Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
-
Upload
savannahnowcom -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
1/36
Comprehensive Classification and
Compensation Study for the
City of Garden City, GA
FINAL REPORT
June 10, 2015
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
2/36
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1
2.0 SUMMARY OF EMPLOYEE OUTREACH ......................................................................... 2 1
2.1 General Feedback ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Benefits Observations ........................................................................................ 2-22.3 Compensation Observations .............................................................................. 2-2
2.4 Classification Observations ................................................................................ 2-3
2.5 Market Peers ....................................................................................................... 2-3
2.6 Benchmark Positions .......................................................................................... 2-4
2.7 Outreach Summary ............................................................................................. 2-4
3.0 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS .................................................................. 3 1
3.1 Pay Plan Analysis ................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Grade Placement Analysis .................................................................................. 3-3
3.3 Salary Quartile and Tenure Analysis .................................................................. 3-4
3.4 Employees by Department ................................................................................. 3-9
3.5 Summary .......................................................................................................... 3-10
4.0 MARKET SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................... 4 1
4.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Respondents ....................................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 Survey Results ..................................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Private Sector Market Data ................................................................................ 4-5
4.5 Summary ............................................................................................................. 4-6
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 5 1
5.1 Classification Recommendations ...................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Compensation Recommendations ................................................................... 5-3
5.3 System Administration ........................................................................................ 5-8
5.4 Summary .......................................................................................................... 5-10
E V E R G R E E N S O L U T I O N S , L L C
Table of Contents
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
3/36
c
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 1-1
Evergreen Solutions conducted a Comprehensive Classification and Compensation study for
the City of Garden City, GA (City) beginning in November 2014. The purpose of the study was
to analyze the City’s compensation system compared to the market and make
recommendations to improve its competitiveness. This involved reviewing and analyzing the
internal and external equity of the City’s current classification and compensation structure
and making recommendations in response to the findings.
Evergreen Solutions utilized a method of job evaluation to understand the current work being
performed by City employees. This provided the data for the internal equity review of the City’s
classification system. External equity, or the market competitiveness of the City’s current paystructure, was reviewed by conducting and analyzing the results of a salary survey. Ultimately,
the results of these analyses, both internal and external, were considered when making
recommendations to improve the City’s competitive market position. To achieve this goal,
Evergreen Solutions was tasked with:
leading orientation and focus group sessions for employees and conducting interviews
with department heads;
evaluating the City’s current salary structure to determine its strengths and
weaknesses;
collecting classification information through the Job Assessment Tool (JAT) to analyze
the internal equity of the City’s classifications;
developing recommendations for improvements to classification titles and the creation
of new titles, if necessary;
conducting a salary survey to assess the market competitiveness of the City’s current
pay plan;
developing a compensation structure and slotting classifications into that structure
while ensuring internal and external equity;
developing an implementation strategy and providing cost estimates for
implementation;
updating job descriptions that reflect recommended classification changes and
employee responses to the JAT, and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
recommendations; and
E V E R G R E E N S O L U T I O N S , L L C
Chapter 1 - Introduction
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
4/36
Chapter 1 – Introduction Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 1-2
developing and submitting draft and final reports that summarize study findings and
recommendations.
Evergreen Solutions used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to develop
recommendations to improve the City’s competitive position. Study activities included:
conducting a study kick-off meeting;
conducting employee outreach;
conducting job assessments utilizing the JAT;
analyzing the current conditions of the City’s compensation system;
conducting a market salary survey;
developing classification and compensation structure recommendations;
developing implementation options for the proposed structure;
developing recommendations for maintaining the new system;
updating job descriptions to accurately reflect work performed; and
creating draft and final reports.
Kick off Meeting
The kick-off meeting allowed members of the study team from both the City and Evergreen
Solutions to discuss different aspects of the study. During the meeting, information about the
City’s compensation and classification structures and philosophies was shared and the work
plan for the study was finalized. The meeting also provided an opportunity for Evergreen
Solutions to explain the types of data needed to begin the study.
Employee Outreach
The orientation sessions provided an opportunity for employees and supervisors to learn more
information about the purpose of the study, and receive specific information related to theirparticipation in the study process. The focus group meetings and department head interviews
allowed City employees, supervisors, and senior management to identify practices that were
working well at the City, as well as to suggest areas of opportunities for improvement with
regard to compensation, classification, benefits, and performance evaluation. Employee
benefits and performance evaluation were not specifically reviewed during the course of the
study; however, participant feedback was sought and provided as these areas are integral to
an overall compensation system. The feedback received during these sessions is summarized
in Chapter 2 of this report.
Classification Analysis
To perform an analysis of the City’s classification system, all employees were asked to
complete a JAT in which they had the opportunity to describe the work they perform in their
own words. Supervisors then reviewed the employees’ JAT and provided additional
information as needed about the classifications. The information provided in the completed
JATs was utilized in the classification analysis in two ways. First, the work described was
reviewed to ensure that classification titles were being utilized appropriately. Second, the JATs
were evaluated to quantify, by a scoring method, each classification’s relative value within the
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
5/36
Chapter 1 – Introduction Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 1-3
organization. Each classification’s score was based on the employee and supervisor’s
responses to the JAT, and the scores allowed for a comparison of classifications across the
City.
Analysis of Current Conditions
The City’s current employee database was analyzed with a close look at how the current payplan was being utilized. The current pay plans, the progression of employee salaries through
pay grades, employee tenure, and the distribution of employees among the City’s departments
were all examined during this process. Chapter 3 of this report summarizes the findings of
this analysis.
Compensation Analysis
For the compensation, or market analysis, peer organizations were identified that compete
with the City for human resources and provide similar services. A number of classifications
were selected as benchmarks for the survey. These positions represented a cross-section of
the departments and levels of work at the City. After the selection of peers and benchmarks,a survey tool was developed for the collection of salary range data for each benchmark. The
salary data collected during this survey were analyzed, and a summary of the data can be
found in Chapter 4 of this report.
Recommendations
During the recommendation phase of the study, Evergreen Solutions developed a market-
based pay plan and slotted classifications into the pay plan based on internal and external
equity. Next, implementation options were developed to transition employee salaries into the
new pay grades, and the associated costs of adjusting employee salaries were estimated.
Information has been provided to the City on how to execute the recommended salary
adjustments, as well as how to maintain the recommended classification and compensation
system over time. A summary of all recommendations made by Evergreen Solutions can be
found in Chapter 5 of this report.
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
6/36
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 2-1
Employee Outreach consisted of a series of orientation and focus group sessions conducted
by Evergreen Solutions with City employees, supervisors, and department heads in
December 2014. The orientation sessions provided participants an overview of the purpose
of the study. The focus group format and questions were designed to solicit input on a
number of topics related to the classification and compensation study. Though not in the
specific scope of the study, general questions with regard to employee benefits and
performance evaluation were asked as well. The comments of the participants were
valuable and provided a view of the perceptions of employees regarding the study and their
wages at the current time. Their feedback is summarized below:
2 1 GENERAL FEEDBACK
Employees viewed the City’s management as being dedicated to the workforce through their
commitment to a team environment. Employees stated that they generally enjoy their work,
co-workers, and work environment. However, employees also offered several suggestions for
improvement. For example, they believed that job duties and assignments have evolved over
the last several years and the current compensation and classification structure should be
updated. Participants also had several positive comments regarding their employment with
the City, including the following:
Several employees stated that they enjoyed the opportunity to serve their community
while working in a professional, team and family oriented environment.
Many individuals considered their work enjoyable and were thankful for their work
schedules.
Generally, employees appreciated the training and benefits provided to them, and
were especially pleased with the City’s observed holidays and Paid Time Off (PTO)
Policy.
On the other hand, employees provided several suggestions for areas of improvement:
Most employees expressed a strong desire to receive increases to their pay relative
to their market peers. Specifically, employees were concerned with the City’s ability
to attract and retain quality employees.
Employees would like to see job classifications and descriptions updated to more
accurately reflect the work being performed.
