HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-82-0473a
D. MARSHALL BARRY. PH.D.
4302 ROSIN LAND
TAMPA. FLORIDA 33600
1di31 s7a•2ss2
It( % OMIC CONSULTANTS IN LABOR AND I^NCB
!!'' All
UNTIMELY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TRUST
Prudent & Reasonable
Timing of Deposits
CITY CONTRIBUTIONS
ACTUAL TIME OF
DEPOSITS TO TRUST
LAWRENCE E. JESSUP. JR.
320 N W. 147TH STREET
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33163
130SI 681•3454
FY 78/79
Beginning of each month
The entire year's contribution
was made on 9/17/79
FY 79/80
October 79
11/01/79
November
11/20/79
December
12/27/7 9
January 60
1/21/80
February
2/14/80
March
3/19/80
April
5/07/80
May
6/18/80
June
7/25/80
July
7/25/80
August
9/04/80
September
10/10/80
FY 80/81
October
12/22/80
November
12/22/80
December
12/22/80
January Sl
1/15/81
February
2/25/81
March
4/09/81
April
4/09/81
May
5/06/81
June
6/11/81
July
8/05/81
August
9/22/81
September
9/18/81
FY 81/82
October
1/14/82
November
1/14/82
January 82
1/14/82
February
4/06/82
March
4/06/82
April
4/23/82
82-4'7? -
At
tat 1V �v 3u 3� LIU bU %Li %D •�
A 5 r +! 8 9 to
r
I i ��SPI�.w� , 4'�' (�� ..,a.- SPi�•Lc_ TR,.aT w li
t wgw•L `�+r� Hltll t•yG SC.r.�,� �aa•,La`'.. ,.y vYl.l. r►:. pd F.N1.5.4 5� ..0 _._�(1M'%r 4�, AGdN Cy tNiS v��yira 1�' Se
l-
apt t.�,►]e '1Iy�Z1L „ .L,t.SA „2'�`t.1'4'l0, S1.L42. `►. 'it 1. �i .�>rYYi 11'Iir�.7, L74`t371 46+`t919. 9.*.'111 y j
p ! ' ' i I !
3 S P?o3t1.. 14.4.2S2!r1 't►���2I 4s3aLII '`t}2so;t31, �.ILti11�1; IY10.Tr- !tllyt'k1, I. ! ! - LSo'111ti"t g
4 -- -- -- --- I ' ` �t 1
i I 1 1 I f i t
W,'14`1.I.S,_ LX31.1 I'1L Y Y - (l�►9S.514' IgSP'95 _ _ �! y3;` 1 a SIR!st44-
-
_ _
S�l�•+*� lSSt3',1!t1. ! i �.% ! 1 T'I,"
tt3 �?t' 1 4t,11,i _ 3Q�4t711 f d_l&,aL -lir
1ty. 519.7,7'iS.4 - 3 3 1 i t JL. ?ll l IJGY!
Ic����_ i' I _ i��a�t. !i ' i �I �I I s� f , i i t I
-- Ji4j'l.'1 Itir �. a rp,2�► - ;t ?Y ' ..�p7p>lilli{ o r +
I, , I !
, l I • t'L 6 �
1 '
13 5•T-0, �'ia [ {� `fit `I o'o '11 �111, �l .D 1.`l Y �.y �'1 i'I(. 193 t 1 tq t'►i3 til — 4.1
_ a.oQ.l1 .03A �3. r ,
li •tft'L I
r t
IS 0.44tr I LYi ILI - �4,]1 !I-L" t 1' �19 I
161� t I ' �' ,{ t'L itlLtiiF
_ ;,�++►a1►� SLq�t.k�, ' 1 g'1 +S4 _ lSli ►.9,1 .�swy1 j17tY jo 4r3y3.'�, '11'1H Oft} '�119 �4 1w �iSfS,�Y1.t 1' _ y lbiPi1►
18 I 11 I + ! f l t
1 19 'hZr 1a 1 { S`!,4-•� t, $; 1�31 3� ^tt33-34V1, $31114L"� (� ,t+� I ; t i Njj,$
iw-Z {: - _ I :'i.3fit�s �'_ __� _._L . , t Ir'! t �.1 iF�Z--7._ •-- .. _.:_i._ _ .... t- I ► v li. t i
Lo4SLt9: # ga,go�l ir,9Zo►3a' d�1.looSL �rh"I�oa1t� �'iot.btl3. .3or.91%1 r;� . ' 15.1vI;4 , }; �4.9a1S+a.
� ,;A.,�, �, J�� ��L.�S:� {,-. _ a_, ._i - �' LL�p7��. . _- .-� --' ! - ,�• I tt•V i►� 1� � , iI � _ ! � i t
g...,�,• _ a1aL I�p, S421i: gl�1] i 313'!4 to`I ,1.StrJ.3.S>,. ,.fit►31'1q 31e>rS9 ! i I S.i7 t,3y>�. +.. . I I�LY1►37.Lo, I ,
6. 3 t+
L .. 7 H
__,..l�._�. 3� -.» ___-�-- - - -,�- - � _—_._._-.�--- --------�-•T-�--.2
i
i. S. la • 1 '� 1 i 'L S i ' V I 21 S 3 1 y 3'l ti + 0 0 L 1 ; :' t r - z� �IS'��'.33 y4_ Sol'loyYe _�� c.cY� -g �_f_.i_ � 1.yy_2�---- �--S-9fr�,to _ 3�+r�P l� 3Zyt9 9. �.
I ;
1 Tc,iw� Io1,1SoJY9 3,u3t��l. IoY9`Io.L'17, LL41911L9 tO;�JOyIJ 119SZY13. 3,1o�S9Yy L��yYf�; I !. 3t`+79
j• .. ,. , ,, , I I , I f I ;,, � , ' t r it
tr' Sti �cREi i PltccR.ua �. . trJ `%. 19 trr. 14 (.3 9t 99 G•11 t t j �; 14� Ya
sn 1 ! I 1 I - •• -.
" Ir t �
i see- V*Q1F 4 (� 9 1 j r � i t L,
OMIC CONSULTANTS IN LABOR ANb N NCE
D. MARSHALL BARRY, I+H.D. LAWRENCE E. JESSUP. in.
4302 ROGIN LANE 320 N.W. 147TH STREET
TAMPA. FLORIDA 33600 MIAM1, FLORIDA 33168
16131 676.2682 13051 681•5454
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF RETIREES SUBSIDIZATION
SHARE OF
RETIREE
RETIREE
ADMIN. SERVICE
DATE
CONTRIBUTION
CLAIMS
CHARGE
SUBSIDY
6/78 - 9/78
287.399
350,109
16,530
79,240
FY 78/79
887,293
1,152,542
57,468
322,717
FY 79/80
877,439
1,287,579
689724
478.864
FY 80/81
993,061
1,565,743
88,934
661,616
3,0459192
4,3559973
231,656
1.542,437
NOTE: The loss ratio for all retired employees was as follows:
DATE
LOSS RATIO
6/78 - 9/78
121.8
78/79
129.9
79/80
146.7
80/81
157.7
82-473 -
E�OMIC CONbULtANTli IN LABOR AND %NCE
b. MARSHALL bARRY, PH.b. LAWRENCE E. JESSUP, JR.
4302 ROBIN LANE 320 N W. 1497H STREET
TAMPA. FLORIDA $3609 MIAM1. FLORIDA 33168
I8131 e7e•2ee:
13051 681.5434
TOTAL ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO GROUP INSURANCE
CURRENT AND PROPOSED
ACTIVE
CURRENT
PROPOSED
PERCENT INCREASE
Employees under
65
$429.48
$ 697.80
62.5%
Dependent under
65
863.28
1236.24
43.5%
Employees over
65
240.96
449.04
86.5%
Dependent over
65
358.68
437.52
22.0%
RETIREES
CURRENT
PROPOSED
PERCENT INCREASE
Employees under 65
$504.72
$ 697.80
38.0%
Dependent under 65
594.00
1236.24
108.01/0
Employees over 65
287.88
449.04
56.0%
Dependent over 65
328.68
437.52
62.0/
82-4'73-
I TOMIC CONSULTANTS IN LABOR AND < NCE
D. MARSHALL BARRY. PH.D. LAWRENCE E. JESSUP. JR.
4302 ROSIN LANE 320 N W 147TH STREET
TAMPA. FLORIDA 33609 MIAM1. FLORIOA 33166
16131 676.2882 43051 681.5454
DATE
6/78 - 9/78
FY 78/79
FY 79/80
FY 80/81
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
OF
ACTIVE EMPLOYEES'LIFE/AD&D PREMIUM
100/ OF PREMIUM
PAID BY CITY
$ 238,575
6699175
566,777
506,880
$1,981,398
82-4'73 -
FORMULA
June 178 - Sept. 181
Beginning Fund balance
Add:
Actual employee and
retiree contribution
Required City contribution
Interest on positive balance
end of each month
7,270,777
5,833,084
Less:
Expense (claims & administrative
cost)
15,293,931
Refund to insurance company
212,691
Fund Balance
Add: City overpayment
3,179,603
Adjusted -Fund Balance (1)
Life Insurance:
Dividend
1,107,898
Retiree contribution
525,512
1,633,410
Cost
2,306,918
673,508)
Adjusted Fund Balance (2)
Required Reserves
1,235,824
( 916,518)
2,263,085
1,589,577
82-473-
EIT,OMIC CONSULTANTS IN LABOR AND < NCE
D. MARSHALL SARRY. PH.D.
4302 ROSIN LANE
TAMPA. FLORIDA 33600
16131 876.2062
ANALYSIS OF
ADMINISTRATION'S CLAIM
OF
OVERCONTRIBUTION TO
GROUP INSURANCE TRUST
Total Amount of alledged
City overpayment (6/78-9/81)
as per attachment to
Item #64 $3,179,603
Total Amount of City
payment for active employees
life/AD&D Premium (6/78-9/81) $1,981,398
Total Amount of Retiree
Subsidy (6/78-9/81) $1,542,437
BALANCE:
LAWRENCE E. JESSUP. JR.
320 N.W.147TH STREET
MIAM1. FLORIDA 33168
13051 681•3454
$1,198,205
$( 344,232)
NOTE: Balance is amount that Active Employees and interest
earnings of the Trust Fund have supported retiree claims.
82_473.-
I
4
1 18-84
MIAMI CODE
buyer, with the exception of the abstract
being brought down to date (as set forth in
section 18-83 of this article). Buyer may pay
cash, cashier's check, or certified check, or a
combination thereof. (Ord. No. 9052, § 1,
1-10-80)
Sec. 18-85. City attorney responsible for
closing of sale.
It shall be the responsibility of the city
attorney to effect the closing of any city
property which is sold under this article.
(Ord. No. 9052, § 1, 1-10-80)
Sec. 18-86. Disposition of proceeds from
sale.
All money received from sales under this
article shall be turned over to the director of
finance in accordance with the city charter.
(Ord. No. 9052, § 1, 1-10-80)
Secs. 18-87-18-92. Reserved.
ARTICLE VI. SELF-INSURANCE AND
INSURANCE TRUST FUND
Sec. 18-93. Created; sources.
There is hereby created a city self-insur-
ance and insurance trust fund, the fund to
which shall be credited all money deposited in
the city treasury by appropriation or from
any other source, together with any unexpen-
ded balance of any appropriation heretofore
made for the expenditure of public funds, for
or accruing from:
(1) The payment of claims and judgments
against the city involving the acts of
officers or employees of the city or
property belonging to the city.
(2) Insuring or providing for the insurance of
any real or personal property or operation
of the city against risks or hazards.
(3) The maintenance of hurricane disaster
funds.
(4) The recovery of tort claims against other
parties.
Supp, Na 1
(5) Fines and forfeitures levied against seat-
f
j
ployees as a result of being fo"d
responsible for preventable accidents.
(6) Amounts received from parties contra&
ing with the city for providing insuraoas
coverage to protect the parties for a"
and all risks involving activities or
property associated with the contracts,
(7) Income accruing from the investment of
the trust funds.
{
Such funds are to be expended in accord.
ance with the provisions and for the purpoaw
stated in this article. The fund shall be
-(
segregated from other funds in the city
treasury and shall be administered by the
board of trustees appointed for that purpose..;
(Code 1967, § 16-47)
Sec. 18-94. Appropriation of money.
All money accumulated in the fund b
hereby appropriated for the purposes for
:
which designated, to be expended in accord-
ance with the provisions and procedures
t,
established by this article. (Code 1967,
,t
16-48)
Sec. 18-95. Board of trustees—Composi
tion; discharge of dutiseq `
compensation; powers.
The board of trustees for the city self-mi ar
l.
ance and insurance trust fund, referred to ss
"the trustees," shall be composed of the city ;
manager as chairman, the director of fumm
and the insurance manager. The trustees
shall discharge their duties during norms{
duty hours and shall not be entitled to
additional compensation by reason of tbdt
services as trustees. However, they shall be
reimbursed for any expenses incurred. The
trustees shall invest all the trust funds to 60
fullest extent consistent with the cash m
quirements and investment objectives of the
fund.
