HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Communication from Mayor SustarsicQuestions for April 27, 2020 City Council Meeting: Sustarsic
Warrants:
Check # 15291 Los Angeles Freightliner $ 5,429.45
What is this for? Emergency repairs made to the sewer vacuum truck exhaust
system.
Check # 15302 Monica Caruso $ 10,825.00
April 2020 Services
What are these services? Pressure washing along Main Street.
Check # 15324 SteelSentry Inc $ 3,858.14
Lab sink workstation with faucet for water
What is this for? The new” laboratory grade” workstation is specifically
intended for physical water quality sampling. The sampling workstation it
replaces was not designed specifically for this purpose.
Item G. No financial analysis is presented in the staff report and I have received comments that these
proposed increases may not be equitable for all. Since our financial situation is really unknown in the
upcoming fiscal year and beyond, why are increases being proposed for 2021 and 2022 at this time? As
stated in the staff report (Attachment B), the part-time wage increase is a state mandate that requires
the City to pay all employees above $15.00 an hour by January 1, 2022. What staff has proposed is
the most cost effective method to accomplish over the course of three calendar years while
maintaining 5% grade separation between classifications and 5% between salary steps which the City
has assigned for the full time and part time salary schedules, and which is a best practice across the
Human Resources field.
Essentially what staff has done is increase pay for those below $13.00 an hour in calendar year 2020
as mandated by the law while maintaining 5% separation up and down and across the salary schedule
rather than make an across the board increase for each classification which would be less cost
effective.
Also, in terms of equity, the only way to be equitable across the board would be to have across the
board increases for each classification, which would not be cost effective for the City; and if we were
to pick and choose certain classifications, then we would then be inconsistent with best practices (i.e.
5% separation as mentioned above). One example that has come up in the past is whether to
increase Beach Lifeguard pay as part of this process. Though Beach Lifeguards will not receive a pay
increase in calendar year 2020, they will receive an 8.4% increase in 2021 and 7.2% increase in 2022,
for a total of 15.6% (or an increase of $2.94 per hour). Again, if we chose to increase Beach Lifeguard
pay in 2020, we would have to increase other classifications’ pay to maintain the 5% separation which
may not be in the City’s financial interest.
The state’s mandate does allow the Governor to pause a scheduled increase for one year if a certain
economic or budget condition is met. To date, the Governor has not done so and there have been no
discussions about it taking place at the state level. Thus, staff has proceeded as if the mandate will
move forward uninhibited.
Council always has the discretion to approve a one year pay increase for calendar year 2020 like we
have in the past; however, the Council should also be aware that they have directed staff in the past
to wrap this item up in one resolution instead of taking this to Council each year. It also allows the
Finance Department to get ahead of processing future pay increases instead of having to spend
additional time on processing retroactive pay.
The cost of the increase is estimated to be as follows:
2020: approximately $15-20K
2021: approximately $35-45K
2022: approximately $35-45K
Adequate funds have been budgeted for calendar year 2020 and will be appropriated through the
budget process in subsequent years. Staff will provide better estimates as the budget picture along
with a myriad of variables become clear.
Item I. Will CPE residents notice any changes in water taste during this Pilot Project? Residents and
water customers should not experience any notable changes as compared to the current taste of the
water.
Item. N. I thought there was an existing $3.50 charge for credit card payments, at least on some items.
Is this 3% charge in addition to that charge, or just on items not subject to the $3.50 charge? The
existing charge is an administrative fee but has not been charged consistently. The 3% charge before
you tonight is the credit card fee the 3rd party processing companies like Visa and MasterCard charge
the City just to allow credit card payments. It is not a City fee and does not come into the General
Fund as revenue. It is passed through to the processing company. Incorporating this into the fee
schedule prevents the City from absorbing these as additional costs. The new payment portal will
have both a credit card and ACH. If the individual wants to avoid the 3% charge, they can pay via ACH
by using a savings or checking account.