The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council-Agenda Packets-7/30/2013City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville City Council Worksession Agenda City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 817. 503.1000 www.colleyville.com Tuesday, July 30, 2013 6:00 p.m. Executive Conference Room Third Floor, City Hall 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION 2a Presentation and discussion of the classification and compensation study 3. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify this agenda was posted on City Hall bulletin boards Friday, July 26, 2013 by 5:00 p.m. Amy Shelley City Secretary Any matter on this agenda may, at the discretion of the governing body, be opened for public comment and discussion. If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special accommodations, please advise the City Secretary at least 48 hours in advance at 817.503.1133, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville Colleyville City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number 2a Agenda Date 07/30/2013 Number Type Presentation and Discussion Department City Manager Title Presentation and discussion of the classification and compensation study Explanation At the July 23, 2013 City Council Worksession, staff presented information regarding the proposed classification and compensation study. Some of the key factors that led to staff’s recommendation to institute an overhaul of the City’s compensation system were: · The City’s compensation system has become outdated and has failed to keep pace with market realities—resulting in difficulties in hiring qualified candidates to fill vacancies and the loss of existing experienced and qualified employees. · The City’s current compensation ranges have not been adjusted since 2006. The last annual salary adjustments for City employees were executed in 2009 (with the exception of police compression adjustments made in FY2013). · Since that time, employee turnover has steadily increased from a reasonable employment standard of 10 percent to 16 percent in 2012. For the current year, we are trending toward an annualized turnover rate of 20 percent for 2013. · The changes proposed in the new compensation system provide an opportunity for the City to move forward with a sustainable compensation philosophy. In the future, salary increases will be based on significant changes in the market or earned through a performance-based merit system. · The goal of the proposed market adjustments is to pay City of Colleyville employees at a fair and competitive range—neither higher than market, nor lagging behind the market—but at a market-driven salary range that will allow the City to be competitive in the hiring market, and allowing us to attract and retain good people who can meet the demands and provide the type of service expected by Colleyville citizens. At the July 23, 2013 worksession, a full implementation scenario was proposed to provide a comprehensive solution addressing the classification and compensation structure, market parity, and employee performance management. Included in the attached presentation (Classification and Compensation System Implementation Options - July 30, 2013) are five additional implementation options, including options City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2a City of Colleyville Page 2 for capping salary adjustments at various levels. Attachments 1.Classification and Compensation Presentation - July 30, 2013 2.Classification and Compensation Presentation - July 23, 2013 3.Classification and Compensation Presentation - July 16, 2013 4.Compensation Philosophy and Strategy - FY 2014 5.Classification and Compensation Study - July 2013 Classification and Compensation System Implementation Options City Council Worksession July 30, 2013 Overview •Recap of new compensation philosophy •Summary of full implementation and costs •Alternative implementation options (5) •Summary of options Recap: New Compensation Philosophy •Broader job classifications •Supports the recruitment, motivation and retention of well- qualified employees •Goal is to pay at 50th percentile of market –Half of market pays more, half of market pays less –The “market” for non-sworn employees reflects both public and private sector, because we compete for employees from both sectors –The “market” for sworn employees (Fire and Police) is public sector only, because we compete for employees only in the public sector •ALL pay increases will be based on: –Changes in comparative labor market –Performance Recap: New Compensation Philosophy •For non-sworn employees, pay ranges reflect market rate at midpoint –Majority of good performing employees can expect to reach the midpoint through performance-based merit increases –Some high performing employees may be above midpoint •For sworn employees, pay ranges reflect market rate at maximum –Consistent with public safety compensation practices across the market –Majority of good performing employees can expect to reach the maximum through performance-based merit increases Summary of Full Implementation Non-Sworn Employees •If employee is currently earning at or above the midpoint (market rate) of new pay range, keep current pay (avoids overpaying market rate) •If employee is currently earning below the midpoint (market rate) of new pay range, place in the new pay range consistent with their location in current pay range, not to exceed new midpoint Sworn Employees •Move employees to the same proportional place in the new pay range consistent with their location in the current pay range Summary of Full Implementation •Highlights –143 employees (out of 187 employees) are below the new market rate and would receive a market adjustment, not to exceed the new market rate –No employee earns below the minimum of new pay range –Consistent with compensation philosophy –Provides market parity and sustainability –Minimizes probability of pay compression Fund FY 2014 Additional Personnel Costs (Including Benefits) General Fund $587,128 Colleyville Crime Control and Prevention District Fund $5,428 Colleyville Economic Development Corporation Fund $14,404 Drainage Fund $13,378 Juvenile Case Manager Fund $5,208 Utility Fund $36,758 Total Cost $662,304 Implementation Alternative 1: 10% Maximum Increase •Highlights: –143 employees (out of 187 employees) are below the new market rate and would receive a market adjustment, not to exceed the new market rate –41 employees capped at 10% and would take those employees up to 3 more years (FY 2017) to reach full implementation –20 employees remain below minimum of new range Fund FY 2014 Additional Personnel Costs (Including Benefits) General Fund $430,160 Colleyville Crime Control and Prevention District Fund $5,428 Colleyville Economic Development Corporation Fund $11,575 Drainage Fund $13,378 Juvenile Case Manager Fund $4,388 Utility Fund $35,344 Total Cost $500,273 Remaining Cost to Fully Implement ($662,304 - $500,273) $162,031 Implementation Alternative 2: $5,000 Maximum Increase •Highlights: –143 employees (out of 187 employees) are below the new market rate and would receive a market adjustment, not to exceed the new market rate –34 employees capped at $5,000 and would take those employees up to 4 more years (FY 2018) to reach full implementation –19 employees remain below minimum of new range Fund FY 2014 Additional Personnel Costs (Including Benefits) General Fund $415,871 Colleyville Crime Control and Prevention District Fund $5,428 Colleyville Economic Development Corporation Fund $12,254 Drainage Fund $13,378 Juvenile Case Manager Fund $5,208 Utility Fund $32,752 Total Cost $484,891 Remaining Cost to Fully Implement ($662,304 - $484,891) $177,413 Implementation Alternative 3: $7,500 Maximum Increase •Highlights: –143 employees (out of 187 employees) are below the new market rate and would receive a market adjustment, not to exceed the new market rate –17 employees capped at $7,500 and would take those employees up to 2 more years (FY 2016) to reach full implementation –12 employees remain below minimum of new range Fund FY 2014 Additional Personnel Costs (Including Benefits) General Fund $493,278 Colleyville Crime Control and Prevention District Fund $5,428 Colleyville Economic Development Corporation Fund $14,404 Drainage Fund $13,378 Juvenile Case Manager Fund $5,208 Utility Fund $36,758 Total Cost $568,454 Remaining Cost to Fully Implement ($662,304 - $568,454) $93,850 Implementation Alternative 4: 10% Maximum Increase AND Limit Adjustments to 90% of Market Rate •Highlights: –107 employees (out of 143 employees who are below the new market rate) would receive a market adjustment, not to exceed a 10% increase in salary and not to exceed 90% of the new market rate –Defers goal of anchoring the market rate at 50th percentile Fund FY 2014 Additional Personnel Costs (Including Benefits) General Fund $340,600 Colleyville Crime Control and Prevention District Fund $2,240 Colleyville Economic Development Corporation Fund $11,575 Drainage Fund $11,388 Juvenile Case Manager Fund $877 Utility Fund $14,724 Total Cost $381,404 Remaining Cost to Fully Implement ($662,304 - $381,404) $280,900 Implementation Alternative 5: Full Implementation on Anniversary Date of Hire •Highlights: –143 employees (out of 187 employees) are below the new market rate and would receive a market adjustment, not to exceed the new