Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final

8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final

1/36

Comprehensive Classification and

Compensation Study for the

City of Garden City, GA

FINAL REPORT

June 10, 2015


2/36

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1

2.0 SUMMARY OF EMPLOYEE OUTREACH ......................................................................... 2 1

2.1 General Feedback ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Benefits Observations ........................................................................................ 2-22.3 Compensation Observations .............................................................................. 2-2

2.4 Classification Observations ................................................................................ 2-3

2.5 Market Peers ....................................................................................................... 2-3

2.6 Benchmark Positions .......................................................................................... 2-4

2.7 Outreach Summary ............................................................................................. 2-4

3.0 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS .................................................................. 3 1

3.1 Pay Plan Analysis ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Grade Placement Analysis .................................................................................. 3-3

3.3 Salary Quartile and Tenure Analysis .................................................................. 3-4

3.4 Employees by Department ................................................................................. 3-9

3.5 Summary .......................................................................................................... 3-10

4.0 MARKET SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................... 4 1

4.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Respondents ....................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Survey Results ..................................................................................................... 4-2

4.4 Private Sector Market Data ................................................................................ 4-5

4.5 Summary ............................................................................................................. 4-6

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 5 1

5.1 Classification Recommendations ...................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Compensation Recommendations ................................................................... 5-3

5.3 System Administration ........................................................................................ 5-8

5.4 Summary .......................................................................................................... 5-10

E V E R G R E E N S O L U T I O N S , L L C

Table of Contents


3/36

c

Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 1-1

Evergreen Solutions conducted a Comprehensive Classification and Compensation study for

the City of Garden City, GA (City) beginning in November 2014. The purpose of the study was

to analyze the City’s compensation system compared to the market and make

recommendations to improve its competitiveness. This involved reviewing and analyzing the

internal and external equity of the City’s current classification and compensation structure

and making recommendations in response to the findings.

Evergreen Solutions utilized a method of job evaluation to understand the current work being

performed by City employees. This provided the data for the internal equity review of the City’s

classification system. External equity, or the market competitiveness of the City’s current paystructure, was reviewed by conducting and analyzing the results of a salary survey. Ultimately,

the results of these analyses, both internal and external, were considered when making

recommendations to improve the City’s competitive market position. To achieve this goal,

Evergreen Solutions was tasked with:

leading orientation and focus group sessions for employees and conducting interviews

with department heads;

evaluating the City’s current salary structure to determine its strengths and

weaknesses;

collecting classification information through the Job Assessment Tool (JAT) to analyze

the internal equity of the City’s classifications;

developing recommendations for improvements to classification titles and the creation

of new titles, if necessary;

conducting a salary survey to assess the market competitiveness of the City’s current

pay plan;

developing a compensation structure and slotting classifications into that structure

while ensuring internal and external equity;

developing an implementation strategy and providing cost estimates for

implementation;

updating job descriptions that reflect recommended classification changes and

employee responses to the JAT, and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

recommendations; and


Chapter 1 - Introduction


4/36

Chapter 1 – Introduction Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study

for the City of Garden City GA


developing and submitting draft and final reports that summarize study findings and

recommendations.

Evergreen Solutions used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to develop

recommendations to improve the City’s competitive position. Study activities included:

conducting a study kick-off meeting;

conducting employee outreach;

conducting job assessments utilizing the JAT;

analyzing the current conditions of the City’s compensation system;

conducting a market salary survey;

developing classification and compensation structure recommendations;

developing implementation options for the proposed structure;

developing recommendations for maintaining the new system;

updating job descriptions to accurately reflect work performed; and

creating draft and final reports.

Kick off Meeting

The kick-off meeting allowed members of the study team from both the City and Evergreen

Solutions to discuss different aspects of the study. During the meeting, information about the

City’s compensation and classification structures and philosophies was shared and the work

plan for the study was finalized. The meeting also provided an opportunity for Evergreen

Solutions to explain the types of data needed to begin the study.

Employee Outreach

The orientation sessions provided an opportunity for employees and supervisors to learn more

information about the purpose of the study, and receive specific information related to theirparticipation in the study process. The focus group meetings and department head interviews

allowed City employees, supervisors, and senior management to identify practices that were

working well at the City, as well as to suggest areas of opportunities for improvement with

regard to compensation, classification, benefits, and performance evaluation. Employee

benefits and performance evaluation were not specifically reviewed during the course of the

study; however, participant feedback was sought and provided as these areas are integral to

an overall compensation system. The feedback received during these sessions is summarized

in Chapter 2 of this report.

Classification Analysis

To perform an analysis of the City’s classification system, all employees were asked to

complete a JAT in which they had the opportunity to describe the work they perform in their

own words. Supervisors then reviewed the employees’ JAT and provided additional

information as needed about the classifications. The information provided in the completed

JATs was utilized in the classification analysis in two ways. First, the work described was

reviewed to ensure that classification titles were being utilized appropriately. Second, the JATs

were evaluated to quantify, by a scoring method, each classification’s relative value within the


5/36

Chapter 1 – Introduction Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study



organization. Each classification’s score was based on the employee and supervisor’s

responses to the JAT, and the scores allowed for a comparison of classifications across the

City.

Analysis of Current Conditions

The City’s current employee database was analyzed with a close look at how the current payplan was being utilized. The current pay plans, the progression of employee salaries through

pay grades, employee tenure, and the distribution of employees among the City’s departments

were all examined during this process. Chapter 3 of this report summarizes the findings of

this analysis.

Compensation Analysis

For the compensation, or market analysis, peer organizations were identified that compete

with the City for human resources and provide similar services. A number of classifications

were selected as benchmarks for the survey. These positions represented a cross-section of

the departments and levels of work at the City. After the selection of peers and benchmarks,a survey tool was developed for the collection of salary range data for each benchmark. The

salary data collected during this survey were analyzed, and a summary of the data can be

found in Chapter 4 of this report.

Recommendations

During the recommendation phase of the study, Evergreen Solutions developed a market-

based pay plan and slotted classifications into the pay plan based on internal and external

equity. Next, implementation options were developed to transition employee salaries into the

new pay grades, and the associated costs of adjusting employee salaries were estimated.

Information has been provided to the City on how to execute the recommended salary

adjustments, as well as how to maintain the recommended classification and compensation

system over time. A summary of all recommendations made by Evergreen Solutions can be

found in Chapter 5 of this report.


6/36


Employee Outreach consisted of a series of orientation and focus group sessions conducted

by Evergreen Solutions with City employees, supervisors, and department heads in

December 2014. The orientation sessions provided participants an overview of the purpose

of the study. The focus group format and questions were designed to solicit input on a

number of topics related to the classification and compensation study. Though not in the

specific scope of the study, general questions with regard to employee benefits and

performance evaluation were asked as well. The comments of the participants were

valuable and provided a view of the perceptions of employees regarding the study and their

wages at the current time. Their feedback is summarized below:

2 1 GENERAL FEEDBACK

Employees viewed the City’s management as being dedicated to the workforce through their

commitment to a team environment. Employees stated that they generally enjoy their work,

co-workers, and work environment. However, employees also offered several suggestions for

improvement. For example, they believed that job duties and assignments have evolved over

the last several years and the current compensation and classification structure should be

updated. Participants also had several positive comments regarding their employment with

the City, including the following:

Several employees stated that they enjoyed the opportunity to serve their community

while working in a professional, team and family oriented environment.

Many individuals considered their work enjoyable and were thankful for their work

schedules.

Generally, employees appreciated the training and benefits provided to them, and

were especially pleased with the City’s observed holidays and Paid Time Off (PTO)

Policy.

On the other hand, employees provided several suggestions for areas of improvement:

Most employees expressed a strong desire to receive increases to their pay relative

to their market peers. Specifically, employees were concerned with the City’s ability

to attract and retain quality employees.

Employees would like to see job classifications and descriptions updated to more

accurately reflect the work being performed.


Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee

Outreach


7/36

Chapter 2–Summary of Employee Outreach Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study



A number of employees were troubled that their job duties had increased while their

compensation remained the same. Many employees believed that the tasks and

duties assigned to them across multiple departments was cumbersome, and was

cited as a possible reason for retention concerns for the City.

Several employees expressed concern regarding the lack of advancement

opportunities.

Many employees expressed their displeasure with the current performance

evaluation system and the process by which promotions and salary increases are

administered.

2 2 BENEFITS OBSERVATIONS

In general, employees were satisfied with the employee benefits offered by the City. These

positive comments, as well as areas for improvement, are listed below:

Most employees appreciated the health plan in general. However, many employees

expressed concern regarding the change in the City’s health care provider.

Specifically, employees stated that the current health provider (Aetna) does not

provide enough coverage compared to the City’s former provider, Blue Cross Blue

Shield. Moreover, employees expressed concern about their monthly health care

costs in relation to the level of coverage provided.

Some employees expressed a desire to have more funding for tuition reimbursement,

certifications and training. These employees stated that although funds for tuition

reimbursement are occasionally available, it hasn’t been consistent.

The retirement system was included as a topic for change. Many employees

expressed their displeasure with the current 30-65 retirement system. Some

employees stated that the current vesting system was appropriate, but the

retirement age was not. Most employees felt that a change in the retirement system

is needed.

2 3 COMPENSATION OBSERVATIONS

Focus group participants also offered the following observations related to compensation:

Many employees wanted additional pay for advanced education, additionalcertifications, and experience. Some employees stated that without it, they have no

incentive to further develop their skills.

Many employees cited discontent with not receiving cost of living increases in the

recent past. This, compounded by the lack of regular salary increases, concerned

most employees and was cited as contributing to personal economic hardships for


8/36




some. Additionally, some employees stated that they have had to seek part-time work

because their pay has not been keeping up with the cost of living.

Several employees stated that they believe the City’s compensation structure is no

longer competitive within the market, thus reinforcing their belief that there is a

problem recruiting and retaining quality employees.

Employees cited the desire to see more transparency concerning the process in

which raises are administered. Several employees stated their discontent regarding

the current process, believing there is little opportunity for salary and career

advancement.

2 4 CLASSIFICATION OBSERVATIONS

Participants also provided Evergreen Solutions with issues specific to the City’s classification

structure. Below is a list of their concerns:

Many employees believed classification titles and job descriptions need to be

reviewed regularly and updated to reflect the current duties and responsibilities

performed. They stated that their jobs have evolved but the titles have stayed the

same. Furthermore, some employees stated that job descriptions do not exist for all

positions.

Some groups of employees stated that they believed the classification structure

should be reviewed for appropriateness, especially within the Fire Department and

Code Enforcement.

2 5 MARKET PEERS

Focus group participants were asked to name organizations they considered to be market

peers. These are listed below and were considered when developing the list of peers for the

salary survey:

City of Augusta, GA;

City of Bluffton, GA;

City of Macon, GA;

City of Pooler, GA;

City of Savannah, GA;

City of Tybee Island, GA; City of Thunderbolt, GA;

Town of Hilton Head Island, SC;

Chatham County, GA;

Georgia Ports Authority, GA;

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, GA;

Home Depot Supply, GA; and

Hunter Army Airfield, GA.


9/36




2 6 BENCHMARK POSITIONS

Employees were also asked which positions or areas within the City presented the greatest

challenges with regard to employee recruitment and retention. Some of the areas and

positions mentioned by focus group participants were:

Equipment Operators;

Maintenance;

Mechanics;

Meter Readers;

Office Staff;

Parks and Recreation;

Planning;

Police Officers;

Public Safety; and

Water and Wastewater Operators.

2 7 OUTREACH SUMMARY

The concerns expressed during outreach by the employees exist in many organizations

today. Yet, overall, employees believed the City provides a great work environment, and

supports a team and family-oriented atmosphere. In fact, many employees cited the

organizational commitment to serving the community through public service, the

professional work environment and the quality of co-workers as reasons they remain

employed with the City.

The information received during this employee outreach provided a foundation for areas of

further review during the remainder of the study. It also aided Evergreen Solutions in the

consideration and development of recommendations provided in Chapter 5 of this report.


10/36

Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 3-1

This chapter provides an analysis of the current conditions relative to the classification and

compensation system by examining the City’s current pay plan, employee salary placement,

quartile and tenure analysis, and an employee by department summary. It is important to

understand that the analyses that follow describes the conditions at the City at the time of the

study; they do not look at the external equity of the system. External equity, or market

competiveness, is discussed in the next chapter of this report. This review allowed Evergreen

Solutions to gain an understanding of the conditions present at the City at the time the study

commenced. When combined with stakeholder and employee feedback (Chapter 2) and peer

market data (Chapter 4), a recommended solution appropriate for the City was developed and

is provided in Chapter 5. This analyses in this chapter continue as follows:

3.1 Pay Plan Analysis

3.2 Grade Placement Analysis

3.3 Quartile and Tenure Analysis

3.4 Employees by Department

3.5 Summary

3.1 PAY PLAN ANALYSIS

The City currently has two pay plans: one for general employees and one for public safety

employees. This organized pay structure provides employees with an understood system of

pay grades and related pay range information. Additionally, an established pay structure

allows the organization to review and address issues regarding potential pay compression

within job classifications and among different pay grades.

Both plans are organized in an open-range configuration, with an established minimum and

maximum salary, whereby employee salaries are expected to progress through the ranges

over the course of a career. Exhibit 3A displays the City’s current General Employee Pay Plan,

and Exhibit 3B displays the City’s pay plan for Public Safety employees. At the time of the

study, there were 92 employees in the City: 46 employees were in classifications which are

under the General Pay Plan, 42 employees were in classifications which are under the Public

Safety Pay Plan, and four (4) employees were in interim positions which were not assigned toany pay plan.


Chapter 3– Assessment of Current

Conditions


11/36

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study



EXHIBIT 3A

CURRENT GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN

EXHIBIT 3B

CURRENT PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN

Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range

Spread Employees

6 20,467.20$

25,584.00$

30,700.80$

50.0% 07 21,565.44$ 26,956.80$ 32,348.16$ 50.0% 0

8 22,730.24$ 28,412.80$ 34,095.36$ 50.0% 5

9 23,944.96$ 29,931.20$ 35,917.44$ 50.0% 0

10 25,226.24$ 31,532.80$ 37,839.36$ 50.0% 1

12 26,574.08$ 33,217.60$ 39,861.12$ 50.0% 1

14 27,988.48$ 34,985.60$ 41,982.72$ 50.0% 3

15 29,486.08$ 36,857.60$ 44,229.12$ 50.0% 8

16 31,066.88$ 38,833.60$ 46,600.32$ 50.0% 6

17 32,730.88$ 40,913.60$ 49,096.32$ 50.0% 2

18 34,478.08$

43,097.60$

51,717.12$

50.0% 919 36,325.12$ 45,406.40$ 54,487.68$ 50.0% 3

20 38,039.04$ 47,548.80$ 57,058.56$ 50.0% 1

22 42,382.08$ 52,977.60$ 63,573.12$ 50.0% 1

23 44,378.88$ 55,473.60$ 66,568.32$ 50.0% 0

28 55,860.48$ 69,825.60$ 83,790.72$ 50.0% 6

29 58,489.60$ 73,112.00$ 87,734.40$ 50.0% 0

31 74,746.88$ 93,433.60$ 112,120.32$ 50.0% 0

33 84,930.56$ 106,163.20$ 127,395.84$ 50.0% 0


Spread Employees

160 30,220.13$ 37,775.16$ 45,330.19$ 50.0% 0

161 32,484.61$ 40,605.76$ 48,726.91$ 50.0% 10

162 40,039.17$ 50,048.96$ 60,058.75$ 50.0% 8

170 36,853.81$ 46,067.27$ 55,280.72$ 50.0% 7

171 39,621.92$ 49,527.40$ 59,432.88$ 50.0% 0

172 48,836.32$ 61,045.40$ 73,254.48$ 50.0% 0

180 42,146.65$

52,683.31$

63,219.97$

50.0% 4

220 44,836.86$ 56,046.08$ 67,255.29$ 50.0% 7

230 51,019.28$ 63,774.10$ 76,528.92$ 50.0% 2

250 55,244.80$ 69,058.74$ 82,867.20$ 50.0% 3

280 57,877.80$ 72,347.25$ 86,816.70$ 50.0% 0

290 65,770.23$ 82,212.78$ 98,655.34$ 50.0% 1


12/36




The current pay structure has 31 total pay grades: 19 in the General Employee Pay Plan and

12 in the Public Safety Employee Pay Plan. Overall, 20 of the 31 grades are currently occupied

by at least one employee, with 12 grades occupied in the General Employee Plan and 8 grades

occupied in the Public Safety Plan. The range spread is a consistent 50.0 percent throughout.

Range spreads of 50.0 to 70.0 percent are considered best practice for open range structures

of this nature. By this measure, the current structure design is sound.

3.2 GRADE PLACEMENT ANALYSIS

Exhibits 3C and 3D provide a breakdown of the placement of employee salaries within each

pay grade. Exhibit 3C illustrates the placement of salaries within grades for classifications

assigned to the General Employee Plan, while Exhibit 3D illustrates the placement of salaries

within grades for classifications assigned to the Public Safety Plan. Each exhibit contains the

following: the pay grades, the number of employees per grade, the number and percentage of

employees with salaries at or below the minimum, the number and percentage of employees

with salaries below the midpoint, the number and percentage of employees with salaries

above the midpoint, and the number and percentage of employees with salaries at or abovethe maximum. This analysis includes only occupied pay grades. It should be noted that

employee salaries, and the progression of the same, is associated with an organization’s

compensation philosophy -- specifically, the method of salary progression and the availability

of resources. Therefore, the placement of employee salaries should be viewed with this

context in mind.

EXHIBIT 3C

GENERAL EMPLOYEE GRADE PLACEMENT

Grade Employees # at or below

Min

% at or below

Min # Mid

# at or above

Max

% at or above

Max

8 5 1 20.0% 4 80.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0%

10 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

12 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

14 3 0 0.0% 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 0 0.0%

15 8 1 12.5% 8 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

16 6 1 16.7% 6 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

17 2 1 50.0% 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

18 9 1 11.1% 9 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

19 3 0 0.0% 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 0 0.0%

20 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

22 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0%

28 6 0 0.0% 4 66.7% 2 33.3% 0 0.0%

Total 46 5 10.9% 40 87.0% 6 13.0% 0 0.0%


13/36




EXHIBIT 3D

PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE GRADE PLACEMENT

Employees with salaries at or below the grade minimum are generally new hires or are new to

their particular classification following a recent promotion; on the other hand, employees with

salaries at or above the grade maximum are generally highly experienced and proficient in

their classification. Currently, there are five (5) employees in the General Pay Plan who havesalaries at or below their classification minimum; there are no employees with salaries at or

above the maximum. Additionally, there are 14 Public Safety employees with salaries at or

below the minimum, and none with salaries at or above the maximum. It is not considered

best practice to have an employee’s salary below the grade minimum, or above the grade

maximum. Further recommendations in this regard can be found in Chapter 5 of this report.

Grade midpoint is often considered the most accepted market average. At the midpoint,

employees should be fully proficient in their job and should require minimal supervision to

complete their job duties, while performing satisfactorily. Within this framework, midpoint is

commonly considered to be the salary an individual could reasonably expect for similar workin the market. It is important, therefore, to examine the percentage of employees with salaries

that fall above and below the calculated midpoint of their respective pay grades. Of the 88

employees included in this analysis, 76 employees have salaries below the midpoint (40

General employees and 36 Public Safety employees), while 12 employees were above the

salary midpoint (6 General employees and 6 Public Safety employees).

3.3 SALARY QUARTILE AND TENURE ANALYSIS

This section provides a salary quartile and classification tenure analysis of the distribution of

employee salaries across pay grades. The quartile analysis is also used to determine if

clusters of salaries exist. Employee pay is slotted within one of four equal distributions. Thefirst quartile (0-25) represents the lowest 25.0 percent of the pay range. The second quartile

(26-50) represents the segment of the pay range above the first quartile up to the pay range’s

midpoint. The third quartile (51-75) represents the part of the pay range above the midpoint

up to the 75th percentile of the pay range. The fourth quartile (76-100) is the highest 25.0

percent of the pay range. This analytical method provides an opportunity to assess how

employee salaries are disbursed throughout the pay range.

Grade Employees # at or below

Min

% at or below

Min # Mid

# at or above

Max

% at or above

Max

161 10 0 0.0% 10 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

162 8 8 100.0% 8 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%170 7 4 57.1% 6 85.7% 100.0% 14.3% 0 0.0%

180 4 1 25.0% 4 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

220 7 0 0.0% 5 71.4% 200.0% 28.6% 0 0.0%

230 2 1 50.0% 2 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

250 3 0 0.0% 1 33.3% 200.0% 66.7% 0 0.0%

290 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

Total 42 14 33.3% 36 85.7% 6 14.3% 0 0.0%


14/36

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Comprehensive C

Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C

Exhibit 3E includes a breakdown of the number of General employees per grade, the average

classification (average class years) worked per grade, the location (by quartile) of salaries within e

number of class years worked per quartile within each grade.

EXHIBIT 3E

GENERAL EMPLOYEE QUARTILE AND CLASS YEARS ANALYSIS

# Employees Avg Class Ye ars # Employees Avg Class Ye ars # Employees Avg Cl

8 5 3.7 3 2.9 1 7.0 1

10 1 5.4 ‐ ‐ 1 5.4 ‐

12 1 7.3 1 7.3 ‐ ‐ ‐

14 3 5.5 1 0.8 1 10.8 ‐

15 8 3.7 5 2.2 3 6.0 ‐

16 6 7.0 4 5.7 2 9.8 ‐

17 2 1.4 1 0.5 1 2.2 ‐

18 9 4.8 7 4.3 2 6.7 ‐

19 3 13.9 ‐ ‐ 2 19.0 1

20 1 6.2 ‐ ‐ 1 6.2 ‐

22 1 9.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

28 6 6.0 3 4.0 1 5.9 2

Overall Total 46 25 15 5

Overall Average 6.2 3.5 7.9

Average Class

YearsGRADE

Total

Employees

1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile


15/36



Exhibit 3F displays graphically how employee salaries in the General Pay Plan fall across the quartile

EXHIBIT 3F

GENERAL EMPLOYEE QUARTILE ANALYSIS PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES PER PA

0% 25% 50% 75%

8

10

12

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22

28

Percent of Employees

P a y

G r a d e

1ST QU ARTILE 2ND QU ARTILE 3RD QUARTILE 4TH QUARTILE


16/36



Exhibits 3G and 3H display the same quartile and average class years information for Public Safety em

a breakdown of the number of Public Safety employees per grade, the average number of class

location (by quartile) of salaries within each grade, and the average number of class years worked p

EXHIBIT 3G

PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE QUARTILE AND CLASS YEARS ANALYSIS

#

Employees Avg

Class

Ye ars #

Employees Avg

Class

Ye ars #

Employees Avg

Cla

161 10 3.0 9 2.5 1 7.9 ‐

162 8 4.2 8 4.2 ‐ ‐ ‐

170 7 5.0 6 3.6 ‐ ‐ ‐

180 4 5.0 4 5.0 ‐ ‐ ‐

220 7 6.7 4 5.3 1 10.9 2

230 2 3.5 2 3.5 ‐ ‐ ‐

250 3 6.2 ‐ ‐ 1 1.9 1

290 1 12.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Overall

Total 42 33 3 3

Overall Average 5.8 4.0 6.9

Average Class

YearsGRADE

Total

Employees

1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile


17/36



Exhibit 3H displays graphically how employee salaries in the Public Safety Plan fall across the quart

EXHIBIT 3H

PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE QUARTILE ANALYSIS PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES PER

0% 25% 50% 75%

161

162

170

180

220

230

250

290

Percent of Employees

P a y G r a d

e

1ST QUARTILE 2ND Q UARTILE 3RD QUAR TILE 4TH QUARTILE


18/36




In the Grade Placement Analysis, it was observed that the vast majority of employee salaries

fell below the midpoint; out of the 88 total employees included in the grade analysis, salaries

of 76 employees (86.3%) fell below the midpoint, while salaries of 12 employees (13.6%) fell

above the midpoint. 40 out of the 46 General employee salaries (86.9%) fell below their

respective midpoint, and 36 out of the 42 Public Safety employee salaries fell below their

respective midpoint. As one might expect, most of the employee salaries fell into the first and

second quartiles, with the majority of employee salaries (65.9%) falling into the first quartile

of their respective pay plans. Generally, it seems that the majority of salary compression

observed in the first quartile of both plans may exist because of the shorter tenure of

employees within this quartile, though again, the methods of salary progression and any

constraints the City faced in awarding salary increases may have impacted these results.

Under the General Employee Pay Plan, 25 employee salaries (54.3%) fell into the first quartile,

15 employee salaries (32.6%) fell into the second quartile, five employee salaries (10.9%) fell

into the third quartile, and one employee’s salary (2.2%) fell into the fourth quartile. For

General employees, the average number of class years worked was 6.2 years. When

examining tenure by quartile, it was generally determined that as employee salaries progress

from the first quartile to the fourth quartile, overall average tenure increases. The onlyexceptions to this statement were found in grades 8, 14 and 19, where employees who were

all above the midpoint had shorter average tenures than those who fell below the midpoint in

the same pay grade.

Under the Public Safety Employee Pay Plan, 33 employee salaries (78.6%) fell into the first

quartile, three employee salaries (7.1%) fell into the second quartile, three employee salaries

(7.1%) fell into the third quartile, and three employee salaries (7.1%) fell into the fourth

quartile. For Public Safety employees, the average number of class years worked was 5.8

years. When examining tenure by quartile, it was determined that as employee salaries

progress from the first quartile to the fourth quartile, overall average tenure increases. The

only exception is found in grade 220 of the Public Safety Plan, whereby employees in the thirdquartile have a shorter average tenure than an employee within the second quartile of the

same grade.

3.4 EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT

Exhibit 3I depicts the number of employees and the number of classifications in each

department, as well as the percent breakdown of employees by department. At the time of

the study, the City had 13 departments with a total of 92 employees. This section provides

basic information regarding how employees were distributed among departments.


19/36




EXHIBIT 3I

EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT

The City’s largest department was Police, with 40 employees across 19 classifications. The

Police Department represented 43.5 percent of the total workforce. The smallest departments

were the Human Resources and Senior Center departments, with one employee per

department; both the Human Resources and Senior Center departments make up 1.1 percent

of the total workforce. Six of the departments had five or more employees, while seven

departments had fewer than five employees.

3.5 SUMMARY

The City’s compensation structure with established pay plans provided employees with a clear

pay system. However, Chapter 4 examines the external equity of the current compensation

system. The following are the key points of the existing pay plans:

The existing pay structure had 31 total grades, with 19 being in the General Employee

Plan and 12 in the Public Safety Plan.

Of the 31 total pay grades, 20 are currently occupied by at least one employee. 12 of

the 19 grades are occupied in the General Employee Plan, and 8 of the 12 grades are

occupied in the Public Safety Plan.

Of the 88 employees included in the grade placement analysis, 76 employee salaries

were at or below their respective pay grade midpoints and 12 were at or above their

pay grade midpoints. 40 General employee salaries were at or below midpoint, while

6 were at or above midpoint. 36 Public Safety employee salaries were at or below

midpoint, while 6 were at or above midpoint.

There were 92 total employees across 13 Departments.

Department Employees Classes % of Total

Administrative 2 2 2.2%

Executive 2 2 2.2%Fire 8 1 8.7%

Human Resources 1 1 1.1%

Information Systems and Technology 2 2 2.2%

Police 40 19 43.5%

Public

Works 10 6 10.9%

Recreation 6 6 6.5%

Senior Center 1 1 1.1%

Shop 2 2 2.2%

Water Operations 5 4 5.4%

Water/

Sewer

Repair 9 7 9.8%

Planning

and

Economic

Development 4 4 4.3%Total 92 57 100.0%


20/36




The information gained from the review of current conditions was used in conjunction with the

market analysis data and internal equity review to develop recommendations for a

classification and compensation system best suited to the City. These recommendations are

provided in Chapter 5 of this report.


21/36


This chapter is a summary of the market analysis in which the City’s current salary structure

is compared to the salary structure at peer organizations. A comparison of this nature

focuses on the average salary ranges offered by the market for a sample of the City’s

positions. This data is then used to summarize overall market competitiveness and as a tool

for developing a compensation structure that will assist the City in recruiting and retaining a

talented, high-performing workforce. It is important to note, however, that this analysis does

not compare individual salaries within the market, as market comparisons do not translate

well at the individual level; individual employee pay is often determined through a

combination of factors, including demand for the type of job, an individual’s prior related

experience, and, in some cases, the individual’s negotiation skills during the hiring process.

Market analysis is best thought of as a snapshot of current market conditions, as the data is

collected at the time of the study and provides the most up to date market information. It

should be noted that market conditions can change, and in some cases, can change quickly.

Therefore, although this market analysis was utilized in making recommendations for the

City’s salary structure during this study, a market comparison of this nature should be done

at regular intervals to stay current with market salary trends. The information in this chapter

is presented in the following four sections:

4.1 Methodology

4.2 Respondents4.3 Survey Results

4.4 Private Sector Market Data

4.4 Summary

4 1 METHODOLOGY

Evergreen Solutions collected salary information from public sector peers in the City’s

competitive market utilizing a survey tool created by Evergreen Solutions. The survey asked

for salary range information about 38 classifications. Evergreen Solutions utilized a process

called benchmarking to select a subset of the City’s classifications to be surveyed. The

desired outcome of benchmarking is to select a cross-section of the City’s classifications toensure that the surveyed positions include all areas and pay grades at the City. This allows

the compensation system as a whole to be analyzed.

The classification title, a brief description of assigned duties, and the education and

experience requirements were provided in the survey for each benchmarked classification.

The survey tool asked participants to provide for each benchmark: the title of the matching

position at their organization, a rating of how well their position matched the surveyed


Chapter 4 – Market Survey Results


22/36


Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study



position in terms of the duties and requirements listed within the survey, the salary range

minimum and maximum of the matching position and the number of annual hours worked

by employees in the matching position.

4 2 RESPONDENTS

The peers were selected by Evergreen Solutions with input from the City’s project

management team. When identifying peers, a number of factors were taken into account,

including location and relative population. Data collected outside of the City’s direct region

were adjusted for cost of living using national cost of living index factors. This calculation

allows salary dollars from various entities to be compared in spending power relevant to the

City. Overall, information was collected from the eight peer organizations listed in Exhibit 4A

below:

EXHIBIT 4A

PEER DATA RESPONDENTS

4 3 SURVEY RESULTS

Exhibit 4B summarizes the salary data collected for each benchmarked classification. For

each classification, the respondents’ average minimum, midpoint, and maximum salary is

provided, along with the percent difference between the market average and the City’s

current minimum, midpoint, and maximum. Classifications listed with a positive percent

difference were found to be above the market average, while classifications with a negative

percent difference were found to be below the market average. For each classification,

Exhibit 4B also displays the number of respondents and the respondents’ average range

spread (i.e., the percentage difference between the average minimum and maximum

salaries of the respondents, relative to the minimum).

Peer Data Collected

City of Savannah, GA

City of Tybee Island, GA

Town of Hilton Head Island, SC

Town of Thunderbolt, GA

Chatham County, GA

Evans County, GA

Jasper County, SC

Port of Savannah, GA


23/36





EXHIBIT 4B

MARKET SURVEY RESULTS

Average % Diff Average % Dif f Average % Diff

Admin. Manager, Public Works $53,537.26 -47.4% $68,249.44 -50.3% $82,961.61 -52.2% 55.1% 3Admin Asst. to Fire Chief $33,747.34 -14.4% $43,060.39 -16.8% $52,373.44 -18.4% 55.2% 3

Administ rative Assistant $34,325.19 -16.4% $43,817.94 -18.9% $53,310.68 -20.6% 55.4% 5

Budget Officer $55,816.78 - $70,999.15 - $86,181.52 - 54.5% 4

Building Safety Director $72,844.78 -30.4% $99,908.38 -43.1% $126,971.97 -51.5% 74.3% 4

Business License $35,100.59 -7.2% $44,643.44 -9.1% $54,186.28 -10.4% 54.4% 5

Captain of Patrol $50,057.75 9.4% $61,097.00 11.5% $72,136.25 12.9% 44.1% 4

Chatham Narcotics Team - Corporal $41,713.00 -6.4% $48,684.38 0.7% $61,445.33 2.8% 47.3% 4

City Desk Receptionist $25,603.28 -1.5% $32,564.85 -3.3% $39,526.42 -4.5% 54.4% 6

City Manager $93,919.61 -10.6% $110,566.89 -4.1% $140,946.42 -10.6% 50.0% 5

Clerk of Council/City Clerk $40,735.67 27.1% $56,741.15 18.7% $69,253.31 17.3% 72.6% 4

Code Enforcement Of ficer $38,645.75 -24.4% $50,378.30 -29.7% $59,831.98 -28.4% 55.0% 3

Corporal $38,353.59 9.0% $47,536.36 9.8% $56,719.12 16.5% 47.8% 4Crew Leader $29,262.58 0.8% $37,286.51 -1.2% $45,310.45 -2.5% 54.9% 4

Detective $40,627.24 -10.2% $52,246.05 -13.4% $63,864.87 -15.5% 57.3% 3

Director of Human Resources $76,496.71 -36.9% $97,494.05 -39.6% $118,491.40 -41.4% 55.0% 5

Director of Information Technology $68,756.98 -23.1% $87,675.12 -25.6% $106,593.27 -27.2% 55.1% 6

Director of Parks & Recreation $65,151.04 -16.6% $82,855.43 -18.7% $100,559.83 -20.0% 54.4% 5

Director of Public Works, Shop $65,518.44 -17.3% $84,067.70 -20.4% $102,616.96 -22.5% 56.8% 4

Director of Water Operations $56,142.67 -0.5% $71,639.67 -2.6% $87,136.67 -4.0% 55.2% 3

Evidence Tech $30,800.33 5.9% $39,292.00 4.0% $47,783.67 2.7% 55.1% 3

Finance Administrator (or Deputy) $43,636.03 - $55,733.82 - $67,831.62 - 55.4% 5

Finance Director $90,385.00 -54.5% $118,049.74 -61.5% $142,414.31 -62.3% 57.6% 4

Fire Chief $74,798.96 -29.2% $95,433.08 -31.9% $125,121.39 -44.1% 69.4% 4

Firefighter I $33,806.51 15.6% $41,747.57 16.6% $49,688.63 17.3% 46.9% 5Lieutenant $50,043.79 1.9% $61,176.03 4.1% $72,308.27 12.1% 44.3% 4

Mechanic $31,975.66 -8.4% $40,885.32 -10.9% $49,794.98 -12.6% 55.8% 7

Meter Reader $26,364.50 -10.1% $33,909.63 -13.3% $41,454.75 -15.4% 57.2% 4

Patrol Officer $32,357.19 0.4% $39,705.32 2.2% $47,053.45 3.4% 45.4% 6

Police Chief $55,810.50 15.1% $71,529.50 13.0% $104,832.35 -6.0% 87.8% 3

Public Works Foreman $34,889.33 -1.2% $45,069.50 -4.6% $55,249.67 -6.8% 58.4% 3

Records Clerk $28,306.00 4.0% $35,014.56 5.0% $44,302.00 -0.2% 56.5% 5

Repair Technician I $27,432.25 -20.7% $34,834.38 -22.6% $42,236.50 -23.9% 54.0% 4

Senior Mechanic $38,226.54 - 10.8% $48,913.78 - 13.5% $59,601.02 - 15.3% 55.9% 4

Sergeant $44,536.12 0.7% $54,557.18 2.7% $64,578.24 10.7% 44.8% 4

Supervisor, Water/Sewer Repair $39,439.00 6.9% $50,938.50 3.8% $62,438.00 1.8% 58.3% 3

Utility Billing Supervisor $34,364.00 9.7% $45,251.50 4.8% $56,139.00 1.6% 63.4% 3

Utility Billing Technician I $30,582.67 -9.2% $40,051.50 -14.5% $49,520.33 -18.0% 61.9% 3

-8.4% -10.4% -12.1% 56.2% 4.2

Resp

Survey Max imum

Survey Avg

Range

Classi f icat ion

Survey M inim um Survey M idpo int

Overall Average


24/36





Market Minimums

A starting point for the analysis was to compare the average peer market minimum for each

classification to the City’s range minimums. Assessing the City’s market competitiveness at

pay grade minimums is important because it can impact the City’s ability to recruit quality

employees. An organization’s pay practices will also have an impact as those with more

flexible practices may, for example, utilize the minimum as a starting point for establishing a

new employee’s salary, while others may utilize the minimum as an absolute starting salary.

In any regard, the following observations can be made about the minimum salaries for the

City’s benchmarked classifications:

On average, the minimum salaries for the City’s benchmarked classifications are 8.4

percent below their respective market averages.

The percent differences of the City’s benchmarked classifications at minimum

ranged between 54.5 percent below market in the case of the Finance Director to

27.1 percent above market in the case of the Clerk of Council/City Clerk.

Of the 36 benchmarked positions with market minimum percent differentials, 23

(63.9 percent) were below market at the minimum.

Market Midpoints

Comparisons to the market at midpoint are typically used to address the overall

competitiveness of a classification’s salary range. Midpoint is typically considered the point

at which employees have achieved full proficiency, and are performing satisfactorily in their

classification. Based on the data gathered at the market midpoint, the following

observations can be made:

On average, the midpoint salaries for the City’s benchmarked classifications are 10.4

percent below their respective market averages.

The percent differences at midpoint for the benchmark classifications ranged

between 61.5 percent below market for the Finance Director to 18.7 percent above

market for the Clerk of Council/City Clerk.

Of the 36 benchmarked positions with market midpoint percent differentials, 23

(63.9 percent) were below market at the midpoint.

Market Maximums

In this section, the peer salary range maximums are compared to the City’s range

maximums for each benchmarked classification. Salary range maximums are typically used

to attract and/or reward more experienced and high performing personnel. Being

competitive at the maximum allows organizations to attract highly qualified employees for

an in-demand classification and retain experienced employees with a wealth of skills and

institutional knowledge who are typically performing, as well, at an exceptional level. Based

on the data gathered at the market maximum, the following observations can be made:


25/36





The City’s maximum salaries for the benchmarked classifications are, on average,

12.1 percent below market.

The percent differences at maximum for the benchmark classifications ranged

between 62.3 percent below market for the Finance Director to 17.3 percent above

market for the Clerk of Council/City Clerk and Firefighter I.

Of the 36 benchmarked positions with market maximum percent differentials, 25

(69.4 percent) were below market at the maximum.

4 4 PRIVATE SECTOR MARKET DATA

Several classifications similar to the City’s can be found in the private sector. To supplement

the data collected in the salary survey, private sector salary data were collected using

software from the Economic Research Institute (ERI). The ERI data summarized in Exhibit 4C

reflects private sector salaries from businesses across government support services with

operating budgets of approximately 14.3 million dollars. The local region was centered onthe City of Savannah, GA, which was the nearest ERI city. 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. The

comparisons of the City’s data to private sector data are often best utilized to analyze the

competiveness of specific classifications that have a hard time recruiting or retaining

employees. Just as with the public sector data results, comparisons made in this section

should not be utilized to compare individual salaries. Only those classifications with skills

that are easily transferable to the private sector are included in Exhibit 4C below

The following conclusions can be drawn from Exhibit 4C:

The City is approximately 10.6 percent below the private sector minimum.

The City is approximately 14.7 percent below the private sector midpoint.

The City is approximately 28.9 percent below the private sector maximum.

While the City, on average across all matched positions, is below the private sector

for the minimum, midpoint, and maximum, this can be explained due to the

significant difference in range spreads at the City and in the private sector market.

The average private sector salary range is 73.9 percent, which is significantly greater

than the City’s average range spread of 50.0 percent.


26/36





EXHIBIT 4C

PRIVATE SECTOR MARKET DATA

4 5 SUMMARY

One conclusion that can be drawn from the market data analyzed in this chapter is that

there is room for the City to improve its current compensation structure. For the City to

become more competitive in the labor market, a new pay structure should be considered.

Information gained from the market analysis was used with the internal equity analysis to

develop a more competitive compensation and classification system. Discussion of the new

pay structure and additional study recommendations can be found in Chapter 5 of this

report.

Average Diff Average Diff Average Diff

Admin. Manager, Public Works $53,224.00 -46.6% $61,929.00 -36.4% $81,225.00 -49.0% 52.6%

Admin Asst. to Fire Chief $29,909.00 -1.4% $36,527.00 0.9% $49,470.00 -11.9% 65.4%Administrative Assistant $29,909.00 -1.4% $36,527.00 0.9% $49,470.00 -11.9% 65.4%

Budget Officer $63,092.00 - $74,351.00 - $97,702.00 - 54.9%

Building Safety Director $51,711.00 7.4% $60,097.00 13.9% $77,710.00 7.2% 50.3%

Business License $38,444.00 -17.4% $44,277.00 -8.2% $55,306.00 -12.7% 43.9%

City Desk Receptionist $23,775.00 5.8% $28,550.00 9.5% $38,048.00 -0.6% 6 0.0%

City Manager $131,282.00 -54.6% $150,518.00 -41.8% $252,477.00 -98.2% 92.3%

Crew Leader $32,062.00 -8.7% $38,998.00 -5.8% $50,603.00 -14.4% 57.8%

Deputy City Manager $68,094.00 8.9% $103,360.00 -10.6% $149,158.00 -33.0% 119.0%

Director of Human Resources $70,069.00 -25.4% $83,032.00 -18.9% $98,619.00 -17.7% 40.7%

Director of Information Technology $69,658.00 -24.7% $101,034.00 -44.7% $141,168.00 -68.5% 102.7%

Finance Administrator (or Deputy) $68,138.00 - $80,572.00 - $97,164.00 - 42.6%

Finance Director $52,356.00 10.5% $105,356.00 -44.1% $173,417.00 -97.7% 231.2%

Mechanic $34,262.00 -16.2% $43,208.00 -17.2% $54,309.00 -22.8% 58.5%Meter Reader $24,887.00 -4.0% $34,893.00 -16.6% $44,611.00 -24.2% 79.3%

Public Works Foreman $40,460.00 -17.3% $51,337.00 -19.1% $65,475.00 -26.6% 61.8%

Records Clerk $21,672.00 26.5% $28,900.00 21.6% $36,547.00 17.4% 68.6%

Repair Technician I $27,419.00 -20.6% $38,533.00 -35.6% $50,622.00 -48.5% 84.6%

Senior Mechanic $38,357.00 -11.2% $48,226.00 -11.9% $55,798.00 -7.9% 45.5%

Supervisor, Water/Sewer Repair $46,133.00 -8.9% $58,917.00 -11.2% $75,642.00 -19.0% 64.0%

Utility Billing Supervisor $39,124.00 -2.8% $50,110.00 -5.4% $64,125.00 -12.4% 63.9%

Utility Billing Technician I $27,829.00 0.6% $38,148.00 -9.0% $49,505.00 -17.9% 77.9%

Water Treatment Plant Op. $34,625.00 -0.4% $44,496.00 -3.2% $56,989.00 -10.2% 64.6%

-10.6 -14.7 -28.9 73.9

Survey Avg

Range

Overall Average

Classification

Survey Minimum Survey Midpoint Survey Max imum


27/36


Utilizing the information from the preceding chapters of this report, Evergreen Solutionsdeveloped recommendations to improve the City’s current classification and compensationsystem. The recommendations are discussed in detail in this chapter, and are organized intothree sections: classification, compensation, and administration of the system.

5.1 CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS

An organization’s classification system establishes how its human resources are employed to

perform its core services. The classification system consists of the titles and descriptions ofthe different classifications, or positions, which define how work is organized and assigned. Itis essential that the titles and descriptions of an organization’s classifications accuratelydepict the work being performed by employees in the classifications in order to ensure equitywithin the organization and to enable comparisons with positions at peer organizations. Thepurpose of a classification analysis is to identify such issues as incorrect titles, outdated jobdescriptions, and inconsistent titles across departments. Recommendations are then madeto remedy the identified concerns based on human resources best practices.

In the analysis of the City’s classification system, Evergreen Solutions collected classificationdata through the Job Assessment Tool (JAT) and Management Issues Tool (MIT) processes.The JATs, which were completed by employees and reviewed by their supervisors, provided

information about the type and level of work being performed for each of the City’sclassifications. The MIT process provided supervisors an opportunity to provide specificrecommendations regarding the pay or classification of positions in their areas. EvergreenSolutions reviewed and utilized the data provided in the JATs and MITs as a basis for theclassification recommendations below.

FINDING

The City had many classifications titles that accurately described the work being performedby employees. There were some instances, however, of titles that needed to be adjusted tobetter reflect the tasks assigned to the position.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Revise the titles of some City classifications and establish new titles

based on the work being performed by City employees.

Exhibit 5A

summarizes Evergreen Solutions’ recommended changes to the classificationsystem, which include recommendations for changing 33 classification titles, and creatingtwo new titles. The foundation for these recommendations was the work performed byemployees in these classifications as described in their JATs, as well as best practices in thehuman resources field.

Chapter 5 – Recommendations



28/36

Chapter 5 – Recommendations Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study



EXHIBIT 5A

PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION CHANGES

Current Class Title Proposed Class Title

Admin. Manager, Public Works Executive Assistant

After‐school

Prog.

Coord. Program

Coordinator

Assistant Fire Chief Deputy Fire Chief

Business License Finance Technician

Captain of Administrative Administrative Division Commander

Captain of CID Captain

Captain of Patrol Captain

Chatham Narcotics Team ‐ Corporal Corporal

Chatham Narcotics Team ‐ Sergeant Sergeant

City Desk Receptionist Police Clerk

Clerk of Council/Budget Officer Budget Director/Clerk of Council

Code Enforcement Officer II Code Enforcement Officer, Senior

Community Oriented Police Community Relations Officer

Crew Leader Parks & Recreation Technician, Senior

Director of Public Works Shop Director of Public Works

Evidence Tech Evidence Custodian

Finance Administrator Accounting Division Manager

Fire Admin. Asst. Administrative Assistant

Firefighter I Firefighter

Municipal Court Clerk Court Clerk

New Title Fire Captain Trainee

New Title Terminal Agency Clerk

Parks &

Recreation

Tech

I Parks

&

Recreation

Technician

Patrol Officer Police Officer

Permitting and Inspections Coordinator/Office Manager Permitting and Inspections Coordinator

Public Works Tech II Public Works Technician

Public Works Tech III Heavy Equipment Operator

Repair Tech I Water Operations Technician

Repair Tech II Water Operations Technician, Senior

Supervisor Water/Sewer Repair Water Operations Supervisor

Tech II Water Operations Foreman

Training ‐ Personnel Officer ‐ Sergeant Training Officer

Utility Billing Supervisor Utility Services Supervisor

Utility Billing

Tech

I Utility

Services

Technician

Utility Billing Tech III Utility Services Technician, Senior


29/36




RECOMMENDATION 2: Revise all job descriptions to include updated classification

information provided in the JAT, FLSA status determinations, and review job descriptions

annually for accuracy.

Evergreen Solutions is in the process of updating the City’s current job descriptions based on

data from the JATs. These revised job descriptions will reflect proper FLSA status and be

provided under separate cover. If possible, it is recommended that the job descriptions and

job titles be reviewed annually to properly maintain the classification system in the future. A

yearly performance evaluation process may provide an opportunity to assess the accuracy of

the duties and responsibilities listed in the job descriptions through a discussion between the

employee and his or her supervisors. If it is determined that duties have changed, it may be

necessary to update the description, title, and pay grade assignment, depending on the

significance of the changes.

5.2 COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATIONS

The compensation analysis consisted of an external market assessment. During thisassessment, the City’s pay ranges for selected benchmark classifications were compared to

average pay ranges offered in the identified market. Overall, the City’s salary ranges were

below market peers at the minimum, midpoint and maximum. Details of the external market

assessment were discussed inChapter 4

of this report.

FINDING

The City’s salary ranges were behind market for many of the benchmarked classifications

indicating a need for revision to the pay plan structure to remain competitive.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Create a new pay structure for the City that reflects market conditions

and best practices; slot all classifications into the updated pay structure based on external

and internal equity; and transition employees’ salaries into the structure.

Exhibit 5B shows the new proposed pay plan which has 20 open range pay grades, numbered

101 through 120. The range spreads of the pay grades increase from 60.0 percent for grades

101 through 112 to a maximum of 65.0 percent for grades 113 through 120.


30/36




EXHIBIT 5B

PROPOSED PAY PLAN

After developing the new pay plan, Evergreen Solutions slotted each City classification into

the appropriate pay range in the pay plan. Both the internal and external equity were utilized

when slotting the classifications. Assigning pay grades to classifications requires a balance of

internal equity, desired market position, and recruitment and retention issues all play a role

in that process. Thus market range data shown in Chapter 4 were not the sole criteria for the

proposed pay ranges. Some classifications’ grade assignments varied from their associated

market range due to the other factors mentioned above. The internal assessment took into

consideration the type of work being performed by each classification. Specifically, a

composite compensatory factor score was assigned to each of the City’s classifications that

quantified each classification for five compensatory factors. The level for each factor was

determined based on responses to the JAT, and an understanding of the work performed. The

resulting recommended pay grades for each of the City’s general classifications are shown in

Exhibit 5C

. It should be noted that the recommended title changes are reflected in the exhibit.


Spread

101 21,100.00$

27,430.00$

33,760.00$

60.0%102 22,894.00$ 29,762.00$ 36,630.00$ 60.0%

103 24,840.00$ 32,292.00$ 39,744.00$ 60.0%

104 26,951.00$ 35,037.00$ 43,122.00$ 60.0%

105 29,242.00$ 38,015.00$ 46,787.00$ 60.0%

106 31,728.00$ 41,247.00$ 50,765.00$ 60.0%

107 34,425.00$ 44,753.00$ 55,080.00$ 60.0%

108 37,351.00$ 48,557.00$ 59,762.00$ 60.0%

109 40,526.00$ 52,684.00$ 64,842.00$ 60.0%

110 43,971.00$ 57,163.00$ 70,354.00$ 60.0%

111 47,709.00$

62,022.00$

76,334.00$

60.0%112 51,764.00$ 67,293.00$ 82,822.00$ 60.0%

113 55,646.00$ 73,731.00$ 91,816.00$ 65.0%

114 59,819.00$ 79,260.00$ 98,701.00$ 65.0%

115 64,305.00$ 85,204.00$ 106,103.00$ 65.0%

116 69,128.00$ 91,595.00$ 114,061.00$ 65.0%

117 74,313.00$ 98,465.00$ 122,616.00$ 65.0%

118 79,886.00$ 105,849.00$ 131,812.00$ 65.0%

119 85,877.00$ 113,787.00$ 141,697.00$ 65.0%

120 92,318.00$ 122,322.00$ 152,325.00$ 65.0%


31/36




EXHIBIT 5C

PROPOSED PAY GRADES

Proposed Class Title Proposed

Grade

Proposed

Minimum

Proposed

Midpoint

Proposed

Maximum

Public Works

Technician

Water Operations Technician

Meter Reader

Parks & Recreation Technician

Police Clerk

Parks & Recreation Technician, Senior

Records Clerk

Terminal Agency Clerk

Utility Services Technician

Wastewater Treatment Operator Trainee

Water Treatment

Plant

Operator

Trainee

Administrative Assistant

Court Clerk

Evidence Custodian

Facilities Maintenance Coordinator

Heavy Equipment Operator

Mechanic

Water Operations Technician, Senior

Back‐flow Prevention Assembly Tester

Finance Technician

Permitting and

Inspections

Coordinator

Police Officer

Program Coordinator

Public Works Foreman

Utility Services Technician, Senior

Code Enforcement Officer

Community Relations Officer

Executive Assistant

Mechanic, Senior

Recreation Programs Coordinator

Senior

Center

ManagerUtility Services Supervisor

Wastewater Treatment Operator

Water Operations Foreman

Code Enforcement Officer, Senior

Detective

Firefighter

109 40,526.00$ 52,684.00$ 64,842.00$

107 34,425.00$ 44,753.00$ 55,080.00$

108 37,351.00$ 48,557.00$ 59,762.00$

105 29,242.00$ 38,015.00$ 46,787.00$

106 31,728.00$ 41,247.00$ 50,765.00$

102 22,894.00$ 29,762.00$ 36,630.00$

103 24,840.00$ 32,292.00$ 39,744.00$


32/36




EXHIBIT 5C (CONTINUED)

PROPOSED PAY GRADES

In addition to ensuring internal equity and helping to alleviate problems with recruitment and

retention, the proposed pay grade assignments will considerably improve the City’s market

position. Exhibit 5F shows the overall average percent difference from market for the

benchmarked classifications at the time of the study, and displays the same in the event that

the proposed pay structure is implemented.

Proposed Class Title Proposed

Grade

Proposed

Minimum

Proposed

Midpoint

Proposed

Maximum

CorporalFire Captain Trainee

Training Officer

Water Operations Supervisor

Accounting Division Manager

Sergeant

Lieutenant 112 51,764.00$ 67,293.00$ 82,822.00$

Administrative Division Commander

Captain

Fire Captain

Budget

Director/Clerk

of

CouncilDeputy Fire Chief

Director of Building Safety

Director of Human Resources

Director of Information Technology

Director of Parks & Recreation

Director of Public Works

Director of Water Operations

Director of Finance

Fire Chief

Police Chief

Deputy City Manager 118 79,886.00$ 105,849.00$ 131,812.00$

City Manager 120 92,318.00$ 122,322.00$ 152,325.00$

114 59,819.00$ 79,260.00$ 98,701.00$

116 69,128.00$ 91,595.00$ 114,061.00$

111 47,709.00$ 62,022.00$ 76,334.00$

113 55,646.00$ 73,731.00$ 91,816.00$

110 43,971.00$ 57,163.00$ 70,354.00$


33/36




EXHIBIT 5F

OVERALL MARKET DIFFERENTIAL COMPARISON

As the exhibit shows, the proposed pay grades significantly improve the overall average

differentials for the City’s benchmarked classifications, bringing the City’s benchmarked

classifications from below market to a market competitive position at the midpoint and the

maximum. While, on average, the proposed pay grades (structure) would not place the City at

market at the minimum, its position would be greatly improved. If the new structure is

implemented, the City’s pay plan, overall, will be competitive with its peers.

After assigning pay grades to classifications, the next step of implementing the compensation

structure is to transition employee salaries into the new pay plan. This is done by establishing

a method of calculating salaries in the new pay grades and determining whether an

adjustment is necessary to individual employee salaries to bring them to their calculated

salary. Evergreen Solutions utilized two methods in calculating employee salaries, with the

possibility of implementing them individually or together.

Option 1: Bring Employee Salaries to New Minimums

In this method, employees’ current salaries were compared to the minimum of their proposed

pay grades. If an employee’s current salary was below his or her grade minimum, an

adjustment was proposed to raise the individual’s salary to the minimum. If the employee’scurrent salary was already above his or her grade minimum, no adjustment was

recommended.

Utilizing this approach, salary adjustments are recommended for 37 City employees, with an

approximate annualized cost of 67,314. The approximate cost is for salary adjustments only

and does not include associated cost for employee benefits.

Option 2: Current Range Penetration, Capped at Midpoint

If this option is implemented, and if an employee's salary is already above the minimum of

their classification's proposed pay range, it is adjusted to the same relative position in the

proposed pay structure. For example, if an employee's salary is 40 percent of the way through

their current pay range, the salary will be adjusted to the 40 percent mark of the proposed

range. However, any salary adjustment would be capped at the midpoint of the proposed

salary range. Utilizing this approach, salary adjustments are recommended for 87 City

employees, with an approximate annualized cost of263,693.

This includes the bring

Comparison

Overall %

Difference at

Minimum

Overall %

Difference at

Midpoint

Overall %

Difference at

MaximumCurrent Pay Grades ‐8.4% ‐10.4% ‐12.1%

Proposed Pay Grades ‐1.8% 1.0% 1.8%


34/36




employee salaries to minimum cost, as illustrated above, and is the approximate cost for

salary adjustments only and does not include associated costs for employee benefits.

5.3 SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION

Any organization’s compensation and classification system will need periodic maintenance.The recommendations provided to improve the competiveness of the classification and

compensation structure were developed based on conditions at the time the data were

collected. Without proper upkeep, the potential for recruitment and retention issues may

increase as the compensation and classification system becomes dated and less competitive.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Conduct small-scale salary surveys as needed to assess the market

competitiveness of hard-to-fill classifications and/or classifications with retention issues, and

make adjustments to pay grade assignments if necessary, and offer recruitment and/or

retention incentives for certain classifications, if necessary.

While it is unlikely that the pay plan as a whole will need to be adjusted for several years, asmall number of classifications’ pay grades may need to be reassigned more frequently. If

one or more classifications are exhibiting high turnover or are having difficulty with

recruitment, the City should collect salary range data from peer organizations to determine

whether an adjustment is needed for the pay grade of the classification(s). If increasing a

classification’s pay grade based on market data does not help with the recruitment and/or

retention issues, it may be necessary for the City to offer incentives to attract employees to

the position and/or to encourage employees to remain in the position.

RECOMMENDATION 5: Conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study

every three to five years.

Small-scale salary surveys can improve the market position of specific classifications, but it is

recommended that a full classification and compensation study be conducted every three to

five years to preserve both internal and external equity for the City. Changes to classification

and compensation do occur, and while the increments of change may seem minor, they can

compound over time. A failure to react to these changes quickly has the potential to place the

City in a poor position for recruiting and retaining quality employees.

While the previous two recommendations are intended to maintain the competitiveness over

time of particular classifications and the classification and compensation structure as a

whole, it is also necessary to establish procedures for determining equitable pay practices for

individual employees.

RECOMMENDATION 6: Establish policies for moving employee salaries through the pay plan,

including procedures for determining salaries of newly hired employees and employees who

have been promoted, demoted, or transferred to a different classification or department.


35/36




The method of moving salaries through the pay plan and setting new salaries for new hires,

promotions, demotions, and transfers depends largely on an organization’s compensation

philosophy. However, it is important for the City to have established guidelines for each of

these situations, and to ensure that they are followed consistently for all employees. Common

practices for progressing and establishing employee salaries are outlined below.

Salary Progression

There are several common methods for salary progression including cost of living adjustments

(COLA), time based, and performance based merit pay. Organizations sometimes utilize

multiple methods together to reward employees. For example, merit pay is often used in

tandem with a COLA, so that a minimum increase tied to a measure of inflation is awarded to

all employees and an additional percentage increase is earned by employees with positive

evaluations. Employers in the private sector, and more recently, employers in the public sector

have been moving away from COLA and time based salary progression, moving more towards

performance based systems. However, in order for a merit pay system to work effectively, a

fair, organization-wide performance evaluation system must be in place, and supervisors and

management should receive proper training to ensure equitable administration of theprocess.

New Hires

A new employee’s starting salary largely depends on the amount of education and experience

the employee possesses beyond the minimum requirements for the job. Typically, an

employee holding only the minimum education and experience requirements for a

classification is hired at or near the classification’s pay grade minimum. An upper limit to the

percentage above minimum that can be offered to a new employee with only the minimum

requirements should be established, where approval is needed to offer a starting salary that

is a higher percentage above minimum. Another threshold should be established as themaximum starting salary possible without approval for new employees with considerable

experience and/or education above the requirements for the position. It is common for the

midpoint to be used as the maximum starting salary. All starting salaries should take into

consideration internal equity, meaning that determining a new hire salary should be done with

consideration of existing employee salaries with similar levels of education and experience in

the classification.

Promotions

When an employee is promoted to a new classification, it is important to have guidelines for

calculating the employee’s new salary that rewards the employee for his or her new

responsibilities, moving the salary into the new pay grade, and ensuring internal equity in thenew classification. It is common for organizations to establish a minimum percentage salary

increase that depends on the increase in pay grade as a result of the promotion. For example,

if an employee moves into the next pay grade, he or she may receive a minimum of a 3 to 5

percent increase, and if the individual moves up two pay grades he or she may experience an

increase closer to 6 to 10 percent. Regardless of the minimum percent increase, the

employee’s new salary should be within the new pay grade’s range, and internal equity of

salaries within the classification should be preserved.


36/36



Transfers

An employee transfer occurs when an employee is reassigned to a classification at the same

pay grade as his or her current classification or when an employee’s classification stays the

same, but his or her department changes. In either of these cases, it is likely that no

adjustment is necessary to the employee’s salary. The only situation in which a salary

adjustment would be needed for a transferred employee would be if his or her current salary

is not aligned with the salaries of employees in the new classification or department. If that

occurs, it may be necessary to adjust the salary of the employee or the incumbents of the

classification to ensure salary equity within the new classification.

5.4 SUMMARY

The recommendations in this chapter establish a competitive pay plan, externally and

internally equitable classification titles and pay grade assignments, and system

administration practices that will provide the City with a responsive compensation and

classification system for years to come. While the upkeep of this recommended system willrequire work, the City will find that having a competitive compensation and classification

system that encourages strong recruitment and employee retention is well worth this

commitment.

Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final

Documents

Transcript of Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final