LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on June 22, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. with Chairman McGlumphy presiding. Members present were Mr. Leary, Mr. Salters, Dr. Jones, and Mr. Shevock. Members of Council present were Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Hogan, and Mrs. Russell (arrived at 6:51 p.m.). Mayor Carey was also present.
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 action was required of the committee.
Proposed Ordinance No. 2009-05 - Chapter 102 - Taxation
During the Committee meeting of April 27, 2009, Ms. Russell, City Assessor, reviewed proposed amendments to Chapter 102 -Taxation, based on an audit of the City of Dover Assessor’s Office, as well as the recommendations of the Tax Appeals Committee and the City Assessor. The Committee tabled the proposed amendments until a legal opinion could be obtained from Mr. Nicholas Rodriguez, City Solicitor, regarding the propriety of penalizing owners of income-producing property with a “denial of appeal” if an Income and Expense Report is not filed. It was noted that the denial of appeal would occur one (1) year following failure to file the report. In addition, it was requested that the wording in Section 102-77 on the Committee Action Form be revised to state “amendment to update the language”.
Mr. Leary moved to lift the matter from the table, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Ms. Russell advised members that, at the suggestion of Mr. Rodriguez, the following revisions were made:
Section 102-5 (Income and Expense Reports)
This amendment is a new section to allow the Assessor to require that all owners of commercial/industrial income-producing property within the city limits of Dover complete and file annual reports of Income and Expenses on forms developed by the Assessor. Failure to provide the Assessor with an Income and Expense Report will result in a fine of $100.00 (rather than a denial of appeal as was originally proposed). Income and Expense Reports will be mailed to property owners and are due within thirty (30) days of receipt of request by the Assessor. This information is invaluable in developing the value for these income-producing properties. The Income Approach to Valuation is the most common methodology to value these types of property.
Section 102-77 (Duties of City Assessor)
This amendment updates the language used for affixing the stamp to the deeds when they are brought into the Assessor’s Office. In addition, the ordinance clarifies a time period for audits of the Transfer Tax.
Section 102-185 (Appeals)
This amendment is a new section to explain due dates that were established for the Appeals Committee and approved by Council on November 13, 2007. This ordinance also explains that the right to appeal is lost if any designated appeal date is missed; however, the appellant may appeal the following April for the next billing cycle. It also states that appeals/refunds for errors or opinions of value from appellants will not be heard for prior years. This has been the common practice in the Assessor’s Office.
Ms. Russell added that the proposed ordinance amendments have been reviewed by Mr. Nicholas Rodriguez, City Solicitor, who stated that the amendments are in good order and, in his opinion, will serve the purpose intended.
In response to Mr. Salters, Ms. Russell stated that other municipalities charge fines ranging from $50.00 to $500.00 for failure to file an Income and Expense Report.
Responding to Mr. Shevock, Ms. Russell indicated that this ordinance would regulate commercial and industrial income-producing properties and would include apartment buildings that house more than four (4) families.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend adoption of Proposed Ordinance No. 2009-05 amending Chapter 102 - Taxation, seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried.
Phase II of the MAG Study
Mrs. Hawkins, Human Resources Director, reminded members that in 2008, Management Advisory Group (MAG) was hired to perform a review and evaluation of the Pay for Performance (PFP) Evaluation system that is currently utilized for all non-bargaining employees. In September 2008, MAG presented its findings for Phase I of the study, which focused on the classification and compensation of positions and employees. During their meeting of March 9, 2009, the Committee moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation for implementation of Phase I of the MAG Report (which was subsequently approved by City Council at their meeting of March 23, 2009). During their meeting of February 23, 2009, the Phase II Report for the Review and Evaluation of the PFP Evaluation System to the City of Dover was presented to the Committee for informational purposes. Mr. DePrima, City Manager, explained at that time that staff would be bringing forward implementation recommendations regarding this phase of the study for the Committee’s review and consideration at a later date.
Mr. DePrima and Mrs. Hawkins provided a handout containing an Organization of Recommendations related to Phase II of the MAG study with proposed changes grouped according to subject area (Attachment #1). Mr. McGlumphy reminded the Committee that there would be no action taken on the matter at this time and the study will continue to be returned to the table until all six (6) exhibits related to the report can be reviewed.
An overview of the Organization of Recommendations was presented by Mr. DePrima and Mrs. Hawkins as follows:
Training
In accordance with the MAG recommendations, Mr. DePrima noted that, under this proposal, annual training for supervisors would be required and salary increases would be withheld from supervisors if training is not attended. He noted that the City Manager will have the discretion to excuse a supervisor from training if there are extenuating circumstances.
In response to Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Hawkins estimated that approximately 45 employees would qualify as supervisors and that training would require approximately one hour of each supervisor’s time.
Mr. DePrima stated that the second recommendation in the training category was an employee suggestion that training be provided to employees so that they could better understand the PFP evaluation process. Mr. DePrima stated that this recommendation has already been implemented and that an informational session has been conducted for employees.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima stated that repeated annual training for supervisors would be beneficial as an ongoing reminder of how to complete fair and accurate evaluations. He believed that this training would provide an important opportunity for supervisors to receive fresh information and for experienced evaluators to share information they have learned about the process.
Evaluation - Process
Mr. DePrima indicated that MAG suggested that the Director of Human Resources be given a five (5) day time frame to review all evaluations.
Mr. DePrima explained that MAG also recommended that supervisors complete quarterly employee reviews and document these sessions by entering this information into the PFP software system. He noted that quarterly reports were implemented when PFP was first adopted; however, he stated that many supervisors have not complied with this requirement. He stated that quarterly evaluations are being required in response to employees who expressed a need for additional performance feedback.
