Metro Jacksonville

QuoteAfter The Chat's co-hosts riffed on topics like the latest episodes of Dancing with the Stars and The Voice, the daytime talk show welcomed Mayor Lenny Curry to the soundstage at First Coast News to chat about pension debt and taxes.
The following day, Curry took a seat inside WJCT's radio booth and fielded questions from callers during the quarterly broadcast of Policy Matters hosted by Rick Mullaney, director of Jacksonville University's Public Policy Institute.

As different as the forums were, Curry drummed home the same message: Jacksonville is on the brink of going over the "financial cliff." But if voters pass a half-cent sales tax on Aug. 30, the city can take a giant step toward solving its pension problems once and for all. Opposing the sales tax, Curry warned, will mean ugly alternatives, such as a whopping 30 percent increase in the property tax rate.

Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-05-31/story/curry-warns-30-percent-property-tax-increase-if-voters-dont-support

While reading the FTU comments, I noticed someone added a link to an opposition website:

http://www.just-vote-no.com/

What's everyone's thoughts about the proposed sales tax or having a 30 percent property tax rate increase?

Will this mean a repeal of ALL special tax exempt districts and property given the legislative path that got this on the ballot?

A half-penny sales tax - the same we're paying now - will be a lot less painful than hiking property taxes by 30%. As I've said elsewhere, there's also no way to commit a sales tax hike to the pension crisis; future mayors could reappropriate it elsewhere.

I don't know who's behind that website, but if they're really suggesting we can fix this issue without new revenue, it's unreasonable.

I have serious concerns in using a local option sales tax, meant for capital projects, to pay down the pension and negating its original use through the year 2060.  I would be fine with a property tax increase.

and as noted above, we aren't solving this problem without identifying NEW revenue.  The Mayor's plan hitches the pension to an existing tax, allowing him to hold the false claim of "no new taxes".

btw Tacachale....it appears John Winkler is the man behind the website

I took a drive down SR 210 yesterday - want to see why we have a budget problem....there it is.  Developments (over the last 50 years) simply don't pay in taxes what it costs to provide public services to them.  I vote for a property tax increase.  If that means some builders can't develop 500 acres on the suburban fringe then so be it.  Sooner or later economics wins out and we have to develop in a tax-sustainable way (not the pie-in-the-sky growth model that thinks future development will pay the bonds taken out today to pay for things we want now but don't have the tax revenue to pay for as if future generations won't have their own tax needs).

I opted to live in the urban core which has a lower tax-expenditure footprint.  Why should I be penalized for other people's bad economic decisions with a sales tax increase?

I voted for Curry, but it appears that the "Stupid Juice" from Alvin Brown's 4-years is being consumed by Curry. Why his chief of staffs, who have many years of experience are allowing him to scare the people of Jacksonville, instead of showing leadership, is beyond all comprehension.

If he cannot get enough people into believing in his program, why not scare the hell out of them with a 30% property tax increase? He is drinking heavily the "stupid juice". Stewart or Mousa need to get him off of it and get him back out in front of groups and educate the idiots who see this as a new tax.

A 30% property tax would screw the city in ways that the ignorance of 100 years never did.

Quote from: tufsu1 on June 01, 2016, 08:23:21 AM

btw Tacachale....it appears John Winkler is the man behind the website

Gotcha - it's John Winkler and the Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County" (http://floridapolitics.com/archives/211521-jax-activist-just-vote-no-pension-tax). This is a watchdog group that opposes taxes as well as various municipal projects. Considering that they also seem to be against a property tax increase, their position just doesn't sound reasonable.

This is my fault I just went under contract to purchase a home in Duval (Avondale specifically). Sorry.  ;)

Hmmm, bitter are we? ::)

Blaming the pensioners and city employees for having a pension shows how much of the problem you actually understand...
They signed up for certain benefits, in many cases took lesser paying jobs for that pension. Why shouldn't they retain what they were promised?
To your last point, I believe the deal places all new employees on a 401K.

Quote from: camarocane on June 01, 2016, 02:30:58 PM
Hmmm, bitter are we? ::)

Blaming the pensioners and city employees for having a pension shows how much of the problem you actually understand...
They signed up for certain benefits, in many cases took lesser paying jobs for that pension. Why shouldn't they retain what they were promised?
To your last point, I believe the deal places all new employees on a 401K.

It's not a lesser paying job if you're GUARANTEED a retirement, and are pretty much guaranteed not to get fired. jlmann is right, why was such nonsense promised in the first place? And why are we still giving these insane benefits away?

And what about what we were promised? Competent city leaders? Why is it the government can just write checks, live outside its means, and when the bill comes due they just take more money from us?

Where is the compromise on the part of the police and fire pension? Why can't they give up something? Not all, but how about just a little? Heaven forbid we ask them to sacrifice for the good of the community.

Yet another government failure.

Under Curry's plan, the current employees will increase their contribution to 10%. Future hires will be moved into a less costly plan. But again, this isn't a problem that will be solved only by cutting services. It's just become too big of a problem over the years.

Quote from: coredumped on June 01, 2016, 04:02:49 PM

It's not a lesser paying job if you're GUARANTEED a retirement, and are pretty much guaranteed not to get fired. jlmann is right, why was such nonsense promised in the first place? And why are we still giving these insane benefits away?

And what about what we were promised? Competent city leaders? Why is it the government can just write checks, live outside its means, and when the bill comes due they just take more money from us?

Where is the compromise on the part of the police and fire pension? Why can't they give up something? Not all, but how about just a little? Heaven forbid we ask them to sacrifice for the good of the community.

Yet another government failure.

Pension or not, it IS a lesser paying job, but that's beside the point. These folks signed up for a job with a pension, its not their fault it is underfunded, its not their burden to do something about it, but as Bill stated, their compromise will be the contribution increase to 10% and new hires will be moved to a 401k. Which begs the next question, do you not think firefighters or police sacrifice anything for the good of the community?! How about teachers? They are on the state pension, if that was underfunded would you be calling for them to lose it as well?
As far as competent leaders, I feel ya Coredumped. Its frustrating sometimes, I'm definitely not a proponent of the current administration. But the pension issue is something that needs to be fixed, however you cant, and shouldn't steamroll the employees for COJ's past decisions.

Still voting No. Curry just started running faster on his hamster wheel. At some point he will either fall off or collapse. He either isn't listening to advice he is being given or has gone rogue.

QuoteStill voting No. Curry just started running faster on his hamster wheel. At some point he will either fall off or collapse. He either isn't listening to advice he is being given or has gone rogue.

Going to vote Yes in August, but I agree, Mousa and Stewart should be more out in front of this issue, they are going to have a helluva time getting the Mayor's left foot out of his mouth over the next few months.

All the while the City continues to sit on millions of dollars of real estate with no plan to return it to private hands, providing instant cash flow and a stronger tax base.

Quote from: MusicMan on June 02, 2016, 08:24:13 AM
All the while the City continues to sit on millions of dollars of real estate with no plan to return it to private hands, providing instant cash flow and a stronger tax base.

Probably holding on to it so they can give it away to some future company promising jobs, who then will be rebated X years' worth of property taxes.  Then we sit around and wonder why the City is broke.

This sounds like a scare tactic and nothing more.

Unfortunately it's not really a scare tactic, it's what will have to happen if the sales tax isn't passed. And this board aside, I tend to doubt that the majority of people in Duval County would really be thrilled getting a 30% property tax hike all in one term (and more likely, in one year).

Quote from: Tacachale on June 02, 2016, 12:04:48 PM
Unfortunately it's not really a scare tactic, it's what will have to happen if the sales tax isn't passed. And this board aside, I tend to doubt that the majority of people in Duval County would really be thrilled getting a 30% property tax hike all in one term (and more likely, in one year).

And this board aside, I tend to doubt that the majority of the people in Duval county really have enough knowledge about the situation, proposed fixes and the potential outcomes.

So when our No-New-Tax-At-All-Costs Republican mayor is throwing a significant number out there v/s the alternative net-zero tax increase in an if-then-else function, it comes across to me as a scare tactic.

Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2016, 12:17:16 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on June 02, 2016, 12:04:48 PM
Unfortunately it's not really a scare tactic, it's what will have to happen if the sales tax isn't passed. And this board aside, I tend to doubt that the majority of people in Duval County would really be thrilled getting a 30% property tax hike all in one term (and more likely, in one year).

It isn't what will have to happen, it is what Curry will suggest happening.

The numbers provided by the Times Union analysis didn't magically change just because he's launched a public relations campaign.

It's basic math. The Times-Union says that one mill should generate about $47.5 million in revenue. We're paying $260 million into the pension this year. The Times-Union says a 30% increase over our current 11.44 millage rate - 3.43 mills - would generate $163 million. And that's still far short of what we're paying this year. How much of an increase do you estimate it will take to get us to a workable contribution?