The trustees shall have the power to mab
purchases, sales, exchanges, investments and
reinvestments for and on behalf of the fund.
1210
82-4'73-
1 11-96
FINANCE
it shall be the duty of the trustees to see that
the money invested is at all times handled in
tiw best interest of the city. (Code 1967,
1M9)
Sae. 18.96. Same —Oath of office.
Each trustee shall take an oath of office
sod make written acknowledgment of his
acceptance of the duty, responsibility and
authority of a trustee. (Code 1967, § 16-50)
Bee. 18.97. Same —Meetings.
The board of trustees shall hold regular
issetings at least quarterly each year and
special meetings at such time as the chair -
sun may deem necessary. (Code 1967, §
1"1)
See. 16.98. Disbursement of money.
The trustees shall disburse money from the
fund to the director of finance upon his
rquisition and certification that the expendi-
ture of the funds to requisitioned is to
accomplish the purpose of the self-insurance
and insurance program. The receipt for such
toads shall constitute a full acquittance to the
Uvatees. (Code 1967, § 16-52)
S«. 19.99. Sale or exchange of securi-
ties and investments.
Securities or investments purchased or held
tasder the provisions of this article may be
NW or exchanged for other securities or
iinestments, provided that no sale or ex-
c6sage shall be at a price less than the
Market price of the securities or investments
Is be sold or exchanged. (Code 1967, § 16-53)
Sae. 1&100. Investment of funds.
TIt funds may be invested without
bakation in:
0) Boods, notes or other obligations of the
Uaitad States or those guaranteed by the
U°i4d States or for which the credit of
t6 United States is pledged for the
4► Na 1
1g-102
payment of the principal and interest or
dividends thereof.
(2) Certificates of deposit of any bank
incorporated under the laws of this state
or any national bank organized under the
laws of the United States to do business
and situated in this state, to the extent
that such savings accounts are insured
with the federal government or any
agency thereof, and if the certificates of
deposit are secured by the deposit of
securities of the United States govern-
ment. (Code 1967, § 16-54)
Sec. 18-101. Self-insurance and insur-
ance committee --Appoint-
ment; composition; chair-
man.
There shall be appointed annually by the
city manager a committee to be known as the
city self-insurance and insurance committee.
The committee shall be composed of three (3)
members who shall be selected from among
the officers or employees of the city. The city
manager shall designate one (1) of the
members to act as chairman. The committee
shall administer the self-insurance program
and maintain appropriate records which
shall reflect the status of the program and be
in such detail as required to enable the
committee to determine appropriate reserves.
The committee shall determine and recom-
mend to the city commission the amount of
reserves to be accumulated and maintained
and the amount to be appropriated annually
to finance the self-insurance and insurance
program. (Code 1967, § 16-55)
Sec. 18-102. Same —Responsibilities.
The committee shall, as expeditiously as
possible, with due regard to the financial
security of the city, proceed to establish the
means whereby the city shall become self -in-
sured in primary insurance coverage while
maintaining umbrella coverage to insure
against catastrophic losses. The means con-
templated include the establishment of finan-
1211
$2- 47'3
I
1 18-102
MIAMI CODE
cial reserves and securing adequate qualified
personnel, supplies and equipment to perform
required services in an economical and
efficient manner. The committee is specifical-
ly authorized and directed to ascertain that
the city's financial interest is fully protected
at all times. Any provisions of this article to
the contrary notwithstanding, in the event
that adequate financial reserves have not
been provided or an analysis of the costs
involved demonstrates that it is more
economical for the city to maintain coverage
for certain specific risks through commercial
insurance policies, the committee is au-
thorized and directed to procure such cover-
age. The premiums shall be paid from trust
funds unless the city commission shall have
directed otherwise and provided funds for
that purpose. The committee shall utilize the
services of regular city employees to the
greatest extent practical, but may procure
specialized services on a fee basis from
independent contractors when such action is
not prohibited by law. Where personal ser-
vices for the program rendered by regular city
employees require the expenditure of a
substantial portion of the employees' working
time on a regular or recurring basis the pro
rate costs of such time, including all emo-
luments, shall be charged as an expense of
the program. The commission may provide
for the payment of such expenses during the
regular budgeting process by providing funds
for the payment of such personnel in the
appropriate departmental budget with a
corresponding reduction in the amount appro-
priated directly to the trust fund. In the event
that the program shall require personnel
services, payment for which shall not have
been provided in the budget, the trustees
shall provide funds expended or to be
expended for such services. (Code 1967. 1
16-56)
Sec. 18-103. Operation and function of
insurance program.
It is the intention of the commission of the
city that the insurance program shall operate
and function in a manner similar to a
Supp. No. 1
I
1 IS-ia
commercial insurance company. Accordingly,
all expenses arising from the opeiration of the
program shall be paid from the fund to t6
same extent as similar expenses would be
discharged by the payment of premiums to a
commercial insurance carrier. (Code 1967,
16-57)
Sec. 18-104. Responsibilities of city at.
torney.
The city attorney shall perform or supervise
the performance of all legal services required
to accomplish the purposes of the self -incur•
ance and insurance program. Legal services
shall include, but not be limited to, the
defense or prosecution or negotiation of
settlement agreements of all claims or euita.
the investigation of all claims and settlement
of those claims found to be well founded for
which the amounts claimed are payable from
the trust fund.
The city attorney and such of his assistants
and claims adjusters as he may designate
may compromise, settle and pay all claims
which may be discharged by payment of m
amount not to exceed four thousand five
hundred dollars ($4,500.00) for each individu-
al claim. Such settlements or compromisse
shall be for all damages claimed for personal
injury, property damage, or both.
Proposed settlements in excess of four
thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500.00)
shall be submitted to the city commission for
its approval prior to acceptance.
Upon approval by the city commission or
the city attorney, as specified in the two (2)
preceding paragraphs, the city attorney shall
authorize the payment of the claim by the
finance director and provide such documents
as the finance director may require.
The city attorney shall render such report
or reports for the settlement of claims to the
committee and the city commission as they
shall require. (Code 1967, § 16-58; Ord. No.
8718, § 1, 10-26.77)
1212
(The next page is 12"l
82-473--
Ch. 518 INVESTMENT OF FIDUCIARY FUNDS F.S.1981
bodies, all banks, bankers, trust companies, savings
banks and institutions, building and loan associa.
tions, savings and loan associations, investment com-
panies, all insurance companies, insurance associa-
tions, and other persons carrying on an insurance
business, and guardians holding funds received from
or currently in receipt of funds from the Veterans
Administration to the extent of those funds alone
may legally invest any sinking funds, moneys, or oth-
er funds belonging to them or within their control in
any bonds or other obligations issued by a housing
authority pursuant to the Housing Authorities Law
of this state (chapter 421), or issued by any public
housing authority or agency in the United States,
when such bonds or other obligations are secured by
a pledge of annual contributions to be paid by the
United States Government or any agency thereof,
and such bonds and other obligations shall be author-
ized security for all public deposits; it being the pur-
pose of this section to authorize any person, associa-
tions, political subdivisions, bodies, and officers, pub-
lic or private, to use any funds owned or controlled
by them, including, but not limited to, sinking, insur-
ance, investment, retirement, compensation, pension,
and trust funds, and funds held on deposit, for the
purchase of any bonds or other obligations; provided,
however, that nothing contained in this section shall
be construed as relieving any person from any duty of
exercising reasonable care in selecting securities.
History.—%& 1. 2. 3. ch 19512. 1939, CGL 1940 Supp ?10M3•nn). s 4. ch
28154,1953
cf.—s. IS 1 Security to be given.
518.10 Fiduciary defined as used in as.
518.11.518.14.—For the purpose of ss.
518.11-518.14, a "fiduciary" is defined as an executor,
administrator, trustee, guardian (except any guard-
ian holding funds received from or currently in re-
ceipt of funds from the Veterans Administration, to
the extent of those funds alone), or other person,
whether individual or corporate, who by reason of a
written agreement, will, court order, or other instru-
ment has the responsibility for the acquisition, in-
vestment, reinvestment, exchange, retention, We, or
management of money or property of another.
History.—s 5. eK 28154. 1951
518.11 Investments by fiduciaries; prudent
man rule. —In acquiring, investing, reinvesting, ex-
changing, retaining, selling, and managing property
for the benefit of another, executors, administrators,
trustees, and other fiduciaries shall exercise the judg-
ment and care under the circumstances then prevail-
ing, which men of prudence, discretion, and intelli-
gence exercise in the management of their own af-
fairs, not in regard to speculation but in regard to the
permanent disposition of their funds, considering the
probable income as well as the probable safety of
their capital. Within the limitations of the foregoing
standard, a fiduciary is authorized to acquire and re-
tain every kind of property, real, personal, or mixed,
and every kind of investment, specifically including,
but not by way of limitation, bonds, debentures and
other corporate obligations, and stocks, preferred or
common, which men of prudence, discretion, and in-
telligence acquire or retain for their own account, and
within the limitations of the foregoing standard, a fi-
duciary may retain property properly acquired, with-
out limitation as to time and without regard to its
suitability for original purchase.
History.—#. S. ch. 28154. 1953.
618.115 Power of fiduciary or custodian to
deposit securities in a central depository,—
(1)(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any fiduciary, as defined in 9. 518.10, holding se.
curities, as defined in s. 678.102(1), in its fiduciary
capacity, and any bank or trust company holding se.
curities as a custodian, managing agent, or custodian
for a fiduciary, is authorized to deposit or arrange for
the deposit of such securities in a clearing corpora.
tion, as defined in s. 678.102(3). When such securities
are so deposited, certificates representing securities
of the same class of the same issuer may be merged
and held in bulk in the name of the nominee of such
clearing corporation with any other such securities
deposited in such clearing corporation by any person,
regardless of the ownership of such securities, and
certificates of small denomination may be merged
into one or more certificates of larger denomination.
(b) A bank or a trust company so depositing se.
curities with a clearing corporation shall be subject to
such rules and regulations with respect to the making
and maintenance of such deposit as, in the case of
state -chartered institutions, the Department of
Banking and Finance and, in the case of national
banking associations, the Comptroller of the Curren-
cy may from time to time issue.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law,
ownership of, and other interests in, the securities
credited to such account may be transferred by en-
tries on the books of said clearing corporation with-
out physical delivery of any securities. The records of
such fiduciary and the records of such bank or trust
company acting as custodian, managing agent, or cus-
todian for a fiduciary shall at all times show the name
of the party for whose account the securities are so
deposited. A bank or trust company acting as custo-
dian for a fiduciary shall, on demand by the fidu-
ciary, certify in writing to the fiduciary the securities
so deposited by such bank or trust company in such
clearing corporation for the account of such fidu-
ciary. A fiduciary shall, on demand by any party to a
judicial proceeding for the settlement of such fidu-
ciary's account or on demand by the attorney for
such party, certify in writing to such party the securi-
ties deposited by such fiduciary in such clearing cor-
poration for its account as such fiduciary.
(2) This section shall apply to any fuciary hold-
ing securities in its fiduciary capacity, and to any
bank or trust company holding securities as a custo-
dian, managing agent, or custodian for a fiduciary,
acting on June 18,1974, or who thereafter may act re-
gardless of the date of the agreement, instrument, or
court order by which it is appointed and regardless of
whether or not such fiduciary, custodian, managing
agent, or custodian for a fiduciary owns capital stock
of such clearing corporation.
History.--s. 1, ch 74.224.
1466
518.116 Power of certain fiduciaries and
82-4'73-.
Ch. 112 PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: GENERAL PROVISI.ONS F.S. 1981
on the form prescribed and furnished by the depart-
ment. The travel voucher form shall provide for,
among other things, the purpose of the official travel
and a certification or affirmation, to be signed by the
traveler, indicating the truth and correctness of the
claim in every material matter, that the travel ex-
penses were actually incurred by the traveler as nec-
essary in the performance of official duties, that per
diem claimed has been appropriately reduced for any
meals or lodging included in the convention or con-
ference registration fees claimed by the traveler, and
that the voucher conforms in every respect with the
requirements of this section. The original copy of the
executed uniform travel authorization request form
shall be attached to the uniform travel voucher on
file with the respective agency.
(12) ADVANCEMENTS. -Notwithstanding any
of the foregoing restrictions and limitations, an agen-
cy head may make, or authorize the making of, ad-
vances to cover anticipated costs of travel to travel-
ers. Such advancements may include the costs of sub-
sistence and travel of any person transported in the
care or custody of the traveler in the performance of
his duties.
