[0:07] So, I will begin with the mayor's
[0:09] agenda. I do not have any agenda items.
[0:12] If there's any questions, I'll try to
[0:13] answer them. Moving on to the city
[0:16] clerk, Chris. Anything?
[0:17] >> Nothing tonight.
[0:18] >> To our city treasurer, Jamie.
[0:19] >> Nothing tonight.
[0:21] >> Okay. Going on to our city
[0:23] administrator, Blaine Wing. Blaine.
[0:26] >> Thank you, mayor. Uh tonight, um Ashley,
[0:29] our assistant, uh as well as our labor
[0:31] attorney, are going to be walking
[0:32] through u the second part of our updates
[0:36] in regards to our personnel manual.
[0:43] So, let's see.
[0:46] Plugged in, but I'm not sure how to Here
[0:49] we go.
[0:51] >> Micro microphone. Yeah,
[0:54] >> I'll I'll make sure I'm speaking into
[0:56] the microphone. So, um good evening. Um
[1:00] as Blaine had had um introduced me, uh
[1:07] essentially we are picking up where we
[1:09] left off uh about a month ago at the
[1:12] July 27th work session. Um the first
[1:16] batch of proposed policy updates for our
[1:19] employee handbook included all of the specifically the legal
[1:24] recommendations. So the things that had
[1:26] changed in our state and federal codes
[1:29] that would be advisable to you know
[1:32] adopt in writing within our codes. Um,
[1:35] as we had further discussion that
[1:37] evening, um, and we also let you guys
[1:40] know that we planned to return to city
[1:43] council for, um, some policy direction
[1:47] on specific to some policy updates for
[1:51] the handbook. Um what we have in the
[1:54] memo uh I just very briefly summarized
[1:59] and I'll be able to expand on anything
[2:02] that uh council members would like me to expand on. But essentially we have 10
[2:09] proposed recommendations uh both uh
[2:12] staff driven as well as things that our
[2:16] council members had advised we we take a
[2:19] look at. So I will just list them and we can dive into any detail as you
[2:24] like. Um we are proposing introduction
[2:28] of a high deductible health plan and a
[2:31] health savings account. Uh this is
[2:34] broadly a tool used by uh many
[2:37] municipalities as well as private sector
[2:40] um groups to help employees pay for
[2:44] health insurance costs um and health
[2:47] expenses. uh high deductible plan allows
[2:51] uh for just that uh using a higher
[2:54] deductible in order to reduce the
[2:56] premium cost uh paid upfront. So it also
[3:00] with the health savings account would
[3:02] allow employees to put money aside to
[3:05] help them pay for some of those
[3:07] expenses.
[3:09] So, um, we do need to to kind of have an
[3:13] idea whether we'd like to introduce this
[3:15] before our health insurance renews. Um,
[3:19] that's coming up in January. And, um, we
[3:23] just want to see kind of the appetite
[3:25] for whether this is something that uh,
[3:28] we'd want to add to our benefits. This
[3:30] is at the employees expense, but it's
[3:32] just something that we would offer if
[3:33] anybody wanted to use it.
[3:36] We have an insurance opt out benefit.
[3:39] Again, this is something that would be a
[3:40] voluntary choice for employees who opt
[3:45] out of city provided health insurance.
[3:48] So often uh there will be a cash
[3:50] incentive that goes along with this opt
[3:53] out that um you know the city would save
[3:57] on future expenditures or and premium
[4:02] costs if if our employees aren't
[4:04] choosing it. if they have an
[4:05] alternative. Um, and if we were to offer
[4:08] any kind of benefit or cash stipend, it
[4:11] would still um, you know, the city's
[4:14] savings would be far greater. Our plans
[4:17] are between $8,000 to $34,000
[4:21] right now. And so, if just a couple of
[4:24] people would opt out of of our insurance
[4:27] voluntarily, uh, there may be some
[4:29] savings there.
[4:31] uh we have listed a pilot for a limited
[4:34] flexible work program. This would just
[4:37] be a very small increment of uh
[4:40] managerial level employees specifically
[4:44] the the employees listed are in the memo
[4:47] um allowing by permission occasional um
[4:52] hours worked in another location.
[4:56] The
[4:56] >> Can you give us more details on that?
[4:59] >> Yeah. What is the purpose of that?
[5:01] >> And before you start, Sure. Um, can we
[5:04] have our attorney sit on a table instead
[5:06] of she's running on her?
[5:11] » Okay. Um, so this would be very narrowly
[5:16] tailored. Um, it would be for our uh
[5:19] salaried FLSA exempt employees. Um, we
[5:24] listed them out in the memo.
[5:28] The purpose for this is basically uh we
[5:32] have technology that allows us to um do
[5:36] work. We we already perform work um on
[5:39] behalf of the city at times. We make
[5:42] sure that agenda items are are being
[5:44] completed. We have other
[5:46] responsibilities. Um and this would
[5:49] essentially um
[5:52] provide greater guidance and
[5:54] accountability for our our managerial
[5:57] staff or supervisory staff that might
[6:00] need a little bit of flexibility. So,
[6:03] say for instance, I keep using this
[6:05] example of, you know, if you're at a
[6:07] training that is, you know, an hour from
[6:11] here and the training ends at 3:00 in
[6:14] the afternoon or 3:30 p.m. Well, is the
[6:17] expectation that the supervisor
[6:20] goes from, you know, wherever it is they
[6:22] travel the hour and they spend the last
[6:24] 20 minutes here or would it be advisable
[6:27] for them to take that time in place to finish doing the workday as long as
[6:33] they remain accessible by phone, by
[6:36] email? There's things that are going to
[6:38] be showing productivity essentially. So,
[6:42] it would be a very limited experience.
[6:45] Um but it it would be a policy that we
[6:48] would set in place uh for just a short
[6:50] period of time. We're we're wanting to
[6:53] try this um through April next year. Um
[6:56] it would have to be approved by a
[6:58] supervisor ahead of this work occurring
[7:01] and then we would have to also you know
[7:04] have an idea of what the work is that
[7:06] would be performed. So
[7:09] >> now you making reference to salaried
[7:11] employees or hourly employees
[7:13] >> just just the salaried employees. The
[7:16] ones listed specifically
[7:19] would be uh proposed through this would
[7:22] be the police chief, deputy chiefs,
[7:25] finance director, community and economic
[7:27] development director, a building
[7:29] commissioner, public works director,
[7:32] public works superintendent, the
[7:34] engineering director, uh the HR
[7:36] assistant administrator, and the city
[7:39] administrator. Um it received mayor
[7:42] approval.
[7:42] >> Okay. Now being salary, don't they
[7:44] already have that flexibility because
[7:47] they
[7:48] >> you know they're salary. So they there
[7:51] may be times when they have to uh come
[7:55] in under circumstances of not normal
[7:58] work hours. So
[7:59] >> correct.
[8:00] >> Wouldn't that flexibility is already in there in their salary? it's it is um
[8:09] it's not explicitly put into our
[8:11] handbook as a policy. So this would we
[8:15] would be looking for well while well
[8:16] while there is this expectation that as
[8:18] salaried employees we should be
[8:20] performing that work making sure that
[8:22] we're accountable for the things that
[8:23] we're responsible for. Um this would put
[8:26] in place a policy to um for certain
[8:30] exceptions. If you are have a medical
[8:32] appointment at, you know, unexpectedly
[8:34] at at 10:00 in the morning, is it
[8:37] reasonable for us to allow our
[8:39] supervisors to spend time away from the
[8:42] office working for those couple of hours
[8:44] and then returning after that
[8:46] appointment? Right? It it seems logical
[8:49] that we would do that anyway, but it's
[8:51] not explicitly put into a policy. And we
[8:53] thought it might be helpful for us to um
[8:57] put one in place to also reduce you know
[9:00] unnecessary use of of uh additional paid
[9:04] leave you know paid leave if we can
[9:07] conduct the work.
[9:08] >> Isn't that what they have their
[9:12] >> time for sick time?
[9:15] >> Yes. So
[9:17] >> I mean I asked the question in the
[9:18] beginning like what is the purpose? So
[9:20] far I don't see a logic answer.
[9:23] >> Okay.
[9:23] >> To help.
[9:25] >> Yes. Thank you. So this is definitely a
[9:28] policy decision of the city council
[9:30] that's being asked to be considered for
[9:32] introduction for those exempt employees
[9:35] that hold more of a managerial position
[9:38] within the city. Um with respect to
[9:41] whether they're FLSA exempt, that that
[9:44] is definitely a good point. But what
[9:46] that means is regardless of whether they
[9:48] work 40 hours, 35 hours, 45 hours,
[9:52] they'll get paid the same salary. This
[9:54] is a policy that would address allowing
[9:57] these employees to work outside of the
[10:00] city hall building, their their office
[10:03] building here. So on days when maybe
[10:06] they have a training or they have some
[10:08] other personal appointment instead of
[10:11] having to take sick time, they would be
[10:14] able to work during that period of time
[10:16] as long as they were set up remotely to
[10:18] be able to do so. So it allows the
[10:20] employees an opportunity to you know be
[10:23] more productive if if they can in a in a
[10:26] remote environment um to if if the
[10:30] council decides that this is the
[10:32] direction they would like to go on a
[10:34] temporary basis for this trial period to
[10:37] see how it works. um policy a policy
[10:40] would have to be established because
[10:42] there are things that have to be put
[10:44] into place like rules regarding how they
[10:47] treat the equipment and you know that
[10:49] they have to work in an environment
[10:51] that's still confidential in nature.
[10:53] Those kinds of things would have to be
[10:55] established so that the employees that
[10:58] could work work remotely are properly
[11:00] guided so that you know they protect the
[11:03] they can work efficiently they protect
[11:04] the interests of the city and um you
[11:08] know and they have the right guidance to
[11:10] do so.
[11:11] >> So are you saying that right now the way
[11:14] the contract is written and the way the
[11:16] policies are they're not allowed to work
[11:19] from home? So we have past finance
[11:23] director, we have public work director
[11:25] which I can say their names right now.
[11:26] For a fact I knew that they used to work
[11:29] from home. They people that they're
[11:32] responsible they take their laptop with
[11:33] them and they work I have people they
[11:35] work in the weekend. They used to work
[11:37] on the weekend because their salary it
[11:39] doesn't matter. It's not overtime. It's
[11:41] they're not clocking in clocking out. to
[11:43] me. If I'm a manager or director or
[11:45] whoever I am, if I am responsible, I
[11:47] have a task, I'm going to finish it no
[11:49] matter what. So, and not everyone comes
[11:52] here on time. I mean, we know that
[11:56] nobody comes here at 8:00 a.m. Exactly.
[11:58] So, what you're saying is on the topic,
[12:01] they don't come on time and they leave
[12:02] early and they take lunch, long breaks
[12:05] because that's what it happens that we
[12:09] have to, you know, pass a policy. So on
[12:12] top of because they have a doctor
[12:13] appointment or because they're in
[12:14] training or how many times a year
[12:16] they're going to training and that day
[12:18] they can just go home after that. I mean
[12:20] for an hour who wants to come here for
[12:22] an hour. I understand that part but what
[12:24] is there to say in their contract that
[12:27] they need to go work from home or they cannot work from home. I mean that
[12:32] doesn't make sense to me. I I feel like
[12:34] we're opening can of worm of problems
[12:36] right now because how you supervise
[12:38] that, you know, and don't tell me Blaine
[12:41] or you you're going to give them
[12:43] permission. It's just going to get out
[12:44] of hand. We've we've done it in the past
[12:46] and you know I can't address that. That
[12:49] went out of hand especially through co
[12:51] when people were working at home
[12:53] supposedly and they were not working at
[12:55] home. Um
[12:58] >> I just don't see it. the the instance
[13:01] she's referring to is the previous HR
[13:05] director or whatever title was we were
[13:08] allowing her to work remotely from home
[13:10] because it was co and she was at the
[13:13] jewel cleaning
[13:15] >> shopping carts
[13:17] >> okay so not only was she not at home
[13:20] doing her work for the city but she was
[13:22] exposing herself to the co which we had
[13:25] said you could stay home and work so so
[13:28] and this she wasn't the only one that
[13:30] did this. But that was the like in my
[13:32] history of ridiculousness, that's
[13:34] probably my number one that somebody
[13:37] would literally be cleaning shopping
[13:39] carts at the jewel during CO when
[13:42] they're getting paid to stay home and
[13:44] safe. It left a very very very sour
[13:48] taste
[13:50] >> in people's mouths and justifiably so.
[13:52] And who was who was responsible for her
[13:55] and who was monitoring her?
[13:58] And and that's exactly the reason that
[14:00] we're not proposing this [clears throat]
[14:01] as a as a regular schedule of any kind.
[14:05] There's no expectation of this always
[14:09] being approved. We, you know, are
[14:13] understanding and recognizing that
[14:15] there's a a retention factor of saying,
[14:19] you know, having having an hour or two
[14:22] of flexibility, right? Yes, we could use
[14:24] the paid time that is is provided to um
[14:29] to these supervisors. Ultimately, the
[14:32] work will get done because that is the
[14:34] quality of employees that we have.
[14:36] >> Hold on. Excuse me one second.
[14:39] >> Yeah,
[14:40] >> microphone.
[14:41] >> No, I don't think so.
[14:45] >> Are you back?
[14:49] » Not yet.
[14:52] » Hello. Okay,
[14:53] >> there we go.
[14:55] >> Okay.
[14:58] » Do you need to repeat anything, Chris?
[15:01] >> Okay. Okay. Well, um,
[15:06] as I said, it the intent is not to
[15:08] establish any kind of regular work
[15:10] policy. There's no expectations of this
[15:13] being always approved. It's just a
[15:16] recognition of the fact that these
[15:18] employees, many of them are already
[15:20] working over that period of of 40 hours.
[15:24] We are going to get the work done. But
[15:26] it also allows for people to, you know,
[15:30] basically be get granted permission to
[15:32] work outside of the office on a very
[15:34] limited basis with understanding of the
[15:37] supervisor, the people that may report
[15:40] to them and that they are responsive to
[15:43] whoever it is at the workplace rather
[15:45] than just taking a sick day or taking a
[15:48] vacation day and not being available.
[15:51] And so that's that's kind of the idea is
[15:53] that if we grant a little bit of
[15:55] flexibility in in the expectation that
[15:59] you slide the work hours from, you know,
[16:02] 3 to 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. that
[16:06] day. You know, we understand that that
[16:09] work is getting done in somebody's
[16:11] holding someone holding them
[16:12] accountable. And so the attempt was just
[16:14] to put this into a policy rather than
[16:17] saying um if if it's council's direction
[16:20] that all work has to be performed here
[16:22] and there's no exceptions make the make
[16:25] the time to come back to the office um
[16:28] if workday is not done.
[16:30] >> I I think what they were saying down
[16:32] there is in the case of salary people
[16:35] >> um they they already have that
[16:37] flexibility. Um, we all know certain
[16:41] people like Blaine, you know, work well
[16:43] over 40 hours and if he's somewhere and
[16:47] he's got an hour, he's [snorts] already
[16:49] done his time. Nobody would expect him
[16:51] to return. I wouldn't. Um, so I'm just a
[16:54] little fuzzy on who, you know, and you talk about using a day here. In what
[16:58] particular instance would somebody want
[17:00] to use a whole day working at home?
[17:04] >> I would only expect that if there's a,
[17:07] you know, someone's
[17:09] lives far away, it's not reasonable for
[17:11] them to get a car service, for example,
[17:14] to come here while their car is fixed.
[17:16] They don't have transportation for the
[17:17] day. That might be an instance. It could
[17:20] be um you know, they are
[17:26] trying to think if there's any other
[17:28] >> I'll give a couple examples. So,
[17:29] [clears throat] I just did some uh roof
[17:31] work because we had a recent storm and
[17:33] my house got damaged. Um, for me, if I
[17:35] would have uh not scheduled that that
[17:38] work right at the beginning of the day,
[17:41] um, and stayed until uh um, you know, 6 or 8:00
[17:48] at night, um, that um,
[17:52] I I would have basically needed to work
[17:54] the or felt I needed to work the full
[17:56] eight hours. Another instance is I
[17:58] recently had an MRI, so I had a medical
[18:00] appointment. Um, I was only 30 minutes
[18:04] away from being home. Um, I came back
[18:07] and worked several more hours and even
[18:10] though it was after 3:30 to come back
[18:12] here and work. So, uh, even though I
[18:14] already had 40 hours for the week, um,
[18:16] because our our technical policy from
[18:19] our personnel manual says that the 40
[18:21] hours needs to be done here even though
[18:22] I'm a salary fully paid. Um, I might
[18:25] even be a little bit different because
[18:26] it says I can work with the mayor on
[18:28] kind of a set schedule. But again, I
[18:31] think the directors would follow the
[18:33] same thing and that's where Ashley along
[18:35] with our labor attorney have have
[18:36] drafted it for a very very tight pilot
[18:40] for basically the directors and
[18:42] assistants. Uh there are the three
[18:44] superintendents. There isn't an
[18:46] assistant there. So that's kind of that
[18:47] middle management component. There's
[18:49] about 13 or 15 specific positions that
[18:52] would be eligible for a pilot.
[18:54] >> But isn't that your position? You're a
[18:56] city administrator. you everybody works
[18:59] a lot of hours as a city administrator.
[19:01] I mean I've never heard that before. Not
[19:03] once the administrator have said I'm
[19:05] overworked you know I mean that's your
[19:08] job it's you're supposed to be available
[19:10] 24/7. That's the administrator position.
[19:13] So as a chief, so as this high, you
[19:16] know, paid salary, that's part of your
[19:18] position,
[19:20] you know, and what to say the other
[19:22] staff. I was saying that department
[19:24] heads are more important than other
[19:26] staff that they need to go to an
[19:29] appointment. An example, like the clerk
[19:32] or the mayor's assistant, they have the
[19:35] same right. If they're going to go to an
[19:37] appointment, maybe they should not use
[19:38] their personal day and they should go
[19:41] home from there and work from home. Some
[19:43] of them have kids, too. Maybe they'll be
[19:44] they'll have they'll be happy to work
[19:46] from home.
[19:47] >> You're opening kind of warm of that. I'm not comfortable with this.
[19:50] >> Yeah. So, you've I guess intermingled
[19:53] uh hourly employees with salary
[19:56] employees with administrative
[19:57] assistance. Um in addition, yes, I would
[20:00] say management employees are different.
[20:02] Um, what I wouldn't want to have happen
[20:04] is our employees, let's just say, uh, a
[20:07] director, um, chooses to take 4 hours
[20:10] for sick time and then we have to wait
[20:12] at least 2 to 3 weeks for an agenda item
[20:15] to get completed because they submit,
[20:16] look, couldn't work from home. I I was
[20:18] sick. I went to the doctor's
[20:19] appointment. I don't feel well. Um, I'm
[20:22] getting paid. I'll use my 4-hour sick
[20:23] time that that I'm able to do.
[20:25] >> But what is preventing them from working
[20:26] from home? See, nobody's answering this
[20:28] question. We don't have a policy that
[20:30] says if I'm sick and I'm a director, I
[20:33] can grab my laptop and work. Do we have
[20:35] the thing that you're not supposed to
[20:37] work from home? I mean, as a director,
[20:39] I'm I'm hoping that we'll do that. If
[20:42] you're responsible for an agenda item,
[20:44] >> if council, if you feel we don't need to
[20:46] have a policy and that it's already
[20:48] there, I'm I you know, I would defer to
[20:50] our attorney. I mean, my understanding
[20:52] is they are wanting so that there's not
[20:54] an abuse that that did happen before is
[20:56] to have an actual policy.
[20:58] >> No, but you're making it sound like the
[21:00] whole city function is going to stop
[21:02] because
[21:03] I mean, you just said that that oh, it's
[21:06] going to take 4 days and because they're
[21:07] going to be home, they're not going to
[21:09] be able to finish the project. I mean,
[21:12] you guys have plenty of weeks to put
[21:15] something on the agenda and work on it.
[21:17] So, I that's the part that I'm not
[21:19] understanding. We know ahead of time
[21:21] what's going to be the next work session
[21:23] and the next work session. I think you
[21:25] laid them out for like almost a month or
[21:27] two. You know what's coming up. So we
[21:29] work on the subject. So if you're home
[21:32] sick for a couple hours,
[21:34] >> are you going to tell you're not going
[21:35] to be able to finish the subject or
[21:37] >> Yeah. So I'll give example. Last week uh
[21:40] our engineer Ron uh came to me and and
[21:43] had a new topic to come up on on Friday.
[21:45] If he went home sick that was not going
[21:47] to be on the agenda. we and if he went
[21:50] home sick, we would miss that and it
[21:52] would have to be another two more weeks
[21:54] before we'd be able to get there. He's
[21:56] the only person that has that
[21:57] information and again instead of working
[22:00] from home, he he would, you know, take
[22:02] the sick time. Um, my understanding is
[22:05] through our current personnel manual, we
[22:07] don't have the ability to not get credit
[22:10] for not basically doing work here on the
[22:12] premise. My guess is that probably maybe
[22:15] was strictly uh interpreted due to maybe
[22:18] a past abuse and um without having a
[22:22] policy. That's where the labor attorney
[22:24] is is saying it's better to have a
[22:26] policy than to just have it open-ended.
[22:29] If council is comfortable with
[22:30] open-ended, I'm fine allowing the the
[22:32] directors, the salaried staff, unless
[22:35] the attorney advises otherwise.
[22:38] I I don't I'm not saying it should be
[22:41] open-ended, and I'm not saying there's
[22:43] not a um workable solution for a
[22:46] temporary thing, but it it just sounds
[22:49] so open-ended here. All these people
[22:51] having the ability to work from home and
[22:54] who's going to be monitoring this and I
[22:56] mean, how are we going to know how many
[22:58] hours they're doing and what they're
[22:59] doing? And is this council going to be
[23:02] made aware of this or is this just going
[23:04] to be something we hear through the
[23:05] government? cuz I can see the abuse
[23:07] happening. Oh, my child was sick, so I I stayed home and I worked from home.
[23:12] Well, I don't know about anybody up
[23:14] here, but as a single parent, when your
[23:16] child's sick, you're taking care of your
[23:17] child. You're not doing work from home.
[23:19] So, you know, there's just so many
[23:22] questionable elements here that that is
[23:24] open to abuse. And I'm not saying we
[23:26] can't find a solution, but this just
[23:29] seems so broadstroke here that all these
[23:32] people can just work from home. I I'm
[23:34] not quite sure. I I understand there's
[23:38] paperwork to do. I understand there's
[23:40] reports, but I also understand, you
[23:42] know, there's crime and there's um
[23:45] [clears throat]
[23:47] water mane breaks and and there's all
[23:49] these other things that
[23:52] you you you can't do from home. So, I I
[23:55] think that at best this would be a very limited thing. And it's really got to be watched. I mean,
[24:04] this was so abused in the past. You
[24:06] cannot blame anybody that was up here at
[24:08] that time for having a nasty taste in
[24:09] their mouth because when you see your
[24:12] taxpayer money going to pay somebody to
[24:14] work another job, it's it's kind of
[24:16] maddening.
[24:18] >> So, so with a I I would agree with that.
[24:21] and and with a policy, we can uh uh put
[24:24] into action that somebody isn't able to
[24:27] work a secondary job. And those are uh
[24:30] offenses that would be uh able to be
[24:33] disciplined and potentially up to
[24:34] termination if they're they're violating
[24:36] a policy. Uh [clears throat] as this was
[24:38] written already, it's a very narrow
[24:39] group. So, this isn't um uh supervisors
[24:42] that must be watching somebody that that
[24:45] is here that maybe a chief, a deputy
[24:47] chief could be handling the day-to-day
[24:50] operations while the chief is at a
[24:52] training for 2 hours. Um there's a lot
[24:55] of this that's already occurring. If the
[24:57] chief is at a a chief's [clears throat]
[24:59] meeting for 2 hours, one of the deputy
[25:01] chiefs are typically here. So, a lot of
[25:04] that component's already taking place.
[25:06] Uh I don't think as it's written as a
[25:09] limited pilot um I think that there
[25:12] would be the documentation to say okay
[25:14] we had so many individuals between now
[25:16] and the end of the fiscal year which is
[25:17] the April 30th date um that we had so
[25:20] many individuals this is the time this
[25:22] is how much how many hours and all that
[25:24] that's why it's a very uh succinct
[25:26] amount it's not broadly written for all
[25:29] um salaried employees it's narrowly it's a very narrow scope
[25:34] >> did you say you would or wouldn't be
[25:36] able to document that?
[25:37] >> No, we would.
[25:38] >> Yeah, we would.
[25:38] >> Okay, we would be able to document and
[25:40] give a give give even monthly reports.
[25:43] >> Blaine, uh [clears throat] if somebody's
[25:46] working from home, they still have to
[25:47] answer their phone, don't they?
[25:49] >> Yes, they have to answer their phone. We also use Microsoft uh the office
[25:53] suite. So, they could be
[25:55] >> So, if one of the aldermen needs to
[25:56] contact them for something, they're
[25:58] still going to be able to reach them.
[26:00] They're just going to answer their phone
[26:01] from their house versus their office
[26:02] here.
[26:03] >> Correct.
[26:03] >> Okay. Thank you.
[26:05] I have a question. Uh how much sick time
[26:08] do you get a year?
[26:10] >> Um is it days or so broken down?
[26:13] >> So typically it's uh Yeah. So it's
[26:15] typically for each month you're earning
[26:18] up to uh 8 hours. Um and then there's a
[26:21] max people can car.
[26:24] >> Yeah. Basically
[26:25] >> 12 days a year.
[26:26] >> Yes.
[26:26] >> Is what it comes to. So my question then
[26:29] being okay, say you're going to be
[26:31] working from home. I don't have to use
[26:33] my sick day or sick time. So, let's
[26:36] [clears throat] say you do that all year
[26:38] and at the end of the year, what happens
[26:40] to those 12 days? Cuz you never use the
[26:42] sick day or any sick time and you work
[26:45] from home instead. So, what happens to
[26:47] the sick time?
[26:49] >> Well, the sick time would continue to
[26:51] roll over to the the maximum level that
[26:54] you can acrewue that.
[26:56] >> And what's the maximum level? Uh I have
[26:58] to check the the actual book to to get
[27:01] account finance. Mike know Glenn is
[27:04] going to find that. But ultimately
[27:06] remember that the city um when employees
[27:11] leave the the city, they're not paid out
[27:14] sick days. So it's either employees are
[27:17] using that sick time and they're being
[27:19] paid for those those sick days or they
[27:22] choose not to use them and they're not
[27:24] paid for that sick time. So there's, you
[27:28] know, an advantage for our employees to
[27:30] stay healthy, to stay present, to stay
[27:33] productive and not use sick time. Um,
[27:37] you know, I think that there's an
[27:38] understanding too in the, you know,
[27:42] way in which we can draft a policy too.
[27:45] Like one of the things I feel very
[27:47] strongly about is that if you are not
[27:49] capable of performing your work
[27:51] effectively and with your full
[27:54] concentration, you shouldn't be doing
[27:57] remote work. Exactly. Right. You should
[27:58] be taking sick time. You should be
[28:00] caring for a dependent. You should be
[28:03] taking your vacation time. Whatever it
[28:05] is, that's the expectation, right? You
[28:08] need to take those those sick hours to
[28:10] go to your doctor's appointment or
[28:12] whatever the case is. that that's the
[28:15] expectation. But if there's hours on
[28:16] outside of those things where it's not
[28:18] practical for you to travel back and
[28:21] forth, then that's what this is for,
[28:24] right? Yeah. This is not in place of,
[28:26] you know, like just like Ashley said,
[28:28] this is not an opportunity for someone
[28:30] that's sick and can't be working
[28:32] efficiently to just not take their sick
[28:34] day and and not fully complete their
[28:36] work. This is this is a flexible benefit
[28:39] that's you know being brought forward to
[28:42] the city council for those management
[28:44] employees on a temporary basis and and
[28:47] staff will monitor and provide input and information to the city council to
[28:53] see if if the policy is working. But
[28:56] that is something a policy would say. It
[28:57] would say something along the lines like
[28:59] this is not to be used in place of a
[29:01] sick day. and the the supervisor that
[29:04] would authorize [clears throat]
[29:05] that remote day shouldn't be allowing a
[29:08] remote day for someone that's sick. That
[29:10] would be the on the supervisor to say,
[29:12] "No, you're you're not going to be
[29:14] capable of working. You should take your
[29:16] sick day."
[29:17] >> I have a question. I have a question.
[29:19] So, would this um the use of flexible
[29:22] time as you're thinking of it, would
[29:24] that need to be approved in advance?
[29:27] >> It would.
[29:28] >> And a reason would need to be given?
[29:31] >> Yes. And what would the acceptable
[29:34] reasons be?
[29:36] >> Yeah. Um, a couple of examples and we
[29:40] can we can clarify and we would if this
[29:43] is, you know, something you consider, we
[29:46] can bring the actual policy language
[29:48] forward. A couple of them would be, like
[29:51] I said, uh, authorized training, right?
[29:54] That book ends kind of the workday.
[29:57] There are medical or similar employee
[29:59] employ appointments for the employee or
[30:02] a dependent scheduled at a time where
[30:04] it's possible to perform work away for a
[30:07] period of time.
[30:08] >> Sorry to interrupt. Could you explain
[30:10] that one a little more? So if there is
[30:13] um you know someone all if you say I
[30:17] have to be the one to take a dependent
[30:20] to an appointment you know a parent a
[30:23] child the you know spouse um take them
[30:26] to an appointment at noon
[30:28] >> right
[30:29] >> for a for a doctor's appointment or
[30:31] something. So, so they go to a doctor's
[30:33] of medical appointment, you need to
[30:34] provide transportation, whatever they're
[30:36] ill,
[30:37] >> so you take them.
[30:38] >> Um, is the expectation that we have
[30:41] someone come in before that appointment
[30:43] and then drive back home and and do the
[30:45] appointment and then come back to the
[30:47] office or is it reasonable to say, "Hey,
[30:50] my supervisor is allowing me to work,
[30:53] you know, from home in the morning. I'll
[30:55] return to the office after that's done."
[30:57] in that that particular situation
[31:01] >> of taking a dependent
[31:03] >> Yeah.
[31:04] >> um to a doctor's appointment,
[31:05] >> how would that generally be scheduled?
[31:07] Now, what kind of time away would be
[31:11] used to do that?
[31:13] >> Yeah. Um it's up to the employee if they
[31:16] would end up choosing to use a sick a
[31:18] sick day essentially. They may return to
[31:21] the office after anyway, but it would
[31:23] allow for us to have some accountability
[31:28] >> for the time that that it's possible for
[31:29] them to work.
[31:30] >> So, so you said I think before that if someone was actually sick and
[31:35] wouldn't have come in to work otherwise,
[31:37] >> correct?
[31:37] >> That they wouldn't be allowed to work
[31:39] remotely.
[31:40] >> Yeah.
[31:40] >> Cuz they are sick. But if they have an
[31:42] appointment, doctor's appointment for a
[31:44] dependent
[31:45] >> Mhm.
[31:48] » [snorts]
[31:49] >> I anywhere I've worked as you you either
[31:52] schedule personal time, stick time
[31:55] >> and I think any
[31:57] >> hourly employee is probably under that
[31:59] same
[32:01] >> um understanding.
[32:03] >> Yeah. Um [snorts]
[32:06] I just and you know usually appointments
[32:08] can be scheduled in advance and we know
[32:11] doctor's appointments usually are
[32:13] >> and I would think for the employees
[32:17] um ability to not use a lot of sick time
[32:20] that they would either schedule it in
[32:22] the morning where they could still come
[32:24] to work for the majority of their work
[32:26] hours or toward the afternoons when they
[32:30] could work the majority of their day
[32:31] prior to the appointment. Sure.
[32:34] >> So I I still think that this can be used
[32:38] in a way that would obiate the use of
[32:41] sick time, which
[32:42] >> my understanding is it's not supposed to
[32:44] be that way.
[32:46] >> Sick time, whether it's for yourself or
[32:47] for anyone. It's you're using sick time.
[32:50] >> Yeah. So again, the challenge for these
[32:52] management employees is their work that
[32:53] we want to have done. If they're it's
[32:55] fine for them to use the sick time, a
[32:57] comp time, uh it wouldn't be comp time
[32:59] for these salary employees. it would be
[33:02] uh personal time or uh sick time.
[33:05] However, then we've in essence paid for
[33:08] them to be off and not doing that.
[33:10] That's fine if that's what council wants
[33:11] to do. Um it does also sound council
[33:14] would like and I know I would like that
[33:16] employee if they were sitting at a uh uh
[33:19] their their kids dentist appointment to
[33:21] be able to be performing work um sitting
[33:24] there for an hour or two hours and then
[33:25] coming back. Um, yes, there wouldn't be
[33:28] the time that they are maybe driving
[33:30] there, driving back, but maybe they came
[33:32] in to work 2 hours early, picked up
[33:33] their kid, went went there, did work while they were there for the 2
[33:37] hours. Um, or they went went home after
[33:39] they picked up their kid because it was
[33:40] 3:30 and instead instead of coming back
[33:42] till 4:30, they spent that extra hour
[33:45] actually doing the work at at home
[33:47] instead of writing off it as personal
[33:50] time or sick time.
[33:52] these
[33:53] >> I I just think that um as city employees
[33:56] whether hourly salary um union or
[33:59] non-union um
[34:02] being here physically isn't is
[34:05] important. Um whether you're a
[34:07] supervisor, department head, and you
[34:09] have people that report to you. Um it's
[34:13] not the same when when someone is
[34:15] working remotely. Um I hate to say it,
[34:18] but employees know their boss isn't
[34:20] there. They're working from home. And
[34:22] there can be a tendency for
[34:25] I'm not going to say I'm purposely but
[34:27] things might get a little more lax. And
[34:30] the and the other thing is we provide
[34:32] services. Contractors come in,
[34:34] businesses uh owners come in, residents
[34:37] come in, they need to talk to something
[34:40] that's important enough to a department
[34:42] head or a city administrator or
[34:44] assistant city administrator,
[34:46] then they're not here to talk to them.
[34:48] So that's that's services not being
[34:50] provided. That's the downside of of
[34:53] flexible remote work schedules.
[34:55] >> I would actually say the opposite. So,
[34:57] if they're able to talk to that person
[34:59] instead of they're going to say, "I'm
[35:00] sorry, that person is homesick or that
[35:03] person took a personal day." We actually
[35:05] could connect them up and and have a
[35:07] conversation cuz we're paying them to to
[35:09] be available. Uh, and I, you know, I'
[35:11] I've I've done that as well, you know,
[35:14] to say, "Okay, yep. I'm happy to take a phone call even though I'm even off on
[35:19] vacation or or or somewhere else. So, I
[35:22] think the department director, so if the
[35:23] chief had a training and was uh you
[35:27] know, working from home for an hour
[35:29] would be happy to to talk to somebody on on the phone compared to I'm sorry,
[35:33] he's unavailable. He's taking personal
[35:35] time.
[35:39] I I just I I could see where it could be
[35:43] abused and um and I'm I'm sorry that's
[35:46] how I look at it. Um you know
[35:49] [clears throat] during co that was a
[35:50] different situation flexible work,
[35:53] remote working became common place and people took full advantage of it and
[36:00] I know there was a lot of people uh
[36:03] abusing that. Um, we've heard some
[36:05] examples here today. Um, I just don't
[36:09] really quite see, and I'm not here every
[36:11] day, but see where the the need um is so
[36:18] great to to come up with the policy to
[36:22] allow this. Now,
[36:25] » I just want to follow up with council.
[36:27] Uh, the amount of sick time you can
[36:29] acrew over the lifetime of your
[36:31] employment is 1,120
[36:33] hours. Um, I do want to say with regard
[36:36] to having employment, outside
[36:37] employment, that already is covered in
[36:39] the handbook under section 5.9, you are
[36:42] not allowed to have outside employment
[36:44] during working regular scheduled working
[36:46] hours. So, that's a violation of the
[36:48] company policy. And with regard to uh
[36:51] both being work and uh being remotely, I
[36:54] see both sides of the the coin there. as
[36:57] a a director myself. Uh while I I can do
[37:00] a lot of my work, you know, just
[37:02] basically be a computer everywhere, I
[37:04] prefer to be here because I want to be
[37:07] with my staff to get the immediate
[37:10] response to have the interaction and I I don't like working away from them
[37:15] because of that that connection that you
[37:17] have with staff and that real time uh
[37:19] response. But there are circumstances
[37:22] where it it would be beneficial to have
[37:26] that flexibility and I think that might
[37:28] be inherent already in the system as
[37:31] long as you don't get you know abused by
[37:33] it but I think you have a lot of
[37:35] controls already in place. Looks like it
[37:37] was already addressed uh with the
[37:39] concerns that you had about the
[37:40] employment that was addressed. Um, and
[37:43] again with the uh the sick time, uh I
[37:46] understand that, but if somebody takes
[37:48] sick time, they're probably not going to
[37:49] work because it's it's their sick time.
[37:51] They're burning out, so they're probably
[37:53] going to say, "Well, I'm just going to
[37:54] take care of me." And sometimes that's
[37:55] necessary, but other times, if they're
[37:58] um just taking the child to the hospital
[38:00] or whatever, and some of those are very
[38:02] short notice, like we had I had an
[38:03] employee that had a her daughter had a
[38:06] car accident and so they had to meet her
[38:08] at the hospital because they, you know,
[38:09] didn't know what was happening with her.
[38:11] So, uh, we were trying to be flexible
[38:13] with her at that point in time. So, go
[38:14] take care of your family. That's the
[38:15] most important thing. Those kind of
[38:17] things happen, but you want to make sure
[38:18] that they and she stayed on her phone
[38:21] even though she doesn't have a um a
[38:23] company phone, but she was available for
[38:26] us to use. Uh, you know, should we have
[38:28] any questions, but I think you'll see
[38:30] that your employees, your good
[38:32] employees, your valued employees will
[38:34] respond accordingly to that. And uh uh
[38:37] if they're not responding, then they're
[38:39] not good employees and they should be
[38:40] disciplined.
[38:42] >> Qu uh follow up on your uh sick time. Um
[38:46] yes, sir.
[38:47] >> Uh what's the limit to approval in terms
[38:50] of days? 100 something.
[38:53] >> You said thousand hours.
[38:55] >> Do a little calculator here. Hold on a
[38:56] second here. Have to go math.
[39:03] » Does it change? Um
[39:05] >> 181 days.
[39:06] >> Thank you.
[39:07] >> There you [clears throat] go.
[39:08] >> 181 days is a gap. So what happens when
[39:10] an employee leaves leaves the city and
[39:13] they have
[39:15] >> they can sell that back.
[39:16] >> So they do get paid back for acred sick
[39:18] days.
[39:19] >> They do.
[39:20] >> I think Ashley said they lose.
[39:21] >> I just I apologize. So that you know
[39:25] >> not using sick time
[39:27] >> but get still getting paid for them at
[39:29] the end even though they were
[39:32] [snorts]
[39:33] using time away that traditionally would
[39:35] have been sick time used.
[39:36] >> But but please understand that when you
[39:38] use sick time you use uh three
[39:40] consecutive days you need a doctor's
[39:42] excuse.
[39:44] >> You can't agree you can't use more than
[39:46] 24 hours or sorry yeah 24 hours without
[39:49] a doctor's excuse. You need that.
[39:51] >> That's a good policy. Yes,
[39:55] >> I have a question because I'm I'm
[39:57] hearing
[39:59] scenarios. I'm not hearing anything that
[40:02] definitely happened that may warrant
[40:04] this policy. Um
[40:08] I mean is is there anything going on now
[40:10] that would would would what what
[40:13] prompted this to come about? Um because
[40:18] I I hear you guys telling me some
[40:20] whatifs and
[40:21] >> Sure. you know and and what ifs
[40:26] is not normal.
[40:28] Yeah, we well part of it is that we've
[40:31] gone through a review not only of our
[40:33] handbook but of you know comparable
[40:37] policies right and in doing so we've
[40:39] come across other communities that have
[40:41] a remote policy and in place it's become
[40:45] common yes co was a different
[40:47] circumstance this was a very narrow an
[40:51] attempted very narrowly tailoring
[40:55] a couple of instances throughout, you
[40:58] know, the course of a year. Someone may
[41:00] never request to use this. It might be
[41:04] necessary, you know, to deal with a
[41:06] storm damage where, you know, you have a
[41:08] contractor come in your house every, you
[41:11] know, one once a day for two days and
[41:14] then you need to be responsive for that,
[41:16] but maybe it's unpredictable time. So,
[41:20] you know, if you have a delivery of some
[41:22] kind, yes, you could take a vacation
[41:24] day, but otherwise, while that is
[41:26] happening, it's allowing us to have our
[41:29] staff be be responsive in a way that we
[41:32] can hold them accountable.
[41:34] >> I'll add I've told directors that they
[41:36] have to come in early or stay late
[41:38] [clears throat] to for those sort of
[41:40] appointments so that they are physically
[41:41] here during those hours. Having a
[41:43] policy, a limited policy like this would
[41:46] allow somebody that has a service
[41:48] provider coming in [clears throat] from
[41:49] 8 o'clock until 10 o'clock to be able to
[41:53] bring their laptop home knowing that
[41:54] they could, you know, be working,
[41:56] waiting for their maybe their internet
[41:58] provider to come in as they switch
[41:59] service. Um, I've I've again told
[42:02] directors they have to put in the time
[42:04] physically here because we don't have a
[42:06] policy that would allow me to do that.
[42:08] If council's saying it's already built
[42:10] in, I'm I'm fine adjusting that. But to
[42:13] me, I've directed directors and I've
[42:15] directed them to direct their staff,
[42:17] their subordinate staff to do that. Um,
[42:19] this is again not going down to the
[42:22] level that a position like a utility
[42:24] billing person could be uh working
[42:26] remote. There are certain positions that
[42:28] I feel are absolutely critical that they
[42:30] need to be fully functioning in here.
[42:33] Um, are there other positions, the
[42:35] higher level positions that are probably
[42:37] putting on average 40, 50, 60 hours a
[42:39] week in? Yeah. Some are even working
[42:41] constantly on weekends. 2 hours to be
[42:44] able to still be performing work um uh
[42:48] would be, you know, valuable to allow
[42:50] that good employee to do it. I think it
[42:53] would be more not the sick sick option
[42:56] but more of the personal time that they
[42:58] would not be eating up or taking a
[42:59] vacation day or two hours or four hours
[43:02] of uh personal time. Um those would be
[43:05] the examples I guess I would typically
[43:07] see not the the sick time kind of
[43:09] examples.
[43:10] >> Okay. And
[43:10] >> could we get copies of other
[43:12] municipalities policy on this?
[43:14] >> Sure.
[43:15] >> To see what other municipalities have.
[43:18] >> Yeah. before going forward. You know, I
[43:21] think we can come back in another work
[43:22] session on this. Correct.
[43:24] >> Yes. Yes. The intent was just it was to
[43:27] get feedback um you know, essentially
[43:30] testing the waters and seeing what kind
[43:32] of stipulations would be necessary to
[43:35] put something like this in place. If
[43:37] there's certain language that we need to
[43:39] look for and just generally if if people
[43:42] are, you know, in favor or opposed and
[43:46] we don't know that yet. So, we'll come
[43:47] back.
[43:49] >> Question. Um, now based on what what
[43:52] I've heard and what I've read,
[43:55] I I don't see where we need a policy. I
[43:58] think we need to maybe tweak the 40hour
[44:01] at city hall language a little bit to
[44:04] give some flexibility. Um,
[44:09] because the the other the everything
[44:11] else is already in place. That's uh uh
[44:15] and and and on the flip side of that,
[44:20] what is the the disciplinary aspect of
[44:23] that? We haven't talked about that. Um
[44:27] no one has addressed that.
[44:29] >> Yeah. So with the updates to the the
[44:33] proposed policy updates, we brought some
[44:35] of the code of conduct uh was section
[44:38] 5.2 I think in the handbook. Um we
[44:42] brought those with some legal
[44:44] recommendations
[44:45] uh prior but we would ensure that you
[44:50] know anything within this type of policy
[44:52] would also be applicable to violating a
[44:55] code of conduct. There's a great number
[44:58] of um items within that code of conduct
[45:02] that we would hold our supervisors to or
[45:04] whoever this this policy applied to.
[45:06] >> Okay. And was it really necessary to
[45:09] bring the attorney in on this? I mean,
[45:11] it's a handbook. We can make operations
[45:14] and adjustments uh ourselves instead of
[45:18] acrewing a legal bill.
[45:19] >> Understood. Um part of the reason that
[45:22] Attorney Wolf is here is just if there
[45:25] are questions that relate to something
[45:28] that the council may want input on um
[45:32] that we're not violating some type of
[45:34] law or creating a concern um from a
[45:37] labor law perspective.
[45:39] But understood. Um we can keep moving
[45:42] the conversation along. I think we have
[45:44] guidance about um about the flexible
[45:47] work item. I will very just very briefly
[45:51] there's another one other item that I'd
[45:53] like um some feedback on is um we have a
[45:57] artificial intelligence use policy
[45:59] again.
[46:00] >> Right. But I didn't did you answer the
[46:03] disciplinary aspect of this policy what
[46:05] it would do? I mean, if if you found a
[46:09] person,
[46:10] >> yeah,
[46:10] >> maybe violating the order or let's say a
[46:13] person with their kid at the doctor
[46:15] since we using that
[46:17] >> and they don't want to answer their
[46:19] phone because they're at the kid with
[46:20] they're at the doctor's office and and
[46:23] you have an obnoxious
[46:25] supervisor who insist that you do what
[46:28] they want you to do even though you're
[46:30] off.
[46:30] >> Sure. you know, and if it doesn't
[46:32] happen, then you got this you got the
[46:35] disciplinary part to deal with. Uh I I
[46:38] see that avenue in this as well. And I'm
[46:41] if we're going to do this, it's not to
[46:43] punish or
[46:45] >> or micromanage people. It's flexibility.
[46:48] if if flexibility is the true essence of
[46:51] what we're trying to do.
[46:53] >> Yeah, it's it's um anything that we
[46:56] would find that would violate the the
[47:01] aspects of the policy or any other part
[47:04] of our employee handbook, we would
[47:06] handle initially by depending on the
[47:09] severity of of it, you know, up to, you
[47:13] know, written warnings, a suspension,
[47:17] other thing. I mean they can escalate.
[47:19] Initially it would be a counseling and
[47:20] saying what are you doing? Why you know
[47:23] we're we're under the impression that
[47:25] you're supposed to be working. You're
[47:26] not. We would have to um you know
[47:31] essentially take action with a at least
[47:34] a written discipline and also
[47:36] termination of of their access to this
[47:39] benefit. You know, that would be my
[47:41] immediate reaction is that you say
[47:44] you're doing something you're not um
[47:46] you're not allowed to do this.
[47:48] [clears throat]
[47:48] >> So, if the employee is supposed to be
[47:50] working and they were instead conducting
[47:52] their own personal
[47:54] >> right uh business, that would be a
[47:56] violation of the code of conduct as it stands even today without any
[48:01] changes. they're not meeting the
[48:02] prescribed standards of work by using
[48:05] work time to perform their own personal
[48:08] duties or
[48:10] >> legally what what discipline is
[48:12] allowable because I I think just asking
[48:14] them what are you doing is not
[48:16] acceptable. I mean somebody has this and
[48:18] we they're told this is the only thing
[48:21] you can use this for. This is how you
[48:23] use it and then they're cleaning
[48:24] shopping carts at the jewel. Um just
[48:27] saying what are you doing isn't
[48:29] acceptable to me.
[48:31] No, I'm saying they could be disciplined
[48:33] for that. It would fall under a
[48:35] violation of the code of conduct and you
[48:37] and the city could implement discipline
[48:40] against that employee. What kind of
[48:42] discipline? You know, I wouldn't be able
[48:45] to tell right now and discipline is like
[48:48] a a take considered on a fact by fact
[48:52] basis. So, you'd have to look at the
[48:54] employees history of employment um you
[48:57] know and whether they've been
[48:58] disciplined before or violated similar
[49:01] rules of this nature, but you would
[49:03] certainly be able to discipline that
[49:05] employee for a violation um of the
[49:09] policy
[49:10] >> and that would have to be a definite
[49:12] fact that it was a violation, not
[49:15] someone's assumption.
[49:18] >> Yeah. So, again, I I can note I had this
[49:20] sort of policy when I was in Oakbrook.
[49:22] somebody used this and then they went uh
[49:24] to I think it was uh um gurnie to uh one
[49:30] of the amusement parks. So it was pretty
[49:32] easy to see that they were documented on
[49:34] their social media for the time that
[49:36] they were supposed to be working. Um we
[49:38] looked at that as a theft of time that
[49:40] they filled out. There was numerous
[49:42] violations and that person actually
[49:44] first got removed from being able to do
[49:46] this and actually got suspended. So
[49:48] there was uh the various codes of
[49:50] conduct. there was, you know, falsifying
[49:52] documentation, there was theft of time,
[49:55] there was d and so that's where on the
[49:57] scale once we had the actual photos and
[50:00] the video and confirmation
[50:02] um you know uh collaboration and some
[50:05] like a full investigation was done.
[50:07] there were penalties and um it was very
[50:11] strict and severe and quite honestly I
[50:13] didn't see any issues for the next 3
[50:14] years because everybody was very strict
[50:16] on I'm going to take these two hours uh
[50:19] while my kids doing this or there were
[50:21] very few individuals that even requested
[50:24] uh to take this flexible time um because
[50:28] they didn't want to have any didn't even
[50:30] want to have to deal with the scrutiny.
[50:32] But is there anything in this thing in
[50:35] this
[50:37] pilot that said if you're working
[50:40] remotely, you must work from home?
[50:42] >> It doesn't say that you have to work
[50:44] from home. So it's it's a flexible.
[50:46] >> They could have been working at Great
[50:48] America with their laptop.
[50:51] >> I I [clears throat]
[50:52] guess they could have, but we had video
[50:54] of them at on a roller coaster and some
[50:56] other stuff.
[50:57] >> As long as they got the laptop, they
[50:58] work. I mean to to to to me, you know,
[51:02] that that that would be quite a stretch
[51:03] if they're answering their phones and
[51:05] per, you know, writing a report and
[51:07] doing that sort of stuff. Now, um you
[51:09] know, to to me, um you know, the reason
[51:13] that we'd be even looking at this is
[51:15] more of like our engineer who's going to
[51:16] be spending two hours working on getting
[51:18] a report completed for us, but for that
[51:21] Friday for an appointment that he may
[51:22] have had earlier in the day. So instead
[51:24] of having to come back for the two
[51:26] hours, he'd be able to get that report
[51:28] completed, you know, uh, you know, maybe
[51:30] at his sister's house or maybe, you
[51:32] know, somewhere if he was going on
[51:33] vacation for the, you know, for a long
[51:35] weekend, um, instead of having coming
[51:37] back to physically be at at city hall,
[51:41] >> couldn't we do that with Jeff?
[51:42] >> I'm I'm fine with you guys just giving
[51:45] us the authority and and the attorney's
[51:47] nodding saying that's fine.
[51:50] >> Can I make one correction? Sorry. With
[51:52] regard to the uh sick time, it does not
[51:54] get paid out when you terminate, but you
[51:56] can roll it over into your retirement uh
[51:59] when you retire.
[52:00] >> When they retire, same thing. You're
[52:01] getting
[52:02] >> that's that was my money.
[52:04] >> Okay. Thank you, Glenn. Does that make
[52:05] sense?
[52:05] >> I think it's it's not when they leave
[52:07] just they resign and and and I will
[52:10] apologize for my casual uh response
[52:13] about the what are you doing? That was
[52:15] not my intent. We would, you know, take
[52:17] it seriously. I I just I do believe if
[52:20] we do something, we do need to have it
[52:22] crafted into a policy because we need to
[52:23] be able to enforce discipline. And maybe
[52:26] it's just bitter taste left in my mouth,
[52:28] but you know, I I'm going to have long
[52:31] years to recover from what we went
[52:32] through then. And it was just when I
[52:35] went to that person's supervisor, who
[52:36] was the city administrator, and asked
[52:38] her what was going on, it was like, "Oh,
[52:40] I'll have a talk with her."
[52:43] >> Yeah.
[52:43] >> She was aware of it. She knew she was
[52:45] doing it and it was okay. And to me,
[52:46] that's unacceptable.
[52:48] >> Yeah. Well, unfortunately, I I think
[52:50] having a policy could be helpful, but
[52:52] let's grab some policies that was
[52:54] requested from other communities that
[52:56] have gone past CO again. Hopefully,
[52:58] we'll never have that come back in our
[53:00] lifetimes, but uh have policies,
[53:02] flexible work policies that are in in
[53:04] place now so that council can look at it
[53:07] um that that HR can recommend and if
[53:10] council is okay with it just being um
[53:13] adjustments in our current code um or if
[53:15] a new policy with uh the full penalties
[53:18] and uh I guess other restrictions could be you know brought forward.
[53:22] Again, this is a work session so that we can hear the comments and feedback
[53:26] and then come back. And I think grabbing
[53:28] some other policies is probably a good
[53:30] next step.
[53:31] >> Blaine, in the meantime,
[53:32] >> yeah,
[53:34] >> if you have some common sense flex time
[53:36] that you want to pass along to one of
[53:39] your uh report directs, it's fine with
[53:43] me.
[53:44] >> Good to know. Thank you.
[53:44] >> Are you saying we don't have common
[53:46] sense?
[53:50] » What's that? Are you saying we don't
[53:51] have common sense?
[53:53] >> I said a common sense flexible decision.
[53:58] Do you know what that means?
[53:59] >> No, I'm stupid. [snorts]
[54:01] >> Okay.
[54:04] >> Well, I have a couple of other things.
[54:06] I'm actually going to focus and just
[54:08] list the the things on the right hand
[54:10] side and we'll come back to the last
[54:12] item. Um other changes that we're
[54:15] proposing are uh overtime payment
[54:19] examples. So the last discussion uh
[54:23] there were some questions brought up by
[54:24] council uh related to some confusing
[54:28] passages and in the explanation um the
[54:31] adisement from our our labor attorney is
[54:34] working through just a a revision of
[54:37] that language and uh we wanted to
[54:39] include charts within the example so
[54:42] it's very easy to read and understand
[54:43] how overtime would be paid. um
[54:46] confidentiality policy update. Um the
[54:49] recommendation
[54:51] uh or request was from council was to
[54:53] add a stipulation within the
[54:55] confidentiality policy um within the
[54:59] handbook. Our handbook is pretty
[55:01] sufficient uhly covering those things,
[55:03] but we are going to add uh we're
[55:06] proposing to add a short paragraph that
[55:09] explicitly recognizes um when we're we
[55:13] have employees that are invited to sit
[55:15] in on u confidential or executive
[55:18] information that there's a standard for
[55:21] them to uphold that matches very closely
[55:23] to the the policy approval.
[55:25] >> Does that also go for things they view
[55:27] on print? um they're printing things for
[55:30] people or they're um that should be held
[55:33] to the same level.
[55:35] >> Yes, you'll be able to review the full content of of that and make
[55:39] sure that it's in a written format too.
[55:42] >> Am I understanding correctly?
[55:44] >> Things that the the employees
[55:47] >> view that are in print fashion, not just
[55:50] audio.
[55:51] >> Yes.
[55:52] >> Uh held to the same confidentiality
[55:55] level.
[55:55] >> Yes. Yes. you know, if they happen to
[55:57] view a report or a note or an email or
[55:59] whatever from somebody,
[56:02] >> they don't get to go tell everybody else
[56:03] what was in it.
[56:04] >> Correct. Correct.
[56:06] >> Mhm.
[56:06] >> That's correct. Any information that's
[56:08] disclosed in the closed in the
[56:10] privileged closed session or in the
[56:12] closed session would be held to that
[56:14] confidentiality standard. It's it's the
[56:17] same standard that's been applied in by
[56:21] resolution to the city council. And so
[56:25] um that standard was then applied to the
[56:27] employees in the handbook.
[56:30] >> So you're talking about close session.
[56:32] Um if a council I know this is a little
[56:35] bit out of the context, but since you're
[56:38] here and you're the only one can answer
[56:40] the question. Um if a council person
[56:44] wants to listen to executive session, it
[56:47] only has to be at city hall, right? You
[56:49] cannot give them a flash card to take
[56:50] home and listen to it, right? I believe
[56:53] that is correct. You you have the
[56:56] opportunity to listen to the closed
[56:58] session, but you can't leave with that
[57:01] confidential information.
[57:02] >> Okay. Hopefully that person returns back
[57:05] what they took from here. Okay.
[57:08] >> Okay. [snorts]
[57:10] Uh we have a couple of other items. Uh
[57:13] the personnel evaluation form update
[57:16] references just the addition of our
[57:18] personnel evaluation form to section 16.
[57:21] Uh there were parts of that form uh that
[57:23] were missing from our last iteration of
[57:25] the handbook and so we would add that
[57:28] despite um you know wanting to to
[57:30] potentially uh make some changes to it.
[57:33] Its current form would be added to this
[57:35] handbook um as well as uh address the
[57:40] anniversary of employees getting their
[57:41] evaluation um on a on a set cycle. We
[57:45] would add that language. um minor safety
[57:48] and equipment policy updates, adding um
[57:51] you know a couple of revisions to use of
[57:53] a city vehicle as well as um as well as
[57:59] personal use of like equipment or
[58:00] appliances, refrigerator, microwave,
[58:03] those types of things to ensure that our facility can accommodate any kind of
[58:07] electrical usage.
[58:09] >> Um
[58:10] >> can you repeat that one more time? Say
[58:11] that again.
[58:11] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so we in this building,
[58:15] we want to make sure that any use of
[58:19] additional things that um we're plugging
[58:22] into our offices or common space um can
[58:25] accommodate uh the facilities electrical
[58:28] load. Um it's really common in really
[58:32] most of the facilities I've worked in
[58:34] that um spaces where you have uh
[58:37] connecting offices or rooms if you're
[58:39] plugging into many devices or um all at
[58:43] once it can uh it can stop a breaker
[58:47] flip a breaker.
[58:47] >> I've never heard of flip a thing but
[58:49] okay
[58:50] >> I my understanding is it it has occurred
[58:52] here and so we just want
[58:54] >> because we do things the right way with
[58:56] electricity. Yeah. Well, and you know,
[58:59] we can prevent that if there's just a a
[59:01] quick evaluation and saying, "Yep, we
[59:03] should be able to manage that." Um, go
[59:06] ahead and put in your your little mini
[59:08] fridge or your microwave or something
[59:10] like that if that's what
[59:11] >> how you manage that like how you
[59:13] >> Yeah.
[59:14] >> Do you have like an equipment that tells
[59:16] you how much volts or how much
[59:17] electricity you're using?
[59:19] >> Yes. So the expectation would be if
[59:21] employees are bringing their personal
[59:23] equipment that they would have that
[59:25] information available and and basically
[59:28] we would make sure that someone trained
[59:31] in our building facilities takes a look
[59:33] at it uh to make sure that it's not
[59:35] going to overload a circuit.
[59:36] >> So what happen if [clears throat] uh
[59:38] certain employees
[59:40] they're okay with bringing stuff and
[59:42] other employee wasn't able to do it
[59:45] because of the electricity. So we say to
[59:48] this one, you're okay. You're good to
[59:50] have your coffee machine or your, you
[59:53] know, fan. And the other employee will
[59:55] say no to that because
[59:59] it's
[1:00:00] >> Can I can I step in just for a quick
[1:00:02] second? Uh the the main problem we have
[1:00:04] is with space heaters. They draw the
[1:00:06] most uh voltage from or you know power
[1:00:08] amperage from the circuit and that has
[1:00:11] tendency to blower circuit breakers. But
[1:00:13] you can tell based on on the back of a
[1:00:16] um heater or whatever appliance you have
[1:00:18] how much amperage is drawing. And then
[1:00:20] you got to see they get uh we we check
[1:00:23] with our our building department and see
[1:00:26] what circuits you know how many circuits
[1:00:28] or outlets are on that circuit to see
[1:00:30] how many devices are plugged in and
[1:00:32] whether that circuit's going to pop when
[1:00:34] we uh plug that device in. But it's it's
[1:00:37] generally the space heaters that people
[1:00:39] >> would that go for fridges as well.
[1:00:41] >> Yeah. Anything that draws amperage, we
[1:00:43] have to check to make sure because
[1:00:45] again, it's not just [clears throat] you
[1:00:46] don't just have one circuit per each
[1:00:48] outlet. An outlet can be several outlets
[1:00:51] that have circuits. So, you have to look
[1:00:52] at what's being hooked up to that
[1:00:54] particular circuit. And if it's too much
[1:00:56] of a draw, then so you can actually tell
[1:00:58] one employee, well, you got the same
[1:01:00] heater, but we got too many things on
[1:01:02] this particular circuit. You can plug it
[1:01:04] in, but it have to go over here or
[1:01:05] something like that. But that that's
[1:01:07] what you're looking at. You're looking
[1:01:08] at how much load you're putting on a
[1:01:09] particular circuit.
[1:01:12] Does that make sense?
[1:01:13] >> Yeah.
[1:01:14] >> Which item are we speaking to?
[1:01:16] >> Sure. Um, this is the safety and
[1:01:18] equipment policy updates.
[1:01:21] >> What number?
[1:01:23] >> Okay.
[1:01:23] >> Uh, yes, it would be. Yes. Number nine.
[1:01:27] >> So, this would be added to section 9
[1:01:30] safety and equipment use. It'd be its
[1:01:32] own separate. Um,
[1:01:34] >> is there more detail to that number
[1:01:36] nine?
[1:01:38] >> Yes. So,
[1:01:40] >> all I'm saying
[1:01:41] >> we have a we have a very short drafted
[1:01:45] um language I can read to you if there's
[1:01:47] any feedback.
[1:01:49] >> Why wasn't that included in the packet?
[1:01:51] >> Um we opted to give this broad overview
[1:01:54] with the intent to give you all the the
[1:01:57] written policies. I didn't want to, you
[1:01:59] know, have have our time or the
[1:02:01] attorney's time going into great depth
[1:02:04] if there are things that council's not
[1:02:05] supportive of of even introducing.
[1:02:08] Well, it's hard to come up with a
[1:02:11] opinion on something without all the
[1:02:12] information prior to review it. So, I
[1:02:15] I'm not going to be able to,
[1:02:17] >> you know, this is going to take up just
[1:02:19] as much time or more if we
[1:02:21] >> versus if we had it already to read over
[1:02:24] and have questions ready.
[1:02:26] >> Understood. Um well it it would be that
[1:02:29] paragraph would be provided to you and
[1:02:33] you know when we return this particular
[1:02:36] policy um or provision is basically a
[1:02:39] practice of the city that is just being
[1:02:42] put in writing so that employees have
[1:02:45] all employees have the right direction
[1:02:47] and instruction as to how they can um
[1:02:51] use or bring in personal these personal
[1:02:54] appliances. And before installing them,
[1:02:57] just making sure that it that it's okay.
[1:02:59] >> We're putting another kitchen in the
[1:03:00] basement, you know, something like that.
[1:03:03] >> Yeah. I mean,
[1:03:04] >> we have a fridge.
[1:03:05] >> This is just
[1:03:07] probably not a good idea. [laughter]
[1:03:10] >> We had that.
[1:03:10] >> Imagine that.
[1:03:11] >> Oh goodness. U
[1:03:13] >> I'm unaware of a kitchen going into the
[1:03:15] >> I was going to say
[1:03:18] right under Niagara Falls.
[1:03:19] >> Okay. [laughter]
[1:03:22] » Okay. Um I will w I will wrap up.
[1:03:25] >> Can I ask you one thing?
[1:03:27] >> Sure.
[1:03:28] >> With with with what you guys are
[1:03:30] pointing out here like
[1:03:32] >> uh number five clocking in and out
[1:03:36] >> section 4.2 4.8.
[1:03:38] >> Yes.
[1:03:38] >> It would be helpful to have those
[1:03:41] current sections and what you're
[1:03:42] proposing
[1:03:43] >> to change because
[1:03:45] >> it's almost impossible to make a
[1:03:47] decision based on what I'm looking at.
[1:03:50] >> Sure. The Go ahead. So these provisions
[1:03:54] in particular really require the city
[1:03:56] council direction before we make any
[1:03:58] revisions to the personnel manual. And
[1:04:01] so this item was uh saved for last
[1:04:04] because this is something that requires
[1:04:06] city council direction before we draft
[1:04:09] >> any changes to the policy. And then
[1:04:11] after we get some direction from the
[1:04:13] city council, we'll we'll put that in
[1:04:15] writing consistent with the direction
[1:04:17] that we get. But with respect to the
[1:04:20] workday, there was some discussion at
[1:04:22] the last work session regarding the
[1:04:24] allowance for um accommodating a
[1:04:27] different hours for a workday. And so
[1:04:32] before we make any changes, we wanted to
[1:04:34] get the specific direction from the city
[1:04:36] council as to whether or not um you know
[1:04:40] the policy can be amended so that the
[1:04:43] work hours can be altered at the
[1:04:46] discretion of either the director or
[1:04:49] whatever is being proposed.
[1:04:51] >> Right. Is is there essentially a desire
[1:04:54] to keep the language as is where it it
[1:04:57] permits a director to adjust the workday
[1:05:00] schedule? Is it something that would
[1:05:03] need to be raised beyond a director
[1:05:05] level or um you know is that at a point
[1:05:10] in time where city council wants to
[1:05:12] prescribe a a particular direction on
[1:05:14] the workday? My understanding is it was
[1:05:17] adjusted in prior handbooks to this to
[1:05:21] this version.
[1:05:22] >> I have a version of it
[1:05:23] >> right here. The previous one.
[1:05:25] >> Okay.
[1:05:27] >> This is the Yeah, this is the current um
[1:05:30] language here. And this is the only
[1:05:32] language I pulled out of the current
[1:05:34] book because I expected that people
[1:05:36] would want to read it.
[1:05:37] >> Well, it was still pending from last
[1:05:39] meeting. There was not good
[1:05:41] clarification about it, but it reads I
[1:05:44] mean you know about union so um
[1:05:47] >> it's um [clears throat]
[1:05:50] I just want all the staff to be treated
[1:05:52] equally.
[1:05:53] >> Mhm.
[1:05:54] >> You know
[1:05:54] >> and I think it's only fair that if we're
[1:05:58] not picking on nobody if certain
[1:06:00] department are allowed to do this that
[1:06:02] everyone else should be allowed to do
[1:06:04] it.
[1:06:07] So
[1:06:10] it it and this is my interpretation of the policy that it would or should
[1:06:18] allow each of our departments that are here and operating
[1:06:23] um the ability to to change the workday
[1:06:28] as as the policy directs. Um, you know,
[1:06:33] we always want to provide service um,
[1:06:37] you know, for all of our open hours. So,
[1:06:40] you know, departments should not be
[1:06:42] permitting this if there's no one in
[1:06:44] their department there to to cover this.
[1:06:47] I think, you know, there's at me at
[1:06:50] minimum one or more staff people in each
[1:06:53] of our responsive city hall departments
[1:06:58] as well as public works, more than one
[1:07:00] individual that this could apply to. Um,
[1:07:04] and so we do have discretion to to
[1:07:07] implement this if we all want to work
[1:07:09] together. Um my discussions with
[1:07:12] department heads about this has has been
[1:07:16] that they are open to a coordination of allowing for this
[1:07:23] um just at least to make sure at least
[1:07:25] one person in each department is is
[1:07:27] there and and able to serve the public.
[1:07:30] Um but if there are other
[1:07:32] interpretations or this is being read
[1:07:34] differently then you know we can make
[1:07:36] clarifications
[1:07:37] >> from the union from the union contract.
[1:07:39] Sure.
[1:07:42] Oh, that's what you have. Okay.
[1:07:46] And if you might want to have the
[1:07:48] attorney look at it and read it or
[1:07:51] it says states
[1:07:54] >> clearly that our hours operations from
[1:07:56] 4:00 to 8:30 public works and um
[1:08:01] other department the police uh I mean
[1:08:04] building department um and water they
[1:08:06] can start at 7.
[1:08:07] >> Yep.
[1:08:08] >> Till 3:30. It's very clear right there
[1:08:10] and I highlighted it for you.
[1:08:12] >> Yes. So that provision is only
[1:08:15] applicable to those employees that fall
[1:08:17] under that collective bargaining
[1:08:19] agreement.
[1:08:20] >> Um what our personnel policy says is
[1:08:23] only that you have an 8 and 1 half hour
[1:08:25] workday. It doesn't have those hours of
[1:08:27] work identified. So as written, it's
[1:08:31] allowed for that flexibility to take
[1:08:34] place with respect to those employees
[1:08:36] that are non-union employees. But um you
[1:08:39] have other unions, not just the public
[1:08:42] work the public works unions and those
[1:08:46] employees would be governed by the
[1:08:48] provisions that fall under their
[1:08:49] specific collective bargaining
[1:08:51] agreement. So this is this is the
[1:08:54] standard that you're reading from the
[1:08:56] collective bargaining agreement that
[1:08:57] applies to all public works employees.
[1:09:00] So those that are in a collective
[1:09:02] bargaining agreement would not be
[1:09:04] afforded any flexibility with respect to
[1:09:07] their work.
[1:09:08] >> There there are additional clerical
[1:09:10] >> there. So also clerical if you can read
[1:09:12] it please or if you want I can read it
[1:09:14] for you.
[1:09:16] >> So they would be governed by whatever
[1:09:18] the terms of the collective bargaining
[1:09:20] agreement are with respect to their work
[1:09:22] hours and work day.
[1:09:24] I just am a little confused because I I
[1:09:27] thought at one point we set the hours of
[1:09:29] operation and people were supposed to
[1:09:31] work those out and when they got hired
[1:09:32] for a job, those were their hours. I
[1:09:34] guess I'm totally confused as to why now
[1:09:36] all of a sudden people aren't wanting to
[1:09:39] work the hours of the job they were
[1:09:40] hired to do. I mean, if we tell people
[1:09:43] that these are the hours that we're
[1:09:44] open,
[1:09:46] >> these are the hours you're coming in, we
[1:09:47] shouldn't be limiting them to only one
[1:09:49] employee who may or may not have the
[1:09:51] answers because the other two employees
[1:09:54] decided they wanted custom hours. I I'm
[1:09:56] just really kind of lost at how this all
[1:09:58] came about because I know in the in the
[1:10:01] work I worked in my life, when I applied
[1:10:03] for a job, they told me what my hours
[1:10:04] were. I didn't come back to them later
[1:10:06] and say, "Hey, you know, I'm kind of
[1:10:07] thinking I'd like to change my hours.
[1:10:09] I'm not a morning person. I'd like to
[1:10:10] come in about 10:00. I don't understand
[1:10:13] how this happened or why it would happen
[1:10:15] when this is a public building here to
[1:10:17] serve the public and it's open these
[1:10:19] certain hours and the people here to
[1:10:22] work should be working those hours.
[1:10:26] >> And again, if we want to allow this
[1:10:28] policy to change, then we should allow
[1:10:30] it to all staff. You can't pick and
[1:10:32] choose
[1:10:34] >> and or clarify the policy. So exactly
[1:10:36] what you're saying, you know, older
[1:10:38] person overlin if you want to have uh
[1:10:41] the the the established work hours be
[1:10:44] the the work hours for all employees,
[1:10:46] then we need we would provide some
[1:10:48] clarification in the employee handbook
[1:10:50] so that it would be clear to those
[1:10:52] non-bargaining unit employees what those
[1:10:54] hours of work were that were
[1:10:56] established. So this was definitely a
[1:10:58] big topic at our last, you know, city
[1:11:01] council work session and so we're here
[1:11:03] to, you know, get the consensus.
[1:11:06] >> Correct. But we didn't have the policy
[1:11:07] and now I brought it. So
[1:11:10] >> So you're are you recommending that we
[1:11:13] match the
[1:11:14] >> I'm not recommending. I just want to
[1:11:16] make sure since some staff were upset.
[1:11:19] >> Okay.
[1:11:19] >> And they came to me.
[1:11:20] >> Yeah.
[1:11:21] >> I'm not sure if they came to anyone
[1:11:22] else.
[1:11:23] >> Mhm. [clears throat]
[1:11:23] >> That everybody will be treated equally.
[1:11:26] Okay.
[1:11:26] >> And I think Chris feels the same way for
[1:11:28] her department.
[1:11:29] >> You know, it's not fair for certain
[1:11:31] people,
[1:11:32] >> you know, come at certain point time
[1:11:35] when others have to follow the policy.
[1:11:38] >> So, so we have to be careful. So, we're
[1:11:39] in union negotiations with the local
[1:11:42] 150. If union employees are talking to
[1:11:45] council trying to step outside of our
[1:11:47] >> some of them are not union.
[1:11:49] >> Okay. So, um, but if union employees are
[1:11:52] trying to negotiate directly with
[1:11:53] council compared to at the negotiation,
[1:11:56] >> nobody's negotiating, Bla, you're you're
[1:11:57] twisting the words, it's just a comment.
[1:12:00] How come some employees are allowed
[1:12:03] [snorts] to do this and some are not?
[1:12:05] And if this is our policy, we're not
[1:12:07] interfering with union negotiation. So,
[1:12:10] let's not twist the words in here. And
[1:12:13] I've came to you about this about nine
[1:12:15] months ago and then I went to Ashley the
[1:12:17] same thing because we didn't see any
[1:12:19] changes and it keeps being put on hold.
[1:12:24] Well, I wouldn't say it's being put on
[1:12:26] hold. It's actually been brought before
[1:12:27] council to talk about to set. It's
[1:12:30] already set in the union contract and
[1:12:32] now we're trying to get clarification
[1:12:34] for our non-UN employees. If if each
[1:12:37] council member wants it to to either
[1:12:40] mirror or strengthen what is in the
[1:12:43] union contract and mirror that for our
[1:12:45] non-UN employees, this would be the time
[1:12:47] to do it.
[1:12:49] >> I'm just confused as to what happened to
[1:12:51] the policy we set up that said we were
[1:12:53] open these hours and the people would
[1:12:55] work these hours. Where'd that go?
[1:12:57] >> So, when you guys set the current
[1:12:59] personnel manual, you you put this
[1:13:02] provision in or approved this provision.
[1:13:04] Ashley nor I were here when this
[1:13:06] provision got put in there but that this
[1:13:08] provision allows some flexibility for
[1:13:10] our non-UN employees
[1:13:13] and council when you approve that
[1:13:15] personnel
[1:13:16] handbook at that time I believe the last
[1:13:18] one was updated in 2024 um I don't know
[1:13:21] what what it stated before that um but
[1:13:24] this is the current one um this is it it
[1:13:27] affords this flexibility
[1:13:33] » I have One comment on this. Looking at
[1:13:35] this says full-time employees generally
[1:13:38] be scheduled for an 8 and 1/2 hour day.
[1:13:42] >> Why is there a 60minute meal period? It
[1:13:44] should be 30.
[1:13:46] >> Correct.
[1:13:46] >> My guess is from previous uh
[1:13:49] >> Yeah, because they used to work there.
[1:13:51] They were here for 9 hours.
[1:13:53] >> Yeah.
[1:13:54] >> So they're no longer here 9 hours. It's
[1:13:56] 8 and a half. So it should be 30 minute
[1:13:58] meal period.
[1:13:59] >> Yep. Or it should be 9 hours. So again,
[1:14:02] neither Ashley nor I nor Melissa drafted
[1:14:06] this language. This is the current
[1:14:07] language that is there and that's why
[1:14:10] it's here for comments and discussion
[1:14:12] with with council.
[1:14:14] >> And it should also say unpaid meal
[1:14:16] break.
[1:14:18] >> It's unpaid. Correct.
[1:14:20] >> Correct.
[1:14:20] >> Yes.
[1:14:21] >> It's not specified in there.
[1:14:24] >> I'm just, you know, it's a technicality,
[1:14:26] but it should be in there. Well,
[1:14:29] >> but if it's should be 60 minutes unpaid
[1:14:31] if they're here 8 and 1 half hours.
[1:14:34] >> Correct. It would either need to be 30
[1:14:36] minutes of nonpaid
[1:14:37] >> or 9 hour day.
[1:14:38] >> 9 hour and then 1 hour of non-paid.
[1:14:40] Correct.
[1:14:41] >> Correct.
[1:14:42] >> Do they get any other breaks during the
[1:14:43] day?
[1:14:44] >> Two.
[1:14:45] >> Yes.
[1:14:45] >> Believe there's 15
[1:14:46] >> 15inut.
[1:14:47] >> Is that in there?
[1:14:49] >> It's not in this section. There is a
[1:14:51] separate section that's currently called
[1:14:54] break and lunch periods. And so that
[1:14:58] calls for
[1:15:00] each department head shall establish a
[1:15:02] reasonable
[1:15:04] meal period.
[1:15:06] >> That's
[1:15:07] >> um and two break periods of no more than
[1:15:10] 15 minutes each workday. Um it does
[1:15:13] specify that the two 15-minute breaks
[1:15:16] are paid time, but they're expected to
[1:15:18] be ready to call back at any time. What
[1:15:21] we're recommending as part of our
[1:15:23] adjustment to this is that that
[1:15:25] reasonable period is specified as
[1:15:28] typically 60 minutes but no less than 20
[1:15:31] minutes. So those are where it's
[1:15:34] >> or to provide consistency, right? This
[1:15:37] provision that we're looking at here.
[1:15:38] Yeah. Can they combine their uh break
[1:15:41] times? Like instead of taking 15 in the
[1:15:44] morning, 15 in the afternoon or half
[1:15:46] hour lunch, can they combine their break
[1:15:49] times or lump their break times with
[1:15:52] lunch or whatever?
[1:15:53] >> No. There's a provision that says they
[1:15:55] can't do that. They can't use those
[1:15:57] break times to elongate their their
[1:16:01] lunch time. Those break times are are
[1:16:03] paid break times under the law. if you
[1:16:07] take that 15 minutes amount of time
[1:16:09] that's considered, you know, dimminimous
[1:16:12] enough that you would still pay that
[1:16:13] employee. So, I believe there is um
[1:16:17] [snorts]
[1:16:18] they're they're not supposed to do that
[1:16:20] like they're not supposed to shorten
[1:16:21] their workday with their lunch or break
[1:16:24] time or
[1:16:25] >> that was my next question. Yeah.
[1:16:27] >> Okay.
[1:16:29] Just wanted to make sure on that that
[1:16:30] it's clear, you know, as to how the
[1:16:32] break time and lunch period and
[1:16:34] combining or not, you know, because
[1:16:36] there's places where I've heard people
[1:16:38] can combine their
[1:16:41] >> break time together. If they want to
[1:16:42] take a half hour in the morning, they
[1:16:44] let them. Or if they want to take it the
[1:16:45] half hour in the afternoon or if they
[1:16:47] want to take it with their lunch, they
[1:16:48] can do it. But I'm wanting to know what
[1:16:51] our current policy says as to what can
[1:16:54] be done. And you know, just so you know,
[1:16:56] I I was correct on the shortening their
[1:16:59] workday. Yeah.
[1:17:00] >> Um but with respect to their lunch
[1:17:02] period, they can tag on to their lunch
[1:17:05] period according to the policy. Now, so
[1:17:08] if the council wants to keep that,
[1:17:10] that's fine. If you want to change that
[1:17:12] so that they um that they would take a
[1:17:15] full hour and be paid for a half hour if
[1:17:18] your lunch period, that 30-minute lunch
[1:17:20] is not paid. Aren't employees required
[1:17:23] to punch out for lunch?
[1:17:25] >> Yes.
[1:17:25] >> So, how would they punch in and out if
[1:17:28] they're attaching
[1:17:30] >> paid break time to an unpaid lunch time?
[1:17:33] >> Yeah. If there if that's the case, um in
[1:17:37] my in my past iteration, um you'd have
[1:17:42] to verify the time sheet essentially to
[1:17:44] make sure that is reflective of the
[1:17:47] unpaid time versus a paid break time.
[1:17:50] and and you can only really do that by
[1:17:53] the clock in clock out verification.
[1:17:56] So if
[1:17:59] I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Um
[1:18:01] >> so if they're taking an hour
[1:18:03] >> potentially an hour and a half or an
[1:18:05] hour if it's an hour a half hour unpaid
[1:18:07] half hour paid together.
[1:18:09] >> Correct.
[1:18:10] >> And they want to leave
[1:18:11] >> Mhm.
[1:18:12] >> the building for an hour lunch. How are
[1:18:14] they punch back in after a half hour?
[1:18:17] >> They I mean they wouldn't be able to.
[1:18:19] You have to punch back in and they
[1:18:22] understand that's [snorts] Yeah. and
[1:18:24] then make some kind of note.
[1:18:26] >> Yeah. Yeah, there would be notes. I
[1:18:28] believe there's notes in Time Cook.
[1:18:31] >> Make notes.
[1:18:31] >> Yeah. Yeah. The understanding. So,
[1:18:34] >> didn't you say when you read something a
[1:18:36] little earlier that they they were
[1:18:40] supposed to be available to come back to
[1:18:42] work during their break if needed? What
[1:18:44] did you read earlier?
[1:18:46] Yes, it's it says in our current policy
[1:18:50] the two 15minute break times are
[1:18:52] considered paid working time and
[1:18:54] employees are considered to be available
[1:18:56] for any assignment during a break
[1:18:58] period.
[1:18:59] >> Okay. Well, how can they do that if
[1:19:00] they're gone?
[1:19:01] >> That it's a good point.
[1:19:04] >> They're off of off out of the building.
[1:19:06] That's not
[1:19:07] >> this is the problem with these different
[1:19:10] >> it has to be cohesive and it has to make
[1:19:13] sense and it doesn't make sense and
[1:19:14] there's so many things that contradict
[1:19:16] other things and this is the part of the
[1:19:18] problem and that's why people just do
[1:19:21] whatever they want because they can find
[1:19:22] an excuse if they look hard enough.
[1:19:25] >> You have to have it clear and concise.
[1:19:28] And if your breaks are paid that means
[1:19:30] you need to be available if something
[1:19:31] comes up. And you can't do that if
[1:19:33] you're taking our lunches, you know, at
[1:19:36] Pizza Hut or whatever. [clears throat]
[1:19:40] >> Okay, that's correct. So, should we is
[1:19:44] the council ready to give some consensus
[1:19:46] on on some of these items so we can
[1:19:48] draft the policy according to the
[1:19:51] direction
[1:19:51] >> right
[1:19:52] >> of the city council. uh with respect to
[1:19:54] the actual hours of work which are not
[1:19:57] specifically established in the um
[1:20:00] handbook as they are as as you see in
[1:20:03] collective bargaining agreements. Would
[1:20:05] we like to set specified hours of work
[1:20:08] in the employee handbook?
[1:20:12] >> She has it.
[1:20:13] >> I have it here.
[1:20:16] >> Thank you. And if not, the other option
[1:20:19] would be to have, you know, Ashley,
[1:20:21] myself, and the attorney come back with
[1:20:22] recommendations with each one of these.
[1:20:24] So you guys have actual policies saying,
[1:20:27] "Here's our current policy, and here's
[1:20:28] our our staff recommendation." Again,
[1:20:31] neither Ashley nor I created this
[1:20:33] personnel handbook. Um, we have a new
[1:20:35] attorney also reviewing. Again, this has
[1:20:37] been revised and revised almost every
[1:20:39] other year. Um, our hope is actually to,
[1:20:42] you know, they've spent a great deal of
[1:20:44] time going through the whole book, um,
[1:20:46] to get this updated. So, annual updates
[1:20:48] will be almost, you know, very quick
[1:20:50] because they'll just be state and
[1:20:51] federal kind of changes that we really
[1:20:54] almost have to approve. Um, so I
[1:20:57] understand this is a little bit more
[1:20:59] time at this initial juncture. This
[1:21:01] occurs almost at every job I go to, we
[1:21:03] spend a little bit more time on the in
[1:21:05] the front end, but then every year
[1:21:06] afterwards, it's pretty quick because
[1:21:08] it's just a state and federal changes.
[1:21:10] >> Can you ask a quick question for me? Um,
[1:21:13] [clears throat] for the staff that they
[1:21:14] feel they're not uh able to change their
[1:21:18] hours, can
[1:21:21] this will open to like a lawsuit for us?
[1:21:26] Like they feel that they're not
[1:21:28] >> I I I think I understand what you're
[1:21:30] saying. Yeah.
[1:21:31] >> Um, with respect to like are you talking
[1:21:34] about maybe like a discriminatory
[1:21:35] practice
[1:21:36] >> correct? Because they feel like how come
[1:21:38] certain departments and they cannot
[1:21:40] >> Yeah. [clears throat] That would that
[1:21:42] would not fall under any kind of
[1:21:44] unlawful discrimination um because it's
[1:21:47] not targeted toward any protected class.
[1:21:49] You can you can have different work
[1:21:52] arrangements for different departments
[1:21:54] because of the way those departments
[1:21:56] operate. Just like in your collective
[1:21:58] bargaining agreement, there were
[1:22:00] different hours with respect to certain
[1:22:01] public works employees versus ready to
[1:22:04] bargain. That's that's how it's been
[1:22:06] written in the book. I'm talking about
[1:22:08] the employees that their hours are from
[1:22:10] 8 to 4:30.
[1:22:12] >> That's what I'm talking about.
[1:22:14] >> So, the employees that they supposed to
[1:22:17] work from 8 to 4:30 that they come
[1:22:20] earlier, they change their schedule.
[1:22:22] >> Yeah.
[1:22:22] >> The rest of employees are feeling
[1:22:25] >> Yeah. As long as there's
[1:22:27] a objective, not a a legal work related
[1:22:31] reason to change those hours, the the
[1:22:35] management is allowed that discretion to
[1:22:37] be able to make those accommodations. So
[1:22:40] if one employee gets their work hours
[1:22:42] changed because of a work-related reason
[1:22:44] for operations of the city, that's not
[1:22:47] an illegal practice and that does not
[1:22:50] subject the city to any kind of
[1:22:53] discrimination liability.
[1:22:55] >> I'm sorry.
[1:22:55] >> Hold on. I have one more question on
[1:22:57] that.
[1:22:58] >> So, since the city have done a policy in
[1:23:00] the past that work hours are from 8:00
[1:23:03] to 4:30
[1:23:05] and that group falls under those hours
[1:23:09] since they're changing the time without
[1:23:11] the council approval. Is that okay?
[1:23:15] >> That wouldn't be illegal discrimination.
[1:23:17] whether that's okay. It it sounds like
[1:23:19] that there may be a practice of not
[1:23:22] following the policy, which is why we're
[1:23:24] bringing it to the attention. We want to
[1:23:26] make sure that we're doing everything
[1:23:27] now and and so that this administration
[1:23:30] is now, you know, following the
[1:23:32] direction of the city council. But would
[1:23:35] that equate to illegal discrimination?
[1:23:37] No. a a failure a simple failure to
[1:23:39] follow the policy as long as it was for
[1:23:42] valid work related operational reasons
[1:23:45] would would not then you know subject
[1:23:47] >> they're still failing the policy of not
[1:23:50] following the hours
[1:23:52] >> correct
[1:23:52] >> yeah
[1:23:54] [clears throat]
[1:23:55] >> question do do we have any any instances
[1:24:00] >> because I was just listening to what she
[1:24:01] was saying where
[1:24:02] >> a person would need to come in hours 8
[1:24:04] to 4:30 they would need to come in at
[1:24:06] 7:00 clock because there's nothing going
[1:24:09] on here at 7 a.m. Is there
[1:24:13] >> Well,
[1:24:15] the the only thing, you know, if there
[1:24:18] is some type of
[1:24:20] This speaks to me on two ways, right?
[1:24:23] Either um out of the ordinary
[1:24:26] circumstances where we would want to
[1:24:28] alter everyone's schedule potentially.
[1:24:30] Um it's not been typical for us even
[1:24:33] when we're responding to kind of
[1:24:34] emergency situations, but that might be
[1:24:37] a point in time where we for a set
[1:24:38] period of time alter schedules for
[1:24:41] employees to say we really need you here
[1:24:43] early. We're responding with public
[1:24:45] works and public safety. Their schedules
[1:24:47] are different than the city hall, you
[1:24:50] know, rules and and time frames. We want
[1:24:53] to make sure we're prepared before
[1:24:55] people come in the door or whatever the
[1:24:56] case is. Um, another instance may be
[1:25:00] operational in um certain periods of
[1:25:04] time uh in a quarter or a month where
[1:25:06] there's a set um issue that needs to get
[1:25:10] done. If there's um an overabundance of utility shut offs, for example, is
[1:25:17] there a reason to come in when public
[1:25:19] works is also there early and work
[1:25:22] through some things, have a meeting um
[1:25:25] walk through whatever that data and
[1:25:27] information is um among staff before the
[1:25:29] doors open to the public. It's just
[1:25:32] >> our inspectors might be another one. So,
[1:25:34] I mean there are different inspectors in
[1:25:36] the building department. uh a lot of uh
[1:25:38] the trades are working before 8:00 so
[1:25:41] they might start at 7. So I mean there
[1:25:43] are different examples that we could
[1:25:44] give you.
[1:25:47] >> Okay.
[1:25:49] I was asking just out of curiosity
[1:25:53] because I know
[1:25:55] >> I mean I've been here for a little
[1:25:57] while. I
[1:25:59] >> uh I know some people get
[1:26:02] kind of leniences that others don't. I
[1:26:05] just want to make sure we're not
[1:26:06] targeting anyone.
[1:26:07] >> We always want to tie back. I mean, if
[1:26:09] this is the policy and we continue to
[1:26:11] keep it, it it should be for specific
[1:26:14] job related reasons. It shouldn't just
[1:26:16] be a regular schedule just because,
[1:26:18] right? And we want to make sure that if
[1:26:20] there's a business reason for our staff
[1:26:22] to come in early, then it's allowed by
[1:26:25] the current policy.
