HomeMy WebLinkAbout5B-LivingWageLateDocument1&MO, 0 6
From: Victor Chechanover [supetal@iscweb.com]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 1:54 PM
To: - City Clerk
Cc: torliatt@aol.com
Subject: Agenda item 5.3
I cannot appear to make this comment in person but believe it is wrong to adopt this
resolution for the following reasons:
It is based on the assumption that "Because the consumer price index used in the ordinance
shows no increase in December to December cost of living ... My Social Security benefit was
increased 5.89 based on a Cost of Living increase in 2008 so it is unlikely that the workers
affected by the ordinance did not have an increase in their cost of living. In
fact,ellsewhere the Summary Statement says," based on a 3.0% cost of living increase",
contradicting the earlier contention.
The ordinance not only affects those employed directly by the City but also some
contractors. Therefore not only are low wage City employees required to "tighten" their
belts but the employees of such contractors. Recently three maintenance workers were let go
and most of the work they did plus other previously outside contracted work is done by low
wage workers.
If a 3% increase for city employees would cost $29,405 am I correct in believing that the
total current cost of their service is more than $98,000? It would have been helpful if the
basis for the claimed cost was explained.
I am trying to come to grips with how this annual $29,405 saving, and its relation to the
entire operating budget will benefit the more than 50,000 City residents in the services
they expect. What will we lose if the increase was passed?
1