HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Budget DiscussionTO: Mayor McMenomy
Councilmembers: Klassen
Staats
Willcox ITEI
Wippermann
From: Stephan Jilk
cr
RE: Special Council Meeting - ctober 27, 1992
Budget and Salary Dis
On Tuesday evening you will continue discussion
operating, capital improvement, debt service budgets
benefits for employees. In preparation for that
prepared the responses to the questions brought by Mi
other representatives of his citizens group. Co
responses have been provided to Mr. Sinwell on Frida
as promised. Copies of those responses are also in
packet for your review.
sion
on the 1993
and salary and
discussion I
Sinnwell and
dies of these
y at City Hall
eluded in this
Councilmember Willcox has also provided a memo, enc oar
for your
information, outlining items he wishes to discuss on Tuesday.
I will be pleased to respond to Mr. Willcoxsl comments at the
meeting.
In regard to the salary and. benefit 'discussion Ii would offer
additional information.
I have had input from legal counsel on the mattei
which certain members of the city staff are consi(
that affects your consideration of salary and benef
is the opinion of legal counsel that by the receipt
provided to you on October 20th, in this matter
continue to discuss these matters but, as they relate
employees now represented by Unions and those n(
representation, no implementation of such changes i
without going through the bargaining process. I w:
with a labor relations specialist on Tuesday to disci
and I am in contact with the Bureau of Mediation
also.
I have also received a copy of the Minnesota State Av
completed in March of this year on "Local Governmen
The complete document is available from the Auditor
have a complete report for anyones review. I have c
of the report which I hope will be of some va.1
discussing the Salary and Benefits issue. The Exe
section does a good job of discussing the concerns
public arena which brought about the study and the
study. I believe the issues surrounding the study a
the kind of concerns brought by the Citizens and -
believe the relevence of this report and the 1
presented to our discussions are clear and I hope yc
of the union
ering and how
-t changes. it
of the notice
Council may
to any of the
w considering
Lay take place
11 be meeting
ss this matter
on the matter
ditors report,
: Salaries".
3 office and I
Dpied sections
ue to you in
,utive Summary
raised in the
results of the
re relevent to
,ourselves. I
acommendations
u consider the
information in the report before moving on any salary and benefits
change decision.
I don't believe an across the board freeze in salaries is a good
idea. As the report suggests I would recommend that we do a
thorough analysis of the ways budgets can be reduced, services
maintained and taxes kept to an acceptable level. As far as taxes
go I happen to believe that we are already doing this. To make a
decision to simply freeze salaries, which cannot be done across the
board without the agreement of the employees represented by Unions,
without doing a thorough analysis of the individual positions,
would be mistake. I have budgeted, in the 1993 budget, $7500.__to
complete the comparable worth study and do a complete analysis of
Job descriptions, job responsiblities and salary/benefits for city
employees. The very thing that the State Auditors Report suggests
in dealing with this concern is what I had in mind in having done
in 1993. I would ask that you not take any action on wage freezes,
wage reductions, benefits reductions or matters of that nature
until you conduct such an analysis.
On the matter of cost of services/cost of government, I thought it
would be a good idea to look at some information provide by the
private sector. I have attached a copy of a report put together by
the Citizens League, and distributed by a local real estate firm.
This report ranks cities by the tax on an average home and how it
compares to the homes value. According to the real estae firm this
is the "best bottom line picture of property taxes paid".
According to that report Rosemount ranks 71 out of 95. With a 1
ranking being the worst and 95 being the best. This was based on
1991 taxes paid and the city has come up in the rankings for 1992.
Thatis, our ranking is not quite as good but we are still in the
lower half of the rankings. This seems to be the ultimate cost
benefit analysis of our use of tax payers dollars. I think that
these kinds of factors must be kept in mind as you move ahead on
budget considerations.
In the matter of budget format and how it relates to the
"management" of the citys' operation I have asked Mr. Roger
Schauness, of the Auditing firm of Boekermann and Heinnen, our city
auditors to be present at the meeting to make comments as to how
the city presents its' budget and how that format is utilized in
their audit of the city and from an accounting and management
control standpoint.
Since these are the people that must insure that the city is doing
things right in this matter I thought that his insight and comments
would be relative.
I will also have available information on interim budget reports
that the Finance department can provide in the future which may
assist you in following the budget and giving you a better handle
on the status of the budget during the year.
Finally, I would ask you to consider that we must move ahead to
further define the rest of the budget so that we can prepare for
final budget adoption in December. Though the budget can be
amended after the first of January it would be best to have the
budget resolved by the December public hearing. The amount of work
and potential for miscommunication is greater if the budget goes
unresolved after the year end.
We should get on with clear and focussed budget discussion.
Responses On City Budget Questions
The following are the questions that the Taxpayers fore Responsible
Budget are requesting that the City Council answer in whiting by Friday
the 16th of October.
It was agreed on at the October 13, 1992 council meeting to respond by
Friday, October 23, 1992.
1. Why is FICA and Medicaid listed as a benefit?
The auditors for the City of Rosemount responded, "The amounts that are
listed under expenditures for FICA and Medicare as benefits are the
City's matching portion of these amounts. They are effectively a tax
or forced retirement contribution to the federal government which
should benefit the employee when they become eligible for it (typically
age 65). It is the same as the contribution private businesses have to
make and is almost always listed under the categories "employee
benefits" or "taxes"."
2. What is longevity, longevity change? How are they figured and what
is the criteria for them?
Longevity is an amount of money added to an employees' salary.
Longevity pay is based on a percentage of the employees,, base salary and
is included, once earned, on the employee's bi-weekly paycheck.
Longevity is earned by an employee based on the number 'of years
employed, without interruption, with the City. The percentage of
longevity paid or earned varies depending on whether the employee is
union represented or not. That is, the percentage of longevity paid or
earned ranges from to of base salary to 5t of base salary. At present
all non-union employees can receive no more than 4s longevity pay.
Employee Example - Receives a base salary of $30,000 X
employee started working for the City on July 1, 1986.
not represented by either of the two unions represents
employees.
Non -Union longevity pay is to be paid as follows:
to after 5 years
2% after 8 years
3%r after 12 years
4% after 16 years
On July 1, 1991, the employee begins receiving a 1% loi
is calculated as follows: $30,000 X to = $300 per yeas
paychecks received each year the employees longevity p<
July 1, 1991, will be $11.54 per check.
1
year. The
The employee is
City
igevity pay. It
Based on 26
Ly, beginning
On January 1, 1992, the employee receives a 20-. salary increase in his
base salary. His new base salary, $30,000 + 20 = $30,600. Since the
longevity is based upon the employees base salary, the longevity pay
will increase. The new longevity pay, still to of base salary is
$30,600 x 1% _ $306 per year. On a bi-weekly paycheck the employees
longevity pay equals $306 divided by 26 weeks which is $11.77 per
check.
On July 1, 1994, the employee completes eight years of service with the
City. The employee now reaches the 2% longevity pay level. We will
assume, for simplicity sake, that the employee's base salary is still
$30,600. This is unlikely because eight years have passed, but for
calculation sake we will assume it to be $30,600. On July 1, 1994 the
employee's longevity pay will equal $30,600 x 2% _ $617 per year. On a
26 bi-weekly pay check the employee would now receive $612 divided by
26 which equals $23.54 per check for longevity. To calculate the total
amount of longevity pay actually received in 1994 you would take six
months longevity pay (January to June) [$306 _ 12 x 6 = $1531 and add
it to the second six months longevity pay at the new rate; $612 _ 12 x
6 = $306. Total pay for longevity in 1994 equals $153 + $306 = $461.
The payment of longevity is simply based on time employed with the
City. This benefit is part of a package of benefits reviewed annually
by the City Council and approved annually in a resolution adopted by
the Council.
Union employees longevity pay is established and set out in the Union
Contracts as approved by the Council.
3. What is a merit raise? The criteria and how are they figured?
A merit raise is an adjustment to the employee's base pay. Only non-
union employees can be granted merit increases. Merit increases are
given to an employee based upon performance of his/her responsibilities
in a manner which, in the estimation of his/her supervisor and the City
Administrator, reflects a performance deserving a merit increase.
There are no specifically defined outlined criteria for granting a
merit increase. Recommendation by a supervisor or in the case of a
department head, the City Administrator, will be the basis for a merit
increase.
In the last five years there have been
through the authority given to the City
Administration Policy and one given to
City Council in 1991.
2
five merit increases given,
Administrator by the Salary
the City Administrator by the
4. When was the last time each staff member received a review and by
whom?
All non-union employees are to be reviewed on an annualbasis by their
supervisor. We attempt to conduct performance evaluations regularly in
order to utilize the evaluation as a communication tool',between the
employee and his/her supervisor.
As employees are hired and/or promoted to a new position with the City
they are evaluated to determine whether or not they can pass a six
month probationary period and are to be retained as a niew employee or
retained in a position to which they are promoted. Based on these
performance evaluations some employees have been kept on probation for
an additional six months and remained at starting salary. In the last
4 years two full time employees were not given continuZd employment due
to continuing unsatisfactory performance evaluations.
When an employee receives his/her evaluation depends on when they were
hired. We attempt to complete evaluations on an employee's anniversary
date of hire once they complete a probationary period— The anniversary
date should be the last time an employee received an evaluation.
Supervisors are encouraged to utilize evaluations at other times
besides the anniversary date if they feel it is appropriate in
communicating issues of an employee's performance.
S. The Council has $6,000 in their budget for educational expense.
What educational courses do our elected officials attend?
The City has an "education reimbursement" program for certain
employees. This program, as set out in the Education Reimbursement
Policy and approved each year in the resolution approving the benefits
to be received by non-union employees calls for reimbursement of costs
for classes taken and successfully completed by an employee, up to a
certain level of cost. The amount budgeted for these costs are
budgeted in the City Council's line item budget.
The amount budgeted is based upon the maximum to be paid for each
employee and for those employees expecting to complete 'classes in the
upcoming year.
The classes for which an employee can receive reimbursement for must be
classes which individually or as part of a degree program can be
assumed to relate to the employees service with the City.
6. Are salaries always allocated to their respective departments? i.e.
City street snow plowing by Parks and Recreation Department
employees?
At this point in time, we do not utilize labor distribution for our
employees. By this, I mean that each employee's costs'',(salaries and
benefits) are pre -allocated to either one department or a combination
of two or more departments or funds. If an employee works for the
3
r
Parks & Recreation department, that employee's salaries and benefits
are allocated to that department even though he or she may perform work
for other departments or other funds (water, sewer, etc.). Our old
software system did not have the capabilities to handle labor
distribution and our new software system could possibly handle labor
distribution, but with our personnel restrictions, it is not a viable
option at this point. To staff's credit, we have always been able to
work together to ensure that all of the tasks that need to be completed
are done. If this has meant sharing staff with other departments, then
that is the course of action that has been taken. I do not feel that
this is a detriment to the accounting practices or the department
accountability for expenditures, but rather, a tribute to the ability
of a group of people working together to reach a common goal, that
being to provide the services to the citizens of Rosemount that they
deserve and demand.
7. Where did the money come from to revive Tiny Tots?
Two main factors were involved in the cancellation of the original
schedule of the Tiny Tot Program. They included a low registration of
participants and a drastic increase in the rental fees of the meeting
room at St. John's church.
Information was received by Parks & Recreation staff from the
representative of St. John's church that the rental fee for the meeting
room for Tiny Tots was being increased by $2,300. That amounted to an
increase of $23.40 per day of use.
A letter was sent to church officials regarding the operation of the
program. This letter did relate to the past "joint offering" as well
as the present operation solely by the City of Rosemount.
Parks & Recreation staff spoke with Pastor Hall and indicated to him
that our department did understand that they now had costs that meant
they could no longer jointly offer the program. Staff decided to look
for ways to find alternative funding to continue to offer the program
at the church until the armory opened up.
The original registration fee was $55 per participant. That was based
upon an average of 17 participants per program time slot offered. That
amount would cover all program costs as well as two supervisors.
NOTE: The average number. per program time slot registered was 10.
In an attempt to continue the program the Recreation staff did research
the use of the fire hall as an alternative site. Also, the Dakota
County HRA facility center was considered, but it was a small area and
turned out not to be available for use when checked into.
Staff presented this issue to the Parks & Recreation Committee to
obtain their support in continuing the program. Strong support was
given for staff to find ways to fund the program's additional rental
costs.
4
In an effort to revive the program staff set a program participation
fee of $65. This would cover the $2,300 increase for rental as well as
other program costs. The minimum number of participants per program
time slot was revised to an average of ten per program time slot for a
break even point.
The offering of the program at this time will be dep
number of participants registering for the program.
NOTE: The question of the use of other revenue funds
of the budget for use in the program was considered. '
registration was as low as indicated at the start of t:
support was given by the Parks & Recreation Committee
this program, consideration of these revenue accounts
given. It should be kept in mind that dollars are not
Revenue of the City in excess of the dollars allocated
program or project go back into the City reserves.
8. How is a movement in range figured? Why are they s
cases?
Movement of an employee through his/her salary range
filled is based on one of the following:
t upon the
this portion
en the
memo and . when
r subsidizing
llars was
pent at random.
o conduct a
large in some
the position
A. A hiring agreement proposed by the City at the time',of employment
and satisfactory performance
B. An agreement proposed by the City at the time of a promotion of the
employee to a new position
C. Granting of a merit increase
D. Change in the Comparable Worth Point Value of a position, which in a
sense creates a new salary range for an employee causing the
employee's present level in a range to be adjusted
The single greatest increase caused to an employee's salary is due to
hiring or promotional agreements entered into by the City.
9. The voter election judges are treated as city employees. The
referees for the Parks and Recreation department are not. Why?
The City auditors replied, "Election judges are hired.
directly on an individual basis to perform "employee -1
the City. Referees are hired by the Eagan/Rosemount U
Association, which contracts services out to cities.
hired or paid by the City on an individual basis to pe
the City. They are similar to professional services s
attorneys, plumbers, etc. that work for their own orga
company and do work at the City. Those organizations
write their pay checks and treat them as their employe
the association handles disbursements to its members i
of the City.
5
)y the City
Lke" services to
npires
[hey are not
:form work for
zch as engineers,
Azation or
ind companies
a." Also, how
not the concern
10. Is the revenue from the Parks and Recreation department a wash
with their expenses? If so, how come Tiny Tots was dropped?
Please refer to the comments made to question 'seven.
11. Why are there two merit raises for some employees, one for others
and still none for others?
In the 1993 Operating Budget there are no merit increases proposed.
The increases that are proposed fall into one or more of the following
areas:
A. 3t cost of living adjustment
B. Movement within the employee's salary range due to a previously
approved movement due to a hiring or promotion agreement
C. A proposed promotion
D. A proposed change in the employees position Comparable Worth Point
Value
E. A change in longevity
The reason why an employee is proposed to get a greater increase may be
because the employee is working through an agreed upon employment or
promotion process.
12. What type of review has been completed by our elected officials on
this budget?
The City Council has had meetings to discuss the Preliminary Operating
and Capital Improvement Budgets for 1993. The Council received the
preliminary budget on August 7, 1992 and met on August 11, 1992 for the
first time to discuss the budgets. The Council then met again on
August 25, 1992 to discuss the budgets. On September 9, 1992 the
Council adopted a resolution adopting the preliminary budgets and the
Preliminary 1993 Levy. On October 13, 1992 the Council met to discuss
wage freezes and concerns brought by a citizens group about budget
format, alleged errors in the budgeting process and procedure on how
salaries and benefits are calculated.
M
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
POLICY TITLE:
POLICY NUMBER:
PROPOSED BY:
DATE APPROVED
BY COUNCIL:
DATE AMENDED
BY COUNCIL:
TUITION REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM
PE - 1
ADMINISTRATION
FEBRUARY 9, 1989
DECEMBER 3, 1991
PURPOSE
The City of Rosemount encourages its employees to improve
their skills -.and knowledge through education. To assist
employees in attaining personal education and career goals, the
City offers the following tuition reimbursement program to
eligible employees: This program is intended for the voluntary
use of employees to encourage achievement of personal goals, and
is not intended to address employer requested or required
classes, seminars, or programs. Eligibility for the
reimbursement program shall be based on the following criteria.
I. ELIGIBILITY
I. a. Regular full-time, non-union employees and union
employees eligible through approved labor agreement,
upon successful completion of their initial
probationary period with the City, or as ',individually
agreed, shall be eligible to apply for reimbursement of
job-related educational courses under the City's
Tuition Reimbursement Program.
b. This program is voluntary, and as such all course work
shall be completed outside normal working hours.
C. In order to be considered for tuition reimbursement,
the course or degree program, must be directly related
to the employee's current job or to a position to which
the employee could be directly promoted within the
City.
d. Tuition reimbursement shall be considered only for
course work taken at recognized accredited colleges,
vocational schools, or approved adult educational
programs.
e. Tuition Reimbursement forms are available from the
Personnel Office.
II. APPROVAL
II. a. In order to be eligible for tuition reimbursement, all
requests for course work or a degree program must
receive prior approval from the employee's department
head and the city administrator.
III. REIMBURSEMENT
III. a. Upon successful completion of a pre -approved
educational course, the City shall reimburse the
employee for 100 percent of the course tuition and
other associated fees, necessary textbooks, and
materials. Expenses for which the employee could be
compensated through other educational incentive
programs such as the GI Bill will not be covered. The
City will pay 100 percent of all costs of taking a
class not to exceed $750 a year for classes approved by
Administration and successfully completed. The City
will also pay 50 percent of costs above the initial
$750 for classes approved by Administration and
successfully completed.
b. Successful completion of the course shall be
considered:
1. A letter grade of "C" or better, or;
2. A numerical grade of 1170" or better, or;
3. A pass in a Pass/No Pass System, or;
4. A certificate from the instructor indicating
satisfactory completion of the course if grades
are not issued.
C. Financial reimbursement will be granted after the
following conditions have been met:
1. The employee has received prior approval under the
Tuition Reimbursement Program.
2. The employee has completed the course and
submitted proof of successful completion of the
course to their department head.
3. The employee has submitted proof of payment for
the course to their department head.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
POLICY TITLE:
POLICY NUMBER:
SALARY ADJUSTMENT POLICY - NON-UNION
PE - 3
PROPOSED BY: ADMINISTRATION
DATE APPROVED BY COUNCIL: DECEMBER 5, 1989
PURPOSE
The City of Rosemount values its employees and finds it
maintain a credible method by which employees can expect
maintain salary levels within the city's salary structui
will determine a consistent method by which an employee
and how an employee's salary may be adjusted from time 1
the employee to advance within the salary range for the
employee holds.
EMPLOYEES
necessary to
to gain and
.,e. This policy
s salary is set
;o time allowing
position the
I. The City Council of Rosemount has established a certain salary
compensation schedule which is updated on an annual basis to
reflect changes in position requirements and compensation value
for those positions. (The current schedule is attached for
reference to this policy.)
Ii. Employees may be hired anywhere within the salar a for the
Y Yran g
position they will fill at the discretion of the City Council
based upon recommendation by city administration.'
III. Salary adjustments can be made based on two criteria: (1) annual
cost of living adjustments, or other factors such'as comparable
worth which affect the salary range the employee is in; and (2)
adjustments to the specific employee's salary due''to movement
within the range.
IV. It is envisioned that the middle of the salary range will
maintain an "average" salary for positions for cities the size of
Rosemount and for positions with similar duties and
responsibilities. In order for an._employee to reach that
"average", he/she should exhibit "at least" average experience
and capabilities.' It is further assumed that to qualify in
meeting the experience factor, an employee should have at least
one year in -the position currently assigned. Movement through
the salary range will also be determined by satisfactory
performance evaluations completed by the employee's supervisor.
V. Movement of employees to salary levels along the range to points
not specifically coinciding with mid and top points is
satisfactory and will be determined by the employee's supervisor
and the approval of the city administrator under ]budgeting
t
SALARY ADJUSTMENT POLICY - NON-UNION EMPLOYEES
PE - 3
Page 2
guidelines determined and approved by City Council.
VI. Unsatisfactory performance evaluation by the employee's
supervisor will be the basis for holding an employee back from
potential movement in the salary schedule and/or annual
adjustments to the position's salary range.
