HomeMy WebLinkAbout#21 - Classification and Compensation StudySTAFF REPORT
DATE: October 18, 2022
REGULAR
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
AGENDA ITEM: Job Classification and Compensation Study Results
BACKGROUND: At the January 4, 2022 meeting, Council approved issuing a Request for Proposals for a Job Classification
and Compensation Study. At the February 15, 2022 meeting Council authorized the Mayor and Clerk to execute a contract with Baker Tilly for a Job Classification and Compensation Study.
Jada Kent, from Baker Tilly will be at the meeting to present the results and recommendations of the classification and compensation study.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Does the Council have any questions on the presentation material? Should the Council adopt the new pay plan? What implementation option should be selected? (These may be decided in December for implementation January 1, 2023 as previously discussed) PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: A copy of the final report is included in your packet. It covers the data collection and methodology approach, the results of the market study and Systematic Analysis and Factor Evaluation (SAFE®) tool, new proposed pay plan and pay grades, and implementation options. All city staff were invited to a meeting this spring to learn more about the process, submit position analysis questionnaires for their job and have been invited to a meeting to hear the results prior to the council meeting.
In order to meet state pay equity laws, the SAFE program was used to evaluate the jobs based upon 9 factors- Education, Human interaction, Independence of actions, Experience, Working conditions, Impact
on the organization, Level of work, Physical demands, and Supervision exercised. The following factors were not considered when evaluating positions with the SAFE methodology: employee performance, length of service with the organization, amount of time in the position, education or experience more than
what is required by the position, current salary, or market rates. The regression analysis shows an almost 95% correlation between the market and proposed pay plan. The proposed pay plan, is a grade and step plan aligned to the market at the midpoint. There are 15 grades with range spreads with 34.4% range spreads, 11 steps with 3% between steps, and a 10% midpoint differential. The report includes four possible implementation strategies along with each one’s fiscal impact. 1. Move to Minimum. Employees move to the minimum of their new pay range if their current salary is below that amount. All other employees retain their existing salary. $14,700
2. Next closest step. Employees move to the minimum of their new pay range if their current salary
is below that amount. All other employees move to the step closest to their current salary without a decrease. $37,724 3. Years in title as a step. Employees move to the minimum of their new pay range if their current
salary is below that amount. Next employees move to the step corresponding with their years in title. For example, an employee in their position for 5 years would move to step 5. If their current salary is greater than that step, they would remain on the step established in Option 2. Union
positions were excluded from this calculation. $43,661 4. Step if Option 2 is less than 2% increase. Employees move to the minimum of their new pay range if their current salary is below that amount. All other employees move to the step closest to their current salary without a decrease. If either of these adjustments result in less than a 2% increase, they would move up 1 step. $71,192. While the scope of this report did not include any recommended changes to the city’s compensation policy (copy attached), it essentially replaces Appendix I and Appendix II, I would recommend some updates before implementation in January. At a minimum the reference to July 1st should be changed to January 1st. The language about implementation each year should be cleared up to provide Council discretion on making annual changes to the range and step plan based upon the market (COLA is an
outdated term) while allowing for implementation by the City Administrator. Lastly, Council may want to discuss removing the performance bonus section. This system has not been very effective over the last four years. It is challenging to implement and creates conflict amongst employees that outweighs any
perceived benefits. Also, given that the city is taking an aggressive market approach (setting the pay plan at the market average of cities larger than Lake Elmo), it may not be fiscally responsible to add another layer of compensation above that.
I’d also recommend any benefit changes be further reviewed by the Administrative Services Director for any recommended changes at a later date. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the options are noted above. The proposed 2023 budget would allow for all employees to receive a step increase of at least 2% and move those longer term employees to the step reflective of their years in title. OPTIONS: 1) Take no action tonight 2) Adopt the new pay plan 3) Direct Staff to implement one of the options or another one not described above.
RECOMMENDATION: “Motion to adopt the new position grades and range and step plan effective January 1, 2023.” AND
“Direct staff to bring back an updated Compensation Policy and implementation recommendation in December.” ATTACHMENTS:
• Final Report
• Lake Elmo Compensation Policy
September 26, 2022
Kristina Handt City Administrator City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Dear Ms. Handt:
Baker Tilly US, LLP (“Baker Tilly”) is pleased to provide the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota (“Lake Elmo” or “the City”) with results from the completed Classification and Compensation Study. This report documents the approach, findings, and recommendations resulting from the study.
We would like to thank you, as well as other City staff that aided us in bringing this study to its successful completion. We understand that your employees are your greatest asset and without a competitive pay program the City of Lake Elmo may struggle to attract qualified candidates and retain/reward experienced employees. We have created a classification and compensation system that, if implemented, will ensure that the City’s positions are externally competitive and internally equitable.
It has been a pleasure working with the City of Lake Elmo and we hope to provide you with professional assistance in the future. Further, we would be happy to answer any questions or points of clarity to the findings and recommendations of this study.
Sincerely,
Jada Kent
Jada Kent, CCP
Senior Manager
Baker Tilly US, LLP 2500 Dallas Pkwy, Suite 300 Plano, TX 75093 T: +1 (972) 748 0514 bakertilly.com
Project Methodology
Baker Tilly approached the classification and compensation study for the City of Lake Elmo by completing each of the following phases or milestones:
− Data Collection - Baker Tilly initiated the study by conducting a planning meeting with the City’s project team to discuss the current classification and compensation system, goals for conducting the study, and to walk through each phase of the process. Next, Baker Tilly collected documentation from the City, to include job descriptions, organization charts, pay structure, personnel policies, and any other documentation describing how work is performed or compensated.