[1:26:27] So, but if if um the kind of the will of
[1:26:30] the council at this moment is to
[1:26:34] you know return I did I hear any
[1:26:39] consensus for whether we would like to
[1:26:41] change this. We want us to come back
[1:26:43] with some examples. What?
[1:26:46] >> No.
[1:26:47] >> Say you want this item
[1:26:48] >> because I
[1:26:50] based on I think I heard what the
[1:26:53] attorney was saying. Some of this stuff
[1:26:55] could have been done by decision
[1:26:56] management
[1:26:57] >> without council consent. So I'm kind of
[1:27:01] confused on why all of this comes to the
[1:27:03] council when uh
[1:27:07] you know managers have to have some
[1:27:10] coonies and make a decision that may not
[1:27:12] be popular. Um, I do understand that the
[1:27:16] structure of it needs to be approved by
[1:27:18] the council, but shouldn't those
[1:27:20] recommendations come to us, uh, what it
[1:27:24] is and what you're proposing and then we
[1:27:27] make a decision on what it's going to be
[1:27:28] as opposed to
[1:27:31] we're going through this back and forth
[1:27:33] right now with uh, this I I mean in in
[1:27:38] the world I worked in, that's the way it
[1:27:40] was done. So, I'm trying to figure out
[1:27:42] why is it
[1:27:43] >> so different, you know, right now
[1:27:46] >> the the actual employee [clears throat]
[1:27:48] handbook is something that does have to
[1:27:50] be approved by the city council as as
[1:27:53] you you know recognized. Um, this was I
[1:27:57] ensured that this topic was brought
[1:27:59] forward to the city council today
[1:28:01] because of our last discussion at the
[1:28:02] work session because it was a topic that
[1:28:05] I I thought was important to the city
[1:28:07] council and and we wanted guidance
[1:28:10] first. But if the guidance now is that
[1:28:13] we'll propose clarifying language within
[1:28:16] this pol, you know, within the handbook,
[1:28:18] we we can do that as well. and and I'll
[1:28:21] get the recommendation of the you know
[1:28:24] administrator and the assistant
[1:28:25] administrator in you know drafting a
[1:28:28] policy for ultimate council
[1:28:30] consideration but this this particular
[1:28:33] uh section was brought forward by at my
[1:28:36] request I ensured that the topics that
[1:28:38] we discussed at the last at last work
[1:28:40] session were brought brought forward
[1:28:42] here today.
[1:28:43] >> I think um I agree with alderman
[1:28:46] Jefferson. I would uh you heard concerns
[1:28:49] at the previous meeting. So I would have
[1:28:52] thought that maybe based on what you
[1:28:54] were hearing.
[1:28:56] The administration could have come up
[1:28:58] with a revised policy that addresses
[1:29:00] address some of those concerns and maybe
[1:29:03] take at least a first attempt at
[1:29:05] rewriting the policy.
[1:29:08] um bringing to us for for discussion and
[1:29:12] comment and maybe tweaking it one way or
[1:29:16] another. But
[1:29:18] uh you know we're not here every day to
[1:29:21] know how that city all the different
[1:29:24] departments operate and what hours are
[1:29:26] best for any of the certain departments.
[1:29:29] I mean some of us probably know that
[1:29:31] better than others. Um, but I believe
[1:29:34] that the the employees that are here at
[1:29:37] our front line,
[1:29:39] um, representatives to
[1:29:42] residents, whether it be at the window
[1:29:44] or on the phone, should be here and
[1:29:47] present during the hours that we're open
[1:29:50] to provide those services. If you're
[1:29:52] here at leave at 3:00, that's one less
[1:29:55] person that could be at the window for
[1:29:57] another hour and a half. Um,
[1:30:00] but I just I just don't see it as a
[1:30:03] council's
[1:30:04] place to to basically come up with word
[1:30:08] for word what this policy comes comes
[1:30:11] out to be in the end cuz ultimately
[1:30:13] there are going to be employees who are
[1:30:14] not going to be happy with it cuz either
[1:30:17] you're saying the ones that were able to
[1:30:19] adjust their schedules are no longer
[1:30:21] allowed to do it which may happen or I
[1:30:26] mean the flip side is the people that
[1:30:29] are saying that it's not fair that they
[1:30:31] can't adjust their schedules, they're
[1:30:33] still not going to be able to adjust it
[1:30:34] because everyone can't leave at 3:00 or
[1:30:36] 3:30.
[1:30:38] And and I really don't uh like that it
[1:30:43] ultimately
[1:30:45] will come down to council's decision
[1:30:49] rather than department heads or managers
[1:30:51] that manage manage these employees. and
[1:30:54] they they
[1:30:56] managers have a have to make hard
[1:30:57] decisions and their employees are not
[1:31:00] always going to like them. But I don't
[1:31:01] really appreciate the fact that it's
[1:31:03] going to come down to this was a council
[1:31:06] decision and managers could throw up
[1:31:08] their hands saying I had nothing to do
[1:31:10] with it. This was a council. And that seems to happen a lot. And I I I
[1:31:15] really think that a lot of the leg work
[1:31:17] on a lot of this type of discussion on
[1:31:21] policy is is really
[1:31:24] should be done outside of of council's
[1:31:28] presence. I I appreciate if you want us
[1:31:31] involved and ultimately if you need us
[1:31:33] to approve something, but bring us some
[1:31:36] kind of uh rough draft of what you would
[1:31:39] like us to read and we could start a
[1:31:41] discussion based off of that. Not just I
[1:31:44] mean clearly the the what's up there on
[1:31:46] the screen is is
[1:31:49] it's it's useless. It's it's it's filled
[1:31:52] with loopholes and and
[1:31:56] ambiguity and and no uh um detail. So
[1:32:00] anyone could pick that apart. Um but
[1:32:04] certainly I think that there would be
[1:32:06] the ability from our managers and
[1:32:08] administrators to come up with something
[1:32:11] between that and where we ultimately
[1:32:14] what we ultimately want to implement.
[1:32:17] But um I think as a as a service as a
[1:32:21] public service whether uh staff are
[1:32:24] union or non-union the city should have
[1:32:26] the ability to to change schedules based
[1:32:29] on operations of the city. Is that not
[1:32:32] allowed or is there anything in the CBA
[1:32:36] that says that other than I understand
[1:32:38] public emergencies, water man breaks,
[1:32:40] everyone can't say sorry I can't come in
[1:32:43] but I just look at things like where we
[1:32:45] have a weekend event, city event and
[1:32:50] everyone's schedule is Monday through
[1:32:52] Friday. We don't have anybody working on
[1:32:54] weekends. And if we call them in on a
[1:32:57] scheduled event that we know about
[1:32:58] months in advance,
[1:33:00] it's either overtime
[1:33:02] or you're relying on volunteers to do
[1:33:04] it, which we shouldn't always have to. I
[1:33:07] mean, it's great and appreciated, but um
[1:33:10] again, the the [clears throat] ability
[1:33:12] to adjust schedules based on operational
[1:33:15] need, whether it's union or non-union,
[1:33:18] should should be
[1:33:20] the the discretion of the city.
[1:33:23] >> So, um got a few things to unpack here.
[1:33:26] So, with our union contracts, we would
[1:33:28] have to negotiate that in our current
[1:33:30] local 150 contract that has our public
[1:33:32] works and some of the other employees
[1:33:33] that we're talking about. We don't have
[1:33:35] that flexibility. with our non-unions,
[1:33:37] we do have that flexibility. We could
[1:33:39] ask for that flexibility with our
[1:33:41] upcoming negotiations. So, um it's not
[1:33:44] to say that we can't get it, but that
[1:33:46] would be something that we need to to to
[1:33:49] negotiate with the union. Um our draft
[1:33:53] policies happy to work. Uh, I think
[1:33:55] where Ashley was coming was u our
[1:33:58] current attorneys cost us $275 an hour.
[1:34:00] And so to have her draft 10 policies,
[1:34:03] even if one hour per policy could could
[1:34:06] cost a big deal of money. So on this
[1:34:09] particular policy, um, since there were
[1:34:11] comments from council, she was hoping to
[1:34:14] get some guidance. Um, again, happy to
[1:34:17] have Ashley and myself again um, pull
[1:34:20] other communities. I've helped write
[1:34:22] three or four different um personnel
[1:34:25] manuals for other municipalities in
[1:34:27] Illinois. Um we can come back to to
[1:34:29] council with that and then hand it over
[1:34:32] to the attorney. We were just trying to
[1:34:34] I guess wisely use the attorney's time.
[1:34:37] Um, we can also draft policies that do
[1:34:40] empower um the department directors, do
[1:34:44] empower the supervisors and and empower
[1:34:46] the uh management uh team, myself,
[1:34:50] Ashley uh and others in the future. So,
[1:34:52] if council just wants to make the policy
[1:34:54] decisions, we're happy to bring policies
[1:34:56] that would give us the ability to make
[1:34:58] decisions so that it isn't just on
[1:35:00] council. council can set the policy and
[1:35:03] then we're happy to uh to play within
[1:35:05] the parameters given.
[1:35:08] >> Our finance director has been trying for
[1:35:10] a while.
[1:35:11] >> Thank you guys. [clears throat] Um I
[1:35:14] want to address this because I feel a
[1:35:15] lot of this is directed at my
[1:35:16] department. Uh when I adjusted the hours
[1:35:21] or or working hours for my department,
[1:35:23] it was purely I guess selfish for my
[1:35:26] reasons for my department. Um, I didn't
[1:35:30] consider other employees, other
[1:35:31] departments. What I looked at is how to
[1:35:33] get the best performance for my
[1:35:35] department. So, when you guys talk about
[1:35:38] uh there's nothing that no work is done
[1:35:41] between 7 and 8, well, there's there's
[1:35:43] no customers at that point in time, but
[1:35:46] my staff uh half my staff comes in at
[1:35:49] 7:00 to get a lot of work done. So
[1:35:52] whether it's AP, payroll, utility
[1:35:55] billing, preparing the shut offs, that's
[1:35:57] unin uninterrupted time that they get to
[1:36:00] perform their work that they won't have
[1:36:02] the rest of the day because they have to
[1:36:04] man the desk. Now I know there's other
[1:36:05] departments within city hall that don't
[1:36:08] have to man a desk, but uh my department
[1:36:11] has a lot and there's four people to
[1:36:14] juggle those things, but it's an
[1:36:15] interruption every day. I don't know if
[1:36:17] you ever tried to work on something that
[1:36:19] takes concentration, but if you have to
[1:36:21] get up and stop every 5 minutes to go
[1:36:23] answer a customer thing, it's very
[1:36:25] difficult to do. So, they appreciate
[1:36:27] that time where there's no customer
[1:36:30] service. Now, I I told my staff to do
[1:36:32] this. We have to maintain the city's
[1:36:34] hours because city council set the hours
[1:36:37] for city hall. So, we have to maintain
[1:36:39] that. So, uh there is a full staff from
[1:36:43] 8 to 3:30. So, we do have that one hour
[1:36:46] um that is only half staff. It's at the
[1:36:50] uh end of the day. However, I told him I
[1:36:52] said, "Look, when we have the the bill
[1:36:54] pay periods, when that closes out,
[1:36:57] everybody comes in to pay. So, on those
[1:36:59] days that people are coming in to pay,
[1:37:01] there is no early shift. Everybody works
[1:37:03] from 8 to 4:30 on those days because we
[1:37:06] need that time because everybody comes
[1:37:09] in at the end of the hour. So again,
[1:37:11] this is all designed to make my
[1:37:14] department work the most efficient. So I
[1:37:17] they come in early to get their work
[1:37:19] done uninterrupted and on the days
[1:37:21] that's required for customer service,
[1:37:23] they stay late. They do not come in
[1:37:25] early on those days so they can uh
[1:37:28] answer the stuff because there are long
[1:37:30] lines out there. We have all our windows
[1:37:32] going. I mean that's the whole point. So
[1:37:34] the idea is to make sure that they're
[1:37:36] we're operating. This is this is my
[1:37:38] suggestion, my design. It
[1:37:41] [clears throat] was not because of the
[1:37:42] employees wanted this. I did this to get
[1:37:45] the most work out of them. So that was
[1:37:47] the decision. So if I did something
[1:37:49] wrong, let me know. But I think I'm
[1:37:51] running the department very efficiently
[1:37:54] to get the most for the city. That's the
[1:37:57] whole purpose for that.
[1:37:58] >> Thanks for explaining. But it wasn't
[1:38:00] directed to you personally or to your
[1:38:02] staff or any looking. But with that
[1:38:05] said, since your staff has to do minutes
[1:38:09] and that means a lot of concentration,
[1:38:11] especially taking executive session,
[1:38:13] listening to all these, it's hard,
[1:38:15] especially getting up. Maybe your staff
[1:38:17] can do the same thing, rotate, some of
[1:38:19] them will come at 7:00 till 3:30 and
[1:38:23] some, as long you have someone there
[1:38:25] till 4:30 to answer the phones and the
[1:38:28] door. So, I think it's only fair for
[1:38:32] everybody. If uh this is your department
[1:38:33] and this is one employee would like to
[1:38:35] do the minutes before all the
[1:38:38] interruption.
[1:38:42] Okay. Does anybody on city council have
[1:38:44] a problem with staff putting together
[1:38:48] uh recommendations that were brought up
[1:38:50] tonight for review for city from city
[1:38:52] council at a future work session? To my
[1:38:55] left. Anybody?
[1:38:57] >> No.
[1:38:57] >> To my right?
[1:39:00] >> No.
[1:39:00] >> Okay. So Blaine.
[1:39:01] >> Okay. You have your direction. Unless
[1:39:03] you have your direction.
[1:39:04] >> Thank you all of you.
[1:39:06] >> All right. Bring something up.
[1:39:09] >> Thank you for coming today because it's
[1:39:11] always easier to see talk in person.
[1:39:13] >> Thank you.
[1:39:17] » Okay. Uh next item for
[1:39:22] discussion. Blame.
[1:39:24] >> I'm going to come up to the podium as
[1:39:25] well.
[1:39:39] Thank you.
[1:40:06] » All right. As I think Ashley's passing
[1:40:08] all those, I have one. So,
[1:40:10] >> take
[1:40:11] >> um Yeah. So, um our intern is going to
[1:40:17] be talking about the specific uh
[1:40:19] compensation components, but uh for this
[1:40:21] overall discussion um I do feel a few
[1:40:24] things are kind of intertwined. So I
[1:40:27] wanted to uh kind of uh go through a few
[1:40:30] slides for us to have this kind of
[1:40:33] context and then um I I will uh be
[1:40:37] introducing our intern who used the data
[1:40:40] that uh our administrative assistant uh
[1:40:42] Marbel put together and then our intern
[1:40:44] then contacted other municipalities and
[1:40:47] used other resources. Uh I know the IML
[1:40:49] has a tool and uh um there are a few
[1:40:52] other uh tools that allow us to get some
[1:40:55] of the uh the data for our elected
[1:40:57] official positions. So [clears throat]
[1:41:01] why uh is this discussion occurring?
[1:41:04] Again, um um I'm I'm going to be talking
[1:41:07] about the schedule and our current
[1:41:09] positions
[1:41:11] for elected positions are tied into per
[1:41:13] meeting compared to a compensation that
[1:41:16] is set monthly or kind of an annual
[1:41:19] compensation.
[1:41:21] Excuse me.
[1:41:21] >> Bless you.
[1:41:22] >> Thank you. Um so, um through my few
[1:41:25] slides, I'm going to be talking about
[1:41:26] the meeting schedule, the open meetings
[1:41:28] act requirement compensation. Again I
[1:41:32] feel that these are these issues are
[1:41:34] intertwined and do uh affect the other.
[1:41:37] Um so when we look at our current
[1:41:38] meeting schedule um we have you know
[1:41:41] weeks one through four potentially a
[1:41:43] week five depending on on the month we
[1:41:46] have council meeting work session
[1:41:48] meeting a work session and potentially
[1:41:50] an additional work session or a special
[1:41:52] meeting. So typically um there's four
[1:41:54] regular meetings. Um sometimes there's a
[1:41:59] um what I'll be proposing um um for
[1:42:02] council's consideration in the future is
[1:42:05] again when we're we're in the context of
[1:42:07] compensation is breaking away from a
[1:42:09] model that is per meeting but looking at
[1:42:12] a monthly stipen model. Um again with an
[1:42:16] updated schedule. Uh, and I'll note here
[1:42:18] staff is proposing to delay the
[1:42:20] implementation of changing the schedule
[1:42:22] all the way until uh uh May 1st of 2029.
[1:42:26] So it would not impact so um our current
[1:42:30] elected officials that still have two
[1:42:32] and a half years left because if we
[1:42:34] reduced the number of meetings and
[1:42:36] they're paid per meeting, there would
[1:42:38] actually be a reduction if we
[1:42:40] implemented that sooner. So with the
[1:42:43] proposed schedule, uh what I'll be
[1:42:45] looking at uh is a schedule of a council
[1:42:48] meeting, a work session, a council
[1:42:50] meeting, and then reserving. So we would
[1:42:52] not be filling that fourth week or that
[1:42:54] as needed, but those could potentially
[1:42:56] still uh occur. Uh again some of the
[1:43:00] benefits um for having a regular three
[1:43:03] meeting per month compared to a four
[1:43:04] meeting would be more implementation
[1:43:06] time more focused discussions um uh a
[1:43:10] reduction in redundancy and greater
[1:43:12] staff efficiency get on the staff
[1:43:15] efficiency and productivity here. So
[1:43:18] currently what staff is doing for our
[1:43:20] meetings are prep uh preparation for a
[1:43:22] meeting a meeting preparation for a
[1:43:24] meeting preparation you know so we got
[1:43:25] meeting preparation meeting preparation
[1:43:27] there's this schedule um that kind of uh
[1:43:30] hamster wheel that what we're doing the
[1:43:32] proposed is preparation meeting
[1:43:35] implementation meeting completion
[1:43:37] [snorts] and then we start that cycle
[1:43:38] over again so what's the key difference
[1:43:40] again it's more time implementing what
[1:43:43] council's direction is and less time
[1:43:45] preparing for reoccurring meetings
[1:43:47] Sorry, sorry to interrupt. Um,
[1:43:50] >> this information regarding uh meeting
[1:43:52] schedule and and so forth, what you're
[1:43:54] going over now, was that in our packet
[1:43:56] provided on Friday?
[1:43:58] >> No. So, this was the stuff that I listed
[1:44:00] in our packet saying that if time
[1:44:02] permits, I'm going to be talking about
[1:44:03] the scheduling. So,
[1:44:04] >> what we were handed just now,
[1:44:06] >> correct? And and again, I'm going over
[1:44:08] this for context. the information that
[1:44:11] was emailed to uh council over the
[1:44:14] weekend is regarding the compensation,
[1:44:16] right?
[1:44:17] >> But if we don't have, I guess, a context
[1:44:19] of potentially thinking about the
[1:44:23] scheduling of of of a change in
[1:44:26] schedule, that could influence uh
[1:44:29] council's discussion regarding uh the
[1:44:31] compensation.
[1:44:33] >> Well, I I understand that. Why Why
[1:44:35] couldn't we have gotten this on Friday
[1:44:37] as well?
[1:44:37] >> I created this two hours ago.
[1:44:40] So, I couldn't provide it to you um on
[1:44:43] Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. Um I've
[1:44:46] been working through um our process to see I also had a conversation this
[1:44:51] afternoon with uh with the clerk to see
[1:44:53] if even reducing a uh schedule would be
[1:44:57] uh feasible or practical. Um and again,
[1:45:00] we have all the way until the end of
[1:45:02] October, October 28th, as I'll be noting
[1:45:04] here in in a moment with a a time frame.
[1:45:07] So by having this at tonight's meeting,
[1:45:10] we have uh about two full months to have
[1:45:12] the discussion.
[1:45:13] >> So we had like a year we've been asking
[1:45:16] for this to be on discussion.
[1:45:18] [clears throat]
[1:45:19] And I agree with Mark and Tina was a big
[1:45:24] vocal about stuff where it's handed to
[1:45:26] us right at last minute in the meeting.
[1:45:29] We don't get the chance to review it.
[1:45:31] >> Sure.
[1:45:32] >> You know, it's already 8:45.
[1:45:34] >> Yep.
[1:45:34] >> So that mean we got to rush through all
[1:45:36] this. We have two staff member here that
[1:45:39] I don't know if our finance has anything
[1:45:41] on his agenda for tonight. He'll be
[1:45:43] sitting through this. Our our other
[1:45:46] director will be sitting here through
[1:45:48] all these discussions so he can do one
[1:45:50] report and that's how I feel. It's
[1:45:52] always time crush time crush and we have
[1:45:53] to make a fast decision. We'll be
[1:45:55] waiting for this for a year.
[1:45:56] >> Yeah. So tonight there isn't a decision
[1:45:58] on this. This is a discussion. Um and so
[1:46:02] um I wanted to present this so that
[1:46:04] council would have again up to 60 days
[1:46:06] to uh discuss this particular uh uh
[1:46:10] portion. [clears throat] Uh again, I'm
[1:46:13] not expecting council to uh there's no
[1:46:17] vote. Um, there is several other
[1:46:20] meetings between now and when a decision
[1:46:22] needs to be made, but if there was never
[1:46:25] a conversation or thought or even
[1:46:27] discussion with council about adjusting
[1:46:29] the time schedule, I think council would
[1:46:31] be missing an opportunity. I I I
[1:46:35] have a lot of concern going from two
[1:46:37] work sessions to one just due to the
[1:46:39] fact that our work sessions
[1:46:43] run so long and I don't know how we
[1:46:46] could accomplish what we do in two work
[1:46:47] sessions in one. I know you have the
[1:46:50] preparation current and proposed, but if
[1:46:52] you're proposing if you're preparing for
[1:46:56] the amount of
[1:46:59] um items that would have showed up in
[1:47:02] two meetings and putting them in one
[1:47:05] meeting, then that preparation time for
[1:47:08] one meeting is going to take twice as
[1:47:10] long.
[1:47:12] And you know what I'm saying? You're not
[1:47:14] just simply getting rid of a meeting and
[1:47:17] everything that's prepared for it.
[1:47:18] you're going to have to squeeze
[1:47:21] the the items that would have been more
[1:47:25] um um more would have made more sense to
[1:47:30] have in a second meeting. Now you're
[1:47:31] going to put them in in one meeting and
[1:47:34] some of our meetings we don't get out of
[1:47:35] here already till 11 12:00. I I have a
[1:47:40] hard time seeing
[1:47:41] >> Yeah. that we're going to be able to
[1:47:42] accomplish the same amount of work in
[1:47:44] one meeting that we do now in two
[1:47:47] especially, you know, we're expecting a
[1:47:49] lot of growth. We're seeing it
[1:47:51] happening. We're going to that means
[1:47:52] more um projects going to come in for
[1:47:56] approval hopefully. Hopefully more
[1:47:58] developers are going to come in for
[1:48:00] discussions with council and feedback
[1:48:03] for for development. I mean, it's it's I
[1:48:06] don't see the workload going down. I see
[1:48:09] it increasing.
[1:48:10] >> So, I I don't really I [snorts] don't
[1:48:14] really feel that there's logically in
[1:48:17] real life that two meetings shrunk down
[1:48:20] to one,
[1:48:23] but in the same amount of time as as one
[1:48:25] of those two meetings, how it's possible
[1:48:27] to accomplish everything.
[1:48:29] >> Sure. So, uh, other communities like
[1:48:31] where I came from in Neapville actually
[1:48:32] only have two meetings, not not what I'm
[1:48:35] proposing.
[1:48:35] >> That's fine. I I to be honest, I don't
[1:48:37] care what anyone else does. I see what
[1:48:40] happens here in Crest Hill. Great.
[1:48:41] >> We have two work sessions a month.
[1:48:43] >> Yep.
[1:48:45] >> Are they ever an hour or less? Very
[1:48:47] rarely. Are they Are they ever 2 3 4
[1:48:51] hours? Quite often. So h unless we're
[1:48:55] going to eliminate some of the steps and
[1:48:58] some of the things that are coming to
[1:49:00] council and council just won't be
[1:49:02] involved in them, I don't see how
[1:49:05] logistically timewise those the same
[1:49:08] amount of work, the same things that
[1:49:10] we're accomplishing now in two meetings
[1:49:12] will happen in one.
[1:49:13] >> I actually think we'll get more done. So
[1:49:15] between now and 2029 we will have um
[1:49:19] basically a cadence so that the meeting
[1:49:21] schedules and the meeting agendas won't
[1:49:23] be fluctuating. So instead of having
[1:49:26] three items and then 10 or 12 the next
[1:49:28] and then four items and then you know
[1:49:30] kind of that that uh uneven pattern it
[1:49:33] would be set across uh the the table. Uh
[1:49:36] again looking at um this being a few
[1:49:39] years out, this allows us to address
[1:49:41] what are those annual contracts to be
[1:49:44] multi-year contracts so that council is
[1:49:46] addressing the policies on items that
[1:49:48] are good for two or three years instead
[1:49:50] of bringing things back every year for
[1:49:52] just one item.
[1:49:53] So I think the the amount of the work
[1:49:55] you're spec referring to as contracts
[1:49:59] that are one year or two or three year I
[1:50:01] think that's that's um that's [snorts]
[1:50:05] it's about 30% of council's uh annual
[1:50:09] work is items that could be multi-year
[1:50:12] contracts that we've been addressing on uh and an annual basis. So
[1:50:17] >> how much time does it actually take to
[1:50:19] discuss those things versus
[1:50:23] plan unit development that comes in. Um,
[1:50:26] >> you know, there's just so many so many
[1:50:29] examples of of things that come to the
[1:50:32] city that ultimately come before council
[1:50:34] in two meetings. Unless there's going to
[1:50:37] be a different way of handling a lot of
[1:50:39] the a lot of those things that they
[1:50:41] don't come to the council, I don't I I
[1:50:44] just have a hard time seeing two
[1:50:46] meetings getting shrunk into one. I
[1:50:49] don't know if am I the only one that's
[1:50:50] thinking
[1:50:50] >> No, I agree with you.
[1:50:52] >> Well, I mean, on the surface that I I I
[1:50:54] agree with you, but I'd also like to
[1:50:56] hear what he has to present because if
[1:50:58] we can become more efficient, I think
[1:51:00] that's a win-win for everybody. [snorts]
[1:51:04] >> I'm happy to to conclude. I just have a
[1:51:06] few more slides and uh then we'll be
[1:51:08] getting into the conversation for the
[1:51:10] compensation. And if council does not
[1:51:12] want to uh proceed looking at a an
[1:51:15] adjustment in schedule, that is
[1:51:17] council's uh you know choice. For me, I
[1:51:20] do feel it's part of my responsibility
[1:51:22] to share with council my recommendation.
[1:51:25] And I do feel that uh we're not being as
[1:51:28] efficient as we can be and uh again, you
[1:51:31] know, the staff time and the
[1:51:32] productivity uh I do think can be with a
[1:51:35] modified schedule. again, not dropping
[1:51:37] down to two that other communities have,
[1:51:40] but since our history has uh uh really
[1:51:43] locked us in since 1960 to a four to
[1:51:46] five meeting schedule, um I know that
[1:51:48] this is going to be a change. Um but if
[1:51:51] we don't start to have this
[1:51:52] conversation, at least tonight, it's
[1:51:54] going to be too late and then it's two
[1:51:55] years and then it's another and so it's
[1:51:57] really looking at four years from this period of time. And so that's why I
[1:52:01] felt again even just a few hours ago
[1:52:03] before um to add this item for tonight's
[1:52:06] discussion. Uh again, time and staff
[1:52:09] productivity is the item that I I was uh
[1:52:11] suggesting and again I see the key
[1:52:13] difference being more time actually
[1:52:15] implementing what council uh directs uh
[1:52:18] instead of preparing for re meetings. Um
[1:52:21] the next item um I am anticipating that
[1:52:24] our city attorney uh along with other
[1:52:26] community attorneys are advising their
[1:52:29] uh their um communities that the ad hoc
[1:52:32] committees are going to need to meet the
[1:52:35] open meetings act. So my assumption is
[1:52:38] as of January 1st of 2027
[1:52:41] is all of our ad hoc committees will now
[1:52:44] need to meet the public notice, the
[1:52:46] public access, the agendas, the minutes,
[1:52:49] the record ret uh retention as well as
[1:52:52] the open meeting acts compliance. So key
[1:52:54] takeaways here is as the ad hack
[1:52:57] committees become fully subject to the
[1:52:59] open meetings act um they are going to
[1:53:01] function very similarly to our city
[1:53:03] council meetings and to our work
[1:53:05] sessions. Um looking at that um our
[1:53:09] current compensation structure and again
[1:53:11] I'm just focusing on one and we'll have
[1:53:13] more of a conversation here in a few
[1:53:14] minutes um as our intern walks through
[1:53:18] um the survey information regarding each
[1:53:20] of the elected uh positions. Um just
[1:53:23] looking at the compensation for the
[1:53:25] current council members, our current
[1:53:27] council um for uh members earn $200 per
[1:53:31] meeting uh for the council meeting um
[1:53:34] $55 for a work session and then zero for
[1:53:37] the committee meetings. Typically,
[1:53:39] again, that would uh break out uh
[1:53:42] moneywise as two council meetings would
[1:53:44] be $400, two work sessions would uh
[1:53:46] equate to 110. Um, so that would be 510.
[1:53:50] If we did happen to have a third work
[1:53:52] session, that would be an additional
[1:53:53] $55. So that would get us to $565.
[1:53:57] What I'd be proposing uh for council's
[1:53:59] consideration uh with the new model and
[1:54:02] attendance would be uh proposing a
[1:54:04] monthly stipen looking at a uh monthly
[1:54:08] stipen of $900. So that would equate to
[1:54:10] $10,800 annually. Uh and again, as part
[1:54:14] of this would be attendance. So meetings
[1:54:17] that are missed for council meetings,
[1:54:18] there would be a deduction of two $2 250
[1:54:21] per meeting. Missed work sessions would
[1:54:23] be a deduction of uh $100 per meeting.
