Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1986.12.11 - 10954Miscellaneous Resolution # 86341 December 11, 1986 BY: PERSONNEL COMMITTEE - John J. McDonald, Chairperson IN RE: PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT - ADOPTION OF SALARY ADMINISTRATION PLAN FOR SALARY GRADES 16 - 21 TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS the Personnel Committee appointed a Phase 2 Salary Admini- stration Study Group to prepare recommendations for a salary system for classes evaluated to be above salary grade 15; and WHEREAS after reviewing various alternatives, the Study Group recom- mended to the Personnel Committee that the job evaluation plan adopted for salary grades 1 - 15, with slight modifications, be utilized for this group of employees; and WHEREAS the Study Group also recommended that the policies and proce- dures established for the Phase 1 Salary Administration Program for salary grades 1 - 15 be adopted; and WHEREAS your Personnel Committee has reviewed and approved the recom- mendations of the Study Group; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the report and recommendations of the Salary Administration Study Group, Phase 2, as attached be accepted and adopted as the salary plan for salary grades 16 - 21. Mr. Chairperson, on behalf of the Personnel Committee, I move the adoption of the foregoing resolution. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Resolution # 86341 December 11, 1986 Moved by McDonald supported by Hassberger the resolution be adopted. Moved by Calandro supported by Gosling the resolution be amended in the last WHEREAS paragraph to read: WHEREAS the Personnel Committee has re- viewed and approved in concept, the recommendations of the Study Group:' and add a new WHEREAS paragraph to read: "WHEREAS no plan of implementation is recommended at this time; however, funding of 4.5% has been allocated in the 1987 Budget." A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the amendment carried. Vote on resolution as amended: AYES: Page, Perinoff, Price, Rowland, Webb, Wilcox, Aaron, Caddell, Calandro, Doyon, Gosling, Hassberger, Hobart, R. Kuhn, S. Kuhn, Lanni, McConnell, McDonald, Nelson. (19) NAYS: Fortino, Moffitt. (2) A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution, as amended, was adopted. STATE OF MICHI GA N) COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a seal, do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of Miscellaneous Resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners at their meeting held on December 11 , 1986 with the original record thereof now remaining in my: office, and that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the whole thereof. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan this 11th day of December 1 0 86 1:1:e -- , ;;.--.....hm, Lyn770": Allen, Coun ?y Clerk/ Regilster of Deeds- SALARY ADMINISTRATION STUDY GROUP REPORT FOR PERSONNEL COMMITTEE PHASE 2 DECEMBER 3, 1986 1,) tOAKLAND7 COUNTY MICHIGAN TO: Personnel Committee FROM: Salary Administration Study Group DATE: December 3, 1986 SUBJECT: Report and Recommendations — Phase 2 The Study Group, appointed by the Personnel Committee to prepare recommendations for a salary system for those classes evaluated to be above grade 15, was comprised of three voting members from the Personnel Committee. The Board's Director of Program Evaluation and Operations Analysis and the Director of Personnel served as non—voting chairpersons for the Study Group. In addition, the Study Group was assisted by staff from the Employee - Relations Division of the Personnel Department. The areas reviewed and the steps taken by the Study Group are summarized in the Background and Review Summary section which follows. The Study Group is recommending adoption of a point factor job evaluation plan for those classes originally evaluated under Phase 1 to be above salary grade 15. Essentially the same factor plan utilized for grades 1 — 15 is being recommended for use with grades 16 and above with modifications to three factors. These are described in Section I of the report. The Policy and Implementation Procedures established in Phase 1 of the Salary Administration Project are recommended for Phase 2, grades 16 — 21, and are included herein without changes. Approximately 100 employees are included in the Phase 2, grades 16 — 21 recommendations. Three groups of classes, computer service classes, assistant prosecutors and physicians/ dentists are recommended to be exceptions to the salary grade tables and will have recom- mendations for salary levels made separate from salary grade recommendations. While some recommendations included in this project involve significant adjustment, both , upward and downward, the Study Group feels action is long overdue and the implementation , plan contained herein involves a phase—in approach whereby costs can be contained well within Board allocated resources. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Project Background and Study Group Review Summary 1 II Policy Statement For A New Salary System 4 ill A IV V Implementation Procedures • Establishment and Adjustment of Salary Grade Tables • New System Implementation (Movement of Employees onto New System) Exceptions to Salary Grade Tables • Review and Appeal of Job Evaluations Recommended Grade Table Maximums Description of Implementation Process 21 22 24 25 28 32 44 SECT ION I PROJECT BACKGROUND AND STUDY GROUP REVIEW SUMMARY SECTION 1 - PROJECT BACKGROUND AND STUDY GROUP REVIEW SUMMARY These materials contain the report and recommendations of the Salary Administration Study Group appointed by the Personnel Committee of the Board of Commissioners. The Study Group was charged with recommending a method for the setting of salaries for County classifications above salary grade 15 in light of the recently Board adopted salary system for employees within salary grades 1 - 15. The Study. Group again reviewed the various salary administration systems available. Following this, the Study Group agreed unanimously to pursue utilizing a point factor evaluation plan and determined to look at the plan utilized with salary grades 1 - 15 to see if that plan, with some possible modifi- cations, could be adopted for grades 16 and above. The Study Group requested that the staff review the point factor plan and prepare recommendations for modification to the plan which would further distinguish among the higher level managerial employees. These recommendations were studied and three modifications to the plan from the one utilized for salary grades 1 - 15 are incorporated into the Study Group recommendations. These modifications are to factors 3 (Supervisory or Managerial Responsi- bility), 4 (Problem Solving) and 6 (Accountability) and are described briefly as follows: a) Factor 3 - Supervisory or Managerial Responsibility A statement has been added to the factor degree definition to recognize project engineer mana- gers as supervisors even though they may not exercise the normal day to day supervision over actual County employees. it is felt that with the unusual nature of their project management responsibilities, some supervisory credit is warranted. Project engineer managers exercise close daily supervision of project work including both materials and workmanship, maintain responsibility for the project budget and for authorizing payments, and perform other mana- gerial functions for large, major County construction projects. b) Factor 4 - Problem Solving For those classes evaluated at the highest factor degree level of problem solving, level 6, a further refinement is recommended. This refinement would distinguish among higher level managerial employees according to one of the three new level 6 sub-definitions. The sub- definitions for support Divisions distinguish whether their problem solving responsibilities impact primarily their own functional area, a number of County divisions or have a County- wide organizational impact; and for line Divisions whether the problem-solving responsibilities U) SECTION 1 - PROJECT BACKGROUND AND STUDY GROUP REVIEW SUMMARY (Con't) Impact' the services to, well being of or the civil or legal rights of a limited number of County citizens, a substantial number of County citizens, or whether it has long-term, major impact on a substantial number of citizens. c) Factor 6 - Accountability Again, for those classes evaluated at the highest factor degree level of accountability, level 6, a further refinement is included. This refinement would further evaluate those found at level 6 as to the financial scope of their accountability. Four sub-levels are identified for level 6 on two dimensions. First the financial scope is identified ranging from responsi- bilities for revenues, expenses or control of resources ranging from sub-level (a) of less than one million to sub-level (d) of revenues, expenses or control of resources in excess of fifty million. A second evaluation is then made for the second dimension as to the type of financial control which identifies whether the employee has administrative control (advisory or monitoring responsibilities for funds or resources under the direct control of another or responsibility for generating revenue l or whether the employee has principal control (principal responsibility for determing and justifying the expenditure of and use of funds and resources allocated to their own functional area). Following the development of revisions to the point factor evaluation plan, the Study Group also identified changes which should be made to the job Evaluation Questionnaire to be completed by em- ployees in grades 16 and above which would aid in the evaluation of these higher level employees. The Study Group then directed the staff to distribute new Job Evaluation Questionnaires to employees identified to be in grades 16 and above and re-evaluate these employees utilizing the revised point- factor job evaluation plan. The re-evaluations were completed and reviewed with the Study Group. Study Group recommendations for total evaluation point assignments, grade point ranges and grade designations are listed in Section TI, Also contained in Section TT is a policy statement similar to that contained in the adopted plan for salary grades 1 - 15 but adopting the modified point factor evaluation plan for grades 16 - 21. A copy of the recommended modified point factor plan is contained in Section II. ROJECT BACKGROUND AND STUDY GROUP REVIEW SU MARY (Con't) 1 - SECTION Section III of this report contains the recommended policies and procedures for grades 16 - 21 covering periodic adjusting of the salary grade table, movement of employees onto the new system, exceptions to salary grade placement, and a review and appeal procedure. The policies and procedures contained in this section are identical to those contained in the adopted plan for grades 1 - 15. Two listings specific to these grades are included in this section, the complete listing of recommended salary grade steps for grades 16 - 21 based on 1986 rates, and the listing of classes recommended for designation as exceptions to salary grade placement. Section IV contains a listing comparing current maximum salaries for each class with recommended target maximum rates. It also includes a listing of available published salary survey data for classes in grades 16 - 21. The final section of the report, Section V, describes the criteria recommended for the first year implementation and phase-in of current rates to the new 16 - 21 salary grade ranges and the cost of the first year phase-in under the criteria described. SECTION II POLICY STATEMENT LISTING OF JOB EVALUATION POINTS AND SALARY GRADE DESIGNATIONS (GRADES 16 CLASS joD GRADE GRADE CODE CLASSIFICATION is POINT RANGE 16 7720 TOXICOLOGIST 523 1 711 CHF-NURSING SERVICES 527 6875 SR. PSYCHOLOGIST 528a 1674 CHE-E & 1 ADM. SVCS. 528 1680 CHE-CTY & SPECIAL AUD. 538 2002 CIVIL ENGINEER III 538 0155 ADM ASST-ENV HLTH SVCS 543 1768 CHF CHILD. VILL. FROG. 544 1767 CHF CHILD, VILL. INTAK 547 4910 MGR-PROBATE CASE FLOW 547 1666 CHF-ENV. HEALTH ACT. 552 1680 CHF-ADT HLTH & CHR DIS 552 1707 CHF-PH CLIN. & SP. ERG 552 4350 JUVENILE COURT REFEREE 552 1712 CHF-PH FIELD NURSING 557 2632 CHF-TAX ADMINISTRATION 559 17 3890 FOC REFEREE 560 2121 CMH FINANCE OFFICER 562b 1696 CHF- P & R ADMIN. SERV 567 0730 ASST. MGR. PARKS & REC 572 1650 CHF-YOUTH ASST. SERV. 572 0211 ADM ASST-DIR PLAN/EVAL 573c SR, PSYCHOLOGIET-CMH 575d 0731 ASST, MGR. F. M. & O. 577 1095 BUSINESS ADMIN SHERIFF 588e 0153 ADM. ASST. - CMH SVCS. 594 520 - 559 560 - 599 18 1747 CHF-WATER & SEWER OPER 602 600- 659 5050 MENTAL HLTH CLIN. EUPV 611 0325 ASST. CHF. ENG.