042406 CC WS2 AgP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
A. Roll Call
B. Review Agenda
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CONFERENCE ROOM
8:00 P.M. or immediately following
the Regular City Couucil meetiug
Mayor Love _
Lizee
Turgeon _
Callies
Wellens
2. COMPENSATION STUDY (Att. - Administrator's memoraudum)
3. OTHER
4. ADJOURN
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council ~
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
April 20, 2006
Compensation Study (Work Session Item)
The City engaged Labor Relations Associates, Inc., to perform a compensation study, The main
purposes of the study were to:
. Update position descriptions, to provide a uniform base for any changes
. Develop information and recommendations for any revisions to the City's levels of pay
(external labor market) and pay structure (internal relationships to comply with
Minnesota's Pay Equity Act)
. Change the City's rigid tenure-based step system for salaries with a more system that is
designed to reward performance and provide flexibility for salaries at time of hire.
The process has been lengthy. It has had extensive involvement by employees and supervisors. New
position descriptions were prepared for purposes of pay equity analysis. Deputy Clerk Jean
Panchyshyn has refined each of them to the well-organized format that the City has been using for
several years, and will be finishing the component describing the physical demands for each position.
The process also involved the response and cooperation of 13 of 15 cities contacted for the external
market analysis.
Ann Antonsen, who conducted the study, will review the report (attached) with the City Council at
the Work Session. It is expected that tonight's discussion will be one of several by the Council
before changes are determined and approved.
Other components of the overhaul of the human resources system are nearing completion. The
Employee Handbook Committee has reviewed the update of the Handbook, and will meet one more
time to review answers from the City Attorney's Office to specific questions they have raised. The
consultant review of the changes in benefits proposed by the employee Benefits Committee is
expected to be completed in the next several weeks.
....
f: . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION
STUDY
April 24, 2006
LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES, INC.
18955 Maple Lane
Deephaven, Minnesota 55331
952/401-9007
Ema!l: laborrelationsas@qwest.net
April 24, 2006
Mr. Craig Dawson
City Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Mr. Dawson
Following this letter is the Compensation Study conducted by Labor Relations Associates, Inc. This
presents an overview of the study, including the methodology used to develop new job descriptions, a
classification system, a compensation plan and the implementation plan for a new compensation program.
Also contained are the job descriptions developed as part of this Study.
This Study represents a thorough and comprehensive review of all aspects of the City's classification and
compensation system. The recommendations offered in this Study will increase the market
competitiveness of the City's compensation program and provide increased internal equity among City
positions. Implementation of these recommendations will help the City attract new employees and assist
in retaining current employees needed to meet the City's service demands.
Labor Relations Associates, Inc. expresses it's thanks to the City staff who completed Position
Description Questionnaires. We also express our gratitude to you and the City's Management team for
providing direction and feedback through the closing phases of the Study. Labor Relations Associates,
Inc. appreciates the privilege of serving the City of Shore wood and hope that we may be of assistance to
you in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Antonsen
Ann Antonsen
Consultant
1. Introduction
The City of Shorewood, Minnesota, retained Labor Relations Associates, Inc. to conduct a Compensation
Study in late 2004. The City's existing classification and compensation program was established many
years ago. As a general rule, most organizations conduct new classification and compensation studies
every five to seven years ensuring their ability to hire and retain qualified employees and that internal pay
relationships are equitable.
The City identified several objectives for this study, which included:
. Evaluating the existing classification and compensation system
. Developing a classification and compensation system that addresses internal equity and external
market competitiveness
. Developing administrative guidelines for implementation and ongoing maintenance
. to provide a pay-for-performance structure to replace the current rigid tenure-based step system
. to ensure that any changes in the compensation system would comply with the Minnesota Pay
Equity Act
This final report represents the culmination of the Compensation Study. It reflects significant City staff
involvement, including their participation and attendance at orientation meetings, completion and
submission of Position Description Questionnaires, and review of the job descriptions developed by
Labor Relations Associates, Inc. by employees, department heads and City administration staff. New job
descriptions include a brief description of the position, the essential functions performed, education and
experience requirements, language and mathematical abilities, other knowledge, skills, and abilities,
required licenses, certificates and registrations, and physical demands and working conditions in
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Upon completion of the updated job descriptions each position was evaluated utilizing the HAY job
evaluation system. The HAY system was developed approximately 40 years ago and is a system that is
utilized world wide both in the public and private sectors. The HA Y system is also the system used by
the State of Minnesota.