(13) DIRECT PAYMENT OF EXPENSES BY
AGENCY. -Whenever an agency requires an em-
ployee to incur either Class A or Class B travel on
emergency notice to the employee, such employee
may request the agency to pay his expenses for meals
and lodging directly to the vendor, and the agency
may pay the vendor the actual expenses for his meals
and lodging during the travel period, limited to an
amount not to exceed that authorized for per diem
for such period. The provisions of this subsection
shall not be deemed to apply to any legislator or to
any employee of either house of the Legislature or of
the Joint Legislative Management Committee,
History-u 1. 3, ch 22&30, 1945. u. 1. 2. 3, ch 23892. 1947; a 1. 3. ch
25040. 1949. u 1, 3, ch. 26910. 1951. s. 1, ch 28303, 1953; a 1. ch. 29628. 1955.
a. 1. ch 57230; a 1. ch 61.183. a 1, ch. 61.43; a. 1, ch. 63-6. a 1, ch. 63.192; a
1, ch 63-122. s 1, ch. 63.40U, u. 2. 3, ch 67.371; u 1. 2. ch 67.22%, a 1, ch
69 193. s 1, ch W.M. as 12. 23, 31. 35. ch. 69-106. a 65, ch 71.136. t 1, ch
72.213.a 1,ch 72-217,t l.ch 72-324.s 26.ch 72.404;s I.ch 73 169.s L ch
74.15, a I, ch 74.246, a 1, ch 14 365; a I, 2. ch. 75.33, s L ch. 76.166, s 2. ch.
76.2rt& ss 1. 2. ch 76 250, a L ch 77.174; s L ch 77.231; u 1, 2, rh 77.437, a
2, ch. 76 95, s 51, ch 79-190. a L ch 79.205, a L ch 79.303, a I, ch 79•412, ss
1. 2. ch. 61 207.
of -s 25019 Expenses for travel on military busmen
a 288Oil Department of Commerce, travel and entertainment espenae
112.062 Cabinet members; educational and
informational travel expenses. -When he deems
it necessary in order to carry out an official function
of his office, a member of the Cabinet may incur and
be reimbursed for travel expenses pursuant to s.
112.061 for the purpose of educating and informing
the public as to his official duties.
History".-s. 1, ch 80-212.
112.08 Group insurance for public officers
and employees; certain volunteers.-
(1) Every local governmental unit is authorized to
provide and pay out of its available funds for all or
part of the premium for life, health, accident, hospi-
talization, or annuity insurance, or all or any kinds of
such insurance, for the officers and employees of the
unit and for health, accident, and hospitalization in-
surance for their dependents upon a group insurance
plan and, to that end, to enter into contracts with in-
surance companies or professional administrators to
provide such insurance. Before entering any contract
for insurance, the governmental unit shall advertise
for competitive bids, and such contract shall be let
upon the basis of such bids. However, the govern-
mental unit may undertake simultaneous negotia-
tions with those companies which have submitted
reasonable and timely bids and which are found by
the governmental unit to be fully qualified and capa-
ble of meeting all servicing requirements. Each coun-
ty, municipality, school board, local governmental
unit, and special taxing district of the state may
self -insure any plan for health, accident, and hoapi-
talization coverage, subject to approval based on ac-
tuarial soundness by the Department of Insurance.
Each shall contract with an insurance company or
professional administrator qualified and approved by
the Department of Insurance to administer such a
plan.
(2) Each county, municipality, school board, local
governmental unit, and special taxing district is au-
thorized to commingle in a common fund, plan, or
program all payments for life, health, accident, hospi-
talization, or annuity insurance or all or any kinds of
such insurance whether paid by the governmental
unit, officer or employee, or otherwise. The govern-
mental unit may determine the portion of the cost, if
any, of such fund, plan, or program to be paid by offi•
cers or employees of the governmental unit and fix
the amounts to be paid by each such officer or em-
ployee as will best serve the public interest.
(3) A local governmental unit may, at its discre-
tion, provide group insurance consistent with the
provisions of this section for volunteer or auxiliary
firefighters, volunteer or auxiliary law enforcement
agents, or volunteer or auxiliary ambulance or emer-
gency service personnel within its jurisdiction. No in-
surance provided to volunteer personnel shall be
used in the computation of workers' compensation
benefits or in the determination of employee status
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(4) Benefits provided under group insurance poli-
cies pursuant to subsection (3) shall not exceed bene-
fits provided to employees under subsection (1) and
es. 112.19 and 112.191.
(5) The Department of Administration shall ini-
tiate and supervise a group insurance program pro-
viding death and disability benefits for active mem-
bers of the Florida Highway Patrol Auxiliary, with
coverage beginning July 1, 1978, and purchased from
state funds appropriated for that purpose. The De-
partment of Administration, in cooperation with the
Department of Insurance and the Division of Pur-
chasing of the Department of General Services, shall
prepare specifications necessary to implement the
program, and the Department of Administration
shall receive bids and award the contract in accord-
ance with general law.
History. -a. 1. ch. 20952. 1941; a 1, ch. 69.300. a 1. ch. 72.336; a 1. ch
76.208, a. t, ch. 77.89, s. 50, ch 79.40; a. 1, ch. 79.337; a. 67, ch. 79.400
112.0801 Group insurance; participation by
retired employees. -Any county, municipality,
community college, or district school board which
provides for its officers and employees and their de-
494
82-=473 -
+ CiTy OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
64 INT^R-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
�(d(Z1 I
TO Howard V. Gary ATE
April 14, 1982 F'L`
City Manager
NJF._r Contributions to the Group
Benefit Self -Insurance Fund
for both Active and Retired
Employees of the City of Miami
Carlos E. Garcia
Director of Finance
E N;LOSU Ft=S
"It is recommended that the attached
resolution authorizing an increase
in the rates utilized to determine
contributions to Self -Insurance Fund
for group health benefits be adopted."
The City of Miami has self -funded its group health care benefit plans
since June of 1978. The rates utilized in determing contribution levels
to that plan were established under the previously fully insured plan, and
last revised in February of 1976.
Between 1976 and present, medical care costs have risen sharply due to inflation.
The contribution levels established in 1976 are not sufficient to maintain a
self-sustaining and acturarily-sound insurance fund. The rate levels have been
deficient for some time, however, contributions by the City to the program
in excess of those required by the rate structure have allowed the program to
maintain a capability to pay all claims. .1
The current rate structure establishes different rates for active and retired
employees. These different rates appear not*to be justified by the experience
of the respective groups. The retired employee group, in effect, is being
subsidized by the active employees of the City, and the City itself.
The Trustees of the Self -Insurance and Insurance Trust Fund recognized this
problem, and secured the services of a qualified firm to promulgate adequate
group health care benefit rates, and review the utilization of group benefits by
retirees in comparison to premiums paid by that portion of the group.
The consultants' report and recommendations (attached) were reviewed by the
Self -Insurance and Insurance Committee at their meeting of October 21, 1981
(minutes attached). The Committee unanimously agreed to recommend to the
Commission that the rate increases recommended by the consultant be adopted.
The Committee also agreed to recommend the rates for active and retired members
of the group be equalized.
8z-473; -
EHC EDWIN H. COLE C.L.U. AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Life, Health, -Group and Retirement Planning
b
1�
9 co
W
Mr. Donald. Dunlap
Director, Risk Management
P. O. Box 330708
Dinner Key City Hall
Miami, FL 33133
Dear Don:'
6701 SUNSET DRIVE
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143
(305) 666.6249
February 23, 1982
Enclosed is the February issue of.Equitable's Group Operations
Commentary. Of particular interest is the 31% increase in
premiums coupled with a 13% decrease in benefits for the,
Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan covering about 9.2
million employees. This is the nation's largest health
insurance group and is viewed as a barometer of benefit
costs.
EHC/fam
4ncerely,
L / ,
Edwin H. 67�)CC. .U.
un
Edwin H. Cole, Chartered Life Underwriter
r.•u
82-4'73 -
ME 7/4f;L
3a
AM Released by the Marketing Division of the Group Marketing Department
82-4737
0
GRUUP OPERATIONS COMMENTARY
SUMMARIES
PART I: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTS
NATIONAL ADVISORY GROUP URGES VOLUNTARY LOCAL COALITIONS FOR
HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT - Six major national organizations
joined in an effort to encourage the development of voluntary
local coalitions, and to promote and assist the efforts of
voluntary coalitions which have already been established in
locations throughout the country.
SHARP INCREASE IN FEHBA PREMIUMS COUPLED WITH CUT IN BENEFITS -
s of January , participants in the Federal Employees Health
Benefit (FEHB) program are faced with average premium increases
of 31% while benefits and coverage are cut an average of 13%.
MICHIGAN - ASO BILL ENACTED INTO LAW - Michigan H.B. 4802, granting
insurance companies authority to enter into ASO arrangements, has
been enacted. The law expands the permissible activities in which
life companies may engage and specifically permits life companies
to offer ASO to groups of 500 or more employees and members. A tax,
albeit modest, will be imposed on this ASO business.
PAGE
P�
3
NEWPORT NEWS RULING REVERSED BY U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - The U.S. 3
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has reversed the District Court's
decision on a spouse's pregnancy related disability benefit.
FEDERAL & STATE LAWMAKERS SEEK REGULATORY POWER OVER SELF -FUNDED 4
M - Mounting concern over self -funded multiple employer trusts
TEIT become insolvent prompts federal and state lawmakers and
regulators to seek regulatory powers over the METs.
CHANGES IN MEDICAL CARE COST LEVELS BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE 4
Published by the Marketing Division No. 82-2
of the Group Marketing Department February 9, 1982
82-4
PART I: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTS
NATIONAL ADVISORY GROUP URGES VOLUNTARY LOCAL COALITIONS FOR
HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT
For about six months, representatives of six major national organiza-
tions have been meeting to discuss health care cost containment
issues. The participants were the Business Roundtable, AFL-CIO,
American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Associations and Health Insurance Association
of America. On January 14, this national group announced it would
join in efforts to encourage voluntary employer coalitions on a
local, state or regional basis.
There are about 70 voluntary local coalitions throughout the country
today. Continued development of coalitions seems likely as existing
ones make progress in efforts to address local costs of delivery of
medical care and the numerous factors which locally influence such
costs.
A statement released by the national group advises local coalitions
to analyze (1) the level of health care costs in the area, (2) the
rate of increase in particular costs and the reasons for the
increase; (3j utilization and how it compares with other areas; (4)
existing health care facilities and services, with an assessment of
the availability of needed services, health benefit packages and
operations.
Coalitions should then decide on priority projects to exert influence
on the health care delivery system. This could take the form of
either (1) a limited demonstration to ain experience, establish
relationships and test policies, or (2� a community -wide action.
The following projects have a demonstrated potential for improving
the cost and quality of health care delivery:
o Use of alternative forms of care, such as ambulatory and home
care, by redesigning insurance benefits.
o Increase access to care through
health care for the unemployed
to care; this includes efforts
budget changes.
efforts to finance and provide
and others who do not have access
to mitigate the impact of federal
o Increase opportunities to discuss and develop the most cost
effective and equitable forms of provider payment.
o Develop more effective programs of health promotion and discuss
prevention in the work place.
82-4'73
PART II; LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENT"
SUMMARIES PAGE
BILLS AFFECTING BENEFITS AND RIGHTS UNDER GROUP LIFE AND HEALTH
N URANCE POLICIES -
1. Continuance and/or Conversion 5
2. Mental Illness 5
3. Limited Practitioner_ 5
4. Outpatient Benefits 6
5. Third Party Prescription Drug Program 6
PART I: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTS
NATIONAL ADVISORY GROUP URGES VOLUNTARY LOCAL COALITIONS FOR
HEALTH CARE COST C N INM N
For about six months, representatives of six major national organiza-
tions have been meeting to discuss health care cost containment
issues. The participants were the Business Roundtable, AFL-CIO,
American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Associations and Health Insurance Association
of America. On January 14, this national group announced it would
join in efforts to encourage voluntary employer coalitions on a
local, state or regional basis.
There are about 70 voluntary local coalitions throughout the country
today. Continued development of coalitions seems likely as existing
ones make progress in efforts to address local costs of delivery of
medical care and the numerous factors which locally influence such
costs.
A statement released by the national group advises local coalitions
to analyze (1) the level of health care costs in the area, (2) the
rate of increase in particular costs and the reasons for the
increase; (3l utilization and how it compares with other areas; (4)
existing hea th care facilities and services, with an assessment of
the availability of needed services, health benefit packages and
operations.
Coalitions should then decide on priority projects to exert influence
on the health care delivery system. This could take the form of
either (1) a limited demonstration to ain experience, establish
relationships and test policies, or (23 a community -wide action.
The following projects have a demonstrated potential for improving
the cost and quality of health care delivery:
o Use of alternative forms of care, such as ambulatory and home
care, by redesigning insurance benefits.
o Increase access to care through efforts to finance and provide
health care for the unemployed and others who do not have access
to care; this includes efforts to mitigate the impact of federal
budget changes.
o Increase opportunities to discuss and develop the most cost
effective and equitable forms of provider payment.
o Develop more effective programs of health promotion and discuss
prevention in the work place.
82-4'73
MI-
-2-
SHARP INCREASE IN FEHBA PREMIUMS COUPLED WITH CUT IN BENEFITS
The Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHB) program with an
enrollment of about 9.2 million - the nations largest health
insurance group - is watched as a bellwether of health insurance
coverage. A 31% increase in premiums is coupled with a 13% decrease
in benefits and coverage as of January 1, 1982.
