Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 4/4/1989 (3)MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1989 AT 3:05 P.M. Mayor Renner called to order the Workshop Session of GlendaleCityCouncilinConferenceRoomB-3 of the Council Chambers. Council members present were: Bellah, Falbo, Huffman, Hugh, McAllister, and Tolby. Members Absent: None. CONSENT AGENDASECONDFIESTA BOWL EVENT - MEN'S SLOW PITCH SOFTBALLTOURNAMENTWehavebeenadvisedthattheFiestaBowlMen's Slow PitchSoftballTournamentwillbeheldattheSahuaroRanchParkSoftballComplexonDecember15, 16, and 17. It is estimated that a total of 50 teams from throughout the Valley and State will participate in the tournament. Councilman Bellah was instrumental in securing this event for Glendale. As the local host the City of Glendale will provide services such as field maintenance, supervision of the complex, lights, etc. The Fiesta Bowl Committee will handle the entry fees, tournament draw, umpires, trophies, and other miscellaneous tournament duties. MANAGEMENT REPORT ON SEWER RATES This report is to inform the City Council of the results of our study of sewer user charges, and recommends the reallocation of those charges. Sewer user fees are recommended for implementation effective with billings made for sewer usage after May 1, 1989. This rate schedule has been structured to: meet sewer user charge requirements as defined by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) provide no overall increase in sewer user charges adhere to financial liquidity and stability criteria recognized by the financial community These rates were reviewed and recommended for adoption by the City Council Utilities Committee in their March 27, 1989 meeting. The report also provides for an appeal process for customers who dispute the winter water average upon which their user charge is based. This appeal process, which will be administered by the Utilities Department staff, is similar to programs used by other Valley municipalities. The requirement to base user charges on individual customerwaterconsumptionismandatedbyFederalandStateregulations. The City became subject to these regulations in1986when, as part of the Sub -Regional Operating GroupSROG), it participated in federal funding of improvements atthe91stAvenueWastewaterTreatmentPlant. The new rateswerenotrequiredtobeimplementeduntilthoseimprovementsweresubstantiallycomplete. We have been advised by the SROGthattheimprovementswillsoonbeinoperation, and that thenewratesmustbeimplementedtopermittheCitytoreceive0.7 million in funding reimbursements from federal sources. The items on consent will be placed on a regular agenda forcouncilaction. WORKSHOP SESSION PAY FOR PERFORMANCE PROGRAM Marty Vanacour, City Manager, stated the Pay for Performance Program was implemented city-wide effective July 1, 1987. The program was designed to provide an incentive to motivate the City's employees to perform at their highest level and provide rewards to the employees who do contribute towards achieving the City's goals. Earlier this year, the City Manager directed a review of the Pay for Performance program to determine if the program was living up to its' potential and to recommend any changes which would improve its' effectiveness. After completing a study of the Pay for Performance program, the PFP Task Force found that the program contained some valuable tools for the organization, but also found a number of problems. These problems are fully discussed in the PFP Task Force Report dated December 16, 1988. A copy of the report is attached. The PFP Task Force developed five basic recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the PFP program. The PFP Task Force recommendations are an attempt to address both employee feedback and the needs of the organization. A brief summary of their recommendations is listed below. 1. One Program for All. All employees should be on the same performance appraisal and compensation program. 2. Retain the Use of Performance Planning and Appraisal. The Performance Planning and Appraisal part of the PFP program should be retained for all employees, with some modifications. 3. Performance Based, Non -Differentiated Salary Increases. Performance based salary increases should be awarded to all employees who achieve at least a Competent level of performance. The salary increase amount awardedshouldbeequalforallemployeesachievingCompetent, HighlyCompetentandExcellent. The standard increase amount wouldbeflexibleandwouldbedeterminedeachyearbytheCityCouncil, dependent upon the City's ability to pay. 4. Recognition for Top Performers. Non -monetary awardsorothertypesofrecognitionshouldbeawardedtoemployeeswhoachieveHighlycompetentorExcellentlevelsofperformance. 