New City of Dallas’ Philosophy/Overview on Workforce Strategies · 2015. 1. 20. · FY07/08...

1

City of DallasCity of Dallas’’Philosophy/OverviewPhilosophy/Overview

on Workforce Strategieson Workforce Strategies

Briefing to City CouncilFebruary 6, 2008

2

Guiding PrinciplesGuiding Principles

• Employee pay/benefits should be competitive in the labor market in order to attract and retain a well qualified workforce

• Employees should be able to purchase health care coverage at reasonable prices

• Employees’ performance should be rated and pay increases tied to performance

• Employees have a right to fair treatment in the workplace and a process to grieve personnel issues

3

Briefing OverviewBriefing Overview1. Workforce Demographics – 2. Health Care Overview – Page 153. Employee Pay – Page 274. Total Compensation Studies

and Overview – Page 41• Police pay Comparison• Fire Pay Comparison• Civilian Pay Comparison

5. Performance Appraisal Overview – Page 636. Grievance and Appeal Procedures – Page 72

4

Workforce DemographicsWorkforce Demographics

5

WorkforceWorkforce CharacteristicsCharacteristics

Averages for FY 06-07:• Number of employees

• Full-time 12,267 • Number has remained consistent over last 3

years• Average Years of service: 13.1• Average Age: 43.6• Average Base Salary

• Civilian: $40,177• Sworn: $60,061

6

FY07/08 Budgeted Compensation Cost FY07/08 Budgeted Compensation Cost

• General Fund budget = $1,043,419,419

• Total Personnel Costs = $812,339,162 • Salaries & Other Compensation = $649,048,329 • Pension = $113,654,870 • Benefits = $39,540,487 • Workers Comp = $9,462,449 • Unemployment Insurance = $633,027• Uniform Pension = $98,515,953• Civilian Pension = $15,138,917

Personnel costs are 78% of the General Fund Budget

7

Our employees areOur employees are……• Predominantly male:

49.6%29.7%Female50.4%70.3%Male

Dallas County2000 Census

City Employees

• Mostly working in operations & field jobs:• Mostly working in operations & field jobs:Prof/

TechnicalOperations/

FieldMgt/Supv.Admin.

99%1%Sworn

16.5%63.5%4%16%Civilians

This data is for all uniformed and civilian employees

8

Across the organization COD Across the organization COD employees are diverse:employees are diverse:

34.6%

41.3%

Caucasian

0.7%0.5%2.7%35.6%25.9%

Dallas County 2000

Census

Employees 0.5%0.9%1.9%21.7%33.7%

Not Disclosed

Native American

AsianHispanicAfrican American


9

Civilian employees are diverse in all Civilian employees are diverse in all salary categories:salary categories:

0.2%0.0%5.4%10.8%24.7%58.4%166Unassigned Category

Executive Management

Sr. Professional & Manager

Professional & Supervisory

Entry to Mid-Level

Total Civilian Employees

Employees

0.6%0.5%1.1%35.4%44.4%17.9%4061

0.07%0.8%3.3%16.9%36.9%41.4%3432

0.0%0.5%7.6%10.6%24.9%56.4%369

0.0%0.0%0.0%12.9%22.6%64.5%31

31.9%

Caucasian

8459 0.6%0.01%2.6%25.1%39.1%

Not Disclosed

Native American

AsianHispanicAfrican American

10

Overall Years of ServiceOverall Years of Service

0.00%0.01%5.1%9.3%13.3%12.1%12.8%17.1%30.2%

06-07

0%0.00%0.16% 50+-0.13%0.14%0.1%40-49+0.30%4.8%4.9%30-39+0.01%9.2%8.8%25-29-1.2%14.5%14.9%20-24-0.80%12.9%13.9%15-19-0.30%13.1%13.0%10-14-2.0%19.1%20.0%5-9+3.9%26.3%24.3%<5

% Change05-0604-05Years of Svc.The majority of employees have more than five years of service.


11

Turnover TrendsTurnover Trends……

Turnover10 Year History

8.7%

10.6% 10.8%11.6%

9.3%

16.3%

12.1%12.8% 13.1%

11.4%

7.2%8.2% 8.4%

9.1%

7.5%

11.4%

8.5% 8.8%9.8%

8.7%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

CIVILIAN

SWORN

CITYWIDE

We believe the spike in turnover in 2002 is due to two things:

1) A change in the way sick leave was paid out. Employees feared that the sick leave payout would be eliminated altogether

2) Change in the Service Incentive Pay (SIP) calculation


12

Turnover by Dept 06/07Turnover by Dept 06/07

35.61%Mayor and Council

14.16%Library

0.00%Judiciary

9.82%Human Resources

13.37%Housing

16.24%Fire - Civilian

7.62%Financial Services

5.35%Equipment & Building Services

12.47%Environmental & Health Services

5.24%Employee Retirement Fund

9.70%Development Services

9.44%Court Detention Services

2.97%Convention & Event Services

8.48%Communication & Information Services

13.84%Code Compliance

0.00%Civil Service

25.21%City Secretary's Office

6.65%City Manager's Office

14.02%City Auditor's Office

17.69%City Attorney's Office

19.46%Business Development & Procurement

2.013%Aviation

TurnoverDepartment TurnoverDepartment

8.06%Citywide

4.85%Uniform4.98%Police Uniformed

4.62%Fire - Uniformed

9.99%Civilian Overall Turnover 10.48%Water Utilities

7.26%Street Services

10.82%Sanitation Services

7.21%Public Works

0.00%Police & Fire Pension

6.32%Police Civilian

10.25%Park and Recreation

18.56%Office of Environmental Quality

0.00%Office of Emergency Management

14.26%Office of Economic Development

1.65%Office of Cultural Affairs

The industry standard suggests that healthy organizations have overall turnover rates no less than 4% but no greater than 10%.

13

Terminations by TypeTerminations by Type

62893

4157

2231991,022

FY 05-06

FY 05-06

FY05-06

FY 06-07

FY 06-07

FY06-07

531090Police Unif.

44726Fire Unif.

128140526Civilian

RetirementsInvoluntary Terminations

Voluntary Terminations

Voluntary terminations from 05-06 to 06-07 decreased due to expiration of seasonal assignment

14

Citywide Retirement EligibilityCitywide Retirement Eligibility

• Total retirement eligibility is cumulative (i.e., 05-06 plus 06-07 plus 07-08, etc.)

------104441Fire Sworn (actual)

------135362Police Sworn (actual)

64399214019312611339891032Police Sworn (eligible)

315237233640835802791Fire Sworn (eligible)

2862953193393173531000806962Civilians(eligible)

-

13-14

-

12-13

----26140223Civilians(actual)

11-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-06FY

Each year more employees become eligible for retirement…

15

Health Care OverviewHealth Care Overview

16

• Affordable health care coverage should be available to employees

• Employees contributing to the health care costs makes them better consumers

• The Health Benefits program should include programs to encourage healthy life style choices.

Health Care PhilosophyHealth Care Philosophy

17

Health Care Trends in the National MarketHealth Care Trends in the National Market• Double-digit increases in health care expenses

• Increased cost of medical services (e.g., new technology)• Richer mix of services per visit (redundancy through bundled services)• Heightened demand for medical services

• Increased access to and increasing supply of medical information• Members not engaged as value-conscious consumers

• Rapidly increasing prescription drug costs• Increase of single-source drugs (no generic equivalent)• Direct advertising to consumers creating more demand

• Consolidation of payors and providers• Fewer choices to employers• Bargaining power of consolidated providers (demand higher

reimbursements)

Source: Deloitte Consulting Employer Health Care Strategy Survey 2005

18

Prescription drugs23%

Increased utilization22%

Benefit Design21%

Aging workforce11%

Other9%

High catastrophic claims14%


Factors driving cost increases in the Factors driving cost increases in the national marketnational market

19

Other4%

Contracting with lowercost health plans9%

Plan design changes45%

Limiting health plan choices1%

Raising employeecontributions20%

Assisting employees to becomebetter consumers of health care21%


Industry strategies for controlling Industry strategies for controlling health care costshealth care costs

20

• Prior to 1983, City paid 100% of employee premium

• In 1983, insured HMO option added

• In 1990, Preferred Provider Organization added

• From 1990 through 2000, member premiums were unchanged• Member: $0/month• Member + 1: $51/month• Member + 2 or more: $63/month

• Throughout 1990s healthcare costs increased

HistoryHistory

21

The CityThe City’’s Health Care Trends during the 2000s Health Care Trends during the 2000’’ss• Since FY00/01, the City of Dallas has implemented a number of cost saving strategies with the

guidance of the Employee Benefit Committee and Deloitte serving as the City’s health care consultant

