4.2. ERMUSR 10-13-2009Elk River
Municipal Utilities
13069 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 430
Elk River, MN 55330-0430
October 7, 2009
To: Elk River Municipal Utilities Commission
John Dietz
Jerry Gumphrey
Daryl Thompson
From: Troy Adams
Subject: Review and Consider 2009 Pay Request
Phone: 763.441.2020
Fax: 763.441.8099
This previous April, the utility commission voted fora 0% pay increase for staff and for the topic
to be review again in 6 months.
During this time, ERMU has further evaluated the pay request process. Based on legal council
of Gray Plant Mooty, the process will now be handled over two separate commission meetings.
During the first meeting, management will provide the relevant information. In general terms
this includes industry comparisons, economic trends, and impact to ERMU financials. In the
past, a survey of seven predetermined peer metro utilities was utilized. This will continue to be
used. Going forward, the consumer price index will also be provided. At the request of the
commission, addition information may be provided. The employees will be provided the
opportunity to bring suggestions and requests to management. This information will be reviewed
and considered by management and may then be included in the presentation to the commission.
At the discretion of the commission, employees will be afforded the opportunity to address the
commission during this first meeting. These statements from employees may be taken into
consideration by the commission during their decision making process. After the commission
has collected the information needed for their decision, the topic will be tabled until the
following utility commission meeting at which the commission will make their decision without
influence from staff.
For years ERMU has used a survey of neighboring utilities to gage the industry for purposes of
compensation comparison. For ease of comparing, the lineperson position has typically been
used as the benchmark because job duties and position requirements are very consistent from one
utility to another. The utilities used in this survey had been agreed upon because of their
proximity to the ERMU and the Cities. Also, these are the utilities which ERMU is directly in
competition with for labor. This process of using the average benchmarked wage from the
identified competition also provided some mitigation to labor cost volatility. When the metro
survey was provided to the commission in April, North St. Paul and Connexus had not yet
completed labor negotiations. North St. Paul has put the topic on hold and has not given a pay
increase. Connexus has completed their labor negotiations. The contract is retroactive to
2009 Pay Request to ERMU Commission
Page 2
January 1, 2009 fora 2.4% increase. This brings the survey metro average to $34.74 per hour for
a lineperson. In August, the commission voted to implement results of a salary structure study.
This study utilized 2008 wage information to benchmark and reset the entire ERMU pay
structure. As a result of this study, the lineperson hourly wage was adjusted to $33.82. ERMU
falls below the metro average of 2009. An increase of 2.73% would be required to bring it up to
the average. The survey is attached for commission review.
Another note of importance on the survey is that Connexus and Wright/Hennepin both had just
negotiated labor contracts in 2009. Both of these utilities explained a major concern when
negotiating that their contracts was to stay competitive with one of their biggest labor
competitors, Xcel Energy. Wright/Hennepin's contract has even been written to give a wage
increase in 2012 to match Xcel's. ERMU borders Connexus, Wright/Hennepin, and Xcel. The
fact that these three utilities are strategically positioning themselves to be wage competitive
years into the future is important to acknowledge.
The consumer price index comparing lst half 2009 to 2nd half 2008 for this region is down 1.7%.
Comparing 1St half 2009 to 1St half 2008, the CPI is down 1.0%. These numbers reflect the spike
in gas prices in 2008. Natural gas and motor fuel were abnormally high in 2008, up 22.3% and
23.3% respectively in the 1St half of 2008. These costs have come down to reality by 29.4% and
28.2% respectively compared to the 2nd half of 2008. This volatility has skewed the CPI to some
de~ree. The CPI, excluding energy, is up 1.6% compared to 1St half 2008 and 0.3% compared to
2n half 2008. The summary of the CPI for this region is attached for commission review.
The ERMU 2009 budget covered a 3% pay increase for the period of June through December.
The summer of 2009 was one of the coolest in recorded history and that has been reflected in
electric revenue. September electric is up due to a warmer than average month but will not be
reflected in the revenue until next month. Also, there has been great focus placed on an overall
reduction in operating costs. This has helped keep pace with the reduction in electric revenue.
Overall, the year end projections in reduce electric revenue are offset by reductions in operating
costs. Water revenue is up and year end projections indicate nearly double the budgeted amount
going into reserves. Providing a pay increase in 2009 would not financially burden the utilities.
