HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 06.10.2014 MINUTES
COUNCIL WORKSHOP DRAFT
JUNE 10, 2014 6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Mark Mace at
6:30 p.m. on June 10, 2014.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
_x Emelie Eaton _x_ Doug Poehls
x Bruce McGee x Richard Herr
x Chuck Dickerson Scot Stokes
x Tom Nelson x Bill Mountsier
OTHERS PRESENT:
Heidi Jensen, CAO
Chad Hanson, Great West Engineering
Jean Kerr, City Judge
Dan Koch
Public Input (three - minute limit):
There was none.
General items:
• Appointments:
o Board of Appeals; Cemetery Commission; Tree Board; City - County Planning Board
o Laurel Ambulance Service: Riley Hutchens
The appointments will be on the June 17 council agenda.
Executive Review:
• Recycling — Julia Jones, Republic Services
Julia Jones, from Republic Services, explained a new recycling program that is available for
residential service. She met twice with the Public Works Committee to present several solutions for
how Laurel could get into the recycling arena. The solutions include continuing the community boxes
that are located at Reese and Ray's IGA, where people drop off commodities and Republic hauls the
boxes into town and pays a rebate for the commodities. However, the participation rates are very low,
the boxes are pulled once or twice a year, and the rebate is about $60.00 each time it is pulled.
Julia explained the new All -In -One Recycling Program. The consumer can recycle all of their
plastics, numbered with the symbols 1 through 7, which includes water bottles, pop bottles, detergent
bottles, milk cartons, any plastic, cardboard, paper, aluminum and metal scraps. The items can be put
into one container and do not need to be sorted or segregated. Republic Services picks it up, bales it
and ships it to their $20 million plant in Seattle. The plant has a whole system of conveyor belts,
blower sorters, and optical eyes, and they can accumulate enough commodity in the low paying items
to make it a feasible option.
Council Workshop Minutes of June 10, 2014
In the Public Works Committee meetings, Julia originally suggested doing the curbside service like
Billings does. About 55 Laurel residents have contacted their office regarding servicing their homes
in Laurel.
Julia stated that the Public Works Director is concerned about the wear and tear of additional garbage
trucks on the city's streets, as they would pick up 26 weeks out of the year. Another option is for
Republic to provide 30 -yard boxes for consumers to deposit their mixed all -in -one recycling items. If
Republic Services provided the 30 -yard box and the hauling, there would be a rental fee of $30 /month
and a charge of $265.00 every time they hauled it to Billings. The other option is for the City of
Laurel to provide 30 -yard boxes in designated locations, have people deposit their materials in them,
and then have the Public Works Department haul them into Republic's recyclery. The cost would be
fairly minimal at about $90.00 /ton. The average 30 -yard roll -off box holds about 1.5 to 2 tons
because it is a very lightweight, non -dense material. With the changes at the landfill and the fact that
Yellowstone County is no longer paying for the landfill costs, each individual hauler now has to
assume the cost. By diverting some of the waste out of the landfill, the city would do a good thing for
the environment and also cut costs.
Julia stated Laurel does not have an ordinance that allows them to collect recycling. The State of
Montana has no regulations, but Laurel has a specific ordinance allowing them to only collect
cardboard. The ordinance needs to be changed and the city needs to determine how to go from there.
Republic Services wants to work as partners.
There was discussion regarding the 55 people that have requested recycling services, the $12 /month
charge for residential recycling services, the breakeven point, the recycling program in Billings, the
issues with having additional garbage trucks on city streets, the option of providing an all -in -one
collection bin at the container site, the city's cost of $180/box plus manpower and fuel to provide the
service and take the materials to the recyclery, and the increased costs at the Billings Landfill.
Emelie asked how the Public Works Committee should go forward to change the ordinance so that the
Public Works Department is comfortable to allow recycling.
Heidi stated that staff needed to be directed that the council is interested in having the ordinance
changed to include recycling. The ordinance needs to be changed per the legislature's changes in
rules for cities and garbage collection anyway. The ordinance says that residents must use the City of
Laurel for garbage services, but the legislature changed that.
Emelie asked the council how they would like to proceed with the issue.
The council members discussed the issues and the consensus was for staff to move forward with the
changes in the ordinance to allow recycling in the City of Laurel. There was discussion regarding the
wear and tear on the streets, use of the alleys for the recycling pickup, the need for the Public Works
Department to recommend the best option for the citizens of Laurel, and the need for a
recommendation for the best routing for the trucks.
