‘Deal’ no deal for taxpayers

The sudden reversal of this city's economic fortunes was supposed to bring fundamental change to the way Nevada governments pay public employees. Elected officials were supposed to realize that the only way to balance their budgets and stabilize future services was to break free from the choke hold of unsustainable labor costs.

The taxpayer was supposed to get some relief.

And now we learn that the first grand compromise to rein in out-of-control personnel spending amid a punishing recession, amounts to an extension of the status quo.

The city of Las Vegas, which gives most of its workers annual pay raises of about 8 percent through a variety of mechanisms with no nexus to performance, is confronting a five-year budget deficit of about $150 million. Declining tax revenues and contractual promises to unionized employees combined to break the bank.

In his final meeting before joining the Clark County Commission, then-Councilman Larry Brown said "the days of automatic raises, automatic this and automatic that, I think they'll come to an end."

So city administrators, with the support of the City Council, went to the city's bargaining units with the bad news that their two-decade party was over, and that without contract concessions, scores of workers would be laid off. Unions initially resisted, but what leverage did they have?

Plenty, apparently. The deal announced Friday and subject to approval by the council would reduce so-called "cost of living" raises for next year from 3.5 percent to 2.5 percent for Las Vegas City Employees Association members, but extend the union's contract three years to 2014 and promise pay raises of between 2 and 3 percent in 2011, 2012 and 2013. That's on top of "step" and longevity raises awarded strictly for sticking around. The five-year "savings" to the public is less than $25 million.

The city, meanwhile, gets to establish fiscal criteria that would trigger layoffs -- authority it already has.

Public employees get more guarantees. The taxpayers who'll pay for all this largess are losing their jobs and suffering steep income reductions.

This agreement was supposed to mark progress in changing the way the city operates and putting it on a firmer financial footing. It does neither. And beleaguered taxpayers are poorer for it.