So, I will begin with the mayor's
agenda. I do not have any agenda items.
If there's any questions, I'll try to
answer them. Moving on to the city
clerk, Chris. Anything?
>> Nothing tonight.
>> To our city treasurer, Jamie.
>> Nothing tonight.
>> Okay. Going on to our city
administrator, Blaine Wing. Blaine.
>> Thank you, mayor. Uh tonight, um Ashley,
our assistant, uh as well as our labor
attorney, are going to be walking
through u the second part of our updates
in regards to our personnel manual.
So, let's see.
Plugged in, but I'm not sure how to Here
we go.
>> Micro microphone. Yeah,
>> I'll I'll make sure I'm speaking into
the microphone. So, um good evening. Um
as Blaine had had um introduced me, uh
essentially we are picking up where we
left off uh about a month ago at the
July 27th work session. Um the first
batch of proposed policy updates for our
employee handbook included all of the specifically the legal
recommendations. So the things that had
changed in our state and federal codes
that would be advisable to you know
adopt in writing within our codes. Um,
as we had further discussion that
evening, um, and we also let you guys
know that we planned to return to city
council for, um, some policy direction
on specific to some policy updates for
the handbook. Um what we have in the
memo uh I just very briefly summarized
and I'll be able to expand on anything
that uh council members would like me to expand on. But essentially we have 10
proposed recommendations uh both uh
staff driven as well as things that our
council members had advised we we take a
look at. So I will just list them and we can dive into any detail as you
like. Um we are proposing introduction
of a high deductible health plan and a
health savings account. Uh this is
broadly a tool used by uh many
municipalities as well as private sector
um groups to help employees pay for
health insurance costs um and health
expenses. uh high deductible plan allows
uh for just that uh using a higher
deductible in order to reduce the
premium cost uh paid upfront. So it also
with the health savings account would
allow employees to put money aside to
help them pay for some of those
expenses.
So, um, we do need to to kind of have an
idea whether we'd like to introduce this
before our health insurance renews. Um,
that's coming up in January. And, um, we
just want to see kind of the appetite
for whether this is something that uh,
we'd want to add to our benefits. This
is at the employees expense, but it's
just something that we would offer if
anybody wanted to use it.
We have an insurance opt out benefit.
Again, this is something that would be a
voluntary choice for employees who opt
out of city provided health insurance.
So often uh there will be a cash
incentive that goes along with this opt
out that um you know the city would save
on future expenditures or and premium
costs if if our employees aren't
choosing it. if they have an
alternative. Um, and if we were to offer
any kind of benefit or cash stipend, it
would still um, you know, the city's
savings would be far greater. Our plans
are between $8,000 to $34,000
right now. And so, if just a couple of
people would opt out of of our insurance
voluntarily, uh, there may be some
savings there.
uh we have listed a pilot for a limited
flexible work program. This would just
be a very small increment of uh
managerial level employees specifically
the the employees listed are in the memo
um allowing by permission occasional um
hours worked in another location.
The
>> Can you give us more details on that?
>> Yeah. What is the purpose of that?
>> And before you start, Sure. Um, can we
have our attorney sit on a table instead
of she's running on her?
» Okay. Um, so this would be very narrowly
tailored. Um, it would be for our uh
salaried FLSA exempt employees. Um, we
listed them out in the memo.
The purpose for this is basically uh we
have technology that allows us to um do
work. We we already perform work um on
behalf of the city at times. We make
sure that agenda items are are being
completed. We have other
responsibilities. Um and this would
essentially um
provide greater guidance and
accountability for our our managerial
staff or supervisory staff that might
need a little bit of flexibility. So,
say for instance, I keep using this
example of, you know, if you're at a
training that is, you know, an hour from
here and the training ends at 3:00 in
the afternoon or 3:30 p.m. Well, is the
expectation that the supervisor
goes from, you know, wherever it is they
travel the hour and they spend the last
20 minutes here or would it be advisable
for them to take that time in place to finish doing the workday as long as
they remain accessible by phone, by
email? There's things that are going to
be showing productivity essentially. So,
it would be a very limited experience.
Um but it it would be a policy that we
would set in place uh for just a short
period of time. We're we're wanting to
try this um through April next year. Um
it would have to be approved by a
supervisor ahead of this work occurring
and then we would have to also you know
have an idea of what the work is that
would be performed. So
>> now you making reference to salaried
employees or hourly employees
>> just just the salaried employees. The
ones listed specifically
would be uh proposed through this would
be the police chief, deputy chiefs,
finance director, community and economic
development director, a building
commissioner, public works director,
public works superintendent, the
engineering director, uh the HR
assistant administrator, and the city
administrator. Um it received mayor
approval.
>> Okay. Now being salary, don't they
already have that flexibility because
they
>> you know they're salary. So they there
may be times when they have to uh come
in under circumstances of not normal
work hours. So
>> correct.
>> Wouldn't that flexibility is already in there in their salary? it's it is um
it's not explicitly put into our
handbook as a policy. So this would we
would be looking for well while well
while there is this expectation that as
salaried employees we should be
performing that work making sure that
we're accountable for the things that
we're responsible for. Um this would put
in place a policy to um for certain
exceptions. If you are have a medical
appointment at, you know, unexpectedly
at at 10:00 in the morning, is it
reasonable for us to allow our
supervisors to spend time away from the
office working for those couple of hours
and then returning after that
appointment? Right? It it seems logical
that we would do that anyway, but it's
not explicitly put into a policy. And we
thought it might be helpful for us to um
put one in place to also reduce you know
unnecessary use of of uh additional paid
leave you know paid leave if we can
conduct the work.
>> Isn't that what they have their
>> time for sick time?
>> Yes. So
>> I mean I asked the question in the
beginning like what is the purpose? So
far I don't see a logic answer.
>> Okay.
>> To help.
>> Yes. Thank you. So this is definitely a
policy decision of the city council
that's being asked to be considered for
introduction for those exempt employees
that hold more of a managerial position
within the city. Um with respect to
whether they're FLSA exempt, that that
is definitely a good point. But what
that means is regardless of whether they
work 40 hours, 35 hours, 45 hours,
they'll get paid the same salary. This
is a policy that would address allowing
these employees to work outside of the
city hall building, their their office
building here. So on days when maybe
they have a training or they have some
other personal appointment instead of
having to take sick time, they would be
able to work during that period of time
as long as they were set up remotely to
be able to do so. So it allows the
employees an opportunity to you know be
more productive if if they can in a in a
remote environment um to if if the
council decides that this is the
direction they would like to go on a
temporary basis for this trial period to
see how it works. um policy a policy
would have to be established because
there are things that have to be put
into place like rules regarding how they
treat the equipment and you know that
they have to work in an environment
that's still confidential in nature.
Those kinds of things would have to be
established so that the employees that
could work work remotely are properly
guided so that you know they protect the
they can work efficiently they protect
the interests of the city and um you
know and they have the right guidance to
do so.
>> So are you saying that right now the way
the contract is written and the way the
policies are they're not allowed to work
from home? So we have past finance
director, we have public work director
which I can say their names right now.
For a fact I knew that they used to work
from home. They people that they're
responsible they take their laptop with
them and they work I have people they
work in the weekend. They used to work
on the weekend because their salary it
doesn't matter. It's not overtime. It's
they're not clocking in clocking out. to
me. If I'm a manager or director or
whoever I am, if I am responsible, I
have a task, I'm going to finish it no
matter what. So, and not everyone comes
here on time. I mean, we know that
nobody comes here at 8:00 a.m. Exactly.
So, what you're saying is on the topic,
they don't come on time and they leave
early and they take lunch, long breaks
because that's what it happens that we
have to, you know, pass a policy. So on
top of because they have a doctor
appointment or because they're in
training or how many times a year
they're going to training and that day
they can just go home after that. I mean
for an hour who wants to come here for
an hour. I understand that part but what
is there to say in their contract that
they need to go work from home or they cannot work from home. I mean that
doesn't make sense to me. I I feel like
we're opening can of worm of problems
right now because how you supervise
that, you know, and don't tell me Blaine
or you you're going to give them
permission. It's just going to get out
of hand. We've we've done it in the past
and you know I can't address that. That
went out of hand especially through co
when people were working at home
supposedly and they were not working at
home. Um
>> I just don't see it. the the instance
she's referring to is the previous HR
director or whatever title was we were
allowing her to work remotely from home
because it was co and she was at the
jewel cleaning
>> shopping carts
>> okay so not only was she not at home
doing her work for the city but she was
exposing herself to the co which we had
said you could stay home and work so so
and this she wasn't the only one that
did this. But that was the like in my
history of ridiculousness, that's
probably my number one that somebody
would literally be cleaning shopping
carts at the jewel during CO when
they're getting paid to stay home and
safe. It left a very very very sour
taste
>> in people's mouths and justifiably so.
And who was who was responsible for her
and who was monitoring her?
And and that's exactly the reason that
we're not proposing this [clears throat]
as a as a regular schedule of any kind.
There's no expectation of this always
being approved. We, you know, are
understanding and recognizing that
there's a a retention factor of saying,
you know, having having an hour or two
of flexibility, right? Yes, we could use
the paid time that is is provided to um
to these supervisors. Ultimately, the
work will get done because that is the
quality of employees that we have.
>> Hold on. Excuse me one second.
>> Yeah,
>> microphone.
>> No, I don't think so.
>> Are you back?
» Not yet.
» Hello. Okay,
>> there we go.
>> Okay.
» Do you need to repeat anything, Chris?
>> Okay. Okay. Well, um,
as I said, it the intent is not to
establish any kind of regular work
policy. There's no expectations of this
being always approved. It's just a
recognition of the fact that these
employees, many of them are already
working over that period of of 40 hours.
We are going to get the work done. But
it also allows for people to, you know,
basically be get granted permission to
work outside of the office on a very
limited basis with understanding of the
supervisor, the people that may report
to them and that they are responsive to
whoever it is at the workplace rather
than just taking a sick day or taking a
vacation day and not being available.
And so that's that's kind of the idea is
that if we grant a little bit of
flexibility in in the expectation that
you slide the work hours from, you know,
3 to 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. that
day. You know, we understand that that
work is getting done in somebody's
holding someone holding them
accountable. And so the attempt was just
to put this into a policy rather than
saying um if if it's council's direction
that all work has to be performed here
and there's no exceptions make the make
the time to come back to the office um
if workday is not done.
>> I I think what they were saying down
there is in the case of salary people
>> um they they already have that
flexibility. Um, we all know certain
people like Blaine, you know, work well
over 40 hours and if he's somewhere and
he's got an hour, he's [snorts] already
done his time. Nobody would expect him
to return. I wouldn't. Um, so I'm just a
little fuzzy on who, you know, and you talk about using a day here. In what
particular instance would somebody want
to use a whole day working at home?
>> I would only expect that if there's a,
you know, someone's
lives far away, it's not reasonable for
them to get a car service, for example,
to come here while their car is fixed.
They don't have transportation for the
day. That might be an instance. It could
be um you know, they are
trying to think if there's any other
>> I'll give a couple examples. So,
[clears throat] I just did some uh roof
work because we had a recent storm and
my house got damaged. Um, for me, if I
would have uh not scheduled that that
work right at the beginning of the day,
um, and stayed until uh um, you know, 6 or 8:00
at night, um, that um,
I I would have basically needed to work
the or felt I needed to work the full
eight hours. Another instance is I
recently had an MRI, so I had a medical
appointment. Um, I was only 30 minutes
away from being home. Um, I came back
and worked several more hours and even
though it was after 3:30 to come back
here and work. So, uh, even though I
already had 40 hours for the week, um,
because our our technical policy from
our personnel manual says that the 40
hours needs to be done here even though
I'm a salary fully paid. Um, I might
even be a little bit different because
it says I can work with the mayor on
kind of a set schedule. But again, I
think the directors would follow the
same thing and that's where Ashley along
with our labor attorney have have
drafted it for a very very tight pilot
for basically the directors and
assistants. Uh there are the three
superintendents. There isn't an
assistant there. So that's kind of that
middle management component. There's
about 13 or 15 specific positions that
would be eligible for a pilot.
>> But isn't that your position? You're a
city administrator. you everybody works
a lot of hours as a city administrator.
I mean I've never heard that before. Not
once the administrator have said I'm
overworked you know I mean that's your
job it's you're supposed to be available
24/7. That's the administrator position.
So as a chief, so as this high, you
know, paid salary, that's part of your
position,
you know, and what to say the other
staff. I was saying that department
heads are more important than other
staff that they need to go to an
appointment. An example, like the clerk
or the mayor's assistant, they have the
same right. If they're going to go to an
appointment, maybe they should not use
their personal day and they should go
home from there and work from home. Some
of them have kids, too. Maybe they'll be
they'll have they'll be happy to work
from home.
>> You're opening kind of warm of that. I'm not comfortable with this.
>> Yeah. So, you've I guess intermingled
uh hourly employees with salary
employees with administrative
assistance. Um in addition, yes, I would
say management employees are different.
Um, what I wouldn't want to have happen
is our employees, let's just say, uh, a
director, um, chooses to take 4 hours
for sick time and then we have to wait
at least 2 to 3 weeks for an agenda item
to get completed because they submit,
look, couldn't work from home. I I was
sick. I went to the doctor's
appointment. I don't feel well. Um, I'm
getting paid. I'll use my 4-hour sick
time that that I'm able to do.
>> But what is preventing them from working
from home? See, nobody's answering this
question. We don't have a policy that
says if I'm sick and I'm a director, I
can grab my laptop and work. Do we have
the thing that you're not supposed to
work from home? I mean, as a director,
I'm I'm hoping that we'll do that. If
you're responsible for an agenda item,
>> if council, if you feel we don't need to
have a policy and that it's already
there, I'm I you know, I would defer to
our attorney. I mean, my understanding
is they are wanting so that there's not
an abuse that that did happen before is
to have an actual policy.
>> No, but you're making it sound like the
whole city function is going to stop
because
I mean, you just said that that oh, it's
going to take 4 days and because they're
going to be home, they're not going to
be able to finish the project. I mean,
you guys have plenty of weeks to put
something on the agenda and work on it.
So, I that's the part that I'm not
understanding. We know ahead of time
what's going to be the next work session
and the next work session. I think you
laid them out for like almost a month or
two. You know what's coming up. So we
work on the subject. So if you're home
sick for a couple hours,
>> are you going to tell you're not going
to be able to finish the subject or
>> Yeah. So I'll give example. Last week uh
our engineer Ron uh came to me and and
had a new topic to come up on on Friday.
If he went home sick that was not going
to be on the agenda. we and if he went
home sick, we would miss that and it
would have to be another two more weeks
before we'd be able to get there. He's
the only person that has that
information and again instead of working
from home, he he would, you know, take
the sick time. Um, my understanding is
through our current personnel manual, we
don't have the ability to not get credit
for not basically doing work here on the
premise. My guess is that probably maybe
was strictly uh interpreted due to maybe
a past abuse and um without having a
policy. That's where the labor attorney
is is saying it's better to have a
policy than to just have it open-ended.
If council is comfortable with
open-ended, I'm fine allowing the the
directors, the salaried staff, unless
the attorney advises otherwise.
I I don't I'm not saying it should be
open-ended, and I'm not saying there's
not a um workable solution for a
temporary thing, but it it just sounds
so open-ended here. All these people
having the ability to work from home and
who's going to be monitoring this and I
mean, how are we going to know how many
hours they're doing and what they're
doing? And is this council going to be
made aware of this or is this just going
to be something we hear through the
government? cuz I can see the abuse
happening. Oh, my child was sick, so I I stayed home and I worked from home.
Well, I don't know about anybody up
here, but as a single parent, when your
child's sick, you're taking care of your
child. You're not doing work from home.
So, you know, there's just so many
questionable elements here that that is
open to abuse. And I'm not saying we
can't find a solution, but this just
seems so broadstroke here that all these
people can just work from home. I I'm
not quite sure. I I understand there's
paperwork to do. I understand there's
reports, but I also understand, you
know, there's crime and there's um
[clears throat]
water mane breaks and and there's all
these other things that
you you you can't do from home. So, I I
think that at best this would be a very limited thing. And it's really got to be watched. I mean,
this was so abused in the past. You
cannot blame anybody that was up here at
that time for having a nasty taste in
their mouth because when you see your
taxpayer money going to pay somebody to
work another job, it's it's kind of
maddening.
>> So, so with a I I would agree with that.
and and with a policy, we can uh uh put
into action that somebody isn't able to
work a secondary job. And those are uh
offenses that would be uh able to be
disciplined and potentially up to
termination if they're they're violating
a policy. Uh [clears throat] as this was
written already, it's a very narrow
group. So, this isn't um uh supervisors
that must be watching somebody that that
is here that maybe a chief, a deputy
chief could be handling the day-to-day
operations while the chief is at a
training for 2 hours. Um there's a lot
of this that's already occurring. If the
chief is at a a chief's [clears throat]
meeting for 2 hours, one of the deputy
chiefs are typically here. So, a lot of
that component's already taking place.
Uh I don't think as it's written as a
limited pilot um I think that there
would be the documentation to say okay
we had so many individuals between now
and the end of the fiscal year which is
the April 30th date um that we had so
many individuals this is the time this
is how much how many hours and all that
that's why it's a very uh succinct
amount it's not broadly written for all
um salaried employees it's narrowly it's a very narrow scope
>> did you say you would or wouldn't be
able to document that?
>> No, we would.
>> Yeah, we would.
>> Okay, we would be able to document and
give a give give even monthly reports.
>> Blaine, uh [clears throat] if somebody's
working from home, they still have to
answer their phone, don't they?
>> Yes, they have to answer their phone. We also use Microsoft uh the office
suite. So, they could be
>> So, if one of the aldermen needs to
contact them for something, they're
still going to be able to reach them.
They're just going to answer their phone
from their house versus their office
here.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you.
I have a question. Uh how much sick time
do you get a year?
>> Um is it days or so broken down?
>> So typically it's uh Yeah. So it's
typically for each month you're earning
up to uh 8 hours. Um and then there's a
max people can car.
>> Yeah. Basically
>> 12 days a year.
>> Yes.
>> Is what it comes to. So my question then
being okay, say you're going to be
working from home. I don't have to use
my sick day or sick time. So, let's
[clears throat] say you do that all year
and at the end of the year, what happens
to those 12 days? Cuz you never use the
sick day or any sick time and you work
from home instead. So, what happens to
the sick time?
>> Well, the sick time would continue to
roll over to the the maximum level that
you can acrewue that.
>> And what's the maximum level? Uh I have
to check the the actual book to to get
account finance. Mike know Glenn is
going to find that. But ultimately
remember that the city um when employees
leave the the city, they're not paid out
sick days. So it's either employees are
using that sick time and they're being
paid for those those sick days or they
choose not to use them and they're not
paid for that sick time. So there's, you
know, an advantage for our employees to
stay healthy, to stay present, to stay
productive and not use sick time. Um,
you know, I think that there's an
understanding too in the, you know,
way in which we can draft a policy too.
