Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/21/1988Thursday, April 21, 1988 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the First Floor Conference Room, County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday, April 21, 1988, at 1:00 o'clock P.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Also present were Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order and advised that it was called for the purpose of having a presentation on the recently completed Classification and Pay Plan Study. Personnel Director Blankenship took the floor and introduced Jeanie Adkins and Andrea Deeb of the Tampa office of TPF&C, a Towers & Perrin Company. He informed the Board that TPF&C is a leading firm of international management consultants with 52 offices around the United States and they have a very impressive background. Mr. Blankenship then reviewed the background and qualifications of Ms. Adkins and Ms. Deeb and turned the floor over to Ms. Deeb to make the presentation. Ms. Deeb advised that she would explain to the Board the process used to develop the classifications and pay plan they arrived at for the county. Chairman Scurlock noted that over the past eight years that he has been here, the Commission has had a variety of such studies, and he believed the intention this time was to do this study wi- hout any interference and give the consultant a free opportunity to collect data and make recommendations. Fpr the record, he wanted to make sure that is what happened with this study. APR 211988 03ck 72 ilkT- 114 NIB Ms. Deeb stated for the record that the only involvement by management here was at critical points - the one was selecting which job evaluation approach they were going to use and the second was choosing the factors that this organization valued - helping them gather some of the data relative to this organization, and then to the extent that they interviewed managers and supervisors and got their input relative to their employee base. Ms. Deeb stated that in terms of actually calculating, developing and building the statistical model, coming up with the total point scores, and turning those into pay grades and ranges, those are TPF&C recommendations. The Chairman emphasized that the main thing is that there was no interference either through ideas from Commission members or management level, and Ms. Deeb confirmed they only worked together in critical areas where there needed to be team collab- oration. Ms. Deeb then went over the objectives of their study, which are as follows, and advised how they proceeded to carry out their, work: STUDY OBJECTIVES • Analyze and document classifications to create Classification Plan; • Conduct customized survey of benchmark classifications in relevant labor markets; • Develop and institute job evaluation approach to serve as foundation for establishing equitable internal hierarchy; • Develop salary schedules and pay plans that reflect internal equity and external competitiveness. 2 APR 2 1 1988 w 72 FACE 135 Ms. Deeb next reviewed the four basic principles of classification and compensation: BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION • A position is a set of tasks performed by a single person. • A class or classification is a group of positions similar enough in duties and responsibilities to have the same minimum requirements and merit the same range of compensation. • Job classification and pay grade assignments are based on the characteristics (duties and responsibilities) of the job...not the characteristics of the person. • Individual characteristics are recognized and compensated by placement within the range of pay established for the job. Ms. Deebemphasized, re the objectivity of their assignment, that it was very important that they not look at individuals here as individuals but as positions (jobs being performed). She confirmed that they surveyed a range of job levels from manage-- ment.on down and advised that their selecting the job evaluation approach and reviewing materials and data were the fact finding that they did up front and where they did sit down with Mr. Balczun and Mr. Blankenship and see what the issues were, i.e., what are the challenges relative to compensation - what is an appropriate job evaluation approach, etc. They decided on a point factor job evaluation approach which looks at each classification across a whole set of factors that make a position valuable to the county. The compensable factors are as follows: 3 APR 21198$ BOOK 72 04 136 POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION Compensable Factors • Knowledge and Skill • Environmental Conditions Work Environment/Exposure to Hazards - Nature of Physical Effort - Nature of Mental and Visual Efforts • Authority to Act - Supervision of Others ▪ Responsibility for Money ▪ Responsibility for Machinery and Equipment - Consequence of Errors • Decision Making/Problem Analysis • Communication - Scope of Contact - Purpose of Contact Chairman Scurlock wished to know who actually audited all these factors because obviously you have a variety of people filling out the job questionnaires. Ms. Deeb stated that one of the critical criteria