The City Council voted Mayor Browns pension deal "Down" tonight by a vote of 11 against and 7 for. We now revert to the old deal with 17 years left and the three associated lawsuits remain in place.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,19075.msg338421/topicseen.html#new
and they also voted for a property tax increase
Wise decision on both.
Quote
Jacksonville City Council rejects mayor's plan on pensions, leaves open property tax increase
Mayor Alvin Brown's proposal is viewed as shortsighted.
Jacksonville's City Council rejected the pension legislation Mayor Alvin Brown had championed Tuesday, and left open the door to setting a substantially higher property tax rate.
The choices represented huge blows to Brown, who had trumpeted his pension deal as a tool to save the city $1.2 billion over 30 years and had stressed his pride at not raising taxes.
Brown's office minimized the loss.
"This is a minor setback," said Chris Hand, the mayor's chief of staff, who said Brown would keep working to address the problems the city faces. "His conscience is clear."
From Steve Patterson at jacksonville.com
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-23/story/jacksonville-city-council-rejects-mayors-plan-pensions-leaves-open#ixzz2ZyWIDngt
Quote from: Tacachale on July 24, 2013, 10:57:42 AM
Quote
Jacksonville City Council rejects mayor's plan on pensions, leaves open property tax increase
Mayor Alvin Brown's proposal is viewed as shortsighted.
Jacksonville's City Council rejected the pension legislation Mayor Alvin Brown had championed Tuesday, and left open the door to setting a substantially higher property tax rate.
The choices represented huge blows to Brown, who had trumpeted his pension deal as a tool to save the city $1.2 billion over 30 years and had stressed his pride at not raising taxes.
Brown's office minimized the loss.
"This is a minor setback," said Chris Hand, the mayor's chief of staff, who said Brown would keep working to address the problems the city faces. "His conscience is clear."
From Steve Patterson at jacksonville.com
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-23/story/jacksonville-city-council-rejects-mayors-plan-pensions-leaves-open#ixzz2ZyWIDngt
No big deal? Not quite. This was supposed to be Brown's crowning achievement while in office. It is the single most important financial issue facing the city now and in the future. No big deal indeed!
Quote from: edjax on July 23, 2013, 09:16:17 PM
Wise decision on both.
Everyone needs to keep one thing in mind. The property tax rate increase is "tentative" and if put forward will not make things better for Jacksonville but is rather a stop gap measure to cover this years budget shortfalls. We are running in place folks or perhaps I should say running in quicksand.
Please dont tell me this is going to be a long pissing match. What is the next step?
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 24, 2013, 12:09:32 PM
Quote from: edjax on July 23, 2013, 09:16:17 PM
Wise decision on both.
Everyone needs to keep one thing in mind. The property tax rate increase is "tentative" and if put forward will not make things better for Jacksonville but is rather a stop gap measure to cover this years budget shortfalls. We are running in place folks or perhaps I should say running in quicksand.
But I would stay this is better than running backwards as we have been doing the past several years with continuous tax cuts just to get elected or reelected.
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2013, 12:36:00 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 24, 2013, 12:09:32 PM
Quote from: edjax on July 23, 2013, 09:16:17 PM
Wise decision on both.
Everyone needs to keep one thing in mind. The property tax rate increase is "tentative" and if put forward will not make things better for Jacksonville but is rather a stop gap measure to cover this years budget shortfalls. We are running in place folks or perhaps I should say running in quicksand.
Diane, you normally do such a great job with research. Could you show why this is true?
Actually Stephen, this was openly discussed during last nights council meeting repeatedly by council members and the city auditor. Nothing to research here, this was live discussion last night. They said over and over again that the vote for property tax increase was to shore up the budget if needed should they voted down the pension deal. They set the potential tax raise at a number that will just meet the budget hole if they can't find more money. There is not overage in that property tax amount what-so-ever to do more than keep us where we are. As it turned out they did vote down the pension deal and will now likely use the property tax hike to fill the gaping void. Now they claim they will look for additional funding but the where and how remains unknown. All that happened last night was purely to keep the status quo.
