12-01-87 Personnel Committee MinutesPersonnel and Policy December 1, 1987
The meeting was held at 7:00 am., at Cavanaugh's Motor Inn. Mayor Kennedy,
Committee Chairman Councilman Grainger, Committee and Council members Saverud
and Hafferman, Fire Chief Larson, Police Chief Clark, Clerk/Treasurer Halver,
Assistant Police Chief Hossack, Acting Building Official Kerzman and Surveyor
Zavodny attended.
The meeting was called for the non -union employees to present their proposed
pay plan to the committee. Fire Chief Larson presented and explained the
plan.
The group then discussed the plan at length.
Clerk/Treasurer Halver said the correct impact on the General Fund would be
about $17,500.00.
Police Chief Clark pointed out a correction on page 5. The Building Official
should be listed for $25,860 for 87-88 and $27,000 for 88-89. On page 4 the
Building Official should show $25,480 for 1987-88, $26,240 for 88-89 and
$27,000 for 89-90.
Councilman Saverud said the plan doesn't address the possibility of -across
the board pay freezes or lack of inflation.
Larson said the group did not expect the plan was going to be adopted exactly
as presented, it is designed to provide some long range planning.
Chief Clark requested paragraph "Step 5" on page 2 be scratched. The group
concluded the position responsibility should determine the salary and not
time in the position.
Chairman Grainger said the plan would be presented to the full council at
their workshop at 5:00 today.
Chief Clark said each department head would like to meet with the council and
explain their part of the plan.
Chairman requested Clerk/Treasurer Halver prepare percentages each year of
each plan would cost and how it affects the budget.
Adjourned 8:48 am.
- 1 -
PROPOSED PAY PLAN
FOR
NON -UNION EMPLOYEES
NOVEMBER, 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Positions* ithin Categories
Assigning Positions
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Budget Impact For 1987-88
Exhibit "D"
Budget Impact on Proposed -"Pay Plan"
Conclusion
Salary Comparison By Cities
Salary Ordinances By Year
Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
•
u
40
INTRODUCTION
This report is the "first ever" Pay Plan proposed for the City of Kalispell
• at the management level. It was performed by the non -union management employees
at the request of the City Councilto help determine prevailing levels of pay and
to provide a classification Pay Plan for the City Council to review. If adopted,
the objective is to permit the City of Kalispell to retain and recruit, when
necessary, competent employees at the management level. This should provide the
basis for receiling maximum production from dollars spent for human resources.
The recommended base pay has been set at a level comparable to government pay
for similar work in the governmental labor market. The management team has generally
agreed that this proposal is fair to all taxpayers, the Mayor and City Council, and
the employees of the management team.
The documentation which was used to arrive at the proposed "Pay Plan" was
the following:
1) City of Kalispell Salary Ordinances
2) A Management Report by Carl S. Becker for the City of Billings 1985.
3) Salary Ordinances from other Montana Cities
4) Montana Municipal League of Cities 6 Towns
5) The International City Management Association Year Book 1987.
6) Managing the Modern City published by the International City Management Associatfo:
7) The concept of the "Matrix System" from Montana State Law.
8) �Generaflagreement from the Department Heads, Assistant Department Heads,
Technical, Professional, Supervisory and Non Supervisory employees of the
Management Team.
• The Pay Plan was based upon Position Classification which is 'the basic management
tool in the field of personnel administration for Municipal Management. Purposes
of Position Classification was initially undertaken to assure equal pay for equal work.
A morale problem is inevitable if two employees are doing like work at different pay
ranges. However, Position Classification is also used for budgetary purposes by
listing the number of positions by classification rather than by individual employees
and predicting future salaries for troubled budgets. In addition, the classification
plan is ordinarily used as the basis for an organized pay plan by assigning a pay rate
or range based upon the nature of duties and responsibilities designated for it. The
principle underlying classification work is that it should produce equality within
the service.
