HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-2015 Council Work Session PacketCity Council Work Session
Monday, October 26, 2015, 5:00 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. Compensation Study Next Steps
2. Park Commission Purpose and Guidance
3. Order of Reports on City Council Agenda
4. Future Work Session Topics
Work Session Topics or Requests
Annual:
Budget and Goals: part of June, all of July, August and October.
City Administrator & Police Chief update (3 times per year for 15 minutes)
Joint Planning Commission/Park/Council meeting for check-in/direction (11/9/15)
Additional topics:
Emerald Ash Borer (LL)
Sewer Connection Fees Policy (MG)
Jennifer Munt from the Met Council (LM)
Marina licensing (MG)
Permit exception criteria for lots less than 2 acres (DW/AP)
Construction Hours — Truck Traffic (LL)
Previous Work Session Topics
September 28, 2016
Hwy. 12 Safety Audit and Improvement
Traffic Management Policy
2016 Budget
Public Notice Signage Criteria
Freshwater Future Uses
Housing Density
August 24, 2015
Emergency Notification SOP (Standard Operating Procedure)
Hwy 12 Safety Audit
2016 Budget
Living Wall
Update On Ordinances
City Council Conduct Policy
Paperless Council Packets
July 27, 2015
Compensation Study Draft Report
2016 Budget
US Internet
Goals Documentation
Verbal Update from Park Commission Chair Rick Meyers
MEMORANDUM
TO: ORONO CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JESSICA LOFTUS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: COMPENSATION STUDY NEXT STEPS
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2015
In July the City Council received a compensation analysis from Abdo (AEN . A copy
of the report (less appendices) is Attachment A.
The goal of this study was to update the City's existing job classification system for
pay equity, analyze the City's master salary plan to ensure continuing consistency with
the market, and make recommendations for implementation. With the study complete
the City Council might want to take this opportunity to discuss next steps.
Job Classification System
In brief summary, position points for all jobs have been updated for pay equity
reporting and sample tests show compliance with state requirements. City staff will
submit the official report in January. Job description requirements and duties were
also updated and inserted into a standard format.
1. Next step: If acceptable, the job descriptions ought to be formally approved
by the City Council at a regular meeting before the end of the year.
External Market Analysis and Compensation Structure Review
The market study provided important data points to determine how Orono fares in
the competitive marketplace. During the July work session the Council requested
benefit information. This is included in attachment B.
Two implementation options were presented for your consideration:
Option #1 aka The Phased Plan
The employee would move to the new step and grade program and is placed at the
step closest to their current salary.
Assumption: employees that are currently being compensated above the proposed
wage remain frozen at their current rate of pay.
Immediate Implementation cost: $32,963 (see attachment C) Please note there is a
delayed cost for the following years as six positions (noted as "start" in attachment B)
subsequently move through the steps in later years. We estimate $53,000 +/- of
future impacts but they will be spread over the next 2-7 years and will be based on
satisfactory or above performance.
Option #2 aka The Full Market Adjustment
The employee would move to the new step and grade program and remains at their
current step (regardless of their current salary).
Assumption: employees that are currently being compensated above the proposed
wage remain frozen at their current rate of pay.
Immediate Implementation cost: $86,104
2. Next step: decide whether to implement Option #1 or Option #2 for market
adjustment.
The study was conducted assuming a 2.75% COLA increase in 2016 to keep pace
with the market. The cost to implement this is $36,792.
3. Next step: decide what amount the Council is comfortable with a COLA
increase.
Recommendation
I recommend you implement the phased program using Option #1 if combined with
the recommended COLA increase. I believe this shows responsiveness to the market
while demonstrating fiscal responsibility. It's my position that option #2 is not
fiscally possible with the approved preliminary 2016 budget. I also believe it's
important to be able to say to employees that the City is following through and values
paying market rate to employees.
I recommend a 2.75% COLA increase similar to union employees so we can keep up
with the market and avoid large market adjustments again in the future. Please note
COLA increases are not given for positions if they are over the market rate.
Attachement A
ABDO
EICK &
MEYERSHT
AEM Financial Solutions"
People
+Pf'O(xss.
Coh W
l3c�rnc l a�,
\uiiilx�r
THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK
INTENTIONALLY
ABDO
EIICCKj�&D C
ME 1 ERS 1.i.P
AEM Financial Solutions'"
City of Orono
Jessica Loftus
City Administrator
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Executive Summary
July 24, 2015
Our firm was contracted by the City of Orono to provide a compensation analysis. The last compensation analysis was completed
in 2007. Since that time, several organizational changes have taken place and duties and responsibilities of the majority of the
positions have been altered. We have reviewed and updated job descriptions to reflect these changes. The revised Job
Descriptions are included as Appendix A of this report. As part of the revised job descriptions, the minimum requirements for
knowledge, skills and ability have also been updated to reflect the changing needs of the organization.
To achieve the objectives set forth in our Scope of Work, we completed a scoring exercise using a model similar to the State
of Minnesota Hay Study. Using this model, each position was given a score in the following categories; know-how, problem
solving, accountability and special conditions.
To complete the evaluation and scoring of Orono positions, we reviewed the organizational structure, job descriptions and conducted
interviews with the leadership team to gain further insight on job responsibilities. Upon completing the scoring of positions to
determine pay equity, our firm completed a market analysis.
The market analysis consisted of analyzing salary data from comparable local governments in Minnesota and reviewing
municipal salary data published by the League of Minnesota Cities.
The results of both the compensation (position scoring) and market analysis follow.
Methodology
In 2007, when the last compensation evaluation was completed, estimated wages and salaries were compared to the Plan's
"ideal" pay scale; although some positions were paid higher or lower than the predicted pay scale, none were found to be
excessive and Orono was found to be in compliance with the Pay Equity Act.
In the years following the last study (2007), responsibilities for a number of positions were altered and the City of Orono leadership
determined that an updated, independent, system -wide scoring re-evaluation was necessary to assist executive leadership in
establishing a new, logical and justifiable employee wage and salary "base" to be able to build upon in the future.
Scoring Analysis
This section reflects the review and analysis of all Orono job descriptions. To complete this task AEM Financial Solutions,
LLC solicited information from employees to facilitate the updates to job descriptions. Our firm reviewed the changes and
conducted additional interviews with city leadership to gain the insight needed to score the various positions. The positions were
scored using a plan adapted from the Hay method. The model assigned each position a score in the following categories (adapted
from the State of Minnesota 2009 Hay Manual): Know -How, Problem Solving, Accountability, and Special Conditions.
5201 Eden Avenue, Suite 250
Edina, MN 55436 _
952.715.3070 1 Fax 952.935.3261 -1
"Know -How represents the knowledge, skills and abilities an employee needs to be successful in a particular job. The Hay
evaluation method places the greatest emphasis on Know -How. Know -How is defined as an expert skill, information or body of
knowledge that imparts an ability to cause a desired result. The Know -How category is the most heavily weighted category. If a
position is more easily learned, the position will point toward the lower end of the scale.
Know -How category is further divided into three parts: Depth and Breadth of Job -Specific Knowledge (aka Technical and
Specialized Know -How and Job -Specific Knowledge); Integrating Know -How (aka Managerial Breadth or Know -How); and
Human Relation Skills (aka Human Relations Know -How). A number is assigned for total Know -How points by making several
separate choices for each of the three elements described and an overall assessment.
Job -Specific Knowledge includes the position's requirements for knowledge and skills related to practices, procedures,
specialized techniques and professional disciplines. It also includes basic and job -specific supervisory and managerial KSAs,
when appropriate. This aspect of Know -How does not make distinctions among differently -sized managerial jobs nor does it
include human relation skills. It is important to remember that this element measures the requirements of the position, not the
qualifications of an incumbent.
Integrating Know -How considers the need to integrate and manage progressively more diverse functions and is used to rank
managerial breadth and scope, from similar to very different functions. When required, basic and job -specific supervisory
and managerial knowledge, skills and abilities are included in the Job -Specific part of a Know -How rating. The overall size
of an organization directly influences the number of managerial breath categories, because the organizational size often
reflects requirements for increased managerial complexity and diversity.
Human Relation Skills is the third element of a job's Know -How rating. It is the active, practicing interpersonal skills
typically required for productive working relationships to work with, or through, others inside and/or outside of the
organization to get work accomplished. It assumes that each job requires a foundation of basic human relations skills. To be
effective, an employee must typically be proficient at the highest level of Human Relations Skill regularly required for the
position.
Problem Solving is the process of working through details of a problem to reach a solution. Problem solving may include
mathematical or systematic operations and can be a gauge of an individual's critical thinking skills. Problem Solving measures
the intensity of the mental process that uses Know -How to: (1) identify, (2) define, and (3) resolve problems. It is a percentage of
Know -How, reflecting the fact that "you think with what you know." This is true of even the most creative work. Ideas are put
together from something already there. The raw material of any thinking is knowledge of facts, principles and means.
Context includes the influences or environment that limit or guide decision-making such as rules, instructions, procedures,
standards, policies, principles from fields of science and academic disciplines. Positions are guided by organizational,
departmental or functional goals, policies, objectives and practices circumscribed by procedures and instructions. In general,
policies describe the "what" of a subject matter, procedures detail the steps needed to follow through on a policy (i.e., how,
where, when, by whom) and instructions outline the specific aspects of how to perform the tasks, such as the operation of a
machine or how to select the appropriate letters to use in particular situations.
Thinking Challenge includes the nature of the problems encountered and the mental processes used to resolve the problems.
The scale ranges from simple problems to very complex issues, with the premise that simple issues recur regularly in the
same form and after a while are resolved by rote or instinct, but very difficult issues require substantial thinking and
deliberation. The types of situations encountered and the processes involved in identifying, defining or resolving related
problems are considered. Thinking Challenge reflects the degree of difficulty in finding improvements and adapting to
changes.
Accountability does not mean being responsible for getting one's own work done. Rather, it reflects responsibility for actions
and their consequences and the measured effect of the job on end results for the organization. Accountability includes three
factors: Freedom to Act/Empowerment, Magnitude, and Job impact.
Freedom to Act/Empowerment involves the degree of personal or procedural control or guidance exercised over the
position. For example, what constraints are put on an employee in this job? How closely supervised is the position? What
kinds of decisions are made higher up in the organization?
Magnitude is the portion of the total organization encompassed by the position's primary purpose. It's
most typically indicated by the general dollar size of the area(s) most directly affected by the job, i.e., the
resources over which the position has control or influence. A variety of factors are considered such as size People
of budget is employee responsible for, what degree of influence is held and is this person a decision maker. +PPOCessa
Go*cr
Bevondth�
-2- Numbers
Job Impact is considered to be indirect (indirect or contributory) or direct and measurable (shared or primary). It involves
the way in which the position's actions affect end results in the agency. For example, how does the employee influence the
business - directly or indirectly? Does the employee provide advisory or interpretive services for others to use in making
decisions? Is the job an information -recording one? Does it provide a necessary service with a relatively small effect on the
business of the agency? "Contributory" and "primary" are, by far, the most frequently used options."
The work associated with this scoring represents the primary work conducted for this assignment, which is to review positions and
functions and provide a consistent measurement and "scoring" of functions and responsibilities within the municipality.
Findings and Recommendations
Position Points
The following table represents the total score assigned to each position based on the Methodology discussed.
Table 1 -Scoring Analysis
City Administrator
Public Works
Director/Engineer Director of Finance
745
Supervisor (Streets) Accountant
Community
Development Police Chief
Director
Building Official Deputy Chief
Senior Planner
Supervisor IT Technician City Clerk CiTy Planner Patrol Officer
(Water/Sewer)
Maintenance PayroWUtility Billing
Clerk
164 13l
Office Manager
Planning Assistant
Administrative
Administrative
Administrative
Supp ort Assistant-
Support Assistant-
Support Assistant -
Administration
Plannin & Builth-
Pofice
j ll4
t l4
114
-3-
Community Service
Officer
76
People
+Process„
Going
Beyondnre
\Iunbers
Market Analysis
This section documents a sample of the wages provided to the employees of comparable local governmental units in Minnesota.
The comparable government entities identified for this study were communities with populations from 5,000 to 10,000 in the metro
area.
The City of Orono is within 20 miles of several large metro communities with populations in excess of 15,000. Orono is competing
for employees with west -metro communities and as such, should consider a competitive compensation scale to attract and retain
qualified employees that have the knowledge, skills and abilities to provide service levels expected within the community. In
addition, the City of Orono provides contracted services for neighboring government agencies, expanding the service base upward of
20,000 citizens served. These factors, coupled with the demand of specific technical positions within the City, have resulted in the
recommendations provided in this survey.
The wages of the comparable positions for the municipalities listed in Table 2 were compared with those at the City of Orono. It
should be noted that the governments listed do not always have the exact positions as Orono. In addition, Orono police officers are
represented through a collective bargaining agreement and therefore not included in this study.
Table 2 - Market Survey
The Market Survey lists government agencies that were included in standard demographics for the market analysis
Circle Pines
Mound
St. Francis Little Canada
Dayton
Oak Grove
St. Paul Park Arden Hills
Falcon Heights
Spring Lake Park
Victoria Waconia
Medina
St. Anthony Village
Lake Elmo
The market analysis has been adjusted to reflect comparable 2015 wages for the local governments analyzed.
me
People
+ProeeS&
Going
Beyonda.
\lumbers
Table 3 - Market Analysis
When compared with similar positions at the local level, many salaries at Orono are lower than the municipalities surveyed while only
a few remain higher.
• Minimum salary for positions in Orono are, on average, $5,869 below market.
• Median salary for positions in Orono are, on average, $4,442 below market.
• Maximum salaries for positions in Orono are, on average, $3,014 below market.
Again, it is important to note that the last compensation analysis was completed in 2007. Cost of living adjustments have been made
to adjust the original scale to reflect market conditions, however, those adjustments may not have kept pace with market trends.
Additionally, responsibilities and minimum qualifications for a number of roles have changed significantly. Several positions require
municipal government experience. Given the current state of the municipal employee pool and the significant amount of retirements
expected in local government in years to come, we encourage the City to consider the competitiveness of its compensation plan and
the ability to attract and retain qualified employees.
-5-
People
+Process.
Going
$ewndr>,°
Ntl")el5
ra in
G
C
a
y
n
u d
m
J9
e
Administrative Assistant
$ 40,371.88
19%
1 $45,431.55
140/.
$ 50,491.21
11%
City Administrator
91,052.65
6%
101,869.76
2%
112,686.88
-1%
City Clerk
56,406.82
260/.
62,487.21
20%
68,567.60
15%
Accountant
49,448.25
-2%
55,384.94
-6%
61,321.64
-90/.
Finance Director
77,923.96
8%
87,621.63
4%
97,319.30
1%
IT Technician
53,435.20
20%
58,146.40
12%
62,857.60
6%
Payroll/utilityPayroll/utility Bffliniz Clerk
41,148.69
8%
46,536.78
5%
51,924.87
2%
Administrative Assistant
40,371.88
19%
45,431.55
14%
50,491.21
11%
Budding Official
63,061.36
9%
70,440.58
5%
77,819.80
1%
City Planner
57,531.73
14%
65,525.07
11%
73,518.40
9%
Community Development Director
80,792.30
21%
90,194.23
15%
99,596.15
12%
Planning Assistant
43,804.80
11%
52,769.60
14%
61,734.40
17%
Senior Planner
61,963.20
70%
69,700.80
3%
77,438.40
1%
Administrative Assistant
40,371.88
19%
45,431.55
14%
50,491.21
11%
Police Chief
77,950.22
-1%
88,244.03
-4%
98,537.83
-60/6
Community Service Officer
29,053.44
2%
31,888.96
4%
34 724.48
-8%
Deputy Chief
61,725.21
-80/.
72,655.90
-7%
83,586.59
-6%
Office Manager
57,271.30
51%
61,876.58
40%
66,481.87
31%
Maintenance Worker
43,460.75
10%
49,724.22
80/0
55,987.68
6%
Public Works Director/Engineer
72,746.23
1%
81931.75
-3%
91,117.26
-5%
Maintenance Supervisor
62,504.00
23%
69,690.80
18%
76,877.60
14%
Maintenance Supervisor
62,504.00
23%
1 69,690.80
18%
76,87260
14%
When compared with similar positions at the local level, many salaries at Orono are lower than the municipalities surveyed while only
a few remain higher.
• Minimum salary for positions in Orono are, on average, $5,869 below market.
• Median salary for positions in Orono are, on average, $4,442 below market.
• Maximum salaries for positions in Orono are, on average, $3,014 below market.
Again, it is important to note that the last compensation analysis was completed in 2007. Cost of living adjustments have been made
to adjust the original scale to reflect market conditions, however, those adjustments may not have kept pace with market trends.
Additionally, responsibilities and minimum qualifications for a number of roles have changed significantly. Several positions require
municipal government experience. Given the current state of the municipal employee pool and the significant amount of retirements
expected in local government in years to come, we encourage the City to consider the competitiveness of its compensation plan and
the ability to attract and retain qualified employees.
-5-
People
+Process.
Going
$ewndr>,°
Ntl")el5
Compensation Plan
Using the results of our pointing exercise and the market analysis we have prepared a proposed step and grade plan for the City of
Orono. The Plan is similar to the existing compensation philosophy of the City, utilizing eight steps to achieve maximum
compensation within a class. The proposed structure includes a 6.0% adjustment between grades and a 3.0% adjustment between
steps. The range within a class is 24%.
