City Council - Special Meeting

It's 5.30, I'm calling this meeting to order, and we will start by the Pledge of Allegiance, so please stand.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

You may be seated.

Chris, take the roll, please. Council Member Reed?

Here.

Council Member Galloway? Here. Council Member Hoffman?

Here.

Council Member Dupre? Here. Council Member Kavanagh? Here. Mayor Foote? Here.

With that, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Second. Chris, take the roll.

Council Member Reed? Yes. Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman? Yes. Council Member Dupre? Yes. Council Member Kavanagh?

Yes. And with that, we have one item on the agenda tonight. And with that, I want to encourage you, if you are here to speak about the one item on the agenda, the compensation handbook, I do encourage you to fill out a slip of paper. They're in the basket on that front banister, because I will probably start with those when we get to public comment. And with that, I believe I'm turning it over to Human Resource Director, Mrs. Kojo.

Thank you, sir. So you had a lot of information in your packet and we're not gonna go through and read every bit of that, cause we'll have to bring dinner in, but it's for your reference. If you have questions, definitely stop me. I'm not gonna read through every single item that's on these slides because some of them are summaries from other presentations that had been given.

So, all right, so

Little bit of what we're gonna talk about. So we're gonna walk through the history of our previous pay practices, concerns that our employees have raised, the study that was conducted, key findings and how our new compensation handbook addresses those issues. We're gonna discuss impacts on wages, benefits, budgeting, and what's next. So the first thing, and you have a copy, Titled at the top, it says City of Ottumwa, Iowa Pay Plan 06 of 1989. So this pay plan was what was introduced in 1989. I am told that this was introduced fairly soon after the city went to a council mayoral city administrator form of government. So what this plan does is this plan talks about two different pay plans. There was a step plan and there was a department head plan. So the step plan, and I'm just gonna go through and again, I'm gonna kind of summarize this, but the step plan, it was similar to our employees that were covered under contracts. There were 13 pay grades with six steps each, So before we go any further too, I wanna make sure we understand a grade is a salary range. So what we have now, but also what we had before, a grade is a salary range. So say from like 20,000 to $30,000. A step are the different steps within that range, within that pay grade. So you'll hear a lot tonight talking about pay grades and then also steps. That's the difference between the two. There's grades, which are the band. Steps are how you move through that band. So with this pay plan, there were six steps and each step had a 5% difference between each step. Other highlights of this plan state that the positions can be reevaluated at the request of a department head, personnel officer, or city administrator. The evaluation is performed by the personnel officer with input from the department head and employees affected and the city administrator. and the reassignment of any position to a different pay grade was approved by council. So again, the process was done, but it was done in collaboration with everybody and then it was brought to council for approval to reassign. The entire matrix, so all pay grades, would be reviewed annually to determine if it should be adjusted. So this is very similar to like our current COLA increases, our cost of living increases. Those adjustments were made on a percentage basis across the entire matrix. That's all the information that I have as to how it was done. I don't have anything further as far as when it was done or anything like that. I was not able to find that information I had. A new employee covered by the step plan is normally hired at the A step and the city administrator can approve hiring above that step. So it says that they're normally hired at step A, they could hire at step B with approval. Employees increase to the next step in their pay grade after serving one year in their current step. Once an employee reaches the top step in their pay grade, they will not receive an increase in salary unless the entire pay plan matrix was adjusted. So if there was a COLA increase, that entire matrix was adjusted. So if an employee had reached that final step, which was step six, they would not get an increase until that entire matrix was adjusted, which was a COLA increase. Promotions gave the employees a minimum of a 5% salary increase and special merit increases were approved by the city administrator. if it resulted in the employee being promoted to the next step in the pay grade prior to serving 12 months in the current step. So according to this plan, the special merit increases could be provided to an employee before they hit that 12 month mark. So previously it had said that you needed to spend one year in that step, a merit increase could increase them. So that's part of the step plan. Then there was another plan that was outlined in there called the department head plan. And what this was, was there was a minimum salary that was assigned to the position. There was no range, it was just a minimum salary. A pay increase of no more than 4% could be given after six months of service as approved by the city administrator. Merit increases were determined by the city administrator by allocating money budgeted for the increases between the various department heads. So according to this plan, the way the department head plan worked was that money was budgeted for those increases and the city administrator was then able to spread that out to all of the department heads. So that was the pay plan back in 1989. You'll see in a couple more slides, I'm gonna show you some of the contracts and you'll see the pay plans with them as well. Today, I found another revision and you have a copy of that. At the top it says City of Ottumwa, Iowa revised 5-1 of 2007. So this was one that was revised in 2007, but there were only a few revisions that were actually made to it. So in the step plan itself, the special merit increases were removed. So there's just not a section at all anywhere for those special merit increases. The department head plan was changed to 3% increase after the completion of six months. And then there was also this additional paragraph here for temporary additional pay for employees. And what that was, was that if a position became vacated, that the employee would step into that role for a set amount of time until the position was filled. So you also have copies of this in your packet. At the top of this one, this one says City of Ottumwa salary schedule, July 1st of 2019. So back in 2019, this specific packet here, this was how all of our wages were applied to the different employees. So we have our salary schedule, which lists our department heads, which it gives you, that is the rate that the department heads are currently paid. There's no range, there's no minimum, that is what they are currently paid right here. Within that salary schedule, come over here to the bottom, this general service employees, that shows you the steps. So for example, in this one here, these are our general service employees as of July 1st of 2019. You've got six different steps starting at $16.96 going up to $21.70. By the pay plan, any person that is in that grade goes up each step each year. So every year on their anniversary in that position, they move up a step. Again, keep in mind, council can approve, could approve this entire grid moving up by the COLA, the cost of living adjustment. So they may still have gotten a step increase and a COLA increase. You'll also see, Up at the top, there is a longevity schedule. And so this is in this salary schedule, and it is also listed within our contracts as well, that longevity was applied for all of our employees. So once an employee had been here five years, they got an extra 14 cents an hour, which was considered longevity. When they moved to 10 years, they got another 14 cents or $600 a year, which turned out to be 29 cents.

So that was part of this 2019?

Yes, ma'am. So then the rest of them that you'll see, it says a ton of fire department wages, police department wage schedule, municipal contract and public works. is very similar. There are steps that are within there based upon positions or time in that position. Any questions on that before I move forward?

Quick question. So historically, I know you mentioned that if council approved a COLA increase, do we have record of how many times? I mean, was that a typically annually or like from 1989 through 22? How often was council approving the COLA increases?

From what I can go back to, and I want to say 2007 is the earliest that I was able to go back to. All but one year, there was a COLA increase for non-represented employees. There was one year that unrepresented employees did not get a COLA increase, but our contracted employees did. And so I'll talk a little bit about that when we get to pay compression. But as far as contracts, with our contracted labor, almost every year, and I could 100% be wrong on this, everything I found, I believe, had an increase to it. Okay.

Barb, was that one year that the employees did not get that stipend? those that are not contractors. Was that a mistake or was that deliberate or what?

No, from my understanding, it was something that council had decided that they were not going to give a COLA that year to unrepresented employees.

Great, thank you.

