HomeMy WebLinkAboutFINAL 07252022 Classification & Comp Study Report - Hastings
Position Classification &
Compensation Study Report
City of Hastings, Minnesota
July 25, 2022 - Updated
2
July 25, 2022
City of Hastings
101 4th Street East
Hastings, MN 55033
Executive Summary
Abdo was contracted by the City of Hastings to provide an independent position classification and compensation study to
accomplish a variety of important strategic priorities, including job description review and updates, an analysis of the
current municipal compensation markets, a comparison of benefits offerings between municipalities, and a review of
current and potential Minnesota Pay Equity compliance requirements. The City last conducted a formal independent
position classification and compensation study many years ago and has experienced changes in its workforce and
operations, challenges finding and retaining skilled employees, and increased market competition for employees from
neighboring cities.
As part of our study, Abdo worked closely with the City to review updated position descriptions provided for each current
and proposed future position and conducted a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) review to support the overtime exemption
election for all applicable existing positions. FLSA testing checklists and results were provided to the City separate from
this report.
To achieve the objectives set forth in our project scope of work, we completed a scoring exercise using a model similar to
the State of Minnesota Hay Study. Using this model, each position was given a score in the following categories; Know-
How, Problem Solving, Accountability and Special Conditions. These categories are intended to measure and rank the
level of knowledge, skills, influence and impact on City operations for each position.
To complete the evaluation and scoring of Hastings positions, we reviewed the organizational structure, current job
descriptions and requested additional information and clarification from City leadership, as needed. Upon completing the
scoring of positions and conducting pay equity testing, our firm also completed a market wage analysis to compare the
City’s current wage scale, by position, to the comparable public employee wage market in Minnesota.
The market analysis consisted of analyzing salary data from comparable local governments in Minnesota by reviewing
municipal salary data published by the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) through their 2022 annual salary survey, utilizing
municipal wage data from the Economic Research Institute (ERI) database, and by directly soliciting wage data from
several municipalities that did not participate in the LMC survey.
The results of both the classification (position scoring) and compensation analysis follow.
Methodology
Historically, the City has primarily relied upon an internally developed step and grade compensation model for each
position and has performed its own informal compensation analysis on a regular basis to remain competitive. While
some positions may have been paid higher or lower than the predicted pay scale, the City has historically been in
compliance with the Minnesota Pay Equity Act, submitting its most recent reporting in 2020. The City will be required to
submit their next Pay Equity Report for 2023.
In recent years, the City has experienced a change in workforce and challenges finding skilled workers which have
impacted both the job duties and wage demands for many positions. Also, current market wage pressure and competitive
recruiting offers in many positions contributes toward an employee perception that the City may not be offering wages in
line with the comparable market. In light of these organizational changes and challenges, the City of Hastings determined
that a formal, independent, system-wide position reclassification and market wage analysis was necessary to assist
executive leadership in establishing a new, logical and justifiable employee wage and salary framework to build upon into
the future.
3
Scoring Analysis
This section reflects the review, analysis and scoring of all Hastings positions. To complete this task Abdo used updated
job description information for current positions, based on direction from the City. Our firm reviewed the job descriptions
and solicited necessary feedback from City representatives to gain the insight needed to accurately score each position.
Scoring was completed using a plan adapted from the State of Minnesota Hay Method. The model assigned each
position a score in the following categories (adapted from the State of Minnesota 2009 Hay Manual): Know-How, Problem
Solving, Accountability, and Special Conditions.
Know-How represents the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) an employee needs to be successful in a particular
job. The Hay Method places the greatest emphasis on Know-How. Know-How is defined as an expert skill,
information or body of knowledge that imparts an ability to cause a desired result. The Know-How category is the
most heavily weighted category. If a position is more easily learned, the position will point toward the lower end of
the scale.
Know-How category is further divided into three parts: Depth and Breadth of Job-Specific Knowledge (aka Technical
and Specialized Know-How and Job-Specific Knowledge); Integrating Know-How (aka Managerial Breadth or Know-
How); and Human Relation Skills (aka Human Relations Know-How). A number is assigned for total Know-How points
by making several separate choices for each of the three elements described and an overall assessment.
Job-Specific Knowledge includes the position’s requirements for knowledge and skills related to practices,
procedures, specialized techniques and professional disciplines. It also includes basic and job-specific
supervisory and managerial knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), when appropriate. This aspect of Know-How
does not make distinctions among differently sized managerial jobs nor does it include human relation skills. It is
important to remember that this element measures the requirements of the position, not the qualifications of an
incumbent.
Integrating Know-How considers the need to integrate and manage progressively more diverse functions and is
used to rank managerial breadth and scope, from similar to very different functions. When required, basic and
job-specific supervisory and managerial knowledge, skills and abilities are included in the Job-Specific part of a
Know-How rating. The overall size of an organization directly influences the number of managerial breath
categories, because the organizational size often reflects requirements for increased managerial complexity and
diversity.