In attempting to set the proposed wages, the management team asked what level
of wages does the city want to establish. In every community in Montana there is a
wide range of salaries for comparable work. Some employers in private industry whose
payrolls represent proportionately small parts of their production costs --pay very
high wages as a matter of policy. Others take a more conservative approach, while
others are extremely too low. The City of Kalispell, as a public employer, should
try to avoid both extremes. It is with this in mind, that the non -union employees
have attempted to set those wages within the framework of this concept.
It is hoped that this report will be given fair consideration and provide guidance
for a meaningful and fair basis of compensation for the City of Kalispell management
employees. Finally, it fulfills the City's moral and legal requirement by providing
like pay for like work.
(page 1)
POSITIONS WITHIN CATEGORIES
The management team developed five categories and placed each non -union
position within a category. This was done to keep the "Pay Plan" simple and
easy. The categories are groups of positions in which the functions, type of
duties, responsibilities and requirements for hire are similar. Some of the
factors to he�p weigh the position within the category are as follows:
Education
Experience
Complexity and Judgement
Responsibility for records and reports
Policy and methods determination; planning and confidential data handled
Responsibility for Equipment and Materials (Funds)
Personal Contacts
Supervision of Others
Physical Requirements
Working Conditions, Hazards
The following steps were taken to help simplify the proposed "Pay Plan" and
help establish an orderly manner in which to review the Categories established.
STEP 1. The following Categories were established: (See exhibit A)
CATEGORY I Management
CATEGORY II Assistant Management
CATEGORY III Administrative
CATEGORY IV Technical, Professional, and Supervisory
CATEGORY V Technical, Professional, and Non Supervisory
STEP 2. Each position was then placed within a category that appeared to have
like skills. (See exhibit A)
STEP 3. The present salaries were then inserted in the first column, while the next
three columns represent where the proposed wages should be for that position
within that budget year. (See exhibit B)
STEP 4. After the Budget Year 1989-1990, each position within the category would
only receive a 2% increase per year of the present salary. If the cost of
living adjustment is more than the 2% increase, the Mayor or City Council
could consider a merit increase not to exceed the difference of the cola
and the 2% increase.
STEP �. The entry' ld el for each positio sn ho ld be'90% f the ry "a2establ
y�e Salary -`Ordinance or a minimum- period .6'"months.
fished
STEP 6. A periodic review of these categories is necessary to assure that the
position is allocated to the proper category and that it reflects current
duties, responsibilities, entry requirements and organizational needs.
NOTE: In some instances it was difficult to place the position within the appropriate category
due to the lack of current job descriptions and changes that may have occurred in responsibilities
and organizational restructuring. After Council review, there could be some minor changes to
reflect those discrepancies. In particular, the management team recognizes that the City Clerk's
position as well as the front office may need restructuring and that reorganization may occule
that could change the categories. If this takes place, salary adjustments may be necessary.
(Page 2)
•
w
• w
H
H
M
[PCT�
[*1
[•7
�-C
f-)
yd
7tl
H
• j
H
—4
to
w
m
ryry0d
O
O
C
O
Z
m
O
K
H
f)
:
A
Mtv
rt
r
m
E
C
O
�x
r
fn
ro td
a C
'Jtl H
'X r
to H
H
d z
i
s
N
�tA
0
H H
�
N
n
m
H
rt
O
00
n ro
m
.
H
N
r
n
rt
h1
n
r
H
1-1
H
C1
M
E
a
n
r
w
m
H
m
O
rt
A
H
M
w
rt
qU
H
c+
n
.ro
C+9
M W En
C ryHryyy C
C M H
l*I
K H
C H
ro w
H V1
z ca
H £
z z
ii
l*l C7
z m
H ro
H
EXHIBIT "B"
MANAGEMENT
PRESENT
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
CITY ATTORNEY
$30,488
$33,244
$35,250
$35,840
CHIEF OF POLICE*
31,000-
33,700
35,048
35,748
FIRE CHIEF
31,930
33,489
34,298
35,048
DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS
29,612
32,330
34,298
35,048
DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
30,385
32,717
34,298
35,048
ASSISTANT MANAGEMENT
ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE
$28,840
$30,70 0
$32,000
$32,640
ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF
28,840
30,420
31,232
32,000
ADMINISTRATIVE
LIEUTENANT OF POLICE
$30,049
$30,649
$30,049
$30,100
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
26,522
27,761
29,000
29,750
TECHNICAL, PROFESSIONAL SUPERVISORY
SUPT. WATER/SEWER DEPT.
