August 16, 1996

The purpose of this report is to present information on compensation changes recommended for Town employees in Fiscal Year 2000-2001. Employee compensation increases recommended for fiscal year 2000-2001 would implement the second phase of the pay system review which began in 1998:

· Phase I –implemented November 1, 1999: The Council directed that a review be conducted of the way in which pay increases were granted. A consultant worked closely with the Council and with employees during 1998 and 1999 in developing recommendations for a simpler and more predictable system for granting pay increases and communicating the process to employees.

With adoption of the FY 1999-2000 budget the Council adopted a new pay structure and approved funds to implement the first phase of the pay system review. On the November 1, 1999 implementation date, employees received salary increases to place their salaries onto a salary step, and many employees received additional step increases to reduce salary compression.

· Phase 2 – included in the Manager’s Recommended Budget to be implemented October 1, 2000: In 1999 the Council authorized funds for a consultant to conduct a labor market study and a Townwide review of the classification and salary grade structure of positions. This study was conducted during fiscal year 2000-2001, and the consultant has made recommendations for changes in classifications and pay ranges.

We believe that the priority for employee pay increases this year should be to implement the results of this classification and pay review. Changes are recommended to be implemented October 1, 2000 and include the following:

- The proposed October 1, 2000, salary schedule would be similar to the schedule currently used but would reflect simplifications to the existing structure. Current schedule components such as hiring rates, probationary steps, intermediate pay steps, and the Job Rate would be maintained, but the schedule would be revised so that compression in the lowest grades would be lessened. The structure of the new schedule would be the same from the lowest grade to the highest grade, instead of compressed in the lower 5 grades.

- A new Position Classification and Pay Ordinance with new titles and salary grades will be recommended to be implemented October 1, 2000. For example, the title of Clerk positions at grade 12 would be changed to Office Assistant in a new grade 27. (Grade 11 is the current lowest grade; 25 is the lowest recommended grade in the new structure *). The recommended assignment of classes to grades and ranges for all Town positions is included as Attachment D.

- Employee pay increases for 2000-2001 will vary based on the employee’s place in the recommended new salary range:

For 495 (85%) of employees below the new Job Rate: With acceptable performance, employees with salaries below the new Job Rate would be put onto a step in the new and more competitive salary range (hiring rate, probationary step, or steps 1,2,3, or Job Rate). If they have completed probation, employees would receive an additional step in the new range so that salaries would continue to be distributed through the new range and, with a few exceptions, would not be compressed with the salaries of new employees.

For 85 (15%) of employees with salaries at or above the new Job Rate: If performance is acceptable, an average increase of 4.5% is proposed for employees with salaries above the Job Rate of their recommended new range. Following the policies adopted in the 1999 review of the Town’s pay system, the amount of the increase will vary based on the employee’s performance, and performance will be evaluated at one of five performance levels.

The average for all employees of these increases would be 6.5%. Costs for these increases and related benefits, implemented on October 1, 2000, are anticipated to be $1,088,000 in all funds; a full year’s costs would have been $1,450,700:

We believe that adoption of the recommended Classification and Pay Plan changes, adoption of the new and simplified salary schedule and providing employee pay increases which implement the Pay Plan are all important for several reasons:

· Recruitment: establishing hiring rates and salary ranges that are up to date and are more competitive in the Research Triangle area labor market

· Retention: providing our employees with career advancement and salary increases that are competitive with those being granted by other employers

· Commitment: continuing the implementation of the simplified and restructured pay system and completing the pay system review process that was begun in 1998.

Information that follows in this report summarizes the Town’s structure for granting employee pay increases, summarizes the classification and pay study conducted during this year, and makes recommendations for pay increases to implement the classification results.

Employee salary increases were approved as a part of the budget in all years since 1991-92. These increases were implemented as a combination of merit and market increases; however, the amounts and average percentage varied from year to year based on labor market conditions and on the Town’s budget status and financial ability to pay. Varying and different objectives were addressed each year through different mechanisms and personnel policies: although each individual component addressed a positive objective, such as paying a livable wage, the frequent changes and lack of consistency from year to year led to confusion and mistrust of the system.

The Mayor and Council contracted with a consultant to work with them and with the staff to revise the Town’s structure for granting pay increases. Four Council work sessions were held during the time the pay structure study was being conducted; the new pay system was also the subject of several budget work sessions. Many employees participated in the pay structure study through a variety of information meetings, focus groups and written surveys.

