AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), dated for purposes of identification only this ___ day of __________, 202_, is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF ANAHEIM, a muni cipal corporation, herein after referred to as "ANAHEIM,"
A
N
D
THE SEGAL COMPANY (WESTERN STATES ), INC., a Maryland corporation doing business as “Segal,” hereinafter referred to as “CONSULTANT.” ANAHEIM and CONSULTANT are sometimes individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, ANAHEIM is a municipal cor poration duly organi zed and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statut es of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, ANAHEIM desires to obtain the services of a consultant to conduct a citywide classification and compensation study; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to perform the professional consulting services described in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL
PROMISES, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT
Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide to ANAHEIM the labor, materials, t ools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work
2 necessary to fully and adequate ly provide services in accord ance with the "Scope of Work" attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
2. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the effective date of this Agreement and shall terminate upon completion of the “Scope of Work” attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
3. COMPENSATION
3.1 ANAHEIM shall pay CONSULTANT, for services satisfactorily performed pursuant to this Agreement, the total fixed sum of $525,000 . CONSULTANT and ANAHEIM agree that no changes to the total fixed fee shall be made during the term of this Agreement.
3.2 The Parties agree that the Contract Amount set forth below includes all out-of-pocket expenses of CONS ULTANT, with the exception of extraordinary expenses or travel-related costs pre-approved by the City Ma nager. CONSULTANT shall not be reimbursed for any other expenses.
3.3 It is understood by and agreed between the Parties to this Agreement that full and complete payment for all services pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($525,000) (“Contract Amount”).
3.4 CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to ANAHEIM for work performed during the billing period. ANAHEIM sh all pay CONSULTANT within thirty (30) days after approval of the invoi ce by ANAHEIM staff by electroni c funds transfer (e.g. ACH or wire) in immediately available funds, as specified in the applicable invoice.
4. RESERVED
3 5. STANDARD OF CARE
5.1 CONSULTANT shall perform all services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same disciplin e in the State of California. CONSULTANT represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. By delivery of completed work, CONSULTANT certifies that the work conforms to the requirements of this Agreement; all applicable federal, state and local laws; and the professional standard of care.
5.2 CONSULTANT represents and warrants to ANAHEIM that it has, shall obtain, and shall keep in full force in effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and expense, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that is legally required of CONSULTANT to practice its profession.
6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
6.1 Neither ANAHEIM nor any of its empl oyees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which CONSULTANT performs th e services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein. Except as expressly provided herein, ANAHEIM shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, superv ision or control of CONSULTANT or its representatives, contractors, or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation or hours of service. CONSULTANT shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of ANAHEIM and shall remain at all times, as to ANAHEIM, a w holly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. CONSULTANT shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of ANAHEIM. ANAHEIM shall not in a ny way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a
4 partner of CONSULTANT in its business or othe rwise or a joint venture or a member of any joint enterprise with CONSULTANT.
6.2 In consideration for the compensation paid to CONSULTANT by ANAHEIM, CONSULTANT agrees that ANAHEIM shal l not be liable or responsible for any benefits, including, but not limited to, worker’s compensation, disability, retirement, life, unemployment, health or any other benefits, and CONSULTANT agrees that it shall not sue or file a claim, petition or application therefor against ANAHEIM or any of its officers, employees, agents, representatives or sureties.
7. INSURANCE
7.1 Without limiting ANAHEIM’S ri ght to indemnification, it is agreed that CONSULTANT shall secure, prior to commenci ng any activities under this Agreement, and maintain, during the term of this Agreement, insurance coverage as follows:
.01 Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by California law and Employers Liability Insura nce in an amount not less th an One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence/accident/illness/injury.
.02 Commercial General Liability Insurance, including coverage for Premises and Operations, Contra ctual Liability, Personal Injury Liability, Products/Completed Operations Liability, as well as Independent CONSULTANT’S Liability where appropriate, in an amount not less than Two M illion Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence, Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) annual aggregate, written on an occurrence form. Such insurance shall be written on a primary basis but may include a deductible or self-insured retention of more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) per o ccurrence, provided that such deductible or self-insured retention is disclosed to ANAHEIM, in writing, at the inception of this Agreement.
