HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A Compensation Study Report
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2017
AGENDA #: 9A
PREPARED BY: LORI OLSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
PRESENTED BY: LORI OLSON
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CITY’S
STANDARDIZED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP LLC TO CONDUCT A
COMPREHENSIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM STUDY AND
ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR THE COMPLETION THEREOF
DISCUSSION: Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is to request City Council approval to
enter into a contract with the Keystone Compensation Group, LLC for a
comprehensive analysis of the City’s compensation program. The amount
not to exceed contract amount is $28,020.
This study will evaluate the City’s existing job classification system and
master salary plan to ensure a proper pay structure for consistency with
the market. The study also will develop a defined process for grading and
pointing newly established positions and ensuring compliance with State
pay equity requirements.
Given that 64% of the City’s annual budget is for payroll, it is important to
determine if the current pay structure is appropriate or needs adjustment.
Recommendations conceived from this study would be brought forward for
City Council approval. (More detailed information can be found in the
attached proposal.)
Background
One of the elements of the 2040 Strategic Vision is “Effective City
Resources.” The Vision calls for the recruitment and retention of highly
capable staff as a key factor in successfully delivering services that meet
resident expectations. The information from this study is intended, among
other things, to accomplish these ends.
The City recognizes the need to periodically review and update its job
description classification and compensation systems to remain a
competitive employer. The most recent analysis of these systems was
conducted in 2007. Over the last 10 years, existing positions’ duties and
functions have evolved, and market conditions have changed. It is a
common practice for government agencies to review their compensation
program and calibrate with the market. This is more important now that the
2
economy has emerged from a major recession and the unemployment rate
has declined to a pre-recession level.
Minnesota’s unemployment rate is ranked 11th lowest in the nation at 4.0%,
which impacts the City’s ability to recruit and retain quality staff. For
example, 13 full and part-time positions were vacated in 2016 that required
recruitment. The City anticipates several retirements and significant
turnover of the workforce over the next two years, losing institutional
memory and valuable experience. In addition, little documentation is
available on the City’s current job evaluation system which limits the City’s
ability to reevaluate current jobs or evaluate new positions based on
changes in business requirements.
Current Circumstances
Several factors influenced the decision to pursue this study in now:
1. Pay Equity. In 1984, the state legislature passed the Local
Government Pay Equity Act which requires all public jurisdictions
(cities, counties, schools) to eliminate any gender-based wage
inequities in compensation. Subsequently, each local government
unit is required to submit current pay equity reports once every
three years. Achieving pay equity usually means (1) that all jobs are
evaluated and given points according to the level of knowledge and
responsibility required to do the job; and (2) that salary adjustments
will be made if it is discovered that a female dominated class is
consistently paid less than male-dominated jobs with similar points.
2. The City’s pay equity report is due in 2017. The report has been
completed since it was due January 31, 2017. While we do not
have an official response, our understanding is that we are in
compliance. The cost for this work was $1750.
3. Labor Negotiations. The city will negotiate three labor agreements
in 2017 for years 2018-2020. Salary grades and steps are
established as part of the contract and cannot be changed once
adopted without reopening negotiations. By completing the
compensation study in 2017, the City will have updated job
positions, appropriate pay scales, comparison data from other
communities and accurate information moving into negotiations.
The study will evaluate the City’s competitive pay position relative to
the market and provide the necessary benchmarking information
needed to negotiate these contracts. While the city has the obligation to
bargain in good faith, the information from this study will provide
important information to be utilized in that process.
4. FY18 Budget. The results and recommendations of this study will
be factored in one respect or another into the FY18 budget. A
deliverable of the Keystone proposal is conducting a budget impact
analysis of the report’s recommendations.
3
5. Ongoing Compensation Program Compliance and Support.
The City has not been able to secure reliable support to maintain
the current job classification system and address job changes. This
study will provide the City with a credible job evaluation system to
maintain our job classification process and ensure pay equity
compliance going forward without substantial reliance upon outside
assistance.
ISSUES:
Conclusion
City staff recommends retaining an external expert to conduct the analysis
of the City’s compensation program. City staff does not have the expertise
nor the capacity to conduct such a study. Once completed staff would
implement the results on an ongoing basis. Also, an external expert
ensures neutrality by using a well-established methodology, which is more
likely to be perceived as unbiased by staff.
City staff recommends the Keystone Compensation Group, LLC as the
vendor for this project. Keystone has significant experience working with
several cities and counties around the state (see attachment for more
information and bios of key staff) and has received high marks from other
municipal human resources staff in the metro area.
Key deliverables of the Keystone proposal include (copies are attached for
information purposes):
1. Evaluate all city jobs using the Keystone Job Leveling System.
2. Review of all city job descriptions, including interviews with staff
and supervisors
3. Conduct a statistical analysis of the current pay program.
4. Develop a classification and compensation plan.
5. Conduct market pricing research for City benchmark jobs and
prepare comparisons with the market.
6. Prepare budget impact analysis for proposed salary ranges.
7. Develop final recommendations into a report.
8. Presentations and meetings with city leadership and elected
officials as necessary.
Keystone anticipates the work can be completed by early summer 2017.
City Councilmembers are not likely to be familiar with public agency
compensation, classification, performance evaluation and pay plans.
Compensation studies as proposed in this agenda item are essential to
maintaining such plans. Here are the reasons why we recommend this
study:
1. The study classifies jobs in the city organization based upon points
awarded for job responsibilities, education, supervision, span of
control and impact upon the organization. These are the correct
metrics for setting pay ranges in an organization as opposed to
competition between departments or persuasive skills.
4
2. Job descriptions are our primary tool for perfomamce evaluation,
recruitment and pay. They should accurately reflect the work being
done to foster high level performance and the city staff should be
able to update them to keep the system current.
3. A compensation study has not been done in Prior Lake since 2007.
In the past eight years the city population grew by 10.58% but the
number of Full Time Equivelent employees by only 3.2%. This
means that the scope of many jobs has expanded but is not
reflected in our present classification system.
4. Since wages are based upon job responsibilities our wage ranges
are not likely to properly reflect today’s market. This results in
recruitment and retention problems. We are seeing both. We would
be glad to provide specific examples.
5. When we do hire a new employee, our experience has increasingly
been that we have to pay them at the middle rather than entry level
of the range. This means less wage growth potential for new
employees and quite likely shorter tenure with the city.
6. Other cities accomplish compensation studies every three years
and some up to five years. Our last study was completed 10 years
ago. The vast majority of the studies are done by outside agencies
to foster objectivity and because of the complexity of the
undertaking.
