Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-2002 Special City Council MinutesMINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Special City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Kelley at 3:34 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, HICKMAN, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY BUCKLEY (Councilman Buckley arrived at 3:45 p.m.) Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, Assistant City Attorney Mann, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Building/Safety Manager Russell, City Treasurer Ferro and City Clerk/Human Resources Director Kasad. BUSINESS ITEM Parity Study & Process Audit - L. B. Hayhurst. (17:68.1)(X: 116.1) City Manager Watenpaugh noted that this matter had been referred from the regular City Council Meeting to this Special Meeting for discussion with PAGE TWO - SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 15, 2002 L.B. Hayhurst. He reminded the Council that staff had recommended L.B. Hayhurst to provide the study, as the other bidders did not offer the two studies combined into a joint process; and their costs would have been greater for the work. He noted that the Assistant City Manager, City Clerk/Human Resources Director Kasad and himself had met with Mr. Hayhurst earlier in the day to provide him with information on the community. He explained that a third party with this area of expertise was needed to evaluate, compare and make strong recommendations. He noted that some of the issues upon which the Council would need to make a determination included where they wanted the City to fall in salary ranges and how to implement the program, so there would be no haggling later. He introduced Lonnie Hayhurst, President of L.B. Hayhurst & Company. Mayor Kelley welcomed Mr. Hayhurst and thanked him for his attendance. She noted requests to speak on this item and suggested taking those comments prior to Mr. Hayhurst's presentation. Edith Stafford, 29700 Hursh, questioned why the City was always contracting things out, and suggested that staff should be able to do this work. She noted that there were qualified staff members and it should be simple enough for them to obtain the information. She questioned if the citizens could get the information, why staff could not. Mayor Kelley concurred that the staff was qualified, but suggested a third party was needed to review salaries, as it would be awkward to review their own salaries. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest, indicated that she did not support this study, but requested clarification that the survey would be based on cities of the same, or nearly the same population, and not larger cities. She noted that she was sending out letters to cities throughout the State with populations between 25,000 and 45,000, and her findings were very interesting. She suggested that if this study came up with something unrealistic, there would be big trouble. She noted prior comments about the Union wanting the study and suggested if that was true they should pay for it. She indicated that she was tired of her tax dollars going for studies, which turn out to be nothing. She advised that she would be watching this process like a hawk. PAGE THREE - SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 15, 2002 She cautioned the Council to not use cities like Los Angeles, Oakland or San Francisco. She noted that her study would cost less than $100. Mayor Kelley stressed the need for apples to apples comparisons, with like cities, like job descriptions and like experience. She indicated that this was not only a Union request, but it was also a Councilman's request. William Tito, 32296 Machado, inquired if the process would review the job description for each job and provide a progress report on how the staff was doing, and whether they were working within their budget. He stressed the importance of evaluating whether staff was doing the job and publishing the findings. Mayor Kelley indicated that there would be a report at the end of the process, and it would be a public record, which would be accessible to the public. City Manager Watenpaugh confirmed that the report would come back to the Council reviewing the job, benefits and process audit, and the Council would act on it, making it public information. Kathy Delgado, authorized representative of the UPEC Local 777 Union, indicated that she was responsible for looking out for the interests of Union members; and confirmed that they had requested the study because it was important to be sure members were paid appropriately for the jobs they were doing. She advised that she wanted the Council to be aware that they were very much interested in the process of the study, and stressed the need for members to participate in the process. She indicated that she was also present to check out the Consultant, as she had a great deal of experience with this process. She stressed that the Union would be interested in the final results, as well as the process. She offered their assistance in any appropriate role during the process. Lonnie Hayhurst, President, L.B. Hayhurst & Associates presented copies of talking point regarding his firm and their proposal. He highlighted the background of L.B. Hayhurst and Associates, which had been in business about nine years, working in both the public and private sectors. He indicated that they worked with seventeen associates, with some being brought in by the project based on their expertise with particular issues. He advised that they had experience in classification, compensation, and process PAGE FOUR - SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 15, 2002 or management audits. He indicated that he personally would be the project leader for this project, and he would be the one on -site dealing with issues. He advised that their client base ranged from the City of Los Angeles to smaller communities of about 2,000 in population. COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY ARRIVED AT 3:45 P.M. He commented that Lake Elsinore was in the size range they liked to work with, as it was possible to get their arms around the issues. He noted that on the private side they had been working with Riverdeep, a software company, which was being marketed internationally; addressing management skills, workflow, etc. He highlighted their work in the capacity of the Human Resources Department, and noted that one of their more novel clients was the new Santana Band. He reviewed the scope of services as submitted to include the parity review and process audit; from the initial project meeting with a defined group of people including the City Councilmembers to determine where any complaints were coming from. He indicated that they liked to identify stakeholders in the Community, sit down with the Union to hear their concerns and orient them to sit down with employees and determine job duties and responsibilities. He indicated that they would interview all employees and update job specifications and classifications, and do a lot of listening to the specified groups. He further indicated that they would benchmark similar agencies, looking for key processes and issues, and looking at communities with similar size processes and standards by which to judge the structure and workflow. He advised that after benchmarking, they would analyze the data and prepare a report on the process orientation and standards in the community. He clarified that they would not commit to doing performance evaluations of the employees, or determining whether staff had met goals and expectations, but they would be looking at where the processes and systems could be improved. Councilwoman Brinley inquired whether they would evaluate efficiency. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that the process audit would evaluate where processes were getting blocked or cut off and see who is not getting the appropriate information. He stressed that they would need to review the PAGE FIVE - SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 15, 2002 Council priorities and how the processes operate in the City, as every community prioritizes differently. He explained that they would write the job specifications based on how the City was set up and how the work would flow. He indicated that in the initial reviews for the process audit, they would also be formulating classification information, which would be sent back to management and the employees for review; followed by the final report. He commented that nothing should be secret in this process and he liked to work in a very open environment. He noted his experience at the bargaining table and stressed the importance of keeping the information flowing so he could give a neutral third party recommendation. He indicated that he would not meet and confer during the process, but liked open communication with the Union. Mr. Hayhurst noted from a compensation standpoint, as mentioned, the Council would need to address options and set policy for where they wanted the community to be in the labor market. He noted variables such as staffing levels to be considered when setting priorities and addressing issues with the Union. He clarified that they would provide information to assist the Council in setting those policies, after they learned how the organization operated. He further clarified that they would look at jurisdictions which were structured similarly with similar service levels and analyze the positions doing a specific kind of work. He noted his understanding that some of the Council would be interested in doing some private sector surveying, and while that could be done, it would be with the caveat that many companies quoted the salary policy which could be out of line with the actual market. He stressed that the comparison would not only be apples to oranges, but it might not be complete; and while he had done it in the past, the issues of accuracy were of concern. Councilman Hickman indicated that after reading the proposal he found that the project manager was a former local government director, and expressed his distrust of government. He commented that he did not like the government policing the government; and suggested that he would like the City Council to have the opportunity to evaluate the job descriptions to prevent inflated egos. He indicated that he would like to see the PAGE SIX - SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 15, 2002 comparisons done based on cities with similar budgets, populations, and types of services. He further indicated that he would want some public sector figures to compare apples to apples. He commented that the process study was truly needed. He concurred that after this discussion, a professional was needed for this study. Mr. Hayhurst noted the potential difficulty of comparisons with the private sector on the basis of budgets; and expressed concern the potential comparison of CEO salaries to City Manager salaries was not the intent. Councilman Buckley questioned the time frame for completion of the work. Mr. Hayhurst noted the task list of about 26 weeks from start to finish; and indicated that part of the reason for the length of time was that if the process was rushed, people would not feel they had adequate input, and the Council would need time to digest the preliminary reports. Councilman Buckley addressed the employee questionnaires, and expressed concern that staff would be defining their own jobs and saying how long a task took. He inquired if the study would consider how long they claimed a task took vs. how long it should take. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that the employee responses were verified with the management, as to the time involved; and the report itself would discuss timeliness and make comparisons to industry standards. Councilman Buckley clarified that it should not only address timeliness of meeting needs, but also the timeliness of having pay justified by wearing multiple hats; and expressed hopes that they would determine the "right" hat size. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that some of the best had tried to snow him, but generally that type of effort comes out in the wash. Councilman Buckley addressed the stakeholders, and expressed concern that the public wasn't really discussed for the process audit, but providing better service was the goal. He stressed that in the data gathering and operational review, he saw the public input as crucial to the process. Mr. Hayhurst noted that this was discussed earlier with staff, as he inquired whether there was a means of customer surveying. He explained that if for example there was a concern with the public perception of people obtaining building permits, it might be a good idea to talk with the building industry. He PAGE SEVEN - SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 15, 2002 commented that each community had different processes, and sometimes groups such as the chamber were good sources, and sometimes not. He indicated that he would suggest meeting with stakeholders or doing some public surveying as part of the process, but first he would need to determine how it works best in Lake Elsinore. He noted that the public perception of customer service varied or changed, as the public becomes used to better service and expectations change. He stressed that he was not sure of the City's structure yet, but the standards would need to be applied and balanced. Councilman Buckley inquired if as part of public input, besides talking with the builders, if they would go through and pull out random people to see how they felt they were treated, or someone who spoke at a Council meeting. He stressed his interest in gaining the widest public input possible. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that he had randomly picked permits for a year or two and sent out surveys or called to discuss their contact. He noted that he was not a real strong supporter of a customer services survey at the counter, as the results may not be a good sense of the situation, but random selection might be appropriate. Councilman Buckley questioned whether internal issues and information processing to agencies outside the City would be considered. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that in the Management/Process Audit, they would look at issues or blocks to making necessary connections. He clarified that they would not be looking at the public records, but rather the process flow. Councilman Buckley inquired if they would be evaluating current performance. Mr. Hayhurst indicated they would not, because he did not feel it was appropriate to evaluate someone, when it was not done by their supervisor or manager; but they could identify problems in the work flow. Councilman Buckley inquired if there would be suggestions on fixing goals that were not being met. Mr. Hayhurst confirmed, noting that if there was an internal process problem with a manager, they might recommend sending them to training to improve internal communication skills. PAGE EIGHT - SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 15, 2002 Councilman Buckley noted the comment that the draft reports would be provided to staff and inquired if they would be available to Council. Mr. Hayhurst confirmed. Councilman Buckley inquired if the classification portion would addressed who reported to whom. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that it would not from a classification standpoint, unless someone could not identify who their supervisor was; but from a process standpoint, if it was found that work orders were not getting to the right people or there was not proper direction to staff, that would be addressed. He clarified that the classification would identify reporting relationships. Councilman Buckley inquired if compensation would include benefits. Mr. Hayhurst confirmed. Councilman Buckley requested confirmation that location comparisons would matter in considering local cost of living and appropriateness of salary. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that generally 30 to 50 miles is an acceptable commute pattern, but some barriers might require a larger area. He explained that this consideration would be based on a reasonable distance for recruitment, a defined labor market, commute distances, etc. He noted that in Marin County, where he lived, the commute circle was about 60 miles because no one could afford to live there. Councilman Buckley questioned the timing for determining the comparable range. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that it would be later in the process; but would be requested before they got into analysis, to determine the appropriate structure. He explained the process for determining those factors and how they could assist the Council in that process. Councilman Buckley questioned the collective bargaining process and whether Mr. Hayhurst had any recommendations on the appropriateness of negotiating with the Union, while the management got whatever the Union did. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that he had not intended to make any recommendations on that issue, but he could provide input on the process; but noted a situation that resulted in the formation of a management bargaining unit with meet and confer rights. He stressed that this was ultimately a policy decision. PAGE NINE - SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 15, 2002 Councilwoman Brinley inquired how they would address and compare staff doing double duty. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that the most difficult part of doing a compensation review for a community of this size was the need for comparisons with other communities for similar positions. He noted that at times they can find a clean break between. responsibilities and survey for both to determine a middle range, but it depended on the majority of the work a person was doing. He further noted that sometimes the positions could determined to be primary and secondary responsibilities and so they could balance. Councilwoman Brinley inquired if a lot of cities had this situation. Mr. Hayhurst confirmed noting that there was at least one interesting position combination in every community they had worked. He provided the example in the City of Yucaipa, where the City Clerk was serving as the Rent Administrator. Councilwoman Brinley inquired how this type of effort would be handled with the Union, on interviewing for concerns, and conflicts if someone is being paid too much or too little. Mr. Hayhurst explained that ultimately the compensation issues were part of the meet and confer process. He indicated that he could provide a variety of options when the City made determinations on how to address those issues. He noted that funding was always an issue, but any corrections could be spread over a period of time. Councilwoman Brinley inquired if they would be interviewing the Council. Mr. Hayhurst confirmed and noted that he preferred to do so on an individual basis to hear their personal concerns, based on different constituencies. Councilwoman Brinley inquired about the possibility of a random survey of questions on services. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that he had not done it that way before, but he had received input in an open session, established for the public to provide input and express concerns; but it would depend on the community and he would need direction from Council as to what would work in this community. Councilwoman Brinley noted that anyone with a complaint would surely fill out a survey, but most people who are happy will not complete a survey to note good or excellent service. PAGE TEN - SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 15, 2002 Councilwoman Brinley inquired with regard to the private sector, if there was something that had worked as a refined mixture of public and private. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that in only one survey did he find that the private sector information contributed valuable information, so he was not as confident on the value of that information. Councilwoman Brinley further inquired if mixing with the private sector was economically sound. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that in one community, they had arrangements with a number of private companies and had established long standing relationships for participation in surveys. He stressed the difficulty of surveying areas of the public sector beyond some basic areas like planning, office support, etc. Councilwoman Brinley noted the potential for assistance from area Chambers of Commerce. Mr. Hayhurst concurred. Councilwoman Brinley questioned the cities which would be considered, noting that they would probably be in Riverside County. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that he had not yet analyzed them so he would not name them, but generally they would be in Riverside County, within a 25 or 30 mile radius. Councilwoman Brinley indicated that she was anxious to see this report and questioned the timing. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that it would probably be completed in February. Councilwoman Brinley inquired if they would also look at Police and Fire. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that they would not. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner questioned the process study and indicated that he was most interested in the end result of what was produced for the people, the overall efficiency of the operation and the operation of the City being "citizen friendly ". He further indicated that he would hope the report would give them the criteria used to determine the information and give them the opportunity to agree or disagree. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that normally when an audit is done, they pick out key factors to identify what works well and what standards are in place, so they could show standard expected outcomes and recommendations. He explained that ideally what they would provide would be a report making suggestions for modifications, but at some point they would need to look back and see what the goal was, and if it was accomplished. PAGE ELEVEN - SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 15, 2002 Mayor Pro Tern Schiffner addressed public participation in the process, and suggested that if there was an interest in how the building permit process worked, it would not be appropriate to ask the person who came in once. He suggested input should be obtained from builders, architects and people who were familiar with the process and had reasonable expectations. He stressed the issue of "reasonable expectations ". Mayor Pro Tem. Schiffner addressed the Parity Study and indicated that his interest was somewhat different, in that the size of the Agency was not as important. He stressed the labor market and determining what should be paid to get someone to provide a specified service. He indicated that he found fault with considering the size of the City, and stressed that the labor market and appropriate pay was most important. He noted that it might be necessary to compete with larger cities like Riverside, to hire employees. He indicated that he had worked for public agencies for many years and had been involved in a number of salary studies. He further indicated that it was absolutely necessary to have a weighted study, based on the number of employees doing the job. He noted that he had fought for this approach for many years, and indicated you couldn't compare ten employees doing a job with a place with one employee. He commented that with regard to where the Council wanted to be in the labor market, the Council would make that decision, but he was hoping that the study would not show that the staff was terribly overpaid, so they would have to look at cutting salaries. He indicated that he did not feel the private industry would show a lot, but on the public side it was easier to get the information. He further indicated that he didn't think many classifications could be directly compared to private agencies. He noted that they would consider the total benefit package, and he would want to see where the City stood and how much chance the City would have to hire someone for the price it paid. He noted that there were some unfilled positions, because the price offered was not adequate. He indicated that he would depend on Mr. Hayhurst to evaluate gripes vs. true facts. He stressed that the size of the agency was not important to him. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that when he had a chance to analyze the situation, he would bring the Council recommendations with regard to appropriate agencies and Council could provide direction on which to use. PAGE TWELVE - SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 15, 2002 Mayor Kelley noted the time line and the City's ability to review the work after Phase I. Mr. Hayhurst clarified that there were several opportunities for review in the process. Mayor Kelley noted that much had already been said and indicated that the most important issues for her were a fair and equitable process with accurate comparisons of apples to apples. She indicated that she wanted the City to remain competitive in the labor market, so it could attract qualified people and deliver services in an efficient manner. She noted that the City hadn't had a study like this in a long time and she was looking forward to the information. Councilman Hickman questioned the commute limitation of 30 to 50 miles, and questioned if this was getting the true value of the California labor market. He noted that he spoke with the City Manager of San Jose and he was only making $90,000. He stressed the impact of the Internet and the mobility of the work force on the ability to recruit. Mr. Hayhurst clarified that the City Manager of San Jose did not make $90,000, noting that he just finished a recruitment for a Department Head at $145,000. He indicated that while he had no specific answer for Mr. Hickman with regard to recruitment, most Councils did not want to go statewide for a salary survey, as they generally recruited more from the local market. He explained that a statewide survey negated the issues of cost of living, etc, and clarified that it was more an issue of what salary would draw people to the area. He noted that with complex considerations added to the mix, the numbers would become more arguable and challengeable, so the local market was a better guideline. Mayor Kelley clarified that they would not strictly limit their study to 60 miles. Mr. Hayhurst confirmed. Councilman Hickman suggested that the City could not be compared to Murrieta or Temecula, as their budgets were not comparable. He indicated that this was why he was scared of "government people" doing this study. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated he was not sure the budget was a factor, as much as hiring the right person to do a specific job. He indicated that if the person did the same job, they would be worth just as much in Lake PAGE THIRTEEN - SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 15, 2002 Elsinore as in the other cities. He indicated that someone out of the State or out of the Country would probably not come into this job market. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL OF L.B. HAYHURST AND ASSOCIATES AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $40,000; AND DIRECTED STAFF TO APPROPRIATE THE ADDITIONAL $109000 TO FUND THE PARITY STUDY AND PROCESS AUDIT. ADJOURNMENT THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:51 P.M. GENIE KELLE CITY OF LAKE AT EST: VICKI KASAD, CMC, CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE