Metro Jacksonville

QuoteBy Kevin Hogencamp, Contributing Writer

Jacksonville City Council member Bill Gulliford put the wheels in motion Tuesday for a referendum asking voters to approve a half-cent sales tax to reduce the city's pension debt.
Gulliford introduced the legislation with the aim of having Jacksonville voters decide the matter in the May 19 general election.

The need for pension reform is dire and needs an abrupt resolution, Gulliford said.

"This will frame a community debate by virtue of the required referendum," Gulliford said. "If there are other options, I'd like to hear them. If not, folks, we need to take action. Our future depends on it."

He said the only other viable option for cutting into the city's massive public employees' unfunded pension plan liabilities is a property tax increase.

Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=544870

We already have the discretionary 1% making us 7%.  That is on par with the highest in the state with many areas at 6 and 6.5%.  Raising it to 7.5% appears to make us the highest rate in the state.  Local to us parts of Georgia seem to be 7% with higher rates in major cities like Atlanta (8%). This seems like it has a larger potential to hurt the county rather than help it.

^ yes...anything over 7% would make us the highest in the state...but several communities had referendums last year or are considering future ones that would raise taxes to 7.5% or 8%

I'd only consider an extra 1/2 cents if the money were to be used specifically to fund capital projects that would immediately enhance the quality of life for Jacksonville's residents, while also promoting additional economic development. Paying down the pension isn't what I'd have in mind.

He is crazy if he thinks the voters will approve this. A remedy is clearly needed, but this would never pass.

Quote from: thelakelander on February 11, 2015, 12:58:19 PM
I'd only consider an extra 1/2 cents if the money were to be used specifically to fund capital projects that would immediately enhance the quality of life for Jacksonville's residents, while also promoting additional economic development. Paying down the pension isn't what I'd have in mind.

How do you propose paying down the pension then?

The pension issue is a pretty complicated one. I have no problem saying I don't have the answers but they aren't paying me to come up with any either. What I do know is I'd vote against having the sales tax raised in order to pay down the pension....if it makes it to a referendum.

The pension issue is huge and gets larger by the day.  I support the referendum for the tax increase to take the yoke from around the neck of our city and move forward.  I know some will get the "Heebee Jeebee's" and scream regressive tax, the sky is falling etc. but something has got to give and raising property taxes is not the answer for our pension woes and in fact can be more damaging to low income homeowners than a 1/2 sales tax would be.  We can decided what services and goods to buy and still keep our homes.  We cannot decide not to pay property taxes and the potential loss of ones home is frankly more obscene an idea that a sales tax increase.  Remember Ennis that once our pension issue is dealt with, our budget and spending will be impacted as well and I do believe with proper accounting, where we don't fine $12 million dollars of "lost" money for capital projects we will see the needed uptick in many other areas.  Bill Bishop and now Bill Gulliford have it right.  Let the people decide via referendum.  Everyone gets a say.

Someone should tell Bill (who's running again for city council) to update his website:
http://billgulliford.com/

Quote
I WANT TO REPRESENT YOU AGAIN!

    Reduce taxes
    Hold Government Accountable

^Technically, he is saying let the people decide, not the politicians.  What he is endorsing is a ballot referendum.  We choose the rate increase or we don't via our vote. :)

Quote from: coredumped on February 11, 2015, 02:20:34 PM
Someone should tell Bill (who's running again for city council) to update his website:
http://billgulliford.com/

Quote
I WANT TO REPRESENT YOU AGAIN!

    Reduce taxes
    Hold Government Accountable

The pension issue isn't going go away and Duval County residents are going to have to pay for it one way or another. However, sales taxes are not paid for exclusively by Duval County residents. So essentially, the increase in sales tax will partially pass our pension burden on to tourists from all over the place, and shoppers from Clay, Nassau, and St. Johns. Its actually a clever play to not have to increase property taxes on Duval County residents.

We can't trust the general public to make a fully educated decision, or to impose a tax on themselves. Putting the increase to a public vote is a way to pass the burden of decision making off on the public. We elect representatives to study the factors involved and make educated decisions on our behalf, but increasingly they are afraid to make the tough decisions or take a stand on something controversial for fear of losing votes and not getting re-elected. It's time we expect our elected officials to actually lead.

Quote from: Jtetlak on February 11, 2015, 03:34:49 PM
We can't trust the general public to make a fully educated decision, or to impose a tax on themselves. Putting the increase to a public vote is a way to pass the burden of decision making off on the public. We elect representatives to study the factors involved and make educated decisions on our behalf, but increasingly they are afraid to make the tough decisions or take a stand on something controversial for fear of losing votes and not getting re-elected. It's time we expect our elected officials to actually lead.

Or they just state no new taxes of any kind as they are afraid to make the tough decisions or take a stand on something controversial for fear of losing votes and not get elected/reelected.  What is your preferred method to deal with the pension issue?

Quote from: Jtetlak on February 11, 2015, 03:34:49 PM
We can't trust the general public to make a fully educated decision, or to impose a tax on themselves. Putting the increase to a public vote is a way to pass the burden of decision making off on the public. We elect representatives to study the factors involved and make educated decisions on our behalf, but increasingly they are afraid to make the tough decisions or take a stand on something controversial for fear of losing votes and not getting re-elected. It's time we expect our elected officials to actually lead.

Bold campaign strategy: declare that the general public is not educated enough to vote on substantive issues.

Quote from: MEGATRON on February 11, 2015, 03:52:18 PM

Quote from: Jtetlak on February 11, 2015, 03:34:49 PM
We can't trust the general public to make a fully educated decision, or to impose a tax on themselves. Putting the increase to a public vote is a way to pass the burden of decision making off on the public. We elect representatives to study the factors involved and make educated decisions on our behalf, but increasingly they are afraid to make the tough decisions or take a stand on something controversial for fear of losing votes and not getting re-elected. It's time we expect our elected officials to actually lead.

Bold campaign strategy: declare that the general public is not educated enough to vote on substantive issues.

I have to agree.  Jason, I think you took a misstep with this statement.  Remember as well that our elected officials have been struggling over this issue now for years and even those who claim expertise are divided on the solutions.  Several have tried to lead with no consensus.  The people are smart enough to know whether they want a tax increase to pay for pensions or not. They just need to understand the unadulterated facts about the pension and the fact that keeping the status quo means getting further and further into debt. Jeeze man.  lol  I think having the court ruling that Bill Bishop spoke about on the legality of the pension would also help the average voter to understand the issue. 

Quote from: MEGATRON on February 11, 2015, 03:52:18 PM

Quote from: Jtetlak on February 11, 2015, 03:34:49 PM
We can't trust the general public to make a fully educated decision, or to impose a tax on themselves. Putting the increase to a public vote is a way to pass the burden of decision making off on the public. We elect representatives to study the factors involved and make educated decisions on our behalf, but increasingly they are afraid to make the tough decisions or take a stand on something controversial for fear of losing votes and not getting re-elected. It's time we expect our elected officials to actually lead.

Bold campaign strategy: declare that the general public is not educated enough to vote on substantive issues.

Perhaps he has been hanging with that guy that was the architect of the Affordable Healthcare Act?!?!

As I understand it, property taxes were cut and the pension not fully funded during the '90's and early 2000's. Therefore, why shouldn't property taxes be raised to make up at least part of the shortfall?  The overly generous pension needs to be trimmed to cover some of the problem as well.