-S&W 612f 1727 CHF-SPECIAL ACCOUNTING 616 1672 CHF-INST. & ALIM ACCTS 619 0223 ADMIN. HEALTH ED. SERV 622 1664 CHF-GEN. ACCOUNTING 622 0220 ADM-ENV, HLTH SERV. 627 0228 ADM-PERS&PREVHLTH SRV 630 3981 FOC REFEREE SUPV 638 0325 ASST. CHF. ENG.-SOL.W. 643g 4817 MANAGER-SAFETY 646 6500 SR. ASST. CORP. COONS. 648 0325 ASST. CHF ENG.-DRAIN 651 5580 PROBATE CT. COUNSEL 658 19 2715 DEP. Cl. ADMIN. 669 660 - 719 1550 CHIEF ENGINEER-DRAIN 681h 4789 MGR-ANIMAL CONTROL 693 0218 ADM. PERS. PROP. AUDIT 701 0219 ADM. REAL PROP. APPR. 704 1694 CHF-DIST CT & SV FROG. 7051 4830 MGR-VETERANS SVCS. 705 1630 CHF-BD RETARD. SERV. 709j 1299 CHF-ASST FOC DEER.. 709 4815 MGR.REIMBURSEMENT 710 4826 MGR. MARKET. & RESFARC 712 CLASS GRADE CODE CLASSIFICATION 4810 MANAGER-PURCHASING 715 4603 MGR. BUSINESS DEVELOP 717 20 4797 MGR-GRANT E A T 720 4006 MGR-SEL PLACEMLNIA EEO 735 4804 MGR-M.C.E. 742 4799 MGR-PLANNING 743 0575 ASST. DIR. PERSONNEL 747 4044 MGR. CHILD. VILLAGE 747 4007 MGR-JUV. FIELD SERV. 747 4795 MGR-EMS A DIS, CONTROL 756 4812 MGR-PROBATE ESTATEAMH 756 4801 MGR-FACIL111ES ENG. 760 4780 MGR-COMM. DEVELOPMENT 766 4706 MGR-AUDITING 767 4905 MGR-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 770 2225 MGR-RES A OLIN SERV. 775 21 4002 MGR- F. M. A O. 101 4783 MGR-AVIATION 784 4003 MGR- P 6 R DIVISION 790 4791 MGR-CMH SERVICES 795 4704 MGR-ACCOUNTING 796 3790 FIRST ASST. CORP. COON 007 0225 HEALTH DIVISION MGR 809 4787 MGR-BUDGETING 010 3075 FRIEND OF THE COURT 811 1798 MGR-LO.UALIZATION 817 JOB Pig 720 - 779 780 & Above a) Two positions in Probate filled by incumbents without a Ph.D. in Psychology are to be treated as classes over target and are to receive the minimal increases awarded to classes over target until such time as their salary equates with Clinical Psychologist II. Should the positions become vacant they are to be reclassified to Clinical Psychologist IT. b) Retitle to Chief-CMIl Operations c) Retitle to Chief-Health Planning & Evaluation d) Retitle to Supervisor-CMH Planning & Evaluation e) Retitle to Business Manager - Sheriff f) Retitle to Chief Engineer - Sewer & Water g) Retitle to Chief Engineer - Solid Waste h) Retitle to Chief Engineer - Drain i) Retitle to Chief Probation Officer j) Retitle to Chief-Developmentally Disabled Services COUNTY OF OAKLAND, MICHIGAN POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN FOR SALARY GRADES 16 - 21 The Oakland County job Evaluation Plan is composed of 10 factors, including: 1. Job-Related Knowledge and Skill Requirements Report Page # (s) 8 2, Job-Related Work or Career Experience Requirements 9 3. Supervisory or Managerial Responsibility 10 4. Problem Solving 11 5. Job-Related Communication and interpersonal Skills 13 6. Accountability 14 7. Demands For Mental Concentration 17 8. Physical Demands of the Job 18 9. Accident or Health Hazards 20 10. Working Conditions 21 Each factor has been constructed to include a) an overall definition of the concepts that are in- cluded and not included, within the scope of the factor, b) definitions of the various factor de- grees that serve as positions on the "yardstick" provided by each factor, and c) examples of various job duties that might be expected within jobs assigned to alternative factor degrees. - 7 - TA=111721-1T.0 n.••n •,44, 1141,,nCoo0.4 4.0).4 .44.11,40.0.04,064 4 PCT. 0 IN:TOR TITLE: Joh-Related Knowledge and Skill Requirements (Factor #1) F TOTAL PT S.: Iva 80 105 140 ) POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN FACTOR DEFINITION: This factor addresses the normal level of knowledge/skills required in order to perform within the job. The factor focuses on knowledge and skills principally acquired through schooling, vocational training, or other formalized educational pro- gram. The .factor does not address knowledge or skills acquired as a result of prior work experience, nor does it address orientation programs, internships, or apprenticeship training. (These concepts arc considered in a separate factor.) This factor should not be viewed as translating directly to "years of education required" by the job, or as establishing a mini- mum entry or proMotional standard. It should focus on the nature of the knowledge and skill required, referencing years of education as a general guideline only. The purpose of this factor is to recognize differences among County classifications in the demands for formal training and education that they place on incumbents. Degree Definition Points Factor Degree 1 The job requires no specific knowledge or specialized skills such as would be acquired principally through formal education. The basic verbal and physical skills used in receiving and carrying out job assignments can be acquired with- out formal educational training. The job requires basic reading comprehension and/or simple arithmetic skills. These skills are applied in following 2 I spoken or simple written instructions, recording or reporting simple numerical information, and carrying out calculations that involve counting, totaling, and using number codes. An educational level of eight years or less would be expected to provide the knowledge and skills required to perform the job. The job requires communication skills (grammar, punctuation, written organization), arithmetic skills (operations using fractions and decimals), and/or trades-related skills (carpentry, basic metal work, etc.) that are normally acquired through high school level courses, or through vocational/applied skills courses. These skills are used in activities such as basic typing, completion of maintenance schedules and records, and the operation of mechanical equipment. An educational level of between 9 and 12 years would be expected to provide the knowledge and skills required to perform the job. The job requires knowledge of a specialized nature, normally acquired through a general high school education and from 4 specialized training such as that acquired in the first year of college, technical, or business school. This knowledge is applied in activities such as office management, electronic data processing activities such as keypunch, machine operation, and basic programming, laboratory assistance, drafting, and basic accounting activities. The job requires advanced training such as that acquired in the first two to three years of college, vocational, Cr business school. This knowledge Is applied in areas such as personnel administration, purchasing, accounting, writing and composition, nursing, and certain aspects of social work. A key feature of jobs at this level is the requirement that the incumbent bring an advanced knowledge/skill (attained through formal education) into the job at the time of hire. The job requires a professional level of knowledge in a specialized field, equivalent to that which normally would be 6 1 acquired by completing a regular four-year college program, This level does not require that a four-year degree be held by the incumbent. 7 I The job requires a professional level of knowledge in a specialized field, equivalent to that which is normally acquired through the completion of one to two years of post-bachelor degree work. 8 I The job requires a professional level of knowledge in a specialized field, equivalent to that which in normally acquired through completion of three or more years of study beyond a four-year college degree. 15 25 35 45 GO — 8 — Cr Trz-,7=1r.v.r-m=rocrx=ruarrrEn=yr====mencr= naca====== 100 130 9 POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN [I ) F,<IOR TITLE : Job-Related Work or Career Experience Re q uirements (Factor 1/2) PCT. OF TOTAL PTS.: 13% • FACTOR DEFINITION: This factor measures the normal amount of work or career experience that ion avera g e individual must have, within or outside the Count y , in order to assume the job's responsibilities full y and to satisf y the job's performdhce re q uirements. l'he fac- tor does not address formal educational experience or preparation re q uired b y the job. (Ib is concept 15 cc;hsidered in a sep- arate factor.) In determinin g the de g ree that best fits a job, consider (a) the amount of experience on other related or un- related jobs that would he re q uired to prepare an individual to assume the job, and (b) the amount of experience that is re- q uired on the job itself prior to the point at which an avera ge individual would be expected to reach full proficienc y (in- cluding orientation, internship, apprenticeship, Or other formal on-the-job trainin g .) The purpose of this factor is to re- coanize differences amoun g County jobs in the demands that the y place on incumbents to "brin y alon g " and to ac q uire practical experience and job-related knowled g e. The factor is not intended to establish minimum entr y or promotion re q uirements. Point Degree Definition Performance of the job re quires essentially no work experience. An incumbent would be expected to reach proficiency after a brief on-the-job orientation of less than one month. Performance of the job re quires essentiall y po previous work experience. An incumbent would be expected to reach proficiency after one to three months orientation, coaching by the supervisor, and basic familiarization trainin g . Performance of the job re q uires between about three months and one y ear experience, includin g past experience in re- lated jobs and/or the time required for orientation and training to proficiency in this job. Performance of the job re q uires between about one and two y ears experience, includin g past experience in related jobs, within or outside the County, and/or the time required for orientation and training to proficienc y in this job. Performance of the job requires between about two and five y ears experience, at least part of which includes pro- gressively more responsible positions in related jobs, within or outside the count y . Proficien,:y in the job would be expected to be based partly on s kills acq uired in previous related jobs, and partly on skills acquired during training within this job (either formal or on-the-job.) Performance of the job requires between about five and seven years experience, including progression through suc- cessively more responsible related jobs, within or outside the County. Performance of the job requires seven or more years excerience, including proaression throu gh suc- cessivel y more responsible jobs, within or outside the Count y , in a related area or in areas providing a broad base of skills applicable to this jeb as well as other positions. 