SUMMARY MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003 AT 5:30 P.M.

Mayor Foy called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, and Edith Wiggins. 

Council Members Mark Kleinschmidt and Jim Ward were absent, excused. 

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Finance Director Jim Baker, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Human Resources Director Pam Eastwood, Assistant Human Resources Director Anissa Graham-Davis, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Public Works Administrative Analyst Randy Ballard, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Sanitation Superintendent Harv Howard, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

Item 1- General 2003-04 Budget Issues

a. Discussion of Manager’s Recommended 2003-04 Budget.

Mr. Horton presented a brief description of the recommended budget.  Referring to the materials distributed to the Council, he pointed out that the budget included a negative figure of $357,000 on the second page and a figure of $437,000 on the third page, which was money available for other options.  This resulted from Human Resource Director Pam Eastwood's careful analysis, he said, which had lead to a reduction from her earlier estimate.  Mr. Horton noted that Council members have multiple options for using these extra funds.  They could hold the money in reserve against next year's tax challenges, allocate it for sidewalks or streetscape or green space, or use it for some other purpose, he said. 

Mr. Horton stated that it was essential to move ahead with the Public Works Department's request for an additional sanitation crew.  He also recommended adding a fire training supervisor and underscored the importance of adequate training for that work.  Mr. Horton recommended continuing the Human Services contracts as well as the Hotel/Motel allocations and the grants to other agencies.  He argued that these items were essential and that they meet strong community needs. 

Mr. Horton recommended a $10,000 increase to support the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust for operating costs.  He noted that their workload had increased and commented that the more it increases the better off the community is.  Mr. Horton said that the funds to reinstate the Fourth of July celebration were also included in the proposed budget, as well as $30,000 for an emissions measurement and control program.  He pointed out a recommended $10,000 increase in the Human Services Advisory Board allocations, adding that the Board's argument for additional funding had been persuasive.  Mr. Horton noted that he had included the amount necessary for debt service, and he recommended $11,000 for snow removal equipment.

Mr. Horton said that the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) would not be where he wanted it to be even if the Council authorized the Priority Level One options.  But it will be far better than it would be without those options, he said.  He noted the $1,080,000 reserve that the Council had established, and said that there was a positive difference of $794,000.  A good portion of that would be necessary to meet needs in the Transportation Fund, he said, where the staff is recommending an assistant director for maintenance and three maintenance mechanics. 

Mr. Horton commented that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) had criticized the Town for not being able to meet reasonable transit maintenance services.  He explained that Chapel Hill had engaged a consultant to make an independent review and that the consultant's report had indicated that a more substantial increase would ultimately be needed.  He advised the Council to change part-time bus drivers to full-time to have adequate relief.  Mr. Horton added that the budget had grown to a size and complexity that required an administrative analyst to help manage funds, analyze how funds are used, and prepare reports.

Mr. Horton explained that the additional revenue needed to carry out the Transit Program with these additions would be about $357,000.  He said that one could keep a level budget by reducing the tax rate in the General Fund and increasing it in the Transportation Fund.  Mr. Horton stated that the tax rate would be 8.2 cents, rather that the 8.0 cents that they had started with.  There would be about $437,000 unallocated, he said.

Mayor Foy pointed out that there was information in the Manager's report that went beyond his original budget proposal.

Council Member Strom asked Mr. Horton to highlight for the Council and the public some of the cautions that he presented in his written report.  He asked Mr. Horton to explain, in particular, that the Town was rolling over more than $1million that it had saved in the 2002-03 budget. Council Member Strom noted that the Town would need to make that amount up next year.  Mr. Horton explained that Finance Director Jim Baker had recommended saving the $1 million because the Town will need it next year.  He noted the undesirability of having to pay $1 million by raising property taxes next year.

Mayor pro tem Evans inquired about the analysis on page 45 of the budget document.  Mr. Baker pointed out that the bottom line on that page was a forecast for next year using all of the original $1,080,000.  If the Town uses all of that money, he said, the projected tax increase for next year would be 7.2 cents.  Mr. Baker pointed out, though, that those figures had been developed prior to receiving the final figures from the Human Resources Department.  When those figures are included, he said, the increase drops down to about 6.2 cents.   Mayor pro tem Evans confirmed that the staff would correct that the page before the Council adopts the budget.

