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

Chapter 1 Introduction
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.


Page 1-1

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1

Classification and Compensation Study for Gloucester County

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 crosssection 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.


Page 1-2

Chapter 1 - Introduction


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


Page 1-3


Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee Outreach

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.


Page 2-1



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,


Page 2-2



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 coworkers 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.


Page 2-3


Chapter 3 – Assessment of Current
Conditions
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.


Page 3-1



Exhibit 3A
County Employee Pay Plan
Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

17,106
18,133
19,221
20,373
21,597
22,893
24,266
25,721
27,266
28,902
30,636
32,474
34,422
36,487
38,677
40,997
43,457
46,064
48,829
51,579
54,864
58,156
61,645
65,343
69,263
73,420
77,826

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

21,383
22,667
24,027
25,467
26,997
28,617
30,333
32,152
34,083
36,128
38,295
40,593
43,028
45,609
48,347
51,247
54,322
57,580
61,037
64,474
68,580
72,695
77,057
81,679
86,579
91,775
97,283

$ 25,659
$ 27,200
$ 28,832
$ 30,560
$ 32,396
$ 34,340
$ 36,399
$ 38,582
$ 40,899
$ 43,353
$ 45,954
$ 48,711
$ 51,633
$ 54,731
$ 58,016
$ 61,496
$ 65,186
$ 69,096
$ 73,244
$ 77,369
$ 82,296
$ 87,234
$ 92,468
$ 98,015
$103,895
$110,130
$116,739

Range
Employees
Spread
50%
19
50%
11
50%
1
50%
17
50%
7
50%
7
50%
13
50%
11
50%
22
50%
22
50%
37
50%
16
50%
60
50%
14
50%
12
50%
13
50%
10
50%
18
50%
13
50%
9
50%
8
50%
50%
1
50%
6
50%
4
50%
50%
1

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


Page 3-2



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


Page 3-3



Exhibit 3B
Employees at Minimum and Maximum by Pay Grade
Grade
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
Total

Emps
19
11
1
17
7
7
13
11
22
22
37
16
60
14
12
13
10
18
13
9
7
1
6
4
1
351

# at Min
17
0
0
11
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36

% at Min
89.5%
0.0%
0.0%
64.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
4.5%
9.1%
0.0%
18.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.3%

# at Max
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4

% at Max
0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%



Page 3-4



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

Employees # < Mid
19
19
11
10
1
1
17
17
7
5
7
7
13
12
11
10
22
18
22
19
37
30
16
14
60
51
14
10
12
12
13
12
10
10
18
17
13
9
9
7
8
6
1
0
6
2
4
1
1
0
352
299

% < Mid # > Mid
100.0%
0
90.9%
1
100.0%
0
100.0%
0
71.4%
2
100.0%
0
92.3%
1
90.9%
1
81.8%
4
86.4%
3
81.1%
7
87.5%
2
85.0%
9
71.4%
4
100.0%
0
92.3%
1
100.0%
0
94.4%
1
69.2%
4
77.8%
2
75.0%
2
0.0%
1
33.3%
4
25.0%
3
0.0%
1
84.9%
53

% > Mid
0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
28.6%
0.0%
7.7%
9.1%
18.2%
13.6%
18.9%
12.5%
15.0%
28.6%
0.0%
7.7%
0.0%
5.6%
30.8%
22.2%
25.0%
100.0%
66.7%
75.0%
100.0%
15.1%


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.


Page 3-5



Exhibit 3D
County Quartile Analysis (Count of Employees)
GRADE Total 1ST QUARTILE 2ND QUARTILE 3RD QUARTILE 4TH QUARTILE
2
19
19
0
0
0
3
11
10
0
0
1
4
1
1
0
0
0
5
17
14
3
0
0
6
7
3
2
2
0
7
7
6
1
0
0
8
13
10
2
0
1
9
11
8
2
1
0
10
22
12
6
3
1
11
22
12
7
2
1
12
37
17
13
4
3
13
16
11
3
1
1
14
60
36
15
6
3
15
14
9
1
1
3
16
12
10
2
0
0
17
13
9
3
1
0
18
10
9
1
0
0
19
18
13
4
1
0
20
13
1
8
4
0
21
9
6
1
2
0
22
8
0
6
2
0
24
1
0
0
1
0
25
6
0
2
4
0
26
4
0
1
3
0
28
1
0
0
0
1
352
216
83
38
15