$22,660
$25,000
$26,250
$27,000
STREET SUPERINTENDENT
24,000
25,000
25,750
26,500
SURVEYOR
22,660
24,750
25,250
26,000
BUILDING OFFICAL (Department Head)
24,720
°
25,-O�t�O'
a-2-5;500�_,'_000
PARKS DIRECTOR
24,720
25,000
25,500
26,000
TECHNICAL, PROFESSIONAL NON SUPERVISORY -
CITY ACCOUNTANT
$21,630
$23,315
$25,000
$27,000
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
17,510
18,755
19,800
21,000
COMMUNITY DEV. PROFESSIONAL
20,085
22,893
23,750
25,700
COMMUNITY DEV. PROFESSIONAL
20,085
22,893
23,750
25,700
*Note: Police Chief is not being paid at former rate and was not given 3-7 raise that other
Department Heads received.
•
(page 4)
r
TWO YEAR PLAN EXHIBIT "C"
TITLE
PRESENT
987-88
988-89
CITY ATTORNEY
30,488
33,244
35,500_
CHIEF OF POLICE
31,000
33,024
35,048
FIRE CHIEF
31,930
33,489
35,048
DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS
29,612
32,330
35,048
DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
30,385
32,717
35,048
ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE
28,840
30,444
32,048
ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF
28,840
30,444
32,048
LIEUTENANT OF POLICE
30,049
30,049
30,049
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
26,522
27,761
29,000
SUPT. WATER/SEWER DEPARTMENT-
22,660'-
24,360
26,000
STREET SUPERINTENDENT
24,000
25,000
260000
SURVEYOR
22,660
24,360
26,000
BUILDING OFFICIAL.
24,720
2s240"
-5Ud0 -
PARKS DIRECTOR
24,720
25,360
26,000
CITY ACCOUNTANT
21,630
23015
26,000
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
17,510
18,755
21,000
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROF.
20,085
22,893
25,700
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROF.
20,085
22,893
25,700
TOTALS
465,736
495-798-
SM 237
C/%P8)8 65 .r> ? ? %
BUDGET IMPACT FOR 1987-88
The budget impact for implementation of the proposed "Pay Plan" for the fiscal •
year 1987-88 can be seen on Exhibit "D", page 7. Assuming that the non -union employees
would receive the same average increase of 4% that was received by the union employees,
that would inc".ease the budget to approximately $484,365. The proposed "Pay Plan"
of $495,798 would only be an additional increase of 2.4% to make the necessary adjust-
ments that are long overdue. This additional 2.4% increase would establish a salary
ordinance that would be consistent through many City Councils and Mayors. There would
be no uncertainty of the salaries for future years.
•
•
(page 6)
0
•
9
IIi
C
0. CL
n
O
Oo'
c
C
C
r
O
O
O
fn
_
D J
U
Q
Q
CT
r-}
<
'1
ro
D
W
N
n
7
ro
n
n
CD
1+
n
n
i
ii
n
rn
rn
CD.r
U3
LD
d
t7
rD
ro
ro
ro
E
S
F
E
f0
<
<
<
o
0
0
0
-0
7r
o
N
wN
0
w
N
0
0
n
2
v
v
o
u
u
u
v
m
v
r
s
H
O
Y
A
n
a
rOn
O
0
r01
N
A
f1
O
T
O
n
r
O
N
S
y
c
J
v
P
O
o
O
n
n
v
CD
K
J
b
n
N
J
o
ti
O_
PI
N
'�
n
P
V
V
V
N
y
P
W
U
N
O
m
O
m
W
m
P
O
O
p
P
P
P
!
