A discussion over the pay and classification study recently adopted by the Peachtree City Council and requested by Councilwoman Kim Learnard was held at the council’s Nov. 20 meeting.
The discussion was largely one where Councilman Eric imker gave his perspective on the study results and where a number of residents expressed their opinions pro and con.
For her part, Learnard’s comments were brief, saying that she had asked City Manager Jim Pennington to respond to several questions she posed. “He did a prompt and professional job,” Learnard said of Pennington’s response to her request.
Learnard referenced the need to use $640,000 of reserve funds to implement the pay and classification adoption. “That’s fine. We’ll get through it,” she said, noting the increase in the millage rate that will be needed next year to fund the adoption.
The discussion was opened for public comments, with less than a dozen of the 20 residents still in attendance having their say on the issue. The comments were polarized, with some opposed to the study or aspects of it and with others supporting its findings and the council’s adoption of the pay and classification study in October.
Addressing future concerns, resident Scott Austensen recommended the council conduct a comparative analysis of the city’s benefits package. Also speaking briefly was Councilman Mike King who reiterated his vote to adopt the study. Speaking at length was Imker who brought up a number of issues with the study that, without questions being answered, kept him from voting for its adoption.
Among his comments were those questioning the definition of salary compression, the lack of data for the 17 cities to which Peachtree City was compared, his lack of understanding on how the raises were implemented and whether the city would lose employees had the raises not be implemented. “I’m not challenging the salaries employees got. I’m concerned about the future,” Imker said.
