Johnson County council reviews WIS compensation study; staff told to deliver supplemental-pay data immediately

Johnson County Council members on July 14 heard a detailed compensation study from consultants and directed department heads and elected officials to supply itemized supplemental-pay and overtime data immediately so the council can finalize pay decisions ahead of the 2026 budget. Addie Rooker, principal consultant with BioMarin and Chile, and Lori Seelung, senior consultant, presented WIS’s internal and external analyses and answered questions from council members and department leaders.

The report matters because it offers a set of tools the council can use to correct internal pay inequities, clarify classifications and FLSA status, and set a pay philosophy that will shape the county’s 2026 personnel budget and hiring decisions.

WIS described a multi-step process: review of Johnson County’s existing FES (factor evaluation system) classifications, an internal salary analysis comparing like positions within county payroll, an external-market regression analysis using comparators the county provided, and an FLSA review. Rooker said the consultants created a new executives category for department-head positions and recommended five LTC (labor/trades/crafts) classification levels instead of four. She also described FLSA reclassifications: several positions changed status between exempt, nonexempt and excluded based on job descriptions supplied by the county.

The consultants flagged specific internal equity problems: similar positions with wide salary spreads (for example, animal shelter receptionist and COMET-level clerical jobs), $16,700 differences among some victim assistant positions in PAT 2, and more than $13,400 gaps among environmental health specialists. WIS recommended paying positions in the same class at the same hourly rate (with annual pay reflecting hours worked) and noted part‑time dispatchers were being paid significantly less per hour than full‑time dispatchers doing the same work.

On special-occupation (SO) probation positions, the consultants compared county pay to the Indiana Judicial Conference minimum salary schedule for 2026 and reported that 29 of 33 probation officers are paid above the 2026 minimum; 21 are about $10,000 above it. Rooker reiterated a point from the Judicial Conference: once a probation salary is set, it legally cannot be reduced while an incumbent occupies the post; reductions would occur only when the position is vacated and rehired.

WIS recommended attorneys be hired at the external-market midpoint and that ranges be set with a maximum about 30% above midpoint to allow competitive hiring and retention. The firm also recommended adopting standard rules for base pay going forward ("the job, not the person," Rooker said), and suggested options for longevity, performance or skill-based pay be considered as add-ons rather than inflating base pay.

Council members pressed for implementation detail. Angela Morris, director of court services, and Andy Barnhart, chief deputy of the sheriff’s office, asked about how matrixes, longevity, stipends and rank-based pay in public safety affect comparisons; WIS said external comparisons focus on base pay and that specialty stipends were not folded into the external midpoint unless explicitly included in a county’s base. Rooker said the internal midpoints WIS computed did reflect existing internal salaries, which can include longevity if those payments were already part of base pay data submitted.

As a next step, the council majority moved to collect comprehensive, position-level detail from departments and elected offices: all special pay/stipends/supplements/bonuses, grant-funded pay, and year‑to‑date overtime by employee (recommended cutoff: June 30). A council member told departmental leaders that if the requested information is not delivered, "your budgets will revert back to 2025," and staff were instructed to email forms and follow up. Council leadership also outlined a timetable: WIS will provide Excel spreadsheets the next morning and the council aims to finalize budget-related pay-policy decisions before the council’s stated budget submission deadline (discussed in the meeting as July 25). The council chair also proposed a special meeting on the 20-something date (noted in the meeting as “the 20 first” and later as a Monday at 5:00 p.m.) to give explicit direction on salary series; the chair later said no formal vote would be taken that evening on hiring freezes.

There was no formal vote to adopt WIS recommendations at the July 14 meeting. Several council members said they want to craft a pay philosophy first — whether to target external midpoint, be a pay leader above midpoint, or adopt some other standard — before approving dollar changes. Rooker and Seelung offered to remain available for follow-up verification and to supply the underlying Excel files so the county staff can run additional scenarios.

What to watch next: the council’s planned special meeting to set pay philosophy and any formal ordinance adopting an FES classification or pay ranges; department submissions of supplemental-pay and overtime data; and the council’s final 2026 budget decisions.

"Equal pay, equal work," Rooker said in describing the consultants’ recommendation on dispatcher pay; the report and the council’s follow-up request aim to translate that principle into precise budget and ordinance language.

Ending note: WIS emphasized that the consultants used the job descriptions and payroll data the county provided; the firm said it can make corrections when departments identify errors, and it will supply the detailed spreadsheets to the county for verification and implementation planning.