1989
-Mm.
fnr
ANAL
1990
A Rmg--
B Fbnge
C zmrft
SB TFM PIS PJUE
:118 :52,840
54-5160
47114.94
49,595
57204.92
52205.92
54,954
57701.28
57702.26
60,587
63616.76
PWEEV G :105 :45,560
47382.40
40223.58
42,762
45012.28
45013.2E
47,382
49751.52
45152.52
52,240
54852.15
CT.244 iM EER :1001 :44,683
46470.32
39641.59
41,939
44145.80
44146.80
46,470
48793.84
48794.84
51,235
53796.31
PC[ CIIF :101 :43,805
45557.20
39058.70
41,114
43278.34
43279.34
45,557
47835.06
47836.06
50,228
-2739.26
:100 :43,365
45100.64
38067.26
40,702
42944.61
42545.61
45,101
47355.67
47356.67
49,725
52210.73
P & R aR : 99 :42,875
44590.00
38229.45
40,242
42359.50
42360.50
44,590
46819.50
46820.50
49,162
51619.60
NA241EK FFM : 94 :37,296
38881.08
3934.76
35,089
306936.03
36937.03
38,881
40825.13
40826.13
42,867
45710.81
MM UF=L : 94 :37,296
38881.08
33334.76
35,089
36936.03
36937.03
38,881
4083.13
40826.13
42,867
45010.81
P= IT : 94 :37,296
38881.08
33334.76
35,089
36936.03
36937.03
38,861
40825.13
40826.13
42,867
45010.81
CIS alVAAAM: 88 :33,500
34923.75
29941.85
31,518
33176.56
33177.56
34,924
36669.94
36670.94
38,504
40429.71
DEp. Firu Ear.: 88 :33,500
34923.75
29941.85
31,518
33176.56
33177.56
34,924
36569.94
36670.94
38,504
40429.71
p2amw : 85 :32,318
33691.51
28885.36
30,406
32005.94
32006.94
33,692
35376.09
35377.09
37,146
39003.24
ASST. rm rmL: 8D :30,218
31502.26
27008.35
28,430
29926.15
29927.15
31,502
33077.38
33078.38
34,732
36468.91
R= Sar : 78 :35,545
37055.66
31769.70
33,442
35201.88
35202.88
37,056
38908.45
38909.45
40,855
42897.65
ASST XXM : 75 :28,301
29503.79
25294.99
26,625
28027.60
28028.60
241504
30978.98•
30979.98
32,529
34155.43
NM Il3 = : 75 :28,3D1
29503.79
25294.91
26,626
28027.60
28028.625
29,504
30978.98
30979.98
32,529
34155.43
CD CCK 75 :25,301
29303.79
25294.91
26,625
28021.60
28028.60
29,504
30978.98
30979.98
32,529
34155.43
B rL Dw.Sh • T :28,3D1
29503.79
25294.91
26,626
29027.60
28028.60
29,504
30978.98
30979.98
32,529
34155.43
AL Ast.-aLm 71 :27,105
28256.96
24225.91
25,501
26843.11
26844.11
28,251
29669.81
29670.81
31,154
32712.07
Rmamll : e :28,961
30213.74
25903.60
27,267
28'101.2.05
28703.05
30,214
31724.42
31725.42
33,312
34.977.28
1 gC5 : 65 :26,063
27170.68
23294.56
24,521
25811.14
25812.14
27,171
28529.21
2890.21
29,957
31454.56
>'M SEM : 60 :23,978
24997.06
21430.96
22,559
23746.21
23747.21
24,997
26246.92
25247.92
27,560
28938.33
SKY/1W/ZN : 6D :23,978
24997.06
21430.96
72,559
23746.21
23747.21
24,997
25246.92
26247.92
27,560
2MB.33
M : 57 :26,489
27425.00
23512.61
24,750
26052.75
26053.75
27,425
26796.25
28797.25
30,237
31748.57
.26,489 ___
-WMV = : -57 •
-- 274.80 _
- -235I-2.61
24,7 _26052.75
__
__ 26853.75__
27,E
28`196.25
25/97.25
30,237
.31748.x!
RUG MV : 53 :2D,588
21462.99
18400.93
19,359
20388.84
20389.34
21,463
X2536.14
71537.14
23,664
24847.2
Pal Sa:y : 53 :20,58B
21462.99
18400.93
19,369
20388.84
20389.84
21,463
2296.14
22537.14
23,664
24847.20
ASSI' EEP 1M : 53 :20,588
21462.99
18400.93
19,.358
20388.84
20389.84
21,463
22536.14
22537.14
23,664
24847.20
MOW= 31 : 53 :25,314
26208.00
22469.18
23,652
24896.60
24897.60
26,208
27518.40
27519.40
28,895
30340.14
MW II : 53 :25,314
2=8.00
22469.18
23,652
24896.60
24897.60
26,208
27518.40
21519.40
28,895
30340.14
N1:" -N= I : 51 :17,825
18544.00
15898.26
16,735
17615.80
17616.80
18,544
19471.20
19472.20
20,446
21458.10
mkw I : 51 :17,825
16544.00
15898.25
16,735
17615.83
17616.80
18,544
19471.20
19472.20
20,446
21468.10
1MJ 5E : 50 :19,681
205517.44
17590.24
18,516
19490.7
19491.57
20,517
21343.31
21544.31
22,622
ZTISL61
Pt1Q= SM. 50 :19,631
20517.44
17590.24
18,516
19490.57
19491.57
20,517
21543.31
21544.31
22,622
23752.61
19307mils". : 46 :18,571
19360.27
16598.11
17,472
19391.25
18392.25
19,36D
20328.28
20329.28
Zt,346
22413.03
xumbt : 46 :18,571
19360.27
1698.11
17,472
18391.25
18392.25
19,360
20328.28
20329.28
21,346
22413.03
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
POLICY TITLE: PROCEDURE FOR PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHANGES
POLICY NUMBER: PE - 4
PROPOSED BY: ADMINISTRATION
DATE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL: JULY 17, 1990
PURPOSE
This procedure will provide an efficient and consistent method
for making adjustments to all city employees' payroll records
with regards to salary and benefit changes.
These changes will be initiated and approved according to the
following documents in effect at the time of a change: Salary
Adjustment Policy for Non -Union Employees, Salary Compensation
Schedule for Non -Union Employees, Resolution Outlining Non -Union
Full -Time Staff Salary and Benefits, Labor Agreement between the
City of Rosemount and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. and
Labor Agreement between the City of Rosemount and Minnesota
Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No.
320.
I. The City Clerk will keep up-to-date and accurate payroll
records for all city employees.
A. Records will include:
(1) Present salary of employee and when scheduled
.,:salary increases should occur.
(2) Anniversary dates of employees/years of service.
(3) Vacation rates and when changes in earned rates
will occur depending upon employee's anniversary
date and the above -referenced documents.
(4) Vacation maximum accrual amounts and when maximum
amounts would change based upon employee's
anniversary date and the above -referenced
documents.
(5) Longevity percentage rates and when salary
adjustments would occur based upon employee's
anniversary date and the above -referenced
documents.
Procedure for Payroll and Benefit Changes
Policy Number PE - 4
Page 2
B. Salary increases will be effective for the '',pay period
within which employee's anniversary date occurs. For
example, when employee's anniversary date falls in the
middle of a two-week pay period, all salary increases
will be effective for the entire pay period. This also
includes salary increases because of longevity rate
changes.
C. Vacation rate increases occur the second pay period of
the month. If the employee's anniversary date occurs
after the second pay period, the vacation rate change
will occur the second pay period of the following month.FAI
D. Vacation accrual maximums will be changed on the
employee's anniversary date.
II.
The City Clerk will initiate a Payroll/Benefit',Change Form
for all new full-time,and part-time employees.'
III.
The City Clerk and Department Meads or Supervisors will meet
prior to the new employee start date to insure that the
Payroll Department has the appropriate salary and benefit
information for all new employees in a timely manner.
IV.
The City Clerk will initiate any changes in payroll status
of all employees. This will consist of the following
changes:
A. Salary changes
B. Longevity changes
C. Vacation Rates
D. Vacation accrual maximum amount
V.
The City Clerk will fill out the Payroll/Benefit Change Form
one month in advance of any scheduled change and forward to
employee's department head for review. Department head will
sign and date form authorizing change. If e;nployee is a
department head, form will be forwarded to the Administrator
for review and signature.
VI.
Department head, after signing form, will forward to City
Administrator for approval.
VII.
City Administrator, after signing form, will forward to City
Clerk. City Clerk will copy form to employee and forward
the original form to payroll department.
VIII.
Procedure will be conducted in a timely manner so the
payroll department has the change form two weeks prior to
effective date of change.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1991 - 78
A RESOLUTION OUTLINING NON-UNION FULL TIME
STAFF SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR 1992
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount''has reviewed
certain salary and benefit adjustments for the none -union full-
time city staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Administrator has provided supporting
information as to recommending salary and benefits adjustments
for 1992; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed a proposed policy for
implementing annual adjustments and employment step adjustments
in 1992 and beyond (this policy is attached as Exhibit "A") along
with implementing other benefit changes as proposed by city
administration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount, feels it is
appropriate to institute such recommended changes.',
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the salary ran
set for all non-union positions as set out in Exh
resolution, which salary schedule will be impleme
in the Salary Adjustment Policy (Exhibit "A" to t
and that the following benefit schedule be adopte
union city staff and will become effective Januar
A. Holidays
1.
New Years Day
7.
Columbus D
2.
Martin Luther King Day
8.
Veterans D
3.
Presidents Day
9.
Thanksgivi
4.
Memorial Day
10.
Friday fol
5.
Independence Day
Thanksgivi
6.
Labor Day
11.
Christmas
s are to be
it "B" to this
ed as set out
s resolution),
for all non -
1, 1992:
y
g Day
owing
g
ay
B. Vacation: Vacation shall be earned by non-union full-time
staff monthly per the following schedule, beginning January 1,
1992:
1st year of employment .67 day/m
2nd thru 3rd yr of employment 1 day/mo
4th thru 10th year of employment 1 , days/
11th thru 15th yr of employment 1 3/4 day
16 and above yrs of employment 2 days/mo
(8
days)
(12
days)
no (18
days)
r,/mo (21
days)
(24
days)
Resolution 1991 - 78
Page 3
G. Lonccevity: After
5
years
of
service,
1%
of
base
After
8
years
of
service,
2%
of
base
After
12
years
of
service,
3%
of
base
After
16
years
of
service,
4%
of
base
H. Health Insurance: Cost of Basic Plan (1st dollar) - 100% of
employees coverage - 65% of the difference between single
employee coverage and the total family coverage. The cost
difference between the basic (1st dollar) plan and any optional
plans available to employees, will be paid by the employee.
I. Life Insurance: The city will pay the cost of:
1. $10,000 Term Life Insurance (Minnesota Mutual Life)
2. Declining value PERA Life Insurance Plan
Any additional life insurance costs for optional plans
available to the employee will be born by the employee.
J. Dental Insurance: The city will pay the cost of single
coverage through a plan approved by the city (1992 cost of $18.20
through Delta Dental Plan). Employee pays any additional cost
for employee or dependents.
G. Education Reimbursement: The City will pay 100% of all
costs of taking a class not to exceed $750 a year for classes
approved by Administration and successfully completed. The City
will also pay 500 of costs above the initial $750 for classes
approved by Administration and successfully completed.
Adopted this 3rd day of December, 1991.
ATTEST: \
i
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by:
Napper
Ve n J Na er, Mayor
Seconded by: Klassen
Voted in favor: Willcox, Wippermann, Napper, Klassen Oxborough
Voted against: None
• EXHIBIT "A"
, CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
POLICY TITLE: SALARY ADJUSTMENT POLICY - NON-UNIOiN EMPLOYEES
POLICY NUMBER: PE - 3
PROPOSED BY: ADMINISTRATION
i.
DATE APPROVED BY COUNCIL: DECEMBER 5, 1989
The City of Rosemount values its employees and finds it necessary to
maintain a credible method by which employees can expect to gain and
maintain salary levels within the city's salary structure. This -policy
will determine a consistent method by which an employee's salary is set
and how an employee's salary may be adjusted from time to time allowing
the employee to advance within the salary range for the position the
employee holds.
I. The City Council of Rosemount has established a certain salary
compensation schedule which is updated on an annual basis to
reflect changes in position requirements and compensation value
for those positions. (The current schedule is attached for
reference to this policy.)
II. Employees may be hired anywhere within the salary range for the
position they will fill at the discretion of the City Council
based upon recommendation by city administration.
III. Salary adjustments can be made based on two criteria: (1) annual
cost of living adjustments, or other factors such as comparable
worth which affect the salary range the employee is in; and (2)
adjustments to the specific employee's salary due to movement
within the range.
IV. It is envisioned that the middle of the salary Lange will
maintain an "average" salary for positions for cities the size of
Rosemount and-ior positions with similar`duties'and
responsibilities. In order for an employee to reach that
"average", he/she should exhibit "at least" average experience
and capabilities. It is further assumed that to qualify in
meeting the experience factor, an employee should have at least
one year in -the position currently assigned. Movement through
the salary range will also be determined by satisfactory
performance evaluations completed by the employee's supervisor.
V. Movement. of employees to salary levels ?long the range to points
not specifically coinciding with mid and top points is
satisfactory and will be determined by the employee's supervisor
and the approval of the city administrator under budgeting
EXHIBIT "A"
SALARY ADJUSTMENT POLICY - NON-UNION EMPLOYEES
PE - 3
Page 2
guidelines determined and approved by City Council.
VI. Unsatisfactory performance evaluation by the employee's
supervisor will be the basis for holding an employee back from
potential movement in the salary schedule and/or annual
adjustments to the position's salary range.
bo
1991
adjust
NIIIPr.
fccr
PRIM
1992
A
}brrp
B RxW
C ra'-
JCB TME PIS ME
1.0400
1.0400
_ :118 : 57,289
59580,70
51082.10
53,771 56600.66
56601.66
59,581 62559.73
62560.73
65,689 68973.20
A.B. Yds mz- :102 : 47,969
49887.29
42771.21
45,022 47391.93
47392.93
49,887 52381.66
52382.66
55,002 57751.88
=CE CHIEF :101 : 47,493
49392.80
42347.25
44,576 46922.16
46923.16
49,393 51862.44
51863.44
54,457 57179.45
F RU3 MR. :100 : 47,017
48898.12
41923.12
44,130 46452.21
46453.21
48,896 51343.02
51344.02
53,911 56606.78
P MG EIIR : 99 : 46,485
48344.48
41448.45
43,630 45926.26
45927.26
48,344 50761.71
50762.71
53,301 55965.88
P & R DIl2 : 99 : 46,485
48344.48
41448.45
43,630 45926.26
45927.26
48,344 50761.71
50762.71
53,301 55965.88
ASST C[Y PEM: 94 : 40,631
42255.96
36228.30
38,135 40142.16
40143.16
42,256 44368.76
44369.76
46,588 48917.66
N%IN/PK KIN : 94 : 40,631
42255.96
36228.30
38,135 40142.16
40143.16
42,256 44368.76
44369.76
46,588 48917.66
EDG CEFKDL : 94 : 40,631
42255.96
36228.30
38,135 40142.16
40143.16
42,256 44368.76
44369.76
46,588 48917.66
FMCS IT : 94 : 40,631
42255.96
36228.30
38,135 40142.16
40143.16
42,256 44368.76
44369.76
461588 48917.66
CTY C WPD.ASS: 88 : 36,495
37955.13
32540.88
34,254 36056.38
36057.38
37,955 39852.89
39853.89
41,847 43938.91
ASST FIN EgR : 88 : 36,495
37955.13
32540.88
34,254 36056.38
36057.38
37,955 39852.89
39853.89
41,847 43938.91
PIRIZZ : 85 : 35,206
36615.94
31392.68
33,045 34784.14
34785.14
36,616 38446.73
38447.73
40,370 42388.62
ASST. PSR DER.: 80 : 32,920
34236.65
29352.75
30,898 32523.82
32524.82
34,237 35948.49
35949.49
37,747 39634.31
SLICE Sfi : 78 : 38,723
40272.09
34527.38
36,345 38257.48
38258.48
40,272 42285.69
47186.69
44,401 46621.08
ASST PLWM : 75 : 30,831
32064.72
27490.59
28,937 30460.48
30461.48
32,065 33667.95
33668.95
35,352 37120.02
Bf-DG DEE= : 75 : 30,831
32064.72
27490.59
28,937 30460.48
30461.48
32,065 33667.95
33668.95
35,352 37120.02
LEP. C[Y. : 75 : 30,831
32064.72
27490.59
28,937 30460.48
30461.48
32,065 33667.95
33668.95
35,352 37120.02
BlN ►EU SP : 75 : 30,831
32064.72
27490.59
28,937 30460.48
30461.48
32,065 33667.95
33668.95
35,352 37120.02
PLM ASST-KUE: 71 : 29,529
30709.66
26328.79
27,715 29173.18
29174.18
30,710 32245.14
32246.14
33,858 35551.37
EM T3 --H : 65 : 28,393
29529.09
25316.60
26,649 28051.64
28052.64
29,529 31005.55
31006.55
32,557.34184.72
A : 60 : 26,122
27166.81
23291.24
24,517 25807.47
25806.47
271167 28525.15
28526.15
29,952 31450.08
SECY/W/ZEN : 60 : 26,122
27166.81
23291.24
24,517 25807.47
25808.47
27,167 28525.15
28526.15
29,952 31450.08
Er,CG DJ[R/j?UZ: 53 : 22,42923325.97
19998.20
21,051 22158.67
22159.67
23,326 24492.27
24493.27
25,718 27003.83
PCLICE 5 s-53 : 22,429 _
23325.97
- 19998.20
21,051 22158.67 --
-_-__- 22159.67_-
231325-24492.27
-24493.27
250,718-27003.83
LESS 1M : 53.: 22,429
23325.97
19998.20
21,051 22158.67
22159.67
23,326 24492.27
24493.27
25,718 27003.83
PIMIIQ MY : 50 : 21,441
22298.35
19117.14
20,123 21182.43
21183.43
22,296 X23413.27
23414.27
24,585 25814.23
PIW-/� SKY: 50 : 21,441
22298.35
19117.14
20,123 21182.43
21183.43
22,298 23413.27
23414.27
24,585 25814.23
1'r : 46 : 20,231
21040.74
18038.90
18,988 19967.70
19968.70
21,041 22092.78
22093.78
23,198 24358.39
JPNffM : 46 : 20,231
21040.74
18038.90
18,988 19987.70
19988.70
21,041 22092.78
22093.78
23,196 24358.39
Oct. 18, 1992
To: City Council and Steve Jilk
From: Harry Willcox
Subject: Oct. 27, 1992 Salary Meeting
My intent in requesting this meeting is to dis
to arrive at salaries and also impose a wage fr
to bring our salaries from approx. 67% of budg
budget or less. This would allow us a more re
and manageable budget. My intent was not to
time discussing the Stanton Report, other
historical data. These are the exact things th
to this point, because they are not eas
understandable. Therefore I am proposing the fo
1. A single lane salary approach with a b
top salary- conforming to comparable worth.
2. A time line o+ 5 to 7 years to reach th
3. A precise procedure on how the employe
merit raise. There must be an educational com
this because of the changing complexity of gove
4. A form developed for reviews that
employee what is expected of them and asks fo
feedback on how we can improve their working
must be shared with the council so that the c
the policies as needed to improve working condi
5. Those at the top of the range would
increase with a cap, based on their contrib
whether it be increased productivity, educati
that result in cost savings to the city. Con
should be a minimum requirement for a merit inc
6. We need to take a hard look at the sa1a
that they are equitable in our mind with the �
and also what is the case in private industry.
tome +or the year�a_.ahead, with the State and
deficits in mind�
7° Eliminate Longevity as this is just
increase without respect to # 5 above.
B. Eliminate Car Allowance as this is a
that the city can no longer afford.
9. At the least before the council consi
Steve Ji1k° we should at least review his perf
not been done since. July 1990.
10. A plan to bring our % of wages to tota
respectable 60% or less and address the �
thousand residents and its impact on the 60%
mind that 4.1 employees per thousand residents
is in most cities that have a 60% or less ratic
budget
:uss a simp.ler way
?eze in an attempt
?t down to 60% of
klistic, efficient
»pend much if any
:ities, format or
.�t have brought us
,ly readable and
.lowing.-
tom,
1owing:
tom, middle and
top.
would receive a
onent a part of
nment.
pe11s out to the
their goals and
conditions. This
uncil can change
`ons.
receive a merit
tion to the City
n or suggestions
inuing education
ease.
ies and make sure
bs they are doing
e need to set the
edera1 government
another form of
erk and a luxury
ers a raise for
rmance, which has
1 budget d t
ge own o a
.8 employees per
goal. Kleeping in
is what the ratio
of wages to total
If time permits I think the following items should be addressed
as follows:
t. The council should receive monthly a status report on the
financial balances in all accounts. This has not happened since
October of 1990. In July 1990 I furnished Steve with a simpler
document that would be easy and readable. This document is used
by many city and county governments so that they know where each
department is with respect to their budgets. % have yet to see it
implemented. '
2. Individual budgets for each department which would
include everything consumed by their respective departments,
revenue generated and each departments share of building space,
heat, light, water and administrative expense. This should not be
difficult in view of the recent computer software we have
purchased, which is quite sophisticated and allows for this.