Human Relation Skills is the third element of a job’s Know-How rating. It is the active, practicing interpersonal
skills typically required for productive working relationships to work with, or through, others inside and/or outside
of the organization to get work accomplished. It assumes that each job requires a foundation of basic human
relations skills. To be effective, an employee must typically be proficient at the highest level of Human Relations
Skill regularly required for the position.
Problem Solving is the process of working through details of a problem to reach a solution. Problem solving may
include mathematical or systematic operations and can be a gauge of an individual’s critical thinking skills. Problem
Solving measures the intensity of the mental process that uses Know-How to: (1) identify, (2) define, and (3) resolve
problems. It is a percentage of Know-How, reflecting the fact that “you think with what you know.” This is true of even
the most creative work. Ideas are put together from something already there. The raw material of any thinking is
knowledge of facts, principles and means.
Context includes the influences or environment that limit or guide decision-making such as rules, instructions,
procedures, standards, policies, principles from fields of science and academic disciplines. Positions are guided
by organizational, departmental or functional goals, policies, objectives and practices circumscribed by
procedures and instructions. In general, policies describe the “what” of a subject matter, procedures detail the
steps needed to follow through on a policy (i.e., how, where, when, by whom) and instructions outline the specific
aspects of how to perform the tasks, such as the operation of a machine or how to select the appropriate letters
to use in particular situations.
4
Thinking Challenge includes the nature of the problems encountered and the mental processes used to resolve
the problems. The scale ranges from simple problems to very complex issues, with the premise that simple
issues recur regularly in the same form and after a while are resolved by rote or instinct, but very difficult issues
require substantial thinking and deliberation. The types of situations encountered and the processes involved in
identifying, defining or resolving related problems are considered. Thinking Challenge reflects the degree of
difficulty in finding improvements and adapting to changes.
Accountability does not mean being responsible for getting one’s own work done. Rather, it reflects responsibility for
actions and their consequences and the measured effect of the job on end results for the organization.
Accountability includes three factors: Freedom to Act/Empowerment, Magnitude, and Job Impact.
Freedom to Act/Empowerment involves the degree of personal or procedural control or guidance exercised over
the position. For example, what constraints are put on an employee in this job? How closely supervised is the
position? What kinds of decisions are made higher up in the organization?
Magnitude is the portion of the total organization encompassed by the position’s primary purpose. It’s most
typically indicated by the general dollar size of the area(s) most directly affected by the job, i.e., the resources
over which the position has control or influence. A variety of factors are considered such as size of budget is
employee responsible for, what degree of influence is held and is this person a decision maker.
Job Impact is considered to be indirect (indirect or contributory) or direct and measurable (shared or primary). It
involves the way in which the position’s actions affect end results in the agency. For example, how does the
employee influence the business - directly or indirectly? Does the employee provide advisory or interpretive
services for others to use in making decisions? Is the job an information-recording one? Does it provide a
necessary service with a relatively small effect on the business of the agency? “Contributory” and “primary” are, by
far, the most frequently used options.”
Special Conditions consider the physical effort, environmental conditions, hazard exposure, and sensory attention
demands that an employee is commonly subject to in the position. For example, two positions may be assigned
identical points in all other areas but the position that is regularly required to work in extreme outdoor conditions (i.e.,
heat or extreme cold) would receive additional points for these factors.
The work associated with this scoring represents the primary work conducted for this assignment, which is to review
positions and functions and provide a consistent measurement and "scoring" of functions and responsibilities within the
municipality.
5
Findings and Recommendations
Position Points
Table 1 represents the total score assigned to each position based on the Methodology discussed.
Table 1: Position Classification and Point Assignment
Position Title Proposed Score
Building Services Worker 97
City Hall Receptionist 98
Property Room Technician 99
Administrative Assistant‐City Hall 104
Administrative Assistant‐Fire & EMS 104
Administrative Assistant‐Public Works‐Engineering 104
Administrative Assistant‐Public Works 104
Building Permit Technician 104
Police Administrative Specialist I 104
Police Administrative Specialist II 111
Community Services Officer 118
Light Equipment Operator 121
Parkkeeper II 121
Human Resources Technician 138
Senior Building Permit Technician 141
Heavy Equipment Operator 156
Heavy Equipment Operator‐Mechanic 166
Civic Arena Supervisor 171
Recreation Programming Specialist 172
Sports & Recreation Coordinator 172
Information Technology Support Specialist I 177
Code Enforcement Inspector 179
Maintenance III 181
Public Works Operator 181
Deputy City Clerk 184
Accountant I 194
Public Works Senior Operator 195
Building Inspector 196
Engineering Aide II 216
Information Technology Support Specialist II 216
Parkkeeper‐Forester 236
Staff Engineer 241
Fire Inspector 244
Firefighter 244
Accountant II 247
Police Administrative Services Manager 252
Parks & Recreation Operations Maintenance Supervisor 253
Public Works Maintenance Supervisor 253
Aquatic Center Manager 254
Civic Arena Manager 254
6
Market Analysis
This section documents a sample of the wages offered to the employees of comparable local governmental units in
Minnesota. The comparable government entities identified for this study were communities of comparable size,
complexity, geographic location, and proximity to the metro area, per existing City of Hastings Amending Resolution #12-
23-07 which states, “City of Hastings employee compensation schedule will be based upon a comparison of cities with
populations from 15,000 to 35,000 population in the seven-county Metro region and the Cities of Cannon Falls, Cottage
Grove, Northfield, and Red Wing.”