25 30 40 55 75 -^TTNIT17770177======PLIZIn=t7aiMIZER:11=1=7:6 =1:C=ttleZrli FACTOR TITLE: Level, Nature, and Scope of Supervisory or Managerial Responsibility (FacLor #3) PCT. OF TOTAL PTS.1 POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN FACTOR DEFINITIC)N: This factor is intended to recognize the contribution and value of jobs which have the responsibility for supervising and managing the job performance of other County employees. The factor focuses on three elements of supervisory or managerial responsibility: (a) the level of authority exercised, as measured by the nature and number of subordinate employee levels over which the incumbent has responsibility, (b) the relative complexity of the work systems or general management systems of the division or work unit, and (c) the supervisor's or manager's span of control, as measured by the size of the subordinate population. Fiictor Degree Factor Level Level of Supervisory or Managerial Authority Exercised Complexity of the Work or General Mgt. System Total No. of FTEs Reporting Directly and Indirectly 11.9-20 I C. 21-40 1 n, 41-80 E. 81-200 F. More than 200 • No Supervisory or Managerii Authority • Leader • Working Supervisor • Supervisor • 1st Level Manager m 2nd Level Manager • Administrative Manager •dlighest Level of Managerial Authority Within the Division NOTE: Engineers functioning as Project Managers will be .credited as 8A on this factor. ,"2.17-72=1=====3172Er 3. Routine 4. High 5. Routine 6. High 7, Routine 8. High 9. Routine 0. High 11. Routine 3 6 9 12 .23, 26 29 32 43 . 33 36 39 42 46 49 52 ' 53 ' 56 .59 • 62 ' - . _ 13 16 19 22 63 . 66 69. 72 73 76 :79 82 83 86 89 ' 92 93 96 99 102' 57 60 67 70 77 80 87 90 17 _1 47 37 50 40 20 27 30 . Routine . High 103 I 106 I 109 I. 112 113 I 116 I 119 I 122 5. Routine 6. High 133 123 .136 126 139 129 132 142 1 ,10 150 Note: The relative eamileafti_of the work or general management system is a judgement, based on factors that include ▪ consideration of: • the organizational structure of the system io the policies by which the system is directed • the legislative requirements within whlch the • the eveness of the ”stem's wczAflow system must operate 'a the requirement to follow technical or • the number and sequence of transactions carried our scientific methods 4 the use of 0 e, . — 1 — Problem Solving FACIOR !ILE: 'AANYMPleftell• ' —1.041 1 , FACTOR DEFINITION: e,==- '(Factor #4) • PCT. OF TOTAL PT'S.: 12 .5 *(14.570) Factor Degree , Degree Definition 1 2 3 4 5 POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN [Li This factor reflects the degree to which the incumbent is normally required to gather and/or use information (quantitative or qualitative) in order to solve problems or reach decisions regarding appropriate courses of action. The factor is constructed to tap a)progressively increasing requirements for integrating and interpreting information, and b) progressively increasing requirements to make decisions in areas where an analytical process, rather than reliance on precedent alone, or available direction is required. The factor does not consider the job incumbent's accountability for decisions reached as a result of problem solving activities.(This concept is addressed in a separate factor.) The purpose of this factor is to recognize differences among County jobs In the demands that they place on incumbents to Identify problems, to analyze their probable causes, and to reach decisions regarding appropriate solutions. The job involves minimal or no problem solving activity. If jot-related problems occur, they are generally referred to the supervisor for solutiOn. Examples of typical problem solving activities might include recognizing and pointing out equipment malfunctions, identifying the proper format for a typing job, verifying simple calculations. The job involves basic information gathering and interpretation activities, using factual information and/or written policies, procedures or specifications, and relying as necessary on readily available precedent. The problems faced are not difficult or complex, and decisions regarding the proper course of action generally follow automatically. The job involves gathering and interpretation of factual information, often in cases where the it must be sought out and its usefulness/accuracy verified. Precedent or guidelines are available to help in reaching decisions. The problems faced may reachia moderate level of complexity. • The job includes problem soling activities that are decidedly complex, including some elements or information, that remain intangible or which are of unknown reliability. Established methods, procedures, or precedent a're available to help in solving most, but not all problems. The job involves problems that are highly complex and which require interpreting and integrating large amounts of data or information, much or which remains intangible and of limited or unknown reliability. Established methods, procedures or precedent are available to help in solving most but not all problems. The job involves gathering and interpreting data, much of which is nonquantifiable, and of questionnahle reliability. 6 Pelationships must be identified within apparently unrelated pieces of information, and jugments must be reached regarding the weight that various sources of information should be, accorded. Little precedent or existing policy , is available to direct judgments; creative solutions are often required in order to find workable solutions. Examples might include finding solutions to complex financial or legal problems, evaluation of major programs, or design of major new management or operational' programs. kaeies evaluated to fall at level 6 are to be evaluated on the three sublevels located on the following page. Classes evaluated at level 6 can receive no more than 30 pts. on Factor 8, 35 pts. on Factor 9, and 20 pts. on Factor 10. 1 1 FACTOR TITLE: Problem Solving (2nd page continuation) (Factor #4 cont.) Factor Degree Degree Definition PCT. OF TOTAL PTS: 12.5% *(14.5%) Points 145 POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN 6.a. 1 Problem solving impacts (a) primarily own functional area (division) or (b) the services to, well- being of or the civil or legal rights of a limited number of County citizens. 125 6.b. 1 Problem solving impacts (a) a number of County divisions or (b) the services to, well-being of or 135 the civil or legal rights of a substantial number of County citizens. 6.c. 1 Problem solving has (a) County-wide organizational impact or (b) has long-term, major impact on the services to, the well-being of, or the civil or legal rights of substantial numbers of citizens. *See asterisked note on previous page. Is Factor #5) it PACIOR TIRE job-Pelated Communication and Interpersonal Ski PCT OF TOTAL PIS.: io^„ Factor Degree Factor Level A Occasiona Periodic Continuous 15 25 35 50 60 75 1 0 30 55, 89 85 Continuous (MJre than J/4 of work tif,) 1U0 o • *op 111.. • N.. Aol • • ' 4.1. Periodi c (Between !" and 3/4 work time.) of work time.) Occasional (Less than o POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN vivrryi-itt-rvrrrmaras==============trzEtrua===r7 FACIC)R DEFINITION: • This factor addresses the Interpersonal contacts (in person, b y phone, or otherwise) in which the incumbent must normall y en g a ge (excludin g those contacts between supervisor and suh,ordinatO in order to perform the job, and the fre q uenc y of such contacts. The factor focuses on the basic inter Fersonal and communications skills that are used in performing the contact successfull y . In selectin g the placement of a job within the matrix of job evaluation points, a jud g ment should Le reached first re g arding the de g ree that represents the most demanding t y pe of contacts of those encountered in the job, 101104- ('d by a second jud g ment re g arding the fre q uenc y with which such contacts occur. It is assumed that, as a condition of em- plo y ment, incumbents are expected to refrain from disclosin g any confidential information that is so desi g nated by the County, and which comes to their attention during the course of the job. The job involves contacts normally limited to exchanging basic infor- mation (directing or greeting vis- itors/callers or the public, pro- 1 viding information from public re- cords, etc.) The nature of the con- tact is straightforward, with little discretion being required in decid- ing how or what to •communicate. The job ibvolves contacts that re- quire basic instruction or persua- sion of others, or use of tact in 2 dealing with potentially sensitive situations. The incumbent must ex- ercise a limited amount of discre- tion in deciding how or what to communicate. The job involves contacts that call for diplomacy and a moderate level of discretion in deciding how or what to communicate. The incumbent 3 is called on to instruct or persuade others. Also includes jobs in which situations could easily become sensitive or the source of inter- personal (or physical) confrontation. The job involves communicating and dealing with people in situations 4 that have a high likelihood of becoming sensitive or confronta- tional. Contacts req uire ability to interact in extremely delicate, sensitive and/or complex sitituatioas. Contacts frequently involve difficult negotiations requiring a well devel- oped sense of strategy and timing to get results. — 13 — 1r77171.71TSTIre"Z; OB EVALUATION PLAN (Factor #6) POINT FACTOR ••n•..11,04a.. AO' .4.. 0.111* 0440W ..10- nuiwer FACTOR TITLE:Acco biunta--li.t y PCT. OF TOTAL P1 7775.. 13% FAC1OR DEFINITION: *(17.5% Factor Degree Factor Level line Type and Number of Internal OT External Individuals, Groups or Organizations the Job Incumbent Is Answerable To Are: DEFINITIONS • Im7tediate Super v i s ion : The job iocurAent is directl y account- able to one or more supervisors for efficient and effective completion of job duties and responsibilities. • Noncoritrolliny: lime nature of the accountabilit y relationship req uires onl y that actions or decisions must be communicated, before or after the fact, for g eneral informational purposes. The internal or external indivi- duals, g roups or or ganizations do not have authorit y to control or impose le g al sanc- tions concernin g the incumbent's decisions or actions. • Contro lling: The nature of tic accountability relationship re- quires that actions or deci- sions must he approved and/or authorized, either before or after their execution. The in- ternal or external invidual g roup OT or g anization has docu- mented or le g al control author- ity. 14 — Noncontrollinz 1-3 4 or More D. Controllinf —1 1-3 4 or More __— E. If • 1-3 10 I 12 I 16 20 I 24 I 30 20 22 I 26 30 4 I 49 35 I 37 I 41 45 I 49 I 55 Immediate Supervision I Supv. I 2 or • Supv. I Supv. This factor measures three elements associated with the concept of job accountabilit y : a) the level of discretion an individual t ypicall y exercises prior to or after takin g actions or makin g decisions in conjunction with per assi g ned duties and responsibilities ; b) the Hie of in or exteroal individuals, g roups or or g anizations the job incumhent is answerable to ; and c) the nu mber of internal or external individuuls, g roups or org anizations the job incumbent is answerable to. In selectin g the placement of a job within the matrix of job evaluation points, a jud gement should he reached first re garding the extent of discretion associated with the majorit y of the job incumbent's actions or decisions. ihcn, a second jud g e- ment should be made re g ardin g the_highe s t_lovel_of riecountabilit y_relatio nship imposed on actions taken or decisions made b y the job incumbent. Is the relationship that of "immediate supervision", of a "noncontrolling nature", or of a "controlling nature"? (See Definitions.) lbe Extent of Discretion Associated With the th e Job Actions or Decisions: I. Work Is performed under direct or close supervision. Detailed and specific pro- eedures and instructions (written or verbal are followed. Decisions must be i made after consulting internal/external , individuals, groups or organizations. 