5.5. SR 06-14-1999
rei ---\)
( );
!Ii<
Item #5.5.
River
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor & City Council
FROM:
Personnel Committee
DATE:
June 14, 1999
SUBJECT: Pay Plan Proposal
In 1995, the City Council reviewed and approved changes to the city's pay plan.
Because it has been four years since the pay plan was reviewed, the Personnel
Committee felt it was again time to review the pay plan to ensure internal and
external balance are maintained. The recent difficulty in hiring new employees
within the current pay structure also strengthened the argument for updating the
pay plan.
.
The Personnel Committee reviewed professionally prepared survey data and recent
job ads in determining where each Elk River position fell in comparison to other
cities. Job duties, not job titles, were used when making comparisons. The
Committee was very concerned about treating all employees and employee groups in
a fair, impartial, and consistent manner - if the Committee does not remain
unbiased and simply grants employees requests without justification, not only will
the Committee's credibility be lost, the employees would ultimately suffer.
Attached is an Outline which highlights the proposed changes the Committee is
requesting; therefore, the details will not be discussed in this memo. However,
there are several items not mentioned in the Outline which will require attention if
the recommendations are approved by the Council. These include reviewing part
time liquor clerk pay which will be discussed with Dave Potvin after he has had an
opportunity to review the pay structure. Also, license requirements and steps for
the wastewater operators will need to be incorporated into the new pay plan.
There has been some discussion regarding whether the pay plan should reflect
average pay based on the Group 6 (cities with a population of 10,000 to 25,000)
Stanton Survey data or if it should reflect 95 percent of the average. The pay plan
as presented is based on 95 percent of the average pay. In 1995, the Council felt
that 95 percent ofthe average was appropriate, which is why the proposed pay plan
is based on 95 percent. If the Council now thinks 95 percent is not appropriate,
such direction should be given to the Personnel Committee.
Action Requested
.
The Council is asked to consider the items listed in Item IV of the Outline. The pay
plan would have an effective date of July 1, 1999.
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
.
.
.
OUTLINE FOR 1999 PERSONNEL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
GOALS OF PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
. Recommend a pay plan which will allow city to attract and retain top quality, skilled, and
experienced employees
· Be cognizant of taxpayer concerns and be protective of the tax dollars they pay
I. REASONS FOR PRESENTING A REVISED PAY PLAN
A. Recent difficulty in attracting qualified employees
B. Maintain internal and external balance in pay structure and rates
1. Survey showed that Elk River is extremely low in starting pay for almost all
positions
a) Compared to 1998 Stanton Survey - Group 6
2. Top pay for a few positions was five percent or more below Group 6 average
C.
Reduce years required to reach the top of the pay plan
1. Currently 12 steps for non-exempt and 10 for exempt
2. Low starting pay meant employees with five years of service were often paid
equivalent to starting pay in other cities
3. Employees should be fully trained for their positions after six months to two
years, depending on the position
II. PROPOSED PAY PLAN
A. Raises starting pay
1. First three steps in non-exempt and first two steps in exempt in the current pay
plan are eliminated from proposed pay plan
B. Adds one exempt pay grade
1. A pay grade was added between pay grades 5E and 6E of the current plan to
make all pay grade increases more equal
C. Eliminates one exempt pay grade
1. The top pay grade (12E of current plan) was eliminated because it was not used
D. Does NOT increase the top pav for anv pav grade
.
III. PROPOSED POINT RANKING, PAY GRADE, POSITION, AND CLASSIFICATION
CHANGES
A. The following position point rankings were increased after review and comparison to
other cities
1. Maintenance I - 61 points
2. Maintenance II - 64 points
3. Payroll Clerk - 64 points
4. Sr. Accounting/Special Assessment Clerk - 64 points
5. WWTP Operator - 64 points
6. Fire Chief - 103 points
B. The following new positions were created
1. Office Assistant I - 54 points
2. Office Assistant II - 57 points
3. WWTP Lead Operator - 67 points
4. Support Services Supervisor -70 points
C. The following positions were changed to exempt status (no change in points)
1. Building Official
2. Assistant Street & Park Superintendent
3. Assistant Finance Director
D.
