HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-29-1994 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Tuesday, November 29, 1994 - 5:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Hall Administration Meeting Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting/Joint Meeting with Finance Advisory
Committee
1. Roll Call
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
City Councilmembers Jacobs, Moran, Tucker, Wolfe, and Mayor Burger were
present. Staff members present were City Manager Peacock and Finance
Director Shriver.
2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was
properly posted on November 23. The notice of adjournment from the
November 16 Council meeting was properly posted on November 17.
3. Interviews with Applicants for consultant to Negotiate Contract
with saratoga Employees Association
a. Keith Fleming (I.E.D.A) - 5:30 p.m.
Keith Fleming and Austrus Rungus of IEDA proposed a monthly fee for
services of $950 under an 9ngoing contract with a 30 day cancellation
clause. They estimate that it will take between 75-100 hours of time
per year to service the agreement with the City. This would include
training of the City Council in labor relations and a full range of
labor relations services for the City for the fixed price fee.
b. Mar~/Egan (Kay & Stevens) - 6:00 p.m.
Mary Egan of Kay and Stevens proposed billing at $100 an hour with
travel time billed from the Kay and SteVens Palo Alto office. She
indicated she expected the negotiations to be concluded in five to six
more meetings. This would require about 2 hours of preparation time
for each meeting, a briefing for the City Council of about one hour per
session and then the sessions themselves, which she estimates would
last no more than four hours each. This would mean a total of about
7 hours for each session, for a total hourly requirement of 35 to 42
hours. If there is need for legal research, or if the firm is retained
to handle labor relations litigation, that is billed 'at $135-150 per
hour. The basic language for the Memorandum of Understanding is
prepared at the bargaining table with the employee-representatives.
The final product can either be done by City personnel management staff
or by her office at the option of the City.
c. Helene Leichter (Whitmore, Johnson & Bolanos) - 6230 p.m.
Helene Leichter and Dick Whitmore of Whitmore, Johnson and Bolanos
proposed that Ms. Leichter would conduct the bargaining sessions, with
Mr. Whitmore acting as a resource person. The hourly rate for services
would be $145 for Ms. Leichter and $210 for Mr. Whitmore. Mr. Whitmore
estimated that the total time required to finish negotiations would not
exceed 100 hours and most probably would be more likely to take about
40 hours. It is expected that it would take 5 to 6 meetings to
complete the negotiations with the employees. They indicated that
follow up services are provided at the firm's normal rates, and that
they provide advice on labor relations issues on an as needed basis.
In addition, their firm prepares regular newsletters to all clients
keeping them posted on the state of the law and regulations dealing
with labor relations issues. They, too, indicated that the final MOU
could be prepared with their assistance by City staff or could be done
completely by the firm at the option of the City.
4. Status Report from James carey (salar7 Survey Consultant) - 7pm
Jim Carey of Carey and Associates reported on the discussion draft of
the private sector salary survey commissioned by the City Council to
City Council Minutes 2 November 29, 1994
the City Council and the members of the Finance Advisory Committee
subcommittee working on this project, Jim Ousley and Charlene Low.
Mr. Carey reported that, in terms of total cash pay overall for the
jobs surveyed, the City was slight].y above average when compared to
the private sector. In terms of deferred compensation benefits, the
City was more generous than the private sector. The same held true
for non-cash benefits such as leave time and holidays.
Overall, total compensation for Cit]{ employees is about 7% above the
average in the private sector. When non-cash benefits are included,
this number increases to 9%. Mr. Carey then proceeded to discuss the
findings relating to the various jobs surveyed, indicating that there
were wide variances with the private sector depending on the job
surveyed, so that some City jobs had pay levels as much as 40% over
the private sector while others had pay levels more than 40% below the
private sector. In general, his suD~ey. confirmed the basic difference
between public and private sector pay and benefit practices. These are
that less skilled jobs are more highly compensated in the public sector
and management jobs are more highly compensated in the private sector
and that non-cash benefits in the public sector tend to be higher than
in the private sector.