5. Separate Performance Increases and General WageIncreases. General wage increases (GWI) or cost of livingadjustments (COLA) serve different purposes and should not becombinedintooneannualincrease. The task force alsorecommendedthatpreferencebegiventoawardperformanceincreasesfirstoutoftheavailablesalaryincreasefundsandaGWIsecond, if funds permit. We have analyzed the PFP Task Force recommendations and have developed strategies to implement the program changes. If the recommendations are adopted, they would be effective at the beginning of the new fiscal year, July 1, 1989. The most significant change to the PFP program would be the elimination of differentiated pay and excellence bonuses. The PFP Task Force also recommended that performance increases be paid separately from cost of living adjustments (COLA) and that preference be given to pay performance increases first. The net affect of this change would be a return to a compensation system similar to that of the past with a Merit component and a COLA component. The City's ability to pay and market conditions would determine the increases given each year. All employees would continue to use the performance planning and appraisal process. Some modifications would be made to this process to make it easier for supervisors and employees to use and understand. Mayor Renner asked for a summary on the modification of the performance plan and appraisal forms. Mr. Osuna said the task force and the his department support the conclusions. They found the components of PFP did accomplish some of the objectives from the original program. The PFP does have some potential of continuing to improve organizational communication, positive employee relations, however they do feel that the forms, the process, the number of meeting times, does have to be look at critically and make it a better tool. Mayor Renner asked if this would continue to be a requirement. Mr. Osuna said it would be a requirement and the number of time the employee and supervisor meet would be tied to the position. He stated he felt it should beflexibletomeetasmanytimesasnecessarybutaminimumnumbertiedtoanemployeesoveralljobduties. Mayor Renner asked if the forms would be reworked. Mr. Vanacour said they would go back to the committee and getrecommendations. Mayor Renner asked if the new performance planning andappraisalprocessbethevehiclethatestablishesalevel ofcompetency. Mr. Osuna said the planning and appraisalprocessdoesincludethesettingofobjectivesandstandardstoestablishatleastthecompetentlevelandabove. Councilman Huffman expressed his hope that the task forcespentalotoftimetalkingtotheworkersandnotjustrepresentingtheirownopinions. Vice Mayor Tolby stated there was little enthusiasm among the mid-range managers and asked if this would gain enthusiasm. Mr. Osuna said that he felt mid -managers and employees would take the lead from top management and that is were the PFP task force recognized that top management needs to be very forceful in the support and promotion of this new concept. Councilman Falbo asked what areas do we see now that does not include a concensus from the group. Mr. Vanacour said everyone signed the document so he felt there was concensus that this is the best document so he felt if there were still concerns the members would have to speak on these issues. Mayor Renner afforded an opportunity for members of the task force to speak to this issue. Mr. Ernster, Chairman of the committee, commented on the concensus issue that he felt the issue that was the most controversial at the committee level was differentiated pay and the conclusion reached was to set it aside. The committees reasons for this decision was some felt it didn't work because supervisors could not rate employees objectively, others felt it damaged the team concept and brought competition into the team concept, others were concerned because they felt supervisors were not trained properly, therefore, they could not do a good job, and others felt the issue should be set aside for now because the city could not afford to offer a pay program with differentiated pay and make it worth the employees time, there were a few would felt it could work and it was an incentive for employees to be more productive. Councilman Bellah asked if the program was to remain for department heads. Mr. Vanacour said for now all employees would be on the same plan and I will look at the plan in the future. Mayor Renner asked if the task force discussed a two systemplan. Mr. Ernster said there was a concensus there should beonepaysystem. Mayor Renner asked if there was discussion about employee whohavereachedthetopoftherange. Mrs. Valenzuela said intermsofthebonusifweweredoingawaywithdifferentiatedpaythatitwouldbelogicaltodoawaywiththebonusanddifferentiatebasedonperformanceagain. If a bonus wasgivenautomatically, regardless of what performance level itwas, then it's no longer a bonus but another