Archive for the ‘Agenda Items’ Category

$1.3 Million Gifts To Non Profits By 13 Shelby County Commissioners

Monday, August 7th, 2017

August 7, 2017

 

Memphis and Shelby County are awash in non profits. Most are good at performing their goals as stated in their mission statements. Many receive their revenue from generous private donations. Many operate frugally with low overhead and with good and provable results conforming to their mission statements.

Recently the Shelby County commissioners empowered themselves with the authority to each designate up to $100,000 ($1.3 million total per year) in gifts to their designated non profits. Naturally being a snoop by nature I wanted to a list of those non profits and here it is.

Now let me say on the front end that I do not agree that elected people should have the authority to designate my tax money to the non profit of their choice. That should be up to the donor. So there you have it but let us take a look at some of the organizations that received these grants.

You can go to https://www.guidestar.org/Home.aspx  and do your own research. The guidestar data is usually in the form of a #990 document  which gives some limited information about the purpose and finances of the various non profits. Here is what Mayor Luttrell recently stated about this practice in a newspaper article.

So I decided to do some investigation on my own. I ask each of you to look at the list, go to guidestar or a similar reporting organization and do your own research. I would appreciate hearing your own results.

Here are a few of my own results.

$20,000 from Terry Roland to Historic Archives of Rosemark and Environs Inc. They have not provided a 990 form.

$10,000 from Melvin Burgess to National Tourism and Heritage Association. Their mission statement is “ To serve as a resource to communities, to be utilized for the development of their heritage and cultural initiatives.” The 2015 #990 form shows zero assets.

$5,000 from Willie Brooks to College Ready Memphis Inc. The Guidestar report shows College Ready Memphis Inc aka 909 Balfour Rd, West Memphis, Arkansas 72301.

I am continuing to research more information on these “non profits” and I would appreciate any feedback information you may have on any of the others. I will continue to publish more information on these non profits as time permits.The taxpayers deserve to know if these non profit donation are going to a good purpose and if they are effective and worthwhile. What do you think?

What Is The Cost of Minority Purchasing Policies?

Monday, June 12th, 2017

What Is The Cost of Minority Purchasing Policies?

June 12, 2017

 

 

What Is The Cost of Minority Purchasing Policies?

 

There has recently been a lot of discussion in the City and the County governments about the amount of minority purchasing and LOSB (locally owned small business).

Both governments have spent a lot of time on studies about how to expand the opportunity of minorities and LOSBs to get a bigger share of the public purchasing pie.

It is difficult to pull together the total cost of these efforts but the 2017 City of Memphis adopted budget shows $895,000 dollars under the title “EQUAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM”.

Shelby County Commissioners voted to rehire consultants Mason Tillman Associates at a cost of $80,000 to help rewrite the county’s procurement procedures.

The 8-4 vote followed a debate on whether a consultant was needed, whether it could be done locally and whether the contract included litigation support.

Mason Tillman conducted the county’s $310,000 disparity study, which analyzed purchasing data from Jan. 1 2012 to Dec. 31, 2014. They found that contracts went overwhelmingly to non-minority males and that 55 percent of the contracts were awarded to firms outside of the county.

I share their desire to expand their share of the pie and allow qualified vendors to get experience and expertise in this area. My concern is the cost to the taxpayers for this expanded sharing.

The ordinance allows a bidding preference as follows. 5% for contracts up to $500,000 and under, 3% for contracts greater than $500,000 and under $1 million and 2% for contracts greater than $1 million. For construction contracts over $2 million a 2% preference will be given to the general contractor when they include LOSB who collectively have 50% of the total prime contract.

This all sounds very complicated and could involve some serious money.

Again let me say that the ability to help LOSBs to grow and gain experience is a good thing as long as it is limited in cost and time in the future. These businesses should use the public money preference and experience to grow their capabilities so that the major part of their future business will be private sector business.

Now my main concern is seeing these LOSB and minority contracts online with final contract amount and competitive bids clearly shown and the amount of preference, if any, shown online.

