HomeMy WebLinkAboutWS - Compensation ConsultantTO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRUNO RUMBELOW, ACTING CITY MANAGER�j�
MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2005
SUBJECT: COMPENSATION CONSULTANT —WORKSHOP ITEM
Attached for your review prior to Tuesday night's workshop is salary information that
was provided to you during the budget process and a new job -to -job comparison report
prepared by our Personnel Director as requested during the budget workshop. Ms. Ray
will be at the Tuesday night workshop to cover/discuss the following topics:
1. Discussion about and achieving consensus on our overall compensation
philosophy
2. Grapevine's desired place in the market (meeting, leading or trailing and our
current overall percentile ranking)
3. Cities to use (going forward) in our market survey
4. Review of the data in the packet provided to you and a discussion of additional
data (such as current market information) that we may want Ray and Associates
to prepare
5. Any other salary issues (such as topped out employees) that the Council may
want to discuss
The main purpose of using Ray and Associates is to help the Staff and Council clearly
identify our place in the market, assist us to make good choices for where we want to be
in the market and help us develop options we may need to pursue over the next few
years to get us there. We intend to use the information provided to us by Ms. Ray during
December as we review with Council the City's overall financial condition.
Please let me know if you have any questions on this matter.
MEMORANDUM CITY OF GRAPEVINE TEXAS
TO: Bruno Rumbelow, Acting City Manager
FROM: William A. Gaither, Director of Administrative Servies
Carolyn Van Duzee, Personnel Director
SUBJECT: Cost of Moving Grapevine Pay Ranges Up to the 50th Percentile
vs. the 60th Percentile of Other Metroplex Cities' Pay Ranges by
October, 2006
DATE: July 29, 2005
The FY 06 budget submitted to Council today includes a 3% merit pay raise for
non -sworn employees and a 5% step raise for sworn employees. The General
Fund cost of these raises is a total of $444,453 ($444,400 in salary only and $53
in benefits). The cost to all other funds for these raises is a total of $136,852
($125,303 in salary only and $11,549 in benefits). There are no pay raises for
employees who have reached the maximum of their pay range.
Due to the fact that Grapevine pay ranges have fallen below the 50th percentile
(or median) of the pay ranges for other cities in the Metroplex market, a scenario
was generated to determine the cost of moving Grapevine salaries back up to the
50th percentile by October of 2006. This would spread the cost over two fiscal
years. The General Fund cost to adjust Grapevine pay ranges back up to the
50th percentile is an increase of $4,532,425 over the two fiscal years ($3,951,997
in salary only and $580,428 in benefits). The cost to all other funds for these
raises is an increase of $1,153,446 over the two fiscal years ($984,001 in salary
only and $169,445 in benefits). These costs also include a 3% merit pay raise
for non -sworn employees and a 5% step raise for sworn employees in FY 06 and
FY 07. To ensure that Grapevine reaches the 50th percentile of other cities' pay
ranges by October, 2006, the following assumptions are made:
• the current inflation rate of approximately 3% remains relatively
constant as it has for the past five years,
• the demand for or supply of labor does not increase nor decrease
significantly in the Metroplex,
• no new employee positions nor employee benefits are added to the
Grapevine budget, and
• Grapevine's contribution to employee benefits such as insurance and
TMRS remains constant over the two fiscal years.
To reach the 50th percentile by October, 2006, full-time pay plans need to be
increased by an average of 6.92% in fiscal year 06 and 07. This increase
includes a built-in pay range inflation factor of 3% to account for the increases
other cities will make to the pay ranges they use for FY 06 and 07. Without an
inflation factor, Grapevine will continue to lag the market.
For comparison to the cost of moving pay ranges back up to the 50th percentile of
municipal salary ranges in the Metroplex, a scenario was also generated to
determine the cost of moving Grapevine pay ranges up to the 60th percentile of
this market. Again, costs are spread over FY 06 and 07. To ensure that
Grapevine's pay ranges reach the 60th percentile by October, 2006 the same
assumptions mentioned previously apply to this scenario. The General Fund
cost to adjust Grapevine pay ranges back up to the 60th percentile is a total of
$5,078,094 ($4,422,848 in salary only and $655,246 in benefits). The cost to all
other funds for these raises is a total of $1,352,492 ($1,155,036 in salary only
and $197,456 in benefits). These costs also include a 3% merit pay raise for
non -sworn employees and a 5% step raise for sworn employees in FY 06 and FY
07.
To reach the 60th percentile by October, 2006, full-time pay plans need to be
increased by an average of 8.13% in each of the two fiscal years. This figure
includes a built-in pay range inflation factor of 3% to account for the increases
other cities will make to the pay ranges they use for FY 06 and 07. Without an
inflation factor, Grapevine will continue to lag this market whether ranges are
moved to the 50th or 60th percentile.
The difference in cost of moving to the 50th percentile by October, 2006 vs. the
cost of moving to the 60th percentile by October, 2006 is a total of $545,669 to
the General Fund ($470,851 in salary only and $74,818 benefits). The difference
in cost for all other funds is a total of $199,046 ($171,035 in salary only and
$28,011 for benefits). See Attachment 1 for additional details.
Grapevine's History of Pay Range Adiustments
For many years, Grapevine's stated goal for employee pay ranges has been the
66th percentile of other cities' pay ranges in the Metroplex market. Among other
factors, an organization's pay and benefits can attract highly qualified candidates
for vacant positions and retain them to continue providing high-quality service to
the public they serve. By positioning Grapevine pay ranges at the 66th percentile,
the implied goal is to attract employees who are "above average," in fact, well
"above average." On the other hand, the message implied by pay ranges that
are below the 50th percentile is that Grapevine is making little attempt to attract
"average" employees and will accept employees who are "below average."
Grapevine reached the stated goal of the 66th percentile of market pay ranges in
FY 89 but has not met the goal again since that time. The Arthur Anderson
study, which was implemented in FY 00, placed Grapevine pay ranges back up
to the 60th percentile with an average pay range increase of 6.88%. Since that
time, Grapevine pay ranges have dropped below the 50th percentile because of
decisions made to artificially cap pay ranges increases with amounts ranging
between 3 and 5% during fiscal years in which other cities increased their pay
ranges considerably more. In fact, the salary survey Grapevine conducted this
spring shows that the pay range for 23 of Grapevine's jobs are not only set below
the 50th percentile, they are the lowest pay ranges out of 18 cities surveyed on
those jobs in the Metroplex (see Attachment 2).
Making matters worse, no pay range adjustments were made to Grapevine pay
ranges in FY 03 and 04 (see Attachment 3). The outcome of these actions since
FY 00 resulted in Grapevine pay ranges falling below the 50th percentile of the
Metroplex market. Any attempt to bring the pay ranges back up will be costly for
several reasons. One of which is the Grapevine's tremendous growth in the
services provided to the public by a growing employee base. Attachment 4
shows that 177 full-time employees have been added since FY 95 in order to
meet the demand for services. This represents a 49.58% increase during the
past 10 years, while only 8.34% of this increase came in the last 5 years.