The City of Hastings is within 40 miles of both St. Paul and Minneapolis and in close proximity to many other large metro
cities. As a result, the City is actively competing for talented employees with these larger southeast metro communities.
The City should consider a competitive compensation scale to attract and retain qualified employees that have the
knowledge, skills and abilities to provide service levels expected within the community, particularly considering the current
labor market. These factors, coupled with the demand of specific technical and multi-faceted positions within the City,
have resulted in the recommendations provided in this survey.
Position Title Proposed Score
Fire Marshal 261
Facilities Manager 266
Fire Captain 271
Communications Coordinator 298
Police Officer 301
City Planner 302
Economic Development Coordinator 302
Principal Engineer 306
Assistant City Engineer 314
Assistant Finance Manager 314
Building Official 322
Information Technology Manager 330
Police Sergeant 336
Public Works Superintendent 351
City Engineer 396
Police Commander 399
Assistant Fire Chief 411
Deputy Police Chief 415
Community Development Director 468
Finance Manager 468
Parks & Recreation Director 468
Public Works Director 468
Fire Chief 486
Police Chief 486
Assistant City Administrator‐HR Director 504
City Administrator 736
7
The wages of the comparable positions for the municipalities listed in Table 2 were compared with those at the City of
Hastings. It should be noted that the governments listed do not always have the exact type or number of positions as
Hastings and, in these cases, assumptions about duties and levels of responsibilities were made based on job titles and
supervisory reporting information and were used to identify comparable positions.
Table 2 - Market Survey
The Market Survey lists government agencies that were included in standard demographics for at least one existing
position in the market analysis.
The market analysis has been adjusted to reflect comparable 2022 wages for the local governments analyzed. Results,
by individual position, of the market wage study is reflected in Table 3.
Market analysis for elected official compensation for 2021/2022 for local governments is provided in Table 4.
Andover Mower County*
Anoka New Hope
Bloomington Northfield
Champlin Oakdale
Chanhassen Prior Lake
Chaska Ramsey
Columbia Heights Red Wing
Cottage Grove Rosemount
Crystal Roseville
Farmington Savage
Forest Lake Shoreview
Fridley South St. Paul
Hopkins South Metro Fire Dept.
Inver Grove Heights Stillwater
Isanti County* West St. Paul
Maple Grove White Bear Lake
*Data only used for specific public works operators
Table 3 – 2022 Market Analysis
Accountant I 29.96$ 62,313.02$ 0.18$ 1% 38.00$ 79,038.11$ (0.33)$ ‐1%
Accountant II 34.59$ 71,937.60$ (3.39)$ ‐11% 43.82$ 91,145.60$ (4.81)$ ‐12%
Administrative Assistant‐City Hall 25.21$ 52,430.23$ 1.06$ 4% 31.43$ 65,374.40$ 1.40$ 4%
Administrative Assistant‐Fire & EMS 25.21$ 52,430.23$ 3.06$ 11% 31.43$ 65,374.40$ 3.90$ 11%
Administrative Assistant‐Public Works 25.21$ 52,430.23$ 1.06$ 4% 31.43$ 65,374.40$ 1.40$ 4%
Administrative Assistant‐Public Works‐Engineering 25.21$ 52,430.23$ 1.06$ 4% 31.43$ 65,374.40$ 1.40$ 4%
Aquatic Center Manager 37.07$ 77,115.05$ (1.45)$ ‐4% 46.91$ 97,567.13$ (2.38)$ ‐5%
Assistant City Administrator‐HR Director 54.32$ 112,988.25$ 0.07$ 0% 69.36$ 144,277.58$ (1.37)$ ‐2%
