Segal finds Shelby County pay ranges below market; recommends new salary structure with $40,502 minimum

Consultants from Segal presented a market compensation study to Shelby County’s Budget & Finance Committee on June 11 that recommended an updated county salary structure and three phased implementation scenarios.

Segal said the county’s pay range minimums overall were at 84% of the market; the firm said the target competitive range is roughly 95%–105% of market averages. “This job itself was at 84%,” Segal vice president Mike Verdorn told commissioners, adding that “the target is to be at 100%,” meaning the market midpoint.

Nut graf: A new structure is meant to address competitiveness at hire, reduce compression and provide a consistent grade framework that can be managed against market data and internal equity.

Key findings and recommendations

- Benchmarking and market position: Segal analyzed 101 representative county benchmark jobs and ultimately used sufficient market data on 98 of them. For the sample jobs, the county’s pay range minima averaged 84% of the market midpoint and maxima averaged about 88%.

- Proposed minimum and structure: Segal recommended retaining 26 pay grades and setting the minimum pay in the new structure at $40,502 to ensure a living‑wage baseline for county employees. The firm said jobs would be assigned to grades by midpoint alignment to market data.

- Implementation cost scenarios presented by the consultant team: • Bring employees below the minimum to the new minimum: estimated payroll increase about 2.4% (approximately $6.8 million). • Target placement within ranges (based on time in position and target salary): estimated payroll increase about 6.66% (approximately $18.9 million). • Place employees by current comp ratio into new ranges: estimated payroll increase about 7.23% (approximately $20.5 million).

- Process points: Segal emphasized the need to place jobs (not individuals) into the structure, then determine incumbents’ placement using business rules that consider performance, tenure and internal equity. The consultants also noted that not every employee would automatically receive an increase; placement rules determine that outcome.

What commissioners asked

Commissioners asked about inclusion of benefits comparisons (Segal said benefits comparisons were included in separate materials) and whether HR implementation assistance was part of the scope (Segal said placement and costing worksheets are in the current scope; next steps would be collaborative placement work with HR).

Ending

The study will be incorporated into budget deliberations. Commissioners asked finance and HR to return with placement details and comparisons between the study’s scenarios and the proposed FY26 salary adjustments.