2026-06-01 - Finance Committee

0:04Good evening. I will call to order the

0:06finance committee meeting on June 1st,

0:082026 at 6:30 p.m. We have two items on

0:13the agenda this evening. Uh we have a

0:15trans uh year end transfer request in

0:17the amount of 3,731,000.

0:21We have a proposed non-UN salary

0:23ordinance change to job description

0:25pursuant to chapter 125 personnel

0:28section five. And I will begin with

0:32order number 26-1009752

0:37year end transfer request in the amount

0:39of $539,000

0:41which moves funds from and to various

0:44accounts for department of public works

0:46comp patroller treasurer city clerk

0:49legal department in addition to a

0:51transfer totaling $3,192,000

0:55from free cash to open space

0:57stabilization.

0:58uh $15,000 for open space stabilization

1:02and snow and ice in the amount of

1:04$3,177,000.

1:07I'll begin by reading the letter

1:09submitted by the mayor.

1:13Dear council president Oing and

1:15counselors enclosed for your review and

1:17approval are the fiscal year 2026

1:20year end transfer request in the amount

1:23of $3,731,000

1:26relative to the following departments of

1:28public works comproller finance

1:31department city clerk's office and the

1:33legal department uh which breaks down

1:35accordingly.

1:37Number one, 3,177,000

1:40from undesated fund to fund the snow and

1:43ice deficit for FY2026.

1:47$32,000 from the collector assistant

1:50finance director line item to go towards

1:52the unemployment account in the amount

1:54of $12,000 and $20,000 into postage

1:58account. $15,000 from undesated fund,

2:02which is the wireless antenna payments

2:04to fund the open space stabilization

2:07account.

2:09$493,000

2:11from various departments of public works

2:13salary accounts to fund the following

2:15transfers in the amount of $50,000 for

2:18natural gas bills. 68,000 to fund the

2:21fuel and lubricants account, $120,000

2:25to fund the city repair and maintenance

2:28account and $255,000

2:31to fund the professional and technical

2:33service account. $9,000 from the

2:36election budget to the city clerk's

2:38budget for a vendor to assist with the

2:41processing annual street listings uh

2:43notices and $5,000 from the unfilled

2:46parallegal position to fund the legal

2:49services account for ongoing matters.

2:52Department heads and I will be available

2:53at future finance meetings to answer any

2:56questions you may have. Sincerely, Jay

2:58Christian Doom mayor. Um with that uh

3:02beginning with the uh the letter

3:04submitted by the mayor, we can start

3:06with the first one uh item which is the

3:08undesated fund to fund the snow and ice

3:10deficit for FY2026.

3:15>> Council vital.

3:15>> Mr. Chair, I make a motion to approve

3:17the transfer. Motion has been made and I

3:20will second that to approve the

3:22$3,177,000

3:25from the undesated fund to fund the snow

3:27and ice deficit for FY2026.

3:31Any further discussion,

3:33>> Mr. Chair?

3:34>> Councelor Orm.

3:35>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, we talked

3:37about this during our budget hearings

3:40and I believe I read it was 430%

3:44over the original budget. Obviously,

3:47we're lucky to have these vacant pos.

3:51We're not lucky. I'll look at the

3:53commissioner and say we're not lucky to

3:54have all these vacant positions. It

3:56doesn't make it easy for any department

3:58head in here to run a department.

4:01Concerns me is that FY27 hopefully will

4:05start filling some of these positions

4:08and more or less have some truth in

4:11financing in respect to snow and budget.

4:14And we're not the only I know in the

4:16state people underestimate but you know

4:20we're I'm not sure if winter is going to

4:22change in the future but there's not

4:24much we can do and I guess we should be

4:26grateful there was some leftover money

4:28from vacant positions but my concern as

4:31I note in budget time during the full

4:34budget is that I don't think we're

4:36budgeting this properly and hopefully

4:38someday we'll get at least 50% of it

4:41budgeted so we're not g you know

4:43gambling on the fact that we have excess

4:45money at the end of the year. With that

4:47said, I am in support of it, but again,

4:50it's one of those budget line items, you

4:52know, to be 3 million over is concerning

4:55and it's no and there's no reason that

4:58we can't look at it a little bit more

5:00thoroughly maybe in the next budget

5:02season. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

5:03>> Thank you, Councilman.

5:05Mr. President,

5:06>> thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, just as a

5:08point of clarification, the transfer

5:10does not involve any underruns and

5:12salaries. This is all money coming from

5:15the undesated fund. So there is no

5:19>> what you said was not correct I guess

5:21for lack of better word. This is all

5:22coming from undesated funds that we

5:25aren't touching any salaried items for

5:26this. And the comment regarding funding

5:29this is the funding way. We increased it

5:31from 500,000 a couple years ago to a

5:33million and the state allows us to

5:36overspend this account as just about

5:37every municipality and Ted and his staff

5:40do an outstanding job. But, you know, we

5:43had 20 events over 68 inches of snow.

5:46And Ted, you can correct me if I got

5:47that math wrong, but that's my tracking

5:50where last year we were only 1.3 million

5:53over with 14 events and 42 inches of

5:55snow and in 24 we were only $600,000

5:59over with nine events and 27. So, it's a

6:01function of what kind of snow we have

6:02and we have money and undesated fund to

6:04cover it. So, there's my opinion there

6:07is nothing we are going to change on how

6:09we fund the snow and ice account. Thank

6:11you, Mr. Chairman.

6:11>> Mr. Chair, I will stand corrected. He is

6:14correct. It's coming from the undesated

6:16fund. It's again trying I know we can't

6:19gamble too often on winter, but we'll

6:23see what next year brings. But if we see

6:26another winter like we saw this year or

6:28close to it, I think we need to start

6:30looking at that 1 million and increasing

6:32it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

6:35>> Mr. Chair, I didn't get a chance to ever

6:37say this publicly and I'd like to do it

6:38right now. I thought that DPW did a

6:40phenomenal job uh throughout the winter.

6:43Um I I would drive into other towns and

6:45there would always be slush and snow on

6:47the roads and Marbo did a phenomenal

6:49job. So I think we're getting uh the

6:51best bang for the buck. So thank you,

6:53Mr. Chair.

6:54>> And that's a good point, Council Vital.

6:55U because I do know I got a lot of

6:58feedback with the uh school children

7:00having to walk a little further. Uh DBW

7:02was right on the ball doing their

7:04clearing at night. Um so good point.

7:06Motion's been made and seconded. All in

7:08favor? One, two, three, four, five. That

7:11carries.

7:15Moving on to the $32,000 transfer from

7:19the collector assistant finance director

7:22item to go towards the unemployment

7:24account in the amount of $12,000 and

7:27$20,000

7:29for the uh postage account.

7:33>> Mr. Chair, council.

7:36>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, no questions

7:38on this line. I'm with that move to

7:40approve the $32,000 transfer.

7:43>> Motion has been made and I will second

7:45that to approve the $32,000

7:48transfer from the collector uh assistant

7:50director line item to go towards the

7:52unemployment account in the amount of

7:53$12,000 and $20,000 into the postage

7:57account. Any further discussion? Council

8:00or

8:00>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question.

8:03Um, I don't know if our clerk is here. I

8:06don't see the mayor's here at least. Is

8:08that this was for additional mailings

8:10due to motor vehicle excise taxes. I was

8:14just curious if we're going to see an

8:15increase in motor vehicle excise taxes

8:17since we need additional postage for it.

8:21>> I don't know if the mayor or someone can

8:23answer that.

8:23>> Good evening, Brian.

8:24>> Hopefully, it'll be positive news.

8:35So I hope you're correct. I did in my

8:38projections I did increase the motor

8:40vehicle excise tax collections um from

8:42last year to this year. So um you know

8:45we do have an increased population

8:47increased motor vehicle increased

8:49postage on that and increased on the

8:51demand fees to collect the motor vehicle

8:54excise.

8:55>> Excellent. And I don't mind approving

8:57this. I was just curious if there's

8:58another side to the story and that's the

9:01increase in motor vehicle excise taxes.

9:03So thank you for your response. I don't

9:05know if the mayor he like he's ready to

9:07roll there. No.

9:08>> Oh, that's that's the goal.

9:09>> Thank you both. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

9:11>> Thank you, Council. Motion's made and

9:13second to approve. Any further

9:15discussion? All in favor? 1 2 3 4 5.

9:19That carries.

9:22Next up is a transfer of $15,000 from

9:25undesated fund, which is the wireless

9:28antenna payments to fund the open space

9:30stabilization account.

9:33>> Mr. Chair, Vital, I'd

9:34>> like to make a motion to approve the

9:37$15,000 transfer.

9:39>> Motion's been made and I will second

9:41that to approve the $15,000 transfer

9:43from undesated fund uh to fund the open

9:47space stabilization account. Any further

9:49discussion?

9:51Mr.

10:00If we could uh provide some insights as

10:03to why the collections have continued to

10:06decrease went from 28,000 in fiscal year

10:0922 to 29 to 25 to 19 and now 15. Are we

10:14not collecting? Did we redo the

10:16contract?

10:17That's question one.

10:20I'll let you answer that.

10:22>> I'll answer that. So, um, on an annual

10:26basis, there are 19 that should be

10:28paying us at $1,500 a piece. It should

10:30be $28,500.

10:33So, this was brought to my attention uh

10:36end of March, early April. Um, I will

10:39thank uh the pro procurement Crystal

10:41Homie for bringing it to my attention

10:43when she went to do a contract. She was

10:45checking to see if people had been paid

10:47and we found a little glitch in the

10:50system, let's say. So, back in the day,

10:53this was tracked through one department.

10:55That person left employment with the

10:57city. It got moved to another

10:59department. That person was tracking it.

11:02That person left the city. Since that

11:05person left, no one has been tracking

11:08this. So what we're trying to do now is

11:11to see if there's a way that I can

11:12generate an invoice to build these on

11:15the date and therefore we have a system

11:18to track it. So if people leave we would

11:21see an invoice outstanding saying

11:22where's our money. So that's kind of

11:24where we're at right now and we are

11:26going to go back and try to collect any

11:28fees that haven't been paid if that

11:31answers your question.

11:32>> You actually answered the second one as

11:33well. So thank you. So just for

11:35counselor, so what you heard Brian tell

11:37you is we should be see a transfer every

11:39year of about $28,500.

11:42And when we don't, that means funds

11:43aren't being collected. So we're about

11:4513,500 short. And as Brian said, and I

11:49appreciate that, Brian, have a process

11:51in place so that we collect those funds

11:53so that we get this the the money that's

11:56owed the city because they won't if we

11:59don't bill them, they're not going to

12:00just voluntarily send the money. is my

12:03it's like if you told me you're not

12:04going to send me my excise tax or you

12:07know I'm won't be sending you a bill for

12:08my excise right send me a bill and I'll

12:11send you the money but don't just expect

12:13me to pay my excise tax right so thank

12:15you Brian I appreciate that I have no

12:17further questions and support

12:18>> Mr. Chair and if I can comment to that

12:20good catch and I would expect the

12:22wireless companies will not forget that

12:25when they bill us we need to pay them so

12:28hopefully they'll start getting their

12:29bills on time thank you Mr. Chair

12:32>> Mr. Chair, I'm just curious since we're

12:33on the subject, how long are these

12:35contracts with the antenna companies?