The Better Jacksonville Plan was funded by raising the sales tax by referendum, but it involved a long laundry list of tangible project all over the county. While it did pass easily, I think you are kidding yourself if you think a sales tax increase would be voter approved when the benefit will go to a tiny silver of the county's population, and most people voting don't get a pension of any kind. 

Peyton could and should have passed a solution while he was in his final term. But that would have required courage/leadership he didn't have.     

I get that a sales tax would be spread across tourists and exurbanites, but in reality it will never pass and then you are back to square one.

If you're going the sales tax route, you'll have to give the public tangible projects......if you want it to stand a chance of passing. Asking the public to approve paying a higher sales tax to handle the pension issue will end in sure defeat. I also believe it's an easy way off kicking the can down the road.

Vic, I agree the public would never vote for it. They simply may not be able realize the long term repercussions of the pension debt and the benefit of paying it down with sales tax, rather than increasing their own property taxes, or losing valuable public services (from a city that is already underfunded).

It is a complex issue, and our leaders shouldn't expect the public to understand the long term financial implications or be able to weigh the different alternatives. What's next, a referendum to pass the yearly city budget? You guys should probably back off Jason's statement. He's not exactly way out there, and I think a lot of people would agree with his sentiment.

Quote from: thelakelander on February 11, 2015, 04:53:33 PM
If you're going the sales tax route, you'll have to give the public tangible projects......if you want it to stand a chance of passing. Asking the public to approve paying a higher sales tax to handle the pension issue will end in sure defeat. I also believe it's an easy way off kicking the can down the road.

There is always the fear tactic though. The sponsors of this can say, based on our projections, if this isn't passed to cover the pension crisis, x city services will be cut, property taxes will be raised by x amount, x, y, and z major capital improvement projects will never be done, and so on.

Quote from: Jtetlak on February 11, 2015, 03:34:49 PM
We can't trust the general public to make a fully educated decision, or to impose a tax on themselves. Putting the increase to a public vote is a way to pass the burden of decision making off on the public. We elect representatives to study the factors involved and make educated decisions on our behalf, but increasingly they are afraid to make the tough decisions or take a stand on something controversial for fear of losing votes and not getting re-elected. It's time we expect our elected officials to actually lead.

Agree 1000%.  This is passing the buck bullshit.  Bold leaders are needed.  Council and leaders have been through these rounds multiple times, seen and discussed several plans.  If they truly think a half-cent measure is needed then vote it.  Up or down, and live with the results.  We elected them to make our decisions.

I think this should also be considered a shot at Mayor Brown.  Nothing drives Republicans and Conservatives to the polls like a vote on tax increases. 

Btw, I also have a problem with our tendency of tunnel vision. Over the last year, I've heard various public officials call for sales tax increases for river dredging, libraries and now the pension. Which one isn't going to be? The great thing about the BJP is it included a little something for nearly everybody in town.  Any push to get the public to agree to tax themselves more is going to require the same type of strategy.

Quote from: CityLife on February 11, 2015, 05:02:07 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on February 11, 2015, 04:53:33 PM
If you're going the sales tax route, you'll have to give the public tangible projects......if you want it to stand a chance of passing. Asking the public to approve paying a higher sales tax to handle the pension issue will end in sure defeat. I also believe it's an easy way off kicking the can down the road.

There is always the fear tactic though. The sponsors of this can say, based on our projections, if this isn't passed to cover the pension crisis, x city services will be cut, property taxes will be raised by x amount, x, y, and z major capital improvement projects will never be done, and so on.

This didn't work in the latest rounds of sales tax increase pushes for various items in Tampa Bay, Pinellas County, Polk County, and Metropolitan Atlanta in recent years. I'm not sold it will work here either.

Quote from: Bridges on February 11, 2015, 05:07:12 PM
I think this should also be considered a shot at Mayor Brown.  Nothing drives Republicans and Conservatives to the polls like a vote on tax increases.

Nice deduction. Might even be straight from Curry's camp or the local GOP.

Quote from: thelakelander on February 11, 2015, 04:53:33 PM
If you're going the sales tax route, you'll have to give the public tangible projects......if you want it to stand a chance of passing. Asking the public to approve paying a higher sales tax to handle the pension issue will end in sure defeat. I also believe it's an easy way off kicking the can down the road.

I would agree but would also say that solving the pension problem to many would be a tangible result.  The pension problem resulted in the leadership of the time taking a "pension" holiday when there was plenty of money to pay into the funds.  They just did not pay into the program as they should have.  That was not the basis for a property tax cut.  The money was there with or without the cut in taxes.  Those in office just failed to pay into the pensions and clearly were derelict in their duty to long standing pension agreements with the JSO and JFRD.  I think before any sales tax increase appears on a ballot somewhere, there has to be a clear understanding in the public what those funds will be used for.  I still say the first step in all of this is a court ruling on whether or not the pension deals were legal, which I suspect they are.  However that "Boogie man" will continue to be a spoiler in the process when it comes to solving this issue.  It needs to come down to a clear statement of  "this is the amount of dollars we owe to a proven legal agreement and it will cost this much to fix it".  The people deserve a voice in how that fix happens.  A sales tax increase should be one option available.  There is not a single solution at this point that will be painless. As it stands we have elected officials who have sat through all the discussions on pension and there is no collective agreement about the solution.  This has nothing to do with bold leadership.  It has to do with this being a convoluted issue being faced by many cities across the nation.  In our city leadership has simply kicked the can down the road and everyone in the public can understand that basic truth. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 11, 2015, 05:26:44 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on February 11, 2015, 04:53:33 PM
If you're going the sales tax route, you'll have to give the public tangible projects......if you want it to stand a chance of passing. Asking the public to approve paying a higher sales tax to handle the pension issue will end in sure defeat. I also believe it's an easy way off kicking the can down the road.

I would agree but would also say that solving the pension problem to many would be a tangible result.

Yes, to many. But we're talking about winning over the majority of voters.  I'd wager that this "many" is a "minority" on a grander scale. The majority haven't felt the pain of a bankrupt government. As long as their street lights are on, water is running, the trash is picked up on a regular basis and they're gainfully employed, most aren't even thinking about the city's pension issue.

But if you just increase taxes to cover the current deficit, you're essentially kicking the can at the expense of everyone, right?

I won't claim to know very much about the inner workings of our pension, but from what I believe to understand is that it's completely unsustainable in it's current form.

What progress/initiatives/proposals do we have to fix the actual problem?  It seems we're tackling this issue by trying to figure out which bucket to use to collect the water from a leak in the roof rather than ripping up shingles to figure out why it's leaking in the first place.

Quote from: thelakelander on February 11, 2015, 05:38:58 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 11, 2015, 05:26:44 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on February 11, 2015, 04:53:33 PM
If you're going the sales tax route, you'll have to give the public tangible projects......if you want it to stand a chance of passing. Asking the public to approve paying a higher sales tax to handle the pension issue will end in sure defeat. I also believe it's an easy way off kicking the can down the road.

I would agree but would also say that solving the pension problem to many would be a tangible result.

Yes, to many. But we're talking about winning over the majority of voters.  I'd wager that this "many" is a "minority" on a grander scale. The majority haven't felt the pain of a bankrupt government. As long as their street lights are on, water is running, the trash is picked up on a regular basis and they're gainfully employed, most aren't even thinking about the city's pension issue.

Which is why I used the word "many".  :)  A vote would tell us how "many" actually would support or reject such an idea.  I am simply saying it is worth discussion and consideration.   Whether or not the people would vote for it I haven't a clue at this juncture. 

