Item C4BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Meeting Date: May 1, 2014
Bulk Item: Yes No X
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Division: Employee Services
Department: Human Resources
Staff Contact Person: Teresa APuiar 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
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 longterm 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 longterm 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: Step 1 is $86,526.47 INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes _No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO COUNTY:
SOURCE OF FUNDS Ad Valorem
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
1.1 INTRODUCTION
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
County's elected officials and key stakeholders 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 organization's compensation practices among its
current employees. Specifically, by reviewing the skills, capabilities, and duties of each
position, it can be determined whether similar positions are being compensated in a similar
manner within the organization. The classification component of this study resolves any
inconsistencies related to job requirements and providing clarity to the plan in place.
External equity deals with the differences between how an organization's classifications are
valued and what compensation is available in the market place for the same skills,
capabilities, and duties. As part of the study, Evergreen Solutions, LLC was tasked with:
• Collecting and reviewing current environmental data present at the County;
• Conducting a market salary 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
-;41
Page 1-1
Chapter 1- Introduction Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
1.2 STUDY METHODOLOGY
Evergreen Solutions combines qualitative as well as quantitative data analysis to produce an
equitable solution to maximize the fairness and competitiveness of an organization's
compensation structure and practices. Project activities included:
• conducting a project kick-off meeting;
• conducting orientation sessions with employees;
• facilitating 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.
Job Assessment Tool (JAT) Classification Analysis
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
_;41 Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-2
Chapter 1- Introduction Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
compensation structure. Combined with market data, this information forms the foundation
of the combined solution.
• Leadership - Leadership deals with the employee's individual leadership role, be it
as a direct report of others who is subject to leadership or an executive leadership
over entire departments or the County as a whole.
• Working Conditions - Working Conditions deals with the employee's physical working
conditions and the employee's impact on those conditions as well as the working
conditions impact or potential impact on the employee.
• Complexity - Complexity describes the nature of work performed and includes
options ranging from entry level manual or clerical tasks up to advanced scientific,
legal, or executive management duties.
• Decision Making - Decision Making deals with the individual decision making
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?
• Relationships - Relationships deals with organizational structure and the nature of
the employee's working relationships. Responses range from employees who work
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
-;41
Chapter 1- Introduction Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
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:
• Chapter 2 - Summary of Outreach
• Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions
• Chapter 4 - Market and Benefits Survey Summary
• Chapter 5 - Solution
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-4
_;41
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.
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
Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee outreach Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
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.
Co►npensation Issues
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.
Classification Issues
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:
_;4 Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-2
Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee outreach Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
• 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.
Market Peers
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
Benchmark Positions
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:
_;4 Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-3
Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee outreach Classification and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
• 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.
_.;4 Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 2-4
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's
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's present pay plan. 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.
All 16 of the County's current pay grades are occupied by at least one employee. A total of
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. The County Attorney's
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
maximum. The range spreads in the County's current pay plan vary between 18 percent and
60 percent, with an average range spread of 44 percent.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 3-1
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditlons Classifloation 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
represents 16.8 percent of the County's total workforce. Pay grades 15 and 16 have the
fewest assigned employees, each with a single employee, each representing 0.2 percent of
the County's total workforce.
EXHIBIT 3A
CURRENT PAY PLAN
16 1 $107,705 1 $140,019 1 $172,328 1 60% 1 1
14 1 $ 76,396 1 $ 97,404 1 $118,412 1 55% 1 12
12 1 $ 58,920 1 $ 73,651 1 $ 88,380 1 50% 1 12
10.5 1 $ 57,182 1 $ 62,433 1 $ 67,684 1 18% 1 3
9 1 $ 41,678 1 $ 51,055 1 $ 60,434 1 45% 1 70
7 1 $ 34,534 1 $ 41,442 1 $ 48,348 1 40% 1 43
5 1 $ 28,541 1 $ 34,249 1 $ 39,957 1 40% 1 19
3 1 $ 24,711 1 $ 29,653 1 $ 34,595 1 40% 1 24
Source: Evergreen Solutions, November, 2013.
Grade Placement Analysis
In assessing the overall effectiveness of an organization's pay plan and policies, an analysis
is performed to determine the position of employees' salaries relative 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.
Overall, 248 of the County's employees have salaries below the midpoint of their respective
pay grade. This represents 60.2 percent of the County's graded employees. A total of 164
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-2
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classifloation and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
employees have salaries above the midpoint of their respective pay grade. This represents
39.8 percent of the County's graded employees. The analysis shows that a slight majority of
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.
EXHIBIT 3B
EMPLOYEES ABOVE AND BELOW MIDPOINT BY PAY GRADE
16
1
0
0.0%
1
100.0%
15
1
0
0.0%
1
100.0°%
14
12
2
16.7%
10
83.3%
13
19
7
36.8%
12
63.2°%
12
12
8
66.7%
4
33.3%
11
13
7
53.8%
6
46.2%
10.5
3
3
100.0%
0
0.0%
10
32>'
18
56.3°%
14
43.8%
9
70
36
51.4%
34
48.6%
8
55'
39
70.9°%
16
29.1%
7
43
19
44.2%
24
55.8%
6
65'
54
83.1°%
11
16.9%
5
19
13
68.4%
6
31.6%
4
29'
18
62.1°%
11
37.9°%
3
24
15
62.5%
9
37.5%
2
14
9
64.3%
5
35.7°%
Total'
412
248'
60.2%
164
39.89/o
Source: Evergreen Solutions, November 2013.
uartile and Tenure Analvsis
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
4 Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-3
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Condltlons Classifloation 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
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.
1 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (September 2012). Employee Tenure
Summary [Economic News Release]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-4
U)
J
r
-�t
W
M
�9
V
Q
tea//
LL
W
a
w
w
O
J
Sa
L
W
t� LL
H 0
m W
— C.7
Q
Z
W
V
ir-
a
J
t
.................................
t
'
x
xt
..............i
w
J
a
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxs
mmmm,
x
00
.
t
Cl)
xt
T
o a
0
` t
Ln
mm
a
o
z
x
N
AAAAAAAAAx
J
xxxxxxx
' t
mmmmm
mmmmmmm,
M
a
...........
�n
0
0
0 0 0
'!. p
O p
'! O
I�
r,
Nr
V1
:.
saaAoid ua310 IU EDa ad
c
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classifloation 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 County's employees are spread among 49 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
Source: Evergreen Solutions, November 2013.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 3-7
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditlons Classifloation and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
EXHIBIT 3E (CONTINUED)
EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT
3 3
it#ie#ie3$r.hte:
.......#.........,..338
.....
Cati4 ennd......... ........
......... ......... .........
14.........'.. g....38
Facilities Maintenance
45 21
Corrections Facilities
10 9
Unincorporated Areas
12 2
Higgs Beach
2 2
Fleet Management
14 9
Solid Waste Administrations
5 `. 5
Solid Waste Transfer
6 '1� 3
Hazardous Waste'.
1 '. 1
Pollution Control>s
4 1
9 7
Emergency Management
4 4
14 9
2 2
Land Steward
1 1
Invasive Exotic Removal
4 1
,,.
Total
417 256.,..
*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's 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's total
workforce.
Overall, the County's compensation plan has a relatively firm foundation on which to grow.
Over the past few years, the County's organizational structure has undergone many
significant changes. Exhibit 3E illustrates the complexity of the structure and the way it has
changed. Further targeted analysis of the County's management structure may be beneficial
in maximizing the efficiency of the operations. The key points of the current pay plan are:
• The County's current pay plan has 16 open range pay grades.
• Nearly half of the County's graded employees are in the first quartile of their pay
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.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-8
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Condltlons Classifloation 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.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-9
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
individual's negotiation skills during the hiring process. 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.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-1
Chapter 4 - Market Summary Classiflaat/on and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
Data collected outside of the County's 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
Aqueduct
1.000
Bay County, FL
1.131'
Broward County, FL
1.104
City of Aspen, CO
0.854'
City of Fort Lauderdale, FL
1.104
City of Gainesville, FL
1.136'
City of Jacksonville, FL
1.112
City of Marathon, FL
1.003'
City of Orlando, FL
1.131
City of Panama City, FL
1.121
City of St. Petersburg, FL
0.812
City of Tampa,FL
1.022'
City of West Palm Beach, FL
1.216
Collier County,' FL
1.00 '
Florida Keys Community College, FL
1.000
Hawaii County, HI
0.822'
Hillsborough County, FL
1.121
Miami -Dade Community College, FL
1.000'
Miami -Dade County, FL
1.135
Monroe'' CountySchoollBoard
1.000'
Orange County, FL
1.126
Osceola County, FL
1.181'
Palm Beach County, FL
1.022
Pasco County, FL
1.160
Sanibel, FL
1.113
Village of islamorada,' FL
1.000
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
4 Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-2
Chapter 4 - Market Summary Classifleat/on and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
Beach counties, among others in south Florida are the best representation of the County's
local competitive labor market.
4.1 MARKET DATA
Exhibit 4C displays the results of the target peer data and the percent differential of
County's current pay plan. Survey minimum indicates the average 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's compares to targets at those points. Positive
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
,
1
dw
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
$ 35,807.48
-3.7%
$ 45356.90
-9.4%
$ 53,243.47
-10.1%
53.5%
25
2
ADMINISTRATOR HUMAN RESOURCES
$ 53,171 73
13 9%
$ 67,918 26
18,8%
$ 81014,36
19 7%
52 1%
20
3
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
$ 81,106.29
-6.2%
$ 104,795.20
-7.6%
$ 124,889.50
-5.5%
57.7%
11
4 IATTENDANT(CNA)
N/A J
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
5
ATTENDANT SUPERVISOR
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
6 f'.
BIOLOGIST:':
$ 42,798 44
-2 7%
$ 55,506 37
-8 7%
$ 68,214.29
-.12 9%
58 4%
:': 6
7
CASE MANAGER
$ 40,538.19
-6.7%
$ 51,659.37
-13.3%
$ 62,780.55
-18.0%
54.6%
9
8 ICODECOMPLIANCERESEARCHANALYST
$ 40,180,70
3.6%
$ 49,909.86
22%
$ 59639,02
13%
48.1%
9
9
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
$126,445.57
-17.4%
$169,345.90
-20.9%
$207,324.28
-20.3%
61.2%
12
10
COUNTY ATTORNEY
$132,458,18
N/A
$ 170,335.10
N/A
$ 206 389,67
N/A
60.7%
12
11
CUSTODIAN
$ 23,683.33
-10.1%
$ 29,177.73
-17.3%
$ 34,933.49
-23.6%
44.7%
17
12 :I
DATABASE .ADMINISTRATOR
$ 64,412 67
-9 3%
$ 80,687 93
-9 6%
$ 96,963.18
-9 7%
50 2%
14
13
DEPUTY COU NTY ADMINISTRATOR
$116,338.09
-35.0%
$ 145,992.24
-30.3%
$ 182,189.04
-32.2%
56.3%
14
14 'DIRECTOR
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
$ 76!240,62
-- 148%
$ 96,11593
135%
$121335,13
178%
58.8%
9
15
DIRECTOR FLEET MANAGEMENT
$ 68,919.98
-17.0%
$ 86,094.37
-16.9%
$ 101,512.97
-14.9%
49.4%
16
16
DIRECTORINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
$ 78,188,02
17 7%
$ 98,886 07
16.7:%
$ 121793 93
18 3%
55.4%
20
17
DIRECTOR LIBRARIES
$ 74,371.29
-26.2%
$ 94,482.73
-28.3%
$ 114,594.17
-29.7%
53.6%
10
18 '_.
DIRECTOR] MARINE AGENT
$ 54„341 38
N/A
$ 72,207.96
N/A
$ 86,795.29
N/A
63 6%
9
19
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
$ 79,649.42
-19.9%
$ 100,740.75
-18.9%
$ 125,040.93
-21.4%
56.0%
18
20 f'
DIRECTOR IOFPUBLIC WORKS
$ 95,,082,12
24 5%
$116,96933
20.1%
$ 144,887,40
22 4%
49.9%
15
21
DIRECTOR VETERANS AFFAIRS
$ 54,741.11
7.1%
$ 70,865.78
3.8%
$ 86,990.46
1.6%
58.7%
7
22
DIVISION DIRECTOR EMPLOYEE SERVICES
$ 88,772 55
16 2%
$ 116,19031
19.3%
$ 143 04131
20 8%
58 1%
14
23
DIVISION DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT
$ 82,251.55
-7.7%
$ 106,312.00
-9.1%
$ 130,372.44
-10.1%
58.2%
9
24 :'
DIVISION DIRECTOR PUBLIC WOR KS/ ENG IN EERI IN
$ 79,486 84
--. -19 7°%0
$ 102,23205
-20 7%
$ 124,977.27
-21 4°%0
57 0%
--. 14
25
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR II
$ 50,357.04
-7.9%
$ 62,745.79
-9.7%
$ 75,134.53
-11.0%
49.5%
10
26
ELECTRICIAN
$ 37,685.34
20 O%
$ 46,768 04
2411
$ 55 934,80
27 3%
45 0%
14
27
EQUIPM ENT OPERATOR
$ 31,772.77
-11.3%
$ 40,280.23
-17.6%
$ 48,818.37
-22.2%
50.2%
16
28
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT'
$ 44!81592
7.5%
$ 57,246 98
12 1%
$ 69 678,04
15 3%
55.4%
20
29
FIRE CHIEF/DIVISION DIRECTOR EMERGENCYSE1
$ 99,502.75
-30.2%
$ 123,727.65
-27.0%
$ 151,120.03
-27.6%
51.2%
20
30 f'.
FOREMAN: ROADS & BRIDGES
$ 38,848 64
:': -12 5%
$ 48,873 62
-17 9%
$ 58,898.59
-21 8%
51 5%
:': 12
31
INSPECTOR CODE COMPLIANCE
$ 42,520.75
-2.0%
$ 52,510.79
-2.9%
$ 62,500.83
-3.4%
47.0%
20
32
LANDFILL OPERATOR
$ 32,576,47
3.8%
$ 40,95613
8 7%
$ 49 335,79
12 2%
51.2%
7
33
LIBRARIAN
$ 42,955.41
-13.1%
$ 55,173.22
-21.0%
$ 67,391.02
-26.7%
56.6%
12
34
LIBRARY ASSISTANT
$ 28,724,64
8 5%
$ 37,202.54
13:%
$ 45 680,43
-3 9%
58.8%
13
35
MAINTENANCE WORKER (PARKS& BEACHES)
$ 27,937.41
-13.1%
$ 35,223.82
-18.8%
$ 42,505.40
-22.9%
49.2%
16
36 :I
MAINTENANCE WORKER ROADS
$ 22,081 90
-8 2%
$ 35,05951
-12 6%
$ 42,03711
-.15 7%
49 2%
': 16
37
MECHANIC I
$ 34,375.95
-9.5%
$ 42,832.54
-13.7%
$ 51,627.76
-17.5%
46.7%
14
........�........
........
.........
1O 890
...€
14.390
16.690
6j$.2�(0
12.7
SOUYCe: tveYgYeen z3oiuvonS, Apni 2U14.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-3
Chapter - Market Summary
Classifleat/on and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
EXHIBIT 4C (CONTINUED)
SALARY SURVEY MARKET SUMMARY WITH DIFFERENTIALS
38
NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR
$ 50 088 01
-20 2:%
$ 63,790.06
-24 9%
$ 77,492.11
-28 2:%
54 7%
16
39
PAINTER
$ 32,066.39
-12.4%
$ 40,264.32
-17.6%
$ 48,903.16
-22.4%
48.0%
13
40
PARALEGAL
$ 42,783,42
2.7%
$ 54,360 98
-6 5%
$ ] 65 938,55
9.1%
54.1%
14
41
PLANNER
$ 43,793.50
-5.1%
$ 55,024.04
-7.8%
$ 66,254.58
-9.6%
51.0%
17
42 :':
PLANS EXAMINER
$ 50,030,59
2.410
$ 61,946.14
3 3%
$: 75 745,02
1.410
51.2%
15
43
PLUMBING MECHANICAL INSPECTOR II
$ 49,388.60
-5.8%1
$ 61,801.93
-8.1%
$ 74,215.25
-9.6%
50.5%
11
44
RESERVATION IST/SCH EDU LER DISPATCHER
$ 31419 04'
-0 1%
$ 40,904 10
-8 6%
$ J 50,389.16
-14 6%
60 0%
5
45
SOCIALSERVICES DIRECTOR
$ 58,474.60
0.8%
$ 75,673.94
-2.7%
$ 92,873.29
-5.1%
58.8%
5
46
SR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT':
$ 39,866,45
4 9%
$ 51,263 12
-12 5%
$ J 62 659,78
17.8%
56.6%
12
47
SR ADMINISTRATOR AIRPORT BUSINESS
$ 60,397.41
-17.9%
$ 76,261.05
-19.1%
$ 92,124.69
-19.9%
52.3%
8
48
SR ADMINISTRATOR, ASSISTED LAVING FACILITY
$ 49,619,48
3.2%
$ 64,708 80
10%
$ '': 79 798,11
-3,8%1
59.4%
6
49
ISR ADMINISTRATOR BENEFITS
$ 58,443.78
-14.1%
$ 75,104.45
-17.3%
$ 91,765.12
-19.4%
56.5%
19
50
SR ADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCI
$ 56 070 51'
-9 4%
$ 72,128 22
-12 6%
$ 88,185.93
-14 7%
56 8%
15
51
SR BUYER
$ 45,097.97
-18.7%
$ 57,217.34
25.5%
$ 69,336.71
-30.4%
53.7%
18
52
SR COORDINATOR CODE COMPLIANCE
$ 50,021,22
20.0%
$ 63,84145
-25 0%
$ ] 77 661,69
28.5%
55.4%
14
53
SR COORDINATOR FINANCE & ACCOUNTING
$ 47,142.72
-13.1%
$ 59,427.83
-16.4%
$ 71,712.94
-18.7%
51.5%
18
54
SR COORDINATOR FLEET
$ 48,365,61
-16,0%1
$ 61,902.48
-21-,2%1
$: 75 439,35
24.8%
55.5%
14
55
SR COORDINATOR FLOODPLAIN
$ 55,713.09
-33.7%
$ 71,388.62
-39.8%
$ 74,000.56
-22.4%1
41.3%
3
56
ISR COORDINATOR PLANNING COMMISSION
$ 38 782 41'
6 9%
$ 50,45127
12%
$' 62,120.13
-2 8%
59 6%
9
57
SR DIRECTOR AIRPORTS
$ 76,673.85
-15.4%
$ 99,519.25
-17.5%
$ 122,364.65
-18.8%
59.0%
6
58
OFFICE OF BUDGET DIRECTOR
$ 78,199,48
17.7%
$ 100,71147
-18 9%
$,123 223,47
19.7%
57.1%
18
59
SR DIRECTOR BUILDING OFFICIAL
$ 69,816.07
-5.1%
$ 90,406.80
-6.7%
$109,839.30
-6.7%
56.8%
18
60
SR DIRECTOR CODE€OMPLIANCE
$ 72,643,66
9 4%
$ 95,425 57
-12 7%
$'115 955,77
12.6%
58.6%
11
61
SR DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
$ 78,198.95
-2.4%
$ 101,380.72
-4.1%
$ 123,537.59
-4.3%
61.1%
14
62
SR DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING
$ 78 988 75'
-18 9%
$ 100,565 23
-18.7%
$ 122,110.80
-18 6%
54 9%
15
63
ISRGISPLAN NER
$ 50,823.65
-8.9%
$ 64,235.12
-12.3%
$ 77,646.59
-14.7%
52.7%
17
64
SENIOR DIRECTOR SOCIALSERVICES
$ 63,798,37
8.3%
$ 82,579 74
-12 1%
$:101361.12
-14,7%1
58.3%
6
65
SR LEAD MECHANIC
$ 38,782.02
16.9%
$ 48,641.02
14.9%
4 58,578.60
13.5%
48.2%
12
66 :':
SR PLUMBER
$ ':36 747.41
17,0%
$ 47,586.65
-263%
$: 58 425,8$
329%
58.8%
9
67
SR PROJECT MANAGER
$ 63,160.92
-23.3%
$ 78,481.78
-22.5%
$ 96,645.92
-25.8%
53.5%
14
68
SR TECHNICIAN AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC Certdi
$ 40 802 51'
-18 2%
$ 50,186 72
-211%
$ 59,570.92
-23 2%
46 1%
10
69
SUPERVISOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
$ 47,480.40
-13.9%
$ 61,054.15
-19.6%
$ 74,627.91
-23.5%
57.2%
18
70
ISYSTEMS ANALYST
$ 47770,25':
25.7%
$ 60,70825
-332%
$J 73646,26
38.5%
54.1%
18
71
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR
$ 40,118.21
-5.6%
$ 51,889.87
-13.8%
$ 63,661.53
-19.7%1
58.0%
1 8
72
TRANSPORTATION DRIVER
$ 26,922,64
3 8%
$ 34,029 02
9 3%
$ 41135.40
13.2%
52.2%
9
73
VETERANS SERVICE COUNSELOR
$ 38,919.29
-2.5%
$ 50,244.59
-10.2%
$ 61,569.90
-15.8%
58.1%
10
if ....
1�.$%
-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:
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-4
Chapter - Market Summary
Classifleat/on 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.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-5
Chapter - Market Summary
Classifleat/on 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 41) 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.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-6
Chapter - Market Summary
Classiflaat/on and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
4
EXHIBIT 4D
PRIVATE INDUSTRY MARKET AVERAGES AND DIFFERENTIALS
1
ADM IN ISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
$ 26,935.00
22.0%
$ 38,642.00
6.8%
$ 53,060.00
-9.7%
96.99%
2
ADMINISTRATORHUMAN RESOURCES
$ 6509500
39.5%
$ 93,067.00
628%
$712935500
-91.1%
98,72%
3
ASSISTANTCOUNTY ATTORNEY
$ 111,428.00
-45.9%
$ 162,762.00
-67.1%
$ 229,487.00
-93.8%
105.95%
4
ATTENDANT (CNA)
$ 20,977.00
33 2%
$ 28,371 00
24 7%
$,', 38,529.00
12 3%
8367%
5
ATTENDANT SUPERVISOR
$ 52,884.00
-26.9%
$ 72,687.00
-42.4%
$ 96,608.00
-59.9%
82.68%
6
BIOLOGIST
$ 39,083.00
6 2 f
$ 56,016.00
-9 7%
$f 79,003.00
-30 7%
102 14%
7
CASE MANAGER
$ 48,635.00
-28.0%
$ 66,647.00
-46.2%
$ 88,375.00
-66.2%
81.71%
8
CODE COMPLIANCE RESEARCH ANALYST'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
9
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
$ 209,774.00
-94.8%
$ 326,911.00
-133.5%
$ 470,779.00
-173.2%
124.42%
10
COUNTYATTORNEY
$ ',192,964.00
N/A
$ 265,180 00
N/A
$,',352,377.00
N/A
82,61%
11
CUSTODIAN
$ 19,458.00
9.5%
$ 25,613.00
-2.9%
$ 33,459.00
-18.4%
71.95%
12
DATABASE ADM IN ISTRATOR :'.
$ :'. 53,528.00
9 2%
$ 80,422.00
:'. -9 2%
$:'115,032.00
-30 2%
114 90%
13
DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
14
DIRECTOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
DIRECTOR FLEET MANAGEMENT
$ 94,807.00
-60.9%
$ 132,716.00
-80.2%
$ 178,192.00
-101.6%
87.95%
16
DIRECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
$ ',112 35100
-691%
$ 149,902 00
-77 0%
$,',195,711.00
-90 1%
74,20%
17
DIRECTOR LIBRARIES
$ 53,377.00
9.4%
$ 77,941.00
-5.8%
$ 110,398.00
-24.9%
106.83%
18
DIRECTOR MARIN'.EAGENT
N/A
N/A
N/A J
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
19
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
$ 120,563.00
-81.5%
$ 173,028.00
-104.3%
$ 235,946.00
-129.1%
95.70%
20
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21
DIRECTOR VETERANS AFFAIRS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
22
DIVISION DIRECTOR EMPLOYEE SERVICES'.
$,',11581o66
-516%
$161,38100
-657%
$,',21616800
-826%
86,66%
23
DIVISION DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
24
DIVISION DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS/ENOINEERIN
$ '11331100
-706%
$149,23300
-762%
$'19299100
-874%
70.32%
25
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR II
$ 27,539.00
41.0%
$ 41,654.00
27.2%
$ 59,105.00
12.7%
114.62%
26
ELECTRICIAN
$ 3341600
6.4%
$ 47,247,00
254%
$_= 6471000
47.2%
93,65%
27
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR
$ 30,378.00
-6.4%
$ 45,071.00
-31.6%
$ 65,079.00
-62.9%
114.23%
28
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
$,', 3932300
57%
$ 59,51500
.166%
$,', 8565100
-417%
11781%.'.
29
FIRE CHIEF/DIVISION DIRECTOR EMERGENCYSEF
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30
FOREMAN ROADS & BRIDGES
$ :'. 37,574.00
-8 8%
$ 53,268.00
:'. -28 5%
$f. 73,793.00
-52 6%
96.39%
31
INSPECTOR CODECOMPLIANCE
$ 35,347.00
15.2%
$ 50,653.00
0.8%
$ 70,470.00
-16.6%
99.37%
32
LANDFILL OPERATOR
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
33
LIBRARIAN
$ 34,438.00
9.3%
$ 50,126.00
-10.0%
$ 70,304.00
-32.2%
104.15%
34
LIBRARY ASSISTANT
$ 2217300
29.4%
$ 29(697.00
21291
$,', 9884600
116%
75,20%
35
MAINTENANCE WORKER (PARKS & BEACHES)
$ 27,472.00
-11.2%
$ 38,168.00
-28.7%
$ 50,150.00
-45.0%
82.55%
36
MAINTENANCE WORKER ROADS
$ :'. 27,472.00
-5 9%
$ 38,168.00
:'. 22 6%
$f. 50,150.00
-38 1%
82.55%
37
MECHANIC I
$ 31,527.00
-0.4%
$ 44,928.00
1 -19.3%
$ 61,857.00
-40.7%
96.20%
-14 696
30 7%
.... €
-50.0%
93.1%
Source: Evergreen Solutions January 2014.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-7
Chapter - Market Summary
Classifleat/on and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
EXHIBIT 4D (CONTINUED)
PRIVATE INDUSTRY MARKET AVERAGES AND DIFFERENTIALS
38
NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR --
$,' 6350900
524%
$ 89470.00
-- 752%'$124655,00
1063%
9628%
39
PAINTER
$ 28,276.00
0.9%
$ 39,822.00
-16.3%
$ 53,356.00
-33.5%
88.70%
40
PARALEGAL
$ :', 36,413.00
12 6%
$ 57,76200
:': -131%
',$ 83,47500
-38 1%
129 25%
41
PLANNER
$ 39,336.00
5.6%
$ 57,523.00
-12.7%
$ 81,638.00
-35.1%
107.54%
42
PLANS EXAMINER
N/A
N/A
N/A],
N/A
N/A
N/A
],N/A
43
PLUMBING MECHANICAL INSPECTOR II
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
44
RESERVATIONIST/SCHEDULER DISPATCHER
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
45
SOCIALSERVICES DIRECTOR
$ 59,508.00
-1.0%
$ 83,169.00
-12.9%
$ 114,574.00
-29.6%
92.54%
46
SR ADM INISTRATIVEASSISTANT
N/A
N/A
N/A [[.
