1990-10-30INFORMAL COUNCIL WORKSHOP
TENTATIVE AGENDA
OCTOBER 30,�1990 - 7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Discussion of Comparable Worth Issues.
4. Discussion of Labor Negotiation Issues.
(closed Council discussion)
5. Council Comments.
6. Adjourn
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
�
October 26, 1990
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Lawell, City Adminis r�
SU&TECT: Labor Negotiation Discussion
DISCIISSION
As you are aware, labor agreements with both our Public Works
and Police Department employees expire on December 31, 1990. Staff
has had informal conversations with both bargaining units over the
past month, but we have not yet sat down to formally begin contract
negotiations. Prior to doing so, we need to. discuss City
parameters which are acceptable to Council and any contract
modifications you may wish to request for 1991.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 471.705 Subdivision 1a, a City
Council may hold a closed meeting to consider labor negotiation
issues. At our October 16, 1990 Council meeting, a workshop for ;
that purpose was scheduled for October 30, 1990. Staff will be �
prepared to present specific comments regarding the upcoming
negotiations at the time of the workshop.
Should you have questions prior to then, please feel free to
call.
MTL:kkb
�
=t �
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
I •
October 26, 1990
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Lawell, City Adminis�
SUBJECT: Additional Comparable Worth Discussion
INTRODUCTION
Over the past several months, Council has on various occasions
discussed the subject of Comparable Worth and the City's personnel
compensation system. More specifically, we have spent time
discussing three employees in our organization who are
inappropriately classified at the present time. Attached for your
background information are two memos which were previously prepared
on the subject - one dated August 30, 1990 and another dated
September 28, 1990. Council has set an informal workshop date of
October 30, 1990 at which time we will hopefully agree to a course
of action which can be placed on the next Council agenda for final
consideration.
To address concerns raised at the last meeting on this
subject, it is the intent of this memo to provide an enhanced
overview of the City's current personnel system, and to provide
additional information on the three affected employees.
Overview of Personnel System
In a service organization such as City government, the largest
single expenditure category in our annual budget is personnel. In
1990 alone, personnel costs to the City. amount to 62 percent of our
General Fund Budget. Given this level of expenditure, it is
vitally important that we adopt a standard personnel administration
system to ensure an equitable approach to compensation.
With the adoption of the 1984 Minnesota Pay Equity Act, the
necessity of a formal compensation system was underscored, and
every Minnesota municipality in the State was required to evaluate
their personnel system with particular attention to female
dominated positions. As explained in greater detail in a previous
memo, the City of Mendota Heights joined with 133 other Cities in
the Control Data/MAMA Joint Compensation Study in 1985, and
formally adopted an implementation program modeled on the newly
developed personnel system in 1987.
Although the Study itself took two years to complete and our
implementation plan spanned four additional years, the resultant
system has been well received by our employees. The task based
evaluation system is relatively easy to understand and provides an
objective measurement of the value of each position. This quality
is understandably important to our employees who now need not worry
about subjective classification within the City's personnel system.
A formal process exists which lends credibility and validity to our
personnel decisions.
The three employees presently under discussion approached the
position classification process with a reliance on the system in
place. They complied with the direction given to them in
completing the Time Spent Profile (TSP) for their position and they
have been patient in awaiting the results. The remainder of this
memo will address the specific circumstances associated with each
of the three involved employees.
Guy Kullander
As you may recall, Guy is recommended to receive a Comparable
Worth adjustment based on his updated TSP and in recognition of the
fact that his position did not receive any adjustment as part of
the City's initial four year implementation plan. Please recall
that Guy filed a system wide comparable worth appeal in 1986 and he
has been attempting to get his Comparable Worth situation resolved
ever since. In�response to Council direction, I have reviewed the
various documents in City files which describe Guy's comparable
worth experience. The documents are summarized below and, where
practical, are attached for your information.
1. Memo to City Council from City Administrator Kevin Frazell
dated May 26, 1987.
This is the twenty-five page memo which detailed the
results of the initial comparable worth study and
established the implementation plan. As part of this
document, Guy's situation is explained as follows: "this
employee has filed a'system wide' appeal of the ratings
given to several of his more prominent tasks. I believe
that it is probable his appeal will be successful, and
result in additional job point value".
2. Memo to Mayor, City Council and Administrator from Guy
Kullander dated June 5, 1989.
In his memo, Guy refers to a December 1988 conversation
between himself and Kevin Frazell regarding an envisioned
pay adjustment for City Hall Building Manager duties (see
attached).
3. Memo to Mayor, City Council and Administrator from Guy
Kullander dated June 5, 1989.
Transmittal memo for Guy's revised TSP which he was asked
to complete as part of his system wide comparable worth
appeal (see attached).
4. Memo to Mayor and City Council from Kevin Frazell dated
July 11, 1989.
This memo describes the implementation of the final
comparable worth pay adjustment described in the original
comparable worth plan. In the memo, Kevin states that
" . this final step should bring us into full compliance
with the requirements of the comparable worth law. We
will, from time to time, need to review job requirements,
and determine whether point ratings of City jobs are
still current and appropriate. In fact, three City
employees are currently retaking the job questionnaire to
analyze their positions. However, the lion's share of
implementing comparable worth is now behind us'�.