is that there be some sub -setter core group that is responsible for evaluating all the jobs so that where you have interpretation issues, you have someone who has participated in every evaluation so that you consistently interpret that in the same way. Bill was involved in 99% of all the evaluations. Chairman Scurlock noted that, in other words, the audit mechanism in looking at the questionnaires was provided by TPF&C and Mr. Blankenship, and Administrator Balczun advised that he and Bill did the department heads. SPR 21 (68 4 BOOK. 72 E 137 Ms. Deeb then explained how Point Factor Job Evaluation works and its advantages: APR 211988 POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION Summary • Jobs evaluated in terms of common set of job related factors • Factors job related and tailored to IRC mission, culture and pay philosophy • Factors defined in terms of "degree" steps/levels that span the range of the factor • Factors weighted to reflect importance to IRC • Factors statistically correI'.ted to market to develop progression within factor • Total point score determines relative position in classification hierarchy Advantages • Process insures evaluation focuses on the characteristics of the job rather than the person • Leads to a more objective evaluation of the position • Use of carefully chosen factors ensures consideration of all dimensions of each job • Effective in documenting and communicating results • Point values provide perspective on degree of difference among jobs • Provides consistent framework within which to maintain the classification and pay plans 5 BOpK 72 PAGE 138 Commissioner Eggert wished to know who was involved in determining Indian River County's mission, culture and pay philosophy. Ms. Deeb stated that it was Mr. Balczun and Bill, whom she and Ms. Adkins met with to thrash out some of these issues. Ms. Deeb continued to explain that all employees were asked to fill out job description questionnaires which were signed off on by supervisors. They also asked the supervisors to delineate what was required for the job and, if needed, challenge what was reported. Chairman Scurlock asked if there was any great disparity between what employees felt their jobs entailed vs. what the supervisors felt, and Ms. Deeb noted that less than 10% of the supervisors indicated any disagreement. Ms. Deeb advised that they conducted about 50 interviews to clarify any information they felt was ambiguous and then did the classification analysis. They put some job groups together and broke some into different segments. Consistent titling across the entire organization was one of their goals. They have one plan for the county and one for each Constitutional, but they tried to maintain this consistent titling with the Constitu- tionals as well as the county. Chairman Scurlock wished to be sure they developed that, and Ms. Deeb stated absolutely. The Chairman explained that over the years we have had a number of plans, and there was the feeling that every one of them was manipulated in some way. One of the things the Commission is trying to accomplish with an independent analysis is to develop something that has some credibility. We care about our employees' morale and he doubted they have ever believed in any of the plans we have come up with. We, therefore want to be sure this was not manipulated in any way and that this was a fair and 6 APR 211988 �oo�. 72 ;{;E 139 objective look. He further noted that what Ms. Deeb is pre- senting on the screen today is the first the Commissioners have seen of any of this plan. Administrator Balczun believed Mr. Blankenship is the only person who has seen the final data, and Ms. Deeb confirmed that he is the only one she sent anything to, but she did not know whom he may have shared it with. Chairman Scurlock noted that he has asked Bill to preserve all the raw data unmanipulated as received in the event we sometime want to go back and look at it, and he has done that. Administrator Balczun stressed that they wanted a safeguard built into the system to insure however someone ultimately felt about their classification, there was not one person who could think that their job or someone else's was "wired." The Chairman further noted that with this study being absolutely independent, we were not sure we could afford it; so, we asked them to come in with a phasing planwhere we could implement what we could as we go along. Ms. Deeb agreed what good is theory if it isn't implement- able. She emphasized that the classification plan was their recommendation. It was done fairly early on, and they shared that with Bill. She believed he disseminated that to departments head; but Mr. Blankenship stated that he did not. Ms. Deeb noted that, in essence, the department heads saw the titles because the next step was to actually sit down and evaluate all the jobs. To do that, they used a core committee comprised of Jeanie, herself, Bill and the other two profes- sionals in Personnel. They tried to speak to every division head and evaluate one or two jobs in their area. In that sense they saw the reclassification plan because they saw the titles - not the person's names, just the