The URL can be used to link to this page

85-885 WMITE - CiTV CLERK PINK - FINANCE CITY OF SAINT PAUL Council /�� f CANARV - DEPARTMENT File NO• �/ -S_�V� BLUE - MAVOR � ^ Council Resolution Presented By t/ Referred To �� N�� Committee: Date � ' 20��7 Out of Committee By Date � WHEREAS, The Mayor, pursuant to Section 10.07.1 of the City Charter, does certify that there are availa�le for appropriation revenues in excess of those estimated in the 1985 budget; and WHEREAS, The Mayor recommends the following changes to the 1985 budget: Current Amended Budget Changes Budget FINANCING PLAN 001 General Fund -4327 Services to ISD ��625 0 �- 12,086 12,086 1/1/84 Fund Balance: Unreserved, Undesignated 306,363 + 65,480 371 ,843 All Other Financing 105,423,677 0 105,423,677 Total 105,730.040 77,566 105,807,606 SPENDING PLAN 001 General Fund Executive Administration Department Personnel Office 00180 Personnel Issues Task Force 00180-132 Part-time Temporary-Seasonal 0 + 13,988 13,988 00180-219 Fees-Other Professional Serv's. 0 a- 61 ,006 61 ,006 00180-299 Other Miscellaneous Services 0 + 1 ,822 1 ,822 00180-369 Other-Office 0 + 750 750 All Other General Fund Spending 105,730,040 0 105,730,040 Total 105,730,040 + 77,566 105,807,606 NET CHANGE + 77,566 RESOLVED, That the City Council adopts these changes to the 1985 budget. Appr as to Fund' Approval Recommended: Finance & Manag en Director Bu get re or �-i''"� )' COUNCILMEIV Requested by Department of: Yeas Fietcner Nays Executive Administrat' °fe1N In Favor Masan: Nicosia scheibe� __ Against BY Tedesco Wilson JUL - t 1985 Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Yas e y ounci! S t y BY Bl JUL - 2 98 Approved b 1Navor: D e � — �—�� PP by Mayor for Subm' o to Cbut�cil By� Q � � , 3�I�t.;�tt�� U L 1 :� 1985 Personnel Office DEPARTMENT Np 2�11 Jeanette Sobania ' CONTACT ..� 4221 PHONE � �� June 4, 1985 DATE Q,/ e e ASSIGN NUNB ER FOR ROUTING ORDER Cli All Locations for Si nature : Department Director �Director of Management/Mayor �inance and Mana ement Services Director � City Clerk �._.8 e r� 4 City Attorney WHAT WILL BE ACHIEVED BY TAKING ACTION ON THE ATTACHED MATERIALS? (Purpose/ This resolution transfers funds from the General Fund, unreserved, �tionale) • undesignated to the Camparable Worth project fund. The attached documents give a detailed spending breakdown. The three major features of the breakdown are: 1 ) the recovery of unencumbered funds from the 1984 budget ($32,000) 2) the additional funds needed to reevaluate and update the study ($34,000) 3) the charge to the School District for services provided 'to '�hem ($12,000) CO$T/BENEFIT, BUDGETARY AND PERSONNEL IMPACTS ANTICIPATED: � RECENED . Total 77,566 �UN � � 19�5 OFFICE OF THE DIREC'COR DEPARTMENT OF F(NANCE pND MANAGEIViENT SERVIC�S FINANCING SOURCE AND BUDGET ACTIVITY NUMBER CHARGED OR CREDITED: (Mayor's signa- ture not re- Total Amount of Transaction; quired if under $10,000) Funding Source: Activity Number: ATTACHMENTS (List and Number Al1 Attachments) : DEPARTMENT REVIEW CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW Yes No Council Resolution Required? Resolution Required? Yes No Yes No Insurance Required? Insurance Sufficient? Yes No Y�es No Insurance Attached: (SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS) Revised 12/84 . � ��_�.