Florida Statute 185.35 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XII
MUNICIPALITIES

Chapter 185
MUNICIPAL POLICE PENSIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 185.35

185.35 Municipalities that have their own retirement plans for police officers.—In order for a municipality that has its own retirement plan for police officers, or for police officers and firefighters if both are included, to participate in the distribution of the tax fund established under s. 185.08, a local law plan must meet minimum benefits and minimum standards, except as provided in the mutual consent provisions in paragraph (1)(g) with respect to the minimum benefits not met as of October 1, 2012.

(1) If a municipality has a retirement plan for police officers, or for police officers and firefighters if both are included, which, in the opinion of the division, meets minimum benefits and minimum standards, the board of trustees of the retirement plan must place the income from the premium tax in s. 185.08 in such plan for the sole and exclusive use of its police officers, or its police officers and firefighters if both are included, where it shall become an integral part of that plan and be used to fund benefits as provided herein. Effective October 1, 2015, for noncollectively bargained service or upon entering into a collective bargaining agreement on or after July 1, 2015:

(a) The base premium tax revenues must be used to fund minimum benefits or other retirement benefits in excess of the minimum benefits as determined by the municipality.

(b) Of the additional premium tax revenues received that are in excess of the amount received for the 2012 calendar year, 50 percent must be used to fund minimum benefits or other retirement benefits in excess of the minimum benefits as determined by the municipality, and 50 percent must be placed in a defined contribution plan component to fund special benefits.

(c) Additional premium tax revenues not described in paragraph (b) must be used to fund benefits that are not included in the minimum benefits. If the additional premium tax revenues subject to this paragraph exceed the full annual cost of benefits provided through the plan which are in excess of the minimum benefits, any amount in excess of the full annual cost must be used as provided in paragraph (b).

(d) Of any accumulations of additional premium tax revenues which have not been allocated to fund benefits in excess of the minimum benefits, 50 percent of the amount of the accumulations must be used to fund special benefits and 50 percent must be applied to fund any unfunded actuarial liabilities of the plan; provided that any amount of accumulations in excess of the amount required to fund the unfunded actuarial liabilities must be used to fund special benefits.

(e) For a plan created after March 1, 2015, 50 percent of the insurance premium tax revenues must be used to fund defined benefit plan component benefits, with the remainder used to fund defined contribution plan component benefits.

(f) If a plan offers benefits in excess of the minimum benefits, such benefits, excluding supplemental plan benefits in effect as of September 30, 2014, may be reduced if the plan continues to meet minimum benefits and the minimum standards. The amount of insurance premium tax revenues previously used to fund benefits in excess of the minimum benefits before the reduction, excluding the amount of any additional premium tax revenues distributed to a supplemental plan for the 2012 calendar year, must be used as provided in paragraph (b). However, benefits in excess of the minimum benefits may not be reduced if a plan does not meet the minimum percentage amount of 2.75 percent of the average final compensation of a police officer or provides an effective benefit that is less than 2.75 percent as a result of a maximum benefit limitation, as described in s. 185.16(2)(b).

(g) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)-(f), the use of premium tax revenues, including any accumulations of additional premium tax revenues which have not been allocated to fund benefits in excess of the minimum benefits, may deviate from the provisions of this subsection by mutual consent of the members’ collective bargaining representative or, if none, by a majority of the police officer members of the fund, and by consent of the municipality, provided that the plan continues to meet minimum benefits and minimum standards; however, a plan that operates pursuant to this paragraph and does not meet the minimum benefits as of October 1, 2012, may continue to provide the benefits that do not meet the minimum benefits at the same level as was provided as of October 1, 2012, and all other benefit levels must continue to meet the minimum benefits. Such mutually agreed deviation must continue until modified or revoked by subsequent mutual consent of the members’ collective bargaining representative or, if none, by a majority of the police officer members of the fund, and the municipality. An existing arrangement for the use of premium tax revenues contained within a special act plan or a plan within a supplemental plan municipality is considered, as of July 1, 2015, to be a deviation for which mutual consent has been granted.

