H.F. 1224 (Meslow); S.F. 1332 (Reiter) revises the required minimum average available financing per fire-fighter amounts required to support benefits from monthly plans (or plans which can pay either a monthly benefit or a lump sum) by deleting the support levels currently required by law to pay a monthly benefit in excess of $37 per month per year of service, with revised required support levels to be specified later.

1. Volunteer Firefighter Service Pensions. In Minnesota, most firefighters are volunteer firefighters. Our state provides pension coverage for volunteer firefighters as an incentive to provide services. This coverage is provided by volunteer firefighter relief associations and either is the only compensation or is an important component of the compensation package provided to volunteer firefighters. The volunteer fire relief associations are Minnesota nonprofit corporations governed by a board made up of a majority of firefighters and a minority of city officials. In addition to the Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation Act, volunteer fire relief associations are governed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 69, 356A, and 424A.

The primary benefit payable from a volunteer fire relief association is a service pension. Most volunteer fire relief associations provide a lump sum service pension, with a minority providing a monthly benefit service pension (some with an alternative lump sum service pension). Service pensions are not payable before age 50, and usually are payable in full only with 20 years of service. Some volunteer fire relief associations have casualty (disability and death) benefit coverage if a service pension is not otherwise payable.

The funding of volunteer fire relief associations is primarily the annual fire state aid, which is allocated to cities based half on population compared to statewide totals, and half on their property value compared to the statewide total. The aid is dedicated for pension purposes. Additionally, if the actuarial cost of the volunteer firefighters relief association exceeds the fire state aid, the municipality must levy a property tax to support the volunteer fire relief association.

2. History of Volunteer Firefighter Service Pension Maximums.

   1. Before 1979. Volunteer firefighter service pensions have always been subject to a benefit maximum, either under Minnesota Statutes, Section 69.06 (1905-1979) or Minnesota Statutes, Section 424A.02, Subdivision 3 (1979 to present). In the system used before 1979, a single-benefit maximum was stated in law, but without any mention of the financing needed to support that benefit level, and without any guidance for reasonable benefit levels that could be supported in municipalities where funding support was low. Prior to 1957, the maximum service pension payable to a retiring volunteer firefighter was a $40 monthly benefit (plus two dollars per month per year of service beyond 20 years to a maximum of $60 per month) or $100 per year of service credit lump sum benefit. In 1957, the lump sum benefit maximum was increased to $200 per year of service credit. In 1973, the lump sum benefit maximum was increased to $300 per year of service credit. In 1976, the monthly benefit maximum was increased to $80 per month (plus four dollars per month per year of service beyond 20 years to a maximum of $120 per month) or $600 per year of service credit lump sum benefit.

   2. 1979 and After. In 1979, with the passage of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 424A, recodifying the law governing volunteer fire pension coverage, the single dollar amount service pension maximums were eliminated in favor of flexible service pension maximums. The flexible service pension maximums established a sliding scale of benefit maximums based on the level of funding per firefighter for the previous three-year period, with the greatest monthly benefit service pension of $15 per month per year of service up to 30 years of service if the funding per firefighter was at least $744 per year and with the greatest lump sum benefit service pension of $2,000 per year of service if the funding per firefighter was at least $960 per year. In 1983, the upper end of the monthly benefit service pension flexible maximum sliding scale was increased to $22.50 per year of service credit up to 30 years of service with at least $1,678 funding per firefighter per year, and the upper end of the lump sum service pension flexible maximum sliding scale was increased to $3,000 per year of service credit with at least $1,440 funding per firefighter per year. In 1990, the monthly benefit service pension flexible maximum sliding scale was increased from $22.50 per month per year of service to $30.00 per month per year of service credit. In 1993, the maximum permitted lump sum pension was increased from $3,000 per year of service to $4,000 per year of service, to be phased in by 1996.

