Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_1118_Minutes Open_APPROVEDCOUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 1/8/16 Board /Committee: SALARY COMMISSION Meeting Date November 18, 2015 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A /213 Start of Meeting: 9:00 a.m. End of Meeting: 10:55 a.m. Present Chair Charles King; Vice Chair Sheri Kunioka -Volz (9:04 a.m.). Members: Robert Crowell; Michael Machado; Cammie Matsumoto; Lenie Nishihira (9:05 a.m.); Jo Ann Shimamoto Also: Deputy County Attorney Matt Bracken; Boards & Commissions Office Staff. Support Clerk Barbara Davis, Administrator Jay Furfaro Excused Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair King called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. with 5 members present Approval of Minutes Open Session Minutes of October 5, 2015 Chair King noted on Page 12, last sentence, it was never his intention to draw up a Resolution but rather to start a Preamble for the Commission's editing. Ms. Matsumoto moved to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Shimamoto seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Business SC 2015 -02 Information gathering, review, discussion and possible decision - making with regard to establishing the maximum cap for salaries for the fiscal year 2016/2017 for Councilmembers and all officers and employees included in Section 3 -2.1 of the Kauai County Code (On- going) a. Communication received 1114115 from Michael Dahilig, Director of Planning, supporting the Salary Commission's efforts for Potential Salary Increases for Appointed Executives to assist the County in recruiting and retaining g�uality leadership b. Memorandum dated 10/25/15 from Janine Rapozo, Director of Human Resources, outlining the shift in staffing levels from a Personnel Department to a Department of Human Resources Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION C. Salary summary by position from Chair King, 10/23/15, and 2015 Recommendations /Justification d. Salary summary indicating 4 tier level from Administrator Furfaro e. Review of Draft Resolution 2014 -1 rejected by the County Council on January 7, 2015 f. Resolution 2012 -1; Resolution 2012 -2; Resolution 2012 -3; Resolution 2013 -1; Resolution 2013 -2 as relates to the salaries of County officers and employees The Commission had no comments regarding the communications from Mr. Dahilig or Ms. Rapozo. Chair King explained he took out the different positions from the neighbor islands on the revised Salary Summary (purple sheet) in the meeting packet. He explained it wasn't that they shouldn't look at all those positions it was just that this was easier as a whole to look at the County administrative structure. Chair King added an extra column to indicate the percentage of separation, in terms of the new salary, between a deputy and a director in the department. Chair King said he also worked on a preamble of a cover letter to send to the Council with whatever recommendation they come up with. Chair King stated there were variances beyond the 11.2% that he could not totally explain so he stopped trying to explain the different variances in the salary recommendations. A lot of those salary recommendations came through the Administration and can be changed, but Chair King needs to know if they are going to go with the 11.2% or 11.7% and why. The Mayor was being increased to the lowest paid mayoral position. The Prosecuting Attorney was a lower increase and was in line with the County Attorneys because of the out of line increase in a prior year. That is where Chair King stopped because he could not say why the Director of Finance was being recommended for a larger increase. Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Ms. Shimamoto distributed a worksheet she put together as a visual aid. They had talked about moving the tiers and it looks like it is going from 5 tiers to 4 tiers with some people moving up. Human Resources has not yet moved up to tier 2. Ms. Shimamoto pointed out that the Deputy Planning Director is missing on the list. Chair King suggested maybe that position did not come under the purview of the Commission to which Mr. Furfaro clarified that position will soon be as that position will be leaving the bargaining unit section. Ms. Shimamoto pointed out that position was included in the Resolution of 2012 and 2014. Mr. Machado questioned the overall percentage increase of 11.2% and asked if the Chair knew what the percentage increase on the last Resolution was that was rejected noting that the 11.2% appears to be a big jump. The negotiations Mr. Machado deals with now, the increases run anywhere from 2% to 4% but they are on a yearly basis. The 11.2% will stand up as a red flag. Chair King agreed noting however it had been 5 years since the last increase. Ms. Matsumoto asked that they be sure to explain that (in the overview to Council). Ms. Nishihira suggested adding another column showing the average annual increase for those who might not otherwise understand. Mr. Machado said people still might not realize staff had not received any increases in 5 years. Chair King said he did explain what the accumulated CPI increases had been, which is what the Commission is going by, and they are just getting it back up to where it should be. Ms. Shimamoto said they are looking at the salary for each position, but if they change the tiers wouldn't that automatically give them a raise. Chair King said if they are changing the tier presumably they are acknowledging — such as Personnel which seems to be one they are looking at most — Personnel going from having 9 people to having 18 people. There should be an increase