Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> The broader question which needs to l::e considered is the viability of . <br /> the cu=ent pay plan and structure. The' cu=ent process l::eing <br /> undertaken with POI is to detennine the relationship l::etween the <br /> duties perfonred and the time spent on these duties. 'TIris process <br /> does have a significant i11IJact an the structure of the plan due to a <br /> numl:er of changes which have =red in several jobs. Sane of those <br /> questions which need to l::e considered are. <br /> 1. Are the job duties for each position co=t? <br /> 2. If the duties are correct is the time spent correct? <br /> 3. D:> salary ranges need to l::e adjusted based on any changes <br /> in duties? <br /> Specifically, the City needs to respond to OOER in order to rrove into <br /> corrpliance with the Pay Equity Act. Attached are several draft <br /> reports which detail sane options for our plan. Based on sane recent <br /> discussions where I understand our plan is a performmce based plan <br /> rather than a step plan, it will require significant changes to our <br /> rep:>rt . While a perforrrance approach is not inco=t, it is nnique <br /> in the w::>rld of rmmicipal govemnent. I am still attempting to <br /> detennine the correct method for filing our report based on this <br /> approach . . <br /> I will also have several plans available at the meeting for review. <br /> These will include: <br /> 1. Current Plan <br /> 2. Generic Point Plan <br /> 3. Expanded Range Plan <br /> 4. Strictly perforrrance plan with minimax ranges. <br /> 5. Strictly perfonrance plan with cu=ent salary only. <br /> At a minimum, staff would recarrrend that the City Council approve the <br /> extension request and direct staff to prepare additional infornation <br /> which will assist the City Council in reviewing this issue. <br /> Enclosure <br /> BF\jt <br /> . <br />