November 12, 2020 Evergreen Salary Workshop

Open with transcript & summary →Search this meeting's transcript →

The Commissioner's Court of Hood County convened in special session to review compensation and staffing studies conducted by Evergreen Solutions LLC, presented by consultant Angel Yazbek. The compensation study identified salary competitiveness concerns and pay compression issues within the current system, leading to a proposed new pay plan with 22 grades and 55 percent range spreads, though implementation remains on hold due to COVID-19 budget constraints. The concurrent staffing study analyzed internal job duties and external peer data from thirteen counties, finding that Hood County's overall staffing levels generally align with peer organizations, though county leadership emphasized unique geographic and service demands requiring ongoing departmental review. The court indicated that detailed departmental analysis and salary implementation decisions would proceed through the 2021 budget workshop process.

• Call to order and meeting detailsThe Commissioner's Court of Hood County convened in special session to review compensation and staffing studies conducted by Evergreen Solutions LLC.
• Consultant introduction and study scopeConsultant Angel Yazbek introduced the compensation and staffing studies, outlining the methodology and findings to be presented.
• Study tasks completedEvergreen completed most study-related tasks including employee outreach, assessment of the current PACE system, compensation philosophy review, and internal and external equity analyses.
• Employee feedback and concernsSupervisors and senior leaders identified strengths in employee satisfaction but raised concerns about salary competitiveness and pay compression.
• Current pay system assessmentAnalysis revealed inconsistent classification assignment and identified that most employees earned below the midpoint of their salary ranges.
• Compensation philosophy and pay plan structureThe county expressed desire for market-competitive, equitable, and flexible pay practices, leading to a proposed open-range pay plan structure.
• Classification review and compensable factor analysisConsultant utilized compensable factor scoring methodology to determine internal hierarchy and ranking of classifications within and across departments.
• External equity analysis and peer comparisonThirteen public sector peers contributed salary data for 54 benchmark classifications, with an average of 6.0 matches per classification representing good market representation.
• Compensation system recommendationsNew pay plan proposed with 22 pay grades, 55 percent range spreads, and individually assigned classifications respecting both market data and internal hierarchy.
• Implementation options and budget constraintsMultiple implementation options were developed to address salary compression, but implementation is currently on hold due to COVID-19 budget constraints.
• Peer county information and salary dataAttendee inquired about which peer counties contributed data; consultant explained that counties in black on the map did not provide salary information.
• Benefits package scope and qualityConsultant clarified that study addressed salary only, though employee feedback indicated appreciation for benefits, which Hood County offers at competitive levels including top-tier retirement.
• Staffing study introductionConsultant transitioned to staffing study, conducted concurrently with salary survey to obtain sufficient peer data.
• Internal staffing analysis methodologyAnalysis included job assessment tool review, determination of classification duties and responsibilities, and department head interviews to validate findings.
• Department head feedback topicsDepartment heads provided insight on workload compared to peers, service consolidation versus specialization, and employee cross-training levels.
• External staffing analysis and peer data collectionAll county classifications were included in external staffing analysis by sending brief job descriptions to peers for matching purposes.
• Staffing levels by department and comparisonsStaffing levels table from exhibit D shows Hood County staffing by department excluding elected officials, with overall numbers generally comparable to peer averages.
• Staffing findings and recommendationsOverall staffing aligns with peer organizations, but continuous review of departmental needs is necessary to ensure adequate service delivery.
• Sheriff coverage comparison and Hood County uniquenessAttendee raised questions about law enforcement staffing comparisons with Johnson County and Erath County, highlighting Hood County's unique geographic and demographic characteristics.
• Hood County law enforcement geographic and service demandsSheriff and attendees emphasized Hood County's unique rural geography requiring coverage from Crescent to Toller to Lifhand and other areas without dedicated police departments.
• Staffing analysis methodology and departmental considerationsConsultant addressed how individual departmental duties and additional responsibilities were considered in matching staffing levels to peer counties.
• Classification uniformity and pay grade concernsConsultant explained the problem with same classifications assigned to different pay grades and how the new pay plan addresses this inequity.
• Job title revisions and differentiationCommissioner noted that report recognized need to change some classifications to better reflect job duties, with examples of clerk differentiation.
• Open range pay plan flexibility for merit increasesConsultant explained how open-range plan provides flexibility for merit-based and performance-based compensation adjustments compared to rigid step plans.
• Next steps: budget process and departmental reviewCounty leadership indicated that detailed departmental review with commissioners and auditor would follow, using study findings during 2021 budget workshops.
• Current meeting quorum status and future commissionersChair noted absence of quorum but affirmed study value for future budget process; acknowledged newly elected commissioners' participation in meetings.
• 2021 salary implementation timelineDiscussion of when salary adjustments would take effect following election results.
• Budget constraints and prior-year salary timingPrior budget limitations prevented timely salary adjustment implementation in the previous year.
• Closing remarks and meeting conclusionMeeting concluded with acknowledgment of fair treatment and questions from commissioners.