The issue will be discussed further at the next council workshop.
• Resolution — Increase solid waste rates (PH 06/17/2014)
2
Council Workshop Minutes of June 10, 2014
Heidi stated that the public hearing on the intent to increase solid waste rates is scheduled on June
17 No public comment has been received regarding the increase of solid waste rates.
• Resolution — Change Order No. 2 with Williams Brothers Construction
Chad Hanson, Great West Engineering, stated that the change order includes recaulking the weirs on
the secondary clarifiers ($1,879.51), additional controls on the discharge side of the rotary lobe pumps
for the thickened sludge to prevent the pumps from running dry ($7,872.46), increased grating over
UV channel from PA-inch to 2 -inch thickness to meet loading requirements ($1,105.65), raising the
grade on the sidewalk to the UV building ($1,357.77), additional time and materials to complete the
tie in of the new SL line from the thickener building ($3,669.03), and additional 120V circuit in the
UV building to reuse the existing effluent flow meter ($615.00), and providing the Chemline gauge
isolators for the sodium hypochlorite switches ($765.00). The total cost of the change order is
$17,264.42.
Chad explained that this is a rehab versus a new project. With this change order for $17,264.42, and
the first change order for a $5,000 credit, the total change is only $12,735.57 at this time. There is a
$640,000 contingency in the project budget. Change Order No. 3 will be presented in about a month,
but he is optimistic that there will not be many surprises left. Change Order No. 2 also includes the
contractor's request for 47 calendar days of contract time because of the winter weather when they
could not work.
Mayor Mace asked about the percentage of completion for the project.
Chad said it is difficult to determine because many pieces of equipment will come in at the end, but he
estimates the project is halfway through the schedule. With the additional contract time, substantial
completion is scheduled for December 22 " The big basins are being poured now, and the thickener
building should start going up soon. The blocks and the scaffolding are on site. A lot of equipment
and the electrical work will be installed in the last month or so of the project. Originally the project
was supposed to be done on November 5 but the substantial completion date will change to
December 22"
• Resolution — YBGR Fire Contract
Heidi stated that the fire contracts have increased approximately 8 percent over the last couple years.
The Yellowstone Boys and Girls Ranch returned the signed agreement without protest and staff
recommends moving forward.
• Resolution — Laurel Airport Authority Fire Contract
Heidi stated that the fire contract with the Laurel Airport Authority is for $4,348.60. They signed the
contract and understand that the first half of the payment is due by the end of 2014. She has not
received any comments from either organization.
• Resolution — Contract with Elk River Law Office for prosecution services
Heidi explained the contract with Elk River Law Office for prosecution services. Last year, the city
requested proposals from law firms interested in providing prosecution services to the city, and the
city selected Hartford Law Offices. The police department and the city court have recommended that
the contract not be renewed. The Elk River Law Office contract states that they are to find and/or
provide prosecution services for the city and they have elected to take on the prosecution services this
year. The contract is for $55,000 per year, which is the same amount of the previous agreement with
3
Council Workshop Minutes of June 10, 2014
Elk River. Elk River Law Office provided prosecution help in the last year with Hartford Law Office,
as there were times where there was a conflict for Mr. Hartford. Elk River recently acquired another
attorney, who will do most of the prosecution, and Sam will continue on the civil side.
Bill asked for the attorney's name and how many years she been a prosecutor.
Heidi will find out the information and email it.
• Resolution — City Judge's salary increase and longevity request
Heidi spoke regarding the city's judge's salary and longevity request, as per a memo addressed to the
Laurel City council. A copy is attached to these minutes.
Jean Kerr distributed copies of a memo she wrote to the Laurel City Council regarding her requests.
A copy of the memo is attached to these minutes.
• Resolution — Adopt Management Budget
Heidi stated that the clerk/treasurer has not received any emails or questions or concerns from any
members of the council regarding the proposed Management Budget. There have not been any
changes to the Management Budget since it was presented to the council on May 27 Barring any
discussion on the presentation from the city judge, staff would recommend approval of the
Management Budget. If an amendment is needed before the Final Budget is adopted in August or
September, it could be easily be done.
Doug thanked Shirley, Heidi and Mayor Mace for all the work that went into the Management
Budget. It is a good process so every department can keep going without a break because of the
budget cycle.
