6. SR 04-10-1995ITEM 6.
MEMORANDUM
fiver T°~
FROM:
Mayor & City Council
Pat Klaers, City Ad~i ator
DATE: April 10, 1995
SUBJECT: Comparable Worth
On March 13, 1995, the City Council reviewed the Comparable Worth
proposal for the City of Elk River. At this meeting, the Council approved the
point values for all city positions as submitted by the Committee and also
approved the composition of the Comparable Worth Point Value Appeal
Board.
On 3/13/95, the City Council also reviewed a proposed revised city pay plan.
The Council should note that this pay plan was offered by the Committee as
an option for the city to remain in compliance with the State Comparable
Worth Law and also to accomplish some objectives that were voiced by the
Council. One of the main objectives that was incorporated into the plan was
. to pay the top management employees slightly more so that they are
comparable to similar communities in the metro area. The Council has a
great deal of discretion in establishing the city pay plan, and even more
discretion in setting the actual pay for individual employees. The Committee
is not in any position to defend the pay plan proposal. It was simply offered
to the Council as a starting point.
Prior to this 4/10 Comparable Worth discussion, the Council is requested to
review my 3/13/95 memo on Comparable Worth and the 3/17/95 update from
the Comparable Worth Committee. Now that the point values have been
established for employees, it is important for the City Council to also make
adjustments in titles for a number of our employees. Please see the attached
memo from the Committee on these title changes. Additionally, it is
recommended that the City Council pass a motion which moves the Building
Official and Assistant Finance Director to the non-exempt status and also
moves the City Clerk to the exempt status. (The City Clerk has been
considered exempt with the exception of her time for minute taking. This
will now change to 100 percent exempt and her pay will be adjusted to reflect
this change.)
At the last City Council meeting on this issue, staff was requested to provide
• some feedback on whether or not the step increases in the pay plan would be
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
considered "automatic". I have reviewed this issue with the department
• heads at a staff meeting and everyone agreed that steps are not automatic;
yet, it would be very unusual for an employee to not receive a step increase.
This is because of the constant feedback that employees receive from their
supervisors to ensure that they are doing a good job for the City. All
department heads believe that their current employees are performing at or
above expected levels. The Council should also note that about one-third of
our employees are on a timetable where they would receive steps on a date
other than the first of the year. Accordingly, the Council should look at the
pay plan being adjusted annually for cost of living reasons and not really
consider the step increases as part of the beginning of the year wage
adjustments. Step increases are merited if an employee is not at the top of
his/her pay plan and the employee is doing good work for the City.
The City pay plan is being adjusted to provide a higher top pay in order to
remain competitive with similar communities and to pay fair wages. The top
of the pay plan was targeted toward 95 per cent of the metro area. After
further analysis, the proposed top that was identified is slightly higher than
95 percent. Some Councilmembers have requested input from the Committee
on what a 90 percent top of the pay plan would look like for Elk River. This
information is offered in the attached Committee report. If the City's top of
the pay plan is 90 percent of what the top is in metropolitan areas, we would
• not be accomplishing one of the objectives of the City Council. (This is the
objective to pay top management more money than what they are currently
receiving.) If we increase management top pay, then to be in compliance
with the Comparable Worth Law, we also have to increase the top pay of the
non-exempt employees. Additionally, it may not be fair to pay the police
union employees 98 percent of the metropolitan average and pay the rest of
our employees 90 percent of the metropolitan average. One final issue
regarding the pay plan relates to the clothing allowance for the clerical staff.
If a pay plan is approved, the Council may want to make a determination on
the future of the clothing allowance.
At this time, I recommend that the Council adopt the twelve step non-exempt
pay plan and the ten step exempt pay plan. This pay plan has our top
targeted near the 95 percent average of metropolitan cities.
