Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Why Amazon Chose Nashville Over Memphis

Now that the election is over, let us get back to important things like comparing Memphis/Shelby County to Nashville/Davidson County.

We have the news that Nashville is getting a piece of the Amazon pie, 5,000 high-paying jobs. It comes at a high taxpayer price but is probably worth it. Why Nashville and not Memphis?

visitmusiccity.com

Comparing Nashville to Memphis has been a project for me for some time. It is not easy to go through all the published financial data and come up with understandable comparison data. However, let us start with a few facts.

Population: Shelby County: 936,961; Davidson County: 691,243;

Population of the core city: Memphis 653,236; Nashville 444,297

Area: Shelby County: 755 square miles; Davidson County: 525 square miles.

Area of the core city: Memphis, 324 square miles; Urban Nashville, 198 square miles. This means the population density of core city Memphis is 2,016 people per square mile, while the population density of core city Nashville is 2,243 people per square mile.

Memphis’ property tax revenue was $458,671,000 and Shelby County’s tax revenue was $793,849,000, for a total of $1,252,520,000 or $1.25 billion. Property tax revenue for Nashville Metro was nearly $1 billion dollars: $971,643,000.

The budget of Memphis and Shelby County is $1.88 billion, while the budget of Metro Nashville is $2.23 billion. Budget expenditures per resident for Memphis and Shelby County were $2,006; in Metro Davidson, expenditure per resident was $3,226.

A more concise budgetary measure is called the Statement of Net Position, which presents information on all of a government’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, with the difference reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the government is improving or deteriorating.

Metro Nashville’s net position decreased by $266 million for the year ending 2017.

The city of Memphis’ net position decreased by $58 million for the same year, while Shelby County’s net position increased by $86 million.

I think Memphis is a great city, has beautiful trees, consistently great weather, wonderful people, and — compared to Nashville — a low cost of living. So what is the difference? Why did Amazon choose Nashville?

We are told that the 5,000 jobs Amazon will bring to Nashville have an average salary of $150,000 a year. They are jobs that require high-tech skills in management, engineering, computer science, and programming. It is a pleasure to go to the Amazon website, as its ease of use is outstanding and much better than its competitors. However, Amazon’s main business is selling things made by others and getting those things to you fast and at a low cost.

Memphis needs to compete in the area of technical job training and skills that are needed in the next few years in manufacturing, health care, auto and aircraft maintenance, warehousing, and transportation. Our new governor has promised to continue free junior college training (“Tennessee Promise”), and hopefully he will allow qualified nonprofits like our local Moore Tech College to participate in the Tennessee Promise program.

Our local shortage of trained people needed by companies like Amazon will not be solved in a few years. But while we upgrade our primary grade education, we need to emphasize trade school education to upgrade our local working wage level and reduce our comparative high poverty level.

Memphis is great, but we can make it grow and prosper with the right education policies. Education is the answer to luring companies to Memphis that need a highly skilled workforce.

Joe Saino is the proprietor of memphisshelbyinform.com, a website devoted to local economic watchdogging.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Questioning Crosstown

I am old enough to remember going to the Curb Market in Crosstown with my mother and buying a bushel of snap beans for canning. I would have to spend the rest of the day cleaning and preparing them. On many occasions, we then went to the Sears Crosstown store. It was huge and impressive. It was built for a certain time and market, and whether it paid for itself over time I do not know. Looking at the Sears company today, you have to wonder about their long-term business knowledge. The Sears catalog was the Amazon.com of its day, and this store, I believe, was a catalog sales and warehouse center. Too bad they did not keep up.

Now we have a choice: Tear down the old Sears building or spend at least $175 million to turn it into another non-tax-producing renovation project. Where is the financial pro forma report on this project? If it is available, I would like to see it.

Let’s look at how this is currently being financed, according to a recent news report. The Crosstown Development team says it has essentially assured $160 million in funding — $25 million raised privately, $30 million in historic preservation tax credits, $15 million in new market tax credits, $10 million in grants and other sources, and an $80 million loan. Add the $15 million requested from the city of Memphis and you have the $175 million that is the supposed front-end cost.

