Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 03-16 Pre1. 2. CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE -COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Roll -call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Bill Nary Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Update / Discussion of and Stacy Kilchenmann: (*30 minutes) Mayor Tammy de Weerd Employee Compensation — Pauline Skeggs 4. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b)&(c): 5. Discussion of City of Meridian support of ITD's policy to restrict vehicular access to SH 2O-26: *Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Pre -Council Agenda — March 16, 2004 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 868-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 The Meridian City Pre -Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Bill Nary, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle and Charlie Rountree. Staff Present: Jill Holinka, Pauline Skeggs, Stacy Kilchennman, Anna Powell, Bill Musser, Gary Smith, Doug Strong, Kenny Bowers and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll -call Attendance: X Bill Nary X Keith Bird X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X Mayor Tammy de Weerd Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Bird: Mr. President. Nary: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we adopt the agenda as published. Rountree: Second. Nary: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published. All those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Update / Discussion of Employee Compensation — Pauline Skeggs and Stacy Kilchenmann: Nary: Pauline do you want to start? Skeggs: Mayor, President Nary and Council members I have Wade Larson from Organization Resources, Inc. here today. He handled our re-classification plus he worked with the City on putting our programs and processes in place and he wants to just kind of give you an overview of our program and to address any concerns that you may have with that. In addition, like I said, he updated our compensation program and he helped us put together the evaluation forms and the rating structure, so I know he has got information to present so I am going to turn it over to Wade. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 2 of 19 Larson: Mayor and Council I understand that there were some questions regarding the structure with the compensation program. I am not exactly sure what exactly the specific questions are and so what I came prepared tonight was not for a full explanation of all the details of the compensation program — you don't have enough time. What I would like to do is kind of give you an idea as to what the structure is, what the layout is and then maybe address your specific questions and concerns about that. Unless, of course, you have any other route that you would like to take in terms of the explanation of the program. Nary: No that seems fine. Larson: I limited this to about a one-page handout just so we could kind of go over the structure. If we have additional questions then we can talk about that further at a different date. This layout gives us an overview kind of the four -prong approach to compensation management in terms of the general overview and this is the structure that was followed in putting together the City's plan. Now the City has always had a compensation structure of course and for at least the last several years has worked under the guise of a job description structure and a standard compensation structure, but in putting together in terms of revising it, we started about five years ago with the IEC Group when they came in and did a complete analysis of all the positions and realigned the structure. Since then we have tweaked it, modified it as the needs and the objectives of the organization have changed as well. Essentially, there are four parts to this program. The first part is the internal equity component where we take a look at each position, not the person in the position, but the position itself. We identify what are the essential functions, what are the requirements and standard job description function? Once the job description is put together and that's typically drafted by the supervisors, as they know the position the best. It's run through Human Resources for finalization and then it goes through an evaluation structure based on the internal evaluation process you come up with ranking essentially as to where the positions are placed internally. That leads into the second component, which is the external competitiveness component and that's where we take a look at the market and assess what is the value of the job? We come up with job ranges, market values and because of the fluctuating nature of compensation we take a look at that on a regular basis. We identify key positions and we evaluate those on a regular basis as well as any time that there is a major change to a position or anytime that it's been a while since the position has been evaluated from a market perspective we take a look outside and see what the other comparator agencies are looking at. As part of that process we identify who comparator agencies are, which tends to be organization similar in structure and nature to the City of Meridian and from there we gather the data and crunch the numbers and combined with the internal equity component, we assigned grade ranges, pay ranges and that's essentially where the positions are unless there is some good reason for the job to change or other situations; market value Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 3 of 19 changes to adjust the positions. The third component is the employee contribution, which involves the performance management process. Four or five years ago — the City has always had a performance evaluation system, but four or five years ago we decided to tie that directly into the compensation program and adequately reward those who are performing. As such, two years ago we took a close look, a strong look at the evaluation process to enhance performance within the organization and as such we developed several types of evaluations depending on the nature of the job and as such we also came up with six performance ratings depending on where they fell. The lower two