It being 6:32 on Monday, October 20th, I'll hereby call the meeting of the ad hoc compensation proposal committee to order. Uh we'll note that all five members of the committee are here. Is anyone here recording this evening's meeting besides our staff? Seeing none, we'll just note that the
open meeting law recording is posted on the wall by the door. I'm moving on in our agenda to discussions regarding the creation of a compensation ordinance for non-un employees. Uh before we dive too far into this item as we begin uh I do just want to note that we do have a new
opinion uh from the city solicitor who is also a member of our committee uh that's here uh regarding some updates that we received and I just want to read that to begin uh before we start. Uh dear Mr. Mayor, please be advised that the sub that the subcommittee is intended to address salary increases for
all ordinance employees. Recently some department heads have requested the department of labor relations to establish a collective bargaining unit. The process will be unfolding over the next few weeks and the Department of Labor Relations will be determining which, if any, positions can be in a bargaining unit. If a unit is established, the terms and conditions of
employment will have to be determined through the collective bargaining process and not by unilateral action by the city. It is our intention that nothing decided by the subcommittee should impact the process. Therefore, we will not be discussing department head compensation except for those department those of the clerk, the fire chief, the
police chief, the law department, and the human resources department. The latter departments can be discussed because these department heads were not implicated by the procedures involving the department of labor relations. I believe I am speaking on behalf of the city when I say that the law department looks forward to a resolution for all
outstanding issues with city employees in good faith. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the office very truly yours, Vinnie Puseterary, the second Esquire. Uh and then you also have included in your packet the filing that was filed with the department of labor relations from the department heads that also excludes those positions that were
mentioned in the uh letter the opinion letter that was uh written on October 20th 2025 by the city solicitor. Um do you have anything you'd like to add besides that? Uh no, I think what we should do is just um be mindful of the
fact that we are uh going to respect that process and encourage that process to work out in the uh manner intended by statute. Um, I will also note that the city has uh contracted with outside labor council um to guide the city through this process uh and that we'll
be working with the city solicitor's office to put out a notification uh to all of the members of the city council as well as to uh you know what the process looks like, what can and can't be discussed openly in public session and so on from there as this process proceeds moving forward uh to make sure everyone's on the same page uh with
everything moving forward. But that said, there are several non-EP department head positions that are included in the non-un compensation schedule ordinance, as well as those five department head positions that are also included in the non-UN compensation schedule ordinance that are still able to be discussed uh in this committee's
session. Uh and we can move forward from there uh to the item about discussion the creation of a proposed uh ordinance for the non-un employees. Um I know at our last meeting we Yes. How do you stand? >> Uh I know at our last meeting we talked about uh really this uh session of this
uh ad hoc committee being more of a uh you know a question an answer within the committee itself on how we see ourselves proceeding forward what uh things have initially come to mind and moving forward from there. So really not delving into the positions just yet but more looking at the broad view of where things should go from there. Uh and I'm
ready to proceed forward because I think we can do all of that uh while still adhering to what was listed in the opinion that was listed before. I think at some point in time, it was odd when I was writing that letter seeing my position as one of the we were going to be talking about really drove it home that I'll be probably be moving myself
at some point in time when you have a focused effort on the solicitor's position. Certainly, I could provide you some input about, you know, volume of work or other statistical information if you may need that. But I think that that would be ideal, too. And I'm sure my uh
uh my uh human resources director feels the same way. >> Absolutely. when it comes time for those positions. >> Um, would anyone else have some remarks they'd like to start the discussion with? >> Council,
>> I can go. Uh, so thank you for that. Um, it's important that, um, you know, we move forward as we are committed to taking care of, um, the reason that we're here and, um, we want to follow through on our stated goals for this
committee. Um, so I I would think I we want to start with kind of figuring out what we should kind of an order we want to go in. Um, one thing that was been big for me and I know we talked about like you said bringing questions to this meeting and um, any type of information that we want
to move forward and for me um, I think affordability needs to be addressed really clearly and I think we should start with defining that because I think it's the foundation of this whole process. We need a number and we need to see how we can stay within that number.
