Clear

Roanoke Rapids, NC

50°F

Clear

Humidity: 87%

Wind: N at 5 mph

Banner

Wednesday, 25 May 2011 10:35

City budget 10: Debate on longevity


Rate this item
(0 votes)

City council will continue debate on whether to include longevity pay in its budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

At issue is adding some longevity plan to a proposed budget where revenues are currently $159,000 over expenses.

In a memo to council from City Manager Paul Sabiston for a specially called meeting Tuesay, the city manager writes, "If the city council were to fully reinstate the longevity pay for the upcoming budget year, without any other changes, that revenue over expense sum would be reduced to $45,900."

Longevity pay, the memo notes, is $114,000 for one year.

Sabiston's recommendation is to request the city council amend the policy so all employees are under the same system and eliminate an old system. Putting employees on the same system, the memo says, would cost the city $52,769 per year.

Currently, the city operates under two longevity policies, an old system for employees who began work before November 1, 1995, which was a percentage of salary and produced a higher payout amount. Employees hired after November 1, 1995, have been paid under a new system which imposes a flat fee. There are approximately 30 employees paid under the old system, the memo states. "By eliminating the 'old system' and converting all employees to the new system, the employees will be treated equally based simply on years of service and the city will save approximately $61,231 for each year it elects to pay the longevity bonus."

Sabiston noted in the memo longevity pay is a somewhat antiquated manner of providing a bonus. "It is a rare occurrence in the local government sector and has been replaced in most jurisdictions by a merit pay bonus that rewards employees, when funds are available, based on performance and training instead of simple longevity. Longevity pay is not required, nor is it guaranteed to any employee, existing or future."

Councilman Greg Lawson said he was struggling with the issue because the money was something employees anticipated. "We've got to do something to curb the budget but I know our employees are counting on this."

Councilman Ernest Bobbitt said, "I don't think it's right to jerk it out from under their feet. We keep talking about how great they are, this is about the only way to show that."

Councilman Ed Liverman said council has to look at making a business decision, something that would help the budget. "All across this city people have had to do without. We need to do what's best for the city."

Lawson said he understands the situation the city is facing in the budget after this one when the theater reserve fund is gone. "That's when we're really going to be hurting. I know we have to be more business like."

Mayor Emery Doughtie said wording of longevity pay has to be clear. "If it is considered a bonus it needs to say that. We've got people who would be more than glad to give up a supplement to keep their jobs."

 

Lance Martin

Lance Martin

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

comments  

 
0 #3 Maureen 2011-05-26 20:08
Another term for longevity is "dead wood". Paying someone extra just for being there a set amount of time is pure stupidity. You reward workers with a bonus if they achieve above and beyond their job description with a measurable metric.
Quote
 
 
+1 #2 Kimberly 2011-05-26 17:18
no harm meant to any city employee, I know several personally, and while they are wonderful people and I wouldn't begrudge them a thing, I do need to say, you know what, your choice is a job or this ridiculous bonus in hiding. I have worked for the same employer for 15 years. Never once at the end of the year has she said, WAHOOOOO, you chose not to quit your job this year, here's a check for that... geeze louise city council, get a brain please!!!!!! we are looking at a major catastrophe next year and yet you continue to spend money as if it's growing on trees in our backyards.
Quote
 
 
+7 #1 cwec 2011-05-25 12:01
Stop the avenue project that is not in the current budget that is going to cost about $70,000.00 of taxpayer money. This is why the city is in so much trouble now. Stupid spending like this is how we got into trouble and how we will stay in trouble. There is about $539,000.00 that the city council needs to try to collect and that is the back rent that is owed by mr. gatling.
Quote
 

Add comment

All comments posted on rrspin.com must be written in complete sentences with no text message abbreviations. No all caps comments will be allowed, that includes words written in capital letters for emphasis.

There is to be no profanity and there is to be no character assassination even if the person being written about is a suspect in a crime.
Comments that presume knowledge of a person’s home life, financial situation or other personal details will be not be posted as will comments which presume legal knowledge.

All comments must be on the topic of the story and offer the reader’s insight on a particular issue. rrspin.com will cease posting comments if the editor determines readers are infighting with one another and not staying on the topic of a story.

rrspin.com prefers readers use their real names because anonymous posters are accountable for their comments just as readers who post their names are.


Security code
Refresh