Council Minutes
3
August 21, 2000
ANNUAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE
CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
August 21, 2000
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in their annual meeting with the Civil Service Commission in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, August 21, 2000 at the hour of 6:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown and Chairman Johnson presiding.
Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Hoff, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Babinchak, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 13; absent: Council Member Burke - 1.
Present at roll call were the following members of the Civil Service Commission: C.T. Marhula, Beverly Bredemeier, James Johnson, Arvin Kvasager, Fred MacGregor - 5.
Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter.
Chairman Johnson of the Civil Service Commission stated this is a joint meeting of the Civil Service Commission and the City Council, which is required by ordinance on an annual basis. He asked for comments on the items on the agenda life cycle benefits (cafeteria plan), market analysis.
C.T. Marhula, commissioner, made a presentation relative to the items, and stated that he has a proposal for the matter of longevity pay, which if enacted would freeze the employee at the current dollar amount of longevity until they terminate employment with the City, would not take anything away from the employee, but increase the salary schedule 2% across the board and this would be in addition to the negotiated settlement, the cost of the 2% would be $220,000 or 2.71 mills. He stated it is important to remember that the market study indicated that the City salary schedule would have to be increased 8% to be market competitive. He stated that 3) cafeteria or employee choice - the major area of implementation would involve choice on the medical plan, that the City currently pays up to 75% of the family premium and in addition, any employee who does not use the full dollar amount of the 75% of the family premium can take the unused portion in cash or other benefits, but must provide proof of medical coverage for all dependents and the cost would have to be computed by finance and human resources. He stated this would affect employees differently and would equalize total compensation, pay and benefits for equal jobs; 4) flexible time off or FTO, implementation - freeze existing accrued sick leave days at current level, this would be available for extended sick leave if needed, and payment under the current formula upon termination, then add an FTO policy, and cost would have to be computed, and unused FTO would be payable at 100% on termination, extended sick leave would not. He stated this could save the City money. 5) Retention pay - currently available $200,000, proposal because of circumstances, with exception of finance director, but that would leave $185,000 available and to use this for an across the board increase for all employees and this would be an increase of 1.7% to most employees and should not add to the mill rate; any position significantly outside the market for pay should be addressed by reclassification. He stated that by adopting 2) and 5) as proposed the market to City gap of -8% would fall to -4.3% at a cost of 2.71 mills. 6) Pay above grade: Police officers are eligible to become master police officers if they meet and maintain a certain criteria, and this results in a two-grade increase, and without debating merits that if this is good for the police officers, why not the police sergeants, why not assessors, why not planners, etc. and disagrees with the current plan and do support an organization wide plan that allows pay above grade if the employee meets objective criteria, and thinks it should be applicable to everyone. He stated that 1) whether or not the civil service commission should survive or can survive, but thinks they need an answer on that question. He stated this concludes his presentation.
Council Member Lunak asked why these items were presented at this time, and that he didn’t agree with several proposals (flexible time off, cafeteria plan and retention pay) because other businesses in town have different pay schedules and that finance and human resources can’t handle this now, doesn’t think employees support this as taking control of employees sick and flexible time. Mr. Marhula stated he was not proposing any deductions, that he was proposing what First National and Altru do and employees are in total control. He stated that this was his proposal (not a proposal of the Commission) and there was no intent of any action to be taken, that this is a joint exchange of ideas, and up to the city council whether they want to pass to a committee or accept and file.
Council Member Babinchak stated that the Pension and Insurance Committee have talked about life cycle benefits for sometime and thought that was the direction they had hoped to move into, but might take some time to complete the process, and nothing wrong in looking at it or some of the other ideas, and that perhaps this Memo could go to Pension and Insurance Committee and/or to the finance committee.
