Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 14, 2009 - SPECIAL MEETINGSPECIAL MEETING -April 14, 2009 I. INVOCATION, PLEDGE & ROLL CALL Councilmember Henderson gave the invocation followed with the pledge to the flag. The City Council of the City of Port Arthur met in a Special Session on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, City Hall, with the following members present: Mayor Deloris "Bobbie" Prince; Councilmembers Elizabeth "Liz" Segler, Morris Albright, III, Robert E. "Bob" Williamson and Thomas J. "Tom" Henderson; City Manager Steve Fitzgibbons, City Secretary Terri Hanks, City Attorney Mark T. Sokolow and Sergeant At Arms Chief of Police Mark Blanton. Councilmember Martin Flood arrived at the Special Meeting at 4:13 p.m. Councilmember Dawana K. Wise arrived at the Special Meeting at 4:23 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Jack Chatman, Jr. was absent from the Special Meeting. Councilmember John Beard, Jr. was absent from the Special Meeting. II. ITEMS REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL ACTION P.R. No. 15115 - A Resolution As It Pertains To Members Of The Pleasure Island Commission The Mayor introduced the above-mentioned Proposed Resolution. Mayor Prince nominated Mr. Brian McZeal as her appointment to the Pleasure Island Commission. Upon the motion of Councilmember Albright, seconded by Councilmember Williamson and carried unanimously, Proposed Resolution No. 15115 was adopted with the above- stated appointment becoming Resolution No. 09-140. Voting Yes: Mayor Prince; Councilmembers Segler, Albright, Williamson and Henderson. Voting No: None. The caption of Resolution No. 09-140 reads as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 09-140 A RESOLUTION AS IT PERTAINS TO MEMBERS OF THE PLEASURE ISLAND COMMISSION III. DISCUSSION To Discuss The City Of Port Arthur's Wage, Range, And Step Classification Plan Human Resources Director Dr. Albert Thigpen appeared before the City Council to address the Wage, Range and Step Classification Plan. Dr. Thigpen distributed a comprehensive report as shown in the Meeting Minutes Exhibit "A". IV. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING Upon the motion by Councilmember Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Albright, and carried unanimously, the City Council adjourned the Special Meeting at 4:45 p.m. An audio-tape of this meeting is on file in the office of the City Secretary and is made a part of the official minutes of this meeting. MAYOR DELORIS "BOBBIE" PRINCE ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY TERRI HANKS END OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 2009. APPROVED: City Council Minutes Special Meeting -April 14, 2009 Exhibit "A" ~ ~C~fi ~~t~t c~ TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 04/10/09 FROM: Dr. Albert T. Thigpen, Director of Human Resources` ',C~--- RE: City of Port Arthur Wage and Compensation Plan Ref. Report Va~rrim,O~zG Backeround The City Council has requested, and the City Manager has directed, that a report be prepazed regazding the City of Port Arthur Wage and Compensation Plan. As you aze aware, the purpose of a wage and compensation plan is to provide structure to the salary movement of employees covered thereby. Overview The City of Port Arthur Wage and Compensation Plan was designed by Ralph Andersen and Associates, Inc. It was implemented in 1986 following an extensive survey and analysis of the City's classification structure. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the internal relationship between positions, the external relationship between the City's salaries and the market place, and the contenUformat [note: pre- ADA] of the classification descriptions. The study involved several on-site visits, the completion of a Position Description Questionnaire [PDQ = a detailed analysis of all aspects of a job by the personnel performing in that classification] by employees, and extensive comparison with the labor market. The current plan provides eighty-four (84) ranges and ten (10) steps in each range. Employees generally progress from step 1 to step 5 at six