Classification, Compensation, and Benefits Study for New Hanover County, NC FINAL REPORT

Transcription

1 Classification, Compensation, and Benefits Study FINAL REPORT June 06, 2014

2 EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC Chapter 1 - Introduction Evergreen Solutions was contracted in September 2013 by New Hanover County, North Carolina to conduct a for the organization. This report consists of five chapters detailing the study process, findings and recommendations. This analysis provides the County with information related to current employee demographics, employee feedback regarding the current classification and compensation systems, and salary market competitiveness. Analyzing internal and external equity of the current compensation system were focal points of the study. Internal equity relates to the fairness of an organization s compensation system with regard to how the system evaluates each employee s role and contribution by the same criteria, and organizes positions within common pay ranges. To understand the internal equity of the County s compensation system, an analysis of internal conditions was conducted and provided a foundation for the study. Next, an evaluation of the work performed by County employees was performed. By reviewing the skills, capabilities, and duties of each position it was determined whether similar positions were compensated in a similar manner within the organization. External equity was then reviewed to determine the market competiveness of the compensation system. This was accomplished through examining any differences between what County employees are compensated and what compensation is available in the market place for the same skills, capabilities, and duties. For this analysis, a market salary survey was conducted. In summary, for this study, Evergreen Solutions was tasked with: Collecting and reviewing current environmental data present at the County. Conducting a classification analysis utilizing the Job Assessment Tool (JAT) point factor methodology to assess internal equity of the current classification plan. Conducting market salary and benefits surveys to address external equity and provide feedback to the County regarding current market competitiveness. Developing strategic positioning recommendations using market data and best practices. Developing a compensation structure and implementation plan for the County. Developing and submitting draft and final reports summarizing findings and recommendations. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-1

3 Chapter 1-Introduction Updating classification specifications utilizing employee and supervisor responses provided in the JATs. 1.1 STUDY METHODOLOGY Evergreen Solutions combined qualitative as well as quantitative data analysis to produce an equitable solution to maximize the fairness and competitiveness of the County s classification and compensation structure and practices. Project activities included: conducting a project kick-off meeting; conducting orientation and focus group sessions with employees; conducting classification assessments utilizing the Job Assessment Tool (JAT); conducting salary and benefits surveys; revising classification specifications based on employee JAT feedback; developing a new compensation plan; developing recommendations for compensation management; developing detailed implementation plans; and creating draft and final reports. Kickoff Meeting The kickoff meeting provided an opportunity to discuss the history of the County, finalize the work plan, and begin the data collection process. Data collection of relevant background material (including existing pay plan, organization charts, policies, procedures, classification specifications, and other pertinent material) was part of this process. As well, this meeting provided an opportunity for Evergreen Solutions to begin to understand the pay plan structure and the nature of the work performed by County employees. Employee Outreach Outreach consisted of orientation meetings and focus groups sessions. The orientation meetings briefed employees and supervisors on the purpose and major processes of the study. This process allowed questions to be answered and resolved any misconceptions about the study and relevant tasks. In addition, employees were asked about their experience with the organization and to identify any concerns they had about the existing classification and compensation systems. This information provided basic perceptional background as well as a starting point for the research process. The focus group sessions were designed to gather input from the employees varied perspectives as to the strengths and weaknesses of the current systems. Feedback received from employees in this context was helpful in highlighting aspects of the systems which needed particular attention and consideration. Job Assessment Tool (JAT) Classification Analysis Employees were asked to complete individual JAT surveys, where they shared information pertaining to their work in their own words. The responses were analyzed, compared to the current classification specifications and individually scored based five compensable factor Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-2

4 Chapter 1-Introduction questions. Each of the compensable factors (Leadership, Working Conditions, Complexity, Decision Making, and Relationships) were given weighted values based on employee responses which resulted in a point factor score for each classification. The rank order of classifications by JAT scores was used to develop the proposed compensation structure, and combined with market data, formed the foundation for the recommended solution. Leadership This factor relates to the level of leadership exercised in the organization. For example, an employee may follow directions provided by her/his supervisor, or determine strategy and provide leadership over entire departments or the County as a whole. Working Conditions This factor is utilized to understand the employee s physical working conditions; impact on those conditions as well as the working conditions impact or potential impact on the employee. Complexity Complexity describes the nature of work performed and includes responses ranging from entry level manual or clerical tasks up to advanced scientific, legal, or executive management duties. Decision Making Responses for this factor range from employees who follow guidelines and make few if any decisions to employees who make decisions that impact the entire organization. Relationships This factor has responses that range from employees who work primarily alone, those who work as members of a team, those who oversee teams and those who report to elected officials or the general public. Salary and Benefits Surveys To develop the salary survey, the external market peers were defined as identified public sector organizations with similar characteristics, demographics, and service offerings as the County. Private sector data was available through private sector survey data available to Evergreen Solutions. Benchmark positions were identified from each area and level of the organization and included a cross-section of positions at the County. Once the peer and benchmark information was finalized, a survey tool and approach was designed to solicit salary and benefits information from each of the peer organizations. When the results were received, the data was analyzed and the results provided as aggregate findings. Classification Description Revision Based on employee feedback and supervisor comments on the JAT, classification specifications are being reviewed and updated to better reflect work performed and revisions to the classification structure. Also included in this process is a review and update of any changes to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) status for each position. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-3

5 Chapter 1-Introduction Solution Creation and Implementation As part of the study, the County identified its desire to maintain its competitive position in the market. Doing so will enable the County to continue to hire and retain highly qualified employees committed to public service. Following the design of the classification structure and analysis of internal and external equity of the compensation system, a competitive pay plan was designed. Desired range spreads (distance from minimum to maximum) and midpoint progressions (distance from the midpoint of one pay grade to the next) were established, and provide ample opportunity for employee salary progression through the ranges. Once the pay plan was created, classifications were slotted into the structure using market data, results of JAT scoring, and current market best practice trends. Particular attention was paid to the review and grade assignment of highly competitive classifications; i.e., skills that may be difficult to recruit or retain. The final step, the creation of the solution, identified the costs associated with implementing the new pay plan; i.e., the data from the classification pay grade assignments (or market data for elected officials or appointees by the Board of County Commissioners) were applied to the individual incumbents in the organization. This allowed the County to view the total costs associated with the pay plan changes. Recommendations were also provided on how to implement the classification and compensation structure, and maintain it going forward. 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION This report includes the following chapters: Chapter 2 Summary of Employee Outreach Chapter 3 Assessment of Current Conditions Chapter 4 Market Summary Chapter 5 Recommendations Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-4

6 EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee Outreach Following the kickoff meeting and data collection, Evergreen Solutions conducted a series of orientation and employee focus group meetings with County employees and supervisors in October The meeting format and questions were designed to provide information to employees regarding the classification and compensation study, and to solicit input on a number of topics related to the study. The meetings were well attended and the comments were valuable. Findings from these meetings are summarized below. General Feedback Employees who participated in these meetings generally regarded the County as a good, place to work. They appreciated the benefits provided by the County, believed the reputation of organization was very good, and enjoyed the workplace environment and their co-workers. However, employees also suggested a few areas where the County could improve. For example, they believed that some areas of the organization should have additional classification levels available to increase their ability to advance and that new employee salaries unfairly approximate those of employees who have worked with the County for many years. They also expressed a desire to see significant changes made to their performance evaluation system. The employees positive comments regarding the current classification and compensation system included the following: Employees highly valued the benefit plan provided by the County. Employees cited the personal leave-roll over into their sick leave (once the maximum accumulation of personal leave was met), and subsequent credit of sick leave hours toward retirement as something that they would not want to see changed. Many employees appreciated that management was conducting a classification and compensation study. Participant employees also provided suggestions for areas for improvement. For example: Some expressed a desire to receive increases that rewarded them when their performance truly exceeded expectations. Some would like to see classification specifications updated to more accurately depict the work that they perform. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-1

7 Chapter 2-Summary of Employee Outreach Benefits Observations A strong majority of meeting participants were very pleased with the employee benefits package offered by the County. These positive comments, as well as areas for improvement, are listed below: Employees overwhelmingly appreciated their health and retirement plans; paid time off policies, both vacation and sick; and the County s Wellness Program. Many employees expressed a desire to receive tuition reimbursement. Employees would like some level of 401K match made by the County. Some employees would like to be able to sell back vacation time. Compensation Issues Focus group participants also offered the following comments related to compensation: A few employees mentioned they would like to receive pay increases for time (tenure) with the County. Many employees believed their salaries had fallen behind their market peers. Some employees expressed a desire to receive more than minimal differentiation in merit increases related to level of performance; i.e. a greater percentage increase for each higher level of performance. Classification Issues Participants also provided the Evergreen Solutions team with issues specific to individual classifications. Below are issues that were mentioned to the team: A few employees mentioned that team leaders were performing similar work as supervisors. Many employees requested that additional levels (classifications) be created for some job families to provide for additional career growth and advancement. A few employees stated that there were few opportunities for advancement for nonsworn employees in the Sheriff s department. Performance Management Employees were asked about their current performance evaluation system. Below are a few of their comments related to this process: Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-2

8 Chapter 2-Summary of Employee Outreach Employees would like to have a more consistent process, with a more simple performance evaluation tool, and a clear understanding of the relationship of performance and merit increases. Some employees expressed the desire to have input from all of the managers with whom the employees work, rather than just one supervisor; while others expressed that they were told their merit increase by their supervisor only to be told later that their increase was lowered by a higher level manager. Some employees expressed that when the system works well, they believe the County is a good place to work. Market Peers Focus group participants were asked to indicate the organization s biggest competitors for quality employees. These are listed below: City of Greensboro; City of Wilmington; Town of Cary; Brunswick County; Durham County; Forsythe County; Guilford County; Mecklenburg County; Wake County; and Pharmaceutical Product Development. Benchmark Positions Employees were also asked which positions or functional areas within the County present the greatest challenges with regard to recruitment and retention. The functional areas mentioned by focus group participants were: Environmental Health; Fire Services; Parks/Gardens; 911 Emergency Management; and Information Technology. SUMMARY While the concerns discussed above were cited by employees who participated in the orientation and focus group meetings, overall, they believed that the County is a good place to work. In fact, many employees cited the benefits package, the quality of co-workers, and the work environment as reasons why they remain employed with the County. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-3

9 Chapter 2-Summary of Employee Outreach The information received during this employee outreach provided a foundation the remainder of the study and aided Evergreen Solutions in the development of recommendations provided in Chapter 5. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-4

10 EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC Chapter 3 Assessment of Current Conditions The purpose of this statistical evaluation is to provide an overall assessment of the structure of the current County compensation plan. This chapter includes a pay plan analysis, grade placement analysis, quartile analysis, and employee tenure and distribution analysis. Data included here reflects the information and demographics in place at present and should be considered a snapshot in time. The insights gained from this chapter provided fertile ground for more detailed analysis and recommendations through the course of this study but were not sufficient cause for recommendations on their own. By reviewing the County s compensation structure and employee demographics, Evergreen Solutions gained a better understanding of the structures and methods in place at New Hanover County. This information, when integrated with stakeholder, employee feedback and peer market data, was used to develop recommendations appropriate for the County. Pay Plan Analysis An organized pay structure provides employees with an understood method of salary progression, eliminating confusion about future increases or equity among different pay grades. The County currently has a single pay plan in which employees are assigned pay grades based on their classifications. The pay plan consists of 75 pay grades, 69 of which are occupied by at least one County employee. 70 of the pay grades are arranged in an open range configuration, which means they have an established minimum salary and maximum salary. Typically, employees are hired at or close to their pay grade s minimum salary, and their salaries progress through the pay grade during the course of their careers. Five pay grades MGCA, MGCK, MGCM, MGRD, and MGSH are flat rate pay grades, meaning that the incumbents assigned to these pay grades are elected officials or appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, and their salaries must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. All five of these pay grades possess a single incumbent. Range spreads are a way of measuring how wide pay grades are and are calculated as the percent difference between the pay range minimum and maximum, relative to the pay range minimum. The five flat rate pay grades have range spreads of 0 percent. The range spreads of the remaining 70 pay grades vary between 23 percent and 54 percent, with an average range spread of 52 percent. Exhibit 3A illustrates the County s current pay plan. For each grade, the hourly and annual rates of the minimum, calculated midpoint, target, and maximum salaries are given, as well as the range spread and the number of employees assigned to the grade. The grades with the highest number of employees are 1300, 22LE, and 2431, with 189 employees, 186 employees, and 120 employees, respectively. Thirteen pay grades possess a single employee. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-1

11 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3A CURRENT PAY PLAN Grade Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Range Minimum Minimum Midpoint Midpoint Target Target Maximum Maximum Spread Employees 1100 $ $24,274 $ $30,774 $ $27,227 $ $37,274 54% $ $27,248 $ $34,486 $ $30,514 $ $41,725 53% $ $30,098 $ $38,168 $ $33,717 $ $46,238 54% $ $33,010 $ $41,850 $ $36,982 $ $50,690 54% F1 $ $31,479 $ $39,857 $ $35,196 $ $48,235 53% 19 21F2 $ $33,106 $ $41,934 $ $37,026 $ $50,762 53% $ $35,922 $ $45,510 $ $40,248 $ $55,099 53% 35 22FL $ $38,914 $ $49,310 $ $43,618 $ $59,706 53% 26 22LE $ $36,192 $ $45,843 $ $40,518 $ $55,494 53% $ $38,854 $ $49,182 $ $43,493 $ $59,509 53% $ $42,453 $ $53,768 $ $47,507 $ $65,083 53% $ $46,779 $ $59,290 $ $52,374 $ $71,802 53% 14 32LE $ $46,821 $ $59,332 $ $52,437 $ $71,843 53% $ $50,440 $ $63,908 $ $56,472 $ $77,376 53% 67 41LE $ $50,523 $ $64,012 $ $56,555 $ $77,501 53% $ $53,310 $ $67,538 $ $59,738 $ $81,765 53% 14 42BC $ $55,994 $ $70,928 $ $62,712 $ $85,862 53% $ $56,202 $ $71,198 $ $62,962 $ $86,195 53% $ $59,842 $ $75,816 $ $66,997 $ $91,790 53% 45 51LE $ $60,008 $ $76,045 $ $67,226 $ $92,082 53% $ $64,210 $ $81,328 $ $71,906 $ $98,446 53% $ $68,661 $ $86,934 $ $76,877 $ $105,206 53% $ $72,467 $ $91,874 $ $81,182 $ $111,280 54% 5 62LE $ $70,970 $ $89,898 $ $79,477 $ $108,826 53% $ $76,336 $ $96,731 $ $85,488 $ $117,125 53% $ $81,162 $ $102,836 $ $90,875 $ $124,509 53% $ $87,048 $ $110,282 $ $97,469 $ $133,515 53% $ $91,707 $ $116,199 $ $102,710 $ $140,691 53% $ $95,555 $ $121,067 $ $107,037 $ $146,578 53% $ $99,424 $ $125,965 $ $111,322 $ $152,506 53% $ $104,208 $ $132,039 $ $116,730 $ $159,869 53% $ $115,731 $ $146,630 $ $129,646 $ $177,528 53% 0 APZ1 $ $35,922 $ $45,510 $ $40,248 $ $55,099 53% 6 APZ2 $ $37,378 $ $47,351 $ $41,850 $ $57,325 53% 2 APZ3 $ $38,896 $ $49,254 $ $43,514 $ $59,613 53% 1 CEZ1 $ $35,922 $ $41,714 $ $40,248 $ $47,507 32% 2 CEZ2 $ $36,670 $ $42,089 $ $41,080 $ $47,507 30% 1 CEZ3 $ $42,453 $ $53,768 $ $47,507 $ $65,083 53% 14 Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-2

