DOCSLIB.ORG

5.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (Improvements)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
5.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (Improvements) 5.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (improvements) This document is the fifth revision to the original Mountain Master Plan for the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort (JHMR). Although very similar to the plan that was submitted to and accepted by the Forest Service in 2004, a moderate number of changes have been made throughout this development proposal. Many of the changes consist of proposed summer activities. The improvements recommended for the upgrading and expansion of Jackson Hole Mountain Resort reflect identified resource opportunities and constraints in conjunction with the findings that resulted from the analysis of existing facilities. The improvements also incorporate the expectation for continued growth in demand and recognize skier preferences as indicated by market research. The purpose of the Master Plan is to produce a road map for development that ensures the greatest practical use of the existing lands, while remaining sensitive to myriad environmental considerations. The Master Plan is a dynamic document and will be implemented to reflect market demand. It is the objective of the development process to produce a high quality experience, both winter and summer, throughout the recreation area located within the Special Use Permit (SUP) boundary. Accordingly, the plan is tailored to improve Jackson Hole’s ability to respond to market needs/skier demands through development of a more year-round resort experience. This should not only improve the ski area’s current market niche, but also help to attract new users on a year-round basis. Starting in 2005, the focus of improvements at the resort shifted from projects outlined in the 2004 plan to replacing the old Aerial Tram. Environmental approval of the 2004 plan was delayed for many years due to the approval and construction of the new tram. The major changes incorporated into this updated plan compared to the 2004 Master Development Plan consists of the following: Additional conveyor lifts (covered carpet) Elimination of proposed Lower Sublette and Timbered Island lifts. Additional on-mountain storage and operations facilities. Additional summer activities including zip-lines, ropes courses, hiking/biking trails, etc. Additional Avalanche Hazard Reduction infrastructure and equipment. Combine the previously proposed Solitude lift and the existing Sweetwater lift into one high speed lift with a mid-unload. The improvements proposed in this section of the MDP are depicted on Figure 5.1. All proposals are shown at the conceptual level. Prior to implementation of any component of the plan, it will be necessary to generate detailed construction plans for each proposed improvement. 76 FIGURE 5.1 UPGRADE PLAN (BUILD-OUT) 77 During the course of the planning process, a number of alternatives have been evaluated for the upgrade and expansion of Jackson Hole Mountain Resort. In formulating the improvement plan the following design criteria have been considered. Consistent Fall Line – This analysis identifies the most natural flow of skier traffic, as well as the optimum skiing routes to serve specific skier ability levels from top to bottom on a consistent basis. Trail Classification Distribution – The new and upgraded ski trails were designed with a focus on attempting to provide a distribution of trail classifications that will more closely match the ability level profile of the national skier market. Optimum Skier Density (per acre) on Trails – The installation of new lifts has been suggested in order to balance the uphill capacity of each lift with the downhill capacity of the terrain that it serves. Reasonable Waiting Lines for Lifts – Low trail densities have been balanced with hourly uphill capacities on lifts. A maximum of ten minute waits in lift lines has been specified for peak hour operations, with the exception of the Tram. Waiting times for the Tram can at times exceed 20 minutes. Chairlift Alignments – The construction of lift terminals is suggested where practical in terms of terrain (gradients), circulation, and ease of integration with existing skiing facilities. Support Facility Requirements – This critical element of planning incorporates the interface of vehicular, pedestrian and skier circulation, as well as skier support services, maintenance and utilities. More On-Mountain Restaurant Seating – The plan will incorporate the expansion and replacement of some restaurants. Throughout this document the words skiing or skier refer to anyone moving over the snow surface utilizing some type of winter sports equipment. This includes skis, snowboards, blades, randonnee, telemark, Nordic, and other types of equipment. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Improvements proposed in this MDP update are described in the sections below. The proposed improvements have been generated by a collaborative effort by the management of the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, the U.S. Forest Service, comments from the general public and the resort design firm of S.E. Group. All of the various departments within resort operations (Mountain Operations, Mountain Sports School, etc.) have had input into the various design elements outlined below. These improvements are designed to increase the desirability of the mountain and better match the ability level of the resort to that of the national skier market. Until this document receives final environmental review approval from the USFS, previous MDPs, which were approved through several NEPA reviews, will be in effect and used to guide development. 78 5.1 Lifts (proposed) The lift upgrade program is intended to be implemented over a period of years with timing priorities to be established according to demand and available capital. Specifications for the proposed lifts are summarized below in Table 5.1. A general description of each lift is as follows: Teton (High Speed Quad) A new high-speed detachable quad chair in an area of the mountain called Crags is again proposed in this MDP update. The top of this lift would be located on the north boundary of the ski area providing access to excellent advanced intermediate and expert terrain. It also would provide improved efficiency of avalanche hazard reduction activities. Sweetwater (eight passenger gondola w/mid-unload) This new lift will provide much needed out of base capacity. The top terminal of the lift will be located in one of two locations. The first option would be in the same location as the unload area of the existing Sweetwater triple chair lift. Significant grading (cutting) at the unload terminal is required. The material that is cut from the site will be used on the skier’s right side of Easy-Does-It run to eliminate an existing cross slope. The second top terminal option would be located between Wide Open and Kemmerer trails at a location known as Croaky Crossing. This lift will provide significant more access capacity to the Casper and Teton lifts. The mid-unload design will provide access to the Solitude facility in both summer and winter seasons. Sweetwater will be designed and installed as a gondola. Slalom (Fixed Grip Quad) This fixed grip quad chair would provide secondary access to the Thunder chair via Amphitheatre Traverse. It would only run part of the season when it is needed for race events and/or for upper mountain access during busy peak holiday periods. Solitude#1 (Handle Tow) The existing Pooh Bear handle tow will be relocated to a location adjacent to the Solitude facility. This lift will serve novice level skiers enrolled in Mountain Sports School (MSS) classes. Solitude #2 (Conveyor) This conveyor would be accessed by the new Sweetwater lift and be used primarily by the MSS. Eagle’s Rest (Fixed Grip Triple) To better utilize the existing Eagle’s Rest run and other novice terrain, a fixed grip triple lift would be installed along the south edge of Eagle’s Rest run. The lower terminal of the lift would be located approximately 275 yards above the base area. The lift capacity would be 1,200 pph and have a vertical rise of approximately 250 feet. The top of the lift would be installed approximately 150 feet uphill 79 FIGURE 5.2 LIFTS (PROPOSED) 80 from the unload point of the existing Eagle’s Rest lift. The top portion of the run would be completely re-graded to create new novice terrain with a grade of approximately 25 percent. Fort Wyoming #2 (Conveyor) This conveyor would provide access to additional beginner terrain for guests using the Kids Ranch. It would be 200 ft. long and covered. A moderate amount of tree removal is required for this installation along with extensive grading of the site. Cody Bowl (Handle Tow) This new tow would be installed on the “Powder 8” face of Cody Bowl in approximately the same location as a handle tow previously installed on this slope. It would be used primarily for spring/summer ski and snowboard camps. The tow would have a capacity of 600 pph and a vertical rise of approximately 425 feet. Upgrading and extending the existing summer access road will be required to facilitate lift construction and summer