HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Special Meeting_Tab 08K_8/22/2002r,"N Ana lyti cal
HUMAN RESOURCE PERFORMANCE CONSULTANTS
June 24, 2002
Mr. Michael R. Couzzo, Jr.
Village Manager
The Village of Tequesta
250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 300
Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273
Dear Mr. Couzzo:
Transmitted herewith is the final report of the Pay and Compensation Study for the
Village of Tequesta, Senior Management and Department Heads.
e"`N This report contains the methodology as well as our findings and recommendations. The
findings are the result of our independent analysis of the data received from the Village,
studies and information from other governmental agencies. T he recommendations are
based upon our professional judgment as to the most appropriate course of action for the
Village of Tequesta.
The study was conducted with the active participation of the management team. We
express a special thanks to you and Ms. Bodinizzo and all the wonderful staff members
for the warm and helpful assistance rendered to the both of us during the visits and
telephone calls.
The assistance from all the department heads and staff members was exceptionally
professional, cooperative and caring. Please pass along Herb's and my thanks.
Best Regards,
Mac McDowell Herb Marlowe Jr., Ph.D.
Enclosure: Study
P. O. Box 2683, Brandon FL 33509-2683 (813)657-8128 Fax (813)657-9127
F.-NIAIL: hrpcmm'ii aol.com
K
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
Analytica/Human 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 FOREFOING RESOLUTION WAS OFFERED by
Councilmember , who moved its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Councilmember and upon being put to
vote, the vote was as follows:
FOR ADOPTION AGAINST ADOPTION
The Mayor thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this 1 lth day
of July, 2002.
ATTEST
Village Clerk Mary Wolcott
n
Mayor Geraldine A. Genco
n SENIOR MANAGEMENT/
PAY and COMPENSATION STUDY
EXECUTIVE REPORT (Amended)
for
Village of 71-equesta, Florida
0 Prepared brn
y: AnalyticaAjuan Resource Performance Consultants
July 10, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY.................................................................2
H. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................3
GeneralCompensation Plan Recommendations.........................................................3
PayRanges......................................................................................................4
SalaryAdjustments...........................................................................................5
Tables 1-4: Salary Range Recommendations, FY 2002 through FY 2006 .............7
Table5: Salary Adjustments...................................................................I I
III. SUMMARY........................................................................................................8
1
• 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 Heads. 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.
7. 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 were evaluated in 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 using a broad band compensation approach. In outlining years we recommend the
Village gradually increase, in .05 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.
Skill ed/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 research to develop
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 a multi -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
40 functions. This step leaves an adjusted sample.
4
A
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
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.
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.
5
Table 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
f
N
eo"4�
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
i1
11
?00�
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
Table 5: Salary Adjustment
Position Title:
Current
Recommended
Actual
Recommended
Range
Range FY
Salary
Salary
03104
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
783432
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
745283
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
None
51,984
57,000
10
T,ABLE OF CONTENTS
1- -1CJ
1, INTRODUTION AI .............. 2
IT., FINDINGS AND, RECOI&IMENDATIONS—, ..........
General Coo-pensatian Plan Recommeada6mns.. — ........ --- ..........
Pay Ranges.— ... ........ ...........
Salary A4j ustments. .. , , ....... ........... --- ...... ............
Tiblel, Sit; ary Fa age ReconaraendU d0n ........
Table2: Silary Adjmtment, ... -- .......... w, . ............. -- ... ........ ...... .... -- 7
nill. SUMMARY ...... ......
1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
Amalytica/1-funian Resource Performance Consultants was engaged by the Village of Tequesta, for the
purpose of conducting a Pay and Classification Study for &I,e: Village 4'requesta Senior Nianagcment and
Department Heads. The study was -co:
1. Ric.spond to changing market pose ions.
2 Recognize changes in duties and responsibilities.
3 3. Acknowledge increases in the complexity of jobs.
4. Ensure equity and consistency among similar positions,
5. Ensuri: that sa'lancs are conipettivIe ivith local public agencies ir, the area..
6. Review education, training and experience required.
7. Review and update pail ranges for each position.
The study involved the active participation of the Village Manager, Coordinator of Hanian 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
0
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 consult -ant met individually jith staff members to,
review the purpose of the study and their role in it. Certain information concerning their position vas
discussed. They also discussed the mission of their department, budget, makeup and problems they bave
the existingcompensanon plan. In addition, the Consultant Mae McDowell b6fiA the is Vice
Mayor and other Council members on the methodology
.