7. Compensation studies do not radically raise wages paid by the
organization. Instead pay remains the same but steps to the top
may be increased. In the event of pay adjustments there are
opportunities to incorporate them over time.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The City received two proposals for this study. One from Keystone in the
amount of $28,020 and the other, from Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. in the
amount of $34,791. Since this expenditure was not included in the 2017
budget, a budget amendment is necessary. The recommended funding
source is the general fund balance.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and second to (1) enter into a standardized professional
services contract with the Keystone Compensation Group, LLC in
the amount of $28,020 for a comprehensive analysis of the City’s
compensation program,(2.) authorize the mayor and city manager
to execute the agreement on behalf of the city, and (3) approve a
budget amendment to the Human Resources budget in the amount
of $28,020 from the general fund reserves to fund this study.
2. Take no action and direct staff with respect to this agenda item.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
Alternative #1
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RESOLUTION 17-___
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
CITY’S STANDARDIZED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KEYSTONE
COMPENSATION GROUP LLC TO PREPARE THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR THE
STATUTORILY MANDATED PAY EQUITY REPORT AND COMPREHENSIVE
COMPENSATION PROGRAM STUDY AND ALLOCATING FUNDING FOR THE
COMPLETION THEREOF
Motion By: Second By:
WHEREAS, The City recognizes the need to periodically review and update its job classification
and compensation systems to remain a competitive employer.
WHEREAS, Given that 64% of the City’s annual budget is for payroll, it is important to
determine if the current pay structure is appropriate or needs adjustment.
WHEREAS, The most recent analysis of the compensation program was conducted in 2007.
WHEREAS, Several factors influenced the decision to pursue this study in 2017, including pay
equity reporting and labor negotiations.
WHEREAS, City staff does not have the expertise nor the capacity to conduct such a study.
WHEREAS, An external expert ensures neutrality by using a well-established methodology and
is more likely to be perceived as unbiased by staff.
WHEREAS, Staff recommends the Keystone Compensation Group, LLC as the vendor for this
study.
WHEREAS, The 2017 Human Resources budget is amended to reflect the expenditure of
$28,020 from general fund reserves balance to complete the compensation study.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter into a standardized
professional services contract with the Keystone Compensation Group, LLC in the amount
of $28,020 for a comprehensive analysis of the City’s compensation program.
3. The 2017 general fund is amended by the addition of $28,020 for Human Resources (101-
4182.00-53100.80) expenditures to fund the compensation study.
Passed and adopted by the Prior Lake City Council this 13th day of February, 2017
C:\Users\aschroeder\Desktop\17-XXX Compensation Study.docx 2
VOTE Briggs McGuire Thompson Braid Burkart
Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
______________________________
Frank Boyles, City Manager
Proposal
Compensation Program Review
For City of Prior Lake, Minnesota
12/20/2016
Prepared by:
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
3316 Ensign Ave N
Minneapolis MN 55427
Telephone: 612-810-3522
E-Mail: Sabboud@keystonecomp.net
Web: www.keystonecomp.net
December 20, 2016 Compensation Program Review for Prior Lake
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
Confidential
Page 2
Table of Contents
Topic Page #
Background and Objectives ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Project Summary and Deliverables ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Framework for Conducting Compensation Program Review -------------------------------------- 4
Steps for Completing This Study ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
Project Team and Related Experience ------------------------------------------------------------------ 8
Estimated Financial Budget and Preliminary Timeline ---------------------------------------------- 9
Proposal Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10
Biographies of Project Team ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11
December 20, 2016 Compensation Program Review for Prior Lake
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
Confidential
Page 3
Background and Objectives
City of Prior Lake (City) requested a proposal from Keystone Compensation Group LLC for
providing compensation consulting services. These services include reviewing the current job
descriptions, conducting employee interviews, evaluating City jobs, conducting a competitive
market analysis, and preparing recommendations for updating the City’s salary ranges.
The City has about 90 full-time and part-time employees in approximately 55 job classifications.
The City uses a step pay program with varying number of steps, ranges spread, and years to
maximum. Insufficient documentation is available on the current job evaluation system; and the
current compensation program has not been reviewed for several years.
This proposal outlines our understanding of the scope of this study, steps we would take to meet its
objectives, approximate timeline, and an estimate of the financial budget to complete the work.
Project Summary and Deliverables
1. Conduct a meeting with City leadership to review and evaluate the current compensation
program and explore alternatives, discuss compensation strategy, and set the overall
direction for the project. Consultant would also assist with selecting the initial peer group
for the City.
2. Provide high level review for the current job descriptions and interview employees to
confirm job duties, ensure consistent terminology, and validate job requirements. Step is
completed with administrative support from City staff.
3. Evaluate City jobs using the Keystone Job Leveling System (fact sheet provided).
4. Benchmark City jobs using the League of Minnesota Cities Survey.
5. Conduct competitive market analyses and comparisons for City jobs.
6. Calibrate the current wage structure and align it with the market.
7. Perform statistical analyses and create scatterplots to illustrate the relationship between
City pay level, market, and program internal equity.
8. Prepare recommendations for revising the current wage structure based on internal job
evaluation results and market analysis.
9. Work with City staff to prepare a cost estimate for the impact of the recommended wage
structure on total payroll budget and individual employees pay.
10. Prepare a summary to outline study processes and analysis and their implications on City’s
compensation program.
11. Throughout the project create opportunities for City leadership to be involved as deemed
necessary by the project team. The goal is to inform and build credibility in the program
review process and study outcomes.
4 | P a g e
Framework for Conducting Compensation Program Review for The City of Prior Lake
Leadership Discussion
of Compensation
Strategy and Future
State
Confirm and Revise Job
Descriptions Based on
Employees Input
Evaluate Jobs
Benchmark Jobs &
Collect Market
Data
Review Survey Data and
Build Compensation
Database
Statistical Analysis of
Market & City Data
Prepare Pay
Comparisons and
Confirm Internal Equity
Calibrate Wage
Structure and Job
Levels
Determine Financial
Budget Impact of New
Ranges
Develop
Recommendations
Prepare Final
Project
Summary
Review Results
with City
December 20, 2016 Compensation Program Review
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
Confidential
Page 5
Steps for Completing This Study
The lead consultant typically starts the project with an initial planning meeting with the City Project
Team (City Manager and Assistant City Manager) and other stakeholders as appropriate. The
purpose of this meeting would be for the City team and the consultant to exchange the necessary
information related to this project, discuss the overall process, and approve the project timeline.
Keystone proposes the following steps for completing this study:
1. Initial planning meeting with leadership
a. Review current pay practices and confirm deliverables. This includes gathering current
compensation program information and outline important areas to be addressed.
b. Discuss City’s compensation strategy. This includes discussing the market for talent
(peer group selection), where the City would like to stack its pay program relative to the
market, program design, and compensation administration guidelines.
c. Confirm pay structure design (steps and spread) to align with the stated compensation
strategy.
d. Discuss process for collecting market data, job descriptions review, employee
interviews scheduling, and City staff involvement in supporting the interviews.
