Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Retirement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs retirement options for public safety staff; League of Cities briefs on private pension alternatives
Summary
A Florida League of Cities representative outlined pros and cons of private defined-benefit plans and the Florida Retirement System; council asked staff to arrange a presentation from FRS and consider an actuarial cost study.
Get email alerts on the Employee Retirement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town officials and a League of Cities representative discussed retirement benefits and recruitment challenges for police and fire staff at the Jan. 14 Lake Clarke Shores council meeting.
Jeremy Langley of the Florida League of Cities told the council the League can operate turnkey defined-benefit plans for municipalities and said that for small departments a local plan can be more flexible and often less costly than joining the Florida Retirement System (FRS). "If you can keep it in house, it's good," Langley said, explaining that a municipal-run pension can be structured to control employer contributions and allow options for buying service years. He also noted a potential state reimbursement that some participating municipal plans receive and that pension boards overseeing local plans can help secure that funding.
Town staff reported the town is "not in the market" compared with FRS on benefit levels for public safety and that the FRS employer contribution rate (discussed in the meeting as roughly 30% employer/3% employee for some tiers) could be difficult for a small budget to absorb. Langley recommended an actuarial cost study to estimate initial contribution rates and longer-term funding needs: such a study would use staff census data and give the council a year‑one cost estimate for a local defined-benefit plan.
Council members asked practical questions about size and cost. Council member Bridget Keating asked whether a small employee pool affects cost; Langley answered that many costs are variable and that turnkey providers fold administration and investment fees into contribution rates. Mayor Gregory Freebold and other members asked staff to arrange a three‑way follow-up: (1) invite FRS to present the program and the town’s options; (2) obtain an actuarial cost study if the council wishes to evaluate a private plan; and (3) solicit feedback from local public‑safety employees before any decision.
No formal vote was taken. Staff said it would seek an FRS presentation and would obtain pricing for a short actuary cost study to inform the council’s next deliberations. Council members repeatedly emphasized the need to ensure any change would be financially sustainable over time and to include employee input before negotiations or ordinance changes.

