ORDER-2023-29 : An Appropriation in the amount of $167,310 (One Hundred Sixty-Seven thousand, three hundred and ten dollars) to fund the HRS compensation study. The requested appropriation is from the following accounts $159,784 from the Contract Stabilization fund (84042-590000), $3,763 from Sewer, Reserve for Retained Earnings (84152-590000) and $3,763 from Water, Reserve for Retained Earnings (84162-590000) to various salary and wage lines as set forth herein.

Transcript (~6 min @ 16:40)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 16:32 Speaker 3: Order 2023-29 no appreciation in the amount of 167,310 to fund the HRS compensation study. The requested appropriation is from the following accounts. 159,784 from the contract stabilization fund 8 4 0 4 2 - 5 9 0 0 3,763 from the sewer reserve for retained earnings eight four one five two dash 5 9 0 0 0 and 3,763 from water reserve for retained earnings eight four one six two dash 5 9 0 0 0 to various salary and wage line items lines that set forth here in

▶ 17:27 Jen Grigoraitis: So this order as folks may recall was before us I believe in November and Appropriations. It has subsequently been held and remanded. So what is it is on this agenda? Because we've reached the 45 days. What is the will of this committee?

▶ 17:46 Leila Migliorelli: Madam president just wanted to add information that as a chair of Appropriations and oversight. I have received no additional communication from the administration about this order any next steps and haven't received any indication that there's any additional forthcoming.

▶ 17:59 Speaker 4: Thank you councilman.

▶ 18:06 Jen Grigoraitis: Councilor Snell I would make a motion that ought not to pass based upon. We're going to become an upon budget season soon. It could be Budgeted in but I'm open to a discussion I guess if so, we have a motion by counselor sonella for ought not to pass. Is there a second with a second by counselor? Migliarelli. So the motion ought not to pass is now before us is there any discussion Council Williams recall this

▶ 18:30 Ryan Williams: order was a bit of a tough decision, but for me the decision that was tough was not whether we should create Equitable pay for City staff. It was whether it was Too soon given the state of unsettled Union contracts. We've now settled our Union contracts and although we haven't heard anything back from the administration. I think it would be a good opportunity to throw it back into committee. And see if that entices them to come forward and speak to us about this.

▶ 19:01 Jen Grigoraitis: Any other counselor calm shady. I also

▶ 19:03 Manjula Karamcheti: recall this being a challenging order in terms of thinking about what the right thing to do was and while I absolutely want our city employees to for us to all have the information in terms of figuring out Equitable salaries. I am thinking that where we are soon to be in the budget cycle. It might make sense instead of to go back to Appropriations. Perhaps the city will consider this as a part of the budget process for the future.

▶ 19:41 Speaker 4: So I'm sorry is You're saying that you discussing okay sharing my

▶ 19:47 Speaker 6: thoughts.

▶ 19:48 Jen Grigoraitis: Anyone else on discussion counselor garapick?

▶ 19:52 Speaker 7: I believe this.

▶ 19:55 Mark Garipay: I think when the mayor was in front of us or I'm sorry. The administration was in front of us. We were discussing.

▶ 20:02 Mark Garipay: I think the suggestion was to include it in next year's fy24 budget and I believe this was for

▶ 20:13 Mark Garipay: back pay more or less if there's got approved back to the fiscal fiscal year, which should have probably been in fy23 if they were going to do that. I I I support the ought not to pass at this time. I think we're almost a budget season. Let's just included have the administration inclusion include these raises if there was if there was a promise made that this money would be Approved it was never brought to our attention until it came. So I mean you can't approve money to To the employees if it doesn't come in front of us, so I would say that I support ought not to pass right now when I would recommend that the administration include the raises in the fy24 budget.

▶ 21:06 Jen Grigoraitis: Any other counselors wishing to speak councilor McLeary just

▶ 21:09 Leila Migliorelli: want to Echo counselors Karim JD and counselors garepase comment for the record that I agree with them 100%

▶ 21:17 Jen Grigoraitis: Okay, any other comments before we call the roll? So just to be clear because I feel like these are always a little tricky ought not to pass a yes vote is that you do not want it to pass a no vote is that not that it will pass or just that it won't not pass.

▶ 21:31 Speaker 4: Everyone here. Yes is

▶ 21:34 Jen Grigoraitis: hot that you do not want it to pass. No is the other thing which is unclear with that. Thank you for that clear. You're

▶ 21:40 Speaker 1: welcome not to pass yes or no, right.

▶ 21:44 Speaker 4: That's the choice but yes.

▶ 21:46 Ryan Williams: I'm discussion. Yes, it's clear

▶ 21:50 Jen Grigoraitis: to me. No is not clear to me. So no is just that the motion fails and

▶ 21:52 Ryan Williams: then what happens to this order that's expiring then we still then

▶ 21:54 Jen Grigoraitis: it is then the council needs to make a decision to do something with it tonight. They can't just sit here. This is why we get paid the big money. So we have emotion made by counselor. Sonella seconded by councilorelli for ought not to pass on order 2023-29 because this is the financial order Madam clerk. Can you please call the roll?

▶ 22:18 Speaker 1: Council or sonella? Yes. Counselor Eccles. Yes counselor garapay. Yes. Council's cam chain. Yes. Counselor migliarelli, yes. Consulate robensky. Yes. Counselor Williams. Yes, president Grigoraitis. Yes, eight. Yes eight. Yes.

▶ 22:39 Jen Grigoraitis: So the ought not to pass passes. Thank you. Do we have any reports from committees?