►
From YouTube: City of Charleston Committee on Human Resources 8/19/21
Description
City of Charleston Committee on Human Resources 8/19/21
A
A
A
With
us,
I
I
I
read
the
minutes
as
they
came
to
us
a
couple
days
ago,
and
I
I
do
hope
that
most
of
you
had
a
chance
to
to
review
them,
because
a
lot
of
what
we
were,
the
information
that
was
shared
with
us
in
june
is
still
very
pertinent
to
you
know
what
we'll
learn
today.
A
So
I,
I
think
not
sure
if
it
was
valverde
or
whoever
wrote
the
minutes
for
us,
but
I
think
they
were
a
great
catalog
of
everything
that
we
had
on
our
agenda
a
couple
of
months
ago.
So,
thank
you
very
much.
Okay.
On
to
oh,
I
guess
we
have
to
vote
all
in
favor
of
approving
the
minutes
as
presented
hi
hi.
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
on
to
agenda
item
for
new
business,
and
I
will
happily
turn
it
over
to
our
director
k
cross
and
you
can
have
the
stage.
So.
Thank
you
very
much.
D
Thank
you,
councilmember
jackson,
and
thank
you
everyone
for
for
taking
part
in
this
meeting.
We
we
appreciate
you
being
here.
I
guess
we'll
start
by
talking
about
our
budget,
but
our
proposed
budget
for
2022
for
health
care,
and
for
that
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
joellenbeans.
E
Good
afternoon
everyone
I
just
wanted
to
do,
would
you
all
like
me
to
share
the
summary
budget?
I
think
it
went
out
in
the
in
the
agenda
packet
that
kate
sent
out
the
spreadsheet.
I
know
there's
a
couple
drivers,
so
I
know
you
won't
be
able
to
see
it,
but
overall
the
budget
number
is
really.
You
know
we're
about
a
million
dollars
under
budget
for
the
current
year
and
we're
only
proposing
a
two
and
a
half
percent
budget
for
next
year,
which
is
about
a
half
million
dollars,
which
is
great.
E
Last
year
our
increase
was
almost
1.7
million
dollars,
so
we
are
proposing
that
we
go
ahead
and
not
have
any
premium
increases
and
really
no
changes
to
the
plan.
There's
just
a
small
increase
to
the
overall
expenditures
or
costs
that
we're
expecting
for
next
year.
So
there
is
one
administrative
change.
E
You
know
we
have
all
of
those
fees
locked
except
for
the
stop
loss
fees,
but
we
are
proposing
that
we
switch
the
hra
administration
from
blue
cross
blue
shield
to
connect
your
care
connector
care
currently
administers
our
fsa,
hsa
and
okay.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
kind
of
talk
about
the
administrative
differences
and
what
that
will
mean
to
the
to
the
employee
and
their
family.
A
Well,
I
think
that
would
be
very
informational.
I
mean
there's
several
of
us
who
this
is
our
first
year
to
go
through
a
budget
for
hr.
So
if
you
can
take
us
through
that
jolene,
that
would
be
great,
especially
since
we're
switching
vendors.
E
E
Sure,
okay,
so
right
now
we
have
two
different
cards.
If
you
have
an
an
fsa
that
you
have
a
like
green
card,
which
is
how
I
describe
it
to
my
family,
which
is
for
your
fsa
and
then
the
other
card
is
an
hra,
but
for
next
year
we
would
just
have
one
card
and
the
card
will
be
sophisticated
enough
to
know
what
expenditure
you're
using
so
for
the
hra.
E
You
know
that
pays,
for
you
know
the
medical
piece
of
it,
but
you
can
have
the
fsa
to
pay
for
your
dental,
your
vision
and
your
prescription,
so
yeah,
okay,
how's
the
card,
sir
free.
So
so
we're
getting
the
blue
card.
E
And
go
strictly
with
the
green
card,
and
so
we'll
there'll
be
some
communication
and
education.
A
G
A
I
guess
I
guess
the
bottom
line
to
explain
this,
and
this
sounds
like
a
you
know,
an
effective
way
for
employees
to
be
able
to
use
their
benefits
without
having
to
make
a
decision
on
the
fly
right.
So
basically
it's
a
smart
card
that
will
know
what
what
they
have
already
in
the
bank
for
their
fsa
and
yeah.
That's
that
sounds
great
are
we
are
we
are
we
having
to
you
know
pay.
A
E
We
were
paying
three
dollars
and
fifty
cents
per
per
member
per
month
and
now
we'll
be
paying
three
dollars
and
five
cents.
So
it's
about
a
13
decrease
in
administration
cost
so
which
is
even
more
good
news,
so
so
yeah.
So
really
with
that.
The
only
thing
that
we
are
not
bringing
today
for
the
health
care
administration
and
budget
is
the
stop-loss
and
aeon
is
going
to
market
stop-loss
insurance.
E
We
do
that's
the
one
thing:
that's
not
locked,
and
so
they
usually
like
to
have
our
claims
experienced
through
august
in
order
to
lock
that
rate
so
and
we'll
be
marketing
that,
and
so
I
guess
we
would
like
to
ask
for
a
a
vote
and
approval
of
the
2022
health
care
budget
and
then
a
deferral
of
the
stop
loss
to
be
taken
straight
to
ways
and
means
when
we
have
that
finalized.
A
Okay,
well,
why
don't
we
first
ask
the
committee
members
committee
members
to
ask
any
follow-up
questions.
A
A
A
You're
moving
essentially
item
a
which
is
the
entire
health
care
budget
and
contract
renewals
for
those
plans,
great
any
other
discussion
or
questions
all
in
favor
of
the
motion,
all
right,
hi
hi,
any
opposed
all
right.
I
think
you
have
an
unanimous
approval
and
then
just
to
remind
us,
this
will
go
first
to
the
ad
hoc
budget
committee
right
to
be
provided
as
information
into
their.
E
I
think
it'll
go
through
amy's
ad
hoc
committee,
but
typically
we
take
this
straight
to
the
next
city
council
meeting
for
approval
for
the
contract
renewals.
We
need
we
need
to
have
it
done
before.
A
H
A
I
Councilmember
jackson,
I've
got
information
on
that.
I'm
not
sure
if
I
can
share
my
screen.
You
all
received
this
in
your
packets,
but
I'm
going
to
attempt
to
let's
see.
I
And
disability
is
both
an
employer
and
employee
paid
benefit.
The
basic
life
long
term,
disability
and
short-term
disability
is
an
employer
paid
benefit,
and
then
employees
can
also
elect
voluntary
life
through
the
same
provision.
These
benefits
are
currently
offered
through
new
york,
life,
formerly
known
as
cigna,
and
they
were
last
marketed
in
2013,
and
so
we
asked
aeon
to
market
these
benefits
for
us.
I
I
A
A
Worth
from
from
from
the
our
consultant
right
from
that.
I
That's
correct:
we
appreciate
aeon's
help
in
saving
us
money
on
that.
A
Good
well,
if
there's
any
a
on
representatives
on
the
meeting,
I
do
think
we
owe
them
a
thank
you
for,
for
that.
You
know
that
that's
a
huge
savings
proportionately,
so
16,
almost
17
in
one
year-
that's
great
all
right!
