LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on February 23, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. with Chairman Slavin presiding. Members present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Salters, Dr. Jones, and Mr. Shevock. Other members of Council present were Mr. Leary, Mrs. Russell (arrived at 6:36 p.m.), Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Williams (arrived at 5:11 p.m.), Council President Hogan, and Mayor Carey (arrived at 5:07 p.m.).
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried.
Proposed Amendments to the City of Dover Charter - Article I - General Provisions, Article II - Mayor and Council, Article III - City Manager, Article IV - Financial Affairs
Mrs. McDowell, City Clerk, reminded members that in October 2007, the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee began a comprehensive review of the recommendations of the 2005 Charter Review Committee. The committee’s recommendations were then forwarded to City Council for consideration and adoption.
Members were provided with proposed amendments to the City of Dover Charter (and code where necessary) that will implement the recommendations of the 2005 Charter Review Committee and the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, as previously approved by City Council. Mrs. McDowell reviewed typographical corrections, as well as additional amendments suggested by Deputy City Solicitor Pepper, that have been included in the proposed amendments.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Dover Charter and adoption by City Council of the subsequent Resolution requesting the General Assembly to amend the City Charter.
In response to Dr. Jones, Mrs. McDowell felt that since the additional amendments suggested by Deputy City Solicitor Pepper have been included in the proposed amendments, members would not be required to take specific action regarding those additional amendments.
With regards to Section 18 - Ordinances Authorized; Maximum Penalty for Violation, Mr. Slavin suggested that members take action to clarify the issue regarding the $1,000 cap on fines.
Mr. Shevock moved to recommend replacing the words “provided that no fine or penalty shall exceed the sum of $1,000.00;” from Section 18 (lines 620 and 621) with “as penalties will be provided by the Code”. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Mr. Ruane noted that Section 50 - Debt Limit is not reflected in the proposed amendments and questioned the procedures for consideration of the Charter amendments. Mrs. McDowell confirmed that the Debt Limit and Tax Assessor sections were not included in the proposed amendments submitted at this time. Mr. Slavin further explained that although action regarding the Debt Limit and Tax Assessor sections has already been taken, it was decided that all amendments would be submitted to the General Assembly at the same time.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. McDowell indicated that when the proposed amendments are presented to Council for their review and consideration, it will be presented in an acceptable format for submission to the General Assembly.
In response to Council President Hogan, Mrs. McDowell stated that the ordinances included in the material for amending the Dover Code are presented for informational purposes only at this time. She explained that upon final action by Council regarding the Charter amendments, the ordinances amending the Dover Code will be presented for further consideration.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Dover Charter, as amended, and adoption of the Resolution requesting the General Assembly to amend the City Charter (Attachment #1). The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.
Proposed Amendments to Training, Conferences, and Travel Policy
Members reviewed proposed amendments to the Training, Conferences, and Travel Policy, which were reviewed by Mrs. Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer.
Referring to page 6, Mr. Salters relayed objections to reducing the meal allowance by 25% if a Continental Breakfast is provided by the hotel or conference.
Mrs. Mitchell requested that “Valet parking, unless required for medical reasons” on page 9 (item #3-n) be deleted since it has already been included on page 8 (item #h-2). She also requested that the first paragraph on page 10, item L - Review and Revisions, read as follows: “The City of Dover Travel Policy will be reviewed every three years by the City Manager, Controller/Treasurer and City Clerk and provide recommended changes to City Council for approval”.
In response to Mr. Salters, Mrs. Mitchell stated that any incidentals that are not listed in the policy do not qualify for reimbursement.
Mr. McGiffin stated his concern regarding the tone of the policy as it would impact someone who may have a mobility disability, such as the reference to walking distance, valet parking, lodging in general, etc. He stated that the language may make the City vulnerable if there is an employee who has a mobility issue and wishes to travel. He felt that the policy may be written too narrowly to address the needs of employees with a mobility disability.
Responding, Mrs. Mitchell noted that the policy mentioned “exceptions” (see fifth paragraph on page 1), that require approval by the City Manager and Controller/Treasurer.
Similarly, Mrs. Williams expressed concern that the policy does not take into consideration meal alternatives or exceptions for those employees that may have illnesses such a diabetes.