N/A
:N/A
N/A :
',N/A
47
SR ADMINISTRATOR AIRPORT BUSINESS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
48
SR ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY
$110069400
-965%
$12357300
:':-930%':$14966700
•947%
4864%
49
ISR ADMINISTRATOR BENEFITS
$ 40,246.00
21.4%
$ 54,985.00
14.1%
$ 74,537.00
3.0%
85.20%
50
SR ADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE
$f 5416800
-57%
$ 74338.00
161%
I$ 101188-00
-317%
86.80%
51
SR BUYER
$ 38,848.00
-2.3%
$ 55,809.00
-22.4%
$ 78,211.00
-47.1%
101.33%
52
SR COORDINATOR CODE COMPLIANCE :':
N/A
N/A
N/A :',
N/A
:N/A
N/A :
:', N/A
53
SR COORDINATOR FINANCE & ACCOUNTING
$ 41,720.00
-0.1%
$ 59,048.00
-15.7%
$ 82,359.00
-36.3%
97.41%
54
SR COORDINATOR FLEET
$:': 4465000
-71%
$ 6390200
:':-252%':$
8941000
•479%
10025%
55
SR COORDINATOR FLOODPLAIN
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
56
SR COORDINATOR PLANNING COMMISSION
N/A
N/A
N/A J
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
57
SR DIRECTOR AIRPORTS
$ 67,781.00
-2.0%
$ 95,428.00
-12.7%
$ 129,823.00
-26.1%
91.53%
58
OFFICE OF BUDGET DIRECTOR
$ ['.. 106,577.00
-60 4%
$ 142,97400
:': -68 8%
',$ 187,76300
-82 4%
76 18%
59
SR DIRECTOR BUILDING OFFICIAL
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
60
SR DIRECTOR CODE COMPLIANCE
N/A
N/A
N/A ],
N/A
N/A
N/A
], N/A
61
SR DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL F
$ 122,457.00
-60.3%1
$170,854.00
-75.4%
$228,624.00
-93.1%
86.70%
62
SR DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING
$f 8699600
310%$122483.00
446%I$169256-00
-644%
9456%
63
SIR GISPLANNER
$ 30,556.00
34.5%
$ 44,117.00
22.8%
$ 61,305.00
9.4%
100.63%
64
SENIOR DIRECTOR SOCIALSERVICES
$[' 5950800
-10%
$ 88169.00
129%'$114574,00
-296%
9254%
65
SR LEAD MECHANIC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66
SR PLUMBER :
$:': 3392200
-80%
$ 4720100
:':-253%':$
6449900
•467%
9014%
67
SR PROJECT MANAGER
$ 68,906.00
-34.5%
$ 94,593.00
-47.7%
$ 127,772.00
-66.3%
85.43%
68
SR TECHNICIAN AIR CONDITIONING {HVAGCertifi
$3497100
13%
$ 48916.00
180%
$ 66386.00
-373%
89.83%
69
SUPERVISOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
$ 42,783.00
-2.7%
$ 61,859.00
-21.2%
$ 86,719.00
-43.5%
102.69%
70
SYSTEMS ANALYST
$ 47,493.00
25 0%
$ 64 292.00
-41.0%1
$ 86 461,00
-62 6%
82.05%
71
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
72
TRANSPORTATION DRIVER :':
$:': 2691100
-37%
$ 3803100
:':-221%':$
5047300
•390%
8756%
73
VETERANS SERVICE COUNSELOR
$ 40,751.00
-7.3%
$ 56,010.00
-22.9%
$ 75,719.00
-42.4%
85.81%
� EAV .........
.........a
14 696
......... .........
30 796
50-096
93.1%
Source: tVeYgYeen 6owtions January 1U14.
Salary Survey Conclusion
It should be noted that the standing of a classification's pay range compared to the market
is not a definitive assessment of the individual employee's salary being equally above or
below market. It does, however, speak to the County's ability to recruit and retain talent over
time. 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.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-8
Chapter 4 - Market Summary Classifleat/on 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 behind the market average. The County's pay
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
stay competitive in today's market. 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 the employee's salary plus all benefits, expressed as a dollar amount. Therefore, benefits
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
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-9
Chapter - Market Summary
Classifleat/on 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 peer market average wage of $45,188.39 and the County's percentage
was based on the County's 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 County's project team. This ensures a fair "apples to apples" comparison, so
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
Benefits as percentage of total compensation 23% 27%
Average Number of Plans Offered 1.25 1
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.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-10
Chapter 4 - Market Summary Classiflaat/on 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. "Other" types of health plans include Point of Service plans of Point of Use plans.
These are rare and often compare to HMOs or PPOs for coverage limits and restrictions.
EXHIBIT 4F
TYPE OF HEALTH PLANS
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 hour's 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
Insurance Eligibiiity
§
"I
What is the minimum number of hours per week an employee must work to
71000745007
bee I igible for the employer's health insurance benefit?
25.00
60.00
How many days must the individual be employed in order to bee I igible for the
employer's health insurance benefit?
Source: tvergreen Solutions April 2U14.
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
Employee only dollar amount paid was included in the calculation of total compensation.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-11
Chapter 4 - Market Summary Classifleat/on and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
What dollar amount (monthly) is paid by the Employer for
429.14 639.00
employee plus one medical and prescription coverage? NM
What percentage (monthly) is paid bythe Employerfor
employee plus one medical and prescription coverage? 32.8% 67,0%
Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014.
Exhibit 41 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 4.1 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
County's peers with an average deductible of $500 for individuals and $1,500 for employee
plus one. The County's PPO plans have $400 deductible for individuals and $800 for various
types of dependents.
EXHIBIT 4.1
PPO, HMO, HSA AND OTHER ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLES
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.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-12
Chapter 4 - Market Summary Classiflaat/on and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
EXHIBIT 4K
NETWORK PERCENTAGE
Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014.
Overall averages for peer organizations was 90/10 for in network services provided and
72.5/27.5 for out of network services provided. The County's network percentage was
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 percent amongst the County's
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
insurance at the employee's expense, which was not consistent with the County's peers.
These figures are included in the comparison of total compensation.
EXHIBIT 4L
DENTAL AND DISABILITY INSURANCE
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 County, which is inconsistent with 100.0 percent of the County's peers. EAP is offered by
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-1g
Chapter - Market Summary
Classifleat/on 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
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 $3000 for an Associate's degree and
$6000 for a Bachelor's degree. 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
Retirement
What is the average cost per year to the Employer of Retirement
contributions for employees who work 40 hours per week?
$ 2,573.70
$ ' 3,483.1
Definition of Normal Retirement
62.2
62.0
Definition of Early Retirement
60.0
FRS
Years required to fully vest
5.0
80
COLA offered to retiree pension
0.0%
Varies
Employee's percent of contribution required
2.3%
3.00%
Employer's matchingrate
4.36%
6.95%
Does the retirement plan offer a disability provision?
75.0%
Yes
Source: Evergreen Solutions April 2014.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-14
Chapter 4 - Market Summary Classifleat/on and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
The County's cost per employee is higher than it peers; however, the County contributes a
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 retirements, which is Regular Class Employees' benefits,
are reduced 5.0 percent for each year between age at retirement and normal retirement
age.
Life Insurance
Exhibit 40 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.
Market peers pay an average of $3.66 per employee for life for the employee only, and the
County pays $11.00 per individual. The County's life insurance policy includes coverage for
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
calculation. Monroe County's coverage is $20,000 and market death benefits vary widely
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
Is AD&D offered as a separate benefit? 50.0% 50.0% X
If yes, what is the monthly percentage and dollar m
amount thatthe Employer contributes to the 0.0% 100.0%
Employee only coverage? $ "$0.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-15
Chapter 4 - Market Summary Classifleat/on 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
What is the minimum and maximum number of
vacation days the employer provides to a 40 hours 11.0 18.5 13.022.8'
perweek employee peryear?
What is the minimum and maximum number of
sick days the employer provides to a 40 hours per 11.5 11.5 13.0' 13.0'
week employee per year?
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 shows sick 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
Does your organization have a Sick I 100.0% I 0.0% I x
Leave Donation policy?
The County also has a sick leave donation policy to assist employees in 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.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-16
Chapter 4 — Market Summary Classifleat/on and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
EXHIBIT 4S
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LEAVE
Maximum Allowable Leave u w
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? Leave Leave
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 summarizes respondents' policies regarding leave 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
75.0%
25.0%
720.0
X
960.0
Is unused sick leave paid out upon separation?
Upon termination?
