City of Sierra Vista, AZ. City Council Presentation

1. City of Sierra Vista, AZ.City Council Presentation August 12, 2014 2014 COMPENSATION AND CLASSIFICATION STUDY Presented by: Linda G. Wishard, Senior Consultant

2. Project Overview Job Evaluation JobAnalysis Custom Market Survey Salary Structure System Administration Goals & Objectives COMMUNICATION

3. Key Deliverables of the Study • Job Analysis and Classification Review (FLSA Report) • Job Evaluation • Custom Compensation Survey • Market Comparisons • Development of New Classification/Compensation Plan

4. Job Classifications A thorough review of all classifications completed • Job Description Questionnaires (JDQs) collected to provide accurate and up-to-date job documentation. • Job Evaluation to clarify job relationships and groupings (Internal Equity). Job Evaluation Manual (JEM) completed by supervisors for all positions. • Updated classification system and job titles that reflect current duties, job requirements, and scope of responsibilities. • FLSA Review completed and report provided.

5. Job Evaluation Job Evaluation System to establish internal equity completed • Evaluation of positions using factors that are typically paid-for, measurable qualities, and features or requirements common to all jobs. • Performance at an acceptable level is assumed. • Considered what the job requires most of the time under normal circumstances. • Factors consistently applied across departments. • Ratings based on JDQ, Job Evaluation Manual, and Subject Matter Experts. • Results in an internal hierarchy of jobs defining relative value.

6. Compensable Factors Formal Education This factor measures the minimum formalized training or education that is required for entry into the position. ExperienceBased on the minimum education required for the job, this factor measures the degree of experience required for entry into the position. Management/SupervisionThis factor measures the managerial requirements for achieving results through people. Interpersonal SkillsThis factor measures the job requirements of interaction with others outside direct reporting relationships. Freedom to ActThis factor measures the degree of freedom to exercise authority as well as assesses the impact of actions. Technical Skills This factor measures the job difficulty in terms of the application of the knowledge required by the job. Working ConditionsThis factor measures the surroundings or physical conditions under which the work must be performed. Fiscal ResponsibilityThis factor measures the accountability for the annual budget and financial management for a department or assigned area of responsibility.

7. Benchmark Organizations In addition to published private sector data (ERI), a total of thirty (30) organizations were requested to participate in the customized survey. Those organizations providing a complete or partial response to the survey included the followingnoted in “red”:

8. Base Pay & Structure Analysis Completed • Use of Geographic Differential to adjust for regional differences in cost of labor. • Aged data (3.5%) to October 1, 2014. • Use of weighted average salaries for data point of comparison for general jobs.

9. Geographic Differentials for Benchmark Organizations (Source: ERI)

10. Market Competitiveness* • Base SalaryGrade Midpoint • General Positions: • Nonexempt - 8.7%* -2.1%* • Exempt - 4.3%* -2.9%* • Senior Management -13.6%* -15.5%* • *Competitiveness varies by position

11. Market Competitiveness* • Base Grade Grade • Salary Minimum Maximum • Public Safety Positions: • Fire- 18.8%* -16.5%* -10.8%* • Police -19.3%* -18.7% -10.2%* • *Competitiveness varies by position

12. Salary Structure Design • Use geographically adjusted, weighted average salaries as midpoint target for structures. • Use job evaluation for placement of positions in structures. • Using market data, develop structures competitive with market at 100% of benchmark average salaries. • Update range spreads (from entry to maximum rate of pay) to reflect market trends (Non-Exempt – 45%; Exempt – 50%; Senior Management – 50%).

13. PROPOSED NON-EXEMPT PAY STRUCTURE

14. PROPOSED EXEMPT PAY STRUCTURE

15. PROPOSED SENIOR MANAGEMENT PAY STRUCTURE

16. PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY (Exempt) PAY STRUCTURE

17. PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY (Non-Exempt) STEP PAY STRUCTURE

18. Segal Waters - Recommendations • Adopt proposed Classifications, based on job analysis and job evaluation results (internal equity – hierarchy of jobs). • Adopt the proposed pay structures (Exempt, Non-Exempt, Senior Management) at 100% market average based on 50/50 weighting of Custom Survey and Published data. • Adopt the proposed step pay structure for Non-Exempt Public Safety. • Adopt proposed pay administrative guidelines.

19. Segal Waters’ Recommendations (Continued) • Adopt adjustment to incumbent pay to minimum of proposed ranges: • Estimated cost: $118,634.41 • Affects 40 employees • Adopt adjustment to closest step for Non-Exempt Public Safety: • Estimated cost: $85,694.56 • Affects 104 employees • Adopt adjustment of 2.0% of the new range minimum for each full year of service (TIP - time in position): • Estimated cost: $308,174.79 • Affects 115 employees • Total Estimated Cost: $512,453.76* *Does not include associated benefits costs.

20. Segal Waters’ Recommendations (Continued) • Two-Year Implementation Plan – Optional • Year 1 - Adopt adjustments to move employees to the Minimum of Range or Closest Step • Estimated cost: $204,328.97 • Affects 144 employees • Year 2 - Adopt adjustment of 2.0% of the new range minimum for each full year of service (TIP - time in position): • Estimated cost: $308,174.79 • Affects 115 employees *does not included associated benefits costs

21. QUESTIONS?