Mayor Foy summarized that spending the $1,080,000 on regular budget items would mean building two cents into the tax rate next year.  The Town could save that money, he said, and he asked Mr. Horton if capital investment would be a reoccurring cost.  Mr. Horton replied that those costs would reoccur and would increase for at least the next fifteen years.  He explained that he had not been able to identify any substantial recommendations in this budget that were one-time expenditures.

With regard to sales tax revenues, Council Member Strom ascertained from Mr. Baker that, with one more quarter to go, the Town was running slightly behind on the one-cent tax and slightly ahead on the traditional half-cent tax.  Council Member Strom predicted that it probably would be right on target for the current year, and noted that Orange County's sales tax revenues were up 21-22%.  Mr. Baker replied that it depends on what numbers one was comparing.  Those figures might have included one payment of the additional half-cent tax, he said, noting that comparing that to the prior base would inflate it.

Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal gave a brief review of the CIP, including its objectives and its funding sources.   She directed the Council's attention to CIP options on pages 248 and 249.  Option A includes only those items that are contractually required, she said.  Ms. Loewenthal noted that the staff was recommending Option B (1), which includes the base and funding for the completion of this year's projects.  It also includes items that are crucial for the maintenance of the community's assets, or which meet the Council's highest priorities, she said, giving sidewalks and greenways as examples.  Ms. Loewenthal explained that the total cost was $1,225,000.  Another option, costing $1,438,000, would include everything the staff was recommending plus a little more in some categories, she said.  Ms. Loewenthal noted that a $2,000,000 option would include all of that and more.

Ms. Loewenthal noted that pages 256 and 257 included projects funded by other sources, such as federal grants and Library gift funds.  Regarding the debt service on pages 258 and 259, she said the Town was considering a form of installment debt that would pay for at least the Public Works portion of the Town Operations Center (TOC).  Ms. Loewenthal said that the Town was hoping to have funding for as much as 80-90% of the transit portion of the TOC, but the timing and amount was not certain.  It might be necessary to add some short-term debt, she said, pointing out that this was reflected in the table. 

Mayor Foy ascertained that the $1.5 million debt service payment in 2005-06 would amortize the debt.  Ms. Loewenthal explained that this would be the first year of debt service, which would last for 20 years.

Council Member Harrison commented that it was not clear that the Town needed a feasibility study to determine that the traffic signal system needed to be replaced.  Ms. Loewenthal replied that the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) would require a feasibility study.  But they would not fund that study until there is funding available for construction and they would not fund construction until there is a feasibility study, she said.   So, Ms. Loewenthal explained, the Town must have all of that funding available.  She added that the staff was hopeful that "Moving Ahead" funds would be available for all of it.  If that is the case, she said, they would remove it all from the CIP.  Council Member Harrison remarked that the funding would not be ready for this budget cycle.  Ms. Loewenthal replied that it might be.  Mr. Horton added that the feasibility study would give a better definition of what the ultimate project would involve.

Mayor pro tem Evans stated that Carrboro had been paying for use of the Town's unusable fire training tower for three years.  She asked if that money could be applied to the work that needs to be done on the tower.  Mr. Horton replied that there was both a burn building and a training tower at the training facility.  He said that the training tower had been available the whole time and that the burn building had been available for other uses.  Mr. Horton explained that the Carrboro payment had been rolled into the General Fund.        

Item 2 - Human Resources Issues

a.     Town Pay Issues

b.     On-Call Pay Policies

c.     Council Pay Policies

d.     Cost of Group Insurance for Council Members

Mr. Horton said that Human Resources Director Pam Eastwood and Assistant Human Resources Director Anissa Graham-Davis had done the finest job that the Town had ever had on a pay study.  He explained that they had provided details in a way that he found most instructive.   Their analysis was much more like that done in the private sector, he said.

