HomeMy WebLinkAboutFY1995-1996 -- Pay PlanCITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Pay Plan
Review
and
Proposal
FY 95-96
March 8, 1995
Cf.-CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
HUMAN RESOURCES
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960
(409) 764-3517
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
THROUGH: Tom Brymer, Interim City Manager l
FROM: Karen Pavlinski, Director of Human Resources
DATE: March 2, 1995
RE: Presentation on Pay Plan for Council Workshop
In this packet, we have tried to provide information in response to issues
discussed at the Council's retreat. Although there is a vast amount of
information in this booklet, I will attempt to provide a clear overview of the pay
plan and the proposals for continuing the plan for FY 95-96. Provided in the
appendix is supplementary information to illustrate aspects of the presentation
and in some cases specific reference is made to the page where it can be
located.
I'd like to thank the Council for this opportunity.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. History of Pay System
2. Elements of the Compensation Program (Graph)
3. Elements of a Pay Plan
4. Current Pay Increase Calculation
5. Calculation of Performance Increase
6. Performance Categories
7. Score Table FY1994-95
8. Distribution of Scores
9. Steps for Determining Proposed Increases for FY1995-96
10. How Information is Used
11. Score Table FY1995-96
12. New Proposal
13. Options for FY1995-96 Pay Plan
14. Illustration of Scale Movement
15. Cash Flow Effects of Merit on Budget
16. Hay Audit
17. Hay Report - Objectives to be Addressed
18. Benefits to be Reviewed
APPENDIX
I. The Job Evaluation System
II. Point Factor Levels
III. The Grouping of Job Families
IV. Average Annual Salary
V. Departmental Performance Score Table
VI. 1995 Salary Survey Participants
VII. - VIII. Benchmark Jobs Surveyed
IX. Public Safety Scale
X. Public Safety Graph
XI. Support Services Scale
XII. Support Services Graph
XIII. Maintenance/Trades Scale
XIV. Maintenance/Trades Graph
XV. Technical Scale
XVI. Technical Graph
XVII. Management/Professional Scale
XVIII. Management/Professional Graph
XIX. Total Salaries and Benefits Budget and Actual
XX. Merit Increase Budgeted - Coopers & Lybrand
XXI. a.-f. Current Pay Tables
XXII. Sample Performance Manual
Prior to 1984
History of Pay System
Step -in -Grade System
Increase after initial 6 months
COL increases
5% steps annually
No evaluation process
1984 Council decided on Pay for Performance System
Single Pay Scale
Performance evaluation
Yearly increase based on Performance Score
No 6 month increase
No across-the-board adjustment
FY 1987-88 Pay increases were frozen
FY 1988-89 Restored pay system
3% one time across-the-board adjustment
1989 Pay Plan audited by Ralph Andersen & Assoc.
5 families of scales created
FY 1991-92 Performance score scale compressed from
1/2% increases to 1/4% increases
1994 Pay Plan audited by Hay Group
Minor system adjustments recommended
1
lootalm000reffear
Job Evaluation
Administration
>„
a)
co
co
Job Descriptions
8
c To.
co
E Ea_
(I) <
-
0
Elements of a Pay Plan
1. Job Description
. Develop one for a new job
. Update and review current job descriptions
2.a. Job Evaluation
. Points assigned by Pay Plan Review Committee
. Points are based on 8 factors (see appendix i and II)
. All jobs fall into 5 families for market purposes (see appendix ill)
2.b. Performance Appraisal
. Based on job description
. Departments rewriting or have rewritten manuals (see appendixXXli)
. Semi-annual and merit
. Important documentation
3. Salary Survey
. Done annually in January/February for budgetary decisions
4. Salary Structure
. Movement of scales if any
. How are we doing in the market
5. Administration
. Calculating merit increases off midpoint of grade
. Average of semi & annual scores
3
Current Pay Increase Calculation
. Merit Increases are calculated on midpoint of pay
grade - not on current individual salary.
. No across the board increases (COL).
. Employee performance increases are scattered
throughout the year based on "anniversary date".
. Employee increases must be earned by
performance evaluation.
. Actual percentage increase is a result of position in
employee's pay grade.
Current Salary
Less than midpoint = % increase is higher.
Greater than midpoint = % increase is lower.
4
C
0
Q
c
2
SCORE = PERCENT x MIDPOINT
EMPLOYEE A RECEIVES THE SAME $ INCREASE AS EMPLOYEE B
BENEFIT: PERFORMANCE DRIVES PAY INCREASES NOT LONGEVITY
5
Performance Categories (Scores)
1 - unacceptable
2 - below expectations
3 - meets expectations
4 - above expectations
5 - clearly outstanding
Most
Fiscal Frequent % Inflation Actual Merit
Year Score Increase Rate Increase
1984/85 3.0 7.0% 3.50% 3.50%
1985/86 3.0 7.0% 2.07% 4.93%
1986/87 3.0 6.0% 3.62% 2.38%
1987/88 0.0 frozen 4.00% (4.00)%
1988/89 3.2 3.0% 4.90% (1.90)%
1989/90 3.3 5.0% 4.03% 0.97%
1990/91 3.3 5.5% 4.05% 1.45%
1991/92 3.4 4.0% 2.87% 1.13%
1992/93 3.4 4.0% 2.88% 1.12%
1993/94 3.4 4.0% 2.64% 1.36%
1994/95 3.4 4.0%
Actual merit increase = % increase - inflation rate. (see appendix IV)
6
PAY FOR PERFORMANCE
FISCAL YEAR 1994-95
EVALUATION % MERIT
SCORE INCREASE
2.80 0.00
2.90 0.00
3.00 3.00
3.10 3.25
3.20 3.50
3.30 3.75
3.40 4.00
3.50 4.25
3.60 4.50
3.70 4.75
3.80 5.00
3.90 5.25
4.00 5.50
4.10 5.50
4.20 5.50
EFFECTIVE 10/1/94
1994 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SCORES
{
tN . r:'
A., '",S
`1.• r "''':i.F^iHs,'.F,'s;:•"si>
• .• ts,. Nts Kra
%s£`sxs s .'a„41.;.;
•'•:.u,,'••��wo-/F:r'I;."C S'%..i...
si:r:ss::s.s.
