Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 20 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Aldermen not any closer to cuts
Published Friday, July 3, 2009
NATCHEZ — Despite vehement pledges to make budget cuts several months into the budget review process, the board of aldermen has yet to make any conclusive decisions.
“Making tough decisions” to whittle away budgetary fat has practically become a city catchphrase, yet Thursday’s meeting didn’t even net a meeting of the full board.
Alderwoman Joyce Arceneaux-Mathis didn’t attend the meeting as she is on vacation, and aldermen Bob Pollard and Dan Dillard didn’t attend due to work conflicts.
That left aldermen Mark Fortenbery, James “Ricky” Gray, Ernest “Tony” Fields, City Clerk Donnie Holloway, City Attorney Everett Sanders and Mayor Jake Middleton to chat about possible cuts.
Middleton said he did not want to have an in-depth conversation regarding the budget without the full board present, and Holloway agreed.
“We need to get the whole board on the same page,” Holloway said.
But Gray recognized that the board has not made any decisions on cuts.
“We can’t keep prolonging this,” he said.
The board has been meeting regularly to comb through the budget, and at its last work session June 16, officials said decisions were being made to be voted on at their next board meeting.
However, when the June 22 meeting rolled around, no votes were cast to make any cuts that were discussed — privatizing recreation grass cutting, layoffs, ending the city’s lease of a portion of the former Marketplace Café or lowering alderman pay.
The only official action taken by the board is to enact a hiring freeze applicable to all city departments aside from police and fire.
Another board meeting next week will likely pass without major decisions, as the board will not meet for another budget hearing until next Thursday.
“Let’s be ready to make some decisions on Thursday — study up,” Middleton said.
What the aldermen will be considering until then is changing city employee health care plans.
Holloway pitched increasing deductibles for doctor’s visits and pharmaceuticals.
Collectively, the increase proposed — which would be between $5 and $10 — would save the city $56,000 a year.
Middleton also suggested increasing how much an employee pays a month toward health insurance from $20 to $25, which would create $80,000 a year in city savings.
Gray and Holloway both said they do not favor that option.
The city officials present at Thursday’s meeting came to a collective goal for the next three years in their terms — stop borrowing money to balance the budget.
“That’s definitely a reachable goal,” Fields said.
Middleton said he anticipates the city will have to borrow money again in the next fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, but he would like to see the amount lowered from $1.3 million the city had to borrow to balance the 2008-2009 fiscal year budget.
“I think there are a lot of things we can bear down on,” Fortenbery said.
Comments
Posted by bluesdad61 (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 1:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The city of Natchez has 1333 employees!!?? Why?
Posted by Avenue (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 4:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whoa - I had no idea there are that many employees. Each position and employee should be evaluated. Cut the deadwood - I am sorry if anyone gets upset over the possibility of another losing their job - I don't like it either but if the position is not necessary - cut it. There may be employees who don't deserve a job much less a raise that are keeping the hard workers from keeping their jobs or getting a raise.
Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 4:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Budget cuts are new territory. They have never had to do it before and it must be hard on them.
1333 employees. Wow. I had no idea either. That is unbelievable. Shouldn't be to hard to trim some there.
$25 a month for their insurance doesn't sound bad at all. That's better than most of us have it.
Posted by shedevil (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 5:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I bet they could get by with alot less employees...way to many employees at city hall.Being the aldermen are highest paid in Ms they should be required to work 40hrs a week at city hall or cutting grass and fixing things around the city.
Posted by duck (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i know a city employee,and if you have your spouse or kids on the city insurance your looking at over $400 a month for insurance
Posted by jlmorris (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, if Ben thinks the CVB and other tourist entities need a RINGMASTER, maybe we need a LION TAMER for the BOA.
hehe Just thinking about it! hehe
Posted by northpearl (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can we just start at the top. Eliminate the Mayor's car as well as retirement benefits for the elected Board and Mayor. And also ask Mr Sanders not to send a bill for his time at yesterdays meeting. It is simple however requires small steps.