Council Member Strom asked when the Council would have an opportunity to discuss details of the budget.  Mr. Horton replied that the public hearing on the budget would be held on May 14^th.  There would be another budget works session on May 21^st, he said, but noted that the staff would be delighted to receive Council feedback tonight as well.

Mayor Foy said that past Councils had taken straw votes on issues that people wanted to discuss.   They had then made decisions, he said, and the Manager had followed that guidance when putting together a package that the Council could support.  Mayor Foy suggested that the Council develop a list of topics to discuss at the May 21^st budget meeting.

Council Member Wiggins ascertained that the public could comment on June 9 on anything the Council does on May 21^st.

Mayor Foy pointed out that the Council could also defer adopting the budget until later in June.  Mr. Horton added that the Council must adopt either an interim or a final budget before the end of the fiscal year on June 30.  He said that the last scheduled meeting, at this point, was June 23.

Ms. Eastwood gave a brief presentation comparing Town data with market data on two levels.  Her report compared employee average pay and market average pay at the 50^th and 75^th percentiles.

Ms. Graham-Davis reviewed the survey design and the process used for collecting data.  She reviewed pages 38-44 in particular, and called the Council’s attention to the survey results beginning on page 9.  Ms. Graham-Davis gave examples of how some of the survey data had been used.

Ms. Eastwood said that the Council approval of a 3.78% pay increase to employees during the current budget year had been a wise move that had maintained the Town's relative position in its defined labor market.  It had lessened the degree to which the Town had slipped behind the market, she said.  Ms. Eastwood explained that her Department had framed tonight's recommendations in terms of a 1999 Council resolution.  That resolution directed the staff to gather and analyze market data at the 75^th percentile when making recommendations for employee increases, she said.  Ms. Eastwood noted that this had been a significant benefit to the Town in recruiting and retaining the kinds of quality employees that it wants.  She added that starting at the 75^th percentile had enabled the Town to remain competitive for the majority of this fiscal year.  It had also provided an enhanced opportunity to recruit and retain, she said, explaining that this means shorter gaps in services, shorter vacancy periods for key jobs, and the ability to bring in a good applicant group when the Town advertises.

When looking at the market data, Ms. Eastwood said, the staff found that some jobs were at or above the 75^th percentile of the market.  They also found that some were about even, she said, and that some had fallen significantly behind the labor market.  Ms. Eastwood explained that the latter group included fire equipment operators, police officers I and II, and accountants.

Mayor Foy clarified that those listed on page 21 were in line with the average and that those on page 22 were lagging behind average.

Ms. Eastwood stated that no single action would take care of all the issues.  She explained that the staff had identified the best combination of actions to achieve the goal of aligning with the market at the best competitive pay levels.  Ms. Eastwood then listed the plan's four options, which include:

· Range Movement - changing the minimums, midpoints, and maximums of ranges.

· Step Movement - moving an employee from one step to another in their pay grade.

· Grade Movement - changing the job grade.

· Performance Pay - for people who are in the upper part of the grades.

Council Member Strom asked Ms. Eastwood to describe how the survey addressed some of the benefit packages that Chapel Hill offers its employees.  Ms. Eastwood replied that they had not included benefits in this survey, but would do so in the next.  She noted that most pay surveys do not include total compensation.  Ms. Eastwood explained that they had looked at them separately because they are extremely difficult to quantify when taken together.  Council Member Strom described benefits as a very important component since the Town was making a huge investment in those programs.  Ms. Eastwood pointed out that the last such Town survey had shown that the benefits program was almost exactly at the middle of the range.  Its components had not changed significantly in the three years since then, she said.  Mr. Horton commented that surveys had been done at least three times in the last dozen years.  The Town had always ended up in the middle, he said.  Ms. Eastwood assured Council Member Strom that they would do the survey again.

Ms. Eastwood listed the key recommendations:

· Move the Town's pay ranges by an amount of 2%, as a first step toward aligning ranges with the market.  This is a moderate measure and a conservative way to adjust ranges.