12 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3A (CONTINUED) CURRENT PAY PLAN Grade Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Range Minimum Minimum Midpoint Midpoint Target Target Maximum Maximum Spread Employees CSZ1 $ $46,779 $ $52,166 $ $52,374 $ $57,554 23% 2 CSZ2 $ $49,109 $ $56,472 $ $54,995 $ $63,835 30% 1 CSZ3 $ $52,374 $ $62,088 $ $58,656 $ $71,802 37% 0 DAZ1 $ $33,010 $ $41,850 $ $36,982 $ $50,690 54% 1 DAZ2 $ $34,341 $ $43,524 $ $38,480 $ $52,707 53% 1 ECZ1 $ $32,406 $ $41,080 $ $36,275 $ $49,754 54% 1 ECZ2 $ $33,384 $ $42,307 $ $37,336 $ $51,230 53% 0 ECZ3 $ $34,029 $ $43,129 $ $38,147 $ $52,229 53% 0 ECZ4 $ $35,381 $ $44,835 $ $39,645 $ $54,288 53% 0 ELZ1 $ $30,098 $ $38,168 $ $33,717 $ $46,238 54% 1 EOZ1 $ $30,098 $ $38,168 $ $33,717 $ $46,238 54% 11 EOZ8 $ $32,510 $ $41,184 $ $36,421 $ $49,858 53% 2 FLZ2 $ $39,698 $ $50,297 $ $44,489 $ $60,897 53% 3 GMZ1 $ $24,274 $ $30,774 $ $27,227 $ $37,274 54% 28 LCZ1 $ $53,310 $ $67,538 $ $59,738 $ $81,765 53% 15 LCZ2 $ $54,350 $ $68,879 $ $60,902 $ $83,408 53% 2 LEZ2 $ $52,021 $ $65,915 $ $58,261 $ $79,810 53% 6 MGCA $ $147,400 $ $147,400 $ $147,400 $ $147,400 0% 1 MGCK $ $76,741 $ $76,741 $ $76,741 $ $76,741 0% 1 MGCM $ $175,000 $ $175,000 $ $175,000 $ $175,000 0% 1 MGRD $ $58,171 $ $58,171 $ $58,171 $ $58,171 0% 1 MGSH $ $118,187 $ $118,187 $ $115,586 $ $118,187 0% 1 NTZ1 $ $38,854 $ $49,182 $ $43,493 $ $59,509 53% 4 NTZ2 $ $40,019 $ $50,658 $ $44,803 $ $61,298 53% 2 NUZ1 $ $50,440 $ $63,908 $ $56,472 $ $77,376 53% 41 NUZ2 $ $51,938 $ $65,822 $ $58,178 $ $79,706 53% 11 NUZ3 $ $53,019 $ $67,170 $ $59,362 $ $81,321 53% 2 SWZ1 $ $50,440 $ $63,908 $ $56,472 $ $77,376 53% 17 SWZ2 $ $51,459 $ $65,198 $ $57,616 $ $78,936 53% 83 SWZ3 $ $51,938 $ $65,822 $ $58,178 $ $79,706 53% 2 SWZ4 $ $53,019 $ $67,174 $ $59,363 $ $81,328 53% 0 TEZ1 $ $30,098 $ $38,168 $ $33,717 $ $46,238 54% 64 TEZ2 $ $30,701 $ $38,896 $ $34,362 $ $47,091 53% 4 TSZ1 $ $35,922 $ $45,510 $ $40,248 $ $55,099 53% 11 TSZ2 $ $36,670 $ $46,436 $ $41,080 $ $56,202 53% 5 UCZ1 $ $35,381 $ $44,834 $ $39,645 $ $54,288 53% 95 UCZ2 $ $36,795 $ $46,623 $ $41,226 $ $56,451 53% 3 Source: Evergreen Solutions, November Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-3

13 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions The County currently has an organized pay structure, which is important because it helps employees understand their opportunity for future salary increases and provides clarity regarding equity among different pay grades. Additionally, an established pay structure allows the County to analyze and address problems regarding potential compression within job classifications and grades with a sense of consistency and thoroughness. The current inconsistencies in the range spreads of the pay plan make it difficult for employees to understand the rationale for having either a narrow or wide spread for their classification s range. Grade Placement Analysis In assessing the overall effectiveness of an organization s pay plan and policies, an analysis is performed to determine employee salaries in comparison to their classification range. Grade placement analysis provides insight into career progression as well as potential market competitiveness. The five incumbents assigned to flat rate pay grades are excluded from this portion of the analysis, so they do not appear in Exhibits 3B through 3E. Pay grades with no incumbent employees were also excluded from this analysis. Grade midpoint is often considered the most accepted market average. Therefore, it is important to examine the percentages of employees who fall above and below the calculated midpoint of their respective pay grade. Exhibit 3B provides the breakdown of employees above and below midpoint by pay grade. A total of 1,368 employees (87.6 percent) are below the midpoint of their pay grades. A total of 194 employees (12.4 percent) are above the midpoint of their pay grades. An uneven split of employees above and below the midpoint of pay ranges, which is observed here, is a sign of salary compression. EXHIBIT 3B EMPLOYEES ABOVE AND BELOW MIDPOINT BY PAY GRADE Grade Employees # < Mid % < Mid # > Mid % > Mid % % % 1 5.9% % % % % 21F % 0 0.0% 21F % 0 0.0% % % 22FL % 1 3.8% 22LE % 5 2.7% % % % % % % 32LE % % % % 41LE % % % % 42BC % 0 0.0% % % Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-4

14 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3B (CONTINUED) EMPLOYEES ABOVE AND BELOW MIDPOINT BY PAY GRADE Grade Employees # < Mid % < Mid # > Mid % > Mid % % 51LE % % % % % % % % 62LE % % % % % % % 0 0.0% % % % % % % % % APZ % % APZ % % APZ % 0 0.0% CEZ % 0 0.0% CEZ % % CEZ % 1 7.1% CSZ % 0 0.0% CSZ % 0 0.0% DAZ % 0 0.0% DAZ % 0 0.0% ECZ % 0 0.0% ELZ % 0 0.0% EOZ % % EOZ % % FLZ % % GMZ % 1 3.6% LCZ % 1 6.7% LCZ % 0 0.0% LEZ % % NTZ % 0 0.0% NTZ % 0 0.0% NUZ % 0 0.0% NUZ % % NUZ % 0 0.0% SWZ % 1 5.9% Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-5

15 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3B (CONTINUED) EMPLOYEES ABOVE AND BELOW MIDPOINT BY PAY GRADE Grade Employees # < Mid % < Mid # > Mid % > Mid SWZ % 3 3.6% SWZ % 0 0.0% TEZ % 6 9.4% TEZ % % TSZ % % TSZ % % UCZ % 3 3.2% UCZ % % Total % % Source: Evergreen Solutions, November Exhibit 3C shows the distribution of employees at the minimum or maximum of the pay plan. Employees at the grade minimum are typically relatively new to the organization or to the classification after a recent promotion. Contrarily, employees at the grade maximum are typically highly experienced and highly proficient in their classification. The data indicates that a total of 170 employees (10.9 percent) are at the minimum of their assigned pay grade, while a total of 16 employees (1.0 percent) are at the maximum of their assigned pay grade. There appears to be a large portion of County employees clustered at the minimum of their respective pay ranges. This could be a sign that the County s current compensation practices limit opportunities for employee salary increases. Alternatively, this clustering could be evidence that the County has high turnover rates and thus has relatively new employees who have not progressed through their pay ranges. The analysis of employee tenure describes if issues with turnover exist. EXHIBIT 3C EMPLOYEES AT MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM BY PAY GRADE Grade Employees # at Min % at Min # at Max % at Max % 1 3.6% % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% % 7 6.2% 21F % 0 0.0% 21F % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% 22FL % 0 0.0% 22LE % 0 0.0% % 1 1.5% Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-6

16 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3C (CONTINUED) EMPLOYEES AT MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM BY PAY GRADE Grade Employees # at Min % at Min # at Max % at Max % 1 0.8% % % 32LE % 0 0.0% % 1 1.5% 41LE % 0 0.0% % 1 7.1% 42BC % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% % 2 4.4% 51LE % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% 62LE % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% APZ % 0 0.0% APZ % 0 0.0% APZ % 0 0.0% CEZ % 0 0.0% CEZ % 0 0.0% CEZ % 0 0.0% CSZ % 0 0.0% CSZ % 0 0.0% DAZ % 0 0.0% DAZ % 0 0.0% ECZ % 0 0.0% ELZ % 0 0.0% EOZ % 0 0.0% EOZ % 0 0.0% FLZ % 0 0.0% GMZ % 0 0.0% LCZ % 0 0.0% LCZ % 0 0.0% LEZ % 0 0.0% Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-7

17 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3C (CONTINUED) EMPLOYEES AT MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM BY PAY GRADE Grade Employees # at Min % at Min # at Max % at Max NTZ % 0 0.0% NTZ % 0 0.0% NUZ % 0 0.0% NUZ % 0 0.0% NUZ % 0 0.0% SWZ % 0 0.0% SWZ % 0 0.0% SWZ % 0 0.0% TEZ % 0 0.0% TEZ % 0 0.0% TSZ % 0 0.0% TSZ % 0 0.0% UCZ % 0 0.0% UCZ % 0 0.0% Total % % Source: Evergreen Solutions, November Quartile and Tenure Analysis Quartile analysis provides greater insight into the distribution of employees across the classification pay range. Employee pay is slotted within one of four equal distributions. The first quartile represents the lowest end of the pay range at 0-25 percent. The second quartile represents the percent section of the classification pay range. The third quartile represents percent of the classification pay range. The fourth quartile is percent of the classification pay range. This analytical method provides an opportunity to assess whether employee salaries are appropriately disbursed throughout the pay range. Quartile analysis is also used to determine if clusters of employee salaries exist. For example, an above and below analysis may indicate a healthy distribution of salaries on either side of midpoint. However, upon further review, a quartile analysis may reveal a clustering of employee salaries in the first quartile. This information while not definitive alone, when combined with other information can shed light on any root issues within the current compensation and classification plan. Exhibit 3D illustrates how many employees are within each quartile of each existing pay grade, as well as the average tenure of employees within each quartile of each pay grade. Exhibit 3E displays graphically how the employees within each pay grade are distributed among the quartiles. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-8

18 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3D QUARTILE AND TENURE ANALYSIS GRADE Total 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile Average Tenure Employees # Employees Avg Tenure # Employees Avg Tenure # Employees Avg Tenure # Employees Avg Tenure F F FL LE LE LE BC LE LE Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-9

19 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3D (CONTINUED) QUARTILE AND TENURE ANALYSIS GRADE Total 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile Average Tenure Employees # Employees Avg Tenure # Employees Avg Tenure # Employees Avg Tenure # Employees Avg Tenure APZ APZ APZ CEZ CEZ CEZ CSZ CSZ DAZ DAZ ECZ ELZ EOZ EOZ FLZ GMZ LCZ LCZ LEZ NTZ NTZ NUZ NUZ NUZ SWZ SWZ SWZ TEZ TEZ TSZ TSZ UCZ UCZ Overall Total (67.6%) 312 (20.0%) 138 (8.8%) 56 (3.6%) Overall Average Source: Evergreen Solutions, November Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-10

20 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3E QUARTILE ANALYSIS (PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES PER PAY GRADE) % 75.00% Percent of Employees 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% F1 21F FL 22LE LE LE BC LE LE Pay Grade 1ST QUARTILE 2ND QUARTILE 3RD QUARTILE 4TH QUARTILE Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-11

21 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3E (CONTINUED) QUARTILE ANALYSIS (PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES PER PAY GRADE) % 75.00% Percent of Employees 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% APZ1 APZ2 APZ3 CEZ1 CEZ2 CEZ3 CSZ1 CSZ2 DAZ1 DAZ2 ECZ1 ELZ1 EOZ1 EOZ8 FLZ2 GMZ1 LCZ1 LCZ2 LEZ2 NTZ1 NTZ2 NUZ1 NUZ2 NUZ3 SWZ1 SWZ2 SWZ3 TEZ1 TEZ2 TSZ1 TSZ2 UCZ1 UCZ2 Pay Grade 1ST QUARTILE 2ND QUARTILE 3RD QUARTILE 4TH QUARTILE Source: Evergreen Solutions, November Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-12

