HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIV 1982-01-27 Minutes MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
JANUARY 27, 1982 AT 7:00 P.M. TN
~
THE NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY HALL,
7301 N.E. LOOP 820
CALL TO ORDER Chairman Szol called the meeting to order at
7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL Members Present:
Ed Szol Chairman
Bob Roark
David Phelps
George Pederson
Others Present:
Sharyl Groves Councilwoman
Ron McKinney Civil Service Secretary
Cecil Forester Director of Public Works/Utilities
John Moody Water Superintendent
Don Andrews Fire Arson Investigator
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Phelps moved, seconded by Chairman Szol,
FOR OCTOBER 20, 1981 to approve the minutes of October 20, 1981 as written.
The motion carried 3-0 with Co~issioner Pederson
abstaining since he was not present at the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Phelps moved, seconded by Commissioner
FOR APPEAL HEARING Roark, to approve the minutes for the appeal hearing
OF NOVEMBER 17, 1981 of November 17, 1981 as written. The motion carried
3-0 with Commissioner Pederson abstaining since he was
not present at the hearing.
REQUEST TO RECONSIDER Cecil Forester, Public Works/Utility Director, addressed
MAINTENANCE WORKER the Commission. He said he was asking the Commission to
PAY GRADES consider the pay grade of the Maintenance Worker III and
the Pump Station Operator III which currently are in Pay
Grade 5. He explained to the Commission that to qualify
for Maintenance Worker II and Pump Station Operator II
positions in Pay Grade 4 an individual only has to be a
good worker, be punctual, and do what he is told. He
stated that there is a big jump in qualifications between
a II and III. He explained that Maintenance Worker III's
and Pump Station Operator III's are crew leaders, equip-
ment operators, decision makers, mechanics, and public
relations people. He said he felt the III's are
misclassified; that they are more than one step above
the II's. Mr. Forester said he felt they should be
classified in Pay Grade 6. He compared the responsibilities
of the Equipment Operator, Auto Mechanic II and Water
Service Worker in Pay Grade 6 with that of the '
CIVIL SERVICE MINUTES
_ _Janu~ry 27, 1982
Page 2
~ Maintenance Worker III and Pump Station Operator III.
He said an equipment operator is only required to
operate equipment, an Auto Mechanic II is only required
to work on equipment, and a Water Service Worker's only
requirement is to install water meters. He explained
that a Maintenance Worker III is required to operate
equipment, be able to work on equipment without supervision,
and install water meters as well as check out leaks and
make accuracy tests. He said he did not have a Maintenance
Worker III who could not do the 3ob of the Water Service
Worker, but the Water Service Worker could not take the
position of a Maintenance Worker III. Ae explained that
a Pump Station Operator is a very extremely important
person in the City.
Chairman Szol asked what the difference was between
what an Equipment Operator is required to do and that
of a Maintenance Worker IiI.
Mr. Forester said the Equipment Operator operates such
equipment as the loader, grader, front end loader, and
backhoe. He said a Maintenance Worker III also operates
the same equipment, but is also required to do other
things as well. He said the Equipment Operator has no
supervision requirements while the Maintenance Worker
III's are crew leaders responsible for supervising their
people.
Chairman Szol asked if there was a need for the equipment
operator classification; if it would be more economic
to combine the classification with the maintenance
worker.
Mr. Forester said he did not have any trouble finding
work for the Equipment Operator. He said the Equipment
Operator is more of a specialist.
Commissioner Phelps asked how he valued the Equipment
Operator and Maintenance Worker III.
Mr. Forester said the III's were much higher.
Co~issioner Phelps asked if the equipment operator
might be classified wrong.
Mr. Forester said if the City had a top notch equipment
operator he would need to be classified where he is,
but the City does not pay enough to get that kind. He
said the III's are much more valuable and much more
important.
~
~ CIVIL SERVICE MINUTES
January 27, 1982
Page 3
Commissioner Phelps asked about the Maintenance Foreman
position.
Mr. Forester explained it was a new position that was
budgeted this year in the Utility Department to provide
supervisory relief for the Water Superintendent foreman
wise on the weekend, night and emergency crews, and
to help the Water Superintendent with follow up activities.
Commissioner Phelps asked if the maintenance ~orkers
automatically progess up.
Mr. Forester explained that they do up to a II position,
but if the IZ's don't become qualified for the III
position they will not progress any further.
Commissioner Phelps asked if the major difference between
a II and III is leadership.
Mr. Forester explained that a III is a person who has
progressed in job knolwedge, is able to meet the public,
and take responsibility.