The other factor making pay plan adjustments less affordable was the September
11th tragedy which affected Grapevine's revenue and sales tax proceeds to a
greater degree than any other city in the Metroplex due to the location of the
DFW Airport. As an example, between FY 00 and FY 05, five of the local cities
surveyed (Bedford, Colleyville, Euless, Hurst, and Southlake) increased their pay
ranges by an average of 5.31% while Grapevine ranges were increased by an
average of 2.22% (see Attachment 5).
Current Position of Grapevine Pay Ranges in the Metroplex Market
The annual Grapevine survey of pay ranges includes 18 cities:
Bedford
Euless
Lewisville
Carrollton
Farmers Branch
North Richland Hills
Colleyville
Flower Mound
Plano
Coppell
Ft. Worth
Richardson
Dallas
Irving
Southlake
Denton
Keller
University Park
Fourteen of these cities have been included in the Grapevine survey since 1989.
In 1994, Grapevine added Colleyville, Euless, Lewisville, and Farmers Branch to
the survey. These cities were included due to their proximity to Grapevine and
the competition to attract employees from these cities and/or to keep employees
from leaving Grapevine to go to work for these cities.
The pay range survey conducted in FY 04 showed that Grapevine pay ranges
had fallen below the 50th percentile for nearly every full-time pay grade when
measured against the pay grade for comparable jobs within the 18 cities. In fact,
Grapevine's pay ranges for 27 jobs were not only below the 50th percentile, they
were the lowest pay ranges out of 18 cities surveyed on those jobs in the
Metroplex (see Attachment 6). This was not a surprising outcome considering
the fact that the pay plan adjustments were artificially capped at 5.03% and
3.08% in FY 01 and 02, respectively, and that no pay range adjustments were
made in FY 03 and 04.
In order to avoid falling further behind the pay ranges of the comparison cities, a
3% pay plan adjustment was made to every pay grade (at the minimum and
maximum of the range) for FY 05. Again, this pay range adjustment was
artificially capped (at 3%) because the 04 pay range survey indicated that an
average 8.75% range adjustment was required to move Grapevine ranges back
to the 50th percentile.
After conducting the pay range survey again in FY 05, the results confirmed that
the pay range adjustment of 3% was not enough to move the Grapevine ranges
up to the 50 h percentile. However, the number of Grapevine jobs with the lowest
pay ranges in the survey decreased from 27 jobs to 23 jobs (see Attachment 2).
A listing of positions common to most cities is provided as Attachment 7. This list
reveals how far below the 50th percentile Grapevine's pay ranges currently are
for each of the jobs listed. The figures range from 22.43% below the 50th
percentile of the survey cities pay ranges to 8.12% above the 50th percentile of
the survey cities pay ranges. By simply glancing at the listing, you will notice that
the majority of the percentages listed are negative as indicated in red ink. Jobs
are listed here from every department in the city, from every pay plan (public
safety, exempt, non-exempt), and from all levels of the organization.
When examiningg the adjustments necessary to return Grapevine pay ranges up
to the 50th or 60t percentile, the recommended compensation practice is to make
adjustments based on entire pay plans rather than by individual jobs. This keeps
the structure of a pay plan intact and also eliminates distortion of the data that
can be caused by abnormalities in the data received from other cities. The
following pay grade adjustments are required to move Grapevine's current pay
ranges up to the 50th percentile by October, 2006 (FY 07):
The following pay grade adjustments are required to move Grapevine's current
pay ranges up to the 601h percentile by October, 2006 (FY 07):
Amount Required
Total
In FY 06 AND 07
Increase
Amount Below
To Achieve 50th
Inflation
For FY 06
Pay Plan
50th Percentile
Percentile by 10/06
Factor
AND 07
Executive
7.94%
/2 =
3.97% +
3.00%
= 6.97%
Exempt
7.05
/2 =
3.525% +
3.00%
= 6.525%
Non -Exempt
5.96
/2 =
2.98% +
3.00%
= 5.98%
Public Safety
9.66
/2 =
4.83% +
3.00%
= 7.83%
Technical
8.67%
/2 =
4.335% +
3.00%
= 7.335%
The following pay grade adjustments are required to move Grapevine's current
pay ranges up to the 601h percentile by October, 2006 (FY 07):
The difference in cost of moving to the 50th percentile by October, 2006 vs. the
cost of moving to the 601h percentile by October, 2006 is a total of $545,669 to
the General Fund ($470,851 in salary only and $74,818 benefits). The difference
in cost for all other funds is a total of $199,046 ($171,035 in salary only and
$28,011 for benefits).
cc: Fred Werner, Managing Director of Financial Services
Jennifer Hibbs, Assistant to the City Manager
Gary Livingston, Budget Manager
0:/Budget2005-06/Council Budget Pkt Memo for FY06
Amount Required
Total
In FY 06 AND 07
Increase
Amount Below
To Achieve 60th
Inflation
For FY 06
Pay Plan
60th Percentile
Percentile by 10/06
Factor
AND 07
Executive
10.36%
/2
= 5.18% +
3.00%
= 8.18%
Exempt
10.73%
/2
= 5.365% +
3.00%
= 8.365%
Non -Exempt
8.23%
/2
= 4.115% +
3.00%
= 7.115%
Public Safety
10.72%
/2
= 5.36% +
3.00%
= 8.36%
Technical
11.29%
/2
= 5.645% +
3.00%
= 8.645%
The difference in cost of moving to the 50th percentile by October, 2006 vs. the
cost of moving to the 601h percentile by October, 2006 is a total of $545,669 to
the General Fund ($470,851 in salary only and $74,818 benefits). The difference
in cost for all other funds is a total of $199,046 ($171,035 in salary only and
$28,011 for benefits).