• In 2004 the City contracted with Humana Health Care to serve as the Third Party Administrator and the cost per claims were increasing at an enormous rate

• During the FY05/06 the City authorized the Deloitte Consulting to conduct a comparison of Third Party Administrators

Result:The City contracted with United Health Care as the TPA and reduced the cost per claim and avoided $10m in health care cost for FY06/07

• The 2006 Health Care Taskforce recognizes the City’s Health Care Cost Sharing plan is below the public sector organizations statewide but on par with private sector organizations and encourages the City to stay the course to include:

• Modifying benefits as needed• Continue the Wellness program initiatives

• There are challenges with comparing one City’s health care benefit design to include such factors as deductibles, out of pocket cost, prescription designs and other elements of plan designs may differ

• Many large cities are faced with double digit health care increases. The chart on the next page compares the City of Dallas to the City of Houston


22

Health Care Cost Sharing ComparisonHealth Care Cost Sharing Comparison

$251.0 66.0$185.0 $90.2 $42.1 $48.1 07/08

$228.0 63.0$175.0 $90.2 $42.1 $48.1 06/07

$213.0 47.0$166.0 $88.7 $42.1 $46.6 05/06

$198.0 40.0$158.0 $88.7 $42.1 $46.6 04/05

$169.0 23.0$146.0 $65.2 $28.6 $36.6 03/04

Total

EE &Retiree

AmtCity

AmtTotal

EE &Retiree

AmtCity

Amt

FiscalYear

HoustonDallas

Total Budget for Employee Benefits (In Millions)

23

CityCity’’s WellAware Programs WellAware Program• The WellAware Program is designed to

improve the health status of our employees, retirees, and their dependents one person at a time. We endeavor to accomplish this goal through:

• Providing access to preventive care services, resources and tools

• Conducting educational seminars and health fairs

• Access to fitness centers and nutrition programs

• Identifying intervention and behavioral change programs to reduce risk factors

City of DallasWellAware Program Design

Wellness Resources

DiseaseManagement

Health Fair

Fitness Centers

Education and

Awareness

ProgramIncentive

Health Risks

AppraisalsHealth

Screenings

24

WellAware ProgramWellAware Program• WellAware Program Accomplishments for FY07/08

• Established a WellAware Committee that was representative of the City’s population with 26 members from 17 departments

• Conducted a Health and Lifestyle Expo with approximately 50 vendors to educate our employees• Participated in a 4-week Start! Walking at Work Program through the American Heart Association

• 2,543 employees walked 88,075 miles• Awarded the Gold Fit-Friendly designation through the American Heart Association

• WellAware Upcoming Programs for FY08/09Designed to engage , increase awareness, and encourage behavioral change within our population

• The City will be creating its own chapter of Taking Off Pounds Sensibly (TOPS) weight management program

• Incorporating a reward incentive program, WellAware Points to encourage behavioral change• Promote the WellAware Programs discounted rate of $75.00 per year for the City’s Park and

Recreation facilities• Promote intervention programs in the area of Hypertension, Diabetes, and Obesity• Hold Screening the following screenings to promote early detection:

• Osteoporosis, Prostate, Stroke, Mammography, Blood Pressure• Applying for Well Workplace Certification through the Wellness Councils of America

25

Our Shared Challenge

2008 Industry Trends for medical cost:

10% increase each year!

Our Shared Goal“Reduce medical cost trend to a single digit”

Our Shared Solution

“Affordability through equity and partnership”

26

Preliminary Health Plan OutlookPreliminary Health Plan Outlook(Prepared by Deloitte Consulting (Prepared by Deloitte Consulting –– 2008)2008)

$90.2 M

$15M

$75.2 M

FY 07-08 Projected

99.2$90.2 M$88.7 MTotal

16.5$17.0 M$15.3 MEPO

$78.6 M

FY 06-07 Actual

82.7$73.4 MUHC PPO

FY 08-09 Preliminary

Outlook

FY 05-06 Actual

A. The above projections do not include any changes to current plan design, delivery systems, or funding mechanisms. Based on 12,018 enrolled PPO employees, and 2,500 enrolled EPO employees.

PPO: Stands for Preferred Provider Organization. This type of health insurance is a managed care organization of medical doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers who have covenanted with United Healthcare to provide health care at reduced rates to the City of Dallas employees.

EPO: Stands for Exclusive Provider Organization. This is a type of health insurance plan that offers in-network coverage only. Enrollees must select in-network providers when seeking medical care, services, or treatment. No referrals are required in order to access care.

B. EPO employees. Projections include: medical and pharmacy claims costs, carrier administration and fixed operating costs.

27

Employee PayEmployee Pay

28

Information on Employee PayInformation on Employee Pay

• City of Dallas employee rates pay has been compared to public and Private sector markets regularly

• The City has contracted with a vendor to compare all City positions to the market in years 2003 and 2006

• In general, the City has kept pace with other jurisdictions for base pay and most benefits

29

DefinitionsDefinitions• “CPI (Consumer Price Index)” - Measures the price change for a

constant market basket of goods and services from one period to the next within the same city (or in the Nation)• Example:

• In 1997, your salary was $30,000. Taking into account the CPI (or inflation), you would need $38,755 in 2007 to have the same purchasing power of that $30,000 you had in 1997

• “Real Income” - Income after taking into consideration the effects of inflation on purchasing power• Examples:

• If you received a 2% salary rise over the previous year and inflation for the year was 1%, then your real income only rose 1%

• Conversely, if you received a 2% raise in salary and inflation stood at 3%, then your real income would have shrunk 1%

30

Average Pay Increases compared to CPIAverage Pay Increases compared to CPI• In 1997 the average base salary for a civilian employee was

$23,495.

• If an employee who was at that wage received the average merit increases each year along with the market adjustments, their salary in January, 2008 would be $35,481.

• Alternatively, if that same employee received pay increases at the rate of inflation, their salary would be $30,453.

• Although there have been years where civilian employees have not been eligible for any pay increases, the combination of a low inflation rate coupled with regular merit increases and market adjustments resulted in salaries outpacing inflation by more than 21%.

• Note: The following analysis on the next page assumes no “promotional increases”. A promotional increase is an increase in pay based on an employee promoting into another position. This is typically an 8% increase in pay.

31

History of Civilian Pay IncreasesHistory of Civilian Pay Increases

With the exception of a few of years of difficult budget constraints, “average pay increases” have outpaced the “the inflation rate”.

Fiscal Year

Market Adjustments

Merit Range

Average Merit

Total Increase

(Avg)

Employee's Pay Using Average

Increases

Running Total Increase of Employee's Pay Using Average Increases

Dallas' Inflation

Rate*

Employee's Pay Using Inflation

Rate

Average Increase

Minus Inflation

Rate Increase

Running Total of Increase Employee's Pay Using

Inflation Rate

Running Total of Difference

Between Employee Pay Using Average Increase and Inflation Rate

Base Average Salary in 1997 $23,495 $23,49597-98 5% 0% to 6% 3.4% 8.40% $25,468.58 $1,973.58 1.70% $23,894.42 6.70% $399 $1,57498-99 3% 0% to 6% 3.95% 6.95% $27,238.65 $3,743.65 1.50% $24,252.83 5.45% $758 $2,98699-00 3% 0% 0% 3.00% $28,055.81 $4,560.81 2.90% $24,956.16 0.10% $1,461 $3,10000-01 10% 0% 0% 10.00% $30,861.39 $7,366.39 4.20% $26,004.32 5.80% $2,509 $4,85701-02 0% 0% 0% 0.00% $30,861.39 $7,366.39 3.50% $26,914.47 -3.50% $3,419 $3,94702-03 0% 0% 0% 0.00% $30,861.39 $7,366.39 1.30% $27,264.36 -1.30% $3,769 $3,59703-04 0% 0% 0% 0.00% $30,861.39 $7,366.39 2.00% $27,809.65 -2.00% $4,315 $3,05204-05 2% 0% to 4% 2% 4.00% $32,095.84 $8,600.84 1.40% $28,198.98 2.60% $4,704 $3,89705-06 0% 0% to 6% 3% 3.00% $33,058.72 $9,563.72 3.40% $29,157.75 -0.40% $5,663 $3,90106-07 0% 0% to 8% 4.2% 4.20% $34,447.18 $10,952.18 2.90% $30,003.32 1.30% $6,508 $4,44407-08 0% 0% to 6% 3% 3.00% $35,480.60 $11,985.60 1.50%

(Sept 06 to Sept 07)

$30,453.37 1.50% $6,958 $5,027

*Inflation rate based on the CPI for the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Salary Increase History History of Dallas’ Inflation Rate

32

Compensation Changes Compared to CPICompensation Changes Compared to CPI• The following charts show changes in employee pay over time

• The dark blue lines show actual changes

• The pink lines show what would have happened if CPI increases were given and benefits costs remained constant

• Salary analysis based on the 1997 average base salary for civilian employees ($23,495)

• The analysis assumes no “promotional increases”. A promotional increase is an increase in pay based on an employee promoting into another position. This is typically an 8% increase in pay.