[1:54:25] And a miss committee meeting would be
[1:54:27] $50 per meeting. Again, instead of per
[1:54:30] meetings, this would be looking at a
[1:54:33] all-encompassing a monthly stipen that
[1:54:36] would cover all the meetings. So our
[1:54:38] council meetings, our work sessions,
[1:54:40] committee meetings, uh constituent
[1:54:42] engagement, meeting uh preparation, um
[1:54:46] community activities, researching
[1:54:48] various policies and review, etc.
[1:54:51] Um last two slides annually compensation
[1:54:55] uh the comparison again um this will be
[1:54:57] noted in a moment the compensation
[1:54:58] comparison presentation that will go
[1:55:00] into detail for each of the elected
[1:55:02] positions but just as an example right
[1:55:04] now our current calendar for 26 um has
[1:55:08] our council member positions um with the
[1:55:10] max of $6,340
[1:55:13] for the year for each of the positions.
[1:55:15] Um, the new proposed or what I'm
[1:55:17] suggesting for council's consideration
[1:55:19] would be the 10,800. Again, noting that
[1:55:22] the clerk and the treasurer's current
[1:55:24] max, again, utilizing the 2026 calendar
[1:55:26] as uh as an example, the max for those
[1:55:30] positions is at 10,575.
[1:55:33] So, that $900 per month is very close
[1:55:36] equating to to that. Looking at the my
[1:55:40] final slide, which is the compensation
[1:55:42] and a uh meeting schedule. Uh this is
[1:55:44] kind of with the transition time. We are
[1:55:47] currently in that 2026 window. So this
[1:55:50] is the time for council to be
[1:55:51] discussing. Uh in addition, council
[1:55:54] would need to make a decision regarding
[1:55:55] either compensation andor schedule
[1:55:57] before October 28th of 2026. Um again,
[1:56:02] if that is voted and approved to change
[1:56:04] the compensation andor the schedule, um
[1:56:08] the transition period would would take
[1:56:10] place, but there would not be a change
[1:56:12] for except for the four individuals. Um
[1:56:16] that would uh occur after the sworn in
[1:56:19] after May 1st of 2027. again through the
[1:56:22] proposal that I'm talking about with the
[1:56:24] schedule for our calendar for the
[1:56:26] meetings that still wouldn't occur until
[1:56:29] May 1st of 2029. Again, May 1st of 2029,
[1:56:33] not 27, not 28, all the way until May
[1:56:36] 1st of 2029. So about 2 and a half years
[1:56:38] from now. Again, at that period of time,
[1:56:41] I'd be asking prior again to the 180
[1:56:44] days to move forward the council member
[1:56:47] the other four positions to the same
[1:56:49] schedule so that there would be the full
[1:56:51] stipen model, not on a per meeting
[1:56:54] schedule, but on a uh an overall group.
[1:56:57] Again, um I would recommend council to
[1:57:00] have a discussion regarding adjusting
[1:57:02] the the council schedule. I'm happy to
[1:57:04] answer questions. Yes. Um, and
[1:57:07] >> I have one ordinance 1263.
[1:57:10] >> Y,
[1:57:10] >> it's an ordinance uh that is with the
[1:57:14] respect to compensation of alderman and
[1:57:16] it reads the same for clerk, treasurer,
[1:57:19] mayor. They're all each separate, but it
[1:57:22] says here from and after
[1:57:26] 2003,
[1:57:28] it has for each alderman elected in 2003
[1:57:31] shall be paid $55 per city council work
[1:57:34] session or city council committee
[1:57:37] meeting from and after May 1st of 2005.
[1:57:41] Each alderman elected in 2005 shall be
[1:57:44] paid $55 per city council work session
[1:57:48] or committee meeting. And none of us
[1:57:50] have ever gotten paid for a committee
[1:57:52] meeting. It's right here in the
[1:57:54] ordinance that we should get paid for a
[1:57:56] committee meeting.
[1:57:57] >> And why is that? So why haven't we been
[1:57:59] getting paid?
[1:58:00] >> And should we get paid for
[1:58:03] >> how far back?
[1:58:04] >> Yeah, I'm not aware that city council
[1:58:06] has had a committee meeting. Uh the
[1:58:08] attorney can can talk about that. I
[1:58:10] think what you're thinking of a
[1:58:11] committee meeting being is an ad hoc
[1:58:14] committee.
[1:58:15] So those are you just sent the thing to
[1:58:18] me and
[1:58:21] >> Angelo here that we had a finance
[1:58:25] committee meeting. Wasn't it called the
[1:58:27] finance committee meeting?
[1:58:29] >> Yes.
[1:58:29] >> So it's saying committee meeting and
[1:58:31] that's what it says here in the
[1:58:34] ordinance that we would get paid for the
[1:58:36] committee meeting.
[1:58:38] that that is not I mean I refer to the
[1:58:41] attorney but again I've been here and my
[1:58:43] understanding is those sort of ad hoc
[1:58:45] meetings are ad hoc committee meetings
[1:58:47] and not meeting the definition again
[1:58:50] since 2005 all the way through
[1:58:53] ad hoc
[1:58:55] committee meetings it's just saying
[1:58:56] committee meetings
[1:58:58] >> well annually currently the meetings the
[1:59:00] committees that are set are ad hoc
[1:59:03] committees for one year
[1:59:05] >> isn't ad hoc meetings like the civil
[1:59:08] service and
[1:59:09] >> no that is a comm the civil service is a
[1:59:11] commission so is the planning
[1:59:13] commission.
[1:59:14] >> So right but those are ad hoc committees
[1:59:17] appointed by the people appointed by the
[1:59:20] mayor that would make them ad hoc.
[1:59:21] >> It um those are actually through our
[1:59:24] code that those are set as actual
[1:59:26] commissions not committees. So you have
[1:59:28] the um uh planning commission and the
[1:59:31] civil service commission. Those are
[1:59:33] different than committees.
[1:59:36] I'd like the city attorney to weigh in
[1:59:38] on this. Committee meetings are paid at
[1:59:41] $50, but they haven't been. If there's
[1:59:45] many committees across the council here,
[1:59:48] it doesn't specify ad hoc or not. Just
[1:59:51] says committee meeting.
[1:59:53] I wasn't here in 2005, so I have no idea
[1:59:56] what the heck this meant. Um, I've not
[1:59:59] been asked to research the potential
[2:00:02] like
[2:00:03] uh back pay issue, but um this is the
[2:00:08] first I'm hearing of it, so I honestly
[2:00:11] can't weigh in.
[2:00:13] >> Well, I'm sure you employees of the
[2:00:16] city, they'd be getting it paid
[2:00:18] and we would be told we would have to
[2:00:20] pay them. We've seen it happen many a
[2:00:23] time here, you know, for an employee.
[2:00:26] Well, this is what it was done before.
[2:00:28] They should have got paid for this or
[2:00:30] they should have got paid for that. And
[2:00:31] then we have to pay here. It's us and
[2:00:34] it's saying
[2:00:37] right here's the ordinance I got right
[2:00:38] in front of me and I read it to you word
[2:00:40] for word and it says committee meeting
[2:00:43] doesn't say [snorts] anything else. says
[2:00:45] this council committee meeting doesn't
[2:00:48] specify or say that it's a finance or uh
[2:00:51] you know
[2:00:54] whatever any other kind of committee we
[2:00:56] have here it's not specified just says
[2:00:59] committee meeting and there has been
[2:01:01] committee meetings and we haven't gotten
[2:01:03] paid for
[2:01:04] >> again I would have to I was not here in
[2:01:06] '05 uh similar to what the attorney was
[2:01:09] stating uh I went back on our past
[2:01:11] practice and we had not been paying uh
[2:01:14] elected officials for ad hoc committees
[2:01:17] for meetings.
[2:01:18] >> Well, then we ain't been found the
[2:01:20] ordinance here.
[2:01:22] >> Again, I was not here from uh ' 05
[2:01:25] through 20, you know, to June of 2025
[2:01:28] when I started.
[2:01:31] >> I think we we
[2:01:32] >> Scott, can I ask you about this thing
[2:01:33] you handed us?
[2:01:35] >> Yeah.
[2:01:39] » Okay. So what you say is whatever we
[2:01:42] vote on the change but you don't want
[2:01:43] the change to take effect until the
[2:01:45] second cycle.
[2:01:46] >> Right. Exactly. It would be easier I
[2:01:48] think for you know payroll for you know
[2:01:51] finance to have where everybody starts
[2:01:55] at the same time in 29.
[2:01:58] >> Yeah. Again
[2:01:59] >> instead of trying to split it up and pay
[2:02:01] part of council one way and the other
[2:02:03] part of council another way. if we make
[2:02:05] it effective of May of 2029, this way
[2:02:09] everyone would get that raise at the
[2:02:10] same time in that pay schedule.
[2:02:12] >> I I I don't disagree with that. However,
[2:02:14] I've been advised by council otherwise,
[2:02:16] and I'll allow council to
[2:02:17] >> Well, council can weigh in on it, but
[2:02:19] I'm just
[2:02:20] >> No, no, I'm sorry. our city attorney
[2:02:22] council. Uh I I've been advised by our
[2:02:25] city attorney um that again if somebody
[2:02:28] and I'll let him elaborate that if uh
[2:02:30] somebody in the term can't uh be in
[2:02:33] office. So maybe now is a good time for
[2:02:35] you to jump in on that that regard.
[2:02:38] >> I mean traditionally it's done in the
[2:02:41] staggered way. You did it that way in
[2:02:43] 2005. The the the next election the
[2:02:47] first race kicked in. the next election
[2:02:49] took place thereafter. I'm not saying
[2:02:52] you can't do it that way. I'm what I've
[2:02:54] advised is that's the way it's
[2:02:55] traditionally been done. And I think
[2:02:58] every community that we've ever had
[2:02:59] that's made raises, it's not been four
[2:03:02] years out for everybody at the same
[2:03:04] time. Again, if you if the council's
[2:03:08] decision or pleasure is to do it all at
[2:03:11] once, Scott, if the rest of the council
[2:03:13] wants to go along with it, I can take a
[2:03:15] look into it. I think that's probably it
[2:03:17] right here. I handed it to you and it's
[2:03:19] from the IML that it desired that all
[2:03:22] elected officials be on the same pay
[2:03:24] grade. A pay schedule could be adopted
[2:03:26] prior to the commencement of the term of
[2:03:29] any of the impacted officials that would
[2:03:31] have a future effective date that
[2:03:33] follows the provision of setting their
[2:03:35] compensation in the previous example in
[2:03:37] order setting pay for all officials
[2:03:39] could be effective in May of 29th. So
[2:03:42] there would be no difference or there
[2:03:43] will be a delay.
[2:03:45] >> Correct.
[2:03:46] >> Right. So that can be done.
[2:03:48] >> I didn't say it couldn't be done. I just
[2:03:50] said that traditionally you did it this
[2:03:53] way in 2005. All my other communities
[2:03:56] have done it in a staggered way. If you
[2:03:58] decide not to stagger it.
[2:03:59] >> Will be up to council to decide.
[2:04:01] Council's decision. Yes.
[2:04:02] >> Exactly. But it's an option. I'm just,
[2:04:05] you know, putting it out there. If
[2:04:07] council wants to do that, fine. If
[2:04:09] council doesn't and they want to have
[2:04:11] where we've been doing it like we've
[2:04:13] been doing it where some are being paid
[2:04:15] one way and some being paid the other
[2:04:17] that's fine. It would be up to council.
[2:04:20] >> What are you reading this from?
[2:04:21] >> This here
[2:04:22] >> I I had one question in regards to
[2:04:24] that's why I asked that.
[2:04:25] >> Um
[2:04:27] all this information it's very nice and
[2:04:29] I appreciate it. But my question was
[2:04:32] looking at the current salaries for the
[2:04:34] older people that's on this sheet. This
[2:04:38] amount seems to put us in a position
[2:04:42] where we should be, but if this is not
[2:04:45] going to go into effect until 2029,
[2:04:50] I I I think we need to to adjust that
[2:04:53] alderman salary because most of these
[2:04:55] places get bumps all the time. And Crest
[2:04:58] Hill, unfortunately, as he just said,
[2:05:00] hasn't had one in 21 years. So if we
[2:05:02] don't institute this until 2029
[2:05:05] that that's going to take us to um
[2:05:10] what how many years
[2:05:12] 20
[2:05:13] >> 25
[2:05:16] yeah along. So perhaps we need to raise
[2:05:20] this this the statement to accommodate
[2:05:23] the fact that if if it if it's not going
[2:05:25] to take place for four years. Do you
[2:05:28] understand what I'm saying?
[2:05:29] >> Three more years of lagging.
[2:05:31] >> Yeah. Yeah, it the the comparison or the
[2:05:35] recommendation I think are in today's
[2:05:38] market relative to other municipalities.
[2:05:41] But if it's not instituted for
[2:05:45] >> two to four years,
[2:05:46] >> two and a half to three years, then
[2:05:50] we want to be we want to be competitive,
[2:05:52] right? But and comparable. So without
[2:05:57] you know
[2:05:59] looking at
[2:06:01] two and a half years from now and unless
[2:06:05] you're going to also propose but I don't
[2:06:08] see it any annual um adjustment uh
[2:06:12] increase due to inflation or cola
[2:06:14] whatever you want to call it. I I'm glad
[2:06:16] you asked that question because I did
[2:06:18] ask our our attorney u to review the CPI
[2:06:23] adjustment. Uh uh and I know he'll be
[2:06:26] able to again en enlighten counsel on uh
[2:06:30] his research. And again, that's been
[2:06:31] some of the the hard work that was put
[2:06:33] in over the last nine months as we've
[2:06:35] been going through looking at the the
[2:06:37] comparable data and having the
[2:06:39] attorney's uh law office look at um are
[2:06:42] we able to build in a uh in a annual or
[2:06:46] even a uh per cycle adjustment or even a
[2:06:50] percentage adjustment um and those sort
[2:06:52] of things. Uh I do think it's worth so
[2:06:55] that the the public can also see what uh
[2:06:57] what council has uh been given is the
[2:07:00] comparable information. I think there's
[2:07:02] maybe eight to 10 slides that again
[2:07:05] between our administrative assistant and
[2:07:07] our our new intern. I'll let her
[2:07:09] introduce herself. Again, I think this
[2:07:11] is the first time she's been actually on
[2:07:13] the front side of our our council. uh um
[2:07:16] she's been in the in the back room uh
[2:07:17] running the AV equip equipment several
[2:07:20] uh several of our meetings, but she has
[2:07:22] put together a brief presentation uh
[2:07:24] again just showing where we stand
[2:07:27] currently with um with comparison to
[2:07:30] some of our neighboring communities and
[2:07:33] um then again the attorney uh uh has
[2:07:37] done some research on to the uh possible
[2:07:40] annual adjustments or percentages. So,
[2:07:43] if if you wouldn't mind putting kind of
[2:07:45] a pin on that one and allowing uh Shay
[2:07:47] to to uh to kind of just uh walk through
[2:07:50] her slides and uh again, I'll just sit
[2:07:52] off to the side here.
[2:07:53] >> And also, can we uh
[2:07:55] >> Sure.
[2:07:56] >> put a little note to come back to the
[2:07:58] committee thing. Scott was talking about
[2:08:00] >> Sure. Happy to do that. Yep.
[2:08:03] >> Well, hello council. I haven't met many
[2:08:06] of you oneonone, but my name is Kish. I
[2:08:09] am your city intern. I know I'm usually
[2:08:12] back there, but a lot of the times if
[2:08:13] you guys come in, I'm the back office
[2:08:16] right next to Ashley. Um, over the last
[2:08:19] few weeks, I was given the task to look
[2:08:22] at a bunch of different municipalities
[2:08:25] and their compensation for their mayor,
[2:08:28] treasurer, uh, all their persons,
[2:08:30] trustees, v village mayors, however you
[2:08:33] want to go about it,
[2:08:34] >> and the clerk.
[2:08:35] not forget the clerk.
[2:08:39] Just a little background about this
[2:08:40] presentation. Um, the information that
[2:08:43] is presented in here is based off the
[2:08:45] population. So, we took the four largest
[2:08:48] towns, Joliet, Bowling Brook,
[2:08:49] Planefield, and Romeoville, and kind of
[2:08:52] took them out of this. So, the simple
[2:08:54] reason is we wanted to be reasonable
[2:08:56] based on the size of where we sit
[2:08:58] populationwise, and we don't want to
[2:09:00] make sure it's right in the middle for
[2:09:02] where we sit as a municipality. You will
[2:09:04] also see that we have home rule versus
[2:09:06] non-home rule. um two on there are made
[2:09:09] home rule through referendum
[2:09:11] um which is just a process of just
[2:09:13] signing and people taking that down to
[2:09:15] Congress. You also see at the bottom
[2:09:18] that the information is based off of 24
[2:09:20] council meetings and 28 work sessions.
[2:09:23] So the information that I calculated is
[2:09:25] based off of the whole calendar year of
[2:09:27] 2026. It's no meetings missed just to
[2:09:30] keep that noted.
[2:09:33] This is a little bit of the population.
[2:09:35] This population the information was
[2:09:37] gathered from July 1st to 2025. Highest
[2:09:40] is New Linux lowest is Manuka and the
[2:09:43] average about where we sit is that
[2:09:47] 20,580.
[2:09:51] This is a breakdown of what our elected
[2:09:53] officials monthly compensation is at
[2:09:55] this moment right now. As you will see,
[2:09:57] our all the persons are making $400
[2:10:00] monthly and then 55 per work session
[2:10:04] meeting. And then you will go down and
[2:10:06] you have our city clerk and our
[2:10:08] treasurer both making $7667.
[2:10:13] And our mayor, including his liquor
[2:10:15] commission, is making $1,666.667.
[2:10:19] On top of that, they both all get that
[2:10:21] extra $55 for the work sessions.
[2:10:24] [snorts]
[2:10:25] Um, now we're going to go into the
[2:10:27] compensation. Uh, one thing I want you
[2:10:29] guys to note that these are estimated
[2:10:31] full annual compensations amounts. These
[2:10:34] are not just their base salaries.
[2:10:37] Uh the second thing to note, the village
[2:10:38] of Frankfurt is also in the process of
[2:10:40] reviewing theirs as well. Uh we spent a
[2:10:43] lot of time communicating back and
[2:10:45] forth, getting a lot of their
[2:10:46] information and looking at some of the
[2:10:48] things that they are expecting to change
[2:10:50] too. So you will see they kind of sit a
[2:10:52] little lower than us, but they are
[2:10:53] getting ready to also make that jump to
[2:10:55] kind of come to the meeting.
[2:10:58] First thing we'll look over is our
[2:11:00] mayor's compensation. As you can see,
[2:11:02] Monuka sits very low and Lockport sits
[2:11:05] very very high on this uh chart here.
[2:11:08] The average compensation is $19,71343
[2:11:13] and that's a year. The median is $19,50
[2:11:17] for a whole year. I just would like to
[2:11:19] note, I think it was Maru who talked
[2:11:22] about it with the annual increase, the
[2:11:24] 2% or the CPI annual increase. Uh
[2:11:27] Lockport and Shorewood both have those.
[2:11:30] they're using here on the chart that
[2:11:32] I've given you guys and you guys were
[2:11:33] given. You will also see that I think
[2:11:35] there are also two other municipalities
[2:11:37] who have a 2% uh annual increase as well
[2:11:40] on their um and that's only for their
[2:11:43] mayor and their older persons. So the
[2:11:44] treasurer and the clerk do not get that
[2:11:46] annual increase
[2:11:49] for older persons. You guys will see uh
[2:11:51] Chris Hill kind of sits very low on this
[2:11:54] list. Uh where Shanahan they sit the
[2:11:57] highest and manuka they sit very very
[2:11:59] low. Uh the average is $8,36142
[2:12:03] and the median is $8,55550
[2:12:07] a year.
[2:12:10] When you come down to our clerk, um our
[2:12:13] clerk is sitting right at kind of like a little bit higher end. Uh Shortwoods
[2:12:18] is very high. Manuka could not get an
[2:12:20] estimate because they have it's a
[2:12:22] full-time position. So they don't have
[2:12:24] um like deputy and kind of a little
[2:12:26] smaller there. So, they don't really
[2:12:27] have all those positions to kind of
[2:12:29] fill. Uh, but the average $8,6162.
[2:12:34] The median is sitting right at 6,000 as
[2:12:36] you'll see as Mokina, Lockport, and
[2:12:38] Linux and Shanahan all have that.
[2:12:42] And then we come down to the treasure.
[2:12:44] Our treasurer makes uh the most sitting
[2:12:47] at 10,575
[2:12:51] and Lockport is sitting at $2,000 a
[2:12:54] year. Uh if you also look at the chart I
[2:12:56] gave you, there is one more municipality
[2:12:59] um that is also making that $2,000.
[2:13:02] Everybody else has a their financial
[2:13:04] director. So like for us with Glenn um
[2:13:07] holds the treasur position
[2:13:10] and then that would kind of end our
[2:13:13] slideshow to any question in the
[2:13:16] presentation open to any questions.
[2:13:21] can also come to I guess the comments
[2:13:23] from the attorney in regards to the
[2:13:26] Mark's question in regards to the uh
[2:13:28] annual adjustment or the CPI or
[2:13:32] percentage. So, attorney stiff if you
[2:13:34] want to comment on that.
[2:13:35] >> Uh obviously there are several
[2:13:39] communities that have built-in raises.
[2:13:42] Um the best that we could come up with
[2:13:45] is that it's uh obviously subject to
[2:13:49] possible challenge because you would be
[2:13:52] obviously having raises voted on at this
[2:13:55] point that would take an effect
[2:13:58] uh each year during someone's term. I
[2:14:02] think you can make a counter argument as
[2:14:04] well, which is probably why these uh
[2:14:07] other municipalities have done it. So I
[2:14:10] can't tell you that it's ironclad. I can
[2:14:12] tell you that uh others do it and I
[2:14:14] think that there is a defensible
[2:14:16] argument but it's not I guess 100%
[2:14:20] bulletproof that it's not subject to
[2:14:21] challenge.
[2:14:25] » So does that address your question mark?
[2:14:28] [snorts]
[2:14:28] >> Well yeah. Okay.
[2:14:29] >> I mean if there's four other
[2:14:31] municipalities doing it I don't think
[2:14:33] anyone could
[2:14:34] >> and Juliet I mean unless you're going to
[2:14:37] challenge all of them it would be
[2:14:41] you know, couldn't just pick one to
[2:14:43] challenge, right?
[2:14:46] The defense would be these other four
[2:14:47] are doing it.
[2:14:50] >> Well, a challenge of one could
[2:14:52] invalidate all of them. It doesn't have
[2:14:54] to be you. Whoever's deciding to
[2:14:56] challenge it could challenge one. It
[2:14:58] could be a class action uh of some sort
[2:15:01] as well. But
[2:15:05] as we know from the uh case that went to
[2:15:09] the Supreme Court, I mean uh on the
[2:15:12] invalidation of our our tiff, uh they
[2:15:17] made it so ours was invalidated, but
[2:15:19] then they changed the rules so none of
[2:15:21] the other ones uh across the state that
[2:15:24] did the same thing would be invalidated.
[2:15:27] >> But there's not been a challenge of
[2:15:29] other municipalities doing it. That's the difference.
[2:15:33] >> Yeah. [snorts]
[2:15:34] >> Yeah.
[2:15:34] >> Okay.
[2:15:34] >> I mean,
[2:15:38] I don't hit the ball and can't say that
[2:15:39] they won't be, but thus far those uh
[2:15:44] CPI/anual
[2:15:46] raises have been on the books for years
[2:15:48] and have not been challenged.
[2:15:51] >> I believe Juliet's actually doing theirs
[2:15:54] as a uh percentage if I remember
[2:15:56] correctly from the results. [snorts]
[2:15:58] So compared to a consumer price index,
[2:16:00] they just did a flat 2%. So um depending
[2:16:05] on if council wants to go where the
[2:16:07] other the majority of other communities
[2:16:09] that have a increase built in, uh the
[2:16:12] CPI seems to be the more common versus a
[2:16:15] just a flat 2% um increase. Um and I
[2:16:20] think there was the other question. I
[2:16:21] think attorney uh Stiff's office is
[2:16:24] going to have to look into the question
[2:16:25] that Scott asked and the DR wanted to
[2:16:28] come back to in regards to the 2005 uh
[2:16:31] committee uh definition. I think they'll
[2:16:33] have to do some research on to the
[2:16:35] actual uh probably the minutes from the
[2:16:37] meetings and what the intention um you
[2:16:41] know back then in 2005 what it was if
[2:16:44] that can be ascertained and then have a
[2:16:46] legal opinion on that.
[2:16:49] >> I have a quick question.
[2:16:50] >> Yeah. Uh when you said earlier um
[2:16:54] help me here um
[2:16:57] about you get paid for one or two
[2:16:59] meetings. What happened with special
[2:17:01] work sessions when we have interviews
[2:17:03] and we call them special work sessions?
[2:17:05] >> Yeah,
[2:17:05] >> special meetings.
[2:17:06] >> Yep. I know um Mike has also looked that
[2:17:09] up. I'm trying to remember what the uh
[2:17:11] the
[2:17:13] Glenn if you remember where our um the
[2:17:16] special meeting cost was or if you
[2:17:18] remember 55
[2:17:19] >> I think it's still $55.
[2:17:22] No special needs are more than that.
[2:17:24] >> Yeah. Well, work sessions are 55. We
[2:17:27] have a special city council meeting.
[2:17:28] >> We have a special council meeting
[2:17:30] different
[2:17:30] >> special
[2:17:33] work session. I thought
[2:17:35] >> special meeting
[2:17:37] different type of meetings. special
[2:17:40] meeting special meeting.
[2:17:43] >> I think a special council meeting where
[2:17:46] you're actually taking action would be
[2:17:48] at the $200.
[2:17:49] >> Exactly.
[2:17:51] >> A special work.
[2:17:52] >> What happen if something like that
[2:17:54] happens comes up because it does
[2:17:57] >> uh again um under what the proposed it
[2:18:01] would be covered underneath the overall
[2:18:03] monthly stipen. So if uh again what I
[2:18:06] proposed was the $900 would cover all
[2:18:09] meetings, all committees, all the whole
[2:18:11] kind of you know any work that council
[2:18:13] members are doing to prepare for these
[2:18:15] meetings, preparing for work sessions,
[2:18:17] preparing for council meetings, if
[2:18:19] they're meeting with constituents, if
[2:18:20] they're planning um or attending
[2:18:22] different events, activities, any of the
[2:18:25] work that you're basically doing, you're
[2:18:26] getting compensated at that $900 amount.
[2:18:29] Um the majority of uh the research that
[2:18:33] uh um Shay shared with me is most
[2:18:36] communities are breaking away or have
[2:18:38] broken away already from a per meeting
[2:18:40] um to do a flat monthly uh component. Um
[2:18:43] I know in the past that when um some
[2:18:47] communities have had issues with
[2:18:48] attendance. They've addressed that by
[2:18:50] having the deduction. So if somebody
[2:18:52] misses a meeting that they get basically
[2:18:54] zapped a deduction. Um, and that's where
[2:18:56] I suggested a deduction of $250 for the
[2:18:59] meeting, uh, for a council meeting. That
[2:19:01] would be a regular or a special one. Um,
[2:19:04] a $100 deduction for the, uh, work
[2:19:08] session, and then $50 for the, uh,
[2:19:11] committee meetings.
[2:19:12] >> Will you still be eligible the way we
[2:19:15] have it right now? You missed three
[2:19:17] meetings, I think.
[2:19:18] >> Yeah. So, so, so in the future there, it
[2:19:21] would be the all-encompassing. So
[2:19:22] there's no um you get uh if you miss it,
[2:19:25] you're just getting the deduction. So
[2:19:27] there's no longer a a an issue for
[2:19:30] finance. It's really easy on our
[2:19:31] attendance. Um the clerk will note that
[2:19:34] you're here or you're not. So if you're
[2:19:36] not here when finance is is is
[2:19:38] processing [snorts] it, there's not a do
[2:19:40] we need to get uh an absent like an
[2:19:42] approved absence or anything like that.
[2:19:44] If you're not here, you're not here. I
[2:19:46] think somebody should be allowed to miss
[2:19:47] one or two.
[2:19:50] >> Um, in in the chart regarding missed
[2:19:52] meetings, um, it [clears throat] says
[2:19:55] it's currently that the mayor and clerk
[2:19:59] are allowed to miss four and the
[2:20:00] alderman are allowed to miss two. I
[2:20:02] thought we were all the same.
[2:20:04] >> We were where did who where did that
[2:20:06] information come from? Um, if you look
[2:20:08] in the ordinance for Crystal, it will it
[2:20:14] says uh the mayor can miss up to four
[2:20:17] and the
[2:20:18] >> four
[2:20:19] >> the mayor can speak up to four can miss
[2:20:21] up to four but the alderman persons they
[2:20:23] can only miss up to two and that was
[2:20:26] decided back in like
[2:20:27] >> I don't remember that either
[2:20:28] >> 20 2005 I can grab my
[2:20:30] >> 2005
[2:20:32] >> that we changed it
[2:20:35] the updated one the one that I was given that it was only two for now.
[2:20:41] >> We wouldn't have
[2:20:42] >> I got I got the ordinance pulled up now.
[2:20:44] It says you can miss up the four
[2:20:45] >> four.
[2:20:48] >> See, he just said
[2:20:51] >> Glenn just said two regular meeting.
[2:20:53] >> I got the ordinance pulled up right now.
[2:20:55] >> That's why we have them there. section
[2:20:56] 2.12
[2:20:58] uh 010
[2:21:00] um paragraph B uh persons
[2:21:05] blah blah blah alder runs should be
[2:21:06] allowed uh four paid absence per year
[2:21:09] >> four
[2:21:12] » so again I don't know if we need to look
[2:21:14] at the code to see if that potentially
[2:21:16] could like could influence pay versus an
[2:21:19] ordinance change again I was not here
[2:21:21] back in 2005 or or when does that say
[2:21:25] when the
[2:21:26] this
[2:21:26] >> uh this last update. I'm trying to see
[2:21:28] if I got date on here. It looks like it
[2:21:30] was
[2:21:32] 93.
[2:21:33] >> I know we had discussions
[2:21:34] >> 93 2002.
[2:21:37] Um there's 96. It's been updated several
[2:21:40] times.