Let’s take a look at a couple of these funding sources and their rationales.

• $30 million in historic preservation tax credits — This is from a legislative incentive program designed to encourage the preservation of “historical buildings.” Congress instituted a two-tier tax credit incentive under the 1986 Tax Reform Act. A 20 percent credit is available for the rehabilitation of historical buildings, and a 1 percent credit is available for nonhistoric buildings that were placed in service before 1936. Benefits are derived from tax credits in the year the property is placed in service, cash flow over six years and repurchase options in year six.

• $15 million in new market tax credits — This comes from the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program, established in 2000 as part of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000. The goal of the program is to spur revitalization efforts of low-income and impoverished communities across the United States and Territories.

The NMTC Program provides tax-credit incentives to investors for equity investments in certified Community Development Entities, which invest in low-income communities. The credit equals 39 percent of the investment paid out (5 percent in each of the first three years, then 6 percent in the final four years, for a total of 39 percent) over seven years (more accurately, six years and one day of the seventh year). A “community development entity” must have a primary mission of investing in low-income communities and persons.

If the proposed project goes forward, will it bring tax money to the city of Memphis? If there are new small businesses that rent space or locate in the general area because of new traffic and people live in the renovated building, I suppose there could be new sales-tax money and employment opportunities.

However, it sounds like most of the occupiers of the space will be non-profits and arts enterprises. There will be people living in the building, but many of these will be rent-subsidized people under Section 8 or other federal and state programs. Taxpayers will be funding the whole project through these various federal tax credits.

As far as the building itself is concerned, I think it is aesthetically past its time and conceivably not worth saving. Possibly the architects can make it beautiful but at what cost, compared to tearing it down and doing something else? I would like to see a financial analysis of this proposed project, and no decision should go forward without it being presented to the public for discussion.

Joe Saino is proprietor of the MemphisShelbyInform.com blog, where a version of this essay first appeared.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Two School-Merger Issues

It is difficult to follow all of the mind-numbing discussions that are going on in the 23-member Consolidated School Board and the 21-member Transition Planning Commission. My sympathy goes out to the members who are giving their time and effort to this work, and they should at least get free comfortable cushions for the time they sit there and listen to all the opinions.

I have been thinking about this debate, and I have an opinion on several key questions, one that is currently hot and another that seems to have been put aside and not discussed, at least in the media.

Who owns the school land and buildings in the incorporated cities outside the city of Memphis and in Shelby County? We are talking about Germantown, Collierville, Bartlett, Arlington, Lakeland, and Millington. The liability for these buildings is on Shelby County government’s books, and the assets are on the books of the Memphis school system and the Shelby County school system.

It seems to me that if, for instance, Germantown wanted these facilities, the remaining liability (bonds issued for the purchase and construction cost of these facilities less the amount paid to date) should be transferred to Germantown’s books and taken off Shelby County’s books. This liability should be for the actual land and construction cost and not include any $3/$1 average daily attendance ratio that might have occurred at the time of construction.

Then the next step in this process, again taking Germantown as an example, should be a reconciliation of the tax rate for that city’s Shelby County taxes.

Germantown residents pay Shelby County taxes, and those taxes include a portion for education and a portion for debt. The portion paid to Shelby County for education should be reduced by the percentage of students that they promise to educate rather than have Shelby County educate them. Also, the portion paid to Shelby County for payment of bonded debt should be reduced to reflect the percentage of debt that they have taken over by assuming liability for the school bonds.

Of course, Germantown taxpayers will see their city tax bills go up in proportion to the new education and bond tax load, plus whatever else the city determines is required to run an educational establishment.

The result of this transfer arrangement would be that Germantown divorces itself from the Shelby County educational system and would be completely independent. Is that a good thing? That will be up to the people of Germantown, and any of the other incorporated cities in Shelby County that do likewise, to determine.

