HomeMy Public PortalAboutORD16322BILL NO. 2022-109
SPONSORED BY Councilmember Hensley
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI ACCEPTING THE
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS COMPENSATION STUDY, ADOPTING SALARY
ADJUSTMENTS, AND APPROVING NECESSARY BUDGET
ADJUSTMENTS/SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Jefferson, Missouri hereby accepts the Evergreen Solutions
Compensation Study and adopts the compensation recommendations, attached as Exhibit
A.
Section 2. There is hereby supplementally appropriated within the Parks Fund
$14,694.89, within the Parking Fund $4,562.44, and within the Wastewater Fund
$38,473.73, as indicated on Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Section 3. This Ordinance authorizes the City Administrator to approve the
necessary budget adjustments, as indicated on Exhibit C, attached hereto.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect as of March 6, 2023.
Passed: Likewch CP1 X?3
Presiding Officer
ATTEST:
Cit ' Clerk
Approved: i %/ O 23
Mayor Carrie Tergin
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City ,f(tt• ney
EXHIBIT A
Compensation Study for the
City of Jefferson, MO
FINAL REPORT
Evergreen Solutions, LLC
January 10, 2023
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Study Methodology ............................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Report Organization........................................................................................... 1-2
2.0 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS ................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Analysis of Pay Plans ......................................................................................... 2.1
2.2 Grade Placement Analysis ................................................................................ 2-3
2.3 Quartile Analysis ................................................................................................ 2-4
2.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 2-8
3.0 MARKET SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Market Data ....................................................................................................... 3-3
3.2 Salary Survey Conclusion .................................................................................. 3-8
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Compensation Recommendations ................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Compensation and Classification System Administration .............................. 4-5
4.3 Summary ......................................................................................................... 4-10
APPENDIX: POSITION GRADE ASSIGNMENTS
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Table of Contents
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-1
The leadership of Jefferson City, MO (the “City) in keeping with its commitment to attracting
and retaining the staff necessary to provide high quality services to its employees and citizens
determined that its current compensation system needed to be updated to reflect market best
practices. Evergreen Solutions, LLC (“Evergreen”) was selected by the City as its partner to
accomplish this goal. This study and the analysis contained within provides the City with
valuable information related to their employee demographics, market data, and internal and
external equity. This study aims to address how the City is positioned in the market relative to
other Cities in the state and to other local area government organizations with similar
positions. The data gathered during the market portion of this study were used to develop
recommendations that allow the City to recruit and retain quality employees.
1.1 STUDY METHODOLOGY
Evergreen combines qualitative and quantitative data analysis to produce recommendations
that maximize the fairness and competitiveness of an organization’s compensation structure
and practices. It is important to note that the data utilized in the study represents a snapshot
in time. As market conditions can change rapidly, it is important for the City to conduct regular
market surveys to ensure their external market position does not decay. A full compensation
and classification review is recommended approximately every five years. Some examples of
project activities included:
Conducting a project kick-off meeting;
Conducting an analysis on the internal conditions at the City;
Conducting an external market salary survey;
Developing recommendations for compensation management;
Realigning positions based on the market results;
Developing recommendations for compensation changes; and
Creating draft and final reports;
Kickoff Meeting
The kickoff meeting provided an opportunity to finalize the work plan and begin the data
collection process. Data collection included the gathering of relevant background material
including existing pay plans, organization charts, policies, procedures, training materials,
classification specifications, and other pertinent material.
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 1 - Introduction Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-2
Internal Analysis
The internal analysis was run on data provided by the City. Checks were run to evaluate
employees’ salaries compared to the minimum, midpoint, and maximum of their pay ranges,
as well as evaluating the employees’ salaries against the “expected salary” that an employee
would expect to make based on the number of years an employee has spent in their current
classification.
Salary Survey
The external market for this study was defined as identified local governmental organizations
in the State of Missouri with similar positions, characteristics, demographics, and service
offerings. Representative benchmark classifications were selected by Evergreen in
consultation with the City. The benchmark classifications were included in the market survey
and sent to each peer for a market comparison, although not all City positions had matching
positions in the peer organizations. The data were then analyzed comparing City
classifications to the jobs performing the same duties at peer organizations to gain a fuller
understanding of their market position.
Recommendations
Evergreen developed recommendations for the City to consider helping maximize the
effectiveness and efficiency of its current compensation structure. Evergreen provided
recommendations designed to fix the issues identified in this report, while continuing to build
on the strengths the City currently exhibits.
1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report includes the following additional chapters:
Chapter 2 – Assessment of Current Conditions
Chapter 3 – Market Summary
Chapter 4 – Recommendations
Chapter 2 - Assessment of Current Conditions
An assessment of current conditions was conducted to help Evergreen better understand the
current standing of all City pay plans, demographics, and compensation structures. This
assessment should be considered a snapshot in time and reflects the conditions within the
City upon this study's start. By leveraging this information, Evergreen gained a better
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the current compensation system. When
combined with the market results, the Assessment of Current Conditions helped provide a
basis for recommendations. A full summary of the Assessment of Current Conditions can be
found in Chapter 2 of this report.
Chapter 1 - Introduction Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-3
Chapter 3 - Market Summary
A salary survey was designed by Evergreen and approved by the City. After the results were
received, the data were analyzed to compare the City to the overall results from public-sector
peers. Combined with the Assessment of Current Conditions, the market survey gave
Evergreen the information needed to understand the City’s position relative to its labor
market. A full summary of the market results can be found in Chapter 3 of this report.
Chapter 4 – Recommendations
During the recommendations phase, Evergreen provided solution options based on their
current relationship to market. Evergreen has given the City recommendations that will
leverage the strengths of the current compensation structure and help expand its ability to
recruit and retain talent in the most competitive classifications. A full explanation of the
recommendations can be found in Chapter 4 of this report.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-1
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a statistical analysis of the classification and
compensation system in place at the City at the start of this study. The assessment is divided
into the following sections:
2.1 Analysis of Pay Plans
2.2 Grade Placement Analysis
2.3 Quartile Analysis
2.4 Compression Analysis
2.5 Conclusion
The analysis represented in this chapter represents a snapshot in time – this chapter was
built from employee information collected in March of 2022. Every organization changes
continuously, so this chapter is not meant to be a definitive statement on continuing
compensation practices in the City. Rather, this AOCC is meant to represent the conditions
that were in place when this study began. The data contained in provide the baseline for
analyses through this study but are not sufficient cause for recommendations in isolation. By
reviewing employee data, Evergreen gained a better understanding of the structure and
methods in place and identified issues for both further review and potential revision.
2.1 ANALYSIS OF PAY PLANS
The purpose of analyzing the pay plan used within the City is to help gain an overview of the
compensation philosophy as it existed when the study began. The City had a system in place
that used numeric pay grades to represent classifications of varying level and responsibility.
For this report's purpose, Evergreen only analyzed pay grades occupied by full-time
employees. Exhibit 2A displays the City’s pay plan. The exhibit provides the name; each pay
grade on the plan; the value of each pay grade at minimum, midpoint and maximum; the range
spread for each pay grade – which is a measure of the distance between the minimum and
maximum of the grade; the midpoint progression between grades; and the number of
employees per pay grade.
The City’s pay plan includes eighteen occupied pay grades that hold 324 employees (it is
important to note that the Police ranks were excluded from these employees counts and
subsequent tables). The range spread of all the grades is 50 percent. Pay grades 7 and 28
only have a single employee each, while pay grade 16 contains the most employees with 96.
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 2 – Assessment of Current
Conditions
Chapter 2 - Assessment of Current Condition Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-2
EXHIBIT 2A
PAY PLAN SUMMARY
Comparing the summary data in Exhibit 2A to best practices, a few observations can be
made regarding the City’s pay plan. Based on the analysis of the pay plan, the following facts
can be observed:
Range spreads are set at a static 50 percent. In the market, range spreads are typically
set anywhere between 50 and 70 percent.
The number of employees on each pay grade is widely varied. Multiple pay grades have
only one incumbent occupying the grade, while several have over thirty employees.
The minimum annual pay offered to any City employee is $29,831 while the maximum
salary of any pay grade is $180,871.
Pay Plan Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum
Range
Spread
Midpoint
Progression Employees
General 7 29,831$ 37,289$ 44,747$ 50% ‐ 1
General 8 31,323$ 39,154$ 46,985$ 50% 5% 2
General 9 32,889$ 41,111$ 49,334$ 50% 5% 38
General 10 34,534$ 43,167$ 51,800$ 50% 5% 39
General 11 36,260$ 45,325$ 54,390$ 50% 5% 3
General 12 38,073$ 47,592$ 57,110$ 50% 5% 28
General 13 39,977$ 49,971$ 59,965$ 50% 5% 13
General 14 41,976$ 52,470$ 62,964$ 50% 5% 40
General 15 44,075$ 55,093$ 66,112$ 50% 5% 4
General 16 46,278$ 57,848$ 69,418$ 50% 5% 55
General 17 48,592$ 60,740$ 72,888$ 50% 5% 29
General 18 51,022$ 63,777$ 76,533$ 50% 5% 33
General 19 53,573$ 66,966$ 80,359$ 50% 5% 6
General 20 56,252$ 70,315$ 84,377$ 50% 5% 2
General 21 61,877$ 77,346$ 92,815$ 50% 10% 17
General 23 74,871$ 93,589$ 112,306$ 50% 21% 5
General 25 90,594$ 113,242$ 135,891$ 50% 21% 8
General 28 120,580$ 150,725$ 180,871$ 50% 33% 1
Chapter 2 - Assessment of Current Condition Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-3
2.2 GRADE PLACEMENT ANALYSIS
The Grade Placement Analysis examines how employee salaries are distributed throughout
the pay grades. This can help identify salary progression issues, which are usually
accompanied by employee salaries that are clustered in segments of the pay grades.
A clustering of employee salaries in the lower part of ranges can indicate a lack of salary
progression for employees or an elevated level of employee turnover. A clustering of employee
salaries in the high end of pay ranges can be a sign of high employee tenure or a sign that the
pay ranges are behind market, forcing the organization to offer salaries near the maximum of
the range to new hires. Regarding minimum and maximum salaries, employees at the grade
minimum are typically newer to the organization or to the classification, while employees at
the grade maximum are typically highly experienced and highly proficient in their
classification. The Grade Placement Analysis examines how salaries compare to pay range
minimums, midpoints, and maximums. Only pay grades with at least one incumbent are
included in this analysis.
Exhibit 2B displays the percentage and number of employees compensated at their pay grade
minimum and pay grade maximum. The percentages presented are based on the total number
of employees in that grade. As can be seen in the exhibit, 6.8 percent (22 total) of all
employees are compensated at their pay grade’s minimum. A much smaller percentage of
employees, at 0.9 percent (3 total), are compensated at their pay grade’s maximum.
EXHIBIT 2B
EMPLOYEES AT MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM BY GRADE
Grade Employees # at Min % at Min # at Max % at Max
7100.0%00.0%
82150.0%00.0%
93837.9%00.0%
10 39 0 0.0% 1 2.6%
11 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
12 28 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
13 13 10 76.9% 0 0.0%
14 40 1 2.5% 0 0.0%
15 4 1 25.0% 0 0.0%
16 55 3 5.5% 0 0.0%
17 29 1 3.4% 2 6.9%
18 33 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
19 6 1 16.7% 0 0.0%
20 2 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
21 17 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
23 5 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
25 8 1 12.5% 0 0.0%
28 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total 324 22 6.8% 3 0.9%
Chapter 2 - Assessment of Current Condition Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-4
In addition to assessing the number of employees at minimum and maximum, an analysis
was conducted to determine the number of employees below and above pay grade midpoint.
The percentages refer to the percentage of employees in each pay grade that are above and
below midpoint. Exhibit 2C shows the results of this analysis: 270 employees are
compensated below their pay grade midpoint, 83.3 percent of all employees for the City. There
are 54 employees compensated above midpoint of their pay grade, which is 16.7 percent of
all employees.
EXHIBIT 2C
EMPLOYEES ABOVE AND BELOW MIDPOINT BY PAY GRADE
2.3 QUARTILE ANALYSIS
The last part of the Grade Placement Analysis is a detailed look at how salaries are distributed
through pay grades, through a quartile analysis. Here, each pay grade is divided into four
segments of equal width, called quartiles. The first quartile represents the first 25 percent of
the pay range; the second quartile represents the part of the range above the first quartile up
to the mathematical midpoint; the third quartile represents the part of the range from the
midpoint to 75 percent of the pay range; and the fourth quartile represents the part of the
range above the third quartile up to the pay range maximum. Employees are assigned to a
quartile within their pay range based on their current salary.
Grade Employees # < Mid % < Mid # > Mid % > Mid
7 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0%
8 2 2 100.0% 0 0.0%
9 38 34 89.5% 4 10.5%
10 39 33 84.6% 6 15.4%
11 3 3 100.0% 0 0.0%
12 28 27 96.4% 1 3.6%
13 13 13 100.0% 0 0.0%
14 40 38 95.0% 2 5.0%
15 4 3 75.0% 1 25.0%
16 55 47 85.5% 8 14.5%
17 29 24 82.8% 5 17.2%
18 33 24 72.7% 9 27.3%
19 6 4 66.7% 2 33.3%
20 2 1 50.0% 1 50.0%
21 17 11 64.7% 6 35.3%
23 5 2 40.0% 3 60.0%
25 8 4 50.0% 4 50.0%
28 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0%
Total 324 270 83.3% 54 16.7%
Chapter 2 - Assessment of Current Condition Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-5
The quartile analysis is used to determine the location of employee salary clusters. Quartile
analysis helps identify whether clusters exist in specific quartiles of pay grades. Additionally,
the amount of time the employee has spent at the organization is also analyzed, to observe
any relationship between organizational tenure and salary progression. This information, while
not definitive alone, can shed light on any root issues within the current compensation and
classification plan when combined with market data and employee feedback.
Exhibit 2D shows the number of employees that are in each quartile of each grade, as well as
the average overall tenure (i.e., how long an employee has worked for the City) by quartile.
Overall, data provides that 65.1 percent of employees fall into Quartile 1 of their respective
grade; 18.2 percent fall into Quartile 2; 10.5 percent fall into Quartile 3; and 6.2 percent fall
into Quartile 4. While this distribution does not lead to a conclusion, data for average tenure
does lead to determinations on the relationship between tenure and salary.
Overall average tenure increases as quartile increases; the average tenure in Quartile 1 is 8.4
years; in Quartile 2 is 16 years; in Quartile 3 is 19.9 years; and in Quartile 4 is 25.2 years. This
indicates that employees are moved through their pay grades equitably, or at least a positive
linear relationship exists between tenure and pay.
Exhibit 2E displays a graphical representation of the data contained in Exhibit 2D. Each pay
grade is divided into up to four sections representing the percentage of employees in that pay
grade who belong in each quartile. For example, pay grade 8 has zero employees in Quartile
2, 3, or 4. That pay grade is represented by a 100 percent blue bar, showing that 100 percent
of pay grade 8 employees are in Quartile 1. Pay grades 16 – 19, however, have employees in
all four quartiles, represented by bars displaying all four colors.
Chapter 2 - Assessment of Current Condition Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-6 EXHIBIT 2D QUARTILE ANALYSIS AND TIME WITH THE ORGANIZATION # Employees Avg Tenure # Employees Avg Tenure # Employees Avg Tenure# Employees Avg Tenure7119.70‐0‐119.70‐8 2 1.9 2 1.9 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐9 38 10.8 31 6.4 3 20.7 1 27.0 3 40.310 39 8.5 27 5.6 6 10.8 4 16.4 2 25.111 3 2.0 3 2.0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐12 28 8.8 22 6.2 5 16.5 1 29.3 0 ‐13 13 3.2 13 3.2 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐14 40 10.3 32 9.4 6 13.5 2 16.4 0 ‐15 4 13.4 2 4.0 1 20.5 0 ‐ 1 24.816 55 13.0 40 10.3 7 18.9 5 24.2 3 16.717 29 16.8 13 13.6 11 16.7 2 25.3 3 25.918 33 16.7 17 12.7 7 19.3 7 20.5 2 28.419 6 14.4 3 5.7 1 23.6 1 22.7 1 23.020 2 8.8 0 ‐ 1 1.8 1 15.9 0 ‐21 17 15.6 3 14.8 8 13.9 4 17.9 2 19.423 5 22.0 2 26.4 0 ‐ 2 19.2 1 18.625 8 16.2 1 12.6 3 14.7 2 14.7 2 21.828 1 8.3 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 1 8.3 0 ‐Overall 324 12.0 211 8.4 59 16.0 34 19.9 20 25.24th QuartileAverage TenureGRADETotal Employees1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile
Chapter 2 - Assessment of Current Condition Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-7 EXHIBIT 2E QUARTILE PLACEMENT BY PAY GRADE
Chapter 2 - Assessment of Current Condition Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-8
Studying the data from the following exhibits can reveal certain patterns. One thing that can
be observed is the percentage of employees in Quartile 1 generally decreasing as you progress
through the grades. For example, you can observe the blue Quartile 1 bars decreasing from
pay grades 13 through 28. This indicates that as employees on the pay plan move up into the
highest pay grades, they are progressing through the individual pay range, too. There are many
reasons why this might be the case. One explanation is that employees who are promoted in
the City could be expected to have progressed through their current pay grade to near the
maximum. Then when they are promoted, they do not start back over at their new pay grade
minimum, as that would result in a pay decrease. Instead, when an employee is promoted,
they might start towards the midpoint of their new pay grade from day one. Another
explanation is as you move to higher pay grades, positions are more competitive on the open
market. There are typically more certifications required, more experience is desirable, and
there are fewer employees available to fill the position. That requires the hiring managers to
bid up the price of a new hire to attract high quality employees. It is impossible to determine
why this pattern is occurring without more data. However, it is something that bears watching
in the future, as the City could gather valuable information about itself.
