|
'328
<br />
<br />January g~ lgaB
<br />
<br />Other Items Under Unfinished Business
<br />
<br /> 84-469 - Ordinance to amend the Code, by amending Sections 2~tt(a), (b!), and (f)
<br />and Section 2-13, pertaining to sick leave, annual leave and legal holidays, deferred from
<br />the meeting of December 11, 1984.
<br />
<br />The City Manager submitted the following letter:
<br />
<br /> "As a result of the December, 1984, Council meeting, the proposed leave polic~r was
<br />deferred. The following is an outline of the major points of that proposal.
<br />
<br />The proposed policy would increase bonus days on each anniversary date as shown below:
<br />
<br /> PRESENT POLICY
<br />Years Employed Bonus Days
<br />
<br /> PROPOSED POLICY
<br />Years Employed Bonus Days
<br />
<br />1-6 0 1-4 2
<br />7-9 2 5-9 3
<br />10-14 3 10-14 5
<br />15-19 5 15~19 7
<br />20 and over 7 20 and over 9
<br />
<br /> Also, the proposal recognizes an additional holiday , Martin Luther King/Lee/Jackson
<br />Day - to be observed the third Monday in each January.
<br />
<br /> Portsmouth employees receive the greatest number of sick leave days in Hampton Roads
<br />and awards one of the fewer number of annual leave days and holi.days. Sick leave should be
<br />saved and granted to those that are sick. Most of our employees never get to enjoy this
<br />benefit -- if they do, because of the unlimited accrual of sick days, hardly ever use them
<br />all. Therefore, in an effort to improve benefits for our employees ~and to remain competitive
<br />in Hampton Roads, I would recommend reduction in the sick leave but a tremendous offsetting
<br />increase in annual leave. I recommend a change in our policy from currently retaining
<br />eighteen sick days per year to a reduction of twelve sick days per year. Since my arrival in
<br />Portsmouth, employees have continually questioned our sick leave policy as opposed to our
<br />annual leave policy.
<br />
<br /> PRESENT POLICY
<br />Sick Leave
<br />1½ Days Per mo.~ U~limited
<br />
<br /> PROPOSED POLICY
<br />Sick Leave A~Ac~u~u%R~on
<br />1 Day ~er $(o. ~nlimited
<br />
<br /> Also, many employees have r~quested of me that their ability to accrue annual leave
<br />ben.greater than the present two-year policy. My recommendation to Council is to eliminate
<br />the two-year accrual and allow forty-two maxiumum accrual for all employees.
<br />
<br />PRESENT POLICY
<br />
<br />PROPOSED POLICY
<br />
<br />Years Employed
<br />
<br />Mac imum Max imum
<br />
<br />Accumulation
<br />
<br />Years Employed
<br />
<br />ACcumulation
<br />
<br />1-7 24 1-4 42
<br />7-10 28 5-9 42
<br />10-1S 30 10-1S 42
<br />15-20 34 15-20 42
<br />20 and over 38 20 and over 42
<br />
<br />I recommend approval of the leaYe policy retroactive to January 1, 1985."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Beamer and seconded by Mrs. Webb, the following ordinance was adopted,
<br />as recommended, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO ~4END THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1973, BY
<br />AMENDING SECTIONS 2-11(a), ~(a),(b), A~ (f) AND SECTION 2-13 THEREOF, PERTAIN-
<br />ING TO SICK LEAVE, ANNUAL LEAVE AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS."
<br />
<br />Ayes: Beamer, Corprew, Gray, Lucas, Webb, Whitlow, Holley
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />84-412 - Amendments to the Code:
<br />
<br /> (f) CA 84-10 - A proposal to amend Section 4-284 of the City Code relative to
<br /> prohibited signs, deferred from the Public Hearing of November 13,
<br /> 1984.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mrs. Lucas and seconded by Mrs. Webb, CA 84-10 pertaining~io prohibited
<br />signs, ~as approved on first reading by unanimous vote. ~
<br />
<br />(g) CA 84~11 -
<br />
<br />A proposal to amend Section 40-99 of the City Code relative to
<br />applications for Certificates of Appropriateness in the Historic
<br />District, referred to the Planning Commission at the Public HeariFg on
<br />November 13, 1984.
<br />
<br />The City Manager submitted the following letter:
<br />
<br /> ~ "rAt yduf m6eting of November 13, 1984, you referred the above identified item back to
<br />the Planning Commission, However, City Council also indicated that this item be brought back
<br />at your meeting of January 8, 1985.
<br />
<br /> Since this matter is still under consideration by the Planning Commission, I recommend
<br /> Commission.
<br />that you adopt a motion confirming the referral of this item to the Planning ' ' "
<br />
<br />
<br />
|