Page 3-6



Exhibit 3E
County Quartile Analysis (Percentage of Employees)
GRADE
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

Total
19
11
1
17
7
7
13
11
22
22
37
16
60
14
12
13
10
18
13
9
8
1
6
4
1
352

1ST QUARTILE 2ND QUARTILE 3RD QUARTILE 4TH QUARTILE
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.6%
0.6%
0.0%
1.7%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
0.6%
0.0%
0.3%
2.3%
0.6%
0.3%
0.0%
3.4%
1.7%
0.9%
0.3%
3.4%
2.0%
0.6%
0.3%
4.8%
3.7%
1.1%
0.9%
3.1%
0.9%
0.3%
0.3%
10.2%
4.3%
1.7%
0.9%
2.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.9%
2.8%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
2.6%
0.9%
0.3%
0.0%
2.6%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
1.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.3%
2.3%
1.1%
0.0%
1.7%
0.3%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
61.4%
23.6%
10.8%
4.3%



Page 3-7



Exhibit 3F
County Quartile Analysis (Percentage of Employees within Pay Grade)
100.00%

75.00%

50.00%

25.00%

0.00%
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


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.


Page 3-8



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).


Page 3-9



Exhibit 3G
County Employees by Department
Department
ANIMAL CONTROL
BEAVERDAM PARK
BUILDINGS & GROUNDS
CABLE SERVICES
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
CLEAN COMMUNITY
CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
CODES COMPLIANCE
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
CORRECTIONS/JAIL
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
COUNTY ATTORNEY
DEPT OF INFO TECH
E 911 SYSTEM
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EMERGENCY SERVICES
FINANCE
GIS
GLOUCESTER POINT BEACH
HISTORICAL COMMITTEE
HUMAN RESOURCES
LIBRARY
PARKS & RECREATION
PLANNING
PROBATION
PUBLIC WORKS
PURCHASING
REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENT
REGISTRAR/BOARD OF ELECTIONS
SHERIFF
SOCIAL SERVICES
TOURISM
TREASURER
UTILITIES
VICTIM/WITNESS PROGRAM
Total

Emps
5
10
30
1
1
1
7
12
8
8
10
1
35
4
2
8
5
2
2
5
4
3
2
4
20
20
4
7
4
3
4
3
58
33
1
9
27
2
365

Classes
4
4
13
1
1
1
6
8
7
7
4
1
8
4
2
8
3
2
2
4
2
1
2
4
6
11
4
3
3
3
4
3
23
18
1
6
18
2
204

% of Total
1.4%
2.7%
8.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
1.9%
3.3%
2.2%
2.2%
2.7%
0.3%
9.6%
1.1%
0.5%
2.2%
1.4%
0.5%
0.5%
1.4%
1.1%
0.8%
0.5%
1.1%
5.5%
5.5%
1.1%
1.9%
1.1%
0.8%
1.1%
0.8%
15.9%
9.0%
0.3%
2.5%
7.4%
0.5%
100.0%



Page 3-10



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
2
19
3
11
4
1
5
17
6
7
7
7
8
13
9
11
10
22
11
22
12
37
13
16
14
60
15
14
16
12
17
13
18
10
19
18
20
13
21
9
22
8
24
1
25
6
26
4
28
1
Overall Average

Avg Tenure
4.0
5.2
1.4
5.7
5.1
4.8
6.9
7.2
9.3
10.7
10.4
6.6
8.4
9.4
7.6
7.8
9.4
10.4
11.0
12.6
14.9
0.2
18.9
15.9
36.4
8.8



Page 3-11



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.


Page 3-12


Chapter 4 - Market Summary

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


Page 4-1



Middlesex County

New Kent County

Prince George
County

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.

Page 4-2



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

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

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


Page 4-3



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
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Human Resource Specialist (-26.82%);
Director of Planning (-25.14%);
Correctional Health Assistant (-21.22%); and
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:


Page 4-4


o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o


Human Resource Specialist (-31.37%);
Director of Planning (-28.56%);
Correctional Health Assistant (-28.05%);
Tourism Coordinator (-25.85%);
Director of Public Works (-23.24%);
Assistant County Administrator (-22.39%);
Director of Parks, Recreation, and Tours (-21.54%);
Director of Finance (-21.52%);
Park Ranger (-21.11%);
Social Worker I/II – DSS (-20.82%);
Probation Officer (-20.61%);
Inspector I (-20.42%);
Park Aide (-20.42%); and
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.