Yes. Okay, so those are, again, that goes back to, those are just copies and every year we would publish a new one of these salary schedules. And then with the contracted employees, of course, it's in their contracts as well. So we have records of those. All right, so some of the concerns. So when we work to start implementing UKG, which is our HRIS, our Human Resource Information System, starting with our original contract back in 2019 and revisiting setup attempts in 2020 and 2021, there were a lot of issues that were found. Each configuration we went in, Here at the city, they went in, they tried to configure it and found a lot of inconsistencies between contract to contract to contract compared to unrepresented employees, and it was abandoned twice. So the people that were here, like here at the city, so like our directors of finance, our payroll people, it was who was, the people that were trying to implement UKG prior to me coming on board. So there were inconsistencies in how pay grades, steps and increases were applied across departments, contracts and unrepresented employees. And so when I came on board in 21, during my introductory meetings with departments, we started hearing some of the similar concerns. So I heard about wage compression, inconsistent pay decisions, outdated job descriptions, and people weren't quite sure how to progress within the steps because it was being done different ways in different departments. So from what UKG had exposed and what employees had shared, we had decided, and when I say we, Phil, myself, our director of finance at the time, some of our council members, we had said, okay, we probably need to take a look at this and see if we could come up with a more fair, consistent and equitable compensation system. So one of the first things that we continued to hear about was pay compression. So pay compression, it's when new hires or when we recently promote an employee to a new position, their wages are similar to or higher than long-term staff or supervisors. even though that there are differences in their responsibility. So what we were hearing is that employees that were promoted to maybe a first line supervisor level, their pay was not as much of a difference as the position they just came from. And now they're also being tasked with managing those people. So what we found is that some positions had been taken to council as part of the salary schedule separately from the full schedule for increases, which led to some of that. also led to some internal equity concerns. So possibly what we found was that a first level supervisor in one department may be making more than a first level supervisor in another department that had similar duties. So internal equity, looking at those two supervisors together, they were off. Again, contracted employees were given a COLA increase where unrepresented employees were not causing pay not to be able to keep up. So again, if that, one group of employees received a COLA and another one did not, you're gonna have one group that stays stagnant where you're gonna have another group that moves up and that's your wage compression. We had a lot of employees also express that their experience in time and role wasn't reflected fairly in their wages. We did see cases where new hires or recently promoted staff were making the same or more than long-term employees. So pay compression was a big concern. It still is. You will hear as we get into a little bit more of this and thinking about future, pay compression is definitely something that we need to take notice of. And especially now as we are working to get all of our employees on our compensation handbook, there still is some wage compression that we're going to have to look at. One of the other things that we found and we heard from employees was about job descriptions. We had a lot of job descriptions that were missing information and had not been updated. Some of these you might be able to see that like our last updates of these job descriptions were in 2001, 2004, 2008. And what we had heard was that some of the job responsibilities were very outdated. A lot of them didn't have anything about utilizing computers or anything digital thinking about within our mechanic line, didn't talk about some of the different things that they have to do down there. There was inaccurate licensing and certifications, and we're still working through that now is identifying what the proper licensing and certifications are for each position. And then again, that internal equity component of comparing two positions together, but they're in different departments. So, and what my role is, is to be able to do that and work with our department heads to make sure that we're being as internal equity as we can. So with that, we decided to go through a request for a proposal. So we put it out in RFP. With the RFP that was put out, We reached out to other cities that had done compensation studies before to get examples of what they were looking for. We knew what we were looking at as far as taking a look at not only our wages, but some of the extras that are with it, the benefits, our leave, just kind of everything. And so what we did was council approved to send out an RFP on February 15th of 2022. And I believe you do have a copy of that. It says up at the top, request for proposals. This was the proposal that was put out. It was posted on our website. What we also did was we sent it out to other companies that do wage studies. So some of the different recruiting companies that are out there, I think of GovHR, I know Gallagher. I want to say there was a couple of others that we had put it out there too. We actually emailed this directly to them. One of the things with what we now have is Gallagher, which used to be Mark J. Becker and Associates, which is our third party benefits administrator. We had actually reached out to them since they work with these companies on a regular basis and said, hey, who should we send this to? So we had this sent out. We did get one reply with questions. One company declined to move forward with it because of their workload. Another company declined, said it was out of their scope. Again, they just did not offer the full breadth of what we were looking for. And so we did have one submission, which was Gallagher. Gallagher was approved by city council on April 19th of 2022. So what that approval was, was council approved Gallagher to go in and actually do that study. Again, you've got a copy of the resolution that was passed with all of the information there as to what they were going to provide to us. The cost at that time, it was going to be $117,000 for all of our employees, all of the requirements that we had put in there. One of the things that I will say is as we moved forward with this, we were actually able to get some money back due to some issues that we had with Gallagher and there was a lot more work that ended up being done in-house and we were able to get some of that money back. So it did not cost us that full $117,000.

Is Gallagher some local organization in the state of Iowa?

So there are offices in the state of Iowa. Gallagher is an international company that specializes in a lot of things human resource related. But there is different locations within the state of Iowa. They do our third party benefits administration right now, and they are based out of Des Moines. The company that we utilize for the wage and benefits study was based out of Minnesota. So it took a year, a little more than a year, but at the council meeting on June 14th of 2023, it was a special council meeting. We had representatives from Gallagher that came and actually presented the study. So these next slides are the ones I'm not going to read through absolutely every single one of them. You have copies of them in your slide deck. They're also on that meeting, which is still available on YouTube. I went out and I checked the link and it's still there. It's still available. But essentially, this is what almost exactly what they presented to council at that time. So this gave the background, just kind of talking about what they were going to do. And so essentially to sum it up, what they did was they built an entire wage classification structure, redid all of our job descriptions, provided implementation guidelines, administrative guidelines on how to work it through our HRIS, but then also keeping it up to date as we move forward. I know that sounds like really short, but there was a lot to that. So one of the first things that was done and especially with the job descriptions was all of our employees were asked to fill out, we called it a PDQ, not pretty darn quick, but a position description questionnaire. And essentially what that did is it allowed every employee to tell us what their job was, to tell us what they did day in and day out because of our job descriptions being so outdated. Employees were able to work as a group. So if we had maybe four or five employees that were in the same department, did the same job, they could work as a group and fill out one and turn it in. The PDQs were completed by the employee and then it was turned into their supervisor for review. Supervisor took a look at it, had a conversation with the employees if there were any changes or anything that needed to be made. And then it was turned in to HR. And what I did with those is I looked at those again for internal equity. If I have an equipment operator in the sewer department that tells me they need a master's degree to do that, but I have equipment operators in maybe the traffic department that tell me they need an associate's degree, we've got to come together. We've got to be able to come together and decide what makes sense. So those are extreme examples. That was not an example of something that happened. That's just an example. The other thing that Gallagher did is all of those were then presented to Gallagher. So all of those PDQs were given to them. And if they had questions, they did meet with some of the different employee groups. So there were some of the employees that they had questions on. They wanted to make sure that they understand it appropriately. And so they actually spoke with the employees directly. So the methodology for the actual compensation study for the labor market, what Gallagher did was they put together an advisory team. And this, we sent it out to all employees. It was open and available to all employees to participate. It was voluntary. They did not have to. But they had two essentially jobs for this advisory team to do. One was to identify benchmark jobs, which a benchmark job is your jobs that we can benchmark all of our initial costs to, so all of our wages to. So for example, an equipment operator would be a benchmark, an equipment operator two may not be a benchmark because we can take the wages that are from an equipment operator one and compare it to an equipment operator two. So this group sat down and went through all of our job titles and said, okay, these are the jobs that we want to benchmark. The other thing that this group did is they decided who our comparator organizations were. So they sat down and said, these are the cities that we want to compare to. And so those cities, and this is also in the compensation handbook itself because we did put this in there so that way everybody knows. They chose Clinton, Dubuque, Fort Dodge, Marshalltown, Oskaloosa, Burlington, Muscatine, Bettendorf, Altoona, and Mason City. So those were the cities that they wanted to take a look at, one, because of similar size and population, but also in distance. That's why Oskaloosa was included in that, because we are so close to them. They also looked at, they also chose Ottumwa Water Works, the state of Iowa, Ottumwa Community School District, and Wapello County as other public entities to compare to. And then they also, part of what Gallagher has access to is they've got access to the private data. So if we're looking at an accountant, an accountant for the city of Ottumwa may be somewhat similar to an accountant that works in a private firm for public industry. So Gallagher data mined all of that information to compile all of this. So ultimately what they identified, what Gallagher identified with everything that they had done is that the city was highly competitive with comparable market 50th percentile, which is the middle. We were comparable with the middle. but we were misaligned at the maximum of the pay ranges. So again, the longer that an employee stayed here, the more misaligned we were at the top. So our employees, and this is also where you get some of that wage compression, our employees that had been in position for six, eight, 10 years, we were not then comparable to other organizations.

