HomeMy WebLinkAbout52. 16-165MARCH 22, 2016 16-165 RESOLUTION
(CARRIED__7-0______LOST________LAID OVER________WITHDRAWN________)
PURPOSE: APPROVAL OF PAY PLAN, RECOMMENDATIONS,
CLASSIFICATION ASSIGNMENT LIST AND CORRESPONDING
ADJUSTMENTS RESULTING FROM THE CITY OF OSHKOSH
COMPENSATION REVIEW FOR ALL NON REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES
INITIATED BY: CITY ADMINISTRATION
WHEREAS, the City of Oshkosh contracted with Carlson Consulting LLC and
initiated a compensation review in 2015;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the
attached Pay Plan, Recommendations, Classification Assignment List and
Corresponding adjustments resulting from the City of Oshkosh Compensation Review, is
hereby approved and the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to take
those steps necessary to implement the pay plan, recommendations, classification
assignment list and corresponding adjustments for all non represented employees
effective the first pay period after Council approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that
the attached pay plan, recommendations, classification assignment list and
corresponding adjustments for all non represented employees supersede all previous pay
plans and classification lists for all non represented employees.
❑TY HALL
215 Church Avenue
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
54903-1130
�
�
�Jf HKC�lN
_ , �, _
TO:
FROM
DATE:
RE:
BACKGROUND
City of Oshkosh
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
John Fitzpatrick, Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services
March 15, 2016
Non-Represented Staff Compensation Review
The City of Oshkosh retained Carlson Dettmann Consulting to update its full time and part time non-represented
pay plans through a market review and to offer recommendations for any positions that should be re-evaluated for
allocation within the plans.
ANALYSIS
Included with this memo is the report developed by Carlson Dettmann detailing the background, analysis and
recommendations, along with Appendices A&B which illustrate the benchmark classifications utilized, as well as
the new proposed pay schedule for full time non represented classifications (part time classifications were
unaffected). As a result of this analysis, Human Resources determined the corresponding compression
adjustments that were necessary and also reviewed non represented seasonal compensation.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total estimated impact to the general fund for the implementation of the study, the corresponding compression
adjustments, and non represented seasonal compensation adjustments is $54,615. The estimated amount set aside
in the general fund for this project is $50,000. Because not all outcomes of the study could be pre-determined for
budgeting purposes, the estimated impact to varied utility and other non-general funds is $15,752.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis conducted, staff recommends approval of the Carlson Dettmann Report recommendations,
the implementation of all corresponding compression adjustments that were necessary as a result of the study, as
well as the implementation of all updated non represented seasonal compensation effective the first pay period
following Council approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Approved:
GCiI. ` �`-�� •
1 J�
J n M. Fitzpatrick � Mark A. Rohloff
Assistant City Manager / City Manager
Director of Administrative Services
Attachment: Carlson Dettmann Consulting Report, w/ Appendices A& B
cc: Pam Resch, HR Manager
� � �
, �
March 1, 2016
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fitzpatrick, Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services
FR: Charles E. Carlson
RE: Non-Represented Staff Compensation Review
BACKGROUND
The City of Oshkosh retained our firm to update its non-represented staff pay plan with
a market review and recommendations for any positions that should be re-evaluated for
allocation within the plan. This is a major pay plan, covering over 300 staff in 170 unique job
classifications with an annual payroll exceeding $7 million. These city employees provide a wide
range of services.
In 2010, the State of Wisconsin enacted sweeping legislation (Acts 10/32) dramatically
restricting collective bargaining, as we knew it, and placed much greater financial responsibility
on municipalities, counties, and the state government. These enormous changes came as the
local economy was in the midst of the Great Recession of 2008. It was a challenging time, and
the Oshkosh City Council responded by adopting changes to its compensation systems in 2012
that included four major features:
• Replaced multiple pay plans with a uniform plan encompassing both management
and non-exempt positions.
• Benchmarked the plan to market data from both the public and the private sector.