2. Review job descriptions
a. In our call with the Assistant City Manager we learned that job descriptions need to be
reviewed with employees to validate job contents. Our review would be for general
consistency and to provide an outside perspective for maintaining these descriptions by
the City.
b. The review process involves asking employees and their supervisors to make initial
round of review to confirm that most current job documentation.
c. City staff would schedule employee interviews at the rate of 25 minutes for each job.
This step assumes all job documentations are available in MS Word format. City’s
administrative staff would make revisions and finalize each document after interviews.
d. The process does not involve asking employees to complete Position Description
Questionnaires but to confirm key job duties and add important information.
e. Depending on the overall project schedule, the consultant could provide an overview on
writing job descriptions to Supervisors to help them focus on key components. This
alleviates the possibility of employees spending too much time writing long documents
with little impact on outcomes.
3. Evaluate City jobs using the Keystone Job Leveling System
a. Keystone Job Leveling System would be used to evaluate City jobs. A factsheet about the
system is provided to explain the compensable factors used in the evaluation.
b. As a background, Keystone Consultants have extensive experience with point-factor job
December 20, 2016 Compensation Program Review for Prior Lake
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
Confidential
Page 6
evaluation systems and generally recommend such system if the current job evaluation
process is not working well. Dr. Abboud has been involved in multiple revisions of point
factor systems since 1990. This system does not require proprietary computer software
and uses Excel program for job scoring and record keeping. City would receive a system
manual as part of this project.
c. Evaluate all (50-55) jobs and review the results with the City project team. This step
typically requires multiple revisions and includes input from managers in order to
minimize the need for job review requests later and after program rollout. In our
experience, this happens when managers are not involved in the calibration of their
department jobs.
d. The final evaluations would be used in combination with market data to assign jobs to
grades and to update the City’s wage structure.
e. Keystone would provide City with a job review request form to be used for future job re-
evaluation requests when jobs change significantly.
4. Conduct statistical analysis for the current pay program
a. Review historical analysis and current individual employees’ compensation and grades.
b. Conduct appropriate statistical analysis and prepare scatterplots to help understand
patterns and trends as well as any existing internal equity issues.
c. Summarize findings and develop a possible course of action to correct issues.
d. Share results of these analyses with the project team/management as needed.
5. Conduct market pricing for City benchmark jobs
a. Use job descriptions and reporting relationships to match City jobs to the League of
Minnesota Cities Compensation survey benchmark jobs.
b. Collect base pay data from the public sector survey (LMNC). Statistics we collect are
actual pay and salary range information.
c. Scrub survey data to make sure that matches by peer group cities are valid. We may call
some participants to verify some rates, if necessary.
d. If no solid benchmark match for a job is available, the job would be slotted in the grade
structure using its job evaluation points and internal comparisons with other jobs
within the City.
e. Review market analysis with City team to ensure understanding of the results and their
implications.
December 20, 2016 Compensation Program Review for Prior Lake
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
Confidential
Page 7
6. Prepare comparisons with the market and calibrate salary ranges
a. Use market data and job evaluation points to evaluate the current ranges and compare
them with the market.
b. Prepare scatterplots and trend lines for the new ranges and actual salaries to illustrate
City’s pay position relative to the market. This step also helps identify any anomalies or
potential issues with internal equity going forward (State Pay Equity Act).
c. Use market pricing data and general trend surveys to recommend 2017 grade ranges.
d. Review outcomes with City team before moving to next step.
7. Work with City staff to conduct budget impact analysis for the proposed ranges
a. City prepares employee roster and compensation data using a template provided by
Keystone.
b. Evaluate wages for employees relative to market and the new ranges.
c. Create an overall summary of the budget impact for the recommended ranges.
d. Determine salary actions needed and provide recommendations.
e. This step is typically completed in collaboration with City staff.
8. Opportunity for stakeholders’ involvement
The success of this project will depend on making sure that key stakeholders are informed
or involved as necessary. This enhances the trust in the final outcomes and helps with open
communications and transparency. Meetings with the City Manager, Assistant City
Manager, and Department Heads may be held as necessary to inform about the process,
describe how the program works, and to receive feedback (budget is based on actual
number of onsite meetings held).
9. Prepare the final summary
Consultant would prepare a summary that includes methodology, benchmark analysis
results, specific observations, and recommendations. All information would be provided to
City electronically. City would also receive a copy of the Keystone Job Leveling System
with its final job evaluation points and grade assignment to maintain system internally.
10. Ongoing program support
We approach this study as being your business partner invested in the success of this
program. Our goal is to ensure knowledge transfer from consultant to City staff and to help
the City sustain the program internally going forward. We would be available to support
the City after project completion and to answer questions. Simple and short inquiries are
answered at no additional cost, while more substantial work would be quoted on a project
basis.
December 20, 2016 Compensation Program Review for Prior Lake
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
Confidential
Page 8
Project Team and Related Experience
This project would be led by Dr. Saado Y. Abboud who would be the first contact for the City. Stefan
Peterson, a Sr. Consultant with Keystone, assists with employee interviews and provides
benchmarking and analytical support to this project.
Among the specific experience that Saado has related to public sector compensation and this study:
1. Currently managing a compensation survey with 14 major counties and large cities in
Minnesota covering over 160 jobs. Counties and cities like Hennepin County, Ramsey,
Dakota, Anoka, St. Louis County, Olmsted, Stearns, Washington, Sherburne, Carver, Scott,
City of Rochester, City of Bloomington, and other agencies participate in this annual market
study.
2. Had managed the annual market survey for Minnesota metro cities and counties for over 12
years (Stanton Group Metro Survey). This survey is currently part of the League of MN
Cities Survey.
3. Extensive experience with developing and implementing compensation programs in various
industries including government, non-profit, and private sectors.
4. Has significant experience working with several counties and cities. Among our client
Counties and Cities: Scott, Dakota, Anoka, City of St. Louis Park, City of Faribault, City of
Chanhassen, City of Rochester, City of Hutchinson, City of Maplewood, City of Apple Valley,
Carlton County, McLeod County, and Crow Wing County among others.
5. Saado also co-authored a ground-braking article in the WorldatWork Journal on the
performance-based compensation program at Scott County. He received Author of the Year
Award in 2011 for writing this article.
6. Many years of experience as a corporate compensation manager, a professional consultant,
and Board leadership of several professional compensation associations.
December 20, 2016 Compensation Program Review for Prior Lake
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
Confidential
Page 9
Estimated Financial Budget and Preliminary Timeline
Notes
1. Keystone would invoice the City after completion of each key milestone (steps 2, 4, 8).
2. This estimate is a not-to-exceed amount and is based on our understanding of the scope of the
project.
3. Timeline is a placeholder for steps. Upon accepting proposal, consultant would prepare a
project plan with more precise timeline and desired completion date while giving each step
enough time for proper completion.
