Springfield City Council — June 14, 2021

0:06 Just FYI, I've got office got a big old head cold that hit me this afternoon, and so if I go off screen, it's so I can go and clear my nose. Understood. All right. Recorded, right? Yeah, perfect. I'm going to call the Sprinkle City Council work session to order with roll call. Mayor Vin Gordon. Here. Councilor Pitts. Here. Moe. Here. Rodley. Here. Stair. Here. Woodrow. Here. And Pictionary. Here. All right, we've got two items tonight. The first item is planning commission interviews and Brenda Jones per with the staff.

0:59 Do we have Brenda or another staff person to take this? We do We do have Brenda. She's on her way. Okay. Then we'll pause for station identification. Can you hear me now? Yes, ma'am. Oh, sorry about that. Well, Mayor and councilors, tonight we have two at the item of planning commission interviews, we have two applicants. One is Grace Bergen, who is reapplying for an additional term, and the second one is Andrew Buck, a new applicant.

1:46 Okay. I Does anybody have any questions before we bring them up for the interviews with two applicants? I'll just ask the questions for both sets, so we don't have to try and navigate the round robin, and then you guys can take notes. That makes sense. Um, does anybody have any questions? All right, I think we're ready for the first one, Brenda. Hello, Grace. Hey everyone. Um Yes, she is. I would offer to do a little bit of introductions, but uh you know everybody. Yes, I do.

2:32 Thank you for the offer. I'm going to ask the questions tonight, um and everybody else is going to take notes, and then we'll go from there. Um So, what attracted you to apply to the Planning Commission? You know, I thought about this a lot, um because I've served on the Planning Commission for 3 years, so I had to think back to um when I first applied. And this is, you know, what I think I can come up with. Um it is my opinion that each citizen should find how they can best use their passions for the betterment of the community that they live in, whether it's Springfield or um a different community across the country. For me, that's land use, land planning, and the ability to help developers see a piece of property, sort of a diamond in the rough, that they can change into something to add even more value to our

3:17 community. Um which obvious of course adds more value to our citizens. Serving on the Planning Commission, um I have the ability to interpret the statewide planning goals, use my expertise in the field of real estate, um and knowledge of our community as a lifelong resident, to help achieve smart growth. Having people at the table that understand the impact of the decisions that the um and what guidelines we're required to follow and that we're charged with, um is what makes a difference in the big picture for our city. And so, I just I found a passion and I wanted to continue following it and give my gifts uh, elsewhere as well. All right. Thank you. Um, economic development and infrastructure are two major council goals. If you think about how development happens, do you have

4:04 opinions on how costs should be shared between the developers and and the public? Yeah, not being a developer myself, um, I think it's easy to gain a an opinion on this. I think it's a balancing act of not cost burdening the developer, um, if it's something that the public will also enjoy. That way we can still encourage developers to come into our community. Um, like I said, as long as it's something that the public will also enjoy, um, also while looking out for our taxpayers to make sure that the to ensure that profit isn't being made on their backs. Um, our community members deserve infrastructure that works, whether it's roads that are drivable, um, traffic controlled areas that make sense, ease of access and travel for pedestrians and cyclists, and places to enjoy their time

4:51 outdoors with family and friends. So, I think it's a a good mixture of both depending upon, um, what the development is. If you had a magic wand and you had the ability to change Springfield's development code, what would you change? This is a another tough one for me because I do sit on the government governance committee for the um, code rewrite. So, I've been able to see a lot of amazing changes happening. Um, so, one thing that I thought of was not within the code, but the process for our community members, it's very cumbersome. Um, application fees are high and though I realize permits aren't free, they are pretty high, uh, for things that are already allowed. For example, building a fence in other communities in Oregon, it costs $25 for that permit. Um, in ours

5:38 it it does not cost $25. Um, and then ADUs was a an example that, um, I wanted to share. You have to pay a fee to apply to build one when it's already allowed. And then you have to pay another fee for a permit to build it. And so in a time where we're trying to find more availability for ADU buildings, I think this is something that we can look at. But again, I want to applaud the city for the work that we've put into the code development update. That is really what's going to eliminate a lot of red tape and I think we're going to see amazing benefits from that from years to come or for years to come. All right, thank you. How would you like to see the city change in the next 10 years and how do you see the planning commission to

6:24 helping to change the city? This one's unique to me because as a resident of Springfield my whole life, I've already watched the city change tremendously in the time that I've lived here and especially in the last decade and a half. So I do I have several ideas on places that we could focus on. These are the ideas that we've or areas we've talked about before. Glenwood, mid Main Street, not necessarily just downtown, the Thurston area, Mohawk. But my one thing if you would call it that to develop would be along McKenzie River. And not I know it's not just develop but but change. The boat landings that are there, they're designed to drop your boat and go. There aren't places for our citizens to walk along the really beautiful river

7:11 to bike along the rapids or an area to picnic. Very few communities in the country have the luxury of living near a river and we are extremely we have the extremely rare privilege of living between two rivers. And each you've probably all been to both. They're substantially different and we've done great work on the Willamette River. Um the community members near McKenzie River would be served greatly by having a recreational opportunities in this area. It might mean re-zoning of land to make that happen which of course is where the planning commission could come into play. Thank you. Um describe the relationship between the planning commission and the city council and the city staff and the planning commission. Planning commission um is here to make recommendations to you as a city council

