Mike Hogan

Mike Hogan became the second major candidate in as many days to file for the 2011 Jacksonville Mayor's race on Friday.  Hogan, a Republican who serves as the Duval County Tax Collector, joins Audrey Moran, who announced on Thursday.

Hogan is a Jacksonville political veteran, having held public office since winning a seat on the Jacksonville City Council in 1991.  He served two terms on the Council before leaving the office due to term limits.  In 2000, he won a seat in the Florida House of Representatives.  He was re-elected in 2002, but resigned several months into his term to run for Duval County Tax Collector, a post he has held since 2003.

Hogan angered many local elected officials during his time on the State's Taxation and Budget Reform Commission.  While on the Commission, Hogan pushed a statewide amendment that would have severely limited the ability of local governments to control their own sources of revenue by banning the use of fees to offset declines in property tax revenues.  The amendment never made it to voters.

Hogan has been angling for the Mayor's slot for several years and has been highly critical of the city's procurement policies in the past.  He has maintained that the city could save millions by using state contracts to purchase supplies or by purchasing items directly from vendors such as Home Depot, instead of going through standard contracting procedures.

Hogan says he will announce his campaign team in the coming months.  He is likely to roll out his online presence and strategy during that time as well.

The race for Mayor is likely to draw a few more high profile candidates with publisher Jim Bailey and current City Council members Kevin Hyde, Ronnie Fussell and Glorious Johnson also said to be considering bids.

Moran is a former civil rights attorney who served as Mayor John Delaney's Chief of Staff.  Most recently, Moran has served as the CEO of the Sulzbacher Center for the Homeless.

Hogan previously served on the Jacksonville City Council.  He left the Council to serve in the State House and resigned that seat early to run for Tax Collector, a post he has held since 2003.

The 2011 race for Mayor is expected to be rather crowded with several other individuals thought to be interested, including Publisher Jim Bailey, Councilwoman Glorious Johnson, Councilman Kevin Hyde and Councilman Ronnie Fussell, among others.

District 1 - Beverly Garvin, vice-President of Watson Realty.
District 2 - James Catlett, consultant with Agency Approval & Development, a consulting, land development and lobbying firm.
District 3 - Allison Korman, director of marketing and community relations for Stellar.
District 4 - Mechelle Herrington, assistant public defender.
District 5 - Robert Flowers Sr., DCSB administrator.
District 6 - Gary Oliveras, JSO police officer and local FOP director.
District 7 - Geoffrey Youngblood, CEO of Tools for a Time.
At Large - Edward Austin, former Mayor.
At-Large - Martha Barrett, Bank of America Senior VP of Market Development and DCSB member.
At-Large - Billy Catlin, VP of sales of Stare Decisis FL, LLC.
At-Large - Wyman Duggan, shareholder with Rogers Towers.
At-Large - Teresa Eichner, Senior VP with Access Public Relations.
At-Large - Jeanne Miller, General Counsel for Florida State College at Jacksonville (formerly FCCJ).
At-Large - Mary O’Brien, chief marketing officer for Advanced Disposal Services.
At-Large - Curtis Thompson, retired from Anheuser Busch and Kaiser Aluminum Corp.

Yep, if I were considering a run for Mayor, that is certainly the team I would want behind me.

So, where are North Florida politicians in this media revolution?  

Five of Jacksonville's Nineteen City Council Members have a profile on Facebook.  Of those, only one appears to use it to engage in political discussion.  Two of the City's Constitutional Officers have Facebook profiles, but neither appear to use it to promote their office or campaign.  The Mayor has no presence on Facebook---hardly surprising considering he doesn't even have a published e-mail address on the City's website.

Only one member of the Jacksonville City Council can be found on Twitter, which truly begs the question: "How is it that a Senator from Missouri can Twitter with her constituents, but a Jacksonville City Council member cannot?"

It's truly about an embrace of open government and a commitment to engaging the younger voting population---the population who will be most impacted in the long-run by the decisions being made today.  Unfortunately, open government in Jacksonville remains something out of reach.  Only five of Jacksonville's nineteen Council Members make their e-mail readily accessible to their constituents via the web---Daniel Davis, Kevin Hyde, Ronnie Fussell, Johnny Gaffney and Glorious Johnson.  Councilman Richard Clark, who will most likely take over as President of the Council next year, has already made it abundantly clear that he has no intentions of following the precedent of previous Council President's in putting his e-mail online.  

While the Mayor does put his e-mail online, his staff is typically running one to two weeks behind in making their e-mails accessible.  

North Florida's State Legislators and School Board Members are hardly an exception to North Florida's refusal to embrace social networking campaigning.  Florida's two Senators are on Twitter, but our local Representatives are not.  (Ander Crenshaw has a Twitter, but has only four followers, and apparently does not let his constituents follow him---I've been trying.)  I was unable to locate any of our local State Senators and Representatives on Twitter.

How will Jacksonville politicians ever manage to engage the voting public if they are unwilling to go to where the voting public is?  When will we have a local government that effectively uses YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other media outlets to communicate with its voters?  When will Jacksonville's leaders embrace the idea that open communication and transparent government is something to be celebrated and embraced?

Of course, there are other differences more germane to one of the city's hottest conversation pieces. John Peyton seems content to award a $750 million contract to a friend. Ronnie Fussell isn't quite sold on the prospect of a sole source contract for a project in which other firms have expressed interest.

The public appears to see other differences.

While Mr. Fussell's e-mails from citizens, which was discussed here yesterday, is relatively polite, Mayor Peyton is taking quite a pounding over his dictatorial ambitions. Perhaps the voting public realizes Mr. Peyton doesn't read his own e-mail or maybe they think he's "on someone else's payroll." (Their words, not mine.) Regardless, their thoughts are rather interesting. Read them below...

mr. it is somewhat troubling to me that you would expect anyone to agree to such a deal not knowing if that is the best deal for the city.if it sounds to good to be true it is

S.H.
--------------------------------------------

Mr. Peyton,

Who is on your payroll or is it what payroll do you belong to? I do not believe your father would allow for such a large contract to go unchallenged. Even if a contract negotiation costs a little up front, uncontested contracts have historically been frivolous and way over budget. Why are you and your staff so adement about getting this deal done, behind closed doors/ Why is Waste Management officials meeting individually with city council persons? Being over budget, where is the money we as tax payers agreed to pay for the better Jacksonville plan? Why must we pay hundreds of millions more for a courthouse than we agreed to pay, without this going back to the voters. Let the cash strapped people of Jacksonville decide. Yes. I understand the city of Jacksonville wants something nice. Or is it the appointed judges and their staff. I believe the money should be rerouted to where it is needed, insted of where it is wanted. Let some of this money fund the additional costs for the JSO. Let's put it out to assist those in true need for food and shelter. Jacksonville leaders have got to stop wasting our money and then using scare tactics as they do every year at budget time, saying we will have to cut costs in Emergency Services. Can we the people of Jacksonville have a Federal audit, penny for penny as to where our money is going, and then hold responsible the parties involved that may have wasted it. Say like for Jacksonville Jaguar tickets?

Very irate Peyton voter.
M.
------------------------------------------------

Dear Mayor,

First of all, there should be NO contracts awarded without competitive bids. period! We've had enough of the Bush/Cheney/Haliburton-style of "no contract" awards.

Secondly, to even consider a 35-year contract is not only very suspicious, it's ludicrous! It smells like someone is trying to lock down a sweetheart deal for a very long term, and it makes you wonder just who the beneficiaries are? And 35 years from now, who knows what companies will exist and what new and better technologies will exist for handling our refuse? 35 years for any contract, other than maybe a mortgage, is a dumb idea, or worse.!

I've been more or less of a supporter of yours, but with the financial debacle of the courthouse, and now this, you're really on my watch list.