Finally, Baker Tilly facilitated communication meetings with department heads and employees to inform them about the study, answer questions, and review the position analysis questionnaire (PAQ) they were asked to complete. Once PAQ responses were
compiled, the City’s leadership was tasked with reviewing and providing feedback on employee PAQ responses, as necessary, to ensure accurate and complete responses were provided.
− Position review – Employee completed PAQs were the basis for a classification review
in which Baker Tilly reviewed position titles and made recommendations, as necessary, to ensure titles appropriately reflected the nature and level of work performed. Next, Baker Tilly conducted job evaluation using our point factor evaluation tool, called SAFE,
resulting in a hierarchy of jobs reflective of City’s internal equity. FLSA designations were also reviewed.
− Market Assessment - Baker Tilly assisted the City in identifying appropriate and relevant peer organizations to collect market competitive values (base pay salaries) for
benchmark positions from. The results were analyzed and reviewed with the City’s project team to determine the organizations desired position within the market. Fringe benefits information was also collected and compared to the City’s offerings. In addition
to base pay information, pay practices and benefits information was also collected from peer organizations. A comparison to the City’s offerings was prepared.
− Pay Plan Development – Baker Tilly establish a new pay plan for the City and established grade assignments with consideration to internal and external equity. After
grade assignments were finalized, implementation costs were calculated and reviewed with the City’s project team.
− Project Completion - At the conclusion of the study, Baker Tilly prepared this final report documenting the methodology used throughout the classification and compensation study, findings and results of the study, as well as our recommendations based on those results. Going forward, Baker Tilly will provide training to Lake Elmo’s human resources team responsible for the maintenance and administration of the new classification and compensation system. This includes instructions for utilizing our SAFE Job Evaluation system going forward.
Position Review Job Evaluation
Job evaluation is the process of comparing a job against other jobs within the organization as a means for determining the relative value of each job. In other words, job evaluation is a tool for identifying the internal value within the organization.
The Systematic Analysis and Factor Evaluation (SAFE®) is a point factor evaluation process comprised of nine (9) compensable factors and was developed specifically for the measurement of local government positions. Job evaluation is often the preferred method for reviewing jobs internally because, as an approach, it tends to be systematic, objective, and – therefore - defensible. For that reason, job evaluation is often a tool used to comply with federal, state, local regulations related to the Equal Pay Act.
All positions were evaluated against the following compensable factors:
Education Human interaction Independence of actions Experience Working conditions Impact on the organization
Level of work Physical demands Supervision exercised
In using a point factor job evaluation system, the result is a total score for each position which represents the internal value of that position. Collectively, these total scores establish a hierarchy across the organization. It's important to emphasize that job evaluation is a measurement of the position and not the person in the position. Baker Tilly established preliminary job evaluation designations based on employee completed PAQs. The City’s project team reviewed and revised SAFE designations, as necessary, and worked with Baker Tilly to establish final scores for each position included in the study.
The following factors were not considered when evaluating positions with the SAFE methodology: employee performance, length of service with the organization, amount of time in the position, education or experience more than what is required by the position, current salary, or market rates.
Market Assessment
Public Peer Organizations
Understanding your labor market is key to selecting relevant peer organizations for a market study. Factors to consider include industry, organization size, geographic location, competition for talent, and published data available.
Lake Elmo identified 16 public peer organizations to be included in the study and base pay information was collected from the 14 bold organizations, listed below.
1. Anoka 2. East Bethel 3. Forest Lake 4. Ham Lake 5. Hopkins 6. Hugo
7. Mendota Heights 8. Mounds View 9. North St. Paul 10. Otsego 11. Robbinsdale 12. Rogers
13. St. Michael 14. Stillwater 15. Vadnais Heights 16. Waconia
Published Sources
Published salary data was used as a private sector benchmark in this assessment with data from the following sources included in the study:
− Economic Research Institute (ERI) is a salary data resource reporting market data for more than 11,000 jobs in more than 9,000 different locations across more than 1,100 industry sectors. ERI data is updated quarterly. ERI data used in this survey was pulled at the 10th and 90th percentile to represent the minimum and maximum thresholds of a salary range
Data Adjustments
The market data obtained was adjusted, as necessary, to account for the following:
− Differences in work week. For example, reported salaries for a 37.5-hour work week was adjusted to reflect that wage for a 40-hour work week. − If the market data obtained did not reflect the year in which this study was conducted, the data was aged using World at Work's Annual Salary Budget Survey results.
Quality Control
Baker Tilly prepared a summary of each benchmark position which included minimum education and experience requirements. Peer organizations were asked to match the position within their organization with at least a 75% overlap in duties and responsibilities. Baker Tilly reviewed peer responses and removed or replaced data that appeared to be an inappropriate match. Some organizations returned base pay information for Baker Tilly to match on their behalf.
Because market results are established by a calculation (such as an average of all midpoints), a bigger sample size tends to yield greater confidence in those results. Therefore, Baker Tilly required at least three matches per benchmark position to determine a market value. Positions that had insufficient data (less than four matches) are identified as such in the market results.
Market Results
Of Lake Elmo’s 25 positions, 22 were included in the survey as benchmark positions (88%). Baker Tilly requested pay ranges (minimum to maximum) and calculated for the midpoint of each collected range. Of the 22 benchmark positions, 2 received insufficient data and a market value was not calculated. Overall, market values were established for 80% of Lake Elmo’s positions.
Average minimum, midpoint, and maximum data results can be found in Attachment 1. The market average midpoint is commonly observed to reflect “the market” value for a given position. A calculated comparison of Lake Elmo’s control point against the market average midpoint for each benchmark position can be found in Attachment 2.
Benefits Comparison
Peer information on pay plans, pay policies, paid time off programs, health insurance, and retirement was also collected during the market study. A comparison to the City’s offerings can
be found in Attachment 3.
