County looks to close wage gap without breaking the bank

Taylor County is attempting to find the balance between being competitive in wages and watching the county’s bottom line on the budget.

In joint finance and personnel committees meetings held on August 15 and on Tuesday, committee members heard from Jenna Bidwell, a senior compensation consultant with Cottingham and Butler (formerly Carlson Dettmann). The county recently completed a compensation study reviewing every position with a job description questionnaire (JDQ) and placing them on the pay matrix at where each position should fall in the 18 different pay grades the county has. In addition, each employee is on a step within those grades based on the number of years they have been doing that job.

The last time a full study was done was in 2013. In 2021, the county had hired Carlson Dettmann to do a market update. The study was brought forward now, after ongoing struggles by the county in filling positions, with lower than other employer starting wages a major issue cited.

The bad news from the study is that the county is about 10% lower below the midpoint when compared to benchmarked positions. The study compared the county’s wages to those paid in a pool of private and public employers for similar positions.

While much of last week’s meeting dealt with outlining the problem, Tuesday’s meeting focused on proposals for two potential solutions with different costs for the county this year and longer term impacts on county employees in the future.

Both options, Bidwell explained, deal with the question of where does the county want to position itself within the labor market. Does the county want to be in the high, low or middle of the market?

The first option would maintain the minimum at 85% of the control point for the position while bringing the maximum for a grade from $112.5% of the control point to 107.8% of the control point. Earlier steps would have larger step increases each year than those after the control point is reached. Under this option, every employee would receive at least a 1.75% increase and employees in their positions for five years or more would be placed at least on step 3, which is 90% of the control point. Bidwell noted that in this plan about 55% of employees would be at step 4 or below in their grade levels.

The cost of this option was projected to be $325,000. This is the equivalent to a 3.7% wage increase.

The second option blends the 25th to 50th percentiles in the market study for each grade level and adjusts the minimum pay for each grade level up to 87.5% of the control point and maintained a maximum of 112.5% of the control point for each grade.

In this option, each employee would receive at least a 2% increase. Employees in their role for five years or more are ensured to be in at least step 3, which is 92.5% of the control point. The approximate cost of this option is $262,000 which is the equivalent to a 3% payroll increase. Under this option, 52.5% of employees would be on step 4 or lower. Under this option, employees would have less possible earnings in the future.

Both options included the annual salary increase which is typically decided by the county board as part of the budget process and is in addition to any step increases received. By comparison in 2023, the county approved a 3% wage increase across the pay matrix.

Bidwell said that neither option fully closes the gap between the county’s pay and the market rates, but they provide steps forward for the county to narrow that gap. Bidwell noted that it is “strange juxtaposition” that one option gives employees more money now while reducing earnings in the long run.

Bidwell said that while neither option remedies all the problems it sets up the county to work to be more captive moving forward.

“The bottom line is money,” said committee member Jim Gebauer.

Committee member Mike Bub agreed noting that employees are one of the county’s biggest expenses.

When asked by committee members what she would recommend, Bidwell said she felt the second option is closer to what the county can afford.

Highway commissioner Ben Stanfley raised concern about that option, noting that while employees will get at least 2% increase now, he said, “It will greatly hinder the amount people take home in the future.”

Human resources director Nicole Hagar noted that in 2024 she had to negotiate with almost all the new hires to start at a higher step level. She said only three new county employees have started at step one of the pay scale. She sad she would favor going with the second option also.

That said, both Bidwell and Hagar said there was merit in the county considering the first option.

One of the challenges for committee members is that either option puts the county on a path to competitiveness, but it requires future committees and board members to carry through with it. Bub said he favored options to allow future boards to be flexible to meet additional cost of living increases.

“I think it gives future county boards the ability to react to market conditions,” he said.

“I want you to go into this with eyes wide open,” Bidwell said, noting the goal is to move through the pay structure a more intentional way.

Committee chairman Chuck Zenner said he felt it was important for the county to move to the midpoint compared to the market study right away.

Bidwell noted that neither option would close the gap entirely.

In the end, committee members voted to go with the second option which has the equivalent of a 3% payroll increase for the coming year. Zenner voted against the motion.

In other business, committee members: Received a head’s up for a topic for future committee meeting agendas. As part of the dissolution process of the ADRC of the Northwoods, space for three staff members to come from that agency to work in Taylor County will need to be found. Catherine Lemke said the ADRC committee is looking at two options, one is to carve additional offices out of the multipurpose building from the community room space next to the Commission on Aging office at a cost of about $75,000 or adding onto the building at an estimated cost of $200,000. The room is used for fitness programs targeted for senior citizens as well as other community programs and is the location of the open class competition during the fair.

Approved adding a a CCS case manager position to the human services department. This position is fully funded by the state and will reduce waitlists for those qualifying for the programs. Currently the county has 17 adults and 30 children on wait lists. The Wisconsin Department of Health Services is making a push to reduce the amount of time people are on wait lists and that if the county doesn’t meet family enrollment goals they could be subject to financial implications including the possibility of having to repay funding. The committee’s action will add to the authorizations for the department which will need to be approved by the full county board in October.

Discussed the county’s dress code policy. The policy has come under question with the recent crackdown on employees ability to wear shorts and other clothing such as leggings which are acceptable in some instances such as when worn with a longer shirt. While shorts are not allowed, capris-style pants are, as are skirts and dresses. Department heads have asked for more clarification on the rules because of the potential for sexual harassment issues if male department heads are being asked to decide if women’s employees clothing is appropriate for the workplace. “Professional people should dress professionally,” said committee member Rollie Thums. No formal action was taken and the policy will continue to be reviewed.

Set the budget parameters at 0% operational increases for 2025. This does not include increases due to wages and benefits which has driven the majority of county budget increases in the past decade.