(2) The premium tax provided by this chapter must be used in its entirety to provide retirement benefits to police officers, or to police officers and firefighters if both are included. Local law plans created by special act before May 27, 1939, shall be deemed to comply with this chapter.

(3) A retirement plan or amendment to a retirement plan may not be proposed for adoption unless the proposed plan or amendment contains an actuarial estimate of the costs involved. Such proposed plan or proposed plan change may not be adopted without the approval of the municipality or, where required, the Legislature. Copies of the proposed plan or proposed plan change and the actuarial impact statement of the proposed plan or proposed plan change shall be furnished to the division before the last public hearing on the proposal is held. Such statement must also indicate whether the proposed plan or proposed plan change is in compliance with s. 14, Art. X of the State Constitution and those provisions of part VII of chapter 112 which are not expressly provided in this chapter. Notwithstanding any other provision, only those local law plans created by special act of legislation before May 27, 1939, are deemed to meet the minimum benefits and minimum standards in this chapter.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision, with respect to any supplemental plan municipality:

(a) Section 185.02(6)(a) does not apply, and a local law plan and a supplemental plan may continue to use their definition of compensation or salary in existence on March 12, 1999.

(b) A local law plan and a supplemental plan must continue to be administered by a board or boards of trustees numbered, constituted, and selected as the board or boards were numbered, constituted, and selected on December 1, 2000.

(5) The retirement plan setting forth the benefits and the trust agreement, if any, covering the duties and responsibilities of the trustees and the regulations of the investment of funds must be in writing and copies made available to the participants and to the general public.

(6) In addition to the defined benefit component of the local law plan, each plan sponsor must have a defined contribution plan component within the local law plan by October 1, 2015, for noncollectively bargained service, upon entering into a collective bargaining agreement on or after July 1, 2015, or upon the creation date of a new participating plan. Depending upon the application of subsection (1), a defined contribution component may or may not receive any funding.

(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a municipality that has implemented or proposed changes to a local law plan based on the municipality’s reliance on an interpretation of this chapter by the Department of Management Services on or after August 14, 2012, and before March 3, 2015, may continue the implemented changes or continue to implement proposed changes. Such reliance must be evidenced by a written collective bargaining proposal or agreement, or formal correspondence between the municipality and the Department of Management Services which describes the specific changes to the local law plan, with the initial proposal, agreement, or correspondence from the municipality dated before March 3, 2015. Changes to the local law plan which are otherwise contrary to minimum benefits and minimum standards may continue in effect until the earlier of October 1, 2018, or the effective date of a collective bargaining agreement that is contrary to the changes to the local law plan.

History.—s. 7, ch. 59-320; s. 2, ch. 61-119; s. 3, ch. 63-196; ss. 13, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 23, ch. 86-42; s. 47, ch. 93-193; s. 956, ch. 95-147; s. 74, ch. 99-1; s. 7, ch. 2002-66; s. 6, ch. 2004-21; s. 11, ch. 2011-216; s. 14, ch. 2015-39; s. 31, ch. 2020-2.

F.S. 185.35 on Google Scholar

F.S. 185.35 on Casetext

Amendments to 185.35

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 185.35

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 185.35.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 185.35

Total Results: 20

City of Wilton Manors v. Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-12-01

Citation: 48 So. 3d 962, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18309, 2010 WL 4861747

Snippet: s.] § 185.10(2), Fla. Stat. (2009); see also § 185.35, Fla. Stat. (2009) (requiring local law plans to

City of St. Petersburg v. Remia

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-07-16

Citation: 41 So. 3d 322, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10448, 2010 WL 2788287

Snippet: the fund. We affirm. Sections 185.19, 185.08, and 185.35, Florida Statutes (2000), are central to the parties'

STATE, DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES v. City of Delray Beach