For example if the City or the County puts out a bid for cleaning supplies. The taxpayers should be able to see the request for proposals (RFPs).  When the bids are opened, the public should be able to see the bids of all bidders on line. Then when the contract is awarded, the public should be able to see the winning low bidder and the contract amount and all other higher bids. If the winning bidder is not the low bidder, then an explanation should be given publically on line for the choice of the successful bidder selection and the cost preference calculation.  Unless I have missed something online, that is not the current procedure.

In July of 2016 I asked the City and the County for their procedures and here is what they replied.

05/26/2016

Joe Saino

Memphis TN

RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of 5/26/2016, Reference # W003337-052616

Dear Saino,

The City received a public records request from you on 5/26/2016. Your request mentioned “When sealed bids are received on a project or item, are the various bids put on line for the public to see and is the low bidder selected and if not are the reasons available for the public to see for the reason that the low bidder is not selected?”

 

Per the custodian:

Once sealed bids are opened and a project is awarded, the losing bids are not placed online—but can be requested via Open Records.  The winning bid is attached to the resulting contract.    If the lowest bid is not chosen, the Division must supply a letter justifying the reasons for recommending that the award be made to a different bidder. (see Section 10.3.1 of the Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual)

10.3.1 Bid Award. If the purchase was procured via competitive sealed bidding or multi-step sealed bidding, the City will award the purchase order or contract to the lowest and best bidder. The B&C must be accompanied by a copy of the bid tabulation sheet. The bid tabulation sheet must list all bids submitted in response to the solicitation and be signed by the personnel who completed the bid tabulation sheet. If the division recommends that the purchase order or contract be awarded to one other than the lowest bidder, a full and complete statement of the reasons must accompany the recommendation, for review and approval by the Purchasing Agent.

 

This completes your public records request with the City of Memphis.

Sincerely,

Public Records Office

City of Memphis

 

THE FOLLOWING IS AN EMAIL RESPONSE TO A QUESTION TO HARVEY KENNEDY AT THE COUNTY ABOUT RESULTS OF SELAED BIDS.

 

Mr. Saino,

 

In response to your questions:

 

  1. If it is a sealed bid, each vendor can review the results online in Mercury Commerce. If it is an RFP, vendors will have to make a public records request and all of the information can be viewed.
  2. There are other criteria for RFP’s and all bids must meet specifications.  Cost is always an important factor but not the only basis for award.  I could provide you with an evaluation sheet for one of our bids if you would like to see one.

 

 

Harvey Kennedy

Chief Administrative Officer

Shelby County Government

 

As you see it is possible to get this information but it is not easy. Why not put this information online so that the public can look and see the all the bids and the reasons for the selection if not the low bid.

I would like anyone reading this posting that has experience in this public purchasing area to let me know what is really happening. Also I will be asking public officials why the taxpayers cannot know this information and the cost of these policies without having to put in a public records request.

What do you think?

E Mails From Public Officials

Monday, October 24th, 2016

 

October 23, 2016

I recently sent out an email concerning how I was going to vote in the upcoming November 8th election (www.memphisshelbyinform.com). I then got a few emails from government officials explaining why I was wrong on my recommendation to vote against these two items.

Shall the Shelby County Charter be amended to require both the County Mayor and County Commission’s approval to dismiss the County Attorney from office?

 

Shall Sections 691 (4) and 693 (4) of the Charter of the City of Memphis, Tennessee be restored and amended to require distribution only to the general fund of the City, before any distributions of tax equivalents to the County under state law, of that portion of any Electric or Gas Tax Equivalent Payments calculated and determined by the Council under state law or agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority, equal in amount to the City taxes assessed and levied on the fair market value of properties of MLGW electric or gas divisions situated within the corporate limits of the City of Memphis in the same manner and as if said properties were privately owned?

I, BRIAN COLLINS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MEMPHIS DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE NET ANNUAL INCREASE IN REVENUES TO THE CITY IF THIS AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED IS ESTIMATED TO BE $5,000,000.

I got an email from County Commissioner Heidi Shafer as shown below.

“I got your email, and wanted you to see why the county would benefit from merely having the approval process for dismissal as we have for hiring.  The County Attorney is to serve both branches, but that has been far from the case for over two years…BTW, the mayor has authority to veto our appointments…

I believe in checks and balances.” I greatly respect Heidi and her good work in keeping the county fiscally responsible. However I believe this good Mayor and his record has been better than the County Commission and the rancor we see in their various squabbles. I believe the Mayor should retain his authority to dismiss the County Attorney without cause as is currently in the County Ordinance.

