Some months back, well after the City of Omaha admitted it was having Dire Financial Difficulties, the city officials were thrilled to announce that they had hired a 'bicycle czar', someone to decide where and how bicycle lanes would be created so that people could use these devices to travel about town, thereby saving gasoline costs and lowering the smog emissions, since there would be fewer cars on the streets. I believe the local paper even stated what that person would be paid, and it certainly seemed an exorbitant salary, considering how many city employees were facing lay-off at the time. The paper went on to say, however, that the position had been created and was being paid for by a federal grant the city had received. So that made it okay, was the implication, because the city wasn't actually paying for this person to do his job.
Really? I keep wondering if that reporter really is that simple, or if s/he thinks the readers are.
Perhaps nobody explained to the reporter that when the federal government hands out a grant that creates a new position, that grant has strings attached. It's my understanding that one of those strings is that after the duration of the grant, the entity (city) must continue the position, at the same salary, for a certain period of time, perhaps 5 years. I'd love to know how long the grant will pay this person's salary, because after that point, the city certainly will be paying for this person to do his job! And since the current poor economic times seems to be long-term, I expect the city will still be in Dire Financial Difficulties when that bill comes due.
No comments:
Post a Comment