The Council adopted a new pay system with the 1999-2000 budget. The system addressed the objectives the Council had specified, which initiated the development of a pay system that:

· addresses and reduces salary compression (salary compression exists where new employees have salaries close to those of long-term workers)

· maintains competitiveness with the area labor market, with a goal of competing at the 75^thpercentile of the Research Triangle area market

· Salary steps (defined pay rates at regular intervals) which provide a mechanism for employees’ salaries to advance in a manner that is predictable and is easier to communicate. (See Attachment A for the salary schedule and pay structure that was effective 11/1/99.)

· Reducing compression problems by moving the salaries of employees with 5 years of service to the range mid-point and by moving the salaries of other employees with lesser service to lower steps in the schedule. These compression adjustments were implemented for 332 of 580 non-probationary employees (57% of the Town workforce.) In subsequent fiscal years, employees’ salaries would be adjusted to the next highest step in the salary range until their salaries reached the Job Rate.

· Performance-based increases were established: once employees’ salaries reach the mid-point, employees would receive pay increases which would vary based on performance. Each year the Council would consider and approve an average percent of merit increase to be granted to employees above the mid-point. In 1999 an average 4.75% average increase was granted, effective November 1, 1999, to 248 (42%) employees.

The average of all salary increases (compression adjustments or merit increases) for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 was 5.7%, costing $632,000 in the General Fund -- $839,000 all funds.

These changes in pay structure and pay increases were the first phase of a two-phase plan. The second phase involved reviewing Town jobs in relation to the labor market and setting Town salary ranges at to the 75^th percentile of the market.

Every four to five years the Town routinely conducts classification and labor market reviews of all 620 regular positions. With the 1999-2000 budget, the Council approved funds for a consultant to conduct a review of the Town’s pay ranges in comparison to comparable jobs in the Research Triangle area. Several consultants responded to the Town’s requests for proposal, and Condrey and Associates of Athens, Georgia, was selected to conduct the Town’s classification and pay review during 1999-2000.

Dr. Condrey and his staff began work in June and collected extensive information from employees and supervisors about the duties and responsibilities of Town positions:

· Employees completed job questionnaires and the consultants conducted approximately 300 individual and group interviews with employees and supervisors about job tasks. This part of the study was done so that the consultants could assess and rank the relative level of duties and responsibilities of positions in similar occupational groups.

· In 1999 the Council adopted a resolution to set a policy on the Town’s competitive position within the area labor market. The resolution said that “the approximate third quartile of market data shall be used to determine local market comparability for Town positions.” The goal of paying salaries at the 75^th percentile rather than the median or average rate was to allow the Town to be more successful in recruiting and retaining employees in the competitive Research Triangle Area labor market. (See Attachment B for a full text of this resolution.)

The consultants collected salary data about hiring rates and salaries actually paid from 40 employers – 16 Research Triangle area local market and private employers and 24 NC and Southern regional employers. They made recommendations for the Town’s Fiscal Year 2000-2001 pay plan using this data and setting salaries at the 75^th percentile of the local market.

· The consultants suggested changes in titles for many jobs based on the updated assessment of job tasks, and wrote 175 new descriptions summarizing each different type of position, including recruitment standards. Employees had the opportunity to review the descriptions and to suggest changes before the descriptions are finalized.

· As explained later in this report, the consultant has developed recommendations on a title and a competitive salary range for each position, and a new and simpler salary schedule structure. Employees have had the opportunity to review the recommendations and some have requested that the consultant provide additional information on the basis for their classification. The Manager will consider employee classification appeals of classification and pay recommendations before the final plan is recommended to the Council.

As a part of study the consultant also recommended a salary rate for each employee within the newly assigned salary range for each employee. Employee pay increases on October 1, 2000, would implement the classification and pay study recommendations, including transition to the 75^th percentile of the local market.

Implementation of the classification and pay recommendations and adoption of the new salary schedule will complete the salary structure and labor market review process. Future labor market studies would collect data at the 75^th percentile, so that the Town would remain competitive with the local labor market.

