Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Unsound in More Than One Way

Here we go again...from passing deficit budgets, to not paying vendors, to selling property that should not be developed. Early in my administration that same proposal to sell hillside city-owned property near Sciotoville was brought to me by a local attorney. I did what the current un-elected mayor should do...shelve it. It appears that he and council think this paltry amount of money will help address the multi-million dollar deficit budget they just passed. In reality it is simply poor public policy.

No matter the flak I faced every day, the basic tenet of all the decisions I made and the policies and projects I proposed was to do the right thing and be fair and equitable. That forms the foundation of good public policy.

I told the city employees I would always treat them equally. Not only are they dependent on their incomes, they are working in good faith. The Charter mandated number of police and fire personnel is nothing more than a political ploy...used first when the income tax was adopted and later when the income tax rate was raised. It is being used again. There is no “theory” behind any of the personnel numbers.

What is not being discussed by the city is how to be fair and equitable to the employees and the public. What is the public currently getting for their income and property tax dollars and their water, sewer, sanitation fees and fuel tax dollars? Paved streets? Replaced water lines? Better guarantees that sewage won't back up into their homes? Flood protection?

Last year the auditor proposed and council agreed to put on the November 2010 ballot a property tax renewal to pay for flood defense. I proposed that even after the election, the city should develop a "flood defense fee" to replace the property tax. The concept went right over the heads of the council (save 2 members) and the city auditor. It also went over the heads of the local media and was misused to suggest I was raising water rates.

I voted no on this issue last November…because this method is unfair and inequitable. Why should only property owners (primarily residential owners) pay for the city's flood defense? What about all the exempt (university, schools, government offices, hospitals, churches, etc.) or abated (primarily downtown where it would flood the greatest) properties? Why do they not share in this expense?

And besides…the revenues raised by this method are insufficient owing to new federal requirements. There are now two options: 

1)      the levies be decertified by FEMA; flood maps be redrawn and flood insurance would be required for those properties in newly outlined flood zones
2)      the city will need to find the several million dollars for levy/flood defense repairs 

Unsound proposals and decisions appear to rule the day with this un-elected mayor and council. The concept of fair and equitable appears not to be in their lexicon.

Monday, March 14, 2011

2009 Gross Take-Home Pay for Police & Fire by Employee

When people tell you how little the police officers and firefighters make, be aware the truth. With overtime, special duty pay, vacation, sick, comp time, longevity, etc., etc. these are the real take home pay numbers for 2009. Included are clerks and dispatchers who are paid at a much lower rate. These numbers have gone up since 2009. And, police officers are paid an additional $1,000 as a uniform allowance, yet there is no requirement that they actually use that for uniforms. The fire department actually submits invoices for uniforms.



On top of the take home pay is, of course, benefits - pension, health insurance (medical, dental, vision, etc.), workers compensation, and medicare - amounting to roughly 60% in additional costs - all of which is paid by the taxpayers.

In my opinion, many of the city employees' base salaries are too low. But, unless the total costs are known and projected, it is impossible to budget and forecast. Many inequities also develop. Police officers' and fire fighters' actual take home is significantly and disproportionately higher than other employees.

An Example:
























At the time I proposed furlough days as a way to balance the 2010 budget, I also spoke of the need for a salary study. Such a study would have reviewed employee base salaries, overtime and benefits. This is the only way to get a true picture of real costs and to actually be able to project into the future.

Of course the council refused to even discuss my proposal and, instead, adopted their own deficit budget which when added to the 2009 deficit, meant the were starting 2011 at a nearly $2.5 Million deficit, and that is what we see now...except, what do you get for it? They want the taxpayers to pay for a continuing problem. Have we heard anything out of city officials about actually addressing the "hidden employee costs"?

Yet there is no discussion about new water lines, resurfacing of the deplorable streets, continuing to take down abandoned properties, etc., ...and how do they actually intend to start financing a $70 Million federally required update to our sewage system? Oh right, they seem to have forgotten that.