Rescinding village pay raises was responsible thing to do

Rescinding village pay raises was responsible thing to do

EDITOR,

It was a relief to read your Jan. 12 editorial, “Rescission of pay raises in Lordstown is proper.” Since this news has been publicized, I feel the necessity to state facts also. Surely there are disgruntled employees in Lordstown who don’t agree, but the five councilpersons (Arno Hill, John McCarthy, Robert Bond, Stanley Zoldan and myself) who voted to rescind the raises also took many other factors into consideration.

Lordstown has one of the finest hospitalization plans for the tri-county area which will see a 16.6 percent increase in costs this year. The employees will not pay for that increase. The state has stated there may be an increase in PERS payments and again the employees will not pay for that increase. The village will pay the increases. Last year alone, benefit costs were over $664,400 and payroll over $1,900,000. We have 30-32 full-time and about 65 part-time employees. Nationwide, the cost of living has not increased and that should help keep the family budget in line.

The clerk says we have the money for the raises and we do, but it is a false sense for our financial security. That money was put into the general fund in 2009 when the income tax allocation was changed to 85 percent into general fund and 15 percent into M&R (maintenance of roads). Note, not one penny was placed into any other fund or the debt reduction fund. Why, because of fear of the economy and the uncertainty of anticipated income from the income tax etc. In view of the fact that we did receive the anticipated income you can see how the general fund was flooded with that 85 percent tax allocation and almost every other fund was stagnate.

Now for a little history lesson on the income tax and its allocations. In 2006, we increased the income tax to 1 percent (it was half percent since inception in the 1970s) for the primary purpose of getting sewers for the Eastside and road maintenance. The proposed sewer cost at that time was $10 million to be paid by a loan from the state (OWDA). The allocation of tax money in 2006 was 60.5 percent capital improvements, 31 percent general fund and 8.5 percent M&R. In 2007, it was changed to 41 percent capital improvements, 49 percent general, 10 percent M&R and 1 percent debt reduction. In 2008, 21 percent capital improvement, 45 percent general, 10 percent M&R, 4 percent Tait Road and 10 percent Eastside sewer debt reduction. In 2009, as stated above. Please note that each year, the general fund allocation was increased from the original 31 percent in 2006.

This year, we are faced with the cost of the forced main sewer problem being resolved, the costs of the Eastside sewer start-up, loss of sewer revenue, lawsuits and legal fees, debt payments and again, the same uncertainty of anticipated income because of the economy, the possibility of Lordstown shutting down for period of time because sales for the Cobalt dropped 32 and the future sales of the Cruze being unknown. It is a guesstimate world for the village right now and taking this and more into consideration, we just can’t afford a wrong guess.

MARY JANE WILSON

Village Council Finance Chairman

Lordstown