Assistant City Engineer 43.73$ 90,956.51$ (1.62)$ ‐4% 56.13$ 116,742.84$ (3.50)$ ‐7%
Assistant Finance Manager 44.72$ 93,007.20$ (8.37)$ ‐23% 55.16$ 114,739.73$ (9.73)$ ‐21%
Assistant Fire Chief 45.56$ 94,755.89$ (0.71)$ ‐2% 57.78$ 120,176.46$ (1.71)$ ‐3%
Building Inspector 32.79$ 68,200.08$ 0.97$ 3% 41.91$ 87,169.68$ 2.29$ 5%
Building Official 42.05$ 87,458.70$ (1.14)$ ‐3% 53.20$ 110,664.75$ (2.06)$ ‐4%
Building Permit Technician 24.77$ 51,530.51$ 1.50$ 6% 31.45$ 65,407.09$ 1.38$ 4%
Building Services Worker 22.35$ 46,492.16$ 4.52$ 17% 29.05$ 60,421.92$ (2.18)$ ‐8%
City Administrator 68.85$ 143,209.04$ (4.67)$ ‐7% 85.71$ 178,269.57$ (5.49)$ ‐7%
City Engineer 50.64$ 105,339.00$ (0.27)$ ‐1% 66.85$ 139,050.60$ (3.89)$ ‐6%
City Hall Receptionist 21.21$ 44,115.07$ 0.48$ 2% 26.91$ 55,964.13$ 0.20$ 1%
City Planner 38.88$ 80,874.07$ (9.65)$ ‐33% 49.63$ 103,230.40$ (4.67)$ ‐10%
Civic Arena Manager 37.89$ 78,808.89$ (2.27)$ ‐6% 47.47$ 98,746.84$ (2.94)$ ‐7%
Civic Arena Supervisor 30.23$ 62,885.06$ (3.96)$ ‐15% 39.89$ 82,975.36$ (7.06)$ ‐22%
Code Enforcement Inspector 29.52$ 61,401.60$ 0.44$ 1% 37.76$ 78,538.49$ (0.31)$ ‐1%
Communications Coordinator 35.75$ 74,353.93$ (3.31)$ ‐10% 43.83$ 91,172.38$ (3.28)$ ‐8%
Community Development Director 55.14$ 114,688.36$ (4.26)$ ‐8% 69.91$ 145,422.24$ (6.31)$ ‐10%
Community Services Officer 22.31$ 46,414.59$ 28.35$ 58,977.79$
Deputy City Clerk 28.60$ 59,477.60$ (1.34)$ ‐5% 36.47$ 75,857.60$ (2.40)$ ‐7%
Deputy Police Chief 52.13$ 108,430.40$ (1.76)$ ‐3% 66.38$ 138,062.08$ (3.42)$ ‐5%
Economic Development Coordinator 37.88$ 78,784.30$ (1.06)$ ‐3% 47.53$ 98,852.23$ (1.50)$ ‐3%
Engineering Aide II 33.55$ 69,792.91$ 2.13$ 6% 42.95$ 89,327.09$ (7.27)$ ‐20%
Facilities Manager 36.32$ 75,541.44$ (5.82)$ ‐19% 48.71$ 101,316.80$ (10.58)$ ‐28%
Finance Manager 55.61$ 115,662.56$ (4.73)$ ‐9% 70.74$ 147,132.96$ (7.14)$ ‐11%
Fire Captain 38.92$ 80,955.25$ 3.65$ 9% 48.58$ 101,049.09$ (3.07)$ ‐7%
Fire Chief 54.32$ 112,987.09$ 0.07$ 0% 70.38$ 146,387.43$ (2.39)$ ‐4%
Fire Inspector 31.74$ 66,014.00$ 1.29$ 4% 41.36$ 86,021.94$ (0.42)$ ‐1%
Fire Marshal 37.08$ 77,126.40$ (1.02)$ ‐3% 49.48$ 102,910.08$ (4.79)$ ‐11%
Firefighter 30.91$ 64,294.40$ (2.41)$ ‐8% 39.06$ 81,239.34$ (1.55)$ ‐4%
Heavy Equipment Operator 24.29$ 50,526.67$ 10.37$ 30% 32.80$ 68,213.60$ 1.86$ 5%
Heavy Equipment Operator‐Mechanic 28.53$ 59,335.47$ 6.54$ 19% 36.83$ 76,602.93$ (1.76)$ ‐5%
Human Resources Technician 28.62$ 59,535.54$ (1.36)$ ‐5% 36.05$ 74,975.09$ (1.98)$ ‐6%
Information Technology Manager 47.11$ 97,985.83$ (2.16)$ ‐5% 60.19$ 125,186.29$ (4.00)$ ‐7%
Information Technology Support Specialist I 26.65$ 55,421.60$ 2.20$ 8% 35.01$ 72,810.40$ 1.04$ 3%
Information Technology Support Specialist II 33.41$ 69,502.04$ (1.18)$ ‐4% 42.84$ 89,109.51$ (2.55)$ ‐6%
Light Equipment Operator 26.74$ 55,619.20$ 6.92$ 21% 34.53$ 71,818.93$ (0.87)$ ‐3%
Maintenance III 25.44$ 52,908.27$ 8.46$ 25% 33.06$ 68,757.87$ 0.84$ 2%
Parkkeeper II 25.97$ 54,013.14$ 8.22$ 24% 33.66$ 70,008.34$ 0.53$ 2%
Parkkeeper‐Forester 30.21$ 62,826.40$ 4.45$ 13% 38.19$ 79,435.20$ (3.54)$ ‐10%
Parks & Recreation Director 54.64$ 113,648.18$ (3.76)$ ‐7% 68.77$ 143,048.45$ (5.17)$ ‐8%
Parks & Recreation Operations Maintenance Supervisor 35.54$ 73,921.37$ (0.65)$ ‐2% 45.66$ 94,980.49$ (2.05)$ ‐5%
Police Administrative Services Manager 35.22$ 73,247.60$ (4.15)$ ‐13% 45.47$ 94,576.37$ (6.63)$ ‐17%