5 .03 Commercial Automobile Liability Coverage including—as applicable—non-owned, and hired autos, in an amount not le ss than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence, combined single limit, as required by California law. .04 Professional Liability Insurance, inclusive of Cyber Liability Insurance, where required in an amount not less than Tw o Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence or per claim. Such insurance shall be written on a primary basis but may include a deductible or self-insured rete ntion of more than Ten Thous and ($10,000) per occurrence or claim, provided that such deductible or sel f-insured retention is disclosed to ANAHEIM, in writing, at the inception of this Agreement.
7.2 Any required coverage written with pr imary and excess layers to satisfy the minimum requirements of this Agreement must be submitted for approval by ANAHEIM’s Risk Manager prior to the inception of the final Agreement.
7.3 CONSULTANT agrees that this in surance shall not be voluntarily cancelled by CONSULTANT or limited in scope or coverage by CONSULTANT until after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City Clerk, City of Anaheim, 200 S.
Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. This does not apply to cancellatio n for non-payment of premium, which requires notice of not less than ten (10) days.
7.4 Each insurance policy required by th is Agreement, except policies for Professional Liability and Workers’ Compensation, shall contain the follow ing clauses or shall otherwise provide for the following conditions:
.01 “It is agreed that any insurance maintained by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement shall be primary to, and not contribute with, any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the City of Anaheim.”
6 .02 “The City of Anaheim, its officers, agents, employees, representatives and ANAHEIM- de signated volunteers are added as additional insured as respects the acts, omissi ons, operations and activities of, or on behalf of, the named insured, in regard to products supplied to, or work or services performed fo r, or related to, the City of Anaheim.”
7.5 Prior to commencing any work unde r this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall deliver to ANAHEIM insura nce certificates confirming the existence of the insurance required under this Agreement, and including the applicable clauses referenced above. Also, within thirty (30) days of th e execution date of this Agreem ent, CONSULTANT shall provide ANAHEIM (i) endorsements to the insurance policies that add to these policies the applicable clauses referenced above, or (i i) in lieu of said endorsement s, documentation acceptable to ANAHEIM evidencing that the coverage, terms, and conditions set forth in the above-referenced clauses are otherwise included in sa id insurance policies. Insura nce required hereunder shall be placed with insurers (i) admitted to write insurance in California, (ii) possessing an A. M. Best’s rating of A VII or higher, or (iii) otherw ise acceptable to ANAHEIM, with prior written permission from ANAHEIM. In the event that a claim or other legal action is filed against ANAHEIM, and if ANAHEIM, in its good faith opi nion, believes it may ha ve coverage under any of the insurance required herein, then ANAHE IM has the right to demand, and to receive within a reasonable time period, copies of the insurance policie s related to such required insurance; provided, however, that this provision shall not ap ply if the parties agree that CONSULTANT shall fully defend, hold harmle ss, and indemnify ANAHEIM against any such claim or other legal action.
7 In addition to other remedies ANAHEIM may have if CONSULTANT fails to provide or maintain any insuranc e policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, ANAHEIM may, at its sole option:
.01 Order CONSULTANT to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment(s) that become due to CONSULTANT hereunde r until CONSULTANT demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof;
.02 Instruct CONSULTANT to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment(s) which become due to CONSULTANT hereunder until CONSULTANT demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof;
.03 Terminate this Agreement.
Exercise of any of the above remedies , however, is an alternative to other remedies ANAHEIM may have and is not the ex clusive remedy for CONSULTANT’S failure to maintain insurance or secure appropriate endorsements.
7.6 Nothing herein contained shall be c onstrued in any wa y as limiting the extent that an CONSULTANT may be held respons ible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from CONS ULTANT’S, (or CONSULTANT’S AGENT or SUB-AGENT, if any) performance of the work covered under this Agreement.
