Laserfiche WebLink
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION/DIRECTION — LIVABLE WAGE OVERVIEW AND OPTIONS <br />DATE: MARCH 14, 2017 <br />PAGE 8 OF 12 <br />Policy Issues: <br />• If the desire is to pay wages similar to others in Boulder County, this approach <br />would support that desire. <br />• If the desire is to decrease turn -over, increase retention, and be more competitive in <br />the market, this approach would support that desire. <br />• Further discussions and decisions would need to be made regarding how, or if, to <br />provide merit increases. <br />• Additional funding sources would likely need to be identified to sustain wages at this <br />level considering the current budget. <br />Cost Estimates: <br />The cost estimate for this option would add an additional $2,485,808 to the regular <br />salaries budget and an additional $726,369 to the part-time/variable (non -benefitted) <br />salaries budget for a total of an additional $3,212,177 in salaries, and additional <br />$245,731 for FICA for an estimated grand total of $3,457,908 annually in 2018 and <br />subsequent years. <br />Recommendation for Implementation: <br />• Determine the funding source(s) to pay for this option. <br />• Based on the funding source, determine the implementation options and timing <br />or implementation. <br />Option 4: Add City of Boulder and Boulder County (who also recently implemented the <br />SSS wage standard) to our labor market cities as part of the annual salary survey and <br />salary projections. <br />Pros: <br />• By adding these communities that use livable wage, our annual market study will <br />reflect those salary ranges and incrementally adjust our wages in line with the <br />SSS. <br />• Wage impacts would affect all employee categories, assuming livable wage in <br />participating cities addresses full-time and part-time employees. <br />• Addresses compression issues. <br />• Performance remains a factor in compensation philosophy where merit increases <br />are based on performance of the individual employee. <br />• Could be easily folded into current annual salary survey process which coincides <br />with budget process. <br />Cons: <br />• Would not raise salaries to a minimum of the livable wage standard (assuming <br />$15.67) <br />• Does not address benefit eligibility below 30 hours. <br />CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION <br />