cc: Fred Werner, Managing Director of Financial Services
Jennifer Hibbs, Assistant to the City Manager
Gary Livingston, Budget Manager
0:/Budget2005-06/Council Budget Pkt Memo for FY06
GENERAL
TOTAL
OTHER FI
TOTAL
ALL FUN[
TOTAL
GENERAL
TOTAL
OTHER FI
TOTAL
ALL FUN[
TOTAL
GENERAL
TOTA
OTHER FI
TOTA
TOTA
DIFFERENCE IN COST OF MOVING PAY RANGES TO
50TH PERCENTILE VS. 60TH PERCENTILE OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD
Attachment 1
TOTAL COST
OF MOVEMENT
TO 50TH
PERCENTILE
TOTAL COST
OF MOVEMENT
TO 60TH
PERCENTILE
DIFFERENCE
FUND
SALARIES
$3,951,997
$4,422,848
470,851
JNDS
SALARIES
$984,001
$1,155,036
171,035
IS
SALARIES
$4,935,998
$5,577,884
641,886
FUND
BENEFITS
$580,428
$655,246
74,818
JNDS
BENEFITS
$169,445
$197,456
28,011
IS
BENEFITS
$749,873
$852,702
102,829
.FUND
L SALARIES & BENEFITS
$4,532,425
$5,078,094
545,669
JNDS
L SALARIES & BENEFITS
$1,153,446
$1,352,492
199,046
,L CITYWIDE BUDGET
$5,685,871
$6,430,586
744,715
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
GRAPEVINE POSITIONS PAID LOWEST OUT OF 18 CITIES SURVEYED
.WHEN COMPARED AT MID -POINT OF THE PAY RANGE
FY 05
Survey Cities Include: Bedford, Carrollton, Colleyville, Coppell, Dallas, Denton, Euless, Farmers Branch, Flower Mound, Fort Worth, Irving, Keller, Lewisville,
North Richland Hills, Plano, Richardson, Southlake, University Park.
April 11, 2005
Comparison at
Comparison at
Comparison at
Number of Cities
Minimum of Pay
Mid -Point of Pay
Maximum of Pay
Matching Our
Pay Plan and
Position
Range
Range
Range
Job Description
Pay Grade
Asst City Manager
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
12
Executive Exempt Grade 13
Administrative Sry Dir
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
8
Executive Exempt Grade 12
Police Captain
lowest
lowest
5th lowest
10
Technical Exempt Grade 12
Asst IT Manager
lowest
lowest
lowest
4
Technical Exempt Grade 11
Emergency Mgt Coord
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
5
Technical Exempt Grade 10
Graduate Engineer
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
8
Technical Exempt Grade 9
Traffic Foreman
lowest
lowest
lowest
5
Technical Non -Exempt Grade 8
Customer Sry Coord
lowest
lowest
lowest
5
Technical Non -Exempt Grade 8
Sr. Construction Insp
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
6
Technical Non -Exempt Grade 8
Police Lieutenant
lowest
lowest
3rd lowest
16
Exempt Grade 11
Traffic Operations Mgr
lowest
lowest
lowest
6
Exempt Grade 11
Benefits/Claims Coord
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
6
Exempt Grade 9
Judge
2nd lowest
lowest
lowest
7
Exempt Grade 1
Accountant
2nd lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
11
Non -Exempt Grade 8
Animal Control Supv
lowest
lowest
lowest
5
Non -Exempt Grade 8
Sr. Telecommunicator
lowest
lowest
4th lowest
6
Non -Exempt Grade 8
W/WW Crew Leader
lowest
lowest
lowest
16
Non -Exempt Grade 6
Equipment Operator II
lowest
lowest
5th lowest
15
Non -Exempt Grade 5
Jailer
lowest
lowest
6th lowest
12
Non -Exempt Grade 5
Cashier
2nd lowest
lowest
3rd lowest
6
Non -Exempt Grade 4
Maintenance Worker
lowest
lowest
3rd lowest
9
Non -Exempt Grade 3
Fleet Services Worker
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
6
Non -Exempt Grade 2
Groundskeeper
lowest
lowest
3rd lowest
6
Non -Exempt Grade 2
Survey Cities Include: Bedford, Carrollton, Colleyville, Coppell, Dallas, Denton, Euless, Farmers Branch, Flower Mound, Fort Worth, Irving, Keller, Lewisville,
North Richland Hills, Plano, Richardson, Southlake, University Park.
April 11, 2005
Attachment 3
HISTORY OF MERIT/STEP INCREASES,
MARKET ADJUSTMENTS AND LUMP SUM PAYMENTS FOR FY 1999 TO 2005
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
TOTAL ACTUAL
FY 96
FY 97
FY 98
FY 99
FY 00
FY 01
FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
AVERAGE
FOR NINE
FISCAL YEARS
AVERAGE INCREASE:
4.0%
4.7%
8.0%
6.3%
9.6%
7.9%
5.7%
0.0%
0.0%
6.92%
5.32%
Merit Increase
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
0%
0%
5%
2.60%
Step Increase
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
0%
0%
5%
4.00%
Average Market Adjustment
2.70%
1.90%
5.00%
3.62%
6.88%
5.03%
3.08%
0.00%
0.00%
3.00%
3.12%
One -Time Lump Sum Payment
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
2%
0.55%
"Market Adjustment" is synonymous with the term "Pay Plan Adjustment." Market adjustments were artifically "capped" in FY 01, Fy 02, and FY 05.
When the Arthur Anderson study was implemented in FY 00, the average market adjustment of 6.88% brought Grapevine pay plans up to the
62nd percentile of the market.
0:/BUDGET/Budget2005-06/AdjHistory-Nine Yrs
Attachment 4
HISTORY OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS
City of Grapevine
Full -Time Positions
FY 95
FY 96
FY 97
FY 98
FY 99
FY 00
FY 01
FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
TEN YEAR
TOTAL
INCREASE
357.00 371.00 408.00 449.00 474.00 492.00 517.00 527.00 534.00 531.00 534.00
177.00
Increase Over
Previous FY
14.00
37.00
41.00
25.00
18.00
25.00
10.00
7.00
-3.00
3.00
Percentage Increase
3.92%
9.97%
10.05%
5.57%
3.80%
5.08%
1.93%
1.33%
-0.56%
0.56%
49.58%
Part -Time Positions
40.61
43.93
49.72
54.46
57.28
59.78
81.60
81.99
80.75
82.18
80.75
40.14
(Full -Time Equivalents)
Increase Over
Previous FY
3.32
5.79
4.74
2.82
2.50
21.82
0.39
-1.24
1.43
-1.43
Percentage Increase
8.18%
13.18%
9.53%
5.18%
4.36%
36.50%
0.48%
-1.51%
1.77%
-1.74%
98.84%
TOTAL AUTHORIZED
397.61
414.93
457.72
503.46
531.28
551.78
598.60
608.99
614.75
613.18
614.75
217.14
POSITIONS
54.61
OJBUDGET/Budget 2005 -06/10 -YR History of Authorized Positions
Survey
3.50%
lent
ayment
0.00% 4.00%
3.50%
lent
ayment
0.00% 2.00%
3.50%
vent 6.00%
ayment
3.00%
Attachment 5
BEDFORD
EULESS*
AVERAGE
3.50%
lent
2-18%
INCREASES
ayment
No Response No Response
2.00%
5%E - 6%NE
3.23%
2.5-7.5%
2.5-7.5%
3.00%
3.50%
lent
4.25%
ayment
10%
5.00%
3.50%
lent
ayment
0.00% 4.00%
3.50%
lent
ayment
0.00% 2.00%
3.50%
vent 6.00%
ayment
3.00%
Attachment 5
ive step increase on anniversary date; employees topped out receive only Pay Plan Adjustment (Across the Board).
each the top they only get across the board adjustment.
