My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-27-1995 CC
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
03-27-1995 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:47:07 PM
Creation date
7/2/2018 2:24:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
3/27/1995
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
3/27/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Listed below are some of the options available to the City: <br /> OPTION NO. 1 <br /> Non-union personnel - 3.5% <br /> Union personnel 3.0% <br /> Rationale: <br /> In 1994, non-union personnel were given a 2.5%annual compensation adjustment based <br /> on information provided in early June by other cities' anticipated increase rate. The <br /> attached-chart-indicates-that-the-average annual compensation increase was closer to <br /> 3.%, especially in those cities of similar size to Mounds View. <br /> Granting non-union employees a 3.5% increase for 1995 would indicate a two year <br /> average (1994/95) of 3%, consistent with Stanton norms. <br /> The State's binding arbitration award is clear: the City must abide by the Arbitrator's <br /> award in that the amount cannot be reduced. There is nothing in State law or City policy <br /> that prevents the Council from increasing the award. <br /> Last year when the City and the Police Union could not agree on contract provisions for <br /> the 1994 Contract and it was agreed by both parties that we would certify for binding <br /> arbitration, both the City and the Police did not intend for 1995 compensation to be <br /> considered in the arbitration. The Police had not made any demands, salary or <br /> otherwise, for 1995. <br /> Unfortunately, the arbitration process dragged on far longer than anyone anticipated. By <br /> the end of 1994, both the City and the Police agreed that it made more sense to "throw <br /> in 1995" for arbitration than to begin negotiations right after the 1994 award. The Police <br /> asked for a 3% increase for 1995 based on information provided them by their union <br /> agent. It was never the intent of the City or the Police union that 1995 compensation <br /> adjustments would be part of the initial arbitration package. <br /> Attachment B indicates the 1994 and 1995 top patrol salaries and includes Mounds View <br /> at the arbitration award of 2.5% and the average Stanton 6 increase of 3%. Granting the <br /> Police a 3% increase for 1995 would be consistent with percentage increases in <br /> comparable cities, but would place them approximately $200/year over the overall <br /> Stanton average, but substantially below cities of comparable size to Mounds View <br /> (indicated by an *). <br /> Future Considerations: Perhaps the most "sidebar" consideration is one that may occur <br /> in 1996 or 1997. If the Police begin to slip below their Stanton market comparison (and <br /> this is the comparison used by arbitrators), future settlement offers from the City which <br /> are intended to keep union and non-union at the same increase levels may not be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.