Section 2.12. Approval of nominations.

All nominations by the mayor for any board, commission, agency, authority, chief administrative officer, county attorney, public defender, or divorce referee shall be subject to the approval and consent by resolution of the board of county commissioners.

The county mayor, subject to approval by resolution of the board of county

commissioners, may create or abolish major divisions of county government with each division having a division director. The chief administrative officer, the division directors of the county, the county attorney, the public defender, and the divorce referee shall be appointed by the county mayor, subject to approval by resolution of the board of county commissioners, and shall be subject to dismissal by the mayor without cause, and shall be residents of Shelby County at the time they assume the duties of their office and at all other times while serving the county in such capacity.

Now as to Section 691 and 693 of  the City Charter I got the following emails.

“Dear Mr. Saino:

Thank you for your inquiry about the City referendum. I’m sorry for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

The purpose of the referendum is to restore provisions in the City’s charter that were originally added in 1939. The provisions required that the City’s general fund receive MLGW PILOTs based on City taxes on MLGW properties within the City of Memphis as if those properties were privately owned.

In 2015 the Tennessee Courts held these charter provisions were repealed because they interpreted the language of the City’s charter to be in conflict with a 1987 State law. This amendment corrects the language of the charter provisions consistent with what the Courts required, which explains its complexity. As amended, the prior charter provisions will be given the effect as intended and applied from 1939 to 2015.

“To address your specific concerns, this amendment benefits Memphians. It does not effect the surburban municipalities. It does not change the total PILOTs paid by MLGW for the benefit of all eight taxing jurisdictions in the County and therefore will not cause any MLGW rate increase.

What it does is restore the status quo allocation between the City and County that existed before the 2015 Court decision. While this status quo allocation will eliminate the arguable increase due the the County as a result of the 2015 Court decision, it restores a fair allocation for the City.

You indicate that the PILOT should be allocated based on the revenue received in the City vs the County. I am advised that the state law, the TVA agreement and the City’s charter do not allocate PILOTs using situs based revenue; the PILOT is not an income tax equivalent, but an ad valorem tax equivalent. However, if it is based on income, we have been provided information from MLGW that the revenue earned from City MLGW customers is more than 72% for electric and 81 % for Gas. By any other measurement,there is no justification for a 22.5% allocation to Shelby County; for example,  69.73% of the County’s population is in the City and 11.77% is in unincorporated Shelby County. 74% of all electric assets are in the City as compared to 14% in unincorporated Shelby County; the percentage of gas assets in the City is even greater 82% vs. 8.23%.

As you know MLGW’s major distribution assets are located in the City’s streets and rights of way, which bear an undue burden from MLGW utility cuts. Despite paying an overlapping tax the County of $7.78 per $100 of value, none of the $4.38 paid by City taxpayers is use to reimburse the City for Shelby County’s use of and MLGW’s damage the City’s roadways.

So if your premise is that you oppose the Charter Amendment because you think it will hurt Shelby County, I respectfully disagree. The Amendment benefits Memphians and I for one cannot imagine why any MEMPHIAN would vote against the amendment because of some perceived effect on unincorporated Shelby County.

In any event I trust I have explained why I voted for the referendum, why I am voting FOR it and why I am enthusiastically urging my constituents to vote FOR it. If you would like more information a detailed explanation is on the Council’s website.

Patrice Robinson Memphis City Council

Now I am under no illusions that this will not pass as Brian Collins is promising $5 million dollars more from somewhere. However I am always suspicious of money that comes from somewhere other than the other party (the county) or the taxpayer. My objection was based on a lack of pre vote public discussion. No doubt it will pass as free stuff always wins as our national elections prove.  Also the City Council weighed in on this issue with the following email to yours truly. No doubt it will pass but now you have the City side of the issue. The County side may end up in court in a lawsuit.

