| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 3:30:43 PM
|
Tails, your question is probably rhetorical but the answer is obviously the taxpayers of Everett.
An offer like this is intended to be a tool to thin out the staff before layoffs become necessary. It is going to appeal to two or maybe three groups of people: people who are near retirement age, people who believe that they can get another job when the time comes and possibly, those people who fear that they may not have a job after the next election. Obviously, it would be better if you could target the people that you'd like to see take an offer like this but I don't think that it would be legal to do it that way. My guess would be that the intent here is more geared towards those folks on the retirement bubble.
In order to implement the program, cash up front will be required. But there should be some savings down the the line in reduced salaries if shorter tenured, lower paid employees are kept instead of longer tenured, higher paid ones. Also, unemployment contributions in the future won't be as high if someone chooses to leave rather than the city having to lay someone off. The other cost that the city may have to take on is an increase in buyback payouts for retirees. These are costs that the city would have to pay at some point anyways. They'd just be pushed into the current time frame, the only benefit being that they would stop accumulating. There is possible savings associated with this type of move over time but I certainly don't see any guarantee of it.
I don't believe that you can look at this strictly as a financial transaction though, especially with public safety employees. For example, without running any numbers to be sure of it, if four higher tenured, better paid police officers took an early retirement as a result of this incentive, perhaps it would be possible to keep five lower paid officers that would otherwise have to be laid-off.
So, it's hard to know what this will ultimately cost the city but we will have answer fairly soon. I would guess that the funding for this would have to come from free cash, which still has a pretty health balance. There is certainly a possibility that this could really backfire on the city but, given the current jobs market, I don't see that being too probable. |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 7:08:45 PM
|
Lets say 10 fire and 10 police decide to take this. This is open for everyone. That alone is $500,000.00 for just the fire/police incentive.
Incentive's are good if your fiscally capable of doing so. I just think the city is being run more like a corporation rather than being responsible with tax payer money. These are times when we need to tighten our belts. I'm hearing lay-offs all over the country, but I'm not hearing about $25,000.00 per person incentives on taxpayers. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 8:24:29 PM
|
| I don't see the numbers being that high. But, what do I know? $25,000 in a lump sum payment with taxes and social security taken out may not be as good as a deal as it seems. I think that it's a gamble with no guarantee of a dollar pay back to the tax payer. But as I said before, I think that it's about more than just dollars. Maybe, we'll get some explanation from the administration at some point. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 8:26:31 PM
|
I guess we will "have to wait and see", again.
"Deb" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
FY/08 budget issues
