HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Tamarac Resolution R-2000-180Temp. Reso #9066
6/21/00
Page 1
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. R-2000-_/ 3d ._._
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S
CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN FOR EXECUTIVE,
MANAGERIAUPROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
NON -BARGAINING EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE JULY 1,
2000; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, in March 1996, the City Commission approved the implementation of
the City's Classification and Pay Plan, which included up-to-date job descriptions and a pay
plan in which compensation is based upon a specific ranking system; and
WHEREAS, the City implemented a performance evaluation system to guide, direct,
and provide feedback to employees effective October 1, 1997; and
WHEREAS, in May 1998, the City Commission approved the implementation of a
performance -based pay system for Executive, Managerial/Professional and Administrative
non -bargaining employees designed to attract and retain a competent well -trained
workforce to provide excellent services to the citizens of Tamarac; and
WHEREAS, this performance -based pay system replaced the City's practice of
providing an across-the-board salary increase for non -bargaining employees in October of
each year, and provided for a pay adjustment based on the employee's performance in
meeting the requirements of his or her position; and
Temp. Reso #9066
6/21/00
Page 2
WHEREAS, during the strategic planning process in the fall of 1999, the City
Commission identified improvements to the City's Management Practices and specifically
improvements to the City's Compensation Plan as one of its priorities; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Director of Personnel recommend the
implementation of the amendment to the City's Classification and Pay Plan for Executive,
Managerial/Professional and Administrative non -bargaining employees outlined as detailed
in the report from the City's consultant Rachlin Cohen Holtzs LLP (Exhibit I, Attachments A
and B) to provide an appropriate framework for the City's Performance -Based Pay System;
and
WHEREAS, funds to implement this amendment for FY 2000 are available in the
Fiscal Year 2000 adopted budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it to be in the best interest of the citizens of
Tamarac, Florida to implement the attached amendments to the Pay Plan for Executive,
Managerial/Professional and Administrative non -bargaining employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1: The foregoing "WHEREAS" clauses are hereby ratified and
confirmed as being true and correct and are hereby made a specific part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2: The City Manager is hereby authorized to implement the
amendments outlined on the attached Exhibit I, Attachments A and B for Executive,
Managerial/Professional and Administrative non -bargaining employees effective
July 1, 2000.
1
1
A
1
Temp. Reso #9066
6/21/00
Page 3
SECTION 3: All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4: If any clause, section, other part or application of this Resolution
is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, in part or
application, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this
Resolution.
SECTION 5: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this aqg day of June, 2000
ATTEST:
Ai
MARION S ENSON, CMC
INTERIM CITY CLERK
I HER BY CERTIFY that I
h pproved this ESOalve
to/form. /";n /-/-�
MITCHELL S. KID
CITY ATTORNEY
Joe Schreiber
Mayor
RECORD OR COMMISSKM VOU
MAYOR SCHREIBER gBXW,..,=0
DMT is COMM. PCRTNER+
N DW COWL MI&M10
ow co" SULUNOF
CITY OF TAMARAC Exhibit 1
CLASSIFICATION/COMPENSATION PLAN REVIEW FY2000
The following briefly summarizes the results of the Classification/Compensation Plan
Review conducted for the City of Tamarac non -bargaining unit employees. It also provides a
number of specific recommendations and observations based on comparisons to other
municipalities.
Background
In 1995-1996 Tamarac undertook a full classification and compensation study. As part of
the study, position descriptions were reviewed and updated. Each position was then evaluated
for complexity, points assigned accordingly and a classification plan, based on these points,
established. The positions and the classification plan were compared to similar municipalities
and pay ranges established. Since that time, the pay ranges for bargaining unit employees have
been adjusted annually as part of the City's collective bargaining agreement with the Federation
of Public Employees. The City has not, however, made any pay range adjustments for non -
bargaining unit employees since October 1997.
Since October 1997, the City has made changes to the classification system for non -
bargaining employees, but these changes were not reflected in the pay structure. The result has
been some inconsistencies were created. In late 1999, Rachlin Cohen & Holtz (RCH) was
retained by the City to examine the classification/compensation plan, identify any inconsistencies
in the salary levels and structure and to make appropriate recommendations to improve the
consistency of the plan with the market. To complete this project, the RCH undertook the effort
described in the Methodology Section below.
Methodology
To determine if Tamarac's salary structure is competitive, RCH conducted a survey.
Specifically, it compared classification plans and compensation levels with similar cities and the
first step was to determine which organizations should be used for comparative purposes.