By that, you mean you were fallen behind?

Yes, sir.

Mm-hmm.

Yep.

Did we check to see how our resources compared to those other cities that we are using for reference?

So we took into account all of like the health benefits and leave and things like that, taking a look at the total compensation package. There were some private industries that when we looked at those, we said, yeah, that doesn't make sense for us to compare to that one. We've got to take that out of the mix. So each position was reviewed. So what happened was that Gallagher put all of these on the chart for us and said, based on all the information that we have, this position should be grade seven, just as an example. um when we start looking at that they gave that to us and that was myself our department heads we brought in some of our supervisors to take a look at that as well and we said well this might not be apples to apples or this might be like apples to cucumbers it's something completely separate and we're not going to utilize that as a comparative So a lot of it was reviewed. I can't say for sure that it's as far as resources go, but based on job descriptions and things like that, we did review all those.

Well, maybe if I understand Mr. Cavanaugh's question, I'm wondering if he's saying, did we compare to their tax revenue? Yeah, to their revenue and how they compared to our community as well. So it was just simply salary, benefits, and position?

Say like for Altoona, we know Altoona has a higher cost of living. So we took that into consideration.

Okay.

Again, we're not going to make it that we match directly with Altoona. I don't know what their cost of living index is off the top of my head, but there is, we do take a look at some of those things. There was not any consideration as far as tax base or revenues or anything like that put into any of it.

I'm sorry, what was the list of towns again?

Bill, if you go to the compensation handbook, the newest one that's got the city of Ottumwa logo in the upper corner, Those are listed on page three.

And just to clarify what HR Director Kojo was saying is the salary scheduled or amounts were adjusted for that cost of living factor. So while we were comparing to similar size cities or larger cities in some cases, the cost of living in those cities was also adjusted to cost of living here.

Yeah, and we do that on a, like anytime we review a position now, there are cost of living indexes that we utilize. So we will go and pull data from all of the different cities, Ames, Altoona, Ankeny, all of them, but then based upon what their cost of living index is, that will adjust what those salaries are. Okay, so... What they did with the salary structure itself is they did a 30% range. So again, keep in mind the grade or range 20 to 30,000 from the first step to step 13, the way that they planned it out was a 30% span. The steps are equal dollar amounts in there. And I think I've got it in another slide. The steps average about 2.25% per step average. Some of them are like 2.4, some of them are 2.1. So the average is 2.25. The midpoint is based on step seven of that structure. So one of the other things that Gallagher did is they gave us a implementation option. As we started going through this, we realized under no circumstances were we going to be able to afford to do all of this all at one time. So they gave us some different implementation options. One of the things, the option, and we're gonna get into this too, is we did a cap on the percent or dollar increase for employees per year. And so you'll see where all of our employees, it took us two years to fully implement these increases. One of the other things that we had them take a look at is benefits and pay practices. So you'll see on these next couple of slides talking about our health insurance. A lot of this is repeat from what we had talked about earlier this year with our health insurance. But again, this was information that was provided back in 23. Leave, same thing, talks about the different leave options that we have and where we compare in the market. Certification pay, that had been a question that had come up where if an employee does get a certification that is relevant to their position, how we would pay for that. Because again, that was not within the pay plan. And so that was something that we had been hearing, something that had been addressed within our contracts, but not within the pay plan. And then same thing for the employee filling in for manager pay premium. This is when a manager is gone and then an employee needs to fill in for them how that goes. Typically, that is not something that is offered unless they are gone for a significant amount of time. When we went out to other cities, we found that we were one of the few cities that was actually paying this on an everyday basis. It's more commonly done when it's 30 days or more that that position is open. So that was some of the information that they had provided there. And then they also talked about ongoing system maintenance. One of the things that they talk about here is that adjusting the salary structure each year to keep pace with the market, talking about that the city should conduct a comprehensive market study similar to this at least every three to five years. That's on my to-do list. Okay, so this shows you, so that was the presentation that Gallagher gave. Yes, I'm sorry.

Can we go back to that paid practices? You said that it typically wasn't done for 30 days?

Correct.

Is that what the, that doesn't look, that doesn't look like this says they didn't give a date of...

That's what other cities have reported. We went out probably a couple of months ago because we've heard some concerns about this.

Okay, but this is from 2021.

Yes, yes.

What did they say in 21?

So they say here, I mean, that's what they've got right here. It's just when they're taking one or two, the following policies may be utilized. And it's got those three different options that are right there. No, they didn't in here, but they did when they presented us the compensation handbook itself. And I understand, but right after this is when they presented the compensation handbook. Okay, thank you.

So who decided the number of days?

It was Gallagher based on their recommendations.

and then adopted by city council. Right, so, and that was council, it's okay, I get it. But so somebody steps into a supervisor position and doing everything that the supervisor is doing, if they step into that for, what is it now? If they step in and do that role for 13 days, they don't get any compensation for it?

Correct.

We think that's right? I mean, if you're stepping in, actually, so, and I do want to stop there for just a second, unless you want to move on and we talk about it afterwards. I don't want to interrupt. I understand the pros and cons, but. Yeah, maybe we go through the rest. Yeah, let's go through. Hang on to that. I don't want to interrupt her, but I do want to get back to this. Sure.

Any other questions before I go on? Okay. So this is the timeline for the approval of what you know now as the compensation handbook. So in June 20th of 2023, council approved the new police contract with data from the compensation study for wages for police and dispatch. So I do want to stop here for a moment. Because we were in the middle of the compensation handbook, when we were negotiating with the police department for their contract starting that year, we had the data for the wages at that time. We tried to figure out a way to fit the police department within that structure and just couldn't figure out a way to make it work. So what we utilized was we took the data that came from Gallagher, the salary data, and we used it with the existing structure that the police department had and just updated the police department. Keep in mind with police, and you'll see with fire as well, they have different hours than what all of our other employees do. So all of our other employees, except for part-time, they work 2,080 hours per year, which is considered full-time. The police department works 2,184 and the fire department works 2,912. So because of the differences in the numbers of hours and the different things that they have, one of the best things that after Gallagher gave that presentation and we went through all of this, they said, you know what, it's probably best, let's just keep them as they are, but utilize that data for the wages. So that's why the June 20th date, why that happened with that police contract is because we had that data when we sat down to negotiate with them. July 18th of 2023, council approved moving positions not under a collective bargaining agreement to the compensation handbook. The reason for that, again, all of our other contracts were actually current and were ongoing. And so our intent was that when those came up for negotiation, we would go through and offer to put them on this compensation handbook. March 19th of 2024 is when council approved the new fire contract with the data from the compensation study, very similarly to the police. Again, we just took the data from that and input it into their current wage structure. June 4th of 2024, council approved the new municipal contract moving to positions to the compensation handbook that was offered to the public works contract at the same time. Municipal employees did accept that. So that's why they moved to it then. May 20th of 2025, council approved the new library contract moving positions to the compensation handbook. And then April 7th of this year, council approved the new public works contract moving the positions to the compensation handbook. So again, it's taken some time, but we've all transitioned with the exception of public safety to the compensation handbook. So with the new updated compensation handbook, Couple of things that we've gotten. So we've gotten all new updated job descriptions. So they are consistent. It's based on direct feedback from our employees and our supervisors. Before any position is filled, these job descriptions are sent to the supervisors for them to review to see if there are any changes that need to be made. If there are changes that need to be made, it is notated on the job description itself exactly what change is made. And it is sent back out to employees for them to sign that they acknowledge that they've received that updated job description. The other thing that we've done is now when we do an interview with any potential candidate, we have this job description available and they are signed off on by the candidate. So that way they know what is expected of them as well.

So you're saying all the job descriptions have been completely updated? Yes.