:+
iixsfa^NH
ii.•SS, Y+•i..
is n£•n•£Yi vF
.
::'' •
1,''• i::✓: •FFiµ;$
•::.. 'a i
:>iF::i+vF}','. FFiiiF'viii>Fh£
F+'!:`•iiiF>F'FriFFF':ii
vK.N
Fi FFF'i:iFi.•:vi u ,{{0.i•
F',,:,`{JF£i�iirFFFFFFF:•...e4
':.::x^.G.FS';;.:;FF;F.r•;:..::.:•SFFF::FY::Fr:.Fry
wu'".Fsis'si;.:�SFF>.'F::t AF:s�:+^i#%s:�;w`^'..'#sF�^'FSy.:+i'F,'x',•"�x.�"^sr,
+, xxrsr ,sue
vi
µ ssi
..µ 0, ;:w',,x s> w ^ems zYx
,;,;rfor..l
Vass:��asx aY fix^
M
F"Sf:xSi.•x:xx:;;S::.x:
'•
S':•Y.S.£SFSSF£FSF'aFFr�„t,,
.•;,G SM M h;^SS+ :
'r:• ';+/v'�N.'SSS vSFSI$i.++.+•S;'F•`:r~•`:2yi
Nhn f � xss
^:
:F:'': .:,.. r^��;
,Fk�FS£ .:FF, ...N. 'y ; fi' $.1
•.`',•rF>•':xa+.v# M: �•,+h. z .,.. y."i i'..,fYxx`i ^.';F.:,:
�+:rS>.rb3vFFr+Srr. t:.ryF::,Fy.:Fyxr F:FF. £
• FF'x :•;FFSF•.`:�+•ii'«nv
ris n vi�FF<FFiFiF
rrFrrFs F:CF'
ssst:ssus ssss ssss
. •V•rii F'� Fr :Y 'ii F: iYfr : r':�Y3$�i FFF u •'4�h iv ›..,
Fsssss > FFwFF x:FFFF:> ?s FF ssFFFs F "ssss'£ xVss s sFVs s$sH"s#`
SYrS�Sn•S::vvyS, ivrFi`•vrF'i •'^•'^•
ii Firi+F:i u:ss k'sF'•
.'a£FF::+ :rriFFFi•".4.5 4.44a:
ussss
M.
+3x
!'NFL
..:,4:%tsSi'i (y`?
iiil:lJlJll
Fy„ —
1 1 1 l 1 1
O
O
O
O
W
O
A3N3f1331i3
O
O
N
0
M
M
t`-)
afe
N
O
M
N 0
co
N
N
N
N
Poor performance is not rewarded and ultimately not retained.
8
Steps for Determining Proposed Increases for FY95-96
• Salary Survey Data collected and reviewed
Market Data by Family
1. Public Safety
2. Support Services
3. Maintenance/Trades
4. Technical
5. Management/Professional
(see appendicies VI, VII, VIII)
• Consider CPI information obtained from Budget Office
• Consider performance evaluation distribution
• Compare to what other entities are doing
(usually August)
• Calculate estimated costs for budgeting purposes
9
How Information is Used
Necessary scale adjustments are made in line with Market data
. Sets entry level pay for new hires
. Small adjustments yearly helps keep plan from making major
adjustments
Determine incentive for performance
. "Meets Expectations" score is minimum increase earned
. Use CPI for minimum increase
Calculate percentage increase for Budget
. Most frequent performance score percentage is used for
budgeting purposes.
10
SCORE TABLE PROPOSED FOR FY 95-96
Score
Percentage
1.0
-2.0
0
2.1
0
2.2
0
2.3
0
2.4
0
2.5
0
2.6
0
2.7
0
2.8
0
2.9
0
3.0
2.6
3.1
2.85
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.35
3.4
3.6
3.5
3.85
3.6
4.1
3.7
4.35
3.8
4.6
3.9
4.85
4.0
- 5.0
5.1
Minimum Percentage (CPI)
City Wide Average Score
Maximum Percentage
New Proposal (In response to the Hay Study)
Make Departmental Average Score base for %
increase (see appendix V)
. To discourage grade creep - departments have
control
. To equalize percent increase across departments
12
Options for FY 95-96 Pay Plan
I. NO FAMILY SCALE MOVEMENT
Use Performance Score table percentages by Department
Projected Costs:
Salary Budget $319,823
Variable benefits $ 51,172
$370,995 (FY95-96 impact)
II. MOVE SCALES TO MAINTAIN MARKET COMPETITIVENESS
Public Safety 5%
Support Services 2.6%
Maintenance/Trades 3.0%
Technical 3.5%
Management/Professional - Adjusted Scale
Use performance score table percentages by Department
Projected Costs:
Salary Budget $363,413
Variable Benefits $58,146
$421,559 (FY95-96 impact)
Staff recommends the second option in order to keep pay scales
competitive
13
Illustration of Scale Movement
11.13
Em•lo ee C
Frozen
11.13
9.29 9.29
7.72 Employee B
7.46 Em•Io ee A 7.46 �, Employee A
8.09
Em•Io ee C
Frozen
Employee. B
New Hire
Current
No Scale Movement
4% Merit for
3.4 Score
11.46 Employee C
9.57
8.10
7.68
Employee B
Employee A
Raised to Minimum
3% Scale Movement
4% Merit for
3.4 Score
Example Jobs in Pay Grade 18
Secretary
Customer Service Rep - Utility Billing
Records Technician - Police
14
Cash Flow
Effects of Merit on Budget
. Merit increases are given on anniversary date of hire or
promotion
. Evenly distributed
1/2 of evaluations fall in last 6 months of fiscal year
. Full effect of % increase overlaps fiscal year
. Turnover $$ allow promotions and reevaluations without
adversely affecting budgeted dollars.