Pay Plan Development
Upon reviewing the market survey results with the City’s project team, Baker Tilly led a discussion with the organization regarding desired position within market, pay plan design preferences, and an approach for classifying positions to the pay plan.
Proposed Pay Plan
The proposed pay plan, shown below, is a grade and step plan aligned to the market at the midpoint. There are 15 grades with range spreads with 34.4% range spreads, 11 steps with 3% between steps, and a 10% midpoint differential.
Pay Plan
Pay Grades
Per Local Government Pay Equity requirements in Minnesota, positions were assigned to a
grade in the new pay plan based on job evaluation results.
Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 $36,661 $37,761 $38,894 $40,060 $41,262 $42,500 $43,775 $45,088 $46,441 $47,834 $49,269
2 $40,325 $41,535 $42,782 $44,065 $45,388 $46,750 $48,153 $49,598 $51,086 $52,619 $54,1983$44,359 $45,690 $47,060 $48,473 $49,927 $51,425 $52,968 $54,557 $56,194 $57,880 $59,616
4 $48,796 $50,260 $51,768 $53,321 $54,920 $56,568 $58,265 $60,013 $61,813 $63,667 $65,577
5 $53,675 $55,285 $56,944 $58,653 $60,412 $62,225 $64,092 $66,015 $67,995 $70,035 $72,136
6 $59,046 $60,817 $62,641 $64,520 $66,455 $68,448 $70,501 $72,616 $74,794 $77,038 $79,349
7 $64,948 $66,896 $68,903 $70,970 $73,100 $75,293 $77,552 $79,879 $82,275 $84,743 $87,2858$71,442 $73,585 $75,793 $78,067 $80,409 $82,822 $85,307 $87,866 $90,502 $93,217 $96,014
9 $78,588 $80,945 $83,373 $85,874 $88,451 $91,104 $93,837 $96,652 $99,552 $102,539 $105,615
10 $86,447 $89,040 $91,711 $94,462 $97,296 $100,214 $103,220 $106,317 $109,507 $112,792 $116,176
11 $95,090 $97,943 $100,881 $103,907 $107,024 $110,235 $113,542 $116,948 $120,456 $124,070 $127,792
12 $104,598 $107,736 $110,969 $114,298 $117,727 $121,259 $124,897 $128,644 $132,503 $136,478 $140,57213$115,057 $118,509 $122,065 $125,727 $129,500 $133,385 $137,387 $141,509 $145,754 $150,127 $154,631
14 $126,564 $130,361 $134,272 $138,301 $142,450 $146,724 $151,126 $155,660 $160,330 $165,140 $170,094
15 $139,221 $143,398 $147,700 $152,131 $156,695 $161,396 $166,238 $171,225 $176,362 $181,653 $187,103
Regression Analysis
In statistical modeling, a regression analysis is used to measure the relationships between data
sets and even predict one variable based on another. Here, Baker Tilly used a regression
analysis to compare internal data to external data. More specifically, SAFE scores were
compared against market average midpoints.
On the chart below, each dot represents a benchmark position placed where the SAFE score
and market value intersects. The blue line is the regression line influences by the placement of
all dots (benchmark positions). Ultimately, there is an 94.92% correlation between the internal
and external values. Further, this chart depicts the proposed pay plan as it lays across the
natural distribution of jobs. The orange dotted line representing the maximum, the solid green
line representing the midpoint, and the gray dotted line representing the minimum.
Due to the high correlation in internal and external values, the City would be able to maintain the
new classification and compensation system using our SAFE job evaluation process
as a means for reclassifying positions that have changed over time, adding new positions,
consolidating positions, etc. into the future.
Department Proposed Title SAFE Points Grade Minimum
Step 1
Midpoint
Step 6
Maximum
Step 11
Administration City Administrator 840 14 $126,564 $146,724 $170,094
Fire Fire Chief 675 13 $115,057 $133,385 $154,631
Public Works Public Works Director 670 13 $115,057 $133,385 $154,631
Administration Director of Administrative Services 575 12 $104,598 $121,259 $140,572
Finance Finance Director 575 12 $104,598 $121,259 $140,572
Planning Planning Director 513 11 $95,090 $110,235 $127,792
Fire Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Inspector 380 10 $86,447 $100,214 $116,176
Public Works Assistant Public Works Director 368 10 $86,447 $100,214 $116,176
Building Building Official 423 10 $86,447 $100,214 $116,176
Administration City Clerk 275 8 $71,442 $82,822 $96,014
Finance Financial Coordinator 280 8 $71,442 $82,822 $96,014
Building Building Inspector 200 7 $64,948 $75,293 $87,285
Public Works Lead Worker 198 7 $64,948 $75,293 $87,285
Planning Planner 240 7 $64,948 $75,293 $87,285
Fire Firefighter 135 5 $53,675 $62,225 $72,136
Administration Deputy City Clerk 135 5 $53,675 $62,225 $72,136
Finance Payroll Clerk 150 5 $53,675 $62,225 $72,136
Public Works Operator I 158 5 $53,675 $62,225 $72,136
Planning Code Enforcement Official 120 4 $48,796 $56,568 $65,577
Public Works Operator II 120 4 $48,796 $56,568 $65,577
Building Permit Technician 115 4 $48,796 $56,568 $65,577
Finance Utility Billing Clerk 110 4 $48,796 $56,568 $65,577
Public Works Operator III 100 3 $44,359 $51,425 $59,616
Implementation Analysis
Baker Tilly developed 4 implementation scenarios for the City to consider. Implementation
calculations represent base pay only.
1. Move to Minimum. Employees move to the minimum of their new pay range if their
current salary is below that amount. All other employees retain their existing salary.
