My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.2. SR 01-28-2002
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2002
>
01/28/2002
>
4.2. SR 01-28-2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:32:03 AM
Creation date
12/17/2002 4:38:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
1/28/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
but it is a state law and one we have to follow. The problem is...what if a revised job <br />analysis profile says that the point rankings should not be changed and we have already <br />increased wages for the employee group. This could have a spin-off effect throughout our <br />pay plan. The city 2002 pay plan is attached for your reference. <br /> <br />What Steve is proposing may turn out to be exactly the situation. Both groups - the <br />plumbing and lead inspectors and the general building inspectors - may need to have a <br />higher point ranking for their positions based on additional responsibilities and this may <br />translate into them being put into a higher pay grade and ultimately receiving higher wages. <br />But if a higher point ranking does not evolve then there are financial ramifications that the <br />city will have to deal with. <br /> <br />This request should be looked at in the context of all city employee groups. Ultimately, if a <br />wage increase is provided in the building department, then all other employee groups will <br />want equal consideration and treatment. Generally speaking for each City Council action <br />there is also a reaction. <br /> <br />The Council has any number of options available to them including doing nothing and <br />simply hiring new inspectors if employees leave the city. If we don't hire experienced <br />inspectors, then they go through the training process. This would be easier if we don't lose <br />both employees. <br /> <br />A "simple" although temporary solution may be to increase the wages of the plumbing and <br />lead inspectors by $1.20 per hour ($2,500 per year) for additional building official work and <br />responsibility. The city personnel committee can then look at all the inspector positions <br />(duties and responsibilities) and make a recommendation to the City Council. This wage <br />increase should be enough to keep Denny but we will likely lose Bob. On the other hand, <br />even if we provide the increases that Steve is recommending, we still may not be able to keep <br />Bob. <br /> <br />This is not an easy situation under any circumstances but it is especially difficult due to the <br />timing concerns. The City Council will have to make some decision in the not too distant <br />future. It would be preferable if the City Council just adjusted pay and not set employee <br />groups within different pay ranges or create a new pay range. Regardless of what happens in <br />the next week or two, the personnel committee needs to have the inspectors provide an <br />updated job analysis profile in order to incorporate any former building officials <br />responsibilities into their position and then see if any point ranking change needs to take <br />place. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.