market rate –No employee earns below the minimum of new pay range –Employees receive market adjustment at different times in FY 2014 Fund FY 2014 Additional Personnel Costs (Including Benefits) General Fund $394,221 Colleyville Crime Control and Prevention District Fund $2,316 Colleyville Economic Development Corporation Fund $8,853 Drainage Fund $10,831 Juvenile Case Manager Fund $3,908 Utility Fund $17,941 Total Cost $438,070 Remaining Cost to Fully Implement ($662,304 - $438,070) $224,234 Cost Summary of Implementation Alternatives FY 2014 Additional Personnel Costs (Including Benefits) Fund Full Implementation Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 10% Maximum Increase $5,000 Maximum Increase $7,500 Maximum Increase 10% Maximum Increase and Limit Increase to 90% of Market Rate Full Implementation on Anniversary Date of Hire General Fund $587,128 $430,160 $415,871 $493,278 $340,600 $394,221 Colleyville Crime Control and Prevention District Fund $5,428 $5,428 $5,428 $5,428 $2,240 $2,316 Colleyville Economic Development Corporation Fund $14,404 $11,575 $12,254 $14,404 $11,575 $8,853 Drainage Fund $13,378 $13,378 $13,378 $13,378 $11,388 $10,831 Juvenile Case Manager Fund $5,208 $4,388 $5,208 $5,208 $877 $3,908 Utility Fund $36,758 $35,344 $32,752 $36,758 $14,724 $17,941 Total Cost $662,304 $500,273 $484,891 $568,454 $381,404 $438,070 Remaining Cost to Fully Implement $0 $162,031 $177,413 $93,850 $280,900 $224,234 Questions? Classification and Compensation System Overview and Recommendations July 23, 2013 Overview •Recap of prior compensation changes •New compensation philosophy •Results of new philosophy •Staff recommendations/implementation components •Alternative implementation options •Budget implications to general fund •Summary of staff recommendations Recap of Prior Compensation Changes •FY 2006: Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study conducted/implemented •FY 2006 – FY 2009: Funded performance-based merit increases •FY 2010: Pay range adjustments to some positions •FY 2011: No pay compensation adjustments •FY 2012: 2% one-time payment of base pay •FY 2013: $1,280 one-time payment; Police compression adjustment New Compensation Philosophy Non-Sworn Employees •Midpoint of pay range is market rate of job –Majority of good performing employees can expect to reach the midpoint through performance-based merit increases –Some high performing employees may be above midpoint •Goal is to pay at 50th percentile of market –½ of market pays more, ½ of market pays less –The “market” is both public and private sector because we compete for employees from both Questions? New Compensation Philosophy Sworn Employees (Fire and Police) •Maximum of pay range is market rate of job –Consistent with public safety compensation practices across the market –Majority of good performing employees can expect to reach the maximum through performance-based merit increases •Goal is to pay at 50th percentile of market –½ of market pays more, ½ of market pays less –The “market” is public sector because we compete for employees only in this sector Questions? New Compensation Philosophy •Structure is based on internal equity AND market parity •ALL pay increases will be based on: –Changes in comparative labor market –Performance •Moving away from: –Longevity based system –Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) –Every employee automatically receives an increase Questions? Results of New Philosophy •Replaces narrow job classifications with broad job classifications •Applies job market value consistently •Provides predictable pay structure •Reinforces equity/fairness in pay •Allows us to attract and retain well-qualified employees Questions? Recommended Implementation Components •Using the new compensation philosophy just described, staff recommends implementing a new job classification/compensation system using a 3- component approach: –Structure Design –Compensation Changes –Performance Management Recommended Implementation Component 1: Structure Design •Broader job classifications •For non-sworn employees, pay ranges reflect market value at midpoint •For sworn employees, pay ranges reflect market value at maximum •Plan for the long-term through the multi-year budget forecast Questions? Recommended Implementation Component 2: Compensation Changes Non-Sworn Employees •If employee is currently earning at or above the midpoint (market rate) of new pay range, keep current pay (avoids overpaying market rate) •If employee is currently earning below the midpoint (market rate) of new pay range, place in the new pay range consistent with their location in current pay range Questions? Recommended Implementation Component 2: Compensation Changes Sworn Employees •Move employees to the same proportional place in the new pay range consistent with their location in the current pay range –Majority of impact is to Fire as Police was adjusted for pay compression in current year Recommended Implementation Component 2: Compensation Changes •Cost: $662,304, a reduction of $72,910 from consultant’s initial estimate of $735,214 –Represents 4.5% of payroll –Cost to general fund: $587,128 •Implement performance-based merit increases in FY 2015 Questions? Recommended Implementation Component 2: Compensation Changes •Pros: –Consistent with compensation philosophy –Provides market parity and sustainability –Minimizes probability of pay compression –Allows time for implementation of new performance management system –No employee will earn below the minimum of new pay range •Con: –Performance-based merit increases will take additional year to implement Questions? •Revised performance management system in progress for FY 2014 •Performance-based merit increases –Reward employees for good and high performing work performance beginning in FY 2015 Recommended Implementation Component 3: Integrate Performance Management Implementation Alternative 1 Bring employees up to new minimum who fall below •Pros: –Less expensive (total cost to budget: $301,929; cost to general fund: $267,660) –No employee will earn below the minimum of new pay range •Cons: –Does not follow new compensation philosophy –Creates pay compression –Good performing employees continue to fall behind market rate Implementation Alternative 2 Implement staff recommendation ($587,128 - cost to general fund) and allocate additional funds (up to $300,000 from general fund) for performance-based merit increases starting in FY 2014 –Average 2% performance increase –Total Cost to general fund = $887,128 •Pros –Provides opportunity for performance-based merit increases sooner –No employee will earn below the minimum of new pay range •Cons –Does not allow time to implement new performance management system prior to determining performance-based merit increases –Cost - Minimizes opportunity to fund other resource needs FY 2014 Budget Implications (General Fund) •$906,001 (estimate) is available for allocation in FY 2014 •$587,128 is the cost of the recommended implementation of the new compensation and classification system •$318,873 would remain for additional budget requests that were ranked by staff as a high priority such as traffic signal maintenance contract, Police Property Room Clerk position, Plans Examiner position, street maintenance, guardrail repair program and additional hours for a Library position Summary of Staff Recommendations •Implement new structure design on October 1, 2013 •Implement compensation changes on October 1, 2013 •Implement market sustainability in accordance with the long-term budget forecast beginning October 1, 2014 •Implement performance-based merit increases on October 1, 2014 •Review pay structure annually for market shifts •Re -evaluate overall structure at regular intervals to make sure pay scales and employee salaries remain competitive Paying fair and competitive wages for the level of work required allows the City to better attract well-qualified candidates. It also greatly contributes to the motivation and retention of current employees by showing they are valued for the work they do. Questions? City of Colleyville, TX Classification and Compensation Study Executive Summary Pre Council Meeting July 16, 2013 Background, Philosophy, & Analysis 2 Study Background •Fox Lawson & Associates was engaged to perform a review of job classification, compensation and benefits for the City of Colleyville and make recommendations regarding: –Job structure and individual position allocations; –Current state of compensation and benefits; –Market competitiveness of specific employee benchmarks; –Benefits and costs associated with recommendations; –Implementation and transition options; and, –Pay practices, policies and overall compensation program. •The major consideration of the City is to establish market comparisons to the current level of compensation paid to all City job classifications. •Market comparison to both public and private sector information –Non-exempt positions: compared to other public and private sector organizations in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area of similar size and complexity; –Exempt level positions: (generally found only in the public sector) compared to similar-sized cities and other public sector organizations throughout Texas; 3 City Compensation Philosophy A total compensation approach, including benefits, will be taken into consideration. Broad job classifications will be utilized to facilitate simplification and flexibility. Internal equity job evaluation approach (DBTMM) consistent with broad class concept. Positions will be placed in the salary structure based on their respective DBM rating of their job classification category and market data results Pay grade midpoints reflective of the 50th percentile of the relevant labor markets (public and/or private sector as available) Pay structure where the midpoint = the defined labor market rates of pay 4 Decision BandTM Method •DBM ratings address internal equity and supports development of pay structures. •Decision bands within DBM include: –Band F – Top Level Policy Decisions –Band E – Programming Decisions –Band D – Interpretive Decisions –Band C – Process Decisions –Band B – Operational Decisions –Band A – Defined Decisions •Bands are further subdivided into “grades” based on leadership responsibilities and “subgrades” based on areas such as difficulty and complexity. 