titles. They evaluated one job across 11 factors, and after that Personnel sat down with the Division heads and evaluated the rest of the jobs in their area. It is critical that there was some consistency maintained. APR 21 1988 7 BOOK 72 FAE 140 Ms. Deeb advised that they used a committee for two reasons. Research shows you get more reliable results it you use a committee, and as a final check when all evaluations were done, they looked at a whole department and did a "sore -thumb" evaluation. At that point they found a few inconsistencies and made a few changes. Ms. Deeb then reviewed how they conducted the salary survey, noting that Mr. Blankenship helped them pick the organizations to survey: CONDUCT CUSTOMIZED COMPENSATION SURVEY • Surveyed 40 benchmark jobs • Competitive analysis used in regression equation for statistical model • Survey Participants - Public Sector Brevard County - City of Fort Pierce - City of Melbourne City of Port St. Lucie - City of Vero Beach Indian River Community College ▪ Indian River School Board ▪ Martin County - St. Lucie County - St. Lucie County School Board • Survey Participants - Private Sector - First Union National Bank of Florida Florida National Bank ▪ Hetra Computers ▪ Humana Hospital Indian River Memorial Hospital Piper Aircraft Chairman Scurlock commented that one of the things that cropped up on the last study was that the analysis on the salary survey was not thorough enough. For instance, while it said they offer insurance, it didn't point out that the employees had to pay for it. APR 211988 L 8 NM 72 uCE 141 Ms. Deeb informed the Board that they did not look at benefits, but Mr. Blankenship stated that his staff did, and they have a separate benefit survey. Commissioner Eggert noticed that in the public sector surveyed, they went quite a distance, and she felt normally when we have done surveys on the private sector, Harris Corp. has been included and wondered why it was not. Director Blankenship stated that he has had experience with Harris, and they do not reciprocate too easily. He also did not believe we have very many comparable benchmark jobs with Harris. Commissioner Bird felt that it seemed most of the private sector surveyed relates to management and clerical employees rather than blue collar workers such as equipment operators, etc. He believed one of the big shortfalls in the county is hiring labor in our Road & Bridge Department and he felt we need some good comparables. Commissioner Eggert agreed that we need them for the Utilities Department also. Ms. Adkins advised that they did try to get employers like General Development and Florida Power & Light, but she felt it is important to remember that unlike systems the Commission has been familiar with in the past, in this case they are only trying to get enough job spread across the organization to feed into the statistical model. Commissioner Eggert continued to express concern as to whether there was a large enough scope in the market survey. She pointed out that our big problem is local competition, and if there wasn't enough awareness of that, she did not feel the study is as helpful as it could be. Ms. Adkins felt it will be seen in the recommendation that those concerns are being addressed; they are just using different methodology. 9 APR 211983 Boos 72 PAGE 142 Ms. Deeb then continued the presentation, explaining that the model produces an equation that will predict pay, and it is based on point prediction, market data and internal evaluation. They have found that job knowledge has most weight in this organization and has the greatest impact on what a job is worth. Ms. Deeb advised that when they finish the statistical model, then they will know, for instance, Level 12 is worth so many points, Level 11 is worth so many, etc. You end up with a hierarchy of points from the highest down to the lowest and then you build structures and ranges around that. The range gives you the opportunity to look at individual characteristics as opposed to just job characteristics. They have developed four different structures - Administrative - Exempt - Non -Exempt - Labor. Ms. Deeb at this point handed out copies of the Classifica- tion Plan they have developed, which spells out the actual points and pay for the specific jobs. Chairman Scurlock stated that before we actually get into all that, he wished to know what the philosophy of Indian River County was. Ms. Deeb answered that the pay philosophy was to pay at approximately the 50% percentile - not higher or lower than the market. The Chairman noted that they are saying "county philosophy," and since the five Commissioners were not involved, he believed this actually is Mr. Balczun's and Mr. Blankenship's philosophy. Administrator Balczun agreed it is'the administrative philosophy and confirmed, for the record, that the Commissioners did not interfere and suggest to him what the proper organiza- tional philosophy should be. Discussion ensued as to the fact that when this is presented to the public as• county philosophy, this will come back at the Board members and it should be made clear that it is the county's administrative policy. 