Metro Jacksonville

QuoteWant a chance at money for a homeless day center? Pass the pension tax. City grants for downtown development? More money for public safety? Pass the pension tax. Want the mayor's backing in a political campaign? Support the pension tax. Duval County voters should get used to hearing this refrain from Mayor Lenny Curry, who is staking much of his political capital — and his first term — on an Aug. 30 referendum asking voters to approve a half-cent sales tax to pay down the city's enormous pension debt.

Everything else? It'll have to wait.

Think about the campaign under former Mayor John Delaney to sell the Better Jacksonville Plan sales tax to voters: A goody bag full of ambition and $2.2 billion worth of projects, spread across the city's diverse neighborhoods.

Curry's sales pitch is virtually the opposite. No commitments. No sky-high promises or glossy renderings of projects to come. There is no goody bag.

"This is about solving a problem once and for all," Curry said Friday.

Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/2016-04-15/story/pension-fix-only-issue-mayor-lenny-currys-agenda-everything-else-takes-back

I get it. He wants everyone to focus and pay attention to the pension issue.

But I still havent seen a compelling argument for the borrow now, pay later approach.

I also think that using a sales tax to pay for what is essentially a core municipal service is bad civic policy. It really should be bundled inside the property assessments.

Brilliant, once elected tell everyone not to expect much.  Then if nothing gets done in the first term that doesn't come back to haunt you since "well we had this pension thing we had to figure out."

Curry's objective, by way of a half-cent sales tax increase, and the withholding of funds for projects targeting social needs, poverty, the homeless, and core development, is a move to encourage the city to financial stability and strength, so that these important projects can eventually be funded.  Certain critical funding for those in desperate need however, must somehow be addressed as an interim.

This kind of decision, because it is unpopular with many, offers evidence of the emerging quality of strong leadership.  Seeking more revenue for the city is necessary, as it would be in a typical famiy in financial straights, so that funding decisions can be made on sound logic according to the greatest need, and not on whether funds are available or on how to borrow money, or about where to cut expenditures on critical city responsibilities. 

Caution however to increased funding to the sheriff's department. Every million dollars carelessly spent on the sheriff's department, and on the "justice" system in general, is a million not available for decisions to fund programs, both economic and social, that would, if effectively implemented, eliminate the need, imagined or real, to increase the size of this swollen institution

The tendency of the sheriff's department to grow to obscene costs to the taxpayer, is due in part to the fact that the department does not have to compete in private enterprise.  This tendency can be overcome by strong and effective leadership from the sheriff.

Quote from: ronchamblin on April 18, 2016, 08:59:16 AM
Curry's objective, by way of a half-cent sales tax increase, and the withholding of substantial funds for projects targeting social needs, poverty, the homeless, and core development, is a move to encourage the city to financial stability and strength, so that these important projects can eventually be funded.  Certain critical funding for those in desperate need however, must somehow be addressed as an interim until long term solutions can be funded.   

This kind of decision, because it is unpopular with many, offers evidence of the emerging quality of strong leadership.  The position is very necessary, as it would be in a typical family, if the city is to rise to financial health ... to a position wherein funding decisions are made on sound logic according to the greatest need, and not on whether funds are available or on how to borrow money, or about where to cut expenditures on critical city responsibilities.  The process of limiting expenditures, while at the same time being creative in making more money, is a sound path for any city in considerable debt ... eventually providing a base of financial stability and strength allowing decisions based on real need and the best paths to an improved quality of life for all citizens in our city.       

Caution however to increased funding to the sheriff's department and even the fire department, as these swollen institutions possess qualities similar to that of the military industrial complex, as there is a tendency to empire, demanding ever increased funding at the expense of societal mechanisms which, if properly addressed, would preclude, at least in the case of the sheriff's department, the necessity of funding its growth to one of obscene and wasteful levels. 

We should seek a measured decrease in the size of the sheriff's department, but only after a careful assessment of effective programs created to reduce societal inequalities and injustices that encourage desperation, great need, and a sense of loss ... and thus crime.  Every million dollars carelessly spent on the sheriff's department, and on the "justice" system in general, is a million not available for decisions to fund programs, both economic and social, that would, if effectively implemented, eliminate the need, imagined or real, to increase the size of these wasteful and swollen institutions.

Addendum: The tendency of any governmental agency or office such as a sheriff's department to descend to inefficiency and grow to obscene costs to the taxpayer, is due to the absent of the normal pressures of private enterprise, which forces efficiency.  This tendency can be overcome by strong and effective leadership from the sheriff.

Ron, with respect, I don't understand what you are saying. Can you give it to me in 3 sentences?

Apparently, if we continue at current funding rates we'll cover 98% of the obligationby 2045. If we follow Curry's plan, we'll be at 58% to 65% of our obligation by 2045.

From the TU, 2/18/16

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-02-18/story/currys-plan-would-leave-pension-plans-only-partially-funded-after-30 (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-02-18/story/currys-plan-would-leave-pension-plans-only-partially-funded-after-30)

Mayor Lenny Curry's proposed pension paydown plan would dial back how much the city contributes to its pension plans in the coming years, freeing up tens of millions of dollars annually that go can to other city services.

But because the city would be paying less for many years to its pension plan, it will take much longer to strengthen those plans so they are financially healthy enough to fully fund all the long-term pension payments the city must make to retirees, according to an actuarial report done this month for the city.

That report shows that 30 years from now, the city's Police and Fire Pension Fund would still be far short of having enough money to pay its long-term pension obligations if the city spreads out its payments the way Curry is considering.

The actuarial report shows that on Oct. 1, 2045, the Police and Fire Pension Fund's assets would be sufficient to pay 58 percent or 65 percent of the pension obligations earned by police and firefighters. The difference depends on the amount of contributions the city puts into the pension fund over that period.

In contrast, the funding schedule currently in place calls for heftier annual payments and would get the Police and Fire Pension Fund to a funding level on Oct. 1, 2045 sufficient to cover 98 percent of pension obligations... more on above link.

###

Link to the actuarial study:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/299766293/Mayor-Curry-pension-plan-actuarial-report (https://www.scribd.com/doc/299766293/Mayor-Curry-pension-plan-actuarial-report)

So if we stay on the current funding schedule that cripples the annual budget and has been keeping the city from fulfilling basic functions for 8 years, we'll be almost OK in 29 years? Lol, good to know.

I'm still brushing the surface of this plan but it's weird.

Quote from: TheCat on April 18, 2016, 08:04:25 PM
Apparently, if we continue at current funding rates we'll cover 98% of the obligationby 2045. If we follow Curry's plan, we'll be at 58% to 65% of our obligation by 2045.

From the TU, 2/18/16

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-02-18/story/currys-plan-would-leave-pension-plans-only-partially-funded-after-30 (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-02-18/story/currys-plan-would-leave-pension-plans-only-partially-funded-after-30)

Mayor Lenny Curry's proposed pension paydown plan would dial back how much the city contributes to its pension plans in the coming years, freeing up tens of millions of dollars annually that go can to other city services.

But because the city would be paying less for many years to its pension plan, it will take much longer to strengthen those plans so they are financially healthy enough to fully fund all the long-term pension payments the city must make to retirees, according to an actuarial report done this month for the city.

That report shows that 30 years from now, the city's Police and Fire Pension Fund would still be far short of having enough money to pay its long-term pension obligations if the city spreads out its payments the way Curry is considering.

The actuarial report shows that on Oct. 1, 2045, the Police and Fire Pension Fund's assets would be sufficient to pay 58 percent or 65 percent of the pension obligations earned by police and firefighters. The difference depends on the amount of contributions the city puts into the pension fund over that period.

In contrast, the funding schedule currently in place calls for heftier annual payments and would get the Police and Fire Pension Fund to a funding level on Oct. 1, 2045 sufficient to cover 98 percent of pension obligations... more on above link.

###

It a simple calculation of money over time. The more you put in now, the more value it has later.

The more you defer it, the less time it has to increase in value, or in this case, the interest on the bonds you had to buy, cuts into the final return.

As I have said earlier, this is a kick the ball down the field "solution" that doesn't solve anything, its political expediency.

The whole effort to get the state legislature to pass special laws permitting it, could have been spent convincing city council to start a gradual rise in the property tax to increase revenue over time. 

This is a clear example of what happens when a politico is stuck inside their dogma.

I think this referendum will not pass.

Quote from: Tacachale on April 18, 2016, 08:41:39 PM
So if we stay on the current funding schedule that cripples the annual budget and has been keeping the city from fulfilling basic functions for 8 years, we'll be almost OK in 29 years? Lol, good to know.

Tachahale, what do you understand that I am not understanding? Please note, I am genuinely asking. I'm not sparring.

The more I read about it, the worst it looks. So, I'm hoping for some enlightenment from supporters of the plan.

The way I'm reading it, We're going into more debt for the pension, and we are opening the door to other debt.  By using our future sales tax revenue as a current asset, we'll attempt to issue bonds for, I guess, not the Jaguars(?), but vital essential city functions.

Quote from: spuwho on April 18, 2016, 09:47:12 PM

Quote from: TheCat on April 18, 2016, 08:04:25 PM
Apparently, if we continue at current funding rates we'll cover 98% of the obligationby 2045. If we follow Curry's plan, we'll be at 58% to 65% of our obligation by 2045.

From the TU, 2/18/16

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-02-18/story/currys-plan-would-leave-pension-plans-only-partially-funded-after-30 (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-02-18/story/currys-plan-would-leave-pension-plans-only-partially-funded-after-30)

Mayor Lenny Curry's proposed pension paydown plan would dial back how much the city contributes to its pension plans in the coming years, freeing up tens of millions of dollars annually that go can to other city services.

But because the city would be paying less for many years to its pension plan, it will take much longer to strengthen those plans so they are financially healthy enough to fully fund all the long-term pension payments the city must make to retirees, according to an actuarial report done this month for the city.

That report shows that 30 years from now, the city's Police and Fire Pension Fund would still be far short of having enough money to pay its long-term pension obligations if the city spreads out its payments the way Curry is considering.

The actuarial report shows that on Oct. 1, 2045, the Police and Fire Pension Fund's assets would be sufficient to pay 58 percent or 65 percent of the pension obligations earned by police and firefighters. The difference depends on the amount of contributions the city puts into the pension fund over that period.

In contrast, the funding schedule currently in place calls for heftier annual payments and would get the Police and Fire Pension Fund to a funding level on Oct. 1, 2045 sufficient to cover 98 percent of pension obligations... more on above link.

###

It a simple calculation of money over time. The more you put in now, the more value it has later.