Like one of the things I feel very
strongly about is that if you are not
capable of performing your work
effectively and with your full
concentration, you shouldn't be doing
remote work. Exactly. Right. You should
be taking sick time. You should be
caring for a dependent. You should be
taking your vacation time. Whatever it
is, that's the expectation, right? You
need to take those those sick hours to
go to your doctor's appointment or
whatever the case is. that that's the
expectation. But if there's hours on
outside of those things where it's not
practical for you to travel back and
forth, then that's what this is for,
right? Yeah. This is not in place of,
you know, like just like Ashley said,
this is not an opportunity for someone
that's sick and can't be working
efficiently to just not take their sick
day and and not fully complete their
work. This is this is a flexible benefit
that's you know being brought forward to
the city council for those management
employees on a temporary basis and and
staff will monitor and provide input and information to the city council to
see if if the policy is working. But
that is something a policy would say. It
would say something along the lines like
this is not to be used in place of a
sick day. and the the supervisor that
would authorize [clears throat]
that remote day shouldn't be allowing a
remote day for someone that's sick. That
would be the on the supervisor to say,
"No, you're you're not going to be
capable of working. You should take your
sick day."
>> I have a question. I have a question.
So, would this um the use of flexible
time as you're thinking of it, would
that need to be approved in advance?
>> It would.
>> And a reason would need to be given?
>> Yes. And what would the acceptable
reasons be?
>> Yeah. Um, a couple of examples and we
can we can clarify and we would if this
is, you know, something you consider, we
can bring the actual policy language
forward. A couple of them would be, like
I said, uh, authorized training, right?
That book ends kind of the workday.
There are medical or similar employee
employ appointments for the employee or
a dependent scheduled at a time where
it's possible to perform work away for a
period of time.
>> Sorry to interrupt. Could you explain
that one a little more? So if there is
um you know someone all if you say I
have to be the one to take a dependent
to an appointment you know a parent a
child the you know spouse um take them
to an appointment at noon
>> right
>> for a for a doctor's appointment or
something. So, so they go to a doctor's
of medical appointment, you need to
provide transportation, whatever they're
ill,
>> so you take them.
>> Um, is the expectation that we have
someone come in before that appointment
and then drive back home and and do the
appointment and then come back to the
office or is it reasonable to say, "Hey,
my supervisor is allowing me to work,
you know, from home in the morning. I'll
return to the office after that's done."
in that that particular situation
>> of taking a dependent
>> Yeah.
>> um to a doctor's appointment,
>> how would that generally be scheduled?
Now, what kind of time away would be
used to do that?
>> Yeah. Um it's up to the employee if they
would end up choosing to use a sick a
sick day essentially. They may return to
the office after anyway, but it would
allow for us to have some accountability
>> for the time that that it's possible for
them to work.
>> So, so you said I think before that if someone was actually sick and
wouldn't have come in to work otherwise,
>> correct?
>> That they wouldn't be allowed to work
remotely.
>> Yeah.
>> Cuz they are sick. But if they have an
appointment, doctor's appointment for a
dependent
>> Mhm.
» [snorts]
>> I anywhere I've worked as you you either
schedule personal time, stick time
>> and I think any
>> hourly employee is probably under that
same
>> um understanding.
>> Yeah. Um [snorts]
I just and you know usually appointments
can be scheduled in advance and we know
doctor's appointments usually are
>> and I would think for the employees
um ability to not use a lot of sick time
that they would either schedule it in
the morning where they could still come
to work for the majority of their work
hours or toward the afternoons when they
could work the majority of their day
prior to the appointment. Sure.
>> So I I still think that this can be used
in a way that would obiate the use of
sick time, which
>> my understanding is it's not supposed to
be that way.
>> Sick time, whether it's for yourself or
for anyone. It's you're using sick time.
>> Yeah. So again, the challenge for these
management employees is their work that
we want to have done. If they're it's
fine for them to use the sick time, a
comp time, uh it wouldn't be comp time
for these salary employees. it would be
uh personal time or uh sick time.
However, then we've in essence paid for
them to be off and not doing that.
That's fine if that's what council wants
to do. Um it does also sound council
would like and I know I would like that
employee if they were sitting at a uh uh
their their kids dentist appointment to
be able to be performing work um sitting
there for an hour or two hours and then
coming back. Um, yes, there wouldn't be
the time that they are maybe driving
there, driving back, but maybe they came
in to work 2 hours early, picked up
their kid, went went there, did work while they were there for the 2
hours. Um, or they went went home after
they picked up their kid because it was
3:30 and instead instead of coming back
till 4:30, they spent that extra hour
actually doing the work at at home
instead of writing off it as personal
time or sick time.
these
>> I I just think that um as city employees
whether hourly salary um union or
non-union um
being here physically isn't is
important. Um whether you're a
supervisor, department head, and you
have people that report to you. Um it's
not the same when when someone is
working remotely. Um I hate to say it,
but employees know their boss isn't
there. They're working from home. And
there can be a tendency for
I'm not going to say I'm purposely but
things might get a little more lax. And
the and the other thing is we provide
services. Contractors come in,
businesses uh owners come in, residents
come in, they need to talk to something
that's important enough to a department
head or a city administrator or
assistant city administrator,
then they're not here to talk to them.
So that's that's services not being
provided. That's the downside of of
flexible remote work schedules.
>> I would actually say the opposite. So,
if they're able to talk to that person
instead of they're going to say, "I'm
sorry, that person is homesick or that
person took a personal day." We actually
could connect them up and and have a
conversation cuz we're paying them to to
be available. Uh, and I, you know, I'
I've I've done that as well, you know,
to say, "Okay, yep. I'm happy to take a phone call even though I'm even off on
vacation or or or somewhere else. So, I
think the department director, so if the
chief had a training and was uh you
know, working from home for an hour
would be happy to to talk to somebody on on the phone compared to I'm sorry,
he's unavailable. He's taking personal
time.
I I just I I could see where it could be
abused and um and I'm I'm sorry that's
how I look at it. Um you know
[clears throat] during co that was a
different situation flexible work,
remote working became common place and people took full advantage of it and
I know there was a lot of people uh
abusing that. Um, we've heard some
examples here today. Um, I just don't
really quite see, and I'm not here every
day, but see where the the need um is so
great to to come up with the policy to
allow this. Now,
» I just want to follow up with council.
Uh, the amount of sick time you can
acrew over the lifetime of your
employment is 1,120
hours. Um, I do want to say with regard
to having employment, outside
employment, that already is covered in
the handbook under section 5.9, you are
not allowed to have outside employment
during working regular scheduled working
hours. So, that's a violation of the
company policy. And with regard to uh
both being work and uh being remotely, I
see both sides of the the coin there. as
a a director myself. Uh while I I can do
a lot of my work, you know, just
basically be a computer everywhere, I
prefer to be here because I want to be
with my staff to get the immediate
response to have the interaction and I I don't like working away from them
because of that that connection that you
have with staff and that real time uh
response. But there are circumstances
where it it would be beneficial to have
that flexibility and I think that might
be inherent already in the system as
long as you don't get you know abused by
it but I think you have a lot of
controls already in place. Looks like it
was already addressed uh with the
concerns that you had about the
employment that was addressed. Um, and
again with the uh the sick time, uh I
understand that, but if somebody takes
sick time, they're probably not going to
work because it's it's their sick time.
They're burning out, so they're probably
going to say, "Well, I'm just going to
take care of me." And sometimes that's
necessary, but other times, if they're
um just taking the child to the hospital
or whatever, and some of those are very
short notice, like we had I had an
employee that had a her daughter had a
car accident and so they had to meet her
at the hospital because they, you know,
didn't know what was happening with her.
So, uh, we were trying to be flexible
with her at that point in time. So, go
take care of your family. That's the
most important thing. Those kind of
things happen, but you want to make sure
that they and she stayed on her phone
even though she doesn't have a um a
company phone, but she was available for
us to use. Uh, you know, should we have
any questions, but I think you'll see
that your employees, your good
employees, your valued employees will
respond accordingly to that. And uh uh
if they're not responding, then they're
not good employees and they should be
disciplined.
>> Qu uh follow up on your uh sick time. Um
yes, sir.
>> Uh what's the limit to approval in terms
of days? 100 something.
>> You said thousand hours.
>> Do a little calculator here. Hold on a
second here. Have to go math.
» Does it change? Um
>> 181 days.
>> Thank you.
>> There you [clears throat] go.
>> 181 days is a gap. So what happens when
an employee leaves leaves the city and
they have
>> they can sell that back.
>> So they do get paid back for acred sick
days.
>> They do.
>> I think Ashley said they lose.
>> I just I apologize. So that you know
>> not using sick time
>> but get still getting paid for them at
the end even though they were
[snorts]
using time away that traditionally would
have been sick time used.
>> But but please understand that when you
use sick time you use uh three
consecutive days you need a doctor's
excuse.
>> You can't agree you can't use more than
24 hours or sorry yeah 24 hours without
a doctor's excuse. You need that.
>> That's a good policy. Yes,
>> I have a question because I'm I'm
hearing
scenarios. I'm not hearing anything that
definitely happened that may warrant
this policy. Um
I mean is is there anything going on now
that would would would what what
prompted this to come about? Um because
I I hear you guys telling me some
whatifs and
>> Sure. you know and and what ifs
is not normal.
Yeah, we well part of it is that we've
gone through a review not only of our
handbook but of you know comparable
policies right and in doing so we've
come across other communities that have
a remote policy and in place it's become
common yes co was a different
circumstance this was a very narrow an
attempted very narrowly tailoring
a couple of instances throughout, you
know, the course of a year. Someone may
never request to use this. It might be
necessary, you know, to deal with a
storm damage where, you know, you have a
contractor come in your house every, you
know, one once a day for two days and
then you need to be responsive for that,
but maybe it's unpredictable time. So,
you know, if you have a delivery of some
kind, yes, you could take a vacation
day, but otherwise, while that is
happening, it's allowing us to have our
staff be be responsive in a way that we
can hold them accountable.
>> I'll add I've told directors that they
have to come in early or stay late
[clears throat] to for those sort of
appointments so that they are physically
here during those hours. Having a
policy, a limited policy like this would
allow somebody that has a service
provider coming in [clears throat] from
8 o'clock until 10 o'clock to be able to
bring their laptop home knowing that
they could, you know, be working,
waiting for their maybe their internet
provider to come in as they switch
service. Um, I've I've again told
directors they have to put in the time
physically here because we don't have a
policy that would allow me to do that.
If council's saying it's already built
in, I'm I'm fine adjusting that. But to
me, I've directed directors and I've
directed them to direct their staff,
their subordinate staff to do that. Um,
this is again not going down to the
level that a position like a utility
billing person could be uh working
remote. There are certain positions that
I feel are absolutely critical that they
need to be fully functioning in here.
Um, are there other positions, the
higher level positions that are probably
putting on average 40, 50, 60 hours a
week in? Yeah. Some are even working
constantly on weekends. 2 hours to be
able to still be performing work um uh
would be, you know, valuable to allow
that good employee to do it. I think it
would be more not the sick sick option
but more of the personal time that they
would not be eating up or taking a
vacation day or two hours or four hours
of uh personal time. Um those would be
the examples I guess I would typically
see not the the sick time kind of
examples.
>> Okay. And
>> could we get copies of other
municipalities policy on this?
>> Sure.
>> To see what other municipalities have.
>> Yeah. before going forward. You know, I
think we can come back in another work
session on this. Correct.
>> Yes. Yes. The intent was just it was to
get feedback um you know, essentially
testing the waters and seeing what kind
of stipulations would be necessary to
put something like this in place. If
there's certain language that we need to
look for and just generally if if people
are, you know, in favor or opposed and
we don't know that yet. So, we'll come
back.
>> Question. Um, now based on what what
I've heard and what I've read,
I I don't see where we need a policy. I
think we need to maybe tweak the 40hour
at city hall language a little bit to
give some flexibility. Um,
because the the other the everything
else is already in place. That's uh uh
and and and on the flip side of that,
what is the the disciplinary aspect of
that? We haven't talked about that. Um
no one has addressed that.
>> Yeah. So with the updates to the the
proposed policy updates, we brought some
of the code of conduct uh was section
5.2 I think in the handbook. Um we
brought those with some legal
recommendations
uh prior but we would ensure that you
know anything within this type of policy
would also be applicable to violating a
code of conduct. There's a great number
of um items within that code of conduct
that we would hold our supervisors to or
whoever this this policy applied to.
>> Okay. And was it really necessary to
bring the attorney in on this? I mean,
it's a handbook. We can make operations
and adjustments uh ourselves instead of
acrewing a legal bill.
>> Understood. Um part of the reason that
Attorney Wolf is here is just if there
are questions that relate to something
that the council may want input on um
that we're not violating some type of
law or creating a concern um from a
labor law perspective.
But understood. Um we can keep moving
the conversation along. I think we have
guidance about um about the flexible
work item. I will very just very briefly
there's another one other item that I'd
like um some feedback on is um we have a
artificial intelligence use policy
again.
>> Right. But I didn't did you answer the
disciplinary aspect of this policy what
it would do? I mean, if if you found a
person,
>> yeah,
>> maybe violating the order or let's say a
person with their kid at the doctor
since we using that
>> and they don't want to answer their
phone because they're at the kid with
they're at the doctor's office and and
you have an obnoxious
supervisor who insist that you do what
they want you to do even though you're
off.
>> Sure. you know, and if it doesn't
happen, then you got this you got the
disciplinary part to deal with. Uh I I
see that avenue in this as well. And I'm
if we're going to do this, it's not to
punish or
>> or micromanage people. It's flexibility.
if if flexibility is the true essence of
what we're trying to do.
>> Yeah, it's it's um anything that we
would find that would violate the the
aspects of the policy or any other part
of our employee handbook, we would
handle initially by depending on the
severity of of it, you know, up to, you
know, written warnings, a suspension,
other thing. I mean they can escalate.
Initially it would be a counseling and
saying what are you doing? Why you know
we're we're under the impression that
you're supposed to be working. You're
not. We would have to um you know
essentially take action with a at least
a written discipline and also
termination of of their access to this
benefit. You know, that would be my
immediate reaction is that you say
you're doing something you're not um
you're not allowed to do this.
[clears throat]
>> So, if the employee is supposed to be
working and they were instead conducting
their own personal
>> right uh business, that would be a
violation of the code of conduct as it stands even today without any
changes. they're not meeting the
prescribed standards of work by using
work time to perform their own personal
duties or
>> legally what what discipline is
allowable because I I think just asking
them what are you doing is not
acceptable. I mean somebody has this and
we they're told this is the only thing
you can use this for. This is how you
use it and then they're cleaning
shopping carts at the jewel. Um just
saying what are you doing isn't
acceptable to me.
No, I'm saying they could be disciplined
for that. It would fall under a
violation of the code of conduct and you
and the city could implement discipline
against that employee. What kind of
discipline? You know, I wouldn't be able
to tell right now and discipline is like
a a take considered on a fact by fact
basis. So, you'd have to look at the
employees history of employment um you
know and whether they've been
disciplined before or violated similar
rules of this nature, but you would
certainly be able to discipline that
employee for a violation um of the
policy
>> and that would have to be a definite
fact that it was a violation, not
someone's assumption.
>> Yeah. So, again, I I can note I had this
sort of policy when I was in Oakbrook.
somebody used this and then they went uh
to I think it was uh um gurnie to uh one
of the amusement parks. So it was pretty
easy to see that they were documented on
their social media for the time that
they were supposed to be working. Um we
looked at that as a theft of time that
they filled out. There was numerous
violations and that person actually
first got removed from being able to do
this and actually got suspended. So
there was uh the various codes of
conduct. there was, you know, falsifying
documentation, there was theft of time,
there was d and so that's where on the
scale once we had the actual photos and
the video and confirmation
um you know uh collaboration and some
like a full investigation was done.
there were penalties and um it was very
strict and severe and quite honestly I
didn't see any issues for the next 3
years because everybody was very strict
on I'm going to take these two hours uh
while my kids doing this or there were
very few individuals that even requested
uh to take this flexible time um because
they didn't want to have any didn't even
want to have to deal with the scrutiny.
But is there anything in this thing in
this
pilot that said if you're working
remotely, you must work from home?
>> It doesn't say that you have to work
from home. So it's it's a flexible.
>> They could have been working at Great
America with their laptop.
>> I I [clears throat]
guess they could have, but we had video
of them at on a roller coaster and some
other stuff.
>> As long as they got the laptop, they
work. I mean to to to to me, you know,
that that that would be quite a stretch
if they're answering their phones and
per, you know, writing a report and
doing that sort of stuff. Now, um you
know, to to me, um you know, the reason
that we'd be even looking at this is
more of like our engineer who's going to
be spending two hours working on getting
a report completed for us, but for that
Friday for an appointment that he may
have had earlier in the day. So instead
of having to come back for the two
hours, he'd be able to get that report
completed, you know, uh, you know, maybe
at his sister's house or maybe, you
know, somewhere if he was going on
vacation for the, you know, for a long
weekend, um, instead of having coming
back to physically be at at city hall,
>> couldn't we do that with Jeff?
>> I'm I'm fine with you guys just giving
us the authority and and the attorney's
nodding saying that's fine.
>> Can I make one correction? Sorry. With
regard to the uh sick time, it does not
get paid out when you terminate, but you
can roll it over into your retirement uh
when you retire.
>> When they retire, same thing. You're
getting
>> that's that was my money.
>> Okay. Thank you, Glenn. Does that make
sense?
>> I think it's it's not when they leave
just they resign and and and I will
apologize for my casual uh response
about the what are you doing? That was
not my intent. We would, you know, take
it seriously. I I just I do believe if
we do something, we do need to have it
crafted into a policy because we need to
be able to enforce discipline. And maybe
it's just bitter taste left in my mouth,
but you know, I I'm going to have long
years to recover from what we went
through then. And it was just when I
went to that person's supervisor, who
was the city administrator, and asked
her what was going on, it was like, "Oh,
I'll have a talk with her."
>> Yeah.
>> She was aware of it. She knew she was
doing it and it was okay. And to me,
that's unacceptable.
>> Yeah. Well, unfortunately, I I think
having a policy could be helpful, but
let's grab some policies that was
requested from other communities that
have gone past CO again. Hopefully,
we'll never have that come back in our
lifetimes, but uh have policies,
flexible work policies that are in in
place now so that council can look at it
um that that HR can recommend and if
council is okay with it just being um
adjustments in our current code um or if
a new policy with uh the full penalties
and uh I guess other restrictions could be you know brought forward.
Again, this is a work session so that we can hear the comments and feedback
and then come back. And I think grabbing
some other policies is probably a good
next step.
>> Blaine, in the meantime,
>> yeah,
>> if you have some common sense flex time
that you want to pass along to one of
your uh report directs, it's fine with
me.
>> Good to know. Thank you.
>> Are you saying we don't have common
sense?
» What's that? Are you saying we don't
have common sense?
>> I said a common sense flexible decision.
Do you know what that means?
>> No, I'm stupid. [snorts]
>> Okay.
>> Well, I have a couple of other things.
I'm actually going to focus and just
list the the things on the right hand
side and we'll come back to the last
item. Um other changes that we're
proposing are uh overtime payment
examples. So the last discussion uh
there were some questions brought up by
council uh related to some confusing
passages and in the explanation um the
adisement from our our labor attorney is
working through just a a revision of
that language and uh we wanted to
include charts within the example so
it's very easy to read and understand
how overtime would be paid. um
confidentiality policy update. Um the
recommendation
uh or request was from council was to
add a stipulation within the
confidentiality policy um within the
handbook. Our handbook is pretty
sufficient uhly covering those things,
but we are going to add uh we're
proposing to add a short paragraph that
explicitly recognizes um when we're we
have employees that are invited to sit
in on u confidential or executive
information that there's a standard for
them to uphold that matches very closely
to the the policy approval.
