Good evening. I will call to order the finance committee meeting on June 1st, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. We have two items on the agenda this evening. Uh we have a trans uh year end transfer request in the amount of 3,731,000.
We have a proposed non-UN salary ordinance change to job description pursuant to chapter 125 personnel section five. And I will begin with order number 26-1009752 year end transfer request in the amount
of $539,000 which moves funds from and to various accounts for department of public works comp patroller treasurer city clerk legal department in addition to a transfer totaling $3,192,000
from free cash to open space stabilization. uh $15,000 for open space stabilization and snow and ice in the amount of $3,177,000. I'll begin by reading the letter submitted by the mayor.
Dear council president Oing and counselors enclosed for your review and approval are the fiscal year 2026 year end transfer request in the amount of $3,731,000 relative to the following departments of
public works comproller finance department city clerk's office and the legal department uh which breaks down accordingly. Number one, 3,177,000 from undesated fund to fund the snow and
ice deficit for FY2026. $32,000 from the collector assistant finance director line item to go towards the unemployment account in the amount of $12,000 and $20,000 into postage
account. $15,000 from undesated fund, which is the wireless antenna payments to fund the open space stabilization account. $493,000 from various departments of public works salary accounts to fund the following
transfers in the amount of $50,000 for natural gas bills. 68,000 to fund the fuel and lubricants account, $120,000 to fund the city repair and maintenance account and $255,000
to fund the professional and technical service account. $9,000 from the election budget to the city clerk's budget for a vendor to assist with the processing annual street listings uh notices and $5,000 from the unfilled
parallegal position to fund the legal services account for ongoing matters. Department heads and I will be available at future finance meetings to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Jay Christian Doom mayor. Um with that uh
beginning with the uh the letter submitted by the mayor, we can start with the first one uh item which is the undesated fund to fund the snow and ice deficit for FY2026. >> Council vital. >> Mr. Chair, I make a motion to approve the transfer. Motion has been made and I
will second that to approve the $3,177,000 from the undesated fund to fund the snow and ice deficit for FY2026. Any further discussion, >> Mr. Chair? >> Councelor Orm. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, we talked
about this during our budget hearings and I believe I read it was 430% over the original budget. Obviously, we're lucky to have these vacant pos. We're not lucky. I'll look at the commissioner and say we're not lucky to
have all these vacant positions. It doesn't make it easy for any department head in here to run a department. Concerns me is that FY27 hopefully will start filling some of these positions and more or less have some truth in
financing in respect to snow and budget. And we're not the only I know in the state people underestimate but you know we're I'm not sure if winter is going to change in the future but there's not much we can do and I guess we should be grateful there was some leftover money
from vacant positions but my concern as I note in budget time during the full budget is that I don't think we're budgeting this properly and hopefully someday we'll get at least 50% of it budgeted so we're not g you know gambling on the fact that we have excess
money at the end of the year. With that said, I am in support of it, but again, it's one of those budget line items, you know, to be 3 million over is concerning and it's no and there's no reason that we can't look at it a little bit more thoroughly maybe in the next budget
season. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Councilman. Mr. President, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, just as a point of clarification, the transfer does not involve any underruns and salaries. This is all money coming from the undesated fund. So there is no
>> what you said was not correct I guess for lack of better word. This is all coming from undesated funds that we aren't touching any salaried items for this. And the comment regarding funding this is the funding way. We increased it from 500,000 a couple years ago to a million and the state allows us to
overspend this account as just about every municipality and Ted and his staff do an outstanding job. But, you know, we had 20 events over 68 inches of snow. And Ted, you can correct me if I got that math wrong, but that's my tracking
where last year we were only 1.3 million over with 14 events and 42 inches of snow and in 24 we were only $600,000 over with nine events and 27. So, it's a function of what kind of snow we have and we have money and undesated fund to cover it. So, there's my opinion there
is nothing we are going to change on how we fund the snow and ice account. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Chair, I will stand corrected. He is correct. It's coming from the undesated fund. It's again trying I know we can't gamble too often on winter, but we'll
see what next year brings. But if we see another winter like we saw this year or close to it, I think we need to start looking at that 1 million and increasing it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Mr. Chair, I didn't get a chance to ever say this publicly and I'd like to do it right now. I thought that DPW did a
phenomenal job uh throughout the winter. Um I I would drive into other towns and there would always be slush and snow on the roads and Marbo did a phenomenal job. So I think we're getting uh the best bang for the buck. So thank you, Mr. Chair. >> And that's a good point, Council Vital.
U because I do know I got a lot of feedback with the uh school children having to walk a little further. Uh DBW was right on the ball doing their clearing at night. Um so good point. Motion's been made and seconded. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five. That
carries. Moving on to the $32,000 transfer from the collector assistant finance director item to go towards the unemployment account in the amount of $12,000 and $20,000
for the uh postage account. >> Mr. Chair, council. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, no questions on this line. I'm with that move to approve the $32,000 transfer. >> Motion has been made and I will second
that to approve the $32,000 transfer from the collector uh assistant director line item to go towards the unemployment account in the amount of $12,000 and $20,000 into the postage account. Any further discussion? Council or
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question. Um, I don't know if our clerk is here. I don't see the mayor's here at least. Is that this was for additional mailings due to motor vehicle excise taxes. I was just curious if we're going to see an increase in motor vehicle excise taxes
since we need additional postage for it. >> I don't know if the mayor or someone can answer that. >> Good evening, Brian. >> Hopefully, it'll be positive news. So I hope you're correct. I did in my projections I did increase the motor vehicle excise tax collections um from
last year to this year. So um you know we do have an increased population increased motor vehicle increased postage on that and increased on the demand fees to collect the motor vehicle excise. >> Excellent. And I don't mind approving this. I was just curious if there's
another side to the story and that's the increase in motor vehicle excise taxes. So thank you for your response. I don't know if the mayor he like he's ready to roll there. No. >> Oh, that's that's the goal. >> Thank you both. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Council. Motion's made and second to approve. Any further
discussion? All in favor? 1 2 3 4 5. That carries. Next up is a transfer of $15,000 from undesated fund, which is the wireless antenna payments to fund the open space stabilization account.
>> Mr. Chair, Vital, I'd >> like to make a motion to approve the $15,000 transfer. >> Motion's been made and I will second that to approve the $15,000 transfer from undesated fund uh to fund the open space stabilization account. Any further
discussion? Mr. If we could uh provide some insights as to why the collections have continued to decrease went from 28,000 in fiscal year 22 to 29 to 25 to 19 and now 15. Are we
not collecting? Did we redo the contract? That's question one. I'll let you answer that. >> I'll answer that. So, um, on an annual basis, there are 19 that should be paying us at $1,500 a piece. It should
be $28,500. So, this was brought to my attention uh end of March, early April. Um, I will thank uh the pro procurement Crystal Homie for bringing it to my attention when she went to do a contract. She was checking to see if people had been paid
and we found a little glitch in the system, let's say. So, back in the day, this was tracked through one department. That person left employment with the city. It got moved to another department. That person was tracking it.
That person left the city. Since that person left, no one has been tracking this. So what we're trying to do now is to see if there's a way that I can generate an invoice to build these on the date and therefore we have a system
to track it. So if people leave we would see an invoice outstanding saying where's our money. So that's kind of where we're at right now and we are going to go back and try to collect any fees that haven't been paid if that answers your question. >> You actually answered the second one as
well. So thank you. So just for counselor, so what you heard Brian tell you is we should be see a transfer every year of about $28,500. And when we don't, that means funds aren't being collected. So we're about 13,500 short. And as Brian said, and I
appreciate that, Brian, have a process in place so that we collect those funds so that we get this the the money that's owed the city because they won't if we don't bill them, they're not going to just voluntarily send the money. is my it's like if you told me you're not
going to send me my excise tax or you know I'm won't be sending you a bill for my excise right send me a bill and I'll send you the money but don't just expect me to pay my excise tax right so thank you Brian I appreciate that I have no further questions and support >> Mr. Chair and if I can comment to that
good catch and I would expect the wireless companies will not forget that when they bill us we need to pay them so hopefully they'll start getting their bills on time thank you Mr. Chair >> Mr. Chair, I'm just curious since we're on the subject, how long are these contracts with the antenna companies?
