HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-2012 regular meeting City Council of Peachtree City Mee.tinf:) Minutes May 17, 2012 7:00 p.m. The Mayor and City Council of the City of Peachtree City met in regular session on Thursday, May 17,2012. Mayor Haddix called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Other Council Members in attendance: George Dienhart, Vanessa Fleisch, Eric Imker, and Kim Learnard. Announcements, Awards,SpeciaIRecCl~mition Haddix and Police Captain Stan Py~ recognized the most recenf graduates of the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) j:5rdgrctY\. Public Comment Tom Langley, Steve Thaxton, and Peggy Perkins each .addressed Council concerning the City's payment of legal fees to the Georgia Interlocal Risk Management Agency (GIRMA) regarding a lawsuit filed against Haddix. Langley said if the lawsuit had been filed against the City, then he would have no problem with the City paying the bills. If Haddix had been sued personally, he had a problem with his tax dollars paying the legal bill. Thaxton said he understood Haddix .had been sued personally for a slanderous comment, noting that the bill could have been avoided if Haddix had apologized. Neither the City nor its insurance company should pay the legal bills. Perkins agreed with Langley and Thaxton, saying that it had been a personal lawsuit and it was Haddix's personal responsibility to pay the bill, not the City's. Minutes May 3, 2012, Regular Meeting Minutes Fleisch moved to approve the May 3, 2012, regular meeting minutes as written. Learnard seconded. Motion carried unanimqusly. Monthly Reports Haddix noted there were additioQal documents oQ thedgis___ the April reports for the Fire Department and Library. ~ Learnard asked City Attorney Ted Meeker to clarify an item in the April report on legal fees listed as "Lawsuit-Mayor, $9,969.40." The Jee was paid to GIRMA since the City's deductible for legal claims was$25,000. Learnard asked Meeker if the City had been a party to the lawsuit filed against Haddix by former Mayor Harold Logsdon. Meeker said the City was not. Learnard asked who would have defended the City if it had been named in the lawsuit. Meeker said either himself or counsel assigned by GIRMA. Learnard asked if the Mayor was sued. Meeker said he understood Don Haddix was sued per the pleading he had seen. Learnard asked Meeker if he had been the attorney who represented Haddix. Meeker said he was not. Learnard asked who Haddix's attorney was. Meeker sai,c::l he believed it wqsJohn Jv'lrQsek.. Le9rr1grc::lg~kec::l M.eeker how the process worked with GIR/'0A, noting that the City paid premiums and the deductible was $25,000. Meeker explained GIRMA was a risk management agency founded by the Georgia Municipal Association (GtY\A) in the late 1980s. It was similar to insurance in the City paid a premium every year to GIRMA, and GIRMA provided liability coverage for various items as set forth in the declaration page just as home or car insurance policies. He confirmed the City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 2 deductible was$25,000 for any c1afmsthat were brought against the City, including damages that were paid out and any legal expenses incurred by counsel assigned by GIRMA to represent the City. Dienhart clarified the $10,000 would be paid by the City, not by GIRMA. Meeker said GIRMA had paid the money, then invoiced the City since it was under the deductible amount. Fleisch said she had copies of the invoice and checks, addingthatprocedurally that had been done. Meeker said there was a contractuol obligation with GIRMA just as any other insurance carrier regarding the deductible. When a claim was paid, the carrier submitted the bill, and the City was obligated to pay the amount. Fleisch referred to a$3,000 payment included in the total charge, saying she assumed that was the settlement. She asked if the setflement would now become public record as the taxpayers were paying the bill. Meeker said he did not know what the $3,000 was for, but he had seen the amount in the documents. In tY\ee~er's opinion, the confidential settlement agreement should be considered an open record sinc(9 it had been presented as a public official claim. He knew the City could not enter into a c6nfidential agreement to settle a lawsuit. He knew of no exception under the Open Records Act that would exclude the settlement agreement from being made public. ~ Dienhart told Haddix that the City should not be responsible for the$10,000, and the honorable and good thing for Haddix to do would be to voluntarily repay the City. Haddix said the indemnification clause was not soll?ly against the City, but also against the elected officials individually with certain exceptions.' GIRMA determined that the legal exceptions had not been met, so he was covered. Dienhart gsked Haddix how many times he had to ask GIRMA to cover his legal bills. Haddix asked Meeke( Meeker saici thgt, when the claim was first presented and the lawsuit filed, there had been thr~e separate submissions. Meeker had forwarded it to GIRMA as he would have done with any other claim. Dienhart asked how. many times GIRMA had denied it. Meeker said first three times, then the claim was submitted a fourth time in February 2012, and that had been paid. Learnard asked Meeker if he had su"bmittl?d the fou,rthc:lairn, M~l?~l?L~giqHg99i)(asked him to write a letter to go with the fourth submission of the claim, and Meeker had done so. Dienhart said Council was not 100kJng to blame Meeker, noting that Haddix had said at one time he had not made the stateml?.nt In his capacity as mayor. He asked Haddix if he planned to repay the money. Haddix said he was not going to get into the legalities; they had been discussed and resolved. The casl? yvgs closed. . He 'vVas not going to repay the $10,000. Haddix cautioned Council that, under the premise presented, someone could sue them outside of their capacity as Council Members, wlletherthey believed the action had been done in their capacity as members of City Council or not, and whether they felt obligated to pay the legal fees on their own. Dienhart said h~ believed in personal responsibility, and if he had defamed someone in any capacity, it would be his responsibility. It was not the responsibility of the mayor to callout former public officials for any perceived shortcomings. He did not see how this incident could have ended any other way than a lawsuit. Haddix said that was Dienhart's opinion, and he had nothing else to say. ~ Imker asked Meeker to verify if a majority of council. i.e. the governing body of Peachtree City, was required to authorize expenditures of City funds. Meeker confirmed this. Imker asked if Haddix handled and negotiated.a settlement for the case in question. Meeker said he City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 3 understood that to be the case. Im~er asked, when a settlement in a lawsuit was reached, if the defendant was accepting responsibility for the settlement terms. Meeker sqid yes. Imker then asked Meeker if he reca{!edlrn~~r'sl~tterofMay 3,2011, with the subject, "Logsdon Lawsuit Against Haddix?" and asked. Meeker to r~ag th~ te,x,t oLtl)ot .I.