| Author | Post |
|---|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 13th, 2008 01:08 pm |
|
Goodguy,
Can we begin to talk specifics? There are some rather large departments, like Parks and Rec., which have the same issue (a large, ever expanding bureaucracy). Further complicating this is the titles that people were given during the classification and compensation study (an outside study that looked at salary as well as job functions of each individual). Do I agree with everything? Probably not, but as a whole the organization is set up as it should be. Maybe a look at an org chart for another City or Town might do us some good here. It is very common to have more than one assistant manager or a deputy.
|
goodguy
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 13th, 2008 12:54 pm |
|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen wrote:
why do we need two (basically) assistant managers and their corresponding salaries? The problem is the number of departments and how many direct reports the manager has. John has too many direct reports and needs to have individuals in the organization responsible for more of the day to day stuff. Why has this happened? Well, we have added fire and water both large departments lately. Take a look at an org chart. It's pretty clear.
I did as you suggested and looked at the organizational chart and upon review found that each department has a director and managers within each. Some even have a director and assitant director. Should not these directors and managers be making the day to day decisions and keeping Mr. Kross informed.
If these staff members were making proper decisions or being allowed to make the decisions then again do we really need 2 assistant town managers with their salaries?
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 06:35 pm |
|
Darby wrote: In reference to the "good ole boys" comment and the poor leadership at the Town Hall, new policies and procedures need to established in the hiring of family members. Over the years, the Town has hired many family members--husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, parent and child, and some of these folks are in influential management positions today. That may have been okay when the Town Hall was small and it was easy to keep things in check, but with taking on the Water Company and Fire Department it is big business now. Nepotism is a risky practice, no matter what level of position the employees are in. The Town had a chance to rectify this situation with the layoffs, but apparently chose not to. It may backfire on them.
Darby, thank you for the clarification and the additional specificity - it truly does lend credence to the more broadly written assertions. no one will disagree with you that nepotism is always a dangerous road to head down and can lead to mediocrity at best and gross negligence at worst. i certainly don't think we have any of either at this point, but certainly something to watch for and work to prevent.
you've got my number should you wish to discuss further in the future.
|
Darby
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 06:26 pm |
|
In reference to the "good ole boys" comment and the poor leadership at the Town Hall, new policies and procedures need to established in the hiring of family members. Over the years, the Town has hired many family members--husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, parent and child, and some of these folks are in influential management positions today. That may have been okay when the Town Hall was small and it was easy to keep things in check, but with taking on the Water Company and Fire Department it is big business now. Nepotism is a risky practice, no matter what level of position the employees are in. The Town had a chance to rectify this situation with the layoffs, but apparently chose not to. It may backfire on them.
I would imagine that the employees at the Town aren't sitting real comfortable in their chairs, especially knowing how the Town views the positions at the bottom of the totem pole. Morale has to be at its lowest. Many of the people affected by the layoff were young, with children. With the economic times we are experiencing today, they have a rough road ahead of them, especially if they have to travel into metro Phoenix to find a job.
As far as the Mayor is concerned, I think it is deceptive the way he has taken credit for projects that were in the works many years before he was elected. I am referring to the streets, roads and traffic signals that he boasts about. Because of this, I have a hard time believing much of anything that he says.
|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 03:51 pm |
|
There is definitely a leadership crisis at Town Hall and it does start at the top, with the Mayor. The Mayor sets the tone for everything. Ask him why he was not present for the Town Manager's review. This was completely out of line especially given the nature and necessity of a close working relationship between the manager and Mayor. If I was John, I would be offended beyond imagining. I appreciated he wanted to be there for his kids track meet but he could have at a minimum, called in for just this portion. The Mayor's attendance was critical, as he is the person who works most closely with one of the highest paid members of the organization. This was in my opinion a rather large oversight, but one among many.
