Metro Jacksonville

The police and fire fighters may try and personalize this with the Mayor or other opposing politicians, but the fact is that their pension plan is just way too rich and will do to the taxpayers and the City what such plans and benefits have done to General Motors: Bankrupt us. For this reason, these plans, most not nearly as rich as what the City has, are going the way of the Do-do bird in the private sector.  No company wants to guarantee anymore a benefit to be given decades in the future.

The union leaders refusal to speak of any kind of compromise, cost sharing (i.e. like a 401K where employees make contributions to their own retirement) or phase in of a lower benefit for new employees when such costs are consuming major portions of the City's budget doesn't fly.  This isn't about lacking appreciation for our fine police and firefighters.  But, when taxpayers are facing pay cuts, job elimination, schools being gutted, and other cutbacks, it seems reasonable to ask police and firefighters to face similar economic realities and give back some on an overly rich benefit (like a GUARANTEED 8.4% return each year) that was poorly negotiated in the past by the City.  Maybe if the City put less to the pensions, it could hire more police and firefighters which has been another demand of the unions.

Last I checked, police and fire are major functions for the City but not the only ones.  And, when the taxpayers start getting special tax bills for the union's pensions, watch for a major backlash from the public.

Mayor Peyton has nothing but the citizens at heart in this issue as a lame duck mayor and gets extra special credit for taking it on given that the police and fire fighters got him elected.  Unresolved, this issue will cost taxpayers more and more forever and ever.  Failure to control it will mean both higher taxes and greatly reduced services from the City.  We need to really get behind the Mayor on this one and show he has grassroots support.  The battle over Trail Ridge will be minor compared to this one.

QuoteMayor, other leaders brace for conflict over police-fire pension
Firefighter, police unions are not letting go of city's pension promises.

    * By David Hunt
    * Story updated at 3:49 AM on Sunday, May. 31, 2009

They were once a muscular ally, the brotherhood of police and firefighters who decided John Peyton, a virtually unknown businessman, should be the city's next mayor.

That was six years ago. Peyton won the unions' support, then the election - against a popular former sheriff.

Now, those unions' retirement plans are in the mayor's crosshairs.

While the mayor hasn't pulled the trigger, he said it's either that or leave taxpayers throwing cash at a broken pension plan snowballing into a projected $110 million expense next year.

It's an ugly reality that's plagued cities from San Diego to Philadelphia as officials nationwide consider everything from deferring benefits to taking out loans to cover retirement checks.

In Jacksonville, it's an issue at the top of the Peyton agenda for his final two years in office. It's also a potential balancing act for a handful of City Council members who may try to succeed him.

Reducing benefits would mean reducing the future retirement payout of well-organized, tight-knit groups that can help mean the difference between victory and defeat at the polls.

Both firefighters union President Randy Wyse and police union President Nelson Cuba say they'll be watching how mayoral hopefuls handle the pension issue. The general message: Mess with our retirement, lose our support.

That's a definite threat, said University of North Florida political science professor Henry Thomas. He said union backing means campaign-boosting word-of-mouth, feet on the street - and votes.

"Candidates go out of their way to get their support," he said. "We have a more conservative voter base with more people who are pro-fire and pro-police."

With power comes privilege. Thomas pointed to Peyton's 2003 election. Shortly after taking office, the mayor replaced an unpopular fire chief before increasing public safety funding by $43 million.

But in recent weeks, Peyton has given speeches to civic leaders and elected officials about the need to restructure pensions.

"It's a tough issue because you're talking about the benefits of people you care about. And the groups have a lot of political clout," Peyton said. "But if you look at the numbers, they're staggering."

Budget planners expect to put $110 million toward the retirement plans for police officers, firefighters, corrections officers and general City Hall workers next year. That would eat up roughly 10 percent of the general fund.

Just six years ago, the pension contribution was $33.8 million; this year, it's $76 million.

City's contributions eyed

The police and fire union received $54 million this year, the bulk of the contribution.

Cost has skyrocketed, but that's not the unions' fault, Wyse said.

He looks critically at the 1990s, when the city relied so much on a strong stock market that it kept contributions to a minimum.

When the stock market tumbled over the past year, the pensions were hit hard. A May 19 city Finance Department report showed the retirement funds are nearly $1.2 billion under-funded.

While that number is often scoffed at - it represents what the city would be out if every employee retired at once - Wyse said reducing it is the city's problem.

"We want no changes to our benefits," Wyse said. "Why does this have to fall on the backs of the workers? There's a way to fix it. Make the pension contribution you were supposed to make - but didn't."

Police and fire pension fund administrator John Keane backed that thought on Friday by putting out a written statement saying the city should step up the funding.

Wyse said Councilman Stephen Joost earned union respect several months ago when he spearheaded legislation preventing the city from taking a funding break - commonly called a "pension holiday" - in the future.

Former Mayor John Delaney's budget planners became notorious for this in retrospect as a strong stock market went limp, leaving Peyton with the problem. Joost said he expects compromise on the pension issue, but sees a rocky horizon.

"I wouldn't be surprised if the unions play hardball," Joost said. "That's what they're supposed to do."

Lengthy process expected

Councilman Kevin Hyde, who is considering a mayoral run, said a tight rope rolls out as he tries to explain to the unions that pension restructure is for their own good.

The problem with the plan: By the time some employees need it, the money might not be there.

Hyde said he expects pension restructuring to take several years, with the unions negotiating for new agreements.

"I think we can get to a fair, appropriate level of benefits that will get people to come work for the city and stay at the city. Absolutely," Hyde said. "Will everybody be happy? Probably not."

Hyde said he's against breaking promises in current contracts, but said payouts will have to be reduced over time.

Cuba opposes the notion of phasing in lower benefits as new employees are hired.

"You can't tell two people doing the same job that one won't retire as well as the other. How do you recruit like that?" he said.

Council President Ronnie Fussell said he's leaning against a mayoral run, but expects the unions to be watching the pension issue closely for whoever campaigns.

"Talk about an emotional issue," he said.

Fussell appointed a pension task force in March. During a recent meeting, Chief Financial Officer Mickey Miller told the task force it would take several additional tax mills and about 12 years to cover the pensions' projected debts.

"Nobody jumped to make a motion that we pass that," said Councilman Michael Corrigan.

Mayor feels the heat

Peyton said cutting the pension cost - now at $275,000 a day - means cutting benefits.

Council President-elect Richard Clark said the problem might best be solved by adopting a private-sector model, where more responsibility is placed on the employee to save than the employer to pay out.

"It used to be back in the day that city employees and government employees got more to retire because they were paid less," Clark said. "We now hire good people because salaries are competitive. There's no reason that backside cost shouldn't fall on the employee."

Cuba has long maintained that his troops could stand to earn better salaries, but says it's a sacrifice many in public service are willing to make when they know they're guaranteed a working-class retirement.

The mayor's office takes the lead in negotiating contracts with the unions. At this point, Peyton's plan is loose. At the top of the list: a controversial deferred retirement option that begins paying out before an employee has worked their final day. The option guarantees an 8.4 percent return on investment no matter what the stock market does.

That's an option separating Jacksonville's plan from many others, but Cuba and Wyse maintain the benefits are average.

Cuba has been critical of the mayor's recent speaking tour. Peyton has been describing the pension problem to elected officials and business people while also saying the city needs better parks - but can't afford them.

"It's like he's throwing us under the bus," Cuba said. "If you didn't have public safety, you wouldn't have anything for the citizens because you'd have a Detroit. Everybody would be leaving."

Peyton disagreed, saying he was trying to give a broad overview of city priorities.

Union negotiations, where pension talks will begin, are expected in the coming months, but no immediate savings are expected for the 2009-10 budget.

From: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-05-31/story/mayor_other_leaders_brace_for_conflict_over_police-fire_pension

Overall I support pensions for public sector, but I'm biased as I'm in one!  :)

However, I call bull crappy on this comment:

Quote"You can't tell two people doing the same job that one won't retire as well as the other. How do you recruit like that?" he said.

This is what the Fed govt had to do a few years back. New fed employees don't have nearly as good a pension as those who've been working for 20 years.

I see nothing wrong with announcing changes that will apply only to new hires as long as benefits remain the same for those already in the pension. I think this is a great approach to reduce the pension costs while keeping all current people in the plan happy.

Why should the pensions for anyone in Fire and Law enforcement suffer?  The most important public services seem to always suffer the most.  But if it must be than I agree with Deuce.  The new guys should sign up knowing that they may not get the same benefits as the vetrans.

QuoteThis is easily one of the most important issues that the city administration has got to solve.

This issue is a smaller version of what the state and the federal government are up against.  Social Security is a pension fund... Medicare is an extension of that.  Social Security, Medicare, Military, and federal retirees are a huge portion of the governments budget that is... "untouchable".

There are three choices... raise taxes... cut services... or a combination... :)

Quote from: Jason on June 01, 2009, 09:41:03 AM
Why should the pensions for anyone in Fire and Law enforcement suffer?  The most important public services seem to always suffer the most.  But if it must be than I agree with Deuce.  The new guys should sign up knowing that they may not get the same benefits as the vetrans.

No one is saying we shouldn't properly provide for police and fire employees.  But, there are limits.  And, they are not the only vital employees in public service.  If the City didn't need a position, it wouldn't be paying someone to do it (at least in theory  ;) ).  So, I don't think its fair to imply that the most important public services are police and fire to the exclusion of other public services (e.g. public health, transportation, tax collection to pay for all those other services, etc.)

