
t
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
fr
o
m
other FRS
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
(b
u
t
al
s
o
ea
s
i
e
r
fo
r
o
t
h
e
r
FR
S
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
t
o
hire employees
aw
a
y
)
•
Ci
t
y
st
i
l
l
mu
s
t
pa
y
o
f
f
cu
r
r
e
n
t
pl
a
n
li
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
may shorten
am
o
r
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
pe
r
i
o
d
,
th
e
r
e
b
y
in
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
co
s
t
in
th
e
sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
•
Lo
s
e
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
•
St
a
t
e
le
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
se
t
s
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
an
d
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
•
Lo
s
e
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
•
St
a
t
e
le
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
se
t
s
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
an
d
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
4
CD
(
,
.
)
Re
d
u
c
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
f
o
r
Ne
w
Hires
(2
Ti
e
r
Pl
a
n
)
Is
s
u
e
s
to
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
•
Re
d
u
c
e
d
co
s
t
ov
e
r
t
i
m
e
•
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ke
e
p
cu
r
r
e
n
t
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
•
No
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
sa
v
i
n
g
s
-
-
ma
y
ta
k
e
ma
n
y
ye
a
r
s
t
o
achieve cost
s
a
v
i
n
g
s
-
sa
v
i
n
g
s
ar
e
ac
h
i
e
v
e
d
on
l
y
as
ne
w
st
a
f
f
ar
e
hired
•
Cr
e
a
t
e
s
lo
w
e
r
le
v
e
l
o
f
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
f
o
r
ne
w
hi
r
e
s
•
N
e
w
hi
r
e
s
ca
n
be
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
ev
e
n
t
u
a
l
l
y
pr
e
s
s
f
o
r
benefits
si
m
i
l
a
r
t
o
lo
n
g
e
r
te
n
u
r
e
d
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
No
t
e
:
Ci
t
y
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
a
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
pe
n
s
i
o
n
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to the
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
in
20
1
0
,
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
o
r
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
th
e
Fire and
Po
l
i
c
e
Pl
a
n
.
CD
~
Re
d
u
c
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
fo
r
Al
l
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Is
s
u
e
s
to
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
•
Im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
co
s
t
sa
v
i
n
g
s
•
Re
d
u
c
e
s
UA
A
L
•
Sa
m
e
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
f
o
r
al
l
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
go
i
n
g
fo
r
w
a
r
d
•
Re
d
u
c
e
s
f
u
t
u
r
e
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
f
o
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
(e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
ke
e
p
w
h
a
t
th
e
y
ha
v
e
al
r
e
a
d
y
ea
r
n
e
d
)
•
Lo
s
s
o
f
p
r
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
i
f
Fi
r
e
an
d
Po
l
i
c
e
Pl
a
n
benefits
re
d
u
c
e
d
b
e
l
o
w
Ch
.
1
7
5
/
1
8
5
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
s
No
t
e
:
Ci
t
y
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
and
5
yr
.
av
e
r
a
g
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
al
l
me
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
in 2010.
De
f
i
n
e
d
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
Is
s
u
e
s
to
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
•
Pr
e
d
i
c
t
a
b
l
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
co
s
t
s
•
Ci
t
y
do
e
s
no
t
be
a
r
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
ri
s
k
•
Ap
p
e
a
l
s
to
yo
u
n
g
e
r
,
mo
b
i
l
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
•
P
o
r
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
-
DC
ac
c
o
u
n
t
ba
l
a
n
c
e
ma
y
be
ur
o
l
l
e
d
ov
e
r
"
to
an IRA or
~
ot
h
e
r
re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
pl
a
n
wi
t
h
an
o
t
h
e
r
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
•
Lo
w
e
r
ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
co
s
t
s
•
No
ac
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
li
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
-
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
be
a
r
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
ri
s
k
•
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
th
a
t
DC
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
wi
l
l
ru
n
ou
t
wh
i
l
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
is
still alive
•
No
in
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(C
O
L
A
)
•
Lo
s
s
o
f
pr
e
m
i
u
m
ta
x
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
fo
r
Fi
r
e
an
d
Po
l
i
c
e
Pl
a
n
s
•
Be
n
e
f
i
t
wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
to
ex
c
e
e
d
so
c
i
a
l
se
c
u
r
i
t
y
to
be
co
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
47
('-.
Vl c
0 ·-
96
V)
ClJ
ClJ > 0 c -ro a.-Ea..
UJ+-' c
..c Q)
~ E
QJ Q)
co -~ +-'
·-QJ E a::
ro ·-~
97
·-
>
H is
t
o
r
i
c
a
I
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
•
A
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Sy
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
wa
s
cr
e
a
t
e
d
by
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
o
f
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
18
6
9
1
,
La
w
s
o
f
Fl
o
r
i
d
a
,
Ac
t
s
o
f
1937
~
•
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
1,
1
9
5
5
-
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
CM
B
and
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
G
o
v
'
t
,
So
c
i
a
l
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
ex
e
m
p
t
i
n
g
Ci
t
y
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
f
r
o
m
pa
y
i
n
g
So
c
i
a
l
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
Ta
x
e
s
•
In
Ma
r
c
h
19
8
8
th
e
Un
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
&
El
e
c
t
e
d
Officials
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Sy
s
t
e
m
wa
s
cr
e
a
t
e
d
H is
t
o
r
i
c
a
I
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
•
In
Ma
r
c
h
20
0
6
t
h
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Sy
s
t
e
m
an
d
t
h
e
Un
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
&
El
e
c
t
e
d
Of
f
i
c
i
a
l
s
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Sy
s
t
e
m
me
r
g
e
d
to
~
cr
e
a
t
e
t
h
e
M
i
a
m
i
Be
a
c
h
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
'
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
(M
B
E
R
P
)
•
Al
s
o
,
at
th
i
s
t
i
m
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
30
0
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
mi
g
r
a
t
e
d
fr
o
m
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
'
s
de
f
i
n
e
d
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
pl
a
n
in
t
o
MB
E
R
P
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
Bo
a
r
d
o
f
Tr
u
s
t
e
e
s
•
MB
E
R
P
is
a
Pl
a
n
an
d
sh
a
l
l
be
co
n
s
t
r
u
e
d
as a
Tr
u
s
t
an
d
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
by
t
h
e
Bo
a
r
d
•
Ni
n
e
(9
)
Tr
u
s
t
e
e
s
:
g
-
T
h
r
e
e
{3
)
Me
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
th
e
Pl
a
n
el
e
c
t
e
d
by
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
me
m
b
e
r
s
;
-
T
w
o
(2
)
Re
t
i
r
a
n
t
s
el
e
c
t
e
d
by
th
e
re
t
i
r
e
d
me
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
th
e
Pl
a
n
;
-
F
o
u
r
(4
)
pe
r
s
o
n
s
ap
p
o
i
n
t
e
d
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
0
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
Du
t
i
e
s
o
f
th
e
Bo
a
r
d
o
f
Tr
u
s
t
e
e
s
•
Ho
l
d
re
g
u
l
a
r
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
•
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
ru
l
e
s
an
d
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
pe
n
s
i
o
n
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
,
an
d
fo
r
m
u
l
a
t
e
po
l
i
c
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
pr
o
p
e
r
ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
th
e
Pl
a
n
•
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
al
l
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
lu
m
p
su
m
s
,
ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
•
Hi
r
e
Ac
t
u
a
r
y
,
Bo
a
r
d
le
g
a
l
co
u
n
s
e
l
,
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
,
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
s
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
Du
t
i
e
s
o
f
Bo
a
r
d
o
f
Tr
u
s
t
e
e
s
(C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
•
Le
g
a
l
Cu
s
t
o
d
i
a
n
o
f
al
l
ca
s
h
&
se
c
u
r
i
t
i
e
s
of the
Pl
a
n
•
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
an
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
~
•
Ca
u
s
e
an
a
u
d
i
t
o
f
t
h
e
Pl
a
n
an
n
u
a
l
l
y
by
an
in
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
CP
A
•
Is
s
u
e
an
n
u
a
l
l
y
an
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
St
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
ea
c
h
M
e
m
b
e
r
Du
t
i
e
s
o
f
th
e
Pe
n
s
i
o
n
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
•
Th
e
ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
th
e
Pl
a
n
.