Because I think over the last year, we've added like three or four more. So, this number should be going up from 28. I would assume, but how long are the contracts? I guess >> we would add them to the spreadsheet. You're right. They're long-term contracts. I think one of them was like a 20-year contract. I think that's the
oldest one that's now coming up. I mean, they're they're longterm. Um, again, kind of back, these are special permits. So they were added on. So the tracking, who's in charge of tracking special permits that are approved here? And that was really the loophole that we're
trying to cover. >> Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> All right. So motions are made and seconded to approve the $15,000 uh transfer from undesated fund to fund the open space stabilization account. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five. That
carries. Moving on to the $493,000 from various departments of public works salary accounts to fund the following transfers. And uh we have the letter from uh Commissioner Scott. And uh we can start with the first one which is
$50,000 to city natural gas account for projected increase usage costs. A motion. Are you going to do each one separately? >> Yes. >> A motion to approve. >> Motion's made and seconded to approve the $50,000 natural gas account for
projected increase usage and this will be coming from various accounts as noted on the spreadsheet from the Department of Public Works. Any further all any further discussion? >> Mr. Chair, >> Council Villo. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just very briefly, um, uh, every year when we go through
the budget, right, the natural gas accounts are ones that we always take a look at to make slight reductions. This year between the two and the maintenance of schools and and the public facilities made modest $10,000 adjustments. So, right, we're always, you know, I'm expecting this transfer to come. So, I appreciate the commissioner sending it
down and happy to support it tonight. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Motion is made and I will second that. All in favor? That carries. One, two, three, four, five. Moving on to same thing. 68,000 to fuel lubricant accounts for projected increased usage cost.
>> Motion to approve. >> Motion's been made and I will second that to approve the $68,000 fuel lubricant account for projected increase usage costs. And this will be coming from various accounts as noted on the spreadsheet from the Department of Public Works.
Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? One, two, three, four, five. Next up is a $120,000 transfer to the city repairs and maintenance accounts for unforeseen cost.
>> I will entertain council but >> um I'd just like to know what those unforeseen costs were if you don't mind. >> There's a few small ones designed. The big one is when um so the interlock system for the doors on
the on the public buildings we were um we changed the software system and we're um in the process of turning some of the buildings over and the card crashed. So,
in emergency we had to um do the senior center, city hall, DBW, uh fire station one and part of the police station and an emergency so that the end locks would work. So, that's that's most of it right there. And then
there's Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Thank you. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion made and seconded to approve the $120,000 transfers to city repairs and maintenance accounts for unforeseen costs. And this will be coming from the various accounts as submitted in the
spreadsheet. Any further discussion? All in favor? One, two, three, four, five. That carries. Next up is $255,000 to professional and technical services to fund additional engineering services.
>> Motion to approve. >> Motion has been made and seconded to approve the $255,000 to professional and technical services to fund additional engineering services and this will be coming from uh various accounts as noted on the spreadsheet
from the department of public works. Any further discussion, >> Mr. Chair? Council, >> this is where my mistake was on the beginning. These are excess funds from positions that are not filled and I would like to ask the commissioner where do we stand for FY27
and how are you how is your department running without these positions? >> Well, we we pitch in. We do the best we can. We prioritize um the general foring positions, like I said before, those will be filled uh before by the end of the month. Um,
we're filling a couple more uh SMOS. Um, it's a it's a tough process. We are we are um we are interviewing. We get through a process. We've had people sign offers and then uh back out. So, we do our best to keep uh get trying to get
quality people. And if I may, um, are you working with HR to see if we're competitive with our, as they're doing with other positions >> as far as cost >> as far as being competit offering competitive salaries and
>> it's it's hard to say. Some of some of some have probably renegotiated the deal after they got our offer. >> Y >> um, >> and most of those positions are union contracts or or union positions as well. So, it's not as easy as one can just to
leverage. So, >> okay. Well, I just would ask that you continue to make these competitive so you're not losing people as fast as you're getting them and your department can function properly. So, >> we try. >> Thank you both. >> Y
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Motion has been made and Oh, Mr. President. >> Thank Mr. Commissioner, can you shed some insight on the engineering services? >> Sure. >> Yes. So that's for um that's for the design of West Main Street and South
Street and Pleasant Street. Um that's how much design costs for a traffic intersection. Uh we're we're hoping to get uh the mayor's office worked with the uh the federal government lawyer Jan's office to try to secure a million
dollar grant for that. So if we can have the design ready for that um hopefully we can get that grant. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the $255,000 transfer. All in favor? One,
two, three, four, five. That carries. Moving on to the $9,000 transfer from the election budget to the city clerk's budget for a vendor to assist with the processing annual street listings. We did receive a letter from Mr. Clerk
Carrian on this and this is for $9,000 transfer. >> Mr. Chair, >> Council Pillow. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good reminder for folks to fill out their annual street listing um or else they are removed from the active voter list. Uh so these notices will be going out with this transfer. And with that, uh move to
approve the $9,000 transfer. >> Motion has been made. I will second that to approve the $9,000 transfer uh from coming from funds from the election programming and pole workers account to to to fund the city clerk's budget exp
uh processing of this parallegal notice of the uh active voter list >> and Mr. for the discussion >> and I would agree with councel Vichello. Hopefully our the people that get these notices are returning their street list
uh request. Um the question I had is the prepaid return uh if obviously they decide not to return it, do we get that postage back or is that an we don't. So, we're mailing out cost to mail it out and we
have a prepaid postage envelope within that mailing and we're not getting return. If if that pre-postage doesn't get utilized, do we get >> I don't think it is prepaid. >> It says prepaid return. Postage prepaid. And I know you're not the clerk's not
here, but curious. They say they sent them out with a pre uh sent with a postage prepaid return. Um, I was curious if it's not used, do we get that money back from the >> Yeah, I would have to check, but I always put a stamp on when I return my
city listings. But >> yeah, if it's a stamp, then it's already paid. I'm just hoping then that the general listening audience will do what they need to do because that's just throwing money out the window. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> Just this is for people who didn't return their annual street listing. They're getting an additional mailing saying if you want to vote, you need to return this form. So, I've never gotten one, but it does say prepaid. >> Yeah. Well, for inactive, that makes
sense. But >> correct. Right. Right. Yeah. I just the responsible one and just mail when it's supposed to mail it in. Right. Yeah. Motion's been made and seconded to approve the $9,000 transfer for professional and technical services in
the clerk's department. Any further discussion? All in favor? 1 2 3 4 5. That carries. Moving on to the last item is $5,000 from the unfilled parallegal position to fund the legal service accounts for
ongoing matters. We did receive the letter from the city solicitor Gfield on this if anyone had any questions. Council vital. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the $5,000 transfer. >> Motion's been made and I will second
that to approve the $5,000 transfer from the parallegal account to the legal services account as in the amount of $5,000. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor?
