Council heard an Evergreen Solutions pay study showing city wages lag the market by 4.5% to 6%, and approved a $106,000 Microsoft licensing deal with CDW-G.
13 items on the agenda · 7 decisions recorded
On the agenda
- 1Call to Order – Roll Call▶ 0:00
- 2
Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
▶ Jump to 0:21 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:21] Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. [00:00:22] Silence. [00:00:23] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for [00:00:29] which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 3
Moment of Silence
Moment of silence followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
▶ Jump to 0:22 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:22] Silence. [00:00:23] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for [00:00:29] which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 4
Approval of September 18, 2023 Special Meeting and September 19, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes
approvedCouncil approved the minutes from the September 18, 2023 Special Meeting and September 19, 2023 Regular Meeting.
- motion:Motion to approve the September 18, 2023 Special Meeting and September 19, 2023 Regular Meeting minutes. (passed)
▶ Jump to 0:38 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:38] Thank you. [00:00:44] Okay, approval of the September 18th meeting, the special meeting on the 19th, the regular [00:00:54] meeting minutes. [00:00:55] Move for approval. [00:00:56] Do we have a second? [00:00:57] Second. [00:00:58] All those in favor?
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 5
You arrived here from a search for “National Cybersecurity Alliance” — transcript expanded below
Proclamation - Cyber Awareness Month
approvedMayor Chopper Davis read a proclamation designating October as Cybersecurity Awareness Month in the City of New Port Richey, encouraging citizens, businesses, and institutions to promote a safer cyber environment. Network Administrator Nathan Glasgow accepted the proclamation and shared basic cybersecurity best practices.
- proclamation:Proclaim October as Cybersecurity Awareness Month in the City of New Port Richey. (passed)
National Cybersecurity AllianceUnited States Department of Homeland SecurityChopper DavisNathan GlasgowCybersecurity Awareness MonthNational Cybersecurity Awareness Month▶ Jump to 1:00 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:00] Proclamation. [00:01:01] Can you come down, please? [00:01:25] This is the Office of the Mayor's City of New Port Richey Proclamation, whereas the [00:01:28] digital age has brought unprecedented benefits to our society, transforming the way we communicate, [00:01:34] work, learn, and play, while also introducing challenges to our security, and whereas the [00:01:39] City of New Port Richey recognizes the vital role that cybersecurity plays in the continued [00:01:44] prosperity and growth of our community, and whereas maintaining the security of cyberspace [00:01:49] is a shared responsibility for which each individual and organization has a crucial [00:01:54] role to play, and whereas the frequency, scale, and sophistication of cyber threats [00:01:59] continue to rise, targeting our infrastructure, businesses, schools, and homes, and whereas [00:02:04] promoting education and awareness about cyber threats and the steps to protect our information [00:02:09] and digital assets is of utmost importance, and whereas the United States Department of [00:02:15] Homeland Security and the National Cybersecurity Alliance have designated October as National [00:02:21] Cybersecurity Awareness Month, now, therefore, I, Chopper Davis, Mayor of the City of New Port Richey, [00:02:27] do hereby proclaim the month of October as Cybersecurity Awareness Month. [00:02:32] In the City of New Port Richey, I encourage all citizens, businesses, and institutions [00:02:37] to engage in activities that promote a safer and more secure cyber environment. [00:02:42] And I can just say the things that we learned from you, we have no idea what you're telling [00:02:48] us. [00:02:49] But we listen and we do what you ask us to do. [00:02:51] Thank you very much. [00:02:52] Go ahead. [00:02:53] A couple words. [00:02:54] Just to address the council, and if you could talk a little bit about the role Nathan plays [00:03:03] in the organization as well. [00:03:06] Sure. [00:03:07] Thank you, council, and I just really appreciate this. [00:03:10] This is really important to the community, important to the city. [00:03:16] Nathan Glasgow, for those who don't know, is our network administrator. [00:03:20] He's the one that keeps things together and makes sure that cybersecurity is adhered to [00:03:26] and keeps our network up and running. [00:03:30] And I appreciate this, and Nathan, you want to say anything? [00:03:34] I just want to say thank you for the council for taking the month to really taking part [00:03:42] with cybersecurity and making sure that we're following best practices, like make sure you [00:03:46] have secure passwords, verifying the peers who's emailing you, make sure to click on [00:03:51] random links, and then just make sure you're doing Windows updates, very basic things that [00:03:55] everybody can continue doing moving forward in the community and also at the city. [00:03:59] Thank you. [00:04:00] All those in attendance must be respectful of others' opinions and refrain from making
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 6Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 4:24
- 7.a
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - August 2023
approvedon consentCouncil approved the consent agenda, which included acceptance of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from August 2023.
- motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda including the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board August 2023 minutes. (passed)
▶ Jump to 29:42 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:29:46] With the consent agenda, we move for approval. [00:29:49] Move for approval. [00:29:51] Second. [00:29:53] Do we have any public input on that, [00:29:54] or council input on that? [00:29:57] All right, all those in favor?