In context, it looks to me like the police and fire are doing far better financially than our educators.  Maybe, if we supported educators and education more, we wouldn't need so many police.

In the end, this isn't about pitting one group against another, it's about using fair market principals to get the job done.  I have heard that qualified applicants can wait for long periods of time to get on these forces due to how few positions become open.  If we have more than enough qualified applicants for police and fire positions, maybe it is TOO GOOD of a job, salary and benefit-wise.  Someone should determine that we pay just enough to attract an adequate number of qualified personnel - nothing more and nothing less.  Compensation and benefits should not be based on politics or who yells the loudest but on the market value of the job.  If we still can't afford it, then the taxpayers need to decide if they are willing to pay more in taxes or do without.  It's very simple.

In practice, I am not surprised union leaders are on their soapbox advocating for more, more, more.  That is their job.  To the benefit of the unions, the City has failed at its job offsetting the union positions over the years with some backbone.  Now, the City is being pushed to the brink and the mayor is being forced to get things back to fair market as we can not afford for the past to continue into the future.

This issue has the potential to define this administration (good or bad).  Screw it up, and everyone will forget about the Courthouse and Trail Ridge.  Do it right and everyone will probably still remember the Courthouse, but potentially forget about Trail Ridge.

Sorry Stephen... I stand by the analogy.  This was not caused by "the bush years... or Wall street"  It would have happened regardless.  The promises made cannot be kept... nor could they have been.

It is the SAME thing as the underfunded Social security system...  What is the difference?  Social security will not be solvent in a few years... same with this pension fund.  You can increase funding...(taxes) or decrease the payout.  Local, state, and federal governments have been avoiding this issue for many years... delaying the inevitable painful fixes for the next administration... WHY?  Because no solution will help what ever politician that is stuck with the hot potato of funding these pensions... 

This situation is not unique to Jacksonville... tax more or cut benefits....

Sorry to disappoint you Stephen but this has nothing to do with my political views on social security or any other federal program...  Except that they are both grossly underfunded.  Apples and oranges may sound dissimilar but both are fruit that only grow when well fertilized and irrigated... :)

Quote from: stjr on June 01, 2009, 02:05:47 PM

Quote from: Jason on June 01, 2009, 09:41:03 AM
Why should the pensions for anyone in Fire and Law enforcement suffer?  The most important public services seem to always suffer the most.  But if it must be than I agree with Deuce.  The new guys should sign up knowing that they may not get the same benefits as the vetrans.

No one is saying we shouldn't properly provide for police and fire employees.  But, there are limits.  And, they are not the only vital employees in public service.  If the City didn't need a position, it wouldn't be paying someone to do it (at least in theory  ;) ).  So, I don't think its fair to imply that the most important public services are police and fire to the exclusion of other public services (e.g. public health, transportation, tax collection to pay for all those other services, etc.)

In context, it looks to me like the police and fire are doing far better financially than our educators.  Maybe, if we supported educators and education more, we wouldn't need so many police.

In the end, this isn't about pitting one group against another, it's about using fair market principals to get the job done.  I have heard that qualified applicants can wait for long periods of time to get on these forces due to how few positions become open.  If we have more than enough qualified applicants for police and fire positions, maybe it is TOO GOOD of a job, salary and benefit-wise.  Someone should determine that we pay just enough to attract an adequate number of qualified personnel - nothing more and nothing less.  Compensation and benefits should not be based on politics or who yells the loudest but on the market value of the job.  If we still can't afford it, then the taxpayers need to decide if they are willing to pay more in taxes or do without.  It's very simple.

In practice, I am not surprised union leaders are on their soapbox advocating for more, more, more.  That is their job.  To the benefit of the unions, the City has failed at its job offsetting the union positions over the years with some backbone.  Now, the City is being pushed to the brink and the mayor is being forced to get things back to fair market as we can not afford for the past to continue into the future.

I'm with you Stjr.  I didn't mean to imply that one service was more important than the other, just that it seems our social services, educators, police, firemen, etc seem to take the hit before other city funded services such as roads, pocket parks, and other less necessary projects and services.  Granted, all of which are important, but there are levels of survival we should all be willing to endure to ensure that those people that protect and serve in one manner or another should be treated fairly.

I'm preaching to the choir here but everyone has been directly affected and or influenced by our teachers, police, fire/paramedics, doctors but only a small percentage benefit from the new Kernan overpass, or the Main St. pocket park (just to name a couple).....

RED FLAG  - City Council "Digging for Ideas".  Yup, they are playing in the mud so things are sure to get dirty.  They are actually talking about giving away City real estate gems like the Shipyards and Cecil Field in lieu of pension payments.  Great.  Now, the police and fire will own us like the Chinese own the U.S.

My favorite:  Having a dedicated millage rate to pay the pension obligations.  Let's do this and see how long taxpayers support the status quo.  Unfortunately, I don't think our Council has the stomach to do it but they should.

Silliest idea:  The police and fire unions saying we should hire MORE of them so that the obligations become a smaller percentage of the total funds.  Yeah, and the absolute obligation dollars keep growing.  Talk about self serving double talk!

QuoteTo fill pension gaps, Jacksonville City Council digging for ideas
Committee is combing through ideas to fill in pension funding gaps.
By Steve Patterson Story updated at 6:02 AM on Wednesday, Jun. 3, 2009

To fix Jacksonville City Hall's pension woes, is it smart to give up the Shipyards? How about raising property taxes? Or borrowing money to buy stocks?

Those ideas have all been pitched to a special City Council committee looking for ways to fill hundreds of millions of dollars in funding gaps in city retirement plans.

The committee could begin to agree on some answers this month, when it's expected to hear more about whether last year's stock slump makes this a time to borrow money by selling bonds and then investing in Wall Street.

"I think there's a real opportunity today that didn't exist a year ago," city Finance Director Mickey Miller told members last month.

Miller said he looked at the same idea - and rejected it - when he was hired away from Orlando's government a few years ago. He's glad he did, he said, because stocks tanked.

"Had we presented something to you at that time, we would have been regretful today," he told council members.

But with Wall Street looking very different these days, the investment possible through so-called "pension obligation bonds" is back on a list of choices council members are mulling.

The bonds are "one of the more interesting vehicles" to come up, said Councilman Michael Corrigan, the committee's chairman. But he's not convinced yet they're a safe deal.

"Are we really just getting a zero-percent credit card to pay for our house payment and then six months from now, we need another credit card?" he asked.

Other ideas that have come up - suggested by pension fund managers - include collecting a special stream of property taxes just for pension costs and handing over city-owned real estate in lieu of cash payments to finance the funds.

The Police and Fire Pension Fund suggested releasing land at Cecil Field or possibly the Shipyards, the downtown waterfront where a developer could face foreclosure by the city over unpaid debt payments.

The police and fire fund has taken land payments before, administrator John Keane said. The fund owns a building on Hemming Plaza that's being turned into a City Hall annex to be leased back to the city. It also received three landmark buildings that it resold to developer Cameron Kuhn, who later lost them to foreclosure.

In a memo to council members, Keane also suggested the fund might take responsibility for building fire stations, then lease them to the city.

Land deals might be a good idea but only if they're done carefully, Councilman Stephen Joost said. Leasing buildings to the city, for example, sounds right to him, but hoping for a buyer at Cecil Field doesn't.

In restoring a building for the city, "they know that by tying up X amount of money, they're getting a future annuity. That makes sense," Joost said. "But when you're going out and just buying raw land and you don't know what its future is going to be, that concerns me."

One thing likely to face a challenge is setting a fixed amount of property taxes being committed each year to the funds.

Council members have been told they could take a bite out of the unfunded liability by raising property tax rates $1 on every $1,000 of taxable land value and pledging that to pension commitments every year for a decade. That increase, called 1 mill, would represent about a 6 percent hike in Duval County's overall tax rate.

Bad idea, Corrigan said.

It's the mayor's and council's job to manage property taxes sensibly, Corrigan said. Pledging a fixed stream every year for pensions ties elected officials' hands, he said.

A police and fire memo released Friday outlined a series of other ideas to chip away at the problem. Among those were requiring the city to pay more each year into pensions than is needed that year; hiring more police and firefighters to grow the pension system's total resources; and using unexpected financial windfalls to help fill the pension gap, rather than spending it on new projects elsewhere.

From:  http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-06-03/story/to_fill_pension_gaps_jacksonville_city_council_digging_for_ideas

Quote from: stephendare on June 01, 2009, 02:17:15 PM
Bridgetroll.  This is in no way similar and the analogy is inapt.

The biggest problem with the Pension is actually more similar to the problem that the Bush years fueled with Wall Street.  No direct supervision over financial risktaking, with the taxpayers being forced to pony up for the losses.

I don't know the exact figures, Im sure someone else does, or we can procure them later.

But we, as a City, guarantee something like a 20% return on the entire investment fund annually.

First of all that is a hell of a lot of a return.

We allow the Pension to make whatever investment decisions it would like, and at the end of the year, whatever happens, win lose or draw, the City makes up for the difference.  On years that the Fund Managers do well, we contribute less.  On years that their decisions blow, we dig deep and pay the price for whatever went wrong.

Apparently the City, which guarantees the actual return every year has no direct ability to stop bad decision making either (not that there has been, no one knows).

