[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Meeting Minutes

LEGISLATIVE AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MINUTES

Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 8:30 a.m.

Kent County Administration Building - Room 310

MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Harold Mast; Commissioners Marvin Hiddema, Jack Horton, Paul Mayhue, Ken Kuipers, Jack Boelema, Paul McGuire, and Tom Postmus

MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Rick Smoke (excused)

ALSO PRESENT: County Administrator Daryl Delabbio; Assistant County Administrator Al Vanderberg; Civil Counsel Sherry Batzer; Management Analyst Debbie Kauffman; Human/Community Services Coordinator Mary Swanson; Human Resources Director Frank Klus; Benefits and Compensation Manager Marilyn Beemer; Human Resources Manager Gail Glocheski; Sr. Human Resources Specialist Liz Hawkins; Undersheriff Jon Hess; County Clerk Mary Hollinrake; Deputy Director of Support Services Steve Duarte; Risk Management Coordinator Phil VanDyke; and Sr. Administrative Specialist Pam Van Keuren

NEWS MEDIA: Kyla King, Grand Rapids Press

Vice-chair Mast called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Mr. McGuire moved to approve the July 12, 2001, minutes as written.

Supported by Mr. Hiddema.

Motion carried.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - APPOINTMENT TO THE CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSING BOARD

Mr. Delabbio stated approval is requested to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to appoint Wallace Duffin to the Concealed Weapons Licensing Board for the term expiring December 31, 2002. This request is proposed to go to the Board on July 26, 2001. A summary of the request follows:

  • Prosecutor Forsyth recently resigned from the CCW Licensing Board. Per state statute, the Board of Commissioners shall appoint a "certified firearms instructor" should the Prosecutor resign his/her position.
  • Four qualified applicant resumes were received. Chair Heacock named Commissioners Horton and McGuire to interview the four candidates. Wallace Duffin is recommended for appointment with a term expiring December 31, 2002.

No cost or funding is required.

Mr. McGuire moved to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to appoint Wallace Duffin to the Concealed Weapons Licensing Board for the term expiring December 31, 2002.

Supported by Mr. Hiddema.

Mr. Mayhue explained he would be voting no on this item. It is not because of the candidate or their qualifications but because of voting and funding issues as a result of the passing of the CCW law. For the Board to support an unfunded mandate and to not stand behind the citizens of the County who have objected to the passing of the CCW law is not good politics or good public policy. He suggested the Committee should take an initiative and vote no on this issue as a courtesy of good will to the people in the community and to those who are struggling with how this law will be funded.

Mr. McGuire commented that the Board is required by statute to make this appointment. To refuse to appoint a candidate to the CCW Board would put the County in violation of state statute.

Commissioner Horton arrived at this time.

Mr. Horton stated that he believes the Board needs to be expeditious in this appointment. For the Board to delay it would look like a delay tactic in trying to implement the law. This Board needs to abide by the statute of appointing a replacement and if the Board has issues with the law, those should be taken up with the Legislature.

Mr. Mayhue called for a roll call vote.

Ayes:Commissioners Kuipers, Boelema, Horton, Postmus, McGuire, Hiddema, and Mast

Nayes: Commissioner Mayhue

Motion carried.

FISCAL SERVICES - ADOPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY - OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM

Mr. Delabbio stated approval is requested to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to adopt the Administrative Policy - Occupational Safety and Health Program. This request is proposed to go to the Board on August 9, 2001. A summary of the request follows:

  • Kent County is committed to providing and maintaining a safe and healthful work environment for all employees, thereby reducing the probability and magnitude of injuries, illnesses, and related human and financial loss.
  • It is necessary for the County, as an employer, to meet at least the minimum Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements for the prevention of both human and financial loss while providing for a safe workplace environment.
  • In 2000, the County hired a consultant, Environmental Health Resources, Inc., to provide a plan, along with policies and procedures, to the County in order to ensure that the County meets its objectives for the safety and health of its employees in the workplace. The policy proposed for adoption incorporates the consultants' recommendations. The Risk Management Advisory Team (RMAT) has reviewed the information and has approved the policy. Departments were invited to attend an RMAT meeting and their input has been taken into account.
  • Adoption of the policy will provide the authority to establish a safety and health program for all County employees and to assign responsibility and accountability for all aspects of the program.

