CALUMET COUNTY, WI 2015 MARKET REVIEW Patrick Glynn October 13, 2015.

CALUMET COUNTY, WI2015 MARKET REVIEWPatrick Glynn

October 13, 2015

Measuring TRMS

1. Align total rewards policies with strategic objectives

2. Measure employee engagement and satisfaction

3. Inventory and cost total rewards

4. Document jobs accurately

5. Establish and maintain internal equity

6. Measure competitiveness

7. Develop a manageable, affordable pay plan

8. Manage benefits

9. Focus on employee development

10. Communicate total rewards on a personal level

Current Plan• Adopted in 2012

• Control Points (Midpoints) based on Market• Acknowledged need to be competitive due to geography

• Match the market

• Step Plan• Min @ 87.5% of Control Point (Midpoint)• Max @ 112.5%• Goal of Movement to Hybrid or Open System

Calumet County 2014-2019 Strategic Plan (Key Elements)• Attract, Develop and Maintain a Highly-Functioning

County Staff”• Assure that all aspects of what constitutes a highly-functioning

County Staff is understood by County Board and County Staff• Develop an On-Boarding Plan• Commitment to recruit, develop and maintain the best employees• Develop Employee Manual/Operations/Procedures• Training

• Define Management Training plan for each year

• Organize staff engagement throughout the year

Tracking Employee Expenses to Budget

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011Salaries/Wages $12,995,571 $12,224,853 $11,974,890 $11,719,019 $11,671,585

Fringe Benefits $5,038,344 $4,847,605 $4,452,908 $4,591,949 $4,911,878

Total Wage/Fringe $18,033,915 $17,072,458 $16,427,798 $16,310,968 $16,583,463

Wage/Fringe % Growth 5.6% 3.9% 0.7% -1.6% n/a

Total Expenditures $46,467,591 $45,446,171 $48,213,813 $45,222,674 $48,759,883

Expenditure Growth 2.2% -5.7% 6.6% -7.3% n/a

     Wage/Fringe as % of Expenditures 38.8% 37.6% 34.1% 36.1% 34.0%

Budgeted FTE 238.86 238.16 235.24 236.36 237.71

FTE Growth 0.70 2.92 -1.12 -1.35 n/a

C/Ratio = Current pay divided by grade midpoint

Grade n-Count C/RatioB 6 101.7%D 11 101.0%E 10 103.8%F 40 98.9%G 38 100.0%H 12 99.8%I 12 99.1%J 45 103.1%K 15 102.5%L 8 108.4%M 3 101.7%N 6 99.6%O 4 108.1%P 1 97.5%Q 1 87.5%R 1 95.0%S 3 105.8%U 1 100.0%

Department n-Count C/RatioCircuit Court 6 94.6%Corporation Counsel 3 99.2%County Administrator 2 105.0%County Clerk 1 87.5%District Attorney 6 100.4%Emergency Management 1 110.0%Finance 4 95.6%Health Division (DHHS) 25 103.7%Highway Department 22 99.4%Human Services 76 102.0%Information Services 6 105.0%Conservation 5 90.5%Maintenance 4 106.3%Parks 7 103.2%Personnel 3 100.8%Register of Deeds 1 92.5%Planning, Zoning & Land Info 6 107.0%Sheriff's Department 35 101.6%Treasurer 2 95.0%University Extension 2 92.5%Veterans Service 2 100.0%

