1j. Position Classification and Pay Comp Plan C ITYOF 1
CHANHASSEN
t ° 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORA 1 1. M
1 TO: Mayor and City Council
1 FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: December 13, 1993
SUBJ: Approve Position Classification and Pay Compensation Plan
One of the functions completed during this past month by city staff was to update the Position
Classification and Pay Compensation Plan. That process involves having each employee review
their individual job description with their supervisor and to determine whether responsibilities
' listed have changed. We are also nearing the end of the performance evaluation process whereby
each supervisor reviews the performance of each employee to determine salary adjustments which
may be warranted at end of the year. Attached please find a copy of the revised Position
Classification Plan. There are no major changes from 1993 with the minor changes in
responsibilities so minute so as not to warrant elaboration.
1 There were two reasons for accelerating the Position Classification and Pay Compensation Plan
update process: 1) the Mayor felt that the previous process was elongated and did not produce
departmental goals soon enough (next step in the process following Position Classification Plan
update); and 2) my disclosure to the City Council at mid -year that a salary survey for the top
administrative position (my job) had unveiled the fact that a relatively major discrepancy
' currently exists between the salary for that position and the salary for similar positions in
similarly sized communities (see attached). My disclosure additionally attempted to recognize
that the most common time at which we can truly accomplish catch ups on the mid -point is at
' mid -year as the first of the year, although being based on performance, still is more or less a cost
of living adjustment.
I can • • t help but feel that I have become a political football. Th a .yor would like to retain
responsib • • for review of my position. Most council m . - rs have contacted me stating that
they would like • olicy reviewed. However, o ebate is not the reason I am making this
1 presentation. The fac - i ains that the I.:. -point itself is significantly under that of other
similarly sized communities. ; • , e City Council as a whole can make a decision as to
whether or not mid- points s : . • be a• • If that adjustment is made, my relative position
to the mid -point bas' y remains unchanged. = • or is recognized that I am currently being
paid 95% of " whereas it should have been 95% o ," • oes not change the ability of
whomever to determine whether or not a merit increase shoul• , arded to allow that
1
1
Mayor and City Council
December 13, 1993
1 Page 2
r • ivi • ual to 1- t to 100% of " or "y." this ins • • ce, the mid - • oint should • - '.65,200 ersus
the c e plan hic • calls f. $61 10. Furthe ad' • •• r - . ' o • : t s.. • • ve gone
1 back :o my of 1993. Althou • • .. , -..••••• ►., - . . • :... .r.. - •
• 1 mg tmare. I7tstead� I would recommend that the City Council make up the
differential via a salary adjustment of one -half of the differential effective January 1, 1994, with
the second half of the adjustment occurring on July 1, 1994.
' We reasonably need to have some mechanism whereby I get feedback from the council as to
whether we are providing you with too much information, not enough, who makes presentations,
etc. However, I see these issues as a part of future work sessions.
Approval of the Position Classification and Pay Compensation Plan as attached, including the
recommendation to modify the mid -point for the City Manager including salary adjustment, is
recommended.
P 4 I I 1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
SURVEY TITLE: City Manager /Administrator /County Administrator (Cont.) JOB NO. 174
i
RANGE DATA
EXCLUDING LONGEVITY INCL. LONGEVITY
WTD WAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION # OF 0 YRS YRS YRS
# OF MEAN EMPL TRANSPORT / OF # OF TO # OF TO
JURISDICTION EMPL RATES 25.0 45.0 64.9 84.9 +DEGREE SUPV ALLOWANCE T EXP TITLE MIN MAX STEPS MAX MAX STEPS MAX
ROSEVILLE 1 79.5 1 M.P.A. 135 275/M0 N 11 -15 CITY MGR 65.3 95.3
MAPLEWOOD 1 83.1 1 M.P.A. 123 450/MO N 16 -20 CITY MANAGER 64.9 87.4
BROOKLYN CENTER 1 80.5 1 M.A. 220 CITY CAR N 21 + CITY MANAGER 69.4 93.9 7
FRIDLEY 1 80.3 1 Ph.D. 190 2870/YR N 16 -20 CITY MANAGER 76.5 105.2
LAKEVILLE 1 79.3 1 NONE 120 375/MO N 16 -20 CITY ADMIN 62.3 77.9 7 6.0
WHITE BEAR LAKE Pending M.P.A. 101 295/MO N 6 -10 CITY MANAGER 69.7
CRYSTAL 1 75.5 1 M.P.A. CITY VEH N 21 + CITY MANAGER
COTTAGE GROVE 1 72.4 1 M.P.A. 106 300 /MO N 11 -15 ADM
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 1 69.9 1 M.A. 80 NONE N 21 + CITY ADMIN 66.6 69.9 2 1.0
NEW BRIGHTON Pending M.P.A. 70 290/M0 N 11-15 CITY MANAGER j '
NEW HOPE Pending M.P.A. 90 CAR N 6-10 CITY MANAGER 57.2 80.1 5 3.0 ,
WOODBURY 1 76.2 1 M.A. 89 24-HR CAR N 6 -10 CITY ADMIN
GOLDEN VALLEY 1 88.8 1 M.A. 119 405/M0 N 11 -15 CITY MANAGER
SOUTH ST PAUL_ 1 64.0 1 M.P.A. 101 372/M0 N 16 -20 CITY ADMIN 1
WEST ST PAUL? Pending M.P.A. 95 2400 N 16-20 CITY MANAGER 57.0 71.3 .
