Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0521 CC REG ITEM 09Jl�5 -ice rrEM . icT. City of Moorpark Agenda Report ,h.. TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Richard Hare, Deputy City Manag r SUBJECT: Consider Resolution No. 97- , Adopting a Salary Plan for Non - Competitive Service Employees DATE: May 9, 1997 (Council Meeting 5/21/97) A resolution implementing the Salary Plan for non - competitive service employees (management staff) effective May 24, 1997 is attached. The Council Ad Hoc Compensation Committee (Mayor Pro Tempore Perez and Council Member Wozniak) and staff are recommending adoption. Implementation of the Salary Plan range adjustments is recommended with employees being placed into the appropriate salary range and on the first step above their current salary. In the event their current salary is above the range then they would remain at their present salary. Progress within the range would be based upon merit. Those employees that have not had a merit review for two or more years would be eligible for an immediate review and potential merit increase of 2.5 or 5 percent. Otherwise, employees would be eligible for merit raise consideration on their anniversary date. The Salary Plan for competitive service employees is not presented at this time. The City Manager shall meet and confer with the Local 998 with the intent of reaching agreement on the salary plan for competitive service employees along with the new contract which would begin Saturday, July 5, 1997. The City Council engaged Ralph Andersen & Associates (RAA) in Fiscal Year 1995/1996 to conduct a classification and compensation study for the City. The first phase of the project consisted of a job classification study. The Classification Plan with approved job descriptions was adopted by the City Council on February 5, 1997. The Ad Hoc Classification/Compensation Committee (Mayor Lawrason and Council Member 970509.036 V W041 Page 2 Salary Plan City Council Meeting 5/21/97 Montgomery) considered the original methodology applied by the City's consultant. The consultant noted that two labor markets applied to Moorpark's salary structure. A local labor market consisting of employers in Ventura County served as an initial comparison of salaries and there was a broader statewide market of similar organizations for some of the positions. Their survey included both labor markets. Some of the positions surveyed became "benchmark" positions. Enough similarities were noted between the organizations with regard to the duties and the responsibilities of the positions that RAA felt they represented equivalent comparisons. The "benchmark" positions allowed RAA to establish external equity for the salary plan. They in turn could be used to define internal relationships between positions to establish internal equity. For an example, the comparative Wary of the position of management analyst was determined by the survey and could be compared to other organizations. In turn, someone who supervises a management analyst would be expected to have a higher salary, thereby establishing the internal relationship for salary purposes. The Ad Hoc Compensation Committee (Mayor Pro -Tern Wozniak and Council Member Perez) reviewed the results of the Compensation Study on Wednesday, October 10, 1996. They requested that this item be brought forward to the City Council on October 16, 1997 for partial implementation and to direct the staff to meet with the Local 998 on the implementation of the Compensation Study with regard to non - competitive employees. At that time, the City Council referred the Salary Plan back to the Ad Hoc Conunittee for further review and recommendation. The Ad Hoc Compensation Committee (Mayor Pro -Tern Perez and Council Member Wozniak) held several meetings over the last two months to reviewed the methodology and to consider two primary issues. The first issue regarded the timing of the survey data. The survey data was gathered based on 1995 adopted salaries and it would be implemented in 1997. There was concern that it did not take into account salary adjustments which took place in the survey cities, due to the increased cost of living. Over the same period cost of living adjustments in Moorpark were 2.5 percent each year and the cost of living exceeded 5 percent. There was also a feeling on the part of the Committee that the new Salary Plan should be workable for the near future, so that this process would not have to be repeated every few years. The Committee felt that it would be fiscally prudent, yet competitive to develop the Salary Plan at the 60th percentile with an adjustment for the cost of living increases. The 60th percentile would place 60 per cent of the surveyed cities below the established salary and 40 per cent above the established salary. Since this was the first comprehensive review of salaries in the City's thirteen year history, it was felt that the new Salary Plan should be structured so it would serve 970509.036 Page 3 Salary Plan City Council Meeting 5/21/97 the City over the next decade and not require another comprehensive review. Staff prepared the Salary Plan as requested with the benchmark positions at the 60th percentile and adjusted 5 percent to allow for the cost of living increases over the last two years. The Salary Tables are set up on a 2.5% by 2.5% basis which is not the norm. Most cities have a 5% by 5% plan. This means that there is 5% between the ranges and 5% between the steps. A person receiving a satisfactory rating would move up one step or 5% in their range. Moorpark adopted a more restrictive Salary Plan structure four years ago which broke the ranges into 2.5% steps and only allowed movement when a person was rated above satisfactory. A person with a satisfactory rating does not receive a merit raise. An above satisfactory rating receives a 2.5% merit raise and an outstanding rating receives a 5% merit raise. Internal relationships were then derived from the benchmarked positions. For an example, supervisors were placed in ranges above the employees they supervised. Cross checking was done between the position relationships established by the salary survey and the internal relationships. The Ad Hoc Compensation Committee did not recommend transferring employees from their current position in the current salary plan to the same step in the new salary plan. This approach would be too costly. The Committee favored the imm xWe placement of employees into the new Salary Plan at the first step above their current salary. The cost for placing employees into the plan would is illustrated in the attached table titled Salary Implenmution Plan. The total monthly cost is estimated at $3,421. If the City Manager's merit raise is approved as a separate item, then there will not be an additional cost in this implementation plan which will reduce this cost by $210. The implementation plan is based on the following procedures for placing employees in the new salary ranges. If an employee's salary is below the Salary Plan range then the employee would be placed on the first step of the new Salary Range (Step A). If an employee's current salary is beyond the Salary Plan range then the employee would be placed in Step Y which would freeze the employee's salary until the range increased by cost of living adjustments or reclassification and the employee's salary was once again within the first step (Step A) and the last step (Step I) of the salary range. If an employee's current salary is in between two steps, the employee would be moved to the next highest step. These adjustments would take place on the effective date of the Salary Plan. 970509.036 0004121 Page 4 Salary Plan City Council Meeting 5/21/97 Many employees have not been eligible for pay- for - performance or merit increases, because their range has been behind the labor market and they have reached the last step in their range. With the correction of the salary ranges to reflect the labor market salaries some employees will have the potential for earning a merit raise. Employees do not receive a merit raise unless they have demonstrated to the satisfaction of their supervisor that they have performed above average or in a superior manner over the evaluation period. An employee with a satisfactory performance rating is not eligible for a merit salary increase. Three employees (administrative services manager, the public works director and the deputy city manager) have not received a merit raise review for more than two years. The resolution allows these employees to be eligible for a merit raise review, prior to the end of the fiscal year, with their merit raise, if any, effective on their last anniversary date. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 97- , establishing a Salary Plan for Non - Competitive Service Employees Attachments: Resolution 97- Salary Implementation Table Bi- weekly Salary Range Table 970509.036