Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation Pay Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants Recommend Pay‑range Update for Tequesta Nonunion Staff; presentation lists $217,483 implementation cost
Summary
Consultants presented a market-based pay-range study for 42 nonunion Village of Tequesta employees, recommending bringing part-time staff to new minimums, a 5% across‑the‑board adjustment and limited equity adjustments. The presentation listed a total implementation cost of $217,483 and noted benefits and vacancies were excluded from that figure.
Consultants for the Village of Tequesta presented a market-based pay-range study to the council and recommended updating the village’s nonunion pay schedule, estimating a total implementation cost of $217,483.
The study, presented to the Village of Tequesta council, recommended first bringing any employees paid below the new minimums up to those minimums, then applying a general 5% increase to move pay into the proposed ranges, and finally making limited, person-by-person equity adjustments where required. “We recommend you consider bringing all employees to the new minimums first,” the consultant said during the presentation.
The consultant said the analysis covered 42 nonunion employees — 31 full‑time and 11 part‑time — and that five part‑time positions fell below the proposed minimums. The presenter said the part‑time minimum adjustments would cost $6,338, a subsequent 5% general increase would cost about $187,074, and five additional equity adjustments identified by tenure and position would total about $24,209, for the presentation’s total cost of $217,483. The consultant also told the council the cost figures do not include benefits, statutory deductions or savings from vacancies.
The presentation explained the study updated market comparisons beyond the village’s usual five comparators to include additional Palm Beach County jurisdictions and a private‑sector data point so private‑sector wages would not disproportionately influence the public‑sector median. The presenter said the village’s current practice of periodic, smaller adjustments tied to the PEPI survey has kept most full‑time employees within market ranges and that a holistic review every five to seven years can identify larger corrections.
Council members asked whether the size of some range changes (as much as 9% for certain grades) meant individual employees would receive equivalent raises. “The 9 percent change…doesn’t mean that the employee’s necessarily getting 9%,” a staff member replied, explaining the range shift reflects the market and that most employees already fall closer to midpoints; the consultant reiterated the recommendation was a 5% general increase and limited equity adjustments for a few employees.
Council members also asked whether the presentation’s total included vacancies and benefits; the consultant said it did not, and that finance should add associated benefit and vacancy assumptions when building the budget. Multiple council members praised staff for keeping pay competitive and voiced support for the recommendations.
The consultants said they would deliver the market analysis report, grade order list, proposed pay ranges, implementation plan and cost analysis to village management for budget planning.
The council did not take a formal vote during the presentation; staff and consultants provided the cost and implementation materials for inclusion in upcoming budget deliberations and for further council consideration.