No cost or funding is required.

Mr. Postmus moved to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to adopt the Administrative Policy - Occupational Safety and Health Program.

Supported by Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Hiddema asked who would enforce this policy.

Mr. Duarte explained the enforcement of the policy would be addressed in the procedures that will be developed pursuant to the adoption of this policy.

Mr. Boelema asked how this policy will effect each individual within the workplace and if the County has a preventative health maintenance program for the employees.

Mr. Klus stated the county recently implemented a county-wide wellness program that is in the process of putting together various health related programs and guidelines that will impact all county employees. The Occupational Safety and Health Program is strictly an on-the-job safety program that will ensure the employees are working in a safe manner and that the safety is being regulated both by the employees and the department directors.

Mr. Boelema asked if minimal losses, referring to section 3.b.3.b. of the policy, are referring to material losses.

Mr. Duarte explained section 3.b.3.b. refers to physical risk such as a loss of a hand due to a piece of faulty machinery.

Mr. Boelema asked if MIOSHA training is a requirement for all employees.

Mr. VanDyke stated MIOSHA has specific requirements for various types of training, particularly those working in hazardous conditions. The Human Resources Department provides a hazardous communication and training segment to each employee who is hired as part of the employee orientation.

Mr. Kuipers asked if there are also federal OSHA requirements that the County has to regulate.

Mr. VanDyke commented that the safety programs and procedures set up by MIOSHA have to be equal or greater than the OSHA program.

Mr. Kuipers asked if each department will develop its own safety and health program or if one program will be written for each department.

Mr. Delabbio stated some departments could use a generic statement that would cover a number of departments, but some departments with specific requirements would require their own statement.

Mr. Kuipers asked for clarification between the Risk Management Unit and the Risk Management Advisory Team and commented this should be clarified in the policy.

Mr. Delabbio explained the risk management unit is a division of the Fiscal Services department that handles countywide risk management issues. The Risk Management Advisory Team consists of staff that are involved with risk issues and are advisory to the risk management unit on establishing policies, procedures etc.

Mr. Mayhue asked if issues such as ergonomics, TB, and HIV are also being addressed.

Mr. VanDyke explained the minimum MIOSHA requirements do not include ergonomics but other issues such as TB and HIV are being addressed.

Mr. Duarte added the County is actively pursuing the issue of ergonomics to see what can be done to correct the problems that result from poor ergonomics.

Motion carried.

HUMAN RESOURCES - 2002 MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN SCHEDULE

Mr. Delabbio stated approval is requested to approve a graduated market adjustment to the Management Pay Plan pay schedules: 4.0% for grades 14-21; 3.50% for grades 22 and 23; and 2.75% for grades 24-35, effective January 1, 2002, with a total cost of 3.09% to the salary base, and "Pay for Performance" adjustments up to a maximum possible 4.0% of individual base pay. A summary of the request follows:

  • The Classification and Compensation Study authorized by the Board of Commissioners in August 1996, provides for periodic review and adjustment of the pay schedules for positions covered by the Management Pay Plan (MPP).
  • The recommended increase to the pay ranges is required to maintain the County's competitive position in hiring and retaining qualified staff.
  • A review of the MPP salary structure indicates that salary range midpoints for grades 14 -21 remain below the market while those for grades 24 and higher are in line with the market.
  • Research on external salary markets indicates that planned 2002 increases for executive and upper management salary ranges are less than those planned for professional, technical and administrative salary scales.
  • The 2001-2003 salary range increases for the UAW bargaining units has caused some compression between UAW pay scales and the salary ranges for MPP grades 14-21.
  • The recommended graduated increase will keep the MPP salary structure in line with the external salary market and re-balance the MPP salary structure, and will also maintain internal equity between the MPP pay structure and the pay ranges for bargaining unit positions.
  • The recommended graduated increase in the pay structure will cost approximately 3.09% of the MPP salary base.
  • Individual increases of up to 4.0 % for "Pay for Performance" will allow employees to progress through the salary ranges on the basis of merit, and will maintain the "incentive" portion of the MPP.
  • This recommendation meets the parameter set by the Finance and Physical Resources Committee for the 2002 Budget.

Actual cost will vary dependent upon individual performance evaluations, however, it will not exceed $976,630. Funding will be included in the 2002 Budget to be presented to the Board of Commissioners.