• Council Issues:
o Restoration of buildings in Riverside Park / repair of waterline (Emelie Eaton)
Emelie asked for an update with regard to costs to determine whether or not it is cost effective to
repair some of the buildings at Riverside Park.
Heidi has not received any estimates for the roofs, as roofers have become increasingly difficult to
contact. She will continue to pursue roof estimates if the council wants her to. Regarding repair of
the waterline, the water was back in service as a non- potable water with the use of a fire hose for a
couple weeks. The crew used the best glue but it kept blowing the ends off the pipe because there
was too much psi. Today they used a mega -lug, which is a combination of clamps and bolts, and it
seems to be holding so there is potable water in the park now. The Jaycees' building is the only
building that can use water. Two weeks ago and part of last week, everything flooded in the park
again from groundwater, so the bathrooms are not open and the buildings that are not restored are not
open. The water came up high enough to saturate the gravel and the island areas in the park. Staff
was concerned that it would flood like it did in 2011. What to do with those buildings is of great
concern even this year with the amount of runoff, and staff will continue to monitor the situation.
Emelie asked if there was increased damage to the buildings.
Heidi stated that they are getting worse since they are unoccupied, but there has not been any more
water in the buildings since the flooding in 2011.
4
Council Workshop Minutes of June 10, 2014
Tom suggested the possibility of a sump system to try to mitigate water when there are high flows and
groundwater swelling in order to restore and use the buildings in the future.
Heidi mentioned that the Park Board recently had a long discussion about Riverside Park and ideas
and recommendations could come from that group.
Mayor Mace asked Heidi for an update on the work that was done to mitigate the bank erosion.
Heidi explained that the water was rising quickly, so staff put FEMA on notice and contacted all of
the permitting agencies. All of the agencies, except the Army Corps, said to go ahead and place
riprap down, as the riprap was starting to move downstream. The Army Corps was the only agency
that required a permit, and the other agencies said the city could just operate under the existing
permit. The Army Corps has told staff for three years that they can turn a permit around in 24 hours,
but it took five days to receive the permit. About 50 plants were saved and will be replanted down at
the bank. Riprap was placed almost all the way up to the top of the bank, so it is much more armored
than it was before. The city made it clear that this is a permanent stay, and that the riprap will stay
there. Staff had a conference call with FEMA today and explained that additional change orders will
be submitted with the final cost. Since the south bank restoration project was under budget, the city
informs the State DES and Denver offices about the change order. As long as the change order is
within the approved budget, the change order goes through and the city does not do anything else until
the end. Any time riprap is put in, some sort of sand or dirt has to go between the rocks in order to
hold them together better when the water comes by. The 50 plants will be replanted and hopefully
take root into the riprap like they were originally planned to do. Kurt told FEMA today that there is
about a foot of gravel on top of the boat ramp, which is exactly what that is supposed to do. It collects
everything on the boat ramp so it does not get hit so hard with the current like the last one did. The
city has an agreement with FWP to maintain the boat ramp. Once things are more navigable in the
river, the city will clean all that off so the boat ramp is more user friendly.
There was discussion regarding the Army Corps permit, possible scouring and issues with the intake,
the proposed water intake to be located three miles upstream, and the possibility that the new intake
could be in construction in six months.
o Relocation of the siren (Doug Poehls — Emergency Services Committee)
Doug explained that the Emergency Services Committee recently discussed the need to remove the
siren from the city hall roof because of the vibration and damages that it causes. The recommendation
is to remove the siren from the roof and put it in storage at the city shop. Before that is done, the
secondary callout requirement for the firemen needs to be met. Rick Musson is currently working on
a 9 -1 -1 dispatch software system to upgrade dispatch, and that system has a $5,000 app to call all
firemen that have a cell phone. That would meet the secondary callout requirement of the fire code
issue. Two firemen do not have cell phones, but trac phones are cheap and could be supplied to them.
Newly -hired firemen would be required to have a cell phone for the secondary callout system. The
new dispatch system has to be installed before the siren can be removed.
There was discussion regarding the funding for the software program for dispatch. It will be
purchased with Federal Equitable Sharing or 9 -1 -1 funds and the total cost will be over $100,000.
o Lease Task Force update
5
Council Workshop Minutes of June 10, 2014
There was no discussion.
o Update on 2011 Yellowstone River flooding event
There was no further discussion.
Other items
There were none.
