You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe Venosa.
Hi, welcome to this week's episode of
Open Agenda. Drama in the city once
again. Uh I think we'd all agree on
that. Uh a big issue has emerged. This
was coming. I mean, this had been coming
for several weeks and it really kind of
blew up um at the city council meeting
last Monday, which the city has proposed
moving forward uh with legislation to
effectively gut or take away the 2023
city labor code, which basically means
that the collective bargaining rights or
apparatus for the police, uh
firefighters and EMS, and city workers
would be taken away. Um city
authorities, or at least some city
authorities, argue that this has to be
done because the city is in such a
precarious financial situation, although
it is complicated. Um and others would
say that city workers are basically
being uh punished for broader problems
and that this is a deeply destructive
and morale-killing approach that will
actually affect public safety. Uh with
us today, we have from Fruitland, Miss
Trish Melvin. Hello. Thanks for being
here. Mhm. From Salisbury, Mr. Joe
Cuffaro. Hi, Joe.
So, this week, and really for the last
several weeks, there's been a lot of
talk and a lot of concern in the
community because there's a real major
issue happening right now at the center
of city government that has been
incredibly uh divisive. Uh it's elicited
a lot of passions, I think justifiably
so. And that is, of course, the city's
possible decision to get rid of
collective bargaining. Uh specifically,
the bargaining uh ability for police,
fire, EMS, and city municipal workers.
Today, we are coming before you to
remove the collective bargaining rights.
What we will hear today is that the
administration um does not want to pay
our uh law enforcement or our public
safety officers.
Uh this is bigger than that. This is uh
just a financial outlook as a whole. Um
just as context, the city does have
three separate collective bargaining
units. We have our fire unit, we have
our police unit, and we have our general
employees unit. So, generally,
the city has been holding around 7 to 9
million in surplus year over year. Well,
when COVID hit, we had we'd seen our um
COVID relief money and a lot of one-time
money come in. So,
basically, what you see on the right
there,
the blue is our increase in uh personnel
benefit uh salaries and benefits. And
then, the orange is what the percentage
of revenue increase we recognized over
the last 2 years.
So, from 2020 to 2025, we've received
over 11 million dollars in one-time
funding,
which is awesome. Um but some of that
was
also used to cover the wage increases
that we've seen in the last couple
years.
Um our finance team will tell you that's
not sustainable to cover reoccurring
operating costs with one-time surplus.
That gap that you see there, that is
where we're pulling from surplus year
over year to balance the budget. We have
a 18% or a 1 million dollar increase in
our employee health insurance, which the
mayor's budget will show that we are
absorbing that million dollars.
Uh we have a liability and property
insurances
of a approximately 130,000.
And utilities, uh we're predicting
around an additional 100 to 200,000
dollars. So, right there, you have a
million
call it a million three um coming off
what is a a million seven that we're
projecting to have in additional
revenues this coming year. If we
continue down this road of funding
reoccurring operating with surplus and
one-time funding, um our credit rating
is good right now, but that um that
will, if we continue to do this, that
will decrease and decreasing our credit
rating, obviously, um increases our
interest rates and our ability and
decreases our ability to borrow. OPEB,
or other post-employment benefits, those
benefits are um the retirees' health
insurance and any employees we currently
have that we've told them we will cover
their health insurance if they retire
from the city.
That fund has not been um funded since
2009. It's approximately 35% funded. And
what that means is that's a true
liability. If we don't fund it, um the
general fund will have to cover it
because, obviously, we've made that
commitment to
our employees and our retirees. Yeah, I
just want to add a couple things. Um
Yeah, I came from the private sector.
So, my familiarity with government
budgeting was was limited. Uh although I
could see from the financials that we
were we had a trajectory of costs that
were going to exceed our revenues for
sure. Uh just based on uh what I'd seen
in the in the in the reporting from the
financials. That said, um what I
realized when I got in here was we were
budgeting a million and a half more in
expenses than we had in revenue.
And the the thing
and what we were hoping on was we'd have
vacancies and savings during the year
that would bring us even.
So, there was never ever This is five or
six This started about five or six or
seven years ago. So, there was never
going to be a chance for us to earn a
surplus unless we were a million and a
half to the to the black.
So, that was a that was a structural
mistake. So, let me just give you a
couple quick facts I think are
important. Right now, well, four or five
years before I took office, we had we we
raised taxes three times.
Our tax municipal tax rate is the
highest in the county, third in the
state.
