The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8 Compensation Professional Employees Agenda Item # Workshop To: Board of Directors From: Peter Holzmeister Date: October 28, 2005 Subject: Compensation for management and professional employees Why this matter is before the Board: Approximately a year ago the Board considered adjusting the salary scale for management and professional employees of the District. At that time there was a discussion of changing the method by which this issue is presented to the Board. There was interest in having this issue brought before the Board in conjunction with review of the annual budget. There was also interest in having a multi-year approach to the management and professional salary scale, similar to the approach we have with the Union employees. This matter is before the Board at this time in response to that discussion. History: Each year i have asked to Board to review the management and professional salary scale. It is in our interest to keep that scale competitive with what is paid in other districts and cities, especially with respect to the positions that are typically employed in public power agencies. However, we have not always used a comparative analysis as a tool in setting the management / professional salary scale. We have frequently adjusted that scale a percentage amount equal to what is bargained by the Union. The practice of giving management/ professional employees the same percentage increase as Union employees has the advantage of treating all employees equally. But it does not necessarily result in a salary scale for management/ professional employees that is competitive with other agencies. We have wrestled with this issue off and on for several years. A year ago the Board approved a salary increase for management / professional employees (except the General Manager) and directed that no changes were to occur within the scale. In other words, no salaried employee would advance to a higher step within his or her salary scale until we had a chance to develop a new process. New information: I have conducted a survey of the salary paid to management and professional employees in public agencies in our general neighborhood. A person might say that these agencies are not similar to TDPUD, but they are located near us 1 and represent water and power agencies. Some of the agencies in the survey might appear too small while others might appear too large. I hope the small and large average out. We will not find an agency that perfectly matches us. It is difficult to conduct surveys such as this. Surveyed agencies might appear too small or too large for purposes of a comparison. By using some small agencies and some larger agencies I am hoping to get a reasonable average. Different agencies use different job titles for a very similar position, or they use a same job title for a very different position. Conducting a salary survey is a process of trying to find jobs in other agencies that are fairly similar to our jobs regardless of job title. Attached are results of a survey that I conducted. It shows that some of our positions are fairly close to the survey agencies, but other positions in our District are significantly low. Based on this survey I prepared a draft scale for managerial and professional salaries for use at our District for the next three years, a copy of which is enclosed. The salary scale is designed so that we close the gap between our District and the other agencies over a two-year period. The proposed salary scale also builds in a three percent increase each year so that we do not fall behind again during the period we are trying to catch up. Recommendation: I recommend that the Board review the survey and salary scale and give me feed back. 2 Management / Professional Salary Survey: Method Truckee Donner PUD has established a group of management and professional employees that perform services that are critical to the success of the District. We need to be able to recruit and retain these employees. We also need to compensate them fairly. It is important that our salaries are comparable to salaries offered for similar positions in agencies. The goal of the Management/ Professional Salary Survey was to test the level of salaries at TDPUD against similar salaries in a group of public agencies that perform services similar to ours. The following agencies were surveyed: City of Redding Electric City of Roseville Electric Incline Village General Improvement District North Tahoe PUD Placer County Water District, Plumas Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative -South Tahoe PUD Squaw Valley CSD --Tahoe