Ketchikan council sparred over proposed vacation-payout rules; motion to defer fails

A heated debate over changes to Ketchikan's employee vacation accrual and payout policy dominated the City Council meeting on June 18.

Public commenters, including municipal employees and union representatives, urged the council to reject or substantially revise Resolution 26-30-23, which would align the city's personnel rules with a new vacation accrual and payout framework. At the podium, Sam Westgard, speaking for IBEW Local 1547, called vacation "an earned and negotiated benefit" and asked the council to "reject" the proposal and direct management to meet unions in good faith. John Miller, who identified himself as a KPU Electric employee, said COVID-era closures had left him with little leave and warned that forcing employees to take or lose vacation could create untenable situations for new hires and people with family emergencies.

Taylor Lee, deputy city clerk, and other council members praised the role of staff while emphasizing the need to balance employee autonomy with fiscal stewardship. Councilmembers repeatedly asked the administration for clearer numbers about the policy's budgetary impact; the city's packet referenced an estimated $22,000 in seven-year savings in one illustrative scenario, and staff said the amount varies based on usage and pay rates.

Councilmember Gage moved to defer consideration of Resolution 26-30-23 until the incoming manager starts, arguing negotiations with unions and further vetting were needed. Several councilors said the proposed 80-hour use requirement (a condition tied to eligibility for payout) and quarterly payout mechanics could penalize new or low-tenure employees and argued the policy should not be imposed on nonrepresented staff without additional discussion. Assistant/temporary city staff explained that unions would have to opt in to the policy and that, as written, union contracts would remain unchanged unless the unions ratified an opt-in.

The council voted on the motion to defer; the motion failed in roll call, and the council did not adopt the resolution at that meeting. Council members expressed divergent views: some urged starting over and engaging unions, others said the city must seek operating savings. Several members called for more analysis of the near-term fiscal exposures if large numbers of employees elected pay-outs at an effective date.

No formal changes to the personnel rules were enacted that night; councilmembers asked staff to return with additional information and to continue discussions with employee groups as appropriate.