The chairman of Mayor Alvin Brown's Jacksonville Retirement Reform Task Force calls City Council's rejection of Brown's proposed pension deal "an attack on the Mayor."
Attorney Bill Scheu, appointed by Brown to lead the task force, said in an email to Brown's chief of staff Chris Hand that the legislation's discharge and rejection was an attack on the mayor "rather than an effort to be servant leaders."
Scheu could not be reached for comment this morning.
Scheu sent the email to Hand on Tuesday afternoon as Council President Bill Gulliford discharged the legislation from committee and brought it to vote. Council rejected the deal in a vote of 11 to 7.
The rejection of Brown's proposed pension reform agreement effectively ends the work of the 11-member task force, which the mayor assigned to review the proposed legislation and make recommendations.
The task force met July 10 and had two more meetings scheduled July 31 and Aug. 22.
"Tell them that they should let the process work and let citizens have a chance to give input," Scheu said in the email to Hand.
Hand initiated the email conversation, informing Scheu of Gulliford's decision to discharge the bill from the committee level for a Tuesday vote and asking if there was a message he could convey to Council.
Council members Reggie Brown, Doyle Carter, Kimberly Daniels, Ray Holt, Warren Jones, Denise Lee and Jim Love supported Brown's legislation. Council member Johnny Gaffney was excused from the meeting.
Brown announced the deal in early May, saying it would save taxpayers $1.2 billion over 30 years, including $45 million in the 2013-14 City budget.
The Jacksonville Civic Council, a group of influential private business and community leaders, reported to the mayor and Gulliford in June that the deal "isn't enough" and recommended Council reject it.
Last week, the JAX Chamber board of directors voted not to endorse the deal.
Council member Greg Anderson, who chairs the finance committee, also served on the task force.
Before several Council members
unsuccessfully tried to appeal Gulliford's discharge decision, Anderson said he wanted to see the citizen-led task force conduct the review.
Gulliford later said he knew Scheu and appreciated the task force's work, but that the issue needed certainty so that the finance committee could review the City budget for approval in time for the fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1.
"I don't feel good (about it), I don't like that aspect one bit," Gulliford said, referring to what the decision meant to the task force.
But he said he "felt strongly" about the decision and it was time for a vote.
Several Council members opposed discharge, saying more time was needed to study the legislation and referred to the work of the pension reform task force.
Other Council members asked to keep the pension proposal as an option for addressing shortfalls in the upcoming budget deliberations.
"I don't think we are ready to vote," Carter said.
Jones also said he wasn't ready to vote about the pension reform proposal and that Council did not have enough information to vote.
The majority disagreed.
"I don't need another commission or study. I know a bad deal when I see a bad deal. This is a bad deal for us," said Council member Richard Clark, calling Brown's proposal a short-term solution.
Council member Bill Bishop said he applauded the effort in crafting the deal but it was not a good, long-term financial decision for the City. Instead, he said the length of the deal for the remaining 17 years was "irresponsible."
Most who voted against the proposal cited its inadequacies in addressing the unfunded pension liability, which is between $1 billion and $2 billion.
Hand said after the vote the mayor's proposal reflected "real reform" and steps to lower the unfunded liability were built in and could have been achieved through real estate sales and transactions, governance and other methods.
He said the rejection likely will send the City and public safety unions back to court where the issue "may be at an impasse."
Hand also said the same night Council rejected a pension deal, it "raised taxes," referring to the tentative millage rates set.
Before the pension vote, Council members set the maximum property tax millage rate to 11.5353 mills for the general services district, 1.5 mills above Brown's proposed 10.0353 mills.
A mill is equal to $1 in tax revenue for every $1,000 in assessed value.
Many Council members said raising the tentative rate offered more options to the finance committee, which could lower the rate during the budget review.
The maximum increase, should Council decide to use it, would raise about $65 million in additional property tax revenue, according to Council Auditor Kirk Sherman.
Sherman said a "very preliminary" budget deficit is between $60 million to $67 million, but is close to the amount the potential millage increase would cover.
Council has until Aug. 4 to set the rate and submit it to the Property Appraiser's Office for the issuance of Truth in Millage notices. Those notices inform property owners of the maximum their property tax rate will be.
Should Council decide to raise the rate after the notices are sent, notices with the new rate must be sent again, costing up to $500,000. Lowering the rate after it is set does not require amended notices.
Brown has indicated he would not raise taxes, but he will not have the chance to veto the tentative rate legislation or let it remain unsigned, which would automatically trigger the "rolled-back" rate of 10.2107 mills.
A legal opinion issued Monday by City General Counsel Cindy Laquidara stated the Council president is authorized to sign the millage legislation into law and the administration will serve in a ministerial role to deliver it to the property appraiser's office.
(904) 356-2466