A comprehensive salary survey was also conducted as part of this Study. All City positions were
included in the survey. Survey participants were selected based on geographic location, organizational
structure, socio-economic conditions, and other relevant characteristics such as those organizations with
which you compete for employees. Fifteen municipalities, listed below, were asked to participate in the
survey:
. City of Little Canada
. City of Arden Hills
. City of Mound
. City ofWaconia
. City of Hugo
. City of St. Anthony Village
. City of Orono
. City of Lake Elmo
. City of Spring Lake Park
. City of Rogers
. City of Victoria
. City ofWayzata
. City of Deephaven
. City of Watertown
Only the cities of Rogers and Watertown did not participate in the survey; providing an excellent response
rate of thirteen of the fifteen identified communities. Survey respondents were asked to provide
information on only those City of Shorewood positions which they considered to be comparable to
positions in their organizations. Therefore, survey respondents did not provide data for every position
surveyed.
During the course of the study, other communities were added for certain positions in order to collect
more comprehensive data. For the position of Director of Public Works, the communities of White Bear
Lake, Chanhassen, Columbia Heights and Hopkins were added. The cities of Chanhassen and Hopkins
were included in the survey for the position of Finance Director. For the position of City Engineer the
cities of Hopkins, Prior Lake and Savage were included.
2. Methodology
Labor Relations Associates, Inc. used the following methodology to develop a compensation system for
the City of Shorewood:
1. Meetings were held with the City Administrator to a establish a working relationship, review of
current policies and practices relating to the City's existing pay practices, and obtaining available data on
the programs and materials currently in use. These meetings also provided an opportunity to discuss the
City's goals in adopting a compensation system for City employees.
2. An employee orientation meeting was conducted explaining the study process and to answer
questions from employees. This meeting also provided an opportunity for employees to voice concerns
and have input into the study.
3. All employees received Position Description Questionnaires (PDQ's) and instructions. All
employees were encouraged to participate in the study by using the PDQ to describe their job duties and
responsibilities. Each employee's supervisor reviewed the completed form for accuracy and
completeness and provided any additional information they felt was relevant to the position. City
employees were requested to complete the entire form ensuring information was available to develop new
and updated job descriptions which would also meet the federal requirements under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
4. Each PDQ was reviewed and preliminary job descriptions were prepared. The preliminary job
descriptions were submitted to the City for review and comment. Finalized job descriptions were then
prepared incorporating any requested changes, additions and deletions.
5. Upon completion of the job descriptions, positions were then evaluated utilizing the HA Y
Management Consultants job evaluation system. Factors that Hay utilizes in evaluating positions are:
Know How, Problem Solving (Mental Effort) Accountability and Working Conditions. A more
comprehensive description is attached as Appendix A.
6. Salary data for each position was collected. Survey recipients were asked to provide the
minimum, maximum and actual salaries for each position. Information was also gathered on years to
maximum, number of steps if utilized, information regarding longevity, merit or performance pay, FLSA
status, and any additional compensation.
7. Using the salary data supplied by comparable government organizations and the results of the
HAY job evaluation system, a new wage schedule was created for each non-union position.
8. Guidelines for implementation and ongoing administration of the compensation program were
developed. These guidelines provide for annual adjustments to the salary schedule ensuring that the
City's pay scale stays current with changing economic and market conditions. The guidelines also provide
for annual salary adjustments based on employee performance that meets or exceeds job expectations.
3. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Developing a classification system and compensation program involves the analysis of substantial
quantities of data collected from employees, supervisors, comparable employers and the City. We have
evaluated the City's existing compensation program based on our analysis of the study data and the
survey results. Using this information, we have developed a compensation program for the City of
Shorewood which is described below.
a. Evaluation of the Current Compensation Program
Discussions with City personnel and a review of current compensation data indicates that employees of
the City of Shorewood are under-compensated in relation to other comparable organizations. Other
findings indicate a wage problem demonstrated by:
. Concerns about the potential for employee turnover because employees choose to leave the
City to take higher paying jobs with other employers
. City departments experiencing difficulty hiring new personnel
. City job classes with comparable responsibilities requiring comparable education and experience that
are assigned to different pay ranges
b. Pay Philosophy
A pay philosophy guides the design of a compensation system and answers key questions regarding pay
strategy. It generally takes a comprehensive, long term focus and explains the compensation program's goals
and how the program supports the employer's long-range strategic goals. Without a pay philosophy,
compensation decisions tend to be viewed from a short-term tactical standpoint apar1 from the organization's
overall goals.
Market competitiveness and internal equity are among the most important areas addressed in a pay
philosophy. An organization's desired market position involves defining the market and identifying where
the organization wants to be positioned within that market. Market position should balance what it takes to
attract new employees and to retain skilled employees (in other words, eliminating higher pay as the reason
employees leave the organization) with the organization's financial resources. Internal equity expresses an
organization's desire to provide comparable pay to job classes with comparable duties and responsibilities.
In consultation with the City's Management Team, a pay philosophy was developed that establishes a
compensation program based on individual employee performance as a key feature of this pay philosophy.
Therefore, we have emphasized references to performance in the pay philosophy discussion. As par1 ofthis
Study, it is recommended that the City consider these concepts in the adoption of a fonnal pay philosophy:
. Providing fair and equitable rates of pay to employees
. Defining the City's market area
. Developing a system that establishes a "market rate" for each position and states the minimum wage
and maximum rates that the City will pay individuals within ajob class
. Establishing rates of pay that allow the City to compete successfully for new employees within its
market area
. develop a system that can reward continuously above-average performance by paying employees
above market-rate wages
. Establishing a market position that is fiscally responsible with public resources
. Ensuring that pay rates for existing employees are based on individual performance that meets or
exceeds expectations and reflects changing economic conditions
. Developing a pay system that allows employees to progress through the pay range as long as their
performance consistently meets expectations
. Developing pay administration policies and procedures that ensure their consistent application
between departments
. Ensuring that the compensation program is understandable to employees, managers, the City
Council, and the public
c. Defining and Evaluating Positions
City employees completed individual Position Description Questionnaires (PDQ's). Supervisors reviewed
the PDQ's and provided information for each position. Employees and supervisors both responded to
questions regarding working conditions and the physical requirements of each job in compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Based on this data, new job descriptions were developed for each
position.
Job descriptions were distributed to City employees and their supervisors for review and comment.
With the completion ofthe job descriptions, we utilized the HA Y Management Consultants job evaluation
system, to review and rate each City position. The factors considered in detennining the relative value of
classifications are:
Know-How
. Problem Solving (Mental Effort)
. Accountability
. Working Conditions
A listing of the job evaluation points can be found in Appendix B.
d. Developing A Salary Schedule
The process of developing a salary schedule draws substantially from market data. This data is obtained by
conducting a survey of other comparable employers within the City's defined market. Respondents are asked
to provide information about the structure of their pay plans, the minimum, maximum and actual salary rates
of positions, years to maximum, number of steps, and infonnation on additional compensation if relevant.
Survey Results. The salary survey included a series of questions designed to obtain information on a variety
of pay practices. All respondents provided information on their pay plans.
A salary survey was conducted using data comparable employers in the region. The survey included
positions in the City. A general summary of survey results appears in Appendix C. For some positions,
we did not receive a sufficient number of responses to use the data in the Study or those received were
inconsistent with other information provided. A review of the survey information indicates that the
majority of City positions, 13 out of 20 surveyed, are paid significantly below comparable organizations.
Desiguiug the Salary Schedule. The recommended pay plan was designed by establishing a
compensation schedule with a minimum, a market rate and a maximum salary rate. The minimum wage
rate is 76% of the market rate and the maximum is 110% of the market rate. The market rate of each pay
grade generally corresponds with the market rate identified by the salary survey. Because the pay plan
was developed using 2005 data, the proposed minimum, market and maximum rates were increased by 3
percent consistent with metropolitan area market increases. The recommended 2006 compensation plan
for City of Shore wood employees can be found in Appendix D of this report. This recommended
compensation plan is in compliance with the Minnesota Local Government Pay Equity Act.
