Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1980-10342 H.CV.J...i::It:.::U .LL./.LL./OU RESOLUTION NO. 10342 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 10182 RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CLASSIFICATIONS REPRESENTED BY THE CHULA VISTA EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, when the Arthur Young & Company report on the classification and salary study was submitted, certain classifications were omitted and appeals were made in some circumstances from the recommendations of certain classifications as recommended by Arthur Young & Company, and WHEREAS, the Personnel Department has analyzed the omissions from the recommendations of the Arthur Young & Company report and makes the following recommendations: CURRENT SALARY RECOMMENDED MONTHLY SURVEY RANGE & SALARY CLASSIFICATION SALARY MEDIAN EFFECTIVE 12-12-80 Administrative Aid $1230 * 30.8 $1331 (+8%) Bldg./Housing Inspector I 1261 * 30.7 1324 (+5%) Computer programmer/Operator 1261 * 32.8 1466 (+15.5%)1 Junior Planner 1571 N/A Delete Classification Kennel Attendant 1117 1096 27.2 1117 (No Change) Landscape Planner 2054 2131 39.7 2054 (No Change) Senior Maintenance Gardener 1292 N/A Delete Classification Traffic Devices Helper 1324 N/A 30.7 1324 (No Change) Youth Counselor 1731 1724 36.2 1731 (No Change) Zoning Enforcement Officer2 1571 1620 34.8 1618 (+3%) *Internal alignment factors analyzed for recommendation lRetroactive to 7~1-80 2position is also scheduled for reclassification review in 4-6 months WHEREAS, the Personnel Department has analyzed the appeals from the recommendations of the Arthur Young & Company report and makes the following recommendations: ARTHUR YOUNG RECOMMENDATION FINAL APPEAL RECOMMENDATION CLASSIFICATION Secretary II City Attorney's Office Secretary II Legal Secretary (Increase 10.3%) Secretary II Planning Department Secretary II Secretary II (No Change) Clerk III Police Department Clerk II Clerk II (No Change) -1- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that in accordance with the recommendations of the Personnel Department, Resolution No. 10182 is hereby amended to reflect those changes as indicated hereinabove. Approved as to form by ~ Director George D. ADOPTED AND APPROVED by VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 9th day following vote, to-wit: the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA of December , 1980 , by the AYES: Councilmen Cox, McCandliss, Scott, Gillow, Hyde NAYES: Councilmen None ABSENT: Councilmen None f) &.J ~ --rIM ,~ <9~~ /1 Mayor of the City of Chula Vista ATT;-S~/1t/'/ / t!.LCYilt/d-dd / V City Clerk tf STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I, , City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 10342 , and that the same has not been amended or repealed. DATED Ci ty Clerk /6'312 -2- -' , ,. +/~ '11. -tLry EXHIBIT "A" DATE: September 19, 1980 . r TO: Gene Asmus () Signe Thor~~/ Follow-up to Arthur Young Study - Positions in Series FROI~: RE: On 8-4-80, I forwarded a memo outlining my work program in the Arthur Young .follow-up. We had agreed on a September completion date for recommendations on positions in series which were unfilled at the time of the study. These positions did not require a salary survey since Arthur Young had made recom- mendations on other positions in the same job families. My recommendations on each of the positions follow. Administrative Aide RECOI'li'IENDATION: Set salary at range 30.8 ($1094-$1331) The consultants have recommended a salary spread of 15% between each of the administrative analyst classifications. Their recomm~ndation is based on the increasing levels of responsibility and project difficulty involved in each of the different classifications studied. Since there was no in- cumbent in the Administrative Aide class at the time of the study, the consultants did not make any recommendation. After review of the class specifications, the difference in levels between the Aide and Administrative Analyst I appears similar to the differences between the other levels. Therefore, the 8% increase is recommended to maintain a constant salary spread. Building/Housing Inspector I RECOI,1[,IENDATION: Set salary at range 30.7 ($1089-$1324) Prior to the Arthur Young study, there was.a salary spread between Building/ Housing Inspector I and Building Inspector II of 37.5%. The spread was based on the substantiaf increase in responsibility for duties performed by the II level. The current requirements for the Building/Housing Inspector I include two years of schooling in the area of construction or housing technology. Progression to the Building Inspector II level, however, requires education plus four years of experi ence in the fi e 1 d and certifi cat i on by the Inter- national Conference of Building Officials or registration as a Construction Inspector by the State of California. In addition, while the I level works under "general supervision," indicating that methods of performing tasks are explained in general terms and work is reviewed upon completion, the II works under "direction,"indicilting that the methods of perfm'ming tasks are left to the judgement of the employee. These differences existed in the pre-Arthur Young classification plan and since they have not been modified, the previous sal ary spread is still appropriate. Therefore, it is recommended that the spread be reduced from its current 42.5% to 37.5%. 