LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on October 26, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. with Chairman McGlumphy presiding. Members present were Mr. Salters (arrived at 6:08 p.m.)., Mr. Leary, and Mr. Shevock. Dr. Jones was absent. Members of Council present were Mr. Hogan, Mr. McGiffin, and Council President Williams.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mr. Leary moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.

 

Review and Recommendation - Filling of Critical Positions

During their meeting of February 23, 2009, members recommended approval of the Hiring Freeze for Fiscal Year 2008-2009, but to allow the hiring of critical positions through the review and approval of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and City Council. It was suggested that there be a “standing” agenda item to consider the filling of critical positions and, if there are no positions to consider, the item could be removed.

Mr. McGlumphy noted that there were no critical positions to be considered; therefore, no further action was required.

MAG Overview of Recommendations

Mr. DePrima, City Manager, advised members that on October 7, 2009, nine (9) department heads or their representatives met to express their concerns and recommended improvements to the PFP system. As a result, members were advised that the 21 recommendations that have been referenced throughout the committee meetings, have been updated on all the exhibits to reflect the agreed upon suggestions that are shown in red print. It was noted that a new Exhibit 8, that proposes a uniform way of budgeting for non-bargaining salary increases, has also been included.

Mrs. Hawkins, Human Resources Director, reviewed the revisions to staff’s recommendations.

Referring to Recommendation #3, Mr. Ruane suggested that there be language added to assure that an employee’s goals are updated, which would allow fairness for the employees. Concurring, Mr. DePrima indicated that language could be added to provide guidance as to when a quarterly evaluation should be “triggered”.

In discussing Recommendation #11, Mrs. Hawkins reviewed Exhibit #8 and explained the recommendation for awarding PFP salary increases by using the CPI-U (or a cap of the highest percentage increase in any one of the collective bargaining agreements) plus one percent for a performance increase times the payroll of non-bargaining employees.

Mr. Hogan relayed his concern regarding the last sentence of the recommendation (#11) that indicates that the pay grades would be updated yearly based upon the CPI-U. He felt that this would create an automatic amount that should be determined by Council. Responding, Mr. DePrima assured members that the intent was for the utilization of the CPI-U as a tool and that the decision would be that of members of Council. Mr. Hogan suggested the elimination of this sentence.

Mr. Ruane noted that salary increases for non-bargaining employees would be based on their performance evaluation; however, those employees in a bargaining unit are provided an automatic percentage for salary increase regardless of their performance. It was his feeling that this scenario has been a downfall for the City and questioned if steps are being taken to get the bargaining units to be made a part of the PFP. Responding, Mr. DePrima explained that staff has not succeeded in convincing the bargaining units that the PFP would be beneficial. He noted that the unions have observed the PFP to be a policy that has been in flux for the past several years; therefore, they do not wish to be a part of a policy that appears that Council has been uncertain about during these past few years. However, Mr. DePrima advised members that one of the bargaining units has agreed to utilize the pay-for-performance evaluation and it is hoped that this is a first step towards these means. It was his feeling that if the City can show a system that works and is maintained and endorsed, the unions would be more willing to be a part of the PFP system.

Mr. Ruane suggested that staff utilize the inclusion of the initiation of the PFP system as one of the bargaining elements for the next two (2) contracts with the unions.

Concurring with Mr. Ruane, Council President Williams questioned why the City would continue to use a problematic system for only a small portion of the City’s employees, noting that there are only approximately 80 non-bargaining employees as compared to approximately 300 union employees. Responding, Mr. DePrima felt that non-bargaining employees would favor the PFP system versus the return of obtaining salary increases based on the action of the unions. He suggested that members of Council discuss this matter with those employees to obtain their opinions.

For clarification, Mr. Ruane expressed his support for the PFP system. He noted that, when first elected, he was advised that employees did not favor all employees receiving the same salary increases and relayed concerns regarding the lack of evaluations. He felt that the PFP system addresses these concerns and that the issue is for the PFP system to be utilized by all employees in the City. He stated his opposition to the elimination of the PFP system for the City employees.

With regards to the bargaining units accepting the PFP system, Mrs. Hawkins stated that there have been concerns relayed by both the bargaining and non-bargaining employees. She explained that the employees have observed the past action of Council when there has been a lack of funds and the PFP system has not been beneficial for providing salary increases for non-bargaining employees.

Mrs. Hawkins also explained the difficulties with developing goals for some employees, such as Administrative Assistants, Patrolmen, Motor Equipment Operators, etc. She suggested that it may be necessary to develop a PFP system that is not mirrored off of the non-bargaining, since a goal driven evaluation would be difficult for use with bargaining employees, and suggested the possibility of utilizing core competencies in that respect. Responding, Mr. Ruane felt that there are goals that could be developed for bargaining employees. Mrs. Hawkins requested the opportunity to discuss these ideas with Mr. Ruane for further consideration.

Due to time constraints, Mr. McGlumphy stated that discussion regarding this matter will be deferred until the next meeting.

Request for Legal Opinion - Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB)

Mrs. Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, reminded members that the City’s OPEB Actuary, Mr. Randy Gomez, has recommended that the City obtain a sound legal opinion regarding what the City can do within the realm of its current personnel handbook and collective bargaining agreements prior to moving forward with hiring additional consultants to review options for controlling retirement health care cost. This approach would enable the City to focus on options that can be addressed.

As a result, Mrs. Mitchell advised members that she requested a quote from Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP for providing such services on an hourly fee basis. She stated that the City would be charged for time spent on this matter in tenths (10ths) of an hour. The estimated fee for this project is approximately $9,350 and capped at $12,000, if the hourly charges exceed the estimated amount. She noted that the estimated time for this project is broken out as follows: approximately 20 hours for associate attorney; Mr. Hansen at $240/hour, approximately ten (10) hours for primary attorney; and Mr. Timothy Snyder at $425/hour plus an hour of paralegal time. She stated that separate charges would be assessed for disbursements such as long-distance telephone calls, photocopying, document imaging, travel & lodging, etc. If the proposal is accepted by the City Council on November 9, 2009, Mrs. Mitchell stated that it is projected that the opinion would be completed on or before November 25, 2009.

Staff recommended approval of the Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP proposal, not to exceed $12,000, to be funded by the OPEB Trust Fund.

Mr. Leary moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.

Mr. Salters moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.

Meeting Adjourned at 6:56 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

 

William P. McGlumphy

Chairman

WPM/JS/rr/tm/jg

S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes200910-26-2009 LF&A.wpd