04-12-2016 ERMU MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Commission adopted a Performance Metrics program in December 2012, for implementation January 1, 2013. The performance metrics were monitored and provided as updates to the employees and commission on a quarterly basis throughout the year. This allowed for corrective action to be taken in order to meet the targets for the program. The program worked exactly as intended as we witnessed employee motivation and efforts aligned to improve company performance for deficient criteria. Troy Adams presented the scorecard showing that employees had successfully achieved all of the company performance metrics targets. Per the policy, qualifying employees would be eligible for the full 2%distribution. Troy explained that in moving forward, if the Commission is interested in re-evaluating the criteria for 2017, it should be determined and set prior to the measurement period. Troy suggested he bring back some history and industry stats to be used for the evaluation. He also recommended taking a look at the scorecard to determine if there is something different,or additional,that we should be tracking. It was determined that the best time to revisit this would be before the 2017 budget is approved. The Commission directed staff to compile any relevant data and bring that back for discussion during the 2017 budgeting process. Al Nadeau made a motion to award the Performance Metrics Incentive Compensation distribution of 2% to qualifying employees per the terms of the policy. Daryl Thompson seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0. 5.7 Security Department Cost Analysis Based on Commission direction, staff performed an analysis on the difference in revenue for the Security Department from 2014 to 2015. Mike O'Neill explained that in 2015 we began using a new billing system which caused ERMU to calculate certain security charges differently than in the past using the old system. In the past when customers paid their entire year's subscription in one payment, it used an accounting method that showed all of that revenue when paid instead of being spread over an entire year. When the new system was installed,the system began spreading that payment out over a 12 month period. This caused the revenue numbers to appear skewed,when in fact the year end results were as anticipated. As an end result, after calculating all of the revenue for the security department and deducting all expenses,the security department remains solvent,as well as covers ERMU's own security needs. John Dietz stated that he understood the explanation Mike provided,but the information he was looking for was,how much of the total revenue each year is attributed to monitoring, and how much of the total expense each year is attributed to paying Wright-Hennepin for the monitoring. John said he would also like to know how the revenue and expense for monitoring each year compares to the total expense and revenue, and requested those numbers for the past three years. There was further discussion. Staff will put together the Page 5 Special meeting of the Elk River Municipal Utilities Commission April 12,2016