are essentially not satisfactory, needs improvement and those of course didn't receive any kind of merit increase. We established the competent level -- the competent rating. The competent rating was to acknowledge those who are essentially new to the position who aren't quite up to 100 percent yet in their position, but we acknowledge the performance in their efforts for that year. We have a satisfactory rating, which should include those who are at least at about the 85 percent performance level. Those are those who are doing the jobs, they are meeting and often times exceeding the requirements of the position. From there we go up to the excels category, which is to denote those who are typically in the 90 to 95 percents, sometimes up to 100 percent most of the time. Then we have the outstanding category, which is to recognize those who are consistently at the top of the performance factor, often times achieving 100 percent, but usually in the 95 to 100 percent category there. So those are the essential ones and the fourth component is the administration, which involves the regular updating of the program and make sure that we are still in line. As a result of this we have set this up some time ago. We have consistently done market surveys about once a year and so over the last four years of the approximately 116 positions that the City has, not counting the fire positions, approximately 78 of those positions have been evaluated during the four year period of time just to make sure that we are still in alignment with the outside market. As a result, each year we have come with some recommendations for some adjustments or to maintain positions and actions have been taken on that. Just as a final component in terms of the training, once the overall structure was revamped a few years ago we did meet with the department heads, worked out the details, trained them on how to use it and two years ago after revising the performance evaluation process, we went through training with supervisors and managers for that as well. So with that that gives you kind of an overview as to the structure of the system, the theories behind it and without going into too many details it gives you an overview of the structure. With that I would be open to any questions or concerns that might have on it. Nary: Council, any questions? Rountree: Mr. President. Nary: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 4 of 19 Rountree: Wade, you talked about going back in and reevaluating certain set of classifications. Is that established by contract with you or is that something — in your recollections is that something directed by the City Council or is that done by HR specialist or what was the mechanism, at least you understood for getting that done? Larson: Sure. There is nothing that's established to contract, per se. About five years ago the IEC Group was the initial group that came in and revamped that and that's about the same time that I came on board with the IEC Group. I worked with Pauline as the primary consultant from the group, the primary contact. About three years ago, I separated from the IEC Group and established my own consulting group and from that time we have maintained the relationship. The majority of the relationship there has been primarily updating the evaluations, the compensation with the terms of the market studies, revamping the performance management process. But, in terms of contract per se, there is nothing that has been consistent, it's an as needed basis. Rountree: I have another question. It relates to the competency satisfactory classification in terms of performance if you will and the expectation from that system that those kinds of evaluations would yield some sort of meritorious compensation and I know there are several of us that have questions as it relates to competent and satisfactory employee qualifying what in our minds is a meritorious performance. Could you explain the philosophy that's in place because the system is new to me as a brand new councilman? Larson: When we took a look at this, we had — we saw what we often see in most organizations or anytime that there is heavy emphasis placed on the compensation element on the performance management outcome. There is a tendency to inflate performance, to inflate the performance rating in order to achieve a higher pay rate. As such what we want to do — what we are taking a look at it, where the vast majority of employees were hitting at the above average rating, when in fact we knew that they were at a more of a satisfactory rating where they were meeting expectations, sure we want a merit increase but we didn't want to inflate the performance ratings. We want a true measure of performance to help coach them and improve their performance. As such, we took a look at the structure and the previous structure had five levels. Typically in a five level component there is a central tendency that takes place that hits around the satisfactory component and that's really what our target was; understanding that the vast majority of employees are doing a good job, they are coming to work, they are doing a great job and they are doing what they are supposed to do and often times they go above and beyond. In that case, however, we really want to save the excels for those who really were excelling above and beyond what the requirements of the job were, but at the same time wanting to recognize those who were meeting the expectations of the job description. In terms of the distinction between satisfactory and competent, we Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 5 of 19 actually inserted the competent to reflect those people who were essentially good employees. They weren't quite at 85 percent of their performance, typically in most cases because they were new employees and that's, as I understand it, about where it's been averaged typically reserved for those who were new in their job either their first or second year. If somebody is in their position for longer than a year and has still not achieved higher than a competent rating, we need to take a look at some performance management issues and that (inaudible) in. Skeggs: (Inaudible discussion) Larson: Okay, I had them switched, but — Rountree: You are not the only one confused. Larson: --it's my structure so — but I only have this in front of me. I don't have my toys in front of me, but that's a good question. So, the reason for the distinction between the two; one is higher and one is lower. What's to recognize the fact that some folks are new to their positions? They are working hard, but at the same time they are not quite up to that 90 percent where we expect a fully competent, well -seasoned employee to be at. Rountree: Thank you for that explanation. That helps kind of differentiate at least the competent satisfactory. I believe we separated, we differentiated the merit increase for each of those levels, primarily based on the fact that yeah, we wanted to give them a little something to recognize their efforts, but they are not — it's not as meritorious as those who are at full capacity, the full competent level. De Weerd: Mr. President. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I guess my concern is all of those different levels are so close together, there is no range, so it's kind of like if — you know, our excels are at 96 percent and you have someone who is competent at 94 percent, I think that is Mr. Nary's example, how can you differentiate one getting a larger raise and not. I have yet to meet someone who can perform at 100 percent all the time. So, I guess I would ask there is not a whole lot of buffer between each one to help separate who excels, who'is competent? I understand the satisfactory is for newer employees, so that leaves the competent, excels and outstanding without any measurements to give specific examples of why you would be anything more than your what's expected of you anyway, which I don't think can always be a 100 percent either. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 6 of 19 Larson: That raises an excellent question, Mayor. That really goes to the fundamental nature of compensation management. Taking it in terms of the theorist behind the compensation process, you have so many different structures out there. Ranging from something that's simple that the state has, for example, is a pass/fail. You pass, you fail. It's a two -prong measurement. But, what they find in most cases from the management perspective is that that is not enough differentiation to say those who need, those who exceed and reward those who exceed. Even certain state departments have kind of separated themselves and said sure we will go to the pass/fail, but then we will have our own internal measurements. Mostly from a coaching perspective for performance management process. That's the real heart of this process is not to use the performance management just as a way to manage pay, but as a way to manage performance and that's really at the heart of it. So, we can go to a three prong, where it's — where we have a does not meet, a meets or an exceeds, which is okay and it's better than the pass/fail, but you are still missing out on the differentiation, especially at the lower end; are they failing completely or do we need improvement? There is a distinction there. At the same time at the upper end as you mentioned, you have a hard time to find those who are 100 percent all the time and as the training has been provided to the managers we explained to them that we are talking about the top two or three percent of the entire workforce would fall into that. So, from the City perspective my understanding is that there are only about two or three that actually met that criterion over the past year, which is about right in line with where our expectations were. However, the exceeds expectation is there to say yes you are doing an above average job; you are not walking on water, but it is a way to recognize the above satisfactory performance and so the ones in the middle, hopefully, I have explained the reason for the differentiation in the middle, the competent verses satisfactory one is for the more newer folks, one is for those who are well -seasoned in their positions and doing their job. They are coming to work and doing a pretty good job each day. The two levels at the bottom end are of course so we can differentiate between you are not doing your job verses we need some improvement and there is some hope for you and at the same time we decided to plug in the top two to differentiate those who truly do walk on water as it were and those who are coming to work and do an excellent job. That is what that excels category is for. In terms of the criteria to differentiate, that — I have seen several performance management systems that have tried to get as scientific as possible to add some kind of tangible measurement. It's tough. Performance management is and always has been a subjective case, which is where we go to the training that we provided to managers and supervisors and employees as well; we have trained all the employees in terms of setting up expectations that are specific, measurable, time related so that we can add as much tangibility to those as possible. At that point, we leave it to the directors, the departments heads and the managers to say yeah we trust them to be able to differentiate and that and make the judgment call within their own areas. That's really where the training was left. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 7 of 19 Rountree: Mr. President. Nary: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You mentioned in your discussion about formulating or assisting the City in putting together the performance program that there is a tendency to over inflate City above average rating. Was that a general statement or was that something that you actually saw in the system that the City has? Larson: That's a general statement for performance in general. As I understand it, based on the past years' ratings, we are hitting where we actually expected in terms of the breakdown of what percentages of the City employees where we are having about 46 percent fall into that competent factor. It's in the mid -teens, I believe, for the excels and we are talking only two to three percent in the outstanding category, which breaks out about where our goals and objectives were to meet, but the — the real issue becomes how dependent is your performance management system in terms of how much the employee gets paid. What we find is that in systems