Thread by @shayshinecastle

Council thinking about what to take off the agenda since it's 10:30 and they are *way* behind.

Morzel suggests axing, like, everything.

They've killed a discussion on ballot polling, and the update on the library district.

We're moving onto the living wage and bringing custodial workers in-house. Staff has recommended against that latter one.

In April 2017, council direction to put city wages at the self sufficiency standard.

Colorado Center for Law and Policy publishes a really cool tool on this every year: check it out: cclponline.org/pub_library/se…

Living wage through 2019: $15.67/hr
2020 living wage: $17.42/hr
All FT, PT and temp workers, plus contractors (landscaping, EMS, custodial)

Will cost $825K extra to bring workforce to 2020 SSS
$401,000 for city staff
$105,000 for custodial contractors
$57,000 for landscape contractors
$262,000 for EMS contractor

Parks & Rec requesting 9% increase to base rec facility fee to cover increase

Council isn't weighing in on the living wage increase; it's just happening.

But they will give direction on moving custodial workers in house.

Some interesting stats: Current contract for custodial staff is 24 hrs/wk

46 contracted custodians: 41 are part-time, 5 full-time; avg. wage $15.87/hr
91% hispanic, 7% white, 2% black; 25% speak English as first language;
48% live in City of Boulder, 76% in BoCo

Of city's 7 in-house custodians: 6 are FT, 1 PT
Avg. wage of 2 day porters is $16.89
For 5 who do other building maintenance, average is $18.91/hr;
57% hispanic, 43% white, 71% English as first language;
14% live in City of Boulder, 57% in BoCo

The city bills $21.38/hr for custodial services and spends $1,386,375 annually.

There was no reduction in hours attributable to the living wage being implemented, according to staff.

Weaver: Why there is such a difference in average wage between the city's custodians and contractors. "I'm a little mystified by how much the delta is."

"It's economy of scale," parks and rec lady says (I didn't catch her name; I'm sorry).

Four options for in-housing:
Option 1: In-source Night Custodial Service at Six Downtown Facilities
5 FTE required to in-house; 209% more expensive than using contractors
Option 2: In-source Night Custodial Service at Ten Downtown Facilities
12 FTE requires; 165% more expensive

Option 3: In-source Recreation Center Day Porters
5.3 positions; 1 full time and 10 part time; 80% higher cost
Option 4: In-source Recreation Center Day Porters and Night Custodians
12.3 positions; 8 full time and 10 part time; 83% higher cost

Ali Rhodes from Parks & Rec is the one presenting, per @CassaMN who overheard Brockett call her Alison. And her name is on the council memo for this item. We're gonna go with it.

Contractors are better able to cover absences due to vacation, sick days, etc. bc they have more ppl to work with. The city actually brings in contractors to cover its gaps, Rhodes says.

Staff is recommending against in-housing bc they make the living wage, they have good benefits, more contractors live in Boulder than the city custodians do, and it's cheaper for the city.

Morzel has a q about health insurance. They get ACA coverage.. but only if they work 30 hrs a week. Average work week is 24 hrs with the city for contractors.

Rhodes says this is often a second job. Says she spoke with ONE employee in "exploring this question." Hmmm...

Some cities have two living wages: One that is for employees eligible for benefits, and a higher one for employees that are not. To be paid for by the contracting company.

Council likes that.

Kady Doelling, exec budget officer: It would come with an extra expense from the city, bc the cost of contract will go up.

Jones: We need more information about their benefits. We need to know whether or not they are covered.
Weaver: I bet they're not. Look at full-time vs part-time. They've got it set up that way probably for margin reasons.

Morzel: That brings me to my point. Why are we allowing a contractor to make money off the backs of others?

"I feel like some of the comments in this memo were pretty elitist," Morzel.

"The 7 custodians we have in-house are 57% PoC. Yet the contractors are 93% PoC. Why wouldn't we want PoC working in the city?"
Brautigam, somewhat heated: "Lisa, we do want PoC. We are trying very hard to hire PoC. It's very hard."

Still Brautigam: "The contractors have 46 positions; we have 7. They hire all over the Front Range."

Jones (to Morzel): I think you're being unfair.

Paying a living wage "is the higher goal." I would like to understand the benefits piece more.

Rhodes: One of our contractors offers health plans to everyone, regardless of hours. Another contractor has plans for ppl working 38 hours and above.

Doelling: Ppl who are offered benefits don't elect to take them.

Me: Probably bc it's too expensive.

Doelling: The one contractor offering a limited plan was less than $50/mo. It's cheaper than our part-time plan.

Brockett: The cost to our taxpayers is double to triple. While we want to make sure our contractors are taken care of, we can't justify those increases to our taxpayer.

Weaver: Maybe we just require that they offer health care options. "If we want to do a better job of making sure those employees have better benefits, we need to make that part of the audit."

Doelling apologizes for "the face" bc Morzel called her out for "scrunching" it up while she was saying the packet was elitist.

Doelling saying the staff will explore "total compensation" and how it compares apples-to-apples to the city's custodians.

Jones: I like where we're heading with this. We just gave them a $2.50 per hour wage.
Weaver: One thing I found interesting was a higher % of contractors live in the city than employees. I'd like to understand that.

Brockett: We wouldn't be hiring contractors' workers. We'd be hiring new ppl. The contractors are doing a better job of having people live here who work here than we are.

Council NOT bringing custodians in house, but will enhance the contract to get those workers better benefits.

That's it for this one. @threadreaderapp, please unroll.