15
Hay Audit
By moving scales and using departmental scoring average
Issues addressed are:
. Job Families
. Surveys
. Internal Equity
. BST - pay philosophy (partially)
16
Hay Report Objectives to be Addressed
3CD
o 15
€c 0c co) eco €y
01 ED g
vi o)C
EJ aw• 4_H etc
P
OS
0
.c
6
a)
c
co 0
o
32 Cc
0
3 i• s
a)
o
c c
co
�Eco
in-house procedure
cn
c o . o
ho
Tv _=' w'03 c0 c
�n c CO ppE c
C A •cam— •W CO N C • t/� 0)
C� r-
c E E g e 0 0 CO 0 CCO
ii • m 0 a) > .= t = .t
as 0a 0a
Ecc 5°c 8E 8E
Y •c
CX
O
h
*Job Families
C
0
c
•v Uo
co'' Eari 1 v E
0.
E E �g 1
g � c
0 0 0•0 �� o
.c rc c c 0 0> c
. . c E E' .
financial impact
financial impact
financial impact
0•0 b. 3y c_
.S.•C cE C o
Ea '`1 i Ea.
«) sc• • IP a 4.Q
financial impact
*Funding of System
17
Benefits to be reviewed
Health Plan
. Possible revamping of health program
. Financials being reviewed
. Increased enrollments in PCA/impact on #'s
TMRS
. Rates set in June
Flex (IRS 125)
. Participation
. Savings in FICA
Deferred Comp
. Participation
Savings in FICA
APPENDIX
THE JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM
The City currently employs a point factor job evaluation system to rank individual
jobs and assign them to an appropriate pay range.The factors analyzed within
point factor job evaluation systems are termed "compensable factors" - meaning
those elements of a job for which the organization intends to pay. The College
Station system includes eight compensable factors, which are listed and described
as follows:
Knowledge - This factor includes nine individual levels measuring the
specialized or technical knowledge, acquired through education, on-the-job
training or prior experience necessary to perform the job.
Management Skills - The focus of this factor is on management and
supervisory skill requirements exercised either directly or indirectly. There
are nine rating levels for this factor.
Human Relations Skills - The six levels associated with this factor measure
the requirement for interaction with others, both inside and outside the
city organization.
Complexity - The nine levels of the complexity factor are used to evaluate the
application of knowledge required by a job including creativity, ingenuity,
judgement, initiative, analysis, reasoning, and evaluating.
Physical Effort - This factor is used to measure which of five levels of physical
effort are required by a job, with particular emphasis on the kind, amount,
and frequency of the effort.
Responsibility - This factor relates to the accountability for results and the
impact a job has on the results of the organization as a whole. There are
nine levels of Responsibility measured by the system.
Guidance Received - The seven levels of this factor measure the degree of
guidance, review and direction received by a person in a particular position.
Working Conditions - There are seven levels of this factor, which measures
what type of surroundings are involved and the extent to which adverse or
hazardous conditions affect the accomplishment of assigned
responsibilities.
POINT FACTOR LEVELS
Every Job Class within the City of College Station personnel system is rated on each of these eight
compensable factors. For each factor, every level is weighted in terms of its overall contribution to the total
job evaluation score as shown in the following table:
Maximum
Factor Levels Points % of Total
Knowledge 9 190 19
Management Skills 9 170 17
Human Relations Skills 6 130 13
Complexity 9 130 13
Physical Effort 5 50 5
Responsibility 9 180 18
Guidance Received 7 100 10
Working Conditions 7 50 5
The distribution of points to the eight compensable factors is graphically depicted below:
HUMAN REL. SKILLS
13%
MANAGEMENT
SKILLS 17%
KNOWLEDGE
19%
WORKING CONDITIONS
5%
GUIDANCE RECEIVED
1 O%
RESPONSIBILITY
18%
COMPLEXITY
13%
PHYSICAL EFFORT
5%
THE GROUPING OF JOB FAMILIES*
Each position in the city is placed into one of the five job
families. The five job families are as follows:
Public Safety, which consist of all Police and Fire
positions.
Support Services, which is comprised of
administrative support, secretarial, and clerical
positions.
Maintenance and Trades, which consist primarily of
field maintenance positions, including unskilled
labor, semi -skilled jobs, and skilled trades.
Technical, which consist of engineering, data
processing, and utility positions with a substantial
technical component, usually requiring licensure
or certification.
