Personnel Subcommittee Recommendations July 25, 2012 11/9/2018

Time Off Benefits Four alternatives – Personnel Subcommittee endorsed #4 Administrator proposal that leaves current system intact and harmonizes number of days, with Boro Short Term Disability Paid Time Off (PTO) utilizing same number of days as administrator proposal, with revised Short Term Disability Plan Paid Time Off (PTO) utilizing same number of days as administrator proposal for current employees and reduced number for future employees, with revised Short Term Disability Plan Alternative #1 with recommendation that the new governing body study the PTO system and conduct a pilot program next year for possible change to PTO system in the future. 11/9/2018

PTO Proposal Current Employees – Same number of PTO days as combined days in administrator proposal Future Employees – 8 fewer days for each “years of service” grouping Administration – One accrual methodology using the “future employee” rate. Current employees are provided 8 additional days in their PTO bank on each January 1 Maximum accrual is one year’s PTO Paid out on termination (similar to how vacation carryover is paid today) Short Term Disability – after 5 PTO days, 100% coverage for number of weeks equal to ½ of service years. 75% coverage for balance to 26 weeks total 11/9/2018

NOTE – Purple and Red Bars Should all be at same height (technical difficulty) 11/9/2018

Grandfathering Current Carryover Vacation – added to PTO bank on 1/1/13 Current Sick Leave bank – converted to dollar bank to be used for disability periods when not at 100% coverage (i.e. when it drops to 75%). Payments reduce bank. 11/9/2018

PTO pluses and minuses Pluses Protects current employee time off amounts vis a vis administrator proposal Simplified administration – no need to keep track of separate types of time off. Perpetual calendar so no need for carryover provisions Employee Flexibility – not constrained by types of time off Simple methodology for transitioning future employees to lower level Will increase service provided and reduce cost over time Disability coverage enhanced Provides more generous benefit when it is needed most Eliminates need for banked time, as it was formerly used for extended time off Employees save $60/year in state disability payments, Employer savings as well Replicable change methodology for contract negotiations Widely used in private industry – a proven approach 11/9/2018

PTO pluses and minuses Minuses Change to current system – first in state to implement Unless unscheduled time is limited, can create managerial difficulty based on uncertainty limiting unscheduled time is recommended for this reason May lead to initial increase in time off taken, as employees with carryover approach annual accrual limit Lower benefit than neighboring municipalities may lead to competitive disadvantage for labor Only impacts when two municipalities directly competing for labor – amount is not likely to be reason to switch employers, since service time already built up. Disability paid at 75% may net slightly lower take home pay for certain low paid Township employees for period of disability However, period of time at 100% should make up for difference 11/9/2018

Rationale for future consideration of PTO Consistent with goals of Consolidation Commission: Cost control and savings Enhanced services More effective government Indirect Savings : Reduced overtime to replace employees taking time off Reduced per-diem coverage to replace employees taking time off (dispatch) More work accomplished by employees that have reduced number of days off – Billable in departments in which residents pay for service Less use of outside resources 11/9/2018

Medical Benefits Four options - 1 – Current Employees with State Plan, Retirees on State Plan 2 – Current Employees with Private Plan, Retirees on Stipend 3 – Current Employees on State Plan, Retirees on Stipend 4 – Current Employees on State Plan, Current retirees remain on current plan, future retirees on State Plan Considerations – Current Plan – cost difference with no discernible coverage difference Retirees – Lack of clarity of health exchanges mandated by PPACA make private insurance market to uncertain to direct retirees into, but savings of moving Retirees to stipend are significant Subcommittee recommends option #4 pending implementation of health exchanges which are legislated to begin on 1/1/ 2014. If/when viable exchanges exist, move to option #3. 11/9/2018

Medical Benefits Figures below reflect budget numbers. Actual savings from stipends for retirees are larger based on not full utilization of budgeted amounts.   Cost for all Active Employees (187) Cost for all Retired Employees (72) Budgeted Costs Current Costs: Twp: Private Plan w/Retiree Stipend Boro: SBHP for active & retirees Boro: SHBP: 1,735,017.00 Boro: Retirees: 627,782. Twp: Private: 1,982.800.00 Twp: Stipend: 400,498.00 Total Cost 3,717,817.00 1,028,280.00 4,746,097.00 Option 1: SHBP for active EEs and SHBP for Retirees State Health Benefit Program Retiree State Health Benefit Program 3,429,531.00 1,142,467.00 4,571,998.00 Difference in Cost from Opt. 2 (806,000.20) 234,021.16 Option 2: Twp Private for active EEs and Twp Retiree Stipend Current Township Plans Retiree Township Stipend Plans 4,235,531.20 908,445.84 5,143,977.04 Difference in Cost from Opt. 1 806,000.20 (234,021.16) Option 3: SHBP for active EEs and Twp Retiree Stipend 4,337,976.84 Option 4: SHBP for active EEs; Keep current Retirees Boro SHBP & Twp Retiree Stipend Retiree: Boro - SHBP & Township Stipend Plans 4,457,811.00 119,834.16 NOTE: There is NOT an option to have the Twp private plan for active EEs and the SHBP retirees since the State does not allow retirees only. 11/9/2018

Personnel Subcommittee Completed all recommendations/reviews: Separation agreements Organizational structure Personnel selection process Reconciliation of employee benefits (manual to be revised) Cross-pollination Guidelines for reconciling salary discrepancies Ongoing: Merging of union contracts (responsibility of PERC) 11/9/2018

Other personnel matters Salary harmonization Administrators reviewing all salary discrepancies, recommend to governing bodies guidelines (10% or more?) Job descriptions Administrators and department heads reviewing and revising all job descriptions Classification system Administrators will recommend a single job classification system to governing bodies 11/9/2018

Personnel Subcommittee Thea Berkhout Jim Levine Jo Butler Gary Patteson Jill Jachera Shirley Meeker Bruce Topolosky Sue Nemeth 11/9/2018