But any reasonable person has to admit that a 20% guaranteed growth of an investment fund is a little more than optimistic.

Of course, the practice of sprawl has made the city into a mammoth creature requiring many more people on the force just to patrol it, and the unfunded mandates of the Feds (such as this stupid war on Drugs, Immigrants, and Insurance late pays) combined with the boneheaded local traditions like SWAT TEAM busting art bars like TSI, The Pearl, and The Metro or the incredibly cynical legislation passed to keep the husbands of Councilwomen from getting titillated at local topless bars have exploded costs exponentially over the past few decades.

Perhaps its time we also reexamined the actual causes of these staggering police budgets.

Stephen in another post -
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5172.msg80742/topicseen.html#new
you seem to say that we should be gratefull to all the wonderful services that we have to pay for because they cost so much less than those same services purchased on the open market. 

You seem to contradict yourself.

It just seems that you argue in favor of a city like New York, mis-managed and bankrupt - with some of the highest taxes in the country, while hammering Jacksonville for an unsustainable pension system. 

Both issues are bad to me - betcha see some new "fees" come out of this.  I really enjoyed seeing my property taxes drop while writing out the check for waste services and storm water run off fees the other day. 

I have an idea:  Let's give the Police and Fire Pension Funds the ownership and operating rights to Trail Ridge and consider it even.  They can fight with Waste Management and Republic, etc. over how to divvy us the dollars and we can wipe out the pension obligations with the added $750 million or more in savings the City was supposed to get.  Two problems solved at once and the mayor can just smile at his good fortune.  :D

Quote
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04082009/news/regionalnews/tax_hike_on_rich_is_apple_dumping_163417.htm

"You're talking about a huge increased burden concentrated on those who work in New York City and those on Long Island, [many of whom commute to the city]."

Mayor Bloomberg has warned that some of the wealthiest New Yorkers might simply pack up and leave if taxes here keeping climbing. Kellerman called that a legitimate concern.

"One percent of filers have incomes of more than $500,000 and they pay 47.8 percent of the [city's] income tax," she said.

"That's 41,000 households. You shouldn't have a tax structure that depends on 41,000 people. There's something very wrong with that."

Donald Trump told Fox News that he knows of 25 to 30 wealthy individuals who are going to flee or who are weighing their options.

And he told The Post on Monday, "Rich people are going to leave this state. Why should they pay New York state taxes on money they made out of state?

"I told the governor, everyone is going to move to Palm Beach, the nicest place in the world, where there is no income tax!"

Stephen, I guess New York is great is you are not among the "evil rich".  When they all move out, who's gonna flip the bill?

Quotehttp://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/12/16/2008-12-16_gov_david_paterson_unveils_dire_new_york.html

Gov. David Paterson unveils dire New York State budget that includes new taxes, layoffs and cuts

The pension funds are paid out during retirement correct?  They are most assuradly not overpaid... just overpaid in retirement.  Are we not asking the coming social security generations to take cutbacks in benefits because the current system cannot support future benefits?  Same ought to apply to the police and fireman pensions... either you cut benefits, raise taxes or the future pensioners pay more in while working.

Quote from: stephendare on June 04, 2009, 03:35:14 PM
Sigma.

The political discussion should be held in national politics.

Thats why we have the thread.

Im sorry that you hate new york.  Perhaps you could do your part by only eating Pace salsa.

In the meantime, perhaps we could stay on track about the Jacksonville Pension fund.

My apologies Stephen, but I do see where the first person to start comparisons to national debate is you. 

QuoteThe biggest problem with the Pension is actually more similar to the problem that the Bush years fueled with Wall Street.

And who said I hated New York?  I do hate driving there though.  Those folks will scare the hell out of you. :o

Quote from: stephendare on June 04, 2009, 03:40:26 PM
BT.  Here is an idea.

Stop sprawling.

Cut the development of the police force into a paramilitary force in the bud.

Adopt the neighborhood policing strategy that served this country and so many others so well for centuries.

Stop sending thirty cars to bust teenagers smoking pot and drinking beer at their apartments in the riverside.

Stop filling the jail with late insurance payment drivers and pot smokers.

Stop hopping into the helicopter everytime that it looks like a crackhead chase through springfield.

Do you really need 3 cop cars to pull over a speeder?

Stop investing in sprawling suburbs that bankrupt our cities ability to adequately patrol their area.

These are all things that would drastically cut the amount of money necessary to keep the city safe.

But even so, hundreds of millions in shorfall?
seriously?
how many cops would that put on the street for a year?

Stephen, you know as much about the job of a police officer and how to run a department than you do about the military.

I guess until you get shot in the face by a crack head you just pulled over, you will keep asserting your arrogant faux knowledge about how law enforcement works.

Maybe you could send out a letter to all the parasites who call 911 for a free ride to the emergency room for an "anxiety attack" to obtain the free meal.  That will surely reduce the large costs to our emergency services.

I do agree with you on the suburbs though.

I agree with stopping the sprawl but it is here and they have a right to police protection as much as the core.  Cities have nearly always had a police force of some kind in this country... we will not self police ourselves. thirty cars to bust teenagers smoking pot or drinking is an exaggeration.  No need for a helicopter for a crackhead but do you not want one for a armed fugitive or violent offender?  Never seen three cars pull over a speeder either... but I have seen three cars when the car is stolen or the driver has a warrent.

Seems your argument is that we have too many police and firemen to pay pensions to.  I think we probably need more of each but the pension fund benefits growth needs to stop or be funded with more contributions by the individual police and firemen.  Or an increase in taxes.  This is one area where the union has garnered benefits for their constituents to the detriment of the rest of the community...

I haven't been on the force Stephen, and that's the difference between you and me - I don't make claims to know how they should run their department - you did.

But I served in the military for over 20 years - and your experience?

And I've been around Springfield for a lot longer than you think I have.  And spot lights and a video camera after calling the non-emergency number did wonders to get rid of the dealers and prostitutes on my corner.

And who said I was against health care? 

Cheers

http://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/ron_littlepage/2009-01-11/story/demands_of_city_pension_funds_are_booming

QuoteDemands of city pension funds are booming
Story updated at 12:45 AM on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2009

Here's another shining example of just how silly things can get in Jacksonville.

The police union threw a party last week for the newly elected public defender, Matthew Shirk, to celebrate his taking office.

Hold on. It gets even sillier.

Shirk went.

So much for the healthy adversarial relationship between the Public Defender's Office and the police that is needed to ensure that people the police are accusing of crimes get fair representation.

But what the heck. That went out the window during the campaign when Shirk promised the police union neither he nor his attorneys would accuse police officers of lying.

Uh, but what if they are? It's been known to happen.

While that cozy relationship and the fact that the new state attorney, Angela Corey, is the darling of the Fraternal Order of Police will impact the legal system, another example of the police union's clout could end up bankrupting the city.

The Police and Fire Pension Fund has long been considered the third-rail of Jacksonville politics.

Mess with that dream of a deal and you're dead.

The problem, as I've written before, is the cost to taxpayers is out of control.

It's not just me saying that. Mayor John Peyton's chief administrative officer, Alan Mosley, outlined the pension dilemma in a memo he sent to City Council members earlier this month.

The city will have to put $56.5 million into the Police and Fire Pension Fund this fiscal year plus another $21.4 million into two other pension plans covering correctional officers and the city's general employees.

"Despite these significant contributions, however, all three plans maintain sizeable unfunded liabilities within them," Mosley wrote.

As of September 2007, the latest estimate available showed that unfunded liability for the Police and Fire Pension Fund alone was $534 million. And that was before the stock market collapsed.

"It is projected that during the next 20-plus years, the city's contribution to the Police and Fire Pension Fund will increase nearly 180 percent, representing an unsustainable financial obligation," Mosley wrote.

That warning - "an unsustainable financial obligation" - can't be ignored.

Reform is a must, Mosley said, emphasizing the Mayor's Office "will not consider changes to the pension benefit for current employees."

That's only fair because promises have been made, but a change is needed for new hires.

The city simply can't afford to continue down the path it's on.

Private industry is abandoning defined benefit plans like the police have in favor of contribution plans such as a 401(k), if a retirement package is offered at all.

Will the City Council have the gumption to move in that more practical direction?

The debate will soon get under way. The FOP will be mightily opposed to any change. We will find out who else is in the police union's pocket.

ron.littlepage@jacksonville.com,

(904) 359-4284

WOW BT - it seems that I've seen that phrase "unsustainable financial obligation" before. Ah yes, GM, Chrysler - but I just assumed it was the BUSH years! There you go with the apples and oranges again.

Good find.

Thanks for the lesson... and I agree with the community policing concept.  I would love to see more cops walking a beat and getting to know the business owners and homeowners.  Perhaps on Segways rather than simply walking... but we would still need the same number of cops if not more... and we certainly have not really discussed fire protection.  Nobody argues that these services are needed or that they should be paid well.

The problem is funding the pension fund for when they are no longer protecting and serving.  The current union demanded and government relenting system is... UNSUSTAINABLE.

COJ must... cut benefits and/or add taxes, and /or the future pensioners must contribute more to their own retirement.

I agree... but if you are advocating using the money saved and dumping it into an unsustainable pension fund then I would have to disagree... :)  Because in a very short time you would be right back to where we are now...