33

Compensation Changes Compared to CPICompensation Changes Compared to CPI• The chart on the following pages compares the change in base pay

based on average increases employees received (blue line) to thechange in pay if using CPI (pink line)

• It does not include any changes to benefits costs

• The second chart on the following page reflects increases in theemployees’ contributions to the Employee Retirement Fund (ERF)

• The pink line uses CPI increases and keeps the ERF contribution rate at the 1997 level

• The third and fourth charts on the following page reflects increased ERF costs and the increases to health care contributions

• The pink line uses CPI increases and keeps the ERF contribution rate and health care costs at their 1997 levels

34

Pay Change Using CityPay Change Using City’’s Average s Average Increases vs. Increases using CPIIncreases vs. Increases using CPI

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

StartingRate

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

Fiscal Year

Sala

ry

Salary Changes UsingAverage Increases

Salary Change Using InflationRate

$23,495

Applying Average Increases

Applying Increases at the Rate of Inflation

$35,481

$30,453

By applying the City’s average pay increases, employees pay increased 21% more than it would had pay increased at the rate of inflation.

From 1997 to 2007, “Real Income”increased by 16.5%

35

Cost Increases for Employee Benefits• During this time frame, employee contributions to the Employee

Retirement Fund (ERF) increased

• Health benefits costs also increased

• The following charts show the impact of these increased costs on salaries

Fiscal YearEmployee

Contribution RateCity Contribution

Rate97-98 5.00% 8.5000%98-99 5.00% 8.5000%99-00 5.00% 8.5000%00-01 5.75% 9.7500%01-02 6.50% 11.0000%02-03 6.50% 11.0000%03-04 6.50% 11.0000%04-05 6.50% 11.0000%05-06 9.03% 15.3754%*06-07 9.03% 15.3754%*07-08 8.40% 14.31%*

* City Contribution Rate beginning in 2005 includes includes a 'bond debt rate'.

36

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Startin

g Rate

97-98

98-99

99-00

00-01

01-02

02-03

03-04

04-05

05-06

06-07

07-08

FY

Sala

ry

Average Pay Minus ActualERF Contributions

Salary Change with ERFContributions at 1997 Rate(using inflation rate)

Applying Average Pay Increases and Employee ERF Contribution Rate

$22,320

$32,500

$28,931

Applying CPI and Using 1997 ERF Rate

Pay Change (Minus Actual ERF Costs) with CityPay Change (Minus Actual ERF Costs) with City’’s s Average Increases vs. Increases using CPI and the Average Increases vs. Increases using CPI and the

1997 ERF Rate1997 ERF RateEven with increased contributions to the ERF, employee pay increased faster than the rate of inflation.

The “Real Income” growth is 12.3% when taking into account changes to ERF contributions.

37

Pay Change (Minus Actual ERF and Health Care Costs) using Pay Change (Minus Actual ERF and Health Care Costs) using CityCity’’s Average Increases versus Increases using CPI and the s Average Increases versus Increases using CPI and the 1997 ERF and 1997 ERF and ““Employee OnlyEmployee Only”” Health Benefits RatesHealth Benefits Rates

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

StartingRate

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

Salary Using Average PayIncreases and Actual Costs(ERF & Health)

Salary Change (using InflationRate) with ERF ContributionsEmployee Health Care Costs atthe 1997 Rate

$22,320

Applying Average Pay Increases and Employee ERF Contribution Rates along with "Employee Only" health care coverage

Applying CPI and Using 1997 ERF and Health Care Contribution Rates

$28,931

$31,804

This year , 57% of the 9,903 employees enrolled in the City’s health plan selected the “Employee Only” option for health care coverage

Depending on the health plan an employee selected, their costs narrowed the gains realized from regular pay increases.

For an employee choosing the “Employee Only” health care coverage, the growth in real income was just under 10%.

38

Pay Change (minus actual ERF and health care costs) using Pay Change (minus actual ERF and health care costs) using CityCity’’s Average Increases versus Increases using CPI and the s Average Increases versus Increases using CPI and the 1997 ERF and 1997 ERF and ““Employee & ChildrenEmployee & Children”” health care costshealth care costs

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

StartingRate

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

Salary Using Average PayIncreases and Actual Costs(ERF & Health)

Salary Change (using InflationRate) with ERF ContributionsEmployee Health Care Costs atthe 1997 Rate

$21,564

Applying Average Pay Increases and Employee ERF Contribution Rates along with "Employee & Children" health care coverage

Applying CPI and Using 1997 ERF and Health Care Contribution Rates

$28,175

$30,820 For an employee choosing the “Employee and Children” option for health care coverage, the growth in real income was 9.4%

This year, 23% of the 9,903 employees selected the “Employee and Children” option for health care coverage

39

Other Compensation Changes Other Compensation Changes During this Time FrameDuring this Time Frame

• Changed Service Incentive Pay Program• Service Incentive Pay (SIP) was created in 1973 to improve

retention of employees by rewarding long-term city service • Prior to 2002, employees with 5 year of service received SIP based

on a percentage of their salary and years of service • In 2002, the formula for SIP payment was changed:

• For employees, SIP went to a flat rate based on years of service• Civilian employees hired after September 30, 2002 were excluded from

receiving this benefit

• Many employees, especially long-tenured employees, experienced a significant decrease in their SIP

• Health Care Program Changes• In 2003, the in network out of pocket maximum increased from $2,000 to $2,500 for

individuals, $4,000 to $4,500 for families and $1,000 to $1,500 for prescriptions• In 2004, the City of Dallas eliminated in vitro fertilization as a benefit• In 2005, a limit of $5,000 was placed for bariatric surgery• In 2006, emergency services co-pay increased from $50 to $100• In 2007, the City of Dallas increased its co-pay percentages in tier-2 and tier-3

40

SummarySummary• Costs for employee benefits have

increased and narrowed, but not eliminated, the growth in real income

41

Total Compensation Studies Total Compensation Studies and and

OverviewOverview

42

What are the Components of Total What are the Components of Total Compensation?Compensation?

The City of Dallas’ total compensation package represents a significant investment by the City in its employees

The City believes that employees are a valuable resource, and itmust protect and support them by offering competitive pay and benefits. Our total compensation package is a comprehensive reward and recognition program highlights included:

• Base salary • Overtime Pay• Pension Plan• Health Benefits• Vacation Leave• Paid time off for sick leave • Holiday Leave• Tuition Reimbursement• Certification Pay• Education Pay• Performance increases • Shift differentials

43

City of Dallas Total Compensation City of Dallas Total Compensation Benchmark HistoryBenchmark History

• In 2003 the City contracted with The Hay Group to evaluate the City’s total compensation plan • The Review indicated that:

• City of Dallas employer-paid benefits are at the 25% percentileas compared to the public sector; however, it mirrors the private sectors benefits

• In 2004, the City Council appointed the “Dallas Employees’Retirement Fund Study Committee” to develop recommendations regarding the civilian pension fund • The ERF Study Committee recommended that the City:

• Maintain the current benefits offered by ERF• Maintain the cost-sharing ratio between City & employee

• Issue Pension Obligations Bonds to bring the fund to 100% funded• Increase City & employee contributions

• Automatic future adjustments to contribution levels based on actuarial studies

44

• In 2006 the City Manager Established a Compensation Taskforce

• In 2006 City Manager presented the plan to benchmark the City’s total compensation structure at a regular Council Briefing

• A taskforce was established and included Human Resources professionals from:• ACS• Southwest Airlines• TXU Energy• Texas Instruments• City of Plano• TD Industries , and • Staff from the City’s Human Resources Department

• Taskforce Scope of Work:• Evaluate the history of total compensation for the City of Dallas• Review all legal considerations regarding total compensation• Assess existing pay plans, benefits, incentives and cost to maintain the current structure• Study workforce statistics (aging workforce and pending retirements within the City)• Identify subject matter experts (SME’s) to benchmark data that compares with the City of Dallas’ total

compensation• Assist in the development of a total compensation philosophy, and assess the current package’s

effectiveness in supporting that philosophy• Incorporated the results within the Budgeting for Outcomes process

• The Taskforce requested citywide compensation data that would compare the City of Dallas to the competitive employment market.

