Sarah Towne, the consulting manager with Baker-Tilly, presented the results for the second phase of the market study. She walked through the methodology and the results of phase two. She continued that a lot of items go into determining compensation for employees. She said it starts very broadly and significantly, which is the organization's compensation philosophy, defining who your market is and what your position is in the market. Ms. Town advised that organizations will either take the lead, a lag, or a matching philosophy; the current compensation philosophy for Alamance County is a match. She commented that they looked at the market and determined the peer organizations; their goal is to match 100% at the midpoints or what they are doing regarding average salaries. She was hopeful that the county could potentially lead in the future. Ms. Towne reported that as they worked through the three phases of the market study. The county had taken a match compensation philosophy.
She said they look at the external competitiveness component, which is looking at an organization to an organization, which includes counties and local municipalities, as defined by Alamance County. They looked at the base pay rate of those peer organizations in those various positions year over year. She reminded the Board that the market study looks at external competitiveness. So, they are not looking at people in the roles or evaluating performance or any of those components. It is staying squarely focused on the external competitiveness of Alamance County salaries. She noted that they worked with the county during the market assessment to identify 15 peer organizations that were comparable and competitive. Ms. Towne reported that 118 positions, or 33%, were carried to the market as benchmark positions. She mentioned that they obtained market values for 94.1% of those positions. She said that Alamance County's labor cost for that year was 92.3 out of 100.
Ms. Towne said on average, the county was 4.2% above the market at the minimum, 1.8% above the market at the midpoint, and 0.1% above the market at the maximum. She provided some implementation scenarios: Option 1 would move employees to the minimum at a cost of $126,000, and Option 2 would give credit to employees for their time in their position at a cost of $336,000.
County Manager York explained that the county had budgeted $400,000 for the Phase 2 implementation. If the Board decided on Option 2 with a January 1 implementation date, that would cost $168,268 instead of the $336,005. She asked for the Board's direction on which option they would like to implement on January 1. Chairman Paisley asked County Manager York for her recommendation. County Manager York recommended Option 2. She indicated that it was consistent with the Board had approved for Phase 1 for employees when they took into account years of service in the position. She noted that there may be some changes or adjustments between then and the implementation date, so she asked for authorization to spend up to $200,000. County Manager York mentioned that was half of the amount they had budgeted, so there would still be savings going forward.