Regarding actual pay changes for City employees, the Council should review
my recommendation of 3/13/95. In this memo I recommended no pay changes
for any employees unless they are not at the starting wage level of their pay
range. This no wane chanee recommendation is offered because the City is
currently in compliance with the law and we would also be in compliance
with the law after the new ranges are adopted and no (few) actual wage
adjustments take place. Additionally, all City employees are currently well
• paid, and the City cannot afford any significant increase in wages that are
not in the budget. The City is not required to make any changes in wages or
• the pay plan and changes in wages or the pay plan should only be made if
desired by the City Council. The proposed 95 percent pay plan does not have
everyone at the top and this is typical when you update a City pay plan. The
90 percent pay plan has too many employees above their pay plan and this
may require the freezing of some wages. The updated 95 percent pay plan is
consistent with the Council desire to pay competitive wages and retain good
employees.
The Committee and I will be in attendance at this City Council meeting to
help answer questions on requested City action, the proposed pay plans, and
on the actual pay recommendation. No final decisions need to be made at
this meeting, but certainly any and all decisions can be made.
One final item of note is the attached 4/5/95 Star Tribune article that talks
about the federal poverty level for a family of four being $7.21 per hour.
• 2B' Wednesday/April 5/1995/Star Tribune
i
•
- ~\
~~''~-~~~ CAPIT~LBRIEFING
Top story: House committee OKs bill
to crack down on `corporate welfare'/1 B
Sy a vote of IZ-11, the House Tax two years. It also would have to
Committee approved a measure, pay ali new employees at least the
which its supporters have dubbed federal poverty level wage for a
the "corporate welfare bill," that family four, which is $7.21 per
would require businesses to create hour. Rep. Karen Clark, DFL-
' jobs and pay at least poverty-level Minneapolis, who is the chief
wages in return for state aid. Un- sponsor of the bill, said the wage
' der the bill, any business receiv- requirement "is a very, very mod-
ing a state grant, loan or tax incre- est threshold" that would only af-
ment financing for economic de- feet "those companies that are at
velopment, would have to demon- the public trough."
strafe a net increase in jobs within
MEMORANDUM
ver TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Comparable Worth Committee:
Sandra Thackeray, City Clerk
Lori Johnson, Asst. City Administrator
Tom Zerwas, Chief of Police
Phil Hals, Street/Park Supt.
DATE: April 10, 1995
SUBJECT: Comparable Worth
At the March 13, 1995, Council meeting, the Council had an opportunity to
review and discuss the results of the work completed by the Comparable
Worth Committee. The Council adopted the point rankings as presented but
asked that the pay plan be revised and presented for discussion on April 10.
As requested, a revised pay plan reflecting salaries and wages at 90 percent
• of those paid by metro communities with populations between 10,000 and
25,000 is presented for your review. The 90 percent pay plan puts numerous
positions over the top of their range. If this pay plan is adopted by the
Council, this situation will need to be addressed. There are 13 employees
over the top of their pay range, some by more than $3.50 to $4.50. There are
also several employees who are barely under (within $.25) the top of the new
range. Only one employee remains below the bottom of her pay range.
Both the 90 percent and 95 percent pay plans have been revised to have only
12 steps for non-exempt positions. This was done in response to comments
from department heads, in particular the liquor store manager, who stated
that qualified employees could not be hired at the bottom two steps of the 14
step plan.
In addition to reviewing the pay plan, the Council is asked to review several
title changes. Those title changes are attached. As was stated earlier, these
changes are being requested so that the titles more accurately reflect the
duties of the position.
Another item that the Committee would like the Council to review is a point
value change. After meeting with the Council to present the point values, the
• Committee met individually with all employees to present the results of our
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN SS330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
study. The point ranking of the Senior Citizen Coordinator was questioned
• so the Committee reviewed the questionnaire which was completed by the
Coordinator. This is the only questionnaire which was not reviewed by a
department head prior to being sent to PDI for analysis. For that reason, a
corrected and revised questionnaire was resubmitted to PDI for analysis. As
a result, the Committee is recommending that the point ranking for the
Senior Citizen Coordinator be changed to 62 points, up from the previous
value of 57.
