CR 96-11 Approval Pay Equity Implimentation Report• January 9, 1996
APPROVAL OF THE PAY EQUITY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that the Hopkins City Council approve, and
authorize the Mayor to sign. the attached Pay Equity Implementation Report .
Adoption of this motion will allow the City to submit its Pay Equity Implementation Report as required
by state law.
Overview.
In 1984 the. Minnesota Legislature passed a "Comparable Worth" law. The purpose of this law was to
reduce the perceived wage disparity between government jobs held largely by males and those
predominantly held by females. Each local government jurisdiction must periodically submit a Pay Equity
Implementation Report, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 471.9981, to determine whether it is
in compliance with the law. The City of Hopkins is required to submit a report to the Department of
Employee Relations (DOER) by January 31, 1996. The report must be based on the City's payroll as of
December 31, 1995.
• Attached is a copy of the report that the City must send to DOER.
Primary Issues to Consider.
• Is the City in compliance with the comparable worth law?
• Has the City submitted reports to DOER in the past?
• What are the City's options if the City is found to be out of compliance with the law?
Supporting Information.
• Pay Equity Implementation Report
• Comparable Worth chronology
'Cs A. Genellie
Assistant City Manager
1:32.
Report #96 -11
• Council Report #96 -11
Page 2
Analysis of the Issues
• Is the City in compliance with the comparable worth law?
The City has a copy of the computer program that DOER uses to determine compliance with the
law. Based upon this program, the City should be found in compliance with the law.
• Has the City submitted reports to DOER in the past?
The City last submitted a report in 1993. It was found to be in compliance with the law at that
time.
• What are the City's options if the City is found to be out of compliance with the law?
If the City is found to be in compliance no further steps will be necessary at this time. If the City
is found to be out of compliance it can take the following actions:
1) Make the necessary salary adjustments to come into compliance. DOER will probably
suggest some actions that the City can take in order to come into compliance. These actions may
be easy and inexpensive. Or they may require significant salary increases as well as the approval
of one or more bargaining units.
2) Request reconsideration. If the City disagrees with DOER's compliance decision it may
request reconsideration of the decision. The City can claim that any inequities that exist are not
gender based but are caused by such factors as: recruitment and retention difficulties or recent
arbitration decisions. If DOER agrees with the City it would reverse its decision.
3) Initiate a court challenge. If the City disagrees with DOER's compliance decision it can
request a hearing before an administrative law judge.
Alternatives:
The City has no alternative at this time except to submit the report.
g
0
u e
a
o
'+ c
4.o
to
a
Name of Jurisdiction
City of Hopkins
Ca City ❑ County ❑ School ❑ Other:
Address
1010 First St. S.
Ci ty
Honkins
State
NN
Zip
55343
Contact Person
Jim Cenellie
Phone
( 612 1 939 -1331
o
a
w
to
0
w
p
m
Y
to
O.
Q The job evaluation system used measured skill, effort,
responsibility and working conditions and the same
system was used for all classes of employees.
Check the system used:
❑ State Job Match
❑ Designed Own (specify)
0 No salary ranges /performance differences.
❑ Check here if both of the following apply; otherwise, leave
blank.
a. Jurisdiction does not have a salary range for any job
class.
b. Upon request, jurisdiction will supply documentation
showing that inequities between male and female
classes are due to performance differences.
Note: Do not include any documentation regarding
performance with tits form.
Q An official notice has been posted at
Hopkins City Hall, 1010 first St. S.
ZE Consultant's System (specify)
HRFocus
❑ Other (specify)
0 Health insurance benefits for male and female classes
of comparable value have been evaluated and:
❑ There is no difference and female classes are not
at a disadvantage.
0 There is a difference and the maximum salaries
reported include the monthly amount paid by the
employer for health insurance.
o Information in this report is complete and accurate.
Q The report includes all classes of employees over
which the jurisdiction has final budgetary approval
authority.
(prominent location)
informing employees that the Pay Equity Implementation
Report has been filed and is available to employees upon
request. A copy of the notice has been sent to each exclusive
representative, if any, and also to the public library. The report
was approved by:
Hopkins City Council
(4wernirloody)
Charles D. Redepenning
(chief elected official, print)
chief elected official, signature)
/1a or 1/17/96
rtitle) (date)
at to-
d a a n
O C F
Result from Salary Range Worksheet
96 % is the result of average years to salary range maximum for male classes divided by the
average years to salary range maximum for female classes.
• c L
ti • e E
a.' — e L
4:3:
Results from Exceptional Service Pay Worksheet
® 20% or less of male classes receive ESP.
9:o is the result of the percentage of female classes receiving ESP divided by the
percentage
of male classes receiving ESP.
t 15 o
6 a.
$ 3,709,000 is the annual payroll for the calendar year just ended December 31.
-
Send completed report to:
Pay Equity Coordinator
Department of Employee Relations
• 200 Centennial Building
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55155 -1603
Pay Equity Implementation Report
(612) 296 -2653 (Voice)
(612) 297 -2003 (TDD
•
On
)
\\
\ % )
/
00
0
oo
oo
op
CV
kit
en
col
CV
CV
Itn
ten
)
CV
00
CV
Ine
oo
era
00
CV
00
in
CV
CO
/
00
frs
en
5
0
CV
0
CV
/
00
CI
CO
DO
cv
en
Gre
}
)
§
\ /
0
PN
\
0'
•
0
m
CO
U
W
a
C7
E
Q
8
11 w L
> O
3t 00
O
H
cc
U
00
e
O
U
00
0
4,
M
49
O
00
O
00
49
r
49
N
O
N
00
49
a
49
ke
0
V
00
0
4,
..
4
O
00
0
00
N
h
49
,..
chi
49
00
w
0
A
U
0)
.
G 0
0
g
c 0
N� W 00
M
00
M
eer
N
49
b
69
0
0
O
CO
M
N
Cel
49
b
69
O
q
3
M
P
69
N
N
49
t-.
CO
CO
en
49
T
oo
N
Ni
0
O
CO
GO
49
ON
CO
N
49
N
C0
N
N
00
O
00
4)
0
oo
sec
N
49
c
O
00 - O(4 N m 7 N r4 N 00 T
N N N N N N N N N N
00
00 0 0
M M M
69 69 69
ON ON ON
00 00 00
N
N N N
69 Vi 69
00
N
O
00
0
r`
0
CO
0
00
0
'Cr
O '. N
M M M
0
U
b
x
ti
Q
4. V
O y 0
a 0 0
z w W
u. y
o v
R o
zz • w
3)
0
03
0
00
0 0
47
6
0
W
64
00
0
8
0
0
z
CO
0
O
4
00
CO
69
0 W
0
0
r
r
4
N
00
en
64
6 00
0
v
0
00
CO
4
H
64
W
0
0
co co
Y y
v
4 N
0 Q
0
ti
69
01
0
Vl
0
00 CO
0 0
69 64
.
en
69
T
0
0
00
b
69
CV
69
0
0
0
00
CO
4
.
69
0
T
0
0
M
C
69
O
0
C
0t
0
0
O
0 0
6
Y3
O
0
O
•
CV
4
M
rn
rn
44
O
0
0
0
N
O
N
00
V3
O
0
0
0
en
69
O
0
0
N
00
69
M
0
U
0
O
00
6
69
N
0
cen
69
0
N
0
G
0
M M M m M m M Q V O V V' 0 0 0
R
Comparable Worth Chronology
1984 Comparable Worth law passed by Minnesota Legislature.
11/84 Metropolitan Area Management Association (MAMA) selects Control Data
Business Advisors to perform a job analysis and evaluation study. Eventually 134
local jurisdictions will join in the study.
1/15/85 Hopkins City Council authorizes the city's participation in the Control Data study.
6/86 Control Data study Final Report.
1985 -87 City employees complete questionnaires, time spent profiles are produced, and
points are assigned to city positions.
1/1/87 First comparable worth adjustment made to an employee's salary.
4/87 Arthur Young salary plan study begun.
10/87 Arthur Young study completed. Study suggests salary ranges for all positions.
1/1/88 Pay ranges implemented for Non -Union and HMEA employees.
3/25/88 Pay Equity report submitted to the state.
11/7/88 Arbitration Hearing - Attempt by City to reduce salary increase for police officers
in order to comply with comparable worth.
1/1/89 Pay range agreed to by Dispatchers/PSO union
3/28/89 City loses arbitration with police officers.
Spring, 1990 Software made available by the Department of Employee Relations (DOER)
which, using regression analysis, will produce a "scattergram ". These
"scattergrams" will be reviewed by DOER to determine whether jurisdictions are in
compliance
Summer, 1990 City of Hopkins informally submits its "scattergram" to DOER along with the
"scattergrams" of several other cities. DOER determines that the "scattergram"
representing the City of Hopkins appears to be in compliance with the pay equity
law.
10/14/91 Rules published by DOER outlining a new computer program for determining
• compliance.
11/91 City submits preliminary evaluation report to DOER.
12/22/91 Report received back from DOER indicating that the City is "not in compliance"
based upon the new software program.
1/13/92 Instructions and forms for submitting final Pay Equity Implementation Report
received from DOER.
1/27/92 Pay Equity Implementation Report submitted to DOER.
4/92 City receives Pay Equity software from DOER.
11/1/92 DOER sends form to City requesting double check of City data.
11/5/92 Form returned to DOER indicating that 1991 data is correct but pointing out that
changes in classes and salaries, which occurred in 1992, should be considered
when determining compliance.
2/16/93 Letter received from DOER indicating that Hopkins is not in compliance.
6/30/93 City submits a revised Report to DOER.
10/16/93 DOER determines that the City is in compliance with the law.