month intervals, with mechanisms for placing individuals at the appropriate step depending on their current range and step placement versus a new position [higher or lower] in the compensation plan. It should be noted that the Wage and Compensation Plan applies only to non- civil service employees. The wages of civil service employees are determined through collective bazgaining. Imnlementation The study provided the City- with a complete wage and compensation plan, including cazcer ladders, updated classification titles, and mechanisms for plan updating and maintenance. Implementation of the plan faced several significant constraints: (a) fiscal -fiscal conditions precluded implementing the plan in its full form, (b) logistical -the changes required by the new plan had employees "out of the wage plan" -that is above and below the wage plan principally due to their tenure, and (c) operational -the changes required the processing of a significant volume of paperwork, and time intensive review, prior to and after the adoption of the plan. In order to implement the plan, given the foregoing constraints, the City Council and Administration made the decision to shrink the wage plan approximately five percent and to implement the plan with a freeze at Step 5. This freeze was to get the majority of employees into the wage plan and to allow those below the plan [ employees at "minus" steps] to catch up to the plan and the allow the plan to catch up to those employees above the plan [employees with salaries above step 10 of their assigned range]. Plan Maintenance The City of Port Arthur Personnel Policy requires the Director of Human Resources to prepare an annual analysis of "...prevailing rates of pay..." and to recommend "...blanket changes in the compensation plan or changes in salary ranges for individual positions..." to ensure the compensation plan is "...current, uniform, equitable, and competitive with other organizations which employ individuals of the same class of personnel." This annual Benchmark Survev examines jobs in various classes [e.g. maintenance, clerical, professional, etc.] to review how the City's salaries compare with those of similar entities. Recommendations are made on both a class basis [e.g. changing the range of a classification such Maintenance Worker R] or an individual basis [e.g. changing the range of a department head position]. The recommendations aze forwarded to the City Manager approximate to the beginning of the budget process. The recommendations approved become effective with the approval of the new fiscal year budget. Additional Reviews and Adiustments The Wage and Compensation Plan, and the wage freeze, have been reviewed on numerous occasions. Additionally, these items are reviewed on an annual basis pursuant to the Personnel Policy and budget process. Certainly, fiscal conditions have been a primary consideration in the determination to maintain the Plan's step movement freeze at Step 5. It must be noted the freeze was, and is, intended to impact normal step movement not movement associated with promotion, etc. Further, the Personnel Policy provides pursuant to § 17-57 Maintaining the Plan department heads may request reviews regazding establishing new positions or reclassifying existing positions. Employees may also request their positions be re- evaluated. In addition to the foregoing reviews, the City in 1991 seated a "Pay for Performance Committee" which had as its primary chazge to review requests from employees who were "significantly harmed" [e.g. failed to receive appropriate salary increase, etc.] by application of the Personnel Policy. Those requests which met the criteria set by the Committee, had salary adjustments recommended to the City Manager. The City Manager approved these adjustments. Summary The City's Wage and Compensation Plan provides a structured mechanism for salary movement of covered employees. It has been reviewed, and updated, on an on- going basis. Currently, the Benchmark Survey uses a combination of Texas Municipal League (TML) data for cities of similar population and customary benchmazk cities. These updates have