Mayor Turner's chances of getting Houston Pension Reform accomplished (Seymour: appointed, crime)

[Seymour_Butts]

This afternoon I saw this article and was glad to see it in the headlines:

Turner unveils tentative pension reform deal - Houston Chronicle

'Turner unveils tentative pension reform deal'

Mayor Sylvester Turner unveiled a tentative pension reform deal Wednesday that would eliminate Houston's pension under-funding within 30 years, avoid more than $2.5 billion in future costs through benefit reductions and include the issuance of at least $1 billion in bonds.
The plan also would cap the city's liability and limit its exposure to future market downturns by assuming more realistic investment returns, though it would not provide short-term budget relief.

Turner said the leaders of the police, firefighter and municipal employee pension boards have agreed in principle to the reform package but have yet to identify specific benefit reductions, the first of several hurdles. Each fund's board of trustees would then need to approve the changes, as would the state Legislature, which controls the city's pension system.

Even so, seven months of negotiations have put Turner closer than past mayors to achieving comprehensive pension reform, widely seen as the city's top challenge and one that could define his mayoral tenure.
Houston's pensions became a burden after 2001, when flawed cost projections led city leaders to agree to increase benefits, only to see costs spike. Houston has since repeatedly failed to make its full payments into the funds, despite benefit cuts for some new hires in 2004 and 2007. The three pensions are underfunded by $5.6 billion this year.

Turner, whom all three employee groups backed in last year's mayor's race, provided little insight into his pension reform goals on the campaign trail. Upon taking office in January, however, Turner named the issue as a key focus, and has spent seven months in steady negotiations with police, firefighter and municipal employee pension leaders.

____________________________________________


Is anyone knowledgeable enough about this topic to give odds on reforming the pension?

I have heard people compare Houston to Chicago or Detroit, I don't get the impression that things are that bad but there does seem to be widespread concern for the pension issue.

[DSL_PWR]

"tentative"

big word with lots of meanings.

[astrohip]

It's a very interesting plan, and I think it has a shot. The only, and I mean ONLY, roadblock will be the fire fighters union. They have the sweetest pension on earth*, and while common sense says they should get behind a sensible plan like Turner's, greed says they will fight.

He will eliminate the deficit by three concurrent actions: One will have the pension plans reduce future benefits, two has the city selling bonds, three has the city actually funding the balance. The pain is equally shared. He also has a cap in the proposal which puts the onus on the plans to keep costs low, and not the city to fund it.

It's fair, it's balanced, and all parties share equally in the solution. I never thought I would say this, but it's not a bad plan.

Which means somebody won't like it.


* Current fire fighter's pension says they can design their own plan, with ZERO control by the city, and then the city must fully fund it. It's like a kid in a candy store, and they (the FF) have screwed us (COH tax payers) with it.

[astrohip]

Originally Posted by astrohip

The only, and I mean ONLY, roadblock will be the fire fighters union. They have the sweetest pension on earth*, and while common sense says they should get behind a sensible plan like Turner's, greed says they will fight.

Wow, only took two hours for my prediction to come true (it was an easy guess ):

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/n...y-to-call.html

Firefighters' pension board: Too early to call mayor's pension plan a done deal

While Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner was touting his $7.7 billion pension plan Sept. 14, the Houston Firefighters' Relief and Retirement Fund was making it known to their members that nothing has been agreed to.

So once again, the Fire Fighters are going to make sure their cookie jar stays full, even if the city goes broke.

What happened to the common good?

[Seymour_Butts]

How did they end up with such a sweet deal? Was it originally negotiated during a rash of arson?

It seems like we should be able to afford a high quality fire department without it making the city go broke. What exactly are their benefits like?

[astrohip]

Originally Posted by Seymour_Butts

How did they end up with such a sweet deal? Was it originally negotiated during a rash of arson?

It seems like we should be able to afford a high quality fire department without it making the city go broke. What exactly are their benefits like?

Someone with better google skills can find the exact reason, but it was when one of our past mayors, either Brown or White, needed something from them. Maybe a salary negotiation or something. They were able to get the concessions they needed by sweetening the pension pot. Literally a case of save now, spend later.

