CCMIN111505 - Laserfiche WebLink

out. He was not interested in interrupting the goals already established by Council and supported the motion if it pertained to conducting the public/private sector compensation analysis in a manner that was conducive with the other priorities that Council had already established. Mr. Thorne said the intent of his motion did not have a time frame and the intent was to gather the data and Council could then make a decision when and how it wanted to proceed. Mr. Sullivan said he would be supportive of the intent of the motion. In response to several inquires by Ms. Thompsen, Mr. Fialho said City contributions to the employee portion of its pension plans varied by agencies and there are agencies where employees are required to contribute a portion of its PERS contribution and there are agencies who require the employees to contribute the full payment and the agency either elevates or inflates the salary in recognition of that formula, which is comparable to a cafeteria plan. The City of Pleasanton does not require the employee to contribute into the PERS system and the City makes this contribution on behalf of the employee, which has not always been the case. Have agreed to forego future pay increases. The City made the decision to contribute the employees PERS contribution because the employees agreed as part of a labor contract to forego salary adjustments. He believed this occurred in the late 80's or early 90's when the State and cities were struggling economically and this method was seen as an alternative to a pay adjustment. Mr. Brozosky pointed out that private employees are required to pay into the Social Security system. He did not believe this matter was properly noticed at Council's November 1 meeting. When Council discussed salaries it needed to be mindful that it was elected to watch the taxpayers' money and ensure that it was spent wisely and fairly and if there are perceived problems, it was up to Council to set the record straight. He supported holding a special workshop in the matter, which would bring the community together to discuss the issues, particularly when a contract was not subject to renewal and when wages are not subject to an increase. He also supported authorizing staff to conduct a comparison of City and private sector compensation to evaluate comparability. He supported the 3.50/0 adjustment on salaries at this point. As the maker of the motion, he asked Mr. Thorne to consider holding a special workshop in the matter in the spring or summer of 2006 when the majority of the General Plan process will have been completed. Mr. Thorne clarified that the intent of his motion was to direct staff to prepare a written description of the structure and process involved in the City's wage and salary program which is to be posted on the City's website for review and comment by the public. After this process has been completed, Council should then decide whether it was appropriate to hold a separate workshop if it determined that it enhanced the public process. He said the public/private sector compensation survey was not tied to the preparation and posting on the City's website of the structure and process involved in the City's wage and salary program. He believed Council could determine after the compensation survey was completed whether it needed a separate workshop on the matter. He also believed staff could work with a consultant to conduct a public/private sector compensation survey without interrupting Council's current priorities. Mr. Brozosky said he supported the motion if the public/private sector compensation study returned to Council for it to make a determination as to whether a separate workshop was needed. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 8 1 1/1 5/05