HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.a. Job Evaluation StudyCITY OF, ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JULY 7, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: JOB EVALUATION STUDY
AGENDA SECTION:
NEW BUSINESS
PREPARED BY: SUSAN M. WALSH
ASSISTANT
AG"'17 M 8 A
ffjj �C it
ADMINISTRATIVE
ATTACM+IENTS : MEMORANDUM
APPROVED ; BY:
This is a request for Council to consider approving an amount nottoexceed
$1,800 for the city to become involved and obtain the results of two job
evaluation studies currently being conducted by Personnel Decisions, Inc.
and Hay Management Group
The Pay Equity Act requires government employers to periodically update job
values (comparable worth points) because of job description changes or new
positions. Over 65 cities have agreed to participate in the funding of
having these two labor consulting firms produce current benchmark classes
and job values from the original 25 benchmark classes that were established
in 1985.
The total cost to conduct the updates by PDI and the Hay Group is $97,500.
With approximately 65 cities participating, the cost to each participate is
based on the following formula:
Base fee ($1000) + $15.00 per employee. Rosemount's cost is based on
51regularfull time or part time employees or a total: of $1765.
My attached memorandum provides some background information on pay equity
and explains to you reasons why I feel the City should be involved in this
process. Simply put, the City must have up-to-date job values or points,
and this is an economical and feasible way to meet the pay equity
requirements. It also provides myself and city staff with -a more viable
working tool when evaluating job positions.
The city administrator budgeted $2,000 for labor consultant work, and it is
my recommendation (with his approval) that the; amount be expended from
budget account number 101-41320-01-307.
I would be pleased to answer any questions regarding my recommendation and
request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE OF AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $1,800 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING IN THE JOB EVALUATION
STUDY BEING COORDINATED BY THE METROPOLITAN AREA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION.
COUNCIL ACTION:
M E M O
TO: Mayor McMenomy
Councilmembers Willcox, Wippermann, Staats, Klassen
FROM: Susan Walsh, Administrative Assistant
DATE: June 30, 1992
SUBJ: Job Evaluation Study
This memorandum will address my request for the Council to approve the
expenditure of approximately $1,800.00 to receive the results of a job
analysis study which will provide updated job values (comparable worth
points) to possibly 80 job titles.
When the Pay Equity Act of 1984 was enacted, it caused some 120 cities in
Minnesota, of which Rosemount was included, to retain the services of
Control Data to develop 25 benchmark positions with comparable worth
points. To date, these original job values are still being used to some
extent when a new position is being created or the responsibilities of a
position are being changed.
City personnel administrators throughout the state have had ongoing
discussions about updating and addressing the shortcomings of the job
evaluation system developed in 1985. Some of the concerns are that the
original 25 benchmark positions should be increased to a larger number of
positions, should be addressed to accurately measure supervisory positions
which the old evaluation system did not accurately measure and to revise
the job analysis questionnaires for each of the positions. In summary the
benchmark job classes established in 1985 are out of date, limited in
number, and need to be revised.
Approximately a year ago, the TUG Group (acronym for "The Unnamed Group"
but represents personnel administrators from the metro and outstate
jurisdictions) felt the most economical way for cities to obtain a new
updated system would be for cities to go together, prepare an RFP to update
the old system and have cities who are interested to share in the cost.
Request for Proposals were sent to Personnel Decisions, Inc. (PDI) and the
Hay Management Group --the two major labor consulting firms who concentrate
on working with governmental agencies for developing job classes and
associated points.
Both companies responded to the RFP for a total cost of $97,500. Both
consulting firms will be used since TUG members wanted the ability to use
either firm since there was a definite split among cities on their
preference of consulting firms. Each of the companies develop benchmark
classes in a different manner.
Attached is a sampling of 81 recommended job titles which are being
considered for inclusion by the consultants in the job analysis studies.
These new values will be established by a separate "Benchmark Coordinating
Committee" working with each of the consulting firms. Each committee is
comprised of 12 assistant city administrators or personnel directors who
will coordinate and approve each of the consultant's job analysis system.
The end result shall be:
(1) The PDI system (which was the original Control Data system) will be
updated to simplify the job analysis questionnaires while
incorporating a job factor for supervisory level personnel.
Additionally, PDI will identify 80 benchmark classes with job values
(points). This will be coordinated by the Benchmark Committee.
(2) The Hay Management Group will identify and assign job values to 40 job
descriptions. This will be accomplished by the Hay Group and
Benchmark Coordinating Committee selecting the job titles, developing
the job descriptions for each position and assigning points. Job
analysis questionnaires are currently being completed by employees
from selected cities. (Rosemount employees will not be involved.)
(3) Completion of both job evaluation systems will be completed late fall
or winter of 1992.
(4) Training seminars will be held to learn how to administer each system.
Why should the City utilized the new job analysis system?
(1) It is necessary for the City to work with an up-to-date job analysis
system. The Pay Equity Act requires employers to periodically update
job values because of job description changes.
(2) The City possessing an updated job analysis system will provide
credibility to the points assigned to each city's position.
(3) Although the City participated in the Control Data study, we do not
utilize PDI or Hay Management when creating new job positions. We
either contact another consulting firm or assign points based upon our
professional ability. These are the two firms which have created job
analysis studies, and I strongly feel we should use one system or the
other and based upon which system is the best for the City, work with
that consulting firm on a continual basis.
