Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy Salary Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outline step-based pay schedule after reviewing last year’s flawed salary study
Summary
A staff presenter described work by a small group of department leaders to revise a city salary schedule after identifying problems in a recently completed salary study. The group proposed a step schedule tied to years of service for 61 ordinance positions, noting only 13 employees had five or more years of service and saying a step system could
A staff presenter told the Gardner City Public Service Committee on May 30 that a city salary study completed last year had shortcomings, and that a small group of department leaders had developed a step-based compensation schedule they consider fairer and more likely to retain employees.
The presenter said the original study was a starting point but had flaws: it was hard to compare some Gardner jobs with positions in other communities because duties differ, and the study used a 50% benchmark that the group considered a low bar. “There was a lot of flaws in the study itself, but it was at least a starting point for the department heads to look at,” the presenter said.
To respond, the presenter said a group including the auditor, the HR director, the city engineer, the city assessor and the presenter produced a spreadsheet covering the city’s 61 ordinance positions and proposed step increases at years 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 to mirror the structure of union contracts. The presenter said the first notable finding was that only 13 employees had five years or more service, a fact the group said indicated employee turnover and loss of institutional knowledge. The presenter argued that a step schedule could improve retention and in some cases save the city money over time.
The presenter framed the proposal as a staff-developed compensation schedule to be considered in the budget process; no formal adoption or vote occurred at the committee meeting. Committee members asked clarifying questions about how encumbered funds and actuals interact with line-item budgets during the session, but the step-schedule work was presented as a planning item for budget deliberations rather than a final decision.
If adopted in later budget actions, the step schedule would adjust starting salaries and create periodic step increases to bring positions closer to market over employees’ tenure, according to the presenter. The presenter did not provide exact dollar amounts for each step during the May 30 discussion.
