Minutes - 1999/08/23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 23,1999 Regular Meeting _ _ Page 34 in order to present their survey, and they caution, when using this for salary comparisons, to do so with great care. Council Member Stigney stated, in computing the salary ranges based upon the average for these cities, staff had determined a Step 2 of $3,594. He stated a Planner in those 12 cities, would utilize the salary range of $2,679 to$3,433, and therefore, they have exceeded that range already as a starting point for this particular position. He stated requested staff to take a step back to see what the City can afford to pay for this position, in relation to other cities. Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the step increases as projected to the 2000 budget. He stated this proposal was to start the position at a Step 2, and inquired regarding the following years. He inquired where they were going with the salaries for the City. He stated, if they are offing job functions from one employee and placing them on another, then the cost savings should go from one to the other. He stated they should not necessarily grant someone up into a different bracket, and make the City pay forever. He stated he was strongly opposed to what he had seen presented. Community Development Director Jopke stated he had reviewed the Stanton Survey to base the proposed salary range for the upgrading of the Planning Associate position. He stated the Housing Inspector /Code Enforcement position would remain at the existing level, which would provide a cost savings from a Step 5 to a Step 1, however this would progress in future years. He stated that staff acknowledged this, and had attempted to account for what would occur within the next two years, in terms of step increases, in staff s analysis. Community Development Director Jopke stated he had researched the Senior Planner level, as he believed the functions requested of this position were consistent with those requested of Senior Planners in other communities. He stated he did not take the average of the salaries within that range, but decreased it by 5 percent, so they would be at the low end of the communities within that range. He stated he had also looked at the communities in the Stanton Survey at the next level down, basically for communities under 10,000, whose average is approximately the starting level that is being proposed, but the range is not as high on the upper end. He stated he believed that based upon what they were asking of this position, this was a fair level of compensation. Council Member Stigney stated he would contend they should be basing this salary upon cities with a comparable tax capacity, which is the City's ability to pay, and whether or not the City can afford to compensate. He added if they are offloading a function from one position to another, he would like to see this done with no additional cost effect at all. He stated he was firmly opposed to this, and the City had been following this same procedure year after year. He stated he could understand Community Development Director Jopke's point of view, however, they should not base the salaries upon the population. • Council Member Marty inquired regarding the salary at the step 21eve1, and how many steps there were. Community Development Director Jopke stated there were 5 steps. He explained the reason he was proposing Step 2, was in consideration of a six-month probationary period at the Step 1 level. 34C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-94.CC