If we are able to achieve the above goals I believe that we wil.1
have a document that will be easily understood by all,concerned
and we will have the credibility and support of the citizens that
elected us.
R
Harry R. W1l�cx `
BEST PRACTICE 'COMPANY,
LABOR RELATION
Corning
WHAT GOES INTO WORLD-CLASS LABOR
relations? For companies, anything that
will lead to raising productivity. For
workers in a time of intense global com-
petition, almost anything that improves
job security, let alone pay and benefits.
And above all, honest communications between management
and labor about goals and how to implement them.
All cf these have become the norm at Corning, in Corn-
ing. N.Y., where the $3.3 billion -in -sales manufacturer has
long been the dominant employer. While the company has
i always treated its workers comparatively well, much of its
behavior could best be characterized as enlightened pater-
nalism, with the founding
Houghton clan setting the
rules. But in the early
1980s, newly appointed
CEO James R. Houghton
embarked on a new
strategy emphasizing what
he termed "total quality.'
' The objective was to help
Corning meet rising com-
petition from abroad. With
the redesign of work pro-
cesses playing a key role,
(( management began a
<<
systematic effort to bring
the company's workers in- r n:
to the decision-making
i process. l
The results in terms of
material yield
on-time
j delivery, cost per unit and
j defective parts per million
.:!
� have been impressive. At
an Erwin, N.Y., plant that k
makes molten -metal filters
for catalytic converters, for example, defects are down
38% on a line redesigned a year ago. Defects on plant lines
that have yet to be retrofitted are twice as high as on the
redesigned line.
Such improvements haven't gone unnoticed by Coming's
competition. Corning has been benchmarked by the likes of
Anchor Glass Container and Owens-Illinois.
At all but the newest of Coming's 20 -plus U.S. plants, teams
composed of both management and workers plan and imple-
ment the redesign of factory processes. Employees then work
together in "high performance" teams rather than in isolation
along assembly lines, with the teams deciding which employees
perform which tasks. Once trained to perform one job, workers
are now encouraged to become
expert in many..
46
In return for giving a
management asks thei
the results. The incent
new skills and meet q
The promise of p%
agreement to such chat
be eligible for bonuses
the company as well as
Coming's approach t
January 1989 agreemer
gest union, the Americ
agreement, dubbed "A I
mits Corning managema
this business and do what i
the premise that nobody go
existing people."
Not surprisingly, the unit
may reflect the economy's
security became No. 1 se,
Bankowski, president of tt
Still, Bankowski says few a
proach. Elsewhere, he says,
when jobs are eliminated,
take as long as six to eight i
But such disputes don't anis
approach, according to Bar
progressive," he notes.
risers more control over their work,
to take on more responsibility for
e: pay increases as workers master
dity and efficiency goals.
-sharing has helped secure union
es. Next year union employees will
ised on the overall performance of
n that of their teams and factories.
labor relations is spelled out in a
between management and its big -
i Flint Glass Workers Union. That
rtnership in the Workplace, com-
t to the goal of job security as tasks
are consolidated as a result
of plant redesign.
In redesigning processes
at the Erwin plant, for in-
stance, Corning shifted
workers to a new plant
nearby, yielding$450,000in
savings without any
layoffs.
Gary K: Emmick, Corn-
ing vice president for
employee relations, says
the workers response has
been more than encourag-
ing. Emmick notes that the
company chose to staff its
new "factory of the future"
in Blacksburg, Va., with
AFGWU workers even
though Corning could have
gone nonunion there.
"We've had a long and
Productive relationship
with the union; he explains.
"Our goal is to compete in
takes to win. But we start with
is fired—that we don't get rid of
is pleased, although its attitude
npact on labor's priorities. 'Job
:ral years ago," says Lawrence
Toledo, Ohio-based AFGWU.
npanies can rival Coming's ap-
1e union usually files grievances
id the arbitration process can
onths to resolve the situation.
under Coming's "partnership"
owski. "The company is very
Ronald Fink
FW SEPTEMBER 29, 1992
Every workday the federal government is
involved in sonze Fve million transactions
worth around $10 billion in the aggre-
gate—about the same amount of business
it takes a company like General Dynamics
an entire year to generate.
Managing all that money efficicn`l is
a superhuman task, and reformers have
been carpingabout waste in Washington,
D.C., forge nerations. But with the many
recent advances in computerization, it is
now possible to generate the information
needed to apply modern management
methods.
To avoid wasting tens of billions of
dollars, Washington can now employ the
financial controls, strategic planning
tools, human resource management and
evaluation and review techniques used by
private -sector firms.
36
How well has the U.S. government
taken advantage of this opportunity to
manage its affairs more effectively In the
Pages that follow, FW takes a close look
at the management systems at 10 of the
largest federal departments and agencies.
In five cases, we examine the enormous
departments in their entirety: Energp,
Education, Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Veterans Af-
fairs. Because the Department of Health
and Human Services is so vast—it ac-
counts for about a quarter of the federal
budget— we look separately at its two ma-
jor subsidiaries: Social Security and the
Health Care Financing Administration,
which oversees the Medicare and
Medicaid programs. The final three agen-
cies we examine are the largest components
of executive branch departments that run
like holding companies: TT' look at the
IRS in Tre.;:ury, the Employment and
Training Administration in Labor, and
the Food and Nutrition Service in
Agriculture.
We have given each of these entities a
grade for its management, judging how
e�cientlyandski llfullvthe agencyfulfills
its mission. We eorzider not only the
actual delivery of services, but also un-
derlying systems such as financial man-
agement and reporting, information
management, oversight, and performance
measurement and evaluation.
Our grades reflect not only the work of
current administrators, but also Con-
gress, past leaders, the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, and a variety of others.
We begin with an open letter to the next
President of the United States.
R4 OCTOBER 27, 1992
aw
®i
First of all, congratulations. And good luck.
We write to offer you suggestions not about where you
should spend the nation's tax dollars, but rather on how your
government can more efficiently and effectively deliver the
services to which it's already committed.
While much progress has been made in the 10 departments
and agencies we looked at, we believe the federal govern-
ment has a long way to go in setting up management systems
that are on a par with the average major U.S. corporation.
The Guaranteed Student Loan System, for example, suf-
fers a default rate that would put any bank out of business
in a month. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has had such inade-
quate financial systems that bookkeeping errors have run as
high as $95 million a year. The Federal Aviation Administra-
tion's computer systems are sometimes antiquated by the
time they get on line. The inspector general of the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reports
numbing problems at a number of the nations public housing
agencies: "Our audits have found that properties are
deteriorating, vacancies are increasing, operating expen-
FW OCTOBER 27, 1992
J
e
ditures are unchecked, rents are uncollected and administra-
tive and financial practices and controls are inadequate."
Meanwhile, the political appointees who run these great
enterprises tend to leave office just when they have figured
out how to get anything accomplished. This rapid turnover
takes place even when the same Administration stays in office.
Talk to seasoned observers of the federal government and
you will hear the same complaint: "Executives in the federal
government have to deal with a changing constellation of
bosses every year and a half or two years," says Chris Wye
of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA).
"It's a major problem "
"With every new administrator, the plans of the last one
are scrapped," says Paul Adams, retired inspector general
for HUD. "Typically, the problem is that the incoming ad-
ministrator is new to the department. They don't realize the
organizational and structural problems. They come in with
their own agenda. They're concerned about getting programs
in place and operational. By the time they realize the extent
of the organizational problems, they're in the twilight of their
17
A N 0 P E N
term. Then someone else comes in and starts the cycle over."
We believe the management problems that riddle your
government can easily stop you from eve: achieving your
goals—whatever they are. While you may get all sorts of new
initiatives launched, actually producing results from those
initiatives may prove more difficult.
We know our criticisms are not new. Ever since the first
national budget was presented to Congress in the early 1920x,
a series of commissions has looked at reforming government.
But our message is that the'tools are now available to ac-
complish the job, daunting as it is.
And the need has never been greater. With the average
American spending around 30% of his earnings on federal
taxes, there is among the voting public considerable anger
and resentment at the status quo in Washington.
This worries experienced
government hands like Ed-
ward Mazur, the newly ap-
pointed controller of the Of-
fice of Federal Financial
Management in the Office of
Management and Budget
(OMB). Mazur used to be
finance director for Virginia,
which FW determined to be
the best -managed state in the
country (FW, May 12). Says
he: "People are disenchanted
at all levels about the federal
government. There's a lot
about the way the federal
government works that
doesn't make common sense.
It may make political sense.
But it doesn't make common
sense."
"The average citizen has
lost confidence in his government, adds Senator Bill Roth
of Delaware, the ranking Republican on the Senate Govern-
mental Affairs Committee. "One study I've seen indicated
that the public believes that 48C out of every dollar spent
by the federal government is wasted:'
Unfortunately, Congress rarely seems interested in bet-
ter ways to manage the federal government. As John Kamen -
sky, assistant director of federal management issues at the
General Accounting Office (GAO), told us, "Getting Congress
interested in management issues is like watching mud dry.
It takes a lot of patience and perseverance."
Both congressmen and cabinet members find it much more
interesting to develop new programs than to implement the
old ones. "It's very hard to convince the policymakers—
Congress, cabinet officials, whomever—that financial manage-
ment is critical; says Frank Hodsoll, the man directly in charge
of the M in OMB, as deputy director for management of that
agency. "The promotion prospects at the average agency are
not based on financial management. They're based on issues.
When a person says, 'I got three laws enacted to do such
and so: everybody says'Hurrah: But nobody pays much at-
tention to seeing if the laws actually worked."
He's right, Mr. President. Who is going to vote for a con-
gressman, senator or President on the "Better Accounting
L E T T E R
in Government" platform? "Do you see any candidates talk-
ing about management problems?" asks Richard Kusserow;
the recently retired inspector general of the Department
of Health and Human Services and for five years a member
of the President's Council of Management Improvement.
"No! They're talking about health-care reform. It's the big
policy question. But it's linked to management. How effec-
tive a program is depends on how effectively it's ad-
ministered:'
The huge budget deficit, which you might have thought would
encourage better management, actually seems to have worked
against it.. "Economists dominate the system today because
of the pressure of the deficit; says Ron Moe, specialist in
American national government at the Congressional Research
Service. "But economists think in short term while managers
think in long term. A manager
who goes in with a good idea
that costs a small amount with
long-term benefits is not go-
ing to get a hearing."
As a result, Mr. President,
the portions of programs that
are cut are often those which,
in the long term, would make
for cheaper, more efficient
government.
Here's how NAPAs Wye
puts it: "In the Eighties,
government cut all the an-
cWary functions to programs,
like information systems,
coordination, policy analysis.
The problem is, you're chop-
ping the brain off the body.
Of course, the body can walk
so far until it has to change
direction. Then you notice
that it doesn't have a brain anymore '
An example of brainlessness: An exceedingly lean ad-
ministrative budget has forced the Social Security Administra-
tion to cut back sharply reviews of its $26.9 billion disability
rolls. Of the approximately 350,000 cases that will come due
for review this year, only 70,000 will be examined. Yet the
National Council of Social Security Management Associations
has estimated that for every additional dollar the agency
spends on such continuing reviews, it could save $7 in pro-
gram costs.
This is not to say government agencies have made no prog
ress in improving management systems recently, Mr. Presi-
dent. In fact, we were somewhat surprised to discover a
number of steps taken to identify and even correct manage-
ment problems. These efforts need and deserve your active
support:
- There is now a section in the budget produced by the
OMB that spells out high-risk conditions at agencies—financial
and/or program problems that involve major dollars or have
major effects on the recipients. The National Weather Ser-
vice, for instance, is criticized for "systems, procurement and
management problems [that] impair the ability ... to acquire
major systems, particularly for the Weather Service's
modernization"
"People are disenchanted at all levels."
38
FW WrOBER 27, 1992
C
t
A N U Y E N
• The inspectors general of the various agencies also churn
out powerful material about management flaws. While their
reports don't always result in corrective action, at least the
information is there. The inspector general's report on the
Department of Energy, for instance, spells out problems in
an Ohio facility that produces and experiments in explosives.
The facility has virtually no procedures for overseeing payroll,
so, according to the IG, there is no way to "assure ... that
its $59 million annualized payroll costs are processed accurate-
ly. Also, fraud, waste and abuse of DOE funds could go
undetected?'
• The GAO continues to produce an impressive flow of
reports outlining problems both large and small. Few people
in government understand the intricate workings of the agen-
cies better than the GAO staff members. They hit on every-
thing from the foolishness of
permitting the Smithsonian
Institution and the Library of
Congress to bid against each
other for historic artifacts to
the notorious check -writing
practices at the House bank.
The Federal Managers
Financial Integrity Act re-
quires the agencies them-
selves to identify all areas of
systems weakness and finan-
cial control weakness in a
yearly report. Although this
requirement has been around
since the early 1980s, only in
the last couple of years has
OMB focused attention to in-
sure that political leaders and
civil servants actually use this
important management tool.
Even so, the "material
weaknesses" identified have often been uncovered by other
entities, such as the GAO or the respective inspectors general.
At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for
example, only three of 313 material weaknesses identified
were discovered by management itself. But at least FMFIA
forces the agencies to acknowledge their problems, set a
timetable for solving them and admit whether or not they've
actually made progress.
• Perhaps most important, the Chief Financial Officers
Act—now two years old—requires a number of major agen-
cies to appoint a chief financial officer and put into place
businesslike financial controls, such as annual audited finan-
cial statements for certain significant operations. It also sets
up a pilot program for a handful of agencies to develop a truly
comprehensive annual -report -style statement. In addition,
it requires that agencies annually develop five-year financial
management plans, including means for developing perfor-
mance measurements. "The CFO Act is one of the best pieces
of financial management legislation ever passed," says Neil
Tierney, a respected partner at Ernst & Young.
It's not easy to persuade politicians that there's any cry-
ing need to reconcile the flights of fancy in their budgets
with real year-end figures. In fact, the very concept of an-
nual reports has been alien to many in government. The
L E T T E R
budget is the document they R
By way of example, here's how
officer at HUD, responded to F
financial statement: "We're not at
to do that sort of thing. We have be
But we don't have audited fmanci
ferent kind of animal. I don't this
that in the federal government."
called back to recant his comm+
Sadly, in the CFO Acts fust ye
propriations Committee Chai=
seemed intent on making Flynds
who has been in office since Franl
term, methodically slashed fund
of the act out of the various ager
"Far from enough cash available"
with generally accepted accour
the 30 largest cities.
But S&P and Moody's don't
menfs debt. When you have
money, your debt is assumed
pressure for these necessary
elsewhere. The average taxpay
such changes. But perhaps a F
an efficient government shoul
The OMB's Hodsoll is convinc
ly financial reports if it is to ex
sibilities. "You have to be able t
useful to the people who ultim<
propriations Committee," he ss
number of agencies, Social Sec
get their statements done and
Hill by February or March."
While promising efforts are b(
at hand is enormous. One area
at once is performance measu
cies to set out clear measures t
they're doing, but how well th
how long do the people who g
training programs keep them? 1
us on.
ick Flynn, an information
s request for an audited
siness, so we're not going
gets and we have auditors:
statements. It's just a dif-
: you'll find anyone doing
everal hours later, Flynn
r of operation, House Ap-
r Jamie Whitten (D -Miss.)
cords come true. Whitten,
h Delano Roosevelt's third
1g for the implementation
cies' budgets. This slowed
3gress. After a strong ef-
t by the OMB to support
zding-described by one
VM staffer as "going to war
it"— more money should
available this year to put
ese reforms into place at
any agencies. Unfortunate -
there is still far from
lough cash available to im-
:merit all valuable elements
the act.
Fifteen years ago, most
cies and states didn't have
6ted annual reports either.
at after the financial
sasters of the mid-1970s,
:andard & Poor's and
oody's pushed for these
ports—and got them. Most
ates now produce such
)currents in compliance
ing principles, as do 29 of
!view the federal govern -
ie capacity to print more
to be AAA -rated. So the
eforms has to come from
:r doesn't get excited about
-esident who wants to run
I that Congress needs time-
rcise its oversight respon-
produce information that's
ply will use it, like the Ap-
s. "We are now pushing a
rity among them, to try to
edited in time to go on the
ing made, however, the task
you might want to focus on
-ement—forcing your agen-
tat show not only how much
:y're doing it. For example,
:t jobs through government
low likely is it that a cardiac
40 PW OCTOBER 27, 1992
bypass patient at a Veterans Administration hospital will need
another operation within a year? How long are people kept ,
on hold when they make a phone call to the Social Security
Administration? How long does it take to get a tax refund
from the IRS?
Armed with that information, your Administration can spot
faulty systems and fix them. No question, its a difficult assign-
ment, but a number of states -notably Oregon, Texas and
Florida—have been making big progress in this area, as have
cities such as Dallas, Phoenix, Boston and Portland, Ore.
And a few of your agencies—including the Department of
Labor and the Social Security Administration—have made
some enviable progress here, too.
But its crucial that this be done government -wide. That
will require leadership from you. The Chief Financial Officers
Act took some steps in re-
quiring that agencies experi-
ment with performance
measures. That's a start.
But an even more power-
ful step in this direction is be-
ing offered by Senator Roth
in Senate Bill 20—which had
strong bipartisan support in
committee. According to
Senator Roth, "this legisla-
tion would require that
measurable performance
goals be established for all
federal programs, and that
each agency publish an an-
nual program performance
report, showing what was ac-
tually accomplished versus
planned objectives.... The
legislation also requires the
incorporation of measurable
goals into the federal budget itself—what is referred tows
'performance-based budgeting: This is what changes a budget
from being largely a political document into a real policy-
making and management tool."
Naturally, there are those who don't put much faith in this
kind of measurement, either because they think it will hurt
their pet programs or because they recall the failed ex-
periments with program measurement and evaluation of the
1960s and 1970s. Too much was attempted too quickly, and
some measures turned out to be inappropriate. So the federal
government backed off.
But the need for such controls has never been greater.
Recall whatloseph Wholey, director of the Washington Public
Affairs Center of the National Academy of Public Administra-
tion, said in testimony before Congress: "In the absence of
outcome -oriented program goals and appropriate program
performance monitoring systems, government too often is
wasteful, inefficient and unresponsive, and government
credibility and the credibility of elected officials sink lower
and.lower."
Finally, we would like to recommend a handful of other
changes, although most of them will require real political guts
to implement.
• It's very tempting to cut the wages of government
employees to save cash. But it's the wrong way to go. If you
want the best and the brightest, you've got to pay the going
rate. Pay less and you get what you deserve.
"The salary structure for political appointees is not ade-
quate," says NAPAs Wye. "These men are running corpora-
tions the size of Chrysler or General Motors, with implica-
tions for the entire world, and we're paying them $120,000
a year. This is hardly walking -around money for a major cor-
porate executive."
• In virtually every agency FW explored, rapid turnover
of appointed officials was mentioned over and over again as
a cause of widespread inefficiency and morale problems. Ap-
pointees must be pushed to commit for the remainder of your
term in office. It's bad enough that there's the potential for
massive changes every four years; mid -course changes must
be reduced. When civil ser-
vants know they'll outlast
their bosses, the inclination
to ignore any efforts at
change is inescapable.
Listen to this employee of
the Education Department:
"I've been here for over four
years now. And my division
has reported to seven under-
secretaries in that time. That
includes one guy who was an
acting undersecretary three
different times. Each time
someone new has new
priorities, new ideas they
want to push, they reinvent
the wheel. And it makes it dif-
ficult because they very often
want things done instantly,
and you have.to shift gears in
the middle of the stream."
• Government contractors must be better controlled. With
all the hoopla over privatizing governmental functions, agen-
cies have often taken an "it's not our job any more" attitude
as soon as a contractor has been signed up. This is a par-
ticularly hazardous mind -set when you consider the proclivity
of some contractors to spend the government's money like
it was printed by Parker Brothers for a giant game of
Monopoly.
Consider: The University of California is a contractor for
the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons program. The
GAO discovered that over a four-month period one of the
university's laboratories spent $5,000 for—hold onto your hat,
Mr. President—flat-tire insurance. The cost of the three flat
tires that occurred during this period was $160.
If an agency wants to contract out certain functions, it must
provide diligent oversight.
The list could go on and on. Procurement policies and com-
petitive bidding procedures need to be streamlined. Con-
gressional oversight of the agencies needs to be made more
straightforward. interagency cooperation should be improved.
Why, for instance, do VA hospitals and hospitals run by the
Department of Defense often compete for the same patients?
But well stop here. This is more than enough for you to han-
dle in the next term. ■
"The sala?y structure is not adequate."
