Not only police officers and firefighters, but all 300-plus employees of Statesboro’s city government will be getting raises in January.

To cite a couple of previously announced examples, police officer starting pay will rise from the current $45,802 to $55,477 annual and beginning firefighter pay from the current $43,564 to $50,259. To add a couple more for-instances, annual starting pay of a groundskeeper will rise from $31,595 to $39,262, and of a collection equipment operator, from $38,459 to $45,532.

Deciding the matter during their Dec. 19 meeting, City Council members changed course from the previously discussed idea of raising pay for police officers and firefighters in January but having all other city employees remain on the old pay scale until the July 1 start of a new fiscal year.

In fact, that two-step approach was stated in a draft resolution in the council’s agenda packets for Tuesday’s meeting. City Manager Charles Penny, who during a Dec. 5 work session initially recommended a January raise for all employees, had gone the opposite direction, changing his formal recommendation to start times of January for “public safety” raises and June for “general government” based on council’s previous discussion.

Then District 4 Councilman John Riggs initiated Tuesday’s final turn.

“I would like to make a motion to adopt this resolution, except include every employee of the city of Statesboro starting off with this January 1st of ’24, instead of just public safety,” Riggs said.

District 3’s Venus Mack, in her last scheduled meeting as a council member, seconded Riggs’ motion. What they proposed was exactly what was eventually adopted on a unanimous 5-0 vote, but only after an initial 3-1 vote, some procedural disagreement, further discussion, withdrawal of the motion and then a new motion and second.

A new pay plan

The raises result from a new, overall pay plan developed from a compensation study by the human resources consulting firm Condrey & Associates. As Penny had recommended, the council chose Plan A, the most generous of three options in the consultants’ report. Plan A represents base salaries roughly 5% higher than the current, adjusted averages for the comparable Georgia cities and other regional employers surveyed. Plan B would have been 2.5% higher than the average rates, and Plan C would have adopted the “adjusted labor market” averages as Statesboro’s base salaries.

‘To lead the market’

“With the pay plan itself, you said you wanted to lead the market,” Penny said, reminding councilmembers of a direction chosen during a planning retreat earlier this year.

Technically, the salaries listed in the new pay schedule as 105% of the adjusted labor market rates are just for employees new to each position, whether by hiring, promotion or transfer.

But as also approved by the council on Penny’s recommendation along with the pay plan, current city employees will receive a “standard equity adjustment,” amounting to a 2% pay increase for those with 1-3 years of service, a 4% increase for those with 4-6 years of service, and a 6% increase for those with 7-plus years.

Legislative sausage

The projected cost of the raises for an entire fiscal year, such as the one starting July 1, is $2.3 million, as Penny had reminded the council. District 5 Councilwoman Shari Barr mentioned this after the initial motion and second, and District 1 Councilman Phil Boyum observed that the projected cost of providing raises for all employees would add about $1.15 million in spending to the remaining half of the fiscal year 2024 budget, which ends June 30. Penny acknowledged this.

Mayor Jonathan McCollar then asked again if any council member seconded the motion, and when Mack repeated that she seconded it, McCollar called for a vote. Barr indicated she was voting against the motion, and Boyum did not vote. McCollar asked if the vote was 3-1.

Barr said the motion and process had gone too quickly, when she thought there should be further discussion. While asserting that McCollar should have allowed more discussion after the motion was seconded, Boyum said he wanted to point out the effect on the budget and make sure the new pay plan would be sustainable.

Penny noted that the cost to the general fund of the raise-for-all during the remaining half of fiscal year 2024 is projected to be about $500,000. The rest of the $1.15 million cost would be borne by the fire fund and the city’s fee-supported enterprise funds, such as for water and sewer service.

While acknowledging his formal recommendation of the split approach, Penny said, “At the same time it’s difficult when you have public safety employees and general government employees in the same building, and the public safety – the certified law enforcement officers – get the pay increase, but all the general government employees do not.”

After asking whether Boyum whether he was voting “yay or nay” or had abstained – while Boyum indicated that he had done neither – McCollar asserted that a proper motion had been made, seconded and approved 3-2. Changing the decision, he said, would require a new motion.

Riggs, with Mack’s support, withdrew the original motion. After brief further discussion, Riggs made and Mack seconded a motion identical to the first. Barr said she could support the raises, counting on city staff to save money in other areas where needed to offset the cost. She and Boyum joined in the “yes” vote, making it 5-0.

Penny said that city employees will first see their raises in their Jan. 25 paychecks.