class and comp study gloucester county, virginia

The Classification and Compensation Study for Gloucester County, VA, Final

Report, presented by Evergreen Solutions, LLC, contained herein, corrects

misspellings, and updates exhibits and recommendations contained in Chapter

5 of the Draft Report.

Notable changes include:

Exhibit 5B, General Employee Pay Scale

Revised to reflect a true range spread of 60% and range progression of 6%

Exhibit 5C, Sheriff Pay Plan

Revised to align with unique market differentials allowing the addition of

a career ladder for corrections and civil process deputies

Exhibit 5E, Classification Title Changes

Revised to remove unnecessary title changes and add career ladder titles

for corrections and civil process deputies

Exhibit 5F, Grade Order Sheet (Schematic List of Titles)

Revised to reflect changes made to other exhibits

Classification and Compensation Study for Gloucester County, VA

FINAL REPORT

February 18, 2013

Classification and Compensation Study for Gloucester County

FINAL REPORT

Submitted by:

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

2852 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32308

February 18, 2013

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-1

INTRODUCTION

In September 2012, Evergreen Solutions was retained by Gloucester County, VA (County) to conduct a Classification and Compensation Study of all positions in the organization. A Classification and Compensation Study is primarily designed to focus on internal and external equity of both the structure by which employees are compensated as well as the way positions relate and compare to one another across the organization. Internal equity relates to the fairness of an organization�s compensation practices among its current employees. Specifically, by reviewing the skills, capabilities, and duties of each position, it can be determined whether similar positions are being compensated in a similar manner within the organization. The Classification component of this study is aimed at resolving any inconsistencies related to job requirements and providing some clarity to the plan in place.

External equity deals with the differences between what an organization�s classifications are valued and what compensation is available in the market place for the same skills, capabilities, and duties. As part of the study, Evergreen Solutions, LLC was tasked with:

Collecting and reviewing current environmental data present at the County.

Conducting a market salary and providing feedback to the County regarding current market competitiveness.

Conducting a classification analysis to assess internal equity and the efficiency of the current classification plan.

Developing strategic positioning recommendations using market data and best practices.

Developing a compensation structure and implementation cost plan for the County.

Developing and submitting draft and final reports summarizing findings and recommendations.

E V E R G R E E N S O L U T I O N S , L L C

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 1 - Introduction Classification and Compensation Study for Gloucester County


1.1 STUDY METHODOLOGY

Evergreen Solutions combines qualitative as well as quantitative data analysis to produce an equitable solution in order to maximize the fairness and competitiveness of an organization�s compensation structure and practices. Project activities included:

conducting a project kick-off meeting; conducting orientation sessions with employees; facilitating employee focus group sessions; conducting a salary survey; developing recommendations for compensation management; developing detailed implementation plans; and creating draft and final reports.

Kickoff Meeting

The kickoff meeting provides an opportunity to discuss the history of the organization, finalize the work plan, and begin the data collection process. Data collection of relevant background material (including existing pay plans, organization charts, policies, procedures, training materials, job descriptions, and other pertinent material) is part of this process.

Orientation Sessions

The orientation sessions are designed to brief employees and supervisors on the purpose and major processes of the study. This process is intended to address any questions and resolve any misconceptions about the study and relevant tasks. In addition, employees are asked about their experience with the organization and to identify any concerns they have about compensation. This information provides some basic perceptional background as well as a starting point for the research process.

Salary Survey

The external market is defined as identified peers that have similar characteristics, demographics, and service offerings as the target organization and benchmark positions are identified from each area and level of the organization and typically include a large cross-section of positions at the County. Once the target and benchmark information is finalized, a survey tool is created to solicit salary information from each of the peer organizations. When the results are received, the data are analyzed, cleaned, and entered to provide aggregate findings.

Solution Creation - Pay Schedule and Transition Costing

Solution creation follows agreement on the structure of the compensation system. During this phase, desired range spreads (distance from minimum to maximum) and midpoint progressions (distance from the midpoint of one pay grade to the next) are established. Once the structure is created, jobs can be slotted into the proposed pay grade structure using market data and Client Project Manager (CPM) feedback.

Chapter 1 - Introduction Classification and Compensation Study for Gloucester County


As part of the study, the organization identifies its desired market position. Subsequently, the pay plan and job slotting within the system can be adjusted to account for this desired position in the market.

The final step, in the creation of the solution, is to identify the costs associated with each step of the analysis. The data from the job slotting are applied to the individual incumbents in the organization. This allows the County to view the total costs associated with the structural changes. Information is then provided to the County on various ways to implement the proposed structure and possible adjustments that can be made to address any remaining issues.

1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report includes the following chapters:

Chapter 2 � Summary of Employee Outreach Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Chapter 4 - Market Survey Summary Chapter 5 � Solution


EMPLOYEE OUTREACH

The Evergreen Solutions team conducted a series of employee focus groups and interviews over the course of three days in September 2012. Questions were designed to solicit input on a number of topics related to the compensation and classification study. Findings from focus groups and interviews are separated by category below.

General Feedback

Employees commonly regard the County as a positive place to work, however in recent years the fiscal conditions and toughening job market have pushed morale slightly lower. Employees did have several positive comments regarding working for the County including the following:

Employees regularly cited the benefits package as one of the primary reasons for both joining the County as well as remaining employed there.

Many employees appreciate the job security offered by the County to its employees.

Most departments were noted for being cooperative with one another and willing to share information and ideas.

Most employees believe the County has a great sense of community, and the quality of co-workers was regularly noted as one of the strongest parts of the organization.

The constriction of the economy has caused people to appreciate their jobs significantly.

Benefits Observations

A strong majority of employees were pleased with the benefits package offered by the County to its employees. While employees admitted that benefits drew them to the County, they do see some opportunities for improvement in this area.

General comments were made about the increasing cost and perceived decline in quality of the health plan coverage.


Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee Outreach

Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee Outreach Classification and Compensation Study for Gloucester County


Employees largely wish that the rising cost of benefits would factor into their ability to receive some kind of cost-of-living-based salary increase. Employees believe recent salary increases have also been met with an increase in insurance costs, thus negating much, if not all, of the salary increase received.

Some employees expressed a concern that benefits policies (such as vacation and sick time) are not implemented consistently across departments within the County.

Compensation Issues

County staff offered several comments related to compensation, these included:

There is a sense that additional duties have been added to individuals and that compensation has not been addressed in recognition of these additional duties.

Some employees feel they are paid fairly when compared to internal peers in other departments, but not competitively when one considers the entire external market.

Pay compression, or the perception of compression was noted in several focus groups. The compression described relates mostly to longer-tenured employees being paid approximately the same wage as a new employee. To be fair, while this may be the case, this situation is common in public sector environments where pay has been held constant or frozen for a period of time.

Classification Issues

Many of the directors, supervisors, and employees provided the Evergreen Solutions team with issues specific to individual classifications which were analyzed during the JAT process. More general issues included:

A few individuals said that some jobs have out-grown their initial design and are performing duties far outside the original intent of the position.

There is some concern with under staffing, but nothing systematic or universal.

Some employees feel that the County should narrow the classifications down. Some are so broad that they should be divided into multiple jobs.

Some employees were concerned that employees with similar responsibilities are given different classification titles and compensated differently.

Market Peers

Focus group and interview participants were asked to name those organizations that they considered to be market peers. These are organizations that the focus group and interview participants felt are the biggest competitors to the County in terms of compensation,

Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee Outreach Classification and Compensation Study for Gloucester County


benefits, and other intrinsic qualities such as working conditions. Their responses are listed below:

James City County City of Williamsburg York County City of Newport News New Kent County Mathews County City of Fairfax Fairfax County College of William & Mary Chesterfield County Henrico County City of Richmond City of Poquoson King William County

SUMMARY

In general, employees felt that the County is a positive place to work and enjoy their co-workers along with the current work environment. Many employees agreed that the economy has put a strain on the County and are appreciative of their jobs with the County. It should be noted that employees gave constructive feedback during focus groups, but did not express overwhelming dissatisfaction with the status quo. This should be taken as a positive sign that employees are eager to see the County improve and are willing to contribute advice to help facilitate the process. The feedback provided by employees during this portion of the study will be vital to further analysis and the recommendations of this study.


The purpose of this statistical evaluation is to provide an overall assessment of the structure of the compensation plan in place within Gloucester County (County) and a brief analysis of the employee demographics within the organization. Data included here reflect the demographics in place at present and should be considered as a snapshot in time. Since there is a standardized salary structure in place, this analysis will provide a consistent and reliable picture of the present environment. The data contained within this report will not be sufficient for recommendations on its own, but instead provide the basis and initial framework for more detailed analysis and recommendations through the course of this study. By reviewing information about the organization�s compensation structure, philosophies, and employee demographics, Evergreen Solutions can gain a better understanding of the structures and methods in place that will help identify issues for both further review and potential revision.

Pay Plan Analysis

The County currently has one pay structure which places employees into pay grades by classification. The pay plan is organized in an open-range configuration where there is an established minimum and maximum salary whereby employees then progress through the ranges based on merit increases through the course of a career. The pay plan consists of 27 grades, of which 25 have at least one incumbent. Range spreads are 50 percent for all of the grades.

The County�s pay plan follows a common structure which has the foundation to serve the County well. An organized pay structure is useful because it gives employees something to work towards and also helps clear confusion about future salary increases or equity among different pay grades. Additionally, an established pay structure allows the organization to address problems regarding compression within job classifications and compression among different grades with a sense of consistency and thoroughness.

A pay structure that considers the external market as well as the need for internal equity among classifications will benefit the organization in a number of ways. Also, a competitive pay structure will allow the County to be an effective recruiter in the marketplace, contribute to a reduction in employee turnover, set the precedent to offer comparable base salaries for positions, and give employees ample room for upward growth and motivation for professional development, all of which the present compensation plan has potential to do.

Exhibit 3A on the following pages illustrates the County�s present pay plan. Grades 14 and 12 possess the highest number of employees, with 60 and 37 respectively. There are multiple pay grades with between 10 and 22 employees and only three with one employee.


Chapter 3 – Assessment of Current Conditions

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classification and Compensation Study for Gloucester County


Exhibit 3A County Employee Pay Plan

Source: Evergreen Solutions, September 2012

Grade Placement Analysis In assessing the overall effectiveness of an organization�s pay plan and policies, it is often helpful to analyze a snapshot in time of where employee salaries stand in comparison to the range in which they are placed. An organization with no career ladder, for example, which limits the methods by which employees are able to progress through the ranges, would be expected to reveal a large clustering of employees at or near the minimum of their pay grades. An organization with severely uncompetitive range values may have employees clustered near the top of their ranges because the organization is required to pay them the most possible in order to limit turnover. These situations as well as others may reveal

Grade Minimum Midpoint MaximumRangeSpread

Employees

2 17,106$ 21,383$ 25,659$ 50% 193 18,133$ 22,667$ 27,200$ 50% 114 19,221$ 24,027$ 28,832$ 50% 15 20,373$ 25,467$ 30,560$ 50% 176 21,597$ 26,997$ 32,396$ 50% 77 22,893$ 28,617$ 34,340$ 50% 78 24,266$ 30,333$ 36,399$ 50% 139 25,721$ 32,152$ 38,582$ 50% 1110 27,266$ 34,083$ 40,899$ 50% 2211 28,902$ 36,128$ 43,353$ 50% 2212 30,636$ 38,295$ 45,954$ 50% 3713 32,474$ 40,593$ 48,711$ 50% 1614 34,422$ 43,028$ 51,633$ 50% 6015 36,487$ 45,609$ 54,731$ 50% 1416 38,677$ 48,347$ 58,016$ 50% 1217 40,997$ 51,247$ 61,496$ 50% 1318 43,457$ 54,322$ 65,186$ 50% 1019 46,064$ 57,580$ 69,096$ 50% 1820 48,829$ 61,037$ 73,244$ 50% 1321 51,579$ 64,474$ 77,369$ 50% 922 54,864$ 68,580$ 82,296$ 50% 823 58,156$ 72,695$ 87,234$ 50%24 61,645$ 77,057$ 92,468$ 50% 125 65,343$ 81,679$ 98,015$ 50% 626 69,263$ 86,579$ 103,895$ 50% 427 73,420$ 91,775$ 110,130$ 50%28 77,826$ 97,283$ 116,739$ 50% 1



themselves through the analysis of grade placement data and for that reason it is analyzed in this segment of the report.

Grade midpoint is often considered the most accepted market average. Therefore, it is important to examine the percentages of employees at the County who fall above and below the calculated midpoint of their respective pay grade. In an effort to refine the results, only full time employees with known pay grades have been included in this analysis. The following exhibits detail this information for each pay grade.

Exhibit 3B on the following page shows that across all employees in the County�s pay plan, 36 employees (or 10.3 percent) are at the minimum of their respective pay grade, while 4 employees (or 1.1 percent) are at the maximum of their respective pay grade. Being at the grade minimum is typically a sign of a newer employee who has not had the opportunity or experience necessary to progress from that entry level of compensation, or that an employee has just been promoted into a new pay grade. Conversely, being at the grade maximum is typically a sign of an established employee who has had the opportunity or experience necessary to progress to the top of compensation, or that an employee may be nearing an opportunity of promotion and which would result in a reclassification into a new pay grade. This analysis shows that there are a relatively small number of employees clustering at the minimum or maximum of each pay grade.

Exhibit 3C on page 3-5 provides the breakdown of employees above and below midpoint by pay grade. The exhibit shows that 299 employees (84.9 percent) are below the midpoint of their respective pay grades, while 53 (15.1 percent) lie above the midpoint of their respective pay grade. This imbalance of percent of employees above and below midpoint indicates that the County has many more employees below the midpoint of their pay grade than above midpoint. Too many employees above or below midpoint can result in compression within a pay grade. To further explore this analysis, an examination of the quartiles of each pay range can be completed



Exhibit 3B Employees at Minimum and Maximum by Pay Grade


Grade Emps # at Min % at Min # at Max % at Max2 19 17 89.5% 0 0.0%3 11 0 0.0% 1 9.1%4 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0%5 17 11 64.7% 0 0.0%6 7 0 0.0% 0 0.0%7 7 0 0.0% 0 0.0%8 13 0 0.0% 0 0.0%9 11 1 9.1% 0 0.0%10 22 1 4.5% 0 0.0%11 22 2 9.1% 0 0.0%12 37 0 0.0% 1 2.7%13 16 3 18.8% 0 0.0%14 60 0 0.0% 2 3.3%15 14 0 0.0% 0 0.0%16 12 0 0.0% 0 0.0%17 13 0 0.0% 0 0.0%18 10 0 0.0% 0 0.0%19 18 1 5.6% 0 0.0%20 13 0 0.0% 0 0.0%21 9 0 0.0% 0 0.0%22 7 0 0.0% 0 0.0%24 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0%25 6 0 0.0% 0 0.0%26 4 0 0.0% 0 0.0%28 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 351 36 10.3% 4 1.1%



Exhibit 3C County Employees Above and Below Midpoint by Pay Grade


Quartile Analysis

To determine where employee salaries fall within the pay structure, each pay grade was divided into four equal quartiles, and employees were assigned a quartile based on where their salary fell. Exhibit 3D on the following page illustrates the number of employees in each pay grade and the number of employees in each quartile. Exhibit 3E also analyzes the number of employees in each pay grade and the number of employees in each quartile, but presents the figures as a percentage of the total number of employees. Exhibit 3F presents the percentage of employees in each quartile within each pay grade in a graphical form.

Grade Employees # <Mid % <Mid # >Mid % >Mid2 19 19 100.0% 0 0.0%3 11 10 90.9% 1 9.1%4 1 1 100.0% 0 0.0%5 17 17 100.0% 0 0.0%6 7 5 71.4% 2 28.6%7 7 7 100.0% 0 0.0%8 13 12 92.3% 1 7.7%9 11 10 90.9% 1 9.1%10 22 18 81.8% 4 18.2%11 22 19 86.4% 3 13.6%12 37 30 81.1% 7 18.9%13 16 14 87.5% 2 12.5%14 60 51 85.0% 9 15.0%15 14 10 71.4% 4 28.6%16 12 12 100.0% 0 0.0%17 13 12 92.3% 1 7.7%18 10 10 100.0% 0 0.0%19 18 17 94.4% 1 5.6%20 13 9 69.2% 4 30.8%21 9 7 77.8% 2 22.2%22 8 6 75.0% 2 25.0%24 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0%25 6 2 33.3% 4 66.7%26 4 1 25.0% 3 75.0%28 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0%

Total 352 299 84.9% 53 15.1%



Exhibit 3D County Quartile Analysis (Count of Employees)


GRADE Total 1ST QUARTILE 2NDQUARTILE 3RDQUARTILE 4THQUARTILE2 19 19 0 0 03 11 10 0 0 14 1 1 0 0 05 17 14 3 0 06 7 3 2 2 07 7 6 1 0 08 13 10 2 0 19 11 8 2 1 010 22 12 6 3 111 22 12 7 2 112 37 17 13 4 313 16 11 3 1 114 60 36 15 6 315 14 9 1 1 316 12 10 2 0 017 13 9 3 1 018 10 9 1 0 019 18 13 4 1 020 13 1 8 4 021 9 6 1 2 022 8 0 6 2 024 1 0 0 1 025 6 0 2 4 026 4 0 1 3 028 1 0 0 0 1

352 216 83 38 15



Exhibit 3E County Quartile Analysis (Percentage of Employees)


GRADE Total 1ST QUARTILE 2NDQUARTILE 3RD QUARTILE 4THQUARTILE2 19 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%3 11 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%4 1 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%5 17 4.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%6 7 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0%7 7 1.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%8 13 2.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3%9 11 2.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0%10 22 3.4% 1.7% 0.9% 0.3%11 22 3.4% 2.0% 0.6% 0.3%12 37 4.8% 3.7% 1.1% 0.9%13 16 3.1% 0.9% 0.3% 0.3%14 60 10.2% 4.3% 1.7% 0.9%15 14 2.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.9%16 12 2.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%17 13 2.6% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0%18 10 2.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%19 18 3.7% 1.1% 0.3% 0.0%20 13 0.3% 2.3% 1.1% 0.0%21 9 1.7% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0%22 8 0.0% 1.7% 0.6% 0.0%24 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%25 6 0.0% 0.6% 1.1% 0.0%26 4 0.0% 0.3% 0.9% 0.0%28 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%

352 61.4% 23.6% 10.8% 4.3%



Exhibit 3F County Quartile Analysis (Percentage of Employees within Pay Grade)


This analytical tool is helpful in determining whether employee salaries are adequately disbursed throughout the pay range and also helps to identify cases in which pay grade incumbents dominate the lower or upper ranges of the grade. The latter could indicate that pay ranges are too low to hire employees in, at, or near the minimum, that employees are moving too quickly through the pay range, or that the pay grade includes a large number of employees with significant tenure.

The observation made in the Grade Placement Analysis that a majority of employees are below midpoint in their respective pay grade is further exemplified in the Quartile Analysis. It can be seen that a majority of all employees fall in the first quartile of their pay grade. This may indicate shorter tenure of employees, or that the County�s pay ranges are competitive so employees have been hired near the minimum.

As can be seen in the graph in Exhibit 3F, there are a total of 17 pay grades (63.0 percent of all pay grades) in which the majority of employees are in the first quartile of the pay grade range. There are four pay grades (14.8 percent of all pay grades) in which the majority of employees are in the third or fourth quartile of the pay grade range; three of these grades are occupied by a single incumbent.

0.00%

25.00%

50.00%

75.00%

100.00%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 28

Pay Grade

1ST QUARTILE 2ND QUARTILE 3RD QUARTILE 4TH QUARTILE



Employee Demographics

As of September 2012, the County employed 365 individuals, all of which were included in this analysis. The following analyses are intended to provide basic information as to how the employees are distributed among departments, as well as data on tenure with the organization.

The County�s employees are spread among 38 departments. Exhibit 3G on the following page depicts the number of classifications present in each department, along with the number and overall percentage of total employees by department. As Exhibit 3G illustrates, the largest department in the County is the Sheriff, with 58 employees, representing 15.8 percent of the County�s total workforce. The second largest department is Social Services, which consists of 33 employees, or 9.0 percent of the total workforce. There are multiple departments in the County, including Tourism, Cable Services, Clean Community, Circuit Court Judge, and Cooperative Extension Service which only contain 1 employee (0.3 percent of the workforce, respectively).



Exhibit 3G County Employees by Department


Department Emps Classes % of TotalANIMAL CONTROL 5 4 1.4%BEAVERDAMPARK 10 4 2.7%BUILDINGS &GROUNDS 30 13 8.2%CABLE SERVICES 1 1 0.3%CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE 1 1 0.3%CLEAN COMMUNITY 1 1 0.3%CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT 7 6 1.9%CODES COMPLIANCE 12 8 3.3%COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE 8 7 2.2%COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY 8 7 2.2%COMMUNITY EDUCATION 10 4 2.7%COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE 1 1 0.3%CORRECTIONS/JAIL 35 8 9.6%COUNTY ADMINISTRATION 4 4 1.1%COUNTY ATTORNEY 2 2 0.5%DEPTOF INFO TECH 8 8 2.2%E 911 SYSTEM 5 3 1.4%ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2 2 0.5%EMERGENCY SERVICES 2 2 0.5%FINANCE 5 4 1.4%GIS 4 2 1.1%GLOUCESTER POINT BEACH 3 1 0.8%HISTORICAL COMMITTEE 2 2 0.5%HUMAN RESOURCES 4 4 1.1%LIBRARY 20 6 5.5%PARKS &RECREATION 20 11 5.5%PLANNING 4 4 1.1%PROBATION 7 3 1.9%PUBLIC WORKS 4 3 1.1%PURCHASING 3 3 0.8%REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENT 4 4 1.1%REGISTRAR/BOARD OF ELECTIONS 3 3 0.8%SHERIFF 58 23 15.9%SOCIAL SERVICES 33 18 9.0%TOURISM 1 1 0.3%TREASURER 9 6 2.5%UTILITIES 27 18 7.4%VICTIM/WITNESS PROGRAM 2 2 0.5%Total 365 204 100.0%



Evaluating average employee tenure is another valuable tool by which the workforce can be demographically analyzed. Many things can be learned by assessing the tenure of employees in an organization including understanding the relative age and experience of the workforce at the County. This information in turn can help in making important decisions about handling compression within the pay structure and planning for succession within positions.

Exhibit 3H shows average employee tenure by pay grade. For this analysis, all employees with known hire dates were included. This data shows that average tenure across the County is 8.8 years. This is significantly higher than the national average, which according to recent statistics from the Department of Labor, is slightly more than seven years for employees in the public sector.

Exhibit 3H � County Employee Tenure by Pay Grade


Grade Count Avg Tenure2 19 4.03 11 5.24 1 1.45 17 5.76 7 5.17 7 4.88 13 6.99 11 7.210 22 9.311 22 10.712 37 10.413 16 6.614 60 8.415 14 9.416 12 7.617 13 7.818 10 9.419 18 10.420 13 11.021 9 12.622 8 14.924 1 0.225 6 18.926 4 15.928 1 36.4

8.8Overall Average



Some pay grades with the most significant average tenure include grades 28, 25 and 22, where average tenure is 36.4, 18.9, and 14.9 years in each grade, respectively. Lower than average tenure is also important to evaluate because it can identify positions with significant turnover or retention issues. The pay grades with the lowest tenure are 24, 4 and 2 with an average tenure of 0.2, 1.4, and 4.0 years, respectively. There is only one employee, in pay grade 24 and was recently acquired by the County.

Overall, the County of Gloucester has a structurally sound compensation plan. When tenure analysis, quartile comparisons and midpoint identification is complete it becomes clear that there is room for improvement. With further analysis based on market analysis and employee feedback, recommendations can be made to better equip the County to become a more competitive employment force in their labor market.


INTRODUCTION

The analysis of directly collected market data provides the most direct method of determining the relative position of an organization in the market place. This type of analysis is designed to assess market comparisons of average market value and range characteristics. As a result, market data can be used to evaluate overall structure, such as ranges; summarize overall market competitiveness; and capture the current highs and lows of the pay plan at a fixed point in time. Market data as it is gathered under this methodology is not an ideal tool for comparing individual salaries. Rather its intent is to provide analysis of overall market competiveness of an organization�s salary structure.

Given the sampling approach and market characteristics, a market comparison typically is not the sole determiner of recommended pay levels by classification nor does it allow for specific, quantifiable salary recommendations for individuals. Market analysis does not translate well at the individual level because individual pay is determined through a multitude of factors including geographical job market, performance, prior experience, education, and, in some cases, an individual�s negotiation skills during the hiring process and the demand for a specific skill set.

Prior to presenting the analysis, it should be noted that market analysis is best thought of as a snapshot of current market conditions. In other words, market conditions change, and in some cases change quickly. So while market surveys are useful for making updates to a salary structure, they must be done at regular intervals if the organization wishes to stay current with the marketplace. Market data are most useful in making adjustments to overall pay plans and making job classification placements within the overall pay structure.

Evergreen Solutions conducted a comprehensive market salary survey for Gloucester County (County) beginning in November 2012. A representative cross-sectional group of 61 job classifications were selected for the survey and approved by the County. A total of 25 market peers were selected. When seeking to compare the County to its peers, a number of factors were taken into account, such as geographic location and relative population size. The peers included in this survey were:

Accomack County Caroline County Chesterfield County Fairfax County

Hanover County Henrico County Isle of Wight County James City County

King George County King William County Lancaster County Mathews County


Chapter 4 - Market Summary

Chapter 4 - Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Gloucester County


Middlesex County New Kent County Prince GeorgeCounty

York County

City of Newport News City of Hampton City of Poquoson City of Fairfax

City of Suffolk City of Williamsburg Christopher Newport University

Gloucester County Public Schools

Commonwealth of Virginia

Market data was submitted by 17 of the 25 desired target organizations, equating to 68.0 percent response rate. After conducting the analysis, peer data from the City of Fairfax, Fairfax County, and King George County were removed due to the dramatically higher cost of living in these areas.

4.1 SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS

This section and corresponding analyses individually compares the County�s salary structure to collected public sector market data. Exhibit 4A displays these data for the identified benchmark classifications in a summary format. It should be noted that for comparison purposes, survey data that reflects market position within 10 percent of market average is commonly viewed as competitive. Changes to pay grades typically focus on those classifications which fall more than 10 percent below market average. Similarly, though less concrete, market differentials too extreme indicate possibly poor matches among the surveyed market. Some classifications in the County analysis are in this category, particularly those in the 30 percent or greater differential range.

Market Minimums

Exhibit 4A depicts the results of the salary survey in aggregate for the market minimums, midpoints, and maximums. It also displays the salary differentials between the County and the average of the targets surveyed. It is important to examine the market minimum in order to determine the effective starting wage for a particular classification and the associated skills and qualifications. It also reflects the County�s ability to recruit talented employees who might be entering the workforce at or near the bottom of a particular pay range. Without competitive minimums, more qualified or higher quality applicants will tend to gravitate to the higher paying employers. Overall, from assessing the County�s pay grade minimums, we observe the following:

The County is approximately 8.83 percent below market at the minimum of the range.

This average market position is a combination of benchmarks which were above market and some which were below market. Twenty-four of the 61 benchmarks are greater than 10 percent below market, which represents 39.34 percent of the surveyed classifications.



The following eight classifications are below market by 20 percent or more on average at the minimum:

o Director of Library Services (-41.58%); o Deputy Treasurer I (-34.85%); o Assistant Commonwealth Attorney I (-23.84%); o Deputy I � Circuit Court (-21.90%); o Building Official (-21.76%); o Recreation Aide (-21.74%); o Director of Planning (-20.01%); and o Human Resource Specialist (-20.00%).

None of the 61 benchmarks are greater than 10 percent above market.

The following eight classifications are above market on average at the minimum:

o Probation & Pretrial Director (8.17%); o Applications & Web Developer/Analyst (5.13%); o Deputy I � Law Enforcement (3.90%); o Real Estate Technician III (3.42%); o Communications Supervisor (1.46%); o Dispatcher (1.33%); o Lieutenant � Law Enforcement (0.17%); and o Public Works Engineer (0.17%).

Market Midpoints The midpoint of the range is the level at which, typically, the most statistically accurate representation of the market value of a position can be measured. When examining the overall competitive position of a specific classification, many organizations will look solely at the midpoint in ascertaining a specific �market value.� While this is a practical method for quickly evaluating a classification in relation to a group of peers, it is not the best method for developing a new or revised compensation structure for an entire organization.

Exhibit 4A also depicts salary comparison data at the range midpoints for both the County and its survey peers. At the market midpoint, the benchmark positions ranged from a low of 49.63 percent below market for the Director of Library Services classification to a high of 3.84 percent above market for the Real Estate Technician III classification. As was previously noted, in some cases, extreme differential as in the case of the Director of Library Services can be the result of poor market data. For this benchmark in particular, there were only five peer organizations with a similar position.

Based on the data gathered at the market midpoint of the salary range, the following can be determined:

The County, overall, is 13.63 percent below market on average at the midpoint across all surveyed classifications.



Of the 61 County positions in the survey, 38 classifications are below market by more than 10 percent at the midpoint, which represents 62.30 percent of all benchmarks.

The following ten classifications were greater than 20 percent below market on average at the midpoint:

o Director of Library Services (-49.63%); o Deputy Treasurer I (-41.31%); o Assistant Commonwealth Attorney I (-32.21%); o Building Official (-27.05%); o Human Resource Specialist (-26.82%); o Recreation Aide (-26.82%); o Deputy I � Circuit Court (-26.77%); o Director of Planning (-25.14%); o Correctional Health Assistant (-21.22%); and o Tourism Coordinator (-20.69%).

Three benchmarks were found to be above market, which represents 4.92 percent of all benchmarks.

The following three classifications are above market at the midpoint:

o Real Estate Technician III (3.84%); o Probation & Pretrial Director (2.29%); and o Applications & Web Developer/Analyst (0.02%).

Market Maximums

The market maximum is significant because it represents the most that an organization would typically spend to retain qualified incumbents with significant and impactful technical and institutional knowledge. If incumbents� salaries are clustered at or near the maximum, however, this may be an indication that the salary range widths are too narrow, and that the salary maximums may be below the market average. Available salary maximum values as they compare to the survey respondents are also illustrated in Exhibit 4A.

From reviewing the County�s market comparison at range maximum, the following can be observed:

The County, overall, is 16.82 percent below market on average at the maximum across all surveyed classifications.

Forty-six classifications are more than 10 percent below market at the maximum, which represents 75.41 percent of all benchmarks.

The following twenty classifications are greater than 20 percent below market at the maximum:



o Director of Library Services (-55.00%); o Deputy Treasurer I (-45.62%); o Assistant Commonwealth Attorney I (-37.79%); o Human Resource Specialist (-31.37%); o Building Official (-30.57%); o Recreation Aide (-30.21%); o Deputy I � Circuit Court (-30.02%); o Director of Planning (-28.56%); o Correctional Health Assistant (-28.05%); o Tourism Coordinator (-25.85%); o Director of Public Works (-23.24%); o Assistant County Administrator (-22.39%); o Director of Parks, Recreation, and Tours (-21.54%); o Director of Finance (-21.52%); o Park Ranger (-21.11%); o Social Worker I/II � DSS (-20.82%); o Probation Officer (-20.61%); o Inspector I (-20.42%); o Park Aide (-20.42%); and o Custodian (-20.38%).

The only benchmark that is above market on average at the maximum is Real Estate Technician III, which is above market by 4.12 percent.

4.2 SUMMARY OF ANALYSES

The analyses indicate that the County�s pay ranges are below market averages across the minimum for the majority of classifications, and significantly below market at the midpoint and maximum for the majority of classifications. It should be noted that the standing of a classifications pay range compared to the market is not a definitive assessment of an individual employee�s salary being equally above or below market. It does, however, speak to the County�s ability to recruit and retain talent over time. If starting pay is lower than what the market would offer, the County will find itself at a disadvantage against its market peers when they seek to fill a position. It is equally true that market differentials at the maximum could serve as a disincentive for tenured employees to remain employees of the County. Depending on the County�s compensation philosophy and goals, varying degrees of changes to the structure may or may not be warranted.

When attempting to make comparisons between classifications at the County and market peers, it is sometimes difficult to match each classification duty for duty. Those classifications displaying dramatic market differentials may not warrant dramatic pay plan adjustment right away, rather they should be observed and kept on a �watch list� to determine if future adjustment is warranted.

Chap

ter 4

- M

arke

t Sum

mar

y Cl

assi

ficat

ion

and

Com

pens

atio

n St

udy

for G

louc

este

r Cou

nty

Eve

rgre

en S

olu

tion

s, L

LC

Pag

e 4-

6

Exhi

bit 4

A (C

ontin

ued

on N

ext P

age)

Sa

lary

Surv

eyM

arke

tDiff

eren

tials

So

urce

: Ev

ergr

een

Solu

tions

, Feb

ruar

y 20

13

Chap

ter 4

- M

arke

t Sum

mar

y Cl

assi

ficat

ion

and

Com

pens

atio

n St

udy

for G

louc

este

r Cou

nty

Eve

rgre

en S

olu

tion

s, L

LC

Pag

e 4-

7

Exhi

bit 4

A (C

ontin

ued)

Sa

lary

Surv

eyM

arke

tDiff

eren

tials

So

urce

: Ev

ergr

een

Solu

tions

, Feb

ruar

y 20

13


INTRODUCTION

The analysis of (County) compensation and classification systems revealed a number of strengths and minor challenges, none of which is surprising for any modern public sector employer. The County possesses compensation and classification systems that were designed to be fair, uniform, comprehensive, transparent, and well stratified based on work performed. These recommendations seek to build on the strengths of the plan while addressing the minor weaknesses and market differentials. In addition, factors influencing the recommendations encompass the future direction of the County, its organizational culture, and availability of resources. Each recommendation has been developed to address a specific need based on the collected information while taking into account the external environment.

Arriving at the overall recommended solution for the County is a detailed process involving all components of the research conducted. Research includes:

Outreach - Evergreen consultants collected anecdotal data from the County staff and management throughout the outreach component of the study.

Classification Analysis Employees completed Job Assessment Tools designed to gather information about the work being done directly from those individuals completing the work.

Market Analysis - External equity was analyzed based on market compensation and benefits data collected from peer organizations.

The revisions recommended to the pay plan and classification structure were designed based on the results of the previous phases and reflect best practices and desired market position for the County. Each job was slotted into the proposed structure based on market data, JAT scores, and existing internal equity relationships in order to provide incumbent level recommendations. Using this methodology, the Evergreen Solutions team developed a solution that increases the County competitive position relative to its market peers for total compensation while respecting the fiscal constraints the County is under. Additional recommendations were made in regards to other aspects of the Countymanagement practices and needs.

The remainder of this chapter presents the recommendations by category. The categories include:

1. Compensation 2. Classification


Chapter 5 - Solution

Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Gloucester County


3. Administration and Policies 4. Summary

5.1 COMPENSATION

FINDING

Where classification analysis is primarily designed to identify and rectify issues of internal equity, compensation analysis involves assessing and improving external equity as well as pay practices and structural organization of the pay system itself. Specifically, external equity deals with how well an organization compensates similar work in comparison to its market peers. Based on Evergreen Solutions , the compensation structure was generally below market. Evergreen Solutions is recommending adjustments to the current pay plan to better address the County needs and allow for more progression through the ranges. Best practices typically reflect range spreads in the 45 to 65 percent range. Currently the County has a mostly uniform pay plan with a consistent range spread of 50.0 percent. Exhibit 5A depicts the current pay plan with range spreads and range progressions which stay mostly consistent throughout the plan.

Exhibit 5B s a slightly more progressive stance by increasing minimum, midpoint, and maximum by 8.0 percent and increasing the range spread of every grade to 60.0 percent. This addresses market competitiveness and also gives more room for progression at the maximum of the pay plan over the course of their career. The numbering methodology of the pay plan has been unchanged in order to minimize confusion among employees when implementing the new structure. Exhibit 5C

s area had unique market differentials, and as a result, a separate pay plan was developed to address these issues. The proposed plan takes a market-centric approach, with range spreads all at 60 percent and range progressions varying between 6.0 and 19.1 percent. By increasing the range progression in the higher grades of the new structure, this creates a sense of distance in terms of compensation for higher level classifications without creating unoccupied pay grades to ensure supervisor and employee salaries do not overlap.

The approach taken in designing a formal pay plan that mirrors much of the market of competing employers will ease the transition for many employees. The fact is that employees should notice no difference what so ever in their daily employment. Administratively however, the County will be operating on a more flexible and up-to-date compensation foundation.



EXHIBIT 5A GLOUCESTER COUNTY CURRENT PAY PLAN

Source: Evergreen Solutions February 2013

Grade Minimum Midpoint MaximumRange Spread

Range Progression

2 17,106$ 21,383$ 25,659$ 50%3 18,133$ 22,667$ 27,200$ 50% 6.0%4 19,221$ 24,027$ 28,832$ 50% 6.0%5 20,373$ 25,467$ 30,560$ 50% 6.0%6 21,597$ 26,997$ 32,396$ 50% 6.0%7 22,893$ 28,617$ 34,340$ 50% 6.0%8 24,266$ 30,333$ 36,399$ 50% 6.0%9 25,721$ 32,152$ 38,582$ 50% 6.0%10 27,266$ 34,083$ 40,899$ 50% 6.0%11 28,902$ 36,128$ 43,353$ 50% 6.0%12 30,636$ 38,295$ 45,954$ 50% 6.0%13 32,474$ 40,593$ 48,711$ 50% 6.0%14 34,422$ 43,028$ 51,633$ 50% 6.0%15 36,487$ 45,609$ 54,731$ 50% 6.0%16 38,677$ 48,347$ 58,016$ 50% 6.0%17 40,997$ 51,247$ 61,496$ 50% 6.0%18 43,457$ 54,322$ 65,186$ 50% 6.0%19 46,064$ 57,580$ 69,096$ 50% 6.0%20 48,829$ 61,037$ 73,244$ 50% 6.0%21 51,579$ 64,474$ 77,369$ 50% 5.6%22 54,864$ 68,580$ 82,296$ 50% 6.4%23 58,156$ 72,695$ 87,234$ 50% 6.0%24 61,645$ 77,057$ 92,468$ 50% 6.0%25 65,343$ 81,679$ 98,015$ 50% 6.0%26 69,263$ 86,579$ 103,895$ 50% 6.0%27 73,420$ 91,775$ 110,130$ 50% 6.0%28 77,826$ 97,283$ 116,739$ 50% 6.0%



EXHIBIT 5B GLOUCESTER COUNTY PROPOSED GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN



Range Progression

2 18,474$ 24,016$ 29,558$ 60.0%3 19,584$ 25,459$ 31,334$ 60.0% 6.0%4 20,759$ 26,987$ 33,214$ 60.0% 6.0%5 22,003$ 28,604$ 35,205$ 60.0% 6.0%6 23,325$ 30,323$ 37,320$ 60.0% 6.0%7 24,724$ 32,141$ 39,558$ 60.0% 6.0%8 26,207$ 34,069$ 41,931$ 60.0% 6.0%9 27,779$ 36,113$ 44,446$ 60.0% 6.0%10 29,447$ 38,281$ 47,115$ 60.0% 6.0%11 31,214$ 40,578$ 49,942$ 60.0% 6.0%12 33,087$ 43,013$ 52,939$ 60.0% 6.0%13 35,072$ 45,594$ 56,115$ 60.0% 6.0%14 37,176$ 48,329$ 59,482$ 60.0% 6.0%15 39,406$ 51,228$ 63,050$ 60.0% 6.0%16 41,771$ 54,302$ 66,834$ 60.0% 6.0%17 44,277$ 57,560$ 70,843$ 60.0% 6.0%18 46,934$ 61,014$ 75,094$ 60.0% 6.0%19 49,749$ 64,674$ 79,598$ 60.0% 6.0%20 52,735$ 68,556$ 84,376$ 60.0% 6.0%21 55,899$ 72,669$ 89,438$ 60.0% 6.0%22 59,253$ 77,029$ 94,805$ 60.0% 6.0%23 62,808$ 81,650$ 100,493$ 60.0% 6.0%24 66,577$ 86,550$ 106,523$ 60.0% 6.0%25 70,570$ 91,741$ 112,912$ 60.0% 6.0%26 74,804$ 97,245$ 119,686$ 60.0% 6.0%27 79,294$ 103,082$ 126,870$ 60.0% 6.0%28 84,052$ 109,268$ 134,483$ 60.0% 6.0%



EXHIBIT 5C GLOUCESTER COUNTY PROPOSED SHERIFF PAY PLAN


FINDING

Another important factor of a compensation system is the manner in which employees move through the pay plan. There are predominately three approaches adopted by most public organizations:

Step Cost of living Merit

In the past, many public organizations utilized a step approach which incorporated predetermined, percentage-based pay steps in each pay grade. In this approach, all employees at the same step in the same pay grade received the same compensation and an employee moved through the steps based on years of service until a maximum step was reached. At present, the County utilizes a merit system for determining individual salaries. Step plans continue to thrive in heavily unionized environments such as police and fire departments for their predictability and the way in which they lend themselves to negotiated annual increases that are predetermined.

Most forward-thinking organizations have now moved away from the step plan approach and centered approach. The cost of living centered approach draws

on a preselected metric that captures the percentage change in the cost of living based on a combination of goods during a fixed period of time. Pay grades are established based on market conditions and employees are adjusted or moved through the pay grades based on the percentage change in the cost of living during the period. This open-range, cost of living approach is often supported by pay-for-performance or merit based systems where employee compensation is adjusted in accordance with their performance levels and certain measurable outcomes of their work.


Range Progression

A 34,422$ 44,749$ 55,075$ 60.0%B 36,487$ 47,433$ 58,379$ 60.0% 6.00%C 38,677$ 50,280$ 61,883$ 60.0% 6.00%D 40,997$ 53,296$ 65,595$ 60.0% 6.00%E 43,457$ 56,494$ 69,531$ 60.0% 6.00%F 46,985$ 61,081$ 75,176$ 60.0% 8.12%G 51,579$ 67,053$ 82,526$ 60.0% 9.78%H 59,253$ 77,029$ 94,805$ 60.0% 14.88%I 70,570$ 91,741$ 112,912$ 60.0% 19.10%



Merit-based approaches arose in response to concerns with differentiating the performance of public employees and the desire to mirror the and rewarding the highest performers. However, once adopted, it is common for the merit-based approaches to function more like the cost of living approach since most employees receive the same score during the evaluation process (based on budget constraints) and thus there is often little differentiation in the increases given. Moving incumbents through the pay plan based on actual performance is preferable to other alternatives if the system is well managed.

RECOMMENDATION 5-1 Maintain the current merit based pay plan policies.

Evergreen Solution that moving forward the County should continue to utilize employee performance as a standard for compensation increases. Within this framework, employee compensation increases should be applied to help progress employees through the pay range and at the same time promoting performance to help achieve the

A objective merit pay system is a substantial initiative that ensures that performance is the key to organizational productivity. In order for the County to ensure that the system is not abused, measures should be put in place to ensure that individual bias and budgetary issues are not factors in individual evaluations. In a well-executed merit pay system, employee performance is evaluated prior to budget allotments and subsequent salary increases are given as a percentage of total allotment (i.e., funds are distributed based on the relative scores of employees) versus assigning scores based on budgetary determinations.

FINDING

Once the proposed compensation system is created, the next step is to transition employees into the proposed structure. Typically, there are two primary steps for implementation

calculation. Occasionally compression or longevity-based adjustments are recommended as well. Compression adjustments are typically given to restore the pay spread between employees that have been moved as a result of an adjustment to minimum and those that were not affected. Chapter 3 of this report points out that the County currently has an overwhelming majority of employees below the midpoint of their ranges, indicating that compression is present in the current pay plan. Compression can happen when pay is frozen due to tough economic times, and employees who were hired right around the time of the freeze may feel as though their pay is compressed against those who have come onboard since the freeze began. This is, unfortunately, unavoidable. As part of this analysis, Evergreen Solutions has developed three options that the County can choose to implement. The total approximate cost of each of these options represents the cost of changing employee salaries only, and not the associated benefits.

1. Implement the proposed pay plans, slot classifications into recommended pay grades, and ensure all employee salaries meet the minimum of their respective pay grades.



2. Implement Option 1 while also incorporating a parity adjustment based on tenure within classification with the County.

3. Implement Option 1 while also providing employees with an 8.0 percent salary increase to all employees based on structural changes made to the General Employee Pay Plan.

Option 1 Place each classification into the proposed pay plans utilizing the grade order list in Exhibit 5F and ensure all employee salaries meet the minimum of their respective pay grades.

Step 1 of the process is to slot individual classifications into the proposed pay plans based on external equity status, internal equity hierarchy, and JAT indicator. The result of this is a revised grade order list displayed in Exhibit 5F. Market data was melded with the results of the JAT scoring process and a framework for internal hierarchy was created.

Following the initial slotting, job series changes are analyzed and evaluated to ensure that proper alignment is maintained between different levels of jobs (i.e., Utility Worker I, II and III as well as supervisory relationships).

Step 2 of the option is to slot individual incumbents into the new compensation system. The total approximate cost of this step is $188,869.21. While the cost of slotting employees into the proposed structure is high, these costs represent bringing employee salaries within a competitive distance of the market. Traditionally, a salary that falls within the market

analyzes the proposed pay grades presented in the grade order list.

Option 2

Implement the Option 1 while also incorporating a parity adjustment based on tenure within classification with the County.

Since analysis of the current conditions showed there is compression in the current pay plan, an option was created which can address this issue. In order to address tenure with the County classification tenure at the County. Classifications which are not slotted into pay grades were excluded from this

ure in their current classification was calculated by using the following formula:

salary was compared to this tenure adjusted salary. If an

received a salary adjustment to meet the calculated salary. The total approximate cost of this option is $800,028.09. After incorporating Option 1 with these costs, the total approximate cost of this option is $988,897.30.



Option 3

Implement Option 1 while also providing employees with an 8.0 percent salary increase to all employees based on structural changes made to the General Employee Pay Plan.

An alternative to providing parity adjustments is to provide all employees with a flat increase that mimics the changes made in the proposed General Employee Pay Plan. Section 3-14 of

receive the same percentage increase with the exception of those who are above the maximum salary for their pay is implemented, it is useful to see the effects current policies can have on the proposed structure. The total approximate cost of providing all employees with an 8.0 percent salary increase is $1,036,367.14. After incorporating Option 1 with these costs, the total approximate cost of this option is $1,225,236.35.

Since the cost of all three options is very high, and difficult to implement over the course of one year, it is possible to implement each option over the course of multiple years. Exhibit 5D shows the yearly cost of implementing each option over the course of a two year period. Costs for Options 2 and 3 are higher in the first year because employees must be slotted into the new structure prior to receiving further salary adjustments. It is also possible to implement a percentage of the parity adjustment described in Option 2. While this may not address compression issues as aggressively as Option 2, it is a way to recognize employees with longer tenure in a more cost-effective manner. Exhibit 5D also shows the cost of implementing 75.0, 50.0, and 25.0 percent of parity for Option 2.

EXHIBIT 5D

2-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION COSTS


Year 1 Year 2 TotalOption 1: Slot employees into proposed structure 94,434.60$ 94,434.60$ 188,869.21$ Option 2: Slot employees and provide parity adjustment 588,883.25$ 400,014.05$ 988,897.30$ Option 2: Slot employees and provide parity adjustment (75% implementation)

488,879.74$ 300,010.53$ 788,890.28$

Option 2: Slot employees and provide parity adjustment (50% implementation)

388,876.23$ 200,007.02$ 588,883.25$

Option 2: Slot employees and provide parity adjustment (25% implementation)

288,872.72$ 100,003.51$ 388,876.23$

Option 3: Slot employees and provide 8% increase 707,052.78$ 518,183.57$ 1,225,236.35$

OptionCost



5.2 CLASSIFICATION

One of the greatest challenges of any organization is to maintain a classification system that is responsive to the surrounding labor market. The combination of competition from local governments is magnified in the private sector causing even more importance to be placed on the quality and responsiveness of the compensation and classification system. Classification illustrates how work is organized as well as how the human resources are utilized to meet the needs and perform the core services of the County. A strong classification system is simple, transparent, and comprehensive. It is critical that an organization possess a system that realistically captures what work is being performed by which employees.

Over the years, the County n has grown and changed in many ways. As a result of the JAT analysis completed and dedicated work of the County during the study, a small number of classifications have been recommended for revision. The primary reason for the proposed changes was the observed variability in duties performed by individual incumbents in certain classifications. In addition, career ladders were created for the Corrections, Court, and Civil Process D All of these proposals are shown in Exhibit 5E. A few positions, such as the Accounting Technician, were split into multiple classifications to create a career ladder for employees within that classification and also to distinguish between the unique functions being performed under each of those titles.



EXHIBIT 5E PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION TITLE CHANGES

Source: Evergreen Solutions February 2013.

5.3 ADMINISTRATION AND POLICIES

FINDING

Any compensation system will fail to meet a needs if it does not have strong administrative and policy support. Recommendations are derived from data for a fixed period of time. In other words, compensation plans have definitive shelf lives, after which, they will fail to compete with the market and cause recruitment and retention strain for the County over time. Without proper maintenance, the compensation structure will lose its effectiveness and market competitiveness over a period of three to five years. Maintenance is the hidden need and cost of most systems.

Current Title Proposed TitleAccounting Technician Accounting Technician IAccounting Technician Accounting Technician IIAdmin Coord Purchasing CoordinatorBuyer II Senior BuyerDeputy/Corrections Deputy Recruit - CorrectionsDeputy/Corrections Deputy I -CorrectionsDeputy/Corrections Deputy II - CorrectionsDeputy/Corrections Master Deputy - CorrectionsDeputy/CT & Civil Process Deputy I - CT & Civil ProcessDeputy/CT & Civil Process Deputy II - CT & Civil ProcessDeputy/CT & Civil Process Master Deputy - CT & Civil ProcessGIS Analyst/Supervisor GIS CoordinatorGIS Technician GIS SpecialistGIS Technician GIS Technician IILibrary Specialist Library Technical Services SpecialistMaintenance Specialist Maintenance Specialist IMaintenance Specialist Maintenance Specialist IIPlanner III Senior Comprehensive PlannerPurchasing Manager Purchasing AgentRegistered Technician Mosquito Control TechnicianSpec Events Supervisor Special Events & Marketing CoordinatorZoning Supervisor Deputy Zoning Administrator



RECOMMENDATION 5-3

Select a small sample of classifications and conduct a localized survey of market values and benefit changes on an annual basis to determine market competitiveness and make appropriate adjustments.

The County should maintain its efforts to keep pace with public sector growth in terms of employee salaries. In order to maintain its competitiveness, Human Resources should select a small sample of classifications, particularly those with recruitment or retention problems, and conduct a survey of peer organizations to determine the relative external ranges of these classifications. This commitment to competitiveness is all the more important when one examines the current economic conditions. Many economists have predicted that the present economic crisis is causing a buildup of demand in the labor market. Many are also indicating that when economic conditions begin to soften in the near future that the potential exists for a sudden rash of movement in the labor market. People who have

change jobs for increases in pay.

Human Resources should contact market peers directly or access readily available secondary salary survey database resources to make determinations about market competitiveness and recommend appropriate adjustments.

The County should ensure that administrative practices are continued in order to maintain competitive and equitable compensation and classification over time. These annual surveys will work to ensure that external equity is maintained. Any changes made to individual classifications should be separate from individual salary adjustments.

FINDING

In order to maintain market competitiveness between compensation and classification studies, the County must continue adjusting its pay plan on an annual basis. Rather than relying only on consumer price index (CPI) values for cost of living adjustments, the County would benefit from contacting their local peer group and determining their approach to pay plan adjustments and consider that in addition to consistent economic indicators such as CPI.

RECOMMENDATION 5-4

Adjust the pay plan each year based on the results of the average movement of peer pay levels.

Human Resources should work with the County Administrator to reevaluate this list approximately every other year to ensure that it contains the most relevant labor market peers and make any necessary adjustments. The County should contact the identified peers each year and requeincreased and any changes to benefits. By determining the average percent increase of peer pay plans and benefit offerings, the County can ensure its pay plan and other factors are



increasing at the same relative speed as its peers, thus maintaining or improving its relative position depending on the County

FINDING

Inevitably, compensation is subject to changes in the external market based on best practices and other trends for human resources management. Given this understanding, the County should ensure that its structure is up to date and reflective of best practices.

RECOMMENDATION 5-5

Conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study every three to five years.

While annual surveys of identified classifications can provide a general idea of the County market competitiveness, the County should complete a comprehensive compensation and classification study every three to five years to ensure internal and external equity is maintained. The time that has elapsed since the County last conducted a study of this kind is longer than is generally recommended.

The County would be well served to prevent the long term invalidation of its compensation and classification structure by conducting a study of this kind as a measure of preventative maintenance. Jobs change over time and the compensation market can shift quickly. These subtle changes can and do compound over time and produce undesired consequences in the long term.

Such efforts to maintain the system are viewed as a sign that the Countytheir workforce and are willing to take serious steps to preserve the competitiveness of their compensation plan and practices by employees.

FINDING

Compensation and Classification systems are best supported by thorough and consistent policy documents. The County maintains such policies in a chaptered policy and procedure document. The relevant human resources policies are divided into the following chapters:

Chapter 2: Classification Chapter 3: Pay Plan Chapter 4: Benefits Chapter 5: Leave Chapter 8: Performance Appraisal

The first of these is Classification. As previously discussed; classification deals with the definition of work functions, the parameters of job responsibility, and the internal alignment of those functions with organizational structure.

The Classification chapter does an excellent job of laying out the definitions of what the important elements of classification are, including Regular Full-Time Positions, Regular Part-



Time Positions, Work As Required Positions, as well as dealing with FLSA Exempt and Non-Exempt status.

After defining the key terms and describing the Classification Plan, the document describes the Creation and Maintenance of Classification Specifications. A relatively broad statement

classification of each

in scope to spell out the previously recommended annual review of classification and pay for select classifications. Ingraining the maintenance procedures into the policy documentation would be a good idea.

One area that is not specifically outlined in this chapter that should be added is the process for reclassification. Creation of new classes is discussed, however there is no specific procedure laid out for employees or managers who wish to have a position reclassified, be it into a higher level of the same position or a different classification altogether. From the

mprove their perception of how fairly they will be treated. A measured procedure they can follow to file such requests would clarify the process for all employees. Interestingly, reclassification is covered in the Pay Plan chapter from the perspective of its impact on pay, but not in the classification chapter from a procedural standpoint.

referring more to pay plan changes based on external factors. True reclassification deals with refining or changing what defines the purpose or function of a classification based on internal factors. Reclassification may or may not result in a title change but will likely result in an update to the classification description. Section 3-6 of the Pay Plan Policy should be

be added to the Classification chapter (Chapter 2)

RECOMMENDATION 5-6

Develop a policy and procedure covering the process for requesting and processing reclassifications.

Chapter 3 dealing with the Pay Plan deals with the applicability and maintenance of the compensation structure. It begins with the expected definitions of who the pay plan applies to and who is responsible for administering it.

One area often overlooked or unnecessarily constrictive is the definition of entry level pay. -4) states that entry level pay

should be the lowest or minimum rate reflected on ttraining, or experience would qualify the employee for a higher entry rate and the higher rate

allows the County flexibility to compete with other organizations and perhaps most importantly, the private sector for a more qualified or higher performing job applicant.

The County also maintains policies that allow for Pay for Performance Increases (Section 3-5). This is an innovative policy that takes a step that many organizations are unwilling or



Salary increases provided for by movement within a pay grade shall not accrue solely as a result of the completion of a required period of service, but shall be based on factors contained in the established performance appraisal document.

The County has moved away from grade entry dates for performance evaluations and instead has begun using October 1 of each year as a common evaluation date. Using this common date will make the budgeting process simpler and should be continued. This date, referred to as the PRD or Performance Review Date. Should be consistently referred to in policy and specified to fall on October 1, every year. Consistency is key to ensuring that managers are held accountable for these evaluations and that all employees are treated fairly and consistently.

The policy deals with issues of reclassification, promotion, temporary promotion, demotion, transfers, and reinstatement in an equally fair manner. One exception to this is in the area of reclassification. This is based on the understanding that a reclassification is not a promotion whereas a true reclassification is a reflection of a substantial change in duties and responsibilities then it should be considered a promotion as such. In the same way, a reduction in duties or responsibilities could be considered a demotion. The most common policy is not to take money away from these individuals. The policy states that a person who is reclassified into a higher pay grade will not receive a pay increase unless they fall below the minimum of the new pay grade. It is fairly standard in human resources administration for an upward reclassification to be accompanied by an increase in pay, regardless of whether or not the employee falls below the proposed minimum. Typically observed salary adjustments for reclassification range between 4 and 7 percent per pay grade increased with a maximum increase to be established. The County should consider redefining its policy to include such an increase.

RECOMMENDATION 5-7

Consider amending the reclassification policy to allow for standardized pay increases for employees reclassified into higher grades and for larger percentage increases when an employee moves up more than two grades.

flat 5 percent pay increase for pure promotions regardless of the number of grades and this would be an appropriate percentage to consider for upward reclassification as well. Upward reclassification would come as a result of an increase in the complexity of job functions that would warrant a change in classification.

When an employee moves up more than two grades as a result of promotion or reclassification, some provision should exist to allow for a specified percentage pay increase that is larger than the standard one-grade increase. The County has flexibility in establishing this figure but it should be consistently applied across the board.

Another excellent aspect of the pay plan policy is the provision for Administrative Increases.

and the County Administrator. This flexibility allows for improved retention of employees who may have received competitive pay offers from other organizations.



Also present in the Pay Plan policy section is the establishment of Career Ladders (Section 3-13). This allows for the establishment of career ladders with certain criteria being met (i.e. they must serve to meet the needs and goals of the organization, they must be recognizable in the market, and clear requirements must be established and met to progress from one level to the next within such a prospective ladder). This is another example of an excellent policy that gives flexibility while allowing for measured growth of the classification and compensation plan. The County could consider moving the career ladder section to the classification chapter to place what many would call a classification related issue (the development of career ladders) with the other classification relevant issues.

COMMENDATION

The County is commended for having an overall excellent set of compensation and pay plan policies.

Maintenance of the pay plan is also covered under Section 3-17 but it is careful to not specifically identify a prescribed interval with which the system should be reviewed. It states

dministrator may call for a comprehensive review of the plan. This is fine, but another statement could be made that the County encourages regular review, to occur on a predetermined schedule.

Chapter 4 dealing with Benefits policies is sufficient in its explanation of what benefits the County will offer and that said benefits are a privilege and subject to change. The lengthiest of the chapters dealing with benefits is Chapter 5 which deals with Leave. The Leave chapter does a commendable job of defining the various types and eligibility for the different types of leave. This includes standards such as sick and vacation leave, as well as legal compliance relevant leave such as the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and its administration.

Another specific policy that is worthy of recognition is the Sick Leave Bank (Section 5-4). Many organizations use a Sick Leave Bank as a tool for maintaining and encouraging good will among the workforce. Employees are allowed to contribute their sick time to a pool from which employees who are in need of time beyond their present personal balance can draw within specific guidelines.

Such a policy can encourage an increased establishment of camaraderie and boost morale among the workforce who give to one another out of kindness and concern for others.

Policy statements are also made regarding funeral leave, military leave, administrative leave, court leave, and workers compensation. With regard to workers compensation, provisions are made that stipulate that employees of the sheriffs) may not use such accrued leave so as to receive more than 100% of their regular compensation.

Also covered within this chapter is the provision for accrued leave to be paid at separation. Specific and reasonable rules are laid out for how sick time and annual leave shall be paid out at the time an employee separates from the County. The rules spelled out allowing this payout appears reasonable and in line with market peers who offer such a benefit. Many but not all employers offer this as a standard benefit.



COMMENDATION

The County is commended for maintaining comprehensive leave policies and offering benefits such as the sick leave pool and leave payout at separation.

The last relevant policy is Chapter 8 which deals with Performance Appraisal. This chapter follows a defined course in prescribing what the purpose of the appraisals are, the relevance of the job description in the process, definitions of standards of performance, communication with employees, interim reviews, corrective action, and exceptional performance.

This policy sets the County apart from many of its peers because in addition to making the general statement that appraisals will be conducted, it goes into great detail of how and why they are performed. The County was wise to define the role played by the job descriptions in the process in that the job description is the measure for performed job functions. This encourages regular evaluation of the descriptions and ensures that they are as up to date as possible.

The policy is also very employee-focused in that it encourages the department heads or supervisors to involve the employees in determining how they will be assessed, planning performance development, and establishing mutual responsibilities and expectations. Regular communication and interim reviews are encouraged to check on progress of improvement and general performance related discussion items.

This policy also does an excellent job of laying out the specific procedures to be followed and the timing of the process such that every part of the evaluation has an opportunity to be fully executed and understood by all parties involved.

Section 8-7 which defines the points, does not reflect the current precise definitions. This can be updated to reflect the current environment; however the important thing to note is that the intent of the chapter remains the same.

RECOMMENDATION

Update Chapter 8, Section 8-7 to reflect current numerical scoring and definitions in use.

In addition to numerical points, action steps are spelled out that describe how an employee falling into any of these scoring levels should be handled. A special point is made to include a segment of the policy dedicated to defining and stipulating special action in the event of a review resulting in a rating of Exceptional. These evaluations must be forwarded to the County Administrator for review and approval of the pay for performance salary increase.

for selection or promotion to the ranks of: Investigator, Sergeant, Communications



requirements for time in service, Education, Supervisory Experience, Specialized Training, Performance Evaluation Reports, Disciplinary Actions, for those desiring promotions.

No part of the stated policy or related requirements for promotion presents a legally difficult situation or issue with non-compliance related to personnel guidelines or best practices. The important aspect of this policy is its existence as well as current and future adherence to the same. So long as the policy, or any policy for that matter, is enforced with consistency, free from bias then there is considerable latitude for what defines a promotable employee.

excellent. They are specific where they need to be and they offer flexibility where appropriate. This is a theme running throughout these personnel related policies. The County should be proud of its policy structure.

5.4 SUMMARY

The County should be proud of its dedication to high-quality service to its residents and continuous improvement among its leaders. Evergreen Solutions found that employees at all levels were committed to their jobs and to the County; however the recent strain caused by the declining economy has had a predictably negative impact on employee morale. Evergreen Solutions recommendations build upon the strengths of the current environment and work to improve the challenges identified by employees, management, and the project team.

The County is fortunate to have a solid foundation of well thought-out policies and compensation and classification methods with which to build upon moving forward.



EXHIBIT 5F GLOUCESTER COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER SHEET


Proposed TitleCurrent Grade

Proposed Grade

New Min New Mid New Max

SUB COMM SCH SITE SPV 2 2 $18,474 $24,016 $29,558PARK ATTENDANT * 3 $19,584 $25,459 $31,334PARK AIDE 2 3 $19,584 $25,459 $31,334RECREATION AIDE 2 3 $19,584 $25,459 $31,334MOSQUITO CONTROL TECHNICIAN * 3 $19,584 $25,459 $31,334PRE-SCHOOL ASSISTANT * 3 $19,584 $25,459 $31,334SUBSTITUTE OFFICE WORKER 3 3 $19,584 $25,459 $31,334CUSTODIAN 3 4 $20,759 $26,987 $33,214GROUNDSKEEPER 4 4 $20,759 $26,987 $33,214ASST REGISTRAR 5 5 $22,003 $28,604 $35,205CUSTODIAN II 5 5 $22,003 $28,604 $35,205LIBRARY CLERK 5 5 $22,003 $28,604 $35,205OFFICE ASSISTANT 5 5 $22,003 $28,604 $35,205OFFICE ASSOCIATE II -DSS 5 5 $22,003 $28,604 $35,205COOK 6 6 $23,325 $30,323 $37,320REVENUE TECHNICIAN 6 6 $23,325 $30,323 $37,3204H TECHNICIAN 7 7 $24,724 $32,141 $39,558LEAD CUSTODIAN 7 $24,724 $32,141 $39,558OFFICE ASSOCIATE III -DSS 7 7 $24,724 $32,141 $39,558UTILITY WKR I 7 7 $24,724 $32,141 $39,558MAINTENANCE ASSISTANT 7 7 $24,724 $32,141 $39,558WTP TRAINEE 7 7 $24,724 $32,141 $39,558DEPUTY I- CIR CRT 6 8 $26,207 $34,069 $41,931DEPUTY TREASURER I 6 8 $26,207 $34,069 $41,931MECHANICAL TECHNICIAN I 8 8 $26,207 $34,069 $41,931CUSTOMER SERVICE REP 8 8 $26,207 $34,069 $41,931HUMAN SERVICES ASSISTANT II -DSS 8 8 $26,207 $34,069 $41,931LIBRARY SPECIALIST 8 8 $26,207 $34,069 $41,931PARK RANGER 8 8 $26,207 $34,069 $41,931PERMIT TECH I 8 8 $26,207 $34,069 $41,931REVENUE SPECIALIST 8 8 $26,207 $34,069 $41,931UTILITY WKR II 8 8 $26,207 $34,069 $41,931LIBRARY TECHNICAL SERVICES SPECIALIST 8 9 $27,779 $36,113 $44,446ADMIN PROGRAM ASSISTANT I -DSS 9 9 $27,779 $36,113 $44,446ADMIN ASSIST I 9 9 $27,779 $36,113 $44,446CLASS IV WTP OPERATOR 9 9 $27,779 $36,113 $44,446GROUNDS TECHNICIAN 9 9 $27,779 $36,113 $44,446PARK MAINT TECHNICIAN 9 9 $27,779 $36,113 $44,446RE ASSESSMENT TECH II 9 9 $27,779 $36,113 $44,446DEPUTY II- CIR CRT 9 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115