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
:
-
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
an
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
re
c
o
r
d
s
on
al
l
me
m
b
e
r
s
E
-
V
e
r
i
f
y
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
-
Re
c
e
i
v
e
an
d
co
m
p
u
t
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
cr
e
d
i
t
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
-
N
o
t
i
f
y
Bo
a
r
d
o
f
an
y
ne
w
me
m
b
e
r
s
,
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
-
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
nu
m
e
r
o
u
s
re
c
o
r
d
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
Ci
t
y
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
,
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
re
t
u
r
n
s
an
d
ot
h
e
r
fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
re
c
o
r
d
s
th
e
Bo
a
r
d
de
e
m
s
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
MB
E
R
P
'
s
Ve
n
d
o
r
s
•
Bo
a
r
d
'
s
Le
g
a
l
Co
u
n
s
e
l
-
S
t
e
v
e
Cy
p
e
n
,
Cy
p
e
n
&
Cy
p
e
n
•
Pl
a
n
A
c
t
u
a
r
y
-
St
e
v
e
Pa
l
m
q
u
i
s
t
,
Ga
b
r
i
e
l
~
Ro
e
d
e
r
Sm
i
t
h
In
c
.
•
Pl
a
n
'
s
ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
-
Go
l
d
s
t
e
i
n
Sc
h
e
c
h
t
e
r
Ko
c
h
•
Fu
n
d
'
s
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
-
Bi
l
l
Co
t
t
l
e
,
M
i
l
l
i
m
a
n
In
c
.
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
0 01
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
de
t
a
i
l
s
of
th
e
Pl
a
n
•
In
d
e
x
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
s
•
Rh
u
m
b
l
i
n
e
Ad
v
i
s
e
r
s
•
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
:
-
S&
P
50
0
,
La
r
g
e
Ca
p
Eq
u
i
t
y
-
S&
P
40
0
,
M
i
d
Ca
p
Eq
u
i
t
y
-
S&
P
60
0
,
Sm
a
l
l
Ca
p
Eq
u
i
t
y
-
Ba
r
c
l
a
y
s
ag
g
r
e
g
a
t
e
bo
n
d
fu
n
d
-
AD
R
ln
t
'
l
l
n
d
e
x
•
Ac
t
i
v
e
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
s
•
IC
C
-
La
r
g
e
Ca
p
Va
l
u
e
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
•
W
e
n
t
w
o
r
t
h
Ha
u
s
e
r
Vi
o
l
i
c
h
-
AD
R
In
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
•
We
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
-
C
o
r
e
bo
n
d
fu
n
d
ma
n
a
g
e
r
10
0
%
~
-
90
%
+
-
-
-
80
%
~
-
70
%
-
+
-
-
!
-
-
60
%
~-
-
~
50
%
4
-
l
-
40
%
-
+
-
-
30
%
~
-
20
%
~
-
10
%
4
-
l
-
0%
~
-
In
d
e
x
/
A
c
t
i
v
e
Eq
u
i
t
y
/
F
i
x
e
d
Income
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
0 CD
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
de
t
a
i
l
s
o
f
th
e
Pl
a
n
Ac
t
u
a
l
As
s
e
t
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
0
111
La
r
g
e
Ca
p
Eq
u
i
t
y
-
40.1%
I
I
Mi
d
Ca
p
Eq
u
i
t
y
-
9.0%
Sm
a
l
l
Ca
p
Eq
u
i
t
y
-
4.4%
Il
l
Fi
x
e
d
In
c
o
m
e
-
26.9%
ln
t
•
l
Eq
u
i
t
y
-
19.5%
Ca
s
h
-
.1
%
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
0
..
.
.
.
.
.
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
de
t
a
i
l
s
of
th
e
Pl
a
n
Ma
r
k
e
t
Va
l
u
e
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
~-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
§
y
y
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
'\
-
"
)
;
")
;
!>
<
co
'b
~
v
");
!>
<
co
'b
~
'\
-
"
)
;
")
;
!>
<
co
'b
~
'\
-
"
)
;
")
;
!>
<
$426,959,551.90 ~Series2 ..,.,._Series1
Re
c
e
n
t
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Ra
t
e
o
f
Re
t
u
r
n
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
0 CD
Fu
n
d
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
fi
s
c
a
l
ye
a
r
10
-
0
1
-
1
0
TO
9-
3
0
-
1
1
IC
C
LA
R
G
E
tA
P
VA
L
U
E
1.
1
%
19
.
1
%
Rh
u
m
b
l
i
n
e
S&
P
50
0
In
d
e
x
5.
9
%
17
.
3
%
Rh
u
m
b
l
i
n
e
s&
P
40
0
In
d
e
x
9.
4
%
24
.
2
%
Rh
u
m
b
l
i
n
e
S&
P
60
0
In
d
e
x
7.
7
%
25
.
1
%
WH
V
I
n
t
1 lA
D
R
pb
t
t
f
o
l
i
o
5.
1
%
21
.
2
%
Rh
u
m
b
l
i
n
e
AD
R
ln
t
'
l
l
n
d
e
x
4.
1
%
11
.
9
%
Rh
u
m
b
l
i
n
e
Ba
r
c
l
a
y
;
s
Ag
g
In
d
e
x
.4
%
(.
9
%
)
We
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
Co
t
e
IJ
o
n
d
fu
n
d
··
·
p
u
n
a
ef
!
n
c
h
m
a
r
11
.
1
%
To
t
a
l
t=
u
n
d
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
0
vs
.
To
t
a
l
Fu
n
d
s
·l
=
u
i
l
d
Be
h
t
H
m
a
r
k
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
vs
.
To
t
a
l
Fu
n
d
s
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Fu
n
d
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
@
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
0
8.
0
%
11
.
9
9.
1
%
14
.
5
%
19
.
6
%
1.
9
%
3.
5
%
5.
1
%
6.
1
%
%
8
9
34
16
16
35
28
28
23
6.
1
%
11
.
0
88
%
•
·.
d
13
.
6
%
11
.
5
%
1.
4
%
2J
5
%
4.
3
%
5.
1
%
%
23
15
39
26
34
44
47
53
55
5.1% 28 4.3% 57
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
@0
9
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
WH
V
We
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
IC
C
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Rh
u
m
b
l
i
n
e
Ad
v
i
s
e
r
s
.t
o
t
a
l
Mn
g
r
.