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 7.b
Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval
approvedon consentCouncil approved the consent agenda item for purchases/payments requiring City Council approval without discussion.
- motion:Motion to approve the purchases/payments for City Council approval as part of the consent agenda. (passed)
▶ Jump to 29:42 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:29:46] With the consent agenda, we move for approval. [00:29:49] Move for approval. [00:29:51] Second. [00:29:53] Do we have any public input on that, [00:29:54] or council input on that? [00:29:57] All right, all those in favor?
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.a
Presentation by Evergreen Solutions LLC RE: General Employee Classification and Compensation Study Results
discussedRob Williamson of Evergreen Solutions LLC presented results of a General Employee Classification and Compensation Study for non-union city employees. The study found New Port Richey is approximately 6% behind market at minimum salary and 4.5% at midpoint, and recommended a 'hybrid parity' implementation approach costing approximately 5.6% of payroll ($456,051 one-time adjustment). The presentation was informational with Council asking clarifying questions about methodology and market peers.
Evergreen Solutions LLCPasco CountyRob Williamson30-year parity pay planClass parity methodologyGeneral Employee Classification and Compensation StudyHybrid parity implementation methodology▶ Jump to 30:01 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:30:08] Evergreen Solutions LLC General Employment Classification and [00:30:14] Compensation Study Results. Yes, sir. Honorable Mayor, members of the City [00:30:19] Council, I have asked Rob Williamson, who's moving ahead this evening and [00:30:29] present now before you, who serves as the project manager with Evergreen Solutions [00:30:36] LLC, to come and make a presentation before you this evening related to the [00:30:44] classification and compensation study that was conducted on the general [00:30:51] employees of the city. This study was commissioned in the beginning of the [00:30:59] fiscal year, and we have spent much of the year putting it together. Evergreen [00:31:07] is the company that we worked with on the police compensation study. They are [00:31:13] very well respected for their work in public compensation studies, and I'm [00:31:21] going to let Rob kick it off and tell a little bit about the city's compensation [00:31:28] philosophy that we initiated the study with and how we got through the study [00:31:36] and our recommendation for an implementation strategy to go forward [00:31:42] with the results of the study. Good evening. It's good to be with you. This is [00:31:51] special for me. I grew up 30 miles down the road. I was born in Tampa, and I grew [00:31:56] up in Seminole, and my mom used to have an antique shop in Palm Harbor, and my [00:32:00] best friend lived in Hudson right up the road, and so like this is kind of like [00:32:03] coming home for me. So to have the opportunity to be of service here is [00:32:08] pretty cool. You know, I'm in 11 different states now, so having the opportunity to [00:32:15] work in a place that I know and feel very strongly about is pretty cool. So [00:32:19] thank you very much for that. So we've got some good results that we think to [00:32:23] share with you tonight, but before I get to that, I just want to say you've got a [00:32:27] heck of a team here. You really do, and they asked a lot of tough questions. They [00:32:32] challenged the results, and we feel like we have a very defensible [00:32:37] recommendations to bring to you tonight, and so we'll go through that. The [00:32:40] PowerPoint presentation, I'll take maybe 10 minutes, 15 minutes to go through the [00:32:44] slide deck. You can stop me, obviously, at any point along the way to do that if you [00:32:49] have any questions. You know, the agenda is pretty straightforward. We're going to [00:32:53] talk a little bit about the process and that aforementioned compensation [00:32:56] philosophy, and then we've got some different numbers that we want to show [00:33:00] you, and ultimately we'll end up with the slide that everybody wants to see, [00:33:03] which is how much is this going to cost us if we recommend or implement what [00:33:07] you're recommending. It started back with a kickoff call. The process has been the [00:33:11] same for this as we did for the study with the police. It is very much [00:33:16] involved with your team. It is a very collaborative process. I came here on [00:33:20] site to do in-person outreach sessions. I think we're right here in this very room [00:33:24] with a table set up here. I did orientation sessions with your staff, and [00:33:28] basically you hired us to do four key things. You hired us to survey your [00:33:33] employees, to survey the market, to take that data and put it together, and then [00:33:38] to report on it as I'm doing here for you tonight. To revise the pay plan, [00:33:44] ultimately what we're trying to get to is a pay plan that is fair and [00:33:47] competitive. Fair internally and competitive externally, and we [00:33:52] prioritize the market position over the internal equity. So trying to focus in on [00:33:58] making sure that your market competitive in what has been, over the [00:34:01] course of the last 24 months, maybe one of the most rapidly changing, moving, and [00:34:05] competitive labor markets in this nation's history. So your compensation [00:34:09] philosophy, as I said, we want to be competitive to the market. We want to [00:34:12] make sure that it's fair, flexible, but we also want to make sure that we [00:34:15] understand there's a price tag associated with this. It's got to be [00:34:18] fiscally responsible. Open range pay plan provides additional flexibility