Laserfiche WebLink
209 <br /> <br />NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING <br /> <br />A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WILL BE HELD ON Friday, <br />March 16, 1990 AT 12:00 noon. IN THE Basement Conference Room. <br /> <br />THE PROPOSED AGENDA IS AS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br />Budget work session <br /> <br />Pay Proposal <br />BY ORDER OF THE MAYOR BY Jeanne Cox (si~ned) <br /> <br /> BASEMENT CONFERENCE ROOM -March 16, 1990 <br /> <br /> Council met in special session on this date with the <br />following members present: Mr. Buck, Rev. Edwards, Ms. <br />Waters. Absent: Mr, Towe and Mr. Vandever. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gary O'Connell, Deputy City Manager, presented <br />Council with a history of salary increases for the past five <br />years and noted that an outside firm has been employed every <br />four or five years to study salaries. Mr. O'Connell <br />explained that the firm which had conducted the most recent <br />study, TPF & C, were selected because of their experience in <br />the private as well as public sector. <br /> <br /> Mr. Chuck Essex of TPF & C, stated that his firm is a <br />management consulting firm which specializes in human <br />resources issues. Mr. Essex explained the study consisted of <br />revising a questionnaire used by the City regarding salary; <br />surveying actual pay in other localitieS; and surveying local <br />private businesses. Mr. Essex stated that a greater <br />discrepancy in the comparison with the private sector was <br />found. <br /> <br /> Mr. BuCk questioned whether other benefits were <br />considered in the survey and Mr. Essex replied taht a total <br />compensation analysis was not considered because of the cost <br />of including this, but stated that most local governments are <br />comparable in their benefits and that other benefits have not <br />been found to be major attractors unless theY are real <br />extremes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he felt Mr. Essex's basic premise <br />regarding other benefits was wrong. <br /> <br /> Mr. Essex stated that City employee salaries were <br />cOmpared with the data that had been collected and <br />recommendations were made taking into account that a time lag <br />existed between when the study was conducted and when the <br />adjustments would be made. Mr. Essex stated that it was <br />recommended that salary scales be increased 3.2% on July 1, <br />1990 and 3°8% on March 1, 1991. <br /> <br /> Mro Buck questioned the justification for the 3.8% <br />increase in March and the change in philosophy in making a <br />proposal whiCh provides for anticipated increases in the <br />market. <br /> <br /> Mr. Essex explained that as a result of the survey some <br />jobs Were changed to different ranges, some jobs were' <br />reclassified, and additional steps were added to ranges. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards questioned why an across the board increase <br />was recommended rather than just bringing those salaries <br />which are low up and Mr. Essex explained that only benchmark <br />jobs were surveyed, not all positions. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she had problems with increasing <br />salaries for employees who were already at or over 100% of <br />the market and questioned whether any other method could be <br />used to equitably raise those salaries shown to be low. <br /> <br /> <br />