Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant recommends 3% pay alignment for nonbargaining county staff; suggests full study later
Summary
McGrath Human Resources Group told Lincoln County commissioners that the county’s current salary schedule is largely competitive but recommended a 3% adjustment to nonbargaining pay and gradual elimination of early steps to align with market pay, while flagging a near‑term risk from an aging workforce.
Dr. Victoria McGrath, CEO of McGrath Human Resources Group, told Lincoln County commissioners during a July 14 presentation that the county’s pay structure is generally aligned with the external market but could be tightened to improve retention.
McGrath recommended adding a 3% market adjustment to the county’s nonbargaining salary schedule this year and phasing out the lowest three steps over subsequent years. She said the county’s step‑1 starting salaries are competitive in most positions, but the county’s 17‑step schedule creates a wide minimum–maximum range and overlaps between pay grades.
The consultant summarized the study methodology: interviews with administration and department directors, a review of job descriptions and local market data using comparable governments (Minnehaha County was a primary benchmark), and targeted position placements rather than a full classification overhaul. She reported the workforce is top‑heavy in tenure: employees age 50 and up have the longest service and the county has about 42% of staff under 40 with three or fewer years of service — a group McGrath called relatively mobile and at higher risk of leaving for outside opportunities.
Commissioners asked whether the detailed study and supporting datasets were available; staff confirmed a fuller report and benefit analyses were emailed to the commission and could be re‑distributed. McGrath said she did not conduct a full classification study and recommended the county consider a comprehensive classification and compensation study in 2028–29 to revisit the broader schedule design.
The presentation included targeted recommendations such as creating a planner/senior‑planner progression, modest regradings for a handful of positions, and suggested the county evaluate benefits changes separately because implementing benefit changes takes longer.
The board did not take formal action on the presentation; staff indicated the detailed report and line‑by‑line placements are available to commissioners for budget planning.
