The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.c. Non-Union Salaries for 2005CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Work Session Date: December 15, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Non -Union Salaries for Year 2005 AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Dawn Weitzel, Assistant City Administrator AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Wage Data -- includes Stanton comparison and predicted pay information Compliance Report Result (Additional information regarding Stanton APPROVED BY: comparisons and pay equity will be available at the meeting; Labor Relations Associates will also be present at the meeting and be supplying material RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion of Non -Union Position Salary Ranges for the Year 2005 ACTION: ISSUE Continued discussion of non -union salaries for 2005. BACKGROUND The City of Rosemount follows a compensation structure that consists of six steps (common with practice of other municipalities). Depending on level of experience, new employees typically begin at an lower step. Employees with satisfactory work performance progress through the pay range until the top step is achieved. Once at the top step, the employee would typically receive cost of living increases thereafter. It has been in times of budget crisis` when a few cities have not given cost of living increases. The City also follows a past practice of using three factors in determining wage ranges: internal equity, Stanton comparisons, and implementation of a range adjustment (cost of living increase). This practice is consistent with that of other Minnesota municipalities as well as final wage decisions by Interest Arbitrators. _ Interest Arbitrators generally look at four factors in determining appropriate wage rates: employer's ability to pay, internal wage comparisons, external wage comparisons, and adjustment in the cost of living. Even though non -union compensation /benefit disputes are not handled by an Arbitrator, cities follow this practice to ensure equity amongst its employee groups. As the manager of human resources, it is my responsibility to ensure that each employee group is treated fairly. When determining pay scales the following steps are taken: STEP ONE: Ensure that Job Descriptions and Pay Equity Points are Accurate A thorough analysis of job descriptions and related pay equity points had not been conducted for quite some time at the City of Rosemount. Each department director was asked to review all job descriptions within his /her department. The position description was then sent to a consultant at Labor Relations Associates to determine if the pay equity points were accurate. It is critical that appropriate points are given -- if the Department of Employee Relations determines the points are inaccurate, a municipality runs the risk of being "red- flagged" for compliance issues. As a result of the analysis, Ann Antonsen of Labor Relations Associates recommended the following point changes: POSITION Police Chief Parks and Recreation Dir. Assistant City Administrator Public Works Superintendent City Planner Recreation Supervisor Planning /Personnel Sec. CURRENT POINTS 735 601 588 525 404 262 185 REVISED POINTS 739 611 632 560 419 314 194 STEP TWO: Run Pay Equity Report to Determine Internal Equity Since the adoption of the MN Pay Equity Act the principal factor relied upon by most Minnesota arbitrators in deciding issues of wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment has been internal consistency with the settlements negotiated with other bargaining units — as well as those established for the jurisdiction's un- represented employees. The Pay Equity Report lists each position, work points, maximum salary amount, predicted pay and. pay difference. The predicted pay and pay difference columns are helpful in analyzing the cost of adjusting the salary for any given class. Predicted pay is calculated by averaging the maximum monthly salaries for male classes in the jurisdiction. It is the standard for comparing how males and females are compensated. Predicted pay is a reflection of the current compensation practice within a jurisdiction for male classes, but it is not necessarily what the salary has to be paid at any particular point level. From personal experience, I have found it important to strictly monitor those employee groups deviating greatly from the predicted pay line. Most times employees located above the predicted pay line are a result of hiring at a higher level of pay due to a greater level of experience or market demand. The positions deviating significantly below the predicted pay line, however, do indicate internal inequalities that if ignored may result in compliance issues in the future. IfA Even though compliance issues are a result of the underpayment of females in comparison to males, it is wise not to disregard underpaid positions held by males. In doing this, the employer risks morale and productivity issues if an employee feels that he is not paid as equitably as a co- worker with the same level of responsibility. After review of the Predicted Pay Report, the positions that showed the greatest deviation below the line were for the Assistant City Administrator, Public Works Superintendent, and Recreation