Table 4 - Step and Grade Scale
Paints
Grade
Start
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
76
1
31,170.33
32,134.36
33,128.20
34,152.79
35,209.06
36,298.00
37,420.62
38,577.96
77
89
2
33,159.92
34,185.49
35,242.77
36,332.75
37,456.45
38,614.89
39,809.17
41,040.38
90
103
3
35,276.51
36,367.54
37,492.31
38,651.87
39,847.28
41,079.67
42,350.18
43,659.98
104
113
4
37,528.21
38,688.87
39,885.44
41,119.01
42,390.73
43,701.78
45,053.38
46,446.79
114
127
5
39,923.62
41,158.38
42,431.31
43,743.62
45,096.52
46,491.26
47,929.13
49,411.47
128
143
6
42,471.94
43,785.51
45,139.70
469535.77
47,975.02
49,458.78
50,988.44
52,565.40
144
164
7
45,182.92
46,580.33
48,020.95
49,506.14
51,037.26
52,615.73
54,243.02
55,920.64
165
186
8
48,066.93
49,553.54
51,086.12
52,666.10
54,294.95
55,974.18
57,705.34
59,490.04
187
233
9
51,135.03
52,716.53
54,346.94
56,027.77
57,760.59
59,547.00
61,388.66
63,287.28
234
299
10
54,398.97
56,081.41
57,815.89
59,604.01
61,447.43
63,347.87
65,307.08
67,326.89
300
345
11
57,871.25
59,661.08
61,506.27
63,408.52
65,369.61
67,391.35
69,475.62
71,624.35
346
398
12
61,565.16
63,469.23
65,432.20
67,455.87
69,542.14
71,692.93
73,910.23
76,196.12
399
458
13
65,494.85
67,520.46
69,608.72
71,761.57
73,981.00
76,269.07
78,627.91
81,059.70
459
517
14
69,675.37
71,830.28
74,051.83
76,342.09
78,703.19
81,137.31
83,646.71
86,233.72
518
647
15
74,122.73
76,415.19
78,778.54
81,214.99
83,726.80
86,316.29
88,985.86
91,738.00
648
843
16
78,853.97
81,292.75
83,806.96
86,398.93
89,071.06
91,825.84
94,665.81
97,593.62
844
970
17
83,887.20
86,481.65
89,156.34
91,913.76
94,756.45
97,687.06
100,708.31
103,823.00
971
1068
18
89,241.71
92,001.76
94,847.17
97,780.59
100,804.73
103,922.41
107,136.50
110,450.00
1069
1176
19
94,937.98
97,874.21
100,901.25
104,021.91
107,239.08
110,555.75
113,975.00
117,500.00
MIS
People
+Process..
Going
Bevond,l,,
\umbers
Assumptions and Key Notes
The League of Minnesota Cities Survey and other Market Survey results were adjusted to simulate an effective date of
January 1, 2015. Table 4 - Step and Grade Scale reflects 2015 wages based on the pointing exercise and market analysis. It is
anticipated that the City would elect a cost of living adjustment for the 2016 budget. Our clients are budgeting cost of living
adjustments between 2.0-3.0%.
New Hope 2.5%
Forest Lake 3.0%
Pine City 2.0%
Le Sueur 2.0%
The following tables provide alternative scales with cost of living adjustments.
Table 5 — Step and Grade Scale with 2.50% COLA for 2016 Budget
Shakopee 2.8%
0
76
I
31,949.59
32,937.72
33,956.41
35,006.61
36,089.29
37,205.45
38,356.13
39,542.41
77
89
2
33,988.92
35,040.13
36,123.84
37,241.07
38,392.86
39,580.27
40,804.40
42,066.39
90
103
3
36,158.43
37,276.73
38,429.62
39,618.16
40,843.47
42,106.67
43,408.93
44,751.48
104
113
4
38,466.41
39,656.09
40,882.57
42,146.98
43,450.50
44,794.33
46,179.72
47,607.96
114
127
5
40,921.71
42,187.33
43,492.10
44,837.21
46,223.93
47,653.54
49,127.36
50,646.76
128
143
6
43,533.74
44,880.14
46,268.19
47,699.16
49,174.40
50,695.25
52,263.15
53,879.53
144
164
7
46,312.49
47,744.83
49,221.48
50,743.79
52,313.19
53,931.12
55,599.09
57,318.65
165
186
8
49,268.60
50,792.38
52,363.27
53,982.76
55,652.33
57,373.53
59,147.97
60,977.29
187
233
9
52,413.41
54,034.44
55,705.61
57,428.46
59,204.60
61,035.67
62,923.37
64,869.46
234
299
10
55,758.95
57,483.45
59,261.29
61,094.11
62,983.62
64,931.57
66,939.76
69,010.06
300
345
11
59,318.03
61,152.61
63,043.92
64,993.74
67,003.85
69,076.13
71,212.51
73,414.96
346
398
12
63,104.28
65,055.96
67,068.00
69,142.27
71,280.69
73,485.25
75,757.99
78,101.02
399
458
13
67,132.22
69,208.47
71,348.94
73,555.61
75,830.52
78,175.80
80,593.61
83,086.19
459
517
14
71,417.25
73,626.03
75,903.13
78250.65
80,670.77
83,165.74
85,737.88
88,389.57
518
647
15
75,975.80
78,325.57
80,748.01
83,245.37
85,819.97
88,474.19
91,210.51
94,031.45
648
843
16
80,825.32
83,325.07
85,902.14
88,558.90
91,297.84
94,121.48
97,032.46
100,033.46
844
970
17
85,984.38
88,643.69
91,385.25
94,211.60
97,125.36
100,129.24
103,226.02
106,418.58
971
1068
18
91,472.75
94,301.80
97,218.35
100,225.11
103,324.85
106,520.47
109,814.91
113,211.25
1069
1176
19
97,311.43
100,321.07
103,423.78
106,622.45
109,920.05
113,319.64
116,824.38
120,437.50
Table 6 — Step and Grade with 2.75% COLA for 2016 Budget
0
76
1
32,027.51
33,018.05
34,039.23
35,091.99
36,177.31
37,296.20
38,449.69
39,638.85
77
89
2
34,071.82
35,125.59
36211.95
37,331.90
38,486.50
39,676.80
40,903.92
42,168.99
90
103
3
36,246.62
37,367.65
38,523.35
39,714.79
40,943.08
42,209.37
43,514.81
44,860.63
104
113
4
38,560.23
39,752.82
40,982.29
42,249.78
43,556.47
44,903.58
46292.35
47,724.07
114
127
5