Management and Professional, which is comprised
of executive and mid -management positions (except
for technical managers) and other exempt
professional classes.
*The Job Families were created in 1989 (Ralph Andersen & Associates).
c/w/d ata/excel/otientat
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
AVERAGE ANNUAL SALARY
AVERAGE ANNUAL SALARY
o O O O O O
o O O O O O
lN Nid 1A
r-. O
M
_ rn
rn
Performance Score Table
0
C1
C
0
0
r
M
CO
C)
c0
CO
co
C)
nt
00
ILO
N
Id
ui
ui
Id
gri
Lei
r
Sri
at)
E
8
N
n
N
co.
O
co
co
0)
co.
co
co
CO
<0
Ci
ti
co.
co.
CO
et
00
00
0
W
J
0
a
V
0
0
0
a
00
c.l
C)
M
C)
co
M
CO
M
M
er
00
ui
Id
'r)
r
v)
r
gri
gri
a
gri
Lei
gri
8
co
ti
cN
co.
O
CO
C)
N
M
co.
co
co
co.
M
(0
co
ti
M
00
M
O)
C)
N
et
c0
st
O
sr
0)
0
V
C
0
0
co.
0
N
co
N
00
M
r
M
co.
co
c0
co
141
CO
C)
co
co
to
00
Id
N
u)
r
1A
c0
0
1-
re
0
8
tV
00
N
co.
O
co
C)
N
0)
co.
C
M
M
cD
0)
ti
co
00
CO
0
co
N
et
ti
co
co.
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
N
N
00
N
C)
co
M
co
C)
CO
Cr;
r
et
M
00
gri
r
v)
r
u)
1ci
w
vi
8
0)
N
co.
co?
N
O
C)
C)
N
co
co.
M
CO
C)
c0
M
ti
CO
co
CO.
0
C)
O
st
4)
co.
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
0
O
O
co.
c
O
c0
N
0
c0
N
O
c0
N
O
cc)
N
O
c0
N
O
co.
O
00
fV
0
N
00
N
C)
M
C)
co.
00
C1
M
0
141
0
tri
Lei
1l)
8
U)
1-
N
03.
co.
cV
O
M
M
N
co
co.
M
co
14)
M
(D
M
ti
M
co.
co.
co
O
N
d'
C)
00
'st
O
N)
V
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
N
O
00
N
0
t0
N
O
(0.
03.
co.
M
M
C)
00
co
O
00
M
<0
'4
LO
co.
Y')
gri
N
tf)
ti
N
co'
CV
co.
0
co
M
N
M
co.
co
M
1
M
c0
co
M
00
M
Q)
M
O
N
v
co.
d'
O
O
Z
u)
C)
2
C)
C
0
O
0
O
0
oD
N
co.
tf)
00
N
C)
O
co
M
c0
M
Y)
00
M
d
CO
d
03.
d'
N
00
d'
r
u)
M
N
N
r
r
'f)
N
gri
8
co
cV
co.
O
N
O
M
C)
N
co
M
C)
d'
M
CO
O
M
M
00
M
M
O
'4t
N
d'
ti
0
LO
F/HR & PSC
0
V
C
O
0
03.
LO
00
N
C)
C)
co.
co
to
00
C)
c0
et
LC)
00
d'
N
gri
Id
r
N
Id
r
y)
gri
r
gri
gri
gri
gri
8
co
ti
N
03.
0
N
O
C)
C)
N
co
C)
M
CO
co
00
M
O)
M
O
d'
N
d'
co.
'cf
"4:
d
03.
et
er
1995 Salary Survey Participants
Cities Local Organizations
Abilene GTE
Amarillo Westinghouse
Baytown TCA Cable
Bryan BISD
Carrollton CSISD
Denton Agency Management Services
Garland Moore Business Forms
Grand Prairie Kent Moore Cabinets
Greenville Gulf States Utilities
Lewisville TMPA
Longview O.I. Corporation
Lubbock Texas A&M University
Mesquite Brazos Valley Medical Center
Midland St. Joseph Hospital
Odessa First American Bank
Richardson
San Marcos
Temple
Tyler
Victoria
Wichita Falls
VI
Benchmark Jobs Surveyed
Technical Job Family
City Engineer
Graduate Civil Engineer
Information Systems Manager
Systems Analyst
Micro -Computer Specialist II
Electrical Superintendent
Line Technician l
Line Technician II
Technical Superintendent
Utility Dispatcher
Technician II
W and WW Superintendent
Utility Crew Leader
Maintenance Foreman
WW Treatment Plant Supervisor
WW Plant Operator II
Pump Station Operator I
Water Distribution Supervisor
Support Services Job Family
Staff Assistant
Senior Account Clerk
Legal Assistant II
Personnel Assistant
Receptionist
Secretary
Customer Service Representative
Maintenance/Trades Job Family
Senior Electrical Inspector
Building Inspector
Quality Assurance Inspector
Engineering Technician
Warehouse Supervisor
Parks Planner
Parks Crew Leader
Senior Foreman (Streets)
Equipment Operator I1
Truck Driver I and II
Mechanic II
Route Manager
Meter Reader
Facility Maintenance Technician
Printing Assistant
Public Safety Job Family
Fire Marshall
Battalion Chief
Fire Lieutenant
Firefighter II and III (Entry)
Police Lieutenant
Police Sergeant
Master Officer
Police Officer
Humane Officer (Animal Control)
Communications Operator
VII
Benchmark Jobs Surveyed (continued)
Management and Professional Job Family
City Manager Program Supervisor
Assistant City Manager Conference Center Supervisor
Building Official Athletic Supervisor
Fire Chief Parks Superintendent
Assistant Fire Chief Human Resources Director
Budget Officer (Assistant F/HR Director) City Planner
Risk Manager Staff Planner
Budget/Research Analyst Community Development Administrator
Accounting Manager Police Chief
Staff Accountant Police Major
Payroll Supervisor Director of Public Services
Municipal Court Administrator Street Superintendent
Purchasing Agent Utility Office Manager
Buyer Customer Service Supervisor
City Attorney Division Manager (W/WW)
Assistant City Attorney PR/Marketing Manager
Director of Parks & Recreation City Secretary
Recreation Superintendent Asst. Dir. of Mgmt. Serv. (Energy Manager)
Percentages of Positions Surveyed
The positions that were surveyed are considered "bench mark" positions which were
determined by the availability of making a accurate job match.