This year’s budget recommends changes in the classification and pay structure in several areas discussed below:

· Changes in the titles and ranking of positions based on duties and responsibilities of those positions

· Assignment of positions to salary grades and ranges based on a policy of paying wages competitive at the 75^th percentile of the local market

· Employee salary increases for fiscal year 2000-2001 which implement the classification and pay study

The proposed October 1, 2000, salary schedule would be similar to the schedule currently used but would reflect simplifications to the structure. Current schedule components such as hiring rates, probationary steps, intermediate pay steps, and the Job Rate would be maintained, but the schedule would be revised so that compression in the lowest grades would be lessened. The structure of the new schedule world be the same from the bottom to the top of the scale, instead of compressed at the bottom.

The following compares components of the current and the recommended salary schedules:

We believe that implementation of the recommended new salary schedule will put in place a pay structure that is simpler and reflects consistent treatment of employees regardless of whether their job is assigned to a lower or a higher salary grade.

(2) Changes in the Titles and Ranking of Positions Based on Duties and Responsibilities of those Positions.

One of the key components of the classification and pay study was a review of duties and responsibilities of Town positions, and the development of rankings of positions, from lower to higher, based on an assessment of assignments. The consultants conducted approximately 300 interviews with employees and reviewed questionnaires completed by employees about their jobs. Positions were evaluated in terms of a variety of factors such as:

The consultants used these factors and the knowledge of Town positions gained through interviews and position questionnaires to develop rankings of related positions within occupational groups. They also recommended changing the titles of some positions.

The following examples demonstrate some of the kinds of recommendations made as the consultants recommended salary grades for Town positions:

· 5 levels of Construction Workers in Public Works formerly were classified within 7 grades, with a difference of 14.5% between the hiring rates for the 5 levels; with the new study some specialty Construction Worker titles are recommended, such as Lead Construction Worker and Streets Maintenance Worker, and the levels of Construction Worker are recommended to be assigned within 9 salary grades with a difference of 47% in the entry rates. The recommendations reflect a greater level of responsibility of the higher level positions and more differentiation between jobs in this category than currently recognized. The difference in entry rates also reflects the uncompressed lower grades, which used to be much closer together in the old salary schedule.

· Police Officer I, II, III, and IV are recommended to retain the same relationship as in the current classification and pay plan, with 5% between each of the grades. Current Police Officer I-IV are classified in grades 21, 22, 23, and 24; the consultants recommended grades 32, 33, 34, and 35.*

Police Officer positions retain the same relative relationship with Fire Suppression jobs as current, but Firefighter II positions are recommended to be retitled Master Firefighter.

· The position in the Personnel Department working with payroll and benefits was originally classified equivalent to the lower level payroll position in the Finance Department, and the higher level Finance position was 4 grades higher than the Personnel Department position; the consultant has recommended that the Personnel Department position be classified halfway between the two Finance positions.

The consultant has also recommended that all positions in the Personnel Department be renamed “Human Resources”, reflecting the terminology more often in use for this function.

The consultant also wrote over 175 new “class specifications” which summarize the duties, responsibilities, knowledges, skills, abilities, and suggested minimum qualifications for every separate title. A sample of these descriptions is included as Apendix A-1 in the consultant’s report. Employees had the opportunity to review the description covering their position before these descriptions were finalized.

Employees also had the opportunity to review the consultant’s recommendation on the appropriate title and recommended salary range for their position. Some have requested additional information on the consultant’s justification for the recommendation, and, as in past years, a few employees may appeal these recommendations to the Town Manager. Appeals will be heard and the final Ordinance Establishing a Position Classification and Pay Plan will be presented to the Council for adoption in June.

A draft of the Classification and Pay Plan recommendations is included in this report as Attachment D.

(3) Assignment of Positions to Salary Grades and Ranges Based on a Policy of Paying Wages Competitive at the 75^th percentile of the Local Market

A review of classification and pay plans has two chief components: analysis of duties and responsibilities to develop internal rankings of positions, discussed in #2 above, and a review of the labor market to determine competitive salaries. Two steps are involved in the labor market process:

In the fall of 1999 Condrey and Associates conducted an extensive salary survey in order to make salary range recommendations, collecting data from more than 40 organizations Information on hiring rates and on salaries actually paid was collected on benchmark or representative positions as well as some specialized positions. They also utilized private sector data from a survey of 446 Central and Eastern North Carolina private sector organizations collected by Capital Associated Industries. (The list of organizations surveyed is included in Dr. Condrey’s report as Appendix B.)