25.0%
75.0%
720.0
X'
960.0
Annual/Vacation Leave
MEMO
Is unused annual/vacation leave paid out upon
100.0%
0.0%
225.3
X'
320.0
separation?
Upon termination?
75.0%
25.0%
225.3
X'
320.0
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.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-17
Chapter - Market Summary
Classifleat/on and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
EXHIBIT 4U
FUNERAL LEAVE TIME
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
New Year's Day
100.0%
p
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
12.75
�L2
Source: Lvergreen Solutions April 2U14.
All peers recognize New Year's Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day, President's 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.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-18
Chapter - Market Summary
Classifleat/on and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
Exhibit 4W provides the additional time off provided by the County's peers. The County does
not offer additional time off, which is consistent with the market.
EXHIBIT 4W
ADDITIONAL TIME OFF
Does your organization offer any additional time off
Dremployees(e.g.Spring Break,WinterBreak)? 0.0% 100.0% 0.00 X 000'
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
Does your organization have an Employee of the
Month/Quarter/Year award?
25.0% 1 75.0%
Does your organization reward employees for certifications
50.0% 50.0% X
beyond the minimum iob requirements?
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
of offerings improve the County's ability to effectively recruit the most qualified applicants.
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 County's peers.
• Life insurance benefits are ahead the market average.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-19
Chapter - Market Summary
Classifleat/on and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
Overall, the County's benefits package is typical of the market. 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.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 4-20
INTRODUCTION
The analysis of the County's 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
competitive labor market in the Miami Dade metro area, Monroe County's compensation
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 County's
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
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 5-1
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classifloat/on and Compensat/on 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
5A 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.
Monroe County's geographical 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 County's 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. The County's classification
system was analyzed using Evergreen Solutions' JAT methodology where employees
responded to detailed questionnaires and provided the information necessary to quantify
the differences in the types of work performed across the organization.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-2
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classifloat/on and Compensat/on 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
classification to create a unique title, for example "Administrator - Libraries", "Administrator
- Building Maintenance", and "Administrator - Risk Management" are three examples 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
Evergreen Solutions' analysis, the compensation structure was relatively competitive as
compared to market. When compared to the 50t" percentile of market, the County is
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.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-3
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classifloat/on and Compensat/on 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
3 1 $ 24,7111 $ 29,653 1 $ 34,595 1 40% 1 19.2%
5 1 $ 28,5411 $ 34,249 1 $ 39,957 1 40% 1 10.0%
7 1 $ 34,534 1 $ 41,442 1 $ 48,348 1 40% 1 10.0%
9 1 $ 41,678 1 $ 51,055 1 $ 60,434 1 45% 1 12.0%
10.5 1 $ 57,182 1 $ 62,433 1 $ 67,684 1 18% 1 9.2%
12 1 $ 58,920 1 $ 73,6511 $ 88,380 1 50% 1 15.0%
14 1 $ 76,396 1 $ 97,404 1 $118,412 1 55% 1 15.0%
16 1 $107, 705 1 $140, 019 1 $172, 328 1 60% 1 25.0%
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;
• the market's average mix of compensation to benefits is 77 percent pay, 23 percent
benefits;
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-4
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classifloat/on and Compensat/on Study for Monroe County, FL
• using 77 percent of the observed 14.3 percent market differential, the County's
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
County's ability to carefully select pay 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.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-5
Chapter 5 - Solutlon
Classiflaation and Compensation Study for Monroe County, FL
EXHIBIT 5B
MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED PAY PLAN
100
$
23,875
$ 30,441
$ 37,006
55%
101
$
25,129
$ 32,039
$ 38,949
55%
5.25%
102
$
26,448
$ 33,721
$ 40,994
55%
5.25%
103
$
27,836
$ 35,491
$ 43,146
55%
5.25°%
104
$
29,298
$ 37,355
$ 45,412
55%
5.25%
105
$
30,836
$ 39,316
$ 47,796
55°%
5.25°%
106
$
32,455
$ 41,380
$ 50,305
55%
5.25%
107
$
34,159
$ 43,552
$ 52,946
55°%
5.25%
108
$
35,952
$ 45,839
$ 55,726
55%
5.25%
109
$
37,839
$ 48,245
$ 58,651
55°%
5.25°%
110
$
39,826
$ 50,778
$ 61,730
55%
5.25%
111
$
41,917
$ 53,444
$ 64,971
55%
5.25%
112
$
44,118
$ 56,250
$ 68,382
55%
5.25%
113
$
46,434
$ 59,203
$ 71,972
55°%
5.25°%
114
$
48,871
$ 62,311
$ 75,751
55%
5.25%
115
$
51,437
$ 65,582
$ 79,728
55°%
5.25%
116
$
54,138
$ 69,026
$ 83,913
55%
5.25%
117
$
56,980
$ 72,649
$ 88,319
55%
5.25%
118
$
59,971
$ 76,463
$ 92,956
55%
5.25%
119
$
63,120
$ 80,478
$ 97,836
55°%
5.25°%
120
$
66,434
$ 84,703
$102,972
55%
5.25%
121
$
69,921
$ 89,150
$108,378
55°%
5.25°%
122
$
73,592
$ 93,830
$114,068
55%
5.25%
123
$
77,456
$ 98,756
$120,057
55°%
5.25%
124
$
81,522
$103,941
$126,360
55%
5.25%
125
$
85,802
$109,398
$132,993
55°%
5.25°%
126
$
90,307
$115,141
$139,976
55%
5.25%
127
$
95,048
$121,186
$147,324
55%
5.25%
128
$100,038
$127,548
$155,059
55%
5.25%
129
$105,290
$134,245
$163,199
55°%
5.25°%
130
$110,818
$141,293
$171,767
55%
5.25%
131
$116,636
$148,710
$180,785
55°%
5.25%
132
$122,759
$156,518
$190,276
55%
5.25%
133
$129,204
$164,735
$ 200,266
55%
5.25%
3nurce- Created by FVPr9rPen Solutinns_ March 9014
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-6
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classlfloat/on and Compensat/on 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 one's
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
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-7
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classlfloat/on and Compensat/on 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
minimum of a pay grade through to the maximum depending on the organization's
philosophy. This would equate to 30 equal progressive increments. Typical
compensation growth is rapid at the start of one's career, but levels off as their
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
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-8
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classlfloat/on and Compensat/on 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
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
County's current policy regarding equity increases. This is expected to impact
between 10 and 20 employees.
5.3 ADMINISTRATION
FINDING
Any compensation system will fail to meet the County's needs if it does not have
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
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-9
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classlfloat/on and Compensat/on 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
have "tolerated" their stable jobs and accepted lower wages may tend to be more
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
information regarding the distance each peer's pay plan is being increased and any
changes to benefits. By determining the average percent increase of peer pay plans
and benefit offerings, the County can ensure its pay plan and other factors are
increasing at the same relative speed as its peers, thus maintaining or improving
its relative position depending on the County's compensation philosophy.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-10
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classlfloat/on and Compensat/on 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
so the pay plan minimum doesn't adjust above current occupants of those in the
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.
4
EXHIBIT 5E
MONROE COUNTY 2015 PAY -PLAN ESTIMATE
El
a P
a
100
$ 23,875
$ 30,441
$ 37,006
MM=M1Z-7.=K=
$ 24,353
$ 31,050
$ 37,747
101
$ 25129
$ 32,039
$ ``,38,949
$ 25,631
'$ 32,680``,
$ 39,728,1
102
$ 26,448
$ 33,721
$ 40,994
$ 26,977
$ 34,395
$ 41,814
103'
$ 27836
$ 35,491
$ 43,146
$ 28,393
;$ 36,201j'
$ 44,009'
104
$ 29,298
$ 37,355
$ 45,412
$ 29,884
$ 38,102
$ 46,320
105'1
$ 30,836
$ 39,316
$ 147,796
$ 31,453
'1$ 40,102';
$ 48,752'1
106
$ 32,455
$ 41,380
$ 50,305
$ 33,104
$ 42,207
$ 51,311
107`
$ 34,159
$ 43,552
$ 152,946
$ 34,842
''$ 44,423i'
$ 54,005''
108
$ 35,952
$ 45,839
$ 55,726
$ 36,671
$ 46,756
$ 56,840
109''
$ 37839
$ 48,245
$'58,651
$ 38,596
''$ 49,210'
$ 59,824''
110
$ 39,826
$ 50,778
$ 61,730
$ 40,623
$ 51,794
$ 62,965
111`
$ 41,917
$ 53,444
$ I'64,971
$ 42,755
''$ 54,513i'
$ 66,271''
112
$ 44,118
$ 56,250
$ 68,382
$ 45,000
$ 57,375
$ 69,750
113
$ 46434
$ 59,203
$',71,972
$ 47,362
;$ 60,387
$ 73,412'
114
$ 48,871
$ 62,311
$ 75,751
$ 49,849
$ 63,557
$ 77,266
115``,
$ 51,437
$ 65,582
$ ',79,728
$ 52,466
',$ 66,894``,
$ 81,322,1
116
$ 54,138
$ 69,026
$ 83,913
$ 55,220
$ 70,406
$ 85,592
117'
$ 56980
$ 72,649
$ ',88,319
$ 58,120
$ 74,102
$ 90,085'
118
$ 59,971
$ 76,463
$ 92,956
$ 61,171
$ 77,993
$ 94,815
119'3
$ 63120
$ 80,478
$ 97,836
$ 64,382
'$ 82,087``,
$ 99,792`>
120
$ 66,434
$ 84,703
$102,972
$ 67,762
$ 86,397
$105,032
121
$ 69921
$ 89,150
$108,378
$ 71,320
$ 90,933
$110,546'
122
$ 73,592
$ 93,830
$114,068
$ 75,064
$ 95,707
$116,349
123'1
$ 77456
$ 98,756
$120,057
$ 79,005
'1$100,731';
$122,458'1
124
$ 81,522
$103,941
$126,360
$ 83,153
$106,020
$128,887
125<
$ 85802
$109,398
$132,993
$ 87,518
; $111,586j'
$135,653'
126
$ 90,307
$115,141
$139,976
$ 92,113
$117,444
$142,775
127s
$ 95,048
$121,186
$147,324
$ 96,949
'' $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, 930i'
$166,463''
130
$110,818
$141, 293
$171,767
$113,034
$144,118
$175,203
131''
$116 636
$148, 710
$180, 785
$118,968
'' $151,695''
$184,401''
132
$122,759
$156,518
$190,276
$125,214
$159,648
$194,082
133
1 $129 204
$164, 735
$200,2661
$131, 788
'3 $168, 030``,
$ 204,271,1
Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, March 2014.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 5-11
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classlfloat/on and Compensat/on 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 County's market competitiveness, the County should complete a
comprehensive compensation and classification study every three to five years to
ensure internal and external equity is maintained.