Page 4-5


Source: Evergreen Solutions, February 2013


Exhibit 4A (Continued on Next Page)
Salary Survey Market Differentials

Page 4-6



Source: Evergreen Solutions, February 2013


Exhibit 4A (Continued)
Salary Survey Market Differentials

Page 4-7



Chapter 5 - Solution
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 County
management practices and needs.
The remainder of this chapter presents the recommendations by category. The categories
include:
1. Compensation
2. Classification


Page 5-1



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.


Page 5-2



EXHIBIT 5A
GLOUCESTER COUNTY CURRENT PAY PLAN
Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

17,106
18,133
19,221
20,373
21,597
22,893
24,266
25,721
27,266
28,902
30,636
32,474
34,422
36,487
38,677
40,997
43,457
46,064
48,829
51,579
54,864
58,156
61,645
65,343
69,263
73,420
77,826

$ 21,383
$ 22,667
$ 24,027
$ 25,467
$ 26,997
$ 28,617
$ 30,333
$ 32,152
$ 34,083
$ 36,128
$ 38,295
$ 40,593
$ 43,028
$ 45,609
$ 48,347
$ 51,247
$ 54,322
$ 57,580
$ 61,037
$ 64,474
$ 68,580
$ 72,695
$ 77,057
$ 81,679
$ 86,579
$ 91,775
$ 97,283

$ 25,659
$ 27,200
$ 28,832
$ 30,560
$ 32,396
$ 34,340
$ 36,399
$ 38,582
$ 40,899
$ 43,353
$ 45,954
$ 48,711
$ 51,633
$ 54,731
$ 58,016
$ 61,496
$ 65,186
$ 69,096
$ 73,244
$ 77,369
$ 82,296
$ 87,234
$ 92,468
$ 98,015
$103,895
$110,130
$116,739

Range
Range
Spread Progression
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%

6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
5.6%
6.4%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%

Source: Evergreen Solutions February 2013


Page 5-3



EXHIBIT 5B
GLOUCESTER COUNTY PROPOSED GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN
Grade
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Minimum Midpoint

Maximum

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

18,474
19,584
20,759
22,003
23,325
24,724
26,207
27,779
29,447
31,214
33,087
35,072
37,176
39,406
41,771
44,277
46,934
49,749
52,735
55,899
59,253
62,808
66,577
70,570
74,804
79,294
84,052

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

24,016
25,459
26,987
28,604
30,323
32,141
34,069
36,113
38,281
40,578
43,013
45,594
48,329
51,228
54,302
57,560
61,014
64,674
68,556
72,669
77,029
81,650
86,550
91,741
97,245
103,082
109,268

29,558
31,334
33,214
35,205
37,320
39,558
41,931
44,446
47,115
49,942
52,939
56,115
59,482
63,050
66,834
70,843
75,094
79,598
84,376
89,438
94,805
100,493
106,523
112,912
119,686
126,870
134,483

Range
Range
Spread Progression
60.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%
60.0%
6.0%



Page 5-4



EXHIBIT 5C
GLOUCESTER COUNTY PROPOSED SHERIFF PAY PLAN
Grade
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

Minimum Midpoint Maximum
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

34,422
36,487
38,677
40,997
43,457
46,985
51,579
59,253
70,570

$ 44,749
$ 47,433
$ 50,280
$ 53,296
$ 56,494
$ 61,081
$ 67,053
$ 77,029
$ 91,741

$ 55,075
$ 58,379
$ 61,883
$ 65,595
$ 69,531
$ 75,176
$ 82,526
$ 94,805
$112,912

Range
Range
Spread Progression
60.0%
60.0%
6.00%
60.0%
6.00%
60.0%
6.00%
60.0%
6.00%
60.0%
8.12%
60.0%
9.78%
60.0%
14.88%
60.0%
19.10%


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.


Page 5-5



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 meritbased 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.


Page 5-6



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.