to slot [00:34:23] employees into the plan, but it also allows you the flexibility to hire folks [00:34:27] who have experience outside of the city and place them within the plan [00:34:31] competitively, and then we're going to move employees based on their overall [00:34:35] time with the city and their performance. This is a slide that I wanted to put in [00:34:41] there and show you because this is related to the participation, which quite [00:34:46] frankly was next level for your team and your employees. We typically get [00:34:51] 75%. The national average is, you know, we consider that pretty good response [00:34:57] rate. Well, you're up at 82% of all employees and we captured almost 90% of [00:35:03] all of your job classifications. What the heck does that mean to you? That means we [00:35:07] have a very defensible set of recommendations to make on the [00:35:11] classification side. So a couple of slides that I put in relative to the [00:35:16] private sector and the public sector. We all know that the private sector [00:35:21] typically leads the public sector, so post-COVID environment, private sector's [00:35:25] throwing money at people trying to get them hired. And you see that we had a [00:35:30] pretty significant increase in the wage line and the trend line change there, and [00:35:34] it started to level out a little bit. The latest numbers from the Department of [00:35:37] Labor, which is where these two graphs are derived from, things are living off a [00:35:42] little bit in the private sector. But if you look at the public sector, since the [00:35:47] middle of 2021, it's been going up. And if I were to take that slide out to the [00:35:51] next set of quarterly data that we've received, it continues to go up. 4.9% in [00:35:56] labor, 5.1 in wages. So we have not topped out yet. Why is this important? If [00:36:03] you're not staying competitive with the market, you're going to have turnover. [00:36:07] You're going to have vacancies. You're going to have difficulty getting an [00:36:10] acceptable pool of applicants to fill positions. You're going to have a [00:36:13] difficult time retaining and recruiting the next generation of talent. Bottom [00:36:17] line, prices are going up, wages are going up, benefits are going up. So when [00:36:23] we surveyed the market, we had 16 of 20 of the approved market peers that are [00:36:29] listed there on your right that we went out to market to compare the city of [00:36:34] New Port Richey to. We based this on, first of all, we asked your project [00:36:38] leadership team, who should we be comparing to? Then the orientation [00:36:42] sessions. We asked staff and the focus groups, as well as looking at what are [00:36:47] like-sized cities maybe for population, growth rate, things of that nature, size [00:36:52] of the organization, to try to get a mix where we'd have some on the lower end of [00:36:56] the range, some on the higher end of the range, but basically trying to, you'll [00:36:59] hear this word often, get a defensible data set for you. We ended up with 80 [00:37:04] benchmark classifications, and we adjusted for cost of living for any of [00:37:09] those areas that might fall outside of the immediate region to make sure we [00:37:13] could get a valid comparison. Overall, if you average all those 80 benchmark [00:37:18] classifications together, at the minimum, you're at 6% behind the market at the [00:37:25] minimum. Why is the minimum important? Well, when you go to post a job, that [00:37:28] minimum starting salary, that's where that minimum comes from. So overall, as an [00:37:32] organization, some were higher, some were lower, but overall, all 80 of those [00:37:36] classifications averaged together to place you 6% behind the market at the [00:37:40] minimum. The midpoint is important because you have folks, and we heard this [00:37:45] at outreach, you'll have folks get hired, you'll get them trained up, they'll get [00:37:48] the necessary certifications or licensure, and then they'll go down the [00:37:52] road for another couple dollars an hour, or another dollar an hour. And so it's [00:37:56] very important in a competitive labor market that you are protecting those [00:37:59] tenured employees, those ones that you invested a lot of time and money in [00:38:03] training, and oftentimes you're paying for the certification they might be [00:38:08] getting. You want to make sure that you're protecting those in the middle of [00:38:11] your pay plan, and you're about 4.5% to 5% behind market at the [00:38:15] midpoint. So a little vulnerable. Believe me, we see a lot worse than this. So [00:38:20] Council has done an excellent job of trying to maintain a competitive position [00:38:24] in the marketplace. I had a presentation a couple of weeks ago where they were [00:38:28] more than 20% behind market. That was a much different conversation for that [00:38:32] board. So the key considerations, no employees are recommended for a decrease [00:38:37] as a result of the study. I'm going to talk to you a little bit about our [00:38:40] implementation recommendation, what we call hybrid parity in a moment. As I said, [00:38:46] it was a collaborative process, and these costs are adjusted for cost of living. [00:38:51] They're base salary adjusted for cost of living, and they're obviously not you [00:38:55] need to write a check now costs. All right, these are throughout the fiscal [00:38:59] year. We recommend that, and basically the way we do our pay plans is we [00:39:07] first want to get your job classifications, your job titles, we want [00:39:11] to get those moved into competitive pay ranges. And then we take the employees [00:39:16] that occupy those job titles, and we move them within those new market competitive [00:39:23] pay ranges. So we do that with a different methodologies. We have one [00:39:28] called class parity that would move