7:57 for a final decision regarding land use planning issues, zone change, etc. Um we learn the goals of the city and can help eliminate time by hearing applications and then forwarding on recommendations to you. Because the planning commission members each have a different background from each of you, we might have the opportunity or excuse me, we might think of different questions or unintended consequences um and then you would be able to review those um prior to your final decision. Planning commission can only be successful because of the incredible work that the staff does. Um as regarding that second the second part of the question, planning commission then comes in with different perspective um and a different set of eyes to give feedback on staff reports and we truly

8:42 could not the planning commission truly could not do the work without the excellent staff and staff has always been in my experience um um this on the planning commission thus far has always been really responsive to the ideas and or the questions that we have. Um so I think that it's a really harmonious relationship on both both the first part of the question and the second. What do you think you can contribute planning commission in city government? I will try to not be long-winded on this question. Um my passion um my knowledge in land use and then my experience on planning commission for the past 3 years um have are all things that I can glean from. Um I've been on many different sides when it comes to land use and planning

9:27 and development uh from working with land owners and developers, um advocating on Capitol Hill for citizens, serving on the economic development committee at Oregon Realtors, as well as other committees that have had a direct impact on our city. I also serve the state Realtors Association and the National Realtors Association on each of their committees of what's called the Issues Mobilization Committee, where we hear issues that are happening around our state and across our country, um that are on issues that they are either fighting for or against that I can then bring that knowledge of what other municipalities are battling, um bring back to our city so we can make sure we're ready and armed if that issue comes to us. Um so I'm able to pull from

10:12 that information of of what's happening and and how other areas have um dealt with specific problems. Um one of my favorite things that I've ever done was um at a National Association of Realtors conference a few several years back I attended Smart Growth for the 21st Century. This is something that I think anybody and everybody in land use planning um and city government should sit through. It talks about how we can grow how what the difference is between growing and growing sustainably. And I feel like I can bring the information that was provided in that course to our city to make sure that the growth that we're having, the positive growth, isn't for um just for the moment, but we can sustain it throughout for years and years and generations to come.

10:58 And how do you think the work of the planning commission will improve our community? The planning commission has the great privilege of opening doors to help build an even better community for our citizens. By carefully reviewing the applications put in front of us and applying the planning goals, we can continue momentum that allows for positive growth. We also have the platform in giving direct feedback to staff on things we're hearing from the community, as well as pulling from our experiences on serving on planning commission, on code implementations, projects, etc. Um like for example, the Main Street Safety Project and the code rewrite project are things that we've been able to have um direct impact to help improve our community. Great. Well, thank you so much. We have

11:44 one more interview and then the staff will be in contact. Awesome. Thank you all so much for your time. I really appreciate it and it's great to see every one of you again. Hopefully in person soon. Hopefully. Yes. Thanks, Grace. You. All right, Brenda. I think we are ready for Andrew Buck. Okay. AJ will let him in and then we'll talk after. Thanks.

12:30 Um, so the plan for this evening is I'm going to going to ask all the questions um and council's going to sort of take notes from from here as we do the interview. We just found that it works easier this way with with Zoom interviews. Um, so if you're ready, I'm going to start firing them at you. Excellent. All right. What attracted you to apply to the Planning Commission? Well, uh so for me, I'm personally invested in Springfield, right? I I live here. I do a lot of my work here. Um, raising my family here. And so for me, um it's definitely it's definitely personal. Uh I live out in the Thurston area and in my subdivision, we saw an additional 40 homes go in. But um we only have one

13:17 entrance and exit for over 100 homes out of the subdivision. There's a gravel road that was put in but not finished. Uh that could have been a second for for this this neighborhood. And I And I know there's long-term planning goals, but it really got me curious why wouldn't that have been finished, what went into that, and all of all of those kind of things. And there may be very good reasons, but, um, those re but that process got me curious about how how are we proceeding and how are decisions getting made, um, and how can I can add my perspective to that. Okay, great. Economic development and infrastructure are two major council goals. If you think about how development happens, do you have any

14:02 opinions on how costs should be shared between developers and the public? Yeah, so for me it's always about uh, trying to trying to balance who's benefiting and, you know, the those that are benefiting should share in the costs. So, an example of this is your system development charges. Those are going to be things that, um, the public and and citizens also benefit from as well as developers. So, how do you help the the developers make, uh, some some policies that's going to help them with their with their financial burden, um, without

14:48 passing that all on to the residents and the taxpayers. So, I think it's it's really looking at who's benefiting from this and and how can we spread this so that everybody's got a share in this. Uh, and then that also impacts you know, when you're talking about residential development, you know, the prices the ultimate price of a home cuz developers often pass those charges if they can on to consumers. And so, those are all things to consider when we're looking at at how that happens. And my And my opinions are around trying to balance that. Okay, great. If you had a magic wand and you got the ability to change the Springfield development code, what would you change? So, um

15:33 I think about this from as an insurance professional, I think about this from from that lens, right? So, it needs to be readable, so anybody can pick it up and understand what's going into this. Uh it needs it needs to be reasonable so that you know, it it makes sense to the to the average person and the developer. And then it needs to be predictable. So, for example, in in my world, you know, I think about ordinance and law. If somebody builds a building, uh one of the things that they're going to have to decide is how much ordinance and law coverage they need. If they have a partial loss in that building, in order to figure that out, they're going to need to be able to have some predictability as what's going to be asked to me under the code when I'm

16:20 repairing my building. And and that's true for residential and all of those kind of things. So, we need to make it readable, understandable, and predictable. How would you like to see the city change in the next 10 years and how would you like to see planning commission help uh the change in the city? You know, the the great thing about Springfield is we're already on um a fabulous trajectory. The work that's been done up to this point has really set a stage uh for a lot of value going forward. So, uh some of the obvious areas are out where I live in the Thurston area. Um how do you develop that area