Most of the cuts involve cost -sharing by the enrollee. Deductible
amounts are increased, coinsurance rates modified and copayment
features are introduced.
Changes in the service benefits plans of Blue Cross and Blue Shield
include:
- Inpatient copayment $20 (high option) and $30 (low option) for
the first 10 days.
- Home Health Care after hospitalization under high option only.
- A catastrophic protection benefit of $1,000 per contract per
calendar year is added under the high option for basic other
hospital outpatient benefits and basic surgical -medical benefits
which have 20100 coinsurance.
- The supplemental per person deductible is increased to $200
(nigh option) and $250 (low option).
Changes in the indemnity benefits plan administered by Aetna Life &
Casualty include:
- The high option deductible is increased to $200 from $75 and the
family deductible maximum is increased to $600 from $225.
- The hi option catastrophic stop loss is increased to $2,500
from $1,000 per individual and to $5,000 from $2,000 per family.
- The high option coinsurance is reduced to 75% from 80%.
a
-3-
r
MICHIGAN - ASO GILL ENACTED INTO LAW
Recently enacted legislation (Michigan H.B. 4802) substantially
broadens life insurance company powers to include administration of
ASO contracts.
The law, however, is not a model of legislative clarity and contains
some provisions which are of concern.
o The definition of "non-insured benefit plan", although intended
only to apply to ASO-type contracts, is overly broad and can be
construed to apply to other such plans, including perhaps
certain services performed in connection with pension and profit
sharing arrangements. Clarification of this concern is being
sought from the Commissioner.
o A stringent 500 minimum life requirement for ASO-type agreements
was imposed, similar to that imposed on the Blues when specific
legislative authority to write ASO was conferred on them, at the
insistence of the Michigan Senate's Democratic leadership. In
addition, because of Michigan's pressing fiscal concerns, the
single business tax will be imposed on ASO contracts written.
This tax is quite modest relative to the premium tax.
The bill was signed into law in early January, and is effective
immediately.
NEWPORT NEWS RULING ON EEOC REVERSED BY U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has overturned the
District Court ruling which held that the Pregnancy Discrimination
Act (PL 95-555) does not apply to an employee's spouse. The Court of
Appeals ruling is the first appellate endorsement of the published
EEOC guidelines which interpret the Pregnancy Discrimination Act as
applying to wives of workers as well as to female employees. At this
time, we have no indication as to whether the employer (Newport News
Shipbuilding) intends to appeal this decision.
82-4'73
-a -
FEDERAL & STATE LAWMAKERS SEEK REGULATORY POWER OVER SELF-FUNUED METS
According to a recent discussion in Business Insurance, U.S. Rep.
John Erlenborn is seeking a congressional investigation into the
legal problems that self -funded METs pose for state regulators. He
will ask Rep. Philip Burton, Chairman of the House Management
Relations subcommittee to hold hearings soon on the regulatory void
in which the self -funded METs operate.
The California Department of Insurance is seeking a sponsor for a
bill that would empower the Department to audit the financial records
of California's 75 self -funded METs, close down unauthorized METs and
freeze the assets of a MET that looks insolvent. The California
Insurance Department is now investigating four self -funded METs that
appear to be close to insolvency. A half -dozen or more self -funded
METs are being investigated by the Illinois Department of insurance.
The METs avoid compliance with state insurance codes by claiming that
they qualify as benefit plans under ERISA (ERISA pre-empts state
reyulation of benefit plans). To qualify under ERISA, the METs go
into business and then must prove to the Department of Labor that
they are controlled by participating employers - a test which few of
the self -funded METs are ultimately able to pass. A spokesman for
DUL has pledged that the Department will move faster on requests from
states to determine if a MET qualifies under ERISA and will attempt
to have state insurance departments serve as its investigating arm.
CHANGES IN MEDICAL CARE COST LEVELS BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
FOR DECEMBER, 1981
Based on the Consumer Price Index for December, 1981, recent trends
in the annualized inflation rates for medical care are summarized
below:
HOSPITAL
PHYSICIAN
DENTIST
PRESCRIPTION
Latest
Month
(December)
3.8%
7.4%
10.2%
11.2%
Latest
3
months
17.3%
9.9%
5.9%
9.1%
Latest
6
months
17.5%
9.0%
6.4%
10.0%
Latest
9
months
13.3%
9.0%
6.5%
12.3%
Latest
12
months
14.0%
10.6%
8.4%-
12.6%
The Hospital and Physician rates dropped substantially from the November
rates, while the Dentist and Prescription rates increased substantially.
While the overall rise in consumer prices for 1981 was only 8.9%, the
lowest annual increase since 1971, the medical care component jumped to
12.5%, the largest increase since the Federal government began reporting
on medical care costs in 1935.
-5-
PART II: LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
1. Continuance and/or Conversion: These bills generally mandate
continuance of group health insurance coverage for three, six, or
twelve months when an insured leaves the group. Some mandate
conversion rights on expiration of the period of continuance. Some
require only conversion rights as indicated.
New bills and activity on previously reported bills:
Indiana H1135 - Conversion for dependents
Kentucky S38 -Insurer must give written notice to continue
after termination
Maryland H403 - Continue 1 year
2. Mental Illness: These bills generally mandate specified minimum
benefits for mental illness, usually less than benefits for other
conditions.
New bills and activity on previously reported bills:
Maryland S97 - Mandated Coverage extended to halfway houses -
extraterriorial.
Enacted
Massachusetts H3228 - Amends present law, which requires benefits not
less than sixty days per calendar year in a mental hospital under the
direction and supervision of the department of mental health or in a
private mental hospital licensed by that department, to provide
during such time usual and customary benefits based upon confinement
as an inpatient in a licensed or accredited general hospital and
prohibits a lifetime maximum monetary limit for inpatient care in
such mental hospital less than any lifetime maximum monetary limit
for the treatment of conditions that are not mental or nervous
disorders. Effective March 21, 1982.
3. Limited Practitioners: These bills would require payment for the
services lawfully performed by a limited practitioner, if those
services would have been covered when performed by a doctor of
medicine.
New bills and activity on previously reported bills:
Wisconsin A898/S632 - Chiropractors
Wisconsin A940 - Optometrists
SZ -4'74
!N
-6-
4. Outpatient benefits: these bills may mandate, or a;ana3r.e an offer
ot, benefits for A bulatory Care, Home Health Care, Hosoir.A Care or
emergency treatment in a doctor's office.
New bills and activity on previously reported bills:
Maryland S191 - Hospice - mandated offer
5. Third Party Prescription Drug Program: These bills generally provide
That', if a third party drug program is installed in any part of the
state, all pharmacies in the state must be given advance writter,
notice and participants in the progra+n may not be chargeu less for
prescriptions than the general public is cnarged.
New dills and activity on previousiy reported bills:
Missouri H1028
REFUND FROM INSURANCE COMPANY
(Reserves returned)
June 1978 Total return $1,663,991
Life insurance portion $ 428,187
Health insurance portion 1,235,804
Payment to Insurance Company
for "old claims" (Feb. 79) 212,691
8201.—�47c. -
4S
BACKGROUND s
1. Fund (self-insurance) created by Ordinance
2. Self-insurance includes:
a. Employee health •
b. Workers compensation
C. Liability - all types
d. Employees life insurance
3. Possible revenues to the fund
a. Employee contributions as required by
union contract
b. City contributions for:
(1) Employee health
(2) Workers compensation
(3) Liability
(.4) L , f & -cwt
C. Interest on fund balance
d. Recoveries from others
4. Possible expenditures
a. Payments for medical service
b. Payments for liability claim
C. Payments for workers compensation
d. Direct and indirect administrative -
expenses
'Eto". Trtil�i�
EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT FUND
Two Issues:
1. Fund Balance
a. Initial refund from insurance company
b. Crediting of interest on fund balance
C. Overpayment by City
d. Amount of reserves
e. Life insurance cost and dividend
2. Rates
a. Amount of increase
b. Allocation between age groups
C. Effective date
FORMULA
June '78 - Sept. '81
Beginning Fund balance
1,235,824 -�
Add:
Actual employee and
retiree contribution
7,270,777
Required City contribution
5,833,084
Interest on positive balance
end of each month
250,419
Less:
Expense (claims & administrative
cost)
15,293,931
V'Befu-rrd to insurance company
212,691
Fund Balance
( 916,51B)
Add: City overpayment
3,179,603
Adjusted Fund Balance (1)
',263,0:;5
Life Insurance:
Dividend
1,107,898
Retiree contribution
525,512
1,633,410
Cost
2,306,918
( 673, 508)
Adjusted Fund Balance (2)
1,589,577
Required Reserves
0
1'
1 �
B�
82-4'73
46 10
(,'ROUP HEALTH BENEFITS EXPERIENCE
1981-82
Employee
Retiree
City
Claims
Over/
Contribution
Contribution
Obligation
Expense
Under
Oct.
130,036
81,898
137,749
423,541
( 73,858)
Nov.
85,976
82,848
125,660
438,856
(144,372)
Dec.
87,601
82,864
127,709
381,381
( 83,207)
Jan.
74,654
82,940
136,843
449,500
(155,063)
Feb.
64,730
84,892
136,470
548,768
(262,676)
Mar.
72,574
83,043
140,053
378,582
( 82,912)
April
80,700
84,135
142,746
502,718
(195,10-7)
596,271
582,620
947,230
3,123,346
(997,195)
WITH CITY OVERPAYMENT
City
Over -Payment
Over/Under
' Oct.
134,986
61,128
Nov.
147,075
2►703
Dec.
144,966
61,759
Jan.
135,892
( 19,171)
Feb.
136,470
(126,206)
Mar.
132,682
49,770
April
129,989
( 65,118)
962,060
( 35,135)
82-4'73- '
V
INDI CisTO:.S
1:'c0-81 Avg. Mo.^.thly Ciai.-ms Cost
1981-32 Avg. Monthly Claims Cost (5 I•Ionths)
Avg. Monthly revenue (Mated)
Avg. Monthly Pevenue With Overpayment
5,14-3,707 . 11- - 420,059
2, 242,04G 'i 5 = •148,409
..•ter"
1,522,870 5 = 304,574
2,222,259 - 5 - 444,451
,s=*" --madam
1"XPECTED
:;-)del Group: 4200 Employee Units )
2400 Dependent Units )
)
500 Employee &ledicare )
200 Dependent Medicare )
6:onthly Revenue
517,000
0
C
14
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Notes to Financial Statements
The City maintains reserves of fund balance as follows:
Amount included
in Reserved
Fund Balance
Hurricane loss - established by ordinance. $ 500,000
Workers Compensation - 10% of annual operating budget for this coverage. 343,717
Group accident and health - 252 of the annual operating costs for this coverage,
exclusive of life, accidental death and disability for which the City has outside
coverage. 1,525,000
General liability - 102 of the number of incidents reported during the year at actual
average claim cost. 339,486
$ 2,708,203
(8) Se,ments of Enterprise Activities
Key financial data for the
various
activities
of the City's
Enterprise Funds for
the year ended
September
30,
1981 is as follows:
Convention
Center
Stadiums
Marinas
Auditoriums
Golf
Others
Total
Operating revenues
$
-
1,601,984
1,041,054
429,706
615,765
36,350
3,924,859
Operating expenses
320,929
2,332,962
1,182,697
909,750
768,910
-
5,515,247
Operating income (loss)
$
(320,928)
(730,978)
(141t643)
(480,044)
46,855
36,350
(1,590,388)
Net income (loss)
95,237
(295,282)
(78,870)
(179,191)
89,048
35,326
(333,732)
Working cape
1,320,9213
(� 1,092,747) 270 509
(542 221
246,358
61.051
263,878
Assets
93,691,621
15,096,294
4,158,344
5,511,657 1,853,796
525,445
120,837,157
Bonds payable
60,)00,000
-
-
-
-
185,000
60,185,000
Fund equity
27,1932198
14,643,482
4,086,891
5,455,645 1,820,548
320,445
53,520,209
Contributions and equity
transfers
9,548,454
1,841,505
-
-
-
-
11,389,959
Property plant and
equipment acquisitions
$ 26,787,741
367,676
188,126
2,889
54,326
-
27,401,358
51
(Continued).
82-47%'.YW -
0
E
13
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Notes to Financial Statements
The City's pension plans have not adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (F
No. 35, Accounting and Reporting by Defined Benefit Pension Plans. Therefore, certain other disclor
required by SFAS No. 36, Disclosure of Pension information, are not available.
(7) Self Insurance
The City maintains a Self Insurance Fund to provide insurance for certain property and liability risks, I
accident and health, and workers' compensation. The City has continued to purchase outside coverage for
Lain exposures where the premium is small in relation to the coverage provided. The charges made by the
Insurance Fund are not determined on an actuarial basis and are based on a cash basis estimate of self it
ante pay outs. The City believes the amounts charged in the accompanying financial statements would not d:
materially from actuarially determined amounts. The City's accounting policy and amount of unpaid claie
September 30, 1981, for the various coverages, is explained below;
Amount incl,
in Claims Pa -
(a) General Coverage
Departments of the City are assessed a charge for each risk based upon the number of
automobiles, square footage of space utilized, etc. As claims are reported, claims
personnel investigate each claim and estimate a liability on a case -by -case basis.