Yeah, that PDQ process that Gallagher started is what did kind of ramped into this. All of our job descriptions are available on our website and also on UKG. So that way, not only do our employees have access to them, but all of our citizens have access to them as well. We get a lot of requests. I probably once a week get requests for different job descriptions from other communities around the state of Iowa. And it's very simple that I can just instruct them right to our website. So this is the salary chart that that provided to us. So what this salary chart is, again, you've got your grades are listed here on the left side, and we've got grade one through grade 18. Across the top are your steps. You'll see right here under step one, it says hire. Typically when an employee comes in, say if they have no experience, they're just starting out, they are hired at that hire step. Then based on the compensation handbook practices, they move one step a year on their anniversary date until they get to step seven. Because again, step seven is that midpoint. From step eight and beyond, they move to those every three years. That takes place of that longevity. So the longevity that we had is now integrated in here. The longevity was paid every five years and it was a separate line item. It was a separate code that was within the UKG system and paid on the paychecks and everything. It is all combined into one now. And again, this goes every three years. That's why it says three years up here at the top. So when we come to you and talk about COLA increases, it's moving this entire chart up by those COLA increases. Employees may still get those steps, but it's the entire chart that moves up.

So- When you say that Barb, when you say it's the same chart, do dollars move up too? Yes.

So this compares the two plans. So the key to this I really wanna show is that our compensation handbook that we have today has not changed too terribly much from our compensation, the pay plan that we had in 1989. This compares the two. So the things that are highlighted here are the ones that are different. So in 1989, we had a matrix plan with 13 pay grades. We now have a matrix plan with 18 pay grades. We had six steps with a 5% difference between those steps. We now have 13 steps with an average of 2.25% difference between those steps. And again, those go anywhere from 2.5% to 1.9% in between each one of them. Evaluating positions is still the same. The matrix reviewed annually is still the same. In 89, we normally hired at step A, but could hire at B with approval. Our hiring range now spans from step one to step three, but could hire at a higher step with approval. Increase to the next step in the pay grade after serving one year is still the same. Promotions, a minimum 5% increase is still the same. In 89, if there was a demotion, that did not result in a pay decrease. That specifically stated that in the pay plan. Now they may have a pay decrease because the salary is set at a rate within that pay range. So if there is a demotion, we may see a pay decrease. It depends on the circumstances.

Who decides then?

I'm sorry, what's that?

Who decides then?

combination of everyone, really. It depends on if the employee is, if they're forced to be demoted, if it is a self demotion, it's in conversations with the department head and with the city administrator.

So it's a case by case? Yeah.

as long as they are within the range for that position. So if they're in a grade five, say they're in a grade five and, let's see how my eyes work. Say they're in a grade five and they're being paid $48,000 a year, and they're gonna move to a grade three, they could not make more than the maximum amount in that grade three.

So is that the way it would go then? I mean, so what I'm looking for is if if we're demoting somebody or they're demoting themselves, which could very well happen. And we're dealing with their livelihood. I just, I think there should be some criteria and not a case by, you know what I mean? Like you don't want, and maybe I misunderstand and I just don't want five people deciding something on a case by case basis. There should be criteria laid out for, for, you know, like, just like you said, what you were in five, you know, you're going to three, you can't be over the top. And that way nobody else has input in it that it's set and fair.

So within the compensation handbook now on page 10, there's a section in there for voluntary reassignment. And I apologize, I'm not familiar with this because we've not had it. We've not had this come up. An employee who voluntarily accepts a reassignment to a position having a classification in a lower assigned pay grade shall have their salary set at a rate of pay within the new pay grade, providing it does not result in an increase in pay or does not exceed the maximum of the new assigned pay grade. Employees who are subsequently reclassified or promoted back to the original classification from which they took a voluntary assignment may not have their rate of pay adjusted to a level above that prescribed for reclassifications or promotions.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about, that it's laid out.

Yeah. And then 11, page 11, there is involuntary reassignment and then involuntary transfer to a lower grade.

Yeah, it's not necessarily by their choice. And that's what I think she was referring to is the circumstances will be different on the voluntary versus involuntary, but there's language set out for either of those.

To make it so it's consistent every time.

The other thing that is different is the special merit increases. In the 89 pay plan, they could go 5% over the top of the grid. With the compensation handbook as it's laid out now, it cannot increase over the range. So the range, whatever is it, step 13, that's the maximum that it could be. So then the other thing, these are items that were added to the compensation handbook. So these were not in the pay plan originally. The compensation philosophy by the city, that's one of the first things when we look at any type of pay classification or anything is that we have to decide if we're going to lead, lag or match the market. And that's something that is actually laid out in there exactly how we wanna do that. the comparator peer organizations that we talked about, the different cities that we're looking at, a lot of it too added a formal documented process. So whether it's a reclassification of a position, the PDQ themselves, or anything like that, we actually have formalized documented process. So Councilman Hoffman, to your point of making sure there's a consistent process for each one of those that goes through. Certification pay along with the formal documented, acting pay along with set rates. Again, those were not set anywhere. And then added the different appendixes to the compensation handbook showing what our classification structure is, the framework, all of the different charts, and then any additional forms. So we approved the compensation handbook. And then we started looking at implementation. And so this chart shows us the adjustments that have been done since FY24, based on that compensation handbook. FY24, if you remember, that's when we utilize the numbers for the police department and for dispatch, and then also our unrepresented employees. Anything that is in orange, because it took us two years to see all of these changes. So if we're looking at like the unrepresented right here, you'll see it says 14.31 and there's an asterisk by it. But then in FY25, you see orange with an N-A. That 14.31 was spread out over two years. Same thing like here with our municipal employees. So you'll see in FY25, it says 11.75, and then FY26, it says NA. It's because that 11.75 was spread out over two years. So all of these adjustments that have been done have been done over the span of two years. And the intent behind that, again, was to make, to lessen the burden, the financial burden for us. Public Works, you will see that in FY27, they have their first one. If we were to expand this to FY28, you would see that happen in FY28 as well. With dispatch up here, the reason why that is highlighted in green and it says 3% and 2%, there was another wage adjustment that we had done with them and they are going to see 3% July 1 of this year. They are going to see another 2% increase January 1. That was part of the contract that we had negotiated with them.

Who's in the unrepresented?

That is all of our supervisors. We've got administrative specialists, like our planning and zoning coordinator is in that, our sergeants when they're supervisors, our accounting specialists, HR generalist, PIO, public information, IT. I think that's it. And so the number that's there too in the parentheses underneath to say like that 14.31, the increases that we're seeing were anywhere from 2% to 37.05%. With municipal, it was 5.33% to 25% based on the employee.

So somebody got raised 37%. Is that what you're saying?

Yes. Over the two years. So again, this is just the two-year implementation. The way that it was determined for our unrepresented employees was that, or no, for all of them, I'm sorry. If the calculated increase was going to be $5,000 plus or more than 5% from the current salary, the wage adjustment was broken up into four different increases. And that's the theory that we've used across the board for all. So there's an example that's here. So like if an employee was making $21 an hour, but their current, based on the current wage structure, they should be at 25, 25 per hour. That's a difference of 4.25 per hour, a 20% increase. So we broke it up into four different increases. So that was for implementation. Okay.

Excuse me, ma'am, I'm confused. You broke that up into what?

Four different increases. So instead of giving them a- What period of time? Two years.

So every six months.

So you did it July and January, July and January? Yes, ma'am.