5 Classification Structure 6 Classification Structure Job Classifications DBM Rating Administrative Support Administrative Support Assistant A13 Administrative Support Technician B22 Administrative Support Specialist B23-B24 Administrative Support Coordinator B25 Fire Firefighter Recruit B21 Firefighter B22 Fire Engineer B24 Fire Captain C41 Fire Battalion Chief C45/C52 Library Library Clerk A12 Library Assistant B22 Librarian C41-C42 Maintenance & Operations M&O Technician A12-A13 M&O Specialist B22-B23 M&O Supervisor B31 M&O Projects Specialist B24-B25 M&O Project Manager C43 Classification Structure 7 Classification Structure Job Classifications DBM Rating Management Manager D61-D62 Director E81-E83 Assistant City Manager E91 City Manager F101 Management-Program Support Management Specialist B24 Management Analyst C41 Management Analyst Senior C42 Police Code Enforcement Officer B21 Police Officer Recruit B22 Police Officer B23 Police Sergeant B32 Police Lieutenant C42 Police Captain D62 Survey Methodology – Benchmark Jobs 8 ^Data from Colleyville not available, positions vacant at time of analysis *Data obtained from both public and private sources JOB CODE BENCHMARK TITLE JOB CODE BENCHMARK TITLE 1 Accounting Clerk* 24 Fleet Manager* 2 Administrative Clerk* 25 Human Resources Analyst* 3 Administrative Secretary* 26 Human Resources Director* 4 Battalion Chief 27 Information Services Manager* 5 Billing Supervisor* 28 Information Systems Technician* 6 Building Inspector^* 29 Librarian* 7 Building Maintenance Technician* 30 Library Assistant (Circulation/Technology) 8 Building Official 31 Library Clerk* 9 City Engineer* 32 Mechanic – Fleet* 10 Community Development Director 33 Meter Reader* 11 Construction Manager* 34 Municipal Court Administrator 12 Deputy Court Administrator 35 Office Assistant* 13 Economic Development Director 36 Park Maintenance Superintendent* 14 Equipment Operator* 37 Park Maintenance Worker* 15 Executive Secretary* 38 Police Chief 16 Field Operations Manager* 39 Police Lieutenant 17 Field Operations Supervisor* 40 Police Officer 18 Field Technician* 41 Police Sergeant 19 Finance Manager* 42 Public Works Director* 20 Fire Captain 43 Recreation Specialist 21 Fire Chief^ 44 Sign Technician 22 Fire Engineer 45 Systems Administrator* 23 Firefighter/Paramedic Survey Methodology •FLA developed a survey questionnaire to collect salary and benefits data. Questions in the survey were posed in a fashion that were standard and easy for participants to answer, as well as being easy to quantify and analyze. •The survey results represent data from the following 23 organizations: 9 Participating Organizations Participating Organizations City of Bedford City of Hurst City of Cedar Hill City of Keller City of Cedar Park City of New Braunfels City of Conroe City of North Richland Hills City of Coppell City of Paris City of Duncanville City of Rowlett City of Eagle Pass City of Sherman City of Euless City of Southlake City of Galveston City of Watauga City of Georgetown Town of Farmers Branch City of Grapevine Town of Flower Mound City of Haltom City Survey Methodology •The following published survey data was utilized to make comparisons with the private sector: 10 Published Survey Sources Economic Research Institute (ERI) Hay Local Area Pay Mercer Finance, Accounting & Legal Mercer Human Resources Mercer Information Technology Mercer Metro Benchmark - South Central PRM Not for Profit Towers Watson CSR Accounting & Finance Towers Watson CSR Call Center & Customer Service Towers Watson CSR Engineering, Design & Drafting Towers Watson CSR Human Resources Towers Watson CSR Info Technology & e-Commerce Towers Watson CSR Office & Business Support Towers Watson CSR Supervisory & Middle Management Towers Watson CSR Technical Support & Production Results & Conclusion 11 Results of Market Comparison 12 –On an overall basis of all jobs combined, the amount that the City is above or below the market (public and private sectors) is shown in the tables below. •The 50th percentile of market data was used as the comparison point with the City actual salaries Aggregate Comparison Range Comparisons Market Actuals vs City Range Midpoint Market Actuals vs City Actual Salary Range Minimum Range Midpoint Range Maximum Non-Sworn Positions 1.2% -3.7% -6.5% -2.6% -5.3% Aggregate Comparison Range Comparisons Market Actuals vs City Range Midpoint Market Actuals vs City Actual Salary Range Minimum Range Midpoint Range Maximum Sworn Fire -12.7% -5.6% 0.6% -1.1% -13.4% Sworn Police 0.6% -0.5% -1.6% 0.2% -0.7% Recommendations 13 Recommendation: Classification & Pay Structure 14 Proposed Pay Structure (Non-Sworn) Job Classification DBM Min Mid Max Range Spread N/A A11 $23,750 $28,500 $33,250 40% Library Clerk Maintenance & Operations Technician A12 $25,413 $30,495 $35,578 40% Administrative Support Assistant Maintenance & Operations Technician A13 $28,462 $34,154 $39,847 40% Code Enforcement Officer B21 $30,056 $37,570 $45,084 50% Administrative Support Technician Library Assistant Maintenance & Operations Specialist B22 $32,160 $40,200 $48,240 50% Administrative Support Specialist Maintenance & Operations Specialist B23 $34,641 $43,301 $51,961 50% Administrative Support Specialist Maintenance & Operations Supervisor Maintenance & Operations Project Specialist Management Specialist B24/B31 $37,977 $47,471 $56,965 50% Administrative Support Coordinator Maintenance & Operations Projects Specialist B25/B32 $41,303 $51,629 $61,954 50% Recommendation: Classification & Pay Structure 15 Proposed Pay Structure (Non-Sworn) - Continuation Job Classification DBM Min Mid Max Range Spread Librarian Management Analyst C41 $47,965 $59,956 $71,947 50% Librarian Management Analyst Senior C42 $51,291 $64,114 $76,936 50% Maintenance & Operations Project Manager C43 $54,617 $68,271 $81,925 50% N/A C44/C51 $57,953 $72,441 $86,929 50% N/A C45/C52 $61,279 $76,599 $91,918 50% Manager D61 $65,328 $84,926 $104,524 60% Manager D62 $68,526 $89,084 $109,641 60% Manager D63 $71,724 $93,241 $114,758 60% Director E81 $84,535 $109,896 $135,257 60% Director E82 $88,762 $115,391 $142,019 60% Director E83 $93,200 $121,160 $149,120 60% Assistant City Manager E91 $97,860 $127,218 $156,576 60% City Manager F101 $107,646 $139,940 $172,234 60% Recommendation: Classification & Pay Structure 16 Proposed Sworn Police Pay Structure Proposed Sworn Fire Pay Structure DBM MIN MID MAX Spread Firefighter/EMT B21 $46,317 $52,338 $58,359 26% Firefighter/Paramedic B22 $48,975 $55,342 $61,708 26% Fire Engineer B24 $56,034 $61,358 $66,681 19% Fire Captain C41 $65,467 $70,377 $75,287 15% Battalion Chief C45/C52 $73,244 $82,400 $91,555 25% DBM MIN MID MAX Spread Police Officer Recruit B22 $46,432 $53,861 $61,290 32% Police Officer B23 $50,959 $59,113 $67,266 32% Police Sergeant B32 $64,475 $69,633 $74,791 16% Police Lieutenant C42 $80,193 $85,405 $90,618 13% Police Captain D62 $89,935 $101,177 $112,419 25% Cost to Fully Implement Recommendations 17 Implementation Cost by Fund General Utility Drainage CCCPD CEDC Juvenile Case Manager TOTAL COST $636,822 $50,725 $16,422 $11,632 $14,405 $5,208 $735,214 Items to Note •157 out of 186 employees would have their pay adjusted by an average of 7.8% •Implementation of this plan brings us up-to-date with the current market, but salaries will soon lag the market without funding of annual salary adjustments •Funding for merit increases based on performance is not included •Most cities are averaging a 3% merit increase budgeted for FY 2014 The cost associated with implementing the recommended classification and pay structure (maintaining relative position in proposed range) is represented in the table below: Partial Implementation Options •Bring all employees whose current rate of pay is below the proposed minimum to the minimum of the proposed pay range •Provide for a flat percentage increase for employees currently within the range based on current position within the range –ie, X% for those employees in the first quartile; X% for those employees in the second quartile, X% for those employees in the third quartile, X% for those employees in the fourth quartile) •Implement based on a percentage of the ‘Cost to Maintain Relative Position in Proposed Range’ (ie, implement at 75%); •Implement utilizing a multi-year approach, not to exceed 2 years (ie, 70% year 1 and 30% year 2). 18 In addition to the recommended full implementation (costs shown on prior slide), there are partial implementation options available. –Partial implementation would no longer maintain employees in their current position within the pay range Recommendation: Benefit Data Comparisons •Due to the competitive nature of the City’s current benefit offerings, no changes are recommended to the benefits provided by the City at this time. 19 Recommendation: Maintenance/Updates •Salary Structure Maintenance/Updates –Annual Updates •In order to reflect necessary increases in the minimum and maximum rates appropriate for each job, the salary structure should be reviewed annually. FLA can provide the City with the average percentage increase for employee salaries and salary structures on an annual basis, or the City may use a labor market index. •It is recommended that the respective starting rates and maximums be increased by a percentage that reflects the market trends and the City’s hiring experience. The use of a dollar amount increase would compress the structure over time. –Long-Term Updates •The City should reevaluate its overall structure at regular intervals (e.g., 2 to 3 years depending upon market movements) to ensure that its salary levels are consistent with the marketplace. •This would involve conducting a market salary study, such as was conducted here, every 2 to 3 years (depending on the economy) to make sure that the City’s pay scales and employee salaries remain competitive. 20 CITY OF COLLEYVILLE COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY & STRATEGY Proposed to Begin Fiscal Year 2014 PURPOSE  The City of Colleyville (City) values its employees as the key to providing efficient, effective, responsive and creative public services.  The purpose of a compensation system is to support the recruitment, motivation and retention of well-qualified employees. In order to obtain and maintain taxpayer support, the compensation system should be fiscally sound and cost effective while supporting the employees of the City by encouraging them to be responsive to customers/taxpayers.  The compensation system shall be administered in an efficient, cost effective, responsive, fair and equitable manner to meet the needs of all stakeholders including elected officials, managers, employees and citizens of the City. GOAL 1 – ORGANIZE THE WORK To provide for a simplified flexible classification system that defines the general scope and complexity of the work required. The classification system will also facilitate internal equity across all jobs within all departments of the City. Objective 1 – Broad Class Structure To establish a classification structure that reflects meaningful and measurable differences in the level of work within each occupational group but maintains the flexibility necessary for employee growth and efficient management. Strategies – Broadly Defined Classes  The classification system will consist of broadly defined classes that reflect the essential duties and responsibilities performed by incumbents in each class. This approach will facilitate flexibility in the assignment of duties to individual employees within the job classification.  Where practical and feasible within each occupational group, there will be an opportunity for career advancement opportunities. The differences in job levels will be clearly defined and defensible. Objective 2 – Classification Structure The classification plan will meet the current needs of the departments while providing maximum flexibility to manage and organize the work in a changing environment. 1 CITY OF COLLEYVILLE COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY & STRATEGY Proposed to Begin Fiscal Year 2014 Strategies – Classification System Maintenance  The existing classification system will be reviewed to identify current requirements that may inhibit management flexibility. Recommendations will be made to make the system consistent with the City’s goals and objectives and will position the City to be responsive to change.  The class specifications, including the statements of essential duties, minimum qualifications, and physical requirements, will be written to reflect the current needs of the City. The goal is to ensure that new hires are qualified and capable of performing the work required. Incumbents who currently do not meet the minimum qualifications will be grandfathered into their current classes. However, any incumbent not meeting the new minimum requirements will be required to acquire the applicable knowledge and/or skills within a reasonable time period so that they will be qualified for their job. Otherwise, the employee may apply for vacant positions elsewhere in the City, or other positions external to the City, for which they qualify. Objective 3 – Reclassification of Jobs The reclassification process will be administered by the Human Resources Department in an efficient, cost effective, responsive, fair, and equitable manner to meet the needs of both the City and its employees. Because the City has adopted the concept of broad job classifications, the number of reclassifications should be minimal since the differences between classifications will be clearly defined. Strategies – Reclassification Process  Timetables will be established which will set the time the reclassifications will be reviewed and acted upon.  Responsibilities for each step of the reclassification process will be established to include the employee, department head, and the Human Resources Department.  Employees will be notified in writing of the results of the reclassification process and the reasons for approval or denial.  Employees who are reclassified will not receive any adjustment in their base compensation unless the salary range for the class into which they are reclassified has a minimum salary that exceeds the employee’s current salary. Reclassification should not be used to circumvent promotions into a higher job classification. Objective 4 – Creation of New Jobs The classification system will be responsive to organizational and environmental change through the creation of new classes and redefinition of job responsibilities as defined by the City and its departments. 2 CITY OF COLLEYVILLE COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY & STRATEGY Proposed to Begin Fiscal Year 2014 Strategies – New Job Development Process  The class specifications will be reviewed by the departments on an annual basis to ensure they meet current needs. The Human Resources Department will facilitate the review process.  The Human Resources Department will respond to department requests for individual reclassification, and will assist with the revision of class specifications and development of new class specifications within the broad class concept, as necessary to meet the on-going operational requirements of the City. GOAL 2 – DISTRIBUTE PAY The compensation system should reflect economic conditions of the various occupational labor markets in which the City competes. The system should also reward employees who perform at above-standard levels within their respective job class. Objective 1 – Compensation Levels Compensation levels should reflect the multiple labor markets (both public sector and private sector) in which the City competes. The value of compensation offered to City employees shall be consistent with the value of compensation offered by employers with whom the City must compete within both the public and the private sectors. Strategies – Executive Level Classes  For FLSA exempt classes and jobs that are most commonly found in the public sector, the labor market should include the various government entities within Texas. The jurisdictions and organizations should be similar in size and character and perform a similar range of services as the City. Salary comparisons shall reflect the cost of labor differences for each geographic location. Strategies – All Other Classes  For FLSA non-exempt classes, the labor market should include public and private sector employers in the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area that are of a similar size and complexity to the City and/or with whom the City competes for such employees. Objective 2 – Market Parity Pay grade midpoints should approximate the actual average salaries paid to positions in the relevant labor market(s) as reported in salary survey and market pricing results. Pay range minimums and maximums should be established from survey/market pricing results to provide for market parity within the pay structures. 