10 APR 2 1 1988 BOOK 72 PACE 143 In further discussion re philosophy, mission and culture, Mr. Blankenship believed the word "philosophy" was a misnomer; it was not the philosophy of the county, but rather of the pay plan and the mechanism of it. Ms. Adkins noted that unfortunately philosophy is sort of the textbook compensation jargon word for what you mean when we talk about do you want to pay the market or not. Chairman Scurlock commented that personally his feeling is that the culture of the county is that we don't believe much in these studies because we haven't had a good one in the past, and Ms. Deeb noted they were made aware that was part of the challenge they were presented with. Ms. Deeb then went over the blue book handed out, explaining that it is the synthesis of the materials they put together. Administrator Balczun asked that Ms. Deeb define for the record what the Exempt and Non-exempt structures mean. Ms. Deeb clarified that a non-exempt job, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, is one where you are required to pay overtime, and the exempt jobs do not have to be paid overtime. Various questions ensued, and Commissioner Eggert asked about the scope of jobs as she believed we removed recreation trom the Director of Leisure Services. Mr. Blankenship believed that is probably the one title they forgot to change, and it should be Director of Golf. Ms. Deeb next presented the implementation alternatives and their recommendation: APR 211988 11 BOOK 72 PAGE 144 IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES Employees Below Minimum • Move all employees below recommended minimums to their appropriate minimum value retroactive to April 1, 1988. • Move employees below recommended minimums to their appropriate minimum value effective July 1, 1988. • Do nothing now, and make adjustments to the minimum as part of the next regular increase cycle. • Phase in adjustments to the minimum over a 6-, 12-, 18 -month period. IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION • Move all employees below recommended minimums to their appropriate minimum value retroactive to April 1, 1988. • Advantages - Brings classifications to externally competitive position immediately - Avoids issue of bringing new hires in at minimum - Creates hiring rates/ranges that are competitive - Ensures employees that Board is committed to implementing the recommended pay and classification plans • Total dollars below minimum: $362,996 • Implementation cost: $181,498 It was noted the $181,498 implementation cost i.s the cost to bring employees to their appropriate minimum for half a year. Commissioner Bird asked if we have made any verbal or written commitment to employees that we will take any particular. action based on this plan that goes back to the start of this 12 APR 211988 BOOK 72 rAliF 145 fiscal year, and the Administrator advised that we haven't committed ourselves to the selection of any particular plan. Commissioner Bird asked if we made no commitments that we will make any type of adjustments based on this plan and we didn't do that at the time we negotiated with the unions, and Administrator-Balczun stated that we did not. Chairman Scurlock noted there will be a tot of ramifica- tions involved. For instance,_Road,& Bridge right now with 17-23 positions vacant for -the -major -portion of the year has built up probably 1/2 million dollars, and when you say it will cost so much to implement this, 'yotu` a"re"talking about now you wi I I be more attractive and able to fill those positions. Administrator Balczun believed in a grievance hearing comment was made that the county has hired the same person three times in Road & Bridge. This person works for us and then when Piper starts hiring, he -goes back to them because obviously we can't compete. Discussion continued re costs, and the Chairman noted that they are saying that implementing their recommendation will bring everyone up to their appropriate minimum, but he would assume that doesn't fully implement this program. Ms. Deeb clarified that it fully implements it in terms of bringing up the salary rate structure, but they have not made recommendations for moving •individuals currently within their range. They can give recommendations for moving them in a way that would be consistent with employeesbelow minimum, but they are not tooking at issues like seniority and performance to move employees further on. That is something they cannot do as outside consultants. Administrator Balczun noted that are just sayingthis is the total cost for everybody to be paid at least the minimum amount of the proper range. Commissioner Wheeler asked if this includes fringes, and Ms. Deeb stated their study related only to -direct pay. 13 APR 211988 500P 72 PAGE 146 Commissioner Eggert asked if everyone is in the right classification because she felt just bringing everyone to the minimum is not responding totally. Director Blankenship reported that the first part of the process was to reclassify people. That is something we have already reviewed with department heads, and people would be in their right classifications. Ms. Deeb further pointed out that the cost figures presented do not