10 3'12 : , .:-~ -2- Helder I RECor.1I1ENDATION: Set salary range at 30.3 ($1068-$1299) Based on a salary surlley, Arthur Young found that the salary paid to our Welder II position was accurate within \%, therefore, they recommended an increase of this amount. To maintain the salary differential of 20%, it is recommended tha t the \Je 1 der I class i fi cat i on be increased \%. The 20% adequately compensates for the additional experience requirement of four years before being qualified for Helder II. Personnel Assistant RECOi.1I.1ENDATION: 1) 'Change title to Principal Personnel Analyst 2) Set salary range at 42.8 ($1965-$2390) The personnel series is a specialization of the administrative analyst series. After working in the classifications of Administrative Aide and Administrative Analyst I, an individual can choose to specialize and move to the next highest level which is Personnel Analyst (equivalent in salary and responsibility to Administrative Analyst II). Because of the specialized nature of the Personnel Analyst and its widespread use in local government, this classifica- tion was used as a benchmark for establishing the salary for both the administrative and personnel series. The Personnel Assistant classification has not been used for over two years. As a result, the 'tit1e of the position was not changed when the title of Administrative Assistant was changed to Principal Administrative Analyst. This title change was made simply to brin9 our titles closer in line with titles used elsewhere in the state. It also clarified the title since the term "Principal" is more universally understood than "Assistant" in these job families. In order to make the tie-in between the two series more apparent, and to ~ore accurately define the level of responsibility of the specialized classification, it is recommended that the title be changed to Principal Personnel Analyst. As was mentioned above, the consultants recommended a 15% salary spread betvleen the varying 1eve'ls of analyst positions. The appropriateness of this spread was determined for the personnel series as well as the adminis- trative series. Since the top of the personnel ladder 0as vacant at the time of the study, no recommendation was made. It is appropriate to increase the salary of this position to maintain the. 15% spread. Juni 0)' Pl anner RECOMMENDATION: Delete classification In conversation with the Planning Director, it was determined that the classification of Junior Planner is bbsolete and should be deleted from the classification plan. ! () 3ti 2-- ." -' .' .. -3- Traffic Devices Helper RECOi.1I.JEIIDATION: Leave salary at range 30.7 ($1089-$1324) Traffic Devices Technician was used as a benchmark in the Arthur Young study and it l'las determined that the City's salary for the position \'ias appropriate. (In fact, this is one position which the City compensates above the median of the maximums.) There is a spread between the Traffic Devices Technician and the Traffic Devices Helper of 32.5%. This reflects the fact that the Helper does unskilled work under "immediate supervision," and only some course work in electl'onics is required. The Technician does skilled work under "direction" and requires three years of experience in signal maintenance. Thus, the spread seems appropriate and should be maintained. Senior Maintenance Gardener RECOI.!i.jENDATIOI'I: Delete classification During the Arthur Young study, an additional level of Maintenance Gardener was established - Maintenance Gardener III. This classification is similar to the old Sr. Maintenance Gardener classification in respect to the lead capacity of the individual filTing the position. The main difference is that the skill level of the individual is more important than the lead capacity and is actually the major distinguishing characteristic. r~aintaining a senior level position in addition to the Maintenance Gardener III would seri- ously compact the salary differential between the Maintenance Gardener III and the Park Maintenance Supervisor I. For this reason, and because it is felt that the Senior Maintenance Gardener position is no longer necessary, it is recommended that the classification be deleted. The Director of Parks and Recreation concurs with this recommendation. Computer Programmer/Operator RECO:.lt.JEIIDATIOil: Set salary at range 32.8 ($1207-$1466) Computer Programmer and Computer Operator were used as benchmarks in the Arthur Young salal'Y survey. Computer Operator was increased by 15.5% and Computer Progl'ammer by 13.5~G. A review of the class specifications for these positions indicates that the Computer Progl'anllner/Operator is closer to the Computer Operator in duties than the Computer Programmer. It is felt that the salal'y for this position should therefore be pegged closer to the Computel' Operator while giving