Pssst! ..... Trying to get a grip on PSRS . so confused

Supreme Court ruling to cost public-safety pension trust $220M in refunds to members

Craig Harris , The Republic | azcentral.com 3:37 p.m. MT Nov. 14, 2016

The divided court upheld a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling that found a 2011 pension-reform law unconstitutional
Read entire article Arizona Investigations

A state Supreme Court ruling will require refunds to elected officials and public-safety officers who since 2011 were required to pay more for their pensions, with local governments likely to cover the projected $220 million cost to an already fragile public-pension trust fund.The divided court upheld a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling that found a 2011 pension-reform law was unconstitutional. Specifically, it overturned provisions in the law that increased employee contributions to their own retirement and curtailed certain benefit increases. The law was intended to improve the financial health of the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System trust fund.
The decision means hundreds of PSPRS members whose employee contributions were increased will receive refunds, while some retirees will receive retroactive benefit increases . . .
The court ruling is likely to force local and state governments, which already pay the majority of retirement contributions, to increase their payments to the retirement system for their employees,
Despite the 2011 reform law, some cities and towns held back on hiring additional police officers and firefighters in the past few years because of the enormous cost of their per-employee contributions to the retirement system.
While the case focused on the elected officials' retirement plan, the ruling also is expected to affect those in retirement plans for public-safety officers and correctional officers.  Elected officials, public-safety officers and correctional officers have separate plans, but all are under the umbrella of the PSPRS.
PSPRS Administrator Smout said while the ruling is a setback, the system is poised for recovery due to another pension reform measure voters approved earlier this year. That plan is projected to save $475 million in long-term costs.

Firefighters and police officers will have their contributions rolled back to 7.65 percent of their salaries, down from 11.65 percent. Employers, on average, paid in 32.54 percent as June 30, 2015. Some employers, however, paid more than 50 percent, with Bisbee paying nearly 88 percent.


Arizona Enacts Groundbreaking Public Safety Pension Reform

Collaborative process yielded consensus on wide-ranging reforms

Leonard Gilroy, Pete Constant and Anthony Randazzo
February 16, 2016
Link to entire report: here

This afternoon, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law comprehensive pension reform legislation that will put Arizona’s beleaguered public safety pension system on a path to financial solvency. The Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS)—which covers all law enforcement personnel and firefighters statewide—has accumulated $6.6 billion in unfunded liabilities over the past dozen years and stands at only 48% funded today.

The Need for Reform

The deterioration of PSPRS’s financial health over the past 12 years has led to skyrocketing annual pension costs for the local government and state agency employers participating in PSPRS and, by extension, taxpayers. Specifically, the growing costs for many local governments are attributable to rising payments on the large unfunded liabilities for public safety pension benefits. The growth of these pension debt payments has threatened the continued delivery of public services and budgets in those jurisdictions, since the growing costs of pensions effectively crowd out other areas of the budget. Further, the courts have struck down previous legislative reforms to PSPRS enacted in recent years, and other reforms remain under litigation, creating the need for a new solution.
First, for current employees and retirees, the reform will replace the uncertain, inequitable, unsustainable PBI with a traditional, pre-funded cost of living adjustment (COLA) that provides certainty and equity in retirement. This will serve the public interest by fixing the broken PBI mechanism that has been a major factor causing increased unfunded liabilities:

• The new COLA will be based on the changes in the consumer price index for the Phoenix region, with a cap of 2% maximum.
• The COLA will be equitable because the percentage will be applied to each PSPRS retiree’s actual benefit level (as opposed to a level dollar amount granted under the current PBI, regardless of the individual retiree’s benefit level).
• Further, the new COLA will be pre-funded and actuarially accounted for in advance as part of normal cost determination, which has historically not been the case with the current PBI.