7.7 In the event CONSULTANT hires other persons or firms to perform some of the work related to this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall ensure (i) that the acts or omissions of such persons or firms are covered under the above -referenced liability insurance, or (ii) that such firms maintain insurance equal to or better than, and subject to the same limits, terms and conditions as, the insurance requ ired of CONSULTANT under this Agreement (except for firms that are not performing professi onal services—such firms shall not be required to carry the
8 above-referenced professional liab ility insurance); and in either instance, CONSULTANT shall provide, or cause to be provided, evidence of su ch insurance coverage, reasonably acceptable to ANAHEIM.
7.8 ANAHEIM’S Risk Manager is he reby authorized to amend the requirements set forth herein in the event such reduction is in ANAHEIM’S best interest.
8. INDEMNIFICATION
8.1 As respects acts, errors or omission s in the performance of professional services, CONSULTANT agrees to indemnif y and hold harmless ANAHE IM, its officials, officers, and employees from and ag ainst any and all claims, losses, damages, defense costs, or liability, of any kind or nature, di rectly arising out of the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the CONSULTANT or any SUB-AGENT in the perf ormance of professional services under this Agreement.
8.2 As respects all acts, errors or omissions that do not arise directly out of the performance of professional services, including but not limited to t hose acts, errors or omissions typically covered by general a nd automobile liability insura nce, CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify, defend (at ANAHEIM’S option), a nd hold harmless ANAHEIM, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and representative s from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, defense costs, or liabil ity, of any kind or nature (collec tively referred to hereinafter as “Claims”), arising out of or in connection with CONS ULTANT’S (or CONSULTANT'’S AGENT or SUB-AGENT, if any) acts, errors, omissions, or wor k, relative to this Agreement, except for those Claims that arise out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of ANAHEIM.
9 8.3 The obligations set forth in this indemnification provision (i) shall be in effect without regard to whether ANAHEIM, C ONSULTANT or any othe r person or entity maintains or fails to maintain insurance covera ge or a self-insurance program, for any such Claim(s); and (ii) shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
9. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS
The Parties recognize that a substantia l inducement to ANAHEIM for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of CONSULTANT. Neither the whole nor any intere st in, nor any of the rights or privileges granted under this Agreement sha ll be assigned, transferred or encumbered in any way without the prior written consent of ANAHEIM.CONSU LTANT represents that it may request ANAHEIM’s consent to re-assign its rights or delegate performance to one of its affiliates that is wholly-owned by the same parent company (The Segal Group, Inc.) and operating under the same trade name (Segal); provided that ther e is no change in primary personnel performing services or to the ownership structure of The Segal Group, Inc. Any such purported assignment, transfer, encumbrance, pledge, subuse, or permission given without such consent shall be void as to ANAHEIM. If ANAHEIM approves an assignmen t or transfer, this Agreement and the covenants and conditions containe d herein shall be binding upon a nd inure to the benefit of and shall apply to the permitted successors and assigns of CONSULTANT.
10. SUBCONTRACTING
CONSULTANT warrants and represents that it shall not use a ny subcontractor to perform work or services required under this Agreement, unless approved in writing by ANAHEIM.
10 11. USE AND OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS AND DATA
11.1 ANAHEIM shall furnish to CONSULTANT such documents and materials (collectively, “ANAHEI M Information”) as may be re levant and pertinent to the provision of services hereunder as ANAHEIM may possess or acquire. CONSULTANT will have the right to reasonably rely on the a ccuracy and completeness of ANAHEIM Information and will have no responsibility for independently verifying or checking ANAHEIM Information for accuracy or completeness.. ANAHEIM acknowledges and agrees that CONSULTANT shall have no liability for errors resulting from latent defects in ANAHEIM Information or ANAHEIM’s failure to notify CONSULTANT of changes to ANAHEIM Information.
