City considers shorter work week to cut costs
By Scott Taylor
,
Staff Writer
Friday, October 3, 2008
LEWISTON - Councilors could hear a plan this month to cut back on City Hall heating bills by shutting down another day each week.
City Administrator James Bennett said he has talked to the city's labor unions representatives about reducing the number of days per week city offices would be open. He hopes to bring the idea to the City Council during an Oct. 14 workshop meeting. $10,000 savings
The goal is to cut down on energy costs by keeping buildings closed.
A shorter work week represents another day the city doesn't have to pay to heat its buildings during the winter or keep them cool in the summer. Initial estimates say the city could save up to $10,000 per year.
"If you look at it one way, is $10,000 a big chunk of a $90 million budget? Probably not," Bennett said. "But it means we'd have $10,000 more in the budget to do something else." Cut one day per week
City Hall and the city's Public Works shops could close each Friday, reducing their work week to four days. The library, currently open six days per week, could go down to five.
The city's recreation department offices in the Armory and Multi-Purpose Center could close one day during the week, as well. Those offices are currently staffed seven days per week.
"Of course, we'd have to increase the number of hours we'd be open each day," Bennett said. "We'd have to open earlier and stay open later, and that might be a benefit for people that can't get their city business handled during our normal operating hours." Other changes
It would also mean city staffers would have to change the way they work. Salaried staffers regularly come in on their days off to catch up on their work. That wouldn't be allowed any more.
"If the purpose is not to heat the building during the winter, then it defeats the purpose if you have one person come in and turn up the heat," Bennett said. "So, I guess if they do decide to come in on a day we'd be closed, they'd have to do their work in mittens."
Child care for city employees could be another problem, he said.
"If you have people paying for child care and they start working longer hours, that can cause a problem," he said. "That's one of the many things we're trying to work out with this, and we're trying to involve our employees in this discussion. We're really in the fact gathering stages, trying to see what has the potential of working." |
CLICK HERE To Show/Hide Discussion Thread - (17 Comments)
Comments
 |
Posted By:Bonj at October 3, 2008 8:26 AM (Suggest Removal) It will be interesting to see what creative math Councilor Reed does with this. How much will this save the average homeowner? A buck?
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Jay Bee at October 3, 2008 8:54 AM (Suggest Removal) Well, this is a forest-for-the-trees approach! Ten thousand out of ninety million? That's about a hundredth of one percent by grade school math. Lame.
At some point we have to ask the question, where to draw the line on this cutting costs nonsense? We still expect services and want the cities to get things done.
If you want no services and nothing getting done, move to a useless place like Gray, New Gloucester, or Minot. Lots of space left, because, well, nothing gets done.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:BEN HARRISON at October 3, 2008 9:24 AM (Suggest Removal) Will city staff still get paid for the full work week!! Slick way to get more time off for city works under the illusion of saving us money!!
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Tired at October 3, 2008 10:13 AM (Suggest Removal) Hey, Ben. Did you read the article? Business hours would be extended. That would mean that employees would be required to work four 10 hour days instead of five 8 hour days. I don't think this is a conspiracy, buddy. I know - those fat-cats at city hall have benefits and everything!
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Jacob at October 3, 2008 10:16 AM (Suggest Removal) Turn off the heat? Right, you’d spend more energy / oil to heat them back up or cool them back down, no savings. I’d also be surprised to find out that these city buildings heating & cooling systems have the capability and or the right personnel to perform these task. The “building” is still operating time is not changed, 40 hours in 4 days or 40 hours in 5. Better off trying to make your buildings more energy efficient, along with your cars, trucks, equipment and staff. Keep thinking
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:j at October 3, 2008 10:45 AM (Suggest Removal) Incorrect Jacob. Commercial buildings are regularly turned down when unoccupied because it does save money. Btu's lost are based on temperature difference between inside and outside, reducing the thermostat when not occupied reduced the temperature difference and thus the heat loss. It doesnt take much to be able to lower the temperature setting for an 'unoccupied' mode. Your comment is a common misconception that you spend more energy to heat the space back up to temperature then you would use by keeping it at a constant temperature. I have a programmable thermostat at home and it has saved me about 15% just by turning it down to 64 from 10pm to 430am and while I'm at work. (so not only do I have to heat my house back up to 70, I have to do it twice a day and it still saves me money).
