CC_Minutes_2013_0819 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 19,2013 Page 22 are basic and the same for all benchmarks; with the difference being that some of the City of Roseville jobs combining several positions (City Engineer serving as Assistant Public Works Director) which may not be comparable to other cities having two positions performing those functions versus the one position in Rose- ville. Ms. Bacon advised the difference was found in the range of those responsi- bilities, even though the core job description and range were similar. Regarding turnover, Ms. Bacon advised that she performed voluntary exit inter- views for employees; and information provided by those willing to do so were kept on file, with her performing an evaluation on where and why an employee was leaving. With no formal method in place, Ms. Bacon advised that her com- parisons with other cities indicated that Roseville was pretty average with the ex- periences in turnover with other communities. Ms. Bacon advised that the market was opening up and loosening up, and would probably create more turnover ver- sus that seen in the last few years when it had been low with the economic uncer- tainties. Councilmember Laliberte recognized the move of employees in the public sector from one city to another depending on their position. However, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if total compensation attributed to that average to low turno- ver beyond wage,but considering total compensation. Ms. Bacon advised that the study considered the benefit package as well as wag- es, but noted that the information had not been detailed in reports. Ms. Bacon ad- vised that the City of Roseville had always been pretty consistent and comparable with its benefit package and time off with other cities on average. Councilmember Willmus clarified that the compensation study included benefits, opining that he had been told something different in the past. Ms. Bacon responded that the compensation study compared premiums versus contributions for life insurance and other rudimentary things and proved pretty average in that comparison. Councilmember Etten expressed his support for a review every four years versus ten years, even though he could support six years, but preferred four years. Councilmember Etten advised that he was concerned with line 51 (page 2) indict- ing that there would be not COLA considered for a budget year that provided a compensation adjustment; opining that this again put the City automatically be- hind, setting it up to fail, and continuing always being off somehow. Coun- cilmember Etten questioned if there were compensation policies available from other cities versus creating one, suggesting that it would be great to have policies from the ten peer cities or 3-4 surrounding cities. Ms. Bacon offered to ask for policies if and where available.