for the increase in responsibility. Ms. Kunioka -Volz asked if there was written criteria regarding how the tiers were determined, and who Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION should be placed in what tier based on licensing, size of department and how does the Commission justify how each position is in the tier. Chair King asked Mr. Furfaro to address the question. Mr. Furfaro pointed out in answer to Mr. Machado's question, if you look at the deputy prosecuting attorney and the prosecuting attorney their percentages are at 3.9 %, remembering over a period of time a great number of department heads did not get bumped in their salary grade for almost 5 years. The prosecuting attorney's office did get reevaluated, the council did get increases and the particulars are that everyone was attempting to make up the 5 year CPI for the State of Hawaii. In discussion of HR and moving them up a tier at the same time you have the Director of Elderly Affairs and Transportation, which are currently positions not in the salary grid. These individuals are anticipating retirement from Civil Service so those are new elevations to those tiers. It is driven somewhat on supervisory roles and the number of people they oversee, the sensitivity issues dealing with health and wellness with the Elderly Affairs. There is coordinated effort with the health and wellness facilities, so they were moved into tier 4 as they leave the Civil Service area, which is the same case with the assistant planning director. Those are some of the positions that are exceptions in the layout. Also our legal department did not get an increase for 5 years yet the prosecuting attorney's office did; that is why those comparisons are 11.2% compared to 3.9 %. Ms. Matsumoto asked if language saying something about the tiers would be important in communicating that the tiers existed and were developed over time. It would be helpful if they did not think it was this Commission that put it together. Chair King said in moving it from 5 tiers to 4 just makes it simpler. Mr. Furfaro said there is a certain amount of comparisons, especially staffing responsibilities, financial responsibilities, and legal responsibilities. Mr. Furfaro said the difficulty of dealing with Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION the inversion in areas like the police department with the ranking supervisors that have a base are earning almost equal to that in the overtime compensation and puts them at a higher rate than the chief. Ms. Kumoka- Volz said that almost seems like a self - inflicting wound. Mr. Furfaro said they would probably need to address that in some narrative and they also have retention pointing out that the Housing Director just left last week based probably on the earning power, the qualifications and the focus on housing. It goes to fundamental fairness; if people go 5 years without an increase and were earning $100,000 they are now earning $89,000 compared to what they were 5 years ago in the Cost of Living Index. Asked if he had looked into the Water Department and the licensing, Mr. Furfaro said Mr. Dill has just returned from an absence of two weeks and they will be meeting to go through that. Ms. Shimamoto questioned when and by whom the tiers were developed as those questions may arise with a change in the proposed tiers. Chair King recalls there always seemed to be salaries of different levels, but not referred to as tiers although it looked like they were tiers. Ms. Kunioka- Volz thought it would be interesting to see how many tiers the other counties use. Mr. Furfaro said they have some of that information and can redistribute it at the next meeting. The difficulty is in comparing the scopes of the positions. Mr. Crowell added if in fact they are considered tiers and thought what happened was whoever took the positions by salary just called it a tier, and did not think the other islands are considered tiers. They do have positions that are similar in salary, but he does not know if they are called tiers. Likewise he did not remember calling them tiers until just recently, and it seem like they were put into tiers by the salary they were at. Those that weren't tied in we called them Tier V. Chair King said it is not a bad HR practice to have tiers whether they are called tiers or grades. Ms. Shimamoto questioned the usage of salary range in Tier V to which Mr. Furfaro said those people in those lower categories were not all at the high Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION end of the tier, and were not paid what is equal to the cap based on their past level of experience. On the new sheets the emphasis is on the maximum range. He further pointed out there are two variances going on — the cost of living index and the proposed consolidation of 5 tiers to 4. Ms. Matsumoto said when it is explained to other people having them know it is historical, we are also trying to keep it current, and it incorporates different factors. Ms. Kumoka -Volz said she understands the current cap is $98,748 on Tier 3, but Ms. Shimamoto thought it was $103,041 because 3 of the positions have that cap. If that is the cap people should have less than $103,041, but there are 3 positions that exceed that cap. Chair King said that could be a function of moving people up and down. In a discussion of the difference in pay structure Ms. Shimamoto said the last actual raises were in 2009 to which Mr. Furfaro said that was for the Prosecutor, the Deputy Prosecutor, Councilmembers, and County Clerk. Mr. Crowell added that the Police and Fire Chief and their deputies got a bump in 2012. Chair King thought what they should be concerned with now