B time payment of 2% to employees in Dec. and an across the board adjustment (COLA) 2%; 2005- Oct 04 -2% adjustment and another 2% in January 05.
D; Merit for all other non -sworn -both based on evaluation. Average market adjustment is the average adjustment made to the pay grades.
AVERAGE
HURST
KELLER NRH SOUTHLAKE**
COLLEYVILLE***
INCREASES
GRAPEVINE****
No Response No Response
2.5-7.5%
2.5-7.5%
3.00%
5.00%
4.25%
5.00%
10%
5.03%
3.75%
0.00%
3.23%
3.00%
5.00%
4.25%
5.00%
4.50%
4.50%
3.08%
2.00%
3.50%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.00%
3.25%
0.00%
3.50%
3.50%
0.00%
2.00%
2.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.00%
3.25%
0.00%
2.75%
5.00%
3.88%
0.00%
2.00%
2.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.33%
0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
3.00%
3.25%
5.00%
4.00%
3-5%
4.67%
3.00%
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
3.50%
0.00%
AVERAGE MARKET ADJUSTMENT (PAY RANGE ADJUSTMENT)
5.31%
2.22%
ive step increase on anniversary date; employees topped out receive only Pay Plan Adjustment (Across the Board).
each the top they only get across the board adjustment.
B time payment of 2% to employees in Dec. and an across the board adjustment (COLA) 2%; 2005- Oct 04 -2% adjustment and another 2% in January 05.
D; Merit for all other non -sworn -both based on evaluation. Average market adjustment is the average adjustment made to the pay grades.
Attachment 6
GRAPEVINE POSITIONS PAID LOWEST OUT OF 18 CITIES SURVEYED
WHEN COMPARED AT MID -POINT OF THE PAY RANGE
FY 04
Comparison at
Comparison at
Comparison at
Number of Cities
Minimum of Pay
Mid -Point of Pay
Maximum of Pay
Matching Our
Pay Plan and
Position
Range
Range
Range
Job Description
Pay Grade
Police Captain
lowest
lowest
6th lowest
12
Technical Exempt Grade 12
Asst IT Manager
lowest
lowest
lowest
4
Technical Exempt Grade 11
Civil Engineer
lowest
lowest
lowest
9
Technical Exempt Grade 11
Emergency Mgt Coord
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
6
Technical Exempt Grade 10
Network Administrator I
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
5
Technical Exempt Grade 9
Communications Supv
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
13
Technical Non -Exempt Grade 8
Traffic Foreman
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
5
Technical Non -Exempt Grade 8
Water Foreman
lowest
lowest
lowest
9
Technical Non -Exempt Grade 8
Police Lieutenant
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
18
Exempt Grade 11
Street Superintendent
2nd lowest
lowest
lowest
4
Exempt Grade 11
Benefits/Claims Coord
2nd lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
7
Exempt Grade 9
Accountant
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
10
Non -Exempt Grade 8
Animal Control Supv
lowest
lowest
lowest
4
Non -Exempt Grade 8
Building Inspector II
2nd lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
15
Non -Exempt Grade 8
Jail Supervisor
2nd lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
5
Non -Exempt Grade 8
Sr. Telecommunicator
lowest
lowest
3rd lowest
7
Non -Exempt Grade 8
Crime Scene Tech I
lowest
lowest
lowest
4
Non -Exempt Grade 7
W/WW Crew Leader
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
14
Non -Exempt Grade 6
Equipment Operator II
lowest
lowest
lowest
8
Non -Exempt Grade 5
Jailer
lowest
lowest
3rd lowest
12
Non -Exempt Grade 5
Animal Control Officer
lowest
lowest
lowest
17
Non -Exempt Grade 4
Maintenance Worker
lowest
lowest
3rd lowest
5
Non -Exempt Grade 3
Fleet Services Worker
lowest
lowest
tied for lowest
7
Non -Exempt Grade 2
Groundskeeper
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
6
Non -Exempt Grade 2
Battalion Chief
2nd lowest
lowest
3rd lowest
14
Public Safety Step Pay Plan
Police Corporal
4th lowest
lowest
lowest
9
Public Safety Step Pay Plan
FF/EMT
2nd lowest
lowest
lowest
7
Public Safety Step Pay Plan
Survey Cities Include: Bedford,
Carrollton, Colleyville, Coppell, Dallas, Denton, Euless, Farmers Branch, Flower Mound, Fort
Worth, Irving, Keller, Lewisville,
North Richland Hills, Plano, Richardson, Southlake, University Park.
Attachment 7
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
COMPARISON OF BENCHMARK JOBS
USING 1/2005 SURVEY DATA COLLECTED FROM 18 METROPLEX CITIES
# OF CITIES % BELOW
W/MATCHING PAY PLAN 50TH
T� E DESCRIPTION &GRADE PERCENTILE
Gr
Administrative Secretary 16 Non -Exempt Grade 7 -6.34%
13 Non -Exempt Grade 6 -3.08%
Secretary 9 Non -Exempt Grade 4 -1.89%
ClerkTYP'st
IT
IT Manager
13
Technical Grade 12
Network Administrator II
12
Technical Grade 10
-18.82%
1-f
GIS Administrator
11
Technical Grade 10
-5.26%
City Secretary
City Secretary
18
Exempt Grade 12
-22.43%
Fines Ce
Purchasing Agent
13
Exempt Grade 12
+1.16%
Sr Accountant
10
Exempt Grade 10
-8.96%
Utility Billing Supervisor
13
Technical Grade 8
-14.29%
Utility Billing Technician
8
Non Exempt Grade 7
+8.12%
Payroll Technician
13
Non Exempt Grade 7
-3.01%
Accounts Payable Clerk
11
Non -Exempt Grade 6
-8.17%
Customer Service Rep
12
Non -Exempt Grade 6
-3.68%
Cashier
6
Non -Exempt Grade 4
-4.66%
Attachment 6
GRAPEVINE POSITIONS PAID LOWEST OUT OF 18 CITIES SURVEYED
WHEN COMPARED AT MID -POINT OF THE PAY RANGE
FY 04
Comparison at
Comparison at
Comparison at
Number of Cities
Minimum of Pay
Mid -Point of Pay
Maximum of Pay
Matching Our
Pay Plan and
Position
Range
Range
Range
Job Description
Pay Grade
Police Captain
lowest
lowest
6th lowest
12
Technical Exempt Grade 12
As IT Manager
lowest
lowest
lowest
4
Technical Exempt Grade 11
Civil Engineer
lowest
lowest
lowest