5. Memo to Tom Lawell from Guy Kullander dated April 2, 1990.
Guy provided this memo to me in order to acquaint me with
his situation. I subsequently discussed with Guy that I
would not feel comfortable recommending an adjustment in
his salary until I was able to familiarize myself with
the City's personnel system, salary matrix and comparable
worth legislation under consideration at that time (see
attached).
It is my opinion that Guy was diligent in his quest to have
his Comparable Worth situation addressed as evidenced by the above
documents. It is clear that many factors outside of his control
contributed to the overall delay. Under the City's adopted
personnel system, his position has been classified at Grade XXI on
our personnel classification system. In recognition of the above,
it is recommended that he receive a salary adjustment to Step E of
Grade XXI retroactively effective to January 1, 1989. The
annualized affect is as follows:
1989 Compensation
1990 Compensation
Total
Klayton Eckles
Current
Salarv
$28,652
29,226
Revised
Salarv
$31,794
33,066
Net
Increase
$3,142
3,840
$6,980
Klayton has served the City in the position of Civil Engineer
I for over five years. Based on his inexperience and non
registered status at the time of hiring, Klayton was slotted into
our personnel system with the understanding that his position would
be revalued after he received his engineering certification.
Consistent with that direction, in mid 1989 Klayton completed the
State Professional Engineer's Examination, retook the Comparable
Worth TSP and requested Kevin Frazell and Jim Danielson to reassess
his compensation status.
As you may recall, the factors assessed by the Comparable
Worth process include skill, effort, responsibility and working
conditions. Obviously, a pr•ofessionally trained and certified
position such as Civil Engineer is evaluated particularly high
against these measures. The proper operation and overall safety of
our utility and roadway systems is less glamorous, but no less
important, than other prominent City services. The design of these
more "mundane" systems falls primarily to the Civil Engineer, and
as part of our adopted personnel system, his position has been
evaluated at Grade XXX on our position classification matrix. For
the above described reasons, it is recommended that Klayton receive
a salary adjustment to Step E of Grade XXX retroactively effective
to January 1, 1990. The annualized affect is as follows:
1990 Compensation
Kevin Batchelder
Current
5alarv
$35,610
Revised
Salarv
$41,295
Net
Increase
$5,685
Kevin joined the City in 1989 and, because the Administrative
Assistant position was new to the City, was directed to complete a
TSP in order to be appropriately incorporated into our.personnel
system. The revised TSP indicates a position value which equates
with Grade XXVII of our personnel classification system. It is
recommended that he receive a salary adjustment to Step C of Grade
XXVII retroactively effective to January 1, 1990. The annualized
affect is as follows: .
1990 Compensation
CONCLIISION
Current
Salarv
$32,298
Revised
Salarv
$34,781
Net
Increase
$2,483
Because of the importance of our personnel system to the
operation of the City, it is vital that we understand how each of
these personnel decisions fit in with our other City employees as
well. A pictorial view of the "big picture" is found on the
scattergram included as part of the attached September 28, 1990
memo. Additional presentation of the specifics of our overall
personnel system will be provided at the workshop.
It is indeed unfortunate that these personnel compensation
issues have been drawn out over a lengthy period of time.
Compensation issues are extremely important to the City, and are
understandably very important to our individual employees. I
. believe that the described compensation adjustments are justified
and are supported by our adopted Comparable Worth pay system. I
ask for your support in addressing and lay.ing to rest this
important issue.
i���:�;��
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Iv�_�_ ��
September 28, 1990
TO: Mayor and City Council.
FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Additional Comparable Worth Discussion
INTRODIICTION
At the City Council meeting held September 4, 1990, Council
discussed the subject of Comparable Worth as it relates•to three
particular staff inembers. At that time, Council expressed an
interest in receiving additional information on the subject prior
to formally acting on the offered recommendation. More
specifically, Council asked for a review of t�e following:
1. History and status of the City's Comparable Worth
implementation process.
2. Additional information regarding the recommended
Comparable Worth adjustments.
3. Analysis of Department Head compensation issues.
These matters are scheduled to be discussed at a brief Council
Workshop scheduled for October 2, 1990, beginning at 7:00 P.M. It
is the intent of this memo to provide the additional background
data requested in preparation for the scheduled workshop.
Comparable Worth History and Status
In discussing the City's current Comparable Worth status, it
is helpful to recall the original basis for Comparable Worth in the
first place. When the Minnesota Pay Equity Act was adopted in
1984, its primary intent was to address compensation inequities in
the various female dominated job classes.
The legislation specifically called for Cities to establish
"equitable compensation relationships" based upon the "skill,
effort, responsibility and working conditions" required by each
position. Looking back over the past six years, it is now evident
that the legislation has had far reaching affects and has served as
the impetus for nearly every City in the State to significantly
revise their approach to employee compensation.
� In 1985, the City of Mendota Heights joined with 133 other
jurisdictions in undertaking the Control Data Comparable Worth
Study. As you may recall, this study was developed to value every
municipal position based on the fundamental tasks which make up the
position. By focusing on the basic building block of the job, the
job task, it was possible to evaluate positions across the wide
diversity of participating jurisdictions in an accurate and
definable manner. The process allowed for extensive employee
involvement in identifying and valuing work tasks, and in
completing the questionnaire which serves as the basis of the
system - the Time Spent Profile (TSPj.