In 1997, Senator Terwilliger and Representative Delmont authored bills to again increase volunteer fire monthly and lump sum plan benefit maximums. The bills were S.F. 466 (Terwilliger); H.F. 568 (Delmont): Volunteer Firefighter Relief Associations; Increasing the Maximum Service Pension Amounts for Monthly and Lump Sum Plans. The Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement (LCPR) heard these bills and recommended them to pass with an LCPR staff cleanup amendment. A copy of the bill (S.F. No. 466) and the staff amendment are attached. The bill passed as Laws 1997, Chapter 241, Article 6. The bill contained what appears to be a drafting error which the LCPR did not notice at that time and was therefore not addressed by the amendment. Page 3, lines 22 to 32, in the bill proposed to increase the flexible service pension maximums for monthly plans providing benefits above the $30 per month per year of service benefit maximum that existed prior to that time, providing that sufficient financial support per firefighter exists. The proposed new support levels followed a pattern, at least through page 3, line 28, previously established in the existing table by permitting another dollar per month to be paid for each approximately $85 in additional financial support per firefighter. Between lines 28 and 29, there is a sudden large increase required, an increase of an additional $853 in support, rather than $85, to pay another dollar per month in service pension ($38 per month per year of service, rather than $37). After that entry, the normal pattern begins again, requiring an increase of $84 or $85 for each additional dollar of monthly pension per year of service, with the new highest permitted pension set at $40 per month per year of service, if the support level is $4,137 or above.

The flexible service pension maximums were again increased by the 2000 Legislature (Laws 2000, Chapter 461, Article 15, Section 5) but the unusual change in the required support level between $37 per month per year of service and $38 per month per year of service was not addressed. The 2000 Session changes increased the maximum monthly pension from $40 per month per year of service to $56, to be phased in by the end of calendar 2003. The maximum lump sum pension was increased from $5,500 to $7,500 per year of service, with a similar phase-in.

1. Lump Sum Plans. If a relief association provides only lump sum benefits, the contribution requirements are determined by the association using a procedure specified in Section 69.772. Using a table included in that section, the relief association determines the pension plan’s liability, given the length of service of the members and the benefit level of the plan. This is compared to the liability computed for the prior year, and the difference is the normal cost, the cost of providing the plan’s benefits to its member for another year. To this normal cost is added the plan’s expected administrative expenses. Finally, the amortization requirement, if any, is determined. This is determined by comparing the expected market value at year-end with the accrued liability. If the assets are less than the accrued liability, the difference is the unfunded liability. Under law, the unfunded liability is amortized by adding one-tenth of the unfunded liability to sum of the normal cost plus expenses. The amount thus determined is certified to the municipality, which is responsible for covering the amount with the assistance of state aid.

2. Monthly Plans. If a volunteer fire plan provides monthly benefits, or provides monthly benefits as an option to a lump sum benefit, the contribution requirements must be determined through an actuarial valuation provided by an actuary. The pension fund must obtain an actuarial valuation of the fund at least every four years. The contribution requirements are the sum of the normal cost, administrative expenses, and amortization requirements as determined by the valuation.

If a relief association, which provides its members with a monthly benefit or choice between a monthly benefit and a lump sum benefit, seeks to increase its benefits, it must obtain a new actuarial valuation reflecting the proposed change or at least an actuarial note indicating the impact of the proposed change on plan normal costs and amortization requirements, if any. This provides the necessary information to the municipality on the plan’s revised contribution requirements. A relief association must seek municipal approval for a benefit increase if it has any unfunded liability or if the municipality is required to pay any contribution not covered by state aid (Section 69.773, subdivisions 3 and 6). If a relief association is not required to seek municipal approval (because it is more than fully funded and no local contribution will be required), it may increase its pension benefit without municipal approval, providing that the change maintains consistency with the flexible service pension maximum schedule requirements and providing that the fund will continue to have some assets in excess of full funding after the benefit increase (specifically, the liability increase may not exceed 90 percent of the surplus above full funding). However, if a relief association increases its benefit without municipal approval and later a municipal contribution is required, benefit levels must be rolled back to the level last approved by the municipality.

Volunteer fire relief associations that comply with applicable laws and financial reporting requirements are eligible to receive fire state aid. This program dates back to 1885. Municipalities are responsible under law for providing required financing to the volunteer fire relief association, but receive state aids to assist in that effort. In many municipalities, the fire aids cover a substantial share of the required support and it is not uncommon for the aid to cover the entire obligation.

The following is an overview of the fire state aid program. In addition to the aid program described in this section, there are a few other aid programs that may impact fire relief associations, but not any of the volunteer fire relief associations with high support levels per firefighter, which is the subject of this current memo. The other aid programs assisting some other relief associations include:

• Fire Premium Tax Surcharge. This only applies to the first class cities and permits an additional two percent tax on fire insurance premiums on property located in the first class cities, which is then allocated to the applicable city. This system does not apply to any of the relief associations covered in this memo because the first class cities do not use volunteer firefighters.

