Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - November 18, 1987 (60)F40 Continued November'+_� . 1-987 CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 1987 AMENDED SALARY RANGES ADOPTED FOR VARIOUS CITY OF LODI MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES RES.NO.87-156 Following introduction of the matter by the City Manager and Council discussion, Council, on motion of Council CC -34 Member Pinkerton, Snider second adopted Resolution No. 87-156 - Resolution Granting Increases For Salary Ranges For Certain Unclassified Personnel Effective June 29, 1987 which resolution is hereinafter set forth in its entirety. RESOLUTION NO. 87-156 RESOLUTION SETTING MONTHLY CONTROL POINTS FOR CERTAIN UNCLASSIFIED PERSONNEL EFFECTIVE JUNE 29, 1987 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lodi that the following monthly control points for unclassified personnel are hereby established effective June 29, 1987. These ranges include salary, pension and deferred compensation. CONTROL POINT MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE,,,6/29/87 Assistant City Manager $4,728 Community Development Director $4,887 Electric Utility Director $5,300 Finance Director $4,494 Fire Chief $4,770 Police Chief $5,185 Parks and Recreation Director $4,251 Public storks Director $5,300 Administrative Assistant to the City Manager $2,957, Community Center Director $3,034 Be it further resolved that these control. poipts .be additionally adjusted as follows: Continued November 1987 Assistant City Manager Community Development Director Electric Utility Director Finance Director Fire Chief Parks & Recreation Director Police Chief Public Works Director Administrative Assistant to the City Manager Community Center Director Effective Effective 1/1/88 1/1/89 1.6% .5% .4% 1.4% 1.4% 4.4% 4.4% 1.1% 1.0% 2.9% 2.8% 0 0 1.4% 1.4% 4.2N 4.1% 0 0 The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers - Hinchman, Pinkerton, Reid, Snider and Olson (Mayor) Moes: Councilmembers - None It should be noted that two alternate resolutions were presented for Council review and Council selected Alternate 1. C O U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N TO: TH FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE CAHNCIL NovemberE181'NG9 PATE ' NO. SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AMENDED SALARY RANGES FOR VARIOUS CITY OF LODI MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES PREPARED BY: City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 87-156 (Exhibit A) establishing appropriate control points for management salaries effective June 29, 1987. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: For a number of years management salaries have been determined using a group of cities generally ranging in population 15,000 above and below Lodi's population north of the Tehacapi's. A mid -quartile mean was determined which became the control point. Using the control point as the mid -point, a range was established with the low end 10% below the control point and the high end 10% above the control point. The control point figure is comprised of salary, Public. Employees' Retirement System employee contributions, deferred compensation and auto allowance where applicable. There were some positive aspects of this approach. It provided a large enough sampling to have statistical significance and represented cities with which Lodi would compete for candidates for vacancies. By using a mid -quartile mean it eliminated the extremes from the calculations. The disadvantage of this method is that it gives extraordinary weight to Bay Area cities as most of the cities in that population range are in that area. Council asked staff to develop a group of cities which were more oriented to the Central Valley. A group of cities along Highways 5, 80 and 99 were selected with populations in excess of 30,000 with four exceptions - Tracy, Sacramento, Fresno and Bakersfield. Mayor Pro Tempore Randy Snider was designated by the City Council to work with staff in this effort. r i Council Communication Salary Ranges for Various November 18, 1987 Page 2 City of Lodi Mar3cement ,_mployees Tracy was included because of its proximity to Lodi. That city is growing rapidly and should surpass 30,000 within the next one or two years. Sacramento and Fresno were eliminated because of their size and Bakersfield because of its distance and its proximity to the Los Angeles basin. The cities in the new survey group are: Chico Clovis Davis Fairfield Manteca Merced Modesto Redding Roseville Stockton Tracy Turlock Vacaville V'salia Woodland The staff prepared a number of statistical treatments of the salary data. Among these were the mid -quartile mean (the average of the middle 50%), mean, median (the middle number in the group), the 62.5 percentile, an average of the 62.5 percentile and the mean, an average of the 62.5 percentile and the median, and a treatment setting department head salaries as a percentage of the City Manager's salary. The reason for the 62.5 percentile is that is the City of Lodi's relative position based on population. Staff narrowed these approaches to three for final consideration and developed a fourth (the differential approach) which