Review of draft council agenda for June 17, 2014
• Public Hearing: Increase solid waste rates
Attendance at the June 17, 2014 council meeting
Chuck will not attend the meeting.
Announcements
The Cemetery Commission will not meet in June, but will schedule a meeting in July. Tom will
contact the Public Works Director regarding the Cemetery Commission's discussion about projects.
Recognition of Employees
• Rick Musson — 32 years of service on June 1s
• Brian Kline — 9 years of service on June 22n
• William Brew III — 8 years of service on June 7
• Daniel Griffm — 5 years of service on June 15
• Shirley Ewan — 4 years of service on June 6
Mayor Mace stated appreciation for the employees and their years of service.
The council workshop adjourned at 7:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Allen
Council Secretary
NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the
listed workshop agenda items.
6
0
J W
co 'd
Lu
—
c
Rte► 0
cc 4,
O
Lim
O
. 0
O CO
0
0)
U
a. a)
a) O
U
L
0 � =IN.
o W
(I) -
•�
a)
U
a)
0
aft
�v 0
cl) to
cu
0.
LE' ucc 11-0
R c O c 1 3 0
CL (
iii
Ct
co Ilk � L
to a c 0 cu
c 0 3 CO
70- E) c v o
• L
Q) QJ N
4- fa
c ▪ m X O O 4- C
U }; � ' 3
; E
' o E on t
to
a, � o 0
C $ 0 Q O Q
E n to C
�, c�
( O G1 u .— O N c ca
fa
ar) 03 C v N 0
0
cn O v -a 0
U 0 ) .N a, c L
V> > — ea L fa O O
O Q — ++ C Cl.)
Q. (1) • +' -Oa O n
w co 113 ' c
ID
��// L € L co t O Q .
cu
CL. Q >+ + 9 Q C cu +,+ N
i N ''''.1 0.
" a, N O 4J 46 705 0 : __ z;
= C • N U
0
4J CO O
u) o o , 0 E
U • a/ a, O - 0 E
T <-
o
tlo
C 0 a, a, W L _�
Ce
Q} t U Ca a U
aw n a v
0 ' n O a,
re N E 6 - E E
i' a v o O E'
cp
>. � .
A.
N
re
L t c
Q
iL4 CD
p C c
mook
, > 3 °
CI W Q a) w 4-
E m -.
c0a co N t m cca 3
a.. ua-- .
Z ii _.
U . � •- N " 3 C a) p
a) 0
t6 +-% N >'
Q i , O c)
CC c
X fd L N N
R 2 C O O U >,
= O U.. 3 l O a) fl
C U .� C O a )
tV4 ,0
U N CO
c N E 0 0 � O V N C O ns
U
• O Q a) 3 a) O N
f0 N E _U Q
-- j a) O c a) C v)
a
O a) Y _ U U c o a) O O N
Q co a O
L L co
C O O ca u) !A U f6 U
O ca a) N �_ a) L
U C _ U 7 > a) > a N -� . a)
1._ U E ° m E o U cc '° a) c _ ca
L L Q) Z L L L L a) L (A
O p pp L ° a) •= p
O O c O '> a) O ?' O .c O 0 c O
L a) N N -
U a) >, a) c o v) N
- >, c E — `'' At a) O -1-1 N
.D a C a ° a ) c) C = �
c co c .— c E �'' a-' U >+
a) c� a) 0 0 i ,,, _0 i= N U ) p CO —
et � 3 a.c Q O 0 c
a) _c _. -- L.c U c a) O a) N
c F = �, ,+-, N
a) = as N v t3 to a) CO
•0 0 a a) C con C O >+ L C c au
a) CO w a) c a) a v ,N c O t, V O aj N
Et a) a , a) a) N co 4•- W :
O _
E$ aS c Y N a) . � . L O CO E _ D)
.r
a) N o U o N w = 0) >+ p 1-. Q O .O to
- C
CIC 0 O •(, L _co :«- N N a) li c
t) CO CO a 2 J CD c t L O _ O �= W U .-
rn p L c to a) a) co C tj
a) c 17; _c E ._ +, _ O N V — _
• O a c co c rn >, N- - • O C_ to _ - Q L)
a) . E c 3 = .c a CC .N cu I— s a U- ca . ca
ix
5 •
0
•
CO i d
Z y
CC co
d
r�W t c co
ial ' Cl) C d _ v O. .c
Ct O ' a
S IP 4p ea - o m o n a d
_ :C N
`"! 5 it
�► Cl) ° - 0 M a
E
co W m
CD 4 11 0
O 0
O
.— d O E e0 N R N CA =
To a d " ` - N N C e0 O c >' d N L
N Y N d <0 O. ++ e0 = ch cci co
Di cc 8 o
O
O Cr e0 N c .CTS ._ - a 4 N d -0 . 13 v v • N ._ co
L_ . C i o 'a C R V ea O h- '_ cy 0 '' O L O v Q> 0 0 o v j, N O
Q. 0 0 0 c0 'd = 0) 0
To '16 a co o ma p v y 3 w q c m m c o N 1— = L_ cc E (..) L
�+ � ` o d E N E d= _O t 6 N O O O d o= 'Q
a) 0 O ++ t w N = O co
'G c .. O t0 t0 a :4., O. L O e>:
+'' co v 0 v O N ' O O E Cf O =
C = E A c= _ RS w � ► _ w (n j % O e4 O. +.1 O
N 0 G a) co Y o = c.) L o v wc m= a.
