Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08 - Compensation Planning ProcessMEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRUNO RUMBELOW, CITY MANAGE MEETING DATE: APRIL 5, 2016 SUBJECT: WORKSHOP — COMPENSATION PLANNING PROCESS Matt Weatherly of Public Sector Personnel Consultants (PSPC) will make a presentation on the compensation planning process. April 1, 2016 (10:43AM) PUBLIC SIECTOR. R#RSOMl/B L COHOULTANIr3 Compensation Planning Process Overview and Review Confirming Jobs and Services 580 full time and 97 part time employees perform job duties following their job description to provide municipal services. The City has 241 civilian job titles and 18 Police and Fire job titles. Job Descriptions are regularly reviewed at the HR level and the departmental level to ensure accuracy of job duties and alignment with organizational service goals. Departments track service levels, work volumes, and employee performance as part of the annual budget. Identifying and Surveying the Competition Municipal employers, especially within the Dallas -Fort Worth area, face a great deal of competition from both the public and private sectors. There is an abundance of nearby cities that compete for skilled and experienced workers. Where the City gets employees from, and perhaps loses employees to, can provide important insight in to the labor market on a local or regional basis. Not every city has the same services, which can make comparisons for some job groups such as water / wastewater treatment, CVB, and golf challenging. Regular compensation comparisons help employers maintain a consistent market relationship for all job levels. Surveys and studies can be performed without an expectation that "everyone will get a raise", and should simply be used to identify any pay plan corrections. Annual budgeting for merit or cost of living adjustments adjustments to employee salaries) should also be planned for regular actual salary adjustments to move employees through their ranges. An organization's approach to pay planning, and decisions about what to pay, are most successful when there is a defined process in place and an intentional effort made to regularly gather objective data, include policy makers in the process, and make informed and defensible decisions as part of budgeting. Matt Weatherly, President (888) 522-7772 matt@pspc.us PUBLIC SECTOR PERSONNOL CONSULTANTS The City of Grapevine has historically compared jobs and compensation with the following 18 cities (who to compare jobs to is often worthy of discussion): City of Bedford City of Carrollton City of Colleyville City of Coppell City of Dallas City of Denton City of Euless City of Farmers Branch City of Fort Worth City of Irving City of Keller City of Lewisville City of North Richland Hills City of Plano City of Richardson City of Southlake City of University Park Town of Flower Mound Use of the same comparison cities over time provides a steady measure of any market fluctuation. Some of these cities have fewer jobs in common with Grapevine than others. Market Strategy and Budgeting for Salaries The City of Grapevine has maintained a market position at the 50th percentile (also often called "the median" or keeping in the middle) for the last 10 years, per Council stated goal in 2006. Annually, the two (2) pay plans ("open range" pay table for civilians, and a grade/step scale for Police and Fire) are reviewed and compared to the 18 cities, and as necessary a market adjustment is proposed to maintain the 50th percentile. Annual budget discussions consider merit increases for civilian staff using the City's performance program, and step increases for Police and Fire staff. Summary The City does an excellent job of keeping tabs on the market to ensure the pay plan does not fall under, or over, prevailing rates. The City's performance appraisal program ensures that a competitive level of performance is provided in return for a competitive/appropriate rate of pay. The City's overall approach, with focus on market and performance, is a desirable