E V E R G R E E N S O L U T I O N S , L L C
Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee
Outreach
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
7/36
Chapter 2–Summary of Employee Outreach Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 2-2
A number of employees were troubled that their job duties had increased while their
compensation remained the same. Many employees believed that the tasks and
duties assigned to them across multiple departments was cumbersome, and was
cited as a possible reason for retention concerns for the City.
Several employees expressed concern regarding the lack of advancement
opportunities.
Many employees expressed their displeasure with the current performance
evaluation system and the process by which promotions and salary increases are
administered.
2 2 BENEFITS OBSERVATIONS
In general, employees were satisfied with the employee benefits offered by the City. These
positive comments, as well as areas for improvement, are listed below:
Most employees appreciated the health plan in general. However, many employees
expressed concern regarding the change in the City’s health care provider.
Specifically, employees stated that the current health provider (Aetna) does not
provide enough coverage compared to the City’s former provider, Blue Cross Blue
Shield. Moreover, employees expressed concern about their monthly health care
costs in relation to the level of coverage provided.
Some employees expressed a desire to have more funding for tuition reimbursement,
certifications and training. These employees stated that although funds for tuition
reimbursement are occasionally available, it hasn’t been consistent.
The retirement system was included as a topic for change. Many employees
expressed their displeasure with the current 30-65 retirement system. Some
employees stated that the current vesting system was appropriate, but the
retirement age was not. Most employees felt that a change in the retirement system
is needed.
2 3 COMPENSATION OBSERVATIONS
Focus group participants also offered the following observations related to compensation:
Many employees wanted additional pay for advanced education, additionalcertifications, and experience. Some employees stated that without it, they have no
incentive to further develop their skills.
Many employees cited discontent with not receiving cost of living increases in the
recent past. This, compounded by the lack of regular salary increases, concerned
most employees and was cited as contributing to personal economic hardships for
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
8/36
Chapter 2–Summary of Employee Outreach Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 2-3
some. Additionally, some employees stated that they have had to seek part-time work
because their pay has not been keeping up with the cost of living.
Several employees stated that they believe the City’s compensation structure is no
longer competitive within the market, thus reinforcing their belief that there is a
problem recruiting and retaining quality employees.
Employees cited the desire to see more transparency concerning the process in
which raises are administered. Several employees stated their discontent regarding
the current process, believing there is little opportunity for salary and career
advancement.
2 4 CLASSIFICATION OBSERVATIONS
Participants also provided Evergreen Solutions with issues specific to the City’s classification
structure. Below is a list of their concerns:
Many employees believed classification titles and job descriptions need to be
reviewed regularly and updated to reflect the current duties and responsibilities
performed. They stated that their jobs have evolved but the titles have stayed the
same. Furthermore, some employees stated that job descriptions do not exist for all
positions.
Some groups of employees stated that they believed the classification structure
should be reviewed for appropriateness, especially within the Fire Department and
Code Enforcement.
2 5 MARKET PEERS
Focus group participants were asked to name organizations they considered to be market
peers. These are listed below and were considered when developing the list of peers for the
salary survey:
City of Augusta, GA;
City of Bluffton, GA;
City of Macon, GA;
City of Pooler, GA;
City of Savannah, GA;
City of Tybee Island, GA; City of Thunderbolt, GA;
Town of Hilton Head Island, SC;
Chatham County, GA;
Georgia Ports Authority, GA;
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, GA;
Home Depot Supply, GA; and
Hunter Army Airfield, GA.
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
9/36
Chapter 2–Summary of Employee Outreach Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 2-4
2 6 BENCHMARK POSITIONS
Employees were also asked which positions or areas within the City presented the greatest
challenges with regard to employee recruitment and retention. Some of the areas and
positions mentioned by focus group participants were:
Equipment Operators;
Maintenance;
Mechanics;
Meter Readers;
Office Staff;
Parks and Recreation;
Planning;
Police Officers;
Public Safety; and
Water and Wastewater Operators.
2 7 OUTREACH SUMMARY
The concerns expressed during outreach by the employees exist in many organizations
today. Yet, overall, employees believed the City provides a great work environment, and
supports a team and family-oriented atmosphere. In fact, many employees cited the
organizational commitment to serving the community through public service, the
professional work environment and the quality of co-workers as reasons they remain
employed with the City.
The information received during this employee outreach provided a foundation for areas of
further review during the remainder of the study. It also aided Evergreen Solutions in the
consideration and development of recommendations provided in Chapter 5 of this report.
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
10/36
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 3-1
This chapter provides an analysis of the current conditions relative to the classification and
compensation system by examining the City’s current pay plan, employee salary placement,
quartile and tenure analysis, and an employee by department summary. It is important to
understand that the analyses that follow describes the conditions at the City at the time of the
study; they do not look at the external equity of the system. External equity, or market
competiveness, is discussed in the next chapter of this report. This review allowed Evergreen
Solutions to gain an understanding of the conditions present at the City at the time the study
commenced. When combined with stakeholder and employee feedback (Chapter 2) and peer
market data (Chapter 4), a recommended solution appropriate for the City was developed and
is provided in Chapter 5. This analyses in this chapter continue as follows:
3.1 Pay Plan Analysis
3.2 Grade Placement Analysis
3.3 Quartile and Tenure Analysis
3.4 Employees by Department
3.5 Summary
3.1 PAY PLAN ANALYSIS
The City currently has two pay plans: one for general employees and one for public safety
employees. This organized pay structure provides employees with an understood system of
pay grades and related pay range information. Additionally, an established pay structure
allows the organization to review and address issues regarding potential pay compression
within job classifications and among different pay grades.
Both plans are organized in an open-range configuration, with an established minimum and
maximum salary, whereby employee salaries are expected to progress through the ranges
over the course of a career. Exhibit 3A displays the City’s current General Employee Pay Plan,
and Exhibit 3B displays the City’s pay plan for Public Safety employees. At the time of the
study, there were 92 employees in the City: 46 employees were in classifications which are
under the General Pay Plan, 42 employees were in classifications which are under the Public
Safety Pay Plan, and four (4) employees were in interim positions which were not assigned toany pay plan.
E V E R G R E E N S O L U T I O N S , L L C
Chapter 3– Assessment of Current
Conditions
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
11/36
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 3-2
EXHIBIT 3A
CURRENT GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN
EXHIBIT 3B
CURRENT PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN
Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range
Spread Employees
6 20,467.20$
25,584.00$
30,700.80$
50.0% 07 21,565.44$ 26,956.80$ 32,348.16$ 50.0% 0
8 22,730.24$ 28,412.80$ 34,095.36$ 50.0% 5
9 23,944.96$ 29,931.20$ 35,917.44$ 50.0% 0
10 25,226.24$ 31,532.80$ 37,839.36$ 50.0% 1
12 26,574.08$ 33,217.60$ 39,861.12$ 50.0% 1
14 27,988.48$ 34,985.60$ 41,982.72$ 50.0% 3
15 29,486.08$ 36,857.60$ 44,229.12$ 50.0% 8
16 31,066.88$ 38,833.60$ 46,600.32$ 50.0% 6
17 32,730.88$ 40,913.60$ 49,096.32$ 50.0% 2
18 34,478.08$
43,097.60$
51,717.12$
50.0% 919 36,325.12$ 45,406.40$ 54,487.68$ 50.0% 3
20 38,039.04$ 47,548.80$ 57,058.56$ 50.0% 1
22 42,382.08$ 52,977.60$ 63,573.12$ 50.0% 1
23 44,378.88$ 55,473.60$ 66,568.32$ 50.0% 0
28 55,860.48$ 69,825.60$ 83,790.72$ 50.0% 6
29 58,489.60$ 73,112.00$ 87,734.40$ 50.0% 0
31 74,746.88$ 93,433.60$ 112,120.32$ 50.0% 0
33 84,930.56$ 106,163.20$ 127,395.84$ 50.0% 0
Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range
Spread Employees
160 30,220.13$ 37,775.16$ 45,330.19$ 50.0% 0
161 32,484.61$ 40,605.76$ 48,726.91$ 50.0% 10
162 40,039.17$ 50,048.96$ 60,058.75$ 50.0% 8
170 36,853.81$ 46,067.27$ 55,280.72$ 50.0% 7
171 39,621.92$ 49,527.40$ 59,432.88$ 50.0% 0
172 48,836.32$ 61,045.40$ 73,254.48$ 50.0% 0
180 42,146.65$
52,683.31$
63,219.97$
50.0% 4
220 44,836.86$ 56,046.08$ 67,255.29$ 50.0% 7
230 51,019.28$ 63,774.10$ 76,528.92$ 50.0% 2
250 55,244.80$ 69,058.74$ 82,867.20$ 50.0% 3
280 57,877.80$ 72,347.25$ 86,816.70$ 50.0% 0
290 65,770.23$ 82,212.78$ 98,655.34$ 50.0% 1
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
12/36
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 3-3
The current pay structure has 31 total pay grades: 19 in the General Employee Pay Plan and
12 in the Public Safety Employee Pay Plan. Overall, 20 of the 31 grades are currently occupied
by at least one employee, with 12 grades occupied in the General Employee Plan and 8 grades
occupied in the Public Safety Plan. The range spread is a consistent 50.0 percent throughout.
