Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6.4. Presentation of Pay Plan Reclassification Studv - Rod I(elsev <br /> <br />. .' <br /> <br />Rod }(elsey from Riley, Dett1nann and }Celsey presented the results of the pay play reclassification <br />study. IvIr. I(elsey explained that in order to prepare the final pay plan, input from the Council \vas <br />needed including the Council's philosophy on pay. Ho\v does tile Council \vant the city's pay to <br />relate to the Inarket? Do \ve \vant to be on the bOtt01TI end, the middle, or on the top end? Also, <br />does the Council \\~sh to change the t\velve cities used as comparables, are tI1ese correct cities for a <br />Inarket comparison. <br /> <br />[vir. IZelsey explained tl1e evaluation criteria used to evaluate the positions. TIus methodology is not <br />task focused and gives credit for education and experience requirements as \veIl as the problem <br />solving requirements of the job. Tlus evaluation luethod takes luore aspects of the position into <br />consideration resulting in a more accurate reflection of dle position. <br /> <br />Councilinelnber NIacin stated that SOlTIe pay amounts and groupings seem high \vh.ile others do not <br />seen1 high enough. He asked if comparables could be done \vidl the private sector. <br /> <br />hIr. I-Celsey stated that a collection of data could be obtained; ho\vever, one needs to be careful \vhere <br />you look. He stated that in the private sector lo\ver level jobs are lo\ver in pay than in tlle public <br />sector. <br /> <br />Councwnember IvIotin inquired if \ve have the cost factor for this program. IvIs. Johnson stated that <br />tlus has not been done yet. IvIost of the positions hav"e remained in tlle same categories and that <br />there \vill be the notlnal step increases \vhich may amount to approximately $15,000. <br /> <br />Councilmember Farber stated that he is concerned about the job description or comparisons <br />regarding the Finance Director position and if tlus is out of \vhack. <br /> <br />:tvIr. }Celsey stated that \ve no\v have the baby-boomers \vhere people aren't going an}7\vhere, they are <br />happy in tlleir current job, dlat the}, like their life-style or are protected by their current employ <br />through pay; or if \ve fmd that the pay is lo\v, dlere may not be a lot of candidates; and, that there are <br />trends \vhere jobs come and go as far as availability and being hard to fill. He also stated that <br />occasionally' for a position the rate Inay need to be raised \vhich is considered "leap fragging". <br /> <br />Councilmember Dietz inquired as to d1e exempt versus the non-exelupt positions and dle 2006 pay <br />n1axllnullls and points. 1vls. Johnson explained dlat \vas part of the problem in dle past \vhich <br />needed to be fL\:ed because there \vere t\vo separate pay groups. She stated that points are points and <br />that by placing the positions together this typical job evaluation sUffi1nary should \vork \vell. <br /> <br />Councrunen1ber Farber stated that he \vould like us to be ITIodeled at 600/0 and that he doesn't \vant <br />us to be in the lniddle. Councihnember Gumph.rey stated that he \vould like to see the categories <br />shortened up and to use the same cities that \ve have used in the past. <br /> <br />1\.'15. Johnson explained that step increases due in July 2006 \vill be based on the current pay plan and <br />any positions that have not previously been assigned a pay grade \vill be assigned one based on the <br />current pay plan and the ne\v position hierarchy. <br /> <br />MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GUMPHREY AND SECONDED BY <br />COUNCILMEMBER FARBER TO CONTINUE \VITH OUR CURRENT PAY PLAN <br />UNTIL COUNCIL MAKES A DECISION ON THE STUDY. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. <br /> <br />s: \ Council \Lori \2006 \ Clarify July 10 i"f 0 cion"doc <br />