Dunn County committee weighs major change to pay system, ties 2026 increases to quarterly performance ratings

Dunn County’s Committee on Administration heard a proposal to change how the county evaluates and pays employees, including a shift from an 11‑step pay system to minimum–maximum pay grades tied to quarterly performance check‑ins and a proposed 2026 pay schedule that would give employees rated “meets expectations” a 2.5% increase and those rated “exceeds expectations” a 3% increase.

The change was presented by Jenna, human resources staff, who told the committee the county will move “from the traditional annual performance evaluation model to more of a quarterly performance check‑in approach.” She said the first round of quarterly check‑ins will begin July 1 and that managers will complete a short form that includes a rating and a brief narrative that employees, managers’ managers and HR can view.

Jenna said the county is proposing that an October check‑in (completed between Oct. 1 and Nov. 15) provide the rating used to determine 2026 pay adjustments: “If an employee is rated as needing improvement on that October check‑in, that means performance must improve,” she said, adding that those employees would not receive an increase for 2026. She said about 90% of management staff have completed training on the new process.

Why it matters: Jenna presented cost modeling showing the status quo—continuing a typical 2% cost‑of‑living grid increase plus 2.75% step increases—would cost roughly $12.8 million over five years, while the proposed structure would cost about $7.4 million over five years, a difference of about $5.4 million. The HR presentation framed the change as an attempt to make raises more tied to contribution and to reduce automatic year‑based step growth the county says it cannot sustain.

Committee members pressed for details and raised concerns about fairness and implementation. Supervisor Michelle asked whether employees at the top of a pay range (about 17% of the workforce, Jenna said) could be disadvantaged; Jenna replied that top‑of‑range employees who meet expectations would remain at their top rate and would benefit from any market adjustment to that pay range. Supervisor Story asked about dispute resolution when an employee feels a manager treated them unfairly; Jenna said employees may bring concerns to HR and staff would investigate, but she emphasized the county’s expectation that managers have those conversations at the department level before moving to HR.

Supervisors also asked about practical impacts. Jenna said the county plans to provide individual compensation statements showing what each employee earned in 2025 and what their proposed 2026 increase would be. She said the county would monitor ratings and “conduct audits” to identify unusually high ratings and to provide training where managers are not completing the check‑ins. Board members recommended starting with modest differentials—2.5% vs. 3%—to limit exposure while the program is piloted.

The HR staff framed the move to pay ranges as tied to a separate but simultaneous proposed rewrite of the personnel code that would give the county manager and HR more ability to manage FTEs and job classifications administratively while preserving the committee and board’s fiscal oversight. Jenna said she would return with a refined draft to the July committee meeting and emphasized that compensation recommendations would still come as part of the budget review process and would require board approval.

What the committee directed: The committee did not adopt the wage plan or the code change at this meeting; members asked staff to return with revised language and supporting materials in July and to provide written materials and one‑on‑one briefings for members before the next meeting.

Ending: Staff said they will continue department meetings, provide additional communication to employees, and prepare a more developed draft of the personnel code and the 2026 compensation recommendation for the committee’s July meeting.