• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

30ashopper

SoWal Insider
Apr 30, 2008
6,846
3,471
56
Right here!
30a shopper, I believe the file is too big to post as it is 4 different spread sheets. If I know who you are you are more than welcome to get a copy from me. Also, SWFD has a copy and it's now a public record. There are somethings on there that would not make sense and would need to be explained.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say with regards to special treatment and full retirement, but 21yrs is not full retirement in our plan. Sean would have had to work 25yrs to get full retirement. He is not currently able to collect those benifits due to age. That is what we were trying to point out. Sean spent pretty much his entire working career with the SWFD and was just shown to the curb. If he had done something wrong then I would understand, but it was explained by the chief as a pure budget reduction issue. In our retirement plan you have to work 10yrs to be vested. After that date you have earned some type of pension through the plan. Your compensation is based on the average of the highest 5 years of your last 10 employed, this excludes overtime and is just based on base salary. In Sean's case it would not have mattered anyway he was overtime exempt due to position. You are correct about benefits being tied to years of service. You get 4% per year worked up to 25yrs. Now, I am not on the pension board but I am a pensioneer so I am not an expert in all areas of our pension. It seems I learn new things every day about this system.

My point was that "full retirement" just means you get 100% of your last paycheck for the rest of your life. If the person laid off worked 21years, he'll receive 84%. He won't be living on the streets. ;-) It's unfortunate they couldn't have kept him on, the experience is obviously valuable. But as Bob has pointed out when the money isn't available it isn't available and so some hard decisions need to be made.

This illustrates one of the many flaws I see in these types of retirement systems - it is more cost effective to cut senior professionals. If we moved to a 401K style system the cost to the city to keep senior leadership would be substantially less so the district likely wouldn't let good folks go in times like these.
 

Henry Apfelbach

Beach Lover
May 14, 2011
61
13
That is not true. The District’s payment into the plan this year was 1.5 million, and next year it will be 1.3 million. The budget shortfall is projected to be 2.6 million and they saved a grand total of 200k letting go two senior people. Even if there were no retirement payments they would still have had to come up with a million. It is baseless statements like yours that make our pension plan seem like it’s bankrupting the government. You have to remember it takes both sides to agree to something for it to happen. It’s not like we held a gun to their head and demanded this pension plan. Also, as our investments do better the cheaper the plan gets for the district. That is not true for the percentage I pay, which will stay the same. It sounds to me like you’re the victim of a faulty syllogism; all defined benefit pensions are unsustainable, South Walton Fire District has a defined benefit pension system: therefore the SWFD defined benefit pension system is unsustainable.
It is stuff like this that is making what once was the most rewarding job in the world seem a lot less rewarding. I work with some of the bravest men and women and statements like that blaming budget woes on us is driving us away.
Also, Sean won't be collecting that 84% until he turns 55. He started young so I believe he has a few years before he reaches that age. We did let him go with nothing to show for it right now.
My earlier point was SWFD did this while we are in the process of looking into a "early out option" for some of our most senior guys and Sean would have been part of that package. So you be the judge, is that right or wrong? I understand that we need to make cuts to streamline the operation but if you could let this very senior loyal guy go with something rather than nothing what would be the harm in letting him stay employed until you figure out if the "early out" was a viable option.
 

Bob Hudson

Beach Fanatic
May 10, 2008
1,066
739
Santa Rosa Beach
He is 46 years old. His life expectancy is an additional 32.45 years and his probability of dying in the next year is 0.002375% All in the actuarial study data.

He is fully vested in the plan so he is hardly walking away with nothing.

It was posted that the two terminated employee's received in excess of 100,000 (not each but collectively) in accrued but unused annual leave and sick leave. Those payments would have come from the reserves the board has accumulated to pay those liabilities-not from operating cash or operating reserves.
 
Last edited:

Henry Apfelbach

Beach Lover
May 14, 2011
61
13
So, what does he do for the next 9 years? Not a whole lot of options in the job market these days. It's like I stated he has earned a pension when he reaches the age of 55, or 50 with a 3% per year penalty. So for "right now" he has nothing for monthly income. I am also pretty sure the lions share of that 115,000 payout was to cover Sean's unused PTO and comp time. He has that for now. I guess the question is if he had that much unused PTO why not let him stay on paid leave and see what happens with the pension plan. Bob, from our conversation in the past I got the feeling your about being fair.

Also, does this mean that what Brian told me at the meeting the other day about life expectancy was wrong? I also love how they know through math what our chances of dying are.
 

Henry Apfelbach

Beach Lover
May 14, 2011
61
13
Zohan, I hope we can keep the level of service the same. That being said, last year during the budget workshops when the reduction in service was discussed not one citizen stood up to speak against the reduction of service. Just to give you some history from 2001-2008 we operated with 3 ALS ambulances. During that time the call volume has not seen any big changes. So, could we go back to working with 3 ambulances? Probably. Is that the best level of service? No. Not having that extra ambulance changes the ammount of work the rest of us have to do and it changes levels of efficency while working at emergency scenes. I think the citizens of South Walton will have a say if they want. Just remember it costs money to run more people and trucks.
 