The more you defer it, the less time it has to increase in value, or in this case, the interest on the bonds you had to buy, cuts into the final return.

As I have said earlier, this is a kick the ball down the field "solution" that doesn't solve anything, its political expediency.

The whole effort to get the state legislature to pass special laws permitting it, could have been spent convincing city council to start a gradual rise in the property tax to increase revenue over time. 

This is a clear example of what happens when a politico is stuck inside their dogma.

I think this referendum will not pass.

According to the TU there is a $3 million marketing plan in the works for this referendum. If there isn't organized opposition to this plan I can see it pass.

QuoteI get it. He wants everyone to focus and pay attention to the pension issue.

But I still havent seen a compelling argument for the borrow now, pay later approach.

I also think that using a sales tax to pay for what is essentially a core municipal service is bad civic policy. It really should be bundled inside the property assessments.

+1

The city could be burning down around him and he'd still be clutching to his phrase, "we must pay for the pension" before we pay for emergency operations. I voted for him, but so far, he's showed me little else but that he can repeat the same sentence over and over again.

He needs a new tune! This one is boring.....

Quote from: spuwho on April 18, 2016, 09:47:12 PM

Quote from: TheCat on April 18, 2016, 08:04:25 PM
Apparently, if we continue at current funding rates we'll cover 98% of the obligationby 2045. If we follow Curry's plan, we'll be at 58% to 65% of our obligation by 2045.

From the TU, 2/18/16

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-02-18/story/currys-plan-would-leave-pension-plans-only-partially-funded-after-30 (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-02-18/story/currys-plan-would-leave-pension-plans-only-partially-funded-after-30)

Mayor Lenny Curry's proposed pension paydown plan would dial back how much the city contributes to its pension plans in the coming years, freeing up tens of millions of dollars annually that go can to other city services.

But because the city would be paying less for many years to its pension plan, it will take much longer to strengthen those plans so they are financially healthy enough to fully fund all the long-term pension payments the city must make to retirees, according to an actuarial report done this month for the city.

That report shows that 30 years from now, the city's Police and Fire Pension Fund would still be far short of having enough money to pay its long-term pension obligations if the city spreads out its payments the way Curry is considering.

The actuarial report shows that on Oct. 1, 2045, the Police and Fire Pension Fund's assets would be sufficient to pay 58 percent or 65 percent of the pension obligations earned by police and firefighters. The difference depends on the amount of contributions the city puts into the pension fund over that period.

In contrast, the funding schedule currently in place calls for heftier annual payments and would get the Police and Fire Pension Fund to a funding level on Oct. 1, 2045 sufficient to cover 98 percent of pension obligations... more on above link.

###

It a simple calculation of money over time. The more you put in now, the more value it has later.

The more you defer it, the less time it has to increase in value, or in this case, the interest on the bonds you had to buy, cuts into the final return.

As I have said earlier, this is a kick the ball down the field "solution" that doesn't solve anything, its political expediency.

The whole effort to get the state legislature to pass special laws permitting it, could have been spent convincing city council to start a gradual rise in the property tax to increase revenue over time. 

This is a clear example of what happens when a politico is stuck inside their dogma.

I think this referendum will not pass.

Maybe I'm incorrect, but I thought once the bill passed, all new city employees will be on a 401k. This bill would terminate the pension's growth overnight. On top of that, all contributions would increase by 2% across the board. 

A few VERY important points of clarification:

Quotewithholding of substantial funds for projects

I understand that most people in this world do not pay much attention to municipal budgets, but over the past several years... most of the new 'spending' is in the form of debt (generally, debt is paid back over a period of time). There isn't this vast pot of money that is buried under City Hall, instead a proverbial credit card has been used. An examination of the growth of the 'banking fund' (which is a nice way of saying 'credit card') illustrates this point.

'Withholding of substantial funds' is not an accurate portrayal, as new spending is by and large coming from going into more debt. I think if most people view the city budget under that much more accurate characterization... then you'll appreciate that going into more and more debt is probably not the most prudent financial decision. At some point, that becomes unsustainable. Most people that really study the municipal budget recognize that we, as a city, are at that point.

QuoteTachahale, what do you understand that I am not understanding? Please note, I am genuinely asking. I'm not sparring.

The more I read about it, the worst it looks. So, I'm hoping for some enlightenment from supporters of the plan

What you need to understand, is that in order to get 98% funded... the portion of current city spending dedicated to paying pension obligations (mainly ad valorum revenue) would drastically increase over the next 20 years without a dedicated source of new revenue. I apologize for not having the numbers in front of me so not trying to bring hyperbole to the discussion, but on rough numbers something like 35% of the current budget is allocated towards the pension. That increases to something like over 50% in a short period of time. Without a new dedicated source of funding, that would grow to 60%+ in the medium term... and in the long term would be much greater.    Again, rough numbers... so if I'm off a little, the point is to illustrate an 'accurate-ish' portrayal of what the future holds.

To put that in perspective, if you brought your family of 5 to V Pizza in San Marco and bought an 18" pizza... 6" of that pizza today goes to someone else (the pension), 4" is going to pay for pizza you bought yesterday (bond obligations.. how municipal governments borrower money), you have to have 2" mandated by law to placed in a to-go box (mandated reserves) and then the rest you get to eat and split between your family of 5 people. 

If you went in 5 years from now your same family of 5 now gets 9" of that pizza set aside for someone else (the pension), 4" to pay for pizza you bought 5 years and 1 day ago (bond obligations), 2" must go in a to-go box (mandated reserves) and the rest to be split between your family of 5 people. Those 5 people are going to go home substantially more hungry than they were 5 years ago (meaning less potholes are being fixed, less police officers are arresting bad guys, the streetlights in your neighborhood are never coming back on, etc). You may then start to worry about the ability of your sons and daughters to be properly nourished... and your wife is really cranky because she hasn't had much to eat lately.

In 10 years from now, almost 11" of that pizza is going to go to paying someone else (pension), 4" to pay for pizza your bought 10 years and 1 day ago (assuming you haven't used your credit card to start buying extra pizzas in the last 10 years... unlikely because your family is really hungry and malnourished)... and so on. 

You either have to make a bigger pizza (raise property taxes)... something that the owner of V Pizza is unlikely to do, because no one would want to come into his restaurant anymore (customers respond to jacking up prices by not coming into your restaurant... much the way that voters would likely not vote for a property tax increase.. and you'd be fooling yourself if you think that voters would go to the polls in August to jack up their property taxes to pay for the pension)... or you have to create another dedicated source of food product (revenue), say a calzone (sales tax), to start giving someone else (pension obligations) so that your family of 5 doesn't end up with only 4" of people to eat.

Quote from: TheCat on April 18, 2016, 07:59:36 PM

Quote from: ronchamblin on April 18, 2016, 08:59:16 AM
Curry's objective, by way of a half-cent sales tax increase, and the withholding of substantial funds for projects targeting social needs, poverty, the homeless, and core development, is a move to encourage the city to financial stability and strength, so that these important projects can eventually be funded.  Certain critical funding for those in desperate need however, must somehow be addressed as an interim until long term solutions can be funded.   

This kind of decision, because it is unpopular with many, offers evidence of the emerging quality of strong leadership.  The position is very necessary, as it would be in a typical family, if the city is to rise to financial health ... to a position wherein funding decisions are made on sound logic according to the greatest need, and not on whether funds are available or on how to borrow money, or about where to cut expenditures on critical city responsibilities.  The process of limiting expenditures, while at the same time being creative in making more money, is a sound path for any city in considerable debt ... eventually providing a base of financial stability and strength allowing decisions based on real need and the best paths to an improved quality of life for all citizens in our city.       

Caution however to increased funding to the sheriff's department and even the fire department, as these swollen institutions possess qualities similar to that of the military industrial complex, as there is a tendency to empire, demanding ever increased funding at the expense of societal mechanisms which, if properly addressed, would preclude, at least in the case of the sheriff's department, the necessity of funding its growth to one of obscene and wasteful levels. 

We should seek a measured decrease in the size of the sheriff's department, but only after a careful assessment of effective programs created to reduce societal inequalities and injustices that encourage desperation, great need, and a sense of loss ... and thus crime.  Every million dollars carelessly spent on the sheriff's department, and on the "justice" system in general, is a million not available for decisions to fund programs, both economic and social, that would, if effectively implemented, eliminate the need, imagined or real, to increase the size of these wasteful and swollen institutions.

Addendum: The tendency of any governmental agency or office such as a sheriff's department to descend to inefficiency and grow to obscene costs to the taxpayer, is due to the absent of the normal pressures of private enterprise, which forces efficiency.  This tendency can be overcome by strong and effective leadership from the sheriff.

Ron, with respect, I don't understand what you are saying. Can you give it to me in 3 sentences?

Sorry for delay Cat ... and for my tendency to avoid the concise.  I must take time to review and shorten.

BTW, I was limiting by post to the TU article, which focused primarily on the sales tax referendum.  I see where the discussion has evolved to details about which I'm no privy.  My main focus was on the propriety and necessity of the sales tax increase.

In any case, how about these three sentences?


The half-cent sales tax, against a potential growing opposition, is a sign of a possible emerging strong leadership from the mayor. 

This small tax increase will directly, and substantially, improve financial health of the city, a condition sorely needed so as to allow the funding of important budget demands, and for the funding of necessary social needs such as unemployment and the homeless.

Caution to excessive and unnecessary funding for the sheriff's department, an agency prone to empire and power, prone to suffer inefficiencies because it lies outside of the efficiency producing forces of private enterprise, an agency inclined to become the very cause of increased crime simply because the empire absorbs millions that could and should be spent on programs that would substantially eliminate the societal conditions actually causing the criminal activity. 

Stephen - Are you offering a different solution? You're quick to place blame and call names here, and while it might be justified, it doesn't help solve the issue.

Ideally, the pension would be completely funded, and could have been much closer had property tax cuts not happened and the pension fund contributions not been diverted. But they did, and here we are. We still are faced with this issue that must resolved. The question is how:

• Extend/Divert the $0.005 sales tax as a revenue stream - Spreads out the contributions
• Raise property taxes - Primarily hits property owners and (tenants by extension)
• Declare bankruptcy - Decimates the pension even more than what's proposed
• Something else?

None of these are particularly palatable, yet something has to be done. You don't like the pizza analogy, then how about the movie "127 hours" - How long do you want to stay with your arm smashed under a boulder waiting for help to arrive, realizing that it may never, before you cut it off and move on. (sorry for the spoilers)

My problem with this (and I haven't made up my mind yet) is that it seems to be the opposite of the principle of compounding interest that all of those financial people drill into the head of every college kid - save and put money there now and watch it grow over time.