2.4 CONCLUSION
The City utilizes one pay plan to classify employees. This provides a unified approach to allow
the City to adjust the pay plan as much or as little as needed for all employees at once. There
were many observations made about the City’s compensation system at the start of the study.
Range spreads are set to 50 percent for each pay grade.
Most employees are paid below their pay grade midpoint.
More than half of employees (65.1 percent) are in Quartile 1 of their pay grade. This
can indicate a workforce with a high turnover, a workforce experiencing compression,
or that has recently expanded with many new hires. Further analysis is required to
determine the cause of this imbalance.
While there will always be outliers, the City has a consistent and positive relationship
between tenure and pay grade penetration.
This analysis acts as a starting point for the development of recommendations in subsequent
chapters of this report. Paired with market data, Evergreen can make recommendations that
will ensure that the City compensation system is structurally sound in terms of best practice,
competitive with the market, and treats all employees equitably moving forward.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-1
The market summary chapter benchmarks the City’s compensation practices against its
market peers to establish how competitive the City is for employees within its market. To
complete this market study, Evergreen compared pay ranges of select benchmark positions
that the City possesses against the compensation of positions performing those same duties
within peer organizations. By aggregating the differences in pay ranges across all the
positions, a reasonable determination is made as to the City’s competitive position within the
market. The City wanted to look at the difference between competing in the 50th percent and
70th percent of the market. Competing in the 70th percentile would be a more aggressive
approach for the City. These two positionings are discussed in this chapter.
It is important to note that individual salaries are not analyzed in this methodology, since
individual compensation can be affected by several variables such as experience and
performance. For this reason, Evergreen looked at average pay ranges across the entire
classification to make the most accurate comparison. The results of this market study should
be considered reflective of the current state of the market at the time of this study; however,
market conditions can change rapidly. Consequently, it is necessary to perform market
surveys of peer organizations at regular intervals for an organization to consistently monitor
its position within the market. Furthermore, the market results detailed in this chapter provide
a foundation for understanding the City’s overall structural standing to the market, and the
rates reflected in this chapter, while a crucial factor, are not the sole determinant for how
classifications were placed into the proposed salary ranges outlined in Chapter 4.
Evergreen conducted a comprehensive market salary survey for the City, which included 17
peers including cities, a county, a non-profit association, and the State. Target peers were
selected based on several factors, including geographic proximity and population size. Target
organizations were also identified for their competition to the City for employee recruitment
and retention efforts. The list of targets provided data for this study are included in Exhibit 3A.
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 3 – Market Summary
Chapter 3 – Market Summary Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-2
EXHIBIT 3A
TARGET MARKET PEERS
Since the data collected for the market summary was from various regions of Missouri, it was
necessary to adjust peer responses relative to the City based on cost-of-living. For all
organizations that fell outside the City’s immediate region, a cost-of-living adjustment was
applied to the reported pay ranges to ensure the market average was attained in terms of the
spending power an employee would have in the City. Evergreen utilizes cost-of-living index
information from the Council for Community and Economic Research, and the scale is based
on the national average cost of living being set at 100. The cost-of-living index figures for The
City and each of the respondent market peers are in Exhibit 3B.
Ashland, MO
Blue Springs, MO
Boone County, MO
Cape Girardeau, MO
Clayton, MO
Columbia, MO
Florissant, MO
Fulton, MO
Independence, MO
Joplin, MO
Mid-America Regional Council
O'Fallon, MO
St. Charles, MO
St. Joseph, MO
State of Missouri
University City, MO
Wentzville, MO
Target Respondents
Chapter 3 – Market Summary Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-3
EXHIBIT 3B
RESPONDENTS WITH COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS
3.1 MARKET DATA
The results of the market study are displayed in Exhibits 3C-1 and 3C-2, representing the City’s
positioning in the 50th percentile and 70th percentile, respectively. These exhibits include the
benchmark job titles and the market average salaries for each position at the minimum,
midpoint, and maximum points of the pay ranges. Also included within the exhibits are the
percentage differentials of the City’s pay ranges at each respective point, relative to the
market average pay. A positive percent differential is indicative of the City’s pay range
exceeding that of the average of its market peers, while a negative differential indicates the
City’s compensation for a given position lagged behind the peer average. The exhibits also
include the average pay range for the market respondents for each position, as well as how
many responses each benchmark received.
While all benchmarks are surveyed by each peer, not every peer organization possesses an
appropriate match to supply salary information for. Consequently, the benchmarks receive
varying levels of response. For this study’s purpose, all positions that received less than five
matches from market peers were not considered in establishing the City’s competitive
position. The rationale behind these positions being excluded is that insufficient response can
lead to unreliable averages that may skew the aggregated data, blurring the reality of the
City’s actual position in the market. Fifty-eight of the 72 positions surveyed had a sufficient
response for inclusion.