N.D.
-----------------------------------------------------

Keep Waste Management - If you get someone cheaper, well it will reflect on the services
They do a great job!
P.V.
--------------------------------------
Gentlemen,

The very essence of government in the sunshine is to provide the tax paying residents with an open view of government interactions. To not put a contract of this magnitude out for bid is to insure that the current status quo is never challenged to do better, for less money in a competitive business environment.

Additionally, I have never heard of any company or enterprise giving any business enterprise a publicly financed contract lasting 35 years. This would seemingly lock you into a long term relationship that could not be changed given any number of circumstances; market changes, technology advances (perhaps by a competitor), future financial constraints, changing demand, etc.

Contracts can be framed in order to avoid getting just the cheapest entity to prevail and instead wording to not compromise the quality and experience of those companies responding.

This landfill contract should absolutely be an RFP to keep the City on the cutting edge of technology while demanding current best practices and competent stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

A.D
Landfill bid

I am a concerned citizen. Will someone please tell me simply and succinctly the opposition to having the landfill contract put up for bid? Thank you
F.D.
---------------------------------
How can a no-bid contract possibly be justified? Let's look
at what the marketplace has to offer! PLEASE.
A.W. and M.W.
---------------------------------
Please bid the contract to operate the city's landfill. How can you be certain, Mayor Peyton, that the price cannot be matched unless you bid it?

B.C.
-------------------------------------------------
Cant you ever stay within the Law ???????
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- It's a 750 million dollar deal and City rules say contracts over $50,000 must have a formal bidding process. But Mayor Peyton says that requirement doesn't apply.

"Basically we're saying let's extend this pile to this pile. Versus doing two separate piles."

The Mayor says because the deal adds on to the existing site it isn't a new contract. It's an extension of the 1991 contract with Waste Management to run Trail Ridge. A contract that was bid on at the time. But not everyone agrees.

A competing waste company, Republic Services, argues this is an entirely new agreement. And that means city leaders aren't following their own rules to get competing bids. Mayor Peyton says Republic's position is motivated by its business interests.

"I recognize there are companies that would like to be in this deal, and it is in their interest to protect their stockholders value, but it's my job to protect the taxpayer's value. I take that very seriously."

Republic representatives say they could give the city a much better deal. And it's in taxpayers best interest to see what kind of savings could be out there. We asked the Mayor whether he would take the same no-bid approach if he were running the Gate Corporation instead of the city.

"In this situation, certainly. We have a situation where it is cheaper to expand the existing pile than starting over with a new pile."
G.S.
------------------------------
Mayor Peyton,

I just wanted to take a moment to express my support for your position on renewing the existing landfill contract. After listening to you on the radio it occurred to me that the real issue at stake here seems to be whether or not we want to maximize the use of the landfill. Don't get me wrong, I know the City would incur a number of costs were it to rebid the existing contract and those costs are certainly important. However, common sense would tell us that the closure and post closure costs on the existing mound and all future mounds are going to be incurred at some point anyway. So, by renewing the existing contract all we're doing is deferring the closure, post-closure and possible remediation costs until the current mound reaches capacity.

I do not profess to be a legal expert on environmental issues but I assume there is some regulation that either prohibits or makes it difficult to transfer liability of the existing mound from one company to another. I always thought ultimate liability of the landfill rested with the City but I could be wrong. In any event, if such a regulation exists then rebidding this contract could reduce the useful life of the landfill by the number of years remaining on the current mound. In my opinion, that would be a considerable loss to the City and taxpayers and that is why I am supporting your position on this issue. Keep up the good work.

D.W.

Of course, the Mayor can take comfort in the fact that at least two people support his position. Unfortunately, surveys have shown they are very much in the minority. Council members are certainly feeling much more of the heat on this issue, something that weighs heavily on their minds as they consider future political ambitions.

Entrance to the sacred grounds of the Green Room is limited to council members, city staff and "invited guests."

It's understandable that council members may need a place to take a break during council meetings or take a cell phone call, but it's the "invited guests" that are the problem.

A recent example: Port officials were yukking it up in the Green Room with council members who will decide whether to allow the port to build a cruise ship terminal at Mayport.

