HomeMy WebLinkAbout21. 18-559 NOVEMBER 14, 2018 18-559 RESOLUTION
(CARRIED 6-0 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN )
PURPOSE: APPROVE PAY SCHEDULE, 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 Dettmann Consulting
and initiated a compensation review in 2018;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Oshkosh that the attached pay schedule / classification assignment list for full time non-
represented classifications and corresponding adjustments resulting from the City of
Oshkosh compensation review, are hereby approved and the proper City officials are
hereby authorized and directed to take those steps necessary to implement the pay
schedule, recommendations, classification assignment list and corresponding
adjustments 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 schedule, recommendations, classification assignment list and
corresponding adjustments supersede all previous corresponding pay schedules and
classification lists for non-represented employees.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Non Represented Compensation Review,
completed by Carlson Dettmann Consulting dated October 11, 2018, (on file in the City
Clerk's Office or available online at www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us) is hereby received and filed.
'k
s��
AW
City
of
Oshkosh
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: John Fitzpatrick, Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services
DATE: November 7, 2018
RE: Non Represented Staff Compensation Review
BACKGROUND
The City of Oshkosh retained Carlson Dettmann Consulting to evaluate its non -represented pay plans
through a market review and to offer recommendations for any classifications that should be reallocated
within the plans.
ANALYSIS
Included with this memo is the report developed by Carlson Dettmann detailing the background,
analysis and recommendations, the corresponding PowerPoint presentation as well as the new
proposed pay schedule / classification assignment list for full time non -represented classifications (part
time classifications were unaffected). In summary, the only proposed changes recommended at this
time were the creation of half grades J.5 and K.5, and reallocation of the Police Captain, Assistant Police
Chief and Assistant Fire Chief classifications to those new grades.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the implementation of the study.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis conducted, staff recommends approval of the Carlson Dettmann Report
recommendations as well as the new proposed pay schedule / classification assignment list for full time
non -represented classifications, effective the first pay period following Council adoption.
Respectfully Submitted,
91--__ & Z� �
John M. Fitzpatrick
Assistant City Manager /
Director of Administrative Services
Approved:
Mark A. Rohloff
City Manager
Attachments: Carlson Dettmann Consulting Report & PowerPoint Presentation
Pay Schedule / Classification Assignment List
cc: Michelle Behnke, HR Manager
CITY OF OSHKOSH:
MARKET PRICING PROJECT UPDATE
CARLSON DETTMANN CONSULTING
A DIVISION OF COTTINGHAM & BUTLER INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.
PATRICK GLYNN, SENIOR CONSULTANT
OCTOBER 23, 2018
The World of Public Sector Compensation
• Shifting Market
• Numerous public sector compensation plans have been
completed/updated
"Hot jobs" are becoming increasingly difficult to recruit/retain
• Aging Workforce
• Future recruitment needs requires competitive compensation plan
• "Silver Tsunami"
• Younger Workforce
• Newer generations of employees have different expectations.
• "Stay a career" mentality is eroding ... More mobile with shorter (and
more) "careers"
1
Bureau of Labor Statistics: Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey
(Midwest Data - Seasonally Adjusted)
000 Layoffs/Discharges vs. Voluntary Quits (In Thousands)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200 —Voluntary Quits
too
Layoffs & Discharges
o
Jan -01 Jan -02 Jan -03 Jan -04 Jan -05 Jan -06 Jan -07 Jan -08 Jan -09 Jan -10 Jan -11 Jan -12 Jan -13 Jan -14 Jan -15 Jan -16 Jan -17 Jan -18
The Changing of the Generational Guard
Millennials became the largest generation in the labor force in 2016
U.S. laborforce, in millions
70 - — - -66 ......... '--_.-.__.-....._.-_._......................... _......
60
' G,31Xers
40 . r r<^.`. ....... . ...... ....... _ . __.........._..................................................... .41
......................................
Millennials
30....-....._._..__....._._...........__...- -.. -------- .----- .------ ...---- ------- . .......... ..... .... ....._...