step in thesalaryrange. Councilman Bellah asked what was the discussion about theupperrangeofthepayscale. Mrs. Valenzuela said it wasdiscussedtheproblemoftakingawaythatbenefitandtherewasnowayaroundthat, not everyone agreed with the structure on how we do our compensation but that was not part of the charge of the committee. Councilman Falbo asked if there was discussion about GWI. Mr. Ernster said each committee member was asked their priority on merit or cost of living and the concensus was that the merit should take precedence. Mr. Osuna agreed that was correct the concensus was that employees should earn their pay and it should not be tied to seniority or just being around. Councilman McAllister asked if there was any feedback on the issue of the current increase in insurance cost as a part of the benefit package. Mr. Iampaglia said it was a major topic in Issues 89 which amount to a 1.5% increase and the employees who participated understood that it was a benefit. Mayor Renner asked if committee members had any comments. Mr. Rich Suarez stated he felt the committee spent ample time with employee groups trying to get information to allow everyone to have an opportunity to give their input. Mr. Suarez also commented on question 25 that there were employees striving for excellence who were topped out and for whatever reason were rated high competent. They felt they had provided the extra effort and had no method of getting an increase. Jim Hayden said he felt the major concern was having a merit system all along which guaranteed a 5% increase which was a contract with the city and with PFP that went away. Councilman McAllister asked if there was any discussions on lay offs. Mr. Ernster said there was no discussion on this but there was detailed discussions on the city's ability to pay. Mr. Ernster felt the committee understood that any future increases that would be given would be based on thecity's ability to pay. Councilman Falbo said he thought there was a consensus on theGWIcomingafterthemeritincrease. Mr. Ernster said thatwascorrect. Mr. Hayden said they had not said after theywantedtheconsiderationofmerittobeaheadofGWI. Councilman Falbo explained the document says first the meritincreaseandthenthecity's ability to pay to be taken intoaccountwhenlookingatanygeneralwageincrease. Mr. Ernster said that was correct. Councilman Falbo asked if you come to work and agree to acertainrangeandtopoutthenyouaresayingyouarenotacceptingtherangeifyoumovingitbaseduponageneralwageincrease. Mr. Hayden said the merit system doesn'tincludemovingtherange. The top and bottom stay the same and those who have a merit step coming would receive one but those topped out would only receive a cost of living increase. Mayor Renner asked if there was any discussion on this point? Mr. Ernster said his recollection was the committee consensus was that the merit increase would receive priority over GWI and there might be some years where there is enough funding available to give both merit and GWI. Mr. Osuna agreed. Mr. Hoyt said the committee feels years of service should count and they should move up a little within the merit range. Councilman Falbo stated there is a top end and a bottom end and in order to get a cost of living increase you have to move the top end and that is not was has been recommended. Mr. Hayden said that is exactly was has been recommended with the precedence on the merit increase and COLA after merit. Mr. Pedrow stated if you don't move through the steps from the beginning to end then someday new hires will be paid the same as someone who has been here for a couple of years because they have not progressed through the range; therefore, if the merit increase in always larger than any COLA than you will always have the progression through the range and everyone should be more satisfied. Mayor Renner says this process has involved a tremendous amount of participation throughout the organization and there are not many organizations which would allow an employee based committee to deal with an issue this complicated or sensitive. It is clear that the vast employees recognize the motivated, positive, beneficial work should be recognized and compensated as such. I compliment everyone who participated on this task force. It is clear that the recommendation of the employees puts the responsibility squarely back on top management and that exhibits a confidence on the employeespartonthemanagementandthecouncil. This item will be brought back with the new merit plan. AIR QUALITY UPDATELoriLiebermanbriefed the City Council on air qualityissues. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REPORTMarionPorch, Intergovernmental Liaison briefed the CityCouncilonlegislativeissues. AdjournmentTherebeing no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Assistant City Clerk