City Council - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. All right. Good evening. I'd like to call the joint meeting of the Greenville City Council and the Greenville Utilities Commission Board uh to order. My name is I'm Mayor PJ Connley. Be presiding over tonight's meeting. First, I'd like to call on our city clerk for our roll call. Yes, sir. Mayor Connelly here. Mayor Prom Foreman here. Council member Jones here. Council member Hardy here. Council member Scully here. Council member Robinson

here. Council member Willis here. Mayor Connley have a quorum. Thank you. I'll pass it over to Chair Garner. All right. And I'd like to call this meeting of the Greenwood Utilities Commission to order and ask the executive secretary to confirm a quorum. Okay. Chair Gardner here. Chair Blunt here. Secretary Carr here. Commissioner Fuller here. Commissioner Godley here. Commissioner Swain here. Commissioner Shaw. Commissioner Cohen here. We do have a quorum. Thank you. Move on now to the approval of the agenda. Mr. Manager, any recommended changes? Have no changes, ma'am. All right. Do I have a motion to approve by the council? So moved. Second.

All right. Motion been made by Council Member Scully. Second by Council Member Robinson. All those in favor say I. Those post say nay. Motion passes 6. All right. for Granville Utilities Commission. Are there any changes to be brought forth? If not, I entertain a motion to approve the agenda as presented. So move. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Blunt, a second by Dr. Carp. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by saying I. I like sign. Eyes have. Thank you.

We'll now move on to the public comment period for issues that are gerine to both the city council and Greenville Utilities Commission. The public comment period is period reserved for comments by the public. Items that were or scheduled to be the subject of public hearing conducted at the same meeting or another meeting during the same week shall not be discussed. A total of 30 minutes is allocated with each individ individual being allowed no more than 3 minutes. Individuals who registered with the city clerk to speak will speak in the order registered until the allotted 30 minutes expires. If time remains after all persons who have registered have spoken, individuals who did not register will have an opportunity to speak until the allotted 30 minutes expires. Madam clerk, our first speaker, Connley, we do not have any registered speakers. Anyone that would like to speak during the public comment period, please come forward. State your name for the record. of 3 minutes.

Seeing none, we'll close the public comment period. We'll move on to new business. Mr. Manager. Thank you, Mayor. Item number one under new business, approval of minutes from the September 22nd, 2025 Joint City Council Greenville Utilities Commission board meeting. Motion for All right. City Council, do we have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. Second. All right. Motion's been made by Council Member Hardy, second by Council Member Willis. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. Those post say nay. Motion passes 6. Greenville Utilities Commission. Is there a motion to approve? Have a motion by Commissioner Swain. Is there a second? Second.

Second by Commissioner Fuller. Any further comment or discussion? All in favor of the motion let it be known by saying I opposed like sign. Eyes have it. Thank you. We'll move on to item number two. Thank you mayor. Item number two consideration of recommendation for classification and compensation study. I now call forward the senior consultant with Seagull Consulting Group Maryanne Edwards for the presentation. Good evening. Good evening.

Mayor Connley, Chair Garner, council members, and commissioners. I want to thank you for inviting me to present to you the results of Seagull's classification and compensation study that has recently concluded. There we go. A little bit about Seagull. We are a national human resources consulting firm um celebrating over 80 years of doing this type of work. We specialize in serving agencies and organizations who serve the public. And so our mission of providing trusted advice that improves lives very much aligns with the mission of your organizations. Um we uh seagull values our ongoing and very long-term relationship with the city of Greenville and the Greenville Utilities Commission. Over time, we have had the benefit of really coming to understand the jobs in both organizations, the services that you provide and the pay structures that have been built to serve both organizations. I have served um on this account since 2022 and in this most recent study, I served as the client relationship manager. My colleague Patrice Glascol served as the project manager and she has been with this account um even longer than I way back when it first began and uh that was about two uh at least 12 years ago. Um she has recently retired but we were joined on this project team with uh John Park who was our chief uh analyst and Mary Benjamin who was an associate analyst. Today I want to talk with you a little bit about our methodology and approach to this project, the processes that we used. Um talk with you uh review with you our study findings um and the salary structure recommendations that we made um as well as our proposed approach for implementation.

