Readers debate more overtime vs more officers
Would you rather pay for the overtime and have less officers on the streets, working events, and eliminate special programs like the school officer.
Or use the same cost and reduce overt time and have more police officers?
Again this town use to have almost 20 more officers then it currently has today. Retirements will continue to happen, and the ranks will fluctuate. This is why this new ordinance sound great on paper. It allows the Chief, the VC, the VM and even the town have a say on how many officers they feel they need on a yearly bases. It dosnt tie the hands of the powers to be to make the right choice if needed due to a number that know one knows how it was reached.
I guess its’s pay less today in overtime by having more officers, or pay more tomorrow in pension & health care if we have more officers ? Which is cheaper ? I’ve noticed the public safety, plus pensions & social security, and insurance (health, workman’s’ comp, other) were 51% of the Village part of the budget in 2013. This was up from 42% in 2001. These budget items are growing much faster than the overall budget, and have also grown in excess of the 2% property tax cap. If this continues, it suggests that, from a property taxpayer’s perspective, the annual increases in property taxes will not go to improve quality of life and services for residents. Instead, annual tax increases will be required to fund mandated salary and benefit obligations. So which is better ?