• Additional Amortization Aid. Again, this aid system applies only to certain paid fire programs rather than to volunteer programs.

• Minimum Floor Fire Aid. Minimum floor fire aid is payable to volunteer fire relief associations that have low financial support per firefighter. That aid is received by about half of all municipalities. However, all relief associations to which the current memo applies have higher levels of support, and do not qualify for this minimum floor program.

The following is a description of the general fire state aid program, which does apply to the current situation.

1. Available Aid. All relief associations which file appropriate financial reports or statements with the Office of the State Auditor and meet other basic requirements (have at least ten firefighters, have appropriate firefighting equipment, etc.) are eligible to share in the state fire tax aid allocation. At the current time, the total state aid appropriated for distribution under the main fire aid program is the greater of the following:

   (1) 107 percent of the tax collected through fire, lightning, sprinkler leakage, and extended coverage insurance premium taxes; or

   (2) an amount equal to one percent of the premiums on policies written for fire, lightning, sprinkler leakage, and extended coverage insurance policies by town and farmers’ mutual insurance companies and mutual property and casualty companies with assets not exceeding $5 million, plus two percent of the premiums on similar policies written by all other fire risk insurers.

2. Allocation. Given the size of the aid pot determined above, the aid is then allocated to each jurisdiction based half on the population of the jurisdiction compared to the statewide total, and half upon property wealth relative to the statewide total. This aid allocation system suggests an assumption that the greater the population, the greater the need for fire services to protect that population. Similarly, the greater the property wealth, the greater the potential dollar value of losses due to fire and the greater the need for fire protection.

3. System Shortcomings. Both the procedure for determining the statewide aid total and the aid allocation procedure are open to criticism. The system for determining the total statewide aid is, in essence, a dedicated tax. There is no reason to believe that the amount raised matches the need. The distribution procedure does not consider the ability of the local area to finance fire-related services. Areas with high property wealth are generally areas with a high average income, suggesting that considerable aid is going to areas with the highest ability to finance fire services locally. Areas with relatively low property wealth and low population receive little aid, but the need for fire protection services could be relatively high due to the age or nature of the insurable property.

H.F. 1224 (Meslow); S.F. 1332 (Reiter) revises the required minimum average available financing per fire-fighter amounts required to support benefits from monthly plans (or plans which can pay either a monthly benefit or a lump sum) by deleting the support levels currently required by law to pay a monthly benefit in excess of $37 per month per year of service, with revised required support levels to be specified later.

Commission staff reviewed information in the 2001 Volunteer Fire Compilation Report, produced by the Office of the State Auditor, to obtain some indication of which volunteer fire relief associations may be impacted by the proposed change. Information from Table 6 from the State Auditor report (only the portion of that table covering monthly plans or combination lumps sum/monthly plans) is attached. As of the end of 2001, there were only five monthly plans (Chaska, Hutchinson, Mound, Pine City, and Spring Lake Park) and none paid a benefit approaching $37 per month per year of service. In this group the highest benefit was provided by Mound, with a benefit of $29.25 per year of service. It is possible that some of these plans have the financing to pay higher pensions than they were then providing, possibly approaching $37 per month per year of service. The flexible service pension maximum tables in Section 424A.02, subdivision 3, list the maximum benefits that can be provided under law given the association’s average financing per firefighter, but associations and municipalities may choose to pay less than the maximum permitted under law. Thus, it is assumed--somewhat tentatively--that no relief association that is solely a monthly benefit plan will be immediately impacted by the change. In any event, no municipality would be forced to provide higher benefits for association members under the proposed change.