FW OCTOBER 27, 1992
41
1991
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SALARY STUDY
Office of the State Auditor
Research and Government Information Division
March 1992
PREFACE
This study of salaries and wages paid to employees of Minnesota's local governments has
been prepared by the Office of the State Auditor as mandated by Laws of Minnesota (1991),
Chapter 345, Article I, Section 20, Subdivision 4. In pertinent part, the mandate requires:
By February 1, 1992, the state auditor, with the cooperation of the
commissioner of employee relations, shall report to the legislature on the
salaries of the positions subject to the political subdivision salary limit in
Minnesota Statutes, section 43A.17, subdivision 9. 77tis report shall included
analysis of total salaries, highest salaries, comparisons with other states and
public and private sectors, and any other information the state auditor considers
appropriate regarding salaries and other potential efficiencies and cost savings
in political subdivisions. Political subdivisions shall cooperate with the state
auditor in providing the information necessary for this report.
This Report is the culmination of seven months of extensive data collection, research and
analysis of Minnesota's local government salaries. The report was prepared by the Research
and Information Division of the Office of the State Auditor. The division is headed by Mr. Jim
Gelbmann, Assistant State Auditor for Research and Information. The study, and preparation
of the Report to the Legislature, was directed by Ms. Dorothy Bliss, Director of Research. Mr.
John Jernberg and Mr. Dan Medenblik conducted much of the research for this study and
assisted in drafting the report. Assistance was also provided by Mr. Robert Paolino.
The Office of the State Auditor could not have completed this project without the
assistance of Commissioner Linda Barton of the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations
and her staff, Ms. Jan Wiessner, Assistant to the Commissioner, Mr. Jim Lee, Director of
Compensation, and Ms. Liz Koncker, Personnel Representative. The Commissioner and her
staff assisted our Office in designing the methodology for the study, as well as providing insight
on a number of issues related to public employee compensation.
The Office of the State Auditor also extends its appreciation to Commissioner R. Jane
Brown and the staff of the Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training. Commissioner Brown
made available data on Minnesota's private sector salaries and wages collected through the 1990
Annual Salary Survey conducted by the Department of Jobs and Training. This data base was
a key component of our analyses of local government salaries.
The Office of the State Auditor would also like to thank the Association of Minnesota
Counties, the Minnesota School Boards Association, the League of Minnesota Cities and the
dozens of local government officials who provided input for our study. These individuals
provided us with technical assistance to facilitate our analysis of the wage and salary data. They
also responded to our inquiries as we sorted through the many issues ,related to the wage and
salary comparisons. The associations designated individuals toserve on an advisory council
established by our Office for this study. (The membership of the Advisory Council, in addition
to the over 50 individuals who took the time to provide input into the many issues addressed by
this study, are identified in Appendix A.)
Finally, we would like to extend our most sincere appreciation to the hundreds of local
government officials who took the time to complete our surveys and respond to our requests for
clarification of the information provided.
This Report is hereby respectfully submitted to the Minnesota Legislature in compliance
with Laws of Minnesota (1991), Chapter 345, Article 1, Section 20, Subdivision 4.
Mark B. Dayton
State Auditor
March 1992
u
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the 1991 Minnesota legislative session, an article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press
on local government salaries caught the Legislature's attention. The article focused on the
number of St. Paul city employees earning over $50,000 per year. It generated so much concern
that the Legislature considered language freezing non -represented local government employee
salaries. One proposal froze all salaries over $50,000; another went even further and froze those
salaries above $35,000. In conference committee the language freezing salaries was omitted.
In its stead, the Office of the State Auditor was directed to do a study of local government
salaries.
To do this study, we looked both at groups of employees earning over and those earning
less than $50,000 per year. For employees earning over $50,000, we conducted a survey of
over 650 cities, counties, school districts and special services districts with at least one employee
earning more than $50,000. For employees earning less than $50,000, we relied on data from
several local government surveys. We compared this local government data to salary data for
similar private sector occupations.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Employees Earning Over $50,000
In our research we found that as of June 30, 1991, over 4,800 local government
employees earn more than $50,000 per year. Based on the Census Bureau's 1989 count of
137,071 full-time local government employees statewide, this means that approximately 3.5
percent of all full-time Minnesota local government employees earn over $50,000 annually.
Five percent of Minnesota state government employees earn over $50,000. For all employees
in Minnesota, in both the public and private sectors, six percent earned over $50,000 per year
in 1990 (CPS data).
Almost 70 percent. of the local government employees earning over $50,000 are in
administrative, managerial, or supervisory positions. Other positions paying at that level are
highly trained professionals, such as attorneys or engineers. In addition, a significant proportion
of city employees (26 percent) paid over $50,000 are police and fire personnel.
Insufficient data made it impossible to compare every position earning over $50,000 with
similar positions in the private sector. Where comparisons are possible, however, we find that
most local government professionals make wages comparable to their private sector
counterparts. Some occupations, such as social worker or librarian, earn more in local
government. Others, such as attorneys, engineers, and accountants, may be able'to earn more
in the private sector.
iii
One area in which the private sector clearly pays more than the public sector for
comparable positions is in senior management. We compared the salaries of a limited number
of top metropolitan local government managers (i.e., county administrators, executive directors,.
and mayors) to the salaries paid to senior executives in selected Minnesota corporations. (See
Table C-1 on page 65.) These comparisons show that private sector senior executives earn
several times more than comparable top executives in local government.
We were not able to make similar comparisons for lower -level managers or for the
administrators of medium to small local jurisdictions. The responsibWties of administrators,
managers and supervisors in both the public and private sectors can vary widely. More focused
research would be needed to make adequate public-private comparisons for these jobs.
Local Government Executives - National Comparisons
The International City Management Association publishes a]
average salaries of local government executives (e.g., city manage]
finance directors, police chiefs) for all states. Our review of Miuv
executive salaries for 1990, relative to other states, found that Minn
for the average salaries of assistant managers, to seventh for the ave
recreation directors. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (1990) repoi
fourteenth among the states for average salaries of all public and',
Minnesota's national rankings for local government executive
comparable to its national rank for overall salaries.
Employees Earning Less Than $50,000
al comparisons of the
county administrators,
:)ta's local government
to ranks from fifteenth
,e salaries of parks and
that Minnesota ranks
vate sector employees.
ilaries, therefore, are
When we looked at local government employees earning less than $50,000, we found that
the lesser -paid employees of local governments tend to earn more than their private sector
counterparts. Our comparison of benchmark occupations indicates that local government
salaries for a number of jobs seldom fell behind the private sector average. Metropolitan area
jurisdictions, especially, generally out -paced the wages of the private sector.
Significant Disparities in Local Government Salary. Structures
In addition to wages, we examined the salary structures of local government jurisdictions
by comparing the percent of full-time employees paid over $50,000 between cities, counties and
school districts of similar characteristics. We found that metropolitan area cities have the
greatest disparities in their salary structures, ranging from no employees paid over $50,000, to
10.48 percent of the employees of the City of St. Paul earning over $50,000. Greater Minnesota
city salary structures range from no employees earning over $,50,000 to 6.1 percent of
Rochester's work force earning more than $50,000 per year.
iv
All metropolitan area counties pay some employees over $50,000. Carver County pays
3.5 percent of its work force over $50,000, while Ramsey County pays 10.53 percent of its
employees over $50,000. Greater Minnesota counties appear to have the most uniform salary
structures,. ranging from no employees earning over $50,000 in 37 counties, to 2.7 percent of
Sherburne County employees earning over $50,000.
All metropolitan area school districts employ at least one person at $50,000 per year or
more. Their salary structures range from one percent in the Norwood school district to eight
percent in North St. Paul. At least 187 Greater Minnesota school districts employ one or more
individuals at salary levels of $50,000 or greater. Their salary structures range from less than
one percent of employees over $50,000 to seven percent of employees earning over $50,000 in
the Kenyon school district.
The results of this analysis show a general lack of consistency in salary structures
for cities and school districts. For example, the results of Table 3 on page 16 show that there
is no apparent relationship between city size, expenditures, and the salary paid to the city
manager. Table 4 on page 19 reveals that some large cities pay a smaller proportion of their
full-time employees more than $50,000 than do other, smaller cities. This discrepancy is also.:
true for school districts, and the salaries paid to school superintendents (see Table C-2 on page
70). Counties, on the other hand, seem to follow a more consistent pattern: larger counties
usually pay higher salaries than smaller counties.
Public Employee Unions Impact Salaries
Part of our survey research involved asking whether a position was represented by a
bargaining unit. We found that almost 85 percent of employees earning over $50,000 in the
City of St. Paul are represented by a union. Over half of the City of Minneapolis' employees
at that level are represented. Nearly a third of Hennepin and Ramsey county. employees over
$50,000, and over 40 percent of high -paid school district employees are organized. The levels
of unionization in the suburban metropolitan area, and in Greater Minnesota, are much less.
Levels of unionization are clearly related to salary levels. A study by the National
Conference of State Legislatures found that the states with the highest average earnings for state
and local employees also are highly unionized; the states with the lowest average earnings have
low unionization.
Benefits Range From Good to Excellent
After analyzing local government employee salaries, we opted to review employee benefit
packages as well. We found evidence of good, and often excellent fringe benefits. For
example, 14 percent of private sector employees receive over 25 days of paid vacation per year,
regardless of their length of service. In contrast, almost 28 percent of Greater Minnesota
v
cities over 2,500 offer more than 25 paid vacation days per year, after 15 to 30 years of
service. One bargaining unit in the City of Mountain Iron receives 40 days of paid vacation
(eight weeks) after 25 years of service.
Another area where the public sector benefits clearly exceed private sector levels is in
paid holidays. Only 28 percent of the full-time employees in the prilvate sector receive more
than ten paid holidays; in contrast, 76 percent of the Minnesota cities and counties in our
sample provide more than 10 paid holidays.'
In the area of sick leave and health insurance, local government employees also fare
better than the private sector. Many private sector employees have a limited number of days
to use for sick leave each year, while local government employees may carry sick leave accruals
over from one year to the next. Virtually all local governments in our study offer some level
of health coverage. For counties and non -metropolitan cities over 2,500, about 78 percent pay
the full premium for single coverage. For metropolitan cities over 2,500, 93 percent pay the
full premium for single coverage. Many private sector employers offer health insurance, but
only 48 percent of workers have the full cost of coverage paid for by their employers.
The combined effects of good pay and great benefits means that local government
employees overall fare better than their private sector counterparts.
THE NEED FOR COMMON GOALS TO ACHIEVE COST CONTAINMENT
Our findings indicate there is sufficient reason for concern about the salaries and benefits
being provided for many local government employees. For cities over 2,500, salaries and
benefits comprise approximately 54 percent of total city expenditures. For Minnesota
counties, salaries and fringe benefits account for approximately 38 percent of total
expenditures. (The lower county percentage is a result of the large amounts counties spend on
payments to individuals for various public assistance programs.) Efforts to contain local
government costs cannot ignore areas of overly generous employee compensation.
A number of different groups are involved in, or affected by, the salary setting process.
To address the friction inherent in efforts to contain local government, spending through controls
on local government salary levels, and the desire of local governments for autonomy in salary
decisions, we considered both the spoken and implied goals of each of these groups. They
include: the Legislature; local governments; unions; both public and, private sector employees;
private sector employers; and the taxpayers of Minnesota. The principal goals of these groups
are:
'Ten paid holidays are mandated by state law (MN Statutes 645.44, Subd.
vi
1) maintain or improve service quality;
2) cut the costs of doing business, or keep costs low;
3) keep taxes, individual and corporate, from rising;
4) improve working and employment conditions; and
5) control government spending.
Many of these goals are shared by more than one of the parties listed above. These goals
also reflect the tension between the forces for saving and those for spending. Our most
important finding in this exercise, however, is that one important group may not share the goal
of reducing government costs, particularly if it affects wages. Public employee unions rightfully
exist for the purpose of protecting and enhancing workers' rights, wages, and benefits. They
share no responsibility for reducing public spending. Because_ of their size, and therefore
influence in the public sector, they are an important counterweight on the drive to control costs.
Public employee unions representing essential employees (e.g., fire, police) have a unique
influence on local government salaries. If a local government and an essential employee
bargaining unit are unable to negotiate a contract, the matter goes to arbitration. In arbitration,
a neutral third party is chosen to decide the contested issues. The decision of the arbitrator is
binding on both employer and union. The effect of the binding arbitration process is to place
decisions about salary levels in the hands of individuals with no direct accountability to local
taxpayers.
Because of their size and influence, unions have another effect on the salary setting
process. State and local elected officials are reluctant to conflict with employee unions, which
wield considerable political clout. For example, the Minnesota Senate last year approved a
proposal to freeze local government salaries over $50,000 -- but only for non -represented
employees.
Locally elected officials also may have difficulty challenging the salary requests of public
employee unions. Public employee unions can be a significant factor in the outcome of local
elections because of their ability to turn members out to vote, combined with the relatively low
general voter turnouts for local elections. Elected officials need the direct involvement and
cooperation of public employee unions if local government salary levels are to be addressed.
It may also be in the best interest of public employee unions to become involved in
attempts to balance local government salaries with those in the private sector. Failure to address
excessive disparities in local government and private sector salary structures where they exist
will breed increasing levels of taxpayer discontent. Minnesota taxpayers may opt to register
their discontent at the ballot box. Forcing government cost containment through the election of
candidates committed solely to reducing ,government spending could result in significant public
sector employee layoffs and critical reductions in public services.
vii
THE EFFECT OF STATE POLICIES
The statute creating this study directs the State Auditor's (
government salaries with the private sector. The Legislature has dire
through policies enacted in statute, that there are at least two areas w
want public sector salaries to mirror private sector salaries. The first i
dominated job classes. Through passage of landmark pay equity law
Legislature made it clear that their goal is to correct market-based it
male -dominated and female -dominated jobs of comparable worth. As
expected result is to find an increase in the difference between private
pay for the affected occupations.
The second area where public sector salaries differ from the pi
in top-level public sector jobs. The legislatively mandated salary cap
95 percent of the governor's salary indicates the Legislature's belief
should aspire to earn more than the highest-ranking public employee.
rule are made for physicians, the Minnesota Legislature has effective
employment -in the public sector is in large measure service, and that t
to what public servants can expect to be paid.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of this study, we draw these main conclusions:
1) Local government employees overall are adequately,
compensated relative to the private sector as a whole.
Mce to compare local
ay indicated, however,
ere they clearly do not
in traditionally fernale-
in 1983 and 1984, the
xluities in pay between
he policy succeeds, the
vector and public _sector
The fact that local government employees fare well in a compz
with the private sector does not mean, however, that every local
overpaid. Nor do we conclude that most local government employees
overpaid. In fact, we found no reason to focus concern about salary l
earning over $50,000 per year. If over -compensation of public sector
it should be investigated on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction, job class`
applies to the examination of overgenerous benefits, as well.
2)' The level of unionization among local government eml
$50,000 in the metropolitan area is so high that any 1
controlling salaries, if it focuses only on non -represented
the mark.
viii
:te sector by design is
- public employees of
t no public employee
pile exceptions to this
sent the message that .
is a reasonable limit
often amply
ison of average salaries
)vernment employee is
arning over $50,000 are
vels only on employees
.mployees is suspected,
�y job class basis. This
earning over
L approach to
Yom, will miss
Despite their concern about local government salaries, the Legislature did not propose
a salary freeze for union members. We heard several times from local government officials that
a selective freeze on only non -represented employees would only provide the necessary
motivation for groups of currently non -represented local government employees to organize
(e.g., department heads and professionals). The only group of employees left unorganized in
the metropolitan area could eventually be those statutorily prohibited from doing so.
3) The apparent lack of consistency in salary structures for Minnesota cities and
school districts points to the need for greater understanding of the factors
influencing_ salary levels, and the need for more accountability to the
taxpayers in those areas.
The findings relative to salary structures for all jurisdictions are preliminary. We have
made this conclusion based on our comparison of the percent of employees paid over $50,000,
local government size, population, and fiscal capacity. We found a fairly consistent salary
pattern for counties: larger counties tended to have a larger percentage employees paid over
$50,000. When we compared cities of similar size, however, some had many more employees
paid over $50,000 than others. The numbers and salaries of full-time and part-time employees
also varied quite dramatically for cities of similar size. The percent of employees paid over
$50,000 also did not appear to be related to the total number of pupils in a school district.
We do not know every reason for this variation in the number and percent of high -paid
staff. However, state and local officials, and Minnesota taxpayers, should take note of these
differences and determine if the salary structures of individual jurisdictions are appropriate.
4) The extent of health and pension coverage offered by local governments is
commendable, as it meets the goals of social policies. Local government
employee paid leave benefits for some jurisdictions, however, are extremely
high compared to those offered in the private sector.
Local government fringe benefits vary somewhat between jurisdictions and bargaining
units, but are uniformly generous. Health and pension benefits help to meet the goals of
government, by taking care of employees who need assistance in illness or advanced age.
Overly generous paid leave compared to the private sector, however, only contributes to the
public impression of inefficiency and wastefulness in government. These disparities need to be
addressed and analyzed in relation to other factors in public employee compensation.
5) To be successful in keeping public sector salaries in line with private sector
salaries, some means must be found to encourage public employee unions,
especially those of essential employees, to share the goal of government cost
containment.
ix
For unions, increasing constraints on spending in the public sector have already created
some difficulty. Fringe benefits, such as health insurance, while generous in the public sector
compared to the private sector, have been affected. Unions are feeling the pressure of trying
to maintain the status quo.
Nonetheless, public employee unions may need to adjust ti
members. "Good" might no longer be defined as across-the-board
above the cost of living. Instead, more compensation might be giti
performance and productivity. Opportunities for merit pay could
ensuring that the measures of performance are clear, consistent, fair,
employees should have the opportunity to excel. Unions would h
members to shoulder the responsibility for turning in a job perform2
in pay -- and be willing likewise to allow some members not to rec
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Affirm the salary cap and pay equity laws.
Both the statutory salary cap and the pay equity requiremen
significant issues by representatives of local government, although ne
have anywhere near the effect on local government salaries as do pu
responsibilities toward
nual increases in wages
according to individual
increased, with unions
d equitably applied. All
to be willing 'to allow
that merits an increase
e an increase.
are repeatedly raised as
ier of these two _policies;
is employee unions.
The salary cap has been reached by only two local government employees, indicating that
at its current level it is not a problem for most local governments. This statute prohibiting
public sector employees from earning more than 95 percent of the Governor's salary is one of
the few checks the Legislature has successfully placed on the growth of localgovernment
salaries, and should be retained.
The Department of Employee Relations reports that the average cost of implementing pay
equity for local governments is about two percent of payroll, although this percentage may vary
considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This policy plays an important role in defining
the nature of public employment, and should not only stay in place but be reaffirmed.
2) Do not impose a blanket freeze on local government salar
There are many factors to consider when trying to disco,
employees are overpaid. These include the population served, number,
of budget, and other individual responsibilities. When public sector e
compensated compared to their private sector counterparts, there may
explanations for the differences. The mere existence of differences in
salaries does not necessarily reflect capricious overcompensatior
x
at any level'.
r if local government
people supervised, size
ployees are generously
rational and justifiable
ublic and private sector
on the part of local
governments. The possible factors should be considered, and instances of overcompensation
investigated on a regional and job class basis.
3) Require local governments to report periodically on their overall salary
structures to the Legislature and to local taxpayers.
Though we found that many local government employees, especially highly trained
professionals, are paid salaries comparable to those found in the private sector, and that senior
executives are sometimes paid less, we could not ignore the fact that some local government
employees are overpaid relative to the private sector. Local governments should be allowed
considerable discretion in establishing salary policies. But it is reasonable to expect that there
should be some relationship between salary levels and other factors, such as the quality of
services provided. At a minimum, there should be public accountability in local salaries.
Local government salary data is public information and is available upon request. Many
local governments report salary information annually. This information, however, is not always
readily available or understandable to the general public. Overall local government salary
structure information should be periodically provided to the Legislature and to local taxpayers.
Comparisons of salary structures between similar units of government will make it possible to
identify areas of overcompensation that are not caused by the implementation of state policies.
Such information will allow local taxpayers to determine if the salaries of their local government
employees are comparable to the salaries paid by other local governments with similar
characteristics.
4) Institute reasonable limits on paid leaves for local government employees.
Benefits for local government employees are even more generous, compared to the
private sector, than salaries. Fringe benefits levels in local governments are almost always
above the private sector average. This is especially true in the area of paid leaves: vacation
days, holiday, and sick leave. Because these policies essentially pay employees for not working,
local governments need to take steps wherever possible to correct excessive leave policies,
including accruals.
5) Ensure that all employers offer adequate health and pension benefits.