It is my understanding that the Comparable Worth process in
Mendota Heights went very smoothly, and that the initial four year
implementation process was well received. Although every
participating City experienced minor problems in the initial
implementation process, today the Control Data study enjoys
widespread support as a compensation tool which is accurate,
reliable and valid.
Discussion of Recommended Adjustments
Although it is easy to view the initial Comparable Worth
implementation process as an "event", Comparable Worth must truly
be viewed as a"process" if it is to serve as a valid compensation
tool over time. For nearly six years, Comparable Worth has served
as the basis of our personnel system and adherence to the position
evaluation system in place which is the key to maintaining that
system.
One of the most important functions provided for within the
Comparable Worth system is its ability to evolve and grow over
time. As employees come and go and position duties change, the
system is set up to accommodate these changes. Such is the case
with the three City staff inembers currently under discussion.
Attached please find a copy of the August 30, 1990 memo to Council
which addresses the specifics of each proposed adjustment. Please
spend some time reading through this memo, if you have not yet done
so, as it specifically addresses how these positions have evolved
and have been revalued as part of our ongoing Comparable Worth
process.
In that two of the positions involve our Engineering
Enterprise Fund, it may prove helpful to spend a few moments
discussing the subject of staffing within the Engineering
Department. In keeping with the original intent of the fund, this
function is provided by the City to insure the construction of high
quality public infrastructure� in a manner which is economically
self supporting. The department has successfully met this
expectation over the years with a full time staff of four employees
and a complement of various seasonal employees.
Beginning with Ed Kishel and Jim Danielson, the department
originally included two registered engineers. When Klayton Eckles
joined City staff in 1985, it was clear that someday he too would
earn his registration. Over the past six years the amount of
responsibility and complexity of projects assigned to Klayton has
increased substantially. Whereas in prior years, Jim involved
himself heavily in the preparation of project feasibility reports,
today this task is.handled by Klayton a majority of the time.
With the growth of the City, Jim;s duties have evolved to be
more managerial and less technical. As the department head
overseeing the Engineering, Code Enforcement, Street Maintenance,
Utility Maintenance and Parks Maintenance functions, little ti.me
remains for Jim to devote the large blocks of time necessary to
prepare technical engineering documents. A considerable amount of
Jim's ti.me is also spent in the joint preparation of planning
reports with Kevin Batchelder. He also serves as an essential
player on my management team and is frequently called upon to
participate in the discussion of City issues not related to
Engineering or planning.
With the above described duties, Jim relies heavily upon
Rlayton to tend to the routine engineering specifics of the
department, and Klayton is frequently called upon to represent the
City at many engineering focused organizations, such as the various
surface water management organizations.
As pointed out in my August 30th memo, a review of the City's
engineering needs of the future indicates a steady, if not
increasing, workload for the department. The nature of the
department's work in the future will change from the design and
installation of new infrastructure, to the design and installation
of replacement infrastructure, and , if anything, the complexity,
cost and engineering time demand will increase rather than
decrease.
To summarize, the department has historically relied upon the
services of two trained engineers whose duties have evolved with -
the maturation of the City. Working within the City's accepted
Comparable Worth personnel system, the duties currently being
performed by Rlayton have been valued for placement on the City's
pay matrix. If the Comparable Worth system is deemed to be valid,
the position evaluation to Grade XXX is accurate and supported.
The remaining latitude which exists in the system at this point
relates to the step placement within the Grade. Further
information related to this option will be presented on Tuesday
night.
Another aspect of the recommendation which deserves greater
attention is the subject of. retroactive pay adjustment. As
described in my August 30th memo, it is recommended that Guy
receive a wage adjustment retroactive to January l, 1989, and that
Kevin and Klayton receive adjustments back to January l, 1990. As
previously �explained, all three employees completed TSPs in late
1989 and thus have been performing the identified tasks for all of
1990. •�
The delay in bringing forward the results of these TSPs for
Council consideration is largely due to my desire to familiarize
myself with the organization and pay system before formulating a
recommendation to Council. Nonetheless, the prospect of
retroactivity was clearly recognized in advance with the inclusion
of a"Comparable Worth Salary Contingency" approved as part of the
1990 Budget.
The additional years retroactivity proposed for Guy relates to
the circumstances surrounding his initial Comparable Worth
assessment. As described in the August 30th memo,over time job
duties and responsibilities have been added to the position and no
Comparable Worth adjustment has been provided. Although Guy's
Comparable Worth delay dates back to 1985, for the reasons
previously outlined, it is recommended that any Comparable Worth
adjustment be applied effective January l, 1989.
An important question to be asked regarding retroactive pay
relates to the future liability or precedent associated with such
action. Will the decision to provide retroactive pay.to these
three staff inembers obligate us to similarly treat other staff
members in the future? The answer to that question centers on the
point in time at which the employee completes a revised TSP. In
the case of the three employees under current discussion, revised
TSPs were completed in late 1989 and retroactive pay is in two
cases recommended to that point in time. In the third case;'an
additional year is recommended for reasons already discussed.