2. Next closest step. Employees move to the minimum of their new pay range if their
current salary is below that amount. All other employees move to the step closest to their
current salary without a decrease.
3. Years in title as a step. Employees move to the minimum of their new pay range if their
current salary is below that amount. Next employees move to the step corresponding
with their years in title. For example, an employee in their position for 5 years would
# of Staff Current Salary Proposed Salary Difference % Increase
Totals 29 $2,218,821.04 $2,233,521.44 $14,700.39 0.7%
Employees Below Minimum 4 $294,153.60 $308,853.99 $14,700.39 5.0%
Employees Within Range 25 $1,924,667.44 $1,924,667.44 $0.00 0.0%
Employees Above Maximum 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0%
Option 1 - Move to Min
# of Staff Current Salary Proposed Salary Difference % Increase
Totals 29 $2,218,821.04 2,256,545.02$ 37,723.98$ 1.7%
Employees Below Minimum 4 $294,153.60 308,853.99$ 14,700.39$ 5.0%
Employees Within Range 24 $1,924,667.44 1,947,691.03$ 23,023.59$ 1.2%
Employees Above Maximum 0 $0.00 -$ -$ 0.0%
Option 2 - Next Closest Step
Maximum
Regression
Midpoint
Minimum
move to step 5. If their current salary is greater than that step, they would remain on the
step established in Option 2. Union positions were excluded from this calculation.
4. Step if Option 2 is less than 2% increase. Employees move to the minimum of their
new pay range if their current salary is below that amount. All other employees move to
the step closest to their current salary without a decrease. If either of these adjustments
result in less than a 2% increase, they would move up 1 step.
Recommendations
The City of Lake Elmo is a service-oriented organization. The organization delivers services through its employees who are a major investment in the organization’s infrastructure.
This report contains information which has been gathered from a variety of sources, objectively analyzed, and structured in a way that will provide a fair, defensible, and competitive system for the City to compensate its employees. It is our independent judgment that has resulted in the following recommendations.
We urge the City of Lake Elmo to:
− Approve the recommended position title and classification adjustments.
− Approve the proposed pay plan and position grade assignments.
− Approve an implementation scenario that addresses the City’s compensation philosophy
and/or business goals, and that is fiscally attainable and sustainable.
− Adopt recommended changes and/or additions to the City’s pay policies to ensure the
new classification and compensation system is administered in a way that achieves the
City’s compensation philosophy.
# of Staff Current Salary Proposed Salary Difference % Increase
Totals 29 $2,218,821.04 2,262,482.13$ 43,661.08$ 2.0%
Employees Below Minimum 4 $294,153.60 312,306.10$ 18,152.50$ 6.2%
Employees Within Range 24 $1,924,667.44 1,950,176.03$ 25,508.59$ 1.3%
Employees Above Maximum 0 $0.00 -$ -$ 0.0%
Option 3 - Years in title as a Step
# of Staff Current Salary Proposed Salary Difference % Increase
Totals 29 $2,218,821.04 2,290,012.70$ 71,191.66$ 3.2%
Employees Below Minimum 4 $294,153.60 308,853.99$ 14,700.39$ 5.0%
Employees Within Range 24 $1,924,667.44 1,981,158.71$ 56,491.26$ 2.9%
Employees Above Maximum 0 $0.00 -$ -$ 0.0%
Option 4 - Step if Option 2 < 2%
− Continue efforts to maintain the classification and compensation system by routinely
reviewing positions, descriptions, and market rates. This includes adjustments to the pay
structure annual to keep pace with the market as well as adoption of merit increases to
reward employees and keep them moving through their pay ranges.
Attachment 1 City of Lake Elmo, MN
Market Survey Results
# Department Benchmark Position Matches Avg Minimum Average
Midpoint Avg Maximum % Range
Spread
1 Administration City Administrator 13 $128,364.77 $144,443.35 $160,521.92 25%
2 Administration Assistant City Administrator 4 $74,696.37 $85,253.06 $95,809.75 28%
3 Administration City Clerk 7 $74,121.76 $85,120.50 $96,119.25 30%
4 Administration Deputy City Clerk 3 $56,285.84 $62,695.24 $69,104.65 23%
5 Building Building Official 9 $84,392.62 $97,292.40 $110,192.18 31%
6 Building Building Inspector 7 $65,045.29 $74,920.87 $84,796.46 30%
7 Building Permit Technician 6 $48,276.62 $55,448.77 $62,620.92 30%
8 Finance Finance Director 13 $107,804.72 $123,578.92 $139,353.12 29%
9 Finance Accountant 7 $64,000.60 $72,313.44 $80,626.29 26%
10 Finance Utility Billing Clerk 5 $50,833.44 $57,266.94 $63,700.44 25%
11 Fire Fire Chief 7 $104,046.37 $118,531.33 $133,016.29 28%
12 Fire Fire Inspector 3 $64,667.20 $72,442.93 $80,218.67 24%
13 Fire Firefighter 2 Insufficient Data
14 Planning Planning Director 3 $99,525.20 $118,432.40 $137,339.60 38%
15 Planning City Planner 4 $75,183.95 $87,402.40 $99,620.85 33%
16 Planning Code Enforcement Official 2 Insufficient Data
17 Public Works Public Works Director 13 $101,571.26 $115,779.65 $129,988.05 28%
18 Public Works Assistant Public Works Director 5 $87,718.44 $100,847.84 $113,977.24 30%
19 Public Works Lead Worker 4 $65,371.33 $72,165.91 $77,553.24 19%
20 Public Works Operator I 4 $58,921.50 $68,251.04 $77,580.59 32%
21 Public Works Operator II 4 $51,819.50 $60,506.13 $69,192.75 34%
22 Public Works Operator III 4 $48,350.40 $56,530.78 $64,711.15 34%
Page 1
Attachment 2 City of Lake Elmo, MN
Market Comparison
Department Position Title
Current
Midpoint 95% of Mkt + / (-) Mkt
Avg.
