My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.2. ERMUSR 12-14-2010
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Utilities Commission
>
Packets
>
2003-2013
>
2010
>
12-14-2010
>
4.2. ERMUSR 12-14-2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/23/2010 10:39:02 AM
Creation date
12/23/2010 10:39:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
ERMUSR
date
12/14/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Minnesota municipal that also awazds an annual bonus which is based on employee performance <br />evaluation. <br />The biggest vaziation in benefits between these utilities comes in the health insurance provided. This also <br />is a very difficult benefit to compaze value and not dollars. The insurance plan that ERMU provides has <br />one of the highest premiums of the utilities in the survey. Of the municipal utilities in the survey that <br />provided information, ERMU is the second highest. Compared to the two cooperatives that provided <br />premium information, ERMU is in the middle. The value of having a more robust health plan with high <br />premiums is hazder to compare. Many of the utilities have or are in the process of transitioning to high <br />deductable/low premium health plans with healthcare savings accounts. These plans are difficult to <br />compare duectly to the co-pay type plans. This comparison may be premature because of the current <br />healthcare reform and uncertainty in the future of healthcare. In a very general compazison, ERMU offers <br />a very good health insurance plan which comes at a cost [o the company. This cost is not the highest of <br />the cooperatives or municipal utilities in the survey, but is neaz the top. <br />The wage increase numbers used in November for the metro average comparison appeaz to be good. One <br />of the cooperatives had not finalized their contract, but felt comfortable with the number staff had used in <br />the comparison. So as noted in November, the percent change in the metro average wage from 2010 to <br />2011 has an increase of 2.03%. This is the increase that would be required to not lose ground with the <br />metro average, but also not gain ground. An increase of 6.13% would be required to achieve the metro <br />average wage for the lineman position. As provided in November, the Consumer Price Index is 2.33%. <br />For sake of compazison, excluding the cooperative utilities and only analysis the municipal utilities in this <br />metro survey would result in an approximate 2% increase to achieve the average of these metro municipal <br />utilities. The additional analysis that has been done comparing municipal utilities from the metro and <br />those out-state is attached for commission review. This survey indicates that to meet the average of these <br />municipal utilities, a 0.263% increase would be needed. <br />Elk River Municipal Utilities is not a cooperative. And although municipal utilities and cooperatives are <br />both public power and have the same mission, there are differences because of our governance. Elk River <br />Municipal Utilities is more similar to a metro utility that anout-state utility. The metro average survey <br />has served ERMU well for over two decades as a tool used to establish wage increases. This does not <br />imply that the state wide survey isn't relevant. Both surveys offer different view and can both be used as <br />tools for making an informed decision. <br />There is some warranted discussion on difference and separation in governance between a municipal <br />utility and their City. The labor pool for the utilities is different from that of law enforcement, fire, <br />streets, and administration. This makes it difficult to apply the same logic uniformly. It should be <br />recognized that even though a municipal utility is government, the provisions of state statue aze applied <br />such that the municipal utilities aze meant to be operated as a business. As provided by state statue and <br />bylaw, setting of compensation should be given sepazate consideration. Of those metro municipal utilities <br />surveyed, half are handling wage increases differently than their City. <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br />Management recommends awarding the 2.03% wage increase needed to not lose ground with the metro <br />average. Management also recommends approving a plan to reestablish the metro average in the future. <br />As submitted in November, committing to a 1.03% adder will reestablish the metro average in 4 years. <br />This scenario would result in an increase of 3.06% for 2011. Management recommends adopting the <br />proposed storm pay policy contingent upon legal review of the language. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.