I would propose that existing officers keep their current pensions but halt any and all increases in benefits.  New hires would get a reduced package to be negotiated with them contributing to a 401k or equivalent type account.  The union would have to work with the city to protect its members but also protect the city from unsustainable financial obligation.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 04, 2009, 05:05:39 PM
I would propose that existing officers keep their current pensions but halt any and all increases in benefits.  New hires would get a reduced package to be negotiated with them contributing to a 401k or equivalent type account.  The union would have to work with the city to protect its members but also protect the city from unsustainable financial obligation.

I am hearing that reduced benefits for new hires is what the City will likely propose.  Of course, the Unions say they will have none of it per the quote in the newspaper, but, reality should set in and they need to be thankful for what they already have and not be greedy.  No one is forcing new hires to take the job.  They will take it because, even with a lowered pension benefit, it is still a fairly compensated position.

Community policing:  Can anyone say Andy Taylor, Sheriff of Mayberry?  He seemed to know how to handle each of his town's characters with just the right level of compassion and involvement!  ;)

Quoteuninsured drivers are a HUGE overnight population in jail.
pot smoking, selling, decorating and growing.....really?
Strippers who show their nipples while fully grown men are consuming alchohol?  thats killer.  thanks.  I feel safer.
providing food and shelter to the homeless?   at a $750 a pop per arrest cost to the tax payer, thats freaking awesome.

Not sure uninsured drivers spend the night in jail... I don't know... perhaps they do.  The rest of your examples are fine with me.

QuoteAnd the sprawl component.
concentric tax districts.

At first glance this seems OK.  Concentric rings would not work but a layered tax approach may be doable beginning with the city limits prior to consolidation.  On the other hand... there are plenty of poor folk that this would hurt living out in the hinterlands because it is too costly to live closer to the core.

QuoteCommunity Policing.

Sounds good to me... :D  See how reasonable I am... :D

Quote from: stephendare link=topic=5135.msg80806#msg80806 date=
b]
And the sprawl component.[/b]
concentric tax districts.  The further you want to move away from density, then the higher your damn taxes should be if you want the city to foot the bill for your services.

This is an interesting concept, Stephen.  To be clear, I would charge based on zone density, rather than how far from downtown.  In 800 plus square miles, we do have pockets of density away from Downtown where efficiencies should be attainable.

I would envision something along the lines of x people per a given square mile is y $.  1/2x people is $2y.  1/4x people is $4y.  We could grid an area in square mile sectors.  This system should be applied State wide as it would also address the costs of urban sprawl and perhaps help to discourage it and encourage further density which may continue to drive such taxes down.  This proposal should cover police, fire, schools, utilities, public transit, road or other transportation systems, and anything else for which service costs are distance sensitive.  People shouldn't complain because there will be a clear and direct correlation with what they pay to what it costs. 

SOOO much misinformation, I don't know where to begin. 

1. The 20% gauranteed required city contribution is a fabrication.  The actual city contribution is determined by mathematical formula and is based on other income to the pension fund.  The city has withheld the recommended payment several times in recent years taking what was known as a "holiday" from contribution.  In other words, they spent the money that was meant for the retirement of police and firefighters on something else.

2. The pension fund was created in the 1930's by the city and the state legislature.  ALL Florida Sheriff's Offices have a state retirement system.  Be honest, compare the retirement of Jacksonville Officers with those in Hillsboro, Orange, or Dade.  Jacksonville Officers have the least valuable system. 

3.  The benefits of the system are NOT increasing every year.  I believe that the last benefit increase was in 2004.  There are no proposed increases in benefits.  A Police Officer in Jax is required to have a Bachelors Degree.  They must complete another year of formal education and then four months of accompanied "on the street" training, followed by a year of probation in which they can be let go for any "cause" without recourse.  In my time on I have broken three broken bones, five or six sprained ankles, bruised up my knees bad enough over time to require surgeries, and suffered uncounted black eyes, swollen lips, and a sore old body.  Thank God I have never been shot, but I have heard bullets go by me and hit around me.  Others have not been so lucky.  For this, Officers start at about $34,000 and max out at about $65,000.  They will retire on about $39,000 a year at twenty years.  Outrageous, ain't it?

4.  Sigma was correct when he stated that Stephen knows nothing about either police work or the military.  I have corrected him many times on each of these statements but, as usual, the truth escapes him.  Lack of proof of insurance and even a suspended DL due to expired insurance is not an offense that JSO will put someone in jail for.  When a suspect is arrested for other charges AND has a suspended DL for insurance, then it is listed on their arrest docket, that's all.  The JSO encourages the use of NTA's for misdemeanors, but many are not eligible.  If you want to make marijuana legal then change the law, don't blame the police.  The Vice Unit struggles to monitor those organized crime sh%&holes we lovingly call "strip clubs".  The girls are given NTA's if they are eligible.  The Pearl and other similar actions did not include the use of the "SWAT team".  That was the DART Unit, a component of the community policing concept that all are so glowingly advocating.  Read a textbook.  The JSO has been using the community policing model since about 1995.  Jacksonville is FAR below the national standard in ratio of Officers per thousand in population.  Lets be honest again, look it up.  This causes Officers to be "stacked" with calls for service.  Driving from a domestic call to a disturbance to a juvenile thief.  To efficiently travel from call to call, they drive cars.  If you put Officers on foot, or Segways, or golf carts, you will have to hire many more Officers to cover the same ground. 

5.  The suburbs have been subsidizing the core for years.  Research the geographic location of crime in the city.  Research the deployment of Officers and their numbers in the different zones.  Then research the total tax reciepts from those same geo maps.  Tax the suburbs?  That has been going on for years. 

Huh?  50% of city revenue (and the only revenue that can be "assigned" an area of the city) is property taxes.  Probably 75% of Police Officers (and 100% of the extra authorized anti crime initiative overtime) are assigned to the core.  Pull up a map of fire stations and look at the density of the stations in the core.  I don't know what the ratio of fire calls is between the core and the burbs, but ask any fireman what the two busiest stations are.  The property tax value in the suburbs exceeds that in the old city limits.  They pay more for less service.  (Ludicrous?  Really?  People talk like that?)

I am not sure where you were trying to go with the wealthier and better educated and where they live.

Just the statement:

"Except that we have to send cars out to their neighborhoods and hire extra guys to drive around on basically maintenance calls."

is .... um.... ludicrous?  Though the burbs probably get 25% of the service, they are certainly paying for it.  I'll just bet that the HALF of the city population that lives in the burbs would not characterize their Police calls as "basically maintenance calls".  You probably shouldn't either, it is wrong and (surprise) not based in fact.

I'm not sure what living in another city has to do with it,  but I have lived in other cities, countries, and continents.  And I have worked as a Police Officer in other cities as well.  And you apparently don't know how "it" is done, now or in the fifties. 

2009 COJ budget brief:

http://www.coj.net/NR/rdonlyres/eelybf6h5nu5pucyrwp7jluflmrp4kvrfpz7stzathgbsedynben7jusm2ejauhsfiwk46zolxa7jtq2o7wqrrruq3h/1+budget+in+brief+2009.pdf

Sounds like NotNow is JSO. Thanks for providing a fuller picture. As an employee of JEA it irritates me when people start slamming JEA for rate increases or making broad statements without having all the facts or knowing the bigger picture.

Mr. Mayor and City Council, here is an outline of how New York State is handling their pension issues.  Note the move toward the 401K model.  We are not alone and it must be dealt with.  The alternative is the bankruptcy of government. 

QuoteNew York Times
June 6, 2009
Paterson and Unions Agree on Limits for New Pensions
By DANNY HAKIM

ALBANY â€" Gov. David A. Paterson and the state’s public employee unions announced an agreement on Friday that would reduce pension benefits for future public employees and save the state billions of dollars in an attempt to control ballooning costs for retirees.

To win their support for the deal, the governor provided the unions with significant incentives and backed off earlier demands for concessions from current employees.

Mr. Paterson will shelve his plan to lay off 8,700 workers and will drop a proposal to require existing workers to give up their 3 percent annual pay raise this year and to defer a week’s pay. In addition, 4,500 workers will be offered $20,000 buyouts.

Paterson administration officials said the agreement would save the state $30 billion over 30 years, but much of the savings will not be realized for another decade.

“This agreement is a huge win for New York’s taxpayers and will lead to the most significant reform of our public pension system in decades,” the governor said in a statement. “This is real reform to the pension system, which will substantially reduce costs to the taxpayers of New York State.”

The agreement will raise the retirement age for future employees from 55 to 62, and require them to contribute 3 percent of their salaries to their pensions for their entire careers, instead of for their first decade of service, which is the current requirement.

New workers will not become vested in the pension plan until they reach 10 years of service, rather than the current five. The deal will also limit the amount of overtime that employees can use in their last years of work to increase their pension benefits.

The agreement requires legislative approval, though endorsements by the governor and the labor unions virtually assure its success.

The deal covers state workers and local governments outside New York City; the Paterson administration hopes to negotiate a similar agreement for New York City employees, but city unions are adamantly opposed to doing so. New York City has its own retirement system. The deal also does not affect police officers, correction officers, teachers and firefighters.

The urgency of the need for changes in retirement benefits was underscored last week when the state comptroller’s office reported that the pension fund, hobbled by losses amid the market’s collapse, had shrunk to $109.9 billion at the end of March from $153.9 billion a year earlier.