It is important to note that there are no other City employees
with pending TSPs at this time. Thus the risk of further
retroactivity is nil given our current personnel situation. It is
recommended that in the future, as a matter of policy related to
the completion of revised TSPs that we seek to implement any
demonstrated Comparable Worth adjustments shortly after they become
identified.
Department Head Compensation Issues
The last Comparable Worth issue brought forth to be addressed
concerns the compensation provided for our three full time
department head positions - Public Works Director, Police Chief and
City Clerk. All three positions are currently classified at Grade
�CXXV on our salary matrix with Kathy compensated at Step E and Jim
and Dennis compensated slightly in excess of �Step E. Like all
employees, our department heads also completed TSPs in 1985, the
results of which were used to determine the appropriate pay matrix
classification. Thus the Comparable Worth process insured that our
department head positions were accurately evaluated on the basis of
internal equity amongst our employee base.
In discussing the subject of department head compensation, the
issue of external equity is also frequently raised. External
equity relates to the, market place comparison of what similar
positions in other munic��al organizations receive in the way of
�
compensation. The remainder of this memo seeks to specifically
address the external equity questions.
The most important factor in choosing a representative sample
for purposes of compensation comparison is community size. This
selection is premised on the assumption that similar sized
communities have similar sized municipal organizations and similar
job responsibilities for the positions being compared. It is also
relevant to assess the compensation picture of close by communities
because we frequently deal with.these communities and their staff
members are perceived as close colleagues. During the past few
months, salary information for select managerial positions has been
collected from 20 comparable Cities in order to assess the
department head compensation status within Mendota Heights.
Specific details of the study are attached and are summarized
below.
Of the 20 chosen communities, Mendota Heights ranks 16th in
terms of community population size (based on 1989 Metropolitan
Council statistics). The largest community in the survey was
Burnsville (50,225) and the smallest was Farmington (5,382).
Eleven of the communities are Dakota County cities and nine others
we have chosen due to their size similarity to Mendota Heights. In
cases where a chosen community does not have a position comparable
to ours, that fact is designated "not applicable" or "n/a".
Specific survey results for each position are summarized as
follows:
For purposes of baseline data, the City Adxninistrator position
was included in the community survey. Consistent with the overall
size ranking of Mendota Heights, my compensation ranks 16th of the
20 chosen cities. All of the more highly compensated City
Administrators were in cities larger than Mendota Heights,
regardless of County. Two of the communities smaller than Mendota
Heights had more highly compensated Administrators.
Relative to the other communities, our Public Works Director
ranks lOth in terms of compensation. All of the more highly
compensated Public Works Directors were in cities larger than.
Mendota Heights, regardless of county. In addition, six of the ten
lower compensated Public Works Directors were in cities larger than
Mendota Heights.
Relative to the other communities, our Police Chief ranks 11th
in terms of compensation. All of the more highly compensated
Chiefs were in cities larger than Mendota Heights, regardless of
county. In addition, four of the eight lower compensated Chiefs
were in cities larger than Mendota Heights.
Relative to the other chosen communities, our City Clerk ranks
first in terms of compensation. Unfortunately the usefulness of
this comparison is doubtful due to the myriad of duties variously
expected of City Clerks in chosen Cities. For example, seven of
the Cities had no one they termed a"regular City Clerk" . This was
due to the fact that the Clerk function is often combined with
another position, such as Clerk/Treasurer (Farmington),
Clerk/Assistant City Administrator (West St. Paul), or Finance
Director/Clerk (Eagan). Although Kathy's position is not so
designated, her responsibilities for various data processing
functions, office manager duties and assistance with budget
preparation sets her apart from a"regular City Clerk" in my
estimation. Thus, it should not be surprising that her
compensation is higher than typical in the completed survey.
In undertaking the above described survey, it was our hope to
uncover any glaring examples of under compensation which presently
may exist. After analysis, I believe we can safely state that our
department heads are appropriately compensated and meet reasonable
expectations in terms of external equity.
CONCLIISION
This memo has addressed a number of issues which�Counail
identified as matters of interest for the upcoming workshop. A
condensed summary of our Comparable Worth status was provided,
along with further information relative to the three pending
Comparable Worth adjustments. Lastly, data from a recent
compensation survey was presented to address the subject of
external equity� �hould you have questions or comments regarding
any of the above, I would encourage you to call me at home over the
weekend (452-5811) or at City Hall on Monday. Personnel matters
are clearly one of the most important aspects of our organization,
and I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the topic at our
workshop on Tuesday evening.
MTL:kkb
Attachments
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
t�iT •
August 30, 1990
TO: Mayor and City Cauncil
FROM: Tom Lawell, City Adminis�
SIIBJECT: Comparable Warth Adjustments
INTRODIICTION
In 1986 the City of Mendota Heights par�icipated with 134
other jurisdictions in a joint campensa�ion study performed by the
Con�rol Data Corporation. 'This study was in response to the 1984
Local Government Pay Equity Act enacted by the State I�egislature.
The implementation of the study is commonly known as "Comparable
Worth" and naw serves as the underlying basi.s far our entire pay
classification system. -'
Curren�ly #.here are three eYnplayees in our organization who
for various reasons are inappropriat�ely classified in our system.