The following positions were reevaluated based on job analysis questionnaires
1. Assistant Police Chief - 102 points
2. Wastewater Treatment System Superintendent - 93 points
.
IV. REQUEST COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
A. Proposed five step Pay Plan - attached
B. Point Ranking changes - as stated in III.A. and III.D.
C. Position changes
1. Sara Onarheim from Office Service Worker to Office Assistant I
2. Gary Leirmoe from WWTP Operator to WWTP Lead Operator
D. Title change
1. Scott Harlicker from Planning Assistant to Senior Planner
E. Exemot Status changes - as stated in III.C.
F. Creation of New Positions - as stated in III.B.
G.
Eliminate Certain Soecial Pay
1. Early CallOut pay for all Public Works employees
2. WWTP Lead Operator pay in absence of Superintendent
.
FINAL PAY PLAN PRESENTED
. 1999 PROPOSED REVISED PAY PLAN
NON-EXEMPT
PAY
POINTS GRADE A .e ~ Q f
40-42 1 8.19 9.05 9.92 10.78 11. 65
43.45 2 8.62 9.53 10.44 11. 35 12.26
46.48 3 9.07 10.03 10.99 11. 95 12.90
49.51 4 9.55 10.56 11.57 12.58 13.58
52.54 5 10.05 11.12 12.18 13.24 14.30
55.57 6 10.58 11.70 12.82 13.93 15.05
58-60 7 11.14 12.32 13.49 14.67 15.84
61.63 8 11. 73 12.96 14.20 15.44 16.68
64.66 9 12.34 13.65 14.95 16.25 17.55
67 -69 10 12.99 14.36 15.74 17.11 18.48
70.72 11 13.68 15.12 16.56 18.01 19.45
73.75 12 14.40 15.92 17.44 18.96 20.47
76.78 13 15.16 16.75 18.35 19.95 21.55
79-81 14 15.95 17.64 19.32 21. 00 22.69
82-84 15 16.79 18.56 20.34 22.11 23.88
85.87 16 17.68 19.54 21.41 23.27 25.14
88-90 17 18.61 20.57 22.53 24.50 26.46
EXEMPT STEP
. A .e ~ Q f
78.82 IE 39,248 42,348 45,448 48,548 51,648
83-87 2E 40,884 44,113 47,342 50,571 53,800
88-92 3E 42,587 45,951 49,314 52,678 56,042
93.97 4E 44,362 47,865 51,369 54,873 58,377
98-100 5E 46,210 49,860 53,510 57,159 60,809
101-102 6E 48,135 51,937 55,739 59,541 63,343
103-107 7E 50,541 54,533 58,525 62,517 66,509
108.112 8E 52,647 56,805 60,964 65,122 69,280
113-117 9E 54,841 59,172 63,504 67,835 72,167
118.122 10E 57,126 61,638 66,150 70,662 75,174
123.127 11E 59,506 64,206 68,906 73,606 78,306
128-132 12E 61,986 66,881 71,777 76,673 81,569
May, 1999
.
Page 1
rei ---'\j
( );
till
.
.
Item #5.5.
MEMORANDUM
RiverTO:
Mayor & City Council
Pat Klaers, City A~ ......'.. ~trator
/
,~.~
June 14, 1999 /
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT: Personnel Committee
Recommendations
I would like to comment on one aspect of the personnel committee's
recommendation. That comment relates to the pay plan status being 95
percent of the Group 6 metro average.
To begin, I would be remiss if I didn't extend my sincere appreciation to the
personnel committee for all of the hard work they have done over the years
and if I didn't attempt to explain to the City Council the magnitude of the
task that they have been undertaking. The committee has a totally
thankless job whereby it seems like they are always making some employees
unhappy because the employee is not getting their particular request
approved...either it's a title change, a change in status from exempt to non-
exempt or vice versa, a point ranking increase, or a pay/benefit increase.
Over the years the committee has done an extraordinary job in being fair in
its evaluation of all of the municipal positions and in taking the personalities
out of the equation and only looking at the job and duties. This is extremely
difficult and the City Council only sees the end result of all the work.