Simultaneously, salary and benefit data was solicited firown area local goat; rnm ents: Lak:-, 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: [I] They are in close proximity to the Village of T-equosta:
[2] They impact upon the Village's ability to rc-cruit and retaiii qualified department heads- [_ij -MoT,7
perform similar sere ices 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 issue? 1by the Public
Employers Personnel Information Exchange (PEPIE), 2002, Florida League of Cities Cooperative. Salary
Survey, 2001, Florida Public Personnel Association, Inc., aad oth, er publications.
TIie salary and benefit data for each position was reviewed for comparison with the Village of 'T'equtst!,
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 posibon.
Positions w,rc evaluated in order to ensure l �Ah external market competitiveness and internal equ.1ty.
Each position was evaluated by the ;ame criteria. The criteria were:
2
iraming, ExperlenCe and Ability
Education
Level of Responsibility
f,eadership/Dylanagement Skills
Working Conditions, physical Demands and Hazards
Independence of Actions
Impact on End Results
Supervision Exercised
Th,,! result of the above analysis presented in the next section.
11. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
General Comp.ensation Plait Recommendations:
We recoirim-Ind the following general policies be continued and/or adopted by the Village.
C We recommend a complete and comprehensive study be done at least every three years. Employees
in public agencies are more mobile in todav'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 appeirs
that the Village of Tequesta has "top notch", "dedicated" and "highly motivated" senior managers
and department heads.
C 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 ,vidth of 1.35 to 1.45. Most communities have ranges with a bandwidth of
C
1.47 to 1.70. We recommend that the Village use a standard band width of 1.65. This will ensure it
is competitive with other municipalities and address the issues created by municipalities using a broad
band compensation approach.
a Multiple Job Acknowledgement. The Village recognizes the need and encourages senior employees
in particular to "wear multiple hats" and we recommend this practice be continued.
Skilled/Responsibilit)7 Based -NIm-ket Comparisons. Jobs are triost fairly compared on the skills
required- job worth the responsibility assigned, along with other varying factors.
Pay Ranges
Table I presents recommendations that propose pay range adjustments for the positions studied.
prior to presentation of table 1, the mahod used to develop these recommeni1ation-s is presz-1ited below.
Method:
Ana01ca,+MPC utilized a combination of current databases and original research to dQv-(op
market comparable data for tie current Village positions.
I "
The primary data buses used In sl-,-dy -vvff,'z, Public Employces Pa-y Information Exchange
(PEPIE1 and the Florida League of Cities Cornpalablc Size Cities databas-1, In addition to these
databases, Analytica/TiRK coyitacted directly a number of Palm Beach county public entities to obtain
information on positions not it th,.� above davabasv-s. or to -,,,craft- currmc inforrn aicin.
Comparable positions were selected using a multi -step procedure designed to obtain a minIMUM
sample size of five [51 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 likesize in Palm Beach County,
® Step 2: If minimal sample size requirements cannot be met via step 1, and positions are relati�lely
is dependent of community size, compare positions to those of other public organizations in Palm
Beach County.
• Step 3 ' If minimal saniplo size requirernents cannot be mot via steps 1, and 1, cornpare 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 I and 2, c.ompare 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 I — 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 detcrinined, an outlier analysis seas conducted. Any orgranizatioll
t e differed si nificantiv from the rest of the sample [defined as entry pay -5'.
(0) whose pav rar9 9 0% below or
above any other member of the sample] was deleted unless th;:re was some overriding reason to retain the,
organization. This outlier elimination serves to eliminate positions with similar titles but diffirent
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 revifwed to determine if there was
significant skew due to calculation method. Unless there was, percentile results were selected for further
analysis.
i The value of the percentile approach is that it enables one to simply compare -salaries of one
organization to the sample group as a whole. Clircnts select where they want to position thennse.lvcs i-,l the
pay market. By selecting the fiftieth percentile level, the town will ensure that they lh'ava high quality
employees and minimize the costs of turnover.
For rt;asons of ernployce quality, cost efficiency of human resource practices, and the abilav to
attract employees, our recommendations are based on the Village paying, at the fiftieth percentile level f_Jr
both minimum and rawdinum pay levels. This assures the Village that it will be able to attract th,,,. quahj�
of employee that citizens of the community will expect, will be able to retain those erop toyees, and v.. I 1
be able to save public monies in the long term via greater efficiencies.
Salary Adjustments
Table 2 presents the recommendations regarding the implementation of this nc.�,� salary sJiedidQ,
on date to bo announced by the 'Village Manager. In xparing these. recom-me-nda-tions have
particular attention on the following factors: P - we ave focused
4
Intenial equity — persons wide similar cesoonsibility should be similar iii range.