SilenyGreatest
20
10
Post-Millennials 3
1994 1997 2000 2005 2008 2010 2015 2017
Note: Labor force Includes those ages 16 and older who are working or looking for work. Annual averages shown
Source: Pew Research Center analysis of monthly 1994-2017 Current Population Survey (IPUMS).
PEW RESEARCH CENTER
2
3
City of Oshkosh: Age Profile
Percent of
Cumulative
Grouping
Number
Whole
Percent
Age 60 or Older
22
7.5%
7.5%
Age 55 to Age 60
44
14.9%
22.4%
Age 50 to Age 55
57
19.3%
41.7%
Age 45 to Age 50
48
16.3%
58.0%
Age 40 to Age 45
39
13.2%
71.2%
Age 35 to Age 40
25
8.5%
79.7%
Age 30 to Age 35
30
10.2%
89.8%
Age 30 or Less
30
10.2%
100.0%
Total
295
100%
3
City of Oshkosh: Service Profile
Percent of
Cumulative
Grouping
Number
Whole
Percent
Greater than 35 Years of Service
8
2.7%
2.7%
30 Years to 35 Years
4
1.4%
4.1%
25 Years to 30 Years
26
8.8%
12.9%
20 Years to 25 Years
29
9.8%
22.7%
15 Years to 20 Years
49
16.6%
39.3%
10 Years to 15 Years
39
13.2%
52.5%
5 Years to 10 Years
46
15.6%
68.1%
Less than 5 Years of Service
94
31.9%
100.0%
Total
295
100%
3
Internal Equity
• Job Documentation
• Management Interviews
• Organizational Structure
• Job Evaluation
Consistent
Methodology
• Industry -Accepted Standards
• Uniformity from Project -to -
Project
• Exceptions Based on Data
External
Competitiveness
• Reliable Market Data
• Proper Mix of Surveys
• Matching to the Duties oft e
Job
Transparency
• Project Communication
(Board, Employees, etc.)
• Process vs. Full
Transparency
• Post -Project Communication
a
fine Market Comparisons
etermine Market Placement
Design Structure (i.e. Plan Type)
Develop Implementation Plan
City of Oshkosh: Regression of Current Pay on Job Evaluation - Benchmark
Jobs
MW T--
sss.00
. . .............. . ...... . . ..
. ......................... . ......... .
$15.00
W.00
$w.M
$25.00
$20.00
$15..
250 300 WO 400 450 500 SM 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 M 1000 1050 1100 IISD 1200 iM 1300
Job Evaluation Points
N.
Compa-Ratio Analysis (Current vs. Midpoint)
Compa-Ratio by Years in Job
Grouping
N -Count
Avg. C -Ratio
Greater than 35 Years
7
111.2%
30 Years to 35 Years
4
110.7%
25 Years to 30 Years
25
110.8%
20 Years to 25 Years
25
113.0%
15 Years to 20 Years
45
109.3%
10 Years to 15 Years
40
108.9%
5 Years to 10 Years
45
106.5%
Less than 5 Years
104
92.9%
Total Employees
Avg. C -Ratio
295
103.5%
N.
City of Oshkosh: Regression of Market Estimate on Job Evaluation
$]0.00
jfi6.40
,�
$60.00
$55.00
m
Y
� E90.W
—
.
a $3a.a0
y = 0.0477x + 4.4898
RI = 0.9509
as.ao
$o.00
zso 300 iso
aao aso saa sso soo sso Sao iso eoo aso saa
sso ,oao ,oso „oo „so ,zoo ,zso ,3ao
Job Evaluation Points
N.
City of Oshkosh: Comparison of Current and Median Market Regression Lines
of Best Fit
$70.00 -.. ..-
565.00
sw.w ®Market ----
ass w _ current _...