17:05 and and balance that between, you know, commercial, so like restaurants and those kind of things, with residential, which is also needed. And then the same thing in Glenwood. We have an amazing stretch of river that, you know, to me looks like could be utilized in a lot of different ways. And and right now, those are I'm guessing. I don't know cuz I'm not on the planning commission. I'm kind of new to all of this, but I'm guessing that those are issues that are being talked about and looked at. And then as we develop Glenwood, how do we how do we create a situation where a rising tide lifts all boats? So, recently in the Rotary meeting uh that that I was part of, there was a presentation on one possible way that

17:52 Glenwood could look at get developed. And they talked about it being a sister property to Island Park. Well, when I looked at the model they had on the screen and I thought about Island Park, I thought Hmm, there's a mismatch there. And so, how do we bring the community up as a whole? Are thoughts that I have around that. Could you describe the relationship between the planning commission and the city council and then the city council city staff and the planning commission? So, my understanding is that the planning commission's function is really to support and advise the council. So, what we're what we're doing is we're providing you with a perspective and a

18:37 view on issues that are put before us. Um in the in the sense mostly in the sense of land use and and other things. So, we really are in an advisory stand in an advisory role to you guys helping you guys kind of map out different options. Um and in terms of the relationship for the planning commission and the and the staff uh the most honest answer I can give is that I see it as probably being very collaborative collaborative. You know, the commission's success is going to be dependent on the support of the staff and vice versa. However, having not served in that role, I don't know to beyond that extent what that would

19:22 really look like. So, my honest honest answer there is I'm not 100% sure what all goes into that. So, what do you think you can contribute to the planning commission in city government? Well, my hope is to contribute my perspective. You know, like I as I said earlier, I raised my family here. Uh I work here. And, you know, professionally, I look at things from risk management perspective. So, for example, the street example I brought up earlier, uh you know, as a risk manager, I think about that that's an opportunity to reduce risk in a neighborhood, those kind of things. And so, I also spend a lot of time working with business owners in the

20:08 business community, not only through um my work, but also through my relationship with the chamber. And so, I think what I can offer is a perspective that really supports the business community, as well as the community overall, looking at how we can make the best of the situations we have. And finally, how do you think the work of the planning commission will improve our community? Yeah, and and this kind of goes along with what I said earlier. I you know, I I grew up in Eugene and chose to raise my family and start, you know, building my life here in Springfield for for very clear reasons

20:53 10-15 years ago. And what I've seen is Springfield continue to improve, continue to grow, put all the right things in place for future success. Um and I think that if the Planning Commission is successful uh and we can pass that on to the council and and and we're successful as a as an overall team, we're going to see Springfield continue on the path that it's on. We're going to see the downtown area continue to uh reinvent itself. We're going to see opportunities along our river banks. We're going to see opportunities out in Thurston. And we're going to see a community that really starts to grow and thrive. And that includes areas that have been

21:39 around for 60-plus years. Uh neighborhoods that have been around for a long time, as well as neighborhoods that currently are fields. And so for me I see us having the opportunity to really continue to build something great. You know, when I grew up, it was always Eugene-Springfield. And I could very easily see that in my my lifetime when my kids grow up and they start their lives that it's just Springfield, you know, because I've never I've never felt that we needed the tagalong of Eugene-Springfield because I I think that the decisions that get made are going to help us stand apart in very real ways.

22:29 And that was the last question. Um do you have any questions for us before we let you go? Um I I guess my I guess the biggest thing that I'm curious about is what are you guys looking for in terms of members on the Planning Commission to support you guys? Um actually well I will kind of sum up what some of the things that I've heard is really it's for a lot of the council it seems really like it's on that relationship between us and the planning commission and the planning commission and the staff that becomes really really critical. Um, you know, understanding what part of your job is sort of sharing opinions and

23:14 policies and what part of your job is essentially reading and interpreting the law. Um, I constantly hear that and I'll give it, you know, if anybody wants to jump in real quick and give the 30-second answer, I'm more than happy to let Leonard. Yeah, Andrew, I I think what we like, yeah, you know, we expect the most members of the planning commission are going to be as converse and or more with code and with um the um the the requirements for development in Springfield. And so, we we what we're looking for, I mean, speaking for myself, is just sound recommendations. I mean, to the to the extent that you can give us um a recommendation that sort of

24:01 colors within the lines and allows us to make a sound decision, um the the better off we're all we're all going to be. Joe. Thank you. Yes, I can from my perspective, I think a lot of folks go into the planning commission thinking that they're going to spread their vision of how Springfield should be built out and what their Shangri-La is, etc., etc., which is fine, but that's not In my mind, that is absolutely not the position of a planning commission member. It is just strictly interpreting, is this application in front of me coincide with the law? And that's as far as it goes. It's a that's a yes, no. So, unfortunately, again, a lot of folks, you know, they call it the planning commission and they think that they want to go through and and see what

24:47 they're, you know, push out their visions and and that's not really that position. So, that's the hard part, I think, a lot of planning commissions um have a hard time separating that. It's really a a judgmental position in in regards to is this lawful or is it not lawful? Even if you agree with it or don't agree with it. You have to find out what's legal. Andrew, we're going to let you go and then, um, we're going to discuss how we want to move forward and the staff will be in touch. Thank you so much for joining us. All right, thank you guys. Um, and then from the packet, it looks like we've got two appointments that we can make.