Um, and I do think the information that has been provided to date, depending on um, like the work that's been done so far is insufficient. I do think that we need some better and more detailed data. So, um, I'm just going to start off then with some questions, but I do think, you
know, if we if we get within that that number, that kind of baseline first, then I think we can that'll enable us to move forward. Um, so I think we need to figure out how much we can afford and how that number is going to be calculated.
I think the next piece and I have I'm just going to go through kind of my five main questions and I have some details off that. >> The second piece is which positions uh, you know, that we could move uh forward with and which should be paused and we would need a list of that just based off
of this new information from this evening. Um that's kind of something that I would be wondering because um while we had we have the detailed letter um I just want to be sure what the other list is of um positions that we should not be discussing um just clearly
defined and um just to be sure we stay in the parameters of what we're allowed to talk about now and um where did the cost and affordability information come from. So I think previously
it seemed as though um the information we got in the mayor's proposal uh it seemed as though that data was developed at the outset and when we asked for it was only put together after the council requested it
and I I want to know from the very beginning like how are we sure we can afford this? There was no analysis. There was no projections. We had nothing until we asked for it. And so we need to we need to get that information. Um, and then what those projections are based on would be like the fourth
question I guess I would call it. So what's important with that is where you know where is this going to come from. I mean we want to be sure that we can afford it but we have to understand how that's going to work. So are we going to be cutting services? Are we going to be raising taxes? like we we need to be
really straightforward on these things because growth over the last few years, you know, is based off of whatever those whatever that growth is receiving forward or can we? I don't know because I don't have that information. So, I think that's one other thing that we need. Um, and one of the biggest pieces
of this is, you know, we are adding hundreds of thousands of dollars to the city's budget with this proposal and specifically we need to understand how it's going to be paid for. again without raising taxes or cutting services or doing those things and how that's going
to work. um or maybe we got creative within some departments. I don't know, re-evaluate, you know, what their structure of um the way that the uh the u the makeup of the department is. And so one of the examples that has been
brought forward um in discussions with um some department heads previously was when the economic development department has restructured in the last few months and you know they took two positions and put it into one position and that
position is is starting at what some department heads make right now or is more than some department heads and it's just a couple and people were concerned about that. But my issue of that is that we took two positions and put it into one position. We've said this publicly. We've made it very clear in how that was
done. It actually saved the city $30,000 doing that. We're we're only paying benefits to one person. You know, they restructured what they did in the department. Well, I don't think that's going to be necessary in departments. I just want to make that a really clear example that that was how that was able to happen in that department with that
position. And I I don't want that to be an example moving forward saying, "Well, hey, like you paid this person this much money and they're not even a department head." Well, okay, but they made a major change in their department by eliminating a position and consolidating their services and making sure that they're more efficient. So, that's okay.
That's an option, but that's something that um has been brought up time and time again, but it is not it is not equivalent to what we are doing here. To me, that is not the same as just taking a department head position, putting it at a certain salary, and just saying, "Oh, this is what it's going to be."
This was a movement within a department. And so, to me, that is not an example of something that we could do. Um, it's not an example of just saying you just we're just setting something. There was a reason for us doing that and there was data behind why we did that um or
why that was voted through. So, those are kind of my fiveish main questions is like how much can we afford? How are we calculating it? Um, what positions are we moving forward with, which we answered some of that this evening, but we I would like to know exactly. And then, um, where does the cost and
affordability information come from? Um, and you know, what are what is it based on? And then how are we going to pay for this in general? So, they're all based off of kind of the same thing with affordability, but those are kind of the specifics within affordability that I
have concerns with and I think we need to start with and address. That's it. >> Um, can certainly go I should have said this at the beginning too. If there's any questions that we don't have the answers for here today, I'm certainly happy to go back, talk to the appropriate department heads, work with
those um individuals like the financial team to work on getting the specific data that's there to >> um to make sure that we can get those permits if we need to. Um >> and that that that's fine. I just want to be like I me this is something where >> we can start as like let's determine what we can afford. Let's you know build
that into the proposal and within those constraints and then let's get that presentation get let's get the proposal done you know based off of that. But I don't I just don't think it was clear before as to like where the from your proposal like I was just never clear as to like where those numbers came from
and how we could possibly afford it. I still don't have that information. And when you know auditor Richard he supplied us with his spreadsheet year after year it still looked like we were well over a million dollars up by the you know by the final year out. And that that was confusing to me and remains to
be that way. So while we don't have to go back directly to either one of the proposals from finance committee or the mayor, we that work's already been done and I think it's really important that we consider that because that was time, effort, energy, and it's it's a great place to start for us. Um, and I I want
to, you know, reiterate the importance of what that work was, but I also think we need to be we need to be really clear on again cost projections, analysis of it, and what's that going to look like moving forward and can we afford it?
>> I will say too, for this fiscal year, the amount that we can afford for this figure is what was set aside in the reserve account. So that's that we wouldn't be able to do any more than that. I will say that's that's the affordable amount that we have for this year. But again, moving forward too, so it's not just a this year look because this is something that does permanently
impact the budget too. We can get you those protections as well. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate that. I think and I think from the beginning that's what we should have that's information we just should have had. That would have answered a lot of questions and I don't see how you could have done something without that information, but that's what we got. So, I I do think that um
you know, when we're adding, like I said, hundreds of thousands of dollars to the city's budget, how do we pay for it without raising taxes and without cutting services? Like, do you have an idea of how that would work? Like, even within what your proposal was, like how is that going to work? >> It was in I believe I said it during the
budget meeting, too. And if it wasn't clear, then I'm certainly happy to clarify it there, too. It's that uh the projections that we did for our revenue this year, that's where that $250,000 number came from. And then moving forward from there, we normally take the 90% of the average of our local receipts
and then assuming the uh annual tax uh per two and a half trends that we have with that too, fitting that into our five and 10 year projections that we already do for our regular budgetary revenue and factoring those into that matter too. So that's where those numbers came from to see where that uh
proposal was for its affordability. >> Well, if we can get more like I really want more concrete information about that and and again I'm not trying to pick on that proposal. I just think that was that was kind of you know that one didn't pass you know and and the other one didn't we need to get to proposal
that can be passed and makes sense everybody everybody understands and I think that's where a lot of the confusion came in with that one is it just seemed like it was too expensive but I we never got any followup of how it wasn't or how this you know could work in the future and with the proposal we're going to work on now we need to get that information but it needs to be
really clear because again we're trying to find something just trying to put a package together that um that can pass so that we can have um you know we can so that we can put things forward for the employees where they can have some
fair wages here that they deserve. Um, I'll circle back to to something else, but on that note, you know, given the proposal that came out of finance committee, as much as having written that amendment originally, I think I could explain how I got to the chart numbers I did. One counselor was right
in pointing out that even mine lacked projections and it was really like a hope and a prayer. It was just less funny overall than the other proposal. So maybe that made it seem more affordable. Uh, so I think it's a really good question. I have the same sort of question. I think it's a great starting point is really just seeing the charts
or formulas all laid out, all the math that gets us to that bottom line um of of what we can potentially do knowing, you know, there's other projects and are all of our departments fully staffed or do we need to add positions anywhere? Do we anticipate having to add any
positions anywhere? Um so I would I would definitely love to see something like that. Um, you know, my my sort of thought coming into that too is really that, you know, to to another comment that council Kazun just made is, you know, should we get to a point where we
do look at prior years of service to me that's the closest we get to it being about the person although it does objectively. I think you know for me my is very much about the position. Um, as well like you said some positions are combined, some have gained more duties. I think of like, you know, even though it's worked out regionally, our VSO does
have other responsibilities now. Maybe that's something we have to factor in. Um, and and really having that final list of who we can talk about cuz we had caught some that we had to add in. So maybe just going over one last time, checking with the department heads, is there
anyone missing that can apply in this situation that we need to include? Um, those are the two big things I brought in coming into tonight. Uh but maybe it is a good point where we've kind of looked at affordability. Maybe if we generate just even our list of questions and what other questions or points
people want us to think about. Um doesn't unless like you said have answers to all these tonight, but at least that might be a good starting point. Uh it's just generating that overall list. Uh so for me affordability is one and I think that formal list of who this applies to is definitely one of
the things I want to look at going forward. any anyone else? >> Um, so my thoughts were more I feel like that kind of changes the projection of where I wanted to go with this. Um, I really was coming at it as
we know what was submitted was not passed. It was not obtainable. So I my perspective was um just different ideas of what we can do. I do think what we need to do is separate exempt and non-exempt staff.