~tt~r.. Me~ke,rc:l(Jrifieg the communication had been via e-rpail and then read Imker's statements in the' referenced document: I just heard about subject status. Unbelievable! la/sohegrdthgt you and Logsdon's lawyer are negotiating a deal regarding some kind of public apology. Fine, I'm out of it. But I'd like to ask the following: does anyof your paid time come from the citizens of Peachtree City? This seems tp be a private civil matter between Logsdon and Haddix and has nothing to do with the city. There may have been city emails used but this is a screw-up by a private persorj defaming another not related to city business. I don't want to see our citizens paying one penny to defend or mitigate this issue. Your thoughts please. Eric Imker, Peachtre~ City, City Council Post 1. Imker asked Meeker to read his erpail response from later the same day. Meeker read the following: """"""" I am not Logsdon's lawyer. When the matter wqs first presented in writing, I did bill some time to the City to analyze inhere was any potential exposure from the city's perspective. In short, while g/awsuit. could always be filed, I do not think that there is any city exposure for this matter., From. that point forward, I have served as a point of contact only. Understand that I was p witness to aU of therneetil1gsthat Mayor Logsdon conducted. If this proceeds to a lawsuit, I will most assuredly be a witness. To that end, I have been careful to avoid giving any legal advice to Don. I have told him, both verbally and in writing, that qs a potential witness I could not represent him. Having said all of that, no time has been, or will be billed, to the city other than the initial research that was done to determine potential city liability. Ted Imker asked if, on April 25, 2011, Meeker billed the City$165 for research regarding the defamation claim by virtue of a telephone conversation with a Mr. Rick Lindsey (Logsdon's attorney). Meeker said he believed, thaUo pe correct. ImkertheI19s~e,9tv'\e,e,~e,r tpidentify who Mr. Lindsey was. Meeker said Lingsey was the former City Attorney and a local lawyer who represented Logsdon in the law~uit. Meeker added that he believed. the result of the conversation in question was what Meeker had reference,d In th~ernqilregarding potential City exposure in the suit. Imker asked if, on April 27, 2011, Meeker billed the City $176 for research regarding his review of a defamation retraction letter. Meekersaid he belie~e,dthatt()be,c9r~e,ct.In1k.er gskeg what the content of the letter hag b~~n:.if it hgd been publicized, and the results of Meeker's review. Meeker said he did not believe thcitletterhgg p~~n publicized but would have to research but the matter dealt with the subject under discussion. Imker asked Meeker if, in his professional opinion at the time, he thought the City and the taxpayers had any further financiql exposure ih the lawsuit. Meeker confirmed that he did not ~ think the City had any further finan.cial exposure at that time. Imker asked what led Meeker to this belief. Meeker said his researc:h on the)opic, incl~ding defamation claims, had led to the belief. He continued that he haq revie,'vVedthe, cg?~fr()rTl!lle, City's perspective under the annual Indemnificqtion R~s()ll!tiPI1 Jhgtthe,<::jty adopted every year. He also looked at it from City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 4 r-' the standpoint that typically, a "city" could not defame or make a defamatory statement about another person. Meeker sai<:i he considered that action ou!sige()fthe scope of one's position and that had been the, Pasi~ .for his (]t19Iysis. Imker asked Meeker if, on May 31,2011, he billed the$165 for a telephone conversation with GIRMA regarding the defamation lawsuit, which included reviewing pleadings regarding a City claim. Meeker said that sounded, c:qrrect:Irpkl?f (]~ke<i,:"Q<:ltsl<:limtQ<:l!h<:lcjk:>~~I1<:lDcjth~ r~~.~lt of Meeker's conversation with GIRM:A. Meekl?f sqid h~b~'liey~g tlJ(]th9q'k:>l?~n gfteE thl? ,Iq,:,,~uit had been filed and served, but he would have to verify the dates. He said he was forwarding the information on the ,lawsuit to, <;?IRty\A and, hqying another conversation with them about whether GIRMA would provide a defense. MeekersaidJl)at, following a series of e-mails, he did not believe a defense was provided. Imker asked how GIRMA was contacted about the matter. Meeker said he fo~arded the information to them as he did for altclaims m9de against the City. Imker asked if GIRMA initially denied the Mayor's claim and, by doing so, indicated the Mayor's action had been of a personal nature and not related tq City business. Meeker confirmed that had been GIRMA's response. Imker asked if GIRMA r~confirmed that decision a second and then a third time. Meeker said yes. Imker asked if Meeker billed the City $1'10 in February of this year for business related to this case. Meeker said he did and, explained that he had been given documents by the Mayor, who requested that Meeker submit themJo GlR!vtA. ~ Imkerasked if the varioysbillings forMeeker's time had bl?en reflecteqIn the.lawsuIt settlement. Meeker said they had not, to his knowledge. Imker continued by asking if Meeker had been paid out of the City's General Fund:, Meeker said that was correct. Imker then asked if Meeker put together what amounted to an appeal package to GIRMA on behalf of the Mayor in February of 2012. Meeker confirmed he put together the package that went to GIRMA. Imker asked if th~. qppeal package was public information, and Meeker said yes. Imker said he had seen the)etter and all attachmentsandwpuld like the information shared with the public. ' Imker then asked if it had been pointed out in the appeal package that Don Haddix essentially unilaterally negotiated an expenditure instead of the City's governing body.' Meeker said he did not believe that had been pointeqoLJt in the letter.lm~l?r()s~ediftv'\~~~e(.s,d()SYm~nt(]t,i.911 had. at any time. included the statement by the plaintiff, Logsdon. thaf he sued Don Haddix personally and not the City to ensLlfe the taxpayers did not pay. Meeker said yes and no. The letter did not state that fact, but tlJe, qttqchmentstg !h~l~tt~rinSI~cj~cjJh~I<:l,:"suIt ondvarious correspondences with GIRMA repr~sentatives that noted Haddixhadbeen sued individually. Imker said he was surprised to se$ the nearly $10,000 bill related tothis case in the agenda packet published the previous Friday. He asked Meeker if he considefeq it a lac:k of ethical judgment by the mayor in not bringing the latest decision by GIRMA to the attention of Council for discussion and approval of payment, instead having Council and the public find out about the matter via a single line near the bottom of a list 45 items on a single page in a large monthly report package. Meeker said. to be honest, he would have to review the City's. Ethics , Ordinance to see what applied. 1l;Y1~er saicj. In. otherwords, it had been fortunate that Council found the line. it~.n1. inquestion or it would have gone unnoticed as part of the normal business of approving minutes or reviewing monthly packages. ~ City Council Minutes May 17. 