The philosophical component to this topic is that of perception and vision. In difficult economic
times there is negative public perception to wage increases funded by fees. The flip side is that
of long term vision. In this industry, the skill sets are a commodity and a utility needs to remain
competitive even in difficult economic times to help promote employee retention. Short term
vision can result in higher long term costs, and over compensation compared to market trend is
poor use of public money. The solution falls somewhere in between and is a balance of many
considerations.
Based on the metro survey average, staff requests a pay increase of 2.73%.
N U ~ e
M
N d N
~
U ~ ~ N
C ~ >
+-' f9
0
U N
M
~ ~` M
~ O ~
~ U
w
0
Z
N ~
I~
n 0
M
d >
I~ Q E,9 EA N
O O
O
O ~
N
G
. N ~ ~ N
Q N d' ~ ~
M U
o o x
C N y3 EA O ~ U
N ~ ~ M ....
L O
O O ~_
O C
l6 O O N
N N
N
m
r
t(7 0
°
!n O Q
(D N M M N
~ ~- O J7
Y ~ EA V> a N O Y
O
G 00 O ~O ~ U
°
(0
~ N
~
V ° °-
~ o
`n v
`°•
o
N ~ O M M ~
Q ~ Q E~ ER M
O
s U o
~ o ~
Z ~
~ ^~ o
~
~ ri
~ ri
~ o
0 -o
0
a =
tp c
~
Z
~ ° o
~ ~ M M ~
N ~Oin
C Q ffl Efl~ yMM
C O O ~
O
V
~
O
N o
~
~ ~
o ao o a
°' ~ ~
M
~
w
~ o
c
00 N M
Y N M M M
N ~ b9 ffl
N
~
U ~
O
~
m
a~
rn
m -
> -
>
L L
~ ~ N C C ~
N
d 3 E
~ (V
~ IO
~
N
Z
N
~~ c c r
m o
O f6 J J ~ N Z
O
N Y
C M
O O
O U
C ~-
C ~
L
U c°~ c°~ a U O
Consumer Price Index Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI CPI
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Midwest Information Office
Internet: www.bls.gov/ro5/ FOR RELEASE:
GENERAL INFORMATION: (312) 353-1880 ~:3o A.M. CT
MEDIA CONTACT: Paul LaPorte Friday, August 14, 2009
(312) 353-1138
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL, MINN.-WIS. MSA
FIRST HALF 2009
Page 1 of 4
Retail prices in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area were down i.~ percent in the first half of 2009 compared with their
levels in the second half of 2008, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The first half
2009 Minneapolis-St. Paul all items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) was 2o6.i6~ (1982-
84=ioo), representing a i.o percent decrease over the first half of 2008. In the previous annual period, first half 200
to first half 2008, retail prices in the Twin Cities recorded a 3.8 percent gain.
Regional Commissioner Jay A. Mousa stated that the i.~ percent decrease in the all items Minneapolis-St. Paul CPI-U
during the first half of 2009 was primarily attributed to lower costs for the energy related categories of gasoline and
utility (piped) gas service. Prices for other goods and services and recreation also fell in the first half of the year, but
with less impact. Consumer expenditure categories for medical care, education and communication, and apparel rose
during the first half of 2009 while food and beverage prices were nearly unchanged.
Transportation costs fell 9.4 percent during the first half of this year. Gasoline prices were down 28.2 percent.
Compared with their average during the first six months of 2008, gasoline prices were down 36.9 percent. In the
previous annual period, gasoline prices rose 23.3 percent. The overall transportation component was i2.6 percent
lower in the first half of 2009 compared with its first half average of 2008.
The housing component decreased i.o percent during the first half of 2009. A 29.4 percent decline in the utility
(piped) gas service index was a major contributing factor in this decline. This latest decline in the utility (piped) gas
service index compares with a 22.3 percent gain in the first half of 2008. Elsewhere in the housing component, the
electricity index gained o.6 percent and the household furnishings and operations index rose 2.1 percent in the first
half of 2009. Compared to the first half of 2008, the overall housing component was up a modest o.2 percent.
Increases in the indexes for shelter (1.5 percent), electricity (5.5 percent), and household furnishings and operations
(4.4 Percent) were nearly offset by a 35.5 Percent decline in the utility. (piped) gas service index.
The other goods and services component was down 3.4 percent during the first half of this year and was 6.4 percent
below its first half 2oo81eve1.
Recreation costs declined i.3 percent during the first half of 2009 and were o.3 percent lower than a year ago.