where satisfactory means satisfactory, hey congratulations you get to keep your job and there is no additional merit increase for that satisfactory rating or the middle mark. What we find is that there tends to be a tendency to inflate performance ratings so that more employees can fall into the exceeds expectations category just to get that merit increase. So, we try to address this to say here is a category and we are going to recognize your performance by giving you a merit increase. It's not going to be nearly as much as the others, but it is a merit increase to recognize the good performance and that will help to alleviate that overrating problem. As a side note, one of the issues that comes from — this is not really a decompensation, but in terms of the overall package for performance management what we find is another issue of overrating — of over inflating the ratings is that when it comes time to discipline, or to terminate an employee it becomes really difficult to find somebody who's been exceeding expectations and being able to take the appropriate action. What we do here is we can hold the managers more accountable, they reward who is supposed to be rewarded and we are safer in a lot of other categories as well. De Weerd: Mr. President. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: Can't you do that by building into your evaluation process, a mechanism that if they give a certain rating or above that they have to site specific examples of what that meritorious performance is. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 8 of 19 Larson: Yes and it is already built into the system. Anything above satisfactory or above competent requires notes in terms of justification and anything below satisfactory or competent also requires the notes for documentation. Nary: You know, Mr. Larson, I guess I would agree with a lot of what you said. My concern is that in looking at the form that we use it is incredibly complicated. I guess my experience has been is that the more complicated it gets the less it gets used appropriately because it takes so much time to fill that out and that's I guess one of the tools we'd asked or discussed last week of revisiting as to whether or not that is an adequate tool. You know, I guess and maybe it's a philosophical difference. One I don't think what you are saying as to ways of compensation does anything other than sort of lull everybody into that middle category because they are trying to make sure they get something, but very few people can exceed 100 percent consistently so we have very few people, I mean we have — I think we have two, currently, employees who are outstanding. We have a majority of them falling in the competent and excels and I think all you end up with is a bunch of people (inaudible) in the middle and there is no real incentive compensation wise to be hired. We are talking a half percent between each category and I'll tell you, I don't think you are going to see a tremendous increase in performance when one employee gets 2.5 percent and the other employee gets 3.5 percent. That one percent does not, in my experience, make people strive to get further and I guess that is what, I think, our discussion has been is that there is such a fine separation between these different categories and although I — like I said I agree with you that having them more categorized in general is okay, I don't think by separating them out by half a percent really does that and especially on top of the fact that at least in the two years I have been here we have always granted employees an across the board raise in addition to merit. You know, it's not sending the message in my mind that merit is truly for meritorious work. One of the things that we discussed last week was that at the competent level one of the things that is in there for the managers to evaluate and assess an employee's performance is competent means this employee doesn't do a lot of extra work. Well, that's good; there is nothing wrong with that — that's not merit that is something else. Having the across the board raises, I think, addresses those employees that are competent, doing their job, coming in, staying and getting their work done and I don't think there is anything wrong with that I think that deserves something. I just think if you are going to have merit and you are going to separate it out by such minute amounts that you are not really encouraging people to strive to do more. You really are saying, you know what if I can live with 2.5 1 don't really have to work too hard while they are getting 3.5. It's not that much money and it's not that much difference. Larson: That's true and from what I heard you say, I think there are four issues that you raised and I will try and hit each of those four and we can see if it addresses your issues, I am not sure that we are going to achieve any kind of Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 9 of 19 conclusion by any means, but maybe I can give you some background there. Let's go back to the forum as the first one in terms of the structure of the forum. The original forum that we had that was working with is pretty wide open, very general in nature and it was left up to the supervisors to basically spell out the performance expectations, the results and became very tedious and time- consuming to formulate themselves what is it that we are going evaluate and so in terms of the structure the reason why we have six or seven different forms and the reason why it's structured the way that it is — we actually worked with the supervisors themselves, the departments heads to ask them what do you need in your evaluation? So, that's why we have that many and so in terms of the design itself, the criteria for the evaluation that is something that the department heads actually threw in as their form of input — for ours we need this, this and this and so we laid it across the table and then in those categories were certain job types needed different type of performance evaluation, that's where the differentiation comes from. So, in terms of the complexity that was actually requested as an alternative because they felt that as a result of creating more columns, more things laid out that it would actually create less work for them in terms of