2012 Page 5 Imker noted that Meeker had state9 he could riot represent Don Haddix in the suit, and asked whether the Mayor been obligated to find the next least expensive representation or if could he have hired a team of lawyers costit;Q thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. , Meeker said Haddix had been free to select cOlJQs~IOf his cho,gsIng. Imker asked if the City had expected to give Haddix carte blanche in his dl;oic;~()fJegal representation. Meeker said the City had not had input because Haddix had been hiring his own lawyer. Imker asked if Meeker was aware ,gfq cOl1fiqentiqlifY agreement for settlement of this case. Meeker said he had heard of a confidentiality agreement. Imker asked what the usual purpose of a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement was. Meeker said to keep the terms of the settlement confidential. Imker ask~dif it was to protect parties from embarrassment. Meeker said there were many reasons for confidentiality, and that would be one. Imker asked, if the taxpayers were being asked to pay all this money for Meeker's legal bills, other attorney legal bills, and the p"ersonally agreed-upon settlement payment of Haddix, then did Meeker think the citizens had q right to see the settlement agreement to see exactly what they bought. Meeker said he haq previously answered the question, and his response was probably not popular with the Mayor, but he felt the Settlement Agreement was subject to open records disclosure. Haddix stated he had received no requests to provide the agreement. Imker asked the Mayor to consider the agreement requested. Imker then asked Meeker if, by bringing GIRMA into the matter and therefore bringing the settlement agreement into the puplic realm. was it reasonable' to assume that the apparent confidentiality agreement of keeping the terms of the settlement secret hqd been breached by Haddix. Meeker said he would hqve to seethe acty(]lcorlfId~nti(]lity clause to answer that question. Imker asked if it opened the door for Logsdon to again sue, for breach of agreement, thereby exposing Haddix and possibly the taxpayers to even more unplanned and additional unapproved expenses by Peachtree City. Meeker reiterated that he would have to see the actual agreement to know what the consequences would be. Imker asked Meeker to summariz.ehoW the$9,946.40 amount paid to Haddix had been determined and disbursed. Meek~r saiq that theil1formati()DIrlcIY9,~,9jl1v()i<::es, from H999ix's attorney, John Mrosek, and referreg to $3,000 that had been paid, apparently to Rick Lindsey's office. The balance had been paid to Mrosek for his legal services to Haddix. Imker clarified that Rick Lindsey had acted as Logsdon's attorney, and Meeker said he believed that was what had been reflected in the documel1ts, Imker asked if Haddix had wanteg QIRM6"to pay for his legal expenses related to this case. Meeker said Haddix had asked him, to s~rldtl1~ l~tter.,s()h~9~~,Ym~9 yes., Imk,er asked if Haddix had indicated to Meeker, at any time or in any way. that the expenses associated with this case would in some way be a burden on him. Meeker said hefeltth~ question was encroaching into attorney/client discussions and saiq he was not at liberty to respond unless Haddix wanted him to do so. Imker said Meeker had indicateci the (:ity's$9,969.40 expenditure had included a $3,000 settlement. He asked if, ineffect,jhe taxpayers were bein,g asked to pay for Haddix's personal acceptance of the agreed settler)1ent with the former mayor. Meeker said that, if the$3,000 referenced was the settlement figure, then the answer to Imker'squestion was yes. City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 6 Imker asked if Haddix had d()ne th~.c:ity a favor by negotiating a $3,000 penalty instead of a$30,000 penalty. Meeker said that. obviously, $3,000 was less than$30,000. Dienhart asked, if the settlement hafj been $30,000, then would the payment have been made directly by GIRMA. Meeker noted that. of the$30,000, only part would have been paid by GIRMA, with the remainder paid by the City. Imker said the point of his question was to demonstrate the lesser amount. He then asked if Haddix had been negotiating for himself or on behalf of the taxpayers when reaching that amount. Meeker said, at the time, Haddix had been negotiating for himself. Imker asked if Haddix, in any discussions with Meeker, hag Indic;gted that he had any responsibility to accept the consequences of the actions he took thqt initiated the lawsuit. Meeker responded that Imker was q~king for privileged attorney/client communications. Imker said his mode of operation in sharing information was to try to share all the information and not just one side. In that light. he sqid he would Iiketo sharewitl1 P~gchtree City's citizens City Administration Regulation CAR 3-10; e-mail Privacy section. The policy stated, "Personal e-mails sent from the City e-mail system are regarded as official City communications regardless of content and are subject to State Open Records and Records Retention laws." Imker continued that the same regulation also stated, "No e-mail is private. City E-mail is a public record. Do not sendanyfhing bye-mail that you would not want printed in the newspaper." Imker said the policy further stated, "Messages should be professional" \~ ' . I~keraskyd Meeker if Haddix's us~()fSitye-maH that included accusationsogainst a former mayor, in a written discussion with a" City employee, showed in any way a lack of judgment or, in this instance, violated CAR 3-10 regarding the professional use of email. Meeker said he could not say it was professional and would not consider it professional to make a statement like that in e-mail. He personally did not make..statements.of that nature. Imker asked if Meeker thought this whole issue could have been resolved quickly and completely, without all the thousan,qs of .99Hars ~xpended, if an apology had been issued early on, as the former mayor seemed t() have indicated would settle the issue. Meeker said that. if both sides had come to terms on aO apology, then it would have been over. Haddix said he had put an apology in the newspaper. Fleisch commented that had been after the lawsuit was filed. Haddix said He put the apology in the paper before the lawsuit was filed. Fleisch did not recall .that. Haddix}aid it d.id not matter 9nd heh()<Jput it in the paper before the lawsuit had been filed. Learnprd ask~d, if that were the case, why the City was paying $10,000. Haddix said she was asking that question of the wrong person. Imker asked Meeker if Haddix'sl99k gf....chgr9ster, judgment, or .\^iisdom resulted in them discussing this issue that evening. !'Meeker said the term he had used was "professionaL" and said what had been written in. the .e. -ma. .Hw.... .as.w.. hy they were having the discussion that night. " ,,"~ ",'", ," , , ,",' '" " , ','" "" "',', ' " ' Imker asked if Don Haddix's lawyer sued him the previous year in a different unrelated legal action. Meeker confirmed that Mrosek had suedtheCity and each of the Council Members individually. Imker asked if that m~eant Haddb< Wgs being represented in the libel case by an attorney who was suing him in another case. Meeker said he\^lould hqve toresearch the timing of the lawsuits in question. City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 7 Haddix said Mrosek's lawsuit againsfthe City occurred after the Logsdon suit had been resolved. Meeker said he was trying to rem~mber when the individual c1ai~s had ,been raised, and Haddix reiterated the Mrosek c1aimspad been afterthe Logsdon lawsuit had been finalized. Imker restated the matter by saying the Mayor used a lawyer to represent him in a libel case, then that lawyer either concurrently or immediately afterwards sued the Mayor. Imker asked Meeker what he thought about that chronology and whether it had been ethical. Meeker said he believed that the Georgia Bar AS,sociation had a rule prohibiting that type of action. Fleisch expressed confusion, saying she had expressed consternation on several occasions that the Mayor was participating in conversations regarding the Mrosek lawsuit. She asked for a clarification of the timing. Meeker said he believed the timing allowed the discussion because, at that point. it had been a City matter as opposed to a personal claim. Fleisch asked to go on record that the potential conflict hgd been discussednuml?r()LJstimes gnd stated she V\las very uncomfortable with the issue. Imker summarized his feelings on the matter, saying if the Mayor could submit a request for an appeal to reconsider the decision, by GIRMA four times, then the taxpayers could submit a request for reconsideration as well. ,He askegMl?