The City Council of Peachtree City passed a substantial pay increase for city employees at the April 6 council meeting.
For public safety employees this means a $6,000 signing bonus with starting pay at $58,800 with an upper range of $105,661. Employees in other departments will get a $2,000 signing bonus. All employees will also receive a benefits package upgrade.
I was shocked to watch the news reports of Mayor Kim Learnard telling the media that a sizable increase in employee pay is possible without a tax increase. What in the world is she talking about?
Stop misleading the public!
Some of us were gasping for air when the WSB News anchor introduced the story on the considerable pay increases saying, “This won’t cost taxpayers a cent.” And, yes, the news crew got that straight from Mayor Kim Learnard. The reporter on the scene also said, “The city says no taxes will be raised to pay for it all.”
You do not have to be an accounting whiz to question the veracity of the impenitent mayor’s astonishing claim. Maybe Learnard has been purchasing lotto tickets with city funds and hit the jackpot.
We already know that heavy property assessment increases and Learnard’s not rolling back the city’s millage rate led to a thumping tax increase (see: https://thecitizen.com/2022/08/22/peachtree-city-raises-taxes-17-as-part-of-a-fiscal-year-2023-budget-of-46-3-million/). We also know that the previous tax increases had our reserve funds hovering around an exceedingly high 50 percent.
Learnard already raised our taxes for 2023 and, yes, it is costing taxpayers a substantial amount of money. And once she has depleted the funds from those tax increases, of course, she will have to raise the taxes again to cover the new additional costs in perpetuity.
When she nonchalantly tells reporters that a massive increase in expenditures is not a big deal and somehow, it’s free, not costing the taxpayers a cent, Learnard is being downright mendacious.
What the mayor doesn’t tell you
Years ago, my city council installed an early retirement program for public safety employees, allowing retirement at age 55 or at 25 years of service.
Keep in mind that not only are the taxpayers covering the new signing bonuses and the new significant pay increases in perpetuity, but also paying for significantly increased retirement costs moving forward.
In case you did not know, you as a taxpayer fund an early retirement program for police, firefighters, and EMTs. Public safety personnel receives unreduced early retirement at age 55 with a minimum of 10 years of service or at any age with a minimum of 25 years of service. The retirees’ medical insurance premiums (which continually increase) are also covered on a sliding scale of up to 100 percent.
Was the increased cost of early retirement for public safety employees ever factored into the analysis for the bonuses and raises? Was there an actual analysis beyond the “this is what other cities are paying” reason the mayor gave the television reporter? For some reason, I doubt it.
Would it be possible for the city government to project the total additional cost to the taxpayers, assuming full staffing in public safety, over the next 10 and 20 years? And would it be possible to pass those figures on to the taxpayers?
No comfort level
This is not a matter of whether employees need pay increases or not. Rather, it’s a matter of can the mayor be trusted, and does she know what she is doing. Seriously, how can anyone approve such a significant increase in expenditures and then tell the news media it will not cost the taxpayers a cent?
The two newest councilmen seem to be offering some direction. The citizen volunteer Planning Commission bravely called out the City Council for taking their authority away and they got it restored.
However, the mayor seems to keep pulling items out of her hat, and we never know what is coming next (see: https://thecitizen.com/2023/03/27/opinion-city-officials-flush-with-tax-money-want-to-cut-citizen-input/).
I saw that Suzanne Brown (no relation) who consistently attends the council meetings and has brought many problems with the local government to light has entered to run for one of the city council posts up for election this November. I have seen her in action. She is a knowledgeable and reliable grassroots citizen.
The thought of Brown teaming up with Councilmen Frank Destadio and Clint Holland looks promising. We would not have to worry about Learnard and her lack of direction at that point.
For now, let’s see if the mayor can get the city government to project the total additional cost to the taxpayers, assuming full staffing in public safety, over the next 10 and 20 years.
[Brown is a former mayor of Peachtree City and served two terms on the Fayette County Board of Commissioners. You can read all his columns by clicking on his photo below.]
Anyone who has ever held the responsibility of employing other people who work on an hourly basis understand this concept: that when you’re short-staffed, you incur additional costs primarily in overtime, but also in lost productivity because workers pulling overtime are less productive after extended hours on the job. By increasing wages, you’re better able able to be fully staffed at all times, and not have to run overtime. So it’s not entirely inconceivable that the city will actually save money in this competitive labor market by increasing salary and benefits.
Let’s set aside the semantics argument for moment here. Let’s just assume the mayor meant to say that “no additional taxes” will need to be levied to pay for these raises. A fair assumption. Ok – now this is the tough part – let’s just ignore that altogether.
Steve noted that he implemented a retire at 55 or after 25 years of service. The current mayor has completed a single pay bump with associated single sign on bonuses. These salary increases are not pegged to inflation! What does that mean? It means that when you account for inflation, this pay raise will effectively be rendered moot in less than 10 years. Yet – the primary source of income – sales tax and property tax – always increase with inflation. Therefore, in a very short timeframe, whatever additional cost this pay raise will not persist in perpetuity.
You know what does persist forever more? The ability to retire at 55 and all the associated retirement payouts that creates. Steve did more to burden future taxpayers during – by increase the cost of retirement payouts by allowing folks to collect a full check at 55 – than this single pay bump that simply brings our pay back in line with what it was 2-3 years ago.
Pot calling the kettle black? Hmmmm.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, as I don’t have a job with a guaranteed pension…..but if I”m correct – I believe pension jobs like these pay out a perpetual income that is tied to the highest amount of annual earnings or salary an employee earned in his/her career. So by encouraging employees to retire at 55 instead of say 62 or 65, your basis that you calculate the pension payment off is lower, since the employee retiring at 55 isn’t receiving raises or COLA’s until they retire at 62 or 65 or whatever age. And if this is such a losing proposition for municipalities – why is this the first action that so many companies choose to undertake when they start to cut costs? I think if it was so detrimental to the employer, like you assert, I don’t think it would be as wildly popular when it comes to cost-cutting.
Your comment is valid. Those between 55-65 get healthcare benefits as a part of the retirement package and Police and Fire are exempt from early retirement reductions. This to me outweighs the savings of non-exempt employees (about half of city employees are not public safety from what I can tell) who get permanent reduced benefits. Most folks are smart enough to not get bamboozled by such simple restrictions, so if we get the data to know, I suspect the only folks taking early retirement in a meaningful amount are our public safety folks.
My general point stands – the increase in salary will be wiped out by inflation in a few years, so that leaves the primary complaint, as noted in the article by Steve, is the projected increase in retirement benefits paid out to public safety folks. The current mayor did not reduce the retirement age, Steve did. So – should we just not ever give raises to our most important city employees because some previous mayor made a decision that had long term effects on our ability to compensate employees? Steve is blaming the current mayor for addressing a current problem – cost of living has gone up considerably the last 2-3 years – without (and he assuming here) sharing the projections on costs associated with a decision he made?
I mean, if I agree with Steve here – the mayor did not project cost increases of retirement payouts out – how is that any different than he decision to allow early retirement and at the same time, exempt half the eligible workforce from reductions associated with early retirement?
Without all the information to make a firm understanding, and given what we know, it seems Steve is complaining that the current mayor made the same mistake he made….not forecasting long term costs to benefits increase. Which is the point I am trying to make.
Lever – Count me as standing with you in support of our first responders. Of course, it costs (more) money to fully staff these critical positions nowadays.
Strange you would imply that Steve does not also value first responders, in an attempt to dismiss his opinion on city finances. Please stay on task.
One of Steve’s points that you missed is one that all business people know. A pay raise is not just the cost of the raise itself, but the benefits and taxes that are also increased as a result of a higher wage or salary.
And pensions are long-lived benefit obligations that our Mayor and Council had better know what they are signing us up for. A pension is great for those few workers still eligible for one, potentially awful for those of us who have to fund it.
The mayor’s comment that the new compensation packages “won’t cost taxpayers a cent” does not inspire confidence that she has a grasp of the city budget. Perhaps she has other costs to remove to pay for the increases, starting with the $64,000 of social media “listening” she’s ordered up.
To be totally frank I don’t care one way or the other. I think what we’re experiencing here is someone complaining with a sprinkle of ongoing misogyny mixed it. The fact that folks don’t want to invest in our town and the people that uphold it is more a function of frightened fixed incomers that used to move to Florida or Lake Martin. Sorry.
Case in point: I was several towns over and saw a PD car parked in a grungy and dilapidated duplex. It honestly made me depressed that we would expect these people to give up their lives for us while treating them as 2nd class citizens not worthy of the same lifestyle as us.
Ultimately though – if pension cost is your concern why don’t you reach out to clarify why that statement was made before throwing stones. And then remember that unless your a spring chicken, you aren’t the one that’s actually going to foot the bill.
Some of us that live here value the people that put their lives on the line to keep us safe, even if it costs money. It’s clear you’re not part of that group.
Steve Brown isn’t making the claim that public safety employees aren’t worth the money……he’s stating that our mayor isn’t being honest when she says the pay raises won’t cost the public any additional money. Of course, if you actually read the article, you’d know that.
You’re missing Steve’s point… it’s about budgeting for the expenses (pay raises, pensions, signing bonuses) – you can’t just make the decision, it should be included in a proposed budget, discussed at council meetings and voted on. Our mayor is not above-board about any of this. I have lost trust in the mayor and council at this point.
I read it, and that is the point he’s making. He didn’t even inquire as to why she made the statement (maybe he could as part of the fake journalist job) but essentially he’s just flat out calling her a LIAR. And I don’t even like the mayor.
Ultimately though, subversively, he is saying they wouldn’t be worth it if it actually had to cost us money. It’s shameful.
You’re so full of hatred for all things Steve Brown that you can’t even be objective. He doesn’t even indicate anything about the raises being worthy or not. His focus is 100% on Learnard and her comments and her liberal “math”. Do you actually believe her when she states it won’t cost taxpayers anything? I don’t.
FYI – I’m no Brown loyalist. I think he bloviates and beats his own chest way too often. But I can also be objective enough to see what his argument is here without assuming negative intent like you’re doing.