>> Does that also go for things they view
on print? um they're printing things for
people or they're um that should be held
to the same level.
>> Yes, you'll be able to review the full content of of that and make
sure that it's in a written format too.
>> Am I understanding correctly?
>> Things that the the employees
>> view that are in print fashion, not just
audio.
>> Yes.
>> Uh held to the same confidentiality
level.
>> Yes. Yes. you know, if they happen to
view a report or a note or an email or
whatever from somebody,
>> they don't get to go tell everybody else
what was in it.
>> Correct. Correct.
>> Mhm.
>> That's correct. Any information that's
disclosed in the closed in the
privileged closed session or in the
closed session would be held to that
confidentiality standard. It's it's the
same standard that's been applied in by
resolution to the city council. And so
um that standard was then applied to the
employees in the handbook.
>> So you're talking about close session.
Um if a council I know this is a little
bit out of the context, but since you're
here and you're the only one can answer
the question. Um if a council person
wants to listen to executive session, it
only has to be at city hall, right? You
cannot give them a flash card to take
home and listen to it, right? I believe
that is correct. You you have the
opportunity to listen to the closed
session, but you can't leave with that
confidential information.
>> Okay. Hopefully that person returns back
what they took from here. Okay.
>> Okay. [snorts]
Uh we have a couple of other items. Uh
the personnel evaluation form update
references just the addition of our
personnel evaluation form to section 16.
Uh there were parts of that form uh that
were missing from our last iteration of
the handbook and so we would add that
despite um you know wanting to to
potentially uh make some changes to it.
Its current form would be added to this
handbook um as well as uh address the
anniversary of employees getting their
evaluation um on a on a set cycle. We
would add that language. um minor safety
and equipment policy updates, adding um
you know a couple of revisions to use of
a city vehicle as well as um as well as
personal use of like equipment or
appliances, refrigerator, microwave,
those types of things to ensure that our facility can accommodate any kind of
electrical usage.
>> Um
>> can you repeat that one more time? Say
that again.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, so we in this building,
we want to make sure that any use of
additional things that um we're plugging
into our offices or common space um can
accommodate uh the facilities electrical
load. Um it's really common in really
most of the facilities I've worked in
that um spaces where you have uh
connecting offices or rooms if you're
plugging into many devices or um all at
once it can uh it can stop a breaker
flip a breaker.
>> I've never heard of flip a thing but
okay
>> I my understanding is it it has occurred
here and so we just want
>> because we do things the right way with
electricity. Yeah. Well, and you know,
we can prevent that if there's just a a
quick evaluation and saying, "Yep, we
should be able to manage that." Um, go
ahead and put in your your little mini
fridge or your microwave or something
like that if that's what
>> how you manage that like how you
>> Yeah.
>> Do you have like an equipment that tells
you how much volts or how much
electricity you're using?
>> Yes. So the expectation would be if
employees are bringing their personal
equipment that they would have that
information available and and basically
we would make sure that someone trained
in our building facilities takes a look
at it uh to make sure that it's not
going to overload a circuit.
>> So what happen if [clears throat] uh
certain employees
they're okay with bringing stuff and
other employee wasn't able to do it
because of the electricity. So we say to
this one, you're okay. You're good to
have your coffee machine or your, you
know, fan. And the other employee will
say no to that because
it's
>> Can I can I step in just for a quick
second? Uh the the main problem we have
is with space heaters. They draw the
most uh voltage from or you know power
amperage from the circuit and that has
tendency to blower circuit breakers. But
you can tell based on on the back of a
um heater or whatever appliance you have
how much amperage is drawing. And then
you got to see they get uh we we check
with our our building department and see
what circuits you know how many circuits
or outlets are on that circuit to see
how many devices are plugged in and
whether that circuit's going to pop when
we uh plug that device in. But it's it's
generally the space heaters that people
>> would that go for fridges as well.
>> Yeah. Anything that draws amperage, we
have to check to make sure because
again, it's not just [clears throat] you
don't just have one circuit per each
outlet. An outlet can be several outlets
that have circuits. So, you have to look
at what's being hooked up to that
particular circuit. And if it's too much
of a draw, then so you can actually tell
one employee, well, you got the same
heater, but we got too many things on
this particular circuit. You can plug it
in, but it have to go over here or
something like that. But that that's
what you're looking at. You're looking
at how much load you're putting on a
particular circuit.
Does that make sense?
>> Yeah.
>> Which item are we speaking to?
>> Sure. Um, this is the safety and
equipment policy updates.
>> What number?
>> Okay.
>> Uh, yes, it would be. Yes. Number nine.
>> So, this would be added to section 9
safety and equipment use. It'd be its
own separate. Um,
>> is there more detail to that number
nine?
>> Yes. So,
>> all I'm saying
>> we have a we have a very short drafted
um language I can read to you if there's
any feedback.
>> Why wasn't that included in the packet?
>> Um we opted to give this broad overview
with the intent to give you all the the
written policies. I didn't want to, you
know, have have our time or the
attorney's time going into great depth
if there are things that council's not
supportive of of even introducing.
Well, it's hard to come up with a
opinion on something without all the
information prior to review it. So, I
I'm not going to be able to,
>> you know, this is going to take up just
as much time or more if we
>> versus if we had it already to read over
and have questions ready.
>> Understood. Um well it it would be that
paragraph would be provided to you and
you know when we return this particular
policy um or provision is basically a
practice of the city that is just being
put in writing so that employees have
all employees have the right direction
and instruction as to how they can um
use or bring in personal these personal
appliances. And before installing them,
just making sure that it that it's okay.
>> We're putting another kitchen in the
basement, you know, something like that.
>> Yeah. I mean,
>> we have a fridge.
>> This is just
probably not a good idea. [laughter]
>> We had that.
>> Imagine that.
>> Oh goodness. U
>> I'm unaware of a kitchen going into the
>> I was going to say
right under Niagara Falls.
>> Okay. [laughter]
» Okay. Um I will w I will wrap up.
>> Can I ask you one thing?
>> Sure.
>> With with with what you guys are
pointing out here like
>> uh number five clocking in and out
>> section 4.2 4.8.
>> Yes.
>> It would be helpful to have those
current sections and what you're
proposing
>> to change because
>> it's almost impossible to make a
decision based on what I'm looking at.
>> Sure. The Go ahead. So these provisions
in particular really require the city
council direction before we make any
revisions to the personnel manual. And
so this item was uh saved for last
because this is something that requires
city council direction before we draft
>> any changes to the policy. And then
after we get some direction from the
city council, we'll we'll put that in
writing consistent with the direction
that we get. But with respect to the
workday, there was some discussion at
the last work session regarding the
allowance for um accommodating a
different hours for a workday. And so
before we make any changes, we wanted to
get the specific direction from the city
council as to whether or not um you know
the policy can be amended so that the
work hours can be altered at the
discretion of either the director or
whatever is being proposed.
>> Right. Is is there essentially a desire
to keep the language as is where it it
permits a director to adjust the workday
schedule? Is it something that would
need to be raised beyond a director
level or um you know is that at a point
in time where city council wants to
prescribe a a particular direction on
the workday? My understanding is it was
adjusted in prior handbooks to this to
this version.
>> I have a version of it
>> right here. The previous one.
>> Okay.
>> This is the Yeah, this is the current um
language here. And this is the only
language I pulled out of the current
book because I expected that people
would want to read it.
>> Well, it was still pending from last
meeting. There was not good
clarification about it, but it reads I
mean you know about union so um
>> it's um [clears throat]
I just want all the staff to be treated
equally.
>> Mhm.
>> You know
>> and I think it's only fair that if we're
not picking on nobody if certain
department are allowed to do this that
everyone else should be allowed to do
it.
So
it it and this is my interpretation of the policy that it would or should
allow each of our departments that are here and operating
um the ability to to change the workday
as as the policy directs. Um, you know,
we always want to provide service um,
you know, for all of our open hours. So,
you know, departments should not be
permitting this if there's no one in
their department there to to cover this.
I think, you know, there's at me at
minimum one or more staff people in each
of our responsive city hall departments
as well as public works, more than one
individual that this could apply to. Um,
and so we do have discretion to to
implement this if we all want to work
together. Um my discussions with
department heads about this has has been
that they are open to a coordination of allowing for this
um just at least to make sure at least
one person in each department is is
there and and able to serve the public.
Um but if there are other
interpretations or this is being read
differently then you know we can make
clarifications
>> from the union from the union contract.
Sure.
Oh, that's what you have. Okay.
And if you might want to have the
attorney look at it and read it or
it says states
>> clearly that our hours operations from
4:00 to 8:30 public works and um
other department the police uh I mean
building department um and water they
can start at 7.
>> Yep.
>> Till 3:30. It's very clear right there
and I highlighted it for you.
>> Yes. So that provision is only
applicable to those employees that fall
under that collective bargaining
agreement.
>> Um what our personnel policy says is
only that you have an 8 and 1 half hour
workday. It doesn't have those hours of
work identified. So as written, it's
allowed for that flexibility to take
place with respect to those employees
that are non-union employees. But um you
have other unions, not just the public
work the public works unions and those
employees would be governed by the
provisions that fall under their
specific collective bargaining
agreement. So this is this is the
standard that you're reading from the
collective bargaining agreement that
applies to all public works employees.
So those that are in a collective
bargaining agreement would not be
afforded any flexibility with respect to
their work.
>> There there are additional clerical
>> there. So also clerical if you can read
it please or if you want I can read it
for you.
>> So they would be governed by whatever
the terms of the collective bargaining
agreement are with respect to their work
hours and work day.
I just am a little confused because I I
thought at one point we set the hours of
operation and people were supposed to
work those out and when they got hired
for a job, those were their hours. I
guess I'm totally confused as to why now
all of a sudden people aren't wanting to
work the hours of the job they were
hired to do. I mean, if we tell people
that these are the hours that we're
open,
>> these are the hours you're coming in, we
shouldn't be limiting them to only one
employee who may or may not have the
answers because the other two employees
decided they wanted custom hours. I I'm
just really kind of lost at how this all
came about because I know in the in the
work I worked in my life, when I applied
for a job, they told me what my hours
were. I didn't come back to them later
and say, "Hey, you know, I'm kind of
thinking I'd like to change my hours.
I'm not a morning person. I'd like to
come in about 10:00. I don't understand
how this happened or why it would happen
when this is a public building here to
serve the public and it's open these
certain hours and the people here to
work should be working those hours.
>> And again, if we want to allow this
policy to change, then we should allow
it to all staff. You can't pick and
choose
>> and or clarify the policy. So exactly
what you're saying, you know, older
person overlin if you want to have uh
the the the established work hours be
the the work hours for all employees,
then we need we would provide some
clarification in the employee handbook
so that it would be clear to those
non-bargaining unit employees what those
hours of work were that were
established. So this was definitely a
big topic at our last, you know, city
council work session and so we're here
to, you know, get the consensus.
>> Correct. But we didn't have the policy
and now I brought it. So
>> So you're are you recommending that we
match the
>> I'm not recommending. I just want to
make sure since some staff were upset.
>> Okay.
>> And they came to me.
>> Yeah.
>> I'm not sure if they came to anyone
else.
>> Mhm. [clears throat]
>> That everybody will be treated equally.
Okay.
>> And I think Chris feels the same way for
her department.
>> You know, it's not fair for certain
people,
>> you know, come at certain point time
when others have to follow the policy.
>> So, so we have to be careful. So, we're
in union negotiations with the local
150. If union employees are talking to
council trying to step outside of our
>> some of them are not union.
>> Okay. So, um, but if union employees are
trying to negotiate directly with
council compared to at the negotiation,
>> nobody's negotiating, Bla, you're you're
twisting the words, it's just a comment.
How come some employees are allowed
[snorts] to do this and some are not?
And if this is our policy, we're not
interfering with union negotiation. So,
let's not twist the words in here. And
I've came to you about this about nine
months ago and then I went to Ashley the
same thing because we didn't see any
changes and it keeps being put on hold.
Well, I wouldn't say it's being put on
hold. It's actually been brought before
council to talk about to set. It's
already set in the union contract and
now we're trying to get clarification
for our non-UN employees. If if each
council member wants it to to either
mirror or strengthen what is in the
union contract and mirror that for our
non-UN employees, this would be the time
to do it.
>> I'm just confused as to what happened to
the policy we set up that said we were
open these hours and the people would
work these hours. Where'd that go?
>> So, when you guys set the current
personnel manual, you you put this
provision in or approved this provision.
Ashley nor I were here when this
provision got put in there but that this
provision allows some flexibility for
our non-UN employees
and council when you approve that
personnel
handbook at that time I believe the last
one was updated in 2024 um I don't know
what what it stated before that um but
this is the current one um this is it it
affords this flexibility
» I have One comment on this. Looking at
this says full-time employees generally
be scheduled for an 8 and 1/2 hour day.
>> Why is there a 60minute meal period? It
should be 30.
>> Correct.
>> My guess is from previous uh
>> Yeah, because they used to work there.
They were here for 9 hours.
>> Yeah.
>> So they're no longer here 9 hours. It's
8 and a half. So it should be 30 minute
meal period.
>> Yep. Or it should be 9 hours. So again,
neither Ashley nor I nor Melissa drafted
this language. This is the current
language that is there and that's why
it's here for comments and discussion
with with council.
>> And it should also say unpaid meal
break.
>> It's unpaid. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Yes.
>> It's not specified in there.
>> I'm just, you know, it's a technicality,
but it should be in there. Well,
>> but if it's should be 60 minutes unpaid
if they're here 8 and 1 half hours.
>> Correct. It would either need to be 30
minutes of nonpaid
>> or 9 hour day.
>> 9 hour and then 1 hour of non-paid.
Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Do they get any other breaks during the
day?
>> Two.
>> Yes.
>> Believe there's 15
>> 15inut.
>> Is that in there?
>> It's not in this section. There is a
separate section that's currently called
break and lunch periods. And so that
calls for
each department head shall establish a
reasonable
meal period.
>> That's
>> um and two break periods of no more than
15 minutes each workday. Um it does
specify that the two 15-minute breaks
are paid time, but they're expected to
be ready to call back at any time. What
we're recommending as part of our
adjustment to this is that that
reasonable period is specified as
typically 60 minutes but no less than 20
minutes. So those are where it's
>> or to provide consistency, right? This
provision that we're looking at here.
Yeah. Can they combine their uh break
times? Like instead of taking 15 in the
morning, 15 in the afternoon or half
hour lunch, can they combine their break
times or lump their break times with
lunch or whatever?
>> No. There's a provision that says they
can't do that. They can't use those
break times to elongate their their
lunch time. Those break times are are
paid break times under the law. if you
take that 15 minutes amount of time
that's considered, you know, dimminimous
enough that you would still pay that
employee. So, I believe there is um
[snorts]
they're they're not supposed to do that
like they're not supposed to shorten
their workday with their lunch or break
time or
>> that was my next question. Yeah.
>> Okay.
Just wanted to make sure on that that
it's clear, you know, as to how the
break time and lunch period and
combining or not, you know, because
there's places where I've heard people
can combine their
>> break time together. If they want to
take a half hour in the morning, they
let them. Or if they want to take it the
half hour in the afternoon or if they
want to take it with their lunch, they
can do it. But I'm wanting to know what
our current policy says as to what can
be done. And you know, just so you know,
I I was correct on the shortening their
workday. Yeah.
>> Um but with respect to their lunch
period, they can tag on to their lunch
period according to the policy. Now, so
if the council wants to keep that,
that's fine. If you want to change that
so that they um that they would take a
full hour and be paid for a half hour if
your lunch period, that 30-minute lunch
is not paid. Aren't employees required
to punch out for lunch?
>> Yes.
>> So, how would they punch in and out if
they're attaching
>> paid break time to an unpaid lunch time?
>> Yeah. If there if that's the case, um in
my in my past iteration, um you'd have
to verify the time sheet essentially to
make sure that is reflective of the
unpaid time versus a paid break time.
and and you can only really do that by
the clock in clock out verification.
So if
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Um
>> so if they're taking an hour
>> potentially an hour and a half or an
hour if it's an hour a half hour unpaid
half hour paid together.
>> Correct.
>> And they want to leave
>> Mhm.
>> the building for an hour lunch. How are
they punch back in after a half hour?
>> They I mean they wouldn't be able to.
You have to punch back in and they
understand that's [snorts] Yeah. and
then make some kind of note.
>> Yeah. Yeah, there would be notes. I
believe there's notes in Time Cook.
>> Make notes.
>> Yeah. Yeah. The understanding. So,
>> didn't you say when you read something a
little earlier that they they were
supposed to be available to come back to
work during their break if needed? What
did you read earlier?
Yes, it's it says in our current policy
the two 15minute break times are
considered paid working time and
employees are considered to be available
for any assignment during a break
period.
>> Okay. Well, how can they do that if
they're gone?
>> That it's a good point.
>> They're off of off out of the building.
That's not
>> this is the problem with these different
>> it has to be cohesive and it has to make
sense and it doesn't make sense and
there's so many things that contradict
other things and this is the part of the
problem and that's why people just do
whatever they want because they can find
an excuse if they look hard enough.
>> You have to have it clear and concise.
And if your breaks are paid that means
you need to be available if something
comes up. And you can't do that if
you're taking our lunches, you know, at
Pizza Hut or whatever. [clears throat]
>> Okay, that's correct. So, should we is
the council ready to give some consensus
on on some of these items so we can
draft the policy according to the
direction
>> right
>> of the city council. uh with respect to
the actual hours of work which are not
specifically established in the um
handbook as they are as as you see in
collective bargaining agreements. Would
we like to set specified hours of work
in the employee handbook?
>> She has it.
>> I have it here.
>> Thank you. And if not, the other option
would be to have, you know, Ashley,
myself, and the attorney come back with
recommendations with each one of these.
So you guys have actual policies saying,
"Here's our current policy, and here's
our our staff recommendation." Again,
neither Ashley nor I created this
personnel handbook. Um, we have a new
attorney also reviewing. Again, this has
been revised and revised almost every
other year. Um, our hope is actually to,
you know, they've spent a great deal of
time going through the whole book, um,
to get this updated. So, annual updates
will be almost, you know, very quick
because they'll just be state and
federal kind of changes that we really
almost have to approve. Um, so I
understand this is a little bit more
time at this initial juncture. This
occurs almost at every job I go to, we
spend a little bit more time on the in
the front end, but then every year
afterwards, it's pretty quick because
it's just a state and federal changes.
>> Can you ask a quick question for me? Um,
[clears throat] for the staff that they
feel they're not uh able to change their
hours, can
this will open to like a lawsuit for us?
Like they feel that they're not
>> I I I think I understand what you're
saying. Yeah.
>> Um, with respect to like are you talking
about maybe like a discriminatory
practice
>> correct? Because they feel like how come
certain departments and they cannot
>> Yeah. [clears throat] That would that
would not fall under any kind of
unlawful discrimination um because it's
not targeted toward any protected class.
You can you can have different work
arrangements for different departments
because of the way those departments
operate. Just like in your collective
bargaining agreement, there were
different hours with respect to certain
public works employees versus ready to
bargain. That's that's how it's been
written in the book. I'm talking about
the employees that their hours are from
8 to 4:30.
>> That's what I'm talking about.