~~er, ifheor theC()LJrlcil asked him to submit a letter appealing GIRMA's latest position, could he indicate the following: . That Haddix, not the governing body of Peachtree City, unilaterally chose private legal representation? . That Don Haddix, and not the governing body of Peachtree City, GIRMA, the City attorney, or any Council Member, personally accepted what appears to be a hegotiated settlement to cO['lclude this ,lawsuit? . That Don Haddix had an opportunity to end this case without all the expense? Meeker agreed to those statements could be included. . That Haddix willfully and uniloterally decided to fight this case despite the consequences it had on the taxpayers of Peachtree City, knowing the governing body of Peachtree City would not have approved of spending taxpayer funds to fight a court case for this issue when an apology would have ended thec:;ase? Meeker felt that portion was asking for a certain level of assumptions that might not be appropriate. . That the plaintiff made state,ments t()the e,ffec:t~aying he sued Don Haddix personally and in his capacity of mayor to ensure the taxpayers did not pay for a personal libel lawsuit? Meeker said he believed that to hq:Yl? beellreported, so that could be included. . That Don Haddix unilaterally negotiated an expenditure instead of Peachtree City's governing body? Meeker said that could be includeq. Imker asked, if Haddix knew he wgs going to ask the taxpayers to ultimately pay the bill, and knew the governing body would 'not have approved, whether could this be considered an City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 8 ethics violation. Meeker reiterated tl1at he would have to review the Ethics Qrqinqnce tCJanswer h d_ ....... ............. .. .. .... ,'". - .." .. .. ..... .. '-' "',.. .. -,,' .'....,.......,....."....'.c that question. +> Imker asked if the oppealletter to qlRMA could include information th()t there appeored to be a confidentiality agreement to keel? the terms of the settlement secret, that the confidentiality may have been breached by Haddix, and that Haddix, not the taxpoyers, was responsible for further potential expenditures reloted to this case should the form~r mayor sue ogain. Meeker said yes, depending on the terms ofthe confidentiolity agreement. Imker asked if the GIRMA letter coutd if)clude the, fact th()t Jh~ J()xpayers of Peochtree City did not have a chance to accept or disapprove anything. Meeker soid yes. Imker cont.inued all the decisions in \l1is case had been urlilqt~rqlly made by Don Haddix, not the City attorney, not GIRMA, not the tqxpayers, and especially not by Imker himself, who was one of those taxpayers. Imker asked if any of those issues had been included in the appeal letter on behalf of Don Haddix. Meeker saip he did not believe so. ,Ifllker s()iqQIRf06. hOel. ess~lltially been "spoon-fed" a skewed, one-sided appeal without any of the questions or stotements Imker had posed. He thanked Meeker for, his responses. Imker continued thot everything abQut this issue was wrong. There were times when one had to do the right thing, and this was clearly one of those times. Even though our administrative regulations indicated Haddix's emajJ w()S officiqlCity communications, our regulations are often overridden by ordinonces, and in this case a higher authority, thot being GIRMA. Imker said, if the right thing could not or would not be done, then he thought they needed to follow up with a reconsideration request to GIRMA in on attempt to save the taxpayers what had become a total bill of$10,585.40 becouse of all the expenses, caused by Haddix, related to this case. Dienhart clarified that Imker wqssu!;;Jgesting the City spend future money on the matter, based on the City Attorney's time, to put together the documentation for another appeal letter. He continued thot GIRMA. would se~ C;OUrlcil qid n()t support the claim and would ask Haddix for reimbursement. Dienhart asked Hqqqix to repay the $10,000 so Council would not have to pay Meeker for more legol expenses rel()ted to this matter. Haddix said he was getting angry about the assumptions being made. He said he had apologized in the paper and to Harpld Logsdon, who refused to accept the opology, which was prior to the lawsuit. The assumption was he was guilty. He asked Dienhart to read the ordinance on indemnification, noting thot it. said he was covered unless he committed slander or a malicious act. Dienhart said he wa$ not judging Haddix either way; he was asking for $10,000 on behalf of the people of the City. Haddix said that was a double stanelard. B~cause the lavvsuit was in his name only, somehow the lawsuit was extrocted from the City when he was acting as mayor. GIRMA ogreed with that fo<:;t. Dienhart asked what part of his capocity as mayor involved calling the former mayor a name. Haddix said that, under that premise, he had received a few e-mails that gave him reason to file suit because of the names he hqd be~ncqllec:l' H~vvas stIc~illg to the facts of whot the ordinance said and what was in th.epacket. Haddix said he would send M~eker the res()ILJtion (settlement agreement), but Meeker had not requested it. If a request was made, he would fI!""'I""'i provide it. Fleisch asked Haddb< to c:lgrify that GIRMA said hevvas cover~,d, ,by the policy due to the indemnification. Haddix said the point was there was an inderrmific()ti()n clause with specific City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 9 staternellts, which said he.was c.ov~r~dunl~ss he.sof')1mitted <:ertain acts,. On the.oppeal with GIRMA, they had reviewed everything. He could not speak for GIRMA, but GIRMA decided he was entitled to reimbursement. Had:ciix <:ontinued that allgf.Counc:i1.hac:lI:>e,~n sited individually in a lawsuit, asking if that meant each of them would be responsible for a percentage. Dienhart said that could not be discussed. clLJ,~Joe?<e,<:LJtive sessi()n rLJIe,s,. 9Ec:l he,c:llc:ln()L~e,e,Jheparallel between the cases. Haddix said it was in the paper that all the members had been cited, pointing out that Imker was directly cited as the cause of the lawsuit. Haddix said they should be careful of the path they were tdkingin these situations because the path could turn around and bite them. Fleisch asked Meeker to explain the rules regarding bringing the appeal forward to GIRMA under the indemnification resolution. Me~ker said there, were, tWO. qifferenLthings - the GIRMA policy that provided coverage for employees and officials in th~ c::ity and the annual indemnification resolution adopted in January each year by Council that covered everyone for performing duties within the scope of their employment or official ac;tions. Meeker s()id hedicl not see that the annual indemnification resoluti~:m coy~r~d. th..~..IClVVSLJIt given the nature of the allegation, which claimed intentional torte defpmation. The actual coverage afforded buy GIRMA under its policy was a bit different. Typically, it was somewhat similar in terms of acts committed within the scope of one's duties or employment. ,......, Fleisch asked whether the. lawsuit 'N.ould have come to Council if the indem. n.I.fi.c.. a.t...io.....n......r.e. s.o....lu...t....io..n. .. .. .. .. ~..,. .... ..,.. .-. .. ',. .. ".... .... '," ',_ ," ...... "":' ... ....H.. .. _:'_ .... ....'.. .... .. _.."........ ..._ .. "'._ ': .......c."..>.-.-, "'.": ..,c, '."'.""'" c."." .'.,. ", c."'; ."cC"".'" .... .,',....'..._. c':;., ">i.,','''';'-' '. ,.,'.j ..... .... .' .... ... 'c' .. ,-, . . ". ...... ........ ...... . ....... ...... ....... .. .'