Quote from: edjax on July 24, 2013, 12:43:46 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 24, 2013, 12:09:32 PM
Quote from: edjax on July 23, 2013, 09:16:17 PM
Wise decision on both.
Everyone needs to keep one thing in mind. The property tax rate increase is "tentative" and if put forward will not make things better for Jacksonville but is rather a stop gap measure to cover this years budget shortfalls. We are running in place folks or perhaps I should say running in quicksand.
But I would stay this is better than running backwards as we have been doing the past several years with continuous tax cuts just to get elected or reelected.
Not much better. We still have the same dadgum problems to deal with. Pension remains unresolved with us in debt to the tune of 1.7 Billion for pension payouts and you can bet your sweet bippy, we will be short next budget go round as well by millions of dollars.
Kirk Sherman, the city auditor himself when asked repeatedly by various council members what the property tax increase would mean for next years budget. He told them the tentative tax increase would just meet the hole in the budget left when the pension deal was voted down. Some of the council members in the discussion were Lee, Crescimbini, Boyer and others. You not trust me to give the facts anymore Stephen? lol You know I watch this stuff like a hawk and believe you me, the mess last night was not easy to follow.
I was just "messin wif ya" Stephen. :) I really wish you had been able to blog last night. There was just so much that needed to be said with your humorous twist on things. lol I can honestly say that last evenings council meeting was in it's own right both shocking and disheartening. I think the secret hope that I held was that this council might serve as a buffer to an inexperienced administration. Sadly that does not appear to be the case. Lori Boyer as usual had researched well on her own prior to this meeting and made a good deal of sense, until she let herself get tied up in some thoughts from her review of consolidation and an attempt to tie last nights issues into a dated consolidation plan. That worried me a bit. It was also a bit humorous to hear Denise Lee state that since she is being termed out and could not run for office again that she could now speak honestly to the people about property taxes. Really? She can be honest if she is not looking to run for office again? Kind of telling everyone that she wasn't honest before. The council was in rare form to be sure.
Quote from: John P on July 24, 2013, 12:25:12 PM
Please dont tell me this is going to be a long pissing match. What is the next step?
You said not to tell you but I will. lol We are looking at two to three years and perhaps as many as five before the lawsuits attached to the pension deal can be decided. The mayor's office is saying they will begin negotiating again. How soon who knows but the council was very clear last night in calling out Mayor Browns deal as an attempt to get himself through to the next election for office two years down the line. His legislation was simply kicking the can on pensions down the road, leaving a bigger problem to a future mayor and council. I think it was stated there were something like 27 pages of concerns that the city auditor had with the pension deal. If Brown could have pushed the deal through he would and make it through the next election, he would be nowhere around when the you know what hit's the fan. But the taxpayers will be.
Here you go Stephen and fellow posters and readers. A bit more info from the Daily Record.
QuoteDT
by David Chapman, Staff Writer
The chairman of Mayor Alvin Brown's Jacksonville Retirement Reform Task Force calls City Council's rejection of Brown's proposed pension deal "an attack on the Mayor."
Attorney Bill Scheu, appointed by Brown to lead the task force, said in an email to Brown's chief of staff Chris Hand that the legislation's discharge and rejection was an attack on the mayor "rather than an effort to be servant leaders."
Scheu could not be reached for comment this morning.
Scheu sent the email to Hand on Tuesday afternoon as Council President Bill Gulliford discharged the legislation from committee and brought it to vote. Council rejected the deal in a vote of 11 to 7.
The rejection of Brown's proposed pension reform agreement effectively ends the work of the 11-member task force, which the mayor assigned to review the proposed legislation and make recommendations.
The task force met July 10 and had two more meetings scheduled July 31 and Aug. 22.
"Tell them that they should let the process work and let citizens have a chance to give input," Scheu said in the
email to Hand.