the amount of time that it would take for them to lay out the expectations because it would be laid out in the form. So, in terms of the form design that was actually done on a consensus basis where we sought a lot of input from the department heads. That was a requested situation. In terms of the differentiation, one of the essential components to a compensation program is the ability to pay it. Now, when you lay out, for example, four different measurements, four different ratings that would receive some kind of compensation. In a situation where you have more money, the spread would of course be larger. Where you have had certain budgetary constraints over the last couple of years, those differentiations have narrowed down considerably. You address the issue of the CPI, the COLA the Cost of Living Adjustment. We had extensive discussion during the process to say should we just incorporate the CPI, the COLA adjustment into the entire matrix. The word came back that there would be so much disgruntled-ness amongst the employees that they wanted to keep that. In a lot of cases, in a lot of compensation structures that I have put together they do the cost of living adjustment and that is essentially what goes to those who reach the satisfactory level, which means that those are who unsatisfactory or need improvement basically do not receive a cost of living increase. That created some concern, given the culture of the organization so we left the COLA adjustments separate from the merit increase. In terms of the separation of only half a percent, I don't look at the actual percentages on a year-to-year basis. We built this as a way to differentiate performance and in terms of what the separation is that really comes down to that pot of money that's available on an annual basis. So, it's really up to the supervisors to differentiate who are going to get what and how much money that they have. So, that is really why we structured it that way. In terms of the percentage being a motivation, I agree a half percent is not that big of a motivation, but in terms of tight times, that half of percent merit increase is something that dictates to those who are satisfactory yes they need something. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 10 of 19 If it needs to be widened at the top in order to create additional motivation that's an internal management decision and that was built into the structure that on an annual basis the management would decide what the percentage increases would be on that table. So, that's where that was built. A final concern is in terms of the differentiation themselves. It's true that if we are looking at it as just a compensation tool the differentiation is not there, however, based on much study the employees are very particular to the type of feedback they receive. The money is important, but it's not nearly as big a motivator as other considerations. For example, the work environment, the structure, knowing clear expectations and the feedback from the supervisor. By laying out these differentiations in terms of performance the employees are given clear cut expectations, they are giving clear cut messages as to how their rating is and by creating the structure that we did within the performance evaluations it should leave little doubt as to how they are performing. So, those were some of the bases that we used in terms of the concerns that you raised. Nary: Other questions, Council? Thank you. Larson: All right, thanks. Nary: Council you have some numbers that were prepared by the finance department as I guess talking points discussion. Does anybody have any thoughts as to what Mr. Larson provided as some better understanding of how the different categories are established, but I think partly what I heard him say is kind of what we hear about, is what goes in those categories is what we are kind of having to wrestle with. You have some numbers in front of you. Does anybody have any thoughts? We also have an executive session to get to, so — Bird: Mr. President. Nary: Mr. Bird. Bird: As you can see, the firefighters are not included in this range, nor is the department heads so — other than that I believe all the rest of the employees are covered. Nary: And the reason for that was because their compensation is assessed differently than the other employees. That's why they are not in this (inaudible). Bird: I have follow up. I also and which Shaun and Charlie don't have any way being able to confirm or deny this, but I did not understand this January 1st was going to be a merit increase. We were just going to look at the wages and everybody would — we would see what we had to give and I didn't take it as merit. Maybe you and the Mayor did. I can't -- I guess I didn't go far enough back in my minutes that I had at home to look it up. I for one, even though I did Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 11 of 19 vote along with the motion last week I am still not — I still want to see everybody within the City get some kind compensation and our motion last week left some people out. I don't believe it was a merit raise it was quoted. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I don't think anything was specifically stated, Keith, other than we set this aside and asked the directors to come back with recommendations and so the expectations were pretty — or there were no expectations other than looking for a recommendation that we could discuss and consider. Nary: I guess I would concur with that as well. I guess I look that there is a lot of pieces that we are talking about in compensation and we are discussing merit. In the past, at least in my experience in the past was what was given was across the board, sometimes termed as cost of living raise; probably not the appropriate terminology, but an across the board raise this most recent October an across the board raise was given to all employees as an attempt to offset the increases in health benefit costs. It was a complete increase to some employees and a minor increase to others and maybe not an increase to other people as well, but there was an increase that was done and so normally the second raise that we have discussed previously was for merit and what percentages for merit. Those merit raises didn't go to