HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution_64-01/02_07/11/2002•
RESOLUTION NO. 64-01/02
A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA, APPROVING AND IMPLEMENTING THE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
COMPENSATION STUDY FOR THE VILLAGE OF
TEQUESTA, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND DEPARTMENT
HEADS, PREPARED BY ANALYTICA/HUMAN RESOURCE
PERFORMANCE CONSULTANTS.
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF
THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The findings and recommendations of the Compensation Study for the
Village of Tequesta, Senior Management and Department Heads, prepared by
AnalyticalHuman Resource Performance Consultants is attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and incorporated by reference as a part of this Resolution, is hereby approved
and implemented.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS OFFERED by Councilmember von
Frank, who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Councilmember
Resnik, and upon being put to vote, the vote was as follows:
FOR ADOPTION
AGAINST ADOPTION
Geraldine A. Genco
Joseph N. Capretta
Basil E. Dalack
Edward D. Resnik
Russell J. von Frank
•
The Mayor thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this 1 lth day
of July, 2002.
"~~+..e~
Mayor Geraldine A. Genco
~ ~ .::
• for
• ~~~~r~tl F~: Anal;~~i~ai"1-lur~~~n FZesou~•c,e ~'~;rfc~rn~~:~nce ~c~t~sultarits
July 10, 2002
C7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................2
II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................3
General Compensation Plan Recommendations .........................................................3
Pay Ranges .................................................... . ......... . .... ...................................4
Salary Adjustments ...........................................................................................5
Tables 1-4: Salary Range Recommendations, FY 2002 through FY 2006 .............7
•
Table 5: Salary Adjustments ...................................................................11
III. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................8
•
• I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
Analytica/Human Resource Performance Consultants was engaged by the Village of Tequesta, for the
purpose of conducting a Pay and Classification Study for the Village of Tequesta Senior Management and
Department Headso The study was to:
1. Respond to changing market positions.
2. Recognize changes in duties and responsibilities.
3. Acknowledge increases in the complexity of jobs.
4. Ensure equity and consistency among similar positions.
5. Ensure that salaries are competitive with local public agencies in the area.
6. Review education, training and experience required.
7o Review and update pay ranges for each position.
The study involved the active participation of the Village Manager, Coordinator of Human Resources and
Department Heads.
The study commenced with a meeting between the consultants, Dr. Herb Marlowe (via telephone), Mac
McDowell, the Village Manager and the Coordinator of Human Resources. During the meeting the
consultants obtained documents and information about problems with the existing compensation plan and
the issues that needed to be addressed in the study.
• Following the meeting with the Village Manager, the consultant met individually with staff members to
review the purpose of the study and their role in it. Certain information concerning their position was
discussed. They also discussed the mission of their department, budget, makeup and problems they have
with the existing compensation plan. In addition, the Consultant Mac McDowell briefed the Mayor, Vice
Mayor and other Council members on the methodology.
Simultaneously, salary and benefit data was solicited from area local governments: Lake Worth, Palm
Springs, Port Royal Palm Beach, Stuart, Palm Beach Gardens, North Palm Beach, Highland Beach, Juno
Beach, Jupiter, Ocean Ridge, South Palm Beach, Key Biscayne, Long Boat Key, Marco Island, Sanibel
Island, Greenacres and other municipalities.
These agencies were selected for four reasons: [1] They are in close proximity to the Village of Tequesta;
[2] They impact upon the Village's ability to recruit and retain qualified department heads; [3] They
perform similar services as the Village and [4] they are of similar size, tax base, and/or scope, etc.
Salary information for certain positions was also obtained from publications issued by the Public
Employers Personnel Information Exchange (PEPIE), 2002, Florida League of Cities Cooperative Salary
Survey, 2001, Florida Public Personnel Association, Inc., and other publications.
The salary and benefit data for each position was reviewed for comparison with the Village of Tequesta
and adjusted to coincide with the Village's work schedule, mission, etc.
In addition to the external market data, the consultant looked internally to evaluate each position.
Positions w ere e valuated i n order to ensure both external market competitiveness and internal equity.
• Each position was evaluated by the same criteria. The criteria were:
2
• Training, Experience and Ability
• Education
• Level of Responsibility
• Leadership/Management Skills
• Working Conditions, Physical Demands and Hazards
• Independence of Actions
• Impact on End Results
• Supervision Exercised
The result of the above analysis is presented in the next section.
II. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
General Compensation Plan Recommendations:
We recommend the following general policies be continued and/or adopted by the Village.
• We recommend a complete and comprehensive study be done at least every three years. Employees
in public agencies are more mobile in today's environment. In addition, the competition is much
greater for quality senior managers today versus in the past. We are happy to report that it appears
that the Village of Tequesta has "top notch", "dedicated" and "highly motivated" senior managers
and department heads.
• Broader Pay Range Band. Some very broadband approaches have bands up to 1.96 in width. We
recommend that the Village broaden it pay ranges to provide a wider pay range. Most of the current
positions have a range width of 1.35 to 1.45. Most communities have ranges with a bandwidth of
1.47 to 1.70. We recommend that the Village use a standard band width of 1.50 for Fiscal Year
2002/03. This will ensure it is competitive with other municipalities and address the issues created by
municipalities u sing a b road b and compensation approach. In outlining years we recommend the
Village gradually increase, in .OS increments, the bandwidth to 1.65. This has the advantage of
ensuring the Village is remaining current with the marketplace without having to upwardly adjust its
entry positions which are highly competitive at this point. In essence this creates a five year senior
compensation plan for the Village
• Fiftieth Percentile. We recommend that the Village continue the policy of marketplace
competitiveness as expressed in pay that is approximately at the fiftieth percentile. This policy means
that the Village will continue to be competitive in the recruitment of top senior employees, and be
able to retain quality employees.
• Multiple Job Acknowledgements. The Village recognizes the need and encourages senior employees
in particular to "wear multiple hats" and we recommend this practice be continued.
Skilled/Responsibility Based Market Comparisons. Jobs are most fairly compared on the skills
required, job worth the responsibility assigned, along with other varying factors.
3
• Pay Ranges
Tables 1-4 present recommendations that propose pay range adjustments for the positions studied
based on a five year implementation schedule. We propose that over the course of the five years, the
bandwidth be increased from 1.5 to 1.65. This allows the Village to respond if there are marketplace
shifts while also providing retention options should the Village so choose. This staged approach will
have no negative impacts on current employees. In essence, is it a fiscally conservative approach that
ensures the Village has the flexibility to compensate employees based on the marketplace and
performance. Prior to presentation of tables 1-4, the method used to develop these recommendations is
presented below.
Method:
Analytica/HRPC utilized a combination of current databases and original r esearch t o d evelop
market comparable data for the current Village positions.
The primary data bases used in the study were Public Employees Pay Information Exchange
[PEPIE] and the Florida League of Cities Comparable Size Cities database. In addition to these
databases, Analytica/HRPC contacted directly a number of Palm Beach county public entities to obtain
information on positions not in the above databases or to verify current information.
Comparable positions were selected using amulti-step procedure designed to obtain a minimum
sample size of five [5] comparable entities. This multi-step procedure consisted of the following steps:
• • Step 1: If minimal sample size requirements can be met, compare Village positions to those of
other public organizations of like size in Palm Beach County.
• Step 2: If minimal sample size requirements cannot be met via step 1, and positions are relatively
independent of community size, compare positions to those of other public organizations in Palm
Beach County.
• Step 3: If minimal sample size requirements cannot be met via steps 1 and 2, compare positions to
those of other public organizations in Broward or Martin County of similar size.
• Step 4: If minimal sample size requirements cannot be met via steps 1 and 2, compare positions to
those of other public organizations in Broward or Martin County of differing size.
• Step 5: If minimal sample size requirements cannot be met via steps 1 - 4, compare positions to
those of municipalities of similar size throughout Florida.
• Step 6: If minimal sample size requirements cannot be met via steps 1 - 5, positions are compared
to other internal established positions that require similar levels of skill, experience and
education.
Once the sample size was determined, an outlier analysis was conducted. Any organization
whose pay range differed significantly from the rest of the sample [defined as entry pay 50% below or
above any other member of the sample] was deleted unless there was some overriding reason to retain the
organization. This outlier elimination serves to eliminate positions with similar titles but different
• functions. This step leaves an adjusted sample.
. With the adjusted sample, full ranges of statistical analysis were then conducted. This analysis
calculated means, modes, medians and percentiles. These were reviewed to determine if there was
significant skew due to calculation method. Unless there was, percentile results were selected for further
analysis.