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Fe
e
s
-
M
i
l
l
i
m
a
n
i
eu
s
t
o
d
f
a
t
Fe
e
s
{
t=
r
t
To
t
a
l
l
n
v
e
s
t
r
n
e
n
t
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
80
-
1
0
0
ba
s
i
s
pt
s
on
MV
$2
1
5
,
6
4
5
25
ba
s
i
s
pt
s
on
MV
$1
7
0
,
9
6
1
35
ba
s
i
s
pt
s
on
MV
$1
6
6
;
76
7
3
-
5
ba
s
i
s
pt
s
on
MV
$
69
,
8
0
9
$6
8
3
j
1
8
2
$6
8
,
9
0
0
$3
9
,
3
3
9
$7
9
1
,
4
2
1
Ke
y
Ac
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
St
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
Re
c
e
n
t
Hi
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
Ac
t
u
a
l
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
.1
(
)
..
()
1
-
9
8
09
-
3
0
-
0
0
$6
6
6
,
8
9
7
2.
6
6
%
10
-
0
1
-
9
9
09
-
3
0
-
0
1
0
0
10
~
0
1
~
0
0
09
<
3
0
-
0
2
0
0
10
-
0
1
-
0
1
09
-
3
0
-
0
3
0
0
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
10
-
0
1
-
-
0
2
09
-
~
0
-
0
4
$2
,
4
7
6
,
7
0
2
8.
1
6
%
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
1\
.
)
10
-
0
1
-
0
3
09
-
3
0
-
0
5
$5
,
0
8
2
;
5
9
5
14
.
7
4
%
10
-
o
i
~
o
4
09
-
3
0
-
0
6
$5
,
5
0
0
,
3
2
9
15
.
8
9
%
10
-
0
1
-
0
5
09
-
3
0
-
0
7
$1
3
,
0
5
3
,
2
3
1
23
.
1
1
%
. .
:
.
··
a
o
<
o
l
o
a
<
·~:
"
:
-
'•
.
"
'
.-
:
:·
..
o9
-
a
o
~
o
g
$1
3
;
9
1
1
,
5
4
5
24
.
2
4
%
10
-
0
1
-
0
7
09
-
3
0
-
0
9
$1
2
,
8
6
3
,
8
2
3
21
.
5
7
%
1o
... o1
-
o
a
gg
-
3
(
)
~
1
0
$1
1
,
1
~
7
1
3
9
4
25
.
2
0
%
10
-
0
1
-
0
9
09
-
3
0
-
1
1
$1
4
,
4
7
4
,
6
7
8
20
.
6
5
%
to
-
o
i
"
-
i
o
09
-
3
0
-
1
2
$1
1
,
5
1
7
,
8
3
6
25
.
5
4
%
AV
G
%
of
PR
13
.
7
8
%
010l/1/01*
600l/1/01
0 800l/1/01 ·-+-' ro LOOZ/1/01 a: 900l/1/01
-c SOOZ/1/01 Q)
-c 1700l/1/01
c EOOZ/1/01
::l ZOOZ/1/01 LL
100l/1/01
OOOZ/1/01
6661/1/01
8661/1/01
'*-'*-'*-'*-'*-'*-'*-0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N 0 00 r...o o::::t N
or-! or-!
113
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
~
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
o
f
Pl
a
n
N
e
t
As
s
e
t
s
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
t
Me
m
b
e
r
s
Me
m
b
e
r
s
-
-
At
l
d
i
t
i
b
h
a
l
2%
Ci
t
y
To
t
a
l
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
In
c
o
m
e
:
.
~e
f
A
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
ih
FM
V
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
an
d
Di
v
i
d
e
n
d
s
Ot
h
e
r
·
·
To
t
a
l
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
ih
c
6
r
n
e
Le
s
s
t
In
V
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
Ne
t
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
In
c
o
m
e
{l
o
s
s
)
Tt
J
t
a
l
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
$6
,
4
1
4
,
7
4
3
$
43
1
,
7
6
9
$1
7
,
1
3
7
,
3
9
4
$2
3
,
9
8
3
,
9
0
6
$3
5
j
79
1
,
1
2
5
$
3,
9
3
0
,
4
6
1
, ...
.
.
$5
8
,
5
8
0
$3
9
,
7
8
0
,
1
6
6
/.
J$
7
9
1
,
4
2
1
)
$3
8
,
9
8
8
,
7
4
5
$6
2
,
9
7
2
,
6
5
1
$6
,
8
2
0
,
0
6
4
$1
2
,
8
6
3
,
8
2
3
$1
9
,
6
8
3
,
8
8
7
($
6
,
2
0
1
,
9
2
3
)
$3
,
7
6
0
,
6
6
3
$7
8
,
.
2
9
9
($
3
,
0
1
9
,
8
2
5
)
($
6
5
6
,
8
6
4
)
($
3
,
0
1
9
,
8
2
5
)
$1
6
,
6
6
4
,
0
6
2
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
01
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
o
f
Pl
a
n
Ne
t
As
s
e
t
s
(c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
P~
n
s
i
o
n
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
pa
i
d
$3
1
,
8
1
2
,
1
9
5
Re
f
u
n
d
of
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
$5
7
9
,
7
0
9
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
ou
t
,
ne
t
$4
0
8
,
1
6
4
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
$7
0
5
,
4
8
2
To
t
a
l
de
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
$3
3
,
5
6
5
,
5
5
0
Ne
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
(d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
)
$2
9
,
4
0
7
,
1
0
1
',
N
e
t
ass
~
t
s
he
l
d
tn
tr
u
s
t
fo
r
~en
e
f
i
s
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
of
ye
a
r
En
d
o
f
ye
a
t
$3
4
9
,
4
1
6
,
0
6
4
$3
7
8
,
8
2
3
,
1
6
5
$2
9
,
3
4
6
/
7
9
0
$7
5
2
,
4
1
5
$5
1
,
9
9
9
$6
7
5
,
5
9
0
$3
0
,
8
3
2
,
7
9
4
($
1
4
,
1
6
8
,
73
2
)
$3
6
3
,
5
8
4
,
7
9
6
$3
4
9
,
4
1
6
,
0
6
4
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
CD
Ke
y
St
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
o
f
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
Nu
m
b
e
r
(N
o
n
-
D
R
O
P
)
Co
v
e
r
e
d
An
n
u
a
l
No
n
-
D
R
O
P
Pa
y
r
o
l
l
:A
v
e
r
a
g
e
An
h
u
a
l
No
n
-
D
R
O
P
Pa
y
To
t
a
l
Co
v
e
r
e
d
An
n
u
a
l
Pa
y
r
o
l
l
<A
v
e
r
a
g
e
An
n
u
a
l
Pa
y
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Ag
e
"A
v
e
f
a
g
e
Pa
s
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Ag
e
at
Hi
r
e
An
n
u
a
l
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
:iA
y
~
r
§
g
~
Anf
t
u
~
l
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Ag
e
an
t
Da
t
a
1;
1
1
1
$6
8
,
5
8
6
,
8
1
8
$6
1
;
4
0
3
$7
2
;
1
5
9
,
2
2
1
$6
1
,
8
8
6
44
.
1
8.
8
35
.