everybody they only went to these four categories in the past. So, that's I think at least what the discussion point was. I guess I would agree with the Mayor. I don't think we really nailed down anything in particular that we were going to be giving across the board raises, merit raises. I think there are a lot of pieces to discuss merit being one of them and I think we sort of laid out on the table last week a few of the others in regards to the evaluation program and whether or not it's adequate, whether or not we need to re-evaluate that and look at some other options out there, whether or not re-classifying jobs and whether or not that's appropriate. I think we are still awaiting for some finalization on some of the other alternative incentives that we were looking at as to compensation as well as employee incentives in regards of smaller bonuses or some other type of employee incentive, so I don't think this is the end all. I don't think we resolved everything by this issue. I just think it's a piece that we wanted to get to first. As you note and for the record I had also asked Ms. Cunningham for the purpose of discussion to include since we had been talking about just a set bonus amounts for these categories to include a bonus amount, again, for purpose of discussion for the other two categories we have been discussing in regards to merit. Again, as I have said a number of times, I truly believe at some we need to be a lot clearer as to what we intend merit to mean. I also recognize that we haven't been very clear in the past. So, there have been some mixed messages and maybe the budget time is the opportunity to really clarify going forward each year as to what the expectations we feel should be towards receiving merit compensation, not the other forms, but at least for merit. Because we haven't been very clear as a Council in the past because as Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 12 of 19 Mr. Larson stated the culture of the City maybe hasn't differentiated very strongly between satisfactory, competent, excels and outstanding that this was, I guess like I said for the purpose of discussion I asked Ms. Cunningham to give us some numbers that would at least create a gap between the two categories we had some concern with for merit, as well as the top two categories (inaudible) at least a gap that at least is a little more significant, maybe to some folks, but with the message that we are going to still discuss it further in the future, discuss it as part of our budget process and see where we are at. That's the reason for those other two columns on your financial form. Stacy, did you have any input? I don't want you to feel left out. Kilchennman: No, I am just here to provide number crunching as needed. Nary: Does any other department directors have any input? Musser: Mr. President, members of the Council, one thing that I would comment on is it's been my impression over a number of years and since we have implemented performance appraisal system that we have there is a large amount of confusion and I think some things have been taken for granted as Mr. Larson pointed out. I know that I have worked with him as we initiated the first set that we went through and then also helped out with the revisions that we were looking at. But, one of the things that I see that are a little bit problematic at times is, I think, some assumptions have been made without clear direction given from the Council as to what the expectations were at the time when it was implemented and what they expected via department heads so we could pass that down to employees and then employees could respond by performance to meet those expectations. So, from what I am hearing this evening I think that seems to be putting us a little bit better on track on recognizing that there is a problem that we probably need to clarify much better and a more thorough manner. Rountree: Mr. President Nary: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Chief arrow shot and accepted. I think we need to do a better job Musser: I appreciate the comment, Councilman Rountree and by no means was I indicating as pointing a finger. It's all of us and that's the way I look at it. It's your directors here as much as it is the Council. We are the team that has to come together and do it and it's just my observation having been a little bit outside of this team and now a member of the team directly since I was appointed Chief. De Weerd: Mr. President. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 13 of 19 Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I guess as a team it is important that we all work on this. When the evaluation was redone, Council still hadn't seen it. Actually the last week was probably the first time Councilman Bird and Councilman Nary had seen it. I had seen it maybe a month before. We'd heard about it, certainly, but we had never seen it. I do believe that maybe if we could all pull together as a team we could be very clear on those areas that we really want to fine tune and be clear when you do use it as a tool for employee performance and employee reward. Nary: Council, just to keep the discussion going and looking at the financial forms and if I read them incorrectly I am sure Ms. Kilchennman will correct. It appears in the three different areas of funds that we have. We have a total of money that was set aside towards this employee compensation issue of $370,110 and with this proposal that's before you if it's adequate with the $250 bonuses to the employees that rated out in the satisfactory and competent level; $750 bonus to the employees who rated in the excels level; and $1,000 bonus to the employees who rated in the outstanding level; and $2,000 bonus to the employees that have reached their maximum on their pay grade and still have a rating in the outstanding and excels level, including the step plan for the Police Department. The totals of all of that and doing that is $106,916. Kilchennman: Mr. President we did have one question — a little confusion on the employees that reached their max on defining which employees those were. Is it that they have been at their max one-year or is that they have been at their max for ten years? Maybe you would want to clarify that in the executive session a little