City PUD Tahoe Truckee Sanitation District Town of Truckee Truckee Sanitary District In order to get salary data related to GIS Coordinator it was necessary to survey the following cities: Brentwood Cupertino Encinitas Sacramento Salinas San Mateo Santa Cruz Santa Monica Santa Rosa Watsonville The TDPUD positions that were surveyed are: General Manager, Power Supply Manager (AGM), Administrative Services Manager, District Engineer (water and electric), Superintendent (water and electric), GIS Coordinator, Human Resources Administrator, and Executive Secretary. These positions were used because there are positions in the surveyed agencies that are similar enough to our positions for purposes of the study. Other positions that TDPUD has within its management/professional staff were not surveyed because positions is the other agencies are not similar enough to our positions. An example is the position of Associate Engineer. In other agencies an ................. . . Associate Engineer is not a P.E. It is a person who inspects minor construction and performs minor plan review. Another example is the position of Senior Accountant. In other agencies this position is a payroll clerk. Where a position was able to be surveyed the study uses that salary in the analysis. Where a position was not able to be surveyed, the study determined an appropriate salary scale by extrapolation. The goal in extrapolating was to maintain an internal consistency within the salaries of the District. For example, the salary of Water Operations Manager is equal to the salary of the Administrative Services Manager. The salary of Associate Engineer should be lower than the salary of the District Engineer. The survey asked for the top salary in the range for each position. The average for the top ranges was then calculated. That average was then used as the maximum salary for our ranges. The bottom salary for each of our positions was then calculated to equal fifteen percent less than the maximum. The salary scale was established with five steps. It may not be advisable to use the average top salary as the maximum for our salary scale. It may be better for the District to set its maximum salary for Management/ Professional positions at the seventy-fifth percentile of the surveyed agencies. To recruit and retain an excellent staff we need to have competitive compensation, not just average compensation. Not all compensation factors were surveyed. In talking with other agencies it was clear that all are similar in fringe benefits such as vacations, holidays and sick leave. The larger fringe benefits are medical insurance and pensions, and there are significant differences among the surveyed agencies in these areas. Generally, TDPUD has a better medical insurance program, but a lower pension benefit. It is difficult to deal with medical insurance and pensions when considering management and professional compensation because these plans must be identical for Union and exempt employees. Medical and pension plans need to be evaluated, but with a broader focus than was possible in the survey conducted. Following is Appendix A which lists the position by position results of the survey. Next is Appendix B which is the proposed Management and Professional Employee Salary Scale. Appendix A General Manager $ 127,296 Incline Village CID $ 139,125 Pius bonus North Tahoe PUD $ 133,960 Placer County Water Agency $ 156,360 Plumas Sierra Rec $ 163,770 Redding $ 168,000 Roseville $ 175,259 South Tahoe PUD $ 159,012 Squaw Valley CSD No response Tahoe City PUD $ 141,397 Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency $ 155,328 Town of Truckee $ 133,152 Truckee Sanitation District $ 125,400 Average $ 150,069 Assistant General Manager $ 120,200 Palo Alto $ 140,795 Palo Alto $ 130,686 Redding $ 138,876 Roseville $ 130,366 Average $ 135,181 Assistant Utiltiy Manager "Power Supply Manager District Engineer (Water and Electric) $ 92,882 South Tahoe PUD $ 110,904 Roseville $ 105,440 Tahoe City PUD $ 102,519 Truckee Sanitary District $ 95,980 Town of Truckee $ 90,684 Incline Village CID $ 88,780 North Tahoe PUD $ 85,080 Redding $ 105,303 Placer County Water Agency $ 76,788 Plumas Sierra REC $ 108,072 Squaw Valley PSD NIA Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency Truckee Sanitary District $ 98,757 Average $ 97,119 Administrative Service Manager $ 98,345 Roseville $ 147,753 South Tahoe PUD $ 121,800 Placer County Water Agency $ 112,092 Town of Truckee $ 104,832 Tahoe City PUD $ 95,857 Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency $ 100,720 North Tahoe PUD $ 92,400 Squaw Valley CSD $ 75,958 Incline Vilage GID $ 112,299 