9/20/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

constraints of our budget for fiscal year 88/89. Therefore, I wish the Board to consider the following alternatives: Alternative 1 - Implement the salary survey with each employee having an across the board markdown to reflect the budgetary limits. Thus, if an employee would be projected to have a $2,000 raise under full implementation of the salary survey, but the budget could only fund a 90% implementation of the salary survey, then that employee would receive an $1,800 rather than a $2,000 raise. Alternative 2 - Place some maximum limits on employee raises for this fiscal year. For example, no employee would receive a raise in an amount greater than $5,000 and/or greater than 30% of their current salary. (There are some employees who will have substantial increases in pay under the full implementation of the salary survey. It is my belief that many of these large increases are fully warranted. In the event an employee recommended for a large increase is not benefited by full implementation of the salary survey, then raises greater than $5,000 a year or 300 of their _current salary should be assured in FY89/90 so that the final phase of their recommended increases will be phased in by the next fiscal year. Such delay in phasing in their salary increases should not adversely affect whatever cost of living adjustments other employees might be granted a year from now. Alternative 3 - Give the Acting County Administrator the authority to work with the Budget Director in an attempt to make -adjustments to the salary survey on an equitable basis in an attempt at full implementation of the study -recommendations. I believe that there are some glaring inequities in :the salary. study that warrant adjustments which may yield a good share of the -deficit. in. our currently budgeted revenues. For example, many library workers were shown as warranting $7,500 - $12,000 increases. Such raises would place the pay for the various library job classifications approximately $5,000 to $10,000 higher than their respective counterparts in the St. Lucie County Library System. Such raises would also place virtually all library workers in a position where they would be making more than any other county employees save for department heads, division heads, and top professional personnel. I suspect that substantial savings can be affected by making adjustments to the salary survey recommendations for library workers, while still granting those workers substantial increases which make their pay scales more than competitive with nearby counties. _ Also,. there are several positions included within the salary survey which positions are not truly county employees. For instance, several persons shown on .the salary survey such as Housing Authority and Rental Assistance workers are not technically county employees but their pay checks are processed through the County payroll system. It should be up to the Housing Authority Board to determine whether or not to give their own employees rate increases or not. The same situation may apply to certain employees in the Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Extension Office, etc. If my calculations can be reiterated to reflect what I consider to be equitable adjustments and to correct glaring salary study defects, then I believe the salary survey recommendations may be able to be fully implemented with minimal resort to alternatives 1 or 2 above. CONCLUSION I recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Acting County Administrator to work with the Budget Director to make equitable adjustments and recalculations necessary to fully implement the salary survey. Should such adjustments not allow full implementation of the salary survey under current budgetary constraints, then the Board should authorize the Acting County Administrator and Budget Director to proceed with Alternative 2, phasing in the largest of the salary increases over a two year period. Across the board cuts should be implemented as last resort because of their disproportionate affect on the lowest salaried workers. The Board should authorize the implementation of the new salary scheduled effective as of the pay period beginning September 30, 1988. 34 600K � f'j;E •.�� E P 2 0 198