s50.00 —
545.00
M $40.W
a $35.x0__—
T
S
2
525.00
$20.00 --
$15.00 ---- --
$10.00
50.00
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 800 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
Job Evaluation Points
7
Compression Continues to be a Concern
(With Non -Represented Public Safety)
• Police Captain
Currently hiring in the merit range
Recommend a pay range reassignment by establishing Grade J.5 (C/P
$44.40)
• Assistant Police Chief
Requires adjustment by virtue of recommended movement of Captain
Recommend pay range reassignment by establishing Grade K.5 (C/P
$48.85)
• Assistant Fire Chief
Recommend pay range reassignment by establishing Grade K.5 (C/P
$48.85)
• Notes:
The creation of a half -grade (e.g. J.5/K.5) will allow the City to address
compression until such time that a future full -study occurs
• The above recommendations are consistent with the observed market
data, but will need to be revisited in the future plan update
Shelf -Life of Plan
• Jobs Continue to Evolve
• Most organizations reevaluate duties when a position is vacant
• Programs and duties change as a community grows/reprioritizes
• As jobs evolve and/or are created, new or modified benchmarks are
likely for the next market review
• Internal Equity Eroding
• Although necessary, each independent adjustment brings the
possibility of disrupting the balance of internal equity and external
competitiveness
• Next logical step is to reevaluate all jobs and bring the plan back into
balance
Changing Marketplace
Compensation Trend(s) at the Lower End of the Scale
• Several organizations have adjusted pay—or provided lump -sum
bonuses—following the recent federal tax cuts.
Further, the movement of minimum wage laws in other states is slowly
having an effect across the nation.
• Some organizations have been quite aggressive in adjusting pay to
attract the necessary talent (e.g. manufacturing).
• Tradeoffs
• However, there are often "strings attached" when such adjustments
are made. (e.g. reducing/cutting bonuses; significant changes to
health care; reduction of hours or positions; automation of duties; etc.)
• Possible Action
• The City will continue to monitor its recruitment/retention data and will
make recommendations—as appropriate—in the future.
0
Final Analysis: Delicate Balancing Act
Fairness
Fiscal
Equitable j Affordable
1 Competitive I Sustainable
Supportive .6
10
CAPJ,SON
DETTMANN
CONSULTING
a Cottingham & Butler Company
October 11, 2018
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fitzpatrick, Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services
FROM: Patrick Glynn, Senior Consultant
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. This is a major pay plan, and City continues an emphasis on providing a competitive
compensation package for its employees. The City continues to keep the overall plan current with the
external marketplace by applying structural (general) increases, in addition to fostering an
environment of internal equity with both step movement (below the Control Point) and performance
awards.
MARKET ANALYSIS OF OVERALL PLAN POLICY
As in 2011, and again in 2015/16, 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. Many of
these organizations either adopted new plans, or have updated their post -Act 10/32 structures.
In addition to the city benchmark comparisons, we analyzed area data from the U.S. Department of
Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as paid survey sources (Willis Towers Watson, CompData, and
Northeast Wisconsin Chambers of Commerce). We weighted city data and other survey data equally.
We were able to develop comparisons on forty-seven of the City's classifications. 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. The RI = 0.9509 shown on the market graph (in the
PowerPoint presentation) is the correlation coefficient. This value is very high and means that our
market model (i.e. job evaluation scores, grade breaks, market matches, selected benchmark jobs, etc.)
are reasonably predicting the variance in market pay. One way to interpret the result is that 95% of the
variance in pay is explained by differences in job evaluation values. The result of the analysis was that
the current pay policy of the City and market practices are virtually indistinguishable. Although difficult
to see, the two lines are essentially on top of each other.
City of Oshkosh: Comparison of Current and Median Market
$70.00
$65.00
--
$60.00
Market
$55.00
Current
$50.00
$45.00
d
r
x$40.00
T
x$35.00
T
3$30.00
O
2
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 550.0 600.0 650.0 700.0 750.0 800.0 850.0 900.0 950.01000.OL050.OL100.OL15O.OL200.OL250.OL300.0
Job Evaluation Points
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 1.035, meaning that, on average, current employee pay
is 103.5% 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. Further, the compa-ratio
for employees with less than 5 years of service 92.9%. This illustrates the fact the City has
demonstrated discipline in its hiring practices by hiring new employees at, or near, the plan minimum.
CONTINUED CHALLENGES AHEAD
The workforce challenges identified in 2012, and again in 2016, continue for the City. Although down
slightly, the City's workforce continues to show signs of aging, as the table on the following page
shows. Nearly 42% (123 employees) of the City's workforce covered by this plan are at or over age 50.