It is the intent of this mema to describe �the individuai
circumstances related �o each employee and to offer speaific
recommendatians s„rhi.ah will bring each af them into compliance with
our system.
.As part of the initial Control Data. study, every Cit�y exaplayee
was required to aomplete a questiannaire referred ta as the �'Time
Spent Prafile" (TSP). As evident from the riame, the questionnaire
identifies hundreds of tasks performed as part of local gov�rnment
and asks each employee ta respond haw they allocate their time
amongst each of the tasks. Based upon the assigned value of each
�ask,..the overall position receives a composite value which forms
�he basis of our position classification system. -
The three employees currently�'"out of syna" with �hat sys�em
are Klayton Eckles, Guy Kullander and Revin Ba�chelder. The
individual circumstances for each empioyee are presented below:
Rlayton Eckles
I{iayton joi.ned fi..l�e Ci.ty staff in 1985 in the positian of Civil
Engineer I. At �he �ime, Klayton was in the process of completing
his Bachelar of Civil E�gineering Degree at the IIniversity of
�
Minnesota and was several years away from becoming a Registered
Engineer.
When the initial TSP's were completed in 1985, Klayton was
assigned a value which staff felt was excessive given his short
tenure and unregistered status. An interim position value was
assigned and it was agreed that once Klayton became registered, the
position would be revalued for possible adjustment. In late 1989
Klayton received his registration and was authorized to retake the
TSP for his position. ' �
The revised TSP indicates a position value which equates with
Grade XXX on our position classification system. Given the fact
that Klayton has been performing his duties commensurate with this
classification through out 1990, it is recommended that he receive
a salary adjustment to Step E of Grade XXX retroactively effective
to January 1,' 1990. The annualized affect is as follows:
Current
Salarv
1990 Compensation $35,610
Revised
Salarv
$41,295
Net .
Increase
$5,685
Public Works Director Jim Danielson has reviewed the duties of
the Civil-Engineer I position and finds the requested salary
apgropriate to the level of responsibility and competence required.
Forecasting future City engineering needs, Jim is certain that
infrastructure reconstruction projects, along with envisioned new
projects, will continue to require the attention of an experienced
registered engineer for many years to come.
As part of the reclassification it is recommended that the
position be designated as "exempt" from the Fair Labor Standards
Act based upon the professional characteristics of the duties
performed. This exempt status renders the position ineligible from
over time compensation and is in keeping with other salaried City
Hall positions.
Guy Rullander
Guy joined City staff in 1981 in the position of Engineering
Technician. Duties performed by Guy are extremely varied which
makes his position difficult to accurately assess for purposes of
Comparable Worth. After taking his initial TSP in 1985, Guy filed
an appeal with the group coordinating the Control Data Compensation
Study which eventually resulted in a reconunendation that Guy retake
the TSP questionnaire.
To fully understand the situation regarding Guy's position,
the timing of certain actions becomes important.
July 1985 - Original TSP Completed
October 1986 - Appeal •filed with Control Data Committee
April 1988 - Appeal�considered by Control Data Committee
May 1988 - Committee recommends TSP retaken
Novemlier 1988 - Appointed City Hall Building Manager
October 1989 - Appointed Parks Project Manager
December 1989 - New TSP completed
Aside from the overall time elapsed during this process, the
most notable aspect of the ti.me line is the addition of duties
assigned to Guy during the process. It is important to note that
the new TSP taken•in December 1989 post dates these assignments and
thus should reflect an accurate value for the position.
' The revised TSP indicates a position value which equates with
Grade XXI on our position classification system. Given the fact
that Guy has been performing his building manager and parks manager
duties for some time, and that the value for these duties is now
accounted for in his revised TSP, it -is recommended that he receive
a salary adjustment to Step E of Grade �I retroactively effective
to January l, 1989. The annualized affect is as follows:
1989 Compensation
1990 Compensation
Total
Kevin Batchelder
Current
Salarv
$28,652
29,226
Revised
Salarv
$31,794
33,066
Net
Increase
$3,142
3,840
$6,980 - .
Kevin joined the City in 1989 in the position of
Administrative Assistant. Without benefit of TSP data, the
position was '�slotted�� into our position classification system at
Grade XXIV with the understanding that Kevin would eventually take
the TSP questionnaire. The TSP was completed in late 1989 and the
reclassification of the position now appears in order.
� The revised TSP indiaates a position value which equates with
Grade XXVII of our position classification system. Because Revin
has performed the identified duties for the duration of 1990, it is
recommended that he receive a salary adjustment to Step C of Grade
XXVII retroactively effective to January 1, 1990. The annualized
affect is as follows: � '
1990 Compensation
Budget Implications
current
Salarv
$32,298
Council may recall that
allocated for the envisioned�pay
1991 Budgets. More specifically,
Revised Net
Salarv Increase
$34,781 $2,483
salary contingency funds were
adjustments in both the 1990 and
a sum of $5,000 was budgeted in
both 1990 and 1991 as part of the Engineering Fund to provide
adjustments for Klayton and Guy. Salary adjustments funds were not
specifically set aside in the General Fund for Kevin's position in
either year. The accumulative 1990 effect on each fund is
illustrated below:
Allocated Amount
Net Increase
Unbudgeted Amount
Engineering
Fund
$ 5,000
12,665
7,665
General
Fund
0
2 483
2,483
With respect to the unbudgeted Engineering Fund amount, it is
recommended that this amount be allocated from the Engineering Fund
balance. Due to the Enterprise Fund structure of our Engineering
operation, City Treasurer Larry Shaughnessy envisions no difficulty
in absorbing the retroactivity or in compensating these two
positions in the future.