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 11, 2015, 06:04:13 PM
But if you just increase taxes to cover the current deficit, you're essentially kicking the can at the expense of everyone, right?

I won't claim to know very much about the inner workings of our pension, but from what I believe to understand is that it's completely unsustainable in it's current form.

What progress/initiatives/proposals do we have to fix the actual problem?  It seems we're tackling this issue by trying to figure out which bucket to use to collect the water from a leak in the roof rather than ripping up shingles to figure out why it's leaking in the first place.

The pension deficit grows daily and remains in limbo.  As stated earlier, it will be a whole bunch of "other folks" be they voters or not who will pay to fix this problem.  No answer to this that will make people unified or happy.  :)

(http://i.imgur.com/lfOU0pc.png)

Someone signed a pretty bad contract. No wonder they think Keane is a hero.

Like the Borg, the pension is assimilating the city budget.

If I'm not mistaken, this hit a fever pitch around FY11/12/13 did it not?  There were task forces, meetings, commissions,etc.. to try and get to the root of the issue. 

Were ANY of the proposals then implemented?

I guess this is where I stand on the issue:  Now that we're entering yet another election cycle, the PFRPF (sic) is getting brought back to the front of discussions, but has there been any movement, positive or negative, at all or are we pretty much exactly where we were this time last election (resolution-wise, not $$$-wise) on the issue? 

Personally I would vote for a sales tax increase as I am sure the wording would indicate that it would be dedicated to e pension.  Simply increasing our property tax would most likely just end up using the increase for other things. 

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 11, 2015, 06:45:07 PM
If I'm not mistaken, this hit a fever pitch around FY11/12/13 did it not?  There were task forces, meetings, commissions,etc.. to try and get to the root of the issue. 

Were ANY of the proposals then implemented?

I guess this is where I stand on the issue:  Now that we're entering yet another election cycle, the PFRPF (sic) is getting brought back to the front of discussions, but has there been any movement, positive or negative, at all or are we pretty much exactly where we were this time last election (resolution-wise, not $$$-wise) on the issue? 

Short answer is there has been no real or meaningful progress on the pension issue in spite of some hopeful soundbites from the mayors office and we will likely see non before the election.
Actually, this issue hit a fevered pitch during Peyton's second term in office where he effectively put himself at odds with the JSO and JFRD who had helped put him in office.  He failed to resolve it and the hot issue was carried forward into the next election cycle.  Three and a half years later, under Brown the issue is still unresolved.

Sounds like the real problem is the COST of the pension. Has there been any talks about eliminating it for new hires and offering a 401k? It's not like crime is down and we don't have red light cameras, why the sense of entitlement?
I am thankful for our police, but it seems like the market says this spending is unsustainable.

Quote from: coredumped on February 11, 2015, 07:37:15 PM
Sounds like the real problem is the COST of the pension. Has there been any talks about eliminating it for new hires and offering a 401k? It's not like crime is down and we don't have red light cameras, why the sense of entitlement?
I am thankful for our police, but it seems like the market says this spending is unsustainable.

Yes a 401k was discussed by the task force.  But ultimately decided that would not be viable.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 11, 2015, 05:26:44 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on February 11, 2015, 04:53:33 PM
If you're going the sales tax route, you'll have to give the public tangible projects......if you want it to stand a chance of passing. Asking the public to approve paying a higher sales tax to handle the pension issue will end in sure defeat. I also believe it's an easy way off kicking the can down the road.

I would agree but would also say that solving the pension problem to many would be a tangible result.  The pension problem resulted in the leadership of the time taking a "pension" holiday when there was plenty of money to pay into the funds.  They just did not pay into the program as they should have.  That was not the basis for a property tax cut.  The money was there with or without the cut in taxes.  Those in office just failed to pay into the pensions and clearly were derelict in their duty to long standing pension agreements with the JSO and JFRD.  I think before any sales tax increase appears on a ballot somewhere, there has to be a clear understanding in the public what those funds will be used for.  I still say the first step in all of this is a court ruling on whether or not the pension deals were legal, which I suspect they are.  However that "Boogie man" will continue to be a spoiler in the process when it comes to solving this issue.  It needs to come down to a clear statement of  "this is the amount of dollars we owe to a proven legal agreement and it will cost this much to fix it".  The people deserve a voice in how that fix happens.  A sales tax increase should be one option available.  There is not a single solution at this point that will be painless. As it stands we have elected officials who have sat through all the discussions on pension and there is no collective agreement about the solution.  This has nothing to do with bold leadership.  It has to do with this being a convoluted issue being faced by many cities across the nation.  In our city leadership has simply kicked the can down the road and everyone in the public can understand that basic truth.

+1, has anyone asked the question of how we arrived at this point? From what I've been told (by a few folks on the pension board), the COJ diverted pension funds into other projects without reimbursing the fund back in the 90s.

I would agree that bifurcating the system into a 401k and pension is the way to go. Folks that are not vested, or new hires would automatically be placed on a 401k. The problem then would be how to fund the pension for the folks who are vested or already hired for the next, say 50-70 years. those folks and their spouses would have to die off for this problem to be solved. Once they enter retirement, who then funds their pension? Taxpayers? maybe? For this problem to be solved, someone is going to get shafted.

Regardless, removing the pension altogether maybe illegal unless the COJ files bankruptcy.

Quote from: coredumped on February 11, 2015, 07:37:15 PM
Sounds like the real problem is the COST of the pension. Has there been any talks about eliminating it for new hires and offering a 401k? It's not like crime is down and we don't have red light cameras, why the sense of entitlement?
I am thankful for our police, but it seems like the market says this spending is unsustainable.

This.  My thoughts exactly.  It's a two part problem.  This 1/2 cent tax increase only addresses paying for it, and not fixing it.

Can someone explain to me like I'm 5 about why pensions are still needed in this day and age?  Why can't public employees have a 401k, with vested match, like everyone else?  Heck, since most new employees would be young, get them going on a Roth 401k. 

I'm probably voting no unless there's a clear plan to fix the pension, not continuing to kick a growing can down the road.

^Great question. I've held two public sector jobs and each one is on a 401k plan. Seems to be becoming the norm these days even in the public sector. The concept of a pension is foreign to most younger people, so its not like it would be a huge shock.

I would love to hear why they elected not to go to 401k.

Just catching up on this, so some thoughts from all over the place (or thread)
1. Wouldn't a sales tax increase have to go to referendum, anyway?  If so, the charges of Council shirking their duty are off base.
I'll see if I can get my hands on a presentation Chris Hand gave to a group I was in.  All of this is based on my (probably hazy) recollection. 
2. It says the cost of a 401k would be more than the proposal, in part because the City may have to contribute to Social Security.  City retirees do not pay into, or receive, SS.  Not sure about my memory or the explanation.
3. Delays only increase the problem.
4. The presentation equates future payments if nothing is done to various city services.  I don't remember them, though.

I'm not sold on the JEA solution - I think it reduces (eliminates?) their current contribution to the General Fund, which puts more strain on already strained services.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 11, 2015, 06:04:13 PM
What progress/initiatives/proposals do we have to fix the actual problem?  It seems we're tackling this issue by trying to figure out which bucket to use to collect the water from a leak in the roof rather than ripping up shingles to figure out why it's leaking in the first place.

Everything else discussed at this point doesn't fix the leak. Ultimately, we'll need to change our sprawling growth pattern. It would be interesting to compare the number of employees and pension costs in Jax verses a more compact city of similar size.

Charles, I would be happy to send you a copy of the presentation. Would you mind emailing me at chand@coj.net so I can forward it? Thanks very much.