If it wasn't for the
tax cap on the county side, and you
can't count the county, we would be the
probably one of the most taxed counties
in the in in the state for sure. Even if
we raised our rates 10%, which would be
a Herculean amount in 1 year, that would
be enough that would not be enough to
break us even on an operating basis with
our current demands based on the demands
of the of the current union cost.
So, then that would be just for the
first year. Then we have to go to a
second year and a third year. So, it's
10% per year per year per year until who
knows when. Unfortunately, under the
constraints of the union, we can't fix
that problem. So, uh that's why um
we have come to try and put this forward
and I I think it's um
we don't have many options in that
regard. Now, this has been in the works
for some time. Uh the mayor had
previously made an attempt to get rid of
that. Uh the council at the time voted
it down, but now I'm at a recent
meeting, the council, by a three to two
vote, uh essentially voted to to advance
the motion that would get to a reading
that would effectively undo the 2023
labor code. And that labor code, if it
is undone, would effectively take away
uh collective bargaining representation
and ability from police, fire, and um
city workers.
So, I was at the council meeting for a
good chunk of it. Um I believe you were
as well.
>> I I was there for a while. I stayed
about a half hour. The it was packed
down the out the door, down the hall,
past the elevator, around the corner to
the executive zone. It was packed. And I
at that point, I couldn't hear anything.
I said, "You know what? I'm going to go
home and watch it." And
>> [laughter]
>> it worked out much better. And Trish,
you watched it as well at home, correct?
>> I did. I watched on TV. Initial
takeaways? You know, first of all, I
have to give the mayor some um accolades
because he did something that I haven't
seen lately, and that is unify the
entire city. Um unfortunately, it's
against him. But um all disparate parts
and interests of the city agreed that uh
this isn't such a good idea. But these
were first responders deserve everything
that we can possibly do for them and
their families.
Um they put their lives on the line
every single day.
Our police officers, our firefighters,
our paramedics, our EMTs.
I'm so proud to serve with each and
every one of them here in Wicomico
County.
And um I know you're going to make some
very challenging decisions in the hours
ahead, perhaps weeks ahead,
on their futures.
But you are making that decision
on their futures. It's in your hands.
And I just hope you weigh all the
sacrifices they make every single day
for all of us, for my family, for my
agency here in this county, uh when you
when you weigh um your decision. Because
their futures are in the balance here.
And as we consider the needs of
everybody in this room, please consider
more importantly the needs of the
citizens of Salisbury. They need every
first responder and the family members
in this room. You know,
local government, in my opinion, one of
the
primary responsibilities that the reason
local government exists is public
safety.
You know,
street lights, all that's secondary.
Garbage collection, public safety is of
primary importance. And I was so
impressed by our our public safety
workers in in Salisbury that spoke last
night. Um and I think it's important for
the mayor to read the room. And council.
>> And council. I was just going to say,
and council, too, because yeah, it it it
did pass. Um I mean, the I think the
community is united. Uh I I understand
the mayor's position. Look, we have some
budget issues, Mhm. but we we can't
solve them on the backs of the people
that are working. If we are talking
about eliminating the unions,
does that allow the administration,
from what you're saying,
the opportunity to make the police
department competitive with other
municipalities because that is a huge
issue right now. Are you able to divert
other funds and have some financial
flexibility? So, I um as you mentioned,
the police department right now and
thank you
Jamie Dykes for your letter
is really in a pinch. So would you as
the administrative portion have that
financial flexibility to address these
issues if the unions were not in place?
Yes, and that's what we were talking and
it's early as I mean as early as last
Friday we met with representatives from
the FOP to discuss obviously the
situation that's happening in law
enforcement and you know I can I can
believe state's attorney can talk to
that more and what we've seen since 2021
and what's happening and hiring on the
Eastern Shore and everyone's losing to
other jurisdictions and we're we're
we're kind of in this we're pulling from
the same pool type of situation but to
answer your question
yes with having three bargaining units
there is some constraints where you are
bargaining the city's bargaining
individually with each unit but the city
as a whole has the responsibility to its
residency and the financial flexibility
you speak of
without those three units you would have
the ability to say where are your
problems and where are you seeing
retention and recruitment issues and you
could address those on a one-off basis
versus
the three separate units. These are
tough decisions to make and not not ones
that we're making lightly I can say
that. There are some aspects of the
labor agreement or the the protections
of the of the union that they would like
to keep which is fine we could probably
make them part of the the you know the
regular employment manual employment
discussion and and at the department
level and so I don't necessarily think
it needs to be a union to do that
obviously I think we can do that
independently of of a union and then all
the complexities that come along with it
so Yeah and I and I and I spoke you know
full disclosure and I was up there and
Salisbury had achieved some measure of
that in the 2023 labor code although
that I think we also would argue that
they were perhaps flaws in how that
happened specifically but the idea of
giving union protection I certainly
support it um
and I think the city's financial
situation
is terrible
and but I think unfortunately a lot of
the workers are being sacrificed. Yes, I
think there's got to be other options to
look at before taking this step.