Mr. DePrima suggested that staff could include a “Special Needs” clause or general disclaimer to cover the entire policy and have it completed when the committee’s recommendation is presented to City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Training, Conferences, and Travel Policy, as recommended by staff (Attachment #2). The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.
Implementation of MAG Report - Phase I and Presentation of Phase II
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 Evaluation system that is currently utilized for all non-bargaining employees. In September 2008, MAG presented its findings for Phase 1 of the study, which focused on the classification and compensation of positions and employees. The Phase 1 report was reviewed at the October 13, 2008 Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee meeting, where it was recommended that July 1, 2008 salary increases be included in the study. That recommendation has been completed and is reflected in the MAG Final Salary Implementation Report dated February 11, 2009, which was provided to members.
In addition to the MAG Final Salary Implementation Report, members were provided a Proposed Pay Plan, Recommended Pay Grade Changes; and Class Evaluations List. Mr. DePrima noted that the Phase II Report for the Review and Evaluation of the PFP Evaluation System to the City of Dover is being presented for informational purposes only at this time. He explained that staff will be bringing forward implementation recommendations of Phase II for the committee’s review and consideration at a later time.
Mr. DePrima advised members that MAG has reviewed the salary ranges for each pay grade. MAG evaluated the placement of positions in the new ranges and has recommended that 30 positions be regraded: five (5) positions downgraded and 25 positions upgraded. He stated that MAG recommended that the salaries of four (4) employees be increased; however, he noted that only three (3) salary increases are recommended. He explained that although the IT Director was recommended for a small increase, since he currently receives an additional two (2) weeks of vacation leave, which was approved by Council on August 13, 2003, the vacation was in place of the monetary increase. The two (2) weeks of vacation was not reflected in the salary that MAG was provided for analysis of the IT Director’s compensation.
Mr. DePrima stated that if MAG’s recommendations are accepted, the Human Resources Department will be responsible for updating the job descriptions for positions in which the pay grade was changed. This will be accomplished by using a grading system that evaluates each position in 15 categories as shown. He also indicated that MAG has recommended that the title of the Planning and Inspections Director be changed to Planning and Community Development Director, which is due to the result of the Economic Development Division being assigned to this position in July 2008.
Staff recommended implementation of Phase I of the MAG Report, as follows: 1) Adoption of salary ranges for each grade; 2) Adoption of recommended grade changes for 30 positions and salary adjustments for three (3) positions; 3) Adoption of the market adjustments to the salaries of the City Manager, Parks and Recreation Director, and Director of Planning and Inspections effective January 1, 2009; and 4) Change in title of Planning and Inspections Director to Planning and Community Development Director.
With regards to recommendation #3 - the market adjustments to the salaries for the City Manager, Parks and Recreation Director, and Director of Planning and Inspections, Mr. DePrima noted the memorandum submitted from these individuals requesting that the salary adjustments be withdrawn from consideration at this time. He explained that these individuals understand the City’s current fiscal situation and desire to be a part of a solution. However, he stated that it is felt that the recommendations are valid and should be considered in the fiscal year 2009/2010 Budget.
Mr. McGlumphy reminded members that the review and evaluation of the Pay for Performance Evaluation system was initiated by a request of the City Manager for City Council to consider regrading 20 non-bargaining positions (considered during the committee meeting of April 14, 2008). During the committee meeting of May 27, 2008, the City Manager recommended withdrawing that proposal and that MAG be requested to review all (estimated 84) non-bargaining positions. Noting that the final report provides for only three (3) adjustments, Mr. McGlumphy stated that if the City were to approve the original request of staff, it would have been a mistake (since 17 additional positions would have been inappropriately adjusted).
Since that time, Mr. McGlumphy stated that members received a draft report from MAG on July 21, 2008, which included adjustments to the salary levels of 24 positions; a second draft submitted on August 18, 2008 indicated salary adjustment for 22 positions; and then a final report included salary adjustments for 17 positions which consisted of the salary increases that were provided for last fiscal year. Now he stated that the completed final report consists of only three (3) salary adjustments. Responding, Mr. DePrima explained that the three (3) remaining salary adjustments are due to the 17 completed salary adjustments that were instituted July 1, 2008.