The 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 overtime and produce undesired consequences in the longterm.
Such efforts to maintain the system are viewed as a sign that the County's leaders
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 and philosophical opinions about how the County's fiscal
position will impact implementation. Several options were presented and the one
represented in this report is the option recommended for implementation. The
County's employees shared concern at the outset that their pay had fallen behind
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 County's successful operations.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-12
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classlfloat/on and Compensat/on Study for Monroe County, FL
EXHIBIT 5D
MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST
CUSTODIAN
100
$ 23,875.14
$ 30,440.81
$ 37,006.47
CUSTODIAN BAYSHORE MANOR I
100
$ 23,875,14'I
$ 30,440.81
$ ',37,006.47>'
LEAD CUSTODIAN MAINTENANCE WORKER
100
$ 23,875.14
$ 30,440.81
$ 37,006.47
NUTRITION PROGRAM SITE ASSISTANT
100
$ 23,875.14I'
$ 30,440.81
$ I37,006.47''
RECEPTIONIST
100
$ 23,875.14
$ 30,440.81
$ 37,006.47
TOLLICOLLECTOR
ss 100
$ 23,875,14 ss
$ 30,440,81
$ 137,006.47''
LEAD CUSTODIAN MAINTENANCE MECHANIC
102
$ 26,447.84
$ 33,720.99
$ 40,994.15
MAINTENANCE WORKER
102
$ 26,447.84'I
$ 33,720.99
$ '40,994.15'
MAINTENANCE WORKER - PARKS & BEACHES
102
$ 26,447.84
$ 33,720.99
$ 40,994.15
ON CALL TRANSPORTATION DRIVER
102
$ 26,447.84',
$ 33,720.99
$ `,40,994.15 `
TRANSPORTATION DRIVER
102
$ 26,447.84
$ 33,720.99
$ 40,994.15
ASSISTANT SPECIALIST TRUSTEE PROGRAM
103
$ 27,836.35 ss
$ 35,491.35
$ I43,146.34''
MAINTENANCE MECHANIC
103
$ 27,836.35
$ 35,491.35
$ 43,146.34
MAINTENANCE MECHANIC— PARKS&BEACHES
103
$ 27,836.35''
$ 35,491.35
$j,43,146.34'
OFFICE ASSISTANT
103
$ 27,836.35
$ 35,491.35
$ 43,146.34
SITE MANAGER CONGREGATE/HOME DELIVERED MEALS
103
$ 27,83635',I
$ 35,491.35
$ ',43,146.34ss
WEIGHMASTER
103
$ 27,836.35
$ 35,491.35
$ 43,146.34
ASSISTANT RISK MANAGEMENT
105
$ 30,835.89I'
$ 39,315.76
$ `,47,795.63 `
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
105
$ 30,835.89
$ 39,315.76
$ 47,795.63
ATTENDANT
105
$ 30,835.89
$ 39,315.76
$ 47,795.63
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR
105
$ 30,835.89
$ 39,315.76
$ 47,795.63
LANDFILL OPERATOR
105
$ 30,835.89'I
$ 39,315.76
$ '47,795.63'
LEAD PAINTER
105
$ 30,835.89
$ 39,315.76
$ 47,795.63
LIBRARY ASSISTANT
105
$ 30,835.89',
$ 39,315.76
$ `,47,795.63`
LIBRARY ASSISTANT/PERSON NEL LIAISON
105
$ 30,835.89
$ 39,315.76
$ 47,795.63
LIBRARYTECHN ICAL SERVICES CATALOGING ASSISTANT
ss 105
$ 30,835,89ss
$ 39,315,76
$ 147,795.63'
MAINTENANCE WORKER II
105
$ 30,835.89
$ 39,315.76
$ 47,795.63
RESERVATIONIST/DISPATCHER
105
$ 30,835.89I
$ 39,315.76
$ 47,795.63'
SR LANDSCAPER
105
$ 30,835.89
$ 39,315.76
$ 47,795.63
STAFF ASSISTANT
105
$ 30,835.89',I
$ 39,315.76
$ '47,795.63I'
INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANT& CONTROL TECHNICIAN
106
$ 32,454.78
$ 41,379.84
$ 50,304.90
MECHANIC 1
106
$ 32,454.78 ss
$ 41,379.84
$ '50,304.90''
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
107
$ 34,158.65
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
AIRPORT MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN
107
$ 34,158.65'',
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
ASSISTANT AIRPORT MAINTENANCE
107
$ 34,158.65
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
107
$ 34,158.65'I
$ 43,552.28
$ '52,945.91'
BUSINESS MANAGER
107
$ 34,158.65
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
CASE COORDINATOR 1107
$ 34,158.65I
$ 43,552.28
$ `,52,945.91 `
COORDINATOR SPECIAL NEEDS
107
$ 34,158.65
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN
107
$ 34,158,65 ss
$ 43,552,28
$ 152,945.91''
FOREMAN FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
107
$ 34,158.65
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
FOREMAN PAINTING
107
$ 34,158.65''
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
FOREMAN PARKS & BEACHES MAINTENANCE
107
$ 34,158.65
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
FOREMAN PLUMBING
107
$ 34,158.65'
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91'3
HEARING REPORTER
107
$ 34,158.65
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February 2014.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 5-13
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classlfloat/on and Compensat/on Study for Monroe County, FL
EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED)
MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST
HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATOR
107
$ 34,158.65ss
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91'
SIGN TECHNICIAN INSTALLER
107
$ 34,158.65
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
SPECIALIST BUILDING MAINTENANCE
107
$ 34,158.65
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
SRMAINTENANCETECH NICIAN
107
$ 34,158.65
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
SR PLUMBER ''
107
$ 34,158.65'I
$ 43,552.28
$ '52,945.91'
SRTECHNICIAN MAINTENANCE
107
$ 34,158.65
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
SRTECHNICIAN MAINTENANCE- AIRPORT
107
$ 34,158.65I
$ 43,552.28
$ `,52,945.91''
SRTECHNICIAN MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC
107
$ 34,158.65
$ 43,552.28
$ 52,945.91
SRTECHNICIAN POLLUTION CONTROL
107
$ 34,158,65 ss
$ 43,552,28
$ I52,945.91'
ELECTRICIAN
108
$ 35,951.98
$ 45,838.77
$ 55,725.57
SERVICE MECHANIC
108
$ 35,951.98''
$ 45,838.77
$ 55,725.57'
SPECIALIST WORKERS COMPENSATION
108
$ 35,951.98
$ 45,838.77
$ 55,725.57
SR LIBRARY ASSISTANT BRANCH
108
$ 35,951.98',
$ 45,838.77
$ `,55,725.57'3
SR LIBRARY ASSISTANT LEGAL RESEARCH
108
$ 35,951.98
$ 45,838.77
$ 55,725.57
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR
108
$ 35,951.98 ss
$ 45,838.77
$ '55,725.57''
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR/COUNSELORS ASSISTANT
108
$ 35,951.98
$ 45,838.77
$ 55,725.57
COORDINATOR
109
$ 37,839.46'',
$ 48,245.31
$ 58,651.16'
COORDINATOR ELECTRONICS
109
$ 37,839.46
$ 48,245.31
$ 58,651.16
COORDINATOR ENVIRONMENTAL
109
$ 37,839.46',I
$ 48,245.31
$ ',58,651.16ss
COORDINATOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
109
$ 37,839.46
$ 48,245.31
$ 58,651.16
COORDINATOR IN -HOME SERVICES
109
$ 37,839.46I'
$ 48,245.31
$ `,58,651.16''
COORDINATOR LICENSING
109
$ 37,839.46
$ 48,245.31
$ 58,651.16
COORDINATOR NUTRITION SERVICES
ss 109
$ 37,839,46ss
$ 48,245,31
$ 158,651.16''
COORDINATOR ROADS & BRIDGES
109
$ 37,839.46
$ 48,245.31
$ 58,651.16
COORDINATOR SCENIC HIGHWAY
109
$ 37,839.46'I
$ 48,245.31
$ '58,651.16'
CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE 1
109
$ 37,839.46
$ 48,245.31
$ 58,651.16
EXTENSION COORDINATOR
109
$ 37,839.46',
$ 48,245.31
$ `,58,651.16'3
FOREMAN ROADS & BRIDGES
109
$ 37,839.46
$ 48,245.31
$ 58,651.16
MAINTENANCE WORKER 111
109
$ 37,839.46 ss
$ 48,245.31
$ '58,651.16''
SAFETY OFFICER
109
$ 37,839.46
$ 48,245.31
$ 58,651.16
SR BUYER
109
$ 37,839.46''
$ 48,245.31
$ 58,651.16'
SR SPECIALIST CUSTOMER SERVICE
109
$ 37,839.46
$ 48,245.31
$ 58,651.16
SUPERINTENDENT CARD SOUND OPERATIONS
109
$ 37,839.46',I
$ 48,245.31
$ ',58,651.16ss
SUPERINTENDENT MAINTENANCE CORRECTIONS
109
$ 37,839.46
$ 48,245.31
$ 58,651.16
TECHNICIAN PLANNING
109
$ 37,839.46I'
$ 48,245.31
$ `,58,651.16''
TV MULTIMEDIA TECHNICIAN
109
$ 37,839.46
$ 48,245.31
$ 58,651.16
VETERANS SERVICE COUNSELOR
109
$ 37,839.46
$ 48,245.31
$ ;58,651.16'
CASE MANAGER
110
$ 39,826.03
$ 50,778.19
$ 61,730.35
COORDINATOR HUMAN'' RESOURCES
110
$ 39,826.03'I
$ 50,778.19
$ ;61,730.35'
COORDNATOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
110
$ 39,826.03
$ 50,778.19
$ 61,730.35
CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE II
110
$ 39,826.03',
$ 50,778.19
$ `,61,730.35 `
MOBILE MECHANIC
110
$ 39,826.03
$ 50,778.19
$ 61,730.35
ON CALL RN PERSONAL CARE SUPERVISOR'
110
$ 39,826.03 ss
$ 50,778.19
$ I61,730.35'
SR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
110
$ 39,826.03
$ 50,778.19
$ 61,730.35
S R A DM I N ISTRATI V E ASS I STAN T MI D DLE KEYS 0 P ERATI ON S
110
$ 39,826.03''
$ 50,778.19
$,61,730.35
Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February 2014.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 5-14
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classlfloat/on and Compensat/on Study for Monroe County, FL
EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED)
MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST
SR TECHNICIAN AIR CONDITIONING
110
$ 39,826.03
$ 50,778.19
$ 61,730.35
ACTIVE DIRECTORY ARCHITECT 'I
111
$ 41,916.90',I
$ 53,444.04
$ '64,971.19I'
ATTENDANT SUPERVISOR
111
$ 41,916.90
$ 53,444.04
$ 64,971.19
BIOLOGIST
111
$ 41,916.90I'
$ 53,444.04
$ `,64,971.19 `
BIOLOGISTMARINE
111
$ 41,916.90
$ 53,444.04
$ 64,971.19
CODE COMPLIANCE RESEARCH ANALYST ss
ss 111
$ 41,916,90 ss
$ 53,444,04
$ 164,971.19'
LIBRARIAN
111
$ 41,916.90
$ 53,444.04
$ 64,971.19
LIBRARIAN TECHNICAL SERVICES''
111
$ 41,916.90'I
$ 53,444.04
$;64,971.19'
MASTER ELECTRICIAN
111
$ 41,916.90
$ 53,444.04
$ 64,971.19
PURCHASING MANAGER
111
$ 41,916.90',
$ 53,444.04
$ `,64,971.19 `
SR BUDGET ANALYST
111
$ 41,916.90
$ 53,444.04
$ 64,971.19
SR COORDINATOR AIRPORT GRANTS & FINANCE
111
$ 41,916.90 ss
$ 53,444.04
$ I64,971.19'
SR COORDINATOR BUILDING
111
$ 41,916.90
$ 53,444.04
$ 64,971.19
SR COORDINATOR FINANCE &ACCOUNTING
111
$ 41,916.90''
$ 53,444.04
$,64,971.19
SR ENG TECH PW / ENG
111
$ 41,916.90
$ 53,444.04
$ 64,971.19
SR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN
111
$ 41,916.90',I
$ 53,444.04
$ '64,971.19I'
SR LIBRARIAN FLORIDA HISTORY
111
$ 41,916.90
$ 53,444.04
$ 64,971.19
SR PROJECT MANAGEMENT/WASTEWATERTECHNICIAN
111
$ 41,916.90I
$ 53,444.04
$ I64,971.19''
SUPERVISOR CASE MANAGER
111
$ 41,916.90
$ 53,444.04
$ 64,971.19
SUPERVISOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR
111
$ 41,916.90'',
$ 53,444.04
$ ;64,971.19
SUPERVISOR ROADS & BRIDGES
111
$ 41,916.90
$ 53,444.04
$ 64,971.19
SUPERVISOR SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING
111
$ 41,916.90'I
$ 53,444.04
$;64,971.19'
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
112
$ 44,117.53
$ 56,249.86
$ 68,382.18
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORN EY
112
$ 44,117.53',
$ 56,249.86
$ `,68,382.18`
INSPECTOR CODE COMPLIANCE
112
$ 44,117.53
$ 56,249.86
$ 68,382.18
LEAD MECHANIC
ss 112
$ 44,117,53 ss
$ 56,249,86
$ 168,382.18'
LOGISTICS SPECIALIST
112
$ 44,117.53
$ 56,249.86
$ 68,382.18
MASTER MECHANIC/GENERATOR TECHNICIAN
112
$ 44,117.53''
$ 56,249.86
$ 68,382.18
OFFICE MANAGER
112
$ 44,117.53
$ 56,249.86
$ 68,382.18
PARALEGAL 'I
112
$ 44,117.53'I
$ 56,249.86
$ '68,382.18I'
PARALEGAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
112
$ 44,117.53
$ 56,249.86
$ 68,382.18
PARALEGAL LITIGATION'
112
$ 44,117.53ss
$ 56,249.86
$ I68,382.18'
SR COORDINATOR BENEFITS
112
$ 44,117.53
$ 56,249.86
$ 68,382.18
SR COORDINATOR CODE COMPLIANCE
112
$ 44,117.53
$ 56,249.86
$ 68,382.18
SR COORDINATOR COUNTY ATTORN EY
112
$ 44,117.53
$ 56,249.86
$ 68,382.18
SR COORDINATOR FLEET
112
$ 44,117.53'I
$ 56,249.86
$ ;68,382.18'
SR COORDINATOR PLANNING COMMISSION
112
$ 44,117.53
$ 56,249.86
$ 68,382.18
SR NETWORK ANALYST'
112
$ 44,117.53I'
$ 56,249.86
$ `,68,382.18`
AIRPORTSYSTEMS TECHNICIAN
113
$ 46,433.70
$ 59,202.97
$ 71,972.24
BUILDING INSPECTOR 1 ss
ss 113
$ 46,433,70 ss
$ 59,202,97
$ 171,972.24''
CONTRACT MONITOR
113
$ 46,433.70
$ 59,202.97
$ 71,972.24
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR''
113
$ 46,433.70''
$ 59,202.97
$ j,71,972.24'
MANAGER BRANCH LIBRARY
113
$ 46,433.70
$ 59,202.97
$ 71,972.24
MANAGER LIBRARY TECHNICAL SERVICES
113
$ 46,433.70',
$ 59,202.97
$ ',71,972.24'3
PLANNER
113
1 $ 46,433.70
1 $ 59,202.97
1 $ 71,972.24
Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February 2014.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 5-15
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classlfloat/on and Compensat/on Study for Monroe County, FL
EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED)
MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST
PLUMBING MECHANICALINSPECTOR
113
$ 46,433.70ss
$ 59,202.97
$ I71,972.24''
SR BIOLOGIST
113
$ 46,433.70
$ 59,202.97
$ 71,972.24
SR COORDINATOR FLOODPLAIN
113
$ 46,433.70
$ 59,202.97
$ ;71,972.24'
SR COORDINATOR TV MULTIMEDIA
113
$ 46,433.70
$ 59,202.97
$ 71,972.24
SR LIBRARIAN''
113
$ 46,433.70''
$ 59,202.97
$ '71,972.24'
SR LIBRARIAN ARCHIVIST
113
$ 46,433.70
$ 59,202.97
$ 71,972.24
SUPERVISOR FACILITIESMAINTENANCE
113
$ 46,433.70I'
$ 59,202.97
$ I71,972.24''
SYSTEMS ANALYST
113
$ 46,433.70
$ 59,202.97
$ 71,972.24
ADMINISTRATOR BUILDING & PARKS & BEACHES
114
$ 48,871,47 ss
$ 62,311,13
$ '75,750.78''
ADMINISTRATOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE
114
$ 48,871.47
$ 62,311.13
$ 75,750.78
ADMINISTRATOR LIBRARIES
114
$ 48,871.47''
$ 62,311.13
$ j,75,750.78
ADMINISTRATOR PERMITTING
114
$ 48,871.47
$ 62,311.13
$ 75,750.78
CIP ADMINISTRATOR AND INSPECTOR
114
$ 48,871.47',
$ 62,311.13
$ ',75,750.78 `
DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR
114
$ 48,871.47
$ 62,311.13
$ 75,750.78
EMERGENCY MANAGEM'ENTSR PLANNER
114
$ 48,871.47 ss
$ 62,311.13
$ I75,750.78'
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTSR. PLANNER I
114
$ 48,871.47
$ 62,311.13
$ 75,750.78
EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR
114
$ 48,871,47
$ 62,311.13
$;75,750.78
GIS SERVER ADMINISTRATOR &SYSTEMS ANALYST
114
$ 48,871.47
$ 62,311.13
$ 75,750.78
