REPORT ON PAY AND BENEFITS SURVEY
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL JANUARY 2005
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to present and discuss results and findings of pay and benefits surveys conducted in December 2004.
INTRODUCTION
The Human Resources Department conducted both a pay survey and a benefits survey in December 2004, to compare the Town’s pay and benefits programs with those area organizations with whom the Town competes for employees. See Attachment 1 for the list showing the number of employees in each of the organizations surveyed.
Part I: Pay Survey
The organizations included in the pay survey were:
· City of Burlington
· Town of Carrboro
· City of Cary
· City of Durham
· Town of Hillsborough
· City of Raleigh
· Durham County
· Orange County
· Wake County
· Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
· UNC Chapel Hill
· UNC Health Care System
· OWASA
Survey
The survey requested information on a selected group of Town jobs (called benchmark positions) which represent substantial numbers of positions (such as Fire and Police jobs) or which represent a variety of jobs with skill sets which the Town seeks in filling positions. Respondents were asked to provide information on:
· job titles
· minimum, midpoint and maximum of the pay range for each job
· the number of employees in each class title
· the average actual salary paid to each class of employees
Detailed study and analysis was conducted by Town Human Resources staff and follow-up calls were made to respondents to assure accuracy and completion of data.
Findings
The pay survey was completed in December 2004, (see Attachment 2 for detail). The majority of Town jobs compared positively to the market average midpoints (50th percentile) of the peer organizations surveyed. Of the 43 jobs surveyed:
Eight Town jobs, representing 19 % of the survey sample, have range midpoints which are equal to or greater than the market average range midpoint plus 10 %, for the organizations surveyed. This standard represents the Town’s current pay goal: to have pay ranges which fall at the 60th percentile (expressed as the market average midpoint plus 10 %) in the area labor market.
Sixteen Town jobs, representing 36 % of the survey sample, have range midpoints which are equal to the market average midpoint (50th percentile) for the organizations surveyed.
Eight Town jobs, representing 19 % of the survey sample, have range midpoints which are 95 % but less than 100 % of the market average midpoint (50th percentile) for the organizations surveyed.
Eleven Town jobs, representing 26 % of the survey sample, have range midpoints which are less than 95 % of the market average midpoint (50th percentile) for the organizations surveyed.
This data indicates that 24 of the 43 Town jobs surveyed, representing 55 % of the survey sample, have range midpoints which are equal to or greater than the market average midpoint (50th percentile) for the organizations surveyed. The remaining 45 % have range midpoints which fall below the labor market average.
The jobs which fall below the market average will be reviewed in greater detail and some will be recommended in the future to the Manager for potential reclassification to a different pay grade if the Council approves.
Council actions in recent years to adjust pay ranges have been effective in maintaining the Town’s pay for most jobs at or near the market average in comparison to other area organizations with whom the Town competes for employees.
The Council took action in October 2004, to improve pay ranges for Town employees by authorizing a step increase of 3.78 % for employees below the Job Rate and a pay adjustment averaging 3.78 % for those employees at or above Job Rate. These actions were effective in bringing many pay ranges to closer alignment with the market average ranges; however, in some of these cases, average actual Town employee pay remains lower than the market average of actual employee pay for a number of job classes in the Town.
Potential Grade or Title Changes
In keeping with the practice begun two years ago, the small number of specific job classes which the survey indicates are substantially below the labor market will be recommended to the Council for change of pay grade. These changes will continue to be presented on a quarterly basis and funds to support these pay changes for the remainder of this fiscal year will be identified within the current department budgets. These studies and recommendations would be similar to those presented to the Council in 2004.
PART III: BENEFITS SURVEY RESULTS
Employee Benefits Survey
In December 2004, thirteen area government agencies were surveyed by the Town Human Resources department staff for information on their employer-paid employee benefits programs. This is the second consecutive year of this survey using data from these organizations.
Organizations surveyed include:
· City of Burlington
· Town of Carrboro
· City of Cary
· City of Durham
· Town of Hillsborough
· City of Raleigh
· Durham County
· Orange County
· Wake County
· Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
· UNC Chapel Hill
· UNC Health Care System
· OWASA
All employee benefits programs were surveyed:
· vacation/annual leave
· sick leave
· paid holidays
· funeral leave
· longevity pay
· health insurance
· dental insurance
· life insurance
· disability insurance
· local government retirement plan
· 401(k) supplemental retirement plan
· 457 supplemental retirement plan
· tuition assistance
The analysis of this information shows that the Town of Chapel Hill employee benefits program ranks 11th among the group of fourteen. Some of the ranking differences were a result of higher employer contribution levels to dependent health insurance premiums, higher or total contribution for dental insurance or higher levels of paid life insurance.
The Human Resources Department will conduct this survey annually and report on the Town’s ranking in the comparison group.
In our report of January 2004, we stated that we would research and recommend to the Council some specific changes to the Town benefits programs which would enhance the program and improve the Town’s ranking among area employers.
CONCLUSION
These findings are based on pay and benefits survey results and are presented to illustrate the Town’s market and pay position on ranges and employee pay for the upcoming budget year.
ATTACHMENTS