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 1 72.0 1 M.A. 120 250 /M0 N 6 -10 CITY MANAGER
CHAMPLIN 1 66.6 1 M.A. 62 NONE N 0 - 5 CITY ADM 54.6 68.2
ANOKA 1 58.5 1 M.P.A. 127 300 /M0 N 0 - 5 CITY MANAGER 71.5 87.2 7 5.0
HOPKINS 1 71.0 1 B.S. 102 300 /M0 N 6 -10 CITY MANAGER 57.6 77.7
ANDOVER 1 61.8 1 B.S. 26 NONE N 6 -10 CITY ENG /ADMIN 48.5 74.0
HASTINGS 1 59.8 1 M.A. 85 NONE N 6-10 CITY ADMIN 56.4 66.8 6 5.0 68.7 3 15
ROBBINSDALE 1 72.0 1 B.S. 150 300 /M0 N 0 - 5 CITY MANAGER
STILLWATER 1 58.9 1 B.S. 56 CAR N 11 -15 CITY COORD 58.9
RAMSEY Pending M.A. 40 200 /MO N 0 - 5 CITY ADMIN 46.8 65.0
NORTH ST PAUL 1 76.2 1 M.P.A. 60 300 /M0 N 11 -15 CITY MANAGER
MOUNDS VIEW 1 65.8 1 M.A. 55 .28 /MI N 0 - 5 CITY ADMIN 52.7 65.8 5 3.0
CHANHASSEN 1 61.2 1 M.P.A. 50 200 /M0 N 21 + CITY MANAGER 52.9 71.7
SHAKOPEE 1 66.3 1 M.A. 63 300 /M0 N 0 - 5 CITY ADM 49.7 66.3 6 5.0
PRIOR LAKE 1 66.0 1 M.A. 53 350/MO N 0 - 5 CITY MANAGER 47.2 70.7
CHASKA 1 65.2 1 M.P.A. 90 275/M0 N 16-20 ADMINISTRATOR 55.6 72.2
VADNAIS HEIGHTS 1 53.7 1 B.S. 17 150/M0 Y 11-15 CITY ADMIN 43.0 53.7 6 4.0
SAVAGE 1 59.4 1 M.P.A. 59 3000 /YR N 6 -10 CITY ADMINISTR 45.9 64.5 7 6.0
GROUP STATISTICS: 73.4 01: 65.8 Q2: 75.5 03: 80.5 Average: 59.6 77.4 68.7
MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1 56.8 1 M.P.A. 41 175/M0 N 0 - 5 CITY ADMIN
MOUND 1 63.3 1 M.A. 36 DAY USE N 11-15 CITY MANAGER 51.2 63.9 4 3.0 '
ARDEN HILLS Pending 20 150 /MO N 0 - 5 CITY ADMIN 42.0 52.5 5 3.0
LINO LAKES 1 57.1 1 M.A. 35 0 N 11 -15 CITY ADMIN 45.3 57.9
ROSEMOUNT Pending B.A. 54 200 /MO N 11 -15 CITY ADMIN
HAM LAKE 1 49.3 1 NONE 9 .28/MI N 6 -10 ADM /CLERK /TREAS 39.5 49.3 4 3.0 I-
LITTLE CANADA 1 53.6 1 M.A. 14 .28 /MI N 11-15 CITY ADMIN 45.0 60.2 6 5.0
ST ANTHONY 1 57.1 1 M.A. 51 175/M0 N 0 - 5 CITY MANAGER 57.1 I'
ORONO 1 60.1 1 M.A. 38 200 /M0 N 0 - 5 CITY ADMIN 56.8 66.8 4 3.0
SPRING LAKE PARK 1 53.2 1 NONE 30 .28 /MI N 21 + CLERK /TREASURER
FARMINGTON 1 53.9 1 M.P.A. 54 160/MO N 11 -15 CITY ADMIN 45.9 55.0 3 3.0
SHOREWOOD 1 54.1 1 M.P.A. 30 .28/M1 N 11 -15 CITY ADMIN 43.3 54.1 5 3.0 j
LAKE ELMO 1 40.2 1 NONE 9 1200 /YR N 0 - 5 ADMINISTRATOR 39.0 45.9 2 3.0
- - - - i n M I I i I MI r r I MI - I