Regarding combination plans (those which can pay either a lump sum or a monthly annuity) there are a few plans which might be able to revise benefits under the change (yet to be specified) in H.F. 1224 (Meslow); S.F. 1332 (Reiter). Section 424A.02, Subdivision 2, paragraph (e), requires combination monthly/lump sum plans to be in compliance with both flexible service pension benefit maximum tables included in that section of law. The lump sum benefit offered by the plan must be consistent with the lump sum flexible service pension maximum table in that section, and the monthly benefit level that a retiring firefighter may choose as an alternative to a lump sum benefit must be consistent with the monthly flexible service pension maximum table in that section. Table 6 lists lump sum benefits per year of service offered by these monthly/lump sum plans. Using the flexible service pension maximum table for lump sum plans in Section 424A.02, Subdivision 2, we can infer the level of the average financing per firefighter. For example, according to Table 6 in the attachment, White Bear Lake provided a lump sum benefit amount of $5,500 per year of service. The flexible service pension maximum table for a lump sum indicates that the plan must have $2,967 in average available financing per firefighter to support a benefit at that level. If that plan had $2,967 in average financing per firefighter, the corresponding monthly flexible service pension maximums table indicates that the plan can support a monthly benefit of between $35 and $36. If the plan has somewhat more financing than the amounts required to support the current benefit levels, there may be some interest in increasing benefits further. In reviewing this situation, you noted the unusual jump in current law in the monthly benefit flexible service pension maximum table which occurs between the $37 and $38 per month per year of service, and suggested a need to revise this law to correct an apparent error. In addition to White Bear Lake, there are a few other plans to which a change in the minimum required average financing per firefighter for benefit levels above $37 per month per year of service may have immediate application, or could in the near future. According to Table 6, Plymouth is paying a lump sum service pension of $6,000 per year of service. To do that, they need at least $3,237 in average financing per firefighter, which, according to the monthly flexible service pension maximum table, is more than sufficient to provide a monthly benefit of $37 per month per year of service. Other pension plans which are getting close to the necessary support levels for a $37 per month per year of service benefit are Brooklyn Park, Lake Johanna, and Minnetonka, based on the lump sum benefit amounts they are now providing.

H.F. 1224 (Meslow); S.F. 1332 (Reiter) revises the required minimum average available financing per firefighter amounts required to support benefits from monthly plans (or plans which can pay either a monthly benefit or a lump sum) by deleting the support levels currently required by law to pay a monthly benefit in excess of $37 per month per year of service, with revised required support levels to be specified later. The proposed legislation raises several public pension and related policy issues, as follows:

1. Need for Change. The issue is whether there is sufficient need to revise the law governing support levels required to pay the various levels of benefits above $37 per month per year of service. The argument for making a change is that the amount currently specified in the law does appear to reflect a drafting error, as previously discussed. An argument for not making any change, at least at this time, is that the revision is only currently relevant for about a half dozen plans, which already provide very high benefits for volunteer fire plans. Even for those few plans, current law has not created any appreciable harm. If the existing law has limited monthly pensions below the maximum that might otherwise apply, this would lead to more individuals electing a lump sum option. The individual could then use that lump sum to purchase an annuity if the individual desires to transform the lump sum into monthly income amounts.

2. Need for Change, Recruiting Issue. If the LCPR were to hear this draft as a bill, the LCPR may wish to consider whether there is compelling evidence that higher monthly benefit amounts (which would occur if average financing per firefighter to support these pensions is less than currently required under law) are needed for recruiting and retention. If the applicable associations are not have trouble retaining and recruiting volunteer firefighters given current benefit levels, there is no public need to take action which will permit higher benefit payouts.

3. State Aid Issues. The current benefit levels of several of the relief associations which may be impacted by H.F. 1224 (Meslow); S.F. 1332 (Reiter) are largely, if not entirely, driven by state aid. As noted above, the factors which allocate state fire aid (population relative to statewide totals, and property wealth relative to statewide totals) may not do an accurate job of directing aid to where it is really needed. The LCPR may wish to consider this in deciding whether to act on H.F. 1224 (Meslow); S.F. 1332 (Reiter) and for long-term planning purposes. Table 4 from the 2001 State Auditor’s report, attached, shows for the monthly plans and the monthly/lump sum plans the state aid expected to be received and the expected required municipal contribution. For several of the plans, no municipal contribution is required because the expected state aid more than covers the total required contributions. Among the plans in this category are several that could benefit by passage of H.F. 1224 (Meslow); S.F. 1332 (Reiter), including White Bear Lake, Plymouth, Minnetonka, and Brooklyn Center. Benefit levels in these communities may have little relation to recruiting and retention needs. The benefit levels paid are a consequence of the state aid provided, and the state aid to certain municipalities may be in excess of the amount needed to induce individuals to provide the volunteer service.