Page 5-7



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
Option
Option 1: Slot employees into proposed structure
Option 2: Slot employees and provide parity adjustment
(75% implementation)
Option 3: Slot employees and provide 8% increase

Cost
Year 1
Year 2
$ 94,434.60 $ 94,434.60
$588,883.25 $400,014.05

Total
$ 188,869.21
$ 988,897.30

$488,879.74

$300,010.53

$ 788,890.28

$388,876.23

$200,007.02

$ 588,883.25

$288,872.72

$100,003.51

$ 388,876.23

$707,052.78

$518,183.57 $ 1,225,236.35



Page 5-8


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.


Page 5-9



EXHIBIT 5E
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION TITLE CHANGES
Current Title
Accounting Technician
Accounting Technician
Admin Coord
Buyer II
Deputy/Corrections
Deputy/Corrections
Deputy/Corrections
Deputy/Corrections
Deputy/CT & Civil Process
GIS Analyst/Supervisor
GIS Technician
GIS Technician
Library Specialist
Maintenance Specialist
Maintenance Specialist
Planner III
Purchasing Manager
Registered Technician
Spec Events Supervisor
Zoning Supervisor

Proposed Title
Accounting Technician I
Accounting Technician II
Purchasing Coordinator
Senior Buyer
Deputy Recruit - Corrections
Deputy I -Corrections
Deputy II - Corrections
Master Deputy - Corrections
Deputy I - CT & Civil Process
Deputy II - CT & Civil Process
Master Deputy - CT & Civil Process
GIS Coordinator
GIS Specialist
GIS Technician II
Library Technical Services Specialist
Maintenance Specialist I
Maintenance Specialist II
Senior Comprehensive Planner
Purchasing Agent
Mosquito Control Technician
Special Events & Marketing Coordinator
Deputy Zoning Administrator

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.


Page 5-10



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 reque
increased 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


Page 5-11



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 County
their 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-


Page 5-12



Time Positions, Work As Required Positions, as well as dealing with FLSA Exempt and NonExempt 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 t
training, 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 35). This is an innovative policy that takes a step that many organizations are unwilling or


Page 5-13



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.


Page 5-14



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.


Page 5-15



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


Page 5-16



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.


Page 5-17



EXHIBIT 5F
GLOUCESTER COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER SHEET
Proposed Title
SUB COMM SCH SITE SPV
PARK ATTENDANT
PARK AIDE
RECREATION AIDE
MOSQUITO CONTROL TECHNICIAN
PRE-SCHOOL ASSISTANT
SUBSTITUTE OFFICE WORKER
CUSTODIAN
GROUNDSKEEPER
ASST REGISTRAR
CUSTODIAN II
LIBRARY CLERK
OFFICE ASSISTANT
OFFICE ASSOCIATE II -DSS
COOK
REVENUE TECHNICIAN
4H TECHNICIAN
LEAD CUSTODIAN
OFFICE ASSOCIATE III -DSS
UTILITY WKR I
MAINTENANCE ASSISTANT
WTP TRAINEE
DEPUTY I- CIR CRT
DEPUTY TREASURER I
MECHANICAL TECHNICIAN I
CUSTOMER SERVICE REP
HUMAN SERVICES ASSISTANT II -DSS
LIBRARY SPECIALIST
PARK RANGER
PERMIT TECH I
REVENUE SPECIALIST
UTILITY WKR II
LIBRARY TECHNICAL SERVICES SPECIALIST
ADMIN PROGRAM ASSISTANT I -DSS
ADMIN ASSIST I
CLASS IV WTP OPERATOR
GROUNDS TECHNICIAN
PARK MAINT TECHNICIAN
RE ASSESSMENT TECH II
DEPUTY II- CIR CRT

Current Proposed
New Min
Grade
Grade
2
2
$18,474
*
3
$19,584
2
3
$19,584
2
3
$19,584
*
3
$19,584
*
3
$19,584
3
3
$19,584
3
4
$20,759
4
4
$20,759
5
5
$22,003
5
5
$22,003
5
5
$22,003
5
5
$22,003
5
5
$22,003
6
6
$23,325
6
6
$23,325
7
7
$24,724
7
$24,724
7
7
$24,724
7
7
$24,724
7
7
$24,724
7
7
$24,724
6
8
$26,207
6
8
$26,207
8
8
$26,207
8
8
$26,207
8
8
$26,207
8
8
$26,207
8
8
$26,207
8
8
$26,207
8
8
$26,207
8
8
$26,207
8
9
$27,779
9
9
$27,779
9
9
$27,779
9
9
$27,779
9
9
$27,779
9
9
$27,779
9
9
$27,779
9
10
$29,447

