5.5. SR 06-14-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. would get different departmental representation on the committee, but it should be acknowledged that confidentiality is of the utmost importance and that the current group has maintained a very high standard in this regard. Now back to my concern about Elk River being 95 percent of the metro (Group 6 Cities - Population 10,000-25,000) average. This 95 percent status was a City Council decision in 1995, when the personnel committee presented the Comp Worth Plan update and the revised pay plan. I can't say too much regarding the rationale of the City Council at that time, - maybe John or Larry can offer comments. However, I believe it was, in general, an acknowledgement that Elk River is not metro nor in the seven county metropolitan area, was a way to save money and be more comparable to local Elk River private businesses, and a statement that the cost of living in Elk River may not be a "metro average." Additionally, in order for an average to be established, some are above and some are below the average. Nonetheless, things may be slightly different now as we approach 2000, and as the city approaches 17,000 population, and as more metropolitan type development becomes common in Elk River. Also, the council should note that the Elk River police union has been at 97 percent of the Group 6 metro average for the past 8-10 years. In union negotiations the request is constant to get this group up to the metro average and this has consistently been . resisted by the city. To get the rest of the non union employees up to 97 percent of the Group 6 metro average seems appropriate and should be considered by the City Council in order to be fair to all employees from an internal pay relationship point of view. If the City Council wants to get up to the metro average for all employees over the next four to six years, then this certainly would not be resisted by any city employee group, but it would also certainly be additional expenses in the General Fund budget (as would going to 97 percent for the non union employees). Employee benefits make up a big part of the total employee compensation package and employee benefits is the next assignment for the personnel committee. It may be best, before any policy decision to go to the metro average takes place, to only move to 97 percent in the next few years for the non union employees and reevaluate the metro average goal at that time after a review of employee benefits has taken place. In order to accomplish a 97 percent status for the non union employees, the City Council would have to give cost ofliving adjustments (COLA) in the pay plan at the 3.75-4 percent level for the next two or three years. This is in contrast to the 3 percent COLA increase that have consistently been given in the past. .