Summaries of data collected and the compilation of all data collected are included in the separate report from Condrey and Associates.

In analyzing the salary data that was collected, Dr. Condrey was guided by the Town Council’s policy on market competitiveness set in 1999. The Council adopted a resolution to set a policy on the Town’s competitive position within the area labor market which said that “the approximate third quartile of market data shall be used to determine local market comparability for Town positions.” The goal of paying salaries at the 75^th percentile rather than the median or average rate was to allow the Town to be more successful in recruiting and retaining employees in the competitive Research Triangle Area labor market. It was also a reflection of the Council’s and employee’s concerns about high living costs in Chapel Hill and the recognition that the Town depends in large part on a commuter workforce. (See Attachment B for a full text of this adopted resolution.)

The consultants made recommendations for the pay plan for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 using the local and regional salary data they had collected and analyzed, and recommended that the hiring rates for positions go up an average of 10.5%:

- To establish salary ranges that are more competitive with the current labor market,

- To take into account upcoming anticipated changes in the market. Salary data was collected by the consultants in the fall of 1999, and new ranges would not be implemented until one year later, in the fall of 2000. Because most employers’ pay will increase 3-5% in 2000, 3% of the recommended increase in Town ranges is in anticipation of the other employers’ increases. The consultant recommended this so that, by the time the Town implements the new pay ranges, those ranges are current with those being paid by other employers. (See Attachment G for a summary of wage increases projected by other employers.)

If adopted, the new classification and pay plan would set entry salaries for Town positions that would be more competitive than current entry salaries in hiring new employees. These new ranges should also be more reflective of the rates necessary to attract new employees, and should reduce the number of occasions when Town departments hire employees above the minimum rate in the range. We also anticipate that the new ranges will aid in retention of employees once they join the Town workforce, because career and salary advancement within a competitive salary range will have been established.

We believe that the priority for employee pay increases this year should be to implement the results of this classification and pay review. We have proposed that new titles and salary ranges be adopted effective October 1, 2000, and that employee pay increases vary based on the employee’s place in the recommended new salary range:

- For 495 (85%) of employees below the new Job Rate: With acceptable performance, employees with salaries below the new Job Rate would be put onto a step in the new schedule (hiring rate, probationary step, or steps 1,2,3, or Job Rate). If they have completed probation, employees would receive an additional step in the new range so that salaries will be distributed through the new range and will not be compressed with those of new employees.

- For 85 (15%) of employees with salaries at or above the new Job Rate: If performance is acceptable, an average merit increase of 4.5% is proposed for employees with salaries above the Job Rate of their recommended new range.

The average of pay increases that employees will receive if the study is implement the study is as recommended is 6.5%, but will vary from employee to employee based on the changes recommended in the salary range of his or her job and based on that employee’s salary in the new range. By fund, the recommended increases are as follows:

The average amount to implement the classification study is lower in the General Fund than in other funds because General Fund classifications were closer to current labor market; therefore, less money was needed to adjust employee salaries to the hiring rate, to the new probationary step, or to another step in the range. The 10.5% average change in the hiring rates of positions is recommended to make Town hiring rates and ranges more competitive with the current labor market and in anticipation of the increases other employers will be granting.

The average employee increase, however, is less than 10.5% because most employees are already paid within the new salary range. The 6.5% average employee increase is recommended to bring employees’ salaries up to the new probationary step or onto another step in their new range, and to provide a reasonable level of annual salary increase for 2000-2001.

A priority in the 1999-2000 budget was reducing salary compression. In that budget employees’ salaries were increased to the Job Rate if they had 5 years of service, or to lower steps in the range if they had 4, 3, or 2 years of service. This year, the recommended implementation of the classification and pay plan would maintain much of the same spread between the salaries of employees who have different levels of service that was implemented last year. See the chart on Attachment I for a summary of employee distribution in the salary range currently and after October 1, 2000.

Condrey and Associates recommended two levels of implementation: one level of implementation is the cost figures as recommended in this report, and would move employees onto a step in the new range and up an additional step to reduce compression. They recommended an additional step increase for employees with 4 years or service or more, to increase the spread of longer term employees’ salaries, compared to the salaries of employees with less service. However, because this second level of implementation would have cost an additional $600,000, the Manager’s Budget has not included this cost as a recommendation to the Council at this time. These kinds of adjustments could be made in a subsequent fiscal year depending on the availability of funds and on Council priorities.