This analysis will no doubt be challenged by people on both sides who keep arguing that the suburbs must pay “a fair market price” or, on the other hand, that they should get the properties for free. I am not a lawyer, and there may be state laws and precedents that would not allow such an arrangement as the one I have proposed, but, as a businessman, it seems fair.

Now as to the other not so public issue: OPEBs. “OPEB” stands for “Other Post Employment Benefits” — mainly health care for retirees. On June 30, 2010, the unfunded OPEB liability for the Memphis City Schools system was $1.53 billion. In other words, they were paying 70 percent of the actual health care costs of retirees on an annual basis but ignoring the future costs. The Shelby County Schools system’s similar unfunded OPEB liability, as of June 30, 2010, was $242 million.

Now, when you consider that the Memphis school system has three times as many employees as Shelby County Schools, the unfunded OPEB liability, to be proportionate, should be in the range of $726 million, not $1.53 billion. The differential leaves $804 million to be assumed by the new combined school system. Is it fair to ask taxpayers to assume this unexpected burden? You have to ask the obvious questions: How and why did this occur?

I have been studying and writing about the operation of local government for a number of years, and I have come to one simple, obvious conclusion: Shelby County government and Shelby County Schools have been much better run from a financial standpoint than have city of Memphis government and Memphis City Schools.

I make no judgment on the educational achievement of the two systems, and I hope for a resolution that will be good for all the children. It seems obvious to me, from my background of 40 years in competitive business, that competition improves products and forces innovation and lowers costs. I say, let the competition begin.

Joe Saino follows public issues and writes about them on his Memphis Watchdog blog and in other venues.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Checkpoints

I am a fourth-generation Memphian, and I love this city. My brother and I ran a manufacturing business here for 40 years, employing up to 60 people. I spent most of my life building the business and helping raise four children. I served six years on the Memphis Light, Gas and Water board, so I’m not a complete neophyte when it comes to local government and politics.

Most people don’t completely understand or keep up with the details of local government, because they don’t have the time, energy, or interest. I didn’t.

After I retired I had the time, and I have devoted the last seven years to studying our local governments. My commitment was stimulated in 2004 when I became involved with John Lunt to try to overturn a disastrous pension resolution that allowed elected and appointed city of Memphis employees to retire after 12 years’ service and begin collecting retirement benefits, regardless of age. We were unable to influence even two city council members to propose revocation of the resolution.

Lunt’s group, Concerned Citizens of Memphis, finally achieved revocation but only for future potential recipients. Then-existing elected city officials, including, of course, sitting city council members and appointees were “grandfathered” to receive the most generous retirement benefits in city history. Many collect city retirement today while working full-time in other jobs.

That began my new career as an advocate of open records and transparency in government. I have filed seven lawsuits for open-records access and won six of them. I have studied local government through more than 200 open-records requests and have posted much of this information on two websites.

What I have learned are facts that have been available for years, but no one was investing the time and study to assemble and clarify the data for the public.

I have learned two important fundamentals:

First, it makes a big difference who we elect to public office. I believe they must be people of good character, honest, and exhibit stable personal lives. They should be successful enough outside government to indicate the capacity and experience to deal with complex matters. They should have the analytical ability to study complicated issues and exercise good judgment. They must be willing to give the time and effort necessary for public service without benefit of public pensions or lifetime health-care supplements for themselves.

I believe strongly that they must be part-time public servants, serve a maximum of two terms, and then return to their private lives. We’ve seen what happens when people strive for lifetime political careers.

Second, local government units should be as small as possible, consistent with economy of scale. Small government is closer — and more responsive — to the people it serves. I believe the same is true for public education organizations.

Comparing city of Memphis government with Shelby County government over the past 30 to 40 years, county government has been measurably more fiscally responsible. The county pension system, while still too generous, is almost fully funded, whereas the city pension system is underfunded by almost $500 million. In addition, the county reformed their pension system for future employees.