4. Timing Issue. The issue is whether any action should be taken on this proposal given the current budget situation and the general uncertainty that situation creates. What currently are benefit levels supported largely or entirely by state aid may shift. If the Legislature were to eliminate, reduce, or revise state fire aids as part of a solution to the budget situation, considerable burden to finance volunteer fire relief associations could shift from state aid to the local municipalities.

5. Appropriate Relationship of Volunteer Fire Pension Levels to Pensions for Full-Time Public Employees. The proposal will make it easier to increase volunteer fire monthly benefits in some associations which already provide high benefits. While the desired ratio between volunteer fire service pensions and paid public employee plans is unclear, there undoubtedly is a relationship which, if out of proportion, will cause pressure to increase benefits in benefit plans providing coverage to paid employees. The volunteer fire pension is a pension for volunteer services. Presumably the individual has other sources of retirement income, including a pension from other full-time, paid employment. The pension to a member retiring from a pension plan for paid public employees represents the pension from the individual’s primary, full-time, paid employment.

Regarding monthly pensions, H.F. 1224 (Meslow); S.F. 1332 (Reiter) would require less financing to support monthly benefits of $38 or more per month per year of service, and current law will soon allow benefits as high as $56 per month per year of service. At a benefit of $40 per month per year of service, a volunteer firefighter with 20 years of service would receive a pension of $800 per month or $9,600 per year, while a volunteer firefighter with 30 years service would receive $1,200 per month or $14,400 annually. This is not much less than newly retiring PERA-General Basic members are receiving, and the volunteer firefighters can begin drawing at earlier ages. According to the most recent PERA-General actuarial report, the average benefit of PERA Basic members who retired within the most recent year was $2,134 per month, or $25,612 annually. This number is the average for all of the new basic plan retirees. Within that group individuals had a range of service credit, but that information is not given in the actuarial report. For a volunteer firefighter who has full-time employment in a private or public sector job with social security coverage, perhaps the more appropriate comparison is to newly retiring PERA-General Coordinated members. The average PERA retirement benefit for new coordinated plan retirees was only $8,340 annually. The corresponding average benefit for newly retired PERA-P&F members was $36,848.

6. Revised Minimum Average Financing Per Firefighter Amounts. If the LCPR desires to act on H.F. 1224 (Meslow); S.F. 1332 (Reiter), the LCPR and/or Legislature will need to specify what the new minimum average financing amounts should be. One option is to use the pattern suggested in existing law, after dealing with the large increase in required support occurring at the $37 to $38 benefit level under current law. However, the LCPR may wish to take a more global review of the process for setting monthly benefit plan flexible service pension maximums. The general pattern in average financing required in the flexible service pension maximum table for monthly pensions is based on work performed in the late 1970s by LCPR staff, primarily to address the lump sum situation. With some necessary revision, the approach was modified for use with the monthly flexible pension maximum table. Taking a fairly rough approach and then modifying it further to fit monthly service pension situations may create error. The entire schedule may need to be reconsidered, and any error or bias at the lower value ranges may be magnified at the higher required support levels corresponding to the higher benefit levels.

7. Relationship Between Actuarial Valuations and the Flexible Service Pension Maximum Schedules. In reviewing any changes the LCPR may choose to make in the monthly benefit flexible service pension maximum schedule, the Commission may choose to recognize the relationship between the flexible maximum schedule and the actuarial valuations that the monthly benefit and monthly benefit/lump sum plans obtain from a range of actuarial service providers. One serves as a check or constraint on the other. Regarding the volunteer fire actuarial valuations, we note that some assumptions that must be used in these actuarial valuations are specified in law, while others (turnover and various other demographic assumptions) are left to the discretion of the actuary. The flexible service pension maximum schedule serves as a check or constraint against benefit levels that might seem justifiable given some of these valuations. The flexible service pension maximum schedule also serves to maintain legislative control over the relationship between the higher end of volunteer fire pensions and the pensions being earned by full-time, paid public employees. The actuarial valuations, in turn, could be viewed as a constraint on the benefit levels that might appear sustainable given the flexible service pension maximum schedule. A volunteer fire plan that pays monthly benefits or provides an option to elect monthly benefits must have an actuarial valuation performed every four years by an actuary (required by Section 69.773) and whenever a benefit increase is under consideration. A plan might require more funding than suggested by the flexible service pension maximum schedule if its covered members tended to be old and had little turnover (both of which would create an unusually high normal cost). If there is a problem supporting the existing or proposed new benefit level under the flexible service pension maximum schedule, the relief association and the municipality should be alerted to that problem by the actuarial valuation.