Redding $ 104,772 Plumas Sierra REC $ 102,074 Truckee Sanitary District NIA Average $ 106,414 ................. .. Superintendents (Water & Electric) $ 87,418 South Tahoe PUD $ 110,904 Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency $ 93,604 Roseville $ 93,361 Squaw Valley CSD $ 87,576 Tahoe City PUD $ 85,656 NorthTahoe PUD $ 83,196 Truckee Sanitation District $ 80,580 Redding $ 94,878 Incline Village GID $ 70,980 Placer County Water Agency $ 86,534 Plumas Sierra REC $ 88,000 Town of Truckee $ 63,660 Average $ 86,577 GIS Coordinator $ 85,233 San Mateo $ 97,510 City of Brentwood $ 96,225 Santa Monica $ 91,404 Sacramento $ 88,579 Santa Cruz $ 86,880 Santa Rosa $ 84,900 Salinas $ 82,464 Watsonville $ 77,819 Encinitas $ 76,860 Cupertino $ 75,216 Average $ 85,786 Human Resource Administrator $ 68,003 Placer County Water Agency $ 111,048 South Tahoe PUD $ 98,844 Tahoe City PUD $ 90,781 Roseville $ 70,876 Squaw Valley CSD $ 68,388 Palo Alto $ 65,915 North Tahoe PUD $ 47,679 Incline Village GID $ 53,539 Redding $ 61,162 Pumas Sierra REC $ 67,066 Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency N/A Town of Truckee $ 49,200 Truckee Sanitation District N/A Average $ 71,318 Executive Secretary $ 54,636 South Tahoe PUD $ 85,440 Truckee Sanitation District $ 83,070 Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency $ 67,548 Roseville $ 63,462 Tahoe City PUD $ 60,459 Placer County Water Agency $ 60,168 Palo Alto $ 60,112 Squaw Valley CSD $ 59,293 North Tahoe PUD $ 49,366 Redding $ 49,428 Incline Village GID $ 65,232 Plumas Sierra REC $ 67,066 Town of Truckee $ 58,836 Average $ 63,806 Appendix B MANAGEMENT SALARY SURVEY COMPARISON & PROPOSED INCREASES Position Current Salary 2005_ Survey PROPOSED (3°i°per year) er 20Q6 2007 2008 General Mana g $ 127,296 $ 150,069 Step 5 $ 142,849 $ 159,208 $ 163,984 Step 4 $ 137,492 $ 153,238 $ 157,835 Step $ 132,135 $ 147,267 $ 151,685 Step $ 126,778 $ 141,297 $ 145,536 Step 1 $ 121,422 * $ 135,327 * $ 139,386 Current Salary 2005_�eV 2006 2007 008 Assistant GM $ 120,200 $ 135,180 Steps $ 129,718 $ 143,413 $ 147,715 Step $ 124,854 $ 138,035 $ 142,176 Step 3 $ 119,989 $ 132,657 $ 136,636 Step $ 115,125 $ 127,279 $ 131,097 Step 1 $ 110,260 * $ 121,901 * $ 125,558 Current_Salary 2005 Survey 2006 2007 Admin Services Manager $ 98,340 $ 106,414 step 5 2008 Water Utility Manager p $ 103,973 $ 112,894 $ 116,281 Electric Utility Manager Step 4 $ 100,074 $ 108,660 $ 111,920 Telecom Manager Step $ 96,175 $ 104,427 $ 107,560 Step 2 $ 92,276 $ 100,193 $ 103,199 Step 1 $ 88,377 * $ 95,960 * $ 98,839 Curren_ t Salary 2005 Survey 2006 2007 Electric System Engineer $ 92,882 $97,119 steps $ 96,457 2008 Water System Engineer $ 103,034 $ 106,125 Finance /Accounting Manager Step 4 $ 92,840 $ 99,170 $ 102,145 Step $ 89,223 $ 95,306 $ 98,166 Step 2 $ 85,606 $ 91,443 $ 94,186 Step 1 $ 81,988 * $ 87,579 * $ 90,206 CAMMIRIM 2005 Survey 2006 2007 2008 Electric Superintendent $ 87,418 $ 88,731 Ste 5 91,393 $ 94,135 Water Superintendent p $ $ 96,959 Step 4 $ 87,966 $ 90,605 $ 93,323 Step 3 $ 84,539 $ 87,075 $ 89,687 Step $ 81,111 $ 83,545 $ 86,051 Step 1 $ 77,684 * $ 80,015 * $ 82,415 Curren_ t Salary 2005 Survey 2006 2007 2008 GIS co-ordinator $ 85,233 $ 85,786 step s $ 88,360 $ 91,010 $ 93,740 Step 4 $ 85,047 $ 87,597 $ 90,225 Step 3 $ 81,733 $ 84,184 $ 86,710 Step 2 $ 78,420 $ 80,771 $ 83,194 Step 1 $ 75,106 $ 77,359 * $ 79,679 Current 2005 Survey 2006 2007 2008 Planning Director $ 76,676 $ 82,804 Step 5 $ 80,976 Senior Accountant $ 87,847 $ 90,482 Step 4 $ 77,939 $ 84,553 $ 87,089 Step $ 74,903 $ 81,258 $ 83,696 Step $ 71,866 $ 77,964 $ 80,303 Step 1 $ 68,830 * $ 74,670 $ 76,910 t Human Resources Administrator Curren 2005-Survey 2006 $ 68,003 $ 71,318 Steps $ 70,730 756 2008 $ 75,661 $ 77,931 Step 4 $ 68,078 $ 72,824 $ 75,009 Step 3 $ 65,425 $ 69,986 $ 72,086 Step $ 62,773 $ 67,149 $ 69,164 Step 1 $ 60,121 * $ 64,312 * $ 66,241 Curren�ry 2005 Surv� 2006 Executive Secretary $ 54,636 2007 2008 $ 63,806 Steps $ 60,178 $ 67,691 $ 69,722 Step $ 57,921 $ 65,153 $ 67,107 Step 3 $ 55,665 $ 62,614 $ 64,493 Step $ 53,408 $ 60,076 $ 61,878 Step 1 $ 51,151 $ 57,537 $ 59,263 Curre--Mary 2005�ey 2006 Project Manager $ 81,955 2007 2008 $ 80,766 Step $ 83,189 $ 85,685 $ 88,256 Step 4 $ 80,069 $ 82,472 $ 84,946 Step 3 $ 76,950 $ 79,259 $ 81,637 Step 2 $ 73,830 $ 76,045 $ 78,327 Step 1 $ 70,711 $ 72,832 * $ 75,018 Curre- - MAd!M 2005�eV 2006 Associate Engineer $ 81,370 2007 2008 $ 88,943 Steps $ 91,611 $ 94,359 $ 97,190 Step $ 88,176 $ 90,821 $ 93,545 Step $ 84,740 $ 87,282 $ 89,901 Step $ 81,305 $ 83,744 $ 86,256 Step 1 $ 77,869 $ 80,205 * $ 82,611 * 15% reduction of step 5 f fi s t