��,- ;�: CITY OF SAINT PAUL INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: May 21, 1985 T0: Mayor Latimer• r,. FROM: John Colonna _� � SUBJECT: Update on Comparable Worth Process The Labor Relations Committee has met to discuss the best strategy for negotiating the results of the first phase of the Comparable Worth Study. We have previously discussed with you all of the options we considered at our strategy session. We reviewed the contract with Hallcrest-Craver, we discussed their recommendation as written in the draft report and as transmitted to you by letter (copies attached) , we reviewed their estimate for a total reevaluation and we asked Phyllis Byers to solicit Dr. Bennett's desires regarding this matter. As you know, the Joint Labor Management Committee left us in limbo by accepting the draft report as written and also voting to not do reevaluations. Jeanette Sobania has been discussing various alternatives with the consultants and they have concluded that the interrelationships of various job series would make partial reevaluation difficult. Sobania then requested that the consultants estimate the cost of redoing all the evaluations. We viewed these as our options: . 1) To accept the study as complete, 2) To reevaluate portions of the classes, 3) To reevaluate all the classes. We have chosen option 3 for the following reasons: 1) If we accept the study as it is we will in essence be placing our imprimatur on the document even though the consultants stated that the results were seriously flawed; 2) By so accepting we put ourselves in some �eopardy that we may at some time be told to implement all of the results although there is universal agreement that we couldn't run the City under those circumstances; 3) Partial reevaluation, while it has some benefits, leaves � us in �eopardy in court as we would be faced with justifying why we corrected part of the study and not all of it; ' ' ' �(= �'S_-�'�-'S- 4) Partial reevaluation, particularly if it deals only with salaries that are proposed to rise makes us susceptible to claims of unfairness to those employees who were inappropriately lowered; 5) By reevaluating all jobs we can �uxtapose an unbiased, impartial view of the jobs with what we currently have in draft form. We do not pretend that this course of action is without hazard. It is certainly more costly than the other options, at least in the short run. Dr. Bennett is strongly in favor of reevaluating. He may request that Hallcrest-Craver reevaluate �ust the School District positions if we choose to accept the evaluations as is. This also would leave us in serious �eopardy. We will proceed to request the funds to do total reevaluation by the consultant as per the enclosed budget request. We ask your support as we go to Council. JC/tl � � � (��.s-��- CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION (COMPARABLE WORTH) STUDY PROPOSED BUDGET 1985 Expenditures - Fees Expended Projected Last progress payment 3191.00 Additional work requested by Joint-Labor Management Committee 2263.70 Katherine Holt for statistical analysis and advice 200.00 Karen Olson - Labor Relations Association for group process analysis 585.00 1985 committed by contract to Hallcrest-Craver 57 holdback 7466.50 Appeal process (lst 600) l'�-�.��^�''"`' 11500.00 1985 Anticipated additional costs 1) . Appeals (+ 600) due to controversy � which has surrounded process R�:�.�v��.�--u�. �+1''� 29800.00 2) . New classifications for �obs which 6000.00 changed since April, 1984 Sub-Total $25206.20 $35800.00 1985 Expenditures - Salaries Clerk Typist I -- $6.46 times 535 3456.10 Clerk Typist II -- $6.99 times 283 1978.17 The class specifications were originally going to be done by the consultant's word processing firm--we put $6600 into the amended contract for this service. We did it in-house thus lowering "fees for service" but raising salary expense. Clerk Typist I -- $6.46 times 505 3262.30 Clerk Typist II -- $6.99 times 757 5291.43 (needed for appeals process time total 1040 for each position) Sub-Total $ 5434.27 $ 8553.73 1985 Expenditures - Miscellaneous Postage 700.00 550.00 Telephone 4 mos. x $21.50 86.00 Telephone 4 mos. x $21.50 86.00 Telephone - long distance 400.00 Printing 500.00 Rental of Equipment 250.00 Sub-Total 786.00 $ 1786.00 TOTAL $31426.47 $46139.73 GRAND TOTAL 77,566.20 � � �O�0�� ALLOCATION OF FUNDS 1985 Budget City $145,730.00 Independent School District $ 48,270.00 $194,000.00 Spent in 1984 - $161,084.00 Remaining (but not encumbered) $32,916.00 Needed to cover 1985 Expended and Pro�ected Costs $77,566.20 Remaining (but not encumbered) - $32,916.00 Additional Funds Needed $44,650.20 School District will be requested to pay (see next page for itemized list) - $12,086.00 Additional Cost to the City $32,564.20 , • . ry r-�5 _c��.5 — (�� Breakout of Cost for School District Total Costs Total Needed to Cover 1985 Costs - $77,566.20 Remaining Cost (but not encumbered)- - $32,916.00 $44,650.20 Expended by City - (but not appropriate to charge District) i.e. postage- $700 consultants Olson- $585 Holt- $200 - $1,485.00 $43,165.20 Per ISD/City Contract- x 28' $12,086.00 . ., . G��s-�'�5� HALLCREST-CRAVER ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED �..�.��..��.�.n.,�.�°�..,�� tl 7316 HOOKING ROAD McLN;AN. VIRGINIA 25t101 TELEPHONE(703)442-0157 May 28, 1985 Ms. Jeanette Sobania Office of Personnel City of Saint Paul 265 City Hall 25 W. Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Sobania: In response to your recent request, we are submitting our time and cost estimate to have our staff apply the Quantitative Evaluation System (QES) to the more than 500 classes identified during the 1984 study. In addition to performing the QES evaluations, we would conduct statistical analyses to include: (1) factor comparisons, (2) gender analysis, and (3) comparative analysis of St. Paul Team evaluation scores and Hallcrest-Craver consultant evaluations. We would then prepare a summary report of this process and our findings. The job evaluation, analysis, and report activities will take our six or seven consultants who worked on the St. Paul study between six and nine weeks to complete. The work described above will be performed at our offices in 2icLean, Virginia, on a time and expense basis, in accordance with the terms and rates in our current agreement, not to exceed $29,800. Since the job evaluations will be conducted off-site (at an estimated $5,000 savings to St. Paul) , the City will be responsible for all shipping costs of all class files, Job Analysis Questionnaires and other relevant materials to and from McLean, Virginia. You further requested a firm fixed price for reviewing appeals in three categories of volume. Our firm fixed price for each level is as follows: Category Fixed Price 1. 200 or fewer appeals $ 4,000.00 2. 201 to 429 appeals 8,500.00 3. 43Q to 600 appeals 11,500.00 Tfi.e quotes submitted herein are valid for 45 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely � , / �. .dJ�C.F=L � illiam C. Cunni gham President WCC/ck . "r.it'��'*J�� . ..� � .��..._ .:::.. �-.--_.�- .-_ '� . ... . ._... .___.._._ . },�,-y.;�i ��'::,�:_�� : _,�ITY O�' .SAINT ��.�.TJ'L ��!�5`�`�� ':. . :{'�-; ��_=:� �.-� , orz�ICr O�' �.'k2I: CITY coII�c��. � . ��,�,�� c:_;:�3�_;'= ':'i ,�J . +��;`-�� - ��,,,��.;/ " D o f e : June 20, 1985 _ `�;;,�,;.C-::. ,: . y,_,�� . . . ._.. C � M �+Zi��' EE I� E PO � T i Q = Satnt P��t I Ci,y Cou �cit w F E'�' � �� ' C d M�t?I 1 1�� Q� FINANCE, MANAGEMENT & PERSONNEL C� A� � JAMES S CHEIBEL 1 . _ Approval oF minutes from meeting heid June 13, 1985. .,��!