ITEM 5 Organizational Items1P
tMISOTA
TRI eTifflffil11j
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lori Johnson, City Administrator
DATE: March 26, 2015
SUBJECT: Organizational Items
ITEM 5
There are several organizational items that were originally scheduled as the main topic of
discussion for this work session; revised position descriptions and the new administrative
position included in the 2015 Budget. However, because addressing the Street and Finance
Department vacancies is urgent, those items were added to beginning of this agenda. It is likely
that there will not be enough time for discussion of the new administrative position on Monday
due to the addition of those two agenda items. Therefore, that item should be placed on a
future work session agenda.
The first organizational item for consideration is reviewing and adopting revised position
descriptions for several positions as requested by employees or their supervisor. This excludes
Street Department positions that are being addressed separately on the agenda. The draft
amended position descriptions attached and submitted for Council consideration have been
reviewed and approved by both the employee and supervisor (if applicable). Along with the
position description changes requested by employees, some employees requested review of
their pay stating they felt their pay was low. If the employee did raise a concern about pay,
that is noted on the position description under the Pay Range section. As you know, the last
comprehensive review of both position descriptions and pay grade evaluation under the City's
pay evaluation system was completed in 2009. Much of that information is out-of-date and no
longer accurate. At some point, the Council should consider completing an outside review of all
positions to bring all positions back into proper alignment with the actual duties and
responsibilities of the position.
The second item for consideration is progression of the Utility Operators through their pay
range. When the City took over utility operations from a contractor in 2013, a pay plan was
adopted that included steps within the pay range(s) based on licensure. However, it was not
explicitly stated and approved that employees would move up the range when they successfully
tested for and received a higher license. I am pleased to report that one of the operators has
successfully tested and obtained a class C license thus the need for clarification on the Council's
intent of the Utility Operator's pay plan. As you can see from the attached pay plan, the Utility
Operators do not progress the full range of the pay plan unless they obtain a higher license.
Also attached is a memo from Kurt Neidermeier with his recommendation on this matter. On a
side note, the change from contractor to on staff operation of the City's Utility system has been
very successful and has resulted in annual savings of around $100,000.
2