Agenda - Council - 01/10/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1995 EXEMPT PERSONNEL WAGES By: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator CASE #1 Background: At the December 13, 1994 Personnel Committee meeting the issue of wages for exempt personnel was raised as ah agenda item. It was tabled in deference to the 1995 Council. It is brought back to the Committed at this time to receive input on the wage plan and to determine if there are areas wherein Coun&il requires more information or background prior to a decision on 1995 wages. Unless Council is prepared to act at this time, staff is proposing deferring action to the fin-st February meet!ng. It should be noted that this same pay recommendation for 1995 was made in May 1994 wheh the 1994 wages were approved. It was also noted to Council throughout the 1995 budget process!that these would be the budgeted wage levels for 1995. Enclosed for your review is the December 1994 agenda materials. Included is the proposed pay plan as well ag comparisons to the two Ramsey unions and a compilation of 1994 wages in Andover, Anol~, Champlin and Elk River. Added to this material is a listing of relevant positions within the 1994 Anoka County pay plan (not actual wages but wage ranges used in 1994). Also added is the 19~5 Organizational Chart and the 1995 Compensation Plan. Finally, included is a listing of total! 1994 gross earnings by employee. Included are wages for overtime and compensatory time. This is important in this discussion as overtime/compensatory time wages often add up to i4 - 6% over the base wage for overtime earning employees (therefore a listing of base wage allov~s a somewhat incomplete comparison). Our pa3' plans for AFSCME and exempt personnel are effectively the same. Police patrol have a step plan where~n patrol officers are virtually guaranteed movement through the plan regardless of outside environmental forces (i.e. poor economy). The other two plans have a base cost of living increase (COLA) of 2% and adjustments above that which vary. These adjustments occur after assigning value~ for seniority and position relative to the pay class. Positions closer to the top of the pay class re~ive fewer "points" than staff members near the bottom of the range. These points are then totaled, i~ssigned a weight (same for all positions) and multiplied by that weight to achieve a final "step increase," The intent of this plan was to bring employees below the midpoint of their pay class to the imidpoint relatively quickly. That is why persons closer to the pay maximums receive lesser pe~.centage pay increases. There has been spme discussion in the past that wages for exempt personnel should be based upon job performance} Therefore, the reviews recently completed have been forwarded to you under separate cover. ~(Please recall that these reviews are confidential and therefore not for public discussion.) At ~,he time of this writing, two of these reviews are not yet complete. They will be forwarded when they become available. In preparation for this meeting we requested information on neighboring cities wage increases. Please note, again, that the wage survey in the attachments is 1994 data. Above those wages are the following: , Andover 4% COLA; 2-6% additional for performance and market adjustments Anoka 2.5% COLA (0% if above pay class) ChamplinI 2% based on performance 1/1/95; 3% performance adjustment 7/1/95 Elk River: 3% COLA The attached Ramsey pay plan includes a 2% COLA and a 2.03% class/seniority adjustment average (varies frbm 0.09% to 5.31%). Again, this is the same as the AFSCME plan which is in the second year o~ a two-year contract (1994 - 1995). It should be noted that LELS (police patrol) has a wage re-opet~er for 1995. All other issues including insurance contribution are settled.