Curry warns of 30-percent property tax increase if sales tax idea not supported

[Tacachale]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheCat]

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

How are we going to handle capital improvements?

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

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

How much additional debt are we going to create?

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

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

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

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

[Tacachale]

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

How are we going to handle capital improvements?

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

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

How much additional debt are we going to create?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheCat]

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

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

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

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

The pension tax will not cover our entire obligation.

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

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

[vicupstate]

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

[TheCat]

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

meh. 

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

"I think there will be some general discussion and maybe some specific questions, but when you think about it, it's pretty straightforward," said Councilman Bill Gulliford, chairman of the Finance Committee.

and then added...

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

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

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

[TheCat]

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

"details bad. options limited"

or

would it make more sense to play off Seinfeld?

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

[The_Choose_1]

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

[Tacachale]

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

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

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

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

The pension tax will not cover our entire obligation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The_Choose_1]

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

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

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

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

The pension tax will not cover our entire obligation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheCat]

oh yeah. The beach communities...

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

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

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

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

Pruette wants a meeting with Curry to discuss.

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

[strider]

Quotes from Tacachale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tacachale]

Quotes from Tacachale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[strider]

Quotes from Tacachale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's see:

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

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

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

[Tacachale]

Quotes from Tacachale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's see:

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

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

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

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

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

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