With respect to the unbudgeted General Fund amount, it is
recommended that�this amount be allocated from the Administrative
Contingency line item for 1990. Given the nominal sum involved,
this allocation should have no adverse effect on either our 1990 -or
1991 Budgets.
SIIrIl�iARY /RECOMMENDATION
The three individuals currently "out of sync" with our
position classification system are�so designated due to a variety
of reasons. Guy appealed his initial ranking, has since been
assigned new duties, and has now taken a new TSP to account for
those duties. Klayton joined the City as the initial TSP�s were
being taken, received an inordinately high score, and was
temporarily assigned a lower ranki.ng with the expectation of
retaking the TSP once he received his degree and registration.
Revin joined the City long after the completion of the initial TSP
process, was temporarily slotted into a position in our system, and
was asked to complete a TSP to accurately value the position. Al1
three individuals have pati�entl�i participated in the Comparable
Worth process, and I am pleased to recommend their inclusion into
our position classification system at this time.
ACTION REOIIIRED
Should the Council wish to i.mplement the above described
recommendation, it should make a motion amending the City's
Position Classification System in accordance with the specifics
outlined above.
MTL: kkb , .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
12
23
14
15
16
17
28
19
20
SALCOMP
Municipality
Burnsville
Eagan
Apple Valley
Lakevil I.e
Inver Grove Hts
South S�. Paul
West St. Paul
xastings
Shakopee �
Chaska
Priar Lake
Chanhas�en
Arden Hi.11s
Mound
Savage
Mendota Heights
St. Anthony
Lino Lakes
Rosemount
Farming�on
Papulatian
Est. 4/1/89
_-----_-».,_
5Q,225
44,058
33,622
22,?07
21,850
20,083
18,381
14,893
12, 0.45
11,141
18,863
10,461
9,667
9, 4�44
9,43Q
8,982
8,334
8,235
8,014
5,3$2
CITY OF MEND4TA HEIGHTS
1990 5AL'ARY SURVEY
City
Administrator
?4,20Q
74,700
68,800
66,000
64,000
54,600
5$,000
54,000
53,700
56,100
52,700
54,096
42,702
57,962
48,200
49,000
47,500
53�Od0
55,000
h6,800
�
Publia Warks
Director
67,444
64,1b0
62r00Q
52,30d
54,500
52,660
56, 91.0
45,004
45,900
42r90Q
53,900
49,5p0
34,860
n/a
45,802
48,500
44,704
42�400
47,400
42�500
Police
Chief
62,800
58,600
62,Q44
52,30d
51,800
52,200
53,865
�49,604
44�600
4'7, 6fl0
50�9d0
46,500
n� a
48,700
48,404
48,500
43,300
42,40d
47,400
40,200
Sorted By:
Population
High ta Low
City
Clerk
34,440
n/ �,
42,744
32, 011.
33,592
42,$25
46,62p
36,525
36, 31"7
nja
n/ a
n/ a
nja
38,542
nja
46,717
24,336
36,608
32,656
nja
1
2
3
4
5
&
7
8
9
20
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
SALCOMP
Muni.cipality
Eagan
Burnsville
Apple Va31ey
Lakeville
Inver Grove Hts
West. St. Paul
Mound
Chaska .
Rosemount
South St. Paul
Chanhassen
Has�ings
Shakopee
Lino Lakes
Prior Lake
Mendota Height�
Savage
St. Anthony
Farmington
Arden Hills
Popu2ation
Est. 4/1/89
4�4, 058
50,225
33,622
22,707
21,850
18,381
9,444
12,241
8,014
20,0$3
10,461
24,893
22,045
8,235
20,863
8,982
9,430
8,334
5,382
9,667
CiTY OF MEN�OTA HEIGHTS
1990 SALARY SURVEY
City
Administrator
74,700
74,100
68,840
66,000
64,Q4q
58,000
5'7, 962
56,200
55,000
54,600
54,096
54,Q00
53,700
53,000
52,fi00
49,OOQ
4$,200
47,500
46,800
42,702
Publia Works
Da.rector
.,_______...._
64,100
67,400
62,OOQ
51,300
54,50Q
56,928
n/a
42,900
47�400
52,660
49,500
45,404
45,908
42,400
53,900
48,500
45,802
44,700
42,5Q0
34,860
Police
Chief
58�600
62,80p
62,000
52,300
51,$00
53,865
48,740
47,600
47y400
52,200
46,500
49,6Q0
44,600
42,400
50,900
48,500
4$,400
43,300
40,200
n/a
Sarted By:
City Administrator
xigh to Low
Ci�y
Clerk
nja
34, 4�40
42,744
32,011
33,592
46,620
38,542
nja
32,656
42,825
n/ a
36,525
36,317
36,6Q8
n/ a
46,717
nja
24,336
nja
n/ a
SALC4MP
Muniaipality
1 Burnsville
2 Eagan
3 Apple Valley
4 West St. Pau].
5 xnver Grove Hts
6 Prioz Lake
7 South St. Paul
8 Lakeville _
9 Chanhassen
10 Mendota xeights
11 Rosemoun�
12 Shakopee
13 Savage
14 Hastings
25 St. Anthony �
16 Chaska
17 Farmington
18 Lino Lakes
19 Arden Hills
20 Mound
Papulation
E�t. 4/1/89
swA���rMa��Y�i
50,225
44,058
33,622
1.8, 381
21,850
10,863
20,0$3
22,707
' 1.0, 461
8,982
$,014
1.2, 045
9,430
14,893
$,334
11,141
5t382
8,235
9,66?
9,444
C�TY QF MEND4TA HEIGHTS
1990 SALAR.Y SURVEY
City
Administrator
74,100
74,700
68,$Q4
58,dd0
64�000
52,700
54,600
66,000
54,096
49,04Q
55,000
53,700
48�200
54,000
47,500
56,100
h6,$QO
53,000
42,702
57,962
��
m
Public Warks
Directar
6?,4Q0
64,100
62,OQ4
56,910
54,500
5'3, 900
52,660
�i,�oo
49,500
48,500
4'7, 404
45,9Q0
4�,$02
45,000
h4,700
42,900
42,50Q
42,400
34,86Q
n/�
�
Pol i.ce
Chief
62,800
58,600
62,004
53,865
51,$00
50,900
52,100
52,300
�46, 500
48,544
47,400
44,600
4$�400
49,600
43,300
47,600
40,20Q
42,400
n/a
48,700
Sorted By:
P.W. Director
High to Law
City
Clerk
34,440
ri/ a
42,744
46,620
33,592
n/ a
42,825
32,021
n/ a
46,717
32,656
36,327
nja
36,525
24,336
n/ a
nja
36,6Q8
n/ a
38,542
�
SALC4MP
0
Muniaipality
1 Burnsville
2 Apple t7al.ley
3 Eagan
4 West St. Pau1.
5 Lakeville
& South St. Paul
7 Inver Grove Hts
8 Prior Lake
9 Hastings �
10 Mound
12 Mendota Heights
12 Savage
13 Chaska
14 Rosemoun�
15 Chanhassen
16 Shakapee
17 St. Anthony
18 Lino Lakes
19 Farmington
2 0 Arden xi3.ls
Population
Es�. 4/1/89
50,225
33,b22
44,05$
1$,382
22,7p7
20,083
21�8,�0
10,863
14,893
9, 44�4
8,982
9,430
11,241
$,014
10,461
1.2, 045
81334
$�235
5,382
9,667
CITY 4F MENDtiTA HEIGHTS
19�0 SALARY 5URVEY
City
Administrator
74,1Q0
68,80d
74,700
5$�000
66,000
5�, b0{}
64,000
52,?QO
54,000
57,962
49�d00
48,200
56 f 100
55,000
54,096
53,700
47,5Q0
53,b00
46,800
42,702
.„
�
Public Works
Director
--..____..___
67,400
62,000
64,100
56,918
51,300
52,660
54,500
53,900
45,OQ0
n/a
48,500
45�802
42,900
4"7, 400
49,540
45,9Q0
44,?p0
42,400
42,500
34,$60
s
Police
Chief
62,$QO
62,400
58,600
53,865
52,3Q0
52,1Q0
51,$00
50,900
49,600
48,700
4$,500
48,400
47,600
47,400
�6,500
44,600
43,34Q
42,40d
40,200
nja
5arted By:
Police Chief
High to Low
eity
Clerk
34,440
42,744
n/ a
��,�aa
32 , 011.
42,825
33,592
nja
36,525
38,542
46,71i
n/ a
nja
32,656
nja
36,317
24,336
36,b08
n/ a
n/a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i�
18
19
20
SALCOMP
Muniaipality
Mendota Heights
West St. Paul
South St. Paul
Apple Valley
Mou•nd
Linq Lakes
Hastings
Shakopee
Burnsvi].].e
Inver Grove Hts
Rosemaunt
Lakeville
St. Anthony
�avage
Prior Lake
Farm3.ngton
Eagan
Chaska
Chanhassen
Arden Fiills
Population
Est. 4/1/89
8,982
18,381
20,483
33,622
9,444
8,235
14,893
121045
�0,225
21,850
$,014
22,�Q7
8, 33�4
9,430
14,863
5,382
44,458
a.s,z�s
10,461
9,667
GITY OF MEND4TA HEIGHTS
1990 SALAR.Y SURVEY
City
Administrator
49,440
58,000
54,640
68,$00
57,, 962
53,000
54,000
53,704
74,100
64,OQ0
55,000
66,000
4?�5�4
48,200
52,700
46,800
74,7Q4
56,10Q
54,096
42,702
�
�
Public Works
Director
48,500
56,910
52r66Q
62�000
n/a
42,4d0
45,000
45,900
67., 400
54,540
47,400
51�300
44,700
45,802
53,900
42,5p0
64,10Q
42,940
49,5p0
34,860
Poliae
Chi.ef
�8,5Q4
53,865
52,104
62,000
48,700
42,400
49,600
�4,600
62., 800
51,8Q0
47,4d0
52,3Q0
43�300
48,400
50�940
40,200
58,6QQ
47,600
46,500
n/a
�ort�d By:
City Clerk
High to Low
City
Clerk
46,717
46,620
42,825
42,744
38t542
36,608
36,525
36,317
34,440
33,592
32,656
32r011
24,33&
n/ a
nja
n/ a
n/ a
n/ a
n/ a
nja
�
4.5
4
3.5
2.5
2
F
1.5
1
t
MALE SALARY LINE METHCJD
Ci#y of Mendota Heights
40 SO 80 � 100 120
POINTS,
�
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Mul ' �
June 5, 1989
T0: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Guy Kullander
SUBJECT: Salary Adjustment ,
I feel that a five percent increase in salary would be fair
compensation for the additional responsibilities and duties required of ine
as a building manager. •
Last December you said we would diacuss the position of building
mana.ger. I have been aucessfully handling the job for six months. I would
appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you at your earliest
opportunity.