New Mid New Max
$24,016
$25,459
$25,459
$25,459
$25,459
$25,459
$25,459
$26,987
$26,987
$28,604
$28,604
$28,604
$28,604
$28,604
$30,323
$30,323
$32,141
$32,141
$32,141
$32,141
$32,141
$32,141
$34,069
$34,069
$34,069
$34,069
$34,069
$34,069
$34,069
$34,069
$34,069
$34,069
$36,113
$36,113
$36,113
$36,113
$36,113
$36,113
$36,113
$38,281

$29,558
$31,334
$31,334
$31,334
$31,334
$31,334
$31,334
$33,214
$33,214
$35,205
$35,205
$35,205
$35,205
$35,205
$37,320
$37,320
$39,558
$39,558
$39,558
$39,558
$39,558
$39,558
$41,931
$41,931
$41,931
$41,931
$41,931
$41,931
$41,931
$41,931
$41,931
$41,931
$44,446
$44,446
$44,446
$44,446
$44,446
$44,446
$44,446
$47,115



Page 5-18



EXHIBIT 5F (CONTINUED)
Proposed Title
A/C DEPUTY OFFICER
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN I
ADMIN PROGRAM ASSISTANT II -DSS
ADMIN ASSIST II
CLEAN COMM COORD
DEPUTY TREASURER II
LEGAL SECRETARY
MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST I
PERMIT TECH II
SENIOR CUSTOMER SER REP
SR REVENUE SPECIALIST
UTILITY WKR III
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN II
ADMIN ASSIST III
BENEFIT PROGRAMS SPECIALIST I/II -DSS
CLASS III WTP OPERATOR
CORR HEALTH ASST
DEPUTY III-CIR CRT
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
DEPUTY TREASURER III
EMER SVC PLANNER/TRAINER
LIBRARY COORDINATOR
MECH TECH II
MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST II
RE ASSESSMENT TECH III
REAL ESTATE TECH III
ACCOUNTING COORDINATOR
ADMIN COORD
BENEFIT PROGRAMS SPECIALSIT III -DSS
BUYER
CUSTOMER SERVICE SPEC.
DEPUTY IV-CIR CRT
DISPATCHER
EQUIP MECHANIC
GIS TECHNICIAN
INSPECTOR I
MECHANICAL TECHNICIAN III
PUMP STATION MECH
PURCHASING COORDINATOR
UTILITY FOREMAN

Current Proposed New Min
10
10
$29,447
10
10
$29,447
10
10
$29,447
10
10
$29,447
10
10
$29,447
10
10
$29,447
10
10
$29,447
10
10
$29,447
10
10
$29,447
10
10
$29,447
10
10
$29,447
10
10
$29,447
10
11
$31,214
11
11
$31,214
11
11
$31,214
11
11
$31,214
11
11
$31,214
11
11
$31,214
11
11
$31,214
11
11
$31,214
11
11
$31,214
11
11
$31,214
11
11
$31,214
11
$31,214
12
11
$31,214
12
11
$31,214
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087

New Mid
$38,281
$38,281
$38,281
$38,281
$38,281
$38,281
$38,281
$38,281
$38,281
$38,281
$38,281
$38,281
$40,578
$40,578
$40,578
$40,578
$40,578
$40,578
$40,578
$40,578
$40,578
$40,578
$40,578
$40,578
$40,578
$40,578
$43,013
$43,013
$43,013
$43,013
$43,013
$43,013
$43,013
$43,013
$43,013
$43,013
$43,013
$43,013
$43,013
$43,013

New Max
$47,115
$47,115
$47,115
$47,115
$47,115
$47,115
$47,115
$47,115
$47,115
$47,115
$47,115
$47,115
$49,942
$49,942
$49,942
$49,942
$49,942
$49,942
$49,942
$49,942
$49,942
$49,942
$49,942
$49,942
$49,942
$49,942
$52,939
$52,939
$52,939
$52,939
$52,939
$52,939
$52,939
$52,939
$52,939
$52,939
$52,939
$52,939
$52,939
$52,939



