“MICHAEL KEMPS (incumbent)
”Maintaining appropriate coverage to provide excellent customer service is my priority. Attentiveness to residents and effective delivery of services are paramount. In-person visits are frequently related to building and planning. Residents are presently provided with full access via appointments throughout the day to reduce wait times and provide better customer service. This is not and was never limited to an 8am – 10am window. A door sign indicating a limited time window for non-appointment visits was removed. This was initiated as the city began a transition away from the Covid-limited access period.

City MOUs provide non-public safety employees with a 9/80 schedule. This allows for a nine-day two-week 80-hour schedule, with one Friday off every two weeks. The challenge with the 9/80 schedule is that each Friday, only half of City Hall staff is available. Many questions, open items, and related details are delayed until Monday when remaining staff members are available.

The City’s Interim City Manager in late 2021 implemented a trial period, whereby employees work ten-hour days, four days per week. At that time, she advised staff that it would be reviewed at a future date by the incoming permanent City Manager. Research around other cities’ staffing and schedule, customer service, and experiences of other nearby cities is being conducted. I am interested in hearing feedback from the City Manager around next steps, which I understand to be imminent.””

“VICTORIA LOZZI (incumbent)
”[Point of clarification: City Hall is open to the public for general questions and services Monday – Thursday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Planning Department is open 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m., and by appointment outside those hours.]

While the Interim City Manager at the time mentioned her intent to change the work hours for employees on a trial basis, the City Council was somewhat surprised to learn that it had been implemented without formal discussion. While that decision was hers to make, it would have been better to have a public discussion so that residents would know what was happening and the reasons for the change.

Prior to implementing the “4/10” where employees work 4/10 hour days, Monday through Thursday (with City Hall closed every Friday), the staff was working a staggered “9/80” where employees worked 9 days and then had one day off. Staff staggered being off either Mondays or Fridays, and City Hall was closed every other Friday, which was confusing for residents and others trying to do business in City Hall. And the staggered staff days meant that full staff was only in the office together 3 days/week, which was proving inefficient.

The reality is that alternative work schedules are an important tool for recruiting and retaining employees, especially in the post-COVID working world. Our current City Manager researched other cities and found them almost evenly split between a 4/10 schedule and some form of 9/80; virtually no cities worked an 8 hours/5 days per week schedule. He is planning to bring this topic to City Council for discussion and public input.””

“DAVID MCGOWAN (incumbent)
”The work patterns of the PVE staff as well as other employers were upset, modified and inconsistent during 2021 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Additionally, PVE operations have been challenging due to a stringent operating budget and staff changes.

Attracting and retaining employees remains is a critical concern of the City Manager and Council. Post COVID the employment marketplace has changed dramatically and has been exacerbated by the rate of inflation. Most of our employees do not live on the Peninsula and must commute some distance to reach City Hall. In addition, working virtually has also introduced another variable into the equation.

The temporary “trial 4-day work week” was an attempt to respond to employee concerns and marketplace demands. Many cities in our region tried some form of a 4 day - 10-hour or altered work schedule and still provide adequate service levels.

The statement that this change resulted in “a dramatic reduction in service” is a stretch. PVE staff was and is available; you need to schedule an appointment to meet outside “open counter” hours.

The City Council was aware of the trial work program. Not every decision made by our City Manager needs to seek public input, yet we trust them to make the best decisions for residents.

We need to support the City Manager and rely upon his/her judgment when it comes to staffing our city. The staff are fully aware of the service levels expected and are being held accountable for the delivery of those service results.””

“DESIREE “DEZ” MYERS
”RE: How do you feel about that?

Reducing service levels is a policy decision. Staff overstepped the authority of Council by establishing policy. This bypassed proper separation of powers, since Council represents the residents in decision-making. This practice disenfranchises residents. Further, there was no cost savings. The information was never made public, which creats a trust issue.

Is this unique or does Staff set policy often? Why is Council silent?
Why isn’t the city conducting the required 6-month review of the impact to the residents, as the stated requirement? Do residents matter?

Have other services been eliminated or diminished without public knowledge or Council approval?

Does Staff continue to make policy decisions without proper authority?

The operational review should include a list of services that have been eliminated or diminished and the cost savings. Operational and financial controls are needed to establish proper checks and balances and accountability. This is particularly important given staff turnover.

RE: Should this have been discussed at City Council with the opportunity for public input?

Yes, absolutely

All policies should require Council approval and Council should deliberate the impact to residents are part of their decision.””