4.0. SR 02-14-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Personnel Memo February 10, 1994 Page 2 e on the written responses to these position questionnaires. The City later adjusted these point rankings based on how the positions had changed since the initial responses and based on the more generalized benchmark rankings. For example, in the mid 1980's it seemed unreasonable to have our Chief of Police have a ranking of 88 and the Street Superintendent a ranking of 98 when the benchmark point rankings were just the reverse. Accordingly, based on a number of factors, we interpolated our City results and placed the Chief of Police at the same level as the Street Superintendent. In late 1987, per state law requirement, the City Council approved the City Comparable Worth Plan. As positions were added and as the work responsibility was delegated out to different positions, the City annually evaluated, and sometimes adjusted, its comparable worth point rankings and made the appropriate salary adjustments. In late 1992, the City submitted its comparable worth "snap shot in time" material to the State in order to determine compliance with this law (see attachment). As you can tell by the employee roster form in this attachment, the City had a number of new positions created since the original 1986 study was conducted. A few of the positions were slightly above the pay differential line, but more often than not, the City's positions were below the pay differential line. In early 1993, the City was deemed by the State to be in compliance with the comparable worth law. This was based mainly on the City having a female employee as our Zoning Assistant. The next state required "snap shot in time" submittal is 12/31/95. e e The original joint compensation study has been updated in 1994 and many of the positions have changed in their relative ranking within the City organization. For example, in the two attachments that show the updated 1994 study, the Chief of Police comes out with a higher point ranking than the Finance Director where this was just the opposite in the 1986 study. It is anticipated that in late February I will appoint a committee of three department heads who will, with the assistance of other department heads as appropriate, evaluate all the positions within the City. Some Elk River positions will be a nearly perfect match to the benchmark job descriptions. In these cases, a point ranking can quite easily be established. However, a number of positions will only be a "good" match compared to the benchmark job descriptions and job variations will have to be evaluated. The City position point rankings will then be adjusted up or down depending upon whether the Elk River position has more or less responsibilities than the benchmark job description. This is certainly true for a position like the Street/Park Superintendent which is more unique to Elk River than to most metropolitan communities. Additionally, positions like the Senior Citizen Coordinator, Economic Development Coordinator and the Building and Zoning Administrator are not identified as a benchmark position. These employees will have to go through the process of filling out of a questionnaire and having this questionnaire reviewed by the consultants in order to establish an Elk River point ranking for this position. The updating for the 1994 comparable work study in Elk River will not be a quick or fast project and will take anywhere from six to nine months.