Ongoing Revenue Will Continue to Trickle Into the Police and Fire Pension Fund, with the Last Payment from the AT&T Mobility Settlement to be Received in July
Last week, Public Information Director Louise Whall clarified that a part of the AT&T Mobility settlement revenue slated to make up the $10.22 million to be contributed to the police/fire pension fund is still being collected and will continue to be collected through June 30, 2009.
In an email last week, Whall indicated the City of Springfield had already received the check for $6.125 million and it was applied directly to the pension fund. She also indicated the City already had the back taxes which were being held in an escrow account because they were paid by AT&T Mobility under protest. Whall said, those two amounts, plus the revenue still being collected through June 30, will equal the $10.22 million the City Council, past and present, has pledged to the pension fund.
In a later email, in response to my query for more detailed information, Whall indicated the taxes which were paid under protest and held in escrow had been released and had been deposited into the pension fund on May 18.
According to Whall, breaking down specific amounts held in escrow and the amounts received and expected to be received through ongoing sales taxes, through the month of June, cannot be disclosed due to restrictions under state statute.
"Under state statute, we cannot disclose individual gross-receipts tax paid by any single company," Whall wrote. "That information could be used to extrapolate overall revenues and therefore gets into disclosing proprietary information of private companies."
Whall wrote that by subtracting the lump sum payment of $6.125 million from the $10.22 million amount, one could get the figure which had been held in escrow, combined with what has been paid and is expected to be paid through June 30.
"We just haven't specified the number of months covered by each in order to comply with the statute," Whall added. "The "going forward" monthly payments have been deposited into the pension fund as they are received monthly. We expect to receive the final payment for the month of June in July."
Ongoing revenue, after the end of the City's fiscal year 2008-09, from telecommunications sales tax revenue streams has been proposed to hire 5 new firefighters in July and reopen the police academy with an eye toward hiring 10 new police officers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Showing posts with label Telecommunications Settlements. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Telecommunications Settlements. Show all posts
Monday, June 08, 2009
Monday, June 01, 2009
I was wrong...
and I admit it and I apologize. Contrary to this entry I posted on Saturday, the City will be satisfying their pension obligation plus interest for the four fiscal years that they did not meet in the past from the AT&T Mobility settlement, reached in March. The lump sum payment of $6,125,000, as noted in the agreement quoted in the posting directly below this one is only a portion of the money that will go toward satisfying that pension debt.
As explained below, by Public Information Director Louise Whall, part of that debt will be satisfied by the back taxes of AT&T Mobility which were being held in escrow, and another portion of the approximately $10.22 million debt, including interest the City owed to the pension fund, will be satisfied by the ongoing sales tax revenue which will continue to be collected through the end of the current fiscal year, or June 30, 2009.
I'm human and don't enjoy being caught in an error any more than the next person, however, my conscience dictates that it is important to own up, to take responsibility for error.
I extend sincere apologies to the City of Springfield for making an error in my analysis about the AT&T Mobility Settlement.
I also extend sincere apologies to Vincent David Jericho because he reported on my posting, which was in error, on his program Monday morning. In addition, I apologize to all of my readers for giving them faulty facts and faulty analysis, on this issue.
I should have paid more attention to my own past reporting in this piece, where there was a discussion about the revenue stream from taxes paid by AT&T Mobility through June 30, 2009. Those taxes, had I connected my own dots, from my own reporting, should have given me another clue that the lump sum of $6,125,000 discussed in the AT&T Mobility agreement did not represent all the revenue or funds which would be paid into the pension fund as a result of the AT&T Mobility settlement agreement.
I should have paid more attention to the portion of the AT&T Mobility agreement which read:
I should have waited until I had received an answer from Public Information Director Louise Whall before assuming I fully understood the issue.
The City of Springfield and its staff and employees, along with its legal department did not lose $4.1 million.
I plan to learn from this mistake and I take full responsibility for it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As explained below, by Public Information Director Louise Whall, part of that debt will be satisfied by the back taxes of AT&T Mobility which were being held in escrow, and another portion of the approximately $10.22 million debt, including interest the City owed to the pension fund, will be satisfied by the ongoing sales tax revenue which will continue to be collected through the end of the current fiscal year, or June 30, 2009.
I'm human and don't enjoy being caught in an error any more than the next person, however, my conscience dictates that it is important to own up, to take responsibility for error.
I extend sincere apologies to the City of Springfield for making an error in my analysis about the AT&T Mobility Settlement.
I also extend sincere apologies to Vincent David Jericho because he reported on my posting, which was in error, on his program Monday morning. In addition, I apologize to all of my readers for giving them faulty facts and faulty analysis, on this issue.
I should have paid more attention to my own past reporting in this piece, where there was a discussion about the revenue stream from taxes paid by AT&T Mobility through June 30, 2009. Those taxes, had I connected my own dots, from my own reporting, should have given me another clue that the lump sum of $6,125,000 discussed in the AT&T Mobility agreement did not represent all the revenue or funds which would be paid into the pension fund as a result of the AT&T Mobility settlement agreement.
