To the editor:
At the last city of Caribou Council meeting, we voted on the final of the three union contracts for the city employees. I voted against the contract. This was by no means an easy decision, and now, I would like to explain the reason for my “no” vote. I did not decide to run for city council to win a popularity contest. I did it because I truly care about what happens in Caribou. My goal was never to cut costs, nor to keep costs the same. Government grows, therefore, so does the cost to run such a government. It’s the amount of growth that is occurring that is my concern. My goal is to try to keep this government from growing as fast as it has been. Watching over our city’s expenditures is the most important thing we were hired to do!
Over the last six years, our city’s government has grown on an average of 4.1 percent every year. This represents approximately $320,000 of extra money per year. How can we slow down the growth rate of these expenditures? Don’t misunderstand; if we had 20 to 30 new homes being built each year, if we had 150 new jobs created each year, if we had 50 additional students per year entering our school system, then we would expect this growth rate. However, what is happening in Caribou is just the opposite.
Last year, we had only eight new housing permits. We lost at least 80 jobs, and we have had 50 less students per year over the last two years entering our school system. Yet, we have an expenditure rate of 4.1 percent. The national average inflation rate is only 2.6 percent per year. We are 65 percent above the national inflation rate. In my opinion, we need to slow this rate of growth down to match reality.
Last year, for example, Houlton had 21 housing starts and they have a mil rate of 18.5. Fort Kent had 19 housing starts with a mil rate of 19.5, adjusted to 95 percent of state evaluation (apples to apples), but Caribou had only eight housing starts, and has a mil rate of 24. Instead of spending an additional $320,000 per year, let’s say we spend $210,000 in additional funds. Over six years, that would save the taxpayers two mils off the tax rate. Over nine years, it would save 3 mils. The amount of growth — this is my philosophy.
Let’s explore the union contract. 52 percent of our municipal budget is labor, so to address growth, we have to bring it, at some point, to labor. I do not fault the unions. They are doing an excellent job of representing their members. I have to look at the council. The contract settlements, in my opinion, will result in an approximate increase of 5.1 percent in wages per year during the life of the contract with the city paying 80 percent of what is deemed by other companies as the Cadillac of health plans. Keep in mind, once again, that the national inflation rate has averaged 2.6 percent per year over the last six years. To look at one union, after 16 months of negotiations, the council actually gave the employees more than the union originally asked for. One of the union contracts on which your council voted allows for the following:
A 3 percent cost of living adjustment, plus an additional 22 cents per hour, plus 80 percent paid health insurance, in addition to regular city benefits for year one.
A 3 percent COLA, plus an additional 22 cents per hour, plus 80 percent paid health insurance, in addition to regular city benefits for year two.
A 3 percent COLA, plus an additional 22 cents per hour, plus 80 percent paid health insurance, in addition to regular city benefits, for year three.
This is regardless of economic conditions. This works out to an average of $2 per hour per employee over that time period. This is not including any overtime that may be incurred. Granted, everyone needs a raise, but when is it enough? We are now at the point where we can only compare wages with other municipalities, not the private sector. Social Security and private businesses usually go with the national inflation rate, again, which is 2.6 percent. Private businesses do not have a taxpayer’s base upon which to draw. They rely strictly on the profits generated from their businesses. If raises to their employees far exceeded the national growth rate, imagine what the cost of their products would be to the consumer.
I realize I am in the minority, and I am only one voice. Because my philosophy differs from the majority of the councilors, I am sometimes not able to get a thorough look at all of the issues involved here. But, in my opinion, this increase is just too much.
In conclusion, I wish we could give every working citizen, every Social Security recipient and everyone on fixed income in this town a raise of that magnitude, but we must be realistic about our economic climate. Government simply must learn to operate as if it were a private business. The philosophy that Caribou government should be a pay leader in our community is not one that I share.
“Farmer” Mark Goughan
Caribou
P.S I would like to explain the title of my “dissertation”. I want to make it very clear that I do not think anyone in the agriculture business is simple. They are brilliant survivors who know how to do their jobs with fortitude and efficiency. My “view from this simple farmer” is just that. I believe in living my life with an uncomplicated, simple-view philosophy, and I feel that running the government would benefit from this philosophy as well. It does not have to be complicated
To the editor:
I have read this “dissertation”, and I approve of this message.
“Welder” Doug Morrell
Caribou