m
6
b
W
O
<
O
O
ro
P
O
O
O
O
N
U
w
U
O
O
O
N
m
O
O
b
O
O
(A
� O1
M
1 1
U
U
m
W
V
N
N
N
O
U
U
N
W
O
W
O
O
W
D
O
O
O
O
J
U
V
T
m
V)
m
t0
V
U
O
O
S
W
W
N
b
b
<
G
m
e
G
b
C
N
C
O
O
O
U
U
W
W
V
O
O
O
O
C
<
m
N
C
tr
N
rn
in
rS
iv
N
N
v
TfD ^
G
N
N
m
P
m
N
W
m
O
m
p
W
W
r
{n
W
W
In
VI
J
1/1
VI
l0
yl
V1
T
O
}J
<
c
ro
N
-
U
Vmi
tU`
S_ O
�N
t `v
rD
^
f
U
�l
rD
J
-1
C
I
Vi 7
ro n
i
i u N
I
m
u
o
I
a
a
3N
C
r
7 .G.
r1
d
n
W
N
v
n
W
w
u
u
Cr o
fTl
m
rn
w
G
p) <
� P
rnO
{
N
DN
99
2r
U
Z
u
3 o
r7
rF
�
�l ^
N r
--I o
N
X -
-
--I
pl
X�
m
7p
tl
C
t7
n
CONCLUSION
Personnel Administration is a major portion of the work performed by the •
non -union employees. And the key to good personnel administration is a sound
and fair "Pay Plan" for those employees who "manage" the system. A well estab-
lished "Pay Plan" will also eliminate the unnecessary burden placed upon the
City Council each year to determine the salaries of the non -union employees.
It is with this in mind that the proposed "Pay Plan" be given serious consideration
and be seen as an attempt by the management team to work jointly with the policy
making body to solve yet another problem of our local government. While this pro-
posed "Pay Plan" does not answer all questions concerning proposed salaries, it
does set up a format from which the City Council and Department Heads can jointly
work to perfect the plan. If this can be accomplished, it should show everyone
concerned including the taxpayers, that the policy setting body and management
are working in the best interest of the citizens.
In reviewing the proposed "Pay Plan" as submitted by the Department Heads, it
was felt that the following options would probably be viewed and outlined by the
City Council and Mayor:
OPTION I No Change.
If the City Council elected this option, in essence, it would freeze all
salaries of the non -union employees. This would be impractical to the
Mayor, City Council and the management team as well as the taxpayers. In
addition, it would not solve the yearly burden placed upon the City Council.
Finally, it would make future budgeting very difficult as there would be
no system in which to predict salaries. •
OPTION II Continue to increase salaries unsystematicly as been past practices.
This option has not been acceptable by the City Council nor by the
non -union employees. It only creates animosity between the policy making
body and the management team.
OPTION III Accent Plan as submitted.
The management team feels that this option is unrealistic as there has been
no input by the Mayor or City Council in this decision making process.
In addition, the management team feels that there may be a few discrepancies
in which the Mayor and Council may want to modify.
OPTION IV Do not accept plan, and hire professional consultant.
This appears to be a good option as an unbiased professional consultant
could give the City a good Pay Plan which would be cast in stone. It
would take the burden off the City Council and put a systematic pay system
into effect. The only drawback to this option is that the cost for a
professional consultant could be the same cost as the adjustments requested
by the management team.
OPTION V Accept the. proposed "Pay Plan" with some modifications.
This also appears to be a good option as it shows that the policy making
body and the management team worked toward a,mutual goal of solving a
problem in the best interest of the citizens and taxpayers. This option
also eliminates the need to hire expensive consultants. A savings to th•
taxpayers.