kept the plan substantially current. The significant majority of the classifications included in the Benchmark Survey are above, and most substantially above, the average of the survey means. Ms. Underhill, has previously, provided the City Council with information regazding allowing movement past step 5. Although, a desirable goal, the costs aze significant. It should also be noted that these costs will also drive additional costs for TMRS, Social Security, etc. Certainly, the City can seek a study to do another Wage and Compensation Plan; however, it should be cognizant of the pitfalls connected therewith. The costs can rise rapidly and the economic times will impact the City's fiscal condition; thus, the ability to fund any new plan. Enclosed herewith is a "Letter of Proposal" from the Waters Consulting Group, Inc. which delineates the cost to do a market update to the City's existing plan. As the City Manager has indicated, companies recommend "full blown" studies or new plans every 5 - 7 years based on the comfort level regarding job placement within the plan, FLSA status, compliance with applicable laws, etc. I am confident, and our plan has been tested, with regard to these and other elements. The freeze at $tep 5 is not a glen element, hat the result of administrative policy. A rrew plan wifI not inherently achieve a different result. This department will be submitting to the City Manager its FY 2010 Benchmark Survey this month. The City Council receives a copy of the approved Benchmark Survey recommendations. I do not believe that a new wage and compensation plan is needed of this time. The market review proposed will assess our existing plan and make recommendations regarding any needed changes. This department has requested a sample Request for Proposal (RFP) for a full blown wage and compensation plan study. Once received we will meet with the City Manager and Purchasing Manager to determine the elements to be included in a RFP should the City wish to obtain the costs for a new wage and compensation plan. Please advise should you need additional information. c: Stephen B. Fitzgibbons, City Manager l w to tlTl' of ro~T AtTauR ,Phillip Hagger (P.W.-Sanitation) e!`TE 1G-3-86 Personnel Department ~M SY~IFCT Notification of Classification and Salary fllE Recommendation of Ralph Andersen & P.ssociates COItYEMT This is to notify you that effective October 1, 1986 your current position has been allocated to the following cLass- ification, range, and salary based on the findin€s of the Wage and Classification Study conducted by Ralph Andersen & Associates: Classification: Sanitation Crew Supervisor Range: 30 Step: 7 of designated range Salary/Wage: 510.16/hour In the event that your new rate 'is placed lower than step 3, you will be eligible for a step increase of appro~:imateiy 22% on April 1, 1987. L your rate is at step 3 or above, you tir_1i receive no increase during the 1486-Hi 'iscal'vear. As you are probably aware, the City_ Council has aDjy oved a one-time "St2Di lit Y'" D2~rli lent t0 De TeCe'_Ved D~= a'_1 C'_tV employees on the first pay Deriod in December The amount of your .one-time payment will be eouivaient to 3% of your total base wages earned, less all reauirec Davroll deductions, during the twelve months ~recec_ng December ?, 1986. Step progression -is not gu2ranteed beyond the current fiscal year-since the Ci_v_'s fit ` e financial Dos'ltion i_= not clear at this -time. All DeDartmert Heads have 'been b'lefed or. .mDleme^.Lat'On Qeta.1S Derta'_Il.n. tO the new wagE 'v ian, t IIerEiGre, a.'1~' G ileSti0A5 CCn Ce^':inc t_.i5 -=.tter SIIOUld De ~_rectec to ~'O L' 1~2Dcrtment fiead Cr tO tn2 :i7 Qi1"_CUaI 1n 4OL=~ QeD~tm°_n: designated 'Dy your Department Head to answer your questions. " `'caatrEber, >ve are kerc to sere t~CC citize~es of ~ort ~rthu~ ' CPA-'I2 1~IEM®RAY\TI~LJP~ <, ttECE1VE~' CITY OF. PORT ARTHUR ~T O: All Department Heaas JUL 3 'yl ~,.