Proposal to Create Incentive Program for Employees

[Shane Saum]

Dear Council,

I would like your feedback on the attached proposal to create a program to incentivize staff to identify creative ways to conserve city resources and potentially be rewarded for it. I submitted this proposal on July 11th and it was seconded by Councilor Roberts on July 14th, I believe it will be on the August 15th agenda, but was partly discussed during our budget discussions on August 1st as brought up by Councilor Durbin. This could be a creative opportunity for employees to earn more, but this would not replace any efforts we discussed on Thursday for COLA or raises. This is in addition to. I have heard of other County's and City's pay for this either through the cost savings realized or by setting aside money in the budget. That will be a key part of our discussion.

This program would create a committee to review proposals from eligible employees (non-management, no elected officials) intended to do the following: increase productivity; conserve city resources; and/or reduce city costs. Proposals must not be the kind which employees are reasonably expected to develop in the course of their regular duties. Time spent creating a proposal is to be done outside of work hours. The Program seeks to recognize these contributions by offering monetary and honorary awards. I have heard of similar programs in the private sector, as well as seeing this format as model policy presented by the American Legislative Exchange Council. I look forward to your thoughts and opinions on this proposal.

I have attached the draft ordinance and agenda cover page.

Best regards,

Councilman Saum

 

[Paul Roberts]

Dear Council,

I would like your feedback on the attached proposal to create a program to incentivize staff to identify creative ways to conserve city resources and potentially be rewarded for it. I submitted this proposal on July 11th and it was seconded by Councilor Roberts on July 14th, I believe it will be on the August 15th agenda, but was partly discussed during our budget discussions on August 1st as brought up by Councilor Durbin. This could be a creative opportunity for employees to earn more, but this would not replace any efforts we discussed on Thursday for COLA or raises. This is in addition to. I have heard of other County's and City's pay for this either through the cost savings realized or by setting aside money in the budget. That will be a key part of our discussion.

This program would create a committee to review proposals from eligible employees (non-management, no elected officials) intended to do the following: increase productivity; conserve city resources; and/or reduce city costs. Proposals must not be the kind which employees are reasonably expected to develop in the course of their regular duties. Time spent creating a proposal is to be done outside of work hours. The Program seeks to recognize these contributions by offering monetary and honorary awards. I have heard of similar programs in the private sector, as well as seeing this format as model policy presented by the American Legislative Exchange Council. I look forward to your thoughts and opinions on this proposal.

I have attached the draft ordinance and agenda cover page.

Best regards,

Councilman Saum

Dear Councilman Saum,

Thank you for submitting your proposed agenda item regarding the creation of the Lago Vista Savings Incentive Partnership Program. I have reviewed the cover sheet, the draft amendment to Article 9 of the code of ordinances, and relevant sections from the City Charter, Ethics Policy, and Rules of Procedure.

Overall, the proposal is well-conceived and aims to harness the innovative potential of our city employees to conserve resources and reduce costs. I have a few recommendations and considerations to ensure the program's success and compliance with our existing policies.

Recommendations and Considerations​

Compliance with Charter and Ethics Policy​

1. Conflict of Interest: Ensure that no member of the committee has a conflict of interest with any proposal submitted. According to the Ethics Policy, "public servants shall at all times strive to avoid even the appearance of impropriety" (Sec. 1.1801(b))(City Ethics Policy).
2. Use of City Property: Verify that proposals developed outside of regular work hours do not involve unauthorized use of city resources. As stated, "Public servants shall not use, request or permit the use of city facilities, personnel, equipment, or supplies for any purpose other than to conduct city business unless otherwise provided by law, ordinance or written city policy" (Sec. 1.1803(d))(City Ethics Policy).
3. Ethical Standards: Maintain high ethical standards and transparency in the operation of the program to promote public confidence in government. The Ethics Policy emphasizes, "To encourage high ethical standards in official conduct by public servants" (Sec. 1.1802(1))(City Ethics Policy).

Enhancements to the Proposal​

1. Clarify Definitions: Further specify what constitutes "a new application of a previous idea" to prevent ambiguity (Sec. 9.2103(a))(ARTICLE 9.2100 SAVINGS …).
2. Proposal Submission: Include a detailed process for submission, including forms and deadlines, to ensure clarity for employees (Sec. 9.2104(a))(ARTICLE 9.2100 SAVINGS …).
3. Award Calculation and Cap: Define the percentage and cap for monetary awards to manage employee expectations and budgetary impact. For example, specify that "the minimum monetary award for a proposal shall be determined by the Committee and remains at a percent established by the Committee of the first year’s net savings capped at an amount established by the Committee" (Sec. 9.2104(g))(ARTICLE 9.2100 SAVINGS …).
4. Transparency: Ensure the committee's decisions and the program's overall impact are transparent and regularly reported to the public and city council. Transparency is critical for public trust and accountability.
5. Review Frequency: Consider increasing the frequency of committee meetings to review proposals, allowing more timely implementation of beneficial ideas (Sec. 9.2104(a))(ARTICLE 9.2100 SAVINGS …).
6. Feedback Mechanism: Implement a feedback mechanism for employees whose proposals are not accepted, encouraging continuous improvement and participation.