>> So, the employees that they supposed to
work from 8 to 4:30 that they come
earlier, they change their schedule.
>> Yeah.
>> The rest of employees are feeling
>> Yeah. As long as there's
a objective, not a a legal work related
reason to change those hours, the the
management is allowed that discretion to
be able to make those accommodations. So
if one employee gets their work hours
changed because of a work-related reason
for operations of the city, that's not
an illegal practice and that does not
subject the city to any kind of
discrimination liability.
>> I'm sorry.
>> Hold on. I have one more question on
that.
>> So, since the city have done a policy in
the past that work hours are from 8:00
to 4:30
and that group falls under those hours
since they're changing the time without
the council approval. Is that okay?
>> That wouldn't be illegal discrimination.
whether that's okay. It it sounds like
that there may be a practice of not
following the policy, which is why we're
bringing it to the attention. We want to
make sure that we're doing everything
now and and so that this administration
is now, you know, following the
direction of the city council. But would
that equate to illegal discrimination?
No. a a failure a simple failure to
follow the policy as long as it was for
valid work related operational reasons
would would not then you know subject
>> they're still failing the policy of not
following the hours
>> correct
>> yeah
[clears throat]
>> question do do we have any any instances
>> because I was just listening to what she
was saying where
>> a person would need to come in hours 8
to 4:30 they would need to come in at
7:00 clock because there's nothing going
on here at 7 a.m. Is there
>> Well,
the the only thing, you know, if there
is some type of
This speaks to me on two ways, right?
Either um out of the ordinary
circumstances where we would want to
alter everyone's schedule potentially.
Um it's not been typical for us even
when we're responding to kind of
emergency situations, but that might be
a point in time where we for a set
period of time alter schedules for
employees to say we really need you here
early. We're responding with public
works and public safety. Their schedules
are different than the city hall, you
know, rules and and time frames. We want
to make sure we're prepared before
people come in the door or whatever the
case is. Um, another instance may be
operational in um certain periods of
time uh in a quarter or a month where
there's a set um issue that needs to get
done. If there's um an overabundance of utility shut offs, for example, is
there a reason to come in when public
works is also there early and work
through some things, have a meeting um
walk through whatever that data and
information is um among staff before the
doors open to the public. It's just
>> our inspectors might be another one. So,
I mean there are different inspectors in
the building department. uh a lot of uh
the trades are working before 8:00 so
they might start at 7. So I mean there
are different examples that we could
give you.
>> Okay.
I was asking just out of curiosity
because I know
>> I mean I've been here for a little
while. I
>> uh I know some people get
kind of leniences that others don't. I
just want to make sure we're not
targeting anyone.
>> We always want to tie back. I mean, if
this is the policy and we continue to
keep it, it it should be for specific
job related reasons. It shouldn't just
be a regular schedule just because,
right? And we want to make sure that if
there's a business reason for our staff
to come in early, then it's allowed by
the current policy.
So, but if if um the kind of the will of
the council at this moment is to
you know return I did I hear any
consensus for whether we would like to
change this. We want us to come back
with some examples. What?
>> No.
>> Say you want this item
>> because I
based on I think I heard what the
attorney was saying. Some of this stuff
could have been done by decision
management
>> without council consent. So I'm kind of
confused on why all of this comes to the
council when uh
you know managers have to have some
coonies and make a decision that may not
be popular. Um, I do understand that the
structure of it needs to be approved by
the council, but shouldn't those
recommendations come to us, uh, what it
is and what you're proposing and then we
make a decision on what it's going to be
as opposed to
we're going through this back and forth
right now with uh, this I I mean in in
the world I worked in, that's the way it
was done. So, I'm trying to figure out
why is it
>> so different, you know, right now
>> the the actual employee [clears throat]
handbook is something that does have to
be approved by the city council as as
you you know recognized. Um, this was I
ensured that this topic was brought
forward to the city council today
because of our last discussion at the
work session because it was a topic that
I I thought was important to the city
council and and we wanted guidance
first. But if the guidance now is that
we'll propose clarifying language within
this pol, you know, within the handbook,
we we can do that as well. and and I'll
get the recommendation of the you know
administrator and the assistant
administrator in you know drafting a
policy for ultimate council
consideration but this this particular
uh section was brought forward by at my
request I ensured that the topics that
we discussed at the last at last work
session were brought brought forward
here today.
>> I think um I agree with alderman
Jefferson. I would uh you heard concerns
at the previous meeting. So I would have
thought that maybe based on what you
were hearing.
The administration could have come up
with a revised policy that addresses
address some of those concerns and maybe
take at least a first attempt at
rewriting the policy.
um bringing to us for for discussion and
comment and maybe tweaking it one way or
another. But
uh you know we're not here every day to
know how that city all the different
departments operate and what hours are
best for any of the certain departments.
I mean some of us probably know that
better than others. Um, but I believe
that the the employees that are here at
our front line,
um, representatives to
residents, whether it be at the window
or on the phone, should be here and
present during the hours that we're open
to provide those services. If you're
here at leave at 3:00, that's one less
person that could be at the window for
another hour and a half. Um,
but I just I just don't see it as a
council's
place to to basically come up with word
for word what this policy comes comes
out to be in the end cuz ultimately
there are going to be employees who are
not going to be happy with it cuz either
you're saying the ones that were able to
adjust their schedules are no longer
allowed to do it which may happen or I
mean the flip side is the people that
are saying that it's not fair that they
can't adjust their schedules, they're
still not going to be able to adjust it
because everyone can't leave at 3:00 or
3:30.
And and I really don't uh like that it
ultimately
will come down to council's decision
rather than department heads or managers
that manage manage these employees. and
they they
managers have a have to make hard
decisions and their employees are not
always going to like them. But I don't
really appreciate the fact that it's
going to come down to this was a council
decision and managers could throw up
their hands saying I had nothing to do
with it. This was a council. And that seems to happen a lot. And I I I
really think that a lot of the leg work
on a lot of this type of discussion on
policy is is really
should be done outside of of council's
presence. I I appreciate if you want us
involved and ultimately if you need us
to approve something, but bring us some
kind of uh rough draft of what you would
like us to read and we could start a
discussion based off of that. Not just I
mean clearly the the what's up there on
the screen is is
it's it's useless. It's it's it's filled
with loopholes and and
ambiguity and and no uh um detail. So
anyone could pick that apart. Um but
certainly I think that there would be
the ability from our managers and
administrators to come up with something
between that and where we ultimately
what we ultimately want to implement.
But um I think as a as a service as a
public service whether uh staff are
union or non-union the city should have
the ability to to change schedules based
on operations of the city. Is that not
allowed or is there anything in the CBA
that says that other than I understand
public emergencies, water man breaks,
everyone can't say sorry I can't come in
but I just look at things like where we
have a weekend event, city event and
everyone's schedule is Monday through
Friday. We don't have anybody working on
weekends. And if we call them in on a
scheduled event that we know about
months in advance,
it's either overtime
or you're relying on volunteers to do
it, which we shouldn't always have to. I
mean, it's great and appreciated, but um
again, the the [clears throat] ability
to adjust schedules based on operational
need, whether it's union or non-union,
should should be
the the discretion of the city.
>> So, um got a few things to unpack here.
So, with our union contracts, we would
have to negotiate that in our current
local 150 contract that has our public
works and some of the other employees
that we're talking about. We don't have
that flexibility. with our non-unions,
we do have that flexibility. We could
ask for that flexibility with our
upcoming negotiations. So, um it's not
to say that we can't get it, but that
would be something that we need to to to
negotiate with the union. Um our draft
policies happy to work. Uh, I think
where Ashley was coming was u our
current attorneys cost us $275 an hour.
And so to have her draft 10 policies,
even if one hour per policy could could
cost a big deal of money. So on this
particular policy, um, since there were
comments from council, she was hoping to
get some guidance. Um, again, happy to
have Ashley and myself again um, pull
other communities. I've helped write
three or four different um personnel
manuals for other municipalities in
Illinois. Um we can come back to to
council with that and then hand it over
to the attorney. We were just trying to
I guess wisely use the attorney's time.
Um, we can also draft policies that do
empower um the department directors, do
empower the supervisors and and empower
the uh management uh team, myself,
Ashley uh and others in the future. So,
if council just wants to make the policy
decisions, we're happy to bring policies
that would give us the ability to make
decisions so that it isn't just on
council. council can set the policy and
then we're happy to uh to play within
the parameters given.
>> Our finance director has been trying for
a while.
>> Thank you guys. [clears throat] Um I
want to address this because I feel a
lot of this is directed at my
department. Uh when I adjusted the hours
or or working hours for my department,
it was purely I guess selfish for my
reasons for my department. Um, I didn't
consider other employees, other
departments. What I looked at is how to
get the best performance for my
department. So, when you guys talk about
uh there's nothing that no work is done
between 7 and 8, well, there's there's
no customers at that point in time, but
my staff uh half my staff comes in at
7:00 to get a lot of work done. So
whether it's AP, payroll, utility
billing, preparing the shut offs, that's
unin uninterrupted time that they get to
perform their work that they won't have
the rest of the day because they have to
man the desk. Now I know there's other
departments within city hall that don't
have to man a desk, but uh my department
has a lot and there's four people to
juggle those things, but it's an
interruption every day. I don't know if
you ever tried to work on something that
takes concentration, but if you have to
get up and stop every 5 minutes to go
answer a customer thing, it's very
difficult to do. So, they appreciate
that time where there's no customer
service. Now, I I told my staff to do
this. We have to maintain the city's
hours because city council set the hours
for city hall. So, we have to maintain
that. So, uh there is a full staff from
8 to 3:30. So, we do have that one hour
um that is only half staff. It's at the
uh end of the day. However, I told him I
said, "Look, when we have the the bill
pay periods, when that closes out,
everybody comes in to pay. So, on those
days that people are coming in to pay,
there is no early shift. Everybody works
from 8 to 4:30 on those days because we
need that time because everybody comes
in at the end of the hour. So again,
this is all designed to make my
department work the most efficient. So I
they come in early to get their work
done uninterrupted and on the days
that's required for customer service,
they stay late. They do not come in
early on those days so they can uh
answer the stuff because there are long
lines out there. We have all our windows
going. I mean that's the whole point. So
the idea is to make sure that they're
we're operating. This is this is my
suggestion, my design. It
[clears throat] was not because of the
employees wanted this. I did this to get
the most work out of them. So that was
the decision. So if I did something
wrong, let me know. But I think I'm
running the department very efficiently
to get the most for the city. That's the
whole purpose for that.
>> Thanks for explaining. But it wasn't
directed to you personally or to your
staff or any looking. But with that
said, since your staff has to do minutes
and that means a lot of concentration,
especially taking executive session,
listening to all these, it's hard,
especially getting up. Maybe your staff
can do the same thing, rotate, some of
them will come at 7:00 till 3:30 and
some, as long you have someone there
till 4:30 to answer the phones and the
door. So, I think it's only fair for
everybody. If uh this is your department
and this is one employee would like to
do the minutes before all the
interruption.
Okay. Does anybody on city council have
a problem with staff putting together
uh recommendations that were brought up
tonight for review for city from city
council at a future work session? To my
left. Anybody?
>> No.
>> To my right?
>> No.
>> Okay. So Blaine.
>> Okay. You have your direction. Unless
you have your direction.
>> Thank you all of you.
>> All right. Bring something up.
>> Thank you for coming today because it's
always easier to see talk in person.
>> Thank you.
» Okay. Uh next item for
discussion. Blame.
>> I'm going to come up to the podium as
well.
Thank you.
» All right. As I think Ashley's passing
all those, I have one. So,
>> take
>> um Yeah. So, um our intern is going to
be talking about the specific uh
compensation components, but uh for this
overall discussion um I do feel a few
things are kind of intertwined. So I
wanted to uh kind of uh go through a few
slides for us to have this kind of
context and then um I I will uh be
introducing our intern who used the data
that uh our administrative assistant uh
Marbel put together and then our intern
then contacted other municipalities and
used other resources. Uh I know the IML
has a tool and uh um there are a few
other uh tools that allow us to get some
of the uh the data for our elected
official positions. So [clears throat]
why uh is this discussion occurring?
Again, um um I'm I'm going to be talking
about the schedule and our current
positions
for elected positions are tied into per
meeting compared to a compensation that
is set monthly or kind of an annual
compensation.
Excuse me.
>> Bless you.
>> Thank you. Um so, um through my few
slides, I'm going to be talking about
the meeting schedule, the open meetings
act requirement compensation. Again I
feel that these are these issues are
intertwined and do uh affect the other.
Um so when we look at our current
meeting schedule um we have you know
weeks one through four potentially a
week five depending on on the month we
have council meeting work session
meeting a work session and potentially
an additional work session or a special
meeting. So typically um there's four
regular meetings. Um sometimes there's a
um what I'll be proposing um um for
council's consideration in the future is
again when we're we're in the context of
compensation is breaking away from a
model that is per meeting but looking at
a monthly stipen model. Um again with an
updated schedule. Uh, and I'll note here
staff is proposing to delay the
implementation of changing the schedule
all the way until uh uh May 1st of 2029.
So it would not impact so um our current
elected officials that still have two
and a half years left because if we
reduced the number of meetings and
they're paid per meeting, there would
actually be a reduction if we
implemented that sooner. So with the
proposed schedule, uh what I'll be
looking at uh is a schedule of a council
meeting, a work session, a council
meeting, and then reserving. So we would
not be filling that fourth week or that
as needed, but those could potentially
still uh occur. Uh again some of the
benefits um for having a regular three
meeting per month compared to a four
meeting would be more implementation
time more focused discussions um uh a
reduction in redundancy and greater
staff efficiency get on the staff
efficiency and productivity here. So
currently what staff is doing for our
meetings are prep uh preparation for a
meeting a meeting preparation for a
meeting preparation you know so we got
meeting preparation meeting preparation
there's this schedule um that kind of uh
hamster wheel that what we're doing the
proposed is preparation meeting
implementation meeting completion
[snorts] and then we start that cycle
over again so what's the key difference
again it's more time implementing what
council's direction is and less time
preparing for reoccurring meetings
Sorry, sorry to interrupt. Um,
>> this information regarding uh meeting
schedule and and so forth, what you're
going over now, was that in our packet
provided on Friday?
>> No. So, this was the stuff that I listed
in our packet saying that if time
permits, I'm going to be talking about
the scheduling. So,
>> what we were handed just now,
>> correct? And and again, I'm going over
this for context. the information that
was emailed to uh council over the
weekend is regarding the compensation,
right?
>> But if we don't have, I guess, a context
of potentially thinking about the
scheduling of of of a change in
schedule, that could influence uh
council's discussion regarding uh the
compensation.
>> Well, I I understand that. Why Why
couldn't we have gotten this on Friday
as well?
>> I created this two hours ago.
So, I couldn't provide it to you um on
Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. Um I've
been working through um our process to see I also had a conversation this
afternoon with uh with the clerk to see
if even reducing a uh schedule would be
uh feasible or practical. Um and again,
we have all the way until the end of
October, October 28th, as I'll be noting
here in in a moment with a a time frame.
So by having this at tonight's meeting,
we have uh about two full months to have
the discussion.
>> So we had like a year we've been asking
for this to be on discussion.
[clears throat]
And I agree with Mark and Tina was a big
vocal about stuff where it's handed to
us right at last minute in the meeting.
We don't get the chance to review it.
>> Sure.
>> You know, it's already 8:45.
>> Yep.
>> So that mean we got to rush through all
this. We have two staff member here that
I don't know if our finance has anything
on his agenda for tonight. He'll be
sitting through this. Our our other
director will be sitting here through
all these discussions so he can do one
report and that's how I feel. It's
always time crush time crush and we have
to make a fast decision. We'll be
waiting for this for a year.
>> Yeah. So tonight there isn't a decision
on this. This is a discussion. Um and so
um I wanted to present this so that
council would have again up to 60 days
to uh discuss this particular uh uh
portion. [clears throat] Uh again, I'm
not expecting council to uh there's no
vote. Um, there is several other
meetings between now and when a decision
needs to be made, but if there was never
a conversation or thought or even
discussion with council about adjusting
the time schedule, I think council would
be missing an opportunity. I I I
have a lot of concern going from two
work sessions to one just due to the
fact that our work sessions
run so long and I don't know how we
could accomplish what we do in two work
sessions in one. I know you have the
preparation current and proposed, but if
you're proposing if you're preparing for
the amount of
um items that would have showed up in
two meetings and putting them in one
meeting, then that preparation time for
one meeting is going to take twice as
long.
And you know what I'm saying? You're not
just simply getting rid of a meeting and
everything that's prepared for it.
you're going to have to squeeze
the the items that would have been more
um um more would have made more sense to
have in a second meeting. Now you're
going to put them in in one meeting and
some of our meetings we don't get out of
here already till 11 12:00. I I have a
hard time seeing
>> Yeah. that we're going to be able to
accomplish the same amount of work in
one meeting that we do now in two
especially, you know, we're expecting a
lot of growth. We're seeing it
happening. We're going to that means
more um projects going to come in for
approval hopefully. Hopefully more
developers are going to come in for
discussions with council and feedback
for for development. I mean, it's it's I
don't see the workload going down. I see
it increasing.
>> So, I I don't really I [snorts] don't
really feel that there's logically in
real life that two meetings shrunk down
to one,
but in the same amount of time as as one
of those two meetings, how it's possible
to accomplish everything.
>> Sure. So, uh, other communities like
where I came from in Neapville actually
only have two meetings, not not what I'm
proposing.
>> That's fine. I I to be honest, I don't
care what anyone else does. I see what
happens here in Crest Hill. Great.
>> We have two work sessions a month.
>> Yep.
>> Are they ever an hour or less? Very
rarely. Are they Are they ever 2 3 4
hours? Quite often. So h unless we're
going to eliminate some of the steps and
some of the things that are coming to
council and council just won't be
involved in them, I don't see how
logistically timewise those the same
amount of work, the same things that
we're accomplishing now in two meetings
will happen in one.
>> I actually think we'll get more done. So
between now and 2029 we will have um
basically a cadence so that the meeting
schedules and the meeting agendas won't
be fluctuating. So instead of having
three items and then 10 or 12 the next
and then four items and then you know
kind of that that uh uneven pattern it
would be set across uh the the table. Uh
again looking at um this being a few
years out, this allows us to address
what are those annual contracts to be
multi-year contracts so that council is
addressing the policies on items that
are good for two or three years instead
of bringing things back every year for
just one item.
So I think the the amount of the work
you're spec referring to as contracts
that are one year or two or three year I
think that's that's um that's [snorts]
it's about 30% of council's uh annual
work is items that could be multi-year
contracts that we've been addressing on uh and an annual basis. So
>> how much time does it actually take to
discuss those things versus
plan unit development that comes in. Um,
>> you know, there's just so many so many
examples of of things that come to the
city that ultimately come before council
in two meetings. Unless there's going to
be a different way of handling a lot of
the a lot of those things that they
don't come to the council, I don't I I
just have a hard time seeing two
meetings getting shrunk into one. I
don't know if am I the only one that's
thinking
>> No, I agree with you.
>> Well, I mean, on the surface that I I I
agree with you, but I'd also like to
hear what he has to present because if
we can become more efficient, I think
that's a win-win for everybody. [snorts]
>> I'm happy to to conclude. I just have a
few more slides and uh then we'll be
getting into the conversation for the
compensation. And if council does not
want to uh proceed looking at a an
adjustment in schedule, that is
council's uh you know choice. For me, I
do feel it's part of my responsibility
to share with council my recommendation.
