Loading...
FM20050406 CITY OF MUSKEGO Approved, as corrected, 4/12/05 FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES Wednesday, April 6, 2005 7:00 PM Muskego City Hall, Aldermen’s Room W182 S8200 Racine Ave. Mayor Slocomb called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. In attendance were Committee Members Ald. Madden, Ald. Salentine and Ald. Schroeder, and those per attached sheet, including Chief John Johnson and Interim Plan Director Jeff Muenkel. Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The meeting was posted in accordance with the Open Meeting Law on April 1, 2005. REVIEW OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the March 22, 2005 Finance Committee Meeting were reviewed. Ald. Salentine moved to approve the minutes. Seconded by Ald. Madden. Ald. Schroeder entered correction for page 1 under Annual Review and Proposed Revisions of Job Descriptions, first paragraph, change 60 to 61. Motion to approve the minutes as corrected carried 3-0. LICENSE APPROVALS Ald. Salentine moved to recommend approval of Class B Operator’s License for Tommie Lee Petersen, Stacey Meinen and Robert Sytsma subject to receipt of fees, favorable police report, and verification of schooling. Seconded by Ald. Madden. Motion carried 3-0. Ald. Salentine moved to recommend approval of Operator’s License for Nancy Kerns subject to receipt of fees, favorable police report, and verification of schooling. Seconded by Ald. Madden. Motion carried 3-0. Temporary Class “B” License – St. Leonard Congregation – 4/16/2005 – St. Leonard Congregation submitted an application for a Temporary Class “B” License for a “Vegas Night” to be held on April 16, 2005. The requested time, 6:00 PM to 11:30 PM, includes set up and clean up. This event is similar to one the church had in the past; no underage persons allowed. Ald. Salentine moved to recommend approval of a Temporary Class “B” Retailers License for St. Leonard Congregation for the event to be held April 16, 2005. Seconded by Ald. Madden. Motion carried 3-0. PERIODIC LICENSE REVIEW--None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Annual Review and Proposed Revisions of Job Descriptions—Plan Department Committee members were in receipt of additional information on job points. Ald. Schroeder explained he looked at the job description, position itself and the point assessment itself. He was not comfortable with the numbers being requested. The information that was provided was good information and basically what they needed to do is look at the job description and the responsibilities of that job in question. He looked at other job descriptions that concerned him when looking at what is being proposed. The ones that concerned him were Deputy Clerk, Patrol Sergeant, Utility Foreman with the Utility Foreman and Patrol Sergeant supervising people and the Deputy Clerk definitely has Finance Committee Meeting April 6, 2005 - Page 2 some interesting job responsibilities and a wide variety of job responsibilities and problem solving; another concern was the accountant. In looking at the problem resolution and the authority and responsibility numbers for those four as compared to what is being proposed, he was not comfortable. The numbers did not work for him. Ald. Salentine mentioned that in March 2004 to take the Deputy Treasurer from 61 to 81 and stated he seconded that motion by Ald. Petfalski. She mentioned that the documents signed by the Plan Secretary are important documents that are filed with the county, they need her signature, and the mayor’s signature, or the acting mayor’s signature, it’s a heavy-duty responsibility. Ald. Schroeder stated the Deputy Clerk is at 70 in authority and responsibility. Ald. Salentine said they told department heads to bring them forward and they would look at them on an individual basis. If there is an employee in another department that feels slighted, the employee needs to talk to the department head and have the department head bring it forward. She asked if he thought it was too high, what did he think it should be? Looking at the AFSCME pay plan, Ald. Schroeder said starting with Parks and Recreation Secretary through Utility/Refuse/Recycling Clerk basically the point set up for those are identical with the difference of problem resolution on three of them are slightly lower and looking at the job description on three or four of the six, very similar job descriptions and responsibilities. They have deadlines that they have to meet; they all have the responsibility. Interim Plan Director Muenkel stated that the hang up was the authority and responsibility and this was not because of being notary signatures, but because signatory authority for certified survey maps (CSM), some plats and conditional use grants that go to the county. The Plan Secretary has to sign off on those and make sure all the contingencies were met by Plan Commission or Common Council on those documents. The associate planner or the interim director does not have this authority to sign off on the documents. Ald. Schroeder summed up that that portion of the job is the authority and responsibility is in excess of even the associate planner’s. Interim Plan Director Muenkel stated that authority and responsibility has to do with long-term effects to the organization. There could be a detrimental effect from the position based on the decisions made. Ald. Schroeder mentioned the first request was to move to 70; then a second request