Hand initiated the email conversation, informing Scheu of Gulliford's decision to discharge the bill from the committee level for a Tuesday vote and asking if there was a message he could convey to Council.
Council members Reggie Brown, Doyle Carter, Kimberly Daniels, Ray Holt, Warren Jones, Denise Lee and Jim Love supported Brown's legislation. Council member Johnny Gaffney was excused from the meeting.
Brown announced the deal in early May, saying it would save taxpayers $1.2 billion over 30 years, including $45 million in the 2013-14 City budget.
The Jacksonville Civic Council, a group of influential private business and community leaders, reported to the mayor and Gulliford in June that the deal "isn't enough" and recommended Council reject it.
Last week, the JAX Chamber board of directors voted not to endorse the deal.
Council member Greg Anderson, who chairs the finance committee, also served on the task force.
Before several Council members
unsuccessfully tried to appeal Gulliford's discharge decision, Anderson said he wanted to see the citizen-led task force conduct the review.
Gulliford later said he knew Scheu and appreciated the task force's work, but that the issue needed certainty so that the finance committee could review the City budget for approval in time for the fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1.
"I don't feel good (about it), I don't like that aspect one bit," Gulliford said, referring to what the decision meant to the task force.
But he said he "felt strongly" about the decision and it was time for a vote.
Several Council members opposed discharge, saying more time was needed to study the legislation and referred to the work of the pension reform task force.
Other Council members asked to keep the pension proposal as an option for addressing shortfalls in the upcoming budget deliberations.
"I don't think we are ready to vote," Carter said.
Jones also said he wasn't ready to vote about the pension reform proposal and that Council did not have enough information to vote.
The majority disagreed.
"I don't need another commission or study. I know a bad deal when I see a bad deal. This is a bad deal for us," said Council member Richard Clark, calling Brown's proposal a short-term solution.
Council member Bill Bishop said he applauded the effort in crafting the deal but it was not a good, long-term financial decision for the City. Instead, he said the length of the deal for the remaining 17 years was "irresponsible."
Most who voted against the proposal cited its inadequacies in addressing the unfunded pension liability, which is between $1 billion and $2 billion.
Hand said after the vote the mayor's proposal reflected "real reform" and steps to lower the unfunded liability were built in and could have been achieved through real estate sales and transactions, governance and other methods.
He said the rejection likely will send the City and public safety unions back to court where the issue "may be at an impasse."
Hand also said the same night Council rejected a pension deal, it "raised taxes," referring to the tentative millage rates set.
Before the pension vote, Council members set the maximum property tax millage rate to 11.5353 mills for the general services district, 1.5 mills above Brown's proposed 10.0353 mills.
A mill is equal to $1 in tax revenue for every $1,000 in assessed value.
Many Council members said raising the tentative rate offered more options to the finance committee, which could lower the rate during the budget review.
The maximum increase, should Council decide to use it, would raise about $65 million in additional property tax revenue, according to Council Auditor Kirk Sherman.
Sherman said a "very preliminary" budget deficit is between $60 million to $67 million, but is close to the amount the potential millage increase would cover.
Council has until Aug. 4 to set the rate and submit it to the Property Appraiser's Office for the issuance of Truth in Millage notices. Those notices inform property owners of the maximum their property tax rate will be.
Should Council decide to raise the rate after the notices are sent, notices with the new rate must be sent again, costing up to $500,000. Lowering the rate after it is set does not require amended notices.
Brown has indicated he would not raise taxes, but he will not have the chance to veto the tentative rate legislation or let it remain unsigned, which would automatically trigger the "rolled-back" rate of 10.2107 mills.
A legal opinion issued Monday by City General Counsel Cindy Laquidara stated the Council president is authorized to sign the millage legislation into law and the administration will serve in a ministerial role to deliver it to the property appraiser's office.
dchapman@baileypub.[/quote http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=540079
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2013, 08:20:29 PM
thanks diane.
