Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant: Putnam County’s pay broadly near market but public health nurses and tech roles need adjustments
Summary
Catapult Consulting presented a countywide compensation analysis to the Personnel Committee on Sept. 18, recommending targeted grade and range changes — most notably raising public health nurse grades and creating a new management pay structure — while advising continued attention to recruitment and longevity effects on pay.
Catapult Consulting principal consultant Julia Jacobia on Sept. 18 presented a market analysis comparing Putnam County base pay to regional public- and private-sector benchmarks and proposed a new management salary structure and targeted regrades. Jacobia said the county used peer-county data weighted 60% and private-market survey data weighted 40% and “were looking for some to ensure that they were externally competitive within the local market as well as within their peer counties.”
The report, prepared for Putnam County’s director of personnel, examined about 42 benchmark positions and used those to slot other management confidential roles. It recommended creating a 12-grade management structure with 28 percent range spreads and 10 percent grade-to-grade differentials up to a mid level, then 7.5 percent between higher grades. The recommended structure would give administration a minimum, midpoint and maximum with guidance for hires depending on experience.
Jacobia recommended moving the public health nurse (including the Spanish‑speaking position) to CSEA grade 19 and the public health nurse 2 to grade 20 in order to address recruitment and retention pressures. She said the county’s reported employee base salary figures included longevity pay while private‑market survey medians did not, a factor that can make Putnam appear closer to or above the median when compared directly.
Committee members pressed for clarity on how the analysis treated step tables and seniority. One lawmaker asked whether market medians were compared to step 4 (a typical fully‑qualified step); Jacobia confirmed the analysis used a fiftieth‑percentile (median) target and compared the market median to an established step used by the county for grading. The presenter recommended a typical acceptable pay band at roughly 20 percent below to 25–30 percent above the market median to accommodate seniority and longevity in county service.
Commissioner and staff comments emphasized recruitment challenges driven by neighboring Westchester County’s higher pay and by county health‑insurance contribution levels; several legislators and department heads said those benefits gaps had hampered hiring and retention. County staff and union representatives later discussed health‑insurance contribution changes in a separate agenda item.
The presentation also included numerous position‑level suggestions: targeted increases for county auditor and deputy county attorney positions (7–10%), a 5% adjustment recommended for several county clerical/confidential posts, and a larger increase (up to 21–28% inclusive of COLA) recommended for an IT system specialist the consultant judged to be paid well below market.
The report was presented for committee review; the consultant and personnel staff characterized the recommendations as advisory and said any implementation would require budget decisions and additional administrative review.
The county chair closed the presentation noting the analysis would inform upcoming budget work and follow‑up conversations with departments about internal equity and recruitment strategies.