11.2 All documents and materials furnished by ANAHEIM to CONSULTANT, pursuant to Section 11.1, shall re main the property of ANAHEIM and shall, be returned to ANAHEIM upon termination of this Agreement, fo r any reason. In addition to the Services, CONSULTANT is authorized to use ANAHEIM In formation for internal purposes and may aggregate ANAHEIM Information with other data collected by CONSULTANT and distribute such data, or analysis of such data, to third parties, provided such distributed data does not identify ANAHEIM or any ANAHEIM participants or beneficiaries. For the avoidance of doubt, CONSULTANT will not sell or otherwise rece ive remuneration for ANAHEIM Information or materials derived from ANAHEIM Information.
11.3 ANAHEIM acknowledges that, in providing the Services, CONSULTANT will distribut e or make available certain proprietary materials (“CONSULTANT’s Proprietary Information”), in cluding, but not limit ed to, publications, software, know-how, techniques, methodologies and report formats. Except to the extent that they are or incorporate CONSUL TANT’s Proprietary Informati on, all documents or material
11 prepared or caused to be prepared by CONSU LTANT in the course of implementing this Agreement (collectively, the “Deliverables”), shall become the exclusive property of ANAHEIM, and ANAHEIM shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to CONSULTANT or any other pa rty. To the extent that CONSULTANT’s Proprietary Information is inco rporated into such Deliverables, ANAHEIM will have a perpetual, fully paid, non-exclusive, non-transferable and non-sublicensable right to use, copy, and modify CONSULTANT ’s Proprietary Information as part of the Deliverables for their intended purpose. CONSULTANT will not have any responsibility or liability for use of any Deliverable in any manner other than for the intended purpose. CONSULTANT shall, at CONSULTANT’s sole cost and expense, provide copies of such documents and material to ANAHEIM upon prior written request.
11.4 CONSULTANT understands that ANA HEIM is a government agency subject to transparency and open government la ws including, but not limited to, the Public Records Act. CONSULTANT further understand s that ANAHEIM may release copies of the Deliverables or any other communications or information provided by CONSULTANT in response to a request under any applicable public disclosure law. .
12. CONFIDENTIALITY
All documents, including drafts, preliminar y drawings or plans, notes, ideas and communications that result from the services pr ovided under this Agreement, shall be kept confidential by CONSULTANT unless ANAHEIM auth orizes, in writing, the release of said information.
12 13. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY
CONSULTANT shall defend and indemn ify ANAHEIM, its agents, officers, representatives and employees agai nst any and all liability, includi ng costs, for in fringement of any United States’ letters patent , trademark, or copyright in fringement, including costs, contained in the work product or documen ts provided by CONSULTANT to ANAHEIM pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, CONSULTANT shall not have any liability what soever for any claim of infringement based on (i) use of any of the Deliverables by the ANAHEIM in a manner contrary to their intended use if the infringement would have been avoided by use of the in accordance with their intended use, (ii) modification of the Deliverables by any party other than CONSU LTANT if the infringement would have been avoided without such modification, or (iii) the combin ation or use of the Deliverables with materials or intellectual property not furnishe d by CONSULTANT if such infringement would have been avoided by use of the Deliverables alone.
14. RECORDS
CONSULTANT shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. CONSU LTANT shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the co sts incurred under this Agreement and any services, expenditures and disbursements charged to ANA HEIM, for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to CONSULTANT under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shal l be clearly identifiable. CONSULTANT shall allow a representative of ANAHEIM to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created, pursuan t to this Agreement, upon reasonable notice and during regular business hours. Subject to mutual agreement as timing and scope,
13 CONSULTANT shall allow inspection of all wor k, data, Documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to CONSULTANT under this Agreement.
15. WITHHOLDINGS
ANAHEIM may withhold payment to CONSULTANT of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the disput e with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. CONSULTANT shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his/her designee with respect to such disputed sums and his/her decision shall be final. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of return that ANAHEIM earned on its investments during the time period, from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld.
16. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional inexperience of CONSULTANT which result in expense to ANAHEIM greater than what would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work accomplished by CONSULTANT, the additional cost and expense shall be borne by CONSULTANT. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit ANAHEIM’s rights under the law or any other sections of this Agreement.
