2013_0708(part 2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 2 of 3 The 2012 classification and compensation study results indicate that Roseville is 4.6% under the 30 market on average. During the June 17 th meeting Council was provided the tax supported cost of 31 implementation shown below provided by Finance Director, Chris Miller. For each 1% 32 adjustment $42,404 would come from the property tax-supported functions. A more 33 detailed breakdown of the funding sources is as follows:34 35 Source Each 1% adjustment Implementation of 4.6% Tax Levy $42,404 $195,058 Cable Franchise Fees $1,348 $6,201 IT Revenues $9,434 $43,396 License Center Fees $8,760 $40,296 Building Permit and Plan Review Fees $7,749 $35,645 Water and Sewer Fees $4,043 $18,598 Recycling Fees $337 $1,550 Golf Course fees $2,022 $9,301 Total $76,097 $350,046 36 As shown in the above table, to recalibrate the current pay plans for the non-union, exempt and 37 non-exempt groups and achieve 100% of Roseville’s market average will cost $350,046.20, of 38 which $195,058.40 would be funded by property taxes. Additionally, the cost to reclassify those 39 identified in the study as more than 6% under the market average after pay plan updates have 40 occurred is no more than $20,000. (Once again, please note that this does not include the paid 41 on-call fire staff).42 43 There are several options that can be considered to provide for the appropriate level of 44 compensation. As discussed in prior meetings, adjustments could be phased in over a certain 45 period of time. However, the longer the compensation plan takes to implement the longer the 46 disparity with our peer communities will continue and elevated costs will occur due to 47 compouding. 48 49 Another option to consider is to utilize existing funds to fully implement the compensation plan 50 immediately and spread the levy increase over several years. This approach would allow for the 51 levy to gradually absorb the cost of implementing the 100% of the peer cities average 52 compensation plans. Existing reserves and fund balances could be utilized to implement the 53 adjustment this year. Given the existing level of compensation disparity with the peer cities and 54 the funding mechanisms available staff is recommending this option be used. 55 56 In any case, to stay current, the Council will need to provide ongoing funding for future years to 57 maintain the pay plans at 100% of the market average by providing a cost of living adjustment 58 that meets the market’s average.59 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 60 61 1.Establish the policy for the pay plans for non-union, exempt and non-exempt, at 100% of the 62