12:38Because I think over the last year,

12:39we've added like three or four more. So,

12:41this number should be going up from 28.

12:44I would assume,

12:46but how long are the contracts? I guess

12:48>> we would add them to the spreadsheet.

12:49You're right. They're long-term

12:51contracts. I think one of them was like

12:52a 20-year contract. I think that's the

12:54oldest one that's now coming up. I mean,

12:57they're they're longterm. Um, again,

12:59kind of back, these are special permits.

13:02So they were added on. So the tracking,

13:06who's in charge of tracking special

13:07permits that are approved here? And that

13:09was really the loophole that we're

13:10trying to cover.

13:11>> Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.

13:13Chair.

13:14>> All right. So motions are made and

13:16seconded to approve the $15,000 uh

13:18transfer from undesated fund to fund the

13:21open space stabilization account. All in

13:24favor? One, two, three, four, five. That

13:26carries. Moving on to the $493,000

13:32from various departments of public works

13:34salary accounts to fund the following

13:36transfers. And uh we have the letter

13:39from uh Commissioner Scott. And uh we

13:43can start with the first one which is

13:46$50,000 to city natural gas account for

13:49projected increase usage costs.

13:58A motion. Are you going to do each one

14:00separately?

14:01>> Yes.

14:02>> A motion to approve.

14:04>> Motion's made and seconded to approve

14:06the $50,000 natural gas account for

14:08projected increase usage and this will

14:11be coming from various accounts as noted

14:13on the spreadsheet from the Department

14:14of Public Works. Any further all any

14:18further discussion?

14:18>> Mr. Chair,

14:19>> Council Villo.

14:20>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just very briefly,

14:22um, uh, every year when we go through

14:24the budget, right, the natural gas

14:26accounts are ones that we always take a

14:27look at to make slight reductions. This

14:29year between the two and the maintenance

14:30of schools and and the public facilities

14:32made modest $10,000 adjustments. So,

14:35right, we're always, you know, I'm

14:37expecting this transfer to come. So, I

14:39appreciate the commissioner sending it

14:40down and happy to support it tonight.

14:42>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

14:43>> Motion is made and I will second that.

14:45All in favor? That carries. One, two,

14:48three, four, five. Moving on to same

14:51thing. 68,000 to fuel lubricant accounts

14:53for projected increased usage cost.

14:57>> Motion to approve.

14:58>> Motion's been made and I will second

15:00that to approve the $68,000 fuel

15:02lubricant account for projected increase

15:05usage costs. And this will be coming

15:07from various accounts as noted on the

15:09spreadsheet from the Department of

15:10Public Works.

15:12Any further discussion? Seeing none, all

15:15in favor? One, two, three, four, five.

15:18Next up is a $120,000

15:21transfer to the city repairs and

15:23maintenance accounts for unforeseen

15:26cost.

15:29>> I will entertain council but

15:31>> um I'd just like to know what those

15:33unforeseen costs were if you don't mind.

15:36>> There's a few small ones designed. The

15:38big one is when um

15:41so the interlock system for the doors on

15:44the on the public buildings we were um

15:47we changed the software system and we're

15:52um in the process of turning some of the

15:54buildings over and the card crashed. So,

15:59in emergency we had to um do the senior

16:03center, city hall, DBW,

16:06uh fire station one and part of the

16:10police station and an emergency so that

16:12the end locks would work. So, that's

16:15that's most of it right there. And then

16:17there's

16:21Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Thank you.

16:22>> Motion to approve.

16:23>> Motion made and seconded to approve the

16:26$120,000

16:28transfers to city repairs and

16:29maintenance accounts for unforeseen

16:32costs. And this will be coming from the

16:34various accounts as submitted in the

16:37spreadsheet. Any further discussion? All

16:40in favor? One, two, three, four, five.

16:42That carries. Next up is $255,000

16:47to professional and technical services

16:49to fund additional engineering services.

16:54>> Motion to approve.

16:55>> Motion has been made and seconded to

16:57approve the $255,000

17:00to professional and technical services

17:02to fund additional engineering services

17:04and this will be coming from uh various

17:07accounts as noted on the spreadsheet

17:09from the department of public works. Any

17:12further discussion,

17:12>> Mr. Chair? Council,

17:14>> this is where my mistake was on the

17:16beginning. These are excess funds from

17:19positions that are not filled and I

17:22would like to ask the commissioner where

17:24do we stand for FY27

17:26and how are you how is your department

17:28running without these positions?

17:30>> Well, we we pitch in. We do the best we

17:33can. We prioritize

17:35um the general foring positions, like I

17:37said before, those will be filled uh

17:39before by the end of the month. Um,

17:42we're filling a couple more uh SMOS. Um,

17:46it's a it's a tough process. We are we

17:49are um we are interviewing. We get

17:52through a process. We've had people sign

17:55offers and then uh back out. So, we do

17:58our best to keep uh get trying to get

18:00quality people. And if I may, um, are

18:03you working with HR to see if we're

18:05competitive with our, as they're doing

18:08with other positions

18:10>> as far as cost

18:12>> as far as being competit offering

18:14competitive salaries and

18:16>> it's it's hard to say. Some of some of

18:18some have probably renegotiated the deal

18:21after they got our offer.

18:22>> Y

18:23>> um,

18:24>> and most of those positions are union

18:26contracts or or union positions as well.

18:28So, it's not as easy as one can just to

18:32leverage. So,

18:33>> okay. Well, I just would ask that you

18:35continue to make these competitive so

18:38you're not losing people as fast as

18:40you're getting them and your department

18:42can function properly. So,

18:44>> we try.

18:46>> Thank you both.

18:47>> Y

18:47>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

18:49>> Motion has been made and Oh, Mr.

18:51President.

18:51>> Thank Mr. Commissioner, can you shed

18:53some insight on the engineering

18:54services?

18:55>> Sure.

18:55>> Yes. So that's for um that's for the

18:59design of West Main Street and South

19:02Street and Pleasant Street. Um that's

19:05how much design costs for a traffic

19:08intersection. Uh we're we're hoping to

19:10get uh the mayor's office worked with

19:12the uh the federal government lawyer

19:15Jan's office to try to secure a million

19:18dollar grant for that. So if we can have

19:20the design ready for that um hopefully

19:22we can get that grant. Thank you very

19:25much.

19:25>> Thank you, Mr. President. Motion has

19:27been made and seconded to approve the

19:30$255,000 transfer. All in favor? One,

19:34two, three, four, five. That carries.

19:38Moving on to the $9,000 transfer from

19:42the election budget to the city clerk's

19:44budget for a vendor to assist with the

19:46processing annual street listings. We

19:48did receive a letter from Mr. Clerk

19:51Carrian on this and this is for $9,000

19:54transfer.

19:55>> Mr. Chair,

19:55>> Council Pillow.

19:56>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good reminder for

19:58folks to fill out their annual street

20:00listing um or else they are removed from

20:02the active voter list. Uh so these

20:04notices will be going out with this

20:05transfer. And with that, uh move to

20:07approve the $9,000 transfer.

20:09>> Motion has been made. I will second that

20:12to approve the $9,000 transfer uh from

20:16coming from funds from the election

20:18programming and pole workers account to

20:20to to fund the city clerk's budget exp

20:24uh processing of this parallegal notice

20:28of the uh active voter list

20:31>> and Mr. for the discussion

20:33>> and I would agree with councel Vichello.

20:35Hopefully our the people that get these

20:37notices are returning their street list

20:40uh request. Um the question I had is the

20:44prepaid return

20:46uh if obviously they decide not to

20:49return it, do we get that postage back

20:51or is that an we don't. So, we're

20:53mailing out cost to mail it out and we

20:57have a prepaid postage envelope within

20:59that mailing and we're not getting

21:03return. If if that pre-postage doesn't

21:05get utilized, do we get

21:07>> I don't think it is prepaid.

21:09>> It says prepaid return. Postage prepaid.

21:12And I know you're not the clerk's not

21:14here, but curious. They say they sent

21:16them out with a pre uh sent with a

21:18postage prepaid return.

21:21Um, I was curious if it's not used, do

21:24we get that money back from the

21:26>> Yeah, I would have to check, but I

21:27always put a stamp on when I return my

21:29city listings. But

21:30>> yeah, if it's a stamp, then it's already

21:32paid. I'm just hoping then that the

21:35general listening audience will do what

21:38they need to do because that's just

21:39throwing money out the window. Thank

21:42you, Mr. Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr.

21:44Chair.

21:45>> Just this is for people who didn't

21:47return their annual street listing.

21:49They're getting an additional mailing

21:51saying if you want to vote, you need to

21:55return this form. So, I've never gotten

21:58one, but it does say prepaid.

22:00>> Yeah. Well, for inactive, that makes

22:02sense. But

22:08>> correct. Right. Right. Yeah. I just the

22:12responsible one and just mail when it's

22:14supposed to mail it in. Right. Yeah.

22:17Motion's been made and seconded to

22:19approve the $9,000 transfer for

22:22professional and technical services in

22:23the clerk's department. Any further

22:25discussion? All in favor? 1 2 3 4 5.

22:29That carries.

22:32Moving on to the last item is $5,000

22:36from the unfilled parallegal position to

22:38fund the legal service accounts for

22:40ongoing matters.

22:44We did receive the letter from the city

22:46solicitor Gfield on this if anyone had

22:48any questions. Council vital.

22:50>> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to

22:52approve the $5,000 transfer.

22:54>> Motion's been made and I will second

22:56that to approve the $5,000 transfer from

22:59the parallegal account to the legal

23:01services account as

23:05in the amount of $5,000. Any further

23:08discussion? Seeing none, all in favor?

23:10One, two, three, four, five.

23:16>> Mr. Chair,

23:16>> Council Villo.

23:17>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um would just ask

23:19that um at our next meeting suspension

23:22of the rules in order for us to take

23:23these up.

23:24>> Perfect. Finance committee is all set

23:26with that. Thank you. Thank you, Council

23:28Villa. Remind me.

23:29>> Sure.

23:30>> Thank you so much. Okay, moving on to

23:33the next item on the agenda is uh order

23:38number 26-1009697

23:42uh proposed non-un salary ordinance

23:44changes to job description pursuant to

23:47chapter 125 personnel section 5

23:50preparation of classification

23:52descriptions for position of the city

23:54collector assistant finance director

23:57city collector and assistant recreation

23:59director I'll begin by reading the

24:03letter submitted by the mayor.

24:05>> It's a very long letter. I don't know if

24:06you want to cut

24:07>> lengthy. Um I'll go through it maybe not

24:11as quick as uh uh clerk Carrian. Uh dear

24:14council president Oing and counselors,

24:16as you know, the city of Marbor received

24:18the Collins Center classification and

24:20comprehension uh study in May of 2025.

24:23This comprehensive study took an

24:25objective look at each job description

24:28uh which will be sent down at a later

24:30date. Uh salaries and recommended

24:32classification salary plan structures.

24:35Uh the city last comprehensive salary

24:37change for non-un non-un positions was

24:4010 years ago in 2016. I'm sending down

24:43for your review and approval an

24:45ordinance with the classification salary

24:47salary plan for many of our non-union

24:49positions based on the recommendations

24:51of the Collins center study as a guide.