25:32 That's correct. One is a reappointment if you choose so and the other is a new position. This is one that we've held open since January when Commissioner Troy Sherwood uh, resigned. Um, we did receive two additional applications after the deadline and so we're holding those in reserve. Um, we felt that it was important to get uh, at least these two in front of the the council to make a decision with your two two-month recess coming up. So, then if you don't fill the other one, then we can move forward with the next process when AJ does that. Okay. Um, and I'm looking for people to

26:17 raise their hand and share what their opinion is. Joe. I'm comfortable with both these folks to be appointed. Yeah. I agree. Yeah, same here. Yeah, we're good. Okay. Um, looks like nobody want we're all there and let us yeah. Mr. Buck did make one one real important uh, comment at right at the very end. He said, "Eugene Springfield, Eugene Springfield." And he said, "Springfield is the one." That's it. Thank you. Okay. Well, we'll see you in two weeks for the vote on that. Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time tonight. All right. So, it looks like the next item is Jane in the market study for non-union employees and update on compensation plan.

27:14 And while he's coming up, um when we were in agenda review, if you read the market study, there's actually the city manager's compensation in the back of that. Um I asked the staff to split that conversation up. We're normally scheduled to talk about uh Nancy's review and compensation in the fall, and to just focus on the non-union employees here and not sort of get sidetracked um by, you know, like the the city manager evaluation process, which would kick off in the fall, but we we'll use the same data when we get that far. So, we're not going to cu- we're not going to talk about that tonight, right? Right. We're We're Is that right? Okay. We're only talking about the non-union employees, excluding Nancy from the from the mix. Okay.

28:00 Uh so, good evening, everybody. I actually have Candace from my HR team who's actually presenting this topic for this group. I'm just here as additional support for her. So, AJ, if you can bring Candace up. We got to do this in reverse. I'm working on it. Thank you. That was fun. I got to click the button uh to be a panelist. Uh my name is Candace Steffen, and I am a senior human resources analyst, and I have oversight of the city's classification and compensation program.

28:46 And I'm here tonight to provide information and discuss the consultant's recommendation for the fiscal year 22 wage adjustments for the city's non-represented employees. Um as a background, the city has roughly 50 non-represented general service employees and 13 to 15, depending on how you count them, uh public safety uh employees. Um so they're not represented by a collective bargaining agreement. Um and that workforce is made up mostly of city leadership, but also includes some non-leadership, um such as confidential employees, uh as determined by uh PEC, our the public employee um collective bargaining act. The The practice of the city is to review the salaries, um market ranges

29:33 for these non-represented positions once every 3 years. We've been doing it every 3 years. This is our, let's see, third time. Um and we utilize the consultant's resource to complete the market study, and this has traditionally followed the same uh timeline as the SEIU bargaining unit. Attached to the AIS tonight is the list of benchmark positions that we use for both the represented and non-represented employees, um the competitive agencies and how they fit with the geographic differential based on a cost of labor, and then the full study from the Gallagher Benefit Services Consultant Group. And I'm happy to review those or answer any questions about those documents if you have questions.

30:28 Okay, um maybe you can go over what the recommendation is. Sure. So the first recommendation um is moving the non-union general service group to the same pay plan as the SEIU group. Um and the Oregon Equal Pay Act is really at the heart of that recommendation. We have some crossover between represented and non-represented positions, for example, management analysts that under PECBA some might be considered non-represented or confidential. Um but at the same time you have represented employees doing similar work and you have to pay them equally for that. Um and so that really is at the heart of it. Uh past implementations and studies have been done in such a way where you have SEIU and non-represented employees kind of doing this um

31:14 cha-cha back and forth where one's higher, one's higher, one's higher. Um and so the recommendation really is to move them on to move both SEIU or non-represented employees onto the same pay plan as SEIU to ensure that there is that equal pay for similar work. Um and yeah, so that's right. Uh so implementing these pay plans differently in the past has led to some compression issues between your front-line folks and your leadership issues uh or positions. Um Leonard, you had a question? Yeah, I I just wanted to ask the uh it's the I was hearing that the recommendation was to bring us into compliance with the Oregon Equal Pay

31:59 Act. Do we have any discretion under the law? Uh it's pretty limited. You do have some wiggle room for paying differently, but it's a very it's a very specific list of things that you can pay differently for. Um certifications, licenses, work environment, but being represented or not represented is not one of those things. It can be a consideration, but it's not really a reason to pay differently. Got it. Thank you. So the second recommendation that they made was with our public safety unit. Um currently, the sergeants and lieutenants are on a five-step scale that only has a

32:45 18% spread between the minimum and the maximum, which is a pretty pretty small spread. Um so, it means that uh they get through those steps pretty quickly. Um and the steps are there's just not a whole lot there. They start, they end, and they're done. Um so, within 5 years, they're at the top of the step or at the top of the range. Um so, they recommended, based on how our processes are and what they see out in the market, that police lieutenants specifically be moved to the seven-step scale, which would be a 30% spread. So, it allows for a little bit more movement um for those folks. And then, they also recommended that the police chief position be moved from the general service director's level to the public

33:32 safety seven-step plan uh because they they found that our police chief position was running about 20% behind the market. And I believe uh previously, Gino had wanted the Gino Bermaldi, the previous city manager, had wanted all of his um directors to be on the same pay plan. And we just keep seeing that uh police chief title fall further and further behind the market, which makes it pretty challenging for anyone in that position um to keep from being that compaction and compression with their um leadership and management in the police department. Um So, that's the second one. And then, the last recommendation is that we implement