I can't tell if Jacksonville is being punked or if this is a real plan.

Taca, over the next 15 years how are we going to pay the obligation before the tax kicks in?

The obligation is still there and even when the sales tax kicks in we'll still have to pay from the general budget.

Even if they figure out an accounting scheme (read debt) to pay the obligation over the next 15 years, it's not going to be for the whole annual amount. It will be for some portion of the amount.

Ultimately, we have to ask how much are we trying to free up over the next 15 years...maybe just 1 mill worth.

A real leader would admit that not promising tax increases was irresponsible, in much the same way the pension board was irresponsible and past city administrations have been irresponsible. City leaders raided pensions so they wouldn't have to raise taxes or cut services. It's time our leaders leveled with citizens. We need moderate property tax increases over the next 15 years AND a sales tax funding source to actually make progress at meeting our obligations. I'm OK with the sales tax starting in 15 years. I'm against Curry because of his scare tactics and lack of transparency regarding how we fund our obligations for the next 15 years until 2030. Borrowing now to pay it back in 15 years is completely irresponsible.

FWIW:

WOKV reported today that the Duval County Property Assessor announced that due to rising property values, COJ will take in $22 Million additional revenue in the next year.

That is about $55 per property average across the county.

So where is that going?

QuoteAnd this board aside, I tend to doubt that the majority of people in Duval County would really be thrilled getting a 30% property tax hike all in one term (and more likely, in one year).

30% is just the beginning, once the property tax escalator is in play, the crazies at the Times Union - Littlepage - will lobby to use it like a piggybank to pay for everything, buying new land, new 100 million dollar high schools, crazy trains, etc.

Its Pandora's box. Once opened, it will never be shut.

It seems to me this is about paying off the pension debt as opposed to paying the entire payment, which is made up of both the regular annual obligation on the debt. From what I have read, the debt is about 55 to 60% of the total payment due this budget year.

That also tells me to truly fix the pension issue, we need to have a new plan which will be up to the unions as much as anything and so is far from a guarantee.

The sale tax is nothing but a way to borrow monies.  I have only seen two scenarios, one in which the budget payment is partly paid on paper by using funny math and the future funds collected by the sales tax and one where bonds are issued against the future collection of the sales tax.  Both seem likely to grossly increase the overall costs of the pension to the tax payers through borrowing costs and both do not solve the problem today but simply continues to push the problem down the road.

The plan presented does not fix anything but does seem to allow the city leadership and their best friends to continue business as usual and not the business that has the best interests of Jacksonville in mind.

Quote from: TheCat on June 02, 2016, 07:22:06 PM
I can't tell if Jacksonville is being punked or if this is a real plan.

Taca, over the next 15 years how are we going to pay the obligation before the tax kicks in?

The obligation is still there and even when the sales tax kicks in we'll still have to pay from the general budget.

Even if they figure out an accounting scheme (read debt) to pay the obligation over the next 15 years, it's not going to be for the whole annual amount. It will be for some portion of the amount.

Ultimately, we have to ask how much are we trying to free up over the next 15 years...maybe just 1 mill worth.

Taca, I'm hoping you have insight on this.

Quote from: TheCat on June 03, 2016, 10:36:21 AM

Quote from: TheCat on June 02, 2016, 07:22:06 PM
I can't tell if Jacksonville is being punked or if this is a real plan.

Taca, over the next 15 years how are we going to pay the obligation before the tax kicks in?

The obligation is still there and even when the sales tax kicks in we'll still have to pay from the general budget.

Even if they figure out an accounting scheme (read debt) to pay the obligation over the next 15 years, it's not going to be for the whole annual amount. It will be for some portion of the amount.

Ultimately, we have to ask how much are we trying to free up over the next 15 years...maybe just 1 mill worth.

Taca, I'm hoping you have insight on this.

Yes, I think I've said it on the other threads. The main savings will come from having a dedicated funding source. The annual payment schedule isn't just estimated based on this year, but decades in advance. They're as high as they are now because there's no other revenue going in, now or in the future. Adding dedicated revenue - especially as it can't be diverted elsewhere - will reduce the annual payments over the long term (currently, they're actually continuing to *escalate*).

My understanding is that there are also opportunities to leverage the expected income for larger lump sum payments now. For instance, taking out bonds, which would have the effect of trading the pension debt for more manageable bond debt. It doesn't sound like this is set yet, and it could be something decided year to year. However, I imagine Curry will pursue something along the lines of increasing the payment now, to free up money for other services.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2016, 06:30:42 AM
While reading the FTU comments, I noticed someone added a link to an opposition website:

http://www.just-vote-no.com/

What's everyone's thoughts about the proposed sales tax or having a 30 percent property tax rate increase?

Apparently during Delaney Better Jacksonville euphoria we should have been focused on Pension.

30 % property tax increase and I give my Avondale wonderful place the middle finger,along with all of Duval.

I enjoyed personal,rambling conversations with our immediate past COF Fire Chief........discussions about Jacksonville's curious brand of tax and spend Conservatives.

And beyond that,there might be certain realities about Jacksonville that will drive such tax increase.

And what's up with the projections that Jacksonville will become predominantly Black?

We are simply headed to where we have been heading.

Quote from: Tacachale on June 01, 2016, 08:05:48 AM
A half-penny sales tax - the same we're paying now - will be a lot less painful than hiking property taxes by 30%. As I've said elsewhere, there's also no way to commit a sales tax hike to the pension crisis; future mayors could reappropriate it elsewhere.

I don't know who's behind that website, but if they're really suggesting we can fix this issue without new revenue, it's unreasonable.

We have to applaud the political savvy of our mayor. He makes us feel more concerned about the potential for future unreliable politicians and what they'll do to the pension then what the current politicians are planning for the pension.; a plan being praised for its vagueness and lack of clarity.

Once again, one of my favorite books, Animal Farm, comes to mind. It seems the authoritarian piggies would appease the worker beasts with statements similar to those coming from the mayor's office and city council. Something like,  "details bad. ambiguity good."

Quote from: TheCat on June 07, 2016, 09:34:10 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on June 01, 2016, 08:05:48 AM
A half-penny sales tax - the same we're paying now - will be a lot less painful than hiking property taxes by 30%. As I've said elsewhere, there's also no way to commit a sales tax hike to the pension crisis; future mayors could reappropriate it elsewhere.

I don't know who's behind that website, but if they're really suggesting we can fix this issue without new revenue, it's unreasonable.

We have to applaud the political savvy of our mayor. He makes us feel more concerned about the potential for future unreliable politicians and what they'll do to the pension then what the current politicians are planning for the pension.; a plan being praised for its vagueness and lack of clarity.

We're right to feel concerned about future politicians being unreliable on dealing with taxes, the budget, and the pension crisis considering our recent track record.

I wouldn't say the plan is being praised. Even the mayor describes it as the best of bad options. It's being *endorsed* for creating a funding source for dealing with the pension, and one that can't just be scrapped and ignored the next time we elect another incompetent, tax-averse mayor. And, you know, because no one has a better idea.

Quote from: TheCat on June 07, 2016, 09:34:10 AM

Once again, one of my favorite books, Animal Farm, comes to mind. It seems the authoritarian piggies would appease the worker beasts with statements similar to those coming from the mayor's office and city council. Something like,  "details bad. ambiguity good."

You're learning well from the Stephen Dare School of Eye-Rolling Hyperbole.

But, we're not right for being concerned about how this current plan will impact our future.

How are we going to handle capital improvements?

How much money will we have to spend on top of the pension sales tax (after the tax it kicks in?)

How much money will be available to us in the next 15 years as a result of this plan (before the tax kicks in)?

How much additional debt are we going to create?

What is the total cost differential between paying the plan now or paying according to the sales tax plan?

There is one thing we are sure of, right? That future politicians will misuse city revenues. There is one thing we are unsure of, though, how this plan actually impacts our city.

The best of the worst, is not a good defense nor does it adequately explain the plan.

The best option, fyi, is to just pay it straight. Especially since, this tax will NOT pay our entire obligation. If we are only trying to free up around $50 million or $75 million every year we can come up with a better solution then one that keeps us in debt longer and causes us to pay way more in the long run. 

Quote from: TheCat on June 07, 2016, 11:43:44 AM
But, we're not right for being concerned about how this current plan will impact our future.

How are we going to handle capital improvements?

How much money will we have to spend on top of the pension sales tax (after the tax it kicks in?)

How much money will be available to us in the next 15 years as a result of this plan (before the tax kicks in)?

How much additional debt are we going to create?

What is the total cost differential between paying the plan now or paying according to the sales tax plan?

There is one thing we are sure of, right? That future politicians will misuse city revenues. There is one thing we are unsure of, though, how this plan actually impacts our city.

The best of the worst, is not a good defense nor does it adequately explain the plan.