Council is Unanimous: Vote FOR the Memphis Charter Amendment

City of Memphis sent this bulletin at 10/22/2016 07:51 AM CDT

Good morning Memphians,

Your City Council hopes that you will exercise your civic right to vote this upcoming November 8th, or beforehand by absentee ballot or early voting, which started this week and runs through November 3rd. No City offices are up for election this year, but the City Council did vote 11-0 (with two absent) on July 19th to add a Charter Amendment Referendum on this ballot. See this example of what that will look like for you.

As evidenced by the Council’s unanimous vote, we believe you should vote “FOR” the amendment. Despite its technicality (Full Explanation), this amendment is simple: we needed to make some legalistic changes to the Charter to realign ourselves with state law and receive our fair share of MLGW’s PILOT payments each year. If this vote fails, $5 million that should go to the City budget will instead go to the County. A vote “FOR” won’t raise your taxes. A vote “FOR” won’t raise your MLGW bill. (Other FAQs here) As we see it, the choice is clear for every Memphian.

If you want to know even more, follow those links to our website, or you can always call our office at 901-636-6793 for more details.

We hope this helps you make an informed decision this election day, and we sincerely believe you should vote “FOR”.

Sincerely,

Your Memphis City Council

Bill Morrison – District  1

Frank Colvett, Jr. – District 2

Patrice J. Robinson – District 3

Jamita Swearengen – District 4

Worth Morgan – District 5

Edmund Ford, Jr. – District 6

Berlin Boyd – District 7

Joe Brown – Super District 8-1

Janis Fullilove – Super District 8-2

Martavius Jones – Super District 8-3

Kemp Conrad – Super District 9-1

Philip Spinosa, Jr. – Super District 9-2

Reid Hedgepeth – Super District 9-3

 

 

What Is Going On With The Pilot Payments From MLGW To City And County?

Tuesday, October 11th, 2016

October 11, 2016

 

What Is Going On With The Pilot Payments From MLGW To City And County?

There is going to be an item on the ballot this November that proposes to amend Article 65, Section 691 and 693 of the Charter of the City of Memphis. It is relative to distribution of payments of in lieu of taxes (Pilots) by MLGW to the City of Memphis. On page 7 of 8, Brian Collins, Director of Finance City of Memphis, says that the estimated increase of this pilot payment to the City of Memphis may be $5 million dollars. Is this coming out of Shelby County’s share of this pilot payment?

There is litigation going on concerning the issue of sharing of this MLGW pilot payment. It seems to me that the pilot payment should be shared on the basis of income to MLGW from customers who are inside the city of Memphis versus those outside the City limits. It seems that the City of Memphis wants it all. There needs to be an explanation of this move by the City of Memphis before voting starts on this issue.

This is a difficult issue for to understand since the referendum only proposes an Amendment to the City of Memphis Charter. Our concern is that the charter amendment may be a precursor to a different method for calculation by the city for the County share of the tax equivalents being paid by MLGW. It may very well be that the county payment will be reduced by the $5 million increase in revenue to the city.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Below are some statements from the annual MLGW financial statement.

Each year the MLGW pays a tax from the electric division and the gas division as if it were a private company based on the equity or investment of MLGW properties.

The amounts remitted by MLGW to the City and Shelby County were calculated based on City Council resolutions and City Charter provisions governing the PILOT sharing arrangement with Shelby County.

MLGW’s transfer to the City is based on the formula provided by the May 29, 1987 TVA Power Contract Amendment (Supp. No. 8). The formula includes a maximum property tax equivalency calculation plus 4% of operating revenue less power costs (three-year average). Transfers to the city represent the Electric Division’s in lieu of tax payment. The transfer for 2015 decreased by $2.6 million due to a $1.9 million reduction in the tax equalization rate, a decrease of $1.5 million resulting from higher PILOT to Shelby County and the City requesting $0.5 million less than the maximum allowed by TVA contract. The decreases are partially offset by an increase of $1.4 million due to increased net plant investment and operating revenue less power costs (three-year average). MLGW’s transfer to the City is based on the formula provided by the State of Tennessee Municipal Gas System Tax Equivalent Law of 1987. The formula includes a maximum property tax equivalency calculation plus 4% of operating revenue less power costs (three-year average). Transfers to the City represent the Gas Division’s PILOT.