employees into their new pay range based [00:39:32] on the time that they've been in their current job. We have another one that [00:39:36] would move them into their pay range based on the overall time that they've [00:39:39] spent here with the city regardless of the job they've been in. Or the one that [00:39:43] we're recommending, which is a hybrid, it's a blend of the two. We're going to [00:39:47] give employees 100% credit for the time that they've spent in their current job, [00:39:50] and then we're going to give them 25% credit for any remaining time that [00:39:55] they've spent with the city regardless of the job that they've been in. Trying [00:39:59] to solve one of the key issues that you have, which is wage compression, which a [00:40:04] lot of our clients are experiencing around the United States, because you [00:40:08] have to hire folks in to fill a position for what the market will pay today. So I [00:40:13] might, you know, get hired and make 18 bucks an hour, and I'm working with [00:40:17] somebody that has the same job title as me that's been there six years with the [00:40:21] city, and they're making 18 bucks an hour. So we're looking for a way to try [00:40:25] to correct some of that wage compression by spreading people out [00:40:28] based on that hybrid parity model. These are the costs, and I put bring-to-minimum [00:40:35] up there on the slide as well. That bring-to-minimum cost is included in the [00:40:40] hybrid parity cost, not in addition to. Because the first thing we have to do is [00:40:44] we have to bring employees into their new pay range. We have to at least bring [00:40:48] them to the minimum of their new pay range, and then we move them based on [00:40:54] their years of service, time and classification, and time overall with the [00:40:59] city. The base salary adjusted for cost of living come in at around 5.6% of [00:41:04] payroll. One-time adjustment $456,051. [00:41:13] Next steps for us, we need to make sure that you have legally compliant job [00:41:18] descriptions, and that the essential functions that we identified in the [00:41:21] employee survey accurately match the job descriptions that you have. So we're [00:41:26] going to update all the job descriptions you have. That's part of the deliverables [00:41:29] here in the engagement. We're also going to work with your team on training them [00:41:32] how to properly maintain the system moving forward, which they're becoming [00:41:36] more and more familiar with as we continue to work together. And then we're [00:41:39] going to write a book for you. We're basically going to write chapters on [00:41:43] everything we've done in the key deliverables, from the outreach, to the [00:41:47] market survey, to the recommendations, to an assessment of current conditions. We're [00:41:51] going to write chapters on all of those and present you with a draft and then [00:41:54] ultimately a final report to memorialize everything we've done, make it [00:41:59] transparent to where anyone and everyone can look at the study findings and what [00:42:03] you've hired us to do for you. And I know that was a lot of information pretty [00:42:07] quickly, but that that's all we've got for the slide deck. And so I'd be happy [00:42:13] to answer any questions that a Mayor or Council may have. [00:42:16] Rob, I think you should mention something about why some employees won't [00:42:21] be losing money, but they won't be gaining money. Yeah, I mean, look, [00:42:27] everybody's not getting a new car as a result of this. Not everybody's getting a [00:42:31] raise and it's you get a car, you get a car, right? That's not how it works. [00:42:33] Because, just think of the example that I gave a few moments ago, where maybe I [00:42:38] just started here and I'm making 18 bucks an hour and that's a competitive [00:42:42] wage. That's what you had to pay me to get me in the door and fill the position. [00:42:45] Well, if I'm already paid a competitive wage, we might move me into the new [00:42:51] market competitive pay range, but I might already be paid ahead of market or at [00:42:57] market. So there'd be no reason to give me an additional adjustment. But that [00:43:01] employee that's been here, like I said, maybe five or six years, maybe they're [00:43:05] making 18 bucks an hour, but really they should have progressed in their range to [00:43:09] where they should be making $20 an hour or $21 an hour. That employee may be [00:43:13] recommended for a raise, but the other employee that's already ahead of where [00:43:18] hybrid parity would place them would not be recommended for a raise. Bottom line, [00:43:23] it's not about picking winners and losers. It's not about personalities or [00:43:26] performance. It's about the methodology tells you where we're going to place an [00:43:31] employee into the new competitive pay ranges that we've established for you. [00:43:37] Is that roughly, when you're talking about the hybrid number, I think it was 114, is that [00:43:41] pretty much half of our, you know, our employees that are mixed into that [00:43:47] hybrid number that you think needs to be worked? I think it's a little bit more [00:43:52] than that. I'm not understanding the question. Well, it seems, I think we have [00:43:57] somewhere around 235 employees. No, we're only representing the general employees, [00:44:02] which are the non-union employees. So that's the 185 or something? It also [00:44:06] includes department heads and the district chiefs. Okay, well I was looking [00:44:14] and I'm just asking the numbers because I think I saw 185 or somewhere [00:44:17] that, is that the number we're dealing with? It's probably about 185. Yeah, and then the hybrid was like [00:44:21] 114, so that means that there's roughly 114 over 185, whatever that number is. [00:44:28] Yeah, so. Yeah, whatever that, that's the percent of the people that we're