Replacing the PBI with a traditional COLA for current personnel and retirees will require a constitutional amendment that will require voter approval at the ballot box in an election this May.
Second, the reform creates an entirely new retirement plan design for all new employees hired on or after July 1, 2017 that will:

• For the first time, allow public safety employees the choice of entering a full defined contribution plan or a defined benefit hybrid plan.
• Reduce the pensionable pay cap from $265,000 per year to $110,000 per year, significantly limiting pension spiking.
• Change the pension benefit multiplier from a flat 2.5% to a graded multiplier that ranges from 1.5% to 2.5% depending on years of service.
• Increase the retirement benefit eligibility age from 52.5 years to 55 years old.
• Implement the same CPI, with a cap of 2%.
• Restrict or eliminate cost of living adjustments when the plan falls below 90% funded.
• Require employees to pay 50% of all retirement costs, including normal costs, administrative costs, and any potential future unfunded liabilities if the plan’s experience does not meet actuarial assumptions.

 

 

Big Prop. 124 win to change public-safety pensions

Craig Harris , The Republic | azcentral.com Published 8:48 p.m. MT May 17, 2016 | Updated 6:25 a.m. MT May 18, 2016

Prop. 124 wins big, following support from firefighters, police officers and lawmakers. It will lower increases to retirement benefits, but is expected to improve ailing retirement trust.
Starting Jan. 1, the measure will change the way permanent pension-benefit increases are paid to retirees. Supporters say Prop. 124 over the next 30 years will save $1.5 billion for the retirement trust for first responders. However, an Arizona Supreme Court ruling could throw a wrench in Tuesday's electoral decision.

Prop. 124 will link retirees' pension cost-of-living adjustments to the regional Consumer Price Index, with an annual cap of 2 percent. An annual 4 percent compounded increase has been paid out to retirees for the past two decades, significantly cutting into the amount of money remaining to pay future retirement benefits.

Although the measure will reduce pension benefits, first responders urged voters to back the plan in order to provide sustainability to a trust that has about half of the money needed to fund current and future pensions

The State of Arizona has 2 retirement systems, the Arizona State Retirement System and the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System. These retirement plans qualify under 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. They are “defined benefit plans”, which is a retirement plan that promises to pay a certain amount usually based on the number of years of service and on the average salary in the period before retirement.   The Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) was created by the state legislature for elected officials, judges, certain full-time certified peace officers, fire fighters and other public safety personnel assigned to hazardous duty. The PSPRS has 3 plan categories: EORP, PSRS, and CORP described below:              
Deadlines: Correct missed contributions for the current fiscal year within 30 days, or the end of the fiscal year, whichever is sooner. GAO-73A due by 12 pm (noon) on compute Tuesday.
ELECTED OFFICIALS RETIREMENT PLAN (EORP)  Retirement plan for Elected Officials, Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the Court of Appeals. 
PUBLIC SAFETY RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PSRS) Retirement plan for Certified Peace Officers, Fire Fighters, Game & Fish wardens, Attorney General investigators, Liquor Control Officers and State Park Rangers.  
CORRECTIONS OFFICER RETIREMENT PLAN (CORP) Retirement plan for Correctional Officers and other positions within Department of Correction (DOC) and Department of Juvenile Corrections (DJC) and Public Safety Dispatchers and Detention Officers

RETIREMENT: PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT SYSTEM

PMGAA NorthEast Development Plan Gets A Green Light

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 03, 2017

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Gets FAA Clearance for Northeast Area Development Plan
When the federal government turned the former Williams Air Force Base over to the now Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority (PMGAA), it was an expansive 3,000-acre parcel largely removed from the major population centers of greater Phoenix.

Much has changed in the past 25 years; and today Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport is at the center of a thriving and rapidly-expanding Phoenix East Valley. 
More than 1.5 million people now live within a 20-minute drive from the once remote facility.  As the airport has grown, so too has interest in developing the land surrounding it.
On March 21, PMGAA cleared another major development hurdle when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued its Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Northeast Area Development Plan (NADP); clearing the way for future development of 700 acres of prime real estate adjacent to airport infrastructure and two growing highway systems.

 “Unlocking the northeast side of the airport for development is great news for Gateway Airport and the East Valley,” said Mesa Mayor John Giles, current chair of the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority Board. “The opportunity for high-wage job creation in this area will benefit the entire region and strengthens the airport’s role as an economic driver.”
There are currently more than 50 companies located within the airport’s boundaries, employing over 2,500 people.