9
Technical Exempt Grade 11
Emergency Mgt Coord
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
6
Technical Exempt Grade 10
Network Administrator I
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
5
Technical Exempt Grade 9
Communications Supv
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
13
Technical Non -Exempt Grade 8
Traffic Foreman
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
5
Technical Non -Exempt Grade 8
Water Foreman
lowest
lowest
lowest
9
Technical Non -Exempt Grade 8
Police Lieutenant
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
18
Exempt Grade 11
Street Superintendent
2nd lowest
lowest
lowest
4
Exempt Grade 11
Benefits/Claims Coord
2nd lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
7
Exempt Grade 9
Accountant
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
10
Non -Exempt Grade 8
Animal Control Supv
lowest
lowest
lowest
4
Non -Exempt Grade 8
Building Inspector II
2nd lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
15
Non -Exempt Grade 8
Jail Supervisor
2nd lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
5
Non -Exempt Grade 8
Sr. Telecommunicator
lowest
lowest
3rd lowest
7
Non -Exempt Grade 8
Crime Scene Tech I
lowest
lowest
lowest
4
Non -Exempt Grade 7
W/WW Crew Leader
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
14
Non -Exempt Grade 6
Equipment Operator II
lowest
lowest
lowest
8
Non -Exempt Grade 5
Jailer
lowest
lowest
3rd lowest
12
Non -Exempt Grade 5
Animal Control Officer
lowest
lowest
lowest
17
Non -Exempt Grade 4
Maintenance Worker
lowest
lowest
3rd lowest
5
Non -Exempt Grade 3
Fleet Services Worker
lowest
lowest
tied for lowest
7
Non -Exempt Grade 2
Groundskeeper
lowest
lowest
2nd lowest
6
Non -Exempt Grade 2
Battalion Chief
2nd lowest
lowest
3rd lowest
14
Public Safety Step Pay Plan
Police Corporal
4th lowest
lowest
lowest
9
Public Safety Step Pay Plan
FF/EMT
2nd lowest
lowest
lowest
7
Public Safety Step Pay Plan
Survey Cities Include: Bedford, Carrollton, Colleyville, Coppell, Dallas, Denton, Euless, Farmers Branch, Flower Mound, Fort Worth, Irving, Keller, Lewisville,
North Richland Hills, Plano, Richardson, Southlake, University Park.
Court
*Judge
Municipal Court Supervisor
Municipal Court Clerk
Fleet
Fleet Services Manager
Mechanic II
Police
Police Chief
*Police Captain
*Police Lieutenant
Sergeant
Corporal
Police Officer
*Jailer
Communications Supervisor
Telecommunicator
Records Specialist
Animal Control Officer
Fire
Fire Chief
Asst Fire Chief
Fire Marshal
Fire Inspector
Fire Captain
Fire Lieutenant
Driver/Engineer
Paramedic
Attachment 7
Exempt
11
Exempt Grade 9
-7.60%
17
Non -Exempt Grade 6
-4.68%
11
Exempt Grade 11
-13.34%
16
Non -Exempt Grade 7
-7.34%
17
Executive Grade 12
-9.31%
10
Technical Grade 12
-10.25%
16
Exempt Grade 11
-22.14%
17
Public Safety Grade 5
-10.05%
9
Public Safety Grade 4
-11.72%
17
Public Safety Grade 3
-9.43%
12
Non -Exempt Grade 5
-6.46%
13
Technical Grade 8
-18.85%
18
Non -Exempt Grade 7
-10.63%
11
Non -Exempt Grade 6
-5.48%
17
Non -Exempt Grade 4
-11.23%
17
Executive Grade 12
-7.89%
13
Technical Grade 13
-21.45%
14
Exempt Grade 12
-14.90%
12
Exempt Grade 9
-14.63%
13
Public Safety Grade 6
-12.09%
10
Public Safety Grade 5
-9.52%
17
Public Safety Grade 4A
-6.21%
18
Public Safety Grade 3
-8.25%
Attachment 7
Attachment 7
Park & Rec
Park &Rec Director
14
Executive Grade 10
-9.13%
Park Superintendent
13
Exempt Grade 11
-4.79%
Recreation Superintendent
13
Exempt Grade 11
-3.27%
CAC Supervisor
11
Exempt Grade 8
-10.76%
Sr Activities Center Director
7
Exempt Grade 8
Non -Exempt Grade 8
-0.54%
+0.19%
Recreation Coordinator
10
12
Technical Grade 8
-4.41%
Park Foreman
Park Crew Leader
16
Non -Exempt Grade 6
-11.56%
*Park EQ II
15
Non -Exempt Grade 5
-7.44%
Park EQ 1
10
Non -Exempt Grade 4
-4.35%
Park Crew Worker
17
Non -Exempt Grade 2
-3.74%
Library
Library Director
15
Exempt Grade 13
-18.24%
Librarian II
13
Exempt Grade 9
-3.90%
Librarian 1
10
Exempt Grade 8
-0.10%
Library Assistant
13
Non -Exempt Grade 4
-9.67%
Engineering
Civil Engineer
10
Technical Grade 11
-16.59%
Construction Inspector
p
13
Non -Exempt Grade 8
-9.49%
+3.41
Engineering Technician
13
Technical Grade 8
Development Services
Building Official
11
Technical Grade 13
-7.20%
Building Inspector
16
Non -Exempt Grade 8
-10.16%
Code Enforcement Officer
17
Non -Exempt Grade 8
-1.17%
Building Permit Clerk
13
Non -Exempt Grade 6
-3.32%
Attachment 7
Utilities
W/WW Foreman
12
Technical Grade 8
-5.99%
*WW/Water Crew Leader
16
Non -Exempt Grade 6
-13.18%
*WWM/ater EQ II
15
Non -Exempt Grade 5
-7.44%
WW/Water EQ 1
10
Non -Exempt Grade 4
-4.35%
Meter Reader
16
Non -Exempt Grade 3
-5.38%
W/WW Crew Worker
16
Non -Exempt Grade 3
-6.06%
Facilities Services
Facilities Services Manager
11
Exempt Grade 11
-17.84%
Building Maintenance Technician II
9
Non -Exempt Grade 7
-11.05%
*Building Maintenance Worker
9
Non -Exempt Grade 3
-7.56%
Streets &Drainage
Street/Drainage Manager
8
Exempt Grade 11
-10.98%
Street Foreman
12
Technical Grade 8
-11.28%
Street Crew Leader
17
Non -Exempt Grade 6
-12.35%
*Street EQ II
15
Non -Exempt Grade 5
-7.44%
Street EQ 1
10
Non -Exempt Grade 4
-4.35%
Street Crew Worker
15
Non -Exempt Grade 2
-3.74%
Traffic
Traffic Signal Technician II
9
Non -Exempt Grade 8
-8.73%
Traffic Signal Technician 1
8
Non -Exempt Grade 7
-0.63%
Traffic Technician 1
7
Non -Exempt Grade 6
+4.00%
*Grapevine pay range for these jobs is lowest out of 18 cities surveyed (comparison at mid -point of pay range)>
O:/Survey 05/Benchmark Jobs
Attachment 7
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