Factors such as size, demographics and location are generally considered. In this case, ten
similar cities within Broward County were selected for comparative purposes and these were
Coconut Creek, Coral Springs, Davie, Deerfield Beach, Hallandale Beach, Hollywood,
Pembroke Pines, Plantation, Pompano Beach and Sunrise.
The second step was to obtain a copy of the classification plan (including salary ranges)
and organization charts' from each city. Working with these materials, RCH identified similar,
key positions within the classification plans of the selected cities and compared them to
Tamarac's plan. Where necessary, RCH contacted the city and obtained clarification. Once
identified, RCH extracted the pay range for each position and arrayed it on a spreadsheet along
with the pay ranges for the other comparable positions. RCH then utilized a numeric average to
estimate the appropriate pay range (that is, the average of the other cities' pay ranges for the
position).
' All of the cities provided the requested material except Sunrise. It was unable to provide organization charts.
Additionally, Hollywood's charts were also not as complete as we would have liked.
Classification/Compensation Review for the City of Tamarac, F.Y2000 2
The final step was to analyze the results and to make recommendations to Tamarac
concerning how best to update its pay ranges to improve the consistency of the classification
plan and compensation levels with the market.
Findings and Recommendations
As previously noted, Tamarac conducted an in-depth classification study several years ago.
One of the outcomes of that study was the development of a classification system based on the
complexity of each position's duties. The purpose of this system was to ensure that consistency
was maintained within the City government with respect to pay ranges and job complexity. That
is, individuals performing duties of similar complexity should receive similar compensation.
To arrive at this classification system, a number of factors were considered and each
received a certain number of points based on the complexity of the factor. For example, does
one job require more skills than another? Does the job require more supervision than another?
Does the job supervise employees? If so, how many and what kind? The list of factors was
quite lengthy. The classification system weighed them all and ranked jobs based on points,
which in turn are based on job complexity. Finally, the system was then related to market reality
and salary ranges established.
Since a classification system already exists, RCH made every effort to maintain the internal
consistency in updating Tamarac's current pay ranges. In other words, we felt we needed to
preserve the overall integrity of the classification system, while addressing any anomalies that
existed. It was not a simple task but the results and recommendations are outlined below.
At the outset, it is important to note that the classification system was designed prior to the
implementation of the existing pay -for -performance system. Second, the City has already
addressed numerous individual situations through reclassification of positions and through
"market adjustments" which compare individual positions directly with other individual
positions. Third, the classification system, while well -designed, appropriate, progressive, and
comparable to systems utilized by Tamarac's peers, treats all positions as relative to each other.
Throughout this review process, RCH has worked closely with City staff to understand the
specific needs of the City and to provide recommendations that will assist the City to achieve its
strategic goal of attracting and retaining its workforce in today's competitive labor market.
These findings and recommendations represent the outcome of RCH's review and analysis of the
City's plan and the market through a collaborative process with City staff in order to address the
City's needs and requirements.
Finding #l: The current pay ranges are inconsistent with the pay ranges of other cities and
with the individual salaries of some employees.
Historically, many cities adopted rigid pay ranges with a number of steps (usually 8 to 12)
between the top and bottom. Further, the top of the range is generally 40% higher than the
bottom. Under this approach, an employee progressed through the range based on how many
years he/she had been with the City. Often, it was as simple as saying, "Well, you have now
been with us for two years, so you are now a step three".
Classification/Compensation Review for the City of Tamarac, FY2000 3
Tamarac, on the other hand, has adopted a pay -for -performance system for non -bargaining
employees. Under this approach, an employee's progress through the pay range is based on
his/her performance. Further, new employees assuming positions in the non -bargaining group
enter the system according to past experience and demonstrated ability. Since the classification
system was designed to place a fully qualified journeyman -level person at the mid -point of the
range, many new personnel are not placed at the beginning of the range. The result is that the
portion of the range available for pay increases is often closer to 20% to 30% as opposed to the
full 40% available for the entire range. The result has been that pay increases related to pay -for -
performance and market adjustments can place an individual person above the top of the range
within a few years.
Finally, in comparing the classification system with the selected similar cities, RCH has
determined that, in most cases, the lower end of "1'amarac's pay ranges are below the
comparables. This result is probably due to the City not adjusting the entire non -bargaining pay
ranges since 1997.
Therefore, RCH makes the following recommendations to address these issues:
Recommendation #1: Increase the pay range .span from the current 40% to 50% (see
Attachment A).
Recommendation #2: Increase the beginning of'each pay range by 8% (see Attachment A).
Recommendation 113: Examine the pay ranges on a regular basis and make adjustments to
the ranges as appropriate.
Recommendation #4: In a few cases, the incumbent's pay varies significantly from the
typical pay range for that position in other cities. The classification of'these positions needs
to he examined and modified to be consistent with the classification system.
Finding #2: Tamarac's classification system does not reflect the current nature of the market
for director -level positions.
Increasingly cities are recognizing that the demands (in terms of time and workload) placed
on a department director are much more significant than any other position in the organization
(with the exception of the city manager). As a result, many of these cities are designing special
compensation packages for directors (extra vacation time, car allowances, etc). Further, rather
than giving each director position its own pay range, cities are recognizing management at the
upper levels is a team effort and establishing broader ranges covering several of the positions.
Additionally, of all the positions in the City, the department director level position is the
most likely position to have highly experienced and qualified applicants capable of entering the
classification system at the mid -point of the pay range or higher. As a result, under the present
structure of the classification system, incumbent directors will often exceed the top of the range
once a few performance -based pay increases are awarded.
Classification/Compensation Review for the City of Tamarac, FY2000 4
Further, the current system also does not provide for any flexibility to address the fluid
character of these executive positions. To some degree, the responsibilities of director level
positions are modified according to individual capabilities and the needs of the organization at a
particular point in time. In other words, even though the job descriptions may not change, the
scope and intricacy of the projects that the individual director is assigned may differ from those
assigned to another director.
To address these issues, RCH makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 45: A separate pay plan should be established for department directors.
Rather than having department directors classified at 8 different levels, the directors should
be grouped into 3 levels and the pay ranges for each of these levels should be established as
shown on Attachment B.
Finding #3: A conflict exists between the effort to maintain competitive salaries for some
positions (particularly, public safety) while adhering to the integrity of the classification plan.
Ideally the salary for each of the City's positions would be competitive in the marketplace
and consistent with the complexity of it in relationship to the other of the City's positions.
Unfortunately, in some key areas, such as Public Safety, the market salaries appear to be moving
above what the complexity of the positions would suggest. The result is that in some cases,
positions subordinate to a department director might have a higher pay range and potential salary
than a department director position in another area. For example, Assistant Fire Chief position,
which is subordinate to the Fire Chief, already has a higher pay range than the position of Risk
Manager. At the present time, that apparent discrepancy is logical since the Assistant Fire Chief
has a significant number of employees to supervise while the Risk Manager has few, if any,
subordinates. Still, if current trends continue, the market salaries for battalion chiefs may soon
exceed those of some department directors and other managers with duties of similar complexity.
This situation, especially for Fire Rescue managers, has created pressure at the upper levels
of the classification plan that the system did not contemplate and thus, was not designed to
handle. In the long run, in order to retain the caliber of people that Tamarac has come to expect
in its key positions, it may need to consider establishing a separate classification system for some
categories of employees (such as public safety) where the impact of the market dictates higher
salaries than internal equity (based on job complexity) would allow.
Recommendation #6: Continue to monitor the public safety employees' salaries and be
prepared to take the action should the pay plan need to be adjusted to stay competitive with
the market.
Conclusion
Overall, the City's compensation and classification system has served its purpose very well.
It has proven to be highly adaptable to internal changes over time. However, as with any system
designed to address human resources, it needs to be adjusted periodically to recognize
developments external to the organization that were not contemplated at the time it was
instituted.
4,
Classification/Compensation Review for the City of Tamarac, FY2000 5
This study has identified the more pressing external issues affecting the system and has
recommended specific adjustments for improvement. Due to the high level of flexibility and
adaptability built into the system, the adjustments are relatively minor. The basic foundation of
the system will remain in place.
The report's recommendations do three basic things. First, they adjust the non -
bargaining pay ranges to be competitive with the external market. Second, they increase the
flexibility for director level positions to reflect the current market trend towards fluidity in the
responsibilities of these positions. Finally, they recognize the evolving situation in the local.
market for public safety positions.
Rachlin Cohen & I loltz believes the recommended modifications are in the best interest of
the City because they will improve the system's ability to adapt to external market forces and the
City's ability to hire and retain highly qualified staff.
Attachment A
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
NON -BARGAINING POSITIONS
PROPOSED SALARY RANGES
Proposed Proposed Proposed
Grade
Job Title
Minimum
Midpoint
Maximum
6
Personnel Office Assistant (Personnel)
$ 19,013
$ 23,767
$ 28,520
8
21,388
26,735
32,082
9
22,576
28,220
33,864
11
Legal Secretary (City Attorney's Office)
24,949
31,186
37,424
Administrative Secretary (All Departments)
12
Fiscal Services Coordinator (Finance)
26,137
32,671
39,206
13
Administrative Coordinator (All Depts.)
27,324
34,155
40,986
Information & Referral Specialist (Social Services)
14
Payroll Coordinator (Accounting)
28,512
35,640
42,768
15
Administrative Assistant (City Manager)
29,698
37,122
44,547
Executive Secretary (Mayor's Office)
Legal Assistant (City Attorney)
Office Supervisor (Building)
Personnel Coordinator (Personnel)
Revenue Specialist (Finance)
16
Assistant City Clerk (City Clerk)
30,886
38,607
46,329
Special Events Coordinator (Parks & Recreation)
1.7
Accountant 1 (Accounting)
32,072
40,090
48,108
GIS Specialist (Coirnnunity Development)
Management and Budget Analyst I (Budget)
Social Services Coordinator (Social Services)
18
Public Works Coordinator (Public Works)
33,260
41,575
49,890
Recreation Supervisor (Parks & Recreation)
Safety Coordinator (Risk Management)
1.9
Benefits Coordinator (Risk Management)
34,447
43,058
51,670
20
Accountant 11 (Accounting)
35,635
44,543
53,452
Customer Service Supervisor (Finance)
Fire & Safety Education Specialist (Fire)
Management and Budget Analyst I I (Budget)
Planner (Community Development)
Senior Buyer (Purchasing)
1
Attachment A
CITY OF TAMARAC, ]FLORIDA
NON -BARGAINING POSITIONS
PROPOSED SALARY RANGES
Proposed Proposed Proposed
Grade Job Title Minimum Midpoint Maximum
21
Parks Superintendent (Parks & Recreation)
36,822 46,027 55,232
Personnel Analyst (Personnel)
Recreation Superintendent (Parks & Recreation)
Systems Analyst (MIS)
22
Administrative Services Manager (Building)
38,010 47,512 57,014
Special Projects Coordinator (City Manager's Office)
23
Construction Superintendent -Trans. & Distrib. (Utilities)
39,195 48,994 58,793
Laboratory Manager (Utilities -Administration)
Maintenance Superintendent-WW System (Utilities)
24
Investment Accountant (Finance)
40,382 50,478 60,573
Planner II (Community Dev.)
Assistant to City Manager
25
Engineering Coordinator (Utilities -Engineering)
41,570 51,963 62,355
Network Administrator (MIS)
26
Development Engineer (Public Works)
42,758 53,448 64,137
Economic Development Manager (Comm. Dev.)
Project Engineer (Utilities)
Stormwater Engineer/Plans Exam. (Underfill of G-29) (PW)
Systems Manager (MIS)
27
Housing & Code Enforcement Mgr. (Conuu. Dev.)
43,945 54,932 65,918
Management & Budget Officer (Underfill of Bud Admin.)
Water Plant Superintendent (Utilities)
28
Employee Relations Manager (Personnel)
45,132 56,415 67,698
Project Manager (Public Works)
Public Infonnation Officer (City Manager's Office)
Purchasing and Contract Manager (Purchasing)
Support Services Manager (Utilities)
29
Controller (Accounting)
46,319 57,899 69,479
Planning & Zoning Manager (Community Dev,)
Budget Administrator (Underfill Grade 27)
Utilities Operations Manager (Utilities)
Stormwater Engineer (Underfill GR 26) (Public Works)
2
Attachment A
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORI.DA
NON -BARGAINING POSITIONS
PROPOSED SALARY RANGES
Proposed Proposed Proposed
Grade Job Title Minimum Midpoint Maximum
31 Assistant City Attorney (City Attorney) 48,693 60,866 73,039
Assistant Director of Public Works (Public Works)
Fiscal. Services Manager (Finance Administration)
Utilities Engineer-WW System (Utilities)
Battalion. Chief (Fire)
Emergency Medical Services Chief (Fire)
32 49,881 62,351 74,821
33 51,068 63,815 76,562
34 Assistant Fire Chief 52,255 65,318 78,302
R
Attachment B
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR LEVEL POSITIONS
DIRECTOR'S PLAN
Level I Risk Manager
City Clerk
Level II Chief Building Official
MIS Director
Personnel Director
Level III Assistant City Manager
Community Development Dir.
Finance
Fire Chief
Parks and Recreation Director
Public Works Director
Utilities Director
Minimum Midpoint Maximum.
$ 50,000 $ 62,500 $ 75,000
58,000 72,500 87,000
64,000 80,000 96,000