will be discussed herein. A recap of these approaches is presented in an attached memo to the City Council of November 6, 2987 which was discussed in detail at the "shirtsleeve session" of November 10, 1987 (Exhibit B). The major difficulty in surveying only Valley cities is the small number of cities involved and the fact that there are some positions which do not have job comparability. For instance there are only five comparable positions for the City Clerk, and eight for the City Attorney and Parks and Recreation Director, and 20 for the Assistant City Manager and the Administrative Assistant to the City Manager. However, the overriding advantage is that we are looking at cities with not only geographic proximity, but also with similar demographics and lifestyles. Each of the treatments has advantages and disadvantages. The mean (average) gives equal weight to all numbers; however, in doing so an extremely high or low number will skew the results. This is especially true if there is a.small sample. The median is the number in the center of an arithmetic array. The only numbers that have significant meaning are the one or two numbers in the middle. Again, if there are a few extremely high or low numbers the results cac be skewed or if there is a large spread between the numbers. Council Corimunication Salary Cadges for Various City of Lodi Management Emplovees ieUYe,be:- ib, 1987 Page "s The mid -quartile mean becomes helpful in this regard in that the high and low numbers are not included. However, with a small sample size the results are then determined by a very small number of cities. Using the percentile figures only increases the value above the median and all the same disadvantages are present. It is recommended that the City Council implement a management compensation pian based on the "differential system." This represents a new approach, and one that has been favorably received by the department heads. In this approach we survey the City Manager's position only, since every cite in the survey group has that position. We then establish what the existing market: differential is between the City Manager and each of the other positions. For example, what is the average percentage differential between the City Manager and the Public Works Director; the City Manager and Fire Chief; the City Manager and the Finance Director. We determined that the existing City of Lodi differentials between the City Manager and the various department heads was very close to the average differentials which exist in the survey cities. Maintaining the existing, or close to existing, differentials has these advantages: The internal alignments among the department heads will remain the same. There is a City Manager in each city all of whom have the same general responsibilities so the issue of comparability is well established. The effect of one position receiving a substantially greater increase than another is minimized. The plan is consistent and easily understood. The need for a comprehensive annual salary survey is eliminated. The department heads support the concept. Under this plan we would survey the market every three years to insure that we weren't getting out of line with any one department head position. One class, that of Administrative Assistant to the City Manager, merits some discussion. There are two positons in this class, the Personnel Officer and a staff position in the City Manager's office. This is the first year we have surveyed this class to include it in the management salary adjustments. In the past this class has received the same general adjustment as granted to the General Service employees. The recommended adjustments will still leave this class approximately 5% below the survey -determined control point at the conclusion of the recommended implementation schedule, but the balance will have to be addressed at a future date. The survey reveals that this class should be compensated at 50% that of the City Manager. Council Communication Salary Ranges for Various City of Lodi Management Employees November 18, 1987 Page 4 Also attached (Exhibit C) is a comparison of the various differentials arrived at by analyzing both the Valley cities survey and the previous 30,000-60,000 population survey group, as well as the existing City of Lodi differentials and the recommended City of Lodi differentials. It is therefore recommended that the mid -point (control point) of each class be as follows effective June 29, 1987: Assistant City Manager $4,728 Community Development Director 4,887 Finance Director 4,494 Fire Chief 4,770 Parks & Recreation Director 4,251 Police Chief 5,185 Public Works Director 5,300 Electric Utility Director 5,300 Administrative Assistant to the 0 City Manager 2,873 It is further recommended that these control points be further adJusted as follows: Assistant City Manager Community Development Director Electric Utility Director Finance Director Fire Chief Parks & Recreation Director Police Chief Public Works Director Administrative Assistant to the City Manager TAP:br Attachments TXTA.07A COUN272 is i t Effective Effective 1/1/88 1/1/89 1.6% 1.5. .5% .4% 1.4% 1.4% 4.4%, 4.4% 1.I%' 1.0% 2.9% 2.8% 0 0 1.4% 1.4% 3.0% 3.0% Respectfully submitted, `.