Posted by destiny (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BOA & BOS should be ashamed of themselves expecting the taxpayers to do without while they collect their checks from the city/county. Make an example, START AT THE TOP WHEN CUTTING SALARIES.
Posted by lowrider (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They can start by taking a pay cut, these alderman have done little for the money they have been making off of us. I can put my 4 yr old in there place and he would make better judgement calls than what these idiots have.
Posted by Natchezbear (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let see.........Budget cut #1....You don't show up for work at second job you no get paycheck! Budget cut #2 ...Take these heathen thugs robbing, vandalizing and costing us money to care for put them to work cutting grass ,picking up trash and repairing public property! Budget cut # 3 anyone who make more than $25 K a year can afford their own car,gas and insurance!
Posted by mrmojorisin (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, I don't like to complain...but increasing the employee insurance cost from $20 to $25, and upping their co-pay from $5 to $10? My Blue Cross at work costs me $55 a month with a co-pay for every doctor's visit of $50. To add my family it goes up to $345 a month. Maybe if the city employees paid more for their insurance and more each time they went to the doctor, not only would the city have more money, but their employees would maybe think twice before taking time off and running to the doctor for every little thing.
Poor people and people without jobs, disabled, or elderly need and deserve to have the lowest cost medical coverage our enormously wealthy nation can afford for them.
But these city employees should take a look at how good their benefits are and how lucky they are to have such low cost health care. Or they could maybe be shown how if they were to pay more for their benefits like, say, I do, their paychecks could go up... But then they'd have to pay more taxes and more for their benefits ...one step forward, two steps back.... and be ever so grateful that theymay keep their jobs, can save their city a couple of hundred thousand a month, and still pay only a fraction of the cost per month that most of us not working for the city are paying for the same doctors and pharmacists.
---mojo
Posted by sportsfreak (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
From what I've seen their payscale is on here, city employees are poor!
Posted by hawk1 (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
every city employee is over paid in my opion i see 8 people on 1 small job and 7 of them are leaning up on the shovel watching 1 man work.
Posted by tiredoflosers (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hawk1 that is not regular folk, that is the mayor and boa
Posted by whatthehell47 (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
there is not 1333 city employes, there is maybe 250 to 350
and those with family on their insurance pay close to $300
a pay check if not more.
Posted by jlmorris (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Middleton also suggested increasing how much an employee pays a month toward health insurance from $20 to $25, which would create $80,000 a year in city savings."
I do not know the number of city employees. However, if you do the math, $80,000 divided by ($5 per employee times 12 months in a year), you get 1.300 employees plus or minus.
Now maybe this is some more of that thing called gov'ment figuring!
Posted by jlmorris (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just hid and watch, the BOA will come to the conclusion that they have cut the city budget to the bone and a tax increase is their only option!
Yeah, right! Apparently, they think the public is STUPID and will roll over, but they may find out that they will need money for recall elections!
Not a threat but a promise!
JMO!
Posted by bluesdad61 (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks jlmorris for confirming the math I used. Glad to know my south natchez education didn't let me down.
Posted by sdaafrye (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
City employees currently pay close to 400/ month to put their family on the health plan with a 2500.00 deductible. Then you must add the gap plan to reduce the deductible to 500.00 which cost a family an additional 50-60/month. The 80,000 savings is not based on the number of employees but on the number of doctor visits. The city is self-insured with BC/BS as the plan administrator. 80,000 divided by 10.00 increase is 8,000 visits per year. 8,000 divided by 350 employees 22-23 visits per year per family divided by 12 months is 1.9 visits per month. This is average. Those with small children may need to go more often then those without and that is if they figured the average number of visits. I think the number is higher than the actual savings would be. 10 visits per family per year based on a 10.00 increase would only net a savings of 35,000.
And if you knew that the pay for your life line (dispatchers for police and fire) were only making as most city employees just above minimum wage you would not complain about their medical benefits.
Posted by sdaafrye (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
56,000 divided by 10.00 increase is 5600 visits per year. 56000 divided by 350 employees 16 visits per year per family divided by 12 months is 1.3 visits per month. This is average. dont know why i was first thinking of 80k.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)