Agenda - Council - 04/12/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

199~ WAGES AND BENEFITS FOR EXEMPT EMPLOYEES ~ By: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator CASE # Background:~ Attached is a copy of my proposal for the Exempt personnel based on the similar pack.ag.e of'the Negotiations ~ttee's discussions on the AFSCME and the proposed LELS bargmmng unit contracts for 1~94. There would be an increase in payroll of 4.03%, and an increase in the monthly contribStion for health and life insurance of $275 monthly effective August 1, 1994. · A notice has baen distributed to the Exempt personnel stating that anyone with questions or concerns should contact me prior to tonight's meeting. Having not benefitted from input from exempt personnel, I am not aware of any concerns or comments that may arise (which will be forwarded to yo$). It is my position, however, that it is a reasonable position in this year to follow the AFSCME fo_~.Baaat. In addition to th~ above, my proposal includes a $636 comparable worth adjustment bringing the Police Chief to thc midpoint of salary grade 19. While our tables are setup using class maximums, it has been Coufl.,cil's position to ensure employee achievement of the midpoint without guarantees beyond that. Tl~is long.-term emplo, yee after the 1994 wage table would be the only case with as long a full-time tenure m a pay eqmty set class below the midpoint. Thus, the adjustment. Also a $783 eomparabl~ worth adjustment bringing the Administrative Services Manager to the minimum of salary grad~ 16 as discussed during the Pay Equity Adjustments case at the Personnel Committee mee.ting of March 8, 1994. These adjustments add .4% to the payroll cost of exempt personnel. Th~adjustments, however, are fair and reasonable. Further, like situations do not exist elsewhere .~n the organization. After these two comp worth adjustments, it is not expected that there will b~ future comp worth adjustments among exempt personnel unless there is a change in position valu~on. The past two y~ars we have discussed pay relationships between supervisory and subordinate personnel. The ~scussions have most often focused on relationships within the police department. Wage compression, however, is most pronounced within public works currently. It is expected that by 1995 thi4 compression will have been corrected While no additional action is suggested at this time, wag~: compression will need to be reviewed periodically. The following table demonstrates 1 ~3 pay relationships. Position :Tire Salary Years in 1993 Annual Grade Position Salary City Admirristrator 22 3 Police Chief 19 15 £ Sergeant 13 2 Patrol Officer : 10 15 Finance Officer, 18 < 1 Accounting S uP~rvisor 13 4 City Engineer ~ 17 4 Public Works S@pervisor 14 21 Heavy Equipme,flt Operator 9 17 Adrnln. Service~ Manager 16 4 Recording S~ 9 4 Parks/Utilities S~apervisor 13 5 Heavy Equipment Operator 9 17 $50.981 $52.055 $46~30t $42453 $45O0O $34 784 $45 655 $42,917 $33,895 $32,542 $24,477 $31,969 $33,895 Comparison of % Difference Above Position and Highest Subordinate Departmental Position (2.06) 12.43 9.06 NA 29.37 NA 6.38 26.62 NA 32.95 NA (5.68) NA