Quote from: CityLife on February 11, 2015, 09:40:03 PM
^Great question. I've held two public sector jobs and each one is on a 401k plan. Seems to be becoming the norm these days even in the public sector. The concept of a pension is foreign to most younger people, so its not like it would be a huge shock.

I would love to hear why they elected not to go to 401k.

CityLife, that's a question we often receive. The bottom line is that the COJ simply cannot afford financially or operationally to move from our current defined benefit (DB) plan to a defined contribution (DC) plan. From a financial perspective, we would still have to pay down the $1.62 billion unfunded liability at the Police and Fire Pension Fund, but the state would require us to pay it down more quickly and at a much higher annual amount if we closed the DB plan in favor of a DC plan. Additionally, switching to a DC plan might require the City to incur the expense of providing Social Security. Finally, from an operational perspective, switching from a DB to a DC plan could well put the COJ at a competitive disadvantage. None of our chief competitors -- the 66 other Florida counties who have their public safety employees in the Florida Retirement System, and other major cities in the state which have their own pension systems -- have moved their police and fire employees to a DC plan. Jacksonville could find it very difficult to recruit and retain first responders.

Quote from: coredumped on February 11, 2015, 07:37:15 PM
Sounds like the real problem is the COST of the pension. Has there been any talks about eliminating it for new hires and offering a 401k? It's not like crime is down and we don't have red light cameras, why the sense of entitlement?
I am thankful for our police, but it seems like the market says this spending is unsustainable.

Coredumped, you might see my answer to CityLife on the 401(k), or DC option. We studied this option extensively and it just isn't viable either financially or operationally.

Quote from: thelakelander on February 11, 2015, 10:44:39 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 11, 2015, 06:04:13 PM
What progress/initiatives/proposals do we have to fix the actual problem?  It seems we're tackling this issue by trying to figure out which bucket to use to collect the water from a leak in the roof rather than ripping up shingles to figure out why it's leaking in the first place.

Everything else discussed at this point doesn't fix the leak. Ultimately, we'll need to change our sprawling growth pattern. It would be interesting to compare the number of employees and pension costs in Jax verses a more compact city of similar size.

Lakelander, what does fix the leak is the pending agreement between the COJ and the Police and Fire Pension Fund (PFPF). It will be up before City Council committees next week as proposed ordinance 2015-54. The City's actuary found that the latest version of the agreement (as revised by the Police and Fire Pension Fund Board of Trustees at their January 2015 meeting) would lower City pension costs by nearly $1.7 Billion (yes, with a b) over the next 30 years. It would create a financially sustainable yet competitive benefit package for public safety employees that reduces financial risk to the COJ. It would implement important governance reforms to promote accountability and transparency at the Police and Fire Pension Fund and return the negotiation of pension benefits to collective bargaining. And it would commit both the COJ and the PFPF to restoring the latter to a healthier funded status more quickly. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 11, 2015, 07:09:22 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 11, 2015, 06:45:07 PM
If I'm not mistaken, this hit a fever pitch around FY11/12/13 did it not?  There were task forces, meetings, commissions,etc.. to try and get to the root of the issue. 

Were ANY of the proposals then implemented?

I guess this is where I stand on the issue:  Now that we're entering yet another election cycle, the PFRPF (sic) is getting brought back to the front of discussions, but has there been any movement, positive or negative, at all or are we pretty much exactly where we were this time last election (resolution-wise, not $$$-wise) on the issue? 

Short answer is there has been no real or meaningful progress on the pension issue in spite of some hopeful soundbites from the mayors office and we will likely see non before the election.
Actually, this issue hit a fevered pitch during Peyton's second term in office where he effectively put himself at odds with the JSO and JFRD who had helped put him in office.  He failed to resolve it and the hot issue was carried forward into the next election cycle.  Three and a half years later, under Brown the issue is still unresolved.

Cheshire Cat (Diane), with all due respect, that statement about "no real or meaningful progress" simply isn't the case. Thanks to a lot of hard work from Mayor Brown and our administration, City Council, the Police and Fire Pension Fund, public safety employees, the 17 members of the Jacksonville Retirement Reform Task Force, the Pew Charitable Trusts which supported the Task Force, and a variety of other community leaders such as the Jacksonville Civic Council, the COJ is closer than ever before to a comprehensive pension reform solution. in December, the Jacksonville City Council for the first time enacted pension reform legislation. The Police and Fire Pension Fund accepted most of the Council amendments and made a relatively small number of revisions to the tentative agreement between the COJ and PFPF. On a very complex financial and operational issue, we're down to a very few issues. That is huge progress.

If you will email me at chand@coj.net, I would be more than happy to send you our latest Power Point presentation showing you just how far Jacksonville has come on this issue in the last 2.5 years. Jacksonville could soon be one of the leading examples of a community that has addressed the single biggest financial challenge facing many cities, counties, and states across the nation: the cost of public pensions.

Quote from: southsider1015 on February 11, 2015, 09:21:05 PM

Quote from: coredumped on February 11, 2015, 07:37:15 PM
Sounds like the real problem is the COST of the pension. Has there been any talks about eliminating it for new hires and offering a 401k? It's not like crime is down and we don't have red light cameras, why the sense of entitlement?
I am thankful for our police, but it seems like the market says this spending is unsustainable.

This.  My thoughts exactly.  It's a two part problem.  This 1/2 cent tax increase only addresses paying for it, and not fixing it.

Can someone explain to me like I'm 5 about why pensions are still needed in this day and age?  Why can't public employees have a 401k, with vested match, like everyone else?  Heck, since most new employees would be young, get them going on a Roth 401k. 

I'm probably voting no unless there's a clear plan to fix the pension, not continuing to kick a growing can down the road.

Southsider, we do have a clear plan to fix it -- namely, the pending agreement between the COJ and the Police and Fire Pension Fund (PFPF). It will be up before City Council committees next week as proposed ordinance 2015-54. The City's actuary found that the latest version of the agreement (as revised by the Police and Fire Pension Fund Board of Trustees at their January 2015 meeting) would lower City pension costs by nearly $1.7 Billion (yes, with a b) over the next 30 years. It would create a financially sustainable yet competitive benefit package for public safety employees that reduces financial risk to the COJ. It would implement important governance reforms to promote accountability and transparency at the Police and Fire Pension Fund and return the negotiation of pension benefits to collective bargaining. And it would commit both the COJ and the PFPF to restoring the latter to a healthier funded status more quickly. Feel free to email me at chand@coj.net and I can share more information.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 11, 2015, 10:00:31 PM
I'm not sold on the JEA solution - I think it reduces (eliminates?) their current contribution to the General Fund, which puts more strain on already strained services.

Charles, if you can email me at chand@coj.net, I can send you the white paper on the plan formulated by former City Council President Matt Carlucci and long-time business leader Charlie Appleby to partner the City of Jacksonville and JEA. It makes a lot of sense as a way to help the City of Jacksonville address its biggest financial priority -- pension funding -- while helping JEA with some of its financial and administrative priorities. JEA has stated that the plan will not impact utility rates. For the City, it will help us meet our entire additional financial obligation under the pension reform agreement up front. Moreover, this is a plan that can be passed with the approval of the JEA and the City Council. No voter referendum would be required.