Police Administrative Specialist I 24.93$ 51,859.02$ (3.24)$ ‐15% 31.01$ 64,504.27$ (3.90)$ ‐14%
Police Administrative Specialist II 25.79$ 53,635.20$ 0.93$ 3% 32.49$ 67,584.00$ 0.91$ 3%
Police Chief 56.86$ 118,271.59$ (2.47)$ ‐5% 72.77$ 151,358.58$ (4.78)$ ‐7%
Police Commander 49.75$ 103,470.55$ (3.09)$ ‐7% 62.71$ 130,434.91$ (4.39)$ ‐8%
Police Officer 33.07$ 68,777.68$ (3.53)$ ‐12% 45.99$ 95,652.27$ (3.79)$ ‐9%
Police Sergeant 44.72$ 93,011.03$ 6.25$ 12% 53.87$ 112,050.69$ (2.90)$ ‐6%
Principal Engineer 37.68$ 78,374.40$ 2.04$ 5% 46.75$ 97,235.38$ 2.90$ 6%
Property Room Technician 22.51$ 46,820.80$ 4.21$ 16% 29.67$ 61,713.60$ 3.73$ 11%
Public Works Director 56.36$ 117,222.99$ (1.97)$ ‐4% 71.61$ 148,947.12$ (3.62)$ ‐5%
Public Works Maintenance Supervisor 35.90$ 74,681.30$ 0.45$ 1% 45.80$ 95,256.13$ (0.37)$ ‐1%
Public Works Operator 28.91$ 60,127.60$ (0.18)$ ‐1% 36.31$ 75,517.00$ 0.68$ 2%
Public Works Senior Operator 38.00$ 79,049.24$ (2.92)$ ‐8% 47.33$ 98,442.24$ (9.72)$ ‐26%
Public Works Superintendent 45.11$ 93,818.98$ (1.82)$ ‐4% 57.20$ 118,983.11$ (3.09)$ ‐6%
Recreation Programming Specialist 28.28$ 58,825.00$ (2.01)$ ‐8% 36.75$ 76,440.00$ (3.92)$ ‐12%
Senior Building Permit Technician 26.91$ 55,972.80$ 34.45$ 71,645.60$
Sports & Recreation Coordinator 29.37$ 61,095.54$ (3.10)$ ‐12% 37.30$ 77,592.91$ (4.47)$ ‐14%
Staff Engineer 33.46$ 69,588.71$ 42.64$ 88,684.27$
vacant vacant
vacant vacant
vacant vacant
Cit
y
O
v
e
r
/
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
M
a
r
k
e
t
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
%
Po
s
i
t
i
o
n
T
i
t
l
e
Ma
r
k
e
t
M
i
n
S
a
l
a
r
y
(2
0
2
2
R
a
t
e
s
)
Cit
y
O
v
e
r
/
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
M
a
r
k
e
t
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
%
Ma
r
k
e
t
M
a
x
S
a
l
a
r
y
(2
0
2
2
r
a
t
e
s
)
Combined Market Data ‐ 2022
Table 4 – Elected Official Compensation Analysis
Key market wage analysis considerations and findings include:
All market and City of Hastings wage data is based on 2022 compensation scales.
A negative average market variance ($ or %) indicates that the current City of Hastings wages fall BELOW the
market
A positive average market variance ($ or %) indicates that the current City of Hastings wages fall ABOVE the
market
Current employee pay range MINIMUMS for each position were, on average, 0.64% below the market minimum
pay for similar positions. It is important to note, however, that this is an average and individual positions vary
widely.
Current employee pay range MAXIMUMS for each position were, on average, 5.42% below the market minimum
pay for similar positions. It is important to note, however, that this is an average and individual positions vary
widely.
The significant market variances for many positions typically indicates that either the position wage range is well
above or below the market or that the position within Hastings may not be a good match to comparable data in
regard to duties, experience requirements, and responsibilities, to other positions with similar titles in comparable
cities. Potential causes of market variance for each position should be evaluated independently.
The City has included in the study the new Community Service Officer and Senior Building Permit Technician
positions. These positions have been scored and the job descriptions have been finalized.