17. ANAHEIM'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS
CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees th at this Agreement and the provision of services hereunder are nonexclusive and that ANAHEIM may enter into similar agreements with other entities for the provision of similar services.
14 18. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
18.1 CONSULTANT represents that neither it nor any of its officers, partners or employees has a financial interest, as defi ned in Section 87103 of the Government Code, in the subject matter of this Agreement other than the right to receive payment from ANAHEIM for services rendered.
18.2 CONSULTANT agrees that it shall not make, participate in making, nor in any way attempt to use its position as consu ltant to influence any decision of ANAHEIM in which CONSULTANT knows, or has reason to know , that any of its of ficers, partners or employees has a financial interest as defined in Section 87103 of the Government Code.
18.3 CONSULTANT warrants that neither CONSULTANT nor any of its officers, partners or employees, has any financ ial interest in any re al property, building or structure within 2,500 feet of the location of any project or assi gnment to which this Agreement may apply in the City of Anaheim. CONS ULTANT agrees to disclose to ANAHEIM any financial interest in such property as may be acquired by its officers, partners or employees during the term of this Agreement.
19. NOTICES
All notices, demands or other writings to be made, given or sent hereunder, or which may be so given or made or se nt by either ANAHEIM or CONSUL TANT to the other shall be deemed to have been given when in writing and personally delivered or if mailed on the third (3rd) day after being deposited in the United States mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, and addressed to the respective Parties at the following addresses:
If to ANAHEIM: ANAHEIM City Clerk
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, 2nd Floor
15 Anaheim, California 92805
FAX No. (714) 765-4105
With copies to: ______________________
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd., 7
th Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
FAX No. (714) 765-5164
To CONSULTANT: General Counsel
The Segal Group
333 West 34
th Street
New York, NY 10001-2402
[email protected]
With copies to: TL Cox
Segal
[email protected]
20. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT
20.1 Events of Default.
.01 For purposes of this Section 20, th e word “Default” shall mean the failure of CONSULTANT to perform any of CONSULTANT’s duties or obligations or the breach by CONSULTANT of any of the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. In addition, CONSULTANT shall be deemed to be in Default upon CONSULTANT’s (i) application for, consent to, or suffering of, the appointment of a receiver, trustee or liquidator for all or a substantial portion of its assets; (ii) making a general assignme nt for the benefit of creditors; (iii) being adjudge d bankrupt; (iv) filing a volunt ary petition or suffering an involuntary petition under any bankruptcy, arrang ement, reorganization or insolvency law (unless in the case of an involuntary petition, the same is dismissed with in thirty (30) days of such filing); or (v) suffering or permitting to c ontinue unstayed and in e ffect for fifteen (15) consecutive days any attachment, levy, execution or seizure of all or a substantial portion of CONSULTANT’s assets or of CONSULTANT’s interests hereunder.
16 .02 ANAHEIM shall not be deemed to be in Default in the performance of any obligation required to be performed by ANAHEIM hereunder unless and until ANAHEIM has failed to perform such obligati on for a period of thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice from CONSULTANT speci fying in reasonable de tail the nature and extent of any such failure; provided, however, that if the nature of ANAHEIM’s obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are re quired for its performance, then ANAHEIM shall not be deemed to be in Default if ANAHEIM shall co mmence to cure such performance within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecute the same to completion.
20.2 Immediate Termination for CONSULTANT’s Default. In the event of any Default by CONSULTANT, ANAHEIM may immedi ately terminate this Agreement. Such termination shall be effective immediately upon receipt by CONSULTANT of written notice from ANAHEIM. In such event, CONSULTANT shall have no further rights hereunder, and ANAHEIM shall have all other rights and remedies as provided by law.
20.3 Termination Without Cause. Either of the Parties ma y terminate this Agreement at any time w ithout the necessity of cau se or Default by givi ng thirty (30) days written notice to the other Party.
21. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS
CONSULTANT shall at its own cost an d expense comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations and require ments of all governmental entitie s, including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter enacte d, and including, but not limited to, the laws and regulations that prohibit the use of public funds for campaign activities or personal use. In addition, all work prepared by CONSULTANT shall c onform to applicable
17 local, county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the City Manager.
22. WAIVER
A waiver by either Party of any breac h, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
23. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
This Agreement and Exhibit A hereto c ontain the entire agreement of ANAHEIM and CONSULTANT with respect to the matters covered hereby, and no agreement, statement or promise made by e ither ANAHEIM or CONSULTANT which is not contained herein, shall be valid or binding. No prior agreement, understa nding or representation pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose.
24. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES
In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement and Exhibit A, or any other documents attached hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.
25. INTERPRETATION
Each Party acknowledges that he/she/it has had the benefit of advice of competent legal counsel with respect to its decision to enter this Agreemen t. The provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted to give effect to their fair meaning and shall be construed as prepared by both Parties.
18 26. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both CONSULTANT and ANAHEIM and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
27. SEVERABILITY
If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of its terms a nd provisions to persons and circumstances other than those to which it has been held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be va lid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
28. REMEDIES CUMULATIVE
The remedies given to ANAHEIM a nd CONSULTANT herein shall be cumulative and are given without impairi ng any other rights given ANAHEIM or CONSULTANT by statute or law no w existing or hereafter enacted and the exercise on any one (1) remedy by ANAHEIM or CONSULTANT sha ll not exclude the exercise of any other remedy.
29. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
The Parties intend that neither rights nor re medies be granted to any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement or of any cove nant, duty, obligation or undertaking established herein.
19 30. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE
The laws of the State of California sha ll govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brough t relating to this Agreement shal l be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange.
31. DISCRIMINATION
CONSULTANT agrees not to discriminate against any person or class of persons by reason of sex, color, race, creed, religion, marita l status, handicap, ancestry, national origin or other prohibited basis in its prov ision of services under this Agr eement. To the extent this Agreement provides that CONSUL TANT offer accommodations or services to the public, such accommodations or services shall be offere d by CONSULTANT to the public on fair and reasonable terms.
32. AUTHORITY
Each individual executing this Agreemen t on behalf of a corporation, nonprofit corporation, partnership or other entity or orga nization, represents and wa rrants that it or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agr eement on behalf of such entity or organization and that this Agreement is binding upon the same in accordance with its terms. CONSULTANT shall, at ANAHEIM’s request, deliver a certified copy of its governing board’s resolution or certificate authorizing or evidencing such execution.
33. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Agreement shall be effective on the date it is signed by ANAHEIM (“Effective Date”).
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties here to have caused this Agreement to be executed on the dates hereinafter respectively set forth.
DATE OF EXECUTION:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
a Municipal Corporation
B y :
“ANAHEIM”
ATTEST:
B y : _
City Clerk of Anaheim
DATE OF EXECUTION:
08/09/2023
The Segal Company (Midwest), Inc.
B y :
Title: Vice President
Printed Name: TL Cox
“CONSULTANT”
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
B y :
D a t e d :
Attachment: Exhibit A (Scope of Work)
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
© 2023 by The Segal Group, Inc.
City of Anaheim, CA
Proposal for Classification
and Compensation Study
RFP #107-HR-04/21/2023
May 22, 2023 / TL Cox, Vice President
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 1 Experience ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 Firm Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 Personnel ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 11 Project Communication ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 19 Step 1: Project initiation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 21 Step 2: Provide recommendations for changes to the compensation philosophy .................. 23 Step 3: Classification analysis ................................ ................................ .............................. 24 Step 4: Total compensation market assessment ................................ ................................ ... 35 Step 5: Recommendations development ................................ ................................ .............. 49 Step 6: Present final results to the City ................................ ................................ ................. 52 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 53 Exceptions to Terms and Conditions ................................ ................................ ......................... 60 Required Forms ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 61
#9670196v1/97909.902 1
Executive Summary
May 22, 2023
Nora Verceles, Employee Relations Manager; and
Bich Nguyen, Senior Employee Relations Analyst
City of Anaheim, Human Resources Department
Anaheim West Tower, 5th Floor
201 South Anaheim Boulevard #501
Anaheim, California 92805
Re: Proposal for Classification and Compensation Study
Dear Ms. Verceles and Ms. Nguyen:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to assist the City of Anaheim with a classification and compensation study. Segal is an independent, employee-owned firm and one of the nation’s leading human resources advisory consultancies. Through our experienced public sector staff, we are among the most qualified to partner with the City on your engagement.
