6.3. SR 08-07-2006
City of EII< River Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 6.3.
Agenda Section I Meeting Date Prepared by
.L\ chninis tra cion .l-\.ugust 7, 2006 Loti Johnson, City .l\dministrator
Item Description Reviewed by
Request Clarification of July 10,2006 Council I\lotion on Pay
Study
Introduction
~\t tlle July 10, 2006, lneeting tlle follo\ving lnotion \vas appro\Ted as part of the Pay Plan Reclassification
Study discussion: MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GUMPHREY AND SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER FARBER TO CONTINUE WITH OUR CURRENT PAY PLAN UNTIL
COUNCIL MAKES A DECISION ON THE STUDY. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
It appears that at least SaIne Councilluembers and staff are unclear of the intent of the motion because of the
discussion that took place before the motion. Therefore, staff is asking for clarification of d1e Council's intent.
Discussion
.L\s you lnay recall from tlle lneeting, Bluce \YI est brougllt to the Council his opinion on llo\v employees
\vllose position \vas "valued lugller in tlle ne\v study sllould be paid effective July 1. I:vIr. \Yl est stated lle
felt tllese ell1ployees sllould lllo've to tlleir respectiv"e ne\v pay ranges effectiv-e July 1 \vith corresponding
pay adjustments on July 1. He furcller stated tllat because tlle study took longer tllan expected, increases
tllat otllel~"vise "\vould llave been appro'v"ed before July llav"e been delayed and sllould still be considered
effecti've as of July 1. TillS discussion took place sllortly before tlle motion "vas appro'ved. Ho\vever, tlle
motion did not include any special reference to tllese elnployees.
Until tlle finalluerarcllY is appro\Ted by tlle Council, "ve \vill not knO\V \vIlicll positions have changed.
Tllerefore, if tlle Council intended to include tlle pro\fision as rvlr. \VI est stated, tllose pay adjustments
\vould ll0t be lnade Ul1til tlle Council appro\Tes tlle luerarcl1Y, TIley \vould be retroacti\fe to tlle July 1
effective date.
If tlle COUllCil did not intend to include this pro\Tision in tlle motion, tlle ne\v~ pay ranges for tllese
employees would become effective January 1, 2007. In accordance with the pay resolution, these and all
elnployees could receiv"e a cost of li\Ting increase on January 1 and eligible employees \'vould receiv"e a step
increase on July 1.
Financial Impact
To be determined based on Council inte11t and final hierarchy.
Attachments
Excerpt froln July 10, 2006, minutes.
Action Requested
Clarification of motion stated abov'e.
s: \ Council \Lori \2006 \ Clarify July 10 lvIOtion.doc
Council Action
J:\lotion by _
Second by
\Tote
Follow Up
S:\Council\Lori\200G\Clarify July 10 l\fOtion.doc
6.4. Presentation of Pay Plan Reclassification Studv - Rod I(elsev
. .'
Rod }(elsey from Riley, Dett1nann and }Celsey presented the results of the pay play reclassification
study. IvIr. I(elsey explained that in order to prepare the final pay plan, input from the Council \vas
needed including the Council's philosophy on pay. Ho\v does tile Council \vant the city's pay to
relate to the Inarket? Do \ve \vant to be on the bOtt01TI end, the middle, or on the top end? Also,
does the Council \\~sh to change the t\velve cities used as comparables, are tI1ese correct cities for a
Inarket comparison.
[vir. IZelsey explained tl1e evaluation criteria used to evaluate the positions. TIus methodology is not
task focused and gives credit for education and experience requirements as \veIl as the problem
solving requirements of the job. Tlus evaluation luethod takes luore aspects of the position into
consideration resulting in a more accurate reflection of dle position.
Councilinelnber NIacin stated that SOlTIe pay amounts and groupings seem high \vh.ile others do not
seen1 high enough. He asked if comparables could be done \vidl the private sector.
hIr. I-Celsey stated that a collection of data could be obtained; ho\vever, one needs to be careful \vhere
you look. He stated that in the private sector lo\ver level jobs are lo\ver in pay than in tlle public
sector.
Councwnember IvIotin inquired if \ve have the cost factor for this program. IvIs. Johnson stated that
tlus has not been done yet. IvIost of the positions hav"e remained in tlle same categories and that
there \vill be the notlnal step increases \vhich may amount to approximately $15,000.
Councilmember Farber stated that he is concerned about the job description or comparisons
regarding the Finance Director position and if tlus is out of \vhack.
:tvIr. }Celsey stated that \ve no\v have the baby-boomers \vhere people aren't going an}7\vhere, they are
happy in tlleir current job, dlat the}, like their life-style or are protected by their current employ
through pay; or if \ve fmd that the pay is lo\v, dlere may not be a lot of candidates; and, that there are
trends \vhere jobs come and go as far as availability and being hard to fill. He also stated that
occasionally' for a position the rate Inay need to be raised \vhich is considered "leap fragging".
Councilmember Dietz inquired as to d1e exempt versus the non-exelupt positions and dle 2006 pay
n1axllnullls and points. 1vls. Johnson explained dlat \vas part of the problem in dle past \vhich
needed to be fL\:ed because there \vere t\vo separate pay groups. She stated that points are points and
that by placing the positions together this typical job evaluation sUffi1nary should \vork \vell.
Councrunen1ber Farber stated that he \vould like us to be ITIodeled at 600/0 and that he doesn't \vant
us to be in the lniddle. Councihnember Gumph.rey stated that he \vould like to see the categories
shortened up and to use the same cities that \ve have used in the past.
1\.'15. Johnson explained that step increases due in July 2006 \vill be based on the current pay plan and
any positions that have not previously been assigned a pay grade \vill be assigned one based on the
current pay plan and the ne\v position hierarchy.
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GUMPHREY AND SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER FARBER TO CONTINUE \VITH OUR CURRENT PAY PLAN
UNTIL COUNCIL MAKES A DECISION ON THE STUDY. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
s: \ Council \Lori \2006 \ Clarify July 10 i"f 0 cion"doc