• Emphasized performance as a key criterion in pay plan advancement.
• Substantially improved benefit and cost controls on its health plans.
The City has kept the overall plan current with a combination of general increases to the
schedule and performance awards. In summary, the City implemented performance-based pay
gradually, beginning with a re-design of its evaluation instruments and training for managers.
The City Council supported this development with modest performance raises or bonuses for
top performers.
In addition, the City has made major strides toward controlling its health insurance
costs, having moved to an insured plan, creating a joint-employer clinic, and managing coverage
options.
MARKET ANALYSIS OF OVERALL PLAN POLICY
As in 2011, the market analysis included benchmark data from both other cities and
private sector data. The ten cities used in the analysis were consistent and included: Green
Bay, Kenosha, Racine, Appleton, Eau Claire, Janesville, La Crosse, Fond du Lac, Beloit, and
Wausau. At least seven of the ten cities adopted new plans subsequent to the City of Oshkosh,
so this subject has received a lot of attention post-Acts 10/32.
In addition to the city benchmark comparisons, we analyzed area data from the U.S.
Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, primarily for FLSA non-exempt positions and
Towers Watson for management level jobs where comparisons were possible. We weighted
city data and other survey data equally.
We were able to develop comparisons on forty-two of the 170 classifications covering
approximately two-thirds of the employees. The benchmark data is included with this report as
Appendix A. We regressed both the current pay plan Control Points (the market target adopted
by policy) and our market estimates against benchmark position job evaluation scores, and the
result was that the current pay policy of the City and market practices are virtually the same.
5�0.00
seo.00 : _ .
'Sso.00
' Sao.00
Sao.00
! Szo.ao
$10.00
CITY �F 05HKOSN
2016 Pay Plan Update - Market Line and Plan Control Points
$0.00 '`
0
200 400
--unear �nnKt ts[j
600 800 1000 1200 1400
!ob Evaluation Scores
Charles E. Carlson 2
charles.carlson@carlsondettmann.com
608.239.7991
The market analysis is based on job evaluation scores after movement of the classifications
recommended for reallocation.
In addition to benchmark measurement for policy and market estimates, we also
evaluate pay plan performance using a statistic called a"compa-ratio." This is defined as the
ratio between base pay for each incumbent and the pay plan Control Point for the incumbent's
allocated pay range. The overall compa-ratio for this pay plan is approximately 1.05, meaning
that, on average, current employee pay is 105% of the market. Considering that the City of
Oshkosh's overall policy is to employ a skilled, experienced workforce, we believe this is an
excellent position for the City.
POSITION REALLOCATION
When the City adopted the new pay schedule in 2012, it had to balance several
competing interests. Paramount was the need to try to protect city services, which required
maintaining current employment levels wherever warranted and possible. In doing so, the City
Council adopted a policy of basing its competitive position on both public and private sector
employment comparisons. This represented a very significant change in approach because
former collective bargaining regulations effectively precluded using private sector data for
public sector analysis.
Our finding then was that for many hourly-based occupations, municipal wages
exceeded private sector levels. It is our belief and experience this disparity was due to two
factors. First, private sector wages stagnated over the preceding decade. Second, public sector
collective bargaining at least protected public sector wages and benefits and, in some cases,
increased disparities. As a result, with the City of Oshkosh providing relatively secure
employment and superior fringe benefits, the City was in a very preferred market position. The
number and quality of applications for vacant positions validated this observation.
As the economy recovered from the Great Recession of 2008, the employment climate
in the Fox River Valley improved substantially, and the labor market for trades, public works
operator, and technical positions has tightened across the Valley. Accordingly, we have been
recommending our area clients address this changing market by making selective classification
adjustments as employment conditions warrant.
Accordingly, in this project, we re-evaluated position responsibilities for non-exempt
classifications in these affected market areas. We also reviewed the relationship between
supervisory classifications and incumbent employees in those classifications proposed for
reallocation to assess potential pay compression. The result is we are recommending pay range
allocations for twenty-three classifications (14% of the 170 classifications in the plan) covering
seventy-three employees (25% of all employees). The affected classifications are identified on
a revised pay schedule attached as Appendix B.