= N e v O v 0 E ea a' C C' •Q O c
CD —r ce _ ' • O- Q 41 = d'• C d ,G Q .O "a o 0 r d
Q >, O V C E , d R .E, • K N Q .O
N Q E m c>i m Q o 2 1._
en " 2 O E R 5
U N O _ O(j Q' 0 i = L l0 = u 6- ii t cl, O d
O
C..) = •E m E .N . • 2 �a 4- 12 m H as rn m >, N '= n.
ea N e0 =- o c a . c O. CA RS . °—' L RI K c ea E -v e0
ce n . u E ¢ ,° 2 i= E = 0 a 2 E ,° ci 2. 3 °3 a : r' a 3
CITY HALL
115 W. 1s ST. City Of Laurel
PUB. WORKS: 628 -7496 !j �,��,
WATER OFC.: 628 -7431 U Fit ill
COURT: 628 -1964 P.O. Box 10
FAX 628 - 2241 Laurel, Montana 59044 r , .
Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer
MEMORANDUM
To: Laurel City C uncil
From: Heidi Jensen
Date: May 30, 2014
Re: City Judge Salary Increase and Longevity Request
Upon the Judge's request, I met with Judge Kerr regarding the Management Budget. Judge Kerr
advised she intends to seek an increase in her annual salary as well as longevity pay. Currently the City
does not provide any elected official longevity pay. I am providing you this memorandum to assist you
with your response to the City Judge's request.
In a previous memorandum, I advised the City Council that Montana law provides city judges in
cities with third class designations, such as Laurel, may either be appointed or elected by qualified
electors of the city, MCA § 7 -4 -4102. By City Ordinance (LMC2.12.020) the City Council has chosen an
elected city judge. Further, the City Council has determined, consistent with Montana law that the city
judge's annual salary and compensation must be fixed by resolution. LMC2.68.100 and MCA § 3 -11-
202.
In this instance, Judge Kerr is requesting a salary increase and retroactive longevity pay. Please
be advised that although the City Council sets the annual salary by resolution, the City Council's
resolution must comply with city ordinance. Based on the request, I am providing my response to both
of the requests for the City Council's consideration below.
Retroactive Longevity Pay
In 2012, a similar request was made to the City Council from Judge Kerr. I requested the City
Attorney review the request to provide guidance to the administration and city council. The City
Attorney researched and found that the City provides longevity to its non -union employees through the
City's Policies and Procedures that are approved by the City Council. Further, the City provides union
employees longevity pay through their respective collective bargaining agreements, also approved by
the City Council. While the City is not prohibited by Montana law from providing longevity pay to the
City Judge, the City Council is constrained by the existing ordinance. Specifically, LMC 2.12.020 requires
the City Council to set the city judge's annual salary by resolution, and to include "the fringe benefit of
regular group health coverage supplied to other employees." LMC2.12.020. Please be advised there is
no state law that requires the City to pay its judge longevity pay. Therefore payment of longevity pay is
discretionary. However, the current ordinance limits the judge's fringe benefit to insurance. There is no
other compensation allowed under the ordinance. As a consequence, if the City Council decides to
approve Judge Kerr's request for longevity, the ordinance must first be modified to avoid payments that
are contrary to law.