22 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions The observation made in the Grade Placement Analysis that the majority of County employees are in the lower half of their assigned pay ranges is also observed in the Quartile Analysis. Over half of employees, 67.6 percent, are in the first quartile of their pay ranges, and 20.0 percent are in the second quartile of their pay ranges. This is a stark contrast to the third and fourth quartiles, in which 8.8 percent and 3.6 percent of employees salaries fall, respectively. Several pay grades have a single incumbent, such as 7200, APZ3, and CEZ2; this explains why these types of pay grades show all employees occupying a single quartile. However, some pay grades with a larger number of employees also exhibit clusters of employees in the same quartile, which can be a sign of compression. For example, 95.8 percent of the 48 employees in pay grade 21F2 are in the first quartile, as are 81.7 percent of the 186 employees in pay grade 22LE. As can be seen in Exhibit 3D, the average tenure of the first quartile employees in grades 21F2 and 22LE is 4.3 years and 3.7 years, respectively. Relatively short average tenure of employees in these quartiles generally may indicate that employees may not have had the opportunity to progress their salaries through their pay ranges. A contributing factor to the County s salary compression was that ranges were adjusted when overall salary adjustments were given; therefore, a number of employees with less tenure remained in the lower quartiles of their salary ranges. More appropriate approaches in making range adjustments are discussed in Chapter 5 of this report. Another way to identify compression is to investigate tenure within each quartile of the pay grades. Typically, average tenure is lowest in the first quartile and highest in the fourth quartile, and is increasing through the second and third quartiles. Average tenure that does not follow this trend can be an indication of progression issues. Exhibit 3D indicates that this upward trend in tenure across the quartiles exists at the County. Average tenure is 4.9 years for employees in the first quartile, 14.3 years in the second quartile, 19.3 years in the third quartile, and 21.7 years in the fourth quartile. This trend is also observed in 50, or 78.1 percent, of the 64 pay grades included in this portion of the analysis. The majority of the 14 other pay grades only deviate slightly from this increasing trend. However, one pay grade in particular, grade 6300, shows a complete reversal of this pattern. In grade 6300, there are no employees in the first quartile, but the employees in the second, third, and fourth quartiles have average tenure of 30.2 years, 16.7 years, and 10.5 years. This is not necessarily an indication of compression, as the employees in the third and fourth quartiles may have been hired with a wealth of prior experience or education and therefore were initially placed in the upper levels of the pay range. In addition to the analysis of tenure within each quartile of each pay grade, the overall tenure at the County and overall tenure of all pay grades was analyzed in Exhibit 3F. This exhibit includes all 1,567 County employees and all 69 County pay grades with at least one employee assigned to it. Analyzing tenure in this way can help to identify pay grades with low tenure and thus high turnover rates as well as pay grades with high tenure in which employees may be nearing retirement. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-13

23 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3F EMPLOYEE TENURE BY PAY GRADE Grade Count Avg Tenure F F FL LE LE LE BC LE LE APZ APZ APZ CEZ CEZ Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-14

24 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3F (CONTINUED) EMPLOYEE TENURE BY PAY GRADE Grade Count Avg Tenure CEZ CSZ CSZ DAZ DAZ ECZ ELZ EOZ EOZ FLZ GMZ LCZ LCZ LEZ MGCA MGCK MGCM MGRD MGSH NTZ NTZ NUZ NUZ NUZ SWZ SWZ SWZ TEZ TEZ TSZ TSZ UCZ UCZ Overall Average 8.7 Source: Evergreen Solutions, November Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-15

25 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions The data show the average tenure across all County employees is approximately 8.7 years. This is slightly above the national median, which, according to recent statistics from the Department of Labor, is 7.8 years for employees in the public sector. 1 Higher than average tenure employees undoubtedly possess a wealth of institutional knowledge which, if lost without preparation, could leave the County with knowledge gaps that could significantly affect the quality of services provided in the future. Pay grades MGCA, 62LE, and 8100 have the longest average tenure at the County, with average tenures of 29.4 years, 27.4 years, and 25.3 years, respectively. Lower than average tenure can identify positions with significant turnover or retention issues. Pay grades MGRD, 21F1, NTZ2, ECZ1, and APZ3 have the shortest average tenure at the County, with average tenure of 0.9 years, 1.2 years, 1.9 years, 2.0 years, and 2.0 years, respectively. Further analysis of market data may reveal that compensation issues, such as a lack of competitiveness with the market, may be causing lower tenure in these classifications. It should be noted that tenure for elected and appointed positions varies and by nature of the positions, is not associated with turnover issues. Employees by Department As of October 2013, the County employed 1,567 individuals, all of whom were included in this section of the study. The following analysis is intended to provide basic information regarding how employees are distributed among departments. The County s employees are spread among 28 departments. Exhibit 3F depicts the number of employees and the number of classifications in each department and the percent breakdown of employees by department. As the exhibit illustrates, the largest department in the County is the Sheriff s Office, with 459 employees, representing 29.3 percent of the County s total workforce, while the Cooperative Extension is the smallest department, with one employee, representing 0.1 percent of the County s total workforce. 1 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (September 2012). Employee Tenure Summary [Economic News Release]. Retrieved from Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-16

26 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions EXHIBIT 3G EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Department Employees Classes % of Total CENTER % BUDGET % COMMUNITY JUSTICE SERVICES % COOPERATIVE EXTENSION % COUNTY MANAGER % DEVELOPMENT SERVICES % ELECTIONS % EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT % ENGINEERING % ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEN % FINANCE % FIRE SERVICES % GOVERNING BODY % HEALTH % HUMAN RESOURCES % INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY % LEGAL % LIBRARY % MUSEUM % NHCTV & PUBLIC AFFAIRS % PARKS & GARDENS % PLANNING & INSPECTIONS % PROPERTY MANAGEMENT % REGISTER OF DEEDS % SENIOR RESOURCE CENTER % SHERIFF % SOCIAL SERVICES % TAX % Total % Source: Evergreen Solutions, October Overall, the County s compensation plan has a solid structure on which to grow. The key points of the current pay plan are: The County s current pay plan consists of 70 open range pay grades and 5 flat rate pay grades. The average range spread of the open range pay grades is 52 percent, which is within best practice. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-17

27 Chapter 3-Assessment of Current Conditions Across all positions, 87.6 percent of employees salaries fall in the lower half of the assigned pay range, and 67.6 percent fall in the first quartile of the pay range. This would initially appear to be a concern. However, the County has increased their pay structure and range minimums consistently for the past several years. This has caused an appearance that employees salaries are not progressing through the salary ranges, when in fact the structure has artificially created this issue. These points along with the following market analysis were used to develop recommendations for a new classification and compensation system best suited to the County. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-18

28 EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC Chapter 4 Market Summary The analysis in this chapter compares the County s salary and benefits data collected to the salary ranges for benchmark positions and the different benefits offered in the market. The data from target market peers were used to evaluate the overall compensation and benefits policies at the County at a fixed point in time. This methodology is used to provide an overall analysis and not to evaluate salaries or benefits offered for individual positions. Market comparisons do not translate well at the individual level because individual compensation and benefits is determined through a combination of factors, including demand for the type of job, performance, prior experience, and, in some cases, an individual s negotiation skills during the hiring process. A combination of factors, including the market survey, is used when developing classification plans, individual salary recommendations, and changes to an organization s benefits package. Market data collected at the time of the study and provided a snapshot of the most up to date market conditions. However, market conditions change over time, so market surveys should be completed at regular intervals in order for an organization to maintain market competitiveness as the market changes. Evergreen Solutions consultants conducted a comprehensive salary survey and a comprehensive benefits survey. Both surveys were sent to the 40 market peers identified in Exhibit 4A. This chapter summarizes the results of the salary and benefits surveys separately. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-1

29 Chapter 4-Market Summary EXHIBIT 4A TARGET PEERS Targets Alamance County, NC Union County, NC Brunswick County, NC Wake County, NC Buncombe County, NC City of Asheville, NC Cabarrus County, NC City of Charleston, SC Cumberland County, NC City of Charlotte, NC Catawba County, NC City of Durham, NC Charleston County, SC City of Fayetteville, NC Davidson County, NC City of Greensboro, NC Durham County, NC City of Greenville, NC Fairfax County, VA City of High Point, NC Forsyth County, NC City of Raleigh, NC Gaston County, NC City of Wilmington, NC Guilford County, NC City of Winston-Salem, NC Iredell County, NC Cape Fear Community College, NC Johnston County, NC New Hanover County Schools, NC Mecklenburg County, NC New Hanover Med-Regional, NC Onslow County, NC Pharmaceutical Product Development Orange County, NC State of North Carolina (State Ports) Pitt County, NC Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point Rowan County, NC Verizon Wireless Source: Evergreen Solutions, February SALARY SURVEY RESULTS The salary survey included the 40 market peers listed in Exhibit 4A and 80 job classifications. When seeking to compare the County to its peers, a number of factors were taken into account, such as the location and size of the organization. Salary data was collected from 27 of the target peers (those who responded to our request to participate) and aggregately, market relevant matches were made for all 80 positions. Data collected from organizations outside of the County s geographic area were adjusted for cost of living using national cost of living index factors. This calculation allowed salary dollars from entities across the state to be compared in spending power relative to the County. Exhibit 4B displays a summary of the collected salary data and shows the percent differentials of the County s current pay plan. Survey minimum indicates the average peer response to the minimum pay for that classification; survey midpoint indicates the average midpoint in the peer response range for that classification; and survey maximum indicates the average peer response to the maximum salary for that classification. Percent differentials are shown for the minimum, midpoint, and maximum. The percent differentials indicate how the County s salary ranges compare to the market average at those points. A positive differential indicates that the County is above the market average and a negative differential indicates that the County is below the market average. Also included in Exhibit 4B is the average salary range for each classification surveyed, which is determined by the Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-2

30 Chapter 4-Market Summary average minimum and average maximum salaries. The last column in Exhibit 4B indicates the number of responses for each classification surveyed. It should be noted that five surveyed classifications are not currently assigned a pay range at the County, as they represent elected officials or employees appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. This is common among the public sector. For these classifications, the average actual salary of the County employees in each of these classifications was compared to the average actual salary of employees in peer organizations, and as such these classifications were excluded from Exhibit 4B. EXHIBIT 4B SALARY SURVEY SUMMARY WITH DIFFERENTIALS Classification Survey Minimum Survey Midpoint Survey Maximum Survey Avg # Average % Diff Average % Diff Average % Diff Range Resp. 911 SUPERVISOR $ 41, % $ 53, % $ 65, % 58.3% 11 ACCOUNTANT $ 43, % $ 56, % $ 69, % 59.8% 19 ACCOUNTING MANAGER $ 61, % $ 80, % $ 99, % 61.8% 12 ADMIN SUPPORT TECHNICIAN $ 30, % $ 38, % $ 48, % 59.6% 21 ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER $ 31, % $ 40, % $ 49, % 60.0% 20 APPRAISER $ 38, % $ 49, % $ 61, % 60.9% 17 ATTORNEY $ 68, % $ 89, % $ 110, % 61.9% 10 BUDGET ANALYST $ 48, % $ 62, % $ 77, % 60.1% 19 BUDGET DIRECTOR $ 84, % $ 109, % $ 136, % 62.1% 15 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL $ 38, % $ 50, % $ 62, % 59.6% 20 COMM JUST SVCS DIRECTOR $ 66, % $ 90, % $ 115, % 72.2% 1 COUNTY ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT $ 70, % $ 91, % $ 113, % 60.7% 16 COUNTY ENGINEER $ 79, % $ 102, % $ 126, % 59.5% 12 COUNTY MANAGER, ASSISTANT $ 106, % $ 139, % $ 174, % 63.8% 20 CPS SOCIAL WORKER $ 43, % $ 56, % $ 69, % 59.3% 13 CUSTODIAN $ 21, % $ 27, % $ 33, % 56.6% 14 DEPUTY SHERIFF $ 36, % $ 46, % $ 57, % 58.8% 26 DEPUTY SHERIFF, CAPTAIN $ 59, % $ 76, % $ 94, % 59.6% 22 DEPUTY SHERIFF, CHIEF $ 75, % $ 98, % $ 123, % 63.5% 14 DEPUTY SHERIFF, CORPORAL $ 40, % $ 51, % $ 63, % 57.4% 12 DEPUTY SHERIFF, DETECTIVE $ 39, % $ 51, % $ 63, % 59.6% 14 DEPUTY SHERIFF, LIEUTENANT $ 51, % $ 66, % $ 82, % 59.9% 21 DEPUTY SHERIFF, MAJOR $ 63, % $ 82, % $ 102, % 62.5% 19 DEPUTY SHERIFF, SERGEANT $ 45, % $ 58, % $ 72, % 59.5% 23 DETENTION OFFICER $ 33, % $ 43, % $ 53, % 60.6% 19 ELECTIONS DIRECTOR $ 60, % $ 78, % $ 98, % 62.5% 17 ELECTIONS SPECIALIST $ 30, % $ 40, % $ 50, % 65.8% 13 EMERGENCY MGMT/911 DIRECTOR $ 74, % $ 97, % $ 121, % 63.8% 17 ENERGY PROGRAM SPECIALIST $ 46, % $ 61, % $ 77, % 67.5% 3 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST $ 40, % $ 52, % $ 64, % 60.3% 19 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR $ 29, % $ 38, % $ 47, % 58.1% 18 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE COUNTY MANAGER $ 46, % $ 60, % $ 75, % 61.4% 13 FIRE BATTALION CHIEF $ 59, % $ 75, % $ 91, % 54.1% 10 FIRE CAPTAIN $ 49, % $ 63, % $ 77, % 58.9% 10 FIRE LIEUTENANT $ 41, % $ 53, % $ 64, % 54.5% 7 FIRE MARSHAL, DEPUTY $ 42, % $ 55, % $ 68, % 59.6% 14 FIREFIGHTER $ 31, % $ 41, % $ 50, % 57.6% 12 FIREFIGHTER/APPARATUS OPERATOR $ 39, % $ 48, % $ 58, % 50.3% 4 FISCAL SUPPORT TECHNICIAN $ 31, % $ 40, % $ 50, % 60.8% 13 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE WORKER $ 26, % $ 34, % $ 42, % 57.4% 11 Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-3