So,
let's
call
the
question
all
in
favor.
I
That's
me
also,
so
the
aon
also
assisted
us
in
marketing
our
voluntary
products.
These
were
last
marketed
in
fall
of
2013
and
we
currently
offer
critical
illness
coverage
accident
both
through
aflac
and
then
a
whole
life
option
through
unum.
So
we
wanted
to
determine
if
we
were
giving
the
most
affordable
pricing
and
also
the
best
coverage
and
because
these
products
were
older.
I
I
wanted
to
take
a
look
at
that
again,
and
it
was
also
important
for
us
to
have
offerings
that
were
compatible
with
benefitfocus
so
that
employees
could
enroll
and
also
see
these
benefits
in
the
enrollment
platform
system.
We
use
through
benefitfocus,
so
aeon
was
assisting
us
with
this,
and
we
were
able
to
offer
the
aflac
accident
plans
with
better
coverage
and
lower
rates
and
then
also
to
make
some
adjustments
to
the
critical
illness
plan,
which
would
also
result
in
lower
rates
and
cover
more
diseases,
including
covet
19..
I
A
I
I
just
had
a
question
about
aflac.
I
have
been
out
of
the
group
health
arena
since
the
early
2000s,
when
it
was
all
sort
of
crashing
and
changing
and
and
is
so
is
affleck
still
like
the
gold
standard
for
this
kind
of
accident
coverage.
I
They
definitely
are
for
the
accident
coverage.
They
were
very
competitive
and
they're
in
their
prices,
and
I
can
I
can
go
and
kind
of
show
you
a
sample.
If
I
say
I
can
here
we
go
compared
to
we
looked
at
a
number
of
carriers.
I
We
kind
of
whittled
it
down
to
the
top
two
and
aflac
was
super
competitive
in
their
pricing,
and
you
can
see
there
that
the
coverage
is
a
lot
better
than
it
was
previously
for
the
plan
we
had
in
place
since
2014
with
any
kind
of
accident
issues
there,
and
this
is
an
example
of
a
high
plan
right
now
we
have
a
high
and
low
option,
and
so
we
elected
to
offer
that
again
we
have
a
lot
of
police
and
fire
employees
that
opt
into
the
accident
plans
and
athletics.
I
Also
very
easy,
I
think,
from
an
employee
standpoint
to
file
a
claim
you
can
file
it
online.
You
can
call
in
the
claim
then
they're
they're,
pretty
quick
on
paying
those
claims
as
well.
A
That's
great.
That
was
going
to
be
my
follow-up
question,
because
it's
not
a
good
product
unless
they
can
actually,
you
know,
be
rewarded
from
for
their
premiums.
So
are
there
any
other
questions?
This
is
an
information
only
item.
Anyone
else
have
any
other
questions
to
ask
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much
good
job,
good
job
by
aeon
and
everyone
all
right
on
to
employee
turnover
and-
and
this
is,
I
think,
also
for
our
information
to
inform
the
decision
that
we
have
under
old
business.
D
It
is
and
councilmember
jackson
I
didn't
want
to
mention
before
we
moved
completely
away
from
the
benefits
just
so
you
know
just
for
information,
we're
planning
to
have
open
enrollment
october,
4th
through
october
22nd
for
our
employees,
and,
of
course
that
includes
council
members
as
well.
D
So
I
just
wanted
to
mention
those
dates
and,
and
also
just
to
mention
that,
with
our
plans
with
the
accident
critical
illness,
I
think
it's
an
important
benefit
that,
even
if
you
don't
actually
file
a
claim,
they
do
provide
a
health,
a
reward
for
getting
your
physical,
getting
your
mammogram.
They
will
actually
send
you
a
check
50
a
year
if
you
have
your
spouse
covered
an
additional
50
so
100
a
year,
basically
in
return
premiums,
for
you
know
doing
what
you
need
to
do
for
wellness.
So
I
just
think.
D
That's
also
just
a
really
important
benefit
to
those
plans.
D
So
with
that,
I
am
going
to
turn
it
over
to
ryan
who,
as
you
know,
is
great
at
crunching
numbers
and
creating
slides,
so
he's
gonna
put
really
interesting
information
up
on
the
screen
for
you
guys
to
kind
of
give
you
an
update
from
our
last
meeting.
F
J
Of
each
of
the
years
listed
so
2014
and
2021.,
as
of
our
last
meeting,
we've
looked
through
may
and
we've
seen
a
pretty
stark
increase
in
non-sworn
turnover
from
last
year.
We're
seeing
that
trend
continue.
J
So
so
far
through
july
of
this
year,
we've
seen
turnover
of
11
in
our
non-sworn
we've
seen
the
police
number
come
down,
fire
numbers
slightly
go
back
up,
but
both
of
those
are
kind
of
hovering
around
sort
of
their
historical
average.
That
non-sworn
turnover
continues
to
be
a
little
troubling.
Just
with
that
big
of
an
increase,
as
you
can
see
from
the
chart,
we've
never
even
had
it
above
10
before
for
these
first
seven
months
of
the
year.
J
J
We
have
projected
our
turnover
through
the
end
of
the
year,
so
that's
a
projection
on
august
through
december,
based
on
our
projection,
we're
expecting
to
hit
19.4
percent
total
non-sworn
turnover.
J
So
this
is
kind
of
that
number
right
here
for
sworn
we're
kind
of
seeing
that
number
stay
kind
of
around
their
historical
average.
So
that's
sort
of
the
gray
line
they're
coming
in
a
little
a
little
higher
than
last
year,
but
we
saw
a
fire
turnover
drop
off
significantly
in
2020.
F
J
This
is
kind
of
a
reversion
to
the
mean
for
sworn
turnover,
but
overall
for
non-sworn,
again
we're
kind
of
hitting
sort
of
uncharted
territories
with
almost
20
involuntary
turnover.
This
is
just
the
voluntary
side,
of
course,
so
we
do
have
some
other
turnover
which
pushes
our
projection
overall
to
be
almost
a
quarter
of
our
employees.
I
think
coming
in
right
around
maybe
23
percent.
H
Yeah,
just
a
quick
question
for
you:
have
we
done
a
comparison
to
other
municipalities
in
terms
of
turnover.
J
Data
as
they
are
with
some
others,
so
we
don't
have
great
comparisons
for
that
sort
of
anecdotally.
We
we've
heard
some
similar
complaints
about
sort
of
turnover
coming
up.
We'll
also
have
some
information
on
recruitment,
where
we've
heard
similar
stories
that
I'm
generally
people
are
kind
of
having
problems.
J
Overall,
when
we
look
at
things
like
department
of
labor,
some
of
their
statistics,
we
generally
expect
government
turnover
to
sort
of
sit
around,
maybe
a
10
mark,
so
we
we
have
been
historically
higher
than
what
we
would
have
expected,
but
yeah
as
far
as
this
year.
Maybe
the
other
agencies
aren't
always
as
forthcoming
about
turnover
numbers,
so
we're
not
100
sure
where
they
are
so
far.
J
Turnovers
going
up,
which
will
be
the
next
couple
of
slides
to
sort
of
show
what
at
least
the
people
responding
have
said.
