Laserfiche WebLink
1. WAGE/SALARY (APPENDIX A) <br />A. 1985 Adjustments <br />Outlined in the attachment are recommendations for <br />increase of selected jobs. These are interim <br />adjustments. Should the comparable worth study be <br />readied prior to year's end and if some significant <br />adjustments based on relative worth are indicated they <br />will be so recommended. Funding required for these <br />adjustments retroactive to January 1, 1985 is $13,236 <br />and the funding sources is the fund balance or operating <br />funds in the case of utility and liquor. <br />B. 1986 Adjustmer-ts <br />The 1986 final budget will contain the 1985 adjustments <br />made prior to its adoption together with a lump amount <br />of $20,000 for comparable worth increases in 1986. This <br />is strictly a estimate at this time. <br />C. Salary Compensation Framework <br />The anticipated salary framework for all non -bargaining <br />unit employees once comparable worth study is completed <br />will include a four step program starting at 80% of the <br />market/organization value of the job. Over a 3 year <br />time period based on consistently good performance the <br />person should progress to the 100% job value. All <br />progression increases in the scale will be subject to <br />performance evaluations by supervisor personnel. The <br />schedule wi i 1 have "milestone" steps of 80, 84 and 94% <br />of job value. Once implemented following the comparable <br />worth study, a proposal to reward top performers will be <br />presented for council consideration. <br />D. Performance Evaluation System <br />This will be developed with staff review during <br />September - October for implementation by the end of <br />November to tie in the comparable worth task analysis <br />for "front line" employees with some objective setting <br />for tho.ye personnel. Manigement personnel will be based <br />significantly more on parsonal, departmental and <br />organizational objective setting. <br />2. NON -SALARY COMPENSATION (Appendix B) <br />This study took into aceuint both internal (vis a vis the <br />barganing unit) and exl�ernal comparisons with other <br />r-inicipalities. <br />uener,il ly most employees within a municipality receive <br />approximately the same non -salary benefits (internal comparison) <br />toy;ether with si<lnificant Simi 1 iarity across municipal ities. The <br />