Loading...
4. Position Classification & Pay Compensation Plan.CITY OF 4 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: February 13, 1997 SUBJ: Position Classification and Pay Compensation Plan This item had been placed onto the December 16, 1996 city council agenda. Questions arose and the item was tabled to our first work session on January 6, 1997. Todd Gerhardt contacted the council member who had raised the questions and we believe that we had reached agreement as to what changes should be made. We were prepared to discuss those on the 6`"; however, the length of that agenda was expanded so as to preclude discussion of this item. That packet also included the 1997 goals and objectives of each of our departments and commissions. Tuesday night's agenda assuredly will not include sufficient time to discuss goals and objectives (this is anticipated to be an approximate 1 %2 to 2 hour time frame). If there are additional questions that exist in regards to the Position Classification Plan, we would hope that those could be aired or discussed Tuesday evening. We would also highly recommend that we discuss a work session date which can focus on the goals and objectives that have been developed by city departments /commissions. G Amgr \paycomp2- 18.doc s CITY OF 41 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: December 31, 1996 SUBJ: Position Classification and Pay Compensation Plan This item was included on our last regular city council agenda. Although it cannot be acted upon Monday evening, potential questions would probably be better responded to during our work session on January 6. Todd has contacted Councilman Senn in regards to questions that are likely to occur. Apparently, not all department heads have similar years of service requirements. Quite frankly, I doubt that comparisons on "minimum experience requirements" between similar positions has been completed for several years. I wholeheartedly support modifying all job descriptions to reflect a consistent minimum years of experience requirement. A secondary question arose in regards to why positions such as Park & Recreation Director and Finance Director have similar job rankings. I do consider them similar, especially recognizing that you do not want seventy categories of pay ranges. Minor differences between positions do not warrant a separate category. However, one of the primary indicators of similarity is what the open market is willing to pay for each position. Mark also expressed concern regarding the city's compliance with the "Pay Equity Act." Attached please find the Notice of Compliance. Our next pay equity report is due January 31, 1998. I have attached a copy of several of the "short form" reviews as it applies to all of our employees. The short form is used recognizing that first of year adjustments are really "cost of living." A more detailed review occurs during the "merit review" at midyear. I personally do not believe in "grading systems" that consist of "outstanding," "acceptable," etc. These types of systems are especially questionable when supervisors are instructed that not all people can be "outstanding" and that other "categories" needed to be filled out just to "make it look right." I have met with each department head and we have discussed each goal that they had hoped to accomplish in 1996 (copies attached). If a goal had not been met, and was still desired, we discussed how we Mayor and City Council December 31, 1996 Page 2 would be able to achieve that in 1997. We also have reviewed the 1997 goals (also attached). I continue to be extremely proud of all of our department heads and continue to believe that each are successfully managing their department, albeit each has their own style of accomplishing that task. I am proposing to process cost of living increases for all department heads on January 17. [Note: The national cost of living is known as of today. The Minneapolis, Minnesota cost of living will not be known until some time in February. Accordingly, I would suggest setting a cost of living approximating what we think it will be, say 3 %, with the intention that an adjustment would be made, either up or down, next January.] 