Councilmen, etc:

I checked the City Council agenda yesterday, and see that this proposed legislation is on the agenda as unfinished business.    I have written extensively in opposition to it, in 2011, and send you this short email to remind you why it should be rejected, or further deferred.   There are other problems with the proposed legislation - call if you want more detail.  

 

2011 - 400 would establish a new class of members of the Police & Fire Pension Fund (PFPF), who would get slightly reduced benefits.     It would only apply to new hires.   It entails the City signing an amendatory agreement with the PFPF board of trustees, through 2030.  

 

(1) The promised savings are small in the early years (about $500 K/yr), which is about 1/2 of 1% of what the City will contribute to the PFPF in 2013.   

(2) The major claimed savings are 30 + years in the future.   I do not believe these claims.

(3) The legislation does nothing about the real long term solution - transitioning to reliance on a defined contribution plan - like a 401 (k).  

(4) The legislation still provides pensions that replace 80% of salary, still provides for COLA's, and still enables and encourages police (JSO) and fire (JFRD) employees to retire in their 40's.    The latest publicly provided information is that the average employee of JSO and JFRD retires at age 49 (that is a long term average as well).    Current new retirees of the PFPF on average get pensions of close to $50,000 per year, on average.   These outrages are not going to be undone by 2011 - 400.

(5) The "price" that Mayor Peyton offered to pay for 2011 - 400 is too high - he promised, for 19 years, a 12% of salary normal cost minimum contribution level (floor) for that entire period, i.e., that the City would contribute this minimum amount to the PFPF for 19 years, ON TOP of amounts to fund (amortize) deficits.   What that means is that, if the PFPF should manage to actually do well in the future, the benefit of the upside would be taken away from the City (the taxpayers), and would instead be saved in PFPF accounts that could (and likely would) be used to further enhance pension benefits that are already substantially above private sector and even most gov't comparatives.    The devil is in the details, and the details are dangerous for taxpayers.

(6) 2011 - 400 is the spawn of illegal collective bargaining between the City and the PFPF, which collective bargaining was also conducted secretly, in violation of the Sunshine Law.    I recently instructed my lawyer to take further action in the lawsuit docketed in Circuit Court, Duval Co., as 2011 - CA - 004348.     We are seeking to strike defenses to said lawsuit that have been posed by the City and the PFPF.    The motions were served on 4/6/12.    Discovery is also planned.

In connection with (6) above, I will again quote from Leonard Carson, the City's attorney, in his brief dated 10/14/11, at page 38 -

 

   "The City would suggest that a 30 year contract on pension benefits [i.e, the 2001 agreement unlawfully    and foolishly entered into between the City and the PFPF, having a 30 year term - see ord. 2001 - 1164] is against public policy and in contravention of subsection 447.309 (5) Florida Statutes, which limits contracts concerning terms and conditions of employment to a period of not more than three (3) years."

 

The City is hoist by its own petard.   Yet, in its litigation papers in the above case, the City has claimed the right to violate 447.309 (5) with impunity, because the City thru OGC claims that mere taxpayers have no standing to sue re: such illegalities.    This is mean and cynical, and contemptuous of the public, and is one of many reason I have had little respect for OGC.    

 

But, unfortunately for the City and its "clever" lawyers, such anti-democratic and unwise doctrine has no basis in re Sunshine Law litigation.