Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.15.87 Special Council Minutes MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING SPECIAL DECEMBER 15, 1987 1. Mayor Akin called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Akin, Kelly, Mayer, Sprute, Uhl. Members Absent: None. Also Present: Administrator Thompson. 2. The purpose of the meeting was to set 1988 full time employee salaries. 3. Administrator Thompson presented a report from the Compensation Committee dated Decemher 8, 1987 which outlined the background and recommendations of the Committee. Administrator Thompson stated that the first order of business would be to establish the deadlocked ratings on the following factors: Know How - Deputy Clerk, Police Administration Clerk; Contacts - Liquor Store Manager, Police Administration Clerk; Supervision - Police Sergeant. Considerable dis- cussion followed regarding the relative merits of each factor and their com- parison to other City positions. Councilmember Sprute stated that positions should be rated on their relative merits based on the definition of each factor. Mayor Akin and Councilmember Mayer disagreed stating that the intent of the Comparable Worth legislation was to "compare" positions. Councilmember Sprute also noted that it appeared position ratings were increased but rarely decreased. Motion by Kelly, second by Uhl to rate the Deputy Clerk Know-Howat a D+ and Police Administration Clerk at a D. Voting for: Mayer, Uhl, Akin, Kelly. Against: Sprute. Motion carried. 4. Motion by Akin, second by Mayer to rate the Liquor Store Manager Contacts as a C+ and Police Administration Clerk as a C+. APIF, motion carried. 5. Considerable discussion followed regarding the literal interpretation of the definitions. Councilmember Mayer noted that each member may interpret definitions differently and therefore, ratings may vary. Therefore, it was the recommendation of the Compensation Committee to review the rating system to clarify grey areas and to only rate new positions or if there is a significant change in job content. Motion by Kelly, second by Uhl to rate the Police Sergeant Supervision as a C-l. Voting for: Akin, Kelly, Mayer, Uhl. Against: Sprute. Motion carried. 6. The Council next considered the salary committee's recommendation for actual salary increases. It was noted that the Committee had recommended the step increase for positions below midpoint, and half the increase for positions changing grade. Also, a 3% cost of living adjustment (COLA) would be given for all positions except those positions above midpoint which would receive 1% less than the COLA. (Present policy is ~ of the COLA) Councilmember Mayer noted that for purposes of salary adjustments, midpoint would be considered 3% above or below the midpoint to avoid a "roller coaster" effect of position shifting between above and below midpoint. Councilmember Sprute stated that when thes'tudy was implemented 3 years ago, 1988 was to be the last year of adjustment, and that it now appeared large increases would continue. Administrator Thompson stated that future adjustments would include new positions, which were placed on a 3 year step system, and positions changing grade, which would be brought up in two steps (1988 and 1989). Councilmember Mayer also noted that the step increase should be applied before the COLA, but because of budget constraints, could not be implemented this year. Councilmember Mayer noted that if the pay line shifted dramatically during 1988, there could be some catching up to do. Councilmember Sprute stated that the Council may have to consider spreading out the increases so they are not so dramatic. 7. Discussion followed regarding above midpoint salaries. Councilmember Sprute and Mayor Akin stated that it was not fair that some positions would, receive less than a cost of living increase. Councilmember Mayer stated that the Council had to consider the morale of other positions in the same grade which would be paid less than positions above grade. Councilmember Kelly stated that in private industry, positions above midpoint were red circled and given no increase until they fall in line. Mayor Akin stated that the Council should not only consider giving the full COLA to all positions, but to also restore the 1~% that was lost last year. 8. Administrator Thompson stated that because of the police officers being paid above midpoint, and the lack of control over police officers salaries, the top patrol was going to nearly equal or exceed the sergeant's salary. It was the consensus of the Council that it would address this matter once the 1988 police officer's salaries were settled, but there would be no guarantee of an additional increase. Councilmember Mayer stated that without a strong commitment from the Council that new hirees do not exceed the midpoint, those positions will never be brought into line. 9. Councilmember Sprute asked for a clarification of part time salaries. Administrator Thompson stated that part time salaries were listed in the budget and unless amended by the Council, would not change. Mr. Thompson added that firefighters salaries were on the next regular meeting agenda. 10. Motion by Akin, second by Mayer to accept the recommendations of the Committee in the report dated December 8, 1987 incorporating the previously made adjustments to the evaluations, and that a 3% across the board COLA be granted, with the understanding that no new hirees may exceed the midpoint. Voting for: Sprute, Mayer, Uhl, Akin. Against: Kelly. Motion carried. (See attached.) 11. Motion by Mayer, second by Uhl that for purposes of salary adjustments, midpoint mean 3% above or below actual midpoint. APIF, motion carried. 12. Motion by Sprute, second by Uhl to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. APIF, motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Lar~::r- City Administrator Approved I /i!~t