Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final

Comprehensive Classification and
Compensation Study for the

City of Garden City, GA
FINAL REPORT
June 10, 2015
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Table of Contents
PAGE
1.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1-1
2.0
SUMMARY OF EMPLOYEE OUTREACH ......................................................................... 2-1

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
3.0
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS ................................................................... 3-1

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.0
Pay Plan Analysis ................................................................................................ 3-1

Grade Placement Analysis .................................................................................. 3-3
Salary Quartile and Tenure Analysis .................................................................. 3-4
Employees by Department ................................................................................. 3-9
Summary .......................................................................................................... 3-10
MARKET SURVEY RESULTS.......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.0
General Feedback ............................................................................................... 2-1

Benefits Observations ........................................................................................ 2-2
Compensation Observations .............................................................................. 2-2
Classification Observations ................................................................................ 2-3
Market Peers ....................................................................................................... 2-3
Benchmark Positions .......................................................................................... 2-4
Outreach Summary ............................................................................................. 2-4
Methodology ........................................................................................................ 4-1

Respondents ....................................................................................................... 4-2
Survey Results ..................................................................................................... 4-2
Private Sector Market Data ................................................................................ 4-5
Summary ............................................................................................................. 4-6
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Classification Recommendations ...................................................................... 5-1

Compensation Recommendations ................................................................... 5-3
System Administration ........................................................................................ 5-8
Summary .......................................................................................................... 5-10
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Evergreen Solutions conducted a Comprehensive Classification and Compensation study for

the City of Garden City, GA (City) beginning in November 2014. The purpose of the study was
to analyze the Citys compensation system compared to the market and make
recommendations to improve its competitiveness. This involved reviewing and analyzing the
internal and external equity of the Citys current classification and compensation structure
and making recommendations in response to the findings.
Evergreen Solutions utilized a method of job evaluation to understand the current work being
performed by City employees. This provided the data for the internal equity review of the Citys
classification system. External equity, or the market competitiveness of the Citys current pay
structure, was reviewed by conducting and analyzing the results of a salary survey. Ultimately,
the results of these analyses, both internal and external, were considered when making
recommendations to improve the Citys competitive market position. To achieve this goal,
Evergreen Solutions was tasked with:
leading orientation and focus group sessions for employees and conducting interviews
with department heads;
evaluating the Citys current salary structure to determine its strengths and
weaknesses;
collecting classification information through the Job Assessment Tool (JAT) to analyze
the internal equity of the Citys classifications;
developing recommendations for improvements to classification titles and the creation

of new titles, if necessary;
conducting a salary survey to assess the market competitiveness of the Citys current
pay plan;
developing a compensation structure and slotting classifications into that structure

while ensuring internal and external equity;
developing an implementation strategy and providing cost estimates for

implementation;
updating job descriptions that reflect recommended classification changes and
employee responses to the JAT, and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
recommendations; and
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 1-1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study

for the City of Garden City, GA
developing and submitting draft and final reports that summarize study findings and
recommendations.
Evergreen Solutions used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to develop

recommendations to improve the Citys competitive position. Study activities included:
conducting a study kick-off meeting;

conducting employee outreach;
conducting job assessments utilizing the JAT;
analyzing the current conditions of the Citys compensation system;
conducting a market salary survey;
developing classification and compensation structure recommendations;
developing implementation options for the proposed structure;
developing recommendations for maintaining the new system;
updating job descriptions to accurately reflect work performed; and
creating draft and final reports.
Kick-off Meeting
The kick-off meeting allowed members of the study team from both the City and Evergreen
Solutions to discuss different aspects of the study. During the meeting, information about the
Citys compensation and classification structures and philosophies was shared and the work
plan for the study was finalized. The meeting also provided an opportunity for Evergreen
Solutions to explain the types of data needed to begin the study.
Employee Outreach
The orientation sessions provided an opportunity for employees and supervisors to learn more
information about the purpose of the study, and receive specific information related to their
participation in the study process. The focus group meetings and department head interviews
allowed City employees, supervisors, and senior management to identify practices that were
working well at the City, as well as to suggest areas of opportunities for improvement with
regard to compensation, classification, benefits, and performance evaluation. Employee
benefits and performance evaluation were not specifically reviewed during the course of the
study; however, participant feedback was sought and provided as these areas are integral to
an overall compensation system. The feedback received during these sessions is summarized
in Chapter 2 of this report.
Classification Analysis
To perform an analysis of the Citys classification system, all employees were asked to
complete a JAT in which they had the opportunity to describe the work they perform in their
own words. Supervisors then reviewed the employees JAT and provided additional
information as needed about the classifications. The information provided in the completed
JATs was utilized in the classification analysis in two ways. First, the work described was
reviewed to ensure that classification titles were being utilized appropriately. Second, the JATs
were evaluated to quantify, by a scoring method, each classifications relative value within the
Page 1-2
Chapter 1 Introduction

organization. Each classifications score was based on the employee and supervisors
responses to the JAT, and the scores allowed for a comparison of classifications across the
City.
Analysis of Current Conditions
The Citys current employee database was analyzed with a close look at how the current pay
plan was being utilized. The current pay plans, the progression of employee salaries through
pay grades, employee tenure, and the distribution of employees among the Citys departments
were all examined during this process. Chapter 3 of this report summarizes the findings of
this analysis.
Compensation Analysis
For the compensation, or market analysis, peer organizations were identified that compete
with the City for human resources and provide similar services. A number of classifications
were selected as benchmarks for the survey. These positions represented a cross-section of
the departments and levels of work at the City. After the selection of peers and benchmarks,
a survey tool was developed for the collection of salary range data for each benchmark. The
salary data collected during this survey were analyzed, and a summary of the data can be
found in Chapter 4 of this report.
Recommendations
During the recommendation phase of the study, Evergreen Solutions developed a marketbased pay plan and slotted classifications into the pay plan based on internal and external
equity. Next, implementation options were developed to transition employee salaries into the
new pay grades, and the associated costs of adjusting employee salaries were estimated.
Information has been provided to the City on how to execute the recommended salary
adjustments, as well as how to maintain the recommended classification and compensation
system over time. A summary of all recommendations made by Evergreen Solutions can be
found in Chapter 5 of this report.
Page 1-3
Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee

Outreach
Employee Outreach consisted of a series of orientation and focus group sessions conducted
by Evergreen Solutions with City employees, supervisors, and department heads in
December 2014. The orientation sessions provided participants an overview of the purpose
of the study. The focus group format and questions were designed to solicit input on a
number of topics related to the classification and compensation study. Though not in the
specific scope of the study, general questions with regard to employee benefits and
performance evaluation were asked as well. The comments of the participants were
valuable and provided a view of the perceptions of employees regarding the study and their
wages at the current time. Their feedback is summarized below:
2.1
GENERAL FEEDBACK
Employees viewed the Citys management as being dedicated to the workforce through their
commitment to a team environment. Employees stated that they generally enjoy their work,
co-workers, and work environment. However, employees also offered several suggestions for
improvement. For example, they believed that job duties and assignments have evolved over
the last several years and the current compensation and classification structure should be
updated. Participants also had several positive comments regarding their employment with
the City, including the following:
Several employees stated that they enjoyed the opportunity to serve their community
while working in a professional, team and family oriented environment.
Many individuals considered their work enjoyable and were thankful for their work
schedules.
Generally, employees appreciated the training and benefits provided to them, and
were especially pleased with the Citys observed holidays and Paid Time Off (PTO)
Policy.
On the other hand, employees provided several suggestions for areas of improvement:
Most employees expressed a strong desire to receive increases to their pay relative
to their market peers. Specifically, employees were concerned with the Citys ability
to attract and retain quality employees.
Employees would like to see job classifications and descriptions updated to more
accurately reflect the work being performed.
Page 2-1
Chapter 2Summary of Employee Outreach