EXHIBIT 5F (CONTINUED) GLOUCESTER COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER SHEET


Proposed Title Current Proposed New Min New Mid New MaxA/C DEPUTY OFFICER 10 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN I 10 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115ADMIN PROGRAM ASSISTANT II -DSS 10 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115ADMIN ASSIST II 10 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115CLEAN COMM COORD 10 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115DEPUTY TREASURER II 10 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115LEGAL SECRETARY 10 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST I 10 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115PERMIT TECH II 10 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115SENIOR CUSTOMER SER REP 10 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115SR REVENUE SPECIALIST 10 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115UTILITY WKR III 10 10 $29,447 $38,281 $47,115ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN II 10 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942ADMIN ASSIST III 11 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942BENEFIT PROGRAMS SPECIALIST I/II -DSS 11 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942CLASS III WTP OPERATOR 11 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942CORR HEALTH ASST 11 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942DEPUTY III-CIR CRT 11 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942DEPUTY REGISTRAR 11 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942DEPUTY TREASURER III 11 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942EMER SVC PLANNER/TRAINER 11 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942LIBRARY COORDINATOR 11 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942MECH TECH II 11 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST II 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942RE ASSESSMENT TECH III 12 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942REAL ESTATE TECH III 12 11 $31,214 $40,578 $49,942ACCOUNTING COORDINATOR 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939ADMIN COORD 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939BENEFIT PROGRAMS SPECIALSIT III -DSS 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939BUYER 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939CUSTOMER SERVICE SPEC. 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939DEPUTY IV-CIR CRT 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939DISPATCHER 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939EQUIP MECHANIC 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939GIS TECHNICIAN 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939INSPECTOR I 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939MECHANICAL TECHNICIAN III 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939PUMP STATION MECH 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939PURCHASING COORDINATOR 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939UTILITY FOREMAN 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939





Proposed Title Current Proposed New Min New Mid New MaxVICTIM WITNESS ADVOCATE 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939WTP MECHANIC 12 12 $33,087 $43,013 $52,939DEPUTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 12 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115GIS TECHNICIAN II 12 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115HR SPECIALIST 12 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115PAYROLL/BENEFITS COOR 12 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115REVENUE COORDINATOR 12 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115A/C SR OFFICER 13 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115CLASS II WTP OPERATOR 13 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115COLLECTIONS COORD 13 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115DEPUTY CLERK 13 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115IT SUPPORT TECHNICIAN 13 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115LEGAL ASSISTANT 13 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115RE APPRAISER I 13 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115SELF SUFFICIENC SPECIALIST I/II -DSS 13 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115UTILITY INSPECTOR 13 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115VIDEO TECHNICIAN 13 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115PUBLIC WORKS COORDINATOR 13 13 $35,072 $45,594 $56,115GIS SPECIALIST 12 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482ATHLETICS SUPERVISOR 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482CODES COMP OFFICER 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482COMM ED COORD 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST I/II -DSS 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482INSPECTOR II 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482MAINT SUPERVISOR 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482MUSEUM DIRECTOR 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482PARK SUPERVISOR 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482PLANNER I 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482PRETRIAL OFFICER 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482PROBATION OFFICER 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482SELF SUFFICIENCY SPECIALIST III -DSS 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482SENIOR BUYER 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482SENIOR MECHANICAL TECHNICIAN 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482SPECIAL EVENTS & MARKETING COORDINATOR 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482TOURISM COORDINATOR 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482VICTIM WITNESS COORDINATOR 14 14 $37,176 $48,329 $59,482A/C CHIEF OFFICER 15 15 $39,406 $51,228 $63,050APPLICATION DEVELOPER 15 $39,406 $51,228 $63,050BENEFIT PROGRAMS SUPERVISOR -DSS 15 15 $39,406 $51,228 $63,050





Proposed Title Current Proposed New Min New Mid New MaxCLASS I WTP OPERATOR 15 15 $39,406 $51,228 $63,050FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III -DSS 15 15 $39,406 $51,228 $63,050IT SUPPORT TECHNICIAN II 15 15 $39,406 $51,228 $63,050LIBRARIAN 15 15 $39,406 $51,228 $63,050RE APPRAISER II 15 15 $39,406 $51,228 $63,050SENIOR DISPATCHER 15 15 $39,406 $51,228 $63,050SENIOR LEGAL ASSISTANT 15 15 $39,406 $51,228 $63,050COMBINATION INSPECTOR 16 16 $41,771 $54,302 $66,834HR ANALYST 16 16 $41,771 $54,302 $66,834PLANNER II 16 16 $41,771 $54,302 $66,834LEAD WTP OPERATOR 16 16 $41,771 $54,302 $66,834CHIEF DEPUTY-CIR CRT 17 17 $44,277 $57,560 $70,843CHIEF DEPUTY-COR 17 17 $44,277 $57,560 $70,843COMBINATION INSPECTOR/PLANS EXAMINER 17 17 $44,277 $57,560 $70,843COMMUNICATION SPV 17 17 $44,277 $57,560 $70,843DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR 17 17 $44,277 $57,560 $70,843PROGRAM COORDINATOR (CSA) -DSS 17 17 $44,277 $57,560 $70,843REGISTERED NURSE 17 17 $44,277 $57,560 $70,843SENIOR REAL ESTATE APPRAISER 17 17 $44,277 $57,560 $70,843PROBATION & PRETRIAL DIR 18 18 $46,934 $61,014 $75,094SENIOR COMPPREHENSIVE PLANNER 18 18 $46,934 $61,014 $75,094ADMIN SERVICES MANAGER -DSS 19 19 $49,749 $64,674 $79,598FAMILY SERVICES SUPERVISOR -DSS 19 19 $49,749 $64,674 $79,598APPL & WEB DEV/ANALYST 20 19 $49,749 $64,674 $79,598NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR 20 19 $49,749 $64,674 $79,598WINDOWS SYSTEM ADMIN 20 19 $49,749 $64,674 $79,598ACCOUNTING MANAGER 20 20 $52,735 $68,556 $84,376CHIEF DEPUTY-TREASURER 20 20 $52,735 $68,556 $84,376ENVIROM PROGRAMS ADMIN 20 20 $52,735 $68,556 $84,376GIS COORDINATOR 20 20 $52,735 $68,556 $84,376PARK SUPERINTENDENT 20 20 $52,735 $68,556 $84,376PLANT MANAGER 20 20 $52,735 $68,556 $84,376PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER 20 20 $52,735 $68,556 $84,376RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT 20 $52,735 $68,556 $84,376UTILITY ENGINEER 20 20 $52,735 $68,556 $84,376UTILITY SPVR 20 20 $52,735 $68,556 $84,376IT SYSTEMS & NETWORK COOR 21 20 $52,735 $68,556 $84,376ASSISTANT COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY I 19 21 $55,899 $72,669 $89,438BUILDING OFFICIAL 21 22 $59,253 $77,029 $94,805ASSISTANT DIRECTOR I - DSS 22 22 $59,253 $77,029 $94,805





Proposed Title Current Proposed New Min New Mid New MaxDIR BLDG & GRNDS 22 22 $59,253 $77,029 $94,805EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR 22 22 $59,253 $77,029 $94,805ASSTISTANT COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY II 22 23 $62,808 $81,650 $100,493PURCHASING AGENT 22 23 $62,808 $81,650 $100,493CHIEF DEPUTY COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY 24 24 $66,577 $86,550 $106,523ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY 24 24 $66,577 $86,550 $106,523DIR LIBRARY SERVICES 22 25 $70,570 $91,741 $112,912ASSESSOR 25 25 $70,570 $91,741 $112,912DIR COMM ED 25 25 $70,570 $91,741 $112,912DIR ECONOMIC DEV 25 25 $70,570 $91,741 $112,912DIR HUMAN RESOURCES 25 25 $70,570 $91,741 $112,912DIR PARKS REC & TOURISM 25 25 $70,570 $91,741 $112,912IT DIRECTOR 27 25 $70,570 $91,741 $112,912DIR PLANNING & ZONING 25 26 $74,804 $97,245 $119,686DIR FINANCIAL SVCS 26 26 $74,804 $97,245 $119,686DIR PUBLIC WORKS 26 26 $74,804 $97,245 $119,686DIR UTILITIES 26 26 $74,804 $97,245 $119,686DIR SOCIAL SERVICES -DSS 26 26 $74,804 $97,245 $119,686ASST COUNTY ADMIN 28 28 $84,052 $109,268 $134,483COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR * * * * *COUNTY ATTORNEY * * * * *DEPUTY RECRUIT - CORRECTIONS A $34,422 $44,749 $55,075DEPUTY RECRUIT - LE 14 A $34,422 $44,749 $55,075DEPUTY I - CORR, CT & CP 14 B $36,487 $47,433 $58,379DEPUTY I - LE 15 B $36,487 $47,433 $58,379DDEPUTY II - CORR, CT & CP C $38,677 $50,280 $61,883DDEPUTY II - LE 16 C $38,677 $50,280 $61,883INVESTIGATOR 16 C $38,677 $50,280 $61,883MASTER DEPUTY - CORR, CT & CP D $40,997 $53,296 $65,595SENIOR DEPUTY - LE 17 D $40,997 $53,296 $65,595INVESTIGATOR II 17 D $40,997 $53,296 $65,595SERGEANT CORR 16 E $43,457 $56,494 $69,531MASTER DEPUTY - LE 18 E $43,457 $56,494 $69,531SENIOR INV 19 E $43,457 $56,494 $69,531SERGEANT LE, INV 19 F $46,985 $61,081 $75,176LIEUTENANT -CORR, CT & CP 19 G $51,579 $67,053 $82,526LIEUTENANT -LE, INV 21 G $51,579 $67,053 $82,526CAPTAIN 22 H $59,253 $77,029 $94,805CHIEF DEPUTY 25 I $70,570 $91,741 $112,912

class and comp study gloucester county, virginia

News & Politics

compensation study

compensation management

current classification

va county

market data

classification analysis

classification component

classification title