maintenance. This lift does not contribute to the resort capacity due to the fact it would not operate during the normal winter season. Cody Bowl Return (chair/surface lift) This lift would only serve as an access lift for skiers utilizing the Cody Bowl area. It would not run on a continual basis and would provide easy access back into the resort when snow conditions limit the use of backcountry terrain. The existing lifts, with the exception of Eagle’s Rest and Sweetwater, would remain in their current configurations and continue with their same capacities. At build-out of the resort, there will be the following number and types of lifts operating during the winter season. Total number of lifts at Build-out: High Speed lifts (incl. tram) 7 Fixed Grip lifts 8 Handle Tows/Conveyors 6* Total number of lifts 21 *The Granite Ridge handle tow is included in the above total even though it is located on private land.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Disability Classification System
    CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR STUDENTS WITH A DISABILITY Track & Field (NB: also used for Cross Country where applicable) Current Previous Definition Classification Classification Deaf (Track & Field Events) T/F 01 HI 55db loss on the average at 500, 1000 and 2000Hz in the better Equivalent to Au2 ear Visually Impaired T/F 11 B1 From no light perception at all in either eye, up to and including the ability to perceive light; inability to recognise objects or contours in any direction and at any distance. T/F 12 B2 Ability to recognise objects up to a distance of 2 metres ie below 2/60 and/or visual field of less than five (5) degrees. T/F13 B3 Can recognise contours between 2 and 6 metres away ie 2/60- 6/60 and visual field of more than five (5) degrees and less than twenty (20) degrees. Intellectually Disabled T/F 20 ID Intellectually disabled. The athlete’s intellectual functioning is 75 or below. Limitations in two or more of the following adaptive skill areas; communication, self-care; home living, social skills, community use, self direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure and work. They must have acquired their condition before age 18. Cerebral Palsy C2 Upper Severe to moderate quadriplegia. Upper extremity events are Wheelchair performed by pushing the wheelchair with one or two arms and the wheelchair propulsion is restricted due to poor control. Upper extremity athletes have limited control of movements, but are able to produce some semblance of throwing motion. T/F 33 C3 Wheelchair Moderate quadriplegia. Fair functional strength and moderate problems in upper extremities and torso.
    [Show full text]
  • 1-+ W / T:M/Rt=A-~
    aker Environmental, Inc. Airport Office Park, Building 3 420 Rouser Road Coraopolis, Pennsylvania 15108 ( 412) ;s9-6000 FAX (412) 269-2002 October 29, 1998 ;}Lj I <D I ~ b ?_D _/ ~ pt - Mr. Wen C. Huang, P.E. 1-+ W/ Minnesota/Wisconsin Section t:m/Rt=A-~ RCRA Permitting Branch HRP-8J RegionS 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590 Subject: Technical Scope ofWork and Proposed Project Schedule Tank Farm Area Closure PPG Industries, Inc. Oak Creek, Wisconsin WID 059 972 935 Dear Mr. Huang: As per your correspondence to Mr. Tom Yurick ofPPG dated October 8, 1998 attached please find a copy of the Teclmical Scope of Work (including an attached addendum) for the Tank Farm Area Closure (i.e., UST closure and soil and groundwater remediation) at PPG's Oak Creek Wisconsin facility. The proposed project schedule is presented below: Activity/Description Bids for Tank Fann Area Closure Received by PPG 1119/98 Contract Award 11/25/98 USTs Removed from Service 12/22/98 Field Mobilization of Tank Farm Area Closure Contractor 1/4/99* Submission of CMS Workplan to EPA 2/1/99 Tank Cleaning, Removal, and In-Place Closure Complete 3/1/99* Soil and Groundwater Remediation Start-up 4/1/99* Soil and Groundwater Remediation Complete 12/1/99* Activity dates assigned an asterisk are target dates which will be confinned upon the acceptance of the schedule proposed by the successful bidder. PPG will submit a revised schedule to EPA subsequent to a contract being awarded. PPG will submit a progress and monitoring report bi-monthly to EPA and with copies to Wisconsin DNR for the duration of Tank Farm Area Clos~re activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Ifds Functional Classification System & Procedures