3
$2
,
5
0
5
,
7
1
3
$5
1
,
1
3
7
58
.
6
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
Nu
m
b
e
r
An
n
u
a
l
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Av
~
t
a
g
e
An
n
u
a
l
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Ag
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
<A
n
n
o
a
t
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
An
n
u
a
l
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Av
e
f
a
g
e
A
g
~
Ke
y
St
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
Da
t
a
98
1
$2
9
,
2
2
4
,
1
0
8
$2
9
,
7
9
0
71
.
3
40
$9
4
7
,
3
2
9
$2
2
,
8
3
8
66
.
1
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
..
.
.
l
l
o
.
(
)
0
Su
m
m
a
r
y
of
MB
E
R
P
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Me
m
b
e
r
s
No
r
m
a
l
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Da
t
e
Ea
r
l
y
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
*
FA
M
E
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
r
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
%
ac
c
r
u
e
d
DR
O
P
CO
L
A
fo
r
re
t
i
r
e
e
s
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
co
n
t
r
i
B
u
t
i
o
n
%
~
-·
-
.
.
.
12
1
1(
)
6
9
Ag
e
50
w
i
t
h
5
ye
a
r
s
Ag
e
55
w
i
t
h
5
ye
a
r
s
Mi
n
.
ag
e
50
;
ru
l
e
of
N/A
75
Hi
g
h
e
s
t
2
-
5
ye
a
r
s
Hi
g
h
e
s
t
2
-
5
ye
a
r
s
3%
3%
90
%
/
8
0
%
80
%
Mh
t
ag
e
50
,
3y
r
Ma
x
M
i
t
t
ag
e
55
,
3y
t
Ma
x
2.
5
0
%
2.
5
0
%
12
%
10
%
·~. su
b
j
e
t
t
l
c
f
a
c
t
u
a
f
i
a
l
ca
l
e
u
l
a
t
i
o
h
20
Ag
e
55
with 30 yrs or
62
with 5 yrs
Mi
n
.
ag
e
ss, rule of 75
Hi
g
h
e
s
t
5 years 2.50% 80%
Mi
n
.
age 55 w/30
ye
s
,
5 yr Max 1.50% 10%
BAC MeetingFrom:
sent:
To:
subject:
Pensions
Importance: High
BAC Meeting
Inguanzo, Ramiro
Monday, September 19, 2011 8:45 AM
City Wide
Budget Advisory committee meeting regarding
The City's Budget Advisory committee (BAC) -made up of representatives
appointed by the Mayor and city commission -have been tasked by the Mayor and
city commission to undertake a review of both of the city's pension plans and
make possible recommendations for changes or alternatives to our current plans.
These recommendations will then be shared with the city for consideration. The
BAC has been meeting with several stakeholders for both pension plans
(actuaries, attorneys, pension board administrators, as well as others) the past
several months to gather information.
At their next meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, September 20th in the city
Manager's Large conference Room, the BAC has extended an invitation to all of
the union Leadership and employees to provide an opportunity to present to the
BAC any potential cost savings suggestions/alternatives/ideas pertaining to
pension reform.
At this time, we anticipate that Police and Fire will be presenting first and
then at approximately 5:00 pm presentations from the general employee union
leadership and general unclassified employees will commence.
This is an excellent opportunity to share your thoughts and ideas with the BAC,
as they have been tasked with providing the City commission with formal
recommendations pertaining to pension reform for both of the City's pension
plans.
Thank you.
MIAMI BEACH
Ramiro J. Inguanzo, Human Resources Director
Department of Human Resources
1700 convention center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Tel: 305-673-7000, Ext. 6697 I Fax: 786-394-4145/ www.miamibeachfl.gov
we are committed to providin~ excellent public service and safety to all who
live, work and play in our v1brant, tropical, historic community.
Page 1
119
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
AFFORDABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
DRAFT GUIDELINE ST ATEMENT(S):
If the City's portion of the total annual cost of retirement benefits contribution exceeds 25.02
percent of payroll for general employees and 72.76 percent of payroll for high risk employees,
the City should review and evaluate changes to bargaining agreements, for the next contract
negotiations, that identify potential approaches to reduce the contributions to these levels
over the long term.
DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT(S):
The City shall fund at least the normal cost of pension or. If this exceeds the amount of the
actuarially determined Annual Required Contribution, the excess should be placed in a
pension stabilization fund, to be made available for future pension shortfalls.
Background/Rationale:
Pension plans require annual contributions from plan sponsors (i.e., municipal governments) and
participants in order to maintain their funding levels. Ideally, those contributions are only necessary to
pay for future benefits that were earned by participants in the current year. That amount is referred to
as the normal contribution. Normal contributions increase as plans provide more generous benefits,
make benefits available to more individuals, and reduce the number of years someone needs to work
or lower the age when the plan will begin to pay benefits.
Underfunded pension plans require an additional contribution in order to eventually eliminate their
unfunded liabilities. When pension plans are underfunded, annual contributions need to include the
normal contribution and an additional contribution to pay down the unfunded portion of the liability.
Therefore, if two pension plans have equal benefit policies and equal employee characteristics but
one is 75 percent funded and the other is 1 00 percent funded, the plan that is 75 percent funded will
require a larger annual contribution in order to pay down its unfunded liability. Plan sponsors do not
have to make up the entire unfunded portion of the liability in a single year. In most cases, that
amount would be too costly for governments to pay in full. Instead, a professional actuary establishes
a payment schedule that allows the sponsor to pay off the unfunded portion of the liability over as
many as 30 years. In short, plans with large unfunded liabilities will pay more in annual pension costs.
The combination of the normal cost funding requirement and the payment for amortization of the
unfunded liability results in a combined Annual Required Contribution (ARC) that the City is required
to pay to each pension plan for the next fiscal year. Typically, this is expressed as a percent of the
payroll applicable to the particular pension plan to allow comparability from year to year as well as to
other pension plans.
Current Conditions:
1
120
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
City of Miami Beach pension contributions as a percent of payroll as of the 10/1/10 valuation reports:
Fire and Police Pension Plan: 72.76%%
Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan: 25.02%
Fire and Police Pension Plan Normal Cost: 32.59%%
Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan Normal Cost: 1 0.80%
At this time, the negotiated changes to the Fire and Police Pension Plan are under litigation.
However, the projections provided by the Fire and Police Pension Plan actuary regarding the impact
of changes collectively bargained for new employees were minimal. In addition, assuming all
actuarial projections were met from FY 2010/11 forward, the ARC as a percent of payroll is projected
to increase to 81.05% by Fiscal Year 2017 contribution.
The Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan actuary projected that the 201 0 changes to the plan for
new employees would decrease the unfunded liability payment by approximately $6 million-5.78% of
payroll after 1 0 years. Even with this decrease, and assuming all actuarial projections were met from
FY 2010/11 forward, the ARC as a percent of payroll is projected to increase to 37.12% by Fiscal
Year 2017 contribution, thereafter declining each year.