45

• As a result of the Taskforce’s request, the City contracted with the Hay Group again to evaluate and compare the COD current rate of pay to the employment market place

• The focus of the study included: • Rates of Pay – Police/Fire/Civilian• Health Care Benefits• Special Pay• Leave

46

The Hay Group ConsultantThe Hay Group Consultant

Benchmarks Police PayBenchmarks Police Pay

47

Police Pay Compared to the MarketPolice Pay Compared to the Market• The following chart illustrates the City’s position in relation

to the public sector market for police.

• The dotted green line reflects the median of the market: half of public sector employers pay above this level, and half pay below this level.

• The blue line reflects the City’s average pay for the titles indicated along the bottom of the chart.

• The chart indicates the job titles where the City of Dallas falls below the market: Police Officer Trainee, Police Officer (1-7 yrs), and Deputy Chief.

48

City of Dallas - 2006Police Current Total Compensation

BASE SALARY + BENEFITS

$0

$25,000

$50,000

$75,000

$100,000

$125,000

$150,000

$175,000

$200,000

$225,000

0

Ann

ual D

olla

rs

25th Percentile

City of Dallas-200650th Percentile

75th PercentilePo

lice

Ofc

r Tra

inee

Serg

eant

Cap

t .ain

Dep

uty

Chi

ef

Ass

t. C

hief

Polic

eC

hief

Polic

eO

ffic

er

Sr. C

orp

Lieu

tena

nt

Police Officer TraineePolice Officer Years 1-7

Police Deputy Chief

The red circles indicate the job titles where the City of Dallas falls below the market:

This does not include: • The $6,000 Graduation Incentive Pay

(implemented Feb. 2006), or • The $4,000 Incentive Pay for Completion of

Probation and Trainee III Assignment (implemented April 2006)

49

Summary of Police Pay ComparisonSummary of Police Pay Comparison

• Police Officer Trainee and Police Officer Years 1-7 pay was below the market

Action Taken:• The City created a $5,000 Retention Incentive at 5 years

of service• The established a $4,000 Incentive Pay for Completion

of Probation and Trainee III Assignment (implemented April 2006)

• The City established a $6,000 Graduation Incentive Pay (implemented Feb. 2006)

• Deputy Police Chief salary ranges meet the market; however, the City has several recent appointees who were low in the salary range. It is common to see newly promoted officers pay to be below the market as they have opportunity to promote

50

The Hay Group ConsultantThe Hay Group Consultant

Benchmarks Fire PayBenchmarks Fire Pay

51

Fire Pay Compared to the MarketFire Pay Compared to the Market

• The following chart illustrates the City’s position in relation to the public sector market for fire

• The dotted green line reflects the median of the market: half of public sector employers pay above this level, and half pay below this level

• The blue line reflects the City’s average pay for the titles indicated along the bottom of the chart

• The red circle indicates the job titles where the City of Dallas falls below the market: Fire Rescue Officer Trainee

• Fire Rescue Officer Trainee data confirm what we already knew

52

City of Dallas - 2006Fire Current Total Remuneration Practice vs. Government Data

BASE SALARY + BENEFITS

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

Ann

ual D

olla

rs

25th Percentile

City of Dallas-200650th Percentile

75th Percentile

Fire

&R

escu

e O

ffice

r Tra

inee

Driv

erEn

g

Fire

Lie

ut.

Fire

Cap

t.

Dep

uty

Chi

ef

Asst

.C

hief

Fire

Chi

ef

Fire

& R

escu

eO

ffice

r

Batta

lion

Chi

ef

Fire Rescue Officer Trainee

The red circles indicate the job titles where the City of Dallas falls below the market:

53

Summary of Fire Pay ComparisonSummary of Fire Pay Comparison

• Fire Trainee is below the market but recruitment/retention is good. The Fire Administration reported the following

• In 2006 over 1,000 applicants for the Fire Fighter trainee• 477 candidates have taken the Civil Service exam for Fire

• 2005 turnover for Fire • Excluding retirements: 1.43% • Including retirements: 3.7%

• Figures indicate a need to monitor the number of officers who are eligible to retire in the near future

• In FY06/07 174 fire Fighters earned Certification pay. By the beginning of the current fiscal year an additional 577 fire officers obtained certification pay

54

Civilian Pay Compared to the Civilian Pay Compared to the Public & Private SectorPublic & Private Sector

• The chart on page 54 illustrates the City’s position in relation to the public and private sector market for civilian positions

• The dotted green line reflects the median of the market: half of employers pay above this level, and half pay below this level

• The blue line reflects the City’s average pay for the titles in four categories (see Appendix for list of job titles by category):

• Category 1: Entry to mid-level positions—pay grades A-E • Minimum salaries $16,982 - $28,252• Typical positions: Laborer, Office Assistant, 911/311 Call Taker, Customer

Service Representative, Code Enforcement Inspector, Water Meter Reader, Animal Control Officer, Painter, Computer Operator, Truck Driver

• Over 50% of the civilian employees are in this category• Salary ranges for jobs in this category are at the median of the market

55

Civilian Pay Compared to the Civilian Pay Compared to the Public & Private Sector (continued)Public & Private Sector (continued)

• Category 2: Professional/Supervisory—pay grades F-K • Minimum salaries $32,010 - $51,552• Typical positions: Accountant, Supervisor I & II, Inspector II, Executive Assistant, Electronic

Technician, Master Electrician, Engineer, Librarian, Sanitarian• 43.3% of civilian employees are in this category• Salary ranges for jobs in this category are slightly below the median of the market

• Category 3: Sr. Professional/Manager—pay grades L-P • Minimum salaries $56,707 - $83,025• Typical positions: Sr. Engineer, Sr. Architect, Manager III, IT Manager, Assistant Director• Approximately 5% of civilian employees are in this category• Salary ranges for these jobs are significantly below the median of the market

• Category 4: Executive Management—pay grades Q and above • Minimum salaries $91,327 & above• Typical positions: Director, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer, Assistant City

Manager • Approximately 1% of civilian employees are in this category• Salary ranges for these jobs are significantly below the median of the market

56

City of Dallas - 2006Civilian Current Base Salary Practice vs. General Industry Base Salary

BASE SALARY

$0

$25,000

$50,000

$75,000

$100,000

$125,000

$150,000

$175,000

$200,000

$225,000

Ann

ual D

olla

rs

25th Percentile

City of Dallas-2006

50th Percentile

75th Percentile

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

57

Summary of Hay StudySummary of Hay Study

• Compared to the private and public sector market, the City of Dallas average salaries in 2006 for • Category-1 were above the 50th percentile• Category-2 was slightly above the 25th percentile• Category-3 were below the 25th

• Category-4 were below the 25th

• At the time of the study there were some City positions in category-1 and category-2 positions below the market.

58

Civilian Pay Compared to the Civilian Pay Compared to the DFW Metroplex Cities and Large CitiesDFW Metroplex Cities and Large Cities

Metroplex Cities• Arlington• Carrollton• Ft. Worth• Irving• Garland• Grand Prairie• McKinney• Mesquite• Plano• Richardson

Large Cities• Austin• El Paso• Houston• San Antonio• Phoenix

This year the City conducted a study of similar positions using the same category positions as the Hay Consultant. The chart on the following page illustrates the City’s position in relation to the DFW Metroplex Cities and the Large Cities listed below

The purple bar reflects the Metroplex Cities, the yellow bar reflects the large Cities and the blue bar is the City of Dallas comparable wages

The blue bar reflects the City’s average pay for the titles in four categories (see Appendix for list of job titles by category)

Compared to other large cities, the City of Dallas average salaries in all categories are above the average salaries of the cities listed below, however the City of Dallas Salaries in Categories 1, 2 and 4 are below the average when compared to the Metroplex cities

59

City of Dallas - 2006Civilian Base Salary vs. DFW Metroplex Cities and Other Large Cities

BASE SALARY

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Category 4

DollarsCOD Avg Salary Metroplex Cities Other Large Cities: Austin, El Paso, Houston, San Antonio & Phoenix

Executive Management

Senior Professional / Manager

Professional / Supervisory

Entry to Mid-Level

60

Summary of 2008 Comparison of Summary of 2008 Comparison of Metroplex and Large CitiesMetroplex and Large Cities