Really the overall goal of this study and the work that both organizations continue to do to maintain this joint pay plan is really to continue to offer fair, competitive and sustainable classification and compensation that that supports uh your mission and your uh ability to recruit and retain and perform. The guiding principles of this are to uh ensure that classifications are internally equitable. What I mean by that is that jobs when they're compared to one another um uh are uh the relationships make sense that they are uh ordered in the appropriate um order. Also that the compensation plan reflects market conditions um that it meets the HR strategies of both organizations. Um that it's financially sound and um able to be easily administered and it's accurate and objective. Our project had five main phases. Um they're late right here. Uh we began with a process of project initiation, data discovery. Uh we talked with the HR teams of both organizations to get a sense for um what uh uh what problems might be occurring with regard to recruitment and retention. We talked with stakeholders, leaders in both organizations as well to get that input. Then we conducted a process of classification analysis which really is a fancy way to say we dug in and we studied the work the jobs that are performed in each organization. We conducted a compensation market assessment uh looking at the rates of pay that are offered with many peer organizations as well as accessing some published surveys. Then we've worked with the teams to develop recommendations for a new salary structure and concluding today with presenting our final results. The classification analysis process uh

was re uh started with what we call a JDQ process, a job description questionnaire. Um this is a a way in which we engaged all of the staff members uh with the opportunity to describe the work that they could perform on a daily basis. Um this is a web enabled survey. In years past, it was paper, so hopefully employees appreciated the more streamlined approach. Um, but we received 599 completed JDQs that covered 407 job 401 job titles. Um, we did exempt sworn police and fire rescue roles from completing those JDQs. because of the nature of those roles and the rank approach to um structuring those jobs. Uh we worked with the job descriptions to assess those uh those functions. We worked with that uh that information in the JDQ and then applied a job evaluation. Um it's called seagull evaluator and this is a structured way to establish that internal relationship of those jobs to one another. The outcomes of this process really resulted in an updated classification structure with some recommendations regarding titling format that better enables our ability to link those roles to the market. Updates to job descriptions, job summaries, and minimum qualifications occurred as well. As I mentioned, 599 JDQs covering those titles were reviewed. Um and the outcome there is that there were 36 job families defined 93 recommended title changes or new titles um and 407 final unique job titles. You might wonder why 407 does not match 401. There were some roles that we did not have JDQs for. So we used job

descriptions and talked with uh staff to understand those roles. Then we moved into the third phase uh looking at compensation and assessing that. Uh there's four parts to this process looking at what we call benchmark jobs. These are um jobs that can be found fairly easily across different organizations. We identified comparable peers uh for the city and for the for GU as well as published survey sources. Um and then we distributed a custom survey document to these organizations to complete for us. Analyzed that data and determined a base base salary market condition. Um and from that market data we were able to design uh market-based market competitive salary structures. The way we approach the custom survey document is to use a very brief um benchmark job summary. We ask peer participants to match based upon the description, not the job title, and to ensure that at least 75% of the job that they are reporting as a match matches the benchmark title. Um, and this uh survey also included questions about some pay progression practices, um, what the matching job title was, uh, and what the ba job base pay ranges were. And when I say a pay range, what I mean is the established minimum and the established maximum of that role to determine the benchmark jobs. What we want to ensure is that uh it is it supports it's a strategic selection of these jobs that is comprehensive. We want to make sure that those benchmark jobs represent the full range of occupations that it represents the full array of services offered in both organizations. all levels and grades within the structure. Um as well as

focusing in on some hard to fill um jobs or jobs with high turnover and uh the kind of the final test case for a benchmark is will it be a role that we can find in the uh in that peer. All total 140 benchmark positions were identified. Um both teams um uh in or both HR teams in uh both organizations weighed into the selection of these benchmarks. Um and the results of this survey is really a credit to their time and their efforts in both selecting those peers as well as selecting the benchmarks. We identified 25 organizations to solicit information from. They are listed here. It's an array of public sector uh peers as well as utility peers. Um some of the public sector peers also uh uh have some utility operations that they can pro that they provided some information for. Um and all total from this list of 25 we were able to receive or we 22 of these uh peers participated and as a result they will receive a summary report um of our survey. We also access published survey information. This helps to expand the information that we get from the peers. Um it's a very good source of data. You'll see some utility based surveys listed here as well as one for the North Carolina League of Municipalities. And then economic research institute and comp analyst serve as representation of the general industry or general market. um for example uh an accountant or an HR role or a financial role um can not only be found in your peer competitors but also within your community competitors as well. So we like to tap into the general industry data for that. All data