J. Brian O’Neill, A.A.E. executive director/CEO of Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority added, “We would like to thank our partners at the FAA for their commitment to this important project and their continued support of Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport.  We look forward to engaging both public and private sectors to transform this incredible asset.” 

About Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport:
Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport is owned and operated by the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority (PMGAA). PMGAA consists of representation from Mesa, Gilbert, Queen Creek, Gila River Indian Community, Phoenix, and Apache Junction. Gateway Airport offers nonstop passenger service to 40 cities via Allegiant and WestJet Airlines and welcomes more than 1.3 million passengers each year. Corporate, military, and general aviation customers are served by Gateway Aviation Services, a 24-hour full-service FBO located just north of the passenger terminal.
Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority Media Contact:
Ryan Smith, Strategic Communications/Government Relations
Phone: 480-988-7617
Email: rsmith@gatewayairport.com

 

April Agenda + March Meeting Minutes: Mesa Economic Development Advisory Board

Today's meeting started just shortly after 07:30 a.m. with some late arrivals, but nonetheless got off to a fast start. It was a surprise to see District 1 Mesa City Council member for the second time at the table usually reserved for board members.

Images taken at this morning's meeting have been inserted to update this post yesterday. The Economic Development Advisory Board shall act as the advisory board to the Mesa City Council on matters pertaining to economic development, including goal setting, strategic planning, marketing and business recruitment, retention and expansion.
Source: mesaaz.gov

Mark Freeman to left of Bill Jabjiniak

The membership of the Economic Development Advisory Board shall include: nine (9) voting members up to six (6) ex-officio non-voting members.

Three of the ex-officio members shall be the Mayor, City Manager, and the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Mesa Chamber of Commerce, and three may be City of Mesa representatives that are currently sitting on the Greater Phoenix Economic Council Board of Directors.

Mayor John Giles and City Manager Chris Brady have not been present at these meetings for months. Sally Jo Harrison and Jeff Crockett were absent today
Call (480) 644-2398 for information.

Voting Members

Terry Benelli (17) - 2^nd TermExecutive Director
Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) Phoenixtbenelli@lisc.org
James Christensen (19) - 2^nd TermPresident & CEO
Gateway Commercial Bankjamesc@gcbaz.com
Natascha Ovando-Karadsheh, Vice Chair (17) - 1^st TermOwner/Realtor
KOR Propertiesnataschak@KORproperties.com
Dominic Perry (17) - 1^st TermVice President
Avison Youngdominic.perry@avisonyoung.com
Jeff S. Pitcher, Chair (18) - 2^nd TermPartner
Ballard Spahr, LLP pitcherj@ballardspahr.com
Laura Snow (18) - 2^nd TermSenior Director, Strategy and Planning
Banner Healthlaura.snow@bannerhealth.com

Matt Likens (19) - 1^st TermLikens Healthcare & Medical Device Consulting
mlikens24@gmail.com
Deb Duvall (19) - 1^st Termdebbieduvall@cox.net

Scott Rudy (17) - 1st TermThe Boeing Company
scott.r.rudy@boeing.com

Ex-Officio Members

John Giles
Mayor
City of Mesa mayor@mesaaz.gov

Chris Brady City Manager
City of Mesa chris.brady@mesaaz.gov
Rich Adams, GPEC RepresentativePresident/CEO
Southwest Business Credit Servicerich.adams@nacmaz.org
Brian Campbell, GPEC RepresentativeAttorney
Campbell Law Group, Chartered bcampbell@campbellazlaw.com
Jeffrey Crockett, GPEC RepresentativeAttorney
Crocket Law Group PLLCjeff@jeffcrockettlaw.com
Sally HarrisonPresident & CEO
Mesa Chamber of Commerce sharrison@mesachamber.org

Staff

William Jabjiniak, Economic Development Director
City of Mesa william.jabjiniak@mesaaz.gov

[at right in this image, flanked by Mark Freeman]