• Compared to other large cities, the City of Dallas average salaries in all categories are above the average salaries of the cities listed

• However the City of Dallas Salaries in Categories 1, 2 and 4 are below the average when compared to the Metroplex cities

617,849

350.45%

97512.42%

138217.61%

224328.58%

281040.94%TOTALS

1 0 1 0 0 0 # EmployeesT

4 0 3 1 0 0 # EmployeesS

17 0 4 6 6 1 # EmployeesR

11 0 2 7 1 1 # EmployeesQ

43 0 8 19 8 8 # EmployeesP

12 0 2 2 5 3 # EmployeesO

69 1 30 27 5 6 # EmployeesN

184 2 18 57 67 40# EmployeesM

60 2 5 12 20 21 # EmployeesL

237 0 23 69 83 62 # EmployeesK

217 0 41 51 71 54 # EmployeesJ

495 5 65 100 171 154# EmployeesI

646 1 68 127 165 285# EmployeesH

624 7 88 128 141 260 # EmployeesG

1,182 1 150 210 308 513 # EmployeesF

742 4 136 151 206 245# EmployeesE

924 1 145 153 269 356# EmployeesD

1,449 3 102 187 424 733# EmployeesC

817 8 84 74 257 394 # EmployeesB

115 0 0 1 36 78 # EmployeesA

Total Number of Employees

AboveRange

4th

Quartile3rd

Quartile

2nd

QuartileCOD

Midpoint1st

QuartileGrade

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY QUARTILE

Category-1

Category-2

Category-3

Category-4

4047 (51.6%)

3401 (43.3%)

368 (4.7%)

33(0.4%

62

Study Results for Civilian PayStudy Results for Civilian Pay• The 2006 Total Compensation Taskforce recommended the following:

• Adjust the maximum of pay grades F thru T by 3% effective October 1, 2006

• Adjust the maximum of pay grades A thru E by 2% and adjust the minimum of pay grades F-T by 3% effective October 1, 2007

• Adjust the minimum of pay grade A-F by 2%, adjust the maximum of pay grade F-K by 2%, pay grade L-P by 3% and pay grade Q-T by 4% effective October 1, 2008

• The Study Results:• City of Dallas employer-paid health care benefits were just below

the market rate as compared to the public sector, however, they are at the market rate for the private sector

• Vacation and sick leave benefits were at the market rate as compared to the public sector and are above the minimum of the private sector

• Pension benefits were at the market rate

63

Performance Appraisal OverviewPerformance Appraisal Overview

64

Performance Appraisal OverviewPerformance Appraisal Overview

• The Performance Management System provides a means for motivating, planning, reviewing, and rewarding the performance of each employee

• Objectives of a Performance Management System are:• Motivating employees to achieve expectations• Rewarding employees for meeting or exceeding

expectations• Holding employees accountable for results

• Employees not meeting expectations are provided guidance and corrective measures

65

The CityThe City’’s Performance s Performance Appraisal System PhilosophyAppraisal System Philosophy

• The new performance appraisal system was implemented in FY04 – FY05

• From November 2004 to February 2005, the performance appraisal and employee management training was provided by Dick Grote to 1,000 managers and supervisors

• Among the civilian staff 6,083 non-uniform employees were evaluated by managers and supervisors. The Police and Fire continue to maintained their existing performance appraisal system

66

The CityThe City’’s Performance Appraisal System Philosophy s Performance Appraisal System Philosophy • Employees should be compensated based on performance to plan in a

particular year • Most employees do their job (and do a good job)• Some employees excel in a particular year as they exceed performance

standards in performance plan• Other employees, unfortunately, do not perform up to standards

• Reviewing employee performance requires that supervisors:• Establish clear expectations• Provide regular, clear feedback• Review employees’ performance against the expectations and against their

peers

• When done correctly, a “Bell Curve” should naturally occur…most do a good job, some are stellar and other are not.

• A variance of this curve indicates that supervisors either:• Have not established clear expectations in the employees’ performance plans• Are reluctant to truly review employee performance

67

2005 and 2006 Performance Appraisal Results2005 and 2006 Performance Appraisal ResultsFY04/05 Performance Appraisal Results

80

987

3964

993

890500

10001500200025003000350040004500

Unsatisfactory(1%)

Has Potential(16%)

Fully Successful(65%)

Superior (16%) Distinguished(2%)

Ratings

Em

ploy

ees

FY06 Performance Appraisal Results

60 68

4533

942

61

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Unsatisfactory(1%)

Has Potential(1%)

Fully Successful(80%)

Superior (17%) Distinguished(1%)

Ratings

Employ

ees

FY05 Performance Appraisal Results

11.0% 70.0%

696

4498

1024

8216%1.5% 1.3%1010

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Unsatisfactory Has Potential Fully Successful Superior Distinguished

Empl

oyee

1.5% 11.0 70.0% 16.0% 1.3%

68

Changes to the Performance Management SystemChanges to the Performance Management System• Pay for Performance Management Systems have to be reviewed on a

regular basis and change to reflect the needs of the organization.

• Two surveys of employees were conducted (05/06 and 06/07) to receive feedback on the System

• Changes implemented as a result of feedback from employees include:• Criteria for Merit Consideration for employees who were promoted or

transferred during the year:• In 2005 if an employee received a promotion during the FY, they did not receive a

merit increase that year. .Employees thought this was unfair Therefore, in FY07 the City changed it to allow an employee to receive both the promotional increase AND a merit increase in the same year (not to exceed 16% between the two)

• Employees hired after the beginning of the rating period are now eligible for a prorated merit based on their date of hire.

• It used to be that an employee was not eligible for a merit increase if they started anytime after the first day of the fiscal year. For instance, an employee starting work on October 15, 2005 would not receive a merit increase until January, 2007 – more than two years after they began work!

• Performance Rating Definitions expanded and redefined for Fiscal Year 07/08. (see definitions on next page)

69

Performance Evaluation DefinitionsPerformance Evaluation Definitions

FY06/07

• Distinguished• Superior

• Fully Successful

• Has Potential• Unsatisfactory

FY07/08

•Exceptional •Superior•Highly Successful•Fully Successful•Partially Successful•Needs Improvement•Unacceptable

Complete definitions may be found in the appendix on page 88

70

Performance Management Survey ResultsPerformance Management Survey Results• This is the second year we have gathered information about our

appraisal system from employees

• The questions were designed to ascertain if the evaluation form and the process were meeting our needs

• Refer to appendix 89 for questions and responses

• FY 06-07:1,785 Employees Participated All departments were represented. Water Utilities (16.9%), Library (10.4%), and Police (7.8%)were are largest participantsThe majority of participants were Professional and Technical (31.5%) and Supervisor and Managerial (29.7%)The high turnover tenure ranges were the best represented1-4 years (27.0%) and 5-9 years (14.9%)

71

Performance Management SummaryPerformance Management Summary

• The Performance Management System

• Helps drive efforts towards those goals that the Council has established• For example, all Performance Plans now have “Responsibilities”

that mirror the City Manager’s Responsibilities which mirrors the Council Key Focus Areas

• Helps the City establish and measure individual employees’performance

• Employee pay should be tied to performance

• Employees who are performing at a ‘fully successful’ level have realized real growth in their income over the past ten years

Feedback from the survey indicates that managers & supervisors needed more training and the Human Resources staff shall continue to provide training for supervisors on performance management implementation

• The City Manager is committed to receiving feedback and modifying the System as deemed necessary

72

Grievance and Appeal ProceduresGrievance and Appeal Procedures

CITY OF DALLAS ARTICLE 6 – SEC. 34-38

73

What is a GrievanceWhat is a Grievance……

Pursuant to Personnel Rule: 34-38(b)(1):

The grievance and appeal procedures described in this section are provided for the purpose of giving an employee the opportunity to:

(1) present a grievance concerning the employee’s working conditions that the employee claims have been adversely affected by a violation, misinterpretation, or misapplication of a specific law, ordinance, resolution, policy, rule, or regulation; or

(2) appeal a disciplinary action

For purposes of this section, the focus is grievances

74

City of DallasCity of Dallas’’ Grievance ProcessGrievance ProcessStep 1:An employee who has a grievance shall, within 10 working days from the date of the occurrence request in writing a discussion of the grievance with the employee’s immediate supervisor. The employee must also send a copy of the grievance to the department of human resources

A careful review of the charges and evidence or of the action or omission will be conducted by the department or Human Resources Department. The supervisor/or Human Resources representative shall respond in writing to the employee, stating the disposition of the grievance, within 10 working days after the discussion