41,021.52
42,290.23
43,598.18
44,946.57
46,336.67
47,769.77
49,247.18
50,770.29
128
143
6
43,639.92
44,989.61
46,381.04
47,815.50
49294.33
50,818.90
52,390.62
54,010.95
144
164
7
46,425.45
47,861.28
49,341.53
50,867.56
52,440.78
54,062.66
55,734.70
57,458.45
165
186
8
49,388.77
50,916.26
52,490.99
54,114.42
55,788.06
57,513.47
59,292.23
61,126.02
187
233
9
52,541.25
54,166.23
55,841.48
57,568.53
59,349.00
61,184.54
63,076.85
65,027.68
234
299
10
55,894.94
57,623.65
59,405.83
61,243.12
63,137.24
65,089.94
67,103.03
69,178.38
300
345
11
59,462.71
61,301.76
63,197.69
65,152.26
67,167.27
69,244.61
71386.20
73,594.02
346
398
12
63,258.20
65214.64
67231.58
69,310.91
71,454.55
73,664.48
75,942.77
78,291.51
399
458
13
67,295.95
69,377.27
71,522.96
73,735.01
76,015.48
78,366.47
80,790.18
83,288.84
459
517
14
71,591.44
73,805.61
76,088.26
78,441.50
80,867.53
83,368.59
85,947.00
88,605.15
518
647
15
76,161.11
78,516.61
80,944.95
83,448.41
86,029.29
88,689.98
91,432.97
94,260.80
648
843
16
81,022.45
83,528.30
86,111.65
88,774.90
91,520.52
94,351.05
97,269.12
100,277.44
844
970
17
86,194.10
88,859.90
91,608.14
94,441.38
97,362.25
100,373.45
103,477.79
106,678.13
971
1068
18
91,695.85
94,531.81
97,455.47
100,469.56
103,576.86
106,780.27
110,082.75
113,487.38
1069
1176
19
97,548.78
100,565.75
103,676.03
106,882.51
110,188.15
113,596.03
117,109.31
120,731.25
-7-
People
+Process.
Gonlg
Be ond,,�
\umbels
Conclusion
Table 7- Position Grade Assignment with Minimum, Midpoint and Maximum Salary
When comparing the proposed scale to the current scale, the current scale is, on average, $6,022 lower on the Minimum Salary and
$2,522 lower on the Maximum Salary. The reduced variance in the Maximum Salary is likely due to the spread built in to the current
scale, with position salary growth at 33%. The average market spread is in the low to mid 20% range. The proposed scale will have a
24% growth in salary between the minimum and maximum step.
When comparing the proposed scale to market, the proposed scale is, on average, $152 above market on the Minimum Salary and
$491 below market on the Maximum Salary.
In the market analysis, it was noted that the current scale is significantly lower on both the Minimum and Maximum ends as compared
to market. The proposed scale is intended to provide an equitable compensation system that is comparable with market conditions.
-8-
People
+Process.
Going
Beyondm,
Nitm' hers
New
New Step
New Step
Position
Points
(rade
Start
NHdpoint
7
Administrative Support Assistant -Administration
114
5
$ 39,923.62
$ 44,667.55
$ 49,411.47
City Administrator
1084
19
94,937.98
106,218.99
117,500.00
City Clerk
240
10
54,398.97
60,862.93
67,326.89
Accountant
294
10
54,398.97
60,862.93
67,326.89
Director of Finance
745
16
78,853.97
88,223.80
97,593.62
IT Technician
250
10
54,398.97
60,862.93
67,326.89
Payroll/Utility Billing Clerk
131
6
42,471.94
47,518.67
52,565.40
Administrative Support Assistant - Planning & Building
114
5
39,923.62
44,667.55
49,411.47
Building Official
354
12
61,565.16
68,880.64
76,196.12
City Planner
324
11
57,871.25
64,747.80
71,624.35
Community Development Director
640
15
74,122.73
82,930.37
91,738.00
Planning Assistant
151
7
45,182.92
50,551.78
55,920.64
Senior Planner
353
12
61,565.16
68,880.64
76,196.12
Administrative Support Assistant - Police
114
5
39,923.62
44,667.55
49,411.47
Police Chief
883
17
83,887.20
93,855.10
103,823.00
Community Service Officer
76
1
31,170.33
34,874.14
38,577.96
Deputy Chief
508
14
69,675.37
77,954.55
86,233.72
Office Manager
219
9
51,135.03
57,211.15
63,287.28
Maintenance
164
7
45,182.92
50,551.78
55,920.64
Public Works Director/ Engineer
765
16
78,853.97
88,223.80
97,593.62
Supervisor (Streets)
273
10
54,398.97
60,862.93
67,326.89
Supervisor(Water/Sewer)
273
10
54,398.97
60,862.93
67,326.89
When comparing the proposed scale to the current scale, the current scale is, on average, $6,022 lower on the Minimum Salary and
$2,522 lower on the Maximum Salary. The reduced variance in the Maximum Salary is likely due to the spread built in to the current
scale, with position salary growth at 33%. The average market spread is in the low to mid 20% range. The proposed scale will have a
24% growth in salary between the minimum and maximum step.
When comparing the proposed scale to market, the proposed scale is, on average, $152 above market on the Minimum Salary and
$491 below market on the Maximum Salary.
In the market analysis, it was noted that the current scale is significantly lower on both the Minimum and Maximum ends as compared
to market. The proposed scale is intended to provide an equitable compensation system that is comparable with market conditions.