So, I think we need to look at two different scales for them just because you have your seasonal, you know, your lifeguards, your um golf staff, your recreation staff. So, I think we should look at them as two different entities. I and I don't I don't know how that looks. Just throwing it out there.
>> And just for the clarification people watching, that's salary versus hourly. Ex um >> in most cases. >> Yes. In most cases, yes. Yes, there are there could be some exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, yes. Um I think the
um the framework of whatever structure we um submit. So I loved the grades. I think all positions need to be graded better as you proposed in the amendment. Um I think we need to look at the total
number of steps and the years between steps. um the percentage between steps and then the number of years between. So both percentages and steps. Um and then lastly the step progression. So time in position versus um years of
service. I think we should we should kind of delve into that a little more as well. >> And cost. I had that too. So I won't even repeat that. that >> I I look at an issue of retention and I
would consider that um the uh yang to the yang of affordability. >> Mhm. No. And on that note, you know, uh going with that too, I wondered, you know, I know some departments have longevity. Is that something we're not going to fold into this more? Is it something we
anticipate seeing those stipens exist? Um, you know, I know that's something in other contracts andor, you know, agreements like this or pay scales that do get factored into. Is there something in addition to is it that's more structured and uniform across the board or is it something that just rolled in?
Um, that was actually something that I had on my list was looking at the different various things get added to compensation for our non-UN employees. So, those that get clothing allowances, those that get educational incentives, those that get longevity stipens, >> um, which I believe are for our non-UN
staff that's listed in the ordinance right now, it's definitely the most unique of our longevity stipens that we have across those that have contracted employees. Um, so taking a look at those because those are in addition to the longevity steps that would be in a step grid in some cases or some cases that they're rolling. So that you just said,
counselor, taking a look at all of those different things that are in there that aren't in the base pay, but do get added as part of compensation and are part of the appropriation that we have uh for our salary and wage appropriation that we have to do every year. >> Yeah, I think that needs to be made really needs to be made really clear and
how it needs to be separated out somehow. Um I know sometimes putting those numbers together and including it all it doesn't because it makes things look different than they really are. So, we don't want people we want obviously we want the employee to be well aware of what their base pay is and what they're
getting paid and what is included in there. Um, that was another question that had come up too. Um, but we need anyone who looks at the final proposal to understand what that means as well. And I don't think that came across well in you know the first goound of this.
Um, because you just don't want the confusion. You want people anyone looking at should be able to understand what's going on. That adds obviously to the transparency of it. Um but in the end like when it comes to just from the council perspective when it comes to the vote like we are the ones voting on it. So we need to be able to explain it you
know to any constituent or to any employee or whatever it is as to how we voted and that that can get whenever you have a vote that you want you need to be able to justify your vote and that can get if it gets murky and you can't do it then how can you justify your vote and then that makes you not vote a certain
way um or hold off on a vote or whatever it is. So that separating that out I think is is really important because it's it is part of it and people just need to know that this is what this position gets and why they get it. Um and I just don't know if that
that was clear before but I think that should be a priority this time around. Uh the other thing I would throw in there too as well um is traditionally in the past we've you know when positions have been looked at on a oneoff basis here and there uh one of the reasons why
that's been done is taking a look at the uh contracts for the employees that report to that department head and see how the the subordinate employees compensation relates to the department of compensation. I think that all does fit within the realm of affordability as well. Uh but also seeing um you know
just relationship into where in the department um where the you know for a department head position or as you know um even in some cases a assistant department head position uh for those you know department head positions that are exempt from what we talked about earlier or assistant department head
position that then other people fall underneath them like the deputy chief or like an assistant director or something like that. Where does that fall in relation to the other people within the department just for data gathering again while all keeping that within the discussion of affordability as well just to see how things
I think that's a really good point um making those comparisons and then you know we're talking about the base pays you we had that couple examples one from golf where turns out there might be some different factors into that pay I think of director um one director in particular or some other positions right
where they might have money coming from different sources and so we have some, you know, enterprise money and things here and there. So, um, >> yeah, I think it'll all be important to think about. >> Sorry. Sorry. >> Depending on who we think when we get there. >> Yeah. When you start talking about
grades, I think that's where that comes in because that will that will level everything. If you have grades, you have a starting position, you have an, you know, an end, middle, beginning, middle, and end range for everyone, then it's, you know, once we set that, then it's black and white.