Step 2:If a grievance is not resolved, the employee must, within 10 working days after receipt of the supervisor's written disposition of a grievance, submit a written request for a hearing to the person designated to hear the grievance at this level

Step 3:If the issue is not resolved in Step 2, the employee may, within 10 working days after receipt of the disposition in the previous step, submit a written request for a hearing to the department director

Step 4:If a grievance or an appeal is still not resolved and the employee wishes to proceed to Step 4, the employee must, within 10 working days after receipt of the disposition in the previous step submit a written request for a hearing to the designated assistant city manager, in care of the director of human resources of the city. If the employee introduces new and relevant evidence in a timely manner at this step, the assistant city manager may recess the hearing for 10 working days to give the department an opportunity to assess the evidence and re-examine its position

75

Steps To AppealSteps To AppealThe disciplinary appeal steps parallel the grievance steps**:

1. Employee may contact the Human Resources Generalist assigned to their department for assistance;

2. Employee submits written request for appeal hearing within 10 working days of disciplinary notice to the person designated to hear the appeal in the disciplinary notice;

3. Appeal must contain the type of discipline being appealed, effective date, specific reason the discipline is judged to be unjust or in error, the remedy or solution, and employee’s signature;

4. Employee presents evidence at the hearing;

5. Hearing officer issues a finding within 10 working days;

6. Employee may appeal reprimands up to the Department Director; and suspensions, demotions, and terminations up to an Assistant City Manager;**

7. Employees covered by Civil Service may appeal demotions and terminations up to a Civil Service Trial Board or Administrative Law Judge

**The exception is uniformed police appeals of terminations which are heard by the City Manager

76

Steps to Appeal Performance RatingsSteps to Appeal Performance Ratings

1. Employees choosing to appeal their performance appraisal may contact the Human Resource Generalist assigned to their department;

2. Employees complete a Performance Appraisal Appeal form and attach a copy of their completed Performance Appraisal;

3. Employees have two appeal levels: Level 1 (Reviewer) or Level 2 (Department Director);

4. Employees submit the form and attachments within 10 working days from the day they were informed of their rating;

5. Reviewer schedules a hearing for the employee to present additional information about their performance;

6. Reviewer renders a decision within 10 working days;

7. Employee may proceed to level 2 if necessary (if the Department Director is level 1, the employee may appeal to the Assistant City Manager over their department)

77

Civilian Employee Grievance Procedure CommitteeCivilian Employee Grievance Procedure Committee

• The Human Resources Department has established the “Civilian Employee Grievance Procedure Committee” to evaluate the Article VI; Section 34-38 (Grievances) of the City Code

• Members include representatives of Civilian Employee Associations, Management staff, City Attorney’s Office and Human Resources staff

• The Committee’s scope of work shall include:• Reviewing the Grievance Procedures by steps• Reviewing Grievances by type citywide• Providing recommendations to the City Manager by March

3, 2008

78

Sampling of Strategies Sampling of Strategies Under Review for FY08/09Under Review for FY08/09

• Establish a Onsite Clinic for employees to provide Preventative Services

• Reimburse employees for certifications

• Continuously evaluate hard to fill positions and seek strategiesto attract, recruit and retain employees

• Provide a $300 stipend to Category-1 employees’ within their Flexible Spending Account (FSA)

• Review Grievance Procedures

• Continue the performance review process and provide continuous improvement

• Continue to monitor positions that fall significantly below the market rate

79

AppendixAppendix

• List of jobs by category and title• History of pay increases since 1966• Civilian Salary Schedule• Additional Workforce Demographics• Glossary of Terms