is that the current number is correct then decide what number they go to. Ms. Nishihira was concerned with moving some of the last positions up, which would result in a 16% increase in the cap. Mr. Furfaro thought Administration's thinking was they are still subject to performance reviews. Ms. Nishihira thought that was something the Council would look at. She also understands when there is a change in job description that it would justify a move to a higher tier. Mr. Furfaro said in the case of HR there is a willingness to get a salary package passed, but there were certain Councilmembers that did not support the fact that we structured the HR Department in a much broader responsibility area, so that may be difficult. At the same time with the two lower tiers there are position where people are coming out of Civil Service, like Transportation and Elderly Affairs, who did not appear previously, which might take them to a 16% increase. That has to be explained. Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Chair King said with the 16% increases most of them are either levels of education required or licensing except for the Deputy Director of Parks and Rec and the Deputy County Clerk. Mr. Furfaro pointed out that the Deputy County Clerk is someone who is very much involved in the financial forecasting and budgeting and the gentleman we have right now has a Masters in Finance or Accounting with the biggest single thing the Council does is to pass the budget. Mr. Furfaro was not sure how to compare that with the Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation; there will have to be individual judgements. While there is discussion of 4 tiers, maybe we have to go back to 5 tiers, which is this Commission's decision as you go through this process. Mr. Furfaro explained the strengthening in areas such as Transportation which is reflected in the proposed percentage increase. There was also a question of whether the 6% proposed increase for the Housing Director was too soft. Chair King said he was concerned with moving Economic Development from Tier 3 to Tier 4. Ms. Matsumoto said in looking at the 2 purple sheets, she does not see the County Council listed. Mr. Furfaro explained the evolution of the colors for the salary recommendation noting the most current "purple" sheet has two dots at the top and does include the Council. Chair King said that is a reminder of why is the Council Chair at 12.8% and the Members at 10.8°/x. He recommended simply going to 11.2% which is what they have for everyone else. Mr. Furfaro said in the earlier phases the Chair position was lined up with the Chair of Maui County. Ms. Nishihira suggested leaving them at 11.2% since they received raises more recently than other positions. Ms. Matsumoto suggested in the presentation to Council that there are visuals where they see all the positions and then one that is proposed. Chair King said he would see the Resolution like the one that was rejected that just lists what is proposed, but with exhibits or the cover letter /preamble. Mr. Furfaro said he has the template from which they can show the Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION comparisons they worked with and input the final numbers into the first template. Ms. Matsumoto thought that might help explain the Commission's process. Ms. Kunioka -Volz asked if the reason they are trying to get the new positions on the tier levels is because of reorganization. Mr. Furfaro said some of it is reorganization and the Administration's focus on Transportation and the expanding services with an aging populace when it comes to Elderly Affairs. Mr. Furfaro said previously there was one department, Community Assistance, which included Transportation, Elderly Affairs, Housing and so forth and briefly explained the evolution. Ms. Kunioka -Volz said she would like to see a justification as to how these position were justified to be on the different levels; what was the criteria used for the positions. Mr. Furfaro said he could reference the Ordinances if they want narrative that describes the Ordinance that created Housing as a separate group. Mr. Crowell clarified that Ms. Kunioka -Volz wanted to know how all the tiers were created, not just Housing and Transportation. Mr. Furfaro said some of that was the Commission's responsibility whether it was levels, tiers, or grades — it already existed. Ms. Kunioka -Volz said perhaps they need to revisit and if there is not something already devised they should devise something so that in the future they will have an easier time justifying what position will fit into what tier level. Chair King said part of it is a focus of the Administration and if they want to focus less on Housing that is the way they go; the Commission is here to talk about the salary for the tiers. It was suggested that during the presentation to Council that there would be someone from the Administration as well. Ms. Nishihira said if it is the Commission's Resolution does that mean they have to accept the movement in tiers because she does not have enough information to agree with some of it. Attorney Bracken said since they set the salaries they basically have control over the tiers. Ms. Nishihira asked if they should do 2 Resolutions — one at 11.2% and the other would be more Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION complicated if they go with the change in tiers. Chair King felt they had to make up their mind and make a recommendation. They did talk about 2 proposals last month with one in which they moved HR and one for salary, but he did not think they could present 2 salary recommendations and say take your choice. Ms. Nishihira said it