The most significant topic of the meeting was the proposed 5% salary increase for city employees. The finance director detailed that the total cost for this increase would be approximately $1.3 million, which includes an initial $1,179,000 for the 5% increase and an additional $172,000 for further adjustments. This proposal aims to retain qualified personnel and attract new candidates by maintaining competitive pay structures. This concern was underscored by Ron, who emphasized the importance of aligning salaries with current job duties and industry standards. To achieve this, the HR director and department heads collaborated to scrutinize regrading and reclassifying positions through one-on-one meetings.

The committee reviewed benchmarking data from other municipalities to ensure that the proposed salary adjustments were competitive. Some departments received the changes they desired, while others had requests denied. This selective approach highlights the balancing act the committee faces: increasing one employee’s pay could necessitate adjustments for others within the same grade.

Further discussions revealed that not all departmental budget requests, which totaled around $650,000, would be fully met. The finance director confirmed that the increase in the millage rate from 8.25% to 9.18% would provide additional funds, estimating around $120,000 to cover increased costs, though a net effect of $74,000 would remain after accounting for expenses. Additionally, a noted decrease in health insurance costs could lead to potential savings of about $60,000.

Questions arose regarding the minimum wage implications of the proposed classifications, particularly since some positions remained below the anticipated minimum wage increases in the coming years. It was acknowledged that the city manager had made efforts over recent years to raise the minimum pay levels, which were currently set above the existing minimum wage. However, concerns about future adjustments remained prevalent.

Another point of discussion centered around the absence of a formal policy for salary increases tied to position reclassifications. Generally, a standard increase of 5% for one grade changes and up to 10% for two-grade increases was practiced, but the lack of a set policy led committee members to express a desire for clarity on how these increases were determined. Ensuring equitable treatment across various positions and departments while maintaining competitive compensation structures was a key consideration.

The committee also discussed the potential formation of a formal compensation committee to facilitate ongoing evaluations rather than addressing salary issues solely at the end of the fiscal year. This suggestion aimed to create a more systematic approach to salary adjustments.

In addition to the salary discussions, the meeting also covered the resignation of Miss Meijer, which highlighted the need for additional committee members to ensure a quorum for future meetings. With seven regular members and two alternates, the committee requires four members for a quorum. This situation could hinder the committee’s ability to vote on matters, though discussions could continue in the absence of a quorum. A call for community involvement was made to fill the vacancies.

The timeline for budget approval was laid out, noting that the first public hearing would occur on September 4th, with the second hearing scheduled for September 18th. The budget cycle is expected to conclude without further budget workshops, though there are still items pending for board consideration, including a pay plan that will be presented at a later meeting.