Laserfiche WebLink
received the board pre approval to review. The claim from visitor promotion was included and <br /> the dollar amount of$24,729.59 was added and one invoice from the road department was <br /> pulled. <br /> Lanfear made a motion and Richardson seconded to approve the bi weekly pay claims and <br /> regular claims. Arnold, Lancaster, Lanfear, Purdy, Quandt Richardson and Schuppan all voted <br /> yes and no one voted no. Motion carried. <br /> 9. UPDATE REGARDING SALARY SURVEY INFORMATION -As per the board's direction the <br /> following was to be applied: <br /> Apply the 2% cola to survey for all 3 years <br /> Keep the step plan <br /> Get to the middle of the midpoint minimum and maximum over 2 years <br /> If over a 20% increase is required do this over 3 years <br /> Stacey used a 10 step pay plan with 3% increases between steps <br /> Put the middle of midpoint minimum and maximum at step 10 <br /> If increase was 10% or under applied this all in year one <br /> If 20% or under in 2 years <br /> If over 20% in 3 years <br /> The estimated costs would be <br /> $310,000 in 2015—2016 <br /> $160,000 in 2016—2017 <br /> $135,000 in 2017 - 2018 <br /> The steps and anniversary dates are included. <br /> Discussion was held. Arnold stated that some of the pay ranges need to be consolidated and <br /> they need to look at the different position in the departments. Now state law determines how <br /> county employees are paid. The midpoint range would be in compliance. <br /> Discussion was held on the appointed officials and they need to be addressed it will need to be <br /> referred to a committee. <br /> Stacey stated this needs to be referred to the classification committee. <br /> Schuppan made a motion and Lanfear seconded to refer this to the classification committee. <br /> Arnold, Lancaster, Lanfear, Purdy, Quandt Richardson and Schuppan all voted yes and no one <br /> voted no. Motion carried. <br /> Lancaster made a motion and Richardson seconded to refer the salaries for the department <br /> heads to the audit committee for a recommendation. Arnold, Lancaster, Lanfear, Purdy, Quandt <br /> Richardson and Schuppan all voted yes and no one voted no. Motion carried. <br /> 6a. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE—A. PRESENTATION BY SHOEMAKER ISLAND <br /> LANDOWNERS —Several land owners requested to address the flood damage on Shoemaker <br /> Island Road and expressed concern regarding the islands that have been built in the river. <br /> They showed pictures of the area and the construction of the island. The road department <br /> spent a large amount of money to fix the road and it will happen again. <br /> 4 <br />