I think to that it goes into talking about the position, right? Because this isn't about the person, it's about the position. That's certainly a position piece. Um, and it goes that that's when things can get really expensive if you don't set it and you're not mindful about it. So, I think that's that's
really a good point. >> Yeah. I guess the example of what I was trying to use is like just because I thought of an example after we were done talking was, you know, taking a look at the police department for example. So, where does the deputy chief fall in relation to the lieutenant position? And where does the chief fall in relation to the deputy chief and then in relation to
the lieutenant as well? >> Because if we're looking for pathways of like internal growth and retention, which is something that's been the goal, >> is there a clear path forward or is there a cross where something just doesn't make sense in the overall scheme of things within the department? >> Oh, I think that's a concern of the department too. So I think that's a good
you know raises a good point from we know like directly that's something that >> um they would want considered in this package proposal >> which on that note and I know we have them and we had them in the the larger packet um but should we consider pulling
up the job descriptions when we get to that point even if it's just for our own review so that we're making sure >> who has extra duties is their job description accurate to what it looks like today. Um, that's something I think I'd want to make sure we're checking out too and being consistent of at least uh
and trying to keep it about that role uh and the duties of that role. And then do we know and I don't know if this came up in anyone's it's not something I got the chance to look into but I I kind of want to look into is do other municipalities have pay scale systems that we know of that we can look at.
Yes, I think you >> I did. I reached out to my group which has all local municipality HR directors and I got maybe 15 responses. >> Um and everyone is pretty consistent. Um they seem to have I believe there's one
municipality that had two years between steps. Everyone else was one year. They all seem to have a consistent percentage between steps. Um I would say 90% of them was their salary structure and um colas were not included. It was a cola
on top of their structure. Um but I can bring all that that I that I gathered from the m from the other municipalities municipalities if that's helpful. >> That'd be awesome. >> Yeah, of course. I think that is a great we don't want to reinvent the wheel. We need to but we need to make our own wheel. So I think it's important to look
at that. Um, and do they do they include like how often they review them and how updated they you know what I'm saying? >> Yes. So, some are tied to performance reviews which makes it a little different situation from us. Um,
I most of them I believe are reviewed annually because the number the numbers will change annually >> and oh, I guess we would have to decide the the cola piece, right? on top of it or whatever, >> right? >> Um what way we wanted to go with that? But
>> that's helpful. >> Um yeah, that'd be great to see that. >> Are there any other questions people had so we can gather that information for our next session or any other next thoughts or steps that they'd like to see as the committee moves forward?
