The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Administrative Committee 1994-12-12ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE December 12, 1994 8:00 a.m. -- Room 103 AGENDA 1. 1995 Pay Plan -- Presentation of pay system review and consideration of recommendations for 1995. MEMORANDUM December 9, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor Dannels Board of Trustees FROM: Gary Klaphake Le Town Administrator SUBJECT: 1995 Pay Plan Recommendations The Pay System Review has been completed by Lee & Burgess. As a result of this review, I have the following recommendations for the 1995 Pay Plan: 1. Increase all pay ranges 2%. 2. Grant all employees except department heads a 2% market adjustment to their base salary. 3. Grant all employees except department heads a 1% team merit award, as a recognition of a very successful year for the Town, which would not be an addition to base salary. 4. Establish a 3% merit pool for department heads. Any merit increase awarded would include a maximum 2% on base salary and the remainder as a merit adjustment not added to base salary. (30 1). 1,86 K 331 PX), BOX 1200 Ad FK PARK, CO 8051 / FAX ( M.23 586-0249 CIOMM?, r)r\il 4" A X (10 ) 58223)909 ( )1; I PI I 1( Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 81(k517 1995 Pay Plan Recommendations -2- December 8, 1994 5. Adjust the grades for individual positions up or down in accordance with the recommendations of the Pay Review. The net effect of these regrades would be a 0.7% increase to payroll. 6. Complete and implement a new performance evaluation system in the fall of 1995. The total payroll increase of all proposed changes is 3.7%. The 1995 Budget included 3.5% for salary adjustments. I anticipated that we would use 3% for the pay plan and 0.5% for specific grade adjustments. The specific grade adjustments will be 0.7% rather than 0.5%. The extra 0.2% will come from the contingency. These recommendations will keep our pay grades competitive with the market, and will ensure our entire pay structure is consistent. I believe these recommendations are reflective of good management practices and our organizational values. Proposed Position Regrading + = Regrade Up - = Regrade Down TOWN OF ESTES PARK 1994 PAY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE: MARCH 28, 1994 PAY GRADE POSITION TITLE 1 2 CLERICAL AIDE 3 4 ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK I SECRETARY I 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICES WORKER I SPECIAL EVENTS MAINTENANCE WORKER UTILITY WORKER I 6 +TELECOMMUNICATOR I ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK II CONFERENCE SERVICES COORDINATOR SECRETARY II WATER PLANT OPERATOR I 8 MUSEUM CURATOR SPECIAL EVENTS GROUND SUPER. +TELECOMMUNICATOR II 9 ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK III DATA INPUT/COMPUTER OPERATOR SECRETARY III 10 +ACCOUNTANTI -GROUNDMAN I MUNICIPAL SERVICES WORKER II POLICE SECRETARY RECORDS TECHNICIAN SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR WATER PLANT OPERATOR II 11 ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER 1 be raised 207. OCC. MINIMUM MAXIMUM CODE RANGE RANGE $1,008 $1,350 100 $1,091 $1,461 $1,185 $1,588 105 $1,289 $1,726 120 500 $1,398 700 " 312 $1,876 405 $1,471 $1,969 128 $1,544 $2,067 110 " 801 125 610 900 $1,621 705 410 115 $1,703 140 130 $2,172 $2,281 142 $1,788 $2,395 315 " 505 415 425 708 615 400 $1,877 $2,515 PAY OCC. MINIMUM MAXIMUM GRADE POSITION TITLE CODE RANGE RANGE 12 +ACCOUNTANT II 144 $1,970 $2,640 BILLING/CUSTOMER SERVICES SUPER. 141 " II DEPUTY TOWN CLERK/EX. SECRETARY 200 " MECHANIC I 525 " " MUNICIPAL SERVICES WORKER III 510 PARK HORTICULTURIST 435575 II+ POLICE OFFICER I II 13 - GROUNDMAN II 320 $2,069 - METER SPECIALIST I 330 " WATER PLANT OPERATOR III 620 " 14 MECHANIC II 527 $2,173 MUNICIPAL SERVICES FOREMAN 515 " +POLICE OFFICER II 440 " II II $2,773 II $2,912 II 15 -GROUNDMAN III 325 $2,282 $3,058 -LINEMAN I 360 -METER SPECIALIST II 340 " -STOREKEEPER I 350 " II WATER PLANT OPERATOR IV 625 " I. 16 BUILDING OFFICIAL 800 $2,396 $3,211 CONST. & PUBLIC FACILITIES MGR. 660 -LINE EQUIPMENT SPECIALIST 335 " MECHANIC FOREMAN 530 " MUSEUM DIRECTOR 905 " " POLICE CORPORAL 445 " POLICE INVESTIGATOR 450 " 17 ACCT. SUPR./PERSONNEL OFFICER 145 $2,516 $3,372 FLEET MANAGER 535 " +POLICE SERGEANT 455 " - SUPERVISOR POLICE SUPPORT SERVICES 420 " " WATER MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR 630 " 18 ADVERTISING MANAGER 804 $2,641 $3,540 -LINEMAN II 365 " - METER SPECIALIST FOREMAN 345 " SPECIAL EVENTS DIRECTOR 710 " - STOREKEEPER II 355 " I. TOWN CLERK 205 " 19 + ADMINISTRATIVE LIEUTENANT + OPERATIONS LIEUTENANT 2 457 $2,778 458 " $3,722 PAY GRADE POSITION TITLE 20 ASS'T. TO DIR. LIGHT & POWER -LINEMAN III 21 -CREW CHIEF POLICE CAPTAIN STREET/PARK SUPERINTENDENT -SENIOR PLANNER WATER SUPERINTENDENT 22 23 -LINE SUPERINTENDENT 24 MARKETING DIRECTOR-CONF CENTER 25 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF LIGHT & POWER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 26 FINANCE OFFICER/TREASURER 27 CHIEF OF POLICE 28 ASSISTANT TOWN ADMINISTRATOR 29 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR 3 OCC. MINIMUM MAXIMUM CODE RANGE RANGE 385 $2,918 370 " 375 $3,066 460 520 802 635 It It 390 $3,219 380 $3,380 807 $3,549 809 $3,727 395 " 680 210 $3,912 465 $4,109 214 $4,313 215 $4,529 $3,911 $4,108 It $4,312 $4,529 $5,146 $5,404 $5,673 $5,958 $6,255 $6,568 Lee & Burgess Associates of Colorado Management Consultants December 1, 1994 Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 9110 East Vichols Avenue Suite 128 Englewood. Colorado 80112 3Q3. 799.00-44 Fax 303.799.4404 Dear Board Members: We have completed our review of the pay system for 1994, and have provided the following summary of our findings and recommendations. We look forward to meeting with you to discuss the contents of this report. While with another firm, I helped to develop the pay system in the mid-80's, and conducted annual market surveys for several years. In addition, we developed the performance appraisal forms and procedures which are currently being used. Since that time, the Town has done a very commendable job of maintaining the pay system. As the results of our market analysis reflect, you have maintained overall competitiveness with the external market, with pay levels for only a few positions gravitating away from being competitive. In addition, the job descriptions have been updated in a manner which seems to reflect accuracy and consistency, and which will provide compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The performance appraisal process is still being utilized, although it is showing some wear. The forms are not as applicable or effective as in 1986, and overall evaluation scores have tended to show some "grade creep" across employee groups. We have made some recommendations for improvement in this area. I look forward to meeting with you to discuss our findings and recommendations. It is our objective that the Town have a pay system that is competitive with the markets in which you compete for qualified employees, is internally fair and consistent, and is understood by all employees. I hope that we have an opportunity to ensure your understanding of the process, rationale, findings, and recommendations during our meeting. On the following pages, I have provided a review of our process and findings, areas in which decisions must be made by the Board or Town management, and proposed / recommendations for your review. In addition, I have provided graphs which reflect the competitiveness of the pay system, and a comparison of your employee benefits with the market. I want to extend my gratitude to the management team of the Town for providing their cooperation and time in assisting in this analysis. Compensation reviews are always sensitive issues, and your staff has done a commendable job of providing assistance in a thorough, objective, and professional manner. If you have any questions after our meeting, please feel free to call me at 303-799-0044. Your very truly, 4 Thomas A. Haller TOWN OF ESTES PARK MARKET COMPARISONS ORGANIZATIONS SURVEYED OTHER RESORT COMMUNITIES: Breckenridge Durango Glenwood Springs Steamboat Springs FRONT RANGE COMMUNITIES: Loveland Fort Collins Longmont Brighton Greeley Lafayette Louisville Weld County Larimer County LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: Estes Park School District YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Medical Center ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS SURVEYED FOR LIGHT AND POWER: Fountain La Junta Fort Morgan Lamar TOWN OF ESTES PARK MARKET REVIEW SUMMARY PROCESS: o Obtained pay systems for all survey participants Pay systems reflect 1995 pay ranges and levels for those organizations which have adopted the new system For those organizations which had not adopted new levels, we increased 1994 ranges by 3% All market pay data thus reflects practices which will be in effect in January, 1995 o Compared Estes pay levels with market organizations for positions which reflect total pay system o Market analysis broken into several segments for comparison to: Local market Front Range market Other resort communities Total market o Market comparisons made using several methodologies: Position by position comparison Trend line comparison, to reflect total pay system Benefits comparison Total compensation comparison for selected positions o Obtained market data on 37 positions FINDINGS: o Estes Park tends to pay slightly above levels of other resort communities o Town tends to pay below Front Range communities o Overall, Town is competitive with market comprised of Resort -Front Range combination o For the few matched positions, Town is significantly above local employers o Value of compared benefits tends to be slightly above that of other governmental entities, and is more favorable when compared to local employers o Regardless of market segment, Town tends to be above market for following surveyed positions: Police Support Supervisor Animal Control Officer Street/Park Superintendent Senior Planner Crew Chief Lineman III Meter Specialist II Mechanic I Municipal Services Worker III o Regardless of market, the Town appears to be behind the market for the following surveyed positions: Telecommunicator II Telecommunicator I Police Officer II Police Officer I Police Sergeant Accountant II For selected other positions, such as the Water Maintenance Supervisor and the Utility Worker II position, insufficient market data exists, but data which does exist suggests that the Town is slightly behind the market o Overall, light and power positions tend to be paid better compared to the market than positions in other departments. In addition, internal discrepancies appear to exist between pay levels of some light and power positions and similar positions in other departments. o Overall, police positions tend to be behind the market o In comparing total compensation value (salary plus value of employee benefits), Estes Park benefit value tends to be slightly greater than average of market, increasing Town's level of competitiveness with the market DECISION AREAS: o Pay Range Adjustments Town is relatively competitive with the combined 1995 Front Range - Resort market overall, which suggests several possible alternative approaches to consider: ■ Provide no pay increase to pay ranges for 1995, except for those few positions which are individually out of line with the market. For those positions, make pay grade adjustment (up or down) to better reflect the market and/or internal equity ■ Adopt an approach of "slowing down" pay range progression over the next few years, to ensure competitiveness of the ranges. This approach would entail providing a minimal increase to the ranges for 1995, of an amount which is less than the market is being adjusted for -1995. We would suggest an increase of 1 1/2 to 2%, which is less than the average market increase for 1995 of approximately 3%. In addition, individual positions would be adjusted to reflect their lack of competitiveness with the market. • Provide a range increase of 3% for all ranges, plus adjustment of the grades for individual positions which are not in line with the market. This approach would essentially retain your current level of competitiveness with the market. o Merit/Market Increase Practices for 1995 The direction you take will depend to some extent on whether you increase pay ranges for 1995, and on your philosophy regarding keeping employees' salary levels consistent with pay range movement. You have had a practice in the past of providing market increases to employees equal to pay range increases, and thus keeping their salaries at the same relative position in the pay range. The remainder of