Charles E. Carlson
charles.carlson@carlsondettmann.com
608.239.7991
In terms of implementation, the City does not have an adopted policy on range
reallocations resulting from a study like the present one. Our recommendation is that the City
modify its employee handbook to provide the following direction in these circumstances:
1. If an employee's current rate of pay is between a step in the new range, then the
employee be placed on the step that provides an increase.
2. If an employee's current rate is between the Control Point of the new range and
the Maximum rate of the range, then no increase is required.
3. If an employee's current rate is "red-circled" and would be higher than the
Maximum rate of the new range, then the employee would continue to be "red-
circled."
The purpose of reallocation due to market factors is to place classification in
competitive ranges; the intent is not to grant a pay increase unless it is to bring the rate into
conformity with the new range so progression can continue. In all cases, each of the seventy-
three employees classified in the reallocated pay ranges would have an improved pay horizon.
In adopting the new pay plan in 2011, no one's pay was reduced. Instead, if an employee's
current pay was higher than the new pay range maximum, the employee's pay was frozen, or
"red-circled."
Even though no one's pay was reduced and jobs were saved, implementation was
painful for the 170 employees whose pay was frozen. We are pleased to note that, assuming
adoption of the allocation recommendations in this report, the number of employees with
frozen pay rates will be reduced to seventeen — a very substantial change.
THE CHALLENGES AHEAD
There are major challenges ahead, however. The City's workforce is aging, as the table
on the following page shows. Almost 50% (124 employees) of the City of Oshkosh workforce
covered by this plan are over age 50. Understanding that these employees have access to an
outstanding retirement system, the City needs to prepare for a significant turnover of very
experienced staff. The challenge is even more dramatic because the City of Oshkosh, like most
public employers, pursues an employment policy of long-serving public service from its staff.
This usually results in the more experienced staff transitioning into leadership roles. For
example, when a senior staff inember retires, the City typically faces more than one staffing
change because for every retirement, as it promotes a supervisor to a manager, a lead worker
to a supervisor, and a worker to a lead worker, the impact cascades throughout the
organization.
Charles E. Carlson
charles.carlson@carlsondettmann.com
608.239.7991
Grouping Number P�rcent af Cumulative
Whale Percent
Age 60 or Older 27 9.9°10 9.9%
Age 55 ta Age 60 33 12.1�6 22.1°l0
Age 50 to Age 55 64 23.5°/'a 45.6%
Age 45 to Age 50 �il 15.1°r6 60.7%
Age 40 to Age 45 37 13.610 74.310
Age �5 ta Age 40 24 8.8% $3.1%
Age 30 to Age 35 19 7.4% 90.1%
Age 30 or Less 27 9.9% 100.0°%
Tata I 272 100%
Most other Wisconsin public employers have similar workforce profiles and face similar
challenges. As this story unfolds, there will be tremendous competition for the same types of
staff throughout Wisconsin. The significance for the City of Oshkosh is it will need a substantial
development and succession plan, and it also will need to continue to monitor market
conditions closely.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our analysis, we are confirming the market validity of the current pay plan.
Furthermore, we recommend reallocating twenty-three job classifications one grade higher in
the plan (14%a of the total classifications) affecting seventy-three employees (approximately
25% of the employees in the plan). Most of the affected classifications include operators,
technicians, and trades positions where local labor market conditions are pressing.
If the Council approves these recommendations, we assume implementation would
occur at the start of the next pay period following Council action. It is our understanding the
Human Resources division will prepare a fiscal note based on these recommendations.
One of our project tasks was a review of position status under the terms of the U.S. Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Department of Labor is expected to issue new regulations in
the next few months. Therefore, we have agreed to delay further consideration of the FLSA as it
applies to positions in this pay plan until the final regulations are announced and appear
permanent. We will provide our recommendations separately on this matter at a later date.
