COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -Minutes 20101214
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE – CITY OF MUSKEGO (Approved)
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2010
Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Johnson, Aldermen Harenda, Borgman, Werner, Soltysiak, Schaumberg, Fiedler. Also
present Finance & Administration Director Sharon Mueller, Little Muskego Lake District
Representative Larry LeFebvre. Ald Snead was absent.
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
The meeting had been noticed in accordance with the Open Meeting Law.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no issues with the agenda items listed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ald.Schaumberg moved for approval of the November 23, 2010 minutes. Ald Fiedler seconded;
motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Little Muskego Lake District fees for City owned lots. Issue was brought up at budget time by
Ald Harenda & Ald Soltysiak. Ald. Harenda after reviewing the original resolution (#1783) that
was drafted in 1981/1982 would like to see the language defined in the agreement, specifically:
1. Make sure we have dates stated moving forward.
2. Not call it “special charges for weed cutting”.
He wants to discuss how to clarify this for current and future council members. Ald Werner
understands the request and stated that what the committee is looking for is clarification of the
lake fees and are not contesting assessments. He recapped prior discussions of the agreement
between the City & Lake District (intergovernmental agreement). Larry LeFebvre, President of
Little Muskego Lake District highlighted functions of the Lake District. The 15% that the City
pays of the Little Lake budget takes care of 16 accesses, 4 launches, Idle Isle beach, the dam
and City owned property within the watershed of the district. Committees have looked at
different ways of assessing the City for these services.
Understanding that the 15% is a fair percentage, Alderman Werner would like to clarify with a
resolution outlining what the district does and stating that 15% is a constant. Also, for budget
purposes would like to have an estimate of expenses by the end of August. Alderman Fielder
questioned what if the Lake District raises it budget by 50% in 5 or 10 years? Though that is
unlikely, there should be a limit on increases. Alderman Soltysiak suggested adopting a
resolution every year. Ald Fiedler suggested doing it once and adjusting if needed for capital
purchases, equipment or a land purchase, which would spike the budget. Currently of the
$300,000 budget, $45,000 is the City portion. Mayor Johnson stated that the only way to lock in
would be through a contract not a resolution. Next council could change the agreement and
Committee of the Whole meeting page 2
December 14, 2010
percentage amount. Lake District representatives stated that this year there was a 6% decrease
in the budget – previous budgets have had double-digit increases due to large purchases. The
Little Lake budget is approved by district membership. They verified that no major capital
purchases are planned in next 5 years with the exception of a cutter but should have sufficient
funding from grants, DNR and Conservation monies. Mayor Johnson asked that the lake district
supply a list of services to be included in the resolution. Council is looking for a resolution
capsizing the services that the district does for the 15%.
2. Non Rep salary plan. Mayor Johnson gave an overview of the history and rational behind the
Merit Program (see attached memo). Since the late 1990’s non-represented City employees
have been compensated under a pay for performance (PFP) salary plan as an alternative to the
traditional step plan that was in effect up to that time. Rewarding employees for their work effort
and not only their tenure with the City. An outside consultant performed an extensive salary
study. Per resolution the salary scale is adjusted annually for inflation and provides for cost of
living adjustments (COLA). Employees are typically hired somewhere between the starting pay
and midpoint of their position. In addition to the COLA, the PFP plan provides employees a merit
increase annually based on a positive evaluation. This salary progression usually takes
approximately 10 years to accomplish in “normal” economic times.
Mayor Johnson feels that city has reneged on the agreement with non-represented employees
to provide a pay plan with the expectation to achieve maximum pay within a range over a 10
year time period. The City had been reducing the PFP annual percent several years before the
recession thus pushing their expectation of salary progression well beyond the 10 years.
He feels that there are inequities and we need to be aware that if we continue with the current
plan that there is a concern possibly in the future that the retention of key employees may be an
issue.
Three alternatives suggested by Mayor Johnson are:
1) PFP – continue with current plan and fund it at a constant rate.
2) Step – move to a step plan designed to achieve a percentage of market mid point with a
set number of years.
3) Step/Merit – Modified step plan that incorporates a step plan with a merit/performance
component
His recommendation is that the City split the non-represented employee’s into two categories:
1. Management/Supervisory
2. Non-management/Supervisory
In his opinion a PFP plan for non-management employees is not in the City’s best interest. Goal
setting for employees who have little self direction and who are task oriented is difficult and
results in “creative goal setting” to complete the evaluation process. He suggests that non-
management/supervisor employees have set salary steps similar to union step plans for these
employees. Possibly have set salary steps (5-10 years) but use a traditional evaluation process
to proceed through the steps.
Management/Supervisory employees would continue to use the present evaluation process but
would have set salary steps (5-10 years) to a certain percentage of mid point. They would be
required to achieve a higher than average score to move to the next step on an annual basis.
Committee of the Whole meeting page 3
December 14, 2010
Once at the maximum level of pay or steps they would they would no longer receive step
increases but could receive additional off time if they continue to perform at an above average
level. The Mayor would like Council to look at this without doing another costly study.
Ald Harenda questioned how did the city renege? Mayor stated that the City never fully funded it
– currently funded only at about 1%. Ald Warner stated that non-reps are hired based on a
projected salary range and actually they are only receiving cost of living increases.
Ald Soltysiak asked what is the actual count of non-represented employees? Finance &
Administration Director Mueller stated that there are approximately 38 non-reps and about 1/3
of them are non supervisory. Ald Harenda questioned the impact on the budget? Director
Mueller to calculate the impact on the budget.
Ald Warner feels that in fairness to all this council being familiar with this issue should look at
this prior to the April election.
Administrative/Finance Director Mueller to bring back to the committee the actual count/ salary
range/ merit evaluation form and impact on budget.
ADJOURNMENT
Ald. Harenda moved to adjourn at 7:15 PM. Seconded by Ald. Fielder, motion carried
unanimously.
Minutes Transcribed by
Cindy Schweitzer