Finally, the Council is asked to review our March 17, 1995, memo for further
information and comments on the pay plan. The Committee is not making
any recommendations on pay; however, the Committee feels that budget
concerns should be taken into consideration when making pay adjustments.
Action Requested
The Council may choose to adopt a pay plan at this time. If a pay plan is
adopted, other items including how to deal with employees over the top of
their range, pay for each employee, and step increases should also be
addressed.
The Council is asked to approve the revised position titles.
• The Council is asked to approve the revised point value for the Senior Citizen
Coordinator.
The City Administrator has requested that a motion be made on changing
certain positions from exempt to non-exempt and vise versa.
• TITLE CHANGES REQUESTED
Employee Current Title New Title
Mark Thompson Maintenance III Maintenance Supervisor
Joan Frick Sr. Accounting Clerk Sr. Accounting/Special Assmt. Clerk
Brenda Ebner Accounting Clerk Accounting/Payroll Clerk
Alice Heinecke Secretary Administrative Secretary
Michelle Cunz CSO CSO/Crime Prevention Specialist
Cheryll Edinger CSO CSO/Crime Prevention Specialist
Geryl Rogers Secretary/Receptionist Secretary
Kristy Mansfield Receptionist Secretary/Receptionist
Shari Peterson Receptionist Secretary/Receptionist
Tammi Fields Clerk Typist Office Service Worker
Steve Tillman Liquor Clerk Liquor Clerk II
Brent Berhns Liquor Clerk Liquor Clerk II
Part Time Clerks Part Time Liquor Clerk Liquor Clerk I
•
C~
i E~IVER PAY
SAMPLE FINAL PROPOSAL
NON-EXEMPT
• 95%
POINTS PAY I
GRADE I
A I
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
40-42 1 6.35 6.65 6.96 7.28 7.60 7.95 8.30 8.68 9.07 9.48 9.90 10.35
43-45 2 6.68 7.00 7.33 7.66 8.00 8.36 8.74 9.13 9.54 9.97 4~,/yj10.42 10.89
46-48 3 7.04 7.37 417.72 8.06 8.42 8.80 9.20 9.61 10.05 10.50 10.97 11.47
49-51 4 7.4139 7.76 8.12 8.49 8.87 9.27 9.68 10.12 yo10.58 11.05 11.55 12.07
52-54 5 37 7.80 8.76 8.55 8.93 9.3438 9.76 10.193b 10.65 11.13 11.63 12.16 12.70
55-57 6 yS8.21 8.595'1 9.00 9.40 9.83 10.27 10.73 17.21 11.72 12.25 12.80 13.37
58-60 7 8.64 9.05 9.47 9.90 10.34 70.81 11.30' 11.80 3y(y112.34 12.89 13.47 X914.08
61-63 8 9.09 9.52 9.97 10.42 10.8933 11.38 71.89~y~12.43 12.98 13.57 ~9/4~L14.18 X14.82 /S
64-66 9 9.57 10.02 10.50 10.97 17.46 11.98 12.52 73.08 13.67 14.28 14.93 15.60