would be for different positions such as those at 16% if they decide to go higher than 11.2% because if they reject it and we only submitted 1 the whole thing is rejected. Chair King said if they submit 2 and one has those going to 16% and they reject the 16% we would not have it in the other one. The ones we want to value more would suffer and the others would all go up. Mr. Furfaro thought there was a misunderstanding when he indicated in Tier IV Transportation with new federal monies and exposure it is getting and the aging population the Administration has indicted these are areas that are going to get real solid attention and further pointed out they are not putting less emphasis on Housing. Mr. Furfaro stated part of the narrative should include that the Housing Director was attracted away from the County. Ms. Matsumoto shared some of her thoughts and posed the question of why are they proposing these raises and the simple thing to her was our population has and is growing which increases all kinds of service needs, housing, roads, what we give to other people and agencies so there is clearly a need to raise the cap. Ms. Matsumoto referenced Mr. Dahilig communication in which he said they want to protect this island, to keep people and put good people in the positions and money is not the only thing, but they have to be smart business people and present packages that will attract the right people into positions. We need to attract and keep our people coming back to the island; increasing the population increases the services and we have to respond to all of that. Mr. Crowell was in agreement and stated the Legislature is not going to give the Island any increase in the TAT however they have given the County the ability to raise our GET, but it is specified to all be in transportation or something of that nature to fix roads and build our transportation system. Mr. Crowell briefly discussed the probabilities Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION of vastly increased responsibilities for the Transportation Director, the increase in the visitor industry which is maxing out services, and that everyone deserves an increase to keep our qualified people in these positions. Ms. Matsumoto shared that she is amazed how hard these people work to meet the needs of all the people of the County and deserve that recognition. Ms. Shimamoto said the 16 %, the 14 %, and even the 23% increases can be related to the tiers; those positions have increased their services and responsibilities. Ms. Matsumoto stated that she was really impressed with Michael Dahilig's letter because it pretty much answers the why along with the Chair's draft preamble. Ms. Shimamoto said in Tier V there was a range and asked if there was a reason why they do not put in a range. Chair King said you use a range when there is a minimum; the Commission is just concerned with a maximum. If the Commission gets into ranges, from an HR point of view, then it gets much more complicated. Right now we are just saying this is the maximum. Mr. Crowell seemed to recall there was a minimum for the attorneys and the reason for that range, but he would need to research that. Attorney Bracken did not think there was a minimum; they are usually started at whatever is appropriate and could even be below the $84,000. Mr. Furfaro said that is the same for the prosecutor's office. Chair King said if they set a range they are limiting the Administration even more. Mr. Machado agreed that it should be at the discretion of whoever assigns it and thinks the wages they are looking at is fair. His concern is how they would justify it because that will be the questions that come out, and they need to show the reason for it. Ms. Kunioka -Volz said especially when they rejected it last year because of budget and they are not forecasting the budget to be any better this year, so why would we come in higher. Chair King asked if they should be doing what is politically correct or what is correct. Ms. Nishihira said she was thinking of strategy in being able to explain because if Council doesn't understand it could be the basis Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 Page 11 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION for rejecting it. Mr. Machado asked if there also wasn't the controversy on the property tax increases at the time the salary increases were rejected. Ms. Kunioka -Volz didn't think it was the public so much against it, it was the Council and it was because of those numbers that KipuKai presented which were totally irrelevant, but they couldn't question those numbers. Chair King said another thing to look at when they are presenting things is they are talking somewhere in the neighborhood of $160,000 to $170,000 which shouldn't be insurmountable. Mr. Furfaro corrected that figure to around a half - million remembering the one worksheet is done by tiers and total compensation change while the other worksheet is done solely by position. Ms. Nishihira said when they were asked why last year they explained it was just to bring parity to the pay ranges for people who did not get pay raises and even that was rejected. Our basis here is to keep up with the CPI. Ms. Kunioka -Volz thought the Council should have submitted any questions they had to the Commission before the meeting. It was agreed that the proposal was better thought out this year. Mr. Furfaro suggested the Commission should be aware of a couple of things in the narrative in that they should make a strong opening statement that deals with the fact that some of the departments have gone 8 years without a raise, some went 5. That is the piece that ties into the Consumer Price