One, two, three, four, five. >> Mr. Chair, >> Council Villo. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um would just ask that um at our next meeting suspension of the rules in order for us to take these up. >> Perfect. Finance committee is all set with that. Thank you. Thank you, Council
Villa. Remind me. >> Sure. >> Thank you so much. Okay, moving on to the next item on the agenda is uh order number 26-1009697 uh proposed non-un salary ordinance
changes to job description pursuant to chapter 125 personnel section 5 preparation of classification descriptions for position of the city collector assistant finance director city collector and assistant recreation
director I'll begin by reading the letter submitted by the mayor. >> It's a very long letter. I don't know if you want to cut >> lengthy. Um I'll go through it maybe not as quick as uh uh clerk Carrian. Uh dear council president Oing and counselors,
as you know, the city of Marbor received the Collins Center classification and comprehension uh study in May of 2025. This comprehensive study took an objective look at each job description uh which will be sent down at a later date. Uh salaries and recommended
classification salary plan structures. Uh the city last comprehensive salary change for non-un non-un positions was 10 years ago in 2016. I'm sending down for your review and approval an ordinance with the classification salary salary plan for many of our non-union
positions based on the recommendations of the Collins center study as a guide. Our recommendations are to move to a 15-step pay structure classifying positions with grouping systems, reorganization of the recreation and human resources department, and changing
the city collector's position to 40 hours, now currently 35. uh certain job title changes and approval of certain job descriptions. Uh class classification of the 15step pay structure. Uh the reason why we chose a
15-step pay structure was to ensure that the employees will stay to ensure consistency long-term inst institutional knowledge. The grouping of positions allow pay equity across department level based on job responsibilities. Uh the main objective was twofold for
the city. Uh the first was to ensure the starting rate for each position was s significant to attract new candidates and to also be competitive with surrounding municipalities. Uh second, it was to establish a grouping system to so the job uh responsibilities within
the city are consistent with the salary ranges. Uh while identifying these solutions, it was imperative that we address other challenges such as reorganization of departments. Uh this task was not an easy feat. And numerous versions of this process occurred over
many many months. Uh working with HR, the comproller and legal we looked at based on very long-term vacant positions. Um thank you Heather. Thank you. Uh continuing the sevenstep and even a
12step model, uh the grouping of each position was analyzed to uh to the position utilizing this uh Colin center study as reference point. Uh regarding the grouping of the positions, you will see that it starts with a group B. Uh
group A is reserved for potential future uh use if needed. Um as you know, a number of the non-UN positions in our city, including uh police chiefs, fire chiefs, DPW commissioner, comproller, and city solicitors are addressed or in the process of updating uh in separate
salary ordinances and or employment agreements. uh all groupings have a starting uh step one uh which is a competitive starting salary based on the market. Having said that, we have numerous incumbent employees that cannot start at step one
in the new grouping system uh because the position's current salary based on factors such as years of service could be greater than step one. Uh one version of the step uh seven model was to start each position in each group at step one. uh this method would cause uh huge
strike uh hu huge spikes in salary increases across the board uh that were not consistent and would not have an equity uh for for years of service for particular grouping. Um if our current sevenstep uh model were updated based on
the Collins center study minimum and maximum pay range uh it would also cause huge increase uh per step. Uh the proposal submitted uses a 15-step model with an increase of 30% over the 15 years of service uh averaging about a 2%
increase per step as we currently have with the sevenstep model. Uh based on the analysis and keeping the budget in mind, uh this is how the current proposed 15-year salary step model uh before you came to fruition. I've
outlined in the attached uh documents the positions that are currently filled and what steps uh each employee in their current position would need to be placed in so there is no pay disparity uh with city council approval. Uh recreation human resources departments the
recreation department will include reinstating an assistant recreation director and will not be filling the program coordinator role. Uh it would allow the city to be more competitive with the market and to directly assist the director with daytoday operations.
This department has not seen any reorganization despite the expanded aquetics and seasonal programs that continue to grow within the city. However, staff and resources have not. This also creates the possibility of succession plan. Uh the city has
discussions with MMEA on certain aspects of this. uh human resource department include a change to the role of human resource assistant to human resource manager as well as adding five hours per week to the human resource administrative assistance role which is
currently at 35 hours uh to 40 hours. This change is necessary to support the change in our insurance broker uh that took effect on January 1st. This transition has resulted in several administrative uh functions that previously were handled externally by
our broker uh including an average of 20 hours a month uh in-house support services that are now assumed by the city human resources department. Uh this adjustment assures that we have appropriate oversight within our insurance plan and allows for effective operation of human resources department
functions based on the very long-term vacant positions. I respectfully ask the city council to please expedite the approval of the salary ordinance uh for the city collector, city colle uh city collector, city collector assistant finance
director and the recreation department positions. So the job descriptions can be posted and the interview process can be started. Uh changes on title and number of hours per week. Please uh take note that we currently have a few positions that are 35 hours and they are
labeled accordingly and should not be calculated at 40 hours a week uh for a yearly salary. Lastly, streamlining the city collector's position from 35 hours to 40 hours. Uh so it coincides with all other department heads. Seeing this
position is vacant, it is an appropriate time to make this change. uh the city council support in considering these changes to support our operations and workforce is greatly appreciated. I would like to thank human resources legal and the compro for all the input and work with uh that have went into
this. I look forward to having the further discussion about the ordinance changes. Uh I am available for any questions. Sincerely Jay Christian Dumis mayor. Um >> Mr. Chair, motion to approve for discussion purposes. I do have some questions or comments. What I would what
I would suggest is I I I know that the mayor and and and >> and when the mayor did highlight um for the uh uh uh bring in uh uh to expedite the approval of the city collector, assistant finance director, recreation department director for the assistant.
That's basically why I wanted to have this meeting uh tonight. And I am on board to uh uh uh uh uh approving uh the job descriptions. I would like to take these in two votes. I would like to have the job description and then go forward.
President Austin. What you just said can't happen. Period. We're only talking about four positions. You You have no idea what the salary is for any of those current positions because it's in dollars per hour. I
think it's an irresponsible motion and the finance committee should not support that until we vet it. Don't make a motion that you don't know what the cost is to this city. I think that's totally fiscally irresponsible. >> Mr. Mr Chair, if I may,
>> I was motioning for the positions you noted, but if I indeed did not include the classifications of those positions, and I'll break my motion into two parts, but we do see in the schedules provided
the cost for each step and each position that's in our packet. So, we do know the cost as shown in the packet. I'm not sure if I misunderstood the packet. >> It is broken down in sections and by
hourly. Mr. President, >> again, council or I would ask that you do not make any motions on this particular topic till it's vetted out. I'll test you. What's the salary of the recreation director? And don't give me dollars per hour. We don't do anything in this item in this in this city hall
in dollars per hour. Everything's done on an annual salary. So we see and if I may Mr. Chair, I don't want to have a direct back and forth here, but as you can see in the chart that was provided, the recreation director, assistant
director is shown at a rate in the chart that's provided in this information. And step seven, if I'm not mistaken, I can go right to it and look at it, but and it comes out to about $80,000 a year if
you add 40 hours times that rate times 50 weeks. But if indeed this is to be motioned in a different way, then I'll wait for that motion to be made. But I I am in support. First of
all, I want to thank the mayor, comproller, HR, and legal for doing all this work and for providing this package. Uh it's long overdue. the Collins Center study. I previous mayor kept asking when are we
going to update some of our positions so these departments can function appropriately. But if it's to be broken down in a different way and we get to the same end goal, I don't have a problem with that. But I want to see this move on. And I was going to ask that we move this along
as quick as possible so these departments can function properly. That was my intent. But I'll wait to see if indeed there's a better way to make a motion on this. >> Councelor Roby, and then I'll go to President O. >> So, uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I I guess
my I was, uh, questioning the same thing as council Orm. I did the math a little differently. I did the hours times 40 times 52 weeks because that's what I always thought was in a year. Um, so I came up with more money than we have in the budget. I I also question the fact
that the budget only has a line called city collector. Yet all the information within the budget that we got from the controller indicated that they want a city collector/assistant
finance director. We don't have an assistant finance director. We have a controller and we have a >> an auditor. So, the term is confusing to me. Um, and which one do we want? Do we do you
want to have both of them so that if you hire somebody who's not able to be the assistant finance director but is a collector and so you've got somebody in the collector's position, you can hire that person or do you really want someone who can take over and help the controller do
their job? >> Both of those positions are if you if you don't mind, Mr. Chair, through you those All those positions are are already part of the salary ordinance that we have. We're just updating the job descriptions based upon the Collins Center study that you have in front of
you. So >> So we approve budget of 94,145 for somebody called the city collector. >> Correct. >> So you're asking for the collector to be paid at $103,15
according to my math. the hourly rate times 40 time 52. So >> we classified them in group C which step one would be 103. Correct. >> So there's not enough money in the budget. So there would have to be a transfer.