recognition to the increased difficulty of tasks. Prior to the consultants' l'lork, the salary spread was 12.5% betl-Ieen the Computer Operator and the Computer Programmer/Operator and 22.5% between the Computer Programmer/Operator and Computer Pro9rammer. It is recommenclecl that this appl'oximate spreacl shoulcl be maintainecl. The recom- menda t i on of 32.8 I-Ii 11 reduce the d i ffel'ence be t\-Ieen Computer Progl'ammer / Operator ancl Computer Programmer by 2~G, vthile maintaining the 12.5% differential between the Computer Operator ancl Computer Progranner/Operator. I {) 31 z , .' '. -4- With the exception of Computer Programmer/Operator, none of the classifications above are in use. The incumbent in the Computer Programmer/Operator classification was hired on 5-7-30. In regard to implementation, it is recommended that: I. The salary range changes should become effectiv~ following approval by the City Council, on 12-12-30. Resolutions amending the salary plans for middle management employees and classifications represented by CVEA are attached for this purpose. 2. The salary recommendation for Computer Programmer/Operator should be made retroactive to 5-7-80, since no alternate recommendation was made by the consultants, and the current incumbent should receive the increase without the requirement of competitive examination. This action would be in accord with the implemen- tation steps take'n at the time the total study was adopted. This memo will be supplemented by a report on the other omitted classifications excluding those requiring a management audit. SAT/bb /63 c; ~ ._\,' DATE: November 18, 1980 -#--)3 EXHIBIT -#- <=>; <( B " TO: Gene Asmus FROM: Signe Thors RE: - Except those reI ated to management audits Several of our classifications were not reviewed by Arthur Young & Co. when they submitted their final report in May of this year. On 9-19-80, 1 forwarded to you my recommendations on eight of the omitted classes, and this memo covers my recommendations on the final appeals and all the other omitted classifications except those that will require a management audit prior to classification work. As you are aware, the department conducted a salary survey (Attachment "A") of 28 California cities to gather information on several of the classifications not addressed by the Arthur Young study. We received responses from 22 of the surveyed cities, and from this information compiled lists of comparable classes and computed "medians of the maximums." A summary of the results is included as Attachment "B" to this report. (The original documents are available in the Personnel Department.) FINAL THREE APPEALS CLERK II, Police Department - Frances Stringer This appeal concerned Ms. Stringer's opinion that her position should be classified as an Administrative Clerk as opposed to a Clerk II. The issue had been reviewed by the Arthur Young consultants prior to publication of the final report. They supported their original classification decision since the position in question has duties and responsibilities that meet the specification for Clerk II: varied clerical and office work of above-average difficulty, including payroll respon- sibilities. An interview was conducted with Ms. Stringer regarding her position and a thorough analysis was made of all the job duties she currently performs. Her major duties are complex but routine, and include: reporting of records kept on staff time, vehicle use, and payroll, and liaison with the Personnel Department. These reporting functions are done on a regular schedule. She also prepares a few special reports for the department and these were analyzed for complexity and para- professional components. Based on the analysis and follow-up questions of Ms. Stringer, I determined that only a very small portion of her work can be considered para-professional. This work includes the special time studies mentioned above and the computation of possible sick leave payback she computes each year for the department's budget prepuration. The maximum amount of time spent on these activities, hOl,ever, is approximately eight hours yearly. This amount is not adequate to justify making this position an Administrative Clerk, a classification which requires a substuntial amount of para-professional work. It should be noted that the Administrative Clerk can also be characterized by the fact that the position assumes ovel'all responsibility for the clerical functions of an office. Ms. Stringer has responsibility for payroll, but this is only one aspect of the police business office operation. loi1v -2- A description of the position in question was developed for the salary sur- vey. The results indicated that few cities have a position comparable to this one. Several cities listed positions as comparable (Police Aide, Police Sec- retary, Police Services Aide, Secretary), which actually have additional secretarial, custodial or field duties, making them not comparable. The median of the maximums for the five cities that did have comparable positions was $1026 per month. This figure is very close to the Chula Vista current Clel'k II salary of $1012. Based