I oppose the Incentive Program as presented. To offer an incentive for only 4 positions seems minimal at most. If this incentive was offered to more than just designated positions by departments, the county would see a substantial savings in labor costs. When there is a workforce that is already short staffed, what is the benefit of departments to freeze positions for two years? If instead you would allow department heads to fill vacated positions, instead of a 2 year freeze, there may be more departments willing to participate, and employees that are willing to take "early retirement" with a caveat for incentive. Departments and county would see substantial savings by reducing position costs that are currently being paid at step 5, etc. This could potentially reduce payroll for the next 5 years. I propose that you consider revising this proposal that would maximize savings for the county as a whole.
I oppose the Incentive Program as presented. To offer an incentive for only 4 positions seems minimal at most. If this incentive was offered to more than just designated positions by departments, the county would see a substantial savings in labor costs. When there is a workforce that is already short staffed, what is the benefit of departments to freeze positions for two years? If instead you would allow department heads to fill vacated positions, instead of a 2 year freeze, there may be more departments willing to participate, and employees that are willing to take "early retirement" with a caveat for incentive. Departments and county would see substantial savings by reducing position costs that are currently being paid at step 5, etc. This could potentially reduce payroll for the next 5 years. I propose that you consider revising this proposal that would maximize savings for the county as a whole.