No provision is made for claims incurred but not reported (IBNR). The amount of
the IBNR liability is not determinable at this time. $ 2,155,44E
(b) Group Accident and Health
Employees participating in the City's group coverage contribute through payroll
deductions and departments of the City fund the remaining cost based upon their
respective number of participating employees. Retired employees also participate
and contribute to the plan.
All claims paid are expensed as paid. The amount of claims at September 30, 1981
represents certain September claims paid by the City in October. 401,22�
(c) Workers Compensation
All workers' compensation costs are included in the Self Insurance Fund, with all
departments of the City being assessed a charge for this coverage. At
September 30, 1981, there is no claim liability for workers compensation recorded.
Although significant, the amount of this liability is not determinable at this
time, but would be payable over several years. -
Total claims payable $ 2,556,67
(Cont
82-47C _ ..
50
April 8, 1982
Don Teems, President
I.A.F.F., Local 587
2980 N.W. South River Drive
Miami, Florida 33125
RE: Health Insurance
Dear Mr. 7,,!ems :
In res,_)1ut4.on of the differences of opinion with regard to the
Group aa)th Insurance coverage currently provided to eligible
empi-oy -2s, bo_h•present and retired, the following concepts are
agreed co:
A) The proposed insurance rates (see attached) will be effec-
tive to all employees currently electing to be included in
the City's Group Health Insurance program.
B) Said rates will be implemented effective retroactively to
March 7, 1982.
C) Fund balance for the group health portion of the Self -
Insurance Trust Fund only will be accepted by all parties to
be 1.6 million dollars effective March 7, 1982.
D) Local 587 will secure acceptance of this understanding from
the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 20, the Sanitation
Employees Association, and the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees Local 1907, as soon as pos-
sible, but no later than April 30, 1982.
E) Prior to September 30, 1982, Local 587 speaking in behalf of
all locals certified to represent City employees may present
to the City Manager a proposal to assume complete operation
of the group health insurance for all bargaining unit em-
ployees both present and retired.
Such proposal shall address issues in three general areas:
financial administration, general administration and claims
administration.
82-•4 i
i
In recognition of the fact the insurance proposal is yet to be
prepared by a coalition of all the City Union representatives,
nothing herein shall require the City to accept the proposal to
take over the Group Health Insurance by the Unions. Likewise,
should the City propose a Health Insurance transfer plan to the
Unions, no obligation would extend to the Unions to accept the
City's proposal.
This understanding represents a good faith attempt by the City
and the City's Union coalition to negotiate said transfer of the
Group Health Insurance Program to the Union coalition if possible
and economically feasible.
No increase cost shall occur to the City should said transfer
occur other than that which is agreed to in the current City La-
bor Agreements.
Sincerely,
46
an R. '-tielke
Labor Relations Officer
DRM/pl
Enclosure
cc: Howard V. Gary, City Manager
Randolph Rosencrantz, Assistant City Manager .- w
DON TEEMS, President
4140 S.W. 65th AVE.
DAVIE, FLORIDA 33314
April 13, 1982
0 0
MIAMI ASSOCIATION of FIRE FIGHTERS
MIAMI, FLORIDA ORGANIZED OCTOBER, 1938 LOCAL NO.587
TELEPHONE: 635.1767
AFFILIATED WITH
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
FLORIDA AFL-CIO
PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS OF FLORIDA
DADE COUNTY COUNCIL OF FIRE FIGHTERS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF FIRE FIGHTERS
WASHINGTON. O.C.
WILLIS ALLEN, JR.
Secretary -Treasurer
20025 N.E. 14th CT.
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33179
Mr. Dean Mielke
Labor Relations Officer
City of Miami
Re: Health Insurance
Dear Mr. Mielke:
In response to your April 8, 1982 letter for resolution of the differ-
ences of opinion with regard to the Group Health Insurance:
A. The proposed insurance premium increases will be effective to
all employees currently electing to be included in the City's
Group Health Insurance program.
B. Said premium increases will be implemented effective the first
full pay period after ratification of this agreement.
C. Fund balance for the Group Health portion of the self-insurance
trust fund only will be accepted by all parties to be 2.4 million
dollars effective upon ratification of this agreement.
D. Local 587 will attempt to secure acceptance of this understanding
from the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #20, the Sanitation
Employees Association, and the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees Local #1907, as soon as possible.
E. Within six months of ratification of this agreement, each employee
representative may elect to set up their own self-insurance trust
fund.
In the event any of the employee groups elect to exercise their
option to set up their own self-insurance trust fund, that group's
proportionate share of a minimum of the 2.4 million dollars
shall be turned over to that group's new self-insurance trust.
F. In the event any of the employee groups elect to stay in the City
of Miami Self -Insurance Program, that group or groups will receive
a monthly review of the trust transactions.
G. In the event any of the employee groups elect to exercise their
option to set up their own self-insurance trust fund, the City's
bi-weekly contribution shall be as provided by that groups contract.
IINITFn IN rHF_ PRATFnTIr11k ^ - n A09rnf0-A nr I IFE, NnMF_ . IAint ic'rnv
i
MIAMI ASSOCIATION of FIRE Fla �TERS
MIAMI, FLORIDA ORGANIZED OCTOBER, 1938 LOCAL NO.587
TELEPHONE, 635-1767
DON TEEMS, President
4140 S.W. 65th AVE.
DAVIE, FLORIDA 33314
Mr. Dean Mielke
Page two
April 13, 1982
Since ly,
Don Teems
President
I.A.F.F. Local 587
AFFILIATED WITH
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
FLORIDA AFL-CIO
PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS OF FLORIDA
DADE COUNTY COUNCIL OF FIRE FIGHTERS
cc. Howard V. Gary, City Manager
Randolph Rosencrantz, Asst. City Manager
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF FIRE FIGHTERS
WASHINGTON, Q.C.
WILLIS ALLEN, JR.
Secretary -Treasurer
20025 N.E.14th CT.
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33179
82-474
UNITED IN THE PROTECTION OF AMERICAN LIFE, HOME, INDUSTRY
11
�EDWIN H. COLE C.L.U. A�J ASSOCIATES, INC.
` Life, Health, Group and Retirement Planning
4,1
Mr. Donald Dunlap
;, iyyJ - •�� 11
Director, Risk Management*,iy
P. O. Box 330708
1?
Dinner Key City Hall
Miami, FL 33133
Dear Don:
6701 SUNSET DRIVE
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143
(305) 666-6249
February 11, 1982
This will confirm the information given to you by Joyce Seibert
on February 11, 1982, regarding the dividend resulting from the
change to ACS on June 1, 1978.
Of the total dividend for the "policy year" October 1, 1977
to June 1, 1978 of $1,663,991, the Health reserve portion
was $1,235,804.
You also requested the amount of drafts applied to the Unified
Claims provision of the ACS agreement. Our files indicate
that the amount of claim drafts clearing Equitable's bank
account after June 1, 1978 which were incurred prior to
that date were $212,691.15. Under the Unified Claims
provision we were to be refunded that amount by the City.
Should=you have any questions concerning this ratter, please
do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
6�'91
/y . ���
Edwin H. Cole C.L. .
EHC/fam
cc: J. Seibert
Edwin H. Cole, Chartered Life Underwriter
IOVNO
T�t
*EDWIN H. COLE C.L.U. At ASSOCIATES INC.
Life, Health, Group and Retirement Planning
6701 SUNSET DRIVE
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143
(305)666-6249
March 9, 1982
Mr. Donald Dunlap
Director, Risk management
P. O. Box 330708
Dinner Key City Hall
Miami, FL 33133
Dear Don:
Although we have not yet received a response from Don
Teems on the specific claim problems he expressed in
his letter of January 18, 1982, 1 had Equitable per-
form a random audit of your claims since June, 1981.
Ed Caldwell's people selected five (5) claims at large
for each month, and five (5) claims which reflected in-
curral dates of early 1981 and 1980. A copy of the
specifics is attached but a summary follows:
- Thirty-five claim files were reviewed
- The average claim payment time was ten (10)
workdays
- On the claims where charges were incurred
several months before the claim was paid,
the claim was not submitted promptly
- Them are several examples of delays when
the Benefits Office had to write to the
doctor for more information
We still are very interested in reviewing any additional
files which are brought to your attention.
Don, to keep you appraised of the claim payment turn-
around time, I have asked Equitable to report their
production results to us weekly, and I will forward
this on to you. Enclosed is a chart which reflects
the weekly production since July, 1981.
tas
....�'
Edwin H. Cole, Chartered Life Underwriter ;o`�;
82-4'73-.
;'
Douro
T�Yt�
Mr. Donald Dunlap_
Page Two
;larch 9, 1982
You will see the balloon in the backlog during December
and January, which we have discussed and which now is
rectified.
I will continue to monitor the claim service closely and
will keep you advised. Please contact me if you have any
questions on this material.
Since ely,
. 61-64(
E n H. Cole C.L.U.0
EHC/fam
Enclosure
cc: Ed Caldwell, Divisional Benefits :tanager,
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U.S.
Maurice Ferre, Mayor City of Miami
Joe Carollo, Commissioner City of Miami
J.L. Plur:uner, Commissioner City of *Mani
Puller Dawkins, Commissioner City of Miami
Demetrio Perez, Commissioner City of ;Miami
Howard V. Cary, City Manager Miami
Dean Mielke, Labor Relations Officer
Don Teems, viiami Assoc. of Fire Fighters
82-4'731
CITY OF MIAMI -- JUNE 1981
Claim Form
Claim
Name of Insured
Date of Charges
Signed
Received
Claim Paid
Remarks
William Eley
08/31/80
06/20/81
03/05/81
04/20/81
Req. itemized
bill 03/12;
recd 03/23
William Miller
04/29/81
03/10/81
06/01/81
06/15/81
James Avery
05/20-21/81
05/20/81
06/01/81
06/11/81
Dale Rich
05/18/81
05/18/81
05/20/81
06/01/81
Wi am Suter
04/16/81
None
05/21/81
06/01/81
Richard Baker 10/13/80
Req. form
05/18/81
Amt of ck - $37.55
05/01/81;
recd 05/14
Donald Reid
01/04/81
04/24/81
05/11/81
05/21/81
Amt of ck - $165.00
Kim Rabson
12/29/80
None
06/01/81
06/12/81
Amt of ck - $59.60
(James)
Claude Smith
11/26/80
03/05/81
04/30/81
05/08/81
Amt of ck - $30.00
Thomas Adkins
06/29/77
Form sent
06/12/81
Amt of ck - $200.00
05/12/78;
never recd.