As to the JEA contribution over time, please remember three things. First, JEA's rating agencies have made a big deal about the size of JEA's annual contribution to the City, which is a viewed as high compared to other public utilities. Second, under the current COJ-JEA agreement, the annual JEA contribution will drop from approximately $111 Million now (Fiscal Year 2015) year to approximately $82 Million in Fiscal Year 2017 if the City and JEA cannot reach a new agreement. The Carlucci/Appleby plan provides a much more gradual path to stabilize the JEA annual contribution.  Third, the relatively small reductions in the annual JEA contribution under the Carlucci/Appleby plan pale in comparison to the massive increases we will see in our annual police and fire pension contribution if nothing is done to address that challenge. 

Chris, first, welcome to MetroJacksonville.
It would be more efficient to email the PowerPoint and the White Paper to MetroJacksonville
metrojacksonville@metrojacksonville.com

or to the thelakelander through MetroJacksonville.  I would just send them what you sent me. 

Yes. Send me a copy of the presentation and I'll post it on the front page of Metro Jacksonville.

Quote from: Chris Hand on February 12, 2015, 12:28:10 AM... Jacksonville could soon be one of the leading examples of a community that has addressed the single biggest financial challenge facing many cities, counties, and states across the nation: the cost of public pensions.

Mr. Hand, thank you for responding directly through MetroJax, but you can still paint me firmly in the 'when I see it, I'll believe it' camp.

Frankly speaking, your office has already been a shining example of how a city can address financially challenging decision that many other cities, counties and states face: A self-adjusting method on the assessing and distributing of funds generated from development that rewards smart, long-term financial sustainable projects while discouraging sprawling, long-term financially burdonsome tendencies.

You office followed that wonderful example up by dismissing the main architect of the plan and then allowing our City Council to put it on indefinite hold in the interest of making reelection a lot easier by ensuring campaign donations from developers the public.

So forgive me if I take a 'wait and see' approach.

Mr. Hand, thank you for your informative input.

Can you explain why this is true:

QuoteSecond, under the current COJ-JEA agreement, the annual JEA contribution will drop from approximately $111 Million now (Fiscal Year 2015) year to approximately $82 Million in Fiscal Year 2017 if the City and JEA cannot reach a new agreement.

Why is the JEA reducing it's contributions to begin with?

QuoteFrom what I've been told (by a few folks on the pension board), the COJ diverted pension funds into other projects without reimbursing the fund back in the 90s.

This was my understanding as well. Does anyone know how much the pension was 'shorted' during this period? Concurrent with this diversion were annual cumulative property tax cuts.  It would seem to me that the tax cuts were at least partially 'paid for' with money that could and should have gone to the pension. Since it was the property taxpayers that got the 'holiday', they should be the first to pay the deficit now.  Of course, the loss of time for those funds (had they been paid in the first place) to compound is gone forever. I would expect that to be a big source of how this problem has ballooned so fast.     

^^ what difference does it make now? So we can point fingers? It is what it is now so we just need to deal with it.

Quote from: vicupstate on February 12, 2015, 08:35:28 AM
Mr. Hand, thank you for your informative input.

Can you explain why this is true:

QuoteSecond, under the current COJ-JEA agreement, the annual JEA contribution will drop from approximately $111 Million now (Fiscal Year 2015) year to approximately $82 Million in Fiscal Year 2017 if the City and JEA cannot reach a new agreement.

Why is the JEA reducing it's contributions to begin with?

Because I believe their contribution would revert back to a percent of revenue instead of the set amount they are required to make under the current agreement.

Maybe I missed it, but do we know that a 1/2 % sale tax bump will actually take care of the pension issue?  How long would it be needed for?  If it "catches things up", can it be diverted for other capital improvements?  Can part of it be diverted for capital improvements?  What are the unintended consequences of a sales tax increase?  Do overall proceeds drop from being the highest sale tax rate in the state and if so, does that drop wipe out the increased revenue from the 1/2% and so moves the financial issue somewhere else rather than solving it?

It seems to me that we are in this pension mess because we (as a city) robbed Peter to pay Paul and it would be nice to know we are not doing the same thing today, regardless if it is a sales tax increase or something else.

Mr Hand, thanks for responding. However, I would like to point out that for the most part, this current Mayoral administration has not been one that comes across like it likes the sunshine and prefers those dark back rooms to do it's real business.  So many of us find ourselves wondering what is really up every time something like the JEA plan is proposed.

Quote from: strider on February 12, 2015, 10:16:11 AM
Maybe I missed it, but do we know that a 1/2 % sale tax bump will actually take care of the pension issue?  How long would it be needed for?  If it "catches things up", can it be diverted for other capital improvements?  Can part of it be diverted for capital improvements?  What are the unintended consequences of a sales tax increase?  Do overall proceeds drop from being the highest sale tax rate in the state and if so, does that drop wipe out the increased revenue from the 1/2% and so moves the financial issue somewhere else rather than solving it?

It seems to me that we are in this pension mess because we (as a city) robbed Peter to pay Paul and it would be nice to know we are not doing the same thing today, regardless if it is a sales tax increase or something else.

Mr Hand, thanks for responding. However, I would like to point out that for the most part, this current Mayoral administration has not been one that comes across like it likes the sunshine and prefers those dark back rooms to do it's real business.  So many of us find ourselves wondering what is really up every time something like the JEA plan is proposed.

Per the T-u it would be for 10 years and expected to generate 60 million annually.

Quote from: strider on February 12, 2015, 10:16:11 AM
Maybe I missed it, but do we know that a 1/2 % sale tax bump will actually take care of the pension issue?  How long would it be needed for?  If it "catches things up", can it be diverted for other capital improvements?  Can part of it be diverted for capital improvements?  What are the unintended consequences of a sales tax increase?  Do overall proceeds drop from being the highest sale tax rate in the state and if so, does that drop wipe out the increased revenue from the 1/2% and so moves the financial issue somewhere else rather than solving it?

It seems to me that we are in this pension mess because we (as a city) robbed Peter to pay Paul and it would be nice to know we are not doing the same thing today, regardless if it is a sales tax increase or something else.

Mr Hand, thanks for responding. However, I would like to point out that for the most part, this current Mayoral administration has not been one that comes across like it likes the sunshine and prefers those dark back rooms to do it's real business.  So many of us find ourselves wondering what is really up every time something like the JEA plan is proposed.

Strider, respectfully, this administration has made important improvements in local government transparency. Here's information about some of the work we have done through our Office of Public Accountability to give citizens better access to the City of Jacksonville.  http://www.coj.net/welcome/featured-news/city-website-scores-highest-in-state-for-governmen.aspx

Additionally, this JEA plan is not the Administration's plan. The Mayor has endorsed it, but the credit belongs to former City Council President Charlie Appleby, business leader and former JEA Board member Charlie Appleby, and more recently Retirement Reform Task Force Chair Bill Scheu.

Quote from: edjax on February 12, 2015, 09:56:20 AM

Quote from: vicupstate on February 12, 2015, 08:35:28 AM
Mr. Hand, thank you for your informative input.

Can you explain why this is true:

QuoteSecond, under the current COJ-JEA agreement, the annual JEA contribution will drop from approximately $111 Million now (Fiscal Year 2015) year to approximately $82 Million in Fiscal Year 2017 if the City and JEA cannot reach a new agreement.

Why is the JEA reducing it's contributions to begin with?

Because I believe their contribution would revert back to a percent of revenue instead of the set amount they are required to make under the current agreement.