If the LCPR chooses to take action to reset the required support amounts for monthly and monthly/lump sum option plans, it is reasonable to take care in resetting those amounts, whether the Commission chooses to address the entire schedule or just the portion above $37. If there is a downward revision of required support levels for all or a portion of the schedule, any given level of funding support may permit various relief associations to pay a higher benefit than is permitted under the current monthly benefit flexible service pension maximum schedule.

H.F. 1224 (Meslow); S.F. 1332 (Reiter) currently contains blanks for required support levels above a monthly pension of $37 per year of service credit. Two alternative amendments are attached for Commission consideration in filling in these amounts:

Amendment LCPR03-036. LCPR03-036 is the simpler of the two amendments, addressing only support levels required for monthly service pensions above $38 per year of service. Throughout the entire monthly service pension flexible maximum service pension schedule, an increase in funding per firefighter of $84 is typically required to pay an additional dollar in the monthly pension. LCPR03-036 simply continues that pattern. To provide a monthly pension of $37 per year of service credit under existing law requires $3,110 in average financing per firefighter. LCPR03-036 adds $84 to that average financing per firefighter amount to determine the financing needed per firefighter for a $38 per month per year of service pension. That same pattern continues for all higher service pension amounts.

Amendment LCPR03-037. LCPR03-037 is an alternative to the first amendment. This second amendment could be used by the LCPR to adjust the entire monthly benefit flexible service pension maximum schedule, not just the upper tier. Under LCPR03-037, the entire schedule is revised to base each additional dollar of monthly benefits per year of service on a support level increase of $81, not $84 dollars. A $1 per month per year of service pension would require $81 in average financing per firefighter, not $84 as required in the current table. A $2 per month per year of service benefit requires $162 in support, rather than $168. The pattern of increasing required support by $81 rather than $84 for each additional dollar of monthly benefit is followed throughout the table.

The staff suggestion to base the entire table on an $81 support increment rather than an $84 support increment follows from LCPR staff research. The Office of the State Auditor provided LCPR staff with data from the volunteer fire actuarial valuations. We reviewed the data and removed a few cases which would distort results. For instance, in a few cases the data claimed that a plan was providing a monthly benefit but the normal cost was zero. This could be due to data entry error, or perhaps the information suggests a plan that is converting to a lump-sum-only plan, and no longer offers the monthly benefit to members. Using the remaining actuarial information, we examined the relationship between normal cost per member as determined from the actuarial valuations, and benefit levels per month per year of service provided by these plans.

A graph of the results follows. The graph suggests that for every one-dollar increase in monthly benefit per year of service, the normal cost of the plan will increase by $77.70. The scatter pattern of the individual cases suggests that the relationship is consistent and linear. In other words, there is little justification for suggesting that a different relationship exists at lower levels than at higher levels. We also applied techniques to refine estimates given the nature of the scatter the data creates. The variability around the graph line is higher at higher benefit levels. That revised statistical approach produced a similar result, suggested that for each dollar increase in monthly benefits, the normal costs increases by $78.40.

LCPR staff’s suggestion, reflected in LCPR03-037 is to split the difference between the flexible service pension maximum schedule in existing law, which generally requires a support level increase of $84 for each $1 increase in monthly benefits, and the approximately $78 increase in support for each $1 increase in benefits suggested by the LCPR staff study. LCPR03-037 suggests requiring an $81 increase in support for each $1 increase in monthly benefit per year of service. This should produce a result that is reasonably conservative.

The final amendment for your consideration is LCPR03-038. This amendment is specific to White Bear Lake. It addresses a situation raised by a letter that is in the attachments, from Rose Hennessy, pension analyst with the Office of the State Auditor, to Michael Machus, with the White Bear Lake Fire Department Relief Association. The letter indicates that the relief association amended its by-laws in January 1999 to provide a monthly benefit amount that exceeded the maximum pension permitted given the level of support. The support level was at the level were the error occurred in 1997 legislation in setting required support levels. The amendment would ratify the service pension amounts specified in the by-laws from January 1999 to the effective date of this act.