going to [00:44:32] have to probably help with their wages. Is that, am I getting this correctly? [00:44:36] There's probably about 40 people of the total that are already above market. [00:44:43] Right. Okay, well that's. And the remaining are recommended for increases. Okay, okay, well that's close enough. [00:44:49] And then the one other question I had, when you take 18 different cities in [00:44:57] the area. [00:45:00] There are gonna be cities that are more fluid [00:45:02] than the cities, and there's gonna be some cities [00:45:05] that are more on the lower end of scale. [00:45:09] Do you end up taking some of the top two or three out [00:45:11] and the bottom two or three out and work with the, [00:45:13] let's say there's 18, do you take the top two or three [00:45:15] and the bottom two or three and work with that [00:45:17] middle and the middle, or do you still include [00:45:20] the fluid ones and the non-fluid ones? [00:45:25] I mean, you know. [00:45:26] Well, I wanna try to give you, [00:45:28] see if I can answer this correctly. [00:45:32] We don't just arbitrarily remove market peers. [00:45:35] We have data, and we've collected that data, [00:45:38] and we don't decide on our own, hey, [00:45:40] we think this one's too high or too low, [00:45:42] so we're gonna throw that one out. [00:45:43] There has to be a defensible reason for it, [00:45:45] and I'll give you an example. [00:45:47] Pasco County is on your list, and so if we were [00:45:50] to compare the, let's say the finance director [00:45:54] for Pasco County with the finance director here, [00:45:58] I think you would see that that might not necessarily [00:46:01] be an apples-to-apples comparison with the level [00:46:03] of complexity, the number of employees, [00:46:05] the size of the budget they're dealing with, [00:46:08] all of those things. [00:46:09] Okay, I understand that one, but I'm gonna take it [00:46:11] to another level. [00:46:12] Let's say there's this town that's called XYZ, [00:46:16] and XYZ has a property value property [00:46:21] that's maybe 20 or 30% higher than us, [00:46:23] so there's another tax bracket that those people [00:46:26] are all in that doesn't match ours, [00:46:28] so I just wondered if they're included in it, too. [00:46:30] If you'll allow, just to finish, [00:46:33] he was just about to make the point for you. [00:46:35] Okay, okay. [00:46:36] Well, I mean, we do adjust for cost of living, [00:46:41] so I mean, that is factored into it, [00:46:44] to try to get to more of a apples-to-apples comparison, [00:46:47] if you will, but I mean, I'm not quite. [00:46:51] Another thing, if you'll allow me. [00:46:52] Sure. [00:46:54] We did use comp data in the majority of the communities. [00:47:00] We did, though, add, I think there were two [00:47:03] or three communities that you couldn't consider [00:47:06] to be a comp, like Pasco County. [00:47:09] They're too much different than we are, [00:47:13] but they're someone that we compete with directly. [00:47:17] They cherry-pick our employees, [00:47:20] so we put them in because we want [00:47:25] their wage information to be reflected [00:47:30] in our market data so that we have a standing chance [00:47:33] of keeping some of our employees. [00:47:36] That answers my, you know. [00:47:38] Right, that's what I think you're looking for. [00:47:40] Yeah, exactly, because I thought, [00:47:41] like, if you've got some XYZ that's, like, [00:47:44] you know, way out there, but I understand [00:47:45] why you're trying to keep Pasco out of it. [00:47:47] Okay. [00:47:48] Again, we want to try to make it as defensible as we can. [00:47:52] You know, if you throw in outliers, [00:47:53] you know, it may make people feel good, [00:47:55] but it's not a true representation of your market, [00:47:58] and we feel as though the peers that we used [00:48:01] and the data that we received, [00:48:03] which is a very robust data set, [00:48:05] that we feel like it does accurately reflect [00:48:08] where you're at, you know, 6% behind at the minimum [00:48:10] and right around 4 1⁄2 at the midpoint. [00:48:13] Okay. [00:48:15] So, Rob, yeah, thank you. [00:48:18] Nice presentation, by the way, and it's very timely. [00:48:22] Going back to your, you know, the model [00:48:24] that you're suggesting, the algorithmic parity, [00:48:27] it made sure I just, in my mind, had this right. [00:48:30] So, you know, we look at a particular job [00:48:33] and job requirements and establish a pay rate [00:48:38] for that particular job, correct, that job classification. [00:48:42] And that is, from what I understand, [00:48:46] was the majority of what the pay would be analyzed with, [00:48:52] but also, if someone has been in that position [00:48:56] or been within the organization [00:48:59] for a longer period of time, [00:49:01] there's a little bit of buffer, [00:49:02] a little bit of bump on that. [00:49:03] Am I reading that right? [00:49:05] Yeah, and I mean, I'll give you an example. [00:49:07] Let's say that I've been working for the city [00:49:11] for 10 years, and for two of those years, [00:49:15] I have been, you know, a administrative assistant, okay? [00:49:21] Or we'll say I've been an office manager. [00:49:25] So, I'm gonna get two years of credit [00:49:28] for being an office manager. [00:49:29] That's my current position that I'm in. [00:49:31] Then I'm gonna get 25% credit for those remaining eight years [00:49:36] that I've been, maybe I was an administrative assistant. [00:49:39] I was in a different role, [00:49:40] whatever I was doing for the city. [00:49:42] So, for those other eight years, [00:49:45] you've got two years there, [00:49:46] so I would add the two tenure years, [00:49:50] the 25% to the two class years, [00:49:52] and I would have a total of four hybrid years. [00:49:55] We base our plan on a 30-year career, a 30-year parity. [00:50:01] So, from