Finally, please be reminded that the City currently pays no other elected officials (City Council
members, the Mayor) longevity pay. By approving the request for longevity pay for one position, the
City Council will likely have to consider all the elected officials to avoid equal protection problems. Also,
I am certain that the City Council is well aware of the City's decreasing budget and the constant demand
on the General Fund. For these reasons I am not recommending the approval of the requested
longevity pay.
Salary Increase
In addition to retroactive longevity pay, the Judge has also requests a substantial salary increase
of $5,500 per year. The Judge has provided no written justification or basis for the requested increase.
Be advised the proposed increase was simply included within the court's proposed budget to be
included as part of the overall Management Budget. In regard to the city judge position, neither the City
Administration nor the Council can obligate or require the city judge to be on call or work a certain
number of hours per week. The city judge solely determines the hours of work per week, assumingly
based on workload. Pursuant to city ordinance, the city judge constitutes an elected official with a City
Council approved annual salary. The annual salary remains the same regardless of hours of work,
overtime, no vacation or six weeks of vacation. The City has absolutely no control or authority over the
city judge's schedule. Therefore, the City Council must set the city judge's salary carefully, and within
the limits of the City's General Fund. If the City were to compensate all of the elected officials solely
based on hours worked and dedication, the City could not financially sustain itself. Therefore, in order
to provide the City Council some guidance on the requested increase, I am providing a review of the city
judge's salary over the past seven years. Based on a review of the City's payroll it appears the City
Council has granted a number of substantial wage increases in 2009, 2012 and 2013. The increases have
amounted to a 45% increase in wages for the city judge position. When compared to other wage
increases within the City, 45% over seven years is substantially high. As a consequence, I am not
recommending a wage increase at this time.
In addition to equity, when the Judge was elected in November of 2013, the wage for the
position was already set by the Council. There was no discussion prior to the election regarding a
potential wage increase. Prior to an election is the most appropriate time for a salary discussion to
occur in order to provide members of the public notice of the salary so that all candidates for office are
aware of the position's salary.
In summary, the city judge for the City of Laurel is an elected official, not an employee. As an
elected official, the city judge is held accountable only by the electors and not the City Council. Since
elected officials are not subject to the provisions of the City's personnel policies, the City Council must
approve salaries and benefits elected officials receive. Currently, city ordinance allows only an annual
salary and health insurance for the elected city judge. Longevity pay is not allowed pursuant to
ordinance. Based on the previous substantial raises the City Council has approved and the fact longevity
pay is not allowed by ordinance, I am recommending the City Council deny Judge Kerr's requests at this
time.
Cc: Judge Kerr
To: Laurel City Council
From: Judge Jean M. Kerr
Date: June lo, 2014
Re: City Judge Salary Increase
May 27, 2014, I was told by Shirley Ewan to contact Sam Painter about drafting the
resolution regarding my salary request on orders from Heidi. I emailed Sam
immediately to see what the procedure was since I had never been requested to do that
before. He responded that he was merely the scrivener, putting the resolution together
for the council agenda. He was going to send an email to the CAO and Mayor asking for
direction and would advise me how he was instructed to proceed.
May 28, I emailed Sam to see if there was any response from the CAO or Mayor.
May 29, Sam responded that he had not yet received direction from either party. I then
went upstairs to see if Heidi was in her office to inquire about the procedure since Sam
did not receive any response (there was never a planned meeting regarding my budget).
I told her that Sam informed me there was no communication from either party and she
told me that was not true as she had 2 conversations about my request prior to May 29 .
This was news to me as I was never notified or invited to be a participant of those
conversations to give input and explanation. She also told me this information was
discussed at the Department Head's meeting, at a time when I am usually in court. I am
rather disturbed to discover I am being discussed at meetings, when I am not informed
prior that I or my proposal is the topic of discussion.
It is true, I am an elected official. It is true that I have asked in the past as well as the
present to explore the Judge's salary to be a fixed amount, to be reviewed periodically as
needed, and to be given longevity pay + cost of living increases, and retain group health
insurance coverage as supplied to other employees. I have told the Counsel in the past
that the ordinance would need to be changed and that it would be a good idea to do so. I
told Heidi that I requested the amount to get the conversation started again. My
thought is to set the wage of Laurel City Judge at $40,000.00 /year plus longevity. That
way, the presiding Judge is paid as the person gains experience. If there is an election
and a new Judge elected, they start out at the lower set salary and their salary is
increased yearly with longevity pay + cost of living increases, plus group health coverage
benefits as supplied to other employees. If the longevity pay was given retroactive for
the 16 years I have been Laurel City Judge, it would amount to $12, 240.00, yielding a
salary amount of $52, 240.00 for fiscal year July 2o14 -June 2015. I am not asking for
that. I am requesting a base pay of $40,000.00 plus the last 4 years of longevity pay
(years 13,14,15,16) which totals $5220.00 for a total to the budget of $45, 220.00.
Starting next year, longevity plus cost of living would be added and so forth. I am not
asking for "perks" that exist to other employees of the City such as gym memberships,
money added to health care accounts, safety allowances for shoes and clothing, etc.
Those perks are reserved for the union /non -union employees.
When I offered this "new" idea, I was informed that it is not done that way and also the
Mayor and Council members don't receive longevity. My response is the Mayor and
Council members may or may not choose to look at longevity for themselves but this is
my career and main job and I have am asking for this consideration and change. Heidi
said when the City takes on a different procedure, she is tired of the response from
others that "it has never been done this way in the past" and her response is "that
doesn't mean things can't change ". I think it is time for the City to look at my request
with that same open thought process and see the potential savings in the future when a
new Judge presides over Laurel City Court.
As far as a salary increase request. The review of the City's payroll of the wage increases
in 2009, 2012 and 2013 were based on getting my wage up to par with other courts. I
recall in 2013, there was such a discrepancy in my wage compared with other similar
courts that I was awarded a big increase that put me in the mid -range wages of my
fellow Judges. The increase in that short of time looks substantially high on the face
value for a period of 5 years but let's not forget that I have been working for the City of
Laurel for 11 years prior at a substantially low wage, especially when compared to the
increases in wages of city workers and department heads. I also am aware of the future
concerns this City has as far as attracting new department heads when the current ones
retire and I know the job requirements will change with the positions and a substantial
wage increase will be set to attract someone with the experience the City desires. I have
the experience that only comes with serving the City of Laurel for 16 years. That should
be considered with great merit and rewarded as such.
The fact that there was no discussion prior to 2013 election regarding a potential wage
increase should not be an issue. Heidi states that the most appropriate time for a salary
discussion to occur in order to provide members of the public notice of the Judge's
salary is before an election. This information comes from a League of Cities and Towns
meeting that she and Mayor Mace attended. Judge Jesse Connolly and Judge Mechele
Snowberger were invited to attend a session at that meeting to educate the participants
about the courts. I called Judge Connolly to inquire what information was said at the
session and she told me a question came from the floor regarding lowering the Judge's
wages. The Judges' response was that you never lower the wage of the Judge during the
entire term, whether it is an appointed or elected position. The decision to lower a
salary would be properly done before the election or appointment of a new term. Judge
Connolly stressed their words were taken out of context and she told me she would be
happy to drive to Laurel to talk with the Counsel and set the record straight. As far as
equity, the Judge's salary is public information and open to the public at all times!
Anyone making a decision to run for election always has that information at their
request and, truthfully, would review the current wage of the 4th year when assessing
their budget to determine if the wage will sustain them if elected.
During our May 29 conversation, Heidi told me that as an elected official, she cannot
direct me to do anything and thus cannot evaluate me on job performance yielding a
wage increase. I told her Judges truly work for the people who elect them, but to
remember I am a pseudo employee and department head who oversees 2 employees.
My re- election is the nod from the community that I am doing a good job and have their
approval. She then remarked I was unopposed last election and could not look at that as
community approval as there was not a tally of those who would vote for my opponent,
thus no way to gauge my approval rating. I agreed with her as far as statistics but
reminded her it is not my fault if no one desires my job. When all was said and done, I
felt there was frustration on the part of the CAO and a power struggle when it comes to
my wage. I believe this is a big issue and I need to be treated fairly. I always perform
my job well and to the best of my ability and my wage reflect accordingly.
In summary, I am requesting a change in the City Ordinance to set the annual salary for
the City Judge at $40,000.00/ year plus longevity compensation for each year of
service, health insurance plus the standard cost of living allowance.
For myself, I would like to receive $40,000.00 base wage plus longevity compensation
for the last four years (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014) of my service resulting in a total wage of
$45, 220.00 plus cost of living and health insurance. The increase would be
incorporated into the City's annual budget effective July 1, 2014.
I am requesting the City Council to hold off from making a decision on the resolution
and consider my request and start the process of ordinance change and create the
resolution based on the new ordinance.
1 4/ t4k
1
I