The best option, fyi, is to just pay it straight. Especially since, this tax will NOT pay our entire obligation. If we are only trying to free up around $50 million or $75 million every year we can come up with a better solution then one that keeps us in debt longer and causes us to pay way more in the long run. 

The plan isn't just about freeing up some money, it's about creating a funding source for our pension obligations so they don't spiral even further out of control.

What do you mean by "just pay it straight"?

Right, but it's unclear how much of the obligation will be met by the dedicated revenue stream. Or, do you know?

It's also unclear how the dedicated revenue stream will impact our payments over the next 15 years. Or, do you know?

Is this tax going to free up 100s of millions of dollars annually for the next 15 years?

Is this tax going to free up 100s of millions of dollars after the tax kicks in?

The pension tax will not cover our entire obligation.

It will only free up some of our obligation by, it seems, taking on additional debt, especially over the next 15 years.

So, how much of our obligation is being freed up just for the next 15 years. Is it $50 million, $75 million, $100 million or some other amount? If we can ascertain that number, you and I can come up with a plan better than this one and do it while we drunk-watch Monty Python.

If the whole point is to 'free up' money so that the city isn't broke because it is paying so much for pension contributions, why not just keep the pension payments the same, and raise property taxes for the additional money needed for other things?  Reducing pension payments now just to pay more later, just sounds like kicking the can down the road.

QuoteYou're learning well from the Stephen Dare School of Eye-Rolling Hyperbole.

meh.  ;)

I thought it was Gulliford that was being hyperbolic when he said...

"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.

and then added...

"I don't mind the generality because I don't see other options out there," Gulliford said.

Quoting from VEEP, "It's not even bull shit. Bullshitting takes talent.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,26694.msg443550.html#msg443550 (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,26694.msg443550.html#msg443550)

You're right though, maybe i should have written...

"details bad. options limited"

or

would it make more sense to play off Seinfeld?

"some general discussion. some specific questions. yada yada yada...pension plan is good.

I'm voting NO on using another 1/2 cent sales tax to take care of the pension problem. And Curry you will be a one term Mayor if you get a 30% property tax increase. The people that own land will ride you out of town on a rail. I find it sick that the pass mayor's have done really nothing to take care of this pension problem. Then Curry comes along who as a Republican can't stand to tax anything calls this 1/2 cent sales tax not a tax? Curry if you raise the property tax 30% is this a tax. Curry and his people are trying to be slick. The people will vote on this which is good but like I said at first I'm voting NO!

Quote from: TheCat on June 07, 2016, 12:39:27 PM
Right, but it's unclear how much of the obligation will be met by the dedicated revenue stream. Or, do you know?

It's also unclear how the dedicated revenue stream will impact our payments over the next 15 years. Or, do you know?

Is this tax going to free up 100s of millions of dollars annually for the next 15 years?

Is this tax going to free up 100s of millions of dollars after the tax kicks in?

The pension tax will not cover our entire obligation.

It will only free up some of our obligation by, it seems, taking on additional debt, especially over the next 15 years.

So, how much of our obligation is being freed up just for the next 15 years. Is it $50 million, $75 million, $100 million or some other amount? If we can ascertain that number, you and I can come up with a plan better than this one and do it while we drunk-watch Monty Python.

No, this is unlikely to cover the entire obligation. It's intended to stop the debt from continuing to spiral out of control and move in the other direction.

The city must pay around $75 million a year for its contributions. The rest of the $260 million we spent this year is just debt. As the debt payments are based on estimates going decades in advance, it should reduce the amount we have to pay annually (this doesn't put off paying any debt; our annual payments will just be considered along with the expected revenue). I don't know how much it's supposed to save the general fund at this point; even if it's very little, it's worth it because otherwise the debt will continue to spiral out of control (it will increase several tens of millions next year).

No matter how we slice it, this problem isn't getting better without a new revenue source. The real question is, could other revenue sources be better than this one? So far I haven't heard any offer anything to that effect.

Quote from: vicupstate on June 07, 2016, 12:54:25 PM
If the whole point is to 'free up' money so that the city isn't broke because it is paying so much for pension contributions, why not just keep the pension payments the same, and raise property taxes for the additional money needed for other things?  Reducing pension payments now just to pay more later, just sounds like kicking the can down the road.

Freeing up money isn't the point. The point is to create a dedicated funding source for the pension obligation. And nothing I've heard suggests we'll have to pay more later, other than the sales tax coming into effect.

We *could* raise property taxes, but if we don't have money going into the pension the payments will continue to increase. And regardless of how the property tax money is used, just matching this year's payment would be a 30% hike in one year. Somehow, I doubt people would be very enthusiastic about that.

Quote from: Tacachale on June 07, 2016, 03:30:19 PM

Quote from: TheCat on June 07, 2016, 12:39:27 PM
Right, but it's unclear how much of the obligation will be met by the dedicated revenue stream. Or, do you know?

It's also unclear how the dedicated revenue stream will impact our payments over the next 15 years. Or, do you know?

Is this tax going to free up 100s of millions of dollars annually for the next 15 years?

Is this tax going to free up 100s of millions of dollars after the tax kicks in?

The pension tax will not cover our entire obligation.

It will only free up some of our obligation by, it seems, taking on additional debt, especially over the next 15 years.

So, how much of our obligation is being freed up just for the next 15 years. Is it $50 million, $75 million, $100 million or some other amount? If we can ascertain that number, you and I can come up with a plan better than this one and do it while we drunk-watch Monty Python.

No, this is unlikely to cover the entire obligation. It's intended to stop the debt from continuing to spiral out of control and move in the other direction.

The city must pay around $75 million a year for its contributions. The rest of the $260 million we spent this year is just debt. As the debt payments are based on estimates going decades in advance, it should reduce the amount we have to pay annually (this doesn't put off paying any debt; our annual payments will just be considered along with the expected revenue). I don't know how much it's supposed to save the general fund at this point; even if it's very little, it's worth it because otherwise the debt will continue to spiral out of control (it will increase several tens of millions next year).

No matter how we slice it, this problem isn't getting better without a new revenue source. The real question is, could other revenue sources be better than this one? So far I haven't heard any offer anything to that effect.

Quote from: vicupstate on June 07, 2016, 12:54:25 PM
If the whole point is to 'free up' money so that the city isn't broke because it is paying so much for pension contributions, why not just keep the pension payments the same, and raise property taxes for the additional money needed for other things?  Reducing pension payments now just to pay more later, just sounds like kicking the can down the road.

Freeing up money isn't the point. The point is to create a dedicated funding source for the pension obligation. And nothing I've heard suggests we'll have to pay more later, other than the sales tax coming into effect.

We *could* raise property taxes, but if we don't have money going into the pension the payments will continue to increase. And regardless of how the property tax money is used, just matching this year's payment would be a 30% hike in one year. Somehow, I doubt people would be very enthusiastic about that.

How about we just say no more city pension funds. What would happen would the police & firefighters quit?

oh yeah. The beach communities...

QuoteThough Jacksonville Mayor Lenny Curry hasn't said the Jacksonville beach communities would suffer from any aspect of the potential extension of the half-cent sales tax, at least one beach community mayor, Harriet Pruette of Neptune Beach, is in a "trust but verify" mode.

A letter from Pruette to Curry wants to know Curry's "plans to ensure that Neptune Beach continues to get its fair share" of the tax, once extended.

Though it's entirely possible that the Better Jacksonville Plan sales tax won't sunset until 2030, Neptune Beach's mayor clearly doesn't think she can be too careful.

"Although the unfunded pension liability is crippling to Jacksonville," Pruette writes, "it would be just as crippling to Neptune Beach if it were to lose the funding that we have been receiving and are entitled to from the Better Jacksonville Plan tax."

Pruette wants a meeting with Curry to discuss.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/211270-neptune-beach-mayor-lenny-curry-pay
(http://floridapolitics.com/archives/211270-neptune-beach-mayor-lenny-curry-pay)

Quotes from Tacachale:

Quote
No, this is unlikely to cover the entire obligation. It's intended to stop the debt from continuing to spiral out of control and move in the other direction.

So to me this implies that we will continue to pay what we are paying now, but you believe the debt payments will not increase?   260 million today and every year until the tax kicks in? Then what happens?

QuoteThe city must pay around $75 million a year for its contributions. The rest of the $260 million we spent this year is just debt. As the debt payments are based on estimates going decades in advance, it should reduce the amount we have to pay annually (this doesn't put off paying any debt; our annual payments will just be considered along with the expected revenue). I don't know how much it's supposed to save the general fund at this point; even if it's very little, it's worth it because otherwise the debt will continue to spiral out of control (it will increase several tens of millions next year).

Hmm, wasn't it said that it was unlikely we could use the future tax income to somehow offset payments today?  Isn't this the funny math that really doesn't work?  If it doesn't "put off paying any debt" how does any of this help us in any way?  Not "putting off the debt" seems to mean we still have increasing obligations.