~,/' DATE: /~~ FROTt: pay for Performance Committee %//~_ ~ ~'~~' Potential Salary Adjustments for Employees DePnied "Significantly Harmed" by Personnel Policy Applications "~! ~~ ~~;)) QOMMENT ~1;i;Lf~; .bbC}RK: The Pay for Performance Committee has proposed to the City Manager a possible salary adjustment for those employees deemed to have been "significantly harmed" due to alleged misinterpretation, application or misapplication of the City's Personnel Policy (transfers, promotions and demotions). Initial research indicates the number of employees which fall into the "significantly harmed" category to bP relatively small. The committee has determined that the following does not constitute a "significant harm": 1. an employee who has been in Step 5 a long period of time. z. an employee who d•id not receive a salary increase merel}- because another employee with more tenure in the organization moved from a lower .range into their range and classification at a higher step. (The committee feels this would be benefitting from some- one else's. tenure). Department heads are requested to submit a clear, concise narrative delineating the circumstances and/or situation caus- ing the alleged harm. Narratives are to be submitted to the Personnel Department no later than 5:00 p.m., July 30, 1991. The Pay for Performance Committee will review the narratives and forward a recommendation to the City Manager. /ljc T0: Pay For Performance .Committee- c/o Personnel Department As requested, the attached information is su mitted. E. •. omero, r. Public Works Manager "RENEIYBER~ NE qRE HERE TO SERVE THE CITIZENS qF PgRT gRTHUR•• cra ~. f ~~ Date: Wednesday, December20, 1995 i Subject: Harold Hatch Grievan~ and Council Presentation BACKGROt1ND Mr.;Hatch began employment with the City of Port Arthur as a janitor 08/07/81 in fhe Library'. Depariment..Subsequentty he beeame.a maintenance workerin the Public Woi•ks,department 07/08/85 and a maintenance worker II 10/01/86; he continues in this classification af-present. Mr. Hatch is currently at step 5 of range 19 at a salary. of. $ 9.1405/hr. Mr. Hatch presented a grievance through the chain of command regazding what he perceives as disparate treatment based. on the wage plan freeze. Following review by the chain of command. iYlr. Hatch was permitted to present his concerns to the City Council. The remedy sought by Mr. Hatch is to have his salary moved .from step 5 of range 19 ($ 9.1405/hr.) to step IQ of range 19 ($ 10.3222/hr). ANALYSIS AND REVIEW As you are aware the City's Wage and Compensation Plan consists of ranges o which all classifications are assigned and employees move through steps-(step T to step lOjwithin the range assigned for their-given classification. Step movement is currently frozen at step.5 with those employees who through promotion are placed of a step at or above step 5 being frozen at that step:. , : ..: . Iv1r. Hatch is currently frozen at step S of the City's Wage and Compensation Plan: According to information provided by.the Finance Department there are 116 non-Civil Service employees beyond step 5 and 233 employees currently at step 5. There are approximately 429. non-Civil Service employees. The City's Wage and Compensation Pfan was implemented with a freeze at step 5 as a means of stabilizing and providing for full implementation of the plan. A"sound wage and compensation plan provides a range and step. within the plan for al( employees. At the implementation of the City's Wage and Compensation.Plan there were employees "out of range' ;that is employees whose curcent salary either placed--them ima "sub-step" that is a step below sfep 1 of the given i range, or atstep above;step IO Additionally; the freeze was.also implemented due to.fiscat:-., concerns with`the probabrhty thatthese concerns would kre stabilized ataome.pomt and allow the Y. City fo allow eniployeeS'to move-through_step 10.'Currenfly, empbyees whose supervisors and department heads evaluate their performance as acceptable move through steps l thiough 5 every six monthsand are "frozen" upon-reaching step 5: `' - , The step 5 freeze of the City's Wage and Crtompensation Plan has continued because the City's fiscal condition has not allowed the City to open the wage plan up to step 10. The Finance. Department indicates that the cost of mo~?ing the employees currently at-step 5 (233 employees) to step 7 is approximately $ 268, 818 plus benefits, or approximately $ 401,050; the cost to move this group of employees to step 9 in a subsequent year would be $ 554,695 plus benefits, or $ 827;549.47. These costs would have td be budgeted each year after the increase: SUMMARY: The freeze of the Cit}~s4Vage and.CompensationPlan atstep.