I think maybe in our next meeting we can also try to have a time frame for our ability to execute um some product and then a question whether or not there might be some wisdom and this may not be the right way to go because I haven't been materially involved in the the
discussions that council has been having but if we find that the um objective of having a fully ex a fully um uh put together matrix with all the steps and all the uh positions that we're specifically discussing about is
becoming unwielding. Can we do something in the short term knowing that we're coming back to the table and maybe in this committee to have a a further long-term approach recommitted to us so that um there's something
so maybe I think we summarize that single point into do we have a time frame for complete a complete product and then if we fail to meet that time frame is there an alternative that we can consider I think it's a great point whether that's a cola, whether it's a the
starting point version that we're going to amend at some further point. Yeah. >> Yeah, I think >> since it came up, >> I know performance reviews have been discussed at different points here and there. Um I don't know if there's any other thoughts on if that's tying into
this or if that's going to be separate down the line or >> I know I said this at the um informal meeting that the council had and that I'm personally um not in favor of tying the compensation matrix to a performance review as that takes the objectivity out
of it I feel like and puts it more into a subjective category. um just based off of feedback that I've received from the members of my association and the municipal managers of the mayor's association um and causes a system where
it's not a clear path forward or a clear cut. This is simply what's happening where a more longevity based system has that clear understanding that you know what you're budgeting for in particular. That's the biggest help with it is that you know if you know your employees are here, this is what you're budgeting and this is what you're going to be
budgeting next year or two based off of that. Um whereas you know basing it to some type of performance standard causes some flexibility with that where there's some uncertainty as to what the actual budget number is. Making sure um you know while we're implementing these performance reviews and currently scheduling uh those for the initial
round of those that have gone up um also seeing how they just relate to the overall uh picture of it. That's my opinion on tying them to a performance review standard. My initial thought that um
just from where we like from where the city stands and what we have to be really careful about here when we um do our own kind of projections for each budget is that I agree with that um in the sense where we
need to have performance reviews of course but my thought is if someone is satisfactory completing their duties and has a satisfactory performance performance review, then they stay employed here and they get to the next step. Okay, that's kind of how I feel about it because I think we we have to
be really careful um with, you know, doing big jumps and not really being able to know what's going on, but that way also the employee knows if I, you know, keep myself together and do what I'm doing, I'm doing a great job. I know what to expect in the future. Um, and I
just I would agree with that kind of my initial thoughts um for both of those reasons. For me, my I didn't have to drop. I'm sorry. >> No, I was just I was kind of rounding out because it's it's coming like I'm still thinking about it. But but
basically, yeah, I I I think if we have um if people are evaluated and there is and and that's as long as there are performance evaluations and they're and they're thorough and they're completed, then that justifies keeping the person employed here and they get to their next step and they hit longevity and all the
other things. That's that's my point. Yeah, my I guess what I would add on to that is to say that I agree with it is that our employees that we have are either on a three-year appointment up to a three-year contract or an employee at will. And so in that case, if we have any instances where there are negative
performance reviews, it comes up in those moments where it's the same thing, but I wouldn't be reappointing someone if they had a significant amount of negative performance reviews. Same thing, I'm sure, with any any of the other appointing authorities in the city or if there was an Atwell employee that was experiencing some significant job functions. we've handled those in the
past in the same way. Um so that to me is where those those come into effect um more than the grid scale itself. >> Well, and I think that's been a kind of a criticism of the one-offs that we've done in the past is that it's it's subjective. It's like, oh, now I'm going to review this person and their salary
and give them, you know, that's I think it just that was not a best practice. We've determined that and so we want to move forward with what we've learned and I think it's fair to say we learned that. No, thank I think that's one of the best explanations I've heard is to why not to tie it to the system. We want it to be
equitable. We want it to be easy to figure out. I think if it's tied really to your security, then that's that's really enough. Um, you know, this isn't a private sector job of our bonuses available. That's not something we can do. So, and I think that's where performance reviews and money make more
sense. So, I I really appreciate that. Well, and I think it's a good it's a good um check and balance for the employee as well is because they have something in their folder that talks about their review that's documented, you know, for them as well. So, if there was ever an issue or anything, they still have that there. Um, and, you
know, obviously performance reviews are effective for a lot of different reasons, but it's it's a good um it's it's a good thing for them to have as well. any other thoughts on next steps moving forward or questions that we look forward for our next meeting?
>> So, I think it's just sounds like we'll we'll start with the affordability piece and get that nailed down first. We'll get like like a number that we need to stay within. Um, and how we're going to calculate that, what where that's going to come from is
what that sounds like to me. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. >> Is there a certain timeline that you'd like to see? Like we obviously know this year's Is there like a every x number of years, every year from now until a certain date that the committee would like to see the numbers moving forward?