Mr. McGuire moved to approve a graduated market adjustment to the Management Pay Plan pay schedules: 4.0% for grades 14-21; 3.50% for grades 22 and 23; and 2.75% for grades 24-35, effective January 1, 2002, with a total cost of 3.09% to the salary base, and "Pay for Performance" adjustments up to a maximum possible 4.0% of individual base pay.

Supported by Mr. Horton.

Mr. Kuipers asked how many employees are included in the MPP.

Mr. Klus replied that approximately 340 employees are in the plan.

Mr. Hiddema complimented the Human Resources Department for the work and preparation that is put into the MPP salary structure and suggested including a detailed annual salary comparison of each year in the future.

Mr. Boelema asked if the market comparisons include local business or if it is limited to other governmental municipalities.

Mr. Klus answered depending on the nature of the position, both public and private corporations are used as comparisons.

Motion carried.

HUMAN RESOURCES - APPROVAL OF NEW POSITION REQUESTS FOR 2002 BUDGET

Mr. Delabbio stated approval is requested to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to accept and approve recommendations for new positions for the 2002 budget, and recommend to the Finance and Physical Resources Committee incorporation of the positions into the 2002 budget for approval and funding by the Board of Commissioners. This request is proposed to go to the Board on September 27, 2001. A summary of the request follows:

  • The Finance and Physical Resources Committee approved budget parameters for new positions for the proposed 2002 budget. The parameters were established at a not-to-exceed General Fund allocation of $600,000.
  • The positions are first reviewed by the Legislative and Human Resources Committee, and then recommended to the Finance and Physical Resources Committee for funding.
  • Out of 45 requests for new positions, 22 are being recommended for approval. Four positions will be deleted. The net increase is 18 new positions.
  • All requests have undergone careful review by the Personnel Review Committee. An appeals process was included but no department chose to appeal the recommendations of the Personnel Review Committee.

$677,181 total - $500,120 General Fund allocation. All funding to be included in the 2002 budget.

Mr. Postmus moved to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to accept and approve recommendations for new positions for the 2002 budget, and recommend to the Finance and Physical Resources Committee incorporation of the positions into the 2002 budget for approval and funding by the Board of Commissioners.

Supported by Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Boelema wondered why the County has been consistently generous with the increase of Sheriff positions.

Mr. Klus explained that being the largest County department, the Sheriff department generates more requests for new positions than the other departments. In addition, there is more demand on the Sheriff Department to service the citizens of the County as the population continues to grow.

Mr. Horton asked if the Sheriff Department is holding off on requests for road patrol positions pending the result of the staff analysis that is currently being conducted on the department.

Mr. Hess replied yes. The analysis is expected to be completed within the next 30 days.

Mr. Delabbio added that if there is a need for additional road patrol positions as a result of the analysis and a justification is presented, a recommendation could come forth after the budget is adopted.

Mr. Kuipers asked if this recommendation meets the criteria established by the Finance Committee.

Mr. Klus stated the guidelines set by the Finance Committee were to not exceed the general fund by more than $600,000. The total of $677,181 includes those positions that are non-general fund positions. The general fund positions total $500,120.

Mr. Kuipers asked what information, in terms of funding availability, gets communicated back to the departments who are requesting the positions.

Mr. Klus replied the PRC notifies each department indicating whether their request was approved or denied. If a position is not approved, the PRC will indicate why it was not approved and offer the department an opportunity to appeal the denial. The denial for a position is never a fiscal reason. The denial is often due to lack of justification for the request.

Mr. Delabbio added that the PRC would not rule out justifying the exceeded budget amount to the Finance Committee if an appeal is justifiable and exceeded the budget parameters set by the Finance Committee.

Mr. Mast asked if the members of the PRC rotate and if so how often.

Mr. Klus replied members rotate over two years. The PRC had three new members this year.

Motion carried.

MISCELLANEOUS

Health Department Safety Hazards

Mr. Mayhue inquired about what procedures the Health Department has for warning the public about various health and safety hazards in the community.

Ms. Swanson said the Health Department does have specific regulations about informing the public of any health or safety hazards and will get a copy of the environmental health policy for each Commissioner.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business for discussion, Vice-chair Mast adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.