My right screen uh HR uh meeting uh alderman Wells and Alderman Mike Anderson are absent.

We will take uh roll call I'm here which asked us uh Christine Matthews here.

All right, we do have a quorum.

Uh next is approval of minutes.

Did anyone have a time to review the minutes?

I did, and I didn't see anything anything worth changes.

All right, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as outlined in our packet.

Do I have a second?

I'll second it.

All right.

Are we voting on our computers tonight or does voice vote?

All right, let's uh put it to a vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

That is unanimous.

All right, business items.

First, we have uh item 26-04032.

All right, do you have a presentation?

Good evening.

No, I don't have a presentation, but um, I'm going to talk about the volunteer um time off program that we have put together.

So, as part of the strategic plan, um, some of the directors were tasked with creating subcommittees based off of different um items from the strategic plan.

And Marquis had a um committee where within that I am the chair of the volunteer time off um subcommittee.

And with that, we've put together um a program where we can create uh more community engagement with employees by offering them the ability to take time off um during the workday to volunteer within the city of Waukesha at approved organizations.

Um so that is what is before you is our proposed volunteer time off.

Um we've run it through Marquise and Tony to get their blessings on it, and they um are happy to um have moved it forward and I can answer any questions that you might have.

Do you have any questions for staff?

No, I think it's a uh a great idea.

A lot of uh private sectors are doing this, and I'm a recipient of it.

Uh several times I've uh seen Paul doing something very similar.

I think it's a great idea, and I wish many profit not for profit, let alone missivalities would be doing it.

So I'm as a recipient of it, my not-for-profit, I think it's a great idea.

Wonderful.

All right, since there are no more questions, do I have a motion?

Uh motion to approve the volunteer time off program as presented.

I'll second it.

All righty, we will put it to a vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That passes unanimously.

Next is 26-04033.

Thank you.

This is the telecommuting uh telecommunity work remote work policy.

We actually updated it last year sometime, and the committee during the meeting asked it to make a few more changes, so we did.

The purpose of this policy is to allow a little more flexibility for some of our staff.

Um it is not guaranteeing that people can work remotely, but it is giving the option to departments who feel that it's appropriate, and it is going to be based off a workload, uh, availability, and performance.

If you're a poor performer in the workplace in the building, we don't want you allegedly working from home and not doing your work there.

So it's just updating the policy from years and years ago to more current language, more specific guidelines and requirements and um expectations.

And we've had some newer recruits who want to work from home remotely 100%.

This specifies that no city employees should be 100% remote, and it's limiting um the number of days per week you can work from home if you're even if your manager allows.

So those are the most significant changes.

Alrighty, thank you for the clarification on that.

Uh do we have any questions for staff?

Um, as far as work from home, I know that in some cases um new equipment will need to be issued.

How is that going to be handled?

How is that budgeted for um what's what's the procedure for that?

If you cannot work from home with your existing equipment, we're not going to have you working from home.

And most people should be able to work from home with their existing equipment.

And is IT aware of security protocols or any kind of updates that we're all set up for that and ready to go for that?

Yes, everything when COVID hit, that's when everything was changed from an IT perspective, security measures, um different touch keys, things like the FIDO key.

So, yeah, there are a number of security measures that by default have already taken place.

So no financial impact from working from home.

Okay, thank you.

All righty.

Is there any so I see you've got it three days, minimum three days on site?

Maybe it's in a different policy.

I'm just curious.

Are there do we have exceptions to this around?

I'll say like medical needs or something like that.

If someone needs to be home, absolutely that's covered either in this policy or another.

Yeah, because if there's a medical need, that's either going to going to be FMLA or an ADA accommodation or something of that nature.

So that's outside of this.

Okay, yeah, I assume so, but I just wanted to be sure.

I was going to ask a very similar question uh in cases of workman's comp where you're could be working, but you have a work restriction that you cannot perform your task.

Could you work from home?

It of course would depend on the department.

So all of those things, this is strictly from a normal schedule perspective.

None of the uh those are I all I would consider all accommodations.

Okay.

So yeah.

Thank you, Phil, because it's that helped me the six weeks I was on I still got to work and not to tell Kaylee's business, but she was out on leave, and it was she helped us out in a in a pinch, so yeah, it's we do that, yes.

