The URL can be used to link to this page

Item D1 ( CM ounty of onroe BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor Heather Carruthers, District 3 Mayor Pro Tem George Neugent, District 2 TheFloridaKeys Danny L. Kolhage, District 1 David Rice, District 4 Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5 County Commission Meeting July 18, 2016 Agenda Item Number: D.1 Agenda Item Summary #1876 BULK ITEM: DEPARTMENT: No Employee Services TIME APPROXIMATE:STAFF CONTACT: Teresa Aguiar (305) 292-4458 N/A AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction to consider a revision of the current pay plan to reflect a minimum living wage of no less than $15.00 per hour ($31,200 annually based on a 40 hour per week position), and approval to amend the contract with Evergreen Solutions, LLC to implement the new living wage and conduct a full compression analysis (Option #1) or consider other various options. ITEM BACKGROUND: On May 24, 2016, the BOCC had a discussion on implementing a living wage (LW) for Monroe County employees. BOCC Offices/employees: Staff conducted a preliminary analysis of BOCC employees to determine the financial impact if the County raises the 93 full- or part-time positions that currently make less than $15.00/hour to $15.00 minimum per hour. The cost would be approximately $260,000 in Year 1. To raise 199 positions to $17.50 per hour, the cost would be approximately $1,025,000 in Year 1. Constitutional Offices: Staff polled the Constitutional Officers and asked if they have looked at their pay plans/employees to determine the impact of $15.00 per hour or $17.50 per hour minimum pay for their employees. Below are the responses received: ELECTION'S OFFICE: Already implemented a new hire minimum rate change from $30,000 yr to $35,000 yr. $15.00 would be no impact to budget $17.50 would be about $250,000 in Year 1 with taking into consideration giving supervisors raises for fairness because of the subordinates then making the same amount as their supervisors. year. PROPERTY APPRAISER: Not raising rates at this time. 4EGOIX4K ( COURT ADMINISTRATION: Does not have anyone under $15 hr. Has several under $17.50 hr. Is concerned about compression with any changes. CLERK: Entry level positions earn $33,675/$17.27 hr. Raising it to $17.50 will be about $5,000 impact to current employees in Year 1. Looking into hiring a firm to look at compression. Staff surveyed other communities and their living wage policies. The survey results are attached titled Minimum Living Wage Survey 2016. Staff utilized the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Living Wage Calculator to calculate a living wage for Monroe County. The report is attached titled Living Wage Calculation for Monroe County, Florida. This is a tool used to estimate the cost of living and lists typical expenses, the living wage and typical wages. It also includes household income vs. Individual income. Evergreen Solutions, LLC was retained by the County to conduct a Compensation and Classification Study for the County in 2013. The BOCC adopted a new pay plan on 5/1/14 (attached in the Evergreen Report). Since that time, Employee Services has conducted several market studies (mechanics, information technology, e.g.) to maintain a competitive wage for Departments with recruitment issues (Section 5-4 of the Evergreen Report), staff has made some adjustments to positions or groups of positions to implement the information gained in those studies, and the County has also implemented cost of living adjustments as Evergreen Solutions recommended in their report (Section 5-5 of the Evergreen Report). Attached is the most current Pay Plan, as of May 2016, titled Pay Plan May 2016. After the BOCC requested staff evaluate a living wage, staff contacted Evergreen to request a letter proposal to assist with any or all of the following services. As outlined in the attached Revised Letter Proposal, the possible services are as follows: 1. Implement Living wage of $15/hour (evaluate supervisory salary issues and compression) - $21,000 (attendance at in-person meetings will be an additional $3,000 per meeting). 2. Implement Living wage of $17.50/hour (evaluate supervisory salary issues and compression- $21,000 (attendance at in-person meetings will be an additional $3,000 per meeting). 3. Evaluate what the Living wage should be in the Keys - $18,000 (attendance at in-person meetings will be an additional $3,000 per meeting). 4. Implement #3 (evaluating supervisory salary issues and compression)-$25,000 (attendance at in- person meetings will be an additional $3,000 per meeting). 5. Update 2014 Classification and Compensation Study - $46,000 (attendance at in-person meetings will be an additional $3,000 per meeting). These services are options. The County can choose from these services, but they do not all need to be done. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On May 1, 2014, the BOCC implemented a new pay plan which was part of a Classification and Compensation Study. The recommendations were implemented on June 1, 2014. 4EGOIX4K ( CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Phase I - Direct Staff to implement $15/hour minimum living wage as of 10/1/16; direct staff to develop a contract amendment for Evergreen Solutions to conduct implement a $15/hour LW for evaluation of supervisory and compression issues. Est. Cost: $21,000 [#1 above] plus $3,000/in person meeting for Evergreen Solutions, plus approximately $260,000 to bring 93 positions up to $15/hour LW based on current salaries, plus an additional amount (not yet determined) to address and correct problem of wage compression. (Staff would bring the Evergreen contract amendment back in front of the BOCC at a later date for approval.) Phase II - Direct staff to develop a 2nd contract amendment for Evergreen Solutions to evaluate what the living wage should be in the Keys [#3 above] and conduct an update of 2014 Classification and Compensation Study [#5 above]. Est. Cost: $64,000 ($18,000 [#3 above] + $46,000 [#5 above]) plus $3,000/in person meeting, plus additional salary costs depending on the LW selected. (Staff would bring the Evergreen contract amendment back in front of the BOCC at a later date for approval.) *In Evergreen's 2014 report (Section 5-6), it was recommended to conduct a Compensation and Classification Study every 3-5 years). The survey results in the 2014 was data from 2013. DOCUMENTATION: Revised Letter Proposal Evergreen Agreement 09172013 Evergreen Amendment 11202013 Minimum Living Wage survey 2016 Living Wage Calculation for Monroe County Pay Plan May 2016 Classification and Compensation Study Report Evergreen Solutions May 2014 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Effective Date: July 20, 2016 Expiration Date: TBD Total Dollar Value of Contract: Total Cost to County: Current Year Portion: Budgeted: Source of Funds: CPI: Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Revenue Producing: If yes, amount: 4EGOIX4K ( Grant: County Match : Insurance Required: Additional Details: 07/18/16 001-06500 · PERSONNEL $21,000.00 Option #1 - $15.00 per hour/$31,200 yr minimum wage REVIEWED BY: Teresa Aguiar Completed 07/13/2016 11:03 AM Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley Completed 07/13/2016 11:25 AM Cynthia Hall Completed 07/13/2016 1:01 PM Budget and Finance Completed 07/13/2016 1:35 PM Maria Slavik Completed 07/13/2016 1:40 PM Kathy Peters Completed 07/13/2016 2:07 PM Board of County Commissioners Pending 07/18/2016 10:00 AM 4EGOIX4K (E June 24, 2016 Ms. Teresa Aguiar, SHRM-CP, PHR, CPM Employee Services Director Monroe County BOCC 1110 Simonton Street Key West, Florida 33040 SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL: aguiar-teresa@monroecounty-fl.gov Dear Ms. Aguiar: We appreciate the opportunity to provide you a letter proposal to assist with the following scope of services for the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). We also include our fee for each service as well as a-per meeting all-inclusive travel cost. Scope of Services 1)Implement a Minimum Living Wage of $31,200 year/$15.00 an hour (This will include determination of issues that may arise with supervisory duties or compression of positions; what needs to be done to fix those issues; cost for County implementation with variable options; and publication of analysis). Fee - $21,000 Attendance at four internal meetings: $3,000 per meeting which includes all travel expenses Attendance at three BOCC meetings: $3,000 per meeting which includes all travel expenses 2)Implement a Minimum Living Wage of $36,400 year/$17.50 an hour (This will include determination of issues that may arise with supervisory duties or compression of positions; what needs to be done to fix those issues; cost for County implementation with variable options; and publication of analysis). Fee - $21,000 Attendance at four internal meetings: $3,000 per meeting which includes all travel expenses Attendance at three BOCC meetings: $3,000 per meeting which includes all travel expenses 3)Evaluate implementation of and determination of what a living wage would be in the keys (This will include publication of analysis. Fee - $18,000 Attendance at four internal meetings: $3,000 per meeting which includes all travel expenses Attendance at three BOCC meetings: $3,000 per meeting which includes all travel expenses 4EGOIX4K (E 4)Implement a Minimum Living Wage of amount found to be the Keys Living Wage from item #3 (This will include determination of issues that may arise with supervisory duties or compression of positions; what needs to be done to fix those issues; cost for County implementation with variable options; and publication of analysis. Fee - $25,000 Attendance at four internal meetings: $3,000 per meeting which includes all travel expenses Attendance at three BOCC meetings: $3,000 per meeting which includes all travel expenses 5) ated 4/14/14 to facilitate assurance of internal and external equity, to update market conditions for salaries and benefits, and to continue to maintain a competitive compensations plan and practice. Includes publication of analysis and attendance at unlimited conference calls or polycom calls. Fee - $46,000 Attendance at eight internal meetings: $3,000 per meeting which includes all travel expenses Attendance at three BOCC meetings: $3,000 per meeting which includes all travel expenses We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this letter proposal and look forward to opportunity to again work with the Monroe County BOCC. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (850) 383-0111 or via email at jeff@consultevergreen.com. Sincerely, Dr. Jeffrey Ling Executive Vice President Evergreen Solutions, LLC 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (F 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (G 4EGOIX4K (H Minimum Living Wage Survey 2016 ORGANIZATIONFORMULACONTACT INFORMATION Has your organization determined a minimum living wage to pay your employees? If so, what formula did you use? Minimum Living Wage: Allows a family to meet its basic needs, and provides it with some ability to deal with emergencies, without resorting to welfare or other public assistance. We have discussed it, but have yet Strickland, Vickie City of Lakelandmade a determination if we are going <Vickie.Strickland@lakelandgov.net> to pursue it. We use the MIT living wage table and compare it to our minimum of our pay St. Johns County Board of grades. If you google living wage Stacey Stanish <sstanish@sjcfl.us> County Commissioners calculator, it should come up and you can search by county. Seminole County No, we have not.Bobbi Kidd bkidd@seminolecountyfl.gov Government Charlotte County Human We did not determine a living wage Kathy.Brantley@charlottecountyfl.gov Resources Department No – we didn’t use a formula. We based it on what municipalities in our surrounding communities were doing. Jennifer Poirrier Treasure Island No longer has data available. jpoirrier@mytreasureisland.org Suggested we contact City of St. Pete who did the research. Implemented a living wage of $12.50 for all full time employees and all part time employees who had 5 years continuous service. This was promoted by the Unions. We researched Dept of Labor information for studies that were done, including the MIT living wage calculator. We looked at population to determine who was on benefits, family coverage, Colette Graston City of St. Pete Beachour age groups, sing/married, etc. We colette@stpetebeach.org only moved about 80 people. We will be moving our living wage up to $15.00 during a 5 year period which is driven by our union contracts. We also moved titles to a higher pay grade and also several grades above the new pay. Some staff did have small adjustments but we did not give professional, managment, police, fire, supervisors, IT staff any adjustments. No formula. We made a Village of Wellingtondetermination that $14/hour is the Kim Gibbons kgibbons@wellingtonfl.gov minimum for all full time employees. Provides living wage to all regular employees. Contractors with single contracts over $100,000 with the city must pay their employees a living Rhonda Virden City of Gainsville wage. Living Wage based on the U.S. virdenrk@cityofgainesville.org Department of Health and Human Services 2016 Poverty Guidelines. Per the City of Gainsville Living Wage Ordinance, Section 2-616, the Living Wage is adjusted ont he first day of the second month following the publication of the guidelines, or March 1, 2016 this year. Sarasota County GovernmentGail Coel gcoel@scgov.net We do not provide. We are strictly merit increase for non-bargaining. Several years ago, our City Commission determined that $12.86/hour, or $26,750/annually is a minimum livable wage. They used the national poverty level standard + 25% and then adjusted for cost of living in April Bryan City of Sarasota Sarasota. That is our minimum for april.bryan@sarasotagov.com hiring probationary full-time employees. Part-time and temporary employees may be hired at any rate, as long as it is at least the minimum wage for Florida. 4EGOIX4K %XXEGLQIRX0MZMRK;EKI'EPGYPEXMSRJSV1SRVSI'SYRX] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX0MZMRK;EKI'EPGYPEXMSRJSV1SRVSI'SYRX] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX0MZMRK;EKI'EPGYPEXMSRJSV1SRVSI'SYRX] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX0MZMRK;EKI'EPGYPEXMSRJSV1SRVSI'SYRX] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] %XXEGLQIRX4E]4PER1E] 0MZMRK;EKI'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH] (K BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: ivision: Employee Services May 1, 2014 D Bulk Item: Yes No X Department: Human Resources Staff Contact Person: Teresa Aguiar X4458 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation and approval of findings and recommendations of Classification and Compensation Study Report from Evergreen Solutions, LLC. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ITEM BACKGROUND: On April 17, 2013, the BOCC directed staff to develop an RFP to solicit interest to conduct the study.On June 19, 2013, the BOCC approved the draft request for proposal. On September 17, 2013, the BOCC the initial contract with an amendment approved November 20, 2013, to allow additional time to complete the study and to allow completion of the job descriptions at the end of the contract term instead of the beginning. Further, additional in person meetings with the staff and BOCC were approved. Department Head and Committee meetings were held on 11/21/13 to go over the initial compensation survey and resulting grade recommendations. January 9, 2014 additional Department Head and Committee meetings were held to review the report. January 22 - 24, 2014 Commissioners were briefed on the progress of the report and additional survey data and benefit data was requested. Evergreen published the final report and final Department Head and Committee meetings were held April 17, 2014. Commissioners were also briefed on April 24, 2014. The study is now completed with recommended solutions for the BOCC to consider and approve. On average, at the minimum of the public sector salary ranges, the County is 10.8 percent below market across all matched classifications. On average, at the midpoint of salary ranges, the County is 14.3 percent below the public sector market across all matched classifications. The Benefits Survey indicated the following: The County is comparable to the market with respect to the benefits portion of total compensation. Although the County only offers one type of PPO health plan, the percentage of premiums paid for individuals is comparable to all other peer organizations; however, the premiums paid for dependents is higher than the market average. Annual/Vacation leave and sick leave accrual is slightly higher than peer respondents. Maximum leave accrual rates are higher than market peer organizations. Paid holidays are just lower than the County’s peers. Life insurance benefits are ahead the market average. In summary, the public sector market average for benefits as a percentage of total compensation is 23%, while the County’s average for benefits as a percentage of total compensation is somewhat richer at 27%. Taking into account the benefit difference, the County’s pay plan (grades with minimum, midpoint, and maximum salaries) has been adjusted by 11.01% to establish the minimum pay grade of 100. Range spreads have been broadened to 55% for more in-grade salary progression, with each separated by 5.23%. Employees 4EGOIX4K (K were slotted into the grades to produce the recommended salary adjustments. Two steps have been given by Evergreen. Step 1 (red): Bring employees to minimum. The cost to implement Step 1 is $86,526.47. Step 2 (orange): Bring employees to minimum and give employees a salary adjustment based on the number of years at the county they have been in their current position. The cost to implement Step 1 and 2 is: $284,639.66. Finally, the recommendation on long term implementation of the pay plan is as follows: 1.Conduct a pay plan analysis every 3-5 years. 2.Implement the new grades and salary ranges, along with either step 1 or step 1 and 2. 3.Each year on Oct 1 (if budget warrants), at a minimum, adjust the pay plan min, mid, and max by Consumer Price Index (CPI) and simultaneously, authorize a cost of living adjustment for all employees equal to CPI so employees at minimum are not below the minimum if pay grades are adjusted annually. 4.Each year on Oct 1 (if budget warrants), at a minimum, continue the newly implemented (2014) Performance Based Raise System. _________________________________________________________________________________________ PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION: N/A __________________________________________________________________________________________ CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES :N/A __________________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Implement Step 1 (red) at a cost of $86,526.47 2. Direct staff to implement long term pay plan adjustments annually increasing pay ranges based on Consumer Price Index (CPI). 3. Subject to budget funding availability and implementation of #2 above, annually increase salaries based on (CPI). 4. Subject to budget funding availability, annually implement Performance Based Evaluation System. TOTAL COST: BUDGETED: Step 1 is $86,526.47 Yes No_ INDIRECT COST: _____ DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: _____________________________________ COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS Ad Valorem ___________ REVENUE PRODUCING:AMOUNT PER MONTHYear ____ Yes _No ___ APPROVED BY: County Atty___ OMB/Purchasing ______ RiskManagement_____ DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required _____ DISPOSITION:AGENDA ITEM # 4EGOIX4K (K Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL Final Report April 14, 2014 4EGOIX4K (K EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1INTRODUCTION Evergreen Solutions was retained by Monroe County, FL (County) to conduct a Classification and Compensation Study of all positions in the organization. This analysis provides the &RXQW\·VHOHFWHGRIILFLDOVDQGNH\VWDNHKROGHrs invaluable information related to their employee demographics, opinions, market data, as well as internal and external equity. Internal equity relates to the fairness of an RUJDQL]DWLRQ·VFRPSHQVDWLon 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 resolves any inconsistencies related to job requirements and providing clarity to the plan in place. ([WHUQDOHTXLW\GHDOVZLWKWKHGLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQKRZDQRUJDQL]DWLRQ·VFODVVLILFDWLRQVDUH 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 survey and providing feedback to the County regarding current market competitiveness; Conducting a classification analysis utilizing the Job Assessment Tool (JAT) point factoring methodology 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; Updating classification descriptions in light of reclassifications and employee responses to the JAT. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-1 4EGOIX4K (K &KDSWHU,QWURGXFWLRQ&ODVVLILFDWLRQDQG&RPSHQVDWLRQ6WXG\IRU0RQURH&RXQW\)/ 1.2STUDY METHODOLOGY Evergreen Solutions combines qualitative as well as quantitative data analysis to produce an equitable solution to maximize the fairness DQGFRPSHWLWLYHQHVVRIDQRUJDQL]DWLRQ·V compensation structure and practices. Project activities included: conducting a project kick-off meeting; conducting orientation sessions with employees; facilitating focus group sessions with employees chosen by the County; conducting an external market salary survey; developing recommendations for compensation management; revising classification descriptions based on employee JAT feedback; 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. Employee Outreach The orientation sessions brief employees and supervisors on the purpose and major processes of the study. This process addresses 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. In addition, employees participate in focus group sessions designed to gather input from their varied perspectives as to the strengths and weaknesses of the current system. Feedback received from employees in this context was helpful in highlighting aspects of the organization which needed particular attention and consideration. JobAssessmentTool(JAT)ClassificationAnalysis Employees were asked to complete individual JAT surveys where they shared information pertaining to their work in their own words. These JATs were analyzed and compared to the current classification descriptions and classes were individually scored based on employee responses to five compensable factor questions. Each of the compensable factors; Leadership, Working Conditions, Complexity, Decision Making, and Relationships, were given weighted values based on employee responses which ultimately resulted in a point factor score for each classification. Each compensable factor has 8 possible points which combine to form a total range of weighted JAT scores between 125 and 1,000 points. The rank order of classes by JAT scores is used to develop a rank order of classes within the proposed Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-2 4EGOIX4K (K &KDSWHU,QWURGXFWLRQ&ODVVLILFDWLRQDQG&RPSHQVDWLRQ6WXG\IRU0RQURH&RXQW\)/ compensation structure. Combined with market data, this information forms the foundation of the combined solution. /HDGHUVKLS²/HDGHUVKLSGHDOVZLWKWKHHPSOR\HH·VLQGLYLGXDOOHDGHUVKLSUROHEHLW as a direct report of others who is subject to leadership or an executive leadership over entire departments or the County as a whole. :RUNLQJ&RQGLWLRQV²:RUNLQJ&RQGLWLRQVGHDOVZLWKWKHHPSOR\HH·VSK\VLFDOZRUNLQJ FRQGLWLRQVDQGWKHHPSOR\HH·VLPSDFWRQWKose conditions as well as the working conditions impact or potential impact on the employee. &RPSOH[LW\²&RPSOH[LW\GHVFULEHVWKHQDWXUHRIZRUNSHUIRUPHGDQGLQFOXGHV options ranging from entry level manual or clerical tasks up to advanced scientific, legal, or executive management duties. 'HFLVLRQ0DNLQJ²'HFLVLRQ0DNLQJGHDOVZLWKWKHLQGLYLGXDOGHFLVLRQPDNLQJ authority of the employees. Are decisions made on behalf of the employee or are they making decisions for themselves or even other employees? Also, who do those decisions impact; only the individual or are there decisions being made that affect the entire organization and its citizens? 5HODWLRQVKLSV²5HODWLRQVKLSVGHDOVZLWKRUganizational structure and the nature of WKHHPSOR\HH·VZRUNLQJUHODWLRQVKLSV5HVSRQVHVUDQJHIURPHPSOR\HHVZKRZRUN primarily alone, those who work as members of a team, those who oversee teams and even those who report to elected officials or the general public. Salary Survey The external market is defined as identified peers that have similar characteristics, demographics, and service offerings as the target organization. Benchmark positions are identified from each area and level of the organization and typically include a large cross- section of positions at the County. Once the target and benchmark information is finalized, classification information from the County is used to find comparable positions from peer organizations. Classification Description Revision Based on employee feedback and supervisor comments on the JAT, classification descriptions are updated to better reflect actual work performed and revisions to the class structure. Solution Creation - Pay Schedule and Transition Costing Solution creation follows the collection of salary survey data and discussion of 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 Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-3 4EGOIX4K (K &KDSWHU,QWURGXFWLRQ&ODVVLILFDWLRQDQG&RPSHQVDWLRQ6WXG\IRU0RQURH&RXQW\)/ proposed pay grade structure using market data and Client Project Manager (CPM) feedback. 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 identifies the costs associated with each step of the analysis. The data from the job slotting process are applied to the individual employees in the organization. This allows the County to view the total costs associated with proposed 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. 1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION This report includes the following additional chapters: &KDSWHU²6XPPDU\RI2XWUHDFK &KDSWHU²$VVHVVPHQWRI&XUUHQW&RQGLWLRQV &KDSWHU²0DUNHWDQG%HQHILWV6XUYH\6XPPDU\ &KDSWHU²6ROXWLRQ Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-4 4EGOIX4K (K EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee Outreach Evergreen Solutions conducted a series of employee focus groups with Monroe County employees in October 2013. Meeting format and questions were designed to solicit input on a number of topics related to the comprehensive classification, compensation, and benefits study. The comments of the participants were valuable, and the findings from these meetings are summarized below. *HQHUDO)HHGEDFN Employees commonly regarded the County as a stable place to work. They were committed to serving the community, appreciated the opportunity to grow and develop, and enjoyed their co-workers; however, employees suggested several areas where the County could improve. For example, they believed that job duties and assignments have changed, and the existing compensation and classification structure may not have kept pace with the cost of living or the south Florida market. Employees did have several positive comments regarding their employment with the County, including the following: Employees generally believed that employment with the County remains stable and secure despite the difficult economic conditions. Employees regularly expressed their enjoyment of the benefits the County provides. Many listed the benefits as one of the primary reasons for coming to work for the organization. Employees also provided suggestions for areas of improvement: Employees expressed a strong desire to receive increases to their pay relative to their cost of living. Many mentioned this as one of the primary factors causing higher turnover rates for lower level pay grades and dissatisfaction with their current salaries. Employees would like to see job classifications and descriptions updated to more accurately depict the work they are doing. Many employees expressed concern with the lack of pay raises and would like to see increases based on job performance and merit. Employees would like to see a salary incentive for completed degree programs. Many stated that there was little consideration for experience or education in the compensation structure. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-1 4EGOIX4K (K &KDSWHU²6XPPDU\RI(PSOR\HH2XWUHDFK&ODVVLILFDWLRQDQG&RPSHQVDWLRQ6WXG\IRU0RQURH&RXQW\)/ %HQHILWV2EVHUYDWLRQV A strong majority of employees were pleased with the benefits package offered by the County, but they were concerned with the changes that are being made. These comments, as well as areas for improvement, are listed below: Most employees appreciated the health plan in general, but were concerned with the increases in out-of-pocket health care costs over time. Some employees expressed a desire to have more funding for tuition reimbursement, certifications, licenses, training opportunities and continuing education. Employees are concerned that overall benefits coverage has decreased, while the costs have increased. These views were prevalent among longer-term employees. Employees would like to be fully compensated for unused sick leave in some way. Some employees mentioned concern that the voluntary wellness program punishes employees who do not participate instead of rewarding employees for their participation. Many of the employee comments in this regard dealt with communication of the plan details and how the message was relayed seeming very punitive rather than encouraging. &RPSHQVDWLRQ,VVXHV Focus group participants also offered the following related to compensation: Most employees cited discontent with the lack of cost of living increases. Employees noted the desire to have an equitable pay structure developed, implemented, reviewed, and updated periodically. They raised concern for the internal equity of the system. Many employees stated that the maximum on the pay scales has stayed the same for many years. Being capped out at a pay grade leaves them the opportunity for neither cost of living adjustments nor raises. Many employees wanted additional pay for advanced education, additional certifications, and bilingual skills. &ODVVLILFDWLRQ,VVXHV Participants also provided the Evergreen Solutions team with issues specific to individual classifications, were analyzed during the Job Assessment Tool (JAT) review process. Below is a list of the general issues: Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-2 4EGOIX4K (K &KDSWHU²6XPPDU\RI(PSOR\HH2XWUHDFK&ODVVLILFDWLRQDQG&RPSHQVDWLRQ6WXG\IRU0RQURH&RXQW\)/ Many employees believed classification titles and job descriptions are outdated and need to be updated to reflect current actual duties and responsibilities performed. Employees stated that a lot of positions have taken on extra duties over time, yet descriptions have not been updated. Some employees stated that positions have different duties and responsibilities depending on the department in which they work. They expressed a need for consistency within job titles. A small number of employees indicated that from time to time new classifications are created for individual employees to meet a specific compensation need irrespective of their impact on the classification structure. 0DUNHW3HHUV Focus group participants were asked to name organizations they considered to be market peers. Some of these are listed below and will be considered when developing the list of peers for the salary survey: Broward County, FL Dade County, FL Palm Beach County, FL City of Aspen, CO City of Cape Cod, MA City of Hilton Head Island, SC City of Homestead, FL City of Key West, FL City of Marathon, FL City of Marco Island, FL City of Miami, FL City of Vail, CO Village of Islamorada, FL Florida Keys Electric Cooperative Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Miami-Dade County Public Schools, FL Monroe County School District, FL Florida Keys Community College %HQFKPDUN3RVLWLRQV Employees were also asked which positions within the County present the greatest challenges with regard to recruitment and retention. Some of the positions or functional areas mentioned by focus group participants were: Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-3 4EGOIX4K (K &KDSWHU²6XPPDU\RI(PSOR\HH2XWUHDFK&ODVVLILFDWLRQDQG&RPSHQVDWLRQ6WXG\IRU0RQURH&RXQW\)/ Airport Maintenance Technician Planners Building Inspectors Electrical Inspectors Mechanics Fleet Management Maintenance Worker (Facilities) Maintenance Worker (Parks and Beaches) Laborers Engineers A/C (HVAC) Technician SUMMARY The employee concerns discussed above exist in many organizations; however, employees believed the County is overall a stable place to work. In fact, many employees cited the organizational commitment to serving the community through public service, the benefits package, and their co-workers as reasons they remain with the County. The main concern for county employees was the cost of living. This factor was discussed in each session conducted by the Evergreen Solutions team. Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-4 4EGOIX4K (K EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC Chapter 3 Assessment of Current Conditions The purpose of this statistical evaluation is to provide an overall assessment of the structure of the current County compensation plan. This chapter includes a pay plan analysis, grade placement analysis, quartile analysis, and employee tenure and distribution analysis. Data included here reflects the information and demographics in place at present and should be considered a snapshot in time. The insights gained from this chapter provide fertile ground for more detailed analysis and recommendations through the course of this study, but are not sufficient cause for recommendations on their own. By reviewing the County compensation structure, philosophies, and employee demographics, Evergreen Solutions gains a better understanding of the structures and methods in place at the County. This information, when integrated with stakeholder and employee feedback and peer market data, is used to develop recommended solutions appropriate for the County. Pay Plan Analysis An organized pay structure provides employees with an understood method of salary progression eliminating confusion about future increases or equity among different pay grades. Exhibit 3A illustrates the County. The County currently has 16 pay grades into which employees are slotted by classification. The 16 County pay grades are open ranges with established pay range minimums and maximums. In an open range configuration, employees are typically hired at or near the minimum rate of the pay grade and, through the course of their careers, progress towards the maximum rate of the pay grade. 412 County employees are in established pay ranges. Five other employees are not currently slotted into pay grades and therefore are not included in Exhibit 3A. salary is determined by a contract and four hourly employees, all of whom are Invasive Exotic Plant and Control Technicians, are not assigned a pay grade. In addition to the pay range minimum, midpoint, and maximum for each pay grade, Exhibit 3A also displays the range spread of each pay grade. The range spread is a measure of the width of the pay grade, calculated as the percent increase from the minimum to the 8 percent and 60 percent, with an average range spread of 44 percent. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 3 Assessment of Current ConditionsClassification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL Exhibit 3A also displays the number of employees assigned to each pay grade. Pay grade 9 currently has the highest number of employees assigned to it, with 70 employees, which represe fewest assigned employees, each with a single employee, each representing 0.2 percent of EXHIBIT 3A CURRENT PAY PLAN Range GradeMinimumMidpointMaximumEmployees Spread 16$ 107,705$ 140,019$ 172,32860%1 15$ 86,164 $ 112,013$ 137,86360%1 14$ 76,396 $ 97,404 $ 118,41255%12 13$ 66,429 $ 84,699 $ 102,96755%19 12$ 58,920 $ 73,651 $ 88,380 50%12 11$ 51,235 $ 64,043 $ 76,852 50%13 10.5$ 57,182 $ 62,433 $ 67,684 18%3 10$ 46,678 $ 57,182 $ 67,684 45%32 9$ 41,678 $ 51,055 $ 60,434 45%70 8$ 37,988 $ 45,585 $ 53,184 40%55 7$ 34,534 $ 41,442 $ 48,348 40%43 6$ 31,395 $ 37,674 $ 43,952 40%65 5$ 28,541 $ 34,249 $ 39,957 40%19 4$ 25,946 $ 31,136 $ 36,325 40%29 3$ 24,711 $ 29,653 $ 34,595 40%24 2$ 21,507 $ 24,882 $ 28,257 31%14 Source: Evergreen Solutions, November, 2013. Grade Placement Analysis In assessing the overall effectiveness of an organizationan analysis is performed to determine the position of to their classification range. Grade midpoint is often considered the most accepted market average. Therefore, it is important to examine the percentages of employees who fall above and below the calculated midpoint of their respective pay grade. Grade placement analysis provides insight into career progression as well as potential market competitiveness. Only the 412 employees currently assigned to pay grades are included in this portion of the analysis and appear in Exhibits 3B through 3E. Exhibit 3B provides the breakdown of employees above and below midpoint by pay grade. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 3 Assessment of Current ConditionsClassification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL employees have salaries above the midpoint of their respective pay grade. This represents employees are in the lower half of their pay range. This could be a sign of compression within the pay grades; further investigation into employee tenure is needed to confirm the existence of compression. 3 EXHIBIT B EMPLOYEES ABOVE AND BELOW MIDPOINT BY PAY GRADE GradeEmployees# < Mid% < Mid# > Mid% > Mid 16100.0%1100.0% 15100.0%1100.0% 1412216.7%1083.3% 1319736.8%1263.2% 1212866.7%433.3% 1113753.8%646.2% 10.533100.0%00.0% 10321856.3%1443.8% 9703651.4%3448.6% 8553970.9%1629.1% 7431944.2%2455.8% 6655483.1%1116.9% 5191368.4%631.6% 4291862.1%1137.9% 3241562.5%937.5% 214964.3%535.7% Total41224860.2%16439.8% Source: Evergreen Solutions, November 2013. Quartile and Tenure Analysis Quartile analysis provides greater insight into the distribution of employees across the classification pay range. Employee pay is slotted within one of four equal ranges, or quartiles. The first quartile represents the lowest end of the pay range at 0-25 percent. The second quartile represents the 26 50 percent section of the classification pay range. The third quartile represents 51-75 percent of the classification pay range. The fourth quartile is 76-100 percent of the classification pay range. This analytical method provides an opportunity to assess whether employee salaries are appropriately disbursed throughout the pay range. Quartile analysis is also used to determine if clusters of employee salaries exist. For example, an above and below the midpoint analysis may indicate a healthy distribution of salaries on either side of midpoint. However, upon further review, a quartile analysis may reveal a clustering of employee salaries in the first quartile. It is also beneficial to look at the (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 3 Assessment of Current ConditionsClassification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL tenure of the employees within each quartile of each pay range. Typically, employees with higher tenure have salaries in higher quartiles than employees with lower tenure. This information, while not definitive alone, when combined with other information can shed light on any root issues within the current compensation and classification plan. After March, 2014 merit increases were awarded, approximately 50 employees are currently at the maximum of their pay grade. Exhibit 3C illustrates how many employees are within each quartile of each pay grade, as well as the average tenure of employees within each quartile of each pay grade. Exhibit 3D displays graphically how the employees within each pay grade are distributed among the quartiles. The observation made in the Grade Placement Analysis that a majority of County employees are in the lower half of their pay range is also observed in the Quartile Analysis. Overall, 180 employees, or 43.7 percent of employees with pay grades, are in the first quartile of their pay range. This would typically be a sign of compression; however, the average tenure of employees in the first quartile is 3.4 years. This indicates that the clustering of employees at the beginning of the pay ranges are more likely due to a recent hiring of a group of new employees. The employees in the other quartiles are nearly evenly split, with 68 employees (16.5 percent) in the second quartile, 75 employees (18.2 percent) in the third quartile, and 89 employees (21.6 percent) in the fourth quartile. An upward trend in employee tenure across the quartiles is shown in Exhibit 3E. Overall average tenure is 3.4 years in the first quartile, 8.2 years in the second quartile, 11.0 years in the third quartile, and 15.7 years in the fourth quartile. There are only a few pay grades that contradict this upward trend. For example, pay grade 11 has significantly lower tenure in the fourth quartile than the other quartiles. This could be due to newly hired employees who brought a wealth of experience or education with them to their new positions, and so were placed in the upper portion of the pay range. This data shows the average tenure across the County is 8.2 years. This is similar to the national median, which, according to recent statistics from the Department of Labor, is 7.8 years for employees in the public sector. Higher than average tenure employees 1 undoubtedly possess a wealth of institutional knowledge which if lost without preparation, could leave the County with knowledge gaps that could significantly affect the quality of services provided in the future. Grades 15, 12, and 14 have the highest tenure at the County, with average tenure of 17.3 years, 12.1 years, and 11.9 years, respectively. Lower than average tenure can identify positions with significant turnover or retention issues. Grades 6, 16, and 2 have the lowest tenure at the County, with average tenure of 4.9 years, 5.5 years, and 5.9 years, respectively. Further analysis may reveal that a lack of market competitiveness in these classifications may be causing high turnover rates and thus lower than average tenure. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (September 2012). Employee Tenure 1 Summary [Economic News Release]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K %XXEGLQIRX'PEWWMJMGEXMSRERH'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH]6ITSVX)ZIVKVIIR7SPYXMSRW1E] 0MZMRK %XXEGLQIRX'PEWWMJMGEXMSRERH'SQTIRWEXMSR7XYH]6ITSVX)ZIVKVIIR7SPYXMSRW1E] 0MZMRK (K Chapter 3 Assessment of Current ConditionsClassification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL Employees by Department As of October 2013, the County employed 417 individuals; all of which were included in this section of the study. The following analyses are intended to provide basic information regarding how employees are distributed among departments. The County49 departments. Exhibit 3E depicts the number of employees and the number of classifications in each department as well as the percent breakdown of employees by department. EXHIBIT 3E EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT DivisionsDepartmentOfficeProgramsEmployeesClasses BOCC51 County Administrator44 Sustainability11 Legislative Affairs11 Strategic Planning11 Guardian ad Litem11 Extension Services11 State Attorney11 Public Defender33 OMB43 Grants11 Purchasing22 Deputy County Administrator Airport1412 Information Technology1210 Library4114 Veteran Affairs107 Social Services33 In-Home Services86 Bayshore Manor105 Welfare106 Transportation114 Nutrition43 Employee Services22 Employee Benefits44 Workers' Compensation11 Human Resources44 Risk Management22 Safety11 Growth Management22 Code Compliance168 Building2815 Planning1311 Environmental Resources64 Marine Resources11 GIS22 Source: Evergreen Solutions, November 2013. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 3 Assessment of Current ConditionsClassification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 3E (CONTINUED) EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT DivisionsDepartmentOfficeProgramsEmployeesClasses Public Works33 Engineering44 Project Management55 Wastewater11 Transportation11 Roads & Bridges2613 Card Sound145 Facilities Maintenance4521 Corrections Facilities109 Unincorporated Areas122 Higgs Beach22 Fleet Management149 Solid Waste Administration55 Solid Waste Transfer63 Hazardous Waste11 Pollution Control41 Fire-Rescue Services97 Emergency Management44 County Attorney149 Land Authority22 Land Steward11 Invasive Exotic Removal41 Total417256 *Land Authority Executive Director supervises Land Stewardship Office. Land Steward is funded by Growth Management. Invasive Technicians are funded by Growth Management using grants from the State. Technicians report to the Land Steward. Source: Evergreen Solutions, November 2013. As the exhibit illustrates, the largest department in the County is Facilities Maintenance, with 45 employees, representing 10.8 percent of the County total workforce. Nine departments Extension Services, Grants, Guardian ad Litem, Hazardous Waste, Land Steward, Marine Resources, Safety, State Attorney, and Workers Compensation are the smallest departments, each with one employee, each representing 0.2 percent of the County workforce. Overall, the County compensation plan has a relatively firm foundation on which to grow. significant changes. Exhibit 3E illustrates the complexity of the structure and the way it has beneficial in maximizing the efficiency of the operations. The key points of the current pay plan are: range. Employees in the higher portions of their pay range tend to have higher tenure than employees in the lower portions of their pay range. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 3 Assessment of Current ConditionsClassification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL These points along with information gained from stakeholders and employees as well as information gained from the market analysis are used to develop recommendations for a compensation plan and classification system best suited to the County. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC &KDSWHU0DUNHW6XPPDU\ One of the best and most direct methods of determining the relative competitive position of an organization in the market place is to conduct a market comparison study. A study of this nature focuses on the average salary ranges offered by the market for a sample of benchmark positions. This data is then used to evaluate overall structure, summarize overall market competitiveness, and capture the current highs and lows of the County pay plan at a fixed point in time. This methodology is used to provide an overall analysis and not to evaluate salaries for individual positions. Market comparisons do not translate well at the individual level because individual pay is determined through a combination of factors, including demand for the type of job, performance, prior experience, and, in some cases, an A combination of factors, one of which is the market survey, is used when developing classification plans and individual salary recommendations. Market comparison analysis is best thought of as a snapshot of current market conditions, as the data is collected at the time of the study and provides the most up to date market information. It should be noted that market conditions can change, and in some cases change quickly. Therefore, although 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. Evergreen Solutions consultants conducted a comprehensive market salary survey for the County which included 46 market peers and 73 job classifications. Of the market peers contacted, 20 provided responses and aggregately, market relevant matches were made for 73 positions. When seeking to compare the County to its peers, a number of factors were taken into account, such as location and relative population. Data was collected from the list of 20 market peers in Exhibit 4A: EXHIBIT 4A TARGET MARKET PEERS WHO RESPONDED 1. Aqueduct 14. Collier County, FL 2. Bay County, FL 15. Florida Keys Community College, FL 3. Broward County, FL 16. Hawaii County, HI 4. City of Aspen, CO 17. Hillsborough County, FL 5. City of Fort Lauderdale, FL 18. Miami-Dade Community College, FL 6. City of Gainesville, FL 19. Miami-Dade County, FL 7. City of Jacksonville, FL 20. Monroe County School Board 8. City of Marathon, FL 21. Orange County, FL 9. City of Orlando, FL 22. Osceola County, FL 10. City of Panama City, FL 23. Palm Beach County, FL 11. City of St. Petersburg, FL 24. Pasco County, FL 12. City of Tampa, FL 25. Sanibel, FL 13. City of West Palm Beach, FL 26. Village of Islamorada, FL Source: Evergreen Solutions, April 2014. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL Data collected outside of the County direct region was adjusted for cost of living using national cost of living index factors. This calculation allows salary dollars from entities across the state and country to be compared in spending power relevant to the County. Exhibit 4B shows the market peers and the cost of living adjustments used. EXHIBIT 4B TARGET PEERS WITH COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS Target RespondentsCOL Aqueduct1.000 Bay County, FL1.131 Broward County, FL1.104 City of Aspen, CO0.854 City of Fort Lauderdale, FL1.104 City of Gainesville, FL1.136 City of Jacksonville, FL1.112 City of Marathon, FL1.003 City of Orlando, FL1.131 City of Panama City, FL1.121 City of St. Petersburg, FL 0.812 City of Tampa, FL1.022 City of West Palm Beach, FL1.216 Collier County, FL1.003 Florida Keys Community College, FL1.000 Hawaii County, HI0.822 Hillsborough County, FL 1.121 Miami-Dade Community College, FL1.000 Miami-Dade County, FL1.135 Monroe County School Board 1.000 Orange County, FL 1.126 Osceola County, FL1.181 Palm Beach County, FL1.022 Pasco County, FL1.160 Sanibel, FL1.113 Village of Islamorada, FL1.000 Source: Evergreen Solutions, April 2014. Market data was collected from the organizations listed because they serve two very important purposes. Monroe County has both a comparable labor market, and a competitive labor market. The comparable market would be organizations that share similar characteristics to the County from the standpoint of geography and topography (island communities), organizations with similar costs of living, similar average home values, etc. These communities extend across the nation and some do exist within the State of Florida. The competitive labor market is best represented by the communities that the County is most likely to compete with for actual employees. Organizations in Dade, Broward, and Palm (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL Beach counties, among others in south F local competitive labor market. 4.1 MARKET DATA Exhibit 4C displays the results of the target peer data and the percent differential of Countyverage peer response to the minimum pay for that classification. Survey midpoint indicates the average midpoint in the peer response range for that classification and the survey maximum indicates the average peer response to the maximum salary for that classification. Percent differentials are shown for all three. This indicates how County differential indicates above and negative indicates below. Also included in Exhibit 4C is the average salary range for each classification surveyed which is determined by the average minimum and average maximum salaries. The last column in Exhibit 4C indicates the number of respondents for each classification surveyed. EXHIBIT 4C SALARY SURVEY MARKET SUMMARY WITH DIFFERENTIALS Survey MinimumSurvey MidpointSurvey Maximum Survey Avg # Resp. IDClassification Average% DiffAverage% DiffAverage% DiffRange 1ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT$ 35,807.48-3.7%$ 45,356.90-9.4%$ 53,243.47-10.1%53.5%25 2ADMINISTRATOR HUMAN RESOURCES$ 53,171.73-13.9%$ 67,918.26-18.8%$ 81,014.36-19.7%52.1%20 3ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY $ 81,106.29-6.2%$ 104,795.20 -7.6%$ 124,889.50 -5.5%57.7%11 4ATTENDANT (CNA)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0 5ATTENDANT SUPERVISORN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0 6BIOLOGIST$ 42,798.44-2.7%$ 55,506.37-8.7%$ 68,214.29-12.9%58.4%6 7CASE MANAGER$ 40,538.19-6.7%$ 51,659.37-13.3%$ 62,780.55-18.0%54.6%9 8CODE COMPLIANCE RESEARCH ANALYST$ 40,180.703.6%$ 49,909.862.2%$ 59,639.021.3%48.1%9 9COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR$126,445.57 -17.4%$ 169,345.90 -20.9%$ 207,324.28 -20.3%61.2%12 10COUNTY ATTORNEY$132,458.18 N/A$ 170,335.10 N/A$ 206,389.67 N/A60.7%12 11CUSTODIAN$ 23,683.33-10.1%$ 29,177.73-17.3%$ 34,933.49-23.6%44.7%17 12DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR$ 64,412.67-9.3%$ 80,687.93-9.6%$ 96,963.18-9.7%50.2%14 13DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR$116,338.09 -35.0%$ 145,992.24 -30.3%$ 182,189.04 -32.2%56.3%14 14DIRECTOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT$ 76,240.62-14.8%$ 96,115.93-13.5%$ 121,335.13 -17.8%58.8%9 15DIRECTOR FLEET MANAGEMENT$ 68,919.98-17.0%$ 86,094.37-16.9%$ 101,512.97 -14.9%49.4%16 16DIRECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY$ 78,188.02-17.7%$ 98,886.07-16.7%$ 121,793.93 -18.3%55.4%20 17DIRECTOR LIBRARIES$ 74,371.29-26.2%$ 94,482.73-28.3%$ 114,594.17 -29.7%53.6%10 18DIRECTOR MARINE AGENT$ 54,341.38N/A$ 72,207.96N/A$ 86,795.29N/A63.6%9 19DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES$ 79,649.42-19.9%$ 100,740.75 -18.9%$ 125,040.93 -21.4%56.0%18 20DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS$ 95,082.12-24.5%$ 116,969.33 -20.1%$ 144,887.40 -22.4%49.9%15 21DIRECTOR VETERANS AFFAIRS$ 54,741.117.1%$ 70,865.783.8%$ 86,990.461.6%58.7%7 22DIVISION DIRECTOR EMPLOYEE SERVICES$ 88,772.55-16.2%$ 116,190.31 -19.3%$ 143,041.31 -20.8%58.1%14 23DIVISION DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT$ 82,251.55-7.7%$ 106,312.00 -9.1%$ 130,372.44 -10.1%58.2%9 24DIVISION DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING/PROJECT MANAGEMENT$ 79,486.84-19.7%$ 102,232.05 -20.7%$ 124,977.27 -21.4%57.0%14 25ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR II$ 50,357.04-7.9%$ 62,745.79-9.7%$ 75,134.53-11.0%49.5%10 26ELECTRICIAN$ 37,685.34-20.0%$ 46,768.04-24.1%$ 55,934.80-27.3%45.0%14 27EQUIPMENT OPERATOR$ 31,772.77-11.3%$ 40,280.23-17.6%$ 48,818.37-22.2%50.2%16 28EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT$ 44,815.92-7.5%$ 57,246.98-12.1%$ 69,678.04-15.3%55.4%20 29FIRE CHIEF/DIVISION DIRECTOR EMERGENCY SERVICES $ 99,502.75-30.2%$ 123,727.65 -27.0%$ 151,120.03 -27.6%51.2%20 30FOREMAN ROADS & BRIDGES$ 38,848.64-12.5%$ 48,873.62-17.9%$ 58,898.59-21.8%51.5%12 31INSPECTOR CODE COMPLIANCE$ 42,520.75-2.0%$ 52,510.79-2.9%$ 62,500.83-3.4%47.0%20 32LANDFILL OPERATOR$ 32,576.47-3.8%$ 40,956.13-8.7%$ 49,335.79-12.2%51.2%7 33LIBRARIAN$ 42,955.41-13.1%$ 55,173.22-21.0%$ 67,391.02-26.7%56.6%12 34LIBRARY ASSISTANT$ 28,724.648.5%$ 37,202.541.3%$ 45,680.43-3.9%58.8%13 35MAINTENANCE WORKER (PARKS & BEACHES)$ 27,937.41-13.1%$ 35,223.82-18.8%$ 42,505.40-22.9%49.2%16 36MAINTENANCE WORKER ROADS$ 28,081.90-8.2%$ 35,059.51-12.6%$ 42,037.11-15.7%49.2%16 37MECHANIC I$ 34,375.95-9.5%$ 42,832.54-13.7%$ 51,627.76-17.5%46.7%14 Overall Average -10.8%-14.3%-16.6%54.2%12.7 Source: Evergreen Solutions, April 2014. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 4C (CONTINUED) SALARY SURVEY MARKET SUMMARY WITH DIFFERENTIALS Survey MinimumSurvey MidpointSurvey Maximum Survey Avg # Resp. IDClassification Average% DiffAverage% DiffAverage% DiffRange 38NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR$ 50,088.01-20.2%$ 63,790.06-24.9%$ 77,492.11-28.2%54.7%16 39PAINTER$ 32,066.39-12.4%$ 40,264.32-17.6%$ 48,903.16-22.4%48.0%13 40PARALEGAL $ 42,783.42-2.7%$ 54,360.98-6.5%$ 65,938.55-9.1%54.1%14 41PLANNER$ 43,793.50-5.1%$ 55,024.04-7.8%$ 66,254.58-9.6%51.0%17 42PLANS EXAMINER$ 50,030.592.4%$ 61,946.143.3%$ 75,745.021.4%51.2%15 43PLUMBING MECHANICAL INSPECTOR II$ 49,388.60-5.8%$ 61,801.93-8.1%$ 74,215.25-9.6%50.5%11 44RESERVATIONIST/SCHEDULER DISPATCHER$ 31,419.04-0.1%$ 40,904.10-8.6%$ 50,389.16-14.6%60.0%5 45SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR$ 58,474.600.8%$ 75,673.94-2.7%$ 92,873.29-5.1%58.8%5 46SR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT$ 39,866.45-4.9%$ 51,263.12-12.5%$ 62,659.78-17.8%56.6%12 47SR ADMINISTRATOR AIRPORT BUSINESS$ 60,397.41-17.9%$ 76,261.05-19.1%$ 92,124.69-19.9%52.3%8 48SR ADMINISTRATOR, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY$ 49,619.483.2%$ 64,708.80-1.0%$ 79,798.11-3.8%59.4%6 49SR ADMINISTRATOR BENEFITS$ 58,443.78-14.1%$ 75,104.45-17.3%$ 91,765.12-19.4%56.5%19 50SR ADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES$ 56,070.51-9.4%$ 72,128.22-12.6%$ 88,185.93-14.7%56.8%15 51SR BUYER$ 45,097.97-18.7%$ 57,217.34-25.5%$ 69,336.71-30.4%53.7%18 52SR COORDINATOR CODE COMPLIANCE$ 50,021.22-20.0%$ 63,841.45-25.0%$ 77,661.69-28.5%55.4%14 53SR COORDINATOR FINANCE & ACCOUNTING$ 47,142.72-13.1%$ 59,427.83-16.4%$ 71,712.94-18.7%51.5%18 54SR COORDINATOR FLEET$ 48,365.61-16.0%$ 61,902.48-21.2%$ 75,439.35-24.8%55.5%14 55SR COORDINATOR FLOODPLAIN$ 55,713.09-33.7%$ 71,388.62-39.8%$ 74,000.56-22.4%41.3%3 56SR COORDINATOR PLANNING COMMISSION$ 38,782.416.9%$ 50,451.271.2%$ 62,120.13-2.8%59.6%9 57SR DIRECTOR AIRPORTS$ 76,673.85-15.4%$ 99,519.25-17.5%$ 122,364.65 -18.8%59.0%6 58OFFICE OF BUDGET DIRECTOR$ 78,199.48-17.7%$ 100,711.47 -18.9%$ 123,223.47 -19.7%57.1%18 59SR DIRECTOR BUILDING OFFICIAL$ 69,816.07-5.1%$ 90,406.80-6.7%$ 109,839.30 -6.7%56.8%18 60SR DIRECTOR CODE COMPLIANCE$ 72,643.66-9.4%$ 95,425.57-12.7%$ 115,955.77 -12.6%58.6%11 61SR DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES$ 78,198.95-2.4%$ 101,380.72 -4.1%$ 123,537.59 -4.3%61.1%14 62SR DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING$ 78,988.75-18.9%$ 100,565.23 -18.7%$ 122,110.80 -18.6%54.9%15 63SR GIS PLANNER$ 50,823.65-8.9%$ 64,235.12-12.3%$ 77,646.59-14.7%52.7%17 64SENIOR DIRECTOR SOCIAL SERVICES$ 63,798.37-8.3%$ 82,579.74-12.1%$ 101,361.12 -14.7%58.3%6 65SR LEAD MECHANIC$ 38,782.0216.9%$ 48,641.0214.9%$ 58,578.6013.5%48.2%12 66SR PLUMBER$ 36,747.41-17.0%$ 47,586.65-26.3%$ 58,425.88-32.9%58.8%9 67SR PROJECT MANAGER$ 63,160.92-23.3%$ 78,481.78-22.5%$ 96,645.92-25.8%53.5%14 68SR TECHNICIAN AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC Certification)$ 40,802.51-18.2%$ 50,186.72-21.1%$ 59,570.92-23.2%46.1%10 69SUPERVISOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE$ 47,480.40-13.9%$ 61,054.15-19.6%$ 74,627.91-23.5%57.2%18 70SYSTEMS ANALYST$ 47,770.25-25.7%$ 60,708.25-33.2%$ 73,646.26-38.5%54.1%18 71TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR$ 40,118.21-5.6%$ 51,889.87-13.8%$ 63,661.53-19.7%58.0%8 72TRANSPORTATION DRIVER$ 26,922.64-3.8%$ 34,029.02-9.3%$ 41,135.40-13.2%52.2%9 73VETERANS SERVICE COUNSELOR$ 38,919.29-2.5%$ 50,244.59-10.2%$ 61,569.90-15.8%58.1%10 Overall Average -10.8%-14.3%-16.6%54.2%12.7 Source: Evergreen Solutions, April 2014. 4.2 SALARY SURVEY RESULTS Market Minimums As Exhibit 4C illustrates, at the minimum of the respective salary ranges, the County is approximately 10.8 percent below the market average across all surveyed job titles. While some classifications are closer to market at the minimum, others exhibit a greater difference from market values. Market minimums are considered entry level salary points either entry into the organization or entry into a next level of classification. Employees at or near the minimum are at the beginning stages of that position and have not acquired all the skills and experience needed to be fully functional in their classification. Based on the data gathered at the surveyed market minimum for these benchmark positions, the following can be determined: (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL The surveyed position differentials ranged from a low of 35.0 percent below market minimum in the case of the Deputy County Administrator classification to a high of 16.9 percent above market for the Sr. Lead Mechanic classification. Of the 73 County positions surveyed, 61 reported to be below market at the minimum. These 61 below-market classifications are an average of 13.1 percent below market minimum as a group. A total of three surveyed positions indicated market differentials at the pay range minimum that were greater than 30.0 percent below market. These are listed below with their market differentials: Deputy County Administrator, 35.0 percent below market Sr. Coordinator Floodplain, 33.7 percent below market Fire Chief/Division Director Emergency Services , 30.2 percent below market Market Midpoints Market midpoint is important to consider because it is commonly referred to as the closest estimation of full competence and market average compensation. Employees at the midpoint should be fully functional in their classification. As Exhibit 4C indicates, County is on average 14.3 percent below market at the midpoint. Based on the data gathered at the market midpoint of the salary range, the following can be determined: At the market midpoint, the benchmark positions ranged from a low of 39.8 percent below market in the case of the Sr. Coordinator Floodplain classification to a high of 14.9 percent above market midpoint for the Sr. Lead Mechanic classification. Sixty-three of the surveyed classifications were found to be below market at the midpoint, which represents 86.3 percent of benchmarks. These 63 classifications were an average of 16.1 percent below market at the midpoint. Three classifications were greater than 30.0 percent below market. These are listed below with their market differentials: Sr. Coordinator Floodplain, 39.8 percent below market Systems Analyst, 33.2 percent below market Deputy County Administrator, 30.3 percent below market Six surveyed classifications are above market at the midpoint averaging 4.4 percent above market. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL Market Maximums Salary range maximum values as they compare to the survey respondents are also illustrated in Exhibit 4C. The County is, on average, 16.6 percent below market at the maximum of its pay ranges for the benchmarked positions. The comparison of market maximums yielded the following considerations: At the market maximum, the benchmark positions ranged from a low of 38.5 percent below market in the case of the Systems Analyst classification to a high of 13.5 percent above market midpoint for the Sr. Lead Mechanic classification. Of the positions surveyed, 65 were below market maximum which represents 89.0 percent of all benchmarked positions. These 67 below-market classifications are an average of 17.9 percent below market maximum. Of the surveyed positions, four had range maximums greater than 30.0 percent below market. These are listed below with their market differentials: Systems Analyst, 38.5 percent below market Sr. Plumber, 32.9 percent below market Deputy County Administrator, 32.2 percent below market Sr. Buyer, 30.4 percent below market Of the surveyed positions, none had a range maximum greater than 30.0 percent above market. Private Sector Salary Comparisons Evergreen Solutions utilized October 2013 salary survey data from the Economic Research Institute (ERI) to collect private-sector salary ranges in the Miami-Dade region of south Florida with budgets of approximately $319,000,000. For some classifications, a comparable match could not be found in the private sector classifications. Exhibit 4D shows the average salary ranges, the percent differences in salary, and the average salary ranges for the matched ERI private sector classifications. The following observations can be made when comparing the County to the aggregated private sector data. At the minimum of salary ranges, the County is 14.6 percent below market, on average, across all matched classifications. At the midpoint of salary ranges, the County is 30.7 percent below market, on average, across all matched classifications. At the maximum of salary ranges, the County is 50.0 percent below, on average, across all matched classifications. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 4D PRIVATE INDUSTRY MARKET AVERAGES AND DIFFERENTIALS Source: Evergreen Solutions January 2014. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 4D (CONTINUED) PRIVATE INDUSTRY MARKET AVERAGES AND DIFFERENTIALS Source: Evergreen Solutions January 2014. Salary Survey Conclusion It should be noted that the standing of a classifications pay range compared to the market is not a definitive assessment of th being equally above or below market. It does, however, speak to the County ability to recruit and retain talent over time. For example, if starting pay is significantly lower than the market would offer, the County will find itself losing out to their market peers when they seek to fill a position. Additionally, if midpoint or maximum pay is significantly lower than the market, experienced employees may leave for other opportunities. From the analysis of the data gathered in the external labor market assessment, the following major conclusions can be reached: The County is approximately 10.8 percent below the market minimum. The County is approximately 14.3 percent below the market midpoint. The County is approximately 16.6 percent below the market maximum. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL Deputy County Administrator is more than 30.0 percent behind the market in comparison to their counterparts statewide at the minimum, midpoint and maximum. Pay range minimums, midpoints and maximums are significantly ranges are narrower than the market. These narrow pay ranges do not reflect the market average making the County seem less competitive than its peers. A narrow pay range does not allow much room for progression through the range and could result in salary compression. Information gained from the market survey is used, in conjunction with stakeholder and employee feedback and current environmental factors such as the budget, to develop a recommended classification plan that places the County is in a strong position to grow and . Discussion of potential recommended changes to the pay plan can be found in Chapter 5 of this report. 4.3 BENEFITS SURVEY RESULTS As a component of this study, Evergreen Solutions conducted a benefits market analysis in addition to a compensation market analysis. A benefits analysis, much like a salary evaluation, represents a snapshot in time of what is available in peer organizations and can provide the County with an understanding of the total compensation (salary and benefits) offered by its peers. It is important to realize that there are intricacies involved with benefits programs that are not captured by a market survey alone. Total compensation refers to the total dollar amount an employee receives from their organization, and is generally calculated as a percentage of total compensation is calculated by dividing benefits expressed as a dollar amount by the amount of total compensation. Full or partial data was collected from 29 peer organizations, which represents 69.0 percent of the peers who responded to the compensation and/or benefits survey. This is a normal response rate, while can provide fairly detailed insight into benefit options provided to employees at peer organizations. This information should be used as a cursory overview and not a line-by-line comparison since benefits can be weighted differently depending on the importance to the organization. It should also be noted that benefits are usually negotiated and acquired through third parties, so one-to-one comparisons can be difficult. The analysis below highlights aspects of the benefits survey that provide pertinent information and had high completion rates by target peers. General Benefits Benefits as a percentage of total compensation are a common broad indicator that organizations use to assess how generous benefits are at individual organizations. As Exhibit 4E shows, the market average for benefits as a percentage of total compensation is approximately 23.0 percent based on the information provided. It is not uncommon for this number to vary significantly depending on the compensation philosophy adopted by an (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL organization and the relative cost of health benefits. The benefits as percentage of total compensation for the County are 27.0 percent. Benefits percentage of total compensation was based on the Count average salary of $50,116.06. Average salaries refer to annual average wage for employees who work 40 hours per week. The value of Monroe County and Peer benefits packages was calculated based on a limited group of benefits specifically defined by the to speak. Monroe County enjoys significantly longer tenure than the average public sector employer and as a result, average pay in the County is higher than the market as reflected herein. Analysis of the pay ranges stands apart from any comparison of employee wages. Benefits included in the calculation of total compensation were: The average annual wage for employees in your organization who work 40 hours per week; The average cost per year to the Employer of Retirement contributions for employees who work 40 hours per week; The dollar amount the Employer subsidize the Employee Only medical insurance and prescription coverage; The dollar amount that the Employer contributes for the Employee only Life Insurance coverage; The dollar amount calculated from the maximum accrual rate of annual/vacation leave; The dollar value of paid holidays for the average employee; The dollar amount calculated from the maximum accrual rate of sick leave; and The cost of the Employee Assistance Program. EXHIBIT 4E OVERALL BENEFITS POLICY Average General Benefits Policy - All Monroe Percentage Benefits as percentage of total compensation23%27% Average Number of Plans Offered1.251 Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Although most organizations offer PPO plans, they may offer various options for each provider. Exhibit 4E shows that the average number of health plans offered (any combination of HMO, HSA, PPO, or other options) was 1.75 based on the market data. The County offers one health plan. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL Health Plans As displayed in Exhibit 4F, 75.0 percent offer at least one PPO plan, and 50.0 percent offer some other type of health plan including another PPO and CAP plan. The County offers a PPO plan. These are rare and often compare to HMOs or PPOs for coverage limits and restrictions. EXHIBIT 4F TYPE OF HEALTH PLANS Health Plan Types HMOPPOHSA OtherMonroe Type of Health Plan (HMO, PPO, Health Savings Account, 0.0%75.0%0.0%50.0%PPO Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Exhibit 4G indicates that peer organizations offer health coverage to employees on average 45 days after employment with work schedules of at least 30 hours per week. The County offers health coverage to all eligible employees after 60 days of employment with work schedules of at least 25 hours per week. If the County were to increase its benefits eligibility minimum standard to 30 hours as is reflected in the market, a small number of employees, mostly Toll Collectors, would be impacted by losing their health insurance. EXHIBIT 4G HEALTH COVERAGE ELIGIBILITY Peer Responses MONROE Insurance Eligibility Number of HoursNumber of DaysNumber of HoursNumber of Days What is the minimum number of hours per week an employee must work to 30.0045.0025.0060.00 How many days must the individual be employed in order to be eligible for the Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Exhibit 4H displays the average percentages paid by employer for the PPO insurance plans and dependent subsidy percentage for health care. The County pays 100.0 percent of the entire cost of the premium for individuals hired before 5/1/12 and 89.0 percent for individuals hired after 5/1/12 or a blended rate of 98.0 percent. EXHIBIT 4H EMPLOYEE ONLY PPO PLAN Peer Responses MONROE PPO Employee Only Health Insurance Premium (Monthly)PercentageDollarPercentageDollar What percentage and dollar amount does the Employer subsidize the 97.0%98.0% Employee Only medical insurance and prescription coverage per Dollar amount paid by employer $ 698.62 $ 448.00 Employee only dollar amount paid was included in the calculation of total compensation. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 4I PPO PLAN SUBSIDIES AND EMPLOYEE PLUS ONE Peer Responses MONROE Subsidize Dependent Medical and Prescription YesNoPercentage YesNoPercentage Do you subsidize dependent medical and prescription 25.0%75.0%33.0%X51.0% Peer Responses MONROE Employee Plus One Dollar Dollar What dollar amount (monthly) is paid by the Employer for Percentage Percentage 429.14639.00 employee plus one medical and prescription coverage? PaidPaid What percentage (monthly) is paid by the Employer for 32.8%67.0% employee plus one medical and prescription coverage? Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Exhibit 4I shows target responses for subsidized dependent medical coverage including dollar amount and percentages paid for employee plus one. Peer organizations pay on average 33.0 percent to subsidize dependent premiums, and the County pays 51.0 percent. The County pays a higher dollar amount and percentage for employee plus one medical and prescription coverage than the market. Employee plus one amount paid was not included in the calculation of total compensation because not every employee benefits from this subsidy. Deductibles Exhibit 4J displays the average annual deductible for individuals and employees plus one among peer respondents. The average dollar amount is displayed separately for PPO, HMO, HSA and Other plans. Other refers to another PPO plan and a CAP plan offered by the plus one. plans have $400 deductible for individuals and $800 for various types of dependents. EXHIBIT 4J PPO, HMO, HSA AND OTHER ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLES PPOHMOH S AOtherMonroe Deductible DollarDollarDollarDollar Dollar What is the deductible on the medical plan for $ 416.67 N/AN/A$ 500.00 $ 400.00 individuals? What is the deductible on the medical plan for $ 1,000.00 N/AN/A$ 1,500.00 $ 800.00 employee plus one? Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Exhibit 4K displays the average percentage paid for in network and out network services among peer respondents. Percentages paid varied in peer organizations for out of network services provided, and also was dependent upon the procedure performed. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 4K NETWORK PERCENTAGE Peer Responses MONROE Out of Out of Out of Out of Network CoverageIn Network In Network In Network In Network Network Network Network Network EmployerEmployeeEmployerEmployee EmployerEmployeeEmployer Employee What is the coinsurance percentage payable by the 90.0%10.0%72.5%27.5%75.0%25.0%45.0%55.0% medical plan for in-network and out-of-network? Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Overall averages for peer organizations was 90/10 for in network services provided and 72.5/27.5 fo 75/25 for services rendered inside of network service providers and 45/55 for services provided outside of the network. Other Benefits Offerings Exhibit 4L displays the percentage of responding peers who offer dental, long-term disability and short term disability insurance plans and displays whether the County offers these types of benefits. Dental plans are offered to employees 100.0 peers, and long-term disability insurance are offered to employees of 25.0 percent of responding peers. Short-term disability insurance is offered to 25.0 percent of responding peers. The County does not offer an employer paid dental plan which is inconsistent with the market. The County does offer long-term disability insurance and short-term disability not These figures are included in the comparison of total compensation. EXHIBIT 4L DENTAL AND DISABILITY INSURANCE Peer Responses MONROE Dental Coverage YesNoDollar YesNoDollar Do you have provide an option to elect to have dental 100.0%0.0%$ 36.50X$ - coverage? Peer Responses MONROE Long Term Coverage YesNoDollar YesNoDollar Do you provide employees with an option to elect to 25.0%75.0%$ - X$ - have long term disability coverage? Peer Responses MONROE Short Term Coverage YesNoDollar YesNoDollar Do you provide employees with an option to elect to 25.0%75.0%$ - X$ - have short term disability coverage? Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Exhibit 4M summarizes the offering of vision plans, Employee Assistance Programs (EAP), and tuition reimbursement among peers and at the County. A vision plan is not offered by the Counby (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL 75.0 percent of responding peers and is also available to employees of the County. EXHIBIT 4M SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS Peer Responses MONROE Vision Coverage YesNoDollar YesNoDollar Do you provide employees with an 100.0%0.0%$ 5.87 X$ - option to elect to have vision coverage? Peer Responses MONROE Employee Assistance Program YesNoDollar YesNoDollar Do you have provide an Employee 75.0%25.0%$ -X$ 2.16 Assistance Program to your employees? Peer Responses MONROE Tuition Reimbursement YesNoPlan YesNoPlan Does your organization provide Tuition 0.0%0.0%0.00XVaries Reimbursement? Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Tuition reimbursement is offered by 25.0 percent of responding peers and is also offered by the County. A peer offered tuition reimbursement at . The County offers tuition reimbursement if the course is related to the current job and pays $125 toward textbooks for each course. Vision coverage and EAP premiums were included in the comparison of total compensation. Retirement Exhibit 4N displays the cost to employer for contributions to retirement per employee by peer organizations and the County. EXHIBIT 4N RETIREMENT RetirementAverage CostMONROE What is the average cost per year to the Employer of Retirement $ 2,573.70$ 3,483.1 contributions for employees who work 40 hours per week? Definition of Normal Retirement 62.262.0 Definition of Early Retirement 60.0FRS Years required to fully vest 5.08.0 COLA offered to retiree pension 0.0%Varies Employee's percent of contribution required 2.3%3.00% Employer's matching rate 4.36%6.95% Does the retirement plan offer a disability provision? 75.0%Yes Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL higher percentage in regards to matching rate. The County also contributes to COLA offered to retiree pension which is years of service before 7/1/11 divided by total years of service at retirement multiplied by 3.0 percent. None of its peers offer that option. The County follows FRS guidelines for defining early are reduced 5.0 percent for each year between age at retirement and normal retirement age. Life Insurance Exhibit 4O summarizes the life insurance offerings of responding peers and at the County. All peers who responded offer some type of life insurance plan to employees. EXHIBIT 4O LIFE INSURANCE Peer Responses MONROE Employee Only Life Insurance (Monthly) PercentageDollarPercentageDollar What is the monthly percentage and dollar amount 99.3%100.0% that the Employer contributes for the Employee only Dollar amount paid by employer $ 3.66 $ 11.00 Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Market peers pay an average of $3.66 per employee for life for the employee only, and the County pays $11.00 per individual. retirees and current employees combined and the $11.00 premium applies to the entire group. Annualized cost of these premiums was used for the market total compensation and are likely lower when the $3.66 premium is considered. Exhibit 4P shows the Accidental Death and Dismemberment benefit offered by all of the respondents. Half of respondents offer as a separate benefit, but they do not pay for the coverage. The exhibit shows that this is a very low cost benefit. EXHIBIT 4P AD&D INSURANCE Peer Responses MONROE AD & D Separate YesNoYesNo Is AD&D offered as a separate benefit? 50.0%50.0%X If yes, what is the monthly percentage and dollar PercentageDollarPercentageDollar amount that the Employer contributes to the 0.0%100.0% Employee only coverage? $ - $ 0.40 Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL Employee Leave and Holidays Exhibit 4Q provides the average minimum and maximum accrual rates for Annual/Vacation and Sick Leave for respondents. On average, the minimum and maximum annual accrual rates Annual/Vacation Leave are 11.0 days and 18.5 days. On average, the minimum and maximum annual accrual rates for Sick Leave are 11.5 days and 11.5 days. EXHIBIT 4Q LEAVE TIME ACCRUAL Peer Responses MONROE Annual/Vacation Days MinimumMaximumMinimumMaximum What is the minimum and maximum number of vacation days the employer provides to a 40 hours 11.018.513.022.8 per week employee per year? Peer Responses MONROE Sick Days MinimumMaximumMinimumMaximum What is the minimum and maximum number of sick days the employer provides to a 40 hours per 11.511.513.013.0 week employee per year? Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Vacation Leave at the County has a minimum accrual rate of 13.0 days per year and a maximum accrual rate of 22.75 days per year. The approximate dollar value of these days can be found by calculating the approximate hourly rate of the average employee and multiplying that figure by the number of 8-hour days. This dollar amount was used in the market comparison of total compensation. Exhibit 4R showssick leave donation is offered by peer organizations. Leave accrual beyond maximum allowable can be donated to sick leave or annual leave programs. EXHIBIT 4R SICK LEAVE DONATION Peer Responses MONROE Sick Leave Donation YesNoYesNo Does your organization have a Sick 100.0%0.0%X Leave Donation policy? Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. The County also has a sick leave donation policy to assist employeesin the event of an extended serious illness or injury. Exhibit 4S provides peer responses to maximum allowable leave. Most leave was taken away at the end of the fiscal year for respondents. However, one respondent paid out leave above the maximum allowable. Another respondent allowed sick leave to accumulate beyond the maximum leave allowable. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 4S MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LEAVE Peer Responses MONROE Maximum Allowable Leave Paid OutTaken AwayPaid OutTaken If an employee exceeds the maximum allowable No, Rolled No, Rolled leave (sick and/or annual), is that leave paid out or 40.0%60.0%Into Sick Into Sick taken away? LeaveLeave Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. The County rolls over annual leave beyond the maximum allowable over into employees sick leave balance. These are all similar and comparable methods for addressing this situation. Exhibit 4T ve time payout. Sick Leave is paid out upon separation in 75.0 percent of responding peer organizations with a maximum of 720.0 hours. Only 25.0 percent of peers paid out sick leave upon termination with a maximum of 720.0 hours. At the County, sick leave is paid out upon separation or upon termination with a maximum of 960.0 hours. EXHIBIT 4T LEAVE TIME PAYOUT Peer Responses MONROE Unused Sick Leave YesNoMax YesNoMax 75.0%25.0%720.0X960.0 Is unused sick leave paid out upon separation? YesNoMax YesNoMax Upon termination? 25.0%75.0%720.0X960.0 Peer Responses MONROE Annual/Vacation Leave YesNoMax YesNoMax Is unused annual/vacation leave paid out upon 100.0%0.0%225.3X320.0 separation? YesNoMax YesNoMax Upon termination? 75.0%25.0%225.3X320.0 Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Annual/Vacation Leave is paid out upon separation in 100.0 percent of responding peer organizations with a maximum of 225.3 hours. Only 75.0 percent of peers paid out annual/vacation leave upon termination with a maximum of 225.3 hours. At the County, sick leave is paid out upon separation or upon termination with a maximum of 320.0 hours. These amounts, because they only apply to employees leaving the organization, were not included in the total compensation calculation. Exhibit 4U displays the respondents that offer a funeral leave benefit. Respondents offer almost twice as many days as the County for funeral leave. However, respondents offered additional days for out of town funerals. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 4U FUNERAL LEAVE TIME Peer Responses MONROE Funeral Leave YesNoDaysYesNoDays Does your organization offer funeral leave? 100.0%0.0%3.8X2.0 The County offers funeral leave which is consistent with the market for funerals that are within town. The percentage of peers offering various holidays and the holidays at the County is shown in Exhibit 4V. EXHIBIT 4V RECOGNIZED HOLIDAYS Holidays Peer Monroe New Year's Day 100.0%X New Year's Eve 0.0% Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 100.0%X Lincoln's Birthday 0.0% Washington's Birthday 0.0% Memorial Day 100.0%X Independence Day 100.0%X Good Friday 50.0%X President's Day 100.0%X Labor Day 100.0%X Veteran's Day 100.0%X Thanksgiving Day 100.0%X Day After Thanksgiving 100.0%X Christmas Eve 50.0% Christmas Day 100.0%X Personal Holiday 50.0% Columbus Day 75.0%X Other 50.0% Average Number of Holidays 12.7512 Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day,Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day after Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. On average, peers offer 12.75 holidays to employees. There are twelve paid holidays offered at the County. Ten paid holidays at the County are offered by 100.0 percent of peers. If the County were to eliminate one paid holiday, total compensation would be reduced approximately 0.25 percent. Such a change would have virtually no impact on recommendations to change the value of the pay plan in Chapter 5 of this report. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL Exhibit 4W The County does not offer additional time off, which is consistent with the market. EXHIBIT 4W ADDITIONAL TIME OFF Peer Responses MONROE Additional Time Off YesNoAmountYesNoDollar Does your organization offer any additional time off 0.0%100.0%0.00X0.00 for employees (e.g. Spring Break, Winter Break)? Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Exhibit 4X displays the respondents that offer additional benefits. Only 25.0 percent of respondents offer an Employee of the Month, Quarter/Year Award. EXHIBIT 4X ADDITIONAL BENEFITS Peer Responses MONROE Employee of the Month/Quarter/Year Award YesNoYesNo Does your organization have an Employee of the 25.0%75.0%X Month/Quarter/Year award? Peer Responses MONROE Certifications Beyond Minimum Job Requirements YesNoYesNo Does your organization reward employees for certifications 50.0%50.0%X beyond the minimum job requirements? Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014. Half of the respondents offer rewards for certifications beyond the minimum job requirements. The County offers both of these additional awards and rewards. These types The following conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of benefits competitiveness: The County is comparable to the market with respect to the benefits portion of total compensation. Although the County only offers one type of PPO health plan, the percentage of premiums paid for individuals is comparable to all other peer organizations; however, the premiums paid for dependents is higher than the market average. Annual/Vacation leave and sick leave accrual is slightly higher than peer respondents. Maximum leave accrual rates are higher than market peer organizations. Paid holidays are just lower than the Life insurance benefits are ahead the market average. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 4 Market Summary Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL The results are not surprising in that when single benefits are analyzed in isolation, some may appear more or less generous than those offered by peers. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS,LLC &KDSWHU6ROXWLRQ INTRODUCTION The analysis of the compensation and classification systems revealed a number of strengths and some unsurprising challenges that are increasingly common in public organizations. The County does business and recruits personnel in perhaps the most complex, diverse, and unique labor market in the entire state of Florida, and arguably in the entire southeast United States. Because of the island geography and proximity to a highly and classification challenges stand largely alone. Commuting into and out of the County is challenging and the cost of living within the County is among the highest in the nation. These things combine to create a very challenging environment in which to promote recruitment of qualified and competent employees at levels of pay that will encourage long-term retention. The County possesses a traditional open range pay plan that was designed to be fair, uniform, comprehensive, and simple to understand. Over time, the pay plan has been adjusted intermittently to accommodate special circumstances and has developed some ingrained inconsistencies in the size of the pay ranges, the distance between the ranges, and even the creation of new ranges in some cases. Any such ad-hoc adjustments to a pay plan will impact its usefulness over time. Such circumstances have led to the current conditions within the County where pay is widely perceived to be less than equitable and the pay plan is not well understood. The recommendations herein seek to build on the strengths that are present within the current system while addressing the challenges of the current environment. In addition, things such as the future direction of the County, its organizational culture, compensation philosophy and availability of resources influence the solution recommendations. These things were discussed at length with members of the leadership and project team. Each recommendation was developed with these factors in mind and to address a specific need based on the collected information while taking into account the external environment. A solution was developed that balances fiscal responsibility with the development and preservation of a market competitive plan. 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 in the form of interviews and focus groups from the County staff and management throughout the outreach component of the study. Classification Analysis Employees completed Job Assessment Tools (JATs) which gather information about the work being done directly from those individuals (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL completing the work. In addition, some supervisors completed Management Issues Tools (MITs) which offer additional input and suggestions or requests. Current Environment Review The internal structure (including compensation structure, practices, etc.) was analyzed versus market observed trends and a statistical assessment of current conditions was completed. Market Analysis - External equity was analyzed based on market compensation data collected from peer organizations. The revised pay plan and salary 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 employee specific implementation plans. Using this methodology, the Evergreen Solutions team developed a solution that places the County in an improved competitive position relative to its market peers while showing appropriate fiscal restraint. In addition, recommendations were made in regard to the maintenance and preservation of the system over time. The remainder of this chapter presents the recommendations by category. The categories include: 1.Classification 2.Compensation 3.Administration 4.Summary 5.1 CLASSIFICATION A strong classification system is simple, transparent, and comprehensive. It is critical that an organization possess a system that realistically illustrates what work is being performed and relates these factors in the compensation plan. One of the greatest challenges of any county government is to maintain its classification system within a complex local labor market. al uniqueness and commitment to not only the ecological health of the islands but also the social and community needs of its residents creates a classification landscape that contains many unique jobs or jobs that typically exist in smaller, more specialized organizations. The combination of competition from what limited nearby local governments there are and the private sector places a great deal of importance on the quality and responsiveness of the compensation and classification systems. Classification illustrates how work is organized as well as how human resources are utilized to meet the short and long term challenges of the organization. responded to detailed questionnaires and provided the information necessary to quantify the differences in the types of work performed across the organization. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL FINDING As a result of the JAT-based analysis conducted and peer information collected during the salary survey process, it was revealed that the County relative restraint in not allowing the classification structure to grow uncontrollably. The County maintains many jobs that center on common classification titles such as Administrator, Coordinator, Director, Supervisor, Individuals in these classifications are operating within a comparable sphere of influence with a specific span of control. Their unique operating area is added to the core Risk Mana of such working titles. A system such as this is simple to maintain but not all encompassing. Due to the unique nature of work performed within the County, some truly specialized titles must and do exist. The County could consolidate how they display these classification titles and refer only to their broad title, allowing the unique modifier to fall off thus eliminating many titles, but this is not a critical recommendation that should be emphasized. JAT analysis did provide insight into how classification descriptions can be individually improved to better reflect some of the specific work being performed by employees, but no individual classes are recommended for immediate change. The County should be commended for maintaining an effective and constrained classification system. COMMENDATION: The County is commended for exercising institutional restraint in the maintenance of its classification plan. In the future, it is likely that the County might, from time to time, need to create new classifications as circumstances dictate. Care should be taken to not use the creation of a new classification as a work-around for the compensation system. These types of actions are a common source of frustration for employees and should be avoided. 5.2 COMPENSATION FINDING Where classification analysis is primarily designed to identify and rectify issues of internal equity and administrative efficiency as with class consolidations, compensation analysis involves assessing and improving external equity. Specifically, external equity deals with how well an organization compensates similar work in comparison to its market peers. Based on structure was relatively competitive as compared to market. When compared to the 50 percentile of market, the County is th observed to be approximately 14.3 percent below market at the midpoint. Overall, this is a very favorable market position. As discussed in Chapter 4, some classes did fall farther behind than others however, and do require adjustment. As a result, Evergreen Solutions is recommending restructuring of the pay plan across the board for market. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL Currently shown in Exhibit 5A, the County has one unified series of pay grades. A unified pay plan allows for easier explanation and understanding of internal equity relationships and simpler administration. Some organizations successfully manage multiple pay plans and find variation to be advantageous, but in an environment where a single plan is historically used, a single plan is most commonly recommended. This is the case for Monroe County. The existing plan has some inconsistencies that have been previously discussed. These things should be corrected in any future pay plan and were considered when Evergreen Solutions designed the proposed pay plan. EXHIBIT 5A MONROE COUNTY CURRENT PAY PLAN Range GradeMinimumMidpointMaximumProgression Spread 31% 2$ 2 1,507$ 2 4,882$ 2 8,257 40%19.2% 3$ 2 4,711$ 2 9,653$ 3 4,595 40%5.0% 4$ 2 5,946$ 3 1,136$ 3 6,325 40%10.0% 5$ 2 8,541$ 3 4,249$ 3 9,957 40%10.0% 6$ 3 1,395$ 3 7,674$ 4 3,952 40%10.0% 7$ 3 4,534$ 4 1,442$ 4 8,348 40%10.0% 8$ 3 7,988$ 4 5,585$ 5 3,184 45%12.0% 9$ 4 1,678$ 5 1,055$ 6 0,434 1045%12.0% $ 4 6,678$ 5 7,182$ 6 7,684 18%9.2% 10.5$ 5 7,182$ 6 2,433$ 6 7,684 1150%2.6% $ 5 1,235$ 6 4,043$ 7 6,852 1250%15.0% $ 5 8,920$ 7 3,651$ 8 8,380 1355%15.0% $ 6 6,429$ 8 4,699$ 102,967 1455%15.0% $ 7 6,396$ 9 7,404$ 118,412 1560%15.0% $ 8 6,164$ 112,013$ 137,863 1660%25.0% $ 107,705$ 140,019$ 172,328 Source: Monroe County, February 2013. The revised pay plans, shown in Exhibit 5B uses the same open-range layout as is currently in place. Each grade has an established minimum, midpoint, and maximum and the current range spreads have been expanded to more closely match the market at 55 percent. The proposed pay plan is based on the present pay grades values taking market grade differentials and benefits mix into account. The following facts are known and/or actions have been taken: market average difference at midpoint is observed to be 14.3 percent; 14.3 percent does include adjustment for cost of living; t77 percent pay, 23 percent benefits; (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL using 77 current minimum was raised 11.01 percent to establish the minimum of grade 100. Widening the range spreads to 55 percent allows for more in-grade salary progression for employees and will allow pay to increase more without unwarranted reclassifications or promotions. The progression between grades is set at a consistent 5.25 percent allowing for more grades than currently exist. Having the freedom of additional pay grades allows more flexibility in how current classifications are placed in the ranges and also increases the grades should new classifications be created in the future. Smaller pay plans, with fewer grades often result in compression between rank and file employees and managers whereas expanded pay plans with more grades to choose from, allow for more fine-tuning in how jobs are placed. The approach taken in preserving the style of the existing pay plan, while improving the consistency and market relevance of its dimensions will make implementation easier to understand and explain. Recommendation 5-2 Implement the proposed pay plan found in Exhibit 5B. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 5B MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED PAY PLAN Range GradeMinimumMidpointMaximumProgression Spread 10055% $ 2 3,875$ 3 0,441$ 3 7,006 10155%5.25% $ 2 5,129$ 3 2,039$ 3 8,949 10255%5.25% $ 2 6,448$ 3 3,721$ 4 0,994 10355%5.25% $ 2 7,836$ 3 5,491$ 4 3,146 10455%5.25% $ 2 9,298$ 3 7,355$ 4 5,412 10555%5.25% $ 3 0,836$ 3 9,316$ 4 7,796 10655%5.25% $ 3 2,455$ 4 1,380$ 5 0,305 10755%5.25% $ 3 4,159$ 4 3,552$ 5 2,946 10855%5.25% $ 3 5,952$ 4 5,839$ 5 5,726 10955%5.25% $ 3 7,839$ 4 8,245$ 5 8,651 11055%5.25% $ 3 9,826$ 5 0,778$ 6 1,730 11155%5.25% $ 4 1,917$ 5 3,444$ 6 4,971 11255%5.25% $ 4 4,118$ 5 6,250$ 6 8,382 11355%5.25% $ 4 6,434$ 5 9,203$ 7 1,972 11455%5.25% $ 4 8,871$ 6 2,311$ 7 5,751 11555%5.25% $ 5 1,437$ 6 5,582$ 7 9,728 11655%5.25% $ 5 4,138$ 6 9,026$ 8 3,913 11755%5.25% $ 5 6,980$ 7 2,649$ 8 8,319 11855%5.25% $ 5 9,971$ 7 6,463$ 9 2,956 11955%5.25% $ 6 3,120$ 8 0,478$ 9 7,836 12055%5.25% $ 6 6,434$ 8 4,703$ 102,972 12155%5.25% $ 6 9,921$ 8 9,150$ 108,378 12255%5.25% $ 7 3,592$ 9 3,830$ 114,068 12355%5.25% $ 7 7,456$ 9 8,756$ 120,057 12455%5.25% $ 8 1,522$ 103,941$ 126,360 12555%5.25% $ 8 5,802$ 109,398$ 132,993 12655%5.25% $ 9 0,307$ 115,141$ 139,976 12755%5.25% $ 9 5,048$ 121,186$ 147,324 12855%5.25% $ 100,038$ 127,548$ 155,059 12955%5.25% $ 105,290$ 134,245$ 163,199 13055%5.25% $ 110,818$ 141,293$ 171,767 13155%5.25% $ 116,636$ 148,710$ 180,785 13255%5.25% $ 122,759$ 156,518$ 190,276 13355%5.25% $ 129,204$ 164,735$ 200,266 Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, March 2014. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL FINDING Once the proposed pay plan is implemented, the next step is to transition employees into the proposed structure. Typically, there are three primary actions for implementation: slotting classifications into the structure; bringing employees to the proposed minimum salary (the red color-coded phase); and making considerations for parity (the orange color-coded phase). References to color-coding apply to the attached solution spreadsheet. Parity adjustments are given to restore or maintain the pay spread between employees that have been moved to minimum as a result of an adjustment to their grade and those employees that were not affected. Parity also takes time in job class into account and determines if employees have progressed through the ranges at an appropriate pace. RECOMMENDATION 5-3: Slot classifications into proposed pay plan utilizing proposed grade order list in Exhibit 5D and apply necessary salary adjustments. Step 1 of the process is to slot individual classifications into the proposed pay plan based on external equity status, internal equity hierarchy, and JAT indicators. The result of this is a revised grade order list displayed in Exhibit 5D. As is the most common approach in studies like this, a representative sample of benchmark classifications was submitted to the market for comparison. This data was melded with the results of the classification and JAT analysis and a framework for internal hierarchy was created. In the case of the County, the existing structure was largely validated without the need for major overhaul. Step 2 of the plan is to slot individual employees into the new compensation structure and bring employees in up to their proposed pay grade minimums. An adjustment such as this is recommended when a newer employee is in a pay grade which is increased as a result of this study. In this case, they are likely at or very near the minimum of their current grade and when their classification is moved up one or more pay grades, they fall below the newly established range minimum. It is important to bring these employees up to the new minimum so that the pay plan is fully implemented and all employees are treated fairly. This action impacts 45 employees at a total cost of $86,526. There is a disparity in who is most impacted by this phase of implementation. Specifically: 46 of the 51 people impacted by this step are currently earning less than $50,000. These individuals account for $79,855 of the cost of this step; and (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL 5 individuals making more than $50,000 account for just $6,671. The exact cause of this disparity can surely be debated but is less important than remedying it. Placing classifications in more market-competitive ranges and allowing for progress over time will prevent future such occurrences. Step 3 is to consider parity for the employees and possible compression. Compression is a situation which remains contentious for some employees, particularly those who have longer tenure but have not progressed as far through the pay ranges at a consistent pace. One way to determine or assess parity in a pay scale is to compare the progress employees have made through their respective ranges over their years worked. Considering a 30 year employment period to align with retirement plan year standards, employees can often be expected to progress from the entry level or philosophy. This would equate to 30 equal progressive increments. Typical compensation growth is rapid at years increase; however, for the purposes of parity analysis we assume a linear relationship between years and pay, even in the absence of a step-based pay plan. If an employee is at the maximum of their pay grade after so many years, they averaged some amount per year to get there. This is the premise of our parity calculation. Full parity is obtained when every employee is brought up to their parity pay. A simple example would be a 15 year employee. Using a 30 year parity period as calculated by years in classification, an employee with 15 years in their classification is half way through their 30 year career and could be predicted to be at the half-way or midpoint of their range. If this employee is $2,500 below this midpoint, then in order to get them to full parity, a $2,500 raise is proposed. When employees in are analyzed over a 30 year period compared to the proposed pay ranges, we learn that 124 employees fall below their parity threshold and were eligible for a pay adjustment under this methodology. This indicates that though some employees have longer than average tenure, they have not necessarily progressed through their ranges at a consistent pace equivalent to their years of experience. It is likely that economic factors affecting pay increases are a part of this equation and that the County does not suffer from a broader systematic problem. The approximate total cost of applying increases for parity, above and beyond the increase to minimum is $198,113. As with the adjustment to minimum, the majority of employees impacted by this step have salaries below $50,000. Specifically: 106 of the 124 employees, accounting for $125,955 are for this sub- $50,000 group; and (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL 18 employees, accounting for $72,158 are in the above-$50,000 group. Exhibit 5C outlines the total cost of implementation for these recommendations. EXHIBIT 5C SOLUTION COST SUMMARY TABLE Solution StepApproximate Cost Step 1: Bring to Minimum86,526.47$ Step 2: 30 Year Class Parity198,113.19$ Total$ 284,639.66 Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, March 2014. The parity calculation discussed herein only considers years in service with the County and not their prior years of experience relevant to the position. If parity is implemented as described, small individual salary adjustments may be necessary to bring about equity when prior experience is considered as allowed by the between 10 and 20 employees. 5.3 ADMINISTRATION FINDING Any strong administrative support. It is likely that such administrative support exists, at least in part; however this section of the report will serve as a reminder. It is widely known that compensation plans have definitive life spans, after which, they will struggle and eventually fail to compete with the market and cause recruitment and retention strain over time. In worse case scenarios, pay plans are adjusted a grade at a time and they lose their inherently designed consistency. This appears to have been the case with Monroe County prior to this study with some of the inconsistency that was observed in the present pay plan. 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 of most systems. RECOMMENDATION 5-4: 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 continue its efforts to keep pace with public sector peers in terms of employee salaries. In order to maintain its competitiveness, Human Resources should select a small sample of classifications, particularly those with (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL 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 current economic conditions are causing a buildup of demand in the private market. Many are also predicting 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 willing to change jobs for increases in pay. The Human Resources staff 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 identified administrative practices are put into place 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, unless relevant changes move the salary outside of the proposed salary range. 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 5-5: Adjust the pay plan each year based on the results of the average movement of peer pay levels. Human Resources should reevaluate this list every couple of years 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 request eased and any changes to benefits. By determining the average percent increase of peer pay plans and benefit offerings, the County can ensure its pay plan and other factors are increasing at the same relative speed as its peers, thus maintaining or improving its relative position depending on the County (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL FINDING Inevitably, compensation is subject to changes in the external market based on best practices and other trends for human resources management. Minimally, the County should annually, increase the ranges of each pay grade by some common economic indicator such as CPI on October 1, of the applicable year. Further, if the pay plan is increased on October 1, of each year, each employee should be given (pending budget availability) a minimum CPI adjustment on October 1 of each year pay grade. Then, the County should continue their performance based raise system established in 2014. An example of what this might look like can be seen in Exhibit 5E with the proposed range values for 2014 as reported herein, and projections for 2015 based on a two percent CPI increase. The Predicted 2015 Ranges are hypothetical and serve to illustrate how the pay plan can be maintained into the future. EXHIBIT 5E MONROE COUNTY 2015 PAY-PLAN ESTIMATE 2014 PROPOSED RANGESPREDICTED 2015 RANGES Grade MinimumMidpointMaximumMinimumMidpointMaximum 100 $ 2 3,875$ 3 0,441$ 3 7,006$ 2 4,353$ 3 1,050$ 3 7,747 101 $ 2 5,129$ 3 2,039$ 3 8,949$ 2 5,631$ 3 2,680$ 3 9,728 102 $ 2 6,448$ 3 3,721$ 4 0,994$ 2 6,977$ 3 4,395$ 4 1,814 103 $ 2 7,836$ 3 5,491$ 4 3,146$ 2 8,393$ 3 6,201$ 4 4,009 104 $ 2 9,298$ 3 7,355$ 4 5,412$ 2 9,884$ 3 8,102$ 4 6,320 105 $ 3 0,836$ 3 9,316$ 4 7,796$ 3 1,453$ 4 0,102$ 4 8,752 106 $ 3 2,455$ 4 1,380$ 5 0,305$ 3 3,104$ 4 2,207$ 5 1,311 107 $ 3 4,159$ 4 3,552$ 5 2,946$ 3 4,842$ 4 4,423$ 5 4,005 108 $ 3 5,952$ 4 5,839$ 5 5,726$ 3 6,671$ 4 6,756$ 5 6,840 109 $ 3 7,839$ 4 8,245$ 5 8,651$ 3 8,596$ 4 9,210$ 5 9,824 110 $ 3 9,826$ 5 0,778$ 6 1,730$ 4 0,623$ 5 1,794$ 6 2,965 111 $ 4 1,917$ 5 3,444$ 6 4,971$ 4 2,755$ 5 4,513$ 6 6,271 112 $ 4 4,118$ 5 6,250$ 6 8,382$ 4 5,000$ 5 7,375$ 6 9,750 113 $ 4 6,434$ 5 9,203$ 7 1,972$ 4 7,362$ 6 0,387$ 7 3,412 114 $ 4 8,871$ 6 2,311$ 7 5,751$ 4 9,849$ 6 3,557$ 7 7,266 115 $ 5 1,437$ 6 5,582$ 7 9,728$ 5 2,466$ 6 6,894$ 8 1,322 116 $ 5 4,138$ 6 9,026$ 8 3,913$ 5 5,220$ 7 0,406$ 8 5,592 117 $ 5 6,980$ 7 2,649$ 8 8,319$ 5 8,120$ 7 4,102$ 9 0,085 118 $ 5 9,971$ 7 6,463$ 9 2,956$ 6 1,171$ 7 7,993$ 9 4,815 119 $ 6 3,120$ 8 0,478$ 9 7,836$ 6 4,382$ 8 2,087$ 9 9,792 120 $ 6 6,434$ 8 4,703$ 102,972$ 6 7,762$ 8 6,397$ 105,032 121 $ 6 9,921$ 8 9,150$ 108,378$ 7 1,320$ 9 0,933$ 110,546 122 $ 7 3,592$ 9 3,830$ 114,068$ 7 5,064$ 9 5,707$ 116,349 123 $ 7 7,456$ 9 8,756$ 120,057$ 7 9,005$ 100,731$ 122,458 124 $ 8 1,522$ 103,941$ 126,360$ 8 3,153$ 106,020$ 128,887 125 $ 8 5,802$ 109,398$ 132,993$ 8 7,518$ 111,586$ 135,653 126 $ 9 0,307$ 115,141$ 139,976$ 9 2,113$ 117,444$ 142,775 127 $ 9 5,048$ 121,186$ 147,324$ 9 6,949$ 123,610$ 150,271 128 $ 100,038$ 127,548$ 155,059$ 102,039$ 130,099$ 158,160 129 $ 105,290$ 134,245$ 163,199$ 107,396$ 136,930$ 166,463 130 $ 110,818$ 141,293$ 171,767$ 113,034$ 144,118$ 175,203 131 $ 116,636$ 148,710$ 180,785$ 118,968$ 151,685$ 184,401 132 $ 122,759$ 156,518$ 190,276$ 125,214$ 159,648$ 194,082 133 $ 129,204$ 164,735$ 200,266$ 131,788$ 168 ,030$ 204,271 Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, March 2014. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL RECOMMENDATION 5-6: Conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study every three to five years. While small annual surveys of identified classifications can provide a general idea of the Countythe County should complete a comprehensive compensation and classification study every three to five years to ensure internal and external equity is maintained. 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 value their workforce and are willing to take serious steps to preserve the competitiveness of their compensation plan and practices by employees. 5.5 SUMMARY The County should be proud of its dedication to high-quality service and continuous improvement. Evergreen Solutions found that employees at all levels were committed to their jobs and to the County, and also committed to maintaining the positive working atmosphere they enjoy. Evergreen Solutions recommendations build upon the strengths of the current compensation system and work to improve the challenges identified by employees, management, and the project team. The County also enjoys an engaged and active group of elected officials who shared invaluable information position will impact implementation. Several options were presented and the one represented in this report is the option recommended for implementation. The the market and the results of the study tend to support that assertion for many. Implementing a parity solution also takes into account some of the concerns employees have about perceived compression between more tenured and less tenured employees. In closing, the County has maintained a relatively sound compensation and classification system over time and the recommendations herein serve to strengthen and continue the C (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 5D MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST CLASS TITLEPROPOSED GRADEMINIMUMMIDPOINTMAXIMUM CUSTODIAN100 $ 2 3,875.14$ 3 0,440.81$ 3 7,006.47 CUSTODIAN - BAYSHORE MANOR100 $ 2 3,875.14$ 3 0,440.81$ 3 7,006.47 LEAD CUSTODIAN MAINTENANCE WORKER100 $ 2 3,875.14$ 3 0,440.81$ 3 7,006.47 NUTRITION PROGRAM SITE ASSISTANT100 $ 2 3,875.14$ 3 0,440.81$ 3 7,006.47 RECEPTIONIST100 $ 2 3,875.14$ 3 0,440.81$ 3 7,006.47 TOLL COLLECTOR100 $ 2 3,875.14$ 3 0,440.81$ 3 7,006.47 LEAD CUSTODIAN MAINTENANCE MECHANIC102 $ 2 6,447.84$ 3 3,720.99$ 4 0,994.15 MAINTENANCE WORKER102 $ 2 6,447.84$ 3 3,720.99$ 4 0,994.15 MAINTENANCE WORKER - PARKS & BEACHES102 $ 2 6,447.84$ 3 3,720.99$ 4 0,994.15 ON CALL TRANSPORTATION DRIVER102 $ 2 6,447.84$ 3 3,720.99$ 4 0,994.15 TRANSPORTATION DRIVER102 $ 2 6,447.84$ 3 3,720.99$ 4 0,994.15 ASSISTANT SPECIALIST TRUSTEE PROGRAM103 $ 2 7,836.35$ 3 5,491.35$ 4 3,146.34 MAINTENANCE MECHANIC103 $ 2 7,836.35$ 3 5,491.35$ 4 3,146.34 MAINTENANCE MECHANIC - PARKS & BEACHES103 $ 2 7,836.35$ 3 5,491.35$ 4 3,146.34 OFFICE ASSISTANT103 $ 2 7,836.35$ 3 5,491.35$ 4 3,146.34 SITE MANAGER CONGREGATE/HOME DELIVERED MEALS103 $ 2 7,836.35$ 3 5,491.35$ 4 3,146.34 WEIGHMASTER103 $ 2 7,836.35$ 3 5,491.35$ 4 3,146.34 ASSISTANT RISK MANAGEMENT105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 ATTENDANT105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 LANDFILL OPERATOR105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 LEAD PAINTER105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 LIBRARY ASSISTANT105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 LIBRARY ASSISTANT/PERSONNEL LIAISON105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 LIBRARY TECHNICAL SERVICES CATALOGING ASSISTANT105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 MAINTENANCE WORKER II105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 RESERVATIONIST/DISPATCHER105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 SR LANDSCAPER105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 STAFF ASSISTANT105 $ 3 0,835.89$ 3 9,315.76$ 4 7,795.63 INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANT & CONTROL TECHNICIAN106 $ 3 2,454.78$ 4 1,379.84$ 5 0,304.90 MECHANIC I106 $ 3 2,454.78$ 4 1,379.84$ 5 0,304.90 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 AIRPORT MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 ASSISTANT AIRPORT MAINTENANCE107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 BUSINESS MANAGER107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 CASE COORDINATOR I107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 COORDINATOR SPECIAL NEEDS107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 FOREMAN FACILITIES MAINTENANCE107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 FOREMAN PAINTING107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 FOREMAN PARKS & BEACHES MAINTENANCE107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 FOREMAN PLUMBING107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 HEARING REPORTER107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February 2014. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED) MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST CLASS TITLEPROPOSED GRADEMINIMUMMIDPOINTMAXIMUM HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATOR107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 SIGN TECHNICIAN INSTALLER107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 SPECIALIST BUILDING MAINTENANCE107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 SR MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 SR PLUMBER107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 SR TECHNICIAN MAINTENANCE107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 SR TECHNICIAN MAINTENANCE - AIRPORT107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 SR TECHNICIAN MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 SR TECHNICIAN POLLUTION CONTROL107 $ 3 4,158.65$ 4 3,552.28$ 5 2,945.91 ELECTRICIAN108 $ 3 5,951.98$ 4 5,838.77$ 5 5,725.57 SERVICE MECHANIC108 $ 3 5,951.98$ 4 5,838.77$ 5 5,725.57 SPECIALIST WORKERS COMPENSATION108 $ 3 5,951.98$ 4 5,838.77$ 5 5,725.57 SR LIBRARY ASSISTANT BRANCH108 $ 3 5,951.98$ 4 5,838.77$ 5 5,725.57 SR LIBRARY ASSISTANT LEGAL RESEARCH108 $ 3 5,951.98$ 4 5,838.77$ 5 5,725.57 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR108 $ 3 5,951.98$ 4 5,838.77$ 5 5,725.57 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR/COUNSELORS ASSISTANT108 $ 3 5,951.98$ 4 5,838.77$ 5 5,725.57 COORDINATOR109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 COORDINATOR ELECTRONICS109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 COORDINATOR ENVIRONMENTAL109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 COORDINATOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 COORDINATOR IN-HOME SERVICES109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 COORDINATOR LICENSING109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 COORDINATOR NUTRITION SERVICES109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 COORDINATOR ROADS & BRIDGES109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 COORDINATOR SCENIC HIGHWAY109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE I109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 EXTENSION COORDINATOR109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 FOREMAN ROADS & BRIDGES109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 MAINTENANCE WORKER III109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 SAFETY OFFICER109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 SR BUYER109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 SR SPECIALIST CUSTOMER SERVICE109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 SUPERINTENDENT CARD SOUND OPERATIONS109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 SUPERINTENDENT MAINTENANCE CORRECTIONS109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 TECHNICIAN PLANNING109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 TV MULTIMEDIA TECHNICIAN109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 VETERANS SERVICE COUNSELOR109 $ 3 7,839.46$ 4 8,245.31$ 5 8,651.16 CASE MANAGER110 $ 3 9,826.03$ 5 0,778.19$ 6 1,730.35 COORDINATOR HUMAN RESOURCES110 $ 3 9,826.03$ 5 0,778.19$ 6 1,730.35 COORDNATOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS110 $ 3 9,826.03$ 5 0,778.19$ 6 1,730.35 CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE II110 $ 3 9,826.03$ 5 0,778.19$ 6 1,730.35 MOBILE MECHANIC110 $ 3 9,826.03$ 5 0,778.19$ 6 1,730.35 ON CALL RN PERSONAL CARE SUPERVISOR110 $ 3 9,826.03$ 5 0,778.19$ 6 1,730.35 SR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT110 $ 3 9,826.03$ 5 0,778.19$ 6 1,730.35 SR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT MIDDLE KEYS OPERATIONS110 $ 3 9,826.03$ 5 0,778.19$ 6 1,730.35 Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February 2014. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED) MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST CLASS TITLEPROPOSED GRADEMINIMUMMIDPOINTMAXIMUM SR TECHNICIAN AIR CONDITIONING110 $ 3 9,826.03$ 5 0,778.19$ 6 1,730.35 ACTIVE DIRECTORY ARCHITECT111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 ATTENDANT SUPERVISOR111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 BIOLOGIST111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 BIOLOGIST MARINE111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 CODE COMPLIANCE RESEARCH ANALYST111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 LIBRARIAN111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 LIBRARIAN TECHNICAL SERVICES111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 MASTER ELECTRICIAN111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 PURCHASING MANAGER111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 SR BUDGET ANALYST111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 SR COORDINATOR AIRPORT GRANTS & FINANCE111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 SR COORDINATOR BUILDING111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 SR COORDINATOR FINANCE & ACCOUNTING111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 SR ENG TECH PW / ENG111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 SR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 SR LIBRARIAN FLORIDA HISTORY111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 SR PROJECT MANAGEMENT/WASTEWATER TECHNICIAN111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 SUPERVISOR CASE MANAGER111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 SUPERVISOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 SUPERVISOR ROADS & BRIDGES111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 SUPERVISOR SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING111 $ 4 1,916.90$ 5 3,444.04$ 6 4,971.19 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT -COUNTY ATTORNEY112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 INSPECTOR CODE COMPLIANCE112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 LEAD MECHANIC112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 LOGISTICS SPECIALIST112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 MASTER MECHANIC/GENERATOR TECHNICIAN112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 OFFICE MANAGER112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 PARALEGAL112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 PARALEGAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 PARALEGAL LITIGATION112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 SR COORDINATOR BENEFITS112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 SR COORDINATOR CODE COMPLIANCE112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 SR COORDINATOR COUNTY ATTORNEY112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 SR COORDINATOR FLEET112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 SR COORDINATOR PLANNING COMMISSION112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 SR NETWORK ANALYST112 $ 4 4,117.53$ 5 6,249.86$ 6 8,382.18 AIRPORT SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 BUILDING INSPECTOR I113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 CONTRACT MONITOR113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 MANAGER BRANCH LIBRARY113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 MANAGER LIBRARY TECHNICAL SERVICES113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 PLANNER113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February 2014. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED) MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST CLASS TITLEPROPOSED GRADEMINIMUMMIDPOINTMAXIMUM PLUMBING MECHANICAL INSPECTOR113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 SR BIOLOGIST113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 SR COORDINATOR FLOODPLAIN113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 SR COORDINATOR TV MULTIMEDIA113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 SR LIBRARIAN113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 SR LIBRARIAN ARCHIVIST113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 SUPERVISOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 SYSTEMS ANALYST113 $ 4 6,433.70$ 5 9,202.97$ 7 1,972.24 ADMINISTRATOR BUILDING & PARKS & BEACHES114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 ADMINISTRATOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 ADMINISTRATOR LIBRARIES114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 ADMINISTRATOR PERMITTING114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 CIP ADMINISTRATOR AND INSPECTOR114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SR PLANNER114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SR. PLANNER I114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 GIS SERVER ADMINISTRATOR & SYSTEMS ANALYST114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 PARALEGAL ADMINISTRATIVE LIAISON114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ADMINISTRATOR114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 SERVER ADMINISTRATOR114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 SR INSPECTOR CODE COMPLIANCE114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 SR LEAD MECHANIC114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 SR PLANNER114 $ 4 8,871.47$ 6 2,311.13$ 7 5,750.78 ADMINISTRATOR LIBRARY HEADQUARTERS115 $ 5 1,437.23$ 6 5,582.46$ 7 9,727.70 ADMINISTRATOR RISK MANAGEMENT115 $ 5 1,437.23$ 6 5,582.46$ 7 9,727.70 APPLICATION ANALYST115 $ 5 1,437.23$ 6 5,582.46$ 7 9,727.70 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR115 $ 5 1,437.23$ 6 5,582.46$ 7 9,727.70 PLANNING & BIOLOGICAL PLANS EXAMINER SUPERVISOR115 $ 5 1,437.23$ 6 5,582.46$ 7 9,727.70 SR SYSTEMS ANALYST115 $ 5 1,437.23$ 6 5,582.46$ 7 9,727.70 ADMINISTRATOR HUMAN RESOURCES116 $ 5 4,137.68$ 6 9,025.54$ 8 3,913.41 PRINCIPAL PLANNER116 $ 5 4,137.68$ 6 9,025.54$ 8 3,913.41 PROJECT MANAGER116 $ 5 4,137.68$ 6 9,025.54$ 8 3,913.41 SR ADMINISTRATOR BENEFITS/HIPAA PRIVACY OFFICER116 $ 5 4,137.68$ 6 9,025.54$ 8 3,913.41 BUILDING INSPECTOR II117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 COMPLIANCE MANAGER117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 SR ADMINISTRATOR AIRPORT BUSINESS117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 SR ADMINISTRATOR BAYSHORE117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 SR ADMINISTRATOR CODE COMPLIANCE117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 SR ADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 SR ADMINISTRATOR GIS117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 SR ADMINISTRATOR MARINE RESOURCES117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 SR ADMINISTRATOR SEWER PROJECTS117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 SR ADMINISTRATOR SOCIAL SERVICES117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February 2014. (YHUJUHHQ6ROXWLRQV//&3DJH 4EGOIX4K (K Chapter 5 - Solution Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED) MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST CLASS TITLEPROPOSED GRADEMINIMUMMIDPOINTMAXIMUM SR ADMINISTRATOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 SR BUDGET ADMINISTRATOR117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 SR PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM MANAGER117 $ 5 6,979.91$ 7 2,649.38$ 8 8,318.86 AIRPORT SECURITY COORDINATOR118 $ 5 9,971.35$ 7 6,463.48$ 9 2,955.60 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS118 $ 5 9,971.35$ 7 6,463.48$ 9 2,955.60 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MANAGER118 $ 5 9,971.35$ 7 6,463.48$ 9 2,955.60 DIRECTOR FLEET MANAGEMENT118 $ 5 9,971.35$ 7 6,463.48$ 9 2,955.60 DIRECTOR LIBRARIES118 $ 5 9,971.35$ 7 6,463.48$ 9 2,955.60 DIRECTOR MIDDLE KEYS OPERATIONS118 $ 5 9,971.35$ 7 6,463.48$ 9 2,955.60 DIRECTOR VETERANS AFFAIRS118 $ 5 9,971.35$ 7 6,463.48$ 9 2,955.60 LAND STEWARD118 $ 5 9,971.35$ 7 6,463.48$ 9 2,955.60 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MANAGER118 $ 5 9,971.35$ 7 6,463.48$ 9 2,955.60 PLANS EXAMINER118 $ 5 9,971.35$ 7 6,463.48$ 9 2,955.60 SR ADMINISTRATOR GRANTS118 $ 5 9,971.35$ 7 6,463.48$ 9 2,955.60 DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR119 $ 6 3,119.85$ 8 0,477.81$ 9 7,835.77 ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY II122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 DIR INTERGOV/LEG AND GRANTS ACQ122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 DIRECTOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 DIRECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 DIRECTOR OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 DIRECTOR SUSTAINABILITY AND SPECIAL PROJECTS122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 DIRECTOR UPPER KEYS OPERATIONS122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 FIRE RESCUE DEPUTY CHIEF-OPERATIONS122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 SR DIRECTOR BUILDING OFFICIAL122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 SR DIRECTOR CODE COMPLIANCE122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 SR DIRECTOR OF BUDGET & FINANCE122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 SR DIRECTOR SOCIAL SERVICES122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 SR DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING122 $ 7 3,592.28$ 9 3,830.16$ 114,068.04 ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY - LITIGATOR124 $ 8 1,522.31$ 103,940.95$ 126,359.58 ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY III124 $ 8 1,522.31$ 103,940.95$ 126,359.58 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS124 $ 8 1,522.31$ 103,940.95$ 126,359.58 SR DIRECTOR AIRPORTS124 $ 8 1,522.31$ 103,940.95$ 126,359.58 SR DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES124 $ 8 1,522.31$ 103,940.95$ 126,359.58 DIVISION DIRECTOR EMPLOYEE SERVICES125 $ 8 5,802.23$ 109,397.85$ 132,993.46 DIVISION DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT125 $ 8 5,802.23$ 109,397.85$ 132,993.46 DIVISION DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS / ENGINEERING125 $ 8 5,802.23$ 109,397.85$ 132,993.46 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR125 $ 8 5,802.23$ 109,397.85$ 132,993.46 FIRE CHIEF/DIVISION DIRECTOR EMERGENCY SERVICES125 $ 8 5,802.23$ 109,397.85$ 132,993.46 DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR132 $ 122,758.99$ 156,517.72$ 190,276.44 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR133 $ 129,203.84$ 164,734.90$ 200,265.95 COUNTY ATTORNEYCONTRACTN/AN/AN/A Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February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