The retiree health-care fund of Memphis is underfunded by nearly $1 billion more than the Shelby County fund. The city has allowed line-of-duty disability retirement costs to reach a figure nearly 10 times that of the county. Memphis pays $11 million a year compared to less than $1 million in Shelby County.

I have assembled data on private-sector pensions and benefits versus local public-sector pensions and benefits. The public sector is far more generous and costly than are those in the private sector. Consider that public-sector pensions can guarantee a range from 72 percent to 82 percent of a retiree’s final salary. The vast majority of private-sector employees have, at best, Social Security, what they can save, and what their employers are willing to contribute into a 401(k) retirement savings plans.

Yet, despite all this potential for large and justifiable savings in city spending, the mayor and Memphis City Council still talk of cutting senior centers and summer park programs, of selling future parking-meter revenues and delinquent tax collections for one-time cash infusions. If our leaders can’t see what’s in front of their noses, and if they lack the wisdom and willingness to make the necessary reforms, we have elected the wrong people. We have certain elected individuals who do not possess the wisdom, judgment, and fortitude to deserve the right to continue to govern the city of Memphis.

Joe Saino, a retired businessman and full-time activist, is proprietor of memphisshelbyinform.com.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Pension Bomb

In the spring, there will be growth,” as Chauncey Gardiner, aka Chance the Gardener, famously says, over and over again, in the Peter Sellers classic, Being There. And for decades now, growth has been a normal outgrowth of the spring budgeting process for the city of Memphis and Shelby County, not to mention MLGW and our city and county school boards. Between 1995 and 2005, for example, the Memphis City Schools budget grew by 69 percent, while the consumer price index grew by 31 percent and the number of students shrank by 5.6 percent.

These were golden years, when money was no object and generous pensions and benefits packages were commonplace for public employees. From 2001 to 2004, for example, those lucky enough to secure positions with the city could retire with their earned pensions after only 12 years of service. Even members of the U.S. military never had it this good. Today, the economic worm has turned, and austerity, not prosperity, is just around the corner. Budget cuts have become the order of the day for municipalities and school systems all across America.

This spring, watching the local government budget process was a bit like watching grown men and women try to carve up a watermelon with toothpicks. Determined to cut expenses, council members and commissioners spoke out for closing golf courses and libraries, along with a host of other items that amount to small change in government budget parlance. But in 2010, in Memphis as elsewhere, political leaders are having to face up to their biggest fiscal challenge: above-market salaries, excessive benefits, and obscene pension plans that have been put in place for public employees.

In June, I attended the Memphis Light, Gas & Water pension board meeting where the annual pension and OPEB reports were presented and discussed. I listened to the discussions and had the opportunity to examine and analyze two eye-opening reports from the Segal Group, MLGW’s actuaries.

First, let’s look at the pension plan for MLGW. The budget calls for a total plan contribution for the employer (MLGW) for 2010 of $27 million (17.77 percent of payroll), compared to $22 million (14.87 percent of payroll) in 2009. Employees will contribute 8 percent of payroll, for a 2010 total contribution of $39 million. In these numbers, MLGW has only recognized part of recent market losses; otherwise, the required contribution would be even higher.

These assumptions illustrate the pitfalls of the defined-benefit pension plans that dominate the public government sector and pose such huge risks for the future. The days when an MLGW employee could start working at age 18 and retire with a full pension after 25 years are drawing to a close. But not soon enough for many public entities, where the cost of maintaining existing pension systems and OPEB promises (Other Post Employment Benefits, which is retiree health care and life insurance) make up a formidable portion of municipal budgets.

Basically, OPEB is a commitment by politicians to government employees that when they retire, the local governmental entity (i.e., taxpayers) will pay 70 to 75 percent of their health-care premiums. Just think about the OPEB cost incurred by our one hypothetical 43-year-old retiree who could live to be 85. That’s almost enough money to run a branch library for a year! Indeed, the total unfunded OPEB liability of MLGW, the city of Memphis, Shelby County, Memphis City Schools, and Shelby County Schools is over $4 billion. Where in the world will all this money come from?