Midpoint + / (-) Mkt 105% of Mkt + / (-) Mkt
Administration City Administrator $125,871.20 $137,221.18 ▲9.0%$144,443.35 ▲14.8%$151,665.51 ▲20.5%
Administration Assistant City Administrator $71,926.40 $80,990.40 ▲12.6%$85,253.06 ▲18.5%$89,515.71 ▲24.5%
Administration City Clerk $71,926.40 $80,864.48 ▲12.4%$85,120.50 ▲18.3%$89,376.53 ▲24.3%
Administration Deputy City Clerk $55,380.00 $59,560.48 ▲7.5%$62,695.24 ▲13.2%$65,830.00 ▲18.9%
Building Building Official $99,694.40 $92,427.78 ▼(7.3%)$97,292.40 ▼(2.4%)$102,157.02 ▲2.5%
Building Building Inspector $71,926.40 $71,174.83 ▼(1.0%)$74,920.87 ▲4.2%$78,666.92 ▲9.4%
Building Permit Technician $55,380.00 $52,676.33 ▼(4.9%)$55,448.77 ▲0.1%$58,221.21 ▲5.1%
Finance Finance Director $99,694.40 $117,399.98 ▲17.8%$123,578.92 ▲24.0%$129,757.87 ▲30.2%
Finance Accountant $63,128.00 $68,697.77 ▲8.8%$72,313.44 ▲14.6%$75,929.12 ▲20.3%
Finance Utility Billing Clerk $55,380.00 $54,403.59 ▼(1.8%)$57,266.94 ▲3.4%$60,130.29 ▲8.6%
Fire Fire Chief $99,694.40 $112,604.76 ▲12.9%$118,531.33 ▲18.9%$124,457.90 ▲24.8%
Fire Fire Inspector $81,952.00 $68,820.79 ▼(16.0%)$72,442.93 ▼(11.6%)$76,065.08 ▼(7.2%)
Fire Firefighter $59,134.40 Insufficient data
Planning Planning Director $99,694.40 $112,510.78 ▲12.9%$118,432.40 ▲18.8%$124,354.02 ▲24.7%
Planning City Planner $71,926.40 $83,032.28 ▲15.4%$87,402.40 ▲21.5%$91,772.52 ▲27.6%
Planning Code Enforcement Official $55,380.00 Insufficient data
Public Works Public Works Director $105,674.40 $109,990.67 ▲4.1%$115,779.65 ▲9.6%$121,568.64 ▲15.0%
Public Works Assistant Public Works Director $87,484.80 $95,805.45 ▲9.5%$100,847.84 ▲15.3%$105,890.23 ▲21.0%
Public Works Lead Worker $71,593.60 $68,557.62 ▼(4.2%)$72,165.91 ▲0.8%$75,774.21 ▲5.8%
Public Works Operator I $63,336.00 $64,838.49 ▲2.4%$68,251.04 ▲7.8%$71,663.60 ▲13.1%
Public Works Operator II $59,696.00 $57,480.82 ▼(3.7%)$60,506.13 ▲1.4%$63,531.43 ▲6.4%
Public Works Operator III $56,201.60 $53,704.24 ▼(4.4%)$56,530.78 ▲0.6%$59,357.31 ▲5.6%
Average Actuals
Page 1
Attachment 2 City of Lake Elmo, MN
Market Comparison
Department Position Title
Current
Midpoint 95% of Mkt + / (-) Mkt
Avg.
Midpoint + / (-) Mkt 105% of Mkt + / (-) Mkt
Page 2
Attachment 4City of Lake Elmo, MNDepartmentProposed TitleGradeMinimumStep 1MidpointStep 6MaximumStep 11AdministrationCity Administrator14 $126,564 $146,724 $170,094FireFire Chief13 $115,057 $133,385 $154,631Public WorksPublic Works Director13 $115,057 $133,385 $154,631AdministrationDirector of Administrative Services12 $104,598 $121,259 $140,572FinanceFinance Director12 $104,598 $121,259 $140,572PlanningPlanning Director11 $95,090 $110,235 $127,792FireAssistant Fire Chief/Fire Inspector10 $86,447 $100,214 $116,176Public WorksAssistant Public Works Director10 $86,447 $100,214 $116,176BuildingBuilding Official10 $86,447 $100,214 $116,176AdministrationCity Clerk8 $71,442 $82,822 $96,014FinanceFinancial Coordinator8 $71,442 $82,822 $96,014BuildingBuilding Inspector7 $64,948 $75,293 $87,285Public WorksLead Worker7 $64,948 $75,293 $87,285PlanningPlanner7 $64,948 $75,293 $87,285FireFirefighter5 $53,675 $62,225 $72,136AdministrationDeputy City Clerk5 $53,675 $62,225 $72,136FinancePayroll Clerk5 $53,675 $62,225 $72,136Public WorksOperator I5 $53,675 $62,225 $72,136PlanningCode Enforcement Official4 $48,796 $56,568 $65,577Public WorksOperator II4 $48,796 $56,568 $65,577BuildingPermit Technician4 $48,796 $56,568 $65,577FinanceUtility Billing Clerk4 $48,796 $56,568 $65,577Public WorksOperator III3 $44,359 $51,425 $59,616
Page | 1
Appendix – Benefits Practices
Participating organizations include:
• City of Forest Lake • City of Otsego
• City of Hopkins • City of Rogers
• City of Hugo • City of St. Michael
• City of Mendota Heights • City of Vadnais Heights
• City of North St. Paul • City of Waconia
Time off
Vacation / Sick, Paid Time-Off (PTO) or other
Number of Responses Responses
10
Vacation - Sick (5), Paid Time Off (PTO) (3), Other
(please explain) (2)
Time Off
Five (5) of the peers use a
Vacation/Sick accrual
model; however, three (3)
use a Paid Time Off
(PTO) model, and two (2)
use a hybrid or flex plan,
including grandfathering
employees hired prior to
2016 to keep a
Vacation/Sick accrual plan
while employees hired in
2016 or after have a PTO
plan.