In response to Dr. Jones, Mr. DePrima explained that the quarterly evaluations are informal in that there is no scoring or grading. He indicated that the focus would be on the employee’s performance and goals and would provide employees and supervisors more opportunity to interact.
Mr. DePrima stated that the next item on the Organization of Recommendations handout sets forth a self-evaluation process for employees. He stated that this provision is being changed from an “encouraged practice” to a “required practice” and that MAG supports this idea.
Concerned that the evaluation process might be excessively cumbersome, Mr. McGlumphy requested Mrs. Hawkins to estimate the amount of work hours that would be required to implement all of the practices listed in the handout to help determine if the evaluations are serving a meaningful purpose.
Mr. DePrima mentioned that, at one time, the City did not conduct employee evaluations at all, and, at that time, Council requested that an evaluation process be instituted for all employees, as this was deemed a valuable practice. Mrs. Hawkins concurred, explaining the value of evaluations in dealing with employees who are not meeting expectations.
Mrs. Williams inquired whether there was any documentation that would suggest that additional evaluations positively impact employee performance, and was particularly concerned about how additional evaluations would be viewed by employees who are currently performing well. She suggested that it might be beneficial to perform a survey to obtain employee input. Mr. DePrima requested that Mrs. Williams advise him on the types of questions she would suggest for such a survey following the meeting.
Mrs. Hawkins added that one of the goals of the study was to examine ways of recognizing and rewarding outstanding performers and she felt that requiring more supervisor/employee interaction might assist in this regard.
Another recommendation by MAG, Mr. DePrima stated, was to provide for statistical normalization. This would be a mechanism that would be used to help compensate for supervisors who consistently score all of their employees lower or higher than other supervisors. He explained that this becomes more problematic if compensation is tied to performance and there are inequities between departments. He indicated that some jurisdictions have researched methods of scoring evaluations to create a statistically normalized score. MAG alerted the City to this potential problem but did not suggest how to manage it. For this reason, it was recommended that it be established as a goal for the Human Resources Director to determine how other jurisdictions are normalizing scores. Councilman Hogan offered to assist with this process.
To address the problem of supervisors who are currently not completing evaluations, Mrs. Hawkins stated that MAG recommended holding all employee salary adjustments until all evaluations are complete and that non-compliant supervisors be listed on the intranet. Mrs. Hawkins and Mr. DePrima did not recommend implementation of this suggestion due to their feeling that publicly listing supervisors was inappropriate and that it would be unfair to postpone salary adjustments due to the negligence of supervisors.
Mr. DePrima and Mrs. Hawkins concurred with MAG’s suggestion to add a core competency to the Human Resources Director’s goals to ensure that the Director monitors the evaluation process. They stated that effectively completing evaluations would be added to the core competencies of the supervisors as well.
Mr. DePrima stated that requiring periodic reviews will reduce the amount of work to be done by supervisors at the end of the year, when final evaluations are due.
Dr. Jones noted that if reviews are performed on a quarterly basis, notes are documented at that time, information is being entered into the PFP software, and the results impact the employee’s final evaluation, it appears that quarterly reports constitute more of a formal than an informal review. She inquired whether there is written acknowledgment by the employee and the supervisor at the time of the quarterly review as to the status of the employee’s performance.
Mrs. Hawkins explained that a formal evaluation constitutes an evaluation of all core competencies, entering all remarks and scores, and signing off on the evaluation. Informal evaluation is a periodic meeting where goals are examined and discussed and progress is entered. If performance problems are identified at that time, Human Resources will be consulted and the evaluation process will be escalated from informal to formal.
Dr. Jones reiterated her concern with employees receiving a clear indication of performance and felt that employees should have an opportunity to acknowledge even an “informal” assessment.
Concurring with Dr. Jones, Mr. Shevock suggested that employees acknowledge what is written during the quarterly reviews to validate the outcome of the evaluation. Without an employee signature, there is no proof of the events that transpired during a review session. Mr. DePrima stated that he understood this point and that it should be considered.
Mr. DePrima stated that in order to make the evaluation process less cumbersome, it was proposed to eliminate the need to include explanatory remarks if the employee is achieving a baseline score of three (3) (performing the job as outlined in the job description). Scores higher or lower than a three (3) would require explanation.
Mrs. Hawkins explained that the next recommendation established the need for probationary employees to adapt to the work environment before determining goals for evaluation.
Responding to Mrs. Russell, Mr. DePrima explained that bargaining unit employee evaluations are not tied to compensation and that the City’s bargaining units were not interested in adopting the new format or Pay For Performance procedures. He stated that they use an older form that does not have goals outlined and includes only core competency. He mentioned that members of the IBEW Union have agreed to begin using a Pay For Performance form and will be incorporating goals into their evaluations next year.
Mr. DePrima explained that his own evaluation is completed by City Council using a form similar to that used by other City employees, although slightly different language regarding core competency is incorporated in the evaluation forms of all Council appointees.
Mr. McGlumphy reiterated his concern regarding making the evaluation process too cumbersome and requested that Mrs. Hawkins equate time frames with requirements to provide input.
Mr. Leary moved to table further consideration of the MAG study until the next Committee meeting scheduled for July 13, 2009, seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried.
Mr. Leary moved for adjournment, seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:01 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
William P. McGlumphy
Chairman
WPM/JS/ac/tm
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20096-22-2009 LF&A.wpd
Attachment
Attachment #1 - MAG Phase II - Organization of Recommendations