A plan to fund pay raises for Public Works employees by cutting three vacant positions failed Monday night when the Indianola Board of Aldermen declined to second a motion in support of the proposal.
The discussion came during the Dec. 8 regular meeting of the mayor and board at City Hall Annex, where Mayor Ken Featherstone, Ward 1 Alderman Gary Fratesi, Ward 2 Alderman Darrell Simpson, Ward 3 Alderman Ruben Woods and Ward 5 Alderman Sam Brock Jr. were present. Ward 4 Alderman Marvin Elder was absent. City Clerk Stephanie Washington, City Attorney Mack Arthur Turner and Public Works Director Elvis Pernell also attended.
Pernell opened the item by thanking the mayor and board for allowing him to serve as public works director and for supporting the department as it has taken on more responsibilities across the city. He said he appreciated employees who “make my job easier,” noting that crews had worked through difficult conditions to respond to drainage issues, highway water problems and airport maintenance.
Turning to pay, Pernell said he was losing workers he considered “like family” and that exit interviews repeatedly cited low wages as a major reason employees left. He reminded the board that the city’s budget discussions had referenced roughly a $700,000 shortfall and said he believed if raises were not addressed this year, “it definitely won’t happen next year.”
To fund raises without increasing the overall personnel budget, Pernell said he developed a plan to cut three public works slots budgeted at about $10.50 an hour, estimating that eliminating those positions would free up roughly $65,000. He emphasized that his calculations did not include benefits such as health insurance or employer Social Security contributions and that, even after raises, the department would still finish about $7,000 under its budgeted amount for the year.
Pernell told the board he had divided the proposed increases into three tiers, with some employees receiving an extra $1 an hour, others 75 cents and others 50 cents, based on job responsibilities and current pay levels. He likened the plan to giving “everybody out there a piece of the pie,” but said the goal was to move pay in a way that would help retain the workers who carry the heaviest load rather than simply providing a token, across-the-board increase.
At one point in the discussion, Fratesi said giving every city worker a small raise — such as 25 cents an hour — would not solve the retention problem because higher-performing employees would still be likely to leave. He argued that across-the-board increases tend to benefit employees who do the least work while failing to reward those who shoulder more responsibility. Pernell responded that his proposal targeted specific pay levels and that he had “split it up in three different sections” to address that concern.
The conversation then broadened to earlier promises and expectations about raises in other departments and for long-tenured city workers. Brock told Featherstone that a few years ago the mayor and board approved a significant raise for the deputy clerk and that last year the city was supposed to review employees with more than 20 years of service. Brock said those workers had not been discussed and asked whether the matter had been “thrown over to the next pile.”
“Nothing was thrown over to the next pile, Mr. Brock,” Featherstone replied, saying the city had known for several budget cycles that it faced financial problems. He said he still believes everyone with 20 or more years of service should receive a step increase when the city is financially able to do so. Brock argued that those employees “need to be addressed, just like this right here is” and “don’t need to be overlooked,” while Featherstone said they would not be overlooked but that the city had “certain constraints” under the current budget.
Parks and Recreation Director Carolyn O’Neal was allowed to speak and reminded the board that when it granted the deputy clerk’s earlier raise, the budget had already been adopted and the city “still gave out raises.” Featherstone acknowledged that decision and said the intent then was to provide something for everyone in all departments who had reached that level of service time. He said the city was not able to fund those step increases in the fiscal 2024-25 budget, stressing that the board was “not saying no, just not right now,” and that it planned to revisit the issue when finances improve.
Ward 3 Alderman Ruben Woods stressed that Pernell’s proposal would not change the total budget amount because it relied on cutting three slots to fund the raises. He noted that planned public works raises had been removed at the “last minute” during the previous budget process and said the current item was an effort to honor what had been promised to the department by reworking positions instead of reopening the entire budget. Woods added that no disrespect was intended toward the incoming board and said the current board had pledged to public works employees that it would try to make the raises happen.
Fratesi, however, kept returning to the city’s reported $700,000 deficit and the fact that the city had already dipped into reserves to balance the current budget. He warned that if the city continued drawing similar amounts in future years — especially after losing use-tax revenue it once relied on — several million dollars in savings could be gone in four or five years, leaving city leaders with no way to pay employees. He also questioned how an assistant position in public works, with a salary of about $42,000 plus benefits, had been added when that figure was not in the prior year’s budget.
Brock pressed Pernell on the math behind the proposal, asking how many employees would receive raises and what the exact per-employee amounts would be. Pernell said savings from cutting three positions would total about $65,000, or a little more than $20,000 per position, and that his detailed list showed which workers would receive $1, 75‑cent or 50-cent increases. Fratesi and at least one other alderman also asked what would happen next year if the board approved raises this year but did not have the money budgeted later, arguing that the city is already “$700,000 short now.”
Some members suggested it would be better to leave the question for the new board that takes office in January, given the current deficit and the fact that the most recent budget already required the use of savings. Others countered that postponing the question amounted to “kicking the can down the road,” noting that public works has already operated for months with fewer workers while using temporary hires earlier in the year to help with city cleanup.
As the discussion wound down, Woods moved to approve Pernell’s proposed raises using the savings from cutting three public works slots. The city clerk confirmed that an itemized list of employees and raise amounts had been prepared and distributed. When Featherstone called for a second, however, no board member spoke up. After repeating the request a second time, the mayor announced that the motion died for lack of a second.
Pernell thanked the board for hearing him out but cautioned that failing to move on the plan would “have a negative effect” on his ability to keep enough workers on the crew to get jobs done. He said he intended to continue advocating for his employees and warned that the department could struggle to maintain services if it cannot recruit and retain staff at competitive pay.