was aged forward to be effective October 1st 2025 or 2020 yes 2025 from the market study. Then we can take that data, pair it with the classification analysis and job evaluation work that we did to design a salary schedule, assign the jobs to those salary grades, and then we also conducted some compression analysis. When I say compression analysis, what I mean is the check to ensure that there's sufficient difference between staff levels and supervisor levels and that there's some there is a logical difference in grades for some of the job series uh that you have already identified. So let me talk about what we found in our survey with regard to the study of the benchmark positions. um there it it covers 48% of the employees in both organizations. So that is a good broad spread of representation of employees and overall um the pay structure the salary structure that is used by GU in the city of Greenwood Greenville has an overall market competitiveness of 98%. Um that means that uh if this uh if the structure is compared to the results of the survey in whole it is just about 2% below what we found as the prevailing structure among those peers. When we look at the distribution of employees within the competitive range 42% of those employees fall within the competitive range and let me define what I mean by competitive range. We consider anything that is plus or minus 5% of the market average midpoint as being competitive. So anything between 95% and 105% is is falling in a good position. So 42% are falling within the

competitive range, 27% are falling below the competitive range and 18% are falling above the competitive range. You're asking 13% is missing here if we're adding up to 100%. And so um the 13% the remaining 13% fall in jobs that we were unable to get uh benchmark data sufficient benchmark data in order to report. All right. So the overall position of base pay for the city and GU salary structure as a whole is very competitive. Um when we compare it just to the public sector peers um it is leading at the minimum by 106%. So just 1% above the competitive range. It's right on par at the midpoint and then slightly below at 97% at the maximum. When we compare that to utility peers alone, um it is a bit it is a it is out of competitive range um in the 87 high 80%. Um and then when we look at the overall custom survey market average looking at both the public sector peers as well as utilities peers um the base pay minimum rate uh minimum is at 1022% midpoint is at 97% and maximum is at 95%. when we add in those published data sources that are in that light salmon color. Um, again looking very competitive when we look at that slice of data. But when we average those two, the overall average between the custom survey and the published data sources, you're right on par um at the minimum at 100%. 98% at the midpoint and 96% at the maximum. This is a credit to the very active

management of this uh salary plan of the salary structure in both organizations uh from the starting with the HR departments leading up to the managing teams as well as the work that you do as a joint body. So congratulations on a a very good result a very competitive position. We do share for your information how the how the salary structure compares to each peer. Um items in black are falling within the competitive range that 95% to 105% corridor. Figures in red are uh falling below 95% and those in blue are falling above at 105%. So, for example, the salary structure compares very favorably, uh, to the town of Kerry, uh, which is about twothirds of the way down. Um, it compares, uh, on the lower end to Fagatville, PWC, um, and it compares on the higher end to the city of Durham. After those findings, we can then move into salary structure design. Um, what some of the things that we consider when we design a salary structure or update an existing salary structure is the organization's desired position relative to market. Um, some of those considerations um are, you know, are we in a very hot labor market where we would maybe consider leading the market? Are we in a stable labor market where meeting is sufficient? Um or is it even possible to to lag slightly? Um one of the other things we consider are the relationships of the jobs of to uh to market value and to one another in the salary structure. So we for example surveyed 140 benchmark jobs. Um but there will be some jobs that we did not