Based on knowledge of the City's operations, it is recommended that an open range plan be maintained.
Maintaining an open range salary schedule that consists of minimum, market and maximum pay rates
provides the City with the flexibility to compensate employees based on their individual performance.
This pay plan will also serve as an important tool for aligning individual performance with organizational
goals adopted by the City Council. Therefore, an established performance evaluation system is generally
considered a prerequisite for successful implementation of an open range pay system. The City of
Shorewood currently has in place a comprehensive performance evaluation system.
An established performance evaluation includes ongoing training of the system ensuring that supervisors
in all departments consistently apply performance standards. When compensation is based on
performance, employees look for assurance that managers will honestly evaluate performance and not
inflate ratings in order to obtain a higher salary for particular employees. Generally, such systems
provide for a review by the City Administrator's Office to provide a mechanism that helps managers
apply performance standards consistently for all employees.
When pay is based on performance, the evaluation system often provides for reviews at six or 12 month
intervals, so employees know how supervisors view their performance and have the opportunity to
improve performance and their prospect for a pay increase. Employees who have satisfactory or better
performance evaluations should expect annual wage increases above the normal economic of cost of
living adjustment.
4. Implementing the Recommended Salary Plan
a. Implementation
To estimate implementation costs, we used employee salaries which became effective on July I, 2005
supplied by the City for all departments, and making the following assumptions:
. Recommended compensation program will be effective for the City's non-union employees
January I, 2006.
. Implementation will begin to address both internal equity and marketability with other employers.
There are several positions which are currently compensated significantly below comparable positions,
some by as much as 29%. These positions will require a more substantial wage increase to address their
comparability with other employers.
b. Ongoing Administration
After initial implementation is achieved, the City will need to develop administration procedures that
provide for annual salary adjustments based on market and economic conditions and adjustments that
recognize individual performance.
Employee Adjustments. Employees will move through the wage schedule based on performance
factors. An employee hired at the minimum wage rate who maintains satisfactory performance will move
from the minimum to the market wage rate in approximately 5 years. Those with above satisfactory
performance will move through the wage schedule in a shorter time frame. Employees who maintain
above satisfactory perfonnance will move beyond the market rate in the wage schedule.
Base adjustments. In 2007 and subsequent years it will be necessary for the City to adjust the salary
schedules and grades based on cost of living and other factors such as recruitment. The City can establish a
guideline for determining armual base adjustments. For example, the City could base it's adjustment on the
Consumer Price Index (CPI). The City could also contact comparable jurisdictions to find out what
percentage adjustment they are making to their pay scales as a second level of verification of the pay range
adjustment. This would also ensure that the City maintains marketability among comparable regional
organizations.
If the CPI for example, is 2.5, a 2.5 percent increase would be applied to the wage rates of each pay grade. In
addition, all employees with perfonnance that meets or exceeds job expectations would receive the 2.5
percent increase applied to their base salary. By making this base adjustment to all employee salaries, the
City ensures that employees will not fall behind the market.
Performance adjustments. All non-union employee's progression through the pay grade is based on
individual performance. Supervisors can recognize an employee's contribution to department and
organizational goals through performance adjustments. With the ability to recommend performance
adjustments, supervisors will have an important role in linking pay and performance. Performance
adjustments will be determined based on the employee's annual peiformance review. The increase will be
applied to the employee's base salary effective on the anniversary of his or appointment date to the current
position.
Appendix A
COMPONENTS OF JOB EVALUATION
In measuring the "size" of jobs, job evaluation assumes fully acceptable performance by jobholders. Job content
information, as documented in job descriptions is evaluated in terms of four factors. These factors are:
Know-How: The sum total of every kind of skill, however acquired, necessary for acceptable job performance. This
includes:
. The depth and breadth of work procedures and vocational/technical/professional knowledge and skills required
of the job.
. The managerial breadth of skills that are required for integrating and harmonizing different organizational units
or functions.
. The human relations skills required to directly interact on a person-ta-person basis with others in order to
produce the desired results.