Comparison to Florida Retirement System and Comparative Local
Jurisdictions:
T t I t f f o a annua employer cos o re 1remen tb f "b f f ene 1ts contn u •on as a percent o payro II
Jurisdiction High Risk Employees General Employees
Boca Raton 52.72% 19.81%
Coral Gables 49.1%
Coral Springs Police: 87.98%
Fire 28.02%
Fort Lauderdale 49% 32.75%
Plan closed for new hires
1 0/1/2007-3/5/2008
Now defined contribution
Hialeah 32.59%
Hollywood Police: 84.41% 36.14%
Fire 127.03% (Plans are now frozen for
(Plans are now frozen and new General Fund Employees and
plans with lower benefits new plans with lower benefits
became effective 10/1/11) became effective 10/1/11)
2
121
Miami
North Miami
North Miami Beach
Pompano
Tamarac
FRS
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
30.21% 32.14%
38.59% 21.39%
55.45% 28.8%
14.1%7/1/11 4.91% 7/1/11
(includes Miami Dade County, 19.56%7/1/12 6.58% 7/1/12
Miami Lakes, Pinecrest, Wilton
Manors)
Other Information:
3
122
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT:
The City should strive to maintain a funded ratio of at least 80 percent for each of its defined
benefit pension plans
DRAFT GUIDELINE STATEMENT(S):
If the funded ratio (actuarial value of assets minus actuarial liabilities) of either of the City of
Miami Beach's pension plans falls below 70 percent, the City should strive to implement
approaches to increase the funded ratio to that level over 5 years
Background/Rationale:
Each year, the City receives independent actuarial reports for each of the City's two pension plans.
The actuarial valuation of the pension plan is a mathematical determination of the financial condition
of the plan, which includes the computation of the present monetary value of benefits payable to
present members, and the present monetary value of future employer and employee contributions,
considering the expected mortality rates among employees and retirees, rates of disability, retirement
age, withdrawal from service, salary increases, investment earnings and value of assets.
As part of the annual actuarial valuation for each plan based on plan data as of October 1, the
Actuary evaluates how the actual data for the preceding year compared to the actuarial valuation for
that year. Any differences are reflected as gains or losses in unfunded liability. The unfunded liability
for a plan is the difference between the benefits earned (accrued) and the assets of the plan on a
given date, and is typically amortized and funded over 30 years. The amortization methodology
varies by plan. In the Fire and Police Pension Plan, the amortization is based on increased payments
in proportion to assumed future payroll growth. In the MBERP, an assumption of level amortization
payments is used.
The unfunded liability of the plan is the actuarial accrued liability less the plan actuarial assets. This
amount is expected to have year by year fluctuations; however, if the plan's assumptions are consistent
with the plans long term experience, the changes in the unfunded liability should be offsetting over the life
of the plan. In contrast to the market value of the pension plan assets, the actuarial value of the pension
plan assets is equal to the market value of the assets at a specific data, adjusted to reflect a five year
phase-in (or smoothing) of any asset experience gain or loss. The 5-year smoothing of pension plan asset
value means that only 20% of the experience gain or loss that the fund experiences in any one year is
recognized immediately for the purpose of determining the actuarial value of the plan and the annual
required contribution.
The percent of the actuarial accrued liability funded is a measure of a pension fund's fiscal health. It
compares assets to pension obligations. A percentage over 1 00% means the fund has more money than it
needs to meet its obligations at that point in time.
4
123
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
Current Conditions:
City of Miami Beach funding levels as of the 10/1/10 valuation reports:
Fire and Police Pension Plan: 64.3%
Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan: 74.4%
Comparison to Florida Retirement System and Comparative Local
Jurisdictions:
Funded Ratio
Jurisdiction High Risk Employees General Employees
Boca Raton 70.26% 91.38%
Coral Gables 57.5%
Coral Springs Police 77.77%
Fire: 79.65%
Fort Lauderdale 77.4% 70.7%
Plan closed for new hires
1 0/1/2007-3/5/2008
Now defined contribution
Hialeah 75.03% 75.03%
Hollywood Police 53.5% 63.78%
Fire 37.3% (Plans are now frozen for
(Plans are now frozen and new General Fund Employees and
plans with lower benefits new plans with lower benefits
became effective 1 0/1/11)_ became effective 10/1/11)
Miami
North Miami 68.6% 75.6%
North Miami Beach
Pompano 69.8% 74.2%
Tamarac 63.3% 77.96%
FRS
(includes Miami Dade County, 87.1%
Miami Lakes, Pinecrest, Wilton (7/1/11)
Manors)
5
124
Other Information:
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
The United States Postal Service Office of the Inspector General (June 18, 2010) concluded that 80
percent prefunding of pensions is reasonable based on the following:
• The Standard and Poor's companies' (S&P 500) median prefunding level for pensions in 2009
was 79 percent of liabilities. From 2001 through 2009, S&P 500's pension median prefunding
ranged from 73 to 112 percent.
• The aggregate prefunding for states' pensions in 2008 was also 79 percent. From 2001
through 2009, state governments' aggregate pension prefunding ranged from 59 to 90
percent.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that many experts consider at least 80 percent
prefunding to be sound for government pensions. (Source: The GAO's State and Local Government
Retiree Benefits Current Funded(5) The GAO's State and Local Government Retiree Benefits Current
Funded Status of Pension and Health Benefits, January 2008.)
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 considers pensions prefunded at less than 70 percent as being
"at risk" and attempts to protect such plans by commencing restrictions on corporate pension funds
only when prefunding is below 80 percent. ·
The 2011 report prepared by the Leroy Collins Institute at Florida State University for pension
systems across Florida assigned the following grades to pension plans based on percent funded.
GRADE PERCENT FUNDED
A More than 90% funded
B 80 to 90% funded
c 70 to 80% funded
D 60 to 70% funded
F Less than 60% funded
The following cities scored an "F" grade, according to the institute's study: Boynton Beach, Cooper
City, Fort Myers, Hollywood, Homestead, Jacksonville, Miramar, Oakland Park, Ocala, Oviedo, Palm
Beach Gardens, Panama City, Parkland, Plant City, Port Orange, Tamarac, Temple Terrace, Venice
and Winter Haven. The highest rated was Melbourne's general employee plan with 190.1 percent
funding, while Cooper City's general employee and police pension fund sat at the bottom with 35.48
percent funding. Pension funds that exceeded the 100% funded mark --Tallahassee's general,
Clearwater's firefighters, Gainesville's general, Key West's general, Palm Coast's firefighters,
Plantation's firefighters and Rockledge's general and police funds --have more than enough money
in the bank to cover projected payouts to former and current employees.
The federal government has funded its combined Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and
Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) pension obligations at only 41 percent of liabilities
and the military's prefunding for pensions is only 24 percent (Source: US Postal Service Office of The
Inspector General Report of Pension Funding, 2010).
6
125
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT(S):
Salary growth should not exceed the average actuarially assumed salary growth in each
pension plan
Background/Rationale:
Each year, the City receives independent actuarial reports for each of the City's two pension plans.
The actuarial valuation of the pension plan is a mathematical determination of the financial condition
of the plan, which includes the computation of the present monetary value of benefits payable to
present members, and the present monetary value of future employer and employee contributions,
considering the expected mortality rates among employees and retirees, rates of disability, retirement
age, withdrawal from service, salary increases, investment earnings and value of assets.
Each year, experience "gains" in the prior year reduces the actuarial accrued liability. Experience
"losses" for the prior year, conversely, increases the actuarial accrued liability. To the extent that
salary growth is more than the actuarial assumption for the plan, this would result in an experience
"loss" and add to the unfunded liability of the plan.