Job Family
Public Safety
Support Services
Maintenance and Trades
Technical
Management/Professional
# of positions
surveyed
10
7
15
18
36
Percentage of Job
Family surveyed
39%
27%
23%
28%
58%
VIII
Public Safety
5 % Scale Movement
Entry Level Impact
. Beginning Police and Fire pay is crucial to stay
competitive
. After entry level- pay scale is used for promotions only
Entry Level Impact
Police
Certified
Non -certified
Fire
Current Proposed
$22,716.00
$20,724.00
$23, 851.00
$21, 760.00
$19,776.00 $20,765.00
IX
Public Safety Job. Family
O O
O IX)
C} cY)
N L►
0
0
0
.-
O
0
co
—
LO
— N
1)
— N
1
— N
1
M
N
1
N
0
— N
*
0
— N
0
— N
0
0
0
1
t/Y
CO
1
a
*Entry level pay for Certified Police Officer is currently 15% above pay grade minimum.
0)
0)
d
T c0
a
>
z
Ul <0
• a
• H
o • •N
cp
N
O a_
a O
Orn
Support Services
Scale Movement 2.6%
Entry Level Impact
Senior Account Clerk
Current Proposed
$15, 517.00 $15, 920.00
$7.46/hr $7.65/hr
Receptionist $13,936.00 $14,298.00
$6.770/hr $6.87/hr
XI
Support Services Job Family
—*— College Station Actual Average
O O 0 0
O b LLC) N
Cr; N N N
N :? N• N
O
O
Cr)
— N
N
0
— N
O
O
CO
N
CO
CD
1
CO
a)
co
C
. a)
• c0
a 'V
e.
03
C
N .
CD CO
c
y O
O
N
C • 'c
O O
a M
N ()
.d
a7
�0
Maintenance/Trades
Scale Movement 3%
Entry Level Impact
Sample positions
Sanitation Collection Worker
Meter Reader
Building Inspector
Current
$13, 788.00
$6.63/hr
$15,216.00
$7.32/hr
$21, 660.00
$10.41/hr
Proposed
$14,202.00
6.83/hr
$15, 673.00
$7.53/hr
$22,310.00
$10.72/h r
Maintenance/Trades Job Family
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO co d' N 0 co co
N N N N N .— .-
40 .0 N 40 N to t/r toAnn
N
— N
c")
N
- N
r)
— N
M
1
—
M
— N
- N
M
O
O
N
N
M
0)
M
O)
M
N
M
b
1
M
co
M
co
1
M
E
C
J C
N
t
C
(0 ▪ 4
> 0
y,a
r.
e.
m
• a
N co
O
'▪ .
0 C N
'C
Ca
O i-
a o
co o)
Technical Family
Scale Movement 3.5%
Entry Level impact:
Sample Positions:
Systems Analyst
Line Technician I
Pump Station Op I
Current
$28,740.00
$23,442.00
$11.27/hr
$18, 346.00
$8.82/hr
Proposed
$29, 745.00
$24,262.00
$11.66/hr
$18,987.00
$9.13/hr
xv
Technical Job Family
o 0 0 0 0
o Lo 0 0
0
tr) d' dr) r)
41) f? 4!) V} :?
Ames
0
N
f?
— 8Zti
— LZti
LZti
— LZti
— LZti
- VZti
— tizti
— tizti
— ZZti
c.7
— *ZZi
— LZti
— LZti
- OZti
OZti
- OZti
8lti
— 81V
Llti
o Lo 0
N , •-
+A by 4!)
E
z
E
>.'c
co
Labor Market
c m
0 CO
cnco To
o15
U Q
To
Y 0 Y
L J L
0�o C 0 .0
.CJ
E
t7 E
>. 'c
co
a2
*Entry level pay for Systems Analyst is 15% above the pay grade minimum so the 3.5% adjustment was not made.
m
m
L
c
0
a) ♦+
• a
e.
co • co
m o.
• m
3 co
.N
0
o 'c• N
co o Ea
o. o
co Ls)
+- N
XVI
Management/Professional
Scale Adjustment
. Begin minimum at old midpoint
(majority of positions above midpoint as starting pay)
. Expand Scale from 40% spread to 50% spread to reduce
number of jobs needing adjustment.
Single Incumbent or professional Positions are usually
negotiated in relation to existing positions.
