In a recent letter to the editor, Councilmember Brent Ashley asked the question, “…if the city is able to provide all services and function efficiently for $6 million less and with over 100 fewer employees, why was the $6 million being spent in the first place and why did the city provide salaries and benefits so long for so many extra employees at the taxpayers’ expense?”
I would like to answer his question.
First of all, it should be clarified that the $6 million in cost savings was not accomplished simply by reducing the number of employees by 100, since the costs associated with 100 employees would actually be less than $500,000. Rather, the savings resulted from the more than 100 cost-cutting measures that were mostly brought forward by town employees and approved by the then Mayor and City Council.
While Councilmember Ashley states that “years of bloated budgets and excessive hiring” led to recent financial reforms, I look back and see a community that grew and transformed into the town we have now. Our employee population grew because we greatly expanded the convention center, doubled the size of Northside Park and increased our recreational opportunities. We acquired the Wastewater Treatment Plant and collection facilities from Worcester County and assured the town the control of a basic infrastructure. We built Eagle’s Landing Golf Course and grew our Special Events Department into a premier organization that offers events daily during the season and many weekends year-round.
Our Public Safety personnel increased from 158 employees in 1997 to 200 in 2012 to keep pace with the growth in property and number of lives for the police, fire and emergency medical personnel to protect.
So, one could say that the growth in the number of employees was “excessive,” but I would say it was responsible and needed to accommodate a growing Ocean City over the last 20 years.
We were able to reduce the number of employees by making conscious decisions in what we did and how we did it.
The biggest reduction in our workforce was in the Public Works Department, where the decision was made to transition from a department that was manned and equipped to perform major infrastructure construction projects to a department that is now right-sized so employees can perform routine maintenance and repairs of our infrastructure. When major work is needed, we now contract out for it. With the build-out of the town, our major infrastructure is in place, and it was time to transition to a smaller work force that is needed more for maintaining that infrastructure than for large construction projects.
Also in Public Works, we abandoned sending our solid waste to the landfill and instead converted to a waste-to-energy solution: After the metal recyclables are removed, our solid waste is now incinerated to create electricity. This process allowed for the elimination of an entire department of employees, vehicles and equipment, saving in excess of $1 million a year.
We reduced services, and that allowed for fewer personnel and related cost savings. For example, we reduced our off-season solid waste collection from twice per week to once per week. We reduced bus service in the off-season. We saved $250,000 by bidding the town’s electricity. We offered new employee health insurance options, thus reducing health insurance costs for both the town and the employees.
The right-sizing of our workforce was enabled largely due to the retirement incentive program offered to about 74 employees. A total of 38 employees participated in the program, and it allowed us to move many other employees around from position to position and from department to department. We were able to save their jobs while benefiting from their experience and knowledge in a more productive structure. Many employees took on additional responsibilities as the town worked to right-size.
I trust the above answers the question and gives the public a better insight into how the town transitioned during the downturn in the economy.
Dennis Dare
Ocean City
