Laserfiche WebLink
By: <br /> <br /> 1996 EXEMPT WAGES <br />Ryan R. Schroeder, City Administrator <br /> <br />~CASE # [ <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />At the July 9, 1996 Personnel Committee meeting, the Case of Exempt Wages was tabled. In the <br />process, Council ~equested additional information. Requested was information on performance <br />reviews, 1995 gross wages of all staff (void of wages for overtime) and consideration of a market <br />analysis of the Sergeant position, including Captain and Lieutenant positions. In the meantime, the <br />1996 Stanton wage study for all Metro Area cities was received. <br /> <br />Included in this packet is the following information: <br /> <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />7. <br /> <br />1996 wage recommendation from 7/09/96 <br />1995 staff gross earnings sans overtime <br />1995 staff gross earnings inclusive of overtime <br />1996 Stanton Class Six wage analysis <br />Market wages of neighboring communities <br />Historical individual annual wage improvements/all staff from 1991 <br />Mid-year activity synopsis <br /> <br />Over the past five years (and prior) there has been a concern that Exempt Personnel not be treated <br />exceptionally in comparison to the bargaining units. As a result, for each of the past five years, <br />wage decisions affecting Exempt employees have been delayed until contracts are settled in the <br />bargaining units, and then Exempt wage adjustments have echoed those given to unionized <br />employees. <br /> <br />There has also been a desire, to some degree, to link adjustments for Exempt personnel to <br />performance. Two years ago an effort was made to establish a merit system, but the various <br />parties involved were unable to come up with a system perceived as fair. Although we do not have <br />a pay-for-performance plan, every Exempt employee has a current performance appraisal with an <br />overall performance rating of satisfactory or better. This is despite the high volume of work, <br />resulting from Ramsey's unsurpassed level of activity in recent years. (see exhibit #7) <br /> <br />The way we have: dealt with Exempt salaries has some deficiencies. First, because adjustments <br />closely follow those in the bargaining units, there is very little opportunity to use market <br />comparisons to establish salaries. An exception would be the additional compensation granted the <br />Police Chief in 1995, in recognition that the market rate surpassed Ramsey's compensation for that <br />position. For the most part, however, compensation for Exempt employees in Ramsey is near the <br />bottom in comparisons with comparable positions in peer communities. (see exhibits #4 and #5) <br /> <br />Exempt positions in Ramsey also suffer in comparison with employees in the two bargaining units. <br />They don't normally have the promotional or reclassification opportunities that are available to <br />AFSCME employees. Nor do they experience the step increases that amount to 10% to 16% per <br />year for LELS employees during their first six years of employment. (see exhibit 6) Finally, most <br />Exempt employees are required to spend more than forty hours per week meeting job <br />responsibilities without the availability of compensatory time or overtime pay. (see exhibit #3) <br /> <br />The wage recommendation from 7/11/96 stands as presented with one exception. I believe it is <br />appropriate to provide additional compensation to the City Engineer. His current compensation <br />(1995) is $3,100 below the next lowest of peer positions. This situation does not exist with any <br />other position here. Further, the Ramsey level of compensation is further behind market median <br /> <br /> <br />