Overall, a reevaluation of the existing position classification and wage scale will assist in realigning all positions in
relation to the City’s internal organizational structure and to the market. Doing so will, presumably have a positive
impact on future employee recruitment and current employee satisfaction and retention.
The League of Minnesota Cities Survey, direct market survey, and Economic Research Institute (ERI) market data
results are reflective of 2022 wage data.
It is important to consider that many cities approve annual Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) and will plan to do
so for a January 1, 2023, effective date. As a result, it should be noted that, should the City not elect to apply a
2023 COLA adjustment to either their current compensation model or to the proposed compensation scale
updates, current market variances, as reflected in the following table, would continue to grow.
Compensation Plan
During initial discussions with City leadership, it was clear that the following key strategic goals and assumptions
applied:
The City of Hastings is motivated to attract and retain qualified talent to facilitate successful City operations and
leadership. In order to do this effectively, both in the past and looking ahead, the City has historically aimed to
position itself competitively related to wages and benefits and wishes to provide a compensation structure that
motivates career progression and development.
The City wishes to develop a more formalized pay structure across the entire organization that will be both
compliant with Minnesota Pay Equity requirements and offer competitive pay for all positions.
The City values the contributions, skills and experience of each individual and position and is committed to
maintaining job descriptions that accurately depict each position.
The City understands that employees and residents have questions and concerns related to the overall
compensation philosophy of the City that is based on their perceptions of the marketplace and the City wishes to
Council Member 7,693.73$ (493.73)$ ‐7%
Mayor 10,154.00$ (554.00)$ ‐6%
Po
s
i
t
i
o
n
T
i
t
l
e
Ci
t
y
O
v
e
r
/
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
M
a
r
k
e
t
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
%
Ma
r
k
e
t
A
n
n
u
a
l
S
a
l
a
r
y
(2
0
2
1
/
2
0
2
2
R
a
t
e
s
)
Elected Official Wage Comparison ‐ 2021/2022 Rates
compile independent and accurate market data to address specific concerns and guide future decisions related
to compensation.
It is important to remember that, while employees represented by any of the City’s five (5) union agreements were
included in the market study and considered during development of the proposed step and grade compensation
structure, union employee wages must be negotiated independently. Adoption of the proposed compensation
model would approve the scoring for these union positions but would not place them in the proposed salary
structure unless otherwise agreed upon through collective bargaining.
The proposed non-union compensation model reflects the following structural components:
Step and grade model utilizes a total of 8 steps, including the start step, to achieve maximum compensation after
7 years and encompasses a total of 20 grade levels.
All 8 steps are intended to be used as the standard compensation scale, to be awarded using the City’s current
step award process, primarily length of service and acceptable performance.
The minimum pay level for the proposed non-union compensation scale is, on average, 3.59% above market
minimum pay averages for each position.
The maximum pay level for the proposed compensation scale is, on average, 1.86% above market maximum pay
averages for each position.
The proposed scale includes an 7.85% adjustment between grades.
The proposed scale reflects a 3.25% adjustment between steps.
The range within each grade of the proposed scale (Step 1 through Step 8) is 25.20%.
Table 5 - Step and Grade Scale – Proposed 2022 Compensation Model
Grade12345678
065 1 17.50$ 18.07$ 18.66$ 19.27$ 19.90$ 20.55$ 21.22$ 21.91$
66 76 2 18.87 19.48 20.11 20.76 21.43 22.13 22.85 23.59
77 88 3 20.35 21.01 21.69 22.39 23.12 23.87 24.65 25.45
89 98 4 21.95 22.66 23.40 24.16 24.95 25.76 26.60 27.46
99 102 5 23.67 24.44 25.23 26.05 26.90 27.77 28.67 29.60
103 119 6 25.53 26.36 27.22 28.10 29.01 29.95 30.92 31.92
120 150 7 27.53 28.42 29.34 30.29 31.27 32.29 33.34 34.42
151 187 8 29.69 30.65 31.65 32.68 33.74 34.84 35.97 37.14
188 195 9 32.02 33.06 34.13 35.24 36.39 37.57 38.79 40.05
196 250 10 34.53 35.65 36.81 38.01 39.25 40.53 41.85 43.21
