My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0919
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0919
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:27:46 AM
Creation date
9/28/2005 2:36:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/19/2005
Meeting Type
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
<br />City Council Study Session - 09/19/05 <br />Minntes - Page 14 <br /> <br />Ms. Bacon reviewed various aspects and components of <br />compensation; discussed essential and non-essential employees <br />as defined by state statute; proposed process to follow to achieve <br />internal and external equity; guiding compensation principles <br />and policy objectives. <br /> <br />Ms. Bacon noted that, in keeping with their philosophy, the City <br />had presented strides in equality in wage and salary packages as <br />well as benefits for the City's bargaining groups and <br />unrepresented plans. <br /> <br />Ms. Bacon reviewed the state's comparable worth plan and <br />requirements; need to update the current job evaluation system <br />and plan that has become obsolete; market and benchmark data; <br />and how the study was conducted and the process followed by an <br />outside consultant, Employers Association, Inc., and staff. <br /> <br />Discussion included the City's status; step system and merit <br />system; use of annual performance evaluations, but not attached <br />to pay; trends; explanation of new plan features and <br />implementation process; "outstanding achiever" status; and <br />proposed pay plan changes. <br /> <br />Ms. Bacon had three implementation strategies for the Council's <br />consideration and the financial implications of each: <br />1) Implement by adjusting only those that are below the <br />recommended new minimum starting pay to starting pay. <br />All other staff would remain at current pay until their next <br />review for a step increase. Estimated cost, approximately <br />$33,304. <br />2) Implement by adjusting all of those that are below the <br />recommended new starting pay to starting pay and <br />bringing everyone else into the system at the closest step <br />to their current pay without a decrease in pay and without <br />bringing staff in at a step above their years of service. <br />Estimated cost, approximately $72,171. Ms. Bacon noted <br />that this was staff recommended version. <br />3) Implement by adjusting all current exempt and non- <br />exempt staff into the system at their current service step. <br />Estimated cost, approximately $249,995. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.