An open letter to PI residents and taxpayers
To the editor:
We were surprised to find the letter from the Teamsters business agent in last week’s edition. We were even more surprised by the tone and nature of the letter. We recognize that the business agent’s job is to use whatever means necessary to obtain more for union members.
Even then, it is most disappointing that complete information was not provided as Teamster representatives ask citizens to pay more to support their members. We have written this letter to provide complete information so you can judge whether paying more in taxes is the right thing to do in order to support the Teamster union’s position.
Since 2009, the city has continued to receive less money from the state. In 2014, the city will receive $1,236,655 less than we did in 2008. In June of this year, the state adopted a budget that took $458,533 away from our property taxpayers to pay state bills. We had to make mid-year adjustments to the budget to cover this loss of funds.
We reduced non-employee expenses and revenues by $283,533 through budget cuts. Unfortunately, we also had to ask taxpayers to pay an additional $125,000 in property taxes. The balance of $50,000 was asked to come from our employees. We suggested three easy things that they could do to assist. This was the first time that general, across the board, concessions were asked of city employees. Prior to this time, no employee had any reduction in compensation or benefits. In fact, every employee has received raises. Some received significant increases.
We asked our employees to take one day off without pay. We asked employees hired prior to 1996, to pay for their health insurance at the same rate that all of the other employees pay. We asked the non-union employees to accept 1 percent less in their retirement plan for six months. With the exception of the Police Patrol (which decertified from the Teamsters) and the non-union employees, they refused.
Here are some of the reasons we asked for their help:
• Our employees hired prior to 1996, who elect full family health insurance, pay only $19.25 per week; you as taxpayers pay $17,066.28 per year on their behalf;
• Employees hired after 1996, who elect full family health insurance, pay $96.26 per week; you as taxpayers pay $13,062.12 per year on their behalf;
• Every employee has received raises since 2010, to be competitive with the private sector and other comparable communities — the average being 9 percent; the largest raises included six employees of the union who received in excess of a 20 percent increase with one of the union stewards receiving a $14,331 increase of their base pay, plus overtime;
• The increased cost for 23 of the 95 employees has cost taxpayers more than $10,000 since 2010. When considering wages, health insurance and retirement, the single largest increase was $38,746;
• Regardless of how the MePERS affects the employees in the program, the substantial costs of this defined benefit have to be paid by the city (taxpayers). The city will gladly work with the union members in MePERS if they desire to withdraw from the system and go to a traditional 401k type program that the other employees are in, reducing financial liability;
• A senior tax clerk that registers your car makes a base salary of $37,094 and does not pay anything toward individual health insurance;
• A truck driver makes $32,009 (before OT) and does not pay anything towards individual health insurance; and
• A deputy fire chief makes $47,130 (before OT) pays only $19.25 per week towards family health insurance and does not pay anything towards individual health insurance.
Our choices are pretty much limited to three. The first is to lay off employees and thereby cut services to citizens — an option the city has tried to avoid. Second, we can ask for employees to assist us in preventing any employee layoffs or services from being eliminated, which the non-union and Police Patrol unit employees have done. Finally, we can just increase your taxes even higher.
Unfortunately, it appears that the Teamsters business agent thinks the choice should be to have you pay more. They would like you to believe the city has been unreasonable in our request. The letter suggests that the employees have made concessions. Keeping in mind that the median family income for our residents is less than $40,000 per year, and that the vast majority of our residents receive far less in benefits including funding a larger percentage of retirement; does it look like employees are making the same concessions that you are making?
We want to be clear that the employees in the Teamsters units are those that work in Solid Waste, the Airport, Public Works, the Deputy Police Chief and sergeants, the Fire department employees and some office staff at City Hall.
Our Library staff, Recreation staff, Police patrol and management staff, including their principal support staff, have all worked with the city and accepted some concessions to help the citizens. We greatly appreciate their understating of the economic reality we all currently must endure and hope that there will be a day soon that we can make it up to them.
To be clear we, as the members of the City Council, appreciate the jobs our employees perform for Presque Isle citizens. We believe we have illustrated this through the increase of wages through the years and ensuring we pay a competitive wage. If it was not for the severe cutbacks by the state, we would be having a very different discussion. We have not been given that luxury.
We will continue to work hard to find ways to hold the line on taxes and maintain your services. We just want to make sure you have the whole story as it relates to why we are asking the Teamsters union to help contribute to the solution.
Emily Smith, Chairperson
Randy Smith, Deputy Chairperson
Peter Hallowell, Councilor
Bruce Sargent, Councilor
Dick Engels, Councilor
Craig Green, Councilor
Mike Chasse, Councilor