(page S)
SALARY COMPARISON BY CITIES*
BILLINGS BOZEMAN GREAT FALLS HAVRE HELENA KALISPELL MILES CITY MISSOULA AVERAGE
Attorney
41,832
31,632
41,616
30,488
15,000
39,072
1'33,273
Director of
Public Works
44,844
32,004
37,000*
29,220
48,324
29,612
22,223
34,932*
34,770
Police Chief
41,736
30,552
36,500
28,480
41,000
31,000
30,900
38,508
34,835
Fire Chief
43,200
29,712
35,000
22,008
39,133
31,930
21,048
38,508
32,567
Assistant
Police Chief
35,141
27,600
1 31,722
2.6,236
32,240
28,840
27,200
34,956
30,492
Assistant
Fire Chief
32,496
27,744
20,100
31,512
28,840
34,956
29,275
Community Dev/
Planning
34,596
26,000
33,705*
County
County
30,385
County
County
31,172
Judge
44,568
17,964
41,616
14,112
21,420
7,800
23,544
Finance
Finance
Director ol
Treasurer/
Director
Director
Adm. Serv.
Clerk
T surer
42,252
17,316
40,548
28,272
36,300
26,522
19,630
22,080
29,115
Building
Chief
Asst. Cit
Manager
City
Engineer
Plus Asst.
Engineer
Official
32,352
24,000
32,430
22,728
26,700
24,720
23,022
28,728*
26,835
Parks Director
36,564
27,564
35,628
20,652
32,292
24,720
21,912
30,684
28,752
Sewer Supt.
33,000
27,564
24,454*
21,720
28,644
22,660
21,912
27,372
25,915
Combined
Combined
Sewer Plant
with
w/Sewer
Supt.
Water Supt.
36,216
27,564
water Supt
21,720
32,880
22,660
21,912
Combined
27,158
Street Supt.
30,852
27,564
25,788
22,728
32,531
24,000
20,114
31,608*
26,898
-
Treasurer/
City Clerk
19.524
21,048
16,596
22,391
Clerk
26,522
26,666
22,080
22,118
Director
Combined
Asst. Fin.
Finance
Finance
w/Treasur r
Director
Director
Accountant
21,972
31,620
26,700
21,630
34,932
29.424
S&yof
25,560
24,211
22,600 118,848
1
28,000 1
23,843
Based upon 1987-88 figures
*Figures are average, not actual
r (Pale 9)
0
a
TITLE
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
PRESENT
CITY ATTORNEY-
29,950
24,000
27,000
29,000
29,600
29,600
30,488
CHIEF OF POLICE
27,500
27,775
30,275
31,788
32,600
32,600
(31,000)
33,700
FIRE CHIEF
25,800
26,058
28,790
30,229
31,000
31,000
31,930
DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS
25,800
26,058
26,058
24,000)
28,000
28,750
28,750
29,612
DIRECTOR COMM. DEVEL,
24,185
24,1185
26,120
28,000
29,500
29,500
30,385
ASST, CHIEF OF POLICE
24,000
24,240
26,422
27,743
28,500
28,500
29,355
ASST, FIRE CHIEF
23,115
23,346
25,861
27,154
28,000
28,000
28,840
LIEUTENANT OF POLICE
22,054
22,275
24,279
25,956
26,734
26,734
27,536
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
19,003
20,524
21,550
25,750
25,750
26,522
SUPT WATER/SEWER
19,000
19,190
20,725
22,000
22,000
22,660
STREET SUPERINTENDENT
21,000
21,210
22,902
24,042
24,600
24,600
24,000)
22,000
SURVEYOR
17,800
17,978
20,000
21,000
22,000
22,000
22,600
BUILDING OFFICIAL
19,890
19,890
22,000
23,224
24,000
24,000
24,720
PARKS DIRECTOR
19,675
19,872
22,000
23L,224
24,000
24,000
24,720
CITY ACCOUNTANT
21,000
21,000
21,630
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
13,975
14,114
15,244
16,468
17,000
17,000
17,510
COMMUNITY DEV, PROF,
COMMUNITY DEV. PROF.
(Page 10)