Example: Municipal Court Administrator
Asst. City Attorney
Risk Manager
Entry Career Positions are hired at or near minimum
Budget/Research Analyst
Staff Accountant
Staff Planner
Current Proposed
$21, 768.00 $24, 773.00
$22,836.00 $26,208.00
$24, 060.00 $27, 862.00
xvn
Management/Professional
41
o o 0 0 0 0
0 o 0 0 0 0
Ames
0 0 0 N
0 0
0
M N
N
9£9
9£9
l£9
l£9
1E9
L£9
l£9
l£9
6Z9
6Z9
6Z9
8Z9
8Z9
8Z9
LZ9
LZ9
m
LZ9
LZ9 C
9Z9 0!
9Z9
9Z9
9Z9
9Z9
9Z9
9Z9
VZ9
1iZ9
VZ9
t7Z9
£Z9
£Z9
ZZ9
ZZ9
ZZ9
LZ9
XVIII
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
TOTAL SALARIES AND BENEFITS BUDGET AND ACTUAL
1
1989 1990
i
1991
1992
1993
IN BUDGET ❑ ACTUAL
1
1994 1995
XIX
Compensation and Hunan Resources Planning for 1995
Merit Increase Budgets
0 F THE 471 organizations polled, 85.4%
have merit increase programs. Merit
increase guidelines planned for 1995
for all positions surveyed typically range from
4.1 to 4.5 of annualized payroll. The charts
below show a steady decline in planned and
implemented merit increases across all posi-
tions. For example, the average merit increase
implemented for all employees in 1992 was
4.7%, compared to only 4.1% in 1994. The
merit increases implemented across all positions
had been lower than originally planned for in
both 1993 and 1994.
Average Merit Increase Budgets/Guidelines
All Positions
3.0
2.0 ..
1.0
0.0
om ` nies (%)
Implemented Planned
in 1992 for 1993 in 1993 for 1994
mplemented Planned
Implemented
in 1994
Planned
for 1995
Coopers' Li/brand L.L.P.
XX
Current Pay Tables
By Family
Effective 10/1/94
PUBLIC SAFETY - POLICE
EFF 10/1/94
GRADE MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM
114 4.92 6.00 7.09
115 5.64 6.90 8.16
116 6.44 7.89 9.36
117 7.10 8.81 10.52
118 7.91 9.86 11.81
119 8.67 10.90 13.14
120 9.51 11.91 14.32
121 10.11 12.70 15.29
122 10.78 13.57 16.36
123 11.31 14.30 17.31
124 11.91 15.16 18.40
125 12.58 16.09 19.61
126 13.32 17.12 20.93
127 14.18 18.31 22.44
128 15.10 19.62 24.15
129 16.18 21.09 26.02
130 17.37 22.78 28.19
131 18.69 24.62 30.55
132 20.16 26.70 33.24
133 21.86 29.05 36.24
134 23.73 31.67 39.61
135 25.80 34.57 43.34
852 1040 1228
978 1197 1415
1116 1368 1623
1232 1528 1823
1371 1709 2047
1502 1889 2277
1648 2064 2482
1753 2202 2651
1869 2353 2836
1960 2479 3000
2065 2627 3189
2181 2790 3399
2309 2968 3628
2459 3173 3889
2618 3402 4185
2804 3656 4510
3010 3948 4886
3239 4267 5295
3495 4628 5761
3790 5035 6282
4113 5489 6866
4473 5993 7511
POLICE -CERTIFIED GRADE 120 1893/MO
POLICE/NON-CERTIFIED GRADE 119 1727/MO
XXI a
PUBLIC SAFETY - FIRE
EFF 10/1/94
GRADE MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM
114 3.51 4.29 5.06 852 1040 1228
115 4.03 4.93 5.83 978 1197 1415
116 4.60 5.64 6.69 1116 1368 1623
117 5.07 6.30 7.51 1232 1528 1823
118 5.65 7.04 8.43 1371 1709 2047
119 6.19 7.79 9.38 1502 1889 2277
120 6.79 8.51 10.23 1648 2064 2482
121 7.22 9.07 10.92 1753 2202 2651
122 7.70 9.69 11.69 1869 2353 2836
123 8.08 10.22 12.36 1960 2479 3000
124 8.51 10.83 13.14 2065 2627 3189
125 8.99 11.50 14.01 2181 2790 3399
126 9.51 12.23 14.95 2309 2968 3628
127 10.13 13.08 16.03 2459 3173 3889
128 10.79 14.02 17.25 2618 3402 4185
129 11.55 15.07 18.58 2804 3656 4510
130 12.41 16.27 20.13 3010 3948 4886
131 13.35 17.58 21.82 3239 4267 5295
132 14.40 19.07 23.74 3495 4628 5761
133 15.62 20.75 25.89 3790 5035 6282
134 16.95 22.62 28.29 4113 5489 6866
135 18.43 24.69 30.95 4473 5993 7511
HOURLY SALARY BASED ON 2912 HOURS
XXI b
SUPPORT SERVICES
EFF 10/1/94
GRADE MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM
214 4.64 5.66 6.68 803 981 1158
215 5.32 6.51 7.70 922 1128 1334
216 6.07 7.44 8.82 1052 1290 1530
217 6.70 8.31 9.91 1161 1440 1718
218 7.46 9.29 11.13 1293 1611 1929
219 8.17 10.27 12.38 1416 1781 2147
220 8.96 11.23 13.49 1553 1946 2339
221 9.53 11.97 14.42 1652 2075 2499
222 10.16 12.79 15.42 1761 2218 2673
223 10.66 13.48 16.31 1848 2337 2827
224 11.23 14.29 17.34 1947 2476 3006
225 11.86 15.17 18.49 2056 2630 3204
226 12.56 16.14 19.73 2176 2797 3420
227 13.37 17.26 21.15 2318 2991 3666
228 14.24 18.50 22.76 2468 3206 3945
229 15.25 19.88 24.52 2643 3446 4251
230 16.37 21.47 26.57 2838 3721 4605
231 17.61 23.20 28.80 3053 4022 4991
