October 17, 2007

City workers paid $1,000 to give up cars

Funny thing how Mayor William Stortz neglected to mention what the city gave up to convince the Bristol Professionals and Supervisors Association to relinquish the right to take home city cars.
When I called to ask her, Diane Ferguson, the city's personnel director, said this morning that the workers who have been allowed to take home municipal vehicles "were offered $1,000 to return their vehicles."
That's a one-time payment, she said.
Ferguson said that she thinks there were nine workers slated to receive the money.
So taxpayers are shelling out $9,000 to regain control of vehicles that the city government owns.
That's the deal that Stortz worked out with the union.

*******
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

And the council approved this????????

Steve Collins said...

Yes.

Anonymous said...

Secrets behind closed doors. They ALL just lost my vote.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to hear from the council members with their reasons for agreeing to this pay off and why they didn't make the public aware of it. $ 9k is nothing to sneeze at.

Anonymous said...

Then why are some still driving them home? They get the money and the car?

Steve Collins said...

I don't think they've got the money yet.

Anonymous said...

Pretty sneaky to issue a big press release and leave out this key info. That's Stortz, though.

Anonymous said...

This is just one more example that communication needs to be improved. Some may say that this is just $9,000 but what else has been slipped by the taxpayers. Where is the accountability here?

Anonymous said...

If I pay Bristol $1,000 can I drive a City car?

This is an outrage.

These workers would be fools to give up their city car for a mere $1,000 payment. That's not even 3 months of lease payments.

Anonymous said...

You people are overreacting. These city employees work hard with little thanks, and they do so much good for our community, they deserve the benefits they get.

Anonymous said...

This is probably real good negotiations on someone's part. For those of you none union folks, a benifit cannot just be unilaterally taken away without compensation. If the union said no to the 9k, the union would of said no deal, go to arbitration and spend thousands of dollars on attorney's fees to save what? Why Stortz didn't disclose it is the another question all together.

Anonymous said...

Stortz didn't disclose it because he doesn't lie

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to see how long its going to take for a supervisor to go from their house to pick up a city vehicle and then go to the scene of an emergency. I hope thats it's not a tree ontop of someones car that they are in. But the reality is these supervisors are far more dedicated than to make someone wait in an emergency situation. They will drive their personal vehicles to the scene and call on their personal cell phones to get the job done.

Anonymous said...

1) Posted By: Bill Stortz, on 10/17/2007 8:44PM
Another example of people commenting without having all the facts.

First, No Department Head received any benefit. They, other than Valentino, had lost their cars earlier. The only Department Heads having vehicles to take home are the Police and Fire Chiefs.

All others were part of BPSA, and their contract was negotiated earlier this year, and included the right for the city to take cars back. In addition, the city got Co-Pay from this bargaining unit as part of the overall agreement.

As regards the cars, the city was paying for fuel for trips forth and back to home, and in some cases that mileage EXCEEDED city use. So fuel cost were eliminated, as well as wear and tear on the vehicle. If 50 miles a week are saved, and keep in mind that some workers live out of town, and the vehicle gets 20MPG, the weekly cost for gas alone is almost $7.00/WK or $350/YR. Not including maintenance costs.

In addition, the use of the vehicle was considered a benefit which was then added to the workers W-2 form. Because the city had not taxed that benefit, it, the city, then paid the workers portion of that income tax at year end. Calculate the tax on just$1000.00, and the city (you) paid the workers tax. In most cases the benefit exceeded $1000.00/yr. That tax will no longer have to be paid by the city (you).
The worker also no longer gets the value of the benefit added to his pension calculation.

All of these savings will now accrue to the taxpayer (you).

At $500.00 savings per year, this agreement pays for itself in two years.
In many cases, the savings to the city is even greater, but what ever it is, it will continue until someone provides the vehicle again.

I am posting this from home, I do not have the file with me, but I do know that the savings well justify the decision. The facts, which are available in my office, clearly justify the decision as a sound economical one. Anyone that wants to stop in my office can get more information if they desire.