251 299 11 37.24 38.45 39.70 40.99 42.32 43.70 45.12 46.59
300 309 12 40.16 41.47 42.82 44.21 45.65 47.13 48.66 50.24
310 329 13 43.31 44.72 46.17 47.67 49.22 50.82 52.47 54.18
330 369 14 46.71 48.23 49.80 51.42 53.09 54.82 56.60 58.44
370 413 15 50.38 52.02 53.71 55.46 57.26 59.12 61.04 63.02
414 464 16 54.33 56.10 57.92 59.80 61.74 63.75 65.82 67.96
465 534 17 58.59 60.49 62.46 64.49 66.59 68.75 70.98 73.29
535 616 18 63.19 65.24 67.36 69.55 71.81 74.14 76.55 79.04
617 691 19 68.15 70.36 72.65 75.01 77.45 79.97 82.57 85.25
692 775 20 73.50 75.89 78.36 80.91 83.54 86.26 89.06 91.95
Standard Steps
Points
Conclusion
Table 6 – Position Point & Grade Assignment with Minimum, Midpoint and Standard Maximum
Standard Standard Standard
New Min Step Midpoint Max Step
Position Points Grade Current Rate 1 4 8
City Hall Receptionist 98 4 24.41$ 21.95$ 24.16$ 27.46$
Property Room Technician 99 5 33.40$ 23.67$ 26.05$ 29.60$ *
Administrative Assistant‐City Hall 104 6 30.72$ 25.53$ 28.10$ 31.92$
Administrative Assistant‐Fire & EMS 104 6 35.33$ 25.53$ 28.10$ 31.92$ *
Administrative Assistant‐Public Works‐Engineering 104 6 32.83$ 25.53$ 28.10$ 31.92$ *
Administrative Assistant‐Public Works 104 6 33.83$ 25.53$ 28.10$ 31.92$ *
Building Permit Technician 104 6 32.83$ 25.53$ 28.10$ 31.92$ *
Police Administrative Specialist I 104 6 21.69$ 25.53$ 28.10$ 31.92$
Police Administrative Specialist II 111 6 33.13$ 25.53$ 28.10$ 31.92$ *
Community Services Officer 118 6 ‐$ 25.53$ 28.10$ 31.92$
Human Resources Technician 138 7 34.07$ 27.53$ 30.29$ 34.42$
Senior Building Permit Technician 141 7 ‐$ 27.53$ 30.29$ 34.42$
Civic Arena Supervisor 171 8 32.83$ 29.69$ 32.68$ 37.14$
Recreation Programming Specialist 172 8 32.83$ 29.69$ 32.68$ 37.14$
Sports & Recreation Coordinator 172 8 32.83$ 29.69$ 32.68$ 37.14$
Information Technology Support Specialist I 177 8 36.05$ 29.69$ 32.68$ 37.14$
Code Enforcement Inspector 179 8 37.45$ 29.69$ 32.68$ 37.14$ *
Deputy City Clerk 184 8 29.54$ 29.69$ 32.68$ 37.14$
Accountant I 194 9 37.67$ 32.02$ 35.24$ 40.05$
Building Inspector 196 10 42.20$ 34.53$ 38.01$ 43.21$
Information Technology Support Specialist II 216 10 40.29$ 34.53$ 38.01$ 43.21$
Staff Engineer 241 10 ‐$ 34.53$ 38.01$ 43.21$
Accountant II 247 10 39.01$ 34.53$ 38.01$ 43.21$
Police Administrative Services Manager 252 11 38.84$ 37.24$ 40.99$ 46.59$
Parks & Recreation Operations Maintenance Supervisor 253 11 43.61$ 37.24$ 40.99$ 46.59$
Public Works Maintenance Supervisor 253 11 45.43$ 37.24$ 40.99$ 46.59$
Aquatic Center Manager 254 11 44.53$ 37.24$ 40.99$ 46.59$
Civic Arena Manager 254 11 44.53$ 37.24$ 40.99$ 46.59$
Facilities Manager 266 11 35.68$ 37.24$ 40.99$ 46.59$
Communications Coordinator 298 11 40.55$ 37.24$ 40.99$ 46.59$
City Planner 302 12 44.96$ 40.16$ 44.21$ 50.24$
Economic Development Coordinator 302 12 46.03$ 40.16$ 44.21$ 50.24$
Principal Engineer 306 12 48.01$ 40.16$ 44.21$ 50.24$
Assistant City Engineer 314 13 52.63$ 43.31$ 47.67$ 54.18$
Assistant Finance Manager 314 13 45.43$ 43.31$ 47.67$ 54.18$
Building Official 322 13 49.45$ 43.31$ 47.67$ 54.18$
Information Technology Manager 330 14 52.58$ 46.71$ 51.42$ 58.44$
Public Works Superintendent 351 14 54.11$ 46.71$ 51.42$ 58.44$
City Engineer 396 15 ‐$ 50.38$ 55.46$ 63.02$
Police Commander 399 15 58.32$ 50.38$ 55.46$ 63.02$
Assistant Fire Chief 411 15 56.07$ 50.38$ 55.46$ 63.02$
Deputy Police Chief 415 16 62.96$ 54.33$ 59.80$ 67.96$
Community Development Director 468 17 63.60$ 58.59$ 64.49$ 73.29$
Finance Manager 468 17 63.60$ 58.59$ 64.49$ 73.29$
Parks & Recreation Director 468 17 63.60$ 58.59$ 64.49$ 73.29$
Public Works Director 468 17 ‐$ 58.59$ 64.49$ 73.29$
Fire Chief 486 17 67.99$ 58.59$ 64.49$ 73.29$
Police Chief 486 17 67.99$ 58.59$ 64.49$ 73.29$
Assistant City Administrator‐HR Director 504 18 65.74$ 63.19$ 69.55$ 79.04$
City Administrator 736 20 80.22$ 73.50$ 80.91$ 91.95$
*Indicates any postion with individuals currently paid above the proposed grade range
When comparing the proposed step and grade scale to the current pay structure, the proposed scale incorporates one
additional standard step and 20 standardized grade levels, compared to the existing scale which establishes a “grade”, or
range, many positions individually. The range between grades has gone from a variable percentage rate change to a
standard 7.85% change. These changes allow for increased consistency and provide additional incentive for employees
who are promoted into new positions to have future advancement opportunity within the standard scale. It also
standardizes the scale to allow for future growth.