a minimum to the maximum, [00:50:04] we would move that person four years of a 30-year parity. [00:50:08] So, they'd be moved into that new range, [00:50:10] basically four years worth. [00:50:13] To learn the percentage of that, [00:50:14] not to get too in the weeds, [00:50:15] you'd take the four and divide it by the 30 [00:50:18] to get what the percentage is, [00:50:19] and that's the percentage that you would move them. [00:50:21] So, it does give them, it does give credit [00:50:25] for the time that they've spent in their current job, [00:50:28] but it also does value a little bit of the time [00:50:30] that they've spent overall with the city. [00:50:34] I hope that answered your question. [00:50:35] Yeah, no, it does. [00:50:36] It kind of, you did explain it a lot better [00:50:39] than I could explain it, but I get it. [00:50:41] Well, we do this stuff all the time, [00:50:42] so I realize this is kind of new for y'all. [00:50:44] You know, I employ seven people myself [00:50:48] and encounter the same issues [00:50:51] about bringing new talent in, [00:50:53] that you want to be, you know, [00:50:55] have the proper talent and skills and so forth, [00:50:57] and then, you know, you sit them down [00:50:59] to the next someone that's worked for you for years [00:51:03] and handling the same job, [00:51:05] and it's, you know, the feelings of, [00:51:06] well, gee whiz, I've been here, [00:51:07] you know, they're getting the same pay as I'm getting, [00:51:09] because, but I've been here for longer and so forth. [00:51:11] So, we've got to remain competitive, [00:51:16] and the problem we have here is, you know, [00:51:20] we have a smaller city, so our department heads [00:51:22] might have a smaller number of employees [00:51:26] they're responsible for than maybe department heads [00:51:28] in larger cities or in, like, the counties, per se. [00:51:31] So, I appreciate some of the cities that you picked [00:51:33] that were more, you know, close to our size, [00:51:36] but even at the point, being where we are, [00:51:40] we compete not only at Pasco County, [00:51:42] but we compete with the city of Clearwater, [00:51:46] we compete with the city of Tampa. [00:51:51] Now, sometimes, you know, the employees [00:51:54] that choose to do that might live here, [00:51:57] and they have a longer commute, [00:51:58] that's a cost they endure, [00:52:00] they might pick up and move, cost of living is there, [00:52:04] they have to take that into consideration there. [00:52:07] But we have to remain competitive, [00:52:13] because, you know, our city has done well, [00:52:17] and to do well, it takes strong, it takes talent. [00:52:21] And to retain, to keep, to acquire and maintain talent, [00:52:27] you know, everybody wants to, they love New Port Richey, [00:52:32] and want to be a part of it, [00:52:33] but they got to feed their families, too. [00:52:35] So, we don't want to lose people [00:52:40] who really want to be here, [00:52:42] but they just can't be here [00:52:43] because we can't be competitive. [00:52:45] And so, I think this is an important study [00:52:47] and a great step for us to be, to get where we need to be. [00:52:52] Well, you're spot on, you know, [00:52:54] trying to retain talent [00:52:55] is getting more and more difficult all the time. [00:52:57] But like I tell all my clients, turnover is expensive. [00:53:01] You know, so if you're not retaining folks, [00:53:03] you know, typically the average for an hourly employee, [00:53:06] the cost of turnover is 50% of the annual salary [00:53:09] for that employee that you replace. [00:53:11] And if we're talking about management, [00:53:13] supervisors, directors, those folks that are at the midpoint, [00:53:16] those more tenured employees [00:53:17] that are starting to get into leadership, [00:53:19] the average is one and a half times their annual salary [00:53:22] is the cost to replace them. [00:53:24] And the market that you are in, you are right, [00:53:26] it is incredibly competitive. [00:53:28] And you were going up against some folks [00:53:31] that have a much different revenue outlook. [00:53:34] They can be much more competitive. [00:53:35] And if they have a need, quite honestly, [00:53:38] they can put whatever salary they want behind it [00:53:40] to fill that need. [00:53:41] And so, you are in a unique position. [00:53:44] And if you want to make sure that your employees [00:53:48] can provide the level of service [00:53:49] to meet the expectations of your constituents, [00:53:52] you got to be competitive. [00:53:54] The do nothing option is no longer an option for you. [00:53:58] Well, I see our city employees that we have, [00:54:01] they work hard and they're dedicated [00:54:03] and they like being part of the team. [00:54:05] But I also know there's a lot of expectation of them. [00:54:09] We're not a slack employer. [00:54:13] If you're going to come work for the city, [00:54:14] you're going to work hard, you're going to be part of the team [00:54:16] and you're going to do well. [00:54:19] And we hope we want to pay a competitive price for that. [00:54:21] And your hard work will be rewarded [00:54:23] as far as being part of the team. [00:54:25] If you can't work hard and you're just here for the money, [00:54:28] then maybe that's why you can't, you know, [00:54:32] you got to be here, you got to be an all-star. [00:54:34] That's what we want and that's all we're looking for. [00:54:38] They talked about that when I was here for outreach [00:54:40] and they welcomed those expectations. [00:54:42] But it was mentioned around the table [00:54:44] that they know that, you know, [00:54:45] there's a higher level of expectations here [00:54:47] and they want to be a part of that, [00:54:48] which I thought was kind of neat. [00:54:52] I'll be looking forward to the report when it's complete. [00:54:57] Yes, sir. [00:54:58] So