Some
of
the
biggest
issues
are,
but
as
sort
of
a
sneak
preview,
one
of
our
most
common
complaints
is
pay
and
room
for
growth,
so
that
that's
kind
of
where
we're
seeing
sort
of
most
of
the
problems
come
up
and
we'll
also
have
some
additional
information
on
our
compensation
surveys
to
kind
of
show
where
we
stack
up.
As
generally,
we
expect
that's,
that's
probably
most
of
our
problem.
A
Great,
thank
you.
Why
don't
we
let
you
keep
going
and
then
maybe
we
can,
you
know,
ask
some
questions
that
are
missing
from
your
or
follow-up
to
what
you're
going
to
show
us
next.
F
So
for
our
next
slide,
so
we
do
have
an
exit
survey
which
we
send
out.
This
is
just
exit.
J
J
Is
the
dark
blue,
which
is
a
no
room
for
growth,
followed
very
closely
by
pay
and
then
followed
a
little
further
behind
by
sort
of
lack
of
communication
being
said
as
a
factor
in
workload
being
said
as
a
factor
at
the
very
bottom.
We
have
some
different
numbers
here
that
shows
the
change
from
what
we
presented
at
that
last
meeting.
J
So
our
two
biggest
sort
of
growth
categories
were
the
no
room
for
growth
and
workload,
with
the
pay
being
closely
followed
sort
of
behind
so
24
increase
in
people
citing
no
room
for
growth,
17
increase
in
people
citing
pay
and
then
almost
20
increase
in
people
setting
workload
as
our
three
biggest
growth
categories
for
the
exit
surveys.
J
When
we
do
the
survey
we
ask
sort
of
people,
we
ask
people
what
are
your
sort
of
main
reasons
and
then,
as
a
follow-up,
can
you
rank
those
reasons
for
us?
As
to
which
of
these
things
are
having
the
most
impact
on
where
you're
leaving
we
see
that
overwhelmingly,
it
is
again
those
top
two
categories,
no
room
for
growth
and
pay.
So
not
only
are
they
being
picked
very
commonly,
they
are
being
ranked
very
highly.
J
We
see
the
rest
of
the
numbers
are
all
kind
of
hovering
around
the
same
percentage,
they're
all
ranked
a
little
bit
lower
on
average,
but
overwhelmingly
room
for
growth
and
pay
are
the
top
two
cited
reasons
of
those
respondents
who
said
room
for
growth
was
an
issue.
71
said
they
were
leaving
for
a
promotion
and
29
said
they
were
leaving
for
a
similar
role,
but
with
more
growth.
J
Opportunities
of
those
people
who
said
pay
was
an
issue
about
17
left
for
two
to
three
dollars
an
hour
about
a
third
left
for
upwards
of
five
dollars
extra
an
hour.
Another
about
17
percent
left
for
upwards
of
10
an
hour
and
fully
one-third
of
the
respondents
said
that
they
were
leaving
for
an
extra
ten
dollars
an
hour
or
more
of
those
people.
56
percent
told
us
they
were
leaving
for
a
private
sector
position,
but
44
said
they
were
remaining
in
the
public
sector.
J
So
again,
we've
got
data
at
the
bottom
about
change
from
last
meeting
paying
room
for
growth
have
been
high
rankings
anyway,
but
we've
seen
they
did
slightly
go
up.
We
had
a
few
others
kind
of
come
down,
so
family
circumstances
came
down,
has
a
pretty
large
reason
for
people
leaving
most
of
the
rest
were
all
sort
of
in
the
single
digits,
with
the
exception
of
room
for
growth
growing
by
about
11
as
being
a
highly
ranked
category.
J
So
other
than
turnover
we've
also
updated
our
recruitment
stats,
which
we
presented
at
the
last
meeting,
we
have
seen
an
uptick
in
applications,
so
we're
seeing
a
bit
of
resurgence
in
the
number
of
people
applying
the
numbers
before
had
been
low,
we're
now
kind
of
coming
back
up
to
a
sort
of
similar
number
of
applicants
per
day
per
position,
but
overall
for
our
positions,
we're
seeing
an
average
of
21
applicants
per
position.
J
J
J
The
technicians
are
a
little
bit
kind
of
a
lower
level
position.
So
that's
specifically
where
I'm
trying
to
get
an
example.
J
Includes
things
sort
of
like
our
engineering
technicians,
survey,
technicians,
some
of
our
basic
gis
technicians
generally,
if
you
do
see
a
technician
title,
they
probably
fall
in
that
technician:
group
versus
the
skilled
craft,
where
you
get
a
little
more
of
a
specialized
title
at
that
point,
and
then
service
and
maintenance
tends
to
be
your
more
basic
service
level
jobs.
So
that
would
include
things
like
custodians
groundskeepers
positions
of
that
nature.
J
Yep,
the
collectors
would
be
considering
that
service
group
as
well.
As
I
said,
we
have
seen
sort
of
an
uptick,
so
a
lot
of
our
numbers
are
sort
of
coming
back
up.
We've
seen
service
and
maintenance
is
one
that
has
stayed
a
little
lower
and
then
our
professional
level
positions
has
actually
kind
of
maintained
that
same
low
rate.
So
in
2017
for
a
professional
position
we
had
on
average
just
about
54
applicants,
we're
currently
averaging
about
23
and
then
anecdotally,
for
our
recruitment.
J
We've
also
seen
that
we
tend
to
lose
a
lot
of
applicants
when
we
go
to
make
a
job
offer
to
them.
Our
current
system
doesn't
have
a
great
way
of
tracking
that,
so
we
don't
have
firm
numbers,
but
again,
anecdotally.
We've
seen
that
we
tend
to
lose
out
on
our
first
choice,
applicant
overall
for
our
recruitment
numbers.
We've
projected
those
through
the
end
of
the
year
to
see
how
they
stack
up
as
compared
to
2017
we're
expecting
to
have
the
same
number
of
positions
open
for
the
year.
J
However,
they'll
have
been
open
for
an
additional
total
of
1
587
days,
but
will
have
received
2
six
hundred
and
thirty
three
fewer
candidates,
which
is
a
drop
of
about
thirty
percent.
So
we're
seeing
sort
of
the
same
number
of
positions
posted,
but
a
thirty
percent
drop
in
candidates.
And
it's
taking
us
usually
a
couple
weeks
on
average
to
even
get
that
number.
J
Indicates
that
we
replace
everybody
that
we
lose
if
the
number
is
below
that,
that
means
that
we
are
losing
people
faster
than
we
can
hire
them.
If
it
is
above
that,
then
that
means
we
are
hiring
people
faster
than
we
can
lose
them
essentially
at
the
bottom
of
the
chart.
We
also
have
a
track
of
our
budgeted
ftes
each
year
so
that
we
can
see
essentially
every
year
except
2021,
we
were
adding
additional
positions.
J
However,
we
see
right
around
2018.
There
was
kind
of
a
breaking
point
where
our
sworn
positions
became
much
better
at
recruitment
and
are
replacing
people
at
a
much
faster
rate
than
they
are
leaving.
However,
for
non-sworn
we
are
no
longer
replacing
people
faster
than
they
are
leaving,
and
that
is
with
the
addition
of
new
positions.