Um [clears throat] the mayor and the
council and Nick Rice the city
administrator um they all talked about
right how precarious our funding
situation is in. My name is Michael
Langford. I I notice there's a lot of
times in discourse where people um want
an outcome but they can't propose any
solutions. So um
right now my summary of the thing is how
will we increase city revenue to
maintain city services in order to cover
our routine operational costs and is it
possible without increasing taxes on our
existing citizenry?
I believe there is a simple answer to
that and it is annexing in properties
that are already receiving city services
including emergency services
um that's a hunt we've heard this from
uh the mayor before that there are over
1,800 parcels.
So if you want to talk about millions of
dollars that we don't need to borrow
from other people we have a bunch of
neighbors here that are that are not
paying their fair share.
I also want to point out um the only
most of the comments tonight could have
been summed up as
um
there there's two arguments basically
that there there's an I want this this
outcome so we should do this or there
are these consequences which is a veiled
threat of if you don't do what I want.
Those are the two main arguments. The
only time we saw deviation from that
standard form of argument was from
people shilling for companies which was
very disappointing to see people come in
here and grandstand for private
interests in the guise of for the public
interest but it happens all the time if
you come to city council. Gentleman who
owns the Ross downtown who we don't have
fire trucks that can reach high enough
for those people if that building
catches fire. Two, he's got 20 years tax
abatement. So you want to talk about the
missing money for you guys to get paid
like that gentleman there that's who you
need to be shaking down not not this
gentleman here.
The other aspect of this is and also
we've got council members Gregory and
Blake who voted for that 20-year tax
abatement for multiple businesses in
this
in this city.
The entire reason we're here and why
we're running a structural deficit
is because there are a ton of businesses
not paying their fair share not paying
their fair taxes and that's the missing
revenue. Council members uh tonight
we're debating
the mayor's proposal to dissolve our the
unions because of the budget. I'm here
to remind you that this financial crisis
was entirely avoidable.
It's one thing to have a one-off dispute
with somebody but when every single new
development in downtown and many
throughout the city are paused what we
are now seeing is a pattern of
destruction. Instead the city the city
is stuck stuck paying for multiple
lawsuits.
The mayor ran on transparency and so I
think it's important for the public to
know about the legal bills. If this
claim in this claim the mayor is shocked
that the $4 million grant that was
earmarked to our project creates a
funding gap that would upend our deal.
To suggest a 12% shift in a capital
stack is an insignific or is
insignificant and is insignificant and
does not stop our project demonstrates a
profound lack of understanding of the
development background needed to be our
mayor. So why does this matter tonight?
The mayor says we must cut the unions
because of lack of funds
but he forgot to mention he is choking
off the very growth that would pay for
them.
There is well over a hundred million in
development in downtown alone
and that would generate over a million
dollars a year in new annual property
tax revenue hundreds of thousands of
dollars in building permit fees and
hundreds of thousands of dollars in new
water and sewer income.
>> Good evening
Joe Venosa I live in district three of
the city district seven of the
county.
I believe that the approach of getting
rid of collective bargaining is a grave
mistake.
Unfortunately it's happening in a true
crisis because many things can be true
at the same time. This has been stated
before President Jackson and I fully
concur with this the city gave away
assets over the years to the tune of
millions of dollars.
The mayor who spoke before me just now
was the recipient of millions of dollars
that could have gone to our police and
our fire
but they got corporate subsidies don't
forget that. That's why he didn't talk
about the workers in that little comment
he didn't mention you he mentioned his
lawsuits.
So many things can be true at the same
time. The administration in my opinion
is wrong to take away collective
bargaining because you're going back on
the promises you made to these people
but we're at a point right now where it
has developed over several years and now
we find ourselves where the working
class the workers
are being sacrificed on the altar of bad
decisions incompetence and corporate
welfare as Mr. Simpson just embodied a
few minutes ago. So let's be clear
collective bargaining is not the issue
at play.
The city is in my opinion basically
walking away from its promises. It's
like a corporation that declares chapter
11 so they don't have to pay the
pensions. I don't believe that's a good
look for the city it certainly doesn't
help our morale. Now this is what I
propose because it's been brought up.
I've read the collective bargaining
agreements for the FOP
for the fire department and for the
municipal workers.
This is a first reading.