2. Work is performed under limited supervi-1 sion, followin g standardized procedures , for routine assignments. Uses some dis- cretion in applying policies and proce- dures. Refers only unusual situations ! to internal/external inviduals, groups I or organizations for decisions. 3. Work is performed under general supervi- sion, following established practice 1111 performing most assignments. Often i plans and carries out own work. Makes decisions when general instructions, es- tablished methods or defined precedents indicate action to be taken, but unusual, situations are referred to internal/ex- ' ternal individuals, groups or organiza- tions. ' I a..to.,..06..*****************..****.**, - Factor degrees continued on next page.;- 04.1,40.61,04f/apileall,0•Or0,46400a0411 n 111111111111iteo *See asterisked note on following page. , Factor Dogma Factor Loyd The Type and Number of Internal or External Individuals, Groups or Organizations the Job Incumbent Is Answerable To Arc: Immediate Supervision , Noncontrolling 1 Supv. 1 2 or • Supv.1 1-3 14 or ?due Controllin 1-3 4 or More A. I B. * oT-...ezrm-rarzrwm. FACTOR TITLE: 01,06-40' NiP.4.400404.40*.a. wow POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN 00n•••44.wtogr".0.4, *A, • • *MOW •11n. Accountability (2nd loge Cnntinuation, =========Tsc7mnatmeamootsa y , PCT. OF TOTAL PT.: 13; (Factor #6 cont.) FACTOR DEFINITION: *(17.5%) This factor measures three elements Associated with the concept of Job accountability: a) the Icvel of discretion an individual typically exercises prior to or after taking actions or making decisions in conjunction with performing assigned duties and responsihilitics; b) the tyfc of internal or external individuals, groups or organizations the Job incumbent is answerable to: and c) tire number of internal or external individuals, groups or organizations the job incumbent is answerable to. In selecting the placement Of a Job within-ihe matrix of Job evaluation points, a judgement should be reached first regarding the extent of discretion associated with the majority of the job incumbent's actions or decisions. Then, a second judge- ment should be made regarding the hlEhest level of accountability rclationshlp_imposed on actions taken or decisions rade by :he job incumbent. Is the relationship that of "immediate supervision", of a "noncontrolling nature", or of a "controlling nature"? (Sec Definitions.) 6 are to be evaluated on the four .sublevels Classes evaluated at level 6 can receive no more on Factor 9 and 20 pts. on Factor 10. - 15 The Uxtent of Discretion Associated With the ii:ij'nviii-T-TrikTjailncumbent's Actions or Decisions: • 4. —Work is performed under direction. Duties and responsibilities nrc received in the form of results expected, due dates, and general procedures to bc followed. S. Work is performed under limited direction Duties end responsibilities arc received in the form of results expected, but . • there is considerable freedom to determine procedures to be followed and due dates. • 6. Work is performed under general direction Polies and responsibilities are typically In the form of broad goals and/or areas of responsibility, There is substantial latitude for independent action in settini objectives and deciding how to proceed. *Classes evaluated to fall at le located on the following page. than 30 pts. on Factor 8, 35 pt DEFINITIONS • Immediate Soilerylsion: The job incumbent is directly account- able to one or rare suT'ervisors for efficient and effective completion of job duties and responsibilities. • Noncontrolling: The nature of tine accountability relationship requires only that actions or decisions must be co7.7.unicated, before or after the fact, for general informational purposes. The internal or external indivi- duals, groups or organizations do not have authority to control or impose legal sanc- tions concerning the inctizrbent's decisions or actions. • Controllinr: The nature of the accountability relationship re- quires that actions or deci- sions rust be approved and/or authorized, either before or after their execution, The in- ternal or external invidual group or orrJni:dtion has mcntvJ Or legal k:vutrol author- ity. 175 6.c. Responsible for revenues, expenses or control of re- sources of $10,000,000 to $50,000,000 (2) = Principal Control Refers to principal responsi- bility for determining and justifying the expenditure of and use of funds and resources allocated to own functional area. 6.d. Responsible for revenues, expenses or control of re- venues in excess of $50,000,000 Factor Level Definitions Please see imediately_preceding page for definitions OE immediate supervision, non-controlling and controlling. TYPE OF FINANCIAL CONTROL The Type and Number of Internal or External Individuals, Groups or Organizations the Job Incumbent Is Answerable To Are: ImaAlate Supervision 1 Supv. 12 or + Supv NoncontroIlim 1-3 1 4 or Mere Controllin 1-3 1 4 or HITe (1) = Administrative Control. Refers to main advisory or Chief administrative monitoring of funds which have been allocated to and are under the direct principal area or 2) forupst responsibility for generating revenue to the County of the amounts 'indicated. 30 6.b. Responsible for revenues, expenses or control of re- sources of $1,000,000 to $10,000,000 - 150 144 I 130 .2,ee asterisked note on previous page. - 16 - FINANCIAL SCOPE 0.a. Responsible for revenues, expenses or control of re- sources of less than $1,000,0JJ 110 130 POINT FACTOR J .EVALUATION PLAN FACTOR TITLE: Accountability (3rd Page Continuation) (Factor #6 cont.) PCT. OF TOTAL PTS: 13% *07.5%) In selecting the placement of a job within this matrix of job evaluation points for the four sublevels under degree level 6, a judgement should be reached first regarding the financial scope of the job. A second judgement should be made regarding the type of financial control (see definitions of administrative and principal) exercised by the job incumbent. Third, a judgement should be made regarding the highest level of accountability relationship imposed on the job incumbent (e.g. immediate supervision, non-controlling or controlling.) p ,......:trxrmi=nomp=r3=rr..nrffluzr.a.:trztzt-.=-- FAC1OR TITLE : Demands For Mental Concentration (Factor #7) PCT. OF TOTAL PIS.: 7 E—c—tor Degree 2 3 II A 5 POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN ri\cloR DEFINITION: This factor is intended to measure the degree to which the job normally requires the incumbent to exercise and maintain mental concentration in order to perform successfully. In determining the degree that Lest fits the job, consider (a) the leyel_of_dptail with which the incumbent must work, (b) the number or volume of activities, tasks, or issues that must he 'dealt with at or about the same time, (c) the pressures under which the job is performed, and (d) the LTesonoo of interruptions, distractions, or other influences under which the incumbent must perform. This factor addresses jobs that involve workinr7 primarily with and concentrating on "things" (typing, machinery, numbers, people), and jobs that involve working with and concentrating on "ideas" (facts-, policies, laws, plans). The key_ concept to be considered is the degree to which the job places a burden on the incumbent to concentrate, in either major area, under various forms of outside pressures or stress. Pon Degree Definition The job normally requires little or no mental concentration. The flow of work, and the types of tasks performed do not demand close attention, and do not present problems in overcoming or avoiding interruption. The job involves intermittent periods (less than 10 percent of work time) during which the incumbent is required to maintain a high level of mental concentration. The timing and duration of these periods might be unpredictable, and might result from surges, in workload, contacts with other people in a stressful situation, or the occurrence of certain highly detail-oriented tasks that are a relatively infrequent part of the job. During these times, the volume or pace of work is high and/or tight schedules or deadlines must be met. Interruptions, distractions, or other influences might also be present. The job involves regular periods (up to 50 percent of work time) during which the incumbent is required to main- tain a high level of mental concentration. The timing and duration of these periods is generally predictable, they arc viewed as a normal part of the job's overall content, and they result from the necessity to perform highly detail-oriented tasks, from. situations involving stressful contacts with other people, high pressures to produce,, or other situations that increase the level of pressure or stress on the incumbent. The job involves substantial periods (up to 75 percent of work time) during which the incumbent is required to maintain a high level of mental concentration. Because they represent a major part of the job, these periods are predictable, and are viewed as a normal part of the job's overall content. These periods might arise from the various causes cited in the preceding degree definitions. The job involves a nearly constant (up to 100 percent of work time) requirement for the 'incumbent to maintain a high level of mental concentration, - 17 - Factor Degree Faclor Level A Occusional Peei\odic Continuous 5 5 Periodic (fletween Li and 3/4 Continuous Wore than 3/4 of work time.) of work time.) 10 Occasional (less than ¼ of work time.) - 18 - or an 15 -71") , 25 30 21) \‘„ POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN the Job 1 -17.1E17. FACTOR IIILE: Physical Demands of (Factor #8) PG OF TOTAL PIS.: *(3%) EM:1()R DEVINITION: This factor addresses the type, and the frequency of physical demands placed on the job incumbent. The factor focuses on characteristics of the job such as the normal amount of weight handled or the normal amount of force that must be exerted, the work positions that the incumbent must assume (sitting, standing, bending, etc.), and the basic physical activities that the incumbent must carry out on a day-to-day basis (pushing, pulling, lifting, balancing, climbing, etc:J. The factor does not consider the physical working conditions in which these activities are carried out (This concept is considered in a separate factor.) In selecting the placement of a job within the matrix below, a judgment should be reached first regarding the degree that reflects the most demanding physical aspect of the job, followed by a second judgment regarding the frequency with which this requirement is encountered. The incumbent is seated comfortably, doing light work (paperwork, tele- 1 phone or radio communication, etc.). Limited physical exertion is required to perform the job. The -job involves standing, walking, lifting of light objects, or exertion of small amounts of force. This might be observed as carrying pack - 2 ages, small parts, or other.objects of up to about 10 pounds inweight, driving a vehiclel-repeated standing and sitting, etc. No unusual physica exertion or coordination is involved. The job involves physical exertion such as bending, stooping, or sitting in a comfined position. Exercise Of specific physical effort such as balancing, climbing, operation of heavy vehicles or other equipment requiring coordination of controls and exertion of forces of about 10 pounds. ClAses evaluated at: level 6 on Fact 4 or Factor 6 can receive no more ti 1 30 pts. on this factor. -7.Trz .777-,.