have benchmark data for. So we need to consider how those jobs relate to one another in their placement in the structure. the number of paygrades uh with set with minimum and maximum is something else that we consider and the progression of jobs within the job family. When we talk about salary structure, we often talk about there being two dimensions to how we go forward with implement implementing a new structure and those two decisions or those two dimensions are paying for the job and paying for the individual. The salary structure is developed around or with a focus on the job. So the things that we take into account are those comparison markets, the pay position relative to the market and the balance of that internal structure that we created in the classification plan and the um external factors that we're seeing in the market. Paying for the individual speaks to how individuals how employees move through that pay range. And the things that we take into account for those types of decisions are the skills, the knowledge, the experience of the individual, their length of service, their time and role, internal equity, performance in some cases. So our recommendations for the salary structure for the general structure, okay, and these are when I say the general structure, it's the structure used for all roles except for police and fire. Um, we increased that structure to be 100% of the overall market average midpoint. Um, we think that meeting the market is a a sufficient strategy to use. It's worked for you well over the last several years. Um, and then we've aged that forward to the expected implementation date using a 2% aging increase. We did adjust the range width to be slightly wider to 59% to better reflect what we were seeing on average

in the market. And then we used progressive midpoint differentials. That's the distance between each range starting at 6% and moving to 10%. And then we did revised grade placement for 125 positions to more accurately reflect those market aligned rates. So that's about 28% of the roles in the police and fire rescue structures. Um again, so these uh these behaved uh these behave differently than a general structure. We don't look at midpoint progressions. We instead align each rank with what we see as the market rate for those positions. Um and we maintained in the police structure the current eight pay grades. Um we did set the pay for police officer um to align very directly with the market above market a bit to address recruitment issues. We increased the pay ranges of other ranks to reflect market average rates. And um the range widths here do vary from 19% to 58%. The 198 19% range is um is really for the recruit for the first level. The person's not going to be in that role for very long. So we can use a smaller width. Um and then the 58 is uh for those ranks that um will be in that level for for a while longer. Um the change in range minimums from the current to the new structure averages about 14%. Um this is candidly in line with a lot of the movement that we are seeing in police pay structures just given the competitiveness for that talent and for um those individuals in the workforce. the fire and rescue salary structure. We again maintain the current 12 grades. Um we increased the pay ranges to reflect the average rates that we saw um as well as to address to address some um targeted recruitment issues. Um the range widths vary from 5% to 50% in this

case depending on rank and the change in range minimum from the current to the new structure is about five and a half percent. The next slides uh for your reference side by side show the current structure to the proposed structure. Um the this is for grades 106 to 116 117 to 128 and the fire rescue salary structure current to proposed and the police salary structure current to proposed. So now we have to figure out how to get staff from their current structure to the new structure and so we have some implementation um proposal for you. Um very often our clients like us to model several different ways and um we did indeed look at four different opt or three different options. Um option 1A looked at uh really essentially moving anybody who was below the minimum to the minimum and that was it. Um we don't often recommend doing only that because you will of once you raise that structure you'll create some compression at the beginning. Option 1B is a very popular approach because it raises employees to at least 5% above the new minimum to ensure that when the new structure is in place, as new employees get hired, there is some distance uh between their rates of pay and those who have already been working for the city or the utilities commission. Option two and option three we we looked at. Um option two looks at the time in position. Option three looks at the comp ratio. Um and we did not feel that uh given the extent of the adjustments here that that would be um ideal for the city or the utilities commission to pursue at

this time. And so in collaboration with the city and GU we moved forward with option 1B and the estimated implementation costs then for option 1B um for the city and for the for GU are displayed here. um for the general structure here at the top and uh as a um percent of total payroll for the city of Greenville, it's about two a little over 2% or about $575,000. The adjustment of the implementation of 1B for GU is less than one percentage point at 293 215. And then for the fire structure and the police structure listed below, option 1B uh for fire and rescue represents 1.12% of payroll or 151,176 and for police 2.4% of payroll or 243559. Right? Um again these modest adjustments the really are a reflection of the active management uh of these structures that has happened over time. It really helps to defay large costs. Um, I wish that all of my clients were as active in managing their their pay structures and their salary structures so that things could be handled more incrementally like this. So, our recommendation uh for you to consider would be to bring to implement option 1B and bring to 5% above minimum. Um we would recommend to do that that you implement the recommended salary structure which is based on market data uh the current midpoint and internal equity considerations that we've shared with both HR teams and place all employees in those appropriate pay grades as recommended and then bring employees who are below the minimum of

their assigned pay range uh grade up to 5% above the minimum of the assigned new pay grade. And just as ongoing considerations, you know, please continue to uh maintain the structure. Um and um and we would offer or we I would invite questions or I've got some guidelines here for ongoing maintenance, but I feel like those teams could teach this. So, I want to thank you for your time tonight and I would welcome any questions you might have for me. Any questions from the council? That had to be a really good presentation. No questions.