The transfer for 2015 decreased by $0.8 million due to a decrease of $1.0 million resulting from the City requesting less than the maximum allowed by statute and $0.8 million due to a decrease in the tax equalization rate, offset in part by an increase of $0.8 million due to net plant investment and three-year average revenues and an increase of $0.2 million resulting from lower PILOT to Shelby County.

Another important statement is the legal provision of 691 that any surplus remaining, over and above safe operating margins, shall be devoted solely to rate reduction.

Further Info On The Memphis HEHFB Controversy

Wednesday, April 13th, 2016

April 13, 2016

Further Info On The Memphis HEHFB Controversy

I recently reported on the two Health Education & Housing Facility Boards, one from the City of Memphis and one from Shelby County. One is apparently well run and the other has had its’ authority temporarily suspended by the Tennessee Housing and Development Agency because of problem with properties run by Global Ministries.

 

I have attended two meeting of the Memphis board. The first one was not a regular monthly board meeting, but a reading of a proposed bond issue by Charles Carpenter, the board attorney. After the formal reading, I asked a few questions concerning transparency and open records and did not get a lot of information.

 

The second meeting, which was a regular monthly meeting, was attended by Channel 3, the Commercial Appeal, several business interests and myself. The only person, other than the business interests, to ask questions was myself. Before the start of the meeting, I asked the secretary for an agenda and she refused to give me one until the actual meeting started. At the end of the meeting I asked why the agendas and all attachments were not published at least two days before the meetings and I received no answer. I asked about the difference between the County ordinance that limits the amount that the Board Counsel can make. Mr. Carpenter said that he was not aware of the County ordinance. I pointed out that for just five Memphis bonds, the overpayment for the Memphis board Counsel was $59,000. Then I asked about a possible conflict of interest on the bonds for the Uptown Manor Senior Project by a board member and they said that they would have to consult the minutes of that meeting to see if the member recused herself. I asked for the minutes but received no reply. After the regular public meeting, they had an executive meeting and I asked if I could attend. They said that it was a closed meeting and the public was not able to attend.

 

Then several days later I, in fact, received the minutes from the two past board meetings concerning possible conflict of interests. I have attached those minutes and they are interesting.

 

Minutes of Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Lee Patton and  Monice Moore-Hagler recused themselves from the Inducement Resolution for the Uptown Manor Senior motion. Under Discussion Items, John Baker brought to the Board’s attention for further consideration a revised short term bond fee structure. Under New Business, Nancy Willis brought to attention a request for  an annual ethics statement to be signed by members of the board and provided an example copy for the Council’s review.

 

Minutes of Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Under action items, Dan Reid recused himself from consideration of inducement bond resolution for Global Ministries Foundation Bent Tree Apartments. Renasant Bank was to provide a private placement loan for the property.

Then Dan Reid re-entered the meeting and Monice Moore-Hagler and Lee Patton recused themselves before consideration of final bond resolution for Uptown Manor Senior Development LLC. Mr. Carpenter recommended approval.

Finally, Paige Walkup asked for an update regarding GMF Warren-Tulane property. Mr. Carpenter reported on his positive contact with Chris Lamberson and the ongoing response to correct issues and bring it up to standard.

 

This just goes to show that all these boards need to publish their agendas in advance along with all accompanied data and the public should see the same information that the board members get. I will look forward to your comments as you get ready to pay your federal taxes that funds all these projects.

Boards and Commissions in Memphis and Shelby County

Thursday, March 3rd, 2016

March 3, 2016

Boards and Commissions in Memphis and Shelby County

 

Recently I became interested in Memphis and Shelby County Boards and Commissions. My interest was piqued by all the news concerning Serenity Towers and Global Ministries. Here is a news article on the bond issue for this property.

The Health, Educational and Housing Facility Board of Memphis, Tennessee facilitated the GMF acquisition through the issuance of tax exempt 501(c)3 housing revenue bonds on behalf of the purchaser. Merchant Capital served as the bond underwriter in the placement of the bonds with investors, as the bonds were rated investment grade by Standard and Poor’s rating agency. Jones Walker served as Bond Counsel. Kristin Neun, Esquire, served as FHA counsel. Charles Carpenter, Esquire, served as counsel to the Issuer. The Bank of New York Mellon serves as Trustee. Glanker Brown serves as GMF’s corporate and owner counsel within its expanding national affordable multifamily housing portfolio.

A recent article in the Commercial Appeal stated the following.

About a third of all the units inside Serenity Towers have bedbugs, according to a Memphis Code Enforcement report released Friday.

The report says 134 units have bedbugs inside the senior high rise apartment complex. Other code enforcement violations included cockroaches, broken or damaged windows, leaks in the ceiling, broken thermostats, damaged toilet and faucets among other things.

City code enforcement officers inspected the 396 units in the property on Feb. 11, 2015. The inspection came after several tenants complained of bedbugs and other problems.

Rev. Richard Hamlet, founder of Global Ministries Foundation, said in a statement he was aware of the bedbug problem since his nonprofit bought the property. His staff is working to eradicate the infestation. GMF bought the senior property in 2014 using a $14.5 million bond issued by the Health, Educational and Housing Facilities board of Memphis.

With that background, I started investigating the various boards and commissions. What I found was 46 City Boards and Commissions and 36 County ones. Some are joint boards but many are stand alone ones. It was interesting that the City Health, Education and Housing Facility Board and the County Health, Education and Housing Facility Board have the same names but are completely different and separate

The City HEHF Board states its purpose as follows.

Function & Authority: 
The Health, Education and Housing Facility Board a public nonprofit corporation issues tax exempt revenue bonds for the development or rehabilitation of multi-family housing facilities to be occupied, according to the state statute ?by persons of low and/or moderated income, and/or elderly and/or handicapped persons.

The County HEHF Board states its purpose as follows.

Functions & Authority
The function of the Health, Education, and Housing Facility Board is to assist in the financing of health facilities, educational facilities, and housing facilities for low and moderate income families, disabled individuals and the elderly.  The financings are accomplished through the issuance of revenue bonds payable solely from the revenues of the project.  The taxpayers and the County of Shelby are never liable for the repayment of the bonds.

I asked both boards for their ethics documents and conflict of interest policies. From the County Board I received a prompt answer with the statement of policies and procedures revised 11/4/15 and By-Laws revised 2007.

From the City Board I got the 2008 By Laws and a financial statement.

I attended a meeting of the Memphis HEHF on February 29th for a required hearing concerning a request that the board issue its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Patterson Flats Project), Series 2016 in an aggregate amount not to exceed $12 million dollars. After the required reading I asked some questions concerning fees related to recent bond issues. Mr. Carpenter did not know but referred me to the State of Tennessee for this information. I asked him who was paid the $110,000 in legal and professional fees shown in the 2014 financial statement and he said that he was paid those fees. I asked about the details of the recent resignation of John L. Baker, 17 years as director of the Memphis HEHF board, and was told that that could be discussed only at a regular monthly meeting of the board and that the March meeting on the first Wednesday was cancelled as there was no business to discuss.

This whole matter of this housing for low and moderate income individuals and families, the cost and effectiveness of this approach needs a public discussion and possible alternatives to this expensive program. What do you think?

 

Massive Lawsuit By The Shelby County Board of Education

Tuesday, September 8th, 2015

September 8, 2015

Massive Lawsuit By The Shelby County Board of Education

In case you have not noticed, the Shelby County Board of Education just filed a lawsuit to compel the taxpayers of the State of Tennessee to fund whatever the state school boards feel is necessary to educate all children to what they feel is adequate education. It does not matter if the taxpayers can afford their idea of what constitutes an adequate education.

I must say on the front end that I want all children to get a good education. However I am a proponent of parental choice, good charter schools and parental vouchers. Let the money follow the child. They say that lack of money is the problem. I say that there is no proof that more money solves the problem. I say that the basic problem is the dissolution of the family structure and that this family structure problem started in the 1960s war on poverty and has gone downhill since then. This is a debate that I welcome.

However I just want to alert you to what is going on and I have several questions  that I feel should be answered by the Shelby County School Board and I intend to ask for this information in an open records request. I encourage you also to ask for this data.

  • What is the projected future cost of this lawsuit?
  • What has been spent so far?
  • Will all future legal bills be promptly put on line for the public to see?
  • Will all payments in connection with this lawsuit be promptly put on line?
  • Will all the cost of SCS legal and administrative work in connection with this lawsuit be recorded and put on line?