-z-rmr'rrrzrrarrasrazymrt - *44 041110 001,4410.4 44014 4ti', 4 ,' A FM:10R TITLE: Physical Demands of the Job (continued) (Factor #8) PCT. OF TOTAL PTS.: s"„ FACTOR DEFINITION: rit Factor Level A Occasional Periodic Continuous •35 40 30 45 50 40 Occasional (less than IA of work time.) Periodic (Detween 14 and 3/4 Continuous (Mare than 3/1 . , of work time.) of work time.) *Classes evaluated at level 6 on Fal 4 of Factor 6 can receive no more C 30 pts.. on this factor. or an POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN Factor Degree The job involves physical exertion such as bending, stooping, or sittinr in a combined position. Exercise of specific physical effort such as 4 balancing, climhina, operation of heavy vehicles or other equipment requiring coordination of controls and exertion of forces of about 50 , pounds. The job involves heavy physical ; exertion. Loads, or force exerted,' generally exceed 50 pounds and are ' encountered as part of the job. 5 The work results in high levels of , physical exertion and fatitue throughout the normal work day. - 19 - POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN T7.= -1=7. •-•-•^1=_ 7:1-77======r===:1: si. Z_'.21-z. i.:1-7....::.:L==== FACTOR DEFINITION: or Health Hazards Associated With the Job Thi'q FAr.tnr ArWrocqpc thn tvons of accident or health hazards assnriated with 1 _ . Till's factor addresses the types of accident or health hazards assoefated with the job that canrut be (AiminaLed completely FACTOR DEFINITION: FACTOR TITLE: A C C 'dent FACTOR TITLE: *(3.5%) by use of safety devices or by following prescribed safety procedures, and the frequency of exposure wnicn the inciallent ex- periences. The factor focuses on risks associated with the equipment, physical environment, people, or materials with which the incumbent must work in order to perform the job. In selecting the placement of a job within the matrix of 30h evaluatien points, a judgment should be reached first regarding the degree that represents the_mos_c_proLakle extun'_ of expscre to which the incumbent is subject (based, to the degree possible, on actual County experience), followed by a sicond judgment re- garding the frequency with which the exposure takes place. This factor is intended to recognize differences among County job classifications in the degree to which incumbents are exposed to unavoidable risks to their personal health or well-being. Accident or Health Hazards Associated With the Job (Factor #9) (Factor #9) PCTI OF TOTAL PTS.: S.s 11 Factor Level Fdclor Degree A OccasiOndl Periodi Continuous 5 10 15 20 30 35 ; 25 Occasional (less than t of work time.) 777 Periodic (Between t and 3/4 of work time.) C=3 Continuous (More than 3/4 of vmik trmr.) 40 45 55 The tasks performed on the job, and the location of the work are such that the incumbent's exposure to ac- cident and health hazards is unlike- ly. The tasks performed on the joh pro- duce exposure to injuries such as minor burns, cuts, abrasions, or , 2.falls. Little or no health hazara Is involved. Injuries experienced would not be expected to yield more than five days lost work time. 1 The tasks performed on the job pro- duce exposure to injuries (cuts, fractures, burns, etc.. obtained in use of equipment, hazardous material, or contact with dangerous persons), or health hazards (based on contact with communicable diseases) that would be likely to result in nonper- manent effects, and lost time of more than five days. ,The tasks performed on the job pro- duce exposure to incapacitating in- juries or health hazards. This ex- 4 posure results from the equipment, people, or work environment in which the incumbent operates, and would he likely to result in permanent or—lon term injury or illness. *1-11.ases evaluatecl Al. level 6 On Factor 6. or Factor 6 Can receive no more than Th nts. On thie triter, POINT FACTOR JOB EVALUATION PLAN CI FACTOR 111LE: Woirking Conditions FACTOR DEFINIT ON: FACTOR DEFINITION: FACTOR 1111E: Working Conditions (Factor #10) This factor considers the d',2gree to which, as an unavailable part of the job, the incumbent must work under conditions that are normally viewed as undesirable or disagreeable. The factor focuses an features of thu physical work envirohment that are linked directly with carrying out the job's normal activities (cold, heat, noise, dust or fumes, strong odors, cramped workspace, ete,,), an0 the frequency with which these features arc encountered. This factor do ,-; rot address office "climate control" Prob .lems that are typically not directly linked to tasks the incumbent must perform, rir are job-related accident or health h, "l:2ards considered. In selecting the placement of a job within the matrix of job evaluatin points, a judgment should 'oe reached first regrading the degree that is most representative of the job's working conditions, followed by a second jud9r.ent regarding the frequency with which the conditions are encountered. 7C:= PCT. OF TOTAL PIS.: Fdr.:tor Degree Factor Level A Oceinnal jjjl Continuous 5 5 20 work is carried out in an agree- able environment, as generally rep-1 ---- resented by normal office condi- tions. The work is carried out in mildly disaureeatle conditions. Factors 2 .S.uE7—;'s temperature, noise, venti- lation, the crowded nature of the work, or other surroundings yield a perceptible level of discomfort. The work is carried out in disagree,- able conditions. Temperature, noise, or the job's surroundings 3 produce a work environment that Involves physical or mental accom- olation in order to perform the job. The work is carried out in extrmel_y disagreeable conditions. Ten;pera- ture, noise, ventilation, ,.visual surroundings, or other „factors pro- 4 duce work environunt that demands exceptional physical or mental cc- comodation in order to perform the job. !yr,: r • 30 10 IS 20 25 30 35 45 - Occasional (I,ess than of work time.) Periodic (Between 1.. and 3/4 Cont.nuous (Mure than 3/4 of work time.) of va.irl: —21 *Classes evaluated at level 6 on Factor 4 or Factor 6 can receive no more than 20 points on this factor. SECTION III I MPLEMENTAT ION PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE A METHOD OF ESTABLISHING AND ADJUSTING SALARY GRADE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RATES EACH YEAR Each fall, the Personnel Department shall compile and analyze data related to movements in the labor market and the rate of inflation. Annually the plan for evaluating this data shalt be approved by the Personnel Committee. Utilizing published salary survey data and Personnel Department conducted salary survey information, the Personnel Department shall make salary rate comparisons for a number of benchmark classifications. In addition, the Personnel Depart- ment shall compile and analyze Bureau of Labor Statistics information and other published documents concerning average salary increases for the current year and projected salary struc- ture movements in the labor market for the coming year. During the phase-in years of the modified salary project, the Personnel Department and Depart- ment of Management and Budget shall formulate and propose to the County Executive a specific percentage increase in the total salaries expenditures for salary grades 16- L. This proposal shall include a recommendation for a certain percentage increase for classes not yet fitting into the salary grade range. Classes with maximum rates above the salary grade maximum will receive smaller percentage increases than the salary grade range increases. The maximum in- crease in any one year for any class below the salary grade maximum shall be capped at 10% unless modified by the Board of Commissioners. The County Executive shall review the proposals and make a final recommendation to the Personnel Committee and Board of Commissioners. Eventually, all classes within grades 16 - 21 will phase into their recommended salary grade maximum rates. Subsequently recommendations will be made only for percentage increases to the salary grade ranges. Increases to the salary grade ranges shall be referred to as salary structure movement. Historital data comparing movements of the labor market and rate of inflation to the Oakland County salary structure movement shall be maintained by the Personnel Department. The salary grade table shown on the following page shall be considered the starting point salary grade table based upon 1986 salary rates and shall be adjusted in 1987 and subseouent years in the manner described in the previous paragraphs of Implementation Procedure A. 1986 SALARY GRADE RANGES ( TARGETS ) Grade Base 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year _ 16 30,625 32,462 34,300 36,137 37,975 39,813 17 32,310 34,248 36,187 38,125 40,064 42,003 18 34,088 36,133 38,178 40,223 42,268 44,314 19 35,962 38,120 40,278 42,436 44,594 46,751 20 38,119 40,406 42,693 44,980 47,267 49,555 21 40,787 43,234 45,681 48,128 50,575 53,023 i) - 23 - IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE B IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW SALARY SYSTEM (MOVEMENT OF EMPLOYEES ONTO NEW SYSTEM) During the phase-in period for the new salary system, a dual set of salary ranges shall be maintained for each classification. The new salary range for the classification will be established in accordance with the recommended salary grade range for the class. The current system salary range for each class shall be maintained during the phase-in period. The current system and new system salary ranges may be increased annually as described in Implementation Procedure A. While the new system salary range and current system salary range for a particular class have different maximum rates, current employees will remain in their current system salary range. When maximum rates for the new system and current system merge, current employees at the max- imum step will be placed in the new system salary range. Employees below the maximum step will be placed in the new system salary range when they reach the maximum step of their current system salary range. New employees may be hired into either the current salary range for their class or the new salary range for their class according to the following guidelines: 1. When the new salary range maximum for a classification is lower than the current salary range maximum, new employees will he hired into the new salary range. 