This is a big component of the firefighter pay deal, just not the whole thing.
Mayor John Whitmire
Houston City Council approved Wednesday a historic bond deal, estimated to cost taxpayers over $1 billion, to spread $650 million in backpay to firefighters over the next 25 to 30 years.
The 14-3 vote came after a fiery hour-long discussion in which a divided council debated whether Houston voters should have a more direct say in greenlighting a proposal that would affect them for decades to come. Both finance Director Melissa Dubowski and Controller Chris Hollins estimated that the total cost of the bond, including interest, could reach between $1.1 billion and $1.3 billion, though the final amount will not be clear until after the bond pricing.
Council Members Edward Pollard, Tiffany Thomas and Mary Nan Huffman voted no on the proposal. Both Pollard and Thomas tried to push for an amendment to put the bond issuance on the November ballot, but Mayor John Whitmire ruled them out of order.
City Attorney Arturo Michel explained these amendments would violate Texas’ Open Meeting Act, because they put forth a different measure than what was originally on the agenda. The bigger issue, he said, is the firefighters’ union might not agree to delay the process for several months, which could lead to a new trial in the fall and leave Houstonians without an agreement to vote on.
“I promise you, if we start over, it’ll be more expensive. It’ll be years before it’s resolved. It’s going to impact the operations of the fire department,” Whitmire said during Wednesday’s City Council meeting.
Pollard, on the other hand, insisted “anything can be negotiated,” noting members were still getting notifications about last-minute changes to the firefighters’ agreement as late as Tuesday night.
“Three months of a wait to get to the ballot – which early voting starts in October – that’s not unreasonable for $650 million over 30 years,” Pollard said. “It’s (Houstonians’) money. Let them have a voice.”
[…]
Approving the bond issuance is just the first step in finalizing the firefighters’ deal. The council also needs to vote on the actual settlement agreement, which includes $650 million in backpay and a labor agreement granting firefighters at least 24% pay raises over the next five years.
The agenda item that includes the two agreements has appeared twice on the council agenda, last week and this week. However, members could not vote on it because Controller Chris Hollins, Houston’s independently elected watchdog, had not certified the funds as available. The controller’s certification is a necessary step before the council can approve any financial commitments by the city.
An unofficial copy of the labor agreement has been circulating around City Hall for weeks. But Whitmire’s team did not release an official draft until last week, prompting complaints from Hollins and several City Council members about the rushed timeline for the vote.
On Monday, Hollins sent Whitmire a 10-page inquiry with 44 questions about the deal, covering topics from base pay increases and drug testing requirements to discipline procedures and negotiation concessions.
Whitmire responded Tuesday evening, answering only five of the controller’s questions, saying the rest were irrelevant to the certification of the agenda item.
“To be clear, by not certifying this agreement and allowing City Council to conduct their legislative duty you are risking Fire and EMS operations for all Houstonians, as well as jeopardizing the entire negotiated settlement,” Whitmire wrote in a letter to Hollins.
Hollins told the Chronicle he does not plan to certify the proposal until he gets clear answers to his questions. Then, he said, it will be up to City Council to decide whether to move forward with the proposal.
“The mayor’s letter was not responsive to 90% of my questions,” Hollins said. “I wouldn’t be doing my job as Houston’s taxpayer watchdog if I allowed this important item – one that will ultimately cost the City more than $1 billion – to move forward without answering critical questions that are relevant to the fiscal sustainability of the City and the safety of Houstonians.”
See here for the previous update. I don’t know about anyone else, but for me the main stumbling block in all this is that I don’t take the Mayor’s word for it, in his rebuttals to Controller Hollins and CM Pollard. Maybe he’s right – he certainly knows infinitely more about this than I do – but this whole process has been the opposite of transparent, and that leaves me with plenty of questions. The story notes that the Mayor finally gave an initial answer to the frequently asked question about how the negotiations with the firefighters actually went. We have these questions because the Mayor and the firefighters are so tightly aligned politically. It’s not out of line to wonder how hard the city went in the settlement negotiations given the closeness of that relationship.
