12-09-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

liV 12491.1 TO: FBOH: DATS: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator December 4, 1991 SUBJECT: 1992 Nonunion Employee Compensation Adjustments Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. Memo Concerning 1992 Wage and Insurance Adjustments Proposed 1992 Compensation Resolution Compensation Plan Step Eligibility for 1992 Proposed Compensation Schedule for 1992 Each year the Council makes an adjustment to the Compensation Schedule and to the city's contribution toward health insurance as part of its pay plan. Based on the information in the attached memo on wage and insurance adjustments it is recommended the Council adopt a resolution which incorporates a 3% general pay schedule adjustment. It is also recommended that the City contribution for family health insurance coverage be increased $20.00 per month from $231.00 per month in 1991 to $251.00 per month in 1992. The pay schedule includes three public works employe«»s, Ste ^ Hansen^ Dale Skreen and James Gregory, whose pay levels be t limited due to the City’s efforts to comply with the reg. .eroents of the pay equity law. These employees have had theit oise pay increases limited in recent years through the use of lump sur payments versus increases to the base pay rate. In 1991 when other staff received a 4% general pay increase these employees i^oceived a 1% base pay increase and a 3% lump sum payment. For 1992, because these employees are still above the pay level indicated by the pay equity requirements, the recommendation for their pay is a 0% increase to the base pay rate and a 3% lump sum payment. Because these employees received a 3% lump sum payment in 1991 the result of the 3% lump sum payment in 1992 will be a 0% actual increase. To provide an actual increase in pay would require a 1% increase to the base rate in addition to a 3% lump sum payme't. Taken together the base pay increase plus the lump sum amount would equal 4%. This amount is in total a higher percent than the ganeral increase provided to other employees in 1992. To provide this higher percentage increase would undo what was accomplished by the lump sum increases of prior years. Although the use of lump sum payments in lieu of base pay increases does not immediately affect total pay, tb® end result is that total pay increases are significantly reduced. When the general rate of pay adjustments falls from one year to th» next, total pay levels are frozen. This is the situation we are in with these employees in 1992.