Minutes - 19901105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9 John Link stated that these concerns will be addressed during the second phase of the study along with Social Services and Health. There are also some positions which have had a change of scope which will be addressed. John Link stressed that he wants to be sensitive to every employee's concern about this study. He would like to bring this item back at the next meeting with the effective date of January 1. Commissioner Willhoit questioned the fact that the existing pay range does not seem to be a common fact between the low range and the high range. The high range is approximately 50% above the low side but does not appear to be uniform. Mr. Maxwell explained that the County has a larger spread from minimum to maximum than the survey average would show. The average is 55-60% and the survey average is 45%. The other reason is that some of the organizations have a smaller spread and the average would be shorter. He referred to the agenda abstract and the fact that 124 employees were recommended for an increase in grade level but of those employees only 31 will actually receive a salary increase. John Link stated that there were 124 recommended for a salary grade increase. However, they will not receive a salary increase. Twenty-two salaries will increase because their job has been reclassified and the other 9 employees' current salary is below the first step of the new salary range. In answer to a question from Commissioner Willhoit about the difference between a reclassification and a grade change, John Maxwell explained that some would have a title change and some would just have the same title but the data would show that their salary grade should be moved up. Those employees are making salaries already that are in the range even though the range changes, their salary is not going to increase because their existing salary is already within their new range. However, there are some employees whose existing salaries are below the minimum of the new grade. All other questions may be directed to the County Manager. B. TELEPHONE - EXTENDED AREA SERVICE John Link and Rod Visser, with the use of transparencies, illustrated the proposals from Southern Bell and Centel for toll-free Couyntywide Extended Area Telephone service. One proposal is a measured service approach at reduced toll charges and the other option is a countywide extended area service proposal by the phone companies that would cover their toll revenue over a period of time. Historically, the Utilities Commission has addressed petitions for extended area service in this state without consideration for recovery of tolls for the phone companies. They have pursued fixed rates that would cover the cost of equipment and processing of extended area service process. The question is should the County accept the proposal that has been made by the phone companies or proceed with a petition to the Utilities Commission seeking a traditional EAS approach with reduced tolls based on not recovering all toll charges for the phone companies. Rod Visser reviewed the proposals by the phone companies and compared their rates with the rates as suggested by Orange County. Mr. Henry Whitfield emphatically spoke in support of the County's proposal.