City Council Minutes 11-24-1986 SpecialMINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, November 24, 1986 - 6:00 p.m.
A special meeting of the Monticello City Council was duly held at
6:00 p.m., Monday, November 24, 1986, in the City Hall. Members
present were: Dan Blonigen, Bill Fair, Fran Fair, Arve Grimsmo,
and Jack Maxwell. Members Absent: None. Also present were Tom
Eidem, City Administrator; and Council member elect, Warren Smith.
The Mayor called the meeting to order. The Mayor requested that
Administrator Eidem review the results of the comparable worth study
to date. Eidem explained that the comparable worth study was not
as yet in its final reporting form, but substantial progress had
been made; and the findings and results were virtually final. Eidem
indicated that the results of the study show that the City of Monticello
will be required to make some minor adjustments to establish pay
equity, but that overall pay equity currently exists within the City.
Eidem noted that the process yet to be completed would be to take
the results that were being shown to the Council at this meeting
to the entire City staff and review with those employees. Upon completion
of that review process with City employees and final fine tuning
of the pay equity plan, the plan in its final form would be returned
to the Council for final adoption, after which it would then be submitted
to the State of Minnesota to demonstrate the City's compliance with
the pay equity act.
Eidem spent a brief amount of time summarizing the entire 2 -year
process that staff has gone through. He explained that all City
employees participated in the occupational analysis questionnaires
and that all employees completed time spent profiles. He provided
brief information on the role of Control Data Business Advisors in
assimilating all of the data collected. Eidem reviewed the hierarchy
of job points as established by Control Data Business Advisors and
illustrated the City's hierarchy in comparison to the benchmark hierarchy
established by the over 100 jurisdictions in the study.
Eidem then covered the basic definitions of comparable pay, comparable
worth, competitive worth, and proportional pay. He noted that the
definitions of comparable and proportional generally needed to be
determined with respect to classes of employees and their relationship
to a pay corridor. He explained that proportional worth means generally
that higher points will generate proportionally higher pay. He noted
that for the purposes of establishing the comparability within employee
classes, he first established a pay line reflecting actual salaries
currently issued. Based on that pay line, he then established a
corridor to be 10o either side of the pay line. He further noted
that the employee classes were broken down at 15 point intervals
so that any two employees within a given 15 point interval should
be determined to be of comparable worth. He noted that once the
Special Council Minutes - 11/24/86
comparable worth has been established within the employee class,
then it would be necessary to compensate within the pay corridor
established for that employee class. Eidem emphasized that other
factors such as longevity, excellence in performance, and the competitive
market can account for fluctuations in actual pay which would not
be seen as violations of the pay equity act. He noted that pay equity
or comparable worth did not mean identical pay. Similarly, he noted
that proportional pay did not mean every salary had to be on the
actual pay line.
Eidem asked the Council if there were any specific questions about
specific positions and/or about the methodology. Some discussion
followed with respect to how City wages compare to the private sector
in the general vicinity surrounding Monticello. It was noted that
in several cases the City's employees were in the upper half of the
competitive market. Eidem explained that the City pay plan did not
demonstrate a discriminatory pattern for female dominated classes.
It was noted that while, in fact, public works maintenance employees
are currently an all male class, a female employee could be hired
in that class and would receive the same pay. Similarly, the clerical
staff, which is a female dominated class, is only slightly lower
than male dominated classes with comparable points. The compensation
is considered equitable and is controlled to a certain degree by
the competitive market in the area.
There being no additional questions, the Council, by consensus, indicated
their general approval to the pay equity plan that will be presented
to the employees and indicated that the process should continue so
that the final plan may be brought back to the Council shortly after
the first of the year.
The Council then turned their attention to the establishment of a
salary pool for the 1987 salaries for non-union personnel. Eidem
suggested to the City Council that a minimum pool of 4% of the 1986
payroll be established based on economic forecasts cited in various
professional journals. He noted that the journals projected that
1987 inflation to be estimated at 4%. It was Eidem's contention
that the City should award at least a cost of living adjustment so
that employees would keep up with inflation. Councilmember Blonigen
stated that the Council used 4% inflation forecast for 1986 and awarded
that amount as a cost of living increase when, in fact, it appeared
the inflation rate would only be 2%. He was concerned that perhaps
the City had paid more in 1986 than the actual inflation and wondered
if using forecasts was adequate. Eidem responded that using forecasts
did involve a calculated risk, but the risks were not considered
to be great. Eidem stated that he didn't think it was a problem
that salary increases exceeded inflation, for that simply allowed
each employee to better his/her station in life. Eidem noted that
it was his opinion that that really is the reason a person attempts
to do a good job and stay in a position. A question was raised with
respect to the performance increases that were granted in 1986 and
-2-
Special Council Minutes - 11/24/86
the addition of the dental plan. Councilmember Maxwell felt the
increases granted in 1986 amply rewarded the employees and that the
City should exercise greater fiscal restraint for 1987. Councilmember
Bill Fair indicated that it seemed appropriate to establish a pool
that would allow for a minimum 4% cost of living adjustment to match
the inflation forecast, and that the Council should consider an additional
1-2% available for performance adjustment or merit increase. Councilmember
Bill Fair went on to state that the performance adjustment increases
granted in 1986 were across the board and that if any increases over
and above cost of living were given this year, then, in his opinion,
they should be extremely limited. It was Fair's contention that
granting across the board performance adjustments did not make real
distinctions for superior performance and consequently became simply
an increase without documentation. Councilmember Fran Fair and Mayor
Grimsmo both endorsed Bill Fair's comments that increases should
reflect the forecasted inflation rate, but the notion of performance
and/or merit adjustment should be used sparingly in light of the
adjustment percentages issued in 1986.
Motion by Bill Fair, second by Jack Maxwell, that a total salary
pool equaling 5% of 1986 salaries (excluding City Administrator's
salary) be established for the granting of 1987 wage increases, said
pool to be $15,020.00. Motion carried unanimously.
The Mayor then turned the discussion to the Administrator's salary.
Mayor Grimsmo asked Administrator Eidem if he had prepared any data
or a specific request. Eidem indicated he had not anticipated his
salary being considered at this meeting, and consequently had not
prepared a formal request. He did, however, note that on the data
provided with the comparable worth information it was shown that
the City Administrator's position was the lowest paid in the public
sector administration in the area. Eidem went on to state that he
felt the rapid growth of the City placed additional demands, visibility,
and vulnerability on top management positions. Eidem stated that
he felt the stress associated with the increased demands of the position
warranted an increase beyond pure cost of living.
Mayor Grimsmo stated that he came into the meeting feeling that a
5% increase was adequate. He stated that because of the election
campaign, he had become aware of an anti-Eidem sentiment among some
persons and that that negative attitude was enough justification
to not go beyond the 5%. With that, the Mayor made his own motion
to increase the Administrator's salary 5%. Motion was seconded by
Jack Maxwell. Councilmembers Bill Fair and Fran Fair spoke to the
competitive salary issue. Both felt that the City's Chief Administrator
should receive a wage comparable to the Chief Administrator in the
Hospital District. Bill Fair noted that an increase of 6% would
place Eidem's salary in that comparable range. Councilmembers Blonigen
and Maxwell both stated their support of the Mayor's motion. There
-3-
Special Council Minutes - 11/24/86
being no further discussion, the Mayor called the vote on the motion.
Voting in favor of increasing the Administrator's salary 5%: Grimsmo,
Maxwell, Blonigen. Voting in opposition: Fran Fair, Bill Fair.
Motion carried.
There being no further business, the special meeting was adjourned.
,i f,
i
r
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
-4-