6.1. ERMUSR 01-13-2009Ji
Elk River
Municipal Utilities
13069 Orono Parkway • PO. Box 430
Elk River, MN 55330-0430
January 9, 2009
To: Elk River Municipal Utilities commission
Jerry Takle
Jerry Gumphrey
John Dietz
From: Theresa Slominski
Re: Comparable Worth Reporting
Phone: 763.441.2020
Fax: 763.441.8099
I have been working on the comparable worth filing for the year ended 12/31/2008. In
June of 2008 a report was done and brought to the commission showing we were in
compliance. Since that report, a raise was given to the position of Office Clerk, the
Electric Superintendent retired and was replaced, and we went from 6 linepersons to 5.
When I input these changes, we were shown to be out of compliance (report is attached
as item #2.)
I have been in contact with Rod Kelsey from Riley, Dettmann, and Kelsey (the firm
working on our revised job descriptions and comparable worth compliance in the future),
Faith Zwemke from the State Pay Equity Office (PEO), and Lori Johnson from the city.
Lori took a look at the classes and suggested revising the points for two positions to get
back in compliance: the lead lineman and the electric superintendent. I have contacted
the HayGroup to review our revised points and determine if they are acceptable for our
reporting purposes. The HayGroup stated they should be able to get back to me early
next week with a determination. If the determination is favorable, we will be submitting
the report as attached item #1.
If the point values are not going to work, per the PEO, the other option is to change a
female pay grade that is shown as under the predicted pay so that it meets predicted pay.
There is a 30 day window after the year end for the governing body to adjust the pay and
make it effective 12/31/08, pay the rate going forward, and still be in compliance. The
least costly change is highlighted in item #2b and affects the Accountant and Finance
Director positions. (Changing just the Accountant position brought us to a 79.5%
underpayment ration and we need at least 80%.) This option would have a cost of $1,632
in 2009 to implement. It is not ideal, and hopefully not the route we will have to take, but
it is feasible.
Compliance Report
Jurisdiction: ERMU Test 1/7/09
Contact:
Phone:
01 /07/200
The statistical analysis, salary range and exceptional service pay test results are shown below. Part I is general information from
your pay equity Report data. Parts II, III and IV give you the test results.
For more detail on each test, refer to the guidebook.
I. GENERAL JOB CLASS INFORMATION
Male Female Balanced All Job
Classes Classes Classes Classes
# Job Classes i i 4 1 16
# Employees 25 9 2 36
Avg. Max Monthly
Pay per Employee $5,963.00 $4,178.00 $5,383.86
II. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TEST Male Female
A. UNDERPAYMENT RATIO = 84.8 Classes Classes
a. # at or above Predicted Pay 4 1
b. # Below Predicted Pay 7 3
c. TOTAL 11 4
d. % Below Predicted Pay 63.64 75.00
(b divided by c = d)
" (Result is % of male classes below predicted pay divided by % of female classes below pre dicted pay)
B. T -TEST RESULTS
Degrees of Freedom (DF) = 32 Value of T =
a. Avg. dill. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs =
b. Avg. dill. in pay from predicted pay for female jobs =
III. SALARY RANGE TEST = 100.00 % (Result is A divided by B)
A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = 5.00
B. Avg. # of years to max salary for female jobs = 5.00
IV. EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE PAY TEST 0.00
A. % of male classes receiving ESP 0.00
B. % of female classes receiving ESP 0.00
* (if 20% or less, test result will be 0.00)
8.909
$16
-$695
~t `~'v~~
Compliance Report
Jurisdiction: Elk River Municipal Utilities
Date: 1/9/2009
Contact: Bryan Adams Phone: (763) 441-2020
Insurance Added? N Job Evaluation System Used: State Job Match
The statistical analysis, salary range and exceptional service pay test results are shown below. Part I is general
information from your Pay Equity Report data. Parts II, III, and IV give you the test results. For more detail on each
test, refer to the guidebook.
I. GENERAL JOB CLASS INFORMATION
Male Female Balanced All Job
Classes Classes Classes Classes
# Job Classes 11 4 2 17
# Employees 25 9 2 36
Avg. Max Monthly
Pay per Employee 5,961.68 4,176.56
5,382.47
II STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TEST Male Female
A. UNDERPAYMENT RATIO = 63.6 Classes Classes
a. # at or above Predicted Pay 4 0
b. # Below Predicted Pay 7 4
c. TOTAL 11 4
d. % Below Predicted Pay 63.64 100.00
(b divided by c = d)
* (Result is % of male classes below predicted pay divided by % of female classes below predicted pay)
B. T-TEST RESULTS
Degrees of Freedom (DF) = 32 Value of T = 8.469
a. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs = $31
b. Avg, dill. in pay from predicted pay for female jobs = -$599
III. SALARY RANGE TEST = .00 % (Result is A divided by B)
A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = 1.00
B. Avg. # of years to max salary for female jobs = 00
IV. EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE PAY TEST .00
A. % of male classes receiving ESP 00 "
B. % of female classes receiving ESP 00
(if 20% or less, test result will be 0.00)
L-t~-wt-~2
Predicted Pay Report - Elk River Municipal Utilities
Case: 2008 Adj in Comp
1 /9/2009 12:35:32 PM
Page: 1
Job Male Female Total Work Max Mo. Predicted Pay
Nbr Job Title Empl Empl Empl Sex Points Salary pay Difference
1 Clerk / Recept 0 3 3 F 122 -$771.52
2 Labor 1 i 2 B 136 _$818.87
3 Accts Payable 0 0 0 B 147 -$880.16
4 ClerniSec Pur 0 4 4 F i47 •$706.16
5 Utility Worker 5 1 6 M 156 $54.03
6 Asst Manager/Collections 1 0 1 M 224 -$352.53
7 Electronic Tech 1 0 1 M 217 _$28 gg
8 Lineman 5 0 5 M 233 $22.70
9 Lead Lineman 6 0 6 M 245 $206.53
10 Line Foreman 1 0 1 M 311 -$55.44
11 Water Super 1 0 1 M 366 ..$22.42
12 Financial Dir 0 t 1 F 432 _$20.38
13 Elec Super 1 0 1 M 516 $8.97
14 General Manager 1 0 1 M 964 -$13.59
15 Engineer 1 0 1 M 432 -$20.39
16 MechaniclOperator 1 0 1 M 203 _$427.86
17 Accountant 0 1 1 F 181 -$23127