Council approves loans for city employees
Original post made on Jun 12, 2009
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, June 11, 2009, 12:44 PM
on Jun 12, 2009 at 12:06 am
You have to wonder. I've been reading all these articles about how the city is having budget issues and then I see something like this? Don't you think it is the wrong time to tie up funds that could be used for all city employees and city services instead of giving someone a loan? Seems kinda of odd. I have to wonder if the all the talk about employees jobs on the line are really a huge smoke screen. Not very responsibe. I usually one to support the executives of a company but on this one I would be curious how the unions feel. If it was me I would be like, "Ummm excuse me you want me to give up what and you have a million dollars to use for this?" Let me see have one or two employees live in town or reduce city services...just a thought
on Jun 12, 2009 at 8:45 am
Hi 'humm', I agree with your general spirit of fiscal responsibilty. However, the money used for this program comes from two funds (reserves and below market rate housing) whose money cannot be used towards funding regular city services. Instead of just having the money sit around, the city will be repaid with a modest amount of interest. Meanwhile, the employees can live in town, where they will have a vested interest in their work and providing quality service.
As for jobs on the line, it was no smokescreen. 14 (vacant) positions were eliminated, and if more cuts are necessary the next positions won't be vacant ones.
on Jun 14, 2009 at 2:31 am
Can you spell "pork"?