11-23-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Inter -relationship Considerations: At the last meeting, Council Member McGraw asked about the inter -relationship of some of the budget considerations. Here is a narrative that attempts to discuss those factors: Internal Planner Position — Options 2 & 3 above (Full Year Impacts) Do Not Create Position: - This negates the need to address the transfer of funding from the water/sewer funds of $29,600 due to the reallocation of staff. Keep in mind that this isn't a true cost savings, but rather an internal transfer that should be made to maintain equity of cost assignments between funds. - It saves $4,680 in new costs associated with higher salary/benefits costs for the new position. With $3,077 of that amount impacting the General Fund. - This option also negates the need for a part-time utility billing position. This has an estimated cost of $16,640 based on a 16 hour per week position and a General Fund Impact of $5,491. Staff does not recommend this option. Creating the in-house position will provide us the opportunity to provide better service to our residents. It should also result in lower billable costs to applicants given the billable rate by our consultant versus what our internal rate will be. In the future, there will be opportunities for internal cost savings. However, that is not anticipated in 2016 given the need to mentor our new planner in to this role. Another factor to consider is the consulting planner will be needed to handle the Comprehensive Plan that is due in 2018. Therefore, we may not see any General Fund Savings from this staffing modification until 2018. • Parks & Recreation Administration — Options4, 5, and 6 Above: If Option 4 is chosen, (Eliminate One Assistant Position), than Options 5 and 6 are no longer feasible. Option 4, if a position is completely eliminated for a calendar year would save between $25,000 and $30,000 depending on which position is chosen. If Option 5 is chosen (reduce director's position to %2 time), option 4 is no longer feasible. Option 6 in this scenario could still be implemented as a policy decision. Note: There is an option to implement a Phased Retirement program through PERA that would allow the Director to collect his full retirement benefits. There would need to be an agreement. The Director has indicated he is not interested in this option. If Option 6 is chosen, that can only accompany Option 5. It is a policy decision given that a 20 hour per week position does not meet our criteria for health insurance coverage. It should be noted that currently, we are utilizing an opt -out arrangement given the employee is no longer covered under the City's insurance plan given the alternative was mutually beneficial.