Laserfiche WebLink
Background:i <br /> <br /> CITY OF RAMSEY WAGE POLICY <br />By: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator <br /> <br />CASE # <br /> <br />From time to time, and aga/n recently, Council has had the opportunity to question its <br />policy regarding wages. The Personnel Committee at its regular meeting of May 8, 1994 <br />discussed our gurrent unwritten wage policy and suggested that staff present a written <br />policy at its JUne I4, 1994 meeting. Attached as exhibit III is this policy pursuant to <br />Committee discussion. Following is the narrative (slighfly amended) in support of the <br />policy documeflt. <br /> <br />Market Compa~fi'sons <br />During my tengre here we generally have compared to Stanton Class V Cities (metro area) <br />between 10,00¢. and 20,000 population for market purposes. We have not compared to the <br />private sector l~al market. Accurate information in that arena is more difficult to gain and <br />most comparis~ms are not as direct. The pau'ol unit has generally asserted that the entire <br />Stanton V ma/;ket should be utilized. During the past six months, staff has utilized <br />neighboring w~ges (Andover, Anoka, Champlin, and Elk River) and Anoka County wages <br />as additional c~mparisons (exhibit IV). <br />For 1994 staff!estimates our population at 15,593. For 1995 we project an increase to <br />16,629. Whe~ the AFSCME contract exph'es, December 31, 1995, we expect our <br />population to ~e at 17,332. Given the above, staff suggests using the Stanton Class V <br />Cities between }10,000 and 25,000 for market comparisons. <br /> <br />Classification/( <br />Again, during <br />around compar <br />identified 1993 <br />year in 1994, 1' <br /> <br />ompensation Plan <br />~y tenure here, the discussions in the compensation plan area have centered <br />sons to market. Our 1994 class maximums are currently at 104.7% of the <br />market comparisons. If one assumes market classes will increase 2.5% per <br />}95 and 1996, our classes will average 97.23% of market classes in 1996 if <br /> <br />there is no incr?se in our plan. <br /> <br />Our class mimmum wages continue to be in a somewhat different position than the <br />maximums. Yiou will recall that Ramsey in the past started positions at 56% of class <br />maximums (ori 80% of the class minimum). This has increased to 69% of the class <br />maximum in 1!~94 - 1995 in AFSCME and Exempt positions. Our minimums, however <br />continue to be omewhat lower than market averages (89.5% in 1994 of 1993 markets). <br />For 1996, withclut amendment, our class minimums are projected to be at 83.1% of market <br />minimums on a' eerage. <br /> <br />Given the abow', it appears that our class maximums will be appropriately placed for 1996 <br />(even though ~ey have been increased just over 3% since 199I). Our minimums need to <br />be increased so newhat to remain competitive in our hiring ranges. Projecting forward it <br />appears that if r ~aximums are not increased class minimums should be in the range of 72% <br />to 76% of the naximums (currently at 69%). Council will recall a recent Personnel <br />Committee dis :ussion wherein I stated that 69% wasn't bad, but probably should be <br />watched, maybe[ bumped up a little bit, but certainly not reduced. <br /> <br />Wage Progressi'>rl <br />Recently Couneil has asked if we have a plan to move staff through their class ranges. The <br />attachment sho, ~s that of AFSCME and Exempt employees, it is projected that wages will <br />average 101.5~ of midpoint in 1995. Average tenure of this group on January 1, 1995 <br /> <br /> <br />