-wa viixl�— Thomas A. Peterson City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 87-156 RESOLUTION SETTING MONTHLY CONTROL POINTS FOR CERTAIN UNCLASSIFIED PERSONNEL EFFECTIVE JUNE 29, 1987 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lodi that the following monthly control points for unclassified personnel are hereby established effective June 29, 1987. These ranges include salary, pension and deferred compensation. Be it further resolved that these control points be additionally adjusted as follows: Assistant City Manager Community Development Director Electric Utility Director Finance Director Fire Chief Parks & Recreation Director Police Chief Public Works Director . Administrative Assistant to the City Manager . Community Center Director Dated: November 18, 1987 87-156 Effective CONTROL POINT MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE 6/29/87 Assistant City Manager $4,728 Community Development Director $4,887 Electric Utility Director $5;300 Finance Director $4,494 Fire Chief $4,770 Police Chief $5,185 Parks and Recreation Director $4,25I Public Works Director $5,300 Administrative Assistant to the City Manager $2,957 Community Center Director $3,034 Be it further resolved that these control points be additionally adjusted as follows: Assistant City Manager Community Development Director Electric Utility Director Finance Director Fire Chief Parks & Recreation Director Police Chief Public Works Director . Administrative Assistant to the City Manager . Community Center Director Dated: November 18, 1987 87-156 Effective Effective 1/1/88 I/1/89 1. 1.5 .5% _. .4% 1.4% 1.4% 4.4% 4.4% 1.1% 1.0% 2.9% 2.8% 0 0 1.4% 1.4% 4.2 4.1 0 0 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 87-156 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a Regular Meeting held November 18, 1987 by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers - Hinchman, Pinkerton, Reid, Snider and Olson (Mayor) Noes: Councilmembers - None Absent: Councilmembers - None Attest: �' Alice M. Anx�he City Clerk 87-156 t M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: November 6, 1987 SUBJ: Department Head Salaries Attached for your review and consideration is information regarding department head salaries. All data presented herein has been developed from a survey of 15 Central Valley cities, a list of which is also attached. This office has developed data and recommendations utilizing three rather standard approaches. These are: Mid -Quartile Mean - This is the approach we have used in the past when we had a much larger number of cities. However, the now relatively smaller number of survey cities, eliminating the top and bottom 25% leaves us with data which is not truly reflective of the current market. Median - This approach can be utilized, but again because of the relatively small number of survey cities, the median point can be unrealistically high or low. Mean - This is the straight average of the 15 -city survey group and is statistically valid in most department head positions. However, some numbers are skewed because of the rather small sample. For example, the Lodi classes of Administrative Assistant, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk do not exist in some other cities i.n the same manner as we have here. These positions some times do not exist in the smaller cities and thus the presence of just the larger cities causes an imbalance in the data. Differential - This represents a new approach, and one that has been favorably received by the department heads. In this approach we survey the City Manager's position only, since every city in the survey group has that position. We then establish what the existing market differential is between the City Manager and each of the other positions. For example, what is the average percentage differential between the City Manager and the The Joncrable Mayor and ill ember s cif the C i ty Ccunc i I November b, 1987 Page 2 Public Works Director; the City Manager and Fire Chief; the City Manager and the Finance Director. We determined that the existing City of Lodi differentials between the City Manager and the various department heads was very close to the average differentials which exist in the survey cities. Maintaining the existing, or close to existing, differentials has these advantages: The internal alignments among the department heads will remain the same. There is a City ManagerIn each city all of whom have the same general responsibilities so the issue of comparability is well established. the effect of one position receiving a substantially greater increase than another is minimized. The plan is consistent and easily understood. The need for a comprehensive annual salary survey is eliminated. The department heads support the concept. Under this plan we would survey the market every three years to insure that we weren't getting out of line with any one department head position. I will be pleased to review this with you and answer any questions you may have. I would like to place this on the agenda for the regular City Council meeting of Wednesday, November 18, 1987. I have also included a suggested implementation schedule which spreads the adjustments through January 