Page | 2
Appendix – Benefits Practices
Vacation or Paid Time Off (PTO) days by years of service (10 responses)
City of Lake Elmo Least Reported
Most Reported *
Average of all Reported
Average of Vacation Average of PTO
Years of Service
0 to 1 year 10 10 31 14 10 16
1 year 10 10 31 16 11 19
2 years 10 10 32 16 11 19
3 years 10 10 33 16 11 20
4 years 10 10 34 17 11 20
5 years 10 10 35 17 11 20
6 years 13 15 35 21 17 25
7 years 13 15 36 22 17 25
8 years 13 15 36 22 17 25
9 years 13 15 37 22 17 25
10 years 13 15 37 22 17 26
11 years 16 20 38 25 21 27
12 years 16 20 38 25 21 27
13 years 16 20 39 26 21 28
14 years 16 20 40 26 21 28
15 years 16 20 41 27 22 29
16 years 19 21 41 28 24 30
17 years 19 22 41 28 24 30
18 years 19 22 41 28 24 30
19 years 19 22 41 28 24 30
20 years 19 22 41 28 24 30
21 years 19 25 41 30 25 32
22 years 19 25 41 30 25 32
23 years 19 25 41 30 25 32
24 years 19 25 41 30 25 32
25 years 19 25 41 30 25 32
25+ years 20 25 46 30 25 32
Lake Elmo Time Off
Lake Elmo has a Paid
Time Off (PTO) model.
The annual accrual ranges
from 10 days to 20 days,
based on a years-of-service
scale.
When comparing to the
peers that utilize Paid Time
Off (PTO) accruals, Lake
Elmo is below market
average with the peer
average in all years of
service accruals.
When compared to the
least reported peer, Lake
Elmo is comparable
through service years 0 – 5,
but then falls behind years
6 and more with a gap of 2
– 6 days.
Page | 3
Appendix – Benefits Practices
Maximum accrual of Vacation or PTO days
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
10 25 65 42.5
Organizations allowing vacation / PTO carryover
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported
9 No (0) Yes (9)
Number of carryover days allowed
Organizations allowing cash-out of unused vacation / PTO days
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported
10 No (2) Yes (8)
Number of cash out days allowed
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
Year End 4 0 5 2.5
Termination 6 25 60 38.33
Retirement 4 30 60 45
Sick days provided per year
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
5 0 12 8.4
Maximum sick day accrual
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
3 100 180 135
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
8 25 65 47.5
Peers allow between 25 and 65
maximum day accrual.
Two (2) peers base their
allowed annual carryover days
on accruals, which is based on
years of service. One (1) of
those peers allows carryover
days to be equivalent to the
employee’s annual accrual limit
and one (1) of the
organizations allows annual
carryover days to equate to 2x
the annual accrual limit.
Lake Elmo allows annual PTO
carryover for a maximum of 30
days, which is less than market
average of 47.5 days.
Eight (8) out of ten (10) peers
allow a cash-out upon
termination / retirement. Two
(2) of the eight (8) peers have
cash-out limits based on years
of service.
Lake Elmo offers cash-out of
PTO at termination and
retirements, but as a
contribution to the employee’s
Deferred Compensation Plan.
Sick days
Five (5) peers offer sick days
and accrue on average of 8.4
sick days per year.
Page | 4
Appendix – Benefits Practices
Organizations allowing carryover of unused sick days
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported
4 No (1) Yes (3)
Number of unused carryover sick days allowed
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
3 80 125 101.66
Organizations allowing cash out of unused sick days
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported
5 Yes (1) No (4)
One (1) organization allows cash out of 50% of unused sick days upon retirement after 10 years of service
Organizations allowing employees to donate sick time
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported
6 Yes (2) No (4)
Maximum number of days employees can donate & receive sick time
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
6 Yes (2) No (4) No (4)
Max # of days can donate 10 16 13
Max # of days can receive 20 20 20
Two (2) peers allow employees
to donate sick time to other
employees. Based on those
two (2) peers, the average
number of days an employee
can annually donate sick time
is 13 days. The average
number of days an employee
can receive donated sick time
is 20 days. One (1) peer did
not have a maximum number
of days an employee can
receive donated sick time.
Page | 5
Appendix – Benefits Practices
Number of paid holidays per year
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
10 10 13 10.95
Organizations providing personal or floating holidays
Number of Responses Yes No
10 8 2
Number of floating holidays per year
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
7 1 2 1.29
Holidays
Ten (10) peers’ average
number of paid annual holidays
is 10.95. Eight (8) peers also
offer from 1 to 2 floating
holidays each year.
Lake Elmo provides more paid
annual holidays than the market
average but does not offer any
annual floating holidays.