§, (except:if prorrrotian~places;you af- :- ahigher step at which you are then frozen) is unifoinily applied throughout the City. It is extremely unfortunate-that City's fiscal conditions have not allowed the lifting of the:freeze and employee step movement beyorid step 5. The issue of the freeze and step movement has been; and is constantly, reviewed. The two-basic solutions for"Mr. Hatch's request are: (1) move all employees above step 5 back to-step 5 to achieve the "equity" he seeks. Obviously, the motale problem this action would. create makes this suggestion almost un-tenable; (2) allow employees to move through step 10 on either an immediate or time basis. Either case requires the City to be in appropriate fiscal condition to fund the increase in the year implemented and each year thereafter. . - Please advise should you-need fiirther information. cc: Dir..of Personnel Dir. of Finance Memorandacm To: ,CtepherrB. Frtzgibbvns, City Manager Fi~onr: Hm•r~ey L. Robinson, Director oJPersonnel ~/J~J/ Date: 06/0.5/1996 / ~" Srrhject: Snlrny Mo»enrent Wilhi~r the Qr:grnriznirar Transmitted herewith is a copy of a 7eport prepared by this office concerning salary movement within the organization dated 08/18/95. The report provides information on reclassifications and step movement following the FY'93 Layoffs. Please note that the report was provided to the Acting City Manager with copies to the Mayor and City Council. It should be noted that the report does not include any salary movement resulting from organizati9rtal restructuring pursuant to the FY'96 budget. The City's Wage and Compensation Plan is "frozen" at step 5 for normal step movement. As previous reports have indicated the Wage and Compensation Plan was implemented with a freeze to: (1) bring all employees into the plan. At the plan's implementation some employees were outside the plan either below step one (i.e. minus steps), or above step 10 (i. e. out of range). The freeze allowed time to bring those above and below their classification's given range into the plan; and (2) to allow implementation of the plan. The freeze allowed the City to implement the plan within existing fiscal constraints. Unfortunately, continuingly worsening fiscal conditions (e.g. revenue shortfalls, etc.) have not allowed lifting of the freeze. It should be made clear that the "freeze" is intended to impact "normal step progression" effectively capping a person's step movement at step 5 of the ten (10) step range. The freeze was not intended to inhibit Personnel Policy regarding the placing of employees at the appropriate step oFthe given range due to promotion [q.v. Section 17-61 Administration of Range/Step Salary Schedules J, labor market analysis [q.v. Section 17-59 Continuous Study of ItatesJ, or other valid reason. Annually, this department conducts a labor market analysis of classifications representing all job categories (i.e. official/administrative, clerical, laborer, etc.) entitled the Benchmark Survey. A review of these studies, including the one most recently submitted, indicates that the City's wages in labor and clerical categories are above the survey salary mean for those classifications, and the salaries in most other categories are very competitive. Personnel Policy provides a mechanism for employees, and most employees are aware of their right, to request review oftlreir salary. Employees exercise this right on a regular basis. Should you need additional information please advise. Memo To: Harvey Robinson, jPersonnel From: Rebecca Underhill, ctor of Finance Date: April 28, 9998 Re: Cosf fo Restore Longevity Increase for Non-Civil Service Employees and further "step 5"information As you well know, longevity increases for non-civil service employees were frozen in 1993 as a part of the 1993-1994 budget reduction. These employees have not received a longevity increase since October 1, 1992. The estimated cost to restore non-civil service employees to their full longevity pay of $4 per month per year of service is $125,611 (including benefits) for the first budget year. This would be a "catch up" cost. Once restored, the added cost per year would be a fraction of that amount. This would effect a total of 411 current non-civil service employees, 119 of whom are currently receiving no longevity pay. You had requested some additional data concerning- employees currently at step 5. There are 202 employees at step 5. Of that number, 175, have been at step 5 for more than two years. The estimated cost to move those employees 1 step is $160,927. It seems to me that it would only be fair to consider those employees beyond step 5 that meet the same criteria. The cost of increasing employees currently at steps 6 through 9 an additional 1 step would add $56,390 to the cost. The total cost to raise all employees who have been at step 5 and beyond for two years or more would be approximately $217,317. As a reminder, there are currently 42 employees at step 10. Nc increases were estimated for this group. To:.: Stephen .Fitzgibbons, City Manager From: Harvey Robinson, Director of Personnel Date: April 29, 1998 Re: Cost to Restore Longevity Increase for Non-Civil Service Employees and Further "Step 5" Information Concur wholeheartedly with Ms. Underhill's recommendation to restore longevity pay to non-civil service employees. However, if we are going to give serious consideration to opening the wage plan to routine step movement beyond step 5, it is recommended that initial movement be limited only to those employees who have been at step 5 for at least two (2) years. This will .helpto mitigate the wage disparity among certain employees. cc: Rebecca Underhill ~ a G 5 t - s S ~ ~' ~ ~ 4 r~ k s _~~~' d~ Stephen ~. I'itzgibbons City Manager I~arvey I.. Robinson Assistant City Manager I-tuan Resources Director Preparecl ~y: Elizabeth Villarreal Iiu;nar~ des®uree Analyst City of Port Arthur 2008 Benchmark Survey Back ound The City of Port Arthur annually conducts a Benchmark Survey in accordance with the Personnel Policy., specifically § 17-59 Continuous Study of Salary Rates. This study is done to determine whether the City's current compensation plan is competitive with appropriate market rates. The City currently participates annually in the Texas Municipal League Salary Survey, which is where the data is gathered to complete our benchmazk survey. The data provided by TML Salary Survey is an approximate match for the City of Port Arthur based on population, economic base, and/or geographic proximity. Based on the survey prepared by the Texas Municipal League, the City of Port Arthur derives applicable data necessary to develop two analyses. The first analysis would consist of data from cities whose population ranges from 30,000 to 75,000. The second analysis consists of data from cities which aze within Port Arthur's local labor market. The two surveys for each classification included data merged to produce a measure of the City's salary difference for each classification and the merged survey mean. Those classifications whose average annual salary is five percent (5%) or greater below the City's average annual salary for the classification are subjected to additional analysis and recommendation. Anal,+ The 2008 Benchmark Survey consists of nineteen (19) classifications. These classifications represent all levels of the organization (e.g. administrative/clerical, professional, executive, labor, etc.). City of Port Arthur 2008 Benchmark Survey The following classifications had an annual average salary above that of the survey mean: Classification Number of Positions Amount Above the Surve Administrative Clerk II 11 .7754 Custodian 2 .2603 Electrician II 5 5.3436 Equipment Operator I 44 16.2129 Equipment Operator II 23 3.9392 Forensic Specialist 1 9.5995 Maintenance WorkerII 38 12.2557 Meter Service Worker 7 13.0346 TCO 16 3.8509 Utility Service Representative 4 5.0624 The following classifications are below the average annual survey mean, but do not meet the required five (5%) flashpoint: Classification Number of Positions Amount Above the Surve Average City Manager 1 -2.5526 City Secretary 1 -4.9503 Maintenance Crew Supervisor 1 -1.3883 Secretary 9 -3.5050 City of Port Arthur 2008 Benchmark Survey The following classification were five (5%) percent or greater below the survey mean; therefore, requiring additional analysis and/or recommendation. A. Chief Librarian Range 41/Step 5 $48,027.00/annually Positions: 1 Amount Below Survey Mean: - 8.5348 B. City Attorney Range 69/Step 9 $I04,466.00/annually Positions: 1 Amount Below Survey Mean: - 12.3404 C. City En ig'neer Range 57/Step 7 $74,223.00/annually Positions: 1 Amount Below Survey Mean: - 19.5128 D. Dir of Community Service Range 57/Step 6 $72,542.00/annually Positions: 1 Amount Below Survey Mean: - 10.5401 E. Environmental Inspector I Range 20/Step 5 $29,247.00/annually Positions: 3 Amount Below 6urvey Mean: - 14.7690 Director of Human Resources Recommended Action Action recommended by the Director of Human Resources: A. Chief Librarian - It is recommended that the incumbent be provided a two step increase. This will result in a salary increase of approximately 4.9315% and reduce the difference noted in the benchmark survey to -3.6033%. B. City Attorney - No change is recommended inasmuch as this is a City Council appointed position. C. City Engineer - It is recommended that the incumbent be provided with a three (3) step increase. This will result in a-salary increase of approximately 7.7199% and reduce the difference noted in the benchmark survey to -11.7929%. We will continue to monitor. D. Dir. of Community-Services - It is recommended that the incumbent be provided with a two step increase. This will result in a salary increase of approximately 5.0183% and will reduce the difference noted in the benchmark survey to -5.5218%. E. Environmental Inspector I - No change is recommended at this time. This is the entry -level of --the Environmental Inspector series; generally, incumbents. may advance to the journey class (Environmental Inspector II) based on time and performance. The information provided in the benchmark survey is comparative to our Environmental Inspector II classification. Harvey L. Robinson Date Director of Human Resources ACTION BY CITY MANAGER: f9a~r°,.~ Stephen B. Fitzgibbons Date City Manager Benchmark Survey Support Data/Statistics 2008 Benehrr~ark Survey Analysis Classficatiorr Number of Employees By Population of Cities >30,000<75,000 Using Customary Benchmark Cities Sum Average Administrative Clerk II 11 0.3068 1.2439 1.5507 0.7754 Chief Librarian 1 -6.8523 -10.2172 -17.0695 -8.5348 Cit Attorne 1 -13.9950 -10.6858 -24.6808 -12.3404 Cit En ineer 1 -23.5776 -15.4480 -39.0256 -19.5128 Ci Mana er 1 -12.1615 7.0564 -5.1051 -2.5526 Ci Secrets 1 -14.7078 4.8073 -9.9005 x.9503 Custodian 2 0.2891 0.2315 0.5206 0.2603 Dir of Communit Service 1 -10.5401 No data -10.5401 -10.5401 Electrician II 5 6.8470 No data 5.3436 5.3436 Environmental Ins ector I 3 -26.6386 -2.8994 -29.5380 -14.7690 E ui ment O erator I 44 11.5600 20.8657 32.4257 16.2129 E ui ment 0 erator II 23 0.4249 7.4535 7.8784 3.9392 Forensic S ecialist 1 1.0641 18.1349 19.1990 9.5995 Maintenance Crew Su v 9 -5.0609 2.2843 -2.7766 -1.3883 taintenance Worker II 38 10.2153 14.2960 24.5113 12.2557 ~~leter Service Worker . 7 6.9947 19.0745 26.0692 13.0346 Secrets 9 -8.1051 1.0952 -7.0099 -3.5050 TCO 16 -3.9873 11.6890 7.7017 3.8509 Utili Service Re 4 3.5943 6.5304 10.1247 5.0624 Memorandum To: -Steve Fitzgibbons, City Manag From: Rebecca Underhill, Asst. City Ma i ce Director Date: March 23, 2009 Re: Step Movement The 10 step salary plan in place was adopted in 1986. At the time the plan was adopted, the Council, realizing the expense of the plan, froze the step movement at step 5. This controversial decision was based upon funding. Again, the Council has inquired as to the cost of opening the plan up to step 10. The first year, this would only impact those employees currently between steps 5 and 9. The cost would be approximately $690,000. In the second year; when employees currently at steps three and four are added, and the other employees continue to more, the cost jumps to $1.6 million. Over five years, the cost to progress all employees through step 10, would approach $10 million. At this time, I would recommend the City staff and Council consider investing in an updated salary survey, and give consideration to adopting a pay plan that could be fully implemented. Step Freeze Step # of emus. 1 18 2 43 3 31 4 29 5 221 6 24 7 13 g 16 9 4 10 15 414 Annual Fiscal Years 4 5 Salary 1 2 3 767.18 648 - - 102,014.02 138,447.92 153,977.20 , 380.56 393 1 - - 216,588.32 286,641.68 286,641.68 , , 284.51 994 - 100,550.89 153,826.92 171,587.21 171,587.21 , 904.46 064 1 - 108,514.95 157,205.20 157,205.20 157,205.20 , , 642.96 989 7 392,422.94 803,370.78 969,814.48 969,814.48 969,814.48 , , 969.26 043 1 51,712.34 93,490.18 93,490.18 93,490.18 93,490.18 , , 535.78 630 28,922.50 44,342.48 44,342.48 44,342.48 44,342.48 , 878.10 107 1 54,811.74 54,811.74 54,811.74 54,811.74 54,811.74 , , 250,105.65 6,071.31 6,071.31 6,071.31 6,071.31 6,071.31 719,911.09 - - 533,940.84 1,211,152.33 1,798,164.65 1,922,412.20 1,937,941.48 with benefits $ 694,123.09 $ 1,574,498.03 $ 2,337,614.05 $ 2,499,135.86 $ 2;519,323.92 $ 9,624,694.94 ~~~ ~d'~'~EIZ~ ~C3~SL~I.TLti~ _ -' GR{)tiP, INC. April 10, 2009 Dr. Albert Thigperi Director of Human Resources Port Arthur, TX (Via email at akhigpenCc~~ortartlrur net ) Re: Letter proposaVEstimate of Professional Fees Dear Dr. Thigpen: This letter proposal is in response to our recent phone conversation reganjirrg a market update for all of the Cit~s positions. A general quote for the market update, which wr11 include the following elements, is attached. I. Collection and analysis of Texas Mturicipal League Website Surveydata, private sector data, and limited collection of custom survey salarysurveydata for the purpose of developing updated pay structures, including review of City job descripuons to ensure apples to apples matches to all survey data. 2. Recommendations for individual payadjustmenu to move employees into the updated pay structures. 3. Development of a Final Report with recommendations for the payplan and implementation, and formal presentation to Councrl of study findings and recommendations. I understand that you are still detem~ini ~ the scope of this project, so I would be glad to revise it based on additional discussions. We look forward to the opponurrityto wodtwith you on this most unportant project. Best Regards, Ruda Ares E/edge (Vra elecirorvc signature) Senior Consuhant THE WATERS CONSULTING GROUP, LNC. PRODUCTIVE MANAGEINENT CONCEPTS 5050 Quorum Drive Sui[e 625 Dallis, Texas 75254 972/481/I950 972/481/1951(Fax) www.wa[erswnsuldng.wm Estimated Fees fora MarketUpdate for the City of Port Arthur, Texas Based on approximately 188 job tides and 650 employees -~~ max- ~ ~ z r ~-.s~~ ''~M •~~v.. onto £ tutee r=~ '~~' ~` ~_. ~, , ti,~_ ee~f ~ _ Pro~ect Plannin and Administration $3,500.00 Collection and analysis of market surveydata utilizing TML Surveydata, $6,000.00 published private sector data, and limited custom surveydata collection for up to tw~enrypositions not included in TMI. data. Inchrdes review of City job descriptions to ensure acctuate matches to TMI, and published survey ~ob summaries. onsite visit not necess Development of updated compensation structures and recommendations $6,750.00 for individual pay adjustments to move employees into the new structures. onsite visit not necess Development of Final Report and Recommendations and Onsire $3,250.00 Presentation to Council Total Professional Fees/Horns $19,500.00 . ~~ r~TS, evices ~ ~ ~.: ;~. t~CGFees Other requested onsite meetings (inchrding preparation time $1,500.00/day Additional workoutside scope of project $175.00/hour Expenses such as mileage, panting, shipping, etc. At cost X Title: Agreed to and accepted by: Date: THE WATERS CONSULTL~G GROUP, LNC. PRODUCTIVE MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS 5050 Quorum Drive Suite 625 Dallas, Texas 75254 972/48111950 972/481/1951(Fax) www.watersconsulting.com