The deal comes days after Mr. Paterson shocked and angered police and fire union leaders by refusing to allow new officers and firefighters across the state to continue to enroll in enviable pension benefits that were phased out in the 1970s for other public employees. The governor vetoed routine legislation that would have extended the benefits â€" similar bills have been signed by a series of governors going back to 1981.

While his veto was praised by budget watchdogs as a sign of rare resolve from the governor, his latest labor deal received mixed reviews.

Though the administration is hoping that the buyouts and an offer to allow employees to choose a reduced workweek will still generate immediate savings, the cash-poor state will be providing raises to the 129,000 employees covered under the deal announced Friday. Those raises will cost $180 million, at a time when some other states are freezing salaries and furloughing workers. There is also a cost of up to $90 million for the buyouts.

Further, New York has a history of reversing its pension cutbacks. The state has previously required that employees contribute to their retirement beyond 10 years of service, only to roll back the requirement in an election year. Union leaders, who had criticized the governor during months of negotiations, succeeded in their insistence that existing labor contracts not be reopened.

“The governor moved significantly from his original demands for major contract concessions from the state’s work force,” said Kenneth Brynien, president of the Public Employees Federation. “Considering the deteriorating condition of the state’s finances, this represents a reasonable accommodation.”

Danny Donohue, the president of the Civil Service Employees Association, said his union “recognizes these are extraordinary times with unprecedented challenges, and we have tried to find ways to help without reopening contracts.”

The agreement creates the first new pension category for state employees since 1983 â€" it is called Tier V because it is one of five such classifications, and provides the least generous benefits.

But it is not likely to encompass the city. A key labor leader in New York City called it a nonstarter, given that only this week city unions concluded negotiations that led them to amend health benefits for more than 550,000 current and retired employees, guaranteeing $400 million in savings over two years.

“The city unions just completed long, tough negotiations with Mayor Bloomberg,” said Harry Nespoli, the head of the Municipal Labor Committee. “As far as Tier V is concerned, it’s not negotiable,” he said, adding, “We’ve done our share.”

Financial analysts had varying views on the agreement.

“Obviously the benefits to the state, or its taxpayers, are not immediate,” said Jeremy Gold, a New York actuary and economist who has contended that governments often understate the ultimate costs of pension benefits. But he added that restraining the benefits of future hires “may be the beginning of the way out.”

Edmund J. McMahon, director of the Empire Center for New York State Policy, a conservative-leaning research group, said the governor had not gone nearly far enough. Referring to the 4,500 buyouts, he said the deal “allows you to pay more money to union members who are already ready to retire.”

Mr. McMahon said he believed New York and other states needed to follow the shift embraced by the private sector away from the traditional defined-benefit pension plan to a 401(k)-style retirement program to prepare for a potentially calamitous future increase in pension costs.

Speaking of the governor’s deal, Mr. McMahon said, “If you contrast this to what is happening in other major states, where you have union agreements of givebacks or furloughs, it’s remarkable.”

Elizabeth Lynam, the deputy research director of the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonprofit policy group, called the move “a really good start.”

“It’s going to be tough to find the money to do the buyouts, but the pension tier is significant,” she said. “If you think about the $45 billion the pension fund lost this year, a new pension tier is desperately needed.”

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/nyregion/06pension.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

stjr,  the Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension is not in the same league as the the NY pensions.  Also, see the paragraph:

"The deal covers state workers and local governments outside New York City; the Paterson administration hopes to negotiate a similar agreement for New York City employees, but city unions are adamantly opposed to doing so. New York City has its own retirement system. The deal also does not affect police officers, correction officers, teachers and firefighters."


Let me give you some more information:

-Officers pay 7% of salary towards the pension throughout their career.
-Officers are NOT eligible for social security, and the city does not pay s.s. tax on them.
-Officers do NOT recieve city subsidized medical coverage after retirement.
-If Jax were to go to a 401K system, it would lose millions in outside funding from the state and federal governments. 
-If the city had paid into the system in the 1990's as scheduled, about $125 million more dollars would have been generated resulting in a healthier system.

Again, look into some other Sheriff's Offices retirement systems.  Google the FRS, or Florida State Retirement, which most Florida S.O.'s use.  There is no employee contribution.  While there is definitely a problem here, it is mostly due to the city not funding the pension for several years.   Now, with a down market, it is time to pay the piper and the city is complaining about "unsustainable plans". 

I was totally unaware of...

Quote-Officers pay 7% of salary towards the pension throughout their career.
-Officers are NOT eligible for social security, and the city does not pay s.s. tax on them.
-Officers do NOT recieve city subsidized medical coverage after retirement.

This really changes things in my mind.  If they are not paying into SSI and not eligible foe a "pension style" health care upon retirement then my stance toward this fund may have to change...

It may be difficult to find but can you provide some kind of proof to back these statements up?

In regards to the NY article:

Quoteconcessions from current employees

Again, let me say as along as nothing changes for those already in the pension plan, I don't have issue with modifying benefits for future plan participants.

Quoteraise the retirement age for future employees from 55 to 62

This seems reasonable to me when everyone else has to work till 65 and above.

Quotecontribute 3 percent of their salaries to their pensions for their entire careers, instead of for their first decade of service, which is the current requirement

Totally. For just 10 years is horrendous. If they are paying into SS in addition that would be painful, but to get to have both is unbelievably cushy. If they are not, then that's a reedonkulous contribution.

Quotetraditional defined-benefit pension plan to a 401(k)-style retirement

I have no problem moving towards this again as along as current employees have the choice to remain in the defined-benefit.

As far as JEA goes, they pay 8% of their salary throughout their entire career and do not pay into SS and loose eligibility (unless they already had a lengthy private sector career before joining JEA).

BT,  here is a link to the Summary Plan which is what a pension fund member receives upon enrollment:

http://www.coj.net/NR/rdonlyres/eagbwedbelq2fhq5og4rlerrdlsi5pmkqrw6cpljvwasb55suc2wcb24zyaylcocohklo6tmyod34ijpnsuyqkk6lmg/PFPF+Summary+Plan+Booklet+2008+-+2010.pdf


These are the facts of the Police and Fire Pension Fund.  Keep in mind, as Deuce pointed out, we won't receive social security (even with a private sector career, it would be reduced because of the "windfall elimination provision").   Most retired Police Officers are having to pay about $750 per month for medical insurance per couple.  Again, on roughly $40,000 for retirement.  That is why almost all Officers have to work after retirement. 

The twenty year eligibility is another issue.  But there is a reason that the military and almost all law enforcement agencies try to keep their workforce younger.

Well of course you dont get Social Security, you don't pay into it.  Much like the old CSRS fed retirement plan, don't think that was a secret before anyone hired on

Quote from: NotNow on June 08, 2009, 10:47:00 AM
BT,  here is a link to the Summary Plan which is what a pension fund member receives upon enrollment:

http://www.coj.net/NR/rdonlyres/eagbwedbelq2fhq5og4rlerrdlsi5pmkqrw6cpljvwasb55suc2wcb24zyaylcocohklo6tmyod34ijpnsuyqkk6lmg/PFPF+Summary+Plan+Booklet+2008+-+2010.pdf


These are the facts of the Police and Fire Pension Fund.  Keep in mind, as Deuce pointed out, we won't receive social security (even with a private sector career, it would be reduced because of the "windfall elimination provision").   Most retired Police Officers are having to pay about $750 per month for medical insurance per couple.  Again, on roughly $40,000 for retirement.  That is why almost all Officers have to work after retirement. 

The twenty year eligibility is another issue.  But there is a reason that the military and almost all law enforcement agencies try to keep their workforce younger.

Civil, I am not making a case for collecting SS.  I am pointing out a fact that I don't believe most Jax citizens are aware of, which is that Jax Police & Fire pensioners can not count on SS as additional retirement funding.  I also do not think that most citizens know that we contribute 7% of salary to the pension.  Or that there is no pension or city funded medical insurance.

Do you remember a couple of years ago when the city council voted themselves and ALL previous council members into the state retirement system?  How much did that cost?  How much do they contribute?   The state system is a defined benefit system and NOT a 401k.  How many of the city employees calling for Police & Fire to go to a 401k are on a defined benefit retirement? 

Please stay on topic folks... :)

Why was it determined way back whenever to NOT pay into the Social Security system.  I will assume it was because a better pension could be negotiated by the union.

Quite a few occupations were left out of the original SS Act.  One of those was State, County, and municiple workers.   The original act was not designed for "everyone".  Over the years, the tax rate, benefits, and occupations included has grown due to whatever political forces guided them.  Today, many State and local government employees (hence JEA, JFRD, & JSO) are not included in the SS system.  All of this was well before the existance of any of the represented unions.  I am not an expert on taxes, and I am not sure if the law as written today would allow any contribution by the current pensions.

Also Civil,  most Police Officers are in the job because they love the work.  The truth of the matter is that these employees are college educated, drug free, good credit, psychologically stable employees who in many cases have left higher paying jobs to be Officers.  They take what is thought of (at least by most) a small salary.  We are all VERY aware of our insurance benefits and pension because it is all that we can leave our families.  As you say, we take the job knowing all of this.  We are not seeking to change the pension, the city is. 

QuoteWe are not seeking to change the pension, the city is.   

The city has to because of the huge portion of the cities budget that pension fund represents.  When are police and firemen eligible to collect the pension?  Is it graduated?