24:54Our recommendations are to move to a

24:5615-step pay structure classifying

24:59positions with grouping systems,

25:01reorganization of the recreation and

25:03human resources department, and changing

25:05the city collector's position to 40

25:07hours, now currently 35. uh certain job

25:10title changes and approval of certain

25:12job descriptions. Uh class

25:15classification of the 15step pay

25:17structure. Uh the reason why we chose a

25:2015-step pay structure was to ensure that

25:22the employees will stay to ensure

25:24consistency long-term inst institutional

25:27knowledge. The grouping of positions

25:29allow pay equity across department level

25:32based on job responsibilities.

25:34Uh the main objective was twofold for

25:37the city. Uh the first was to ensure the

25:39starting rate for each position was s

25:42significant to attract new candidates

25:44and to also be competitive with

25:46surrounding municipalities. Uh second,

25:49it was to establish a grouping system to

25:51so the job uh responsibilities within

25:54the city are consistent with the salary

25:56ranges. Uh while identifying these

25:58solutions, it was imperative that we

26:00address other challenges such as

26:03reorganization of departments. Uh this

26:05task was not an easy feat. And numerous

26:08versions of this process occurred over

26:10many many months. Uh working with HR,

26:13the comproller and legal we looked at

26:17based on very long-term vacant

26:19positions. Um

26:23thank you Heather. Thank you. Uh

26:24continuing the sevenstep and even a

26:2612step model, uh the grouping of each

26:29position was analyzed to uh to the

26:32position utilizing this uh Colin center

26:34study as reference point. Uh regarding

26:37the grouping of the positions, you will

26:39see that it starts with a group B. Uh

26:42group A is reserved for potential future

26:45uh use if needed. Um as you know, a

26:48number of the non-UN positions in our

26:50city, including uh police chiefs, fire

26:52chiefs, DPW commissioner, comproller,

26:55and city solicitors are addressed or in

26:57the process of updating uh in separate

27:00salary ordinances and or employment

27:02agreements.

27:04uh all groupings have a starting uh step

27:06one uh which is a competitive starting

27:09salary based on the market. Having said

27:11that, we have numerous incumbent

27:13employees that cannot start at step one

27:15in the new grouping system uh because

27:18the position's current salary based on

27:20factors such as years of service could

27:22be greater than step one. Uh one version

27:24of the step uh seven model was to start

27:27each position in each group at step one.

27:30uh this method would cause uh huge

27:32strike uh hu huge spikes in salary

27:35increases across the board uh that were

27:38not consistent and would not have an

27:40equity uh for for years of service for

27:43particular grouping. Um if our current

27:45sevenstep uh model were updated based on

27:48the Collins center study minimum and

27:50maximum pay range uh it would also cause

27:53huge increase uh per step. Uh the

27:56proposal submitted uses a 15-step model

27:58with an increase of 30% over the 15

28:01years of service uh averaging about a 2%

28:05increase per step as we currently have

28:07with the sevenstep model. Uh based on

28:10the analysis and keeping the budget in

28:13mind, uh this is how the current

28:15proposed 15-year salary step model uh

28:18before you came to fruition. I've

28:20outlined in the attached uh documents

28:23the positions that are currently filled

28:25and what steps uh each employee in their

28:27current position would need to be placed

28:29in so there is no pay disparity uh with

28:32city council approval. Uh recreation

28:35human resources departments the

28:37recreation department will include

28:38reinstating an assistant recreation

28:40director and will not be filling the

28:43program coordinator role. Uh it would

28:45allow the city to be more competitive

28:47with the market and to directly assist

28:49the director with daytoday operations.

28:52This department has not seen any

28:54reorganization despite the expanded

28:56aquetics and seasonal programs that

28:59continue to grow within the city.

29:02However, staff and resources have not.

29:04This also creates the possibility of

29:06succession plan. Uh the city has

29:09discussions with MMEA on certain aspects

29:12of this. uh human resource department

29:14include a change to the role of human

29:17resource assistant to human resource

29:19manager as well as adding five hours per

29:22week to the human resource

29:23administrative assistance role which is

29:26currently at 35 hours uh to 40 hours.

29:29This change is necessary to support the

29:31change in our insurance broker uh that

29:34took effect on January 1st. This

29:36transition has resulted in several

29:38administrative uh functions that

29:40previously were handled externally by

29:42our broker uh including an average of 20

29:45hours a month uh in-house support

29:47services that are now assumed by the

29:49city human resources department. Uh this

29:51adjustment assures that we have

29:53appropriate oversight within our

29:55insurance plan and allows for effective

29:57operation of human resources department

29:59functions

30:01based on the very long-term vacant

30:04positions. I respectfully ask the city

30:06council to please expedite the approval

30:08of the salary ordinance uh for the city

30:11collector, city colle uh city collector,

30:13city collector assistant finance

30:15director and the recreation department

30:18positions. So the job descriptions can

30:20be posted and the interview process can

30:22be started. Uh changes on title and

30:25number of hours per week. Please uh take

30:28note that we currently have a few

30:29positions that are 35 hours and they are

30:32labeled accordingly and should not be

30:34calculated at 40 hours a week uh for a

30:36yearly salary. Lastly, streamlining the

30:39city collector's position from 35 hours

30:42to 40 hours. Uh so it coincides with all

30:45other department heads. Seeing this

30:47position is vacant, it is an appropriate

30:50time to make this change. uh the city

30:52council support in considering these

30:54changes to support our operations and

30:56workforce is greatly appreciated. I

30:58would like to thank human resources

31:00legal and the compro for all the input

31:02and work with uh that have went into

31:05this. I look forward to having the

31:07further discussion about the ordinance

31:09changes. Uh I am available for any

31:11questions. Sincerely Jay Christian Dumis

31:14mayor. Um

31:15>> Mr. Chair, motion to approve for

31:17discussion purposes. I do have some

31:19questions or comments. What I would what

31:22I would suggest is I I I know that the

31:25mayor and and and

31:26>> and when the mayor did highlight um for

31:29the uh uh uh bring in uh uh to expedite

31:32the approval of the city collector,

31:34assistant finance director, recreation

31:36department director for the assistant.

31:38That's basically why I wanted to have

31:41this meeting uh tonight. And I am on

31:44board to uh uh uh uh uh approving uh the

31:48job descriptions. I would like to take

31:51these in two votes. I would like to have

31:52the job description and then go forward.

31:54President Austin.

31:57What you just said can't happen.

32:01Period. We're only talking about four

32:03positions.

32:04You You have no idea what the salary is

32:06for any of those current positions

32:08because it's in dollars per hour. I

32:10think it's an irresponsible motion and

32:12the finance committee should not support

32:15that until we vet it. Don't make a

32:18motion that you don't know what the cost

32:20is to this city. I think that's totally

32:23fiscally irresponsible.

32:25>> Mr. Mr Chair, if I may,

32:26>> I was motioning for the positions you

32:29noted, but if I indeed did not include

32:33the classifications of those positions,

32:36and I'll break my motion into two parts,

32:39but we do see in the schedules provided

32:44the cost for each step and each position

32:48that's in our packet. So, we do know the

32:51cost as shown in the packet. I'm not

32:55sure if I misunderstood the packet.

32:59>> It is broken down in sections and by

33:01hourly. Mr. President,

33:03>> again, council or I would ask that you

33:05do not make any motions on this

33:07particular topic till it's vetted out.

33:09I'll test you. What's the salary of the

33:12recreation director? And don't give me

33:14dollars per hour. We don't do anything

33:15in this item in this in this city hall

33:18in dollars per hour. Everything's done

33:20on an annual salary. So we see and if I

33:23may Mr. Chair, I don't want to have a

33:25direct back and forth here, but as you

33:28can see in the chart that was provided,

33:30the recreation director, assistant

33:33director is shown at a rate in the chart

33:37that's provided in this information. And

33:40step seven, if I'm not mistaken, I can

33:42go right to it and look at it, but and

33:45it comes out to about $80,000 a year if

33:48you add 40 hours times that rate times

33:5250 weeks.

33:54But if indeed this is to be motioned in

33:57a different way,

33:59then I'll wait for that motion to be

34:01made. But I I am in support. First of

34:04all, I want to thank the mayor,

34:06comproller, HR,

34:09and legal for doing all this work and

34:13for providing this package. Uh it's long

34:16overdue. the Collins Center study. I

34:19previous mayor kept asking when are we

34:21going to update some of our positions so

34:23these departments can function

34:25appropriately.

34:27But if it's to be broken down in a

34:29different way and we get to the same end

34:31goal, I don't have a problem with that.

34:34But I want to see this move on. And I

34:36was going to ask that we move this along

34:38as quick as possible so these

34:39departments can function properly. That

34:42was my intent. But I'll wait to see if

34:45indeed there's a better way to make a

34:46motion on this.

34:47>> Councelor Roby, and then I'll go to

34:49President O.

34:50>> So, uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I I guess

34:53my I was, uh, questioning the same thing

34:55as council Orm. I did the math a little

34:57differently. I did the hours times 40

34:59times 52 weeks because that's what I

35:02always thought was in a year. Um, so I

35:04came up with more money than we have in

35:07the budget. I I also question the fact

35:10that the budget only has a line called

35:13city collector.

35:15Yet all the information within the

35:18budget that we got from the controller

35:20indicated that they want a city

35:23collector/assistant

35:26finance director. We don't have an

35:28assistant finance director. We have a

35:31controller and we have a

35:34>> an auditor. So, the term is confusing to

35:37me. Um,

35:40and which one do we want? Do we do you

35:42want to have both of them so that if you

35:44hire somebody who's not able to be the

35:47assistant

35:48finance director but is a collector and

35:51so you've got somebody in the

35:52collector's position, you can hire that

35:54person or do you really want someone who

35:56can take over and help the controller do

35:59their job?

36:00>> Both of those positions are if you if

36:02you don't mind, Mr. Chair, through you

36:04those All those positions are are

36:06already part of the salary ordinance

36:09that we have. We're just updating the

36:10job descriptions based upon the Collins

36:13Center study that you have in front of

36:15you. So

36:16>> So we approve budget of 94,145

36:20for somebody called the city collector.

36:23>> Correct.

36:23>> So you're asking for the collector to be

36:27paid at $103,15

36:32according to my math.

36:35the hourly rate times 40 time 52. So

36:39>> we classified them in group C which step

36:42one would be 103. Correct.

36:45>> So there's not enough money in the

36:46budget. So there would have to be a

36:48transfer.

36:49>> So

36:49>> or you're assuming that even though you

36:51want them July 1st, they're not going to

36:52get hired by July 1st.

36:54>> When we put this salary study down, we

36:57were under the assumption that's why we

36:58had reserve for salaries because we

37:00didn't know the direction of the city

37:01council. So when we put this down in

37:03March, we were I was hoping we're all

37:06hoping that this would be concurrent

37:08with the budget so we can have an honest

37:10conversation about where we are at so we

37:12can apply this to the actual budget for

37:14fiscal year 27. That did not happen.

