Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-170 1 Minutes of the Town Council Work Session held at 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, November 21, 2017 in the Council Chambers of the Town Municipal Building at 42 First Street, N.W. In attendance were: Mayor: Robert N. Glenn, presiding Councilmen Present: David L. Clark; Gregory C. East; Joseph K. Goodman,- H.M. oodman;H.M. Kidd; Lane R. Penn, James A. Radcliffe Administration: Shawn M. Utt, Town Manager Nichole L. Hair, Deputy Town Manager Town Attorney Spencer A. Rygas, Town Attorney Press: Brooke J. Wood, Southwest Times Staff: Dave Hart, Parks & Facilities Robbie Kiser, P.F.D. David Quesenberry, Clerk of Council Rebecca Reece, Finance Director Gary Roche. P.P.D. A.R. Anderson Brian Cole Jeremy Hodge Jill Neice James Puckett Angie Trail Others Present D.P. Barnes C.J. Dickerson Mike Hudson Suellen Palmer Jamie Reynolds Angela Viers John McElroy Dana Bishop Kim Caudill Dan Grim Sarah Grim Gary Martin Sandra Miller Mike Parmelee Chris Phillips John Saul Karen Smith Steve Miner Mayor Glenn called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Following roll call, Mayor Glenn noted there were no modifications to the agenda and welcomed those in attendance at the meeting. Mayor Glenn then moved to the Consent Agenda (Item 5) concerning the Council work session minutes of October 17, 2017. Mr. Penn's motion to approve the minutes was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved by unanimous voice vote of Council. Next item on the agenda (Item 6) was a public hearing on a Transportation Alternative Project grant application for West Main Street. Mayor Glenn asked Mr. Utt for comments. Mr. Utt said this was the final step for the Downtown grant through VDOT which would go along with the $700,000 in CDBG funds recently awarded to the Town. He reviewed the cost estimates of Phase I and Phase II of the proposed project noting that the estimated cost of Phase I was $315,042.72 and the estimated cost of Phase II of the project for the next year was $596,083.52. The project would complement the Downtown grant by assisting with Page 1 of 11 /November 21, 2017 sidewalks, streetscape, trees, curbing and design work. He concluded by saying that the Council had already taken the action necessary and that only a public hearing needed to be held with the minutes provided to VDOT to document the public hearing. Mayor Glenn then opened the public hearing at 5:04 p.m. to solicit comments concerning the project. There being no comments received, Mayor Glenn closed the public hearing at 5:05 p.m. When asked if any further action of Council was necessary, Mr. Utt replied that all action had been taken and all that remained was sending the minutes to VDOT. Next item on the agenda was the presentation of the Employee Compensation Study (Item 7). Mr. Utt introduced Mr. Steve Miner of Springstead, Inc. who wrote the Town's compensation study included in the Council packet. Mr. Utt then turned the presentation over to Mr. Miner. Following introductions, Mr. Miner, informed Council that the Town would not only get the study, but also the tools, referred to as the SAFE system personnel software, to allow the Town to make adjustments within the personnel system. Training on the system would be made available to employees to allow changes in personnel records with the same tools that created the study. Mr. Miner said there were two basic elements of pay studies: (1) internal equity, dealing with pay between positions in-house; and, (2) external equity, dealing with pay comparisons with other localities. Studies were necessary due to the changes in market conditions and working conditions. The underlying idea of a pay study, or market study he said, was to remain competitive by determining the pay in other areas for similar work. Pay studies he continued were beneficial in terms of employee morale, fairness and turnover, which is an expensive issue to address. The Town study he noted found that the estimated cost of turnover for a sworn officer's position was between $20,000 and $40.000. The frequency of doing pay studies he said varies with the situation, but that conducting a study every five to seven years is considered best practice. Given the previous economic fluctuations, which affect positions in different ways, he felt it was prudent to occasionally update the pay system to provide fair and equitable compensation and a competitive pay structure. One issue not often discussed, he noted, was the issue of compression, which can adversely affect the pay system causing problems between older employees who have been in the organization for a time and new employees, hired at a comparable or higher salary than the older employees. Mr. Miner briefly reviewed the methodology used by the study which included: meetings with the Administration and Department Heads and orientation meetings with Town employees. Collection of data for the study included classification descriptions; position evaluations; salary and benefit information and data from "benchmark" localities. The information was used in the development of a salary line and pay grades; assigning positions to pay grades and development of implementation options. Page 2 of 11 /November 21, 2017 Major findings of the study were • Town employees' salaries are significantly less than comparable competitors. • Minimum salaries were 25.88% below the average minimum salaries of other comparative jurisdictions; 