The City Council asked that copies of Mr. Carey's report be provided
to the Council and to the Finance Committee subcommittee. The City
Council also asked that the Council subcommittee and the FAC
subcommittee meet to review the report and report back to the full City
Councilswhether there is a need for Mr. Carey to expand the survey by
contacting more companies or whether the project can be considered
complete at this time.
5. Joint Meeting with Finance Advisory. Committee to consider
proposals by Committee - 7:30 pm
Committee Members present were Low, Ousley, Hilton, Raiswell; Committee
Member absent was Koen.
a. Review of the Committee Charter Resolutlon
Councilmember Moran stated that redoing the legal document is not
necessary. Instead, more time should be spent working together on
determining the assignments the City Council wants the FAC to
undertake.
It was the consensus of the City Council that the current charter
resolution is sufficient. The members of the committee were in
agreement that they are comfortable with the current charter as well.
b. Revision of the Budget Format and Preparation.
It was agreed that the FAC should review the draft budget with the City
Council, especially the basis for the revenue estimates for future
periods. Staff is to have the revenue projections ready for the
committee to review by next May 1st. The budget document is to go to
the Counciland the committee by May 12th, and the budget workshop is
to be held on May 23rd. It was also agreed that the FAC would review
the quarterly financial reports, which are prepared on a cash flow
basis, and report to the City Council its independent view of the
conclusions and opinions contained in the staff analysis.
The committee suggested a mid-year reviewbe conducted on the fourth
Tuesday in January to examine in greater detail the City's financial
status compared to budget. After discussion with the committee and
staff, who indicated that this level of review is now done at the nine
month point rather than the six month point because of the timing of
revenue flow to the City where the third quarter is the largest quarter
in terms of revenue, Council agreed to hold a nine month review session
with the committee on April 25th. The Finance Director is to send her
report and detailed analysis to the Council and the committee by April
14th to give the committee time to review the data and the analysis.
The Council asked the committee to suggest to the staff ways to make
the City's budget document more "user friendly", i. e. easier for the
lay person to understand in terms of the budget process, the terms
City Council Minutes 3 November 29, 1994
used, the format and the presentation of data.
As for examining long term financial issues which may be facing the
City, Mayor Burger indicated that if such issues can be identified and
verified, and the issues are those which the City has the ability to
influence, the Council would encourage the committee to take such a
task on.
There was discussion about the committee proposal for a balanced
general fund budget. The Council indicated that it needed a better
definition of what the committee meant by this concept as opposed to
the current policy and what the consequences would be if applied
prospectively to a budget which has not even begun to be prepared.
There was'also discussion regarding the idea that the 1995-96 budget
should contain an analysis of all the state and federal mandated
programs which are contained in the budget. There was no Council
consensus on this idea. Some members felt that there were other items
of higher priority regarding the budget which required staff attention.
Other members felt that unless the City continually identified these
costs to the general public that cities would never be successful in
getting any mandates repealed or prevent future mandates from appearing
in future year budgets.
The Mayor summarized the action steps to be undertaken as a result of
the joint meeting discussions as follows:
1. Staff to have proposed budget revenue projections ready for the
committee by May 1st for the 1995-97 budget document.
2. FAC to review quarterly cash flow financial reports submitted
to Council and provide independent opinion Of budget status.
3. A nine month budget status review will be held on April 25,
1995.
4. Special studies-
-budget and financial report formats-committee to take a look
at the former.
-computer system design and upgrade-take a'wait and see position
as staff continues to study future needs.
-long term financial issues-examine those the City has the power
to respond to.
5. Staff to provide the data given to Council on unfunded mandates.
Committee to work on this issue as time permits.
6. Selection of Negotiations Consultant.
The City Council discussed the presentations made by the three firms
and concluded that the proposal presented by the IEDA did not fit the
City's present needs. As for the other two firms, there was a majority
preference for Ms. Egan of Kay and Stevens. Councilmember Tucker
agreed to make calls to references, and Vice Mayor Jacobs indicated he
will talk to Mayor Hammer of San Jose, who is one of the references
listed. If the references are positive, then the offer of a contract
would be made to Ms. Egan's firm. If not, and the references on the
other firm are positive, then the offer would be made to the Whitmore
firm.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
H[rr~yR. ~eacock
City Clerk