232 19.00 25.17 31.33 3294 4362 5430
233 20.61 27.38 34.16 3572 4746 5921
234 22.37 29.85 37.34 3877 5174 6471
235 24.32 32.59 40.85 4216 5649 7080
MAINTENANCE & TRADE
EFF 10/1/94
GRADE MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM
314 5.06 6.18 7.30 878 1071 1265
315 5.81 7.11 8.40 1007 1233 1457
316 6.63 8.13 9.65 1149 1410 1672
317 7.32 9.07 10.83 1268 1572 1877
318 8.15 10.15 12.16 1412 1760 2108
319 8.93 11.22 13.53 1547 1946 2345
320 9.80 12.26 14.75 1698 2125 2556
321 10.41 13.08 15.74 1805 2267 2729
322 11.10 13.98 16.85 1924 2423 2921
323 11.65 14.73 17.82 2019 2554 3089
324 12.27 15.61 18.94 2126 2705 3283
325 12.96 16.58 20.20 2246 2873 3501
326. 13.72 17.63 21.56 2377 3056 3737
327 14.60 18.85 23.11 2531 3268 4005
328 15.56 20.21 24.87 2697 3503 4310
329 16.66 21.73 26.79 2888 3766 4644
330 17.89 23.45 29.03 3100 4066 5032
331 19.25 25.35 31.46 3336 4394 5454
332 20.76 27.49 34.23 3599 4766 5933
333 22.52 29.92 37.33 3903 5187 6470
334 24.44 32.61 40.79 4235 '5653 7071
335 26.58 35.60 44.63 4607 6171 7736
XXi d
TECHNICAL
EFF 10/1/94
GRADE MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM
414 5.48 6.69
415 6.29 7.70
416 7.18 8.81
417 7.92 9.83
418 8.82 10.99
419 9.67 12.16
420 10.60 13.28
421 11.27 14.16
422 12.02 15.13
423 12.61 15.95
424 13.29 16.90
425 14.04 17.95
426 14.86 19 10
427 15.81 20.41
428 16.84 21.89
429 18.04 23.53
430 19.37 25.40
431 20.84 27.45
432 22.49 29.78
433 24.38 32.40
434 26.46 35.32
435 28.78 38.55
7.90
9.10
10.44
11.72
13.16
14.65
15.97
17.06
18.24
19.30
20.52
21.87
23.34
25.02
26.92
29.02
31.44
34.08
37.06
40.42
44.17
48.33
950 1160 1370
1091 1334 1578
1244 1527 1810
1373 1703 2032
1529 1906 2282
1676 2108 2539
1837 2302 2768
1954 2455 2956
2083 2623 3162
2186 2765 3345
2303 2930 3556
2433 3112 3791
2575 3310 4046
2741 3538 4337
2920 3794 4667
3127 4078 5030
3358 4403 5449
3613 4758 5906
3898 5162 6424
4227 5617 7006
4587 6122 7657
4988 6683 8377
SYSTEMS ANALYST GRADE 422 2395/MO
XXI e
MANAGEMENT & PROFESSIONAL EFF 10/1/94
GRADE MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
4.77
5.48
6.25
6.90
7.68
8.42
9.23
9.82
10.47
10.98
11.57
12.22
12.93
13.77
14.66
15.71
16.86
18.14
19.57
21.23
23.04
25.05
26.75
29.42
5.83
6.70
7.66
8.56
9.57
10.58
11.56
12.33
13.18
13.89
14.71
15.63
16.62
17.77
19.05
20.48
22.11
23.90
25.92
28.20
30.74
33.57
35.84
39.42
6.88
7.93
9.09
10.21
11.46
12.76
13.90
14.85
15.88
16.80
17.86
19.04
20.32
21.78
23.44
25.26
27.37
29.66
32.27
35.19
38.46
42.07
44.93
49.42
828
950
1083
1196
1331
1459
1600
1702
1814
1903
2005
2118
2242
2387
2542
2722
2923
3145
3393
3679
3993
4342
4637
5099
1010
1162
1328
1483
1659
1834
2004
2138
2284
2407
2550
2708
2881
3081
3303
3550
3833
4143
4493
4889
5329
5818
6212
6833
1192
1374
1575
1770
1987
2211
2409
2574
2753
2912
3096
3300
3522
3776
•4063
4378
4743
5141
5593
6099
6666
7293
7788
8566
XXif
Public Utilities Department
Administrative
Clerical
Secretarial
Performance Appraisal
Manual
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Administrative, Clerical, And Secretarial
Performance Appraisal Manual
5/92
WORK STANDARDS
1. WORK AREA
2. WORK ASSIGNMENTS
3. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
4. NEW METHODS / SITUATIONS
5. COMPLETION OF WORK
6. WORK QUALITY
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
7. SUPERVISION
8. CO-WORKER RELATIONS
9. COMMUNICATION SKILLS
10. LISTENING SKILLS
11. CUSTOMER SERVICE
12. WORK GUIDANCE/TRAINING
WORK ACTIVITIES
13. PHONE/RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
14. TYPING SKILLS
15. EQUIPMENT
16. PROCESSING FORMS
17. FILE MAINTENANCE
18. EDITING / REVISING
19. RECORDS/REPORTS
20. DATA ENTRY
21. KNOWLEDGE OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS
PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES
1= Unacceptable
2= Below Expectations
3= Meets Expectations
4= Above Expectations
5= Clearly Outstanding
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE, CLERICAL, AND SECRETARIAL
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL MANUAL
5/92
1. WORK AREA
1. Unable to locate requested items, chaotic condition of paperwork and memos.
Working environment is unsafe and hampers employee's ability to perform.