37:17That's why we put money in for reserve

37:18for salary. So when we have a bigger

37:21conversation about the salary ordinance,

37:23and I don't think that we're going to do

37:24that today. I think we're just focusing

37:25on the job description. You can correct

37:27me if I'm wrong. That's a bigger

37:29conversation about the 15 steps. How are

37:32we funding for these positions and

37:34moving forward?

37:35>> So, if we're not talking about the job

37:38the salary ordinance changes, why are we

37:41talking about it? The job descriptions

37:42to me are totally different.

37:44>> The job descriptions are new based upon

37:46the Collins Center and they have to be

37:48approved by city council. Also, doesn't

37:50the salary change need to be approved

37:52>> at some point? But if you want to take

37:54that up today, we can't. I don't know

37:55what the direction of the city council

37:57is for tonight.

37:58The one of the reasons I want to address

38:00this is because I do support definitely

38:02the assistant recreation director. We we

38:04need that. That was in your letter

38:06saying that. So, yes, I wanted to first

38:09have uh u approve the uh the job

38:12descriptions and then we I'm sure we're

38:15going to have a lot of conversation when

38:18it comes to how we want to structure

38:20salaries. Is it seven steps? Is it 12

38:22steps? Is it the 15 steps? But I

38:24definitely wanted to have the meeting uh

38:26because I do support these positions uh

38:28for the job uh descriptions.

38:29>> Mr. President, then Mr. President, Mr.

38:32President, Mr. Chair. So then in in

38:36honor of the way I guess the committee

38:38would like to take this would be to

38:40approve the job descriptions first and

38:43take up the salaries at a different

38:45time.

38:47Uh reasoning is because I'm thinking

38:49it's going to be quite the debate on

38:52some of those.

38:53>> That's fine. So then I will take back my

38:56original motion and just at this point

38:59although I'm ready to discuss the

39:00salaries too, but at this point I would

39:03motion to approve the job descriptions

39:06as shown.

39:08>> Motion's been made and I will Oh,

39:10council vital.

39:11>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. because we put it

39:14in writing and because we say it a lot

39:17that this Collins uh study is valid, I

39:21would I would counter that. Having spent

39:2420 years in executive human resources

39:26departments and developing many studies

39:28myself and surveys myself and reviewing

39:30surveys myself, the Collins report was

39:34somewhat subjective.

39:36An example, typically when you do a

39:38salary survey, you you ask survey. You

39:41survey all the adjourning towns.

39:43Everyone that touches marble should be

39:45in this in the Collins uh study.

39:49Not all the towns that touch Marbor are

39:52in that study. Why? I wondered. I wonder

39:54why that town wasn't there. So, I

39:56checked into it. Well, they pay less

39:58than Marble does. So, you can make the

40:00numbers turn into anything you want in a

40:04salary survey.

40:06to to be valid or to be uh well

40:09objectionable I think was in the letter

40:11this objective study I would counter

40:14that it may not be objective

40:16>> if I may Mr. here. Um to comment to

40:20council vital, I've been involved with

40:22salary studies as well and in Ashland

40:26where I work full-time and indeed it

40:28doesn't always

40:30uh involve the abuing towns and cities

40:33because the amount of responsibility

40:35could be different, the type of

40:37government could be different. Uh, but

40:39what we used to do, and I'm expecting

40:42that this would be what Collins is

40:45looking at, is a comparable city or town

40:49to Malber. And then they also look at

40:52regions, too. They look at what's the

40:54cost of living. If I'm out in the end of

40:56the state, my house may be a lot cheaper

40:59to afford than working here in the city

41:02of Marorrow and trying to afford a home

41:03or anywhere in Metro West, I'll say. But

41:06you know it depends on those o those

41:09issues as well. you know, you just you

41:12can't always touch the city or town, you

41:14know, in respect to salary surveys. You

41:17have to look at the responsibilities

41:20such as what does the health agent do in

41:22Actton versus Ashland. You know, that's

41:24how we looked at it back in our salary

41:27reviews. But I, you know, Collins, you

41:29may be correct to some of that degree,

41:31but touching cities and towns, I know we

41:33never that was not the crux of what we

41:36were looking at.

41:38it was more the type of services and

41:41population and so forth. Thank you, Mr.

41:43Chair.

41:44>> Councelor Ruby.

41:45>> Right. So, if we're talking the actual

41:48job descriptions and skipping the salary

41:50ordinance at this juncture in the

41:53discussion, I would still go back to my

41:56initial question. Why do we have a city

41:59collector and a city collector/assistant

42:02finance director? Do you want to be able

42:04to hire both of them or do you want one

42:07or the other?

42:08>> I think we just put this down for the

42:12option of either or. Um the goal is to

42:15keep that collector assistant finance

42:18director if we have a candidate that can

42:20actually when we're talking secession

42:22planning that can take over for a

42:23controller and slide into that role and

42:25move forward. Um I believe that position

42:28was filled at one point with the prior

42:30administration and that's why it doesn't

42:31exist. Um, so we just kept that position

42:34as is and just updated it based upon the

42:36job description and what that entails

42:38and obviously with city council we need

42:39to approve that. Again, when we post

42:41this back in March, we were looking for

42:44all candidates to see what we would get

42:46for that position and if there was a

42:47candidate that was that fit that

42:49narrative with that position, then we go

42:51with that candidate as opposed to

42:53limiting ourselves with just a city

42:55collector position.

42:57And I I would guess that there's a whole

42:59different education and certification to

43:03be the assistant finance director versus

43:06just a plain.

43:07>> It's experience. A collector has to pass

43:09an exam either way. So I think it's just

43:11more experience and if they want to move

43:14forward. Some collectors just want to

43:16stay collectors, others would like to

43:17move into a higher position. It just

43:19depends upon their desire as as their

43:23what their journey consists of with the

43:26position that they want

43:27>> and then when the budget is created

43:29because there's only the one line versus

43:32separate lines the amount of money

43:35>> it will be different

43:36>> would be diff obviously we

43:38>> it's based upon exper experience and

43:40qualifications correct

43:41>> all right it just doesn't seem like the

43:43572 difference

43:46is enough

43:48for the responsibilities and functions

43:52of the assistant finance director piece

43:54added on to the collector's

43:56responsibilities.

43:57>> Well, the collector assistant finance we

43:59grouped as group C,

44:01>> right?

44:02>> So, the difference between the two

44:03salaries

44:04>> is $5.72

44:06an hour. It's not, and I could be wrong,

44:10but it seems like the responsibilities

44:13of the assistant finance, the additional

44:16of what's in the job description

44:20is

44:23it doesn't seem like it's enough to add

44:26that that extra, but it's just me

44:29speaking.

44:32So,

44:33>> Mr.

44:34But I don't I guess I don't see a issue

44:37with the job descriptions per se, but

44:40I'm not on finance either. So,

44:43>> Mr. President,

44:45>> so councilors, I don't know how you can

44:48honestly evaluate a salary ordinance and

44:51say it's good by a dollar per hour. We

44:54have worked in this council in my 27

44:56years and every salary ordinance is

44:59seven steps and based on an annual

45:02salary. Now, if you're telling me you're

45:04doing that hand scratching math for each

45:06one of these, God bless you. But I know

45:09you're not

45:11because you are incorrect. You short

45:13change the recreation director by

45:15$20,000. And I don't think he wants an

45:17$80,000 salary. So, I know you're not

45:20looking at what this really is. And so,

45:22to not understand what you're voting on

45:25is irresponsible.

45:26And you you're asking the taxpayers to

45:29just go do this and not know what the

45:31ramifications are. You could not turn

45:33around to a member of the public other

45:35than saying it's a salary study. Well,

45:37I've said it a thousand times. There's

45:40not a salary study in the world that

45:41comes back and says cut everybody's pay.

45:44It just doesn't happen.

45:47Period. It doesn't. Show me that study

45:50that says cut everybody's pay. It

45:52doesn't. So, there's some healthy salary

45:54adjustments here. And I'm not saying

45:56that they're not warranted, but the

45:58format in which they are a 15step. So 15

46:02steps, I didn't want to get down this

46:04path, but if I'm going to start, that's

46:062% a year for 13 years. Add a colar on

46:10top of that. That's 5% increase for

46:12every year. There's not a department

46:13head out here that wouldn't say sign me

46:15up. Well, guess who's listening? The

46:17folks that we have union contracts with.

46:19If they're going to get 5% every year,

46:22guess what's coming?

46:24You can't do that, folks. Well, you can,

46:26but I won't be supporting it. That is

46:29fiscally irresponsible.

46:32You just can't do it. My recommendation,

46:34approve the job descriptions. Tell the

46:37mayor to go back and resubmit this on a

46:39sevenstep process. I've told them how to

46:41do it. I've given them the information.

46:44Cut it at seven steps.

46:47Annual salary just like we just did. The

46:48DPW commissioner, the assistant fire

46:50chief, the assistant police chief, the

46:53city engineer, the city planner, the

46:55assistant commissioners, all just did

46:58seven steps. The world was okay last

47:00year and now all a sudden we got to go

47:02to 15 steps and 2% increases that cover

47:0513 years. I'm telling you, you did not

47:07do your homework if you're not paying

47:08attention and reading this unless you

47:10think we're just going to give money

47:12away, which is what this does. And I

47:15will not be supporting it. I will

47:17support

47:18the job descriptions and I will support

47:20the mayor to go back and send this down

47:22with seven steps capped just like I sent

47:25to him and Brian because otherwise

47:30just empty the checkbook folks and

47:32councelor Roy's right. There's not

47:33enough money in any of this to do this.

47:35Well, technically there is. We

47:36underspend a ton in salary. So, there'll

47:38be money to move around to cover them.

47:40We have to set an effective date. All

47:42right. Doesn't mean they're going to be

47:43all be effective July 1. We can set the

47:46effective date for this, but I'm telling

47:49you, read it. Don't just because they

47:51said the Collins, who the heck is the

47:53Collins Center that they're that smart

47:55that they're going to make make this the

47:56right decision. Go. If that's how you do

47:59your homework, God bless you,

48:01>> Mr. Chair.

48:03Couple comments. First of all, the

48:04motion on the floor is for the job

48:06description. So, um, I would ask that we

48:10look at that first and then I'll have

48:12questions on the salaries and the 15st

48:16step versus the sevenst step, but right

48:19now that's not for the motion that was

48:21made.

48:22>> So, your your original motion was to

48:24approve the job descriptions.

48:25>> Yes,

48:25>> I will I will second that motion. Uh

48:28motion has been made and seconded uh to

48:30approve the uh job descriptions uh

48:33pursuant to chapter 125 personnel

48:36section five preparation classification

48:38descriptions for position city collector

48:41assistant finance director city

48:42collector and assistant recreation

48:45director any further comments council

48:47vital

48:48>> Mr. Chair, I uh I too will approve the

48:50job descriptions with the understanding

48:53that the department heads will be able

48:55to fund those positions within the

48:56budget that we approved last week or two

48:58weeks. Sir,

49:00>> Mr. Chair,

49:01>> thank you. Thank you.

49:02>> Point of clarification. They can't fund

49:03anything because they can't fund

49:04anything without the salary ordinance.

49:06We haven't approved a salary ordinance.

49:07All we're doing is saying, "Here's the

49:09job description. You can go post it."

49:11But they don't have a salary to go with

49:12the posting, so they probably won't post

49:14it.