include the Constitutionals as she was not given current actual salaries for any Constitutional Officer group but one. Ms. Deeb next reviewed implementation alternatives for employees over maximum and their recommendation: IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES Employees Over Maximum • Postpone further salary increases until the ranges catch up with the incumbent. • Continue to grant cost -of -living, across-the-board adjustments to the individual's base salary. • Grant cost -of -living, across-the-board adjustments as a lump sum payment (prorated throughout the year). IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION APR 211988 • Grant cost -of -living, across-the-board adjustments as a lump sum payment (prorated throughout the year). • Advantages - Ensures that market value of compensation does not erode - Provides employees with some monetary recognition for continued service to organization - Consistent with culture Does not create compounding effect of increasing base salary ▪ Maintains integrity of the system 14 BOOK 72 Pa,F 147 The Chairman asked if the ones over maximum are generally administrative positions, and Ms. Deeb confirmed that there are very few non-exempt or labor and trades positions over the maximum. Commissioner Wheeler did not feel we can have a total picture without addressing fringes. Ms. Deeb emphasized that they were only told to look at total pay, but the county can factor in the fringes by adjusting the structures, if desired The Chairman telt we have to do that. Director Blankenship advised that staff surveyed ten organizations and the results are set out in the following Employee Benefits Survey: 15 APR 1988 BooK 72 F CE l48 CATEGORY EMPLOYER EMPLOYER A B E M P L O Y E E S FULL TIME 1 1425 PART TIME I 400 TOTAL 1825 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - 1988 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SURVEY EMPLOYER C EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER D E F = = G H I J K ========__==== = I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 385 1 663 1 2300 1 892 1 1150 I 925 ( 475 1 293 1 446 1 22I 84I 15I 1501 121 01 251121 37I 1 1 1 407 1 747 I 2315 1 1042 1 1162 1 925 ' 500 1 305 1 483 UNI O N S IAFF LIU VACATION LEAVE ELIGIBILITY TO USE LEAVE DAYS PER YEAR/SERVICE REQUIRED MAXIMUM ACCRUAL 504 1 25 I 529 I INAGE IPBA 1FIREFIGHTERITEAMSTERS 'POLICE SGT 1 'POLICE OFF ILIU IPBA IIAFF ILIU _=_=_= CWA (NONE TEACHERS CLASSIFIED 1 _ _ ___ == _ CEA (NONE IIAFF 'TEAMSTERS 'CWA CWA ' IAFSCME 'POLICE IIAFF ___ 6 MONTHS ' 3 MONTHS 1 6 MONTHS ' 6 MONTHS 1 12 MONTHS 1 6 MONTHS 1 6 MONTHS 1 I 1 1 'PRORATED ' 6 MONTHS 1 6 MONTHS 1 6 MONTHS 12/ 1- 5 YR 15/ 6-10 YR 18/11-15 YR 21/16-19 YR 24/20+ YR 12/ 1- 5 YR 15/ 6-10 YR 18/11-15 YR 21/16+ YR 10/ 1- 5 YR 15/ 6-10 YR 16/11 YR 17/12 YR 18/13 YR 19/14 YR 20/15 YR DEPT HEADS 20 DAYS AT HIRE DATE 10/1-5 YR 12/ 6- 9 YR 15/10-14 YR 22/15+ YR 13/ 1- 5 YR 16.25/5-10 19.5/10+ YR 5/.5- 1 YR 10/ 1- 5 YR 15/5+ YR 12/ 1- 5 YR 15/ 5-10 YR 18/10+ YR 5/ 1- 2 YR 12/ 1- 5 YR 12/ 1- 5 YR 10/ 2- 4 YR 15/ 5-10 YR 14/ 5-10 YR 12.5/5-9 YR 20/10+ YR 17/10+ YR 15/10-14 YR 20/15+ YR 10/ 1- 5 YR 11/ 5- 6 YR 12/ 6- 7 YR 13/ 7- 8 YR 14/ 8- 9 YR 15/ 9-10 YR 16/10-11 YR 17/11-12 YR 18/12-13 YR 19/13-14 YR 20/14-15+YR 30 DAYS ' 35 DAYS/ ( 30 DAYS ' POLICE ' 30 DAYS/ 1 OTHERS 1 <10 YEARS/ 1 30 DAYS ( 2 YEARS 1 40 DAYS 1 15 MONTH 1 TWICE THE ' 30 DAYS 1 20 DAYS 50 DAYS ' (ACCRUAL AT ( 'CARRY OVER 'ANNUAL RATE( >10 YEARS/ ( 1 RATE OF ( 'FROM JUNE 110F EARNINGS' 65 DAYS ( I EARNINGS ( 1 1 1 ===a= =_===__====_==== —_ _________ NUMBER OF HOLIDAYS PER YEAR 1 9 I 11 1 10 10 6 8 1 6 1 12 ==_== ===== ____==_________-- MERIT PAY 1 YES YES IY/NON-UNIONI YES I NO I YES PROGRAM I(INACTIVE) 1 NO/UNION 1 I(AUTO STEP)I _____ ==== ==== _________ =a=a=a=a= NO YES 10 11 10 YES NO YES CATEGORY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - 1988 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SURVEY EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER A 8 C D E F G H I J K GROUP HEALTH SINGLE COVERAGE COST/MONTH EMPLOYEE PAYS EMPLOYER PAYS DEPENDENT COVERAGE COST EMPLOYEE PAYS EMPLOYER PAYS CO-INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLE MAXIMUM FAMILY DEDUCTIBLE RETIRED EMPLOYEE COVERAGE RETIREE PAYS EMPLOYER PAYS $120.00 $82.50 $72.63 $110.00 $78.00 1 $31.60 $110.00 INOT AVAIL. $90.00 86.87 $85.45 . 0% 0% 1 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% ( 0% 25% 0% ( 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% I 100% 75% 100% 100% $65.00 $112.00 1 $130.12 1 $196.12 I $184.00 $56.32 1 $130.00 INOT AVAIL. 