Council tables proposed salary schedule and classification changes for further personnel committee review

The City Council heard a detailed staff proposal to update the city's salary schedule and revise multiple job classifications, but decided to table the matter for additional review with the personnel committee.

Staff presented three core components: adopt an updated salary schedule and classifications; replace the planning director classification with a planning manager (to expand candidate pools and enable succession planning); and eliminate a vacant administrative clerk/bookkeeper while bringing code enforcement in-house under a consolidated code compliance officer/planning technician classification. Staff explained the methodology used for setting ranges: comparing bottom and top ranges across comparable agencies, subtracting 5 percent from the low end to broaden the applicant pool, and using the median for the top of the range.

Staff said short-term fiscal impact for FY25-26 would be minimal because incumbents are currently paid above the proposed bases, but that longer-term costs could accrue as employees progress within the ranges. Staff estimated an eventual multi-year cost impact on salary obligations (discussed in general terms during the presentation) but emphasized no immediate budget increase for the next fiscal year as incumbents currently exceed the proposed entry steps.

Council debate focused on which comparable cities should be included in the salary survey, whether the proposed medians were too high for the city's small budget, and whether listing both "planning director" and "planning manager" on recruitment materials would create confusion. Several council members urged a narrower comparator set (excluding much larger cities such as Carson) and suggested the city adopt a lower percentile ("lower third or lower quarter") instead of median for top-end ranges. Other council members cautioned that the city must remain sufficiently competitive to recruit experienced planners, particularly given recent layoffs in neighboring jurisdictions.

After extended discussion and public comment, a council member moved to table the item to the following meeting and asked staff and the personnel committee to meet in the interim to revise the recommendation and provide clearer side-by-side comparisons, wage math, and proposed recruitment strategy. The motion to table passed on a voice vote; staff said personnel committee members would schedule follow-up and return to council with updated figures so the council could consider a vote at a subsequent meeting.