to go to 81. Interim Plan Director Muenkel said this was with the addition of the signatory authority. Ald Schroeder thought the biggest disparity was the Deputy Clerk has a lot of signatory authority in her job description. Mayor Slocomb stated this was true in her capacity when she is working as clerk. Ald. Schroeder said that could happen any day of the year and the Mayor concurred. The authority and responsibility for that position is 70. Ald. Salentine asked if he felt the clerk needed to bring that forward? He clarified that if the clerk is comfortable with the 70 for the deputy clerk, he was looking for justification for the other one. He predicted that there is going to be eight requests in the next month or two. Ald. Salentine said the department heads were requested to look at them annually and the Finance Committee would look at them one at a time. Ald. Schroeder said they would be directly related to what is occurring at this meeting going from a Grade 14 to Grade 15. Ald. Salentine said that due to a department head’s lack of initiative, the position hasn’t been reviewed since 1996. Ald. Schroeder asked for an explanation in the increase in the problem resolution, going from a 53 to a 61? Interim Plan Director Muenkel could not explain it without the salary plan sheets. Ald. Schroeder said basically there was no added responsibility for problem resolution; it was just a reevaluation of the current job description. Interim Plan Director Muenkel had no real clear answer, but mentioned it was based on text in the sheets. Mayor Slocomb mentioned the training that needs to be gone through to get an understanding and that was last done in any form back in 1998 or 1999. Ald. Schroeder stated that not being through that, he tried to compare job descriptions and duties. In looking at this, he noted that the Plan Secretary had higher problem resolution points than the Associate Planner and this did not make sense to him. He indicated that 90% of the Associate Planner’s job is problem resolution. Ald. Madden asked if the Plan Finance Committee Meeting April 6, 2005 - Page 3 Secretary cannot sign off on the documents for some reason, who does that? Ald. Salentine said they would take them to her home. Ald. Madden asked if that was a State statute? Mayor Slocomb thought it was under 236 or 620.25 as that position is the recording secretary for the Plan Commission. Another point that Ald. Schroeder made was he was not a firm believer in the point and grade system. It probably was good in its infancy but as time goes on, you run into discrepancies. Ald. Madden admitted that she does not know anything about anyone’s job and she relies on what the department head says. Based on where the points are at and comparing the job descriptions, Ald. Schroeder said he would feel comfortable leaving the problem resolution at 53 and raising the authority and responsibility from 61 to 70. The committee determining this was the Mayor, the Clerk, Cathy Anderson and the department head. Ald. Schroeder said he had an issue with justifying in his mind that the position of Plan Secretary has the same responsibility and authority of Police Sergeant. This is based on reading the police sergeant’s job description and the proposed planning secretary’s and when he cross- referenced them, the authority and responsibility was not the same. Ald. Salentine stated that the committee did not analyze or compare the job description with other positions, just on the one. Ald. Schroeder stated that if the system works, when you get the outcome, it should all cross-reference each other. Ald. Salentine did not agree. Ald. Schroeder made a motion to leave problem resolution at 53 unchanged and raise the authority and responsibility from 61 to 70. Ald. Madden seconded. Mrs. Dunahee addressed the committee and said no one discussed what the strict guidelines were, whether by State Statute or City ordinance or just a department deadline. They did discuss that the signatory documents are county related. She pointed out that the Board of Canvassers met and that is county related. The documents have to be over to the county by tomorrow morning. Other departments also have strict deadlines. Also, how come the points have been changed since the 3/22 meeting? And, also a job responsibility has been deleted. More points and less responsibility. What is the justification? She hand out another blended job description showing the current, the 3/22 revised and now the 4/6. In looking at the blended job description, she also noted some of the duties have been a part of the job description since 1996, only the phraseology has been changed, giving the impression that a new duty/responsibility has been added when it actually has not. The same duties were there in 1996 and the Plan Secretary signed off on it so basically the job has not changed. Not only with the EEO/Affirmative Action Policy, Mrs. Dunahee pointed out that the Salary Administration Program so states under Goals of the New Salary Plan *Achieve internal equity…we want to reward equal work with equal pay and to relate the dollars offered in different pay ranges to the size of the job (measured in job element points) so that as measured job size increases, employees positions are assigned to proportionately larger salary ranges” Again, if you are going to award the points to the Plan Secretary for strict deadlines and being a signatory on documents, then in keeping with the Salary