bit. Nary: Okay, thank you. The remaining money is still needed for; again, department heads' pay or performance bonuses of any kind have to be addressed. The firefighters issue has to be addressed again. The other employee programs that we have asked for and the department heads have been working on to provide incentives, we don't have numbers for that as to what that may cost. I believe now, again maybe Ms. Skeggs can correct me, the numbers of the employees is this about a third of the employees that have been evaluated to date so the $106,000 is just for the employees that have been evaluated. There are still about two thirds of the employees that need to be evaluated. Skeggs: President Nary, I think what accounting did is that they took those employees — we had 52 employees to date that have been evaluated, but they looked at the ratings from last year and kind of best -guessed estimate based on those, what they were rated as to what they would be rated this year. I know Stacy had mentioned about the maximum because we had 11 employees that were at the maximum of the range in the police step program, but we have six Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 14 of 19 employees as of September 30`h had went to their seventh year level. They did get a step increase from the six year to the seventh year in September, but accounting had put $2,000 in what information you got because they are at their maximum now, but I had told Reta, well basically they already got an increase in September and we were looking at those individuals that haven't gotten increases in the last couple of years to recognize those individuals. But, I know she did put those six individuals in the police program in the information that you have before you and I think that's where Stacy needed clarification on that. Nary: So, that six is part of the nine that's listed in the max category? Skaggs: Well, Reta had said that she had 16 because there were 11 in the police step program and then she added six more that she had asked me about. I hadn't seen the financial information that she gave you so I don't know what's on there. Bird: She shows 11 in the max, Pauline Skeggs: Okay Nary: Yeah, nine in the general fund and two in the enterprise fund are in the max category and I guess when we discussed it last week, again, we didn't make any final decision. We discussed employees that basically hadn't received an increase in October 2003 and October 2002. So, it wasn't for the folks that just got increased in the middle at least was the discussion. Skeggs: I have a question on the police step program because their program was set up for if they had average performance they went to the next step. If you are looking at increases for just excels and outstanding or $250 for marginal, would that mean that those individuals in the step program if they got satisfactory or competent wouldn't go to the next step or are we kind of maintaining that program specifically and they've got average performance, it doesn't matter they would just go to the next step level — grade level? Nary: I guess for me I believe where we talked about the step program we talked about a separate and apart from the other one to institute that back where we thought we were. Skeggs: And that's what accounting asked and I said well I would agree that the police step program is a step program and we are just kind of working if they got average they go to the next step so it wouldn't mean that they had to get excels or outstanding. Nary: Council, do you need time to think about it? Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 15 of 19 Bird: Mr. President. Nary: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think we need to think about it and we do have an executive session that we need to go into and Mr. Rountree needs to leave for a few minutes, so we need to get in on the executive session. Nary: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. President. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I guess beings how we are so late, we may want to have the executive session at the tail -end of the regular agenda and discuss Item 5, so Councilman Rountree can take care of his business and we can start our regular agenda on time. Nary: Thank you. Bird: That's fine with me. Nary: Okay. Then we will — if Council is okay with that then we will go ahead and move to Item No. 5. 4. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b)&(c): 5. Discussion of City of Meridian support of ITD's policy to restrict vehicular access to SH 2O-26: Rountree: Mr. President. Nary: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I respectfully request that I step down from this discussion. Nary: Certainly. I think we all understand that. De Weerd: I guess you don't want your name on this letter either? Bird: Probably not. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 16 of 19 (Inaudible discussion) Nary: Ms. Powell. Powell: Mr. President, members of the Council you have in your packet a letter to Sue Sullivan for — or a draft letter — done by Brad Hawkins -Clark. The issue is the small property in the red circle up above — southwest corner of Chinden and Meridian Road, so it's that property right there. We have been working with ITD for the last year trying to get them to buy into the idea of just having access at the half mile. Right now they are debating whether they want to give it the half -mile along Chinden, but we have been working with them to try and at least get it at the half -mile. Then on developments between the mile and the half mile second section is to have a back -age road. Meaning that there would be some property between the highway and a local street or it might be across access if it is a commercial property, but just the idea that there is — instead of having a frontage road where you just have a road and then two roads on either side of the highway, that'd be a back -age road. So, you would have the highway, building, internal roadway. So, we have been working with them on that idea and they have asked Meridian to support a no access for the property shown up above. They do have frontage on Meridian Road, where they could get in and get on to the highway from there. They are protesting to get an access onto the highway. So, the letter is just saying that the City of Meridian supports limiting access to the highway from that property. It would take the access from Meridian Road. With that, I will try and answer any questions. Nary: Council is there any questions? De Weerd: Mr. President. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I guess this is consistent in discussions that we have had and really (inaudible) of access and not repeating another Eagle Road scenario. I think this is just consistent with the direction that we have been going in. Powell: I believe so and again as we have been in it — in Paramount you approved a half mile access to Chinden, apparently ITD didn't review the request at that time and now they are considering taking it out or not granting that access so I think that by the City showing support for their efforts on this we may also be a little more successful in lobbying for our half mile locations for the neighborhood centers and the mixed-use projects. So, I think it's a good sign of support for ITD in hopes of getting to the mutually agreeable goals of not creating another Eagle Road. Wardle: Mr. President. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 17 of 19 Nary: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I guess my — so that I can clarify this, is it ITD's position that they are not going to be allowing access except at the mile? Powell: Well, I don't — as an overall picture I don't know that they have absolutely decided yet, but for this particular property they have said since it has access to the mile road there, Meridian Road, that they will not allow access. I think they are still debating whether access will be at the half -mile or the mile for the full-length of the road. Wardle: Mr. President. Nary: Certainly, go ahead. Wardle: So, what we are saying is essentially we would like one more access at that half mile point roughly all the way across Chinden for a five mile period, so that we can support our Comprehensive Plan? Powell: Yes. Wardle: And if ITD's current policy were to stay in place that would mean essentially that those could have the potential to disappear and significantly change what we are talking about. Is that correct? Powell: Well, I am not sure if I can answer exactly because I don't know the (inaudible) detail of what ITD is doing right now. But, my understanding is there was a study done a number of years back where they phase out the access, which makes no sense. You get a commercial development going in there that is counting on that access and then you take it away 10 years later doesn't make sense. Maybe that's the problem that they had with Eagle Road, so I think they are taking a much harder line now, particularly in the last few months on Chinden in saying no, no access. You know, you don't have a guaranteed right to access and we have looked at all the properties the way they are kind of configured along Chinden and we do believe that a back -age road is possible. Sometimes, you may have to wait for one development or one parcel on either side of you to develop, but it's not like somebody would be having to wait for 10 properties to develop before it got to them. So, I think it really is feasible on Chinden. There are enough large parcels there that the back -age road concept will work at and then a location at the half -mile. I guess what they are trying to do just on this particular one — this is really just site-specific to this property that we are just agreeing with them and again advocating for a half mile locations. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 18 of 19 Wardle: Right. Okay and so we are agreeing that we would like to see commercial growth and we believe — I guess what the letter tells me is that while we agree with the position with on this one individual project in the future to help foster commercial growth we would like to see them implement our policy of the half mile and we are suggesting that you can do that with what's called a baggage road, is that correct? Powell: Yeah. Did you say baggage or back -age? Wardle: That's why I am clarifying. I thought I heard you say baggage Powell: It's a bad word all around. It's back -age. Wardle: Okay, I will try not to make that mistake again. Nary: So, essentially we agree with ITD on this particular issue for different reasons than — we have a different reason why we agree with them than what their reason is? Powell: No, it's the same reason, they don't want to allow access at this location. The only thing would be if it were here we might have a difference of opinion. Nary: They are not saying that they agree with the half -mile issue they are just saying that — Powell: Not yet. Nary: -- and we don't want it there because we would prefer it at a half -mile. Powell: -- right. Nary: They are not agreeing to that they are just saying that we don't want it there? Powell: Perfect. Yes. Nary: Madame Mayor did you need a motion for this? I mean you have got a letter here. I think Mr. Rountree says he has recused himself; maybe he doesn't want to be on the letter even, which is his choice, but do you really need a motion or you just want us to sign it? De Weerd: I think just your signatures will be enough. Do you need a motion, Anna? Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 19 of 19 Powell: I don't believe so. I just wanted to let you all know what the issue was and we can take Rountree's name off. That is probably appropriate. De Weerd: Mr. President. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I don't know if it would be something the clerk could do during one of our recesses is to print this off so you could sign. Is that possible? (Inaudible discussion) De Weerd: We will try and find it on Peggy's computer and see if we can print it Off. Nary: Well, we have opted to move Item 4, Executive Session to the end of our regular agenda, so we will make sure to note that when we begin the regular meeting, otherwise we have no other further business in Pre -Council. Bird: I move we close Pre -Council. Wardle: Second. Nary: Moved and seconded to adjourn the Pre -Council meeting. All those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: T P CP � 1 R 9 kT ist P -,/-/ 90/�¢ DATE APPROVED =- WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CrFY CLERK