Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Little Rock reviews compensation study after city chose raises over rebanding in 2024
Summary
City consultants told the Little Rock City Board the study examined 101 benchmark jobs and found 50 below market; the mayor said the city deferred implementing the study in 2024 in favor of raises that reached more employees, and board members pressed for cost and equity details.
Consultants presented a final classification and compensation study to the Little Rock City Board of Directors on Nov. 18, laying out how the city’s pay ranges compare with local and private-sector markets and what structural changes a future implementation would mean for budgets and pay equity.
Mr. Siegel, the consultant engaged to complete the study, told the board the project used 101 benchmark jobs, with 96 having sufficient market matches and an average of about 10 matches per job. He said the study relied on public-sector peer comparisons supplemented by private-sector sources including the Economic Research Institute and CompAnalyst. "We used a 101 benchmark jobs," Siegel said, adding that 50 of those jobs were below market, 34 were market competitive and 12 were above market.
The mayor reminded the board the city had completed the study earlier and chose in the 2024 budget to give raises broadly rather than implement the study’s recommended range changes. "We decided to go for raises for all employees versus the implementation of the study, which at that point in time was 800,000 dollars and would not guarantee raises for all employees," the mayor said. Siegel said the implementation cost at that time would have affected roughly 200 staff; the mayor stressed the decision aimed to positively affect about 2,300 employees out of approximately 2,500 city employees.
Board members sought clarification on the report’s columns and on what the percentage figures represent. Director Phillips asked whether the report covered starting pay only; Siegel replied the three columns represent the minimum (entry salary), midpoint and maximum (top of range) of the proposed pay grade, and the mayor clarified that the earlier costing cited the expense to the minimum. Siegel also said the consultant adjusted comparisons by cost of labor (not local cost-of-living neighborhoods) to reflect labor-market differences between jurisdictions.
On implementation timing, staff explained the city historically adjusts salary ranges in step with annual raises (for example, a 1.7% raise produces a 1.7% range adjustment) rather than doing frequent structural rebanding. The consultant underscored that the compensation study shows potential pay ranges and that increasing ranges does not automatically translate to individual raises unless the board appropriates funding for implementation.
Several board members asked about pay equity and whether the study included a pay-equity analysis. Siegel said pay-equity analysis — a statistically driven internal review of pay differences among protected classes — was not part of the current scope and would be a separate study. Director Webb and others requested the full benchmark job list and supporting documents; staff agreed to provide copies to board members.
The presentation concluded with board discussion about prioritizing limited funds, the trade-offs between targeting a subset of employees versus giving modest raises to the broader workforce and next steps for the study’s implementation and further analysis.
The board did not take a final vote on implementing the study at the meeting; staff said compensation-related items would appear on the consent agenda for later action if the board so directs.