>> So >> or you're assuming that even though you want them July 1st, they're not going to get hired by July 1st. >> When we put this salary study down, we were under the assumption that's why we had reserve for salaries because we didn't know the direction of the city council. So when we put this down in
March, we were I was hoping we're all hoping that this would be concurrent with the budget so we can have an honest conversation about where we are at so we can apply this to the actual budget for fiscal year 27. That did not happen. That's why we put money in for reserve for salary. So when we have a bigger
conversation about the salary ordinance, and I don't think that we're going to do that today. I think we're just focusing on the job description. You can correct me if I'm wrong. That's a bigger conversation about the 15 steps. How are we funding for these positions and moving forward?
>> So, if we're not talking about the job the salary ordinance changes, why are we talking about it? The job descriptions to me are totally different. >> The job descriptions are new based upon the Collins Center and they have to be approved by city council. Also, doesn't the salary change need to be approved
>> at some point? But if you want to take that up today, we can't. I don't know what the direction of the city council is for tonight. The one of the reasons I want to address this is because I do support definitely the assistant recreation director. We we need that. That was in your letter saying that. So, yes, I wanted to first
have uh u approve the uh the job descriptions and then we I'm sure we're going to have a lot of conversation when it comes to how we want to structure salaries. Is it seven steps? Is it 12 steps? Is it the 15 steps? But I definitely wanted to have the meeting uh
because I do support these positions uh for the job uh descriptions. >> Mr. President, then Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. Chair. So then in in honor of the way I guess the committee would like to take this would be to approve the job descriptions first and
take up the salaries at a different time. Uh reasoning is because I'm thinking it's going to be quite the debate on some of those. >> That's fine. So then I will take back my original motion and just at this point
although I'm ready to discuss the salaries too, but at this point I would motion to approve the job descriptions as shown. >> Motion's been made and I will Oh, council vital. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. because we put it
in writing and because we say it a lot that this Collins uh study is valid, I would I would counter that. Having spent 20 years in executive human resources departments and developing many studies myself and surveys myself and reviewing
surveys myself, the Collins report was somewhat subjective. An example, typically when you do a salary survey, you you ask survey. You survey all the adjourning towns. Everyone that touches marble should be
in this in the Collins uh study. Not all the towns that touch Marbor are in that study. Why? I wondered. I wonder why that town wasn't there. So, I checked into it. Well, they pay less than Marble does. So, you can make the numbers turn into anything you want in a
salary survey. to to be valid or to be uh well objectionable I think was in the letter this objective study I would counter that it may not be objective >> if I may Mr. here. Um to comment to
council vital, I've been involved with salary studies as well and in Ashland where I work full-time and indeed it doesn't always uh involve the abuing towns and cities because the amount of responsibility
could be different, the type of government could be different. Uh, but what we used to do, and I'm expecting that this would be what Collins is looking at, is a comparable city or town to Malber. And then they also look at
regions, too. They look at what's the cost of living. If I'm out in the end of the state, my house may be a lot cheaper to afford than working here in the city of Marorrow and trying to afford a home or anywhere in Metro West, I'll say. But you know it depends on those o those
issues as well. you know, you just you can't always touch the city or town, you know, in respect to salary surveys. You have to look at the responsibilities such as what does the health agent do in Actton versus Ashland. You know, that's how we looked at it back in our salary
reviews. But I, you know, Collins, you may be correct to some of that degree, but touching cities and towns, I know we never that was not the crux of what we were looking at. it was more the type of services and population and so forth. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. >> Councelor Ruby. >> Right. So, if we're talking the actual job descriptions and skipping the salary ordinance at this juncture in the discussion, I would still go back to my initial question. Why do we have a city
collector and a city collector/assistant finance director? Do you want to be able to hire both of them or do you want one or the other? >> I think we just put this down for the option of either or. Um the goal is to
keep that collector assistant finance director if we have a candidate that can actually when we're talking secession planning that can take over for a controller and slide into that role and move forward. Um I believe that position was filled at one point with the prior administration and that's why it doesn't
exist. Um, so we just kept that position as is and just updated it based upon the job description and what that entails and obviously with city council we need to approve that. Again, when we post this back in March, we were looking for all candidates to see what we would get for that position and if there was a
candidate that was that fit that narrative with that position, then we go with that candidate as opposed to limiting ourselves with just a city collector position. And I I would guess that there's a whole different education and certification to
be the assistant finance director versus just a plain. >> It's experience. A collector has to pass an exam either way. So I think it's just more experience and if they want to move forward. Some collectors just want to stay collectors, others would like to move into a higher position. It just
depends upon their desire as as their what their journey consists of with the position that they want >> and then when the budget is created because there's only the one line versus separate lines the amount of money >> it will be different
>> would be diff obviously we >> it's based upon exper experience and qualifications correct >> all right it just doesn't seem like the 572 difference is enough for the responsibilities and functions
of the assistant finance director piece added on to the collector's responsibilities. >> Well, the collector assistant finance we grouped as group C, >> right? >> So, the difference between the two salaries >> is $5.72
an hour. It's not, and I could be wrong, but it seems like the responsibilities of the assistant finance, the additional of what's in the job description is it doesn't seem like it's enough to add
that that extra, but it's just me speaking. So, >> Mr. But I don't I guess I don't see a issue with the job descriptions per se, but I'm not on finance either. So,
>> Mr. President, >> so councilors, I don't know how you can honestly evaluate a salary ordinance and say it's good by a dollar per hour. We have worked in this council in my 27 years and every salary ordinance is
seven steps and based on an annual salary. Now, if you're telling me you're doing that hand scratching math for each one of these, God bless you. But I know you're not because you are incorrect. You short change the recreation director by
$20,000. And I don't think he wants an $80,000 salary. So, I know you're not looking at what this really is. And so, to not understand what you're voting on is irresponsible. And you you're asking the taxpayers to just go do this and not know what the
ramifications are. You could not turn around to a member of the public other than saying it's a salary study. Well, I've said it a thousand times. There's not a salary study in the world that comes back and says cut everybody's pay. It just doesn't happen.
Period. It doesn't. Show me that study that says cut everybody's pay. It doesn't. So, there's some healthy salary adjustments here. And I'm not saying that they're not warranted, but the format in which they are a 15step. So 15 steps, I didn't want to get down this
path, but if I'm going to start, that's 2% a year for 13 years. Add a colar on top of that. That's 5% increase for every year. There's not a department head out here that wouldn't say sign me up. Well, guess who's listening? The folks that we have union contracts with.