2. In cases where a new salary range maximum is higher than the current salary range, new employees will be hired into the current system salary range, if the current system range minimum is lower than the new system salary range minimum. 3. No new employees shall be hired at a higher rate than current employees with equal or greater experience except as permitted under Merit Rule 2, Section V. - 24 - IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE C EXCEPTIONS TO JOB EVALUATION SALARY GRADE PLACEMENT It is proposed that the Job Evaluation/Salary Grade Plan provide flexibility in dealing with a limited number of exceptional salary problems. While the integrity of the Job Evaluation/- Salary Grade Plan will be dependent upon good faith efforts to adhere to the plan on a con- sistent basis, provisions must be made through clear procedures to permit exceptions to salary grade placements in a limited number of cases. The procedures should provide for placement below the assigned salary grade as well as above it. It is recommended that all "Exceptions to Job Evaluation Salary Grade Placement" be reviewed annually to determine whether an exception to the grade placement should continue. Under no circumstances should a class be evaluated solely to achieve a higher salary grade salary range. "Exceptions to job Evaluation Salary Grade Placements" must have Board of Commissioners • approval. The categories under which exceptions may be made to the salary grade placement salary ranges are as follows: 1. . The main category for exceptions to salary grade placement will be for responding to severe market conditions. Requests for exceptions in this category would generally be made during the budget process. The Personnel Department shall recommend exceptions to the Personnel Committee for the following fiscal year. Extraordinary cases may, however, be considered during the year. Proposed exceptions should meet three tests: A. The present salary range maximum for the classification should he shown to be signifi- cantly below or above (approximately + 15%) the evaluated salary grade salary range as properly documented by several established labor market surveys. B. Recent turnover rates for the classification should be significantly above or below overall County turnover rates. C. Available qualified job candidates should be significantly fewer or greater than the norm of available job candidates for other County classifications. In classes with a single or limited number of positions whose incumbents remain. with the County, consideration may be given for an exception even though the second and third conditions have not been met. The market data would have to clearly demonstrate a pressing case for the exception. IT. The second category for exceptions to the salary grade placement salary range is for unique situations such as that of classes in the Prosecuting Attorney department. In this situation, the County makes no contribution toward retirement, thus the salary ranges are higher than would normally be expected without this condition, Requests from department heads or employees for an exception to the job evaluation salary grade placement shall be reviewed during the budget process. A department head or employer desiring an exception for a classification to the salary grade placement shall make the request in writing to the Personnel Department, stating the reasons for the request. The Personnel Department shall report, review and make recommendations on all such requests to the Personnel Committee during their budget review. The Personnel Committee shall present their recommendations for Board approval concurrent with adoption of the budget. Au exception may be made in very unusual cases to review a request other than during the budget process. A pressing case must be made by a department head to the Personnel DeparLmenL for consideration during a budget year. Should the Personnel Department reject the request as not being of an emergency nature, the department head may request in writing a review by the Personnel Committee. The Personnel Committee shall first determine whether the request will be considered during the budget year. The Committee may then schedule the matter for hearing at a subsequent meeting. Classes whose designation for an exception to the job evaluation salary grade placement is eliminated during the annual review shall be placed back onto their designated grade through a process of not granting increases at the time the salary grade tables are adjusted until such time as the then current salary rate merges with the designated salary grade range. Class Code 0802 6915 1620 1695 1669 1689 1746 LISTING OF EXCEPTIONS TO SALARY GRADE PLACEMENT (Grades 16 and above) I. Based on Labor Market Conditions Class Title Public Health Clinical Dentists Chief - Production Manager - Computer Resources Manager - Systems Services User Liaison Analyst Senior Systems Analyst Data Base Supervisor Staff Psychiatrist Chief - Health Division Medical Services Psychiatrist Director-CMH Board. Chief - Medical Services Chief - CME Adult Services Chief - CME Child Services Pathologist Class Code 5920 1783 4800 4808 7827 6890 2566 7130 0865 5726 1713 1690 1691 5298 Based on Unique Situations Class Title Assistant Prosecutor III Senior Trial Lawyer Chief - Appellate Division Chief - District & juvenile Court Chief - Family Support Division Chief - Circuit Court Division Chief - Warrants :IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE D SALARY GRADE PLACEMENT REVIEWS AND APPEALS Upon approval of a job evaluation plan there will be a need to provide an opportunity for the review of the assignment of job evaluation points and salary grade placement. Initially, a number of requests can be expected from department heads concerned with the original grade placements of some of their employees. Later as departmental operations and job duties change, new requests can be expected for re-evaluation of the job and salary grade placement. It is therefore necessary to provide for both a review and appeal pro- cess. However, such matters are not subject to appeal to the Personnel Appeal Board or the Personnel Committee except as provided herein. The Personnel Committee may assume jurisdiction of an appeal subject to an affirmative vote of the Personnel Committee. Due to the potential for a number of review and appeal requests, it is important that the process be efficient yet fair and open. For these reasons, a review process is proposed which provides for the appeal of Classifications and Salaries Unit job evaluations by a department head to a five member review panel representative of the various County operations. It is proposed that the Job Evaluation Review Panel limit the "hearing" portion of their review in order to conduct reviews in an efficient manner. The following steps shall be the procedure for handling of reviews and appeals: A. Plan Implementation Reviews: 1. Department heads desiring to have the job evaluation point and salary grade assignment reviewed shall notify the Personnel Department in writing. 2. The Classification and Salaries Unit of the Employee Relations Division shall make arrangements with the department head to meet and discuss the job duties involved and the assignment of job evaluation points. 3. Department heads wishing further review shall notify the Classification and Salaries Unit in writing indicating the factors in question and stating reasons why the specific evaluation is questioned. 4. The Classification and Salaries Unit shall review the Sob evaluation taking into consideration the material supplied by the department head. If warranted, further discussion should be held with the department head to assure a thorough understanding of the issues being raised. The Classification and Salaries Unit shall notify the department head in writing of its re- evaluation. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE D SALARY GRADE PLACEMENT REVIEWS AND APPEALS 5. Department heads wishing to appeal the re-evaluation shall notify the Classification and Salaries super- visor in writing identifying the factors and evaluations which are considered inappropriate and stating the reasons. The Classification and Salaries Unit supervisor shall schedule an appeal before a Job Evaluation Review Panel. The Job Evaluation Review Panel shall consist of five members and shall include: Two members appointed by the Board of Commissioners; one member appointed by the County Executive; one member appointed by the Chief Circuit Judge; and one member appointed by the other elected officials with covered employees. The appointments shall require concurrence by the Personnel Committee. Terms of office shall be for one year from July 1 to June 30. The Job Evaluation Review Panel shall select its own Chairperson and determine its own procedures for review and may elect to conduct reviews based on written materials exclusively or may limit the presentations of the department head and the Classifi- cation and Salaries unit. The job Evaluation Review Panel shall notify the department head and Classifi- cation and Salaries unit in writing of its determination. 6. The Personnel Department shall present a quarterly report to the Personnel Committee summarizing: 1) the re-evaluations requested by department heads that were completed and which recommend a change in grade level; 2) re-evaluations initiated and completed by the Personnel Department which recommend a change in grade level and are not disputed by the department head involved; and 3) appeals heard by the Job Evaluation Review Panel where the recommendation results in a change in grade level. Any such recommended changes must be approved by the Personnel Committee and the Board of Commissioners prior to becoming effective. 7. Employees desiring to have the evaluation of their classification reviewed because of job evaluation points or salary grade assignment shall make their request in writing to their Department head or Divi- sion manager. The Department head or Division manager shall forward the request to the Personnel Depart- ment along with a recommendation regarding the request. The Personnel Department shall investigate the request and respond with a determination in writing to the employee. If the determination results in a salary grade change the Personnel Department shall submit the change for approval to the Personnel Committee on the quarterly report. if the employee wishes to appeal the Personnel Department's determination, the employee shall submit a written request to the Personnel Committee to have the appeal forwarded to the Job Evaluation Review Panel, citing reasons for the request. The Personnel Committee, based on the written materials submitted by the employee and Personnel. Department shall determine to either forward the materials to the Job Evaluation Review Panel or to receive and file the materials without further action. - 29 - IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE D SALARY GRADE PLACEMENT REVIEWS AND APPEALS B. On-Going Job Evaluation Plan Reviews and Appeals 1. Following the Job Evaluation Plan implementation, Department heads who feel job duties have changed significantly so as to warrant a re-evaluation of the classification of a position or positions may request a re-evaluation in writing to the Classification and Salaries Unit. Department heads are considered to be an important part of the administration of the new salary plan and should promptly make a request when they feel job duties have changed sufficiently to warrant either an upward or downward re-evaluation. The request shall be a statement describing the new job duties. If a re-evaluation is conducted and the department wishes to appeal the determination, the Department head shall follow the procedures described in A.5. Employees who feel their duties have changed significantly and desire a re-evaluation should submit a request in writing citing the new job duties and reasons for the request, to their Department head or Division manager. The Department head or Division manager shall forward the request to the Personnel Department, along with a recommendation regarding the request. If a re-evaluation is conducted by the Personnel Department and the employee wishes to appeal the determination, the employee shall follow the procedure described in A.7. 