Range spreads of 50.0 to 70.0 percent are considered best practice for open range structures
of this nature. By this measure, the current structure design is sound.
3.2 GRADE PLACEMENT ANALYSIS
Exhibits 3C and 3D provide a breakdown of the placement of employee salaries within each
pay grade. Exhibit 3C illustrates the placement of salaries within grades for classifications
assigned to the General Employee Plan, while Exhibit 3D illustrates the placement of salaries
within grades for classifications assigned to the Public Safety Plan. Each exhibit contains the
following: the pay grades, the number of employees per grade, the number and percentage of
employees with salaries at or below the minimum, the number and percentage of employees
with salaries below the midpoint, the number and percentage of employees with salaries
above the midpoint, and the number and percentage of employees with salaries at or abovethe maximum. This analysis includes only occupied pay grades. It should be noted that
employee salaries, and the progression of the same, is associated with an organization’s
compensation philosophy -- specifically, the method of salary progression and the availability
of resources. Therefore, the placement of employee salaries should be viewed with this
context in mind.
EXHIBIT 3C
GENERAL EMPLOYEE GRADE PLACEMENT
Grade Employees # at or below
Min
% at or below
Min # Mid
# at or above
Max
% at or above
Max
8 5 1 20.0% 4 80.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0%
10 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
12 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
14 3 0 0.0% 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 0 0.0%
15 8 1 12.5% 8 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
16 6 1 16.7% 6 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
17 2 1 50.0% 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
18 9 1 11.1% 9 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
19 3 0 0.0% 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 0 0.0%
20 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
22 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0%
28 6 0 0.0% 4 66.7% 2 33.3% 0 0.0%
Total 46 5 10.9% 40 87.0% 6 13.0% 0 0.0%
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
13/36
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 3-4
EXHIBIT 3D
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE GRADE PLACEMENT
Employees with salaries at or below the grade minimum are generally new hires or are new to
their particular classification following a recent promotion; on the other hand, employees with
salaries at or above the grade maximum are generally highly experienced and proficient in
their classification. Currently, there are five (5) employees in the General Pay Plan who havesalaries at or below their classification minimum; there are no employees with salaries at or
above the maximum. Additionally, there are 14 Public Safety employees with salaries at or
below the minimum, and none with salaries at or above the maximum. It is not considered
best practice to have an employee’s salary below the grade minimum, or above the grade
maximum. Further recommendations in this regard can be found in Chapter 5 of this report.
Grade midpoint is often considered the most accepted market average. At the midpoint,
employees should be fully proficient in their job and should require minimal supervision to
complete their job duties, while performing satisfactorily. Within this framework, midpoint is
commonly considered to be the salary an individual could reasonably expect for similar workin the market. It is important, therefore, to examine the percentage of employees with salaries
that fall above and below the calculated midpoint of their respective pay grades. Of the 88
employees included in this analysis, 76 employees have salaries below the midpoint (40
General employees and 36 Public Safety employees), while 12 employees were above the
salary midpoint (6 General employees and 6 Public Safety employees).
3.3 SALARY QUARTILE AND TENURE ANALYSIS
This section provides a salary quartile and classification tenure analysis of the distribution of
employee salaries across pay grades. The quartile analysis is also used to determine if
clusters of salaries exist. Employee pay is slotted within one of four equal distributions. Thefirst quartile (0-25) represents the lowest 25.0 percent of the pay range. The second quartile
(26-50) represents the segment of the pay range above the first quartile up to the pay range’s
midpoint. The third quartile (51-75) represents the part of the pay range above the midpoint
up to the 75th percentile of the pay range. The fourth quartile (76-100) is the highest 25.0
percent of the pay range. This analytical method provides an opportunity to assess how
employee salaries are disbursed throughout the pay range.
Grade Employees # at or below
Min
% at or below
Min # Mid
# at or above
Max
% at or above
Max
161 10 0 0.0% 10 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%
162 8 8 100.0% 8 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%170 7 4 57.1% 6 85.7% 100.0% 14.3% 0 0.0%
180 4 1 25.0% 4 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%
220 7 0 0.0% 5 71.4% 200.0% 28.6% 0 0.0%
230 2 1 50.0% 2 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%
250 3 0 0.0% 1 33.3% 200.0% 66.7% 0 0.0%
290 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%
Total 42 14 33.3% 36 85.7% 6 14.3% 0 0.0%
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
14/36
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Comprehensive C
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C
Exhibit 3E includes a breakdown of the number of General employees per grade, the average
classification (average class years) worked per grade, the location (by quartile) of salaries within e
number of class years worked per quartile within each grade.
EXHIBIT 3E
GENERAL EMPLOYEE QUARTILE AND CLASS YEARS ANALYSIS
# Employees Avg Class Ye ars # Employees Avg Class Ye ars # Employees Avg Cl
8 5 3.7 3 2.9 1 7.0 1
10 1 5.4 ‐ ‐ 1 5.4 ‐
12 1 7.3 1 7.3 ‐ ‐ ‐
14 3 5.5 1 0.8 1 10.8 ‐
15 8 3.7 5 2.2 3 6.0 ‐
16 6 7.0 4 5.7 2 9.8 ‐
17 2 1.4 1 0.5 1 2.2 ‐
18 9 4.8 7 4.3 2 6.7 ‐
19 3 13.9 ‐ ‐ 2 19.0 1
20 1 6.2 ‐ ‐ 1 6.2 ‐
22 1 9.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1
28 6 6.0 3 4.0 1 5.9 2
Overall Total 46 25 15 5
Overall Average 6.2 3.5 7.9
Average Class
YearsGRADE
Total
Employees
1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
15/36
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Comprehensive C
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C
Exhibit 3F displays graphically how employee salaries in the General Pay Plan fall across the quartile
EXHIBIT 3F
GENERAL EMPLOYEE QUARTILE ANALYSIS PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES PER PA
0% 25% 50% 75%
8
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
28
Percent of Employees
P a y
G r a d e
1ST QU ARTILE 2ND QU ARTILE 3RD QUARTILE 4TH QUARTILE
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
16/36
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Comprehensive C
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C
Exhibits 3G and 3H display the same quartile and average class years information for Public Safety em
a breakdown of the number of Public Safety employees per grade, the average number of class
location (by quartile) of salaries within each grade, and the average number of class years worked p
EXHIBIT 3G
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE QUARTILE AND CLASS YEARS ANALYSIS
#
Employees Avg
Class
Ye ars #
Employees Avg
Class
Ye ars #
Employees Avg
Cla
161 10 3.0 9 2.5 1 7.9 ‐
162 8 4.2 8 4.2 ‐ ‐ ‐
170 7 5.0 6 3.6 ‐ ‐ ‐
180 4 5.0 4 5.0 ‐ ‐ ‐
220 7 6.7 4 5.3 1 10.9 2
230 2 3.5 2 3.5 ‐ ‐ ‐
250 3 6.2 ‐ ‐ 1 1.9 1
290 1 12.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Overall
Total 42 33 3 3
Overall Average 5.8 4.0 6.9
Average Class
YearsGRADE
Total
Employees
1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
17/36
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Comprehensive C
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C
Exhibit 3H displays graphically how employee salaries in the Public Safety Plan fall across the quart
EXHIBIT 3H
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE QUARTILE ANALYSIS PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES PER
0% 25% 50% 75%
161
162
170
180
220
230
250
290
Percent of Employees
P a y G r a d
e
1ST QUARTILE 2ND Q UARTILE 3RD QUAR TILE 4TH QUARTILE
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
18/36
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 3-9
In the Grade Placement Analysis, it was observed that the vast majority of employee salaries
fell below the midpoint; out of the 88 total employees included in the grade analysis, salaries
of 76 employees (86.3%) fell below the midpoint, while salaries of 12 employees (13.6%) fell
above the midpoint. 40 out of the 46 General employee salaries (86.9%) fell below their
respective midpoint, and 36 out of the 42 Public Safety employee salaries fell below their
respective midpoint. As one might expect, most of the employee salaries fell into the first and
second quartiles, with the majority of employee salaries (65.9%) falling into the first quartile
of their respective pay plans. Generally, it seems that the majority of salary compression
observed in the first quartile of both plans may exist because of the shorter tenure of
employees within this quartile, though again, the methods of salary progression and any
constraints the City faced in awarding salary increases may have impacted these results.