Supervisors. This information is illustrated below: Assistant City Administrator Public Works Superintendent 17 Recreation Supervisor 18 Parks Supervisor 0 1 1 F 632 $6,413.00 1 0 1 M 560 $5,935.00 0 2 2 F 314 $4,626.00 1 0 1 M 314 $4,626.00 $6,696.71 - $283.71 $6,244.53 - $309.53 $4,890.19 - $264.19 $4,890.19 - $264.19 STEP - THREE: Analyze Stanton VI Comparisons In addition, the City also compares its employee groups to direct competitors — other cities in Stanton's Group Six listing (population 10,000 to 25,000). Every year various jurisdictions report survey information in to the Stanton Group. There is not a mandatory requirement for jurisdictions to report, and as a result it is not a complete analysis of all cities. Another area of discrepancy is that listed positions often vary in their levels of responsibility. In discussions with other cities regarding this problem, it is common to eliminate positions which deviate greatly in responsibility and wage. The positions that vary from Stanton's wage comparisons include the: 2004 Wage Max. Stanton Comparison 1. Community Center Manager $61,604 $65,270 2. City Clerk $54,542 $61,214 STEP FOUR: Make Changes and Ensure Pay Equity Compliance Rosemount is required to conduct a Pay Equity Analysis of 2006 wages by January 31, 2007. To get a better idea of where the City is currently at it in its compliance with this State law, a report was run before any internal equity changes or Stanton changes were added and conducted again after making the proposed wage changes. In both instances the City would be in compliance for 2005. It is difficult to assess whether this would stay true for future reports. However, the compliance in the City's Pay Equity Report does not always reflect internal equity amongst the employees. According to Labor Relations Associates it would be unwise to depend solely on the compliance report. Through years of experience in working with the software program I have also found that tremendous disparities found in the predicted pay report between male and female groups could still produce a compliance report that passes. This defeats the purpose of the law to eliminate any sex -based wage inequalities. The 3 w variables that enter into the compliance report are so numerous that it has been found to be infeasible to guess whether the City is in compliance until the actual numbers are entered into the system. As a result, a common practice is to regularly monitor the predicted pay report for internal equality issues. This is done so that wage discrepancies can be addressed at an early stage (without accumulating to a point of high financial impact) and so that compliance may be less of an issue in the future. STEP FIVE: Modify Ranges to Reflect Adjustment for Cost of Living for Following Year The past practice for the City of Rosemount is to adjust the wage ranges to account for cost of living increases. For all of the negotiated 2005 contracts, Council has approved 3% be added to the wages. To be equitable with other employee groups, staff is recommending that non -union employees receive this increase also. CONCLUSION In conclusion, it has been requested that the following positions receive an internal equity or Stanton adjustment (this is according to the attached 2005 recommended minimum /maximum): Assistant City Administrator: 44 pay equity points adjustment based on change of level of responsibility. Internal equity adjustment that results in a salary that is $1,751 less than the predicted pay level but is more consistent with Stanton comparisons. (cost increase of $.84 /hour or $1,757 /year) Public Works Superintendent: 35 pay equity points adjustment based on change of level of responsibility. Internal equity adjustment that results in a salary that is $1,786 less than the predicted pay level but is more consistent with Stanton comparisons. (cost increase of $.86 /hour or $1,791 /year) Community Center Manager: Stanton difference of $6,765 /year. Requested increase to level of predicted pay report instead. (cost increase of $.14 /hour or $294 /year) Parks and Recreation Supervisors (3): 52 pay equity points adjustment based on change of level of responsibility. Stanton difference of $919 /year. Requested increase to level of predicted pay report. (cost increase $1.71 /hour or $3,561 /year) City Clerk: Stanton difference of $6,867 /year. Requested increase to level of predicted pay report instead. (cost increase $.28 /hour or $586 /year) OPTIONS Staff recommends the following option: 1. Cost of living increase (3 %) and internal equity adjustments as listed above. (Pro — the w recommendations are consistent with past practices and bring employee groups into greater internal /external equality. Con — the financial cost to the City is approximately $15,111.) If Council believes that the proposed wage range increases are not appropriate, the following options may also be considered for action. 2. Provide a cost of living increase and reduce the proposed equity adjustments. (Pro — this reduces personnel costs and brings us incrementally to internal equity. Con — there may be a greater financial impact in future years.) 3. Provide only a cost of living increase to non -union employees. (Pro — this reduces the personnel costs. Con — internal equity issues may lead to noncompliance if ignored.) 