Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCounty Board 02-23-10 SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING AND AGENDA ST. CROIX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2010 — 9:00 A.M. St. Croix County Government Center —1101 Carmichael Road, Hudson, Wisconsin CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL REVIEW OF AGENDA OLD AND NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution Approving Wage Grid and 2010 Wages for Non -Union Employees *Per action of the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors on January 19, 2010 a motion was approved to vote on this matter on February 23, 2010. ADJOURN (Items may be taken in different order) * Changes or Additions after the Preliminary Agenda ** Late Changes and Additions 2/18/2010 OFFICIAL — approved 3/16/10 MINUTES OF THE ST.CROIX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Special Meeting — February 23, 2010 Invocation given by Supr. Daryl Standafer. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Meeting called to order by Chair Rebholz at 9:02a.m. ROLL CALL: 26 present; absent and excused: Supr. D. Peterson, Supr. Ruetz, Supr. Post, Supr. Cranmer and Vice Chair King OLD AND NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution Approving Wage Grid and 2010 Wages for Non -Union Employees. Supr. Standafer explained discussion and action taken at the February 18, 2010 Finance Committee meeting. The Finance Committee is proposing a vote on the proposed wage grid be taken at the March County Board meeting with deliberation taking place today. The Finance Committee's expectation is to adopt the Springsted wage grid and include an appeal process for employees who feel their job description is inaccurate. Standafer reviewed the proposed ten day appeal process which includes an Appeals Board consisting of Administrative Coordinator Whiting, Corporation Counsel Timmerman and Human Resources Administrator Funk. If the Appeals Board determines the description as drafted is correct, that ends the appeal. If not, then the appeal gets forwarded to Springsted. Appeals must be complete by May and then the funding of the grid will take place in May. Funding will not be retroactive to the first of the year. Chair Rebholz opened the floor for discussion. Supr. Sather asked if there is a process to bring concerns or challenges to job descriptions and to address positions pointed too high. Chair Rebholz stated the Appeals Board will review job descriptions to determine if there's a fallacy and then refer the matter to Springsted. Whiting stated clarification is needed to determine who should and how to review position descriptions for accuracy. Supr. Norton - Bauman suggested committees review job descriptions for Department Heads they oversee at their March committee meetings. Supr. Malick added to keep this on a timetable the Parent Committee would review position descriptions of Department Heads and only as approved by the Parent Committee could that be an approved position description. Anyone who wants to challenge as it is now written should submit the challenge to the Parent Committee for review in March before the next County Board meeting. Only approved position descriptions by the Parent Committee will be considered for pointing for later analysis. Supr. Hermsen asked how to base a pay range if the job description changes. Ann Antonsen of Springsted explained the review process and stated any revisions to come out of final process should be fairly minor and most will not have an impact on the grade assignment. Supr. Mortensen asked for the average wage increase on the wage grid. Antonsen stated the average increase is 2.1 %. Supr. Horne requested an explanation of the step plans and how employees progress through the steps and asked if employees are being rewarded for longevity rather than performance. Human Resources Administrator Tammy Funk replied employees move on an annual basis until they reach step nine. The employee handbook provides should performance be less than acceptable no increase would occur, but noted she has not seen this happen. Funk stated that of the 231 unrepresented employees 20 to 30 are not yet at the top of the current seven step grid. With the new nine step grid more individuals will have step potential. Discussion regarding a performance based system. February 23, 2010 Page 2 of 4 Supr. Luckey expressed concerns of ongoing maintenance if a situation arises to necessitate a change in someone's job description. Funk stated this needs to be addressed and questioned if this would be contracted to keep an objective process or would an internal committee be created. Discussion regarding step percentage increases on the wage grid showing a 3.8 percent increase. Supr. Standafer explained the proposed wage grid lengthens out steps. The current wage grid provides for a five percent step increase. Supr. Horne felt this system is antiquated and was not the best practice to have step plans and asked if there is a better system rather than automated reward. Discussion regarding open -range system vs. a performance pay system. Antonsen explained a well - defined performance system would need to be created and training on how to conduct performance evaluations. Supr. Hermsen asked why increases are not merit -based as done in the private sector and suggested increases, at mid -point of the employees wage grid, be based on performance. Supr. Hermsen questioned why there are no job comparisons to the private sector when the Springsted website indicates private sector comparisons are done. Supr. Hermsen expressed concerns on running from a flawed base the need to be completely revisited and revamped. This will have huge impacts on all budgets going forward. Antonsen stated most of the time county employees do not have counterparts in the private sector. Supr. Marzolf expressed gratitude that the discrepancies in the position descriptions have been rectified in the ADRC Department. Supr. Marzolf questioned the lack of information and clarity concerns noted by Whiting in the Finance Committee minutes and requested the status. Whiting stated most of information was received last week along with the market study. Whiting indicated in January the wage grid was received without supporting documentation from Springsted. There is a reasonable expectation to have people review the documentation before the County Board can approve the wage grid. There's a need to have an objective way of doing things and the need for rationale to be understood before approval by the County Board. Whiting stated the need to have a maintenance system set up to address changes throughout the year. He has not spent time working on the maintenance of the system. Discussion regarding rumors that employees will receive large increases. Whiting stated he was contacted by the media regarding an increase to the Human Resource Administrator and Risk Manager of $12,000 and stated this is not the case. When at the top of the scale these positions could end up being that type of wage difference. Some will not see any wage adjustment unless there's a decision to accommodate. All adjustments fall within the 2.01 %. Timmerman highlighted observations he made in the review of the questionnaires received from the twenty -one entities surveyed noting twenty -one different interpretations of positions. He stated it would have been beneficial to receive the job descriptions rather than surveys. Timmerman highlighted errors or questions in regard to the data Springsted used and provided examples. Supr. Mortensen thanked Corporation Counsel for his observations and noted wage freezes throughout the nation, layoffs and the current unemployment rate in St. Croix County and asked why St. Croix County is handing out wage increases and raising County taxes. Chair Rebholz called for a break. Tommerdahl and Mortensen left at 10:30 a.m. Antonsen responded to Timmerman's observations noting he requested raw data and there was a great deal of time spent in analyzing the information by Springsted. February 23, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Supr. Ostness asked Antonsen when all the information will be available. Antonsen replied non - represented employee job descriptions have been provided as well as the raw salary survey information. The only information left to provide is union information. Supr. Ostness asked Whiting the terms of the contract with Springsted. Whiting stated he recalls this being a $94,000 contract to be paid back over a three -year period with additional monies that could be used for further analysis on the maintenance side. Whiting could not recall a contract completion date. Supr. Standafer expressed frustration on the amount of time spent on this issue and stated per Springsted the typical timeframe from start to finish on a project like this is eighteen weeks. St. Croix County has been working on this for six years. We have an incredible lack of trust and confidence in each other and suspicion of everything transpired in this process. Supr. Norton- Bauman requested the appeals process paperwork be provided by Springsted to the Supervisors before the March County Board meeting. Supr. Marzolf requested hard copies by March 9 Supr. G. Peterson firmly believes the Supervisors need to rely on the Finance Committee for a recommendation on this complex issue. Supr. Hermsen asked if the contract with Springsted included surveys from private sector entities and if so who was sent the survey. Antonsen indicated the contract did not specifically state who would be included in the salary survey and there was no request made by the County to include any specific private sector employers. Discussion regarding analyzing the data. Funk stated not everyone analyzes data in the same way. The external market is one piece and the other is internal comparisons. Of the questions she has received, employees are not asking about the external market but rather how they relate to other employees. The appeal process provides the ability to review and the Appeals Board will bring a good approach to these concerns. Funk stated some Department Heads have valid concerns and added some of this is not the fault of Springsted but rather some Department Heads were not as diligent as they could have been throughout this process. Whiting explained the dynamic with the unions will be different because they are represented and wage adjustments are negotiated. The unions would like to see a system in place. Supr. Sather indicated there are flaws in this process and the County Board does not have to pass something just because we've spent money on the study. Supr. Sather noted other counties have issued wage freezes and mandatory furloughs and the $259,000 in the budget does not need to be spent. Chair Rebholz felt the program can be fixed as it moves forward and asked Supervisors to take a serious look at what the County Board will vote on in March. Supr. Raebel asked how the Appeals Board was selected. Supr. Standafer stated the Appeals Board consists of the primarily three top administrators in the executive suite. Whiting stated this system is better than what is currently in place. He added there will always be issues with a compensation system and recommended getting framework established and noted deficiencies need to be addressed. Motion by Supr. Horne, 2 nd by Supr. Speer to postpone action on this matter until the March 2010 County Board meeting. Carried unanimously. February 23, 2010 Page 4 of 4 Meeting adjourned at 11:22 a.m. Roger Rebholz, Chair, St. Croix County Board of Supervisors Cindy Campbell, County Clerk