L] External equity — persons pciforming similar work should be paid accordingly.
7 Length of service -- allovvatice shzould be made for length of service.
Compression -- persons in higher positions should be paid a higher salary .
Other Recoinmendations
The use of pay ranges for Cite 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 thv first place.
Benefits, We recommend that the benefit package for the Manager be increased in the range
of approNimately $6,000.00 or 6% for the Manager to make the total benefit package more
equitable to other municipalities, In terms of interval equity this adjustment should be made
h-i the icalrenient benefit.
5
Ifn'� Table 1: Salary Range Recommendations
Position Title:
Current
Recammenikd
Village Manager
mirmnum
65,725
70,000,
70,000
115,000
Chief of Police
Minimum
55,558
60,000
M,vainum
7/8.432
99,000
Director of Fifiance
Nblinutun
53,847
60,000
Maximum
75,35.11
99,()()0
Director of Utilities
khfmufkt
60,372
60,000
Nbx1mu-na
79,878
99,000
Fire Chief
rvIinhullm
55,061
60,000
Max maim
74,283
99,000
Director of Public Works
minimum
51.177
56,,000
NI'munum
77,688
92,400
Director of Community Development
Minimum
31,177
56,000
Nlaxffllum
71,127
92,400
Assistant Police Chief
Millimunn
50,715
33,000
Maximum
681,828
87,450
Operations Chief
Minimum
46122
53,000
Niaximam
62,265
87,450
Town Clerk
Nlhihnurn
35,226
48,000
Maxnnu-in
43773
79,200
Director of Parks & Recreation
Minimum
36,331
.333,000
Maximum
50,844
62,700
Chief Pla-nt Operator
Minimum
37399
38,000
Maximun,
56355
62,700
Public Senice Supenriser
minfinum
37399
38,000
-Maxirrunn
56355
62, 700
Manager Human Resource & Risk
Minimum
37726
38,000
51.,984
62,700
eo"IN
Ii,
Table 2. Salary Adjustment
position Tkle;
Current
Recomunended
"iclu-11
Recommended
Range
Rak,190
Sa"'wy
Nalary
Village Manager
Mini uUm
65,725
70,000
92,583
None
-Maxinnun
891,773
115,000
Chief of Police
Mininitun
55,558
60,000
78,432
None
Maxinium
78,43 2
99,000
Director of Finance
Minimum
-13,847
W000
65,879
None
�",Iaxilaum
75.351
99,000
Directof of Utilities
Mil allun"
b0.372
60.,000
Vacant
Maximum
79,878
99,000
Fire Chief
Minimum
55,061
60,000
71,036
None
Maximum
74,283
99,000
Director of Public Workq
Minimum
51,177
56,000
71,126
None
ma.-dinium
77,688
92,400
Di-z-%mror of Community Development
INfinimum
51,177
56,000
70,040
None
NUXInym
71.127
92.400
Assistant Police Chief'
Nlinim-Um
50,715
53,000
67,841
None
Mamnum
68%828
87,450
Operations Chief
Minimum
46122
53,000
54.394
None
Maximum
62,265
87,450
Towa C!eA-
Minimum
35,226
48,000
46,000
2,000
Maximum
43775
76,800
Director of Parks & Recreaflor,
mininlura
36,331
38,000
35,331
22.669
Maximm
50,844
62,700
Chief Plant Opmior
Nummum
37399
38,000
55,444
None
Maximum
56355
62700
Public Service Supervisor
Minimum
37399
38,000
56,355
None
id &%imufn
56355
62,700
Afanaget'Ham zn Resource & Risk
Njiniffluly,
37726
38,000
47,271
None
51.,984
62,700
VA
M. SUMMARI 7
The Village of Tequesta is to be cominonded for having such dedicated, concerned, knowledgeable
and "high spiiitod" Nparb-nent Heads, The Village, has adopted a compensation phllosophN and
obJective of maintaining their sales ranges in a position to attract and retain quality personnel, WO
feel this w-111 conceived program is wise due, to today's labor market. Implementing the
recommendations, In this report -Mll enable the Village of gc Tequesta to recruit and retain qualified
empleyces. Citizens will bcr.efit because the Village will continue, providing a high level and
0
excelicnt sen ice, the citizen of'requesim descrves. EmpliNees ;Nfll benefit fron, the knowledge that
their efforts are valued as much as their counterparts in neighboring communities,