7//V Although we can discuss this item on ary 6` jm , formal action to approve the Pay Compensation Plan cannot occur until Janu 13. z/z / GAmgr\paycomp.doc Minnesota Department of Employee Relations Leadership and partnership in hinnan resource managenunt n �'� 0�1 ` October 10, 1995 Todd Gerhardt Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Dear Mr, Gerhardt: Congratulations! I am very pleased to send you the enclosed notification of compliance with the Local Government Pay Equity Act. Since the law was passed in 1984, Jurisdictions throughout Minnesota have been working diligently to meet the requirements of the act, and I commend your hard work and commitment to achieving compliance. As you know, our department adopted a rule specifying procedures and criteria for measuring compliance, and information about your situation is enclosed. If you have any questions about the materials or about pay equity in general, please contact Pay Equity Coordinator, Faith Zwemke at 612 - 296 -2653. One of the things the rule requires is that our department notify each jurisdiction when the next pay equity report is due. In your case, this date is January 31, 1998, and we will be sending you forms and instructions at a later time. Also, this notice and results of the compliance review are public information and must be supplied upon request to any interested party. Again, congratulations on a job well done! Sincerely, Wayne Si.moneau Acting Commissioner Enclosures 2K� Centennial Office Building. • 658 Cedar St. • St. Paul, MN 55155 -1603 • (612) 297 -1184 • TDD (612) 297 -2003 An equal opportunity employer Notice of Pay Equity Compliance presented to City of Chanhassen for successfully meeting the requirements of the Local Government Pay Equity Act M.S. 471.991 - 471.999 and Minnesota rules Chapter 3920. This notice is a result of an official review by the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations of your 1995 pay equity report. Your cooperation in complying with the local government pay equity requirements is greatly appreciated. October 10, 1995 Date Cv Wayne Simoneau, Acting Commissioner RESULTS OF TESTS FOR COMPLIANCE Date: �d 6 S� Sao 7 Jurisdiction: C ! • ar ,��i ID# 1. Completeness and Accuracy Test: Passed. All required information was submitted accurately. 2. Statistical Analysis Test: Passed. Jurisdiction had more than three male classes and an underpayment ratio of 80% or more. _f�assed. Jurisdiction had six or more male classes, at least one c1Ts�e5�twhachawasynotnstatisticallyasm below 80 %, but a significant 3. Salary Range Test: assed. Too few classes had an established number of years to move through a salary range. Passed. Salary range test shows score of 80% or more. 4. Exceptional rvice Pay Test: Passed. Too few classes receive exceptional service pay. Passed. Exceptional service pay test shows score of 80% or more. The enclosed material describes compliance requirements in more detail. If you have questions, contact Pay Equity Coordinator, Faith Zwemke,.at 612 - 296 -2653. Jurisdiction: City of %.__dnhassen Date: October 2, 1995 Contact: Todd Gerhardt Phone: 612 937 -1900 C O M P L I A N C E R E P O R T The statistical analysis, salary range and exceptional service pay test results are shown below. Part I is general information from your Pay Equity Report data. Parts II, III, and IV give you the test results. For more detail on each test, refer to the guidebook. I. GENERAL JOB CLASS INFORMATION II. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TEST A. UNDERPAYMENT RATIO = 64.1* Male Female Classes Classes a. # at or above Predicted Pay 16 4 b. # Below Predicted Pay 10 6 C. TOTAL 26 10 d. % Below Predicted Pay 38.46 60.00 (b divided by c = d) *(Result is % of male classes below predicted pay divided by % of female classes below predicted pay.) B. T -TEST RESULTS Degrees of Freedom(DF) = 49 Value of T = -.163 a. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs = $ 0 b. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for female jobs = $ 8 III. SALARY RANGE TEST = 0.00% (Result is A divided by B) A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = 0.00 B. Avg. # of years to max salary for female jobs = 0.00 IV. EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE PAY TEST = 0.00% (Result is B divided by A) A. % of male classes receiving ESP 0.00* B. % of female classes receiving ESP 0.00 * (If 20% or less, test result will be 0.00) Version 3.0 (1993) Male Female Balanced All Job Classes Classes Classes Classes # Job Classes 26 10 2 38 # Employees 36 15 5 56 Avg. Max Monthly Pay per Employee 4,002.83 3,582.80 3,788.04 II. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TEST A. UNDERPAYMENT RATIO = 64.1* Male Female Classes Classes a. # at or above Predicted Pay 16 4 b. # Below Predicted Pay 10 6 C. TOTAL 26 10 d. % Below Predicted Pay 38.46 60.00 (b divided by c = d) *(Result is % of male classes below predicted pay divided by % of female classes below predicted pay.) B. T -TEST RESULTS Degrees of Freedom(DF) = 49 Value of T = -.163 a. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs = $ 0 b. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for female jobs = $ 8 III. SALARY RANGE TEST = 0.00% (Result is A divided by B) A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = 0.00 B. Avg. # of years to max salary for female jobs = 0.00 IV. EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE PAY TEST = 0.00% (Result is B divided by A) A. % of male classes receiving ESP 0.00* B. % of female classes receiving ESP 0.00 * (If 20% or less, test result will be 0.00) Version 3.0 (1993) 10/02/95 Job List Page 1 ' Job Male Female Total Work Max Mo. Predicted Pay Number Class Title Empl Empl Empl Sex - Points ---- -- Salary - -- - - ---- Pay --- - - - - -- Difference -- -- - -- ------ 1 - ---------- ----- --- -- --- - ----- Community Service Officer - ----- 1 - - - --- 2 -- - - -- 3 --- B 45 2,286.00 2569.72 - -- - 283.72 2 Receptionist 0 3 3 F 46 2,976.00 2661.97 314.03 3 Building Maint Worker 1 0 1 M 46 2,976.00 2661.97 314.03 4 Utility Operator 3 0 3 M 53 3,240.00 3310.39 -70.39 5 Equipment Operator Laborer 5 0 5 M 53 3,240.00 3310.39 -70.39 6 Program Spec /Sr Citizen Coord 0 1 1 F 53 3,240.00 3310.39 -70.39 7 Account Clerk - Utility 0 1 1 F 54 3,240.00 3399.25 - 159.25 8 Secretary 0 4 4 F '54 3,240.00 3399.25 - 159.25 9 Engineering Technician 1 0 1 M 54 3,240.00 3399.25 - 159.25 10 Planner I 1 0 1 M 54 3,240.00 3399.25 - 159.25 11 Public Safety Officer 1 0 1 M 56 3,714.00 3554.84 159.16 12 Engineering Technician II 1 0 1 M 56 3,714.00 3554.84 159.16 13 Recreation Supervisor I 1 1 2 B 56 3,714.00 3554.84 159.16 14 Account Clerk /Deputy Treasurer 0 1 1 F 56 3,714.00 3554.84 159.16 15 internal Auditor 0 1 1 F 56 3,714.00 3554.84 159.16 16 Heavy Equipment Operator 1 0 1 M 57 3,714.00 3650.91 63.09 17 Senior Utility Operator 2 0 2 M 57 3,714.00 3650.91 63.09 18 Mechanic 2 0 2 M 57 3,714.00 3650.91 63.09 19 Heavy Equip Operator /Leadman 1 0 1 M 60 4,038.00 3939.10 98.90 20 Fire Marshal 1 0 1 M 60 4,038.00 3939.10 98.90 21 Building Inspector 2 0 2 M 62 4,038.00 4109.24 -71.24 22 Plumbing /Heating Inspector 2 0 2 M 62 4,038.00 4109.24 -71.24 23 Office Manager 0 1 1 F 65 4,038.00 4272.41 - 234.41 24 Water Resources Coordinator 0 1 1 F 65 4,038.00 4272.41 - 234.41 25 Equipment Superintendent 1 0 1 M 78 4,470.00 4448.78 21.22 26 Building Official 1 0 1 M 78 4,470.00 4448.78 21.22 27 Park & Recreation Director 1 0 1 M 78 4,470.00 4448.78 21.22 28 Asst City Engineer 1 0 1 M 79 4,470.00 4493.63 -23.63 29 Treasurer 0 1 1 F 80 4,470.00 4546.16 -76.16 30 Park Superintendent 1 0 1 M 78 4,470.00 4448.78 21.22 31 Street Superintendent 1 0 1 M 82 4,470.00 4651.20 - 181.20 32 Utility Superintendent 1 0 1 M 82 4,470.00 4651.20 - 181.20 33 Finance Coordinator 1 0 1 M 83 4,944.00 4703.72 240.28 34 Assistant City Manager 1 0 1 M 87 4,944.00 4885.57 58.43 35 Planning Director 0 1 1 F 92 5,400.00 5127.89 272.11 36 Public Safety Director 1 0 1 M 98 5,400.00 5178.50 221.50 37 Public Works Director 1 0 1 M 110 5,400.00 5711.21 - 311.21 38 City Manager 1 0 1 M 128 6,522.00 6407.94 114.06 Version 3.0 (1993) City of Chanhassen ........................................................................................................... ..............................* _ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ---------------- ........................ ............................... ..... 4; ..... t - _----- _____- ..__.._....... --------------------------------- ---------- --------------------- - = i.r ----------------------------- -------- •- •-------- ------- - -• -- i 4500 ---------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - ,,.------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4000 ------------------------------ --©---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3500 ----------------- - - - - -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -. 