. had come into play. Meeker said .that it wOlJld have. ILit hag<I:>~~l"1~LJI:>IJ1Itt~c:lby the Mayor under the annual indemnification. resolution, the lawsuit would have come to Council for payment or adjudication. " Imker said he had presented sever<;;I1 arguments that needed to be taken to GIRMA. They had not had all the facts, and they should be asked for af)other cl~t~rlJ1inqti()n. . Qienhart agreed with Imker, noting the clock was running on Meeker's time, then asked Haddix to save the City the money. Haddix said that, when getting into attorney's privilege and insurance policies, there was a lot that would not be ~()id on thedais! adding Meeker had elaborated on it pretty well. Haddix believed he wasentiflE3cl, and he had been acting as mayor. Dienhart asked again what part of his duties as mayor caused Haddix to insult the former mayor. Haddix said Dienhart wanted to argue the caseJtself, and he was not going to do that. Consent AQenda 1. Consider Adoption of201~ Annual Update to Comprehensive Plan 2. Consider Bucjget Amendments with corrections Haddix noted there were additionql c:locYrl)ents pnth~ (jais__th~stRffm~rpopn.CJgenda item 2 and the staff memo regarding a sorrection for the sPrne)tern.Le,q[flqrc:l rl)gved to approve Consent Agenda items 1 and 2. FIe,Isch S~G()ncl~c:l..M()ti()ncqrrie,c:lu,npnim9y~ly. New Aaenda Items 05-12-09 Presentation on LaKe'Peachtree Sediment Removal Public Services Director Mark CasPbrgav~a'pr~s~nratio.n'.onj'theUpcomrng.seaimenfrem6val. He noted the lake was a source of prinking water and recreation, and the contract with Fayette County defined the lake as the a~eaSOl..Jth of SR 54. Tbe. City was responsible for the lagoon located north of the highway. La~e Peachtree was owned by the City and operated by the _ Fayette County Water System. According to the agreement signed in 1985, the City and County were required in each successive eight-year period following the first dredging to jointly inspect and test the condition of the areos specified In the agreement to determine the amount of dredging that would be required ber the standard that was also set in the agreement. The City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 10 agreement also required the dredging be accomplished with six months of said eight-year period. Caspar continued thqt the lakeWQslqstdr~qged in 2003-2004. Approximately 32,500 cubic yards of silt were removed over a thr.~e tofoLJrm()lJth period. Drake Field was closed during that time to complete the operation. The cost was approximately$1 million. The 2012 sediment survey was completed regently by Fayette County, and approximately 65,000 cubic yards need to be removed. !hE3 SLJrVE3Y did not include the tributaries outside of the main lake. The removal process via Drake;i Field includeq using the field to dewater the sediment, then hauling it directly onto SR 54 to take it away. The estimated completion was four to six months, and the best time to remove the silt;rtqsgyrilJg the summer months. Caspar said there were concerns,9I:>oLJt.. rE3rr19vin9 the silt via Drake Field, which included interference with the recurring events scheduled at the park. The list included the Adult Triathlon on August 18, Wellness Walk on September 8, Dragon Boat/International Festival on September 22, Promise Place Walk on September 28, and the Hometown Holiday on December 1. Postponing the dredging until afterthe events would cause the process to take longer due to the cooler weather. Caspar pointed out that the parking lot at Drake Field was repaved in 2010. Another option was to removE3 thE3,siltvi9MgIDt()~hTr9IlinthE?Pun1p.holJse area., which would not disturb Drake Field. The cons jnclygeg 1J().g~E?g..t()..(j~;-ygJ~I.th.~~~.9Im.~ntt~.eadditional need for trucks with liners due to the greater potential for spillage, and the process was more expensive than hauling dewatered~~qiment. Caspar discussed the option of agding to the island in the lake, saying the current sediment could add up to four acres to th~.islgn9/peninsula. The pros included the process could be completed with silt curtains, limiting disturbance to Drake Field, and possibly connecting the island to the mainland to makegpark for fishing, picnics, and firework observation. The cons included a 2% reduction in the open water body and the assumption that the sediment was suitable for placement and could 1:>.~c;olJsqlig(]t~c:l int()theislgnd/peninsula. Another option was to do nothing, which would not disturb the citizens or cost the County any money. The cons for doing nothing included additionalsE3dimE3nt aggYn1LJlqtIon gnd the growth of vegetation that would limit the 9~sthetic and recreational uses In th~ silted oreas. Haddix was concerned tha.t aqding to the island/peninsula would shrink the size of the lake. Caspar said that som~areasofth..~~19k~.\N.E?r~()!l.ly two feet deep. He added that the permitting process to do the dredging would qlso t9k~ q Iqng time. If the permitting process started at the end of July, the dredging would not happen this summer. City EngineerDave Borkowski said the shallow depth of the lake in some places could cause problems with the dragon boat event. Imker asked which option would nqt interfere with th~E?vE?lJts.C:aspar said sediment relocation would be best. Drake Field woulci~~lJeyg.~c:It() put the barges in the lake, but not on a regular basis, and staff could also coordInqte the use of Drake Field for events with the.S?lj.nty. lD1ker said that, without any additional j'nformation, therelocat1on'ofsedJ'me'nl'to'form 0 peninsula seemed to be the best option. Dienhart add~d thqtit \Nould provide additional room on July 4th ~ for people watching the fireworks, y.thich was the busi~st day in that area. Learnard disclosed her home was.l()cClt~d91l Lak~ PES9Sht~E?~! agging she was not comfortable participating in the discussion untIl that fact was known. . She said \iVh.ESn the island was built, City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 11 people wondered why thesedirnerjt ""as peing taken out to increas~ drinking water storage then put back in on one big chunk. It d~pended on the purpose. Caspar said lake Peachtree waS only used for water volume storage. The contract only allowed Lake Peachtree to drop below permanent pool in the event of a drought emergency. The Water System could only begin to withdraw 500,000 gallons per day if Lake Kedron had no more capacity to drain into Flat Creek th~1l t()LC1~~ P~Clchne~. '.' Th~ICl~~;-YCls8C::SClsiqnCl"Y lowered to allow for dock maintenance. . .' .. ',., ' Learnard asked if the dredging wOlJld be don~ by barge. Caspar said he was not sure. If the Drake Field option was chosen, it wpuld be aQClrge operation. The sedimentr~loc;qtionoption used a type of barge similar to a vOc::uum thatsLJc::k~c:itb~~~c:iin1~ll.tup, using a s{7ries of pipes to get the sediment across the water)o CllalldlgSClti()n.L~Cl~r1Clr2Clsk~9..ifClIlY of the methods called for dropping the level of th~lql<~ to dg thework.C':aspar sOldnotto his knowledge. Learnard asked how the fireworks hod been handled in 2003. Caspar said he did not have that answer. Haddix asked if there had been any feedback on the options from the County. Caspar said the wet removal was the County's least favorite option. The County had a plan for the Drake Field process. The peninsula would be.a .Ilew process so there would pe al~qming curve. The cost of the Drake Field and sediment relocC1tign options were relatively equal. Haddix reiterated his concern was shrinking the size of the lake. Leqmqrd qgreed, adding she would like to hear from the resident~ bef8re. rnqking any decisions. Caspar said that was why he was giving Council the information 9t this tin1e.fJ~ \lVQLJ!21l~~c:it9S8rn~.8qS~JQr.Cl2{7Si7i9n.ill Cl month or so, which would give the citizens tim~to provide inpuf. 