80

Job TitleG

radeJob Title

Grade

PageA

Planning TechnicianD

Animal Keeper

BPolice C

adetD

Cashier

BSr Anim

al KeeperD

Com

munity Service W

orkerB

Sr Carpenter

DC

ustodianB

Sr Maint W

kr - Clim

ate Control

DLaborer

BSr M

aint Wkr - W

ater Utilities

DM

onorail Guide

BSr M

aintenance Worker

DO

ffice AssistantB

Sr Roofer

DParking Attendant

BSr Truck D

riverD

Recreation C

enter AssistantB

Surveyor AssistantD

StorekeeperB

Therapeutic Rec Asst

DTrades H

elperB

911 Call Taker

ETruck D

riverB

AbstractorE

Water M

eter Reader

BAnim

al Research Technician

EAnim

al Keeper IIC

Auto Body Repairer II

EApprentice W

ater Plant O

perC

CAD

TechE

Carpenter

CC

ollectorE

Com

puter Operator

CC

rew Leader

EC

ourt SpecialistC

Crew

Leader-Signs & Markings

EC

ustomer Svc R

epC

Crim

e TechnicianE

Equipment O

peratorC

Drafter

EH

VAC M

echanicC

Executive SecretaryE

Laborer IIC

Financial Specialist

ELead C

ustodianC

Fuel Transport Operator

EM

achinistC

GIS Support Technician

EM

echanicC

Mechanic II

EPlum

berC

Mechanic II - Auto Services

EPolice Auto Pound Attendant

CM

echanic II - Heavy

EPress O

peratorC

Metering S

pecialistE

Public Service Officer

CPesticide Applicator

ER

ecreation Program Specialist

CPolice R

eport Representative

ER

ooferC

Pool Mechanic

ESign Fabricator

CR

adio Announcer - W

RR

ESr C

omm

unity Service Worker

CSanitarian Trainee

EStorekeeper II

CSecurity O

fficerE

Truck Driver II

CSr C

ourt SpecialistE

Water Field R

epresentativeC

Sr Custom

er Service Rep

E911 C

all Taker TraineeD

Sr Irrigation TechnicianE

Animal Services O

fficerD

Sr Legal SecretaryE

Audiovisual TechnicianD

Sr Parking Enforcement O

fficerE

Branch Delivery Assistant

DSr Storekeeper

EC

ourt Specialist IID

Sr Welder

EC

ustomer Svc R

ep IID

Veterinary Assistant

ED

etention Officer

DVeterinary Technologist

EElectrician Assistant

DW

ater Field Representative II

EElectronic Technician Asst

DW

ater Meter R

eading Rep

EEnvironm

ental SpecialistD

Heavy E

quipment O

peratorD

Inspector - Code

DLicensed Vocational N

urseD

Office Assistant II

DO

ffice Assistant II - WR

RD

PainterD

Parking Enforcement O

fficerD

CATEG

OR

Y 1

81

Job TitleG

radeJob Title

Grade

AccountantF

Arborist

GAdm

in Hearing O

fficerF

Casew

orkerG

Asst Greens S

uperintendentF

Certified Technician

GBailiff

FC

oordinator - Aviation

GBuyer

FC

oordinator - Events/M

edia Rel

GC

omm

unity Outreach R

epF

Coordinator - G

eneralG

Com

puter Operator II

FC

oordinator - Recreation

GC

ontract Com

p Adm

inistratorF

Coordinator - W

RR

GC

ouncil Secretary

FC

ourt Specialist S

upervisorG

Crim

e Scene Technician

FE

nvironmental S

pecialist IIIG

Deputy C

ity Marshal

FFair H

ousing Conciliator

GD

esign Technician IIF

Forensic Video SpecialistG

Display Artist

FH

R Analyst

GElectrician

FH

uman R

esources Assistant

GElectronic Technician

FInspector III - B

ldg InspectG

Environmental Specialist II

FInspector III - C

odeG

Fair Housing Investigator

FInspector III - G

eneralG

Hazardous W

aste InspectorF

Inspector III - TransportationG

Inspector II - Code

FInstructor

GInspector II - E

nv/Hlth S

vcsF

Loan Services R

epresentativeG

Inspector II - General

FN

utritionistG

Inspector II - Housing

FP

lannerG

Inspector II - Public Projects

FP

olice Research S

pecialistG

Inspector II - TransportationF

Sanitarian

GInspector II - W

ater Mains

FS

r Design Technician

GInspector II - W

ater Utilities

FSr Electronic Technician

GLibrary A

ssociateF

Sr E

xecutive Secretary

GPolice D

ispatcherF

Sr G

IS S

upport TechnicianG

Project Assistant

FS

upervisor - ElectricalG

Service Agent

FS

upervisor - FacilitiesG

Service Agent-Public Safety

FS

upervisor - Field Services

GSr 911 C

all TakerF

Supervisor - G

eneralG

Sr Animal Services O

fficerF

Supervisor - H

eavy Equipment

GSr C

rew Leader

FS

upervisor - Maintenance

GSr H

VAC

Mechanic

FS

upervisor - Office

GSr M

achinistF

Supervisor - Water U

tilitiesG

Sr Mechanic - A

uto Services

FTherapeutic R

ec Specialist

GSr M

echanic - Heavy E

quipment

FTitle Exam

inerG

Sr Mechanic - H

elicopterF

Traffic Managem

ent Specialist

GSr M

echanic - Maintenance

FA

ccountant IIIH

Sr Office Assistant

FA

dmin H

earing Officer II

HSr Payroll Specialist

FBudget Analyst II

HSr Plum

berF

Buyer III

HSr Police R

eport Representativ

FC

aseworker II

HSr Security O

fficerF

Chem

istH

Sr Water Field R

epresentativeF

Coordinator II - Events

HSurvey C

rew C

hiefF

Coordinator II - G

eneralH

Telecomm

unications Service R

epF

Coordinator II - Planning

HTranslator

FC

oordinator II - Recreation

HVideo Specialist

FC

oordinator II - WR

RH

Water Instrum

ent TechnicianF

Coordinator II - Zoo

HW

ater Plant Operator

FC

rime S

cene AnalystH

Accountant IIG

Environm

ental Coordinator

HAirport O

perations Officer

GG

IS A

nalystH

CATEG

OR

Y 2

82

Job TitleG

radeJob Title

Grade

Graphics D

esignerH

Manager - Building Inspection

IG

reens SuperintendentH

Manager - Business

IH

R Analyst II

HM

anager - Events/Media R

elI

Hum

an Svcs Program Specialist

HM

anager - FacilitiesI

Internal Control Specialist

HM

anager - General

IIT Analyst

HM

anager - Recreation

ILibrarian

HM

anager - Warehousing

IM

anagement D

evelopment Assoc

HM

aster ElectricianI

Pension Benefits SpecialistH

Netw

ork AnalystI

Planner IIH

Program

mer/Analyst II

IProject C

oordinatorH

Project C

oordinator III

Public Health N

urseH

Public Inform

ation Officer

IPublic H

ealth Nutritionist

HS

r AccountantI

Risk A

nalystH

Sr Adm

in Hearing O

fficerI

Safety Officer II

HS

r Benefits SpecialistI

Sr Airport O

perations Officer

HS

r Budget Analyst

ISr C

ertified TechnicianH

Sr Buyer

ISr C

ontract Com

p Admin

HS

r Casew

orkerI

Sr Deputy C

ity Marshal

HS

r Chem

istI

Sr Inspector - General

HS

r HR

Analyst

ISr P

lans Examiner

HS

r Public Health N

urseI

Sr Police D

ispatcherH

Sr R

eal Estate SpecialistI

Supervisor II - Anim

al Control

HS

r Risk Analyst

ISupervisor II - A

viationH

Supervisor III - A

uto Services

ISupervisor II - E

lectricalH

Supervisor III - C

omm

unicationI

Supervisor II - Env/H

lth SrvcsH

Supervisor III - Facilities

ISupervisor II - Field S

ervicesH

Supervisor III - G

eneralI

Supervisor II - Fleet ServicesH

Supervisor III - O

fficeI

Supervisor II - General

HS

upervisor III - Security

ISupervisor II - O

fficeH

Supervisor III - W

arehousingI

Supervisor II - Park M

aintH

Supervisor III -C

onstruct InspI

Supervisor II - Public Safety

HS

upervisor III-Electronic TechI

Supervisor II - Recreation

HS

upervisor III-Env/Hlth Svcs

ISupervisor II - S

ecurityH

Supervisor III-Field Services

ISupervisor II - W

arehousingH

Supervisor III-H

eavy Equipment

ISupervisor II - W

ater Meters

HS

upervisor III-Housing

ISupervisor II - W

ater Utilit

HS

upervisor III-Recreation

ISupervisor II - Zoo Vet D

ivH

Supervisor III-W

ater Utilities

IZoologist

HS

urveyor TraineeI

Architect AssistantI

Wholesale Service R

epI

Business Analyst III

Auditor

JC

hief Deputy C

ity Marshal

IB

usiness Analyst III

JC

ity ArchivistI

Coordinator IV-E

mergency M

gmt

JC

omputer O

perations AnalystI

Coordinator IV-E

ventsJ

Coordinator III

IC

oordinator IV-Evironm

entalJ

Departm

ental Technology Anlyst

IC

oordinator IV-General

JEconom

ic Developm

ent Analyst

IC

oordinator IV-Recreation

JEngineer Assistant

IC

ouncil AssistantJ

Environmental C

oord III

Epidem

iologistJ

Executive AssistantI

GIS Analyst III

JFund Analyst

ILandscape Architect

JG

IS A

nalyst III

Netw

ork Analyst IIJ

IT Analyst III

Project C

oordinator IIIJ

Librarian III

Sr Executive Assistant

J

CATEG

OR

Y 2 (cont'd)

83

Job TitleG

radeS

r Greens S

uperintendentJ

Sr IT AnalystJ

Sr LibrarianJ

Sr PlannerJ

Sr P

ublic Information O

fficerJ

Supervisor IV

- Environm

entJ

Supervisor IV

- FacilitiesJ

Supervisor IV

- General

JS

upervisor IV - M

aintenanceJ

Supervisor IV - Nursing

JSupervisor IV - N

utritionJ

Supervisor IV

- Process C

ontrolJ

Supervisor IV

-Water M

etersJ

Supervisor IV

-Water U

tilitiesK

Web D

esignerK

ArchitectK

Election M

anagerK

EngineerK

Environm

ental Coord III

KM

anager II - Anim

al Control

KM

anager II - AviationK

Manager II - B

usinessK

Manager II - C

odeK

Manager II - C

omm

unicationsK

Manager II - C

omm

unity Service

KM

anager II - Env/H

lth Services

KM

anager II - Events/M

edia Rel

KM

anager II - FacilitiesK

Manager II - Field S

ervicesK

Manager II - Fleet S

ervicesK

Manager II - G

eneralK

Manager II - H

uman R

esourcesK

Manager II - P

ark Maintenance

KM

anager II - Public SafetyK

Manager II - R

ecreationK

Manager II - S

ecurityK

Manager II - W

arehousingK

Manager II - W

ater Utilities

KM

anager II - WR

RK

Public Health N

urse PractnrK

Records M

anagement O

fficerK

Sr GIS Analyst

KS

r Pension S

pecialistK

Sr Programm

er/AnalystK

Sr Security AnalystK

SurveyorK

System

s Program

mer

KZoo C

uratorK

Business A

nalyst IVL

Chief P

lannerL

Chief R

eal Estate SpecialistL

CATEG

OR

Y 2 (cont'd)

84

Job TitleG

radeD

atabase Analyst

LG

IS Technical M

anagerL

Litigation Manager

LSr A

uditorL

Sr Coordinator-D

evelopment

LSr C

oordinator-General

LSr C

oordinator-PlanningL

Sr Environm

ental Coordinator

LSr Project C

oordinatorL

Sr Systems Program

mer

LTelecom

munications M

anagerL

VeterinarianL

Asst Building Official

MAudit A

ccountantM

Business Analyst VM

Fair Housing Adm

inistratorM

IT Manager

MJudicial H

earing Officer

MM

anager III - Business

MM

anager III - Code

MM

anager III - Developm

entM

Manager III - Events/M

edia Rel

MM

anager III - FacilitiesM

Manager III - Field S

ervicesM

Manager III - Fleet

MM

anager III - General

MM

anager III - Housing

MM

anager III - Nursing

MM

anager III - Nutrition

MM

anager III - PlanningM

Manager III - P

roperty Mgm

tM

Manager III - R

ecreationM

Manager III - S

olid Waste

MM

anager III - Warehousing

MM

anager III - Water U

tilitiesM

Manager III-E

nv/Hlth S

ervicesM

Programm

ing Analyst Proj Mgr

MSr Architect

MSr E

ngineerM

Sr IT Consultant

MG

IS M

anagerN

IT ArchitectN

PsychologistN

Sr IT Manager

NSr Parks and R

ecreation Mgr

NSr P

rogram M

anagerN

Sr Program

Manager W

ater Util

OThird Tier E

xecutiveO

Asst Director I

OC

ity Controller

OPhysician

OAsst D

irector IIP

Physician Manager

P

CATEG

OR

Y 3

Job TitleG

radeD

irector IQ

Chief Financial O

fficerR

Chief Inform

ation Officer

RD

irector IIR

Asst City M

anagerS

First Assistant City M

anagerT

CATEG

OR

Y 4

85

Fiscal YearUniform

ed Market Adjustm

entCivilian

Market Adjustment

Uniform Merit

Available?Civilian Merit

Available?

