GOVERNMENT WATCH TEAM: Amid criticism, Jacksonville pension sides meeting again Tuesday to hash out more points

[Vic Cirillo]

Thirteen days ago Mayor Alvin Brown proclaimed it was great day for Jacksonville after his chief negotiator and the Police and Fire Pension Fund’s top administrator reached an agreement on pension reform.

But as the days turned into nearly two weeks, the agreement seems to be anything but that with both sides now questioning the logic behind each party’s understanding of the May 21st agreement.

Now both sides will come together again at noon Tuesday to hash it out in public. Six hours have been set aside for the discussions at City Hall.

The heart of the problems appears to be about the length of the agreement, who or what group will handle future discussions and what happens if the city doesn’t make good on its promise to increase its minimum payments by an additional $40 million a year.

Mayoral spokesman David Decamp said the questions have been questions typical of a final review by attorneys and said the mayor’s office is confident that technical questions on the law can be worked out.

“We’re optimistic we can reach a final agreement on Tuesday and file a legislation on Wednesday,” DeCamp said.

Assuming the groups come to an agreement following Tuesday’s meeting, there could be another showdown right around the corner about the funding source when it comes time for a City Council vote.

Jacksonville City Council President Bill Gulliford has been emphatic since the tentative agreement was reached last month that he will block the introduction of legislation until there is a clear funding plan in place for the additional multi-million dollar infusion of cash the proposed agreement calls for. To date, the city has not provided a financial analysis of the pension reform agreement other than to say the new deal will generate $1.5 million in savings for the city over the next three decades. DeCamp said the city has had to work with an acutuary to complete the financial analysis.

Monday Gulliford said his statements last month were philosophical, now he believes he has the law on his side.

Code provisions state that no city entity can enter into a contract unless the council has appropriated the funding source.

“I’ve got big issues as to whether it would be legal if you don’t identify a permanent funding source,” Gulliford said.

The tentative May 21 agreement calls for bringing together an advisory group to sort out funding each year for the additional $40 million the pension fund said it needs to bring down its unfunded liabilities. That advisory group would then make a proposal to the mayor and the City Council president each and every year.

That idea didn’t sit well with Gulliford.

“We are going to have a bit of a problem if the legislation doesn’t contain a funding source,” said Gulliford.

Several funding sources such as having the JEA pay the city an additional $40 million a year on top of what it already puts into coffers — $100 million — have been proposed leading up to the latest round of discussions between the city and the pension fund.

“We keep going after the fat calf,” said Gulliford. “ Well at some point that fat calf isn’t so fat anymore — it’s starving.”

There’s also the possibility of a sales tax increase or a millage rate increase, among other ideas that will have to be agreed upon each year should the proposed agreement go to council for a vote.

Like Gulliford, incoming Council President Clay Yarborough says his take on the city code gives him reason to pause.

“It looks to me like we cannot enter into an agreement if we have not identified a funding source,” said Yarborough.

But City General Counsel Cindy Laquidara said the tentative agreement is legal. She said the council is the appropriating body that is charged with making these budgetary decisions routinely.

“If they pass the agreement, it [the council] can take it [the $40 million] from one source this year and a different source the next year,” Laquidara said. “That is their prerogative.”

Still, Yarborough said he would rather have a dedicated funding source now and not on an annual basis.

“I believe that is what we need to do,” said Yarborough. “...A long term obligation needs a long-term solution and not just an every year, every year, every year.”

SUBMITTED BY D. DAVIS

[Franklin W.]

Taxed Enough Already?