(4) If the City hired one of these consulting firms to revise our job
analysis system, it would cost approximately $20,000. By joining in
with other cities it obviously saves us a considerable amount of money
but still provides us with a good updated system in which to work.
Once both job analysis studies are completed, the next step would be for
the city to adopt either the PDI System or the Hay Management System. At
this point in time, I cannot recommend going with one or the other without
further information.
7
I
RECOMMENDATION FOR BENCHMARK JOB CLASSES
Fire
38. Paramedic 71
39. Firefighter 72
40. Fire Chief 73
41. Fire Marshal New Title
42. Assistant/Deputy Fire Chief New Title
(Continued on Other Side)
Engineering
STANTON JOB
TITLE
NUMBER
Public Works and Maintenance
15.
1.
Custodian
1
2.
Laborer
2
3.
Light Equipment Opt./Equipment Opt. I
3
4.
Utility Maintenance Worker
4
5.
Park Maintenance Worker
5
6.
Heavy Equip. Opt./Maint. Worker III
7
7.
Mechanic (Skilled)
9
8.
Maint. Supervisor/Foreman (First Level)
10
9.
Superintendent
11
10.
Director of Public Works (Multiple Depts.)
12
11.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
New Title
12.
Water Plant Operator
New Title
13.
Waste Water Plant Operator
New Title
Fire
38. Paramedic 71
39. Firefighter 72
40. Fire Chief 73
41. Fire Marshal New Title
42. Assistant/Deputy Fire Chief New Title
(Continued on Other Side)
Engineering
14.
Engineering Technician (Entry Level Support)
21
15.
Engineering Technician (Intermediate)
22
16.
Engineering Technician (Senior)
23
17.
Civil Engineer (Intermediate)
25
18.
Assistant City Engineer
28
19.
City Engineer
29
20.
Draftsman/GEO/GAD
New
Title
Inspection
21.
Fire Code Inspector
New
Title
22.
Inspector/Construction
New
Title
23.
Inspector/Housing
New
Title
24.
Chief Building Official
32
Assessing
25.
Property Appraiser
40
26.
City Assessor
42
27.
Assessing Technician
New
Title
Law Enforcement
28.
Community Service Officer (Non Sworn)
50
29.
Public Safety Dispatcher
51
30.
Patrol Officer
53
31.
Investigator/Detective
54
32.
Police Sergeant
55
33.
Police Lieutenant
56
34.
Police Captain
57
35.
Police Chief
58
36.
Deputy Police Chief
New
Title
37.
Public Safety Director
New
Title
Fire
38. Paramedic 71
39. Firefighter 72
40. Fire Chief 73
41. Fire Marshal New Title
42. Assistant/Deputy Fire Chief New Title
(Continued on Other Side)
Clerical
50. Cashier New Title
51. Office Service Worker 91
52. License Clerk/Service Center Representative 92
53. Special Assessment Clerk 93
54. Telephone Operator and/or Receptionist 94
55. Secretary B 96
56. Secretary A 97
57. Executive Secretary (Top Level) 98
Data Processing
58. Data Entry Operator 110
59. Manager/MIS 117
Recreation
60. Recreation Programmer New Title
61. Recreation Supervisor 121
62. Recreation Facility Manager New Title
63. Director of Parks and Recreation 124
Liquor
64. Retail Clerk 129
65. Liquor Facility Manager 131
66. Liquor Operations Director 132
Legal
67. Attorney New Title
Public Health
68. Public Health Nurse 150
69. Environmental Health Specialist New Title
Planning
70. Planner 161
71. Director of Planning 163
72. Community Development Director 164
Accounting
43.
Accounting Clerk
78
44.
Utilities Billing Clerk
79
45.
Payroll Clerk (Senior Level)
80
46.
Accountant
New Title
47.
Accounting Supervisor
New Title
48.
Assistant Finance Director
New Title
49.
Finance Director
87
Clerical
50. Cashier New Title
51. Office Service Worker 91
52. License Clerk/Service Center Representative 92
53. Special Assessment Clerk 93
54. Telephone Operator and/or Receptionist 94
55. Secretary B 96
56. Secretary A 97
57. Executive Secretary (Top Level) 98
Data Processing
58. Data Entry Operator 110
59. Manager/MIS 117
Recreation
60. Recreation Programmer New Title
61. Recreation Supervisor 121
62. Recreation Facility Manager New Title
63. Director of Parks and Recreation 124
Liquor
64. Retail Clerk 129
65. Liquor Facility Manager 131
66. Liquor Operations Director 132
Legal
67. Attorney New Title
Public Health
68. Public Health Nurse 150
69. Environmental Health Specialist New Title
Planning
70. Planner 161
71. Director of Planning 163
72. Community Development Director 164
Library
81. Library Generalist New Title
Administration
73.
City Clerk
168
74.
Management Assistant
New
Title
75.
HR Generalist
New
Title
76.
Human Resource Director
172
77.
Assistant City Manager/Administrator
173
78.
City Manager/Administrator
174
79.
Communications Coordinator
New
Title
80.
Recycling Coordinator
New
Title
Library
81. Library Generalist New Title