In light of our comprehensive study and City compensation philosophy, our recommendation would be as follows:
Approve all updated job description updates and proposed position scoring for each position; and
Adopt the proposed 2022 step and grade plan, without a COLA, moving each individual employee to the next
salary step, without a decrease in salary, and
Utilize the step and grade scale to calculate and apply 2023 and all future annual approved cost of living
increases (COLA) for all positions, effective each January 1st; and
Utilize the step and grade scale to calculate and consistently apply any 2023 and all future longevity-based
increases (above cost-of-living amounts), if applicable.
It should also be noted that, if there were ever an instance that an employee was awarded a wage above their appropriate
grade maximum step, the City should consider implementing a formal and documented longevity plan that meets the
definition of exceptional service pay to accommodate these types of pay scale exceptions.
Pay Equity Compliance
The 2020 pay scale for the City of Hastings was tested in the Minnesota Pay Equity Compliance system, as required, and
was found to be in compliance as of December 31, 2020, however, testing of the current pay system as of June 30, 2022,
indicates potential compliance concerns. The reports and certification generated from the 2022 testing have been
included in Appendix A of the report
The proposed scale has also been tested in the Minnesota Pay Equity Compliance system and was found to be in
compliance. The reports generated form the test have been included in Appendix B of the report. In addition, Appendix C
includes a publication from the State of Minnesota providing guidance on interpreting and understanding the Minnesota
Pay Equity System.
Implementation
The next step in this process is to consider implementation of the Compensation System. Before moving to this step
there are several questions the Council will want to consider.
Should the City adopt a new step and grade plan, including updated job descriptions and position point
assignments for all existing positions?
What is the overall 2022 and/or 2023 cost of implementation for non-union employees, assuming employees
would move to the step and grade program and are placed at the step closest to, but not below, their current
salary? See detailed implementation phases and costs below.
How should the City address potential future situations where individual employee longevity and/or performance
warrants exceptional service pay above the maximum wage for the relevant grade?
Phase 1: Transition onto Proposed Step and Grade Structure
If adopted, the proposed step and grade program, based on 2022 data, could be retroactively implemented, effective July
1, 2022, by placing employees at the step that is closest to their current salary, without a decrease in salary, and assumes
that employees (if any) that are currently being compensated above the proposed wage scale would remain at their
current rate of pay. Estimated costs of July 1, 2022, Phase 1 adoption are listed below.
Phase 2: Individual Market Placement Adjustments
Once transitioned onto the proposed step and grade structure, there are individuals that, due to tenure and experience,
may warrant additional step awards to ensure they are placed at the appropriate position within the market range.
Estimated costs of Phase 2 adoption are listed below.
Phase 3: 2021 Cost of Living Adjustment
If approved, the City may adopt a 3.00 – 4.00% COLA for the 2023 calendar year, effective January 1, 2023. This COLA
would be applied to the newly adopted step and grade program and all individuals would receive an increase in pay. Cost
of Living Adjustments (COLAs) of 2.00% - 3.00% have historically been awarded by the City and should not be considered
an “additional” expense related to adoption of the proposed step and grade program. Estimated costs of Phase 3
adoption are listed below.
It is important to note that estimated implementation costs do not include annualized wages for the addition/promotion of
staff in new or currently vacant positions as these are not considered as part of the compensation structure
implementation, but rather new or ongoing labor expenses.
Closing
Should the City decide to move to the new step and grade plan, we recommend approval at a regular meeting of the City
Council.
Abdo would like to thank the City of Hastings for the opportunity to prepare and present this Position Classification and
Compensation Analysis. We would especially like to thank the leadership team for their assistance in providing the
necessary data to conduct the study.
Estimated Current 2022 Annual Payroll
Phase 1:Total Cost of 2022 Implementation (Annualized for half of 2022) 2.46%
Phase 2:Total Annual Cost of 2022 Market Placement Adjustments (Annualized for half of 2022) 1.35%
Phase 3:Total Annual Cost of 2023 COLA (3.0%)5.65%521,600.00$
9,004,400.00$
221,900.00$
121,867.20$