If they're going to get 5% every year, guess what's coming? You can't do that, folks. Well, you can, but I won't be supporting it. That is fiscally irresponsible. You just can't do it. My recommendation,
approve the job descriptions. Tell the mayor to go back and resubmit this on a sevenstep process. I've told them how to do it. I've given them the information. Cut it at seven steps. Annual salary just like we just did. The DPW commissioner, the assistant fire
chief, the assistant police chief, the city engineer, the city planner, the assistant commissioners, all just did seven steps. The world was okay last year and now all a sudden we got to go to 15 steps and 2% increases that cover 13 years. I'm telling you, you did not
do your homework if you're not paying attention and reading this unless you think we're just going to give money away, which is what this does. And I will not be supporting it. I will support the job descriptions and I will support the mayor to go back and send this down
with seven steps capped just like I sent to him and Brian because otherwise just empty the checkbook folks and councelor Roy's right. There's not enough money in any of this to do this. Well, technically there is. We underspend a ton in salary. So, there'll
be money to move around to cover them. We have to set an effective date. All right. Doesn't mean they're going to be all be effective July 1. We can set the effective date for this, but I'm telling you, read it. Don't just because they said the Collins, who the heck is the Collins Center that they're that smart
that they're going to make make this the right decision. Go. If that's how you do your homework, God bless you, >> Mr. Chair. Couple comments. First of all, the motion on the floor is for the job description. So, um, I would ask that we
look at that first and then I'll have questions on the salaries and the 15st step versus the sevenst step, but right now that's not for the motion that was made. >> So, your your original motion was to approve the job descriptions. >> Yes,
>> I will I will second that motion. Uh motion has been made and seconded uh to approve the uh job descriptions uh pursuant to chapter 125 personnel section five preparation classification descriptions for position city collector assistant finance director city
collector and assistant recreation director any further comments council vital >> Mr. Chair, I uh I too will approve the job descriptions with the understanding that the department heads will be able to fund those positions within the budget that we approved last week or two
weeks. Sir, >> Mr. Chair, >> thank you. Thank you. >> Point of clarification. They can't fund anything because they can't fund anything without the salary ordinance. We haven't approved a salary ordinance. All we're doing is saying, "Here's the job description. You can go post it." But they don't have a salary to go with the posting, so they probably won't post
it. >> All right. The issue is going to be get a salary ordinance that is reasonable and if you if a finance committee says what's in front of you is good then go vote on it but I will not be supporting it because it it's disingenuous. It doesn't paint the picture and no one
here can tell me what anybody's making. Maybe Council Roby did all the math and God bless you council Roby if you did. I cheated and had the mayor send me what the salaries are and your eyes are going to pop out. But I recommend you look at it because $70 an hour and $40 an hour means nothing to anybody that's
evaluating salary. Nothing. And you, this body is responsible for appropriation. And if you don't know what you're approving, shame on all of you, >> Mr. Chair. Point of clarification. So the collector the collector position was
funded in this budget. So we can move forward with that position. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure that we're on the same page. That's all. >> And and the second part that's not being discussed is even though I support the assistant recreation director, there's issues that got to get addressed with how it's going to be funded because
that's a >> Thank you. >> non-UN position that's currently in the budget as a program manager. That's a union position that I know, God bless Chuck, he's trying to get his department organized. That should be upfront and we
should be updated on what that status is so that we can approve a functioning. Not that doesn't function now, Chuck, but you're you're killing yourself there, kid. >> You got to get them help is my my easy way to say that. But that's got to come
before us because approving is not going to do any good if the if we have to battle with the union. >> If >> work with the union and come back with a package that works. So point of information, we do not need to battle with the union because that position was already existed. So we do not so the position was already there. So we just
reclassified the actual department and brought back that position. So there's no need to negotiate with the union for that position. >> What about the senior clerk? >> That will need to be negotiated with the union. You are correct with that. But not the assistant director.
>> That's encouraging. >> It is. Thank you. >> Thank you. So motion has been made and seconded to approve the job descriptions. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five. That carries.
Now, uh, the pleasure of the finance team, we can make a decision on what we wish to do. Um, send this back, refer this back to the mayor. Um, but I'm willing to have the conversation. >> Mr. Chair, in the conversation, I think
the mayor noted and I thanked them, you had HR involved with this. You had the legal department involved with this. You had the mayor comproller. Those people are experts in what they do and I entrust them with what they
presented. Now indeed we will need to come back with salary ordinances as noted but we are looking at departments that are in need of these positions and we need to
be competitive. Now are we overcompetitive? I don't think so because they're unfilled. These are positions that have been unfilled for quite a long time. And in my view, the way we get to that is having professional experts give us advice. And
yes, we do make the final decision here. But do put a little faith into some of our department heads that put work into this. And I won't down the call-in center because they've been around for years. But if we want to pull that report apart, we can. It was discussed
before. One of the more important things here too is redundancy. If for some reason your finance director wasn't here tomorrow, do we have someone that can get into that step such as what's being proposed here? So, but it probably will
need further discussion and indeed if you want to send down what the salaries are per the hourly, maybe my math was off and I apologize to the recreation director if I'm short changing your person by 20. was no intent on that. And then look at some other cities and towns
that are comparable to Marvel and see what they're paying, you know, but I don't want to underestimate the work that went into this. I've been on this floor many of times asking that we get to this point. I'm glad we're at this point and if it needs further
discussion, I have no problem with that. I'm not going to make an opinion if I like the seventh step or the 15 step. We'll see how that all falls into the cracks and how it matters in respect to attracting good solid employees that
will stay here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Council. Councelor Fill. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, appreciated the conversation so far, and I I don't um couple points that President O made that I do want to emphasize as well. I really believe that
um 15 steps what is bothering me the most is the inconsistency with what we have been doing over the course of the last year with some positions here in the city that are all at seven steps. So, I would like to see the positions brought down, right? The the recreation director, assistant wreck position, um,
and that collector position along with the assistant finance in that seven steps just to kind of get an idea of what we're looking at compared to 15. If that's >> I I mean, we'll we evaluated the seven steps. We did a 12 step, we did a 15 step, but if you do the range of what
the other mass municipalities are paying, if you do a sevenst step increase, it's going to be like a 5% increase per each step. So like we've looked at this and analyzed it what is the least impact on the taxpayer. So that's why we did a 15st step you know
so like when we looked at it and we evaluated what was the less hit and the tax implications when we did this 15 step you know and then if you want to discuss cola that doesn't necessarily mean that cola has to happen just because if you're getting an increase every year that doesn't mean that that's
going to happen either especially there increases across the board every year. So this was again a lot of work went into this. We evaluated a lot of different scenarios. I can't tell you how many spreadsheets I have in regarding um what was the best game plan for this because when we're talking
consistency in equity, that's why there's a grouping and then if you do a sevenst step people or employees will fall differently on those steps because you can't start at everyone at step one because of the pay inequities that you have across the board when you group them. So there's so many layers to this.
Um it wasn't an easy task and like every roadblock we hit we had to pivot and the 15 step was the best scenario to try to make so many other things work within this and we sent down an hourly pay scale because not everyone even works a
40hour work week. So if you send down an a salary there are certain individuals that you think are making this salary but they're not because they're only a 35h hour work week. So there's that component as well. So um we will evaluate and do whatever you want to do.
If you want to see a breakdown with the ranges with the seven steps, we can do that. That's but like I said, you will notice the significant increases per the per the steps. But again, I we don't have to have this debate now. We're more than welcome to talk about it and share.