Regardless - it's bold to propose a tax increase of any kind less than a year into the job. In contrast, I can't imagine Delayed didn't have the idea for Better Jax during his first term, but he did the politically smart thing by earning the public's trust through sound leadership during his first term (NOTE: In hindsight some of his decisions, particularly regarding downtown didn't pan out great long term but overall the leadership was there and he overall was a good mayor IMO). Then, during his second term he proposed this and it became a legacy project of sorts.

Right now, I can say for sure that if the vote was held tomorrow I'd vote no. I was 17 during the Better Jax vote, but I would have voted for it had I been 18; Delaney sold me on it. Curry needs to sell me on this. He's got until November - I'm all ears.

Quote from: Steve on April 19, 2016, 10:46:58 AMRight now, I can say for sure that if the vote was held tomorrow I'd vote no. I was 17 during the Better Jax vote, but I would have voted for it had I been 18; Delaney sold me on it. Curry needs to sell me on this. He's got until November - I'm all ears.

I think they are shooting for August instead of November. He's got a tall task ahead of him.  I seriously doubt the average Jaxson can relate to the pension issue.  If this referendum fails, what's the backup plan?

Quote from: TheCat on April 18, 2016, 10:40:28 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on April 18, 2016, 08:41:39 PM
So if we stay on the current funding schedule that cripples the annual budget and has been keeping the city from fulfilling basic functions for 8 years, we'll be almost OK in 29 years? Lol, good to know.

Tachahale, what do you understand that I am not understanding? Please note, I am genuinely asking. I'm not sparring.

The more I read about it, the worst it looks. So, I'm hoping for some enlightenment from supporters of the plan.

The way I'm reading it, We're going into more debt for the pension, and we are opening the door to other debt.  By using our future sales tax revenue as a current asset, we'll attempt to issue bonds for, I guess, not the Jaguars(?), but vital essential city functions.

Pretty much what Mike said - the current payment schedule simply isn't sustainable. We're already paying over $150 million out of the annual budget, and that number will just increase. This obligation is one of the main things that's been crippling the budget for years - why we've seen so many cuts to services and staff. There simply isn't a solution to this that doesn't involve new dedicated revenue, and that means a tax of some kind.

I've argued elsewhere why I think the sales tax idea is better than just raising the property taxes. The main reason is that once it's passed, no future mayor can futz with it again. If we raise the property taxes, a future mayor could just cut them again, and we'd be right back in the same situation we're in now.

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2016, 10:49:19 AM
db.  Thanks for the questions, although I would differ with you on being 'quick' to assign blame.

Ive actually been following this for about 8 years or so and haven't come to the conclusion lightly.

I should have been clearer. My reference to quick in that you're attributing the issue to the "jerk" in office. I'm sure you've been following for some time and it becomes frustrating when you don't see action on things, or action that results in progress. I'm glad that something is being attempted, as opposed to the obfuscation of the last several years.

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2016, 10:49:19 AM
Bankruptcy isn't really on the table as a result of the pension obligation.  Its not really such a massive problem, and as the paper points out, if we make no changes, the obligation is mostly paid for.  All of our issues must be resolved.  The only difference is whether or not we do them with the same speed and enthusiasm as we do in resolving issues dealing with the Jaguars team.

Yes, the obligation would be paid for, but if you noticed the chart, it would take an additional $50MM+ contribution each year to accomplish this. That money is not able to be used to invest/contribute to things that bring money back into the county (like the Jaguars).

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2016, 10:49:19 AM
Jville paid a much higher millage rate for generations because we knew that at the end of the day, stuff had to be paid for.

The tax cuts, frankly, should have been rolled back in 2010, when it became apparent that the downturn was going to last for a while and that they had been based on politics and a flawed strategy in the first place.

And the majority don't want to pay more now. But stuff still needs to be paid for - how do we accomplish this? At least this sales tax option is going to the voters. A millage rate increase doesn't need to. I'm all for paying more in property taxes, and I'm sure that many people are, because I know that you can't have a solid quality of life "on the cheap." Everything costs more, we demand progress, but refuse to pay for it.

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2016, 10:49:19 AM
Something was working and we fixed it even though it wasn't broke.

No argument here, but again, it's the past and cannot be changed. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just is.

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2016, 10:49:19 AM
This doesn't solve the problem, makes it more expensive, and is being used in the service of one guy's political ideology.

What specifically is his ideology? Have you asked him?

I'm not trying to be belligerent here, just want to listen and learn. There are always more sides to a story than people want to admit and I try hard to see as many as possible.

Quote from: Tacachale on April 19, 2016, 10:54:57 AMPretty much what Mike said - the current payment schedule simply isn't sustainable.

I'm certainly agree with that. I just don't know that the plan on the table is the right one.

To be fair, I don't know that it ISN'T the right one either.

I neither campaigned for, nor donated money to Lenny Curry's campaign. However, I did vote for him. Making this a personal issue is ridiculous.

Based on what I understand to be true based on my own study of the pension issue... I am more apt than not to vote in favor of Curry's pension proposal in August. At this point, I'm waiting to see what the final proposal is before I make up my mind 100%.

As to your other hyperbole, its frankly not even worth responding to... you clearly have your agenda.

Quotebut this solution doesn't even pay the actual obligation

That's quite a sensational theory, but it is absolutely without merit.



If anyone wants to have an actual discussion on the pension issue, I'd be glad to participate in a rational conversation.

There is a legitimate debate to be had in regards to how future pension obligations should be paid for. There are essentially four options:

1) The sales tax extension proposed by Curry.

2) Face the very real possibility of municipal bankruptcy.  If you do nothing, this will happen. This option is basically a non-starter.

3) Not pay retirees. See #3: non-starter.

4) Pay for it by drastically increasing property taxes. There are two issues at play here as to a potential hike in property taxes. One is that a small increase will not generate the money needed (any real solution involves a shared pain). There has to be a substantial increase to the millage rate to be able to generate the necessary revenue to pay future pension obligations. Simply rolling back the millage rate to what it was 12 years ago isn't sufficient. Remember, Peyton raised the millage rate twice during the last years of his term. City Council raised the millage rate once during Brown's term. All three of those raises still haven't brought the budget to an even figure, new debt has been taken on to fill gaps during all of those budget cycles.. so that extra money isn't going to be enough to even begin to take a chunk out of the pension obligation.

The other issue is that there is nothing stopping political whims from redirecting that additional ad valorum revenue in future years to pay for other things. That's a very real concern. It's also a concern that former Mayor John Delaney talks about frequently. Delaney is someone that spent decades operating within the same political apparatus, and has just slightly more than an acute understanding of how political meddling can completely reverse course on a plan of action that was previously set sail upon. It would be wise to at least take this into consideration when thinking about paying for future pension obligations by raising property taxes. You could trust future mayors and future city councils to be steadfastly devoted to not Mickey Mouse future budgets. History paints a picture that is colored by mistrust however.

Think about your own self for a moment... say you had $1,000 sitting in the bank. The budget that you set yourself up 6 months ago said that $400 of that money was going to pay rent, $200 was to pay for your transportation costs, $200 was to pay for food, $50 paid your electric bill, $100 was to go into savings and the remaining $50 would go towards impressing some lady friend by taking her out to dinner... presumably you charm her enough that she wants to give you some sugar at the end of the night.  How many times in your life have you gave in to the temptation to slide that $100 that was supposed to go into savings and instead maybe blow it on booze, or a new tv... or maybe going all out and spending $350 on that debt with the buxom young woman whose smile makes you smitten with irrationality?  If you are honest with yourself, you would recall quite a few instances where you maybe didn't make the wisest of choices with your budget. If there are times when you have let yourself down regarding managing your own money... how confident are you that someone else (who has their own agendas that far different than your own) will do a better job at managing your money?

To me, having a dedicated source of revenue is a major selling point. In reality, there are no perfect options. You are basically choosing which option is the least imperfect. Would I much, much, much, much prefer that a sales tax extension goes towards infrastructure and qualify of life projects? Absolutely, unequivocably without question, yes! Does it give me pause that potential tax revenue will be shifted to pension obligations instead of a new Better Jacksonville Project? You bet your @ss it does. I want to live in a city with nicer things than what we currently have. There is no shame in admitting that.  But, at some point reality has to set in. 

Do I want to live in a city in 10 years from now where $600 of the $1,000 dollars I pay in property taxes pays for the pension while the fire station down the street from my house is closed down, the park a block over has been sold to WalMart to pay for a municipal government that's in hawk to the pawn shop owner down the street, my house gets robbed and the police show up 13 days later and I drive to work on a road that is riddled with so many potholes that I have to buy new tires every 4 months? This is a major consideration.

As to the political reality of a property tax increase... I don't see a scenario in which voters would vote for a millage rate increase of say 4-5 mills this August. I have a good feeling that people smarter than me have maybe.. just maybe done extensive polling on this issue and have come to that same conclusion.

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2016, 11:44:03 AM

Quote from: fieldafm on April 19, 2016, 11:26:14 AM
I neither campaigned for, nor donated money to Lenny Curry's campaign. However, I did vote for him. Making this a personal issue is ridiculous.

Based on what I understand to be true based on my own study of the pension issue... I am more apt than not to vote in favor of Curry's pension proposal in August. At this point, I'm waiting to see what the final proposal is before I make up my mind 100%.

As to your other hyperbole, its frankly not even worth responding to... you clearly have your agenda.

Quotebut this solution doesn't even pay the actual obligation

That's quite a sensational theory, but it is absolutely without merit.

I suppose i will forward your religious belief on to those idiots at the Times Union and their absurdly meritless actuarialists.

Quote from: TheCat on April 18, 2016, 08:04:25 PM
Apparently, if we continue at current funding rates we'll cover 98% of the obligationby 2045. If we follow Curry's plan, we'll be at 58% to 65% of our obligation by 2045.

From the TU, 2/18/16

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-02-18/story/currys-plan-would-leave-pension-plans-only-partially-funded-after-30 (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-02-18/story/currys-plan-would-leave-pension-plans-only-partially-funded-after-30)

Mayor Lenny Curry's proposed pension paydown plan would dial back how much the city contributes to its pension plans in the coming years, freeing up tens of millions of dollars annually that go can to other city services.

But because the city would be paying less for many years to its pension plan, it will take much longer to strengthen those plans so they are financially healthy enough to fully fund all the long-term pension payments the city must make to retirees, according to an actuarial report done this month for the city.