All righty, with no more questions.

Uh let's put this to vote.

I motion that we approve um the work from home vacation policy or work from home policy is written.

I will second.

Let's put it to vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

That passes unanimously on to uh 04034.

The vacation policy, um, we we we got approved a while ago.

Um, but there are a few things that did not align with the collective bargaining unit, so police and fire.

So the main change here was putting in there saying the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement govern that govern police and fire will supersede whatever's in this policy.

So we just need to follow their their um contract.

And then the second most significant change is changed to the retiree payouts.

So right now we have individuals who may retire, they may have eight weeks of vacation on the books.

So they might say, Oh, my last day of work is July 1st, but so then they're on the books all of July, all of August, maybe even a little into September.

So that means the city's still paying for their insurance, the city's still paying for their WRS contributions.

So to save the city money, effective January 1st, 2027, vacation run out is a maximum of three weeks.

And so if you have more than three weeks, you'll get paid out, but you just can't run it out.

So you can run out three weeks and then the remaining balance you will get paid in a lump sum on your final check.

Didn't we talk about this in April?

I think it was April.

We might have.

We did.

Okay, and this is further correction.

Yes.

We added the language of collective marketing agreement.

That's basically thank you for remembering that.

Well, I can remember I remembered the month.

Yes, I was in the same vote as him.

Well, I wasn't even no, not I wasn't even that far as I think we talked about this before.

Yeah, but I know so.

I don't have any more questions, and I really like the streamlining.

Uh, I've been uh on HR for well around three years, and I love it how we used to focus on departments, now it's streamlining everything and not going back like I wish we would have did that for cemetery or you know, DPW or something like that.

So really thank you guys for stepping up your game.

Thank you.

Uh my only question is how do we settle on three weeks?

Because even more than likely it's you're going to still be within that same month where we already pay for WRS, we've already paid for your insurance, and even if it does take you into the next month, it's only one month versus multiple months.

Okay.

I was curious how we arrived at somewhat random.

Fair enough.

All right.

Um looking for a motion for 34.

I'll make a motion to approve the C2 vacation leave policy as presented.

I will second it.

All right, let's put it to a vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That passes unanimously.

On to 04035.

Now I'll let Kaylee go over the majority of the policy.

However, I do want to point out that there was a piece that was left out from last time that we needed to add.

And it was just brought to my attention this morning or yesterday, I believe.

And so it's not written in here.

But the language we would like to add if allowed is on page two under item number four general rules.

It currently reads only city employees may operate city owned vehicles.

Non-employees may not operate city-owned vehicles under any circumstances.

That's what it currently reads.

After talking with our risk management insurance company, they said that we could allow non-employees to utilize the vehicles.

So the language that we want to propose adding, in addition to the other stuff, like I said, Kaylee, we'll go into detail about that.

Is only individuals authorized by the city may operate city-owned vehicles.

Authorization is limited to city employees and approved city volunteers who have successfully completed all required background checks, motor vehicle record reviews, training, and any other requirements established by the city.

All other individuals are prohibited from operating city owned vehicles.

Thank you.

Okay.

Sorry.

We got a plan up here.

What was that?

We got a good plan.

We're gonna listen to you.

All right, wonderful.

So like Merquis said, we um when updating this policy, we had worked with our um liability insurance carrier to get um specific language for um basically um helping lower the city's risk when it comes to individuals driving um city vehicles for business purposes.

Um we also worked with um attorney running.

Um Kaylee, uh my apologies.

I they I was told to put it up on the screen so they can see the language that I just read.

Oh give me just a second.

Okay, sorry.

Can you see it on the far right side on your screens?

Nope.

Oh, no, it probably is agenda item.

It probably shows up there, and that was we talk about that occasionally.

You can do it here.

Oh defending now.

We have a lovely water and uh mountain background.

Looks like Utah.

Huh?

Nice to go there, and now it's gone.

Are you the plaintiff?

Okay, there it is.

Spin around on that one.

Thank you.

I mean, it's serious business what we're doing, but I mean not that so on the right hand side of the screen is the language that I just read aloud.

All right, do we have any questions for staff?