4. This budget and timeline may be adjusted if the City modified project processes.
Step Description Tentative
Timeline Total Comments
1 Initial planning, document collection, roles
and responsibilities, and timeline approval Weeks 1-2 $900 With City Manager and
Assistant City Manager
2 Initial job review, job interviews, high level
update (50-55 jobs)Weeks 3-8 $8,750 City administrative staff to
support documents update
3
Evaluate jobs using Keystone Job Leveling
System, calibration with managers, and
finalize results
Weeks 9-14 $5,040 Involves reviewing with
department managers
4 Benchmarking of Jobs Weeks 10-14 $5,040 League of MN Cities
Survey (peer group)
5 Compensation analysis, update structure,
compliance check, recommendations Weeks 15-18 $2,520
6 Program costing and budget analysis Week 19 $900
Identify employees
outside the established
pay range
7 Update meetings with project team and
Department Heads (three onsite meetings)Varies $2,520 Onsite meetings based on
key milestones
8 Final presentation to the City Council.
Includes preparation and onsite meeting.Project End $750 Work with City Manager
and staff on contents
9 Final summary, project documentation,
administrative Varies $1,600 Electronic documents
provided
Overall Budget Weeks 1- 20 $28,020 Duration varies based on
availability of City staff
December 20, 2016 Compensation Program Review for Prior Lake
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
Confidential
Page 10
Why Keystone!
1. Client Relationship Focus: Our consultants emphasize strong relationships with our
clients based on mutual respect, responsiveness, and a genuine desire to help.
2. Knowledge and Expertise: With an average experience of 25 years in the field, our
consultants have acquired significant knowledge and expertise in various industries and
organizations.
3. Our Values: Integrity, excellence, and service guide our working relationship with our
clients.
4. Business Acumen: We invest significant amount of time upfront to better understand the
issues are resolving. We view compensation as a strategic investment that organizations
make in their employees. Our role is to help clients manage this investment in order to
better attract, motivate, and retain their talent and improve their business outcomes.
Proposal Approval
This proposal is prepared based on our understanding of the scope of the services
requested. Additional work outside of the scope may be priced separately upon request from
the City.
We can start this study within two-three weeks after receiving approval for this proposal.
Specific dates may be determined once the project is approved.
We are privileged to be considered for this project and look forward to the opportunity to
work with you on this important study! If you have any questions, please call Saado Abboud
at: 612.810.3522 or email him at: sabboud@keystonecomp.net .
If you approve this proposal, please sign below and return a copy of this page this
agreement to Saado Abboud at: sabboud@keystonecomp.net
City Authorized Signature:
Approved by Title Date
December 20, 2016 Compensation Program Review for Prior Lake
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
Confidential
Page 11
Keystone Compensation Group, LLC
Principal Consultant
3316 Ensign Ave North
Minneapolis MN 55427
Tel: 612.810.3522
Sabboud@keystonecomp.net
www.keystonecomp.net
Saado Y. Abboud, Ph.D.
Saado is a founding partner of Keystone Compensation Group LLC with over twenty five years of
experience in the field of compensation. His experience involves all phases of compensation
program development, strategy, design and management. His clients include organizations in
private, public sector, and nonprofit. He consults with top executives and board of directors on
executive compensation design and management. His combined experience in managing
compensation programs within a Fortune 100 company and as a professional consultant gives him a
balanced view for solving compensation issues.
Most recently Saado served as Vice President, Compensation Practice for Stanton Group, a regional
consulting and survey research firm in Minneapolis. He worked closely with business and HR
leaders as well as Boards of Directors to develop rewards programs for executives, middle
management, and other employees. Saado’s compensation experience includes developing base pay,
short-term and long-term incentive programs to attract and motivate employees. He also helps his
clients with communicating reward programs.
Prior to joining Stanton Group, Saado spent several years in a senior leadership position at Best Buy
Co. with responsibilities over corporate compensation programs as well as executive compensation.
Among his other accomplishments was taking a key role in restructuring the HR function and
leading several technology initiatives to support business growth. He contributed articles and
interviews to several trade publications, including Workspan, a monthly journal for total rewards
professionals, Minnesota Bankers News and the Twin Cities Business Journal.
Early in his career, Saado taught at the college and graduate school levels, domestically and abroad.
He has a doctorate and master’s degrees from the University of Minnesota in Quantitative Analysis.
He also received his MBA degree in Corporate Finance from the University of St. Thomas. Saado is a
certified compensation professional (CCP), a member of WorldatWork, and past Chairman of the
Local Network Advisory Board for WorldatWork. Saado also served for several years on as the
Chairman of the Twin Cities Compensation Network Board of Directors.
December 20, 2016 Compensation Program Review for Prior Lake
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
Confidential
Page 12
Keystone Compensation Group, LLC
Principal Consultant
3316 Ensign Ave North
Minneapolis MN 55427
Tel: 952.270.1114
Speterson@keystonecomp.net
www.keystonecomp.net
Stefan K. Peterson, CCP
Stefan is a Senior Compensation Consultant at Keystone Compensation Group LLC with over thirty
years of experience in the field of compensation. His experience involves managing compensation,
benefits, and human resources systems. His compensation and benefits career included
organizations in the healthcare, retail, technology, and manufacturing industries. His experience in
managing compensation and benefits programs within Fortune 100 companies and midsize
organizations uniquely qualifies him to solve diverse client challenges.
Most recently Stefan served as Sr. Director of Compensation and Benefits at Fairview Health
Services, a premier healthcare organization in Minneapolis. He had responsibility over a team
charged with the redesigning of compensation and benefits programs as well as the implementation
of new human resources and payroll systems. He also provided executive compensation consulting
services and developed HR Committee meeting materials. Stefan’s compensation experience
includes developing base pay, short-term, and long-term incentive programs to attract and motivate
employees.
Prior to joining Fairview Health Services, Stefan held several senior leadership positions at Nash
Finch Company, Pearson Inc., National Computer Systems, BMC Industries, Alliant Techsystems and
Honeywell Inc. In all these organizations he had broad responsibilities over base pay programs, job
evaluation, and executive compensation.
Stefan has a Master’s degree from Gonzaga University in Human Resources Management and a
Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from University of North Dakota. He has been a faculty
member at the Metropolitan State University for over twenty years teaching compensation and
benefits classes. He is a Certified Compensation Professional (CCP) and a Senior Professional in
Human Resources (SPHR). Stefan is a member of WorldatWork and the Twin Cities Compensation
Network (TCCN). He also served on the Twin Cities Compensation Network Board of Directors.
KEYSTONE JOB LEVELING SYSTEM
A POINT-FACTOR EVALUATION METHOD
Web: www.keystonecomp.net
Email: totalrewards@keystonecomp.net
Telephone: 612.810.3522
V.1 - 2017
P a g e | 2
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
KEYSTONE JOB LEVELING SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
Keystone Job Leveling System is a point-factor job evaluation system used to determine the relative value of jobs within an organization. The outcomes
of this evaluation assist with the design of internally equitable compensation structures. The system also assists organizations with managing internal
pay equity and establishing competitive pay structures based on market data.