In response to Mr. McGlumphy regarding the expenditure required in the amount of $8,860 to be obtained from available funds in the budget balance, Mr. DePrima stated that these funds would not be necessary if staff’s request to withdraw the recommendation for the market adjustments to the salaries for the City Manager, Parks and Recreation Director, and Director of Planning and Inspections is approved.
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy in regards to the recommended grade changes, Mr. DePrima explained that such changes do not equate to an automatic salary increase. He reiterated that there are no percentage increases proposed and that, with the exception of the three (3) market adjustments mentioned, there are no salary increases proposed as a result of the recommended grade changes.
In response to concerns of time constraints and there being additional items requiring review of members, Mr. McGlumphy indicated that he has many more questions regarding Phase I that could result in several hours of clarification.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to table implementation of Phase I of the MAG Report, due to time constraints, to allow for the presentation of Phase II of the MAG Report. The motion was seconded by Dr. Jones.
Mr. Slavin suggested that Mr. McGlumphy submit his questions in writing to staff and that members be provided the questions and responses.
Mrs. Williams relayed concern with the limitation of a questioning and answering period, explaining the need for this matter to be fully vetted by members. Responding, Mr. Slavin assured members that any additional questions resulting from further discussions would be permitted.
The motion to table the implementation of Phase I of the MAG Report until the next meeting of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee was carried with Mr. Slavin voting no.
Mr. Slavin moved for a 5-minute recess, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Meeting recessed at 6:22 p.m. and reconvened at 6:24 p.m.
Presentation of Phase II - MAG Report
Mr. DePrima introduced Dr. Long, Executive Vice President of Management Advisory Group, Inc. (MAG), who reviewed a Presentation of the Phase II Report for the Review and Evaluation of the PFP Evaluation System to the City of Dover (Attachment #3). He noted that this initial report is labeled as Part Two of Two for the project and explained that it focuses on the elements that were agreed to in revisions to the original work plan, including the review of the performance evaluation aspect of the project. Part One focused on the classification and compensation elements. He advised members that this report reflects input from the City Council, department heads, and employees during a series of meetings conducted on-site.
Dr. Jones relayed concurrence with the change to the rating category “good” to “meets expectations” since she felt that “meets expectations” is measurable. However, she questioned if “commendable” is measurable and suggested that it be “exceeds expectations”. Responding to her questions regarding the rating category “results rarely achieved by others”, Dr. Long stated that “others” would represents those employees of the City of Dover. As such, he concurred that this would require a rater to be knowledgeable of all employees.
Mr. McGlumphy referred to the PFP Score ranges and suggested that there be a 10 point range for “meets expectations” and “commendable”, and that the range for “results rarely achieved by others” should be 46-50, rather than 41-50. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that the ranges were adjusted downward since it was near impossible for an employee to obtain a score between 46-50. As the normalization scores were reviewed, he stated that staff developed a score curve to allow some employees to fall within the highest range.
Mr. Shevock moved to recommend acceptance of Phase II of the MAG Report as presented, seconded by Mr. Salters.
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin indicated that the recommendation for acceptance of the Report will be forwarded to City Council for final approval.
The motion to recommend acceptance of Phase II of the MAG Report as presented was unanimously carried.
Moratorium on Hiring and Process for Exemptions
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, advised members that in December 2008, due to the lagging revenues and concern for meeting this year’s budget goals, he requested that all Department Heads refrain from hiring vacant positions unless it was considered mission critical. In others words, without the position, a critical aspect of the department’s mission could not be fulfilled. He stated that by continuing this policy more formally, it would allow better flexibility in developing next year’s budget. For example, he explained that the City may be able to eliminate a position without having to lay off an employee. In addition, through immediate savings, the City will be better able to meet this year’s budget goals.
Traditionally all departments, with the exception of the Police Department when hiring uniformed officers, would fill out the Permission to Recruit form and complete a Hiring Justification Outline. Mr. DePrima advised members that these forms are generally signed by the City Manager for departments assigned to him, by the Council President for Council Appointee Departments, and the Mayor for the Police. Once the forms are completed, the Human Resources Department begins the recruitment and hiring process.