It's impossible for Anaheim to maintain its reputation as the “City of Kindness” or “Where the world comes to live, work, and play” without the approximately 2,000 full-time and 1,025 part- time employees providing vital services to residents and more than 25 million visitors each year.
To conduct a classification and compensation study the size and complexity of the one Anaheim is undertaking, the reputation, experience, size, and stability of your advisor is of critical importance. Segal is ideally positioned to assist the City’s Human Resources (HR) staff and appropriate stakeholders oversee a process that, per the HR Department’s Purpose statement, attracts and retains quality employees and promotes the principals and practices of fairness and merit. For example:
Segal has an extensive record of success nationally, regionally, and locally. When choosing a classification and compensation advisor, it is important to have confidence in the qualifications and credentials of both the company you choose and its consulting team. Segal’s staff has provided similar services for public sector organizations in 42 states, including many throughout California. A representative sample of our California clients is as follows:
• State of California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles • Orange County Transportation Authority • Inyo County • San Mateo County Transit
• Santa Barbara County • Southern California Regional Rail Authority • Sonoma County • Victor Valley Transit Authority
500 North Brand Boulevard
Suite 1400
Glendale, CA 91203
segalco.com
#9670196v1/97909.902 2
• City of Carlsbad • Castaic Lake Water Authority
• City of Goleta • Coachella Valley Water District
• City of Livermore • Delta Diablo District
• City of Palo Alto • Water Replenishment District of Southern • City of Richmond • West County Wastewater District
• City of San Diego • Greater Vallejo Recreation District • City of San Marcos • Northern California UFCW
• City of Santa Cruz • San Joaquin Council of Governments • City of Santa Monica • Santa Barbara County Association of Govts • AC Transit • Santa Monica Libraries
• Bay Area Rapid Transit • Southern California Association of Governments • Golden Gate Bridge and Highway Transportation District • ABC Unified School District Segal continues to improve and enhance our processes to better serve clients. The needs of public sector agencies change, and to be successful, advisory services have to evolve with them. From our strict quality control procedures to our internal collaboration with cross-sector teams, Segal’s methodology adds considerable value not prevalent in smaller or less- established firms. That’s why Segal is the recognized brand for public sector human resources.
Segal has assigned to the Anaheim project a team with specialized skills in public sector compensation and classification analysis and design, including extensive experience with the collective bargaining needs of our government clients. Segal’s recommended staff has worked together on many similar projects, and we recognize the importance of understanding the nuances associated with a unionized workforce. We have unique experience in supporting public sector collective bargaining and joint labor-management facilitation efforts.
We appreciate your consideration and welcome the opportunity to meet with you to answer any questions you have. As an officer of Segal, I am authorized to bind the firm to the terms of this proposal and sign any resulting contract. Please feel free to contact me by phone at 469.594.4664 or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
TL Cox
Vice President
#9670196v1/97909.902 3
Experience
Compensation and career strategies services
Segal has offered human resources consulting services dedicated to our public sector and collectively bargained clients since 1997. We offer solutions and advice regarding:
• Total compensation market studies
• Total compensation system design and implementation
• Job classification analyses
• Job evaluation system design and implementation
• Performance management system design and implementation • Employee opinion surveys
• Pay equity analysis
• Cost modeling
• Labor-management facilitation
• Collective bargaining support
Our consulting approach is based on customized solutions to meet specific needs, not “off-the- shelf” systems. Our goal is to maximize the value of total rewards by encouraging employee participation in our engagements. This is crucial to a successful outcome.