I should have paid more attention to the portion of the AT&T Mobility agreement which read:
"Further, all payments related to the Protest Cases and payments remitted "under protest" for the months of January and February 2009, plus any accrued interest on those amounts currently held by Springfield, shall be released to Springfield upon the entry of the dismissal orders in the Protest Cases as described in paragraph 1 above."
I should have waited until I had received an answer from Public Information Director Louise Whall before assuming I fully understood the issue.
The City of Springfield and its staff and employees, along with its legal department did not lose $4.1 million.
I plan to learn from this mistake and I take full responsibility for it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Where's my 4.1 Million Dollars, Dude?
That might be what Police and Firefighter Pension Trustees and the past and present City Council members are asking today
Update: Please refer to: "JackeHammer: I was wrong..."
The City of Springfield stated, in its explanation to Council Bill 2009-053 (Ordinance No. 25556), that, with Council approval, the net AT&T Mobility Settlement would equal the amount the City underfunded the pension plan during four past fiscal years, with interest. Council, clearly, unanimously approved the bill with that intent, also amending the budget, "In the amount of $10,225,361.00 for payment into the Police Officers' and Fire Fighters' Pension Fund to meet the City's net pension obligation," on March 9, 2009.
I could quote and quote from Ordinance No. 25556, noting the intent of the ordinance, and I could quote and quote from the March 9, City Council meeting, proving the belief of the City Council that the money the City would end up with, as a result of the AT&T Mobility settlement, would be enough to cover the entire net pension obligation, including the interest accrued at 7.5 percent through June 30, 2009 but, you can read the bill as linked above for yourself.
Clearly, our past Mayor, Tom Carlson, believed it was "a done deal."
Carlson stated in his State of the City address on March 5, "The newspaper put a lot of pressure on us through the editorial board but, your Council stuck to its guns (and) as a consequence of that, we are going to get enough money in here to make the full payment that we owe, with interest."
At the following City Council meeting, past Councilman Ralph Manley believed it was a big win for the City, "This is a real bonanza for us, and we're very happy that all of this settlement can go to these funds, and it's going to go a long way toward catching up some of the shortages we've had," Manley said.
City Manager Greg Burris said it would take the City from around $200 million in shortage to around $190 million in shortage amounts, "and, as the Mayor pointed out, it does make the City whole in terms of making that contribution that was recommended by the actuaries over those 4 years," Burris said.
Carlson, in an exchange with Finance Director Mary Mannix Decker asked her, "So, to say it another way then, if the Council approves this bill tonight, once the money's received, it will be placed in the pension fund and it would fully satisfy all the payments that the actuaries were requiring the City to make over the past 3 or 4 years?"
Decker responded, "Yes, that's correct."
So, what happened? Where's the pension fund's intended $10,225,361.00?
Section 1 of the ordinance might offer us a bit of direction. It states, " The City Manager, on behalf of the City of Springfield, Missouri, is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with AT&T Mobility, LLC and those who conduct business on its behalf and named in eight tax protest suits filed in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, provided said agreement is in substantially similar form and content as the agreement entered into between the City of Springfield and Sprint Corporation and the agreement entered into between AT&T Mobility and Jefferson City, Missouri, upon the City Attorney approving the form of such agreement and the City of Springfield receiving out of said agreement the release of all taxes paid prior to June 30, 2009, and sufficient additional cash payment so that the City will receive, and have available to it, the total of $10,225,361.00 by June 30, 2009."
So, in other words, provided everything worked out the way the City, staff and attorneys thought it would, and then, with the City Attorney's approval as to the form of the agreement, and if, and if, when all was said and done, the City had available the $10,225,361, they'd put that amount in the pension fund.
Though the intent was there, the $10.2 Carlson and the past Council were counting on will not be received by the City of Springfield.
Although the bill, which the sitting City Council of the day approved in March, stated, under #3 of the explanation, "The attorneys' fees and costs for the City will be paid directly by AT&T Mobility...," and noted the stated intent, that "the City's NET settlement proceeds WILL equal the amount the City underfunded the pension plan during four fiscal years (FY2004 through FY2007), plus interest," and although staff recommended approval, "of this settlement... to meet the City's net pension obligation," it all flew out the window when the actual agreement was signed and notarized.
So, what was the agreement? What "form of agreement" did the City Attorney approve? That's the easy question, you can simply read the signed, notarized agreement* between all parties.
The City will receive only $6,125,000, rather than the budget amended amount of $10,225,361, and Lowther Johnson, Attorneys at Law, LLC will receive $4,375,000. All of it will come out of a pot of $10.5 million but, technically, AT&T Mobility will pay the City's attorney fees directly, just as the ordinance indicated it would.
The tougher questions to answer are what happened to the ordinance indicated amount of $10,225,361? Why did the agreement fail to provide the net funds in an amount sufficient to cover the City's net pension obligation plus interest, as intended?