JOB LEVELING FRAMEWORK
The purpose of evaluating jobs is to compare different characteristics or elements of jobs in order to establish a job ranking. By introducing a repeatable
process for evaluating jobs, this system provides logical and systematic steps to reduce the subjectivity of judging job value. It also provides more
consistency in how jobs are assigned to grades. The process of job evaluation can be characterized as:
1. Systematic Method: This means evaluation is completed according to a plan with specific steps and methods.
2. Evaluating Jobs: Evaluation is for jobs not persons holding the jobs.
3. Repeatable Process: The system provides a structured process flow for evaluators to follow in a consistent manner.
4. Relative Hierarchy: The system provides a means for comparing jobs with each other, and is not intended to determine the intrinsic value of
jobs. It helps establish grade levels and build career progression.
5. Job Worth: Refers to the level of job contribution to achieving organization’s business results.
6. Within organization: Job evaluation systems are concerned with comparing jobs within an organization in order to establish a job hierarchy.
Points may not be comparable across organizations.
The final outcome of job evaluation is a matrix of points used for developing pay structures used to support pay decisions. In addition to supporting the
design of an internally equitable pay structure, job evaluation provides a basis for establishing the link between internal pay and the external market.
Various statistical analyses may be conducted to validate the competitiveness of the compensation program with the market and the internal equity.
P a g e | 3
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
JOB EVALUATION COMPENSABLE FACTORS
Job evaluation is concerned with comparing the important characteristics and elements of jobs in order to establish a relative job hierarchy within an
organization. These characteristics are referred to as the Compensable Factors. Reliable job evaluation systems include compensable factors that are
common to the jobs being evaluated and are present to a different degree in those jobs. They are the basis for assessing the relative value of jobs.
Each factor is assigned a degree and a corresponding point value. The overall score for a job is determined by totaling the assigned points for all the
factors. Keystone Job Leveling System uses five of the most broadly used compensable factors as evidenced by extensive research on point-factor job
evaluation methods. These factors have been proven to have a high degree of correlation with market value and are considered the key factors in
translating input activities into output results for jobs at various levels within organizations and across industries. They are also relatively easier to define
and have minimal overlap among each other:
1. Knowledge, Skills & Competence: The knowledge and skills gained through education, training, and experience required for achieving the
overall purpose of the job. This is the most common factor used in determining the quality of job matching to compensation benchmark surveys.
2. Responsibility and Accountability: This refers to impact by the job holder on achieving the objectives of the team, department, function or
organization. This factor assumes that with each delegation of authority, there is a corresponding accountability to achieve certain business
results. This is also reflected in market surveys through job level or in some cases budget size. Key to this factor is supervisory authority/
responsibility and extent of the impact of job holder on business results.
3. Complexity/Mental Effort: Complexity of situations encountered on the job and the degree of original thinking required for providing solutions
to them corresponds with the demand for use of intellectual faculties, concentration of knowledge, and creative thinking.
4. Contacts & Interpersonal Communications: The extent to which the work involves making contacts, communicating, negotiating, or influencing
decision making with people inside and outside the organization.
5. Working Conditions/Environment: Refers to the exposure to unpleasant conditions and the probability of exposure to injury, health hazards,
and the physical demands that are part of the regular work environment.
P a g e | 4
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
EVALUATING KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS & COMPETENCE
This factor represents the knowledge and skills gained through formal education, training, and work experience typically required to achieve the overall
purpose of the job. It includes possessing the minimum qualifications necessary to produce the expected business results in the key functional areas for
the job. Minimum requirements to qualify for the job are considered when assigning a level to this factor.
STEP ONE
Using job descriptions, examine the minimum formal
education or knowledge level required to qualify for the job.
Look for formal education, technical or vocational training,
and certification distinguished by a curriculum and formal
testing results. Select the appropriate factor level from the
table on the next page on the left side.
Once the level of education and training required are
determined, select the appropriate length of previous work
experience within the organization, at other organizations,
or in the industry as a whole. As with education level, the
focus here is on the minimum requirements as outlined in
the job descriptions or position questionnaires.
STEP TWO
STEP THREE
Assign the job a factor score and transfer it to the Excel
record keeping spreadsheet in order for the software to
calculate the corresponding points for this factor level
P a g e | 5
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
I. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND COMPETENCE
PRIOR EXPERIENCE REQUIRED TO QUALIFY FOR THE JOB
Minimum Knowledge & Skills Required Level 0-6 Mo.
A
6+ Mo.-1 Yr
B
2-3 Years
C
4-5 Years
D
6-7 Years
E
8-9 Years
F
10+ Years
G
Job requires minimum formal education or
general work training. Basic reading and
math skills 1
High school education or equivalent
specific training in a specialty subject area 2
High school level or equivalent plus 1 year
additional formal training on specialized
techniques or certification 3
High school level or equivalent plus 2
years of additional formal advanced
training or certification 4
Professional knowledge equivalent to a
four-year college degree 5
Advanced professional knowledge,
principles or theories equivalent to post-
graduate college degree (master’s level) 6
Mastery at the highest level of knowledge
in a field of business or other discipline
equivalent to the doctoral level 7
This dimension considers the level of
relevant job experience required to
qualify for the job
This dimension considers the level of
accumulated knowledge and training
required for the job
P a g e | 6
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
EVALUATING LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY/ACCOUNTABILITY
This factor covers the decision impact by the jobholder on the achievement of the objectives of the job, team or department, multiple departments or
the whole organization. It assumes that with each delegation of authority, there is a corresponding responsibility to achieve specific output or business
results. It is a combination of the level of freedom for action delegated to the job and the extent of impact on business results.
DEGREE OF IMPACT ON RESULTS:
A. Contribution as a team member to the achievement of team results within a department or function: job-level impact.
B. Contribution in a leadership/managerial role to team, department, or function: Team/Department-level impact.
C. Significant responsibility for contributions to the results achieved at the Division/Multi Department-level: Division/Multi Department impact.
D. Considerable impact on the long term performance of the whole organization: Organization-Level impact.
Degree of impact on results is rated within a span of control as follow:
I=Indirect: process information for others to make decisions; R=Recommend: conduct research/analysis and interpret information for others;
S=Shared: responsibility and collaborative decision making (participative); P=Primary: clear accountability for end results and final decision.
Once the level of Freedom to Act is determined, you
would assess the Degree (Extent) of Impact made by the
individual in the role on the achievement of various
business objectives (see level definition below)
STEP TWO
STEP THREE
Assign each job a factor score and transfer to the Excel
record keeping tool in order to calculate factor points
STEP ONE
Using job descriptions, examine the level of Freedom to
Act delegated to this job. This is reflected by the level of
autonomy, supervision/authority and amount of
guidance required for completing the work.