Page | 6
Appendix – Benefits Practices
Health Benefits
Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) – Insufficient data
Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) - No responses
High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP)
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported Employee-only monthly premium 7 $0 $769 $484.66
% paid by employer 7 90% 100% 97.7%
Employee + family monthly premium 7 $1,405 $2,561 $1,909
% paid by employer 6 46% 74% 63%
Participation policies
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Organizations requiring 100% participation of all regular full-time employees 8 Yes (1) No (7)
Organizations providing compensation to employees not participating 8 No (3) Yes (5)
Prescription drug coverage
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported
Organizations providing prescription drug coverage 7 No (2) Yes (5)
Coverage separate from health insurance 5 Yes (0) No (5)
No responses on prescription drug premiums
Dental. Seven (7) peers
provide dental insurance; three
(3) are separate from the health
insurance plans.
The peer average monthly
premium cost for employee
only dental insurance is $30.72.
Two (2) do not pay a portion of
the monthly premium and one
pays 100% of the monthly
premium.
The peer average monthly
premium cost for a family
dental insurance is $94.56.
Two (2) do not pay a portion of
the monthly premium and one pays 100% of the monthly
premium.
Vision. Six (6) peers provide
vision insurance; two (2) are
separate from the health
insurance plans.
The peer average monthly
premium cost for employee
only vision insurance is $6.33,
and neither peer covers any
portion of the premium.
The peer average monthly
premium cost for a family
health insurance is $19.40, and
neither peer covers any portion
the premium.
Health Benefits
One (1) peer responded to
having a PPO plan, no peers
responded to having HMO plans
and seven (7) peers responded
to having HD health plans.
One (1) peer offers a monthly
contribution to full-time employee
benefit costs in the amount of
$1,730.00. Employees may use
the monthly contribution toward
any premium costs (medical,
dental, vision, HSA, etc.) and any
remainder is cashed out to the
employee.
HDHP:
The peer average monthly
premium cost for employee only
is $484.66, and on average,
cover 97.7% of the total monthly
premium cost.
The peer average monthly
premium cost for family is
$1,909, and on average, cover
63% of the total monthly
premium cost.
Lake Elmo offers 3 plans, in
which the City pays 100% of the
single HD health plan and 95% of
the family HD health plan.
The Minimum Plan is
$559.60/single coverage and
$1384.12 for family.
Prescription Drugs
Five (5) peers responded they
provide prescription drug
coverage that is included in the
health insurance plan.
Page | 7
Appendix – Benefits Practices
Dental insurance coverage
Vision Insurance
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported Organizations providing vision insurance coverage 8 Yes (4) / No (4)
Coverage separate from health insurance 5 No (1) Yes (4)
Employee-only monthly premium 2 $5.85 $8.51 $7.18
% paid by employer (excl 0%) 2 Neither peer contributes to the premium
Employee + family monthly premium 2 $15.18 $22.40 $18.79
% paid by employer (excl 0%) 2 Neither peer contributes to the premium
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported Organizations providing dental insurance coverage 9 All nine (9) peers offer dental insurance and it is offered separately from health insurance Coverage is separate from health insurance 9
Employee-only monthly premium 8 $31.47 $45.00 $41.62
% paid by employer (excl 0%) 6
Three (3) peers pay 100% of the monthly premium; One (1) peer pays 90% of the monthly premium; Two (2) peers do not contribute to the premium.
Employee + family monthly premium 8 $84.95 $147.00 $112.74
% paid by employer (excl 0%) 6 69% 100% 83%
Three (3) peers pay between 69 - 100% of the monthly premium; One (1) peer pays employees a lump sum health contribution and it can be used toward the premium; Two (2) peers do not pay a portion of the premium.
Dental Coverage
Lake Elmo pays 100% of
dental monthly premiums for
employee and family coverage,
which is above peer market
average.
Vision Coverage
Lake Elmo offers vision
insurance. Like most
reported peers, four, (4)
vision insurance is separate
from the health insurance
plan. The city does not
contribute towards premiums.
Peers that do offer vision
insurance do not contribute to the monthly premiums.
Page | 8
Appendix – Benefits Practices
Other Health Benefits
Life Insurance
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
Organizations providing life insurance 8 All eight (8) peers offer life insurance
Organizations providing 1x, 2x or other multiple of annual base salary
7 All (7) peers provide a flat amount
policy ranging from $10,000 - $50,000 regardless of salary.
Accidental Death & Dismemberment (AD&D) and Disability Insurance
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
Organizations providing AD&D insurance? 6 All six (6) peers offer AD&D insurance.
% paid by employer 6 Five (5) peers pay 100% of the premium; one (1) peer does not contribute toward the premium.
Organizations providing short-term disability insurance 8 No (2) Yes (6)
% of the employee base pay is provided under short-term disability 3 60% 100% 73.3%
% paid by employer 4 Three (3) do not contribute; One (1) pays 100%
Organizations providing long-term disability insurance 8 All eight (8) peers offer long-term disability insurance.
% of the employee base pay is provided under long-term disability 6 Response range is 60% - 100% of base pay
% paid by employer 6 Three (3) pay 100% of the premium; Three (3) do not contribute.
Page | 9
Appendix – Benefits Practices
Retirement
Organizations contributing to Social Security
Number of Responses
8 All eight (8) peers contribute to Social Security.
Defined Benefit Plans
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
Plan Name 7 All seven (7) peers offer the Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Plans
Organizations requiring employee contributions 6 All six (6) peers require employee contributions
Employee contribution required amount (% of base salary) 5 Employee contribution amounts vary by position (i.e. Coordinated, Police & Fire, Correctional, etc.)
Maximum employer match of employee contributions 5 Employer contribution amounts vary by position (i.e. Coordinated, Police & Fire, Correctional, etc.)