I just have one question. [00:55:00] You have, you know, the implementation options [00:55:06] bringing to minimum, does that necessarily mean [00:55:10] that they'll be getting a raise or it could mean that they're? [00:55:14] That's a good question. [00:55:15] Yes, you'd have 85 employees [00:55:18] that would be getting some type of adjustment. [00:55:21] They'd be getting some type of increase [00:55:22] over the salary that they have currently. [00:55:25] And the average would be 3,000 is the side, [00:55:30] but that is, you know, it runs the gamut [00:55:33] from slightly more than that [00:55:35] all the way down to maybe $200. [00:55:38] It all depends here again [00:55:39] on the current classification they're in [00:55:42] just to bring them in the minimum of their range. [00:55:44] The hybrid parity now, [00:55:46] that's where it starts factoring in [00:55:48] the length of service that they've had. [00:55:51] And it's the same thing. [00:55:52] You'd have 114 of those general employees, [00:55:54] general government employees [00:55:55] that would be recommended for an adjustment. [00:55:59] Okay. [00:56:00] Well, obviously there'd be more, [00:56:01] there's more in that category [00:56:02] that would be recommended for adjustment. [00:56:06] I don't know. [00:56:06] I'm just thinking if you just did the minimum, [00:56:08] you still got a lot of people [00:56:09] that still haven't got adjusted to where they should be. [00:56:13] Well, and that's a great question, [00:56:15] but that shouldn't be the case. [00:56:18] And it shouldn't have been an expensive price tag [00:56:21] for you really, [00:56:21] because if you looked the, you know, [00:56:24] you were only at the 60th percentile of the market, [00:56:27] which is slightly ahead of like middle of the market [00:56:31] at the 60th percentile, [00:56:33] you're only 4%, 4.5% behind market at the midpoint. [00:56:36] I said, this council's done a pretty good job overall. [00:56:39] You've got some positions [00:56:41] that need to be adjusted more than others, right? [00:56:44] But overall, you know, it's like I said, [00:56:46] it's not 18 to 20% behind market, [00:56:49] but you're only looking at adjusting those employees [00:56:53] that are not in a competitive market position. [00:56:58] So some of your salary ranges [00:57:00] won't need to move six or 7% to the right. [00:57:03] They might only be moving 3% to be market competitive. [00:57:08] Okay. [00:57:09] All right, thank you. [00:57:10] Yeah. [00:57:11] Just one other question. [00:57:11] This is a great look at what we're doing here. [00:57:15] How often or how long ago do we do it [00:57:18] and how often we review? [00:57:20] Do it every three years. [00:57:21] Three years? [00:57:22] And we did it three years ago. [00:57:23] Oh, okay. [00:57:25] All right. [00:57:26] Yeah, in this market, you know, [00:57:27] three years for a market only study, you know, [00:57:31] the full blown comp and classification study [00:57:34] like we did for you here, [00:57:35] and I'm talking myself out of a little bit of money, [00:57:37] but that should be probably every five years. [00:57:39] Because really your job titles, you know, [00:57:41] they might vary a little bit, [00:57:43] but not to the degree that you would need [00:57:44] to pay a consultant to come in [00:57:46] and tell you that, hey, [00:57:48] you haven't really changed anything. [00:57:49] Right? [00:57:50] So, but the market piece to stay competitive with market, [00:57:53] yeah, Debbie's right. [00:57:54] You're probably going to want to be taking a look [00:57:56] at that every three years. [00:57:57] And I do have to report to you [00:57:59] that we did not work with Evergreen [00:58:01] when we completed the study three years ago. [00:58:03] It was not near as comprehensive [00:58:05] as the work we've done this time. [00:58:10] Thank you. [00:58:11] Anybody else? [00:58:13] Thank you for the business. [00:58:14] Very much. [00:58:15] We're grateful. [00:58:16] Like I said, we don't take that for granted. [00:58:17] Thank you. [00:58:19] We're looking forward to being our reading material. [00:58:22] Yeah, you'll have a lot. [00:58:23] If you're having trouble sleeping, just start. [00:58:24] Well, you said something about a book, [00:58:25] so I just thought, you know. [00:58:28] Thank you. [00:58:30] Hey, next is a board reappointment of John Gray. [00:58:35] Daniel, are you looking for something? [00:58:37] Mr. Mayor, I need you, [00:58:39] if it's your choice, [00:58:42] to make a motion in favor of supporting [00:58:45] the hybrid parity method of implementation [00:58:49] so that we can go forward [00:58:50] with the completion of our work [00:58:53] and establish the final report. [00:59:00] Do I have a move for approval? [00:59:02] Before you accept that, [00:59:04] Mr. Mayor, you might want to open it up to the public. [00:59:06] Okay. [00:59:08] Do we have any public comment on this? [00:59:13] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back. [00:59:15] I was wondering if we could get approval [00:59:18] on exactly what Debbie said [00:59:20] instead of us trying to repeat it. [00:59:21] Yeah. [00:59:22] Well, I'll make a motion to approve [00:59:25] the utilization of the hybrid method [00:59:27] in determining the final report. [00:59:30] Okay. [00:59:31] Recommendation. [00:59:32] Second. [00:59:32] And we have a couple seconds. [00:59:34] All those in favor? [00:59:35] Aye. [00:59:36] Aye. [00:59:37] Those opposed? [00:59:38] Four zip. [00:59:39] All right, moving on to the next item.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.b
Board Re-Appointments: John Grey and Daniel Maysilles, Land Development Review Board
approvedCouncil reappointed John Grey and Daniel Maysilles to the Land Development Review Board. Their previous terms expired September 1, 2023, and the new terms will run through September 1, 2026.