'HewQuldposf the presentation on the website for citizen feedback,. Imker asked Caspar to put more information in the presentation in terms everyone would understand, noting that the lake .,was 68 acres, and one acr~ WOl)12be lost. Haddix also recalled the reaction of residents. yvh~nth~y realized the island was not going away. Caspar saidhe would edit the slides to sho'fl more informqtionabout.the pros and cons. Borkowski added that the water v8Iun1~ in ,th~ lak{7 vvasincons~quential to the Fayette County Water System in providing drinking water as the fake's stgrage volume was so small compared to the other reservoirs in the County. I.t boiled down to how much surface areawould be lost. Learnard noted that the volume of silt hqd ..n1ore than doubledsince 2903, Clsking where it had come from. There were many coty1plaints from citizens during the widening of SR 74. Borkowski said he did not know without a se9in1~nt ClIlCllysis, but he suspected it was due to stream bank erosion, since there had not beed a significant amount of constructign in, those bClsins. during recent years. Learnard said she would hClve hored the sediment issues due to construction drainage would have abated. Caspar said as the stormwater infrqstrLJc!l{r~ .rell()\l.Clti91l~g9t underway they would be looking at stream bank. restorqti(mtgs~~if.it\IV(')lJlcjh~lp ~ith the silting problems. Some of the new requirements helped to specifically slow down stream bank erosion. Haddix oske2 if dredging> fhebdHom,^,6ulda<::2el~rClte,~eceler()te,()r have no impact on stream bank erosion. Caspar said'it was rain-event dependent. City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 12 05-12- 1 0.... C..o. n. sicterR~.".ision of P....ers..on. n. el .Po..licy - C...o. m...... p. e.....n....s. a... t..o...ry.. T. i.m... e.....&..L..e....av..e..... Po.. Iicie.s .. ......',.. ......... '. .. ...... .... .. ...... ..: ," c;.....;i.:.....'.:......::.:......,;.,":::>:.::.:~,.:.:;<':',":'::::::"':_;'/C',:<-,'f""'."',',',::.;;:i:-.,,:,,:_:,,;.";S:>.'i.,_""'_"'.,' " ,.... '..,..-" '. '''.'' .- '.-'..,......-.,... ..-..... ........... ,.,...-.-..,.....'.,...,..."...... ....'.. ........ ......... "',. ,......,.. ..... .,..... ...,.....' . .'. Human Resources Administrator~II{79Ef Br9""n agdrEfSsEfgC9ynsiL n9fing there were four parts to the recommended changes to th~ City's leave policy. The recommendations included the elimination 'of compensatory (comp) time for exempt employees and a re-emphasis that comp time earned by non-exempt employees must not exceed a maximum cap of 48 hours or it must be paid out (effective July 1,2012).... The current practice was that exempt employees accrued comp time for all hours worked ov:~r 40 per week up to a cap of 80 hours. For non-exempt employees, the comp time was alsQ accrued over 40 hoLJrs. and that was in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): The non-exempt employees would continue to accrue up to 48 hours, and there would be aQ emphasis placed on holding that cap. Once employees met the cap, overtime hours would !lave to be paid. Currently, employees were alloweq to accrue up to 480 hours of regular sick leave and 48Q hours of catastrophic sick leave. If the recommendatIon ""gs approved. the cap for regular sick leave for new employees hired on qr after July 1. 2012, would be reduced from 480 hours to 240 hours (360 hours for firefighters) with no accrual of catqstrophic sick leave. Brown said the third part dealt ""ith the accrual of. safety and perfect attendance hours. Effective July 1, 2012, the proposal recommended the elimination of ascrual of safEfty hours and perfect attendance hqurs and the" aqcjitiqn()f one JI()(lting holiday and the renaming of the "birthday" holiday as another floating holiday. In the end, employees would have nine regular holidays and two floating holidays fOr a total of 11 paid holidays. The last part dealt with the accrual:df annuglleave. Currently, the time was accrued based on yedrs of service, from 40 hours to 190 hours after 10 years, and employees received the time on their anniversary date. If a pprovec;:l , employees would begin to accrue annual leave on a bI- weekly basis beginning October 1.2012, and new employees would bedllowedtouse annual leave after six months of employment rather than one year. Brown said the savings would be $29,000 annually, plus an estimated$117,000 in soft savings. Haddix opened the floor for comm~nt. Fire Captain Ron Mundy took exception to the proposal before Council, explaining his reasons for doing so. He was concerned QbqLJt}heEfHmlnati<?n9f perfect attendance and safety pay. Due to the economy, the employees had notgotten a merit or cost-of-livIng allowance raise for a number of years, which he under~tood. ,. 9nEfofthE:} perks in lieu of theinqbility to provide merit increases was to provide a safety incentive, which related to savings for the City's taxpayers, and a perfect attendance policy. The fire and police departments had to maintain minimal staffing at all times. When qfirefig!lter or police officer was too sick to .""ork. someone had to be called. If the person called In hag m~t their hourly requirement for the week, then they paid time and a half. He questioned how there wquld . be a savings by eliminating the possibility of striving for perfect attendance. The safety incentive was not much, butwas something to strive for. Safety was a priority in the. Fire Department. and the safety hours provided another Incentive to take a moment to ensgre tasks wEfreC9mpleted in a safe manner. Mundy continued he would be grandfathered in on the proposed changes to the sick leave policy. Limiting the number of siGk hours to 360 with9YLClny catastrophic leave at all meant there would. about six weeks ofleq,ye... PEfra.~QO?;f99?~!HcjY co~ducted. on firefighters Injured in the line of duty by the National Fire Protection Association, 10% of the injuries suffered. by approXimately 43,000 firefighters ~ach year were moderate or ,?ev~re~ Mundy referenced a City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 13 Fayette County firefighter injured at b house fire just outside the City in October 2011, noting the firefighter was burned over 18% of his body and had peen out of ""ork for sey~n rnonths. He would need at leasttyvo m()rE( opE?r9tionsforskin gr9fts. He asked what would happen to the employee with a severe injury that would need alQng time to recuperate, then possibly rehabilitation. He asked COLJnc::ilfp,~trivElto rnClke thec::ity the best because that was what the employees did. Police Corporal Joseph Sewall requested that no retaliation b~ tak~nt>~.C::CluSyhEl YVCl~speaking out and asking question on the re<::;ommended policy changes. He said there was a reason employees stayed with the City for years, and a reason why people who grew up here worked for the City. He noted that, per the. staff memo, 20 cities were contacted regarding their leDve policies. He asked what ttlemydiqr jncPrny 9I1g9'VE(f9ge employee turnaround was for those cities, as well as their population and number of personnel. Sewall noted thqt firefighters worked 24-hour shifts, while police officers vyorked eight-, 10-, or 12-hour shifts. Taking the different shifts into account, the 48-hour cap on c~mp time ol..lowed for differyl1t periods of time off depending on what shift was assigned. Nothing in the memo referenced the 49 c;ities'. policies on comp time. He said the sick leave cap for current employees would remain thesarr'le, while it would change for new employees. If the 'accrual rate was the same as other cities, he asked why the cap should change. Sewall referred to the accrual ofsSlfety and perfect attencial1ce hgurs. for police officers and probably fire, four hours of safety were accrued per quarter for 16 hours annually. Perfect attendance hours could also accul)1ulate to 16 per year. Together that was 32 hours, just shy of one week. He pointed out the hoyrs were used,. to help compensate for time off when oHicers attended training. Using his own shift as an example, Sewall said patrol officers worked two to fiye gays per week, depending, on the rotation. If he was sc::hedulegtQ 9ttYl1d two days of training, he would only receive pdy for 16 hours, compared to the 20-24 hours he would miss. The perfect attendance and safety hours were used to compensate for the time lost when training. Taking away the comp time could result in an employee not getting an 80-hour paycheck. Shifts could not be rotated to cOYyrthelgssgf tirn.e. Sewall continued that the recomrneng()tioosyv~ret>Cl~Elg()f1t.hEl.c::ity, H.aUemPloyee eight-hour day, asking if the cap would b'e adjusted based On the shifts ""qrked . by Public Safety employees. According to the staff memo, the City's leave policy was in line with other cities. In another paragraph, the memo saig qO% OUhyc::iti~~()ffyr~g..yIthE(rrn()rE?,ClgD~ClIIE?