3 CITY OF COLLEYVILLE COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY & STRATEGY Proposed to Begin Fiscal Year 2014 Strategies – Range Spans  The salary structure should provide sufficient breadth with range spans based on the level of the job classification and market information. Typically, salary ranges for lower level jobs are narrower than for upper level jobs. For example, defined jobs within an organization might have a maximum salary that is only 20% to 25% greater than the salary range minimum for the job class. For executive level jobs, the salary range maximum may be as much as 75% to 90% greater than the minimum of the salary range for the class. This range spread at higher levels in the organization reflects a variety of factors including a longer learning curve, greater consequence of error, the cost of recruitment and training, and increasing value to the organization over time. As class structures become broader to accommodate simplification and flexibility, broader salary ranges will have higher maximum rates of pay than with a narrow structure. Strategies – Depth of Range Progression  The salary structure should provide sufficient depth to achieve midpoint progression between salary ranges of five to ten percent. (This is the percentage difference in salary range midpoints from one level or salary grade to the next.) The salary structure is based on a multiple regression model using salary survey results. (Most regression models exclude outliers that exceed two standard deviations from the norm.) Strategies – Process for Salary Progression  The length of time for progression within the salary range should increase as jobs move up the salary grade structure. Progression within the salary range should be based on proficient or competent performance up to the 50th percentile or job rate of the established salary range. Progression above the job rate of the salary range shall be based on performance that is above proficient and should be tied to the performance management process. Compensation above the job rate will be performance based and may be added to base compensation or may be granted as a one-time bonus. Strategies – Job Rate Percentile  Each classification should have a job rate (midpoint) set at a percentage of the actual average salary paid incumbents occupying like positions in the relevant labor market. The job rate shall approximate the 50th percentile or the median of pay for like positions in the labor market. Strategies – Hiring Range  The hiring range is from the range minimum for minimally acceptable qualified candidates to the job rate (middle of the salary range) for exceptionally well qualified candidates. Appointment above the mid-point will require the approval of the City Manager. 4 City of Colleyville, TX Compensation Study Final Report July 2013 Table of Contents •Study Background •Survey Methodology •Summary of Salary Data Comparisons •Summary of Benefits Data •Administrative Recommendations •Attachments –Benchmark Summary Sheets –Implementation Cost Analysis 2 Study Background •Fox Lawson & Associates was engaged to perform a review of job classification, compensation and benefits for the City of Colleyville and make recommendations regarding: –Job structure and individual position allocations; –Current state of compensation and benefits; –Market competitiveness of specific employee benchmarks; –Benefits and costs associated with recommendations; –Implementation and transition options; and, –Pay practices, policies and overall compensation program. •The major consideration of the City is to establish market comparisons to the current level of compensation paid to all City job classifications. •The following items were provided by the City to facilitate the study: –Organization materials; –Current job descriptions; and –Current compensation and pay structure information for employees. 3 Study Background •Compensation and classification objectives were identified and include: –Compensation levels reflective of multiple and varied labor markets covering City jobs, including both public and private sector information, with pay grade midpoints reflective of the 50th percentile of the relevant labor markets: •Non-exempt positions compared to other public and private sector organizations in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area of similar size and complexity; •Exempt level positions compared to similar-sized cities and other public sector organizations throughout Texas; •Compensation will be viewed from a total compensation perspective, including base pay, employee benefits and applicable variable compensation. –Development of a pay structure where the midpoint is reflective of the defined labor market rates of pay. –Classifications will be placed in the salary structure based on their respective DBM rating and market data results. 4 City Compensation Philosophy Broad job classifications will be utilized to facilitate simplification and flexibility. Internal equity job evaluation approach (DBTMM) consistent with broad class concept. A total compensation approach, including benefits, will be taken into consideration. Market parity will be assessed at the market 50th percentile. Exempt classes and jobs that are most commonly found in the public sector, the labor market will include the various government entities within Texas that are similar in size and character and perform a similar range of services as the City. Private sector compensation will also be considered for those jobs that are not exclusively found in the public sector (e.g. HR, IT, etc.) Non-exempt classes will be compared to public and private sector employers in the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area that are of a similar size and complexity to the City and/or with whom the City competes for such employees. 5 Summary of Job Analysis •Existing job descriptions were collected and reviewed. •Employees completed Position Description Questionnaires (PDQs) to describe the work they are currently performing. •A classification structure was developed that consolidated and summarized jobs based on the type and level of work currently performed. •Jobs within the proposed structure were evaluated utilizing the Decision Band™ Method (DBM). 6 Decision BandTM Method The value of a job should reflect the importance of the job to the organization. The importance of a job is directly related to the decision-making requirements of the job. Decision-making is common to all jobs. Decision-making is measurable. 7 Decision BandTM Method •DBM ratings address internal equity and supports development of pay structures. •Decision bands within DBM include: –Band F – Top Level Policy Decisions –Band E – Programming Decisions –Band D – Interpretive Decisions –Band C – Process Decisions –Band B – Operational Decisions –Band A – Defined Decisions •Bands are further subdivided into “grades” based on leadership responsibilities and “subgrades” based on areas such as difficulty and complexity. • 8 DBM Step 1 - Bands Band A defined Determine manner and speed to perform defined steps of an operation Band B operational Determines how and when to perform steps of processes Band C process Selects appropriate process to accomplish operations of programs Band D interpretive Interprets programs into operational plans and deploys resources Band E programming Plans strategies, programs and allocates resources to meet goals Band F policy Organization scope, direction, and goals 9 DBM Step 2 - Grade Authority Structural Authority Responsibility Accountability Sapiential Authority Advisability Informability 10 DBM Step 3 - Subgrade Is determined by: Is affected by: Primary Criteria Job Difficulty Duty Complexity Number of Duties Diversity of Duties Duty Occurrence Duty Frequency Percent of Time 11 DBM Structure BAND GRADE SUBGRADE F - Policy 11 – Coordinating/Supervisory 2(5) 1(4) 10 - Non-coordinating 3 2 1 E - Programming 9 – Coordinating/Supervisory 2(5) 1(4) 8 - Non-coordinating 3 2 1 D - Interpretive 7 – Coordinating/Supervisory 2(5) 1(4) 6 - Non-coordinating 3 2 1 C - Process 5 – Coordinating/Supervisory 2(5) 1(4) 4 - Non-coordinating 3 2 1 B - Operational 3 – Coordinating/Supervisory 2(5) 1(4) 2 - Non-coordinating 3 2 1 A - Defined 1 –Non-coordinating 3 2 1 0 - Non-coordinating 3 2 1 Top Leadership Mid - Mgmt Staff Roles 12 Classification Structure 13 Classification Structure Job Classifications DBM Rating Administrative Support Administrative Support Assistant A13 Administrative Support Technician B22 Administrative Support Specialist B23-B24 Administrative Support Coordinator B25 Fire Firefighter Recruit B21 Firefighter B22 Fire Engineer B24 Fire Captain C41 Fire Battalion Chief C45/C52 Library Library Clerk A12 Library Assistant B22 Librarian C41-C42 Maintenance & Operations M&O Technician A12-A13 M&O Specialist B22-B23 M&O Supervisor B31 M&O Projects Specialist B24-B25 M&O Project Manager C43 Classification Structure 14 Classification Structure Job Classifications DBM Rating Management Manager D61-D62 Director E81-E83 Assistant City Manager E91 City Manager F101 Management-Program Support Management Specialist B24 Management Analyst C41 Management Analyst Senior C42 Police Code Enforcement Officer B21 Police Officer Recruit B22 Police Officer B23 Police Sergeant B32 Police Lieutenant C42 Police Captain D62 Survey Methodology – Benchmark Jobs 15 ^Data from Colleyville not available, positions vacant at time of analysis JOB CODE BENCHMARK TITLE JOB CODE BENCHMARK TITLE 1 Accounting Clerk 24 Fleet Manager 2 Administrative Clerk 25 Human Resources Analyst 3 Administrative Secretary 26 Human Resources Director 4 Battalion Chief 27 Information Services Manager 5 Billing Supervisor 28 Information Systems Technician 6 Building Inspector^ 29 Librarian 7 Building Maintenance Technician 30 Library Assistant (Circulation/Technology) 8 Building Official 31 Library Clerk 9 City Engineer 32 Mechanic - Fleet 10 Community Development Director 33 Meter Reader 11 Construction Manager 34 Municipal Court Administrator 12 Deputy Court Administrator 35 Office Assistant 13 Economic Development Director 36 Park Maintenance Superintendent 14 Equipment Operator 37 Park Maintenance Worker 15 Executive Secretary 38 Police Chief 16 Field Operations Manager 39 Police Lieutenant 17 Field Operations Supervisor 40 Police Officer 18 Field Technician 