Anonymous said...

The question is how much will the employees get reimbursed for using their own vehicles? has the rate changed? they'll probably get $10 a mile and unlimited gasoline.

Anonymous said...

This whole proposal is insignifigant.

Stortz had other issues to worry about like the mall and the lack of economic development during his watch.

Wow..he saved a little gas money. How much did this lower our taxes.

The previous poster is right. These people are dedicated professionals and they should have a city vechile. The cost savings is not much.

Stortz is just pissed b/c he didn't get a car.

This Mayor has been horrible. Thank God he's gone in 26 days.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, those city employees have it SO hard. Give me a break.

Anonymous said...

Years of a cadillac health insurance plan at no cost to them. How many of us had that benefit?

The ability to take home a city vehicle to save on wear and tear of their own vehicles. How many of us have that benefit?

More paid vacation the first year of hire than most people get after 3 years.

A rediculous salary and no accountability for their mistakes.

This excludes the fire chief and police chief. They need to have city vehicles to take home in case of an emergency.

It's outrageous that other city employees would have the city vehicle benefit at all. It should have NEVER been negotiated into any contract at any time.

Just another way that the union is screwing the taxpayer.

Anonymous said...

Mr Mayor - why did you leave the $1,000 benefit out of your press release? If you want the citizens of this town to have faith in the information that the politicians in this town give us, then you need to be upfront and honest. Not sneaky.

But you are gone soon, so I'm sure you don't care if the citizens in this town have faith in their politicians.

Anyone notice how the rest of the council is silent on this issue? Did they know or did they skip over this part of the contract when they read it?

Anonymous said...

the fire chief and police chief are adminstrators and not first responders "to emergency situations". both are also pretty awful in their jobs. I am surprised they are in their jobs, never mind get cars to go with it.

Anonymous said...

The mayor did make progress on the Mall, as much as could be done with the mess he was left with.
And he is leaving with a good group going forward.
Economic development: where were you when he was trying to get Rosenthal to do something and got no support?
And Rosenthal wanted to take over the Mall too???
He kept taxes down, he made progress with the infrastructure.
And, besides the cars, he was able to get Co-Pay as part of teh contract.
And, I do not recall him asking for a car.

Anonymous said...

I love the spin you people put on this article. When the mayor explains himself, all of a sudden it's the city employees who are losing out. Up until then it was "Oh my taxes" and "they get all the benefits." As usual, the people in this city will do anything to make something look bad. The mayor explained the whole thing. It's a no brainer. It is what it is. Let's not sensationalize this issue. If you want to find out more, CALL THE MAYOR!!!! Stop specuating and making statements that are blatantly false! Even when it's in black and white and in your face, you still try to say it's not true. Unbelieveable! By the way, city employees DO pay into their medical benefits. Nothing is free anymore. Get the FACTS!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

No kidding. Rosenthal wants to take over the mall! What a joke! He's had the Bugryn property for years and has sat on it even during these past two years when he could have proved his worth ... if he had any! Oh, wait a minute. There's been some digging, but they managed to screw up a marshland in the process. The time to really show your stuff is when you believe your job is on the line. But what does he do? He sits there and STILL does nothing! Talk about a waste of taxpayers' money!

Anonymous said...

After I read the article, I spoke with a few people who are knowledgeable about how the process works. I became educated on the subject, which is what all of you should do before you tear anyone apart! It doesn't take a lot of time to get the correct information.

The city's department heads and supervisors' union negotiated a contract that included this one item out of many. This was not a situation where you had this one item and that's all they were negotiating. They were negotiating a contract with many items in it. As we all know, there is give and take when negotiating contracts on both sides. The citizens should realize a much larger cost savings in the reduction of fuel consumption versus the nominal pay raise and the operative word here is NOMINAL! Don't forget that some of these department heads live out of town. Have you checked the price of gas lately? Don't forget the wear and tear on the vehicles.

I laughed outloud when I read that someone had stated the mayor didn't mention the part about the pay raise. This city has a budget of over $150 million and you're talking about $9,000 out of that $150 million!! This is a miniscule amount and it boggles my mind that it is front page news. The tax savings alone over time is much more than the $9,000! Put it into perspective, people!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The $1K payments may have been worth it. But what makes it so fishy is that nobody mentioned it as part of the contract. If these cars were such an important thing that the mayor is issuing press releases about his big achievement, then he could have at least explained what it took for him to reach a deal. He could have trusted the taxpayers with all the facts. Instead, he tried to puff himself up as some kind of giant of a negotiator.
The man cut a deal. Probably it was a good deal for taxpayers.
But it wasn't the grand achievement that Stortz made it sound like. It was just a little point in a big contract.

Anonymous said...

Paying employees $1000 and giving them a 9% raise - unbelievable! I thought the city council was supposed to look out for the taxpayer, not the municipal employees. But I guess we should expect that when the council are either muncipal employees themselves or related to municipal employees.

Anonymous said...

"Paying employees $1000 and giving them a 9% raise - unbelievable! I thought the city council was supposed to look out for the taxpayer, not the municipal employees. But I guess we should expect that when the council are either muncipal employees themselves or related to municipal employees."

In your town employee bashing you conveniently forgot to mention that the city got the union to start paying 7.5% of the cost of their health insurance. Do the math. We got a good contract.

Anonymous said...

Steve, by reporting a "9.3% increase" you imply that's per year. It was 3.1% per year for three years. Not the same thing at all. Your reporting was very misleading.

Steve Collins said...

A story that ran in the paper in August explained in more detail the pay hike. It amounts to a 9.3 percent increase.
That's 3 percent per year, starting in July 2006.
I'm sorry if anyone failed to understand that it was 9.3 percent over three years, but the story does say it was a three-year contract so I'm not sure why that wouldn't be clear.

Steve Collins said...

Here's the story that ran in August:

A three-year union pact reached between the city and 54 members of the Bristol Professionals and Supervisors Association, which has been delayed for more than a year, will deliver a 9.3 percent pay hike.
The contract provides a 3 percent annual increase since the start of the July 2006 beginning of the pact’s time period.
But it also requires the workers to cough up a 7.5 percent co-payment for their health insurance coverage, a new high among the city’s municipal unions.
Mayor William Stortz said that two other city unions pay 5 percent toward their health insurance while the remaining two pay nothing at all.
Stortz called the pact “fair and equitable” while several city supervisors said it wasn’t worth fighting for better terms.
Union members backed the contract terms last week while city councilors gave it their unanimous blessing this week.
Another section of the deal addresses the use of city-owned vehicles by members of the union.
Stortz said that the issue has been “a bone of contention” for a long time, but he got the union’s agreement that the right to take home municipal cars is a decision the city can make.
The mayor said some workers will keep taking cars home because there are legitimate reasons for it. But others won’t have the right any longer, Stortz added.
He said that in the long run the city will save money by paring the use of government vehicles.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but do they get their money biweekly?

Anonymous said...

Steve, can you tell us who the 9 employees were and what their positions are?

Anonymous said...

I love how city employees seem to be posting online here during the workday and trying to defend their generous benefit package. Even more amusing is how they bring up their 7.5% health copay to make it sound like their are being so heroic in the interests of the taxpayers. 7.5% is nothing, especially for the kind of coverage they get. I know regular people who work regular jobs, and the health insurance eats up over 50% of their pay check.

Anonymous said...

7.5% for Health benefits is laughable.....

I pay 20% of my health benefits,

I then have to pay $20 per visit for my Primary and $40 for specialists.

This doesn't include the $1500 / $3000 deductible for any hospital admissions or testing.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the citizens of this city should be aware that you're looking at a total of $9,000 given to the employees compared to an over $150 million budget. Why are we screaming over that? It's an unbelievably small amount to be haggling over. Let's put this into perspective, shall we?

Anonymous said...

Where is the generous raise? Did you not read the blog submission that fully explains that it's $9,000 total out of such a large buget? $9,000! Let's be real, folks! The city pays more in gas and wear and tear on those vehicles being used by city employees than doing what the mayor has done with making them use their own vehicles. There's nothing underhanded here. Let's not make an issue out of something that isn't.

Anonymous said...

Say what you like about city employee benefits, but that's what was negotiated. They do pay into their health benefits ... not just paying copays. It's amazing what jealousy does to people. If you're not happy with your benefits, then get a job with the city or the state, for that matter, or any of the thousands of companies that do provide decent health benefits, instead of crying foul. I'm self-employed. YOu can't imagine what I have to pay for benefits, but I'm not getting angry at the city epmloyees for what they have. I chose the profession I'm in. Nobody forced me into it. The same goes for everyone else out there.

Anonymous said...

If $9,000 is such a small amount, then I want the city to give me $9,000, they won't miss it. Heck, give me $1,000. It's only a small sliver of the budget, right?

As for super generous benefits for city employees, it's not jealousy, it's outrage. A lot of city employees get their jobs through connections, relatives, and such. and these workers more often than not are lazy and don't put in a full days work for a full days pay. Their benefits, paid for by taxpayers, should not be so much better than what taxpayers have. It's not fair.

Anonymous said...

Now I understand why Geladino fought so hard to get a city job.

Sorry Joe, guess you'll have to work for a living.

Anonymous said...

Again, this is insignifigant. Just Stortz trying to look like he's been a Mayor.

where does Ward and McCauley and Minor stand on this issue?

I agree with the other posters about Rosenthal. They should just fire him. But they won't because he's been Ward's Fundraiser in Chief, instead of doing his job at BDA.

Its pretty pathic when an appointed offical who has a contract is a member of a union?

Anonymous said...

Because $9,000 would pay for a lot of replacement street signs, stop signs, sidewalk repairs, text books that they don't have enough of in the high school, etc....

$9K would serve the city better if it wasn't handed to an employee to give back the car the city owns in the first place.

Anonymous said...

"I agree with the other posters about Rosenthal. They should just fire him. But they won't because he's been Ward's Fundraiser in Chief, instead of doing his job at BDA."

Do you have proof of this? What is your statement based on?

Anonymous said...

The thing about Rosenthal and Ward is one of the open secrets in city hall. Why do you think Ward has been sticking by Rosenthal all this time, because Rosenthal has done such a good job for the city? Don't make me laugh. Rosenthal is a failure at his regular job, which explains why he is still working for Bristol.

Anonymous said...

Rosenthal is NOT Wars's fund raising chief - man are you clueless.

Anonymous said...

Yet more heresay and gossip....

until people put thier real names to their comments, nothing on the blogs are anything but gossip...

Anonymous said...

The person who wrote about the $9,000 going to replace sidewalks and sign, etc., is clueless! You're making $9,000 into a huge thing. Maybe when you're an individual it is but not for a city with over $150 million budget. There are other things you could say don't pay $9,000 for such as the city planting flowers for beautification. Do you consider that a waste of taxpayer money? Let's not waste our time jawing over $9,000.

Anonymous said...

The person who wrote about the $9,000 going to replace sidewalks and sign, etc., is clueless! You're making $9,000 into a huge thing.

The poster was right. $9K could cover the cost of quite a few street signs and other things that the citizens of the city could benefit from instead of 9 city employees benefiting from something they shouldn't have had in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the city will be saving money.

Cost it out and you will see.

Anonymous said...

Exactly! People are always trying to make such a big deal out of small issues. Why don't you focus your energies on the expensive stuff? Don't forget we save money in the end, just as the prevous poster stated. But of course it would be too easy to acknowledge that. We end up saving way more than $9,000. Let's get the most bang for the buck which is doing what has already been done.