Salary growth can result from merit increases, automatic step adjustments to salaries annually, cost
of living adjustments impacting all employees or subsets or employees (COLA's), adjustments to
salary ranges based on compensation studies, etc.
Current Conditions:
Projected salary rate increases vary by age.
For the Fire and Police Pension Plan, the average long term assumption across all ages is 6 percent
per year.
For the Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan, the assumed increases are as follows:
Years of Service Merit and Seniority Base (Economic) Total Increase
1 4.0% 4.0% 8.0%
2 3.9% 4.0% 7.9%
3 3.8% 4.0% 7.8%
4 3.7% 4.0% 7.7%
5 3.6% 4.0% 7.6%
7
126
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21+
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
3.5% 4.0%
3.0% 4.0%
2.9% 4.0%
2.8% 4.0%
2.7% 4.0%
2.6% 4.0%
2.5% 4.0%
2.4% 4.0%
2.3% 4.0%
2.2% 4.0%
2.1% 4.0%
2.0% 4.0%
1.9% 4.0%
1.8% 4.0%
1.7% 4.0%
1.5% 4.0%
7.5%
7.0%
6.9%
6.8%
6.7%
6.6%
6.5%
6.4%
6.3%
6.2%
6.1%
6.0%
5.9%
5.8%
5.7%
5.5%
The pension board for the Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan recently approved a decrease in
the salary growth assumption for the 10/11/11 valuation to reflect the downturn in the economy and
the lower economic increases in recent years and likely into the future.
Comparison to Florida Retirement System and Comparative Local
Jurisdictions:
Not Applicable
8
127
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT(S):
The City should require 5, 10 and 20 year projections of required pension contributions as
part of the annual actuarial valuations for each plan. These projections shall be based on the
current actuarial assumptions for each plan. The projections shall be updated to reflect the
cost of any proposed benefit enhancement, before the Commission agrees to the
enhancement. The cost of these studies shall be funded separately from the annual
contribution to the pension plan
There shall be an experience study of each plan's actuarial assumptions performed by an
actuary independent of the pension board at least once every 3 years, to compare actual
experience to the assumptions. The actuary shall make recommendations for any changes in
assumptions based on the experience study, and any deviations from those assumptions by
the pension board shall be justified to the Commission.
Once pension reform is implemented, a 517th vote of the Commission should be required for
further pension changes.
Background/Rationale:
Changes to plan benefits can affect the actuarial accrued liability of a plan, either positively or
negatively. If plan benefits are increased, the mathematical calculations will result in more benefits
anticipated to be paid to plan members in the future, which will need to be recognized all at once,
although payments would be amortized over the long term. Conversely, if plan benefits are reduced,
all else being equal, the plan will see a reduction in the actuarial accrued liability.
Current Conditions:
N/A
Comparison to Florida Retirement System and Comparative Local
Jurisdictions:
N/A
9
128
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
APPROPRIATE BENEFITS TO PROVIDE TO EMPLOYEES
DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT(S):
The City of Miami Beach should strive to provide a retirement benefit that provides for a
replacement of salary at a level at least equivalent to social security plus a supplemental
retirement benefit
Background/Rationale:
96 percent of workers are covered by Social Security. The benefit payment is based on how much is
earned during your working career. Higher lifetime earnings result in higher benefits. If there were some
years when you did not work or had low earnings, your benefit amount may be lower than if you had
worked steadily. Security replaces about 40 percent of preretirement income for the average worker-The
average replacement rate for lower-paid workers equals about 55 percent of their pre-retirement earnings.
The average replacement rate for highly paid workers is about 25 percent.
Windfall Elimination Provision:
Before 1983, people who worked mainly in a job not covered by Social Security had their Social Security
benefits calculated as if they were long-term, low-wage workers. They had the advantage of receiving a
Social Security benefit representing a higher percentage of their earnings, plus a pension from a job where
they did not pay Social Security taxes. Congress passed the Windfall Elimination Provision to remove that
advantage.
Government Pension Offset
If you receive a pension from a federal, state or local government based on work where you did not pay
Social Security taxes, your Social Security spouse's or widow's or widower's benefits may be reduced by
two-thirds of your government pension.
(Source: social security website http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/1 0035.html
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/1 0045.html http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/1 0007.html)
Current Conditions:
The City of Miami Beach currently does not participate in Social Security. In evaluating proposed
changes to the City's pension plans, the fact that the City does not participate in Social Security must
be taken into account.
10
129
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
Comparison to Florida Retirement System and Comparative Local
Jurisdictions:
Participation in Social Security
Jurisdiction General Emplc:;,yees
Boca Raton Yes
Coral Gables Yes
Coral Springs Yes
Fort Lauderdale Yes
Hialeah Yes
Hollywood Yes
Miami
North Miami Yes
North Miami Beach Yes
Pompano Yes
Tamarac Yes
FRS Yes
(includes Miami Dade County,
Miami Lakes, Pinecrest, Wilton
Manors)
11
130
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15,2011
DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT(S):
City of Miami Beach retirement benefits should be adjusted periodically after retirement to
reflect the impacts of inflation, with rates no more than the Consumer Price Index for All
Workers -CPI(W}, subject to Commission approval, and with a maximum of 3 percent
annually.
Background/Rationale:
Most people are aware that there are annual increases in Social Security benefits to offset the effects of
inflation on fixed incomes. These increases, now known as Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs), are such
an accepted feature of the program that it is difficult to imagine a time when there were no COLAs.
Before 1975, beneficiaries had to await a special act of Congress to receive a benefit increase.
Beginning in 1975, Social Security started automatic annual cost-of-living allowances. The change was
enacted by legislation that ties COLAs to the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W).
(Source: social security website http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/1 0035.html
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10007.html)
Current Conditions:
Fire and Police Pension Plan
Employees hired before 10/1/10-2.5%
Employees hired on or after 10/1/10-1.5% with first adjustment deferred to 1 year after the
end of DROP or 2 mandatory 0 DROP COLAs
Miami Beach Employees Pension Plan
Employees hired before 10/1/10 -2.5%
Employees hired on or after 10/1/10-1.5%
12
131
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
Comparison to Florida Retirement System and Comparative Local
Jurisdictions:
OS 0 IVtnQ IJUS mens C t f l" . Ad" t t
Jurisdiction High Risk Employees General Employees
Boca Raton Not required -reviewed every Not required -reviewed every
odd year odd year
Coral Gables If investment returns are over 10%, then equal to half of CPI -
catch-up clause capped at 8%
Coral Springs 2.5% 1 % commences 5 years after
retirement or DROP entry
Fort Lauderdale COLA .. repealed Very Infrequent -only if actual prOVISIOn
7/15/2008 investment earnings exceed
assumptions
Plan closed for new hires
1 0/1 /2007-3/5/2008
Now defined contribution
Hialeah 2% for 1 0 years
Hollywood Police: None Only Enterprise employees
Fire None hired prior to 7/15/2009
(Plans are now frozen and new (Plans are now frozen for
plans with lower benefits General Fund Employees and
became effective 10/1/11) new plans with lower benefits
became effective 10/1/111
Miami
North Miami 1.92% with 1 year elimination 1.92% with 1 year elimination
period or 3% with 5 year period or 3% with 5 year
elimination period elimination period
North Miami Beach
Pompano 2% fixed Tier 1 2%
1% variable Tier 2 5 year waiting period
tiered 0-2% based on age
Tamarac Employees retiring before Up to 2% -solely funded from
3/1/07 = 2% after 3 years of actuarial gains
retirement
After 3/1/07 -2.25%. after 3
years of retirement
FRS
(includes Miami Dade County, 3% for benefits earned prior to 7/1/11
Miami Lakes, Pinecrest, Wilton None for benefits earned thereafter
Manors)_
Other Information:
13
132
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15,2011
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT(S):
The City of Miami Beach should strive to provide retirement benefits that ensures that the City
is competitive in recruitment and retention of employees
Background/Rationale:
Salary ranges for job classifications in City of Miami Beach are periodically reviewed to ensure
internal equity and external competitiveness. Internal equity refers to the relationships (duties, level of
responsibilities, salary, tenure, etc.) between positions within the same organization. External equity
refers to the relationships (duties, level of responsibilities, salary, tenure, etc.) between positions to
the external labor market, in both the public and private sectors. Benefits, including pension, are also
periodically reviewed.