1 $238.09 $203.10 1 $135.77 100% 100% 33.3% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 25% 10% $ 12.50 0% 0% 1 66.7% 50% 1 50% 1 0% 1 0% 1 0% 1 75% 1 90% 1 $123.27 80/20 85/15 80/20 80/20 80/20 80/20 80/20 TO 80/20 80/20 80/20 80/20 90/10 PPO $700/100% 90/10 PPO I I (ABOVE $700 1 1 I $100 $100 • $200 $300 $150 $200 $200 $100 1 $100 ( $150 $200 $300 $200 $400 $900 $300 $400 $400 $300 $200 1$150/PERSON $400 100% 100% EMPLR PAYS 50% 100% NOT 100% 75% 25% 100% 100% 0% 0% 2.5% PER 50% 0% PROVIDED 0% 25% 75% 0% 0% IYR SERVICE 1 1 == HEALTH MAINTENANCE NONE NONE NONE YES NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE ORGANIZATI O N D ISABILITY INSURANCE SHORT TERM EMPLOYEE PAYS- . EMPLOYER PAYS LONG TERM EMPLOYEE PAYS EMPLOYER PAYS YES 0% 100% NO == YES 0% 100% YES 0% 100% NO NO NO NO OPTIONAL UNDER CAFETERIA BENEFIT PLAN YES 0% 100% YES* 0% 100% *DEPT HEADS OPTIONAL THROUGH , PAYROLL DEDUCTION n u YES 0% 100% YES REMAINDER $58.50 MAX NO NO NO NO __=====x=====_______________________=====p=====_________________ ____ NO NO CATEGORY SICK LEAVE ELIGIBILITY TO USE LEAVE DAYS PER YEAR/SERVICE REQUIRED MAXIMUM ACCRUAL PAID AT RETIREMENT PAID AT TERMINATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - 1988 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SURVEY EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER A B C D E F G H 1 J K _ 6 MONTHS 3 MONTHS I UPON 16 MONTHS 1 4 MONTHS 17 MONTHS (IMMEDIATE 16 MONTHS 13 MONTHS I 1 MONTH 16 MONTHS (EMPLOYMENT 1 1 1 1 1 I I 12/ 1-10 YR I 12 DAYS 1 12 DAYS 1 12 DAYS 1 12 DAYS 1 12 DAYS I 12 DAYS 112 SALARIED! 12 DAYS 1 12 DAYS 1 12 DAYS 15/11+ YR 1 112/CLERICALI 1 13/HOURLY I 1 I NONE 1 144 DAYS NONE 1 90 DAYS NONE 1 65 DAYS I NONE 1120 DAYS NONE 1 NONE 1 NONE 20% <10 YRSI 50% OF I100% UP TO I 50% OF 100% ( UP TO I PCT BASED I NONE ONE-HALF 150% ACCRUALIONE-HALF OF 50% >10 YRSI ACCRUAL 1 100 DAYS ACCRUAL TO 1 1 40 HOURS I ON YEARS I IACCURAL TO ITO 45 DAYS (HOURS UP TO MAX 230 HRSI OVER 10 I 1 90 DAYS I BASED ON 1OF SERVICE I 1480 HR MAX IW/3-10 YRS I 240 MAX 1 DAYS ( 1 1 (FISCAL YEAR 1 1 1100% OVER I I 1 1 1 USAGE I 1 1 1 10 YEARS 1 SAME AS 1 SAME AS I NONE I NONE NONE 1 SAME AS I NONE 1 NONE RETIREE I RETIREE 1 RETIREE NONE 1 SAME AS I SAME AS 1 RETIREE 1 RETIREE DEATH LEAVE NO. DAYS GRANTED IN STATE N0. DAYS GRANTED OUT-OF-STATE EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 3 5 5 5 1 I 1 1 1 1 3 NONE 11 TO 5 I USE SICK 13 DAYS 13 DAYS 13 DAYS 13 DAYS 5 NONE 1 DAYS I LEAVE 13 DAYS 13 DAYS 1 3 DAYS 1 3 DAYS _ NO I YES - ONE 1 YES - TWO IYES - 100% I NO 100% (COURSE/SEM 1COURSES/SEM I IF JOB 1 1 OR 5400 I RELATED GROUP LIFE MAXIMUM AMOUNT EMPLOYER PAYS EMPLOYEE PAYS OPTIONAL LIFE _________ NO 100% IYES - 5500 I NO NO I ANNUAL I MAXIMUM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X SALARY I $10,000 11 X SALARY i 520,000 510,000 510,000 I 510,000 1$10,000 HRLI 20K/TO 20 I 515,000 I1 X SALARY 1 1 1 I ISAL/3 X SALI25K/OVER 20 ITO 5100,000 100% I 100% I 100% 1 100% 100% 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% I 100% O% I O% 1 0% 1 0% 0% 0% 1 0% 1 0% 1 0% 1 0% I YES I NO 1 -YES 1 NO 1 - YES YES YES I YES I NO YES 1 NO CATEGORY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - 1988 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SURVEY EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER EMPLOYER A B C D E F G H I J K =___==== = = = = = DENTAL PLAN SINGLE COVERAGE EMPLOYEE PAYS EMPLOYER PAYS DEPENDENT COVERAGE EMPLOYEE PAYS EMPLOYER PAYS INCLUDED IN REGULAR HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN 11 11 0% 100% 0% 100% DEFERRED COMPENSATION NONE NONE 0% 100% 0% 100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 0% 100% 0% 100% OPTIONAL 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% TO MAXIMUM OF $500 YR 100% 0% TO MAXIMUM OF 5500`YR _ ======= INCLUDED IN REGULAR HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN 11 11 OPTIONAL OPTIONAL 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 1007. 0% 100% YES NO YES YES 1 NO YES NO I NO 1 YES 1 YES 1 YES _ EMPLOYEE 1 YES NO NO ' YES NO 1 YES 1 NO NO NO NO NO A S S I STANCE PLAN _ U N IFOR M S 1 1 1 I 1 EMPLOYEE PAYS 0 0 0 0 1 NO 1 0 50% 0 0 0 '$2.00 BI/NIC EMPLOYER PAYS 100% 1 100% 100% 100% UNIFORMS 1 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% CHILD CARE NO 1 NO NO 1 NO 1 NO 1 NO 1 NO 1 NO 1 NO I NO CAFETERIA PLAN NO _ NO 1 NO 1 NO 1 YES 1 NO YES NO 1 NO ( NO NO NO S ERVICE AWARDS YES 1 YES ' YES 1 YES 1 YES 1 YES 1 NO YES NO YES NO _ QUALITY CIRCLES 1 NO NO NO YES NO 1 YES 1 YES 1 NO 1 NO 1 NO 1 NO ____ SHIFT D I FF'T I A L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SECOND SHIFT ' NONE 0.16 15% OF BASE 1 0.10 ' NONE 110% OF BASE' NONE 0.25 I NONE 1 NONE 1 NONE THIRD SHIFT 1 NONE 0.21 15% OF BASE ' 0.15 1 NONE 115% OF BASE' NONE 0.25 1 NONE 1 NONE ' NONE _ == -==== = = = _ 1 Chairman Scurlock believed this survey shows that the only place there is a great disparity in the benefits package is on the dependent coverage. He asked what percentage of our employees have dependent coverage, and Director Blankenship believed that it is a substantial figure, at least 50% or more. He noted that we pay 90.8% of the dependent coverage. !he Chairman felt that would be one area to consider in terms of freezing the county's contribution for future increases to bring the single employee into line in comparison to the family. Director Blankenship agreed that in most organizations the employer pays an average of 50% for the dependent coverage where we are paying the lion's share. The Chairman felt we need to get some input from the employees on their feeling about insurance benefits as compared to higher pay. He pointed out that you don't pay taxes on the fringe benefits. Director Blankenship