I hope I used your time wisely. Thank you so much. I appreciate it very much. Do you see have any questions? Members. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Thank you,

Mayor. I would just like to make one comment. I think that both uh the GU commissioners and the city council should be very proud of the pay plan uh progression over the last 15 years. Both boards uh collectively stated that they wanted to stay with the market and as you can see here tonight that that work has paid off and continues to pay off. that we can say that we're at 98% of the market and only have to look at incremental changes is a testament to the work of not only the staffs but of of both boards collectively to do this. Thank you. Anyone just like to make a motion to accept one B? City Council, you like to make a motion? Motion to accept one B. Second.

All right. Motion's been made by councelor Robinson, second by council member Skully. Yes. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. Ah, better say nay. Motion passes 6. Gr utilities commission uh entertain a motion to accept the report of the study and recommendations. I move that we accept option 1B. I'll second. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Godley and a second by Commissioner Fuller to accept the report with the recommendation of option 1B. Is there any further discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, let it be known by saying I.

Oppos like sign. Eyes have it. Thank you. Item number three. Thank you, mayor. Item number three, consideration of market adjustment merit allocation program for the fiscal year 2026 2027 fiscal year. I now call forward our city of Greenville HR director, Leah Futrell, for the presentation. Good evening.

Good evening. Good evening. Um each year as Miss um Edwards um illustrated, the city and GU re uh review the competitive uh posture of the joint pay plan with the goal of course um of ensuring that um the pay system is internally and externally equitable. And we use a variety of data points to assist us with that um decision. salary market surveys, public sector benchmarks, and local private employers. And many of these you all heard from uh Miss Edwards just a moment ago. Um with regard to salary surveys um the the city and GU traditionally we've used seven um and they're listed here. um Catapult, um Erri, Coinferryy, Mercer, the Conference Board, Willis Towers, Watson, and World at Work. Um you can see that there's ve little variation in the projected wage increase. Um 3.4% of U being the low and 3.6 being the high with an average of three and a half percent. Um we generally have um relied on Catapult um as our primary benchmark um t really because they're um somewhat local. Um they cover many employers in North Carolina and the Southeast and so um they have generally been a very good um survey for us to use. Um and you can see they lean a little bit conservative. So they're projecting 3.4% 4% um overall with regard to public sector benchmarks because we also consider those. We um rely on 26 um municipalities and utilities and we asked them for the

current fiscal year 25 26. What did you all do with regard to pay increases for for the year? and 13 um half of those employers responded with an average actual increase of 4.6%. Um we also asked those 26 organizations, what are you projecting for fiscal year 2627 and um only five of those organizations responded um probably because it's very early in the budget planning year. So they they're unsure themselves. Um but of those five um they project an average increase of 4%. Um not wanting to leave out um local private employers, we also reached out to them. Um and of the 19 that we reached out to, three responded and for the current fiscal year 2526, the average increase um reported is 3.7%. And for the upcoming fiscal year, the um uh projected increase is 4%. So this next um slide just is a table that kind of gives a five-year look back as to how the city and GU have compared to the to the market. And generally we've we've been on point. There are a couple of years there that you see or uh little less than market. Um for the last couple of um fiscal years um the city and GU have been um at market and for the upcoming fiscal year 2627 obviously that's to be determined by you all tonight. Uh but again we repeat um what were on the previous slides with the published survey catapult being representative of the published survey coming in at 3.4%. 4% public sector on average 4% private sector 4%.

So the action that's being requested tonight um is that um you all recommend a 3.25% pay adjustment for the upcoming fiscal year fiscal year 2627 applied is deemed appropriate by each entity. And of course that 3.25% 25% is slightly less than um the averages I've shared with you tonight. Um but that is due to budget constraints. Um I will entertain any questions at this time. Any questions for the council?