Charles E. Carlson 5
charles.carlson@carlsondettmann.com
608.239.7991
���a��
Charles E. Carison, Partner
Charles E. Carlson
charles.carlson@carlsondettmann.com
608.239.7991
APPENDIX A
Benchmark Class
Entry Level Clerical
Acct Clerk I
Groundskeeper
PC Hardware Tech
Account Clerk II Finance
Building Maint Cust
Equipment Ops/Maint Wkr
Parks Maintenance Tech
Office Assistants
Admin Asst
Civil Engineer Tech
Electrician
Mechanic
Property Appraiser II
Water Plant Operator
WW Plant Operator
Payroll Coordinator
Programmer Analyst
Database Administrator
Civil Engineer
Chemist
Office Manager
Principal Civil Engineer
Accounting Superv
Principal Planner
Public Works Street Sup
City Clerk
Water Filt Plant Supt
WW Treat Plnt Supt
Purchasing Manager
Asst Finance Dir
Director of IT
Police Captain
Street Superintendent
Asst City Attorney
Dir Community Devel
Director of Parks
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Fire Chief
Police Chief
Dir of Public Works
CITY OF OSHKOSH
BENCHMARK MARKET ANALYSIS
Grade
B
B
B
D
C
C
D
D
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
G
G
G
G
H
H
H
H
I
I
I
I
J
K
J
J
K
L
L
M
M
M
M
N
i
18
3
1
1
4
5
42
8
7
10
9
8
12
2
5
11
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Points
334
334
342
424
389
399
410
410
361
435
437
508
442
442
405
432
545
527
562
603
621
635
684
684
658
679
724
713
713
726
734
825
811
814
852
1002
1018
1104
1089
1018
1018
1144
COPYRIGHTED BY CARLSON DETTMANN ASSOCIATES, LLC
JANUARY 2016, MADISON, WI
1
C/Point
$16.49
$16.49
$16.49
$22.41
$19.81
$19.81
$22.41
$22.41
$19.42
$25.05
$25.05
$27.58
$25.05
$25.05
$25.05
$25.05
$27.58
$ 27.04
$30.35
$30.35
$30.25
$30.25
$3339
$33.39
$33.39
$33.39
$36.75
$36.75
$36.75
$36.03
$40.44
$44.50
$40.44
$40.44
$44.50
$48.95
$48.95
$53.87
$53.87
$53.87
$53.87
$58.10
Mkt Est
$17.40
$18.09
$15.89
$22.46
$20.76
$19.32
$21.53
$23.01
$17.24
$23.45
$ 26.14
$25.03
$23.32
$25.28
$26.61
$25.17
$27.11
$31.55
$34.32
$30.87
$29.73
$26.96
$35.84
$34.22
$32.88
$33.91
$35.10
$39.47
$37.62
$36.37
$40.70
$49.52
$44.84
$41.08
$41.06
$52.43
$43.22
$54.27
$56.28
$52.90
$53.94
$59.26
i
Res 16-165 R E V I S E D
2016 Full Time Non Represented Pay Schedule 2%
Exempt [E] 87.59e 90.0% 92.5% 95.0% 97.5% 100.09'0 120.0% # positions
GRADE Non-exempt [N] MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX filled
N 51.85 53.33 54.82 56.30 57.78 59.26 71.11
E Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services 1
E Director of Public Works 1
M 47.14 48.48 49.83 51.18 52.52 53.87 64.64
E City Attorney 1
E Director of Finance 1
E Fire Chief 1
E Police Chief 1
L 42.83 44.06 45.28 46.50 47.73 48.95 58.74
E Director of Community Development 1
E Director of Parks 1
K 38.94 40.05 41.16 42.28 4339 44.50 53.40
E Assistant City Attorney 1
E Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer 1
E Director of Transportation 1