That report shows that 30 years from now, the city's Police and Fire Pension Fund would still be far short of having enough money to pay its long-term pension obligations if the city spreads out its payments the way Curry is considering.

The actuarial report shows that on Oct. 1, 2045, the Police and Fire Pension Fund's assets would be sufficient to pay 58 percent or 65 percent of the pension obligations earned by police and firefighters. The difference depends on the amount of contributions the city puts into the pension fund over that period.

In contrast, the funding schedule currently in place calls for heftier annual payments and would get the Police and Fire Pension Fund to a funding level on Oct. 1, 2045 sufficient to cover 98 percent of pension obligations... more on above link.

###

See my post using a pizza at a local pizza joint. Doing nothing, as the TU presupposes, would mean that a larger and larger chunk of the City's budget would go towards funding future pension obligations. The City is legally obligated to pay its retirees. So, the budget must be adjusted year over year to meet those future obligations. The only way not to do that would be to stop paying retirees (legally and ethically not prudent) or declare bankruptcy (in no way a prudent option). Over the next 10 years, the portion of spending dedicated to paying future pension obligations (the overall chunk of the pizza pie) goes from 30-35% of the budget to 60%+ of the budget.  Over the next few years, the newest pension deal struck by Brown and Gulliford (passed just before Brown left office) requires some fairly significant chunks be paid to play 'catch up' over the next few years. Without a new source of revenue, those big chunks come out of the general fund... which means even less to pay for all of the city services that are needed to pay for the operation of a healthy, growing city.   

There is a complicated relationship with some of the debt schemes that Curry's plan proposes in the short term. That's a different issue entirely, and can't be explained with neat, little pizza examples.

Let's try not to make this an unnecessarily antagonistic thread. Can we stick with ignoring anything that feels like a personal attack and just stick with a constructive conversation? Let's assume the best in each other.

Where are all the old posts of those who were fed a bill of goods from Brown and then his only solution was to try and raid the piggy bank at JEA? Let's be fair.

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2016, 01:30:08 PM

Quote from: TheCat on April 19, 2016, 01:23:05 PM
Let's try not to make this an unnecessarily antagonistic thread. Can we stick with ignoring anything that feels like a personal attack and just stick with a constructive conversation? Let's assume the best in each other.

Totally agree. Its a bad way to discuss policy. Especially when the apparent trigger words weren't addressed to field, but rather to tacachale in the first place.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-may-bill-delaney-why-im-voting-for-lenny-curry

Well, I didn't take your comments personally, but since you bring it up, I also wasn't involved in Curry's campaign, though I did support him. I wrote that article at Ennis's invitation as a small point of balance to things you and Arash had been putting on the site that supported Brown and attacked Curry.

In response to field, Tacachale and others:

1) There isn't a proposed tax increase. Curry is not being bold by suggesting a new tax. He's being bold by assuming we won't need better jacksonville plans funds for infrastructure, when this cycle is over. He's suggesting switching a dedicated pot of money to another pot. For those who love dedicated pots of money that cannot be redistributed on a political whim, you will lose that funding for infrastructure. I wish Curry was moving towards passing, by referrendum, a BJP2.

2. I guess the numbers are going to be important. Maybe, some clarification is in order because I'm not seeing how we are getting to a pension obligation that will reach 60% of our budget...not even close.

Using this link I looked up our operating revenues since 2010: http://www.coj.net/departments/finance/budget.aspx (http://www.coj.net/departments/finance/budget.aspx)

2010: $1.06 billion
2011: $1.07 billion
2012: $1.04 billion
2013: $1.03 billion
2014: $1.07 billion
2015: $1.10 billion
2016: $1.15 billion (budgeted)

Looking at this chart from the TU (which they put together using the acturial study I linked to earlier), I'm not seeing how we're predcting the pension taking anymore than 18 percent of our operating budget.

(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/CurryCostsPlan.jpg)

Based on the chart this is what I am seeing:

In 2016, our pension obligation was $157 million or 13% of our budget.

Our annual obligation is expected gradually increase until we reach around $200 million in 2027, which equates to around 18% of our budget (assuming our operating revenues are at $1.10 billion - an average of the last three years).

Then, our payments gradually decrease and bounce around $150 million or 8% of our budget until 2043. In 2043 our payments drop to $50 million or .045% of our budget.

What is it that I am missing? Where is the 35% - 65% of the budget number coming from?

3. If we stick to what we are doing now, we will be 98 percent caught up and we'll have the ability to have a BJP2. If we do it Lenny's way, we're going to be paying more money in the long run, for a longer period of time and be only a little over half way in covering our oligation. This seems like a bad refinancing deal.

4. The TU is saying that we can expet $4 billion over 30 years for the pension sales tax, which works out to be $133million per year. How is this enough to cover our obligation, especially after underpaying for next 5 years. No one has said that the sales tax will be the sole source for the pension obligation. It seems possible that we may still need to pull from our operating budget.

5. The overlooked portion of this deal is

QuoteTo get immediate credit for that half-cent sales tax money, Curry is asking the Legislature to let Jacksonville count that as an asset right of the bat by converting it into a lower "present day" value for accounting purposes.

By having that asset on the books, the city would be able to lower its annual contribution in the years until the sales tax actually starts pouring in.

But the actuarial report by Mlliman, a firm that has worked for the city over the years analyzing pension concepts, warns that Governmental Accounting Standards Board standards might prevent Jacksonville from counting future sales tax revenue as a current asset.

"That's a legitimate comment because this is new territory and nobody knows for sure if this can be done," Weinstein said.

So, the solution is an accounting trick that the GASB may or may not find acceptable? Someone give me a pizza version of what's happening here?

On the whole, this plan makes 0.00 sense to me but I am open to being convinced.

Quote from: mtraininjax on April 19, 2016, 02:44:12 PM
Where are all the old posts of those who were fed a bill of goods from Brown and then his only solution was to try and raid the piggy bank at JEA? Let's be fair.

many of us you subscribe as Brown supporters never liked his "no new taxes" pledge

Quote from: TheCat on April 19, 2016, 03:51:46 PM

So, the solution is an accounting trick that the GASB may or may not find acceptable? Someone give me a pizza version of what's happening here?

On the whole, this plan makes 0.00 sense to me but I am open to being convinced.

You just guaranteed everyone a pizza on their way out, but since you don't have enough pizzas cooked for everyone, you just stack a bunch of empty boxes by the door to look like you've got plenty of pizza on hand, with the knowledge that a new pizza oven will be delivered in time to make sure everyone gets one.

Luckily your current pizza oven can cover the crowd as is, and even a bit of overflow, but you're absolutely screwed if there's any hitch before the new pizza oven gets here.

But that's OK.  In the meantime, you put in your shift (maybe a double) and you'll probably already be working at corporate to let the next crew worry about the pizza oven delivery.  You ran the promotion and made everyone happy.  You've done your part.  And you'll be able to point fingers at someone else if anything happens and people leaving don't have pizza.

If benefits aren't touched, it seems like the best way to trudge through this is to just stick with our annual obligation as it is.

Getting weird with it, as Curry is proposing, just sets us up for more failure. Vote No.

I'm hoping field or tacachale will respond with a different understanding of the numbers. As of now, I'm not seeing a runaway pension I'm seeing something difficult but not impossible.

And, we probably need to have the hard conversation about whether benefits are too high. Is the COLA too much, for instance?

^maybe Curry's attempt to hijack bjp is a good thing, assuming he fails.

I don't know that I want Curry developing a 30 year visionary plan.

Before we got lost in an unnecessary argument.

I think it is relevant to look at our other pension obligations because, I think, Curry's plan does attempt to address all of our pensions. Again, I stress, that I think his bill attempts to address all three pensions!

I need to go back and read the bill...it's as mind numbing as you might imagine.

Still, without looking at those numbers, I would be surprised if we are venturing anywhere near 50 percent of our budget.

I haven't had a chance to dig too deeply into that report, Cat, maybe Mike can provide some thoughts at that end. And I have no clue what the percentage of the budget it is. I can tell you that $150 million a year (and growing) out of the general budget every year is not sustainable. No one in the government or the finance field will say that it is. We could do a lot more with that money every year, than just paying down our own debts.

Quote from: TheCat on April 19, 2016, 03:51:46 PM

1) There isn't a proposed tax increase. Curry is not being bold by suggesting a new tax. He's being bold by assuming we won't need better jacksonville plans funds for infrastructure, when this cycle is over. He's suggesting switching a dedicated pot of money to another pot. For those who love dedicated pots of money that cannot be redistributed on a political whim, you will lose that funding for infrastructure. I wish Curry was moving towards passing, by referrendum, a BJP2.

We can argue whether this is a tax increase or not (Curry says it isn't). But either way, the fact is that the BJP tax has a built in sunset. It goes away in 2030 and can't be replaced without another referendum. Whether this is a new tax or an "extension", it's not switching a dedicated pot of money.

Quote from: TheCat on April 19, 2016, 03:51:46 PM

2. I guess the numbers are going to be important. Maybe, some clarification is in order because I'm not seeing how we are getting to a pension obligation that will reach 60% of our budget...not even close.

Using this link I looked up our operating revenues since 2010: http://www.coj.net/departments/finance/budget.aspx (http://www.coj.net/departments/finance/budget.aspx)

2010: $1.06 billion
2011: $1.07 billion
2012: $1.04 billion
2013: $1.03 billion
2014: $1.07 billion
2015: $1.10 billion
2016: $1.15 billion (budgeted)

Looking at this chart from the TU (which they put together using the acturial study I linked to earlier), I'm not seeing how we're predcting the pension taking anymore than 18 percent of our operating budget.

(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/CurryCostsPlan.jpg)

Based on the chart this is what I am seeing:

In 2016, our pension obligation was $157 million or 13% of our budget.

Our annual obligation is expected gradually increase until we reach around $200 million in 2027, which equates to around 18% of our budget (assuming our operating revenues are at $1.10 billion - an average of the last three years).

Then, our payments gradually decrease and bounce around $150 million or 8% of our budget until 2043. In 2043 our payments drop to $50 million or .045% of our budget.

What is it that I am missing? Where is the 35% - 65% of the budget number coming from?

As I say, I don't know what the percentage of the budget is, but its pretty clear if you look at the budgets that spending $150 million (and growing) out of the general fund each year is straining our ability to run the government effectively. There's a lot of opportunity cost to missing out on those funds. Saving even part of it would go a long way.