COMPARISON OF BENCHMARK JOBS
USING 1/2005 SURVEY DATA COLLECTED FROM 18 METROPLEX CITIES
# OF CITIES
% BELOW
TITLE
W/MATCHING
PAY PLAN
50TH
DESCRIPTION
& GRADE
PERCENTILE
Clerical
Administrative Secretary
16
Non -Exempt Grade 7
-6.34%
Secretary
13
Non -Exempt Grade 6
-3.08%
Clerk Typist
9
Non -Exempt Grade 4
-1.89%
IT
IT Manager
13
Technical Grade 12
IT Network Administrator II
12
Technical Grade 10
-18.82%
GIS Administrator
11
Technical Grade 10
-5.26%
City Secretary
City Secretary
18
Exempt Grade 12
-22.43%
Finance
Purchasing Agent
13
Exempt Grade 12
+1.16%
Sr Accountant
10
Exempt Grade 10
-8.96%
Utility Billing Supervisor
13
Technical Grade 8
-14.29%
Utility Billing Technician
8
Non Exempt Grade 7
+8.12%
Payroll Technician
13
Non Exempt Grade 7
-3.01%
Accounts Payable Clerk
11
Non -Exempt Grade 6
-8.17%
Customer Service Rep
12
Non -Exempt Grade 6
-3.68%
Cashier
6
Non -Exempt Grade 4
-4.66%
MEMORANDUM CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS
TO: Bruno Rumbelow, Acting City Manager
FROM: William A. Gaither, Administrative Services Direct(r
Carolyn Van Duzee, Personnel Director �f_V
SUBJECT: Cost of Moving Grapevine Pay Ranges Up to the 60th Percentile
of Other Metroplex Cities' Pay Ranges Over a Two -Year Period
vs. a Three -Year Period
DATE: August 5, 2005
Last week four scenarios were generated to determine the cost difference of
moving Grapevine's pay ranges back up to the 50th percentile of the pay ranges
for other cities in the Metroplex market vs. the cost of moving Grapevine's pay
ranges up to the 60th percentile of the market. These scenarios used a target
date of October, 2006 to arrive at the 50th and 60th percentile in order to spread
the costs over two fiscal years. Results of these scenarios were presented in a
Jul�r 29, 2005 memo (Sub* ct: Cost of Moving Grapevine Pay Ranges Up to the
50t Percentile vs. the 60t Percentile of Other Metroplex Cities' Pay Ranges by
October, 2006).
To summarize, that memo indicated the General Fund cost to adjust Grapevine
pay ranges to the 501h percentile is a total increase of $4,532,425 over the two
fiscal years ($3,951,997 in salary only and $580,428 in benefits). The cost to all
other funds to return to the 50th percentile is a total increase of $1,153,446 over
the two fiscal years ($984,001 in salary only and $169,445 in benefits). For
comparison, the General Fund cost to adjust Grapevine pay ranges to the 60th
percentile over the same two-year period is a total of $5,078,094 ($4,422,848 in
salary only and $655,246 in benefits). The cost to all other funds to return to the
60th percentile is a total of $1,352,492 ($1,155,036 in salary only and $197,456 in
benefits). See Attachment 1.
The difference in cost of moving to the 50th percentile by October, 2006 vs. the
cost of moving to the 60th percentile by that date is a total of $545,669 for the
General Fund ($470,851 in salary only and $74,818 in benefits). The difference
in cost for all other funds is a total of $199,046 ($171,035 in salary only and
$28,011 for benefits). See Attachment 1.
This week, three additional scenarios were generated to determine the cost of
moving Grapevine's pay ranges up to the 60th percentile over a three-year period
with a target date of October, 2007 to arrive at the 60th percentile of the pay
ranges for other cities in the Metroplex market. The General Fund cost to adjust
Grapevine pay ranges to the 60th percentile is a total increase of $6,430,333 over
the three fiscal years ($5,573,402 in salary only and $856,931 in benefits). The
cost to all other funds to return to the 60th percentile is a total increase of
$1,765,242 over the three fiscal years ($1,510,692 in salary only and $254,550 in
benefits). See Attachment 2.
The difference in cost of moving to the 601h percentile by October, 2006 vs. the
cost of moving to the 60th percentile by October, 2007 is a total of $1,352,239 for
the General Fund ($1,150,554 in salary only and $201,685 in benefits). The
difference in cost for all other funds is a total of $412,750 ($355,656 in salary
only and $57,094 in benefits). See Attachment 2.
As in the scenarios generated last week, the scenarios produced this week also
include a 3% merit pay raise for non -sworn employees and a 5% step raise for
sworn employees in FY 06, 07, and 08. To ensure that Grapevine reaches the
60th percentile of other cities' pay ranges by October, 2007, the same
assumptions were made in generating the scenarios this week:
• the current inflation rate of approximately 3% remains relatively
constant as it has for the past five years,
• the demand for or supply of labor does not increase nor decrease
significantly in the Metroplex,
• no new employee positions nor employee benefits are added to the
Grapevine budget, and
• Grapevine's contribution to employee benefits such as insurance and
TMRS remains constant over the three fiscal years.
To reach the 60th percentile by October, 2007, full-time pay plans need to be
increased by an average of 6.42% in fiscal years 06, 07, and 08. This increase
includes a built-in pay range inflation factor of 3% to account for the increases
other cities will make to the pay ranges they use for FY 06 through 08. This is
the same inflation factor that was used in the scenarios generated last week.
Without an inflation factor, Grapevine will continue to lag the market. For
comparison, full-time pay plans need to be increased by an average of 8.13% in
fiscal years 06 and 07 in order to arrive at the 60th percentile of market pay
ranges by October, 2006.