Submitted
again
05/21/81
I�III I I �
CITY OF MIAMI -- JULY 1981
Name of Insured
Date of Charges
Claim Form
Signed
Claim
Received
Claim Paid
Remarks
Philip Lupo
04/21/81
None
07/07/81
07/13/81
David Murphy
06/08/81
06/08/81
06/10/81
06/23/81
Thomas Dougherty
05/04/81
05/12/81
06/16/81
06/29/81
Thomas Bickett
03/22/81
04/10/81
06/05/81
06/19/81
Antonio Murguia
04/28/81
None
06/12/81
06/17/81
•m
.0,
.9/81
01/14/31
06/22/81
07/06/81
Amt
of
ck
- $176.75
07/09/81
07/21/81
Amt
of
ck
- $120.00
06/26/81
07/02/81
Amt
of
ck
- $10.00
1
06/19/81
07/02/81
Amt
of
ck
- $91.00
06/16/81
06/29/81
1 Amt
of
ck
- $131.00
CITY OF MIAMI -- AUGUST 1981
Claim Form
Claim
;
Name of Insured
Date of Charges
Signed
Received
Claim Paid
Remarks
Robert Fink
06/08/81
None
07/02/81
07/29/81
Kenneth Wilson
03/28/81
07/19/81
07/24/81
07/31/81
Gerald Camp
06/81
06/23/81
07/30/81
08/05/81
J Dukes
06, 07/81
06/30/81
08/04/81
08/11/81
R Baker
05/12/81
05/15/81
05/17/81
07/23/81
DCI sent 6/4
DCI reed 7/7
Patrick R. Roach
12/25/80
None
07/09/81
06/04/81
Req form 6/17
07/15/81
07/24/81
Amt of ck - $39.20
Herman Brice
12/01/80
None
07/20/81
08/03/81
Amt of ck - $31.70
Nelson George
11/05/80
02/09/81
02/11/81
02/20/81
Amt of ck - $7.00
Harold Hardaman
01-08/81
08/11/81
08/17/81
08/21/81
Amt of ck - $90.00
David Murphy
08/05-11/25/80
07/28/81
08/05/81
Amt of ck - $285.61
CITY OF MIAMI -- OCTOBER 1981
Name of Insured
Date of Charges
Claim Form
Signed
Claim
Received
Claim Paid
Remarks
Carrie Nesbitt
08/81
None
10/01/81
10/12/81
Wayne Hinnant
09/08/81
09/08/81
09/28/81
10/09/81
Carl Johnson
08/13/81
08/20/81
08/28/81
09/08/81
Thomas Calloway
09/15/81
09/22/81
09/30/81
10/09/81
Edward Bratz
08/07/81
08/28/81
09/02/81
09/11/81
09/07/81
Req. diag-
nosis 09/10
Recd 09/12
10/02/81
Amt
of
ck
- $16.00
08/31/81
09/02/81
Amt
of
ck
- $40.00
09/11/81
09/24/81
Amt
of
ck
- $214.00
10/01/81
10/14/81
Amt
of
ck
- $142.34
09/30/81
10/09/81
Amt
of
ck
- $567.85
CITY OF MIAMI -- NOVEMBER 1981
Claim Form
Claim
p
Name of Insured
Date of Charges
Signed
Received
Claim Paid
Remarks k
Terry Gonzalez
09/17/81
09/30/81
10/19/81
10/27/81
Salvador Landa
09/20/81
None
10/21/81
10/30/81
Thomas G. Lee
09/16/81
09/16/81
09/21/81
Req addl
info 9/30;
recd 10/15
10/26/81
Charles Allison
07/29/81
10/07/81
10/23/81
11/05/81
D Milley
10/26/81
None
11/02/81
11/11/81
Charles Allison
11/03/80
12/01/80
10/15/81
10/27/81
Amt of ck - $96.00
Mary Halloran
01/18-11/12/80
None
08/24/81
08/26/81
Amt of ck - $35.00
Larry L. Broodway
02/81, 09/81
10/10/81
11/06/81
11/16/81
Amt of ck - $48.00
Frank Rallason
02-03/81
None
09/30/81
10/23/81
Amt of ck - $11.42
Ray J. Hamlin
02-08/81
08/19/81
09/28/81
10/08/81
Amt of ck - $430.44
L-1
CITY OF MIAMI -- DECEMBER 1981
Claim Form
Claim
'
Name of Insured
Date of Charges
Signed
Received
Claim Paid
Remarks
Gregory Lowe
09/03/81
11/02/81
11/06/81
11/16/81
Jose Arias
07/25/81
None
08/21/81
V
Req. form
90
08/25 &
10/20
Recd 11/23
12/15/81
Wilmer Parks
06-10/81
10/20/81
10/26/81
11/11/81
Ja* Byrd
06/81
10/14/81
11/12/81
11/23/81
Richard Hickox
01-10/81
10/20/81
10/26/81
11/18/81
Richard Hickox
03/07,12/31/80
1.0/20/81
10/26/81
11/18/81
Amt of ck - $10.00
Luis Diaz
01/28/81
None
11/11/81
11/20/81
Amt of ck - $127.00
Kenneth McCullough
01-11/81
11/19/81
11/25/81
12/02/81
Amt of ck - $90.00
R L Hardegree
10/29/80
09/23/81
09/29/81
10/09/81
Amt of ck - $32.00
Ray Verner
01/08,03/05/81
09/16/81
, 11/16/81
11/24/81
Amt of ck - $22.00
0
CITY OF MIAMI -- JANUARY 1982
Name of Insured
Date of Charges
Claim Form
Signed
Claim
Received
Claim Paid
r
Remarks 01-
Julio Mestas
08/20/81
10/15/81
12/04/81
01/04/82
John Montgomery
07,08,09/81
12/01/81
12/04/81
01/05/82
Charles Manetta
10/29/81
12/08/81
12/14/81
01/08/82
Andrew Sears
11/03/81
01/06/82
01/11/82
01/18/82
Gladys Fernandez
12/10/81
None
12/21/81
01/14/82
den
Wilot
liam Carter
12/12/80-
None
09/29/81
10/09/81
Amt of ck - $20.00
08/26/81
Paul Oboz
02/07-12/11/81
12/14/81
12/16/81
01/18/82
Amt of ck - $39.00
Charles Dathard
12/29/80-
None
12/07/81
01/19/82
Amt of ck - $16.00
12/03/81
i
Gurrell Atchison
01/09-12/17/81
None
08/21/81
Rea addl
info 8/26;
recd 12/21
01/15/82
Amt of ck - $18.00
James Rehm
09/17/80-
None
11/16/81
04/13/81
Req addl
info 12/7/81;
recd 01/11/82
01/21/32
Amt of ck - $155.00
0
LE
CITY OF MIAMI
GROUP BENEFIT PLAN
Number and Age of Claims in Casselberry Benefits Office
1
I�dla4(--
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
OLDER
--
'-13r32
811
9
'-2039
89
3
'-27
98
64
23
6
121
1-O3
107
1 87
82
70
29
-10
48
38
79
19
1.26
10
-17
42
106
i
1
-24
127
23
-31
70
146
33
I1
-07
67
79
24
-14
95
14
28
57
0
1
-21
54
77
50
41
103
27
-281
36
40
36
17
95
66
I
-051 31
48
40
150
1
-13i 20
75
49
56
44
92
47
19
25
17
12
-1 j��-__--Q_
0
5
21
1 541
42
2
82-473;
CITY OF MIAMI
GROUP BENEFIT PLAN
;dumber and Aye of Claims in Casselberry Benefits Office
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
OLDER
Days
Days
)-26 0 0
0 0
100
51
1 47
1
1
1 6
�--02
0
5
30
28
101
45
61
33
9
34
-09
0
49
15
12
62
13
16
16
15
25
3
13
--16
0
0
24
4
47
27
4
1
-23
0
27
13
63
115
17
15
1
1
-30
0 I 0
40
105
41
29
23
16
84
12
14
J i
0 I 95
59
4_
64
59
50
29
80
33
16
14
2
96
i
-141
0 57
52
11
103
47
51
741
G
36
53
35
15
115
-21
0 41
51
3
69
50
55
52
6
103
57
73
68
200
__28
0
0
11
43
23
41 1
51.
3
69
50
65
62
6
366
- 05
0
18
18
1-3
65
45
26
15
78
22
43
54
2
705
--11
0�
--
0
0
0
30
14
6
10
25
8
131
4
361
499
-18
T
16
12
8 (
31
19
4
11
01
38
13
6
7
286
')
-_.5++
0
38
35
27
49
10
4
1
0
3
2
0
0
9
82-473
0
9..
CITY OF MIAMI
GROUP BENEFIT PLAN
6E
Nu;iibr-, - and Age of Claims in Cassolberry B3--nefit,i office
�__—_ _ _—l�.c�
?-01 41
2
i �c
50
I 3
12
b
• r r
115
5
6
7
I b
r
9
- f
10
Days
11
C
12
DaVs
13FOLDER
pavc
-08
46
39
17
.102.
48
'-16
15
52
47
24
106
69
'-2
0
26
16
96
35
36
23
3-01
1.
56
41
11
113
43
61
i
I j
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
8z~4'73
LAW f3rfICES
KAPLAN, SICKING, HESSEN, SUGARMAN, ROSENTHAL & DE CASTRO
1951 NORTHWEST 17th AVFNUF
MIAMI, FLORIDA
MAILING ADORFSS
PO DRAWER 520117
MIAMI, FLORIDA 11152
ABRAHAM BASSIF
General Prartire
STEVEN BLOOM
Iahor Law
ALFREDO F. DE CASTRO
(,Pneral Practice
PAMELA FLFISCHMANN
General Prar fire
PAT RICK O. HEIM
General Practice
ARNOLD D. HESSEN
Personal Inµ(ry and Wrongful Death
Famih Law
)OSEPH H. KAPLAN
Labor Law
HENRY S. PRETTYMAN
Criminal law
GERALD A. ROSENTHAL
Workers Compensation
RICHARD A. SICKING
Workers Compensation
Adminrstratwe and Governmental law
ROBERT A. SUGARMAN
I ahm I aw
HOWARD S SUSSKIND
I abor I aw
TELEPHONES:
(305) 12511,61
FROM RROAARD DIAL 02t141159
FROM PRIM BI ACH DIAL 654-2262
WEST PALM BEACH OFFICE
SUIT( 9(17 • FORUM III
16hS PALM RF A(H 1 AK E S LIOUI E VARD
WEST PRIM BEACH, II ORIDA 34401
TPI No (30S)683-4400
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
May 11, 1982
Mr. Don Teems, President
Miami I.A.F.F. Local 587
4140 S. W. 65th Avenue
Davie, Florida 33314
Dear Don:
As I understand the question you posed to us for a
legal opinion, during recent contract negotiations with
the City of Miami, neither the City nor the Union raised
the question of an increase in employee contributions to
the group health insurance program; and subsequent to those
negotiations the City proposed an increase in employee con-
tributions which was disputed by your Union. Moreover, as
I understand it, both the City and the Union had been nego-
tiating changes in several issues relating to the group
health insurance program when the City unilaterally placed
the matter of increasing the employees' contributions on
the agenda of today's City Commission meeting, Your query
whether. the City's conduct, if they in fact increased the
employees' contributions, would violate either your collec-
tive bargaining agreement or the Public Employee Relaticns
Act, or both.
Your collective bargaining agreement is clearly vio-
lated by the City's unilaterally increasing the employees'
contributions to the group health insurance program.
Article V of your contract provides that any proposed changes
in rights and benefits not specifically covered by the
agreement will be negotiated by the City and the Union. In
Article XVII of your agreement, the amount of premium to be
increased and paid by the employee is not "specifically
covered by the agreement" and thus the City has a duty
under Article V to negotiate any proposed increase in the
employees' share of that premium.
Moreover, there is little
lateral action in this matter
(1) (a) (c) F.S. (1979) . In the
question that the City's uni-
would violate Section 447.501
most recent case involving
82-473
Mr. Don Teems
May 11, 1982
Page -2-
a matter almost identical to the facts you present, the
City of Dunedin case appearing 8 FPER T13102, PERC speci-
fically found that under facts quite like the facts in
your case, the City of Dunedin could not unilaterally
increase the cost of health insurance paid by the employees
without prior notice to and negotiating with the employees'
bargaining agent.
I suggest that you call these matters to the atten-
tion of the City Commission and encourage them not to vio-
late either the collective bargaining agreement or State
law by the actions which appear to be proposed by the
Administration.
JHK/rla
82-473 -
Cite at: 8 FPEA 1113102
Certification— un►on's Ofeclalmer Of /nftlresf--
Retrocetfon-- 32.98
Union's certification as representative of unit of county's
emergency medical service workers revoked where union
filed disclaimer of interest in representation of unit
employees.
Douglas R. Draxler, Ft. Walton Reach, representative fc{r
petitioner.
Robert Norton, Con it Gables, attorney for respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
AND REVOKING CERTIFICATION
On April 14, 1981, following a secret ballot election.
Commission certified the Okaloom island Fire Figh,
Association, Local 2617, as the exclusive bargaining represents,
for empinvees of Oksloosa County in the following unit
emergency medical service workers:
INCLUDED: Drivers and Emergency Medic&
Technicians.
EXCLUDED: Director. Assistant Director. dispateheri
and clerical employees and all other
County employees.'
On January 13, 1982. Douglas Draxler, President of Local
2617. filed a petition to Revoke Certification, seeking the
decertification of Local 2617 as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the above -cited unit. Pursuant to Section
447.308(I), Florida Statutes (1981) and Florida Administrative
Code Rule 3813-17.15, the petition is DISMISSED as untimely
because it was filed within twelve months of the representation
election in this bargaining unit. Furst M. Coltman v. /BEW. Local
2358, 6 FPER 4111163 (1980).t
On January 19, 1982, in accordance with Florida
Administrative Code Rule 3813-17.13, Mr. Draxler, on behalf of
Local 2617. filed a disclaimer of interest in representing the
previously defined unit of emergency medical servioe workers. It
appears, upon review of the statements made in the disclaimer, that
Local 2617 has satisfied the requirements of Rule 38D-17.13(1).
Therefore, Certification No. 533 is REVOKED with prejudice.
Local 2617 shall not be permitted to file, or intervene in, a petition
to represent the same employees in the bargaining unit for a one-
year period following the dale of this order. Fla. Admin. Code Rule
38 D-17.13(2)
It is so ordered.
i Okalnnsa Wand Fire Fighters Assorlation, !oral 2617,
/AFFv. Okaloosa County. Case No. RC-80-041(Certifiation No.
533).
t The petition also is defective because it is not supported by
a 30 percent showing of interest as required by ()447.308t 1) Florida
Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rule 38D-17,14(4).
% CITY OF DUNEDIN
Decision of PERC
Pinellas County Police 9ertevolenl Association, Inc.,
Charging Party, v. City of Dunedin, Respondent.