the salary budget has in the past gone for merit, which is provided to selected employees based on performance. Based on our review of the market for 1995, it is anticipated that the average increase for employees (market increase plus merit increase) in our market survey will be between 4.0% and 4.2%. The following are options for your consideration: • Retain the existing practice, and provide employees with a market increase equal to the amount by which pay ranges are adjusted, with the balance of the salary budget going to individual performance. ■ Provide no market increase, and utilize all of the salary budget for merit. ■ Utilize all money for market increases, with no money being available for individual merit. o Performance Appraisal Process We have revised the performance appraisal form for the Town's use, consolidating two forms into one, and including a process by which factors will be selected and weighted based on their applicability to a given position. Management and supervisors have not seen or modified the form yet, and no training has been provided. For performance evaluations to be conducted for 1995, and which will impact the merit increase process, we suggest the following for your review: ■ Delay all merit increases until the new form has been modified and implemented, and supervisors have been trained. ■ Use the existing form for 1995, and introduce the revised form as appropriate during the year. RECOMMENDATIONS: o We recommend that the Town adopt an approach of slowing down pay range increases, and provide a 2% range increase for 1995. In addition, the pay grades of individual positions will be adjusted based on their competitiveness with the market. The Town thosemust positionsreincognize which we recommended adjustments only reflect obtained market data; other positions will be impacted in if a position series. o We recommend that the Town retain he existing their re'ce lative placement market increases for employees, so that y in the pay range. This would result in a 2% market increase, with any additional budget increases being devoted to individual performance increases. o We recommend that the Town not hurry the implementation of the revised evaluation form. It will take some time to modify the form to make it applicable to each position, and training should be conducted for supervisors before widespread use of the form. Until the new form is fully developed, the old forms should be used. Front Rng Mkt I- L co CD W 00000000 N ti N ti N ti N 1-- CD tf) U d' •ct CO Cr) N S8 & MIPS iINu0W N 'r N Co N N Cv) N 1- N O N co co G) L N.-- /11 !`• cO N N v- Q) co ti (O It) N TOWN OF ESTES PARK BENEFIT COMPARISONS ONE THREE FIVE SEVEN TEN FIFTEEN TWENTY BENEFIT YEAR YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS (Number VACATION of Hours) 74 98 122 126 152 170 188 RESORT MARKET Difference 13.5% -14.3% -21.3% -23.8% -21.1% _29,4%-17.0°0 FRONT RANGE MARKET 91 100 110 126 136 155 170 Difference -7.7% -16.0% -12.7% -23.8% -11.8% -22.6% -8.2% 9 139 LOCAL MARKET 59 99 125° 1255 5 -13 139 1139 Difference 42.4% -15.2% -23.2% -23.2° 12/o 2.2% TOTAL MARKET 80 99 116 126 138 156 169 Difference 5.0% -15.2% -17.2% -23.8% -13.0% -23.1% -7.7% ESTES PARK 84 84 96 96 120 120 156 ONE BENEFIT YEAR (Number SICK LEAVE of Hours) RESORT MARKET 92 Difference 4.3% FRONT RANGE MARKET 96 Difference 0.0% LOCAL MARKET 77 Difference 24.7% TOTAL MARKET 91 Difference 5.5% ESTES PARK 96 ONE BENEFIT YEAR (Number HOLIDAY of Hours) RESORT MARKET 79 Difference 1.3% FRONT RANGE MARKET 89 Difference -10.1% LOCAL MARKET 51 Difference 56.9% TOTAL MARKET 79 Difference 1.3% ESTES PARK 80 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BENEFIT COMPARISONS ONE THREE FIVE SEVEN TEN FIFTEEN TWENTY BENEFIT YEAR YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS (Number TOTAL PAID TIME OFF of Hours) (Vacation, holiday, sick leave combined) RESORT MARKET 245 269 293 297 323 341 359 Difference 6.1% -3.3% -7.2% -8.4% -8.4% -13.2% -7.5% FRONT RANGE MARKET 276 285 295 311 321 340 355 Difference -5.8% -8.8% -7.8% -12.5% -7.8% -12.9% -6.5% LOCAL MARKET 187 227 253 253 253 267 267 Difference 39.0% 14.5% 7.5% 7.5% 17.0% 10.9% 24.3% TOTAL MARKET 250 269 286 296 308 326 339 Difference 4.0% -3.3% -4.9% -8.1% -3.9% -9.2% -2.1 13/0 