What they are asking is a blank check for education with the school boards able to write in the amount.

DO YOU AGREE? LET ME HEAR YOUR OPINION AND LET THEM KNOW YOU OPINION.

Here is the lawsuit and I have listed some of the highlights below.

(more…)

Are Smart Meters A Smart Purchase?

Monday, May 18th, 2015

May 18, 2015

Are Smart Meters A Smart Purchase?

Tomorrow there will be a City of Memphis committee meeting and in that meeting will be the subject of further purchase of smart meters as shown below.

MLGW COMMITTEE (Chairman Berlin Boyd)

  1. Resolution approving the purchase of a Mobile Energy Efficiency Educational Unit (vehicle) for an amount not to exceed $250,000
  2. Discussion of opting-out of Smart Meters
  3. Resolution awarding Contract No. 11776, Smart Meter Solution Full Deployment, to Elster Solutions, LLC, in the funded amount of $240,000,000 for work to be done over a period of approximately five years.

I have received the following email from a friend and a very active citizen in various local public policies.

  • 240 million dollars over five years is an astronomical amount of money. The rate payers in Shelby County will be stuck with the bill.
  • Firing meter readers and using their salaries to pay for smart meters does not add up. They are not paid that much!
  • Please share this with Shelby county friends. I know several people there who spoke out and opted out of smart meters without paying a monthly fee to mlgw. If they had not spoken out, refusing a smart meter would have resulted in a monthly fee.
  • The biggest reason for smart meters will be time-of-day-rates. While you will be sold on these rates because they are cheaper at certain hours, those rates will be much higher at other hours (example: summer rates in the afternoon hours 3-8 pm will double).
  • Smart meters take usage readings every fifteen minutes and send that information directly to mlgw. Many people consider that an invasion of privacy because your usage patterns are kept by mlgw. Anyone with access can know your routine by those usage patterns. There is also concern that these meters can be hacked.

(more…)

Pension Reform At The City Of Memphis

Thursday, December 4th, 2014

December 4, 2014

 

Pension Reform At The City Of Memphis

Finally the Memphis City Council has taken action to address our unfunded pension liability. Eight members decided that we needed reform and took decisive action to get this under control. The unions are not happy and will probably take this action to court in a lawsuit.

Mayor Wharton originally proposed that the City of Memphis go to a defined contribution system for all new employees and those unvested employees with less than 10 years of service. There were, of course, objections to including those unvested employees and later on a different proposal came out from the administration which was a cash balance plan. A cash balance plan needs some explanation and you can read about cash balance plans in the attached article.

In the City Council meeting it appeared that Myron Lowery’s plan which would include only new employees and would have the least savings for the City of Memphis would get the seven votes. However the City Council voted for the Hybrid cash balance plan (8 YES, 5 NO) and only those with more than 7.5 years of service would be covered under the old expensive defined benefit plan. Everyone else as of the start of the plan in 2016 would be under the new plan.

The impact on the unfunded liability of the approved plan in year one would be a savings of 6.8 million dollars and would reduce the unfunded liability in the first year by 60 million dollars. This is as compared to the Myron Lowery plan of zero savings the first year in dollars and unfunded liability reduction.

Again this is not the final decision and according to the commercial appeal this approval will be discussed again in committee in two weeks. Stay tuned. Attached are the Hybrid pension options.

A Change In Pension Changes

Tuesday, October 21st, 2014

October 21, 2014

A Change In Pension Changes

Just when I thought things were moving in a fiscally responsible direction, here comes another pension change proposal. I do not want to prejudge the proposal but just by reading a description of the plan, it sounds more expensive than what was previously proposed by the Administration. I hope that City elections being less than a year away are not a part of this change but we will see. Here is the information on the proposed new plan that I have to date.

  1. A letter to employees
  2. Plan for unvested employees to be sent to a cash balance plan
  3. Plan for a cash balance plan and a defined contribution plan

What we need is a look at the detailed cost analysis by Segal Consulting, the actuary consulting firm hired by the council. This will be given to the City Council at the private executive meeting today.

Stay tuned as this is only the beginning of a fight to save Memphis and don’t be surprised if the taxpayers are called upon to fill any fiscal gaps caused by coming election thoughts.