After reading the recent article by Mr. Caldwell, I felt compelled to at least respond and not leave some open-ended questions unanswered.

I can respect that he is not just complaining about “footing the bill” as his article indicates but offering up some solutions that have already been toggled and presented to the council body as rational solutions, although they have chosen to revert to a less impactful plan regarding health insurance and cutting positions.

Let me first address, the comment “balance a flawed budget on the backs of the citizens.” I would have to disagree with this statement. The percentage figures given in the article help to support the claim yet the dollar amounts exposed per household are immaterial to the solution.

If I were to compare the 75 percent increase that generates $260,000 towards balancing the budget across 4,800 households (not residents) this year against a 7.5 percent increase in employee contributions which generates over $240,000 spread across 115 employees, how would that favor? It averages out to be about $2,000 per employee, per year. Would the citizens have a greater sacrifice in an additional $72 per household per year?

I can echo the sentiments of my coworkers that this budget was balanced essentially on non-union workers first who have no negotiable rights but are at the mercy of a resolution for salaries and benefits with a questionable assumption that the unions will follow. Some of who have earned these benefits over a lifelong career and now are seeing this essentially diminish overnight.

We will have less income to spend on ever growing obligations in the most economic challenging times, as we all can attest. Though to contribute to lessen expenses on behalf of the city’s financial woes, I advocated this contribution from the beginning. It generates the most material savings.

My next mindset correction is the statement that residents are essentially getting nothing based on the fee increase. The citizens are getting sustained services that they have come to expect and have not yet seen the effects if these services diminish or are lessened.

I equate it to the gas increase of 30 cents overnight. Do you expect to get more than a gallon of gas simply because the price increased? Do you get extra bread or more than a dozen eggs or more milk with the increase in the prices at the grocer? The supplier sets the price that yields positive returns based on the obligation and cost of production to maintain a viable operation.

That is what the citizens are getting in return for the increase; an independent government that can operate responsibly and meet its obligations and provide the services that benefit the residents’ public health, safety, and welfare.

We are attempting to stay status quo, while all operating costs — supplies, equipment, fuel expense, utility hike, and government subsidy — is changing. So yes, I agree we are staying status quo for the benefit of not passing all the necessary increase to the residents of Ironton, who are ultimately the consumers.

This conception of getting nothing for the increase is ultimately skewed because you are paying for sometimes an intangible service rather than goods. To explain the municipal “safety” fee would be my first lesson. The fee was established to support the salaries, benefits, and operations of the police department.

The fee has been renewed every two years at $8 even though the police budget was greater than what the revenue produced originally. The current proposed fee is the first opportunity this budget has made to support truly what the fee was enacted to do.

Though Mr. Caldwell takes such issue with a $6 per household increase, what issue would residents take against the city when they would be forced to layoff officers and offer less or inadequate police protection in the days of increased domestic violence, drug activity, theft, breaking and entering, etc.

The misconception that this fee was increased to support the employees’ salaries is the greatest untruth. I realize the layoff notices and budget battles have made airtime and print, yet a general fund expense summary shows salaries and benefits have decreased 5 percent from 2010 to 2011, while insurance coverage is up 7 percent health insurance is up 3 percent; utilities are up 10 percent, fuel is up 50 percent; office supplies have decreased 25 percent as we have shifted the appropriations to the aforementioned line items.

Operating expense is down 14 percent so we are trying to do more with less, travel and training are down 13 percent; maintenance is up 4 percent; debt is down 34 percent. Legal expense is down 56 percent, and there is only one capital item to report in 2011 — a new HVAC tower, mere heat and air for employees.

The council did not decide to raise this fee to keep the payroll constant. They increased this fee to adequately run the city and the expenses that as a consumer they cannot control.

As for additional economic development in continuing to progress the city forward, the salary cut was self-proposed based on an email Mr. Dickens wrote to the council. No one is contesting the impact that this position has had or will have on Ironton’s development future, but the echoes of development on the riverfront, Ninth Street, a new subdivision on the old hospital property and the continued efforts towards a potential developer for the Ironton Iron site will continue.

Please don’t discredit the sacrifices made by this entity internally to help resolve a very tumultuous budget year and climate. Nor the diligence we give daily to identify cost saving initiatives.

The budget also attempts to relieve the residents in 2013 decreasing the $6 impact by half or literally an $11 fee. There is currently no legislation, however, to give the employees 50 percent of their sacrificed contributions but the assumption that their contributions will continue to increase.

Although Mr. Caldwell offers solutions that the council has considered to incrementally introduce in upcoming years, even he proposed an increase of $2 focused towards economic development. But redirecting the municipal “safety” fee to economic development ultimately sacrifices current police rosters and possibly fire protection.

Even throwing $150,000 at development does not guarantee results. So kudos to Mr. Dickens for getting results for substantially less than this figure!

Whatever legislation this council approves, is ultimately what they were elected to do. This is not a blindsided issue. The very bullets that are mentioned are being considered in some current or future fashion. Some of these successes cannot be made by the city alone.

Mr. Caldwell quotes the cliché, “you get what you pay for,” but I would quote the new cliché: “Pay for what you get.”

 

Kristen L. Martin is the finance director for the City of Ironton.