Actually, the council only sees the recommendations for changes and does not
see all of the work that is done that results in no changes.
The personnel committee started off as the comp worth committee in early
1994. In 1995, the committee submitted its proposal to the City Council
regarding point rankings for positions, a citywide pay plan, title changes,
exempt/non-exempt changes, and a few wage adjustments (my proposal).
The council accepted these recommendations with changes in the pay plan in
1995, and the title of the committee then changed to personnel rather than
comp worth and the group continued to meet on a frequent basis. Annually,
or semi-annually, the committee makes personnel recommendations to the
City Council as new employees and positions are added and/or the duties of
existing positions changed. The next challenge for the committee will be an
evaluation of our employee benefits package. As the council may recall, this
has been a significant issue in trying to hire and retain employees.
Finally, I am thinking about the burnout factor on the personnel committee
and am considering changes in the composition of this group. A change
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330. TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
.
would get different departmental representation on the committee, but it
should be acknowledged that confidentiality is of the utmost importance and
that the current group has maintained a very high standard in this regard.
Now back to my concern about Elk River being 95 percent of the metro
(Group 6 Cities - Population 10,000-25,000) average. This 95 percent status
was a City Council decision in 1995, when the personnel committee presented
the Comp Worth Plan update and the revised pay plan. I can't say too much
regarding the rationale of the City Council at that time, - maybe John or
Larry can offer comments. However, I believe it was, in general, an
acknowledgement that Elk River is not metro nor in the seven county
metropolitan area, was a way to save money and be more comparable to local
Elk River private businesses, and a statement that the cost of living in Elk
River may not be a "metro average." Additionally, in order for an average to
be established, some are above and some are below the average.
Nonetheless, things may be slightly different now as we approach 2000, and
as the city approaches 17,000 population, and as more metropolitan type
development becomes common in Elk River. Also, the council should note
that the Elk River police union has been at 97 percent of the Group 6 metro
average for the past 8-10 years. In union negotiations the request is constant
to get this group up to the metro average and this has consistently been
. resisted by the city.
To get the rest of the non union employees up to 97 percent of the Group 6
metro average seems appropriate and should be considered by the City
Council in order to be fair to all employees from an internal pay relationship
point of view. If the City Council wants to get up to the metro average for all
employees over the next four to six years, then this certainly would not be
resisted by any city employee group, but it would also certainly be additional
expenses in the General Fund budget (as would going to 97 percent for the
non union employees). Employee benefits make up a big part of the total
employee compensation package and employee benefits is the next
assignment for the personnel committee. It may be best, before any policy
decision to go to the metro average takes place, to only move to 97 percent in
the next few years for the non union employees and reevaluate the metro
average goal at that time after a review of employee benefits has taken place.
In order to accomplish a 97 percent status for the non union employees, the
City Council would have to give cost ofliving adjustments (COLA) in the pay
plan at the 3.75-4 percent level for the next two or three years. This is in
contrast to the 3 percent COLA increase that have consistently been given in
the past.
.
EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
An Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
May 13, 1999
Ms. Lori Johnson
Finance Director
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
P.O. Box 490
Elk River, MN 55330
Dear Lori:
Enclosed is a proposal from the Employers Association to provide consulting services related to
revising and updating the City of Elk River's personnel and related ordinances. This proposal is
submitted subsequent to our conversation in late April and in response to the RFP that you sent
me on April 29, 1999.
.
I have enclosed an outline that describes the general methodology we would follow when
undertaking this project. I think the methodology and timetable in the enclosed provides sufficient
detail to give you a general understanding of what kind of time and expense might be involved in
this project. As we discussed, the proposal identifies two different costs. The higher cost is the
non-EA member cost (which is based on a consulting rate of $130/hour). The lower cost reflects
the EA member consulting rate of $95/hour. If the City of Elk River joins Employers Association as
a member before completion of the first invoice related to services provided under this proposal,
we would charge you the member consulting rate for all time spent on the project.
The Employers Association would welcome the opportunity to work with the City of Elk River in
revising and updating your personnel-related ordinances, and providing the other consulting
services outlined in your RFP. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,
CL~~~
~L.Wilde~anager
Human Resource Generalist Services
Enclosure
.