Page 5-19



Proposed Title
VICTIM WITNESS ADVOCATE
WTP MECHANIC
DEPUTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
GIS TECHNICIAN II
HR SPECIALIST
PAYROLL/BENEFITS COOR
REVENUE COORDINATOR
A/C SR OFFICER
CLASS II WTP OPERATOR
COLLECTIONS COORD
DEPUTY CLERK
IT SUPPORT TECHNICIAN
LEGAL ASSISTANT
RE APPRAISER I
SELF SUFFICIENC SPECIALIST I/II -DSS
UTILITY INSPECTOR
VIDEO TECHNICIAN
PUBLIC WORKS COORDINATOR
GIS SPECIALIST
ATHLETICS SUPERVISOR
CODES COMP OFFICER
COMM ED COORD
COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR
FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST I/II -DSS
INSPECTOR II
MAINT SUPERVISOR
MUSEUM DIRECTOR
PARK SUPERVISOR
PLANNER I
PRETRIAL OFFICER
PROBATION OFFICER
SELF SUFFICIENCY SPECIALIST III -DSS
SENIOR BUYER
SENIOR MECHANICAL TECHNICIAN
SPECIAL EVENTS & MARKETING COORDINATOR
TOURISM COORDINATOR
VICTIM WITNESS COORDINATOR
A/C CHIEF OFFICER
APPLICATION DEVELOPER
BENEFIT PROGRAMS SUPERVISOR -DSS

12
12
$33,087
12
12
$33,087
12
13
$35,072
12
13
$35,072
12
13
$35,072
12
13
$35,072
12
13
$35,072
13
13
$35,072
13
13
$35,072
13
13
$35,072
13
13
$35,072
13
13
$35,072
13
13
$35,072
13
13
$35,072
13
13
$35,072
13
13
$35,072
13
13
$35,072
13
13
$35,072
12
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
14
14
$37,176
15
15
$39,406
15
$39,406
15
15
$39,406

New Mid
$43,013
$43,013
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$45,594
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$48,329
$51,228
$51,228
$51,228

New Max
$52,939
$52,939
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$56,115
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$59,482
$63,050
$63,050
$63,050



Page 5-20



Proposed Title
CLASS I WTP OPERATOR
FAMILY SERVICES SPECIALIST III -DSS
IT SUPPORT TECHNICIAN II
LIBRARIAN
RE APPRAISER II
SENIOR DISPATCHER
SENIOR LEGAL ASSISTANT
COMBINATION INSPECTOR
HR ANALYST
PLANNER II
LEAD WTP OPERATOR
CHIEF DEPUTY-CIR CRT
CHIEF DEPUTY-COR
COMBINATION INSPECTOR/PLANS EXAMINER
COMMUNICATION SPV
DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR
PROGRAM COORDINATOR (CSA) -DSS
REGISTERED NURSE
SENIOR REAL ESTATE APPRAISER
PROBATION & PRETRIAL DIR
SENIOR COMPPREHENSIVE PLANNER
ADMIN SERVICES MANAGER -DSS
FAMILY SERVICES SUPERVISOR -DSS
APPL & WEB DEV/ANALYST
NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR
WINDOWS SYSTEM ADMIN
ACCOUNTING MANAGER
CHIEF DEPUTY-TREASURER
ENVIROM PROGRAMS ADMIN
GIS COORDINATOR
PARK SUPERINTENDENT
PLANT MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER
RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT
UTILITY ENGINEER
UTILITY SPVR
IT SYSTEMS & NETWORK COOR
ASSISTANT COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY I
BUILDING OFFICIAL
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR I - DSS

15
15
$39,406
15
15
$39,406
15
15
$39,406
15
15
$39,406
15
15
$39,406
15
15
$39,406
15
15
$39,406
16
16
$41,771
16
16
$41,771
16
16
$41,771
16
16
$41,771
17
17
$44,277
17
17
$44,277
17
17
$44,277
17
17
$44,277
17
17
$44,277
17
17
$44,277
17
17
$44,277
17
17
$44,277
18
18
$46,934
18
18
$46,934
19
19
$49,749
19
19
$49,749
20
19
$49,749
20
19
$49,749
20
19
$49,749
20
20
$52,735
20
20
$52,735
20
20
$52,735
20
20
$52,735
20
20
$52,735
20
20
$52,735
20
20
$52,735
20
$52,735
20
20
$52,735
20
20
$52,735
21
20
$52,735
19
21
$55,899
21
22
$59,253
22
22
$59,253