QuoteNo matter how we slice it, this problem isn't getting better without a new revenue source. The real question is, could other revenue sources be better than this one? So far I haven't heard any offer anything to that effect.

This does seem true; we need additional revenue to pay down this debt.  Actually, that's nothing but common sense.  The issue then should be first, why do we not have the needed revenue?  If it is due to the decrease of the millage rate, then should not the first thing be to see what can be generated by taking the rate back to where it perhaps should be? Should the overall operations be looked at to eliminate waste before tax increases are contemplated?  Has that truly been done? Can the needed property tax increase be done incrementally and accomplish what is needed? Can it be adjusted such that the people a 30% increase would hurt can be exempted from at least part of it?  Seems to me there are far more questions here than answers and those answers are needed for people to make an informed decision as to what plan is best.

QuoteFreeing up money isn't the point. The point is to create a dedicated funding source for the pension obligation. And nothing I've heard suggests we'll have to pay more later, other than the sales tax coming into effect.

Odd that freeing up money was indeed the entire point...until very recently.  And frankly, it really still is.  Is it not being said that unless we do this sales tax plan, there can be no other improvements done?  Is it not being said that to make this work, we either have to make the funny math work (said to be unlikely) or borrow funds now against the future collection of the sales tax?  How can anyone not see that borrowing adds to the cost and that this is indeed about freeing up a funding source?

Quote
We *could* raise property taxes, but if we don't have money going into the pension the payments will continue to increase. And regardless of how the property tax money is used, just matching this year's payment would be a 30% hike in one year. Somehow,  I doubt people would be very enthusiastic about that.

And my fear is what is to prevent a property tax increase anyway? If not in the next three years but sometime during the next 12.  It is incorrect to say that to avoid a property tax increase we must vote for this sales tax extension because it can happen anyway.  There is nothing to stop it if the so called city leadership wants to increase it.

In the last 6 to 9 months of the Brown administration, and just off the top of my head, this city council gave away 15 million to developers for no good reason I can find. The same people who drive that type of give a way has the same level of influence today as they did a year ago. How can we have any faith that our leadership will not waste the vast majority of the "freed up" funds anyway?  Perhaps biting the bullet and voting no on this sales tax thing and forcing the city to look at not only increasing revenue by conventional means but looking at stopping the waste is a plan itself.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM
Quotes from Tacachale:

Quote
No, this is unlikely to cover the entire obligation. It's intended to stop the debt from continuing to spiral out of control and move in the other direction.

So to me this implies that we will continue to pay what we are paying now, but you believe the debt payments will not increase?   260 million today and every year until the tax kicks in? Then what happens?

The payments ought to go down, as the payment schedule will take into account the future revenue. The reason it's so high right now is that there's no dedicated revenue going toward the pension, now or any time in the future. And it's escalating.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM

QuoteThe city must pay around $75 million a year for its contributions. The rest of the $260 million we spent this year is just debt. As the debt payments are based on estimates going decades in advance, it should reduce the amount we have to pay annually (this doesn't put off paying any debt; our annual payments will just be considered along with the expected revenue). I don't know how much it's supposed to save the general fund at this point; even if it's very little, it's worth it because otherwise the debt will continue to spiral out of control (it will increase several tens of millions next year).

Hmm, wasn't it said that it was unlikely we could use the future tax income to somehow offset payments today?  Isn't this the funny math that really doesn't work?  If it doesn't "put off paying any debt" how does any of this help us in any way?  Not "putting off the debt" seems to mean we still have increasing obligations.

I'm pretty sure we *could* do something like take out a bond issue for a large lump sum now to pay down the pension. That would trade the escalating pension debt for more manageable bond debt. Something like using a credit card with a low interest rate to pay off one with a high interest rate. Understandably, not everyone wants to do this, and it doesn't sound like Curry wants to go in that direction right now.

And no, with this tax, we wouldn't be putting off paying any debt. The payments would just decrease as the payment estimates will include the expected income. In the long term, we'll be saving a lot of money we're currently just throwing into debt.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM

QuoteNo matter how we slice it, this problem isn't getting better without a new revenue source. The real question is, could other revenue sources be better than this one? So far I haven't heard any offer anything to that effect.

This does seem true; we need additional revenue to pay down this debt.  Actually, that's nothing but common sense.  The issue then should be first, why do we not have the needed revenue?  If it is due to the decrease of the millage rate, then should not the first thing be to see what can be generated by taking the rate back to where it perhaps should be? Should the overall operations be looked at to eliminate waste before tax increases are contemplated?  Has that truly been done? Can the needed property tax increase be done incrementally and accomplish what is needed? Can it be adjusted such that the people a 30% increase would hurt can be exempted from at least part of it?  Seems to me there are far more questions here than answers and those answers are needed for people to make an informed decision as to what plan is best.

I don't think the low millage rate is the reason we don't have revenue. Mismanagement of the budgets, failure to raise adequate revenues (ie the millage rate) when the economy went into recession, and putting off dealing with the problem for many years is the reason. I do think millage rates are probably too low currently, but I don't think they could be raised enough to fix this problem now, without causing substantial strain on the taxpayers. Especially considering that we wouldn't be adding any services or anything directly, we'd just be paying off debt.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM

QuoteFreeing up money isn't the point. The point is to create a dedicated funding source for the pension obligation. And nothing I've heard suggests we'll have to pay more later, other than the sales tax coming into effect.

Odd that freeing up money was indeed the entire point...until very recently.  And frankly, it really still is.  Is it not being said that unless we do this sales tax plan, there can be no other improvements done?  Is it not being said that to make this work, we either have to make the funny math work (said to be unlikely) or borrow funds now against the future collection of the sales tax?  How can anyone not see that borrowing adds to the cost and that this is indeed about freeing up a funding source?

The question I was responding to asked "if the whole point is to 'free up' money..." It's not the whole point. The point, of course, is to cage the mad elephant, which will in turn free up money currently diverted to cleaning up elephant-related mayhem.

It also doesn't result in more borrowing unless they do something like I mentioned, taking out a bond or whatever.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM

Quote
We *could* raise property taxes, but if we don't have money going into the pension the payments will continue to increase. And regardless of how the property tax money is used, just matching this year's payment would be a 30% hike in one year. Somehow,  I doubt people would be very enthusiastic about that.

And my fear is what is to prevent a property tax increase anyway? If not in the next three years but sometime during the next 12.  It is incorrect to say that to avoid a property tax increase we must vote for this sales tax extension because it can happen anyway.  There is nothing to stop it if the so called city leadership wants to increase it.

In the last 6 to 9 months of the Brown administration, and just off the top of my head, this city council gave away 15 million to developers for no good reason I can find. The same people who drive that type of give a way has the same level of influence today as they did a year ago. How can we have any faith that our leadership will not waste the vast majority of the "freed up" funds anyway?  Perhaps biting the bullet and voting no on this sales tax thing and forcing the city to look at not only increasing revenue by conventional means but looking at stopping the waste is a plan itself.

Nothing is to stop a property tax increase. However, I doubt the mayor or any council members would try to increase it 3 mills (or more) after this passes. The mayor said he's against it, and it would be suicide for the council to even suggest such a thing.

Over the next 12 years or whatever, hopefully taxes will be where they need to be to balance cost of living and good services and quality of life. That means electing officials who are good stewards of the public trust, better than we've been dealing with over the last several years.

My question in all of this is, what's a better plan? In the choice between the sales tax plan and a 30% property tax hike, I'm going for the sales tax. If there's a better option than those, where is it?

Quote from: Tacachale on June 10, 2016, 12:14:26 PM

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM
Quotes from Tacachale:

Quote
No, this is unlikely to cover the entire obligation. It's intended to stop the debt from continuing to spiral out of control and move in the other direction.

So to me this implies that we will continue to pay what we are paying now, but you believe the debt payments will not increase?   260 million today and every year until the tax kicks in? Then what happens?

The payments ought to go down, as the payment schedule will take into account the future revenue. The reason it's so high right now is that there's no dedicated revenue going toward the pension, now or any time in the future. And it's escalating.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM

QuoteThe city must pay around $75 million a year for its contributions. The rest of the $260 million we spent this year is just debt. As the debt payments are based on estimates going decades in advance, it should reduce the amount we have to pay annually (this doesn't put off paying any debt; our annual payments will just be considered along with the expected revenue). I don't know how much it's supposed to save the general fund at this point; even if it's very little, it's worth it because otherwise the debt will continue to spiral out of control (it will increase several tens of millions next year).

Hmm, wasn't it said that it was unlikely we could use the future tax income to somehow offset payments today?  Isn't this the funny math that really doesn't work?  If it doesn't "put off paying any debt" how does any of this help us in any way?  Not "putting off the debt" seems to mean we still have increasing obligations.