on the considerations above, 1) that the job duties are more closely related to those of a Clerk II than Administrative Clerk, and 2) that the salary sUl'vey shows Chula Vista's salary to be competitive for this position, it is my recommendation that this final appeal be denied and that the position filled by r'ls. Stringer in the Police Department remain as a Clerk II, as recommended by Arthur Young & Co. NOTE: The administrative staff in the Police Department still feels strongly that Ms. Stringer's classification should be changed to Administrative Clerk. They base this on their observation that her job duties and responsibilities far outweigh those of the other Clerk II's in the department. This observa- tion cannot be disputed. However, within any classification there is a broad range of duties that can be performed at different levels of competence. ~ls. Stringer is a very competent employee, thus her performance is at the high end of the scale for Clerk II. Her duties are not, however, at the level which would place her classification at the next higher level which is differentiated by the requirement to perform para-professional duties or be the person solely in charge of clerical functioning for the unit. Based on these classification criteria, it is impossible to justify upgrading r'ls. Stringer at this time. SECRETARY II, City Attorney's Office - Jana Seeqrist r.1s. Seegrist and the City Attorney had appealed the original recommendation of the consultant that this position should be classified as a Secretary II. Upon re-examination, the consultants concluded that the proper classification for this position is Legal Secretary. At the time City Council was adopting the final report, they directed that this position be restudied by Personnel to determine proper classification and pay. Based on the classification questionnaire and jnterviews with the Assistant City Attorney and the incumbent, it was clearly apparent that the job duties performed by Ms. Seegrist are those of a legal secretary. All of the job duties as listed by the incumbent and verified by the City Attorney are those typically done by a legal secretary as substantiated by the different city's class specifications which were sent back with the survey question- naires. Sixteen of the 22 responding cities reported that they employed one or more legal secretaries. Two of the cities had not yet approved salary increases for 1980-81 and were, therefore, dropped from the survey. A "median of the maximums" figure was calculated for the remaining fourteen agencies. This figure was $1416 per month. b"'?'-I "Z Under the City's current structure, the Secretary to the City Attorney has a maximum salary of $1357 per month, \vhich is $40 per month less than the survey figure for legal secretary. Many of the comparison cities had larger attorney offices than Chula Vista, including San Diego, Richmond, Santa Monica and others. These cities also reported the higher salaries for their legal secretaries. ". -3- ny recor.lI11endation, based on maintaining the current structure for the secretarial classes in the City, is to reclassify the second clerical position in the City Attorney's Office to Legal Secretary and set the salary at Range 31.2 ($1117-$1357), the range applied to the classifica- tion of Secretary to the City Attorney. This recommendation has been proposed to City Attorney's Office staff and they concur. SECRETARY II, Planning Department - Helen Mapes I~s. I~apes al so has appealed the recommendation of Arthur Young & Co., stating that she feels her classification is more properly that of an Administrative Secretary than Secretary II. I have interviewed the Plan- ning Director, Jim Peterson, and Helen Mapes, as well as comparing her job duties to those of the other Administrative Secretaries in the City. It is clear from the outset that the secretary in the Planning Department does not work for an administrative official who has responsibility over more than one department; a requirement for the classification of Administrative Secretary. The effect of this multi-department requirement on the other Administrative Secretaries is that they have a role in coordinating the work of several departments and helping the administrator for whom they work monitor the budgets and work of the other departments. Ms. ~.lapes' position was analyzed to determine if she serves in this coordinating role because of her role with the Planning Commission. This question was thoroughly explored with Ms. Mapes and Mr. Peterson. It was Mr. Peterson's observation that Ms. Mapes does not have the responsibility for seeing that other de- partments submit material on time. On her own, she occasionally reminds other departments of actions which should be taken, but this is not an assigned duty and she is not held accountable for this function by her supervisor. The classification questionnaire was analyzed to determine if the job duties fit more closely into the classification of Secretary II or Administrative Secretary. When reviewing these distinctions one must remember that the Secretary II classification, like all other