My thoughts on the pension have changed greatly since the beginning of this thread.  Since these guys are not eligible for social security the pension is is more of a necessity than a benefit.  Additionally most people are not eligible for social security until 62(?)... how many police officers and firemen are still on the force at that age?

My statement "We are not seeking to change the pension, the city is." was in response to the post that pointed out that no SS benefit was known to Police before taking the job, so we shouldn't gripe now.  I agree with that poster.  I am just pointing out that we accepted the current pension system as did the city.  Pension cost are high now in a large degree because the city did not make contributions when the stock market was earning large returns.  It is like not making any contribution to your IRA because of the paper stock earnings and then being "surprised" when the stock price goes down and then you must contribute twice as much as before to be at the funding level that you  need to be at. 

I believe that the majority of Policemen retire in their fifties.  Many, but not most, will go into their sixties.  But this is a physically demanding job, and many just can't do it in their later years.  Of course, some detective work and administrators can go longer.  I would bet that firefighters are quite similar.  Most Officers try to take on a retirement job to offset the cost of medical insurance and to make up their former salary.  Retirement eligibility is at twenty years at 60% of a pay formula that figures in your last few years.  Overtime and other "temporary" pays don't count toward retirement.  You can earn an extra 2% per year for ten years (30).  It is roughly the same as a military retirement, but without the medical and other benefits.  I hope that answers your questions.

I compared these CITY/EMPLOYER-only contribution pensions below to what I expect to get from my 401K based on only my employer's contributions (which equal or exceed the national 401K average) and as if I maintained it all in conservative investments that lose no principal.  If I made around the sheriff's salary of say 150K, I would get no more than 5 to 10% of the relative pensions below.  Add to this, that my returns are NOT GUARANTEED and I would never hope to average 8+% assured to the police and fire fighters year after year!

So, based on my personal experience, these are VERY (ten to twenty times more so) GENEROUS pensions relative to what the average 401K FULLY participating private sector employee can expect to take home under ideal circumstances.  This is what gives me reason to think this benefit has plenty of room for adjustment and would still remain more than competitive!

Put another way, at 5% investment income, the City would likely need around $1.2+ million to support a $100K pension.  At today's meager 2% or less returns, the City would likely need $2+ million!  Exact amounts would depend on life expectancy at retirement but I am guessing around 25 to 30 years.  How many of our employers are chipping in that kind of money and guaranteeing us 8+% returns to assure us of a similar retirement?

QuoteTop 50 Pensions Of Jacksonville's Retired Officers, Firefighters

POSTED: Friday, July 10, 2009
UPDATED: 5:51 pm EDT July 10, 2009
The average annual pension paid to 1,912 retired public safety personnel is $41,791, but some receive considerably more.

Channel 4's Jim Piggott obtained from the city of Jacksonville the 50 retired police and firefighters who receive the highest pensions.

      Name   Years of Service       Annual Pension
      Richard A. Barrett   34   $118,570
      John H. Rutherford   28   $108,593
      James E. McMillan   29   $108,496
      Charles D. Clark   35   $107,785
      Raymond A. Miley   32   $107,751
      Joseph N. Henry   35   $102,106
      Alvie L. Powell   35   $102,089
      James D. Ley   34   $100,409
      Justin D. Hill   33   $98,566
      William H. Johnson   32   $94,085
      Jerome Spates   37   $93,628
      James H. Lindsey   33   $93,556
      Nathaniel Glover Jr.   28   $89,650
      Steven R. Weintraub   33   $89,623
      Philip N. Rudin   39   $87,902
      John I. Owens   35   $87,651
      Wyllie B. Hodges   35   $87,645
      William H. Burns   34   $87,588
      Emory M. Holsenbeck   39   $86,919
      Christy L. Gordon   35   $86,321
      Miles R. Bowers   57   $85,992
      A. L. Kelly   35   $85,915
      David W. Sembach   35   $85,802
      James W. Black   32   $85,458
      Howard M. Nelson   38   $84,984
      Peter R. Mittleman   35   $84,777
      Clinton W. Clifton   35   $84,754
      Robert E. Huntley   32   $84,531
      Romulous E. Alderman Jr.   52   $84,175
      Charles R. Sealey   37   $83,991
      James F. Tuten   36   $83,830
      Johnny P. Hires   33   $83,303
      Richard E. Hunt, Jr.   33   $83,265
      William L. Mays   34   $83,250
      Harold H. Hollander   35   $83,238
      Richard K. Parker   26   $83,210
      Johnny M. Sirmans   35   $83,150
      Wendell Black   39   $83,058
      David F. Fullwood   36   $82,777
      David G. Gueterman   27   $82,669
      Arthur J. Lindsey   30   $82,096
      Mark T. Stevens   27   $81,727
      Julian R. Smith   32   $80,982
      Wayne L. Doolittle   32   $80,936
      Mark S. Richardson   35   $79,884
      William K. David, Jr.   33   $79,588
      Lawrence F. Osborne   35   $79,576
      Phillip D. Eddins   33   $79,470
      Charles S. O'Neal   33   $79,444

The 50 individuals listed above have an average of 35 years of service and represent the top 2.6 percent of a pensioner population of 1,912 as of June 30, 2009.

From: http://www.news4jax.com/news/20019359/detail.html

QuoteWho's At Top Of City Pension Plan List?
Mayor Peyton Must Find Over $108M To Fund Plan

POSTED: Friday, July 10, 2009
UPDATED: 6:27 pm EDT July 10, 2009
Pension Budget $108 Million
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- In the upcoming city budget, Mayor John Peyton has to find more than $108 million just to fund the city pension plan for one year.

The biggest part of that deals with police and fire pensions.

Even just mentioning the possibility of messing with those pensions has caused quite an uproar.

Channel 4's Jim Piggott did some checking to see just how much money some retired police and firefighters are making.

In fact, he looked at the top five on the list, which looks as follows:

No. 1 is former Fire Chief Richard Barrett. His yearly pension check is over six figures at more than $118,000.

You might be surprised at the No. 2 person in line.

It's Sheriff John Rutherford. Rutherford retired from the JSO before running for sheriff, an elected position.

Each year he gets more than $108,000 from the pension fund. And that's just his city pension. As sheriff, he is also currently being paid, on top of his pension, $157,000 a year in salary.

And he'll get another pension check from the state based on his years as Sheriff. Channel 4 sat down with the sheriff and asked him about this.

"I worked very hard for that money, and I deserve that retirement," sheriff John Rutherford said. "Running for sheriff was not about money. It was about serving this community, and at great expenses to my family, I might add. I walked away from the drop plan."

On the heals of Rutherford is former Sheriff Jim McMillan. For his 29 years of service, he too takes home a six-figure salary at $108,000 a year.

He's followed by former Fire Chief Charles Clark at $107,000, and at No. 5 is Ray Miley, who worked 32 years with the sheriff's department. His yearly pension is also $107,000.

Further down the list is former Sheriff Nat Glover. He takes home more than $89,000 a year from a city pension. But he is doing something different and is donating that money to charity.

Peyton said the city needs pension reform. He wants to make major changes to pension plans for new employees.

"That is why I'm optimistic this plan will be adopted because it does not impact current employees," Peyton said. "It's only new hires and saves close to a billion three in the next thirty years."[/b]

From: http://www.news4jax.com/news/20018361/detail.html

Take note of the top line in the article which states that the average retirement is about $41000 per year.  The big pensions in the article represent the 2% that are top administrators, and is not an accurate representation of the other 98% of us.  As a matter of fact, if you take out those top fifty, our average is much lower. 

We contribute 7% of our salarty throughout our career.  The 8% figure does NOT apply to police/fire pension, but to the DROP plan.  Police/fire pension is a defined benefit plan, which will pay 60% at twenty years of service up to 80% at thirty years. 

As I have stated before, compare this package to Hillsboro, Orange, or Miami-Dade.  Ours is the least lucrative.  The pension IS SUSTAINABLE.  It requires the city to match 7% contributions.  State law requires 80% funding, which is quite conservative, as it should be.  While it is true that the city must "catch up", it is due to the combination of the city not making prior contributions and the lousy market. 

stjr,

Figure again, use the city contribution of 7% of $65000 and another 7% contribution by the Officer.  Over twenty years and a payout of 60% of that $65000.  (That is $9100 times twenty years.)   Does that look a little more reasonable?  Those are the REAL numbers.  Now do the right thing and give Officers access to subsidized medical insurance in retirement.

Now take that 7% and multiply it times about 1600.  That's how many sworn Officers we have.  (That's $4550 times 1600).  That is what the city has to contribute when the pension is properly funded.  Unsustainable?  Really?  Add a few million for bigwig salaries and it still looks pretty doable, doesn't it? 

stjr,  you do this more than me, What do you think?  Remember, the city has NO other obligation to retiring Police and Firefighters. 

Quote from: NotNow on July 12, 2009, 02:12:14 AM
stjr,

Figure again, use the city contribution of 7% of $65000 and another 7% contribution by the Officer.  Over twenty years and a payout of 60% of that $65000.  (That is $9100 times twenty years.)   Does that look a little more reasonable?  Those are the REAL numbers.  Now do the right thing and give Officers access to subsidized medical insurance in retirement.