Administration Program, to award the same points to the job descriptions that have deadlines and a deadline is a deadline; the administration shouldn’t minimize the deadlines that are set in other departments as all the deadlines have an impact on the city government; the Board of Canvassers for example is one but there are many others AND to award the same points to the job descriptions that signatures on these documents constitute contracts with another party, are you willing to tell someone that the document they received from the city is less important than another document because in your mind it has no monetary value. At 3/22 finance, she had requested to know what points were assigned to what duty and still has not received an answer? This in order to feedback to employees as the administration has failed to carry out another point of the Salary Administration Program that being “Be communicated and understood by City employees…People have a right to know how their salary plan works, and how it Finance Committee Meeting April 6, 2005 - Page 4 affects them…individually and personally, and what voice they or other employees have in the overall salary administration process.” The employee has to know and understand this salary plan to determine whether a new duty is just another method of application or qualifies for an increase in point value. It has been almost a decade and this still needs to be communicated and understood by the employees. Past practice, the job position if approved, would be for 2006. The administration has not carried out this promise to the employees. Even the aldermen don’t understand it. How can you vote on something you don’t understand? The employees have to rely on four people and yet, when it came to the department heads, the administration brought in a consultant to evaluate theirs. At this point, Mayor Slocomb spoke to Mrs. Dunahee, referring to the pay for performance plan, which wasn’t even the point of discussion at this meeting, claiming that the union would not accept the program as they had the right to bargain over wages and working conditions. Therefore, he indicated that the administration was not going to go through hours and hours of explanation on how the program works, it’s not going to happen. Mrs. Dunahee was speaking on behalf of all the employees including Chief Johnson. The aldermen don’t understand it and they are employees of the city. Ald. Schroeder did say that he based his information on was internally making this process equal. In trying to keep internally equal, he compared job description with job description and points assessed as to points assessed. This is how he arrived at where he thought it was most responsible; not being formally trained. In order to make this program work, it has to be internally equal. The things he was pointing out was inequities internally. He did feel comfortable with the 53 and 70 which came as close to being internally equal as possible. He did not see any information that showed problem resolution had increased where it was level with the Associate Planner. From the information provided to him, he did see that there possible was an increase in authority and responsibility but not to the level of the Accountant’s level of authority and responsibility. Mayor Slocomb stated that when you get to authority and responsibility on a job description, you use an economic measurement. If someone fails to do a job, what is the potential economic impact to the city? In weighing the balance, Ald. Schroeder asked what is the impact of a police sergeant’s authority and responsibility being compromised, or failing to do the job? He thought the impact for the sergeant and the accountant would be very high. It all goes back to internal equity. He recommended that when the committee reviews job description that they also look at internal equity. Mayor Slocomb said they look at internal equity from a compensation standpoint not on the individual point assignments. In 1998-99, points generate ultimately into an original compensation scale and there was a formula-driven basis to get there. Depending on the classes of positions, the formula was different. The base adders and the dollars per point were different. That establishes compensation. Even though the points of two different positions may come out to be the same in authority and responsibility because of the potential of economic consequences of failing to do the job; how far can it get through the system before it is caught? He continued, that on the accountant it is not going to get very far as it will either get caught by the finance director or during the audit process. He said that the city has contacted the human resource firm that they now work with to have them give the city a proposal to go over the program with at least the Finance Committee but maybe all of Council, special Committee of the Whole, to go through this whole situation. Any changes you would make to positions, we typically don’t change compensation in the middle of the year. When dealing with the represented positions, the city takes that back to the unions. Ald Schroeder said if it wouldn’t go into effect until January 1, 2006, why not defer it until they get formal training so they understand it? Mayor Slocomb explained the bargaining process and the time frame. Ald. Madden stated she did not understand it and did not understand the point system. Ald. Salentine said that even when it is presented, some do not understand it. Ald. Madden Finance Committee Meeting April 6, 2005 - Page 5 indicated she has confidence in the department heads doing what they feel is the right thing and that is what she uses in her judgment. Ald. Schroeder asked if they received the impromptu formal training, would it be beneficial to get the overview before making any further decision? Ald. Salentine inquired when they would hear from the human resource firm? Mayor Slocomb hoped to have a response by early next week. Ald. Salentine said to make the position wait because we have a problem because we don’t understand the system, it doesn’t make sense. Ald. Schroeder said it wasn’t waiting because it would not be in effect until January 1. Mayor Slocomb said they will have to present it to the union and it is part of the negotiations. Ald. Schroeder made a motion to defer until after they receive their formal training. No second to the motion. Motion to defer dies and the committee was back on the original motion. Mayor Slocomb did not think anything was lost in the deferred motion in that if after the overview, the Finance Committee decides that the 70 is in appropriate, then it can come back and make the adjustment then. Ald. Schroeder said that if someone is going to come in to give them an overview, it would be a good idea to have the department heads be involved. Mayor Slocomb said that is in the plan but theirs would be a more intense session and probably a half-day session. The aldermen would have the option to be included. Ald. Salentine called for the question. No objection to the call for the question. Upon a voice vote of 2 no (Ald. Madden, Ald. Salentine) and 1 yes (Ald. Schroeder), the motion did not pass. Ald. Salentine made the motion to recommend the 61 to 81 which the committee and the department head proposed. Ald. Madden seconded. No further discussion. Upon a voice vote with Ald. Salentine and Ald. Madden voting aye and Ald. Schroeder voting nay, the motion passed. Mayor Slocomb understood that based on the training, this can be reviewed again before it’s implemented. Ald. Schroeder said it was his understanding now that both the problem resolution and the authority and responsibility were increased. Mayor Slocomb affirmed and if there is no training and no other issues and no one readdresses this issue the first of next year or sometime in the late fall of this year, this will be presented to the union as is. He made the assumption that this would be revisited before that and this and a few other job descriptions will be gone over during the training process. NEW BUSINESS Approve of Bid for Police Department Generator Chief Johnson reviewed with the committee, the bid for the generator. The apparent low bidder is Hogan Electric from Hartford. They have completed several projects for the city in the past, including the Public Works generator modifications in 1999 and several lift station upgrades. The base bid totaled $56,800; however, there were several alternates that the city should review prior to the recommendation of the award. The first item is the generator size. The base bid was for a 150KW generator which is larger than the current building’s demand; however, this would allow for future growth and additional mechanical systems needs in the future. The alternate bid was for a 125KW generator, which is slightly larger than the peak demand needed today. The generator system specified requires the generator to be rated for continuous demand 125KW supply with 130KW peak. This 125KW generator set would give approximately 25% more energy supply than current needs, but would run at a higher efficiency rate verses a smaller unit. The second item to review is the owner purchase option of the bid. This would save the city approximately 5.6% on the tax and 3% for the municipal discount. He said the total project cost to the city would be $50,973.60. Ald., Salentine moved to recommend approval to the Common Council for the $51,000 expenditure and this would be with the city buying the equipment. Ald. Madden seconded. Chief Johnson advised that the budget, however, only contained $41,000. Mayor Slocomb indicated the amount of Finance Committee Meeting April 6, 2005 - Page 6 $10,000 could come either from capital fund project, but would it come from capital reserves or out of the current projects that would be under their budgeted amounts? He felt it would be from capital reserves. Ald. Madden expected the phone system to come in under budget. Ald. Schroeder asked if the transfer switch was included? Chief Johnson said it was included. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried 3-0. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS Review and approve maintenance agreement for smoke detector Library submitted a request for maintenance agreement on the smoke detectors in the amount of $1,342. This amount is the same as 2004. Ald. Salentine moved to recommend approval. Ald. Madden seconded. No discussion. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried 3-0. RELEASE OF FUNDS--None REDUCTION IN LETTER OF CREDIT - None VOUCHER APPROVAL – None FINANCE DIRECTOR’S REPORT - None COMMUNICATIONS AND ANY OTHER BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW – None ADJOURNMENT – Being no further business to discuss, Ald. Madden moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 PM. Seconded by Ald. Salentine. Motion carried 3-0. Stella Dunahee Recording Secretary