So
if
we
were
keeping
pace,
we'd
actually
expect
to
see
that
number-
probably
up
here,
because
we'd
be
adding
new
staff
every
year,
but
instead
we're
not
even
actually
able
to
replace
the
current
staff
that
are
leaving.
J
So
we've
got
our
projection
through
year
and
again
we
lose
a
little
more
than
we
hire
people
on
board
in
general
for
about
every
16
people
that
we
lose.
We
hire
back,
maybe
14
or
15
of
them,
which,
in
the
short
term,
doesn't
necessarily
cause
a
big
problem,
but
across
all
of
our
non-sworn
positions,
we've
definitely
seen
an
impact
on
staffing
actually.
J
Be
honest,
the
hiring
freeze
was
a
little
bit
more
of
a
pause,
so
generally
positions
were
being
held
for
on
average
about
two
months,
so
we
would
expect
a
small
decrease
in
the
numbers,
but
because
it
was
essentially
a
two-month
pause.
After
that
initial
two
months,
we
were
essentially
expecting
to
kind
of
come
back
on
pace,
so
we
have
about
a
two
month
lag
time
and
positions
coming
to
us.
J
But
at
that
point
we
should
be
sort
of
maintaining
that
sort
of
one-to-one
replacement
rate,
but
we
can
see
that
even
since
2020
we've
been
sort
of
way
below
that
number
and
2021,
where
now
we're
essentially
back
on
pace,
the
requisitions
may
still
be
a
little
ruled
due
to
the
freeze,
but
we're
essentially
back
on
pace.
We're
still
not
able
to
essentially
keep
up
with
the
rate
of
turnover.
A
And
and
ryan,
I
know
you've
broken
it
out
between
sworn
and
non-sworn.
Are
there
further
breakouts
in
terms
of
job
classification
or
pay
scale,
or
things
like
that?
I
mean
I'm.
I
have
no
trouble
believing
this.
Unfortunately,
I
think
just
anecdotally
in
the
life
of
a
council
member
representative,
we
we
know
that
whenever
we
call
in
a
pothole
or
a
problem
with
trash
collection,
or
things
like
that
that
we're
going
to
hear
that
you
know
they're
short
staffed
on
any
given
week.
J
So
so,
generally
from
what
we've
seen
it,
it
does
tend
to
be
sort
of
the
lower
half
of
our
pay
scale
where
we
tend
to
see
the
bigger
problems.
But
generally
we
we're
seeing
that
same
kind
of
turnover
and
staffing
problems
honestly
across
our
entire
pay
scale.
We've
had
replacement
problems.
So
if
I
scroll
back
to
recruitment,
even
our
professional
positions,
which
tend
to
be
in
the
top
half
of
the
pay
scale,
we're
still
seeing
those
same
sort
of
recruitment
problems.
J
So
yes,
in
general,
the
bottom
half
of
the
gray
tends
to
have
a
worse
time.
Lower
level
positions
tend
to
have
a
more
aggressive
turnover.
They
tend
to
leave
a
lot
quicker
and
we
are
having
a
worse
time
retention,
retaining
them
to
be
honest,
but
it's
more
of
a
game
of
margins
at
that
point.
So,
while
the
lower
level
grades
are
having
more
of
a
problem,
as
I
mentioned,
we're
still
seeing
it
sort
of
across
all
the
positions.
J
B
J
Again,
it's
something
we've
seen
across
the
board,
so
there's
not
been
any
department
trend.
It's
been
essentially
we've.
We've
got
good
samples
from
essentially
every
department.
Okay,
thank
you,
yeah,
there's
again
there.
There
are
some
trends
which,
if
you
have
departments
with,
on
average,
lower
graded
positions,
we'll
see
a
slightly
higher
amount
there,
but
not
enough,
I
think,
to
necessarily
say
it's
too
sort
of
too
much
of
an
unexpected
impact.
If
that
makes
sense,.
J
We've
had
some
conversations
with
our
counterparts
with
some
of
the
other
agencies,
so
we
we
know
that
there
are
similar
problems
going
on,
but
we
do
have
some
information
from
them
that
we'll
have
up
in
a
couple
slides
as
well
to
kind
of
show
where,
where
they're
at,
to
give
a
sense
of
at
least
how
we're
comparing
again
anecdotally,
everyone
seems
to
be
having
some
recruitment
problems,
but
we've
seen
some
other
places.
Take
some
moves
to
try
to
address
those
that
we
found
sort
of
interesting.
J
So
from
looking
at
the
replacement
rates
that
leads
us
into
looking
at
staffing
levels
to
be
able
to
try
to
show
actually
where
we're
at
with
the
number
of
staff
that
we
have
so
as
before
the
orange
is
non-sworn.
Blue
is
sworn
for.
Our
sworn
positions
we've
seen
them
holding
relatively
stable
back
to
the
replacement
rate.
We
know
they
used
to
be
a
little
worse
at
replacing
people,
so
we
kind
of
see
a
generalized
downward
trend,
but
right
around
2019.
J
We
see
that
they've
started
to
go
back
up
and
so
on
our
sworn
side,
we're
definitely
building
our
ranks
at
that
point,
to
a
point
where,
with
our
sworn
friends,
we're
having
conversations
about
how
to
manage
potential,
wait
lists
for
future
positions,
so
they're
they're
getting
themselves
to
a
very
comfortable
position
where
we're
able
to
start
having
those
conversations
which
is
definitely
a
positive
for
non-sworn.
J
F
J
and
from
our
previous
slide
we
saw
that
almost
every
year
our
budgeted
fte
numbers
went
up.
However,
for
the
past
several
years,
essentially,
our
staffing
level
has
dropped.
So
while
we've
been
adding
positions,
we
have
not
been
able
to
keep
up
with
again
even
our
sort
of
replacement
rate,
let
alone
necessarily
filling
a
large
number
of
new
positions.
J
Sort
of
set
the
stage
for
some
of
our
compensation.
We
have
presented
these
numbers
in
the
last
meeting.
We
do
have
some
updates,
so
we
received
additional
information
from
columbia,
charleston,
county
and
savannah.
J
We
did
not
receive
a
response
from
mount
pleasant
at
this
time,
but
we
essentially
matched
49
different
positions
across
14,
different
municipalities
and
counties,
and
essentially
compared
how
our
positions
stacked
up
as
far
as
median
compensation.
J
So
for
our
fire
department.
We
have
final
arch
six
positions
with
71
total
responses.
Our
median
position
ranks
essentially
two
and
a
half
if
out
of
12,
essentially
putting
our
fire
positions
in
the
top
21st
percentile.
As
far
as
median
pay
for
police
against
six
positions
across
66
hold
responses,
we're
solidly
first
out
of
12th
bringing
us
in
the
eighth
percentile
for
the
positions
for
non-sworn,
we
matched
across
47
different
positions,
and
our
median
position
was
five
out
of
ten
for
a
total
of
50th
percentile.
J
Hopefully,
that's
a
little
better.
I
know
I
don't
know
so
we
looked
at
the
percent
of
positions
for
each
agency,
where
the
position
had
a
salary
in
the
top
third,
essentially
trying
to
see
how
many
of
our
positions
were
essentially,
first,
second
or
third
out
of
these
14.
for
fire.