NotNow, first I want to make clear I am not knocking JSO or fire fighter employees,  but I do think their retirement benefits are very rich vs. the private sector.  If other cities are richer than Jax, then my thoughts are double for them.  It doesn't change the relative comparison to the private sector.

My analysis was intended to be apples to apples, i.e. a 150K private sector employee vs. a 150K public sector employee since that was the salary revealed in the report.  I would assume that, at any given pay level, the relationship between the private and public sector would be similar.  If I understand you correctly, that a public employee always puts in 1/2 of the contribution to their pension from their pay, then the ratio would be 5 to 10 times the private sector, rather than 10 to 20 times based on my analysis.  Even at that, it is a huge difference in benefits and really doesn't change the conclusion.

Most private sector employers contribute a max of 4% of annual pay to a 401K, and they only do that if they are reasonably profitable (i.e. if they lose money they don't make any contribution).  And to get that, most employees have to match it with 4 to 6% of their own pay.  There are no guaranteed employer contributions or returns.

Most 401Ks today are employee directed and the employee is on their own to select investments from a limited menu of mutual and money market funds and maybe a REIT or two.  They typicially can't do hedge funds (if most could even understand them) or buy a piece of real estate from the City at a bargain price, fix it up, and lease it back to the City for a guaranteed exceptional return to enhance their plan's return.  In the current down market, many of my fellow employees have lost 30 to 50%.  No one is going to make it up to them.  They just have to hope the market rebounds and they are invested correctly to take advantage of it.

As to health insurance, again, in the private sector, many employers offer little or NO health insurance while one is  EMPLOYED (hence, our national health insurance debate).  Of those that do provide quality health insurance, the average employer subsidizes 60 to 70% of the employee-only insurance premium.  If there is any subsidy at all for the family premium, it usually maxes at about 30%.  When the employee leaves or retires from the company, they are on their own to pay ALL premiums for continuation/COBRA/private insurance or they get on Medicare/Medicaid if they are eligible.

When the voters can't obtain and/or afford these same benefits for themselves, especially in these tough economic times when many benefits are being further reduced/cut/eliminated, you can't expect them to have much "sympathy"  regarding public employee's gripes about making some kind of benefit sacrifice that still leaves them in far better shape than the private sector.  Nor, for the taxpayers to have any desire to continue to pay from their own barren pockets for the perceived overly-rich public benefits already being doled out.

stjr,

I am not taking any offense to your arguments.   I certainly understand that times are tough.  What I was trying to do was correct some perceptual errors, such as employer only contribution and a guaranteed 8% income.  These do not exist in our pension.  I would also point out that while many private employers may meet the conditions that you describe, many do not.  Many private companies have better retirement packages than COJ.  Certainly the Federal, State, and other county packages are better.  My point is that the pension is not only sustainable, but is affordable when caught up.  Again, many private employers provide subsidized or company funded health care as well.  The correct comparison would size down to comparable job descriptions and salaries, rather than ALL private companies.  One other thing to remember is that Police/fire retiree life expectancy is a full ten years less than the general population.  I will do some more homework. 

Also, please remember that city employees are taxpayers as well, Increases in fees and taxes comes out of our pockets as well. 

I think that the Social Security costs and benefits need to be added into the private employees total figures too, not just the 401K's to make it a true apples to apples comparison.

NN, I know that the police do not pay into the Social Security fund, but do you pay the Medicare portion of the system?  Surely the police get Medicare benefits at 65 like everyone else.

Yes, we pay into Medicare and recieve the benefit at 65.

And thanks DW, you are right.  SS costs and benefits should be counted.  I would be interested in real stats from around the country on Police/Fire retirements.  I think it is pretty clear that as far as comparable Florida cities are concerned, Jax Police/Fire is at or near the bottom as far as compensation and benefits.

Like everything else here in COJ.....we are behind and then some. Comes from having an Administration with no vision or plan for much of anything. Only thing I've seen is a propensity to waste money and appoint friends to positions of power.......make use of GOB Network to line ones pocket......and generally ignore the public, until you need a new Fee!

I'm new to the pension argument so please forgive me if this is a dumb post.  

Pension is basically another form of debt isn't it?  What our forefathers said to people way back then was "work this hard for this tiny salary and we'll give you this money later on."  Basically, a balloon loan with a gigantic interest payment in the end.  

Because of this, the people back then got a huge amount of "free" labor to invest in Jacksonville and do whatever they want with extra cash to spend on whatever they wanted.  (Apparently, our forefathers invested all that extra money in wrecking balls for downtown.)   In short, as those conservative republicans say, "...our grand kids will be paying back all this money we spent". Except this time, we're the kids who are stuck with the giant bill our forefathers gave us to buy all those wrecking balls for downtown (maybe a golden parachute or two?).  Am I close to what happened or is there something I'm missing?  

You don't have to just have faith in what I say.  All of this information is available on the pension  site which is accessable from here:

http://www.coj.net/Departments/Police+and+Fire+Pension+Fund/default.htm

 As for your questions:

1.  The 7% contribution that we pay is on every bit of income that we make, including overtime.  Our retirement pension is figured on the last two years of base pay, education pay, and differential pay.  There are some Fire Department pays that count that I am not familiar with.  So no, other than working the midnight shift (differential pay = 2 or 3%) you can't "pad" your retirement.

2.  Pension is calculated on the last two years of pay.

3.  Annuity only if you "retire" from the system.  If you leave before vested or before retiring, you can only take the cash that was deducted from your paycheck.  Any interest or city contribution stays in the system.

4.  Straight life with cost of living adjustment.  

Again, we do not contribute to, or receive Social Security.  Thus, the city does not pay it either.  Don't forget that "high risk" police and fire funds such as this also act as insurance policies.  When Officers are killed or injured on duty, their medical or survivors pension is paid by the pension fund.  Under another plan, the city will be responsible for this.  This is why every other county is on the state plan and other cities use a plan very similar to ours.  I would happily take the state retirement and social security plan that the Mayor will receive and that other Sheriff's Offices get.  He makes NO contribution except SS and the city makes a much higher contribution when you add in pension AND SS contributions.

I for one actually think the police and firefghters deserve their pensions. This situation is nutty, the truth is that COJ scaled back its required contributions when the plans enjoyed substantial outperformance relative to their investment targets, but when the bubble deflates now all of a sudden it's "too expensive" to make up for the shortfall they created themselves.

Which , since someone else brought it up, is exactly the same thing that happened in the private sector. Companies scale back contributions when the market is doing well and the total plan assets exceed the required target, but when the market tanks and they have to make up the shortfall then it immediately becomes just one more cut to be made in the budget. As much as is wrong with the unions, they figured this scam out in the 1970's and have fought it tooth and nail ever since. And I give them credit for that.

Nobody wants to be responsible for anything anymore. A deal is a deal, and the city should honor theirs moving forward. I also think the federal laws governing these plans should change to require cash contributions to be based on 20 and 30 year historical returns, and not subject to constant modification in every way that will save the employer a nickel. The chickens eventually always come home to roost.

And yes I know this means I agree with NotNow, but that's the way I feel.

While even I am shocked :),  right is right.

Quote from: stephendare on July 21, 2010, 04:16:30 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 21, 2010, 03:18:48 PM
I for one actually think the police and firefghters deserve their pensions. This situation is nutty, the truth is that COJ scaled back its required contributions when the plans enjoyed substantial outperformance relative to their investment targets, but when the bubble deflates now all of a sudden it's "too expensive" to make up for the shortfall they created themselves.

Which , since someone else brought it up, is exactly the same thing that happened in the private sector. Companies scale back contributions when the market is doing well and the total plan assets exceed the required target, but when the market tanks and they have to make up the shortfall then it immediately becomes just one more cut to be made in the budget. As much as is wrong with the unions, they figured this scam out in the 1970's and have fought it tooth and nail ever since. And I give them credit for that.

Nobody wants to be responsible for anything anymore. A deal is a deal, and the city should honor theirs moving forward. I also think the federal laws governing these plans should change to require cash contributions to be based on 20 and 30 year historical returns, and not subject to constant modification in every way that will save the employer a nickel. The chickens eventually always come home to roost.

And yes I know this means I agree with NotNow, but that's the way I feel.

+1

Do you think the Citizens of Jax will be willing to honor their end of the deal?  The citizens pretty much elected the leaders and they are ultimately responsible for picking up the tab. 

We have to have Law-enforcement and We have to have Fire Fighters and my hat is off to both!

I agree that we need to honor previous agreements....but pension reform for the future is necessary.

We just can't afford to pay people 80% of their last year's salary in retirement..especially when only 20 years of service is needed (many can retire by age 45)....meaning we could pay 40+ years of retirement for 20 years of service...plus police/fire spouses get 75% of last year's salary until their death if the retired employee dies first.

City agreed to that pension outline......plain and simple! Now that there is a short fall, John Boy is grasping at any and all staws! His decree about all City workers taking a 3% pay cut did not appear to apply to him and his minions! Did not apply to all of the AMIO's, which cost us $27 Million Dollars a year.........don't see anyone of them stepping up to the line! So by my standards, Hiz Honor can kiss me where the sun don't shine! I do not believe a word he has to say about much of anything period!

agree

Will the rest of the city agree too? 

Quote from: cityimrov on July 21, 2010, 06:37:04 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 21, 2010, 04:16:30 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 21, 2010, 03:18:48 PM
I for one actually think the police and firefghters deserve their pensions. This situation is nutty, the truth is that COJ scaled back its required contributions when the plans enjoyed substantial outperformance relative to their investment targets, but when the bubble deflates now all of a sudden it's "too expensive" to make up for the shortfall they created themselves.