[2:21:41] >> I know we had discussions on
[2:21:43] >> Yeah.
[2:21:43] >> the four absences. What does that mean
[2:21:46] >> for of any meeting or a combination of
[2:21:48] work session? And I think somewhere
[2:21:50] along the line, I think this was since
[2:21:52] you've been here, Blaine, that we came
[2:21:54] up with a dollar amount,
[2:21:56] >> like $800 or $900 total for the year.
[2:21:59] >> I I think there was a policy before I
[2:22:02] was here that Glenn I I think
[2:22:03] recommended that the maximum could be
[2:22:06] >> there was a work session back in
[2:22:07] February. We took a vote on this the
[2:22:09] work session, although it never went to
[2:22:11] uh the council meeting, but uh I just
[2:22:13] considered it guidance, right?
[2:22:15] >> And you're allowed to have four
[2:22:16] absences. And what we we allow you to do
[2:22:19] is to if you get paid, let's say, two of
[2:22:22] those absences early in the year at
[2:22:24] their work session rates and then you
[2:22:26] took two more council meetings, you can
[2:22:28] trade the other two um work sessions for
[2:22:32] two more um council meetings and we'll
[2:22:35] just pay you the difference is what
[2:22:36] we'll do.
[2:22:36] >> I I could have swore the final decision
[2:22:39] we made was four meetings and it was the
[2:22:42] first four you missed. uh we we because
[2:22:45] of the way it been past practice and
[2:22:47] that's where we we came up with that
[2:22:49] meeting when they had that that thing it
[2:22:51] was discussed it was not 100% vote but
[2:22:54] it was the majority said that
[2:22:57] >> this guidance was okay to swap it out if
[2:22:59] you want so to speak
[2:23:01] >> so is that in the policy or the
[2:23:03] >> policy not by ordinance or anything
[2:23:04] >> not by ordinance it's just by guidance
[2:23:06] because the ordinance doesn't specify
[2:23:08] that
[2:23:09] >> that
[2:23:09] >> when this came when this came up
[2:23:12] >> the decision
[2:23:13] or the recommendation was you couldn't
[2:23:15] change the ordinance now because the
[2:23:18] ordinance
[2:23:20] you're all sitting it it could have
[2:23:22] affected
[2:23:24] your pay. So we didn't want to change
[2:23:26] the ordinance because it would have been
[2:23:29] a potential
[2:23:31] deduction or reduction in pay. So Glenn
[2:23:34] came up with a guidance that interpreted
[2:23:39] how the absences, still four absences,
[2:23:42] but it was determined how you could
[2:23:44] apply those, whether they were applied
[2:23:47] first to the the council meetings or
[2:23:49] versus the uh work sessions and Glenn's
[2:23:55] guidance was submitted. And that's what
[2:23:57] you approved was that he would going
[2:24:00] forward use that guidance when he was
[2:24:02] issuing pay for missed meetings that
[2:24:05] were excused. And that's the guidance
[2:24:07] that we've been under thus far. We did
[2:24:09] not change the ordinance because again,
[2:24:11] you have to do that 180 days before
[2:24:14] anybody that's going to be taking
[2:24:16] office. So that's the guidance that has
[2:24:19] been uh
[2:24:21] the city's operational uh guidance I
[2:24:25] guess since we had that discussion and I
[2:24:28] can't remember exactly when that was but
[2:24:30] it was before
[2:24:31] >> February I believe 2004
[2:24:34] or 20 25 24 25
[2:24:39] >> So is that where that number came up
[2:24:40] with? I didn't imagine that was the $800
[2:24:43] or $900 total for the four absences.
[2:24:46] Yes, 800. That's the maximum you can
[2:24:48] get. The maximum four council meetings.
[2:24:51] >> If you missed if you missed work
[2:24:53] sessions,
[2:24:55] but you also missed four regular council
[2:24:57] meetings, you could choose to apply it
[2:24:59] to the regular council meetings and then
[2:25:01] therefore get the 800 versus uh 110 if
[2:25:06] you miss two uh work sessions and then
[2:25:09] two uh regular meetings. Correct.
[2:25:13] because the ordinance is actually
[2:25:14] written that and I can't quote you the
[2:25:16] language now but it's it's it's somewhat
[2:25:18] confusing and we talked about whether we
[2:25:20] could actually change it because you
[2:25:23] know it's not within 180 days of the new
[2:25:26] term. So we
[2:25:29] >> determined that [clears throat]
[2:25:31] >> if the guidance was what the council
[2:25:33] could live with, that was a a fair, I
[2:25:36] think, interpretation of what whomever
[2:25:38] meant when they wrote this back in 2005
[2:25:41] or whatever the the the date of the
[2:25:45] original ordinance.
[2:25:47] questions uh you got where you know with
[2:25:49] this new proposed compensation model and
[2:25:51] tenants could we have where like you
[2:25:54] could miss one council meeting, one work
[2:25:57] session and one committee meeting and
[2:25:59] still get paid.
[2:26:01] >> Again, this was just a recommendation
[2:26:03] council sets, you know, so you you guys
[2:26:05] can give me, you know, so I mean I'm
[2:26:07] happy to answer questions.
[2:26:08] >> I would think that would make it easy
[2:26:09] instead of saying three meetings.
[2:26:11] >> Sure. One of each spells it out, you get
[2:26:13] one of each where you would get paid for
[2:26:15] >> one of each. I like that.
[2:26:19] » Can I [snorts] ask a clarifying question
[2:26:21] on
[2:26:22] >> from this XL? Um
[2:26:25] the uh I just want to make sure this
[2:26:27] isn't a typo, but playing field was like
[2:26:30] double our population. Um they get paid
[2:26:34] $100 per meeting. Is it just any meeting
[2:26:37] that you are looking at?
[2:26:39] >> No. Or is it
[2:26:41] >> plum is not on our list. This is you
[2:26:44] talk about
[2:26:44] >> Oh, I mean it's on the list.
[2:26:45] >> You talk about this one.
[2:26:46] >> It's on this list.
[2:26:47] >> Great on the spread.
[2:26:48] >> I just I'm just wondering if
[2:26:50] >> Yeah.
[2:26:51] >> Seems really low compared to a lot of
[2:26:54] the other
[2:26:55] >> playfield does get paid $100 per
[2:26:59] meeting. So when I called and I spoke
[2:27:01] with um Oh, I forget her name. My
[2:27:04] apologies. We talked and at first when I
[2:27:07] read it, I did not think it was right
[2:27:08] and so I called to get a little
[2:27:10] verification. Yes. But they're I guess
[2:27:13] their council is also feeling the same
[2:27:16] way of that needs to be.
[2:27:17] >> Their trustes their trustees are feeling
[2:27:20] that that kind of needs to be changed.
[2:27:22] >> So they're going to go ahead and pro
[2:27:25] most likely revisit that.
[2:27:26] >> Well, as I said before, because this is
[2:27:29] not going to take effect till
[2:27:32] >> possibly 29
[2:27:34] would have to decide.
[2:27:35] >> I know, but it's either 27 or 29. So
[2:27:38] it's in the future. I just think that I
[2:27:40] think that the amount looks good for
[2:27:42] today, but I think knowing that it's not
[2:27:44] going to go into effect till 27 or 29
[2:27:49] that perhaps
[2:27:52] um
[2:27:53] making it $1,000 a month would be more
[2:27:56] appropriate.
[2:27:59] And then if they wanted to miss one
[2:28:00] meeting of each, that's I don't have
[2:28:02] problem with that.
[2:28:04] Unless unless you reran the numbers for
[2:28:08] those
[2:28:12] communities on our chart that have the
[2:28:14] built-in raises, so you'll know what
[2:28:17] those communities will be, what what
[2:28:20] those numbers will be in 27 and 29.
[2:28:23] >> The challenge is is most of them have a CPI, so I I would have to only Joliet
[2:28:28] has the said 2%. So, I would have to
[2:28:31] take a guess at the CPI.
[2:28:34] >> Yeah.
[2:28:34] >> Which I'd probably use like 2%, but I
[2:28:36] mean I would
[2:28:37] >> it would not be exact, but it'd be at
[2:28:39] least something closer to what the other
[2:28:43] communities would be in those years.
[2:28:47] >> So, again, tonight is a work session.
[2:28:49] We're taking feedback so that we can
[2:28:51] come up. We, you know, provided some
[2:28:53] initial history along with some
[2:28:55] suggestions and guidance. There's
[2:28:57] clearly a few questions that the
[2:28:58] attorney needs to look into. Um, but you
[2:29:02] know, again, we have about two months.
[2:29:04] So, I would like to not wait.
[2:29:06] >> The mayor and the clerk and all that
[2:29:09] tonight or that next meeting.
[2:29:11] >> You guys could choose to uh again those
[2:29:14] are locked in for another two and a half
[2:29:16] years. So you can choose to do that
[2:29:19] >> with this or with the you know the next
[2:29:23] basically you have you know another two
[2:29:26] years to basically do that.
[2:29:28] >> What about the recommendation for the
[2:29:29] mayor? You didn't give us
[2:29:30] recommendation.
[2:29:32] >> Um
[2:29:33] so for me the only uh the only one I
[2:29:35] gave a recommendation on was for the uh
[2:29:38] the council uh member positions is
[2:29:41] that's the only one that uh was below
[2:29:43] the average. All of the other ones were
[2:29:46] um was the third highest May.
[2:29:48] >> Yeah. So, you know, there was not a
[2:29:51] >> Yeah, but they can't reduce it
[2:29:52] >> since 200
[2:29:55] whatever it was 21 years ago.
[2:29:58] >> I mean,
[2:29:59] >> 25.
[2:30:01] >> That's good. That's
[2:30:02] >> okay. They still need to get a raise. I
[2:30:04] mean, you can't just say because you're
[2:30:06] comparing to other municipalities like
[2:30:08] it doesn't make sense to me.
[2:30:12] >> That is up to council. again the the
[2:30:14] numbers if I would have done this for a
[2:30:17] uh uh I guess city employees if I was
[2:30:20] looking this as employees we'd first
[2:30:21] look at our external comparables then we
[2:30:24] look at our internal comparables and
[2:30:26] again the uh looking at the the mayor
[2:30:30] position there's that is on the top
[2:30:33] three of the ones that are paid even if
[2:30:35] they were not um in HR that would be
[2:30:37] considered like if it was over it would
[2:30:39] be a a red circled one to say that
[2:30:41] they're overpaid that isn't this one is
[2:30:44] not at over the the average. So it's
[2:30:48] something that we'd say that is in line.
[2:30:51] Again, I don't know what
[2:30:52] >> the council decides.
[2:30:53] >> Oh, exactly. But that's why I didn't
[2:30:55] give a recommendation. You asked the
[2:30:56] question why I didn't give a
[2:30:57] recommendation.
[2:30:58] >> Mayor makes $126,000.
[2:31:00] You know, you have Frank for $36,000 per
[2:31:03] mayor. [clears throat]
[2:31:04] >> So, but you can also suggest
[2:31:07] >> the percentage or CPI rider on there
[2:31:10] without making change. Uh, you just put
[2:31:11] that on on there, not change 11.
[2:31:16] >> Yeah,
[2:31:17] >> you could have a CPI. You could wait
[2:31:19] again.
[2:31:20] >> What were you going to say?
[2:31:22] >> I was going to say when I look at when I
[2:31:24] look at the mayor compensation
[2:31:27] on this one, the blue one, pretty much
[2:31:29] right in the middle between the low ones
[2:31:31] and the high ones.
[2:31:34] And
[2:31:36] to me, I think it's a fair salary. I
[2:31:39] think based on our population when we
[2:31:41] look at everything else when you look at
[2:31:43] our median income we're certainly not
[2:31:45] Frankfurt or Moina and they are much
[2:31:49] lower in regards to the mayor's
[2:31:51] compensation.
[2:31:53] So I know it's been 25 years because it
[2:31:56] was 2001 I believe that the mayor the
[2:31:58] clerk and the treasurer
[2:32:00] was given a raise and in 2005 it started
[2:32:03] with
[2:32:05] >> for the alderman.
[2:32:08] So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm right
[2:32:11] in the middle. It should just stay like
[2:32:13] that and life goes on. I don't think
[2:32:16] that there needs to be an increase for
[2:32:18] the mayor's salary.
[2:32:19] >> I I agree. The mayor's salary is right
[2:32:21] in the middle and it's a good spot to be
[2:32:23] and I think the CPI rider on that
[2:32:26] current position right now would keep
[2:32:27] you in that spot in in the right in the
[2:32:30] middle. Everybody else has got that CPI
[2:32:32] rider. all the other municipalities,
[2:32:33] you're going to stay right in the
[2:32:34] center. Basically,
[2:32:36] >> not fall behind. If you don't do
[2:32:38] anything, you're going to fall behind.
[2:32:42] » He said, "Put the CPI."
[2:32:43] >> Do the CPI. That's
[2:32:45] >> CPI,
[2:32:46] >> right? Just do a CPI.
[2:32:47] >> Okay.
[2:32:48] >> CPI.
[2:32:49] >> I just want everybody to be treated
[2:32:50] equally fair.
[2:32:52] >> Sure.
[2:32:54] >> Clerk position was the next one if you
[2:32:55] want to talk about that.
[2:33:01] It's kind of in the same position, you
[2:33:03] know,
[2:33:06] >> the CPI to it.
[2:33:09] >> Then the treasure
[2:33:10] >> y
[2:33:12] >> treasure
[2:33:12] >> position.
[2:33:14] [snorts]
[2:33:15] >> That's the only one that's that high. So
[2:33:17] I guess we just could keep that one the
[2:33:19] same because it's the highest.
[2:33:21] >> It's up to you guys.
[2:33:23] >> Well, it's the highest because certain
[2:33:26] >> Well, the communities don't have a
[2:33:27] treasur.
[2:33:28] >> No, certain city they don't have a
[2:33:30] treasure. It's the finance director
[2:33:32] handles that,
[2:33:33] >> right? Exactly.
[2:33:34] >> But they both put their signature
[2:33:36] online. The clerk and the treasur
[2:33:39] and we're not home rule. I mean, that's
[2:33:41] how it's been. Are you going to add the
[2:33:42] CPI to the older people, too?
[2:33:44] >> Right. Right now, those are the notes I
[2:33:46] have for each one. There's a
[2:33:47] recommendation. I mean, there there
[2:33:49] hasn't been more direction, but somebody
[2:33:50] at least noted that the $1,000 for the
[2:33:53] city council members with the CPI, the
[2:33:56] mayor with the CPI, the clerk with the
[2:33:58] CPI, and the treasur. Well, that was
[2:34:00] just my I said there nobody else spoke
[2:34:02] up about the $1,000. I just thought it's
[2:34:05] going to be delayed. So, I think
[2:34:06] >> because it's going to be delayed.
[2:34:07] >> Well, I know, but nobody else said
[2:34:08] anything.
[2:34:09] >> I agree. I agree. And you agree. I don't
[2:34:11] know.
[2:34:14] >> It's not just
[2:34:15] >> Here's my only thought. Now, I'm going
[2:34:16] to make a blanket statement.
[2:34:22] I would just suggest
[2:34:24] that council think about the increase
[2:34:31] of $1,000
[2:34:34] is going to probably raise
[2:34:39] well it's going to be more than that.
[2:34:40] It's going to be up what's
[2:34:43] almost doubling doubling the price of
[2:34:46] what you're making now.
[2:34:49] Just remember
[2:34:51] probably going to raise some
[2:34:55] flags with some social medias and with
[2:34:59] some newspapers.
[2:35:01] So you may just want to think about that
[2:35:03] for a while before we talk about it
[2:35:05] again. Maybe in a few weeks here. That
[2:35:08] might be a
[2:35:12] maybe a little bit of a controversial
[2:35:15] topic because when you look at what
[2:35:17] everybody else is making that is going
[2:35:20] to be a big big jump.
[2:35:22] >> I understand but you also stated that
[2:35:24] for the last 21 years this council have
[2:35:27] not gotten a raise.
[2:35:28] >> I'm not so I'm not debating that.
[2:35:31] >> The council put many many hours and we
[2:35:33] even put money from our pockets to
[2:35:36] certain events to All I'm saying is
[2:35:39] >> and anyone is welcome to run. I mean
[2:35:42] this is an open this is not just for the
[2:35:45] existing council. Anyone maybe this will
[2:35:47] motivate people to run because probably
[2:35:49] they're going to do it for the money.
[2:35:51] Obviously for all these years some of us
[2:35:52] been here over 20 years. We've been
[2:35:54] doing it for the work and for the
[2:35:56] commitment you know and some of us we
[2:35:59] don't even miss meetings. So we are here
[2:36:01] dedicated and if the people of Crestell
[2:36:03] don't think we deserve that then they
[2:36:05] can vote us out.
[2:36:09] This is a proposed
[2:36:12] number from Blaine,
[2:36:14] not us. Mayor,
[2:36:16] >> I proposed $900, not not,00.
[2:36:20] >> Well, I'm looking at 10,800 a year.
[2:36:23] >> Correct. So,
[2:36:25] >> a month is to a the year change would be
[2:36:31] >> So, that would be $100 more
[2:36:32] >> over $4,000 increase. [clears throat] I
[2:36:35] mean that's
[2:36:36] >> correct
[2:36:36] >> probably 80% increase. I mean I think if
[2:36:39] you just want to look at numbers but um
[2:36:41] [clears throat] you know I did a little calculation based on if we got
[2:36:47] any increase since uh
[2:36:51] 2005 a 2% yearly increase would bring us
[2:36:54] up to currently we'd be getting $8,624.
[2:36:59] So that's if we got 2% which is low year
[2:37:04] of per year increase since 2005
[2:37:09] which hasn't happened obviously. So a
[2:37:12] lot of this is is is you know and I
[2:37:15] think what the research showed is just
[2:37:17] trying to get
[2:37:19] to what the market and what's comparable
[2:37:22] to um municipalities around us.
[2:37:27] >> Um
[2:37:28] >> I agree. you know, I would throw out the
[2:37:30] ones that are uh you know, from
[2:37:37] Romeo and higher who are double our our
[2:37:40] population
[2:37:42] and um you know, drop Manuka out of
[2:37:44] there. They're almost half of our
[2:37:47] population. But you that's you know what
[2:37:49] comparables are. um
[2:37:53] we're still, you know, fair for the
[2:37:55] amount of time that goes into what we do
[2:37:59] and we don't get any additional
[2:38:01] compensation. We don't get a a monthly
[2:38:03] gas allowance. We don't get a cell
[2:38:06] phone. Um
[2:38:09] you know, a lot of a lot of what we're
[2:38:11] doing is is is on our own time and and
[2:38:14] I'm not complaining about it. We all
[2:38:17] knew what we were signing up for. Um,
[2:38:20] but you want if you want to have uh
[2:38:22] attract other people to potentially want
[2:38:24] to get involved. Um, I think you got to
[2:38:28] be, you know,
[2:38:31] uh, marketable compensation.
[2:38:35] Um, you know, it's not 19
[2:38:38] 1960 anymore. It's not 2005 anymore.
[2:38:41] um
[2:38:44] can't find it now but the the
[2:38:49] with rate of inflation
[2:38:51] with uh
[2:38:53] what our salary is now.
[2:38:57] Hold on a second.
[2:38:59] Sorry, I got my phone. That's a picture
[2:39:01] I took. Um
[2:39:10] uh
[2:39:11] in in 2026, the salary that was in 2005
[2:39:15] is um over $12,000
[2:39:18] if you count inflation.
[2:39:21] Um you know,
[2:39:25] that's all I had to say about that. So,
[2:39:27] if you're worried about controversy,
[2:39:31] um you know, anyone wants to run for
[2:39:34] office, they're always welcome.
[2:39:36] >> Mark, can I bring up CPI? You had said
[2:39:39] you had figured it out at 2%.
[2:39:42] >> It's higher
[2:39:42] >> this year.
[2:39:43] >> No, that's low. Last year was 3%.
[2:39:46] >> That's what I mean. It's higher. So, I I
[2:39:47] was cons I was being conserv
[2:39:49] >> conservative. Yeah. Yes. Yes.
[2:39:51] >> Currently right now.
[2:39:52] >> Glenn just looked it up for me. So far
[2:39:54] this year it's at 2.5.
[2:39:57] >> Joe, what was you starting to say?
[2:39:59] [clears throat] Uh I I just was agreeing
[2:40:01] with Mark's comments and and um uh the
[2:40:04] concern Tina has is legitimate, but we
[2:40:07] can look at this again in two years. You
[2:40:10] know, you'll have time before the 2029
[2:40:13] kicks in. Uh
[2:40:16] you know, for Tina's concern,
[2:40:20] >> that's if council wants to either wait
[2:40:22] or if we're just going to do it right
[2:40:24] now for the group of four. Um if we're
[2:40:27] doing it just for the four then um it
[2:40:30] would be staggered.
[2:40:31] >> You still have to do it now because
[2:40:33] >> still have to do it.
[2:40:34] >> You have to have it done for the cycle.
[2:40:36] Even if you're going to wait to pay it,
[2:40:37] >> you have to do it for for the four.
[2:40:40] Yeah,
[2:40:41] >> but you you could delay it as what Scott
[2:40:43] has recommended.
[2:40:44] >> I understand that you can delay
[2:40:45] everybody getting paid, but you have to
[2:40:47] make the move now.
[2:40:48] >> Correct. Before October 28th. No, I
[2:40:50] understand. But I think uh what what Joe
[2:40:53] is saying for the other four along with
[2:40:55] the
[2:40:56] >> clerk, treasurer, and um the mayor
[2:41:00] position
[2:41:01] >> that could all wait for two more years
[2:41:03] because they still have two and a half
[2:41:04] years. They have up to 180 days. So
[2:41:06] council could still make an adjustment
[2:41:08] if you wanted to,
[2:41:09] >> but it wouldn't be uniform then.
[2:41:13] >> Yeah, it won't be uniform.
[2:41:15] [clears throat]
[2:41:15] >> It would be on that staggered pattern.
[2:41:17] >> No, it will be uniform. You got to do it
[2:41:19] now.
[2:41:21] Not saying you can't do it now.
[2:41:23] >> Yeah,
[2:41:25] >> we've bed batted this about so many
[2:41:27] times and never done anything about it.
[2:41:28] And now 20 21 years have gone by and
[2:41:33] um some people up here, been up here all
[2:41:37] most all that time, if not all that
[2:41:39] time.
[2:41:41] And um very dedicated in doing a lot for
[2:41:44] this community. and we keep seem to keep
[2:41:46] putting this off and um who knows who
[2:41:49] will be sitting here when this goes into
[2:41:51] effect but
[2:41:52] >> yeah probably some of us won't be even
[2:41:53] here so we're getting it ready for the
[2:41:55] next people
[2:41:56] >> get it done now
[2:41:58] >> you've you've put a good study together
[2:42:01] tells you're right there with the number
[2:42:03] 108 is a fair number it's very fair I'd
[2:42:07] have no problem discussing that with
[2:42:09] anybody none
[2:42:11] >> well I think that's the important part
[2:42:13] Joe is the only people we have to answer
[2:42:15] to our our constituents. We don't have
[2:42:17] to answer to the mayor or or city
[2:42:19] administrator or anybody. We just have
[2:42:20] to answer to the residents. So, if they
[2:42:23] have questions about salary, I mean,
[2:42:26] that's it. That's that's who we talk to.
[2:42:28] We can explain.
[2:42:29] >> And you know, so many people when they
[2:42:31] find
[2:42:31] >> We have to remember too that we keep
[2:42:33] saying ourselves, but we we cannot give
[2:42:36] ourselves raises. So this is for like
[2:42:38] you said the next group of people next
[2:42:40] election
[2:42:41] >> cuz none of us are going to be here for
[2:42:43] a long time or forever. I mean it's none
[2:42:45] of us. But talking about the size I want
[2:42:48] to agree with Nate we have to answer the
[2:42:50] res. A lot of resident they get shocked
[2:42:52] when they find out we only make $400.
[2:42:54] They're like really only. I'm like yeah
[2:42:56] only. I mean they don't believe it. So
[2:42:58] people thought that we make a lot of
[2:43:00] money. We don't.
[2:43:02] >> Yeah. When I got elected years ago my
[2:43:04] grandmother she's in Chicago. She goes,
[2:43:06] "Oh, you won't have to fix cars no
[2:43:08] more." I said, "That won't even buy
[2:43:09] groceries for my family." So, [laughter]
[2:43:13] I still fix cars. So, I think the only other thing that
[2:43:18] wasn't clear is if we're going to push
[2:43:19] it all. So, if that that is the
[2:43:21] consensus to push it to 2029.
[2:43:24] So, it would be in like voted on during
[2:43:27] this time period, but be delayed for all
[2:43:30] of those positions until 2029.
[2:43:32] >> So, we can get all paid equally in the
[2:43:34] same time.
[2:43:34] >> Yes. All with the CPI going into effect
[2:43:37] as of
[2:43:38] >> well no so because not certain council
[2:43:40] gets paid more money correct for two
[2:43:42] more years and the others they have to
[2:43:44] wait
[2:43:47] » that's how Scott want it remember
[2:43:50] >> say that again
[2:43:51] >> Scott said it's not fair that's the four
[2:43:53] people that they're going to get elected
[2:43:55] to get paid
[2:43:56] >> yeah said to vote on it now but it
[2:43:59] starts in 209
[2:44:01] >> correct
[2:44:01] >> right
[2:44:02] >> so there would be a delay
[2:44:04] >> so we won't be getting anything if we
[2:44:06] get elected.
[2:44:07] >> Yes. So the four whoever gets elected
[2:44:10] for the this next term, there's four council members that would be
[2:44:14] delayed. They would still be on the same
[2:44:15] schedule.
[2:44:16] >> Correct.
[2:44:17] >> Now, do we want to change some of the
[2:44:19] other discussions was in regards to
[2:44:22] having one absence for a council
[2:44:24] meeting, one absence for a work session,
[2:44:26] and one uh for any any committee
[2:44:28] meeting.
[2:44:29] >> Yep.
[2:44:30] >> That's fine.
[2:44:31] >> Well, committee is a committee. Well,
[2:44:32] the committee one I think still needs to
[2:44:35] get some weigh in from the attorney.
[2:44:36] We're we're currently not getting paid
[2:44:38] for it. So, you can miss them all now
[2:44:40] and it wouldn't matter.
[2:44:41] >> Well, this is going to be for the future
[2:44:43] where you will be getting paid for them
[2:44:46] because they're included in whatever the
[2:44:49] study
[2:44:49] >> salaries. Yeah. So, beginning in 29, I
[2:44:53] mean, we're going to look back at what
[2:44:55] we're going to do for the past, but I
[2:44:57] think this ordinance is going to need to
[2:44:59] say how many committee meetings you can
[2:45:02] miss, if any, without a deduction.
[2:45:07] » So, I guess we do throw a poll on each
[2:45:09] one.
[2:45:11] >> So, what you've proposed here is not
[2:45:14] accurate. The schedule you're going to
[2:45:16] hold off till 29.
[2:45:19] >> Is that what I'm hearing? what the group
[2:45:20] is.
[2:45:20] >> Is there going to be a vote on that or
[2:45:22] is it
[2:45:22] >> again? Tonight is just discussion. We'll
[2:45:24] have to draft it up with the attorney
[2:45:26] >> and then there'll be more discuss.
[2:45:27] >> We're going to actually vote on it now,
[2:45:28] Joe, but it won't the pay won't take
[2:45:30] effect till 29.
[2:45:32] >> I understand that. How about if four
[2:45:34] people in here think it should start in
[2:45:36] 27?
[2:45:36] >> Well, they got to ask that question.
[2:45:37] >> That's why we got a vote.
[2:45:38] >> Okay. That's why I said, do we need to
[2:45:40] have a vote?
[2:45:41] >> Yeah, we need to have a vote.
[2:45:42] >> That's what I started to say, but I got
[2:45:43] booed again. I don't see why, you know,
[2:45:46] why for people that could go which is traditional to do it that way.
[2:45:52] Why we're changing it because Scott made
[2:45:54] a comment.
[2:45:57] >> Okay.
[2:45:57] >> Is that what happened in 2005? Those
[2:45:59] that were here to remember it was a
[2:46:01] staggered
[2:46:03] >> four got it right away. The other four
[2:46:05] it was two years later during the next
[2:46:07] election.
[2:46:08] >> Right.
[2:46:08] >> Okay.
[2:46:11] I still think that's a fine line because
[2:46:13] the fact that somebody somebody's pay
[2:46:16] will change while they're sitting all
[2:46:18] their person.
[2:46:18] >> Exactly.
[2:46:19] >> Right. But I guess if you're saying it's
[2:46:21] in place before they're elected,
[2:46:24] >> that's
[2:46:25] >> Well, how will their pay change while
[2:46:26] they're
[2:46:26] >> Well, your your term would your term
[2:46:28] would be four years. If you got elected
[2:46:30] in 27, your pay is changing during your
[2:46:32] term at 29.
[2:46:35] >> The way you're the way this is being
[2:46:37] presented.
[2:46:38] So yes, you start at one rate and then
[2:46:40] two years later it goes up. But that was
[2:46:43] agreed to.
[2:46:43] >> But it was already agreed on.
[2:46:45] >> But what I what I'm saying though is you
[2:46:46] know I I understand that but
[2:46:49] that those those people technically are
[2:46:51] getting a disadvantage because they you
[2:46:54] know work two years of their career
[2:46:56] their elected office getting paid less
[2:46:59] than
[2:47:01] their entire four-year term like the
[2:47:02] other people.
[2:47:03] >> Oh, I I guess I don't know which the
[2:47:05] best way to go. I see what you're saying
[2:47:08] [clears throat]
[2:47:09] >> now.
[2:47:09] >> It' be very interesting to see kind of
[2:47:11] how the rest of the rest of the
[2:47:13] community is doing.
[2:47:16] >> Yeah, I thought that was going to be
[2:47:17] part of our, you know, when we're
[2:47:19] checking with other communities, how
[2:47:20] they've rolled this out. I thought we
[2:47:23] might get some feedback on that.
