Churchill County approves Baker Tilly to conduct countywide compensation and classification study

Churchill County commissioners voted to hire Baker Tilly to conduct a full classification and compensation study of county positions, following presentations from two finalist firms and a period of questions from commissioners and county staff. The motion to award the study to Baker Tilly, moved by a commissioner (Speaker 4) and seconded by Commissioner Blakey, passed on a voice vote.

The decision follows competing presentations from Baker Tilly and PayPoint HR. Baker Tilly’s team, represented by Sarah Towne with support from colleagues identified as Jada and Judith Kentuis, outlined a five‑phase process: project planning and communication, position review, job evaluation using the firm’s SAFE (systematic analysis and factor evaluation) point‑factor tool, external market assessment, and pay‑structure development and implementation planning. “This is our proposal for the full comprehensive classification and compensation study for Churchill County, Nevada,” Towne said during her presentation.

Baker Tilly told the board it would benchmark roughly 60% of positions (about 100 benchmarked roles) as a best‑practice sampling approach, use published salary survey datasets and peer comparisons identified with county leadership, and apply geographic cost‑of‑labor adjustments. The vendor said it would deliver tools and training so county staff could maintain the system and reuse the methodology for periodic maintenance. Baker Tilly proposed starting data collection in November, completing pay‑plan development by January–February and supporting an implementation target of July 1 aligned to the county’s budget cycle.

PayPoint HR, represented by Karen Campbell and Dr. Rick Campbell, emphasized a three‑metric approach: employee job questionnaires, an internal classification/ranking process, and granular external benchmarking that produces per‑job percentiles and detailed outputs. Karen Campbell said PayPoint delivers “workable format” outputs and owner involvement across projects. PayPoint told commissioners it typically builds tools intended to be used for six to seven years, with one on‑site visit included if requested.

Commissioners and staff pressed both firms about reusability of their models, how public‑safety and unionized positions would be handled, sample selection for benchmarking, and the logistics and cost of in‑person meetings. Sheriff Pickaxe asked whether staff meetings would be in person or virtual; Baker Tilly said the proposal was for a fully virtual process but offered on‑site visits as needed. Commissioner Blakey asked whether the county’s 93‑grade, 13‑step pay structure should be retained or redesigned; both vendors said they could work with existing step systems or propose alternative range/hybrid models and would tailor recommendations to the county’s preferences.

There was particular attention to sampling and comparators. PayPoint and Baker Tilly both said they would work with county leadership to craft an appropriate peer list; PayPoint also noted the external survey can include questions about budgeted versus filled positions and match quality to help the county assess whether a comparator’s unusually high vacancy or turnover would make it a poor match. Blaine Mills, the county’s chief deputy attorney, raised concerns about relying on comparables that have significant vacancies, noting those conditions can distort market comparisons; PayPoint said the surveys and data‑cleaning steps are designed to flag and minimize such distortions.

After discussion among commissioners and staff — several said Baker Tilly’s Excel‑based deliverables and process felt easier to work with and would fit the county’s needs — the board moved and seconded a motion to approve Baker Tilly to perform the study. The motion passed by voice vote. Commissioners directed staff to confirm the benchmark list (the roughly 100 positions to be sampled), to clarify whether additional benchmark roles would require a contract amendment or fee change, and to authorize up to one or two vendor on‑site visits as needed.

Next steps: staff will finalize scope and the benchmark list with Baker Tilly and return any required contract documents or budget adjustments to the board for authorization as needed. No public comments were offered before the meeting adjourned.