41 Police Sergeant 19 Finance Manager 42 Public Works Director 20 Fire Captain 43 Recreation Specialist 21 Fire Chief^ 44 Sign Technician 22 Fire Engineer 45 Systems Administrator 23 Firefighter/Paramedic Survey Methodology •FLA developed a survey questionnaire to collect salary and benefits data. Questions in the survey were posed in a fashion that were standard and easy for participants to answer, as well as being easy to quantify and analyze. •The survey results represent data from the following 23 organizations: 16 Participating Organizations Participating Organizations City of Bedford City of Hurst City of Cedar Hill City of Keller City of Cedar Park City of New Braunfels City of Conroe City of North Richland Hills City of Coppell City of Paris City of Duncanville City of Rowlett City of Eagle Pass City of Sherman City of Euless City of Southlake City of Galveston City of Watauga City of Georgetown Town of Farmers Branch City of Grapevine Town of Flower Mound City of Haltom City Survey Methodology •FLA followed-up with each organization to encourage participation. •FLA reviewed and entered the data collected from participants. •FLA followed-up directly with the participants to clarify and validate missing or questionable information reported. •FLA asked organizations to make a match for only those jobs that reflected at least 70% of the duties as outlined in the benchmark summaries. –If there were any questions in job matching, we reference job descriptions, organizational charts and other information to verify that the match is valid. •All data are effective April 1, 2013 and reflect an annual basis. •FLA follows the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission guidelines that state 5 job matches should exist per job in order to conduct statistical analyses or for drawing conclusions. 17 Survey Methodology •The following published survey data was utilized to make comparisons with the private sector: 18 Published Survey Sources Economic Research Institute (ERI) Hay Local Area Pay Mercer Finance, Accounting & Legal Mercer Human Resources Mercer Information Technology Mercer Metro Benchmark - South Central PRM Not for Profit Towers Watson CSR Accounting & Finance Towers Watson CSR Call Center & Customer Service Towers Watson CSR Engineering, Design & Drafting Towers Watson CSR Human Resources Towers Watson CSR Info Technology & e-Commerce Towers Watson CSR Office & Business Support Towers Watson CSR Supervisory & Middle Management Towers Watson CSR Technical Support & Production Survey Methodology: Geographic Differentials •Applying geographic differentials is a sound compensation practice in an effort to arrive at a more precise figure for use in analyzing and setting pay. •Just as data are trended forward to be effective for a current point in time, data should be adjusted to reflect cost of labor differences between geographic areas. •Geographic adjustment factors are shown below: 19 Comparison Locations Factor Adjustment Comparison Locations Factor Adjustment Bedford, TX 100% Grapevine, TX 100% Cedar Hill, TX 105% Hurst, TX 99% Cedar Park, TX 99% Keller, TX 100% Conroe, TX 104% New Braunfels, TX 96% Coppell, TX 105% North Richland Hills, TX 100% Dallas, TX 106% Paris, TX 93% Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 106% Rowlett, TX 95% Duncanville, TX 104% Sherman, TX 97% Eagle Pass, TX 92% Southlake, TX 103% Euless, TX 100% Watauga, TX 100% Farmers Branch, TX 104% Texas - Statewide 98% Flower Mound, TX 107% Region: South 107% Galveston, TX 105% Region: South Central 107% Georgetown, TX 99% United States 101% Base City: Colleyville, TX Survey Methodology •FLA performed several reviews of the data to identify any extreme data and to ensure validity and reliability of the data. •Through a statistical analysis, any salary figures that were considered extreme in relation to all other salary figures were excluded. •Various statistics were calculated (25th, 50th, 75th, low, and high) in analyzing the data. •Once the survey analysis and report was completed, it was submitted internally through our firm’s quality control process for review before it was submitted to the City. 20 Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 21 –On an overall basis of all jobs combined, the amount that the City is above or below the market (public and private sectors) is shown in the tables below. •The 50th percentile of market data was used as the comparison point with the midpoint of the current pay ranges for classes, as this is where the City identified its targeted pay: •The 50th percentile of market data was used as the comparison point with the midpoint of the current pay ranges for sworn public safety classes: Aggregate Comparison Range Comparisons Market Actuals vs City Base Salary Market Actuals vs City Range Midpoint Range Minimum Range Midpoint Range Maximum Non-Sworn Positions 1.2% -3.7% -6.5% -5.3% -2.6% Aggregate Comparison Range Comparisons Market Actuals vs City Base Salary Market Actuals vs City Range Midpoint Range Minimum Range Midpoint Range Maximum Sworn Fire -12.7% -5.6% 0.6% -13.4% -1.1% Sworn Police 0.6% -0.5% -1.6% -0.7% 0.2% Summary of Salary Data Comparisons –Graphical representations of current salaries compared to market are shown on the following page and reflect how the City’s salaries compare to the market utilizing a statistical procedure called regression analysis. –Regression analysis was utilized to blend market data with internal equity. •Regression trend line is used as an anchor for salary ranges and represents the “best fit” taking into account market parity and internal equity. 22 Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 23 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 An n u a l S a l a r y DBM Rating City of Colleyville, TX City Range Midpoints vs Market Actual Salaries (50th Percentile) City: Range Mid Public: Adj Annual Rate $ Private: Adj Annual Rate $ Combined: Adj Annual Rate $ Linear (City: Range Mid) Linear (Public: Adj Annual Rate $) Linear (Private: Adj Annual Rate $) Linear (Combined: Adj Annual Rate $) A B C D E Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 24 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 An n u a l S a l a r y DBM Rating City of Colleyville, TX City Actual Salaries vs Market Actual Salaries (50th Percentile City: Annual Salary Public: Adj Annual Rate $ Private: Adj Annual Rate $ Combined: Adj Annual Rate $ Linear (City: Annual Salary) Linear (Public: Adj Annual Rate $) Linear (Private: Adj Annual Rate $) Linear (Combined: Adj Annual Rate $) A B C D E Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 25 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 An n u a l S a l a r y DBM Rating City of Colleyville, TX Range Minimum vs Market Range Minimum (50th Percentile) City: Range Min Public: Adj Range Min Private: Adj Range Min Combined: Adj Range Min Linear (City: Range Min) Linear (Public: Adj Range Min) Linear (Private: Adj Range Min) Linear (Combined: Adj Range Min) A B C D E Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 26 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 An n u a l S a l a r y DBM Value City of Colleyville, TX Range Midpoint vs Market Range Midpoint (50th Percentile) City: Range Mid Public: Adj Range Mid Private: Adj Range Mid Combined: Adj Range Mid Linear (City: Range Mid) Linear (Public: Adj Range Mid) Linear (Private: Adj Range Mid) Linear (Combined: Adj Range Mid) A B C D E Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 27 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 An n u a l S a l a r y DBM Value City of Colleyville, TX Range Midpoint vs Market Range Midpoint (50th Percentile) City: Range Mid Public: Adj Range Mid Private: Adj Range Mid Combined: Adj Range Mid Linear (City: Range Mid) Linear (Public: Adj Range Mid) Linear (Private: Adj Range Mid) Linear (Combined: Adj Range Mid) A B C D E Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 28 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 An n u a l S a l a r y DBM Value City of Colleyville, TX Range Maximum vs Market Range Maximum (50th Percentile) City: Range Max Public: Adj Range Max Private: Adj Range Max Combined: Adj Range Max Linear (City: Range Max) Linear (Public: Adj Range Max) Linear (Private: Adj Range Max) Linear (Combined: Adj Range Max) A B C D E Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 29 The following tables summarize current range midpoints against the public, private and combined market sectors: Benchmark Title City Current Range Midpoint Public Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Public Sector Pay Private Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Private Sector Pay Combined Public & Private Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Combined Public/Private Sectors Pay Accounting Clerk $36,864 $37,284 -1.10% $39,101 -6.10% $38,462 -4.30% Administrative Clerk $31,845 $32,314 -1.50% $28,013 12.00% $31,616 0.70% Administrative Secretary $38,707 $38,865 -0.40% $44,593 -15.20% $40,287 -4.10% Billing Supervisor $57,188 $59,974 -4.90% $56,578 1.10% $59,974 -4.90% Building Inspector $49,401 $46,664 -4.10% $42,130 6.00% $46,118 -2.90% Building Maintenance Technician $44,809 $36,558 18.40% $48,852 -9.00% $36,747 18.00% Building Official $72,988 $76,963 -5.40% N/A N/A $76,963 -5.40% City Engineer $93,154 $101,766 -9.20% $91,645 1.60% $101,766 -9.20% Community Development Director $88,718 $97,850 -10.30% N/A N/A $97,850 -10.30% Construction Manager $76,638 $84,594 -10.30% $103,123 -7.40% $89,320 14.50% Deputy Court Administrator $47,049 $40,208 14.50% N/A N/A $40,208 14.50% Economic Development Director $118,891 $109,557 7.90% N/A N/A $109,557 7.90% Equipment Operator $36,864 $32,979 10.50% $39,602 -7.40% $33,920 8.00% Executive Secretary $42,675 $49,618 -16.30% $59,493 -39.40% $50,568 -18.50% Field Operations Manager $88,718 $77,534 12.60% $85,548 3.60% $78,145 11.90% Field Operations Supervisor $51,872 $54,224 -4.50% $63,711 -22.80% $55,329 -6.70% Field Technician $31,845 $32,218 -1.20% $26,707 16.10% $32,180 -1.10% Finance Manager $88,718 $90,242 -1.70% $103,286 -16.40% $92,785 -4.60% Fire Chief $118,891 $123,264 -3.70% N/A N/A $123,264 -3.70% Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 30 Benchmark Title City Current Range Midpoint Public Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Public Sector Pay Private Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Private Sector Pay Combined Public & Private Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Combined Public/Privat e Sectors Pay Fleet Manager $63,050 $63,757 -1.1% $73,296 -16.3% $64,816 -2.8% Human Resources Analyst $51,872 $49,452 4.7% $50,959 1.8% $49,452 4.7% Human Resources Director $88,718 $99,145 -11.8% $107,533 -21.2% $103,080 -16.2% Information Services Manager $76,638 $101,431 -32.4% $105,012 -37.0% $101,876 -32.9% Information Systems Technician $47,049 $42,446 9.8% $43,306 8.0% $42,528 9.6% Librarian $51,872 $45,953 11.4% $45,585 12.1% $45,953 11.4% Library Assistant (Circulation/Technology) $36,858 $33,828 8.2% N/A N/A $33,828 8.2% Library Clerk $28,890 $28,323 2.0% $23,908 17.2% $27,777 3.9% Mechanic - Fleet $40,643 $39,910 1.8% $40,720 -0.2% $40,240 1.0% Meter Reader $31,845 $29,316 7.9% $28,770 9.7% $28,796 9.6% Municipal Court Administrator $57,188 $66,119 -15.6% N/A N/A $66,119 -15.6% Office Assistant $35,109 $33,500 4.6% $27,946 20.4% $33,377 4.9% Park Maintenance Superintendent $76,638 $64,920 15.3% $85,710 -11.8% $66,288 13.5% Park Maintenance Worker $31,845 $28,835 9.5% $22,190 30.3% $28,615 10.1% Police Chief $118,891 $129,105 -8.6% N/A N/A $129,105 -8.6% Public Works Director $107,837 $122,032 -13.2% $145,790 -35.2% $122,295 -13.4% Recreation Specialist $51,872 $41,141 20.7% N/A N/A $41,141 20.7% Sign Technician $40,643 $34,929 14.1% N/A N/A $34,929 14.1% Systems Administrator $69,513 $62,021 10.8% $78,943 -13.6% $65,538 5.7% Summary of Salary Data Comparisons –Overall, for positions where private sector was available, the City is lagging the private sector by 10.5%, which is significantly greater than the 1.6% lag compared to the public sector market. –When looking at public and private sector combined, the City is lagging the overall market by 2.6%(1) 31 Difference: City Current MidPt vs Public Sector Actual Pay Difference: City Current MidPt vs Private Sector Actual Pay Difference: City Current MidPt vs Combined Sectors Actual Pay -1.6% -10.5% -2.6% (1) Based on positions that exist within the private sector and market data as available. Summary of Salary Data Comparisons •KEY MEASURES: Overall, current midpoints of all positions, excluding sworn public safety, lag the 50th percentile of the comparator market by 2.6%, from an aggregate perspective of all classes combined . •Current non-sworn actual rates of pay compared to market actual rates of pay lag the market by 5.3%. •Overall, current non-sworn salary ranges lag the defined labor market by 3.7% compared to the current midpoint for all classifications combined. •Individual comparisons vary. •Longevity, performance and hiring conditions may explain some differences in actual salary. 32 Summary of Salary Data Comparisons •KEY MEASURES: Overall, current salary range midpoints for sworn public safety lag the 50th percentile of the comparator market by 0.4%, from an aggregate perspective of all classes combined . •Current salary ranges for Sworn Police are leading the market at the range minimum by 0.6%; the salary range minimums for Sworn Fire are low, lagging the market by 12.7%. •Current sworn salary range maximums for Sworn Police, compared with market salary range maximums, lag by 1.6%; the salary range maximums for Sworn Fire are on par with the market, leading by 0.6%. •Individual comparisons vary. •Longevity, performance and hiring conditions may explain some differences in actual salary. 33 Summary of Salary Data Comparisons •Six (6) individual jobs’ range midpoints are significantly misaligned with the market, as detailed below: 34 Benchmark Title City Current Range Midpoint Combined Public & Private Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Combined Public/Private Sectors Pay Executive Secretary $42,675 $50,568 -18.5% Human Resources Director $88,718 $103,080 -16.2% Information Services Manager $76,638 $101,876 -32.9% Municipal Court Administrator $57,188 $66,119 -15.6% Benchmark Title City Current Range Midpoint Combined Public & Private Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Combined Public/Private Sectors Pay Building Maintenance Technician $44,809 $36,747 18.0% Recreation Specialist $51,872 $41,141 20.7% Salary Data Recommendations •The proposed non-sworn pay structure, which takes into consideration internal alignment and external market data, expands the existing width of the pay ranges from 40% (entry level non- exempt) to 60% (management)*, which is consistent with market data. •The proposed sworn pay structures range spreads have been developed to align with the range spreads found in the market for sworn Fire and Police and vary based on position. 35 *Current pay range widths are 35% from entry level through management Salary Data Recommendations 36 Proposed Pay Structure (Non-Sworn) DBM Min Mid Max Range Spread A11 $23,750 $28,500 $33,250 40% A12 $25,413 $30,495 $35,578 40% A13 $28,462 $34,154 $39,847 40% B21 $30,056 $37,570 $45,084 50% B22 $32,160 $40,200 $48,240 50% B23 $34,641 $43,301 $51,961 50% B24/B31 $37,977 $47,471 $56,965 50% B25/B32 $41,303 $51,629 $61,954 50% C41 $47,965 $59,956 $71,947 50% C42 $51,291 $64,114 $76,936 50% C43 $54,617 $68,271 $81,925 50% C44/C51 $57,953 $72,441 $86,929 50% C45/C52 $61,279 $76,599 $91,918 50% D61 $65,328 $84,926 $104,524 60% D62 $68,526 $89,084 $109,641 60% D63 $71,724 $93,241 $114,758 60% E81 $84,535 $109,896 $135,257 60% E82 $88,762 $115,391 $142,019 60% E83 $93,200 $121,160 $149,120 60% E91 $97,860 $127,218 $156,576 60% F101 $107,646 $139,940 $172,234 60% Salary Data Recommendations 37 Proposed Sworn Police Pay Structure Proposed Sworn Fire Pay Structure DBM MIN MID MAX Spread Firefighter/EMT B21 $46,317 $52,338 $58,359 26% Firefighter/Paramedic B22 $48,975 $55,342 $61,708 26% Fire Engineer B24 $56,034 $61,358 $66,681 19% Fire Captain C41 $65,467 $70,377 $75,287 15% Battalion Chief C45/C52 $73,244 $82,400 $91,555 25% DBM MIN MID MAX Spread Police Officer Recruit B22 $46,432 $53,861 $61,290 32% Police Officer B23 $50,959 $59,113 $67,266 32% Police Sergeant B32 $64,475 $69,633 $74,791 16% Police Lieutenant C42 $80,193 $85,405 $90,618 13% Police Captain D62 $89,935 $101,177 $112,419 25% Salary Data Recommendations •The costs associated with the proposed pay structures are represented in the table below: 38 NonSworn: Annual Payroll Bring-To-Minimum Cost Cost to Maintain Relative Position in Proposed Range Full-Time $5,173,036 $66,541 $390,684 Part-Time $374,712 $16,375 $40,234 Subtotals $5,547,748 $82,916 $430,918 % of Payroll: 1.5% 7.8% Sworn: Annual Payroll Bring-To-Minimum Cost Cost to Maintain Relative Position in Proposed Range Full-Time $4,401,685 $110,441 $179,431 % of Payroll: 2.5% 4.1% Combined (NonSworn & Sworn): Annual Payroll Bring-To-Minimum Cost Cost to Maintain Relative Position in Proposed Range $9,949,433 $193,357 $610,349 % of Payroll: 1.9% 6.1% Implementation Options •There are multiple implementation options available to the City, including (assumes all employees whose current rate of pay is below the proposed minimum are brought to the minimum of the proposed pay range): –Provide for a flat percentage increase for employees currently within the range based on current position within the range (ie, X% for those employees in the first quartile; X% for those employees in the second quartile, etc.); –Implement based on a percentage of the ‘Cost to Maintain Relative Position in Proposed Range’ (ie, implement at 75%); –Implement utilizing a multi-year approach, not to exceed 2 years (ie, 70% year 1 and 30% year 2). •Other implementation options are available and are all dependent upon budgetary constraints. 39 Summary of Benefit Data Comparisons •A customized data collection form was created to collect benefits information in conjunction with the salary survey. •FLA distributed the survey to comparator organizations identified by the City. •FLA reviewed and entered the data collected from participants. •FLA followed-up directly with the participants to clarify and validate questionable information reported. 40 Survey Participant Demographics 41 Comparator Market Average City of Colleyville Customers Served 43,374 23,328 Annual Operating Budget $78,885,219 $35,923,748 Number of FT Employees 389 171 Number of Job Classifications 156 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Customers Served Participating Organizations 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Number of Full-Time Employees Participating Organizations Pay Practices: Employee Salary Increases 42 Notes: 1. Average includes those responding with 0% increase; 2.