Food and beverage prices were essentially unchanged, increasing o.i percent during the first six months of 2009. The
food at home index (grocery food items) fell 0.4 percent and the food away from home index rose o.8 percent.
Alcoholic beverage prices advanced i.9 percent. On an annual basis, food and beverage prices were 3.3 percent higher.
Grocery foods were 3.8 percent more expensive while dining out was 2.5 percent costlier over the year. Alcoholic
beverage prices gained 4.8 percent from their first half of 2oo81evels.
Apparel prices were rose 1.1 percent during the first half of 2009. Compared with their first half 2oo81eve1, apparel
prices were down o.6 percent. During the previous annual period, apparel prices fe112.5 percent.
The education and communications component rose o.8 percent during the first six months of this year and was 3.0
percent higher for the year.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/ro5/cpimpls.htm 10/7/2009
Consumer Price Index Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI CPI
Page 2 of 4
The medical care component advanced 3.4 percent during the first six months of 2009.On an annual basis, medical
care costs in the Twin Cities gained 6.2 percent. This was less than the 4.5 percent increase posted in the first half
200 to the first half 2008 period.
__
_-
__ __
__ __
Consumer Prig Index - Indexes for semiannual averages and percent changes far
selected periods.
Minneapolis-St. Paul Minn.-mss. MSA {1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted)
Semiannual average { Percent change to
indexes i 1st half 2009 from -
1
Item and Group 1st half
l __ __
2nd half _ }._
1st half " --
1st half ; 2nd half
2008 2008 2009 2008 2008
Expenditure category
All Items 208.2841 209.632 2
165 -1.01 -1.7~
-
All items (1917-199) ~ G54.54~~ G5t.774, 47.
G ii ~ . ~
Food and bevera es
g ~
i 230.544 _ 1
237.761
238.0511 3.31 _ 0.1
Food 1
_
226.858 _
234.0261, -f
233.8491
3.1~ II
-0.1
Food at home i
218.097,
227.356 }
226.452
3.8f
-0.4
__
Food away from home
240.6651
244.592{ _
246.589
4
I1
2.5{ _ ,
0.8!
Alcoholic beverages i
.
! 261.330(
268.832', .
273.814
4.8
1 --- ,
1.9
Housing
188.976' _ .
191.291
189.410
0.2
~ ..
-1.0
Shelter ! 211.284 214.044 214 546 1.5 ' 0.2
Rent of primary residence _
~ 204.499:
208.442} __ -
211.729 -
3.5
+
1.6
_. _ ; _ _ _
Owners' equiv. rent ~
216.759;
219.273 ~
222.073
2.5 I
~
1.3
Fuels and utilities 198.935 198.139 173.369 } -12.91 -12.5
,_ _
Household energy
192.314' ~
188.5791
161.961 .
-15.8- __ 1
-14.11
_. _ _ -
Gas (piped) and electricity __
! 194.054-
190.2401
164.455
. _
-15.3
-13.6
Electricity 186 762 195.765 196.991 ; 5.5 0.61
Utility (piped) gas service
I 218.269,
199.5471 a.
140.889.
35.5
-29.4
Household furnishings and operations ~ 124.740: 127.5791 130.2790
_ 4.4~ 2.1
'
_
Apparel ~ 127.451+ 125.258 126.674; -0.6 1.1
~
_ _ _
'Transportation
198.659:. _ r
191.566 __
173.597
-12.6
-9.4~
Private transportation ~ 186.247 177.199! 159.754. -14.2 -9.8
Motor fuel ~ 272.883. 241.658; 171.192+ -37.31 -29.2',
Gasoline (all types)
_
; j 274.575
t ~ 241.492;
_ i 173.2791 -36.9
_~ -28.2;
__
_ _
Unleaded regular ~: 280.494; 245.406; 176.153!, -37.2 -28.2
~ ,
___ _ _
1nleaded midgrade ~ ~ . i
272.658; - ~
244.848; _ _
173.409 -36.41 -29.2
. 1 _ _~ - _ _ -
- -
Unleaded premium 310
935'. 277.397'; 201.575' i
-35.21 -27.3
. ,
;
Medical Care
~ 379 225}
389.714 _
402.858]
6 2
3.4
__
Recreation
~
117.4641 _ ~
118.638: _
4 _
117.067 ~ -
-0.3 -
-1.3
~
:,Education and communication
125.630 t
128.341 i
129 399f
3.0~
0.81
~ .