[2:47:26] Yeah, mo most of them are doing the
[2:47:28] staggered because the attorneys have felt that if you are actually
[2:47:33] sitting in the office that you are now
[2:47:36] getting that raise. And again, that's
[2:47:38] why I had attorney stiff
[2:47:41] note that's how it was done in the past
[2:47:42] and that's how he's recommending. Not
[2:47:45] saying that you can't do it the other
[2:47:46] way, but that's his firm's
[2:47:48] recommendation.
[2:47:49] >> I didn't think of that, Nate. Thanks for
[2:47:50] bringing that up.
[2:47:53] >> That's why he's in finance. Yeah. Well,
[2:47:56] there you go.
[2:47:59] » Again, we don't need the answer tonight.
[2:48:01] We can bring that forward and then you
[2:48:03] guys can vote on if you want to do it
[2:48:05] staggered. Again, the attorney can have
[2:48:07] more information. Uh again, we can list
[2:48:09] out which communities did do it
[2:48:11] staggered and which ones are doing it uh
[2:48:14] delayed if that's helpful. Uh again,
[2:48:17] she's gathered a lot of that information
[2:48:18] already. So, now she can just one more
[2:48:20] slide to say which communities did it
[2:48:22] delayed and which ones did it staggered.
[2:48:24] I have a note of it not on me but in my
[2:48:28] office of which how they've done it and
[2:48:31] most of them are doing it staggered
[2:48:33] they're not waiting.
[2:48:34] >> So if you stagger it
[2:48:36] for a salary
[2:48:39] what happens to the other four that are
[2:48:41] not getting the money.
[2:48:44] >> They would be staying the way that we
[2:48:47] have it right now system
[2:48:49] >> but they wouldn't get paid for a work
[2:48:51] session then. Correct.
[2:48:53] >> Yeah. No, no. Our current way has uh
[2:48:56] council meetings, the work session, and
[2:48:57] special meetings. And then apparently
[2:48:59] there's something about uh committee
[2:49:02] meetings, which again the attorney's
[2:49:04] going to have to there be two different
[2:49:06] system there would be at that point
[2:49:08] >> again old and yeah for two years.
[2:49:11] >> Yeah.
[2:49:12] >> I mean it really is exactly how it was
[2:49:14] in 2005
[2:49:17] >> and again the state set these rules. So
[2:49:19] this is not like using anything. Right.
[2:49:22] Because the past they used to hook it in
[2:49:24] with the mayor, clerk, and treasurer.
[2:49:28] >> I didn't think about it the way you said
[2:49:29] it because
[2:49:30] >> whoever gets elected, they're only going
[2:49:32] to get two years while the other group
[2:49:35] get
[2:49:35] >> correct.
[2:49:37] >> But again,
[2:49:38] >> very good point.
[2:49:39] >> Let's just say that the [snorts] whole
[2:49:42] four people it the seats turn over. You
[2:49:44] have four new people on the council.
[2:49:47] They didn't vote for the raise that they
[2:49:49] will get two years in, right? They they
[2:49:51] didn't vote for it. The rules are that
[2:49:53] you can't vote for it during your term
[2:49:56] and that vote will have taken place two
[2:49:59] years before they took office.
[2:50:04] » There's arguments both ways. Again, you
[2:50:06] guys are just going to need to decide.
[2:50:07] We'll write it up with the attorney. And
[2:50:09] uh I think that's all we need on this
[2:50:11] item unless there's other comments.
[2:50:13] >> Okay.
[2:50:14] >> I got to buy a drink here.
[2:50:20] Thanks, Shay.
[2:50:21] >> Of course.
[2:50:21] >> Thank you.
[2:50:22] >> Nice job.
[2:50:23] >> Thank you.
[2:50:25] >> Okay.
[2:50:27] >> We have nothing under engineering,
[2:50:29] nothing under police, nothing under
[2:50:30] public works, finance.
[2:50:32] >> Oh, yeah.
[2:50:33] >> Glenn.
[2:50:34] >> Yeah. Okay. Um,
[2:50:38] I've been doing all the research.
[2:50:40] >> Wait a minute. I forgot economic
[2:50:42] development, didn't I? [laughter]
[2:50:43] >> We could skip you.
[2:50:44] >> You could skip that. Wow. trying to get
[2:50:47] to say anything. I was going to let
[2:50:48] Glenn get out of here. So,
[2:50:50] >> hang on, Glenn. I tried to get you out
[2:50:52] of here. [laughter]
[2:50:53] >> Sneak it in.
[2:50:54] >> Dan,
[2:50:55] >> you got two things.
[2:50:57] >> Sure. Um, the first one is the plan
[2:50:59] commission recommendation for text
[2:51:02] amendments to chapter 15.12 sign code of
[2:51:05] the city of Crest Hill ordinances.
[2:51:08] Um, that's from the city here. So, this
[2:51:11] has um been a few month history here. I
[2:51:14] then came to a city council work session
[2:51:16] and looked for some direction on this.
[2:51:19] Um and then we had two meetings with
[2:51:21] planning commission to really kind of
[2:51:23] work through the fine details of the
[2:51:25] sign code update. Um and that was in
[2:51:28] July 9th we kind of did an overview
[2:51:31] initial discussion with plane
[2:51:33] commission. Um and then August 13th we
[2:51:36] did the formal um public hearing. So, it
[2:51:40] is just kind of an overview of this.
[2:51:42] Since I've been here, since been here,
[2:51:44] um it's been very apparent our sign code
[2:51:47] is outdated. Um there's been signs that
[2:51:50] we really kind of cringe at that are
[2:51:52] just do not look good. They don't fit
[2:51:54] very well with with some of the
[2:51:56] improvements we're trying to make in the
[2:51:58] community. Um but we're going to force
[2:52:00] to approve them. Um and those can be on
[2:52:02] existing developments or new
[2:52:04] developments. Um so what we tried to do
[2:52:07] kind of combing through this is update
[2:52:09] our zoning code um for a number of
[2:52:12] reasons clarification
[2:52:14] um changing technologies and again just
[2:52:17] trying to improve the overall
[2:52:19] appearance. So I won't go through every
[2:52:22] um every part of this because the
[2:52:24] ordinances and your books are [snorts]
[2:52:27] in the packet. um plan commission had
[2:52:29] some pretty heavil he heavy discussion.
[2:52:32] Um but just kind of some of the main
[2:52:34] points would be that if the goal is to
[2:52:36] improve the overall layout of the sign
[2:52:38] code um the current sign code setup is
[2:52:42] kind of scattered as we add added things
[2:52:45] ad hoc throughout the year. Um it just
[2:52:48] kind of became a mess. So, we looked at
[2:52:50] reorganizing that into very clear
[2:52:53] sections that would allow anybody to
[2:52:55] kind of look at the sign code and more
[2:52:57] easily figure out um what the rules are.
[2:53:00] Um we added [snorts] some additional
[2:53:02] sign design standards. Um so, basically
[2:53:06] not allowing pole signs now and doing
[2:53:09] some more solid base brick signs. Um
[2:53:11] that's pretty standard practice kind of
[2:53:14] across most communities that you'll see
[2:53:15] around here. Romeoville, Planefield. Um
[2:53:19] the goal is to kind of just start
[2:53:20] improving our streetscape appearance
[2:53:22] with with signs that are fairly
[2:53:24] noticeable. Um when you look at our main
[2:53:27] commercial corridors,
[2:53:29] um kind of the trade-off is that there's
[2:53:31] while there's some additional
[2:53:33] requirements, um there's actually a
[2:53:36] little more flexibility built in here
[2:53:38] for temporary sign allowances, um for
[2:53:41] the size. And so we really try to
[2:53:43] balance those two things to one make
[2:53:45] sure we're kind of improving the look of
[2:53:47] these but also making sure we're not
[2:53:49] getting overly restrictive and
[2:53:51] businesses can't can advertise.
[2:53:54] Um we kind of included some additional
[2:53:58] definitions
[2:54:00] um clarifying kind of our non-conforming
[2:54:03] sign provisions
[2:54:05] um and again just kind of cleaning up
[2:54:07] streamlining some of the procedures
[2:54:08] approval process. [clears throat] Um,
[2:54:11] one thing that this code makes clear is
[2:54:13] that we're not going to add on any
[2:54:15] additional costs to our current
[2:54:16] businesses or property owners. So, if
[2:54:18] you have a non-conforming sign, you are
[2:54:20] allowed to keep it as long as you're
[2:54:22] utilizing it. Um, you can maintain it.
[2:54:24] You can switch out sign panels. You can
[2:54:27] do all of that with a sign. So, we're
[2:54:29] not making businesses across the
[2:54:30] community change today. But what it's
[2:54:33] going to do is kind of over time as we
[2:54:35] get redevelopment, as we get new
[2:54:37] development, you'll slowly start to
[2:54:39] change and see this happen. Um, you can
[2:54:43] even kind of see that in Juliet now. Um
[2:54:46] you'll still drive by and still still
[2:54:48] see some outdated signs as you go
[2:54:51] through there, but you start to see um
[2:54:53] stuff with more kind of a solid base
[2:54:55] landscaping
[2:54:57] um reasonable sizes and not something
[2:54:59] that's huge and massive um that you can
[2:55:02] see from blocks and blocks away. And
[2:55:04] again, that's what businesses tend to
[2:55:07] want is the biggest thing. But we kind
[2:55:09] of got to balance. We got a lot of
[2:55:10] commercial properties, especially when
[2:55:12] you talk about like Planefield Road,
[2:55:14] Broadway. Um, we want to make sure every
[2:55:17] business, every property kind of has
[2:55:19] some equal equal requirements. So, um, I
[2:55:23] want to thank Ottopa. She did a lot of
[2:55:25] the initial kind of sign um, research on
[2:55:28] this and kind of pulling together the
[2:55:30] comparables. Um, she did a really good
[2:55:33] job doing that. So, um I want to applaud
[2:55:36] her and as well as plan commission which
[2:55:38] brought us a lot of good feedback um
[2:55:41] even allowed us to tweak some of some of
[2:55:44] the requirements um to get a better fit
[2:55:47] within the sign code. So, um this is
[2:55:50] just the work session but and that's
[2:55:52] just a general overview but I am open to
[2:55:54] any questions obviously trying to help
[2:55:57] move this along. So, um, and if there
[2:56:00] any questions come up between now and
[2:56:02] then the next council meeting as well,
[2:56:04] feel free to send those our way.
[2:56:06] >> As far as the non Oh, sorry. Do you have
[2:56:08] your hand up?
[2:56:09] >> That's okay.
[2:56:10] >> As far as the non-conforming uses, like
[2:56:12] what what happens if there's like storm
[2:56:14] damage or something like that? Is that
[2:56:15] considered they'd have to redo it as a
[2:56:18] monument sign?
[2:56:19] >> It is more than 50% of the value of the
[2:56:23] replacement of the sign. Um, so if it is
[2:56:26] completely destroyed, you would have to
[2:56:28] build it back to the way it is. If
[2:56:30] there's some extenduating circumstances,
[2:56:32] they still have options like variations,
[2:56:36] but the goal is that over time, if they
[2:56:38] were going to spend all the money to put
[2:56:40] the sign back, they should be putting it
[2:56:42] back to our current standards.
[2:56:43] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:56:46] As uh speaking of
[2:56:49] variances,
[2:56:50] um several times during this people
[2:56:53] comment on how the commission how you
[2:56:56] should hold firm to the new standards
[2:56:58] and not not give any variances which
[2:57:02] >> to make a blanket statement like that.
[2:57:04] You can't because the essence of
[2:57:05] variances is for unusual search
[2:57:07] circumstances. But when you go to page
[2:57:10] 62 for variations, it says request for
[2:57:12] variations shall comply and then
[2:57:14] everything is lined out and it says
[2:57:17] section 12.6, but I couldn't find that.
[2:57:21] >> Um, I'd have to some some of it's
[2:57:25] confusing because the way we move
[2:57:26] sections around, so if something's lined
[2:57:28] out, it probably just been moved to a
[2:57:30] different section. Um,
[2:57:34] >> well, I just want to make sure that that
[2:57:35] section was still there for I mean, who does you can't predict what kind of
[2:57:40] unique situation might fall upon a
[2:57:43] business and I didn't want it just
[2:57:45] totally ripped out of there and
[2:57:47] >> it is not I think it got moved under the
[2:57:50] um administrative section on it and we
[2:57:53] can clarify that with the ordinance
[2:57:56] we're going to be bringing. it'll have a
[2:57:58] clean copy in there because the red line
[2:58:01] version is very hard to read obviously
[2:58:02] when you're replacing a large section in
[2:58:05] moving stuff around. So, it didn't work
[2:58:07] very well here. Um, you can still apply
[2:58:09] for a variance. That's so we can um
[2:58:13] double check and make sure that's still
[2:58:15] in there and still referred there. So,
[2:58:17] yes, you can still apply for a variance.
[2:58:20] >> Um, the one thing I brought up to plan
[2:58:22] commission is that and I'll bring it up
[2:58:24] here too because
[2:58:27] you as the elected officials will hear a
[2:58:29] lot of the feedback from businesses. Um,
[2:58:32] one of the tough things is kind of
[2:58:34] changing a code to [snorts] be a little
[2:58:35] stricter in the beginning because
[2:58:37] somebody new coming in is going to go, I
[2:58:39] want to be like everybody else, right?
[2:58:41] Um, I want the tall sign. I want to
[2:58:43] match everyone else. So, they're going
[2:58:44] to want to naturally go, well, let me
[2:58:46] apply for them areas. Um, that's why
[2:58:49] we're taking this comprehensive look to
[2:58:51] go, where do we want to go? if we want
[2:58:53] to start changing, we need to do that
[2:58:55] con consistently over time. Um, so
[2:58:59] that's where I want to be careful that
[2:59:01] we don't just have people applying for
[2:59:03] variances to match what's existing when
[2:59:05] we're trying to change. But there is
[2:59:07] obviously still unique situations out
[2:59:10] there, grade differences,
[2:59:12] um, just unique
[2:59:13] >> well and you'll always present your
[2:59:14] feedback on a variance, you know, yay
[2:59:17] nay. So that's we have that to to to
[2:59:20] rely on. But I mean there's just strange
[2:59:23] things. I mean, you know, if their
[2:59:25] parcel is 30 feet below road level and
[2:59:28] they want their sign, I mean, you just
[2:59:30] don't know.
[2:59:31] >> Setbacks are definitely in in heights
[2:59:34] and stuff like that can definitely come
[2:59:36] up. What we don't want to have is just
[2:59:37] somebody going, well, I want to match
[2:59:39] the previous code,
[2:59:40] >> right?
[2:59:41] >> Um, but we still you still always have
[2:59:43] to have that option um to apply for
[2:59:46] variance or apply [clears throat] for
[2:59:47] relief. So I believe that's still
[2:59:50] supposed to be referring back to the
[2:59:51] section on variances in this
[2:59:56] » I I Tina real quick
[2:59:59] >> I think I think variations just it now
[3:00:03] just refers back to the variance
[3:00:06] procedure in the zoning code. So
[3:00:08] >> everything else is that used to be in
[3:00:10] the sign code is lined out and it simply
[3:00:12] just kicks variations back to the zoning
[3:00:15] code.
[3:00:16] >> Yeah. So now that's jogging memory which
[3:00:19] is it was repeated language from the
[3:00:21] zoning code. I don't like doing that
[3:00:23] because why not just refer to one
[3:00:25] section and trying to have dup
[3:00:27] duplicative language in two sections and
[3:00:29] then you change one and forget to change
[3:00:31] the other. Um so we did just point back.
[3:00:34] >> So everything is lined out except the
[3:00:37] one sentence that's hard to see because
[3:00:39] it's in a sea of lineouts but it says
[3:00:41] request for variation shall comply with
[3:00:42] section 12.6
[3:00:44] variations of the Crest Hill zoning
[3:00:46] ordinance period.
[3:00:48] >> Thanks. [snorts]
[3:00:50] >> Thank you.
[3:00:50] >> Good job on that.
[3:00:52] >> Good.
[3:00:53] >> Any other questions? All right. We'll do
[3:00:55] a draw vote for uh approval of the
[3:00:57] ordinance
[3:00:59] >> approving comprehensive text amendments
[3:01:02] chapter 15.12
[3:01:04] >> of the Crest Hill
[3:01:11] » City Code. Scott,
[3:01:13] >> yes.
[3:01:14] >> Angelo,
[3:01:14] >> yes.
[3:01:16] >> Claudia,
[3:01:17] >> yes.
[3:01:17] >> Dina,
[3:01:17] >> yes.
[3:01:18] >> Mark,
[3:01:18] >> yes.
[3:01:18] >> Nate,
[3:01:19] >> yes.
[3:01:19] >> Joe,
[3:01:20] >> yes.
[3:01:20] >> All right, we'll have it on the agenda
[3:01:21] for EA.
[3:01:24] And the second item I have is the plane
[3:01:27] commission recommendation for
[3:01:28] preliminary and final plat subdivision
[3:01:31] special use for outdoor recreational
[3:01:34] um plaza and public park/playground
[3:01:39] in multiple variations requested from
[3:01:41] the Crest Hill zoning ordinance with
[3:01:44] respect to real property at 2590
[3:01:48] to 2660
[3:01:51] uh city center boulevard in Crest Hill,
[3:01:53] Illinois. Uh this is for our city center
[3:01:57] park uh newly named uh Crest Hill
[3:02:01] Commons. Um this is really kind of the
[3:02:04] zoning approvals for that park that
[3:02:06] we've been given direction by the city
[3:02:07] council on. Um the
[3:02:12] goal here is again to clean up both the
[3:02:17] plat approvals for um subdividing.
[3:02:20] Currently we're sitting on that parcel.
[3:02:22] So, it's currently one parcel that will
[3:02:24] be divided into four. Um, you'll have
[3:02:27] the city the city hall parcel and the
[3:02:30] police department parcel. Um, you'll
[3:02:32] have the overall kind of public plaza
[3:02:35] parcel. Then you'll have the smaller
[3:02:38] park district parcel that's actually
[3:02:41] surrounded by ours. And then you kind of
[3:02:43] have the remaining space that's that's
[3:02:45] north of us here. So, um, the zoning
[3:02:49] code as well as kind of our our standard
[3:02:52] practice zoning district regulations,
[3:02:54] which relate to all the B3 zoning
[3:02:57] districts obviously don't take into
[3:02:59] account. One, publiclyowned property,
[3:03:02] two, a separate parcel that'll be a
[3:03:04] playground that's going to be owned by a
[3:03:05] different zoning district. Um, so
[3:03:07] overall, just kind of a unique situation
[3:03:10] here that our zoning code just doesn't
[3:03:12] take into account. So that's why we kind
[3:03:14] of have to follow our own rules and we
[3:03:16] went through the public process to look
[3:03:19] at um the same standards that we would
[3:03:21] with any other variants or any other
[3:03:24] special use um to make sure we're
[3:03:27] following those and to get approval for
[3:03:29] the overall plat subdivision. So, um,
[3:03:32] similar to the other one, plan
[3:03:34] commission reviewed this at the last
[3:03:36] city council meeting in August, uh, and
[3:03:39] gave a unanimous recommendation of
[3:03:41] approval for all three of those
[3:03:42] requests. The subdivision, the special
[3:03:45] use, and then there's a group of
[3:03:46] variations mostly related to that
[3:03:49] internal lot that um, council's given
[3:03:52] direction um, and the previous IGA with
[3:03:55] the park district to um, transfer that
[3:03:58] use. Obviously for them they want to
[3:04:00] have control of over the property for
[3:04:02] insurance reasons, grant reasons. Um
[3:04:07] there are all applicable easements with
[3:04:10] that plat subdivision as well. So cross
[3:04:13] access, cross parking, um
[3:04:16] and more that just kind of make sure
[3:04:18] everything works correctly. So um that
[3:04:21] is all I had. Anyone has any questions?
[3:04:26] Otherwise, most of this has been
[3:04:28] direction from the council already. So,
[3:04:30] none of this is really new. It's just
[3:04:32] making sure we follow our own rules.
[3:04:35] >> Any questions?
[3:04:36] >> No, I'm Deb. I have something else.
[3:04:44] » You got a question?
[3:04:45] >> No, I'm
[3:04:48] ahead.
[3:04:49] >> No, not
[3:04:51] want to do it now.
[3:04:52] >> Yeah.
[3:04:53] Since we're talking about um stuff like
[3:04:56] that, it was brought to my attention. Is
[3:04:58] there a way um since we with the storms
[3:05:02] we have a lot of damages and and a lot
[3:05:04] of the resident are applying for permits
[3:05:06] to like fix the roof or whatever. Is
[3:05:08] there a way we can look into something
[3:05:10] at least we can give the resident like a
[3:05:12] break 50% or something if it's God's act
[3:05:17] like the storm something happened? Do
[3:05:20] you are you aware of any other
[3:05:21] municipalities or anyone else who
[3:05:25] >> I'm not being maybe a little more
[3:05:27] lenient on repairs and stuff like that.
[3:05:30] I I've seen some of that to go okay if
[3:05:33] replacing an eight or 16 ft section of
[3:05:36] fence where a tree went on.
[3:05:39] [clears throat]
[3:05:39] >> We'll count that as maintenance and just
[3:05:40] go check to make sure it's secure.
[3:05:42] You're not pouring any more posts or
[3:05:44] anything. Um, I haven't seen any other
[3:05:47] communities just flat out wa be used for
[3:05:50] things like storm damage or anything
[3:05:52] like that. Um, mostly because ours and
[3:05:56] most other communities have some pretty
[3:05:58] the the residential permit fees are
[3:06:00] meant to really just cover some baseline
[3:06:03] cost.
[3:06:04] >> Okay.
[3:06:04] >> Um, they really don't even cover the
[3:06:06] full cost of inspection, staff time to
[3:06:09] process permits or anything like that.
[3:06:11] They're pretty minimal to begin with.
[3:06:13] Um, but if there is any unique
[3:06:15] situations where somebody's maybe just
[3:06:16] doing a repair or something, we'll
[3:06:18] gladly work with people to to get
[3:06:22] repairs done. So,
[3:06:23] >> okay,
[3:06:24] >> if somebody's replacing, you know, an
[3:06:26] entire fence or an entire roof, we still
[3:06:28] need to be able to do the inspections
[3:06:30] and stuff. And again, those permits are
[3:06:33] usually less than 100 bucks in most
[3:06:35] cases.
[3:06:36] >> Okay. Thank you,
[3:06:37] >> Dan. on this plat for the park. I meant
[3:06:40] to ask the portion that's getting deeded
[3:06:43] to
[3:06:45] the other party. Is that
[3:06:49] like This looks like lot three and lot
[3:06:51] four both point to the same place on
[3:06:53] this map. So, I'm a little confused.
[3:06:55] >> Um, give me one sec.
[3:07:01] I think lot three is our overall lot and
[3:07:04] lot four is supposed to be the internal
[3:07:06] >> and and is that just the playground area
[3:07:09] or does it go all the way to the street?
[3:07:11] >> Uh it's just the playground area. So
[3:07:13] it's it's wholly surrounded by our
[3:07:16] parcel.
[3:07:18] >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah.
[3:07:26] » Okay.
[3:07:26] >> I don't know if you want to give
[3:07:28] direction on that one. That'll be on the
[3:07:30] >> for number two
[3:07:31] >> for the September 8th
[3:07:33] >> for the plan commission recommendation
[3:07:35] for preliminary final plaza subdivision
[3:07:37] special use for outdoor recreational
[3:07:39] plaza public playground park multiple
[3:07:41] variations requested from the Crest
[3:07:43] zoning ordinance with respect to real
[3:07:45] property located at 20590 to 20660 city
[3:07:49] center boulevard and Crest Hill. The
[3:07:51] application of the city of Crest Hill.
[3:07:54] >> Joe,
[3:07:55] >> yes.
[3:07:55] >> Nate, yes. Mark [snorts] Tina, yes.
[3:07:57] Claudia Dell.
[3:07:58] >> Yes.
[3:07:59] >> Angelo.
[3:07:59] >> Yes.
[3:08:02] >> Okay. That'll be all on September 8th
[3:08:05] also.
[3:08:06] >> Sounds good. That's all I have unless
[3:08:08] there's any questions.
[3:08:12] >> No questions. All right. Moving on to
[3:08:14] finance department. Glenn,
[3:08:16] >> save the best for last, right?
[3:08:19] >> Anyway, um
[3:08:20] >> he said that. Yeah, this is a um
[3:08:23] discussion for a draft of residential
[3:08:25] utility billing assistance pilot
[3:08:27] program. I'd say that actually most of
[3:08:30] this is done by Blaine. He he designed
[3:08:33] most of the stuff. So Bla, if you want
[3:08:35] to talk about this, this is
[3:08:38] definitely was a joint joint effort. I
[3:08:40] know uh between finance uh we talked
[3:08:42] with public works uh and uh with our
[3:08:45] attorney. Um, as the city continues to
[3:08:48] get more and more residents reaching out
[3:08:50] to city council members as well as uh
[3:08:53] requesting um requests through our
[3:08:56] utility building staff uh for a payment
[3:08:59] plan. Um I felt it was time that this
[3:09:02] item get uh brought before council. Um
[3:09:06] the city [clears throat] currently does
[3:09:07] not have a payment plan option. Uh as
[3:09:10] such uh staff started reviewing how
[3:09:12] other communities uh have addressed um
[3:09:15] some of these more common themes uh that
[3:09:17] were occurring. Staff from um again from
[3:09:20] finance and administration along with
[3:09:22] public works and also conversations with
[3:09:24] our city attorney met several times over
[3:09:26] the past few weeks and uh provided this
[3:09:29] initial draft pilot program for
[3:09:31] discussion this evening. Um staff uh
[3:09:34] also talked with or met with several
[3:09:36] residents as well as um some u council
[3:09:40] members um that had again council
[3:09:43] members that were noted by their uh
[3:09:46] constituents in their various wards um
[3:09:49] that had residents that experienced
[3:09:51] higher bills for various reasons. um
[3:09:54] some of those uh residents, well
[3:09:56] actually all of those residents have
[3:09:58] requested a waiver of the late fee
[3:09:59] component um and to be placed on a
[3:10:03] payment plan. Um so tonight uh for for
[3:10:07] discussion um I wasn't sure if some of
[3:10:09] them were going to show up or not, but
[3:10:11] uh I promised all of those individuals
[3:10:13] that I'd provide them with an update on
[3:10:15] council's discussion this evening. And
[3:10:17] then there is uh attached in council's
[3:10:20] packet on page I want to say it starts
[3:10:23] on 130 a a draft residential utility
[3:10:27] billing assistance pilot program. Uh
[3:10:30] again um what is being recommended is a
[3:10:33] short period uh time to do this pilot.
[3:10:36] It would be effective upon adoption
[3:10:38] through the end of this calendar year.
[3:10:40] So up to December 31st. Um there are two
[3:10:44] components. [snorts and clears throat]
[3:10:45] Um, one section is a one-time late fee
[3:10:48] waiver and the other is um the payment
[3:10:52] uh plan. So, um I know it's a couple
[3:10:55] pages uh here for for council. Um and
[3:10:59] again, if you'd like I could walk
[3:11:01] through or Glenn could walk through kind
[3:11:03] of a reader digest version of the
[3:11:05] policy. But I do believe, you know,
[3:11:07] since the community has been, you know,
[3:11:10] in place since 1960, that having some
[3:11:12] sort of a a payment plan option that
[3:11:16] staff would be able to objectively
[3:11:20] uh implement would be very h helpful.
[3:11:22] Um, again, residents have from various
[3:11:25] wards have reached out to several of you
[3:11:28] as well as now had conversations with
[3:11:30] myself and several other uh you with the
[3:11:32] finance director and other staff
[3:11:34] members. So, um, we did spend a little
[3:11:37] bit of time drafting, uh, this two-part,
[3:11:40] um, pilot,
[3:11:42] um, for tonight's discussion.
[3:11:46] >> If you don't mind, just give a brief
[3:11:48] little overview of, uh, the part one,
[3:11:50] which is what's going to be, uh,
[3:11:52] probably used utilized most often by the
[3:11:55] residents. And this is just the onetime
[3:11:59] uh, late fee waiver. uh is basically a
[3:12:02] percentage of your your water usage uh
[3:12:05] for for not having your bill paid up on
[3:12:07] time and uh u most place most people do
[3:12:11] this and the thing with is a one-time
[3:12:13] thing. So the chronic late payers won't
[3:12:16] be able to use it. We we track that now
[3:12:20] uh you know if we're going to pay
[3:12:22] somebody we're going to have a way to do
[3:12:23] this. Now there's there's two different
[3:12:25] types of customers you have. You have
[3:12:26] your residents who actually own their
[3:12:28] place and then you have um tenants who
[3:12:31] rent from a landlord. The landlord is
[3:12:34] ultimately responsible for the water
[3:12:36] bill. So, it's really their account. So,
[3:12:39] uh you know, it's important we keep in
[3:12:40] touch with them as well and let them
[3:12:42] know what's happening so they know their tenants are late pays because
[3:12:46] they're they're the ones on the hooks
[3:12:47] for that. So, again, it'll be a one-time
[3:12:49] thing and uh that's what's going to be
[3:12:52] used most often. The second part of the
[3:12:54] uh this plan is to come up with a
[3:12:57] utility payment plan should they have a
[3:13:00] an unfortunate financial hiccup in their
[3:13:04] uh daily stuff. You know, these can be
[3:13:07] somewhat large. [snorts]
[3:13:08] Um and what we're probably talking about
[3:13:10] is the continuous flow issues. And um uh
[3:13:14] a lot of people are unaware of that
[3:13:16] until we make the call and say, "Hey,
[3:13:18] you got a continuous flow." They're
[3:13:19] like, "Nothing's running." I'm like,
[3:13:21] "Check everything because we got flow
[3:13:23] coming." And then they'll eventually
[3:13:24] find it and say, "Oh, yeah, thanks." You
[3:13:26] know, whatever. But then they still have
[3:13:28] that enormous bill they have to get rid
[3:13:30] of. Now, we don't like to, you know, I
[3:13:33] don't want people to get um used to
[3:13:36] paying this because their expenses
[3:13:38] still, you know, their monthly bill
[3:13:40] still happens every month, you know, or
[3:13:42] every other month now because we're on a
[3:13:43] bimonthly cycle. But, uh, so you know,
[3:13:47] I'm trying to keep that as short as
[3:13:49] possible because they're they're still
[3:13:51] gonna have to make their current
[3:13:52] payments and they got to make current on
[3:13:54] that. So, if we give them a payment plan
[3:13:57] for their past due balance, this will
[3:13:59] only be a for past due balance. So,
[3:14:01] let's say you had a bill that was
[3:14:03] exorbitant. You had $1,000 worth of
[3:14:05] water bills and your bill is normally
[3:14:07] like 400 bucks. you're like, "Okay,
[3:14:10] well, I'll take that that past due
[3:14:12] balance and I'll put we'll schedule a
[3:14:13] plan out there and say this is what your
[3:14:15] payments are going to be. You got to
[3:14:16] make so much on this date, so much on this date." And we
[3:14:19] want to make that as short as possible
[3:14:21] because again, they still got bills
[3:14:23] coming. And then uh they there's a
[3:14:27] second part of that component, which is
[3:14:29] their current bill. They have to make
[3:14:31] current with that. So part of this
[3:14:32] program is not only do you have to make
[3:14:34] those scheduled payments for your past
[3:14:37] due balance on time, but you have to
[3:14:39] remain current with their current usage
[3:14:40] going forward. So again, that's what
[3:14:43] we're saying about the regular thing.
[3:14:45] Any missed payments, whether it's part
[3:14:46] of the scheduled payments that they have
[3:14:48] or part of their current payment, if
[3:14:50] they miss that, they're coming off the
[3:14:52] program. Everything becomes due, water
[3:14:54] shut offs, everything can happen just
[3:14:56] like it normally would. But we're trying
[3:14:59] to give them some leeway to help catch
[3:15:02] up for that unfortunate incident they
[3:15:04] had. But that that's what this is
[3:15:06] designed for. And like I said, we worked
[3:15:07] with Blaine, we worked with Mike, um uh
[3:15:10] Regina was a good part of this. And uh
[3:15:13] everybody put their ideas together to
[3:15:15] come up with something that was [snorts]
[3:15:18] uh helps the the residents while trying
[3:15:22] to keep it minimal. We we don't want
[3:15:24] them to get useless or have a long-term
[3:15:26] plan out there because they won't be
[3:15:28] able to keep up on their water bills and
[3:15:29] that and that's the current issue. They
[3:15:32] have to remain current on that and
[3:15:33] that's the whole thing. And the final
[3:15:35] thing I want to note on the last page I
[3:15:37] do uh talk about uh reporting back to
[3:15:39] council. So at the conclusion of this
[3:15:40] pilot program, staff shall prepare a
[3:15:43] report. So just after the end of the
[3:15:45] year, we'd prepare a report that would
[3:15:47] say this is the number of late waiver
[3:15:49] fees that were requested. These were the
[3:15:51] number that were approved. These are the
[3:15:52] late the number of payment plans that
[3:15:54] were approved. Um, and these were the
[3:15:57] amounts, any default rates, and then any
[3:15:59] other recommendations for modification
[3:16:01] and that sort of stuff. So, this is a
[3:16:03] very tight pilot, only a couple months
[3:16:05] because we're on a a twomonth cycle. Um,
[3:16:08] but I do believe that this overall
[3:16:11] twoprong approach um will help out our
[3:16:14] residents. So, I'm hopeful that that
[3:16:16] council will at least give some good
[3:16:18] feedback tonight and then um you know,
[3:16:20] we could bring this forward quite soon
[3:16:22] for council to uh consider and vote on.
[3:16:25] >> I just have one question about um it
[3:16:29] shall automatically expire in December
[3:16:30] 31st, 2026.
[3:16:32] >> Yep.
[3:16:34] Unless council takes action. So,
[3:16:36] >> I know, but maybe it would be better to
[3:16:38] get a report a little earlier so we
[3:16:40] could decide. I mean, if we're going to
[3:16:42] get the report after we the timeline,
[3:16:46] what are we going to be judging our
[3:16:47] extension?
[3:16:48] >> Yeah, I think I would like to say that
[3:16:50] that's when the last enrollment in
[3:16:53] there. Their payment plans might
[3:16:54] actually go further than that. So,
[3:16:56] there's still going to be people
[3:16:58] probably on the program is should it
[3:17:00] have these payment plans that take them
[3:17:01] out, you know, because
[3:17:03] >> No, no, no. What I'm saying is
[3:17:05] >> at the conclusion of the pilot program,
[3:17:07] staff shall prepare a report to the city
[3:17:08] council summarizing. Well, the
[3:17:10] conclusion is December 31st unless we
[3:17:13] vote on it. But without knowledge about
[3:17:15] how it went or what had happened, how
[3:17:17] are we going to vote on it prior to
[3:17:18] December 31st is all I'm saying is is it
[3:17:20] possible to get a report?
[3:17:22] >> Yes.
[3:17:22] >> Sooner than that, so we have something
[3:17:24] to vote on if we want to extend it.
[3:17:27] >> I totally agree. And we should give you
[3:17:28] progress reports from once you you allow
[3:17:31] us to start this program. We can give
[3:17:33] you, you know, bi-weekly reports if you
[3:17:35] want that. That's fine.
[3:17:36] >> Yeah, that would be wonderful. That
[3:17:38] would be great.
[3:17:38] >> Because if we're allowing a payment
[3:17:40] program that's up to a 12 months,
[3:17:44] really can't weigh in on how effective
[3:17:45] the program is until 12 months.
[3:17:48] >> We really we really don't expect to hit
[3:17:50] that in this period of time. Actually,
[3:17:53] if you're lucky, you may have one of
[3:17:54] those per year because of the levels.
[3:17:58] It's just
[3:17:58] >> I don't know. I mean, because right now
[3:18:00] what what there is no
[3:18:02] we're expecting full payment. There's no
[3:18:05] >> lean.
[3:18:06] We know approximately how many um people
[3:18:09] hit these these problems. So like
[3:18:12] currently right now I had a um a
[3:18:14] commercial account that hit it and they had a run on for two and a half
[3:18:19] months and it was $3,400.
[3:18:22] So uh in one [clears throat] one cycle
[3:18:24] and then another $1,600. But that's a
[3:18:26] commercial account. Most of them, you
[3:18:28] know, and they had he has five meters.
[3:18:31] So it was it was unusual. So that's what
[3:18:35] I'm saying. when you get those, they're
[3:18:36] going to be unusual accounts like we did
[3:18:38] in January. It's like, are you kidding
[3:18:40] me? That never happens.
[3:18:41] >> But this pilot program will only be um
[3:18:44] available to residential.
[3:18:46] >> Correct. Correct. This is a residential
[3:18:48] program. And Mark, I'd also note the
[3:18:50] first three residents that I talked to
[3:18:51] and I asked them what would they be able
[3:18:53] to pay. Most of them are able to pay
[3:18:55] right now in in that three-month window.
[3:18:57] They realize that they have these
[3:18:59] upcoming normal bills that they'll have
[3:19:01] as well for for usage. So most of them I
[3:19:04] mean one even said I'm working overtime
[3:19:06] right now so I'm really hoping that
[3:19:07] council does approve a payment plan
[3:19:10] because she's trying to get as much
[3:19:11] money as she can and and that waiver um
[3:19:15] would also help her so she's not getting
[3:19:17] >> penalized for penalized even further and
[3:19:20] so that's why the waiver in talking even
[3:19:22] with these different residents um we
[3:19:25] adjusted kind of our strategy to have a
[3:19:27] two-part component so the waiver of the
[3:19:29] fee along with the payment plan option
[3:19:32] bless
[3:19:33] We're hopeful that most of them will
[3:19:35] probably be in that threemonth window.
[3:19:37] Again, during the cost, it could have
[3:19:39] some that go a little bit longer,
[3:19:41] >> but if we implement this soon, we would
[3:19:43] then have October, November, and
[3:19:45] December. And so, if we have a good, I
[3:19:47] guess, test for council to at least
[3:19:49] consider.
[3:19:49] >> And let me understand that um that the
[3:19:52] payments that we're working on are not
[3:19:53] monthly payments. These the residents
[3:19:55] here are trying to catch up. They're
[3:19:57] paying weekly. So, that's what I'm
[3:19:58] saying. It's a it's a quick turnaround.
[3:20:00] they want to get back on track as well.
[3:20:02] >> No, I'm I'm in full support of a um
[3:20:06] billing assistance program. Um cuz
[3:20:09] believe me, I hear a lot about water
[3:20:12] bills and how high they are and and it's it's you know,
[3:20:16] >> yeah,
[3:20:16] >> it's it's hard for a lot of people. So,
[3:20:19] um I'm I'm definitely in support of this
[3:20:22] program. I'm just wondering if you know
[3:20:26] what are we going to have two billing
[3:20:28] cycles before December 31st.
[3:20:30] >> Correct.
[3:20:31] >> I mean, it's it's kind of hard to get a
[3:20:34] consensus of how any program is going
[3:20:37] when you have two
[3:20:40] data points. I mean, I would I'd be in
[3:20:42] support of a little bit longer
[3:20:45] a little longer. That's fine. We can do
[3:20:46] that. That's fine. you know, there's not
[3:20:47] going to, you know, depending on how we
[3:20:49] present this as an available option to
[3:20:51] residents, there's always people that
[3:20:54] are going to say, "I didn't know it was
[3:20:55] available." And unless, and if they
[3:20:57] missed it by two months, now they're,
[3:21:00] you know, if they hear about it, they
[3:21:01] could still get into it and still get,
[3:21:03] you know, even if it's into the first
[3:21:06] one or two billing cycles of the
[3:21:08] following year.
[3:21:10] >> Yeah. My my true hope actually is that
[3:21:11] the pilot is successful and that we are
[3:21:14] able to place it as a program.
[3:21:17] >> Yeah.
[3:21:17] >> Um and so to me looking at two billing
[3:21:20] cycles would allow us to to not have a
[3:21:23] mad rush I guess.
[3:21:25] >> Um if we you know but if you want to
[3:21:27] extend it maybe another we're on a
[3:21:30] twomon schedule. So if you want to
[3:21:31] extend it maybe another two months that
[3:21:33] would get basically six months instead
[3:21:35] of the fourmonth window. Um
[3:21:38] but again my hope is to bring as the
[3:21:41] pilot would expire to bring back these
[3:21:44] reports and again as was noted you know
[3:21:47] having monthly reports to council um you
[3:21:49] know so that there's not just this this
[3:21:51] deadline and then hopefully say we feel
[3:21:53] that this is a good program to have
[3:21:55] again as we've researched with other
[3:21:57] communities they have some sort of staff
[3:22:00] allowed kind of discretion to to put
[3:22:03] people on payment plans or to do that
[3:22:05] forgiveness one time. Most of the
[3:22:07] communities that do it is a one-time
[3:22:09] forgiveness for the fee.
[3:22:10] >> Okay. Um, another question I had or I
[3:22:13] guess it's more of a comment on
[3:22:15] regarding the onetime late fee waiver.
[3:22:17] Um,
[3:22:20] number three under conditions where it
[3:22:22] says the the customer customer must
[3:22:24] verbally request the waiver with a
[3:22:26] written request preferred. I think the
[3:22:29] written request is has to be
[3:22:32] >> I agree. has to be gotten it because
[3:22:35] verbally, you know,
[3:22:37] >> I understand
[3:22:38] >> people don't remember. Someone told
[3:22:39] someone this, they don't remember that
[3:22:41] way. You know, you got to have something
[3:22:42] in writing to say they they got their
[3:22:45] one time waiver on this date and it goes
[3:22:48] in the file.
[3:22:49] >> I'm in completing [clears throat]
[3:22:51] there was more.
[3:22:52] >> That's the one comment I have on that.
[3:22:53] >> Yeah. The the challenge with that again
[3:22:55] talking with our our utility billing
[3:22:57] staff are the majority are phone calls
[3:23:00] and so we're not
[3:23:02] getting a written document
[3:23:05] >> and we don't have emails for everybody.
[3:23:07] That's correct. That's one of the
[3:23:09] problems. and and that I've been I've
[3:23:11] been working with my staff because this
[3:23:12] is my issue because I'm right on on
[3:23:14] board with you right there and I want my
[3:23:15] staff to get something in writing
[3:23:17] because I'm I'm fearful of the the time
[3:23:20] somebody comes back a year or two later
[3:23:22] and says, you know, hey, I never asked
[3:23:24] for that. Who said that? I didn't do
[3:23:26] that. So, that's why I want to get that.
[3:23:27] I do want to get that um in writing,
[3:23:30] whether it's via email or something like
[3:23:32] that or they come down and just give us
[3:23:34] something that says this is what it is.
[3:23:36] I just want something attached to the
[3:23:37] file. Well, I I think worst case
[3:23:39] scenario, you have the employee document
[3:23:41] who they spoke with and what day and
[3:23:44] notate their account with that
[3:23:45] information.
[3:23:46] >> That was that's what's in there. And
[3:23:48] then that's why we wrote, again, this is
[3:23:49] a pilot to say what is preferred. So, if
[3:23:52] we can get the individual's uh email
[3:23:54] address and then we could send them
[3:23:56] confirmation that also can be a copy to
[3:23:58] the file. Again, these are we've this is
[3:24:01] a brand new pilot program. We've never
[3:24:03] done this. So, we're going to learn a
[3:24:05] few things as staff interact with with the the customers.
[3:24:10] >> My hope is
[3:24:10] >> question um go ahead.
[3:24:12] >> My hope is that because we're giving
[3:24:14] them a break on the money, they're going
[3:24:16] to be willing to come down and either
[3:24:18] give us something in writing to avoid
[3:24:19] that fee. So, I I think it's it's
[3:24:22] incentive for them to do it
[3:24:24] >> and they could email it to you
[3:24:25] >> or an email, whatever. Yeah. Just as
[3:24:27] long as they give us something to write.
[3:24:28] >> No, I'm just saying they don't have to
[3:24:29] leave their house if they email it to
[3:24:31] you.
[3:24:31] >> That's correct. Yeah.
[3:24:32] On page 131 on the bottom says approval
[3:24:36] authority uh outstanding balance
[3:24:38] approval authority from 100 to,000
[3:24:41] utility bill uh billing supervisor and
[3:24:44] then it goes to finance assistant and
[3:24:46] then console after five. Is there a way
[3:24:48] that you can be on on all these
[3:24:52] especially the utility one as well? Um
[3:24:56] that the finance manager will make that
[3:24:57] decision as well.
[3:24:58] >> Yeah, sure.
[3:24:59] >> I'm sorry. Too bad.
[3:25:00] >> Yes, I can do that. I can do that.
[3:25:02] That's fine. I don't have a problem with
[3:25:04] that. Trying to keep it low, but yeah,
[3:25:06] $1,000 isn't a lot and it's going to be
[3:25:09] very minimal, but yes, I can do that.
[3:25:10] It's fine. I like I said, I'm there all
[3:25:12] the time. I like to work.
[3:25:13] >> No, I know you are, but I'm just
[3:25:15] >> So, but yeah,
[3:25:15] >> to have everybody.
[3:25:17] >> Yep. I agree. [clears throat]
[3:25:20] >> Um, I just got a couple concerns. Um,
[3:25:23] one one uh with the waiver of the fee,
[3:25:28] couldn't we isn't it possible that we
[3:25:31] that can be put on the bill like the fee
[3:25:35] late fee waiver
[3:25:38] so that we wouldn't have to get caught
[3:25:40] up with all this something in writing or
[3:25:42] whatever. We have a the bill the bill
[3:25:45] itself would specify that the fee was
[3:25:48] waved.
[3:25:49] >> Yes. Well, that's the whole thing. um in
[3:25:52] discussing with this, you know, while
[3:25:53] they can request the make the request
[3:25:55] ahead of time, I I can't wave the fee
[3:25:58] till it actually hits the bill because I
[3:25:59] want to show that there was a fee on
[3:26:02] here, how much the fee was and how much
[3:26:03] we're waving. I do want that in there.
[3:26:06] Uh so we can keep that on balance as to
[3:26:08] what happened because again, this is a
[3:26:10] one-time lifetime, you know, Crest Hill
[3:26:13] resident program. So you you take it now
[3:26:16] and you have another bro you another
[3:26:18] issue two years from now like you don't
[3:26:20] get it anymore. So that's the whole
[3:26:22] thing. So uh well at least that's how
[3:26:25] it's designed now.
[3:26:26] >> But Derel I think what what you're
[3:26:27] asking uh I think in our upcoming bills
[3:26:30] we'd be able to put something in there
[3:26:31] or provide our email address so that
[3:26:33] they would just have to email us to to
[3:26:35] say so they would be able to check off
[3:26:37] basically that they'd like that waiver
[3:26:39] waved so we'd have something in writing.
[3:26:41] That's what you're
[3:26:41] >> saying. I think what he's mean what he
[3:26:43] meant is something that will stay on the
[3:26:46] water bill that
[3:26:48] >> the late fee was waved.
[3:26:50] >> That's a good idea.
[3:26:51] Let me see if I can
[3:26:54] I got to see if I have permanently that
[3:26:55] it it was
[3:26:56] >> it will be on but that's what he meant.
[3:26:58] >> Okay,
[3:26:59] >> that's a good idea.
[3:27:02] If I got space on the bill, I'll squeeze
[3:27:03] that on there. But it's it's all for how
[3:27:06] much space I have. And and my second
[3:27:08] concern is the period of time we looking
[3:27:12] to recapture the the funds. Um
[3:27:19] is it h how is that going to be
[3:27:22] structured? Because I know everybody may
[3:27:26] not make the same type of money, you
[3:27:28] know. um h how do we make it where
[3:27:32] we're not putting the person in a
[3:27:34] financial bind even though they're
[3:27:36] already late?
[3:27:38] >> So, we're going to be working with the residents um individually on that.
[3:27:43] There's no set mod on that because
[3:27:45] everybody has different income and
[3:27:48] different, you know, uh flexibilities in
[3:27:50] their financial thing. I can't say
[3:27:53] oneizefits-all kind of thing. So, we're
[3:27:56] going to work with them because we don't
[3:27:57] want to see them fail. We want we want
[3:28:00] to get them back online, back in the
[3:28:02] program because again, they didn't most
[3:28:04] of them didn't do anything to get them
[3:28:05] to this spot. Something happened to them
[3:28:08] and we want to get them adjusted. That's
[3:28:10] the whole idea of trying to do this
[3:28:11] program is we want to get them happy
[3:28:14] again on the program, paying
[3:28:17] appropriately, and that that's the whole
[3:28:18] idea. And if we go to monthly billing
[3:28:20] like Bls to do, that'll help out a lot.
[3:28:23] >> Yeah. And Derel, you might remember for
[3:28:24] the resident that we met with. Instead
[3:28:26] of me suggesting a dollar amount, it was
[3:28:28] asking her, "What do you think you could
[3:28:30] can what payment plan can you afford?"
[3:28:32] And she's like, "All right." She thought
[3:28:34] about it. By the end of the meeting, she
[3:28:35] gave us a number that she felt every two
[3:28:37] weeks that she could pay. So to me,
[3:28:39] that's where, you know, Glenn and his
[3:28:41] staff would say, "Okay, instead of we
[3:28:43] need a $100 every, you know, every two
[3:28:45] weeks, we need to work with that
[3:28:47] resident because they know what their
[3:28:48] budget is, and what could they, we don't
[3:28:50] want to put them in any worse shape. We
[3:28:53] want them to come up with that number,
[3:28:55] >> right?
[3:28:56] >> But their repayment has to occur within
[3:28:58] the 12-month period."
[3:28:59] >> Oh, most definitely. I mean, they they
[3:29:01] can't we're not going to work with them
[3:29:03] to the extent that they're they're
[3:29:06] having any um um
[3:29:10] any amount forgiven.
[3:29:13] >> Correct. The goal is again not to go to
[3:29:15] collections or not to shut them off. Uh
[3:29:17] and if they do happen to come back with
[3:29:19] a payment plan that's over the 12
[3:29:21] months, that's where it would go to
[3:29:22] council if that's what they chose to
[3:29:24] request. So, if somebody's on the high
[3:29:26] end, let's just say near, you know, the
[3:29:28] 5,000 mark, they come in at $4,800
[3:29:30] because they had a huge uh constant
[3:29:33] flow, um, you know, and they say, "Look,
[3:29:37] I, you know, I I there's not a a way I
[3:29:39] can get this in the 12 months. I I need
[3:29:42] 18 months." I'm going to say, "Well,
[3:29:44] based on our pilot policy, I I my
[3:29:47] position doesn't have the authority. I
[3:29:49] need to bring that to council. Would you
[3:29:50] like to bring it to council?" So, um,
[3:29:53] our, you know, and that's where Glenn is
[3:29:55] saying most likely we've been able to
[3:29:57] catch most of these when they're in that
[3:30:00] thousand to maybe $2,500, uh, realm. So,
[3:30:03] hopefully we can get them on payment
[3:30:05] plans. Again, that's only going to be
[3:30:08] easier once it's on monthly bill cycles
[3:30:10] so that we catch it quicker so that the
[3:30:12] amounts are lower. Um, but our hope
[3:30:14] again, and that's why we structured it
[3:30:16] for 12 months or up to 12 months, our
[3:30:18] hope is really within a couple months.
[3:30:20] >> Yes. but not to go over 12 months.
[3:30:23] That's why this policy says not more
[3:30:25] than 12 months unless it's going to come
[3:30:26] to council.
[3:30:27] >> Yeah. The target is to keep most of them
[3:30:29] under three months
[3:30:33] » ideally.
[3:30:35] >> So I think the sooner the better we
[3:30:37] start this program.
[3:30:39] >> Well, we'll be happy to bring it to
[3:30:40] council for this upcoming meeting and
[3:30:42] you guys
[3:30:42] >> could could vote for it or any
[3:30:44] adjustments we could do do that put
[3:30:46] together by September 8th.
[3:30:48] >> We Yes.
[3:30:50] Everybody in favor of that council?
[3:30:51] >> Yeah.
[3:30:52] >> Okay. Let's have it ready for September
[3:30:54] 8th because I know there's a lot of
[3:30:56] >> a lot of people out there waiting in
[3:30:58] line.
[3:31:00] >> Okay. Anything else?
[3:31:03] >> All right. Any questions of finance? All
[3:31:06] right. Uh public comment. Anyone like to
[3:31:08] address any council? Please step to the
[3:31:09] podium. Say your name for the record.
[3:31:11] Address is optional. Let the record show
[3:31:13] no one has approached the podium. Mike,
[3:31:14] is there a need for an executive
[3:31:15] session?
[3:31:16] >> There is not. I had a question for
[3:31:17] Blaine before you adjourn. May I
[3:31:21] >> go ahead?
[3:31:22] >> Um, is tonight's meeting being um
[3:31:24] recorded and or um streamed, televised
[3:31:27] live?
[3:31:28] >> It is being televised live through our
[3:31:30] uh AT&T and Comcast. It's uh being uh so
[3:31:35] it's recorded and then will be posted on
[3:31:37] the uh city's YouTube page.
[3:31:40] >> Okay. Is there a problem with streaming
[3:31:41] live to YouTube? Um there there is
[3:31:44] currently with us using the microphones
[3:31:47] and our our equipment. We've still not
[3:31:49] figured out um what that specific issue
[3:31:52] is. It does get disconnect either our
[3:31:54] microphones or the live stream. We're
[3:31:56] not sure why, but um
[3:31:58] >> I thought that was kind of the goal
[3:32:01] because I thought we did have it.
[3:32:03] >> We did we did have it live for one work
[3:32:05] session and one for for one council
[3:32:07] meeting. there was a power outage. Um,
[3:32:09] and we're not sure if that damaged a
[3:32:11] portion of equipment that is not
[3:32:13] allowing it to happen now, but um, I
[3:32:15] know staff has been continuing to work
[3:32:17] on it. U, we're told that the new
[3:32:19] equipment would allow us to live stream,
[3:32:21] broadcast, and record all at the same
[3:32:23] time. Again, we've not gotten that RFP
[3:32:26] out yet to get vendors to do that. U,
[3:32:28] but we're we're working on that.
[3:32:31] >> Okay. I I I think that's important to be
[3:32:34] able to get live on uh, YouTube. But uh
[3:32:36] I also noticed that the August 10th work
[3:32:39] session two weeks ago um is not on
[3:32:42] YouTube. Is there any do we know what
[3:32:46] happened there?
[3:32:47] >> Yeah, it w it was one of the things that
[3:32:49] was impacted um just in our process of
[3:32:53] recording. Um there's a couple of
[3:32:57] basically we have to set everything just so it did broadcast um that
[3:33:02] meeting. um the recording failed for
[3:33:05] whatever reason. We did everything we
[3:33:07] could to both check the computers, the
[3:33:10] discs, the the other things to capture
[3:33:13] that. Um one thing that we could do um
[3:33:17] based on the fact that we did get audio
[3:33:19] recording is to still post a record of
[3:33:22] the the audio recording. It's not a the
[3:33:26] video that we would want, but failing a
[3:33:29] recording, we would we would put that
[3:33:32] together to post. Okay. Who's handling
[3:33:34] audio video responsibilities now in the
[3:33:37] city?
[3:33:38] >> Yeah, it's it's been a combination of
[3:33:40] effort between myself and um and so but
[3:33:46] I went through extensive training. I've sat through um we worked with Bill
[3:33:52] I worked with Bill for at least an hour
[3:33:56] um post that August 10th meeting to
[3:33:59] attempt to see if I could one recover
[3:34:01] anything and also to ensure that
[3:34:03] everything is being um put together in
[3:34:06] the right order the right way. Um I've
[3:34:09] since put together you know training
[3:34:12] materials. We have both video and and
[3:34:15] screenshotted
[3:34:17] information to at least keep our
[3:34:19] equipment running as it has been running
[3:34:22] until we get the
[3:34:24] you know the new new things in place.
[3:34:27] >> Okay. You mentioned tonight's meeting is
[3:34:29] live on AT&T and Comcast.
[3:34:32] >> Yes.
[3:34:32] >> Is it also being recorded so it will be
[3:34:34] uploaded to YouTube?
[3:34:36] >> Yes. I I when I took a break from here,
[3:34:39] I was back there
[3:34:41] >> um again taking an opportunity to check
[3:34:43] and and make sure we're we're capturing
[3:34:45] what we're capturing. Um and once we
[3:34:47] conclude the meeting, I'll be checking
[3:34:49] it again. We'll we'll make sure we got a
[3:34:51] recording tonight still.
[3:34:52] >> So, will it be up available to view
[3:34:55] tonight?
[3:34:56] >> I don't know if it will be tonight. Um
[3:34:59] sometimes it does take a little bit of
[3:35:01] time to um convert the video in order to get it to do it. we can start that
[3:35:07] process and then have it ready early
[3:35:09] tomorrow. Okay.
[3:35:10] >> Um that would be the my first goal to do
[3:35:13] that. But um just because our meetings
[3:35:15] run long, I'm not sure how long it'll
[3:35:17] take.
[3:35:18] >> Yeah. Typically from from Bill's
[3:35:20] training, the length of time for the
[3:35:22] meeting. So if it's three hours, it
[3:35:23] takes three hours for the the the tape
[3:35:25] to encode so that we could upload it to
[3:35:28] YouTube. So um even if we concluded now,
[3:35:32] it wouldn't be until at least tomorrow.
[3:35:34] So
[3:35:35] >> I have requested uh via email like to
[3:35:38] put this on the agenda so we can figure
[3:35:40] uh a solution a permanent solution where
[3:35:44] >> I mean the HR should not be doing the
[3:35:47] stuff. I mean right now she's saving us
[3:35:50] but it just seems like a
[3:35:52] >> consulate uh un unfortunately with uh
[3:35:56] again even getting the answers so that
[3:35:58] council could uh discuss that. Um, you
[3:36:01] know, we we plan on bringing this for
[3:36:03] council as soon as we have that. I know
[3:36:05] we've uh been working on a request for
[3:36:07] proposal so that we could have
[3:36:09] information for council to discuss. Um,
[3:36:11] again, Ashley is HR, but she's also our
[3:36:14] assistant administrator and that's
[3:36:15] typically for most assistants. Um, it is
[3:36:18] a typical area um in the audio video.
[3:36:22] That's what I did when I was an
[3:36:23] assistant in two other communities. So,
[3:36:25] um, I've been helping and then we've
[3:36:27] also pulled in other staff members. So
[3:36:29] we have the planning commission. So AIFA
[3:36:31] has been uh working along with Dan uh
[3:36:34] and other staff members to learn our
[3:36:36] current system. Again unfortunately our
[3:36:38] system has a [snorts] lot of components
[3:36:40] that are already at the end of life. And
[3:36:42] so when we had that power disruption um
[3:36:44] it did cause quite a quite a problem
[3:36:46] >> but we need people that they know I you
[3:36:49] know the IT and the professional video
[3:36:52] recording all that. Yeah.
[3:36:53] >> You know that you know it's not her job.
[3:36:57] you know, she's already taking so many
[3:36:59] roles on top of running a planning
[3:37:02] commission, roll calling, all that,
[3:37:03] which was the clerk. They used to do
[3:37:06] that.
[3:37:06] >> So now she's doing video and she's a
[3:37:08] planner. So we keep adding all these
[3:37:10] jobs on certain people that going to get
[3:37:12] burned out. Yeah. You know,
[3:37:14] >> don't disagree. And that's why through
[3:37:16] the request for proposal, we're looking
[3:37:17] for companies that will also provide
[3:37:19] service for the city so that we'd have a
[3:37:21] professional uh ability to have uh um a
[3:37:26] company to do that. I I've also been in
[3:37:28] touch with uh um our local university
[3:37:32] and once our system is upgraded to the
[3:37:34] modern equipment, they have told us that
[3:37:37] they could have students that actually
[3:37:38] could could assist once we have our
[3:37:40] equipment running and that could be a
[3:37:42] learning um component for them to get
[3:37:45] future jobs. So we could have companies
[3:37:48] um as well as uh other avenues to ensure
[3:37:52] that we are covered for recordings in
[3:37:54] here as well as uh for events.
[3:37:57] >> Okay.
[3:38:01] Meeting is adjourned at 10:38 p.m.
[3:38:04] Thank you and good evening.