2. The Classification and Salaries Unit may reject the request to conduct a re-evaluation if it is determined there is an insufficient change in job duties. The initiator of the request shall be notified in writing if the request for re-evaluation is rejected. Should the Classification and Salaries Unit reject a re-evaluation request for the department, the rejection may be appealed by the department head as described in A.5. above. The job Evaluation Review Panel may uphold the department head and direct the Classification and Salaries Unit .to conduct an evaluation. If a re-evaluation is conducted as a result of a change in job duties it will proceed as described in points 4 and 5 of Part A above. Should the Classification and Salaries Unit reject a re-evaluation request by the employee, the rejection may be appealed by the employee as described in A.7. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE D SALARY GRADE PLACEMENT REVIEWS AND APPEALS C. Personnel Department initiated. Reviews The Classification and Salaries Unit may initiate periodic or special salary grade reviews without department request in order to assure accuracy of salary grade assignment of employees. The Classi- fication and Salaries Unit shall notify the department head in writing of the reasons for review. Re- evaluations proposed by the Classification and. Salaries Unit which result in salary grade changes and opposed by the department head shall be presented to the job Evaluation Review Panel for a decision. D. Creation of New Classes The Classification and Salaries Unit shall recommend the need for new classifications and the original assignment of job evaluation points. Creation of new classes and initial salary grade placement shall require Board of Commissioners approval. A department head wishing a review of the Classification and Salaries Unit recommendations shall make their request prior to consideration by the Personnel Committee. An appeal to the job Evaluation. Review Panel shall be conducted prior to consideration to establish the class by the Personnel Committee. SECTION IV RECOMMENDED GRADE TABLE MAXIMUMS SECTION TV - RECOMMENDED GRADE TABLE MAXIMUMS Included in this section is a listing of the recommended 1986 grade table maximums showing the per- centage differential between each of the grades. For reference, the grade table maximums for grades 1 - 15 are also shown with the percentage differentials between these grade maximums. Naturally the maximum for grade 16 was driven to some degree by the maximum of grade 15. The maximum for grade 21 was set very close to the current rate of virtually all of the classes falling into grade 21. An effort was made to have reasonable differentials between the grades while keeping in mind the salary survey data. These recommended grade table maximums will be used as a 1986 implementation base to which any Board approved adjustment to the grade table for 1987 will be applied. Included in this section also are two separate listings. One is a listing of all classes in each salary grade, the 1986 current maximum step for each class and the recommended salary grade maximum for each grade. Following this is a listing of salary survey data from available labor market surveys. Pre- ceeding the survey information is an explanation of the surveys included in the report. It is import- ant to note that it is much more difficult to utilize survey data, especially "on-shelf" data, for comparing classes in grades 16 - 21 than for classes in grades 1 - 15. For example, survey data for a public health nurse may be relatively clear due to fairly uniform job duties across various agencies while data for a Manager of Public Health may be much more difficult due to differences in educational requirements of the various agencies (i.e., Bachelors prepared, Masters in Public Health or licensure as a physician) and also differences in job duties (i.e., size of staff, budget, degree of accounta- bility, etc.) While survey data for these classes is helpful in determining grade table maximums, all appropriate survey data should be considered for a grade, or grades, and a determination made based on the composite information. 1986 GRADE MAXIMUMS (r ode 7 Crlde Maximum Diffr,ricp A. Approved Under Plinse 1 1 16,011 2 16,626 3,0 3 17,212 3.7 4 17,831 3.7 5 18,823 5.3 6 19,813 5.3 7 20,862 5.9 8 22,918 9.9 9 25,186 9.9 10 27,676 9.9 11 30,413 9.9 12 32,095 5.5 13 33,873 5.5 14 35,753 5.5 15 37,738 5.5 B. Recommended Under Phase 2 16 39,813 5.5 17 42,003 5.5 18 44,314 5.5 19 46,751 5.5 20 49,555 6.0 21 53,023 7.0 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM SALARIES WITH TARGET MAXIMUMS (GRADES 16 - 21) CLASS POINT RANGE GRADE CODE CLASSIFICATION MAX AS A JOB t OE MAXIMUM TARGET 3 OF PIS POS. SALARY GRADE. MAX GRADE MX 520 - 559 16 7720 TOXICOLOGIST 553 i 32345 39813 81.2 1711 COO-- NURSING SERVICES !::q 1 34381 39813 06.4 6875 SR. PSYCHOLOGIST 1.38 5 49725 39813 102.3 4674 CHF-E & I ADM. SVCS. !,::8 1 41051 39813 105.1 1688 CHF-CTY & SPECIAL AUD. 538 1 37101 39813 93.2 2002 CIVIL ENGINEER III 538 13 39787 39013 99.9 0555 ADM ASST-ENV HLTH SVCS 543 1 37101 39813 93.2 1766 CHF CHILD. VILL. FROG, 544 1 37294 39813 93.7 1747 CHF CHILD. VILL. 101 41< 547 1 37294 39813 93.7 4910 MGR-PROBATE CASE FLOW 547 1 49113 39813 123.4 1 666 CHF-ENV. HEALTH ACT. 552 I 35162 39813 88.3 1480 CHF-ADT HLTH & ERR DIS 552 • 1 35142 39813 00.3 1707 CHF-PH CLIN. & SP. FRG 552 1 35142 39013 88.3 4350 JUVENILE COURT REFEREE 552 4 38654 39813 97.1 1712 CHF-PH FIELD NURSING 557 1 35162 39813 88.3 2632 COP--TAX ADMINISTRATION 559 1 37507 39813 94.2 560 -599 17 3880 FOE REFEREE 560 10 42604 42003 101.4 2121 COO FINANCE OFFICER 562 i 37507 42003 89.3 1696 CHE- P & R ADMIN. SERV 567 1 37101 42003 86.3 0738 ASST, MGR. NIRO: & REG 572 1 41 851 42003 99.6 1650 CHE-YOUTH ASST. SE (IV. 572 1 37294 42003 00.0 0211 ADM ASST-DIR PLAN/EVAL 573 1 40725 42003 97.0 SR. PSYCHOLOGIET-CMH 575 i 40725 42003 97.0 0731 ASST. MGR. F. M. & 0. 577 1 49911 42003 97.4 1095 BUSINESS ADMIN SHERIFF 500 1 39093 42003 93.1 0153 ADM. ASST. - CMH SVCS, 594 1 41651 42003 99.6 600 - 659 10 1747 CHF-WATER & SEWER OPER 602 5050 MENTAL HLTH CLIN. SUPV 611 0325 ASST. CHF. ENG.-S&W 612 1727 CIF-SPECIAL ACCOUNTING 616 1472 COP--INST. & ALTO ACCTS 619 0223 ADMIN. HEALTH ED. SERV 622 1664 COP-CEO. ACCOUNTING 622 0220 ADM-ENV. HLTH SERV. 627 0228 ADM-PERE&PREVHLTH SRV 630 3801 FOE REFEREE SUPV 638 0325 ASST. CHI. ENG,-SOL.W. 643 4817 MANAGER-SAFETY 646 6500 SR. ASST. CORP. COONS. 648 0325 ASST, CHF ENG.-DRAIN 651 5500 ' PROBATE CT. COUNSEL 650 1 44525 44314 100.5 4 44356 44314 104.6 1 43735 44314 98.7 1 41051 41314 94.4 1 411151 44314 94.4 1 37497 44314 84.6 1 41051 44314 94.4 1 41851 44314 94.1 1 41851 44314 94.4 2 43820 44314 98.9 1 43735 44314 90.7 1 37101 44314 63.7 3 46356 44314 104.6 1 43735 44314 98.7 1 40725 44314 91.9 660 - 719 19 2715 DEP. CI . ADMIN. 669 1 39442 46751 84.4 1550 CHIEF ENGINEER -DRAIN 681 1 46400 46751 99.2 4709 MGR-ANIMAL CONTROL 693 1 35162 46751 75.2 0218 ADM, PERS. PROP. AUDIT 701 1 45418 46751 97.1 0219 ADM. REAL PROP. APPR. 704 1 45410 46751 97.1 1694 CHF-DIST CT & IV MG. 705 1 37534 46751 00.3 4830 MGR-VETERANS SVCS. 705 1 37101 46751 79.4 1630 CHE-DD RETARD. SERV. 709 1 48608 46751 104.0 1299 CHF-ASST FOC OPER. 709 1 46356 46751 99.2 4815 MGR-REIMBURSEMENT 710 1 41051 46751 89.5 4826 MGR. MARKET. & RE.YEARG 712 1 46500 46751 99.5 MAX AS A CLASS JOB 1- OF MAXIMUM TARGEF % OF GRADE CODE CLASSIFICAVION PIS POS. SALARY GRADE MAX GRADE MX . _ ------- 4010 MANAGER-PURCHASING 715 i 41 851 46751 89.5 4603 MGR. BUSINESS DEVELOP /17 I 41 851 46751 09.5 720 - 779 20 4797 111;R•GRANT E & T 720 1 47295 49555 95,4 4006 MGR-SEL PLACEMENT& EEO 735 i 41 851 49555 84.5 4004 MG1L-M.C.E. 742 1 50107 49555 101.1 4799 MGR-PLANNING 743 1 41851 49555 04.5 0575 ASST. DIR. PERSONNEL 747 1 45960 49555 92.7 4044 MGR. CHILD. VILLAGE 747 1 45418 49555 91,7 4807 MGR-JUV. FIELD SERV. 747 1 41051 49555 84.5 4795 MGR-EME & DIE. CONTROL 756 1 40597 17555 01.9 4812 MGR-PROBATE ES 101376110 756 1 40561 49555 81.9 4801 MGR-FACILITIES ENG. 760 1 47295 49555 95,4 4788 MGR-COMM. DEVELOPMENT 766 1 47295 49555 95,4 4706 MGR-008ITING 767 1 47295 49555 95.4 4005 MGR-MILLYEE RELATIONS 770 I 45410 49555 91.7 2225 MGR-RES & OLIN SERV, 775 1 53860 49555 108.7 780 & Above 21 4802 MGR- F. M. & 0. 701 1 47295 53023 09.2 4703 MGR-AVIATION 784 1 52923 53023 99.8 4807 MGR- P & 8 DIVISION 790 1 52923 53023 99.8 4791 MGR-CMH SERVICES 795 i 52923 53023 99.8 4784 MGR-ACCOUNTING 796 1 52923 53023 99.8 3790 FIRST ASST. CORP, COON 007 1 49328 57023 93.0 0225 HEALTH DIVISION MGR 809 i 52923 53023 99.0 4787 MGR-BUDGETING 810 i 52923 53023 99.8 3075 FRIEND OF THE COURT 811 1 50107 53023 94,5 4798 MGR-EQUALIZATION 017 1 52923 53023 99.8 112 EXPLANATION OF SALARY SURVEY DATA Where possible, on-shelf published surveys were reviewed to obtain data on classifications in each salary grade. A total of 13 published survey documents were utilized to prepare the salary survey comparisons. In some instances, data from previous surveys conducted by the Personnel Department were included or special telephone surveys were completed by the Personnel Department to provide additional survey data. Data from Personnel Department conducted surveys is identified as "O.C. Special Survey." The classes for which salary survey data is shown include 65 employees, or 60% of employees in grades 16 and above. Thirteen different published surveys were reviewed. A brief explanation of each of the surveys is given below: 1.) Michigan Association of Counties - 1986' An annual salary and fringe benefit survey conducted annually and sponsored by the Michigan Association of Counties. Averages of the maximum rates shown for those Counties over 250,000 in population were included in the data. 2.) Michigan Municipal League - 1985 An annual salary survery of Michigan municipalities conducted by the Michigan Municipal League. Averages of the maximum rates for only those cities over 50,000 in population in MML's survey area I (generally the Detroit metropolitan area extending outward to Mount Clemens, Pontiac, Ann Arbor and Fiat Rock) were included. 