Quote from: TheCat on April 19, 2016, 03:51:46 PM

3. If we stick to what we are doing now, we will be 98 percent caught up and we'll have the ability to have a BJP2. If we do it Lenny's way, we're going to be paying more money in the long run, for a longer period of time and be only a little over half way in covering our oligation. This seems like a bad refinancing deal.

We pay the obligation down over a longer period of time, but we have more in each budget year to put toward actual city services. Much of what cripples us now is the strain on the annual budget. The major problem with the current funding schedule is there's no way we can actually keep it up until 2045. Something will have to give: if it's not this or another tax providing new revenue, it's MAJOR cuts, or bankruptcy.

What I don't understand from that graph is that it shows Curry's plans increasing to current levels and higher in 2040. My understanding was that it would remain at the lower level for a longer period of time. Not saying it's wrong, necessarily, but it's not my understanding.

Quote from: TheCat on April 19, 2016, 03:51:46 PM

4. The TU is saying that we can expet $4 billion over 30 years for the pension sales tax, which works out to be $133million per year. How is this enough to cover our obligation, especially after underpaying for next 5 years. No one has said that the sales tax will be the sole source for the pension obligation. It seems possible that we may still need to pull from our operating budget.

Yeah, there will still be money coming from other sources behinds the tax. Just hopefully at a more manageable level.

Quote from: TheCat on April 19, 2016, 03:51:46 PM

5. The overlooked portion of this deal is

QuoteTo get immediate credit for that half-cent sales tax money, Curry is asking the Legislature to let Jacksonville count that as an asset right of the bat by converting it into a lower "present day" value for accounting purposes.

By having that asset on the books, the city would be able to lower its annual contribution in the years until the sales tax actually starts pouring in.

But the actuarial report by Mlliman, a firm that has worked for the city over the years analyzing pension concepts, warns that Governmental Accounting Standards Board standards might prevent Jacksonville from counting future sales tax revenue as a current asset.

"That's a legitimate comment because this is new territory and nobody knows for sure if this can be done," Weinstein said.

So, the solution is an accounting trick that the GASB may or may not find acceptable? Someone give me a pizza version of what's happening here?

On the whole, this plan makes 0.00 sense to me but I am open to being convinced.

My understanding was that this was resolved some time ago. We'll be able to factor the future revenue stream in our current payments. The reason is that the payment schedule doesn't look at just this year, it looks decades ahead. Seeing that dedicated money will be coming in (and can't be changed) will reduce the amount we need to put in now.

What growth rate are they projecting for the sales tax? I recall that part of the reason we didn't get as much out of BJP as sold to us, was that sales tax revenue was much less than projected.

(Another reason was the project costs were absurdly lowball )

Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 22, 2016, 03:20:19 PM
What growth rate are they projecting for the sales tax? I recall that part of the reason we didn't get as much out of BJP as sold to us, was that sales tax revenue was much less than projected.

(Another reason was the project costs were absurdly lowball )

I believe the projected rate of growth is 2 percent.

You know, there is a need to analyze BJP results.

Taca, thanks for the response. 

QuoteI haven't had a chance to dig too deeply into that report, Cat, maybe Mike can provide some thoughts at that end. And I have no clue what the percentage of the budget it is. I can tell you that $150 million a year (and growing) out of the general budget every year is not sustainable. No one in the government or the finance field will say that it is. We could do a lot more with that money every year, than just paying down our own debts.

The repeated mantra by all of us, including me, is that these payments are unsustainable. We keep hearing and saying that the amount we owe will grow and grow until it becomes a killer tomato and ransacks our city. I'm not so confident that is true, anymore.

What is the actual point of unsustainability? I don't think it is 8 percent or even 20 percent of the budget but who cares what I think?

We should have some real models, and maybe we do, as to what happens if we "bite the bullet" and pay our obligation without some gimmick. If the "extra" cash is just another way of building out the stadium; well, you can probably guess where I stand with that.

I doubt our libraries are going to get an influx of cash or that we'll suddenly have neglected better-looking parks. It's also doubtful that our medians will be maintained more regularly as a result of Curry's plan.

How will the "extra" dollars be spent? I want to know now that information before I vote.

QuoteWe can argue whether this is a tax increase or not (Curry says it isn't). But either way, the fact is that the BJP tax has a built in sunset. It goes away in 2030 and can't be replaced without another referendum. Whether this is a new tax or an "extension", it's not switching a dedicated pot of money.

Yes and no. BJP2 talks were happening. Curry is managing to destroy a tax that has a lot of goodwill in this city. Goodwill that was created by Mayor Delaney. I would give Delaney mad props about creating a tax that has goodwill, but I have a feeling that he has probably played more than a small part in developing Curry's pension proposal.

I tend to think that fiscally conservative voters in this city will balk at this plan once it becomes clearer as to what he wants to do. Although I'm barely beginning to understand his plan, I'm feeling a sense of outrage.

Let's be clear, Lenny Curry wants to spend present day pension dollars on "who knows what", based on a tax that will only begin to be collected in 2030. How is this okay with Jacksonville's conservatives?

QuoteAs I say, I don't know what the percentage of the budget is, but its pretty clear if you look at the budgets that spending $150 million (and growing) out of the general fund each year is straining our ability to run the government effectively. There's a lot of opportunity cost to missing out on those funds. Saving even part of it would go a long way.

Unless I'm missing something we're paying 8 percent now and we'll top off at below 20 percent.

As a voter, I will need to know how our government is strained by the pension. It's not enough to say public safety.

We're not saving anything. If this money goes into a piggy bank, let's have that conversation. If it's going to parks. Let's talk about that.

I'm not willing to use the "saved" money, which should be going to pay off debt, to make more debt.  Somehow or other, I think we'll use the extra money to fund an additional and unnecessary project.  We'll  issue bonds...yadda yadda yadda, we have more debt.

QuoteYeah, there will still be money coming from other sources behinds the tax. Just hopefully at a more manageable level.

Right, so the sales tax is not even a real hero.

We may end up in a position where we're even more screwed with this approach.

What if we don't have the extra funds to pad the sales tax? By 2030, we may have obligated our pension "savings". Let's not get stuck in a predicament where we have to pad the pension sales tax with a significant portion of our operating budget. That would be so terrible. If we don't make the right decision this year, it is likely that we will end up in that kind of a predicament.

This plan is way too risky and too many people are going along with it because "we don't have a choice." We do have a choice. We pay it off.

Maybe, we should pretend that Brown proposed this plan. Then, I think we would see that it's asinine.

QuoteMaybe, we should pretend that Brown proposed this plan. Then, I think we would see that it's asinine.

Raiding JEA as the only solution was truly asinine, and its his lack of thinking about bigger picture that cost Brown a 2nd term.

Quote from: TheCat on April 19, 2016, 03:51:46 PM

2. I guess the numbers are going to be important. Maybe, some clarification is in order because I'm not seeing how we are getting to a pension obligation that will reach 60% of our budget...not even close.

Using this link I looked up our operating revenues since 2010: http://www.coj.net/departments/finance/budget.aspx (http://www.coj.net/departments/finance/budget.aspx)

2010: $1.06 billion
2011: $1.07 billion
2012: $1.04 billion
2013: $1.03 billion
2014: $1.07 billion
2015: $1.10 billion
2016: $1.15 billion (budgeted)

Looking at this chart from the TU (which they put together using the acturial study I linked to earlier), I'm not seeing how we're predcting the pension taking anymore than 18 percent of our operating budget.

(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/CurryCostsPlan.jpg)

Based on the chart this is what I am seeing:

In 2016, our pension obligation was $157 million or 13% of our budget.

Our annual obligation is expected gradually increase until we reach around $200 million in 2027, which equates to around 18% of our budget (assuming our operating revenues are at $1.10 billion - an average of the last three years).

Then, our payments gradually decrease and bounce around $150 million or 8% of our budget until 2043. In 2043 our payments drop to $50 million or .045% of our budget.

What is it that I am missing? Where is the 35% - 65% of the budget number coming from?

If the information presented is even just mostly true and if we continue to simply pay on the pension we can be about 98% caught up by 2045 but if we do this sales tax "miracle save" we can only pay our obligations down to 58 or so percent then we are not solving anything but rather postponing the issue for the next few decades and letting someone else deal with it. That someone else will be our grand-kids and their children.

I also agree that this City and it's leadership who was found by the Feds to be incapable of handling Federal money will find a way to continue the waste and corruption we see every day. I personally fear that the real pension issue with the budget is that to simply keep paying it without freeing up funds in some way may effect the status quo enough that they won't be able to continue their business as usual. No more 50K demolitions to give to their favorite demo contractor for instance. 

Why anyone would ever think that a plan like this is our best hope when we have the Office of General Council changing the meaning of final orders, we have department directors causing $100,000.00 plus lawsuits and we have CHDO's that aren't in compliance but get a pass so that they can still get the free stuff.

When the small things in our government are this screwed up, how can they be entrusted to enact a plan like this and do so for any of the right reasons?

This article from the daily record was written Feb  11, 2016 regarding the state approval process for the referendum when the bill was still in the 18 member State Affairs Committee

Highlights:

Only 2 of the 18 members voted against it.

Not everyone was on board.

Taylor [Rep. Dwayne Taylor] couldn't get there. He had sat on public safety pension boards in the past and had "major, major" concerns with the approach, saying tax funding would replace, not supplement, paying off liabilities.

"Sort of like the shell game you play with the Florida Lottery," he said, referring to funding replacing instead of enhancing education dollars.

Rep. Michael Bileca, R-Miami, likewise couldn't support the plan. He said he thought more negotiating on the benefits side of the equation was needed and "shouldn't only be on the backs of taxpayers."

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=547028 (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=547028)

Curry was on Melissa Ross this morning. He says the city's annual payment is actually up to $260,000,000 and it will continue to increase, rising to $300,000,000 within a few years (presumably this is the 30% figure Cat was talking about). Additionally, Curry expects the pension to be fully funded by 2060 under his plan, as it will also include collective bargaining that would require current employees to contribute 10% to their plans, with future employees being shifted to a 401k plan. In the future, the city and pension board will meet to negotiate every 3 years (which we probably should have been doing all along), so it shouldn't be as difficult to keep things at the market rate in the future.

He also talked about some of the other proposed options to help deal with the crisis. He says that trying for a sales tax that takes effect now (on top of the BJP tax) would never get through the legislature. He also said that he opposes a millage rate increase - it would take a 3 mill increase all at once (around a 30% hike) and there would be no way to tie it specifically to the pension. More than likely, the money would be re-appropriated by a future mayor, or the rate would be cut again. And certainly if it were put to a vote it would never pass.