Again, the Mayor could be completely right about all this. I don’t know what kind of offer was on the table prior to his election, but it was clear that the city and the firefighters were far apart and unlikely to get any closer. I don’t know what was at risk if the litigation went to a verdict; I know what Mayor Whitmire has claimed it was, but as noted I have my doubts about that. I’d like to hear what people who were not involved in the litigation think, so I have a basis for comparison. Maybe now that the settlement agreement is public, we’ll get some third party analysis of it.
UPDATE: Council also approved the Mayor’s budget.
The Houston City Council approved a $7.3 billion budget Wednesday, paving the way for more spending on drainage projects in the city’s most vulnerable neighborhoods, more police officers and a new program to improve heavy trash pick up services.
The budget is up $1.1 billion over last year and leaves the city with a $192 million deficit after council members added new spending measures just before the vote, Finance Director Melissa Dubowski said. The budget does not include new taxes or fees proposed by Mayor John Whitmire.
More changes could be in store as the council will address proposals to implement a trash fee and examine the maximum hours the city pays its terminated employees in upcoming meetings.
“There’s no such thing as a perfect budget,” Whitmire said ahead of the 15-2 to pass vote.
The votes against the budget came from Council Member Edward Pollard and Tiffany D. Thomas. Pollard told the council he was concerned the budget wasn’t bringing enough new tax revenue given the city’s growing financial challenges.
“We’re going to have to start to become much more serious about our spending trends … because all we’re doing is enlarging our structurally unbalanced budget,” Pollard said.
Thomas told the Chronicle after the meeting that she had concerns about the city’s $650 million settlement with the Houston Professional Firefighters Association, and the hole it could blow in the budget next year. Controller Chris Hollins did not certify the money to pay the agreement due to a range of questions, prompting a standoff with Whitmire. The mayor is urging the council to take swift action to avoid having the agreement expire.
We’ll see about those “more changes”. I assume the cash in the fund balance that Mayor Turner bequeathed to his successor will be used to close the gap. The Houston Landing and the Mayor’s press release has more.
Re: ““There’s no such thing as a perfect budget,” Whitmire said ahead of the 15-2 to pass vote.”
True, no such thing as a perfect budget, but there is such a thing as a balanced budget, you idiot.
Re: ““We’re going to have to start to become much more serious about our spending trends … because all we’re doing is enlarging our structurally unbalanced budget,” Pollard said.”
Are you ? Are you, really ?
“The budget is up $1.1 billion over last year and leaves the city with a $192 million deficit after council members added new spending measures just before the vote, Finance Director Melissa Dubowski said. The budget does not include new taxes or fees proposed by Mayor John Whitmire.”
What a brilliant plan – a budget deficit, a $1B bond, add some more expenditures (presumably) just before the vote, and
present no plan (in the form of increased taxes or higher fees) as how how you’re going to operate in the red and stay financially viable. Nice work, Gandalf.
About 70% of the general fund budget is for police, fire, and debt service.
District I council member Joaquin Martinez stated that we have been “doing this for decades,” so why stop now?
There was a time when at least the Republicans would worry about budget deficits. Not the new Republican council members.
That means more potholes, longer times to pick up debris, and more lawsuits for unfixed potholes. Sewage is bubbling up on the streets and backyards, and more street flooding, more houses, and lots become nuisances.
Joaquin Martinez represents one of the poorest districts but wants to stick them with a garbage fee.
The mayor’s office budget is higher than last year’s, so he isn’t making any sacrifices.
“I don’t know what kind of offer was on the table prior to his election”- makes me feel you don’t read this comment section, kuff.
There was no offers. Last September when the judge expected the city to negotiate, they flat out told the judge they had no information to negotiate with and it would “take some time ” to get it. They had no information because negotiations was not their plan, litigate, litigate, and more litigation was the plan and that’s what Pollard voted for, and Thomas also. With a prospective lawsuit March 25, 2024, the end of the line for the city after 8 years and they have no information researched after 8 years? Ridiculous, and the City paid millions for this ‘representation’! That’s what Pollard and Thomas should be angry about, because if the lawyers from the previous administration had done their homework, Pollard and Thomas would have their answers already. But, the lawyers did their job, litigate till Turner was out, and people on this comment group as well as what I remember reading in your articles, kuff, supported that. I don’t feel one bit sorry for Pollard or Thomas. And to think Firefighters are going to agree to go back to the voters is a hypothetical fantasy. Didn’t FF’S take their pay disputes to the voters already? How did that work out? Prop B being ruled unconstitutional, and now you want to do it again? HELL NO! I’m grateful for those City Council members who took the responsibility of their office to realize the magnitude of a shit storm they were facing.