A comparison of the adjustments necessary to bring each pay plan up to the 60th
percentile over the two-year period vs. the three-year period follows:
Pay Plan Adjustments to the 60th Percentile Over a Two -Year Period:
Amount Below
Pay Plan 60th Percentile
Amount Required
In FY 06 AND 07
To Achieve 60th Inflation
Percentile b 1Y 0/06 Factor
Total
Increase
In FY 06
AND 07
Executive
10.36%
/2 =
5.18%
+ 3.00%
= 8.18%
___ Exempt__ _
_1.0.73%
/2 =
5.365%
+ 3.00%
= 8.365%
Non -Exempt
8.23%
/2 =
4.115%
+ 3.00%
= 7.115%
Public Safety
10.72%
/2 =
5.36%
+ 3.00%
= 8.36%
Technical
11.29%
/2 =
5.645%
+ 3.00%
= 8.645%
Pav Plan Adiustments to the 60th Percentile Over a Three -Year Period:
Amount Required
Total
In FY 06 THRU 08
Increase
Amount Below To Achieve 60th
Inflation In FY 06,
Pay Plan 60th Percentile Percentile b 1�r 0/07
Factor 07 & 08
Executive
10.36%
/3 =
3.45%
+ 3.00%
= 6.45%
Exempt
10.73%
/3 =
3.576%
+ 3.00%
= 6.576%
Non -Exempt
8.23%
/3 =
2.74%
+ 3.00%
= 5.74%
Public Safety
10.72%
/3 =
3.57%
+ 3.00%
= 6.57%
Technical
11.29%
/3 =
3.763%
+ 3.00%
= 6.763%
FY 06 Budget Provisions for Employees Paid at the Maximum of the Pay Range
Also, as indicated in last week's memo, the FY 06 budget submitted to Council
includes a 3% increase for merit plan employees and a 5% increase for step plan
employees (sworn public safety employees) who have not reached the maximum
of their pay range. There is no lump sum payment nor pay range adjustment
included in the proposed FY 06 budget for employees who have been with the
City long enough to reach the maximum of their pay range. It takes 13 years for
a merit plan employee to reach the maximum of the pay range, assuming the
employee is given a 3% merit increase in each of those years. It takes five years
for a step plan employee (EMT, Paramedic, or Police Officer) to reach the
maximum of their pay range, assuming 5% step increases each year.
Consequently, employees who are at the maximum of their pay range have been
with the City for some time. Currently, the average tenure of all full-time
employees is nine years and two months of service.
• 7 .
If the budget is adopted as submitted, 157 full-time employees will not receive
any increase for FY 06 because they are at the maximum of their pay range.
During FY 06, an additional 58 full-time employees will reach the maximum of
their pay grade due to the 3% merit or 5% step increase they are budgeted to
receive on their anniversary date. The following is a breakdown of these
employees by fund:
Employees ___ Additional
Currently At Max Employees at Max
Of Range, FY 05 Of Range in FY 06
General Fund Employees 52 20
Sworn Public Safety Employees 91 33
Municipal Court Special Revenue Fund 1 0
Utility Enterprise Fund 6 3
Convention & Visitors Bureau Fund 4 1
Lake Enterprise Fund 3 1
Stormwater Drainage Utility System Fund 0 0
TOTALS 157 + 58 = 215
These 215 employees represent 40% of Grapevine's total full-time workforce.
The additional cost to give a one-time 1% lump sum payment to employees who
are at the maximum of their pay range is approximately $118,959 for the General
Fund for FY 06 ($107,549 in salary only and $11,410 in benefits). The additional
cost of a one-time 1 % lump sum payment to employees who are at the maximum
of their pay range in all other funds is approximately $18,984 ($12,090 in salary
only and $6,894 in benefits). A one-time lump sum payment is not added to base
pay and therefore is not included in the calculation of future salary increases.
cc: Jennifer Hibbs, Assistant to the City Manager
Fred Werner, Managing Director of Financial Services
Gary Livingston Budget Director
0:/Budget2005-06/Council Budget Pkt Memo for FY06 — Part 2
GENERAI
TOTAL
OTHER Fl
TOTAL
ALL FUNI
TOTAL
GENERAI
TOTAL
OTHER Fl
TOTAL
ALL FUNI
TOTAL
GENERAI
TOTA
OTHER F
TOTA
TOT/
DIFFERENCE IN COST OF MOVING PAY RANGES TO
50TH PERCENTILE VS. 60TH PERCENTILE OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD
Attachment 1
a
TOTAL COST
OF MOVEMENT
TO 50TH
PERCENTILE
TOTAL COST
OF MOVEMENT
TO 60TH
PERCENTILE
DIFFERENCE
FUND
SALARIES
$3,951,997
$4,422,848
470,851
1NDS
SALARIES
$984,001
$1,155,036
171,035
is
SALARIES
$4,935,998
$5,577,884
641,886
FUND
BENEFITS
$580,428
$655,246
74,818
1NDS
BENEFITS
$169,445
$197,456
28,011
)S
BENEFITS
$749,873
$852,702
102,829
FUND
L SALARIES S BENEFITS
$4,532,425
$5,078,094
545,669
1NDS
L SALARIES & BENEFITS
$1,153,446
$1,352,492
199,046
,L CITYWIDE BUDGET
$5,685,871
$6,430,586
744,715
Attachment 1
a
GENERALFUND
TOTAL SALARIES
OTHER FUNDS
TOTAL SALARIES
ALL FUNDS
TOTAL SALARIES
GENERALFUND
TOTAL BENEFITS
OTHER FUNDS
TOTAL BENEFITS
ALL FUNDS
TOTAL BENEFITS
GENERALFUND
TOTAL SALARIES & BI
OTHER FUNDS
TOTAL SALARIES & B'
TOTAL CITYWIDE BUDGE
DIFFERENCE IN COST OF MOVING PAY RANGES TO
THE 60TH PERCENTILE OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD VS. A THREE-YEAR PERIOD
Attachment 2
TOTAL COST OF MOVEMENT
TO 60TH PERCENTILE OVER
TWO FISCAL YEARS
FY 06 & 07
TOTAL COST OF MOVEMENT
TO 60TH PERCENTILE OVER
THREE FISCAL YEARS