But again, this was an animal to to to take over. Um, it's been it's been an incredible ride to say the least, but this is what happens when we don't do anything for over 10 years. We were so far behind the eightball with a lot of great employees
that I'm very just thankful that if they were to go somewhere else, they'd be making incredible amount of more money than what we're offering. And a city of this size should be comparative and competitive with other municipalities. >> I I appreciate that, Mr. But I think
that's all the more reason why I would like to see some of those options and to see that presented to us and and especially the fact that we should, in my opinion, be taking these one at a time because of the the nuances that you discussed, 35 hours versus 40 hours. And I would like to see um right the yearly annual salary for these people rather
than the hourly rate, right? I mean, we've had folks working at 35 or 40 hours, you know, for as long as I can remember being here at the city. So um and we've always seen those in a yearly setup. So, I I would just like to see it all presented to us and um that's where I stand. But that's that's my time there, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
>> Uh Mr. President, >> thank you. So So this 15step process, there's 1 2 3 4 5 6 seven individuals that fall outside this sevenstep process. The current sevenstep process is a 2% increase. All right. Why would I
want to change that? Told you one-time exemptions for these if the council sees fit. We did it with DPW. We did it with the assistant fire chiefs. If there's a need, the comproller, the solicitor, they come down and see us. We just want to blanket give all this money away
because we want this so-called equity somewhere. Okay. I I haven't seen the mass exodus out of city hall yet. But again, you're asking taxpayers to fund this because it's not just the salary. It's now all the pensions that
go along with it. It's a big deal. and to just oh make a motion to approve it. I I I can't tell you how that just sends me over the edge. That that's just irresponsible. It should be sevenstep process like we always do. Same 2%
increases. If you want to go put somebody in a new category and they're outside that, come down for a one time and say we're going to start these guys here and let it rip. But they're your long-term employees that don't seem to be going anywhere, but you're willing to just go put them at that point. Okay,
come down and say it. But 15 steps, it it's it's financially unattainable for the city. I I I cannot stand behind that. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. President. >> Council Ro.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. I know there was a motion to approve the job descriptions, but the comment that the mayor just made regarding 40 hours per week. In the document of the salary schedule, there is the section two, Roman numeral 2, the above position
shall be 40 hours per week except the following shall be 35 with nothing in there, which to me indicated that you want all of these to be 40 hours per week. So why not put that in the job description? It's not there. I just looked. There's nothing about hours. If it's in the job description, you know
it's a 40-hour week. >> I'm not understanding your question. >> You had said some are 35, some are 40. Make them all 40. Just put it in the job description. It's a 40hour a week job. >> And that's the goal. When those 35 hours retire, I can't do it now because they'll be making significant less
amount of money. The collector, I believe, is a 35 hours and it's not filled yet. So, it will be moving over to a 40 hours, but I can't I can't have someone go to a 40 hour because they'll make less money now if they go to a 40 hours because they'll make less per hour >> because of what's in the budget
currently versus what you're proposing to >> based upon their wage. If they go up to a 40hour work week, their salary is going to be less than what they need. >> You said there's nobody in the position now >> for collector. Correct. That's why a new person coming in isn't going to know
what to compare a salary. >> There's other there's other 35 hour per like it the nurse. There's other positions that are 35 hours. So I can't bring them to a 40hour work week because they'll make based upon their wage they'll make less money at 40 hours than
they will at 35 hour based upon their salary. So I have to keep them at 35 hours as of right now until they retire. Then we can bring down the job description and move that position to a 40 and then they'll fit in that classification. >> But what difference does it make for other people? I'm only talking about the
four positions you've got on the salary schedule. >> Correct. They'll all be 40 hours. >> So why not put that in the job description >> because I believe it should be just understood 40 hour. I mean we can make that change if you want and Christine can speak to that if she want because she's here. But all non department heads
otherwise noted it's a 40hour work week. typically you don't put um hours in a job description. You do it in your postings. Um but it's not because it's the job function. It's not the hours someone works in a job description. It's based upon uh that's about what you do
with the posting because it could technically you could hire someone at part-time into a job description. We do have people that work part-time in a role um but also have someone that could work full-time in that same role. It's just that they're doing less hours of the same job. So the job description is
the function of the job and the hours is what you do in a posting or budget for. We do have some positions in the city that are 35 hours and some that are 40. So the lowest common denominator is an hourly rate of compensation. Um, and that's why the the Collins
Center study was all done as an hourly wage because when you're comparing uh community to community, some communities work 37 and a half, some are 40, some are 35, some have a position that are 20 hours, some have it at, you know, the the full full-time based upon what the
community's full-time hours are. So, um, here we don't put the hours in a job description. uh we we it's it's done as a posting because it's about the function of the job not the hours they work. >> Okay. So if you come back with a revised
salary ordinance that is the seven steps will it simply say all positions are 40 hours per week. The this except that is throwing me off because there's nobody there. So you really only want people to be 40 hours per week. We do have some that are are 35
>> in this particular posting which is for the collector assistant finance director, city collector and assistant recreation director. That's this specific posting >> posting for I think if I'm not mistaken the current city collector role as city
collector um in the ordinance that exists was just a 35hour position. The last person that held that role was uh two three people ago and after that um they created the uh
city collector/ass assistant finance director and that position went to 40 hours. So trying to make sure we maintain the two job descriptions in case down the road, let's say you have someone internal that may not have all of the qualifications if you're doing
succession planning because the collector role is a hard position to fill. Um, in municipalities, we also are looking for someone that could potentially down the road fill an assistant finance director. We want to make sure we keep maintain those two job
descriptions. It's not looking to fill right now those two as separate positions. It's just making sure that as we move forward in this process that we're we're keeping ourselves in line that if for some reason a position's vacant and this decision at that time is
to go the direction of the city collector, we're we're at least um ready for it. >> So, or if we found someone that isn't quite up to that. We if we approve the job description but we don't have the salary ordinance and you hire a
collector, they're only going to be working 35 hours a week. >> If I think if you do it the way it is currently in Brian >> and then what happens when we change the salary ordinance to be 40 hours a week and they don't want to work 40 hours a week. >> I
they don't want I mean we would we our position would >> they got hired to work 35. We would be hiring on the based on the 40 would be our goal is to move those positions. >> You can't hire at 40 if we don't have the salary ordinance approved. Can you
>> What we recommended was based on a 40, but we haven't approved it yet and evidently that's going to take some time to get done. So do you want somebody in the position yesterday? >> Yes. I think at this moment where we've moved forward with the current um the
assistant finance the city collector assistant finance director already is a 40hour position. That's what you guys voted several years ago >> and you have the candidate for that position. >> Uh we are in we we move forward with uh
the current job description would look to >> if you mind jump in. So correct. So, we're moving forward with the current position as collector assistance finance director. We
when I left before they created that position, but when they did that, they didn't fix the collector position and made that a sevenstep 40hour position. They just left it alone. And we're trying to fix that so that down the
road, say things happen and someone wants to move up into that position, but they're a little green, you can hire them as the collector. Then as they accumulate from that, saying, "Hey, we like this person. Let's make them collector assistance finance director." You can now keep them longer instead of
them jumping somewhere else trying to meet the collector treasurer or something else with another community. So, we're trying to use that as a stepping stone to get someone secession plan and then fill the position. You guys know it's difficult
to find finance positions. >> Right. >> Again, the goal when we submitted this in March was to have these conversations so when we put this out, we would have the budget that would fit the need based upon the position. >> So, >> so Mr. So if the mayor's office is in a hurry to get a collector, assistant collector,
and assistant recreation director, we just told him we want seven steps. I'm expect on Thursday he's going to tell me here's the salary, sevenst step salary ones for these three positions. Leave the rest alone because it looks like there's a lot more discussion. But if those are really the priority, I think
you got the sense of the council, we want seven steps, right? You don't have to like it, but if you want to get something approved, you'll do it. If not, we'll stay here and
be frustrated. But I don't I no one's explain to me why the seven steps that we just approved for everybody else is no longer valid and we're going to go to 15 steps, which is 5% a year, which is just it's insane. It's going to your negotiating
powers going forward with all your other contracts. Mr. Chair, >> I would ask that they provide a comparison for the sevenst step versus the 15step to see actually what kind of cost we're
looking at. And then I have not made a decision yet. So I would say speak on behalf of yourself if you're saying the council has indicated they want seven steps. I haven't indicated that. I would like to see the data take a strong look
at it and see what is best for the city including retaining employees because I've been here too long to see too many good employees leave. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Council. >> Councelor Fill. >> Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I just want
to emphasize the fact that we looked at several job descriptions tonight that you know have from your perspective mayor this is based on the conversation we've had today are priorities right now that we need to work on. So you know I would specifically ask that we see the seventh step for the city collector
assistant finance director and the right city collector position the two of those um as well as recck director and assistant recck director because that to me appears to be the urgency right now. So that that's what I would expect for us to review immediately. So I I personally I I believe there's a motion
on the floor from councelor Oram to you know get a comparison between the seven steps but specifically I would like to see those that seems to be the urgency and that's what the conversation today should have been about but we were kind of getting ahead of ourselves a little bit which is fine. Um obviously there's a lot more here to discuss but I want to
make sure I see the rec directors here tonight that we're taking care of these items you know as soon as possible and I I appreciate mayor the fact that you have relayed that urgency to us. Yeah, I mean I will do my best to get this down for Thursday, but um looking at the data like where do you even start from a step
seven, you know, looking at 15 steps, that's the min and the max, you know, and that's what we did. So if we cut it in the cut it in the middle and then we do a percentage of the increase for min and max, then we can do that. But >> so again, I'm going to disagree that that seven our current sevenstep process
doesn't have 2% for 13 years. Stop it at step seven. That's your seventh step right there. >> Right. >> I'm you prove me wrong. The other positions that we just did are all 2% increases. >> Correct. >> Right. So I don't So now you're going to go set something up for 15 years.