PARALEGAL ADMI N ISTRATIVE LIAISON
114
$ 48,871.47','
$ 62,311.13
$ ',75,750.78ss
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ADMINISTRATOR
114
$ 48,871.47
$ 62,311.13
$ 75,750.78
SERVER ADMINISTRATOR
114
$ 48,871.47I'
$ 62,311.13
$ I75,750.78 `
SR INSPECTOR CODE COMPLIANCE
114
$ 48,871.47
$ 62,311.13
$ 75,750.78
SR LEAD MECHANIC
114
$ 48,871,47 ss
$ 62,311,13
$ '75,750.78''
SR PLANNER
114
$ 48,871.47
$ 62,311.13
$ 75,750.78
ADMINISTRATOR LIBRARY HEADQUARTERS'
115
$ 51,437.23''
$ 65,582.46
$ '79,727.70'
ADMINISTRATOR RISK MANAGEMENT
115
$ 51,437.23
$ 65,582.46
$ 79,727.70
APPLICATION ANALYST'
115
$ 51,437.23',
$ 65,582.46
$ ',79,727.70'3
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
115
$ 51,437.23
$ 65,582.46
$ 79,727.70
PLANNING & BIOLOGICAL PLANS' EXAMINER SUPERVISOR
115
$ 51,437.23 ss
$ 65,582.46
$ I79,727.70''
SR SYSTEMS ANALYST
115
$ 51,437.23
$ 65,582.46
$ 79,727.70
ADMINISTRATOR HUMAN RESOURCES
116
$ 54,137.68''
$ 69,025.54
$ >.83,913.41
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
116
$ 54,137.68
$ 69,025.54
$ 83,913.41
PROJECTMANAGER
116
$ 54,137.68','
$ 69,025.54
$ '83,913.41''
SR ADMINISTRATOR BENEFITS/HIPAAPRIVACY OFFICER
116
$ 54,137.68
$ 69,025.54
$ 83,913.41
BUILDING INSPECTOR II''
117
$ 56,979.91 I'
$ 72,649.38
$ ``,88,318.86''
COMPLIANCE MANAGER
117
$ 56,979.91
$ 72,649.38
$ 88,318.86
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER
117
$ 56,979.91
$ 72,649.38
$ 88,318.86'
SR ADMINISTRATOR AIRPORT BUSINESS
117
$ 56,979.91
$ 72,649.38
$ 88,318.86
SR ADMINISTRATOR BAYSHORE ''
117
$ 56,979.91''
$ 72,649.38
$ ;88,318.86'
SR ADMINISTRATOR CODE COMPLIANCE
117
$ 56,979.91
$ 72,649.38
$ 88,318.86
SRADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
117
$ 56,979.91',
$ 72,649.38
$ `,88,318.86'3
SR ADMINISTRATOR GIS
117
$ 56,979.91
$ 72,649.38
$ 88,318.86
SRADMINISTRATOR MARINE RESOURCES
117
$ 56,979.91 ss
$ 72,649.38
$ I88,318.86''
SR ADMINISTRATOR SEWER PROJECTS
117
$ 56,979.91
$ 72,649.38
$ 88,318.86
SR ADMINISTRATOR SOCIALSERVICES
117
$ 56,979.91''
$ 72,649.38
$,88,318.86'
Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February 2014.
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 5-16
Chapter 5 - Solutlon Classlfloat/on and Compensat/on Study for Monroe County, FL
EXHIBIT 5D (CONTINUED)
MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED GRADE ORDER LIST
SR ADMINISTRATOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
117
$ 56,979.91
$ 72,649.38
$ 88,318.86
SR BUDGET ADMINISTRATOR
117
$ 56,979.91',I
$ 72,649.38
$ `,88,318.86ss
SR PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR
117
$ 56,979.91
$ 72,649.38
$ 88,318.86
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM MANAGER
117
$ 56,979.91 I'
$ 72,649.38
$ '188,318.86''
AIRPORTSECURITY COORDINATOR
118
$ 59,971.35
$ 76,463.48
$ 92,955.60
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS
ss 118
$ 59,971,35 ss
$ 76,463,48
$ 192,955.60''
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MANAGER
118
$ 59,971.35
$ 76,463.48
$ 92,955.60
DIRECTOR FLEET MANAGEMENT ''
118
$ 59,971.35'I
$ 76,463.48
$ '92,955.60'
DIRECTOR LIBRARIES
118
$ 59,971.35
$ 76,463.48
$ 92,955.60
DIRECTOR MIDDLE KEYSOPERATIONS
118
$ 59,971.35',
$ 76,463.48
$ `,92,955.60'3
DIRECTOR VETERANS AFFAIRS
118
$ 59,971.35
$ 76,463.48
$ 92,955.60
LAND STEWARD
118
$ 59,971.35 ss
$ 76,463.48
$ '92,955.60''
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MANAGER
118
$ 59,971.35
$ 76,463.48
$ 92,955.60
PLANS EXAMINER
118
$ 59,971.35''
$ 76,463.48
$ j,92,955.60'
SRADMINISTRATOR GRANTS
118
$ 59,971.35
$ 76,463.48
$ 92,955.60
DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR
119
$ 63,119.85',I
$ 80,477.81
$ ',97,835.77ss
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY II
122
$ 73,592.28
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS
122
$ 73,592.28 I'
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
122
$ 73,592.28
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04
DIR INTERGOV/LEG AND GRANTS ACC(
122
$ 73,592.28
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04'
DIRECTOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
122
$ 73,592.28
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04
DIRECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
122
$ 73,592.28'I
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04'
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
122
$ 73,592.28
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04
DIRECTOROF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
122
$ 73,592.28',
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04'3
DIRECTOR SUSTAINABILITYAND SPECIAL PROJECTS
122
$ 73,592.28
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04
DIRECTOR UPPER KEYS OPERATIONS
ss 122
$ 73,592,28 ss
$ 93,830,16
$114,068.04''
FIRE RESCUE DEPUTY CHIEF -OPERATIONS
122
$ 73,592.28
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04
SR DIRECTOR BUILDING OFFICIAL"
122
$ 73,592.28''
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04'
SR DIRECTOR CODE COMPLIANCE
122
$ 73,592.28
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04
SRDIRECTOR OFBUDGET&FINANCE
122
$ 73,592.28',I
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04ss
SR DIRECTOR SOCIALSERVICES
122
$ 73,592.28
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04
SR DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING
122
$ 73,592.28 ss
$ 93,830.16
$114,068.04''
ASSISTANT COUNTYATTORNEY- LITIGATOR
124
$ 81,522.31
$103,940.95
$126,359.58
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORN EY 111
124
$ 81,522.31'',
$103,940.95
$126,359.58
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
124
$ 81,522.31
$103,940.95
$126,359.58
SR DIRECTOR AIRPORTS''
124
$ 81,522.31'I
$103,940.95
$126,359.58'
SR DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
124
$ 81,522.31
$103,940.95
$126,359.58
DIVISION DIRECTOR EMPLOYEE SERVICES
125
$ 85,802.23I'
$109,397.85
$132,993.46''
DIVISION DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT
125
$ 85,802.23
$109,397.85
$132,993.46
DIVISION DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS / ENGINEERING ss
ss 125
$ 85,802,23 ss
$109,397,85
$132,993.46''
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
125
$ 85,802.23
$109,397.85
$132,993.46
FIRE CHIEF/DIVISION DIRECTOR EMERGENCY SERVICES
125
$ 85,802.23'
$109,397.85
$132,993.46'
DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
132
$122,758.99
$156,517.72
$190,276.44
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
133
$129,203.84',
$164,734.90
$200,265.95`
COUNTY ATTORN EY
CONTRACT
N/A
N/A
N/A
Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February 2014
4
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
Page 5-17
w
H
¢'
w
H
a
¢'
Q
Pl
w
W
W
W
w
w }7
S H
'a
o
4
y
qw�
x
r4
a