The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7C - Employee Classification Plan and Pay Ranges AGENDA#: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: BACKGROUND: STAFF AGENDA REPORT 7JC, ifRET WOODSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 97-XX APPROVING EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM PAY GRADES DECEMBER 15, 1997 The City has maintained a position classification and compensation system'responsive to the state pay equity system since 1985. The City originally joined with other cities to establish a position classification system based upon points assigned to all positions, reflecting their comparable worth ranking (the "FOCAS" system). Later the City worked with the DCA Stanton Group to refine the system to Prior Lake's needs. Once the position classification hierarchies were completed, comparative wage data were used to assign each job class to one of the pay grades which could be used as a base for wage and salary decisions. Until early 1995, this system remained in tact with salary schedules generally similar for most positions: salary ranges in three zones, plus longevity pay. Negotiations with AFSCME resulted in expansion of the pay ranges in order to roll in the longevity pay in accordance with City Council objectives. An arbitration award with the LELS (police officers) contract left longevity pay in tact for members of that bargaining unit. As these types of changes occur, it becomes harder to stay in compliance with the State pay equity law requirements. The State law and sound management practice are compelling reasons to seek a contemporary and more comparable position structure across all City jobs. Dr. Miriam Kragness of ROI Consultants was retained by the City in early 1996 to thoroughly examine and evaluate the personnel classification plan. Her expertise includes determining compliance with the State pay equity 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER requirements and overall appraisal of classification and compensation systems. Ms. Kragness completed her work on the classification plan in late 1996. The City Council approved this classification plan in December of 1996. The approval of the plan, however, did not include the accompanying pay ranges which were being refined. This agenda item brings the pay ranges before the City Council for consideration. DISCUSSION: In completing her study, Ms. Kragness helped the City set specific goals for developing a forward-looking system for classifying jobs which can also serve as a sound foundation for compensating employees. Those goals included: 1.) Have a system which can be described in understandable and defensible terms --- one which employees can understand if they inquire and one which meets common sense expectations. 2.) Have a system which accommodates growth in City functions and classifications. 3.) Provide a framework within which wage and salary negotiations can be managed and internal and external equity are maintained. 4.) Obtain a structure for paying employees which allows the City to compete successfully with other employers while limiting the extent to which pay can escalate over time so costs are within adopted budget polices and amounts. After the classification plan was approved, the following was done to determine the compensation plan to go along with the classification plan, (a) examine the present wage and salary structure, with particular attention on the following characteristics: · range widths from minimum to maximum · overlap of wage ranges · effect of incorporating longevity pay into new ranges · differences in pay between exempt and non- exempt personnel · impact upon pay equity of proposed changes · the employment market; CCCLAS98.DOC and, (b) propose a new pay structure which meets acceptable compensation practices, i.e. offers equal-to- greater range widths for higher-level positions, provides a reasonable incentive to accept promotion from non-exempt to exempt, meets pay equity requirements, and accounts for competition with similarly situated cities. All of the above mentioned items, including survey data assembled for comparable communities, were provided to Ms. Kragness for her analysis. The resulting pay structure establishes ranges for each of the position classification grades or levels. It is important to recognize these are ranges of potential, not actual