Case No. CA-81-087, 821J-048
February 9, 1982
Before Powers, Chairman; Brook%, Commissioner
Unllahlal Changiv - fnereasad Health /nauranee MY
Dadoothme— Wafwr-- 09. 042,43.78,43. ?#, 72.651,
72.6"
Neither broadly -worded zipper clause nor management,
rightai clause, which did not specifically reserve to city tight
to .alter insurance program. constituted clear and
unmistakable waiver by police union of its right to bargain
concerning city's unilateral implementation of increased
health insurance payroll deductions. Although, in order to
maintain health benefits at current level, city was required by
insurance carrier to increase premiums, city was notified by,
carrier several months in advance of impending increase.
Thus, city had adequate time to commence negotiations with
union regarding change. Accordingly, city's unilateral
action was unlawful.
Gene "Hal" Johnson, Tallahassee, attorney for charging
party.
Jolffl G. Hubbard. FRA7.FR ik HURRARD, Dunedin, and
Harrison C. Thompson, Jr., SHACkLEFORD, FARRIOR,
S7ALLiNGS dt EVANS, Tampa, attorneys for respondent.
ORDER
On October 7, 1981, the Pinellas County Police Benevolent
Association (Union) filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging
that the City of Dunedin (City) violated Section 447.501( 1)(a) and
(c), Florida Statutes (1981). by unilaterally increasing the health
insurance premium paid by bargaining unit members On October
9. 1981, the Commission determined the charge to he sufficient and
ordered that an evidentiary hearing be held.
On November 24, 1991. a hearing was conducted before a
Commission appointed Hearing Officer, at which time both parties
were given the opportunity to present testimony and evidence and
to cross-examine witnesses. Both parties filed briefs to the Hearing
Officer. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order issued on
December 23. 1981, a copy of which is attached and incorporated
herein.' The Hearing Officer concluded that the City violated
Section "730l(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes ( 1981).
The Commission has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
Recommended Order and has determined that the findings of fact
therein are supported by competent substantial evidence.
Accordingly, the Commission adopts the Hearing Officer's
findings of fact as its own findings of fact. Having examined the
(fearing Officer's dt%cu%mon of the issues and conclusion% of law,
the Commission finds itself in agreement with the Hearing Officer.
Accordingly, the Commission adopts the Heannp Officer's
conclusions of law.
The Commtssion has reviewed the remedy recommended by
the )fearing Officer and is in substantial agreement with it.
However, the Commission disagrees with that portion of the
recommendation which provide% that, "if nn agreement can he
82-4'73 -
.102 Public Employee Reporter (Florlds Edltlon)
reached within twenty days after the PBA's request for
negotiations, the City shall reimburse any qualified employee for
the loss of pay caused by the increased premium from August 7,
1981. until the date that agreement on the insurance premium was
reached as a result of negotiations for a successor contract."
The appropriate remedy in unilateral change casts isa return
to the .status quo ants until agreement is reached. See. e.g.,
Hernando CTA v. Hernando County School Board, 3 FPER 246
(1977). We find no reason to require reimbursement only if
agreement is not reached within twenty days of the request for
negotiations. The City should be required to "make whole" all
bargaining unit employees by reimbursing them for the amount of
the increase already deducted from their paychecks and to assume
full payment of the increased cost of the premium until agreement is
reached on the method of payment.'
Pursuant to Section 447.501(6xa). Florida Statutes (1981), the
Public Employees Relations Commission orders the City of
Dunedin to:
I. Cease and desist from:
a. Changing the costs paid by employees with dependents
for the health insurance program, without prior notice to, and
negotiations with, the PRA.
h. In any like or related manner, interfering with the
exercise of employee rights guaranteed by Chapter 447, Part 11,
Florida Statutes (1981).
2. Take the following affirmative action:
a. Upon a proper request, negotiate with the PBA
concerning the rate change of the health insurance program for
employees with dependents that became effective August 7, 1991.
b. Commencing with the first premium payment due
following the issuance of this order. make full payment of the
increased portion of the premium for the health insurance program
for employees with dependents and continue such payments until
the date that agreement on the method of payment of the insurance
premium is reached.
c. Reimburse any qualified bargaining unit employee for
the loss of pay caused by the increased premium from August 7,
1981, until the date that the City commences payment of the
increased premium or until the date that agreement on the method
of payment of insurance premium is reached, whichever may be
sooner.
d. Pay reasonable attorney's feet and costs of litigation to
the PBA in accordance with the procedures set forth in Florida
Administrative Code Rule 3813-14.04.
e. Post immediately for sixty days in conspicuous placer
where notices are customarily posted, the attached Notice to
Employees stating that the City shall tease and desist from the
actions set forth in paragraph 1 above. Copies of the Notice shalt be
signed by the City's authorired representative prior to posting. The
City shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered with other material.
f. Notify the Public Employees Relations Commission in
writing within twenty calendar days from the date of this order of
steps that have been taken to comply with this order.
It is so ordered.
i No exceptions to the Recommended Order were filed by
HEARING OFFICER'S RrCOMML`DI U ORI►FR
On November 24. 1991, the undersigned hearing ottitcr
conducted a public hearing in Dunedin. I lotida, concerning issues
raised in the above -styled case.
I. PRELIMINARY S1A1FMt-NT
On October 7, 1981, the Pinellas County Police Reoevolent
Association, Inc. (PBA), filed an unfair labor practice charge in
accordance with the procedures required by Section 447 501(I ).
Florida Statutes (1979), and Florida Administrative Cede Rule
3813-21.01. The PBA alleged thnt on August 7, 19R1. the City of
Dunedin unilaterally increased the health insurance premium paid
by bargaining unit employees in violation of Section 447 501(11(a)
and (e). The Commission determined the a harge to he sufficient by
its order dated October 9, 1991. and schrduled an etidentiary
hearing for November 3, 1991. At the rcyucst of the PHA, and
without objection by the City, the hearing was rescheduled for
November 24. 1981.
On October 28. 1981. the city filed a dismissal motion and an
answer. The motion to dismiss was denied by the hearing officer in
an order issued on November 20, 1991. In its answer the City
admitted that it had increased the health insurance premium for
dependent coverage of bargaining unit memhcrs un August 7, 198I,
without prior negotiations with the PRA However, the City
affirmatively defended its action on two grounds first, the City
contended that the increase in premium did not constitute a
substantive change in working conditions that required bargaining
Second, the City claimed that a contractual waiver permitted the
unilateral iUrease.
Both parties timely filed prehearing and pnsthearing
statements and briefs.
II. ISSUES
1. Whether the City unilaterally increased the health
insurance premium for coverage of dependents of bargaining unit
employees in violation of Section 441.501(I Na) and (c), Florida
Statutes (1979).
2. Whether the PBA should he awarded reasonable
attorney's fees and costs of litigation.
Ill. STIPULATED FACTS
At hearing the parties agreed to the following
I. The PRA is the certified bargaining agent for all full-time
permanent patrolmen and sergeants of the City (g) i
2. The City is a public employer within the meaning of
Section 447.20)(2), Florida Statutes (1979) (9-9).
3. The PBA and the City are signatories to a collective
bargaining agreement (Agreement) which was in effect from
October 1, 1990 through September 10, 1991 (9, Exh al at 40) r
Relevant clauses of the management rights, maintenance of
conditions and duration articles, provide. in pertinent part:
Article 4- Alanagrment Rights
Section I
Except as expressly protidrd for in this Agrremrut.
the City retains the sole right. to manage a%onrration%
and direct the working force, tntluding the ights to
either party.
decide the number and location tit statiom, the
t We emphasire that the remedy applies only to employees in operating of motortied equipment, the %cope of
the unit represented by the PRA. service it) he prrfornied. the method -4 wrvit c and the
82-4'73 -
Cite as: 8 FPER 0 113102
rr rr rrr�
schedule of work time; to contract and subcontract
existing and future work; to determine whether and to
what extent the work required in its operations shalt
be performed by employees covered by this
Agreement; to maintain order and efficiency in its
stations and locations; to curtail or discontinue
temporarily or permanently, in whole or in part,
operations whenever in the opinion of the City good
business judgment makes such curtailment or
discontinuance advisable; to hire, lay off, assign.
transfer, promote and determine the qualifications of
employees and to determine the starting and quitting
time and the number of hour to be worked and to
have complete authority to exercise those rights and
powers incidental thereto. including the right to make
unilateral changes in the above subject only to such
regulations governing the exercise of these rights as
are expressly and specifically provided in this
Agreement.
Section 4
The City and the PRA, for the life of this Agreement,
each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right
and agrees that the other shall not be obliged to
bargain collectively with respect to any subject or
matter not specifically referred to or covered in this
Agreement, even though such subject or matter may
not have been within the knowledge orcontemplation
of either or both parties at the time that they
negotiated or signed this Agreement.
Article 22- Maintenance of Conditions
Section i
All rights, privileges and working conditions enjoyed
by the employees at the present time, which are not
included in this Agreement, will be presumed to be
reasonable and proper.
Article 40• Duration
Section
The City and the PDA, for the duration of this
Agreement each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives
the right and agrees that the other shall not be
obligated to bargain collectively with respect to any
subject or matter not specifically referred to or
covered in this Agreement, even though such subject
matter may not have been within the knowledge or
contemplation of either or both parties at the time that
they negotiated this Agreement. unless otherwise
provided for herein.
(Exh. N 1 at 4. 22 and 40)
4. On or about August 1. 1991, the City implemented a new
dental insurance plan, second surgical opinion program and
revised life insurance program applicable only to employees who
arc not members of the certified bargaining unit represented by the
PDA (nonunion employees). At the same time all employees, both
nonunion and union. were notified that the employee dependent
health insurance coverage premium would increase $4.52 per
biweekly pay period ($117.52 annually) effective August 7, 1981.
due to the premium increase instituted by the insurance carrier. The
new dental insurance plan, second surgical opinion program and
revised life insurance program were implemented for nonunion
employees at no cost to the nonunion employees (9.10).
5. The health insurance program for the employees
represented by the PDA was entirely unchanged from the health
insurance program that was in existence on October I. 1980 (11).
6. The increased employee dependent health insurance
coverage premium in the amount of $4.52 per biweekly pay period
wilts implemented August 7. 1991 and began to he deducted from
the paychecks of all participating nonunion and union employees
on that date (11).
7. in light of the fact that its bargaining tinit employees had
suffered an increase in premium payment, as had all nonunion
employees, but had not received the revised benefits (new dental
insurance plan, second surgical opinion program and revised life
insurance program) that were received by all nonunion employees.
the PDA. on August 17, 1981. requested by letter that the City- (a)
implement the new dental health insurance plan, second surgical
opinion program and revised life insurance program for its
bargaining unit employees; or (h) negotiate the changes in those
benefits and premiums. The increase in premium was not related in
any manner to the newly implemented dental insurance plan,
second surgical opinion program or revised life insurance program.
The increase in premium resulted solely and exclusively from the
premium increase instituted by the insurance carrier. The City had
no control over the premium increase (I 1.12).
8. On August 31, 1981, the City responded to the PBA's
August 17. 1981 letter by denying the request to negotiate on the
ground that the PDA had waived its right to impact bargaining (13).
9. The PHA sent another letter to the City, dated September
8, 1981. In if,, -the PHA objected to the City's refusal to negotiate on
the above -stated insurance coverage and premium (14).
10. At no time prior to or immediately after the
implementation of the premium increase did the City negotiate
with the PHA the change or its affect or impact on unit employees.
Several months prior to the implementation of the premium
increase the City and the PDA commenced collective negotiation
for a new contract year beginning October 1, 19H 1. As part of those
negotiations health insurance programs and other medical
programs were negotiated and discussed both prior to and after
August 1. 1981. The negotiations for the subsequent contract did
not include impact bargaining over the increased premium for
dependent coverage (14-I5).
11. A previous collective bargaining agreement between the
City and the PDA, effective from October 1, 1974 through
September 30, 1973, contained management rights and duration
articles similar to the provisions in the 1980-1981 Agreement (16,
Exh. # 1 at 4 and 30).
12. Prior to the premium change on August 7. 1981. the City
paid all costs for a unit employee's medical insurance coverage and
the City paid $24.33 toward the costs of an employee's dependent
medical insurance coverage. if the employee elected such coverage.
After the premium change on August 7, 1981. the Citycontinued to
pay all costs of a unit employee's medical insurance coverage and
the City continued to pay S24.33 toward the costs of an employee's
dependent medical insurance coverage, if the employeeelected such
coverage (17).
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The City's insurance carrier notified the City several months
before August 7, 1981 of a premium increase (20). The increase in
premium had to be paid by August 7, 1981, in order to maintain the
status quo in dependent coverage. On August 1, 1981, the City
82-r4'731
A02 PI4c Employee Reporter (Florida E0on)
0
notified its employees of the $4.52 increase in premium that would
be deducted from their biweekly paychecks starting August 7, 1981.
Before August 7, 1981, the PRA was not notified that unit
employees with dependents would he required to pay an additional
amount for health insurance.
V. DISCUSSION
1. Unilateral Change
The PRA alleges, and the City does not deny, that on August 7.