Well, uh Kaylee, were you still gonna was there more you had to present, or was that it?

So, yeah, but you can go through the rest of the okay, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

So, one of the main one of the main changes that we have in the policy is on um the bottom of page four and the half of page five.

Uh it is a driving record um conviction schedule.

So we use this to determine based on the points of someone's driving record, um, if we consider them an individual that is permitted to drive a city vehicle or not, and based on the number of points, based off of their driving record, um, their variations of being uh um permitted.

So nine or fewer, it's allowed 10 to 19.

Um, the HR director has to approve, um, and 20 or more.

Um, it's not permitted without the city administrator or um HR director approver.

Um, so we've actually been using this um for some time um working with our liability insurance carrier.

Um, these are recommendations that he put together um for allowing individuals to drive city vehicles, and then we've removed some of the um in information regarding um suspicion testing drug collection, things like that, and we've moved that into um different policies.

We've updated the accident reporting procedures for individuals and the insurance requirements for drivers of city vehicles as well, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Is this uh help us with our grant from the state of Wisconsin for the pedestrian bridges?

No, this was actually updated last year.

Okay.

I brought it to the HR committee, I think last month or the month before.

I brought the wrong version.

And we voted on it, and I was like, oops.

So I I'm taking bringing it back with the correct version.

But yes, this was created way before we knew about that group.

Okay.

Thank you for holding accountability because that's what our neighbors and citizens ask about.

So thank you.

Paul, do you have a question?

Yes.

Um page five.

Your uh points.

And I mean, I I like this overall, right?

That's I mean, I used to have a fleet vehicle at work, and it was a little different, but similarly.

Yeah, you risk categories.

Um isn't 10 to 19 and 20 or more essentially saying the same thing, just like backwards.

So 10 to 19 is saying the HR director can have approval.

Um the 20 or more maybe should say um city administrator and HR director.

That was yes.

So that's the same.

I was thinking I was like, well, it's basically just HR director for both.

Right, no, no, no, no, okay.

That should be and okay.

Make a note of that.

Um and so we crossed out a bunch of the testing stuff.

You said that goes to it, that's in a different policy now, or yeah, we have a drug screen testing policy.

Um, and we also within our we have a drug screen testing policy, and also within our CDL policy, there are rules and requirements regarding um drug testing.

Okay.

And so I assume if if you're in an accident that requires a test at that point.

Currently, no, that's never been in place.

Okay.

However, the revisions that I'm making to that policy require that.

Okay.

Even if they hold a CDL that we didn't have that policy, so it requires it.

So let me let me rephrase that.

It's not a requirement at all right now.

It requires it, if I'm not mistaken, because again, there are a ton of policies.

If there's a reason to suspect that there was alcohol involved, and um there's a there's a backstory to that, but there have been accidents where even though it was not in a policy, I said, do we feel that this person is under the influence?

And I've asked those questions, and they you know they would answer.

And we've acted accordingly, but now we just wanted in the policy to align with what we actually have done.

Okay.

Correct me if I'm wrong too.

We just adjusted the substance policy as well, too, just a few months ago, or we added some language for this, which is why this was removed here and it was included in the substance policy.

Okay, because oftentimes things are repeated in multiple policies, and you update one and don't forget that it's in that one, so we're just trying to keep subject by subject in the various policies, so it's not all over the place.

Um the only other I guess change I'd ask for, and I'll I'll do a motion to approve this, but section, I guess it's 10A accident reporting procedure.

Um you got a highlighted there as soon as possible.

I guess I'd ask that we quantify that, whether that's next business day or whatever it is, right?

It's it's just one of those things where like what is as soon as possible, right?

And I mean, obviously, if someone's in a bad accident and in the hospital, like okay, we're not gonna hold them accountable to tell us the next day if they're in a hospital or something terrible, but we should set the expectation that if you're an offender vendor, like by the next day you tell your, you know, as soon as possible, isn't like oh well, I was really busy and I didn't get to it for two weeks, right?

Right.

Because you know we're gonna hear it.

Yes, absolutely.

Absolutely gonna hear that, right?

So by the next day is sufficient.