So some of the advantages with this, again, we've got a fairness and consistency across all departments. For the most part, we've got a unified pay structure. So we're not managing six, seven different pay structures and different steps. The only exception to that is public safety. But again, we've utilized the data to help drive what those public safety charts are. We've got transparent pay ranges and practices. When you're talking about, especially with public entities, we've got transparency and pay act. There's some different laws that are out there. By doing all of this, we are compliant with that. We've also got a clear process for hiring and everyone. Hiring raises special pays. It's consistent, it's structured, and that's what the current compensation handbook provides to us. One of the things I wanna highlight with this too is our job postings and applicants per posting. So in 2022, when we started tracking all of this, when we started looking at our wages, because we had been hearing a lot that our wages were one of the reasons why we weren't getting applications or people were turning us down for jobs, we were averaging 2.6 applicants per posting. As of last year, we were averaging 14 and a half applicants per posting. And then so far this year, this is through September 14th, we're at nine and a half applicants per posting. So we're seeing more people applying for jobs and we are hearing less and less about pay being the issue. So there's still some things to do with this. There's some more things that we do need to integrate within the compensation handbook itself. With the one big beautiful bill that passed last year, there is some work that we need to do with overtime, just defining the differences between FLSA, the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime and regular overtime. So there's some work that we need to do there. We need to do some work with premium and differential pays, again, just getting it into the compensation handbook so that way it's clear and transparent for everyone. Also adding in some seasonal, temporary, and contract employee guidelines. One of the things that we have found, especially as we've gone to a different contracted labor pool, we need to come up with some of those guidelines and actually get that into the book. One of the other things that we've talked a lot about, we've had some supervisors talking about hours of work and different timekeeping responsibilities. That is something that we want to put into that compensation handbook, just so that way, again, those timesheets is what drives your compensation. It's what drives a lot of that. So we want to just add some more information in there. Create more definition around stipends, allowances, and our reimbursement expectations. What this is, is we've got some different stipends and what we had found is some people were getting one amount, some people were getting another amount, and we've got it fixed, but we want to actually put that somewhere. We want to get that into there. We're still seeing issues with pay compression, like I talked about. Our first level supervisors, and especially now as we get our public works contract all on this contract, we wanna take a look at that and make sure that there is enough of a difference that's there so we don't have that pay compression. This is something that we have been working with our police chief on because we have some serious concerns with our sergeants and the pay compression between them and our police officers. So more information on that will be coming. We've heard some feedback that our seasonal wages are out of line right now, and that's one of the reasons that we have struggled to find seasonal employees. So that's another thing that is handled by this compensation handbook that we want to take a look at. Acting pay. I know that's been something that's been talked about. And then I had mentioned this before, setting a schedule for regular position analysis. Right now, the position analysis is done as the position comes open or like that's pretty much when it's done. Every once in a while, I get a request that, hey, I think my pay is kind of out of line and we'll do a job analysis at that time. But we'd like to set a regular schedule for that. So that way we can make sure it's done.

Two questions. What's acting pay?

That's the like acting as a supervisor when the supervisor is gone.

So that's the differential.

Yeah, we call it acting pay.

But you get differential up here at the top too.

So there are other differentials like training, like if you're acting as a training person or if you are working at night instead of like a second shift or a third shift, those are the differentials.

And then on the, you said you have a different contractor now. What did you mean that you're gonna put something in the handbook regarding, are you talking about manpower?

Yes, yeah.

How can we, I mean, I don't understand what you're talking about with the manpower.

So when we went from Supreme Staffing to manpower, with manpower's risk management departments, there's some positions that they cannot offer contracted labor for, so we've had to bring that in-house. And there's some stipulations that we've done that we had not done previously. So it's just putting more guidelines to that.

We're covering ourselves. Yes, yeah.

Yeah, it's things we're doing, but we just want to get it written down. Got it. Yep.

Thank you.

Are you going to budget next? Yeah. Before you do that, I have a question on the slide with the two-year implementation. Okay. With it being spread out, what does that do for other percentage-based, like IPERs and other percentage-based benefits? Since they're not getting the full raise right up front, everything else is based off a percentage of salary. How does that... Does that mean they get behind because they're not getting that increase right up front?

I guess I would question what behind would be.

If they were to get the full amount on day one and it's percentage-based over that two-year period, they would be having more money put into their IPERS than if it were broken up in a slower period of time. Yep. Okay. Yeah. So I'm wondering if there's something we need to look at there to make sure that we're not... shorting them on the benefit side of that.

Well, it's not earned until it's paid.

Right.

And so, I mean, that's where they're going to be going to, but, At the final part, yeah.

Right. So what they're earning, what they're getting paid for pension, isn't impacted by the slowness of a pay increase. Unless they are. So you're... But it's a cash flow issue on the finance side as well. But overall, when somebody goes to retire after 30 years, if they were payable, then

So it catches itself up is what I'm hearing.

Yes. How does it catch itself up?

You're taking money out of the system. You're getting that. IPERS is paying you based on an average pay. Not like the 401k where you're now having to, you've got

I don't know, I feel kind of dumb explaining it to me, but wouldn't it, like what the mayor said, you know, one year, two years, so you have here, half here, that would still depend on how long you work out to here, correct?

So if you got it, am I saying it right? Yeah. So my question is, is it penalizing based on compound interest investment, you know, since they're not getting the full amount on the first six months?

No. The only impact would be, as Finance Director Lee had mentioned, is if somebody is retiring within those two years, that they wouldn't have gotten to that top. It would affect their top dollar or their average the last three years towards what their final compensation would be or annual compensation would be. But as far as whether it was the nonrepresented in the first couple years this was done or any of the contracts, those are all identified going into it. So if you were going from $20 an hour to $22 an hour, and in that first six months you're at 2050 and then you go to 21 and then 2150 and then 22 that was all defined before any contract was approved so you're not at 22 an hour you're at 20.50 in those first six months then you're at 21 then you're at 21.50 that's that's what should be expected but if they thought that they were going to be making 22 at the end of the two yeah no they shouldn't be day one because that was said it was stated it would be over two years So the expectation should never have been 22 at day one. And if anybody was expecting that, then that was not explained to them in a way that it should have been. And I think actually, I think during those contracts, everybody should have had an opportunity to see where their wages would be over those at each six months. Is that correct?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So we when we went into the contracts themselves, we did a spreadsheet. of and there was a lot to it but we offered i mean and i know i went to different places and explained okay here's which where you would be as of july 1 as of january 1 if you have a step increase and then based on you know going out to the next year once cola came into effect that's my question okay All right, so I'm going to talk a little bit about this, and then I'm going to turn it over to Mike. So for FY27, this is what we had put into our budget. And this right here is regular wages only. This does not count overtime. It does not count... Comp time pay, this is just regular wages. So 2080 hours, 2184, 2912, that's all that this counts for right here.

Does that include COLA?

Yes, for what was budgeted for FY27. Yes, the 2.8% that was approved. So we had $14.4 million in regular wages only for FY27. Couple of caveats to this. We are assuming absolutely every position is filled. We are assuming a zero vacancy and that they are all filled with the employees that we had as of March. April of this past year. That's what we're assuming when we're doing this budgeting. So the way that that's broken up, you've got right here, this is the general fund. So we had $9.2 million in wages only from the general fund, which is 65.9%. This orange one right here is the road use tax fund, which that includes our street maintenance, traffic, electrical engineering, street cleaning, our public works building, and our public works garage. And then this purple one that's right here, the 3.294 million, those are our special funds. So airport, cemetery, risk management, library, sewer treatment, sewer maintenance, landfill, and recycling. So that's how our wages are broken up for FY27. Just as a comparator, this is our benefits over here. So the yellow, that 59.69%, that is our health insurance. So benefits total, we're almost at 7.5 million is what we pay with all of our benefits. And then you've got this here, this 27.86. This is our IPERS and MFPRSI. IPERS is for all of our employees with the exception of sworn police and fire. MFPRSI is Municipal Fire and Police Retirement Systems of Iowa. And that is simply for our sworn police officers and firefighters.

This again is at full capacity.