-8-
People
+Process.
Going
Beyondm,
Nitm' hers
Pay Equity Compliance
The proposed scale has been tested in the Minnesota Pay Equity Compliance system and was found to be in compliance. The reports
generated from the test have been included as Appendix B of the report. In addition, Appendix C includes a publication from the State
of Minnesota which provides guidance on interpreting and understanding the Minnesota Pay Equity System.
Implementation
The next step in this process is to consider implementation of the Compensation System. Before moving to this step there are several
questions the Council will want to consider.
➢ Should the City adopt a new step and grade plan?
➢ What is the overall cost of implementation?
➢ Will the employee move to the new step and grade program and be placed at the step closest to their current salary?
➢ Will employees move to the new step and grade program and remain at the same step?
Each of these options provide a different implementation cost.
Implementation Option #1 - The employee moves to the new step and grade program and is placed at the step that is closest to their
current salary, without a decrease in salary. This option has an estimated $41,755.85 or 2.36% impact assuming that employees that
are currently being compensated above the proposed wage, would remain at their current rate of pay. The impact of Option #1 with a
2.75% COLA adjustment is $42,904.13 or 2.42%.
Implementation Option #2 - The employee moves to the new step and grade program and is placed their current step, without a
decrease in salary. This option has an estimated $86,104.63 or 4.86% impact assuming that employees that are currently being
compensated above the proposed wage, would remain at their current rate of pay. The impact of Option #2 with a 2.75% COLA
adjustment is $88,472.51 or 4.99%.
Should the City decide to move to the new step and grade plan, we recommend approval at a regular meeting of the City Council.
AEM Financial Solutions, LLC would like to thank the City of Orono for the opportunity to prepare and present this Compensation
Analysis. We would especially like to thank the leadership team for their assistance in providing the necessary data to conduct the
study.
People
+Process.
Goilig
Beyondm,
`webers
Attachement B
Benefit Comparison
Compensation Study Cities
Amount Additional Details
Minnetrista $ 1,025.00 All employees
Pays for Health, Dental & Life Insurance
Any remaining balance to HSA to the IRS maximum
Medina
100.00%
High Deductible Plan (HSA or HRA) premiums
100.00%
Dental Insurance
Plus 1/2 of the deductible for family plans or
100% of the deductible for single plans
Total city costs capped at $437,000 for 24 employees = $1,517.36 per month
St. Francis
$650.00
Per FT Employee. Employees purchase their own health insurance.
100%
Dental, STD <D & $50,000 life paid by city
Spring Lake
100.00%
Health & Dental for Single
Park
$ 1,039.20
Health & Dental for Family
Mound
$ 750.00
Single - balance goes to HAS
$ 1,000.00
Family
100.00%
Dental
Victoria
$ 469.00
Single 95% of premium plus $375 contribution into HSA - Plan A $1750 deductible
Single 100% of premium plus $750 contribution into HSA - Plan B $3000 deductible
$ 931.50
Family 80% of premium plus $750 contribution into HSA - Plan A $3500 deductible
Family 90.55% of premium plus $750 contribution into HSA - Plan B $6000 deductible
$ 29.43
Dental
Small employer. Premius vary by employee so contribution amounts are an average.
St Anthony
100.00%
single coverage
Village
vaires
Family- depends on the plan/ 5 plans
100.00%
Dental
Orono
$ 915.00
Single All plans are high deductible plans HRA - 2,500/5,000; HSA - 2,600/5,200.
$ 1,165.00
Family
Amounts are all 2015 Contributions
V
v
Y
u
m
Ln
m
N
m
M
I�
N
N
lD
m
w
M
ID
LO
N
C
M
N
m
n
N
N
01
n
m
0
0
0
0
m
N
C
I�
m
N
M
N
M
O
N
N
O
y
O
m
N
al
m
m
m
41
N
m
O
O
C
Ln
Ol
m
N
lm
Ln
C
u1
m
N
O
N
Ln
mU
Ll1
N
C
.--I
In
m
M
N
V1
N
N
O
Ln
O
�--�
00
lf1
N
O
ti
N
M
N
O
lD
00
I-�
C
C
M
M
Ql
to
m
Ln
al
ON
N
C
C
C
al
n
01
01
N
O
C
m
Ln
O
r�
01
,v
Ln
Q
N
C
M
O
m
C
C
V1
n
C
ry
C
C
M
M
N
lD
m
V
N
O
Y
to
00
M
00
m
m
C
00
00
00
Ln
m
m
00
N
00
L(1
Lf1
C
00
m
00
m
d
C
C
Y
V
O n O N O n C O O O O N LD Ih N Ln C N" 0 0 M to N O iTo lD m O m O Ln m N O O O N w N N M m Ln m o O C m tD O U Cn O O o000V0DmCmC N w 00 al m Ql m M 01 m N li t O C 0 mM D1 N m N C C O I, C Ln C m N C O M M f� N N H N M r -I N N N H N
O m n N w m C O N M m N LD m N m C N N O N M N N M
O dl C tD m 01 C O N N M O N Q> O Ot N Ot LD O n O N ID M
O w N M t0 w 00 w O m C m N w M O w N m m m 0
O O m N m N m m M m LD N C m m C N O m m N M M m N n
C lf1 M V V1 M M dl n N C "21N C M N C u1 N Vl m (V N C 01 N
Q n C m I, n C O rl lD M H C LD C C m m 0 n m O N Lo m rl
�f1 C 01 lD v1 Ol n O r an C Ln Ln C C C m O m v1 C M M
au
m al 41 LD N r� 0 N O M N m m 0 0 m m O N N N w m 0 m m
U 00 0) M N Ln N w to V O M N O O 00 0) 0) C V1 M N 01
@ O O M tD N w C C LD O C O N w w M M N LD m N C N m C
N N NQj
C M N N C M M M N N N N N N N C C C N N N N
Z
oil, i n n s LO LD t\ C n Ln C Ln N M i n f\ r i VI i N
La p ra A m m
V1 VI Vf VI Vf N
J m O Ln LD O O ID Ln N N N n N O n n n n w n C m Ln V1 N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
v O C m a a LO m m m C w a m m m N C w t w Lo a O Lo
� O m O C m m 6 N N C N m LD m m V1 N to C C N m ID C I -I
In m N N V1 N m Ln u1 w N C O O C w m N N m V1 m 0 m Il.