We recommend that an average increase of 4.5% be granted as merit increases to the 85 employees whose salaries are above the new Job Rate.

The new pay system adopted in 1999 specified that, after employees’ salaries reached the Job Rate of the salary range, salary increases would be based on merit. Employees’ annual performance would be rated at one of five levels: Below Expected Level, Needs Improvement, Meets Expectations, Exceeds Expectations, or Outstanding. The amount each employee would receive would be determined by a mathematical forumla and on the numbers of ratings at each level, but the average increase Townwide would not exceed the percentage approved by the Council.

In 1999 the average increase in the Performance Range was 4.75%. The amount of increase varied from 2% to 4.5% plus a 1% one-time bonus for Outstanding perfomrance. In 2000-2001 we recommend an average 4.5% increase. See Attachment H for information on the increases anticipated by other employers in 2000; these projections were the basis of our recommendation for a 4.5% average increase.

· recruitment: establishing hiring rates and salary ranges that are up to date and are more competitive in the Research Triangle area labor market

· retention: providing our employees with career advancement and salary increases that are competitive with those being granted by other employers

· commitment: continuing the implementation of the simplified and restructured pay system and completing the pay system review process that was begun in 1998.

We look forward to discussions with the Council as the budget process continues.

Attachment D: Recommended assignment of classes to grades and ranges (draft)

Attachment E: Width of the salary ranges of other local government organizations

Attachment F: Chart of distribution of employees in salary ranges before and after the implementation of recommended classification and pay study

* Terms used in the salary schedule: Hiring Rate is the minimum of the range, and is the salary at which most new hires should be paid. Prob Step is the probationary salary which is paid upon successful completion of 6 months probation; the rate reflects a 6% increase over the hiring rate. Steps are intermediate rates of pay between the hiring rate and the Job Rate; there is approximately 3.8% between steps. Movement from one step to the next is based on performance that meets standards. Job Rate is approximately the mid-point of salary ranges grade 16 and above, higher in the ranges for the lower grades because the minimums of lower grades were raised to provide a living wage; salary increases above this rate vary based on performance ratings of the employee. Open Range is the range of salaries between the Job Rate and the maximum rate. There are no designated salary rates or steps in the open range. Maximum rate is the maximum that an employee within the salary grade would be paid.

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following policies will apply in determining market comparability of Town positions:

(1) Data Collection: The primary governmental organizations which shall be surveyed and considered in determining labor market and pay comparability of positions of the Town are:

The State of North Carolina (especially UNC-CH campus and hospital), Durham, Durham County, Orange County, Carrboro, OWASA, Raleigh, Cary, and Wake County

Local governments in other parts of the State of North Carolina or in other states in the region may be surveyed and data from these organizations considered in determining comparability of managerial and specialized positions.

Data from private industry and from other organizations will be obtained and considered to the extent such data is made available to the Town.

(2) Data analysis: The approximate third quartile of market data shall be used to determine local market comparability for Town positions.

Salary policies are subject to modification by Council at the time any budget is adopted or at other times as determined by the Council

Previous policies or resolutions in conflict with this resolution are hereby repealed.

The width of an organization’s salary schedule shows the potential for an employee’s advancement in a particular job. Currently, if an employee is hired into one of the Town’s lowest grades, his or her salary can advance 25%; most employees’ salaries can grow 46% before the maximum salary is reached.

The width of the Town’s current schedule is among the lowest of Research Triangle area governments, and, for the lowest paid employees, the range potential is significantly lower than those of other employers. (This is largely due to efforts in recent years to raise the hiring rates of many jobs to a more livable wage. The Town made the decision to provide higher entry salaries for the lowest jobs but not to raise the maximum rates.)

If the recommended schedule is adopted, all employees will have a range of 50% from hiring rate to maximum salary for their salaries to advance.

If the recommended classification and pay plan is adopted, employee’s salaries will continue to be distributed throughout the salary range (as shown by the solid line) and not compressed at the entry rates. However, fewer employees will have salaries over the Job Rate than currently. This is due to the recommended increases in ranges: because the ranges are recommended to increase, an employee whose current salary is at step 3 may drop to step 2 in his or her new range.