% of Responding Orgs= Of the organizations surveyed, X% provided a response; 3.Some Sworn Police received increases to base of, on average, 8% for compression adjustment. Average Increase1 % of Responding Organizations2 % of Responding Organizations providing an increase City of Colleyville Average Increase3 NonExempt 2.4% 96% 91% 0% Exempt 2.4% 96% 91% 0% Executive 2.3% 96% 86% 0% The City is lagging with the comparator market with respect to employee salary increases for 2013 as shown in the table below: Pay Practices: Formal Salary Ranges 43 Established Salary Ranges % of Responding Organizations NonExempt 95% Exempt 95% Executive 77% Similar to the comparator market, the City has formal salary ranges for all levels of employees as shown in the table below: Pay Practices: 2013 Salary Range Adjustments 44 Average Adjustment % of Responding Organizations NonExempt 2.6% 36% Exempt 2.6% 36% Executive 2.6% 36% 36% of the organizations surveyed implemented range adjustments during 2013. The City, like 64% of the comparator organizations, did not implement salary range adjustments in 2013. The average adjustment for salary ranges, for those organizations implementing adjustments, is shown in the table below: Pay Practices: Variable Pay Plans 45 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 # O r g a n i z a t i o n s Variable Pay NonExempt Exempt Executive The City is on par with the comparator market with respect to variable pay. The City, similar to those organizations offering variable pay, provides for lump sum payments, performance pay, longevity pay and other pay (education pay and on-call pay). Benefits: Retirement 46 Retirement Benefit Avg Employer Contribution % of Organizations Avg Employee Contribution % of Organizations PERS Non-Exempt 13.3% 100% 6.7% 100% Exempt 13.1% 100% 7.0% 100% Executive 13.1% 100% 6.4% 100% Tax Deferred Non-Exempt 4.0% 4% IRS Limit 74% Exempt 4.0% 4% IRS Limit 74% Executive 4.0% 9% IRS Limit 74% SERP2 Non-Exempt 0.0% 0% 7.7% 5% Exempt 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0% Executive 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0% The City contributes 14% and employees contribute 7% to TMRS (PERS1), which is on par with the comparator market. Additionally, the City has a tax-deferred retirement program for employees with no employer match: 1PERS is a generic term used to describe a Public Employer Retirement System, similar to TMRS in Texas. 2SERP program available at 1 organization for seasonal, non-exempt employees only. Benefits: Paid Leave 47 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Holidays Personal Bereavement Holiday, Personal & Bereavement Leave Market Average Number of Days City of Colleyville The City is generally on par with the market with respect to holiday, personal and bereavement leave as shown in the chart below: Benefits: Paid Leave 48 0 5 10 15 20 25 <2 Yrs 2 to 4.9 Yrs 5 to 9.9 Yrs 10 to 14.9 Yrs 15 to 19.9 Yrs 20 to 24.9 Yrs 25+ Yrs Vacation Market City of Colleyville The City slightly lags the market with respect to vacation leave as shown in the chart below: Benefits: Paid Leave 49 The City slightly lags the market (market average is 13 days versus 12 days offered by the City) with respect to sick leave as shown in the chart below: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 <2 Yrs 2 to 4.9 Yrs 5 to 9.9 Yrs 10 to 14.9 Yrs 15 to 19.9 Yrs 20 to 24.9 Yrs 25+ Yrs Sick Leave Market Colleyville Benefits: Carry-Over of Unused Leave Time 50 Carry-Over ("Banked") Unused Vacation Average # Hours % of Responding Orgs 268 65% Based on Accrual % of Responding Orgs 1/2 to 3 times annual accrual 30% Other % of Responding Orgs Unlimited 5% Carry-Over ("Banked") Unused Sick Leave Average # Hours % of Responding Orgs 720 48% Based on Accrual % of Responding Orgs 1 times annual accrual 9% Other % of Responding Orgs Unlimited 43% The City is on par with the market with respect to leave carry-over, providing for an average of 300 hours of vacation (varies between 200 and 400 hours) and 720 hours of sick leave carryover. The comparator market averages are shown in the tables below: Benefits: Flexible Benefits Offered 51 Cafeteria Options Organizations Offering Offered by the City Premium Conversion 41% Yes Flexible Spending Account 82% Yes Simple Choice 23% No Full Flex 5% No Consumer Driven Health Plan 32% No The City is on par with the comparator market with respect to flexible benefit offerings, as shown in the table below: Benefits: Medical Insurance Premiums 52 $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Medical Insurance: Monthly Employer Contributions Market City of Colleyville $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Medical Insurance: Monthly Employee Contributions Market City of Colleyville $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Medical Insurance: Total Monthly Premium Mkt Total Premium Colleyville Total Premium On average, the City pays 76% of the monthly medical premium compared to the market average of 78%. Overall, the City’s cost for medical benefits is lower than the market. A summary of market data compared to the City is shown in the charts below: Benefits: Premiums Paid by Employees 53 $- $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Dental Insurance: Monthly Employer Contribution Market City of Colleyville $- $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Dental Insurance: Monthly Employee Contribution Market City of Colleyville $- $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $120.00 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Dental Insurance: Total Monthly Premium Market City of Colleyville On average, the City pays 52% of the monthly dental premium compared to the market average of 50%. Overall, the City’s average cost for dental benefits ($66) is 14% higher than the average cost for the market ($57). A summary of market data compared to the City is shown in the charts below: Benefits: Premiums Paid by Employees 54 The City offers a vision program to employees, but does not subsidize the cost of the program. The market provides for nominal contributions by Employers, as shown in the charts below: 21% 14% 13% 11% $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Vision Insurance: Total Monthly Premiums Avg Market Employee Contribution Avg Market Employer Contribution $0 $1 $2 $3 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Vision Insurance: Monthly Employer Contributions Avg Market Employer Contribution $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Vision Insurance: Monthly Employee Contributions Avg Market Employee Contribution Benefits: Group Life Insurance 55 Group Life Insurance - Base Coverage Average Base Level Coverage ($) % of Organizations Average Base Level Coverage (X Salary Level) % of Organizations $23,000 23% 1.6 X Annual Salary 77% Group Life Insurance - Maximum Coverage Average Maximum Base Level Coverage ($) % of Organizations Average Base Level Coverage (X Salary Level) % of Organizations $122,857 65% 1.4 X Annual Salary 35% The City lags the comparator market with basic life insurance coverage of $15,000. The market provides for the following: Benefits: Health Opt-Out Credits/Cash Back 56 Opt-Out Benefit (In Lieu of Health/Welfare Coverage) All Organizations Combined Average Monthly Benefit % Organizations Credit toward other benefit plan $128 13% Comparable to the market, the City does not provide for opt -out credits/cash back. Only 13% of surveyed organizations provide for opt-out credit/cash back as detailed below: Benefits: Wellness Programs 57 The City is on par with the comparator market with respect to wellness program provisions and offerings as detailed in the tables below: Wellness Program Offering # Organizations offering Programs 14 % Organizations Offering Programs 61% Wellness Program Offerings: Wellness Offering Type # Organizations % Organizations Fitness Club Membership Discount 11 79% Stress Management 7 50% Smoking Cessation 10 71% Weight Reduction 10 71% Nutrition Program 9 64% Health Assessment 13 93% Recommendations: Benefit Data Comparisons •Due to the competitive nature of the City’s current benefit offerings, no changes are recommended to the benefits provided by the City at this time. 58 Administrative Recommendations •Salary Structure Review/Updates –Annual Updates •In order to reflect necessary increases in the minimum and maximum rates appropriate for each job, the salary structure should be reviewed annually. FLA can provide the City with the average percentage increase for employee salaries and salary structures on an annual basis, or the City may use a labor market index. •It is recommended that the respective starting rates and maximums be increased by a percentage that reflects the market trends and the City’s hiring experience. The use of a dollar amount increase would compress the structure over time. –Long-Term Updates •The City should reevaluate its overall structure at regular intervals (e.g., 2 to 3 years depending upon market movements) to ensure that its salary levels are consistent with the marketplace. •This would involve conducting a market salary study, such as was conducted here, every 2 to 3 years (depending on the economy) to make sure that the City’s pay scales and employee salaries remain competitive. 59