34:18 uh similarly to how SEIU has negotiated um their implementation, which is um 3%. You move on to the new uh pay plan uh to the closest step that allows at least 3%. And this has been through budget. It is within the forecasted amount. Um as mentioned previously, implementing differently has caused this structure thing to happen. Um and so when people promote internally, there's a lot of confusion and complication um because there are some of those middle grades that uh there's some overlap with and uh it it gets to where you take a promotion and somehow you lose money um because you're moving from SEO to non-union, which is really attractive for everyone, right? Um

35:04 and so by implementing in a similar manner, we cut down on a lot of that complication. We ensure that equal pay um and we can address those issues when people promote internally. Um and I was going to say something else and now I've forgotten it. And so other questions? Uh Damian first and then I'll come back to Leonard. Good evening. Um so you mentioned that the seven-step plan and I'm curious is stepping up is it merit-based or time-based? And two, like is there a chance that if somebody moves up, but then they do something not so great for lack of a

35:50 less proper word. Can they get bumped back down? And are there ramifications to where if people don't move up after a certain time period that they end up getting bumped down? I'm taking it's kind of like that in the military or you know, sometimes in situations where if you don't make a certain progress, you have to move or you know, you get you know, released or whatever. I'm just curious of how that would potentially work, especially you know, when it comes to you know, public safety officers officers. So I can answer the first part of the question. We call it a merit, but it's actually an annual step increase. So, um if you're here for a year and you aren't let go during

36:36 your probation time, um typically every year thereafter you get a step increase until you hit the top of the scale. Um so, we call it a merit, but it's not really based on performance. I'm going to add a little bit more, Kenneth, if that's helpful. So, counselor Pitts, um so, we don't typically as a practice um use a reduction of pay steps as a part of the disciplinary process. It has um there are there are a number of obstacles that get connected when you when you do that practice, and one of those is the Equal Pay Act. Um that's one of the big things cuz one of the key factors tied to the Oregon Pay Equity Act is really what they talk about comparable character and step progression is typically an experience-based factor, and and so, that's how that's that's

37:21 applied. Um there are, at least on public safety, there are um other tools that they use that have financial impacts. Um unpaid suspensions is is one of those tools that they have. Uh and then demotion is the other option. So, if a lieutenant wasn't performing, the police chief would have the ability to demote that lieutenant. Um most likely back down to either patrol, but certainly down to sergeant if they they wanted to do. But, we've we've we've separated and we've asked our leaders to to manage for performance and then let the step cycle really be based on years of equivalent experience. All right. Uh Leonard? Yes, um I I was about to ask about demotions, actually. Um so, if if an

38:07 officer were to be demoted, um would that be subject to the grievance procedure? I know the lieutenants and sergeants are typically um classified. So, for non-represented, we have a um Um, we have a non-represented um grievance process that they could exercise. It's not, um, it doesn't have the same provisions and protocols that you would have under a protected, um, group if represented by a collective bargaining agreement, but it does allow them a pathway to having a conversation with the city manager for final outcome. So, it's our our non-union version of of how that's that's done. We, um, with all things related to, um, discipline, especially where you're having either a financial impact or an employment impact, it's really critical that we run that through our risk

38:52 insurance provider. So, we typically will have a CIS consult before exercising such a discretionary decision. Uh, and make sure that we're following, um, even though they don't have specific due process rights, uh, or just cause rights, we still try to follow those same protocols to ensure consistency and best practice and limit our exposure to potential lawsuits. Um, but they would certainly have that. And then the next question really is, you know, um, if somebody's in a non-represented position getting demoted, uh, down to a position that would be represented, um, there's provisions in the contract that kind of exercise what that impact is to their seniority or or pay, um, that we would have to follow. Okay. Uh, the the other question that I had is, um, if we were to adopt the seven steps instead of the five steps,

39:39 would it lead to the same top wage? It's a very similar wage, um, I would have to look. I don't know all the numbers right offhand. Yeah, so what it we do know it it it did extend the top end and the bottom end. Um, I think it was the way that that worked. Um, it actually in some ways that was beneficial for us because we had significant or had significant compression issues with lieutenants and sergeants. And so, the other reason for not moving the sergeants to a seven-step model was really that their top scale is very competitive to the market. Um, Um, so, this allowed us to have a little bit more breathing room um, with our lieutenants, which are really honestly, um, have a responsibility that's comparable to captains. We just don't have that

40:25 existing rank structure in our in our um, command. So, so possibly the first step was just below what the current first step is, and the seventh step would be above what the current fifth step is. That's correct. Okay, I I I've got to say, I you know, for purposes of retention, if we're looking to retain people, I think we should look at probably staying where we are. I mean, the the reason being that you won't have to wait as long to to get to the to get to the top, and I know that um, although you would be making a little bit more after the seven years, you you would not have to wait so long for the fifth. That's that's where I'm at.

