Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County HR asks commissioners to adopt new classification and pay scale; implementation cost estimated at $336,000
Summary
Human Resources presented a completed classification and compensation study and asked the Board of County Commissioners to place employees on a new, more uniform pay scale and to approve reclassifications for positions that scored higher under the new system; staff estimated minimal implementation at about $336,000.
Human Resources presented the final results of a year-long classification and compensation study on March 10 and sought direction from the Board of County Commissioners on implementation.
HR director Sue Sabo summarized the proposal: first, place every employee on the new scale at the step closest to—but not below—their current salary; second, grant one-step (or comparable) adjustments for positions the consultants regraded to a higher classification. "No employee would be placed at a lower pay grade than they are today," Sabo emphasized, and she noted the consultants also built more consistent step progression across grades.
Sabo estimated the minimum cost to move employees onto the new scale at about $276,000 and an additional $60,000 to implement one-step reclassifications for 46 positions identified by the consultants, for a combined estimated implementation cost of roughly $336,000 (not including additional market adjustments or future pay decisions). She also reported health‑insurance premiums were expected to rise about 11 percent, which will affect total compensation costs.
Commissioners asked follow-up questions about law‑enforcement and corrections classifications; Sabo said those ranks were included in the salary-comparative study but that their promotion/rank structure requires a specialized follow-up and could be studied as a separate project. Commissioners requested more detail on phased implementation, effects on retirement and benefits, and whether any additional market adjustments would be necessary.
Outcome: Several commissioners indicated support for establishing the new scale as the baseline and for moving forward with implementation so employees are placed on the new schedule. One commissioner expressed concern about making across-the-board step increases without a wider review of total compensation and benefits; commissioners asked HR to return with final placement tables and cost estimates for approval with the final budget.
Next steps: HR will complete the employee placement tables, address second‑review requests, and provide final cost figures to the board ahead of final FY16 budget adoption.