I think what he's going to need to sell people on is what he'll do with the savings. We would have tens of millions more in the budget every year that's not just going to pay down debt c. He talked this morning (and before) about dedicating part of it for police and crime prevention. That's likely be one of the more impactful things we could put it toward, but it doesn't have the power of building something new.

Thanks, Taca. I'll have to listen to the show.

The actuarial reports are showing $200m as the max obligation. I'm curious how he's coming to  $300m.

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2016, 01:40:09 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on April 25, 2016, 12:00:35 PM
Curry was on Melissa Ross this morning. He says the city's annual payment is actually up to $260,000,000 and it will continue to increase, rising to $300,000,000 within a few years (presumably this is the 30% figure Cat was talking about). Additionally, Curry expects the pension to be fully funded by 2060 under his plan, as it will also include collective bargaining that would require current employees to contribute 10% to their plans, with future employees being shifted to a 401k plan. In the future, the city and pension board will meet to negotiate every 3 years (which we probably should have been doing all along), so it shouldn't be as difficult to keep things at the market rate in the future.

He also talked about some of the other proposed options to help deal with the crisis. He says that trying for a sales tax that takes effect now (on top of the BJP tax) would never get through the legislature. He also said that he opposes a millage rate increase - it would take a 3 mill increase all at once (around a 30% hike) and there would be no way to tie it specifically to the pension. More than likely, the money would be re-appropriated by a future mayor, or the rate would be cut again. And certainly if it were put to a vote it would never pass.

I think what he's going to need to sell people on is what he'll do with the savings. We would have tens of millions more in the budget every year that's not just going to pay down debt c. He talked this morning (and before) about dedicating part of it for police and crime prevention. That's likely be one of the more impactful things we could put it toward, but it doesn't have the power of building something new.

lol.  so only 45 years to pay it off?  wow.

It's the same time frame as the current schedule, which, again, is not sustainable.

You dont raise the millage rate 30% in one shot. You phase it in.

I get the "future politicos could redirect the money", buts that is an issue every year. Pass a law to make the increase stick to pension only and cant be redirected.

By going the 30 years later, state legislature route, you are essentially saying no one in COJ today or in the future can be trusted to keep a commitment.

And that my friends is the same reason why the mobility plan was weakened, downtown has issues and JTA can't make a solid transit plan.

The problem is the leaders we elect. No commitment.

Quote from: spuwho on April 25, 2016, 01:57:20 PM
You dont raise the millage rate 30% in one shot. You phase it in.

I get the "future politicos could redirect the money", buts that is an issue every year. Pass a law to make the increase stick to pension only and cant be redirected.

By going the 30 years later, state legislature route, you are essentially saying no one in COJ today or in the future can be trusted to keep a commitment.

And that my friends is the same reason why the mobility plan was weakened, downtown has issues and JTA can't make a solid transit plan.

The problem is the leaders we elect. No commitment.

I disagree with this on a few points. I don't see the point of phasing in a 3 mill increase. If you do it, say, a mill a year, what's the point of phasing it at all? And if you phase it out more than that it increases the risk that adequate money is dedicated, especially as a bunch of the council and possibly the Mayor will change in 4 years. The goal with either a millage or sales tax increase that goes into effect now was to front-load the payment to ease the burden every year. That's impossible if it's only being increased incrementally over a long span of time. That said, I imagine Curry will have more to say on the millage rate in the event the sales tax plan doesn't pass. We can't go on like we're going.

I think it's just realism that we can't trust future governments with dealing with this issue. It's a complex problem that compounds over time. It's not going to be solved entirely in one term, and most of our leaders don't have much incentive to think beyond their term.

I think it makes sense for the most part. It is all about solvency and by having this money definitely coming in the future, you get the benefit of solvency today while also getting to hopefully see the benefits of inflationary policy as the debt won't cost as much in 30 years as it does now. It is also a lot easier to pass something that will simply continue a tax that is already in place.

My only questions about the plan is what are we doing with the debt in the meantime? Are we re-bonding the current debt? How does that work?

Curry says, "The annual payment is up to $260,000,000."  Seriously?  How many people are retiring on this fund?

Quote from: MusicMan on April 26, 2016, 08:31:12 AM
Curry says, "The annual payment is up to $260,000,000."  Seriously?  How many people are retiring on this fund?

you do understand that payments are made to pretty much any retired city employee still alive, right?

Quote from: tufsu1 on April 26, 2016, 11:23:27 AM

Quote from: MusicMan on April 26, 2016, 08:31:12 AM
Curry says, "The annual payment is up to $260,000,000."  Seriously?  How many people are retiring on this fund?

you do understand that payments are made to pretty much any retired city employee still alive, right?

I would assume that the pension fund itself pays the retirees not the city directly so the fund, like all retirement funds, gets invested and hopefully gains in value so it can meet it's obligations.  Isn't the issue with the our pensions the fact that we are behind on our contribution payments so that the total payment due really has nothing to do with what the retirees actually get but rather the combined yearly required contributions and the past due amounts?

Exactly.

An admittedly vague plan is approved for council vote. Read Gulliford's quotes below and remind me again why he is on our city council.

QuoteCouncil approves Curry's Pension Tax for referendum
City Council Finance Committee approves bill for August sales tax referendum
Full City Council will vote next week
By Christopher Hong Mon, May 2, 2016 @ 5:17 am | updated Mon, May 2, 2016 @ 3:05 pm

Bob.Mack@jacksonville.com
Bob.Mack@jacksonville.com - 3/29/16 - Mayor Lenny Curry makes the announcement that the U.S. Men's National Team will play a World Cup qualifier soccer match in September in EverBank Field in Jacksonville, FL. (The Florida Times-Union, Bob Mack)

The City Council's Finance Committee unanimously voted Monday to put a half-cent sales tax on the Aug. 30 ballot to help the city pay down its massive pension debt.

The measure goes next week to the full City Council for a vote.

Nearly every City Council member is supporting the plan, by far the highest priority for Curry in his first term in the mayor's office.
"I think there will be some general discussion and maybe some specific questions, but when you think about it, it's pretty straightforward," said Councilman Bill Gulliford, chairman of the Finance Committee.

The vote on Aug. 30 will be held in conjunction with the primary elections for local and statewide races.

Curry says the sales tax is the best way to pay off the debt for the city's three pension plans, which totals $2.87 billion, and would free up money to spend on other priorities by reducing the city's yearly pension obligation payments.

His plan would ask voters to create a half-cent sales tax that would go into effect in 2030, when the voter-approved Better Jacksonville Sales tax ends. The city would then use the guarantee of that future sales tax revenue as a way to free up tens of millions of dollars now going to pay down the city's pension debt.

Beyond the broad strokes, Curry's office has released few other specific details about the plan.

Gulliford said he doesn't expect to have those details before the council approves the plan and instead will wait to "get to the meat of the issue" until after the referendum passes.

"I don't mind the generality because I don't see other options out there," Gulliford said. "If we can't do something like this, the other options are very onerous. The idea of raising millage rates makes me scared."

The special tax for the pension debt is the first of its kind in Florida and required Curry and other city officials to get approval from the Legislature and Gov. Rick Scott earlier this year.

In order to use the tax for pension debt, the new state law requires the city to increase the amount that employees pay to at least 10 percent of their paychecks. The city already has an agreement in place to phase in that increase to 10 percent for all police and firefighters, but the amount now is 8 percent for general employees and corrections officers.

The city will close at least one of its three current pension plans to any new hires if voters approve the half-cent sales tax. Curry said that will shut the door on pension problems biting future city leaders. For new hires, options are moving them into 401(k)-style plans, trying to get them into the Florida Retirement System, or creating brand-new pension plans.

Public-safety unions, which hold the lion's share of the city's pension debt, support Curry's plan.

Christopher Hong: (904) 359-4272

"raising a millage rate scares me"

More than passing a sales tax with an undefined detail?

We deserve the government we elect.

Sales tax is much more "punitive" to those with lower income than a millage rate increase. Again, Jax is a very low taxed city, so raising real estate taxes to me is not a big problem.

Gulliford, his comments are unreal. I feel like I'm reading Animal Farm when I read his quotes.

He sounds just like the fictional pigs that have to justify their crazy Animal Farm taxes, laws and policies to the group of not so brilliant other animals.

Quote from: jaxjags on May 04, 2016, 10:54:02 PM
Sales tax is much more "punitive" to those with lower income than a millage rate increase. Again, Jax is a very low taxed city, so raising real estate taxes to me is not a big problem.

Yes, but those with lower incomes don't vote as much and don't fund campaigns.

Isn't this like a homeowner who's mortgage completes in 2030, agreeing to continue paying the same amount after 2030, in exchange for reducing their current mortgage payment?  Is that the basic concept?

If so, how is that being fiscally responsible?  I don't think Dave Ramsey would approve.

As President Obama would say....

"Its irresponsible, its unpatriotic"

Lenny Curry thinks you're too stupid to understand his pension plan. So, just trust him. You have to commend the mayor's office and Gulliford for turning vagueness and a lack of clarity into a political asset.

"Curry's office said it either doesn't have all the answers to many of these questions or that specifics are unhelpful at this point because they would confuse voters."

So, how are the smart people on this board are supporting a plan they know nothing about...?

Quote"We can speculate on a number of things," said Marsha Oliver, the mayor's spokeswoman. "What we don't have to speculate on is we will have a dedicated funding stream for debt."

Using often grim and urgent words, Mayor Lenny Curry has made a forceful pitch for voters to approve a first-of-its kind sales tax in August so Jacksonville can once and for all solve its cancerous problems with expensive employee pensions.
But as Curry sells his top first-term priority, there remain major — and basic — unanswered questions about how he would use taxpayer money to address city pension problems, leaving it unclear just how resolved those woes would be under his plan. So far, Curry's administration has not indicated whether it will provide many answers before voters go to the polls Aug. 30.

That reticence also means there has so far been scant public discussion about the risks inherent in some options Curry might consider if voters approve the sales tax, even as City Council members and prominent Jacksonville business leaders have eagerly lined up to champion the mayor's idea.

The message from city officials: Trust us.

Voters are so far much less certain on the issue than the city's elected officials and civic leaders.

A University of North Florida poll of 380 Duval County residents showed 40 percent — a plurality — either didn't know or did not respond when asked whether they supported or opposed the tax referendum. The survey, which was conducted Monday through Thursday and has a 5 percent margin of error, found 36 percent in favor of the referendum and 24 percent in opposition.