83
percent
of
our
positions
have
a
salary
solidly
in
the
top
third
police,
again
83
non-sworn.
J
J
J
This
kind
of
matches
our
median
information.
However,
this
was
used
to
sort
of
develop
a
ranked
average
to
sort
of
see.
Okay
based
on
these
median
ranks.
How
do
we
actually
fall
overall
for
fire
sort
of?
As
expected?
We
are
second,
so
savannah
does
slightly
edges
out.
We
return
the
favor
and
police,
with
it
being
first
slightly
edging
out
savannah.
J
However
non-sworn
our
average
rank
essentially
puts
us
at
ninth
out
of
14
behind
charleston
county
north
augusta
greenville,
greer,
savannah,
north
charleston
rock
hill
and
hilton
head
overall
we're
fourth,
so
our
police
and
fire
positions
are
definitely
sort
of
buoying.
Our
total
stats,
however,
that
non-sworn
number
is
a
bit
of
a
concern,
especially
as
comparing
to
some
of
these
places
are
sort
of
our
typical
comparisons,
so
being
a
little
lower
rank
than
them
does
give
us
a
bit
of
a
pause
when
it
comes
to
our
competitiveness.
F
J
The
next
slide
we
had
a
request
from
the
last
meeting
to
look
at
minimum
wages.
So
this
is
the
information
that
we
have
been
able
to
obtain
from
some
different
agencies.
The
first
table
to
the
left
is
the
city
of
charleston.
J
J
In
addition
to
minimum
wage,
we
asked
about
total
pay
increases,
essentially
since
2014,
just
to
kind
of
see
how
we're
stacking
up
get
a
sense
of
what
other
people
have
been
doing
in
our
planning.
To
do.
We
know
the
housing
authority
just
sort
of
recently
instituted
their
increase,
so
we've
seen
them
go
up
six
percent,
as
of
july
21,
reaching
a
15
minimum.
J
Mount
pleasant
are
all
actually
still
sort
of
just
above
that
10
an
hour
minimum.
However,
then
north
charleston,
greenville
and
savannah
are
all
continuing
to
sort
of
work,
their
way
up
to
15,
with
north
charleston's
minimum,
actually
at
15
39
as
of
this
year.
There
are
a
handful
of
exceptions,
but
they
are
only
specifically
part-time
positions,
of
which
I
think
they
said
there
were
about
three,
so
three
different
titles
that
would
actually
get
paid
below
the
15,
but
all
the
rest
of
their
positions
are
up
to
15..
J
Greenville
has
a
same
deal,
a
couple
of
positions
below
their
minimum
of
1409,
but
it's
five
positions
out
of
all
of
their
total
positions.
Savannah
is
at
1343
and
then
of
all
of
our
respondents.
Mount
pleasant
and
savannah.
We
both
know
are
currently
undergoing
a
salary
study
to
make
potential
further
changes
beyond
what
they've
already
made
for
sort
of
our
own
curiosity.
We
also
looked
at
what
the
total
percentage
of
increases
has
been
so
for
ourselves.
We've
been
about
a
19
increase
since
2014.
J
for
charleston
county.
It's
been
about
a
23
increase,
not
pleasant.
They've
done
about
20,
plus
unspecified
salary.
Study
changes,
we're
not
sure
what
percentage
those
were
north
charleston
has
done
about
a
15
and
savannah
has
done
about
an
18
since
2014.,
so
we're
we're
lagging
a
little
bit
behind
on
the
minimum
wage
when
compared
to
at
least
four
of
these
groups,
we
are
still
maintaining
an
edge
when
it
comes
to
school,
district,
charleston
county
and
mount
pleasant
positions,
but
are
definitely
coming
a
little
further
behind.
When
we
look
at
north
charleston.
J
And
staffing
we
have
provided
some
updates
to
our
pay
plan
adjustment
proposals
for
your
consideration
in
the
budget
for
2022..
J
We
had
previously
presented
this
version-
the
two-year
standard
three
year
and
a
standard
four
year,
but
have
also
added
an
option
for
a
three-year
graduated
implementation,
which
would
get
us
to
fourteen
dollars
an
hour
in
2022
and
then
slow
the
pace
of
the
increase
down
to
50
cents,
so
that
we'd
be
hitting
a
minimum
of
14.50
and
then
15
in
years.
Two
and
three
so
we'd
be
looking
at
a
20
15
minimum
in
2024,
but
with
a
bigger
increase
in
year,
one
slower
increases
in
year
two
and
three.
J
This
is
essentially
the
same
cost
as
the
old
three-year
plan.
It's
just
moving
the
costs
into
different
years
to
bump
ourselves
up
to
that
14
an
hour
minimum.
It
would
cost
a
maximum
of
just
shy
of
seven
million
dollars
that
does
include
fringes.
It
also
assumes
that
all
of
our
positions
are
filled,
which
we've
seen
is
not
necessarily
the
case,
so
that
definitely
is
more
of
a
sort
of
maximum
number.
J
Given
what
we've
seen
with
the
exit
surveys,
pay
and
room
for
growth
being
a
major
concern,
seeing
where
we
are
as
far
as
our
survey
results,
it
definitely
appears
that
compensation
is
a
very
likely
major
factor
in
our
staffing
at
the
time.
So
if
we
continue
our
drive
to
15
an
hour,
these
are
probably
our
most
realistic
ways,
knowing
that,
especially
for
the
first
two
that
first
year,
cost
of
seven
million
dollars
is
substantial.
J
And,
as
a
final
slide,
we
have
essentially
a
more
detailed
breakdown
of
each
of
those
plans,
just
so
that
you
can
sort
of
see
year
by
year
what
the
impact
would
be.
So
our
two
year
plan
is
the
one
dollar
an
hour
increase
each
year.
That's
seven
million
dollars
in
general
fund
cost
increase
the
first
two.
J
An
hour
by
2023.
for
the
sake
of
comparison,
since
we
looked
at
a
maximum
of
four
years,
we've
taken
all
the
plans
across
four
years
and
assumed
that
we
would
do
at
least
two
percent
cola.
Just
for
the
sake
of
argument
for
any
subsequent
year.
J
We
do
try
to
keep
the
sworn
number
proportionately
close
to
non-sworn,
so
our
first
two
plans,
while
non-sworn,
would
get
about
a
seven
percent.
Almost
eight
percent
increase.
Our
swarm
positions
would
also
get
a
four
and
a
half
percent
increase
to
make
sure
that
we're
keeping
relative
pace.
We
know
they
are
fairly
competitive,
but
we
also
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
lose
any
ground
on
those.
A
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
ryan
and
everybody
who
contributed
to
you
know
not
only
putting
the
presentation
together,
but
all
of
the
data
crunching
and
tracking.
That
has
to
go
into
that.
I
know
it's.
You
know
the
kind
of
work
that
can't
ever
let
up
your
your
statistics
that
are
contributing
to
the
annual
information.
So
we
really
do
appreciate
it,
because
I
know
that
everyone
has
a
busy
day
job,
no
matter
what
so,
why
don't?
We
have
a
little
discussion
if
there's
any.
C
So
I
think
we've
highlighted
the
need
to
adjust
some
some
pay
for
next
year
and
the
years
coming.
There's
no
just
absolutely
no
question
about
that,
and
you
know:
we've
been
on
a
mission
to
get
to
15
an
hour
now
for
a
few
years
and
we
lost
program.
C
So
so
I
wouldn't
you
know,
I'd
really
love
to
see
the
dollar
a
year
added
next
year
possible.
You
know,
option
two
gets
us
all
the
way
there
in
three
years
and
spreads
it
out
a
little
bit.
I
must
say
that
that
differential
in
year,
one
of
almost
seven
million
and
four
and
a
half
is
significant,
and
so
you
know
just
given
what
we're
looking
at
for
budget
restraints
for
the
coming
year.
You
know
it.
C
It
just
may
end
up
being
the
more
practical
thing
to
to
to
go
to
option
three
there
or
c
what
I
don't
know
if
they're
named
or
numbered
the
one
that
says
67
cents
per
year-
and
I
presume
that
be
for
three
years
right
there,
because
it
just
kind
of
levels
it
out
a
little
more.
It
gets
us.
It
gets
us
to
15
this
in
the
three
years
the
same
as
option
two,
but
it
does.
C
It
does
smooth
it
out
a
bit
and
so
that
just
might
be
more
practical
from
a
budgetary
point
of
view,
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
wait
until
amy
and
and
budget
and
finance
tells
us
what
our
revenues
are
projected
to
be
next
year,
but
just
off
the
cuff
and
looking
looking
at
these
numbers
and
these
charts,
I
I
think
option
three
seems
most
palatable
to
me.
A
Well,
any
anyone
else
want
to
make
some
overall
comments
or
or
ask
any
any
specific
questions
in
while
you're
thinking
about
that.
Is
it
the
intent
of
the
staff
for
the
cfo
who's?
Also
with
us,
ms
wharton?
Is
it?
Is
it
the
intent
that
you
want
us
to
make
some
sort
of
firm
recommendation
or
give
our
you
know,
thoughts
in
terms
of
priorities
or
how
would
you
like
us
to
deliver
a
word
to
the
budget
committee
and
then,
obviously,
the
full
council.
G
A
But
not
necessarily
have
an
official
vote.
Have
I
have
a
discussion
consensus,
or
should
we
actually
create
our
own
motion
just
procedurally,
and
if
we
do
that,
I
do
think.
I
would
like
to
combine
that
with
going
to
the
one
item
that
is
it's
listed
under
old
business
because
we
didn't
take
up
the
the
you
know,
the
actual
benefits
and
that
and
and
the
knowing
that
we're
going
to
have
to
be
putting
a
full
budget
together
in
the
city,
so
the
compensation
is
listed
under
new
business.
A
But
I
I
personally
believe
that
having
the
opportunity
to
talk
about
the
paid
family
life
leave
is
another
benefit.
That
might
you
know,
be
an
ingredient
in
trying
to
put
together
the
best
compensation
that
we
possibly
can.
You
know
in
this
in
the
in
the
time
that
we
have
for
next
year.
So
would
anyone
object
if
we
bring
that
item
forward
and
then
we
can
have
a
more
thorough
discussion
on
how
we
want
to
leave
our
recommendations
or
our?
You
know
our
our
thoughts
for
the
next
leg
of
the
city's
budget
journey.
A
Okay,
hearing
none,
I
would.
I
would
then
like
to
call
on
the
old
business
item
a
of
to
return
to
pretty
much
where
we
were
a
year
ago
in
in
entertaining
and
then
agreeing
with
the
recommendation
that
that
we
had
heard
from
the
hard
work
of
the
commission
on
women
combined
with
the
the
human
resources
staff
and
mr
landry
in
particular,
as
as
we
looked
at
how
to
cast
some
sort
of
new
benefit
into
the
city.
A
So
on
that
basis,
I'd
like
to
call
on
welcome
and
call
on
chairman
alterman,
janet
robinson
alterman,
who
was
carrying
that
recommendation
to
us
a
year
ago,
and
maybe
just
start
where
we
left
off
at
that
point
in
time.
K
K
Combination
of
the
two
makes
him
a
magnificent
contribution
to
our
city
staff.
I
am
back
to
bring
up
again
the
paid
family
lead.
K
K
K
I
also
can't
help
but
notice
that
the
new
york
life
savings
of
90
some
thousand
dollars-
would
fund
that
first
year,
if
the
city
decided
to
go
with
the
staggered
approach
in
2022.
So
I
do
ask
that
you
give
it
strong
consideration.
It
is,
I
think,
we're
not
done
with
covid.
K
I
think
that
we're
going
to
have
more
and
more,
as
you
know,
the
discussions
around
the
schools
and
what's
going
to
happen
and
how
many
of
our
employees
are
parents
and
are
going
to
have
to
deal
with
that
situation
if
kids
are
not
back
in
school.
So
I
think
this
would
be
a
real
morale
booster
also
for
city
employees.
The
way
it's
structured
is
we
recommended
for
the
first
six
months,
a
maternity,
parental
leave
paid
of
four
weeks
and
caregiver
leave
for
two
weeks
now.
K
You
could
even
go
so
far
as
to
keep
that,
in
effect
for
the
whole
year,
but
at
least
to
get
this
thing
jump
started
traditionally.
What
we
brought
to
you
would
have
been
in
place
fully
by
the
end
of
2024
and,
of
course,
as
councilmember
gregory
said
at
that
council
meeting,
we
brought
in
a
plan
for
eight
weeks
and
you
upped
it
to
12..
So
I
want
to
thank
you
again,
councilmember
gregory
for
for
doing
that.
A
Great,
thank
you
ryan
or
someone
do
we
have
the
incremental
leaf?
You
know
chart
that
we
looked
at
last
year,
sometime.
F
K
The
total,
if
we
were
to
do
six
months
at
four
weeks,
for
maternity,
parental
and
two
weeks
for
caregivers
and
do
the
second
six
months
for
six
weeks
of
maternity
and
parental
and
then
four
weeks
there
it
is,
I
don't
have
to
the
total
for
the
year-
would
be
ninety
seven
thousand
dollars.
You
can
see
it
right.
There.
A
And,
and
to
remind
ourselves
these,
the
the
dollar
amounts
that
are
represented
here
are
based
on
actual
leave,
yeah
yeah
that
was
taken
by
employees
in
2019.
I
think,
is
that
correct
brian.
K
A
D
D
So
we
do
have,
we
do
have
an
employee
paid.
We
pay
for
every
employee
to
have
short
term
disability,
which
is.
F
D
To
my
knowledge,
I
think
we're
the
only
municipality
in
the
state
that
offers
that
it's
a
huge
benefit,
but
we
do
also
provide
paid
second
annually,
which
I
will
say
you
know,
I
think
you
know
are
pretty
generous
and
employees,
of
course,
can
our
our
policy.
Unlike
some,
you
can
use
sick
sleep
for
caring
for
a
child
or
a
spouse
or
a
parent,
whereas
you
know
a
lot
of
sick
leave
policies.
Don't
allow
that.
So
you
know
we
really
are
not
in
terrible
shape
when
it
comes
to
leave.
D
I
think
we've
got
good
leave
policies
in
place.
I
would
just
in
fact
we
we
actually
had
to.
