Editorials
Having recently written a series on the Town of Lancaster budget, I welcomed the input I received from others regarding the credibility and accuracy of the data presented.
I always attempt to get information that verifies the facts and data presented are on the money; a difficult and time consuming task to say the least. Even then, based on circumstance and intent, individuals can interpret the facts and data differently. There are two sides to every story!
Redundant Town and Village taxes
In Part I of the series, I wrote: "Although village property owners pay town taxes, often for redundant services not provided, the following salary and benefit contracts pertain to Town of Lancaster employees."
An individual questioned what I believed are the redundant services that village residents pay for but are not provided.
The individual writes: If you live in the Village of Lancaster for example, there aren't many services that are provided any more by the Village.
The Village maintains and plows their roads, but Village taxpayers don't pay the town for road maintenance. The town provides other big-ticket items like refuse, police and recreation services, not the village.
There are 2 court systems in place, which is redundant, but take fire protection as an example. The village provides it to village residents, but the town doesn't charge them for it too.
As for the Village of Depew, it's a little different, because they have their own police department and their own recreation department for example. Recreation is a bit redundant, meaning Depew residents pay Depew for recreation and also pay the Town for recreation, but it's not like Depew residents pay the town for recreation but receive no services in return. Depew residents (at least those east of Transit Rd) have full access to Town Recreation programs.
Comment
Thank you for the information. It’s been some time since I lived in the Village of Depew. Changes have taken place that apparently I am unaware of.
Longevity pay
It was pointed out to me that in the last section Part II headed "Comments", there is a logical error.
"If a person who makes $50,000 in salary plus $1,000 in longevity (total $51,000) gets a 3% raise (to $51,500) and, say, a $50 longevity increase (to $1,050), as would be the case with a White Collar or non-rep employee in years 6 through 20, for a total of $52,550, that is a $1,550 or 3.04% increase, not a $2,500 or 5% increase."
"You counted the longevity pay of $1,000 in year 2 as if it was a raise, whereas in reality, they received the same $1,000 the year before (although they would in fact receive $1,050 in year 2)."
Comment
As someone who worked on budgets in the private sector, I look upon longevity pay distribution in the town as a way of recognizing experience in the job, not performance.
Oft times, new hires perform better on the job than workers in the same capacity with many years of service – especially in situations where union protection helps keep the experienced underachievers working.
Longevity payouts are difficult to discern when examining budget proposals and do not reflect what the employee is actually getting in his or her yearly salary distribution.
Doing away with this program and adding the compensation to the salary structure would be more transparent and acceptable. Keeping the program as it is obscures total compensation, rewards individuals in like positions based on experience and not on performance, and is deemed unfair and costly to the town.
At least, that’s my opinion!
Police contract
“In Part 2, the first observation is that in the 4th paragraph is says that CSEA represents Police. Later in the article, it mentions that the police have their own bargaining unit.”
Comment
Agree!
© Copyright 2008 by Speakupwny.com
Top of Page
|
|
 |
Editorials
Latest Headlines
|
|