Current Conditions:
In the past, particularly during period of low unemployment rates when competition for employees has
been tight, the City has targeted to set salaries in the 75 percentile of neighboring jurisdictions, and to
provide benefits similar to neighboring jurisdictions.
Comparison to Florida Retirement System and Comparative Local
Jurisdictions:
See survey of pension benefits provided by neighboring jurisdictions
In addition, the 2009 Classification and Compensation Study prepared by Condrey and Associates for
the City of Miami Beach concluded that "the City's retirement benefit, while generous, appears
appropriate considering the employee 8 percent contribution to the fund [based on a comparison to
other jurisdictions locally and throughout Florida.
14
133
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
MANAGEMENT OF RISK/RISK SHARING
DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT(S):
The City of Miami Beach should strive to share some portion of retirement benefit risk with
employees
DRAFT GUIDELINE STATEMENT(S):
If the City's contribution to a defined pension benefit plan exceeds 25.02 percent of payroll
for general employees and 72.76 percent of payroll for high risk employees, the employee
contribution should be increased
Background/Rationale:
Current Conditions:
Fire and Police Pension Plan:
Employee Contribution Rates - 1 0%
Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan
Employee Contribution Rates for employees hired prior to early 1990's -12%
Employee Contribution Rates for employees hired after early 1990's -10%
Comparison to Florida Retirement System and Comparative Local
Jurisdictions:
mp1oyee on ra uaon a es E C t "b f R t
Jurisdiction High Risk Employees General Employees
Boca Raton 10.2% Plans A&B 9.65%
Plan C6%
Coral Gables 5% 5-10%
Coral Springs Police 9.875%
Fire 8.75%
Fort Lauderdale Hired before 4-18-10 8.25% 6%
Hired after 4-18-10 8.5% Plan closed for new hires
1 0/1/2007-3/5/2008
Now defined contribution
Hialeah 0%
15
134
Hollywood
City of Miami Beach
Budget Advisory Committee
Pension Reform:
Draft Policy and Guideline Statements
As of December 15, 2011
Police 9.25% 9%
Fire 7.5%-8% (Plans are now frozen for
(Plans are now frozen and new General Fund Employees and
plans with lower benefits became new plans with lower benefits
effective 10/1/11) became effective 10/1/11)
Miami
North Miami 11.51% or 9.51% 7%
North Miami Beach 12% 7%
Pompano 11.6% Tier 1 10%
Tier2 7%
Tamarac 9% 7%
FRS 3% 3%
(includes Miami Dade
County, Miami Lakes,
Pinecrest, Wilton
Manors)
Note: Employees 1n soc1al secunty also contnbute to soc1al secunty
See page 1 for additional comparatives related to percent of payroll.
16
135
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITIEE
PENSION REFORM
POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR EVALUATION
FIRE AND POLICE PENSION PLAN
DRAFT AS OF 1/24/12
I. Florida Retirement System (FRS)+ Social Security-The BAC requested that this option be
evaluated separately based on the option being applied to a) new employees, and b) non-
vested existing employees.
[Legal complication: the FRS statute requires that when a city joins FRS .ill1 active members
of the city pension plan be given an opportunity to individually elect to join FRS or continue
participating in the city plan. The city would not be able to force non-vesteds to join FRS. It
is possible to achieve this result by freezing benefits under the city plan for non-vesteds
before joining FRS-but this could lead to social security issues. These issues are probably
resolvable, but would be complicated to work out. Recommendation: join FRS for new
hires, and let all current employees elect to stay in city plan or join FRS. Future benefit
accruals under the city plan could be reduced to encourage more current employees to
move to FRS].
II. Defined Contribution+ Social Security equivalent-The BAC requested that this option be
evaluated separately based on the option being applied to a) new employees, and b) non-
vested existing employees
The amount of contribution be the City would be equivalent to the amount of employer
contribution for the FRS investment plan= 17 percent employer contribution for high risk
plus an additional 7 percent for a total employer contribution of 24 percent, along with an
employee contribution of 3 percent plus a social security equivalent of approximately 6
percent for a total employee contribution of 9 percent.
Ill. Hybrid Plan-each option to be evaluated separately based on the option being applied to a)
new employees, and b) non-vested existing employees
A. Replace one half of the multiplier (1 and Yz% for the first 20 years and 2 percent
thereafter) with a defined contribution plan with matching requirements based on an
actuarially equivalent value-the normal cost as of the 10/1/10 valuation was 32.59
percent, resulting in an actuarially equivalent value of 16.3 percent as the City's
contribution.
The employees would continue to have a defined benefit with a multiplier of 1 and Yz
percent for the first 20 years and 2 percent thereafter.
B. Replace one third of the multiplier (1% for the first 20 years and 1 and 1/3% percent
thereafter) with a defined contribution plan with matching requirements based on an
actuarially equivalent value-the normal cost as of the 10/1/10 valuation was 32.59
136
percent, resulting in an actuarially equivalent value of 10.86 percent as the City's
contribution.
The employees would continue to have a defined benefit with a multiplier of 2 percent
for the first 20 years and 2 and 2/3 percent thereafter.