41:12 Anybody else? Uh, Corey. I appreciate that perspective, um, Counselor Stare, actually. And correct me if I'm wrong, but since a lot of this is driven by the Equal Pay Act, a lot of this is around equity in terms of making sure that the non-union employees and the union employees are being paid in a similar way. So, I think that that's that's sort of two different conversations. I appreciate thinking about, you know, retention and knowing into a different sort of an employment market, and knowing that I think, and both Chairman Candace can tell me if I'm wrong, that that this this process is to get us in alignment with that act, and

41:58 to kind of bring equity into the conversation in terms of getting our pay right-sided. Am I making that up? I would I want to try to separate the the two pieces. So, um, I would say that the There isn't The seven-step doesn't have a lot to do with pay equity um specific to lieutenants. Um What it What it does do is it allows us to uh be more competitive to the market by having a seven-step model. So, we would reflect our competitors and that upper echelon um of the pay range uh is the area that's important for us on the retention side. Uh we had several conversations and we've done several analysis with the our lieutenants based

42:44 on concerns with um sergeants having more or higher annual uh earned income because of the overtime that they're allowed to get, whereas lieutenants do not and lieutenants often work more hours. So, um I The way we The reason we were making the recommendation is we felt it put us in a more competitive position to recruit and retain um lieutenants, which is an important part of our command structure. Uh and it um ultimately created a bit more breathing room with the sergeants. And so, that's that's what led to our proposal. Most of the time when we're hiring a lieutenant, not that we do that a lot, um but based on that promotion parameters, we're not hiring at the first step. Uh we're typically hiring a little bit further up into the step structure.

43:29 Uh and once again, that that just has to do with kind of that overlap between the sergeants' pay and lieutenants' pay. So, perfect. Corey, did you have anything else? Okay. So, I have I guess I have a question about that SEIU and um in not in sort of management analysis sort of tie-in. So, originally we we got onto this plan because we were trying to sort of split off, you know, carrying through what we negotiated is sort of, you know, with into the non-management ranks and instead sort of evaluate the non-management uh jobs sort of separately. When you describe that, are we going to create that same problem where the people negotiating would are essentially we're going to sort of like pull pull

44:14 what we negotiate automatically into into the into the non-man I'm sorry, the management comp plan? Does that make sense? It does. I don't know if I was going to try to decide whether I wanted like that word. So So the SEIU contract is a little bit different than the the other contracts that we have and it's primarily because it's driven through a market analysis that's generated by a consultant. So the element of the pay ranges themselves, there isn't a concern from the bargaining of the bargaining team leading the direction to go, but the decision on how we move people into the new pay ranges certainly does tie in and um So and they are two separate things. So there's the movement of the pay ranges

45:00 and then there's how we place people into those new pay ranges that are that are different. We um we we because we have that overlap with non-management positions, that that's that's always been that area of concern and we've tried different approaches in the past and realized that didn't go well because in some some areas at least in one particular department that I can think of, we had two positions that were of comparable character, but one was represented and one wasn't and it created a pretty significant gap in pay. Right. So that line of sight of Yeah. Yeah, we did. That line of sight is always is always a a challenge for us and then the other part is when you really look at the full pay structures, you know, they kind of slide on a progressive level, but there isn't a lot

45:45 of gap between those different levels and so when you um you deploy a more generous application of how you want to roll that out with non-rep, that compresses pretty quickly into your represented group and we've seen situations where we've had supervisors who can also be in that management analyst classification who had a less generous compensation package than the representative positions and the people they were supervising. Yeah, so and then I I guess I have two additional comments. Um I if if I'm a manager if I'm a management employee or even a even an executive here and I go through my annual review and I'm on some sort of performance management or I have a finding of not you know, not up to standard, right? Um or needs

46:32 improvement, whatever term you use internally. Would I be in a position that I would could still be on a performance management plan or needs improvement as an executive and still move up on my and still get a step increase? Oh, are you wanting me to answer that one? I was just trying to pull up the policy to make sure I quoted it properly. Okay. I'm throwing out curveballs tonight. Uh so I I was trying to remember the exact policy. So Cassie, do you recall if the policy allows them to hold on a banker's or did we change that? I I thought in rare instances they could

47:17 hold but it took like your involvement in it. You had to be pretty heavily involved in that because we tried to decouple the the step increases and the evaluations. Yeah, that's right. And and we've tried to do that for a couple of reasons which is one is we want to make sure our leaders are managing performance and not using the performance evaluation as the tool for administering discipline which is not the appropriate way or um the eval process is is really a separate experience and it's intended to celebrate the successes uh and talk about the opportunities and areas of growth that they've had. Uh so we're pushing leaders to manage from this one. So it and the other piece is that not all discipline is the same. Uh so And so, you have to look at it based on the severity of the discipline.

48:02 So, we we do have that carve out where we could hold it back for either some period of time or hold it off for the entire year. We do have to make sure we're careful in pay equity issues. It's a little bit different with executive level positions than it is with a front line supervisor manager position. But it's it you do have that option. But primarily, we want the discipline process to be the discipline process. Yeah, and it just feels a little like it's a different experience in the private sector in my experience where the you know, performance and pay are tied a lot closer on the executive ranks. So, right? Like that's I recognize that they're they're a little bit different and just it's a counterintuitive to say I could be on some sort of performance management or performance issue

48:47 and you know, qualify for a significant step increase. And that's not that we got plenty of good people out here that are you know, performing perfectly well. I just What a What a you know, is a is a management person in my day job, right? It just feels like it's just a little bit counterintuitive how the public sector deals with it. It is and and those of you that don't know me as well, I spent most of my career in the private sector. And you know, that's we still have the same general challenges in the private as we do in the public sector, which is are we sure that we're administering discipline equitably? And we want to make sure that we're not creating adverse impact. And the biggest concern I always have in administering discipline as an HR director or as HR rep is that we

49:34 we do that at a at a timing where somebody isn't allowed a pay increase that they would have gotten had the manager had more of the early preventive conversations on the front end instead of waiting till things are at at the more dramatic rate. Those areas that we've not been great in, we've been spending some valuable time in training and developing our leaders to be more thoughtful around the uses of our coaching tools that we have and early um discussions and discussion um you know, that are more intended to be preventative in coaching and help people be successful um until the point that they're not successful. Uh or there's situations where we really have something that's egregious um and and that has a different way that we manage that and that's why the HR director needs to be involved before we we do that. Yeah, you guys are running at the right thing here, right? Like they I'm some of these are pretty technical questions,

50:19 but you know, any time that you were sort of talking to to leaders about how you coach and how you develop people is always important. Um and then you know, lastly, I I guess I'm comfortable with going to seven steps with the public employees. I think you guys described the right thing and understanding how you know, we get the right leadership folks in the right places is going to be critical in the public safety world and I don't know if anybody's got any other questions or comments. Joe. So, um two things. I notice that there's nowhere on this list of affected employees based on this that there is any fire life safety personnel, so I'm to assume that all of them are all um protected by bargaining unit.

51:06 Uh y- To my knowledge, we do not currently have any non-represented leadership staff in Spire. All of our employees are represented either through SEIU or IAFF IAFFBC contract. Um I'm We will have someone after July 1st. We hired the fire administrative division manager. So, everybody that's involved in the negotiations for that IAFF or whatnot are also affected by that same contract. Uh I Shame is the one that's negotiating that contract.

51:52 It just seems like there should I mean it seems like it's odd that if that's true that whoever's bargaining for the contract if they are part of that contract, it seems that that Well, no. I I apologize. I wasn't clear. Um Springfield doesn't have any fire leadership positions currently. They're Eugene non-represented position. Right. And so But they don't have a dog in that are bargaining are non-represented employees from both Eugene and Springfield on the management team for that. So the people that are bargaining are actually Eugene employees.

52:37 Uh that's correct. There's a Chief Brown is the uh Right. is the only sworn person. Uh there's a bigger conversation around non-represented fire pay and the differences between how Eugene compensates and Springfield compensates with those non-represented positions. That's that's important to have. Uh the the um dynamics with fire is a little bit different than with police. With fire, it's really purely about comparables and with our Springfield Police Department, it's been a little bit comparables and a little bit something, you know, more about kind of the nature of work that they do. Um but bargaining as it relates to economics is not driven by the sworn staff on management sitting at the table. It is um been dictated and done by human resource staff. Right. And I'm just pointing it out that that whole circumstances is that they

53:23 don't really have a dog in the fight. So. Anyway, coming out of a different purse. Thought I'd just throw that out there for everybody's edification. Um secondly is that um when you're talking about separating performance and compensation, etc. Is it not though where there is some cycle Damian was bringing up earlier as far as merit, etc. When there is a suspension without pay then is that not directly relative to their income and tied directly to discipline which is opposite of what you were

54:09 saying that you try not to mix the two but knowing that suspensions can have some very, very long-term financial impact. Yes, so I apologize if I was confusing in my response. I was referencing the progression through the step process but not the total economic impact and so what I was intending to say was that suspension is one of the tools that we utilize. It does have an uh a short-term economic impact but doesn't change their overall annual income on a year-by-year basis and doesn't put them at a step behind um long-term. But yes, certainly a unpaid suspension is dollars that you will never recoup um had you not been suspended.

54:54 And same thing if it's suspended without pay then they also do not get PERS credit and also it counts as not time served by way of retirement dates. I don't know if it impacts the retirement date because I think that's based on the number of hours per year. I'm not a PERS expert but it would um if they were retiring within that 3-year period of that suspension, it would have an impact on their total subject salary um which would have an impact on their PERS value. Right. Okay. Right, I just didn't know what how it was It seemed like it was getting kind of a different picture with how you were treating uh executive level versus line staff and line staff typically are subject to suspensions without pay and I've never heard of an executive level or any of our managers ever been

55:40 suspended without pays. So. Okay. Anyway, so yeah, I concur. Like I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm bringing those things up cuz you know, Shawn started throwing some oddball stuff in there, so I thought I would. Um We appreciate your honesty, Leonard. And and Leonard's not free of that. He did the same thing. So and Damien did and Corey did. And Steve didn't. Neither did Mary Lee, but they have Mary Lee, they still have their chance. We're a great band. Join us every Monday night. Leonard. Yeah, I got one more curve ball here. I saw Um I I was looking in the packet for the five-step progression. I I saw the

56:25 six-step proposed seven-step progression that I think it can um it it peaks with a sergeant um at a like 110. Um well, what is the current top salary for a for a sergeant in the uh in the department? For sergeants, the top is 103. Uh but they wouldn't be moving to the seven-step. Um Sergeants wouldn't be moving to the seven-step scale because they're still competitive at that 103. They'll get um I believe Shane can help me with this. We follow sergeants kind of with uh whatever the represented groups get because they're so closely related uh in the work that

57:13 they do. So they'll get two and a half on July 1 and then stay on that 18% spread five-step scale. Okay. What um I for for the lieutenants then, um let's say they move from the five-step progression to the seven-step progression, how much uh how much additional wages would that represent once they get to the top? From oh, sorry. I'm still looking at a seven-step. I don't. Was not prepared for these questions. Thank you. Oh, so currently the five-step lieutenant level is at 130 and we're proposing it move to 137.

57:59 So, that's quite a little bit at the top. So, between 5 and 6% say it would be the bump. Yeah. So, if they have a 30-year career with the department, that turns into some money, right? Mhm. So, I I I guess my my recommendation would be to stay with the five steps. Yeah. Yeah, I was going to say so there's a couple of pieces that we have to have when we talk about um command staff on the police side as far as total salary, it's not limited to just wages. So, there's things like BPSS T certification. Uh and the police sergeants, um unlike the lieutenants, um get an education incentive on top of the certification incentive. So, the total gap between the

58:45 with moving the sergeants to a five-step and then moving the lieutenants um to the seven-step creates a gap of just slightly over $20,000 a year annually, uh which typically gets eaten up pretty quickly with the overtime that the sergeants are also receiving um and the additional admin days that the sergeants are getting that the lieutenants don't get. So, they the total annual salary is a little bit tighter than what it what it would appear. There's a uh As of July 1, the sergeants would be roughly 27-plus percent above the police officer and the lieutenants under what we're proposing would move them to about 18% above the sergeants. Yeah. Thank you. Yes, which um I'm glad you brought that

59:30 up cuz that was one of the questions I had to letters similar. I'm trying to get my hands around why overtime is a driver for the lieutenants raises. I get the principle but when the sergeants are not entitled to that overtime unless they work the other other hours, why that is being considered as their their base pay similar to like education pay but all of a sudden now the overtime that the sergeants are working is now being considered for the lieutenants wage when if you look at it, the difference between lieutenants and sergeants, yes

1:00:16 the sergeants are working a lot of hours, more hours theoretically than the lieutenants and then if the lieutenants are working more than what their paid hours are calling for such as their 40 hours a week then does that not prompt a reason for looking at their job and whether they're properly staffed. So, it means that makes any sense. So if they are if they're having to be there more hours, that means that they have more duties that they're not being compensated for but yet we're turning around and saying, "Okay, well we're going to pay you 27% more but then let's say for example, we get right staffed with the sergeants and activity is lower in all that overtime

1:01:01 goes away. But if we're purposely creating the overtime to save money based on the benefit package of under hire then is that the proper way to manage that that staff group, that staff that level, that sergeant level. Seems like it's our our own management style is biting us. Yes. So, I'm going to try to answer it's great question counselor Bishop. I'm going to try to answer to the best of my knowledge knowing that I'm not in the in the department on a regular basis. But So, I think there's two pieces to this. So, one of this has to do with planning for retirement. And then the second the first part of or the second part of your question the first part of my response

1:01:46 has to do with staffing levels. So, to my knowledge we've not been short on sergeant fill or fill positions filled by sergeants since I since I've been here about from a comparative analysis that I did probably 3 years ago. We do have fewer sergeants and fewer lieutenants than comparable police departments of comparable size. Significantly fewer. And I think when I looked at I want to say the city of Albany at one point I think they had five more sergeants and at least two more lieutenants or something to those to those levels. So, I think the overtime impact that we're seeing or the extra hour impact is just more of the nature of their work environment based on the number of allowable sergeants that they have to cover those those shifts but not

1:02:32 necessarily because they have vacancies in the sergeant position and they're having to work overtime to fill fill those vacancies. The nature of their work based on established practice hour even though they're non-represented has been to allow them to earn overtime in a in a plethora of different ways to support what they do. So, they do get more overtime. And to my knowledge that doesn't necessarily mean that they're working more hours than the lieutenants. The lieutenants just don't have the same overtime provisions that we've allowed through past practice with with the city. The reason that that comes up and and to be really clear my comparative data wasn't factoring in any overtime piece on it. But the reason that that issue I believe comes up with lieutenants has to

1:03:17 do with the recruitability of getting sergeants to go into lieutenant positions especially as they're getting closer to retirement because of concerns that there really isn't a financial incentive when they start thinking about total subject salary as it relates to PERS eligible for dollars. It's in some ways better to stay a sergeant because they have the possibility of having a higher annual income that will give them a higher PERS retirement. So that's part of the reason they want to do that. And second is that the scope of work that is with lieutenants as I said earlier they're really in other organizations are also called captains. Um is we've had individuals who've not wanted to move up into the lieutenant ranks because the economic package

1:04:03 wasn't worth it for them for the additional duties and responsibilities that are there. So it's similar to other non-represented leadership positions that we have where you you have to you want to be able to recruit and retain the best. Um and one of the ways that you you do that is through your total compensation package. And we don't have a lot a lot of our competitors are adding deferred comp or employer paid deferred comp on top of everything else. And that puts us at a disadvantage at least in the local Willamette Valley where Eugene is one competitor for us not a competitor for us but certainly from a recruiting competitor of ours uh offers a pretty rich incentive package plus a deferred comp. And so you've just got all of those those different hurdles and so

1:04:49 we brought up the seven-step as a as a mechanism because we knew that that would be keeping the lieutenants at the five-step we were falling behind market competitive at that five-step structure and on top of that we didn't have a huge gap with the sergeants and so we thought that it made sense from a recommendation both from a internal recruiting but also from a marketability adding that stuff would make us more competitive in the market. I I thank you Sham, I appreciate that. I'm I'm comfortable moving forward Sham. Okay. It looks like we are good. I'm seeing head nods. To go with the seven? Yeah. Yes.

1:05:34 Okay. Perfect. Do you need need anything else from us? No, we we will have an AIS for the approval. I think that's going to be on the 28th. Okay. Okay. And then we we are going to adjourn until 7:00. We're on a different CEDA link. Correct AJ? That is correct. Okay. So, go ahead and log off on this one and we will see you at 7:00 for the CEDA meeting. We are adjourned. Thank you.