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:BRICK at October 3, 2008 1:05 PM (Suggest Removal) Actually, the savings would be so minimal as to not really matter when taking into account the extended work hours that the buildings will need to be heated. Closing on Friday but adding the hours over the course of four days adding the extra time there and any cost savings quickly evaporates. It would be better for city hall to regulate the thermostats and lower them by a few degrees in the winter. This would have the same effect as closing the building down an extra day a week just by lowering the thermostat by two and a half degrees.
The even smarter thing would be for the city to explore using alternative methods of heating. Think green.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:BEN HARRISON at October 3, 2008 1:32 PM (Suggest Removal) yah right longer days at city hall LOLOLOL they stop working at 3 now!! Good luck with 10 hour days!!
And how is it going to save $$$ not like you can turn the heat OFF!! just down!!! Wear a sweater and work a full week!! Leave the heat on unoccipied mod all the time and put signs on the wall the read "If you dident waste so much tax payer money we would buy you heat"!!!
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Chad at October 3, 2008 4:07 PM (Suggest Removal) $10,000 a year? Yet Bennett created some bogus "Energy Czar" position with like $28,000 in salary from a grant. Use the grant money to cover the expense and fire the "Czar".
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Lu at October 3, 2008 4:09 PM (Suggest Removal) hey Ben Have you ever been to city hall? I can tell you that there are offices in that building that work well beyond their "scheduled" hours. Try showing up at tax time, election time, the end of the month, the beginning of the month, etc. Maybe you just don't know what work looks like.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:BEN HARRISON at October 3, 2008 4:47 PM (Suggest Removal) Real Work" at city hall LOL you use that "Work" term very loosely!! And Bennetts worth ever penny!! LOL WOW and the Colisee was a good deal for Lewiston!! LOL Lewiston Myths!! Feel free to add your own!!
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Lu at October 3, 2008 7:56 PM (Suggest Removal) Ben, I would love for you to follow me around for a day. You wouldn't be able to keep up or even comprehend what I do all day long. You don't have to get dirty to really work. Oh, and I can tell how well educated you are by your impeccable use of punctuation and grasp of realty.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:JR at October 3, 2008 8:14 PM (Suggest Removal) I think they should work Saturdays and Sundays...when real working people are off.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:JR at October 3, 2008 8:19 PM (Suggest Removal) On a different note...why does Rumford smell like dirty feet
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:JR at October 3, 2008 8:20 PM (Suggest Removal) Rumford...the not too distant cousin of Westbrook
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:j at October 3, 2008 9:10 PM (Suggest Removal) actually, there would be savings by extending two work days because it does take energy to bring the building back up to temperature, just not as much as you save by lowering it in the first place. by having that extra day that you dont have to raise the temperature, you would save. I doubt it would be $10k but I dont know what their annual heating costs are. I know it saved me over 100 gallons a year and my house is way smaller and better insulated than city hall. alternative energy is great except that you have to be able to pay for the equipment up front and the payback tends to be several years...if you're looking for savings now, it's just not there. old buildings do use a lot of fuel.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:john at October 4, 2008 2:56 AM (Suggest Removal) I think of one thing OT for over 8 hours ???????????
| Add your comments
|
|
Advertisement

|
 |
| “Paint Your Heart Out: Embracing Art and Healing” |
a collection of watercolor paintings, will be exhibited at the Central Maine Medical Center Rotating Art Gallery from November 7 through December 1. |
read more >>
|
| Central Maine Obstetrics-Gynecology |
is the first Midwifery Service in Maine and only the second in New England to be recognized by the American College of Nurse-Midwives with its Golden “With Women for a Lifetime” Commendation. |
read more >>
|
| Deborah Taylor |
associate director of the Central Maine Medical Center Family Medicine Residency Program, has been elected to the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) Board of Directors. |
read more >>
|
| Erwey A. Teng, M.D. |
a pulmonologist and intensivist, has been elected to the Central Maine Medical Center Medical Staff. He is practicing with Pulmonary and Critical Care Associates in Lewiston. |
read more >>
|
| Medicare Program |
Central Maine Medical Center and SeniorsPlus will offer individual counseling for seniors who want to review their Medicare drug coverage for 2009. |
read more >>
|
|
|