3.) Detroit Area Survey - 1986 A large metropolitan area survey of over 200 employers, predominately of business and industry firms ranging in size from under 100 to over 5,000 employees. Information from this survey has been included for the average maximum rate and/or for the Weighted Average of Weighted Averages (W.A.W.A.). The W.A.W.A. designation reflects the amount being received by the average employee. The W.A.W.A. amount gives heavier weight to the very large employers who have more employees in a class. 4.) Court Employees Compensation Survey - 1986 This survey is conducted annually by the office of the State Supreme Court Administrator of all Michigan Courts. The data shown. reflects the average of the maximum rates of Counties over 250,000 population having a. comparable class. - 36 - 'te•tHOOd U) EXPLANATION OF SALARY SURVEY DATA 5.) Visiting Nurses Association - 1986 (Local Survey) A survey of 31 Detroit metropolitan area agencies (including Oakland. and Macomb agencies), pri- marily hospitals but including several private home care services and the county governments of Wayne, Macomb and Oakland. The rates shown are the average maximum step rates. The survey is conducted by the Visiting Nurses Association. 6.) St. Louis County - Nationwide County Salary Survey -1986 The St. Louis County Survey is conducted annually by St. Louis County Civil Service Commission. The 1986 survey includes data from 33 counties nationwide, generally considered to be of compara- ble size and population. Oakland County has been a participant in the survey for several years. 7.) Hennepin County National Public Sector Survey - 1985 This public sector survey reflects rates in effect in December 1985. It includes information from 19 counties nationwide, again considered comparable to Oakland County. Oakland County was also a participant in this survey. Rates included are weighted average rates or average maximum rates. 8.) Business and Legal Reports - 1986 Exempt Compensation Survey This survey includes responses from 360 organizations in various industries nationwide. Survey data is categorized by industry type (e.g. government), geographic area and company size based on number of employees. 9.) Professional Income of Engineers - 1985 This is an annual survey conducted by the Engineering Manpower Commission and includes responses from 339 organizations. Survey data is categorized by type of industry and geographic location and reflects rates actually paid based on years of experience beyond the B.S. degree for super- visory and non-supervisory engineers. Rates included in the salary survey comparisons are median rates. EXPLANATION OF SALARY SURVEY DATA 10.) Source_ILLirELtiLII_L_19_§6Engineering Salary Survey This survey information is published by an engineering recruiting firm. Rates reflected in the survey comparison data are median rates shown in this report. 11.) Dallas County - 1985 Survey of Selected Counties Dallas County surveyed selected counties with populations over 500,000 for certain higher level classifications. Rates reflected are those in effect in February 1985. Information included in the 16 - 21 salary survey comparison is for average weighted actual salaries or for average maximum rates as shown in this report. 12.) Michigan Hospital Association - 1986 This survey includes information reported from hospitals throughout Michigan_ Rates shown for the salary comparisons are from average actual rates or average maximum rates for hospitals in the Southeast area of Michigan. 13.) Michigan Occupational Wage Information - 1986 This report is prepared by the Michigan Employment Security Commission and is a compilation of extractions from diversified sources. Rates included in the salary survey comparisons are those shown as maximum rates for senior level employees and for supervisory or administrative levels where appropriate. O. C. Class 1986 O. C. Max Survey Survey Data 39,787 '86 Detroit Area W.A.W.A. 39,492 Svr. Av, Max 46,519 Av, Max 38,438 Av Max (Govt) 41,508 Av Max (500+) 39,728 '85 P.T.E. Med. (East N. Cent) 37,050 '86 Source Eng. Med. 45,100 '86 St. Louis '86 B.L.R. SURVEY DATA Grade 16 Senior Psychologist 40,725 '85 Hennepin W.A. 37,032 Av. Max 39,336 (Ph.D. No Supv.) Toxicologist 32,345 '86 St. Louis Max 39,715 Public Health Clin Dentist 45,418 '86 St. Louis '86 M.A.C. Av. Max 46,519 Av, Max 43,783 (Pop. over 250,000) Civil Engineer III Juvenile Ct. Referee Grade 17 FOC Referee Grade 18 Admin. Health Educ. Admin. Env. Health 38,654 '86 M.A.C. 42,604 '86 Ct Empl. Comp Sur 37,497 '86 St. Louis '86 St. Louis '85 Dallas '86 M.A.C. Av, Max 39,020 (Pop. over 250,000) Av, Max 40,492 Av. Max 36,715 Av. Max 51,035 Av, Max 46,860 Av, Max 39,946 41,851 - 39 - Manager-Animal Control 35,162 '86 M.A.C. Av. Max 33,007 (Pop. over 250,000) '86 0.C. Spec Av. Max 45,241 Surv. 0. C. Class 1986 0, C. Max Survey Survey Data Admin. Pers & Prey 111th 41,851 '86 St. Louis Av. Max 41,687 Manager - Safety 37,101 '86 Mich Hosp Av. Max 37,600 Assoc. Probate Court Counsel 40,725 '86 M.A.C. Av. Max 42,023 , Asst Chf Engineer-Drain 43,735 '86 St. Louis Av. Max 44,584 '85 P.T.E. Av. Max (East N. Cent) 43,150 Sr. Asst. Corp. Counsel 46,356 '86 B.L.R. Av Max (Govt) 39,780 Av Max (500+) 48,152 Grade 19 Chief Engineer 46,400 '86 Mich Occup Av. Max 49,056 Wage Ind. '86 B.L.R. Av Max (Govt) 46,904 Av Max (500+) 44,200 '86 Source Eng. Med. 54,100 Admin-Real Prop. Appr. 45,418 '86 Mich Occup. Av. Max 49,848 Wage Ind. Chf-Dist Ct Prob 37,534 '85 Hennepin '86 M.A.C. Av. Max 35,892 Av. Max 36,206 (Pop. over 250,000) - 40 - Manager-Veterans Serv. 37,101 0. C. Class 1986 0. C. Max Manager-Planning Survey '86 M.A.C. '86 0.C. Spec Surv. Survey Data Av, Max 33,590 Av, Max 37,648 Manager-Reimbursement 41,851 '86 D.A.S. Av, Max 43,548 Av. Max (1-5000) 56,220 '86 Mich Hosp Av. Act. 39,200 Assoc. Av. Max 41,200 Manager-Purchasing 41,851 '86 D.A.S. Av. Max 43,464 Av.. Max (1-5000) 46,223 '86 St. Louis Av. Max 49,604 '86 B.L.B. Av Max (Govt) 38,948 '86 M.A.C. Av. Max 38,605 Grade 20 Manager-Se, Place & EEO 41,851 '85 Hennepin '86 St. Louis '86 D.A.S. 41,851 '86 St. Louis '86 M.A.C. '86 M.M.L. Av, Max 45,492 Av, Max 42,423 Av. Max (1-5000) 44,429 Av. Max 60,238 Av, Max 51,635 (Pop. over 250,000) Av. Max 43,780 (Pop. over 50,000) Manager-EMS & Dist Cont 40,597 '86 0.C. Spec Av. Max 45,671 '86 M.A.C. Av. Max 36,041 - 41 - • 47,295 47,295 40,561 '86 St. Louis '86 M.A.C. '86 M-A.C. 45,418 '86 D.A.S. Av. Max 46,249 Av. Max 62,080 W.A. 51,312 Av. Max 52,944 Av. Max 41,295 Av. Max 49,686 Av. Max 54,351 Grade 21 Manager-Aviation Manager-FM&O Manager-Parks & Rec. Manager-Accounting 0. C. Class Malicger-6rant Emp & Trng Manager-Facilities Eng. Manager-Prob Est & MB Serv Manager-Employee Relations 1986 O. C. Max Survey Survey Data Av. Max 46,166 Av. Max 46,923 Av. Max 40,315 W.A.W.A. 37,428 Av. Max 48,228 W.A.W.A. (1-5000) 55,152 Av. Max (1-5000) 63,993 '86 St. Louis Av. Max 43,284 '86 Mich Occup. Av. Max 50,826 Wage Ind. '86 V.N.A. 52,923 '86 St. Louis 47,295 '86 Hennepin '86 M.A.C. - 42- 52,293 '86 M.A.C. '84 0.C. Spec Sury. 52,293 '86 St. Louis Av. Max 55,186 '86 B.L.R. W.A. (Govt) 42,848 '86 Mich Occup. Av, Max 50,088 Wage Ind. '86 Mich Hosp. Av. Max 46,200 Assoc. O. C. Class First Asst Corp. Counsel Health Division Manager 1986 O. C. Max Manager-Budgeting Survey Survey Data 49,328 '86 St. Louis Av. Max 57,500 52,923 '86 St. Louis Ay, Max 48,514 '85 Dallas W.A. 52,668 Av. Max 56,952 52,923 '85 Hennepin W.A. 61,272 Av, Max 61,920 '86 B.L.R. W.A. (Govt) 45,916 '86 Mich Occup. Av. Max 56,304 Wage Ind. '86 V.N.A. Av, Max 55,416 '86 M.M.L. Av. Max 46,398 '86 B.L.R. Av Max (Govt) 45,916 Av Max (500+) 51,532 Friend of the Court 50,107 '86 M.A.C. Av. Max 48,390 Manager-Equalization 52,293 '85 Hennepin W.A. 59,688 Av. Max 61,416 '86 St. Louis Av. Max 56,929 '86 Mich Occup. Av. Max 58,884 Wage Ind. '86 M.A.C. Av. Max 48,553 SECTION V - DESCRIPTION OF IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS (19871 The implementation procedure regarding the phase-in of the new salary plan for grades 16 - 21 was de- fined in Implementation Procedure A and B of Section III of this report. The purpose of this section is to describe the specific recommendations for 1987, the first year of the phase-in period. Specific recommendations for 1988 and beyond will be made as part of the budget setting process and will be designed to fall within Board allocated resources for salaries for the given year. The phase-in technique recommended here is similar to that used under Phase 1, grades 1 - 15 where total first year implementation costs were within. the 4.57 allocated by the Board for salary increases. Second and subsequent year implementation costs for Phase 1 will likewise be within Board allocated resources for salary increases. As described in Implementation Procedure B, existing classifications and pay ranges would remain in existence during the phase-in period. While the new system salary range and current system salary range for a particular class have different maximum rates, current employees will remain in their cur- rent system salary range. When the new system and current system salary range maximums merge, current employees at the maximum step will be placed in the new system salary range. Employees below the maxi- mum step will be placed in the new system salary range when they reach the maximum step of their cur- rent salary range. Each year during the phase-in period the "target" salary grade table would be re- vised as described in implementation Procedure A. Classes with maximums below their "target" salary grade maximum would be increased by a larger percentage than that applied to the salary grade table. Classes with maximums above their "target" salary grade maximum would be increased by a lesser percen- tage than that applied to the salary grade table. By this means the maximum rates for classes both above and below the "target" salary grade table are brought closer to the salary grade table each year. Virtually all classes should be on "target" within three or four years. NOTE: The Study Group reviewed several options for phase-in criteria for 1987. While the Study Group recommends adoption of the plan as contained in this report, we are not making a specific recom- mendation as to phase-in criteria. The Group looked at three different options and are forward- ing them to the Personnel. Committee for a determination. Please note Option A exceeds the 4.5% overall cost recommended by the Personnel Committee for inclusion in the 1987 Budget. Option A would require utilizing some of the 1.57 not spent on the 16 - 21 group in 1986 where the Board approved a 3.0% increase. Options B and C would both be within the 4.57 amount. - 44 - ) one - half the dis- tance to the target max plus 3.35% 28% of the distance to the target max plus 3.35% one - half the dis- tance to the target max plus 2.35% $247,675 COSTS: PERCENT DOLLARS 5.2 4.5 4.5 $214,300 $212,905 FIRST YEAR IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS (Salary Grades 16 - 21) TOTAL SALARIES BASE - $/4,762,982 4,5% of TOTAL SALARIES - 214,334 'VARIABLE 1. The 1986 recommended "target maximums" be increased by for new 1987 "target maximums". 2. Classes with maximums currently over their 1986 "target max- imums" be increased by . 112 EMPLOYEES OPTION A 3.35% 2.35% OPTION B OPTION C 3.35 2.3,5 2.35 2.00 3. Classes with maximums currently under their 1986 "target max- imums" be raised minsmaw ; the total increase to be capped at a maximum. of 10%. - 45 - SECTION V DESCRIPTION OF IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS