Agenda - 09-16-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I Cheryl Young said there is an allocation of $25,000 in the budget to study the possibility 2 of putting in -house medical care in place. 3 Chair Jacobs noted that there are 4 employees that have worked more than 30 hours 4 per week in the past 12 months, but these are not full time employees. 5 Michael Talbert said there are a number of part time permanent employees that work 30 6 hours or a little more. 7 Diane Shepherd said these 4 employees are considered temporary employees. She 8 said all permanent employees that work 20 hours or more get health insurance. 9 Chair Jacobs asked what constitutes a temporary employee. 10 Diane Shepherd said the employee would have to be here a full year. 11 Chair Jacobs asked if this means that employees who work 52 weeks will become 12 permanent employee. 13 Diane Shepherd said there is not an automatic process for this to happen. 14 Chair Jacobs said this is what the state was doing, which was to hire people for 50 15 weeks and then fire them to avoid paying benefits. 16 Diane Shepherd said the County tends not to do this, and the number has been worked 17 down, but there are still these 4 individuals. She said there are a variety of reasons for this, 18 including short staffed departments. 19 Chair Jacobs said he is going to petition the Board to eliminate these types of positions, 20 or that there be a policy about how to eliminate them. 21 Cheryl Young said under the health care reform act, even temporary employees can get 22 benefits. 23 Chair Jacobs said the County does not want to exploit people. 24 25 3. Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste and Recycling 26 Gayle Wilson gave the historical background regarding the original interlocal agreement 27 for solid waste management and the proposed development of a new agreement. 28 He said there was staff consensus on a detailed outline for a new agreement, which was 29 used to draft the detailed agreement before the Board tonight. He read the draft interlocal 30 agreement as included in the abstract. 31 He said there were a few issues that remain in question from staff's perspective. He 32 outlined those issues as follows: 33 34 The level of detail of existing recycling programs and services that needs to be incorporated 35 into the agreement. For example, is it necessary to detail each individual recycling service, 36 delineating what materials are collected, frequency of collection, number and type of containers 37 used, etc. within the agreement? 38 • Should the County or a Town (or Towns) plan, site and develop a waste transfer station would 39 consideration be given to allowing the other parties to the agreement access to the facility? 40 • The degree of involvement and advance notice given to the parties to the agreement to 41 regarding proposed fee increases (which fees and what flexibility /limitations would be granted) 42 and the level of authority to approve or authorize fee changes. 43 • The composition, mission and authority (if any) of a new advisory 44 committee /board /commission /waste partners group. Staff considered that elected officials may 45 wish to initiate a separate process to discuss and address this matter. It is possible that among 46 the first topics of such an advisory body could be coordinating the investigation into pay- as -you- 47 throw and /or organics management options. 48 • Provisions for withdrawing from the agreement including a more clear definition of 49 "outstanding debt ".