"Curry has some work to do in order to convince voters that the sales tax extension is the right thing to do to try and solve our pension problems," said Michael Binder, a UNF political science professor who runs the school's Public Opinion Research Laboratory.

The proposed pension sales tax would not start until after the Better Jacksonville Plan's half-cent sales tax expires in 2030, meaning there would be no net change in what residents pay now. This has been touted as the best of bad options, a relatively painless way to alleviate the city's ballooning annual pension payments and free up tens of millions of dollars each year in future budgets.

Rising pension costs, estimated to reach $280 million next year, suck up more than 20 percent of the city's budget, which squeezes the city's ability to provide money for basic services like street paving, drainage, public safety and parks and libraries.

State law would require the city to close at least one of its pension plans if it uses the sales tax — a reform component of the plan that Curry says will ensure this expensive problem won't recur.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-05-07/story/unanswered-questions-swirl-around-mayor-lenny-currys-pension-bailout (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-05-07/story/unanswered-questions-swirl-around-mayor-lenny-currys-pension-bailout)

My post yesterday from FB on the Folio page:

I'm against the tax on the basis that we're still not solving the problem and I see my kids in the same predicament now and going through the same song-and-dance.

I need to see more talk regarding the actual CHANGES that are to be made to the pension plan before diverting any more money to feed the beast. I get that for the next decade, this is just an accounting adjustment to cover future costs, but without a real plan in place (read: in writing, vetted and approved by city council prior to any referendum going to the public for vote) for changing the structure of the pension then this issues is still dead in the water to me.

Focus on the long-term fix, which has to be collectively bargained with the union, get it approved and then let's agree to pay for it with the BJP tax-extension.

I'm against it. His plan doesn't address any of the funding issues we currently have and will have for the next 14 years before this tax would kick in. While I like the idea of having a long term fix, I feel this is all about scoring political points. He isn't willing to use political capital saying we should raise city taxes now and therefore is holding any other decisions hostage over this one issue. We should make the hard decision to raise taxes now, renegotiate future pension plans, and also explore long term funding decisions. To truly fix the issue, there must be shared sacrifices and a combination of solutions. Curry is only concerned about his political resume. I'm voting NO.

It never ceases to amaze me as to how un-fiscally conservative republicans are. At the end of the day, the repubs in this city will pass this plan.

Quote from: TheCat on May 23, 2016, 08:56:47 PM
It never ceases to amaze me as to how un-fiscally conservative republicans are. At the end of the day, the repubs in this city will pass this plan.

Well Cat, on the surface, it's not a horrible plan.  Use some nifty accounting to immediately reduce our contributions until the taxes kick in which frees up budget money now.

The problem as I see it is that if they fail to negotiate a restructuring of the pension plan, then where have we gotten?

So IMO, until we have a new pension plan that's been vetted and approved, we have nothing.

I'm not a particularly "smart poster", but I'm voting for this plan for the reasons I've stated a number of times here. I'll write up an editorial later in the summer if you like.

The main points:

*It creates dedicated funding for the retirement fund that can't be changed by future officials. Raising property taxes can't be dedicated to a specific use, and the rate can just be cut later anyway.
*It's comparatively painless. People won't see an increase, they'll just continue paying the same amount of sales tax they're paying now. A property tax hike would need to be 3 mills, about a 30% increase, a much more onerous burden.
*Despite what some are fearing (and claimed a bit in the last article) the new tax plan does involve cutting expenses. Future employees will be shifted to a 401k plan and current employees will contribute 10% to the plan. Plus the city will negotiate with the pension board every 3 years.
*No one has presented a better plan. Since Mayor Peyton's pension plan was scrapped in 2011, there have been no (viable) alternatives until now, and we've been bleeding for another five years. A property tax increase would have most of these same problems, and a lot of other ones.

Quote from: Tacachale on May 24, 2016, 02:15:41 PM
*Despite what some are fearing (and claimed a bit in the last article) the new tax plan does involve cutting expenses. Future employees will be shifted to a 401k plan and current employees will contribute 10% to the plan. Plus the city will negotiate with the pension board every 3 years.

You're smart enough.  ;)

What I've quoted above has been my main point of contention.  Is this plan in place, ready to go?  Or is this one of those 'this is our plan after the referendum passes' plans?

If it's in place and ready to go, then why aren't they pushing those cost saving numbers harder rather than focusing on a tax (which I agree with you completely will be painless) that they need to pass? 

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 02:23:41 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on May 24, 2016, 02:15:41 PM
*Despite what some are fearing (and claimed a bit in the last article) the new tax plan does involve cutting expenses. Future employees will be shifted to a 401k plan and current employees will contribute 10% to the plan. Plus the city will negotiate with the pension board every 3 years.

You're smart enough.  ;)

What I've quoted above has been my main point of contention.  Is this plan in place, ready to go?  Or is this one of those 'this is our plan after the referendum passes' plans?

If it's in place and ready to go, then why aren't they pushing those cost saving numbers harder rather than focusing on a tax (which I agree with you completely will be painless) that they need to pass? 

Well, it's collective bargaining, so there won't be anything set in stone until negotiating with the union. But the collective bargaining itself is part of the deal, and that's what the city will demand from their end.

I imagine they will push for similar cuts regardless of the outcome of the referendum (though it will be a lot harder for the union to swallow). But it won't do enough to reduce our obligation on its own, especially not for several years.

Quote from: Tacachale on May 24, 2016, 02:55:13 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 02:23:41 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on May 24, 2016, 02:15:41 PM
*Despite what some are fearing (and claimed a bit in the last article) the new tax plan does involve cutting expenses. Future employees will be shifted to a 401k plan and current employees will contribute 10% to the plan. Plus the city will negotiate with the pension board every 3 years.

You're smart enough.  ;)

What I've quoted above has been my main point of contention.  Is this plan in place, ready to go?  Or is this one of those 'this is our plan after the referendum passes' plans?

If it's in place and ready to go, then why aren't they pushing those cost saving numbers harder rather than focusing on a tax (which I agree with you completely will be painless) that they need to pass? 

Well, it's collective bargaining, so there won't be anything set in stone until negotiating with the union. But the collective bargaining itself is part of the deal, and that's what the city will demand from their end.

I imagine they will push for similar cuts regardless of the outcome of the referendum (though it will be a lot harder for the union to swallow). But it won't do enough to reduce our obligation on its own, especially not for several years.

I'm aware of that.  And let's say the referendum passes.  What leverage does the city hold when negotiating?   A gentleman's agreement?  If you secure the money, we'll work with you on the terms.  By us the taxpayers approving the tax through referendum, we've all but guaranteed that the pensions will be funded for many years to come.  The city wouldn't even be able to use a threat of bankruptcy (most extreme measure) to bring the union to better terms.   

That's why I believe the restructuring of the pension plan, the collective bargaining, needs to happen first.  At least have the general terms agreed upon in principle with opt out clauses on both sides.

Without a snarky, political response, can someone recap the pension progress that was made under Mayor Brown? Wasn't there progress made regarding contributions to the pension by some of the bargaining units?

Quote from: Tacachale on May 24, 2016, 02:15:41 PM
I'm not a particularly "smart poster", but I'm voting for this plan for the reasons I've stated a number of times here. I'll write up an editorial later in the summer if you like.

The main points:

*It creates dedicated funding for the retirement fund that can't be changed by future officials. Raising property taxes can't be dedicated to a specific use, and the rate can just be cut later anyway.
*It's comparatively painless. People won't see an increase, they'll just continue paying the same amount of sales tax they're paying now. A property tax hike would need to be 3 mills, about a 30% increase, a much more onerous burden.
*Despite what some are fearing (and claimed a bit in the last article) the new tax plan does involve cutting expenses. Future employees will be shifted to a 401k plan and current employees will contribute 10% to the plan. Plus the city will negotiate with the pension board every 3 years.
*No one has presented a better plan. Since Mayor Peyton's pension plan was scrapped in 2011, there have been no (viable) alternatives until now, and we've been bleeding for another five years. A property tax increase would have most of these same problems, and a lot of other ones.

How about for a better plan we pay the obligation and renegotiate the "illegal" 30-year agreement that was made 15 years ago. This way in 15 years we are no longer in a predicament. I'd like to suggest that this is the best plan on the table.

Also, it seems like the weird accounting trick is not going to be in play. The trick where we somehow free up our current obligation based on a tax that is 15 years away. So, if that is not going to happen, I'm not sure how the tax is supposed to free up our obligation for the next 15 years.

Taca, do you know how much additional revenue the 3 mill increase would bring into the city? If you have a link that would be very helpful?

Ron Littlepage's Op-ed:

A recent poll of Duval County residents found that perhaps as many as 40 percent are undecided about Mayor Lenny Curry's proposal to pay down pension debt with a new half-cent sales tax to be collected far in the future.Count me in that group. After listening to Curry make his pitch to the Times-Union editorial board for a little more than an hour Monday morning, several concerns came to mind.

When the plan was first talked about, mouth-watering numbers were used.The city's public employee pension plans carry a staggering unfunded liability of $2.87 billion. During the current budget year, $260 million of the general fund went to the pension plans; $185 million of that was because of the debt. Curry's proposal, which got the required approval of the Legislature and Gov. Rick Scott, would create a new half-cent sales tax that would go into effect when the Better Jacksonville Plan sales tax ends in 2030.

What stirred the original excitement was the suggestion that doing that could free up to $100 million in annual budgets going forward although it was never made clear how collecting a tax 12 years later would help present-day budgets. That message has changed, however, and Curry and his team are very disciplined in what they are saying now.


Curry told the editorial board that the sales tax proposal isn't about budget relief; it's only about solving the debt.
There might be some budget relief by finding a way to lower the annual required contribution to the pension plans, Curry said, but he added the city "could let it ride" until the sales tax is collected in 2031.

That would be unacceptable with the annual contribution slated to rise to $280 million in the next budget year and as high as $433 million in future years. That's general fund money that won't be available to pay for other city needs from infrastructure to public safety to other quality-of-life improvements. And that's what made the idea of $100 million in annual budget savings early on so attractive. We can't continue to muddle along for a dozen more years.

To move people out of the undecided to the supportive camp will require a better explanation. Curry correctly asserts that by law, the money collected from the new sales tax could only be used to pay down the pension debt. Once that is done, Curry says, Jacksonville will never face this problem again. That's another area of concern.

