ThisWeek UA 06/15/2011
Upper Arlington is right on track with comparable Ohio municipalities in terms of its pay practices.
The Waters Consulting Group presented its findings of the 2011 Total Compensation Study to city council June 6. City officials now have the data they were looking for to make decisions during the mid-budget review following council’s summer recess.
According to the study, the city currently is considered to be competitive in all four areas of compensation, when compared to 15 Ohio communities (including seven in central Ohio) and private-sector data published by the Economic Research Institute.
The four key areas of compensation on which WCG reported were the market competitiveness of actual salaries and pay ranges, and comparability of benefit offerings and pay practices. The scope of the study covered the city’s 69 nonunion positions.
“(The study) really shows we’re on track,” said Emma Speight, deputy city manger for community affairs. “We’ve got some recommendations now such as looking more at the pick-up of retirement benefits and narrowing the pay scale band.
“We understand everyone is tightening their belts, and don’t think some further tightening will affect our ability to retain talent that much, but you do have to balance pay with attracting talent.”
Currently, according to the study, the city is within its established pay policy, which establishes pay structures between 94 and 103 percent of the market average. The overall average for the city’s current salary comparable ratio is 102.1 percent.
“While overall we’re still in our range, we have a big difference between the people being paid at the high and low end of the pay scale,” city council member Erik Yassenoff said. “I like that the study said we’re on target, but we need to look at how we can have the majority of our people in the middle range of pay instead of at the extremes.”
A competitive market pay range has an overall average spread of 34 percent between the highest and lowest paid employees; the city’s current spread is 44 percent.
The study found five areas that were outside of market norms in which the city may choose to make revisions:
• Cost sharing of employee insurance coverage.
• Continued reduction of the “pick up” of employee retirement contribution.
• Provision of vision coverage.
• Wellness programs.
• Tuition reimbursement.
Of these five areas, the city currently does not require a contribution from employees when “employee-only” health insurance is selected, and the city contributes 9 percent of the employee’s 10 percent required retirement contribution. According to the study, changes to these policies without adjustment to pay would decrease the market competitiveness of the city’s salaries.
Vision coverage, wellness programs and tuition reimbursement are all benefits that are generally provided by market competitors but are not provided by the city.
“We have a lot of longevity, and we need to look at how we factor that in as we move forward,” Yassenoff said. “I don’t think we should penalize people for their service.”
Yassenoff said he is hopeful the study won’t “just sit on a shelf” but said council will wait before taking action on the recommendations.
“We’ll have to wait and see what happens with S.B. 5,” Yassenoff said. “We need to know what the impact of that is going to be before we make any changes going forward.”
According to Speight, city finance director Cathe Armstrong is currently putting together an analysis of the possible effects of S.B. 5 on staffing budgets, which will be used during the mid-budget review.
“We’ve been able to attract and retain really talented people,” Speight said. “It’s a good thing to do a study like this to keep us accountable. Now it’s up to council to take all of this information and tell us what direction they want to go in.”
The city operates on a two-year budget, which was approved by council last December. The mid-budget review by council is scheduled to be completed in December of this year.