Double city raises, but delay them, Beach councilman says

That why the double raise. First off it is not a double raise. It is holding off the 1.5% planned COLA from July 1 until Jan 1 and then making 3% at that time. The net effect is the same on the budget, the only difference is that it compounds the 1.5% extra towards retirement calculations. As to the question to what have city employees done to deserve a double raise...well the question should be why do they not get enough of a raise to even break even with inflation. Even during the "good years" the best they got was 2-2.5% COLA's. For those who got merit raises as well, the highest they received given the two was in the 3.5% range. Woo-hoo to that. So city employees are not getting rich rewards by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not saying no raise...but double? What have city workers done lately to warrant double raises?

Someone's salary is to be based on neither their work nor ability...but on the size of their spouse's paycheck? Only in Reid's world!

Suppose someone was making a nice salary as a top-drawer corporate lawyer with one of the region's bigger firms. By Reid's "logic", their spouse working for the City of Virginia Beach would be required to work for half-pay based on household income.

Even if Reid tries to wiggle and claim he meant household income only for those with both spouses working for the City, that would leave you with salary variances based on the source of the second paycheck. Say what?

The truth is that the vast majority of city workers do not earn anywhere near $100k per year. It is also fact that most city workers are citizens of the city and hence taxpayers in the city as well. It is known that the much of the blue collar force (laborers, administrative support, etc) are paid at or above their private sector counterparts. However the case is the opposite for professional staff (outside of the exeutive management team and dept/division heads). These folks are paid no better than in the smaller cities/counties in the area and are paid less than their state counterparts and far less than their federal equivalents. As for the benefits package I can say without hesitation that they are no better than any other govt entity (less than Fed) and are comparable to any other large employer in the private sector. But it is all moot due to the fact that as the largest portion of the boomers retire employers (govt and private) will start clamoring for employees and they will go where the pay is better.

Reid seems to forget that many city employees are city taxpayers too. The VBTA further proves its irrelevance.

But don't worry, they will probably run a slate of the usual suspects in the upcoming elections who will yell and scream and lose.

And I too remember seeing the council meeting several years ago when Reid was offered staff assistance to help with his budget cutting ideas. Of course, none came forward.

The VBTA is big on rhetoric and small on solutions.

I would remind you that the old TalkNet board is gone. It would appear to me it was taken down for good reasons and you are a major reason. BTW: I'll stack my credibility, comments and positions against yours any day of the week. However it does the discussion no good to roll around in the mud with you so I'll stop and let the issue resolve itself in the budget.

BTW: Have you noticed only four people out of 435,000 even bothered to give is article a posted comment? It’s not worth debating... I’m done. Take care.

Mr. Bailey, you began this thread by suggesting that those city workers earning more than $100K should forego raises. I stated i was pleased to see you support means testing for raises. I then pointed out that should consider a lower income threshold than $100K and it should be a household income, not individual income. Your proposal results in two city workers in the same household earning $99K each = a household income of $198K. So far, all true. I just pointed out that many of our taxpayers don't earn such high incomes, nor do they have such good benefits in their jobs. Yet, they suffer from the same infaltion and pay compression issues that city workers do.

Then you attack me by falsely claiming I was attacking low paid blue color city workers. I asked you if these blue color workers were earning more than a combined income of $75K, or in your proposal, a combined household income of $198K, and you then attack me by admitting that they do not. Huh?

Folks, it is all here for everyone to read. Mr. Bailey, it appears that you have a credibility problem, not I.

Personal attacks asode, the point is that the beach tapayers are suffering and the city owrkforce should not be i

How about taking the money you would give for "Double city raises" and give it back to the residents who live here and get shortchanged so the tourons can come to our wonderful family oriented beach? Phooey...the election is coming in November, watch your backs...

Henry: Try reading the Executive Summary of the proposed budget. The hotel and dome site ARE NOT in the budget. The summary reads the staff will explore those projects (and others) OUTSIDE the budget cycle. Read it for yourself on page 28. Or did you not bother to read it at all? Reading the documents always seems to be very helpful before commenting.

Reid: You have no credibility and no sense of reality. You know very clearly that those folks don't make anywhere near $75 or 100K per year. I threw out that number as a point of reference to the bloated city staff salaries and personnel. So stop your rhetoric and tell us what you want eliminated in the budget. Oh that's right, you failed last time the City Council gave you staffing assistance and free input to recommend cuts in the budget. Yep you recommended a big fat ZERO in cuts...

I love to watch you spin that little story you sell about the budget. I'll bet you got taxed out of your oceanfront Sandbridge home(several times in the past eight years) before you took the profit windfall on that property... Must be tuff attacking your waste management and blue collar city employees online. Bet you wouldn't do that

William, it's a good thing that you work in the Fire Department rather than Resource Management. City policy gives budget priority to revenue producing projects over simple expenditures. That's why the Dome site and the convention center HQ hotel are in the budget but not some of the things on your wish list.

