Track A Market | HSG Response Companion for the Town of Vienna

The peer field the Town already validated

Bolton's 2024 custom survey, identified jointly with the Town, drew usable data from eleven agencies: Arlington County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Falls Church, Herndon, Leesburg, Manassas Park, and the Maryland municipalities of College Park, Gaithersburg, Hyattsville, and Rockville. Four invitees returned nothing: Alexandria, City of Fairfax, City of Manassas, and Fairfax County. We would start from this Town-validated field, add the non-responders through their published pay plans (all four publish), and confirm the final two lists with HR at kickoff, as RFP §4.5.1 provides.

What is public, and now loaded

The grid below is built from the peer governments' own published pay plans and class listings, retrieved in October 2026 and matched to the Town's benchmark titles from Custodian I to Director of Public Works. The same rows sit in the Town's workspace on the HSG platform, where they drive the stored market runs; the documents are linked at the bottom of the page. For hard-to-fill technical roles, RFP §4.3.3 adds relevant private-sector markets, which we reach through published regional survey sources.

Scale context: Vienna's ranges against Fairfax County's general plan

Vienna FY 24-25 civilian grades (selected) against Fairfax County FY2026 Pay Plan S grades of comparable span. Sources: Town of Vienna FY 24-25 Pay Plan; Fairfax County FY2026 Compensation Plan S (fairfaxcounty.gov/hr). Fairfax County is the labor-market gravity well every NOVA town competes against for civilian talent; alignment or misalignment with it is a fact a structure design has to face; it says nothing against either plan.

peer governments with a published civilian pay plan loaded

Town benchmark titles matched, from Custodian I to Director of Public Works

comparator datapoints, each with a source document and an effective date

median position of Vienna's midpoints against the peer median midpoint (published FY 24-25 scale, unaged)

Where the Town's civilian ranges sit against the peer median, title by title

Each bar is one benchmark title: the Town's published FY 24-25 figure against the median of the peer figures on the same basis. Negative is below the peer median. The basis control switches the comparison to the entry rate or the maximum. Hover a bar for the figures and the count of peers behind it. The Town's current scale is higher than the FY 24-25 figures shown here, and nothing is aged to a common date yet; the study does both at intake.

Basis

Order

The civilian benchmark grid

One row per Town benchmark title. Click a row to open the peer figures behind it: each government's own title, grade, range and effective date. Midpoints marked with an asterisk were computed as the average of the published minimum and maximum because the plan prints none. Hourly plans are shown annualized at 2,080 hours.

Town title	Grade	Town min / mid / max	Peers	Peer median min / mid / max	Town mid vs peer median

The comparator sources, on the record

Every published plan behind the grid, with the document, the date it took effect and the date we retrieved it. This is the documentation standard the delivered study carries: every benchmark traceable to a dated public document. The Town's own suggested peer lists are reconciled with this field at kickoff, as RFP §4.5.1 provides.

Government	Document	Plan	Effective	Retrieved	Matches

How to read this, and what it is not

This is the public-record baseline the proposal describes, built before award from what the peer governments publish. It compares the Town's published FY 24-25 plan with peer plans effective in 2025 and 2026, so part of any gap is simply the two years between the dates. The study loads the Town's current scale, ages every figure to one date, confirms each match with the Town's job descriptions, and adds the custom survey for the practices publication cannot answer. No figure on this page is a recommendation.

Why this matters for the December 14 date

Custom surveys are the long pole in any comp study: invitations, reminders, partial returns, and the four-of-fifteen silence the 2024 study experienced. Building the baseline from published plans first means market analysis starts the week of kickoff, while the last survey return is still weeks away, and the custom survey that follows is shorter and aimed only at what publication cannot answer. On an award-to-delivery window of roughly ten weeks, that sequencing is the schedule.