EdJax is correct, and JEA Paul McElroy said as much at Tuesday's special committee meeting on the JEA Agreement. Under the COJ Charter, our current contribution agreement with JEA ends on September 30, 2016. If a new agreement is not in place by then, the contribution will revert to the millage/revenue formula set forth in the Charter. That formula would produce an annual contribution of approximately $82 million.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 12, 2015, 06:57:45 AM
Chris, first, welcome to MetroJacksonville.
It would be more efficient to email the PowerPoint and the White Paper to MetroJacksonville
metrojacksonville@metrojacksonville.com

or to the thelakelander through MetroJacksonville.  I would just send them what you sent me.

Will do. Thanks very much.

Quote from: edjax on February 12, 2015, 09:54:17 AM
^^ what difference does it make now? So we can point fingers? It is what it is now so we just need to deal with it.

The difference is those that got the 'break' need to be the ones that pay more now. Sales taxes hit renters for instance but they didn't get the tax break on property taxes.

As for pointer fingers, if the situation panned out as I suggested, it provides a great example of why cutting taxes can just come back to bite you later. Something to think about in this current political climate.

Quote from: Chris Hand on February 12, 2015, 10:32:18 AM

Quote from: edjax on February 12, 2015, 09:56:20 AM

Quote from: vicupstate on February 12, 2015, 08:35:28 AM
Mr. Hand, thank you for your informative input.

Can you explain why this is true:

QuoteSecond, under the current COJ-JEA agreement, the annual JEA contribution will drop from approximately $111 Million now (Fiscal Year 2015) year to approximately $82 Million in Fiscal Year 2017 if the City and JEA cannot reach a new agreement.

Why is the JEA reducing it's contributions to begin with?

Because I believe their contribution would revert back to a percent of revenue instead of the set amount they are required to make under the current agreement.

EdJax is correct, and JEA Paul McElroy said as much at Tuesday's special committee meeting on the JEA Agreement. Under the COJ Charter, our current contribution agreement with JEA ends on September 30, 2016. If a new agreement is not in place by then, the contribution will revert to the millage/revenue formula set forth in the Charter. That formula would produce an annual contribution of approximately $82 million.

So in addition to a ballooning pension problem, the city will be facing reduced revenues from JEA no matter what. Meanwhile property taxes revenues are still down from the R.E. bust.  It sounds like more budget cuts lie ahead.     

Quote from: vicupstate on February 12, 2015, 10:52:11 AM

Quote from: edjax on February 12, 2015, 09:54:17 AM
^^ what difference does it make now? So we can point fingers? It is what it is now so we just need to deal with it.

The difference is those that got the 'break' need to be the ones that pay more now. Sales taxes hit renters for instance but they didn't get the tax break on property taxes.

As for pointer fingers, if the situation panned out as I suggested, it provides a great example of why cutting taxes can just come back to bite you later. Something to think about in this current political climate.

At this point it needs to be a shared sacrifice by all, renters and property owners alike.  One can probably say the property owners do most of the heavy lifting anyways with regard to taxes. 

Quote from: edjax on February 12, 2015, 12:01:45 PM
At this point it needs to be a shared sacrifice by all, renters and property owners alike. 

All but the people receiving the money? Where is their sacrifice?

Quote from: edjax on February 12, 2015, 12:01:45 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on February 12, 2015, 10:52:11 AM

Quote from: edjax on February 12, 2015, 09:54:17 AM
^^ what difference does it make now? So we can point fingers? It is what it is now so we just need to deal with it.

The difference is those that got the 'break' need to be the ones that pay more now. Sales taxes hit renters for instance but they didn't get the tax break on property taxes.

As for pointer fingers, if the situation panned out as I suggested, it provides a great example of why cutting taxes can just come back to bite you later. Something to think about in this current political climate.

At this point it needs to be a shared sacrifice by all, renters and property owners alike.  One can probably say the property owners do most of the heavy lifting anyways with regard to taxes.

I disagree with the notion that renters do not pay property taxes. Property taxes are typically somewhat factored in to rent paid, whether residential or commercial. Only real difference imo, is that renters can't write the property taxes off their federal income taxes. However, without the mortgage interest deduction, most likely take standard deductions anyways.

If the property tax cut for the owner was not passed onto the renter, I don't see how the renter benefited.  If the pension burden was previously carried by property taxpayers and that burden was reduced when it shouldn't have been, why shouldn't the cut be reversed?  What that doesn't cover should be shared sacrifice perhaps.   

QuoteStrider, respectfully, this administration has made important improvements in local government transparency. Here's information about some of the work we have done through our Office of Public Accountability to give citizens better access to the City of Jacksonville.  http://www.coj.net/welcome/featured-news/city-website-scores-highest-in-state-for-governmen.aspx

Respectfully, my lawyer has made good money off the lack of transparency. Transparency is not just putting out there what you happen to want the public to see and believe, it is truly allowing complete access to the information the law says we are entitled to.  That has, more often than not, been difficult and often all but impossible since this administration took office.  If it is better today, it is only because it has cost you...OK, cost us as the money paid out came from us out here to pay for the administration's error in judgement.

Quote from: Chris Hand on February 12, 2015, 12:28:10 AM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 11, 2015, 07:09:22 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 11, 2015, 06:45:07 PM
If I'm not mistaken, this hit a fever pitch around FY11/12/13 did it not?  There were task forces, meetings, commissions,etc.. to try and get to the root of the issue. 

Were ANY of the proposals then implemented?

I guess this is where I stand on the issue:  Now that we're entering yet another election cycle, the PFRPF (sic) is getting brought back to the front of discussions, but has there been any movement, positive or negative, at all or are we pretty much exactly where we were this time last election (resolution-wise, not $$$-wise) on the issue? 

Short answer is there has been no real or meaningful progress on the pension issue in spite of some hopeful soundbites from the mayors office and we will likely see non before the election.
Actually, this issue hit a fevered pitch during Peyton's second term in office where he effectively put himself at odds with the JSO and JFRD who had helped put him in office.  He failed to resolve it and the hot issue was carried forward into the next election cycle.  Three and a half years later, under Brown the issue is still unresolved.

Cheshire Cat (Diane), with all due respect, that statement about "no real or meaningful progress" simply isn't the case. Thanks to a lot of hard work from Mayor Brown and our administration, City Council, the Police and Fire Pension Fund, public safety employees, the 17 members of the Jacksonville Retirement Reform Task Force, the Pew Charitable Trusts which supported the Task Force, and a variety of other community leaders such as the Jacksonville Civic Council, the COJ is closer than ever before to a comprehensive pension reform solution. in December, the Jacksonville City Council for the first time enacted pension reform legislation. The Police and Fire Pension Fund accepted most of the Council amendments and made a relatively small number of revisions to the tentative agreement between the COJ and PFPF. On a very complex financial and operational issue, we're down to a very few issues. That is huge progress.

If you will email me at chand@coj.net, I would be more than happy to send you our latest Power Point presentation showing you just how far Jacksonville has come on this issue in the last 2.5 years. Jacksonville could soon be one of the leading examples of a community that has addressed the single biggest financial challenge facing many cities, counties, and states across the nation: the cost of public pensions.

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.  There have been innumerable claims about progress on this issue for the last few years and yet the issue remains un-resolved.  You and the administration have been at this for 3 1/2 years now and we have heard all sorts of suggestions from borrowing money to the mayor trying to muscle the JEA into an agreement.  I would welcome a review of your proposal and will send you my email address. 

To keep everyone updated with regard to how the political football that is the "unsolved pension issue" is being played.This just a few days back.(http://i.imgur.com/1nO3bKe.jpg)

QuoteThe first negative mailpiece of the Jacksonville mayoral election is out, and it's a rhetorical masterpiece, distilling many of the themes Lenny Curry and his adherents have advocated in recent months into a hard- hitting two-sided document that lays singular blame at the feet of Alvin Brown for what the mailpiece dubs a "pension disaster."