2. Paperwork is unkempt and somewhat disorderly.
3. The immediate area in which an employee works is kept in a manner
that does not hinder the employee's ability to perform.
4. Work area is clean, safe, and orderly, especially neat and organized.
5. Work area reflects extra detail to cleanliness and safety. Clearly outstanding in
organization and maintenance of tools, equipment, and supplies.
2. WORK ASSIGNMENTS
1. Insubordinate, refuses to accept assigned work.
2. Accepts work assignments with some complaints or hesitation.
3. Accepts appropriate work assignments without hesitation. Follows
work instructions and directives.
4. Accepts work eagerly and completed work displays extra effort.
5. Clearly outstanding, asks for additional work, willingly performs all assigned
tasks, and always returns accurately completed work.
3.POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
1. Routinely ignores or refuses to follow policies and procedures.
2. Occasionally neglects to follow policies and procedures.
3. Follows policies andprocedures and observes regulations as stated in
the City Policies & Procedures Manual, and Divisional/Departmental
manuals if applicable.
4. Work performance shows employee clearly has a complete knowledge of defined
policies and procedures and always applies them.
5. Employee shows outstanding knowledge of policies and procedures and
consistently applies them to work performance. Gives guidance to fellow
employees concerning policies and procedures whenever possible.
1
8. CO-WORKER RELATIONS
1. Unable to work with co-workers. Provokes hostility with others and exhibits
unprofessional conduct towards co-workers.
2. Employee creates conflicts with co-worker(s).
3. Works cooperatively with all co-workers in order to accomplish work
effectively and efficiently.
4. Is helpful to all co-workers and strives to create a team -like environment.
5. Exceedingly helpful to all co-workers. Employee's attitude exhibits extreme
concentration towards working cooperatively with co-workers.
9. COMMUNICATION SKILLS
1. Cannot or will not communicate effectively.
2. Should take more time to communicate, some information presented may not be
understood.
3. Conveys information clearly and effectively in a written or verbal
format.
4. Conveys information accurately and strives to eliminate misunderstandings.
5. Always takes time to relay information correctly, and ensures no
misunderstanding exists. Follows -up on training administered to make certain
information was received as given.
10. LISTENING SKILLS
1. Rarely listens when instructions or information is being presented.
2. Somewhat lacking in understanding of information presented.
3. Listens and understands information that is being conveyed.
4. Work reflects that information was received and completely understood.
5. Listening skills are outstanding and work reflects that employee is consistently
able to utilize and act upon information presented.
3
14. TYPING SKILLS
1. Typed work is messy, reflects lack of detail and contains numerous errors.
2. More attention needs to be given to accuracy and neatness of typed material.
3. Typed/printed work reflects accuracy, neatness, and indicates necessary
attention to details.
4. Typing skills demonstrate above average speed and quality.
5. Typing skills excel in speed, format, neatness, quality, and attention to detail.
15. EQUIPMENT
1. Equipment shows neglect and/or improper usage, possibly resulting in a safety
hazard.
2. Needs to become more aware of the functions involved in the equipment
pertaining to the job.
3. Shows competence and knowledge in the use of office equipment.
4. Has taken extra steps to utilize equipment in full capacity. Takes extra care in
maintaining equipment to insure safe use.
5. Uses equipment with expert knowledge. Always uses equipment safely and
properly. Has ability to train others on equipment as needed.
16. PROCESSING FORMS
1. Continuously refuses to utilize appropriate forms, complete forms accurately, or
process them correctly.
2. Needs to be more familiar with the required forms and their processing
procedures.
3. Accurately and effectively utilizes office forms. Shows knowledge of
required forms and processes them accordingly.
4. Employee has expert knowledge of existing forms. Gives extra attention to
expediting necessary follow-up procedures.
5. Employee devotes extra attention to stream -lining and improving efficiency of
forms.
5
20. DATA ENTRY
1. Computer files are severely behind. Entries contain many errors. Employee has
no back up files.
2. Should improve on entering data more quickly to stay current. Occasional errors
are detected.
3. Skillfully inputs and updates data on computers, and retrieves
information as appropriate.
4. Demonstrates expert skill when entering data. Entries are made into computer
as soon as possible, so programs stay current. Has back up files.
5. Always enters data quickly, accurately and virtually error -free. Files are
current, and backed up properly.
21. KNOWLEDGE OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS
1. Shows a severe lack of computer literacy. Makes no effort to improve on utilizing
computer programs.
2. Needs to become more familiar with the data programs available for the job.
3. Demonstrates knowledge necessary to effectively utilize data programs
as appropriate to the job.
4. Has above average knowledge of existing programs. Offers help with programs
when necessary.
5. Demonstrates expert skill when working in computer programs. Modifies and/or
creates programs when necessary. Always offers assistance to those needing it.
7