Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 12/01/1987 - Special Meeting AF APPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1987 6: 00 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Cara. J. Jullie, Asst. to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson, Director of Human Resources and Services Natalie Swaggert, and Recording Secretary Sue Anderson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members were present. I . CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 6: 06 PM. II. REPORT ON COMPARABLE WORTH Natalie Swaggert, Director of Human Resources & Services, presented the Comparable Worth Study Report for review and approval of recommendations. Part I, dealt with the purpose of the study and its compliance with Minnesota Legislature Law of 1984 , Chapter 651, requiring each political subdivision of the state to establish equitable compensation relationships between female-dominated, male-dominated and balanced classes of employees. The law also requires that each subdivision use a job evaluation system to determine comparable work value Part II, Swaggert overviewed the Job Evaluation Method Selection and the decision of 134 jurisdictions of the Metropolitan Area Management Association (MAMA) to work jointly on the study. Control Data. Business Advisors was selected to perform an analysis and evaluation of City jobs. Business Advisors analyzed, evaluated and made external market comparisons for 29 benchmark jobs. Job analysis was performed using 6 Occupational Analysis Questionnaires. The analysis and evaluation study was undertaken in a cooperative effort to comply with the Minnesota Comparable Worth Act of 1984 by establishing reasonable and equitable pay relationships between jobs in the MAMA member cities' employment structures. Special City Council Meeting 2 December 1, 1987 Bentley inquired about method of job analysis in determining content of position. Swaggert replied the questionnaire provided a comprehensive list of possible tasks and space for time spent on each task. John Coskey, Arthur Young consultant, explained that the system is an automated way of evaluating a job on time spent, and that it is broad enough to customize a job. Bentley inquired if the process is truly representative of our situation here. Coskey replied the questions are so detailed it accounts for 100% of time spent. Pidcock asked if all employees took the questionnaires. Swaggert answered no, in some cases only a representative sample of each job was analyzed. Anderson inquired if the City did not have job descriptions already, could this information dovetail a job description. Swaggert reported that the time spent profile had indeed provided a state-of-the-art job description revised, updated and very detailed. Part Ill, covered development and communication of the Comparable Worth Hierarchy which indicates grade and point range, job title and class. After release of the results, employees had thirty days to appeal . The City had 18 position appeals. Some were settled internally, and several went on to the MAMA Committee. Bentley asked if the reason for appeal was because the employee felt the weighing was not accurate. Swaggert replied that appeals were made for multiple reasons but that many were submitted as system-weighing appeals. Coskey pointed out that the strength of the system prevailed and the jobs stand as they were originally analyzed. The appeal process took four months. Swaggert reported that appeals were by both female and male dominated positions. The close range of the positions in the Comparable Worth Point Comparison with other municipalities of our size was noted. Part IV, covered the Pay Equity Analysis, focused on establishing a formal pay plan to properly administer pay equity and related pay issues for all employees in the future. In developing ranges so differences in one grade and the next can be recognized, there is a 15% difference in the mid points. Between grades 7 and 8 there is a 19% difference. The extra 4% difference is to help relieve the pay compression that results because the non-exempt grade 7 is eligible for overtime and the grade 8 exempt employee is not eligible for overtime. Coskey continued that the analysis identified individuals who require an adjustment to be considered equitably paid. Overpaid positions will be individually reviewed and an Special City Council Meeting 3 December 1, 1987 appropriate course of action will be developed. The intent is to bring these positions in line with the new ranges over a period of time. Bentley asked how jobs covered by contract would be adjusted. Swaggert felt this would be dealt with in the bargaining process, and will get back to Council as negotiations occur. Pidcock asked for clarification of range spread being greater at top management than in the lower skilled. Swaggert responded that at the non-exempt levels, growth is vertical (into the next grade) . At the exempt level, career growth is through the grade; as grade 10 and 11 are department heads and only a few can be in those levels, grade 9 is the end of the career for most employees requiring a wider range of pay to satisfy more years of employment in one range. Mayor Peterson asked how the proposed policies compared with private sector employment. Coskey stated private sector data was integrated into the study. Salary data from Honeywell, Dayton-Hudson, and Pillsbury was used. Part IT, Pay Equity Implementation, was summarized by Swaggert. Adjustment to salary was necessary for one female at $.42 and seven males at $7 . 