My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2008/04/07
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
Agenda Packets - 2008/04/07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:47:19 PM
Creation date
7/10/2018 4:21:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
4/7/2008
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
4/7/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
<br />Item No: 7 <br />Meeting Date: April 7, 2008 <br />Type of Business: Worksession <br />Administrator Review : ___ <br />City of Mounds View Staff Report <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />To: Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />From: James Ericson, Clerk - Administrator <br />Item Title/Subject: Compensation Study Discussion <br /> <br /> <br />Introduction: <br /> <br />The City Council asked to begin discussion regarding the preparation of a new compensation <br />study consistent with Section 3.01 of the Personnel Manual. <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />In April of 2006, the City authorized Laumeyer and Associates to conduct a compensation <br />study and pay equity analysis. Rather than using the Stanton Six communities for the study <br />consistent with the Personnel Manual, the City identified ten alternative communities--Arden <br />Hills, Monticello, Robbinsdale, Buffalo, Mound, St. Michael, Hutchinson, North St Paul, <br />Vadnais Heights and Little Canada. Laumeyer prepared its compensation study which was <br />presented to the City Council on July 10, 2006. There were many questions raised at the <br />Council meeting in response to the study and ultimately the Council adopted a resolution <br />simply acknowledging receipt of the study rather than accepting or approving it. There were <br />many questions raised by employees as well, who felt the study was flawed in multiple <br />respects. The two primary concerns raised by staff included the fact that the chosen cities <br />were not at all comparable and the purported “market rate” bore no relationship to actual <br />salaries. Using the Laumeyer data, it was later revealed via an “apples to apples” <br />comparison that Mounds View salaries were about 6% LESS than the average comparable <br />cities wages. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />Many positions have not experienced a market rate adjustment since 1998. This issue has <br />been brought to the attention of previous administrators and previous Councils, however with <br />the exception of the Laumeyer study which was ultimately not accepted, no action has been <br />taken to address the gap between Mounds View wages and those of comparable cities. This <br />fact has been documented in correspondence from the city’s previous finance director in <br />2005 and a memo from Chief Sommer in 2004. <br /> <br />Last month I prepared a comprehensive compensation memo which compared wages for <br />non-union personnel with three different data sets--the Laumeyer cities, Stanton Group Six <br />and a modified Stanton Group Six, which included metro cities with populations between <br />9,000 and 19,999 having their own police force. In each of the three comparisons, non- <br />union wages were less than their comparative municipal counterparts. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.