Thus far, Mr. DePrima noted that there is one (1) vacancy being held open in each of the following departments: Library, Assessor’s Office, Customer Service, Water Construction, and the Electric Division. He stated that two (2) positions were considered mission critical: 1) The Council President has signed a “Permission to Recruit” form for an Accountant II in the Finance Department; and 2) The Mayor has signed a “Permission to Recruit” form for a uniformed Police Officer. An offer has been made to a potential candidate for the Police officer position.
Mr. DePrima suggested that in order to bring more inter-departmental uniformity as to what is “mission critical”, a review panel consisting of the Mayor, Council President, and City Manager is warranted. He explained that this would also serve as a good check and balance, and allow different points of view to be considered. This panel could meet and act quickly allowing for the timely hiring of mission critical positions during the hiring freeze.
Staff recommended approval of the hiring freeze for fiscal year 2009-2010, but to allow the hiring of critical positions through the review and approval of the Hiring Review Committee, which will be comprised of the Mayor, the Council President, and the City Manager.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima stated that staff’s recommendation is for the approval of a hiring freeze, which would make it official, and also the creation of a mechanism to allow for critical positions to be hired. He clarified that the positions approved by the Mayor and Council President were replacements and did not allow for the hiring of additional employees.
Mr. Leary felt that a hiring freeze is a “Fait accompli” particularly in this environment. Alluding to their being previous discussion regarding this matter during the recent Council Retreat, of which he was not in attendance, Mr. Leary objected to the creation of a special committee since it was his opinion that there would be no position that could not wait two (2) weeks in order for the matter to be brought before the committee for their review and recommendation to Council.
Concurring, Mrs. Williams also felt that the recommendation would place the Mayor in a position of dictating to Council, which is not permitted in accordance with the City Charter. She stated that it would also put the Council President in a unique position whereby he would be voting on a position against the wishes of a majority of Council.
In order to avoid issues involving notice of agenda items, Mr. Slavin suggested that there could 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. Ruane relayed his concurrence with these matters being brought before the committee for their review and recommendation to City Council. He noted that staff’s recommendation is for approval of the hiring freeze for fiscal year 2009-2010 and questioned if it should be effective for fiscal year 2008-2009. Responding, Mr. DePrima confirmed that there was a typographical error and that the hiring freeze should be effective for fiscal year 2008-2009.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend approval of the Hiring Freeze for Fiscal Year 2008-2009, but allow the hiring of critical positions through the review and approval of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and City Council. The motion was seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried.
Request for Authorization to Pay for Youth Advisory Council to Attend March 2009 Delaware League of Local Governments Meeting
Mrs. Russell submitted a request for members of the newly created Youth Advisory Council to be permitted to attend the March 2009 Delaware League of Local Governments meeting. Members were advised that there are 14 members and that the registration fee would be $20 per attendee, for a total of $280. Each year, funds are budgeted for City Council’s Training, Conferences, and Travel and for fiscal year 2008/2009, an amount of $15,381 was budgeted for this purpose. The balance for the remainder of the year is currently $8,966.
Mrs. Russell requested that the City Clerk be authorized to register and pay for the Youth Advisory Council to attend the March 2009 Delaware League of Local Governments Meeting.
Mr. McGlumphy relayed support for the request, explaining the importance of involving the youth in City government, and that the request is a mechanism to involve the youth at a minimal cost.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend approval of Mrs. Russell’s request, seconded by Mr. Salters.
Mrs. Williams suggested that Mayor Wright with the Delaware League of Local Governments be contacted to determine if a discount could be provided.
Mr. Salters suggested that the City develop a budget for the Youth Advisory Council, explaining that Council needs to determine expenses in advance.
The motion to recommend that the City Clerk be authorized to register and pay for the Youth Advisory Council to attend the March 2009 Delaware League of Local Governments Meeting, at a cost of $280, was unanimously carried.
Mr. Shevock moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:06 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Timothy A. Slavin
Chairman
TAS/AC/TM/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20092-23-2009 LF&A.wpd
Attachments
Attachment #1 - Resolution requesting the General Assembly to amend the City Charter
Attachment #2 - Proposed Amendments to the Training, Conferences, and Travel Policy
Attachment #3 - Presentation of the Phase II Report for the Review and Evaluation of the PFP Evaluation System to the City of Dover