Another week, another host of changes.
Despite the action, whether any of the alterations three City Council committees made Monday and Tuesday stick won’t be known until next week. The final product Monday didn’t match the end result Tuesday — meaning the full council will have to pick and choose what version of reform it likes best.
It started Monday with the Rules Committee.
There’s been a distinct division among some members over whether council should be able to impose benefits after three years, which aligns with state collective bargaining rules.
Members of the Police and Fire Pension Fund board, though, have vociferously held tight for a 10-year deal, arguing public safety members already have whittled down years from the current so-called “30-Year Agreement.”
Rules member Don Redman offered up a compromise of sorts, pushing for six years, but the idea quickly died.
Instead, it was back to the three versus 10 debate, with the three-year proponents coming out on top.
Rules also killed language in the deal referring to the Senior Staff Voluntary Retirement Plan that a few members, including fund administrator John Keane, continue to collect but was been deemed by city attorneys as being illegal.
Ultimately, Rules issued a failing vote for the committee.
On Tuesday, pension reform was a different story.
In the Finance Committee, the three versus 10 debate again cropped up. All along, some council members like Stephen Joost, a 10-year supporter, have said the pension fund board would reject anything that wasn’t the longer term.
So, council members took a different tact after the three-year vote failed.
Lori Boyer offered an amendment that kept the 10 years intact, but had a fallback option should actuarial assumptions prove to be wildly wrong causing the city’s annual contribution to skyrocket. She initially proposed a $200 million cap — to trigger the pullback, but John Crescimbeni argued that was too much.
Instead, he pushed for it to be 10 percent off the mark.
The city’s annual contribution for 2015-16 is expected to be $153 million, but that’s including debt service and if $300 million of the plan’s unfunded liability is paid down — part of proposal that includes JEA.
Others Finance members signed on to the idea.
Council member Bill Gulliford said he supported it as a compromise if it left the deal at 10 years, but allowed flexibility “if we get into a situation where we are financially trapped.”
Crescimbeni referred to the amendment as an “escape hatch.”
Unlike Rules, the Finance Committee also voted on the senior staff plan language but kept it in the deal.
Later in the day, the Recreation and Community Development debated the reform package at length but follow Finance’s lead, approving the same deal.
Two key items they all seem to agree on?
Forcing the Police and Fire Pension Fund board to make its decision by April 30 and having the the bill sunset April 2016 if a funding source isn’t found.
Determining how to pay for reform has largely been considered “part two” of the deal, while the governance and benefits side is “part one.” Some members, most notably Robin Lumb, have voiced opposition to any type of reform until the funding source is identified.
It will now be back in the hands of the full council. Should it approve the deal, possibly as early as next Wednesday, it would head back to the pension fund board.
The five-member group would then weigh the council-altered deal and determine whether it’s good enough or again make changes to send back to council.
(904) 356-2466