I'm pretty sure we *could* do something like take out a bond issue for a large lump sum now to pay down the pension. That would trade the escalating pension debt for more manageable bond debt. Something like using a credit card with a low interest rate to pay off one with a high interest rate. Understandably, not everyone wants to do this, and it doesn't sound like Curry wants to go in that direction right now.

And no, with this tax, we wouldn't be putting off paying any debt. The payments would just decrease as the payment estimates will include the expected income. In the long term, we'll be saving a lot of money we're currently just throwing into debt.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM

QuoteNo matter how we slice it, this problem isn't getting better without a new revenue source. The real question is, could other revenue sources be better than this one? So far I haven't heard any offer anything to that effect.

This does seem true; we need additional revenue to pay down this debt.  Actually, that's nothing but common sense.  The issue then should be first, why do we not have the needed revenue?  If it is due to the decrease of the millage rate, then should not the first thing be to see what can be generated by taking the rate back to where it perhaps should be? Should the overall operations be looked at to eliminate waste before tax increases are contemplated?  Has that truly been done? Can the needed property tax increase be done incrementally and accomplish what is needed? Can it be adjusted such that the people a 30% increase would hurt can be exempted from at least part of it?  Seems to me there are far more questions here than answers and those answers are needed for people to make an informed decision as to what plan is best.

I don't think the low millage rate is the reason we don't have revenue. Mismanagement of the budgets, failure to raise adequate revenues (ie the millage rate) when the economy went into recession, and putting off dealing with the problem for many years is the reason. I do think millage rates are probably too low currently, but I don't think they could be raised enough to fix this problem now, without causing substantial strain on the taxpayers. Especially considering that we wouldn't be adding any services or anything directly, we'd just be paying off debt.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM

QuoteFreeing up money isn't the point. The point is to create a dedicated funding source for the pension obligation. And nothing I've heard suggests we'll have to pay more later, other than the sales tax coming into effect.

Odd that freeing up money was indeed the entire point...until very recently.  And frankly, it really still is.  Is it not being said that unless we do this sales tax plan, there can be no other improvements done?  Is it not being said that to make this work, we either have to make the funny math work (said to be unlikely) or borrow funds now against the future collection of the sales tax?  How can anyone not see that borrowing adds to the cost and that this is indeed about freeing up a funding source?

The question I was responding to asked "if the whole point is to 'free up' money..." It's not the whole point. The point, of course, is to cage the mad elephant, which will in turn free up money currently diverted to cleaning up elephant-related mayhem.

It also doesn't result in more borrowing unless they do something like I mentioned, taking out a bond or whatever.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM

Quote
We *could* raise property taxes, but if we don't have money going into the pension the payments will continue to increase. And regardless of how the property tax money is used, just matching this year's payment would be a 30% hike in one year. Somehow,  I doubt people would be very enthusiastic about that.

And my fear is what is to prevent a property tax increase anyway? If not in the next three years but sometime during the next 12.  It is incorrect to say that to avoid a property tax increase we must vote for this sales tax extension because it can happen anyway.  There is nothing to stop it if the so called city leadership wants to increase it.

In the last 6 to 9 months of the Brown administration, and just off the top of my head, this city council gave away 15 million to developers for no good reason I can find. The same people who drive that type of give a way has the same level of influence today as they did a year ago. How can we have any faith that our leadership will not waste the vast majority of the "freed up" funds anyway?  Perhaps biting the bullet and voting no on this sales tax thing and forcing the city to look at not only increasing revenue by conventional means but looking at stopping the waste is a plan itself.

Nothing is to stop a property tax increase. However, I doubt the mayor or any council members would try to increase it 3 mills (or more) after this passes. The mayor said he's against it, and it would be suicide for the council to even suggest such a thing.

Over the next 12 years or whatever, hopefully taxes will be where they need to be to balance cost of living and good services and quality of life. That means electing officials who are good stewards of the public trust, better than we've been dealing with over the last several years.

My question in all of this is, what's a better plan? In the choice between the sales tax plan and a 30% property tax hike, I'm going for the sales tax. If there's a better option than those, where is it?

Let's see:

The payments OUGHT to go down.  How can we be sure?  If they don't and continue to rise, then what's the reason for the sales tax extension?

Again, if this is not about freeing up resources what is it about?  I know, a dedicated funding source.  That won't help for sure until 12 years from now ... unless we borrow something against the future funds we will get. Or the powers that be who control things financial like pension funds to insure nothing funny is going on allows us to use the funny math, right?  Or is what many news outlets have reported wrong?

I think there is, as others have pointed out, too many unknowns and the whole 3 mil increase is a scare tactic. Can someone point us to the actual math involved?  How the having a future funding source 12 years from now will  translate into keeping the payments low enough to help in any real way...without borrowing?

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 12:58:32 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on June 10, 2016, 12:14:26 PM

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM
Quotes from Tacachale:

Quote
No, this is unlikely to cover the entire obligation. It's intended to stop the debt from continuing to spiral out of control and move in the other direction.

So to me this implies that we will continue to pay what we are paying now, but you believe the debt payments will not increase?   260 million today and every year until the tax kicks in? Then what happens?

The payments ought to go down, as the payment schedule will take into account the future revenue. The reason it's so high right now is that there's no dedicated revenue going toward the pension, now or any time in the future. And it's escalating.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM

QuoteThe city must pay around $75 million a year for its contributions. The rest of the $260 million we spent this year is just debt. As the debt payments are based on estimates going decades in advance, it should reduce the amount we have to pay annually (this doesn't put off paying any debt; our annual payments will just be considered along with the expected revenue). I don't know how much it's supposed to save the general fund at this point; even if it's very little, it's worth it because otherwise the debt will continue to spiral out of control (it will increase several tens of millions next year).

Hmm, wasn't it said that it was unlikely we could use the future tax income to somehow offset payments today?  Isn't this the funny math that really doesn't work?  If it doesn't "put off paying any debt" how does any of this help us in any way?  Not "putting off the debt" seems to mean we still have increasing obligations.

I'm pretty sure we *could* do something like take out a bond issue for a large lump sum now to pay down the pension. That would trade the escalating pension debt for more manageable bond debt. Something like using a credit card with a low interest rate to pay off one with a high interest rate. Understandably, not everyone wants to do this, and it doesn't sound like Curry wants to go in that direction right now.

And no, with this tax, we wouldn't be putting off paying any debt. The payments would just decrease as the payment estimates will include the expected income. In the long term, we'll be saving a lot of money we're currently just throwing into debt.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM

QuoteNo matter how we slice it, this problem isn't getting better without a new revenue source. The real question is, could other revenue sources be better than this one? So far I haven't heard any offer anything to that effect.

This does seem true; we need additional revenue to pay down this debt.  Actually, that's nothing but common sense.  The issue then should be first, why do we not have the needed revenue?  If it is due to the decrease of the millage rate, then should not the first thing be to see what can be generated by taking the rate back to where it perhaps should be? Should the overall operations be looked at to eliminate waste before tax increases are contemplated?  Has that truly been done? Can the needed property tax increase be done incrementally and accomplish what is needed? Can it be adjusted such that the people a 30% increase would hurt can be exempted from at least part of it?  Seems to me there are far more questions here than answers and those answers are needed for people to make an informed decision as to what plan is best.

I don't think the low millage rate is the reason we don't have revenue. Mismanagement of the budgets, failure to raise adequate revenues (ie the millage rate) when the economy went into recession, and putting off dealing with the problem for many years is the reason. I do think millage rates are probably too low currently, but I don't think they could be raised enough to fix this problem now, without causing substantial strain on the taxpayers. Especially considering that we wouldn't be adding any services or anything directly, we'd just be paying off debt.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM

QuoteFreeing up money isn't the point. The point is to create a dedicated funding source for the pension obligation. And nothing I've heard suggests we'll have to pay more later, other than the sales tax coming into effect.

Odd that freeing up money was indeed the entire point...until very recently.  And frankly, it really still is.  Is it not being said that unless we do this sales tax plan, there can be no other improvements done?  Is it not being said that to make this work, we either have to make the funny math work (said to be unlikely) or borrow funds now against the future collection of the sales tax?  How can anyone not see that borrowing adds to the cost and that this is indeed about freeing up a funding source?

The question I was responding to asked "if the whole point is to 'free up' money..." It's not the whole point. The point, of course, is to cage the mad elephant, which will in turn free up money currently diverted to cleaning up elephant-related mayhem.

It also doesn't result in more borrowing unless they do something like I mentioned, taking out a bond or whatever.

Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 09:54:47 AM

Quote
We *could* raise property taxes, but if we don't have money going into the pension the payments will continue to increase. And regardless of how the property tax money is used, just matching this year's payment would be a 30% hike in one year. Somehow,  I doubt people would be very enthusiastic about that.

