Copyright © 2014 by The Segal Group, Inc. All rights reserved. City of Sierra Vista, AZ. City Council Presentation August 12, 2014 2014 COMPENSATION AND.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Market Pricing Organizations seek to offer market based pay rates in order to attract and retain competent employees There are two basic methods to recognize.
Advertisements

Hubbard County, Minn. Classification and Compensation Study Update GREG MANGOLD| AUGUST 5, 2014.
Compensation & Classification Study Brevard Public Schools Compensation & Classification Study Brevard Public Schools July 17, 2007 Employee Orientations.
Classification and compensation Analysis Pilot Project MU Staff Job Title and Salary Study Office Administration and Support.
Mt. San Antonio College CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY February 2012.
Staff Council Presentation You and Your PSD “Position Source Document” Human Resources Eduardo Salaz Associate Vice President and Chief Human Resources.
1 Miami Dade College Reclassification Study Facilities Presented by the Division of Human Resources February 2007.
Market Based Pay System The Market Based Pay System Project.
1 Miami Dade College Reclassification Study Presented by the Division of Human Resources February 2007.
Faculty & Staff Compensation Programs Board of Regents Meeting
Fox, Lawson & Associates Compensation Study Summary Findings
Staff Compensation Program Update
1 Compensation Update Lori Dougherty Director of Compensation December 8, 2009 Brandeis University pays competitive base market salaries as part of a total.
Compensation Deborah Marsh November Total Rewards Total Rewards definition Total Rewards definition Why Total Rewards? Why Total Rewards? Elements.
Human Resources Office of 1 Job Classification System Redesign Information Session Health Care and Animal Care October 28, 2014.
Human Resources Office of 1 Job Classification System Redesign Information Session Student Services July 2014 Sheila Reger, HR Consulting Manager Matt.
Agenda Topics: Managing Pay Within a Grade Setting Starting Salaries
Non-Academic Staff Compensation Structure & Administration
Library Faculty Market Equity – Nuts and Bolts - Welcome - Betsy Simpson Chair, Cataloging and Metadata University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
© 2007 Hay Group. All rights reserved. Salary Survey Report January 30, 2007 State of Kansas.
Total Rewards and Compensation
classification and compensation Analysis Pilot Project
STAFF COMPENSATION PROGRAM TOWN HALL MEETINGS FEBRUARY 2004.
Competitive Market Compensation Review July 2009 Project Overview.
Prentice Hall, Inc. © A Human Resource Management Approach STRATEGIC COMPENSATION Prepared by David Oakes Chapter 8 Building Market-Competitive.
What is the Global Grading Project
© 2007 Hay Acquisition Company I, Inc. All Rights Reserved. State Employee Compensation Oversight Commission Compensation Plan Design October 15, 2007.
Pay, Compensation and Benefits
Employee & Organizational Development Position Description Questionnaire (PDQ) Review “The PDQ and YOU” Human Resources The University of Tennessee
Non-Academic Staff Compensation Program Employee Presentation 2013.
2005 Supervisory and Professional Salary Survey Final Report September 14, 2005.
1 ACC FY07 Classification and Compensation Study.
Updated Performance Management for Exempt Staff Fall 2009.
Classification & Compensation Study Outside firm (BCC) was hired to perform: Classification Study Internal Equity Pay equity compliance Study.
Compensation Project Faculty & Staff Compensation Programs Board of Regents Finance Committee Meeting Project Overview
1 Pay Study Review City Auditor’s Office December 8, 2003.
Collecting Market Data Presented to NPELRA April 15, 2002 Bruce G. Lawson, CCP Fox Lawson & Associates LLC (602)
Butler University Compensation Study. b a c kn e x t h o m e About Fox Lawson & Associates  Bought Practice From Ernst & Young  Compensation Specialists.
Reclassification – Definitions and Process.
© 2015 Texas Association of School Boards, Inc. All rights reserved. January 29, 2015 Presented by: Ann R. Patton Managing Compensation Consultant Compensation.
1 Fall Managing TXSTATE For Supervisors Office of Human Resources 601 University Drive Suite340 J. C. Kellam Bldg San Marcos, Texas Classification.
Chapter 5 Compensation & Benefits
Compease Staff Salary Administration Program. Compease - General A fully qualified and effective work force is essential to the College’s success Fundamental.
Lecture 11: Compensation. Strategic Issues and Compensation  Why do dome employers pay more than other employers?  Why are different jobs within the.
MAG Management Advisory Group, Inc.
Chapter 14 Compensation Control & Administration Harcourt, Inc. items and derived items copyright © 2001 by Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved. Requests.
Chapter 9 Managing Compensation
Compensation Study Preliminary Results Overview Presented by: CBIZ Human Capital Services October 26, 2015.
Job Classification and Compensation Study Midwestern State University [date] Presented by:
Advances in Human Resource Development and Management Course code: MGT 712 Lecture 12.
Prentice Hall, Inc. © A Human Resource Management Approach STRATEGIC COMPENSATION Prepared by David Oakes Chapter 7 Building Internally Consistent.
Agenda Study Process Outreach Summary Salary Quartile Analysis
University Human Resources FY15 Extra-Meritorious Performance Pay Program Presentation to P&S Council October 7, 2015.
Compensation Study Preliminary Results Presented by: CBIZ Human Capital Services January 11, 2016.
Building Effective Compensation and Classification Systems to Attract and Retain Talented Employees 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 625, Dallas, Texas
Human Resources, Development, and Engagement Classification & Compensation Information September 17 th – 24 th.
Discussion on Compensation. Goal To assist in securing and retaining a staff of necessary quality to achieve the goals and objectives of the organization.
Fair Pay for Northern California Nonprofits: The 2016 Compensation & Benefits Survey HIGHLIGHTS AND TRENDS May 12, 2016 Sponsored by CompassPoint Nonprofit.
Town of Carolina Beach Executive Summary for the Town Council Classification and Pay Study March 2015.
City of Galveston Classification & Compensation Study Discussion Preliminary Findings and Recommendations.
New Mexico Highlands University
2012 COMPENSATION STUDY RESULTS July 18, 2012 Board of Aldermen Worksession.
Management Advisory Group, Inc. Executive Summary City of Fairfax Compensation and Classification Study July 1, 2016.
Who We Are National Public Sector Consulting Experience Expertise
Staff Compensation Structure
Compensation: Creating an Equitable and Market-driven Pay System
Fox, Lawson & Associates Compensation Study Summary Findings
Job Evaluation Salary Administration Program
Career Banding Program for North Carolina State Government Employees
Agenda • Introductions • Project Objectives • Project Steps
Presentation transcript:

Copyright © 2014 by The Segal Group, Inc. All rights reserved. City of Sierra Vista, AZ. City Council Presentation August 12, COMPENSATION AND CLASSIFICATION STUDY Presented by: Linda G. Wishard, Senior Consultant

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

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

4 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. Job Classifications

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. Experience Based on the minimum education required for the job, this factor measures the degree of experience required for entry into the position. Interpersonal Skills This factor measures the job requirements of interaction with others outside direct reporting relationships. Management/Supervision This factor measures the managerial requirements for achieving results through people. Technical Skills This factor measures the job difficulty in terms of the application of the knowledge required by the job. Working Conditions This factor measures the surroundings or physical conditions under which the work must be performed. Freedom to Act This factor measures the degree of freedom to exercise authority as well as assesses the impact of actions. Fiscal Responsibility This 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 following noted in “red”: CITY OF SIERRA VISTA - BENCHMARK ORGANIZATIONS Cities/TownsCounties 1City of Apache Junction20Cochise County 2City of Avondale21Maricopa County 3City of Chandler22Pima County 4City of Douglas23Pinal County 5City of FlagstaffOther Organizations 6City of Glendale24Arizona Department of Public Safety 7City of Goodyear25Arizona Department of Transportation 8City of Maricopa26Chochise College (Admin Positions) 9City of Mesa27Fort Huachuca Moral, Welfare and Recreation 10Ciy of Peoria28Fry Fire District (Fire only) 11City of Prescott29Northwest Fire District (Fire only) 12City of Scottsdale30Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center (Admin Positons) 13City of SurprisePrivate Sector Data 14City of Tempe Private Sector data from Economic Research Institute Salary Assessor 15City of Tucson 16Town of Gilbert 17Town of Marana 18Town of Oro Valley 19Town Sahuarita

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,  Use of weighted average salaries for data point of comparison for general jobs.