The address side of the mailpiece has a grid of headshots, a stockphoto cross-section of 21st century American humanity, with a stark message overlaying the pictorial:

"$1,700,000,000.00 in unpaid pension benefits... with no end in sight. Alvin Brown's Pension Disaster Hurts All of Us."

The flipside contains support for this claim.

"Democrat Mayor Alvin Brown's Political Malpractice Is Hurting Us," says the top of the card, next to a first-responder troika of a policeman, a fireman, and a nurse, all with intense expressions on their faces. Then, below that, the damning quotes from a cross-section of local media. Quotes from the two highest rated television news operations in the local market, juxtaposed with selections from print outlets ranging from the local alt-weekly to the Jacksonville Business Journal, lambasting the mayor for inaccessibility, pension problems, credit downgrades, and borrow and spend economics.

"Alvin Brown hides from big issues, plays political shell games," continues the polemic. "Alvin Brown has made a mess of things in City Hall, because on the most important issues Brown is all politics – and no leadership. Brown's pension plan makes no sense – borrowing money to pay unpaid bills?!"

The "Pension Disaster" costs each adult over $2,500, continues the document, which concludes as follows:

"Who suffers from Alvin Brown's Political Malpractice? All of us. Democrat Alvin Brown's Pension Disaster: A $1,700,000,000.00 shell game he's playing with all of us."

All of the expected themes are there, ranging from the Rummell "competence" critique to the general complaint among the news media that the mayor is not accessible when it comes to addressing hot-button issues. Local Democrats were quick to counter the mailpiece's claims, saying it belied the branding that Curry is "not a politician," and was a vessel containing "shameless, bold-faced lies about who created this pension problem."

"It is interesting that a Political Action Committee, which is supported by members of the Civic Council, is attacking Mayor Alvin Brown as fiscally irresponsible for borrowing $240 million from JEA when it was the Civic Council that suggested borrowing $1 billion," maintained James Poindexter, secretary of the Duval Democratic Party, who added that "A bipartisan group of business and political leaders, as well as the pension task force, believe that this is the better option to solve the problem."

Click link for full article:


http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/175470

Quote from: CityLife on February 12, 2015, 01:08:15 PM

Quote from: edjax on February 12, 2015, 12:01:45 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on February 12, 2015, 10:52:11 AM

Quote from: edjax on February 12, 2015, 09:54:17 AM
^^ what difference does it make now? So we can point fingers? It is what it is now so we just need to deal with it.

The difference is those that got the 'break' need to be the ones that pay more now. Sales taxes hit renters for instance but they didn't get the tax break on property taxes.

As for pointer fingers, if the situation panned out as I suggested, it provides a great example of why cutting taxes can just come back to bite you later. Something to think about in this current political climate.

At this point it needs to be a shared sacrifice by all, renters and property owners alike.  One can probably say the property owners do most of the heavy lifting anyways with regard to taxes.

I disagree with the notion that renters do not pay property taxes. Property taxes are typically somewhat factored in to rent paid, whether residential or commercial. Only real difference imo, is that renters can't write the property taxes off their federal income taxes. However, without the mortgage interest deduction, most likely take standard deductions anyways.

I agree they do and I never said that renters did not contribute to property tax revenue, I said that actual property owners do most of it, which I still think is the case.

Why it all fell apart for Brown back in 2012

QuoteIn Alvin Browns words:  "I believe the current system should stay. Needs some tweaking, but I believe in strong pension system," said Mayor Alvin Brown while campaigning in 2010

QuoteAlvin Brown after election:  "City declares impasse with FOP While Brown was running for mayor he was captured on video saying that he wanted a strong pension system, one that he now wants to cut $1.5 billion from over the next 30 years".

Click link for full story.

http://news.yahoo.com/fop-mayor-broke-pension-promises-041338916.html

There is no confirmed deal on the pension nor any "huge" developments, just a new and questionable plan.  The current Brown deal has yet to pass muster with the full JEA board which must vote on the deal or the city council for that matter.  This article just posted days ago goes into more detail. 

QuoteWhile getting JEA back on board has removed a potential unforced error by Brown on pension reform, he will still face a tough sell with City Council members

http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-02-05/story/jea-back-board-mayor-brown-pension-reform-plan

(http://i.imgur.com/vibrx7Q.jpg)

QuoteCity Council member Bill Gulliford put the wheels in motion Tuesday for a referendum asking voters to approve a half-cent sales tax to reduce the city's pension debt.
Gulliford introduced the legislation with the aim of having Jacksonville voters decide the matter in the May 19 general election.

The need for pension reform is dire and needs an abrupt resolution, Gulliford said."This will frame a community debate by virtue of the required referendum," Gulliford said. "If there are other options, I'd like to hear them. If not, folks, we need to take action. Our future depends on it."

He said the only other viable option for cutting into the city's massive public employees' unfunded pension plan liabilities is a property tax increase.

"Doing nothing is not an option," he said. "There has been a lot of talk, but, thus far, no action on funding. And the hole gets deeper as each day passes, sapping the strength from future budgets."

A half-cent sales tax would raise an estimated $60 million annually. The city's mounting pension liabilities amount to about $1.62 billion from the public employees' plan and nearly $1 billion from the general employees' plan.

Gulliford says tackling the pension debt with a sales tax hike is more equitable than a property tax increase or having JEA ratepayers help take on the liability, as proposed by Mayor Alvin Brown.

"The JEA option is questionable," Gulliford said.

For a sales tax referendum to be presented to voters, the Legislature would first have to agree to put it on the ballot. While Gulliford says he thinks it is likely voters would approve the measure, state Rep. Janet Adkins, the Duval County Legislative Delegation chair, says obtaining Tallahassee approval for pension-related legislation would be an unlikely political hurdle to overcome.

A public hearing on Gulliford's proposal is slated for Feb. 24. Although no other council members spoke on the measure, council member John Crescimbeni has said he supports having voters decide whether to pay down the pension deficit with a half-cent sales tax.

JEA is considering a Brown-backed proposal to borrow $120 million to help reduce the pension fund liability in exchange for establishing a JEA employee retirement plan separate from the city, among other concessions.

For more of this article click the link:
http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=544870

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 12, 2015, 02:26:17 PM
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.

Quote from: tufsu1 on February 12, 2015, 09:59:04 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 12, 2015, 02:26:17 PM
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. 

Quote from: tufsu1 on February 12, 2015, 09:59:04 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 12, 2015, 02:26:17 PM
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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

Quote from: jaxlore on February 19, 2015, 03:14:15 PM
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.  :)

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 19, 2015, 03:58:48 PM
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.

Quote from: Elwood on February 19, 2015, 03:58:19 PM
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?

Quote from: tufsu1 on February 19, 2015, 04:06:24 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 19, 2015, 03:58:48 PM
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!

Quote from: Tacachale on February 12, 2015, 11:21:46 PM
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.

Quote from: tufsu1 on February 19, 2015, 04:06:24 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 19, 2015, 03:58:48 PM
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. 

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.

^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.

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?

Quote from: fieldafm on February 19, 2015, 04:33:13 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on February 12, 2015, 11:21:46 PM
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. 

Quote from: stephendare on February 19, 2015, 04:23:23 PM
Im with diane.  local democracy is supposed to be interactive.  its not like a lawn service.