Naturally I�rould like any increase to be retroactive to when I began
the duties of buiYding ma.nager.
cc: Jim Dani�elson
m
t
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
June 5, 1989
T0: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Guy Kullander
Attached is my TSP. Now that I am not doing the newsletter the amount
of my time covered by the '�Office" TSP is probably less than 5 percent so to
keep it simple I did not fill any part of that survey.
Please resubmit my "Technical TSP" for evaluation to establish my
rating. I still feel my original rating, which was the benchmark level for
a beginning Engineering Technician was too low.
DATE: April 2, 1990
TO: Tom Lawell, City Administrator
FROM: Guy Kullander, Engineering Technician
City Hall Building Manager
Parks Project Manager
Acting Parks & Recreation Director
RE: Salary Adjustment
Before you present your comparable worth u�date to the City
Council I wanted to make you aware of my situation.
On October 30, 1986 I filed a request to.a�peal the results
of the comparable worth study for my position as Engineering
Technician. My application was one of five accepted by,the
MAMA Comparable Worth Study Committee for system wide ap�eal
review. This review held on April 26, 1988 did not provide a
clear resolution to my salary adjustment. Since the summer
of 1988 I have been trying to comply with the MAMA
recommendations to resolve my "true worth".
Since the beginninc� of this odyssey man� changes have
occurred in m� duties and res�onsibilities, most notably
being my appointment as Building Manager of the new city hall
in November of 1988 and my appointment as Parks Project
Manager in October of 1989. Throughout this whole process I
have been assured by several members of the administrative
staff that once my "true worth" was established, adjustments
would be made in my salary.
Almost every full time staff person, except some department
heads, have received adjustments to their compensation
because of comparable worth. These employees have enjoyed
adjustments awarded in 1987, 1988, and in 1989, while my
salary has remained the same except for cost of living
increases common to all staff. No assurances were given me
about adjustments being retroactive, but then no one ever
considered that the resolution would take 3-1/2 years
(assuming it is settled soon). The last concerted effort to
adjust my T.S.P. point values was started in July with
implementation to occur January 1st, 1990.
In 1986, when the compensation levels for various job
descriptions were established, then city administrator, Kevin
Frazell, explained that the recommended compensation amount
for the position of Engineering Technician (same as
Engineering Aid 3 of the Stanton Report) was determined by
averaging the salaries of Inver Grove Heights, West St. Paul
and Eagan (50%) and adding this to other communities with
--.
, ,._,.
popu3ations under 30,000, which were Priar Lake and Rose�nount
(50%). I have calculated the average 1990 salary of these
cammunities which is ti4`32r397.Op. My current compensation is
$29,787. Exactly $2,&10 below the "benchmark" my salary was
to be equal to. .
The Gity has received my new score which i� suppose to
reflect my "true worth". I disagree with the iinal numbers
ancl feel they st�ill are toa low. I ba�e this on the
follawing. '
An en.try ievel Engineering Technician (Eng. Aid I), which is
a"Benchmark Position", is valued at 65 paints and a Seniar
Technician (Eng. Aid IV} such as Tom Knuth, at 81 points.
That allows 16 points between the highest and ].owe�t leveZs
of this job description. I work at the level of an Erzg. Aid
TII (Stanton Report) which would put me at a 75 point level.
I have no problem with this score if that was my only job,
but sinc� I have been gzven more responsible dutias then are
required of an Eng. Aid III, I feel I also should receive
reasonable campensation for my �fforts,
cJne prob].em T see with the values placed on the T.S.P. is
that I am ranked for only the tap 67% of �ny job. It was only
valued, on my Technical Test, for my drafting related duties.
My position, even with all duties outside the Engineering
Technician classification removed, requires many skiils and
abilities beyond a draf�smans skills.
I don't have a"bottom line" on what adjus�men�.s I feel I
deserve, but I do want to be treated fairl.y. �ome�hing I did
not receive f'rom the former administrator.
Sincerely,
L�,��iZ�LG��
Gtzy Kullancler