Paoli, Diana
From: Jacob Patterson < [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 1:16 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Whippy, Isaac
Subject: Public Comment -- 3/24/25 CC Mtg., Item No. 51, Master Salary Schedule City Council & Staff,
I think there may be an error in this proposal to create three tiers to the Engineering Technician position. We currently have a single level for Engineering Technician followed by an Assistant City Engineer for the more experienced positions.
No changes are proposed for the Assistant City Engineer position, which I believe has two incumbents, but the unchanged pay ranges for the Assistant City Engineer will be the same as the new Engineering Technician II. As Assistant City Engineer, IMO, would be a higher-level position than an Engineering Technician I so the relative pay should be increased as well. On top of that, the highest tech tier is Senior Engineering Technician, which has a pay scale higher than the Assistant City Engineer.
I think it makes sense to add three tiers to the Engineering Technician but if we intend to keep the Assistant City Engineer (or higher Engineer) Positions, it should be adjusted so as not to be out-of-step with these new similar positions. Do we need an Associate City Engineer or Senior City Engineer position as well? What about an Engineering Lead (a title that makes more sense than the Assistant Director - Engineering Division)? Anyway, I have no issues with these new salary changes but they beg the question if more amendments are prudent when looking at the bigger picture.
Regards,
-Jacob