Market Peers Cost of Living
Index
Ashland, MO 92.4
Blue Springs, MO 92.4
Boone County, MO 92.4
Cape Girardeau, MO 91.3
Clayton, MO 104.2
Columbia, MO 92.4
Florissant, MO 104.2
Fulton, MO 90.0
Independence, MO 92.4
Jefferson City, MO 94.6
Joplin, MO 87.6
MARC 92.4
O'Fallon, MO 95.7
St. Charles, MO 95.7
St. Joseph, MO 89.2
State of MO 94.6
University City, MO 104.2
Chapter 3 – Market Summary Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-4
EXHIBIT 3C-1
MARKET SURVEY RESULTS – 50TH PERCENTILE
Chapter 3 – Market Summary Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-5
EXHIBIT 3C-1
MARKET SURVEY RESULTS – 50TH PERCENTILE (CONTINUED)
Chapter 3 – Market Summary Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-6
EXHIBIT 3C-2
MARKET SURVEY RESULTS - 70TH PERCENTILE
Average % Diff Average % Diff Average % Diff
1 Accountant $52,612.70 -12.8% $61,829.84 -6.7% $72,828.42 -4.8% 51.4% 13.0
2 Accounting Technician $37,630.98 -8.6% $48,464.19 -11.6% $56,544.98 -8.8% 48.4% 11.0
3 Administrative Assistant $36,020.97 5.5% $43,830.14 8.2% $51,352.45 10.6% 46.1% 16.0
4 Airport Manager $63,276.40 -2.2% $78,927.10 -2.0% $97,259.36 -4.7% 53.6% 5.0
5 Animal Control Manager $55,180.11 -3.0% $69,403.89 -3.6% $83,627.67 -4.0% 58.5% 5.0
6 Animal Control Officer $32,487.80 6.1% $41,668.25 3.5% $49,240.46 5.1% 56.0% 7.0
7 Assistant Fire Chief $88,341.92 -16.5% $108,240.25 -14.5% $125,505.10 -11.1% 43.2% 9.0
8 Building Inspector I $48,086.90 -13.6% $58,518.14 -10.9% $68,059.12 -7.8% 41.6% 14.0
9 Building Official Mgr $68,605.27 -19.8% $81,723.51 -15.0% $93,895.10 -10.7% 42.1% 11.0
10 Building Service Worker $38,233.00 -24.7% $48,995.50 -27.1% $57,249.15 -24.5% 51.5% 8.0
11 Bus Driver $32,043.10 2.6% $38,665.70 6.1% $45,288.31 8.6% 38.7% 2.0
12 City Administrator $146,585.80 -19.5% $183,140.42 -19.4% $230,253.39 -24.0% 51.5% 10.0
13 City Clerk $69,425.82 -30.6% $86,787.40 -30.6% $104,148.97 -30.6% 47.1% 11.0
14 City Counselor $109,709.31 -19.1% $148,140.66 -26.7% $182,429.49 -29.2% 53.7% 5.0
15 City Engineer $75,963.87 -1.4% $99,700.34 -6.3% $122,879.15 -9.0% 49.6% 12.0
16 Civil Engineer II $59,979.97 3.1% $75,069.63 3.0% $90,159.29 2.9% 45.4% 7.0
17 Collection System Mgr $64,994.17 -4.9% $83,451.60 -7.6% $104,789.31 -12.1% 54.1% 5.0
18 Communications Oper I $48,001.09 -27.9% $59,773.47 -27.5% $71,545.85 -27.2% 49.7% 5.0
19 Communications Supv $54,706.97 -11.8% $66,153.43 -8.5% $77,599.88 -6.3% 48.0% 5.0
20 Construction Inspector $45,237.49 2.3% $58,671.25 -1.4% $68,039.13 2.0% 47.7% 11.0
21 Customer Service Rep. $35,975.09 -9.0% $44,740.97 -8.5% $53,506.85 -8.1% 43.1% 7.0
22 Deputy Court Clerk I $37,624.10 -8.6% $44,591.53 -3.2% $52,080.41 -0.5% 40.1% 7.0
23 Dir of Finance & ITS $114,414.79 -23.2% $147,495.36 -26.3% $174,160.09 -24.7% 50.0% 10.0
24 Director of Human Res $87,852.02 3.1% $111,052.60 2.0% $131,078.49 3.6% 51.5% 11.0
25 Director of P&PS $96,566.82 -6.4% $120,374.53 -6.1% $145,017.63 -6.5% 51.6% 10.0
26 Director of Parks & Rec $97,446.10 -7.3% $120,629.44 -6.3% $142,940.81 -5.1% 46.1% 12.0
27 Director of Public Works $98,681.11 -8.5% $126,975.40 -11.4% $165,216.80 -19.5% 61.4% 14.0
28 Environmental Health Spe $52,706.25 -13.0% $65,053.15 -11.7% $73,001.08 -5.0% 42.2% 4.0
29 Equip Operator Spec I $35,946.36 5.7% $45,376.05 4.8% $54,080.20 5.4% 53.3% 6.0
30 Evidence Technician $34,986.03 13.3% $42,866.91 15.3% $50,948.01 16.3% 43.3% 5.0
31 Fire Captain $62,700.50 -20.5% $71,502.06 -11.4% $93,655.50 -20.1% 44.0% 8.0
32 Fire Chief $102,155.56 -12.0% $128,196.63 -12.4% $149,072.26 -9.3% 46.6% 10.0
33 Fire Driver Engineer $45,724.96 1.2% $60,042.11 -3.7% $72,556.81 -4.4% 48.6% 7.0
34 Fire Fighter $46,589.10 -10.4% $56,687.46 -7.7% $67,802.40 -7.4% 42.5% 8.0
35 Firefighter Trainee $39,446.49 1.3% $48,346.15 3.3% $55,493.31 7.7% 29.2% 5.0
36 GIS Manager/Temp ITS Mgr $65,594.45 -5.8% $82,287.66 -6.2% $98,980.87 -6.4% 47.8% 8.0
37 GIS Specialist $47,416.75 7.3% $61,799.42 3.2% $75,758.70 1.0% 55.0% 11.0
38 Golf Course Superintend $53,514.71 -14.5% $68,531.00 -16.9% $80,357.45 -14.6% 48.9% 5.0
39 HR Specialist $49,651.44 -7.0% $62,891.29 -8.4% $75,795.45 -8.8% 46.7% 13.0
40 IT Support Tech I $47,852.19 -32.3% $58,238.82 -29.7% $67,106.46 -25.7% 42.6% 8.0
41 Lab Analyst $41,945.85 4.9% $52,785.56 4.3% $63,625.27 3.8% 49.6% 2.0
42 Mechanic $40,733.93 12.7% $52,536.48 9.6% $61,056.91 12.8% 49.7% 8.0
43 Mechanic Supervisor $45,298.45 7.0% $57,350.16 5.7% $66,722.24 8.8% 50.8% 5.0
44 Municipal Court Admin $55,679.88 -18.4% $69,594.52 -18.4% $83,509.17 -18.4% 46.3% 11.0
45 Neighborhood Serv Spec I $38,377.93 -0.8% $48,483.29 -1.9% $59,441.36 -4.0% 46.5% 4.0
46 Neighborhood Serv Superv $50,428.80 1.2% $63,660.38 0.2% $78,715.57 -2.8% 50.7% 3.0
47 Paralegal $41,545.31 1.0% $51,173.81 2.5% $61,211.68 2.8% 45.3% 4.0
48 Parking Division Supv $43,509.61 11.0% $55,178.43 9.6% $66,847.26 8.6% 43.6% 5.0
49 Parking Enforcement Offc $37,396.25 -17.7% $44,935.02 -13.8% $52,473.80 -11.0% 43.0% 4.0
50 Parks Maintenance Worker $34,878.27 -5.9% $43,715.44 -6.1% $51,021.55 -3.4% 47.4% 11.0
# Resp.ID Classification
Survey Minimum Survey Midpoint Survey Maximum Survey Avg
Range
Chapter 3 – Market Summary Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-7
EXHIBIT 3C-2
MARKET SURVEY RESULTS - 70TH PERCENTILE (CONTINUED)
Average % Diff Average % Diff Average % Diff
51 Parks Manager $61,954.85 -0.1% $75,230.74 2.8% $88,804.38 4.4% 45.7% 10.0
52 Parts Technician $30,915.14 11.1% $39,638.73 8.5% $48,362.31 6.9% 42.3% 4.0
53 Plan Reviewer $54,767.62 -2.2% $64,163.83 4.3% $76,449.14 5.0% 42.2% 10.0
54 Planner I $48,918.72 -5.5% $60,585.52 -4.6% $73,337.48 -5.5% 45.0% 12.0
55 Planner Manager $70,227.10 -22.1% $88,166.42 -22.5% $106,105.75 -22.8% 42.0% 7.0
56 Police Chief $110,775.45 -20.0% $132,332.87 -15.5% $148,967.61 -9.2% 39.6% 12.0
57 Police Information Mgr $41,367.46 11.2% $54,805.49 5.4% $67,767.46 2.4% 64.2% 3.0
58 Prop/Housing Inspector I $42,930.57 -2.2% $54,473.80 -3.7% $68,079.11 -7.8% 48.9% 7.0
59 Pumping System Mechanic $38,428.44 18.5% $45,068.86 24.8% $51,709.28 29.2% 39.9% 2.0
60 Recreation Program Spec $39,907.93 -4.7% $50,154.85 -5.2% $60,401.76 -5.6% 48.5% 10.0
61 Sr. Utility Maint Wkr $35,169.86 -1.8% $42,707.22 1.1% $49,257.75 5.0% 37.9% 4.0
62 Street Maint Crew Leader $45,243.44 -7.5% $55,339.12 -5.3% $63,137.12 -0.3% 44.0% 7.0
63 Street Maint Worker $34,833.31 -5.7% $43,845.02 -6.4% $51,016.55 -3.4% 46.8% 8.0
64 Street Supervisor $57,810.63 -17.3%$72,006.10 -17.0% $88,328.00 -19.2% 43.2% 9.0
65 Systems Analyst $54,907.89 -7.3% $69,919.61 -9.2% $84,697.52 -10.1% 50.0% 7.0
66 Transit Division Manager $121,581.41 -65.1% $158,500.47 -68.8% $195,419.53 -71.2% 61.4% 2.0
67 Utilities Electrician $45,558.48 1.6% $59,494.51 -2.8% $73,430.54 -5.6% 64.2% 4.0
68 Utility Crew Supervisor $52,334.46 -7.4% $61,431.18 -1.1% $77,728.61 -6.4% 47.2% 6.0
69 Veterinarian Assistant $32,378.93 1.6% $40,476.22 1.6% $48,573.51 1.6% 50.0% 1.0
70 Wastewater Supervisor $57,036.05 -16.0% $69,021.42 -12.8% $81,592.10 -11.3% 41.4% 8.0
71 WWTP Manager $60,998.00 1.4% $74,899.81 3.2% $88,801.63 4.4% 53.3% 8.0
72 WWTP Operator II $36,021.49 15.3% $49,305.77 6.2% $57,253.76 9.5% 49.3% 9.0
Overall Average -7.7% -7.3% -6.5% 47.7% 7.6
Outliers Removed*-7.4% -7.3% -6.7%
# Resp.ID Classification
Survey Minimum Survey Midpoint Survey Maximum Survey Avg
Range
Chapter 3 – Market Summary Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-8
Private Sector
The private sector is almost always going to show significantly more variation in terms of pay
in a given market. Top employers in the private sector have the ability to hire – and fire –
employees much more rapidly than their public-sector comparators, so there is less risk in
hiring employees at elevated salaries. If an employee is not “profitable” to a private sector
firm, they have the ability to lay that employee off and recoup salary savings immediately,
while the public sector will be much slower to result to layoffs. While the cities can typically
compete with the lowest paying private companies in the market, higher paying private-sector
peers quickly outpace the rates that they are able to pay for talent.