And my fear is what is to prevent a property tax increase anyway? If not in the next three years but sometime during the next 12.  It is incorrect to say that to avoid a property tax increase we must vote for this sales tax extension because it can happen anyway.  There is nothing to stop it if the so called city leadership wants to increase it.

In the last 6 to 9 months of the Brown administration, and just off the top of my head, this city council gave away 15 million to developers for no good reason I can find. The same people who drive that type of give a way has the same level of influence today as they did a year ago. How can we have any faith that our leadership will not waste the vast majority of the "freed up" funds anyway?  Perhaps biting the bullet and voting no on this sales tax thing and forcing the city to look at not only increasing revenue by conventional means but looking at stopping the waste is a plan itself.

Nothing is to stop a property tax increase. However, I doubt the mayor or any council members would try to increase it 3 mills (or more) after this passes. The mayor said he's against it, and it would be suicide for the council to even suggest such a thing.

Over the next 12 years or whatever, hopefully taxes will be where they need to be to balance cost of living and good services and quality of life. That means electing officials who are good stewards of the public trust, better than we've been dealing with over the last several years.

My question in all of this is, what's a better plan? In the choice between the sales tax plan and a 30% property tax hike, I'm going for the sales tax. If there's a better option than those, where is it?

Let's see:

The payments OUGHT to go down.  How can we be sure?  If they don't and continue to rise, then what's the reason for the sales tax extension?

Again, if this is not about freeing up resources what is it about?  I know, a dedicated funding source.  That won't help for sure until 12 years from now ... unless we borrow something against the future funds we will get. Or the powers that be who control things financial like pension funds to insure nothing funny is going on allows us to use the funny math, right?  Or is what many news outlets have reported wrong?

I think there is, as others have pointed out, too many unknowns and the whole 3 mil increase is a scare tactic. Can someone point us to the actual math involved?  How the having a future funding source 12 years from now will  translate into keeping the payments low enough to help in any real way...without borrowing?

I think the current estimates are saying the amount "freed up" will be less than hoped immediately, but will have an impact well before 12 years. And that's even if they don't try another option like bonding in addition".

As far as the 30% tax hike being a scare tactic, sure, but it's still true. One mill will generate about $47.5 million dollars. We're paying $260 million this year and that number continues to go up. Simple math suggests it will take a pretty big increase to generate the kind of revenue we need to help this problem, or "trying another option like bonding in addition."

But I repeat, if this isn't the best solution, what's a better one?

QuoteI think there is, as others have pointed out, too many unknowns and the whole 3 mil increase is a scare tactic. Can someone point us to the actual math involved?  How the having a future funding source 12 years from now will  translate into keeping the payments low enough to help in any real way...without borrowing?

Not even the mayor's office is prepared to answer your questions, let alone tacha.

This is my understanding of the pension plan:

Mayor: The sky is falling and I have a plan
Voters: What is the plan?
Mayor: This plan is our only option. It is the best plan we have.
Voters: Sounds interesting, so what is it?
Mayor: I'm not going to raise your taxes unless you don't vote for my plan.
Voters: Okay, what is the plan?
Mayor: Stop being critical and please get behind this, it is our only option.
Voters: So, you're really not going to tell us.
Mayor: No.

Tacha, the better solution is to just pay our obligation. It will suck for 15 years vs it sucking for the next 45 years.

Arguing that Curry's plan is the best option because the other fancy options aren't workable isn't a defense. I wouldn't encourage a friend to go to a payday loan place even if they were in desperate straights nor would I tell him to work a street corner to earn a few bucks because that was the best most immediate plan.

This plan is absolutely irresponsible.

The whispers I hear coming from the mayor's office, the goal is to free up around $50 million a year.

In order to do that, Curry is willing to put Jacksonville in a more precarious financial predicament. He doesn't want to be the mayor that raised our taxes.

We need to keep in mind, Curry is on a trajectory for national politics. Everything he is deciding is in consideration of his political future.

Tacha, I propose a one mil increase. That's the best option. We will bring in around $50 million (even more as property values increase). We'll be able to come up with a bjp2 and we'll see our obligation drop significantly in 15 years instead of remaining at such high numbers over the next 45 years.

That was easy!

Quote from: TheCat on June 10, 2016, 01:50:28 PM

QuoteI think there is, as others have pointed out, too many unknowns and the whole 3 mil increase is a scare tactic. Can someone point us to the actual math involved?  How the having a future funding source 12 years from now will  translate into keeping the payments low enough to help in any real way...without borrowing?

Not even the mayor's office is prepared to answer your questions, let alone tacha.

This is my understanding of the pension plan:

Mayor: The sky is falling and I have a plan
Voters: What is the plan?
Mayor: This plan is our only option. It is the best plan we have.
Voters: Sounds interesting, so what is it?
Mayor: I'm not going to raise your taxes unless you don't vote for my plan.
Voters: Okay, what is the plan?
Mayor: Stop being critical and please get behind this, it is our only option.
Voters: So, you're really not going to tell us.
Mayor: No.

Tacha, the better solution is to just pay our obligation. It will suck for 15 years vs it sucking for the next 45 years.

Arguing that Curry's plan is the best option because the other fancy options aren't workable isn't a defense. I wouldn't encourage a friend to go to a payday loan place even if they were in desperate straights nor would I tell him to work a street corner to earn a few bucks because that was the best most immediate plan.

This plan is absolutely irresponsible.

I've got to say it's odd to see Metro Jacksonville principals arguing that the status quo is a-ok, and if we just keep doing the same things, everything will work out fine. I'm not sure I've seen anyone besides the "Concerned Taxpayers" guy actually argue that our current payment schedule of paying tens of millions of dollars out of the general fund indefinitely is sustainable or advisable.

Quote from: TheCat on June 10, 2016, 01:59:53 PM
The whispers I hear coming from the mayor's office, the goal is to free up around $50 million a year.

In order to do that, Curry is willing to put Jacksonville in a more precarious financial predicament. He doesn't want to be the mayor that raised our taxes.

We need to keep in mind, Curry is on a trajectory for national politics. Everything he is deciding is in consideration of his political future.

Tacha, I propose a one mil increase. That's the best option. We will bring in around $50 million (even more as property values increase). We'll be able to come up with a bjp2 and we'll see our obligation drop significantly in 15 years instead of remaining at such high numbers over the next 45 years.

That was easy!

A one mill increase means you've only got $212 million to go. Until it goes up again, next fiscal year.

Quote from: Tacachale on June 10, 2016, 02:03:57 PM

Quote from: TheCat on June 10, 2016, 01:59:53 PM
The whispers I hear coming from the mayor's office, the goal is to free up around $50 million a year.

In order to do that, Curry is willing to put Jacksonville in a more precarious financial predicament. He doesn't want to be the mayor that raised our taxes.

We need to keep in mind, Curry is on a trajectory for national politics. Everything he is deciding is in consideration of his political future.

Tacha, I propose a one mil increase. That's the best option. We will bring in around $50 million (even more as property values increase). We'll be able to come up with a bjp2 and we'll see our obligation drop significantly in 15 years instead of remaining at such high numbers over the next 45 years.

That was easy!

A one mill increase means you've only got $212 million to go. Until it goes up again, next fiscal year.

Three times 47.5 mil (to use your number) equals 142.5 mil so leaves 117.5 mil out of the general fund.

By using the funny math method, we are hoping for a reduction of about 50 million so we still have to pay 210 mill out of the general fund?

How does this equate to keeping the forecast increases at bay?  Are the forecast increases in the pension debt payments just that, like the forecast that it may or may not rain at 2 PM next Sunday right over city hall or is it real?  If it is real, where can we see those numbers for real?

Still wondering where I can see the answer to this:

Can someone point us to the actual math involved?  How the having a future funding source 12 years from now will  translate into keeping the payments low enough to help in any real way...without borrowing?

This whole thing reminds me of a shell game ... can you guess where the money really is coming from?

Other than the charts put out in the TU article, does the city have charts showing what they believe to be going to happen if this sales tax idea passes? 

Another question:  Where is the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars coming in from to campaign to get this measure passed?  And why are they donating those funds?

Quote from: Tacachale on June 10, 2016, 02:03:57 PM

Quote from: TheCat on June 10, 2016, 01:59:53 PM
The whispers I hear coming from the mayor's office, the goal is to free up around $50 million a year.

In order to do that, Curry is willing to put Jacksonville in a more precarious financial predicament. He doesn't want to be the mayor that raised our taxes.

We need to keep in mind, Curry is on a trajectory for national politics. Everything he is deciding is in consideration of his political future.

Tacha, I propose a one mil increase. That's the best option. We will bring in around $50 million (even more as property values increase). We'll be able to come up with a bjp2 and we'll see our obligation drop significantly in 15 years instead of remaining at such high numbers over the next 45 years.