David, what shit storm? You are one bitter person.
Millions, about 2 million, as most work was done in-house with city attorneys.
2 million v 1.5 billion
From the court case
In May 2017, the Fire Fighters wrote the City that the parties’ negotiators had reached an impasse under Chapter 174’s definition.24The Fire Fighters requested mediation and arbitration.The parties participated in a mediation that proved unfruitful, and the City declined to arbitrate.The Fire Fighters then sued the City,
Are you being truthful, David? I have my doubts.
I’m tired, Manny, next week at city council will be the last day engage in all this, so, you’re welcome.
At the end of the day I don’t give a shit whose lawyers were paid what to prosecute or defend what transpired or how how long the ‘transpiration’ took – I’m more concerned with how the debt amount was determined, why the City is going to pay the debt, how they’re going to pay the debt, and (more importantly) how much of a deep financial reaming I and future CoH residents are going to take as a Houston taxpayer.
C.L., the debt has to be paid, or the city will have to declare itself bankrupt.
As to what could happen if that occurs,
“You become a firefighter because that’s your passion and you’ll make a decent living. You would retire with a good pension,” said Berent, who told The Associated Press that his monthly pension payments will be more than $1,000 lower than expected due to the bankruptcy.
Berent’s city-funded healthcare also ends with retirement, five years before he’s eligible for Medicare.
“I don’t see us ever getting healthcare back,” he said. “It’s going to have to come out of our pensions.”
https://apnews.com/article/detroit-bankruptcy-debt-pensions-12786f6e3d0eb6c9910b430b08f08f30
I guess you’ll find out in due time, C.L.
It is beyond disgusting that the firefighters will receive over $100,000 each in back pay plus future raises that are far beyond anything those if us in the private sector will see. Throw in the gold plated pension that is adjusted yearly for cost of living, and all I see is firefighters making out like bandits on the taxpayers dime.
If it looks so great, then join, it’s open to everyone, that’s the purpose of the raises, supply and demand.
The back pay is exactly what it is, pay the court found they should have been paid anyway, so they’ve already earned it, it’s just the city didn’t want to pay. So, as people have been saying all along, there bill had been there the whole time, it’s just the Mayor didn’t want to figure it into his budget. So, considering all the overtime through hurricanes, pandemics, and disasters that is not figured in: $100,000/8= $12,500= sounds like a deal for the city. Even if you double that to $25,000/ year, it’s still a deal for the city because they are not paying into the pension system.
If that sounds good to you, go join and work the next hurricane with me, I’ll look forward to seeing you out there.
The court did not find anything. David quit fibbing. The court accepted what was supposedly negotiated.
I thought you were too tired, but it seems even that was not true.
I don’t recall you coming to help me with all the work after my house flooded during Harvey. You all were sleeping comfortably in air condition the last time I went three weeks without electricity.
So come work with me when the next hurricane hits is what?
Its an invitation for you to join the fire department.
Are they accepting 75-year-old men?
Maybe not, but you can encourage your younger family members to join, they are hiring. I encourage people to join who ask me, but I make it clear they cannot depend on HFD, or any fire department, solely. I tell people they have opportunities to obtain higher education and their goals should extend beyond the fire department profession.
Most are police, youngest says he is joining Marines
Sounds good, the Marine can finish a contract or two and join fire department then. With the G.I. Bill, the Hazlewood Act, the State of Texas tuition reimbursement for fire fighters and police in their respective fields, and now HFD personal have tuition reimbursement, there’s no excuse for lack of opportunity. As long as young people can keep out of trouble there’s opportunity to be taken advantage of. I wouldn’t doubt that the new tuition reimbursement in the new HFD contract may become someone’s only opportunity to complete higher education, depending on their situation. These benefits are for everyone and anyone who apply themselves not only to a profession, but to a commitment to better themselves, and thus the community around them. This is my prayer for the new contract.
Pingback: Appeals court declines to block zombie ReBuild lawsuit ruling | Off the Kuff