18 total. Fourteen female at $9. 57 per hour and 12 male at $12 .19 per hour. The intent is to bring them into range gradually from this point on. Besides these adjustments, they looked at each individual job to see if, with regard to years in service, they had progressed to mid-point. These adjustments are listed in the report and the amount collectively to bring them to midpoint which is $4 . 14/hour. Recommendations to handle minimum pay equity for underpaid positions are: 1) adjust all female salaries that are below the range minimum to the range minimum; 2) adjust all male salaries that are below the range minimum to the range minimum; 3) provide additional adjustments to those employees whose present salaries are at a lower level in their salary range than is appropriate based on the length of time in their present position; and 4) make the above adjustments retroactive to August 1 , 1987 . This coincides with the date established by the Minnesota State Legislature after which a city could be subject to legal action for possible Comparable Worth discrimination. Included in the 1987 Budget is an allocation of $30, 000 for Comparable Worth adjustments. The actual cost of the proposed adjustments is $22,533. The recommendations for overpaid adjustments for sworn officer positions are: 1) complete a detailed salary survey to determine Eden Prairie 's competitive market position. Monitor 1987-88 contract settlements for i M r Special City Council Meeting 4 December 1, 1987 impact of Comparable Worth on wage arbitration; and 2) modify the Eden Prairie, January 1, 1989, sworn officer salary structure to reflect changing market conditions with the intent of remaining in a position of competitive pay. A key goal must be established to retain our department as a non-organized unit. The recommendation for overpaid adjustments for public works maintenance personnel is: Eden Prairie 's employees are covered by the Master Labor Agreement between Metropolitan Area Management Association (MAMA) and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49. The City cannot directly impact the wages set by this contract but have flexibility to establish salary steps between the Maintenance I (Laborer) and Maintenance II (Light Equipment Operator) classifications. A merit pay step system should be researched and evaluated for possible implementation by January 1, 1989 . The recommendation for overpaid adjustments for other positions is: All other overpaid positions can be resolved over a period of time through implementation of the new salary administration program. The recommendations for EXEMPT/NON-EXEMPT PAY COMPRESSION are: 1) adopt a two-tier vacation plan that provides a higher rate of vacation accrual to exempt employees. The additional vacation would alleviate, through indirect compensation, a pay compression problem between the non- exempt and exempt :salary levels. In addition it would provide a partial replacement of lost earnings for individuals whose positions were formerly treated as non- exempt and are now classified as exempt under the new salary structure; and off-set, to some extent, the large number of hours required of Department Heads and other exempt professionals in after-hours meetings; 2) alternative solutions to this pay-compression problem include adopting an exempt over-time policy or increasing the salary levels for Grades 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 . Both alternatives are expensive "direct compensation" solutions; and 3) the revised Vacation Benefit program would be as follows: Regular Employee Status 2 weeks (10 days) 0 - 5 years 3 weeks (15 days) 6 - 14 years 4 weeks (20 days) 15 - years and over Exempt Employee Status 3 weeks (15 days) 0 - 5 years 4 weeks (20 days) 6 - 14 years 5 weeks (25 days) 15 - years and over " Anderson stated the City had gone out of its way bringing police pay in line with the market and asked if the study results will have an effect on our Public Safety Department. a Special City Council Meeting 5 December 1, 1987 Jullie stated the City recognizes that it does not have an it organized police union and the pay adjustments will maintain a competitive posture. If the market is that much different, the City can create a separate salary structure. Anderson expressed concern that the City had been able to have the "cream of the crop" for Public Safety because of the salary, and that implementation of the comparable worth study may negatively affect the salary the City could offer. Anderson asked if Staff had seen report and Peterson asked if Staff was intended to view it. Swaggert responded that Staff had seen hierarchy results, but not the recommendations but would following the Councils approval . i Bentley requested data on the fiscal impact, out-of-pocket costs, loss time and pay for vacation. Swaggert indicated that that analysis was done and available. Peterson indicated their was no more time to review additional information. MOTION: P dd-cock moved, seconded by Harris, to accept the Comparable Worth Study recommendations by Natalie Swaggert and John Coskey from Arthur Young as presented this evening for pay adjustments, and to adopt a two-tier vacation schedule as proposed for exempt and non-exempt positions. Motion carried unanimously. f Bentley thanked Staff for the tremendous job in completing this report. III. ADJOURNMENT y MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to adjourn special al meeting at 7 :35 PM. Motion carried unanimously.