believed it would be a safe assumption to make on the basis of the recommendation of TPF&C, insofar as base salaries are concerned, that you can add 22% onto that as an additional benefit cost. He pointed out some of these costs are fixed and they won't change no matter what we do. Social Security still has to be paid - the retirement contribution has to be paid, and that is 20% right there. Then the only mandated costs which would increase are Workmen's Compensation and group life insurance, and those charges are minimal. Taxes are the things that kill us in a compensation program. Discussion on the plan in general followed, and the Chairman noted that on the summary of total points the Sheriff is a 746 and our Director of Emergency Services is 818. Director Blankenship noted that they didn't really survey the Sheriff, and Ms. Deeb advised that when she talked about job evaluation, they sat down with a representative from each of the APR 1988 20 B00K 72 PAGE 153 Constitutionals to walk through the plan; the Constitutionals, however, went back and evaluated the jobs themselves. Chairman Scurlock asked about the County Attorney and the Administrator, and Director Blankenship advised they were not included in the scope of the study because both positions are contractual work. The Chairman asked about the Budget Director who works directly for the Board now, and Director Blankenship stated that he was included in the study because at the time he was not working directly for the Board. Chairman Scurlock felt we will have to move him out of the study if we are going to be consistent. The only people who work directly for the Board are the Administrator, the Attorney, the OMB Director, and the Board's Administrative Aide, Mrs. Forlani, and to be consistent they should either all be included or all left out. Director Blankenship stated that is at the pleasure of the Board. We can either include or exclude very easily because of the way the system is now built. Chairman Scurlock commented that if we accept the consultant's recommendation it looks as if we will freeze some administrative salaries and raise the minimums. Ms. Deeb advised that she had not finished with her presen- tation re employees over the maximum. She noted that one alternative they did not include was to reduce salaries, and she did not feel that should even be considered. The recommendation they are making is to grant the cost-ot-living across-the-board increase even to employees above their maximum, but do it on a pro -rated lump sum basis throughout the year. This does not constitute an increase to their base salary and it does ensure that the market value of someone's compensation does not erode. Commissioner Eggert noted that we have key positions we have had trouble filling and asked if under this classification those salaries are now high enough to attract qualified people. 21 APR 211988 BOOK 72 PATE 154 Director Blankenship believed they are. Chairman Scurlock stated that in regard to administrative salaries, he has a philosophy of attracting the best you can because they have the ability to save the county significant money. He believed Administrator Balczun gets good money and, therefore, felt we can demand a lot. The Chairman believed the next step is that Board members now will have a chance to study this as a Commission and decide what to implement, and he also believed we have Union negotiations coming up at some point. Director Blankenship advised that sequence now is to sit down formally with the Union and present this plan to them because it is in last year's contract. The Fire District is not included because there is one more year under their contract. Chairman Scurlock commented that in looking at the study and the way it has been approached, he felt more comfortable than he ever has. He noted that he would like additional information as to what the numbers would be to implement this year based on a 60% or 55% approach rather than 50%, and Ms. Deeb confirmed they can do that, but she was concerned that there will not be the differential you might expect in the percentages. The Chairman felt our employees might feel better that we are taking a better than middle approach. Administrator Balczun advised that there is another step which has not been touched on, and that is the manner in which we handle that group of employees which is going to feel aggrieved by the new plan for one reason or another. Ms. Adkins took the floor and went over the following review process: APR 2 1 1988 22 BOOK .72 GE l55 REVIEW PROCESS Types of Requests for Review • Classification Allocation - Employee may request review • Classification Design - Only managers can request review • Grade Assignment - Only managers can request review • Implementation - Questions addressed; reviews not conducted Guidelines • Employee discusses concerns with immediate supervisor first. • Employee may then complete Request for Review Form. ▪ Form developed by Personnel ▪ Employee section stating facts which support the need for review - Supervisor section to be completed confirming agreement/disagreement with those facts • Personnel reviews Original JDQ, job specifications and request form. Personnel discusses request with employee and supervisor, and Personnel prepares written response. • Time frame for requests for review ▪ Employee has fifteen days from official notification of new classification to file written request for review. ▪ Personnel has 60 days from receipt of request to provide written response. 