classifications, can have individ- uals performing few of the designated tasks at low levels or most of the designated tasks at high levels, without a sufficient change in duties to necessitate a different classification. Ms. Mapes is clearly one of those individuals I.,ho is performing at the higher level of Secretary II, but she does not perform several of the duties which should be performed by an Administrative Secretary. These include composing public hearing notices, reviewing documents for necessary signatures and attachments, receiving and resolving citizen complaints, monitoring external groups for compliance with contracts or assisting with budget preparation (beyond the responsibility for collecting background data). It should be noted that Ms. Mapes does resolve some citizen complaints when they are about public hearing notices or questions of departmental policy. This is not, however, a major function of the position. Many of the tasks which she performs are not required of her by the position, but she accepts on her own initiative, such as making recommendations on proper editing of staff reports and preparing resolutions fOl' the Planning Conllllission. The resolution preparation performed in the position .is of a repetitive nature and unique resolutions would be prepared by the professional s ta ff. () ? efz . , -4- '., It was a contention of the Planning Department that the position of Planning Commission secretary should be a separate classification, possibly unclassified. In the salary survey conducted, eighteen cities reported having a position performing the duties described in our questionnaire. Only two of these cities reported that the position was unclassified (San Diego County and Imperial Beach). Therefore, there was not adequate support for developing a separate classification. Since the position performing the commission duties varied from city to city, it was difficult to make a meaningful salary comparison separate from the original survey on Secretary II. It would appear that in order to maintain the integrity of our classification plan, Ms. Mapes' position should remain classified as a Secretary II. The justification for upgrading is insufficient even though Ms. Mapes is clearly an outstanding Secretary II. Therefore, it is my recommendation that this position remain as recommended by the Arthur Young study. NOTE: Following discussion with the incumbent and the director, it would appear that although they are not happy with the recommendation, they recognize the constraints in the system and understand the reasoning behind this recommendation. RECOi~MENDATIONS ON REi~AINING CLASSIFICATIONS The following eleven classifications were not addressed by Arthur Young & Co. because 1) they were vacant at the time of the study, 2) the consul- tants felt a management audit was necessary before a recommendation could be made, or 3) the incumbents did not submit a classification questionnaire. These classifications have been evaluated on the basis of internal alignment and salary survey data. In the majority of the cases, the Chula Vista cur- rent salary is close to or above the median of the maximums. In addition, in the majority of cases, the spread between the class being studied and those around it in the job family is appropriate. The individual recommendations follovl. Kennel Attendant - No Change We were able to find four comparable classifications for Kennel Attendant. The median of the maximums was $1096 per month. The Chula Vista current salary is $1117 per month, which is 1.9% above the median. The recommenda- tion is to leave this classification and salary as it is. Park Superintendent - No Change Twenty of the 22 cities responding to our survey indicated that they have a position comparable to our Park Superintendent. The median of the maximums for this group was $2350 per month, which is .8% higher than the $2332 per month in Chula Vista. It would appear that our salary is competitive for this position and no change is recommended. ) 0 ~C/ ? -5- ;" .'. PrincipBl Librarian - No Change (Pen~~ng management audit) A position comparable to our Principal Librarian job specification was reported by fourteen cities. The job titles designated as comparable indicate that there may be some differences beyond the core duties of a Principal Librarian, making a salary comparison difficult without further investigation. Based on the information at hand, however, it would appear that the Chula Vista salary is 6.6% lower than the median of the maximums for the classes reported. Recreation Superintendent - Increase Salary 4.5% to Range 42.0 ($1891-$2298) Eighteen cities reported a position comparable to our Recreation Superintendent. The median of the maximums for these classifications was $2301 per month, which is4.5%above the maximum salary for this position in Chula Vista. To bring this position into al ignment and partially compensate for the 9% increase awarded to the Senior Recreation Supervisor, it is recommended that the Recreation Super- intendent salary range be increased approximately 4.5% to Range 42.0. This increase will provide a 14% spread between Sr. Recreation Supervisor and Recreation Superintendent. It will allow up to a 30% spread between Recreation Superintendent and the Director of Parks & Recreation. Redevelopment Coordinator - No Change The Chula Vista current salary for Redevelopment Coordinator is $2520, which is .9% below the survey median of $2542. This position has previously been checked for internal consistency and the salary survey adds additional support to the current salary. No change is recommended. Youth Counselor - No Change There were four cities reporting a classification comparable to our Youth Counselor. The median of the maximums for these four cities was $1724 per month. Chula Vista's current salary is .4% above this figure, adding support to our current salary structure. No change is recommended. Zoning Enforcement Officer - Increase Salary 3% to Range 34.8 ($1331-$1618) Nine of the responding cities listed a classification comparable to Zoning Enforcement Officer. The median of the maximums for these classifications was $1620 per month. The Chula Vista salary of $1571 per month is approximately 3% belm., this figure. Based on the survey, it is recommended that the salary for Zoning Enforcement Officer be increased approximately 3% to Range 34.8 ($1331-$1618). This increase will have no significant impact on other classifica- tions in related jOb families. It is the intention of the Building & Housing Department, as well as the Personnel Department to do a reclassification analysis of this position in four to six months. If the duties of the current Zoning Enforcement Officer have been sufficiently expanded by that time, the position will be recommended for r~c~as- sification to Building/Housing Inspector II. This will offer greater fleXlblllty to the department, and be a promotion for the incumbent. At the present time, the incumbent is receiving more inspection assignments and is attending classes on building and electrical inspection. It is anticipated that his skill levels and assigned duties will be those of a Building/Housing Inspector II in another four to six months. lDW? " " -6- " Landscape Planner - No Change Of the 22 cities responding to the survey, only two had positions comparable to Landscape Planner. The median of the maximums was $2119, approximately 3% higher than the Chula Vista salary of $2054. In addition to salary, a major factor to be considered is the relationship between the classifications of Landscape Planner and Associate Planner. The Landscape Planner salary is currently 5% below that of Associate Planner. This difference is based on level of duties and responsibilities and minimum requirements. According to the Director of Planning, this is an appropriate spread. The importance of this internal consistency coupled with the lack of sufficient comparison data results in the recommendation of no change. Principal Community Development Specialist - No Change The Personnel Department has conducted several surveys on this classification in the past. We have not yet been able to find truly comparable positions. The same situation occurred in this survey. Only seven cities reported having a comparable position, but closer inspection of the job specifications forced us to eliminate five of those seven. Three of the classifications involved duties that were of a higher level than that proposed for our Principal Community Development Specialist. One had the duties of a Housing Inspector and two of the classifications were generalized (Senior Administrative Analyst and Administrative Assistant I). This left only one city, Ventura, with a potentially comparable classification entitled Assistant Redevelopment Administrator. Obviously, a survey of one questionable comparison is insuf- ficient to make a recommendation. Therefore, it is recommended that the Principal Community Development Specialist classification remain as it is based on internal salary plan integrity. Housing Coordinator - No Change In the salary survey, eight cities were determined to have comparable classifications. The median of the maximums for those eight'cities was $2254 per month. Chula Vista's current salary is $2400 per month, which is 6.1% over the survey figure. No change is recommended in this salary because of the special emphasis being placed on the position and the resulting higher level of responsibility in Chula Vista. If at anytime the emphasis on the housing coordinator role is reduced, it would be appropriate to consider reduction of the assigned salary range based on the survey information. In conjunction Ivith the memo submitted to you on 9-19-80, these recommendations complete the necessary follow-up work on the Arthur Young classification and sa 1 a ry study. All of the recommendat ions ha ve been revi ewed with the depart- ments in question and no objections other than those noted remain. If you agl"ee l'lith these recommendations, Ive \'li11 submit a SUll1mary of the changes to the City Council for amendment to the salary plan. The A-113s, su~naries and resolutions are attached for your use if you have no objections to the recoll1mendations. SAT/bb !D3Cf-z-