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/ro5/cpimpls.htm 10/7/2009
Consumer Price Index Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI CPI
Page 3 of 4
Semiannual average Percent change to
indexes 1st half 2009 from -
Item and Group ~
1st half j _._ _.
2nd half ! _
1st half '
1st half '; ,
2nd half
2008 2008 2009 2008 2008
Other goods and services ~ 327.018 316.794 306.063' -6.4' -3.4
Commodity and Service Group ~I
All Items ~ 208.284' 209.632: 206.167'.. -1.0 -1.71'
Commodities 177.018! 176.543 171.181 -3.3! -3.0
Commodities less food & beverages 149.904 146.704; 139.586 -6.9~~ -4.9
Nondurables less food & beverages 196.005 190.484'.: 173.942. -11.3' -8.7'
Durables ! 108.837 107.5071 107.884: -0.9 ~
0.4;
Services 236.317' 239.243' 237.410 0.5', -0.8'
'Special aggregate indexes:
All items less medical care 200.540 201.4721 197.253.:; -1.6 -2.1.
All items less shelter 207.992 ~ 208.691,' 203.421 -2.2 -2.5
.Commodities less food 154.620': 151.7331 144.936 -6.3 -4.5'
.Nondurables 214.019' 214.207 ~ 205.026 -4.2 -4.3'
Nondurables less food 201.088 196.4441 181.304 -9.8: -7.7'
Services less rent of shelter 276
445 279
699 274
805 -0
6~ -1
7
fil . . . . .
'Services less medical care services
~ 223.787' 226.236 ~ 223.319 -0.2' -1.3;
Energy 236.384 ~ 218.950'
,~ 170.033 -28.1 -22.3
All items less energy 209.171 _
211.957! 212.618 1.6 0.3
All items less food and energy ' 206.618 208.771', 209.553 1.4~ 0.4,
'Footnotes..
(1) Indes is on a November 1982=100 base
(2) Special index based on a substantially smaller sample.
(3) Indexes on a December 1993=100 base.
(4) Indexes on a December 1997=100 base.
- Data not available
NOTE: Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date.
###
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis. Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA1 includes Anoka, Carver, Chisago,
Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, Washington, and Wright Counties in Minnesota and Pierce and
St. Croix Counties in Wisconsin.
BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE CPI
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change in prices over time in a fixed market basket of
goods and services. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes CPIs for two population groups: (1) a CPI for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U) which covers approximately 87 percent of the total population and (2) a CPI for Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) which covers 32 percent of the total population. The CPI-U includes, in
addition to wage earners and clerical workers, groups such as professional, managerial, and technical workers, the self
-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, and retirees and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors' and dentists'
services, drugs, and the other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. Prices are collected in 8~ urban
areas across the country from about 50,000 housing units and approximately 23,000 retail establishments--
department stores, supermarkets, hospitals, filling stations, and other types of stores and service establishments. All
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/ro5/cpimpls.htm 10/7/2009
Consumer Price Index Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI CPI
Page4of4
taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are included in the index. Prices of food, fi~els, and a few
other items are obtained every month in all 8~ locations. Prices of most other commodities and services are collected
every month in the three largest geographic areas and every other month in other areas. Prices of most goods and
services are obtained by personal visits of the Bureau's trained representatives.
In calculating the index, price changes for the various items in each location are averaged together with weights that
represent their importance in the spending of the appropriate population group. Local data are then combined to
obtain a U.S. city average. Separate indexes are also published by size of city, by region of the country, for cross-
classifications of regions and population-size classes, and for 27 local areas. Area indexes do not measure differences
in the level of prices among cities; they only measure the average change in prices for each area since the base period.
The index measures price changes from a designated reference date (1982-84) that equals ioo.o. An increase of i6.5
percent, for example, is shown as ii6.5. This change can also be expressed in dollars as follows: the price of a base
period "market basket" of goods and services in the CPI has risen from $io in 1982-84 to $11.65.
For further details see the CPI home page on the Internet at www.bls.gov/cpi and the BLS Handbook of Methods,
Chapter iy, The Consumer Price Index, available on the Internet at www.bls.gov/~.pub/hom/homchiy a.htm.
Last Modified Date: August 1'J, 2009
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Midwest Information Office Room 960, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,
IL 60604
~ttp://www.bls.gov/R05/ ~ Telephone: (312) 353-1880 ~ Fax: (312) 353-1886 Do you have a Midwest Region
' (R0~ data ouestion?
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/ro5/cpimpls.htm 10/7/2009