31 Chapter 4-Market Summary Source: Evergreen Solutions, February Market Minimums EXHIBIT 4B (CONTINUED) SALARY SURVEY SUMMARY WITH DIFFERENTIALS Classification Survey Minimum Survey Midpoint Survey Maximum Survey Avg # Average % Diff Average % Diff Average % Diff Range Resp. HEALTH DIRECTOR $ 93, % $ 121, % $ 149, % 60.2% 13 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR $ 83, % $ 109, % $ 136, % 63.1% 26 HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST $ 37, % $ 48, % $ 60, % 61.8% 18 HUMAN SERVICES UNIVERSAL CASEWORKER $ 33, % $ 43, % $ 52, % 57.5% 8 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYST $ 51, % $ 67, % $ 84, % 63.7% 13 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR $ 69, % $ 88, % $ 108, % 57.8% 8 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SPECIALIST $ 40, % $ 51, % $ 62, % 56.1% 12 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR $ 92, % $ 120, % $ 150, % 63.2% 20 INVESTMENT OFFICER $ 51, % $ 68, % $ 84, % 63.8% 5 LANDFILL MANAGER $ 51, % $ 66, % $ 81, % 57.9% 8 LANDSCAPE TECHNICIAN $ 31, % $ 40, % $ 49, % 59.8% 9 LIBRARIAN $ 42, % $ 54, % $ 67, % 59.4% 17 LIBRARY ASSISTANT $ 27, % $ 35, % $ 43, % 60.5% 20 LICENSED CLINICAL THERAPIST $ 47, % $ 62, % $ 76, % 61.9% 2 LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE $ 32, % $ 42, % $ 52, % 60.4% 12 MECHANIC $ 33, % $ 44, % $ 54, % 63.7% 18 MEDIA PRODUCTIONS SPECIALIST $ 37, % $ 49, % $ 60, % 61.2% 4 MEDICAL LAB ASSISTANT $ 29, % $ 37, % $ 47, % 61.4% 14 MUSEUM DIRECTOR $ 54, % $ 71, % $ 89, % 64.3% 3 MUSEUM HISTORIAN $ 35, % $ 47, % $ 59, % 66.7% 1 NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR $ 56, % $ 73, % $ 90, % 60.0% 9 PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION SPECIALIST $ 36, % $ 47, % $ 59, % 61.1% 12 PLANNER $ 43, % $ 56, % $ 70, % 60.9% 22 PROGRAM COORDINATOR $ 37, % $ 48, % $ 59, % 59.7% 2 PROJECT ENGINEER, CHIEF $ 62, % $ 82, % $ 101, % 62.4% 4 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR $ 68, % $ 89, % $ 110, % 60.2% 7 PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE $ 47, % $ 61, % $ 76, % 59.8% 16 RISK MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR $ 58, % $ 75, % $ 93, % 60.7% 19 SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, ASSISTANT $ 74, % $ 95, % $ 118, % 60.0% 6 SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISOR $ 49, % $ 64, % $ 80, % 62.5% 18 TAX MAPPER $ 35, % $ 46, % $ 56, % 59.2% 11 TELECOMMUNICATOR $ 31, % $ 40, % $ 50, % 60.0% 23 TRADES SPECIALIST $ 33, % $ 43, % $ 52, % 58.5% 10 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR $ 34, % $ 44, % $ 54, % 57.7% 6 VETERANS SERVICES SPECIALIST $ 36, % $ 47, % $ 59, % 60.5% 14 Overall Average 2.9% 0.5% -1.8% 60.5% 13 Market minimums are considered entry level salary points, either entry into the organization or entry into a next level of classification. Employees at or near the minimum are at the beginning stages of that position and have not acquired all the skills and experience needed to be fully functional in their classification. As Exhibit 4B illustrates, at the minimum of the respective salary ranges, the County is 2.9 percent above market, on average, across all surveyed job titles. While some classifications are closer to market at the minimum, others exhibit a greater difference from market values. Based on the data gathered at the surveyed market minimum for these benchmark positions, the following can be determined: The surveyed position differentials ranged from a low of 39.7 percent below market in the case of the Energy Program Specialist classification to a high of 25.1 percent above market for the Property Management Director classification. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-4

32 Chapter 4-Market Summary Of the 75 County positions with salary range data, 26 reported to be below market at the minimum. These 26 below-market classifications are an average of 7.8 percent below market minimum. Three classifications are more than 15.0 percent below market at the minimum. These classifications are listed below with their market differentials: Energy Program Specialist, 39.7 percent below market Firefighter/Apparatus Operator, 18.2 percent below market Information Systems Supervisor, 15.4 percent below market Market Midpoints Market midpoint is important to consider because it is commonly referred to as the closest estimation of full competence and market average compensation. Employees at the midpoint should be fully functional in their classification. As Exhibit 4B indicates, the County is on average 0.5 percent above market at the midpoint. Based on the data gathered at the market midpoint of the salary range, the following can be determined: At the market midpoint, the benchmark positions ranged from a low of 47.4 percent below market in the case of the Energy Program Specialist classification to a high of 23.1 percent above market midpoint for the Property Management Director classification. 32 of the surveyed classifications were found to be below market at the midpoint, which represents 42.7 percent of the benchmarks. These 32 classifications were an average of 8.7 percent below market at the midpoint. Six classifications are greater than 15.0 percent below market at the midpoint. These are listed below with their market differentials: Energy Program Specialist, 47.4 percent below market Code Enforcement Official, 21.2 percent below market Attorney, 17.6 percent below market Firefighter/Apparatus Operator, 16.8 percent below market Information Systems Supervisor, 16.7 percent below market Transportation Coordinator, 16.7 percent below market 43 surveyed classifications are above market at the midpoint, averaging 7.3 percent above market. Market Maximums Salary range maximum values as they compare to the survey respondents are also illustrated in Exhibit 4B. The County is, on average, 1.8 percent below market at the maximum of its pay ranges for the benchmarked positions. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-5

33 Chapter 4-Market Summary The comparison of market maximums yielded the following considerations: At the market maximum, the benchmark positions ranged from a low of 52.4 percent below market in the case of the Energy Program Specialist classification to a high of 21.7 percent above market for the Property Management Director classification. Of the positions surveyed, 40 were below market maximum which represents 50.0 percent of all benchmarked positions. These 40 below-market classifications are an average of 9.2 percent below market maximum. Of the surveyed positions, seven had range maximums greater than 15.0 percent below market. These are listed below with their market differentials: Energy Program Specialist, 52.4 percent below market Code Enforcement Official, 31.0 percent below market Attorney, 20.0 percent below market Information Systems Supervisor, 18.7 percent below market Transportation Coordinator, 17.9 percent below market Network Administrator, 16.8 percent below market Firefighter/Apparatus Operator, 15.9 percent below market Of the surveyed positions, three had range maximums 15.0 percent or more above market. These are listed below with their market differentials: Property Management Director, 21.7 percent above market Museum Director, 19.6 percent above market Payroll Administration Specialist, 17.3 percent above market Salary Survey Conclusion It should be noted that the standing of a classification s pay range compared to the market is not a definitive assessment of the individual employee s salary being equally above or below market. It does, however, speak to the County s ability to recruit and retain talent over time. For example, if starting pay is significantly lower than the market would offer, the County will find itself losing out to their market peers when they seek to fill a position. Additionally, if midpoint or maximum pay is significantly lower than the market, experienced employees may leave for other opportunities. From the analysis of the data gathered in the external labor market assessment for the public sector, the following major conclusions can be reached: The County is approximately 2.9 percent above the market minimum. The County is approximately 0.5 percent above the market midpoint. The County is approximately 1.8 percent below the market maximum. The overall County differentials indicate that the County is competitive with its market peers, on average, across all benchmarks. However, some of the County s surveyed classifications fell behind the market average pay ranges. This indicates that some County classifications Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-6

34 Chapter 4-Market Summary require adjustments to their pay ranges in order for the County to become more competitive with the market. Information gained from the market survey was used, in conjunction with stakeholder and employee feedback and current environmental factors such as the budget, to develop a recommended compensation plan that maintains the County s competitive position in today s market. Discussion of recommended changes to the plan can be found in Chapter 5 of this report. Average Actual Salaries In addition to the salary range data shown in Exhibit 4B, data regarding the average actual salaries of employees in each benchmarked classification were gathered as part of the salary survey process. Exhibit 4C shows the average actual salary for employees at peer organizations in each classification, as well as the number of organizations that provided average actual salary data. The response rate for the average actual salaries is considerably lower than for the salary range data collected. This is in part due to vacancies in peer organizations. While the data shown in Exhibit 4C can be useful in analyzing the overall competitiveness of the County s current pay plan and compensation practices, conclusions should not be drawn from this data about individual employee pay. As mentioned previously, individual employee pay depends on many factors, including prior experience, the resources available at the hiring organization, and the negotiation skills of the employee. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-7

35 Chapter 4-Market Summary EXHIBIT 4C AVERAGE ACTUAL SALARIES Classification Survey Average # Resp. Actual Salary 911 SUPERVISOR $ 48, ACCOUNTANT $ 55, ACCOUNTING MANAGER $ 78, ADMIN SUPPORT TECHNICIAN $ 35, ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER $ 35, APPRAISER $ 42, ATTORNEY $ 78, BUDGET ANALYST $ 58, BUDGET DIRECTOR $ 112, CLERK TO THE BOARD* $ 73, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL $ 50, COMM JUST SVCS DIRECTOR $ 113, COUNTY ATTORNEY* $ 158, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT $ 86, COUNTY ENGINEER $ 107, COUNTY MANAGER* $ 176, COUNTY MANAGER, ASSISTANT $ 137, CPS SOCIAL WORKER $ 50, CUSTODIAN $ 25, DEPUTY SHERIFF $ 40, DEPUTY SHERIFF, CAPTAIN $ 72, DEPUTY SHERIFF, CHIEF $ 94, DEPUTY SHERIFF, CORPORAL $ 48, DEPUTY SHERIFF, DETECTIVE $ 45, DEPUTY SHERIFF, LIEUTENANT $ 63, DEPUTY SHERIFF, MAJOR $ 82, DEPUTY SHERIFF, SERGEANT $ 52, DETENTION OFFICER $ 38, ELECTIONS DIRECTOR $ 77, ELECTIONS SPECIALIST $ 36, EMERGENCY MGMT/911 DIRECTOR $ 99, ENERGY PROGRAM SPECIALIST $ 71, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST $ 51, EQUIPMENT OPERATOR $ 34, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE COUNTY MANAGER $ 56, FIRE BATTALION CHIEF $ 63, FIRE CAPTAIN $ 57, FIRE LIEUTENANT $ 45, FIRE MARSHAL, DEPUTY $ 47, FIREFIGHTER $ 33, Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-8

36 Chapter 4-Market Summary EXHIBIT 4C (CONTINUED) AVERAGE ACTUAL SALARIES Classification Survey Average # Resp. Actual Salary FIREFIGHTER/APPARATUS OPERATOR $ 47, FISCAL SUPPORT TECHNICIAN $ 40, GROUNDS MAINTENANCE WORKER $ 30, HEALTH DIRECTOR $ 131, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR $ 111, HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST $ 46, HUMAN SERVICES UNIVERSAL CASEWORKER $ 36, INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYST $ 62, INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR $ 86, INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SPECIALIST $ 48, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR $ 126, INVESTMENT OFFICER $ 69, LANDFILL MANAGER $ 63, LANDSCAPE TECHNICIAN $ 45, LIBRARIAN $ 49, LIBRARY ASSISTANT $ 31, LICENSED CLINICAL THERAPIST $ 50, LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE $ 43, MECHANIC $ 42, MEDIA PRODUCTIONS SPECIALIST $ 40, MEDICAL LAB ASSISTANT $ 33, MUSEUM DIRECTOR $ 69, MUSEUM HISTORIAN $ 46, NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR $ 77, PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION SPECIALIST $ 47, PLANNER $ 49, PROGRAM COORDINATOR $ 35, PROJECT ENGINEER, CHIEF $ 87, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR $ 86, PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE $ 56, REGISTER OF DEEDS* $ 72, RISK MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR $ 74, SHERIFF* $ 124, SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, ASSISTANT $ 95, SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISOR $ 58, TAX MAPPER $ 41, TELECOMMUNICATOR $ 34, TRADES SPECIALIST $ 39, TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR $ 40, VETERANS SERVICES SPECIALIST $ 44, Overall Average 7.9 Source: Evergreen Solutions, February *Elected or Appointed Positions. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-9

37 Chapter 4-Market Summary Private Sector Data To supplement the public sector data collected in the salary survey, private sector salary data was collected using software from the Economic Research Institute (ERI). The ERI data summarized in Exhibit 4D reflect private sector salaries of businesses across all industries in and around New Hanover County, NC with similar operating budgets. While salary data from the private sector is useful in determining characteristics of the market as a whole, there are inherent differences between private and public sector classifications which make it difficult to draw conclusions about public sector salary ranges entirely from private sector data. Not all surveyed classifications had matching positions in the private sector, and were therefore omitted from Exhibit 4D. The following conclusions can be drawn from Exhibit 4D: The County is approximately 15.2 percent above the private sector minimum. The County is approximately 3.5 percent above the private sector midpoint. The County is approximately 9.3 percent below the private sector maximum. While the County, on average across all matched classifications, is near the private sector midpoint, it is considerably ahead of the private sector minimum and considerably behind the private sector maximum. This is due to the significant difference in range spreads at the County and in the private sector market. The average private sector salary range is 98.5 percent, which is nearly double the County s average range spread of 53.4 percent. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-10

38 Chapter 4-Market Summary EXHIBIT 4D PRIVATE SECTOR SALARY SUMMARY WITH DIFFERENTIALS Classification ERI Minimum ERI Midpoint ERI Maximum ERI Avg Average % Diff Average % Diff Average % Diff Range ACCOUNTANT $ 38, % $ 50, % $ 66, % 72.0% ACCOUNTING MANAGER $ 60, % $ 85, % $ 118, % 97.6% ADMIN SUPPORT TECHNICIAN $ 25, % $ 36, % $ 50, % 95.5% APPRAISER $ 42, % $ 61, % $ 86, % 103.6% ATTORNEY $ 59, % $ 98, % $ 151, % 152.5% BUDGET ANALYST $ 39, % $ 56, % $ 79, % 101.3% BUDGET DIRECTOR $ 105, % $ 142, % $ 187, % 77.9% COUNTY ENGINEER $ 113, % $ 165, % $ 226, % 100.1% COUNTY MANAGER, ASSISTANT $ 120, % $ 262, % $ 437, % 262.2% CPS SOCIAL WORKER $ 26, % $ 37, % $ 50, % 90.0% CUSTODIAN $ 18, % $ 25, % $ 33, % 74.6% DEPUTY SHERIFF, DETECTIVE $ 31, % $ 45, % $ 63, % 97.8% EMERGENCY MGMT/911 DIRECTOR $ 75, % $ 105, % $ 144, % 90.6% EQUIPMENT OPERATOR $ 26, % $ 38, % $ 52, % 94.9% EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE COUNTY MANAGER $ 37, % $ 56, % $ 81, % 118.4% FISCAL SUPPORT TECHNICIAN $ 30, % $ 43, % $ 58, % 89.6% GROUNDS MAINTENANCE WORKER $ 25, % $ 36, % $ 48, % 91.2% HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR $ 105, % $ 149, % $ 202, % 91.3% HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST $ 40, % $ 53, % $ 71, % 75.0% HUMAN SERVICES UNIVERSAL CASEWORKER $ 26, % $ 37, % $ 50, % 90.0% INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYST $ 45, % $ 62, % $ 84, % 87.2% INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SPECIALIST $ 43, % $ 60, % $ 84, % 94.7% INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR $ 105, % $ 142, % $ 187, % 78.1% INVESTMENT OFFICER $ 53, % $ 76, % $ 107, % 101.2% LIBRARIAN $ 32, % $ 47, % $ 67, % 104.2% LIBRARY ASSISTANT $ 21, % $ 29, % $ 38, % 74.6% LICENSED CLINICAL THERAPIST $ 31, % $ 43, % $ 59, % 91.7% LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE $ 28, % $ 29, % $ 51, % 81.0% MECHANIC $ 31, % $ 44, % $ 60, % 95.0% MEDICAL LAB ASSISTANT $ 27, % $ 37, % $ 49, % 80.7% MUSEUM HISTORIAN $ 33, % $ 49, % $ 71, % 109.5% NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR $ 38, % $ 57, % $ 81, % 113.6% PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION SPECIALIST $ 52, % $ 75, % $ 105, % 101.1% PLANNER $ 38, % $ 58, % $ 83, % 114.9% PROJECT ENGINEER, CHIEF $ 62, % $ 86, % $ 117, % 87.5% PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR $ 93, % $ 152, % $ 224, % 138.9% PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE $ 40, % $ 57, % $ 76, % 88.1% RISK MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR $ 61, % $ 87, % $ 120, % 94.8% SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISOR $ 36, % $ 49, % $ 65, % 80.4% TAX MAPPER $ 38, % $ 53, % $ 71, % 87.6% TELECOMMUNICATOR $ 25, % $ 35, % $ 47, % 85.4% TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR $ 30, % $ 42, % $ 58, % 95.2% VETERANS SERVICES SPECIALIST $ 38, % $ 53, % $ 72, % 85.7% Overall Average 15.2% 3.5% -9.3% 98.5% Source: Evergreen Solutions, February Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-11

39 Chapter 4-Market Summary 4.2 BENEFITS SURVEY RESULTS Evergreen Solutions conducted a benefits survey in addition to a salary market analysis. A benefits survey represents a snapshot in time of what is available in peer organizations and can provide the County with an understanding of the total compensation (salary and benefits) offered in comparison to its peers. It is important to realize that there are intricacies involved with benefit programs that are not captured by a market survey alone. This information should be used as a cursory overview and not a line by line comparison, since benefits can be weighted differently depending on the importance to the organization. Additionally, benefits are typically negotiated and acquired through third parties, so one-toone comparisons can be difficult. The same 40 peers contacted for participation in the salary market survey were contacted for participation in the benefits market survey. Benefits data were collected from the 23 peers listed in Exhibit 4E. EXHIBIT 4E TARGET PEERS THAT RESPONDED TO BENEFITS SURVEY Respondent Brunswick County, NC Buncombe County, NC Cabarrus County, NC Catawba County, NC Cumberland County, NC Durham County, NC Fairfax County, NC Forsyth County, NC Gaston County, NC Iredell County, NC Johnston County, NC Mecklenburg County, NC Orange County, NC Pitt County, NC Rowan County, NC Union County, NC Wake County, NC City of Greensboro, NC City of Greenville, NC City of High Point, NC City of Raleigh, NC City of Winston-Salem, NC New Hanover County Schools, NC Source: Evergreen Solutions, February The survey included 30 questions regarding different types of benefits offered at each organization. The remainder of this chapter discusses the results of the benefits survey. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-12

40 Chapter 4-Market Summary Health Insurance Exhibit 4F displays a comparison of the number of health insurance plans offered at peer organizations to the number offered at the County. As can be seen, the County offers two plans, which is consistent with peer organizations that offer an average of 2.0 plans. Number of health plans offered EXHIBIT 4F NUMBER OF HEALTH PLANS Source: Evergreen Solutions, February Exhibit 4G shows the percentage of peers with and without HMO health plans, PPO health plans, Health Savings Accounts, or other health plans. The County currently offers two PPO health plans. The majority of peers, 79.2 percent, also offer a PPO health plan percent of the respondents offer a health plan other than one of the three most popular types, including a Point of Service health plan, a Health Reimbursement Account, and an Open Access Plan. Source: Evergreen Solutions, February Peer Average EXHIBIT 4G TYPE OF HEALTH PLANS Peer Percentage Yes County Peer Percentage No County HMO Health Plan offered? 8.3% 91.7% No PPO Health Plan offered? 79.2% 20.8% Yes (2) Health Savings Account offered? 21.7% 78.3% No Other type of Health Plan offered? 15.0% 85.0% No Exhibit 4H shows details about the premiums of the County s two PPOs and the average responses about premiums of PPO Health Plans offered by peers. The percentage of the premium paid by the County for both PPOs is comparable to the percentage paid by peers for employee coverage. For both PPOs, the County pays a larger percentage of the premium for employee plus one dependent and employee plus family than the peer average. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-13

41 Chapter 4-Market Summary Percentage of employee premium paid by employer Dollar amount (monthly) of employee premium paid by employer Percentage of employee plus one dependent premium paid by employer Dollar amount (monthly) of employee plus one dependent premium paid by employer Percentage of employee plus family premium paid by employer Dollar amount (monthly) of employee plus family premium paid by employer Source: Evergreen Solutions, February EXHIBIT 4H PPO PREMIUMS Exhibit 4I shows the County s PPO deductibles and the average deductibles of PPO health plans offered by peers. The County s deductibles for both of its PPOs are considerably higher than the market average. Typically, health plans with lower deductibles have a higher monthly premium. EXHIBIT 4I PPO DEDUCTIBLES Source: Evergreen Solutions, February Supplemental Insurance Peer Average County PPO 1 County PPO % 90.0% 86.0% $ $ $ % 87.0% 82.0% $ $ $ % 87.0% 80.0% $ $ $ Peer Average County PPO 1 County PPO 2 Individual Deductible $ $1, $2, Employee Plus One Deductible $1, $2, $4, Employee Plus Family Deductible $1, $2, $4, Supplemental insurance offerings are becoming more commonplace in today s market as employers are searching for ways to attract a variety of employees as well as to lower overall costs through offering trade-offs for employee benefits. Exhibits 4J and 4K display market results for a number of supplemental insurance offerings. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-14

42 Chapter 4-Market Summary EXHIBIT 4J DENTAL AND VISION Type of Insurance Organization Offered? Monthly Cost to Monthly Cost to Employer/Employee Employer/Employee for for Individual Family Coverage Coverage Employer Paid Dental Peers 65.2% $26.73 $43.38 Insurance County Yes* $30.00 $56.00 Employee Paid Dental Peers 56.5% $21.76 $70.15 Insurance County No* N/A N/A Employer Paid Vision Plan Peers 39.1% $6.85 N/A County No N/A N/A Peers 39.1% $8.15 $25.04 Employee Paid Vision Plan County Yes $9.76 $27.30 Source: Evergreen Solutions, February Exhibit 4J shows the percentage of peers who offer employer- and employee- paid dental insurance and vision plans. The County offers employees a dental plan of which the County pays part and the employee pays part. The dental plan costs the County $30.00 per month for individual coverage and $56.00 per month for family coverage percent of peers offer employer paid dental insurance, with lower monthly costs, on average, than the County s option. The County offers an employee-paid vision plan that costs the employee $9.76 per month for individual coverage and $27.30 per month for family coverage percent of peers offer employee paid vision coverage, with lower monthly costs to the employee, on average, than the County s option. The County does not currently offer employee-only paid dental insurance or employer paid vision, which are offered by 56.5 percent and 39.1 percent of peers, respectively. Exhibit 4K shows the percentage of peers who offer employer and employee paid short and long term disability insurance. The County offers employee paid short term and employer paid long term disability insurance. Employer-paid disability insurance is not common among market peers, with 4.3 percent offering employer paid short term disability and only 13.0 percent of peers offering employer paid long term disability. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-15

43 Chapter 4-Market Summary Retirement and Life Insurance EXHIBIT 4K DISABILITY INSURANCE Percentage of Type of Insurance Organization Offered? Salary Employee Receives Employer Paid Short Term Peers 4.3% N/A Disability County No N/A Employee Paid Short Term Peers 72.7% 65.2% Disability County Yes 60.0% Employer Paid Long Term Peers 13.0% 56.7% Disability County Yes 70.0% Employee Paid Long Term Peers 22.7% 56.0% Disability County No N/A Source: Evergreen Solutions, February This section compares retirement offerings among peer organizations and the County. Exhibit 4L indicates that 95.7 percent of market peers and the County participate in a state retirement system. Also included in Exhibit 4L is information pertaining to additional, nonstate retirement plans. All surveyed market peers and the County offer a retirement option other than a state plan, and all of the peers and the County offer a 401k, 401a, 403(b), or 457. However, the County only offers the 401k, 401a, 403(b), or 457 to sworn law enforcement assigned to Sheriff s Office. The County and 73.7 percent of peers contribute to these non-state retirement plans. EXHIBIT 4L RETIREMENT OPTIONS Does the organization participate in a State Retirement System? Peer Percentage Yes Percentage of Peers with a Non State Plan County 95.7% Yes Is a retirement option other 100.0% Yes than a state plan offered? Is a 401k, 401a, 403(b), or 457 offered? 100.0% Yes Is a type of plan other than a 401k, 401a, 403(b) or % No offered? Does the employer contribute to any of these 73.7% Yes other retirement options? Source: Evergreen Solutions, February Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-16

44 Chapter 4-Market Summary EXHIBIT 4M LIFE INSURANCE Is employer paid life insurance offered? Peer Percentage Yes Peer Average County 95.7% Yes Cost (monthly) to employer for individual coverage Dollar amount of death benefit Is accidental death insurance provided? 63.6% Source: Evergreen Solutions, February $80.80 N/A $26, $25,000 $50,000 Yes (Employee Paid) Exhibit 4M shows details about the life insurance options available at the County and at market peers. The County does offer employer paid life insurance to active employees through the retirement system (after 12 months of contributions to the retirement system), which is offered by 95.7 percent of peers. The County offers accidental death insurance, as an employee-paid benefit option, which is provided by 63.6 percent of peers. Leave and Holidays Exhibits 4N through 4Q describe policies regarding employee leave and paid holidays at the County and its surveyed market peers. Exhibit 4N shows the type of leave offered in the market and the accrual rates for the different types of leave. Organizations typically have different accrual rates for employees with different tenure. For both sick leave and personal/vacation leave, the average lowest accrual rate, the average highest accrual rate, and the overall average accrual rate for the market peers and the County is given in Exhibit 4N. The maximum accrual, which is the total number of hours of leave an employee is allowed to accrue, is also given. Surveyed peers and the County all offer a flat accrual rate of 8.0 hours per month for sick leave. The accrual rates for personal/vacation leave are similar for the market peers and the County. The peers allow, on average, a maximum accrual of 96.0 hours and hours for sick leave and personal/vacation leave, respectively. The County has no maximum accrual for either type of leave but once an employee reaches 320 hours (based on the standard 2,080 scheduled hours per year) of personal/vacation leave the hours roll over to sick leave. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-17

45 Chapter 4-Market Summary EXHIBIT 4N LEAVE ACCRUAL Organization Offered? Minimum Accrual Rate (Monthly) Maximum Accrual Rate (Monthly) Average Accrual Rate (Monthly) Maximum Accrual Sick Leave Peers 95.7% 8.0 Hours 8.0 Hours 8.0 Hours 96.0 Hours County Yes 8.0 Hours 8.0 Hours 8.0 Hours Unlimited Personal/Vacation Leave Peers 100.0% 7.7 Hours 15.1 Hours 11.3 Hours Hours County Yes 6.6 Hours 16.0 Hours 11.1 Hours Unlimited Source: Evergreen Solutions, February Exhibit 4O describes policies regarding sick leave at the County and its surveyed market peers. The County s policies regarding sick leave pay out upon separation and the application of sick leave towards retirement is consistent with the policies in place at the vast majority of peers. Is unused sick leave paid out upon voluntary separation? Is unused sick leave paid out upon involuntary separation? Can unused sick leave count towards retirement? EXHIBIT 4O SICK LEAVE POLICIES Peer Percentage Yes Source: Evergreen Solutions, February County 4.3% No 4.3% No 95.7% Yes Exhibit 4P describes policies regarding personal/vacation leave at the County and its surveyed market peers percent of market peers allow for unused personal/vacation leave to be paid out upon voluntary separation, and 87.0 percent allow for unused personal/vacation leave to be paid out upon involuntary separation. Both of these policies are in place at the County. The market peers cap the amount of personal/vacation leave that can be paid out upon voluntary and involuntary separation at hours and hours, respectively. The County does not have a maximum number of hours for either type of separation. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-18

46 Chapter 4-Market Summary EXHIBIT 4P PERSONAL/VACATION LEAVE POLICIES County Peer s Peer Average Percentage Yes Is unused personal/vacation leave paid out upon voluntary 100.0% Yes separation? Max hours personal/vacation leave paid out upon voluntary Unlimited separation Is unused personal/vacation leave paid out upon involuntary 87.0% Yes separation? Max hours personal/vacation leave Unlimited Source: Evergreen Solutions, February EXHIBIT 4Q HOLIDAYS Holiday Peer Peer Average Percentage Yes County New Year's Day 100.0% Yes Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 100.0% Yes Lincoln's Birthday 0.0% No Washington's Birthday 5.3% No Good Friday 82.6% Yes Memorial Day 100.0% Yes Independence Day 100.0% Yes Labor Day 100.0% Yes Veteran's Day 72.7% Yes Thanksgiving Day 100.0% Yes Day After Thanksgiving 95.7% Yes Christmas Eve 87.0% Yes Christmas Day 100.0% Yes Day After Christmas 72.7% Yes* New Year's Eve 5.0% No Spring Break 10.5% No Winter Break 10.5% No Personal Holiday 15.8% No Number of Holidays * Source: Evergreen Solutions, February * The County observes holidays depending on the day of the week Christmas Day falls. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-19

47 Chapter 4-Market Summary Exhibit 4Q shows the percentage of market peers that observe certain holidays as well which of these holidays are offered to County employees and also provides number of holidays offered by peers and the County. There are seven holidays observed by percent of market peers; all of these also observed at the County. The County observes eleven or twelve holidays (depending on the day of the week Christmas Day falls), which is slightly above the peer average of 11.4 holidays. Additional Benefits Information Exhibit 4R summarizes market data about an Employee Assistance Program (EAP), which is currently offered by the County and percent of surveyed peers. The County s EAP pays for six visits for each event for which an employee seeks assistance. Exhibit 4S shows market data about tuition reimbursement, which is not offered to County employees but is offered to employees at 65.2 percent of surveyed peers. The average maximum tuition reimbursement for market peers is $1, per year. m Is an employer paid Employee Assistance Program offered? Number of Annual Visits Provided Source: Evergreen Solutions, February Source: Evergreen Solutions, February EXHIBIT 4R EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Peer Percentage Yes Peer Average County EXHIBIT 4S TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 100.0% Yes per issue Peer Percentage Peer Average County Yes Is tuition reimbursement offered? 65.2% No Plan Limit $ 1, N/A Exhibit 4T shows the average benefits as a percentage of total compensation for market peers is 30.9 percent. This figure takes into account the value of all elements of the comprehensive benefits package offered to employees. The County s benefits percentage of total compensation is 34.0 percent, which is above the peer average. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-20

48 Chapter 4-Market Summary Benefits Survey Summary EXHIBIT 4T BENEFITS AS PERCENT OF TOTAL COMPENSATION Benefits as a percentage of total compensation Source: Evergreen Solutions, February Peer Average County 30.9% 34.0% Overall, the County offers benefits that are competitive with those offered by respondent peers. The benefits package offered by the County is a higher percentage of total compensation than the market average, and the County pays a larger percentage of the premiums for health insurance for employee s families and dependents. For many of the surveyed benefits, the County s offerings were similar to or better than the offerings at the majority of market peers. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-21

49 EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC Chapter 5 - Recommendations The analysis of the County s classification and compensation systems revealed a number of strengths and some typical challenges that are common today in public sector organizations. The County possesses systems that were designed to be fair, comprehensive, transparent, and allowed for the work performed to be appropriately valued. However, some adjustments over time created a system that it is unnecessarily complex and has some inconsistencies. The recommendations herein seek to build on the noted strengths of the current system while addressing these challenges and reflect the analyzed market conditions. Each recommendation was developed with these factors in mind and addresses a specific need based on the collected information while taking into account the external environment. The revised pay plan and classification structure were designed based on the results of the study analysis and reflect the desired market position for the County as well as key organizational goals related to career progression. The County s competitive position relative to market peers will be maintained and fiscal impacts have been considered. The remainder of this chapter presents the recommendations by category. The categories include: 5.1 Classification 5.2 Compensation 5.3 Administration 5.4 Summary 5.1 CLASSIFICATION One of the greatest challenges of any organization is to maintain its classification system within the dynamic environment they operate on a regular basis. Classification illustrates how work is organized as well as how the human resources are utilized to meet the short and long term challenges of the organization. A strong classification system is simple, transparent, and comprehensive. It is critical that an organization possess a system that realistically captures what work is being performed by employees. FINDING As a result of the JAT-based analysis conducted and peer information collected during the salary survey process, it was revealed that the County has a number of classification titles that could be improved based on the actual duties performed by employees. In addition to JATs, supervisors submitted Management Issues Tools (MITs) which outlined specific Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-1

50 Chapter 5-Recommendations requests for reclassifications. RECOMMENDATION 1: Revise some classification titles to more appropriately reflect the work performed and current best practice in classification systems. In general, most classification titles recommended for revision or updating are due to recommended changes in the nomenclature for zoned positions, or current trends and best practices for some classifications. Exhibit 5A shows the list of current and proposed classification titles that are identified for revision, and does not list minor changes. EXHIBIT 5A PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION REVISIONS Current Class Title Proposed Class Title 911 MANAGER TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGER 911 SUPERVISOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUPERVISOR 911 TRAINER TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAINER ADMIN SUPPORT ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMIN SUPPORT COORDINATOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ADMIN SUPPORT MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER ADMIN SUPPORT SPECIALIST ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN SUPPORT SUPERVISOR ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR ADMIN SUPPORT TECHNICIAN ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN CODE ENF OFFICIAL, SENIOR-ZNA SENIOR CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL-ZONE 3 CODE ENF OFFICIAL-ZONE 1 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL-ZONE 1 CODE ENF OFFICIAL-ZONE 2 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL-ZONE 2 CODE ENF OFFICIAL-ZONE 3 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL-ZONE 3 COUNTY ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY DEPUTY SHERIFF, LIEUTENANT DEPUTY SHERIFF LIEUTENANT-ZONE 1 ECONOMIC SERVICES MANAGER ECONOMIC SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER ECONOMIC SERVICES SUPERVISOR HUMAN SERVICES UNIVERSAL CASEWORKER SUPERVISOR ECONOMIC SVCS CASEWORKER-ZN 1 ECONOMIC SERVICES CASEWORKER ENG CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR-ZONE 1 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR-ZONE 8 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR SUPERVISOR FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE CAPTAIN-ZONE 3 FIRE LIEUTENANT-ZONE 1 FIRE CAPTAIN-ZONE 1 FIRE LIEUTENANT-ZONE 2 FIRE CAPTAIN-ZONE 2 FISCAL SUPPORT ASSISTANT LANDFILL WEIGHMASTER GANG PREVENT & INT CASE MGR YOUTH VIOLENCE INTERVENTION SPECIALIST HR ANALYST HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST-ZONE 1 HR ANALYST HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST-ZONE 2 IS ANALYST INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST-ZONE 1 IS ANALYST INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST-ZONE 2 IS ANALYST INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST-ZONE 3 IS SERVICES COORDINATOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COORDINATOR IS SPECIALIST, SENIOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SPECIALIST-ZONE 3 IS SUPERVISOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPERVISOR Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-2

51 Chapter 5-Recommendations EXHIBIT 5A PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION REVISIONS (CONTINUED) Current Class Title Proposed Class Title IS SUPPORT SPECIALIST INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SPECIALIST-ZONE 1 IS SUPPORT SPECIALIST, SENIOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SPECIALIST-ZONE 3 IS TECHNICIAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TECHNICIAN-ZONE 1 IS TECHNICIAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TECHNICIAN-ZONE 2 IT PROC & ADM SUPP SPEC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST LIBRARIAN, SUPERVISING LIBRARY SUPERVISOR MATERIALS CONTROL SPECIALIST INVENTORY CONTROL SPECIALIST MATERIALS CONTROL TECHNICIAN INVENTORY CONTROL TECHNICIAN NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR-ZONE 1 NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR-ZONE 2 NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR-ZONE 3 PARALEGAL PARALEGAL-ZONE 1 PARALEGAL PARALEGAL-ZONE 2 PARALEGAL PARALEGAL-ZONE 3 PAYROLL ADMIN SPECIALIST PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION COORDINATOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIRECTOR PUBLIC & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR REGISTER OF DEEDS, DEPUTY DEPUTY REGISTER OF DEEDS-ZONE 1 REGISTER OF DEEDS, DEPUTY DEPUTY REGISTER OF DEEDS-ZONE 2 SHELTER SUPERVISOR ANIMAL SHELTER MANAGER SHORE PROTECTION COORDINATOR COASTAL PROTECTION COORDINATOR STRATEGY/POL DEV COORDINATOR STRATEGY & POLICY MANAGER NEW TITLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SPECIALIST-ZONE 1 NEW TITLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SPECIALIST-ZONE 2 NEW TITLE SENIOR CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL-ZONE 2 NEW TITLE TRADES SPECIALIST-ZONE 3 Source: Evergreen Solutions, May COMPENSATION Where classification analysis is primarily designed to identify and rectify issues of internal equity, compensation analysis involves assessing and improving external equity. Specifically, external equity deals with how well an organization compensates similar work in comparison to its market peers. FINDING The existing compensation plan was competitive within the market; however, the structure was not uniform or easy to understand. The County s current plan is shown in Exhibit 5B, and has a series of 75 grades or ranges. The grades are identified more by the classifications they serve and not a unified numbering system, and some grades are duplicates of one another. For example, four classification titles are assigned the same pay range that begins at $14.47 per hour, but it is called something different for each of the three classification titles; 1300, ELZ1, EOZ1, and TEZ1 respectively. Having the same range with four unique names is not something that is typically recommended. It presents a situation that is overly complex to understand outside Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-3

52 Chapter 5-Recommendations of a small group of people who design and manage the system. Another issue observed in the plan is the wide variation in range spread. Some of the County s current ranges are as narrow as 30.0 percent, while the vast majority are 53.0 percent wide. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-4

53 Chapter 5-Recommendations EXHIBIT 5B CURRENT PAY PLAN Grade Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Range Minimum Minimum Midpoint Midpoint Target Target Maximum Maximum Spread Employees 1100 $ $24,274 $ $30,774 $ $27,227 $ $37,274 54% $ $27,248 $ $34,486 $ $30,514 $ $41,725 53% $ $30,098 $ $38,168 $ $33,717 $ $46,238 54% $ $33,010 $ $41,850 $ $36,982 $ $50,690 54% F1 $ $31,479 $ $39,857 $ $35,196 $ $48,235 53% 19 21F2 $ $33,106 $ $41,934 $ $37,026 $ $50,762 53% $ $35,922 $ $45,510 $ $40,248 $ $55,099 53% 35 22FL $ $38,914 $ $49,310 $ $43,618 $ $59,706 53% 26 22LE $ $36,192 $ $45,843 $ $40,518 $ $55,494 53% $ $38,854 $ $49,182 $ $43,493 $ $59,509 53% $ $42,453 $ $53,768 $ $47,507 $ $65,083 53% $ $46,779 $ $59,290 $ $52,374 $ $71,802 53% 14 32LE $ $46,821 $ $59,332 $ $52,437 $ $71,843 53% $ $50,440 $ $63,908 $ $56,472 $ $77,376 53% 67 41LE $ $50,523 $ $64,012 $ $56,555 $ $77,501 53% $ $53,310 $ $67,538 $ $59,738 $ $81,765 53% 14 42BC $ $55,994 $ $70,928 $ $62,712 $ $85,862 53% $ $56,202 $ $71,198 $ $62,962 $ $86,195 53% $ $59,842 $ $75,816 $ $66,997 $ $91,790 53% 45 51LE $ $60,008 $ $76,045 $ $67,226 $ $92,082 53% $ $64,210 $ $81,328 $ $71,906 $ $98,446 53% $ $68,661 $ $86,934 $ $76,877 $ $105,206 53% $ $72,467 $ $91,874 $ $81,182 $ $111,280 54% 5 62LE $ $70,970 $ $89,898 $ $79,477 $ $108,826 53% $ $76,336 $ $96,731 $ $85,488 $ $117,125 53% $ $81,162 $ $102,836 $ $90,875 $ $124,509 53% $ $87,048 $ $110,282 $ $97,469 $ $133,515 53% $ $91,707 $ $116,199 $ $102,710 $ $140,691 53% $ $95,555 $ $121,067 $ $107,037 $ $146,578 53% $ $99,424 $ $125,965 $ $111,322 $ $152,506 53% $ $104,208 $ $132,039 $ $116,730 $ $159,869 53% $ $115,731 $ $146,630 $ $129,646 $ $177,528 53% 0 APZ1 $ $35,922 $ $45,510 $ $40,248 $ $55,099 53% 6 APZ2 $ $37,378 $ $47,351 $ $41,850 $ $57,325 53% 2 APZ3 $ $38,896 $ $49,254 $ $43,514 $ $59,613 53% 1 CEZ1 $ $35,922 $ $41,714 $ $40,248 $ $47,507 32% 2 CEZ2 $ $36,670 $ $42,089 $ $41,080 $ $47,507 30% 1 CEZ3 $ $42,453 $ $53,768 $ $47,507 $ $65,083 53% 14 Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-5

54 Chapter 5-Recommendations EXHIBIT 5B (CONTINUED) CURRENT PAY PLAN Grade Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Range Minimum Minimum Midpoint Midpoint Target Target Maximum Maximum Spread Employees CSZ1 $ $46,779 $ $52,166 $ $52,374 $ $57,554 23% 2 CSZ2 $ $49,109 $ $56,472 $ $54,995 $ $63,835 30% 1 CSZ3 $ $52,374 $ $62,088 $ $58,656 $ $71,802 37% 0 DAZ1 $ $33,010 $ $41,850 $ $36,982 $ $50,690 54% 1 DAZ2 $ $34,341 $ $43,524 $ $38,480 $ $52,707 53% 1 ECZ1 $ $32,406 $ $41,080 $ $36,275 $ $49,754 54% 1 ECZ2 $ $33,384 $ $42,307 $ $37,336 $ $51,230 53% 0 ECZ3 $ $34,029 $ $43,129 $ $38,147 $ $52,229 53% 0 ECZ4 $ $35,381 $ $44,835 $ $39,645 $ $54,288 53% 0 ELZ1 $ $30,098 $ $38,168 $ $33,717 $ $46,238 54% 1 EOZ1 $ $30,098 $ $38,168 $ $33,717 $ $46,238 54% 11 EOZ8 $ $32,510 $ $41,184 $ $36,421 $ $49,858 53% 2 FLZ2 $ $39,698 $ $50,297 $ $44,489 $ $60,897 53% 3 GMZ1 $ $24,274 $ $30,774 $ $27,227 $ $37,274 54% 28 LCZ1 $ $53,310 $ $67,538 $ $59,738 $ $81,765 53% 15 LCZ2 $ $54,350 $ $68,879 $ $60,902 $ $83,408 53% 2 LEZ2 $ $52,021 $ $65,915 $ $58,261 $ $79,810 53% 6 MGCA $ $147,400 $ $147,400 $ $147,400 $ $147,400 0% 1 MGCK $ $76,741 $ $76,741 $ $76,741 $ $76,741 0% 1 MGCM $ $175,000 $ $175,000 $ $175,000 $ $175,000 0% 1 MGRD $ $58,171 $ $58,171 $ $58,171 $ $58,171 0% 1 MGSH $ $118,187 $ $118,187 $ $115,586 $ $118,187 0% 1 NTZ1 $ $38,854 $ $49,182 $ $43,493 $ $59,509 53% 4 NTZ2 $ $40,019 $ $50,658 $ $44,803 $ $61,298 53% 2 NUZ1 $ $50,440 $ $63,908 $ $56,472 $ $77,376 53% 41 NUZ2 $ $51,938 $ $65,822 $ $58,178 $ $79,706 53% 11 NUZ3 $ $53,019 $ $67,170 $ $59,362 $ $81,321 53% 2 SWZ1 $ $50,440 $ $63,908 $ $56,472 $ $77,376 53% 17 SWZ2 $ $51,459 $ $65,198 $ $57,616 $ $78,936 53% 83 SWZ3 $ $51,938 $ $65,822 $ $58,178 $ $79,706 53% 2 SWZ4 $ $53,019 $ $67,174 $ $59,363 $ $81,328 53% 0 TEZ1 $ $30,098 $ $38,168 $ $33,717 $ $46,238 54% 64 TEZ2 $ $30,701 $ $38,896 $ $34,362 $ $47,091 53% 4 TSZ1 $ $35,922 $ $45,510 $ $40,248 $ $55,099 53% 11 TSZ2 $ $36,670 $ $46,436 $ $41,080 $ $56,202 53% 5 UCZ1 $ $35,381 $ $44,834 $ $39,645 $ $54,288 53% 95 UCZ2 $ $36,795 $ $46,623 $ $41,226 $ $56,451 53% 3 Source: Evergreen Solutions, May Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-6

55 Chapter 5-Recommendations RECOMMENDATION 2: Simplify the compensation plan, bring uniformity to the structure, and maintain market competitiveness. Several steps were utilized to develop a uniform, competitive plan; determine a pay grade assignment for each classification, and slot employees salaries into the new structure. The results for each step are described below: Step 1: Implement the proposed pay plan illustrated in Exhibit 5C which reflects an overall simplification of the existing pay plan. Grades are now numbered , with a few administrative grades for distinction of some classifications. The plan structure allows for employee career and salary growth within the range, with consistent, wide range spreads. The proposed pay plan expands zones to all pay grades, allowing for the continued use of zones throughout the pay plan structure. The proposed pay plan also includes grades for elected officials and employees appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, whom are paid salaries as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The flat rate salaries shown for these classifications reflect average actual salaries received from the market data comparisons and the actual salaries of current County incumbents. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-7

56 Chapter 5-Recommendations EXHIBIT 5C PROPOSED PAY PLAN Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range Spread 101A $ 24, $ 33, $ 41, % 101B $ 25, $ 33, $ 41, % 101C $ 26, $ 33, $ 41, % 102A $ 25, $ 34, $ 43, % 102B $ 26, $ 35, $ 43, % 102C $ 27, $ 35, $ 43, % 103A $ 27, $ 36, $ 45, % 103B $ 27, $ 36, $ 45, % 103C $ 28, $ 37, $ 45, % 104A $ 28, $ 38, $ 48, % 104B $ 29, $ 38, $ 48, % 104C $ 30, $ 39, $ 48, % 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, % 105B $ 30, $ 40, $ 50, % 105C $ 31, $ 41, $ 50, % 106A $ 31, $ 42, $ 53, % 106B $ 32, $ 42, $ 53, % 106C $ 33, $ 43, $ 53, % 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, % 107B $ 33, $ 44, $ 55, % 107C $ 34, $ 45, $ 55, % 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, % 108B $ 35, $ 47, $ 58, % 108C $ 36, $ 47, $ 58, % 109A $ 36, $ 48, $ 61, % 109B $ 37, $ 49, $ 61, % 109C $ 38, $ 50, $ 61, % 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, % 110B $ 39, $ 51, $ 64, % 110C $ 40, $ 52, $ 64, % 111A $ 39, $ 53, $ 67, % 111B $ 41, $ 54, $ 67, % 111C $ 42, $ 55, $ 67, % 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, % 112B $ 43, $ 57, $ 71, % 112C $ 44, $ 57, $ 71, % 113A $ 43, $ 59, $ 74, % 113B $ 45, $ 60, $ 74, % 113C $ 46, $ 60, $ 74, % 114A $ 46, $ 62, $ 78, % 114B $ 47, $ 63, $ 78, % 114C $ 49, $ 63, $ 78, % Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-8

57 Chapter 5-Recommendations EXHIBIT 5C (CONTINUED) PROPOSED PAY PLAN Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range Spread 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, % 115B $ 50, $ 66, $ 82, % 115C $ 51, $ 67, $ 82, % 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, % 116B $ 52, $ 69, $ 86, % 116C $ 54, $ 70, $ 86, % 117A $ 53, $ 72, $ 90, % 117B $ 55, $ 73, $ 90, % 117C $ 56, $ 73, $ 90, % 118A $ 56, $ 75, $ 95, % 118B $ 57, $ 76, $ 95, % 118C $ 59, $ 77, $ 95, % 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, % 119B $ 60, $ 80, $ 100, % 119C $ 62, $ 81, $ 100, % 120A $ 61, $ 83, $ 105, % 120B $ 63, $ 84, $ 105, % 120C $ 65, $ 85, $ 105, % 121A $ 65, $ 87, $ 110, % 121B $ 67, $ 88, $ 110, % 121C $ 69, $ 89, $ 110, % 122A $ 68, $ 92, $ 116, % 122B $ 70, $ 93, $ 116, % 122C $ 72, $ 94, $ 116, % 123A $ 71, $ 96, $ 121, % 123B $ 73, $ 97, $ 121, % 123C $ 76, $ 99, $ 121, % 124A $ 75, $ 101, $ 127, % 124B $ 77, $ 102, $ 127, % 124C $ 80, $ 104, $ 127, % 125A $ 79, $ 106, $ 134, % 125B $ 81, $ 107, $ 134, % 125C $ 84, $ 109, $ 134, % 126A $ 82, $ 112, $ 141, % 126B $ 85, $ 113, $ 141, % 126C $ 88, $ 114, $ 141, % 127A $ 87, $ 117, $ 148, % 127B $ 89, $ 118, $ 148, % 127C $ 92, $ 120, $ 148, % 128A $ 91, $ 123, $ 155, % 128B $ 94, $ 124, $ 155, % 128C $ 97, $ 126, $ 155, % Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-9

58 Chapter 5-Recommendations EXHIBIT 5C (CONTINUED) PROPOSED PAY PLAN Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range Spread 129A $ 96, $ 129, $ 163, % 129B $ 99, $ 131, $ 163, % 129C $ 102, $ 132, $ 163, % 130A $ 100, $ 136, $ 171, % 130B $ 104, $ 137, $ 171, % 130C $ 107, $ 139, $ 171, % 131A $ 105, $ 142, $ 180, % 131B $ 109, $ 144, $ 180, % 131C $ 112, $ 146, $ 180, % 132A $ 111, $ 150, $ 189, % 132B $ 114, $ 151, $ 189, % 132C $ 118, $ 153, $ 189, % 133A $ 116, $ 157, $ 198, % 133B $ 120, $ 159, $ 198, % 133C $ 124, $ 161, $ 198, % 134A $ 122, $ 165, $ 208, % 134B $ 126, $ 167, $ 208, % 134C $ 130, $ 169, $ 208, % 135A $ 128, $ 173, $ 218, % 135B $ 132, $ 175, $ 218, % 135C $ 137, $ 177, $ 218, % MGCA $ 159, $ 159, $ 159, % MGCK $ 76, $ 76, $ 76, % MGCM $ 177, $ 177, $ 177, % MGRD $ 72, $ 72, $ 72, % MGSH $ 124, $ 124, $ 124, % Source: Evergreen Solutions, May Step 2: Slot all classifications into the proposed pay plan utilizing the market data, results of the JAT scoring, and best practice. This established a framework for internal hierarchy. Following the initial slotting, classification series changes were analyzed and evaluated to ensure that proper alignment was maintained between different classifications. The results are provided in Exhibit 5D. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-10

59 Chapter 5-Recommendations EXHIBIT 5D PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST PROPOSED CLASS TITLE PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED GRADE MIN MID MAX ACCOUNTANT 114A $ 46, $ 62, $ 78, ACCOUNTING MANAGER 120A $ 61, $ 83, $ 105, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 103A $ 27, $ 36, $ 45, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR 113A $ 43, $ 59, $ 74, ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER 106A $ 31, $ 42, $ 53, ANIMAL CONTROL SUPERVISOR 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, ANIMAL SHELTER MANAGER 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, APPRAISAL SUPERVISOR 118A $ 56, $ 75, $ 95, APPRAISER-ZONE 1 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, APPRAISER-ZONE 2 110B $ 39, $ 51, $ 64, APPRAISER-ZONE 3 110C $ 40, $ 52, $ 64, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER 131A $ 105, $ 142, $ 180, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR 124A $ 75, $ 101, $ 127, ASSISTANT HEALTH DIRECTOR 125A $ 79, $ 106, $ 134, ASSISTANT LIBRARY DIRECTOR 123A $ 71, $ 96, $ 121, ASSISTANT PARKS & GARDENS DIRECTOR 123A $ 71, $ 96, $ 121, ASSISTANT REGISTER OF DEEDS 113A $ 43, $ 59, $ 74, ASSISTANT SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR 125A $ 79, $ 106, $ 134, ATTORNEY 122A $ 68, $ 92, $ 116, AUDIOLOGIST 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, BUDGET ANALYST 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, BUDGET DIRECTOR 128A $ 91, $ 123, $ 155, BUDGET SPECIALIST 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, BUSINESS OFFICER 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, CHIEF CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, CHIEF PROJECT ENGINEER 123A $ 71, $ 96, $ 121, CLERK TO THE BOARD MGCK $ 76, $ 76, $ 76, COASTAL PROTECTION COORDINATOR 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL-ZONE 1 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL-ZONE 2 110B $ 39, $ 51, $ 64, CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL-ZONE 3 110C $ 40, $ 52, $ 64, COLLECTOR OF REVENUE 122A $ 68, $ 92, $ 116, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNER 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSISTANT 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, COMMUNITY JUSTICE SERVICES DIRECTOR 126A $ 82, $ 112, $ 141, COMMUNITY JUSTICE SERVICES SUPPORT SERVICES COORDINATOR 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSISTANT 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, COMMUNITY SERVICES COORDINATOR 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, COUNTY ATTORNEY MGCA $ 159, $ 159, $ 159, COUNTY ENGINEER 127A $ 87, $ 117, $ 148, COUNTY MANAGER MGCM $ 177, $ 177, $ 177, CRIMES ANALYST 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, CUSTODIAL CREW LEADER 106A $ 31, $ 42, $ 53, CUSTODIAL SUPERINTENDENT 113A $ 43, $ 59, $ 74, CUSTODIAL SUPERVISOR 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, CUSTODIAN 101A $ 24, $ 33, $ 41, DENTAL ASSISTANT-ZONE 1 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, DENTAL ASSISTANT-ZONE 2 107B $ 33, $ 44, $ 55, Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-11

60 Chapter 5-Recommendations EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED) PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST PROPOSED MAX DEPUTY CLERK TO THE BOARD 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, DEPUTY COLLECTOR 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY 128A $ 91, $ 123, $ 155, DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 122A $ 68, $ 92, $ 116, DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, DEPUTY REGISTER OF DEEDS-ZONE 1 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, DEPUTY REGISTER OF DEEDS-ZONE 2 105B $ 30, $ 40, $ 50, DEPUTY SHERIFF 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, DEPUTY SHERIFF CAPTAIN 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, DEPUTY SHERIFF CHIEF 125A $ 79, $ 106, $ 134, DEPUTY SHERIFF COLONEL 124A $ 75, $ 101, $ 127, DEPUTY SHERIFF CORPORAL 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, DEPUTY SHERIFF DETECTIVE 113A $ 43, $ 59, $ 74, DEPUTY SHERIFF LIEUTENANT-ZONE 1 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, DEPUTY SHERIFF LIEUTENANT-ZONE 2 116B $ 52, $ 69, $ 86, DEPUTY SHERIFF MAJOR 122A $ 68, $ 92, $ 116, DEPUTY SHERIFF SERGEANT 114A $ 46, $ 62, $ 78, DETENTION OFFICER 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, DETENTION OFFICER CORPORAL 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, DETENTION OFFICER SERGEANT 113A $ 43, $ 59, $ 74, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR 117A $ 53, $ 72, $ 90, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SPECIALIST-ZONE 1 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SPECIALIST-ZONE 2 107B $ 33, $ 44, $ 55, DIETITIAN 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, DRUG TREATMENT COURT SPECIALIST 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, DWI COURT COORDINATOR 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, ECONOMIC SERVICES CASEWORKER 106A $ 31, $ 42, $ 53, ECONOMIC SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, ELECTIONS COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST 109A $ 36, $ 48, $ 61, ELECTIONS DIRECTOR 122A $ 68, $ 92, $ 116, ELECTIONS SPECIALIST 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, ELECTIONS SYSTEMS SPECIALIST 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT & 911 DIRECTOR 124A $ 75, $ 101, $ 127, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, ENERGY PROGRAM SPECIALIST 113A $ 43, $ 59, $ 74, ENGINEERING CAD SPECIALIST 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, ENGINEERING SPECIALIST 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, ENVIORNMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM SPECIALIST 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, ENVIORNMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES MANAGER 123A $ 71, $ 96, $ 121, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR 128A $ 91, $ 123, $ 155, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST 114A $ 46, $ 62, $ 78, ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICIAN 109A $ 36, $ 48, $ 61, EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 104A $ 28, $ 38, $ 48, EQUIPMENT OPERATOR SUPERVISOR 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, EQUIPMENT SHOP SUPERINTENDENT 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, EQUIPMENT SHOP SUPERVISOR 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE COUNTY MANAGER 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, FACILITIES PROJECT COORDINATOR 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, FINANCE DIRECTOR 128A $ 91, $ 123, $ 155, FINANCIAL ANALYST 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-12

61 Chapter 5-Recommendations EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED) PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST PROPOSED CLASS TITLE PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED GRADE MIN MID MAX FIRE BATTALION CHIEF 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, FIRE CAPTAIN-ZONE 1 114A $ 46, $ 62, $ 78, FIRE CAPTAIN-ZONE 2 114B $ 47, $ 63, $ 78, FIRE CAPTAIN-ZONE 3 114C $ 49, $ 63, $ 78, FIRE CHIEF 125A $ 79, $ 106, $ 134, FIRE HYDRANT TECHNICIAN 104A $ 28, $ 38, $ 48, FIRE SYSTEMS DATA SPECIALIST 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, FIREFIGHTER 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, FIREFIGHTER/APPARATUS OPERATOR 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, FISCAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, FISCAL SUPPORT SUPERVISOR 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, FISCAL SUPPORT TECHNICIAN 106A $ 31, $ 42, $ 53, GRANTS & PROJECT ANALYST 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, GROUNDS MAINTENANCE WORKER 102A $ 25, $ 34, $ 43, HEALTH DIRECTOR 129A $ 96, $ 129, $ 163, HEALTH EDUCATION SUPERVISOR 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, HEALTH EDUCATOR 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, HEALTH PLANNER 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST-ZONE 1 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST-ZONE 2 116B $ 52, $ 69, $ 86, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR 128A $ 91, $ 123, $ 155, HUMAN RESOURCES REPRESENTATIVE 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, HUMAN SERVICES UNIVERSAL CASEWORKER SUPERVISOR 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, HUMAN SERVICES UNIVERSAL CASEWORKER-ZONE 1 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, HUMAN SERVICES UNIVERSAL CASEWORKER-ZONE 2 108B $ 35, $ 47, $ 58, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST-ZONE 1 118A $ 56, $ 75, $ 95, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST-ZONE 2 118B $ 57, $ 76, $ 95, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST-ZONE 3 118C $ 59, $ 77, $ 95, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COORDINATOR 114A $ 46, $ 62, $ 78, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR 128A $ 91, $ 123, $ 155, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPERVISOR 121A $ 65, $ 87, $ 110, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SPECIALIST-ZONE 1 114A $ 46, $ 62, $ 78, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SPECIALIST-ZONE 2 114B $ 47, $ 63, $ 78, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SPECIALIST-ZONE 3 114C $ 49, $ 63, $ 78, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TECHNICIAN-ZONE 1 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TECHNICIAN-ZONE 2 108B $ 35, $ 47, $ 58, INSPECTIONS MANAGER 124A $ 75, $ 101, $ 127, INVENTORY CONTROL SPECIALIST 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, INVENTORY CONTROL TECHNICIAN 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, INVESTMENT OFFICER 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, LANDFILL MANAGER 118A $ 56, $ 75, $ 95, LANDFILL SUPERVISOR 114A $ 46, $ 62, $ 78, LANDFILL WEIGHMASTER 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, LANDSCAPE TECHNICIAN 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, LIBRARIAN 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, LIBRARY ASSISTANT 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, LIBRARY ASSOCIATE 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, LIBRARY DIRECTOR 128A $ 91, $ 123, $ 155, LIBRARY SUPERVISOR 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-13

62 Chapter 5-Recommendations EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED) PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST PROPOSED CLASS TITLE PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED GRADE MIN MID MAX LICENSED CLINICAL THERAPIST SUPERVISOR 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, LICENSED CLINICAL THERAPIST-ZONE 1 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, LICENSED CLINICAL THERAPIST-ZONE 2 116B $ 52, $ 69, $ 86, LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, MAINTENANCE ASSISTANT 101A $ 24, $ 33, $ 41, MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR 109A $ 36, $ 48, $ 61, MECHANIC 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, MEDIA PRODUCTIONS COORDINATOR 114A $ 46, $ 62, $ 78, MEDIA PRODUCTIONS SPECIALIST 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, MEDICAL LAB ASSISTANT 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, MEDICAL LAB SUPERVISOR 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, MEDICAL LAB TECHNOLOGIST 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, MUSEUM CURATOR 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, MUSEUM DIRECTOR 123A $ 71, $ 96, $ 121, MUSEUM EDUCATION COORDINATOR 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, MUSEUM EDUCATOR 111A $ 39, $ 53, $ 67, MUSEUM EXHIBIT COORDINATOR 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, MUSEUM EXHIBIT DESIGNER 109A $ 36, $ 48, $ 61, MUSEUM HISTORIAN 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, MUSEUM REGISTRAR 111A $ 39, $ 53, $ 67, NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR-ZONE 1 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR-ZONE 2 119B $ 60, $ 80, $ 100, NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR-ZONE 3 119C $ 62, $ 81, $ 100, NUTRITION SERVICES SUPERVISOR 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, NUTRITIONIST-ZONE 1 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, NUTRITIONIST-ZONE 2 110B $ 39, $ 51, $ 64, PARALEGAL-ZONE 1 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, PARALEGAL-ZONE 2 110B $ 39, $ 51, $ 64, PARALEGAL-ZONE 3 110C $ 40, $ 52, $ 64, PARKS & GARDENS DIRECTOR 126A $ 82, $ 112, $ 141, PARKS & GARDENS SUPERINTENDENT 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION COORDINATOR 114A $ 46, $ 62, $ 78, PERSONAL HEALTH SERVICES MANAGER 125A $ 79, $ 106, $ 134, PHYSICIAN EXTENDER 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, PLANNER 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DIRECTOR 128A $ 91, $ 123, $ 155, PLANNING SPECIALIST 109A $ 36, $ 48, $ 61, PLANNING SUPERVISOR 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, PLANT SHIFT SUPERVISOR 113A $ 43, $ 59, $ 74, PRETRIAL RELEASE COORDINATOR 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, PROGRAM ASSISTANT 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, PROGRAM COORDINATOR 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, PROGRAM MANAGER 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR 127A $ 87, $ 117, $ 148, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT MANAGER 122A $ 68, $ 92, $ 116, PUBLIC & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 124A $ 75, $ 101, $ 127, PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE SUPERVISOR 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE-ZONE 1 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE-ZONE 2 115B $ 50, $ 66, $ 82, PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE-ZONE 3 115C $ 51, $ 67, $ 82, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, PUBLIC RELATIONS SPECIALIST 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-14

63 Chapter 5-Recommendations EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED) PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST PROPOSED CLASS TITLE PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED GRADE MIN MID MAX PUBLIC SAFETY DATA ANALYST 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, PURCHASING AGENT 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, PURCHASING SUPERVISOR 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, REGISTER OF DEEDS MGRD $ 72, $ 72, $ 72, REVALUATION COORDINATOR 114A $ 46, $ 62, $ 78, RISK MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, SAFETY OFFICER 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, SENIOR ATTORNEY 123A $ 71, $ 96, $ 121, SENIOR BUDGET ANALYST 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, SENIOR CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL-ZONE 1 113A $ 43, $ 59, $ 74, SENIOR CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL-ZONE 2 113B $ 45, $ 60, $ 74, SENIOR CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL-ZONE 3 113C $ 46, $ 60, $ 74, SENIOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST 118A $ 56, $ 75, $ 95, SENIOR ENVIORNMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM SPECIALIST 118A $ 56, $ 75, $ 95, SENIOR LIBRARIAN 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, SENIOR PLANNER 118A $ 56, $ 75, $ 95, SENIOR RESOURCE CENTER MANAGER 122A $ 68, $ 92, $ 116, SENIOR TAX MAPPER 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, SENIOR VECTOR CONTROL OPERATOR 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, SHERIFF MGSH $ 124, $ 124, $ 124, SOCIAL SERVICES BUSINESS ANALYST 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, SOCIAL SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIALIST 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR 129A $ 96, $ 129, $ 163, SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER 120A $ 61, $ 83, $ 105, SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISOR 119A $ 58, $ 79, $ 100, SOCIAL WORKER-ZONE 1 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, SOCIAL WORKER-ZONE 2 115B $ 50, $ 66, $ 82, SOCIAL WORKER-ZONE 3 115C $ 51, $ 67, $ 82, SOLID WASTE PLANNER 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, SPECIAL PROJECTS OFFICER 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, STRATEGY & POLICY MANAGER 122A $ 68, $ 92, $ 116, TAX ADMINISTRATOR 128A $ 91, $ 123, $ 155, TAX ADMINISTRATOR, ASSISTANT 123A $ 71, $ 96, $ 121, TAX LISTING SUPERVISOR 114A $ 46, $ 62, $ 78, TAX MAPPER 107A $ 32, $ 44, $ 55, TAX MAPPING SUPERVISOR 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGER 118A $ 56, $ 75, $ 95, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUPERVISOR 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAINER 111A $ 39, $ 53, $ 67, TELECOMMUNICATOR-ZONE 1 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, TELECOMMUNICATOR-ZONE 2 105B $ 30, $ 40, $ 50, TRADES SPECIALIST-ZONE 1 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, TRADES SPECIALIST-ZONE 2 108B $ 35, $ 47, $ 58, TRADES SPECIALIST-ZONE 3 108C $ 36, $ 47, $ 58, TRADES SUPERINTENDENT 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, TRADES SUPERVISOR 112A $ 41, $ 56, $ 71, TRADES TECHNICIAN 105A $ 29, $ 40, $ 50, TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR 108A $ 34, $ 46, $ 58, VECTOR CONTROL OPERATOR 103A $ 27, $ 36, $ 45, VETERAN SERVICES OFFICER 115A $ 48, $ 65, $ 82, VETERANS SERVICES SPECIALIST 109A $ 36, $ 48, $ 61, Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-15

64 Chapter 5-Recommendations EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED) PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST PROPOSED CLASS TITLE PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED GRADE MIN MID MAX VETERINARY ASSISTANT & ANIMAL SHELTER ATTENDANT 103A $ 27, $ 36, $ 45, WEBSITE ADMINISTRATOR 116A $ 50, $ 68, $ 86, YES MANAGER 122A $ 68, $ 92, $ 116, YOUTH VIOLENCE INTERVENTION SPECIALIST 109A $ 36, $ 48, $ 61, ZONING COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL 110A $ 38, $ 51, $ 64, Source: Evergreen Solutions, May Step 3 of the process was to transition employees salaries into the proposed new pay plan and make recommended adjustments to salaries as appropriate. Several options were considered for this step. At the time of this study, the County had proposed a performancebased market adjustment for which employees may be eligible. While these increases had not yet been affected, Evergreen Solutions determined that with the County s current competitive position in the market, and the planned salary increases, a Bring Employees Salaries to Minimum of New Pay Grade option was appropriate for this transition. This method is described below: Bring Employees Salaries to Minimum of New Pay Grade Utilizing this method, each employee s current salary was compared to the proposed minimum of his or her classification s new pay grade. Again, in the case of the elected officials and employees appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, the minimum was based on the average actual salary from the market data comparisons. If the pay grade minimum was greater than the current salary, an increase is recommended. If the pay grade minimum was less than the current salary, then no salary increase is recommended. The approximate annualized cost (salaries only, no benefits) to transition employees salaries into the new pay plan (by fund) is: General Fund: $473,855 Fire District Fund: $348,985 Environmental Mgmt. Fund: $2,173 Total: $825, ADMINISTRATION FINDING Any compensation system will fail to meet an organization s needs if it does not have strong administrative support. Judging by the generally positive state of the present system as observed in this report, it is likely that such administrative support exists, at least in part; however this section of the report will serve as a reminder. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-16

65 Chapter 5-Recommendations It is widely known that compensation plans have definitive shelf lives, after which, they will struggle and eventually fail to compete with the market and cause recruitment and retention strain for the County over time. Without proper maintenance, the compensation structure will lose its effectiveness and market competitiveness over a period of three to five years. The County does not need, however, to increase salary ranges contained in its pay plan with each across-the-board pay adjustment as they had done in the past. RECOMMENDATION 3: Select a small sample of classifications and conduct a localized survey of market values and benefit changes on an annual basis to determine market competitiveness and make appropriate adjustments. The County should continue its efforts to keep pace with public sector peers in terms of employee salaries. In order to maintain its competitiveness, Human Resources should select a small sample of classifications, particularly those with recruitment or retention problems, and conduct a survey of peer organizations to determine the relative external ranges of these classifications. This commitment to competitiveness is all the more important when one examines the current economic conditions. Many economists have predicted that current economic conditions are causing a buildup of demand in the private market. Many are also predicting that when economic conditions begin to soften in the near future that the potential exists for a sudden rash of movement in the labor market. People who have tolerated their stable jobs and accepted lower wages may tend to be more willing to change jobs for increases in pay. The Human Resources staff should contact market peers directly or access readily available secondary salary survey database resources to make determinations about market competitiveness and recommend appropriate adjustments. The County should ensure that identified administrative practices are put into place to maintain competitive and equitable compensation and classification over time. These annual surveys will work to ensure that external equity is maintained. Any changes made to individual classifications should be separate from individual salary adjustments, unless relevant changes move the salary outside of the proposed salary range. FINDING Inevitably, compensation is subject to changes in the external market based on best practices and other trends for human resources management. Given this understanding, the County should ensure that its structure is up to date and reflective of best practices. RECOMMENDATION 4: Conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study every three to five years. While annual surveys of identified classifications can provide a general idea of the County s market competitiveness, The County should complete a comprehensive compensation and classification study every three to five years to ensure internal and external equity is maintained. The County would be well served to prevent the long term invalidation of its compensation Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-17

66 Chapter 5-Recommendations and classification structure by conducting a study of this kind as a measure of preventative maintenance. Jobs change over time and the compensation market can shift quickly. These subtle changes can and do compound over time and produce undesired consequences in the long term. Such efforts to maintain the system are viewed as a sign that the County s leaders value their workforce and are willing to take serious steps to preserve the competitiveness of their compensation plan and practices by employees. 5.5 SUMMARY The County should be proud of its dedication to high-quality service and continuous improvement. Evergreen Solutions found that employees at all levels were committed to serving the community, and maintaining the positive working atmosphere they enjoy. Evergreen Solutions recommendations build upon the strengths of the current classification and compensation systems and work to improve the challenges identified by employees, management, and the project team. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-18