Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Segal study finds Shelby County pay ranges below market; HR and elected officials debate compensation policy
Loading...
Summary
A compensation study presented to Shelby County commissioners found pay‑range minimums below market and recommended raising ranges; the county’s proposed FY26 compensation policy and the timing of an ordinance to raise low wages prompted debate among elected officials and HR staff.
Segal consultants told the Shelby County Budget and Finance Subcommittee that a market survey of 101 benchmark jobs shows the county’s pay ranges sit below typical market levels and that pay‑range minimums should be raised by roughly 14%–19% to improve competitiveness.
Mike Verdom, Segal’s vice president for compensation and career strategies, said the county’s current pay‑range minimums across the benchmark set average about 81% of the market and that raising minimums would reduce hiring pressure and internal compression. "If you move it up 14%, it would move it up to 95% on an overall basis," Verdom said during the presentation. Segal planned to deliver preliminary salary‑structure models to the county project team by May 7 and expected to complete structure recommendations by the end of May.
Gerald Thornton, the county’s director of human resources, said the compensation work will be used to evaluate the new salary structure proposed to take effect July 1 and to prepare implementation‑cost models. Thornton and Segal emphasized that an across‑the‑board structure change can be implemented in multiple ways and that Segal would provide analytic tools to model different implementation scenarios.
The study generated immediate policy debate. Alicia Lindsey, chief administrative officer for the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office, raised objections to language in the proposed FY26 compensation policy that she said conflicts with the sheriff’s statutory authority as a constitutional officer; she requested removal of a last bullet in Section G dealing with reclassification and restrictions on public‑safety positions. Thornton said the compensation policy under consideration had been reviewed by the Civil Service Merit Board (CSMB) and that most elected officials had been involved in negotiations; Trustee Regina Newman clarified that elected officials did not vote against the sheriff’s requests during those deliberations.
Several commissioners asked for a clear timeline and cost estimates. Verdom said Segal has identified options and will produce models showing the cost impacts of different approaches; he said Segal had not yet produced a single overall dollar cost because the eventual cost depends on chosen implementation rules and any concurrent actions such as proposed ordinances. Commissioners discussed an ordinance (often referenced in the meeting as a $20.77 minimum wage proposal) that would raise some low pay levels; Thornton said passing and funding that ordinance would materially affect the compensation models and that Segal would need to re‑run cost scenarios if the ordinance is funded.
Director Thornton recommended postponing final adoption of the compensation policy changes until Segal’s report and structure models are complete. "We should not change this policy until the study is completed," Thornton told commissioners. Commissioners asked county staff to provide a documented timeline and implementation options for the May committee meeting and asked the county attorney’s office to review legal questions raised by constitutional‑officer language in the policy.
No final action was taken on the compensation policy at the subcommittee meeting. Segal’s team and county HR will return with the salary‑structure models and cost scenarios in the coming weeks for committee review.
