County staff presented a proposal July 9 to change how Dunn County evaluates employees and how much they are paid, recommending quarterly manager-employee check-ins, a simpler three-level performance rating, and replacing the current 11-step pay system with minimum/maximum pay grades. The countys presentation explained the October check-in would determine increases for the following year, with a meeting-expectations rating proposed to yield roughly a 2.75% base-pay increase and an exceeds-expectations rating an additional roughly 0.5% on top of that; employees rated as needing improvement would not receive a base increase.

County staff said the proposal is intended to provide more frequent feedback, address employee-survey responses that managers and evaluations do not produce regular communication, and give managers flexibility to apply smaller or larger increases than the fixed step previously required. "We feel that it will provide more regular and ongoing feedback and more fostering that relationship between managers and their employees," a county staff member said during the presentation.

The change would remove the fixed 11-step progression that currently applies to each of the countys pay grades. Staff said the current system effectively locks annual step increases at 2.75%, which combined with a market/grid adjustment has resulted in roughly 4.75% typical year-over-year increases for many employees. Under the proposed structure, pay grades would remain but contain minimum and maximum rates; employees would fall somewhere between those limits based on performance and market adjustments. For employees already at the top of a pay grade, staff proposed a lump-sum payment option so exceptional performers could be rewarded without exceeding the grade maximum.

Staff described the new evaluation cadence as four brief check-ins around January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1, with roughly 45 days to hold and document each meeting. The October check-in would be used for annual pay determinations, and the July check-in would be the last opportunity to discuss changes needed to reach an exceeds-expectations rating by October. "If this was your final rating for next year, this is what I would need to see in order for you to move up to that next level by October," the presenter said about the July discussion.

On funding and timeline, staff explained the countys combined salary-and-fringe costs are roughly $49 million in 2025 and that continuing the current step-plus-market approach at the historical rate would significantly increase long-term personnel costs; staffs slides projected that status-quo increases could push total personnel costs toward about $62 million by 2030. Staff said removing fixed steps gives the county flexibility to set an annual market or cost-of-living adjustment that is fiscally sustainable and to avoid sharply increasing levy pressure. The presentation also noted a recent quarter-point increase in the Wisconsin Retirement System employer contribution that staff absorbed in the proposed percentages.

The personnel-code change needed to eliminate the step system is scheduled for first discussion with the committee on administration in July; staff said a county-board first reading would be in July and a second reading in September. Staff emphasized the plan is not final: the board must adopt ordinance changes and the pay plan and the exact percentages could change annually as part of the budget process. Staff also said they will continue outreach to departments, provide individual compensation statements after budget adoption, and hold town-hall sessions in early 2026 to gather feedback.

Discussion at the committee included questions about how managers will define "exceeds expectations" across diverse jobs and how many employees might fall in each category. Several committee members said they would not want a strict quota of top ratings and stressed that department-level standards should be clear. Staff described a "core values" rubric (dedication, ethics, betterment, professionalism, collaboration) intended to make behavioral expectations comparable across varied roles. Committee members also asked whether performance records would be public; staff said personnel files would contain the reviews and that public-records requests would be handled through corporation counsel and a balancing test.

No formal action adopting the proposal was taken July 9; staff presented the plan for committee feedback and said the committee on administration will act on the ordinance change in July, with county-board consideration following the committee timetable if the administration committee approves it.