Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mandeville committee reviews salary survey, considers targeted pay changes amid police benefits concern
Summary
The Income Strategies Committee reviewed a salary survey showing the city's pay plan remains broadly competitive and recommended targeted adjustments for several classifications; a police officer urged the panel to weigh benefits and risk to officer safety in comparisons with non‑police roles.
Joanna Anderson, staff member, told the Income Strategies Committee on March 9 that the Social Security Index is currently 2.8%, the measure the city uses to determine cost-of-living adjustments.
Anderson summarized a recent salary survey and said the city's pay plan is generally competitive but includes a small number of recommended changes. She identified specific classifications for consideration, including Planner 1 and 2, Maintenance Worker 1 and 2, police positions, and an exploration of tiered wastewater worker positions.
During public comment, Kathleen Sides, senior accountant, added context about recent structural changes in the pay plan: she said the pay scale moved from 30 steps to 25 and that the percentage between steps was reduced from 2.5% to 2%. Sides' remarks were framed as background for the committee's decisions about whether and where to target increases.
James Gilbert, a police officer who spoke during public comment, urged the committee to remember that comparing police and non‑police roles is not solely a matter of dollars and cents because of officer safety risks to families and the higher hazard of the work. Councilman Scott Discon asked for a benefits comparison; Anderson said benefits are reviewed annually and offered to meet with Discon to share the methodology and results.
Alex Weiner, a planner and younger employee, said he would prefer improved benefits rather than a slightly larger salary increase, a point that committee members noted as part of retention and recruitment considerations.
The committee did not take formal action on pay changes at the meeting. Staff outlined options and offered to provide more detailed comparisons and implementation scenarios for committee review at a future meeting.
