FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND, ACTUARY REPORT, WHEN REQUIRED

FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND, ACTUARY REPORT, WHEN REQUIRED.

A city may cause an actuarial examination and report on the condition of the firemen's pension fund to determine whether to levy the additional mill or part thereof, but this is not necessary in order to make said levy.  It must do so, however, before deciding not to levy the mandatory one mill.

                                                                  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                                                    May 4, 1951

Honorable Cliff Yelle
State Auditor
Olympia, Washington                                                                                                 Cite as:  AGO 51-53 No. 34

Attention:  !ttA. E. Hankins, Chief Examiner, Division of Municipal Corporations

Dear Sir:

            We acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 30, 1951, in which you ask whether an actuarial report is necessary before a city or town may levy the additional or optional mill for its firemen's pension fund according to chapter 72, Laws of 1951.

            Our conclusion may be stated as follows:

            A city may cause an actuarial examination and report on the condition of the firemen's pension fund to determine whether to levy the additional mill or part thereof, but this is not necessary in order to make said levy.  It must do so, however, before deciding not to levy the mandatory one mill.

                                                                     ANALYSIS

            Section 6, chapter 91, Laws of 1947, provided for the one mill annual levy for the pension fund, and, in addition, provided that additional tax, not to exceed one mill shall be levied if the estimated requirements of the fund called for it.  By section 1, chapter 72, Laws of 1951, an additional paragraph was added to section 6, under which a city was given the right to cause an examination  [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] and report by an actuary on the condition of the fund, and if the report discloses that the additional mill is not necessary or the condition of the fund shows no need for the mandatory mill, to make no levy therefor.

            It would appear that since the additional mill could be levied by the city solely on finding that the estimated requirements of the fund called for the additional levy, without any such actuarial report, and this provision was unchanged by the amendment, the new provision could apply only where it was desired to reduce the tax for the ensuing year.  By this means the mandatory mill could be omitted for that year, but only if an actuary's report showed no need for the mandatory mill.  The language is broad enough to give a city the power to cause such examination, if it wanted to do so, before levying the additional mill or part thereof, but there is no language requiring this and we, accordingly, so advise you.

Very truly yours,

SMITH TROY
Attorney General

PHILIP W. RICHARDSON
Assistant Attorney General