Agenda Packets - 1990/08/20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ulaim 162 MEMORANDUM Memo To :Mayor and Council Members From :Ric Minetor, Acting Clerk-Administrator Date :August 20, 1990 Subject :Job Values Review We have received proposals from 2 firms, Ernst & Young and Hay Management Consultants for review of the current job values. The proposals are significantly different; the Ernst & Young proposal would simply review the current time spent, profiles and re-evaluate the job values. The Hay proposal includes updating and creating new time spent profiles. The difference is reflected in the cost. Ernst & Young estimate $1,500 for the review; additional costs might be incurred if time spent profiles or job descriptions are revised. The Hay proposal assumes all job descriptions and time spent profiles will be reviewed and updated; this is estimated to cost $12,000 to $14 ,000. The options we have for reviewing the current job values include using one of these firms , having our current consultant (Personnel Decisions, Inc. ) review position descriptions and time, spent profiles that are of concern, or leaving the current system alone except for new positions or positions that did not have incumbents when originally valued. The City of Cottage Grove had originally used the Control Data method and then recently had Hay completely redo their job values. In discussing this with the City Manager, the primary reason for redoing the job values was a lack of credibility among the Council and employees in the Control Data system. He indicated that he was familiar with both systems and feels the relative values is not significantly different. This decision will impact the revaluing of the positions of Building Official, Public Works Foreman, and Director of Public Works/City Engineer. The recent revaluing of these positions indicate significant increases in the job value over the benchmark values previously used. The building official moved from 78 to 82, the Public Works Foreman moved up from 82 to 97, and the Director of Public Works moved from 97 to 106. The salary ranges should be adjusted to reflect the change in job values. The question is whether to make the adjustments at this time or to review all the job values and adjust all positions at the same time. Staff seeks Council's direction in both areas; the next action regarding review of job values, and when to adjust the values of the currently revalued positions.