Here's what the FF have, versus everyone else: Most pensions are controlled by a pension board, that is appointed by both city & employees. And that board decides benefits, payouts, etc. Nothing changes without all parties being in agreement.

The Fire Fighters appoint their own board, and can make the final call without any input from the city. So if they decide to up benefits, they do it, and the city can't do a thing. Can you imagine!?!?!

This was approved by the state legs, and can only be changed by them. And the state has said they won't meddle until all parties agree on the changes.

[Double L]

Mayor clarifies in tweet: Houston will hold a referendum on pension bonds

By Mike Morris Published 10:26*am, Thursday, June 8, 2017

Mayor Sylvester Turner will ask Houstonians to vote on the pension bonds that are central to his reform deal after all, using a Thursday morning tweet to clarify an equivocal stance he had taken on the topic the day before.

The Legislature added that referendum requirement in adopting Turner's landmark pension reform legislation this spring. The bill, however, would let the city issue the bonds without a vote if City Council approves agreements with the pension funds that will receive the $1 billion in bond proceeds before July 1, the effective date of the legislation.

Turner had said he thought it was "unlikely" that he would sidestep the referendum, but did say he intended to bring those agreements to council in two weeks.

Early Thursday, he tweeted a more definitive statement: "The city will proceed with a vote on #pension obligation bonds in November," signing the tweet with his initials to indicate he, and not a staffer, was the author.

Turner's finance director had left the door open to issuing the bonds without a vote at a Tuesday council committee meeting, prompting concerns from some members. Asked to clarify the administration's plans on Wednesday, Turner also indicated he wanted to preserve the option of acting without a referendum, particularly because interest rates are expected to rise, increasing the already substantial cost of servicing $1 billion in debt.

However, the mayor had indicated he would only skip the referendum if all parties agreed that doing so would be in the city's best interest.

"I'm talking about agreement with everybody. We've come this far with everybody, both on the local levels as well as on the state level," he said Wednesday.

Two key state senators involved in the reform talks had responded to the idea with outrage, suggesting such a consensus would be hard to achieve.

Mayor clarifies in tweet: Houston will hold a referendum on pension bonds - Houston Chronicle

[SpringBrancher]

He needs voters to approve more taxes.

So, he has not a shot in hell. This is all PR to blame the future budget failure on someone else.

Plus, the firefighters sued the city for raiding the solvent pension to bail out others.

[Kiovo]

Originally Posted by Seymour_Butts

How did they end up with such a sweet deal? Was it originally negotiated during a rash of arson?

It seems like we should be able to afford a high quality fire department without it making the city go broke. What exactly are their benefits like?

They ended up with such a "sweet" deal thru negotiating. They agreed to negotiate low pay for a better retirement. While HFD and municipal employees agreed to give up control of their pensions to the city (which is now underfunded) for higher salary. HFD does have (or used to have) one of the best pensions in the country, but in return was underpaid and the firefighters who signed up for the job were ok with that. Now they're underpaid and no more pension. Keep in mind, firefighters also have to pay into their pension. A % of their check goes into their pension so it's not like it's all free money. The reason it is so healthy and doing so well is because of the pension board making good financial investments. Now the city wants control of that money and to use it how they see fit...including bailing out HPD and municipal employee's pension.

But I love how some people think it all comes down to greed on the firefighters part but not the city's. If taxpayers want to hold someone accountable then hold your mayor and city council accountable, not the firefighters who have done nothing but help the citizens of this city.

[SpringBrancher]

Sly Turner's Public Works director Karun Sreeman just got exposed taking a $2M fee for a bull**** study for HCC. BigJolly politics has the complete story. It was revealed in connection with HCC board member Chris Oliver's guilty plea to bribery charges in federal court. These crooks can't be trusted with any tax payer money.

But, yes, let's blame fire fighters whose only crime was taking lower salaries to ensure their pension fund is solvent. Let's steal from them to give to folks whose pension funds aren't solvent. Then let's vilify the people who show up when your house in on fire.