/ � � 2. . Resolution amending the 1985 budget and transferring $21,757 from General Government Accounts t�, Executive Administration-Personnel Office. ' l�i°l�Ot/2-�� _ _ � 3. Resoluti n authorizing joint use agreement betwean City and Inde�endent School 0istric* 625 for installation and grant for J.J. Hill Elementary � School equipment. (Community Services?/�� ., �4`�. Resolution consenting to the issuance of Port Authority Revenue Bonds in the amount of $1 ,985,OOO .ta finance acquisition and rehabiiitation of the Blai r House. (Port Authority) j�i/� O ,l�p� `� . /` (/ Jl��e_ � 7� 'S� Resolution consenting to the issuance of Port Authority Industrial Reve- _ v nue Boncis in the amount of $900,000 to finance remodeling ta the former � � - Cardozo Warehouse at Fifth 8 Broadway for MarketHouse Limited Partnership_ tPort Authority) . �- .�� . �V� � . � �� `� /�'`� � - � 6. t u'�fi� ng ��85 t7udget to the F i nanc i n P 1 an - µ� �t��"/°� 9 ;;,�c�d ta the, ndin.g P)an r Executive Administration Qepartment Personnel = - � t�_ ��e. _ . . . . �- �: �,d 7. Request from � CH Building Sub-Committee r city funding for repairs �� C_,/( to C i ty Ha l l and Courthouse. �� d{ , � J.,,,. L�� ,7/.1 � . � 8. Committee consideration of final report of consultant relative to Distr-ict 2 evaluation. �,�� . C:�Y HALL SEVENT7-I FLOOI: SAINT P�1UL,ASi�\`ESOT:''�55IOZ . .EC-s"'u 1�1(�DA � ZI-1E SAIMf PAUL CITY QOUIdC.II.. TL�SdaY, JulY 2, 19&� 10:00 A.M. QO[JNCII, CHAN�II�.S ZfID� FI�OOR C11Y H�AIL A� C70URT FICX]SE A�L.BE[�f B. OI.SON, CI1Y CI.�{ ADDITIONAL ITEM Resolution am�ding 1g85 budget �d adding $77,566 to the Financir�g Plan a�d to �'!,�'�<5 the Spending Pl� for Executive Administration Department Personr�el office. (Finar�ce Committee recomme.nds appraval - laid wer from June-27th, 1985.) WHITE - CITV CLERK CAN�RPINK - FINANCE GITY OF SAINT PAUL Council Y -fY£PqRTMENT City Attny�JTH File N0. �-S '�� , .Cou il Resolution , Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date RESOLUTION APPROVING SAINT PAUL RIVERFRONT ENTERPRISE ZONE ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT WHEREAS , by its Resolution No . 84-327 , adopted March 13 , 1984, the City Council established a program providing tax incentives for the revitalization of property and provision of employment opportunity entitled "Program For City of Saint Paul Riverfront Enterprise Zone" (Program) ; and WHEREAS , the City Council has received a recommendation from the Mayor that the administrative responsibility for the Enterprise Zone Program be placed with the Saint Paul Port Authority and has considered a proposed Saint Paul Riverfront Enterprise Zone Adminis- tration Agreement (Agreement) submitted to this meeting; and WHEREAS , the Downtown Riverfront Commission has recommended the proposed Administrative Agreement to the City Council for approval upon the understanding arrived at with the Port A�.thority that the initial allocation of remaining Enterprise Zone Credits would desig- nate 75% of the credits for projects within the River Corridor and 25% for projects outside the River Corridor; and WHEREAS , the Development and Transportation Committee approved revisions in the text of the Agreement and recommends its approval as revised by the Council . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Saint Paul that administrative responsibility for the Riverfront Enterprise Zone Program be carried out by the Saint Paul Port Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Program, the COU[VCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays � In Favor ✓ _ __ Against BY Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date — Certified Vassed by Council Secretary BY By t#pproved by (Vlavor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY - BY