Age ProfileGrouping Number Percent of

WholeCumulative

Percent

Age 60 or Older 8 3.7% 3.7%

Age 55 to Age 60 29 13.2% 16.9%

Age 50 to Age 55 37 16.9% 33.8%

Age 45 to Age 50 41 18.7% 52.5%

Age 40 to Age 45 27 12.3% 64.8%

Age 35 to Age 40 29 13.2% 78.1%

Age 30 to Age 35 31 14.2% 92.2%

Age 30 or Less 17 7.8% 100.0%

Total 219 100%

Service ProfileGrouping Number Percent of

WholeCumulative

Percent

Greater than 35 Years of Service 7 3.2% 3.2%

30 Years to 35 Years 1 0.5% 3.7%

25 Years to 30 Years 11 5.0% 8.7%

20 Years to 25 Years 24 11.0% 19.6%

15 Years to 20 Years 41 18.7% 38.4%

10 Years to 15 Years 25 11.4% 49.8%

5 Years to 10 Years 41 18.7% 68.5%

Less than 5 Years of Service 69 31.5% 100.0%

Total 219 100%

Calumet County: Health InsuranceData Comparison: Calumet County & Kaiser Family Foundation Data

Plan TypeFamily

PremiumEmployer % Contribution

Employer Annual Cost

Employee Annual Cost

Calumet County - HDHP/SO Plan $15,144 87.5% $13,251 $1,893

KFF Data for HDHP/SO Plans:

National Average (Plan Type) $15,972 75.0% $11,976 $3,996

State/Local Government $14,376 79.0% $11,352 $3,024

Midwest $15,732 77.0% $12,108 $3,624

Plan TypeSingle

PremiumEmployer % Contribution

Employer Annual Cost

Employee Annual Cost

Calumet County - HDHP/SO Plan $5,496 87.5% $4,809 $687

KFF Data for HDHP/SO Plans:

National Average (Plan Type) $5,568 84.0% $4,680 $888

State/Local Government $5,364 91.0% $4,884 $480

Midwest $5,664 82.0% $4,644 $1,020

Compensation Café: 10/12/2015• “When base pay is inadequate, no amount of non-cash

total reward elements can fill that gap.  Only when employee income is enough to cover basic lifestyle costs will supportive conditions exist for other reinforcements to be valued.  Rewards like fringe benefits, perquisites, recognition systems or other non-cash positive consequences are only effective when they supplement decent income levels. 

Think of cash as oxygen, the fuel essential for life.  With it, we breathe and strive for more… like food, shelter, affection, respect and self-actualization.  Those “extras” lose their importance if we begin to struggle for air.”

Source of data on this and subsequent slides: 42nd Annual WorldatWork Salary Budget Survey

Carlson Dettmann ConsultingWisconsin Public Sector Statewide Summary:

By Group

Employee Group 2016

n Average

Exempt (Non-Union) 141 1.7%

Non-Exempt (Non-Union) 134 1.6%

General Municipal (Union) 36 1.5%

Teachers (Union) 7 1.7%

Police (Union) 113 2.0%

Fire (Union) 29 1.7%

Transit (Union) 8 1.4%

Data Reviewed Mid-2015• 54 benchmarks

• Similar to 2012 list

• Multiple survey sources• 27 public sector employers• BLS (Appleton, Fond du Lac, Green Bay, Oshkosh, Sheboygan)• Northeast WI 2014-15 Chamber Survey• Towers Watson for regional/state data

• Data aged 2% to January 2016

Comparable Communities• Counties:

• Chippewa, Columbia, Dodge, Eau Claire, Fond du Lac, Jefferson, La Crosse, Manitowoc, Outagamie, Ozaukee, Pierce, Portage, Sheboygan, St. Croix, Walworth, Waupaca, Winnebago

• Cities:• Appleton, De Pere, Fond du Lac, Green Bay, Manitowoc,

Menasha, Neenah, Oshkosh, Sheboygan

Observations/Recommendations• On the whole, the pay plan is competitive

• Variance on a position-by-position basis

• Address individual situations as the need requires• As long as market and/or job evaluation supports the decision

• Use 2015/16 to complete the following tasks:• assess engagement results, develop action plan(s) and measurements

of progress, and assist with deployment and evaluation in preparation for Q1 2017 engagement reassessment

• redevelop the employee development (i.e. performance management) process, tools, and measurement system; train staff, and assess implementation

• revisit the strategic plan elements relating to the County’s workforce and develop formal compensation strategy

• develop a recognition strategy that is relevant to the employees and acceptable to the Board