24.92% below the midpoint salaries; and 24.5% below salaries at the maximum level. • Approximately 40% of all employees are below the final recommended pay grades. To address the salary issues in an affordable manner, the study suggested implementing a solution over a three year implementation period starting with 90% of the market rate the first year; 95% of the market rate for the second year; and 100% in the third year. Mr. Miner also noted the study found some internal pay inequities. Regarding fringe benefits, the survey found that the Town's fringe benefits were generally consistent with the benchmark organizations, while health benefits were considered strong while being under the average cost for this type of insurance. Mr. Miner reviewed the "benchmark municipalities" from which data was received or gathered through other sources. The responses received, he continued, were good enough that the firm was comfortable with the results. The data itself was used to develop a new pay scale that would be implemented over three years at 90%, 95% and 100% of the market rate, which can be changed if desired, but were used as a starting point. Mr. Penn inquired how the number of jurisdictions that replied affected the results. Mr. Miner responded that the seven jurisdictions that responded were a statistically significant number that constituted a good grouping. In addition, data was also gathered from an online source comparing the Town's wages with wages of other localities in the region. The information obtained showed that the results of the Springstead survey compared favorably with the online resource. Mr. Penn then asked for information on Appendix B. Mr. Miner said the appendix showed the salary survey results given by position; number of responses; full time equivalents; and the average salary midpoint for the position which assisted in getting the spread of each pay grade. Following this column was the minimum, midpoint and maximum salary for each position. The last columns represented the salary data for the Town of Pulaski and how it related to the salary results. The three averages given earlier for the average minimum, average midpoint and average maximum of Town's salaries in comparison to the benchmark localities, were derived from this data. Mr. Miner also reviewed the Salary Survey Comparison, which forecast the salary range for Town positions in the third year of the compensation plan's implementation and where salaries would end up, as a percentage of the market rate. The goal he continued was to have the midpoint within ±5% of where the market rate was projected to be. Springstead's recommendation, Mr. Miner continued, was a phased in approach based on consultations with the Administration. With respect to a three year implementation, Mr. Minor said that at the end of the period, the Town would not want to find itself still behind. The study Page 3 of 11 /November 21, 2017 recommended that a 1.5% COLA be given in year 2 and year 3 of the implementation, resulting in an additional 3% added in, to arrive at market value at the end of the third year. Concerning the time of implementation, Mr. Miner said that other clients have different implementation schedules. He strongly recommended that the Town hold to the suggested implementation schedule because of the effect on the employees. Mr. Miner then reviewed the pay scales which were developed in keeping with data supplied by the Town. A general government pay plan was developed with forty pay grades with a 5% separation between grades and a minimum to maximum spread of 60% within each grade. He described the system as an open range system, not a step system, which is appropriate for the times and allows for more flexibility. For job evaluation under the new system, Mr. Miner discussed the SAFE system which used nine compensable factors with a points system, to assist in ranking a position within the organization. Mr. Miner then addressed the general implementation options referred to in the PowerPoint presentation as follows: • Option 1 -Move to the minimum of the recommended pay grade to get all employees to the minimum of the pay grade they are in. One problem was that salary compression was not addressed. • Option 2 -Move to the minimum or 2% salary increase whichever is greater. However it still has a limited impact on salary compression. • Option 3 -Consider years of service. Minimum salaries would be adjusted with a 0.5% per year of service to adjust for service length. While personally preferred by Mr. Miner, the drawback is that this option has the highest cost. However it does address more strongly the salary compression issue. • Option 4 -Initiate a phased in blended option over three calendar years (4 fiscal years). The first year do Option 3 (years of service minimum salaries adjusted 0.5% per year of service); the second year Option 2 (2% increase or minimum whichever is greater); and the third year, Option 1(move all employees to minimum of recommended pay grade). Mr. Minor reminded Council that a 1.5% COLA would be done in Year 2 and Year 3. The study's recommendations were: (1) approve the salaries referenced in Appendix D of the study; (2) approve Option 4, the blended implementation approach and, (3) provide support for the salaries for market adjustments and performance based merit increases. Mr. Miner strongly recommended that the pay plan be maintained every year. Mr. Penn noted the 1.5% annual COLA increase, which he said was hard to do. He added that last year the cost of living increase was 0.5%, this year it was 2.0% and that he did not come up with the figure of 1.5%. Mr. Miner replied that the indexes he consulted were from 1.4% to 1.7%, so he rounded it to 1.5%. This was consistent with one of the indices he consulted that showed a cost of living increase of 1.5%. Page 4 of 11 /November 21, 2017 Mr. Miner then reviewed with Council the expected cost of implementing the blended approach. The timeline covered four fiscal years instead of three which should be of some help to the Town. The total amount for Option 4 was $413,306.53 which should slightly change with some needed adjustments to the data. Mr. East asked how the numbers correlated concerning the hybrid plan, since the numbers in the handout did not correlate with the numbers in the study. Mr. Miner responded that he did not put all of the numbers together to prevent confusion. The way the model works, he explained, required it be told what model is initially chosen to develop the numbers for Year 2 and Year 3. He noted that under the Year 1 (Option 3 chart), the salary difference between current and proposed salary was $234,219.58 which was shown in the handout in Calendar year 18. Mr. East then asked about calendar year 19. Mr. Miner responded that Calendar Year 19 was not in the report, but came off the worksheet. When the figures from Year 1 are entered into the work sheet, depending upon the option chosen, the worksheet produces figures for other options. In the case of the handout, by entering option 3's figures, the worksheet produces figures for other options for the second year. By entering Option 3's figures, the cost of Option 2 ($150,023.01) and Option 1 ($29,063.94), as show in the handout, were calculated. Regarding administration, Mr. Miner added that the firm did not look at performance but at the position itself. Localities he said were strongly encouraged to have a performance management plan. The overall goal was to get employees to the midpoint salary within six to eight years. Once at midpoint salary, the increases would slow down. Hopefully this would lead to employees making the Town a career that would benefit the Town and the citizens. In his concluding remarks, Mr. Miner said that he and his firm would remain available for what was needed, since they desired to have the Town see the effort through and be satisfied and happy with the product. Mayor Glenn asked Council of there were any questions. Mr. Kidd asked if the recommendation was for Option 4. Mr. Miner said Option 4 was what he developed based on an "all things considered" approach. If more funds were available, he would recommend Option 3 which would address compression but also have a higher price tag. At this point, he suggested that Council work with the Town Manager regarding possible recommendations, since the tools to examine different options were available. He did say that at the end of three years if Option 4 were initiated and the 1.5% COLA applied, the Town would have addressed the compensation issue in an "upright" manner. Mr. Goodman asked regarding Option 4, if compression raises were recommended would that be all or would it be getting employees to the minimum salary with compression raises. Mr. Miner said the compression raise included the minimum, so the employee would get both with that option. Mr. East asked if there was a "rule of thumb" regarding salaries vs. the size of the budget itself. Mr. Utt said he knew there was nothing similar to the 15% reserve minimum balance that would be applied to salaries. Page 5 of 11 /November 21, 2017 In addition, Mr. East asked, given the 12% shift in salaries and the addition of nearly one-half million dollars to the budget, if was there were any way to forecast where the Town would be five or six years ahead. Mr. Utt replied that the $400,000 number was for all of the employees of the Town. The Water and Sewer crews were different in that their funding source was the enterprise funds. Approximately 20% of the cost of the implementation he said, would be taken care of in a different manner. Taking 20% off the cost for all employees would give approximately the cost of the water and sewer crews, while the remainder of the cost represented the General Fund employees. The General Fund was where the focus was because of budget issues. For example he said that he could not fund a police officer position out of the Water Fund. Mr. East said the question was the same but was for a lesser amount, which Mr. Utt estimated at approximately $340,000. Mr. Goodman ventured that the amount was for next year. Under this proposal this would be the toughest year because of the estimated cost of $158,000. Mr. Utt agreed and that it was also in addition to this year. Mr. Utt said originally the vision was to have the compensation plan start July 1 sl of the current fiscal year. There was $150,000 budgeted for that 80% of employees which was expected to cover the majority of the expense for the first year of implementation. He remembered that there was some leeway due to the Economic Development Department that was still in the budget even though the position was not going to be funded. He added that now it was November and he asked Council to consider instead of the 90%/95%/100% implementation, he said for the employees' sake he wanted to consider 93% for Option 3. He asked Council for the authorization to ask Springstead to come back with a cost for Option 3 at 93% in Year One, and