Problem Solving: The original "self-starting" thinking required by the job for analyzing, evaluating, creating,
reasoning, arriving at and making conclusions. This includes:
. The organizational and procedural parameters that guide or circumscribe the focus of thinking and freedom to
think on the job.
. The variety, uniqueness, and complexity of problems faced by the job.
Accountabilitv: The responsibility for action and for the consequences thereof; the measured effect of the job on end
results. This includes:
. The autonomy or discretion that a job has in taking action and the personal or procedural controls that a job
follows.
. The magnitude or impact that the job has on the organization; what the job works with (or on) and its overall
cost/benefits to the organization.
. The role the job has on impacting end results; whether the job has primary or shared responsibility for
committing the organization to action or a contributory or ancillary role in supporting such action.
Workin!! Conditions: The conditions under which work must be done. This includes:
. Physical Effort: Work requiring physical exertion.
. Environment: Exposure to objectionable or noxious conditions.
. Hazards: Exposure to factors involving risks of accident, personal injury, or personal health.
The following are not considered in evaluation jobs:
. The quality of your job perfonnance
. Your length of service
. Your formal education or degree (unless ajob requirement)
. How the job was evaluated in the past
. The current rate of pay for the job
. Marketability with other employers
Appendix B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
HAY JOB EVALUATION POINTS
Job Classification
City Administrator
Director of Public Works
Finance Director
Planning Director
City Engineer
Director of Liquor Operations
Deputy Clerk/Administrative Assistant
Building Official
Engineering Technician
Assistant Planner
Light Equipment Operator-Utilities-Lead
Senior Accountant
Assistant Liquor Store Manager
Light Equipment Operator-Shop Technician
Administrative Assistant
Receptionist/Park Secretary
Light Equipment Operator - Utilities
Light Equipment Operator
Communication Tech
Accounting Clerk
Web Developer
Office Assistant
Liquor Store Clerk
Liquor Store Clerk - Part time
Points
1040
732
677
542
511
437
375
362
323
314
245
238
233
208
194
194
192
183
183
177
177
144
141
120
Appendix C
SHOREWOOD COMPENSATION STUDY
SUMMARY SHEET
Maximum Maximum Survey Difference Difference
Monthly Wage Average from Including
Wage Including Maximum Market Stability
Position 7/1/05 Stabilitv Pav Monthlv Waae Averaae Pav
Citv Administrator $6,891.00 $7.205.00 $7,430.00 -$539.00 -$225.00
Director of Public Works $6.698.00 $7,004.00 $7,17700 -$479.00 -$173.00
Finance Director $6.656.00 $6,960.00 $6.502.00 $154.00 $458.00
PlanninQ Director $6.237.00 $6,237.00 $6.306.00 -$69.00 -$69.00
Dir. Of Liquor Operations $4,919.00 $5,143.00 $6,114.00 -$1,195.00 -$971.00
Deputv Clerk/Admin. Ass!. $4.814.00 $5,034.00 $4,815.00 -$1.00 $219.00
Buildina Official $4,887.00 $5,111.00 $5.210.00 -$323.00 -$99.00
Enaineer Technician $4,849.00 $5,070.00 $4,775.00 $74.00 $295.00
Assistant Planner $4.312.00 $4,509.00 $4,433.00 -$121.00 $76.00
LEO-Utilities-Lead $4,252.00 $4,189.00 $4,37700 -$125.00 -$188.00
Sr. Accountant $3.862.00 $4,038.00 $3,963.00 -$101.00 $75.00
