01-12-15 SCC_6PMCITY OF
ase o
MINHE507n
CaII to Order:
Roll Call.
1. Swearing in of elected City Council Members.
2. 2015 Compensation,
3. Adjourn.
SPECIAL MEETING
+CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, January 12, 2015
6:00 PM
Otsego Prairie Center
COUNCII, ACTION 01/12/15
io F U
MINNESOTA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lori Johnson, City Administrator
DATE: January 9, 2015
SUBJECT: 2015 Employee Compensation
2015 Pay Plan
On two occasions during the 2015 budget process, the 2015 pay plan market rate adjustment
was brought to the Council for discussion. The Council delayed making a decision and
requested a special work session on Monday for further discussion prior to adoption of the
2015 pay plan.
I have updated the 2015 Salary Survey with proposed increases that was distributed previously
now that the seven surrounding cities on the list have all finalized their 2015 pay. The average
increase of the seven cities is 2.3%. A majority of the cities are increasing their pay plan 2%.
Two cities are increasing their pay plan 3%; one because their pay has fallen below market and
another for employee retention purposes - they want to retain the good employees they
currently have in an increasingly competitive market. Also, some positions in Rogers are
increasing an additional .5% to bring them up back up to the same pay plan as other
employees. The City of Big Lake recently completed a comprehensive pay study and may be
making additional adjustments as they learned their pay is below market according to the study
results.
This two percent increase adopted by many cities for 2015 is the same as last year's average
Minnesota city pay plan increase. The market data presented to the Council in 2013 for 2014
pay in which 70 cities were surveyed produced an average increase of 2%. The Otsego City
Council approved a 1.5% increase in the pay plan effective April 27 for Otsego. As I have stated
earlier, it is much easier to maintain one's place in the market by giving increases that are
consistent with comparable cities than it is to catch-up or to lose good employees. For that
reason and because Otsego's increase in 2014 was lower than that of surrounding
communities, I recommend that the City increase the pay plan two percent, the average
increase given by surrounding cities, in order to maintain its position in the marketplace.
2015 Pay Equity Reporting
By January 31, 2015, Otsego is required to submit a pay equity Compliance Report for the pay
and evaluation system in place on December 31, 2014. Administrative Services Director Dan
Jordet has completed the analysis and based on the Compliance Report Otsego is in compliance
with the Pay Equity Law. The Compliance Report must be approved by the Council before it can
be submitted. A copy is attached for your review. This will be placed on the January 26
consent agenda for approval following your review at this work session.
Part of the pay equity law requires that each position be evaluated using an approved system to
determine each position's ranking relative to other positions. The City uses the Modified
Princeton System. When the Utility positions were created in mid -2013, their estimated point
values were used to set initial hiring pay. Now that the positions are established, actual
analysis of the Utility positions has been completed using the Modified Princeton System. The
following point values are the result of that analysis. Council adoption of the values is
requested.
Utilities Lead Operator
184
Utilities Operator B
124
Utilities Operator C, D
110
Other
As you probably noticed when reading your regular Council meeting packet, there are several
personnel related topics and items on the list of upcoming work session agendas. Many of the
personnel items are inter -related; therefore, the only action requested in January is to deal
with the time sensitive items of the pay plan and pay equity. A much more detailed and in-
depth discussion on the pay plan structure, position descriptions, position point rankings and so
on will take place at an upcoming, yet to be scheduled work session.
2
2015 Salary Survey of Surrounding Communities
City
Albertville
Buffalo
Elk River
Big Lake
St. Michael
Monticello
Rogers
Proposed Actualincrease
Increase Approved by City Council
2.00%
2% effective January 1, 2015
up to 3%
3% effective January 1, 2015
2.00%
2% effective January 1, 2015
2%+
2% effective January 1, 2015
2.00%
2% effective January 1, 2015
3.10%
3% effective January 1, 2015
2.00%
2% effective January 1, 2015*
*Some supervisory and part time employees received an additional
.5% "catch-up" increase.
Dated: January 8, 2015
2015
Employees eligible for a step increase
approx. midway between steps
Employees at top of pay range thus not eligible for a step increase
Steve Springer
Don Maas
Rick Knutson
Kevin Lamson
Pat Launderville
Kathy Grover
Lori Johnson
Step in
Step in
2014
2015
Mary Olson
11
12
Kurt Neidermeier
8-9
9-10 or 10
Eric Moening
2
3
Warne Johnson
8
9
Seth Wilkes
2
3
Brad Sherrill
5
6
Brent Kolles
6
7
Sandy Lindenfelser
8
9
Barb Williams
11
12
Tami Loff
9
10
Ross Demant
5
6
Dan Jordet
9
10
approx. midway between steps
Employees at top of pay range thus not eligible for a step increase
Steve Springer
Don Maas
Rick Knutson
Kevin Lamson
Pat Launderville
Kathy Grover
Lori Johnson
Compliance Report
Jurisdiction: Otsego
13400 90th Street N.E.
Otsego MN 55330
Report Year: 2015
Case: 1 - 2015 DATA (Shared (Jur and MMB))
Contact: Daniel Jordet Phone: (763) 235-3161 E -Mail: DJordet@ci.otsego.mn.us
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 Il, III and IV give you the test results.
For more detail on each test, refer to the Guide to Pay Equity Compliance and Computer Reports.
I. GENERAL JOB CLASS INFORMATION
Male Female Balanced All Job
Classes Classes Classes Classes
# Job Classes 10 8 0 18
# Employees 14 8 0 22
Avg. Max Monthly 5,063.07 4,943.25 5.019.50
Pay per employee
II. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TEST
A. Underpayment Ratio = 240.00 *
B. T-test Results
Degrees of Freedom (DF) = 20 Value of T = -1.184
a. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs = ($3)
b. Avg. diff, in pay from predicted pay for female jobs = $110
III. SALARY RANGE TEST = 87.50 (Result is A divided by B)
A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = 9.63
B. Avg. # of years to max salary for female jobs = 11.00
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)
Male
Female
Classes
Classes
a. # At or above Predicted Pay
4
6
b. # Below Predicted Pay
6
2
c. TOTAL
10
8
d. % Below Predicted Pay
60.00
25.00
(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) = 20 Value of T = -1.184
a. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs = ($3)
b. Avg. diff, in pay from predicted pay for female jobs = $110
III. SALARY RANGE TEST = 87.50 (Result is A divided by B)
A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = 9.63
B. Avg. # of years to max salary for female jobs = 11.00
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)