That was easy!

A one mill increase means you've only got $212 million to go. Until it goes up again, next fiscal year.

And, how does Curry's plan propose to pay the obligation over the next 15 years?

This is getting all over the place, but I'll say a few more things here. The sales tax would be dedicated to the pension and last for 30 years. That would reduce the annual contributions because the future revenue would be factored into the payments. Millage tax can't be dedicated to any one purpose, so it won't have this effect.

Beyond that, there are several options for leveraging future revenue for bigger payments now. Curry has talked about several in the Times-Union (despite people claiming that he's not giving details or whatever). It doesn't sound like anything is set on this, but they're possibilities.

A millage hike could be used for this; the best way would be to raise it enough to pay down a serious chunk of debt every year, and not just tread water. However, that would be a big hike. As the article quoted here says, 30% or 3.43 mills would generate $163 million a year, which would get close to covering the annual payment currently going to debt (right now, we're spending $75 million on the actual benefits and $185 million on debt). A one mill increase would just be a bandaid. It might provide some budget relief in the short term, but it won't have any more effect in really conquering the problem than the 1 mill hike that happened under Mayor Brown or the hikes that preceded it. And that's even if we could ensure the money actually goes to the pension in the future, which we can't.

If the sales TAX isn't voted for Curry and he goes ahead with a 30% property TAX increase he will be a one term Mayor For sure. I'm not a fan of the cops here in Jacksonville getting these golden parachute Pensions. You know most cops will never have to kill anyone or even draw their guns. And no one was forced being a cop. I feel on average that the firefighter has a better chance at death and here in Jacksonville Florida they have the same golden parachute Pensions. 

QuoteThe sales tax would be dedicated to the pension and last for 30 years. That would reduce the annual contributions because the future revenue would be factored into the payments.

Okay, but we don't have any numbers to support this theory.

QuoteMillage tax can't be dedicated to any one purpose, so it won't have this effect.

I don't think this is true but I will have to look more into it. I'm fairly certain there is a way to dedicate property tax revenues to a for something particular. If you remember, Jax libraries tried to do this. Also, I think there are several counties in which a portion of their property revenues has to go to organizations that work  with under-privileged children, their version of Jacksonville Children's Commission.

QuoteIt might provide some budget relief in the short term, but it won't have any more effect in really conquering the problem than the 1 mill hike that happened under Mayor Brown or the hikes that preceded it. And that's even if we could ensure the money actually goes to the pension in the future, which we can't.

You know, I don't actually know how much comes in from bjp. Is it more than $50 million?

Quote from: TheCat on June 11, 2016, 09:47:57 AM

QuoteMillage tax can't be dedicated to any one purpose, so it won't have this effect.

I don't think this is true but I will have to look more into it. I'm fairly certain there is a way to dedicate property tax revenues to a for something particular. If you remember, Jax libraries tried to do this. Also, I think there are several counties in which a portion of their property revenues has to go to organizations that work  with under-privileged children, their version of Jacksonville Children's Commission.

Totally different situation. The library was trying to create its own district with its own property tax separate from what goes into the general fund (it failed). The School Board has its own tax separate from the general fund as well. For the City Council to just raise property taxes, it would go to the general fund, and there's no way to commit that to specific uses. It's decided in the annual budgets.

You may recall when the City Council had to raised the millage rate to cover our ass the last time. All well and good for one year, but the next year Brown submitted a budget that factored the new money into services that would have been cut, rather than cutting them and putting the money toward the pension or banking it (as he would have done if he was really against the hike). The council raked him over the coals for it that year, then everybody forgot about it. Now, here we are.

Quote from: TheCat on June 11, 2016, 09:47:57 AM

QuoteIt might provide some budget relief in the short term, but it won't have any more effect in really conquering the problem than the 1 mill hike that happened under Mayor Brown or the hikes that preceded it. And that's even if we could ensure the money actually goes to the pension in the future, which we can't.

You know, I don't actually know how much comes in from bjp. Is it more than $50 million?

I'd have to check, but the difference there was that they used the 30-year revenue to take out bonds to fund the different projects in sequence. It has a long tail to pay off bonds on the projects that are already done. As I've said, it doesn't sound like they've decided on how or if the pension sales tax would be leveraged, but there are a number of ways they could do it.

Tacachale:As I've said, it doesn't sound like they've decided on how or if the pension sales tax would be leveraged, but there are a number of ways they could do it.

The other thought is there is no restriction on any "freed up" funds gained by the sales tax funny math idea so we can just give that away at will and still not really be better off.

Also, I still have not seen any thoughts on how that funny math actually works, have you? How does having a future sales tax that begins in 12 to 13 years get used to lower our debt payments today?  Does it at all?  Some of what is said in the media indicates it won't be allowed so then what?  Issue bonds?  Do they have to be paid prior to the start up of receiving the sales tax or can they be 12 to 13 year bonds?  If the bond money is used for something else other than paying down pension debt (and that can be proved) won't that debt have to be paid in some other way? This sales tax is encumbered to only the pension, right? So does that mean any funds borrowed against it is encumbered the same way or is it free to be spent any old way they like?

It appears that the ambiguity of the whole thing is what is making it smell bad to many. Maybe this or maybe that,  maybe we'll figure all that out later, meanwhile, just pass this or else!

https://www.youtube.com/v/QV7dDSgbaQ0

Tacachale: My question in all of this is, what's a better plan? In the choice between the sales tax plan and a 30% property tax hike, I'm going for the sales tax. If there's a better option than those, where is it?


What about this idea?

http://www.just-vote-no.com/alternatives/joe-andrews-on-pay-go-solution/

Apparently it is how it used to be and the idea has been floated to the Mayor's office without receiving a proper comment back other than an incorrect response about it's legality.

In addition, this may be a worthwhile read:

http://www.just-vote-no.com/pay-go-model-spreadsheet/

This is also a download of questions asked by Jacksonville's TRUE commission that may be worthwhile as well:

http://www.just-vote-no.com/an-apparent-requirement-that-a-yes-vote-guarantees-future-pensions-like-it-or-not/

This plan is pointless and a waste of our time. 

Remembering, that a one mill tax increase will generate around $45 million. I think that's what tacha said.

The below chart is derived from the actuarial report, which you can find on the below link, it's the last two pages.

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

The figures are in millions and represent our annual contribution under different "scenarios".

Scenario 1: COJs current schedule
Scenario 2 & 3: Different schedules under Curry's sales tax.

Notes:

2030 is when the sales tax kicks in.

Over the next 4 years, the payments are identical under each scenario.

Payments under scenario 2 & 3 begin to balloon around 2039. Conveniently, the report does not extend  2060 when Curry's sales tax plan expires. Anyone want to place bets as to how the payments will go post-2045?

The amount of money we are trying to "free-up", at least over the next 15 years, is not in the high 100s of millions. It's between $50 to $75 million, a manageable amount. An amount we can raise without handcuffing the city to a curry's tax plan.

(http://i.imgur.com/XYXS6BK.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/dSI9YKe.png)

Since the idea of borrowing against this future collection of the 1/2% sales tax has been floated and if the above payment schedule is correct then is not the entire premise of this sales tax vote nothing but a scheme to give the city leadership another asset to borrow against?  It seems that is the only way this administration is ever going to get extra funds to play with unless there is either a complete change in the management of the finances such that we stop the gross waste or a tax increase.

Isn't the real issue that we are in severe debt over the current pension plans and won't this sales tax idea do nothing but increase our debt long term?

I also find it interesting the promoters of this tax on this site kept insisting there was no other way and yet when another option was presented, no comments.  Maybe the idea presented was not viable, I don't know, but no comment leaves it out there as a better alternative than just kicking the can down the road.

I realized that I posted the same chart twice, the one comparing scenario 1 to scenario 2.

The chart comparing Scenario 1 and 3 is above.

Quote from: strider on June 15, 2016, 08:47:12 AM
Since the idea of borrowing against this future collection of the 1/2% sales tax has been floated and if the above payment schedule is correct then is not the entire premise of this sales tax vote nothing but a scheme to give the city leadership another asset to borrow against?  It seems that is the only way this administration is ever going to get extra funds to play with unless there is either a complete change in the management of the finances such that we stop the gross waste or a tax increase.

Isn't the real issue that we are in severe debt over the current pension plans and won't this sales tax idea do nothing but increase our debt long term?

I also find it interesting the promoters of this tax on this site kept insisting there was no other way and yet when another option was presented, no comments.  Maybe the idea presented was not viable, I don't know, but no comment leaves it out there as a better alternative than just kicking the can down the road.

LOL. I've been busy the last several days, and I've spent a good deal of time discussing this issue on the internet already. I had never heard of the the proposal (http://www.just-vote-no.com/alternatives/joe-andrews-on-pay-go-solution/) you linked, and the author himself notes that the city already looked at it and rejected it.