As far as the layoffs go, I'll take this on since I was one of the ones actually involved in the process. The layoffs came primarily from building services. It is customary that when times are a little slower, the organization "catches it's collective breath" by updating codes, doing text amendments and other planning related functions. I actually asked if reassignment was possible (with respect to the inspectors)and with respect to the planners, if other work could be assigned. These people were competent individuals. This was tough on everyone. I understand the concept of managements high salaries in comparison to the rank and file and the question of why do we need two (basically) assistant managers and their corresponding salaries? The problem is the number of departments and how many direct reports the manager has. John has too many direct reports and needs to have individuals in the organization responsible for more of the day to day stuff. Why has this happened? Well, we have added fire and water both large departments lately. Take a look at an org chart. It's pretty clear. As far as determining the individuals, it was done in the fairest way possible. Now, if it were me, would I think it was fair? Probably not. Believe me, this was one of the toughest decisions I have had to make on Council. These were competent people who were loyal employees, did their work well and it was only a function of lack of work in construction. They were given generous severance packages and in my mind treated much better than their counterparts in other Cities. I can tell you that this is one of the worst things a manager has to do and in this case, with John having hired some, I can only imagine how difficult it was for him.
|
Darby
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 03:37 pm |
|
QCVillager, I just recently learned about this site. So, you are suggesting that since I just joined there is no validity in what I have to say?
The point I was trying to make is that if the layoff were truly based on seniority (last one in, first one out) then a larger mix of positions would have been affected and the Town's efforts would have been more "impressive". The way it was handled, the lowest position in a department was targeted, and then seniority took place. I've seen this happen time and time again in organizations, and I would compare it to putting a small band-aid on a large wound.
In addition, turning off the electricity one day a week will have a minimal impact on the budget.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 03:33 pm |
|
bsanchez wrote: when a manager does get involved is is very minimal and unproductive for both parties.
No Sour Grapes here.
your statement above certainly seems pretty broad and general. seems to disparage with a rather broad brush. i can see where some might think that statement the epitome of sour grapes.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 03:29 pm |
|
bsanchez wrote:
QCVillager – if you have information you would like to share, post it, maybe it will clear things up.
bsanchez - again, if your motive is to effect change, then, you really should write with more specificity... to give credence to your post. your statements thus far are broad generalizations.
i would welcome any town resident to contact me directly to discuss any concerns or specific issues.
Jeff Brown 480.586.8127
|
bsanchez
Member
| Joined: | Sun May 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 03:16 pm |
|
I never stated that all managers and supervisors at TOQC are not interested in improving our town, and that they don't take pride in their work, I simply stated that the people in the trenches are the ones that are truly affecting the way the town is perceived and when a manager does get involved is is very minimal and unproductive for both parties.
The fact that I was just informed of this site has no bearing on whether my thoughts have merit.
I would of liked the town to do something better. I never stated people should be forced to retire. I asked if they were asked, were they given a choice to step up and save another’s position, being they are already receiving benefits from elsewhere? Forced into early retirement simply because they are close to that age was not stated, I don’t wish for anyone to lose their job. But if someone that has already retired, and is collecting retirement benefits, wants to retire to save someone elses job they should have been given the chance/choice.
Once again income was not a point of my thoughts; seniority was the basis of the layoffs. If this is truly the order the layoffs were conducted then why in several departments, I have had contact with, have positions filled with people with lesser seniority than the ones let go. Another thing that seems to have been overlooked is the fact that there was only one management position on the list of those let go. Are you telling us that this position was the only management position hired within the last three years?
QCVillager – if you have information you would like to share, post it, maybe it will clear things up.