We
have
carry
over
maximums
that
we
had
to
extend
past
this
year
because
we
have
employees
with
so
much
leave.
They
were
not
able
to
use
it
and
we're
actually
looking
at
maybe
having
to
do
that
again.
Next,
this
pack,
this
coming
year
we're
going
to
have
more
employees
losing
leads.
So
I'm
not
I'm
not
in
any
way.
I
think
that
family
leave.
You
know,
I'm
not
opposed
to
that.
I
think
it's
a.
D
I
think
it's
a
good
benefit,
but
I
just
I
just
want
everyone
to
be
clear
that
we
already
have
pretty
good,
pretty
rich
benefits
in
the
city,
we're
very
lucky
luckier
than
a
lot,
certainly
better
than
most
private
sector
employers,
and
I
guess
my
only
thing.
I'd
also
like
to
ask:
how
do
how
do
you
see
this?
Combining
with
the
new
federal
prof
proposed
family
lead?
D
A
Just
jumped
in
there,
no,
I
I
I
would
agree.
I
think
if
you
know
if
the
city
starts
out
as
a
as
a
you
know,
a
single
employer
creating
this
benefit,
and
then
the
federal
government
steps
in
and
and
starts
to
deliver
it
just
like
social
security
or
anything
else.
Then
then
we
would
retreat
and
the
govern,
fed
federal
government
program
would
come
forward
and
replace
it.
B
B
I
understand
the
importance
of
it,
but
when
we're
answering
those
questions
and
we're
seeing
people
leaving
for
pay
and
we
look
at
comparisons
of
minimum
wage
and
some
of
the
other
comparisons
that
we
look
at,
that's
got
to
be
our
priority
and
I
just
can't
see
us
I'm
sorry.
I
can't
see
us
putting
money
into
this
when
we
can't
pay
our
people
enough
right
now
and
that's
where
our
focus
needs
to
be
right.
Now.
A
Thank
you.
Well,
I
I
do
think
that
just
to
pose
a
you
know,
sort
of
another
thought,
council,
member,
that
chairman
alterman
started
out
her
her
reminders
to
us
that
compensation
is
all
of
this,
and-
and
I
do
think
that
people
are
not
really
that
cognizant
and
appreciative
of
what
you
know
it
costs
that
literally,
is
a
factor
into
their
their
own
savings,
so
by
by
the
city
providing
benefits
they
don't
have
to.
I
mean
I
think
that
is
you
know.
A
The
full
package
of
a
compensation
opportunity
for
an
employee
is
to
appreciate
that,
yes,
it
might
not
be
in
their
direct
paycheck
for
their
discretionary
use,
but
they
would
have
less
discretionary
funds
if
they
had
to
start
covering
expenses
that
the
city
is
handling
for
them.
I
mean
the
short-term
disability.
A
So
I
it's
it's
just
a
matter
of
you
know,
I
obviously
we
can't
argue
with
the
it's,
it
doesn't
go
into
their
paycheck
and
I
and
it's
hard.
It
was
sort
of
like
the
same
conversation
that
we
were
having
the
other
night
about
asking
people
who
aren't
here.
Yet
you
know
what
their,
what
their
thoughts
were
about.
The
municipal
improvement
district
on
john's
island,
it's
very
hard
to
to
anticipate
because
the
people
that
are
going
to
benefit
from
this
aren't
necessarily
here
the
ability
to
recruit
and
retain.
A
You
know
it's
an
intangible,
that's
very
hard
to
to
to
put
a
statistic
to,
but
I
think
there's
been
enough
benefit.
You
know
studies
over
the
last
decade.
If
not,
you
know
over
the
last
many
years
that
that
that
really
does
give
value
to
the
fact
that
the
full
package
of
compensation
is
the
way
that
people
use
their
money
for
their
own.
You
know
family
life,
their
own
lifestyle.
K
G
K
Is
our
concern
and
I
throw
it
into
the
argument
that
councilmember
jackson
just
made.
H
Ahead,
you
know
I
in
an
ideal
world,
it
would
be
great
for
us
to
do
both,
but
when
you,
when
you
look
at
the
information
from
the
exit
interview
and
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong
benefits
was
like
the
last,
almost
the
last
reason
why
they
were
leaving.
H
If
I'm
correct-
and
I
I
agree
with
you-
that
you
know
you-
you
need
to
look
at
the
total
package,
but
I'm
I'm
I'm
a
bit
as
concerned
of
madame
chairman
as
councilman
sheila
is
because
of
the
two
top
two
reasons
for
leaving
are
the
two
that
we
should
attempt
to
try
to
to
focus
on.
H
I
know
that
doesn't
help
this
along,
but
but
I
think
that
councilman
shealy's
rationale
was
was
pretty
good.
One.
A
C
Suzanne
observation
that
you
know
it
is
that
combination
of
pay
and
benefits-
I
think
our
employees
enjoy
and
and
the
top
priority
at
this
point,
I
think
as
councilmember
sheely
and
gregory
both
said
needs
to
be
paid.
C
However,
I
must
say
you
know
the
year.
One
step
here
seems
like
a
pretty
good
bang
for
the
buck.
You
know
under
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
and-
and
we
would
have
a
leave
program-
maybe
not
as
long
as
the
federal
government
would
allow
or
other
employers,
but
at
least
we
wouldn't
be
enhancing
the
program
for
a
pretty
reasonable
amount
of
money.
C
When
you
get
to
year,
two
and
three,
it
obviously
gets
a
hell
of
a
lot
more
expensive,
but
I
think
by
then
that
the
situation
would
resolve
itself
with
the
federal
government
as
to
what
they're
going
to
do
and
require-
and
I
would
just
say,
like
I
said-
about
the
pay
options
before
that
until
we
see
what
our
revenue
projections
are
for
for
next
year.
You
know
you
can't
make
a
firm
decision
on
on
any
of
this
right
now.
C
I
would
like
to
leave
year
one
on
the
table,
so
to
speak
until
we
get
to
that
point
with
with
our
with
our
budget
process
this
year
and
we'll
just
have
to
see.
G
Is
amy,
I'm
sorry
when
we
talked
about
this
even
the
last
year
we
had
talked
about
that.
We
really
can't
split
it
up
like
that,
and
maybe
heather
could
talk
about
that
more
so,
but
we
can't
do
it,
you
know,
increase
it
half
year,
it's
just
not
it's
not
feasible
for
us
to
do
it
that
way.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we.
I
I
was
gonna.
That
was
what
I
was
raising
my
hand
to
to
point
out.
Amy
mentioned
this
last
year,
but
our
lead
programs
are
based
on
they
start
january,
one
so
to
split
it.
Mid-Year
would
not
be
feasible,
and
then
I
think
that
there
was
also
a
point
made
about
using
the
savings
from
the
new
york
life
renewal.
There
will
be
an
additional
cost,
I
believe,
for
them
to
administer
new
leave
that
we
want
tracked
that
we
would
have
to
get
pricing
on
that
side.
I
A
You're
right,
I'm
gonna
just
start.
Go
ahead.
Carol!
Sorry
go
ahead.
I
was
just
in
in
response
to
the
fact
that
we
can't
split
the
year.