Meeting Notice & Agenda
Economic Development Advisory Board
City Council Chambers 57 E. 1st Street, Lower Level
Tuesday, April 4, 2017 7:30 AM

    
1. Chair’s Call to Order
2. Items from Citizens Present
3. Approval of Minutes from March 7, 2017 meeting
4. LaunchPoint Overview
5. Smart & Connected AZ Initiative 
6. Director’s Update
7. Other Business
 Next EDAB Meeting- May 2nd 
8. Adjournment

Note: an additional presentation was made by Dominic Para, seen speaking immediately after the meeting with Mike Likens

MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING
RESULTS
Economic Development Advisory Board
City Council Chambers 57 E 1st Street, Lower Level
Tuesday, March 7, 2017 7:30 AM  
1. Chair’s Call To Order
Chair Jeff Pitcher called the March 7, 2017 meeting of the Economic Development Advisory Board to order at 7:34 am at City Council Chambers, 57 E 1st Street, Lower Level.
2. Items from Citizens Present
None
3. Approval of Minutes from February 7, 2017
Chair Jeff Pitcher called for a motion to approve minutes from the meeting held on February 7, 2017.  
MOTION: Laura Snow made a motion to approve the minutes. SECOND: Terry Benelli seconded the motion to approve the minutes. DECISION: Passed unanimously 
4. Visit Mesa Update
Discussion only; no formal action taken by the Board.  
5. Falcon Strategic Plan Update
Discussion only; no formal action taken by the Board.  
6. Director’s Report
Discussion only; no formal action taken by the Board.
7. Other Business - Next EDAB Meeting – April 7, 2017
8. Adjournment - Meeting was adjourned by Chair Jeff Pitcher at 9:07 am.

____________________________________________________________________________

NOTES & BACKGROUND OF THE EDAB CHAIRMAN
Jeffrey Pitcher
Jeffrey S. Pitcher is Team Leader of Ballard Spahr's Commercial Loan Servicing and Distressed Real Estate Teams. Mr. Pitcher focuses on distressed real estate and real estate development, finance, and leasing. He represents clients on a variety of distressed projects and also represents owners of master-planned and mixed-use developments, retail and office centers, multifamily developments, hotels, industrial properties, and other types of commercial real estate.
Source: BallardSpahr
Mr. Pitcher advises institutional lenders and special servicers on workouts and restructurings, and also represents investors in the purchase of distressed assets. He regularly advises clients on the acquisition, financing, and sale of commercial properties and in the negotiation and drafting of commercial and retail leases, guaranties, and related occupancy agreements for both landlord and tenant parties.
Representative Matters

• Represents various loan servicers in the foreclosure, loan workout, receivership appointment, and disposition of more than $348 million in total loans, including loans for multifamily, resort, retail and mixed-use, and office properties throughout Arizona
• Represents special servicers in loan workouts, mediation, loan sales, and foreclosure of residential properties in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah
• Represents a commercial lender on a $50 million loan on a golf course and fractional-interest project
• Represents a lender in the foreclosure of a $95 million resort
• Represents lenders in their entire Arizona portfolio, including loan workouts, deeds in lieu of foreclosure, and foreclosure review

Charter Schools In Arizona: What The Public Isn't Told

What the public isn’t told about high-performing charter schools in Arizona

This post details issues with charter schools in Arizona. It was written by Carol Burris, a former New York high school principal who is executive director of the nonprofit Network for Public Education. She has been chronicling problems with corporate school reform for years on this blog, and this post is part of her occasional series about troubled charter schools in California and other states.
Source: The Washington Post
By Valerie Strauss 30 March 2017

While some charter schools are well-run and high-performing, others aren’t, and some states that allow charters have little or no oversight. A 2016 audit by the Education Department’s Inspector General’s Office found that the department — which awards multi-million-dollar grants to states for the creation and expansion of charters — had failed to provide adequate oversight of some of its relationships with charter management organizations.
Burris was named the 2010 Educator of the Year by the School Administrators Association of New York State, and in 2013, the same organization named her the New York State High School Principal of the Year. She was helped with this piece by Jim Hall, an elementary and middle school principal in Arizona for 23 years who, in 2014, founded Arizonans for Charter School Accountability. He is quoted in this post.
Burris attempted to contact officials at the BASIS charter school network she writes about in this post but received no response.
There are very big differences between what we have come to accept as public schools and charters:

• Democratically elected school boards govern most public schools; charter boards are appointed and not accountable to parents or the community.
• Charters control the number of students they have, and they do not have to take students mid-year, like traditional public schools do.
• Transparency laws, especially in spending, that public schools must follow can — and often are — ignored by charter schools.  
• Many conflict-of-interest laws that regulate public schools can be skirted — and sometimes are — by charters.
• And in some cases, when a charter school is closed because of poor performance or another reason, the school building and property is not returned to the public who paid for them, but is retained by the charter owners themselves.  And, by the way, charters can shut their doors whenever it suits them.

They only thing truly “public” about charters, is that taxpayers foot the bill. Calling charter schools “public schools” because they receive public tax dollars is like calling defense contractors “public companies” because they also depend on public funding.

One of the best illustrations of the “non-public” nature of charters is the much heralded BASIS charter schools that began in Arizona, a state with extremely lax charter laws. A close look at BASIS provides insight into how charter schools can cherry-pick students, despite open enrollment laws.  It also shows how through the use of management companies profits can be made — call hidden from public view.
There are now 18 BASIS charter schools in Arizona, three in Texas and one in Washington D.C., all managed by the for-profit corporation, BASIS Educational Group, LLC. The same LLC also manages five for-profit BASIS private schools in the United States and one private international school.
There is no doubt that BASIS provides a challenging education. What is questionable is just how “public” their charter schools really are.

Critics of charter schools have long observed the differences in school populations that charters serve, and charter schools counter that that is not by design. A quick look at the demographics of the 18 Arizona BASIS charter schools compared with the demographic profile of all Arizona students in the public and charter systems, however, should give pause that such differences are not accidental. The following enrollment figures are from the 2015-2016 school year.
 

	Asian	American Indian/Alaska Native	Black	Latino	White	Mixed
Arizona	3%	5%	5%	45%	39%	3%
BASIS	32%	0%	3%	10%	51%	2%

 
The proportional over-enrollment of Asian-American students and under-enrollment of Latino students in BASIS charter schools is startling. But differences in the students served do not end with race and ethnicity.
In 2015-16, only 1.23 percent of the students at BASIS had a learning disability, as compared to 11.3 percent of students in the state. BASIS schools had no English Language Learners. And in a state in which over 47 percent of all students received free or reduced- priced lunch, BASIS had none.  Although BASIS may have some students from qualifying households, it chooses not to participate in the free or reduced-priced lunch program.
Not getting any response from BASIS, the author of this report called the BASIS Educational Group twice to get answers about the financial status of BASIS. My calls were never returned.  So I turned to Arizonan Curt Cardine, a former East Coast superintendent and former charter administrator.
Discouraged by the unethical practices he says he has observed in Arizona charters, he left the charter world and has spent the last three years conducting an extensive study of charter financial health and financing in Arizona. According to Cardine, “Once money goes to the BASIS Educational Group, the profits now belong to the for-profit to use as they please, including for expansion.”
Cardine then analyzed the latest audit for BASIS and he sees trouble ahead for the charter chain. “The most recent audit shows that BASIS School Inc. is now running a huge deficit in their assets of over $13 million.  The charter schools’ net loss for the 14-15 year alone was $3,074,317.”
Cardine said he was not surprised. “In the state of Arizona, the financial failure rate on charters is 42.79 percent. Over-leveraging is a huge problem,” said Cardine.  “Charters fail, but somehow folks leave making money. Charters like to say they are ‘for the kids, not the adults.’ That has certainly not been my experience — especially here in Arizona.”

 

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Millionaire$$$$$$ In The White House

The White House Wouldn’t Post Trump Staffers’ Financial Disclosures. So We Did.