It sounds like everyone is playing a game of political hot potato, and the spud hasnt quite landed in anyone lap yet
Indeed and someone will get burned. Let's hope it is not the taxpayers.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 24, 2013, 11:42:34 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2013, 08:20:29 PM
thanks diane.
It sounds like everyone is playing a game of political hot potato, and the spud hasnt quite landed in anyone lap yet
Indeed and someone will get burned. Let's hope it is not the taxpayers.
Of course it will be CC... Now that they have approved a tax increase "in case we need it"... voila... we will in fact need it. :)
QuoteThe maximum increase, should Council decide to use it, would raise about $65 million in additional property tax revenue, according to Council Auditor Kirk Sherman.
Sherman said a "very preliminary" budget deficit is between $60 million to $67 million, but is close to the amount the potential millage increase would cover.
I just don't get it - what's it to Gulliford to yank this out of finance committee, away from public comment and demand a push through the Council. The T-U reports that he was worried about lobbying by the Mayor's Office. Oh, really???
Quote from: Jumpinjack on July 25, 2013, 09:40:33 AM
I just don't get it - what's it to Gulliford to yank this out of finance committee, away from public comment and demand a push through the Council. The T-U reports that he was worried about lobbying by the Mayor's Office. Oh, really???
Strictly political push back to the mayors office.
It made clear to the Mayor that Council didn't like his pension plan...and since neither side liked the draconian budget the Mayor presented last week, this needed to happen so everyone knows as early as possible what $ the city will have to work with next year
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 25, 2013, 10:50:40 AM
It made clear to the Mayor that Council didn't like his pension plan...and since neither side liked the draconian budget the Mayor presented last week, this needed to happen so everyone knows as early as possible what $ the city will have to work with next year
Don't disagree. Let me add that this also means that some of the behind the scenes power players who opposed the mayors pension plan had made their views known to some on council as well. ;)
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 25, 2013, 10:50:40 AM
It made clear to the Mayor that Council didn't like his pension plan...and since neither side liked the draconian budget the Mayor presented last week, this needed to happen so everyone knows as early as possible what $ the city will have to work with next year
Exactly
Here is a very informative article about the pension deal, how our pension agreements are not as generous as other Florida cities. Worth the read.
Quote
Jacksonville police, fire pensions not as generous as in other Florida cities
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-21/story/jacksonville-police-fire-pensions-not-generous-other-florida-cities#ixzz2aAlWAWtw
By Kate Howard Perry & Topher Sanders
Jacksonville's police officers and firefighters get less generous pensions than other major Florida cities — but they're required to put less of their own money into the system, a Times-Union analysis shows.
The Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund and representatives for the agencies have long railed against the perception that its pensioners are sitting on fat retirement plans. Data gathered from Miami, Orlando, Tampa and Fort Lauderdale shows all of their benefit plans bring bigger payouts.
"The Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund is a stable fund that does not provide luxurious benefits when an individual retires," said the fund's executive director, John Keane.
Randy Wyse, president of the firefighters union, questioned if the way Jacksonville stacks up to other big cities will impact their ability to recruit and retain fire and police personnel.
"All we're going to do is become a feeder agency for other places," Wyse said.
A 25-year Jacksonville police or fire employee making $75,000 at retirement would get a $45,625 pension under Mayor Alvin Brown's proposed pension deal.
Current employees at the same $75,000 pay level and years of service would get $52,150. They're not eligible for Social Security payments after retirement.
Elsewhere, the pensions range from $56,250 in Miami to $62,900 for Orlando firefighters under the same scenario.
But Jacksonville taxpayers pick up substantially more of the burden than any of the other cities, mostly because of the higher unfunded liability.
While the city of Miami's contribution was more than half of the police and fire's nearly $80 million payroll in fiscal year 2012, Tampa picked up about 16 percent of its $92 million payroll. But Jacksonville's city government alone puts in more than 78 percent of its almost $149 million payroll.
Last year, that was $122 million, including some state money set aside for the purpose.
Keane said that the city has made only minimal contributions over the years instead of investing in the plan, and that's why taxpayers are bearing a much larger burden. When the unfunded portion of the plan is discounted, the ratio of burden between the city and the plan's members is much closer together, he said.
"There is a plan to pay off the unfunded liability over the next 25 to 30 years," Keane said. "In doing it that way, it costs millions and millions in interest."
The proposed deal has to be approved by Jacksonville City Council before it would go into effect. The city calculates the deal would save $45 million in the upcoming year.
Less generous benefits are not necessarily tied to the health of a pension fund if it has a large unfunded liability to cover like Jacksonville's police and fire fund, said David Matkin, a professor at the LeRoy Collins Institute at Florida State University. Usually, the underfunded plans require a bigger contribution from employees than better funded plans, he said.
"I think you can question the management of the plan and the granting of benefits over time, but you can't point out exactly why, and what management decisions were at fault to create this unfunded liability and create this large taxpayers burden," Matkin said.
But asking more of employees, who put in the lowest amount of the compared cities at 7 percent, wouldn't necessarily improve the funding ratio.
"Taxpayers would pay less, but the funding ratio wouldn't automatically improve," Matkin said.
Jacksonville City Council President Bill Gulliford said he doesn't see the point in a history lesson on why the big taxpayer burden exists — there were probably mistakes made on both sides, he said — and the focus needs to be on fixing the problem. He said it's important to note that Jacksonville's police and fire contribute less than other cities, and those places typically have higher costs of living to go along with their bigger pensions.
"The reality is, we can get into comparisons like that, but we're way past that," Gulliford said. "It's something that maybe should've been looked at 10 to 15 years ago. We're in the situation now where we've inherited this, and we've gotta figure out how to fix it."
Pension benefits
The differences in pension benefits come from variations in what salary pensions are based on, where they're capped and what accrual rates the pensions allow.
In Tampa and Orlando, an employee could earn 100 percent of their salary. In Miami, employees can receive a pension up to $100,000 depending on years of service and their salary at retirement. In Jacksonville, pensions are capped at 80 percent of the average of the last two years salary. The proposal would bring the cap down to 75 percent, based on the last five years' average pay.
But those other cities reviewed ask their police and fire pension recipients to pay more — anywhere from 7.49 percent in Orlando's fire department to 13.26 percent in Tampa. New Jacksonville employees would contribute 10 percent if the proposed plan passes, while current employees contribute 7 percent.
While Tampa's contribution is the highest, it's also the largest fund in the state and has a structure that's unique in Florida, said Richard Griner, chairman of the Tampa Fire and Police Pension Fund.
The annual contributions of Tampa's police officers and firefighters fluctuates each year: for every $1 a Tampa employee contributes, the city puts in $1.34. This year, employees contribute 13.26 percent, but next year they will contribute 12.9 percent based on a smaller required payment.
"If they pay more, we pay more," Griner said. "If they pay less, we pay less. We share the liability with the city. It's fair."
Griner said the model forces employees to more prudently consider any addition of benefits because they too will have to share the responsibility.
"It's definitely out of the box, but it works for us," Griner said.
In Fort Lauderdale, the city raised the member contribution from 7 to 8.5 percent for its police and fire pension fund and made it apply to all employees, said pension board spokesman Fred Nesbitt.
"I think everyone realized they need to make some additional contributions," Nesbitt said. "It didn't seem to be a real big sticking point."
The blow was softened by a raise that covered the additional contribution, given to the plan members at the same time. Other changes put the plan in a better financial position, said J. Scott Bayne, president of the Fort Lauderdale firefighters union.
"We're all at this point where most of the members feel really good about where the plan is," Bayne said
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-21/story/jacksonville-police-fire-pensions-not-generous-other-florida-cities#ixzz2aAkahX00
Welcome to teabag central, nobody wants to pay for anything even though we all use it.