Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
Jefferson County officials recently received the results of a comprehensive analysis by a technology consultant firm on the demographics, opinions, and internal and external salary equity of county employees, as well as recommendations for improving the system, among other pertinent information.
Kelli Bracci, a senior consultant with Evergreen Solutions LLC, made the presentation to the Jefferson County Commission on Thursday evening, July 20.
The study, Bracci said, focused on a review of the skills, capabilities, and duties of county employees and how the latter were compensated compared to other employees doing similar jobs both within the county and in seven cities or counties of similar size in north Florida and South Georgia, as well as compared to the general marketplace.
“We collected a ton of information,” Bracci said, noting that the results of the analysis were contained in the 15-page report presented to the commission.
In brief, the study – which included one-on-one interviews with all the employees – combined qualitative and quantitative data analyses and an examination of the county’s classification system and job descriptions in terms of their fairness and competitiveness, plus offered multiple recommendations for improving the compensation structure and management practices.
One of the things that the study revealed, Bracci said, was that workers were generally pleased with the county’s benefits package, particularly the health coverage plan.
“That was the number one reason that they cited for working here,” Bracci said.
Another of the advantages that the employees mentioned, she said, was working in a small, rural community, of which they felt a part and where they felt their efforts counted.
“They said they like the people and the environment,” Bracci said. “They felt appreciated and
that they were contributing to Jefferson County and that was important to them.”
On the negative side, she said, the employees had expressed concerns about the county’s
compensation and classifications practices, particularly in terms of the hiring process and the
ability for advancement and pay raises.
The employees, she said, felt that the current system was arbitrary, and that the county needed to
establish a pay plan and promotional process. Employees also, she said, wanted to see regular
cost of living adjustments (COLA) and believed that not a few of them were working at higher
levels of responsibility than their titles reflected. Which was not an uncommon occurrence in
small counties, Bracci said.
The data overall, she reported, had largely validated the employees’ expressed concerns.
“Right now, you guys don’t have a set pay plan,” Bracci said. “Which I think goes to some of the
employees’ confusion, as they don’t know how they’re supposed to progress because there isn’t
anything for them to look at and say, this is my grade, this is how I’m going.”
Bottom line, she said, the county’s pay scale was significantly below those of entities of similar
size in the region and the marketplace in general, even after making cost of living adjustments.
Ultimately, she said, the market survey showed that the county’s lowest paid employees were
approximately 25 percent below the market average, while its highest paid employees were
approximately 17 percent below the market average.
The analysis, she said, further found that although the county’s classification system was
generally accurate and the titles described the work being performed, many employees were
working at higher levels of responsibility than their titles normally reflected, and other
classifications required modification to better describe the work being done.
The bottom line, she said, was that the county needed to develop a pay plan that met the
marketplace and assigned employees a pay grade based appropriately on their responsibilities,
among other things.
“What I’m suggesting doesn’t necessarily address compression,” Bracci said of the plan. “But
that wasn’t really a problem that we found in our data or in talking to your employees. But what
it does is it establishes a new pay range, and it brings everybody to the minimum pay range and
also gives them a three-percent COLA.”
The total cost of the plan, she said, would be $220,868, including part-time employees.
“When we created this pay plan, one of things we looked at is that the county would potentially
want to go up to the $15 minimum,” Bracci said. “You guys have a lot of part-time people. We
didn't start the part-time people at $15 hourly. We based this plan on $13 an hour, which is a year
ahead of where you have to be by state law right now. You guys know that every year it’s going
up a dollar. So, full time people we started at $15 an hour, part-time people we started at $13.
Which gives you about a year of breathing room before you have to address that again.”
The next step in the process, Bracci said, was for the commission to act.
“You guys are going to have to decide what we do with this number,” she said, referring to the
$220,868. “You can approve it, you can have some more conversations about it, or we can look
at the budget and see how those numbers need to be.”
She added that her group could start on the job descriptions as soon as the commission approved
the pay ranges and likely have the descriptions finished by September.
Commissioner Stephen Walker’s preference was to implement the plan as soon as possible.
“I know it’s a big number,” Walker said of the $220,668. “But we need to start getting into it
because if we don’t, we’re going to lose staff.”
The other commissioners were equally disposed to proceed with the plan’s implementation right
away. Budget Officer Gus Rojas, however, questioned if the $220,668 included federal taxes,
workman’s compensation and pension contribution costs.
The $220,668 included only the three-percent COLA, Bracci clarified.
That somewhat dampened the commissioners’ enthusiasm, at least until it was ascertained
exactly how much the plan would cost in total and if the budget could accommodate the
expenditure.
Commission Chairman Chris Tuten instructed Rojas to research exactly how much it would cost
to implement the plan and report the findings to the board at the next meeting. It was expected
that by then the state’s revenue projections should also be known, giving a better picture of how
much revenues the county could expect to get in the coming fiscal year.