Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pay And Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Village hears consultant: nonunion pay study would cost $217,005 and target 42 employees
Summary
Consultants told the Village of Tequesta Council a holistic pay-study update and phased implementation for 42 nonunion employees would cost about $217,004.83; council members asked questions and staff was directed to include the estimate in the budget process.
A consultant told the Village of Tequesta Council that updating nonunion pay ranges and implementing recommended adjustments would cost $217,004.83, and she recommended a phased approach beginning with bringing part‑time employees up to new minimums.
The study, presented to the council on the evening of the meeting, reviewed internal job alignment and 11 market comparators and recommended a new nonunion pay plan intended to keep village pay ranges close to market levels. The consultant said the village’s current practice of annual range shifts has kept most positions near competitive levels, and that a comprehensive study every five to seven years is appropriate.
The recommendation matters because it adds a one‑time implementation cost the finance department must consider in the coming budget process. The consultant said the $217,004.83 figure excludes benefits, statutory deductions and vacancy savings; staff will need to calculate those additional costs for a final budget number.
“Out of the 42 nonunion employees, there are 31 full‑time and 11 part‑time,” the consultant said. “Five part‑time employees need between a nickel and 25 cents to reach the new minimum; that adjustment costs $6,338. After a recommended 5% across‑the‑board increase the additional cost is about $187,074, and five employees need equity adjustments totaling about $24,209.”
Consultant comments and council questions made three points central to the discussion: (1) moving pay ranges does not automatically give each employee the same percent increase, (2) annual updates using the PEPI survey have limited how many employees fall outside new ranges, and (3) some individual equity adjustments were identified for long‑tenured incumbents who are paid too low within their new grade.
Council members asked whether the magnitude of some range changes — as much as 9% for specific grades — meant employees would receive equivalent raises. Jeremy, the village manager, described the distinction: “The range moved 9%; that does not mean the employee is getting a 9% increase.” He said the 9% described changes to the pay range itself, not individual raises, and reiterated the consultant’s phased approach (raise part‑time staff to the new minimum, then an across‑the‑board 5% adjustment, then a handful of equity moves for long‑tenured incumbents).
Council members also asked whether vacancies and recruitment would change the cost estimate. The consultant said the $217,004.83 total does not include benefits or budgeted vacancy savings and that those items could increase the budgeted cost depending on turnover and the entry point of new hires. Staff stated the finance department will include benefits and vacancy assumptions when finalizing the budget request.
No council vote was taken during the presentation; the consultant provided the market analysis, the proposed grade schedule, and an implementation plan to staff and council for budget consideration. Staff said they had already briefed department heads who contributed input during the study and will supply detailed cost figures for budget deliberations.
The council closed the discussion with expressions of support for doing periodic comprehensive pay studies and keeping the pay structure updated to aid recruitment and retention.