Yes. And any positions that would have been open at that time, we always plan for family coverage. So we, we budget and plan for the maximum amount. So that way, if we do have an employee that comes in and maybe does not accept family coverage, we've got a little bit of savings there. The rest of these lines here, this is our old age, which is social security and Medicare and workers' compensation, and then our life insurance. So this is what was budgeted for FY27. Couple of things I wanna talk about before we go into FY28. There's been a lot of talk about what's on govsalaries.com. And I just wanna offer you some caution, not saying that it's not good to have it out there, but just offer you some caution. These are salary aggregators and it can be misleading if you don't have any context with them. So a couple of things to keep in mind is that on govsalaries.com, this does not consider when an employee started working during the year. it is assuming a full 12-month period. So when you see sentences like an increase of 25% over the year prior, we don't know when that employee started work. So as an example, I'll use myself. I started in April. I did not, and I started part-time. I did not start full-time. I started part-time in April. So when you look at my first year compared to my second year, of course there's going to be a huge increase. We have other employees that have just started and are starting next Monday. And when we look at their salaries for this year compared to next year, it's going to look inflated because there's nothing on here that talks about when the employee started through the year. Overtime is also calculated into this number. So overtime is not promised. It's not something that is guaranteed to any employee. But if an employee does have overtime, that is calculated into here. The more senior the employee is, the more overtime that they have offered to them. So again, you may also see fluctuations in that year over year because of overtime. This also doesn't notate any promotions or certifications. So if we do have an employee that takes a promotion or transfers to another grade, again, that's not gonna be noted in here. So when you look at, it says on here, like when it's over This one here is 130% higher than the median salary in the city of Ottumwa. When you look at the salaries for the city of Ottumwa, this takes our city administrator and it takes our part-time 10 hours a week lifeguard that worked at the beach for two weeks and compares the two. And that's where that number comes from. So again, just be cautious with that because you're looking at both ends of the spectrum there. Data sources also vary by agency. This is a big one that we've seen simply because of the size of our community, the makeup that we have, the different roles and responsibilities that we have. Our job titles may not be the same as another city. It's very common that you will see it may be the city clerk in one role and in another city, it's a director of finance slash city clerk. city administrator slash director of finance compared to a city administrator. You will see, like I'm looking at it right now with some of the different sergeant things. We've got a sergeant of operations. We've got a lieutenant of operations and a lieutenant of training. So there's a lot of differences when we look at city to city. And that's why it's important for us to look at those job descriptions to make sure that we're comparing as closely as we can. Same thing here about role responsibilities. Small communities as compared to large. A library director here in Ottumwa is going to be very, very different than a library director in agency. Nothing against them, but it's just going to be very, very different. So just a word of caution for you when you are looking at those GOV salaries. The other thing that I do wanna caution council on when we're going into budgeting for FY28 and starting to think about these things, we are bound by Iowa code 20.22. In subsection 10 paragraph B, it does govern caps during arbitration based on base wage increases. So what this means is that outside of our public safety, with any of our contracts, that when we go in to negotiate for wages, If we find ourselves in arbitration, the arbitrator will award either 3% or the Midwest CPI, whichever is less. And that is contracted as by Iowa code. So again, just as we're going into making some difficult decisions and things like that, we just have to be aware that that is an Iowa code that is out there. By us utilizing the Midwest CPI within our compensation handbook and actually having that in there as a guide, we are in compliance with this code. So for FY28 considerations, or projections, I'm sorry. So regular wages only. Again, this is just regular wages. This does not include any overtime or any extras or any FICA or anything like that. This is based on contracts that we currently have, steps that are currently promised to employees. This is what our wages will be. So we're looking at about $15.3 million in wages for FY28. General fund is at 9.7 million, 65.6%. Road use tax is at 13.37% of that, which is little over 2 million and almost 3.5 in our special funds. A couple of things that we need to be aware of, again, as we move into these FY28, Public Works is going to be in year two of integrating to the chart. So you will see larger increases in our departments that have employees that are covered under Public Works because we're putting them on that chart. Moving forward after this year, we should not see those continued increases because we're making those wage adjustments now. Currently, the Midwest CPI is averaging 3.58% for calendar year 2026. April was at like 4.7% and May was at a 5% for the Midwest CPI. So that's what we're trending right now. I don't, of course, that could change by the time we get there, but just for the first part of the year, we are trending at a 3.58%. For the police department, we do already have it built in within their contract that they will see a 3.5% COLA for FY28. Dispatchers will see a 4% COLA for FY28 as well. That's already negotiated in there. Fire, we will be going through negotiations this fiscal year. We don't know what that will look like yet. We'll be able to provide that to you once we go through those negotiations. One of the other things for you to think about or just be aware of is that looking for FY28, if we look at step increases only, so again, this is employees that are celebrating either one year in position from steps one through seven or three years, steps eight through 13, it averages about 1.3%. So if we take all of our salaries, take it times the 1.3%, that's what we would pay in our step increases. The general fund, it's 0.99%. So it's about 1% for step increases in the general fund. Okay, I'm gonna hand it over to Mike to go through these projections.

So, excuse me. I neglected to put the word wage projections on this slide, so if you'll add that to your notes. When you look at FY27 to FY28, again, similar budgeting, full, assuming all positions filled. Overall, we're looking at, that's a 6% increase is what we're looking at. I have those increases broken out here between general fund, road use tax and the other funds. So we can really concentrate on general fund because we know that's where we have some issues. So the bullet points to the right. Piper Sandler is working with the Iowa League of Cities on developing a property tax projection tool. They're about three to four weeks out from releasing that, but I got a preview of that this morning. It's a great tool, it's an online tool. They tried building it in Excel and they kept breaking Excel because it is statewide. But we can look at individual communities in that. with all of the changes that were made in the house file, with the 2% cap, with the homestead exemption changes that are coming, we're looking at next year of potentially an increase in general fund property tax of about 150,000 is probably about where we'll be limited to. So we have that, there's some good news in there for homeowners with that, but that is a limiting factor. So you compare that to the 506,000, yes, there's a bit of a hole. You look at some other fee increases that we could do. We just increased fees July 1. So they were fairly modest increases, but increases. So I'm not sure there's an appetite to do another round of those this upcoming year, but maybe it's something we do some small increases every year, just so we don't get five years down the road and get behind. So something to consider, but it's not gonna dig us out of that hole. Looking ahead then to four more years. And again, this is in a bit of a vacuum, just looking at status quo, number of positions we have, not finding efficiencies in what we're doing. It also doesn't assume retirements. you know, we have so many different people, so many different funds, so many different functions. It's so hard to project those on a position by position. So I'm not saying this is worst case because it is only assuming a 3% cost of living adjustment. As we know, sometimes it's more, you know, it could be less. So I just call this a high case because it's assuming Long-term employees aren't retiring. We're continuing to pay those rates and we're not bringing in new employees at lower experience, lower step level. So there is some upside to this. It's not doom and gloom, but it's not rosy either. So in looking at that, as Barb mentioned, what we noticed is the step increase while it ranges from that to 1.9 to 2.5%. In reality, what it does, because we have some people at seven, on step one through seven, others eight through 13, that three year gap on the longer term employees they're not getting that increase every year. So that two to two and a half percent is paid out over time. So what we're seeing is about 1.3% increase for this step. And then again, this assumes a cost of living adjustment of 3%, again, high side, most likely, but that's what we're seeing. One of the things I'm going to be working on and these models take time to work through is a full revenue model. The state throwing in curve balls with changes. Property taxes have always been hard to project. So I'm glad that we have this new tool coming out and that will really help move that forward. And then we can start projecting revenues better as well as on the expenditure side.

All right, thank you. Before we move on, this is something I should have said at the beginning, so I'm gonna say it now. The intent of tonight was one, just to kind of show a history of how we got to where we are with the salary schedule, how it works, just to kind of have a better understanding. I know as far as the council is, if I recall correctly, Council Member Galloway was the only one part of this process that's on council right now. So I think having this as an overview for the council to kind of see where we were, how we've got to where we are, some of the things that we still have to do to have it implemented fully the way it was intended. I think that was part of the intent of tonight. I also wanted to give an opportunity for council and others to ask questions, to have a conversation about it. and to do so in a way that we're all trying to just understand it a little bit better. And in doing so, I believe then we can as council understand kind of the playing field that we're at. I know we've talked about the property tax bill and the changes that that's going to be making, and we're still trying to figure that out. But on our side, we can start to understand where we are. And then in doing so, when we come to the budget process and making some of the decisions that need to be made, I believe this will be helpful for council to kind of know, okay, this is the playing field. This is where we're at. This is what we've been doing. And this is the direction things are going, because obviously things are going to need to adjust, just like everything else is adjusted. I mean, we saw the numbers of adjustments that have been made just to implement the compensation schedule the way it is now. And as we've heard disclaimers throughout the whole thing, projections and everything that is in a vacuum as if nothing has changed and we all know things have. And so take those projections not as, oh, this is the way it's gonna be, but this is more of a comparative in nature as to, okay, what do we need to plan for and how do we need to plan it? And then I will emphasize tonight with the discussion, there is no action being taken tonight. Are there different ideas that are gonna be spoken about? Probably. Will that result in action in the future? That's possible as well. But I wanted to emphasize that the discussion, there is no action being taken tonight. With that, I wanna turn it over to those that had turned in request for public comment. One of them had to leave. So I'm gonna move to the only other one that I have here. And I'm gonna ask, is that Steve Graham?

before we get through this receiving, Mayor Hoffman had, Councilman Hoffman had a question on an issue when Barb was explaining it.