You bring up light rail. 1) It's debt would be carried by HRT, not the City, so it wouldn't be on Virginia Beach's books. 2) As a benchmark, it produces redevelopment at three times it's total price tag. When you count revenue produced versus local share debt service, it would be a net plus for the City. That's why Norfolk and Portsmouth are so hungry for it.

William, are "blue collar trash collectors, water and sewage workers and your local librarians for just trying to provide for their families" earning more than $75,000 a year? Really? If so, then they don't need a raise do they?

Maybe you should think about all those true "blue collar" Beach families that don't have all those great city worker benefits yet they earn far less tham $75K for their combined household incomes - when you are advocating pay hikes for city workers that have family incomes exceeding $75K (my suggestion), or in the case of your suggestion, the potentential for two city workers in the same household to each each $99,000 - a combined income of $198,000 - and you feel a hnousehold earning $198K should get raises paid for by the taxpayers that earn far less than that?

Henry: Take a look at the bond debt and the per capital levels in this city and tell me the new projects (yet to be funded or included in the 2008-2010 budgets) are revenue producing... You are a Republican so you are supposed to be supporting less government and more private investment. So why are you supporting big government handouts to developers?

I've got a bridge to sell you if you’re buying into the profitability story...

Nice try, but I'm personna non grata at Virginia Beach Taxpayers Alliance (VBTA) events.

Amusing that you try to attack revenue-producing projects that would make the money necessary to pay for public safety improvements in outlying years.

Finally, the income-limited apartment complex that I've lived in for over 5 years now is markedly blue collar. For all the money the City is spending, very little of it is covering services for such.

I know to expect negative anti-tax comments from both of you and I'm willing to put up with your comments because there is a "little sky is falling" in everything you post. You’re both just a couple of internet flamers…

I know you both support the building the new hotel at the convention center, the development of the dome site, Town Center build outs and light rail. However, it never fails to amaze me that your elitist attitudes attack the very blue collar trash collectors, water and sewage workers and your local librarians for just trying to provide for their families. Frankly, I'd love to see all of those employees cut lose for just one week(a furlough of the entire city work force) just to hold you and your anti-tax rhetoric friends accountable for the public out cry that would follow. It is easy to attack those who provide services to the 435,000 residents of this city when you don't have to be responsible for the fallout. BTW: The city’s resent telephone survey indicates 94 to 99% of the public is happy with the city’s employees and services so your flamer attacks are meaningless.

I suggest you trolls, Get a life…

What's so wrong with the proposal - and that Diezel should know - is it's impact in outlying budget years. Delaying and doubling may have zero impact in FY 2009, but it would have a great impact in FY 2010 and beyond.

Diezel is up for reelection in November, and the public employee unions are his base, so he tries to deliver for them - in utter disregard for what it means for the taxpayers.

Mr. Bailey, I am pleased to read that you support means testing for city worker raises, and forego raises for those city worker households that enjoy incomes far higher than that of the majority of our city's taxpayers. I would suggest that you might consider changing your threshold to be less than $100K per employee and consider double-dipping families whereby the couple both work for the city and their combined incomes exceed $75K, not $100K. Many of the taxpayers in our city earn less than $75K for their household income and they are suffering the same cost of inflation; but unlike city workers, they are losing their jobs and forced to take lower paying jobs. Many of our city's taxpayers don't have the excellent healthcare benefits and exceptional retirement benefits that our city workforce enjoys. Your issue to fight against pay compression is a case where city workers are seeking a benefit many in the private sector have had to suffer with for many decades; "pay compression" is a fact of life in many private sector industries.

It seems to be a reasonable method to improve the morale in the work force. Once you lose the morale, the employees begin to cut back on services individually because they feel unvalued and frustrated. That is not something we want in VB. If the other local city's can give a 3 or 3.5% raise so can the beach.

As Mrs. Henley mentioned yesterday during the Historic Homes discussion, I too would like to see the "alternative funding methods" the city staff has available to fund CIP and other projects in this city. If you can find millions for a new convention center hotel, the Dome site development and a bridge over VB Blvd to nowhere, you can pay your employees enough to cover gasoline, rent and groceries increases during the next two budget years.

Frankly any employee(city staff) making $100,000 a year can go without a pay raise but the rest of those employees are just regular working class Joes…

how many times can anyone say that they havent seen one city worker actually working while 3 sat in the truck and another sat there and watched. before increasing any taxes we should charge the sherriff of va beach to have a mandatory chain gang if necessary so that all convicts found guilty will start paying the debt to socity the day after a finding of guilt. we could certainly eliminate some city jobs that way i dont mind a supervisor at a sight but it seems sometimes that there are to many chiefs and not enough indians.