- motion:Motion to approve the reappointments of John Grey and Daniel Maysilles to the Land Development Review Board for terms expiring September 1, 2026. (passed)
▶ Jump to 59:41 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:59:41] No comments. [00:59:44] Board reappointments. [00:59:48] We have two board reappointments [00:59:51] in front of you this evening, [00:59:52] both relating to the Land Development Review Board. [00:59:56] We have Mr. John Gray and Mr. [01:00:00] Daniel Maseus and the board appointment for Mr. it looks like both of their terms expired [01:00:14] on September 1st, 2023. [01:00:19] So therefore, if you determine that we should renew both of their memberships, they will [01:00:26] span through 2026, September 1st. [01:00:32] And they both serve as valuable members to the board. [01:00:36] I would move we approve. [01:00:38] Second. [01:00:39] All those in favor? [01:00:40] Open it up to the public as well. [01:00:42] Okay, we have a first and a second, but do we have any public comment on those gentlemen? [01:00:48] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for approval. [01:00:50] All those in favor? [01:00:51] Aye. [01:00:52] Aye. [01:00:53] Those opposed? [01:00:54] The floor is zipped. [01:00:56] Moving on to the approval of the agreement with CDW-GLLC for Microsoft leasing.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.c
Approval of Agreement w/CDW-G LLC for Microsoft Licensing
approvedCouncil approved a three-year enterprise agreement with CDW-G LLC in the amount of $106,000 for Microsoft licensing covering Office products, email, Teams, and OneDrive. Staff selected CDW-G as the lowest-priced of three reseller partners solicited.
- motion:Move for approval of the requested purchase from CDW-G LLC for Microsoft licensing. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:01:01 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:01:05] I'm sorry, I can't hear. [01:01:12] That's okay. [01:01:15] This agenda item relates to the Microsoft licensing that the city uses, and the specific [01:01:30] request is to enter into a three-year agreement with CDWG in the amount of $106,000. [01:01:44] And Mr. Robert Green will tell you a little bit about the system. [01:01:49] Thank you. [01:01:56] Thank you. [01:01:58] So every three years, we have to renew our enterprise agreement with Microsoft, and that's [01:02:06] for our licensing for our Microsoft Office products, like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. [01:02:15] Also email, Teams, OneDrive, some of those features. [01:02:22] So every three years, there's an agreement that you have with Microsoft, but then you [01:02:26] can go out to purchase it. [01:02:30] You can go directly to Microsoft, but you can also go through a partner reseller, and [01:02:36] we looked at three different partners. [01:02:40] CDWG was the cheapest based off of the licensing structure, and so basically, I'm looking for [01:02:51] approval from the council to enter into an agreement with CDWG to obtain the licensing [01:02:58] for the next three years. [01:03:02] Do we have any public comment on that? [01:03:06] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for approval. [01:03:08] Can I ask a question, Mayor? [01:03:13] Sure. [01:03:17] So what we're purchasing here is licensing, right? [01:03:21] Correct. [01:03:22] And so I'm having a hard time understanding why there would be a cost difference between [01:03:27] whether directly to Microsoft or a reseller and other resellers. [01:03:30] I mean, is there a service that comes with that? [01:03:34] I mean, what do you get from buying it from ABC to CDW, for example? [01:03:42] So just like anything you buy, everybody has to make a profit. [01:03:47] So essentially, some people put a higher price on a particular license or maybe an additional [01:03:53] service with that. [01:03:55] And so when you're shopping around, you want to provide all the vendors with the same type [01:04:03] of licensing and what features you want with that licensing. [01:04:08] And when I was soliciting these particular vendors, I provided them all three the same [01:04:16] information on the licensing, and the prices were obviously a little bit different. [01:04:23] Interesting. [01:04:24] Okay. [01:04:25] Anybody else? [01:04:30] Move for approval of the requested purchase, CDW GLLC. [01:04:36] I second. [01:04:37] I'll second.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 9Communications▶ 1:04:39
- 10Adjournment▶ 1:27:26