Only one of these five government operations is doing anything to reduce its unfunded liabilities. That exception is MLGW, which, since the 1990s, has been quietly preparing for just this kind of rainy day. Under Larry Papasan’s leadership, the utility started a trust fund in 1995 to address the future funding of OPEB. For most of its history (the Joseph Lee era was an exception), MLGW has rated at the top of the list of professionally run local government operations in Shelby County and has been highly regarded nationally as well. The organization takes its promise to retirees seriously and is fortunate to have a source of income (utility rates) that is at arm’s length from the politically charged property tax system. Unlike other governmental organizations in town, the utility company has made great strides toward reducing its OPEB liability over the past few years, in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 70 years.

Consider these numbers. John McCullough (chief financial officer and secretary treasurer of MLGW) estimates the price tag for funding current-year benefits at around $20 million; plan members receiving benefits contribute about $4 million toward these costs. As of December 31, 2007, the plan was just 2.2 percent funded, as MLGW’s unfunded liability was $679 million. The projected value of the assets, according to the actuaries, was $15 million.

In 2008, MLGW contributed $66 million to its OPED fund, roughly $44 million over and above annual costs. In 2009, that contribution number was $55 million, and the 2010 estimate is $43 million. This total three-year contribution will be $164 million, resulting in a significant three-year pay-down of $104 million of the utility’s unfunded OPEB liability.

Where is MLGW finding the money? Well, take a look at your MLGW bill. That’s the only real source of income for the utility, given how poor investment market returns have been since 2008. True, other government bodies don’t have such ready access to their citizens’ wallets. Nevertheless, this is quite a significant achievement in this economic climate. It’s been quietly done, and there have been little or no media reports of this pay-down expenditure by MLGW.

The next item of interest that I came across in the MLGW OPEB report was in the section titled “Valuation Assumption Changes.” The AAL (actuarial accrued liability, i.e., the amount that the actuaries say is the outstanding total owed to the health care retirees for their premiums) for the OPEB fund decreased by $159 million. Subtracting this amount from the 2007 unfunded OPEB liability of $679 million and adding in the $104 million in cash pay-downs, this means that MLGW has reduced its unfunded benefits liability a whopping 39 percent in just three years. That is fiscal responsibility.

I kept looking, however, at the $159 million liability reduction, baffled at the figure. How could the actuaries come up with this huge write-down of the liability? The Segal Group report offers two explanations: “changes in obligations due to changing the valuation-year per capita health costs and future trend on such costs” and “change in assumed plan choice at retirement.”

These answers did not satisfy my curiosity, and I started reading and calling around. Here is what I found: At least a third or more of this reduction in liability, according to McCullough, was due to MLGW staff exploring the possibility of allowing current employees at the utility who were employed before 1986 to buy back into Medicare. That was a pivotal year in Medicare history, when federal law was changed requiring public employees and their employers to have all employees covered by the Medicare portion payroll deduction for health insurance. But at MLGW this only applied to employees hired after 1986.

MLGW determined that its OPEB liability might be reduced if they were able to allow those hired before 1986 to buy back into Medicare. Frank Carney, an outside pension attorney, worked closely with MLGW staff in the finance and HR areas while investigating the legalities and determining what needed to be done to make this happen. MLGW had to get approval through the Social Security Section 218 administrator and Internal Revenue Service to facilitate the tax aspect of the arrangement. After stiff resistance from the feds, the package was finally approved in May 2008, and of 620 eligible employees, 180 chose the buyback option.

Why did they choose this option and expense? In talking to several MLGW people who opted for the buyback, it was seen as extra insurance against the unknown future of OPEB funding and the possibility that MLGW could someday be sold.