Index. It also is not too challenging to bring up the fact they also went through a period of furlough time that did not come up to the savings they had, but they lived through it and should be pointed out in the narrative. Recruitment in today's workforce market is a really big thing and then retaining those people as we focus more and more CIP money on transportation and so forth. Those are the high points in this critical dialogue. Ms. Shimamoto said it is kind of (inaudible) to think we are going to go in and ask for half a million dollars for 23 %, 14 %, 16% and 11% because the Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 Page 12 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION rank and file do not see numbers like this. Chair King said some of the rank and file are paid more than these guys. Ms. Nishihira said if there was a column that showed the average annual, it will be like 2% a year, which the rank and file in their bargaining units are probably getting at least that a year. Ms. Nishihira said the figure was not bottom line because the Council was not in there. Chair King clarified they were not in the tiers but they were in the position worksheet. Chair King asked if the Commission was comfortable with the numbers in the tiers and do they want to move anybody. Ms. Nishihira asked if the Deputy County Clerk was at the same level as the Deputy Director of Finance as far as knowledge requirement. Mr. Furfaro said they were certainly not below. Asked if it was in the criteria in the recruitment requirements to be like a CPA. Mr. Furfaro said the CPA is for the auditor, but financial strengths is certainly a criteria for the Deputy Clerk. Ms. Kunioka -Volz pointed out they do not have anything that justifies the tier levels. Ms. Shimamoto asked if they could take a look at the minimum qualifications for the Deputy Director of Finance and the Deputy County Clerk. Mr. Furfaro said he could arrange that through HR because everyone has a job description, a job scope. Ms. Kunioka -Volz said they talked before about looking at raising the tier up for like the County Engineer because they required the licensing. Ms. Nishihira said she would also like to know for the positions that got bumped down. Chair King said for the Deputy Director or Director of Parks and Rec, they have a lot of land responsibilities. Chair King said he was looking for a consensus on the Council Chair and the Councilmembers, who are at 12.8% and 10.8% respectively, and suggested 11.2% just because he can't think of a reason why it would be different, and that might be the first question in their mind. Mr. Crowell had no objections, but thought they tagged that because of the Maui Chair. Mr. Furfaro said on second thought it might have been the Council Chair for Honolulu. Ms. Kunioka -Volz said the Council Chair on Maui has $82,000, Big Island is $58,000 and Kauai is at $63,000 so we are not the lowest. Ms. Nishihira said she would leave it, Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 Page 13 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION and that they did get that intermediate increase. If you look at the cumulative increase some people got nothing and other people got a few thousand. Ms. Kunioka -Volz said in all fairness if they go with 11.2% it should go from their old salary prior to the '09 increase. Mr. Furfaro said he would research it as one of the Counties had a raise recently. The 11.2% would be the narrative for the CPI that is being suggested for everybody and perhaps you do not want to differentiate from them. Ms. Shimamoto asked if they were doing the same for the others who received raises in 2009. Chair King said those are the lower rate at 3.9% and he would look at the percentages when he gets the information from Mr. Furfaro. Mr. Furfaro said there is another variance in there - in looking at other municipalities the 3.9% brings them up to not more than the legal department, but for a long time they were ahead of the legal department. In most counties and municipalities the Prosecutor's Office is a bit lower than the County Attorney's Office. Chair King said hopefully they can come to a resolution next time. Ms. Nishihira asked if they were going to propose giving the Managing Director position an allowance as well. Chair King said he would deal with that. Ms. Kunioka -Volz said based on the Prosecuting Attorney's salary in '08 prior to the increase, the proposed salary would be at 11.2% increase. Ms. Matsumoto said if she is unable to attend the presentation to the County Council can she present something written. Chair King said yes, she would be representing herself. Staff said that Council does take testimony and that would be considered testimony. Mr. Furfaro responded to Chair King that the CAFR numbers come in front of the Council no later than the 18th of December, and the Finance Director said he thought this was on track, but is dependent on when the Council Chair puts it on the agenda. Announcements Next Meeting: Friday, January 8, 2016 — 9:00 a.m. Salary Commission Open Session November 18, 2015 Page 14 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Furfaro thanked Mr. Machado whose term is ending on December 31St but has agreed to extend to March 30 to assist with the work the Commission is doing now. Ms. Shimamoto has also agreed to a second term. Adjournment Mr. Machado moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 a.m. Ms. Matsumoto seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0 Submitted by: Barbara Davis, Support Clerk O Approved as circulated. O Approved with amendments. See minutes of Reviewed and Approved by: meeting. Charles King, Chair