No Sour Grapes here.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 02:39 pm |
|
i would suggest Darby and bsanchez that if you are truly concerned with effecting change... that coming onto a forum (with a very few number of readers) anonymously and writing in broad, general and sweeping accusations isn't going to do it.
to truly effect change, you must be willing to post SPECIFICS.
to assert that all managers and supervisors at TOQC are not interested in improving our town, and that they don't take pride in their work, and that they are just there collecting fat checks is reckless and untrue.
those type of assertions tend to make it look as though the motivation of the person posting is not to improve the Town, but is instead simply sour grapes. (bolstered by the recent join date of the poster)
is it your contention bsanchez that persons on staff with longer seniority should have been let go and forced into early retirement simply because they are close to that age? that would have been fairer how ?
a staff cutting measure to be most fair isn't going to look at who has other income. you seem to indicate that you would look first to financial situation of persons and eliminate based on that. ie... if person X (5yrs seniority) has a rich uncle (on his death bed) who is going to leave a fat inheritence to him/her then he/she should be let go before person Y (2yrs seniority) since person Y doesn't have same financial future.
Last edited on Sun May 11th, 2008 02:41 pm by QCVillager
|
bsanchez
Member
| Joined: | Sun May 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 02:14 pm |
|
I agree 100% w/ Darby. If the Town really wanted to impact the budget, it would have been better to remove the fat. Looking at the list of individuals who lost their jobs, there are many that I feel made the town a better place. These individuals were helpful and courteous, they explained the situation and listened to the customer unlike the Management and Supervisor positions. How beneficial was it to eliminate the lowest paid positions, the people that are more likely to help improve the town by taking pride in their job as well as the town and it's citizens, while ALL the higher level positions that are just there collecting big checks remain! I've gotten to know some of the people that were let go while working with them on projects for the town. I am disappionted in the fact that I was told these people were let go by seniority however; I know for a fact that there are a few people that remain with the town, within the same department of individuals let go, with less seniority. Does this not look bad? How did this fall thru the cracks? Where those of retirement age asked if they wanted to retire? Were those that are collecting retirement benifits elsewhere asked to vacate their positions?
I send my well wishes to those that lost their jobs and hope the town would invite them back when there is a need, as the few I speek of truly helped and left me with a strong feeling for the staff in the trenches.
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 04:56 am |
|
QCVillager,
I really appreciate your attention to issues, you are very perceptive and I know you will help to make a big improvement in the climate at Town Hall. I PM'd you regarding the issue I spoke of - "the tail wagging the dog."
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 03:56 am |
|
starleen wrote: Darby wrote: I challenge the Council to go back now and analyze the current organizational structure and tighten the belt even more.
I recently heard (from a TOQC business owner) that the mayor and council appear powerless against what is a deeply entrenched "good ole boy" establishment in the town staff. He thought the only way out would be a clean sweep and start over. So, it is interesting that you point out the disproportionate number of low level staffing jobs that were cut as opposed to middle and upper management. Basha's recently announced a layoff of 1% but it was mostly admin and management positions, not the troops in the trenches.
speaking entirely in the abstract... (neither agreeing with nor against the viewpoint of your unnamed business owner). my response...
if there is a "deeply entrenched good ole boy establishment town staff", wouldn't it have been more appropriate to make a clean sweep of the mayor/council ? (since it is entirely within their power to prevent just such an occurance)
our town has a "council / manager" form of government where staff takes direction from mayor/council. mayor/council are directly beholden to the voters of our town and if there is a major breakdown in that organizational hierarchy, then it is entirely attributable to poor leadership by the seven people on the dais that report directly to the voters.
i will say that STRONG LEADERSHIP in your elected representatives will work to prevent even the perception that town staff has somehow run amok.
just for the record, the Town Mgr is the person appointed and who serves at the will of the council. nearly every other position reports to town mgr and not to council directly.
we lost some extremely talented individuals whom i got to work with personally on Planning and Zoning. (largest number of jobs were involved with Planning Dept.) i valued them very much and it is a loss to be sure. but the persons let go had the least seniority and i firmly believe this was the fairest way to handle this.
i think we are lucky to have John Kross as our Town Mgr and he has been with us for many years. he is a consumate professional and quite honestly, i think he has done a phenomenal job for us.
i would welcome any town resident to contact me directly to discuss any concerns or specific issues.
Jeff Brown 480.586.8127
Last edited on Sun May 11th, 2008 04:10 am by QCVillager
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11th, 2008 02:35 am |
|
Darby wrote: I challenge the Council to go back now and analyze the current organizational structure and tighten the belt even more.
I recently heard (from a TOQC business owner) that the mayor and council appear powerless against what is a deeply entrenched "good ole boy" establishment in the town staff. He thought the only way out would be a clean sweep and start over. So, it is interesting that you point out the disproportionate number of low level staffing jobs that were cut as opposed to middle and upper management. Basha's recently announced a layoff of 1% but it was mostly admin and management positions, not the troops in the trenches.
|
Darby
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 10:57 pm |
|
| I had the opportunity to see the list of positions that were eliminated at the Town of Queen Creek. If the Town really wanted to impact the budget, wouldn't it have been more helpful to include some high salaried positions, such as Management and more Supervisor positions, in this layoff??? How beneficial was it to eliminate the lowest paid positions while they kept ALL the higher level positions? How can the Town of Queen Creek, with a population of only 20,000 people, justify employing a Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, and Deputy Town Manager? Hasn't the declining economy affected their positions as well? Now, after the layoffs, there are managers and supervisors left with a small handful of people to oversee. Maybe there should be another round of layoffs that would affect the people drawing the high salaries. The taxpayers need to realize that Town is operating under a very "top heavy" payroll. I challenge the Council to go back now and analyze the current organizational structure and tighten the belt even more. Lastly, my heart goes out to those people who lost their jobs at the Town!
|
gsbill
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 6th, 2008 02:47 pm |
|
Has anyone considered using prisoners to do the basic maintenance on our parks to save money? There would be details to work out I'm sure but I think its doable. Up in Globe at the fairgrounds they have motorcycle races. They use prisoners to help with the entire event. I have been up there several times and its looks like it works very well.
250k is big money. The Villages pays less than that to maintain the entire community. That being the cost to have a landscaping company.
|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 6th, 2008 02:47 pm |
|
| I too have huge reservations about the viability of the "horse park" not only at that location but with the way in which the management is proposed. We are potentially looking at running it like we run rec. programs, which is a huge mistake. Staff has been resistant to release control the entire project and will not concede that it is a different beast. The horse world is very small, once we get a reputation either good or bad, it will stay forever and those premium paying shows, not the local groups, who will require subsidy, will not use it. The model is poor and I too fear that the way in which it was done, with the absence of services will lead it to forever cost more than it will generate. Furthermore, the best thing possible would have been to move it North to a proximity to shopping, a more likely location for hotels and better freeway access. I do not want to be driving a six horse trailer to the end of the world. And believe you me for people in Scottsdale, Tucson is closer. I am sorry it is turning out this way, we were given direction at the remasterplanning and that direction changed after construction began. Now for what is envisioned, I believe we are overbuilt. Time will tell. It is an amenity that has an intrinsic value to our community as far as identity, etc. Let's hope it's worth the trade off in long term o & M. Plus, it fulfilled a promise long overdue.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 6th, 2008 02:37 pm |
|
goodguy wrote: starleen wrote:
The "horse park" is not a boondoggle and not money spent in waste.
With no hotels or resturants to support it and now the cost is 17 million it will fail, I also heard it will cost approx $750,000 a year to maintain.
The monies could have been better spent on adult softball fields and kids soccer fields, these programs when run properly bring monies to a town. Why do you think the Barney's are building a soccer complex.
Queen Creek as much as it whats to be is no Scottsdale (westworld). and the equestrian community is shrinking not growing in this area.
goodguy, welcome to the forum.
if opened as originally proposed, the Equestrian Park would cost more than $850k annually in Maint/Overhead. by comparison, a park like Desert Mountain Park costs less than $250k annually.
i am interested to see a comparison of the number of people the Equestrian Center will serve compared to Desert Mountain Park.
the $850k would have included a professional manager and could have resulted in attracting some event activities that would have offset some of those costs, although it would still have been heavily subsidized.
it isn't quite fair to say that ball fields and soccer fields would "bring monies to a town". typically, those too are subsidized. indeed, our current parks/rec philosophy is to charge adults for rec programs such as softball nearly the "full amount" of what it costs to run those programs. we capture VERY LITTLE of the costs though to run the programs for kids. the Town Council is going to discuss at tomorrow's meeting whether to give direction to the Town's Parks/Rec dept to recoup more of the costs... thereby resulting is lower subsidies. (our Town currently is well below the "capture rates" of other east valley cities. Gilbert, I think recoups about 70% of the costs to run their programs ? We on the other hand are way, way below that.
Last edited on Tue May 6th, 2008 02:44 pm by QCVillager
|
goodguy
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 6th, 2008 02:21 pm |
|
starleen wrote:
The "horse park" is not a boondoggle and not money spent in waste.
With no hotels or resturants to support it and now the cost is 17 million it will fail, I also heard it will cost approx $750,000 a year to maintain.
The monies could have been better spent on adult softball fields and kids soccer fields, these programs when run properly bring monies to a town. Why do you think the Barney's are building a soccer complex.
Queen Creek as much as it whats to be is no Scottsdale (westworld). and the equestrian community is shrinking not growing in this area.
|
Lefty
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 292 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20th, 2008 05:03 am |
|
| Bad economy is throughout this entire country, you have George W. to thank. When he first took office, the average price of gasoline was $1.45 a gallon. First, he out sourced our jobs to foreign countries, started a war we can't/won't ever win, then aloud oil companies to rape the American public, while also filling his wallet. This is not intended to be a political debate. The public needs to understand and remember the reason America is in such bad shape is because of the incompetence of George W. Bush. Remember why people are loosing their homes and jobs and why everything has sky rocketed except wages. Remember who was leading the country from 2001-2009. It's amazing the damage one incompetent administration can do to a country such as ours, in just eight years. Last edited on Sun Apr 20th, 2008 06:24 am by Lefty
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2260 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 02:05 pm |
|
According to the news, it's these layoffs that are becoming the biggest contributor to the declining economy. Workers getting fewer hours is only deepening the downturn. It's also adding to the distress of families. And we want them to go out and spend their money to start the economy again? What money? Whatever tax rebates they get, they will hold on to.
And the price of food and other goods, expecially oil, keeps climbing and climbing. Look at what John Kross said......they have to look over the benefit packages again as the rising cost of health care rules out some of those benefits possibly. How is it then that the health care industry, i.e. insurance companies, etc., are still raising their prices, and the rest of the service industries have to lower theirs?
Our dollar is so weak, that most countries don't even want to accept it.
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 04:02 am |
|
CrimeFighter wrote: Oh yes, and let's not piss away $13 million on a horse park again, shall we?
The error was made when TOQC hired permanent employees for a temporary surge - they thought they could sustain the housing start growth, lured as many municipalities were by fast, easy money. I believe I read about similar cutbacks for Chandler, Gilbert and Mesa. They should have outsourced the work, if they had 20/20 hindsight and a bit of restraint. The employees they did hire had a good ride and can move on to other opportunities - perhaps sprung from other TOQC projects like the equestrian park.
The "horse park" is not a boondoggle and not money spent in waste.
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 575 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 02:05 am |
|
This is never a fun thing to have people lose their jobs. I am surprised, however, that the town is only now cutting people from development. Homebuilders and other real estate firms started making these cuts a year and a half ago. There obviously hasn't been enough work to keep people occupied for some time.
This illustrates more painfully than any of us would like why the town needs retail. New home permits will eventually dry up once the town builds out, and we must diversify our tax revenues sufficiently to run town operations on sales tax and other non-growth related revenue streams.
Oh yes, and let's not piss away $13 million on a horse park again, shall we?
Last edited on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 02:07 am by CrimeFighter
|
FAIRNSQUARE
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 12:56 am |
|
| My regards to those employees affected by this. Change comes with headaches. I hope things get better soon!
|
morgan
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 394 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 12:14 am |
|
| Its definately unfortunate - the economy is affecting all industries. Where I work we rely on home sales as a source of income as well. It was announced last week that the President of the company had 2 choices to cut expenses - start laying people off or freeze salaries. You all know which choice he selected - no raises in order to keep us all employed. I am just thankful to have my job.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2260 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 12:14 am |
|
It appears that John has done his homework. It really is a shame, but this is what occurs during a recession. Slow growth and lost jobs as a result.....everywhere.
Your severance package is very very generous. What if they already have a job lined up? Do they still get the severance package?
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 11:29 pm |
|
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/114092
April 17, 2008
QC announces layoffs, cuts in benefits
By Sarah Boggan
Tribune
Queen Creek’s budget cuts are running deeper as town management announced layoffs and a reduction of employee benefits late Wednesday.
In a letter to town employees, Queen Creek Town Manager John Kross laid out a plan that includes the elimination of 17 positions in the town’s development services and support areas of the town. The plan is expected to save the town, which is ailing from a slow housing market, just under $5 million.
In addition to the layoffs, Kross announced the elimination of a part-time attorney position and some part-time and seasonal jobs. The town also plans to reduce the work week for hourly employees from 40 to 37.5 hours. All salaried employees, including the town manager, will take a 6.25 percent pay cut.
“This does not affect eligibility for benefits but we are looking at the benefit package because health care costs are going up across the country and we are no different,” said town spokeswoman Marnie Schubert. “The hours will not change benefit status.”
The letter also states that 23 frozen vacant positions in the town will be eliminated for the next fiscal year, and the town will reduce use of contract consultants. Kross said town employees will not receive a cost of living increase for the 2008-09 fiscal year and merit raises will be reduced from 6 percent to 3 percent for “top performers.”
Town officials said they will be meeting with employees to announce layoffs this afternoon. Town officials could not say when the layoffs would begin but said it would be sooner than the other proposed measures which will take effect July 1, the beginning of the town’s new fiscal year.
“These recommendations affect the livelihood of some of our exceptional and hard-working staff and their families,” Kross said. “I am deeply, deeply saddened by the need to take these extraordinary steps in order to ensure financial stability for the town in this weakened economy.”
Kross is asking the Town Council approve a three-month severance package and six months of health insurance benefits and help to find new employment for employees losing their jobs.
The town recently cut $5 million from its operating budget and $23.4 million from its capital improvement budget to make up for declining revenues because of a region-wide housing market slow down. Revenue from construction sales tax and building permits has been reduced by about 80 percent, directly hitting the town’s coffers.
Additional budget reductions further hit employees by reducing tuition reimbursement and increasing health insurance costs.
In addition to personnel cuts, Kross is also proposing cuts for the Horseshoe Park and Equestrian Centre project, street maintenance, external printing, town cell phone distribution and usage, office supplies, decreased financial support of the Queen Creek Chamber of Commerce, the elimination of food at town meetings and a delay in the town’s computer replacement schedule by one year.
“What is proposed would reduce that service level slightly during this economic cycle,” a town press release states. “Some areas, such as parks and trails maintenance, will experience service reductions.”
Town officials said public safety levels will not be affected by the cuts
.
|
Lisa.Coletto.Cohen
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 04:01 pm |
|
All,
From one who was part of the decision making process this is one of the worst things that I have had to be a part of. These are people. People who have families and bills. None of these decisions were made lightly. The reality is there is a housing downturn, and there are some positions as a result that don't quite frankly have the workload to support them. The Town must do what it has to do in order to stay financially strong enough to weather out continued bad economic times. Nobody wants to go through this again and nobody ever expected it to be this bad. All of our modeling was based on permit numbers. Even in the low growth scenario, we were substantially ahead of where we are now in terms of permit numbers. So it is both a revenue as well as a workload issue.
This isn't about trading someone's job for broadcasting or the gate at WRER. It is much bigger than that.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2260 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 03:46 pm |
|
Good points made there Villager. Supply and Demand and the consequences of capitalism. Don't give up your broadcast of your meetings. That's a necessity in my opinion, to satisfy the needs of the masses.
Gates for private citizens? Third driveway out of a Church to accomodate who?
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 03:36 pm |
|
gsbill - my assumption is that the greatest impact with respect to lay-offs will be in the Planning/Permitting/Inspections area. a few years ago we had explosive growth and sold something on the order of 1700+ new home permits. the next year it was down to 600? or there-abouts.
when we were doing planning in the Town for Staff as recently as three years ago - our worst case scenarios were for "slow growth of 500 permits annually". so we have staff for that level of activity. now we are looking instead at just 200 to maybe 250 permits.
this truly is a matter of over-staffing. this is like my college days where i delivered pizza's... we would have delivery drivers on duty to handle the "100 pie hour" (usually on Friday from 5:30 to 8pm) and then after 8 pm we had 12 guys all standing around with nothing to do.
the best laid plans aren't always 100% accurate. we needed every one of the people we hired when we were over 500 permits annually. even anticipating the drop off in permits sold... if it had been a more gradual drop-off, we would have been able to absorb through attrition and other such mechanisms. instead, the tap simply and practically shut off.
i agree with you that now is not a good time to spend $25k on a gate that is potentially unneeded and which may in fact lead to a lawsuit against the Town. (i have heard from two people who are considering same - they say, the Town or WRER better be prepared to provide them clickers to open the gate since it is a public road where maint is paid for by their tax dollars - or WRER better buy the roads and maint and make them private). also not a good time to spend the other $20k on a third driveway out of OLOG since some have said that is tantamount to Gov't sponsored religion since that is an expansion of the church and not related to the driveway that they are losing.
|
gsbill
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 03:08 pm |
|
I'm confused. Does this mean that the town cannot sustain itself unless there are thousands of new homes built per year? Looking in from the outside one would think that at any given point when new home builds cease, that the town can operate on the income it gets from the existing homes. I sure hope we are not operating on projected revenue. Thats bad business and it will bite you in the butt every single time. Just ask QCUSD if thats a good idea. Its leader did it in 2 different districts and ran them both into multi million dollar shortfalls.
Hows that 100K dollar fee to broadcast meetings taste right now?...Or the 25k for the gate at WRER? Town employees will lose their jobs and income due to cuts yet we are pissing away money on nothings.
Did we spend six figures on a study for this decision?
Sorry folks..but I am ticked off. You dont spend 100k on fancy extras when ya cant pay the light bill. Ask around.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 02:43 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: Do hourly employees have Q.C. benefits? If so, with the reduction in the hours, will they lose those benefits?
they do indeed have benefits. no, they will not lose those benefits.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 02:42 pm |
|
| these of course are the toughest of decisions and the absolute most unfortunate results of economic down-turn. our Town Staff/Employees are the finest and most professional and dedicated you'll find anywhere.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2260 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 02:27 pm |
|
| Do hourly employees have Q.C. benefits? If so, with the reduction in the hours, will they lose those benefits?
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 02:25 pm |
|
Queen Creek cutting town jobs because of poor economy
Reported by: Brent Roulier
Email: broulier@abc15.com
Last Update: 4/16 10:33 pm
Queen Creek Town Manager John Kross says the Valley's poor economy is forcing officials to make tough decisions.
Kross wrote a letter to town employees stating that 17 positions will be eliminated, work hours will be cut back, and salaries will be reduced.
The average workweek for all hourly employees will change from 40-hours to 37.5, and the salary for exempt employees will be reduced by 6.25 percent.
Queen Creek will also reduce the use of contract consultants, eliminating all 23 frozen vacant positions for the next fiscal year, and decrease funding/sponsorships to outside agencies.
Kross wrote, "These decisions are not easy. The budget situation is no one's fauylt but is a result of external forces over which we have no control."
http://www.abc15.com:80/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=e7453f88-4888-4059-a39d-019aac2c64ca
Last edited on Thu Apr 17th, 2008 02:26 pm by QCVillager
|
Current time is 08:38 pm | |
|