The value of the percentile approach is that it enables one to simply compare the salaries of one
organization to the sample group as a whole. Clients select where they want to position themselves in the
pay market. By selecting the fiftieth percentile level, the town will ensure that they have high quality
employees and minimize the costs of turnover.
For reasons of employee quality, cost efficiency of human resource practices, and the ability to
attract employees, our recommendations are based on the Village paying at the fiftieth percentile level for
both minimum and maximum pay levels. This assures the Village that it will be able to attract the quality
of employee that citizens of the community will expect, will be able to retain those employees, and will
be able to save public monies in the long term via greater efficiencies.
Salary Adjustments
Table 5 presents the recommendations regarding the implementation of this new salary schedule,
on date to be announced by the Village Manager. In preparing these recommendations we have focused
particular attention on the following factors:
Internal equity -persons with similar responsibility should be similar in range.
External equity -persons performing similar work should be paid accordingly.
• ^ Length of service -allowance should be made for length of service.
^ Compression -persons in higher positions should be paid a higher salary.
Other Recommendations
1. The use of pay ranges for City Manager positions is gradually being replaced by a contract
approach in which the Council determines market price. We recommend this approach since
it removes an artificial constraint while recognizing that the Council itself is the policy body
that sets ranges in the first place.
2. Benefits. We recommend that the benefit package for the Manager be increased in the range
of approximately $6,000.00 for the Manager to make the total benefit package more equitable
to other municipalities. In terms of internal equity this adjustment should be made in the
retirement benefit.
~~
~J
5
•
•
'f'able 1: Salary Range Recommendations, FY 2002-2003, Bandwidth 1.50
Position Title: Current Recommended
Village Manager Minimum 65,725 70,000*
70,000 105,000
Chief of Police Minimum 55,558 60,000
Maximum 78,432 90,000
Director of Finance Minimum 53,847 60,000
Maximum 75,351 90,000
Director of Utilities Minimum 60,372 60,000
Maximum 79,878 90,000
Fire Chief Minimum 55,061 60,000
Maximum 74,283 90,000
Director of Public Works Minimum 51,177 56,000
Maximum 77,688 84,000
Director of Community Development Minimum 51,177 56,000
Maximum 71,127 84,000
Assistant Police Chief Minimum 50,715 53,000
Maximum 68,828 79,500
Operations Chief Minimum 46122 53,000
Maximum 62,265 79,500
Village Clerk Minimum 35,226 48,000
Maximum 43775 72,000
Director of Parks & Recreation Minimum 36,331 38,000
Maximum 50,844 57,000
Chief Plant Operator Minimum 37399 38,000
Maximum 56355 57,000
Public Service Supervisor Minimum 37399 38,000
Maximum 56355 57,000
Manager Human Resource & Risk Minimum 37726 38,000
51,984 57,000
6
Table 2: Salary Range Recommendations, FY 2003/04, 1.55 Bandwidth
Position Title: Current Recommended
Village Manager Minimum 65,725 70,000*
70,000 108,500
Chief of Police Minimum 55,558 60,000
Maximum 78,432 93,000
Director of Finance Minimum 53,847 60,000
Maximum 75,351 93,000
Director of Utilities Minimum 60,372 60,000
Maximum 79,878. 93,000
Fire Chief Minimum 55,061 60,000
Maximum 74,283 93,000
Director of Public Works Minimum 51,177 56,000
Maximum 77,688 86,800
Director of Community Development Minimum 51,177 56,000
• Maximum 71,127 86,800
Assistant Police Chief Minimum 50,715 53,000
Maximum 68,828 82,150
Operations Chief Minimum 46122 53,000
Maximum 62,265 82,150
Village Clerk Minimum 35,226 48,000
Maximum 43775 74,400
Director of Parks & Recreation Minimum 36,331 38,000
Maximum 50,844 58,900
Chief Plant Operator Minimum 37399 38,000
Maximum 56355 58,900
Public Service Supervisor Minimum 37399 38,000
Maximum 56355 58,900
Manager Human Resource & Risk Minimum 37726 38,000