Considering the huge reduction in the OPEB unfunded liability MLGW was able to achieve at least partially through this buyback program, I asked if the city of Memphis, Shelby County, and other public entities had been informed of this program. I was told that MLGW CEO Jerry Collins Jr. informed the city and county about a month ago, after the extent of the reduction of unfunded liability was determined. The question remains unanswered as to what, if anything, the city of Memphis has done in this regard and whether they have missed an opportunity to reduce their huge unfunded OPEB liability of $934 million with a similar buyback program.

MLGW, the city, and the county should work closely together and share their information with each other and with the public. The politicians and the taxpayers can no longer ignore these huge and growing liabilities; reform of pensions, OPEB benefits, and salary levels must be urgently addressed. The time is now.

Joe Saino is a former board member of MLGW. He is president of the nonprofit organization MemphisShelbyInform.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Dollars and Sense

I have spent some time going through the 2010 city of Memphis adopted operating budget. The 2011 budget process will begin soon, and I have some thoughts on this:

Looking back on past documents, I found that the funded staffing level for fiscal year 2005 was 5,545 employees. The population of Memphis in 2005 was 671,929. In 2009, the population had grown to 674,028, a growth rate of .003 percent. However, the city staffing level had grown to 6,123, a growth of 10.4 percent.

I suggest that the City Council tell Mayor A C Wharton to cut the staffing level by a minimum of 7 percent, for a savings of $30 million. I propose cutting staffing everywhere but the police department, which is up by 145 positions since 2005.

I question the sewer fund summary. Why did the payment on debt service jump from $6.4 million in 2008 to $15.3 million in 2010?

Park Services should be examined for savings by turning it back over to a civilian board, as it was before the City Council took it over. This takeover in 2000 by the council resulted in spending $4 million on the Whitehaven golf course, at the insistence of TaJuan Stout Mitchell, and $1.5 million for the Links at Riverside at the insistence of Edmund Ford. Hardly anyone plays golf on these courses, and they continue to lose money.

The contract with the Riverfront Development Corporation ($2.2 million) should be examined as to its services and value for the downtown parks it manages. An immediate study should be made of each city golf course and tennis facility to determine operating cost and revenue (this data is available annually for each facility). For instance, my recollection is that the Whitehaven (indoor) tennis center always has been a loser, because it gets almost no use. A decision should be made on each golf course and tennis center.

Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) should be examined, as well as the health insurance for current employees. We are spending $93 million on these benefits, and there have been reports that the retirees are not paying the full 30 percent that they are supposed to pay on the premiums.

The unfunded liability for OPEB for Memphis is $934 million, up $77 million in one year. We have promised to put up a laughable $5 million in 2010 to start to fund this unsustainable promise. We need to cut the funding ratio (70 percent paid by the city versus 30 percent paid by retirees) by at least 5 percent a year so that retirees have time to prepare for the inevitable non-funding of this empty political promise.

Employees’ benefits should be cut. There are few private-sector firms that offer 15-year employees two-and-a-half sick days per month (six weeks a year!), five weeks vacation (after 25 years), plus 11 holidays and other bonus days. This adds up to nearly 12 weeks off a year, which means that the city must hire additional personnel to get the work done.

Vehicle inspections cost $1.6 million and should be restricted to emission testing only and could be contracted out.

The Community Enhancement Division, especially grounds maintenance and City Beautiful, should be examined for performance and necessity. Grounds maintenance and City Beautiful work also could be contracted out.

The $700,000 for urban art ($100,000 for each of the seven council districts) should be dropped. This was left over from a canceled capital improvement plan project.

A public/private pension task study group for the city and MLGW, similar to the ongoing one for the county, should be instituted to consider a revised future pension plan for new and non-vested employees that is sustainable and affordable. Due to financial market conditions, the present plan may not be affordable in the future.

Local financial conditions will not allow the City Council to just trim around the edges of what the administration presents. We must attack the real problems, a few of which are mentioned here.

Joe Saino writes memphiswatchdog.org and memphisshelbyinform.com, where a version of this column appeared.