Under the General Employee Pay Plan, 25 employee salaries (54.3%) fell into the first quartile,
15 employee salaries (32.6%) fell into the second quartile, five employee salaries (10.9%) fell
into the third quartile, and one employee’s salary (2.2%) fell into the fourth quartile. For
General employees, the average number of class years worked was 6.2 years. When
examining tenure by quartile, it was generally determined that as employee salaries progress
from the first quartile to the fourth quartile, overall average tenure increases. The onlyexceptions to this statement were found in grades 8, 14 and 19, where employees who were
all above the midpoint had shorter average tenures than those who fell below the midpoint in
the same pay grade.
Under the Public Safety Employee Pay Plan, 33 employee salaries (78.6%) fell into the first
quartile, three employee salaries (7.1%) fell into the second quartile, three employee salaries
(7.1%) fell into the third quartile, and three employee salaries (7.1%) fell into the fourth
quartile. For Public Safety employees, the average number of class years worked was 5.8
years. When examining tenure by quartile, it was determined that as employee salaries
progress from the first quartile to the fourth quartile, overall average tenure increases. The
only exception is found in grade 220 of the Public Safety Plan, whereby employees in the thirdquartile have a shorter average tenure than an employee within the second quartile of the
same grade.
3.4 EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT
Exhibit 3I depicts the number of employees and the number of classifications in each
department, as well as the percent breakdown of employees by department. At the time of
the study, the City had 13 departments with a total of 92 employees. This section provides
basic information regarding how employees were distributed among departments.
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
19/36
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 3-10
EXHIBIT 3I
EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT
The City’s largest department was Police, with 40 employees across 19 classifications. The
Police Department represented 43.5 percent of the total workforce. The smallest departments
were the Human Resources and Senior Center departments, with one employee per
department; both the Human Resources and Senior Center departments make up 1.1 percent
of the total workforce. Six of the departments had five or more employees, while seven
departments had fewer than five employees.
3.5 SUMMARY
The City’s compensation structure with established pay plans provided employees with a clear
pay system. However, Chapter 4 examines the external equity of the current compensation
system. The following are the key points of the existing pay plans:
The existing pay structure had 31 total grades, with 19 being in the General Employee
Plan and 12 in the Public Safety Plan.
Of the 31 total pay grades, 20 are currently occupied by at least one employee. 12 of
the 19 grades are occupied in the General Employee Plan, and 8 of the 12 grades are
occupied in the Public Safety Plan.
Of the 88 employees included in the grade placement analysis, 76 employee salaries
were at or below their respective pay grade midpoints and 12 were at or above their
pay grade midpoints. 40 General employee salaries were at or below midpoint, while
6 were at or above midpoint. 36 Public Safety employee salaries were at or below
midpoint, while 6 were at or above midpoint.
There were 92 total employees across 13 Departments.
Department Employees Classes % of Total
Administrative 2 2 2.2%
Executive 2 2 2.2%Fire 8 1 8.7%
Human Resources 1 1 1.1%
Information Systems and Technology 2 2 2.2%
Police 40 19 43.5%
Public
Works 10 6 10.9%
Recreation 6 6 6.5%
Senior Center 1 1 1.1%
Shop 2 2 2.2%
Water Operations 5 4 5.4%
Water/
Sewer
Repair 9 7 9.8%
Planning
and
Economic
Development 4 4 4.3%Total 92 57 100.0%
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
20/36
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 3-11
The information gained from the review of current conditions was used in conjunction with the
market analysis data and internal equity review to develop recommendations for a
classification and compensation system best suited to the City. These recommendations are
provided in Chapter 5 of this report.
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
21/36
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 4-1
This chapter is a summary of the market analysis in which the City’s current salary structure
is compared to the salary structure at peer organizations. A comparison of this nature
focuses on the average salary ranges offered by the market for a sample of the City’s
positions. This data is then used to summarize overall market competitiveness and as a tool
for developing a compensation structure that will assist the City in recruiting and retaining a
talented, high-performing workforce. It is important to note, however, that this analysis does
not compare individual salaries within the market, as market comparisons do not translate
well at the individual level; individual employee pay is often determined through a
combination of factors, including demand for the type of job, an individual’s prior related
experience, and, in some cases, the individual’s negotiation skills during the hiring process.
Market 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, can change quickly.
Therefore, although this market analysis was utilized in making recommendations for the
City’s salary structure during this study, a market comparison of this nature should be done
at regular intervals to stay current with market salary trends. The information in this chapter
is presented in the following four sections:
4.1 Methodology
4.2 Respondents4.3 Survey Results
4.4 Private Sector Market Data
4.4 Summary
4 1 METHODOLOGY
Evergreen Solutions collected salary information from public sector peers in the City’s
competitive market utilizing a survey tool created by Evergreen Solutions. The survey asked
for salary range information about 38 classifications. Evergreen Solutions utilized a process
called benchmarking to select a subset of the City’s classifications to be surveyed. The
desired outcome of benchmarking is to select a cross-section of the City’s classifications toensure that the surveyed positions include all areas and pay grades at the City. This allows
the compensation system as a whole to be analyzed.
The classification title, a brief description of assigned duties, and the education and
experience requirements were provided in the survey for each benchmarked classification.
The survey tool asked participants to provide for each benchmark: the title of the matching
position at their organization, a rating of how well their position matched the surveyed
E V E R G R E E N S O L U T I O N S , L L C
Chapter 4 – Market Survey Results
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
22/36
Chapter 4 – Market Survey Results
Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 4-2
position in terms of the duties and requirements listed within the survey, the salary range
minimum and maximum of the matching position and the number of annual hours worked
by employees in the matching position.
4 2 RESPONDENTS
The peers were selected by Evergreen Solutions with input from the City’s project
management team. When identifying peers, a number of factors were taken into account,
including location and relative population. Data collected outside of the City’s direct region
were adjusted for cost of living using national cost of living index factors. This calculation
allows salary dollars from various entities to be compared in spending power relevant to the
City. Overall, information was collected from the eight peer organizations listed in Exhibit 4A
below:
EXHIBIT 4A
PEER DATA RESPONDENTS
4 3 SURVEY RESULTS
Exhibit 4B summarizes the salary data collected for each benchmarked classification. For
each classification, the respondents’ average minimum, midpoint, and maximum salary is
provided, along with the percent difference between the market average and the City’s
current minimum, midpoint, and maximum. Classifications listed with a positive percent
difference were found to be above the market average, while classifications with a negative
percent difference were found to be below the market average. For each classification,
Exhibit 4B also displays the number of respondents and the respondents’ average range
spread (i.e., the percentage difference between the average minimum and maximum
salaries of the respondents, relative to the minimum).
Peer Data Collected
City of Savannah, GA
City of Tybee Island, GA
Town of Hilton Head Island, SC
Town of Thunderbolt, GA
Chatham County, GA
Evans County, GA
Jasper County, SC
Port of Savannah, GA
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
23/36
Chapter 4 – Market Survey Results
Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 4-3
EXHIBIT 4B
MARKET SURVEY RESULTS
Average % Diff Average % Dif f Average % Diff
Admin. Manager, Public Works $53,537.26 -47.4% $68,249.44 -50.3% $82,961.61 -52.2% 55.1% 3Admin Asst. to Fire Chief $33,747.34 -14.4% $43,060.39 -16.8% $52,373.44 -18.4% 55.2% 3
Administ rative Assistant $34,325.19 -16.4% $43,817.94 -18.9% $53,310.68 -20.6% 55.4% 5
Budget Officer $55,816.78 - $70,999.15 - $86,181.52 - 54.5% 4
Building Safety Director $72,844.78 -30.4% $99,908.38 -43.1% $126,971.97 -51.5% 74.3% 4
Business License $35,100.59 -7.2% $44,643.44 -9.1% $54,186.28 -10.4% 54.4% 5
Captain of Patrol $50,057.75 9.4% $61,097.00 11.5% $72,136.25 12.9% 44.1% 4
Chatham Narcotics Team - Corporal $41,713.00 -6.4% $48,684.38 0.7% $61,445.33 2.8% 47.3% 4
City Desk Receptionist $25,603.28 -1.5% $32,564.85 -3.3% $39,526.42 -4.5% 54.4% 6
City Manager $93,919.61 -10.6% $110,566.89 -4.1% $140,946.42 -10.6% 50.0% 5
Clerk of Council/City Clerk $40,735.67 27.1% $56,741.15 18.7% $69,253.31 17.3% 72.6% 4
Code Enforcement Of ficer $38,645.75 -24.4% $50,378.30 -29.7% $59,831.98 -28.4% 55.0% 3
Corporal $38,353.59 9.0% $47,536.36 9.8% $56,719.12 16.5% 47.8% 4Crew Leader $29,262.58 0.8% $37,286.51 -1.2% $45,310.45 -2.5% 54.9% 4
Detective $40,627.24 -10.2% $52,246.05 -13.4% $63,864.87 -15.5% 57.3% 3
Director of Human Resources $76,496.71 -36.9% $97,494.05 -39.6% $118,491.40 -41.4% 55.0% 5
Director of Information Technology $68,756.98 -23.1% $87,675.12 -25.6% $106,593.27 -27.2% 55.1% 6
Director of Parks & Recreation $65,151.04 -16.6% $82,855.43 -18.7% $100,559.83 -20.0% 54.4% 5
Director of Public Works, Shop $65,518.44 -17.3% $84,067.70 -20.4% $102,616.96 -22.5% 56.8% 4
Director of Water Operations $56,142.67 -0.5% $71,639.67 -2.6% $87,136.67 -4.0% 55.2% 3
Evidence Tech $30,800.33 5.9% $39,292.00 4.0% $47,783.67 2.7% 55.1% 3
Finance Administrator (or Deputy) $43,636.03 - $55,733.82 - $67,831.62 - 55.4% 5
Finance Director $90,385.00 -54.5% $118,049.74 -61.5% $142,414.31 -62.3% 57.6% 4
Fire Chief $74,798.96 -29.2% $95,433.08 -31.9% $125,121.39 -44.1% 69.4% 4
Firefighter I $33,806.51 15.6% $41,747.57 16.6% $49,688.63 17.3% 46.9% 5Lieutenant $50,043.79 1.9% $61,176.03 4.1% $72,308.27 12.1% 44.3% 4
Mechanic $31,975.66 -8.4% $40,885.32 -10.9% $49,794.98 -12.6% 55.8% 7
Meter Reader $26,364.50 -10.1% $33,909.63 -13.3% $41,454.75 -15.4% 57.2% 4
Patrol Officer $32,357.19 0.4% $39,705.32 2.2% $47,053.45 3.4% 45.4% 6
Police Chief $55,810.50 15.1% $71,529.50 13.0% $104,832.35 -6.0% 87.8% 3
Public Works Foreman $34,889.33 -1.2% $45,069.50 -4.6% $55,249.67 -6.8% 58.4% 3
Records Clerk $28,306.00 4.0% $35,014.56 5.0% $44,302.00 -0.2% 56.5% 5
Repair Technician I $27,432.25 -20.7% $34,834.38 -22.6% $42,236.50 -23.9% 54.0% 4
Senior Mechanic $38,226.54 - 10.8% $48,913.78 - 13.5% $59,601.02 - 15.3% 55.9% 4
Sergeant $44,536.12 0.7% $54,557.18 2.7% $64,578.24 10.7% 44.8% 4
Supervisor, Water/Sewer Repair $39,439.00 6.9% $50,938.50 3.8% $62,438.00 1.8% 58.3% 3
Utility Billing Supervisor $34,364.00 9.7% $45,251.50 4.8% $56,139.00 1.6% 63.4% 3
Utility Billing Technician I $30,582.67 -9.2% $40,051.50 -14.5% $49,520.33 -18.0% 61.9% 3
-8.4% -10.4% -12.1% 56.2% 4.2
Resp
Survey Max imum
Survey Avg
Range
Classi f icat ion
Survey M inim um Survey M idpo int
Overall Average
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
24/36
Chapter 4 – Market Survey Results
Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 4-4
Market Minimums
A starting point for the analysis was to compare the average peer market minimum for each
classification to the City’s range minimums. Assessing the City’s market competitiveness at
pay grade minimums is important because it can impact the City’s ability to recruit quality
employees. An organization’s pay practices will also have an impact as those with more
flexible practices may, for example, utilize the minimum as a starting point for establishing a
new employee’s salary, while others may utilize the minimum as an absolute starting salary.
In any regard, the following observations can be made about the minimum salaries for the
City’s benchmarked classifications:
On average, the minimum salaries for the City’s benchmarked classifications are 8.4
percent below their respective market averages.
The percent differences of the City’s benchmarked classifications at minimum
ranged between 54.5 percent below market in the case of the Finance Director to
27.1 percent above market in the case of the Clerk of Council/City Clerk.
Of the 36 benchmarked positions with market minimum percent differentials, 23
(63.9 percent) were below market at the minimum.
Market Midpoints
Comparisons to the market at midpoint are typically used to address the overall
competitiveness of a classification’s salary range. Midpoint is typically considered the point
at which employees have achieved full proficiency, and are performing satisfactorily in their
classification. Based on the data gathered at the market midpoint, the following
observations can be made:
On average, the midpoint salaries for the City’s benchmarked classifications are 10.4
percent below their respective market averages.
The percent differences at midpoint for the benchmark classifications ranged
between 61.5 percent below market for the Finance Director to 18.7 percent above
market for the Clerk of Council/City Clerk.
Of the 36 benchmarked positions with market midpoint percent differentials, 23
(63.9 percent) were below market at the midpoint.
Market Maximums
In this section, the peer salary range maximums are compared to the City’s range
maximums for each benchmarked classification. Salary range maximums are typically used
to attract and/or reward more experienced and high performing personnel. Being
competitive at the maximum allows organizations to attract highly qualified employees for
an in-demand classification and retain experienced employees with a wealth of skills and
institutional knowledge who are typically performing, as well, at an exceptional level. Based
on the data gathered at the market maximum, the following observations can be made:
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
25/36
Chapter 4 – Market Survey Results
Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 4-5
The City’s maximum salaries for the benchmarked classifications are, on average,
12.1 percent below market.
The percent differences at maximum for the benchmark classifications ranged
between 62.3 percent below market for the Finance Director to 17.3 percent above
market for the Clerk of Council/City Clerk and Firefighter I.
Of the 36 benchmarked positions with market maximum percent differentials, 25
(69.4 percent) were below market at the maximum.
4 4 PRIVATE SECTOR MARKET DATA
Several classifications similar to the City’s can be found in the private sector. To supplement
the data collected in the salary survey, private sector salary data were collected using
software from the Economic Research Institute (ERI). The ERI data summarized in Exhibit 4C
reflects private sector salaries from businesses across government support services with
operating budgets of approximately 14.3 million dollars. The local region was centered onthe City of Savannah, GA, which was the nearest ERI city. While salary data from the private
sector is useful in determining characteristics of the market as a whole, there are inherent
differences between private and public sector classifications, which make it difficult to draw
conclusions about public sector salary ranges entirely from private sector data. The
comparisons of the City’s data to private sector data are often best utilized to analyze the
competiveness of specific classifications that have a hard time recruiting or retaining
employees. Just as with the public sector data results, comparisons made in this section
should not be utilized to compare individual salaries. Only those classifications with skills
that are easily transferable to the private sector are included in Exhibit 4C below
The following conclusions can be drawn from Exhibit 4C:
The City is approximately 10.6 percent below the private sector minimum.
The City is approximately 14.7 percent below the private sector midpoint.
The City is approximately 28.9 percent below the private sector maximum.
While the City, on average across all matched positions, is below the private sector
for the minimum, midpoint, and maximum, this can be explained due to the
significant difference in range spreads at the City and in the private sector market.
The average private sector salary range is 73.9 percent, which is significantly greater
than the City’s average range spread of 50.0 percent.
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
26/36
Chapter 4 – Market Survey Results
Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i ons , LL C Page 4-6
EXHIBIT 4C
PRIVATE SECTOR MARKET DATA
4 5 SUMMARY
One conclusion that can be drawn from the market data analyzed in this chapter is that
there is room for the City to improve its current compensation structure. For the City to
become more competitive in the labor market, a new pay structure should be considered.
Information gained from the market analysis was used with the internal equity analysis to
develop a more competitive compensation and classification system. Discussion of the new
pay structure and additional study recommendations can be found in Chapter 5 of this
report.
Average Diff Average Diff Average Diff
Admin. Manager, Public Works $53,224.00 -46.6% $61,929.00 -36.4% $81,225.00 -49.0% 52.6%
Admin Asst. to Fire Chief $29,909.00 -1.4% $36,527.00 0.9% $49,470.00 -11.9% 65.4%Administrative Assistant $29,909.00 -1.4% $36,527.00 0.9% $49,470.00 -11.9% 65.4%
Budget Officer $63,092.00 - $74,351.00 - $97,702.00 - 54.9%
Building Safety Director $51,711.00 7.4% $60,097.00 13.9% $77,710.00 7.2% 50.3%
Business License $38,444.00 -17.4% $44,277.00 -8.2% $55,306.00 -12.7% 43.9%
City Desk Receptionist $23,775.00 5.8% $28,550.00 9.5% $38,048.00 -0.6% 6 0.0%
City Manager $131,282.00 -54.6% $150,518.00 -41.8% $252,477.00 -98.2% 92.3%
Crew Leader $32,062.00 -8.7% $38,998.00 -5.8% $50,603.00 -14.4% 57.8%
Deputy City Manager $68,094.00 8.9% $103,360.00 -10.6% $149,158.00 -33.0% 119.0%
Director of Human Resources $70,069.00 -25.4% $83,032.00 -18.9% $98,619.00 -17.7% 40.7%
Director of Information Technology $69,658.00 -24.7% $101,034.00 -44.7% $141,168.00 -68.5% 102.7%
Finance Administrator (or Deputy) $68,138.00 - $80,572.00 - $97,164.00 - 42.6%
Finance Director $52,356.00 10.5% $105,356.00 -44.1% $173,417.00 -97.7% 231.2%
Mechanic $34,262.00 -16.2% $43,208.00 -17.2% $54,309.00 -22.8% 58.5%Meter Reader $24,887.00 -4.0% $34,893.00 -16.6% $44,611.00 -24.2% 79.3%
Public Works Foreman $40,460.00 -17.3% $51,337.00 -19.1% $65,475.00 -26.6% 61.8%
Records Clerk $21,672.00 26.5% $28,900.00 21.6% $36,547.00 17.4% 68.6%
Repair Technician I $27,419.00 -20.6% $38,533.00 -35.6% $50,622.00 -48.5% 84.6%
Senior Mechanic $38,357.00 -11.2% $48,226.00 -11.9% $55,798.00 -7.9% 45.5%
Supervisor, Water/Sewer Repair $46,133.00 -8.9% $58,917.00 -11.2% $75,642.00 -19.0% 64.0%
Utility Billing Supervisor $39,124.00 -2.8% $50,110.00 -5.4% $64,125.00 -12.4% 63.9%
Utility Billing Technician I $27,829.00 0.6% $38,148.00 -9.0% $49,505.00 -17.9% 77.9%
Water Treatment Plant Op. $34,625.00 -0.4% $44,496.00 -3.2% $56,989.00 -10.2% 64.6%
-10.6 -14.7 -28.9 73.9
Survey Avg
Range
Overall Average
Classification
Survey Minimum Survey Midpoint Survey Max imum
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
27/36
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 5-1
Utilizing the information from the preceding chapters of this report, Evergreen Solutionsdeveloped recommendations to improve the City’s current classification and compensationsystem. The recommendations are discussed in detail in this chapter, and are organized intothree sections: classification, compensation, and administration of the system.
5.1 CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
An organization’s classification system establishes how its human resources are employed to
perform its core services. The classification system consists of the titles and descriptions ofthe different classifications, or positions, which define how work is organized and assigned. Itis essential that the titles and descriptions of an organization’s classifications accuratelydepict the work being performed by employees in the classifications in order to ensure equitywithin the organization and to enable comparisons with positions at peer organizations. Thepurpose of a classification analysis is to identify such issues as incorrect titles, outdated jobdescriptions, and inconsistent titles across departments. Recommendations are then madeto remedy the identified concerns based on human resources best practices.
In the analysis of the City’s classification system, Evergreen Solutions collected classificationdata through the Job Assessment Tool (JAT) and Management Issues Tool (MIT) processes.The JATs, which were completed by employees and reviewed by their supervisors, provided
information about the type and level of work being performed for each of the City’sclassifications. The MIT process provided supervisors an opportunity to provide specificrecommendations regarding the pay or classification of positions in their areas. EvergreenSolutions reviewed and utilized the data provided in the JATs and MITs as a basis for theclassification recommendations below.
FINDING
The City had many classifications titles that accurately described the work being performedby employees. There were some instances, however, of titles that needed to be adjusted tobetter reflect the tasks assigned to the position.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Revise the titles of some City classifications and establish new titles
based on the work being performed by City employees.
Exhibit 5A
summarizes Evergreen Solutions’ recommended changes to the classificationsystem, which include recommendations for changing 33 classification titles, and creatingtwo new titles. The foundation for these recommendations was the work performed byemployees in these classifications as described in their JATs, as well as best practices in thehuman resources field.
Chapter 5 – Recommendations
E V E R G R E E N S O L U T I O N S , L L C
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
28/36
Chapter 5 – Recommendations Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 5-2
EXHIBIT 5A
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
Current Class Title Proposed Class Title
Admin. Manager, Public Works Executive Assistant
After‐school
Prog.
Coord. Program
Coordinator
Assistant Fire Chief Deputy Fire Chief
Business License Finance Technician
Captain of Administrative Administrative Division Commander
Captain of CID Captain
Captain of Patrol Captain
Chatham Narcotics Team ‐ Corporal Corporal
Chatham Narcotics Team ‐ Sergeant Sergeant
City Desk Receptionist Police Clerk
Clerk of Council/Budget Officer Budget Director/Clerk of Council
Code Enforcement Officer II Code Enforcement Officer, Senior
Community Oriented Police Community Relations Officer
Crew Leader Parks & Recreation Technician, Senior
Director of Public Works Shop Director of Public Works
Evidence Tech Evidence Custodian
Finance Administrator Accounting Division Manager
Fire Admin. Asst. Administrative Assistant
Firefighter I Firefighter
Municipal Court Clerk Court Clerk
New Title Fire Captain Trainee
New Title Terminal Agency Clerk
Parks &
Recreation
Tech
I Parks
&
Recreation
Technician
Patrol Officer Police Officer
Permitting and Inspections Coordinator/Office Manager Permitting and Inspections Coordinator
Public Works Tech II Public Works Technician
Public Works Tech III Heavy Equipment Operator
Repair Tech I Water Operations Technician
Repair Tech II Water Operations Technician, Senior
Supervisor Water/Sewer Repair Water Operations Supervisor
Tech II Water Operations Foreman
Training ‐ Personnel Officer ‐ Sergeant Training Officer
Utility Billing Supervisor Utility Services Supervisor
Utility Billing
Tech
I Utility
Services
Technician
Utility Billing Tech III Utility Services Technician, Senior
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
29/36
Chapter 5 – Recommendations Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 5-3
RECOMMENDATION 2: Revise all job descriptions to include updated classification
information provided in the JAT, FLSA status determinations, and review job descriptions
annually for accuracy.
Evergreen Solutions is in the process of updating the City’s current job descriptions based on
data from the JATs. These revised job descriptions will reflect proper FLSA status and be
provided under separate cover. If possible, it is recommended that the job descriptions and
job titles be reviewed annually to properly maintain the classification system in the future. A
yearly performance evaluation process may provide an opportunity to assess the accuracy of
the duties and responsibilities listed in the job descriptions through a discussion between the
employee and his or her supervisors. If it is determined that duties have changed, it may be
necessary to update the description, title, and pay grade assignment, depending on the
significance of the changes.
5.2 COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The compensation analysis consisted of an external market assessment. During thisassessment, the City’s pay ranges for selected benchmark classifications were compared to
average pay ranges offered in the identified market. Overall, the City’s salary ranges were
below market peers at the minimum, midpoint and maximum. Details of the external market
assessment were discussed inChapter 4
of this report.
FINDING
The City’s salary ranges were behind market for many of the benchmarked classifications
indicating a need for revision to the pay plan structure to remain competitive.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Create a new pay structure for the City that reflects market conditions
and best practices; slot all classifications into the updated pay structure based on external
and internal equity; and transition employees’ salaries into the structure.
Exhibit 5B shows the new proposed pay plan which has 20 open range pay grades, numbered
101 through 120. The range spreads of the pay grades increase from 60.0 percent for grades
101 through 112 to a maximum of 65.0 percent for grades 113 through 120.
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
30/36
Chapter 5 – Recommendations Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 5-4
EXHIBIT 5B
PROPOSED PAY PLAN
After developing the new pay plan, Evergreen Solutions slotted each City classification into
the appropriate pay range in the pay plan. Both the internal and external equity were utilized
when slotting the classifications. Assigning pay grades to classifications requires a balance of
internal equity, desired market position, and recruitment and retention issues all play a role
in that process. Thus market range data shown in Chapter 4 were not the sole criteria for the
proposed pay ranges. Some classifications’ grade assignments varied from their associated
market range due to the other factors mentioned above. The internal assessment took into
consideration the type of work being performed by each classification. Specifically, a
composite compensatory factor score was assigned to each of the City’s classifications that
quantified each classification for five compensatory factors. The level for each factor was
determined based on responses to the JAT, and an understanding of the work performed. The
resulting recommended pay grades for each of the City’s general classifications are shown in
Exhibit 5C
. It should be noted that the recommended title changes are reflected in the exhibit.
Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range
Spread
101 21,100.00$
27,430.00$
33,760.00$
60.0%102 22,894.00$ 29,762.00$ 36,630.00$ 60.0%
103 24,840.00$ 32,292.00$ 39,744.00$ 60.0%
104 26,951.00$ 35,037.00$ 43,122.00$ 60.0%
105 29,242.00$ 38,015.00$ 46,787.00$ 60.0%
106 31,728.00$ 41,247.00$ 50,765.00$ 60.0%
107 34,425.00$ 44,753.00$ 55,080.00$ 60.0%
108 37,351.00$ 48,557.00$ 59,762.00$ 60.0%
109 40,526.00$ 52,684.00$ 64,842.00$ 60.0%
110 43,971.00$ 57,163.00$ 70,354.00$ 60.0%
111 47,709.00$
62,022.00$
76,334.00$
60.0%112 51,764.00$ 67,293.00$ 82,822.00$ 60.0%
113 55,646.00$ 73,731.00$ 91,816.00$ 65.0%
114 59,819.00$ 79,260.00$ 98,701.00$ 65.0%
115 64,305.00$ 85,204.00$ 106,103.00$ 65.0%
116 69,128.00$ 91,595.00$ 114,061.00$ 65.0%
117 74,313.00$ 98,465.00$ 122,616.00$ 65.0%
118 79,886.00$ 105,849.00$ 131,812.00$ 65.0%
119 85,877.00$ 113,787.00$ 141,697.00$ 65.0%
120 92,318.00$ 122,322.00$ 152,325.00$ 65.0%
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
31/36
Chapter 5 – Recommendations Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 5-5
EXHIBIT 5C
PROPOSED PAY GRADES
Proposed Class Title Proposed
Grade
Proposed
Minimum
Proposed
Midpoint
Proposed
Maximum
Public Works
Technician
Water Operations Technician
Meter Reader
Parks & Recreation Technician
Police Clerk
Parks & Recreation Technician, Senior
Records Clerk
Terminal Agency Clerk
Utility Services Technician
Wastewater Treatment Operator Trainee
Water Treatment
Plant
Operator
Trainee
Administrative Assistant
Court Clerk
Evidence Custodian
Facilities Maintenance Coordinator
Heavy Equipment Operator
Mechanic
Water Operations Technician, Senior
Back‐flow Prevention Assembly Tester
Finance Technician
Permitting and
Inspections
Coordinator
Police Officer
Program Coordinator
Public Works Foreman
Utility Services Technician, Senior
Code Enforcement Officer
Community Relations Officer
Executive Assistant
Mechanic, Senior
Recreation Programs Coordinator
Senior
Center
ManagerUtility Services Supervisor
Wastewater Treatment Operator
Water Operations Foreman
Code Enforcement Officer, Senior
Detective
Firefighter
109 40,526.00$ 52,684.00$ 64,842.00$
107 34,425.00$ 44,753.00$ 55,080.00$
108 37,351.00$ 48,557.00$ 59,762.00$
105 29,242.00$ 38,015.00$ 46,787.00$
106 31,728.00$ 41,247.00$ 50,765.00$
102 22,894.00$ 29,762.00$ 36,630.00$
103 24,840.00$ 32,292.00$ 39,744.00$
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
32/36
Chapter 5 – Recommendations Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 5-6
EXHIBIT 5C (CONTINUED)
PROPOSED PAY GRADES
In addition to ensuring internal equity and helping to alleviate problems with recruitment and
retention, the proposed pay grade assignments will considerably improve the City’s market
position. Exhibit 5F shows the overall average percent difference from market for the
benchmarked classifications at the time of the study, and displays the same in the event that
the proposed pay structure is implemented.
Proposed Class Title Proposed
Grade
Proposed
Minimum
Proposed
Midpoint
Proposed
Maximum
CorporalFire Captain Trainee
Training Officer
Water Operations Supervisor
Accounting Division Manager
Sergeant
Lieutenant 112 51,764.00$ 67,293.00$ 82,822.00$
Administrative Division Commander
Captain
Fire Captain
Budget
Director/Clerk
of
CouncilDeputy Fire Chief
Director of Building Safety
Director of Human Resources
Director of Information Technology
Director of Parks & Recreation
Director of Public Works
Director of Water Operations
Director of Finance
Fire Chief
Police Chief
Deputy City Manager 118 79,886.00$ 105,849.00$ 131,812.00$
City Manager 120 92,318.00$ 122,322.00$ 152,325.00$
114 59,819.00$ 79,260.00$ 98,701.00$
116 69,128.00$ 91,595.00$ 114,061.00$
111 47,709.00$ 62,022.00$ 76,334.00$
113 55,646.00$ 73,731.00$ 91,816.00$
110 43,971.00$ 57,163.00$ 70,354.00$
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
33/36
Chapter 5 – Recommendations Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 5-7
EXHIBIT 5F
OVERALL MARKET DIFFERENTIAL COMPARISON
As the exhibit shows, the proposed pay grades significantly improve the overall average
differentials for the City’s benchmarked classifications, bringing the City’s benchmarked
classifications from below market to a market competitive position at the midpoint and the
maximum. While, on average, the proposed pay grades (structure) would not place the City at
market at the minimum, its position would be greatly improved. If the new structure is
implemented, the City’s pay plan, overall, will be competitive with its peers.
After assigning pay grades to classifications, the next step of implementing the compensation
structure is to transition employee salaries into the new pay plan. This is done by establishing
a method of calculating salaries in the new pay grades and determining whether an
adjustment is necessary to individual employee salaries to bring them to their calculated
salary. Evergreen Solutions utilized two methods in calculating employee salaries, with the
possibility of implementing them individually or together.
Option 1: Bring Employee Salaries to New Minimums
In this method, employees’ current salaries were compared to the minimum of their proposed
pay grades. If an employee’s current salary was below his or her grade minimum, an
adjustment was proposed to raise the individual’s salary to the minimum. If the employee’scurrent salary was already above his or her grade minimum, no adjustment was
recommended.
Utilizing this approach, salary adjustments are recommended for 37 City employees, with an
approximate annualized cost of 67,314. The approximate cost is for salary adjustments only
and does not include associated cost for employee benefits.
Option 2: Current Range Penetration, Capped at Midpoint
If this option is implemented, and if an employee's salary is already above the minimum of
their classification's proposed pay range, it is adjusted to the same relative position in the
proposed pay structure. For example, if an employee's salary is 40 percent of the way through
their current pay range, the salary will be adjusted to the 40 percent mark of the proposed
range. However, any salary adjustment would be capped at the midpoint of the proposed
salary range. Utilizing this approach, salary adjustments are recommended for 87 City
employees, with an approximate annualized cost of263,693.
This includes the bring
Comparison
Overall %
Difference at
Minimum
Overall %
Difference at
Midpoint
Overall %
Difference at
MaximumCurrent Pay Grades ‐8.4% ‐10.4% ‐12.1%
Proposed Pay Grades ‐1.8% 1.0% 1.8%
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
34/36
Chapter 5 – Recommendations Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 5-8
employee salaries to minimum cost, as illustrated above, and is the approximate cost for
salary adjustments only and does not include associated costs for employee benefits.
5.3 SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION
Any organization’s compensation and classification system will need periodic maintenance.The recommendations provided to improve the competiveness of the classification and
compensation structure were developed based on conditions at the time the data were
collected. Without proper upkeep, the potential for recruitment and retention issues may
increase as the compensation and classification system becomes dated and less competitive.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Conduct small-scale salary surveys as needed to assess the market
competitiveness of hard-to-fill classifications and/or classifications with retention issues, and
make adjustments to pay grade assignments if necessary, and offer recruitment and/or
retention incentives for certain classifications, if necessary.
While it is unlikely that the pay plan as a whole will need to be adjusted for several years, asmall number of classifications’ pay grades may need to be reassigned more frequently. If
one or more classifications are exhibiting high turnover or are having difficulty with
recruitment, the City should collect salary range data from peer organizations to determine
whether an adjustment is needed for the pay grade of the classification(s). If increasing a
classification’s pay grade based on market data does not help with the recruitment and/or
retention issues, it may be necessary for the City to offer incentives to attract employees to
the position and/or to encourage employees to remain in the position.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study
every three to five years.
Small-scale salary surveys can improve the market position of specific classifications, but it is
recommended that a full classification and compensation study be conducted every three to
five years to preserve both internal and external equity for the City. Changes to classification
and compensation do occur, and while the increments of change may seem minor, they can
compound over time. A failure to react to these changes quickly has the potential to place the
City in a poor position for recruiting and retaining quality employees.
While the previous two recommendations are intended to maintain the competitiveness over
time of particular classifications and the classification and compensation structure as a
whole, it is also necessary to establish procedures for determining equitable pay practices for
individual employees.
RECOMMENDATION 6: Establish policies for moving employee salaries through the pay plan,
including procedures for determining salaries of newly hired employees and employees who
have been promoted, demoted, or transferred to a different classification or department.
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
35/36
Chapter 5 – Recommendations Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Eve r g r een So l u t i on s , LL C Page 5-9
The method of moving salaries through the pay plan and setting new salaries for new hires,
promotions, demotions, and transfers depends largely on an organization’s compensation
philosophy. However, it is important for the City to have established guidelines for each of
these situations, and to ensure that they are followed consistently for all employees. Common
practices for progressing and establishing employee salaries are outlined below.
Salary Progression
There are several common methods for salary progression including cost of living adjustments
(COLA), time based, and performance based merit pay. Organizations sometimes utilize
multiple methods together to reward employees. For example, merit pay is often used in
tandem with a COLA, so that a minimum increase tied to a measure of inflation is awarded to
all employees and an additional percentage increase is earned by employees with positive
evaluations. Employers in the private sector, and more recently, employers in the public sector
have been moving away from COLA and time based salary progression, moving more towards
performance based systems. However, in order for a merit pay system to work effectively, a
fair, organization-wide performance evaluation system must be in place, and supervisors and
management should receive proper training to ensure equitable administration of theprocess.
New Hires
A new employee’s starting salary largely depends on the amount of education and experience
the employee possesses beyond the minimum requirements for the job. Typically, an
employee holding only the minimum education and experience requirements for a
classification is hired at or near the classification’s pay grade minimum. An upper limit to the
percentage above minimum that can be offered to a new employee with only the minimum
requirements should be established, where approval is needed to offer a starting salary that
is a higher percentage above minimum. Another threshold should be established as themaximum starting salary possible without approval for new employees with considerable
experience and/or education above the requirements for the position. It is common for the
midpoint to be used as the maximum starting salary. All starting salaries should take into
consideration internal equity, meaning that determining a new hire salary should be done with
consideration of existing employee salaries with similar levels of education and experience in
the classification.
Promotions
When an employee is promoted to a new classification, it is important to have guidelines for
calculating the employee’s new salary that rewards the employee for his or her new
responsibilities, moving the salary into the new pay grade, and ensuring internal equity in thenew classification. It is common for organizations to establish a minimum percentage salary
increase that depends on the increase in pay grade as a result of the promotion. For example,
if an employee moves into the next pay grade, he or she may receive a minimum of a 3 to 5
percent increase, and if the individual moves up two pay grades he or she may experience an
increase closer to 6 to 10 percent. Regardless of the minimum percent increase, the
employee’s new salary should be within the new pay grade’s range, and internal equity of
salaries within the classification should be preserved.
-
8/21/2019 Garden City Classification and Compensation Study - Final
36/36
Chapter 5 – Recommendations Comprehensive Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Garden City GA
Transfers
An employee transfer occurs when an employee is reassigned to a classification at the same
pay grade as his or her current classification or when an employee’s classification stays the
same, but his or her department changes. In either of these cases, it is likely that no
adjustment is necessary to the employee’s salary. The only situation in which a salary
adjustment would be needed for a transferred employee would be if his or her current salary
is not aligned with the salaries of employees in the new classification or department. If that
occurs, it may be necessary to adjust the salary of the employee or the incumbents of the
classification to ensure salary equity within the new classification.
5.4 SUMMARY
The recommendations in this chapter establish a competitive pay plan, externally and
internally equitable classification titles and pay grade assignments, and system
administration practices that will provide the City with a responsive compensation and
classification system for years to come. While the upkeep of this recommended system willrequire work, the City will find that having a competitive compensation and classification
system that encourages strong recruitment and employee retention is well worth this
commitment.