My recommendation would be to say a contact supervisor um after accident has occurred to report accident or something to that effect, where the individual is contacting their supervisor, like literally right after it happened.

Because I'd I'd be a little apprehensive if it was the next day, and then in between that period of time, uh something happened that otherwise may become a problem that we have to address as a result.

Yeah, that's fine.

So if I'm hearing you correctly, change it to contact supervisor to report accident and follow any instructions provided.

Is that what you guys support?

I guess as all idea was took out the as soon as possible.

Immediately, but like what he was saying is if they're in a coma.

Well, I mean, I mean, I think it's one of those where kind of timely.

We need to set the expectation they're calling as soon as they're able.

Right.

Right.

And I guess now that I'm saying it, you have it in there as soon as possible.

Safe to do so.

I think as soon as possible, I'm there.

Because it goes back to this point, 24 hours may be too late.

Or the next day is too late.

Because immediately.

Yeah, it's okay.

Maybe it's okay the way it is.

Uh I guess let's let's leave it.

I as soon as I started talking about it, it it is fine.

So I just again, when I had a fleet vehicle, there was a and I I should have looked up the policy before I came in, but there was like a hey, if you whatever.

Don't worry about it.

We're good.

In a not only a fleet vehicle, but if something is a commercial vehicle, uh, someone with a CDL ABC, it it's there's different levels of timely uh fashion because there are rules that the state makes you follow.

So that's why I would like something in as soon as possible, but better worded as Paul said.

But that's why on a commercial side of things, CDL holders are federally required to do it a little faster.

I mean, it's up to us.

If you got an idea, um let me know.

Because I'll make a motion to approve this, but I if you want, you could put something like contact supervisor as soon as possible after accident occurs to report and follow any instructions provided.

Perfect.

No, I did not.

That sounds like it's contact supervisor as soon as possible after accident occurs to report and follow any instructions provided.

I'll listen to the video of my pin down.

Um for the record for the seat for CDL purposes, there is a line.

Oh, thank you.

There is a line in there that says employees operating with the CDL will abide by this policy along with all relevant CDL policies.

So that is because they're they are harsher or more stringent.

More stringent, correct.

So that that line is in the okay.

Um so that being said, I'm gonna try and get this as right as I can.

Um I'll make a motion to approve the changes to the E2 motor vehicle use policy with the following changes.

Um who is able to drive the vehicles revising it from only city employees to only individuals authorized by the city may operate city-owned vehicles as presented by the staff.

I'm not gonna read this whole thing because that's just gonna screw something up.

Um with the additional change to section, oh shoot, it's uh eight B for driving record where any points 20 or more is city administrator and HR director, and the wording as provided by Tony to section 10A around reporting accidents.

Do we have a second?

I will second.

Okay, let's put it to vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

All right.

That's uh two to three.

We will move on to uh zero three on five, is it six?

Not five, is it six?

We can't be on six already.

Um we are on zero three five zero four zero three five.

That was the one we just did.

Okay.

I didn't keep up my mouth, so all right, thank you.

We are on to 26-04036.

We'll do Haley or Marquise.

Actually, there are there aren't many changes to this one.

Um we cleaned up some of the language a little bit, just the summary change to summary.

And this is another one of those policies where I mentioned there was language in one policy, and so I I moved it over to this one, and um gave some more clear direction on what happens if there's a positive test results or refusal to test and return to work conditions.

So those were the most significant uh changes, and we're also um presenting uh requesting that uh supervisors make sure that everybody is all the supervisors are trained, and there are some trainings um within different systems we have.

So the no before training and also some training that we have from our risk management, so there are different trainings that we can use to present on this topic.

All right, do I have any questions for staff might have questions?

We want to get this right.

I'm good.

All right, I'm looking for a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve HR policy Eight A as presented.

I'll second it.

All right, let's put it to vote.

Aye, aye, aye.

That passes unanimously.

All right, on to uh 0437.

This again, another policy that we're updating to align with current practices.

Um the old policy talked about us having 19 salary grades since the comp study, we now have 16.

I've also added language, I've taken it out of the D3 policy and added added it here, talking about what merit pay is cola and bonus payment programs are um and also we adjusted uh the promotion language a bit because historically um promotions people received a five percent promotion or to the bottom of the new range, whichever is greater, thank you.