E Information Technology Manager A x x 1
E Public� Works Utility Manager 1
J 35.39 36.40 37.41 38.42 39.43 40.44 48.53
E Assistant Finance Director 1
E Assistant Fire Chief 1
E Director of Museum
E Human Resource Manager 1
E
E Planning Services Manager 1
E Police Captain 3
E Public Works Field Operations Manager 1
1 32.16 33.08 33.99 34.91 35.83 36.75 44.10
E Assistant Director Of Parks 1
E Chief Building Official 1
E City Assessor 0
E City Clerk 1
E Civil Engineering Supervisor 2
E Economic Development Specialist 1
E General Services Manager 1
E Senior Services Manager 1
E Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager 1
E Water Distribution Manager 1
E Water Filtration Plant Manager 1
H 29.22 30.05 30.89 31.72 32.56 3339 40.07
E Assistant Wate� Distribution Manager nr� 1
E Principal Civil Engineer5e�++eF 2
E Deputy Assessor 1
E Electrical Traffic Manager 1
E Financial Accounting Manager 1
E Financial Utility Manager 1
E Golf Course Manager 1
E Landscape Operations Manager 1
E Parks Operations Manager 0
E Parks Revenue & Facilities Manager 1
E Principal Planner 1
E Public Works Mechanic Manager 1
Resolution xx-xxx
nPP,o�ed: be�PC�P�?�3�i�Pam\Carison Dettman Comp Review\Final Papers\2016 Non-Rep Schedule proposed with grade changes 1 ofa
Exempt [E]
GRADE Non-exempt [N]
E
E
E
E
E
E
G
F
N
E
E
N
E
E
N
E
N
E
N
N
E
E
N
E
E
E
E
N
N
N
E
N
N
E
N
N
E
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
N
N
E
N
E
E
2016 Full Time Non Represented Pay Schedule 2%
87.5� 90.0% 92.5Yo 95.0% 97.5%
MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
Public Works Street Supervisor
Safety & Risk Management Officer
Transportation Mechanic & Maintenance Manager
Transit Operations Manger
Wastewater Maintenance Superwsor =_
Wastewater�Treatment Plant 5upervisoew ..
26.56 27.32 28.07
Archivist
Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator
Chemist
Civil Engineer
Communications Coordinator
Curator
Database Administrator � �
Environmental Health Specialist
GIS Administrator
Industriel/Electncal Techniaan�-=
Industrial Pretreatment Coord'inator
Media Services Coordinator
Office Administration Manager
Registrar
Transit Operations Supervisor
24.13 24.82 25.51
Associate Planner/GIS Specialist
Building Systems Inspector
Community Program Coordinator
Crime Analyst
Electrical Mechanical Technician `"
Electrician
Golf Professional & Clubhouse Supervisor
Graphic Artist
Housing Inspector
Human Resource Generalist
InstrumentationTechnician �y,�3 p
1_0.�1�..�.t-.I /CI..��.:..-.I T....L...:..:-...
�_.,..,._:_� �_,.�_.._.....,.... �,..._.,:__.__
Lead Civil Engineer Technician
Lead Maintenance Mechanic
Maintenance Coordinator
Marketing & Membership Coordinator
Organizational Development Specialist
Payroll Coordinator
Plant Electrician -��a' " ,����.� �, �'
�, .. , ,.�,�. �.� ,�� �,,.<.,;.