Chairman Szol asked how the pay for the Maintenance
Worker III compares with the other cities.
Mr. Forester said he thought that North Richland Hills
was in line but to keep in mind that North Richland
Hills has 27% more water customers than Haltom City,
46% more than Euless, 300% more than Grapevine; that
North Richland Hills has a bigger system with more
problems, more lines and more breaks. He said that
North Richland Hills has a more difficult situation in
regards to the type of soil, North Richland Hills has
more water breaks than any other city he has ever been
involved with, and North Richland Hills maintains the
water system for another city.
Mr. McKinney stated that the Commission was being asked
to raise the pay grades for a Maintenance Worker III and
Pump Station Operator III. He asked Mr. Forester if the
value between a I and II should be any greater.
Mr. Forester said in his opinion it was, but that it
does not justify changing.
Mr. McKinney asked if the Pump Station Operator should
be a greater value than the Maintenance Worker in the
same category.
Mr. Forester said yes, that the Pump Station Operator
is depended on to be at work every day.
CIVIL SERVICE MINUTES
January 27, 1982
~ - Page 4
Mr. McKinney told the Commission that a lot of the
cities do not have different classifications for the
maintenance workers; that they are grouped together.
Commissioner Pederson asked how many Maintenaace Worker
III's there are.
Mr. Moody stated that in the Utility Department there are
seven III's, seven II's, and seven I's.
Chairman Szol said he would suggest that Mr. McKinney go
out and physically see what the Equipment Operator,
the Pump Station Operator and the Maintenance Worker III
does, how much time they really spend on operating
equipment and see how much skill is involved.
Commissioner Roark asked if the Pump Station Operator III
has supervisory responsibility.
Mr. Forester said he only has four people who are pump
station operators. He said they operate around the clock
and that there is never more than one pump station operator
on duty at any given time.
~hairman Szol stated that one of the key things that
the Co~ission did when the pay plan was put together
was to get the salaries competitive with the other
cities--which this classification is at this point. He
said if the Commission moves the III's up one step,
then there will ~ust be a one step increase between
them and the Maintenance Foreman. He said the same
argument could then be applied to the Maintenance
Foreman classification. He said maybe the Equipment
Operator has been misclassified and should be in Pay
Grade 5, the Maintenance Worker I and Pump Station Operator
I should be in Pay Grade 2, the Maintenance Worker II
and Pump Station Operator II should be classified in
Pay Grade 3, and the Water Service Worker classified
in Pay Grade 5.
Mr. Forester stated that the Water Service Worker is
not comparable to a Maintenance Worker III.
Chairman Szol stated that the Water Service Worker may
be classified too high.
Mr. Forester stated that the Maintenance Worker III's
are what holds the City together.
Mr. Moody told the Commission that the figures they
received from the other cities are not always accurate.
He said unless you really knotir what you are looking
~ for you could be comparing something that somebody else
calls a II or III. He said the figures might vary between
5% to 7%. He told the Commission that he had done surveys
and charts in which he obtained his information regarding
CIVIL SERVICE MINUTES
January 27, 1982
_ ~ Page 5
salaries straight from the "horse's mouth". He told
the Commission the figures they were shown came from
a book. He said a former North Richland Hills employee
who had never worked in the street department before
went to Hurst and hired in at an entry level job
digging a ditch for the Street Department and is making
more money than he did at North Richland Hills as a
Maintenance Worker III.
Chairman Szol said to call Hurst and find out what the
employee did hire in at.
Mr. Forester stated that when the pay plan was put
together it was his understanding that the City was not
able to put together a whole lot of information in regards
to what other cities were doing with their Street and
Water Superintendents. Mr. Forester passed out a survey.
He stated he obtained the information on the survey today
by talking with the other cities personally. He told
the Commission that North Richland Hills hired a Street
Superintendent over a year ago for $1,500 but that
according to the new pay schedule one can be hired today
for $1,300. He.said the survey was what the superintendents
in the other cities were actually making. He asked the
Commission to take the survey into consideration.
Co~nissioner Pederson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Phelps, that the Commission have Ron McKinney to investigate
the Equipment Operator, the Water Service Worker, the
Maintenance Worker ITI, Pump Station Operator III, and
the Maintenance Worker I& II and report his findings to
the Commission at the next meeting for further consideration.
The motion passed unanimously.
REVIEW OF PAX GRADE Chairman Szol closed the regular meeting at 7:45 P.M. for
FOR FIRE ARSON review of pay grade for Fire Arson Investigator.
INVESTIGATOR
(Closed)
Ed Szol, Chairma
a~
Ron McKinney, Civil S ce Secretary