In some jobs, a large increase in the salary range will cause compression for employees whose current salaries are below the new minimum for the grade. As an example, the salary range for Bus Driver is recommended to increase 14%; employees presently at the probationary step, step 1 and step 2 of the current Bus Driver salary range all currently have salaries that are below the minimum of the new Bus Driver salary range. After recommended implementation, employees currently spread out through these steps will end up together at the probationary step of the new grade. (Employees not yet off probation will end up at the new hiring rate). Dr. Condrey, our consultant, had recommended an additional step for longer term employees to address this problem, but, with an estimated additional cost of $600,000, we have not recommended this additional step this year.

ATTACHMENT G

The Manager’s Recommended Budget recommends an average 4.5% increase be granted to employees whose salaries are above the new Job Rate in their salary range, and recommends an average 6.5% increase Town-wide to pay competitive salaries and implement the classification and pay study. The following projections from other organizations were the basis for these recommendations:

* Because the recommended new salary schedule was so different in its structure from the the current schedule, the consultant recommended that the current schedule be renumbered. The result is that all employees’ positions would be assigned to a new grade. Grade 25 was selected as the number that would designate the lowest salary in the new salary structure.

* Note that the salary grades have been renumbered. For example, the salaries in the Town’s current grade 20 are approximately equal to the salaries in the recommended grade 31.

* survey was conducted by the Personnel Director, to determine if the consultant’s recommendation to increase Chapel Hill’s salary range from 45% to 50% was justified, especially in the RTP area.

* *percentage from minimum rate to the highest rate in the developmental range

*** effective 7/1/00: proposed broad bands of 70% - 110%

	Current schedule (see Attachment A)	Recommended 10/1/00 schedule (see Attachment C)
Lowest hiring rate	$19,958 (grade 11)	$19,961 (grade 25)
# of grades	27 grades (grades 11-37)	29 grades (grades 25-53)
% difference - hiring rate to maximum rate	Grade 11: 24.7% Grade 12: 29.8% Grade 13: 34.9% Grade 14: 38.4% Grade 15: 42.2% Grade 16: 43.8% Grade 17 and above: 45.9%	All grades are 50% from hiring rate to maximum, so all employees have equal career advancement potential (see Attachment E for information on the width of ranges of Triangle area employers)
% difference between grades	Between grade 11 and 12: 0.8% Between grade 12 and 13: 1% Between grade 13 and 14: 2.4% Between grade 14 and 15: 2.2% Between grade 15 and 16: 3.8% Between grade 16 and 17: 3.3% Between grade 17 and 18: 5% All other grades are 5% apart	All grades are 5% apart, providing consistent financial incentive for promotion to positions of higher responsibility
Number of steps (including probationary step and Job Rate)	Grade 11: 3 steps Grade 12: 4 steps Grade 13 and above: 5 steps	All grades have 5 steps: the probationary step, step 1,2,3, and Job Rate, so all the career advancement of all employees through the range is the same

	Average employee increase to implement the Classification and Pay study October 1, 2000:
General Fund	5.6% (General Fund hiring rates increase 9.7%)
Transportation Fund	6.5% (Transportation Fund hiring rates increase 13%)
Housing Fund	8% (Housing Fund hiring rates increase 13.2%)
Parking Fund	10.9% (Parking Fund hiring rates increase 11.4%)
TOWNWIDE AVERAGES	6.5% (the average of hiring rate increases Townwide is 10.5%)