In partnership with The New York Times and The Associated Press, we’re sharing financial disclosures for everyone to look through, including you

Source: ProPublica.

by Ariana Tobin and Derek Kravitz
ProPublica, April 1, 2017, 11:38 a.m.

In a remarkable Friday night news dump, the Trump administration made dozens of White House staffers’ financial disclosure forms available. But they did it with an extra dose of opacity.
These are important disclosures from the people who have the president’s ear and shape national policy.
They lay out all sorts of details, including information on ownership of stocks, real estate and companies, and make possible conflicts of interest public.

But the White House required a separate request for each staffer’s disclosure. And they didn’t give the names of the staffers, leaving us to guess who had filed disclosures, a kind of Transparency Bingo.
Since the White House wasn’t going to post the documents publicly, we did.
We teamed up with The New York Times and The Associated Press, requested docs for every staffer we know and put them in this public Google Drive folder.
We’re continuing to look through them.
And we want your help:
If you see anything that merits a closer look, comment on the thread below or fill out our Google Form.

Among the things we’ve learned already:

• Steve Bannon, President Trump’s hand-picked chief strategist, earned more than $500,000 last year through businesses connected to Republican donors Robert Mercer and his daughter, Rebekah. The companies include the conservative website Breitbart News Network; the data-crunching firm Cambridge Analytica; the conservative nonprofit Government Accountability Institute; and the entertainment production company Glittering Steel. (Per an agreement with White House ethics attorneys, Bannon is selling his stakes in Cambridge Analytica and Glittering Steel. He made somewhere between $1.3 million and $2.3 million last year, according to the filings.)
• Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and a White House senior adviser, resigned his positions in 266 different business entities in order to comply with federal ethics rules, White House officials said Friday. He and his wife Ivanka’s financial disclosure shows the scale of their wealth, largely through the family-run Kushner Companies: real estate and investments worth as much as $741 million.

And Kushner is holding onto more than 100 real-estate assets, including a Trump-branded rental building in Jersey City, New Jersey, which was financed with millions from wealthy Chinese investors through a visa program.

• As part of Kushner’s financial disclosure, Ivanka Trump, who recently took an official post in the White House, had to disclose her assets. Ivanka Trump’s branded companies, including her clothing and jewelry lines, brought in more than $5 million in 2016 and are valued at more than $50 million. Her stake in the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., which opened in September, brought in income of between $1 million and $5 million. (She is putting her companies in a trust that she won’t manage while her father serves as president.)

There are other tidbits, too.

• Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs investment banker who now serves as director of the National Economic Council, has assets worth at least $253 million, including million-dollar or more stakes in several private companies.
• Omarosa Manigault, the reality-TV star who took a job as a White House communications staffer, has a 33 percent stake in a trust worth between $1 million and $5 million established by her late fiancée, the Oscar-nominated actor Michael Clarke Duncan, who died in 2012.
• Reed Cordish, a Trump family friend and Maryland real-estate developer who now oversees technology initiatives at the White House, reported assets of at least $197 million, including partnerships in Baltimore casinos.

So far, we’ve received less than half of the roughly 180 financial disclosures White House officials said they have processed. But the moment we get them, you will, too.

Like this story? Sign up for our daily newsletter to get more of our best work.