And I do feel that uh we're not being as
efficient as we can be and uh again, you
know, the staff time and the
productivity uh I do think can be with a
modified schedule. again, not dropping
down to two that other communities have,
but since our history has uh uh really
locked us in since 1960 to a four to
five meeting schedule, um I know that
this is going to be a change. Um but if
we don't start to have this
conversation, at least tonight, it's
going to be too late and then it's two
years and then it's another and so it's
really looking at four years from this period of time. And so that's why I
felt again even just a few hours ago
before um to add this item for tonight's
discussion. Uh again, time and staff
productivity is the item that I I was uh
suggesting and again I see the key
difference being more time actually
implementing what council uh directs uh
instead of preparing for re meetings. Um
the next item um I am anticipating that
our city attorney uh along with other
community attorneys are advising their
uh their um communities that the ad hoc
committees are going to need to meet the
open meetings act. So my assumption is
as of January 1st of 2027
is all of our ad hoc committees will now
need to meet the public notice, the
public access, the agendas, the minutes,
the record ret uh retention as well as
the open meeting acts compliance. So key
takeaways here is as the ad hack
committees become fully subject to the
open meetings act um they are going to
function very similarly to our city
council meetings and to our work
sessions. Um looking at that um our
current compensation structure and again
I'm just focusing on one and we'll have
more of a conversation here in a few
minutes um as our intern walks through
um the survey information regarding each
of the elected uh positions. Um just
looking at the compensation for the
current council members, our current
council um for uh members earn $200 per
meeting uh for the council meeting um
$55 for a work session and then zero for
the committee meetings. Typically,
again, that would uh break out uh
moneywise as two council meetings would
be $400, two work sessions would uh
equate to 110. Um, so that would be 510.
If we did happen to have a third work
session, that would be an additional
$55. So that would get us to $565.
What I'd be proposing uh for council's
consideration uh with the new model and
attendance would be uh proposing a
monthly stipen looking at a uh monthly
stipen of $900. So that would equate to
$10,800 annually. Uh and again, as part
of this would be attendance. So meetings
that are missed for council meetings,
there would be a deduction of two $2 250
per meeting. Missed work sessions would
be a deduction of uh $100 per meeting.
And a miss committee meeting would be
$50 per meeting. Again, instead of per
meetings, this would be looking at a
all-encompassing a monthly stipen that
would cover all the meetings. So our
council meetings, our work sessions,
committee meetings, uh constituent
engagement, meeting uh preparation, um
community activities, researching
various policies and review, etc.
Um last two slides annually compensation
uh the comparison again um this will be
noted in a moment the compensation
comparison presentation that will go
into detail for each of the elected
positions but just as an example right
now our current calendar for 26 um has
our council member positions um with the
max of $6,340
for the year for each of the positions.
Um, the new proposed or what I'm
suggesting for council's consideration
would be the 10,800. Again, noting that
the clerk and the treasurer's current
max, again, utilizing the 2026 calendar
as uh as an example, the max for those
positions is at 10,575.
So, that $900 per month is very close
equating to to that. Looking at the my
final slide, which is the compensation
and a uh meeting schedule. Uh this is
kind of with the transition time. We are
currently in that 2026 window. So this
is the time for council to be
discussing. Uh in addition, council
would need to make a decision regarding
either compensation andor schedule
before October 28th of 2026. Um again,
if that is voted and approved to change
the compensation andor the schedule, um
the transition period would would take
place, but there would not be a change
for except for the four individuals. Um
that would uh occur after the sworn in
after May 1st of 2027. again through the
proposal that I'm talking about with the
schedule for our calendar for the
meetings that still wouldn't occur until
May 1st of 2029. Again, May 1st of 2029,
not 27, not 28, all the way until May
1st of 2029. So about 2 and a half years
from now. Again, at that period of time,
I'd be asking prior again to the 180
days to move forward the council member
the other four positions to the same
schedule so that there would be the full
stipen model, not on a per meeting
schedule, but on a uh an overall group.
Again, um I would recommend council to
have a discussion regarding adjusting
the the council schedule. I'm happy to
answer questions. Yes. Um, and
>> I have one ordinance 1263.
>> Y,
>> it's an ordinance uh that is with the
respect to compensation of alderman and
it reads the same for clerk, treasurer,
mayor. They're all each separate, but it
says here from and after
2003,
it has for each alderman elected in 2003
shall be paid $55 per city council work
session or city council committee
meeting from and after May 1st of 2005.
Each alderman elected in 2005 shall be
paid $55 per city council work session
or committee meeting. And none of us
have ever gotten paid for a committee
meeting. It's right here in the
ordinance that we should get paid for a
committee meeting.
>> And why is that? So why haven't we been
getting paid?
>> And should we get paid for
>> how far back?
>> Yeah, I'm not aware that city council
has had a committee meeting. Uh the
attorney can can talk about that. I
think what you're thinking of a
committee meeting being is an ad hoc
committee.
So those are you just sent the thing to
me and
>> Angelo here that we had a finance
committee meeting. Wasn't it called the
finance committee meeting?
>> Yes.
>> So it's saying committee meeting and
that's what it says here in the
ordinance that we would get paid for the
committee meeting.
that that is not I mean I refer to the
attorney but again I've been here and my
understanding is those sort of ad hoc
meetings are ad hoc committee meetings
and not meeting the definition again
since 2005 all the way through
ad hoc
committee meetings it's just saying
committee meetings
>> well annually currently the meetings the
committees that are set are ad hoc
committees for one year
>> isn't ad hoc meetings like the civil
service and
>> no that is a comm the civil service is a
commission so is the planning
commission.
>> So right but those are ad hoc committees
appointed by the people appointed by the
mayor that would make them ad hoc.
>> It um those are actually through our
code that those are set as actual
commissions not committees. So you have
the um uh planning commission and the
civil service commission. Those are
different than committees.
I'd like the city attorney to weigh in
on this. Committee meetings are paid at
$50, but they haven't been. If there's
many committees across the council here,
it doesn't specify ad hoc or not. Just
says committee meeting.
I wasn't here in 2005, so I have no idea
what the heck this meant. Um, I've not
been asked to research the potential
like
uh back pay issue, but um this is the
first I'm hearing of it, so I honestly
can't weigh in.
>> Well, I'm sure you employees of the
city, they'd be getting it paid
and we would be told we would have to
pay them. We've seen it happen many a
time here, you know, for an employee.
Well, this is what it was done before.
They should have got paid for this or
they should have got paid for that. And
then we have to pay here. It's us and
it's saying
right here's the ordinance I got right
in front of me and I read it to you word
for word and it says committee meeting
doesn't say [snorts] anything else. says
this council committee meeting doesn't
specify or say that it's a finance or uh
you know
whatever any other kind of committee we
have here it's not specified just says
committee meeting and there has been
committee meetings and we haven't gotten
paid for
>> again I would have to I was not here in
'05 uh similar to what the attorney was
stating uh I went back on our past
practice and we had not been paying uh
elected officials for ad hoc committees
for meetings.
>> Well, then we ain't been found the
ordinance here.
>> Again, I was not here from uh ' 05
through 20, you know, to June of 2025
when I started.
>> I think we we
>> Scott, can I ask you about this thing
you handed us?
>> Yeah.
» Okay. So what you say is whatever we
vote on the change but you don't want
the change to take effect until the
second cycle.
>> Right. Exactly. It would be easier I
think for you know payroll for you know
finance to have where everybody starts
at the same time in 29.
>> Yeah. Again
>> instead of trying to split it up and pay
part of council one way and the other
part of council another way. if we make
it effective of May of 2029, this way
everyone would get that raise at the
same time in that pay schedule.
>> I I I don't disagree with that. However,
I've been advised by council otherwise,
and I'll allow council to
>> Well, council can weigh in on it, but
I'm just
>> No, no, I'm sorry. our city attorney
council. Uh I I've been advised by our
city attorney um that again if somebody
and I'll let him elaborate that if uh
somebody in the term can't uh be in
office. So maybe now is a good time for
you to jump in on that that regard.
>> I mean traditionally it's done in the
staggered way. You did it that way in
2005. The the the next election the
first race kicked in. the next election
took place thereafter. I'm not saying
you can't do it that way. I'm what I've
advised is that's the way it's
traditionally been done. And I think
every community that we've ever had
that's made raises, it's not been four
years out for everybody at the same
time. Again, if you if the council's
decision or pleasure is to do it all at
once, Scott, if the rest of the council
wants to go along with it, I can take a
look into it. I think that's probably it
right here. I handed it to you and it's
from the IML that it desired that all
elected officials be on the same pay
grade. A pay schedule could be adopted
prior to the commencement of the term of
any of the impacted officials that would
have a future effective date that
follows the provision of setting their
compensation in the previous example in
order setting pay for all officials
could be effective in May of 29th. So
there would be no difference or there
will be a delay.
>> Correct.
>> Right. So that can be done.
>> I didn't say it couldn't be done. I just
said that traditionally you did it this
way in 2005. All my other communities
have done it in a staggered way. If you
decide not to stagger it.
>> Will be up to council to decide.
Council's decision. Yes.
>> Exactly. But it's an option. I'm just,
you know, putting it out there. If
council wants to do that, fine. If
council doesn't and they want to have
where we've been doing it like we've
been doing it where some are being paid
one way and some being paid the other
that's fine. It would be up to council.
>> What are you reading this from?
>> This here
>> I I had one question in regards to
that's why I asked that.
>> Um
all this information it's very nice and
I appreciate it. But my question was
looking at the current salaries for the
older people that's on this sheet. This
amount seems to put us in a position
where we should be, but if this is not
going to go into effect until 2029,
I I I think we need to to adjust that
alderman salary because most of these
places get bumps all the time. And Crest
Hill, unfortunately, as he just said,
hasn't had one in 21 years. So if we
don't institute this until 2029
that that's going to take us to um
what how many years
20
>> 25
yeah along. So perhaps we need to raise
this this the statement to accommodate
the fact that if if it if it's not going
to take place for four years. Do you
understand what I'm saying?
>> Three more years of lagging.
>> Yeah. Yeah, it the the comparison or the
recommendation I think are in today's
market relative to other municipalities.
But if it's not instituted for
>> two to four years,
>> two and a half to three years, then
we want to be we want to be competitive,
right? But and comparable. So without
you know
looking at
two and a half years from now and unless
you're going to also propose but I don't
see it any annual um adjustment uh
increase due to inflation or cola
whatever you want to call it. I I'm glad
you asked that question because I did
ask our our attorney u to review the CPI
adjustment. Uh uh and I know he'll be
able to again en enlighten counsel on uh
his research. And again, that's been
some of the the hard work that was put
in over the last nine months as we've
been going through looking at the the
comparable data and having the
attorney's uh law office look at um are
we able to build in a uh in a annual or
even a uh per cycle adjustment or even a
percentage adjustment um and those sort
of things. Uh I do think it's worth so
that the the public can also see what uh
what council has uh been given is the
comparable information. I think there's
maybe eight to 10 slides that again
between our administrative assistant and
our our new intern. I'll let her
introduce herself. Again, I think this
is the first time she's been actually on
the front side of our our council. uh um
she's been in the in the back room uh
running the AV equip equipment several
uh several of our meetings, but she has
put together a brief presentation uh
again just showing where we stand
currently with um with comparison to
some of our neighboring communities and
um then again the attorney uh uh has
done some research on to the uh possible
annual adjustments or percentages. So,
if if you wouldn't mind putting kind of
a pin on that one and allowing uh Shay
to to uh to kind of just uh walk through
her slides and uh again, I'll just sit
off to the side here.
>> And also, can we uh
>> Sure.
>> put a little note to come back to the
committee thing. Scott was talking about
>> Sure. Happy to do that. Yep.
>> Well, hello council. I haven't met many
of you oneonone, but my name is Kish. I
am your city intern. I know I'm usually
back there, but a lot of the times if
you guys come in, I'm the back office
right next to Ashley. Um, over the last
few weeks, I was given the task to look
at a bunch of different municipalities
and their compensation for their mayor,
treasurer, uh, all their persons,
trustees, v village mayors, however you
want to go about it,
>> and the clerk.
not forget the clerk.
Just a little background about this
presentation. Um, the information that
is presented in here is based off the
population. So, we took the four largest
towns, Joliet, Bowling Brook,
Planefield, and Romeoville, and kind of
took them out of this. So, the simple
reason is we wanted to be reasonable
based on the size of where we sit
populationwise, and we don't want to
make sure it's right in the middle for
where we sit as a municipality. You will
also see that we have home rule versus
non-home rule. um two on there are made
home rule through referendum
um which is just a process of just
signing and people taking that down to
Congress. You also see at the bottom
that the information is based off of 24
council meetings and 28 work sessions.
So the information that I calculated is
based off of the whole calendar year of
2026. It's no meetings missed just to
keep that noted.
This is a little bit of the population.
This population the information was
gathered from July 1st to 2025. Highest
is New Linux lowest is Manuka and the
average about where we sit is that
20,580.
This is a breakdown of what our elected
officials monthly compensation is at
this moment right now. As you will see,
our all the persons are making $400
monthly and then 55 per work session
meeting. And then you will go down and
you have our city clerk and our
treasurer both making $7667.
And our mayor, including his liquor
commission, is making $1,666.667.
On top of that, they both all get that
extra $55 for the work sessions.
[snorts]
Um, now we're going to go into the
compensation. Uh, one thing I want you
guys to note that these are estimated
full annual compensations amounts. These
are not just their base salaries.
Uh the second thing to note, the village
of Frankfurt is also in the process of
reviewing theirs as well. Uh we spent a
lot of time communicating back and
forth, getting a lot of their
information and looking at some of the
things that they are expecting to change
too. So you will see they kind of sit a
little lower than us, but they are
getting ready to also make that jump to
kind of come to the meeting.
First thing we'll look over is our
mayor's compensation. As you can see,
Monuka sits very low and Lockport sits
very very high on this uh chart here.
The average compensation is $19,71343
and that's a year. The median is $19,50
for a whole year. I just would like to
note, I think it was Maru who talked
about it with the annual increase, the
2% or the CPI annual increase. Uh
Lockport and Shorewood both have those.
they're using here on the chart that
I've given you guys and you guys were
given. You will also see that I think
there are also two other municipalities
who have a 2% uh annual increase as well
on their um and that's only for their
mayor and their older persons. So the
treasurer and the clerk do not get that
annual increase
for older persons. You guys will see uh
Chris Hill kind of sits very low on this
list. Uh where Shanahan they sit the
highest and manuka they sit very very
low. Uh the average is $8,36142
and the median is $8,55550
a year.
When you come down to our clerk, um our
clerk is sitting right at kind of like a little bit higher end. Uh Shortwoods
is very high. Manuka could not get an
estimate because they have it's a
full-time position. So they don't have
um like deputy and kind of a little
smaller there. So, they don't really
have all those positions to kind of
fill. Uh, but the average $8,6162.
The median is sitting right at 6,000 as
you'll see as Mokina, Lockport, and
Linux and Shanahan all have that.
And then we come down to the treasure.
Our treasurer makes uh the most sitting
at 10,575
and Lockport is sitting at $2,000 a
year. Uh if you also look at the chart I
gave you, there is one more municipality
um that is also making that $2,000.
Everybody else has a their financial
director. So like for us with Glenn um
holds the treasur position
and then that would kind of end our
slideshow to any question in the
presentation open to any questions.
can also come to I guess the comments
from the attorney in regards to the
Mark's question in regards to the uh
annual adjustment or the CPI or
percentage. So, attorney stiff if you
want to comment on that.
>> Uh obviously there are several
communities that have built-in raises.
Um the best that we could come up with
is that it's uh obviously subject to
possible challenge because you would be
obviously having raises voted on at this
point that would take an effect
uh each year during someone's term. I
think you can make a counter argument as
well, which is probably why these uh
other municipalities have done it. So I
can't tell you that it's ironclad. I can
tell you that uh others do it and I
think that there is a defensible
argument but it's not I guess 100%
bulletproof that it's not subject to
challenge.
» So does that address your question mark?
[snorts]
>> Well yeah. Okay.
>> I mean if there's four other
municipalities doing it I don't think
anyone could
>> and Juliet I mean unless you're going to
challenge all of them it would be
you know, couldn't just pick one to
challenge, right?
The defense would be these other four
are doing it.
>> Well, a challenge of one could
invalidate all of them. It doesn't have
to be you. Whoever's deciding to
challenge it could challenge one. It
could be a class action uh of some sort
as well. But
as we know from the uh case that went to
the Supreme Court, I mean uh on the
invalidation of our our tiff, uh they
made it so ours was invalidated, but
then they changed the rules so none of
the other ones uh across the state that
did the same thing would be invalidated.
>> But there's not been a challenge of
other municipalities doing it. That's the difference.
>> Yeah. [snorts]
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> I mean,
I don't hit the ball and can't say that
they won't be, but thus far those uh
CPI/anual
raises have been on the books for years
and have not been challenged.
>> I believe Juliet's actually doing theirs
as a uh percentage if I remember
correctly from the results. [snorts]
So compared to a consumer price index,
they just did a flat 2%. So um depending
on if council wants to go where the
other the majority of other communities
that have a increase built in, uh the
CPI seems to be the more common versus a
just a flat 2% um increase. Um and I
think there was the other question. I
think attorney uh Stiff's office is
going to have to look into the question
that Scott asked and the DR wanted to
come back to in regards to the 2005 uh
committee uh definition. I think they'll
have to do some research on to the
actual uh probably the minutes from the
meetings and what the intention um you
know back then in 2005 what it was if
that can be ascertained and then have a
legal opinion on that.
>> I have a quick question.
>> Yeah. Uh when you said earlier um
help me here um
about you get paid for one or two
meetings. What happened with special
work sessions when we have interviews
and we call them special work sessions?
>> Yeah,
>> special meetings.
>> Yep. I know um Mike has also looked that
up. I'm trying to remember what the uh
the
Glenn if you remember where our um the
special meeting cost was or if you
remember 55
>> I think it's still $55.
No special needs are more than that.
>> Yeah. Well, work sessions are 55. We
have a special city council meeting.
>> We have a special council meeting
different
>> special
work session. I thought
>> special meeting
different type of meetings. special
meeting special meeting.
>> I think a special council meeting where
you're actually taking action would be
at the $200.
>> Exactly.
>> A special work.
>> What happen if something like that
happens comes up because it does
>> uh again um under what the proposed it
would be covered underneath the overall
monthly stipen. So if uh again what I
proposed was the $900 would cover all
meetings, all committees, all the whole
kind of you know any work that council
members are doing to prepare for these
meetings, preparing for work sessions,
preparing for council meetings, if
they're meeting with constituents, if
they're planning um or attending
different events, activities, any of the
work that you're basically doing, you're
getting compensated at that $900 amount.
Um the majority of uh the research that
uh um Shay shared with me is most
communities are breaking away or have
broken away already from a per meeting
um to do a flat monthly uh component. Um
I know in the past that when um some
communities have had issues with
attendance. They've addressed that by
having the deduction. So if somebody
misses a meeting that they get basically
zapped a deduction. Um, and that's where
I suggested a deduction of $250 for the
meeting, uh, for a council meeting. That
would be a regular or a special one. Um,
a $100 deduction for the, uh, work
session, and then $50 for the, uh,
committee meetings.
