Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County consultant recommends pay-range expansion after 2024 compensation study; estimates 5.1% payroll impact
Summary
A private consultant told the Mathews County Board of Supervisors that a compensation study covering 76 employees shows several county job classes lag market comparables and recommends widening pay ranges and a 3% cost factor; total annualized cost of recommended adjustments was estimated at about $213,381 (about 5.1% of current payroll).
Steve Foster, a consultant with Management Advisory Group, presented results of a countywide compensation study to the Mathews County Board of Supervisors on March 20, 2025. The study covered 76 employees in 44 unique job titles and combined internal job‑classification analysis with an external market survey of peer localities.
Foster said the project used employee questionnaires (a 92% completion rate) and job analyses to create internal equity comparisons and a market survey to benchmark pay. "We did notice that the county was somewhat behind," he told the board, identifying animal control officer, facility manager and many director positions as most behind market medians.
The consultant proposed keeping the county's open salary ranges but expanding them (a recommended midpoint spread increase to roughly 35%–55% across pay grades) to allow greater flexibility for longer‑tenured employees. Foster said a 3% flat rate was applied to the model ("based on economics and indexes") and that all 76 employees would receive at least that adjustment.
Foster provided cost estimates: the immediate annualized cost to apply the 3% increase was $117,009.60; additional adjustments to bring people up to new minimums raised that figure and produced a total annualized implementation cost Foster gave as $213,381, which he described as about a 5.1% increase over current payroll.
Board members asked about the study's comparables and methodology. Supervisor Judge questioned why Richmond County and Northumberland County were not used as benchmarks; Foster said the consultant compiled the list initially with county leadership input and typically includes both competitors within about a one‑hour commute and peers with similar size/structure. Supervisor Bowman asked if the consultant could provide a more detailed locality breakdown; Foster said the delivered report was a summary but that a breakdown/spreadsheet could be made available after staff follow‑up.
Foster said the study included recommended policies and procedures for ongoing classification administration and introduced a job‑classification software tool intended to help Human Resources keep classifications current between formal studies. He recommended repeating this type of study every three to five years.
The board did not take a formal vote on adopting the new pay schedule during the presentation; staff and the consultant indicated follow‑up work would include producing more detailed locality comparisons and integrating the recommended changes into the county's budget process for FY26.