51,984 58,900
•
7
Table 3: Salary Range Recommendations, FY 2004/05 & FY 2005/06 1.60 Bandwidth
Position Title: Current Recommended
Village Manager Minimum 65,725 70,000*
70,000 112,000
Chief of Police Minimum 55,558 60,000
Maximum 78,432 96,000
Director of Finance Minimum 53,847 60,000
Maximum 75,351 96,000
Director of Utilities Minimum 60,372 60,000
Maximum 79,878 96,000
Fire Chief Minimum 55,061 60,000
Maximum 74,283 96,000
Director of Public Works Minimum 51,177 56,000
Maximum 77,688 89,600
Director of Community Development Minimum 51,177 56,000
• Maximum 71,127 89,600
Assistant Police Chief Minimum 50,715 53,000
Maximum 68,828 84,800
Operations Chief Minimum 46122 53,000
Maximum 62,265 84,800
Village Clerk Minimum 35,226 48,000
Maximum 43775 76,800
Director of Parks & Recreation Minimum 36,331 38,000
Maximum 50,844 60,800
Chief Plant Operator Minimum 37399 38,000
Maximum 56355 60,800
Public Service Supervisor Minimum 37399 38,000
Maximum 56355 60,800
Manager Human Resource & Risk Minimum 37726 38,000
51,984 60,800
•
8
• Table 4: Salary Range Recommendations, FY 2006, Bandwidth 1.65
Position Title: Current Recommended
Village Manager Minimum 65,725 70,000*
70,000 115,000
Chief of Police Minimum 55,558 60,000
Maximum 78,432 99,000
Director of Finance Minimum 53,847 60,000
Maximum 75,351 99,000
Director of Utilities Minimum 60,372 60,000
Maximum 79,878 99,000
Fire Chief Minimum 55,061 60,000
Maximum 74,283 99,000
Director of Public Works Minimum 51,177 56,000
Maximum 77,688 92,400
Director of Community Development Minimum 51,177 56,000
• Maximum 71,127 92,400
Assistant Police Chief Minimum 50,715 53,000
Maximum 68,828 87,450
Operations Chief Minimum 46122 53,000
Maximum 62,265 87,450
Village Clerk Minimum 35,226 48,000
Maximum 43775 79,200
Director of Parks & Recreation Minimum 36,331 38,000
Maximum 50,844 62,700
Chief Plant Operator Minimum 37399 38,000
Maximum 56355 62,700
Public Service Supervisor Minimum 37399 38,000
Maximum 56355 62,700
Manager Human Resource & Risk Minimum 37726 38,000
51,984 62,700
•
9
r~
~~
Table 5: Salary Adjustment
Position Title: Current Recommended Actual Recommended
Range Range FY Salary Salary
03/04
Village Manager Minimum 65,725 70,000 92,585 None
Maximum 89,773 105,000
Chief of Police Minimum 55,558 60,000 78,432 None
Maximum 78,432 90,000
Director of Finance Minimum 53,847 60,000 65,879 None
Maximum 75,351 90,000
Director of Utilities Minimum 60,372 60,000 Vacant
Maximum 79,878 90,000
Fire Chief Minimum 55,061 60,000 71,036 None
Maximum 74,283 90,000
Director of Public Works Minimum 51,177 56,000 71,126 None
Maximum 77,688 84,000
• Director of Community Development Minimum 51,177 56,000 70,040 None
Maximum 71,127 84,000
Assistant Police Chief Minimum 50,715 53,000 67,841 None
Maximum 68,828 79,500
Operations Chief Minimum 46122 53,000 54,394 None
Maximum 62,265 79,500
Village Clerk Minimum 35,226 48,000 46,000 2,000
Maximum 43775 72,000
Director of Parks & Recreation Minimum 36,331 38,000 35,331 2,669
Maximum 50,844 57,000
Chief Plant Operator Minimum 37399 38,000 55,444 None
Maximum 56355 57,000
Public Service Supervisor Minimum 37399 38,000 56,355 None
Maximum 56355 57,000
Manager Human Resource & Risk Minimum 37726 38,000 47,271 Nane
51,984 57,000
•
10
• III. SUMMARY
The Village of Tequesta is to be commended for having such dedicated, concerned, knowledgeable
and "high spirited" Department Heads. The Village has adopted a compensation philosophy and
objective of maintaining their salary ranges in a position to attract and retain quality personnel. We
feel this well conceived program is wise due to today's labor market. Implementing the
recommendations in this report will enable the Village of Tequesta to recruit and retain qualified
employees. Citizens will benefit because the Village will continue providing a high level and
excellent service, the citizen of Tequesta deserves. Employees will benefit from the knowledge that
their efforts are valued as much as their counterparts in neighboring communities.
•
11