HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-14 CC Packet Special Meeting
e
e
e
93.tJJ
~ illwater
~~ -- --= ~
~ c-~ _\~
TH;:-;RTHPlACE OF MINNESOTA J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and city Council
FR: Sheila McNamara
DA: December 9, 1993
RE: WORKSHOP MEETING AT 4:30 P.M. WITH THE STILLWATER REVENUE PROGRAM COMMITTEE
SPECIAL <DUNCIL MEETING, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1993
This memo is a reminder to Council that a Workshop with the Stillwater Revenue
Program Committee has been scheduled for December 14, 1993, at 4:30 p.m., in the
City Hall Council Chambers. A Special Meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday,
December 14, 1993, at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 216 North Fourth
Street, Stillwater, Minnesota to discuss the following:
1. Resolution to award the General Obligation Improvement Refunding
Bonds, $1,055,000 Series 1994A - Oak Glen.
2. Any other business Council may wish to discuss.
CITY HAll: 216 NORTH FOURTH STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
-
e
e
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FR: City Coordinator
DA: December 10, 1993
RE: ARBITRATION AWARD - PUBLIC MANAGERS ASSOCIATION
The arbitrator (Thomas P. Gallagher) has finally determined an award for
the Stillwater Public Managers Association (i.e., supervisory personnel).
I have not received the award. However, I have received part of the award
which states the salaries the City is obligated to pay during 1992.
In regards to the award, the City has the right to appeal. However, an award
can only be overturned on the grounds that the arbitrator made a mistake or
proceeded on an incorrect theory of law. I have reviewed the award with the
City Attorney and he finds no basis for an appeal. Therefore, 1 would
recommend the City accept the award.
I can discuss this with you further on the 21st (and will give you a copy of
the full award when I receive it).
-:r~~
e
e
e
~ ..
is the actual previous salary rate plus 3% -- one-half of 1%
more than what the Employer proposes -- which I add because of
market considerations. Third, if the salary indicated by job
evaluation, i.~-, the average between the salary projected by
the DOER Predicted Pay Line and that projected by the All Jobs
Predicted Pay Line, is more than what the Employer proposes, I
award an increase of 6% -- twice the increase awarded for the
other positions. In each such case, I have considered the
amount by which the salary indicated by job evaluation exceeds
the actual salary paid. In future bargaining, the parties may
gradually eliminate the full difference.
Award.
The 1992 salaries for bargaining unit positions shall be
as follows:
Position
Salary
Awarded
For 1992
Comma Dev. Director
Police Chief*
Fire Chief
Finance Director
Police Captain*
Pub. Works Director
Ass't Pub. w1ks Dir., Streets
Asstt Pub. Wks Dir., Parks
Assistant Fire Chief
City Clerk
Ice Arena Manager
$50,861
50,701
48,654-
48," 654
44,801
_43,606
42,024
35,510
42,103
36,761
35,680
December 8, 1993
-13-
I agree with th Employer's argument that the use of all
Stanton Group V cities for market comparison is inappropriate.
Nevertheless, as I hav indicated above, under the Pay Equity
Act, it is appropriate to use ~arket comparison as well as job
e~aluation is setting alaries in interest arbitration.
Unfortunately, I do no have in evidence a list of managers'
salaries from the smal er Stanton Group V cities.
From the eviden e that is before me, the best I can do is
draw an inference that such information, if presented, would
show that managers' sa aries generally in those smaller cities
are somewhat higher th n those paid by the Employer. I draw
this, inference from tw sources -- first, that the average
salaries paid by all S ant9n Group V cities to managers
generally are substant all higher than the salaries paid by the
Employer, and second, hat, although the Employer has argued
that the average paid n four smaller Stanton Group V cities is
less than the Stanton average, the Employer has not
argued that the averag paid in those four smaller cities is
less than what the Emp oyer pays.
The award that ollows for each of the eleven bargaining
unit positions is base upon the following premises. First, in
determining the salary indicated by job evaluation, I have taken
the average between th salary projected by the DOER Predicted
Pay Line and that proj the All Jobs Predicted Pay Line.
Second, if that averag is less than what the Employer has pro-
posed in its finalpos~tion, i_~_, a 2.5% increase over the
actual previous salary rate, the salary awarded for that position
-12-
.;--._',-~
~-~
e
e
e