P a g e | 7
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
II. LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY/ACCOUNTABILITY
DEGREE OF IMPACT ON RESULTS (Extent of Authority, Span of Decision Effect)
JOB-LEVEL
A
TEAM/DEPARTMENT
B
DIVISION/MULT. DEPT
C
ORGANIZATION-LEVEL
D
LEVEL OF FREEDOM TO ACT Level I R S P I R S P I R S P I R S P
Minimal: within detailed instructions
and procedures, may be subject to close
supervision 1
Limited: within established,
standardized process and procedures,
supervision is available as required or
requested to make progress and
produce results
2
Moderate: within established
precedents or well-defined policies,
supervision is available as requested or
needed
3
Broad: within functional or
departmental policies and practices,
with only general managerial direction 4
Extensive: within high-level policies,
judgment involving interpretation or
defining new policies of significant
importance to the organization, with
top management guidance
5
Organization-wide/Governance:
judgement deals with governance of
entire organization, within polices and
philosophies established by the board
or governing authorities
6
This dimension considers the scope of
the organization affected and the
type of decision accountability/
responsibility
This dimension considers the degree
of authority delegated to the job for
initiating actions
P a g e | 8
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
EVALUATING LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY/MENTAL EFFORT
Complexity refers to the variety and diversity of the work carried out, situations encountered, and the complexity of the decisions made. This factor
measures the complexities of the work situations and the degree of original thinking and problem solving skills required on regular basis to arrive at
solutions. It accounts for the different level of demand for use of intellectual faculties, concentration of knowledge, and creative thinking and problem
solving.
This involves the assessment of the solutions and the level of
original thinking and depth of response required to solve the
situation. This relates to the requirement to know multiple
solutions and the level of judgment and thinking required to
evaluate more than one workable solution. This could range
from the level of only using minimal judgment to remedy the
situation, to the level synthesizing and interpreting available
data, or creating original solutions currently unavailable.
STEP TWO STEP ONE
Consider the nature of the situations encountered on the
job, evaluate the level of diversity and complexity in the
work required to come up with the solutions. Determine
where the complexity level of the solution resides, is it
well-defined or requires the highest level of
interpretation of policies with impact that affects the
overall direction of the organization
STEP THREE
Assign each job a factor score and transfer to the Excel
record keeping tool in order to calculate factor points
P a g e | 9
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
III. LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY/MENTAL EFFORT
COMPLEXITY AND DIVERSITY OF THE
WORK SITUATION LEVEL
LEVEL OF RESPONSE REQUIRED
SIMPLE RESPONSE,
CLEAR-CUT CHOICES
A
SELECT FROM
MULTIPLE
REPONSES
B
CHOOSE BEST
WORKABLE
ALTERNATIVES
C
EXAMINE,
ANALYZE,
EVALUATE, SOLVE
D
DEVELOP AND
OFFER ORIGINAL
SOLUTIONS
E
Tasks are clearly defined and
choices are within narrow limits 1
Work is routine or predictable,
but some decision making within
well-defined procedural limits
2
Work is standardized with some
diverse elements. Freedom of
action is within well-defined
procedures and guidelines
3
Work challenges must be
addressed within broader
departmental/functional
standards and practices
4
Work is complex and is self -
directed within the framework of
interpreting approved or defined
policies and objectives
5
Work challenges are complex and
must be addressed within broad
operating policies and principles
6
Work challenges require the
exercise of considerable
judgment and deal with the
overall direction, mission, and
governance of the organization
7
This dimension considers the
judgment and problem solving
required to determine the proper
solution and response to the
challenge
This dimension considers the degree
of complexity of situation and
availability of known solutions
P a g e | 10
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
EVALUATING CONTACTS & INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
This factor evaluates the extent to which the work involves making contacts and communicating with people inside and outside the organization. In
evaluating this factor, consideration is given to the extent to which the contact is concerned with routine or non-routine matters, the level of contacts,
and the impact of communications on the reputation and performance of the organization. These skills may require exercising influence over others like
customers, clients, and suppliers or negotiating with other people to change the course of action. Reference here is to verbal and written
communications and relates to the nature and context of the communication messages as well as its ongoing impact on the organization.
LEVELS OF IMPACT OF THE INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Contacts and communications are limited to routine matters of exchanging information with others within the jobholder’s own
department/team. Maintaining effective working relationship.
B. Interpersonal communications are routine in nature with people inside or outside the organization (clients) but contacts are for basic
exchange of information.
C. Interactions sometimes are not routine in nature and involve the exchange and interpretation of information with people at a number of
levels inside and outside the organization. Information is related to basic procedures and practices.
D. Communication with a wide range of contacts within and outside the organization, but infrequently at the highest level. Contact may involve
the exercise of negotiating and persuasive skills or joint problem solving at the departmental level. Communication is related to basic
procedures and practices.
E. Contacts are maintained at high levels inside and outside the organization and involve a high degree of communicating, negotiating, and
persuading skills. Communications regularly focus on current and new policies and/or modification of existing policies. Impact on the
organization’s performance for the short to medium term.
F. Interaction and communications are conducted at the highest level and influence the overall direction and mission of the organization, key
business relationships, practices, and policies. These involve considerable communicating, advocacy, and negotiating skills which has a major
and long-term impact on the operational performance and/or governance issues in the organization.
P a g e | 11
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
IV. CONTACTS AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
IMPACT OF THE INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS (SEE PAGE 10 FOR DETAILS)
NATURE AND CONTEXT OF
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
DEGREE OR
LEVEL A B C D E F
Respond to requests from
others for basic, general
information
1
Initiate communications and
answer requests for exchange
of basic, general information 2
Specialized information and
guidance are provided to
others regarding own area of
expertise
3
Actively persuade/negotiate or
direct others to achieve
desired outcomes 4
Interactions are frequently
focused on negotiating highly
complex matters of significant
importance to the organization
5
Communications or
negotiations are focused on
complex operational and/or
governance issues of critical
long-term importance
6
This dimension refers to the degree of
impact from the required
communication on the organization
or the public
This dimension considers the level of
complexity of the communication
P a g e | 12
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
EVALUATING WORKING ENVIRONMENT
This factor refers to the exposure to unpleasant working environment and probability of exposure to injury, and health hazards which are part of the
regular work environment. It also considers the physical demands needed to perform the job in terms of overall physical effort or exertion.
This factor may not be common to all evaluated jobs and its varying level may not be noticeable for jobs in certain industries. As a result, it may not
produce sufficient differentiation among jobs and results in a limited effect on grading these jobs.
Determine the typical level of physical demands required
to perform the job
STEP TWO STEP ONE
Determine the level of exposure to unpleasant working
environment, injury, or health hazard
STEP THREE
Assign each job a factor score and transfer to the Excel
record keeping tool in order to calculate factor points
P a g e | 13
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
V. WORKING ENVIRONMENT
LEVEL OF PHYSICAL DEMANDS/REQUIREMENTS
EXPOSURE TO INJURY, HEALTH HAZARD, OR
UNPLEASANT WORK ENVIRONMENT LEVEL
NORMAL PHYSICAL EFFORT IS
REQUIRED IN STANDING,
WALKING, AND MINIMAL
EXERTION
A - Low
MODERATE PHYSICAL EFFORT IS
REQUIRED BECAUSE OF
PROLONGED (50%) STANDING
AND MODERATE EXERTION
B - Medium
CONSTANT OR PROLONGED
LIFTING AND CARRYING HEAVY
ARTICLES OR HIGH LEVEL OF
PHYSICAL EXERTION
C - High
Minimal potential exposure to injury
risk or unpleasant working conditions
(regular office working environment) 1
Limited potential exposure
to/accident or injury risk or
unpleasant environment/elements
2
Some potential exposure to injury
risk, health hazard, or unpleasant
conditions
3
Potential for lost-time accidents and
regular exposure to health hazards or
unpleasant working conditions
4
Frequent potential for lost-time
accidents. Continuous exposure to
health hazards
5
Continuous exposure for severe lost-
time accident and/or intense
exposure to health hazards 6
This dimension considers the
exposure to injuries, hazards, and
unpleasant elements
This dimension considers the physical
effort that is part of regular job duties
P a g e | 14
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
FACTOR POINT VALUES
I. Knowledge, Skills & Competence
A B C D E F G
1 30 34 40 46 52 60 70
2 40 46 52 60 70 80 92
3 46 52 60 70 80 92 106
4 52 60 70 80 92 106 122
5 70 80 92 106 122 140 160
6 92 106 122 140 160 184 212
7 122 140 160 184 212 244 280
II. LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY/ACCOUNTABILITY
A B C D
I R S P I R S P I R S P I R S P
1 30 34 40 46 40 46 52 60 52 60 70 80 70 80 92 106
2 40 46 52 60 52 60 70 80 70 80 92 106 92 106 122 140
3 52 60 70 80 70 80 92 106 92 106 122 140 122 140 160 184
4 70 80 92 106 92 106 122 140 122 140 160 184 160 184 212 244
5 92 106 122 140 122 140 160 184 160 184 212 244 212 244 280 322
6 122 140 160 184 160 184 212 244 212 244 280 322 280 322 372 428
P a g e | 15
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
FACTOR POINT VALUES
V. Working Environment
A B C
1 30 40 52
2 34 46 60
3 40 52 70
4 52 70 92
5 60 80 106
6 70 92 122
III. Level of Complexity/Mental Effort
A B C D E
1 30 40 52 70 92
2 34 46 60 80 106
3 40 52 70 92 122
4 46 60 80 106 140
5 52 70 92 122 160
6 60 80 106 140 184
7 70 92 122 160 212
IV. Contacts and Interpersonal Comm.
A B C D E F
1 30 40 46 60 70 80
2 34 46 52 70 80 92
3 40 52 60 80 92 106
4 52 70 80 106 122 140
5 70 92 106 140 160 184
6 92 122 140 184 212 244
XYZ County
Position Description
JOB TITLE: Human Resources Director DATE PREPARED: 11/20/2016
DEPARTMENT: Administration LOCATION:
REPORTS TO: County Administrator GRADE: xx
FLSA: Exempt
POSITION SUMMARY:
Top human resources job within the County. Responsible for coordination and administration of
the county's personnel functions in accordance with County, state and federal regulations. Work
is performed under the guidance and direction of the County Administrator.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties are normal for this classification. These are not to be construed as exclusive
or all-inclusive. Other duties may be required and assigned.
1. Interpret, maintain, and communicate personnel policies to county employees to
ensure consistent definition and application; provide training as applicable. Chair the
Personnel Policy Committee and bring updates to the County Board approval.
2. Oversees and participate in all recruitment and selection processes in consultation
with appropriate department heads. Chair the Personnel Committee and bring
recommendation to the County Board for approval.
3. Conduct employee investigations and provide follow-up.
4. Responsible for the administration of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family &
Medical Leave Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and other related laws and
regulations.
5. Develop and maintain the employee performance evaluation system.
6. Oversee and monitor County pay equity plan, completing required reports.
7. Maintain job classification system Serve as Human Rights Officer.
8. Develop and update county employee job descriptions.
9. Collaborate with Negotiation Committee in negotiation of collective bargaining
agreements; assist with labor contract interpretation and implementation.
10. Maintain drug and alcohol testing records and facilitate program.
11. Serve on Health Insurance Committee and other committees to assist in developing
programs, employee health and wellness programs, employee benefits, etc.
12. Act as Board designee in handling grievances and arbitration, consulting with legal
counsel as appropriate.
County Position Description
Human Resources Director
Page 2 of 3
13. Coordinate monthly group New Employee Orientation.
14. Work with external consultants, Board, and County Administrator to ensure that
Human Resources programs are fulfilling the needs of the County.
NON-ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS:
1. Perform other job related duties as assigned or apparent.
2. Serve as backup for a variety of duties in the absence of other staff members in County
Administration
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITIES:
1. Knowledge of laws and regulations affecting employment practices, including working
knowledge of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Minnesota Data Privacy Act and other
applicable State and Federal regulations.
2. Knowledge of current human resource practices.
3. Knowledge and ability to perform various math calculations.
4. Ability to read and comprehend a variety of legal and administrative documents.
5. Ability to prepare and present reports, both orally and in writing.
6. Ability to produce a variety of reports, including pay equity, etc.
7. Ability to interpret policy and regulation manuals.
8. Ability to communicate effectively and professionally with the County Administrator,
Board of Commissioners, Department Heads, county employees, and the general public.
9. Ability to effectively train county employees relative to personnel policy issues (sexual
harassment prevention, discrimination, etc.)
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience
Bachelor’s degree in human resource management, business management or related field.
Plus five years of human resources experience.
Or an equivalent combination of education and experience sufficient to perform the
essential functions of the job.
REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS/LICENSES
Valid MN driver’s license and proof of insurance.
INTERNAL/EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS:
Department Heads, County Board, and County Administrator
All County employees
Human Resource professionals at other counties
Outside vendors
County Position Description
Human Resources Director
Page 3 of 3
Union representatives
SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES:
HR Generalist and HR Assistant.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Work is mainly performed in a standard office setting.
Requires occasional driving to other county facilities.
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THIS POSITION:
Sit or stand at a desk for extended periods of time and perform work at a computer and
talk on the phone.
Hear and speak effectively to communicate in person and over the phone with county
employees, County Board members and others.
Visual acuity to read computer screens and printed documents and to see to drive in
various light and weather conditions.