Conclusion​

Your proposed Savings Incentive Partnership Program is a commendable initiative that aligns with our goals of maximizing resource conservation and enhancing city operations. By addressing the above recommendations, we can ensure its successful implementation while upholding our city's ethical standards and transparency.

Thank you for your efforts in bringing this valuable program forward. I look forward to discussing this further at our next council meeting.

Best Regards,

Paul Roberts
Councilman, Place 5

 

[Paul Roberts]

Councilman Saum,

Here are my proposed amendments in more detail:

Proposed Amendments for Clarifying Definitions, Proposal Submission, Award Calculation, Transparency, Review Frequency, and Feedback Mechanism

1. Clarify Definitions: "New Application of a Previous Idea"

Current Language:

• Section 9.2103(a) (Proposals):

To qualify for consideration under this Program, a proposal must be a definite, constructive, original idea or a new application of a previous idea submitted in writing by one or more eligible City employees, which is intended to do the following: increase productivity, conserve City resources, and/or reduce City costs.

Proposed Amendment:

• Amended Language:

To qualify for consideration under this Program, a proposal must be a definite, constructive, original idea or a new application of a previous idea submitted in writing by one or more eligible City employees, which is intended to do the following: increase productivity, conserve City resources, and/or reduce City costs.To qualify for consideration under this Program, a proposal must be a definite, constructive, original idea or a new application of a previous idea submitted in writing by one or more eligible City employees, which is intended to do the following: increase productivity, conserve City resources, and/or reduce City costs.

To qualify for consideration under this Program, a proposal must be a definite, constructive, original idea or a clearly defined and demonstrable new application of a previous idea, where the new application must result in a significant improvement or benefit beyond what was achieved by the original idea. This must be submitted in writing by one or more eligible City employees, with the intent to increase productivity, conserve City resources, and/or reduce City costs.

Relevant Ethics Policy Language:

• Page 1, Section 1.1801(b):

"...public servants shall at all times strive to avoid even the appearance of impropriety."

1. Proposal Submission Process

Current Language:

• Section 9.2104(a) (Procedures; Rules and Regulations):

The Committee shall review all proposals submitted by eligible City employees at a meeting held at least two (2) times per year. The meeting must include a quorum of eligible voting members of the Committee.

Proposed Amendment:

• Amended Language:

The Committee shall review all proposals submitted by eligible City employees at a meeting held at least two (2) times per year. The meeting must include a quorum of eligible voting members of the CommitteeThe Committee shall review all proposals submitted by eligible City employees at a meeting held at least two (2) times per year. The meeting must include a quorum of eligible voting members of the Committee.

The Committee shall review all proposals submitted by eligible City employees at a meeting held at least four (4) times per year. The meeting must include a quorum of eligible voting members of the Committee. Proposals must be submitted using a standardized form provided by the City, which will include sections for the proposal's objective, expected outcomes, and any anticipated costs. Deadlines for submission will be set quarterly, and proposals received after the deadline will be reviewed at the next scheduled meeting.

Relevant Ethics Policy Language:

• Page 3, Section 1.1803(d):

"Public servants shall not use, request, or permit the use of city facilities, personnel, equipment, or supplies for any purpose other than to conduct city business unless otherwise provided by law, ordinance, or written city policy..."

1. Award Calculation and Cap

Current Language:

• Section 9.2104(g) (Procedures; Rules and Regulations - Payment of a Cash Award):

The minimum monetary award for a proposal shall be determined by the Committee and remains at a percent established by the Committee of the first year’s net savings capped at an amount established by the Committee.

Proposed Amendment:

• Amended Language:

The minimum monetary award for a proposal shall be determined by the Committee and remains at a percent established by the Committee of the first year’s net savings capped at an amount established by the Committee.The minimum monetary award for a proposal shall be determined by the Committee and remains at a percent established by the Committee of the first year’s net savings capped at an amount established by the Committee.

The minimum monetary award for a proposal shall be determined by the Committee and remains at a fixed percent of the first year’s net savings, capped at an amount not exceeding $5,000 per proposal. The exact percentage and cap will be reviewed annually by the Committee and adjusted as necessary to align with the City's budget and financial objectives.