Council Member Bateman ascertained that pay would increase by 2% at the bottom and at every step to the top. 

· People who are below the job rate (new hires, and those who have been employed by the Town for less than five years and are below grade) would get the 2%.

Council Member Bateman asked if changing the ranges by 2% and then giving a 2% increase meant giving a total raise of 4%.  Ms. Eastwood replied that it was just the one action, at 2%.  Mr. Horton added that the Town could change the pay ranges and pay schedule and not provide any increases to employees.

Mayor Foy asked how that could be done.  Ms. Eastwood responded that if that was the only change recommended that would be a problem, because they would not go to the new minimum in their pay range.

Mayor Foy asked if changing the range costs money.  Ms. Eastwood responded yes, if you implement pay changes to the employees, it does.

Mayor Foy noted that if you just have a pay range change, and don't give anybody an adjustment, then they'd be outside that range.  Ms. Eastwood said it means that the Town would be hiring new employees 2% higher than the employees we already have, but only if that is the only raise that the Council approves or the only change that is made.  Mr. Horton added that this would be creating compression, which some members of the Council well remember.

Council Member Bateman said the thing to remember here is that changing the range does not mean giving employees 2%.  Changing the range means changing the dollar figure within the range, she said, and that is why it's not 4%.  Ms. Eastwood, referring to a chart in the materials, said the first action would change the ranges, and the second action would change employee pay.  Ms. Eastwood noted that was why she had separated it, but it may have been better to have said it together.  In any case, Ms. Eastwood said, the proposal is for a sole 2% to the people who are below the job rate of their ranges.

Council Member Strom clarified that the recommendation Ms. Eastwood was making was that everyone below the job rate, which is about 47% of employees, would, before we give any annual 3.78% increase, would be moved up 2%.  That would be the first action, he said.

Mayor Foy commented that he understood that, but 2% plus 2% does not equal 3.78%.  Council Member Strom responded that was correct, but you add 2% plus 3.78% for people below the job rate.  Mayor Foy agreed.

Council Member Harrison, referring to the first version of the budget the Council received last week, stated that the base budget page noted the estimated potential costs before staff did this more intense study.  He stated it was market/merit adjustments, the 2% range adjustment, and a one-time adjustment for employees below competitive grade.  Council Member Harrison said that in each case, there is a number associated with one of those, and what we have to date does not have that.  He noted that what they now have does not have those three categories broken up into specific numbers.  Mr. Horton replied that the number is in the pay study itself. 

Ms. Eastwood resumed her presentation, listing her third recommendation:

· The same group of new hires, and less experienced people who are above the job rate, receive a step of 3.78%, which would put them in the first quartile.

Ms. Eastwood explained that the purpose of steps is to move people through the range.  It is part of an attempt to avoid pay compression, she said, noting that those at the lower end are easier for others to hire away from the Town.  Ms. Eastwood explained that the goals is to move these people more quickly toward the market average so they will be making about the same as a similarly qualified person in another organization.  The Pay Plan is designed to give those at the bottom half a quicker rate of increase until they arrive at the midpoint of the range.  Adding these two together, she said, would mean a 5.78% increase for those in the bottom half of their pay range.

Council Member Bateman asked if the survey had compared that group to others in the same step.  Ms. Eastwood replied that it was not possible to get that information in that kind of detail.  She noted that organizations generally give ranges, the number of employees in that range, and the average pay of those employees regardless of what the midpoint of the range is.  Then the Town does a "compa-ratio," she said, which expresses the relationship between the average pay of a group of employees and the midpoint of their range.  By looking at an organization's compa-ratio, Ms. Eastwood explained, an organization can tell approximately where its employees are. 

Ms. Graham-Davis added that some of the respondents did not have steps but just minimum and maximum midpoints.  So it was not possible to compare their step one to the Town's step one, she said.  Ms. Graham-Davis stated that the minimum and maximum midpoint usually is the standard that the Town uses to make comparisons.

Mayor pro tem Evans asked if someone had to be an employee of the Town for a certain period of time to receive 5.78%.  Ms. Eastwood replied that they have to complete the six-month probation period and receive a satisfactory performance rating.  The 5.78% also serves as performance pay for this group of employees, she explained, noting that there is no other merit pay for the group.

Mayor Foy clarified that the $792,300 was for the General Fund only, while the $1,000,040 included Transportation, Parking and Housing Funds.  Council Member Harrison said that he had been trying to convert the three figures from the original base budget to what the Council was looking at now.  Mr. Horton explained that the Council did not have the information necessary to do that.  He stated that the staff would provide that, however.

Ms. Eastwood continued with her key recommendations:  

· The above job rate group (senior employees) would receive an aggregate amount of 4.5% of all salaries in the group, which would be distributed based on performance ratings.  Those ratings would not come in until the summer, she said, so the calculation of distribution would not be done until then.  Ms. Eastwood explained that the longer-term employees would receive less of an increase so that the people in the lower half of the range could move toward market average pay in a reasonably quick fashion.  She stated that senior employees were, for the most part, above the market average.

Ms. Eastwood displayed a chart showing that Town employees below and above the job market were split about half and half.  This is a great improvement over October 2000 when 80% of employees were below the job rate, she said.  Ms. Eastwood pointed out that the Town has accomplished its goal of moving them toward the market average and had reached a good balance, which it should maintain.

Council Member Strom ascertained that this was moving toward the 75% percentile that Ms. Eastwood defines as the market average.

Ms. Eastwood explained that the recommendations she was presenting would affect all employees in all grades Town-wide.  But there are other more specific recommendations focused on areas where the Town has slipped behind its goal, she said.  Ms. Eastwood stated that 32 of the 205 job classes needed to be changed.  She said that there were two reasons for this: it is a job title that the Town directly surveyed, or it is a job so similar to the Town's benchmark jobs that it needs to be treated the same way.

Ms. Eastwood stated that she was not recommending giving more money to all of these employees.  For the most part, she said, it was not necessary to increase pay because the people in these classes of work generally are above the job rate already since they have worked for the Town a long time.   But she did recommended special funding for nine job classes: Firefighter, Fire Equipment Operator, Police Officer I, Police Officer II, Accounting Technician, Accounts Payable Technician, Payment Technician, Research, and Telecommunications Analyst, and Human Resource Specialist.   Ms. Eastwood explained that most funding for special pay adjustments was in-range pay adjustments where they need to move the person once they have been moved to the new job range.  Seventy-five to eighty percent of this would be in the Fire and Police Departments, she said, adding that the others would be placed on the new range but would not receive additional pay.

Council Member Bateman ascertained that this group was different from the group of proposed grade and title changes.  Ms. Eastwood explained that she was recommending that 32 classes of positions be changed to a new grade but that additional pay be given to employees in only nine of the 32 classes.

Council Member Verkerk asked what the percentage of a police officer's increase would be.  Ms. Eastwood replied that a Police Officer I at grade 32, who is at the probationary step with a current salary of $30,144, would receive an approximate 10% raise.  She said that the Town's ranges had fallen behind the market range, and the Town needs to realign them and adjust employees so that they are competitive in the new range, she said.

Mayor pro tem Evans verified that this would not move an Officer I ahead of an Officer II because both classes would be moved up.   Ms. Eastwood clarified that the salaries of Police Officers III and IV were currently competitive.  Mayor pro tem Evans ascertained that there were proposed grade changes for those officers, but with no additional money because they had already moved away from the bottom of the range.

Mayor Foy clarified that this would not be done across the board.  He noted that page 20 began the section on special adjustments and that page 24 gave the specific method used to determine eligibility for funding.  But there is a cap, Ms. Eastwood explained, so that no employee would receive more than 10% above the Town-wide changes.  She noted that the staff would look at the entire group and decide how much they need to move people up in order to clear the bottom of the range for new hires.  Ms. Eastwood pointed out the positions that need special adjustment, beginning with those on page 26.

Mayor Foy noted that the Council could authorize some special pay adjustments but not others.  Ms. Eastwood stated that the primary purpose was to not have an employee end up either below or at the minimum of their range even though they have been at their job for a significant amount of time.

Council Member Strom asked Ms. Eastwood to comment on why the towns of Hillsborough, Pittsboro, Mebane and Burlington had not been included in the list.  Ms. Eastwood replied that Chapel Hill was a small and complex organization where the standard of work, expected performance levels, pace, and quantity and quality of work was more comparable to the jobs listed than to those in smaller towns.  Mr. Horton pointed out that the total number of employees does not set the market.  The market is set by larger rather than smaller employers, he said.

Council Member Strom asked if a weighted average of number of employees had been applied to this analysis, and Ms. Eastwood and Mr. Horton said that there had been.  Council Member Strom commented that those other towns could be included then.  Ms. Eastwood said that she would adjust the labor market if that is what the Council wanted. 

Mayor pro tem Evans noted that the School System had not been included in the analysis.  Ms. Eastwood explained that the School System had its own pay plan, which was primarily education based.

Council Member Bateman said that the secretarial, custodial and grounds staffs were comparable.  She stated that the School System would be worth adding for those levels.  Ms. Eastwood and Mr. Horton agreed to do so.   

Mayor Foy asked for clarification on how to read the chart showing survey results.  He also asked how those figures had been arrived at.  Mayor Foy determined that others were paying at 85% of their range but that Chapel Hill was paying at 97% of its range.  Ms. Eastwood explained the Town was paying well compared to its internal range but low compared to the market range.

Council Member Bateman pointed out that the salient factor was the weighted average versus the Town of Chapel Hill.  She noted that Police Officer I was the only position on the chart where the Town average was below the weighted average.  

Mr. Horton suggested that Ms. Eastwood explain the relationships, using Police Officer I and starting with the key data on the page.

Council Member Bateman suggested using Accounting Manager on page 9 because that page has titles at the top.  Ms. Eastwood explained the figures.

Mayor Foy asked if the 75^th percentile midpoint was 75% of the average maximum.   Ms. Eastwood replied that it was the three-quarter mark in these ranges.  Mayor Foy asked three quarters of what?  Ms. Eastwood replied that it was three-quarters of the minimum to the maximum ranges.

Council Member Strom stated that the numbers were tricky because the average range was not necessarily connected to what was actually being paid.  It is not necessarily comparing apples to apples, he said, but just the ranges.  Ms. Eastwood explained that they had compared range to range and found the 75^th percentile of the range and then compared actual average pay to Town pay.

Council Member Harrison asked which column showed figures that came closest to the actual wage that the person in the other government was making.  Ms. Eastwood replied that actual wage would be average salary.  The converted wage to match with the Town's work schedule is the average annualized salary, she said.

Council Member Bateman commented that the Council should be looking at the average annualized salary because Town employees' work week is 37-1/2 hours, not 40 hours.  Ms. Eastwood showed that figure listed under survey hours per year on the chart.

Mayor Foy suggested that the Council finish this conversation to its satisfaction and defer all of the other agenda items to May 21^st.

With regard to item 8a, Council Member Wiggins proposed that the Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the chair of the County Commissioners and the County Manager stating that this Council believes its time to assess the program allocation process for the HOME funds.  Council Member Wiggins explained that Tara Fykes had told her that the County Manager probably would refer that to her and that she would ask a group of representatives from each government to work on it.  Council Member Wiggins remarked that it seemed more appropriate for someone from the County to initiate discussions since the County is the lead agency with HOME funds.

COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, THAT ITEM 8A FROM TODAY’S AGENDA COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL AS A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Ms. Eastwood directed the Council's attention to a subsection of her analysis, which compared pay and pay ranges and gave recommended adjustments.  She explained that she was not recommending any money above and beyond the Town-wide increases for any jobs, except those where range movement for job rate employees would not be sufficient to bring them on to the range at other than the bottom.  Ms. Eastwood explained that the majority of recommendations pertain to only two departments.   She said that the vast bulk of the survey had revealed that the Town was competitive at the 75% percentile for many jobs today if it does nothing at all. The Town is in very good condition, she said, so she is not recommending anything more than the two adjustments.

Ms. Graham-Davis added that in some cases, such as the Accounting Service Manager listed on page 26, they were not recommending the cost of a special adjustment but only a range change.  Mr. Horton remarked that the staff would provide another set of charts with labels to make it all easier to understand.

Council Member Strom requested a chart giving an accumulation of the special pay adjustments on one page with an analysis of each of those positions.  Ms. Eastwood stated that the news was, on the whole, very good and that much of the Town's jobs were competitive.  She added that there did not appear to be a large problem looming.

With regard to Council salary and benefits, Mayor Foy suggested creating a standardized way of getting this done that is linked to something reasonable.  He said that using external data seemed like a good approach.  Mayor Foy recommended doing it in a manner based on what they do internally.

Council Member Wiggins expressed a preference for using a percentage of payroll, and Council members agreed by consensus to do that.  Mr. Horton agreed to bring this back as a resolution.

Council Member Bateman verified that the resolution would be on the policy only and would not include amounts.

Mayor Foy pointed out that he and other Council members do not have access to the Town's health plan.   Explaining that he was in favor of universal health care for the country, he stated that the Town should provide access to health coverage where it can.  Mayor Foy said that he would be willing to pay 100% of his insurance himself, but he just wanted to have access to a plan.

Council Member Bateman expressed surprise that this had not been implemented.  She said that she remembered having decided in favor of it last year.  Mr. Horton said, though, that the Council had not taken final action on the item last year.  Other Council members expressed support for getting access to a health insurance pool.

Mr. Horton explained that the health care provider would allow it as long as Council members were treated in the same way as other employees.  The Council would have to determine whether they want to be treated as part-time or full-time employees, he said.  Mr. Horton noted that there were two different categories of part-time employees in the Town system: those who work 30 or more hours, and those who work 20 but less than 30 hours.  Mayor Foy pointed out that Orange County and Durham City provide full-time health care coverage to their elected officials.

Council Member Bateman described this as "so fundamentally decent" that the Town should do everything it can to ensure that all employees have coverage.

Council Member Wiggins stated that being a Council member in Chapel Hill comes close to working a full time job.  The salary compensation is low, she said, arguing that all Council members should have access to health care, even though she herself does not need it.

Mayor pro tem Evans remarked that she did not spend 40 hours a week on Council work and that her full time job had put many more demands on her time than being a Council member has.

Council Member Wiggins explained that she was looking at this in terms of total compensation, adding that Council members' salaries were very low.  There was almost nothing one could say about the compensation package that would draw interest toward running for Council, she said.

Council Member Bateman inquired about how other jurisdictions were handling this.  Mayor Foy replied that he thought the Orange County Commissioners do not pay anything, and are eligible, after two terms, for lifetime access to the plan.

Council Member Harrison said that Durham's elected officials receive coverage, but he did not know whether it was full time or not.

Council Member Bateman said that she could not say in full conscience that she works full time.  But the Mayor's work definitely is full time, she said.

Council Member Wiggins remarked that she makes more personal sacrifices as a Council member than she ever had as a full time employee.

Council Member Bateman agreed that citizens frequently stop her during the day to ask questions.  Is that working or not, she asked.

Mayor Foy agreed that it was not appropriate to compare Council work to sitting in an office.  The Council works on weekends and gives much service to the Town, for which it receives only an honorarium, he said.

Council Member Strom said that the literal determination of full time was irrelevant.  It is just a classification that the Council is being asked to make on its own behalf in order to receive this additional benefit, he said.  Council Member Strom described receiving health benefits as fair given the circumstances surrounding the service that Council members provide.

Mayor pro tem Evans said that she wanted more information before acting on this.

Council Member Bateman pointed out that a decision should wait until all Council members were present.

Mayor Foy suggested that the Manager bring the item back on May 21^st with any information he can gather from Orange and Durham Counties.  Council Member Strom said that he would like to see access to a plan be ongoing.

The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m.