A number of employees were troubled that their job duties had increased while their
compensation remained the same. Many employees believed that the tasks and
duties assigned to them across multiple departments was cumbersome, and was
cited as a possible reason for retention concerns for the City.
Several employees expressed concern regarding the lack of advancement

opportunities.
Many employees expressed their displeasure with the current performance

evaluation system and the process by which promotions and salary increases are
administered.
2.2
BENEFITS OBSERVATIONS
In general, employees were satisfied with the employee benefits offered by the City. These
positive comments, as well as areas for improvement, are listed below:
Most employees appreciated the health plan in general. However, many employees
expressed concern regarding the change in the Citys health care provider.
Specifically, employees stated that the current health provider (Aetna) does not
provide enough coverage compared to the Citys former provider, Blue Cross Blue
Shield. Moreover, employees expressed concern about their monthly health care
costs in relation to the level of coverage provided.
Some employees expressed a desire to have more funding for tuition reimbursement,
certifications and training. These employees stated that although funds for tuition
reimbursement are occasionally available, it hasnt been consistent.
The retirement system was

expressed their displeasure
employees stated that the
retirement age was not. Most
is needed.
2.3
included as a topic for change. Many employees

with the current 30-65 retirement system. Some
current vesting system was appropriate, but the
employees felt that a change in the retirement system
COMPENSATION OBSERVATIONS
Focus group participants also offered the following observations related to compensation:
Many employees wanted additional pay for advanced education, additional

certifications, and experience. Some employees stated that without it, they have no
incentive to further develop their skills.
Many employees cited discontent with not receiving cost of living increases in the
recent past. This, compounded by the lack of regular salary increases, concerned
most employees and was cited as contributing to personal economic hardships for
Page 2-2

some. Additionally, some employees stated that they have had to seek part-time work
because their pay has not been keeping up with the cost of living.
Several employees stated that they believe the Citys compensation structure is no
longer competitive within the market, thus reinforcing their belief that there is a
problem recruiting and retaining quality employees.
Employees cited the desire to see more transparency concerning the process in
which raises are administered. Several employees stated their discontent regarding
the current process, believing there is little opportunity for salary and career
advancement.
2.4
CLASSIFICATION OBSERVATIONS
Participants also provided Evergreen Solutions with issues specific to the Citys classification
structure. Below is a list of their concerns:
Many employees believed classification titles and job descriptions need to be

reviewed regularly and updated to reflect the current duties and responsibilities
performed. They stated that their jobs have evolved but the titles have stayed the
same. Furthermore, some employees stated that job descriptions do not exist for all
positions.
Some groups of employees stated that they believed the classification structure
should be reviewed for appropriateness, especially within the Fire Department and
Code Enforcement.
2.5
MARKET PEERS
Focus group participants were asked to name organizations they considered to be market
peers. These are listed below and were considered when developing the list of peers for the
salary survey:
City of Augusta, GA;

City of Bluffton, GA;
City of Macon, GA;
City of Pooler, GA;
City of Savannah, GA;
City of Tybee Island, GA;
City of Thunderbolt, GA;
Town of Hilton Head Island, SC;
Chatham County, GA;
Georgia Ports Authority, GA;
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, GA;
Home Depot Supply, GA; and
Hunter Army Airfield, GA.
Page 2-3
2.6

BENCHMARK POSITIONS
Employees were also asked which positions or areas within the City presented the greatest
challenges with regard to employee recruitment and retention. Some of the areas and
positions mentioned by focus group participants were:
2.7
Equipment Operators;
Maintenance;
Mechanics;
Meter Readers;
Office Staff;
Parks and Recreation;
Planning;
Police Officers;
Public Safety; and
Water and Wastewater Operators.
OUTREACH SUMMARY
The concerns expressed during outreach by the employees exist in many organizations
today. Yet, overall, employees believed the City provides a great work environment, and
supports a team and family-oriented atmosphere. In fact, many employees cited the
organizational commitment to serving the community through public service, the
professional work environment and the quality of co-workers as reasons they remain
employed with the City.
The information received during this employee outreach provided a foundation for areas of
further review during the remainder of the study. It also aided Evergreen Solutions in the
consideration and development of recommendations provided in Chapter 5 of this report.
Page 2-4
Chapter 3 Assessment of Current

Conditions
This chapter provides an analysis of the current conditions relative to the classification and
compensation system by examining the Citys current pay plan, employee salary placement,
quartile and tenure analysis, and an employee by department summary. It is important to
understand that the analyses that follow describes the conditions at the City at the time of the
study; they do not look at the external equity of the system. External equity, or market
competiveness, is discussed in the next chapter of this report. This review allowed Evergreen
Solutions to gain an understanding of the conditions present at the City at the time the study
commenced. When combined with stakeholder and employee feedback (Chapter 2) and peer
market data (Chapter 4), a recommended solution appropriate for the City was developed and
is provided in Chapter 5. This analyses in this chapter continue as follows:
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.1
Pay Plan Analysis

Grade Placement Analysis
Quartile and Tenure Analysis
Employees by Department
Summary
PAY PLAN ANALYSIS
The City currently has two pay plans: one for general employees and one for public safety
employees. This organized pay structure provides employees with an understood system of
pay grades and related pay range information. Additionally, an established pay structure
allows the organization to review and address issues regarding potential pay compression
within job classifications and among different pay grades.
Both plans are organized in an open-range configuration, with an established minimum and
maximum salary, whereby employee salaries are expected to progress through the ranges
over the course of a career. Exhibit 3A displays the Citys current General Employee Pay Plan,
and Exhibit 3B displays the Citys pay plan for Public Safety employees. At the time of the
study, there were 92 employees in the City: 46 employees were in classifications which are
under the General Pay Plan, 42 employees were in classifications which are under the Public
Safety Pay Plan, and four (4) employees were in interim positions which were not assigned to
any pay plan.
Page 3-1
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions

EXHIBIT 3A
CURRENT GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN
Grade
Minimum
Midpoint
Maximum
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
28
29
31
33
$20,467.20
$21,565.44
$22,730.24
$23,944.96
$25,226.24
$26,574.08
$27,988.48
$29,486.08
$31,066.88
$32,730.88
$34,478.08
$36,325.12
$38,039.04
$42,382.08
$44,378.88
$55,860.48
$58,489.60
$74,746.88
$84,930.56
$25,584.00
$26,956.80
$28,412.80
$29,931.20
$31,532.80
$33,217.60
$34,985.60
$36,857.60
$38,833.60
$40,913.60
$43,097.60
$45,406.40
$47,548.80
$52,977.60
$55,473.60
$69,825.60
$73,112.00
$93,433.60
$106,163.20
$30,700.80
$32,348.16
$34,095.36
$35,917.44
$37,839.36
$39,861.12
$41,982.72
$44,229.12
$46,600.32
$49,096.32
$51,717.12
$54,487.68
$57,058.56
$63,573.12
$66,568.32
$83,790.72
$87,734.40
$112,120.32
$127,395.84
Range
Employees
Spread
50.0%
0
50.0%
0
50.0%
5
50.0%
0
50.0%
1
50.0%
1
50.0%
3
50.0%
8
50.0%
6
50.0%
2
50.0%
9
50.0%
3
50.0%
1
50.0%
1
50.0%
0
50.0%
6
50.0%
0
50.0%
0
50.0%
0
EXHIBIT 3B
CURRENT PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN
Grade
Minimum
Midpoint
Maximum
160
161
162
170
171
172
180
220
230
250
280
290
$30,220.13
$32,484.61
$40,039.17
$36,853.81
$39,621.92
$48,836.32
$42,146.65
$44,836.86
$51,019.28
$55,244.80
$57,877.80
$65,770.23
$37,775.16
$40,605.76
$50,048.96
$46,067.27
$49,527.40
$61,045.40
$52,683.31
$56,046.08
$63,774.10
$69,058.74
$72,347.25
$82,212.78
$45,330.19
$48,726.91
$60,058.75
$55,280.72
$59,432.88
$73,254.48
$63,219.97
$67,255.29
$76,528.92
$82,867.20
$86,816.70
$98,655.34
Range
Employees
Spread
50.0%
0
50.0%
10
50.0%
8
50.0%
7
50.0%
0
50.0%
0
50.0%
4
50.0%
7
50.0%
2
50.0%
3
50.0%
0
50.0%
1
Page 3-2

The current pay structure has 31 total pay grades: 19 in the General Employee Pay Plan and
12 in the Public Safety Employee Pay Plan. Overall, 20 of the 31 grades are currently occupied
by at least one employee, with 12 grades occupied in the General Employee Plan and 8 grades
occupied in the Public Safety Plan. The range spread is a consistent 50.0 percent throughout.
Range spreads of 50.0 to 70.0 percent are considered best practice for open range structures
of this nature. By this measure, the current structure design is sound.
3.2
GRADE PLACEMENT ANALYSIS
Exhibits 3C and 3D provide a breakdown of the placement of employee salaries within each
pay grade. Exhibit 3C illustrates the placement of salaries within grades for classifications
assigned to the General Employee Plan, while Exhibit 3D illustrates the placement of salaries
within grades for classifications assigned to the Public Safety Plan. Each exhibit contains the
following: the pay grades, the number of employees per grade, the number and percentage of
employees with salaries at or below the minimum, the number and percentage of employees
with salaries below the midpoint, the number and percentage of employees with salaries
above the midpoint, and the number and percentage of employees with salaries at or above
the maximum. This analysis includes only occupied pay grades. It should be noted that
employee salaries, and the progression of the same, is associated with an organizations
compensation philosophy -- specifically, the method of salary progression and the availability
of resources. Therefore, the placement of employee salaries should be viewed with this
context in mind.
EXHIBIT 3C
GENERAL EMPLOYEE GRADE PLACEMENT
Grade
Employees
8
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
28
Total
5
1
1
3
8
6
2
9
3
1
1
6
46
#atorbelow %atorbelow
#<Mid
Min
Min
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
5
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
16.7%
50.0%
11.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.9%
4
1
1
2
8
6
2
9
2
1
0
4
40
%<Mid
#>Mid
%>Mid
80.0%
100.0%
100.0%
66.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
66.7%
100.0%
0.0%
66.7%
87.0%
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
6
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
100.0%
33.3%
13.0%
#atorabove %atorabove
Max
Max
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Page 3-3

EXHIBIT 3D
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE GRADE PLACEMENT
Grade
Employees
#atorbelow
Min
161
162
170
180
220
230
250
290
Total
10
8
7
4
7
2
3
1
42
0
8
4
1
0
1
0
0
14
%atorbelow
#<Mid
Min
0.0%
100.0%
57.1%
25.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
10
8
6
4
5
2
1
0
36
%<Mid
#>Mid
%>Mid
100.0%
100.0%
85.7%
100.0%
71.4%
100.0%
33.3%
0.0%
85.7%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
200.0%
0.0%
200.0%
100.0%
6
0.0%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
28.6%
0.0%
66.7%
100.0%
14.3%
#atorabove %atorabove
Max
Max
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Employees with salaries at or below the grade minimum are generally new hires or are new to
their particular classification following a recent promotion; on the other hand, employees with
salaries at or above the grade maximum are generally highly experienced and proficient in
their classification. Currently, there are five (5) employees in the General Pay Plan who have
salaries at or below their classification minimum; there are no employees with salaries at or
above the maximum. Additionally, there are 14 Public Safety employees with salaries at or
below the minimum, and none with salaries at or above the maximum. It is not considered
best practice to have an employees salary below the grade minimum, or above the grade
maximum. Further recommendations in this regard can be found in Chapter 5 of this report.
Grade midpoint is often considered the most accepted market average. At the midpoint,
employees should be fully proficient in their job and should require minimal supervision to
complete their job duties, while performing satisfactorily. Within this framework, midpoint is
commonly considered to be the salary an individual could reasonably expect for similar work
in the market. It is important, therefore, to examine the percentage of employees with salaries
that fall above and below the calculated midpoint of their respective pay grades. Of the 88
employees included in this analysis, 76 employees have salaries below the midpoint (40
General employees and 36 Public Safety employees), while 12 employees were above the
salary midpoint (6 General employees and 6 Public Safety employees).
3.3
SALARY QUARTILE AND TENURE ANALYSIS
This section provides a salary quartile and classification tenure analysis of the distribution of
employee salaries across pay grades. The quartile analysis is also used to determine if
clusters of salaries exist. Employee pay is slotted within one of four equal distributions. The
first quartile (0-25) represents the lowest 25.0 percent of the pay range. The second quartile
(26-50) represents the segment of the pay range above the first quartile up to the pay ranges
midpoint. The third quartile (51-75) represents the part of the pay range above the midpoint
up to the 75th percentile of the pay range. The fourth quartile (76-100) is the highest 25.0
percent of the pay range. This analytical method provides an opportunity to assess how
employee salaries are disbursed throughout the pay range.
Page 3-4

Exhibit 3E includes a breakdown of the number of General employees per grade, the average number of years in current
classification (average class years) worked per grade, the location (by quartile) of salaries within each grade, and the average
number of class years worked per quartile within each grade.
EXHIBIT 3E
GENERAL EMPLOYEE QUARTILE AND CLASS YEARS ANALYSIS
GRADE
8
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
28
OverallTotal
OverallAverage
Total
Employees
5
1
1
3
8
6
2
9
3
1
1
6
46
AverageClass
Years
3.7
5.4
7.3
5.5
3.7
7.0
1.4
4.8
13.9
6.2
9.9
6.0
6.2
1stQuartile
#Employees AvgClassYears
3
2.9
1
7.3
1
0.8
5
2.2
4
5.7
1
0.5
7
4.3
3
4.0
25
3.5
2ndQuartile
1
7.0
1
5.4
1
10.8
3
6.0
2
9.8
1
2.2
2
6.7
2
19.0
1
6.2
1
5.9
15
7.9
3rdQuartile
1
2.7
1
3.6
1
9.9
2
9.1
5
6.3
4thQuartile
1
4.9
1
4.9
Page 3-5

Exhibit 3F displays graphically how employee salaries in the General Pay Plan fall across the quartiles within each pay grade.
EXHIBIT 3F
GENERAL EMPLOYEE QUARTILE ANALYSIS (PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES PER PAY GRADE)
28
22
20
19
PayGrade
18
17
16
15
14
12
10
8
0%
25%
1STQUARTILE
50%
75%
100%
PercentofEmployees
2NDQUARTILE
3RDQUARTILE
4THQUARTILE
Page 3-6

Exhibits 3G and 3H display the same quartile and average class years information for Public Safety employees. Exhibit 3G includes
a breakdown of the number of Public Safety employees per grade, the average number of class years worked per grade, the
location (by quartile) of salaries within each grade, and the average number of class years worked per quartile within each grade.
EXHIBIT 3G
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE QUARTILE AND CLASS YEARS ANALYSIS
GRADE
161
162
170
180
220
230
250
290
OverallTotal
OverallAverage
Total
Employees
10
8
7
4
7
2
3
1
42
AverageClass
Years
3.0
4.2
5.0
5.0
6.7
3.5
6.2
12.6
5.8
1stQuartile
9
2.5
8
4.2
6
3.6
4
5.0
4
5.3
2
3.5
33
4.0
2ndQuartile
1
7.9
1
10.9
1
1.9
3
6.9
3rdQuartile
2
7.5
1
6.5
3
7.0
4thQuartile
1
13.8
1
10.1
1
12.6
3
12.1
Page 3-7

Exhibit 3H displays graphically how employee salaries in the Public Safety Plan fall across the quartiles within each pay grade.
EXHIBIT 3H
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE QUARTILE ANALYSIS (PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES PER PAY GRADE)
290
250
PayGrade
230
220
180
170
162
161
0%
25%
1STQUARTILE
50%
2NDQUARTILE
75%
100%
PercentofEmployees
3RDQUARTILE
4THQUARTILE
Page 3-8

In the Grade Placement Analysis, it was observed that the vast majority of employee salaries
fell below the midpoint; out of the 88 total employees included in the grade analysis, salaries
of 76 employees (86.3%) fell below the midpoint, while salaries of 12 employees (13.6%) fell
above the midpoint. 40 out of the 46 General employee salaries (86.9%) fell below their
respective midpoint, and 36 out of the 42 Public Safety employee salaries fell below their
respective midpoint. As one might expect, most of the employee salaries fell into the first and
second quartiles, with the majority of employee salaries (65.9%) falling into the first quartile
of their respective pay plans. Generally, it seems that the majority of salary compression
observed in the first quartile of both plans may exist because of the shorter tenure of
employees within this quartile, though again, the methods of salary progression and any
constraints the City faced in awarding salary increases may have impacted these results.
Under the General Employee Pay Plan, 25 employee salaries (54.3%) fell into the first quartile,
15 employee salaries (32.6%) fell into the second quartile, five employee salaries (10.9%) fell
into the third quartile, and one employees salary (2.2%) fell into the fourth quartile. For
General employees, the average number of class years worked was 6.2 years. When
examining tenure by quartile, it was generally determined that as employee salaries progress
from the first quartile to the fourth quartile, overall average tenure increases. The only
exceptions to this statement were found in grades 8, 14 and 19, where employees who were
all above the midpoint had shorter average tenures than those who fell below the midpoint in
the same pay grade.
Under the Public Safety Employee Pay Plan, 33 employee salaries (78.6%) fell into the first
quartile, three employee salaries (7.1%) fell into the second quartile, three employee salaries
(7.1%) fell into the third quartile, and three employee salaries (7.1%) fell into the fourth
quartile. For Public Safety employees, the average number of class years worked was 5.8
years. When examining tenure by quartile, it was determined that as employee salaries
progress from the first quartile to the fourth quartile, overall average tenure increases. The
only exception is found in grade 220 of the Public Safety Plan, whereby employees in the third
quartile have a shorter average tenure than an employee within the second quartile of the
same grade.
3.4
EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT
Exhibit 3I depicts the number of employees and the number of classifications in each
department, as well as the percent breakdown of employees by department. At the time of
the study, the City had 13 departments with a total of 92 employees. This section provides
basic information regarding how employees were distributed among departments.
Page 3-9

EXHIBIT 3I
EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT
Department
Administrative
Executive
Fire
HumanResources
InformationSystemsandTechnology
Police
PublicWorks
Recreation
SeniorCenter
Shop
WaterOperations
Water/SewerRepair
PlanningandEconomicDevelopment
Total
Employees Classes %ofTotal

2
2
2.2%
2
2
2.2%
8
1
8.7%
1
1
1.1%
2
2
2.2%
40
19
43.5%
10
6
10.9%
6
6
6.5%
1
1
1.1%
2
2
2.2%
5
4
5.4%
9
7
9.8%
4
4
4.3%
92
57
100.0%
The Citys largest department was Police, with 40 employees across 19 classifications. The
Police Department represented 43.5 percent of the total workforce. The smallest departments
were the Human Resources and Senior Center departments, with one employee per
department; both the Human Resources and Senior Center departments make up 1.1 percent
of the total workforce. Six of the departments had five or more employees, while seven
departments had fewer than five employees.
3.5
SUMMARY
The Citys compensation structure with established pay plans provided employees with a clear
pay system. However, Chapter 4 examines the external equity of the current compensation
system. The following are the key points of the existing pay plans:
The existing pay structure had 31 total grades, with 19 being in the General Employee
Plan and 12 in the Public Safety Plan.
Of the 31 total pay grades, 20 are currently occupied by at least one employee. 12 of
the 19 grades are occupied in the General Employee Plan, and 8 of the 12 grades are
occupied in the Public Safety Plan.
Of the 88 employees included in the grade placement analysis, 76 employee salaries

were at or below their respective pay grade midpoints and 12 were at or above their
pay grade midpoints. 40 General employee salaries were at or below midpoint, while
6 were at or above midpoint. 36 Public Safety employee salaries were at or below
midpoint, while 6 were at or above midpoint.
There were 92 total employees across 13 Departments.
Page 3-10

The information gained from the review of current conditions was used in conjunction with the
market analysis data and internal equity review to develop recommendations for a
classification and compensation system best suited to the City. These recommendations are
provided in Chapter 5 of this report.
Page 3-11
Chapter 4 Market Survey Results
This chapter is a summary of the market analysis in which the Citys current salary structure
is compared to the salary structure at peer organizations. A comparison of this nature
focuses on the average salary ranges offered by the market for a sample of the Citys
positions. This data is then used to summarize overall market competitiveness and as a tool
for developing a compensation structure that will assist the City in recruiting and retaining a
talented, high-performing workforce. It is important to note, however, that this analysis does
not compare individual salaries within the market, as market comparisons do not translate
well at the individual level; individual employee pay is often determined through a
combination of factors, including demand for the type of job, an individuals prior related
experience, and, in some cases, the individuals negotiation skills during the hiring process.
Market analysis is best thought of as a snapshot of current market conditions, as the data is
collected at the time of the study and provides the most up to date market information. It
should be noted that market conditions can change, and in some cases, can change quickly.
Therefore, although this market analysis was utilized in making recommendations for the
Citys salary structure during this study, a market comparison of this nature should be done
at regular intervals to stay current with market salary trends. The information in this chapter
is presented in the following four sections:
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.1
Methodology
Respondents
Survey Results
Private Sector Market Data
Summary
METHODOLOGY
Evergreen Solutions collected salary information from public sector peers in the Citys
competitive market utilizing a survey tool created by Evergreen Solutions. The survey asked
for salary range information about 38 classifications. Evergreen Solutions utilized a process
called benchmarking to select a subset of the Citys classifications to be surveyed. The
desired outcome of benchmarking is to select a cross-section of the Citys classifications to
ensure that the surveyed positions include all areas and pay grades at the City. This allows
the compensation system as a whole to be analyzed.
The classification title, a brief description of assigned duties, and the education and
experience requirements were provided in the survey for each benchmarked classification.
The survey tool asked participants to provide for each benchmark: the title of the matching
position at their organization, a rating of how well their position matched the surveyed
Page 4-1

position in terms of the duties and requirements listed within the survey, the salary range
minimum and maximum of the matching position and the number of annual hours worked
by employees in the matching position.
4.2
RESPONDENTS
The peers were selected by Evergreen Solutions with input from the Citys project
management team. When identifying peers, a number of factors were taken into account,
including location and relative population. Data collected outside of the Citys direct region
were adjusted for cost of living using national cost of living index factors. This calculation
allows salary dollars from various entities to be compared in spending power relevant to the
City. Overall, information was collected from the eight peer organizations listed in Exhibit 4A
below:
EXHIBIT 4A
PEER DATA RESPONDENTS
Peer Data Collected
City of Savannah, GA
City of Tybee Island, GA
Town of Hilton Head Island, SC
Town of Thunderbolt, GA
Chatham County, GA
Evans County, GA
Jasper County, SC
Port of Savannah, GA
4.3
SURVEY RESULTS
Exhibit 4B summarizes the salary data collected for each benchmarked classification. For
each classification, the respondents average minimum, midpoint, and maximum salary is
provided, along with the percent difference between the market average and the Citys
current minimum, midpoint, and maximum. Classifications listed with a positive percent
difference were found to be above the market average, while classifications with a negative
percent difference were found to be below the market average. For each classification,
Exhibit 4B also displays the number of respondents and the respondents average range
spread (i.e., the percentage difference between the average minimum and maximum
salaries of the respondents, relative to the minimum).
Page 4-2

EXHIBIT 4B
MARKET SURVEY RESULTS
Classification
Admin. Manager, Public Works

Admin Asst. to Fire Chief
Administrative Assistant
Budget Officer
Building Safety Director
Business License
Captain of Patrol
Chatham Narcotics Team - Corporal
City Desk Receptionist
City Manager
Clerk of Council/City Clerk
Code Enforcement Officer
Corporal
Crew Leader
Detective
Director of Human Resources
Director of Information Technology
Director of Parks & Recreation
Director of Public Works, Shop
Director of Water Operations
Evidence Tech
Finance Administrator (or Deputy)
Finance Director
Fire Chief
Firefighter I
Lieutenant
Mechanic
Meter Reader
Patrol Officer
Police Chief
Public Works Foreman
Records Clerk
Repair Technician I
Senior Mechanic
Sergeant
Supervisor, Water/Sewer Repair
Utility Billing Supervisor
Utility Billing Technician I
Survey Minimum
Average
$53,537.26
$33,747.34
$34,325.19
$55,816.78
$72,844.78
$35,100.59
$50,057.75
$41,713.00
$25,603.28
$93,919.61
$40,735.67
$38,645.75
$38,353.59
$29,262.58
$40,627.24
$76,496.71
$68,756.98
$65,151.04
$65,518.44
$56,142.67
$30,800.33
$43,636.03
$90,385.00
$74,798.96
$33,806.51
$50,043.79
$31,975.66
$26,364.50
$32,357.19
$55,810.50
$34,889.33
$28,306.00
$27,432.25
$38,226.54
$44,536.12
$39,439.00
$34,364.00
$30,582.67
Overall Average
% Diff
Survey M idpoint
Average
-47.4% $68,249.44
-14.4% $43,060.39
-16.4% $43,817.94
$70,999.15
-30.4% $99,908.38
-7.2% $44,643.44
9.4% $61,097.00
-6.4% $48,684.38
-1.5% $32,564.85
-10.6% $110,566.89
27.1% $56,741.15
-24.4% $50,378.30
9.0% $47,536.36
0.8% $37,286.51
-10.2% $52,246.05
-36.9% $97,494.05
-23.1% $87,675.12
-16.6% $82,855.43
-17.3% $84,067.70
-0.5% $71,639.67
5.9% $39,292.00
$55,733.82
-54.5% $118,049.74
-29.2% $95,433.08
15.6% $41,747.57
1.9% $61,176.03
-8.4% $40,885.32
-10.1% $33,909.63
0.4% $39,705.32
15.1% $71,529.50
-1.2% $45,069.50
4.0% $35,014.56
-20.7% $34,834.38
-10.8% $48,913.78
0.7% $54,557.18
6.9% $50,938.50
9.7% $45,251.50
-9.2% $40,051.50
-8.4%
% Diff
-50.3%
-16.8%
-18.9%
-43.1%
-9.1%
11.5%
0.7%
-3.3%
-4.1%
18.7%
-29.7%
9.8%
-1.2%
-13.4%
-39.6%
-25.6%
-18.7%
-20.4%
-2.6%
4.0%
-61.5%
-31.9%
16.6%
4.1%
-10.9%
-13.3%
2.2%
13.0%
-4.6%
5.0%
-22.6%
-13.5%
2.7%
3.8%
4.8%
-14.5%
-10.4%
Survey Maximum
Average
$82,961.61
$52,373.44
$53,310.68
$86,181.52
$126,971.97
$54,186.28
$72,136.25
$61,445.33
$39,526.42
$140,946.42
$69,253.31
$59,831.98
$56,719.12
$45,310.45
$63,864.87
$118,491.40
$106,593.27
$100,559.83
$102,616.96
$87,136.67
$47,783.67
$67,831.62
$142,414.31
$125,121.39
$49,688.63
$72,308.27
$49,794.98
$41,454.75
$47,053.45
$104,832.35
$55,249.67
$44,302.00
$42,236.50
$59,601.02
$64,578.24
$62,438.00
$56,139.00
$49,520.33
% Diff
-52.2%
-18.4%
-20.6%
-51.5%
-10.4%
12.9%
2.8%
-4.5%
-10.6%
17.3%
-28.4%
16.5%
-2.5%
-15.5%
-41.4%
-27.2%
-20.0%
-22.5%
-4.0%
2.7%
-62.3%
-44.1%
17.3%
12.1%
-12.6%
-15.4%
3.4%
-6.0%
-6.8%
-0.2%
-23.9%
-15.3%
10.7%
1.8%
1.6%
-18.0%
Survey Avg
# Resp
Range
55.1%
55.2%
55.4%
54.5%
74.3%
54.4%
44.1%
47.3%
54.4%
50.0%
72.6%
55.0%
47.8%
54.9%
57.3%
55.0%
55.1%
54.4%
56.8%
55.2%
55.1%
55.4%
57.6%
69.4%
46.9%
44.3%
55.8%
57.2%
45.4%
87.8%
58.4%
56.5%
54.0%
55.9%
44.8%
58.3%
63.4%
61.9%
-12.1% 56.2%
3
3
5
4
4
5
4
4
6
5
4
3
4
4
3
5
6
5
4
3
3
5
4
4
5
4
7
4
6
3
3
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
4.2
Page 4-3

Market Minimums
A starting point for the analysis was to compare the average peer market minimum for each
classification to the Citys range minimums. Assessing the Citys market competitiveness at
pay grade minimums is important because it can impact the Citys ability to recruit quality
employees. An organizations pay practices will also have an impact as those with more
flexible practices may, for example, utilize the minimum as a starting point for establishing a
new employees salary, while others may utilize the minimum as an absolute starting salary.
In any regard, the following observations can be made about the minimum salaries for the
Citys benchmarked classifications:
On average, the minimum salaries for the Citys benchmarked classifications are 8.4
percent below their respective market averages.
The percent differences of the Citys benchmarked classifications at minimum

ranged between 54.5 percent below market in the case of the Finance Director to
27.1 percent above market in the case of the Clerk of Council/City Clerk.
Of the 36 benchmarked positions with market minimum percent differentials, 23

(63.9 percent) were below market at the minimum.
Market Midpoints
Comparisons to the market at midpoint are typically used to address the overall
competitiveness of a classifications salary range. Midpoint is typically considered the point
at which employees have achieved full proficiency, and are performing satisfactorily in their
classification. Based on the data gathered at the market midpoint, the following
observations can be made:
On average, the midpoint salaries for the Citys benchmarked classifications are 10.4
percent below their respective market averages.
The percent differences at midpoint for the benchmark classifications ranged

between 61.5 percent below market for the Finance Director to 18.7 percent above
market for the Clerk of Council/City Clerk.
Of the 36 benchmarked positions with market midpoint percent differentials, 23

(63.9 percent) were below market at the midpoint.
Market Maximums
In this section, the peer salary range maximums are compared to the Citys range
maximums for each benchmarked classification. Salary range maximums are typically used
to attract and/or reward more experienced and high performing personnel. Being
competitive at the maximum allows organizations to attract highly qualified employees for
an in-demand classification and retain experienced employees with a wealth of skills and
institutional knowledge who are typically performing, as well, at an exceptional level. Based
on the data gathered at the market maximum, the following observations can be made:
Page 4-4

The Citys maximum salaries for the benchmarked classifications are, on average,
12.1 percent below market.
The percent differences at maximum for the benchmark classifications ranged

between 62.3 percent below market for the Finance Director to 17.3 percent above
market for the Clerk of Council/City Clerk and Firefighter I.
Of the 36 benchmarked positions with market maximum percent differentials, 25

(69.4 percent) were below market at the maximum.
4.4
PRIVATE SECTOR MARKET DATA
Several classifications similar to the Citys can be found in the private sector. To supplement
the data collected in the salary survey, private sector salary data were collected using
software from the Economic Research Institute (ERI). The ERI data summarized in Exhibit 4C
reflects private sector salaries from businesses across government support services with
operating budgets of approximately 14.3 million dollars. The local region was centered on
the City of Savannah, GA, which was the nearest ERI city. While salary data from the private
sector is useful in determining characteristics of the market as a whole, there are inherent
differences between private and public sector classifications, which make it difficult to draw
conclusions about public sector salary ranges entirely from private sector data. The
comparisons of the Citys data to private sector data are often best utilized to analyze the
competiveness of specific classifications that have a hard time recruiting or retaining
employees. Just as with the public sector data results, comparisons made in this section
should not be utilized to compare individual salaries. Only those classifications with skills
that are easily transferable to the private sector are included in Exhibit 4C below.
The following conclusions can be drawn from Exhibit 4C:
The City is approximately 10.6 percent below the private sector minimum.
The City is approximately 14.7 percent below the private sector midpoint.
The City is approximately 28.9 percent below the private sector maximum.
While the City, on average across all matched positions, is below the private sector
for the minimum, midpoint, and maximum, this can be explained due to the
significant difference in range spreads at the City and in the private sector market.
The average private sector salary range is 73.9 percent, which is significantly greater
than the Citys average range spread of 50.0 percent.
Page 4-5

EXHIBIT 4C
PRIVATE SECTOR MARKET DATA
C lassification
Admin. Manager, Public Works

Admin Asst. to Fire Chief
Administrative Assistant
Budget Officer
Building Safety Director
Business License
City Desk Receptionist
City Manager
Crew Leader
Deputy City Manager
Director of Human Resources
Director of Information Technology
Finance Administrator (or Deputy)
Finance Director
Mechanic
Meter Reader
Public Works Foreman
Records Clerk
Repair Technician I
Senior Mechanic
Supervisor, Water/Sewer Repair
Utility Billing Supervisor
Utility Billing Technician I
Water Treatment Plant Op.
Survey M inim um
Average
% Diff
$53,224.00
$29,909.00
$29,909.00
$63,092.00
$51,711.00
$38,444.00
$23,775.00
$131,282.00
$32,062.00
$68,094.00
$70,069.00
$69,658.00
$68,138.00
$52,356.00
$34,262.00
$24,887.00
$40,460.00
$21,672.00
$27,419.00
$38,357.00
$46,133.00
$39,124.00
$27,829.00
$34,625.00
Overall Average
4.5
-46.6%
-1.4%
-1.4%
7.4%
-17.4%
5.8%
-54.6%
-8.7%
8.9%
-25.4%
-24.7%
10.5%
-16.2%
-4.0%
-17.3%
26.5%
-20.6%
-11.2%
-8.9%
-2.8%
0.6%
-0.4%
-10.6%
Survey M idpoint
Average
% Diff
$61,929.00
$36,527.00
$36,527.00
$74,351.00
$60,097.00
$44,277.00
$28,550.00
$150,518.00
$38,998.00
$103,360.00
$83,032.00
$101,034.00
$80,572.00
$105,356.00
$43,208.00
$34,893.00
$51,337.00
$28,900.00
$38,533.00
$48,226.00
$58,917.00
$50,110.00
$38,148.00
$44,496.00
-36.4%
0.9%
0.9%
13.9%
-8.2%
9.5%
-41.8%
-5.8%
-10.6%
-18.9%
-44.7%
-44.1%
-17.2%
-16.6%
-19.1%
21.6%
-35.6%
-11.9%
-11.2%
-5.4%
-9.0%
-3.2%
-14.7%
Surve y M ax im um
Average
% Diff
$81,225.00
$49,470.00
$49,470.00
$97,702.00
$77,710.00
$55,306.00
$38,048.00
$252,477.00
$50,603.00
$149,158.00
$98,619.00
$141,168.00
$97,164.00
$173,417.00
$54,309.00
$44,611.00
$65,475.00
$36,547.00
$50,622.00
$55,798.00
$75,642.00
$64,125.00
$49,505.00
$56,989.00
-49.0%
-11.9%
-11.9%
7.2%
-12.7%
-0.6%
-98.2%
-14.4%
-33.0%
-17.7%
-68.5%
-97.7%
-22.8%
-24.2%
-26.6%
17.4%
-48.5%
-7.9%
-19.0%
-12.4%
-17.9%
-10.2%
Surve y Avg
Range
52.6%
65.4%
65.4%
54.9%
50.3%
43.9%
60.0%
92.3%
57.8%
119.0%
40.7%
102.7%
42.6%
231.2%
58.5%
79.3%
61.8%
68.6%
84.6%
45.5%
64.0%
63.9%
77.9%
64.6%
-28.9% 73.9%
SUMMARY
One conclusion that can be drawn from the market data analyzed in this chapter is that
there is room for the City to improve its current compensation structure. For the City to
become more competitive in the labor market, a new pay structure should be considered.
Information gained from the market analysis was used with the internal equity analysis to
develop a more competitive compensation and classification system. Discussion of the new
pay structure and additional study recommendations can be found in Chapter 5 of this
report.
Page 4-6
Chapter 5 Recommendations
Utilizing the information from the preceding chapters of this report, Evergreen Solutions
developed recommendations to improve the Citys current classification and compensation
system. The recommendations are discussed in detail in this chapter, and are organized into
three sections: classification, compensation, and administration of the system.
5.1
CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
An organizations classification system establishes how its human resources are employed to
perform its core services. The classification system consists of the titles and descriptions of
the different classifications, or positions, which define how work is organized and assigned. It
is essential that the titles and descriptions of an organizations classifications accurately
depict the work being performed by employees in the classifications in order to ensure equity
within the organization and to enable comparisons with positions at peer organizations. The
purpose of a classification analysis is to identify such issues as incorrect titles, outdated job
descriptions, and inconsistent titles across departments. Recommendations are then made
to remedy the identified concerns based on human resources best practices.
In the analysis of the Citys classification system, Evergreen Solutions collected classification
data through the Job Assessment Tool (JAT) and Management Issues Tool (MIT) processes.
The JATs, which were completed by employees and reviewed by their supervisors, provided
information about the type and level of work being performed for each of the Citys
classifications. The MIT process provided supervisors an opportunity to provide specific
recommendations regarding the pay or classification of positions in their areas. Evergreen
Solutions reviewed and utilized the data provided in the JATs and MITs as a basis for the
classification recommendations below.
FINDING
The City had many classifications titles that accurately described the work being performed
by employees. There were some instances, however, of titles that needed to be adjusted to
better reflect the tasks assigned to the position.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Revise the titles of some City classifications and establish new titles
based on the work being performed by City employees.
Exhibit 5A summarizes Evergreen Solutions recommended changes to the classification
system, which include recommendations for changing 33 classification titles, and creating
two new titles. The foundation for these recommendations was the work performed by
employees in these classifications as described in their JATs, as well as best practices in the
human resources field.
Page 5-1

EXHIBIT 5A
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
CurrentClassTitle
Admin.Manager,PublicWorks
AfterschoolProg.Coord.
AssistantFireChief
BusinessLicense
CaptainofAdministrative
CaptainofCID
CaptainofPatrol
ChathamNarcoticsTeamCorporal
ChathamNarcoticsTeamSergeant
CityDeskReceptionist
ClerkofCouncil/BudgetOfficer
CodeEnforcementOfficerII
CommunityOrientedPolice
CrewLeader
DirectorofPublicWorksShop
EvidenceTech
FinanceAdministrator
FireAdmin.Asst.
FirefighterI
MunicipalCourtClerk
NewTitle
NewTitle
Parks&RecreationTechI
PatrolOfficer
PermittingandInspectionsCoordinator/OfficeManager
PublicWorksTechII
PublicWorksTechIII
RepairTechI
RepairTechII
SupervisorWater/SewerRepair
TechII
TrainingPersonnelOfficerSergeant
UtilityBillingSupervisor
UtilityBillingTechI
UtilityBillingTechIII
ProposedClassTitle
ExecutiveAssistant
ProgramCoordinator
DeputyFireChief
FinanceTechnician
AdministrativeDivisionCommander
Captain
Captain
Corporal
Sergeant
PoliceClerk
BudgetDirector/ClerkofCouncil
CodeEnforcementOfficer,Senior
CommunityRelationsOfficer
Parks&RecreationTechnician,Senior
DirectorofPublicWorks
EvidenceCustodian
AccountingDivisionManager
AdministrativeAssistant
Firefighter
CourtClerk
FireCaptainTrainee
TerminalAgencyClerk
Parks&RecreationTechnician
PoliceOfficer
PermittingandInspectionsCoordinator
PublicWorksTechnician
HeavyEquipmentOperator
WaterOperationsTechnician
WaterOperationsTechnician,Senior
WaterOperationsSupervisor
WaterOperationsForeman
TrainingOfficer
UtilityServicesSupervisor
UtilityServicesTechnician
UtilityServicesTechnician,Senior
Page 5-2

RECOMMENDATION 2: Revise all job descriptions to include updated classification

information provided in the JAT, FLSA status determinations, and review job descriptions
annually for accuracy.
Evergreen Solutions is in the process of updating the Citys current job descriptions based on
data from the JATs. These revised job descriptions will reflect proper FLSA status and be
provided under separate cover. If possible, it is recommended that the job descriptions and
job titles be reviewed annually to properly maintain the classification system in the future. A
yearly performance evaluation process may provide an opportunity to assess the accuracy of
the duties and responsibilities listed in the job descriptions through a discussion between the
employee and his or her supervisors. If it is determined that duties have changed, it may be
necessary to update the description, title, and pay grade assignment, depending on the
significance of the changes.
5.2
COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The compensation analysis consisted of an external market assessment. During this

assessment, the Citys pay ranges for selected benchmark classifications were compared to
average pay ranges offered in the identified market. Overall, the Citys salary ranges were
below market peers at the minimum, midpoint and maximum. Details of the external market
assessment were discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.
FINDING
The Citys salary ranges were behind market for many of the benchmarked classifications
indicating a need for revision to the pay plan structure to remain competitive.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Create a new pay structure for the City that reflects market conditions
and best practices; slot all classifications into the updated pay structure based on external
and internal equity; and transition employees salaries into the structure.
Exhibit 5B shows the new proposed pay plan which has 20 open range pay grades, numbered
101 through 120. The range spreads of the pay grades increase from 60.0 percent for grades
101 through 112 to a maximum of 65.0 percent for grades 113 through 120.
Page 5-3

EXHIBIT 5B
PROPOSED PAY PLAN
Grade
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Minimum
Midpoint
Maximum
$21,100.00
$22,894.00
$24,840.00
$26,951.00
$29,242.00
$31,728.00
$34,425.00
$37,351.00
$40,526.00
$43,971.00
$47,709.00
$51,764.00
$55,646.00
$59,819.00
$64,305.00
$69,128.00
$74,313.00
$79,886.00
$85,877.00
$92,318.00
$27,430.00
$29,762.00
$32,292.00
$35,037.00
$38,015.00
$41,247.00
$44,753.00
$48,557.00
$52,684.00
$57,163.00
$62,022.00
$67,293.00
$73,731.00
$79,260.00
$85,204.00
$91,595.00
$98,465.00
$105,849.00
$113,787.00
$122,322.00
$33,760.00
$36,630.00
$39,744.00
$43,122.00
$46,787.00
$50,765.00
$55,080.00
$59,762.00
$64,842.00
$70,354.00
$76,334.00
$82,822.00
$91,816.00
$98,701.00
$106,103.00
$114,061.00
$122,616.00
$131,812.00
$141,697.00
$152,325.00
Range
Spread
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
60.0%
65.0%
65.0%
65.0%
65.0%
65.0%
65.0%
65.0%
65.0%
After developing the new pay plan, Evergreen Solutions slotted each City classification into
the appropriate pay range in the pay plan. Both the internal and external equity were utilized
when slotting the classifications. Assigning pay grades to classifications requires a balance of
internal equity, desired market position, and recruitment and retention issues all play a role
in that process. Thus market range data shown in Chapter 4 were not the sole criteria for the
proposed pay ranges. Some classifications grade assignments varied from their associated
market range due to the other factors mentioned above. The internal assessment took into
consideration the type of work being performed by each classification. Specifically, a
composite compensatory factor score was assigned to each of the Citys classifications that
quantified each classification for five compensatory factors. The level for each factor was
determined based on responses to the JAT, and an understanding of the work performed. The
resulting recommended pay grades for each of the Citys general classifications are shown in
Exhibit 5C. It should be noted that the recommended title changes are reflected in the exhibit.
Page 5-4

EXHIBIT 5C
PROPOSED PAY GRADES
ProposedClassTitle
PublicWorksTechnician
WaterOperationsTechnician
MeterReader
Parks&RecreationTechnician
PoliceClerk
Parks&RecreationTechnician,Senior
RecordsClerk
TerminalAgencyClerk
UtilityServicesTechnician
WastewaterTreatmentOperatorTrainee
WaterTreatmentPlantOperatorTrainee
AdministrativeAssistant
CourtClerk
EvidenceCustodian
FacilitiesMaintenanceCoordinator
HeavyEquipmentOperator
Mechanic
WaterOperationsTechnician,Senior
BackflowPreventionAssemblyTester
FinanceTechnician
PermittingandInspectionsCoordinator
PoliceOfficer
ProgramCoordinator
PublicWorksForeman
UtilityServicesTechnician,Senior
CodeEnforcementOfficer
CommunityRelationsOfficer
ExecutiveAssistant
Mechanic,Senior
RecreationProgramsCoordinator
SeniorCenterManager
UtilityServicesSupervisor
WastewaterTreatmentOperator
WaterOperationsForeman
CodeEnforcementOfficer,Senior
Detective
Firefighter
Proposed Proposed
Grade
Minimum
Proposed
Midpoint
Proposed
Maximum
102
$22,894.00 $29,762.00 $36,630.00
103
$24,840.00 $32,292.00 $39,744.00
105
$29,242.00 $38,015.00 $46,787.00
106
$31,728.00 $41,247.00 $50,765.00
107
$34,425.00 $44,753.00 $55,080.00
108
$37,351.00 $48,557.00 $59,762.00
109
$40,526.00 $52,684.00 $64,842.00
Page 5-5

EXHIBIT 5C (CONTINUED)
PROPOSED PAY GRADES
ProposedClassTitle
Corporal
FireCaptainTrainee
TrainingOfficer
WaterOperationsSupervisor
AccountingDivisionManager
Sergeant
Lieutenant
AdministrativeDivisionCommander
Captain
FireCaptain
BudgetDirector/ClerkofCouncil
DeputyFireChief
DirectorofBuildingSafety
DirectorofHumanResources
DirectorofInformationTechnology
DirectorofParks&Recreation
DirectorofPublicWorks
DirectorofWaterOperations
DirectorofFinance
FireChief
PoliceChief
DeputyCityManager
CityManager
Proposed Proposed
Grade
Minimum
Proposed
Midpoint
Proposed
Maximum
110
$43,971.00 $57,163.00 $70,354.00
111
$47,709.00 $62,022.00 $76,334.00
112
$51,764.00 $67,293.00 $82,822.00
113
$55,646.00 $73,731.00 $91,816.00
114
$59,819.00 $79,260.00 $98,701.00
116
$69,128.00 $91,595.00
$114,061.00
118
120
$79,886.00
$92,318.00
$131,812.00
$152,325.00
$105,849.00
$122,322.00
In addition to ensuring internal equity and helping to alleviate problems with recruitment and
retention, the proposed pay grade assignments will considerably improve the Citys market
position. Exhibit 5F shows the overall average percent difference from market for the
benchmarked classifications at the time of the study, and displays the same in the event that
the proposed pay structure is implemented.
Page 5-6

EXHIBIT 5F
OVERALL MARKET DIFFERENTIAL COMPARISON
Overall%
Overall%
Overall%
Differenceat Differenceat Differenceat
Maximum
Midpoint
Minimum
CurrentPayGrades
8.4%
10.4%
12.1%
ProposedPayGrades
1.8%
1.0%
1.8%
Comparison
As the exhibit shows, the proposed pay grades significantly improve the overall average
differentials for the Citys benchmarked classifications, bringing the Citys benchmarked
classifications from below market to a market competitive position at the midpoint and the
maximum. While, on average, the proposed pay grades (structure) would not place the City at
market at the minimum, its position would be greatly improved. If the new structure is
implemented, the Citys pay plan, overall, will be competitive with its peers.
After assigning pay grades to classifications, the next step of implementing the compensation
structure is to transition employee salaries into the new pay plan. This is done by establishing
a method of calculating salaries in the new pay grades and determining whether an
adjustment is necessary to individual employee salaries to bring them to their calculated
salary. Evergreen Solutions utilized two methods in calculating employee salaries, with the
possibility of implementing them individually or together.
Option 1: Bring Employee Salaries to New Minimums
In this method, employees current salaries were compared to the minimum of their proposed
pay grades. If an employees current salary was below his or her grade minimum, an
adjustment was proposed to raise the individuals salary to the minimum. If the employees
current salary was already above his or her grade minimum, no adjustment was
recommended.
Utilizing this approach, salary adjustments are recommended for 37 City employees, with an
approximate annualized cost of $67,314. The approximate cost is for salary adjustments only
and does not include associated cost for employee benefits.
Option 2: Current Range Penetration, Capped at Midpoint
If this option is implemented, and if an employee's salary is already above the minimum of
their classification's proposed pay range, it is adjusted to the same relative position in the
proposed pay structure. For example, if an employee's salary is 40 percent of the way through
their current pay range, the salary will be adjusted to the 40 percent mark of the proposed
range. However, any salary adjustment would be capped at the midpoint of the proposed
salary range. Utilizing this approach, salary adjustments are recommended for 87 City
employees, with an approximate annualized cost of $263,693. This includes the bring
Page 5-7

employee salaries to minimum cost, as illustrated above, and is the approximate cost for
salary adjustments only and does not include associated costs for employee benefits.
5.3
SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION
Any organizations compensation and classification system will need periodic maintenance.
The recommendations provided to improve the competiveness of the classification and
compensation structure were developed based on conditions at the time the data were
collected. Without proper upkeep, the potential for recruitment and retention issues may
increase as the compensation and classification system becomes dated and less competitive.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Conduct small-scale salary surveys as needed to assess the market
competitiveness of hard-to-fill classifications and/or classifications with retention issues, and
make adjustments to pay grade assignments if necessary, and offer recruitment and/or
retention incentives for certain classifications, if necessary.
While it is unlikely that the pay plan as a whole will need to be adjusted for several years, a
small number of classifications pay grades may need to be reassigned more frequently. If
one or more classifications are exhibiting high turnover or are having difficulty with
recruitment, the City should collect salary range data from peer organizations to determine
whether an adjustment is needed for the pay grade of the classification(s). If increasing a
classifications pay grade based on market data does not help with the recruitment and/or
retention issues, it may be necessary for the City to offer incentives to attract employees to
the position and/or to encourage employees to remain in the position.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study
every three to five years.
Small-scale salary surveys can improve the market position of specific classifications, but it is
recommended that a full classification and compensation study be conducted every three to
five years to preserve both internal and external equity for the City. Changes to classification
and compensation do occur, and while the increments of change may seem minor, they can
compound over time. A failure to react to these changes quickly has the potential to place the
City in a poor position for recruiting and retaining quality employees.
While the previous two recommendations are intended to maintain the competitiveness over
time of particular classifications and the classification and compensation structure as a
whole, it is also necessary to establish procedures for determining equitable pay practices for
individual employees.
RECOMMENDATION 6: Establish policies for moving employee salaries through the pay plan,
including procedures for determining salaries of newly hired employees and employees who
have been promoted, demoted, or transferred to a different classification or department.
Page 5-8

The method of moving salaries through the pay plan and setting new salaries for new hires,
promotions, demotions, and transfers depends largely on an organizations compensation
philosophy. However, it is important for the City to have established guidelines for each of
these situations, and to ensure that they are followed consistently for all employees. Common
practices for progressing and establishing employee salaries are outlined below.
Salary Progression
There are several common methods for salary progression including cost of living adjustments
(COLA), time based, and performance based merit pay. Organizations sometimes utilize
multiple methods together to reward employees. For example, merit pay is often used in
tandem with a COLA, so that a minimum increase tied to a measure of inflation is awarded to
all employees and an additional percentage increase is earned by employees with positive
evaluations. Employers in the private sector, and more recently, employers in the public sector
have been moving away from COLA and time based salary progression, moving more towards
performance based systems. However, in order for a merit pay system to work effectively, a
fair, organization-wide performance evaluation system must be in place, and supervisors and
management should receive proper training to ensure equitable administration of the
process.
New Hires
A new employees starting salary largely depends on the amount of education and experience
the employee possesses beyond the minimum requirements for the job. Typically, an
employee holding only the minimum education and experience requirements for a
classification is hired at or near the classifications pay grade minimum. An upper limit to the
percentage above minimum that can be offered to a new employee with only the minimum
requirements should be established, where approval is needed to offer a starting salary that
is a higher percentage above minimum. Another threshold should be established as the
maximum starting salary possible without approval for new employees with considerable
experience and/or education above the requirements for the position. It is common for the
midpoint to be used as the maximum starting salary. All starting salaries should take into
consideration internal equity, meaning that determining a new hire salary should be done with
consideration of existing employee salaries with similar levels of education and experience in
the classification.
Promotions
When an employee is promoted to a new classification, it is important to have guidelines for
calculating the employees new salary that rewards the employee for his or her new
responsibilities, moving the salary into the new pay grade, and ensuring internal equity in the
new classification. It is common for organizations to establish a minimum percentage salary
increase that depends on the increase in pay grade as a result of the promotion. For example,
if an employee moves into the next pay grade, he or she may receive a minimum of a 3 to 5
percent increase, and if the individual moves up two pay grades he or she may experience an
increase closer to 6 to 10 percent. Regardless of the minimum percent increase, the
employees new salary should be within the new pay grades range, and internal equity of
salaries within the classification should be preserved.
Page 5-9

Transfers
An employee transfer occurs when an employee is reassigned to a classification at the same
pay grade as his or her current classification or when an employees classification stays the
same, but his or her department changes. In either of these cases, it is likely that no
adjustment is necessary to the employees salary. The only situation in which a salary
adjustment would be needed for a transferred employee would be if his or her current salary
is not aligned with the salaries of employees in the new classification or department. If that
occurs, it may be necessary to adjust the salary of the employee or the incumbents of the
classification to ensure salary equity within the new classification.
5.4
SUMMARY
The recommendations in this chapter establish a competitive pay plan, externally and
internally equitable classification titles and pay grade assignments, and system
administration practices that will provide the City with a responsive compensation and
classification system for years to come. While the upkeep of this recommended system will
require work, the City will find that having a competitive compensation and classification
system that encourages strong recruitment and employee retention is well worth this
commitment.
Page 5-10

Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comprehensive Classification and

Compensation Study for the

June 10, 2015

EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1-1

SUMMARY OF EMPLOYEE OUTREACH ......................................................................... 2-1

ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS ................................................................... 3-1

Pay Plan Analysis ................................................................................................ 3-1

MARKET SURVEY RESULTS.......................................................................................... 4-1

General Feedback ............................................................................................... 2-1

Methodology ........................................................................................................ 4-1

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 5-1

Classification Recommendations ...................................................................... 5-1

EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC

Evergreen Solutions conducted a Comprehensive Classification and Compensation study for

developing recommendations for improvements to classification titles and the creation

developing a compensation structure and slotting classifications into that structure

developing an implementation strategy and providing cost estimates for

updating job descriptions that reflect recommended classification changes and

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study

Evergreen Solutions used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to develop

conducting a study kick-off meeting;

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC

Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 2Summary of Employee Outreach

Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study

Several employees expressed concern regarding the lack of advancement

Many employees expressed their displeasure with the current performance

The retirement system was

included as a topic for change. Many employees

Many employees wanted additional pay for advanced education, additional

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 2Summary of Employee Outreach

Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study

Many employees believed classification titles and job descriptions need to be

City of Augusta, GA;

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 2Summary of Employee Outreach

Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC

Chapter 3 Assessment of Current

Pay Plan Analysis

PAY PLAN ANALYSIS

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions

Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions

Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study

GRADE PLACEMENT ANALYSIS

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions

Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study

SALARY QUARTILE AND TENURE ANALYSIS

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions

Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study

Evergreen Solutions, LLC