I
am
sorry
that
you
know
we
didn't
understand
that
last
year
we
probably
would
have
adjusted
our
recommendations
to
to
follow
the
mayor's.
A
You
know
sort
of
compromise
thinking
here
I
mean
I
I
if
we
can't
make
it
a
split
between
the
six
months
to
end
up
with
below
100
000
cost
to
the
city,
then
looking
at
the
first
six
months
of
parental
maternity
for
four
paid
weeks
and
caregiver
two
weeks
I
mean
that's
a
very
small
amount
of
money
times
two,
so
basically
we're
looking
at
forty
thousand
dollars
if
we
decided
to
go
with
with
structuring
the
leave
like
that
in
the
first
year.
A
D
Ryan,
can
you
put
up
the
we
had
come
up
with
with
something
we
thought
you
know?
Maybe
we
could
consider
for
next
year,
based
on
the
fact
that
we
know
we
can't
split
it.
Can
you
put
that
that
up
on
the
screen,
ryan,
what
you
put
together.
D
So
there
are
two
options
here
and
I
think
they're
pretty
similar
to
what
you
were
just
just
you
know,
maybe
didn't
even
look
at
councilmember
jackson.
The
one
thing
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
you're
correct
that
this
is
based
on
leave
that
was
actually
taken,
but
I
think
that
anytime,
you
have
a
leave
program,
that's
not
going
to
come
off,
you
know
people's
leave
balances
and
this
may
even
account
for
some
leave.
That
was
unpaid.
D
The
these
are
very,
very
low
estimates,
so
I
I
my
prediction
would
be.
The
cost
would
probably
be
about
double,
but
the
fact
is.
We
really
won't
know
that
until
we
until
we
have
until
we
have
go
through
a
year
and
see
what
is
actually
utilized
and
calculate
that
cost,
so
you
know
if
we're
gonna
look
at
this,
you
know
my
proposal
would
be
that
we
considered
this
kind
of
a
pilot
program
for
the
first
year,
especially
given
that
I
I
mean
personally
fully
expect
federal
government
to
implement
something.
D
I
it's
not
going
to
be
by
january.
I
I
understand
it's
not
going
to
happen
that
quickly,
but
perhaps
by
the
following
year,
then
maybe
if
we
looked
at
it
as
a
pilot
because
and
and
kind
of
that
way,
we're
that's
the
only
way,
we're
really
going
to
know
what
the
actual
cost
of
this
program
is
going
to
be
as
great
as
ryan
is
with
numbers.
He
can't
predict.
D
He
can't
predict
a
new
lead
program
that
you're
putting
in
place
or
how
many
people
are
going
to
take
advantage
of
it.
So
I
just
wanted
to
just
clarify
that
with
the
numbers,
but
anyway
I
we
thought
this
might
be
something
that
you
know
you
could
at
least
consider
and
with
that
casper
jackson
I'll
just
let
you
kind
of
look
at
this
and
see
if
you
have
any
questions
or
what
what
you
know.
What
you
might
think
about
this
and
and
the
rest
of
the
committee,
of
course,.
A
That's
very
helpful,
okay
and
ryan
and
heather,
and
whoever
else
worked
on
it.
So
we
have
two
accounts:
councilmember
gregory.
Can
you
see
the
screen
you're
just
not
being
seen.
A
So
I
think
it's
then
council
member
brady
who's
literally
on
his
phone.
So
basically.
H
Councilwoman
jackson
go
ahead.
Yeah
I
mean
if
we
do
have
a
consensus
here,
just
send
it
to
the
ad
hoc
budget
committee
for
further
deliberation.
F
A
Okay,
all
right
good!
Well
then,
let's
go
back
to
any
any
thoughts
in
response
to
what
the
mayor
was
talking
about,
with
the
pay
increase
trying
to
get
closer
to
the
fifteen
dollars
an
hour.
H
I
just
think
that
that's
a
better
place
for
us
to
really
vet
both
issues.
A
So
you
you
would
you
would
recommend
that
we
put
the
full
chart
of
of
all
the
options
with
any
sort
of
guidance.
I
mean
I'm
I'm
very
neutral
about
that
as
the
chairman
of
the
hr,
but
I
do
think
that
you
know
the
first
stop
for
employee
compensation
or
benefits
of
any
kind
or
employee.
You
know
trends
that
we're
trying
to
help
along
and
support
start
with
the
hr
committee.
So.
A
C
Madam
chair,
if
I
met
just
so
that
we
don't
get
bogged
down
in
the
right
with
the
specific
numbers,
I
I
think
it
would
be
reasonable
for
our
committee
to
make
a
a
a
goal
of
motion
or
statement
to
to
the
budget
committee
and
our
council
fellow
council
members
that
we
do
support
a
cost
of
living
increase
for
our
employees
for
next
year.
C
That
do
we
do
support
continuing
our
our
journey
to
get
to
a
15
minimum
wage
in
in
no
less
than
three
years
and
that
we
consider
augmenting
our
our
family
leave
and-
and
just
you
know,
make
that
general
statement
it'll
have
to
be
as
the
budget
allows.
We
understand
that,
but
those
are
all
good
goals
and-
and
I
think
generally
we're-
I
know-
I'm
I'm
committed
to
try
to
make
those
things
happen
for
next
year.
B
I
mean
I
I'm
for
the
first
three
I
just
feel
like.
We
need
to
prioritize
the
you
know
the
the
pay
increase,
so
I
mean
I
and,
and
I'm
for
that,
I
just
think
the
timing
of
this
family
leave
is
just
not
good
right
now,
so,
with
with
what
we've
looked
at
in
this
presentation,
so
I'm
I
I'm
not
for
recommending
the
family
leave
at
this
point.
B
The
time
is
wrong
after
what's
been
presented
to
us
here
today
and
I
feel
like
it's
so
important
that
we
get
that
minimum
wage
up.
We
get
to
pay
up
that
you
know
and,
like
councilman
gregory
said,
there
was
very
little
about
benefits
and
I
understand
I
get
it.
It's
part
of
the
total
package,
but
I
just
feel
like
it's
so
important
that
we
get
on
board
with
where
we
need
to
be
paying
our
employees
that
this
just
doesn't
take
priority
right
now,.
A
So
that's
just
kind
of
where
I
stand
well,
I
I
think
it's
very
fair
of
us
to
send
the
more
you
know
general
recommendation
that
the
mayor
put
out
there
with
the
reservation
that
if
we
have
to
make
you
know
the
hard
decisions
in
any
direction
that
we
start
with
not
entertaining
family
life
paid
family
leave
again
next
year.
Would
that
be
a
fair
way
of
writing
a
memo
to
the
budget
committee
yeah.
A
And
any
opposed
great.
Thank
you
so
much.
I
know
this
was
probably
a
longer
meeting
than
you
anticipated,
but
I
think
we
covered
a
lot
of
ground
and
it
will
be
our
last
meeting
before
the
full
budget
you
know
is,
is
drafted,
so
you
all
have
done
a
great
work
on
behalf
of
our
city's
employees
and
certainly
in
respecting
the
hard
work
of
the
human
resources
department.
So
thank
you,
ms
cross,
and
everybody
who
contributed
to
everything
that
we
learned
today.