Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates phased pay increase after study shows market gap
Summary
At an April 13 budget workshop the board reviewed a pay study and two scenarios — a phased 6% increase in July plus 3% in January, or a single 3% — and directed staff to refine numbers for the next workshop. Staff said the phased plan would better align pay with market benchmarks but raised revenue uncertainty for the January action.
At the April 13 budget workshop the Board of Mayor and Aldermen reviewed a personnel pay study and two cost scenarios as part of the fiscal‑year budgeting process. Staff outlined a phased option — 6% in July and 3% in January, which together approximate the consultant’s 9% recommendation — and a single 3% across‑the‑board increase.
The staff presentation estimated the phased 6%+3% approach would cost about $3,026,000 citywide, with roughly $2,690,000 charged to the general fund and smaller shares to stormwater and water/sewer. The single 3% scenario was shown as substantially lower: about $1,650,000 to the general fund, plus smaller amounts for enterprise funds. Staff emphasized those totals include payroll taxes and retirement costs.
Why it matters: staff told the board the phased plan would move the city’s collective market index from roughly 89.3% to about 100.2% of comparable municipalities — bringing many departments closer to market‑competitive pay. The board heard from a staff analyst that a 6% adjustment this year would raise most departments to or near their target; doing only 3% would leave more positions below the market threshold and limit the ability to correct specific job classifications.
Board members split on timing and risk. One board member favored implementing 6% now and revisiting additional increases later, noting revenue uncertainty; another argued for a cautious 3% now with a recheck in January or spring when sales‑tax receipts are clearer. A staff presenter cautioned that approving the July portion and anticipating a January amendment leaves only three months of revenue data to judge whether the second increase is affordable.
The board instructed staff to produce refined figures and to bring updated, department‑level impacts to the next budget workshop on April 27. Staff also committed to circulating updated pay‑structure tables showing the difference between a 6% single step and full 9% implementation.