66-674.0%

4.0%Yes

Yes67-68

5.7%5.7%

YesYes

68-698.5%

8.5%Yes

Yes69-70

6.0%6.0%

YesYes

70-713.0%

3.0%Yes

Yes71-72

2.0%2.0%

YesYes

72-733.6%

3.6%Yes

Yes73-74

4.1%4.1%

YesYes

74-759.7%

9.7%Yes

Yes75-76

5.0%5.0%

YesYes

76-775.0%

5.0%Yes

Yes77-78

5.5%5.5%

YesYes

78-793.0%

3.0%Yes

Yes79-80

4.0%4.0%

YesYes

80-817.0%

7.0%Yes

Yes81-82

10.0%10.0%

YesYes

82-836.0%

6.0%Yes

Yes83-84

3.0%3.0%

YesYes

84-854.5%

4.5%Yes

Yes

85-86

4% Salary Cut

(6-86) 1%

Non-Exempt 2%

Exempt 3%

Executive

4% Salary Cut (6-86)

1% Non-Exempt

2% Exempt

3%Executive

YesNo

86-870%

0%Yes

Yes

87-880%

1%

Restoration Non-Exempt

0% 1%

Restoration Non-

ExemptYes

Yes

88-890%

2%

Restoration Exempt/Executive

0% 2%

Restoration

Exempt/ExecutiveYes

Yes

89-903%

1%

Restoration Executive

3% 1%

Restoration Execuitve

YesYes

90-910%

0%Yes

Yes91-92

0%0%

YesYes

92-930%

0%Yes

Yes93-94

3%3%

YesYes

94-950%

0%Yes

YesCom

p Redesign95-96

5%3%

YesYes

96-975%

3%Yes

Yes97-98

5%5%

YesYes

98-993%

3%Yes

Yes99-00

3%3%

YesNo

00-0113%

10%Yes

No01-02

0%0%

YesNo

02-035%

0%Yes

No03-04

5%0%

YesNo

04-055%

2%Yes

Yes05-06

0%0%

YesYes

06-070%

0%Yes

Yes07-08

0%0%

YesYes

History of Pay Increases since 1966History of Pay Increases since 1966

87

Ethnicity by Years of ServiceEthnicity by Years of Service

Full Time Employees By Years of Service(%) Ethnicity

-10.0%0.0%

10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Less than5 YOS

5-9 YOS 10-14 YOS 15-19 YOS 20-24 YOS 25-29 YOS 30-39 YOS 40-49 YOS 51 plusYOS

African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Non-Minority Not Disclosed

88

EXCEPTIONAL:Employee’s performance is always well above the performance standards for the position. Employee’s level of work and initiatives significantly advance and improve the work flow of the department and the City’s interests. In addition, employee makes two or more major contributions or had major achievements in the areas of: quality customer service; efficiency; strategic execution; exemplifying the City’s core values; and mastery of knowledge and skills. This rating requires detailed justification including specific incidents of achievement.

SUPERIOR:Employee’s performance demonstrates consistent work efforts and abilities significantly above the performance standards for the position. The employee serves as an example to other employees. In addition, employee makes one or more major contributions orhad major achievements in the areas of: quality customer service; efficiency; strategic execution; exemplifying the City’s Core values: and master of knowledge and skills. This rating requires detailed justification including specific incident of achievement.

HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL:Performance Standards are constantly met and work is of good quality and sometimes exceeds expectations. Employee consistently anticipates the needs of the supervisor. Employee is always receptive and responsive to instructions from supervisor. This rating requires detailed justification including specific incidents of achievement.

FULLY SUCCESSFUL:Performance standards are generally met and work meets expectations. Employee is receptive and responsive to the instructions of the supervisor and shows initiative. Employee’s performance meets the expectations for the position. This rating requires details indicating the attainment of job description standards.

PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL:Performance standards are met some of the time and work is of acceptable quality. Employee is receptive to the instructions of the supervisor but requires more supervision to become proficient. This rating requires details indicating the attainment of job description standards.

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT:Employee performance is below standards and may negatively impact service delivery. The employee may not be responsive to instruction from the supervisor. Additional effort is needed to improve performance. This ranting requires details documentinghow performance must improve.

UNACCEPTABLE:Employee does not perform, or make reasonable efforts to achieve, performance standards. Employee’s performance has not shown sufficient improvements. Employee repeatedly makes errors, does not respond positively to instructions, and/or fails to get the job done. Employee’s performance does not meet minimum performance levels and employee must make significant, immediate improvement, demotion, or termination is likely. This rating requires progressive discipline and/or PIP documentation. meet minimum performance levels and appropriate action must be implemented and documented.

Rating Definition FY07/08

89

The Words Used on the Apraisal Form Were Clear and Easy for Me to Understand

66.54%

12.61%14.12%6.72%

68.44%

12.72%12.56%6.28%

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree StronglyAgree

FY05-06FY06-07

90

The Job Responsibilities Described on My Appraisal Form Were Connected to What I Do on My Job

63.97%

12.04%

17.22%

6.80%

64.05%

11.10%15.98%

8.86%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Strongly Disagree


FY05-06FY06-07

91

I Felt I Could Go to My Supervisor and Talk to Him/Her About the Progress I Was Making and the Problems I

Was Having in Achieving My Goals and Objectives

12.92%

48.04%

19.94% 19.11%15.74%

48.85%

16.92%18.49%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Strongly Disagree


FY05-06FY06-07

92

My Supervisor Gave Examples of My Good Work Performance

38.00%36.50%

63.50% 62.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Yes No

FY05-06FY06-07

93

My Supervisor and I Had Several Conversations on Perfomance Throughout the Year

32.93%

8.91%

22.48%

16.99%

41.16%

29.09%

9.47%

38.96%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

FY05-06

FY06-07

94

My Supervisor Gave Me Feedback and/or Demonstrated Ways for Me to Improve My Performance

46.53%

10.42%

27.34%

15.71%

43.36%

9.52%

26.16%

20.95%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

FY05-06

FY06-07

95

Glossary of Compensation TermsGlossary of Compensation TermsThe terms below are important terms in understanding employee compensation matters. • CPI (Consumer Price Index)

Measures the price change for a constant market basket of goods and services from one period to the next within the same city (or in the Nation).

• EPO: Stands for Exclusive Provider Organization. This is a type of health insurance plan that offers in-network coverage only. Enrollees must select in-network providers when seeking medical care, services, or treatment. No referrals are required in order to access care.

• Job FamilyJobs involving work of the same nature, but requiring different skills and responsibility levels. For example, Maintenance Worker and Senior Maintenance Worker are in the same job family.

• Market AdjustmentA market adjustment increase is made to correct internal or external market inequities. These adjustments typically occur when market conditions change, requiring the City to raise its rates of pay to remain competitive. Such adjustments help keep the City's salary program flexible and equitable with labor market conditions.

• Market Target Rate of PayThe market target rate of pay (also called the target rate of pay) is the benchmarked salary for each job as determined by the City. The target rate of pay reflects the competitive job market from which the City hires employees.

• Performance IncreaseA performance increase is a percentage increase in an employee's base salary, as determined by the employee's overall performance rating.

• PPO: Stands for Preferred Provider Organization. This type of health insurance is a managed care organization of medical doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers who have covenanted with United Healthcare to provide health care at reduced rates to the City of Dallas employees.

• Prorated Performance PayProrated performance pay is pay that covers a period less than twelve months to recognize performance. This action usually occurs for new employees that are hired-in after increases have been delivered for the budget year.

• Real IncomeIncome after taking into consideration the effects of inflation on purchasing power.

• ReclassificationReclassification is the re-evaluation of a job to a different job title or pay grade due to changes in job duties. A salary change may, or may not be made depending on the employee's relative position to the new pay grade minimum.

• Target Rate of PayThe target rate of pay (also called the market target rate of pay) is the benchmarked salary for each job as determined by the City. The target rate of pay reflects the competitive job market from which the City hires employees. The market target rate for each pay grade is generally set at approximately 5% above the average rates of pay for benchmarked jobs.

New City of Dallas’ Philosophy/Overview on Workforce Strategies · 2015. 1. 20. · FY07/08...

Documents

Transcript of New City of Dallas’ Philosophy/Overview on Workforce Strategies · 2015. 1. 20. · FY07/08...