The poses two unique challenges for the City: [1] these employees have access to an outstanding
retirement system and the City needs to prepare for a significant turnover of very experienced staff;
and [2] one of the best strategies for addressing the workforce shortages is to create an environment
where retirement -eligible employees choose to remain in the workforce. The table below illustrates
the breakdown of the age demographic for those City employees subject to this analysis:
2
Grouping
Number
Percent of
Whole
Cumulative
Percent
Age 60 or Older
22
7.5%
7.5%
Age 55 to Age 60
44
14.9%
22.4%
Age 50 to Age 55
57
19.3%
41.7%
Age 45 to Age 50
48
16.3%
58.0%
Age 40 to Age 45
39
13.2%
71.2%
Age 35 to Age 40
25
8.5%
79.7%
Age 30 to Age 35
30
10.2%
89.8%
Age 30 or Less
30
10.2%
100.0%
Total 295 100%
Equally important is the analysis of the years of service with the City. Nearly a third of the studied
workforce (31.9%) have less than five years of service to the City. It's conceivable that these
employees have experience with other employers, but the challenge for the City is to retain and
develop these employees to fill key roles as the natural end -of -career turnover continues to be a
reality.
Years of Service with the City of Oshkosh
3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our analysis, we are confirming the market validity of the current pay plan. Aside from the
planned adjustment of the structure, as well as the recommended adjustments due to internal wage
compression, we do not see the need for a plan correction at this time.
However, we continue to observe a marketplace that presents challenges to most employers. The
continued exit of America's largest generation brings about one of the more challenging labor markets
in recent memory, and this will require the City to closely monitor its recruitment and retention
challenges (if any) and respond accordingly.
This is the second market update since the original study. We believe that the next update, which
would likely be conducted in the next two to three years, should be more comprehensive in nature.
Doing so would allow the City to not only reassess the ever-changing market, but also provides an
opportunity address design elements to ensure the City's structure remains competitive and relevant
well into the future.
One of the emerging concerns in our discussions with the City was the effect of recent market activity
on the lower end of the wage schedule. We've observed many organizations adjusting pay for entry-
level occupations due to changes in tax codes, market conditions, or other related factors. However,
such data has not found its way to the multitude of surveys to which we subscribe. The Sherman
Antitrust Act requires survey data to be at least three months old but it is our experience that, by the
time an organization responds to survey requests, the data tends to be older. This, in and of itself, is
not necessarily a problem. Survey providers will age the participant data forward to a common
publishing date, and it is our practice to age the data further—if necessary—from the publishing date
to an effective date for a structure. In situations where the market is moving faster than the surveys
can respond, we encourage our clients to monitor its recruitment/retention data and make
appropriate adjustments as necessary. The City is prepared to engage in such analysis and will bring
recommendations forward should the need arise.
In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to serve the City and look forward to our continued
relationship.
4
2018 Full Time Non-represented Schedule per Resolution 17-620
Updated 11/07/2018
87.5% 90.0% 92.5% 95.0% 97.5% 100.0% 120.0%
GRADE MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX
N 54.21 55.76 57.30 58.86 60.41 61.95 74.34
Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services
Director of Public Works
M 49.27 50.68 52.09 53.50 54.90 56.31 67.57
City Attorney
Director of Community Development
Director of Finance
Fire Chief
Police Chief
L 44.77 46.05 47.33 48.61 49.89 51.17 61.40
Director of Parks
K.5 42.74 43.96 45.18 46.40 47.63 48.85 58.62
Assistant Fire Chief
Assistant Police Chief
K 40.71 41.87 43.04 44.20 45.36 46.52 55.82
Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Assistant Finance Director
Deputy City Attorney