Manual dexterity to type on a keyboard and use a computer mouse and to perform
manual tasks such as handwriting and compiling material.
Physical coordination and mobility to:
o Drive to, and work at, other county sites;
o Move about the work sites.
Office work may include reaching for documents; fingering to find files; grasping
documents; standing, walking; and repetitive motions such as typing.
Lift and carry files and material weighing up to 25 pounds.
EQUIPMENT REQUIRED TO PERFORM THIS JOB:
Desktop/laptop computer
Desktop phone
Smart phone
Tablet
Calculator
Motor vehicle
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
Job
Reference
Code Job Title Department New Grade New MIN New MID New MAX
6 City Manager Administrative Services 270 $48.60 $54.70 $60.75
126 Police Chief Police 250 $44.40 $49.95 $55.50
85 Director of Operations and Recreation Operations and Recreation 240 $42.39 $47.69 $52.99
9 HR Director/Deputy City Manager Administrative Services 240 $42.39 $47.69 $52.99
28 Community Development Director Community Development 230 $40.38 $45.43 $50.48
44 Engineering Director Engineering 230 $40.38 $45.43 $50.48
54 Fire Chief Fire 230 $40.38 $45.43 $50.48
59 Chief Information Officer Information Resources 230 $40.38 $45.43 $50.48
78 Director of Inspections Inspections 230 $40.38 $45.43 $50.48
121 Deputy Police Chief Police 220 $38.34 $43.13 $47.93
8 Chief Financial Officer Administrative Services 210 $36.36 $40.91 $45.45
110 Public Works Superintendent Operations and Recreation 210 $36.36 $40.91 $45.45
33 Housing Supervisor /Deputy CD Director Community Development 200 $34.50 $38.81 $43.13
5 City Assessor Administrative Services 200 $34.50 $38.81 $43.13
52 Deputy Fire Chief Fire 200 $34.50 $38.81 $43.13
117 Utilities Superintendent Operations and Recreation 200 $34.50 $38.81 $43.13
37 Planning and Zoning Supervisor Community Development 190 $32.85 $36.96 $41.10
38 Principal Planner Community Development 190 $32.85 $36.96 $41.10
49 Senior Engineering Project Manager Engineering 190 $32.85 $36.96 $41.10
73 Chief Building Official Inspections 190 $32.85 $36.96 $41.10
100 Park Superintendent Operations and Recreation 190 $32.85 $36.96 $41.10
112 Recreation Superintendent Operations and Recreation 190 $32.85 $36.96 $41.10
127 Police Lieutentant Police 190 $32.85 $36.96 $41.10
51 Assistant Fire Chief Fire 180 $30.30 $34.10 $37.90
11 Finance Manager Administrative Services 180 $30.30 $34.10 $37.90
14 Human Resources Coordinator Administrative Services 180 $30.30 $34.10 $37.90
30 Economic Development Coordinator Community Development 180 $30.30 $34.10 $37.90
61 Communications and Marketing Manager Information Resources 180 $30.30 $34.10 $37.90
67 Information Technology Manager Information Resources 180 $30.30 $34.10 $37.90
81 Inspection Services Manager Inspections 180 $30.30 $34.10 $37.90
87 Equipment Superintendent Operations and Recreation 180 $30.30 $34.10 $37.90
109 Public Works Services Manager Operations and Recreation 180 $30.30 $34.10 $37.90
129 Sergeant Police 180 $30.30 $34.10 $37.90
134 Chief of Training & EMS Fire 180 $30.30 $34.10 $37.90
2016 New Salary Ranges
Example of Master Job Hierarchy and Salary Ranges for XYZ City (Salary Figures are not actual)
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
New
Grade
Starting
Rate Step (1)Step (2)Step (3)Step (4)Step (5)Step (6)Step (7)Step (8)Step (9)
New
Maximum
Starting
Rate % Max
% Step
Progression
260 $36.58 $38.06 $39.60 $41.20 $42.87 $44.61 $46.41 $48.29 $50.25 $52.26 $52.25 70.0%4.0%
250 $35.60 $37.05 $38.57 $40.16 $41.80 $43.47 $45.21 $47.02 $48.90 $50.86 $50.85 70.0%4.0%
240 $32.38 $33.70 $35.08 $36.52 $38.02 $39.54 $41.12 $42.77 $44.48 $46.26 $46.25 70.0%4.0%
230 $29.86 $31.08 $32.35 $33.68 $35.06 $36.46 $37.92 $39.44 $41.02 $42.66 $42.65 70.0%4.0%
220 $27.83 $28.97 $30.15 $31.39 $32.68 $33.98 $35.34 $36.76 $38.23 $39.76 $39.75 70.0%4.0%
210 $26.08 $27.14 $28.26 $29.42 $30.62 $31.85 $33.12 $34.45 $35.82 $37.26 $37.25 70.0%4.0%
200 $24.36 $25.36 $26.40 $27.48 $28.61 $29.75 $30.94 $32.18 $33.47 $34.81 $34.80 70.0%4.0%
190 $22.75 $23.68 $24.65 $25.66 $26.72 $27.79 $28.90 $30.05 $31.25 $32.51 $32.50 70.0%4.0%
180 $21.07 $21.93 $22.83 $23.77 $24.74 $25.73 $26.76 $27.83 $28.95 $30.10 $30.10 70.0%4.0%
170 $20.73 $21.69 $22.68 $23.73 $24.82 $25.96 $27.15 $28.40 $28.40 73.0%4.6%
160 $19.05 $19.93 $20.85 $21.81 $22.81 $23.86 $24.95 $26.10 $26.10 73.0%4.6%
150 $17.59 $18.40 $19.25 $20.13 $21.06 $22.03 $23.04 $24.10 $24.10 73.0%4.6%
140 $16.43 $17.18 $17.97 $18.80 $19.66 $20.57 $21.51 $22.50 $22.50 73.0%4.6%
130 $15.33 $16.04 $16.77 $17.54 $18.35 $19.20 $20.08 $21.00 $21.00 73.0%4.6%
120 $14.24 $14.89 $15.57 $16.29 $17.04 $17.82 $18.64 $19.50 $19.50 73.0%4.6%
110 $13.25 $13.86 $14.50 $15.16 $15.86 $16.59 $17.35 $18.15 $18.15 73.0%4.6%
100 $12.26 $12.83 $13.42 $14.04 $14.68 $15.36 $16.06 $16.80 $16.80 73.0%4.6%
* Market data are for 2016. Upon approval of the structure, 2017 structure should be trended up by a factor of 2.00%.
* To implement the new structure for 2017: 1) Make a copy of this workbook for 2017 2) Update the strcutre by multiplying the new maximum by 1.02%. The EERoster-Budget tab will update
automatically. Finally, update actual emplyee data in column X, and the spreadsheet calculations will update automatically.
2016 Proposed XYX County New Structure*