Ass!. Liquor Store ManaQer $3,267.00 $3,416.00 $3,797.00 -$530.00 -$381.00
LEO-Shoo Technician $3,952.00 $3,896.00 $3,727.00 $225.00 $169.00
Administrative Assistant $3,401.00 $3,557.00 $3.453.00 -$52.00 $104.00
ReceotionistlPark Secretarv $3,140.00 $3,283.00 $3,207.00 -$67.00 $76.00
LEO-Utilities $3,952.00 $3,896.00 $3,670.00 $282.00 $226.00
Liaht Equipment Ooerator $3,779.00 $3,723.00 $3,664.00 $115.00 $59.00
Communications Tech. $3.267.00 $3,417.00
AccountinQ Clerk $2,949.00 $3.084.00 $3,356.00 -$407.00 -$272.00
Liquor Store Clerk $2.307.00 $2,413.00 $2,685.00 -$378.00 -$272.00
Liquor Store Clerk-PT $1,950.00 $2,039.00 $1.902.00 $48.00 $137.00
Appendix D
SHOREWOOD WAGE SCHEDULE
2006 WAGES
Full-Time Employees
JOB CLASSIFICATION MINIMUM MARKET MAXIMUM
Citv Administrator $5.814.00 $7,650.00 $8,415.00
Director of Public Works $5.616.40 $7,390.00 $8,129.00
Finance Director $5,210.56 $6,856.00 $7,541.60
Plannin~ Director $4,997.00 $6,575.00 $7,232.50
Citv Enaineer $4,959.00 $6,525.00 $7,177.50
Director of Liauor Operations $4,784.20 $6,295.00 $6,924.50
Deputv Clerk/Admin. Ass!. $4,377.60 $5,760.00 $6,336.00
Buildina Official $4,104.00 $5,400.00 $5,940.00
En~ineer Technician $3,79620 $4,995.00 $5,494.50
Assistant Planner $3,724.00 $4,900.00 $5,390.00
Senior Accountant $3,344.00 $4,400.00 $4.840.00
Ass!. Liauor Store Mana~er $3,230.00 $4,250.00 $4.675.00
Administrative Ass!. $3,055.20 $4.020.00 $4,422.00
Receptionist/Park Secretary $3,05520 $4,020.00 $4,422.00
Communications Tech $2,888.00 $3.800.00 $4,180.00
Accountina Clerk $2,842.40 $3,740.00 $4,114.00
Office Assistant $2,660.00 $3,500.00 $3,850.00
Liauor Clerk $2,101.40 $2,765.00 $3.041.50
Part-Time Employees
I Liquor Clerk
$1,527.60 I
$2,010.00 I
$2.211.00 I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 2006 MONTHLY WAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES
CURRENT MONTHLY MONTHLY PERCENTAGE
JOB CLASSIFICATION WAGE 1/1/2006 COST 7/1/2006 COST INCREASE
City Administrator $6,891.00 $7.028.82 $137.82 $7.169.40 $140.58 4.04
Director of Public Works $6,698.00 $6.831.96 $133.96 $6.968.60 $136.64 4.04
Finance Director $6.656.00 $6,789.12 $133.12 $6,924.90 $135.78 4.04
PlanninQ Director $6,237.00 $6.361.74 $124.74 $6,488.97 $127.23 4.04
City Enaineer Vacant
Dir. of liquor Operations $4,919.00 $5.017.38 $98.38 $5,117.73 $100.35 4.04
Deputv Clerk/Admin. Ass!. $4,814.00 $4,910.28 $96.28 $5.008.49 $98.21 4.04
Buildina Official $4,887.00 $4.984.74 $97.74 $5,084.43 $99.69 4.04
EnQineer Technician $4.708.00 $4.802.16 $94.16 $4,898.20 $96.04 4.04
Assistant Planner $4,312.00 $4,398.24 $86.24 $4,486.20 $87.96 4.04
Assistant Planner $4,312.00 $4,398.24 $86.24 $4,486.20 $87.96 4.04
Senior Accountant $3.315.00 $3.381.30 $66.30 $3,448.93 $67.63 4.04
Ass!' Liauor Store ManaQer $3,169.00 $3,232.38 $63.38 $3,297.03 $64.65 4.04
Administrative Ass!' $3,169.00 $3,23238 $63.38 $3,297.03 $64.65 4.04
Receptionist/Park Secretary $3,401.00 $3,469.02 $68.02 $3.538.40 $69.38 4.04
Communications Tech $3,410.00 $3,478.20 $68.20 $3,547.76 $69.56 4.04
AccountinQ Clerk $3,267.00 $3,332.34 $65.34 $3,398.99 $66.65 4.04
Liauor Clerk $2,345.00 $2,391.90 $46.90 $2,439.74 $47.84 4.04
MONTHLY COST $1,530.20 $1,560.80
MONTHLY PAYROLL $76,510.00 $79,601.00
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE
INCREASE 4.04
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $37,092.00