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-07-13

Citation: 40 So. 3d 835, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10143, 2010 WL 2732873

Snippet: Florida, which amended sections 175.351(1) and 185.35(1), Florida Statutes. The issues for our review

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 2001-09-21

Snippet: included.3 A similar provision is contained in section 185.35, Florida Statutes. Section 175.351, Florida Statutes

Bryan v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2000-02-22

Citation: 753 So. 2d 1244, 2000 WL 218114

Snippet: humane." 754 So.2d at 665; see Malloy, 237 U.S. at 185, 35 S.Ct. 507 (holding that the "statute under consideration

Sims v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2000-02-16

Citation: 754 So. 2d 657, 2000 WL 193226

Snippet: committed prior to such law's enactment. See id. at 185, 35 S.Ct. 507.[13] The Court reasoned that: The statute

Provenzano v. Moore

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-09-24

Citation: 744 So. 2d 413, 1999 WL 756012

Snippet: retroactively. See Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U.S. 180, 185, 35 S.Ct. 507, 59 L.Ed. 905 (1915); Hernandez v. State

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1993-11-03

Snippet: municipalities with their own pension plans under s. 185.35, F.S.,3 may vary the investment procedures prescribed

Vitale v. Town of Surfside Pension Fund

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-10-12

Citation: 624 So. 2d 869, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10312, 1993 WL 406607

Snippet: applied to local law plans. However, paragraph 185.35(l)(f) allows a local law plan to incorporate disability

Haddix v. City of Panama City

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-09-27

Citation: 624 So. 2d 801, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9532, 1993 WL 380137

Snippet: retirement benefits required. Further, section 185.35(1)(i) also requires the City to fund any actuarial

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1991-03-08

Snippet: 3, 1991 creating a new fund under s. 185.35, F.S.7 Section 185.35, F.S., sets forth the minimum standards

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1989-12-13

Snippet: 19-9(4), Art. II, Palm Beach Gardens Code. 4 See, s. 185.35, F.S., providing standards for municipalities having

City of Coral Springs v. Desepio

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1988-03-30

Citation: 524 So. 2d 1047, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 827, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1222, 1988 WL 25782

Snippet: dissenting. I believe the provisions of section 185.35, Florida Statutes (1979) permitted the city to

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1978-04-27

Snippet: firemen . . . .' (Emphasis supplied.) Similarly, s. 185.35(1), F. S., provides that in order for cities with

City of Hollywood v. Hollywood Lodge 21

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1976-03-19

Citation: 329 So. 2d 366, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14051

Snippet: Police Pension Plan.” As amended in 1959, Section 185.35, F. S., provides in section (1) that in order for

Gates v. City of Jacksonville

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1973-05-29

Citation: 278 So. 2d 645, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8084

Snippet: S.A.) on or before June 1 of each year. Section 185.35, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., allows the cities to

Bailey v. City of Tampa

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1965-05-12

Citation: 175 So. 2d 533, 1965 Fla. LEXIS 3168

Snippet: plan which met the standards prescribed in F.S. § 185.35, F.S.A.; that the taxes levied on insurance premiums

Bailey v. City of Tampa

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1964-04-17

Citation: 163 So. 2d 528, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4212

Snippet: standard set forth in the *531enabling act (Section 185.35), the income from the taxes levied on insurance

Tappy v. State ex rel. Ervin

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1955-07-08

Citation: 82 So. 2d 161, 1955 Fla. LEXIS 3888

Snippet: 264; State ex rel. Stain v. Christensen, 84 Utah 185, 35 P.2d 775. These cases approve the rule laid down

Thomas v. Carlton Ex Rel. Special Road & Bridge District Number One

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1932-09-13

Citation: 143 So. 780, 106 Fla. 648

Snippet: 926; Chase vs. Lockerman (Md.), 11 Gill Johnson 185, 35 A.D. 277; Kimball vs. Reding,31 N.H. 352, 64 A