There's still time to get counter offers
and to get in a room and negotiate in
good faith.
There are weeks for that. So please
between now and the second reading let's
come to the table as adults let's get a
compromise let's work it out. Collective
bargaining is not the enemy of progress
and it certainly has proven throughout
our history to be a gateway to the
middle class. I'm proud to stand with
everybody here and I hope we can come to
our senses in the near future. Thank
you.
>> [applause]
>> You're talking about that it would sort
of have to
result in possible three to four years
of 10% tax increases just to achieve the
um
numbers that the bargaining units and
the city have discussed. Now
I don't know if that's true or not but
right and and again I've heard varying
accounts. I want to say this publicly
that I I have some friends who are very
close to some of those bargaining units
and what they told me is that the city
after the union made their initial offer
the city never made a counter offer.
First of all where are we in the
negotiation process? Like how much back
and forth has there been so far? Have
you answered them they answered you or
where are we in that?
We've gone back and forth with all three
unions. Now
we're talking about we just don't have
the revenue we just don't have the
revenue we just don't have the revenue.
There are a couple of things that we can
do.
Okay? We can raise taxes and or fees or
whatever. That's not the answer I want
to look for though.
We can expand the tax base though.
And we do that by encouraging
development.
Right now there have been multiple
developments
that this administration
has firmly been against worked against
stopped cold
and those are
places where we could have expanded our
tax base
and brought in extra revenue that may
have covered over these patches. We are
facing multiple lawsuits as a city
because these projects have been halted.
Our mayor has decided unilaterally that
he is not going to move these things
forward. So I want to be really clear
with the people in this room right now
that this has nothing to do with us not
being able to raise taxes or anything
like that. We have other avenues to
bring in revenue and they are not being
utilized. They were being utilized and
then they were stopped cold. We have had
numerous developments
that the developer had not to pay
anything. Just move in and just do
construction and not pay anything. So,
that was a loss as well. The downtown
development that you're talking about
111 and 15 were not the plaintiff. We're
the defendant. Okay?
Okay. Where that's That's the whole
point. We're
>> [laughter]
>> No, it's not. We're not We We can't stop
a lawsuit by a third party.
So, secondly
>> We can by going following through with
our contracts with that individual.
Therefore, they will not sue us. Uh
again, you're you're showing your
unawareness of what's really going on.
That's the problem.
Point of order. Point of order. So, so
let's let's let's stop. Secondly, even
in the in the dream state of which these
project Guess what? You gave them the
Horizon program. They won't generate
taxes for years. Listen, I know you want
to push a narrative, but I'm here to
solve problems. I came to be mayor to
solve problems. I saw them coming.
You were part of that challenge. You
were part of that that problem and
you're continuing to be. That's it.
And we sold properties for pennies.
Jackson.
That's another thing. We sold properties
the marina
off this water street for a dollar.
A marina waterfront property. You want
to talk about giving something away?
Fire headquarters.
Sold that for $85,000 and now we're
paying 100 and something thousand
dollars a month I mean a year.
We're get We gave away stuff. So, let's
make this clear. This is not a blame
game on anybody. Let's get this city
back in financial
straight so we can do what we need to
do. I don't really want to get rid of
the union, but if we if that's what it
takes for us to get back where we are,
then that's what we must do. Take it
from the person who's only been in this
seat since December.
I can tell you since this topic came up,
I have done nothing but research, have
meetings, look at the budget.
I have looked at some of the projects
that I won't point fingers and blame
that were done that were at the city
taxpayers' expense. At this time, I have
serious concerns that the path we are on
is not sustain sustainable. Salisbury is
legitimately in a bad financial way. No
doubt. And there's a lot of reasons for
that, right? Uh some of them I had
mentioned in my public comments. Um
other people brought this up. Um but we
do have a situation where again, like
I've said in others, a lot of things can
be true at the same time. But is it
really going to help things by getting
rid of collective bargaining for
police, firefighters, EMS, and city
workers at a time when all three of
those workers or those classes of
workers have severe shortages,
especially police and fire? Yeah.
Whether or not it is the intent to close
the doors of the Salisbury Police
Department, that will be the effect.
Whether this proposal stems from
failings of prior mismanagement or
perceived failings of prior
mismanagement or from an uninformed and
erroneous belief that the Salisbury
Police Department is overstaffed and
overpaid, ultimately it does not matter.
The outcome will be the same.
My comments tonight
are
directed um to the effect of the
Salisbury Police Department because of
their strong interface with the work
that I do in being able to keep the
public safe. But I want to make clear
the Salisbury Fire Department um
what I say applies to them also.