A significant portion of the cost of inadequate health and pension benefits for working
Minnesotans is clearly borne by the State. While the provision of generous health and pension
benefits is another factor setting local government employment apart from the private sector,
these benefit levels may be viewed as fulfilling the Legislature's policy goals. Rather than
reduce these benefits to private sector levels, private sector employers should be encouraged,
if not required, to offer adequate health and pension benefits to their employees.
xi
6) Develop incentives for public employee unions to participate in cost-
containment efforts.
The issue of union settlements was pervasive throughout our discussions with local
government representatives. Part of the issue of high union salaries is historical: earlier
generous settlements continue to carry the whole structure forward at I a higher level. Another
part of the problem is that the binding arbitration process does not have to take costs into
account. Public employees are organized to a much greater degree than private sector
employees, and even more are poised to organize if a salary freeze ins imposed. Solutions to
high salary costs for local government will not work unless unions participate. Unions need to
recognize that it is in the long-term interests of their members to share in efforts to contain the
costs of government.
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
The issues of salaries and occupations are immensely complex. We have given an
overview, with specific focus on local government salaries over $50,000. But the possibilities
for analysis are endless. This is in part because salaries are a moving target: always changing.
It is also because every job is to some degree as unique as the individual that holds it. Future
studies of local government salaries could take several directions: comparisons of specific local
government jobs to similar private sector occupations, comprehensive, data collection on a few
benchmark occupations for all local units of government and a private sector sample; or an
analysis of the relationship between government organization structures and salary levels. The
goals, or purpose of any such research needs to be clearly spelled out, however, before the
resources to do a study are expended.
xii
SECTION IV:
ISSUES --
FACTORS AFFECTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT SALARIES
Research Question:
What are the factors affecting local government salaries? Which factors have the
greatest effect on local government salaries?
As part of our research, we held a number of meetings with local government officials
to learn from them what factors they believe have the greatest influence on local government
salaries, particularly salaries over $50,000. Through these discussions, interviews with other
individuals involved with local government salaries, and other research we learned about several,
significant issues related to local government salary and benefit policies that are somewhat,_
unique to the public sector. We believe it is necessary to consider these issues while making
comparisons between public sector and private sector salaries. Those issues are: unions and
the level of unionization in the public sector; the state's pay equity policy; labor market
competition; and the statutory salary cap.
Unions in the Public Sector
According to national data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 43.6 percent of all
government workers nationwide were represented by a union in 1989. In contrast, only 13.7
percent of all private nonagricultural wage and salary workers were represented by a union
during that year. The U.S. Bureau of the Census stopped collecting state -by -state data on union
representation in 1981. The Minnesota AFL-CIO, however, estimates that 21 percent of all
Minnesota workers are represented by a union, including public sector employees. When
government workers are considered separately, the percent represented is likely much higher.
The cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis estimate their percent of total employees represented by
a union to be 9$ percent and 94 percent, respectively. Ramsey County estimates 72 percent of
their work force to be union members; Hennepin County estimates 55 percent. Over 35 percent
of just the local government employees earning over $50,000 are represented by a union.
The degree to which an organization's employees are organized will affect the way in
which that organization sets salary levels. The larger the union, the greater the ramifications
of a strike, and the greater the union's ability to apply pressure to management during salary
negotiations. Levels of unionization are clearly related to salary levels. A study by the National
Conference of State Legislatures in 1990 found that the states with the highest average earning
for state and local employees are highly unionized; the lowest states have low unionization.
42
Government workers are organized to a greater degree than other categories of workers.
For local governments, however, the issue is not only public employee unions. In addition to
the bargaining power of unions, local governments have large groups of represented employees
who are classified under state law as "essential" employees. Essential employees include:
firefighters, peace officers, guards at correctional facilities, confidential
employees, supervisory employees, principals, and assistant principals. For state
employees, the definition includes all law enforcement employees, health care
professionals, correctional guards, professional engineering, and supervisory
collective bargaining units, and no other employees. (MN Statutes, Chapt. 179a,
subd. 7, 1991)
The Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) prohibits essential employees
from striking because a strike -related work stoppage by these employees could seriously
endanger the safety and welfare of the public. Because essential employees are prohibited from
striking, they are guaranteed the right to binding arbitration. This trade-off has ensured
uninterrupted services from firefighters, police officers, prison guards, and others.
Binding arbitration means that when the employer and the union
contract, the matter goes before a professional arbitrator. The arbitrator ac
party during the negotiations. In the end, however, the arbitrator's decisi
including wage levels, is binding on all parties.
According to several local government officials, the problem with
process is that it has the potential to inhibit genuine good faith collective t
rely on the arbitration process rather than the negotiation process. In ad&
officials expressed frustration at the concept of increasing their accountab
local government employee salaries. They question whether they should
these salary levels when binding arbitration effectively results in a deleg
a non -elected professional arbitrator. As one city manager put it:
... the final salary and benefit levels for essential employees are c
by arbitrators, who have no short or long term interest in the
decisions on.,_ he organization, nor, more importantly, are
accountable for tax increases that may logically follow. James
Manager, Minnetonka (correspondence)
The effects of binding arbitration can reverberate throughout
arbitrator awards a large increase to an essential employee bargaining
benchmark for other groups in negotiations. Large increases for staff lev
pressure to raise management salaries. In jurisdictions with a high per(
this overall effect can be particularly costly.
cannot agree on a
:s as a neutral third
:)n on the contract,
binding arbitration
;wining if the parties
,n, local government
y to the taxpayer for
held accountable for.
on of their duties to
i determined
pact of their
y politically
Miller, City
organization. If an
nit, this becomes the
employees can create
haze of unionization,
The pressure of union settlements on administrative salaries was ,repeatedly mentioned
to us in meetings as well as correspondence. City representatives particularly emphasized to us
how difficult it is to maintain "appropriate" pay differentials between represented staff and non -
43
represented managerial employees, especially police. This difficulty is further compounded by
the exempt and non-exempt classifications under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to Joyce Twistol, the City Clerk in Blaine:
The most impacting mandate on the federal level is the Fair Labor Standards Act
which classifies employees into two groups: non-exempt (eligible for over -time
pay) and exempt (not eligible for over -time pay). The impact of this mandate is
severe compression of wages between employees eligible for overtime and their
supervisors who are not eligible for overtime; i.e., police officers, police
sergeants, lieutenants and captains. (correspondence)
Several representatives told us that a salary freeze for non -represented employees, like
that proposed by the 1991 Minnesota Legislature, would magnify wage compression because
exempt employees, who are not eligible for overtime pay, would have their salaries frozen while
non-exempt employees could continue to receive raises and overtime. We were also told that
many of the currently exempt employees would quickly form unions and file for overtime. Will
Volk, the Employee Relations Director of Dakota County, wrote to us that:
proposed external controls will result in general salary compression between
employees below $50,000 and those currently compensated at that level. This
compression will negatively affect supervisor/subordinate pay relationships and
force employees to seek third party representation... it is also likely to result in
employee turnover as well as attraction and retention problems.
Several local officials expressed interest to us in changing the PELRA statute so that,
public employers, at the time of a bargaining impasse, could determine if the employees were
essential or not, and if a work stoppage would threaten health and safety of its citizens. If the
employees were deemed essential, they would be prohibited from striking but guaranteed the
right to binding arbitration; if it was determined that there was no danger in allowing the group
to strike, they would be allowed to strike, and lose the right to binding arbitration.
Pay Equity
Minnesota has been a leader in establishing and implementing a policy, of pay equity for
all public employees. Pay equity refers to the policy of paying all employees, regardless of
gender, a wage based on the worth of the job to the organization. The concept developed
following research that demonstrated clear-cut, persistent and sometimes large disparities in pay
between male- and female -dominated occupations, even when the skill or education levels
required were similar.
Following the successful implementation of pay equity in state government in 1983,''.,
"The Legislature appropriated $21.7 million to implement pay equity for the State. By making the
appropriation, the Legislature was implicitly acknowledging that pay equity would result in increased salaries.
EVE
the Legislature passed a law requiring local governments also to adopt the p
and to implement it based upon the principle of comparable worth. No appri
to facilitate this change.
of pay equity
ion was made
Local government officials repeatedly point to pay equity as an important factor affecting
upper level salaries, in addition to the salaries of female -dominated classesof employees. The
effect of this policy, they contend, is similar to that of binding arbitration: pay raises due to
comparable worth adjustments narrow the pay differential between employees and their
supervisors, or causes the entire salary structure of the organization to rise.
We conclude from our study of this issue that the effects local gov
from the pay equity legislation are in fact a sign of its intended succe
government was introduced to correct the market's traditional and persistent
of female -dominated occupations. The difference in wages between the p
sector indicate that pay equity has done just that. Some of the other change
are not the direct result of pay equity, but may be the result of additional f
effect of pay equity.
Some local government officials suggested that they be pen
considerations" in making comparable worth determinations and setting
dominated job classes. However, our examination of benchmark posit
that local governments pay several traditionally male -dominated occupat
rates. Going back to market-based rates for female -dominated classes
return of the wage disparities that pay equity is intended to correct. 'T
to reintroduce market-based inequities into local government salary stn
Labor Market Competition
Salary structure and wage rates are frequently influenced by an e
the wages and salaries paid by other, similar employers, for the
Consideration is given to the potential pool of applicants for a given positi
the employer will have to compete for qualified personnel.
In our discussions with local government officials, labor market V
as an issue relating to the level of local government administrative sal
$50,000 should not be frozen, city representatives stated, because that w
government's ability to attract top candidates to administrative pos
government officials argued that administrative positions would not be
candidates for many of those jobs come from within the public sector
candidates for top government jobs are often willing to accept the existing 1
for an increase in status. Rather, the effect of a salary freeze over $50
those positions for which competition with the private sector is stroi
professional jobs, such as attorneys, systems analysts or engineers.
45
ments are feeling
Pay equity for
Aic and the private
in salary structures
-ces magnifying the
d to use "market
y rates for female
;Section II) reveals
well above market
A simply lead to a
is no good reason
ployer's attention to
ime types of jobs.
i, and to what degree
)etition was raised
s. Salaries over
d inhibit the local
ns. Other local
ch, affected, since
way. In addition,
levels in exchange
J would be felt in
st: highly trained
The Statutory Salary Cap and Salary Compression
State law dictates that most public employees may not be paid more than 95 percent of
the governor's salary (physicians are exempt from this provision). The current salary cap is
$103,600 (95 percent of $109,056). Given this, the most a public sector executive could make
is approximately 11 times the salary of a full-time worker earning minimum wage. This
difference in top and bottom wages contrasts greatly with the kinds of differences in wages
currently being publically discussed. For example, Minnesota Congressman Martin Sabo
recently proposed to limit corporate tax deductions on executive salaries to up to 25 rimes that
of the firm's lowest paid worker -- and that is considered a significant cut. This proposal is
symbolic of increasing concern about the growing gap between most workers and a number of
highly compensated corporate executives. Other discontent with extremely high corporate
executive salaries has been expressed in a recent decision by the Securities Exchange
Commission to allow stockholders to vote on executive compensation packages.
Clearly, salary differentials in the private sector can be quite different than in the public
sector. Most of the discussion of the gaps between the highest and lowest salaries in the private
sector, however, has been about executive salaries in very large corporations. No information
on top -to -bottom pay ratios is available for medium and small businesses that are more likely
to correspond to most Minnesota local governments.
The salary cap was cited by local government officials as an important contributor to'
salary compression. In fact, however, only two local government officials are currently at the
cap: the Minneapolis superintendent of schools and the executive director of the Southern
Minnesota Municipal Power Agency. Hennepin County indicated to us that they felt the recent
increase in the governor's salary relieved much of the pressure they had felt on top salaries, and
that for them, compression was not currently an issue. Where the smaller salary range does'.-
seem
oes.:seem to be a current and potential problem is not at the top, but in the middle. In particular,
when more and more levels of administration are built into an organization'sstructure, the
ability to create real differences in pay between managers and those they supervise becomes
more difficult.
For most local jurisdictions, the legislative salary cap will not become an issue directly.
However, the presence of the salary cap appears to increase the sense of salary compression in
local government. The actual effect of compression for most local governments is actually
generated by budget constraints upon overall salary levels. The upward pressure of union
settlements and pay equity adjustments often meet these constraints, compounded by over-
developed hierarchies and the lack of additional funding to implement pay equity. These factors,
taken together, are what cause salary compression.
46
SECTION V:
FINDINGS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Occupational analyses are by nature complex. Every job is unique to some degree,
shaped both by the employer and the employee. While this may serve .the individual well, it
makes comparative analysis quite difficult.
Malang objective comparisons of salaries and wages paid to individuals is an incredibly
complicated endeavor. Even attempts to establish an equitable salary scale within a single
organization call -for a number of subjective judgments. The complexities of salary comparisons
are a direct result of the many variables that must be considered when making such comparisons.
These variables include: the responsibilities of the job, the level of education and training:
required for the job, the productivity of the individual, the experience level of the individual,
the market demands for individuals with specific skills and backgrounds, and the financial
resources, as well as specific salary and resource allocation policies, of the organization itself.
Attempting to make valid comparisons of salaries of individuals in different sectors of the
economy -- such as comparisons between the public and private sectors further compounds
the number of variables that must be considered.
Despite the difficulties, if Minnesotans are to receive the most public services for their
tax dollars, it is essential that efforts be made to control the salaries of local government
employees by keeping them in line — as much as possible -- with the salaries paid to their
private sector counterparts. For Minnesota cities with populations over 2,500, approximately
54 percent of total current expenditures are spent on salaries and benefits.12 Any effort to
improve the efficiencies of local government services can not ignore potential savings that may
be identified in such a large category of expenditures.
This section of the report summarizes the specific findings we have identified during the
course of our study. We draw conclusions from our findings and, where applicable, make
recommendations for how best to address each issue.
12 For Minnesota counties, salaries and fringe benefits account for approximately 38 percent of total current
expenditures. The lower county percentage is a result of the large amounts counties spend on payments to
individuals for various public assistance programs,
47
FINDINGS: Employees Earning Over $50,000
In our research we found that over 4,800 local government employees earn more than
$50,000 per year. Based on the Census Bureau's 1989 count of 137,071 full-time local
government employees statewide, this means that approximately 3.5 percent of all full-time
Minnesota local government employees earn over $50,000 annually. At least 85 cities, 50
counties, 229 school districts and 29 special service districts have one or more employee earning
over $50,000 per year.
Almost 70 percent of the local government employees earning over $50,000 are in
administrative, managerial, or supervisory positions. Each type of jurisdiction, however, has
its own pattern. In cities and counties, 54 percent of personnel paid over $50,000 are
administrative. In cities, over 26 percent of the highest paid people are police and fire
employees; in counties, almost 22 percent are attorneys. In school districts, over 92 percent of
all employees earning over $50,000 are administrative, mainly superintendents and principals.
In our analysis and comparisons of local government positions earning more than $50,000
per year, we found that the salaries paid to local government employees are, for the most
part, in line with the salaries paid for similar jobs in the private sector. This was
particularly true for the highest-paid local government attorneys, chemists, accountants, EDP
systems analysts, and civil engineers. These types of jobs are paid salaries that are equivalent
to, and often less than, the salaries of their top -paid counterparts in the private sector.
However-, we also found that the highest-paid local government social workers and librarians are
paid more than their top -paid private sector counterparts.
Where it is possible to make comparisons of top executives, we find that public sector
executives in the largest local government jurisdictions make several times less than
comparable executives in the private sector. This is at least in part a reflection of the
expectation of service on the part of public employees. In some cases it is also compensated for
by an increase in public status. The legislatively mandated salary cap also appears to hold
salaries down; currently only two local government employees are right at the level of the cap.
We also compare Minnesota's average salaries for local government executive positions
to the average- salaries paid in other states for the same occupations. For these jobs, Minnesota
ranks from 7th to 15th. In a national comparison of the average salaries of all state citizens,
Minnesota ranks 14th. Minnesota's rank in local government executive salaries, therefore,
is comparable to its rank for overall salaries nationwide.
FINDINGS: Employees Earning Less Than $50,000
When we looked at local government employees earning less than $50,000, we found that
the lowest -paid employees of local governments tend to earn more than their private sector
M
counterparts. Our comparison of benchmark occupations indicates that local government
salaries for a number of jobs were consistently higher than the private sector average.
Metropolitan area jurisdictions, especially, generally out -paced the wages of the private sector.
As jobs become more skilled, requiring higher levels of education and training, the gap
between public and private sector pay diminishes. Given that about 95 percent of Minnesota's
local government work force are in jobs paying less than $50,000, we can safely say that
overall, public employees fare very well in comparison to private sector wages.
CONCLUSION
Local government employees overall are adequately, and ,often amply
compensated relative to the private sector as a whole. The current policies
of the salary cap and pay equity are having their intended effects of holding
salaries down and correcting gender-based salary inequities.
Affirm the salary cap and pay equity laws.
While this conclusion may seem contradictory to the finding that some local government
executives earn far less than their private sector counterparts, keep in mind that they are
relatively few in number compared to the numbers of local government employees in other.
occupations. The statute prohibiting public sector employees from earning more than 95 percent
of the Governor's salary is one of the few checks the Legislature has successfully placed on thee
growth of local government salaries. We find little evidence to suggest'', that the cap itself is
causing real problems for most local governments at this time. Only two public employees have
reached the cap; a few more are approaching this limit. Repealing the cap at this time'could fuel
expectations. for salary increases at all salary levels. However, we acknowledge that if the
Governor's salary is not periodically adjusted, the issue of the salary cap will need to be
revisited.
Pay equity, while we heard much about it, is another issue for whidh we found very little
hard evidence of significant negative effects. Pay equity, as intended, h'as raised the average
salary of some female -dominated job classes. The fact that many local government employees
are paid better than their private -sector counterparts is not due solely to pay equity, but to a long
history of generous and across-the-board union settlements. We support the Legislature's efforts
to correct unjustified, gender-based disparities in state and local government salary structures.
FINDINGS: Unionization
In our survey, we asked local governments to indicate, for every person earning over
49
$50,000, whether or not that position is represented by a bargaining unit. More than 1562 local
government employees earning over $50,000 are members of an organized bargaining unit; or
approximately 35 percent of all employees in our survey earning over $50,000. This percent
of higher -paid employees belonging to unions varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Only 5.1 percent of county employees earning over $50,000 in Greater Minnesota belong to
unions. In the City of St. Paul, upon which so much concern has focused, almost 85 percent
of the employees earning over $50,000 are members of collective bargaining units.
These findings about the levels of unionization among local government employees
earning over $50,000 are very important in light of legislative efforts to control local
government salary through the use of a salary freeze for' non -represented employees.
Metropolitan area local government employees earn the most; they are also the most represented
by unions. A salary freeze on non -represented employees would have an extremely limited
effect on salary levels.
CONCLUSION
The level of unionization among local government employees earning over
$50,000 in the metropolitan area is so high that any blanket approach to
controlling salaries, if it focuses only on non -represented employees, will miss
the mark.
RECOMMENDATION
Do not impose a blanket freeze on local government salaries at any level.
There are many factors to consider when trying to. discover if local government
employees are overpaid. These include the population served, number of people supervised, size
of budget, and other individual responsibilities. When public sector employees are more highly
compensated than the private sector, this may be in part because of the Legislature's goal of
being a leader in establishing progressive employment policies, or because of historical union
settlements, and does not necessarily reflect capricious overcompensation on the part of local
governments. These factors should be considered, and instances of possible overcompensation
investigated on a -regional and job class basis.
A freeze only on the salaries of local government employees earning over a pre-
determined amount (e.g., $50,000) could create significant salary inequities within local
government organizations. Due to continued upward pressure on the salaries of all employees
not subject to a freeze, it is highly probable that, under a selective salary freeze, many staff level
positions within local government organizations could begin earning more than the amount paid
to their supervisors and managers. This situation would be further exacerbated if the salary
freeze is applied only to those employees not subject to a collective bargaining unit agreement.
Furthermore, a blanket freeze on the salaries of all local government employees paid over
50
$50,000 annually would be unfair to many local governments that have done a good job
controlling their payrolls. A freeze on all salaries over $50,000 annually would only be justified
if all local government employees paid over $50,000 were overpaid. Our findings indicate this
is not the case. While freezing the salaries of local government employees who are paid more
than they could reasonably expect to earn in the private sector is a desirable public policy goal,
a freeze on all salaries over $50,000 would impose unfair constraints on all local governments,
in an attempt to address the salaries of a relatively few overpaid employees. Furthermore,
limiting the freeze to employees earning over $50,000 per year would do nothing to address the
instances where local government employees earning under $50,000 are earning more than they
could reasonably expect to earn in the private sector.