IV. Changes to the Existing Pension Plan Option A-Past Service/Future Service Approach (with
a combined benefit)
• Items previously identified by the City Actuary (Mike Tierney) as being the most
significant drivers of cost proposed for either: (1) new employees and those employees
who have not yet vested in the retirement plan (less than 10 years of service) and/or (2)
all employees who have not yet reached normal retirement age (Rule of 70)
• Retiree COLA
• reduce to 1.5% (consistent with general employees hired after 10/1/10
in the General Employee Retirement Plan); or
• reduce to 0% (for prospectively earned benefits consistent with FRS)
• Multiplier
• Reduce to 3% (consistent with FRS}; or
• Reduce to 2% (consistent with F.S. 175/185 minimum)
• Final Average Monthly Earnings (FAME)
• Highest 5 of last 10 years (consistent with F.S. 175/185 minimum and
FRS)
• Change Normal Retirement Age
• Age 55 with 10 years of service or age 52 with 25 years of service
(consistent with F.S. 175/185 minimum and FRS)
• Use 100% of 175/185 share plan to benefits provided by the defined benefit
pension plan
• Change spousal benefit to be consistent with FRS benefit
• Item to Evaluate proposal by Fire and Police Pension Plan Administration
• Eliminate provision that allows for transfer of years of service from Miami Beach
Employee Retirement Plan to Fire and Police Pension Plan
• Government Finance Officers Best Practice and Advisory Papers on Pension Reform
• Change purchase of service provisions to be based on actuarial provisions
• Eliminate "spiking" provisions by excluding "extraordinary" income (lump sums
payouts for sick, vacation, etc.-overtime and incentives-etc.)-evaluate each
component individually
137
V. Changes to the Existing Pension Plan Option B-Freeze current plan for past accruals and
create a new plan with new benefits (exempt an employee who is already at normal
retirement age)
• Items previously identified by the City Actuary (Mike Tierney) as being the most
significant drivers of cost proposed for either: (1) new employees and those employees
who have not yet vested in the retirement plan (less than 10 years of service) and/or (2)
all employees who have not yet reached normal retirement age (Rule of 70)
• Retiree COLA
• reduce to 1.5% (consistent with general employees hired after 10/1/10
in the General Employee Retirement Plan); or
• reduce to 0% (for prospectively earned benefits consistent with FRS)
• Multiplier
• Reduce to 3% (consistent with FRS); or
• Reduce to 2% (consistent with F.S. 175/185 minimum)
• Final Average Monthly Earnings (FAME)
• Highest 5 of last 10 years (consistent with F.S. 175/185 minimum and
FRS)
• Change Normal Retirement Age
• Age 55 with 10 years of service or age 52 with 25 years of service
(consistent with F.S. 175/185 minimum and FRS)
• Use 100% of 175/185 share plan to benefits provided by the defined benefit
pension plan
• Change spousal benefit to be consistent with FRS benefit
• Item to Evaluate proposal from Fire and Police Pension Plan Administration
• Eliminate provision that allows for transfer of years of service from Miami Beach
Employee Retirement Plan to Fire and Police Pension Plan
• Evaluate proposal based on Government Finance Officers Best Practice and Advisory
Papers on Pension Reform
• Change purchase of service provisions to be based on actuarial provisions
• Eliminate "spiking" provisions by excluding "extraordinary" income (lump sums
payouts for sick, vacation, etc.-overtime and incentives-etc.)-evaluate each
component individually
138
RESOLUTION NO., ______ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI
BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA) APPROVING THE MODIFICATION
OF THE TERMS OF THAT CERTAIN MORTGAGE AND PROMISSORY NOTE,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500,000, DATED FEBRUARY 5, 2007, GIVEN BY
MBCDC: MERIDIAN PLACE, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY
CORPORATION, AS MORTGAGOR, FOR FUNDS ADVANCED TO MBCDC BY
THE RDA FOR THE ACQUISITION OF MERIDIAN PLACE, 530 MERIDIAN
AVENUE, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA; SAID MODIFICATION RESTRUCTURING
THE REPAYMENT TERMS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER AFFORDABLE
HOUSING LOANS FROM THE CITY, WHICH DEFER THE REPAYMENT OF
THE DEBT DURING THE DOCUMENTED AFFORDABILITY PERIOD; FURTHER
APPROVING A SUBORDINATION OF SAID RDA NOTE AND MORTGAGE, IN
FAVOR OF A COMMERCIAL LENDER, TO BE DETERMINED BY MBCDC, FOR
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $980,000; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ALL APPLICABLE DOCUMENTATION.
WHEREAS, in order for MBCDC to be able to acquire the property known as Meridian Place,
located at 530 Meridian Avenue (the Property), it was necessary for MBCDC to request a loan, in
the amount of $1,500,000, from the RDA; and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2006, the RDA approved Resolution No. 538-2006, authorizing
an appropriation of South Pointe Redevelopment Area funds, in the amount of $1 ,500,000, to be
utilized by MBCDC for the purpose of the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Property to provide 34
units of affordable rental housing; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2007, a Mortgage and Security Agreement and a Promissory
Note were executed by MBCDC: Meridian Place, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation,
committing to a repayment schedule, in the annual amount of $150,000, commencing December 31,
2011, and continuing on each December 31, thereafter until paid in full (the RDA Mortgage); and
WHEREAS, in order to complete the total rehabilitation of the property and to meet HUD's
national objective, MBCDC obtained funding directly from U.S. HUD, the State of Florida, Miami-
Dade County, and the City of Miami Beach to cover the costs of construction; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2011 a Mortgage and Security Agreement, in the amount of
$2,864,642, was executed by MBCDC: Meridian Place, LLC, as mortgagor, securing the City's
HOME and CDBG funds (the City's Mortgage); and
WHEREAS, commercial bank financing will be necessary to cover a budget funding gap and
to provide financing until some of the other funding sources are received; and
WHEREAS, the project is not complete, and therefore does not generate cashflow to make
the current payment due under the RDA Mortgage; nor does the projected cashflow provide for
enough funds to service the debt while maintaining rent levels as required by the grant program; and
Agenda Item I A
139 Date 2-8-1 2,....
WHEREAS, the Administration recommended that the RDA loan repayment terms be
restructured to be consistent with other affordable housing grants (loans) from the City, which defer
the repayment of funding as long as a property is kept "affordable" in accordance with HUD
guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Property's "affordability period" is currently thirty (30) years, commencing at
the issuance of the Final Certificate of Completion; and
WHEREAS, the Administration also recommended, that at the expiration of the 30-year
affordability period, the City may be given the option to either forgive the loan payment, consistent
with typical affordable housing loans; extend the affordability period (e.g. another thirty years); or call
in the note; and
WHEREAS, the Administration also recommended that if at any time during the initial
deferral period the Property fails to comply with HUD's affordability requirements, title to the Property
reverts back to the City; and
WHEREAS, the Administration also recommended that should MBCDC receive GOB funds
from Miami-Dade County, District 5, then those funds shall be required to be used to reduce the
private bank loan debt, and affordable rents reduced accordingly; and
WHEREAS, the Administration is further recommending a subordination of the RDA
Mortgage, in favor of a commercial lender, to be determined by MBCDC, for an amount not to
exceed $980,000.
WHEREAS, at the January 19, 2012, Finance and Citywide Projects Committee meeting, the
Committee recommended that the item be brought to the RDA and that the funding chart be
presented as part of the discussion of the item during the RDA meeting on February 8, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS
OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the
Chairperson and Members of the RDA hereby approve the modification of the terms of that certain
Mortgage and Promissory Note, in the amount of $1,500,000, dated February 5, 2007, given by
MBCDC: Meridian Place, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, as mortgagor, for funds
advanced to MBCDC by the RDA for the acquisition of Meridian Place, 530 Meridian Avenue, Miami
Beach, Florida; said modification restructuring the repayment terms to be consistent with other
affordable housing loans from the City, which defer the repayment of the debt during the
documented affordability period; further approving a subordination of saidRDA Note and Mortgage,
in favor of a commercial lender, to be determined by MBCDC; and further authorizing the Executive
Director to execute all applicable documentation.
PASSED and ADOPTED this ___ day of ____ , 2012
ATTEST:
SECRETARY CHAIRPERSON
T:\AGENDA\2012\FEBRUARY 8\RDA\MERIDIAN RDA LOAN AMENDMENT RESO.DOC
140