Dunn County HR proposes new performance-based pay plan, seeks ordinance change to remove step system

Sarah Stansberry, the county talent development manager, told the Neighbors of Dunn County standing committee on July 17 that Human Resources will link next year’s pay increases to a revamped performance-evaluation system and asked the board to approve changes to the personnel ordinance to allow that change.

Stansberry said the county will move to shorter, regular “performance check-ins” instead of the older annual review cycle and will use the October check-in as the basis for 2026 pay adjustments. "We really just want for employees to have regular and ongoing feedback from their manager so that they know where they stand," Stansberry said.

The proposed personnel-ordinance change would keep the current pay grades (minimum and maximum for each grade) but eliminate the 11-step progression inside each grade. Under the 2026 proposal described to the committee, employees rated “meets expectations” would receive a 2.75% increase, employees rated “exceeds expectations” would receive 3.25%, and employees rated “needs improvement” would receive no base increase. For staff already at the maximum of a pay grade, HR proposed a cash bonus approximating the difference to make their total pay comparable to other top performers for the year.

Stansberry said the new evaluation process will be implemented in NEOGOV, the county’s personnel software, with forms that managers complete after a conversation with an employee. The check-ins will be quarterly in most departments; at the nursing facility (NDC), managers will follow a twice‑a‑year schedule (July and October this year and April/October going forward) because of the different supervisory cadence there. "This is the kind of formality of the process. It's not meant to add any work to anyone's plate," she said.

Administration staff told the committee that the change was motivated by employee survey results showing lower scores on questions tied to regular feedback, accountability, and meaningful evaluation. Carmen (staff member) told the committee the county’s recommendation also responds to budget constraints and the mechanics of the current step system: a single step increase is about 2.75%, which limits options when the county wants an increase between 0% and a full step.

Officials said the proposed 2026 package is intended to give administrators more flexibility than the current all-or-nothing step system. The proposed structure breaks pay changes into three parts: a market adjustment (illustrated as about 2.25% in the materials shown to the committee), an upward supplement for meeting expectations (0.5% in the example), and an extra amount for exceeding expectations (an additional 1% in the example). The committee heard that the exact percentages could change in subsequent years.

Administration outlined the timing: the Committee on Administration will consider ordinance language on July 22 (next Tuesday), then the county board will receive the ordinance for first reading on July 30; the second reading and adoption of the pay plan would take place during the September board meeting alongside other budget decisions. Stansberry said HR will produce individualized compensation statements for employees showing current pay, benefits costs, and the projected 2026 outcome, and HR plans follow‑up town halls and ongoing manager training.

Committee members asked about appeals and employee recourse. Stansberry said ratings are recorded in NEOGOV and in the personnel file and that employees can raise disputes up the supervisory chain or go to HR if they believe a policy violation or retaliation has occurred. "We would encourage people to work up their chain," she said. Administrators also said managers will be trained to identify when non-work factors may affect performance and to consider accommodations where appropriate.

Carmen and HR staff emphasized fiscal limits. Administration presented multi‑year projections showing that a continuing model of 2% cost-of-living plus full 11-step increases (about 4.75% total) would add roughly $2 million to annual payroll and that the county’s primary revenue growth lever — net new construction in the tax base — has recently averaged around 1.5% a year, constraining levy growth.

No ordinance change or pay-plan resolution was adopted at the July 17 meeting; the presentation was a discussion and preview for the Committee on Administration and the full county board.

Ending: HR staff said training, manager support, and employee communication will continue through the summer; the Committee on Administration will have an action item on the ordinance in late July and the full county board will address the ordinance and the 2026 pay resolution in September.