compensation, even for those positions which now use a negotiated step-pay system (LELS). The proposed ranges were derived from: (a) the wages contemplated by the ratified labor agreements; (b) existing pay levels for all employees; and (c) external market data. By analyzing the above mentioned data, the City is able to take into consideration both internal and external comparisons when determining ranges. ISSUES: Historically, the City of Prior Lake has been in the middle of the pack, when compared with other metropolitan cities of similar population, as to pay ranges for employees. Meaning, some cities pay more than we do on and others pay less than we do. The proposed ranges continue to follow that same philosophy. The DCA / Stanton Salary Survey is available in my office if councilmembers wish to compare proposed Prior Lake salary ranges to other metropolitan area cities. These ranges were also put through a computer program concentrating on the State of Minnesota's Pay Equity Law to make sure the City is in compliance. These new ranges are in compliance with the Pay Equity Law. The proposed salary ranges are also consistent with existing and proposed salary settlements contained in each of the four labor agreements which include virtually all City employees. The classification and proposed compensation system represents a significant improvement in our personnel CCCLAS98.DOC system in that this is the first time that all City positions, regardless of bargaining unit, are included in one document meeting all statutory requirements. The City of Prior Lake Employee Classification System and Proposed Pay Structure is attached to this report. ALTERNATIVES: The Council has the following alternatives: 1. Approve Resolution 97-XX Approving the Pay Ranges for the Employee Classification System. 2. Defer action on this item upon receipt of additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1 ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second to approve the attached Resolution. CCCLAS98.DOC 12/4/97PA YRG98W.XLS CITY OF PRIOR LAKE EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND PROPOSED PAY STRUCTURE (Effective 1/1/98) (Classification Structure Adopted December 16, 1996; PROPOSED Pay Structure to take effective 1/1/98) Level/Grade Job Title Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 19 4,920-5,740 5,741-6,560 6,561-7,380 18 City Manager 4,684-5465 5,466-6,246 6,247-7,027 17 4,452-5,194 5,195-5,936 5,937-6,678 16 Dir. P.W./City Engineer 4,274-4,943 4,944-5,611 5,612-6,279 15 Finance Director 4,093-4,692 4,693-5,291 5,292-5,891 15 Chief of Police 14 Planning Director 3,862-4,427 4,428-4,993 4,994-5,558 14 Dir. Parks and Rec. 14 Asst. City Manager 13 Asst. City Engineer 3,678-4,180 4,181-4,682 4,683-5,184 13 Lieutenant 12 Pub. Works Supervisor 3,491-3,935 3,936-4,378 4,379-4,822 12 Parks Supervisor 12 Building Official 11 Water Resources Coord. 3,308-3,694 3,695-4,080 4,081-4,466 11 Sergeant 10 Detective 3,189-3,560 3,561-3,932 3,933-4,305 10 Planning Coordinator 10 Recreation Supervisor 9 Patrol Officer 3,044-3,401 3,402-3,760 3,761-4,118 9 Engineer Technician IV 9 Building Inspector 9 Planner 8 Executive Secretary 2,832-3,164 3,165-3,497 3,498-3,831 8 Accountant 8 Engineer Technician III 7 Maint. Leadperson 2,595-2,900 2,901-3,205 3,206-3,512 6 Engineer Technician I 2,366-2,642 2,643-2,921 2,922-3,200 6 Maintenance Worker VI 5 Maintenance Worker V 1,945-2,174 2,175-2,403 2,404-2,632 5 Community Service Officer 5 Secretary: Police 5 Secretary: Engineering 5 Secretary: Planning 5 Secretary: Building 5 PT Secretary: Parks 5 PT Secretary: Police 5 Accounting Clerk 5 Billing Clerk 4 Maintenance Worker IV 1,735-1,939 1,940-2,143 2,144-2,348 4 Sec'ylRec.: Maintenance 4 Sec'ylRec.: Building 4 Recep/Sec'y.: Admin. 3 1,524-1,704 1,705-1,883 1,884-2,062 2 1,314-1,469 1,470-1,623 1,624-1,777 1 1,103-1,233 1,234-1,362 1,363-1,492 including the evaluation of new and existing positions which require re-examination utilizing the documentation and meth9dologies developed for the City by R.O.I. Consultants, Inc., to ensure the classification system and its components are maintained to reflect the status of all positions authorized by the City Council. Passed and adopted this 15th day of December, 1997. YES NO Andren Andren Robbins Robbins Kedrowski Kedrowski Mader Mader Schenck Schenck {Seal} City Manager City of Prior Lake EMPCLASS.DOC