23 APR 2 1 1988 BOOK 72 FACE 156 Ms. Adkins noted that the way you deal with this - which issue you entertain from an employee andwhich from managers - is a policy decision and the Board must set some criteria; however, unless there is some outstanding reason an employee feels they cannot go to their supervisor, that should be where they go first. Then, if the employee feels they haven't gotten a sufficient answer, they should complete a request for review, which goes to Personnel. Ms. Adkins continued that this is in essence a type of appeal process, and really the first issue in dealing with a request for review is to decide what kinds of issues are appealable. Their recommendation would be that you deal with allocation issues from employees and with grade issues and classification design issues from managers because those are bigger picture issues. They believe there should be a specific fairly limited time frame for employees to state their request, and they are recommending a 15 day period from the official notification of the change in the classification and then a 60 day time frame for Personnel to review. Commissioner Eggert asked if the 15 days is after they have gone to the supervisor first because she did not feel 15 days is enough to go to a supervisor and get something out of that and then.turn around and write a request to Personnel. If there is a problem with the supervisor, it is easy to "stone wall" 15 days. Ms. Adkins agreed they could make the request period longer, but typical employers make it as short as possible. She felt 30 days would be reasonable. Commissioner Eggert stated that she would rather see a set time period for the supervisor to respond, possibly five days or so, and then 15 days after that for the employee to go to Personnel, and Ms. Adkins felt that would be reasonable. Commissioner Bird asked if they anticipated these reviews taking place before the Board adopts this plan in its final form. He agreed with the Chairman that he is the most comfortable with 24 APR 21X988 LOOK 72 I [ 157 this study of any we have had done, but he wanted the employees to share our confidence and felt possibly we should get their input before the plan is adopted. Commissioner Eggert suggested that we approve it conceptu- ally subject to review, but Personnel Director Blankenship pointed out that if it isn't adopted, there is nothing to appeal. Commissioner Wheeler inquired about the percentage who use the review process, and Ms. Adkins stated that is related to several factors but generally it would not be more than 5%. Ms. Adkins then went over the last important component of the system, which is maintenance: MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM • Develop new job classes or revise classes as IRC functions change e Evaluate new classifications consistent with current evaluations • Review individual position descriptions and classification allocations when there are significant changes in duties and responsibilities • Adjust the structures annually, consistent with market movement Commissioner Bird asked what the anticipated life span of this plan is, and Director Blankenship advised that the termin- ology is that it is a living document and our staff has been trained to maintain it. Administrator Balczun confirmedthat the intent was to create something we could use over and over and train employees to maintain it. Commissioner Eggert assumed that we have in writing a detailed description of each classification, and Director Blankenship advised that data was delivered to us today and we also will get it on computer cassettes. 25 APR 211988 !IMF �� ' f'" F 158 This concluded the presentation, and it was asked if there were any questions. Finance Director Fry, speaking for Clerk Freda Wright, wished to know who is going to maintain the plan for the Constitutional Officers. He noted that they have not been privy to all the discussion Personnel has had with the consultants and asked if Personnel will assume this responsibility for the Constitutionals. Director Blankenship felt that would be one way of main- taining consistency throughout. He suggested that Finance Director Fry could be the contact and say, for instance, we have a new job which should be evaluated, and Personnel would do it. Commissioner Bird asked when we have a problem filling a particular job category, if Personnel checks into this to see why we are having a hard time filling that position. Director Blankenship advised that Personnel recently started conducting exit interviews, and pay was the most important factor. People look at the total net wages they receive every week. There were some general questions about the minimum wage law, and there being no further questions, the meeting adjourned at 3:05 o'clock P.M ATTEST: ak4a--01L- Clerk Chairman APP 21 1988 26 !IOU. 72 FE 159