FINDINGS: Significant Disparities in Local Government Salary
In our survey of local governments, we asked for information on the distribution of
employees within several salary categories, including the total number paid over $50,000 and
the total number of full-time employees. We calculated the percent of employees paid over
$50,000 for all local governments reporting in the survey. We also looked at the salaries paid'
to top local government employees and compared those salaries for similar jurisdictions.
The results of this analysis are somewhat surprising. We find very little evidence of any
consistent pattern for Minnesota cities in the percent of employees in the over $50,000 category,
or in the amount paid to executive employees. Metropolitan area cities have the greatest
disparities in their salary structures, ranging from no employees paid over $50,000, to 10.48
percent of the employees of the City of St. Paul earning over $50,000. For example, the City
of Golden Valley, with a population of 20,971 and direct current expenditures of $11.6 million,
pays almost nine percent of its 123 full-time employees more than $50,000. Bloomington, on
the other hand, pays just over six percent*of its 490 full-time employees over $50,000, and has
a population of 86,335 and direct current expenditures of $45.7 million. Greater Minnesota
city salary structures range from no employees earning over $50,000 to 6.1 percent of
Rochester's work force earning more than $50,000 per year -
School districts also display inconsistencies in salary structures
population is considered. Superintendents of some of the largest school
amounts to superintendents of districts a fraction of their size. County s
reflected size of population and direct current expenditures: larger counti
salaries. Greater Minnesota counties appear to have the most uniform sala
from no employees earning over $50,000 in 37 counties, to 2.7 percent
employees earning over $50,000•
We suspect that there may be any number of factors at w,
structures, but had insufficient time to pursue more information. It does
on population and expenditure data, that some local governments are
inconsistent with the salaries paid by similar jurisdictions.
51
when total student
districts earn similar
Mary structures alone
.s tend to pay higher
,y structures, ranging
of Sherburne County
to influence salary
ear, however, based
ine salaries that are
CONCLUSION
The apparent lack of consistency in salary structures for Minnesota cities and
school districts points to the need for greater understanding of the factors
influencing salary levels, and the need for more accountability to the local
taxpayers in those areas.
RECOMMENDATION
Require local governments to report periodically on their overall salary
structures to the Legislature and to local taxpayers.
Though we found that many local government employees, especially highly trained
professionals, are paid salaries comparable to those found in the private sector, and some senior
executives are paid less, we could not ignore the fact that some local government employees
appear overpaid relative to the private sector. Local governments should be allowed_
considerable discretion in establishing salary policies. But it is reasonable to expect that there,
should be some relationship between salary levels and other factors, such as the quality of
services provided.
The key to addressing the lack of consistency in local government salary structures is to
require accountability to the taxpayers who ultimately pay the salaries of local government
employees. Minnesotans, however, cannot hold their local elected officials accountable if they
do not have easy access to adequate information on the actual salaries of local government
employees. To provide this data, the Legislature should require cities with populations of 2,500
or more, counties, and school districts to report annually on salaries. This data should be
compiled into a report for distribution to the public. For each local unit of government, the
annual report should identify the population of the jurisdiction, the total number of full- and part-
time employees, the total salaries and wages of the employees, and the number and percent of
employees paid more than twice the statewide average salary for all Minnesotans. Where it
appears that salaries for local government employees are excessive relative to their peers, the
issue must be brought to the attention of the citizens of that jurisdiction. Local elected officials
should then determine if their employee compensation policies are appropriate, taking into
account private sector wages, but also state policies such as pay equity. If local elected officials
are convinced that the policies and the productivity of the employees in question warrant the high
salaries, they should explain the rationale for the high salaries to the citizens of the jurisdiction.
If the level of the salaries cannot be explained, the officials should be held accountable for.
addressing the issue through targeted salary freezes, or at the bargaining table. Minnesotans
may lose confidence in their local governments if unexplained high salaries go unchecked.
FINDINGS: Benefits
After analyzing local government employee salaries, we opted to review employee benefit
packages as well. Our review of employee benefit packages offered by Minnesota cities and
52
counties, and those available in the private sector, found that the benefits offered by most
local governments are equivalent to, or better than, those offered by the typical medium
or large sized private sector firm. For example, 14 percent of private sector employees
receive over 25 days of paid vacation per year, regardless of their length of service. In contrast,
almost 28 percent of Greater Minnesota cities over 2,500 offer more than 25 paid vacation
days per year, after 15 to 30 years of service. One bargaining unit in the City of Mountain
Iron receives 40 days of paid vacation (eight weeks) after 15 years of service.
Another area where the public sector benefits clearly exceed private sector levels is in
paid holidays. Only 28 percent of the full-time employees in the private sector receive more
than ten paid holidays; in contrast, 76 percent of the Minnesota cities and counties mi our
sample provide more than 10 paid holidays.
In the area of sick leave and health insurance, local government e
better than the private sector. Many private sector employees have a limit
to use for sick leave each year, while local government employees may carry
over from one year to the next. Virtually all local governments in our stuc
of health coverage, with 78 percent of counties and small non -metropolitan 4
of large metropolitan cities paying the full premium for single coverage. W1
of medium and large sized firms are provided health insurance, more of tl
required to pay a percentage of the cost of their premiums, compared to the I
insurance premiums paid by city and county employees. Many private sec-
health
echealth insurance, but only 48 percent of workers have the full cost of covers
employers.-
Nearly
mployers.
Nearly all city and county employees are covered by a defined t
Only 63 percent of private sector employees have such coverage for th(
combined effects of good pay and great benefits means that local gov
overall fare consistently better than their private sector counterparts.
CONCLUSION
The extent of health and pension coverage offered by local go,
commendable, as it meets the goals of social policies. Local
employee paid leave benefits for some jurisdictions, however, a
high compared to those offered in the private sector.
RECOMMEMATIONS
1) Institute reasonable limits on paid leaves for local
employees.
Benefits for local government employees are even more generc
53
iployees also fare
d number of days
;ick leave accruals
( offer some level
ties, to 93 percent
le most employees
)se employees are
;rcentage of health
)r employers offer.
e paid for by their
efit pension plan.
retirement. The
nment employees
!nts is
extremely
compared to the
private sector, than salaries. Fringe benefits levels in local governments are almost always
above the private sector average. This is especially true in the area of paid leaves: vacation
days, holiday, and sick leave. Because these policies essentially pay employees for not working,
local governments need to take steps wherever possible to correct excessive leave policies,
including accruals.
Few private sector employees have the benefit of eleven paid holidays and six or more
weeks of paid vacation per year. Local governments that offer excessive paid leave policies for.
their employees should be held accountable to taxpayers. Local elected officials should take
steps to correct excessive paid leave policies.
2) Ensure that all employers offer adequate health and pension
benefits.
A significant portion of the cost of inadequate health and pension benefits for working
Minnesotans is clearly borne by the state. State and local government officials should be -
commended for ensuring that all local government employees have adequate health and pension
benefits. Any disparities that exist between local government employees and the private sector
relative to health and pension benefits is clearly the result of the private sector offering
insufficient benefit levels.
As health care costs continue to rise, all employers should guarantee all of their
employees adequate levels of health care benefits. While the provision of generous health and
pension benefits is another factor setting local government employment apart from the private
sector, these benefit levels may be viewed as fulfilling the policy goals of the Legislature.
Rather than reduce these benefits to private sector levels, private sector employers should be
encouraged, if not required, to offer adequate health and pension benefits to their employees.
FINDINGS: The Need for Common Goals to Achieve Cost Containment in Government
A number of different groups are involved in or affected by the salary setting process.
To address the friction inherent in efforts to contain local government spending through controls
on local government salary levels, and the desire of local governments for autonomy in salary
decisions, we considered both the spoken and implied goals of each of these groups. . They
include: the Legislature; local governments; unions; both public and private sector employees;.
private sector employers; and the taxpayers of Minnesota. The principle goals of these- groups
are:
1) maintain or improve service quality;
2) cut the costs of doing business, or keep costs low;
3) keep taxes, individual and corporate, from rising;
4) improve working and employment conditions; and
5) control government spending.
54
Many of these goals are shared by more than one of the parties listed above. These goals
also reflect the constant tension between the forces for saving and those for spending. Our most
important finding in this exercise, however, is that one important group may, not share the goal
of reducing government costs, particularly if it affects wages.
Because employee unions share no responsibility for reducing public spending, they have
no incentive for considering cost containment at the bargaining table. Public employee unions
rightfully exist for the purpose of protecting and enhancing workers' rights, wages, and benefits.
Because of their size, and therefore influence in the public sector, this is an important
counterweight on the drive to control costs.
Also because of their size and influence, unions have another effect on the salary setting
process. State and local elected officials are reluctant to conflict with employee unions, which
wield considerable political clout. For example, the Minnesota Senate last year approved a
proposal to freeze local government salaries over $50,000 -- but only for non -represented
employees. Locally elected officials also may have difficulty challenging the salary requests of
public employee unions. Public employee unions are a significant factor in the outcome of local
elections because of their ability to turn members out to vote, combined with the relatively low
general voter `turnouts for these elections. Elected officials need the direct participation and
cooperation of public employee unions if high, local government salary levels are to be
addressed.
The effects of union settlements are widespread. Once a large union has settled, it
provides the precedent far the salary increases bargained for in other employee groups. The
salaries of non -represented employees, generally managers and supervisors, are then adjusted
to maintain comfortable wage differentials from those they supervise. If salary increases for
represented employees are controlled, the pressure to increase managers' salaries will be
relieved as well.
Because of increasing pressures to contain costs, local government employee unions may
need to change the way they view their responsibilities towardmembers. "Good" might no
longer be defined as across-the-board annual increases in wages above the cost of living.
Instead, more compensation may be given according to individual performance and productivity.
Unions could look for ways to increase opportunities for merit pay, and ensure that the measures
of performance are clear, consistent, fair, and equitably applied. All employees should have the
opportunity ' to excel. Unions would have to be willing to allow members to shoulder the
responsibility for turning in a job performance that merits an increase in pay -- and be willing
likewise to allow some members not to receive an increase. Other options include increasing
the availability of unpaid leaves, opportunities for part-time work with health benefits, job -
sharing, or work at home.
It may also be in the best interest of public employee unions to become involved in
attempts to balance local government salaries with those in the private sector. Failure to address
significant disparities in local government and private sector salary structures will breed
increasing levels of taxpayer discontent. Minnesota taxpayers may opt to register their
discontent at the ballot box. Forcing government cost containment through the election of
55
candidates committed solely to reducing government spending could result in significant public
sector employee layoffs and critical reductions in public services.
CONCLUSION
To be successful in keeping public sector salaries at least generally in line
with private sector salaries, some means must be found to encourage public
employees unions, especially those of essential employees, to share the goal
of reducing public spending.
RECOMMENDATION
Develop incentives for public employee unions to participate in cost-
containment efforts.
Public employees are organized to a much greater degree than private sector employees,.
and even more are poised to organize if a salary freeze is imposed. Government will not be able
to hold down salary costs without the assistance of employee unions, especially those for
essential employees. Part of the problem of high union salaries is historical: earlier generous
settlements continue to carry the whole structure forward at a higher level. While it is the
responsibility of public employee unions to advocate the best possible salary and benefit
settlements for their employees, union officials should also recognize that short term gains won
at the bargaining table may result in long term problems for their members.
If elected officials and public employee unions refuse to address voluntarily the disparities
in private and public sector salaries, Minnesotans may lose confidence in their government
structures. As their confidence wanes, they may likely register their dissatisfaction at the voting
booth. Throughout the nation, citizens are registering their dissatisfaction with current tax
policies by approving ballot initiatives forcing lower taxes, and electing candidates who promise
to cut taxes at any cost. These electoral tax revolts may easily be fueled by perceptions of
overpaid, unproductive government employees. The consequences of such revolts can be
devastating, not only for the local government employees who will lose their jobs, but for the
citizens who will lose essential government services as a result of drastic budget cuts.
Elected officials and public employee unions should seriously assess the salary disparities
that exist between the public and private sectors. They should agree on a long-range strategy
for addressing the disparities that exist. By slowing the growth of public sector salaries that are
clearly out of line with the private sector, disparities between the two should begin to disappear.
56
MINNESOTA'S
1991 Property Tax Cha
A Citizens League study just released found that Twin Cities homeowners saw a sign!
year as a percentage oLJJ1jir home's value, which is perhaps the best bottom-line pit
t jump in property taxes this
of property taxes paid.
Last year the median tax on the average -priced home among 95 metropolitan communities was 1.08 percent of value.
In 1991, that median tax was 1.17 percent, for a real tax rate increase of about 8 percent., That was the largest increase
in five years, attributable in large part to school district increases approved by voters in 'special referenda.
Otherwise, the annual Citizens League report contained few surprises. The medifan property tax increase on a $90,000
home, which is near the average for the Twin Cities as a whole, was $121. The survey found that tax rates on a $90,000
home in non -metropolitan cities are similar to Twin Cities rates, but actual taxes are much lower outstate because home
values are typically about half of the Twin Cities average.
Metro area cities above Metro area cities above Non -metro area cities
2,500
Pop.., 2,500 population (cont.) above y0,000 population
Taxes on
Taxes on
Taxes on
$90,000 home
$90,000 home
$90,000 home
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
1991
$90,000
Rank
1991
$90,000 Rank
1991
$90,000
Rank
tax
Price
tax
Price
tax
Price
"
Afton
$ 839
0.93%
94
Maplewood
$1,218
1.35
5
-Albert Loa
$ 973
1.08%
17
Andover
963
1.07
74
Medina
854
0.95
91
Austin
1,361
1.51
1
Anoka
1,078
1.20
37
Mendota Heights
860
0.96
90
Bemidji
1,198
1.33
2
Apple Valley
988
1.10
70
Minneapolis
1,148
1.28
13
Brainerd
940
1.04
22
Arden Hills
1,066
1.18
43
Minnetonka
1,071
1.19
40
Cloquet
1,102
1.22
7
Bayport
1,034
1.15
54
Minnetrista
936
1.04
78
Duluth
1,139
1.27
4
Belle Plaine
1,111
1.23
23
Mound
998
1.11
69
Fairmont
886
0.98
25
Blaine
1,035
1,15
53
Mounds View
1,213
1.35
6
Faribault
1,056
1.17
11
Bloomington
1,001
- 1,11
68
New Brighton
1,155
1.28
12
Fergus Falls
1,068
1.19
9
Brooklyn Center
1,048
1.16
47
New Hope
1,112
1.24
22
Hibbing,
1,012'
1.12
15
Brooklyn Park
1,158
1.29
11
New Scandia Twp.
921
1.02
85
Hutchinson
1,120
1.24
6
Burnsville
965
1.07
72
Newport
1,124
1.25
18
Mankato
1,021
1.13
13
Champlin
1,093
1.21
28
North Oaks
934
1.04
80
Marshall
953
1.06
19
Chanhassen
1,031
1.15
55
North St. Paul
1,144
1.27
14
Moorhead
1,024
1.14
12
Chaska
1,106
1,23
27
Oak Grove Twp.
1,015
1.13
63
New Ulm
942
1.05
21
Circle Pines
1;081
1.20
34
Oak Park Heights
1,024
1.14
58
North Mankato
968
1.08
18
Columbia Heights
1,067
1.19
42
Oakdale
1,054
1.17
45
Northfield
1,127
1.25
5
Columbus Twp.
923
1.03
83
Orono
965
1.07
73
Owatonna
1,000
1.11
16
Coon Rapids
1,041
1.16
52
Osseo
1,087
1.21
31
Red Wing
902
1.00
24
Corcoran
936
1.04
79
Plymouth
1,031
1.15
56
Rochester
1,013
1.13
14
Cottage Grove
1,106
1.23
26
Prior Lake
1,091
1.21
29
St. Cloud
1,067
1.19
10
Crystal
1,143
1.27
15
Ramsey
955
1.06
76
Virginia',
915
1.02
23
Dayton
1,107
1.23
25
Richfield
1,060
1.18
44
Willmar',
1,153
1.28
3
Deephaven
1,017
1.13
61
Robbins al
1,121
1.25
19
Winona'.
951
1.06
20
Eagan
920
1.02
86
osemount
Worthington
1,087
1.21
8
East Bethel
941
1.05
77
Roseville
1,174
1.30
10
"Ranked 1 (high) to
25 (low).
Eden Prairie
1,113
1.24
21
St. Anthony
959
1.07
75
Edina
928
1.03
81
St. Louis Park
1,081
1.20
33
Excelsior
1,185
1.32
8
St. Paul
1,244
1.38
3
Falcon Heights
1,120
1.24
20
St. Paul Park
1,046
1.16
48
Farmington
1,053
1.17
46
Savage
1,089
1.21
30
Forest Lake
913
1.01
88
Shakopee
1,083
1.20
32
Forest Lake Twp.
919
1.02
87
Shoreview
1,213
1.35
7
Fridley
1,007
1.12
65
Shorewood
1,026
1.14
57
Golden Valley
1,075
1.19
39
South St. Paul
1,002
1.11
67
Grant Twp.
847
0.94
93
Spring Lake Park
1,019
1.13
60
Ham Lake
1,004
1.12
66
Spring Lake Twp.
922
1.02
84
Hastings
924
1.03
82
Stillwater
1,013
1.13
64
Hopkins
1,076
1.20
38
Vadnais Heights
1,233
1.37
4
Hugo
1,043
1.16
51
Waconia
1,130
1.26
17
Independence
1,020
1.13
59
Wayzata
1,045
1.16
50
Inver Grove Hts.
1,079
1.20
36
West St. Paul
837
0.93
95
Jordan
1,070
1.19
41
White Bear Lake
1,258
1.40
1
Lake Elmo
898
1.00
89
White Bear Twp.
1,110
1.23
24
Lakeville
1,017
1.13
62
Woodbury
1,080
1.20
35
Lino Lakes
Linwood Twp.
1,178
849
1.31
0.94
9
92
'Ranked t (high) to 95 (low).
Little Canada
1,256
1.40
2
Mahtomedi
1,045
1.16
49 -
Maple Grove
1,138
1.26
16
(To calculate, enter ! twice)
BUDGET AND YEAR-TO-DATE REPORT
MIN1NESOTA EXTENSION SERVICE-RENVILLE COUNTY
Year to date: 6/26/I990
OPERATING EXPENSES
Equipment pur/rep
Supplies
Telephone
Postage
TOTALS
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL EXPENSES PROJECTED
iSGCiRfIDR70TinN FIMInC ill (Mi Tn nnTC rea r,►irc na m,rc
$427.00
$427.00
$214.39
$212.61
�',
r .
$107.00 $2,834.00
4i'�i
$667.19 1-1,499.62
$3,427.00
$3,427.00
$1,625.74
$1,801.26 $175.52
$4,427.00
$4,427.00
$2,342.81
$2,084.19 $-2`.,8.62
$11,008.00
$107.00 $11,115.00
$6,349.75
$4,765. J $-I,J8;.72
44
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL EXPENSES PROJECTED
iSGCiRfIDR70TinN FIMInC ill (Mi Tn nnTC rea r,►irc na m,rc
$427.00
$427.00
$214.39
$212.61
$2,727.00
$107.00 $2,834.00
$2,166.81
$667.19 1-1,499.62
$3,427.00
$3,427.00
$1,625.74
$1,801.26 $175.52
$4,427.00
$4,427.00
$2,342.81
$2,084.19 $-2`.,8.62
$11,008.00
$107.00 $11,115.00
$6,349.75
$4,765. J $-I,J8;.72
EXTENSION COMMITTEE $2557. 00 $ 557.00 $48.00 $209.00
PROGRAM EXPENSES $2,980.00 $1,586.00 $4,566.00 $1,261.32 $3,304.68 $2,043.36
FIELD EXPENSES
C. E. A., AG $1,877.00
C. E. A. HE $1,677.00
C.E.A. 4-H $1,727.00
TOTAL $5,281.00
$1,877.00
$1,051.09
$825.91
$-26.18
$1,677.00
$11045.60
, $631.40
$-414.20
$1,727.00
$721.42
$1,005.58 '',
$284.16
$5,281.00
$2,818.11
$2.462.89
$-355.22
AGENTS SALARIES
Alternative Fundin $39,186.00 $39,186.00 $19,593.00 $19,593.00
JtLKt1HK1t5 SHLHHILS
Full time $16,127.00 $16,127.00 $6,716.65 $9,410.3 $2;693.70
Additional
secretarial 5ery $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $3,701.75 $5,298.25 '$1,586.50
PERA, etc. $5,255.00 $5,255.00 $5,255.00
TOTAL $30,382.00 $30,382.00 $0,418.40 $19,9633.60 $4,290.20
IsThis report Is derived from estimated figures, sent of which art ittachedxa ESTIMATED CASH FLOU CHART It AS MONTHS ARE COMPLETED ACTUAL FIGURES REPLACE ESTIMATES ts
ted 9130192 GENERAL FUIO - FUND 101
e real Koothee
Be9iaaf09 8al(tash i lave taeats) 733,465.% 710,751.04 616,150.44 520,658.51 390,126.e8 308,585.05 233,057.01 1,154,003.12 1,177,561.60 668,730.58 491,150.66 279,040.15
4ecurr At Korth 1 Actual
Previous K/E Balance;!HMMKR
1992 BUDGET 3AMJfWY 1992 FERNY 1991 MACH 1992 APRIL 1992 KAY 1992 31RC 1992 JULY 1992 AUGUST 1942-SETMBER------- 1942OCTOBER 1992 -------- 1992 DECEMBER 1992
............. ..... ... .........