method of assuring the City's ability to recruit and retain a skilled workforce with a plan that is fair, consistent, equitable, and affordable. Matt Weatherly, President (888) 522-7772 matt@pspc.us Grapevine PUBLIC SECTOR PERSONNEL CONSULTANTS Compensation Planning Discussion Overview of Topics Annual budget process and regular affirmation of desired market position (pay philosophy). Frequent survey and planning: to answer 1) Where are we in relation to market, and 2) Where do we want or need to position ourselves in order to recruit and retain quality staff? Apply the market findings and the direction given by Council to identify and/or prioritize salary spending as part of the budget. ro Notes and Background Total of 580 full time and 97 part time positions in 241 unique civilian job descriptions to municipal services; 18 Police and Fire titles. perform provide Employee salaries and benefits make up approximately 46% of the City's general fund expenditures. Annual tracking of employee performance to ensure alignment of service goals and job duties. 2006 Council stated goal: 50th percentile of market generally the median, or trying to stay "in the middle" of the market rates). 3 Annual Review Collect Data from Comparison Cities -February it Compare Current Pay Practices to Market -March Confirm Desired Market Position/Competitiveness -April 1 Pay Plan Corrections or Determine Priorities — April/May 1 Market Adjustment Projections for Budget — July/August Survey Methodology Job comparisons are made on actual job duties comparing to 18 cities: Bedford Carrollton Colleyville Coppell Dallas Denton Euless Farmers Branch Flower Mound Fort Worth Irving Keller Lewisville North Richland Hills Plano Richardson Southlake University Park Data points used for comparisons are pay range Entry, Midpoint, and Top. Jobs that many of the cities have in common, or benchmark" jobs, are included. I Survey Illustration - Municipal Court Clerk City of Bedford City of Carrollton City of Colleyvi Ile City of Coppell City of Dallas City of Denton City of Euless City of Farmers Branch Town of Flower Mound City of Fort Worth City of Irving City of Lewisville City of North Richland Hills City of Plano City of Richardson City of Southlake City of University Park Municipal Court Clerk 1 33,400 Annual Annual Annual Comparator Comparator Title Range Range Range 35,043 40,883 Minimum Mid -Point Maximum City of Bedford City of Carrollton City of Colleyvi Ile City of Coppell City of Dallas City of Denton City of Euless City of Farmers Branch Town of Flower Mound City of Fort Worth City of Irving City of Lewisville City of North Richland Hills City of Plano City of Richardson City of Southlake City of University Park Municipal Court Clerk 1 33,400 40,081 46,761 Court Collector 28,684 34,421 40,157 Court Clerk 29,202 35,043 40,883 Deputy Court Clerk 36,608 44,845 53,081 Court Specialist 24,292 32,777 41,261 Assistant Court Rep 26,312 30,576 34,840 Court Clerk 36,716 41,533 46,350 Court Clerk 1 29,120 35,672 42,224 Deputy Court Clerk 32,697 39,239 45,780 Customer Sry Rep II 28,492 35,615 42,737 Court Clerk 30,744 37,050 43,356 Deputy Court Clerk 31,170 35,907 40,643 Court Records Clerk 29,745 36,883 44,020 Municipal Court Clerk 1 35,601 43,932 52,262 Asst Municipal Court Clerk 30,648 39,738 48,828 Court Clerk 1 32,211 40,264 48,316 Deputy Court Clerk 38,484 45,840 53,196 City of Grapevine Range: 31,235 1 37,4827 43,729 50TH PERCENTILE GRAPEVINE % BELOW/ABOVE 50TH PERCENTILE 30,744 $37,050 $44,020 1.60% 1.17% -0.66% Survey Illustration - Police Officer City of Bedford City of Carrollton City of Colleyville City of Coppell City of Dallas City of Denton City of Euless City of Farmers Branch Town of Flower Mound City of Fort Worth City of Irving City of Keller City of Lewisville City of North Richland Hills City of Plano City of Richardson City of Southlake City of University Park Police Officer 50,176 Annual Annual Annual Comparator Comparator Title Range Range Range 60,196 68,498 Minimum Mid -Point Maximum City of Bedford City of Carrollton