Thank you sir.  Involved and interactive voters and citizens are key especially considering the fact that views on what is leadership are often different.  In my opinion leadership is also about looking at a situation and proposing a viable solution to that situation which does not have to be a decision that excludes the public or their views.  Putting an issue to a ballot vote is leading and inclusive.  Some of the worst decisions made in our city were at the time "masked" as leadership.  :)

Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 19, 2015, 05:14:38 PM
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?

I'm pretty sure it's open ended as to any major change to allow for just that kind of thing. I'd have to check the specific wording. The point is, the idea that this was a "30 year agreement" that couldn't be changed no matter what is a myth.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 19, 2015, 04:47:00 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on February 19, 2015, 04:06:24 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 19, 2015, 03:58:48 PM
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. 

Respectfully my view and vote this elections cycle will not be based upon who will do the "least" damage but rather a vote in support of experience, past record and real plans that are being put to the public before the election.  I will point to a single issue that Dog Walker mentioned with regard to leadership and skill shown by Bill Bishop while if office and as an indicator of his ability to negotiate politics when it came to the FDOT.  In short that is a single example of many during his time in office.  I would urge folks to take the time to research the issues that concern them the most and then check the records of those on the ballot.  There is no record for what Curry might do while holding an elected position in City Government.  There is however a record for Bishop and Brown.  Considering all the info out there my vote will go to Bill Bishop not as a default to who will do the least harm but rather as a statement of the importance of experience and not large campaign accounts or "happy talk".  This to me is also about the public understanding that making decisions about who should hold political office need to be about the person, their skills, their experience and integrity.  To me, in this race Bill Bishop fits the bill.  Others may feel differently but we do have competence on the ballot.  Recognizing that is up to us each individually.  imo

For example, does it require the City to declare bankruptcy?

Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 19, 2015, 05:33:16 PM
For example, does it require the City to declare bankruptcy?

No it doesn't. Something about just any "changed circumstances" or something.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat link=topic=23672.msg403895... Others may feel differently but we do have competence on the ballot.  Recognizing that is up to us each individually.  imo

And I agree with you completely, but the recent sting of the Moran campaign can still be felt in this race.  I believe we will see the best candidate get weeded out (again) and the status quo shall remain, albeit under the [sarcasm] leadership [/sarcasm] of big money, special interest groups Curry.

Feel free to call me a tad jaded with regard to the entire process.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 19, 2015, 05:50:12 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat link=topic=23672.msg403895... Others may feel differently but we do have competence on the ballot.  Recognizing that is up to us each individually.  imo

And I agree with you completely, but the recent sting of the Moran campaign can still be felt in this race.  I believe we will see the best candidate get weeded out (again) and the status quo shall remain, albeit under the [sarcasm] leadership [/sarcasm] of big money, special interest groups Curry.

Feel free to call me a tad jaded with regard to the entire process.

You are not the only one jaded by politics in Jacksonville. :)  I completely understand why people are and one of my goals is to "expose" why some of our local politics is so lousy which is likely going to cause a few people chagrin and disbelief in others.  Honestly, after 15 years of research, political campaigns, personal involvement and interaction with local leaders elected and otherwise if the truth were known about just how dirty and corrupt things here get, it would blow peoples minds and everyone would be jaded.  Remember this city was consolidated because of corruption way back when.  Now folks have become a bit more clever in their actions and deceptions but the nonsense continues and it costs us all in progress, reputation and credibility.  Time to pull the curtain back a bit more and see the little men and women who are pushing the buttons via position or wealth. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 19, 2015, 05:21:13 PM

Quote from: stephendare on February 19, 2015, 04:23:23 PM
Im with diane.  local democracy is supposed to be interactive.  its not like a lawn service.

Thank you sir.  Involved and interactive voters and citizens are key especially considering the fact that views on what is leadership are often different.  In my opinion leadership is also about looking at a situation and proposing a viable solution to that situation which does not have to be a decision that excludes the public or their views.  Putting an issue to a ballot vote is leading and inclusive.  Some of the worst decisions made in our city were at the time "masked" as leadership.  :)

Except state constitutional amendments having to go through the entire electorate is a pretty horrible idea.
Putting the sales tax increase to a popular vote without any direct benefit to the voter is a joke. In this town in particular, there's no way it passes. It is solely to prove a point.

Quote from: PeeJayEss on February 20, 2015, 10:34:48 AM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on February 19, 2015, 05:21:13 PM

Quote from: stephendare on February 19, 2015, 04:23:23 PM
Im with diane.  local democracy is supposed to be interactive.  its not like a lawn service.

Thank you sir.  Involved and interactive voters and citizens are key especially considering the fact that views on what is leadership are often different.  In my opinion leadership is also about looking at a situation and proposing a viable solution to that situation which does not have to be a decision that excludes the public or their views.  Putting an issue to a ballot vote is leading and inclusive.  Some of the worst decisions made in our city were at the time "masked" as leadership.  :)

Except state constitutional amendments having to go through the entire electorate is a pretty horrible idea.
Putting the sales tax increase to a popular vote without any direct benefit to the voter is a joke. In this town in particular, there's no way it passes. It is solely to prove a point.

Perhaps, but a point proven in this case would be a clear indicator as to where the current voting populace falls when it comes to a sales tax increase as a way to balance the budget and address the pension issue.  Having it added to a ballot during an election cycle will create no real additional expense and will in fact give us a measure of people feelings about a sales tax increase.  The needed money to address the above issues will not "magically" appear during an audit nor do we have the luxury of time for the needed economic improvements to happen locally to step out of this mess.  The pension debt alone is growing by staggering amounts monthly. The money in the end will come from the taxpayers one way or another.  Having the chance to weigh in via a vote on how that money is gotten is not a bad thing.  IMO

Interesting that we don't consider having the uniform forces contribute to reducing the pension debt created by poor city negotiators. We start by eliminating the take home cars for police which would surely reduce the huge budget expenditure. Other municipalities throughout the nation have done away with police take home vehicles and returned to having vehicles available for patrol at the assigned station house or precinct. The common belief when the program was initiated was that a take home vehicle would reduce crime. The program was sold to the public that officers would respond on incidents they witnessed in their routine travels. This has never been validated and in fact the new breed feels entitled to the take home vehicle. A negotiating trade off could be; take home vehicle or the increase and perks in the pension, not both. I'm a retired Police Officer and in twenty years of service I never had a take home car. I don't see how an officer going fifty miles per hour to drop his kid off at school would benefit the community or prevent crime. Neither is a cop using his car to bring his dry cleaning or going grocery shopping. That was a different mindset and a different era, we need to adjust and consider the majority, not a select few. Another way to reduce the pension gap is to look at federal dollars allocated from drug enforcement for upgrading and improving police services. Community service officers are a great asset to any city, but they must be budgeted. They start as community service officers and end up being swallowed up to cover for vacation slots and other details. Instead of that huge motor-pool why don't we have scooter patrol? Scooter patrol can be used effectively in downtown areas and/or subdivisions like Avondale, Riverside, Brooklyn, and Springfield.  Municipalities much larger and more congested than ours (NYC-PD) have used scooters for many decades and proved successful. We use bicycles and assign four officers to ride together. Is that being resourceful?  Let's get creative and start staring down the difficult problems objectively. We can't be afraid to offend the cops, they are civil servants and working for us. While they do place their lives on the line, it is by choice. Every cop knows exactly what he signed up for the day he/she took the oath. Nothing against being self-serving, but I don't want to pay cause they need better benefits. If you want to make a lot of money don't go into civil service!! Just sayin