ESTES PARK 260 260 272 272 296 296 332 EMPLOYEE ONLY COVERAGE FAMILY COVERAGE TOTAL EMPLOYER EMPLOYER TOTAL EMPLOYER EMPLOYER BENEFIT PREMIUM SHARE PERCENT PREMIUM SHARE PERCENT HEALTH INSURANCE RESORT MARKET $140 $138 98.6% $415 $347 83.6% Difference 10.7% 12.3% 1.4% 4.6% -10.4% -14.3% FRONT RANGE MARKET $143 $140 97.9% $386 $301 78.0% Difference 8.4% 10.7% 2.1% 12.4% 3.3% -8.1% LOCAL MARKET $156 $154 98.7% $424 $212 50.0% Difference -0.6% 0.6% 1.3% 2.4% 46.7% 43.3% TOTAL MARKET $145 $142 97.9% $401 $295 73.6% Difference 6.9% 9.2% 2.1% 8.2% 5.4% -2.6% ESTES PARK $155 $155 100.0% $434 $311 71.7% TOWN OF ESTES PARK BENEFIT COMPARISONS EMPLOYEE ONLY COVERAGE FAMILY COVERAGE TOTAL EMPLOYER EMPLOYER TOTAL EMPLOYER EMPLOYER BENEFIT PREMIUM SHARE PERCENT PREMIUM SHARE PERCENT DENTAL INSURANCE RESORT MARKET $19 $15 78.9°% .9% 1$ $51 1 51. $27 7 5252.5% Difference 15.8% 46.7% 26.7 /o FRONT RANGE MARKET $16 $16 100.0% $44 $22 50.0% Difference 37.5% 37.5% 0.0% 31.8% 86.4% 41.4% LOCAL MARKET $16 $16 100.0% $49 $21 42.9% Difference 37.5% 37.5% 0.0% 18.4% 95.2% 64.9% 9% /o TOTAL MARKET $17 $16 94.1% 2$ $47 7 $23 48.7$.3% 44.9% Difference 29.4% 37.5% 6.3% ESTES PARK $22 $22 100.0% $58 $41 70.7% TOTAL EMPLOYER EMPLOYER BENEFIT PREMIUM SHARE PERCENT VISION INSURANCE RESORT MARKET $2 $2 100.0% Difference -100.0% -100.0% FRONT RANGE MARKET $6 $1 16.7% Difference -100.0% -100.0% LOCAL MARKET $0 $0 Difference TOTAL MARKET $4 $1 25.0% Difference -100.0% -100.0% ESTES PARK $0 $0 BENEFIT TOTAL INSURANCE COST RESORT MARKET Difference FRONT RANGE MARKET Difference LOCAL MARKET Difference TOTAL MARKET Difference ESTES PARK BENEFIT RETIREMENT RESORT MARKET Difference FRONT RANGE MARKET Difference LOCAL MARKET Difference TOTAL MARKET Difference ESTES PARK TOWN OF ESTES PARK BENEFIT COMPARISONS EMPLOYEE ONLY COVERAGE TOTAL EMPLOYER EMPLOYER PREMIUM SHARE PERCENT $161 $155 9.9% 14.2% 96.3% 3.9% FAMILY COVERAGE TOTAL EMPLOYER EMPLOYER PREMIUM SHARE PERCENT $468 $376 80.3% 5.1% -6.4% -10.9% $165 $157 95.2% $436 $324 74.3% 7.3% 12.7% 5.1% 12.8% 8.6% -3.7% $172 $170 98.8% $473 $233 49.3% 2.9% 4.1% 1.2% 4.0% 51.1 % 45.2% $166 $159 95.8% 6.6% 11.3% 4.4% $177 $177 100.0% $452 $319 70.6% 8.8% 10.3% 1.4% $492 $352 71.5% SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT PLAN TOTAL RETIREMENT EMPLOYEE EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE EMPLOYER (Percent Contribution - Differences Absolute) 5.74% 5.74% 6.95% 7.55% 12.69% 13.29% 1.91 % 1.91% 1.05% 2.45% 2.96% 4.36% 4.78% 4.78% 7.00% 7.03% 11.78% 11.81 2.87% 2.87% 1.00% 2.97% 3.87% 5.84% 2.55% 2.55% 11.40% 11.68% 13.95% 14.23% 5.10% 5.10% -3.40% -1.68% 1.70% 3.42% 4.59% 4.30% 7.87% 8.10% 12.46% 12.40% 3.06% 3.35% 0.13% 1.90% 3.19% 5.25% 7.65% 7.65% 8.00% 10.00% 15.65% 17.65% TOWN OF ESTES PARK PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL CURRENT PROGRAM: o Two forms, one for employees and one for managers o Different factors on each form, with minimal overlap o Five degrees or levels of performance for each factor o All employees evaluated using all factors; no differentiation o Overall evaluation an additive process - total points equals a defined increase CONCERNS ABOUT EXISTING PROGRAM: o Some factors probably should not apply to all jobs, or at least not equally to all jobs o "Grade creep" has gradually increased average scores o Some factors on employee form probably also belong on manager form o No on -going training has been provided to ensure focus or consistency o Some relevant factors probably left out of program o Focus has probably been on performance evaluation, rather than on performance management o Little emphasis has been placed on "middle" level reflecting successful or expected performance PROPOSED PROGRAM: o Two forms combined into one form, with total of fifteen factors o Factors will be included, and weighted, based on applicability of factor to each position o Town may designate several factors as being mandatory part of every position's evaluation o Overall evaluation will be weighted average of scores, rather than purely additive o Additional focus placed on goal setting for employees, with emphasis on a plan for accomplishing the goals o Training will accompany the form, including all supervisors who will be involved in conducting evaluations