By Pauline Masson –
Aldermen disagreed in an even 3-3 split on whether all city workers should get a pay raise beginning in January 2024. Mayor Filley broke the tie in favor of giving the raises.
With City Hall audio system not working for the Dec. 5 board meeting, residents had to wait until Saturday, Dec. 9 to hear the discussion as aldermen considered whether to even read the bill to grant a ten percent pay increase for city workers.
The vote to approve reading the pay raise bill for the first time ended in a 3-3 tie.
Aldermen Rafael Madrigal, Anna Meadows and Rick Presley voted in favor of reading the bill. Aldermen James Cleeve, Debbie Kelley and Scott Lesh voted “No.”
Mayor Heather Filley broke the tie in favor of reading the bill, which amounted to preliminary approval of across-the-board pay raises for all employees. The second vote and final approval will take place at the next board meeting.
The biggest bone of contention of the “No” voters was where the $300,000 would come from to fund the raises.
To come up with half that amount in the January 2024 to June 2024 segment of the current budget the administration would have to take the funds from some other line items.
Alderman Lesh said he thought the raises should be tied to an increase in city revenue in the form of taxes. He said he wanted to see the revenue increase from year to year in the city tax base to see that the city had the increase.
“As Mr. (James) Cleeve has said, we want to make sure the revenues are there before we approve that they are going to be there for a year or two,” Lesh said.
This discussion by two unseasoned aldermen reveals a troubling trend in city government. The aldermen have relinquished their responsibility for the budget and all city spending to others.
They seem to miss the point that only ‘they,’ the aldermen can approve the city budget and all city expenditures.
The city administrator, who works directly for the mayor, may list the revenue and expenditure to create a working spending plan, but it does not go into effect until a majority of the aldermen say yes.
Where have these two aldermen been as city spending progressed during their 20 months in office. They have approved two annual budgets and several budget amendments. But they appear to see that their role is to only approve expenditures that are presented to them.
In this same meeting, aldermen approved spending $109,926, in the form of a grant, to rebuild the bar of the Red Cedar Inn visitor center/museum so the City can sell ice cream. Included in that grant is a $10,000 match of city funds.
When aldermen approved the request to apply for this grant that was going to take $10,000 from the general fund, the obvious question was, “Do we need to sell ice cream at the Red Cedar? Wouldn’t this money be better spent to pay employees?”
And, speaking of the Red Cedar, included in the two budgets that these aldermen approved was a contract with the firm Navigate to manage the Red Cedar Project at a fee of $4,900 /month. That’s $58,800 for each year the project was under way to pay someone to do the job that arguably should fall to the city administrator.
The budget, is a working tool that aldermen can see at any time before they approve it. Any individual alderman can look at the budget and question a planned expenditure. “Wouldn’t this money be better spent somewhere else.”
To protest that any requested expenditure is limited to line items in a previously approved budget, or the assurance of future revenue, is a cry in the wilderness.
Mayor Filley suggested that the $300,000 sitting in future pool fund could be used for the six-month budget for raises.
Mr. Lesh challenged the notion.
“So just to be clear, you’re saying that the $300,000 that we allocated for the pool we could use some of that for the payroll?” Lesh said.
“If the budget can be amended to do that. Absolutely,” the mayor said. “That is $300,00 sitting in the budget, today, that has been approved that we potentially could utilize to make these raises in January.”
Mr. Lesh’s argued that the $300,000 allocated for future pool repair or replacement could not be used for pay raises because it was not a recurring item. I seem to recall that when he requested the special pool fund he asked that money be ‘found’ in every future budget to create a growing pool fund.
He stuck to his guns, though, asserting that the pay raise should be tied to future revenue growth,
“ Let’s figure out how much growth we have and how big a raise we can manage with the city. I want to make it clear, not to muddle that,” he said. “What we’re asking for here, is did we have growth. . . . Let’s see the numbers.”
Mr. Cleeve echoed Mr. Lesh’s point.
“I’m uncomfortable doing something to take it to the next budget without seeing recurring money,” he said. “Show me the money.”
Are they kidding?
Every budget in every city is based on a prediction of what the next year’s revenue might be. Looking for someone else to tell them what next year’s revenue might be is a LasVegas bookmaker’s game. Some people are better at predicting the future than others.
Alderman Rick Presley, offered his fellow aldermen food for thought by suggesting that arguing about future tax revnue was the wrong direction.
Presley, whose family operates Presley Glass, said he saw the question of employee pay from a business point of view. He said his fellow aldermen were arguing about the wrong thing.
“I would say that we need to work hard to find the money to pay employees salaries so we can retain them,” he said. “There are long standing, good employees in our pay. If we lose these people, the new employees coming in will cost more and will do less because they won’t be as qualified.”
“This discussion needs to be more on ‘how do we do it?, not “should we do it?, Presley said.
Mayor Filley stressed that what she and Administrator Selby were asking for was enough to balance the last half of the current budget. She said, beginning in June 2024, when preparing the 2025 budget, “We can budget for it appropriately.”
The final vote on the ordinance will take place at the Dec. 19 meeting.
What matters most in a City is the question I see. Are City Employees chattel or are they worthy of their status as Employees. Basic services are vital to a City. To fund those services sometimes requires innovative thinking as evidenced by the City Administrator. This Board applauded this man for his unique abilities to manage a City. Now some seem to think 🤔 he has no idea how to manage a City. Trust in those you hire to give you advice. If you can’t you’ve hired the wrong person or the wrong person is YOU!