Some Kirkland City employees take issue over budget gap article
The recent Kirkland Views article, Kirkland’s 2009-2010 Budget Gap: $13.8 million in the hole has caused some concern, confusion and even consternation on the part of a few of my friends employed by the City of Kirkland. The post referred to the unsustainable nature of Kirkland’s financial “gap” and a primary cause for this “gap” was cited as annual employee wage and benefits cost increases. Some friends of mine inside City Hall have sent in concerns questioning the statistics used in the article. I will attempt to clear up any misunderstandings.
Concerns were focused around the following paragraph from the article:
“At the core of Kirkland’s budget problem is the fact that the City’s expenses are rising at a faster rate than revenues. The City’s wage expenses rise at 6% per year and benefit expenses rise at 10% per year (as quoted from 2007 estimates). City projections show that these rates are unsustainable.”
The graphic above was also in the article and brought attention to the cost of City employee wages and benefits. Some questioned why the City employee wages and benefits costs increases were highlighted. The reason is simple: on numerous occasions the City of Kirkland has specifically named wages and benefits costs increases as the primary drivers of Kirkland’s long-term structural budget “gap.”
Please note: the citations above refer to wage and benefit costs. These costs are very different from what city employees actually receive in wages and benefits. As an example, City employees do not receive 10% annual benefits increases. These numbers respresent the costs listed in the budget and they are not to be confused with what City employees actually receive. Some may have misinterpreted the article to have read otherwise.
This confusion concerns me because I have many friends inside City Hall and I would not intentionally mislead anyone into thinking they are overpaid. In fact, I believe the opposite is often true. The people I know work very hard and do an excellent job serving the people of Kirkland. Also, I don’t think they have any blame as to the state of our current budget “gap” of $13.8 million. They are caught in the middle of this mess. I think it is important to make these points.
The numbers used in the article were quoted directly from reports produced by the City of Kirkland and cited. Kirkland Views will delve more deeply into the story behind Kirkland’s budget “gap” strategy in a future article.
Print This ArticleRelated Articles
5 Responses to “Some Kirkland City employees take issue over budget gap article”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
OMG! An interview with Kirkland’s Jason Mesnick from “The Bachelor”
Sponsored Ads
Kudos for clarifying this.
[Reply]
The story was clear. People worried about their jobs don’t want the boss to know how much their position costs. Budget figures like these do not bode well for the city budget.
[Reply]
Rob,
Ditto ampersandy’s comment.
The issue of cost is not the employees or the unions making. Wages are what they are. Other costs like health care premiums are generally out of the employees and employers hands. I believe that the majority of City employees do a great job and deserve to be paid a fair wage for the work they do. The real issue is the management of the employees. This starts at the Council and is administered by the City Manager. The company I work for has told us that there is only so much money to go around. Prioritize, Prioritize , Prioritize! I expect that we will see reductions in our workforce shortly. Everyone is working extra hard and we are actively finding ways to improve our performance and work output. Many know that this is long overdue and will probably mean that they will be looking for other employment. Maybe even me. I suspect that this will happen at the City as well. Not a pleasant thought but necessary and probably overdue.
[Reply]
Can’t disagree, but I am confused. If the wage line on the budget is increased by 6% yet the individual employees don’t receive a 6% wage increase, does that mean that the budget anticipates an increase in the number of employees? Or does possibly mean that some employees receive a pay raise of more than 6%? What’s missing here?
[Reply]
Trooper’s question is a good one. The answer is hard to explain here and is wrapped in many different issues including union contracts and the way wage increases work. Please don’t assume that all employees get the same raises or increases. It depends on your union and many other items. For people that work inside (not Police, Fire or PW/park crews) you stop getting any raises other than COLA (tied to CPI) after 3 years and then you get a small bump after like 10 years ($50?) - no matter how good you are at your job. The benefits and liking public service is what keeps the good ones from taking a better job where people don’t assume they are lazy just because they work for the government.
[Reply]