Employee groups plan is available to 5
Public Safety Only (0),Public Works Only (0), Covered Employees
Only (0), All Employees (3), None (0), Other (please explain) (2)
One (1) organization offers to all full-time employees, one (1) offers
to regular employees with salary threshold
Defined Contribution Plans – 401(k)
Insufficient responses
Page | 10
Appendix – Benefits Practices
Deferred Compensation Plans – 457
Number of Responses Least Reported Most Reported Average Reported
Plan Name 7
1) Mission Square (3) 2) Voya (2)
3) MSRS (1)
4) Valic (1) 5) Nationwide (1) Amount of required employee contributions 5 $25 $20,500 or IRS max $13,675
Maximum employer match of employee contributions 3 $0 $25 $12.50
Employee groups eligible 7
All full-time employees (3), All employees (3), Public Safety Only (0), Unionized employees only (0), None (0), Other (please explain) (2)
One (1) peer has an employer match to Police Union members only
Retiree group health
Number of Responses
7
All seven (7) peers have group health insurance available to retirees. One (1) peer pays 60% of the premium based on years of service; One (1) peer pays 100% of the premium; five (5) peers do not contribute to the premium costs.
City of Lake Elmo Compensation Policy _____________________________________________________________
Purpose: The City of Lake Elmo intends to establish, administer, maintain and regularly update an internal job evaluation hierarchy that is consistent with the Local Government Pay Equity Act. The city also intends to establish, administer, maintain and regularly update a pay
structure that is appropriate to the breadth and depth of services being offered to and provided for the City and is also affordable within available resources. Finally, the city intends to maintain supplemental benefits (insurance, holiday/paid time off schedules, etc) that are competitive and also affordable within available resources.
This policy establishes the guidelines for all non-represented city positions with the exception of elected officials, temporary or seasonal positions and paid on call firefighters. Compensation for seasonal or temporary employees and paid on call firefighters will be set by the City Council at the time of hire, or on an annual basis.
This policy is directed at three primary goals:
To attract and retain qualified and responsible personnel for the positions covered under this policy;
To create and maintain internal equity between positions compliant with the
Minnesota Local Government Pay Equity Act and all other applicable local, State
and Federal laws and regulations; and
To do so efficiently and effectively thereby being fiscally responsible to the interests of the taxpayer.
Compensation Structure:
Compensation is largely based on wage/salary grades and steps within the salary grade, with an additional performance-based compensation element. For any position subject to this policy, compensation must be assigned using a ten-step grid within each salary grade, with an increase of 30% from the minimum to the maximum step. In determining or
evaluating compensation levels, the City Administrator must maintain a schedule of
comparative compensation amounts for all positions covered under the policy. The City Council will determine the appropriate market to be used in developing this schedule and in supplemental compensation reviews.
A new employee must be hired at the pay grade minimum whenever possible. The City
Administrator or appropriate department head may recommend the new employee be hired at a rate above the minimum of the pay grade for his/her classification based upon qualifications and experience, subject to approval by the City Council.
A probationary employee may advance to the next pay step after satisfactorily completing
six months of employment which meets performance expectations, subject to approval of
the City Council. Subject to Council approval, every year thereafter, on or about July 1st, an employee may advance to the next pay step after satisfactorily completing another year of employment which meets the performance expectations until he or she reaches the grade maximum. Determination of satisfactory performance must be recommended
by the immediate supervisor on forms prescribed by the City Administrator. Employees
who are at or above the grade maximum will receive the predetermined cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) based on a satisfactory performance review. Actions Taken to Review, Update and Maintain the Plan: Elements of the plan will be reviewed annually to determine the degree to which it remains
consistent with the city’s total compensation philosophy. Actions to be taken may include:
1. Review, verification, and any required updating of job descriptions for all positions covered by this policy. 2. Review, verification and any required updating of job evaluations on all positions covered by this policy, following established reclassification policies and
procedures.
3. Review, verification and consideration of current market survey data collected from the cities selected for comparison, ensuring that there are no questionable data that may give an incorrect pattern of pay for one or more positions. 4. Review and consideration of appropriate changes to the established base pay
structure based on patterns of current market survey data, ensuring that there will
be continuing integrity in administration of the current or revised pay structure. 5. Review and consideration of changes to the city’s supplemental benefits covering paid time off. 6. Review and consideration of required and/or appropriate changes to the written
description of the plan.
The pay grades and rates established by this policy must be annually confirmed by the City Council through adoption of the budget and resolution establishing the grades and steps for each job classification.
General Provisions: Nothing within this policy is a guarantee of employment and compensation, and nothing is to be construed as a commitment to continue the City of Lake Elmo Compensation Policy for more than one calendar year at a time. All components of this policy are set forth as guidelines to
assist in establishing appropriate compensation. The provisions of this policy supersede all other
compensation considerations. Compensation schedules will be maintained and updated as appendices to this policy in accordance with policy provisions. Performance-based Compensation: In addition to the step-and-grade system, employees who are subject to this compensation policy
are eligible for additional performance-based compensation. Performance bonuses will be based on the employee’s annual review. Employees are evaluated annually based on essential job functions, and knowledge, skills, and abilities based on his or her job description. He or she receives a score between one and five for each of these areas. Scores will be averaged and
rounded to the nearest whole number. Average scores of a four or five will be eligible for a
bonus. Employees must also satisfactorily complete each of their three annual goals as
determined by their supervisor during the prior year’s review. If the employee receives an average overall score of four, they will receive a one-time lump sum payment of .5% of their annual salary (based on 2080 hours for non-exempt full-time employees, and prorated for part-time employees) or two additional days of PTO based on the his or her preference. If the
employee receives an average overall score of five, he or she will receive a one-time lump sum
payment of 1.5% of their annual salary (based on 2080 hours for non-exempt employees) or four additional days of PTO. Bonuses will be subject to Council approval, and will be presented with the annual step increases as recommended by the City Administrator.
Appendix I:
Position Grades Appendix II: Range and Step Plan