Gulliford wants voters to decide on half-cent sales-tax to pay down pension

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

In reply with all due respect Chris I would disagree about there being any "huge" progress and your solutions to date are minus needed council support. Meaningful progress to me will be when this administration can get a sound proposal through the City Council. 

Diane...the administration and Council did agree on a sound proposal.  Unfortunately the Pension Board rejected it.

I've agreed on many proposals that didn't exactly fly with the other party as well... that doesn't mean that is was sound or fair. 

[Cheshire Cat]

In reply with all due respect Chris I would disagree about there being any "huge" progress and your solutions to date are minus needed council support. Meaningful progress to me will be when this administration can get a sound proposal through the City Council. 

Diane...the administration and Council did agree on a sound proposal.  Unfortunately the Pension Board rejected it.

Perhaps, but in the end there was no legislation written for the council and passed that satisfied all parties.  One could argue that a sound proposal would have been one that also met the approval of the Pension Board. I would think there would have been some indication that the Pension Board would not go for the proposal if adequate conversation had been taking place.  In any case the end result still is that there is no concrete resolution to the problem and we need one soon.

[Tacachale]

I believe the Council also has the authority to impose a new pension agreement if there's an economic crisis (like we've had) and negotiations fail.

[Bill Hoff]

St. Johns County is considering a 1 cent sales tax hike:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/local/st-augustine%20/2015/02/17/sales-tax-increase/23581427/

[jaxlore]

I will not vote for a sales tax increase. Raise the mileage rate and be done with it and yes I own a home.

BTW this is by no means a straight sales tax increase to pay the pension fund and cannot be worded so on the ballot. State law says the money has got to pay for fire safety issues or something like that then the money is taken from there to go to the pension fund. So you have to sell the public on what pretty much amounts to skirting the state law.

[Elwood]

While a sales tax increase would be shared by everyone, including those visiting and transiting through the area, I think we are likely to see it AND a mileage rate increase in the not too distant future.

[Cheshire Cat]

I will not vote for a sales tax increase. Raise the mileage rate and be done with it and yes I own a home.

BTW this is by no means a straight sales tax increase to pay the pension fund and cannot be worded so on the ballot. State law says the money has got to pay for fire safety issues or something like that then the money is taken from there to go to the pension fund. So you have to sell the public on what pretty much amounts to skirting the state law.

The good news is that you would have a chance to vote for or against a sales tax increase via a ballot referendum.  The same cannot be said when property taxes are raised or deals are brokered with JEA that will impact your energy expenses.  All are increases, but one is hidden cost that impacts your pocket the same way any tax would but can be sold as something other than a tax, like Peyton's "storm water" fees.  I would much rather the "voters" have a say in how their money is spent, that however is just my opinion.  I appreciate yours. 

[tufsu1]

I would much rather the "voters" have a say in how their money is spent, that however is just my opinion.

I would rather have my elected leaders in fact LEAD.  And if I don't like what they do, then I vote them out.  That is, of course, how representative democracy (or democratic republic) works.

[Bridges]

While a sales tax increase would be shared by everyone, including those visiting and transiting through the area, I think we are likely to see it AND a mileage rate increase in the not too distant future.

Who in the hell has the cojones to do that?

I would much rather the "voters" have a say in how their money is spent, that however is just my opinion.

I would rather have my elected leaders in fact LEAD.  And if I don't like what they do, then I vote them out.  That is, of course, how representative democracy (or democratic republic) works.

Exactly!

[fieldafm]

I believe the Council also has the authority to impose a new pension agreement if there's an economic crisis (like we've had) and negotiations fail.

And that's exactly why everyone but Council is trying to bull rush a solution, because they know Council would likely force a better deal for the taxpayers than for the pension/JEA/etc interests if they can unilaterally impose a new agreement as the law allows.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I would much rather the "voters" have a say in how their money is spent, that however is just my opinion.

I would rather have my elected leaders in fact LEAD.  And if I don't like what they do, then I vote them out.  That is, of course, how representative democracy (or democratic republic) works.

That's a great sentiment tufsu, but until we even have the option to elect someone who's more concerned with fixing the problems that face the entire city instead of problems that face his financial support group, then it will remain a sentiment. 

This is what....  the third or fourth election cycle in a row?  And we're more concerned about voting for the person we believe will do the LEAST damage instead of the one that will actually lead.  It's going to take a true leader.  Someone willing to sacrifice the remainder of their political career in this city to finally get us back on the right track. 

[PeeJayEss]

It is very interesting that the City Council has eventual authority to impose a new pension agreement. If the City can say it doesn't have enough money to pay its obligations, and can simply impose new and lower obligations, what kind of confidence does that inspire in them honoring any pension commitment? Shouldn't agree to the terms in the first place if you can't figure out how to pay.

[Tacachale]

^It's not a case of breaking the terms; it's specifically written into the terms that the agreement be renegotiated in the case of economic emergency (like we've had), and that if it doesn't work, the council can impose an agreement.

[Charles Hunter]

Is there a clear definition in the agreement, or in statute, of what constitutes an "economic emergency"?  Or would Council open up the City to lawsuits from the JPJPF and other unions if they impose a solution?

[Cheshire Cat]

I believe the Council also has the authority to impose a new pension agreement if there's an economic crisis (like we've had) and negotiations fail.

And that's exactly why everyone but Council is trying to bull rush a solution, because they know Council would likely force a better deal for the taxpayers than for the pension/JEA/etc interests if they can unilaterally impose a new agreement as the law allows.

That bull rush is on hold again.  The agreement with the JEA has been delayed again as the result of a committee meeting delay.