49:15>> All right. The issue is going to be get

49:17a salary ordinance that is reasonable

49:19and if you if a finance committee says

49:21what's in front of you is good then go

49:23vote on it but I will not be supporting

49:26it because it it's disingenuous. It

49:28doesn't paint the picture and no one

49:31here can tell me what anybody's making.

49:33Maybe Council Roby did all the math and

49:35God bless you council Roby if you did. I

49:37cheated and had the mayor send me what

49:38the salaries are and your eyes are going

49:41to pop out. But I recommend you look at

49:42it because $70 an hour and $40 an hour

49:45means nothing to anybody that's

49:47evaluating salary. Nothing. And you,

49:51this body is responsible for

49:53appropriation. And if you don't know

49:55what you're approving, shame on all of

49:58you,

50:00>> Mr. Chair. Point of clarification. So

50:02the collector the collector position was

50:04funded in this budget. So we can move

50:05forward with that position.

50:07>> Yeah. I just want to make sure that

50:09we're on the same page. That's all.

50:11>> And and the second part that's not being

50:13discussed is even though I support the

50:15assistant recreation director, there's

50:17issues that got to get addressed with

50:18how it's going to be funded because

50:20that's a

50:20>> Thank you.

50:21>> non-UN position that's currently in the

50:24budget as a program manager. That's a

50:27union position that I know, God bless

50:30Chuck, he's trying to get his department

50:33organized. That should be upfront and we

50:36should be updated on what that status is

50:38so that we can approve a functioning.

50:42Not that doesn't function now, Chuck,

50:44but you're you're killing yourself

50:46there, kid.

50:47>> You got to get them help is my my easy

50:49way to say that. But that's got to come

50:51before us because approving is not going

50:53to do any good if the if we have to

50:55battle with the union.

50:56>> If

50:56>> work with the union and come back with a

50:58package that works. So point of

51:00information, we do not need to battle

51:01with the union because that position was

51:03already existed. So we do not so the

51:05position was already there. So we just

51:07reclassified the actual department and

51:09brought back that position. So there's

51:12no need to negotiate with the union for

51:14that position.

51:15>> What about the senior clerk?

51:17>> That will need to be negotiated with the

51:19union. You are correct with that. But

51:21not the assistant director.

51:23>> That's encouraging.

51:24>> It is.

51:27Thank you.

51:27>> Thank you. So motion has been made and

51:29seconded to approve the job

51:32descriptions. All in favor? One, two,

51:35three, four, five. That carries.

51:38Now, uh, the pleasure of the finance

51:40team, we can make a decision on what we

51:43wish to do. Um, send this back, refer

51:46this back to the mayor. Um, but I'm

51:49willing to have the conversation.

51:51>> Mr. Chair, in the conversation, I think

51:54the mayor noted and I thanked them, you

51:56had HR involved with this. You had the

51:58legal department involved with this. You

51:59had the mayor comproller.

52:03Those people are experts in what they do

52:06and I entrust them with what they

52:09presented.

52:11Now indeed we will need to come back

52:15with salary ordinances as noted but we

52:19are looking at departments that are in

52:22need of these positions and we need to

52:27be competitive. Now are we

52:28overcompetitive? I don't think so

52:30because they're unfilled. These are

52:32positions that have been unfilled for

52:34quite a long time. And in my view, the

52:37way we get to that is having

52:39professional experts give us advice. And

52:42yes, we do make the final decision here.

52:46But do put a little faith into some of

52:48our department heads that put work into

52:51this. And I won't down the call-in

52:54center because they've been around for

52:55years. But if we want to pull that

52:57report apart, we can. It was discussed

53:00before. One of the more important things

53:02here too is redundancy. If for some

53:06reason your finance director wasn't here

53:09tomorrow, do we have someone that can

53:11get into that step such as what's being

53:14proposed here? So, but it probably will

53:17need further discussion and indeed if

53:20you want to send down what the salaries

53:22are per the hourly, maybe my math was

53:24off and I apologize to the recreation

53:27director if I'm short changing your

53:29person by 20. was no intent on that. And

53:32then look at some other cities and towns

53:34that are comparable to Marvel and see

53:37what they're paying, you know, but I

53:40don't want to underestimate the work

53:42that went into this. I've been on this

53:44floor many of times asking that we get

53:46to this point. I'm glad we're at this

53:49point and if it needs further

53:50discussion, I have no problem with that.

53:52I'm not going to make an opinion if I

53:54like the seventh step or the 15 step.

53:56We'll see how that all falls into the

53:58cracks and how it matters in respect to

54:03attracting good solid employees that

54:06will stay here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

54:08>> Thank you, Council. Councelor Fill.

54:10>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.

54:12Mayor. Um, appreciated the conversation

54:15so far, and I I don't um couple points

54:18that President O made that I do want to

54:19emphasize as well. I really believe that

54:22um 15 steps what is bothering me the

54:24most is the inconsistency with what we

54:26have been doing over the course of the

54:28last year with some positions here in

54:29the city that are all at seven steps.

54:31So, I would like to see the positions

54:33brought down, right? The the recreation

54:35director, assistant wreck position, um,

54:37and that collector position along with

54:39the assistant finance in that seven

54:40steps just to kind of get an idea of

54:42what we're looking at compared to 15. If

54:44that's

54:44>> I I mean, we'll we evaluated the seven

54:47steps. We did a 12 step, we did a 15

54:49step, but if you do the range of what

54:52the other mass municipalities are

54:55paying, if you do a sevenst step

54:56increase, it's going to be like a 5%

54:58increase per each step. So like we've

55:02looked at this and analyzed it what is

55:04the least impact on the taxpayer. So

55:07that's why we did a 15st step you know

55:09so like when we looked at it and we

55:10evaluated what was the less hit and the

55:14tax implications when we did this 15

55:16step you know and then if you want to

55:18discuss cola that doesn't necessarily

55:20mean that cola has to happen just

55:22because if you're getting an increase

55:23every year that doesn't mean that that's

55:25going to happen either especially there

55:27increases across the board every year.

55:29So this was again a lot of work went

55:32into this. We evaluated a lot of

55:33different scenarios. I can't tell you

55:35how many spreadsheets I have in

55:36regarding um what was the best game plan

55:39for this because when we're talking

55:40consistency in equity, that's why

55:42there's a grouping and then if you do a

55:44sevenst step people or employees will

55:47fall differently on those steps because

55:48you can't start at everyone at step one

55:50because of the pay inequities that you

55:52have across the board when you group

55:54them. So there's so many layers to this.

55:57Um it wasn't an easy task and like every

56:00roadblock we hit we had to pivot and the

56:0315 step was the best scenario to try to

56:06make so many other things work within

56:09this and we sent down an hourly pay

56:12scale because not everyone even works a

56:1540hour work week. So if you send down an

56:18a salary there are certain individuals

56:19that you think are making this salary

56:21but they're not because they're only a

56:2335h hour work week. So there's that

56:26component as well. So um we will

56:29evaluate and do whatever you want to do.

56:31If you want to see a breakdown with the

56:32ranges with the seven steps, we can do

56:34that. That's but like I said, you will

56:37notice the significant increases per the

56:40per the steps. But again, I we don't

56:43have to have this debate now. We're more

56:44than welcome to talk about it and share.

56:46But again, this was an animal to to to

56:50take over. Um,

56:52it's been it's been an incredible ride

56:54to say the least, but this is what

56:56happens when we don't do anything for

56:58over 10 years. We were so far behind the

57:01eightball with a lot of great employees

57:03that I'm very just thankful that if they

57:06were to go somewhere else, they'd be

57:08making incredible amount of more money

57:09than what we're offering. And a city of

57:11this size should be comparative and

57:14competitive with other municipalities.

57:17>> I I appreciate that, Mr. But I think

57:19that's all the more reason why I would

57:21like to see some of those options and to

57:22see that presented to us and and

57:23especially the fact that we should, in

57:25my opinion, be taking these one at a

57:27time because of the the nuances that you

57:29discussed, 35 hours versus 40 hours. And

57:31I would like to see um right the yearly

57:34annual salary for these people rather

57:36than the hourly rate, right? I mean,

57:37we've had folks working at 35 or 40

57:39hours, you know, for as long as I can

57:41remember being here at the city. So um

57:43and we've always seen those in a yearly

57:44setup. So, I I would just like to see it

57:46all presented to us and um that's where

57:48I stand. But that's that's my time

57:50there, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

57:51>> Uh Mr. President,

57:52>> thank you. So So this 15step process,

57:55there's 1 2 3 4 5 6 seven individuals

57:58that fall outside this sevenstep

58:01process. The current sevenstep process

58:03is a 2% increase. All right. Why would I

58:06want to change that? Told you one-time

58:08exemptions for these if the council sees

58:10fit. We did it with DPW. We did it with

58:14the assistant fire chiefs. If there's a

58:16need, the comproller, the solicitor,

58:18they come down and see us. We just want

58:19to blanket give all this money away

58:24because we want this so-called equity

58:26somewhere.

58:28Okay. I I haven't seen the mass exodus

58:30out of city hall yet.

58:32But again, you're asking taxpayers to

58:35fund this because it's not just the

58:37salary. It's now all the pensions that

58:38go along with it. It's a big deal. and

58:42to just oh make a motion to approve it.

58:45I I I can't tell you how that just sends

58:47me over the edge. That that's just

58:50irresponsible. It should be sevenstep

58:52process like we always do. Same 2%

58:54increases. If you want to go put

58:57somebody in a new category and they're

58:59outside that, come down for a one time

59:01and say we're going to start these guys

59:02here and let it rip. But they're your

59:05long-term employees that don't seem to

59:07be going anywhere, but you're willing to

59:09just go put them at that point. Okay,

59:12come down and say it.

59:14But

59:1615 steps, it it's it's financially

59:19unattainable for the city. I I I cannot

59:22stand behind that.

59:24>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

59:25>> Thank you, Mr. President.

59:27>> Council Ro.

59:28>> Thank you, Mr. President. I know there

59:31was a motion to approve the job

59:32descriptions, but the comment that the

59:34mayor just made regarding 40 hours per

59:36week. In the document of the salary

59:39schedule, there is the section two,

59:43Roman numeral 2, the above position

59:45shall be 40 hours per week except the

59:47following shall be 35 with nothing in

59:50there, which to me indicated that you

59:52want all of these to be 40 hours per

59:54week. So why not put that in the job

59:56description? It's not there. I just

59:58looked. There's nothing about hours. If

1:00:00it's in the job description, you know

1:00:02it's a 40-hour week.

1:00:06>> I'm not understanding your question.

1:00:08>> You had said some are 35, some are 40.

1:00:10Make them all 40. Just put it in the job

1:00:12description. It's a 40hour a week job.

1:00:15>> And that's the goal. When those 35 hours

1:00:17retire, I can't do it now because

1:00:19they'll be making significant less

1:00:20amount of money. The collector, I

1:00:22believe, is a 35 hours and it's not

1:00:24filled yet. So, it will be moving over

1:00:26to a 40 hours, but I can't I can't have

1:00:29someone go to a 40 hour because they'll

1:00:31make less money now if they go to a 40

1:00:33hours because they'll make less per hour

1:00:35>> because of what's in the budget

1:00:37currently versus what you're proposing

1:00:39to

1:00:39>> based upon their wage. If they go up to

1:00:41a 40hour work week, their salary is

1:00:44going to be less than what they need.

1:00:45>> You said there's nobody in the position

1:00:47now

1:00:47>> for collector. Correct. That's why a new

1:00:50person coming in isn't going to know

1:00:53what to compare a salary.

1:00:54>> There's other there's other 35 hour per

1:00:57like it the nurse. There's other

1:00:59positions that are 35 hours. So I can't

1:01:02bring them to a 40hour work week because

1:01:06they'll make based upon their wage

1:01:08they'll make less money at 40 hours than

1:01:09they will at 35 hour based upon their

1:01:11salary. So I have to keep them at 35

1:01:13hours as of right now until they retire.

1:01:16Then we can bring down the job

1:01:17description and move that position to a

1:01:1940 and then they'll fit in that

1:01:20classification.

1:01:21>> But what difference does it make for

1:01:22other people? I'm only talking about the

1:01:24four positions you've got on the salary

1:01:27schedule.

1:01:27>> Correct. They'll all be 40 hours.

1:01:29>> So why not put that in the job

1:01:31description

1:01:34>> because I believe it should be just

1:01:36understood 40 hour. I mean we can make

1:01:37that change if you want and Christine

1:01:39can speak to that if she want because

1:01:40she's here. But all non department heads

1:01:43otherwise noted it's a 40hour work week.

1:01:49typically you don't put um hours in a

1:01:51job description. You do it in your

1:01:53postings. Um but it's not because it's

1:01:56the job function. It's not the hours

1:01:58someone works in a job description. It's

1:02:00based upon uh that's about what you do

1:02:02with the posting because it could

1:02:04technically you could hire someone at

1:02:05part-time into a job description. We do

1:02:08have people that work part-time in a

1:02:10role um but also have someone that could

1:02:12work full-time in that same role. It's

1:02:14just that they're doing less hours of

1:02:16the same job. So the job description is

1:02:19the function of the job and the hours is

1:02:21what you do in a posting or budget for.

1:02:24We do have some positions in the city

1:02:26that are 35 hours and some that are 40.

1:02:29So the lowest common denominator is an

1:02:31hourly rate of compensation.

1:02:34Um, and that's why the the Collins

1:02:36Center study was all done as an hourly

1:02:38wage because when you're comparing uh

1:02:40community to community, some communities

1:02:43work 37 and a half, some are 40, some

1:02:45are 35, some have a position that are 20

1:02:47hours, some have it at, you know, the

1:02:49the full full-time based upon what the

1:02:51community's full-time hours are. So, um,

1:02:54here we don't put the hours in a job

1:02:57description. uh we we it's it's done as

1:03:00a posting because it's about the

1:03:01function of the job not the hours they

1:03:03work.

1:03:04>> Okay. So if you come back with a revised

1:03:07salary ordinance that is the seven steps

1:03:10will it simply say all positions are 40

1:03:13hours per week. The this except that is

1:03:15throwing me off because there's nobody

1:03:17there. So you really only want people to

1:03:19be 40 hours per week. We do have some

1:03:22that are are 35

1:03:23>> in this particular posting which is for

1:03:26the

1:03:28collector assistant finance director,

1:03:30city collector and assistant recreation

1:03:32director. That's this specific posting

1:03:34>> posting for I think if I'm not mistaken

1:03:37the current city collector role as city

1:03:41collector um in the ordinance that

1:03:43exists was just a 35hour position. The

1:03:46last person that held that role was

1:03:50uh two three people ago

1:03:54and after that um they created the uh

1:03:58city collector/ass assistant finance

1:04:01director and that position went to 40

1:04:04hours. So trying to make sure we

1:04:08maintain the two job descriptions in

1:04:09case down the road, let's say you have

1:04:11someone internal that may not have all

1:04:13of the qualifications if you're doing

1:04:15succession planning because the

1:04:17collector role is a hard position to

1:04:19fill. Um, in municipalities, we also are

1:04:22looking for someone that could

1:04:23potentially down the road fill an

1:04:25assistant finance director. We want to

1:04:28make sure we keep maintain those two job

1:04:30descriptions. It's not looking to fill

1:04:32right now those two as separate

1:04:34positions. It's just making sure that as

1:04:36we move forward in this process that

1:04:39we're we're keeping ourselves in line

1:04:42that if for some reason a position's

1:04:44vacant and this decision at that time is

1:04:47to go the direction of the city

1:04:49collector, we're we're at least um ready

1:04:52for it.

1:04:53>> So, or if we found someone that isn't

1:04:55quite up to that. We if we approve the

1:04:59job description but we don't have the

1:05:01salary ordinance and you hire a

1:05:03collector, they're only going to be

1:05:04working 35 hours a week.

1:05:06>> If I think if you do it the way it is

1:05:08currently in Brian

1:05:09>> and then what happens when we change the

1:05:12salary ordinance to be 40 hours a week

1:05:15and they don't want to work 40 hours a

1:05:17week.

1:05:18>> I

1:05:19they don't want I mean we would we our

1:05:22position would

1:05:23>> they got hired to work 35. We would be

1:05:25hiring on the based on the 40 would be

1:05:27our goal is to move those positions.

1:05:29>> You can't hire at 40 if we don't have

1:05:31the salary

1:05:33ordinance approved. Can you

1:05:35>> What we recommended was based on a 40,

1:05:38but we haven't approved it yet and

1:05:40evidently that's going to take some time

1:05:41to get done. So do you want somebody in

1:05:44the position

1:05:46yesterday?

1:05:47>> Yes. I think at this moment where we've

1:05:48moved forward with the current um the

1:05:51assistant finance the city collector

1:05:53assistant finance director already is a

1:05:5640hour position. That's what you guys

1:05:59voted

1:06:00several years ago

1:06:01>> and you have the candidate for that

1:06:03position.

1:06:03>> Uh we are in we we move forward with uh

1:06:06the current job description would look

1:06:09to

1:06:10>> if you mind jump in. So correct. So,

1:06:14we're moving forward with the current

1:06:16position as collector assistance finance

1:06:18director.

1:06:20We

1:06:22when I left before they created that

1:06:24position, but when they did that, they

1:06:27didn't fix the collector position and

1:06:30made that a sevenstep 40hour position.

1:06:33They just left it alone. And we're

1:06:35trying to fix that so that down the

1:06:38road, say things happen and someone

1:06:42wants to move up into that position, but

1:06:44they're a little green, you can hire

1:06:45them as the collector. Then as they

1:06:47accumulate from that, saying, "Hey, we

1:06:49like this person. Let's make them

1:06:51collector assistance finance director."

1:06:53You can now keep them longer instead of

1:06:55them jumping somewhere else trying to

1:06:56meet the collector treasurer or

1:06:58something else with another community.

1:07:00So, we're trying to use that as a

1:07:01stepping stone to get someone

1:07:04secession plan and then fill the

1:07:07position. You guys know it's difficult

1:07:10to find finance positions.

1:07:12>> Right.

1:07:13>> Again, the goal when we submitted this

1:07:14in March was to have these conversations

1:07:16so when we put this out, we would have

1:07:18the budget that would fit the need based

1:07:20upon the position.

1:07:21>> So,

1:07:21>> so Mr.

1:07:23So if the mayor's office is in a hurry

1:07:24to get a collector, assistant collector,

1:07:26and assistant recreation director, we

1:07:28just told him we want seven steps. I'm

1:07:30expect on Thursday he's going to tell me

1:07:32here's the salary, sevenst step salary

1:07:34ones for these three positions. Leave

1:07:37the rest alone because it looks like

1:07:38there's a lot more discussion. But if

1:07:40those are really the priority, I think

1:07:42you got the sense of the council, we

1:07:44want seven steps, right? You don't have

1:07:47to like it, but if you want to get

1:07:49something approved,

1:07:52you'll do it. If not, we'll stay here

1:07:55and

1:07:57be frustrated. But I don't I no one's

1:08:00explain to me why the seven steps that

1:08:02we just approved for everybody else is

1:08:04no longer valid and we're going to go to

1:08:0515 steps, which is 5% a year, which is

1:08:08just

1:08:10it's insane.

1:08:12It's going to your negotiating

1:08:13powers going forward with all your other

1:08:15contracts.

1:08:19Mr. Chair,

1:08:21>> I would ask that they provide a

1:08:23comparison

1:08:25for the sevenst step versus the 15step

1:08:29to see actually what kind of cost we're

1:08:32looking at. And then I have not made a

1:08:36decision yet. So I would say speak on

1:08:38behalf of yourself if you're saying the

1:08:40council has indicated they want seven

1:08:42steps. I haven't indicated that. I would

1:08:46like to see the data take a strong look

1:08:49at it and see what is best for the city

1:08:53including retaining employees

1:08:56because I've been here too long to see

1:08:58too many good employees leave. Thank

1:09:00you, Mr. Chair.

1:09:01>> Thank you, Council.

1:09:03>> Councelor Fill.

1:09:04>> Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I just want

1:09:06to emphasize the fact that we looked at

1:09:08several job descriptions tonight that

1:09:10you know have from your perspective

1:09:12mayor this is based on the conversation

1:09:13we've had today are priorities right now

1:09:15that we need to work on. So you know I

1:09:17would specifically ask that we see the

1:09:20seventh step for the city collector

1:09:22assistant finance director and the right

1:09:24city collector position the two of those

1:09:26um as well as recck director and

1:09:28assistant recck director because that to

1:09:29me appears to be the urgency right now.

1:09:31So that that's what I would expect for

1:09:33us to review immediately. So I I

1:09:36personally I I believe there's a motion

1:09:38on the floor from councelor Oram to you

1:09:40know get a comparison between the seven

1:09:41steps but specifically I would like to

1:09:44see those that seems to be the urgency

1:09:45and that's what the conversation today

1:09:47should have been about but we were kind

1:09:49of getting ahead of ourselves a little

1:09:50bit which is fine. Um obviously there's

1:09:52a lot more here to discuss but I want to

1:09:54make sure I see the rec directors here

1:09:55tonight that we're taking care of these

1:09:57items you know as soon as possible and I

1:09:59I appreciate mayor the fact that you

1:10:01have relayed that urgency to us. Yeah, I

1:10:04mean I will do my best to get this down

1:10:06for Thursday, but um looking at the data

1:10:09like where do you even start from a step

1:10:10seven, you know, looking at 15 steps,

1:10:15that's the min and the max, you know,

1:10:16and that's what we did. So if we cut it

1:10:18in the cut it in the middle and then we

1:10:20do a percentage of the increase for min

1:10:22and max, then we can do that. But

1:10:24>> so again, I'm going to disagree that

1:10:26that seven our current sevenstep process

1:10:29doesn't have 2% for 13 years. Stop it at

1:10:32step seven. That's your seventh step

1:10:34right there.

1:10:35>> Right.

1:10:35>> I'm you prove me wrong. The other

1:10:38positions that we just did are all 2%

1:10:40increases.

1:10:41>> Correct.

1:10:42>> Right. So I don't So now you're going to

1:10:44go set something up for 15 years.