67-69 10 10.08 10.55 11.05 11.54 12.06 12.61 13.17 13.77 14.3 9 15.03 15.71 16.42
70-72 11 10.61 11.11 11.63 12.15 12.70 13.27 13.87 74.49 15.74 15.83 16.54 17.28
73-75 12 11.16 11.69 12.24 72.79 13.37 13.97 14.60 15.25 15.94 16.66 17.41 18.19
76-78 13 71.75 12.31 12.89 13.47 14.07 14.70 15.37 16.06 /416.78 /6 17.54 18.32 19.15
79-81 14 12.37 12.95 73.56 14.17 14.81 15.48 /516.77 16.90 17.66 18.46 19.29 20.16
82-84 15 13.02 13.64 14.28 14.92 15.591/ 16.29 17.03 17.79 18.59 19.43 /220.30 21.22
85-87 16 13.71 74.35 15.03 15.71 16.41 17.75 17.92 18.73 19.57 20.45 21.37 22.33
88-90 17 14.43 15.11 15.82 16.53 17.28 18.05 18.87 19.71 20.60 9 21.53 22.50 23.57
EXEMPT STEP
A B C D E F G H I J
78-82 1 E 75.50 16.12 16.77 17.44 78.13 18.86 19.61 20.40 21.21 /S/ 22.06 /'~
83-87 2E 16.15 16.79 17.46 18.16 18.89 19.64 20.43 21.25 22.10 22.98 /O
88-92 3E 16.82 17.49 18.79 18.92 19.68 20.46 21.288 22.13 23.02 23.94
93-97 4E 17.52 18.22 18.95 19.77 20.50 6 21.32 22.175 23.05 23.98 24.94 7
98-102 5E 18.25 18.98 19.74 20.53 21.35 22.20 23.09 24.02 24.98 25.98
103-107 6E 19.96 20.76 27.59 22.45 23.35 24.28 25.26 26.27 ~ 27.32 28.41
108.112 7E 20.79 21.62 22.49 23.39 24.32 25.30 26.31 27.36 28.46 29.59
113-177 8E 21.66 22.52 23.43 24.36 25.34 26.353/127.40 28.50 29.64 30.83
118-122 9E 22.56 23.46 24.40 25.38 26.39 27.45 28.55 29.69 30.88 32.11
123-127 10E 23.50 24.44 25.42 26.44 27.49 28.59 29.74 30.93 32.16 33.45
128.132 1 1 E 24.48 25.46 26.48 27.54 28.64 29.78 30.98 32.21 / 33.50 34.84
133-136 12E 25.50 26.52 27.58 28.68 29.83 31.02 32.27 33.56 34.90 36.29
4/5!95 10:05 AM
fCOMPW.XLW110STEPS
• EL~ER PAY
NON-EXEMPT
®0%
PAY l I I
POINTS GRADE A B C D E F G H I J K L
40-42 1 .6.02 6.30 6.60 6.89 7.20 7.53 7.87 8.22 8.59 8.98 9.38 9.80
43-45 2 6.33 6.63. 6.94 7.26 7.58 7.93 8.28 8.65 9.04 9.45 9.88 4'~l310.32
46-48 3 6.67 6.98 7.31 7.64'1] 7.98 8.34 8.72 9.11 9.52 9.95 10.40 10.86
49-51 4 7.02 7.35 39 7.69 8.04 8.40 8.78 9.18 9.59 10.02 10.47 'fo 10.94 71.44
52-54 5 3~ 7.39 7.74 8.10 8.46 8.85 9.24 38 9.66 10.09 3b 10.55 11.02 11.52 72.04
55-57 6 7.78 8.14 3+r 8.53 s~i 8.91 9.31 9.73 10.17 10.63 11.70 11.60 72.13 12.67
58-60 7 8.19 8.57 8.98 9.38 9.80 10.24 10.70 71.78 ay 11.69 12.2130/3/ 12.76 13.34 z9
61-63 8 8.62 9.02 9.45 9.87 10.32 10.7833 11.27 11.77%/72.30 12.86 73.44 .2A14.04 /~~/9~~0~'r
64-66 9 9.07 9.50 9.94 10.39 10.86 11.35 11.86 72.39 12.95 13.53 74.14 14.78
67-69 10 9.55 10.00 10.47 10.94 11.43 11.95 12.48 73.05 73.63 14.25 74.89 15.56