At a glance, no, it doesn't seem viable. For starters, I see no functional difference between this "pay-go" scheme and what we're doing already, which is paying down the debt as we go. The proposal says it would save money by doing things like somehow abolishing the pension fund and board, taking the unions out of the discussion entirely, and basically having the city taking take the current money and invest it. I could see this working only if the city greatly strips down current benefits, which I suspect is the authors' real goal.

Here is what the plan entails:

Quote
a.  Complete dissolution of the entity currently known as Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Board of Trustees. This may require a City Charter Amendment along with an adoption of that amendment by the State Legislature.

Good luck getting something like that past not only the unions themselves, but the City Council and Florida Legislature (!) Especially as the unions (and their lobbyists) have no incentive whatsover to go along with it.

Quote
b.  Complete assumption by the City Government of responsibility, control and operation of the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension System or Plan. This conversion to a Hybrid Pay-Go system would maintain all aspects of the current pension agreement in place, including every syllable of the pension aspects of the negotiated labor contracts with the two unions.

The city doesn't have the infrastructure to deal with this kind of thing. It would essentially create new, taxpayer-funded bureaucracy to take it on. And the union members (ie all cops and firefighters) would have no incentive to go along with it, as it takes away all their negotiation power.

Quote
c.  The City would also assume possession, control and responsibility for the cashed out value of the System's portfolio investments (currently 1.438 billion dollars). The City would create a Special Reserve Account for this money, untouchable for any purpose except for paying pension benefits.  The funds in the special reserve account would be invested in "near zero risk" issues and all earnings would pay benefits only.  T-Bills currently pay about 2.04% per annum. Pre-cautions must be put in place to prevent the City from using money from this account to save money for other City expenditures.

In other words, he plans that the current investments would make less money than they currently do.

Quote
d.  Pension benefit payments would come from the City's General Fund and the Special Reserve Account in some appropriate ratio, to be determined. Two possible ratios are presented in attached spreadsheet analyses.

The city is already making benefit payments from the general fund. How would this improve things? Talk about "fuzzy math".

Quote
e.  The current Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability of 1.8 billion dollars would be dissolved and become meaningless. The assumption of responsibility for paying pension benefits by the City from its General Fund simultaneously obviates the existence of and compensates for the UAAL. The Pension System members do not own the pension system, thus have no claim for the reimbursement of the UAAL.  To be sure, the taxpayer does not want it paid.  The money, which is NOT put into paying off a phony debt and its interest, would pay pension benefits for decades.

So he just wants to "dissolve" $1.8 billion dollars? I guess that would save money, I wish I'd thought of that when we still paying down student loans. But insisting that "Pension System members" (current and retired cops and firefighters) have no claim to money the city contractually promised them when they took on their dangerous jobs seems fairly cruel. And again, they'd have absolutely no reason to go along with the plan.

Quote
f.  The City would sell all real or tangible property owned by the Pension Fund and place the revenue into the Special Reserve Account for use as described above.

This is actually an interesting idea, from the standpoint of the city in general. However, if they didn't get back what the Pension Fund put into acquiring the properties, it's hard to see how this would help the pension in particular.

In other words, I don't see that this scheme is a viable solution to the pension crisis, and even if it were, it's not achievable.

Cool, you don't believe the hybrid plan (which was not actually vetted (from the article) but rather simply dismissed as "illegal" which the author says is not the case) to be viable.  No worries.  Your opinion is being valued on this thread.  But.

When the Mayors office is out promoting the sales tax plan as an in your face "this or else" program, I would not find it surprising that any alternative plans will be rejected out of hand.  There is an agenda here over and above the pension issue and we tax payers are not privy to it yet.

Were our pension plans originally more like this proposal?

Does not the sales tax plan depend upon the good graces of the various unions just as much as this proposed hybrid plan?

Did it not take the passage of a bill at the state level to be able to even get the sales tax plan on a ballot?  Is that really that much different that trying to do what is presented in the hybrid plan?

How do you explain the apparent fact that the city will not see any relief from the high debt payments for several years?

Unless of course funds are somehow borrowed against the future sales tax funds and then how will that work out with the requirement that the sales tax funds are only for the pension debt?

Quote from: strider on June 15, 2016, 12:09:59 PM
Cool, you don't believe the hybrid plan (which was not actually vetted (from the article) but rather simply dismissed as "illegal" which the author says is not the case) to be viable.  No worries.  Your opinion is being valued on this thread.  But.

When the Mayors office is out promoting the sales tax plan as an in your face "this or else" program, I would not find it surprising that any alternative plans will be rejected out of hand.  There is an agenda here over and above the pension issue and we tax payers are not privy to it yet.

Were our pension plans originally more like this proposal?

Does not the sales tax plan depend upon the good graces of the various unions just as much as this proposed hybrid plan?

Did it not take the passage of a bill at the state level to be able to even get the sales tax plan on a ballot?  Is that really that much different that trying to do what is presented in the hybrid plan?

How do you explain the apparent fact that the city will not see any relief from the high debt payments for several years?

Unless of course funds are somehow borrowed against the future sales tax funds and then how will that work out with the requirement that the sales tax funds are only for the pension debt?

I agree that the mayor's office hasn't been selling this well. I'd hoped they'd be doing more by now; maybe they will later in the summer as we closer to the vote.

I don't want to spend that much time talking about the Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County proposal, as it doesn't sound realistic or achievable. The sales tax plan (and potentially other options) do involve having the employees make increased contributions (10%) to reduce costs. But this would be achieved through the framework of the pension plan, which was approved through collective bargaining with the police and firefighters. The Concerned Taxpayers idea would remove their right to collective bargaining entirely. The union would never go for that without a fight, meaning it's much less likely to get through the City Council or Legislature even if it had a powerful advocate (which it doesn't). That's another difference between that plan and this one. Even Curry acknowledged that some other options (like a sales tax that takes affect today) would not have gotten through the legislature if he had pushed for it. And outside all that, I don't see how the suggestion would really improve things without drastically slashing current benefits, which I imagine is what the Concerned Taxpayers really want.

To my knowledge our pension plan has been the same for a long time. The difference is that it went from being fully funded in 2003 to being tens of millions in the hole today, due to the city failing to make adequate payments, the recession, and the city not making a real effort to deal with the problem until now.

As for budget relief, my position would be that the plan provides long-term budget relief. It should also provide some short term relief due to the way payments are structured and by having current employees put in 10%. I also don't have a problem with taking out bonds to pay down money now to provide short-term relief - paying more now means less that can compound into future debt. I don't think there would be a problem taking out bonds to make pension payments. I haven't read if there are any new developments on that front recently, but I haven't been keeping track.

Quote from: Tacachale on June 10, 2016, 02:02:26 PM

Quote from: TheCat on June 10, 2016, 01:50:28 PM

QuoteI think there is, as others have pointed out, too many unknowns and the whole 3 mil increase is a scare tactic. Can someone point us to the actual math involved?  How the having a future funding source 12 years from now will  translate into keeping the payments low enough to help in any real way...without borrowing?

Not even the mayor's office is prepared to answer your questions, let alone tacha.

This is my understanding of the pension plan:

Mayor: The sky is falling and I have a plan
Voters: What is the plan?
Mayor: This plan is our only option. It is the best plan we have.
Voters: Sounds interesting, so what is it?
Mayor: I'm not going to raise your taxes unless you don't vote for my plan.
Voters: Okay, what is the plan?
Mayor: Stop being critical and please get behind this, it is our only option.
Voters: So, you're really not going to tell us.
Mayor: No.

Tacha, the better solution is to just pay our obligation. It will suck for 15 years vs it sucking for the next 45 years.

Arguing that Curry's plan is the best option because the other fancy options aren't workable isn't a defense. I wouldn't encourage a friend to go to a payday loan place even if they were in desperate straights nor would I tell him to work a street corner to earn a few bucks because that was the best most immediate plan.

This plan is absolutely irresponsible.

I've got to say odd to see Metro Jacksonville principals arguing that the status quo is a-ok, and if we just keep doing the same things, everything will work out fine. I'm not sure I've seen anyone besides the "Concerned Taxpayers" guy actually argue that our current payment schedule of paying tens of millions of dollars out of the general fund indefinitely is sustainable or advisable.

First, it's not an indefinite amount of time.

I'm saying, Curry's option is a much worst option than the situation we are in now.

Just because it is a plan doesn't mean it's our best worst option. It's like pouring water on a grease fire. Yeah, grease fires aren't good but I can promise you it's not going to get better if you try to solve the problem with water.

Our best worst option may be paying the obligation out of the budget. If I have to choose between what we are doing now and Mayor Curry's tax, I choose what we are doing now because we will be better off in the short and long run.

Curry's plan is our worst worst option. It will absolutely hurt our city in serious ways.