>> I gave you I told you the way I gave you information how to solve the problem. >> Cut it at seven if >> and you're done. But DP the DPW salary was started before I got here and those start extremely high and they don't fit on this
classification. So I can start higher but I don't think that's the route that we want to go. That's why it's only a 2% because the starting point is extremely higher so you can get to that min and max range. That's the problem that we're having. It's like if you want to start >> so again I I'll be I'll be I don't like
the max on any of the 15 sub salaries. I'm I'm I don't know how clearer I can be. I'm done at seven. All the extra 2% for the next I don't get rid of them. Just stop them at seven because that's that they'll be no
different than right now. If you would come down without this stupid Collins Center study and said, "Okay, here's a sevenst step for pick a position be 2% increase for seven steps and we'd be done." But now you're trying to force fit groups and H's and M's and what do
you call it? The FIFA schedule. Great. But you you're you're trying to force us into something that I don't buy into. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Councelor Vital. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. again from from my
own experiences um in setting up compensation programs uh both salary scales and grades and so forth and so on and teaching it. In fact, I never and and I've never been in municipalities, so I I I start off with that caveat, but
I've never seen a a a pay range that had 15 steps. Never once. 10 is the max that I've ever seen. Now, if municipalities are different, well, then I I'm just not familiar with municipalities, but typically it's it's like 10 steps. >> It's actually pretty common between it
can go 10, 12, 15, even up to 20. The schools have quite a bit of steps and they have lanes. Um, it's not that uncommon. Like I said, it's just uncommon here in Malboro. And I think that's the uniqueness of Malro because just because it's you guys haven't seen
it before doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Um and we're just trying to again write a lot of wrongs over the last 10 years and we're trying to classify so there's pay equity across the board. So all of different department heads that are in the same job functions or same responsibilities are getting paid the
same. So when you peer back take take back pe layers of this onion, you can't have this step or this step this step when the job functions based upon department heads are somewhat similar. So that's why there's a whole grouping process and that's why when we developed the grouping process then that's why we
discovered okay what is the range for the min and max based upon the callin center whether you agree with it or not disagree with it if you look at um any type of MA website the the data is there and you can you can see that um so again I I I hear your concerns and looking at
the numbers it's I I get I get why we're scared for those numbers but we're 10 years behind behind this and now even with the Collins Center based on when they started this and evaluated the municipality state that was two years ago. So now we're even 12 years behind
the rate. So I get it. It's not a position that I want to be for and it's not something I wanted to send down. But at the same time, when you're talking long-term secession planning with the city, and you want to do right by the people that are retiring over the next five years, it's going to be hard and a
challenge to find someone of caliber with a sevenst step unless it's big spikes or you start at a higher rate and then they get increased moving forward. That's why we went with the 15. I can share and compare all the data with you and you can see that. But if you look at
the min and the max, that's what we based things on based upon the study that was done. >> Mr. Chair, thank you. Um, I appreciate this healthy discussion and it really is healthy discussion finding out where the mayor
has been and his staff to get the data to find out where we stand as a city to find out why we're not retaining employees. So, this has all been healthy discussion hearing it from our experts. And with that said, I think the mayor
made it very clear in his letter. The reason why we chose a 15-step pay structure was to ensure that employees will stay to ensure consistency and long-term institutional knowledge. I look at that as a key component of what
we're discussing tonight. And more importantly, I look at all our employees as the most valuable resource within this city and let's start treating them that way. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. >> President, >> those are words on a letter. I can put
similar words on a letter. So So great. Good for you. That that doesn't make it right. So So great for you to reparent what the mayor said. That doesn't make what he said is right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Mr. Chair, what makes it right? what
councelor aring is saying, you know, we need this healthy discussion with factbased, not just hearsay. Again, I think we can continue this, but I'm not going to bicker back and forth. And I don't want to do that tonight. I mean the the whole goal for me this
evening um is is with these positions that we just uh we approved the job descriptions. I want to go forward because I support these position definitely with the assistant recreation director which is which is adamantly needed there for going into some if
approved when we get there it still has to be advertised. So we're talking a lot of time. So that's taking a page out of council fill with his idea with these positions. I I would support that because we need to get going on these um
and it is and I thank the mayor these these this is a tough position to be in and uh yeah it's it's it's quite a debate having this when we're talking about having all these steps and trying to retain workers for succession plan and absolutely I support that but I do
support these positions that we have in front of us this evening. Council Roby. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. So, um, that what has occurred to me is we have a salary ordinance change that starts with group B and ends in group H, yet
only three of the groups have positions aligned with them. What are the other groups for? Future changes are going to bring down to us who who will be in group B with a salary at step one of $57 an hour.
>> Who will be in group H? So we there is in your packet you should see a list of everyone that's listed in what group they are actually. >> But there's only three groups. Group E, group D, and group C. You've got a group
B, a G, and an H with nobody in them. >> Yeah, it should be in the packet. >> If I council Roby out, there are people in each group. >> We're in the It's not in the salary ordinance language. You've only got
Well, the salary ordinance only tells you the uh again >> it's not done what you're used to and that's why there's a lot of consternation. >> So are it like we're used to seeing it seven steps and see where it goes. You
can give the 15 steps side by side but dollars per hour is not going to get you anywhere. How do you go turn to the publicans? anybody gets 100 bucks if they can tell me how much this salary ordinance if approved as is for everybody costs the city.
>> And I get that point. My my point is who are who are these other people and are they also increases to them and should we not be >> if you look if you look at the original packet looks like they're whited out. So
there were a lot more positions that are in these groups. So, for example, group B, it has the assistant solicitor, the building commissioner, city auditor, the IT director. >> All right. Because there's nothing in the >> Right. Right. They were they were whited out for some reason. I don't know. I'm
assuming whoever created this packet whited them out. Just so you all >> information. It was put that way because those are the only four we're supposed to be talking about tonight. That's why it's that way. >> Correct. And I'm not disagreeing with that. That's just the reason why. There should be more information in this. It's just not in your packet for tonight
because we weren't going to dive into how much we dived into tonight. >> But technically would if we approved this salary ordinance as presented, we would have been increasing everybody's salary. >> Again, we wanted to have this conversation before the budget process.
