Mark Goldberg from DDA Human Resources Incorporated presented the findings of the classification and compensation study, emphasizing the need for a structured pay scale that aligns with market standards. He highlighted DDA’s extensive experience and access to compensation data across Minnesota, which informed the study’s recommendations. The proposed pay structure would see minimum salaries positioned about 2.4% higher and maximum salaries about 4% higher than market averages, a move Goldberg described as an “ideal spot” for Falcon Heights.

The council members expressed interest in understanding the methodologies and implications of the study. Goldberg clarified that the study was not intended to cut costs but to ensure that compensation is competitive. The discussion also delved into the evaluation process, whereby employees reviewed their job descriptions to contribute to establishing internal equity. The proposed changes would affect two employees immediately, with adjustments amounting to just under $7,000, and a general step increase for all employees was projected to have a 2.11% budget impact, equivalent to about $20,792.

A point of debate was whether to incorporate performance-based elements into the pay structure. Some participants argued that linking salary increases to performance could incentivize employees, though others noted the rarity of such systems in Minnesota’s public sector, which largely favors step-based structures. The discussion raised concerns about potential inequities that could arise from a performance-based system and highlighted the importance of balancing performance incentives with tenure-based increases.

The council also considered the financial implications of various pay adjustment scenarios, including a potential combination of cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) and step increases which could lead to an annual increase of approximately 5.6%. Concerns were voiced that such increases might exceed those typically seen in private and public sectors. As a result, the council discussed the sustainability of these increases and the possibility of implementing COLA biennially rather than annually.

In addition to restructuring the pay system, the council addressed other issues. A notable moment came when a council member expressed apprehension about broader economic conditions, referencing future uncertainties with the remark, “Lord knows what’s going to happen when the orange man has a couple of years under his belt.” This comment underscored the broader economic volatility that could impact municipal financial planning.

The meeting also touched on community engagement efforts and responses to recent incidents. One council member condemned the distribution of hateful flyers in the community. Another member reported on successful community-police interactions at a local elementary school.

City updates included a report on the paid parking program during the state fair, with positive feedback from residents and plans for a post-fair survey to gather additional insights. The council was informed of upcoming developments at the community park, with demolition set to begin soon and a projected grand opening in May, assuming typical winter conditions.

During the Community Forum, a resident named Chuck expressed gratitude for the city’s swift response to racist propaganda and praised the Pay to Park program as a “win-win-win proposition.” Chuck urged the council to address unauthorized public parking activities and the dilapidated condition of a condemned property on Larpenter, advocating for decisive action to ensure its demolition.