Which , since someone else brought it up, is exactly the same thing that happened in the private sector. Companies scale back contributions when the market is doing well and the total plan assets exceed the required target, but when the market tanks and they have to make up the shortfall then it immediately becomes just one more cut to be made in the budget. As much as is wrong with the unions, they figured this scam out in the 1970's and have fought it tooth and nail ever since. And I give them credit for that.

Nobody wants to be responsible for anything anymore. A deal is a deal, and the city should honor theirs moving forward. I also think the federal laws governing these plans should change to require cash contributions to be based on 20 and 30 year historical returns, and not subject to constant modification in every way that will save the employer a nickel. The chickens eventually always come home to roost.

And yes I know this means I agree with NotNow, but that's the way I feel.

+1

Do you think the Citizens of Jax will be willing to honor their end of the deal?  The citizens pretty much elected the leaders and they are ultimately responsible for picking up the tab.  

That's been the problem with the current administration, they have never had any accountability to the public, and they still don't. I think by and large the public is absolutely embarassed when things come out about COJ trying to push through a landfill contract without voter approval that would have made the Mayor's buddies an extra hundred million bucks, at the same time they're trying to eliminate police and firemens' pensions claiming they're too expensive.

I think the public is embarassed to see all this going on while COJ has plunged ahead with a four hundred million dollar courthouse, despite outright public animosity towards the project, at the same the city is running around turning off people's street lights in Springfield  claiming they need to save money.

I think most people support pensions for our civil servants, and I think most people realize that the reason the city is broke has nothing to do with any of the proposed budget cuts, it has to do with ridiculous expenditures that serve no legitimate public purpose. If we can afford to give away that much money to the mayor's buds on a landfill contract, and if we can afford to give away forty million to Landmar, then I think it's not too much to expect our firemen to have a pension to support them in retirement.

And Tufsu, I also don't think it's reasonable to expect people to have some quality of life, or to expect people to work until they're 102 to get their retirement benefits. Because of the physically demanding nature of these jobs, police and firemen actually have a shorter working life.

Chris I'm not arguing with you on any of what you have said. But I do want to point out a very commonly misunderstood issue and thats the courthouse project.

The courthouse is being built with funds from the Better Jacksonville Plan proposed by then Mayor Delaney and approved by voters way back in the late 90's. It specifically sets aside money to be used for Capitol Improvement Projects only. Period. The Baseball Grounds, the new Arena. The Courthouse. It can not, by law, be used to keep streetlights from being turned off in Springfield. Or keep city workers from having to take a pay cut. Or keep parks clean and mowed during the growing season.

I read this same argument just about every day every time the news media decides to dust off the budget story and get people enraged enough to comment on various media message boards. The city could go bankrupt and that courthouse is still going to be built because its funds can not be diverted to keep the city afloat.

You may already be aware of this. I just wanted to point that fact out.

Quote from: jbroadglide on July 22, 2010, 10:03:42 AM
Chris I'm not arguing with you on any of what you have said. But I do want to point out a very commonly misunderstood issue and thats the courthouse project.

The courthouse is being built with funds from the Better Jacksonville Plan proposed by then Mayor Delaney and approved by voters way back in the late 90's. It specifically sets aside money to be used for Capitol Improvement Projects only. Period. The Baseball Grounds, the new Arena. The Courthouse. It can not, by law, be used to keep streetlights from being turned off in Springfield. Or keep city workers from having to take a pay cut. Or keep parks clean and mowed during the growing season.

I read this same argument just about every day every time the news media decides to dust off the budget story and get people enraged enough to comment on various media message boards. The city could go bankrupt and that courthouse is still going to be built because its funds can not be diverted to keep the city afloat.

You may already be aware of this. I just wanted to point that fact out.

The BJP barely set aside 1/3'rd of the cost of the current courthouse monstrosity, that thing has been bloated beyond all proportion to what was originally approved by the voters as part of the BJP. They may as well just rename it the Bloated Courthouse Plan at this point. It's hundreds of millions over budget from what was set aside as part of the BJP, and the additional money has no doubt been scavenged from other places/projects. You would be right had they actually stuck to the BJP and executed the project within some semblance of a budget, but they didn't.

BJP set aside $211 million ($190 million plus $21 million from the BJP Vertical Contingency).  Total budget for the courthouse is $350 million.

When I think of what salary/benefit is "fair", I usually use the free market principle of employers paying what it takes to hire and retain the quality and quantity of workers needed for the mission.  Often referred to as supply and demand.

What troubles me in the current situation of our city workers is that my main source of info, the T-U, has never provided any in depth data.  A good story would be looking at it from the perspective of the guy/gal who has to do the hiring?  Is there a lot of turnover?  Many qualified people available, good times or bad? 

What about different departments.  I understand there essentially are no resignations of fire fighters.  But what about police?  And maintenance workers?

Quote from: cline on July 22, 2010, 11:36:04 AM
BJP set aside $211 million ($190 million plus $21 million from the BJP Vertical Contingency).  Total budget for the courthouse is $350 million.

So you don't consider a 60.2% cost overrun, which totals nearly $150mm, and that had to be funded outside of the $200mm originally set aside in the BJP, to be significant? And you realize, that's only the publicly disclosed cost overrun to date, the thing is not even finished yet...

And COJ is trying to turn off people's streetlights and cancel firemens' pensions to save money? This doesn't bother you?

Quote from: Ranger7 on July 22, 2010, 11:42:57 AM
When I think of what salary/benefit is "fair", I usually use the free market principle of employers paying what it takes to hire and retain the quality and quantity of workers needed for the mission.  Often referred to as supply and demand.

What troubles me in the current situation of our city workers is that my main source of info, the T-U, has never provided any in depth data.  A good story would be looking at it from the perspective of the guy/gal who has to do the hiring?  Is there a lot of turnover?  Many qualified people available, good times or bad? 

What about different departments.  I understand there essentially are no resignations of fire fighters.  But what about police?  And maintenance workers?

Ranger, welcome to MJ.

I fully agree with your comment that the market determines pay and benefits.  Given that there appears to be long lines of applicants for these jobs and few departures prior to retirement, it would indicate the possibility that the City is paying over the market (i.e. versus alternatives in both the private and public sectors) for these jobs. This is why the City should have some legitimate wiggle room with respect to new hires going forward.  Nowhere is it written that pay and  benefits must always go up and never down.  That is not how any market works and it should be the same here.

The Rational Market isn't. 

Economists call it the "sticky down".  It is much easier to raise prices and wages than to reduce them.  It usually takes what we are going through now, a severe recession or a depression.  Emotionally inflation is much easier for us to handle than deflation even if "real" wages are falling due to inflation.  Reducing wages, even in a time of falling prices when we have more purchasing power, makes us feel like we are losing something.

Guess that's why they call it a Depression.

Police & Fire Pensions are locked in at this time............so be it! But nothing keeps new hires in both Departments from going into something different! John Boy was pushing for 3% paycut for all workers, but neglected to apply that to middle managers and up......including himself! Classic example of "Don't do what I do, but do what I say"! Uninformed buffoon and typical of upperclass elitism.........I would like to be able to fire him for nonperformance!

You have the facts wrong.  Twenty years of service = 60% of base pay.  You have to put in 30 years to get 80%.  Spousal survivors benefit is 75% of the PENSION that the Officer was getting (or 75% of the 60%).  Just as a widow would receive survivors benefits from social security. 

Entitlement to retirement at twenty years is common in high risk professions.  Most Fire & Police departments as well as the military offer the benefit.  Generally as recognition for the physical disability incurred in such careers as well as the lower pay in generally offered.

Quote from: tufsu1 on July 21, 2010, 09:14:23 PM
I agree that we need to honor previous agreements....but pension reform for the future is necessary.

We just can't afford to pay people 80% of their last year's salary in retirement..especially when only 20 years of service is needed (many can retire by age 45)....meaning we could pay 40+ years of retirement for 20 years of service...plus police/fire spouses get 75% of last year's salary until their death if the retired employee dies first.

It is my understanding the Police and fireman are already receiving more in benefits then the general employees of Jacksonville(is this because Sheriff Rutherford is receiving more from the Government via homeland security?)  The  Retirement for 20 years for a policeman or fireman is 60% of average pay whereas a General employee is only 50%.  Also, some general employees at retirement had to sign a waiver to bypass any cola or yearly raise(to my knowledge the p & F did not) I thought this was the consolidated city of Jacksonville....why may I ask is the Fire dept and the police dept seperate from the general employees pension plan....lets consolidate the unions and see if we can't be fair to all city employees with the same benefits and maybe save money for the taxpayers at the same time......On the national level lets merge the Federal pension plan with social security.....I betcha it won't run out of money for the baby boomers!!!.

Police & Fire pensions are separated in State law.  This is common in all States that I know of.  "High risk" pensions have a number of requirements that other pensions do not. 

Again, if you want to be fair, use the Florida Retirement System!  That is the system that taxpayers paid to put the Mayor and other big shots into a few years ago.  Ask our elected officials why they won't put employees into the State retirement system that every other county uses.  Ask them why only a chosen few such as the mayor are in it.  You will find that the story you have been hearing from the city is not quite the truth.