3000 - - - - - -- W- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2500 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2000 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Points Pred Pay + Male Jobs El Fem Jobs ® Bal Jobs r ✓ w, 0 IL Guide to Understanding Pay Equity Compliance and Computer Reports June 1995 Pay Equity Office Minnesota Department of Employee Relations 200 Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 -1603 (612) 296 -2653 (Voice) (612) 297 -2003 (TDD) Leadership and partnership in human resource management Table of Contents Page I. Introduction 1 II. Tests for Compliance 2 III. Determining Whether the Alternative or Statistical 2 Analysis Will Be Used IV. Explanation of Computer Reports 2 A. Compliance Report 3 -5 B. Job List Report 6 C. Optional Graph Sample 7 D. Data Entry Listing Report 7 V. Alternative Analysis Test 8 -11 VI. Salary Range Test 12 VII. Exceptional Service Pay Test 13 VIII. Method Used for Pay Line Calculation in the Statistical Analysis 14 -17 Guide to Understanding Pay Equity Compliance and Computer Reports - 6/95 Guide to Understanding Pay Equity Compliance In 1984, the Minnesota Legislature passed the Local Government Pay Equity Act (LGPEA) (M.S. 471.991 - .999). Local governments were given until December 31, 1991 to comply with the law and were required to file reports with the Department of Employee Relations (DOER) by January 31, 1992. All jurisdictions were then placed on a three year reporting cycle with a third of them reporting each year beginning in January of 1994. This booklet gives a general overview of how data from the local govern- ment reports is analyzed and how the tests for compliance are conducted. Complete details of compli- ance requirements are in Minnesota Rules Chapter 3920. This booklet also describes the computer software developed by DOER. This software calculates several of the tests for compliance and the reports produced by the software are explained on pages three through seven. Page 1 Guide to Understanding Pay Equity Compliance and Computer Reports - 6/95 Tests for Compliance 1. Completeness and Accuracy Test - deter- mines whether jurisdictions have filed reports on time, included correct data and supplied all required information. 2. Statistical Analysis Test - described on pages three through five, compares salary data to determine if female classes are paid consis- tently below male classes of comparable work value (job points). DOER has developed software that calculates the results for this test. This test is generally applied to larger jurisdic- tions. For smaller jurisdictions, the alternative analysis is used. 3. Alternative Analysis Test - described on pages eight through 11, compares salary data to determine if female classes are paid below male classes even though the female classes .have similar or greater work value (job points). The software is not used for this test. 4. Salary Range Test - described on page 12, compares the average number of years it takes for individuals to move through salary ranges established for female classes compared to male classes. This test only applies to juris- dictions that have a system where there is an established number of years to move through salary ranges. 5. Exceptional Service Pay Test - described on page 13, compares how often individuals in male classes receive longevity or performance pay above the normal salary range compared to how often individuals in female classes receive this type of pay. This test applies only to jurisdictions that have a system that includes exceptional service pay. Determining Whether the Alternative or Statistical Analysis Will Be Used 1. Alternative analysis —jurisdiction has: • Three or fewer male classes. NOTE: Jurisdictions with three or fewer male classes may want to skip over the information on pages two through seven describing the statistical analysis and computer reports. 2. Statistical analysis —jurisdiction has: Six or more male classes and at least one class with an established salary range, or Four or five male classes and an underpay- ment ratio of 80% or more. May or may not have classes with an established salary range. 3. Start in statistical analysis but go to alterna- tive analysis —jurisdiction has: • Four or five male classes and an underpay- ment ratio below 80 %, or • An underpayment ratio below 80 %, six or more male classes, but no classes with a salary range. Explanation of Computer Reports Information contained in the next few pages is intended to explain the three reports produced by the Pay Equity Analysis System Software. Look at the sample reports as you read the following explanations. Each numbered explanation corresponds to a shaded number on the examples on pages three, five and six. For informational purposes, a sample of an optional graph produced with Quattro Pro software is shown on page seven. Guide to Understanding Pay Equity Compliance and Computer Reports - 6/95 Page 2