Those opposed are left on the outside looking in.

Fussell can fix the problem by limiting the Green Room to council members and staff.

They are right.  We can all see what's going on the green room - and unfortunately it's not open government.

Part VII – Conclusion

 

Summary of Key Points:

 

We recognize that this paper is very lengthy and covers a number of subjects that are technical and foreign to many readers. In view of these factors, we would like to step back for a moment and reflect upon some of the more important matters that have been discussed. Key aspects that are documented and covered in this paper may be summarized by the following points:

 

1. Past studies and information disseminated on the subject of City pensions have often carried a distorted and misleading slant.

 

2. PFPF benefit enhancements over the past 10 years have not been excessive, and where they have been extended, they have largely been accompanied by the commitment of assets under the control of members.

 

3. The general benefit structure of the PFPF is comparable if not less than other public safety plans throughout the State of Florida.

 

4. The City has repeatedly pursued programs of temporary budget relief from the payment of pension contributions through the use of reserve account assessments and the acceptance of lump sum cash in exchange for initial budget relief.

 

5. For an extended period of time, the City made pension contributions to the GEPP at rates far in excess of that provided to the PFPF.

 

6. The City had no cushion to fall back on when the stock market started to decline in 2000 because it had wrung out all of the pipeline gains from the prior market advance in order to secure lower pension contribution obligations.

 

7. The unsustainable millage reduction program was made partially possible through the temporary use of pension reserves and other one-time budgetary sources.

 

8. The weak stock market that has generally persisted since April, 2000, has been the major reason for the growing UAAL and City contribution rates (once a market recovery emerges, budget pressures will subside).

 

9. Demographic factors, including longer life spans, and a low rate of inflation have been a contributing factor in the increasing cost of the City’s Retirement System.

 

10. Various City policies have collectively placed burdens upon the financial health of the PFPF. These policies include the following:

a. Relinquishment of Court Fine revenues to the State of Florida.

b. Hiring of Community Service Officers in lieu of Police Officers.

c. Use of overtime to combat crime instead of hiring new Police Officers.

d. Requirement to keep Fire positions open in order to meet lapse factors.

e. City’s mandate to develop new computer processing systems for pensions.

 

11. The City has enjoyed substantial budgetary savings from the practice of extending a 0% City pension contribution for DROP participants.

 

12. The City enjoys substantial budgetary savings from the fact that members of the PFPF are not enrolled in the Social Security System thereby allowing the City to avoid the 6.2% matching rate required for other City employees enrolled in Social Security.

 

13. Those critical of the 8.4% rate of interest extended to DROP participants must consider the fact that DROP participants pay a 2% annual fee for their participation in the program and that over longer investment periods, the PFPF has delivered returns in excess of 8.4%. In addition, if there was no DROP, the City would pay out higher pension levels to current DROP participants which would be funded at the higher actuarial rate of 8.5%.

 

14. The City has a commitment to maintain the current pension structure pursuant to the execution of a Settlement 

Agreement that extends to the year 2030, thereby posing an obstacle to those interested in introducing programs of pension benefit reductions.

 

15. The PFPF has delivered a very successful record of investment performance when compared to national peer groups despite the severe investment restrictions that they have been operating under for many years.

 

16. It is essential for the State to release the PFPF from the limited investment options under which it currently must operate.

 

17. Additional real estate partnerships should be considered by the City along with Pension Obligation Bonds and other programs that would help to liquidate the UAAL.

 

18. Significant budget relief will be realized by the City when the current UAAL is liquidated in 21.5 years.

 

19. The sustainability of Jacksonville’s pension plans are enhanced due to the general lack of OPEB liabilities, the relatively short UAAL amortization period for the PFPF and the City’s 90% funding standard required prior to

the consideration of future pension enhancements.

 

20. The PFPF has been a very successful operating unit of the City. It is recognized as a leader in the public pension plan community and enjoys the support of a talented Board of Pension Trustees to guide the mission and develop management policies.

 

How Did We Get Here?:

 

Citizens and City policy-makers are currently asking the understandable question of how the PFPF came to amass a $534 million UAAL and require a City contribution rate of 32.11%. We trust that the information contained in this paper

answers these questions. We hope that you draw the conclusion that the current posture does not appear to be linked to an excessive benefit structure, recent benefit enhancements, nor poor investment returns vs. those available in the

market place. In contrast to these factors, we hope that you will agree with us that the current posture is primarily linked to demographic factors and an historical pattern of poor funding policies (encouraged by the City’s millage reduction initiatives), coupled with an historically poor investment climate since the year 2000. Generous pension benefits are not the culprit, but rather poor funding policies, demographics and the economy.

 

What Can We Expect in the Near Future?:

 

1. The actuaries for the City’s pension plans are currently preparing an Actuarial Valuation as of September 30, 2008 which will acknowledge the market losses experienced during FY2008. The findings of these reports will cause an increase in the City’s contribution requirements for FY2009-10 for all of the City’s pension programs.

 

2. The City’s Chief Financial Officer is currently advocating a reduction in the actuarial assumption for pension earnings. If this program is implemented, the City’s contribution rate would necessarily increase by a substantial amount to compensate for reduced investment earnings expectations. In response to a request from the City Finance Committee,

the PFPF Actuary was asked to calculate the impact of reducing the current 8.50% actuarial rate of return assumption. According to the Actuary’s preliminary calculations, the City would have to increase its contribution rate by 5.2% in response to a decrease in the earnings assumption from 8.50% to 8.00%. A more aggressive reduction from

8.50% to 7.75% would cause the City’s contribution rate to increase by 8.0%.

 

Where Do We Go From Here?:

 

1. There are no painless solutions. The consequences of past funding policies coupled with the City’s millage reduction program have contributed to a difficult budget challenge that must be addressed. The City must end the practice of seeking temporary means of avoiding the acknowledgement of the full contribution requirements for its pension programs.

 

2. Consider the use of Pension Obligations Bonds and other financing techniques as a means of liquidating elements of the UAAL and in restructuring its obligations.

 

3. Continue to explore real estate partnerships with the PFPF which will contribute to further reductions in the UAAL and reduced City contributions (i.e. replicate programs such as the Laura Trio and Haverty’s).

 

4. Support PFPF efforts to broaden the range of permitted investments options which currently constrain the Fund.

The point was brought up that all residential districts would be pinned together with this bill, and while it was legal to park a boat trailer on the side or back yard in a residential neighborhood, a lawn mower trailer would be illegal to park in a yard.

Ronnie Fussell rammed this change through, using the basic argument that "Americans drive big cars."  What boggles the mind is that these aren't actually cars---they are large trucks, vans and SUV's.  And yes, you guessed it, they are exactly the type of vehicles that society has been encouraging Americans to forgoe---unless they are essential for their line of work.  In essence, Mr. Fussell justifies the change because Jacksonvillians drive monster trucks and SUV's that are illegal under the current ordinance.  If that is indeed the case, perhaps Mr. Fussell should consider encouraging Jacksonville residents to scale back and use smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.  It's a win-win situation for the City.  They take up less space, they pollute less and the end result isn't a large-scale transfer of wealth to the Middle East.  Unfortunately for the City of Jacksonville; however, Mr. Fussell has demonstrated (once again) that on this issue (and many others), he would rather look like the "cool" politician (as if there is such a thing), than actually demonstrate forward-looking leadership. 

Michael Corrigan's response takes the cake in this debate; however, with his blast at Bad Ass Coffee.  Mr. Corrigan appears frightened that Bad Ass will now park a delivery van in front of his house and he will be forced to explain the offensive word to his young child.  I'm guessing its safe to assume Mr. Corrigan has never read the Old Testament story of Balaam to his family.  Otherwise, he might actually have to explain what the Biblical word for donkey is.  Mr. Corrigan is apparently unable to understand the correlation between Bad Ass' mascot and the ancient prophet's (rather stubborn) mode of transportation.