    IFDS FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM & PROCEDURES MANUAL 2009 - 2012 Effective – 1 January 2009 Originally Published – March 2009 IFDS, C/o ISAF UK Ltd, Ariadne House, Town Quay, Southampton, Hampshire, SO14 2AQ, GREAT BRITAIN Tel. +44 2380 635111 Fax. +44 2380 635789 Email: [email protected] Web: www.sailing.org/disabled 1 Contents Page Introduction 5 Part A – Functional Classification System Rules for Sailors A1 General Overview and Sailor Evaluation 6 A1.1 Purpose 6 A1.2 Sailing Functions 6 A1.3 Ranking of Functional Limitations 6 A1.4 Eligibility for Competition 6 A1.5 Minimum Disability 7 A2 IFDS Class and Status 8 A2.1 Class 8 A2.2 Class Status 8 A2.3 Master List 10 A3 Classification Procedure 10 A3.0 Classification Administration Fee 10 A3.1 Personal Assistive Devices 10 A3.2 Medical Documentation 11 A3.3 Sailors’ Responsibility for Classification Evaluation 11 A3.4 Sailor Presentation for Classification Evaluation 12 A3.5 Method of Assessment 12 A3.6 Deciding the Class 14 A4 Failure to attend/Non Co-operation/Misrepresentation 16 A4.1 Sailor Failure to Attend Evaluation 16 A4.2 Non Co-operation during Evaluation 16 A4.3 International Misrepresentation of Skills and/or Abilities 17 A4.4 Consequences for Sailor Support Personnel 18 A4.5 Consequences for Teams 18 A5 Specific Rules for Boat Classes 18 A5.1 Paralympic Boat Classes 18 A5.2 Non-Paralympic Boat Classes 19 Part B – Protest and Appeals B1 Protest 20 B1.1 General Principles 20 B1.2 Class Status and Protest Opportunities 21 B1.3 Parties who may submit a Classification Protest
    [Show full text]
  • Grade Conversion Tables for Study Abroad
    Grade conversion tables for study abroad NB These tables should only be used to convert grades FROM study abroad TO University of Glasgow grades. They should NOT be used to indicate the equivalence of University of Glasgow Grades to those from other institutions. Translation of Grades Working Group – November 2020 [minor updates – August 2021] Revised March 2019 Minor correction November 2019 Argentina Argentina Glasgow Grade 10 A1 9 A4 8 B1 7 B3 6 C2 5 D1 4 D3 3 E2 2 F2 1 G2 Rationale The table is based on the current partnership with Universidad del Salvador. Subjects with Partners in Argentina: University-wide Australia Australia Glasgow Grade 90-100% A1 85-89 A3 80-84 A5 75-79 B1 70-74 B2 65-69 B3 60-64 C1 55-59 C3 50-54 D2 44-49 E1 39-43 E2 34-38 E3 29-33 F1 24-28 F2 19-23 F3 14-18 G1 9-13 G2 0-8 H 2 University of Queensland Grade Glasgow Grade 7 (High Distinction) A2 6 (Distinction) A4 5 (Credit) B2 4 (Pass) C2 3 (Limited Pass) D2 2 (Fail) E2 1 (Fail) F2 Queensland University of Technology Grade Glasgow Grade 7 (85-100%) A1 6 (80-84%) A4 6 (75-79%) B1 5 (70-74%) B2 5 (65-69%) B3 4 (60-64%) C1 4 (50-59%) C3 3 (47-49%) D2 2 (35-46%) E2 2 (25-34%) F2 1 (0-24%) G1 Rationale The University of Queensland uses a different scale which precludes it from the national table above.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
    United States Department of Field Indicators of Agriculture Natural Resources Hydric Soils in the Conservation Service United States In cooperation with A Guide for Identifying and Delineating the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Hydric Soils, Version 8.2, 2018 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils Version 8.2, 2018 (Including revisions to versions 8.0 and 8.1) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Edited by L.M. Vasilas, Soil Scientist, NRCS, Washington, DC; G.W. Hurt, Soil Scientist, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; and J.F. Berkowitz, Soil Scientist, USACE, Vicksburg, MS ii In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive and Rare Plant Species Inventory in the Salt River and Wyoming Ranges, Bridger-Teton National Forest
    Sensitive and Rare Plant Species Inventory in the Salt River and Wyoming Ranges, Bridger-Teton National Forest Prepared for Bridger-Teton National Forest P.O. Box 1888 Jackson, WY 83001 by Bonnie Heidel Wyoming Natural Diversity Database University of Wyoming Dept 3381, 1000 E. University Avenue University of Wyoming Laramie, WY 21 February 2012 Cooperative Agreement No. 07-CS-11040300-019 ABSTRACT Three sensitive and two other Wyoming species of concern were inventoried in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges at over 20 locations. The results provided a significant set of trend data for Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii), expanded the known distribution of Robbin’s milkvetch (Astragalus robbinsii var. minor), and relocated and expanded the local distributions of three calciphilic species at select sites as a springboard for expanded surveys. Results to date are presented with the rest of species’ information for sensitive species program reference. This report is submitted as an interim report representing the format of a final report. Tentative priorities for 2012 work include new Payson’s milkvetch surveys in major recent wildfires, and expanded Rockcress draba (Draba globosa) surveys, both intended to fill key gaps in status information that contribute to maintenance of sensitive plant resources and information on the Forest. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS All 2011 field surveys of Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii) were conducted by Klara Varga. These and the rest of 2011 surveys built on the 2010 work of Hollis Marriott and the earlier work of she and Walter Fertig as lead botanists of Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. This project was initially coordinated by Faith Ryan (Bridger-Teton National Forest), with the current coordination and consultation of Gary Hanvey and Tyler Johnson.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Teton U.S
    National Park Service Grand Teton U.S. Department of Interior Grand Teton National Park John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway Saddle and Pack Stock Horses and other stock have been historically used in the park and parkway. “Stock” is defined as horses, burros, mules and llamas. Goats are not permitted due to the sensitivity of the local bighorn sheep population. Stock users share trails with hikers— please be considerate of other trail users. Many trails are rocky and traverse steep terrain. High country trails may remain blocked by snow and impassable to stock until late July. Please refrain from accessing trails that are overly muddy. Check with the park permits office (307) 739-3309 prior to setting out. Many horse travelers camp in the adjoining national forest land and take day rides in the park. The primary trailheads for day use are: • String and Leigh Lake Trailheads • Poker Flats Trailhead • Taggart Lake Trailhead Camping Backcountry Camping with Stock Stock Campsites Accessible by Vehicle Backcountry camping with stock is allowed only at There are eight camping areas with a total of 14 sites the five designated stock sites in the park. Fires are not that allow stock in the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial allowed and a backcountry camping permit is required. Parkway along the unpaved road between Flagg Ranch The sites may be reserved in advance from early-January and Grassy Lake. Obtain a permit for $2 after June 1 at the to mid-May through www.recreation.gov; the reservation Colter Bay Permits Office or the Craig Thomas Discovery fee is $35.
    [Show full text]
  • Use Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 Shops, High
    Use Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 Shops, High Street Offices, Restaurants, Drinking Establishments and Takeaways Car Parking Cycle parking Car Parking Car Parking Standards Location Standards Servicing Requirements Threshold levels standards (minimum) Standards (minimum) (other requirements) (maximum) City Centre Primary Staff: One covered and Allocated parking is not Allocated parking Not applicable Servicing may be possible Retail Area secure cycle parking permitted is not permitted from the street for smaller space per 100m2 stores (under 2000m2) but Travel Plan 1,000m2 Customers: Where many areas have (or may Travel Information possible, the provision become) time restricted Plan 200m2 of one cycle space per access and existing off Transport Statement 50m2 within the street servicing should be - 1,000 m2 Primary City Centre retained. Developments over Transport Retail Area will 2000m2 will normally require Assessment- normally be required. off street service bays unlikely to be The TS or TA should capable of handling likely required inform the level of service vehicle generation, provision on larger including provision for developments articulated vehicles. Elsewhere in the City Staff: One covered and Allocated parking is not Allocated parking Car parking will only be Servicing may be permitted Centre Parking Area secure cycle parking permitted is not permitted permitted where this replaces on street where safe and space per 100m2 pro-rata identified public practicable. Otherwise a bay Customers: One cycle parking spaces in the city capable of holding a rigid 2 space per 50m2 centre and is available for use 11m vehicle required. Travel Plan 1,000m 2 Travel Information adjacent to principal by the general public consistent Developments over 1,000m 2 entrances or nearby if with the requirements of Policy will normally require off Plan 200m Transport Statement on highway DM29 street service bays capable 2 The TS or TA should of handling likely service - 1,000 m inform the level of 5% of total.
