CC_Minutes_2013_1021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 21, 2013 Page 23 final public comment. Mr. Miller noted that there would be additional items yet to come before the City Council, including 2014 Utility Rates scheduled for No- vember 18, 2013. Mr. Miller encouraged feedback at any time during the process. 2% Employee Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) Councilmember McGehee opined that the COLA seemed straight forward, and had been supported by the City Council in past discussions and continued to be supported. Councilmember Willmus questioned if it had in fact been supported, other than only as it was supported as it tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Coun- cilmember Willmus noted his rationale in wanting to go back over two budget cy- cles during discussions about the Employee Compensation Study; thinking it would be easier to view the broader picture. Councilmember Willmus noted that, in January of 2012, staff received a 1% CO- LA; in January 2013, another 2% COLA; and then in October of 2013, received a 3.26% COLA. At that rate, Councilmember Willmus opined that he found that the City was ahead of the game with increases of 6.26% while inflation only in- creased 3.18% over the same period. Councilmember Willmus stated the addi- tional 2% was not warranted. Councilmember Willmus opined that the intent of the policy was for an annual look back; and proposed that the additional 2% CO- LA should not be provided now, but during the 2015 calendar year when a clearer look was available for 2014, in order to make adjustments for 2015. If the City was to go forward and provide an additional 2% COLA, it would represent an ad- ditional $165,000, making other items shown for discussion a moot point; and from his perspective, not allowing them to be accomplished. Councilmember Laliberte opined that she had also not been supportive of the 3.26% COLA increase approved October 1, 2013; and had thought that was in place for 2014; with the CPI used as a tool going forward. Councilmember McGehee stated that her recollection of the entire discussion was that the results of the most recent Compensation Study had indicated that the City was 5.6% below the average for peer cities; and with no one happy with the find- ings of the study, they were unwilling to move forward, with the CPI determined to be an alternate way to make annual adjustments, and a policy developed to move that issue forward. Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council was clearly informed by staff that, if they went ahead with the 2.26% COLA in- crease in October of 2013, but did not set aside the 2% COLA for 2014, they would revert back to the same position of being well below that average. Coun- cilmember McGehee opined that the behavior of the City Council throughout this process has been bad and lacking in support for its staff; and while no one appre- ciated the increase, it was apparent that the City Council did not value its own staff.