Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Work session: HR presents audited compensation study; implementation would cost about $1.9 million countywide
Summary
HR presented a review of a prior market study, auditing McGrath's results against TechNet data and internal equity; staff estimated full implementation at roughly $1.9 million countywide and recommended moving forward while department heads urged funding to retain staff.
In a work-session presentation on May 29, Utah County HR staff described a committee audit of a previously commissioned market study and recommended a path to implement updated pay schedules to improve recruitment and retention.
Laina Jensen (HR) explained the committee did not re-run the entire market study but audited Doctor McGrath’s work, spot-checked benchmark jobs using TechNet data, reviewed internal equity and job families, and adjusted draft position salary structures accordingly. Committee members met with department heads, considered compression and career-ladder proposals, and ran reports to estimate the fiscal impact of implementation.
Staff presented a tentative cost estimate: roughly $1,810,000 for general-fund employees (including benefits), about $400,000 for the health department and DDAPT, and roughly $500,000 for other non-general-fund employees — a countywide implementation total the presentation estimated at about $1.9 million. Department heads and elected officials urged full implementation or at least prioritized funding to retain specialized staff amid strong external recruitment by neighboring jurisdictions.
Commissioners raised process questions, including whether the committee had 'cherry-picked' data, how TechNet benchmarking works, and whether back pay would be feasible in the county's payroll system; staff said they had audited the study, relied on TechNet as a primary data source and would pursue implementation strategies (including one-time compensation or bonuses if retroactive pay is technically difficult). The county attorney’s office and several department heads supported implementation and said staff would return with account-level details and implementation options.
No final vote occurred; commissioners asked staff to provide detailed implementation plans and funding sources and to return for formal approval.
