Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant: Cass County pay ranges about 7% below peers; recommends phased raises and benefit tweak
Summary
A market survey presented to the Cass County Commission found county salaries average approximately 7% below a selected peer group; the consultant recommended closing the gap over one or two years, adding a modest COLA, and increasing the county contribution to family medical coverage by about 3%.
Pat Wanzer of MRA (S11), the compensation consultant hired by Cass County, told commissioners the countypay structure sits roughly 7% below the market benchmarks compiled from a selected peer group.
"You are sitting 7, your ranges and salaries are sitting on average 7% below the market," Wanzer said, summarizing the survey of 30 benchmark jobs (26 with sufficient data). The project invited 15 jurisdictions to participate and received usable data from seven. Wanzer said the survey compared county averages, range minimums, midpoints and maximums and that, on average, Cass County was at about 93% of peer benchmarks.
MRA recommended options to address the gap: the consultant said the fastest approach in an unconstrained budget scenario would be a one-time structural increase of about 7% and an additional cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in the 2.5% to 3% range. If a full adjustment in a single year is unaffordable, Wanzer suggested splitting the increases over two years or closing most of the gap in year one and the remainder in year two.
On benefits, Wanzer reported Cass County pays a larger share of dental premiums than peers and is the only surveyed jurisdiction offering vision insurance. However, the countyemployer contribution for family medical was about 3% below the peer group; Wanzer recommended increasing the county contribution for family medical because employees tend to value that most.
Commissioners asked technical questions about averages and medians; Wanzer said she calculated both and that the median values were close to the means in this sample. Commissioners also discussed the personnel and budget implications: staff noted the market study arrived just before budget hearings, and commissioners cautioned that adopting portions of the study in full could require deficit spending without additional revenue.
Next steps: the commission will consider the salary study findings during upcoming budget deliberations and staff indicated the recommended family medical contribution increase would be included for consideration in budget materials.