			HIRING	PROB		JOB	OPEN	MAXIMUM
GRADE			RATE *	STEP *	STEP 1	RATE *	RANGE *	RATE *
11			19,958	21,155	21,955	22,785		24,896
		HIRING	PROB			JOB
		RATE *	STEP *	STEP 1	STEP 2	RATE *
12		20,129	21,337	22,144	22,981	23,850		26,141
	HIRING	PROB				JOB
	RATE *	STEP *	STEP 1	STEP 2	STEP 3	RATE*
13	20,332	21,552	22,367	23,212	24,089	25,000		27,448
14	20,812	22,061	22,895	23,760	24,658	25,590		28,820
15	21,276	22,553	23,406	24,291	25,209	26,162		30,261
16	22,087	23,412	24,297	25,215	26,168	27,157		31,774
17	22,861	24,233	25,149	26,100	27,087	28,111		33,363
18	24,004	25,444	26,406	27,404	28,440	29,515		35,031
19	25,204	26,716	27,726	28,774	29,862	30,991		36,783
20	26,464	28,052	29,112	30,212	31,354	32,539		38,622
21	27,787	29,454	30,567	31,722	32,921	34,165		40,553
22	29,176	30,927	32,096	33,309	34,568	35,875		42,581
23	30,635	32,473	33,700	34,974	36,296	37,668		44,710
24	32,167	34,097	35,386	36,724	38,112	39,553		46,946
25	33,775	35,802	37,155	38,559	40,017	41,530		49,293
26	35,464	37,592	39,013	40,488	42,018	43,606		51,758
27	37,237	39,471	40,963	42,511	44,118	45,786		54,346
28	39,099	41,445	43,012	44,638	46,325	48,076		57,063
29	41,054	43,517	45,162	46,869	48,641	50,480		59,916
30	43,107	45,693	47,420	49,212	51,072	53,003		62,912
31	45,262	47,978	49,792	51,674	53,627	55,654		66,058
32	47,525	50,377	52,281	54,257	56,308	58,436		69,361
33	49,901	52,895	54,894	56,969	59,122	61,357		72,829
34	52,396	55,540	57,639	59,818	62,079	64,426		76,470
35	55,016	58,317	60,521	62,809	65,183	67,647		80,294
36	57,767	61,233	63,548	65,950	68,443	71,030		84,309
37	60,655	64,294	66,724	69,246	71,863	74,579		88,524

	HIRING	PROB	STEP	STEP	STEP	JOB	OPEN	MAXIMUM
GRADE	RATE	STEP	1	2	3	RATE	RANGE	RATE

25	19,961	21,159	21,959	22,789	23,650	24,544		29,942
26	20,959	22,217	23,057	23,928	24,833	25,771		31,439
27	22,007	23,328	24,210	25,125	26,074	27,060		33,011
28	23,108	24,494	25,420	26,381	27,378	28,413		34,661
29	24,263	25,719	26,691	27,700	28,747	29,834		36,395
30	25,476	27,005	28,026	29,085	30,184	31,325		38,214
31	26,750	28,355	29,427	30,539	31,694	32,892		40,125
32	28,088	29,773	30,898	32,066	33,278	34,536		42,131
33	29,492	31,261	32,443	33,669	34,942	36,263		44,238
34	30,966	32,824	34,065	35,353	36,689	38,076		46,450
35	32,515	34,466	35,768	37,121	38,524	39,980		48,772
36	34,141	36,189	37,557	38,977	40,450	41,979		51,211
37	35,848	37,998	39,435	40,925	42,472	44,078		53,771
38	37,640	39,898	41,406	42,972	44,596	46,282		56,460
39	39,522	41,893	43,477	45,120	46,826	48,596		59,283
40	41,498	43,988	45,651	47,376	49,167	51,026		62,247
41	43,573	46,187	47,933	49,745	51,625	53,577		65,359
42	45,752	48,497	50,330	52,232	54,207	56,256		68,627
43	48,039	50,922	52,846	54,844	56,917	59,068		72,059
44	50,441	53,468	55,489	57,586	59,763	62,022		75,662
45	52,963	56,141	58,263	60,465	62,751	65,123		79,445
46	55,611	58,948	61,176	63,489	65,889	68,379		83,417
47	58,392	61,895	64,235	66,663	69,183	71,798		87,588
48	61,311	64,990	67,447	69,996	72,642	75,388		91,967
49	64,377	68,240	70,819	73,496	76,274	79,157		96,566
50	67,596	71,652	74,360	77,171	80,088	83,115		101,394
51	70,976	75,234	78,078	81,029	84,092	87,271		106,464
52	74,525	78,996	81,982	85,081	88,297	91,635		111,787
53	78,251	82,946	86,081	89,335	92,712	96,216		117,376

Source:	Exempt / salaried employees	Non-Exempt (hourly) employees
*Local data:*
Capital Associated Industries in Raleigh : survey of 446 Eastern NC and Research Triangle private sector employers	4.4% to 4.5 % (executive)	4.0% for employees
*National trend data:*
William H. Mercer, Incorporated, survey	4.4%	4.2%
Buck Consultants, Inc. survey of 341 Fortune 1000 companies	4.3%	4.1%%
Conference Board	4%	4%
American Compensation Association	4.4-4.5%	4.1%
Hewitt Associates	4.2-4.4%	3.9%

OVERVIEW

GRADE

STEP 3

ATTACHMENT G