1981. the City began deducting S4.52 more per biweekly pay period
from the paychecks of employees whose insurance coverage
included dependents. Several months beforehand, the insurance
carrier had notified the City that an increased premium would be
necessary to maintain its existing insurance program. After this
notification, the City did not promptly inform its employees of the
impending increase in the cost of health insurance, or seek to
negotiate the matter with the PRA. It eventually notified its
employees (on August 1, 1981) that health insurance premiums
would increase for those with dependent coverage.
There is no record evidence that the Cityever notified the PBA
of the impending health insurance premium increase. However, the
record supports the reasonable inference that the PBA learned of
the increase from its unit members, who were notified of it on
August 1, 1981. Andrus v. Florida Department of Labor and
En►ployment Security, 379 So.2d 468. 470 (Fla. 4th DCA). Both
parties agree that the subject was not included in the negotiations
for a subsequent contract, which began several months prior to the
City's implementation of the increase. There is no record evidence
that the PBA ever communicated to the City either its agreement to
the increase or its intent not to negotiate the matter. To the
contrary, the PBA, on August 17. 1981. requested negotiations on
the premium increase. Substantial evidence, therefore, reveals that
the City implemented the premium change without prior notice to.
or negotiations with, the PBA.
The City's insurance program is provided to all of its
employees. Neither the program nor its cost to employees is
expressly mentioned in the 1990-1991 Agreement, which expired
September 30, 1991. The only reference to extracontractual "rights,
privileges, and working conditions" is contained in Article 2Z
Maintenance of Conditions. The section provides that such
employee benefits "will be presumed to be reasonable and proper."
(Exh. 01 at 22). A similar provision appeared in a prior collective
bargaining agreement between the parties. No evidence was
submitted that would demonstrate that the City ever previously
implemented a premium increase without prior notice to, and
negotiations with, the PRA.
The Commission has held that an employee insurance
program Is a term and condition of employment within the
meaning of Section 447.309(1). Florida Statutes (1979). United
Fieulty of Florida, Local 1880 v. Board ojRegents. 4 FPER 44319
(1979) (group insurance program is a proper subject of bargaining
if dw employer can lawfully implement the negotiated placer.
PbwAn 6owtty PRA v. City of St. Petersburg. 3 FPER 205(1977)
(We, and accident insurance programs are proper subjects of
bargaining). In the private sector. the cost of health insurance for
employees with dependents is a mandatory subject of bargaining.
Ord Chemical and Atomle Workers International Union v. NLRA
547 F.2d 375, 382 (D.C. Cir. 1977). It is clear. then. that health
insurance programs and related premiums that cover public
employees and their dependents are negotiable terms and
conditions of employment in Florida. City of Tallahastee v. PERC.
C&* 60.334 (M. [let:. 3. 1991) (rehearing pending).
bftuse a health insurance program is a mandatory subject of
barpining, the City had to notify the PRA of any proposed
increase in the programs cost that its employees might have to pay.
Updw a j►taper request. the increased cost had to be negotiated with
de >ptlA prior to being implemented. See, e.g., St. Peterthrtrf)
AtWtotlon of Aw fighters, Local747 v. Ciry of St. Petersburg. S
MR +110381. Wed. 389 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 10191;
PWowiteh v. Orange County School Board, 3 FPER 280 (101),
ahtd. 367 So.2d 730 (Fla. let DCA 1979) (Po/ow•itch case). The only
legitimate affirmative defenses that the Citycan raise to a unilateral
change charge are a clear and unmistakable contractual waiver.
some exigent circumstance requiring immediate action or
legislative body action resolving an impasse issue. Martin Count►-
Education Assn. Local .ibis v. Afartin Count►- School Board. S
FPER 110302 (1979), ajrd, 390 So.2d 830 (Fla. Ist DCA 1980);
Florida PBA v. State of Florida, 7 FPER 1(12051 (1980). Thiscase
does not involve legislative action after impasse. Hence, only two
affirmative defenses are available to that City.
The City asserts that it had no choice but to deduct the
increased premium from paychecks of employees with dependent
coverage. However, it had sufficient time (several months) after
initial notification of the rate increase to negotiate the change with
the PBA. Such negotiations would have acquainted the PRA with
the proposed change and enabled it to consult with its unit
members to determine whether they wished to accept it, reject it or
propose an alternative. If the parties were unable to reach
agreement by the critical date, August 7, 19R1. then the City might
have been jUstified in implementing the increased cost to maintain
the s►atur quo in substantive insurance coverage for em ployees with
dependents. Because no exigent circumstance existed several
months before the August 7. 1981 implementation, the City's action
cannot be affirmatively defended on this ground.
The City next asserts that the PRA, in Article 4, Section 1,
Management Rights, waived its right to negotiate the increased
cost of the insurance program. In the article the City "retains the
sole right" to do such things as "maintain order." "contract and
subcontract existingand future work, -and hire employees (Exh. al
at 4). The last phrase of the article authorizes the City "to make
unilateral changes in the above subject only to such regulations
governing the exercise of these rights as are expressly and
specifically provided in this Agreement " This sectinn is a
generalired management rights provisions which grants the City
the authority to unilaterally alter many delineated working
conditions. The insurance program, however, is not one of the
explicit delineations.
Commission precedent states that generalised contractual
language, without more, will not be construed as a waiver of the
right to bargain over subsequent proposed alternations to existing
terms and conditions of employment. See. r R., Palo witrh case. 3
FPER at 280. "A lawful waiver must he based on a clear and
unmistakable showing that the labor organiration consciously
yielded its nght to negotiate on a specific issue." iRPO, 1ocal621 v.
City of Ho/lvwood, 7 FPER 112293 (19R1). Because the
management rights provision does not meet the requirement of
specificity regarding the insurance program, it does not constitute a
valid contractual waiver defense to the City's unilateral change in
the program on August 7, 1981.
Moreover, Article 4, Sectinn 4, Management Rights, and
Article 40. Section 4, Duration, both provide that neither the City
nor the PBA is obligated to hargam over "am• subject or matter not
82-473—
I* CIls me: 8 FPEA I_........... - ¶13102
specifically referred to or covered in this Agreement, even though
such suhject matter may not have been within the knowledge or
contemplation of either or both ponies at the tirrle that they
netrotiated this Agreement...." These general "ripper clause"
provisions do not constitute the unmistakable waiver required by
the Palo -itch case, because there is no express delineation waiving
the PBA's right to negotiate concerning the proposed change in the
insurance plan's rate for employees with dependents. The relevant
contractual provisions are not similar to those in which the
Commission has found a clear waiver$ to negotiate proposed
changes to existing working conditions. See, e.g., IRPO, Local621
v. Ciry of Holl wood. 7 FPER 112293 (1991) (explicit waiver to
negotiate changes in shift system).
In view of the above discussion. the City's unilateral increase in
the cost of its insurance program paid by employees with
dependents, violates Section 447,301(IXa) and (c). Florida Statutes+
(1979). The appropriate remedy to a valid unilateral change unfair
labor practice charge is usually an order which requires the charged
party to return to the bargaining table upon a proper request for
negotiations. However, in this case negotiations could be futile
because the critical date. August 7. 1981, has passed. Therefore, if
negotiations are unsuccessful after a reasonable period of time, the
City should be required to reimburse qualified employees for their
payment of unlawfully implemented insurance premiums from
August 7, 1981 until the date when the parties reach agreement on
this subject as a result of negotiations for the successor to the 19M
1991 Agreement. See ,Norion Count)- PBA v, Ciry of Ocala, 3
FPER 110088 (1979). affd, 392 So.2d 26 (Fla. lit DCA 1980).
2.Arrornes-'s Fees and Costs
The Commission's standard for awarding attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to its authority in Section 447,503(6)(e). Florida
Statutes (1979), has been explained most recently in the case of
Orlando Professional Fire Figh►ers, local1363v. atvofOrlando,
7 FPER 112386 (1981). One of the circumstances in which fees are
awarded is when the violation is blatant because the charged party
should have known that its action was violative of the collective
bargaining rights of employees protected by Chapter 447.
Knowledge of violations can be gained through published
Commission decisions.
In this case. Florida public sector pr+ecedenl since 19" has
made it clear that a unilateral change in working conditions is
violative of employees' rights. Set, e.g., Polowitch case. 3 FPER at
280. Consequently, the City should have known that its unilateral
increase in insurance costs to employees with dependents would
violate Section 447.301(I xa) and (c). Florida Statutes (1979).
Therefore. the City should be required to pay the reasonable
attorneys fees and costs of the PBA's counsel.
VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing, 1 recommend that the Commission
make the following legal conclusions:
I. The City is a public employer within the meaning of
Section 447.203(2), Florida Statutes (1979).
2. The PBA is the certified bargaining agents of the City's
full-time permanent patrolmen and sergeants, within the meaning
of Section 447.203(12), Florida Statutes (1979).
3. bargaining unit members had a reasonable expectation
that the cost of their health insurance would not be increased
Butting the duration of the 19M1981 Agreement.
4. By its August 7. 1981 unilateral increase in the cost of
health insurance paid by employees. with dependents, without prior
rltctlee to, and negotiations with, the PBA, the City violated Section
40.501001 and (c). Florida Statutes (1919).
VI1. ORDER
I recommend that the Commission issue the following order:
1. The City shall cease and desist from:
(a) Changing the cost paid by employees with dependents
for the health insurance program, without prior notice to, and
negotiations with, the PBA.
(b) in any like or related manner, interfering with the
exercise of employee rights guaranteed by Chapter 447, Part 11,
Florida Statutes (1979).
2. The City shall take the following affirmative action:
(a) Upon a proper request, negotiate with the PBA
concerning the rate change in the health insurance program for
employers with dependents that became effective August 7, 1981. If
no agreement can be reached within 20daysafter the PBA's request
for negotiations, the City shall reimburse any qualified employee
for the loss of pay caused by the increased premium from August 7,
1991 until the date that agreement on the insurance premium was
reached as a result of negotiations for a successor contract.
(b) Pay to the PBA its reasonable costs and attorney's fees
for litigating this case.
(c) Post immediately for 60 days in conspicuous places
where notices are customarily posted, the attached Notice to
Employees stating that the City shall cease and desist from the
actions set forth in paragraph 1, above. Copies of the notice shall he
signed by the City's authorized representative prior to posting. The
City shall take reasonable steps to insure that the notices are not
altered, defaced or covered with other material.
(d) Notify the Public Fmployees Relations Commission in
writing within 20 calendar days from the date of this order of steps
that have been taken to comply with this order
i The transcript of the November 24, 1991 hearing shall he
referenced parenthetically by page number. Citations to the record
are not necessarily the only support in the record for a particular
finding of fact.
t The three exhibits shall he referenced parenthetically by
exhibit number and relevant article number.
) As noted by the City, the Commission's application of the
standard of specificity appears to be less stringent in one case,
Hillsborough PBA v. Ciry of Tampa. 6 FPER ¶11033 (1990)
(provision allowing alteration of "past practices" is valid waiver of
right to home use of unmarked cars).
82-4t73 _.
r
a
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INCREASE AND
EQUALIZATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GROUP
BENEFITS SELF-T:'ISCRANCE FUND FOR BOTH ACTIVE
AND RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF `IAMI
IN THE CITY' S HEALTH CARE PLAN.
WHEREAS, the contribution levels currently established
for the Self -Insured Health Care Plan of the City of Miami
are not sufficient to maintain both a self-sustaining and
actuarily-sound fund; and
WHEREAS, the firm of Johnson & Higgins of Florida, Inc.,
after a thorough review of the Cit;, Self -Insurance Plan, had
recommended that current rates for this portion of the Self -
Insurance Fund be increased in order to maintain a self-sustain-
ing and actuarily-sound fund; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that a basic inequity
exists in the current rate structure between contributions
made by active and retired employees; and
WHEREAS, the Self -Insurance and Insurance Committee of
the City of Miami, at their meeting of October 21, 1981, unani-
mously agreed to recommend that the City Commission adopt the
rates recommended by Johnson & Higgins of Florida, Inc. which
would both equalize the active and retiree contribution levels,
and provide for a sound fund;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE�IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. A. Effective March 7, 1982► the following
1/
monthly rates will be used in the City's Health Care Plan for
employees for determining both employee and City contributions
to the Group Benefit Self -Insurance Fund:
ACTIVE
Employee under 65 $ 58.15
Dependent under 65 103.02
Employee 65 & over 37.42
Dependent 65 & over 36.46
RETIRED 0
Employee under 65 $ 58.15
Dependent under 65 103.02
Employee 65 & over 37.42
Dependent 65 & over 36.46
----------------------------------------------------------------
1/ Increased rates equalized for active and retired employee
contributions
N
82-4737
0
B. The portion of the cost contributed by
both the employee and the City shall be determined in accord-
ance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement for each respec
tive employee.
C. City contributions shall be made from the
Self - Insurance Fund.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 1982.
M A Y O R
ATTEST:
RALPH G. ONGIE, CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
644* t -,7.
ROBERT F. CLARK $
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
l - P 1
GEORCyElF. KNOX, JR.-
CITY WTTORNEY
82-473