1:10:47>> I gave you I told you the way I gave you

1:10:49information how to solve the problem.

1:10:51>> Cut it at seven if

1:10:52>> and you're done.

1:10:55But DP the DPW salary was started before

1:10:58I got here and those start extremely

1:11:00high and they don't fit on this

1:11:02classification. So I can start higher

1:11:05but I don't think that's the route that

1:11:06we want to go. That's why it's only a 2%

1:11:08because the starting point is extremely

1:11:11higher so you can get to that min and

1:11:13max range. That's the problem that we're

1:11:15having. It's like if you want to start

1:11:17>> so again I I'll be I'll be I don't like

1:11:19the max on any of the 15 sub salaries.

1:11:22I'm I'm I don't know how clearer I can

1:11:24be. I'm done at seven. All the extra 2%

1:11:27for the next I don't get rid of them.

1:11:30Just stop them at seven

1:11:34because that's that they'll be no

1:11:36different than right now. If you would

1:11:37come down without this stupid Collins

1:11:39Center study and said, "Okay, here's a

1:11:41sevenst step for pick a position

1:11:44be 2% increase for seven steps and we'd

1:11:46be done." But now you're trying to force

1:11:48fit groups and H's and M's and what do

1:11:50you call it? The FIFA schedule.

1:11:53Great. But you you're you're trying to

1:11:56force us into something that I don't buy

1:11:58into.

1:12:01>> Thank you,

1:12:02>> Mr. Chair. Councelor Vital.

1:12:04>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. again from from my

1:12:07own experiences um in setting up

1:12:10compensation programs uh both salary

1:12:14scales and grades and so forth and so on

1:12:16and teaching it. In fact, I never and

1:12:19and I've never been in municipalities,

1:12:21so I I I start off with that caveat, but

1:12:24I've never seen a a a pay range that had

1:12:2815 steps. Never once. 10 is the max that

1:12:31I've ever seen. Now, if municipalities

1:12:33are different, well, then I I'm just not

1:12:35familiar with municipalities, but

1:12:37typically it's it's like 10 steps.

1:12:39>> It's actually pretty common between it

1:12:42can go 10, 12, 15, even up to 20. The

1:12:45schools have quite a bit of steps and

1:12:47they have lanes. Um, it's not that

1:12:49uncommon. Like I said, it's just

1:12:50uncommon here in Malboro. And I think

1:12:52that's the uniqueness of Malro because

1:12:56just because it's you guys haven't seen

1:12:58it before doesn't mean that it doesn't

1:12:59exist. Um and we're just trying to again

1:13:02write a lot of wrongs over the last 10

1:13:05years and we're trying to classify so

1:13:07there's pay equity across the board. So

1:13:09all of different department heads that

1:13:10are in the same job functions or same

1:13:12responsibilities are getting paid the

1:13:14same. So when you peer back take take

1:13:18back pe layers of this onion, you can't

1:13:21have this step or this step this step

1:13:23when the job functions based upon

1:13:25department heads are somewhat similar.

1:13:27So that's why there's a whole grouping

1:13:28process and that's why when we developed

1:13:30the grouping process then that's why we

1:13:32discovered okay what is the range for

1:13:35the min and max based upon the callin

1:13:37center whether you agree with it or not

1:13:38disagree with it if you look at um any

1:13:40type of MA website the the data is there

1:13:43and you can you can see that um so again

1:13:47I I I hear your concerns and looking at

1:13:50the numbers it's I I get I get why we're

1:13:53scared for those numbers but we're 10

1:13:56years behind behind this and now even

1:13:58with the Collins Center based on when

1:13:59they started this and evaluated the

1:14:01municipality state that was two years

1:14:03ago. So now we're even 12 years behind

1:14:05the rate. So I get it. It's not a

1:14:08position that I want to be for and it's

1:14:11not something I wanted to send down. But

1:14:13at the same time, when you're talking

1:14:14long-term secession planning with the

1:14:16city, and you want to do right by the

1:14:18people that are retiring over the next

1:14:19five years, it's going to be hard and a

1:14:22challenge to find someone of caliber

1:14:24with a sevenst step unless it's big

1:14:28spikes or you start at a higher rate and

1:14:30then they get increased moving forward.

1:14:33That's why we went with the 15. I can

1:14:35share and compare all the data with you

1:14:36and you can see that. But if you look at

1:14:38the min and the max, that's what we

1:14:40based things on based upon the study

1:14:42that was done.

1:14:44>> Mr. Chair,

1:14:46thank you. Um, I appreciate this healthy

1:14:49discussion and it really is healthy

1:14:51discussion finding out where the mayor

1:14:53has been and his staff to get the data

1:14:56to find out where we stand as a city to

1:14:59find out why we're not retaining

1:15:02employees. So, this has all been healthy

1:15:04discussion hearing it from our experts.

1:15:07And with that said, I think the mayor

1:15:09made it very clear in his letter. The

1:15:11reason why we chose a 15-step pay

1:15:13structure was to ensure that employees

1:15:17will stay to ensure consistency and

1:15:20long-term institutional knowledge. I

1:15:23look at that as a key component of what

1:15:26we're discussing tonight. And more

1:15:28importantly, I look at all our employees

1:15:30as the most valuable resource within

1:15:33this city and let's start treating them

1:15:35that way. Thank you,

1:15:37>> Mr. Chair.

1:15:38>> President,

1:15:39>> those are words on a letter. I can put

1:15:41similar words on a letter. So So great.

1:15:44Good for you. That that doesn't make it

1:15:46right. So So great for you to reparent

1:15:49what the mayor said. That doesn't make

1:15:51what he said is right. Thank you, Mr.

1:15:53Chair.

1:15:53>> Mr. Chair, what makes it right? what

1:15:57councelor aring is saying, you know, we

1:15:59need this healthy discussion with

1:16:00factbased,

1:16:02not just hearsay. Again, I think we can

1:16:06continue this, but I'm not going to

1:16:07bicker back and forth.

1:16:09And I don't want to do that tonight. I

1:16:11mean the the whole goal for me this

1:16:12evening um is is with these positions

1:16:15that we just uh we approved the job

1:16:17descriptions. I want to go forward

1:16:20because I support these position

1:16:22definitely with the assistant recreation

1:16:24director which is which is adamantly

1:16:27needed there for going into some if

1:16:30approved when we get there it still has

1:16:32to be advertised. So we're talking a lot

1:16:34of time. So that's taking a page out of

1:16:37council fill with his idea with these

1:16:41positions. I I would support that

1:16:43because we need to get going on these um

1:16:46and it is and I thank the mayor these

1:16:48these this is a tough position to be in

1:16:52and uh yeah it's it's it's quite a

1:16:55debate having this when we're talking

1:16:56about having all these steps and trying

1:16:58to retain workers for succession plan

1:17:00and absolutely I support that but I do

1:17:03support these positions that we have in

1:17:05front of us this evening. Council Roby.

1:17:07>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. So, um,

1:17:11that what has occurred to me is we have

1:17:14a salary ordinance change that starts

1:17:16with group B and ends in group H, yet

1:17:18only three of the groups have positions

1:17:21aligned with them. What are the other

1:17:23groups for? Future changes are going to

1:17:26bring down to us

1:17:28who who will be in group B with a salary

1:17:31at step one of $57 an hour.

1:17:35>> Who will be in group H?

1:17:38So we there is in your packet you should

1:17:41see a list of everyone that's listed in

1:17:44what group they are actually.

1:17:45>> But there's only three groups. Group E,

1:17:48group D, and group C. You've got a group

1:17:50B, a G, and an H with nobody in them.

1:17:54>> Yeah, it should be in the packet.

1:17:57>> If I council Roby out, there are people

1:17:59in each group.

1:18:01>> We're in the It's not in the salary

1:18:03ordinance language. You've only got

1:18:07Well, the salary ordinance only tells

1:18:09you the uh again

1:18:12>> it's not done what you're used to and

1:18:15that's why there's a lot of

1:18:17consternation.

1:18:18>> So are it like we're used to seeing it

1:18:20seven steps and see where it goes. You

1:18:22can give the 15 steps side by side but

1:18:25dollars per hour is not going to get you

1:18:27anywhere. How do you go turn to the

1:18:29publicans?

1:18:30anybody gets 100 bucks if they can tell

1:18:32me how much this salary ordinance if

1:18:34approved as is for everybody costs the

1:18:37city.

1:18:38>> And I get that point. My my point is who

1:18:40are who are these other people and are

1:18:43they also increases to them and should

1:18:47we not be

1:18:48>> if you look if you look at the original

1:18:50packet looks like they're whited out. So

1:18:53there were a lot more positions that are

1:18:55in these groups. So, for example, group

1:18:58B, it has the assistant solicitor, the

1:19:00building commissioner, city auditor, the

1:19:02IT director.

1:19:03>> All right. Because there's nothing in

1:19:05the

1:19:06>> Right. Right. They were they were whited

1:19:08out for some reason. I don't know. I'm

1:19:10assuming whoever created this packet

1:19:11whited them out. Just so you all

1:19:13>> information. It was put that way because

1:19:15those are the only four we're supposed

1:19:17to be talking about tonight. That's why

1:19:18it's that way.

1:19:19>> Correct. And I'm not disagreeing with

1:19:20that. That's just the reason why. There

1:19:22should be more information in this. It's

1:19:23just not in your packet for tonight

1:19:25because we weren't going to dive into

1:19:27how much we dived into tonight.

1:19:29>> But technically would if we approved

1:19:31this salary ordinance as

1:19:34presented, we would have been increasing

1:19:37everybody's salary.

1:19:39>> Again, we wanted to have this

1:19:40conversation before the budget process.

1:19:42So that was the goal. So now we're in

1:19:44June and now things have shifted, which

1:19:47I'm thankful that you guys took this up.

1:19:48However, the conversation would I would

1:19:50had hoped would have started that

1:19:53coincided with the budget process so we

1:19:55can have this debate. So when fiscal 27

1:19:57happened, we would be able to budget

1:19:59accordingly. That did not happen. So now

1:20:01we're behind the eightball and now we're

1:20:03trying to not scramble, but now we're

1:20:05trying to figure out things as we move

1:20:07forward, which is fine. We can do that,

1:20:08but it was just a we I was under the

1:20:10pressure it'll be a different

1:20:11conversation back in March or April or

1:20:13even towards May.

1:20:15>> So if I go back and look at the March

1:20:1723rd Well, I'm going to I'm going to

1:20:19send you all this information with the

1:20:21hour with

1:20:22>> with the salary per year and with the

1:20:24seven steps. So, I will provide all that

1:20:26information. So, it'll be broken down

1:20:27for you

1:20:27>> for everybody for only these specific

1:20:30people.

1:20:31>> Everyone I only have I only have the

1:20:33data for everyone. I have it here. Like

1:20:36that's what I have. So, I can I will

1:20:38share that all with you and I will share

1:20:40a sevenstep of what we thought between

1:20:42the min and max. and you guys can have

1:20:45that debate as well as where you think

1:20:46we should start or not start.

1:20:48>> Okay. And and then I'll just state it.

1:20:50My concern is the agenda does not cover

1:20:52anything about job descriptions. It only

1:20:55talks about the salary ordinance.

1:21:01If you go to the very last page of the

1:21:04posting, or not the last page, but the

1:21:06page in front of all the job

1:21:08descriptions, there's no order number

1:21:10for that

1:21:12>> verb. Press Carrian's going to put the

1:21:16stuff on there. Council Roby, it's just

1:21:18doesn't know what format to put it in

1:21:20right now. So,

1:21:23>> all right.

1:21:23>> Posting is correct. It's job

1:21:25descriptions with the four positions

1:21:27listed.

1:21:29>> Thank you, President. But it doesn't say

1:21:31that on the posting. The posting is

1:21:33order number 9697

1:21:36with the salary ordinance changes to the

1:21:39job descriptions.

1:21:41There's another order that's pursuant to

1:21:43chapter 125,

1:21:45the job descriptions for the positions

1:21:48of city collector, assistant finance,

1:21:50city collector, and assistant recreation

1:21:52director. But there's no order number

1:21:55with it. Again, they were all sent down

1:21:59with the same order, the same letter

1:22:01from the mayor.

1:22:02>> Correct. It was all bundled.

1:22:05Technically, this should if it's just

1:22:06job description should have gone to

1:22:07personnel as well, but not finance.

1:22:12>> And they might have been sent to both. I

1:22:14don't remember back when it was done,

1:22:15but And that's

1:22:17>> I was totally confused when you started

1:22:19talking job descriptions because it

1:22:21doesn't say anything on the agenda about

1:22:22job descriptions. Sure it does.

1:22:26>> Council vital.

1:22:28>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and this is

1:22:30more directed to the mayor. Mayor, um,

1:22:32the Collins study came down around the

1:22:36right around the beginning of the year.

1:22:38And you keep saying we wanted to get it

1:22:39done by the budget. We wanted to get it

1:22:41done by the budget. We wanted to get Why

1:22:43didn't it get done by the budget?

1:22:46>> We submitted this in March.

1:22:49>> Never took it up.

1:22:50>> What's that?

1:22:51>> The finance never took it up. We

1:22:52submitted this in March.

1:22:56the reclassifications, the 15 steps that

1:22:59were came out in in go uh not gods um

1:23:02the Colin report um that that study was

1:23:07done at the beginning of the year and

1:23:09you presented these 15step

1:23:11reclassifications to the finance

1:23:13committee in March.

1:23:14>> 15step classifications.

1:23:17>> Well, he did not

1:23:19>> he did not present it to the F. He sent

1:23:21the letter to the city council city

1:23:22council

1:23:22>> with all the stuff in it.

1:23:24>> Okay.

1:23:24>> And that was referred to the finance

1:23:26committee.

1:23:26>> Correct.

1:23:28>> Th this process that we went through

1:23:29went it was to get the job descriptions

1:23:32with every department. Every um every

1:23:34employee went through their own job

1:23:36description. So like the whole column

1:23:38center study took well over a year to

1:23:40get all the information documented went

1:23:42through the union. So, it was a very

1:23:45long process and then just to figure out

1:23:47what steps actually worked.

1:23:49>> That's why it did come down. We didn't

1:23:51do the classifications before the

1:23:52budget.

1:23:54>> It did come down. We submitted to the

1:23:56city council in March hoping that you

1:23:58would take it up March or April and that

1:24:02did not happen. Now, we're meeting him

1:24:04on it for the first time today, June

1:24:061st.

1:24:08>> Mr. Chair, President,

1:24:10>> the reason it wasn't taken up is because

1:24:11we never would have got through the

1:24:12budget process,

1:24:13>> right? And that and that's fair. It's

1:24:16that's now moot like we just need to

1:24:18move on and figure out what direction we

1:24:19want to go.

1:24:20>> Mr. Chair, um I I'd ask uh councelor

1:24:23Fillo to to uh formulate a motion to um

1:24:28to address these four positions in the

1:24:31sense of on the seven steps for now if

1:24:34you don't mind.

1:24:35>> Council,

1:24:36>> thank you Mr. Chair and thank you

1:24:37councelor Vital. I um yeah just just

1:24:39going back and again mayor correct me if

1:24:41I'm wrong but my opinion of this I am a

1:24:43firm believer that we take these as they

1:24:45are case by case and we give each job

1:24:47description each individual in the city

1:24:50uh the the full length of the process I

1:24:52think it's going to take us a while but

1:24:54um so for that reason right before us it

1:24:56appears to me that the priority is the

1:24:58city collector assistant finance

1:25:00director recck director assistant rec

1:25:01director and then that collector

1:25:03position right the two collector

1:25:04positions as they are um so I would move

1:25:06to have the mayor resubmit this to us in

1:25:08the sevenstep format for those

1:25:11positions, the ones that are on our

1:25:12agenda for today's meeting.

1:25:14>> Motion's made and I will second that to

1:25:16have the mayor resubmit uh with the

1:25:18seven steps for the uh

1:25:22for the city collector, assistant

1:25:24finance director, city collector, and

1:25:26assistant recreation director and to

1:25:28send it refer it back to the mayor uh to

1:25:31have the seven steps.

1:25:34>> Mr. Chair,

1:25:35>> any further discussion? um discussion

1:25:37would be a point to make as well as an a

1:25:40friendly amendment. The point would be

1:25:43first um the Collins study.

1:25:47I remember when you first started, Miss

1:25:49Purple, when I was asking questions

1:25:51about it, so how long have we had the

1:25:53Collins study and has it changed since

1:25:55the initial or the mayor, whoever, if I

1:25:58may, Mr. Chair, threw you to them?

1:26:00>> I thought it was here for more than just

1:26:02the beginning of the year. last they

1:26:04actually finished it um

1:26:06>> July

1:26:07>> I remember

1:26:08>> it started with the previous HR director

1:26:11>> that's what I

1:26:13>> and that sat for a while and then

1:26:15obviously it changed and then we

1:26:17regrouped and then

1:26:18>> and then they changed their staff

1:26:20>> correct okay because I I'm saying wait

1:26:22>> and it went to every department every

1:26:23department had to had several iterations

1:26:26of um the job descriptions that was the

1:26:29big big component of the study it was

1:26:31not just finan financial was what do you

1:26:34do for your job? How does it compare to

1:26:36what your current you know what we

1:26:37currently have or don't have for you? So

1:26:40that took a really long time and then

1:26:42once it came back each employees had an

1:26:44opportunity to go through it but um

1:26:46>> thank you for refreshing my memory

1:26:48because I didn't think it was just the

1:26:49beginning of this year. Uh the other

1:26:51friendly amendment Mr. chair would be to

1:26:54request that the 15step process also be

1:26:58part of that motion so we can compare

1:27:02and that would be my friendly amendment

1:27:04to the original amendment just for the

1:27:06sevenst step

1:27:07>> a motion

1:27:08>> Mr. Chair Council

1:27:09>> thank you Mr. Sure. Just question

1:27:10through the M. We already have the 15

1:27:12steps in front of us, do we not?

1:27:14>> I will put it into a an yearly salary

1:27:19range. So you can have that

1:27:21>> year. Yes, that's fine. Yearly 75

1:27:24provide it all. I'd be

1:27:25>> that. Thank you, Council. That was

1:27:27>> just a point of clarification then. Do

1:27:29you want us to use the same min that

1:27:31we're using with the 15 years or No.

1:27:33Again, I just want clarification.

1:27:35>> I I was going to say to see the seven. I

1:27:38mean, you draw where you think it is,

1:27:40but that's

1:27:41>> and and that's fair. I Okay. I I think

1:27:44that's what we did this with the 15, but

1:27:46I we'll try to make it work with the

1:27:48seven. So,

1:27:51>> Mr. Mr. Chair, that

1:27:54>> fits perfectly in what I would like to

1:27:55do.

1:27:55>> I would second that. I don't think I can

1:27:57have it for the next meeting to be

1:27:58honest with you. If I'm doing every

1:28:00department,

1:28:01>> I mean, I can focus on the four.

1:28:02>> I mean, I would like to see the four.

1:28:04That That's my focus is just those four.

1:28:06That's all. I'm happy to go through them

1:28:08all, but right now those four I would

1:28:10like to

1:28:12>> Okay, I I'm hesitant only because

1:28:16>> Mr. Chair, Mr. President, there is no

1:28:18rush. You make the speed is what you

1:28:20want to work at. We're not telling you

1:28:22we want to you whenever you're done.

1:28:24>> Perfect.

1:28:25>> Come on down.

1:28:26>> Thank you. I just thought you said by

1:28:27the next meeting and I just wanted to

1:28:28make sure that like I don't want any set

1:28:30me up for any type of failure by not

1:28:33>> sure. I know it was floated right

1:28:34Thursday. Nope. Like do do what you have

1:28:36to do. Let's do it right. Thank you,

1:28:39>> Mr. Mr. Chair. I know I heard there's no

1:28:41rush, but I think for the position

1:28:43>> No, there is a rush. I just don't want

1:28:44to make I just don't want the

1:28:45expectation that I'm sending it down for

1:28:47the next meeting. And if I don't

1:28:48deliver, I just don't want any further

1:28:50complications. This already

1:28:52>> not the best juuju when it comes to

1:28:54this. I don't want to add any more

1:28:55insult to injury with this if I don't,

1:28:57>> Mr. Chair.

1:28:58>> I can't make it by Thursday.

1:28:59>> I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. I think I'm

1:29:00agreeing with council Vello that the

1:29:03four positions we're looking at would be

1:29:05nice to see first if you have to do

1:29:07additional work so that we can resolve

1:29:10some of the vacancies that we have in

1:29:12these departments. So I agree with

1:29:15council vello start with the first four

1:29:17if I'm agreeing with you council vello

1:29:19and

1:29:19>> that's what was motion.

1:29:20>> Okay thank you Mr. Chair.

1:29:22>> All right motion was made and seconded.

1:29:24All in favor? One two three four five

1:29:28that carries. Thank you.

1:29:29>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

1:29:31>> Mr. Chair, could you just

1:29:34>> restate what that last motion was?

1:29:38>> I'll have council. It was for the It was

1:29:40to refer back to the mayor with the uh

1:29:42for the definitely for the four

1:29:44positions that we approved the job

1:29:45description this evening that would uh

1:29:48refer back to the mayor that would show

1:29:50the seven steps.

1:29:51>> Yep. The seven steps with the annual

1:29:53>> annual

1:29:54>> annual um salary

1:29:56>> and not the 15. I mean that we can

1:29:59review them as well.

1:30:00>> We can review those as well.

1:30:01>> Yeah.

1:30:03>> So he's only doing in group C, D, and E

1:30:06and not

1:30:07>> B and G because those positions are in

1:30:10those groups. Yes. I mean again I would

1:30:13like to prioritize those four positions.

1:30:14So if they're in those groups then

1:30:18>> I was going to say that they all impact

1:30:20each other. So you need to have the

1:30:23salary ordinance as a total package.

1:30:36Sorry.

1:30:38>> I thought we were ready to go. That's

1:30:40why I shot it.

1:30:41>> I will. With that, I will entertain a

1:30:43motion.

1:30:46>> Move to

1:30:47>> motion to motion's been made and

1:30:49seconded to adjurnn. All in favor? One,

1:30:52two, three, four, five. We are adjourned

1:30:54at 8:01 p.m.