HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 3/1/2004 - Finance and Personnel Committee FINANCE AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday,March 1, 2004
Aldermen's Conference Room,6:30 p.m.
�
In Attendance: Committee Members: Chairman Alderman Murgatroyd, Alderman
Bolger, Alderman Peterson. Also in Attendance: Mayor Low, City Administrator Maxeiner,
Assistant City Administrator Lockerby, Director of Finance Kline, City Clerk Jones. Director of
Community Development arrived at 7:00 p.m., City Attorney McArdle arrived at 7:10 p.m.,
Alderman Condon arrived at 7:15 p.m.
Chairman Alderman Murgatroyd called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Continued Discussion• Modifications to Personnel Policv and Procedures Manual
Chairman Murgatroyd requested Assistant Administrator Lockerby initiate continued discussions
regarding proposed modifications to the City's Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual.
Assistant Administrator Lockerby stated he would specifically be addressing two outstanding
issues concerning the Vacation Program and Uniform Clothing Allowance.
Sect. 19 Vacation Program.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding the desirability to amend the vacation
program prior to 2005 collective bargaining demands. Alderman Bolger reiterated
that the City's existing vacation policy is adequate, but if any modifications are to
be made they should be concunent with collective bargaining discussions. In
response to an inquiry, City Administrator Maxeiner stated using the current
�, number of employees altering the vacation program would add approximately 30
days annually to the status quo.
Benefit McHen Surve ed Munici alities
Vacation 8 service years= 3 weeks 5.25 service years= 3 weeks
Time 15 years=4 weeks 11.67 years=4 weeks
25 years= 5 weeks 18 years = 5 weeks (note: five of the
communities do not rovide 5 weeks)
Personal Time 4 da s Avera e= 2.8 da s
Holidays Non-Union and PW= 8 days Average= 8.9 days
FOP I and II= 8.5 days
Vacation Option A Option B Option C
Accrual Status Quo Accelerated& 5 Week Less A��ressive
10 days Less than 8 years <5 years <6 years
15 da.ys 8 yrs.but<15 yrs. 5-11 yrs. 6-12 yrs.
20 days 15 Yrs.but<21 yrs. 12 but<19 yrs. 13 but<20 yrs.
21 days 21 Yrs.but<22 yrs. N/A N/A
22 days 22 Yrs.but<23 yrs. N/A N/A
23 days 23 Yrs.but<24 yrs. N/A N/A
24 days 24 Yrs.but<25 yrs. N/A N/A
25 days 25 Yrs.or more 19 years 20 years
� Following a discussion regarding the merits of each of the programs presented,
Option B versus a less aggressive program, Option C, Alderman Peterson opined
he is more inclined to support Option C.
Finance and Personnel Committee Meeting
March 1, 2004
Page 2
L
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Murgatroyd to recommend Option C of the proposed
vacation program be presented to Council for approval.
Voting Aye: Murgatroyd, Peterson.
Voting Nay: Bolger.
Motion carried.
Sect. 25 Clothing/Uniform Allowance.
Alderman Bolger continued to express his displeasure with the existing provision for
clothing/uniform allowances for non-field personnel. Responding to an inquiry, City
Administrator Maxeiner reiterated the clothing allowance is applicable to approximately 25
employees and represents approximately $8,750 of the City's annual budget. Included in those
25 employees are all non-union, non-department head personnel, such as Police Sergeants,
Community Development employees, Public Works non-union employees, Parks and Recreation
non-union employees, etc. He noted that although not a11 employees are required to wear a
uniform, specific minimum standards of dress aze required of all.
Assistant City Administrator Lockerby outlined the five options suggested by Staff for the
Committees consideration.
�
Option 1: Eliminate the uniform allowance for non-union employees resulting in:.
• Elimination of an annual expenditure of approximately $10,000.
• Upsetting employees.
• Creating a discrepancy between supervisors and union employees.
Option 2: Eliminate the uniform allowance for non-union employees except supervisors of
union employees or employees that wear a uniform resulting in:
• Ensuring that only positions requiring special identification aids in order to complete
their job duties are eligible for the program.
• Addressing concerns that the allowance was not intended to reimburse for clothes.
Option 3: Restructure the clothing allowance to replace the reimbursement process with one
annual check to the employee resulting in.
• Reduction in stafftime required to review and process clothing reimbursement requests.
• No savings in City expenditures.
Option 4: Phase out the reimbursement program - any new non-union employees that do not
wear uniforms should be ineligible for clothing uniform allowance resulting in:
• Phasing out an outdated benefit
• Addressing concerns that allowance was not intended to reimburse for clothes.
�., Option 5: Retain the Status Quo resulting in:
• Not addressing the concerns that the policy no longer addresses its original purpose of
providing uniforms for city employees.
Finance and Personnel Committee Meeting
March 1, 2004
Page 3
�
• Maintains popular benefit with employees.
Responding to an inquiry, Finance Director Kline summarized the current method in effect for
tracking the amount spent annually by each individual entitled to the benefit. She stated the
current method is time consuming and cumbersome. Alderman Peterson opined he was in favor
of simplifying the process.
City Attorney McArdle arrived at 7:10 p.m.
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Bolger, to recommend to Council a combination of
Options 4 and 3 as follows:
• Phase out the reimbursement program: any new non-union employee that does not wear a
uniform shall be ineligible for the clothing uniform allowance.
• Restructure the existing clothing allowance for non-union employees by providing either
an annual check or semi-annual checks, to eligible employees.
Aye: Bolger, Murgatroyd, Peterson.
Nay: None.
Motion carried.
Discussion: Cauital Develonment Fees
L. City Administrator Maxeiner informed the Committee that with the recent capital
improvement projects for the water and sewer system, either recently or currently bid,
infrastructure improvement costs are available to compare to those figures used in calculating the
existing capital development fees. He noted these fees were last examined in 1999 for water and
1997 for sewer.
Staff opined that new development is not contributing enough toward the expansion of
water and wastewater utility infrastructure to accommodate new growth. Additionally, Staff
would like to explore the possibility of establishing additional fees for other municipal capital
expansion.
Staff is requesting authorization from the Committee to solicit an engineering proposal
from Baater and Woodman to update the justification for water and sewer capital development
fees and, once prepared, to submit the engineering proposal to Council for approval and
authorization to investigate additional capital development fees which could be established.
Alderman Bolger stated he would like to review the matter further prior to taking action. City
Administrator M�einer noted there were some time constraints involved. A brief discussion
ensued.
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Murgatroyd, to authorize Staff to solicit an engineering
proposal from Ba�er and Woodman to update the justification for water and sewer capital
development fees and, once prepared, to submit the engineering proposal to Council for approval
� and authorization to investigate additional capital development fees w�►ich could be re�'tablished
Finance and Personnel Committee Meeting
March 1, 2004
Page 4
�
Aye: Bolger, Murgatroyd, Peterson.
Nay: None.
Motion carried.
Adiournment
Motion by Petf:rson, seconded by Murgatroyd, to adjourn the meeting at 7:28 p.m.
All ayes. Motion carried. ,
Respectfully submitted,
(� .
Steven C. Murgatroyd, Chai an
�
