HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/15/2000 BAKERSFIELD
Mike Maggard, Chair
Irma Carson
Mark Salvaggio
Staff: Alan Christensen
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
of the City Council - City of Bakersfield
Tuesday, August 15, 2000
3:00 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
Second Floor, City Hall
1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. ADOPT AUGUST 3, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS~
A. DISCUSSION AND .COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON MANAGEMENT SALARY
SURVEY
5. ADJOURNMENT
AC:jp
.... AFT
~-,~-~. B A K E R S F I E L D
Al ~~' e~ Mike Maggard, Chair
St: ~.'~A I~ n~ hC ir~sYteM~n sn~ng Irma Carson
Mark Salvaggio
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SPECIAL MEETING
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
Thursday, August 3, 2000
11:00 a.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order 11:15 a.m.
Present: Councilmembers Mike Maggard, Chair; Irma Carson and Mark Salvaggio
2. ADOPT DECEMBER 20, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. DISCUSSION AND'COMMITTEE.RECOMMENDATION ON MANAGEMENT SALARY SURVEY
City Manager Alan Tandy gave an overview of the results of the survey. This survey was a
sampling of the market to compare the City's salary plan to see if the positions were in the range
of the positions in the sample group of the surveyed agencies. Job performance was not
considered, only the job specification requirements and compensation paid. The information was
reviewed by the committee made up of City employees and Human Resources staff. The survey
took longer than anticipated in order go through in a detailed basis each individual .position and
the composite samples to ensure that we were comparing similar positions as much as possible.
Some of the cities have aspects in their pay plans that are dissimilar to ours, so it had to be
decided if using that element of their pay plan for comparison was appropriate. There were
differing opinions of how the survey results should be interpreted and if the cities with different
pay plans were good comparisons. There was not full agreement. The following position
adjustments were as close to an agreement that could be achieved from all the differing views.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
Thursday, August 3, 2000 DRAFT
Page -2-
From the survey information, seven positions were identified as being significantly underpaid
compared to the survey average. This would require compensation adjustments ranging from
.9% to 10.4%. The positions are Assistant Director of Recreation and Parks, City Treasurer, City
Clerk,' Assistant to the City Manager, Risk Manager, Communications Coordinator, and
Community Development Coordinator. Each of these positions are singular in nature with only
one employee in each classification. These positions did not get the recent 5% increase.
Committee member Carson stated that she thought all those who did not get the 5% increase
should have been included in the salary study including Supervisory. Also, that the study was
to include information on salary ratios between the levels to avoid future compaction issues. '
Human Resources Manager Carroll Hayden stated none of the survey cities had a plan in place
regarding salary ratios between the levelS. Due to the complexity of the rate structures where
you have certification pay, special pays for education and shift differentials, it is difficult for cities
to establish a written plan for ratios.between levels.
There was a lengthy discussion of all the different options. The Committee directed staff to set
another Personnel Committee meeting on August 14th or 15th for further discussions regarding
this item.
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. UPDATE OF HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN RENEWALS (New Business heard first)
Carroll Hayden stated that staff, the City's consultant (Buck Consultants) and the Insurance
Committee have reviewed the utilization rates and expenses versus the premiums paid for health
insurance. It became obvious that while we are making progress on premiums paid in and
expenses, we could not better ourselves by going out to market. No dissatisfaction has been
communicated to staff about the plans we have, so staff recommended and the Insurance
Committee agreed that with our utilization rate, we should try to renew the existing plans.
T-he consultant has been working with the City's different insurance companies trying to come up
with renewal rates for 2001. The Insurance Committee will meet on August 14th to review the
renewal rates we have received from the different insurance companies. Preliminarily, Blue
Cross Fee for Service Plan overall increase will be about 12%, the retirees increase will be 11.9%
and actives increase will be 11.7%. This is good compared to nationwide rates. Forthe 'HMO
Blue Cross fumishes CalifomiaCare, the retirees increase will be 9% and actives increase will be
8.9%. Blue Cross Medicare Risk will have no change. Kaiser will increase 1'3.5% overall with
slight variations between retirees and actives. PacifiCare Medicare Risk for retirees is having a
reduction of 11.7%.
The Committee requested staff to prepare a memb and keep Council updated on the negotiations
between Blue Cross and the local hospitals.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT D AFT
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
Thursday, August 3, 2000
Page -3-
B. DISCUSSION AND COMMI'rTEE RECOMMENDATION ON INSPECTOR SERIES STUDY REPORT
Carroll Hayden reported that over a year ago under one of the provisions of our MOU with Blue
and White Units, several employees requested a classification study of their positions. Some
requests referenced that they thought they were comparable to the Code Enforcement Officer
classification. A review was done of all the "Inspector like" positions including: Building Inspector,
Code Enforcement Officer, Fire Inspector, Wastewater Inspector and Financial Investigator. To
ensure that the positions were properly classified and propedy compensated, a salary survey was
done using the agencies designated by the Blue and White Units. Human Resources staff
studied the duties, responsibilities, knowledge, skills, and abilities of each classification.
Fire Inspector A reclassification.request was received from Fire Chief Ron Fraze. He felt this
position has similar duties and responsibilities to the Code Enforcement Officer I and II. The
results of the salary survey were that the compensation for the City's Fire Inspector position is
approximately 17% less than the survey average. An internal comparison reflects that the Fire
Inspector is comparable to Code Enforcement Officer I. The City's current salary for Code
Enforcement Officer I is equivalent to the salary survey average for Fire Inspector. Human
Resources staff met with Fire Chief Ron Fraze and .Development Services Director Jack Hardisty,
and staff is recommending that the compensation for Fire Inspector be set equivalent to the
current Code Enforcement Officer I salary. The Fire Inspector job specification will also need to
be updated to reflect current responsibilities and minimum qualifications.
Industrial Waste Inspector A request was received from the Union to look at this position, and
the comparison there was to the Building Inspector I. The survey showed that the City's Industrial
Waste Inspector position compensation is 14.2% less than the surveyed agencies. An internal
comparison reflects that this position is comparable to Building Inspector I. Staff is
recommending the City's Industrial Waste Inspector salary be set equivalent to Building Inspector
I. The job specification will also need to be updated to reflect current responsibilities and
qualifications. In addition, it would be appropriate to move the Industrial Waste Inspector position
from the Blue Collar to the White Collar Unit.
Financial Investigator The Finance Director submitted a request that the Financial Investigator
position be looked at in comparison with the Code Enforcement Officer I. The survey indicated
that the City's Financial Investigator position is more comparable to a Police Service Technician
than a Code Enforcement Officer. Human Resources staff did an internal study of job duties
performed by these positions. Because the Financial Investigator most closely compares
internally to the Police Service Technician (whose compensation is approximately 2% less) and
the City's current Financial Investigator is within 7 - 12% of the survey findings, staff recommends
no change in compensation.
Chuck Waide agreed with staff's recommendation on the salary changes and is still reviewing the
changes to the job specifications.
The Committee requested that in the future, job specifications, which include duties,
responsibilities and minimum qualifications be provided to make comparisons easier. A motion
was made to approve staff's recommendation and moving forward with the recommended
changes. The Committee approved with Committee Member Carson abstaining.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT AFT
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE PR
Thursday, August 3, 2000
Page -4-
C. DISCUSSION REGARDING ENHANCED PERS RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Carroll Hayden stated that the State passed a bill that allows safety employees in California to
bargain for enhanced benefits under the PERS system. About six weeks ago a package
regarding the cost was distributed to the Council. This legislation allows bargaining to up to 3%
at 50 at retirement, or 3% at 55. Currently we are a PERS agency and our safety employees are
under a contract which provides 2% at age 50. It was noted that the current plan graduates from
the 2% to 2.7% at age 55.
Actuarial .information has been taken from the State PERS Office on the cumulative costs to the
City to make the conversion. To make the full conversion to 3% at 50, we projected out an
average budgetary cost to Police and Fire, and it is in the area of $4 million per year. There are
all sorts of variables such as how investments perform, actuarial methodology is often changed
by the State, so the projection of $4 million per year is an assumption based on the current
information from the State. There are other lesser plans but the State methodology is very
complicated and would require further study.
In response to questions, Alan Tandy stated this was .put on the agenda at the request of a
Councilmember. As the information impacts ongoing negotiations, the Committee agreed that
further detailed discussion should be held in closed session.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting.was adjourned at.1:45 p.m.
Staff present: Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Human
Resources Manager Carroll Hayden; Human Resources Supervisors Janet McCrea and Anthony
Gonzales; Development Services Manager Jack Hardisty; Finance Director Gregory Klimko;
Treasurer Bill Descary; City Clerk Pam McCarthy; Assistant Chief Bill Rector; Police Lieutenant Tim
Taylor; Data Processing Manager Mike Kennedy; arriving at 12:00 p.m. City Manager Alan Tandy
and Assistant 'Fire Chief Bob Tobias.
Others present: Chuck Waide and Ed Nance, S.E.I.U.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
AC:jp
S:~AC\PersonnelCom\00aug03summar:y.wpd
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
General Fund - PERS Analysis
Fire Safety 3% @50
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
Actual Budget Estimates Estimates Estimates
2% @ 50 2% @ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 50
PERS rates 13.251% 6.173% 0.000% 12.504% 0.000% 12.504% 0.000% 12.504%
Member earnings 10,015,282 10,323,258 10,776,076 10,776,076 11,099,358 11,099,358 11,912,842 11,912,842
Employer cost 1.,327,123 637,255 -0- 1,347,441 -0- 1,387,864 -0- 1,489,582
Members pick-up 865,436 883,788 921,354 921,354 948,995 948,995 1,018,548 1,018,548
Total PERS cost 2,192,559 1,521,043 921,354 2,268,795 948,995 2,336,859 1,018,548 2,508,130
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Estimates Estimates Estimates Estimates
2% @ 50 3% @ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 50
PERS rates 0.000% 12.504% 0.000% 12.504% 0.000% 17.882% 0.000% 17.882%
Member earnings 12,746,663 12,746,663 13,065,330 13,065,330 13,391,963 13,391,963 13,726,762 13,726,762
Employer cost -0- 1,593,843 -0- 1,633,689 -0- 2,394,751 -0- 2,454,620
Members pick-up 1,089,840 1,089,840 1,117,086 1,117,086 1,145,013 1,145,013 1,173,638 1,173,638
Total PERS cost 1,089,840 2,683,682 1,117,086 2,750,775 1,145,013 3,539,764 1,173,638 3,628,258
Estimated PERS rates based on information from PERS actuarial.
Members earnings include a 2% annual COLA 2000-01, a 2% equity increase in July 2001,
a 2% COLA increase January 2002 and an annual 2.5% COLA thereafter.
Members earnings for Management includes an annual 2.5 % COLA each year.
PERS employer rate is projected to increase to 17.882% in FY 2005-06.
An estimated additional member earnings of $536,000 has been included in FY 2002-03 and
FY 2002-03 to staff two new planned Fire Stations.
P:~PAYROLL\PERS F & P.wb3 06/06/00
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
General Fund - PERS Analysis
Fire Safety 3% @55
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
Actual Budget Estimates Estimates Estimates
2% @ 50 2% @ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 55 2% @ 50 3% @ 55 2% @ 50 3% @ 55
PERS rates 13.251% 6.173% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%
Member earnings 10,015,282 10,323,258 10,776,076 10,776,076 11,099,358 11,099,358 11,912,842 11,912,842
Employer cost 1,327,123 637,255 -0- 0 ~0- 0 -0- 0
Members pick-up 865,436 883,788 921,354 921,354 948,995 948,995 1,018,548 1,018,548
TotaI.PERS cost 2,192,559 1,521,043 921,354 921,354 948,995 948,995 1,018,548 1,018,548
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Estimates Estimates Estimates Estimates
2% @ 50 3% @ 55 2% @ 50 3% @ 55 2% @ 50 3% @ 55 2% @ 50 3% @ 55
PERS rates 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 15.241%
Member earnings 12,746,663 12,746,663 13,065,330 13,065,330 13,391,963 13,391,963 13,726,762 13,726,762
Employer cost -0- 0 -0- 0 -0- 0 -0- 2,092,096
Members pick-up 1,089,840 1,089,840 1,117,086 1,117,086 1,145,013 1,145,013 1,173,638 1,173,638
Total PERS cost 1,089,840 1,089,840 1,117,086 1,117,086 1,145,013 1,145,013 1,173,638 3,265,734
Estimated PERS rates based on information from PERS actuarial.
Members earnings include a 2% annual COLA 2000-01, a 2% equity increase in July 2001,
a 2% COLA increase January 2002 and an annual 2.5% COLA thereafter.
Members earnings for Management includes an annual 2.5 % COLA each year.
PERS employer rate is projected to increase to 15.241% in FY 2006-07.
An estimated additional member earnings of $536,000 has been included in FY 2002-03 and
FY 2002-03 to staff two new planned Fire Stations.
P:\PAYROLL~PERS F & P.wb3 06/06/00
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
General Fund - PERS Analysis
Police Safety 3% ~ 50
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
Actual Budget Estimates Estimates Estimates
2% @ 50 2% @ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 50 2% @ 50 3%.@ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 50
PERS rates 14.791% 6.173% 2.414% 15.135% 2.414% 15.135% 2.414% 15.135%
Member earnings 16,701,204 17,430,258 18,557,846 18,557,846 19,592,446 19,592,446 20,684,725 20,684,725
Employer cost 2,429,935 1,161,204 447,986 2,808,730 472,962 2,965,317 499,329 3,130,633
Members pick-up 1,221,010 1,260,779 1,345,444 1,345,444 1,420,452 1,420,452 1,499,643 1,499,643
Total PERS cost 3,650,945 2,421,983 1,793,430 4,154,174 1,893,414 4,385,769 1,998,972 4,630,276
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Estimates Estimates Estimates Estimates
2% @ 50 3% @ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 50
PERS rates 2.414% 15.135% 2.414% 15.135% 2.414% 15.135% 2.414% 15.135%
Member earnings 21,837,898 21,837,898 23,055,361 23,055,361 24,340,697 24,340,697 25,697,691 25,697,691
Employer cost 527,167 3,305,166 556,556 3,489,429 587,584 3,683,965 620,342 3,889,346
Members pick-up 1,583,248 1,583,248 1,671,514 1,671,514 1,764,701 1,764,701 1,863,083 1,863,083
Total PERS cost 2,110,414 4,888,414 2,228,070 5,160,943 2,352,285 5,448,665 2,483,425 5,752,428
Estimated PERS rates based on information from PERS actuarial.
Member earnings estimates are based on a 2.5% annual COLA and a 3% annual increase in workforce.
P:~PAYROLL~PERS F & P.wb3 06/06100
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
General Fund - PERS Analysis
Police Safety 3% @ 55
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
Actual Budget Estimates Estimates Estimates
2% @.,.,~'~ 2% @ 50 2% @ 50 3% @ 55 2% ~'~ 50 3% @ 55 2% @ 50 3% @ 55
PERS rates 14.791% 6.173% 2.414% 8.588% 2.414% 8.588% 2.414% 8.588%
Member earnings 16,701,204 17,430,258 18,557,846 18,557,846 19,592,446 19,592,446 20,684,725 20,684,725
Employer cost 2,429,935 1,161,204 447,986 1,593,748 472,962 1,682,599 499,329 1,776,404
Members pick-up 1,221,010 1,260,779 1,345,444 1,345,444 1,420,452 1,420,452 1,499,643 1,499,643
Total PERS cost 3,650,945 2,421,983 1,793,430 2,939,192 1,893,414 3,103,052 1,998,972 3,276,047
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Estimates Estimates Estimates Estimates
2% @ 50 3% @ 55 2% @ 50 3% @ 55 2% @ 50 3% @ 55 2% @ 50 3% @ 55
PERS rates 2.414% 8.588% 2.414% 8.588% 2.414% 8.588% 2.414% 8.588%
Member earnings 21,837,898 21,837,898 .23,055,361 23,055,361 24,340,697 24,340,697 25,697,691 25,697,691
Employer cost 527,167 1,875,439 556,556 1,979,994 587,584 2,090,379 620,342 2,206,918
Members pick-up 1,583,248 1,583,248 1,671,514 1,671,514 1,764,701 1,764,701 1,863,083 1,863,083
Total PERS cost 2,110,414 3,458,686 2,228,070 3,651,508 2,352,285 3,855,080 2,483,425 4,070,000
Estimated PERS rates based on information from PERS actuarial.
Member earnings estimates are based on a 2.5% annual COLA and a 3% annual increase in workforce.
P:~PAYROLL~PERS F & P.wb3 06/06/00
PROJECTED ANNUAL ADDITIONAL CITY COSTS FOR PERS 3% AT 50 AND ~55
3% AT 50
00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
FIRE $1,347,441 $1,387,864 $1,489,582 $1,593,843 $1,633,689 $2,394,751 $2,454,620
POLICE $2,360,744 $2,492,355 $2,631,304 $2,777,999 $2,932,873 $3,096,381 $3,269,004
Total $3,708,185. $3,880,219 $4,120,886 $4,371.,842 $4,566,562 $5,491,!32 $5,723,624
3% AT 55
00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
FIRE $-0- $-0- $-0- $-0- $-0- $-0- $2,092,096
POLICE $1,145,762 $1,209,637 $1,277,075 $1,348,272 $1~423,438 $1,502,795 $1,586,576
Total $1,145,762 $1,209,637 $1,277,075 $1,348,272 $1,423,438 $1,502,795 . $3,678,672
616100
P:~ERS3%dollars.wpd
M EMORANDUM
August 8, 2000
To: Councilmember Maggard
Chairperson, Personnel Committee
From: Bill Descary, City Treasurer
Subject: Management Salary Survey
I am writing in response to the discussion of the Management Salary Survey at the
Personnel Committee meeting on August 3, 2000. The survey was originally proposed as
the remedy for those eighteen management positions that did not receive the five percent
salary increase in July 1999. The survey was designed to compare salaries for
comparable positions in the ten survey cities. The guidelines for the survey were that no
one's pay would be cut and no one would be y-rated A committee of three was formed
to represent the eighteen positions. Employees were encouraged to participate by
providing information concerning their job duties. Another opportunity to participate
occurred when the results were available and employees were encouraged to review and
comment on the results.
My perception is that some of the employees who are dissatisfied with the results of the
study did not fully participate in the process. Some of the group felt that a five percent
increase was warranted regardless of the survey results. In the beginning of the survey
process, it was discussed that the results may not provide data to substantiate pay
increases for every position. The survey clearly revealed that several positions were
considerably below the pay levels of comparable positions in other cities.
The analysis revealed, after a seven percent cost of living adjustment, the City Treasurer
position is 8.2% below comparable positions in other cities. This finding is not surprising
to me because of discussions concerning benefits with my colleagues in other cities over
the past few years and job announcements fi.om cities and agencies that are periodically
received. Survey results also support increases for six other positions after the cost of
living adjustment.
I respectfully ask the committee to give consideration to implementing the results of the
study thereby completing the remedy that was undertaken.
cc: Committee Member Carson
Committee Member Salvaggio
~Alan Tandy, CitY Manager
Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director
Carroll Hayden, Human Resources Manager