Is it well, you know, now, 5 years from now, and 10 years from now, or every year within that same time frame? What would be the preference of the company? >> I think I like the, you know, the 3510. I know, you know, we had a chart
initially, um, that had some numbers in there. I think what was problematic with that chart was it went from, you know, 25 to 26, but the differential was sort of started at 26. So instead of it being 25 to 26, 25 to 3 years later,
25 to 5 years later, the previous one before and I think that was throwing people off. So realistically, it makes it look like, oh, that's only a $600,000 increase, but realistically compared to what we currently do in our current system. >> All right. Realistically, it was like a million >> and that's what was confusing. But I do
I think the three five 10 I mean if that works. >> Y >> and quite frankly we start there and a lot more we'll just do more. >> Yeah. >> You know I wouldn't make it go every single year. I don't feel like we need to but if we got there like in this I thought was that was fine. But >> I think we could start there.
>> All right. Any other questions, comments, concerns from any of the committee members? We'll certainly compile all of the list of questions and information requests that were submitted today uh for the packet for our next meeting. We'll try to will we will not even try we'll include that in the agenda posting for
the next meeting as well for everyone to have that together. Um I know we had consistently been said or had said before we'd probably do every other week. I know that two weeks from now the city council has a public hearing scheduled for 6:30. >> Um but this is also a lot of information
to put together and gather. Um so I guess the two options that I propose and we can work with either one um is that we do meet earlier on the third rather than you know uh just to give us some more time before those public hearing
starts or we can try to compile all the information together so that we can post a meeting on the third with all of the information that's there and then have it be at a later date so there's extra time to absorb the information that's included in the packet. Um, I think those are two options that I was thinking we could uh discuss to see what the next possible steps would be moving
forward for our next meeting. If you'd like to do a meeting, I guess in a twoe time frame or have the meeting posted in two weeks so that it meets at a later date with extra time to absorb the information that's there >> cuz I'm guess this sounds like it's going to be a significant amount of >> stuff to go through.
>> I would agree. So if we like you said if you as an example you posted on the 3rd but we meet on like the 17th before that meeting. Yeah. Is that a kind of people that work? Okay. >> Works fine. >> So, we'll meet on the 17th at 6:00. >> Yes. And we will make sure it is at 6:00
and not as a separate time as well. >> But I think if you post it on the third, that gives us a full two weeks to be able to look at our two weeks to compile the information and two weeks to absorb everything. >> Y's a great idea. >> I do too. >> And just to clarify, we do not want all job descriptions upfront. Correct.
That's as we look at them. We'll start pulling them to review then. >> I think that makes sense. >> Yeah, because I also think we still well, we're going to get the list of positions we can, you know, make sure we only talking about positions we should be talking about. So, >> um, but I don't think now we would need
them. >> No, I think for me, yeah, the affordability stuff, the list, the complete list of staff we can focus on and then maybe those other municipalities for reference be a really good place to start. I think that's a good place to start too because it's this is just a lot of information to
keep it organized and is to clear what step we move on to next so that anyone watching has questions and also will help keep us organized quite honestly is my opinion. And while I will it will be posted by the third. If there's any chance that we get the information compiled earlier,
I'll let the committee know whenever you can get posted as early as it can get posted just to absorb the extra time. But the goal will be to post it by the third when we would normally be meeting and then have you still for the 17th. >> Well, I do think it Thank you. And I do think it's worth noting too. This is an ad committee. So, this is a discussion committee. This isn't, you know, voting.
This is to compile things. It's we don't need to meet publicly, but we are choosing to. We don't need to post as publicly. you're choosing to. Um so you have to remember too that uh there is that piece of it too is remaining as transparent as possible but um we this
is very much a discussion committee as we go along. Any other discussion? Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So a motion made by councelor Hman second by councelor Kazinskus to adjurnn. All in favor say I. >> I oppose nay. Motion carries. Meetings
adjourned. Thank you all very much. Over the queue.