Why Was Alvin Brown's Pension Reform a Bad Deal?

[SunKing]

Privatizing non public safety EMPLOYEES

[theduvalprogressive]

What do you mean looter mentality? The city pays the lowest taxes already and has pulled every trick it can to keep taxes low. As a result they is no money budgeted next year to maintain roads but there is going to be a loan to give money to the Jaguars to be paid back using the "bed tax". Guess who is going to pay if there is not enough revenue from the bed tax - Shad Khan?

We give investors years of property tax breaks on the hope that a few jobs might be created. Who pays for that? Who pays for "pension holidays"? Who pays for the cost overruns when we privatize the building of municipal buildings through "public/private partnerships"?

[SunKing]

What do you mean looter mentality? The city pays the lowest taxes already and has pulled every trick it can to keep taxes low. As a result they is no money budgeted next year to maintain roads but there is going to be a loan to give money to the Jaguars to be paid back using the "bed tax". Guess who is going to pay if there is not enough revenue from the bed tax - Shad Khan?

We give investors years of property tax breaks on the hope that a few jobs might be created. Who pays for that? Who pays for "pension holidays"? Who pays for the cost overruns when we privatize the building of municipal buildings through "public/private partnerships"?

[SunKing]

What do you mean looter mentality? The city pays the lowest taxes already and has pulled every trick it can to keep taxes low. As a result they is no money budgeted next year to maintain roads but there is going to be a loan to give money to the Jaguars to be paid back using the "bed tax". Guess who is going to pay if there is not enough revenue from the bed tax - Shad Khan?

We give investors years of property tax breaks on the hope that a few jobs might be created. Who pays for that? Who pays for "pension holidays"? Who pays for the cost overruns when we privatize the building of municipal buildings through "public/private partnerships"?

Not sure your point here?  The bed tax makes sense.  Its a tax on out of town visitors used specifically to support growth in the tourist sector. I say the team and Khan are doing more than anyone else to elevate this city's image to out of town visitors.

Are you saying that you would prefer that the city discontinue tax credits for businesses locating Downtown?  What about the Historic Tax Credit?

And finally I'm glad you mentioned our courthouse bc that is the perfect example of public mismanagement. Private enterprise can't afford cost overruns like that. They can't just raise taxes to pay for it. Are you suggesting that the City should just build its own building?

Is your point that private enterprise is somehow inherently bad and that government should just do everything?

[kbhanson3]

I'm just jumping in to this thread and am having a difficult time following the back and forth.  Is there any question that we are in need of more significant pension reform than what the mayor has proposed?  Or is the debate here simply over whether past & current employees should have their benefits reduced as part of the solution?  Thanks in advance for educating the newbie.

[SunKing]

I'm just jumping in to this thread and am having a difficult time following the back and forth.  Is there any question that we are in need of more significant pension reform than what the mayor has proposed?  Or is the debate here simply over whether past & current employees should have their benefits reduced as part of the solution?  Thanks in advance for educating the newbie.

No kidding!
My point is simply that privatization of non public safety employees is the first step toward municipal pension reform.

[JayBird]

I'm just jumping in to this thread and am having a difficult time following the back and forth.  Is there any question that we are in need of more significant pension reform than what the mayor has proposed?  Or is the debate here simply over whether past & current employees should have their benefits reduced as part of the solution?  Thanks in advance for educating the newbie.

No kidding!
My point is simply that privatization of non public safety employees is the first step toward municipal pension reform.

I too got lost in the back and forth on what the back and forth was about. However, based on this statement, I do agree with that viewpoint.

[m74reeves]

This press release entitled "Remaining Focused on Retirement Reform" was sent yesterday from the Mayor's Office:

Dear Friends:

With the renewed efforts of the Jacksonville Retirement Reform Task Force, we are moving forward again toward financial sustainability.

In early July, 11 community leaders selflessly agreed to serve on the task force to examine a retirement reform agreement that would have lowered City pension costs by $1.2 billion over the next 30 years, including $45 million next year and $100 million over the next 5 years.

Our retirement reform agreement included some of the most significant benefit concessions in the recent history of the state of Florida. The agreement would have seen the funded status of the plan increase from 38 percent to 71 percent.

Unfortunately, just as the panel was getting to work, City Council rejected the plan. Nine Council members fought valiantly to give both the task force and their own Finance Committee the time needed for a comprehensive review, but their efforts fell short.

Despite that action, I remain hopeful that we will achieve a sustainable retirement reform solution that is fair to both taxpayers and city employees.

And we must do this now, not later.

The City's total retirement costs for all three pension plans will top $180 million next year. Those obligations account for nearly 20 percent of general fund spending and pressure our city budget

A decade ago, the City contribution to the Police and Fire Pension Fund was less than $10 million.

This year, it is $148 million.

A decade ago, the Police and Fire Pension Fund had an unfunded liability of just under $500 million.

Today, that unfunded liability has grown to more than $1.5 billion.

Numbers like these have drawn the attention of financial experts. In fact, three major ratings agencies cite retirement costs as a threat to Jacksonville's financial future.

We must seize this opportunity to solve the City of Jacksonville's retirement challenge once and for all. I will continue to lead on this issue and look forward to working with all of the stakeholders to achieve a sustainable result that protects taxpayers and respects city employees.

You can learn more about this critical financial issue and our efforts to date by visiting the Retirement Reform page on coj.net.

Sincerely,
Alvin Brown

[Cheshire Cat]

I received this bulk email as well. Seems to me the Mayor used a lot of words and numbers regarding pension reform, but failed to say what his new plan is.  In his letter he also said to visit his "retirement reform page".  I did that, what I found was the same plan that was rejected by the council from 2011.   Hard to figure out what has changed and what his new effort to deal with the pension problem now might be.  Can anyone enlighten me here?  Am I missing something important?

[theduvalprogressive]

What he is not mentioning is that they're really reforming pensions. They're just figuring out a way to keep current pensions paid for and letting the city at some point down the line figure out the rest in the future. The number he mentioned are no different than before the council voted down "pension reform". It sounds more like he is simply trying to push the same thing through using a slightly altered approach.

[Cheshire Cat]

What he is not mentioning is that they're really reforming pensions. They're just figuring out a way to keep current pensions paid for and letting the city at some point down the line figure out the rest in the future. The number he mentioned are no different than before the council voted down "pension reform". It sounds more like he is simply trying to push the same thing through using a slightly altered approach.

I would completely agree.  I do believe the message is more about political posturing as opposed to coming at the budget problem with a new plan.