5 Pay Equity Points Pay Equity Internal Report - Predicted Pay for Max. 2005 City Minimum (with 3 %) 2005 City Maximum (with 3 %) 2005 Stanton Min. (with 3 %) 2005 Stanton Max. (with Recommended 3 %) Minimum Recommended Maximum City Administrator 935 105,660 82,811 103,956 79,810 101,734 82,811 103,956 739* Police Chief (old 735) 91,965 72,180 90,761 70,387 89,024 72,180 90,761 Finance Director 677 86,635 69,410 87,637 69,410 87,651 69,410 87,637 Assistant City 632* Administrator, (old 588) 82,772' 63,266 79,264 62400* 79040* 64,658 81,021 Community Development Director 611 80,965 70,555 88,193 66,581 82,846 70,555 88,193 Parks & Recreation 611* Director (old 601) 80,965 65,561 82,905 67,330 85,613 65,561 82,905 Police Lieutenant 560 77,182 63,486 78,074 61,381 74,963 63,486 78,074 Public Works 560* Superintendent (old 525) 76,935' 58,686 73,358 57,741 _ 73,362 60,094 75,149 419* City Planner (old 404) 69,082 52,971 66,619 51,011* 64,036* 52,971 66,619 Building Official 415 68,574 52,971 66,619 51,418* 66,414* 52,971 66,619 Community Center Manager 375 63,746 50,761 63,452 53,851 67,226 53,502 63,746 Accounting Supervisor 332 61,664 55,167 63,662 45,891* 60,223* 55,167 63,662 Parks & Recreation '' 314* Supervisors (old 262) 60,736 45,101 57,175 45,178 58,094 47,852 60,736 Communications Coordinator 308 60,447 45,176 58,347 47,133* 57,845* 45,176 58,347 City Clerk 291 56,764' 44,027 ' 56,178 49,733 63,045 45,700 56,764 Police Records Supv. 220 49,657 41,948 51,418 NA NA 41,948 51,418 Planning /Personnel 194* Secretary (old 185) 43,942 31,614 42,591 34,278* 40,706* 31,614 42,591 Compliance Report Jurisdiction: City of Rosemount 2004 Wages - Revised Points Date: 9124/04 Contact: Paula Graff Phone: (654) 322 -2002 Insurance Added? N Job (Evaluation System Used: Hay 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 d. % Below Predicted Pay 52.17 44.44 (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) = 75 Value of T = -1.145 a. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs = $20 b. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for female jobs = $85 III. SALARY RANGE TEST= 100% (Result is A divided by B) A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = .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 V.J `� vO * (if 20% or less, test result will be 0.00) ' D 8T��j 00SS�' SHOI.LVIaH H09VII Z99T9t9ZT9 XVd Sig :LO SON tO /LZ /60 Male Female Balanced All Job Classes Classes Classes Classes # Job Classes 23 18 1 42 # Employees 54 23 13 90 Avg. Max Monthly Pay per Employee 4,138.81 3,854.09 4,134.98 Il, STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TEST ) Male Female A. UNDERPAYMENT RATIO= 117.4 / ClaSses Classes a. # at or above Predicted Pay 11 10 b. # Below Predicted Pay 12 8 C. TOTAL 23 18 d. % Below Predicted Pay 52.17 44.44 (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) = 75 Value of T = -1.145 a. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs = $20 b. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for female jobs = $85 III. SALARY RANGE TEST= 100% (Result is A divided by B) A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = .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 V.J `� vO * (if 20% or less, test result will be 0.00) ' D 8T��j 00SS�' SHOI.LVIaH H09VII Z99T9t9ZT9 XVd Sig :LO SON tO /LZ /60 Compliance Report Date: 9/27/2004 Contact: Phone: (651) 322 -2002 Insurance Added? N Job Evaluation System Used: 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 Il, III, and IV give you the test results. For more detail on each test, refer to the guidebook. Jurisdiction: City of Rosemount I. GENERAL JOB CLASS INFORMATION d. % Below Predicted Pay 47.83 36.84 (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) = 75 Value of T = -1.703 a. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs = $23 b. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for female jobs = $112 III. SALARY RANGE TEST= .00% (Result is A divided by B) A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = .00 B. Avg. # of years to max salary for female jobs = .00 IV. EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE PAY TEST 100-00% A. % of male classes receiving ESP 100.00 B. % of female classes receiving ESP 100.00 * (if 20% or less, test result will be 0.00) -Fiv� Pow - r - i ass A Male Female Balanced All Job Classes Classes Classes Classes # Job Classes 23 19 1 43 # Employees 54 23 13 90 Avg. Max Monthly Pay per Employee 4,147.50 3,888.26 4,148.92 IL. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TEST Male Female Classes Classes A. UNDERPAYMENT RATIO= 129.8 a. # at or above Predicted Pay 12 12 b. # Below Predicted Pay 11 7 C. TOTAL 23 19 d. % Below Predicted Pay 47.83 36.84 (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) = 75 Value of T = -1.703 a. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs = $23 b. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for female jobs = $112 III. SALARY RANGE TEST= .00% (Result is A divided by B) A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = .00 B. Avg. # of years to max salary for female jobs = .00 IV. EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE PAY TEST 100-00% A. % of male classes receiving ESP 100.00 B. % of female classes receiving ESP 100.00 * (if 20% or less, test result will be 0.00) -Fiv� Pow - r - i ass A