To get the sales tax money, a current pension plan would have to be closed, and new employees would have to go into a new plan that would be negotiated with the respective union. Take the Police and Fire Pension Plan as an example. If that plan is closed, new employees would go into a new plan that could be a defined contribution plan or a new defined benefit plan. If the latter is chosen, who's to say a future mayor and City Council couldn't add new lucrative benefits during negotiations with police and fire unions like the 3 percent COLA and the guaranteed 8 percent return on DROP money that played a large part in getting us into the mess we are in today?

Defined benefit plans for public employees aren't popular with those who saw such plans in the private sector go by the wayside, and the possibility of continuing them could be a hurdle to overcome with some voters.

If Curry's plan is approved, the sales tax could be collected for up to 30 years, but Curry and his team are now projecting pensions will be fully funded by 2045, which would end the tax.

That's worth a word of caution. When voters approved the Better Jacksonville Plan in 2000, they were told the sales tax would likely end early, perhaps by as much as 10 or 15 years.

Then came the recession, and it's going to take at least 29 of the full 30 years to pay off the BJP debt.
Curry promises to work hard to persuade voters to approve his plan when they go to the polls on Aug. 30.
He expects the "Yes for Jacksonville" campaign will have private donations in "the seven figures" to fund television ads, mailers, town hall meetings, etc.

His main message will be that Jacksonville is facing a pension debt crisis and that his plan will solve it.
Some of us will need more details.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2016-05-10/story/ron-littlepage-mayors-pension-plan-still-lacks-details (http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2016-05-10/story/ron-littlepage-mayors-pension-plan-still-lacks-details)

Quote from: TheCat on May 24, 2016, 09:46:01 PM
Also, it seems like the weird accounting trick is not going to be in play. The trick where we somehow free up our current obligation based on a tax that is 15 years away. So, if that is not going to happen, I'm not sure how the tax is supposed to free up our obligation for the next 15 years.

I thought the same thing about a week ago, but through some reading and discussion this is how it's presented in the nutshell version:

The reduction in our obligation payments today are based on future increase of payments via the tax down the road using whatever actuarial formula they use.

So essentially another formula will be used and the assumed revenue generated from the tax can be listed as an asset now to offset and reduce our current payments.

Quote from: Tacachale on April 25, 2016, 12:00:35 PM
Curry was on Melissa Ross this morning. He says the city's annual payment is actually up to $260,000,000 and it will continue to increase, rising to $300,000,000 within a few years (presumably this is the 30% figure Cat was talking about). Additionally, Curry expects the pension to be fully funded by 2060 under his plan, as it will also include collective bargaining that would require current employees to contribute 10% to their plans, with future employees being shifted to a 401k plan. In the future, the city and pension board will meet to negotiate every 3 years (which we probably should have been doing all along), so it shouldn't be as difficult to keep things at the market rate in the future.

He also talked about some of the other proposed options to help deal with the crisis. He says that trying for a sales tax that takes effect now (on top of the BJP tax) would never get through the legislature. He also said that he opposes a millage rate increase - it would take a 3 mill increase all at once (around a 30% hike) and there would be no way to tie it specifically to the pension. More than likely, the money would be re-appropriated by a future mayor, or the rate would be cut again. And certainly if it were put to a vote it would never pass.

I think what he's going to need to sell people on is what he'll do with the savings. We would have tens of millions more in the budget every year that's not just going to pay down debt c. He talked this morning (and before) about dedicating part of it for police and crime prevention. That's likely be one of the more impactful things we could put it toward, but it doesn't have the power of building something new.

Is there an actuarial study that extends through the life of the tax, 2060?

Why does the report on the below link stop conveniently at 2045 as the payments start to balloon?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/299766293/Mayor-Curry-pension-plan-actuarial-report (https://www.scribd.com/doc/299766293/Mayor-Curry-pension-plan-actuarial-report)

Corporations for years have not paid Pensions to their Employees. Why can't the City Of Jacksonville Florida tell the JSO & JFRD. Sorry but there is no way we can get out of this hole that past, Mayor's, City Council Members and residents of Jacksonville Florida have put us in. So at this time pensions will be up to the Employee and not part of the City. Take it or leave it.

Because that would generate costly lawsuits that the City would lose.  Not having a pension plan for new hires is part of the plan. But taking away contractual benefits gets legal action. And, probably more importantly to the Council and Mayor, the unions would support anyone who run against the incumbents.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 19, 2016, 08:49:59 AM
Because that would generate costly lawsuits that the City would lose.  Not having a pension plan for new hires is part of the plan. But taking away contractual benefits gets legal action. And, probably more importantly to the Council and Mayor, the unions would support anyone who run against the incumbents.

So around we go into the rabbit hole.  ::)

So the City's fireworks downtown tonight were nothing short of embarrassing. While there's clearly not much of a relationship between Toney Sleiman and Mayor Curry, shooting the fireworks solely off the Acosta Bridge meant most of the people in the Landing Courtyard saw very little.  Even worse, the fireworks messed with the flight pattern of the thousands of bats that come out around the TUPAC every night.  Many were disoriented and crashed into windows and people at the Landing.

I'm sure this is all part of the Mayor's plan to get folks to vote for his pension plan, but it may have backfired.  People left VERY disappointed!

Quote from: tufsu1 on July 04, 2016, 10:24:51 PM
So the City's fireworks downtown tonight were nothing short of embarrassing. While there's clearly not much of a relationship between Toney Sleiman and Mayor Curry, shooting the fireworks solely off the Acosta Bridge meant most of the people in the Landing Courtyard saw very little.  Even worse, the fireworks messed with the flight pattern of the thousands of bats that come out around the TUPAC every night.  Many were disoriented and crashed into windows and people at the Landing.

I'm sure this is all part of the Mayor's plan to get folks to vote for his pension plan, but it may have backfired.  People left VERY disappointed!

I'm voting NO to BJP- Better Jacksonville Pyrotechnics

Quote from: tufsu1 on July 04, 2016, 10:24:51 PM
So the City's fireworks downtown tonight were nothing short of embarrassing. While there's clearly not much of a relationship between Toney Sleiman and Mayor Curry, shooting the fireworks solely off the Acosta Bridge meant most of the people in the Landing Courtyard saw very little.  Even worse, the fireworks messed with the flight pattern of the thousands of bats that come out around the TUPAC every night.  Many were disoriented and crashed into windows and people at the Landing.

I'm sure this is all part of the Mayor's plan to get folks to vote for his pension plan, but it may have backfired.  People left VERY disappointed!

Not to mention that everyone along the riverwalk between the Penninsula and DCSB building could see absolutely nothing, even though the city's website showed that as a viewing area. 

Wow... they managed to mess up the only thing they did right... I wonder is some of the reason to move was all the riverwalk area by the Hyatt being closed off...

Fireworks looked great from RAM!

Quote from: mtraininjax on July 06, 2016, 07:55:06 AM
Fireworks looked great from RAM!

The looked amazing all the way down through Riverside and Brooklyn.

Why couldn't they be seen from the Landing? You should still be able to look up and see most of the Fireworks even deep into the Landing.

I'm more interested to hear what this has to do with the pension crisis.

You know what?  Past all the rhetoric involving the Pension Sales tax "fix", one thing stands out above all else.  Trust.  For that is the only for sure thing coming out of all of these discussions.  The tax payers must trust the Curry Administration to do the right thing here after we all vote for his sales tax or else idea.  I learned not to trust the Brown Administration and while many of us hoped change would be positive, we actually simply got the same old same old here so now I know we can't trust the Curry Administration.

That lack of trust should be saying to us all, Vote No!

If Curry wants us to trust him at all, perhaps he needed to have not surround himself with people who have been shown not to be trustworthy.

A big public for instance is:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,26519.0.html

Appointed city leaders ignoring the very laws they are charged with enforcing.  A lawyer changing voted on motions to insure the final order on the COA fits what the department heads wanted to do not what was actually voted on..

Or, how about this:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,27125.0.html

Curry's Chief of Staff gets linked to wrong doing and his comment is that he is only concerned what they do under his leadership? Sorry, but that leads me to believe he wants people around him that will have his and their own bank accounts as top priority not what is best for us tax payers. Anyone ever wonder how he found the funds to replace what Stewart illegally moved? The budget is so bad we need to vote yes for the pension tax or else, but he can bail out his Chief of Staff with our money?

The sad truth here is that the corruption of our government has become a given and no one seems to care much anymore.

I will be voting NO on Curry's ideas from now on.  Pension tax included. I don't think we can allow Curry and this City Council to have extra funds. We can't trust them to do the right thing with them.

Quote from: strider on July 07, 2016, 01:25:45 PM
You know what?  Past all the rhetoric involving the Pension Sales tax "fix", one thing stands out above all else.  Trust.  For that is the only for sure thing coming out of all of these discussions.  The tax payers must trust the Curry Administration to do the right thing here after we all vote for his sales tax or else idea.  I learned not to trust the Brown Administration and while many of us hoped change would be positive, we actually simply got the same old same old here so now I know we can't trust the Curry Administration.

That lack of trust should be saying to us all, Vote No!

If Curry wants us to trust him at all, perhaps he needed to have not surround himself with people who have been shown not to be trustworthy.

A big public for instance is:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,26519.0.html

Appointed city leaders ignoring the very laws they are charged with enforcing.  A lawyer changing voted on motions to insure the final order on the COA fits what the department heads wanted to do not what was actually voted on..

Or, how about this:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,27125.0.html

Curry's Chief of Staff gets linked to wrong doing and his comment is that he is only concerned what they do under his leadership? Sorry, but that leads me to believe he wants people around him that will have his and their own bank accounts as top priority not what is best for us tax payers. Anyone ever wonder how he found the funds to replace what Stewart illegally moved? The budget is so bad we need to vote yes for the pension tax or else, but he can bail out his Chief of Staff with our money?

The sad truth here is that the corruption of our government has become a given and no one seems to care much anymore.

I will be voting NO on Curry's ideas from now on.  Pension tax included. I don't think we can allow Curry and this City Council to have extra funds. We can't trust them to do the right thing with them.

"We can't trust them to do the right thing with them." Amen +1

Pension referendum no doubt a success for Curry. Considering how much time, money, and effort was put into "Yes for Jacksonville," it better have passed -or else the people would have realized how many other issues Curry ignored while he pushed the pension reform down our throats. Even if you don't agree with the pension reform itself, Curry believes he's doing what's right for Jacksonville. That's nothing groundbreaking. That's what all "leaders" are supposed to do. Yet, he's being excessively praised. Sam Mousa says, "We had a leader with enough guts to do it." Um, you mean doing his job? Thats guts.

Does anyone else find it somewhat alarming Curry uses football analogies in every single situation? Complex issues are just about getting those TD's folks.