>> Will you still be eligible the way we
have it right now? You missed three
meetings, I think.
>> Yeah. So, so, so in the future there, it
would be the all-encompassing. So
there's no um you get uh if you miss it,
you're just getting the deduction. So
there's no longer a a an issue for
finance. It's really easy on our
attendance. Um the clerk will note that
you're here or you're not. So if you're
not here when finance is is is
processing [snorts] it, there's not a do
we need to get uh an absent like an
approved absence or anything like that.
If you're not here, you're not here. I
think somebody should be allowed to miss
one or two.
>> Um, in in the chart regarding missed
meetings, um, it [clears throat] says
it's currently that the mayor and clerk
are allowed to miss four and the
alderman are allowed to miss two. I
thought we were all the same.
>> We were where did who where did that
information come from? Um, if you look
in the ordinance for Crystal, it will it
says uh the mayor can miss up to four
and the
>> four
>> the mayor can speak up to four can miss
up to four but the alderman persons they
can only miss up to two and that was
decided back in like
>> I don't remember that either
>> 20 2005 I can grab my
>> 2005
>> that we changed it
the updated one the one that I was given that it was only two for now.
>> We wouldn't have
>> I got I got the ordinance pulled up now.
It says you can miss up the four
>> four.
>> See, he just said
>> Glenn just said two regular meeting.
>> I got the ordinance pulled up right now.
>> That's why we have them there. section
2.12
uh 010
um paragraph B uh persons
blah blah blah alder runs should be
allowed uh four paid absence per year
>> four
» so again I don't know if we need to look
at the code to see if that potentially
could like could influence pay versus an
ordinance change again I was not here
back in 2005 or or when does that say
when the
this
>> uh this last update. I'm trying to see
if I got date on here. It looks like it
was
93.
>> I know we had discussions
>> 93 2002.
Um there's 96. It's been updated several
times.
>> I know we had discussions on
>> Yeah.
>> the four absences. What does that mean
>> for of any meeting or a combination of
work session? And I think somewhere
along the line, I think this was since
you've been here, Blaine, that we came
up with a dollar amount,
>> like $800 or $900 total for the year.
>> I I think there was a policy before I
was here that Glenn I I think
recommended that the maximum could be
>> there was a work session back in
February. We took a vote on this the
work session, although it never went to
uh the council meeting, but uh I just
considered it guidance, right?
>> And you're allowed to have four
absences. And what we we allow you to do
is to if you get paid, let's say, two of
those absences early in the year at
their work session rates and then you
took two more council meetings, you can
trade the other two um work sessions for
two more um council meetings and we'll
just pay you the difference is what
we'll do.
>> I I could have swore the final decision
we made was four meetings and it was the
first four you missed. uh we we because
of the way it been past practice and
that's where we we came up with that
meeting when they had that that thing it
was discussed it was not 100% vote but
it was the majority said that
>> this guidance was okay to swap it out if
you want so to speak
>> so is that in the policy or the
>> policy not by ordinance or anything
>> not by ordinance it's just by guidance
because the ordinance doesn't specify
that
>> that
>> when this came when this came up
>> the decision
or the recommendation was you couldn't
change the ordinance now because the
ordinance
you're all sitting it it could have
affected
your pay. So we didn't want to change
the ordinance because it would have been
a potential
deduction or reduction in pay. So Glenn
came up with a guidance that interpreted
how the absences, still four absences,
but it was determined how you could
apply those, whether they were applied
first to the the council meetings or
versus the uh work sessions and Glenn's
guidance was submitted. And that's what
you approved was that he would going
forward use that guidance when he was
issuing pay for missed meetings that
were excused. And that's the guidance
that we've been under thus far. We did
not change the ordinance because again,
you have to do that 180 days before
anybody that's going to be taking
office. So that's the guidance that has
been uh
the city's operational uh guidance I
guess since we had that discussion and I
can't remember exactly when that was but
it was before
>> February I believe 2004
or 20 25 24 25
>> So is that where that number came up
with? I didn't imagine that was the $800
or $900 total for the four absences.
Yes, 800. That's the maximum you can
get. The maximum four council meetings.
>> If you missed if you missed work
sessions,
but you also missed four regular council
meetings, you could choose to apply it
to the regular council meetings and then
therefore get the 800 versus uh 110 if
you miss two uh work sessions and then
two uh regular meetings. Correct.
because the ordinance is actually
written that and I can't quote you the
language now but it's it's it's somewhat
confusing and we talked about whether we
could actually change it because you
know it's not within 180 days of the new
term. So we
>> determined that [clears throat]
>> if the guidance was what the council
could live with, that was a a fair, I
think, interpretation of what whomever
meant when they wrote this back in 2005
or whatever the the the date of the
original ordinance.
questions uh you got where you know with
this new proposed compensation model and
tenants could we have where like you
could miss one council meeting, one work
session and one committee meeting and
still get paid.
>> Again, this was just a recommendation
council sets, you know, so you you guys
can give me, you know, so I mean I'm
happy to answer questions.
>> I would think that would make it easy
instead of saying three meetings.
>> Sure. One of each spells it out, you get
one of each where you would get paid for
>> one of each. I like that.
» Can I [snorts] ask a clarifying question
on
>> from this XL? Um
the uh I just want to make sure this
isn't a typo, but playing field was like
double our population. Um they get paid
$100 per meeting. Is it just any meeting
that you are looking at?
>> No. Or is it
>> plum is not on our list. This is you
talk about
>> Oh, I mean it's on the list.
>> You talk about this one.
>> It's on this list.
>> Great on the spread.
>> I just I'm just wondering if
>> Yeah.
>> Seems really low compared to a lot of
the other
>> playfield does get paid $100 per
meeting. So when I called and I spoke
with um Oh, I forget her name. My
apologies. We talked and at first when I
read it, I did not think it was right
and so I called to get a little
verification. Yes. But they're I guess
their council is also feeling the same
way of that needs to be.
>> Their trustes their trustees are feeling
that that kind of needs to be changed.
>> So they're going to go ahead and pro
most likely revisit that.
>> Well, as I said before, because this is
not going to take effect till
>> possibly 29
would have to decide.
>> I know, but it's either 27 or 29. So
it's in the future. I just think that I
think that the amount looks good for
today, but I think knowing that it's not
going to go into effect till 27 or 29
that perhaps
um
making it $1,000 a month would be more
appropriate.
And then if they wanted to miss one
meeting of each, that's I don't have
problem with that.
Unless unless you reran the numbers for
those
communities on our chart that have the
built-in raises, so you'll know what
those communities will be, what what
those numbers will be in 27 and 29.
>> The challenge is is most of them have a CPI, so I I would have to only Joliet
has the said 2%. So, I would have to
take a guess at the CPI.
>> Yeah.
>> Which I'd probably use like 2%, but I
mean I would
>> it would not be exact, but it'd be at
least something closer to what the other
communities would be in those years.
>> So, again, tonight is a work session.
We're taking feedback so that we can
come up. We, you know, provided some
initial history along with some
suggestions and guidance. There's
clearly a few questions that the
attorney needs to look into. Um, but you
know, again, we have about two months.
So, I would like to not wait.
>> The mayor and the clerk and all that
tonight or that next meeting.
>> You guys could choose to uh again those
are locked in for another two and a half
years. So you can choose to do that
>> with this or with the you know the next
basically you have you know another two
years to basically do that.
>> What about the recommendation for the
mayor? You didn't give us
recommendation.
>> Um
so for me the only uh the only one I
gave a recommendation on was for the uh
the council uh member positions is
that's the only one that uh was below
the average. All of the other ones were
um was the third highest May.
>> Yeah. So, you know, there was not a
>> Yeah, but they can't reduce it
>> since 200
whatever it was 21 years ago.
>> I mean,
>> 25.
>> That's good. That's
>> okay. They still need to get a raise. I
mean, you can't just say because you're
comparing to other municipalities like
it doesn't make sense to me.
>> That is up to council. again the the
numbers if I would have done this for a
uh uh I guess city employees if I was
looking this as employees we'd first
look at our external comparables then we
look at our internal comparables and
again the uh looking at the the mayor
position there's that is on the top
three of the ones that are paid even if
they were not um in HR that would be
considered like if it was over it would
be a a red circled one to say that
they're overpaid that isn't this one is
not at over the the average. So it's
something that we'd say that is in line.
Again, I don't know what
>> the council decides.
>> Oh, exactly. But that's why I didn't
give a recommendation. You asked the
question why I didn't give a
recommendation.
>> Mayor makes $126,000.
You know, you have Frank for $36,000 per
mayor. [clears throat]
>> So, but you can also suggest
>> the percentage or CPI rider on there
without making change. Uh, you just put
that on on there, not change 11.
>> Yeah,
>> you could have a CPI. You could wait
again.
>> What were you going to say?
>> I was going to say when I look at when I
look at the mayor compensation
on this one, the blue one, pretty much
right in the middle between the low ones
and the high ones.
And
to me, I think it's a fair salary. I
think based on our population when we
look at everything else when you look at
our median income we're certainly not
Frankfurt or Moina and they are much
lower in regards to the mayor's
compensation.
So I know it's been 25 years because it
was 2001 I believe that the mayor the
clerk and the treasurer
was given a raise and in 2005 it started
with
>> for the alderman.
So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm right
in the middle. It should just stay like
that and life goes on. I don't think
that there needs to be an increase for
the mayor's salary.
>> I I agree. The mayor's salary is right
in the middle and it's a good spot to be
and I think the CPI rider on that
current position right now would keep
you in that spot in in the right in the
middle. Everybody else has got that CPI
rider. all the other municipalities,
you're going to stay right in the
center. Basically,
>> not fall behind. If you don't do
anything, you're going to fall behind.
» He said, "Put the CPI."
>> Do the CPI. That's
>> CPI,
>> right? Just do a CPI.
>> Okay.
>> CPI.
>> I just want everybody to be treated
equally fair.
>> Sure.
>> Clerk position was the next one if you
want to talk about that.
It's kind of in the same position, you
know,
>> the CPI to it.
>> Then the treasure
>> y
>> treasure
>> position.
[snorts]
>> That's the only one that's that high. So
I guess we just could keep that one the
same because it's the highest.
>> It's up to you guys.
>> Well, it's the highest because certain
>> Well, the communities don't have a
treasur.
>> No, certain city they don't have a
treasure. It's the finance director
handles that,
>> right? Exactly.
>> But they both put their signature
online. The clerk and the treasur
and we're not home rule. I mean, that's
how it's been. Are you going to add the
CPI to the older people, too?
>> Right. Right now, those are the notes I
have for each one. There's a
recommendation. I mean, there there
hasn't been more direction, but somebody
at least noted that the $1,000 for the
city council members with the CPI, the
mayor with the CPI, the clerk with the
CPI, and the treasur. Well, that was
just my I said there nobody else spoke
up about the $1,000. I just thought it's
going to be delayed. So, I think
>> because it's going to be delayed.
>> Well, I know, but nobody else said
anything.
>> I agree. I agree. And you agree. I don't
know.
>> It's not just
>> Here's my only thought. Now, I'm going
to make a blanket statement.
I would just suggest
that council think about the increase
of $1,000
is going to probably raise
well it's going to be more than that.
It's going to be up what's
almost doubling doubling the price of
what you're making now.
Just remember
probably going to raise some
flags with some social medias and with
some newspapers.
So you may just want to think about that
for a while before we talk about it
again. Maybe in a few weeks here. That
might be a
maybe a little bit of a controversial
topic because when you look at what
everybody else is making that is going
to be a big big jump.
>> I understand but you also stated that
for the last 21 years this council have
not gotten a raise.
>> I'm not so I'm not debating that.
>> The council put many many hours and we
even put money from our pockets to
certain events to All I'm saying is
>> and anyone is welcome to run. I mean
this is an open this is not just for the
existing council. Anyone maybe this will
motivate people to run because probably
they're going to do it for the money.
Obviously for all these years some of us
been here over 20 years. We've been
doing it for the work and for the
commitment you know and some of us we
don't even miss meetings. So we are here
dedicated and if the people of Crestell
don't think we deserve that then they
can vote us out.
This is a proposed
number from Blaine,
not us. Mayor,
>> I proposed $900, not not,00.
>> Well, I'm looking at 10,800 a year.
>> Correct. So,
>> a month is to a the year change would be
>> So, that would be $100 more
>> over $4,000 increase. [clears throat] I
mean that's
>> correct
>> probably 80% increase. I mean I think if
you just want to look at numbers but um
[clears throat] you know I did a little calculation based on if we got
any increase since uh
2005 a 2% yearly increase would bring us
up to currently we'd be getting $8,624.
So that's if we got 2% which is low year
of per year increase since 2005
which hasn't happened obviously. So a
lot of this is is is you know and I
think what the research showed is just
trying to get
to what the market and what's comparable
to um municipalities around us.
>> Um
>> I agree. you know, I would throw out the
ones that are uh you know, from
Romeo and higher who are double our our
population
and um you know, drop Manuka out of
there. They're almost half of our
population. But you that's you know what
comparables are. um
we're still, you know, fair for the
amount of time that goes into what we do
and we don't get any additional
compensation. We don't get a a monthly
gas allowance. We don't get a cell
phone. Um
you know, a lot of a lot of what we're
doing is is is on our own time and and
I'm not complaining about it. We all
knew what we were signing up for. Um,
but you want if you want to have uh
attract other people to potentially want
to get involved. Um, I think you got to
be, you know,
uh, marketable compensation.
Um, you know, it's not 19
1960 anymore. It's not 2005 anymore.
um
can't find it now but the the
with rate of inflation
with uh
what our salary is now.
Hold on a second.
Sorry, I got my phone. That's a picture
I took. Um
uh
in in 2026, the salary that was in 2005
is um over $12,000
if you count inflation.
Um you know,
that's all I had to say about that. So,
if you're worried about controversy,
um you know, anyone wants to run for
office, they're always welcome.
>> Mark, can I bring up CPI? You had said
you had figured it out at 2%.
>> It's higher
>> this year.
>> No, that's low. Last year was 3%.
>> That's what I mean. It's higher. So, I I
was cons I was being conserv
>> conservative. Yeah. Yes. Yes.
>> Currently right now.
>> Glenn just looked it up for me. So far
this year it's at 2.5.
>> Joe, what was you starting to say?
[clears throat] Uh I I just was agreeing
with Mark's comments and and um uh the
concern Tina has is legitimate, but we
can look at this again in two years. You
know, you'll have time before the 2029
kicks in. Uh
you know, for Tina's concern,
>> that's if council wants to either wait
or if we're just going to do it right
now for the group of four. Um if we're
doing it just for the four then um it
would be staggered.
>> You still have to do it now because
>> still have to do it.
>> You have to have it done for the cycle.
Even if you're going to wait to pay it,
>> you have to do it for for the four.
Yeah,
>> but you you could delay it as what Scott
has recommended.
>> I understand that you can delay
everybody getting paid, but you have to
make the move now.
>> Correct. Before October 28th. No, I
understand. But I think uh what what Joe
is saying for the other four along with
the
>> clerk, treasurer, and um the mayor
position
>> that could all wait for two more years
because they still have two and a half
years. They have up to 180 days. So
council could still make an adjustment
if you wanted to,
>> but it wouldn't be uniform then.
>> Yeah, it won't be uniform.
[clears throat]
>> It would be on that staggered pattern.
>> No, it will be uniform. You got to do it
now.
Not saying you can't do it now.
>> Yeah,
>> we've bed batted this about so many
times and never done anything about it.
And now 20 21 years have gone by and
um some people up here, been up here all
most all that time, if not all that
time.
And um very dedicated in doing a lot for
this community. and we keep seem to keep
putting this off and um who knows who
will be sitting here when this goes into
effect but
>> yeah probably some of us won't be even
here so we're getting it ready for the
next people
>> get it done now
>> you've you've put a good study together
tells you're right there with the number
108 is a fair number it's very fair I'd
have no problem discussing that with
anybody none
>> well I think that's the important part
Joe is the only people we have to answer
to our our constituents. We don't have
to answer to the mayor or or city
administrator or anybody. We just have
to answer to the residents. So, if they
have questions about salary, I mean,
that's it. That's that's who we talk to.
We can explain.
>> And you know, so many people when they
find
>> We have to remember too that we keep
saying ourselves, but we we cannot give
ourselves raises. So this is for like
you said the next group of people next
election
>> cuz none of us are going to be here for
a long time or forever. I mean it's none
of us. But talking about the size I want
to agree with Nate we have to answer the
res. A lot of resident they get shocked
when they find out we only make $400.
They're like really only. I'm like yeah
only. I mean they don't believe it. So
people thought that we make a lot of
money. We don't.
>> Yeah. When I got elected years ago my
grandmother she's in Chicago. She goes,
"Oh, you won't have to fix cars no
more." I said, "That won't even buy
groceries for my family." So, [laughter]
I still fix cars. So, I think the only other thing that
wasn't clear is if we're going to push
it all. So, if that that is the
consensus to push it to 2029.
So, it would be in like voted on during
this time period, but be delayed for all
of those positions until 2029.
>> So, we can get all paid equally in the
same time.
>> Yes. All with the CPI going into effect
as of
>> well no so because not certain council
gets paid more money correct for two
more years and the others they have to
wait
» that's how Scott want it remember
>> say that again
>> Scott said it's not fair that's the four
people that they're going to get elected
to get paid
>> yeah said to vote on it now but it
starts in 209
>> correct
>> right
>> so there would be a delay
>> so we won't be getting anything if we
get elected.
>> Yes. So the four whoever gets elected
for the this next term, there's four council members that would be
delayed. They would still be on the same
schedule.
>> Correct.
>> Now, do we want to change some of the
other discussions was in regards to
having one absence for a council
meeting, one absence for a work session,
and one uh for any any committee
meeting.
>> Yep.
>> That's fine.
>> Well, committee is a committee. Well,
the committee one I think still needs to
get some weigh in from the attorney.
We're we're currently not getting paid
for it. So, you can miss them all now
and it wouldn't matter.
>> Well, this is going to be for the future
where you will be getting paid for them
because they're included in whatever the
study
>> salaries. Yeah. So, beginning in 29, I
mean, we're going to look back at what
we're going to do for the past, but I
think this ordinance is going to need to
say how many committee meetings you can
miss, if any, without a deduction.
» So, I guess we do throw a poll on each
one.
>> So, what you've proposed here is not
accurate. The schedule you're going to
hold off till 29.
>> Is that what I'm hearing? what the group
is.
>> Is there going to be a vote on that or
is it
>> again? Tonight is just discussion. We'll
have to draft it up with the attorney
>> and then there'll be more discuss.
>> We're going to actually vote on it now,
Joe, but it won't the pay won't take
effect till 29.
>> I understand that. How about if four
people in here think it should start in
27?
>> Well, they got to ask that question.
>> That's why we got a vote.
>> Okay. That's why I said, do we need to
have a vote?
>> Yeah, we need to have a vote.
>> That's what I started to say, but I got
booed again. I don't see why, you know,
why for people that could go which is traditional to do it that way.
Why we're changing it because Scott made
a comment.
>> Okay.
>> Is that what happened in 2005? Those
that were here to remember it was a
staggered
>> four got it right away. The other four
it was two years later during the next
election.
>> Right.
>> Okay.