Um but what's been happening because of compression and other things um within the city that five percent isn't always enough.

So it says five to ten percent.

That was the biggest change there, and then we also added language that anyone who's promoted to a leadership role, so whether that's supervisor manager or director or high or newly hired, will be required to go through leadership training, management training because oftentimes you might be good as a technical employee, but you don't have the management skills needed to be successful, and we want all of our staff to be successful.

What is that management training?

Is that something we do in-house or right now?

Um, and it was it was approved through council.

We um we go through uh an age agency called soulful soulful leadership.

Okay, so it's it's an external provider, and uh we we just finished up our first round with them today.

So all right, just curious.

I mean, not and I didn't put that specifically in the policy because next year we might say, hey, let's go with someone else.

So yeah, that's yeah, no, like I said, I mean it wasn't a uh just for my information.

Could I click on the question about the colour um is that a is that new or is that do we is that a current policy?

Is that following through?

Do we have a cost of living increase?

It's not new.

Um, but it was not written in the policy like that.

So what what has happened probably three in uh four out of the past six years, most people were given colas more so than merit-based.

There were some that were merit-based, but there were there were some issues, you know, since COVID, and so we just wanted to have that definition in there.

So it means that you know, some people who are in the steps in the new ranges, they're gonna get a step, some people will get cold as so this is just defining what those different things are, but no, it's not new.

Okay.

So it's one or the it's not necessarily guarantee either.

This is just a definition.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Under nine part D, which you were reading um three sentences ago, the um achieve a five percent to ten percent increase over their current base salary.

Is that to help get them in that new role job classification?

Is that what that is going to achieve?

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, just to touch on that a little bit more.

Um what we had found a number of times was that in uh Marquis alluded to this with the compression piece, is that we would end up promoting somebody, but because of the policy, it would restrict it to that five percent, and they would actually be making less than people they were going to supervise.

So, what this does is it allows us to have greater flexibility to make sure that individuals who are promoted are making more than the people that they will be supervising.

Thank you for answering that question with the clarification, Tony.

Any instance where 10% might not be enough?

I know that might I mean I know that's subjective and it's all there could be different variables on there, but that that is a fair uh it's a good question, right?

Because I think there are probably instances where that could potentially become an issue.

Um but we kind of play this, I guess, a little conservative in the sense that we wanted to put something in here that was reasonable.

Um however if there's an interest in providing some type of discretion that we're able to use, that certainly is helpful.

Um in saying that though, I if that is something that you guys are interested in, I think it's probably important too to say that when we're looking at these requests, we're thinking about it from an organizational standpoint and really reflecting on how does this fit into the wider scheme of the salary plan and the sense of employees within that grade, um, the compression or lack thereof in a department uh in a lot of other factors.

So we are very conservative as we're looking at kind of what would be a reasonable amount to increase that person's salary as a result of a promotion.

I personally wouldn't have any objective to add objections to adding language that says or um a reasonable adjustment per you know both of you's discretion or the city administrator and the HR director at that point.

My concern is that we want to get the right people in the right place, right?

And it might be two jumps, two steps, and two steps you know, might not fall into that.

I it's probably not gonna happen every single promotion, but um I wouldn't be opposed to putting the language in it where we give you a little bit more leeway to get them at the current or at the reasonable uh pay scale, in my opinion.

Could happen.

We hope it happens, right?

That's just my thoughts.

Um where I'm with you, right?

I think we need to have you should be you should have the discretion to do what you need to do.

Shouldn't be kind of limited to a policy.

There's always the risk of you know, you're gonna frustrate people, but I mean it's a it's pace, you're gonna frustrate people no matter what, right?

Whether you define it or not, you're gonna make somebody mad.

Um but yeah, I'd be okay with just giving you guys discretion to do it.

Right.

And I I yeah, thank you.

I I I think the concern too is we will have some managers who will say, hey, we have to give this person a 40% increase, or they're not going to take it.

And so that has been an issue even even lately.

And we're like, that is not the practice.

That's far beyond the practice.

So you run into when they feel you have discretion, they push the envelope a little bit.

And I'm not saying that the employees are not worth it, but we have to have some consistency within that work.