Right, yeah, and I think right after Steve talks, then we'll get back to that. So, Steve. Thank you.

Basically, I'm wanting to speak on the behalf of the Public Works employees from the, Teamsters local 238 point of view, I guess. What we are asking the city council to direct after review and reduce the 15 day step up pay threshold in the city's compensation handbook as it applies to public works employees. As written, this threshold does not fit two situations we face on a regular basis. Stepping up to operate higher classified equipment, there's a department that does that, It would be our parks department in stepping up to act as the working foreman. And I know that was removed from the contract. So I guess that wasn't the word. It needs to be supervisor, basically. When our supervisor is gone, okay. in both cases we take on a real higher level responsibility right away but the assignments are usually too short to ever reach the 15 days in a single month so the pay never really follows their responsibility the city's handbook requires that an employee be placed in a higher rated position for 15 days before the employer's rate of pay is stepped up So when we ratified our most recent contract, we were moved to the compensation table and all of our other contract language regarding pay for the step up assignments was to be covered by the city's compensation handbook. So that whole section was in the contract. It was moved over to the compensation handbook. Okay. Public works employees are regularly directed to operate mobile equipment such as backhoes, end loaders, graders, backhaul trucks, bucket trucks, among other equipment. And those are all listed in our contract. In practice, this means we are called upon to step into higher classified equipment operator jobs on a moment's notice. sometimes for a few hours sometimes for a full shift or several days depending entirely on weather equipment availability and staffing needs on a given day public works employees are also frequently asked to step up and act as once again working foreman working supervisor when their supervisors are away from work. When this happens, we are expected to immediately take on managerial duties, directing and assigning the crews work for the day, starting on day one, not after a period of easing in. These stretches are usually short, a day or two, covering a sick day, a week covering a vacation, a handful of days here and there, covering training or other absences throughout the month. Like our equipment assignments, they rarely add up to 15 days in a single month, even though the responsibility is immediate and real every time. Those situations are normally based on day to day rather than a prolonged staffing vacancy. They're typically short and irregular. An employer might operate a bucket truck for a full day, act as a foreman for two days the next week and cover another absence a few days after that. As a result, the 15 day rule effectively lets us do higher rated jobs in either form without ever really getting paid or compensated for doing that said job. So we believe as a unit, this rule was written with a different scenario in mind, like an assistant manager or supervisor who steps up to cover a manager's position during an extended absence or a vacancy. In that setting, a minimum duration requirement makes more sense. Operating mobile equipment or acting as working foreman are different kinds of assignments. They are task-based, not vacancy-based. And the higher skill, training, and responsibility involved are present the moment the employee takes on that work, not after 15 days have passed. This is especially true for acting supervisor duties where an employee is directing and assigning work for the crew from the first hour of the first day. So we respectfully ask that the council consider our perspective in these solutions. We appreciate the council's attention to this matter and are available to meet with staff or the council at your convenience to discuss it further. So, and something else I might add. So I know the compensation handbook said, was it 5% increase for acting pay? I think that's what. Right. So the way that was done before, prior to July 1st of this year, when our contract went into effect, We were paid the difference between whatever the employee's wage was. Say it was $20 an hour. Your supervisor was $27 an hour. So we'll equate that out, $56 a day extra if they were gone is what that employee received when they stepped up to direct that work. if that puts that into perspective. That's how that was paid prior to our contract taking place July 1st of this year. So I just like you guys to take that into consideration when you look through this. because there are people that are competent enough to step up into those positions and make sure that that work gets done and that the supervisor can enjoy their time if they're away. So, thank you.

Okay. Thanks, Steve.

um i think this ties into the question you're yeah yeah this is so mr this is what it was so i want to make the statements i'm going to make without um any assumptions you know the way i speak doesn't mean that other supervisors don't care about the staff either so i just want to put that out there so it doesn't think that way but not only do um and this is for my colleagues too not only do i hear what he says i take a hard stance on that as well We're lucky enough in Ottumwa to have a talented staff of supervisors and laborers and workers. And I think they're and this is my opinion. I've always felt this way. I believe that there's no other way to destroy their morale than to have them. You know, you're stepping into a job on day one. on day one covering a supervisor, emergencies don't stop, questions don't stop, situations don't stop, and you still have to be there to handle it. Now, some could argue that you're not taking full responsibility, but you are. If you're up in that position and you're covering that position and that supervisor is gone, you are the pointy person, you are the one responsible at that time. So they're stepping up, not only taking the responsibility of doing the job, they're taking the responsibility of being accountable for the time that they're doing it. So I come from a place where I've been on both sides of this. I've been management, administration, and I've been hourly. So I've seen both sides. Believe me, I don't think administration is evil. That's not what I'm saying here. I just believe that when somebody steps into a role, or even I will add in there an operator role, if it's an operator role outside of what you're doing, you should be paid for performing that role. I know it's a little bit of extra work for us. I do. I get that because it may only be a few hours that... payroll has to figure or maybe you know another hour that michael has to look at things or whatever but we're asking them to step up and do extra stuff and we're not giving them anything for it I mean, so they should be compensated. I don't want to take all night because I know there's things to talk about, but that's the stance I take on that. I think that they should be paid on day one. Like I said, not that I think admin's evil, but I don't want anybody to think I'm taking a dig on them. But I believe that they should get paid on day one. Operators should be paid for the time they spent on machines because, like I said, and I'll end with this, we are lucky that we have the staff we have of workers who can step into those roles and cover for that because, believe me, I mean, we talk about comparing to other cities, and I talk to other cities. Other cities aren't as lucky to have a talented staff that can step in those positions for one day, two days, three days, four days, so...

i will stop that subject with this yeah i mean i agree with what bill said um someone's on vacation for two weeks it doesn't meet the 15-day rule and they've taken the responsibility for of a supervisor for two weeks and that's a lot of pressure um it doesn't give the employee any incentive to to step up and try to achieve more that would be my my feeling well and it creates the

And we don't want this, but it creates the why should I do it? This is not any different. Like, why should I do it?

Why take the headache?

But I do want to note, though. In the current situation, they have been doing it. Nobody's stepped back and said that, which is another testament to how good a staff we have. So nobody's stepped back and said, I'm not doing it. They're doing it, and they may be unhappy about it, but they've done it, and that's something to be proud of. So like I said, I put our staff on a pedestal, and that's where I stand. I promise I'll be quiet now.

administrator. I know you wanted to speak.

