Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plumas County board approves moving forward on countywide salary study with RGS
Summary
Supervisors authorized staff to negotiate a contract with Regional Government Services (RGS) for a countywide compensation and classification study, budgeted not to exceed $154,000, to be completed roughly within the fiscal year to inform future budgeting and equity efforts.
The Plumas County Board of Supervisors on July 1 authorized county human resources and county counsel to negotiate and finalize a contract with Regional Government Services (RGS) to perform a countywide salary and classification study, with the proposed budget not to exceed $154,000.
Nut graf: County officials said the study is intended to provide an objective, data-driven analysis of job descriptions and pay scales across all county departments, produce comparable market benchmarks, and recommend a plan the county can use to address pay disparities and update classifications in a way that could be implemented over multiple budget cycles.
Why it matters: County HR leaders said several factors prompted the work: a rising minimum wage, changes in local labor markets since the last comprehensive review, and internal staffing constraints that make an in-house study impractical. HR called the RGS approach attractive because it is a joint powers entity whose process, staff said, is transparent and replicable.
Scope and timeline: County HR reported the study would include job description comparisons, cross-agency benchmarking using comparable jurisdictions, and a recommended methodology that the county can reuse in future cycles. RGS and staff indicated the work would likely take 30–35 weeks to complete; RGS recommended a flexible timeline and said an aggressive end-of-year (December) deadline would be ambitious but they would work to meet fiscal planning needs. County staff said the final contract will include a detailed scope and milestones.
Budget and procurement notes: The board discussed procurement rules and noted an exception allows contracting with a joint powers authority without a formal competitive bid. Board members said RGS provided a proposal; staff also sought and reviewed at least one other vendor proposal. Supervisors emphasized that the study’s results may inform multi-year salary planning and that immediate pay changes are not automatic — any raises or budget implications would require future budget decisions.
Board action: The board motioned and authorized HR and county counsel to draft and negotiate the contract with RGS; the vote to proceed passed on roll call. Board members asked staff to ensure clarity about the scope, deliverables, and timeline, and requested transparency to reduce future controversy when results are brought forward.
Next steps: HR will complete contract negotiations with RGS, return a final contract to the board for approval, and coordinate the study with department heads. RGS cautioned the board that data collection depends in part on timely cooperation from comparable agencies and that some delays are possible.
