City says Local 466 largely did not return job‑description edits; council warned union input may be resolved in impact bargaining

City staff told the Common Council on Feb. 9 that one of the unions affected by the Baker Tilly study, Local 466, did not provide edited job descriptions or substantive feedback during the job‑review phase despite repeated outreach and extended deadlines from the city.

Justin Richardson, the city’s director of human resources, summarized outreach efforts starting from May 2023 through mid‑2025 and said the project team repeatedly offered help and extended review deadlines. "By May 2025, the 466 union was in possession and with the revised job descriptions for 5 months… I did not get a single job description from 466 that was edited or revised or suggested to have something," Richardson said.

Richardson and other staff said the city made multiple written and in‑person outreach attempts, provided training materials and offered to assist the union's review. Council members pressed staff about whether higher‑level outreach occurred and whether the lack of returned edits undermined the accuracy of some job descriptions.

Council members and staff also noted the union had previously said the review was "meticulous" and that more time was needed. The city’s account differed: staff documented months of follow‑ups and described the union’s response as intermittent and not providing redlines. Richardson told the body that if the council approves the Baker Tilly recommendations, Local 466 and other unions will have a formal opportunity to raise and negotiate changes during impact bargaining.

The discussion highlighted a procedural issue for any council decision: staff signaled that certain inconsistencies or omissions identified after a vote could be addressed through impact bargaining, but councilors requested clearer evidence of union engagement and a breakdown of fiscal impacts by bargaining unit before taking any final action.