70-72 11 10.05 10.52 11.02 1 1.51 12.03 12.57 13.14 13. J3 14.35 15.00 15.67 16.38
73-75 12 10.58 11.08 11.60 12.12 12.67 13.24 13.83 14.45 15.10 15.78 16.49 17.24
76-78 13 11.14 11.66 12.21 72.76 13.33 13.93 14.56 15.22 15.90 /716.62 /6 17.36 18.14
79-81 14 11.72 12.27 72.85 13.43 14.03 14.67 15.33 16.02/s 16.74 17.49 18.28 19.10
82-84 15 12.34 12.92 13.53 74.14 14.77 15.44 // 16.13 16.86 17.62 18.47 19.24 /220.10
85-87 16 12.99 73.60 14.24 14.88 15.55 16.25 16.98 17.75 18.54 19.38 20.25 21.16
88-90 17 13.67 14.32 74.99 15.66 16.37 17.11 17.88 18.68 19.52 20.40 Q 21.32 22.28
EXEMPT STEP
A B C D E F G H I J
78.82 1 E 14.74 15.33 15.94 16.58 17.24 7 7.93 18.65 19.40 20.17 20.98 /3//'1
83.87 2E 15.35 15.97 16.61 77.27 17.96 18.68 19.43 20.21 21.01 21.85 /O
88-92 3E 15.99 16.63 17,30 17.99 18.71 19.46 20.24 21.05 S 21.89 22.77
93-97 4E 16.66 17.33 18.02 78.74 19.49 20.27 ( 21.08 21.92 -X22.80 23.71 h
98-102 5E 17.36 18.05 18.77 19.52 20.30 21.72 21.96 22.84 23.75 24.70
103-107 6E 18.98 19.74 20.53 21.35 22.21 23.09 24.02 24.98 25.98 /{27.02
108-112 7E 79.77 20.56 21.39 22.24 23.13 24.06 25.02 26.02 27.06 28.14
113-117 8E 20:60 21.42 22.28 23.17 24.10 25.06 26.06 3 27.10 ~- 28.19 29.32
118-122 9E 21.45 22.31 23.21 24.13 25.10 26.10 27.15 28.23 29.36 30.54
723-127 10E 22.35 23.24 24.17 25.74 26.14 27.19 28.28 29:41 30.59 31.81
128-132 11 E 23.28 24.21 25.18 26.19 27.23 28.32 29.46 30.63 31.86 / 33.13
133-136 72E 24.25 25.22 26.23 27.28 28.37 29.50 30.68 31.91 33.19 34.52
4/5/95 10:05 AM
[COMPW.XLW]105TEPS
Points
1 Pat Klaers 132
. 2 Lori Johnson 115
3 Tom Zerwas 113
4 Philip Hals 103
5 Bruce West 97
6 Steve Ach 96
7 Steve Rohlf 95
8 BiII Rubin 91
9 Lori Ziemer 90
10 Darrell Mack 85
11 Gary Schmitz 84
12 Cliff Skogstad gq
13 Fritz Dolejs 82
14 Sandy Thackeray 81
15 Mark Thompson 79
16 Terry Zajac 78
17 Dennis Anderson 78
18 Austin Whitford 63
19 Gary Leirmoe 63
20 Joan Frick 82
2i Brenda Ebner 62
22 Kathy Anderson g1
23 Alice Heinecke g1
'24 Terry Mack 61
'25 Dennis Jenson g1
•
'26 Eldon Lee 61
'27 Miit Tuttle B1
'28 Terry Bye 61
29 Mike Donais fi0
30 Michelle Cunz 60
31 Cheryl) Edinger 60
32 Amy Borst 58
33 Sue Kostanshek ,~j(,2
34 Deborah Kleckner 57
35 Geryl Rogers 57
36 Linda Johnson 54
37 Kristy Mansfield 54
38 Shari Peterson 54
39 Tammi Fields 51
40 Robert Swenson 49
41 Joe Pipenhagen q~j /~~'
42 Steve Tillman 43
43 Brent Berhns 43
44 Part Time Clerks 42
'These positions designated by an '
•