So that was the goal. So now we're in June and now things have shifted, which I'm thankful that you guys took this up. However, the conversation would I would had hoped would have started that coincided with the budget process so we can have this debate. So when fiscal 27
happened, we would be able to budget accordingly. That did not happen. So now we're behind the eightball and now we're trying to not scramble, but now we're trying to figure out things as we move forward, which is fine. We can do that, but it was just a we I was under the pressure it'll be a different conversation back in March or April or
even towards May. >> So if I go back and look at the March 23rd Well, I'm going to I'm going to send you all this information with the hour with >> with the salary per year and with the seven steps. So, I will provide all that information. So, it'll be broken down for you >> for everybody for only these specific
people. >> Everyone I only have I only have the data for everyone. I have it here. Like that's what I have. So, I can I will share that all with you and I will share a sevenstep of what we thought between the min and max. and you guys can have that debate as well as where you think
we should start or not start. >> Okay. And and then I'll just state it. My concern is the agenda does not cover anything about job descriptions. It only talks about the salary ordinance. If you go to the very last page of the
posting, or not the last page, but the page in front of all the job descriptions, there's no order number for that >> verb. Press Carrian's going to put the stuff on there. Council Roby, it's just doesn't know what format to put it in
right now. So, >> all right. >> Posting is correct. It's job descriptions with the four positions listed. >> Thank you, President. But it doesn't say that on the posting. The posting is order number 9697
with the salary ordinance changes to the job descriptions. There's another order that's pursuant to chapter 125, the job descriptions for the positions of city collector, assistant finance, city collector, and assistant recreation
director. But there's no order number with it. Again, they were all sent down with the same order, the same letter from the mayor. >> Correct. It was all bundled. Technically, this should if it's just job description should have gone to
personnel as well, but not finance. >> And they might have been sent to both. I don't remember back when it was done, but And that's >> I was totally confused when you started talking job descriptions because it doesn't say anything on the agenda about job descriptions. Sure it does.
>> Council vital. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and this is more directed to the mayor. Mayor, um, the Collins study came down around the right around the beginning of the year. And you keep saying we wanted to get it done by the budget. We wanted to get it
done by the budget. We wanted to get Why didn't it get done by the budget? >> We submitted this in March. >> Never took it up. >> What's that? >> The finance never took it up. We submitted this in March. the reclassifications, the 15 steps that
were came out in in go uh not gods um the Colin report um that that study was done at the beginning of the year and you presented these 15step reclassifications to the finance committee in March.
>> 15step classifications. >> Well, he did not >> he did not present it to the F. He sent the letter to the city council city council >> with all the stuff in it. >> Okay. >> And that was referred to the finance committee. >> Correct. >> Th this process that we went through went it was to get the job descriptions
with every department. Every um every employee went through their own job description. So like the whole column center study took well over a year to get all the information documented went through the union. So, it was a very long process and then just to figure out what steps actually worked.
>> That's why it did come down. We didn't do the classifications before the budget. >> It did come down. We submitted to the city council in March hoping that you would take it up March or April and that did not happen. Now, we're meeting him
on it for the first time today, June 1st. >> Mr. Chair, President, >> the reason it wasn't taken up is because we never would have got through the budget process, >> right? And that and that's fair. It's that's now moot like we just need to move on and figure out what direction we want to go.
>> Mr. Chair, um I I'd ask uh councelor Fillo to to uh formulate a motion to um to address these four positions in the sense of on the seven steps for now if you don't mind. >> Council,
>> thank you Mr. Chair and thank you councelor Vital. I um yeah just just going back and again mayor correct me if I'm wrong but my opinion of this I am a firm believer that we take these as they are case by case and we give each job description each individual in the city uh the the full length of the process I
think it's going to take us a while but um so for that reason right before us it appears to me that the priority is the city collector assistant finance director recck director assistant rec director and then that collector position right the two collector positions as they are um so I would move to have the mayor resubmit this to us in
the sevenstep format for those positions, the ones that are on our agenda for today's meeting. >> Motion's made and I will second that to have the mayor resubmit uh with the seven steps for the uh for the city collector, assistant
finance director, city collector, and assistant recreation director and to send it refer it back to the mayor uh to have the seven steps. >> Mr. Chair, >> any further discussion? um discussion would be a point to make as well as an a
friendly amendment. The point would be first um the Collins study. I remember when you first started, Miss Purple, when I was asking questions about it, so how long have we had the Collins study and has it changed since
the initial or the mayor, whoever, if I may, Mr. Chair, threw you to them? >> I thought it was here for more than just the beginning of the year. last they actually finished it um >> July >> I remember >> it started with the previous HR director
>> that's what I >> and that sat for a while and then obviously it changed and then we regrouped and then >> and then they changed their staff >> correct okay because I I'm saying wait >> and it went to every department every department had to had several iterations
of um the job descriptions that was the big big component of the study it was not just finan financial was what do you do for your job? How does it compare to what your current you know what we currently have or don't have for you? So that took a really long time and then
once it came back each employees had an opportunity to go through it but um >> thank you for refreshing my memory because I didn't think it was just the beginning of this year. Uh the other friendly amendment Mr. chair would be to request that the 15step process also be
part of that motion so we can compare and that would be my friendly amendment to the original amendment just for the sevenst step >> a motion >> Mr. Chair Council >> thank you Mr. Sure. Just question through the M. We already have the 15 steps in front of us, do we not?
>> I will put it into a an yearly salary range. So you can have that >> year. Yes, that's fine. Yearly 75 provide it all. I'd be >> that. Thank you, Council. That was >> just a point of clarification then. Do you want us to use the same min that
we're using with the 15 years or No. Again, I just want clarification. >> I I was going to say to see the seven. I mean, you draw where you think it is, but that's >> and and that's fair. I Okay. I I think that's what we did this with the 15, but
I we'll try to make it work with the seven. So, >> Mr. Mr. Chair, that >> fits perfectly in what I would like to do. >> I would second that. I don't think I can have it for the next meeting to be honest with you. If I'm doing every department, >> I mean, I can focus on the four.
>> I mean, I would like to see the four. That That's my focus is just those four. That's all. I'm happy to go through them all, but right now those four I would like to >> Okay, I I'm hesitant only because >> Mr. Chair, Mr. President, there is no
rush. You make the speed is what you want to work at. We're not telling you we want to you whenever you're done. >> Perfect. >> Come on down. >> Thank you. I just thought you said by the next meeting and I just wanted to make sure that like I don't want any set me up for any type of failure by not >> sure. I know it was floated right
Thursday. Nope. Like do do what you have to do. Let's do it right. Thank you, >> Mr. Mr. Chair. I know I heard there's no rush, but I think for the position >> No, there is a rush. I just don't want to make I just don't want the expectation that I'm sending it down for the next meeting. And if I don't deliver, I just don't want any further
complications. This already >> not the best juuju when it comes to this. I don't want to add any more insult to injury with this if I don't, >> Mr. Chair. >> I can't make it by Thursday. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. I think I'm agreeing with council Vello that the four positions we're looking at would be nice to see first if you have to do
additional work so that we can resolve some of the vacancies that we have in these departments. So I agree with council vello start with the first four if I'm agreeing with you council vello and >> that's what was motion. >> Okay thank you Mr. Chair. >> All right motion was made and seconded.
All in favor? One two three four five that carries. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Mr. Chair, could you just >> restate what that last motion was? >> I'll have council. It was for the It was
to refer back to the mayor with the uh for the definitely for the four positions that we approved the job description this evening that would uh refer back to the mayor that would show the seven steps. >> Yep. The seven steps with the annual >> annual >> annual um salary
>> and not the 15. I mean that we can review them as well. >> We can review those as well. >> Yeah. >> So he's only doing in group C, D, and E and not >> B and G because those positions are in those groups. Yes. I mean again I would
like to prioritize those four positions. So if they're in those groups then >> I was going to say that they all impact each other. So you need to have the salary ordinance as a total package. Sorry.
>> I thought we were ready to go. That's why I shot it. >> I will. With that, I will entertain a motion. >> Move to >> motion to motion's been made and seconded to adjurnn. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five. We are adjourned
at 8:01 p.m.