The warnings had been there for weeks.
If City Council changed the pension deal, it could kill the pension deal.
For the first hour of a five-hour session Monday, two council committees held the line. A first possible change — switching the 10-year deal to three years — was denied.
Talk again cropped up of the stakes and what rejection might mean: Up to eight more years of uncertainty and escalating cost.
If it wasn’t the right deal, though, a simple up or down vote wasn’t best for taxpayers, some said. The possibilities of litigation shouldn’t diminish council’s role.
“I am not a rubber stamp, folks,” said council member John Crescimbeni. “If it kills the deal, so be it.”
Denise Lee agreed. Matt Schellenberg echoed that, saying he found the threat “appalling.”
Soon after, changes started happening. Cost-of-living adjustments were tweaked. Pension Fund administrator John Keane had called that a “non-starter” during his talks with Mayor Alvin Brown over the summer.
The Deferred Retirement Option Plan had the floor of its guaranteed returns dropped to zero from 5 percent.
Council took back its right to impose benefits if impasse happened during collective bargaining. That right had been negotiated away, a point that drew sharp criticism from several council members.
By the end of the meeting, several changes had been made. Council still will have to approve them, possibly tonight, before the deal heads back to the fund board for approval.
Whether the five-member pension board accepts the changes is yet to be seen, but leaders for both the fire and police unions didn’t offer optimism early in the meeting.
“I think it truly jeopardizes the deal,” said Randy Wyse, the firefighter union’s head.
Steve Amos, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, concurred. He said the deal struck between Keane and Brown was “about as good as it gets.” Neither will have a vote, but their members can speak out.
Chris Hand, Brown’s chief of staff, said it always has been council’s right to make changes. But the administration’s message has been consistent: Council has to be aware of the risk that comes with any moves.
While Hand didn’t want to speak for the fund or board, he said some of the changes, such as cost-of-living adjustments, were items “they said are probably not acceptable to them.”
Even with the changes, council still won’t implement the deal without a funding source to pay down the $1.65 billion in unfunded liability.
That wasn’t part of the discussion Monday, although some wanted it to be.
Last week, JEA rejected giving the city an additional $40 million a year for 10 years. Matt Carlucci and Charlie Appleby then shared an idea that has the utility and city each borrowing $120 million to pay down that unfunded liability.
Carlucci and Appleby sat through the meeting, but they weren’t allowed to talk about the plan because funding discussions will come later.
Council member Kim Daniels tried to bring Carlucci to the podium to explain the proposal during her five-minute period to speak, but that never happened.Finance Committee Chair Richard Clark didn’t want the funding proposal detracting from Monday’s discussion. Lee also interjected, saying the presentation would circumvent the purpose of the meeting.
Hand said he was “surprised and disappointed” Carlucci and Appleby weren’t allowed the opportunity to address the
group with the funding source plan.
Those conversations instead will have to wait until another meeting.
@writerchapman
(904) 356-2466