Relevant Ethics Policy Language:

• Page 2, Section 1.1803(a)(2):

"Public servants shall not solicit or accept any gift, personal favor, or benefit from any person doing business with, seeking to do business with, or being regulated by the city."

1. Transparency

Current Language:

• Section 9.2104(c) (Procedures; Rules and Regulations):

The Committee retains complete authority in defining acceptable proposals and in accepting or rejecting such proposals.

Proposed Amendment:

• Amended Language:

The Committee retains complete authority in defining acceptable proposals and in accepting or rejecting such proposals.The Committee retains complete authority in defining acceptable proposals and in accepting or rejecting such proposals.

The Committee retains complete authority in defining acceptable proposals and in accepting or rejecting such proposals. However, all decisions must be documented and made publicly available, including the rationale for accepting or rejecting each proposal. The overall impact of the program, including savings realized and awards granted, shall be reported quarterly to the City Council and made accessible to the public through the City’s website.

Relevant Ethics Policy Language:

• Page 1, Section 1.1802:

"To encourage high ethical standards in official conduct by public servants; To establish minimum guidelines for ethical standards of conduct for all such public servants by setting forth those acts or actions that are incompatible with the best interests of the city..."

1. Review Frequency

Current Language:

• Section 9.2104(a) (Procedures; Rules and Regulations):

The Committee shall review all proposals submitted by eligible City employees at a meeting held at least two (2) times per year.

Proposed Amendment:

• Amended Language:

The Committee shall review all proposals submitted by eligible City employees at a meeting held at least two (2) times per year.The Committee shall review all proposals submitted by eligible City employees at a meeting held at least two (2) times per year.

The Committee shall review all proposals submitted by eligible City employees at a meeting held at least four (4) times per year. This increase in frequency is intended to ensure timely review and implementation of beneficial ideas, allowing the City to maximize potential savings and efficiencies.

Relevant Ethics Policy Language:

• Page 1, Section 1.1801(b):

"...public servants shall at all times strive to avoid even the appearance of impropriety."

1. Feedback Mechanism

Current Language:

• Section 9.2104 (Procedures; Rules and Regulations): No current provision specifically for feedback.

Proposed Amendment:

• New Section:

Section 9.2104(p) Feedback Mechanism: For proposals that are not accepted, the Committee shall provide a written explanation outlining the reasons for rejection. This feedback will be provided to the employee(s) within 30 days of the Committee’s decision. The purpose of this feedback is to encourage continuous improvement and to guide employees in refining their ideas for potential resubmission.

Relevant Ethics Policy Language:

• Page 1, Section 1.1802:

"To provide minimum standards of ethical conduct for the city's public servants, provide procedures regarding complaints for violations of such standards, and provide a mechanism for disciplining violators of such standards."



Summary of Amendments

These amendments provide clearer definitions, a more detailed submission process, a defined award calculation method, increased transparency, more frequent review of proposals, and a structured feedback mechanism. These changes align the proposed ordinance with the City's ethical standards and enhance the overall effectiveness and fairness of the Incentive Partnership Program.

 

[Shane Saum]

Thank you Councilman Roberts. I am agreeable to these amendments. After speaking to Marble Falls which has a similar program that rewards employees for finding and getting grants for the City, I am going to propose that we add grants to this program.

 

[Chelaine Marion]

Dear Council,

I would like your feedback on the attached proposal to create a program to incentivize staff to identify creative ways to conserve city resources and potentially be rewarded for it. I submitted this proposal on July 11th and it was seconded by Councilor Roberts on July 14th, I believe it will be on the August 15th agenda, but was partly discussed during our budget discussions on August 1st as brought up by Councilor Durbin. This could be a creative opportunity for employees to earn more, but this would not replace any efforts we discussed on Thursday for COLA or raises. This is in addition to. I have heard of other County's and City's pay for this either through the cost savings realized or by setting aside money in the budget. That will be a key part of our discussion.

This program would create a committee to review proposals from eligible employees (non-management, no elected officials) intended to do the following: increase productivity; conserve city resources; and/or reduce city costs. Proposals must not be the kind which employees are reasonably expected to develop in the course of their regular duties. Time spent creating a proposal is to be done outside of work hours. The Program seeks to recognize these contributions by offering monetary and honorary awards. I have heard of similar programs in the private sector, as well as seeing this format as model policy presented by the American Legislative Exchange Council. I look forward to your thoughts and opinions on this proposal.

I have attached the draft ordinance and agenda cover page.

Best regards,

Councilman Saum

I think this is an interesting idea and am hopeful that City staff will find it both innovative and exciting. This is a great way to encourage collaboration and to showcase the strengths and great ideas staff contribute to the workplace. An added incentive can go a long way.