C Inflows:
1 Tate (31010-31040 1,347,402.00 0.00 ' 0.00 0.40 7;523.3] 8,532.00 0.00 721,129.% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 673,701.00
2 Gravel Taxes (31710 4,300.00 000 0.00 0.00 3•,649.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 franchise ales !31010 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 21,642.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
4 ticenE (32110-32160132240 15,200.00 2,200.00 915.00 %5.00 1,045.00 605.00 1,650.00 580.00 $50.00 561.50 1,166.67 1,266.61 1,266.67
S Permit 32210-32 Less 32240 200,600.00 15,939.33 20,854.95 27,770.35 24,401.16 19,183.11 25,770.95 14,115.0! 23,376.35 39,649.60 16,716.67 16,116.67 16,716.67
6 State
Ads
2299((8q33141-33630 913,614,00 0.00 10,777,50 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 436,234.50 54,210.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 456,807.00
1 Chas for Serv)tK (34102-34107 00,100,00 10,973,66 18,612.64 18,019.48 14,208.95 13,364.20 •11,697.98 19,261.71 24,659.33 10,998.12 12,306.33 12,308.33 12,306.33
8 Part Revenues (34720 31790 %,700.00 10,120.23 1,450.20 1,346.04 20,415.00 1,9p.7S 2,513.46 ],380.25 9,062.44 2,510.71 8,058.33 8,058.33 8,058.33
9 Court fines (35101 50,000.00 0.00 4,174.10 3,192.33 3,472.23 0.00 7,214.79 0.00 10,383.98 3,330.53 4,166.6] 4,166.67 4,166.67
l0 Spec Assessment 36101 136102 18,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196.46 0.04 0.00 23,081.69 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00
11 Interest Eagi 36210136215 38,000.00 1,146,85 2,364.38 2,138.99 2;451.9! 1,090.17 971.32 2,043.61 1,276.23 1,636,68 3,166.67 3,166.67 3,166.67
l2 Other Revnu ( ,30 60 39101 30,513.50 SOS.OS 7,315.97 576.40 3,608.67 15,930.89 491.17 16,553.66 (12,302.75) 2,509.67 2,542.79 2,54279 2,542.19
l3 Transfer from ((39203 162,250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,250.00 51,6%.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 0.00
14 Trans from Port Authorty(39M] 50,000 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 50 000 00 000 000 000 0 OD 000 000
1S Trios Prem Hods Ra'td- 39109 70,192 00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.92A - 0.40 000 _ Q 00 0.90 000 __ 000_ _ 000
16 Plan Asst Loan Proceeds 39310 521500.00 0.00 35,325.00 17,175.00 0.00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0.00
__....... _._ ........... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ........... ............. ------------- ---- ------- ----•• --- - .............
3,217,371.50 41,185.12 102,409.74 98,626.03 128,733.35 183,008.14 106,435.17 1,252,980.39 111,415.58 61,203.42 89,726.13 89,726.13 1,180,234.13
cash outflow:
1 Council 41110 102,058.00 4,244.47 2,214.82 71013.50 4,492.56 41614,29 14,038.58 13,185.66 5,341.48 18,710.07 8,504.83 8,504.83 8,504.83
2 Administration 41320 167,219.00 8,898.29 13,907,79 18,512.88 10,968.90 10,899.04 11,322.07 13,99770 12,949.5] 20,192.96 15,601.58 15,601,58 15,601.58
3 Clerk 41400 53,996.00 2,261.% 3,462.90 6,791.82 5,695.12 4,575.04 3,729.35 3,941.91 3,967.63 6,284.85 4,499.67 4,499.67 4,499.67
4 Elections ' 41410 14,019.00 0.00 0.00 125.00 1,427.75 0.00 0.00 2,063.94 1,021.95 2,605.22 0.00 5,000.00 0.00
5 jingnnCc}} 41520 130,645.00 5,439.06 11,1]7.06 12,075.56 8,706.97' 11,623.02 7,618.01 9,32378 9,226.47 11,776.02 10,887.08 10,887.08 10,887.08
6 ermrment 41810 156,307.00 3,887.49 8,119,71 3,588.53 19,435.01 36,388.19 12,643.94 15,224.11 7,573.71 22,123.72 13,025.58 13,025.58 13,025.587 naiag 41910 . 161,804.00 4,)89.88 10,137.93 10,434,65 9,165.8( 10,574.56 11,29).63 11,886.50 18,188.83 19,562.06 13,483.67 13,483.67 13,483.67
8 erneat 8uildiags 41940 59,700.00 11082,41 7,946.06 3,80772 5,554.00 4,984.42 5,750.90 5,581.39 4,983.58 18,204.91 4,915.00 4,915.00 4,9)5.00
9 Pglice 41110 725,600.50 33,$23,73 48,212.06 68,862.85 52,987.26 48,482.11 49,133.76 69,908.28 $1,902.57 70,719.88 60,466.71 60,466.71 60,466.71
10 Fire 41210 154,033.00 1,675,13 1,602.28 2,340.26 4,295.67 47,041.76. 1,644.77 10,001.62 3,276.02 6,116.26 4,581.08 $4,111.08 4,581.08
11 Public Uorks 43100 623,093.00 29,481.26 41,813.07 54,868.90 54,408.40 • 43,256.58 51,680.68 54,24176 48,632.51 66,907.79 51,991.08 51,991.08 51,991.08
12 Paved Streets 43121 5$1100.00 0,00 67.37 0.00 1,682.94 2,058.60 4,819.47 2,527.47 4,898.00 19,286.22 4,591.67 4,$91.67 1,591.67
13 Unpaved Street 43122 15,600,00 331,45 454,38 0.00 495.36 3,666.92 770.00 172.06 579.94 934.72 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00
14 Ice 1 Snow Removal 43125 13,380.00 2,082.86 1,098.09 854.24 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,230.00 2,230.00 1,230.00
15 Street Lighting 43160 46,900.00 2,832.80 1,549.40 3,420.14 6,305.47 3,578.78 3,096.11 6,111.46 5,390.33 5,687.38 3,908.33 3,908.33 3,908.33
16 Signal Lights, Signs 43170 6,300.00 0.00 90.32 427.68 190.08 410.20 91.13 329.19 137.60 421.16 $25.00 525.00 525.00
17 Park 1 Rec 4SI00 560,817.00 23,034.97 34,439.48 42,463.03 42,831.30 37,708.87 39,483.69 70,455.66 38,281.65 $2,604.39 46,734.75 46,734.75 46,73475
18 Insurance 49140 150,000,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 113,183.53 20,901.50 20,000.00: 0.00 0.00
19 General Fund Transfers 49300 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
..�__..,_.-_ -•----• ------------- --- ------------- ............. -------------------------- ------- ---- *------------ .............
3,217,371.50 123,566.76 186,992.13 235,616.76 228,642.60 269,862.98 211,120.09 289,662.55 329,585.37 361,639.12 267,306.04 301,836.01 241,306.0/
LI Ilities of Gem'l not avallaill fol spending(actuil amounts from pr vlous month):
I Accounts Payable 20200 (!$,275.30► (7,938.60) {6,568.60 (5,950.00) (5,950.00) (51950.00) 363.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 Dakota CL; Recycling Progr 20204 0.00 0.00 ((2,866.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 8uildiea Permit Surcharge 20810 (!0,%1.52 ((2,915.12 4,733.78 (5,862.57 (6,815.62 8,167.17 (9,699.10 (2,904.22 (5,404.02 (5,404.02 (5,404.01 5,404.02
4 Karo SAC 20815 11 900.04 (23, 00.00 (46,900.00 (3),!00.00 (46 900.00 (� 100.00 (35 000.00 (106,960.00 (128, 00 (128,660.00 (128,660.00 (1 00
5 F ectr(c Permit Surcharge 20820 (224,00 39.00 67.50 186.50 (119.50 (160.00 {178.00 ((58.00 81.50 (81.50 (81,50 81.50
6 Electrical imrpector Fee 20835 (9 443.62 (9, 99.62 (12, .42 (12 283.2? (12 918.90 (27 952.10 (24 791 90 (17,114.30 (33 614.00 (33 614.00 (33 614.00 (33 14.00
7 P willing Permit Surcharge 20030 141,62 20.00 53.50 ()40.?5 ( 60.18 (181.59 (208.29 (58.44 163.39 (163.39 ' : (163.39 1174.61
163.39
8 Sewer Permit Surchargaee 20650 109.50 14.50 28.00 (((43.50 ( 50.50 (j59.00 (68.50 (264.69 281.19 281.19 (((281.19 281.19
9 Sewer Cty Recording FeK 20855 15S.60 22.75 $5,15 (720.88 (233.88 111295.38 2322.45 ( �6°7.]4 1174.61 1174.61 114.61
l0 WAC �rmlt $,ichafge 20860
11 Payroll tl�ilttiK (2 701-21140 9,938.68 (0, 41.51 (b, 11.10 j9,7]3.07 326,90 969.47 710.09 ( 2.44 )73.95 173.95 ))3.45 )13.95
l2 VensmaanEmmeetDeposit 22205 3,121.90 3,121.90 3,12!.90 (3,205.% (3,205.96 (3,205.96) (3,205.96 (3,205.96 (3,205.%� (3,205.961 (3,205.96] (3,205.%�
13 Chelsea Est Easement Mat 222% 9,002.03 9,002.03 9,002.03 39,002 03 19,002.03 19,002.03) 119,002.03 (4,543.63 19,543.63 119,543.63 19,543.63 19,543.63
14 USPCI Deferred Revenue 22201 8,479.46 ,050.40 9,535.52 3,011.38 3,021.38 33,021.38 x3,264.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15 O Leary's Deferrement 22208 2,103.45) 2,103,45) 2,103.45) (1,122.16) (2,122.16) (2,122.16) (2,139.49) (2,139.49) (2,139.49) (2,139.49} (2,139.49) (2,139.49)
16 Koch Bauxite Deferred Rev 22209 2,035.30 1,035.30 2,035.30 2,035.30 2,035.30 2,0]5.30 2,035.30 2,035.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
It Inciaerator0eferredRev 22110 (!3,536,])) (13,536.77} (13,536.71) (13,536.77 (13,536.77 (13,53677 (13,536.71 (13,536.77 (13,536.71 (13,536.17 (13,536.77 (13,53671
t8 fire Dept Deferred Revenue 21220 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 `t1,000.00 ((1,000.00 ((1,004.00 1,000.00
19 fire epE. Deferred Reveue 22221 (1 400.00 (2900.00 2,900.00 ((3,316.50 3,207.48 3,157.98 3,157.98 3,15].98 (2 ]07.16 (2 701 I6 (2 701.16 2 701.16
20 Police Deferred Revenue 22222 (900.00 (900.00 €€1,056.33 (t 056.]] 1,056.33 �I,OS6.33 1,056.33 1,056.33 ( (270.53 (((214.53 ((170.53 ((220.53
221 2 f/I IT 8 Resseervedefor(228I0 244052126 (9,415.571 (9(,415.571 (6,214.311 (6,178,46 6,069.50 ((6,063.46 6,081.55 5,e%.01 - (5,990.22 (5,0990.22 (5,990.12 (5,990.22
............. ............. ---- --. ..-------_... ........... _...........• ------------- - ------------- - -- • - - •-- - --- -
j (78,503.60) (65,819,12) (109,176.62) (76,101.521 (78,920.23) (114,987.88) (77,026.49) (178,331.20) (208,39S.52) (2081395.52) (208,395.52) (208,395.52)
Korth--Ead Balance571,580,Si 560,368.93 370,173.09 344,641.80 224,351.61 81,911.25 1,119,348,36 757,502.13 668,730.58 491,150.66 279,040.75 1,211,90.83
-
is for October thru December do 'NOT' take qff tj llibllity total again - otherwise the effect is duplicated!!! tit
sit Prior to that, make sure liability total is in: uded to month -End balance
ti✓
_
CITY
OF
ROSE MOUNT
CASH
ON HAND
REPORT
September
30, 1992
FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION
FUND
I
CASH ON HAND
INVESTMENTS
TOTAL
FUND DESCRIPTION
A
401
CASH ON HAND`
2,033.54
INVESTMENTS
60,000.00 `
TOTAL
62,033.54
General Fund
101
(172,119.76)
994,889.08
822,769.32
183,771.03
Cty Rd 942E -Prof 0164
Hawkins•Pond-Proi 1176
402
14,267.14
0.00
14,267.14
Paid-up Debt Sery Bond Fund
102
13,771.03
170,000.00
239,756.62
257,394.46
Westridge 4th Addn-Proj 9223
403
123,222.46
0.00
123,222.46
Port Authority Fund
Fund
201
202
17,637.84
(12,269.81)
1,050,000.00
1,037,730.19
Shannon Hills 3rd Addn-Proj 1225
404
78,181.99
0.00
78,181.99
(57,342.47)
S -Year CIP Program
Capital Projects MSA Fund
203
978
8,.04
160,000.00
168,978.04
Hwy 03 Realignment-Proj 9226
405
406
(57,342.47)
(2,667. )
0.00
0.00
(2,667.81)
.r
Severance 5 Retirement Fund
204
4,523.99
20,000.00
24,523.99
O'Leary's 5th Addn-Proj 9231
Shannon Hills 4th Addn-Proj 0234
407
(890.4444)
0.00
(890.44)
Park Improvements Fund
205
18,145.28
140,000.00
158,145.28
0.00
Chippendale to 160th-Proj 0191
408
38,121.01
220,000.00
258,121.01
..
Nat'l Guard Armory Proj Fund
220
0.00
44,578.28
0.00
0.00
44,578.28
Shan Pkwy N oTDalmaLion Proj 0194
409
0.00
(4,135.99)
0.00
0.00
0.00
(4,135.99)
Shannon Park Protect Fund
221
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Section 31 Trunk Sewer-Proj 0233
145th Recon -Cameo to S/P-Proj 9235
410
411
0.00
0.00
0.00
Diamond Path Project Fund
230
0.00
7,906.55
0.00
60,000.00
62,9D6.55
--Vslley-oak Pond 1197 _
412
44,197.55
(415.53)
470,000.00
0.00
$14,197.55
- _,384.56)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Armory Sanitary Sewer-Proj 1236
Water-Proj 1237
413
414
(4,384.93)
0.00
(4,384.93)
Debt Sery Sirens - 1981
302
0.00
0.00
0.00
Armory
0.00
0.00
0.00
..
y Debt Sery City Hall - 1986
303
8,254.77
40,000.00
20,000.00
48,254.77
25,037.81
145th St W Recons19
truction-Proj 1206
416
4,199.53
0.00
4, .53
0..00
Debt Sery Equip Cert - 1991C
304
5,037.81
0.00
0.00
0
--Proj
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
" "
160th SE Watermain EXt00
9213
418
18,670.2'
0.
18.670.22
Debt Serv, G.O. Impr - 1992A
321
0.00
0.00
0.00
Diamond Path Impr-Proj 1212
42'Sig Light-Proj 0220
419
420
186,057.60
10,949.92
200,000.00
0.00
386,051.60
10,949.92
Debt Sery G.O. Impr - 1980
322
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shan Pkwy b
Shannon Hills 2nd Addn-Proj 9216
421
0.00
0.00
0.00
Debt Sery G.O. Impr - 1980C
Debt Sery G.O. Impr - 1985A
323
324
0.00
9,071.32
130,000.00
139,071.32
Country Hills 4th Addn-Proj 1221
422
17,983.45
8,503.53
20,000.00
430,000.00
37,963.45
438,503.53
Debt Sery G.O. Impr - 1987A
325
12,626.58
2,910,000.00
2,922,626.58
Water Utility fund
Sewer Utility Fund
601
602
11,778.35
180,000.00
191,778.35
`
Debt Sery G.O. Impr - 19888
326
10,609.36
1,690,000.00
1,700,609.36
Storm Water Utility Fund
603
13,135.35
40,000.00
53,135.35
Debt Sery G.O. Impr - 19698
Impr - 1991A
327
328
172.30
26,117.49
1,230,000.00
210,000.00
.1,230,172.30
236,117.49
Water 8 Sewer CIP Program Fund
604
15,578.70
100,000.00
115,578.70
1,024,431.31
Debt Sery G.O.
Debt Sery G.O. Impr - 19918
329
(7,320.75)
0.00
(7,320.75)
Water Hook-up Core Fund
605
15,431.31
22,004.8.3
1,009,000.00
1,019,000.00
1,041,004.83
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
1,095.92
Sewer Hook -Up Core Fund
Storm Water Connection Fees fund
606
607
25,854.93
340,000.00
365,854.93
Debt Sery Tax Increment -1988A
382
1,045.92
0.00
0.00
0/5 Water Bonds - 1971
610
0".00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
D/S Well 17 - 1975
G.O. Bonds - 1989A
611
612
0.00
14,062.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
14,062.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
D/S Rev Water
D/5 G.O. Rev Storm Water - 14928
613
1,563.07
0.00
1,563,07
0.00
Birger Pond Project
620
2,000.00
320,000.00
322,000.00
0.00
-0.00
Meals on Wheels Agency Fund
801
3,011.09
0.00
3,811.09
Star City Activities Agency Fund
802
0.00
0.00
0.00
Town Green .Committee Agency Fund
803
164.92
0.00
164.92
TOTAL 593,752.19 13,472,645.70 14,066,397.89
t
As of September 30; 1992,
MONTHLY REVIEW AUDIT OF CIP CODING
AMOUNTS
1992 CIP BUDGET
x-1992 CIP Budget --Departments to
Use Following Encoding -202 -49002 -01 -(XXX)::
_
�..°ITEM
BUDGET = :OBJECT CODE . SP TO DATE BmIANCE
--------------
DEPARTMENT-
------ ----
---------------------- -----
PC Replacement Program. ...
---ENT
:---------- :----------- ------------
: 15,400 : 586 ' $20,350.54.