30ashopper

SoWal Insider
Apr 30, 2008
6,846
3,471
56
Right here!
That is not true. The District’s payment into the plan this year was 1.5 million, and next year it will be 1.3 million. The budget shortfall is projected to be 2.6 million and they saved a grand total of 200k letting go two senior people. Even if there were no retirement payments they would still have had to come up with a million. It is baseless statements like yours that make our pension plan seem like it’s bankrupting the government.

I didn't say the system was bankrupting government, I said I felt retirement systems like these have a lot of serious flaws. In the case of SWFD's pension system, the fund is "officially" underfunded to the tune of 37%. According to commentary by some of the folks who have seen the actuary report, that number is based on unrealistic growth calculations. So we can assume the real value is higher. You claim the system works, but the system is currently missing nearly half the funds it needs to provide all the benefits it has promised. That's not the result of a well designed system, those are typical results for systems that are designed and managed poorly.

If you would like to have a general discussion about the merits of defined benefit pensions, let's have it. Maybe though we should take it to another thread.

You have to remember it takes both sides to agree to something for it to happen.

I didn't specifically blame anyone. When defined benefit pension systems fail the blame can usually be spread around to all those involved as well as to the design of the system in question. The blame also tends to fall on the heads of people who are no longer involved in the management of the system because the lure of "kicking the can down the road" is usually pretty strong. I don't know the specifics of our current funding deficit problems for this particular pension system, so I really can't make comments that go beyond generalizations.

It’s not like we held a gun to their head and demanded this pension plan. Also, as our investments do better the cheaper the plan gets for the district. That is not true for the percentage I pay, which will stay the same. It sounds to me like you’re the victim of a faulty syllogism; all defined benefit pensions are unsustainable, South Walton Fire District has a defined benefit pension system: therefore the SWFD defined benefit pension system is unsustainable.

The SWFD fund is underfunded - ipso facto unsustainable in it's current state.

It is stuff like this that is making what once was the most rewarding job in the world seem a lot less rewarding. I work with some of the bravest men and women and statements like that blaming budget woes on us is driving us away.

No one has blamed our current budget woes on SWFD firemen in this thread. I'd ask that you please avoid placing them on a cross and holding them up to use as a shield against criticism. This is a discussion about budget shortfalls, the monetary shortfall of the current pension system fund, and the reasoning behind letting two senior people go to balance a yearly budget.

Also, Sean won't be collecting that 84% until he turns 55. He started young so I believe he has a few years before he reaches that age. We did let him go with nothing to show for it right now.

An unfortunate side effect of how defined benefit pension systems work.

My earlier point was SWFD did this while we are in the process of looking into a "early out option" for some of our most senior guys and Sean would have been part of that package. So you be the judge, is that right or wrong? I understand that we need to make cuts to streamline the operation but if you could let this very senior loyal guy go with something rather than nothing what would be the harm in letting him stay employed until you figure out if the "early out" was a viable option.

I can't speak to Sean's situation, I wasn't involved in the decision process on that. But I think my point about senior leadership being "expensive" making them attractive targets for budget cutters is valid.
 
Last edited:

30ashopper

SoWal Insider
Apr 30, 2008
6,846
3,471
56
Right here!
So, what does he do for the next 9 years? Not a whole lot of options in the job market these days. It's like I stated he has earned a pension when he reaches the age of 55, or 50 with a 3% per year penalty. So for "right now" he has nothing for monthly income.

:roll: I won't receive social security or medicare or be able to pull from my 401K until I hit 65. I've been laid off before too. Such is life. This is the way retirement systems work.
 

beachFool

Beach Fanatic
May 6, 2007
938
442
>>>I won't receive social security or medicare or be able to pull from my 401K until I hit 65. I've been laid off before too<<<

You can make penalty-free withdrawals from a 401K before age 65. The plan document may require you no longer work for the employer

Social Security benefits are available at age 62, however there limits on earned income.

I don't know how old you are but your Social Security Normal Retirement Age is probably 66, not 65.

Medicare benefits are available at age 65. Nice to see you got the socialized medical care number right. :rotfl:

Congratulations
 
Last edited by a moderator:

30ashopper

SoWal Insider
Apr 30, 2008
6,846
3,471
56
Right here!
>>>I won't receive social security or medicare or be able to pull from my 401K until I hit 65. I've been laid off before too<<<

You can make penalty-free withdrawals from a 401K before age 65. The plan document may require you no longer work for the employer

Social Security benefits are available at age 62, however there limits on earned income.

I don't know how old you are but your Social Security Normal Retirement Age is probably 66, not 65.

Medicare benefits are available at age 65. Nice to see you got the socialized medical care number right. :rotfl:

Congratulations

Thanks for contributing so much to the discussion Buzz.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter