Posted 20 January 2003 - 12:20 PM
It won't solve our sewer, trash, utility concerns, but someone ought to look into cuts to the hefty administration costs of our city. The link from myfolsom.com shows that our city manager earns $177,000 per year (for a $36M annual budget). It doesn't show that this exceeds ALL other city worker positions in our area, including the city manager for Sacramento, Roseville, and Elk Grove. It also doesn't show that Folsom's city positions in just about every other category exceed those of other local government officials. For example $155,040 for city attorney, 146,475 for police chief, $138,966 for assistant city manager #1, $131,508 for Fire chief, $120,040 for finance director, $119,120 for public works director, 107,314 for assistant city attorney, two police captains at $84,180-107,232. Even the city clerk earns $82,638. I think one of the high salaries is missing from the business journal's list as the director of parks and recreation is probably up there near the police chief in salary. Keep in mind that this does not include benefits and perq's. It also does not include the possibly continuing buy-out of the former city manager.
Yes, we want to have good city administration. No, I don't think we should pay them top dollar for the entire county abd surrounding area. We do not have the largest population, nor the largest general fund bucket to manage, nor significantly greater concerns and planning requirements than many other local municipalities.
"Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident, teachers' unions have a long history of working against the interests of children in the name of job security for adults. And Democrats in particular have a history of facilitating this obstructionism in exchange for campaign donations and votes." . . .Amanda Ripley re "Waiting for Superman" movie.