    [Show full text]
  • A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
    GUIDE TO USE CLASSES ORDER IN ENGLAND IN FORCE 6 APRIL 2016 The table below is intended as general guidance only. Reference needs to be made to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), for limitations (e.g floorspace maxima), restrictions, conditions and details of any requirements for any application for determination as to whether the prior approval of the local planning authority will be required, (which may include the prior approval of building operations). USE CLASS USE PERMITTED CHANGE Shops, retail warehouses, post Permitted change to or from a mixed use as A1 or A2 & up to 2 flats offices, ticket and travel Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sqm to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable agencies, sale of cold food for with notification) consumption off premises, A1 Permitted change of A1 or mixed A1 and dwellinghouse to C3 (subject to prior approval) hairdressers, funeral directors, SHOPS hire shops, dry cleaners, internet Permitted change to A2 cafés Permitted change to A3 (inclusive of buildings and other operations subject to prior approval) Permitted change to D2 (subject to prior approval) Banks, building societies, estate Permitted change to A1 where there is a display window at ground floor level. and employment agencies, Permitted change to or from a mixed use for any purpose within A2 and up to 2 flats and professional services (not health for A1 and up to 2 flats, where there is a display window
    [Show full text]
  • Part a LCA Calculation Rules and Report Requirements
    SM Transparency Report™ / EPD Framework Part A LCA calculation rules and report requirements Version 2017 | January 2017 Program Operator Consortium programoperators.org Version 2017 | January, 2017 Sustainable Minds Transparency Report™ / EPD Framework Part A: LCA calculation rules and report requirements Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................................................... 4 2. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 5 3. TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... 6 3.1 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................. 6 3.2 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Teton National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Scoping Report
    Grand Teton National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Scoping Report Sid Covington and Melanie V. Ransmeier Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado August 22, 2005 Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................ ii Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 Geologic Setting.............................................................................................................. 2 Geologic History............................................................................................................. 4 Significant Geologic Resource Management Issues....................................................... 7 Earthquake Hazard Assessment and Planning............................................................ 7 Fluvial Geomorphology.............................................................................................. 8 Glacial and Peri-glacial Monitoring............................................................................ 9 Cave and Karst Resources ........................................................................................ 10 Hydrothermal Features.............................................................................................. 10 Wetlands ................................................................................................................... 11 Oil and Gas Development........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Salary Administration & Classification Policy
    Salary Administration & Classification, 3.10 University Policy Applies to: Staff Responsible Office Office of Human Resources POLICY Issued: 10/01/1973 Revised: 01/03/2021 (minor revision) Edited: 06/03/2021 The university promotes compensation strategies, combined with benefits and perquisites that maximize the recruitment, performance and retention of quality staff. *This policy will be administered by Health System Human Resources (in coordination with the Office of Human Resources) for Health System staff. Policy Details I. Salary Administration A. Compensation principles 1. The achievement of excellence within each college or vice presidential unit is the primary measure of compensation strategy success. The concept of excellence includes: a. Attracting and retaining quality staff. b. Investing in performance. c. Achieving an appropriate environment of equity. d. Encouraging the development of both expertise in a specialized area and the ability to utilize a broad set of knowledge and skills. 2. The compensation rate of a position is primarily established by relevant competitive markets, the impact of the position or team on the mission of the unit and available funding. Salary patterns within a job title may vary by the credentials and performance of staff occupying individual positions. Colleges, hospitals and vice presidential units should pay particular attention to equity patterns. Cash compensation is the most visible part of total compensation. However, non-cash compensation should also be considered in determining the appropriate level of compensation for an individual staff member. 3. Salary increases are awarded based on merit, which includes performance, internal and external equity and the impact of the position or team on the mission of the unit and the university.
    [Show full text]