City of Colleyville City of Coppell City of Dallas City of Denton City of Euless City of Farmers Branch Town of Flower Mound City of Fort Worth City of Irving City of Keller City of Lewisville City of North Richland Hills City of Plano City of Richardson City of Southlake City of University Park Police Officer 50,176 60,277 70,377 Police Officer 56,639 67,487 78,335 Police Officer 51,893 60,196 68,498 Police Officer 54,275 631156 72,037 Police Officer 44,659 58,689 727718 Police Officer 57,984 66,979 75,974 Police Officer 58,390 66,049 73,708 Police Officer 53,664 62,816 71,968 Police Officer 54,600 64,002 73,403 Police Officer 54,309 67,372 80,434 Police Officer 56,028 65,550 75,072 Police Officer 52,458 60,726 68,994 Police Officer 57,909 65,536 73,163 Police Officer 52,738 60,389 68,039 Police Officer 63,757 73,742 83,727 Police Officer 57,756 66,864 75,972 Police Officer 50,936 58,589 66,242 Police Officer 60,576 68,946 77,316 City of Grapevine Range: 52,789 62,133 71,477 50TH PERCENTILE $54,455 $64,769 $73,283 GRAPEVINE % BELOW/ABOVE 50TH PERCENTILE -3.06% -4.07% -2.46% Survey Illustration - Firefighter Paramedic City of Bedford City of Carrollton City of Colleyville City of Coppell City of Dallas City of Denton City of Euless City of Farmers Branch Town of Flower Mound City of Fort Worth City of Irving City of Keller City of Lewisville City of North Richland Hills City of Plano City of Richardson City of Southlake City of University Park Firefighter II 50,092 Annual Annual Annual Comparator Comparator Title Range Range Range 57,909 64,570 Minimum Mid -Point Maximum City of Bedford City of Carrollton City of Colleyville City of Coppell City of Dallas City of Denton City of Euless City of Farmers Branch Town of Flower Mound City of Fort Worth City of Irving City of Keller City of Lewisville City of North Richland Hills City of Plano City of Richardson City of Southlake City of University Park Firefighter II 50,092 60,685 71,277 Firefighter/Paramedic 58,610 65,002 71,393 Firefighter/Paramedic 51,247 57,909 64,570 Firefighter/Paramedic 56,976 64,710 72,443 Fire Rescue Officer 47,958 63,188 78,418 Firefighter 56,492 65,723 74,954 Firefighter/Paramedic 58,760 67,190 75,619 Firefighter/Paramedic 57,985 63,828 69,671 Firefighter/Paramedic 54,859 63,044 71,229 Firefighter/Paramedic 51,994 61,905 71,816 Firefighter/Paramedic 52,452 63,000 73,548 Firefighter/Paramedic 52,300 60,512 68,723 Firefighter 56,585 64,401 72,216 Firefighter/Paramedic 53,421 60,996 68,571 Firefighter Paramedic 67,427 73,095 78,762 Firefighter 55,992 65,112 74,232 Firefighter/Paramedic 50,936 58,589 66,242 Firefighter/Paramedic 59,820 69,144 78,468 City of Grapevine Range: 52,789 1 62,133 71,477 50TH PERCENTILE $55,426 $63,508 $72,016 GRAPEVINE % BELOW/ABOVE 50TH PERCENTILE -4.76% -2.17% -0.75% FY 2016 Survey Findings Pay data was compared for 50+ jobs. Relationship to Prevailing Rates Below (-5% or more) Comparable (within 5%) Above Benchmark Job Classes 0 45 3 of Sample 11% 84% 5% After the FY 2016 market adjustment, the City's current pay ranges are competitive at range Midpoint for 89% of the survey sample. 9 Applications As -needed market adjustments are made to the pay range structures to maintain Council desired market position. (i.e., if a job is more than 5% behind or ahead, placement on the pay table is reviewed for consistency, equity) Subsequent adjustments to employee salaries keep employees up with market and their pay range. Based on a passing evaluation, merit/step increases should also be budgeted within the pay ranges. 10 PSPC Review and Comments The City does an excellent job of ensuring its pay keeps up, but does not exceed, the often fast-moving MetroPlex market. Survey data allows the City to make informed and intentional decisions about its pay practices. Employee performance appraisal program keeps the plan from being tenure -driven or an "entitlement". This objective and intentional approach to pay planning is allowing the City to recruit and retain high performing employees. 1 Summary omments? Questions? 12