Plumbing Inspector
Program Supervisor
Programmer/Analyst
Public Works Sanitation Manager
Special Events Coordinator
28.83
26.20
29.59
26.89
100.096 120.O�o # positions
CONT PT MAX filled
2
1
1
1
1
1
30.35
27.58
36.42
33.10
1
0
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
E 21.92 22.55 23.17 23.80 24.42 25.05 30.06
N Administrative Assistant 10
N Assistant Planner 1
N Benefits Coordinator 1
N Civil Engineer Technician S
Resolution xx-xxx
nPP�o�ed: be�P6iQd?����Pam\Carlson Dettman Comp Review\Final Papers\2016 Non-Rep Schedule proposed with grade changes z ota
2016 Full Time Non Represented Pay Schedule 2%
Exempt [E] 87.5% 90.0% 92.5% 95.0% 97.5% 100.096 120.0% # positions
GRADE Non-exempt [N] MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX filled
N Deputy City Clerk 1
NCI...,�.:..-.I nA,...L.�...'....I T...,L...:.-'.... O
IV `�„ 0
N Engineering Specialist 4
N Equipment Mechanic 6
N Exhibit Technician p
N Grants Coordinator 0
N Housing Specialist 0
Ni.,�......,.....F_ .. T.._�...:,.:.,.. 0
N Lead Arborist 1
N Lead Cashier 1
N Lead Cemetery Worker 1
N Lead Construction Worker 0
N Lead Equipment Mechanic p
N Lead Parks Maintenance Worker 1
N Lead Vehicle Mechanic 0
N Lead Water Equipment Operator 2
N Lead Water Maintenance Worker 4
N Maintenance Mechanic 6
N Management Assistant 0
N ��,..< <�� 0
N Property Appraiser 3
N Property Evidence Clerk 1
N Senior Buyer 1
N Telecommunications Specialist 1
N Vehicle Mechanic 1
N Wastewater Liquids Operator II g
N Wastewater Solids Operator II 3
N Water Filtration Operator II 5
N Welder 1
__
D 19.63 20.19 - 20.75 21.31 21.87 22.43 26.92
C
N Arborist
N Equipment Ope�ator
N Horticulturist
N Parks Trades Technician
N PC Hardware Technician
N Wastewater Liquids Operator I
N Wastewater Solids Operator I
N Water Filtration Operator I
N Water Maintenance Worker
17.33 17.83 1832 18.82 19.31
N Account Clerk II
N Activities Coordinator
N �e�is�
N Building Maintenance Custodian
N Clerk Dispatcher
N Code Enforcement lnspector
N Court Liaison Clerk
_ _. . _
N Economic Development Technician
N Elections Aide
N
N �is�
N Human Resource Assistant
N Lead Sanitation Operator
N Museum Assistant
N Office Assistant
N Parks Maintenance Worker
2
32
1
8
1
0
1
0
10
19.81 23.77
4
1
5
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
6
Resolution xx-xux
a,PP�o�ed: be�R,6�P���i�Pam\Carlson Dettman Comp Review\Final Papers\2016 Non-Rep Schedule proposed with grade changes s ota
2016 Full Time Non Represented Pay Schedule 2%
Exempt [E] 87.59a 90.0% 92.5% 95.0% 97.5% 100.09'0 120.0% # positions
GRADE Non-exempt [N] MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX filled
N ❑-.�I... T�...J..� T....L...:..:.... O
0
N❑r u.._,J....._,. T,.,.1...;,.:..., 1
N Traffic Painter 2
N Utility Locator 1
N Video Editing Technician 1
N
N
N
N
N��i..a,.. nn,.r... c,,...:.... �ni.._i,,...
N ZoofSoenalist � ¢ �T'F�' 1
B
A
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
14.43 14.84 i5Z5 15.67
Account Clerk I
Cashier
Computer Operator
r�..a,, r..s ...............4 i.....,,....,._
Customer Service Clerk
C ............:.. f1......1.............� T....L...:..:.....
Groundskeeper r
Parking Control Officer
Receptionist
Records Clerk
Sanitation Operator
Secretary
Shop Maintenance Worker
Technology Support Services Coordinator
Telecommunications Clerk
Vehicle Equipment Installer
Wastewater Maintenance Worker
Weights and Measurement/Code Enforcement Clerk
Word Processing Operator
�..,. c..,.,.•..r�F
11.34 11.66 11.99 12.31
Custodian
16.08 16.49 19.79
3
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
9
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
12.64 12.96 15.55
1
Resolution xx-xxx
nPP�o�ed: bel��C�A���i�Pam\Carlson Dettman Comp Review\Final Papers\2016 Non-Rep Schedule proposed with grade changes aora