9805 45th Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55442
Phone: 612.253.9100
FAX: 612.253.9191
1295 Bandana Blvd. N.. Suite 135
S1. Paul, MN 55108
Phone: 612.253.9100
FAX: 612.253.9737
TTY: 1.800.627.3529
Home page:
www.mnemplassoc.com
METHODOLOGY AND COSTS:
PERSONNEL ORDINANCES AND POLICIES
UPDATE & REVISION
.
City of Elk River, Minnesota
Collect information
regarding current
practices; refine project
arameters
Review existing policies
and ordinances, forms &
other written materials
EA Consultant; designated City
personnel
EA Consultant
3 - 4 hours
Draft ordinance and policy
revisions
EA Consultant
8 -10 hours
Review proposed
revisions; identify
additional changes needed
EA Consultant; designated City
personnel
1 - 2 hours
Finalize revisions
EA Consultant
1 - 2 hours
.
15 - 20 hours
$1425.00 - $1900.00 (EA mbr.)
$ 1950.00 - $2600.00 (non-mbr.)
Assumptions
The above project methodology and costs are predicated on the following assumptions:
o Information collection interviews will be conducted concurrently when more than one
person has responsibility or knowledge regarding a topical area (e.g., overtime practices)
o The consultant will notify the City of Elk River if any significant variances in the proposal
exist as soon as they are discovered and before additional work is performed.
o If the City of Elk River increases the scope of the project, the consultant will inform you
of the time and cost ramifications prior to undertaking additional work.
o The final revised ordinance(s) and/or policies will be submitted to the City of Elk River in
hard copy form. If the City wishes the text of the ordinance to be provided on computer .
disk, it can be provided in MS Word, at an additional cost of $14.95. The City of Elk River
is responsible for production, distribution or other final implementation actions related to the
revised personnel ordinance.
.
MAY 0 6 1999
LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES, INC.
7501 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
612/546-1470
FAX: 612/546-1552
May 4, 1999
PROPOSAL FOR THE
REVIEW, MODIFICATION AND UPDATE OF PERSONNEL POLICIES
FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
FROM
LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES, INC.
TO: Lori Johnson
Finance Director
City of Elk River
P.O. Box 490
Elk River, MN 55330
. FROM:
.
Judy Skauge
Consultant
A. PURPOSE:
To review, modify and update the personnel policies of the City of Elk River to comply
with all state and federal laws.
B. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE:
The review of policies to meet the objectives outlined will be under the direction of Ann
Antonsen, Consultant. Assisting will be Judy Skauge, Consultant.
C. WORK PLAN
1. Review current policies of the City.
2. Modify, create and update policies as necessary.
3.
Submit for consideration recommended additions and changes in the personnel
policies of the City.
4. Provide proposed personnel policy manual on diskette.
D. PROJECT TIMETABLE AND ESTIMATED COSTS:
1. The project is expected to require approximately 12 weeks from initiation to
completion with a projected completion date of August 13, 1999.
2. Estimated costs as attached in Appendix A.
E. BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARIES:
Ann Antonsen
Ann Antonsen, Consultant, received a B.A. degree in Psychology from the University of
Minnesota. Her responsibilities include developmenUdesign of compensation systems
under the State pay equity legislation; contract negotiations, mediation and arbitration;
grievance arbitration; and handling of complaints under equal employment and Americans
with Disabilities legislation.
Judv SkauQe
Judy Skauge's human resource experience includes six years as the Personnel Director
for the City of Moorhead, personnel manager with a manufacturing company, and training
and development coordinator and work management analyst in the health insurance
industry. Her present responsibilities include the development of personnel policies and
compensation systems and contract negotiation and arbitration.
F. Labor Relation Associates, Inc. has completed similar projects for the following
clients:
Cottonwood. County
Crookston
Oak Park Heights
Winona
and is currently in the process of similar projects for the following clients:
Oklee
1f
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
1.
Estimated costs:
a.
Review, modification and update of personnel policies
Hourly cost for post contract services would be $100.00 per hour.
$ 4,195.00