9 ERI Indicator City of Sierra Vista93.6 City of Sierra Vista93.6 Benchmark Organization ERI Indicator Geo Diff %Benchmark Organization ERI Indicator Geo Diff % Arizona Department of Public Safety %City of Tempe % Arizona Department of Transportation %City of Tucson % City of Apache Junction %Cochise College (Admin Positions) % City of Avondale %Cochise County % City of Chandler %Fort Huachuca Moral, Welfare and Recreation % City of Douglas %Fry Fire District (Fire only) % City of Flagstaff %Maricopa County % City of Glendale %Northwest Fire District (Fire only) % City of Goodyear %Pima County % City of Maricopa %Pinal County % City of Mesa % Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center (Admin Positons) % City of Peoria %Town of Gilbert % City of Prescott %Town of Marana % City of Scottsdale %Town of Oro Valley % City of Surprise %Town of Sahuarita % 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 GradeGrade SalaryMinimumMaximum 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 NON-EXEMPT STRUCTURE Grade Pay Range MinimumMidpointMaximum 200$26,638$32,631$38, $27,970$34,263$40, $29,368$35,976$42, $30,837$37,775$44, $32,379$39,664$46, $33,997$41,647$49, $35,697$43,729$51, $37,482$45,916$54, $39,356$48,212$57, $41,324$50,622$59, $43,390$53,153$62, $45,560$55,811$66, $47,838$58,601$69,365

14 PROPOSED EXEMPT PAY STRUCTURE EXEMPT STRUCTURE Grade Pay Range MinimumMidpointMaximum 104$39,248$49,060$58, $41,995$52,494$62, $44,935$56,168$67, $48,080$60,100$72, $51,446$64,307$77, $55,047$68,809$82, $59,451$74,313$89, $64,207$80,258$96, $69,343$86,679$104, $75,584$94,480$113, $82,387$102,983$123,580

15 PROPOSED SENIOR MANAGEMENT PAY STRUCTURE SENIOR MANAGEMENT Grade Pay Range MinimumMidpointMaximum I$97,234$121,543$145,851 II$111,819$139,774$167,729

16 PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY (Exempt) PAY STRUCTURE FIRE EXEMPT Grade Pay Range MinimumMidpointMaximum F5$77,511$92,350$107,188 F6$90,932$110,103$129,273 POLICE EXEMPT Grade Pay Range MinimumMidpointMaximum P4$79,639$92,838$106,038 P5$88,487$106,940$125,393 P6$103,664$124,035$144,406

17 PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY (Non-Exempt) STEP PAY STRUCTURE FIRE NONEXEMPT STRUCTUREPOLICE NONEXEMPT STEP STRUCTURE GradeF1F2F3F4GradeP1P2P3 RankFirefighter Fire Inspector Fire EngineerCaptainRankOfficerCorporalSergeant 2% Steps 1$40,192$46,308$51,246$59,2101$47,075$51,782$66,489 2$40,996$47,235$52,271$60,3942$48,016$52,818$67,819 3$41,816$48,179$53,316$61,6023$48,977$53,874$69,175 4$42,652$49,143$54,383$62,8344$49,956$54,952$70,558 5$43,506$50,126$55,470$64,0915$50,955$56,051$71,970 6$44,376$51,128$56,580$65,3726$51,974$57,172$73,409 7$45,263$52,151$57,711$66,6807$53,014$58,315$74,877 8$46,168$53,194$58,866$68,0138$54,074$59,482$76,375 9$47,092$54,258$60,043$69,3749$55,156$60,671$77,902 10$48,034$55,343$61,244$70,76110$56,259$61,885$79,460 11$48,994$56,450$62,469$72,17611$57,384$63,122$81,049 12$49,974$57,579$63,718$73,62012$58,532$64,385$82,670 13$50,974$58,730$64,992$75,09213$59,702$65,672$84,324 14$51,993$59,905$66,292$76,59414$60,896$66,986$86,010 15$53,033$61,103$67,618$78,12615$62,114$68,326 16$54,094$62,325$68,970$79,68916$63,356$69,692 17$55,176$63,571 17$64,624$71,086 18$56,279$64,843 18$65,916$72,508 19$57,405$66,140 20$58,553 21$59,724

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: o Estimated cost: $118, o Affects 40 employees  Adopt adjustment to closest step for Non-Exempt Public Safety: o Estimated cost: $85, o Affects 104 employees  Adopt adjustment of 2.0% of the new range minimum for each full year of service (TIP - time in position): o Estimated cost: $308, o 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 o Estimated cost: $204, o 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): o Estimated cost: $308, o Affects 115 employees *does not included associated benefits costs

21 QUESTIONS?