Yeah, I was going to say, first of all, I'm glad that we're not seeing admin as evil or the enemy here. Really, we're operating based off of direction from council, trying to control costs, trying to compensate employees fairly, and that's where a lot of this was driven. I can only assume there's a lot of little one-offs that get put into employment contracts where wages aren't given as high of a rate or percentages might be ideal in a given year. And so there might be dollars put towards some other incentive or a pay or a leave or some other thing that gets worked into a contract. One of the goals with the compensation plan was to address and pay people fairly for all of the hours that they're spent doing something, not just for an hour here or four hours or eight hours in a day, but to try to compensate everybody accordingly for the job that they're doing. Now, I agree that there are some times where employees may be asked to step into a role. And as we found in many comparable cities and other organizations, There is no such thing as acting pay or differential pay in that degree. It's seen as an opportunity for employee development. Maybe somebody is looking at being a supervisor and advancing. And so you get the experience is the pay that gets earned there. There's internships. We talked about those in the past of people working internships, paid or unpaid. That's similar in this regard. So one of the things of trying to get All of the employees paid up with that was to also help to reduce the need for some of these one-offs that can get lost in things. The other part with saying the longer period of time was saying that, yes, there are some responsibilities that someone may have. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a person to reach out to or a phone call or all of that is going on to that individual on a temporary basis is going to be treated different than somebody who's in that permanent role. So those are just some of the things that I think went into that. Not to say that things couldn't be looked at or saying that there's a percentage or something. I don't know that going from where the employee was at to where the supervisor was at is necessary as it maybe was done in the past. If you're looking at a percentage of the increase on a shorter period of time, that may be something that would be doable. I also wanted to mention there was a question about park staff operating heavier equipment. And we had a conversation. Steve came forward and a couple of the parks guys to talk about this with Barbara and myself. I think it was last week. And it's something that we had advised. perhaps it does necessitate a review of the positions if the position is doing that work for a long period of time in a different pay rate or pay grade then have it evaluated and we're advised to go through that process working with their supervisor and bringing that forward because it's possible it could necessitate that and again paying somebody what they should be paid all of the time but we also want to get into a situation from a liability standpoint We should never ask anybody to operate equipment that they're not trained or able to operate. That's just setting up other issues. And so we want to make sure that people are trained. And if they are trained and able to use that, then there should be appropriate compensation, which may mean an adjustment in class or a grade. So thank you.

Any other comments or questions from other council members?

I'd like to say it was along, agrees with some of the comments that were made, just how much we do appreciate our staff. I know sometimes you get talking about pay and compensation and stuff. People might think, well, I guess they don't appreciate us very much, but we really do. And I think we want to keep that in mind as we go forward with all of this. Something I've learned, just a simple little comment that never even maybe gained any traction to happen can discourage somebody, cause them to say, well, I think I'll get a job somewhere else. We sure don't want to do that. We want to keep our people and we want them to be properly taken care of. And so we don't want to be a discouragement to folks. We want folks to know that we're doing our best to do it right. And I believe that we can do it right and take care of our people at the same time.

I would comment that I think the administrators' comments about people being asked to do things that they're not trained for or qualified to do, I think we need to take a hard look at who might be asked to do a certain job and make sure they are trained. and qualified to do that job. I think as far as counting 20 minutes I did this or 15 minutes I did that, that doesn't cut it for me. If you're on a job and you're there for two or three or four hours or a day, that should be given consideration.

Well, you know, I think we're building a scenario too that when he's talking about safety, I think where they were coming from also is you have somebody who was an operator who may be in a different role now. or maybe make a little less or or or something and then you ask them to do it and that that position may be a higher pay grade that's what we're talking about is there should be a higher pay grade i do have to add the caveat into you know even administration is going to say phil just said it don't run a piece of machinery you're not trained to run we don't want anybody hurt um so i'm glad you brought that up but i was coming from the scenario that How do I want to put it? You were an operator and then you stepped away and you're doing this and they needed help. So they asked you to come over here and run this piece of machinery that you are qualified and trained to run. You should be compensated for that.

I guess another thought that I had written down here about when we're considering our compensation and our people, and I wish we could give everybody absolute top salary, but there's only so much pie to go around. But just keep in mind too, that the people who are paying the bill, are on average making about $60,000 a year. So people who don't make a lot are the ones who are paying the property taxes and putting in the money that goes towards these things to some extent. I realize there's other sources of income too, There's, you know, the people that we're serving and we do need to look at it that way. You know, we're here to serve these folks and to be a blessing to the city. And I hope that as workers, keep that in mind too. We want to compensate you, right? But we also want, I like to see it and I hear it from time to time amongst our workers that they have a servant's heart. They're here to serve the people. I appreciate that.

Well, I think too, our employees, you know, based on the compensation philosophy of the handbook, it says, you know, that we're going to be equitable and we're striving for excellence and promoting continued learning and growth. If they don't feel that they're getting that, then we're missing the boat. When, you know, you can pay them, but if you're not, if they don't feel like they're there, that we feel their worth or we're not, we're not supporting, you know, their growth or, or, if they don't feel fairly treated, they're gonna leave. And we don't want them to leave.

Steve. Yeah.

So,

The departments that we're talking about that had received this pay prior to do not affect the general fund. They're road use and the sewer department as well, or the sewer fund, I guess, to say. I would consider it a minute amount that we were being compensated for. didn't really affect the elephant that's in the room the general fund i guess to say sure so that's that's pretty much all i wanted to okay yeah that's good to reiterate because we re we had expressed that before and i just wanted to reiterate that so okay yeah thank you thank you

So I just closed first. I know we have several departments here, so thank you for coming. Public works, parks, fire, library, planning and zoning. We have some water works, police, yeah. Yeah, electrician, engineers. Do we have any engineers? No. One, I want to say thank you. Thank you for what you do. I hope what you're hearing from counsel and from myself is how much we value you and the work that you do each and every day. And regardless of how some of the stuff was done previously, how it's done now with compensation and everything, I want you to know how much we value who you are. and what you do, and also how you step up when it's necessary. I've seen it time and time again that, hey, something has to get done. And you guys step in and you do it, even though it may not be in your job description. even though it may not be during the time that you're working, but you step up and you do it and you get it done. And so I just want to say thank you for everything that you guys do for this city. I know I can't say it enough, but I'll say it right now. So thank you. And go back and tell the others that aren't here tonight, that goes for them too. I mean, I just, yeah, I appreciate. And the more and more I learn about what you guys do here in the city, sitting up here in this chair, I just appreciate you even more. So thank you for what you guys do.

I ask one more question.

Okay.

Just on the differential, because it is different departments and he just made a point that there's comes out of road use tax and I know public safety comes out of the general fund. Are the differential pay scales the same across the board on all the contracts or are they different within the union contracts?

So police and fire have their own set rates per their contract and then everything else is set by the compensation handbook.

Okay, so police and fire, if you have someone step up and cover someone at a different level, do they get compensated for that?

Or do they have 15 days also? The fire department does, the police department does not have that offering because that's not a practice in their department.

Thank you.

Last chance.

I know.

I just was going to say, I would like to, I know in the future here, in the near future, I don't want it to go far. I would actually like to make that agenda action item so we could discuss the Okay, that part of it. Sure. But again, it's obviously a concern. So I don't want it to be like three months down the road. It needs to be pretty quick that we discuss it and make it. Okay. And obviously, I'm going to advocate for day one. So just so there's no curveballs to anyone. Okay.

Can we do that in a public meeting? Because won't the contract have to be open or will an MOU? No.

No, it wouldn't have to be open because the contract language just states that effective as of whatever date it is that they're following the compensation handbook. So council will have the right to make any of those changes to the compensation handbook that they choose.

And then non-union is just going to be in the compensation handbook, right?

All employees except for police and fire are in that.

Okay. Anyone else? With this, this is a public forum, so I would open it up if there's anyone in the audience that want to speak on a non-agenda item, which is everything but what we talked about tonight. Seeing none, I will finish up by saying thank you to Mrs. Kojo and Mr. Lee for the work you guys put in for tonight. I know that it was a lot of work and I appreciate what you guys have done and how you communicated together and gave us a good presentation and understanding of where we're at. So thank you very much.

Wait, I have one more thing before we close, though, when you're done.

I'm ready to ask.

Do we have a date for e-bikes?

Yes, we do.

Perfect. What is that date?

It's in October.

October.

I think the third week in October. I don't know the day off to type in my head. The 20th.

October 20th for e-bikes to be discussed. Thank you. Are you bringing cookies?

Yeah, that's the plan.

That's the plan.

I'm great at making cookies.

With that, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

I'll move.

Second. Chris, take the roll, please.

Council Member Reed. Yes. Council Member Galloway. Yes. Council Member Hoffman.

Yes.

Council Member Dupre. Yes. Council Member Kavanagh.

Yes.