I still think that's a fine line because
the fact that somebody somebody's pay
will change while they're sitting all
their person.
>> Exactly.
>> Right. But I guess if you're saying it's
in place before they're elected,
>> that's
>> Well, how will their pay change while
they're
>> Well, your your term would your term
would be four years. If you got elected
in 27, your pay is changing during your
term at 29.
>> The way you're the way this is being
presented.
So yes, you start at one rate and then
two years later it goes up. But that was
agreed to.
>> But it was already agreed on.
>> But what I what I'm saying though is you
know I I understand that but
that those those people technically are
getting a disadvantage because they you
know work two years of their career
their elected office getting paid less
than
their entire four-year term like the
other people.
>> Oh, I I guess I don't know which the
best way to go. I see what you're saying
[clears throat]
>> now.
>> It' be very interesting to see kind of
how the rest of the rest of the
community is doing.
>> Yeah, I thought that was going to be
part of our, you know, when we're
checking with other communities, how
they've rolled this out. I thought we
might get some feedback on that.
Yeah, mo most of them are doing the
staggered because the attorneys have felt that if you are actually
sitting in the office that you are now
getting that raise. And again, that's
why I had attorney stiff
note that's how it was done in the past
and that's how he's recommending. Not
saying that you can't do it the other
way, but that's his firm's
recommendation.
>> I didn't think of that, Nate. Thanks for
bringing that up.
>> That's why he's in finance. Yeah. Well,
there you go.
» Again, we don't need the answer tonight.
We can bring that forward and then you
guys can vote on if you want to do it
staggered. Again, the attorney can have
more information. Uh again, we can list
out which communities did do it
staggered and which ones are doing it uh
delayed if that's helpful. Uh again,
she's gathered a lot of that information
already. So, now she can just one more
slide to say which communities did it
delayed and which ones did it staggered.
I have a note of it not on me but in my
office of which how they've done it and
most of them are doing it staggered
they're not waiting.
>> So if you stagger it
for a salary
what happens to the other four that are
not getting the money.
>> They would be staying the way that we
have it right now system
>> but they wouldn't get paid for a work
session then. Correct.
>> Yeah. No, no. Our current way has uh
council meetings, the work session, and
special meetings. And then apparently
there's something about uh committee
meetings, which again the attorney's
going to have to there be two different
system there would be at that point
>> again old and yeah for two years.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean it really is exactly how it was
in 2005
>> and again the state set these rules. So
this is not like using anything. Right.
Because the past they used to hook it in
with the mayor, clerk, and treasurer.
>> I didn't think about it the way you said
it because
>> whoever gets elected, they're only going
to get two years while the other group
get
>> correct.
>> But again,
>> very good point.
>> Let's just say that the [snorts] whole
four people it the seats turn over. You
have four new people on the council.
They didn't vote for the raise that they
will get two years in, right? They they
didn't vote for it. The rules are that
you can't vote for it during your term
and that vote will have taken place two
years before they took office.
» There's arguments both ways. Again, you
guys are just going to need to decide.
We'll write it up with the attorney. And
uh I think that's all we need on this
item unless there's other comments.
>> Okay.
>> I got to buy a drink here.
Thanks, Shay.
>> Of course.
>> Thank you.
>> Nice job.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> We have nothing under engineering,
nothing under police, nothing under
public works, finance.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> Glenn.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um,
I've been doing all the research.
>> Wait a minute. I forgot economic
development, didn't I? [laughter]
>> We could skip you.
>> You could skip that. Wow. trying to get
to say anything. I was going to let
Glenn get out of here. So,
>> hang on, Glenn. I tried to get you out
of here. [laughter]
>> Sneak it in.
>> Dan,
>> you got two things.
>> Sure. Um, the first one is the plan
commission recommendation for text
amendments to chapter 15.12 sign code of
the city of Crest Hill ordinances.
Um, that's from the city here. So, this
has um been a few month history here. I
then came to a city council work session
and looked for some direction on this.
Um and then we had two meetings with
planning commission to really kind of
work through the fine details of the
sign code update. Um and that was in
July 9th we kind of did an overview
initial discussion with plane
commission. Um and then August 13th we
did the formal um public hearing. So, it
is just kind of an overview of this.
Since I've been here, since been here,
um it's been very apparent our sign code
is outdated. Um there's been signs that
we really kind of cringe at that are
just do not look good. They don't fit
very well with with some of the
improvements we're trying to make in the
community. Um but we're going to force
to approve them. Um and those can be on
existing developments or new
developments. Um so what we tried to do
kind of combing through this is update
our zoning code um for a number of
reasons clarification
um changing technologies and again just
trying to improve the overall
appearance. So I won't go through every
um every part of this because the
ordinances and your books are [snorts]
in the packet. um plan commission had
some pretty heavil he heavy discussion.
Um but just kind of some of the main
points would be that if the goal is to
improve the overall layout of the sign
code um the current sign code setup is
kind of scattered as we add added things
ad hoc throughout the year. Um it just
kind of became a mess. So, we looked at
reorganizing that into very clear
sections that would allow anybody to
kind of look at the sign code and more
easily figure out um what the rules are.
Um we added [snorts] some additional
sign design standards. Um so, basically
not allowing pole signs now and doing
some more solid base brick signs. Um
that's pretty standard practice kind of
across most communities that you'll see
around here. Romeoville, Planefield. Um
the goal is to kind of just start
improving our streetscape appearance
with with signs that are fairly
noticeable. Um when you look at our main
commercial corridors,
um kind of the trade-off is that there's
while there's some additional
requirements, um there's actually a
little more flexibility built in here
for temporary sign allowances, um for
the size. And so we really try to
balance those two things to one make
sure we're kind of improving the look of
these but also making sure we're not
getting overly restrictive and
businesses can't can advertise.
Um we kind of included some additional
definitions
um clarifying kind of our non-conforming
sign provisions
um and again just kind of cleaning up
streamlining some of the procedures
approval process. [clears throat] Um,
one thing that this code makes clear is
that we're not going to add on any
additional costs to our current
businesses or property owners. So, if
you have a non-conforming sign, you are
allowed to keep it as long as you're
utilizing it. Um, you can maintain it.
You can switch out sign panels. You can
do all of that with a sign. So, we're
not making businesses across the
community change today. But what it's
going to do is kind of over time as we
get redevelopment, as we get new
development, you'll slowly start to
change and see this happen. Um, you can
even kind of see that in Juliet now. Um
you'll still drive by and still still
see some outdated signs as you go
through there, but you start to see um
stuff with more kind of a solid base
landscaping
um reasonable sizes and not something
that's huge and massive um that you can
see from blocks and blocks away. And
again, that's what businesses tend to
want is the biggest thing. But we kind
of got to balance. We got a lot of
commercial properties, especially when
you talk about like Planefield Road,
Broadway. Um, we want to make sure every
business, every property kind of has
some equal equal requirements. So, um, I
want to thank Ottopa. She did a lot of
the initial kind of sign um, research on
this and kind of pulling together the
comparables. Um, she did a really good
job doing that. So, um I want to applaud
her and as well as plan commission which
brought us a lot of good feedback um
even allowed us to tweak some of some of
the requirements um to get a better fit
within the sign code. So, um this is
just the work session but and that's
just a general overview but I am open to
any questions obviously trying to help
move this along. So, um, and if there
any questions come up between now and
then the next council meeting as well,
feel free to send those our way.
>> As far as the non Oh, sorry. Do you have
your hand up?
>> That's okay.
>> As far as the non-conforming uses, like
what what happens if there's like storm
damage or something like that? Is that
considered they'd have to redo it as a
monument sign?
>> It is more than 50% of the value of the
replacement of the sign. Um, so if it is
completely destroyed, you would have to
build it back to the way it is. If
there's some extenduating circumstances,
they still have options like variations,
but the goal is that over time, if they
were going to spend all the money to put
the sign back, they should be putting it
back to our current standards.
>> Okay. Thank you.
As uh speaking of
variances,
um several times during this people
comment on how the commission how you
should hold firm to the new standards
and not not give any variances which
>> to make a blanket statement like that.
You can't because the essence of
variances is for unusual search
circumstances. But when you go to page
62 for variations, it says request for
variations shall comply and then
everything is lined out and it says
section 12.6, but I couldn't find that.
>> Um, I'd have to some some of it's
confusing because the way we move
sections around, so if something's lined
out, it probably just been moved to a
different section. Um,
>> well, I just want to make sure that that
section was still there for I mean, who does you can't predict what kind of
unique situation might fall upon a
business and I didn't want it just
totally ripped out of there and
>> it is not I think it got moved under the
um administrative section on it and we
can clarify that with the ordinance
we're going to be bringing. it'll have a
clean copy in there because the red line
version is very hard to read obviously
when you're replacing a large section in
moving stuff around. So, it didn't work
very well here. Um, you can still apply
for a variance. That's so we can um
double check and make sure that's still
in there and still referred there. So,
yes, you can still apply for a variance.
>> Um, the one thing I brought up to plan
commission is that and I'll bring it up
here too because
you as the elected officials will hear a
lot of the feedback from businesses. Um,
one of the tough things is kind of
changing a code to [snorts] be a little
stricter in the beginning because
somebody new coming in is going to go, I
want to be like everybody else, right?
Um, I want the tall sign. I want to
match everyone else. So, they're going
to want to naturally go, well, let me
apply for them areas. Um, that's why
we're taking this comprehensive look to
go, where do we want to go? if we want
to start changing, we need to do that
con consistently over time. Um, so
that's where I want to be careful that
we don't just have people applying for
variances to match what's existing when
we're trying to change. But there is
obviously still unique situations out
there, grade differences,
um, just unique
>> well and you'll always present your
feedback on a variance, you know, yay
nay. So that's we have that to to to
rely on. But I mean there's just strange
things. I mean, you know, if their
parcel is 30 feet below road level and
they want their sign, I mean, you just
don't know.
>> Setbacks are definitely in in heights
and stuff like that can definitely come
up. What we don't want to have is just
somebody going, well, I want to match
the previous code,
>> right?
>> Um, but we still you still always have
to have that option um to apply for
variance or apply [clears throat] for
relief. So I believe that's still
supposed to be referring back to the
section on variances in this
» I I Tina real quick
>> I think I think variations just it now
just refers back to the variance
procedure in the zoning code. So
>> everything else is that used to be in
the sign code is lined out and it simply
just kicks variations back to the zoning
code.
>> Yeah. So now that's jogging memory which
is it was repeated language from the
zoning code. I don't like doing that
because why not just refer to one
section and trying to have dup
duplicative language in two sections and
then you change one and forget to change
the other. Um so we did just point back.
>> So everything is lined out except the
one sentence that's hard to see because
it's in a sea of lineouts but it says
request for variation shall comply with
section 12.6
variations of the Crest Hill zoning
ordinance period.
>> Thanks. [snorts]
>> Thank you.
>> Good job on that.
>> Good.
>> Any other questions? All right. We'll do
a draw vote for uh approval of the
ordinance
>> approving comprehensive text amendments
chapter 15.12
>> of the Crest Hill
» City Code. Scott,
>> yes.
>> Angelo,
>> yes.
>> Claudia,
>> yes.
>> Dina,
>> yes.
>> Mark,
>> yes.
>> Nate,
>> yes.
>> Joe,
>> yes.
>> All right, we'll have it on the agenda
for EA.
And the second item I have is the plane
commission recommendation for
preliminary and final plat subdivision
special use for outdoor recreational
um plaza and public park/playground
in multiple variations requested from
the Crest Hill zoning ordinance with
respect to real property at 2590
to 2660
uh city center boulevard in Crest Hill,
Illinois. Uh this is for our city center
park uh newly named uh Crest Hill
Commons. Um this is really kind of the
zoning approvals for that park that
we've been given direction by the city
council on. Um the
goal here is again to clean up both the
plat approvals for um subdividing.
Currently we're sitting on that parcel.
So, it's currently one parcel that will
be divided into four. Um, you'll have
the city the city hall parcel and the
police department parcel. Um, you'll
have the overall kind of public plaza
parcel. Then you'll have the smaller
park district parcel that's actually
surrounded by ours. And then you kind of
have the remaining space that's that's
north of us here. So, um, the zoning
code as well as kind of our our standard
practice zoning district regulations,
which relate to all the B3 zoning
districts obviously don't take into
account. One, publiclyowned property,
two, a separate parcel that'll be a
playground that's going to be owned by a
different zoning district. Um, so
overall, just kind of a unique situation
here that our zoning code just doesn't
take into account. So that's why we kind
of have to follow our own rules and we
went through the public process to look
at um the same standards that we would
with any other variants or any other
special use um to make sure we're
following those and to get approval for
the overall plat subdivision. So, um,
similar to the other one, plan
commission reviewed this at the last
city council meeting in August, uh, and
gave a unanimous recommendation of
approval for all three of those
requests. The subdivision, the special
use, and then there's a group of
variations mostly related to that
internal lot that um, council's given
direction um, and the previous IGA with
the park district to um, transfer that
use. Obviously for them they want to
have control of over the property for
insurance reasons, grant reasons. Um
there are all applicable easements with
that plat subdivision as well. So cross
access, cross parking, um
and more that just kind of make sure
everything works correctly. So um that
is all I had. Anyone has any questions?
Otherwise, most of this has been
direction from the council already. So,
none of this is really new. It's just
making sure we follow our own rules.
>> Any questions?
>> No, I'm Deb. I have something else.
» You got a question?
>> No, I'm
ahead.
>> No, not
want to do it now.
>> Yeah.
Since we're talking about um stuff like
that, it was brought to my attention. Is
there a way um since we with the storms
we have a lot of damages and and a lot
of the resident are applying for permits
to like fix the roof or whatever. Is
there a way we can look into something
at least we can give the resident like a
break 50% or something if it's God's act
like the storm something happened? Do
you are you aware of any other
municipalities or anyone else who
>> I'm not being maybe a little more
lenient on repairs and stuff like that.
I I've seen some of that to go okay if
replacing an eight or 16 ft section of
fence where a tree went on.
[clears throat]
>> We'll count that as maintenance and just
go check to make sure it's secure.
You're not pouring any more posts or
anything. Um, I haven't seen any other
communities just flat out wa be used for
things like storm damage or anything
like that. Um, mostly because ours and
most other communities have some pretty
the the residential permit fees are
meant to really just cover some baseline
cost.
>> Okay.
>> Um, they really don't even cover the
full cost of inspection, staff time to
process permits or anything like that.
They're pretty minimal to begin with.
Um, but if there is any unique
situations where somebody's maybe just
doing a repair or something, we'll
gladly work with people to to get
repairs done. So,
>> okay,
>> if somebody's replacing, you know, an
entire fence or an entire roof, we still
need to be able to do the inspections
and stuff. And again, those permits are
usually less than 100 bucks in most
cases.
>> Okay. Thank you,
>> Dan. on this plat for the park. I meant
to ask the portion that's getting deeded
to
the other party. Is that
like This looks like lot three and lot
four both point to the same place on
this map. So, I'm a little confused.
>> Um, give me one sec.
I think lot three is our overall lot and
lot four is supposed to be the internal
>> and and is that just the playground area
or does it go all the way to the street?
>> Uh it's just the playground area. So
it's it's wholly surrounded by our
parcel.
>> Okay. Thank you. Yeah.
» Okay.
>> I don't know if you want to give
direction on that one. That'll be on the
>> for number two
>> for the September 8th
>> for the plan commission recommendation
for preliminary final plaza subdivision
special use for outdoor recreational
plaza public playground park multiple
variations requested from the Crest
zoning ordinance with respect to real
property located at 20590 to 20660 city
center boulevard and Crest Hill. The
application of the city of Crest Hill.
>> Joe,
>> yes.
>> Nate, yes. Mark [snorts] Tina, yes.
Claudia Dell.
>> Yes.
>> Angelo.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. That'll be all on September 8th
also.
>> Sounds good. That's all I have unless
there's any questions.
>> No questions. All right. Moving on to
finance department. Glenn,
>> save the best for last, right?
>> Anyway, um
>> he said that. Yeah, this is a um
discussion for a draft of residential
utility billing assistance pilot
program. I'd say that actually most of
this is done by Blaine. He he designed
most of the stuff. So Bla, if you want
to talk about this, this is
definitely was a joint joint effort. I
know uh between finance uh we talked
with public works uh and uh with our
attorney. Um, as the city continues to
get more and more residents reaching out
to city council members as well as uh
requesting um requests through our
utility building staff uh for a payment
plan. Um I felt it was time that this
item get uh brought before council. Um
the city [clears throat] currently does
not have a payment plan option. Uh as
such uh staff started reviewing how
other communities uh have addressed um
some of these more common themes uh that
were occurring. Staff from um again from
finance and administration along with
public works and also conversations with
our city attorney met several times over
the past few weeks and uh provided this
initial draft pilot program for
discussion this evening. Um staff uh
also talked with or met with several
residents as well as um some u council
members um that had again council
members that were noted by their uh
constituents in their various wards um
that had residents that experienced
higher bills for various reasons. um
some of those uh residents, well
actually all of those residents have
requested a waiver of the late fee
component um and to be placed on a
payment plan. Um so tonight uh for for
discussion um I wasn't sure if some of
them were going to show up or not, but
uh I promised all of those individuals
that I'd provide them with an update on
council's discussion this evening. And
then there is uh attached in council's
packet on page I want to say it starts
on 130 a a draft residential utility
billing assistance pilot program. Uh
again um what is being recommended is a
short period uh time to do this pilot.
It would be effective upon adoption
through the end of this calendar year.
So up to December 31st. Um there are two
components. [snorts and clears throat]
Um, one section is a one-time late fee
waiver and the other is um the payment
uh plan. So, um I know it's a couple
pages uh here for for council. Um and
again, if you'd like I could walk
through or Glenn could walk through kind
of a reader digest version of the
policy. But I do believe, you know,
since the community has been, you know,
in place since 1960, that having some
sort of a a payment plan option that
staff would be able to objectively
uh implement would be very h helpful.
Um, again, residents have from various
wards have reached out to several of you
as well as now had conversations with
myself and several other uh you with the
finance director and other staff
members. So, um, we did spend a little
bit of time drafting, uh, this two-part,
um, pilot,
um, for tonight's discussion.