There were some questions relative to the $200,000 for retention currently available. The city auditor reported that in the 2001 budget there will be $200,000 actually additional revenue available because they have budgeted under the departments the dollar amounts that were given for the market adjustment before. He stated that the original $200,000 would be carryover money basically, that the $160,000 that was left was increased to a total of $200,000 available for market adjustment. Mr. Marhula stated that with the exception of the finance director, who was made a promise, he has a concern with Human Resources’ point of view on the way the retention pay was used, that there is not any objective data that supports the decision that was made; that the data done by the wage neutral consultant shows that we have people under the market study and they did not receive an adjustment; and that people who received an adjustment were already above the base salary. There are not neutral objective data to support the decision that was made.
Council Member Lunak stated it has taken a year and a half to get this far with the market analysis, but within six weeks they voted in some big salary increases to department heads. Council Member Brooks stated they acted on what was brought to the city council; now looking at other things and will probably do something with those but would like to look at this as a whole and not get into individual cases.
Council Member Hamerlik stated he was a little disappointed in this meeting, tried to find what this meeting was to be about, that this is a very important topic that you have outlined and has to be attended to expediently but through normal channels, and that the reason that they would meet once a year would be to discuss some mutual concerns, that at previous meetings several people spoke regarding the relationship between the two entities; that having served on the job analysis committee, they voted to take it to finance, that finance referred the 8% to the Budget Framework Committee, timing is bad, and is in process already and not sure why bringing that up now, and also some of this has to do with negotiations and being handled by various committees. Mr. Marhula stated he agreed and that he had made comments to various people that it belongs in the negotiating process, but that they have an obligation to bring the latest in human resource practice to you and ways to get to the 8% that might enable you to get there a little cheaper, that the council is the policymaking body and make the decisions.
Council Member Christensen stated it’s important to have a better understanding of the total compensa-tion package that the employees receive in this community, that compensation should be simple and fair, and would hope that as they get through this budgeting process that they will have a better understanding of the total compensation package that we provide our employees so that they are treated fairly.
Chairman Johnson stated that the purpose of the meeting was for communication and that they’ve established some good communication, that it was in everybody’s ability to bring up items and this was brought up in a sincere effort to put some ideas on the table for discussion. He stated that the department heads come to their meetings and very good communication and good things happening with the employees and are allowed to present their side of things, have a good system going. He stated that the Commission is not presenting this to be acted upon but putting on the table for discussion.
Member Bredemier stated that what Member Marhula had presented in this Memorandum, there isn’t any one item that can be done in a short period of time, that he brought forth some good ideas and supports a number of the things listed here, and thanked him for bringing it to the attention for information.
Member MacGregor stated that a study of some of the ideas in the Memorandum by employee groups or committee and to have some background would be worthwhile because there are points here that we look at initially and as more information is developed they may find some positives and vise versa if go forward and study them.
Member Kvasager stated that this has not been subject matter of the Commission and certainly isn’t a proposal per se from the Civil Service Commission, that some of these issues have been discussed and can well imagine that they come up as matter of record from Mr. Marhula chairing the market study which was a lengthy process but was not subject matter of discussion at the Civil Service Commission. He stated he appreciated the opportunity of the Commission to be able to discuss any item that they think is relevant with the council because we have to work together or the system does not work.
Several employee representatives spoke relative to the proposal that was presented: Joe Lewandiski, Sanitation Department, stated that they talk about good faith negotiations, sick leave accumulation, banking vacation, longevity pay, that they were negotiated by good faith to the employees and the Civil Service Commission in place of pay raises; that money spent for job studies (market study) and nothing comes of it; they are taxpayers and City employees. Dave Pankratz, chairman of the Employee Representative Association, stated that the employees aren’t opposed to change but by the number of people attending that they do take their benefits very seriously and would hope that any discussions would include the employees, and also stated that some of these benefits have been negotiated items over the years (longevity started in 1975) and has been negotiated no less than four times; that there is some history here and if there is a better way to do things, not necessarily opposed to that but take those very seriously.
Council Member Gershman stated that he hoped that they could meet the expectations of the employees but asked if employees could help find efficiencies and savings; and would hope that the City employees of Grand Forks would be the highest paid city employees in the State of North Dakota, and asked employees to help find the money so can give more and take less of taxes.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Schmisek
City Auditor