Village department heads and non-union staff may not be receiving salary raises in 2012 and 2013, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be making more money.
On Wednesday night, the council voted 4-1 to introduce a pair of ordinances that establishes zero percent salary raises for non-union employees and department heads but provides "incentive increases" between 0 and 1.9 percent over 2012 and 2013.
The public hearing and vote is scheduled for Jan. 16.
If the plan sounds familiar, it should. About a year ago, the previous village council agreed to pay up to 4 percent in incentive increases for that year as well as retroactively to 2010, when more than 30 workers were laid off due to budget cuts. A Patch analysis found 2.0 was the the average percentage issued during 2010 and 2011.
"It seeks to establish a new standard – one that balances the needs of employees with the economic reality faced by the village," Mayor Paul Aronsohn said in reference to the proposed ordinances. "Gone are the days of four percent salary increases."
Aronsohn voted against the ordinances in 2010 and 2011.
"I opposed last year's resolution because it was excessive at up to 4 percent, and its retroactivity effectively overturned the 2010 salary freeze on village managers," the mayor said.
According to Village Manager Ken Gabbert, direct supervisors will write an evaluation of the subordinates, making recommendations to Gabbert. The village manager will have the final word as to what increase the worker receives.
The total pool of money is between $50,00 and $60,000, Gabbert told Patch Wednesday night.
Payouts come on January and will impact pension obligations. As was true for the previous incentive increases in 2010 and 2011, Gabbert himself is not eligible (though he following a controversial vote).
Councilman Tom Riche – who has previously supported incentive increases, touting them as a new frontier in government – was the lone council member to oppose introducing the ordinances Wednesday night. He told Patch he would be detailing his reasons for voting 'no' on Jan. 16.
We'll be sticking with this story, so make sure to check back on Patch for more.