>> If you don't mind, just give a brief
little overview of, uh, the part one,
which is what's going to be, uh,
probably used utilized most often by the
residents. And this is just the onetime
uh, late fee waiver. uh is basically a
percentage of your your water usage uh
for for not having your bill paid up on
time and uh u most place most people do
this and the thing with is a one-time
thing. So the chronic late payers won't
be able to use it. We we track that now
uh you know if we're going to pay
somebody we're going to have a way to do
this. Now there's there's two different
types of customers you have. You have
your residents who actually own their
place and then you have um tenants who
rent from a landlord. The landlord is
ultimately responsible for the water
bill. So, it's really their account. So,
uh you know, it's important we keep in
touch with them as well and let them
know what's happening so they know their tenants are late pays because
they're they're the ones on the hooks
for that. So, again, it'll be a one-time
thing and uh that's what's going to be
used most often. The second part of the
uh this plan is to come up with a
utility payment plan should they have a
an unfortunate financial hiccup in their
uh daily stuff. You know, these can be
somewhat large. [snorts]
Um and what we're probably talking about
is the continuous flow issues. And um uh
a lot of people are unaware of that
until we make the call and say, "Hey,
you got a continuous flow." They're
like, "Nothing's running." I'm like,
"Check everything because we got flow
coming." And then they'll eventually
find it and say, "Oh, yeah, thanks." You
know, whatever. But then they still have
that enormous bill they have to get rid
of. Now, we don't like to, you know, I
don't want people to get um used to
paying this because their expenses
still, you know, their monthly bill
still happens every month, you know, or
every other month now because we're on a
bimonthly cycle. But, uh, so you know,
I'm trying to keep that as short as
possible because they're they're still
gonna have to make their current
payments and they got to make current on
that. So, if we give them a payment plan
for their past due balance, this will
only be a for past due balance. So,
let's say you had a bill that was
exorbitant. You had $1,000 worth of
water bills and your bill is normally
like 400 bucks. you're like, "Okay,
well, I'll take that that past due
balance and I'll put we'll schedule a
plan out there and say this is what your
payments are going to be. You got to
make so much on this date, so much on this date." And we
want to make that as short as possible
because again, they still got bills
coming. And then uh they there's a
second part of that component, which is
their current bill. They have to make
current with that. So part of this
program is not only do you have to make
those scheduled payments for your past
due balance on time, but you have to
remain current with their current usage
going forward. So again, that's what
we're saying about the regular thing.
Any missed payments, whether it's part
of the scheduled payments that they have
or part of their current payment, if
they miss that, they're coming off the
program. Everything becomes due, water
shut offs, everything can happen just
like it normally would. But we're trying
to give them some leeway to help catch
up for that unfortunate incident they
had. But that that's what this is
designed for. And like I said, we worked
with Blaine, we worked with Mike, um uh
Regina was a good part of this. And uh
everybody put their ideas together to
come up with something that was [snorts]
uh helps the the residents while trying
to keep it minimal. We we don't want
them to get useless or have a long-term
plan out there because they won't be
able to keep up on their water bills and
that and that's the current issue. They
have to remain current on that and
that's the whole thing. And the final
thing I want to note on the last page I
do uh talk about uh reporting back to
council. So at the conclusion of this
pilot program, staff shall prepare a
report. So just after the end of the
year, we'd prepare a report that would
say this is the number of late waiver
fees that were requested. These were the
number that were approved. These are the
late the number of payment plans that
were approved. Um, and these were the
amounts, any default rates, and then any
other recommendations for modification
and that sort of stuff. So, this is a
very tight pilot, only a couple months
because we're on a a twomonth cycle. Um,
but I do believe that this overall
twoprong approach um will help out our
residents. So, I'm hopeful that that
council will at least give some good
feedback tonight and then um you know,
we could bring this forward quite soon
for council to uh consider and vote on.
>> I just have one question about um it
shall automatically expire in December
31st, 2026.
>> Yep.
Unless council takes action. So,
>> I know, but maybe it would be better to
get a report a little earlier so we
could decide. I mean, if we're going to
get the report after we the timeline,
what are we going to be judging our
extension?
>> Yeah, I think I would like to say that
that's when the last enrollment in
there. Their payment plans might
actually go further than that. So,
there's still going to be people
probably on the program is should it
have these payment plans that take them
out, you know, because
>> No, no, no. What I'm saying is
>> at the conclusion of the pilot program,
staff shall prepare a report to the city
council summarizing. Well, the
conclusion is December 31st unless we
vote on it. But without knowledge about
how it went or what had happened, how
are we going to vote on it prior to
December 31st is all I'm saying is is it
possible to get a report?
>> Yes.
>> Sooner than that, so we have something
to vote on if we want to extend it.
>> I totally agree. And we should give you
progress reports from once you you allow
us to start this program. We can give
you, you know, bi-weekly reports if you
want that. That's fine.
>> Yeah, that would be wonderful. That
would be great.
>> Because if we're allowing a payment
program that's up to a 12 months,
really can't weigh in on how effective
the program is until 12 months.
>> We really we really don't expect to hit
that in this period of time. Actually,
if you're lucky, you may have one of
those per year because of the levels.
It's just
>> I don't know. I mean, because right now
what what there is no
we're expecting full payment. There's no
>> lean.
We know approximately how many um people
hit these these problems. So like
currently right now I had a um a
commercial account that hit it and they had a run on for two and a half
months and it was $3,400.
So uh in one [clears throat] one cycle
and then another $1,600. But that's a
commercial account. Most of them, you
know, and they had he has five meters.
So it was it was unusual. So that's what
I'm saying. when you get those, they're
going to be unusual accounts like we did
in January. It's like, are you kidding
me? That never happens.
>> But this pilot program will only be um
available to residential.
>> Correct. Correct. This is a residential
program. And Mark, I'd also note the
first three residents that I talked to
and I asked them what would they be able
to pay. Most of them are able to pay
right now in in that three-month window.
They realize that they have these
upcoming normal bills that they'll have
as well for for usage. So most of them I
mean one even said I'm working overtime
right now so I'm really hoping that
council does approve a payment plan
because she's trying to get as much
money as she can and and that waiver um
would also help her so she's not getting
>> penalized for penalized even further and
so that's why the waiver in talking even
with these different residents um we
adjusted kind of our strategy to have a
two-part component so the waiver of the
fee along with the payment plan option
bless
We're hopeful that most of them will
probably be in that threemonth window.
Again, during the cost, it could have
some that go a little bit longer,
>> but if we implement this soon, we would
then have October, November, and
December. And so, if we have a good, I
guess, test for council to at least
consider.
>> And let me understand that um that the
payments that we're working on are not
monthly payments. These the residents
here are trying to catch up. They're
paying weekly. So, that's what I'm
saying. It's a it's a quick turnaround.
they want to get back on track as well.
>> No, I'm I'm in full support of a um
billing assistance program. Um cuz
believe me, I hear a lot about water
bills and how high they are and and it's it's you know,
>> yeah,
>> it's it's hard for a lot of people. So,
um I'm I'm definitely in support of this
program. I'm just wondering if you know
what are we going to have two billing
cycles before December 31st.
>> Correct.
>> I mean, it's it's kind of hard to get a
consensus of how any program is going
when you have two
data points. I mean, I would I'd be in
support of a little bit longer
a little longer. That's fine. We can do
that. That's fine. you know, there's not
going to, you know, depending on how we
present this as an available option to
residents, there's always people that
are going to say, "I didn't know it was
available." And unless, and if they
missed it by two months, now they're,
you know, if they hear about it, they
could still get into it and still get,
you know, even if it's into the first
one or two billing cycles of the
following year.
>> Yeah. My my true hope actually is that
the pilot is successful and that we are
able to place it as a program.
>> Yeah.
>> Um and so to me looking at two billing
cycles would allow us to to not have a
mad rush I guess.
>> Um if we you know but if you want to
extend it maybe another we're on a
twomon schedule. So if you want to
extend it maybe another two months that
would get basically six months instead
of the fourmonth window. Um
but again my hope is to bring as the
pilot would expire to bring back these
reports and again as was noted you know
having monthly reports to council um you
know so that there's not just this this
deadline and then hopefully say we feel
that this is a good program to have
again as we've researched with other
communities they have some sort of staff
allowed kind of discretion to to put
people on payment plans or to do that
forgiveness one time. Most of the
communities that do it is a one-time
forgiveness for the fee.
>> Okay. Um, another question I had or I
guess it's more of a comment on
regarding the onetime late fee waiver.
Um,
number three under conditions where it
says the the customer customer must
verbally request the waiver with a
written request preferred. I think the
written request is has to be
>> I agree. has to be gotten it because
verbally, you know,
>> I understand
>> people don't remember. Someone told
someone this, they don't remember that
way. You know, you got to have something
in writing to say they they got their
one time waiver on this date and it goes
in the file.
>> I'm in completing [clears throat]
there was more.
>> That's the one comment I have on that.
>> Yeah. The the challenge with that again
talking with our our utility billing
staff are the majority are phone calls
and so we're not
getting a written document
>> and we don't have emails for everybody.
That's correct. That's one of the
problems. and and that I've been I've
been working with my staff because this
is my issue because I'm right on on
board with you right there and I want my
staff to get something in writing
because I'm I'm fearful of the the time
somebody comes back a year or two later
and says, you know, hey, I never asked
for that. Who said that? I didn't do
that. So, that's why I want to get that.
I do want to get that um in writing,
whether it's via email or something like
that or they come down and just give us
something that says this is what it is.
I just want something attached to the
file. Well, I I think worst case
scenario, you have the employee document
who they spoke with and what day and
notate their account with that
information.
>> That was that's what's in there. And
then that's why we wrote, again, this is
a pilot to say what is preferred. So, if
we can get the individual's uh email
address and then we could send them
confirmation that also can be a copy to
the file. Again, these are we've this is
a brand new pilot program. We've never
done this. So, we're going to learn a
few things as staff interact with with the the customers.
>> My hope is
>> question um go ahead.
>> My hope is that because we're giving
them a break on the money, they're going
to be willing to come down and either
give us something in writing to avoid
that fee. So, I I think it's it's
incentive for them to do it
>> and they could email it to you
>> or an email, whatever. Yeah. Just as
long as they give us something to write.
>> No, I'm just saying they don't have to
leave their house if they email it to
you.
>> That's correct. Yeah.
On page 131 on the bottom says approval
authority uh outstanding balance
approval authority from 100 to,000
utility bill uh billing supervisor and
then it goes to finance assistant and
then console after five. Is there a way
that you can be on on all these
especially the utility one as well? Um
that the finance manager will make that
decision as well.
>> Yeah, sure.
>> I'm sorry. Too bad.
>> Yes, I can do that. I can do that.
That's fine. I don't have a problem with
that. Trying to keep it low, but yeah,
$1,000 isn't a lot and it's going to be
very minimal, but yes, I can do that.
It's fine. I like I said, I'm there all
the time. I like to work.
>> No, I know you are, but I'm just
>> So, but yeah,
>> to have everybody.
>> Yep. I agree. [clears throat]
>> Um, I just got a couple concerns. Um,
one one uh with the waiver of the fee,
couldn't we isn't it possible that we
that can be put on the bill like the fee
late fee waiver
so that we wouldn't have to get caught
up with all this something in writing or
whatever. We have a the bill the bill
itself would specify that the fee was
waved.
>> Yes. Well, that's the whole thing. um in
discussing with this, you know, while
they can request the make the request
ahead of time, I I can't wave the fee
till it actually hits the bill because I
want to show that there was a fee on
here, how much the fee was and how much
we're waving. I do want that in there.
Uh so we can keep that on balance as to
what happened because again, this is a
one-time lifetime, you know, Crest Hill
resident program. So you you take it now
and you have another bro you another
issue two years from now like you don't
get it anymore. So that's the whole
thing. So uh well at least that's how
it's designed now.
>> But Derel I think what what you're
asking uh I think in our upcoming bills
we'd be able to put something in there
or provide our email address so that
they would just have to email us to to
say so they would be able to check off
basically that they'd like that waiver
waved so we'd have something in writing.
That's what you're
>> saying. I think what he's mean what he
meant is something that will stay on the
water bill that
>> the late fee was waved.
>> That's a good idea.
Let me see if I can
I got to see if I have permanently that
it it was
>> it will be on but that's what he meant.
>> Okay,
>> that's a good idea.
If I got space on the bill, I'll squeeze
that on there. But it's it's all for how
much space I have. And and my second
concern is the period of time we looking
to recapture the the funds. Um
is it h how is that going to be
structured? Because I know everybody may
not make the same type of money, you
know. um h how do we make it where
we're not putting the person in a
financial bind even though they're
already late?
>> So, we're going to be working with the residents um individually on that.
There's no set mod on that because
everybody has different income and
different, you know, uh flexibilities in
their financial thing. I can't say
oneizefits-all kind of thing. So, we're
going to work with them because we don't
want to see them fail. We want we want
to get them back online, back in the
program because again, they didn't most
of them didn't do anything to get them
to this spot. Something happened to them
and we want to get them adjusted. That's
the whole idea of trying to do this
program is we want to get them happy
again on the program, paying
appropriately, and that that's the whole
idea. And if we go to monthly billing
like Bls to do, that'll help out a lot.
>> Yeah. And Derel, you might remember for
the resident that we met with. Instead
of me suggesting a dollar amount, it was
asking her, "What do you think you could
can what payment plan can you afford?"
And she's like, "All right." She thought
about it. By the end of the meeting, she
gave us a number that she felt every two
weeks that she could pay. So to me,
that's where, you know, Glenn and his
staff would say, "Okay, instead of we
need a $100 every, you know, every two
weeks, we need to work with that
resident because they know what their
budget is, and what could they, we don't
want to put them in any worse shape. We
want them to come up with that number,
>> right?
>> But their repayment has to occur within
the 12-month period."
>> Oh, most definitely. I mean, they they
can't we're not going to work with them
to the extent that they're they're
having any um um
any amount forgiven.
>> Correct. The goal is again not to go to
collections or not to shut them off. Uh
and if they do happen to come back with
a payment plan that's over the 12
months, that's where it would go to
council if that's what they chose to
request. So, if somebody's on the high
end, let's just say near, you know, the
5,000 mark, they come in at $4,800
because they had a huge uh constant
flow, um, you know, and they say, "Look,
I, you know, I I there's not a a way I
can get this in the 12 months. I I need
18 months." I'm going to say, "Well,
based on our pilot policy, I I my
position doesn't have the authority. I
need to bring that to council. Would you
like to bring it to council?" So, um,
our, you know, and that's where Glenn is
saying most likely we've been able to
catch most of these when they're in that
thousand to maybe $2,500, uh, realm. So,
hopefully we can get them on payment
plans. Again, that's only going to be
easier once it's on monthly bill cycles
so that we catch it quicker so that the
amounts are lower. Um, but our hope
again, and that's why we structured it
for 12 months or up to 12 months, our
hope is really within a couple months.
>> Yes. but not to go over 12 months.
That's why this policy says not more
than 12 months unless it's going to come
to council.
>> Yeah. The target is to keep most of them
under three months
» ideally.
>> So I think the sooner the better we
start this program.
>> Well, we'll be happy to bring it to
council for this upcoming meeting and
you guys
>> could could vote for it or any
adjustments we could do do that put
together by September 8th.
>> We Yes.
Everybody in favor of that council?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Let's have it ready for September
8th because I know there's a lot of
>> a lot of people out there waiting in
line.
>> Okay. Anything else?
>> All right. Any questions of finance? All
right. Uh public comment. Anyone like to
address any council? Please step to the
podium. Say your name for the record.
Address is optional. Let the record show
no one has approached the podium. Mike,
is there a need for an executive
session?
>> There is not. I had a question for
Blaine before you adjourn. May I
>> go ahead?
>> Um, is tonight's meeting being um
recorded and or um streamed, televised
live?
>> It is being televised live through our
uh AT&T and Comcast. It's uh being uh so
it's recorded and then will be posted on
the uh city's YouTube page.
>> Okay. Is there a problem with streaming
live to YouTube? Um there there is
currently with us using the microphones
and our our equipment. We've still not
figured out um what that specific issue
is. It does get disconnect either our
microphones or the live stream. We're
not sure why, but um
>> I thought that was kind of the goal
because I thought we did have it.
>> We did we did have it live for one work
session and one for for one council
meeting. there was a power outage. Um,
and we're not sure if that damaged a
portion of equipment that is not
allowing it to happen now, but um, I
know staff has been continuing to work
on it. U, we're told that the new
equipment would allow us to live stream,
broadcast, and record all at the same
time. Again, we've not gotten that RFP
out yet to get vendors to do that. U,
but we're we're working on that.
>> Okay. I I I think that's important to be
able to get live on uh, YouTube. But uh
I also noticed that the August 10th work
session two weeks ago um is not on
YouTube. Is there any do we know what
happened there?
>> Yeah, it w it was one of the things that
was impacted um just in our process of
recording. Um there's a couple of
basically we have to set everything just so it did broadcast um that
meeting. um the recording failed for
whatever reason. We did everything we
could to both check the computers, the
discs, the the other things to capture
that. Um one thing that we could do um
based on the fact that we did get audio
recording is to still post a record of
the the audio recording. It's not a the
video that we would want, but failing a
recording, we would we would put that
together to post. Okay. Who's handling
audio video responsibilities now in the
city?
>> Yeah, it's it's been a combination of
effort between myself and um and so but
I went through extensive training. I've sat through um we worked with Bill
I worked with Bill for at least an hour
um post that August 10th meeting to
attempt to see if I could one recover
anything and also to ensure that
everything is being um put together in
the right order the right way. Um I've
since put together you know training
materials. We have both video and and
screenshotted
information to at least keep our
equipment running as it has been running
until we get the
you know the new new things in place.
>> Okay. You mentioned tonight's meeting is
live on AT&T and Comcast.
>> Yes.
>> Is it also being recorded so it will be
uploaded to YouTube?
>> Yes. I I when I took a break from here,
I was back there
>> um again taking an opportunity to check
and and make sure we're we're capturing
what we're capturing. Um and once we
conclude the meeting, I'll be checking
it again. We'll we'll make sure we got a
recording tonight still.
>> So, will it be up available to view
tonight?
>> I don't know if it will be tonight. Um
sometimes it does take a little bit of
time to um convert the video in order to get it to do it. we can start that
process and then have it ready early
tomorrow. Okay.
>> Um that would be the my first goal to do
that. But um just because our meetings
run long, I'm not sure how long it'll
take.
>> Yeah. Typically from from Bill's
training, the length of time for the
meeting. So if it's three hours, it
takes three hours for the the the tape
to encode so that we could upload it to
YouTube. So um even if we concluded now,
it wouldn't be until at least tomorrow.
So
>> I have requested uh via email like to
put this on the agenda so we can figure
uh a solution a permanent solution where
>> I mean the HR should not be doing the
stuff. I mean right now she's saving us
but it just seems like a
>> consulate uh un unfortunately with uh
again even getting the answers so that
council could uh discuss that. Um, you
know, we we plan on bringing this for
council as soon as we have that. I know
we've uh been working on a request for
proposal so that we could have
information for council to discuss. Um,
again, Ashley is HR, but she's also our
assistant administrator and that's
typically for most assistants. Um, it is
a typical area um in the audio video.
That's what I did when I was an
assistant in two other communities. So,
um, I've been helping and then we've
also pulled in other staff members. So
we have the planning commission. So AIFA
has been uh working along with Dan uh
and other staff members to learn our
current system. Again unfortunately our
system has a [snorts] lot of components
that are already at the end of life. And
so when we had that power disruption um
it did cause quite a quite a problem
>> but we need people that they know I you
know the IT and the professional video
recording all that. Yeah.
>> You know that you know it's not her job.
you know, she's already taking so many
roles on top of running a planning
commission, roll calling, all that,
which was the clerk. They used to do
that.
>> So now she's doing video and she's a
planner. So we keep adding all these
jobs on certain people that going to get
burned out. Yeah. You know,
>> don't disagree. And that's why through
the request for proposal, we're looking
for companies that will also provide
service for the city so that we'd have a
professional uh ability to have uh um a
company to do that. I I've also been in
touch with uh um our local university
and once our system is upgraded to the
modern equipment, they have told us that
they could have students that actually
could could assist once we have our
equipment running and that could be a
learning um component for them to get
future jobs. So we could have companies
um as well as uh other avenues to ensure
that we are covered for recordings in
here as well as uh for events.
>> Okay.
Meeting is adjourned at 10:38 p.m.
Thank you and good evening.