This notion that the Salisbury Police
Department is overpaid is not grounded
in reality.
Neighboring agencies handling fewer
calls, less violent crime, are paying
their officers more.
The idea that the Salisbury Police
Department is overstaffed ignores what
is actually happening on the ground.
They are already under strain.
Their authorized staffing sits at 93.
With a 20% shortage
when informed estimates call for a
significant increase in sworn staffing
above even the frozen 10 positions at
103. To analyze policing as you would
any other job will not provide the
information that you as policy makers
need to make responsible decisions.
The their background qualifications are
discriminating as they should be.
The academy requirements, both physical
and academic,
are strenuous as they should be.
This is not a 7-hour work day
profession. It's not a 5-day a week work
profession. This is not telework.
This is not optional overtime or
flexible demand.
This is a job that requires people to
run towards danger, to manage violence,
to absorb trauma, and to make
split-second decisions that carry
life-altering consequences. Mayor Taylor
proposes law enforcement not having a
seat at the table when they can go to
any other law enforcement agency on the
Lower Shore and make more money and be
less concerned about their and their
families' future. If the public safety
loses its unions, they're going to get
jobs elsewhere. And And we're not fully
staffed now, that condition it'll get
worse.
Yeah, I mean as far as morale, I mean
that's a kick in the butt to every city
worker. And
at you know, we we need to be
competitive. We can't compete with the
Annapolis, the Anne Arundel,
the Oceans. We can't compete, but we got
to be close. And right now, my
understanding talking to a few police
officers I know, we're close. Um
but we need to maintain that.
>> But getting rid of the collective
bargaining right would not It would take
it Number one, you're you're you're
killing morale and you're you're putting
up a huge sign, "Don't apply for work in
Salisbury." And that's not what we want.
>> And I think a lot of the speakers either
directly said that or certainly heard to
it. I mean And we had a whole
slew of people from different Again, I I
I've said this before
recently. You know, this is not a
partisan or political issue in the sense
of left-right, Democrat-Republican. You
had people from you know, you had labor
groups that we would consider on the
left, labor groups you consider on the
right. You had Jamie Dykes there. You
had other law enforcement and police um
and firefighter union reps there.
Um and that consensus really came
through though is that
um this is not the way to go about it.
>> Exactly. And and I do feel, this is my
read, that I think the council is
genuinely tortured over it. Um April
Jackson, uh city council president, you
know, spoken at length about her own
family's history in organized labor.
Um They they all talked about the
importance of
getting
the people who work for the city to feel
appreciated. I mean I I don't doubt that
they're sincere in their concerns, but I
think this is not going to help that
cause at all. I think this is going to
lead to some real bigger crises. And and
Michael Langford brought up some really
great points.
One of the one of the
biggest drivers
>> [clears throat]
>> to help the revenue situation is for the
city to annex areas that
have had water and sewer service for
years. I mean I've read history I've
I've read
almost every history book in the library
on Wicomico County, Salisbury, and
several of the authors, including
Phil Cooper, who was the borough
engineer city engineer in for like 25
years. He said the city screwed up by
not annexing when they laid out the
water and sewer. Yeah. There's
approximately 1,800 properties that
would come in. And you know, you do
simple math, that's multi-million
dollars back in with no no additional
burden on the on the services.
Well, and there's other things too that
were brought up. Tax differentials
>> or rebates
>> Giveaways. giveaways, things like that.
And there were people there who did
speak I think particularly as the
council deliberations got more heated
and frankly toxic, I think there were
moments there where you began to see
that the genuine policy concerns and
issues that are at stake for regular
people really did devolve into some of
the more
unprofessional actions of some city
council members. I mean, personally I
was shocked toward the end of the
meeting at the exchange between
President Jackson and Councilwoman
Angela Blake. I know that We've got
We've got to figure out We've got to
figure it out. So, Love it. Thank you.
Love it. Thank you.
Uh Thank you Thank you for saying that.
Oh, now there's an objection.
>> No, because you're being rude. Now Oh,
now there's an objection.
You know what, Angela? Now I'm going to
do you like you did the other person.
You are messing around. You're going to
get put out of here.
Okay. First of all, you're being
disruptive. I appreciate everybody
coming out. I appreciate everything
everybody says and nobody
supports you all more than I do.
Nobody. For real.
I mean, I'm so
And that's a leader.
And and so
I fear that what began at that meeting
on um
Monday
I fear that in the coming weeks we're
going to see a continuation that might
not be productive. I hope I'm wrong, but
that's where I see it going. Thank you
so much for watching this week's episode
of Open Agenda.