C N C I� M Ln Ln "c N N n O n C LO n C O m m m N LO C 0 N
¢C C w O w n M O m m m n N Ln O N n n M O C^ m O Ln 00 N
C Ln rn w Ln Ln m 00 w n Ln C Ln Ln C C C m 0 0o Ln C m m
v
u
m
Ln
m
N
m
M
I�
N
N
lD
m
w
M
ID
LO
N
C
M
N
m
N
al
mm
m
M
C
I�
M
Ot
Ot
O
o
m
m
m
m
m
O
m
M
C
m
m
m
Ln
C
C
00
V
N
C
LD
N
Ln
C
N
N
M
I�
Ll1
N
C
Ln
N
N
O
lD
O
N
C
N
m
Ln
v
Lp
In
N
N
C
M
N
N
C
C
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
Ln
C
N
N
N
N
O
U
to
00
M
00
m
m
C
00
00
00
Ln
m
m
00
N
00
L(1
Lf1
C
00
m
00
m
m
C
C
Y
V
Q
O
N
C
00
M
N
w
n
V1
Ln
M
I,
C
M
n
00
01
I,
w
C
C
N
E
m
m
m
Q
m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m¢
a
m
a
a
a
a
m
m
m
a
a
a
a
o
a
u
>
>_
m
o
a
w
ai
�
u
u
O
Y
O
Y
Ln
a:
O
Q
O
N
a)
—
a
U
V
U
V
Y
y
Q
Q
cu
N
N
u
_w
N
Lp
'u
C
C
C
C
u
�"
O
O
O
O
O
N
a
p
O
n)
N
N
m
w
0v0
O
o
C
C
c
Y
O
N
.O
QL
a
Q
VI
H
v
an
v
s
Ln
v
a
tm
c
0
a
'Lo
'Lo
v
u>
Ln
0
v
c
u
m
O
c
a,
v.
E
m
o
c
E
a
c
u
a
E
E
c
v
n
?y
o
cc
o
c
3
m
m
-p
aJ
`
a
'6
R
O
O
u
0
u
u
a
LL
Q
F-
a
u
a1
Ln
an
d
L1
Q
d
0_
[L
d
a
d
O
0_
0
0¢¢
u
Z
Z
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ADAM T. EDWARDS, PE
SUBJECT: PARK COMMISSION PURPOSE AND DIRECTION DISCUSSION
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2015
References:
Orono City Code Sections 22-32 and 22-33.
Park Commission Format, attached to Park Commissioner Appointments on February 22, 2014.
City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030, page 4E-8.
Draft 2016 Park Focus Areas / Initiatives.
1. Issue. Some Council Members have expressed a concern that the Park Commission is not
focused on what the Council intended. Examples include the commission meeting more
often than directed, taking the initiative on issues beyond the Council's direction, and
concern about organization and efficiency of the commission.
2. Background. The Park Commission was reconstituted in February 2014. Since then all of
the commissioner positions have been filled. By the end of 2014 the council had approved
increases to the parks budget to include additional contract maintenance and the hiring of a
seasonal parks employee. Over the last year the commission has worked through organizing
themselves and taken an active role in promoting the City's parks. The commission holds
regular meetings every other month and a work session the alternate months. Further the
commission has developed a system of subcommittees focused on particular issues or initiatives.
In the maintenance arena the commission selects several parks each year to focus efforts on
while assigning two commissioners to each park in an effort to ensure all parks are maintained at
an acceptable standard.
3. 2015 Accomplishments.
a. Developed Beach and Park Maintenance Standards
b. Revamped the Park Donation Program (4 items donated to date)
c. Revamped the Park Adoption Program
d. Developed annual focus parks for maintenance and improvement
(1) Lydiard Beach (new fence, new tree, brush removal, swim buoys, sand on the way)
(2) Summit Beach (new fence, tree trimming, brush removal, swim buoys, parking lot
rehab)
(3) French Creek (Trail mowed, buckthorn removed, prairie restoration underway)
(4) Livingston Park (plan developed, funding approved, improvement coming)
e. Developed an information sign standard
f. Conducted research into dog parks
g. Successful first year using a season park employee
h. Increased budget for contract services such as tree trimming and Sentence to Serve
i. Developed draft focus areas / initiatives for 2016
4. Courses of Action. Below are a three possible courses of action to prompt Council
discussion.
a. Fully embrace and empower the Park Commission as envisioned in the Comprehensive
Plan. Expand span of responsibility to include all City open areas and recreational efforts.
(Example Trails, Fire lanes, Golf course, Big Island...)
b. Abolish the Park Commission. And, if the Council's intent was for a purely maintenance
focused structure, consider establishing Park Custodians for each park only concerned with
maintenance (example= Big Island).
c. Keep what we have but provide guidance on any specific items the Council would like the
Commission to look into and provide advice for. The Council could do this through
annual guidance and/or annual joint session with the Parks Commission.
5. Other Considerations for Discussion. The following questions have been raised by council
members and should be discussed by the Council.
a. Should the Council Liaison be rotated similar to the Planning Commission?
b. Should the Park Commission's structure be altered?
c. Should the Council direct the number of meetings, work sessions and
subcommittee meetings the Parks Commission has?
d. Should the City Council direct the Park Commission's Agenda?
e. Should the City continue to fund a seasonal park employee?
Request:
Discussion and direction for the Orono Parks Commission and Parks Staff.
2
References for Park Commission Discussion
Orono City Code Sections relating to Park Commission:
*ark Commisslton
The Drono Park Corn miss ion was reistablished on February 24, 2014 .at a regular scheduled council
meeting.