1, 1989, in the event the Council feels an incremental approach to the implementation of these adjustments is appropriate. TAP:br Attachments TXTA.07A C UNC275 Chico Clovis Davis Fairfield Manteca Merced Modesto Redding Roseville Stockton Tracy Turlock Vacaville Visalia Woodland MID -QUARTILE MEAN i-INIMUM 4,- ADJUSTMENT) Present Control Point Survey +4% Administrative Assistant $2,710 $2,884 $2,999 ------------------------ Assistant City Manager 4,460 4,846 5,040 Community Development Director ------------------------ 4,610 4,589 4,794 Finance Director ------------------------ 4,240 4,282 4,453 Fire Chief ------------------------ 4,500 4,313 4,680 Parks and Recreation Director ------------------------ 4,010 3,997 4,170 Police Chief ------------------------ 4,910 4,644 5,106 Public Works Director ------------------------ 5,000 5,008 5,208 City Attorney $5,319 $5,643 $5,869 City Clerk 3,212 3,390 3,526 City Manager 5,866 5,969 6,208 Rec. 4.0% 4.0% Inc. Inc_ 10.7% 5.8% 13.0% 5.8% 4.0% 4.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% 10.3% 9.8% 5.8% Page 1 of 5 MEDIAN (MINIMUM 4% ADJUSTMENT) Present Control Point Survey +4% Administrative Assistant $2,710 $2,837 $2,950 ----------------------- Assistant City Manager 4,460 4,720 4,909 10.11;10, ----------------------- Community Development Director ----------------------- 4,610 4,580 4,794 Finance Director ----------------------- 4,240 4,285 4,456 Fire Chief ----------------------- 4,500 4,318 4,680 Parks and Recreation Director ----------------------- 4,010 4,000 4,170 Police Chief ----------------------- 4,910 4,550 5,106 Public Works Director ----------------------- 5,000 4,892 5,200 4.0 5.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Rec. Inc. 8.9% 10.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% City Attorney $5,319 $5,642 $5,868 10.3% City Clerk 3,212 3,271 3,402 5.9% i City Manager 5,866 5,868 6,103 4.0% r Page 2 of 5 Present Control Point Administrative Assistant ----------------------- $2,710 Assistant 8.6% City Manager ----------------------- 4,460 Community Development 9.1% Director ----------------------- 4,610 Finance Director ----------------------- 4,240 Fire Chief ----------------------- 4,500 Parks and Recreation Director ----------------------- 4,0I0 Police Chief ----------------------- 4,910 Public Works Director ----------------------- 5,000 City Attorney $5,319 City Clerk 3,212 City Manager 5,866 MEAN Rec. % Survey +4-� Inc. Inc. $3,094 $3,218 18.7% 9.1% 5,065 5,268 18.1% 9.1% 4,814 5,007 8.6% 8.6% 4,532 4,713 11.2% 9.1% 4,531 4,712 4.7% 4.7% 4,293 4,465 11.3% 9.0% 4;972 5,171 -5.3% 5.3% 5,285 5,496 9.9% 9.1% $5,744 $5,974 12.3% 3,525 3,666 14.1% 6,156 6,402 9.1% Page 3 of 5 City Attorney $5,319 DIFFERENTIAL 85.2% 851. $5,442 City Clerk Present Present Survey Recommended +4% Recommended Manager Control % of % of % of Central Point City Mgr City Mgr City Mgr Adjustment Increase Administrative Assistant -------------- $2,710 46.2% 52.8% 50% $3,201 18.1% Assistant City Manager -------------- 4,460 76.0% 79.7% 76% $4,866 9.1% Community Development Director -------------- 4,610 78.6% 75.8` 77% 4,930 6.9% Finance Director -------------- 4,240 72.3% 73.6% 76% 4,866 14.8% Fire Chief -------------- 4,500 76.8% 75.2% 76% 4,866 8.1% Parks and Recreation Director -------------- 4,010 68.4% 71.0% _70% 4,481 11.7% Police Chief -------------- 4,910 83.7% 80.8% 81% 5,186 5.6% Public Works Director -------------- 5,000 85.2% 84.6% 85% 5,442 8.8% City Attorney $5,319 90.1% 85.2% 851. $5,442 City Clerk 3,212 54.7% 55.2% 55% 3,521 City Manager 5,866 100% 100% 100% 6,402 Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5 TXTA.07A CU -UNC -274 NUI-RENTIAL IMPLEMENTATTON Cost Present Adj. Adj. of Gen. Control Control Control Adj Adj. Point 7/1/87 Point 1/1/88 Point 1987-88 1/1/89 7/1/88 Administrative Assistant -------------- $2,710 6.0% $2,873 3.Q% $2,959 7.5% 3.0% ? Assistant City Manager -------------- 4,460 6.0% 4,728 1.6% 4,804 6.8% 1.5% ? Community Devel opmei t Director 4,610 6.0% 4,887 .5% 4,911 6.250. .4% ? --------------- Finance V_ Director ------------- 4,240 6.0% 4,494 4.4% 4,692 8.2% 4.4% ?. Fire Chief -------------- 4,500 6.0% 4,770 1.1% 4,822 6.55% 1.0% ? Parks and Recreation Director -------------- 4,010 6.0% 4,251 2.9% 4,374 7.45% 2.8% ? Police Chief -------------- 4,910 5.6% 5,185 0 5,185 5.6% 0 ? Public Works Director -------------- -------------city 5,000 6.0% 5,300 1.4% 5,374 6.7% 1.4% ? ' city g 4 Attorney $5,319 2.3% $5,441 0 $5,441 2.3% 0 , _ City Clerk 3,212 6.0% 3,405 1.8% 3,466 6.9% 1.8% ? City Manager 5,866 6.0% 6,218 1.6% 6,317 6.8% 1.5% Page 5 of 5 TXTA.07A CU -UNC -274 ! ctrt! tF�-e_vrt czcrr�e��S�sTv[l!��c � � DIFFERENTIAL COMPARISONS (% Compensation) TXA.07A COUNC2 4 Previous Survey Valley Current City Manager's (30-60K) Survey Lodi Recommendation Administrative Assistant to the City Manager 49.7 52.8 46.2 50 Assistant City Manager 79.0 79.7 76.0 76 Community Development Director 75.5 75.8 78.6 77 Finance Director 73.9 73.6 72.3 76 Fire Chief 77.5 75.2 76.8 7G Parks and Recreation Director 70.6 71.0 68.4 70 Police Chief 81.9 80.8 83.7 81 Public Works Director 83.4 84.6 85.2 85 City Attorney 85.0 85.2 90.1 85 City Clerk 50.7 55.2 54.7 55 TXA.07A COUNC2 4