Director of Transportation
Information Technology Manager
Public Works Utility Manager
J.5 38.85 39.96 41.07 42.18 43.29 44.40 53.28
Police Captain
J 36.99 38.06 39.11 40.17 41.22 42.28 50.74
Director of Museum
Human Resource Manager
Economic Development Services Manager
Environmental Compliance Manager
Planning Services Manager
Public Works Field Operations Manager
I 33.62 34.58 35.54 36.50 37.46 38.42 46.11
Assistant Director Of Parks
Chief Building Official
City Assessor
City Clerk
Civil Engineering Supervisor
General Services Manager
Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager
Water Distribution Manager
Water Filtration Plant Manager
H 30.55 31.42 32.29 33.16 34.03 34.91 41.90
Assistant City Attorney
Assistant Water Distribution Manager
Principal Civil Engineer
Deputy Assessor
Electrical Traffic Manager
Financial Accounting Manager
Financial Utility Manager
Landscape Operations Manager
Parks Operations Manager
Parks Revenue & Facilities Manager
Principal Planner
Public Works Mechanic Manager
Public Works Street Supervisor
Safety & Risk Management Officer
Senior Services Manager
Transportation Mechanic & Maintenance Manager
Transit Operations Manager
Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor
Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor
G 27.75 28.55 29.34 30.13 30.93 31.72 38.07
Archivist
Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator
Chemist
Civil Engineer
Communications Coordinator
Curator
Environmental Health Specialist
GIS Administrator
Industrial/Electrical Technician
Industrial Pretreatment Coordinator
Media Services Coordinator
Network Specialist
.Office Administration Manager/Analyst
Planner
Registrar
Transit Operations Supervisor
F 25.23 25.95 26.67 27.39 28.11 28.83 34.60
Associate Planner/GIS Specialist
Building Systems Inspector
Community Program Coordinator
Crime Analyst
Electrical Mechanical Technician
Electrician
Staff Accountant
Graphic Artist
Housing Inspector
Human Resource Generalist
Instrumentation Technician
Lead Civil Engineer Technician
Lead Maintenance Mechanic
Maintenance Coordinator
Marketing & Membership Coordinator
Marketing & Fund Development Coordinator
Organizational Development Specialist
Payroll Coordinator
Plant Electrician
Plumber
Plumbing Inspector
Program Supervisor
Systems Analyst/ Web Developer
Public Works Sanitation Manager
Special Events Coordinator
E 22.91 23.56 24.22 24.87 25.54 26.19 31.43
Administrative Assistant
Assistant Planner
Benefits Coordinator
Civil Engineer Technician
Deputy City Clerk
Engineering Specialist
Equipment Mechanic
Exhibit Technician
Financial Specialist
Grants Coordinator
Housing Specialist
Landscape Operations Lead Worker
Lead Construction Worker
Lead Equipment Mechanic
Lead Parks Maintenance Worker
Lead Vehicle Mechanic
Lead Water Equipment Operator
Lead Water Maintenance Worker
Maintenance Mechanic
Management Assistant
Property Appraiser
Property Evidence Clerk
Senior Buyer
Telecommunications Specialist
Vehicle Mechanic
Wastewater Liquids Operator 11
Wastewater Solids Operator II
Water Filtration Operator II
Welder
D 20.51 21.10 21.69 22.27 22.86 23.45 28.14
Arborist
Equipment Operator
Fleet and Equipment Coordinator
Horticulturist
Landscape Operations Ground Specialist
Landscape Operations Technician
Parks Trades Technician
PC Hardware Technician
Wastewater Liquids Operator I
Wastewater Solids Operator I
Water Filtration Operator I
Water Maintenance Worker
C 18.11 18.64 19.15 19.67 20.18 20.70 24.83
Account Clerk II
Activities Coordinator
Assistant Curator
Building Maintenance Custodian
Clerk Dispatcher
Code Enforcement Inspector
Community Development Technician
Court Liaison Clerk
Economic Development Technician
Elections Aide
Human Resource Assistant
Lead Sanitation Operator
Office Assistant
Parks Maintenance Worker
Traffic Painter
Utility Operator
Utility Locator
Video Editing Technician
Zoo Specialist
B 15.08 15.51 15.95 16.38 16.81 17.24 20.69
Account Clerk I
Cashier
Customer Service Clerk
Parking Control Officer
Receptionist
Records & Report Clerk
Sanitation Operator
Secretary
Shop Maintenance Worker
Technology Support Services Coordinator
Telecommunications Clerk
Wastewater Maintenance Worker
Weights and Measurement/Code Enforcement Clerk
Word Processing Operator
A 11.85 12.19 12.54 12.87 13.21 13.55 16.26
Custodian