Sec. 22-32. Members.
The perk cernmrsWrt is composed of seven members, who serve staggered three-year terms. The
director of public services and one cQunoilmiamber shat! be members of the ommission ex officio and
without vote and are in addition to the seven -member commission.
Seg. 22-33. Powers and duties.
The pork commission shall be only an advisory body to the council. The Commission shall study and
consider the continuing needs of the city for parks and recreation areas and facilities of all kinds, including
but not limited to problems imrotving public use of Lake Nlinne+tonka and other lakes in the city+, and
portions of its shorelines. The commission shall report to -he council.
Park Commission Format. This document was attached to a set of Park commission
appointments on February 24, 2014.
hem #09 - CC4mda - 0711412014
Pa,* Commissh m [Page 2 of 2j
173i!MEC kTAyjt6+*lfil 1;l[f)111iyj0111�
`fie Parr Cc mmisolcm advises the City Council on matters of mainta=ce and use of
park facilities, pm9mmWon of natural resources and promotion of environmental
avAuenm
Ube Commission is made up of five to seven members with a Chair and Vice Chair, all
appointed by the City Council. Commission members are appointed for a. term of wee
years with staggered terms.
The Commission meets the first Monday in the months of January, March, May, Jody,
September and November at 7 PM in the Council Chambers.
The Park Commission will be responsible for creating and numitoring mainte nce
standards for the cry's parks (exception for Big Island and the Golf Course which =
managed separately). In addition to annual operons, the Commission will review the
CIP items related to the Parrs Fund. The Park Commission will be asked to comment on
now park and trail plains as directed by the City Council. The Commission will advise the
City Council on opportunities to promote enviroaxmental awareness or preserve natural
resources within the city. This can include increasing educational support for cities to
hearn about bent practices for nater resource management.
The Staff liaison will be Jesse and Mike rotating as needed.
Park Commission Format. This document was attached to a set of Park commission
appointments on February 24, 2014.
C--- IEP Part 4E, Park. O eit Space az d Trail Platt
ROLE OFADMORYBODIES
In the past the Orono Park Conan ssion has served as an advisory body
appointed by the City Council to make recommendations about park open
space and trail issues. The Park Comnxission's mandate as set forth in
Municipal Code Section 2.52 is to "shady and consider the continuing needs of
the City for parks and recreationn areas and facilities of all kinds, including_ but
not limited to, problems involving public use of Lake Knnetonka and other
lakes in the City, and portions of its shorelines"_ At the. present time the Park
Commission is not active but could be reactivated by the Cite Council if future
needs dictate.
The Park Commission's past role in park planning has been to continuously
evaluate park_ open space and trail facilities and commututy needs_ This
ongoing evaluation process allowed for identification and prioritization of
improvements-, taking into account such factors as population growth -
demographic changes. levels of facility use, health and safety factors, condition
of facilities, special populations, adjacent land use compatibility_ life cycle
recreation. and satisfaction of community needs.
Any ongoing park system review arid evaluation process must remain sensitive
to local needs, changing circumstances_ and limitations on resources, while
encouraging a sense of community by improvement and maintenance of
neigliborhood parks and responsiveness to demonstrated community needs. This
continuing review and evaluation process may in the future be addressed by
specialized alternative advisory bodies on an individual project basis rather than
by a Park Comnxission_ The City Council will monitor the need for advisory
bodies in relationn to the parks, open space and trail systems to satisfactorily
address the fbllo%�ring general areas=
a_ Park usage and needs_ including a periodic (10 year cycle) comimnity-
%kide suns=ey to determine if community needs are being met.
Existing park and facilities conditions and maintenance, including
equipment upgrade .and replaceinent. Establishment of a 15 -year cycle
far the reviei: upgrade arka improvement ofneighborhood panes.
C. Parte facility deign compliance with Americans %Nitb Disabilities Act
(.ADA) statidard5, strMng for accessibility for persons with disabilities_
d. Landscaping of parks and open spaces_
e_ Identification and procurement of additional parkland for either passive
or active recreation needs_
f_ Parks budget and funding options _
9. Consistency with this Plan_
City of Orono Comman'ty Nl-.in.geinent Plan 2068-211111 Page 4E.-8
4
Draft Focus Areas / Initiatives for 2016.
The following are a set of draft focus areas and initiatives the Park Commission is considering for 2016.
These will be voted on at the next regular Park Commission meeting on November 2" d, 2015.
Orono Park Commission
Workshop Output — October 15, 2015
Proposed 2016 Priorities
I Ongoing from 2015
French Creek Preserve Signage Completion (Park and Interpretive Signs)
Responsible: Paul Pesek
• LivingstonTo+wer— CompleteCouncil-approvedProject
Responsible: Rick Meyers
• Summit Beach Picnic Area Improvements
Responsible: Jan Berg
11 New Activity Priorities for 2015
• Trails - Initiate a study of Orono trail opportunities and existing easements
Responsible: Brenda Johnson
• Seven Nations— Do historical research and obtain input from Native Americans and donor Pat
Oickeyto better understand hoax bestto use, improve, and/or develop signage for Seven Nations.
Responsible: Brenda Johnson, Bryce Johnson
• Crystal Bay Clean-up
Responsible: Sarah Lindahl (with Adarn Edwards)
• S Hills— Map the trails and develop rnaterial for subsequent signage
Responsible: Julie Ruegemer, Brenda Johnson
• Sandy Beach Improvement
Responsible: Jan Berg, Rick Meyers
• Plan waystoincrease CommunitVOutreach (needs further discussion)
Responsible: All
• Seek Opportunities for Outside Funding (needs further discussion)
Responsible: All
E
MEMORANDUM
TO: ORONO CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JESSICA LOFTUS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: ORDER OF REPORTS ON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2015
Mayor McMillan requested an opportunity to discuss whether the City should revise
the order of the agenda to better manage meetings. One suggestion would be to
allow the public works items and public safety items to go first before the planning
items since they take less time to process.