()':'E?.()L.rn()rE? holidays. He asked which was corcect. ,c::LJrTyntly, emplOyees were'oyvarqed their entire annual leave on their anniversary date. If approved, leave would be accrued every two weeks beginning October 1. He asked h<;:>w long employees with an annivyrsqry date prior to October would have to wait to begin accruing leave time. He asked why all leave could not be awarded and expired at the same time. Sewall said the topic of leave was personal to him since he was still an active member of the National Guard. Because of that,.hewas awarded 18 days of military leave annually by state law. The hours were awardedpased ()n the, federal fisC91 year from October 1 through September 30. He was called up during the last fiscal year to assist in training units going to Afghanistan. He used up nearly all. of his military ddYS to avoid going without a paycheck. Since that training in November, he also had to attend several drills that .w,~re , hE(ldog yveekends he was scheduled to work. Dueto hg""Jtl~.fPtClJIPn.YV()fkEl.(j~..hE( .h().(jto...~semuch of the leave he had banked with the City. Losihg that leave woukfcausehim and other employees also members of reserve componentsgn:3at financial strain. Th~ employees of the City contributed to the quality of life that attracteg residents to the City. Since his employment, Sewall said he City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 14 had not gotten 0 pay raise, cost of living raise, or other type of incentive. The employees had taken everything in stride because it was best for the City. New officers were hired at close to the samefate paid to officers who bad been with the.pty for years. He asked when the last pay study had been conducted. Emp!oyees had not complained about the lack of raises, the increased insurance premiums and reduction in coverage, and the charge for take-home cars. There were other benefits that mage up' for these costs. Cutting those benefits also cut the incentive to stay with the City and to attract desirable new employees. Sewall encouraged Council to look at the research and,'ask tough questions. He understood the City was in a tough financial state, but taking away the current leave policy could potentially affect the quality of life for many City employees and cif,izens. Haddix closed public comment. Haddix assured Sewall there woulcj" be n()r~trit>uti()n: . . He appreciated ,it when employees felt they could talk to him about issues, t;:lncj saicj ith~lped him and the City. Heosked City Manager Jim Pennington or Brown if they could answer any of the questions that had been askecj. Brown said many points were made by both employees. The memo tried to explain that employees could currently accrue up to two days of safety time and two days of perfect attendance or four days. The recommendation was to replace that time with one floating holiday, which would be a loss for ~:mployees. The majority of cities surveyed were other Class B cities. There was more information jn th~. rn~rn() fr()rnJh~ May 3 meeting, and staff had tried to summarize the information inthe m~mo fgr this meeting. As far as the information given by ,Mundy regarding employees injured on the job, Brown said Worker's Comp was provided for those injuries. Employees also had the option to purchase a short-term disability program, but it'.Nas not provided by the City. The City did provide for long- term disability, but there was a six-month \^Iaiting period for that coverage that short-term would typically pick up. Brown said she <;lid not kno\^l. why some of the leave categories were made available, but she had assumed th,e 480-hoursic;kJ~qyecap was tocarry an individual to the time of long-term disability since short-termdisoqility was not available. Brownsaid she had contacted the insurance brok~r, ~.rI(j.,.tqE:}..E:}~t1[r1CllE(;,f().LthE(..~h()rt=J~rmicji~().8gity program was approximately \$50,000 for the City to prOVide thiS coverage for all the employees. Learnard asked how the floating hqlidays would work for the Police Department. Brown said, to her knowledge, the holidays were an eight-hour day provided to an employee. The holiday would be added as of July 1 since they would lose half of their~afety and perfect attendance hours for the remainder of the yeqr. Beginning on January 1, 2013, employees would have 11 paid holidays. Brown said staff could not put everything in the memo about how the policy would be administered. Brown said the reasgn Octob~r1 .w9s sE:}lE:}ctE:}cj. as the cj()tE(f8rassru()lgf pnriu()1 leave was to allow the Finance Department time to work through the process. She continued that a person with a 10-year anniversary date on July 1 would receive 160 hours of vacation at that point. Beginning July 1, the employee would begin to accrue time for the next year. As of October 1, staff would look at the.. tim~ 9ccrLJ~cjt>~tvv~~r1)l.!ly 1 and October 1, add the 160 hours from July 1, and make the employee whole. -- Haddix asked how the ~ight-hour holiday would be addressed \^Ih~.n. it c;9m~ tgJh.e.. 12-arld, 24~ hour shifts worked by Fire and Police. He asked Mun9Y to explain. Mundy said the City currently provided firefighters with a holiddyrate of 10.83 hours rather than the eight hours City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 15 recomme.hded,. meoni~gfirefi~hter5:V\'ouldlose three hOlJrs.per holiday. Shift personnel worked 24-hour shifts. For a firefighter to tak~ a shift off from work" three holidays would now be needed. Haddix asked Pennington or Brown. to elaborate,.Br()wn~(Jid)V\lJF")qy was correct. Dienhart clarified that it currently took multiple days to be off for a shift. Brown said yes, but the other side was that if a firefight took a week ot vac;ati()n, they would not take off for five shifts. . Mundy said that was correct, adding they would take 48 hours of I~ave. He continlJ~dVVht3n ofir~fighter was scheduled to work on Decemtl"er 24, they would work 16 hours on December 24, and eight hours on December 25, while everyone else was off. Mundy addressed short-term disabJlity and Worker's Comp, saying when an employee used accrued sick leave, they receivedl 00% of th~ir leave and their pay. Short-term disability and Worker's Comp, the pay was reduced by 40% to 45%. Dienhart said Council needed toepslJr~ any employee injured in service of the City did not go without pay while healing. Having .the City provid~ the short-term disability was a must for him. Pennington said he had worked in nin~ c;iti~s, and, he haq n~y~r kr'10VVr'1()nernployee to be out without some kind .of remun~rationduring that time period. Dienhart asked if anyone had ever seen an employee out on leave' and not being paid. Mundy said there was currently a volunteer time request being circulated for a police officer. so h~c.olJlq maintqin hisholl"le. Pennington said that was correct, : and it was standard practice to allow other employees to contribute banked time to help another employee. Dienhart ask~dif th~ ~mployee was hurt in service to the City. Mundy said, in this case, he was not. Mundy referred to the catastrophic sick bank, saying it came into existence when late City Clerk J.o... ...n..e.......M. ... i1lerhqdbe~nstricken vvith cqrlcer. .6fter Cl.I()ng ca.. '..r.ee.r with the. ...City' it was realized that ...... .',.0.. .......,' ....."