I do like a hard number just to give you guys some, you know, in the uh employee handbook or whatever ultimately this is going into some kind of tool or something with some teeth.

Well, we can't do that because uh the three people sitting here said you can't, versus, well, you did it for her, why not him?

Well, we shouldn't have done it for her, and we're not doing it for him because now it's in your uh your handbook.

So I guess uh a number, you know, we've gone, we've doubled it.

You know, would that be helpful to have rather than something arbitrary, uh, a number?

Could you say between 10 and 12 percent?

You can laugh at this, but laughing at laughing at me.

I took my microphone and oh it's because it's I'm trying to give you the tools.

Uh you know, uh it's in the world of not for profit, it's it's it's totally different.

Uh and then tools like this would be helpful uh because we don't have them.

So that's this only where I'm coming from.

Yeah, I mean, I I would be probably uh because that is one of the things that that would be a reality is we'd get requests where people are trying to go well in excess of ten percent.

Um so if we if there is some type of boundaries put on this, I think I'd be comfortable with five to twenty, twenty-five percent.

I sorry I may have talked myself out of this or talk through this by reading it even more and reading it detailed because the whole goal, like you had said, back doctor, is to get them to the next range, and that might be the bottom of the range uh out and through there.

And it does have language on that says five to ten percent increase over their current base salary or placement at the minimum of the new pay range.

So that might be the autonomy that might give you the um flexibility that you need.

If somebody is gonna jump two pay ranges and that's more than 10%, you do have language in here that says it gets them to at least a minimum of that range.

Now, if they come back at 40%, that's negotiating and that that would be on you guys.

But I after reading this, I think it might be written well enough that you do have the autonomy to possibly go above 10% or wherever it takes to get to that minimum level.

So we're gonna keep it as written.

Yeah, kind of talking.

I believe I talk myself out of it.

I mean, I'm okay with it as it is if this is what you think is best.

I would be fine to say, you know, exceptions can be made with both of your approval, right?

With the approval, so I'd be happy to add that in if that is gonna help you all.

So it's up to you, but I'm not gonna force you to it because then you're because you're gonna have to explain it, right?

If someone comes and says I want 40 and you say no, then you're the bad guy.

If we just say the max is 10%, then I mean, okay.

Um I mean, I'm not sure.

I'll be the bad guy.

I always prefer prefer flexibility and kind of discretion.

Um, so I would I'd probably I'd be okay with something like that.

Okay.

I'd be good with that.

Okay.

If there's any is there any other questions from anybody?

Mike's beating, but I'll I'll make a motion if you want.

Make a motion.

All three seven.

All right.

Um I will make a motion to approve hold on uh the F to salary plan and administration as presented um with the minor change to section nine D.

Um to include an exception when approved by both the HR director and city administrator.

I will second it.

All right, let's put it to a vote.

I sorry, forgot about using computers.

All right, that passes unanimously.

That is at uh at the end of our uh action items.

Is there any other discussions?

If not, I'd be looking for uh I just would like to go through.

We didn't get the opportunity to discuss after the motions were made before we voted on a vehicle policy.

I for the record, I'm okay with the vehicle policy.

My biggest thing is I would like to make sure we have assurances that that language, that's very important language, just written into the policy.

That was my only objection to the policy, is having it verbally or having it written into the policy.

I'm uh okay with everything, but just for the record.

I think the way it goes is either way, it would be on the next common council.

And it'll be pulled off the agenda, and then I'll discuss it since I was here this day, or if you say I well, whatever you want to do, but you want to just describe why you were the descending vote on that, and then I'm sure it'll pass without any problems then.

That was my only objection for a record.

So all right, is there anything else?

All right, looking for a motion to adjourn.

I don't think we have to, but motion to adjourn.

Okay, some meetings we do, some we don't.

All right.

We are adjourned.

You're the chair, you can do whatever you can.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Kaylee.

Thank you, Marquise, and thank you, Tony.

All agree of you.

Anyone, I saw the look.

I could feel it on there.

That's that's why I was like, I just we have to adjourn.

I wanted it.

She turned her microphone off already.

No, I don't want to ask you anyway, right?

Because that's always it.