New Mid
$51,228
$51,228
$51,228
$51,228
$51,228
$51,228
$51,228
$54,302
$54,302
$54,302
$54,302
$57,560
$57,560
$57,560
$57,560
$57,560
$57,560
$57,560
$57,560
$61,014
$61,014
$64,674
$64,674
$64,674
$64,674
$64,674
$68,556
$68,556
$68,556
$68,556
$68,556
$68,556
$68,556
$68,556
$68,556
$68,556
$68,556
$72,669
$77,029
$77,029

New Max
$63,050
$63,050
$63,050
$63,050
$63,050
$63,050
$63,050
$66,834
$66,834
$66,834
$66,834
$70,843
$70,843
$70,843
$70,843
$70,843
$70,843
$70,843
$70,843
$75,094
$75,094
$79,598
$79,598
$79,598
$79,598
$79,598
$84,376
$84,376
$84,376
$84,376
$84,376
$84,376
$84,376
$84,376
$84,376
$84,376
$84,376
$89,438
$94,805
$94,805



Page 5-21



Proposed Title
DIR BLDG & GRNDS
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR
ASSTISTANT COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY II
PURCHASING AGENT
CHIEF DEPUTY COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
DIR LIBRARY SERVICES
ASSESSOR
DIR COMM ED
DIR ECONOMIC DEV
DIR HUMAN RESOURCES
DIR PARKS REC & TOURISM
IT DIRECTOR
DIR PLANNING & ZONING
DIR FINANCIAL SVCS
DIR PUBLIC WORKS
DIR UTILITIES
DIR SOCIAL SERVICES -DSS
ASST COUNTY ADMIN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
COUNTY ATTORNEY
DEPUTY RECRUIT - CORRECTIONS
DEPUTY RECRUIT - LE
DEPUTY I - CORR, CT & CP
DEPUTY I - LE
DDEPUTY II - CORR, CT & CP
DDEPUTY II - LE
INVESTIGATOR
MASTER DEPUTY - CORR, CT & CP
SENIOR DEPUTY - LE
INVESTIGATOR II
SERGEANT CORR
MASTER DEPUTY - LE
SENIOR INV
SERGEANT LE, INV
LIEUTENANT -CORR, CT & CP
LIEUTENANT -LE, INV
CAPTAIN
CHIEF DEPUTY

Current Proposed New Min New Mid
22
22
$59,253 $77,029
22
22
$59,253 $77,029
22
23
$62,808 $81,650
22
23
$62,808 $81,650
24
24
$66,577 $86,550
24
24
$66,577 $86,550
22
25
$70,570 $91,741
25
25
$70,570 $91,741
25
25
$70,570 $91,741
25
25
$70,570 $91,741
25
25
$70,570 $91,741
25
25
$70,570 $91,741
27
25
$70,570 $91,741
25
26
$74,804 $97,245
26
26
$74,804 $97,245
26
26
$74,804 $97,245
26
26
$74,804 $97,245
26
26
$74,804 $97,245
28
28
$84,052 $109,268
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A
$34,422 $44,749
14
A
$34,422 $44,749
14
B
$36,487 $47,433
15
B
$36,487 $47,433
C
$38,677 $50,280
16
C
$38,677 $50,280
16
C
$38,677 $50,280
D
$40,997 $53,296
17
D
$40,997 $53,296
17
D
$40,997 $53,296
16
E
$43,457 $56,494
18
E
$43,457 $56,494
19
E
$43,457 $56,494
19
F
$46,985 $61,081
19
G
$51,579 $67,053
21
G
$51,579 $67,053
22
H
$59,253 $77,029
25
I
$70,570 $91,741

New Max
$94,805
$94,805
$100,493
$100,493
$106,523
$106,523
$112,912
$112,912
$112,912
$112,912
$112,912
$112,912
$112,912
$119,686
$119,686
$119,686
$119,686
$119,686
$134,483
*
*
$55,075
$55,075
$58,379
$58,379
$61,883
$61,883
$61,883
$65,595
$65,595
$65,595
$69,531
$69,531
$69,531
$75,176
$82,526
$82,526
$94,805
$112,912



Page 5-22

Class and Comp Study Gloucester County, Virginia

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Class and Comp Study Gloucester County, Virginia

Semelhante a Class and Comp Study Gloucester County, Virginia (20)

Mais de Chuck Thompson

Mais de Chuck Thompson (20)

Último

Último (12)

Class and Comp Study Gloucester County, Virginia