..... ...>........ '0. .'. ", " .. '.',,'.... ::',', :' ',':' .. -- ........:...............".....'...:-.'..'.......,..".:....."...."..:,.,,~.............i..,.""<...,.- ..,...,..,....",:......,...........<.:..:....,'..-.<.....-..::.".'.....'.-,.." --:..."" ........... ..... "..... .....:..... . ..... '. . . .'. .' . '. . ." those time banks c.ould be..8. Xh9lJ.~.t~d...............q..u..I.c....k.....I.y..........The Ci.ty e..na.b.led .em.p..lo. y. ees, once they had . .. .' ..... . . . . ....... j~.:,....:,...."......... ." ........ ........... .... ................ '.' .. ...... ...... ..' ..... .'. '. ". ....... . ........ ". ......... . . . reached the max cap for sick leaye, to dump the additional time into qbank that c;ould be used under the criteria for catastrophic leave. Mundy added, to his understanqing, that time was not paid out at separation or:retir~m~nt. but was osaft3Jv net foren'1ployees who had a severe injury or medical illness requiring an extendeq amOlJnt9Uill"l~,Ml,lngy said he had used both short-term disability and Work.~r's Comp during his career, and it was tough for a family to live on 60% of a salary. Pennington said what was proposed was standard practice. Staff had looked at how leave and sick time were accounted for. and}heCity was not incompatible with most communities he was aware of. Compensatory time was the most serious ISSlJ~.F91I()VVin~ the FLSA, non-exempt employees were entitled t9time~nc:J qh2IfJ()rc::Jnytim~ worked o~er 40 hours a week, and there were different standards for,fir~ 9n9 police employees. Uhder FLSA, cities could either allow employees to accumulatec;bmp time or get paid. Most cities were dropping comp time because the comp time was now~an(]\:)i1ity. In the past. the City did not have much overtime built into the budget. so comp time off was permitted. The City was obligated to pay comp time at some point in time. Pennington said his preference was to pay employees for overtime in the pay period during which it was earned, In th~. past, employees could use comp time, which was fine, but if a cap need~d to be placed on it to make sure it yvas taken. . ~taft. rl.~t3q.ed to ensure the comp time did not continu~ to aC;:ClJll"lul(]teClnqst9Y on the books..Comp time for exempt employees was not a principle that should be followed. Exempt employees were expected to be on the job as long as it took t() get the job done. If an exempt employee neededtime Ior a doct()r'saP8ointment or other reason,. there was not .a problem. The directors and supervisors were responsible for maintgining the appropriate professional attitude in moving forward with that. For non-exempt employees, the cap of 48 hours was chosen because it was a good number for. the City's accounting system to handle. City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 16 Haddix asked if non-traditional shiffshad b~enconsidered. Pennington said the shifts were not ~:"_-;-:! :'-" .. : .:::._<:~':..":'<. ':: ',: ';: :-:::",:::::,<_:,,_;:.--,;-;.-",.' '>;".:;: :..'_,O)':":.':.:<i_'< "';'-::-i<i/f..,-::'::,':/i:'::'. ",,:i:":,:>, \'.>';"::-",h>i,','.;:::,,...;:;', ::<<).',';- ,-::/::> '" ie,' ',' addressed in the memo; itwas onepfthe.issu~~ that h9dt()b~.Cl??r~ss~cfonClsepdrc:He basis. There was a difference in how hours,y.,ere calculated gnd it. wqs accquntecj fqr in the FLSA. Staff wanted to make sure nothing was lost. . Brown pointed out that the City's exempt employees currently completed out time sheets, which could be a violati.on..qf fL~.~, .Vv'hiSDVv'Cl~ . an()tDyr re9~()p<f<::>rn!Cl~ir")g the. change on exempt employees. The City did nd have a large number Of exempt employees. Learnard said the changes were completely ratidhal dhdlogical, but she wanted to know the effect of the changes on the non-traditional shifts.i and. the military days. Pennington noted that military days were permitted, as well as mqndated. Meeker said the leave policy currently had 144 hours military leave time. Brown said an employee was allowed 18 days annually based on the feperal government's fiscal year, which ran from October 1 through September 30, the same as the City's. Those days had to be granted regardless of whether the employee worked an 8-, 12-, or24-hour shift. Sewall said theTa days were based on whatever type of shift was work~d. He 'v\IOS paid for 18 12-hour days, and for a firefighter, it was 18 24-hour days. Learnard aske.d how the proposed changes would affect thgt. ~~'v\Ign said the overall changes would not aff~ct military leave, as it was mandated by state and federal law. ~ Dienhart asked for more inforllJoti9n9npayinQ .for short-term disability. Brown said she could get quotes, noting that open enrollmer)tforinsuran(;e'v\lCl~jn.August/September and the plan year began November 1. Pennington said he and Bro'v\ln hadcjisclJss~ciJb~ fi~(;qIIllJpact of bridging the gap, and they had wanted to explore it. Learnard asked what the term "sofj dollgrs" rneapt.. ~r()Vv'9~Cli9tQ;9tVv'.Cli~.>t!in!Y.~n!pl()y~e~ were away from their jobs. By limiting the amount of leave time, it was time employees would be working. The dollar savings accoullted for the firefighters because there were 19 on each shift, so there was an actual harddol19rs9yinQs when a firefighter was away and someone was brought in to work the shift. H.. Brown continued that the change to the method of accruing leave time was due to the trend of accruing annual leave on a payroll basis. New employees had to wait one year before receiving any type of annual leave (40 hours at the end .of th.e year), but they would accrue 20 hours by the end of the probatiorJary six months, which helped them have time to deal with things that happened such as doctor appointments or cars breaking down Haddix asked if an employee on a 16-hour shift wanted to tgkeq. gay off, would it be one holiday or two. Brown said it woulg pe two. Ijggdix~gig .D.e.Vv'as ~trugglIn~ Vv'ith that when their normal shift was 16 hours, Dienha~said that Vv'osq pre-existing issue. Brown said the change in the leave policy did not change h()w pay was received. Learnard moved to approve the changes to compensatory time and City leave policies per the Council packet. Imker seconded. .iMotion garried unanirY1ously. Haddix asked anyone who had a concern to contact himangt~ll.himVv'Dot Vv'as wrong. He ~ would then speak with Pennington and Brown to see if something had been missed. Dienhart sClid he would closely watch the implementation of the short-termleaye policy. Employees should not be left unable to pay for necessities. City Council Minutes May 17, 2012 Page 17 Council/Staff TODics Hot Topics Pennington noted that the grand re-bpening of The Gathering Place had been held the day prior to the meeting, adding it was a very exciting place. Pennington said he hoped to have something on the next meeting ..' agenda regarding the renovations of the Recreation Administration building. Learnard moved to convene. in executive. session. at 9:06p.m. for personnel and pending or threatened litigation. Fleisch secon~ed. Motion carried unanimously. Learnard moved to reconvene in regular session at 10:00 p.m. Fleisch seconded. Motion carried unanimously. ,) There being no further business to:, discuss,. L~arnard .moved to adjourn the meeting. Fleisch sec ded. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjour D