Benefits way up, salaries down

Lynn Volkens

1/27/2005 - About a dozen County employees, many from the Parks and Recreation Department, turned up at the County Commissioners’ meeting to hear a special salary survey presentation by Katherine Ross of Lee and Burgess Associates of Colorado, LLC. Commissioners had contracted with Lee and Burgess to perform a study of comparable employers and compile a report of salary and benefit comparisons. Her findings: “Gilpin County is at, or above, the market for Parks and Recreation part-time, temporary employee pay rates and pay ranges. The County is below the market for regular and public safety (Sheriff’s Department) full time, non-elected, with benefits, employee pay rates and ranges.” For the latter, Gilpin’s regular pay structure was .05 % below the market range in 2003 and 1.40% below market in 2004.  Gilpin’s performance (merit) award rate was 1.4% below the market range in 2003 and 1.70% below market in 2004.

   Gilpin County employs 120-130 non-elected full time employees at any given time, according to County Manager Roger Baker. Not all would necessarily be affected by changes resulting from the survey, however. The survey looked only at non-elected personnel and evaluated the salary/pay ranges by level of position. Ross said the survey of 26 different sources included Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Douglas, Elbert, Garfield, Jefferson, Summit and Teller Counties. (Jackson and Lake Counties, though similar in size to Gilpin County and specifically suggested by Commissioners to be included in the survey, declined to participate.) Several cities were surveyed, some specifically to obtain recreation comparisons, including Golden, Evans, Broomfield, Louisville, Parker and Lafayette. Black Hawk and Central City were surveyed, and The Lodge and Gilpin Casinos contributed their pay rate/benefits data for the study.

   At the time of the study, December 2004, Lee and Burgess compared 67 Gilpin County positions to those same positions in the other jurisdictions. Of these, Ross found 48 positions below the market pay range. Most were within 20% of the pay range in other jurisdictions. Ten Gilpin positions were found to be above the market pay range from 5% up to somewhere between 41-60%. The position titles were not specified in the report. When asked, Commissioner Nicholson noted that in a small community, identifying the position would also be identifying the individual, so identifications were not specified in an effort to maintain privacy, she said.

   In the survey of benefits packages, done at the same time, Ross found that Gilpin County pays 100% health insurance, 100% dental insurance and 100% vision insurance for Gilpin’s full-time non-elected employees. That compares to other jurisdictions paying an average of 90% health, 52% dental, and 52% vision insurance. Gilpin County also pays each full-time non-elected employee two more annual holiday hours, 17 more sick time hours, and three more hours for bereavement leave than other jurisdictions. Paid vacation time is higher in Gilpin County for long-term employees. An employee with 10-14 years of employment receives 156 hours of vacation time, compared to the market average of 140. Employees with 15+ years of employment receive 208 hours of paid vacation time, compared to the market average of 161 hours. New employees, receive less than market vacation hours, 104 hours (annually) in Gilpin County compared to 119 hours in other jurisdictions.

   Lee and Burgess show the County currently paying $3,630,793.00 annually for salaries. They offered two alternatives for bringing Gilpin’s salaries up to market. In the first, which focuses on overall, total compensation parity, they recommend adjusting four positions to a new range step, resulting in a salary increase of 3.9. The cost of that adjustment would be $141,600.93. With the pre-approved performance awards of up to 5% (approved by Commissioners in December 2004), the total cost for adjusting those salaries would be $330,233.00 or 9.10%. The second alternative focuses on the salary only aspect of total compensation. It suggests adjusting 32 positions to a new range step, increasing salaries by 3.9% at the same cost as the first option - $141,600.93. It further suggests moving 22 employees to an increased minimum rate of pay. That will cost the County $61,168.37. In conjunction with the pre-approved performance awards (up to 5%), the total cost of the second alternative would be $394,447.00 or 10.86%.

   As part of their review, Lee and Burgess evaluated practices within the Gilpin County pay system. They recommend an annual review of administration practices, including the development of a philosophy as to whether the County wants to lead the market, be right at market, or be below market for some or all pay ranges. They lauded the County’s movement toward pay for performance awards versus paying for longevity and told Commissioners they should continue in that direction. A policy for promotion procedures should be developed in 2005, they said, and they recommended another market survey after 2007. Whichever direction the Commissioners decide to take, Ross said they should continue to offer the benefits and to communicate the superiority of Gilpin benefits to the employees. Those benefits, “far exceed a lot of the market’s,” she said.

   Human Resources Director Susan Allen was asked for her input. She made the point that although the County’s benefits package is good, salaries need to be high enough for people to pay their bills. One reason the study was initiated was because exit interviews showed the County was losing qualified people to jurisdictions that pay better, she said. Commissioners now have to digest the data and recommendations. They will make their decision at a future meeting. The salary survey cost the County approximately 12,000.00.