Somewhere between the passage of that bill in early March, and April 21, our fair City lost an intended $4.1 million. Our police and fire fighter pension fund lost $4.1 million and the taxpayers of Springfield, Missouri lost $4.1 million. Okay, you say, you can't lose what you don't have, that is true but, by all previous indications, the City had a tentative settlement agreement for an amount $4.1 million greater than what the City will receive.
The moral of the story: Don't count on your chickens (or duck) before they're hatched.
*Source: "Springfield News-Leader"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Update: Please refer to: "JackeHammer: I was wrong..."
The City of Springfield stated, in its explanation to Council Bill 2009-053 (Ordinance No. 25556), that, with Council approval, the net AT&T Mobility Settlement would equal the amount the City underfunded the pension plan during four past fiscal years, with interest. Council, clearly, unanimously approved the bill with that intent, also amending the budget, "In the amount of $10,225,361.00 for payment into the Police Officers' and Fire Fighters' Pension Fund to meet the City's net pension obligation," on March 9, 2009.
I could quote and quote from Ordinance No. 25556, noting the intent of the ordinance, and I could quote and quote from the March 9, City Council meeting, proving the belief of the City Council that the money the City would end up with, as a result of the AT&T Mobility settlement, would be enough to cover the entire net pension obligation, including the interest accrued at 7.5 percent through June 30, 2009 but, you can read the bill as linked above for yourself.
Clearly, our past Mayor, Tom Carlson, believed it was "a done deal."
Carlson stated in his State of the City address on March 5, "The newspaper put a lot of pressure on us through the editorial board but, your Council stuck to its guns (and) as a consequence of that, we are going to get enough money in here to make the full payment that we owe, with interest."
At the following City Council meeting, past Councilman Ralph Manley believed it was a big win for the City, "This is a real bonanza for us, and we're very happy that all of this settlement can go to these funds, and it's going to go a long way toward catching up some of the shortages we've had," Manley said.
City Manager Greg Burris said it would take the City from around $200 million in shortage to around $190 million in shortage amounts, "and, as the Mayor pointed out, it does make the City whole in terms of making that contribution that was recommended by the actuaries over those 4 years," Burris said.
Carlson, in an exchange with Finance Director Mary Mannix Decker asked her, "So, to say it another way then, if the Council approves this bill tonight, once the money's received, it will be placed in the pension fund and it would fully satisfy all the payments that the actuaries were requiring the City to make over the past 3 or 4 years?"
Decker responded, "Yes, that's correct."
So, what happened? Where's the pension fund's intended $10,225,361.00?
Section 1 of the ordinance might offer us a bit of direction. It states, " The City Manager, on behalf of the City of Springfield, Missouri, is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with AT&T Mobility, LLC and those who conduct business on its behalf and named in eight tax protest suits filed in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, provided said agreement is in substantially similar form and content as the agreement entered into between the City of Springfield and Sprint Corporation and the agreement entered into between AT&T Mobility and Jefferson City, Missouri, upon the City Attorney approving the form of such agreement and the City of Springfield receiving out of said agreement the release of all taxes paid prior to June 30, 2009, and sufficient additional cash payment so that the City will receive, and have available to it, the total of $10,225,361.00 by June 30, 2009."
So, in other words, provided everything worked out the way the City, staff and attorneys thought it would, and then, with the City Attorney's approval as to the form of the agreement, and if, and if, when all was said and done, the City had available the $10,225,361, they'd put that amount in the pension fund.
Though the intent was there, the $10.2 Carlson and the past Council were counting on will not be received by the City of Springfield.
Although the bill, which the sitting City Council of the day approved in March, stated, under #3 of the explanation, "The attorneys' fees and costs for the City will be paid directly by AT&T Mobility...," and noted the stated intent, that "the City's NET settlement proceeds WILL equal the amount the City underfunded the pension plan during four fiscal years (FY2004 through FY2007), plus interest," and although staff recommended approval, "of this settlement... to meet the City's net pension obligation," it all flew out the window when the actual agreement was signed and notarized.
So, what was the agreement? What "form of agreement" did the City Attorney approve? That's the easy question, you can simply read the signed, notarized agreement* between all parties.
The City will receive only $6,125,000, rather than the budget amended amount of $10,225,361, and Lowther Johnson, Attorneys at Law, LLC will receive $4,375,000. All of it will come out of a pot of $10.5 million but, technically, AT&T Mobility will pay the City's attorney fees directly, just as the ordinance indicated it would.
The tougher questions to answer are what happened to the ordinance indicated amount of $10,225,361? Why did the agreement fail to provide the net funds in an amount sufficient to cover the City's net pension obligation plus interest, as intended?
Somewhere between the passage of that bill in early March, and April 21, our fair City lost an intended $4.1 million. Our police and fire fighter pension fund lost $4.1 million and the taxpayers of Springfield, Missouri lost $4.1 million. Okay, you say, you can't lose what you don't have, that is true but, by all previous indications, the City had a tentative settlement agreement for an amount $4.1 million greater than what the City will receive.
The moral of the story: Don't count on your chickens (or duck) before they're hatched.
*Source: "Springfield News-Leader"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