State Personal Income 2016

News Release EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EDT, Tuesday, March 28, 2017  Sorry for being slightly tardy in posting these data State Personal Income, 2016 For the full release and tables, visit https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/spi_newsrelease.htm State personal income grew on average 3.6 percent in 2016, after increasing 4.5 percent in 2015, according to estimates released today by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Growth of state personal income—the sum of net earnings by place of residence, property income, and personal current transfer receipts—ranged from –1.7 percent in Wyoming to 5.9 percent in Nevada (table 1). Earnings. Earnings increased 4.1 percent in 2016 and was the leading contributor to growth in personal income in most states (table 2). Both personal income and earnings grew faster in Nevada than in any other state. Earnings growth in management; arts, entertainment, and recreation; and construction were the leading contributors to its 7.2 percent growth in total earnings (table 3). Utah, Washington, Florida, and Oregon had the next fastest growth in total earnings. In Utah, earnings growth in construction, and in health care and social assistance, were the leading contributors to the 6.4 percent growth in total earnings. In Washington, earnings growth in information, and in retail trade, were the leading contributors to the 6.3 percent growth in total earnings. In Florida, earnings growth in professional, scientific, and technical services, and in health care and social assistance, were the leading contributors to the 6.2 percent growth in total earnings. In Oregon, earnings growth in health care and social assistance, and in construction, were the leading contributors to the 5.9 percent growth in total earnings. For the nation, earnings grew in 22 of the 24 industries for which BEA prepares estimates (table 5). Earnings growth in health care and social assistance; professional, scientific, and technical services; and construction were the leading contributors to overall growth in total earnings. Mining earnings fell 13.6 percent nationally in 2016, after falling 13.3 percent in 2015. Lower mining earnings was the leading contributor to declines in total earnings in Oklahoma, Alaska, North Dakota, and Wyoming, and to very slow earnings growth in Louisiana. Property income. Property income (dividends, interest, and rent) grew 1.9 percent on average in 2016, slower than the 2.8 percent increase in 2015. Dividend income decreased 0.3 percent in 2016, after increasing 2.7 percent in 2015. Growth in rental income slowed to 6.9 percent in 2016, after increasing 8.8 percent in 2015. Growth in interest income, in contrast, accelerated slightly to 0.9 percent in 2016, up from 0.1 percent 2015. The growth in property income ranged from 0.9 percent in Wyoming to 2.8 percent in North Dakota. Personal current transfer receipts. Personal current transfer receipts grew 3.6 percent on average in 2016, down from 5.4 percent in 2015. Medicare and Medicaid benefits grew 5.3 percent and 5.0 percent respectively, while Social Security benefits grew only 2.8 percent. The slow growth in Social Security benefits reflects no cost of living adjustment for beneficiaries in 2016. The growth in personal current transfer receipts ranged from -5.9 percent in Alaska to 7.1 percent in Nevada. Medicaid benefits in Nevada increased 14.1 percent, the third consecutive above average annual increase. The sharp decline in Alaska reflects smaller payments from the Alaska Permanent Fund. Fourth quarter personal income. State personal income grew 0.9 percent on average in the fourth quarter of 2016, down from 1.1 percent growth in the third quarter. Growth rates ranged from -0.1 percent in Nevada to 1.4 percent in Utah and California (table 6). Earnings grew 1.0 percent nationally, and was the leading contributor to growth in personal income in most states (table 7). Growth in construction earnings was a leading contributor to overall earnings growth for the nation and in most of the fastest growing states (table 8). In Utah, and California, only professional, scientific, and technical services earnings made a larger contribution to overall earnings growth, and in Florida, only health care and social assistance earnings made a larger contribution. In four of the fast growing states—Washington, Louisiana, Oregon, and Montana—growth in construction earnings made the largest contribution to the growth in total earnings, while in Colorado, construction earnings and healthcare and social assistance earnings made equal contributions to its growth in total earnings. Declining farm earnings was the leading contributor to the slow growth in total earnings in many of the slowest growing states, including South Dakota, Kansas, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa. In Nevada, the only state with declining personal income in the fourth quarter, earnings were lower in arts, entertainment, and recreation; management; and professional, scientific, and technical services after large lump-sum payments were made in all three industries in the third quarter. Updates to Personal Income. Today, BEA also released revised quarterly personal income estimates for 2016:Q1 to 2016:Q3. Updates were made to incorporate source data that are more complete and more detailed than previously available, and to align the states with revised national estimates. BEA also released revised quarterly estimates of population and per capita personal income for 2010:Q1-2016:Q3, and revised annual estimates of population and per capita personal income for 2010-2015.   ### Technical Contact Matthew von Kerczek (301) 278-9250 reis@bea.gov David G. Lenze (301) 278-9292   Media Contact Jeannine Aversa (301) 278-9003 jeannine.aversa@bea.gov Thomas Dail   thomas.dail@bea.gov twitter.com/BEA_News blog.bea.gov www.bea.gov/_subscribe