I have one question and I'm not sure how it relate. I know when we were in our briefing, I uh asked something about minimum salaries. Yes. Uh do we know what the minimum salaries are? I know that we do uh our considerations based on market adjustment and uh or market rates but right now with inflation and uh expenses increasing, I'm just curious. Yes. So are you referring to the the lowest salary in the lowest pay grade? Okay.

Um so right now the annual salary minimum is 35600 excuse me 35485. That's current annual salary. So it's proposed to increase just slightly due to market um results to 35600. So

and what does that equate to? equates hourly. It it would go from 1706 an hour as a minimum s minimum hourly rate to $1712 per hour. Um so again, not very much of a difference there. I do want to point out though that after um six months most of our employees um excluding fire and police that that are like come in as trainees they um employees are eligible for a um uh increase in pay of 5% after 6 months. So those are the minimum entry rates um but uh those rates would increase by 5% in six months. So Leah 35600 is the minimum

that would be that and a 5% increase on that brings it up to 37,380 after six months. Okay. Thank you. And um just one more quick question. Uh what position is that? Um there are several positions in that pay grade. Um I would you like for me to name some of those positions and Okay. So, um, and this is on the city side. I don't have GC, but um, auto service worker, um, collections clerk, um, custodian, laborer, and, uh, refuge collector.

Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions from city council? Any questions from GU commissioners?

Now's the time. Mayor, we would request a motion for approval. We have a motion to approve from the city council. Motion to approve. Second. All right. Motion's been made by Council Member Willis, second by Mayor Pro Tim Foreman. Any other discussion?

Just a comment that we have the best staff in the world and it really breaks my heart a little bit that we're not able to um to give them a bit bigger raise. Um and but it is a tough budgetary year. We have to make really hard decisions. Um, so just wanted to make the comment uh that I admire, respect and appreciate our staff so much and we had a lengthy discussion about this. Um, and I'm going to approve this with a heavy heart.

Any other discussion? uh just that uh my purpose for asking that question is because I uh do a lot of work with housing and food insecurity and in this current climate and economy uh a lot of people cannot afford to live where they work uh because with uh expenses raising across the board. What is not raising is wages. And so I wanted it to be elevated that the minimum salary is $17 an hour, a little more than that. Any other discussion? All right, we got a motion and properly second. All those in favor say I. Those say I.

Motion passes 60. All righty. Greenwood Utilities Commission entertain a motion relative to the market adjustment merit allocation program of a motion by Commissioner Swain. Is there a second? A second. Second by Dr. Car. Any further comment or discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, let it be known by saying I. I oppose like sign. Eyes have it. Thank you. All right, we'll move on to item number. Thank you, mayor. Item number four, review of the 401k employer contribution. Now, call for the GU HR director Richie Shre for the presentation.

Good evening. Um, as Mr. Cowan said, I'm here to give you an update about the 401k employer contribution. As many of you may recall, in 2024, the joint GU and city boards approved a multi-year phased approach to increasing the employer 401k. Um, this was to better align our contributions with other municipalities as well as to align employees with sworn law enforcement employees who by general statute receive 5%. The phased approach resulted in for the excuse me resulted in the 401k employee contribution increasing from $40 per pay period to 3% per pay period in fiscal year 2425 to 4% in the current fiscal year and to 5% next fiscal year effective January 2027. um your thoughtful and strategic decision in that process has positively impacted the recruitment and retention efforts at both organizations. Um, it also reflects to us your commitment to our workforce as well as illustrates your understanding of having a competitive benefit program and how that positively impacts our ability to recruit and retain um, dedicated, qualified employees who serve our community every day.

Thank you. That was just for information purposes only. The city council and board of commissioners approved that next last year. So we will progress that up to the 5% which I will just echo is just a great benefit for our employees. Again both boards should be applauded for for those efforts. That's all we have. Mayor. All right. We'll make a motion to adjourn utilities commission first. Without uh any further business on the agenda, I declare the meeting of the board of commissioners for Greenville Utilities Commission adjourned.

Council, do I have a motion from our city council? Motion to adjourn. Second. All right. Motion made by council member Robinson, second by council member Scully. All those in favor say I. I. Those say nay. Motion passes 6.