All city of St. Joseph employees will get a 4 percent raise this year, as the city administration couldn’t agree on focusing the money toward certain “underpaid” jobs.
Both union and non-union employee representatives agreed in interviews that 4 percent is a good raise, but this is yet another year that the City Council failed to make any steps toward getting overall pay in line with other public-sector jobs.
The council did make a solid commitment in Thursday’s meeting to come up with a plan and money to fix the underpaid jobs, compared with other cities. A major part of that plan is a possible public safety tax.
Thursday’s decision will prolong months of meetings, memos, surveys, politics, union lobbying and overall tension among different employee groups.
Mayor Ken Shearin tried to put things in perspective for the government employees, given the soaring health insurance costs and disappearance of retirement pensions that have greatly undercut private workers’ raises.
“You can rest assured that if an employee was going to quit because they didn’t get a raise, 110 people would apply for the job, because it’s been proven,” Mr. Shearin said. “The city’s a great place to work. The city takes great care of its employees. The city’s got benefits that other places in this country don’t get.”
Mr. Shearin, along with council members Mike Hirter, Joyce Starr, Donna Jean Boyer, Gary Roach supported the 4 percent raise, along with City Manager Vince Capell, who didn’t attend Thursday’s meeting.
The alternative would’ve cost roughly the same, with raises of up to 5 percent for salaries that lag behind other cities, but only 1 percent or 2 percent raises for salaries that compare well to other cities. Roger Baker, Barbara LaBass, Mike Bozarth and Bill Falkner supported variations of that plan.
Other budget highlights include the following:
City employees for the first time will pay to keep their same health insurance plans, saving the city up to $312,000. Employees traditionally have had free health insurance (although they must pay the entire cost for any family members). Now they have the option of paying $38.60 a month for their same health plan, or they can opt for lesser coverage and continue paying nothing.
The Animal Control & Rescue shelter will get a new employee and an expansion. After Ms. LaBass voiced concerns about some dogs and cats being euthanized too quickly, the shelter proposed the $139,000 expansion.
A new animal health educator/animal control officer will cost the city a total of $46,000 a year (the salary itself will be $27,794). Aside from general outreach, the city has discussed charging court offenders to attend a class, plus making the class available to regular pet owners for a fee. But Ms. LaBass was highly opposed to the new position, as was Mr. Falkner. Ms. LaBass said volunteers could do the education, and she couldn’t understand why the Health Department would create a new position to help animals instead of children.
Joe Blumberg can be reached at joeblumberg@npgco.com.
Bravo Mayor Ken! It's about time someone spoke the truth. If someone wants to quit a city job, there are many people in line willing to take it. Look at some of the publications produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and you'll find that many state & local governments have better pay and better benefits than their private counterparts. That's just wrong. Why should the bosses (taxpayers) make less money than those they employ (public sector workers)? City/state workers want comparability with other city/state workers. The comparability should be for similar private sector workers within their own area.
Posted by missouri_mule on May 9, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)No-one deserves an automatic pay increase based on some fantasy matrix that was developed (or paid to another company to develop) by the very people who will benefit. Congress has this same type of horse-hockey pay scheme: if they don't vote to defeat a raise proposed by a "citizen's pay committee" then it automatically goes into effect. How many times has it been voted down? Exactly zero.
A public safety tax? This is nothing personal against cops, but we always hear about how great St Joe is, with the low crime rate a significant factor. Why, then, should an area with a low crime rate have the same (or similar) pay as an area with high crime rates? Besides, Mike Strong spent a fortune on 4-wheel drive gas guzzlers, so his raises are rolling around on the streets.
Already-too-high taxes, deficit interest payments, insurance and utility increases, food prices, unneeded subsidies to certain groups combined with ridiculous fuel mandates are already leaving an average worker with little or nothing to spare. New taxes? For public safety or St Joseph School District bullying, it matters not. People can't afford it and they won't vote for it.
Well said Sam!!
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them.
Rules: We don't allow comments that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability. Epithets, abusive language and obscene comments will not be tolerated... nor will defamation. Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatent cutting and pasting is not acceptable.Robust, even heated debate we like. Straying off-topic or flaming, we don't. Please read our user agreement.
Requires free stjoenews.net registration.