($5,350.54)
.-
Finance_
------------------------------
- 8 _ _��_----- 8----------------
8 8
8---------------
H T k **
. 40 000 550 $18 021.60
$21,978.40
:Fire
------------------------
City Hall Furniture -Police 6,000 570 $5,857.46 : $142,54 : Gen'l Govt
1-
------------------------------- 12 ---------- 12 ----------- 12 --------------- 12 --------------- 12 --------------
Election Equipment : 91000 585 $8,797.59 $202.41 . Gen'l Govt -
- --
---------------------14----MN_14------------14---------------14-------------14--------------
a Benches & Small Shelters -Parks : 51000 581 : $0.00 : $5,000.00 : Park & Rec
------------------------16----------16-------------16------------- 16-----{----------16---------------
- Town Green Area 12,000 : 530 $200.00 : $1,800.00 : Park & Rec
------------------------------18----------18------------18---------------18---------------18---------------
JC Park Gen'l Improvements : 60,000 : 531 $50,830.21 : ($830.21) : Park & Rec
--------;------------------ -- ---------20---------------
JC Park Shelter : 100,000 521$5,956.96 $94,043.04 : Park & Rec
------------------------------22----------22---------- 22---------------22---- ----------22---------------
JC Rink & Lighting 25,000 : 532 $427.50 : $24,572.50 : Park & Rec
-----------------------------
24----------24------------24---------------24------------24------- -----
JC Park General Lighting 35,000 : 533 : $0.00 : $35,000.00 : Park & Rec
------------------------------ 26 ---------- 26 ------------ 26 --------------- 2b ---- ----------- 26---------------
Gen'1 Improvements -Shannon Prk : 15,000 : 534 $0.00 : $15,000.00 : Park & Rec
------------------------------28----28---------28---------------28---------------28---------------
Lawn Mower. -Parks. ** $8,454.00 : $3,546.00. : Park & Rec
-�2000582
-----------------------------30----------30------------30---------------30---------------30-----=---------
Passenger Van -Parks ** : 17,000 : 551 $16,986.49 : i $13.51 : Park & Rec
------------------------------ 32 ---------- 32 ------------ 32 --------------- 32 ---- �; ----------32---------------
New Pickup Truck -Parks ** : 17,000 : 552 $0.00 : $17,000.00 : Park & Rec
------------------------------34----------34------------34---------------34--------------34---------------
Park Vacuum ** : 25,000 : 540 $8,958.00 : $16,042.00 : Park & Rec
------------------------------36----------36------------36---------------36---------------36---------------
GIS Software -Planning 15,000 587 .$0.00 : $15;000.00 : Planning
------------------------------38----------38------------38---------------38---------------38-------- ------
2 Police Squad Cars * : 28,000 553 $27,972.14 : $27.86 : Police
------------------------------40----------40------------40---------------40----i-----------40---------------
1/2 Ton Pickup Truck-P/W ** : 14,000 : 554 : $10,956.48 : $3,043.52 : Public Works
------------------------------42----------42------------42---------------42---------------42---------------
3/4 ton 4 x 4 Pickup-P/W ** : 18,000 : 555 : $19,075.16 ($1,075.16) : Public Works
--------------------------- 44----------44------------44---------------44---------------44---------------
Tamper-P/W**: 2,000 : 583 : $2,049.00 ($49.00) : Public Works
--------------------------- 4b----------46------------46---------------46---------------46---------------
Paint Sprayer-P/W**: 2,500 : 584 $2,967.00 : ($467.00) : Public Works
--------------------------- 48-----'----48------------48--------------- 48----
�-
----------48---=-----------
Bob Cat Loader-P/W ** 25,000 541 $18,184.02 : $6,815.98 : Public Works
------------------------------ 50 ---------- 50 ------------ 50 --------------- 50 --------------- 50---------------
$0.00
------------------------------52----------52------------52--------------------.-----------
General Fund Admin Fees 2,250 : 317 $2,250,00 : $0.00 : Admin Fees
------------------------------54----------54------------54---------------54-- -----------54---------------
Certificate-Bonding Costs 0 . 319 $250.00 ($250.00) :
--------==-------------------------------------=-------
Aerial Truck Repairs(Reserve) • 0 • 537 $8,942.64 : ($8,942.64)
-----------------------------------------58---------------
58----------58----------- 58-------------- 58----
City Hall Roof Repair(Reserve) : 0 : 538 : $0.00 :
------------------------------60----------60------------60---------------60---------------60---------------
• $0.00 :
------------------------------ r ----------- -------------
62-- 62------------62---------------62---� 62 --
TOTAL : 499,750 : $247,486.79 : $252,263.21 :
------------------------------64---------64------------64---------------64----�-----------64---------------
LESS: Items to be Funded by TOTAL COH 9/30/92 $1,037,730.19
Equipment Certificates(**) 200,500 ---------------
Admin Fees(From Reserve) 2,250 Reserves $785,466.98
---F/B Reserved from 1990 CIP Budget
Total Levy for 1992 297,000 Not Yet Spent $122,000.00
___=====F/B Reserved from 1991 CIP Budget
Not Yet Spent $129,194.68
Total Reserves Available 7/1/92 $534,272.30
2nd Half Levy to Receive 12/92 $148,500.00
---------------
Total Projected Reserves by 12/31/92 682,772.30
city of Rosemount
[#come Statement-Vater
For Month Ending
9/30/92
Y.
Januar
Februar
March
April
may
June
July
August
September-
November--
December
<,k{
-- -...
-----------
- -
-
-October--
--
.r .
'_
-----....._
.,.....-r--
---------T -
...........
Revenue#.
Resideatisl Vater(37110) - $Actual$
199,928.08
(266.44)
81.10
54,666.90
(13.00)
0.00
73,605.60
(938.52)
161.30
72,629.11
0.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
!. Apartpest Vetef(37120) - $Actual$
26,487.00
0.00
0.00
6,990.60
0.00
0.00
10,376.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9,120.20
2,731.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
G;institntional Vater(3712$) - $Actual$
8,323.50
0.00
0.00
158.60
2,142.20
6,169.35
0.00
161.70
0.00
(350.75)
3,450.10
6,986.50
27.00
330.00
8,863.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
commercial Vater(31130) - $Actual$
industrial Vater(37140) - $Actual$
22,365.60
3,579.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,274.70
0.00
(77.80)
1,178.20
0.00
0.00
1,204.60
0,00
0.00
0.00
penalties - Vater(37160) - $Actual$
S,349,78
2,037.89
(2.49)
(20.00)
1,671.74
0.00
(18.45)
3,635.65
(39,17)
(1,915.59)
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
Other Vater Revenmes(37170)-$Actual$
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
150.00
0.00
1,250.00
0.00
1,150.00
0.00
800.00
0.00
900.00
0.00
$50,00
0.00
950.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.
0.00
Vater Neter Hook-Up(37165) - $Actual$
Sales(37180) - lActuale---
8,300.00
---ib,M AO ----1,611.00__
850.00
500.00
950 00
1,125.00
2,37S-.00_
3,315.00
11545.00
1,710.00
1,200.00
2,016.00
0.00
0.00
-0,00
0.00
-ilalef-Meter
Pri#cipal - S/A(36101) - lActuall
8,761.77
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8,761.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
.
0.00
`-
penalties - S/A(36102) - $Actual$
Interest-Isvestmests(36210)-$Actual$
84.20
10,53$.46
0.00
832.33
0.00
932.06
0.00
1,349.07
0100
1,022.19
0.00
1,707.71
0.00
952.37
84.20
1,034.66
0.00
1,797.26
0.00
907,80
0.00
0.00
0.00
Other interest Rev(36215) - $Actual$
11027.06
0.00
383.28
36.41
57.22
165.04
56.95
8.51
210.79
108.86
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Contributioas(36230) - $Actual$
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Other Reve#ue(36260) - $Actual$
162.76
0.00
182.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
............
-----------
------------
............
..--.-
..--
--
Total Revenues
-------------
311,085.91
-----------
5,068.76
------------
3,186.31
----•-------
74,784.23
...........
6,544,65
6,519.71
90,932.47
15,123.47
4,211.16
96,615.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
Less: Operatla9 Espeases(All Actual)
6eaeral Operatlas(49400-01)
74,438.56
261.89
2,254.11
3,669.22
13,274.65
5,246.34
2,210.61
18,150.14
22,833.03
5,937.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
Adele Personasl(49400-77)
23,493.34
1,585.23
2,439,03
3,589.73
2,438.96
2,436.93
1,438.91
2,439.14
2,451.79
3,665.56
6,182.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
"'C18ricl Personael(49400-78)
44,741.89
2,824.46
4,488.69
6,471.56
4,546.19
4,064.18
4,731,34
4,066,81
4,975.41
4,084.54
4,715.36
1,091.85
5,190.25
3,549.69
5,941.11
0.00
0.00
0,00
Mai#t perso##ei(49400-79)
38,981.50
2,652.28
4,288,12
6,242.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
P/1 pera0anei(49400-99)
Veil 13(49403-01)
0.00
6,396.30
0.00
0,00
0.00
1,517,12
0.00
49.54
0.00
$61.70
0.00
742.05
0,00
752.77
11019.26
994.32
758.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
Veli 16(49406-01)
921.35
31.40
70.59
520.27
112.46
23.66
13.44
$2.42
37.39
59.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
,?
r, Veil 17(/9407-01)
8,815.34
0.00
1,561.46
674.08
1,602.72
1,077.61
1,562.82
1,279.53
1,051,12
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
' Well 18(44408-01)
6,915.77
0.00
830.91
882,77
793.65
694.47
873.00
1,162.11
691.17
987.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
Veil 19(49409-01)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
$5.00
0.00
55,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
Well 810(49410-01)
"r
165,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
55.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
veil 111(49411.01)
-! Vater lower 11(49415-01)
0.00
673.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
673.00
0.00
0.00
0..00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
j Vater Tower 12(49416-01)
976.410.00
96.31
84.71
86.86
392.36
------------
44.23
-----------'----
91.52
89.16
-
91.26
----...--
0.00
-..,
0.00
0.00
Total 0peratInp Expenses
-------------
206 518.48
-------------
-----------
7,35S.34
-----------
-••-'---_...
17,546.34
------------
............
12,184.14
...........
27,538.07
20,092.57
16,955.79
33 612.09
36 954.97
24,279.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
Net Iocome(Loss)
-
i
i
104,567.43
att:asaaa sea:
(2,286.56)
zzzsasa:: cz
(14,360.03)
:azz:axza z:
52,600.09
assz:atssssa
(20,993.22)
zsa::::z:a:
(13,573.36)
:azs z:sz:as
81,976.68
z:a zza:: zs
(18,388.62)
ss:z z:zs::::
(32,743.79)
zs:z::z sz::z
72,336.14
:z:za:az:z
0.00
zssa aa:a:
0.00
:zszs:zzz::
0.00
sz:::zvs::a
'F
i 1tS j 1 Ff }.t4 1 1
n N O .NO O Y .PO m 6 P P V m
N m +
u u u m
I .tl0 1 0 0 0 0 N O OPD m N m
N
r P
a w V r v O m
u + o
n 4un I CSD I V +P. .O Om .u- O W N N N
Ou0 P 0 0 0 0 N V OUD W
u O P
• r
N 3
2 A z
N N N !S O m W N m
O
v V O i N
V v m
GD m . .O P P O N O N .O
v'mo :.. o. :-o �a
O r N r
r 6 O
V .0 m W P O O N N 6
0 0
mo .a.+aevovou v.o
m � vin i o � � o •.
n.r I I ano oeo .o o
J r N r
_IOJ y r N N N m
6.V
w N uo
N O a 6 6 N N P
P P P O P r O m W +
v N
N N r N
Cn N W .O m r O P P 0 0
O 1 V O N m
a a
W N P v N W O a m a r
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w o 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 o
11 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- O
n 0 1 0 1 0 O O g 0 0 0 0 0 O
o o o q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
� a
V
a
NN• N V ✓'.•
V I N E N N S � V J •ti
• O O O m V ',P 0► N V .O P r ; O
� i �
_
�^� es+a �:-.�
� o n o ... 1p e e ^e •'t ... r ao s `
-
�
r � r r x m w
I I
tl w C
O^ Y N O O Y
a- i C O 1P� � O• i A
A
i 00600',0 OOv00 000 I`K
9
0 0 0 Oa O a 0' O i s
"T 0 1• 1 !Y N
N tl
a a a !•' O 9 ! O
-Z.-
_• a
V I OWOi000vO.NOOON
=203
d W W a,►, v s s In -a s
d �'� m-
yCY
� P W C O P G ^ IiJ y V �"•
�
.D t N i .i-� �
v O ^ O
V
O ma^ A O W V N W
I I v •
vvvvv v ` �
A v r V 1 1 N
�' n O • I'
.0..
n N O .NO O Y .PO m 6 P P V m
N m +
u u u m
I .tl0 1 0 0 0 0 N O OPD m N m
N
r P
a w V r v O m
u + o
n 4un I CSD I V +P. .O Om .u- O W N N N
Ou0 P 0 0 0 0 N V OUD W
u O P
• r
N 3
2 A z
N N N !S O m W N m
O
v V O i N
V v m
GD m . .O P P O N O N .O
v'mo :.. o. :-o �a
O r N r
r 6 O
V .0 m W P O O N N 6
0 0
mo .a.+aevovou v.o
m � vin i o � � o •.
n.r I I ano oeo .o o
J r N r
_IOJ y r N N N m
6.V
w N uo
N O a 6 6 N N P
P P P O P r O m W +
v N
N N r N
Cn N W .O m r O P P 0 0
O 1 V O N m
a a
W N P v N W O a m a r
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w o 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 o
11 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- O
n 0 1 0 1 0 O O g 0 0 0 0 0 O
o o o q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
� a
V
a
NN• N V ✓'.•
V I N E N N S � V J •ti
• O O O m V ',P 0► N V .O P r ; O
� i �
fw Y
I I
tl w C
�
i 00600',0 OOv00 000 I`K
V I OWOi000vO.NOOON
V r
0. . . of oe. . .
O O O W d 0 0 0 W O m O
r O O O V O O O O O O m P O O
OO O O N V O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.00 r oo o lP.av0000o 0000
.Mq a N W N
a i. . . . N O O O. O N P a
0 0 0 N O O �O U P
O O O O V
1
NO O O N
• O O O N
O O O O O
o g o 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
o in o0000y
oPoaaD0000�
N
o• o 0 0 0 o uo o-
Noo.000� om
�+ogogo oom
r P
r O + r O
O O O .O O N tNJ. U •�+
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. O
A
i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I
c .1 A
0 00000000 00
02,
_W7
c .1 A
0 00000000 00
: Monthly Report
of Investment HoldingsInstitutiony ,=
',h... i' h, -"Y -' 7�'A'� RG �'t Y,�r
As of September
,by
,.r
30, 1992Nrx
_ +5: •.3 D i+'1r, 51
. Y
3�
.. fi
sH-
Marquette National
of AV=
Rosemount National.-
r: 1st State of Rosemount
.-0ate Due Rate Account
Aeount
:Date Due Rate
Account ! -=
Amount
•Date Due Rate Account I Amount
12/08/92' 3.10.; 58355256
:10/13/92
3.60
1776
$1,200,000
:10/27//92 4.00 64223 $3,205.96
12/21/92 3.05 ` 58355264
_5300,000
$300,000
:10/26/92
3.60
1786
$550,000
Wensmana Addition Cul de sac
.:11/09/92
3.33
1792
$1,300,000
The above's initial investant
:11/23/92
3.33
1799
$200,000
was 11/1/88 for $2,500. _..
:12/07/92
3.20
1806
$400,000
: Rolled from old rate
:12/14/92
3.33
1808
$300,000
: of 5.40 on April 28, 1992
:12/21/92
3.15
1812
$550,000
:08/23/93 3.80 64642 $9,543.63
The above is a Cul.de sac
payment for the Chelsea
. Estate Plat to be held until
Cul de sac is complete
:Savings Account set up as an escrow
. for Repairs Inc. property lease
:09/30/92.(As of) $9,756.62
Totals
$600,000
:
Totals
$4,500,000
: $22,506.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midway National Rank
Metropolitan
Federal of
Iowa
Prudential Securities
Date Due Rate Account
Amount
Date Due
Rate '
Account :
Amount
:Date',Due Rate CUSIP : Amount
10/13/92
3.15
9470208936
$900,000
11/09/92 3.20 17609
$300,000
:10/13/92
3.1S
9470209744
$200,000
:12/03/92 4.10 990002L13R $98,000
12/07/92 3.00 17615
$400,000
:10/13/92
3.10
9470210171
$250,000
:04/15/95 6.00 99O003ZL2R $100,000
12/21/92 2.70 17618
$300,000
:10/26/92
2.90
9470210510
$100,000
:11/09/92
3.20
9470209751
$1,000,004
:11/23/92
3.15
9470209983
$800,000
:12/07/92
3.15
9470210189
$2,100,000
As of
:12/14/92
3.00
9470210320
$700,000
06/30/92 Escrow Savings Account set up
:12/21/92
3.00
947021012
$600,000
for O'Leary's 4th
Addition
$2,139.49
:10/18/93
6.25
9470202319
$500,000
Totals $1,002,139.49 : Totals
:TOTAL INVESTMENTS
$7,150,000
$13,472,645.70
Totals $198,000
I
(Pity of (0?osemouni
PHONE (612) 4234411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota
FAX (612) 4235203 Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510
MAYOR
Edward B. Mc Menomy
COUNCILMEMBERS
Sheila Ktassen
James (Red) Staats .
Harry Willcox
Dennis Wippermann
ADMINISTRATOR
Stephan Jilk
TO: Mayor McMenomy
Council Members: Klassen, Staats, Willcox, Wippermann
FROM: Linda Jentink, Administrative Secretary
DATE: October 27, 1992
RE: Oct. 27 Special Meeting Packet Information
A page may have been missing from the resolution
outlining non-union full time city staff salary and benefits for
1992.
Please find attached the complete resolUtidn.
(Sverytkings (90ming (UP Rosemouni11
A
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1991 78
A RESOLUTION OUTLINING NON-UNION FULL'TIME
STAFF SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR 1992
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount has reviewed
certain salary and benefit adjustments for the non-union full-
time city staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Administrator has provided supporting
information as to recommending salary and benefits adjustments
for 1992; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed a proposed policy for
implementing annual adjustments and employment step adjustments
in 1992 and beyond (this policy is attached as Exhibit "A") along
with implementing other benefit changes as proposed by city
administration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount feels it is
appropriate to institute such recommended changes.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the salary ranges are to be
set for all non-union positions as set out in Exhibit "B" to this
resolution, which salary schedule will be implemented as set out
in the Salary Adjustment Policy (Exhibit"A" to this resolution),
and that the following benefit schedule be adopted for all non-
union city staff and will become effectiveJanuary1, 1992:
A. Holidays
1. New Years Day 7. Columbus Day
2. Martin Luther King Day S. Veterans Day
3. Presidents Day 9. Thanksgiving Day
«4. Memorial Day 10. Friday following
5. Independence Day Thanksgiving
6. Labor Day 11. Christmas',Day
B. Vacation: Vacation shall be earned by non-union full-time
staff monthly per the following schedule, beginning January 1,
1992:
1st year of employment .67 day/mo (8 days)
2nd thru 3rd yr of employment 1 day/mo (12 days)
4th thru 10th year of employment 1 ; days/mo (18 days)
11th thru 15th yr of employment 1 3/4 days/mo(21 days)
16 and above yrs of employment 2 days/mo (24 days)
F
C. Vacation Accrual: Full-time non-union city
;accumulate vacation based on years of service to
prescribed below. Payment in lieu of vacation a
amount listed will not be considered.
Ilution 1991 - 78
Page 2
staff may
the maximum
:creed beyond the
0 thru 4 years of service 20 days (160 hours)
5 thru 10 years of service 25 days (200 hours)
11 years of service and above 30 days (240 hours)
D. Compensatory Time: Compensatory time may be accumulated for
overtime worked at the rate of one and one-half times the hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Compensatory time may
accumulate to a maximum of 80 hours. Combined accumulation of
compensatory time and vacation will not exceed vacation maximum
plus 40 hours.
E. Sick Leave: Full-time non-union staff will earn sick leave
at the rate of one day per month with no maximum accrual. Sick
leave to be available for use as accrued.
Buyout Provision: Employees accruing in excess of 60 days
(480 hours) of sick leave under this section may: on January 1st
only of each year, elect to "sell" those hours in excess of 480,
to the city at a conversion rate equal to the percentage figures
in Section E. times the hours being "sold" times the employee's
then base rate of pay. (Example: Employee John Doe, employed
with the city 14 years has 640 hours of sick leave accumulated.
His rate of pay is $14.00/hr. He chooses to "sell" 100 hours.
The calculation would be 100 x .45 x 14.00 = 630. This would
leave him 540 hours of sick leave left. The $630 would be added
to his payroll check subject to all taxes, social security, etc.
F. Severance Pay: Full-time non-union staff will receive
payment at the employee's rate at time of leaving, asprescribed
below when leaving the employ of the city in good standing.
Vacation: Up to accrued amount
Sick`Leave: 1 thru 5 yrs of service, 15% of accumulated sick leave
6 thru 10 yrs of service, 30% of accumulated sick leave
11 thru 15 yrs of service, 45% of unfused sick leave
16 yrs of service and above, 60% of unused sick leave
Plus the following when the employee is leaving ''the employ of the
City for retirement purposes:
5 thru 9 yrs of service = 2
10 years of service and above = 4
weeks
weeks
pay
pay
" Resolution 1991 - 78
Page 3
G. Longevity: After 5 years of service, it of base
After 8 years of service,
2% of base
After 12 years of service, 3% of base
After 16 years of service,
4% of base
H. Health insurance: Cost of Basic Plan (1st collar) - loot of
employees coverage - 65% of the difference between single
employee coverage and the total family coverage.The cost
difference between the basic (1st dollar) plan and any optional
plans available to employees, will be paid by the employee.
I. Life Insurance: The city will pay the cost of:
1. $10,000 Term Life Insurance (Minnesota Mutual Life) ,
2. Declining value PERA Life Insurance Plan
Any additional life insurance costs for optional plans
available to the employee will be born by the employee.
J. Dental Insurance: The city will pay the cost of single
coverage through a plan approved by the city (1992 cost of $18.20
through Delta Dental Plan). Employee pays any additional cost
for employee or dependents.
G. Education Reimbursement: The City will pay'100% of all
costs of taking a class not to exceed $750 a year for classes
approved by Administration and successfully completed. The City
will also pay 50% of costs above the initial $750 for classes
approved by Administration and successfully completed.
Adopted this 3rd day of December, 1991.
Ve n J Na er, Mayor
ATTEST:
001,Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by: Napper Seconded by:
Voted in favor: Willcox, Wippermann, Napper, Isla
Voted against: None