3.2 SALARY SURVEY CONCLUSION
The standing of individual classifications pay range relative to the market should not be
considered a definitive assessment of actual employee salaries being similarly above or below
the market; however, such differentials can, in part, explain symptomatic issues with
recruitment and retention of employees.
The main summary points of the market study are as follows:
The City is approximately 0.2 percent below the market minimum in the 50th percentile
and 7.4 percent below the market minimum in the 70th percentile.
The City is 0.7 above the market midpoint in the 50th percentile and 7.3 percent below
the market midpoint in the 70th percentile.
The City is approximately 1.3 percent above the market maximum in the 50th percentile
and 6.7 percent below the market maximum in the 70th percentile.
The City’s pay range spread is 50 percent, while its peers’ pay range spread is only 47
percent. That means that the City’s salary scale is wider than its peers. As a result,
even though the City is below the average compared to the market at the minimum,
because it has a wider spread it catches up to its peers at the higher end of the
spectrum and slightly surpasses the market at the maximum, when being compared
to the 50th percentile.
The results of the market summary chapter are pivotal in the formulation of recommendations
by Evergreen Solutions. By establishing the City’s market position relative to its peers,
Evergreen is better able to propose recommendations that enable the City to occupy its
desired competitive position.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-1
After reviewing the information provided in the preceding sections of this report, Evergreen
developed recommendations to improve the City’s current compensation system. The
recommendations and findings that led to each are discussed in detail in this section. The
recommendations are organized into two sections: compensation and administration of the
system.
4.1 COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The compensation analysis consisted of two parts: an external market assessment and an
internal equity assessment. During the external market assessment, the City’s compensation
for selected benchmark classifications was compared to average compensation offered in the
market the City competes for employees in. The external assessment consisted of comparing
the City against its peer organizations within its market, and revealed that the City is currently
slightly behind the market at the minimum of the pay range, and slightly ahead of the market
at the maximum of the pay range. During the internal equity assessment, consideration of the
relationships between and the type of work being performed by the City’s employees in their
classifications was reviewed and analyzed.
FINDING
The City currently maintains an organized and defined overall pay plan. However, Evergreen
recommended additional pay grades to be created on the new pay plan.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Adjust the pay plan to reflect the 50th or 70th percentile of the market.
For the City to maintain alignment with the market, it will be necessary to shift ranges to adjust
for the annual market movement found in the region. The City will find that if no adjustment
is made to its ranges, it will quickly lose ground in the labor market. Two separate pay plans
were created to reflect the market's 50th and 70th percentile. The City can approximate what
market position it wants to be. If the City chooses to go with the 70th percentile, it must
maintain strong adjustments each year to ensure it does not fall behind market.
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 4 - Recommendations
Chapter 4 - Recommendations Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-2
EXHIBIT 4-1
50TH PERCENTILE - PROPOSED PAY PLAN
Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum
Range
Spread
Midpoint
Progression
101 31,200.00$ 39,000.00$ 46,800.00$ 50.0% ‐
102 32,760.00$ 40,950.00$ 49,140.00$ 50.0% 5.0%
103 34,398.00$ 42,997.50$ 51,597.00$ 50.0% 5.0%
104 36,117.90$ 45,147.38$ 54,176.85$ 50.0% 5.0%
105 37,923.80$ 47,404.74$ 56,885.69$ 50.0% 5.0%
106 39,819.98$ 49,774.98$ 59,729.98$ 50.0% 5.0%
107 41,810.98$ 52,263.73$ 62,716.48$ 50.0% 5.0%
108 43,901.53$ 54,876.92$ 65,852.30$ 50.0% 5.0%
109 46,096.61$ 57,620.76$ 69,144.91$ 50.0% 5.0%
110 48,401.44$ 60,501.80$ 72,602.16$ 50.0% 5.0%
111 50,821.51$ 63,526.89$ 76,232.27$ 50.0% 5.0%
112 53,362.59$ 66,703.23$ 80,043.88$ 50.0% 5.0%
113 56,030.72$ 70,038.40$ 84,046.08$ 50.0% 5.0%
114 58,832.25$ 73,540.32$ 88,248.38$ 50.0% 5.0%
115 64,715.48$ 80,894.35$ 97,073.22$ 50.0% 10.0%
116 71,187.03$ 88,983.78$ 106,780.54$ 50.0% 10.0%
117 78,305.73$ 97,882.16$ 117,458.59$ 50.0% 10.0%
118 86,136.30$ 107,670.38$ 129,204.45$ 50.0% 10.0%
119 94,749.93$ 118,437.42$ 142,124.90$ 50.0% 10.0%
120 104,224.93$ 130,281.16$ 156,337.39$ 50.0% 10.0%
121 114,647.42$ 143,309.27$ 171,971.13$ 50.0% 10.0%
122 126,112.16$ 157,640.20$ 189,168.24$ 50.0% 10.0%
123 138,723.38$ 173,404.22$ 208,085.06$ 50.0% 10.0%
124 152,595.71$ 190,744.64$ 228,893.57$ 50.0% 10.0%
125 167,855.28$ 209,819.11$ 251,782.93$ 50.0% 10.0%
F1 41,975.85$ 52,469.80$ 62,963.75$ 50.0% ‐
F2 44,074.64$ 55,093.29$ 66,111.94$ 50.0% 5.0%
F3 48,592.28$ 60,740.34$ 72,888.40$ 50.0% 10.2%
F4 53,572.98$ 66,966.23$ 80,359.48$ 50.0% 10.3%
F5 64,970.64$ 81,213.30$ 97,455.96$ 50.0% 21.3%
F6 78,614.47$ 98,268.08$ 117,921.69$ 50.0% 21.0%
F7 95,123.50$ 118,904.38$ 142,685.26$ 50.0% 21.0%
Chapter 4 - Recommendations Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-3
EXHIBIT 4-2
70TH PERCENTILE - PROPOSED PAY PLAN
Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum
Range
Spread
Midpoint
Progression
101 33,072.00$ 41,340.00$ 49,608.00$ 50.0% ‐
102 34,725.60$ 43,407.00$ 52,088.40$ 50.0% 5.0%
103 36,461.88$ 45,577.35$ 54,692.82$ 50.0% 5.0%
104 38,284.97$ 47,856.22$ 57,427.46$ 50.0% 5.0%
105 40,199.22$ 50,249.03$ 60,298.83$ 50.0% 5.0%
106 42,209.18$ 52,761.48$ 63,313.78$ 50.0% 5.0%
107 44,319.64$ 55,399.55$ 66,479.46$ 50.0% 5.0%
108 46,535.63$ 58,169.53$ 69,803.44$ 50.0% 5.0%
109 48,862.41$ 61,078.01$ 73,293.61$ 50.0% 5.0%
110 51,305.53$ 64,131.91$ 76,958.29$ 50.0% 5.0%
111 53,870.80$ 67,338.50$ 80,806.20$ 50.0% 5.0%
112 56,564.34$ 70,705.43$ 84,846.51$ 50.0% 5.0%
113 59,392.56$ 74,240.70$ 89,088.84$ 50.0% 5.0%
114 62,362.19$ 77,952.74$ 93,543.28$ 50.0% 5.0%
115 68,598.41$ 85,748.01$ 102,897.61$ 50.0% 10.0%
116 75,458.25$ 94,322.81$ 113,187.37$ 50.0% 10.0%
117 83,004.07$ 103,755.09$ 124,506.11$ 50.0% 10.0%
118 91,304.48$ 114,130.60$ 136,956.72$ 50.0% 10.0%
119 100,434.93$ 125,543.66$ 150,652.39$ 50.0% 10.0%
120 110,478.42$ 138,098.03$ 165,717.63$ 50.0% 10.0%
121 121,526.26$ 151,907.83$ 182,289.39$ 50.0% 10.0%
122 133,678.89$ 167,098.61$ 200,518.33$ 50.0% 10.0%
123 147,046.78$ 183,808.47$ 220,570.17$ 50.0% 10.0%
124 161,751.46$ 202,189.32$ 242,627.18$ 50.0% 10.0%
125 177,926.60$ 222,408.25$ 266,889.90$ 50.0% 10.0%
F1 43,974.70$ 54,968.36$ 65,962.03$ 50.0% ‐
F2 46,173.44$ 57,716.78$ 69,260.13$ 50.0% 5.0%
F3 50,906.20$ 63,632.73$ 76,359.27$ 50.0% 10.2%
F4 56,124.08$ 70,155.10$ 84,186.12$ 50.0% 10.3%
F5 68,064.48$ 85,080.60$ 102,096.72$ 50.0% 21.3%
F6 82,358.01$ 102,947.51$ 123,537.01$ 50.0% 21.0%
F7 99,653.19$ 124,566.49$ 149,479.79$ 50.0% 21.0%
Chapter 4 - Recommendations Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-4
Implementation of the new compensation structure requires two steps. First, all positions
were assigned to an appropriate pay grade within the plan. As the City was in a appropriate
market position overall, major changes were not needed. However, some positions were found
to be further behind the market than others. Those positions were reassigned to an
appropriate grade in the updated pay plan, based on the market results and internal equity in
the City. Assigning pay grades to classifications requires a balance of internal equity and
desired market position, and recruitment and retention concerns also played a role in the
process. Thus, the market results discussed in Chapter 3 were not the sole criteria for the
proposed pay ranges.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Evergreen recommends the City adopt a methodology to transition
employee salaries into the proposed pay plan that aligns with its established compensation
philosophy and meets the available financial resources of the organization.
The second step of implementing the proposed structure is then to transition employee
salaries into their new recommended pay ranges. The City has chosen to move forward with
the Hybrid Parity option.
Hybrid Parity
This option consists of placing employees into their proposed pay ranges based on how long
employees have been with the City. The parity effectively divides the pay range into 30 equal
segments, where each segment represents a year of class time. Additionally, employees are
given partial credit for anytime they have spent at the City outside of their current classification
at half credit. For example, an employee who has been in their classification for 5 years, but
had 25 years with the City over all, would be placed at the midpoint of the range, due to their
receiving 5 years of class time at straight credit, and the remaining 20 years of experience at
half credit, for a total of 15 years of credit. If an employee’s current salary is higher than their
hybrid parity projected salary, the employee would maintain his or her current salary, as no
salaries are decreased as part of this adjustment. This methodology seeks to re-align
employee salaries based on years in classification, while also giving credit for additional
experience, and can space out compressed employee salaries along the range based on this
factor. However, this methodology does not account for experience employees may have
outside of the City.
If the City goes with the pay plan at the market's 50th percentile, the estimated total cost for
this adjustment would be $603,306.75 and would affect 150 General employees. For
employees within the Fire Department, this option's total cost would be $391,164.42 and
affect 74 employees.
If the City goes with the pay plan at the market's 70th percentile, the estimated total cost for
this adjustment would be $1,182,038.94 and would affect 206 General employees. For
employees within the Fire Department, this option's total cost would be $592,792.12 and
affect 74 employees.
Chapter 4 - Recommendations Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-5
FINDING
At the request of the City, Evergreen conducted a review of job descriptions for the position of
Administrative Assistant. The City shared updated job descriptions for this classification for
various departments. Employees and Department Heads provided feedback on the
descriptions, and Evergreen reviewed them to determine if there were any discrepancies in
the duties or responsibilities of the position.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Adjust job titles of Administrative Assistants to better reflect the work
performed.
Upon review of the job descriptions, Evergreen determined some employees are working at a
higher level than others. Evergreen recommends to update titles of Administrative Assistants
as appropriate based on the review. As a result of this review, Evergreen is recommending an
upgrade to the classification of the Administrative Assistant positions in the Administration
and Parks and Recreation departments. These two positions have taken on additional
responsibilities and are asked to work at a higher level than the Administrative Assistants in
other departments according to the updated job descriptions provided for review. These
positions are recommended for a new title of Administrative Assistant, Senior.
4.2 COMPENSATION AND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION
Any organization’s compensation and classification system will need periodic maintenance.
The recommendations provided in this chapter were developed based on conditions at the
time the study was conducted. Without proper upkeep of the system, 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
adjust pay grade assignments if necessary.
While it is unlikely that the pay plan will need to be adjusted for several years, a small 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).
RECOMMENDATION 5: Conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study
every three to five years.
While small-scale salary surveys can improve the market position of specific classifications, 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 can place the City in a poor
position for recruiting and retaining quality employees.
Chapter 4 - Recommendations Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-6
While the previous two recommendations intend to maintain the competitiveness over time
of the classification and compensation structure, it is also necessary to establish procedures
for determining equitable pay practices for individual employees.
RECOMMENDATION 6: Revise policies and practices for moving employees’ 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.
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 that they are followed consistently for all employees. Common practices
for progressing and establishing employee salaries are outlined below.
Salary Progression
As outlined above, Evergreen recommends City implement the new pay plan which would
involve a one-time salary adjustment for employees to ensure they are placed properly in their
salary range. While this major adjustment should be performed when the City has the financial
resources to do so, the City should continue to adjust salaries annually when financially
feasible. Based on the feedback from employees and City leadership, Evergreen recommends
that the basis of salary adjustment in the future be done at three distinct levels.
Structural: Adjustment to the ranges should be done annually and with the aim of
adjusting for the changes in cost of living. Evergreen recommends the City tie the
annual compensation structure movement to the local change in the Consumer-Price-
Index (CPI). This annual adjustment will ensure the City’s pay ranges do not rapidly fall
out of line with that of its peers; however, when conducting the small-scale surveys
referenced above, the City should also collect pay plan movement and anticipated
movement from its peers to gauge if market movement is keeping pace with CPI
movement.
Classification: As a result of the market surveys, the City may identify classifications or
job families that are experiencing considerable market movement and as a result,
reassignment of the pay grades should be considered when this occurs. Alternatively,
if the City identifies classifications that have become hard to recruit and retain, pay
grade reassignment should also be considered to ensure the City is competitive for
both recruiting new talent and retaining existing employees.
Individual: To tie into the adjustment of the structure, Evergreen recommends the City
adjust employee salaries annually for Cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). This
adjustment would be done for all employees who receive a satisfactory performance
evaluation, and the percentage adjustment would need to be 1.0-2.0 percent more
than the movement of the compensation structure in any given years, to allow for
employee progression into the range. Moreover, based on the feedback from
employees and the City’s desire to recruit and retain a high-quality workforce,
Evergreen recommends the City grant additional adjustment to employees who receive
above average performance evaluations. The City should exercise a differentiated
Chapter 4 - Recommendations Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-7
percentage for high performers that met the financial constraints of the budget while
still providing a meaningful incentive for high performance.
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 the
maximum 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 for most classifications. Once the City
has performed the initial implementation adjustment for current employee salaries, new
employee starting salaries should take into consideration internal equity, meaning that new
hires should be offered comparable salaries to existing employees in the classification with
similar levels of education and experience.
RECOMMENDATION 7: Evergreen recommends the City adopt a hiring grid that aligns with its
selected implementation methodology.
A hiring grid should be adopted that provides guidance where new employee salaries should
be set. The adoption of a new hiring grid should be done after implementation to ensure
alignment of salary placement between current employees and new hires, and to prevent new
compression issues from arising both within classifications and departments, as well as
throughout the City as a whole. A policy that determines the maximum hiring rate available to
employees is important to ensure consistency and maintain internal equity.
Evergreen has created three different approaches for crediting employees for any additional
experience they have above and beyond the minimum requirements. This additional credit
applied to employees would only apply to any experience above and beyond the minimum
qualifications of the position into which an employee was being hired. For example, in the
tables below an employee with five years of experience would be credited for two years of
additional experience if the job he/she was applying for required three years of experience in
the minimum qualifications.
Chapter 4 - Recommendations Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-8
EXHIBIT 4-3
HIRING RATE ALTERNATIVE 1
EXHIBIT 4-4
HIRING RATE ALTERNATIVE 2
Additional
Years of
Experience
Percentile
Upper
Boundary
1 3rd Percentile
2 6th Percentile
3 10th Percentile
4 13th Percentile
5 16th Percentile
6 20th Percentile
7 23th Percentile
8 26th Percentile
9 30th Percentile
10 33rd Percentile
11 36th Percentile
12 40th Percentile
13 43rd Percentile
14 46th Percentile
15 50th Percentile
Additional
Years of
Experience
Hiring Zone Zone
Percentile
1‐3 1 1% ‐ 10%
3‐6 2 11% ‐ 20%
6‐9 3 21% ‐ 30%
9‐12 4 31% ‐ 40%
12‐15 5 41% ‐ 50%
Chapter 4 - Recommendations Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-9
EXHIBIT 4-5
HIRING RATE ALTERNATIVE 3
The three different options presented give the City three different choices on how flexible or
structured they would like the hiring process to be. The first option provides relatively narrow
hiring bands for crediting previous experience – only five percent of flexibility is available per
year of experience. The second option provides more flexibility by grouping experience
together into zones. While an employee in option 1 with seven years of experience would be
limited to a maximum salary of the 30th percentile of his/her grade, that would increase to the
40th percentile in option 2. Option 3 takes some of the aspects of both options and blends
them together – hiring zones with minimum salaries like option 2, while having a different
range of outcomes for each additional year of experience like option 1. The City’s Human
Resources and City Management teams should decide which alternative they believe best
meet the City’s needs going forward before selecting an alternative to implement. Once
implemented, the approach should guide the City’s hiring process so that consistency can be
maintained over time.
Promotions/Demotions
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, moves the salary into the new pay grade, and ensures internal equity in the
new classification. It is common for organizations to establish a minimum percentage salary
increase that depends on the increase in pay grade because of the promotion. Regardless of
Additional
Years of
Experience
Hiring
Percentile
10% ‐ 10%
20% ‐ 13%
30% ‐ 16%
40% ‐ 19%
50% ‐ 21%
64% ‐ 24%
77% ‐ 27%
8 10% ‐ 30%
9 13% ‐ 33%
10 16% ‐ 36%
11 19% ‐ 39%
12 21% ‐ 41%
13 24% ‐ 44%
14 27% ‐ 47%
15 30% ‐ 50%
Chapter 4 - Recommendations Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-10
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.
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.
RECOMMENDATION 8: Evergreen recommends the City update its policy regarding
promotions/demotions and transfers to align with its new compensation structure.
Evergreen recommends the City Implement a minimum increase of five percent per grade of
base salary for employees receiving promotion. However, the employee’s salary should always
be increased to at least the minimum of the new salary range. In the case of demotions,
Evergreen recommends a minimum salary decrease of five percent per grade, except in cases
where this percent decrease would reduce the employee’s salary below the new range
minimum. If the employee’s salary exceeds the new range maximum after the pay decrease,
the employee should be capped from receiving any salary adjustments until the pay moves
upward to allow for increases.
4.3 SUMMARY
The City should be commended for its desire and commitment to provide competitive and fair
compensation for its employees. The recommendations in this report establish a new
competitive pay plan, externally and internally equitable 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 will
require concrete effort, the City will find that having a competitive compensation and
classification system that encourages strong recruitment and employee retention is worth this
commitment.
APPENDIX
POSITION GRADE ASSIGNMENTS
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page A-1
APPENDIX
POSITION GRADE ASSIGNMENTS
Classification Recommended Title Proposed
Grade
Proposed
Minimum
Proposed
Midpoint
Proposed
Maximum
Accountant Accountant 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
Senior Accountant Accountant, Senior 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
Sr. Accounting Tech Supv Accounting Tech Supv 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
Senior Accounting Tech Accounting Tech, Senior 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Accounting Technician Accounting Technician 105 $37,923.80 $47,404.74 $56,885.69
Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Administrative Supvr Administrative Assistant, Senior 108 $43,901.53 $54,876.92 $65,852.30
Administrative Tech Administrative Tech 104 $36,117.90 $45,147.38 $54,176.85
Airport Manager Airport Manager 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
Senior Airport Maint Wkr Airport Senior Maint Wkr 104 $36,117.90 $45,147.38 $54,176.85
Animal Control Manager Animal Control Manager 113 $56,030.72 $70,038.40 $84,046.08
Animal Control Officer Animal Control Officer 104 $36,117.90 $45,147.38 $54,176.85
Sr. Animal Control Offcr Animal Control Senior Offcr 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Assistant Fire Chief Assistant Fire Chief F6 $78,614.47 $98,268.08 $117,921.69
Assoc City Attorney Assoc City Attorney 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
Asst Parking Supervisor Asst Parking Supervisor 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Building Inspector I Building Inspector I 109 $46,096.61 $57,620.76 $69,144.91
Building Inspector II Building Inspector II 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
Building Official Mgr Building Official Mgr 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
Building Service Worker Building Service Worker 101 $31,200.00 $39,000.00 $46,800.00
Bus Driver Bus Driver 104 $36,117.90 $45,147.38 $54,176.85
Bus Driver Comm Operator Bus Driver Comm Operator 105 $37,923.80 $47,404.74 $56,885.69
Bus Driver/Trainer Bus Driver/Trainer 104 $36,117.90 $45,147.38 $54,176.85
Central Garage Manager Central Garage Manager 113 $56,030.72 $70,038.40 $84,046.08
Chief Accountant Chief Accountant 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
City Administrator City Administrator 122 $126,112.16 $157,640.20 $189,168.24
City Clerk City Clerk 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
City Counselor City Counselor 119 $94,749.93 $118,437.42 $142,124.90
City Engineer City Engineer 117 $78,305.73 $97,882.16 $117,458.59
Civil Engineer I Civil Engineer I 113 $56,030.72 $70,038.40 $84,046.08
Civil Engineer II Civil Engineer II 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
Collections System Manager Collections System Manager 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
Communications Oper I Communications Oper I 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Communications Oper II Communications Oper II 107 $41,810.98 $52,263.73 $62,716.48
Communications Supv Communications Supv 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
Construction Inspector Construction Inspector 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
Controls/Instrument Tech Controls/Instrument Tech 109 $46,096.61 $57,620.76 $69,144.91
Cultural Arts Specialist Cultural Arts Specialist 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Customer Service Rep Customer Service Rep 103 $34,398.00 $42,997.50 $51,597.00
Deputy Court Clerk I Deputy Court Clerk 105 $37,923.80 $47,404.74 $56,885.69
‐ Deputy Court Clerk, Senior 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Director of Finance & IT Director of Finance & IT 119 $94,749.93 $118,437.42 $142,124.90
Director of Human Res Director of Human Res 119 $94,749.93 $118,437.42 $142,124.90
Director of P&PS Director of P&PS 119 $94,749.93 $118,437.42 $142,124.90
Director of Parks & Rec Director of Parks & Rec 119 $94,749.93 $118,437.42 $142,124.90
Director of Public Works Director of Public Works 119 $94,749.93 $118,437.42 $142,124.90
Div Chief of Prevention Div Chief of Prevention F5 $64,970.64 $81,213.30 $97,455.96
Div Chief of Training Div Chief of Training F5 $64,970.64 $81,213.30 $97,455.96
Engineering Designer Engineering Designer 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
Engineering Insp. Supv. Engineering Insp. Supv. 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
Engineering Survey Tech Engineering Survey Tech 108 $43,901.53 $54,876.92 $65,852.30
Environ Health Svcs Mgr Environ Health Svcs Mgr 113 $56,030.72 $70,038.40 $84,046.08
Appendix: Position Grade Assignments Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page A-2
APPENDIX (CONTINUED)
POSITION GRADE ASSIGNMENTS
Classification Recommended Title Proposed
Grade
Proposed
Minimum
Proposed
Midpoint
Proposed
Maximum
‐ Environmental Health Spe I 109 $46,096.61 $57,620.76 $69,144.91
Environmental Health Spe Environmental Health Spe II 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
Equip Operator Spec I Equip Operator Spec I 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Equip Operator Spec II Equip Operator Spec II 107 $41,810.98 $52,263.73 $62,716.48
Evidence Technician Evidence Technician 107 $41,810.98 $52,263.73 $62,716.48
Fire Captain Fire Captain F4 $53,572.98 $66,966.23 $80,359.48
Fire Chief Fire Chief 119 $94,749.93 $118,437.42 $142,124.90
Fire Driver Engineer Fire Driver Engineer F3 $48,592.28 $60,740.34 $72,888.40
Fire Fighter Fire Fighter F2 $44,074.64 $55,093.29 $66,111.94
Firefighter Trainee Firefighter Trainee F1 $41,975.85 $52,469.80 $62,963.75
GIS Manager GIS Manager 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
GIS Specialist GIS Specialist 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
Golf Course Superintend Golf Course Superintend 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
HR Specialist HR Specialist 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
‐ HR Specialist, Senior 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
IT Support Specialist IT Support Specialist 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
IT Support Tech I IT Support Tech 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
IT Support Tech II IT Support Tech, Senior 108 $43,901.53 $54,876.92 $65,852.30
ITS Manager ITS Manager 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
Lab Analyst Lab Analyst 109 $46,096.61 $57,620.76 $69,144.91
Lab Pretreatment Supv Lab Pretreatment Supv 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
Management Analyst Management Analyst 109 $46,096.61 $57,620.76 $69,144.91
Sr. Management Analyst Management Analyst, Senior 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
Mechanic Mechanic 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
Mechanic Supervisor Mechanic Supervisor 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
Municipal Court Admin Municipal Court Admin 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
Neighborhood Serv Spec I Neighborhood Serv Spec 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Neighborhood Serv Spc II Neighborhood Serv Spec, Senior 108 $43,901.53 $54,876.92 $65,852.30
Neighborhood Serv Superv Neighborhood Serv Superv 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
Network Administrator Network Administrator 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
Operations Division Dir Operations Division Dir 117 $78,305.73 $97,882.16 $117,458.59
P&R Assistant Director P&R Assistant Director 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
Paralegal Paralegal 108 $43,901.53 $54,876.92 $65,852.30
‐ Paralegal, Senior 109 $46,096.61 $57,620.76 $69,144.91
Park Resources Supv Park Resources Supervisor 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
Parking Division Supv Parking Division Supv 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
Parking Enforcement Offc Parking Enforcement Officer 102 $32,760.00 $40,950.00 $49,140.00
Parking Maint Worker Parking Maint Worker 102 $32,760.00 $40,950.00 $49,140.00
Sr. Parking Enforce Ofcr Parking Senior Enforce Ofcr 103 $34,398.00 $42,997.50 $51,597.00
Sr. Parking Maint Worker Parking Senior Maint Worker 104 $36,117.90 $45,147.38 $54,176.85
Parks Maint Crew Leader Parks Maint Crew Leader 108 $43,901.53 $54,876.92 $65,852.30
Parks Maintenance Worker Parks Maintenance Worker 103 $34,398.00 $42,997.50 $51,597.00
Parks Manager Parks Manager 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
Sr.Parks Maintenance Wkr Parks Senior Maint Worker 104 $36,117.90 $45,147.38 $54,176.85
Parts Technician Parts Technician 104 $36,117.90 $45,147.38 $54,176.85
Plan Reviewer Plan Reviewer 113 $56,030.72 $70,038.40 $84,046.08
Planner I Planner 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
Planner II Planner, Senior 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
Planner Manager Planner Manager 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
Police Chief Police Chief 119 $94,749.93 $118,437.42 $142,124.90
Police Information Clerk Police Information Clerk 104 $36,117.90 $45,147.38 $54,176.85
‐ Police Information Clerk, Senior 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Appendix: Position Grade Assignments Compensation Study for the City of Jefferson, MO
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page A-3
APPENDIX (CONTINUED)
POSITION GRADE ASSIGNMENTS
Classification Recommended Title Proposed
Grade
Proposed
Minimum
Proposed
Midpoint
Proposed
Maximum
Police Information Mgr Police Information Mgr 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
Police Maintenance Wkr Police Maintenance Worker 103 $34,398.00 $42,997.50 $51,597.00
Community Relations Mgr Program Manager 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
Program Manager Program Manager 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
‐ Program Manager, Senior 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
Prop/Housing Inspector I Property & Housing Inspector I 109 $46,096.61 $57,620.76 $69,144.91
Prop & Housing Insp II Property & Housing Inspector II 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
Property & Housing Supv Property & Housing Supv 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
Pumping System Mechanic Pumping System Mechanic 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
Purchasing Agent Purchasing Agent 113 $56,030.72 $70,038.40 $84,046.08
Purchasing Technician Purchasing Technician 105 $37,923.80 $47,404.74 $56,885.69
‐ Purchasing Technician, Senior 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Rec Program Specialist Recreation Program Specialist 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Registered Land Surveyor Registered Land Surveyor 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
Street Maint Crew Leader Street Maint Crew Leader 108 $43,901.53 $54,876.92 $65,852.30
Street Maint Wkr Trainee Street Maint Wkr Trainee 102 $32,760.00 $40,950.00 $49,140.00
Street Maint Worker Street Maintenance Worker 103 $34,398.00 $42,997.50 $51,597.00
Street Manager Street Manager 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
Sr. Street Maint Worker Street Senior Maint Worker 104 $36,117.90 $45,147.38 $54,176.85
Street Supervisor Street Supervisor 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
Systems Analyst Systems Analyst 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
‐ Traffic Signal Tech I 109 $46,096.61 $57,620.76 $69,144.91
Traffic Signal Tech II Traffic Signal Tech II 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
Transit Division Manager Transit Division Manager 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
Transit Operations Asst Transit Operations Asst 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
Transit Operations Supvr Transit Operations Supvr 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
Utilities Electrician Utilities Electrician 110 $48,401.44 $60,501.80 $72,602.16
Utility Crew Supervisor Utility Crew Supervisor 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
Utility Maint Crew Ldr Utility Maint Crew Ldr 108 $43,901.53 $54,876.92 $65,852.30
Utility Maint Worker Utility Maint Worker 103 $34,398.00 $42,997.50 $51,597.00
Sr. Utility Maint Wkr Utility Senior Maint Worker 104 $36,117.90 $45,147.38 $54,176.85
Veterinarian Veterinarian 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
Veterinarian Assistant Veterinarian Assistant 103 $34,398.00 $42,997.50 $51,597.00
Wastewater Division Dir Wastewater Division Dir 117 $78,305.73 $97,882.16 $117,458.59
Wastewater Supervisor Wastewater Supervisor 112 $53,362.59 $66,703.23 $80,043.88
WW Environmental Spec WW Environmental Spec 109 $46,096.61 $57,620.76 $69,144.91
WW Maint Supervisor WW Maint Supervisor 111 $50,821.51 $63,526.89 $76,232.27
WWTP Manager WWTP Manager 115 $64,715.48 $80,894.35 $97,073.22
WWTP Operator I WWTP Operator I 106 $39,819.98 $49,774.98 $59,729.98
WWTP Operator II WWTP Operator II 108 $43,901.53 $54,876.92 $65,852.30
Bill 2022-109
Exhibit B
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION
FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 BUDGET
Parks Fund:
21-210-495995 Transfer From (To) Surplus $14,694.89
21-210-501020 Salaries $14,694.89
Parking Fund:
62-100-495995 Transfer From (To) Surplus $4,562.44
62-620-501020 Salaries $4,562.44
Wastewater Fund:
64-100-495995 Transfer From (To) Surplus $38,473.73
64-650-501020 Salaries $38,473.73
Bill 2022-109
Exhibit C
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 BUDGET
General Fund:
• Reduce Transit Subsidy from General Fund to account for Transit fare increase:
$30,000
• Reduce PPS-Code Enforcement budget to account for reduction in code
enforcement activities on Buescher properties: $14,000
• Reduce PPS-Admin salaries to account for anticipated salary savings from new
PPS Director salary: $5,000
• Reduce Mayor and Council budget to account for revised iPad policy: $2,000
• Reduce Non-Departmental Self Insurance Property and Casualty account:
$25,000
• Reduce Non-Departmental Building and Grounds Maintenance: $25,000.
• Reduce Finance tuition reimbursement to account for unused funds: $ 1,900
• Reduce funding in the Street Lights account: $21,038