FY 06, 07, & 08
DIFFERENCE
$4,422,848
$5,573,402
$1,150,554
$1,155,036
$1,510,692
$355,656
$5,577.884
$7,084,094
$1,506,210
$655,246
$856,931
$201,685
$197,456
$254,550
$57,094
$852,702
$1,111,481
$258,779
ENEFITS
$5,078,094
$6,430,333
$1,352,239
ENEFITS
$1,352,492
$1,765,242
$412,750
:T
$6,430,586
$8,195,575
I
$1,764,989
Attachment 2
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
TML SALARY SURVEY SUMMARY WORKSHEET
0:/Survey 05/Summar ActualSalaries
COMPARISON OF
FY05 ACTUAL
SALARIES
TO
W_77
City Manager
EX15
Y
1
50TH AND 60TH PERCENTILE OF ACTUAL MARKET SALARIES
41
7
13, 126.00 12,652.00 3.75% 8 9-00
2.64%-
13,374 .00
-1.85%
16
Asst City Manager
EX 173
Y
1
10,117.00
10,304.00
-1.81%
10,575.00
T2
-4.33%
10,436 .00
-3.06%
10
Police Chief
EX12
Y
1
9,418.00
9,249.00
1.83%
9 970.00
-5.54%
9,613.00
-2.03%�
15
Fire Chief
EX12
Y
1
9,179.00
9,018.00
1.79%
.00
9 007
9,300-00
-1.30%
9, 192.00
-0.14%
16
Asst Fire Chief
T13
Y
1
7,014.00
7,616.00
-7.90%
7,808.00
-10-17%
7,583.00
-7.50%
12
Police Captain
T12
Y
2
6,812.00
6,893 .00
-1.18%
7,105.00
-4.12%
7,069.00
-3.64%
11
Civil Engineer
Tll
Y
4
5,545.00
5,746.00
-3.50%
5,749.00
-3.55%
5,653.00
-1.91%
11
GIS Administrator
T10
Y
1
5,414.00
4,886.00
10.81%
4,943.00
9.53%
5, 015.00
7.96%
7
Communications Supv
T8
N
1
3,863.00
4,004.00
-3.52-%
4, 133.00
-6.53%
4,046.00
-4.52%
13
Water Foreman
T8
N
2
3,844.00
3,964.00
-3.03%
4,094.00
-6.11%
4,005.00
-4.02%1
4
Engineering Tech
T8
N
2
3,578.00
3, 827.00
-6.51%1
4,060.00
-11.87%
3,735.00
-4.20%1
12
1
Mn q Dir Financial Sry
E13
Y
1
8,141.00
8,955.00
-9.09%
9,109.00
-10.63%
9,08S.0
-10.39%
9
Library Director
E13
Y
1
7,916.00
7,318.00
8.17%
7,756.00
2.06%
7,469.00
5.98%
14
IT Manager
Municipal Court Judqe
E13
E13
Y
Y
1
1
7,199.00
6,279.00
8, 085.00
7,258.00
-10.96%
-13.49%
8,283 .001
7,631.001
' 63 1-'o
-13.09%
-17.72%
8,177.00
6,971.00
-11.96%
-9.93%
7
6
Fire Marshal
E12
Y
1
6,379.00
6,382 .00
-0.05%
,7 19-00
6,719.00
-5.06%
6,319.00
0.95%
12
City Secretary
E12
Y
1
6,074.00
5,758.00
5.49%1
9 37EOO
S,937.00
2.31%
S,691.0 0
6.73%1
11
Traffic Opr Manager
Fleet Sry Manager
Parks Supt
Police Lieutenant
Asst to the City Manaqer
Sr. Accountant
Ell
Ell
Ell
Ell
Ell
E10
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
1
1
1
4
1
1
5,840.00
5,840.00
5,820.00
1 5,617.00
4,914.00
4,420.00
5,063 00
5,270.00 _10.82%N5
5,486 .00
6,155.00
5,232.00
4,132.00
15.35%
6.09%
-8.74%
-6.08%
6.97%
5,404.00
5 4 , 4 _00
409.00_
0 9_00
5,718.00
6,359.00
S,290.00
4,202.00
8.07%
7.97%
1.78%1
-11.67%
-7.11%
5.19%
5, 095.00
5,342.00
5,443 .00
6,202.00
5,334.00
4,102.00
14.62%-1
_ 9.32%
6.93%
-9.43%
-7.87%
7.75%
5
11
14
12
9
8
Fire Inspector
CAC Supervisor
Librarian I
E9
E8
E8
N
Y
Y
1
1
6
4,383 .00
3, 870.00
2,961.00
4,247.00
3,957.00
3,525.00
3.20%
-2.20%
-16.00%
4, 509-00
4,005.00
3,563 .00
-2.79%
-3.37%
16.90%
4,29S.00
3,769.00
3 423.00
2.05%_
2.68%
-13.50%
5
9
5
0: Summary Actual Salaries2
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
TML SALARY SURVEY SUMMARY
WORKSHEET
0:/Survey 05/Summar ActualSalaries
COMPARISON
OF FY05 ACTUAL
SALARIES
TO
�a
,E ';
50THAND60TH PERCENTILE OF ACTUAL MARKET SALARIES
f
A00,
S
3,104.00
-12.02ti
9
Payroll Acctq Tech NE7 N 1 2,731.00 2,909.00 -6.12%
3,050.00 -10.46%
Secretary
NE6
N
18
2,556.00
2,563.00
-0.27%
2,626.00
-2.67%
2,627.00
-2.70%1
10
Library Assistant
NE4
N
23
1,962.00
2,491.00
-21.24%
2,508.00
-21.77%
2,520.00
-22.14%
6
Cashier
NE4
N
3
1,878.00
2,279.00
-17.60%
2,324.00
-19.19%
2,353
.00
-20.19%
10
Code Enforcement Off
NE8
N
2
3,378.00
3,184.00
6.09%
3,210.00
5.23%-1
3,355.00
0.69%
14
Recreation Coord
NE8
N
6
2,656.00
3 084.00
-13.88%1
3,128.00
-15.09%
3,161.00
-15.98%
12
Telecommunicator
NE7
N
9
2,696.00
2 878.00
-6.32%
2 958.00
-8.86%
2,925.00
-7.83%
16
Traffic Signal TechII
NEB
N
1
3,788.00
3,482.00
8.79%
3,612.00
4.87%
3,489.00
8.57%
11
Building Inspector II
NEB
N
5
3,752.00
3,464.00
8.31%
3,656.00
2.63%
3,493.00
7.41%
14
Mechanic II
NE7
N
4
3,003.00
3,135.00
-4.21%
3,173.00
-5.36%
3,172.00
-5.33%
8
W WW Crew Leader
NE6
N
6
2,722.00
2,867.00
-5.06%
2,948.00
-7.67%
3,006.00
-9.45%
14
Jailer
NE5
N
5
2,407.00
2,730.00
-11.83%
2,779.001
-13.39%
2,678.00
-10.12%
9
E ui ment Operator I
NE4
N
18
2,296 .00
2 392.00
-4.01%
2,418.001
-5.05%
2,466.00
-6.89%
10
Animal Control Off
NE4
N
3
2,037.00
2,548.00
-20.05%
2,608.00
-21.89%
2,637.00
-22.75%
14
Meter Reader
NE3
N
2
2,286.00
2,294.00
-0.35%
2 349.00
-2.68%
2,314.00
-1.21%
12
WW Crew Worker
NE3
N
1
1 863.00
2,107.00
-11.58%
2,126.00
-12.37%
2,127.00
-12.41%
14
Battalion Chief
PSOB
N
3
6,067.00
6,645.00
-8.70%1
6,698.00
-9.42%
6,391.00
-5.07%
7
Police Sergeant
*FF Paramedic
PSO5
PS03
N
N
18
42
5,057.00
3 882.00
5,279.00
3,978.00
-4.21%
-2.41%
5,361.00
3 986.00
-5.67%
-2.6196
5,330.00
3
924.00
-5.12%
-1.07%
14
3
Police Officer
PS03
N
33
3,785.00
4,131.00
-8. -48%1
4,229.00
-10.50%
4,119.00
-8.11%
14
46 lobs are listed here 232 total
243
full- and regular art -time jobs
citywide)
FF/Paramedic - Used actuals for Euless, NRH and Southlake from
Colle ille surve .
O:Summary Actual Salaries2