in Year 2 go up to 98% to try to speed up the implementation to get the employees up to the 100% as quickly as possible. Over the next couple of weeks, Mr. Utt requested Springstead assist him in preparing the numbers so a recommendation for Council could be ready on December 5t" showing the cost of implementation with forecasts ahead on the budget. He said he wanted to get to the 100% market level quicker, if possible. If Council was accepting of the proposal, Mr. Utt asked to draft the actual plan and have it as of January 1 st so that employees could be notified that the compensation plan was approved and implemented. He noted that he had a lot of patient employees, whose patience was wearing thin. Mr. East said that Council wanted to do everything they could, but given that the last budget round used reserve funds, he needed to understand where that money was coming from not only for this year but succeeding years. Mr. Goodman said looking at the proposal cost $192,000 just in next year's budget, with additional expense of $117,000 this fiscal year plus $117,000 and an additional $75,000 next fiscal year. He understood that Council wanted to do the plan but they needed to know where Page 6 of 11 /November 21, 2017 revenues were going. The last thing he wanted to happen was that the plan would be adopted and implemented, but the Town would "hit a wall" fiscally and break its promise. Mr. Utt understood, saying he did not want to promise the employees the Town would do Option 3 all three years. While Option 3 over a three year period would cost approximately $750,000, which was not far from estimates, he questioned whether or not it was affordable over three years. If the implementation could be kept up, it might be possible to delve into it to keep moving forward rather than the basic 1.5%-2.0% per year after the initial three years. Mr. Goodman felt that keeping up with the compression raises was imperative. It was important he said for folks to know that as they worked for the Town and spent their career here, that their service was appreciated. He was pleased that the step plan would be eliminated, and hoped to maintain compression raises and COLA's. He concluded that this was the opportunity to fix the compensation issue, but it had to be certain that there would be funding for years "down the road." Mr. East mentioned that a recommendation that had not been addressed was a pay for performance" system. The system he was familiar with he continued went by department, with a certain amount of dollars going to each department whose manager, based on employee performance, then issued the funds. While he said he was not sure how to do this, Mr. East felt that if the recommendations of the study were to be reviewed and accepted, all of the recommendations needed to be done including looking at pay for performance. He noted that the recommendation would require serious focus since it would result in major system change. Mr. Goodman noted that pay for performance had been initiated about three years ago at his work place and that managers regarded it with disfavor since it created conflict between employees. Mr. East added that maybe there was a better way to do pay for performance, to which Mr. Goodman agreed. Mr. Goodman also noted that the smaller the department subject to pay for performance, the more negative impacts it had. Mr. East responded that he thought pay for performance was beneficial where there was a highly motivated employee and others not as motivated. His concern was the highly motivated employee would be "demotivated" if their efforts were not acknowledged in some way. Mr. Goodman mentioned the practice of "in -band adjustments" where, for an employee who does consistently well, the manager could seek funding and request a salary adjustment up to 10%. Increases between 10% and 15% required approval of the governing body with15% being the limit. There were specific guidelines what a manager had to do to seek that raise. The policy, he added was equitable for each department, no matter what the employee did and was available to each manager to seek raises for an employee doing well. Mr. Radcliffe suggested that a workshop could be held to review the options and perhaps take action before Christmas, since the employees had waited since June. Following a brief discussion between Mr. Utt and Council, it was decided that a summary which would give Council further information would be presented at the December 5th meeting. Page 7 of 11 /November 21, 2017 Next item on the agenda was an update on Town committee vacancies (Item 8a). Mr. Utt referred to the packet summary of committee vacancies. Reviewing the packet summary he noted the following: The Board of Zoning Appeals had two terms to expire. Mr. Kuntz declined reappointment, while Mr. Talbert consented to reappointment. This left one regular member vacancy and two alternate vacancies. Council would need to pass a resolution nominating a person to the BZA, but the actual appointment would be by the Circuit Court Judge. • The Planning Commission still had one vacancy. An application had been received from Melissa Thomas who demonstrated a strong interest in the vacancy. • Pulaski Housing and Redevelopment Authority -The Authority had one vacancy and three expired terms (Roger Leonard, Linda Davis, Harold Lambert). Mr. Lambert decided to retire from the Authority, but the other two were interested in continuing to serve. This would leave two vacancies on the Authority. • The Architectural Review Board had one vacancy for the professional on the Board. The Town was seeking a qualified candidate. • The Housing Board of Adjustment and Appeals had two vacancies. Since there was an immediate need for the Housing Authority to take action on a matter, Mr. Utt requested Council's consideration of the resolution (Resolution 2017-28) reappointing Ms. Davis and Mr. Leonard under Item 8b. In addition he asked for their thoughts on Mr. Talbert for the BZA and Mrs. Thomas for the Planning Commission. Mayor Glenn asked if there was a motion concerning Resolution 2017-28. Mr. Kidd moved to adopt Resolution 2017-28 as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Mayor Glenn asked Council if they had any thought about asking Mrs. Thomas to join the Commission. Mr. Utt suggested that Council authorize staff prepare the appropriate documentation for Council's action at the December 5th meeting. Mr. Goodman made the motion which was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following roll call vote: Page 8 of 11 /November 21, 2017 Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Regarding Mr. Talbert, Mr. Utt said that the Council would need to recommend to the Circuit Court Judge that he be reappointed to the Town Board of Zoning Appeals. The motion was made by Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Goodman and approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Mr. Utt noted that efforts using social media and the newspaper could be used to find persons interested in serving on some of the Town's committees. Next item on the agenda was ordinances amending the Zoning Regulations (Item 10a and 10b). Mayor Glenn asked for a motion regarding Ordinance 2017-12 Urban Agriculture (Item 10a). Mr. East moved that Council adopt Ordinance 2017-12 as written. His motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following roll call vote.- Mr. ote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Mayor Glenn asked if there were a motion concerning Ordinance 2017-13 Smith Lane Proffer Amendment (Item 10b). Mr. Clark moved to adopt Ordinance 2017-13 as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goodman and approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Council then moved on to the Round Table Discussions (Item 14). Mayor Glenn called for comments from the Council. Mr. Radcliffe thanked staff for their patience. Mr. East noted that the Christmas lights were in Jackson Park and asked if a trial run had taken place. Mr. Utt responded no, but that it was scheduled for the next day. Mayor Glenn asked when the park would be lit. Mr. Utt responded that it would be at the Christmas Tree Lighting and Parade on December 7t1 Mr. Clark said he wished to echo Mr. Radcliffe's comments and asked for patience as the Council worked the matter (salaries) out. Page 9 of 11/November 21, 2017 Mr. Goodman expressed the same sentiments as Mr. Radcliffe and Mr. Clark, and noted the difficulty in getting the information, but was glad to have it. He looked forward to three or four years down the road, once the plan was implemented to giving employees regular raises. Mr. Kidd said he was glad to actually have the numbers and extended thanks to the employees for "hanging with" the Council. Mr. Penn had no comment. Mayor Glenn asked Mr. Utt on the status of the Post Office. Mr. Utt said his office spoke with Senator Warner's officer earlier in the day. Senator Warner's office had contacted the Postal Service last week and the day before and received a reply today that the USPS had to review the matter before issuing a formal response. The Senator's office said that given this reply, they did not expect anything formal before next week. Next item on the agenda was the Closed Session (Item 14). Mayor Glenn called for a motion under (1) Va. Code 2.2-3711 a (1) discussion for consideration of employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of public officers, appointees or employees for one item regarding an employee contract review and (2) Virginia Code 2.2-3711, a (7), Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation, where such consultation or briefing in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body for three (3) matters involving: sewer non-compliance, proposed boundary adjustment request update and a procedural allegation. Mr. Goodman moved to go into Closed Session. His motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Council entered Closed Session at 6:27 p.m. Council returned from Closed Session at 7:38 p.m. Mayor Glenn called for a motion that Council only discussed those four items for which they went into Closed Session, regarding one item under Virginia Code 2.2-3711 a (1) and three items under Virginia Code 2.2-3711 a (7). Mr. Goodman made the motion which was seconded by Mr. Clark and carried on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Page 10 of 11 /November 21, 2017 Noting that the scheduled Council meeting on Tuesday, January 2, 2018 fell on a Town holiday, Mr. Goodman moved that the date of the Council meeting be moved to Wednesday, January 3, 2018. The motion was seconded by Mr. East and approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye There being no further business, Mr. Goodman moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. East and approved by unanimous voice vote at 7:40 p,. -m. c Robert . Glenn Mayor ATTEST: David N. Quesenberry Clerk of Council 1 1 Page 11 of 11 /November 21, 2017