Total compensation market studies
We conduct total compensation market analyses targeted to specific comparable employers.
This process identifies benchmark positions that are representative of an employer’s workforce.
The surveys capture information on pay ranges, maximum hiring pay rates, pay progression policies, performance-based reward systems, paid time off, health and welfare related benefits, and retirement benefits. As a routine part of any project, Segal provides clients with all detailed source data received through our surveys.
Total compensation system design and implementation
We design total reward systems by working with clients to develop compensation philosophies that support organizational strategic goals and compensation best practices. We frequently work with clients to transform longevity-based pay programs to performance-based systems.
Job classification analyses
Classification studies include development and analysis of position questionnaires and employee interviews as the basis for evaluating and streamlining the classification structure.
Additionally, we can assist in developing customized job descriptions that are consistent with legislation such as FLSA and ADA.
#9670196v1/97909.902 4
Job evaluation system design and implementation
Our Segal Evaluator™ point-factor method of job evaluation is easily understood and provides an internal hierarchy based on established factors common to jobs throughout the organization.
This approach determines the eight specific compensable factors customized to support the operating environment and organizational structure of each client.
Performance management
Based on an organization’s compensation strategy, we will develop a performance management approach that includes tools to measure individual and group performance as well as tie the performance management system to a pay delivery approach.
Employee opinion surveys
As part of evaluating total compensation programs, we frequently design and implement opinion surveys to measure employees’ preferences and priorities regarding all aspects of their rewards of work (direct compensation, paid leave, benefits programs, work environment, career opportunities, affiliation with the organization and other aspects). Our analysis can include comparisons of demographic groups, highlighting differences by occupational categories, career stage, or other groupings. In addition, we often conduct employee engagement surveys to understand employees’ level of motivation and morale, turnover potential and other measurable aspects of commitment and engagement with the organization.
Pay equity analysis
As an increasing number of states have enacted pay equity legislation, Segal can conduct pay equity analysis based on gender and/or race. Our analysis identifies the existence of potential pay disparities and provides recommendations for policies to correct and prevent inequities.
Cost modeling
Most reward system redesigns result in a fiscal impact to the employer. Our modeling approach not only identifies the immediate impact of implementation, but also provides a multi-year perspective to identify steady employer costs.
Labor-management facilitation
We support clients in all facets of collective bargaining, whether at the table or through technical support. Our consultants assist in developing bargaining strategies and options for all economic issues. We model comparative costs of each compensation element and can provide detailed costing models to support the bargaining process. Segal is widely recognized by both management and labor as an objective and credible source of bargaining expertise. Should the need arise, we are available to provide assistance in mediation and arbitration.
Our work includes the development of bargaining proposals, economic costing models, contract language, as well as support and expert testimony at mediations and arbitrations. Our approach has always been fair-minded and objective with an aim to “win-win” outcomes.
#9670196v1/97909.902 5
This is exemplified by our efforts to support a joint labor-management Task Force created by the Government of the District of Columbia and several of its unions to reform the District’s compensation and classification structures. This project covered approximately 7,400 District employees represented by five international unions (AFGE, AFSCME, CWA, FOP and SEIU).
We have provided mediation/arbitration and/or testimony for the following clients:
• City of Houston, TX
• District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
• State of Washington (corrections, state troopers and captains/lieutenants) • Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) • IBEW Local 50 and Dominion Power
We have supported mediation and arbitration efforts for the State of Washington Department of Corrections, State Patrol Officers; State of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association; Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the ATU as well as OPEIU Local 2; the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority and the ATU; City of Philadelphia and IAFF; Dominion Resources and the IBEW; Montgomery County Maryland and UFCW 1994 to name a few.
Our approach to working with clients to prepare for arbitration includes the following:
• Identifying key arguments/positions upon which testimony is developed • Preparing arbitration exhibits for both the affirmative case and rebuttal • Working with counsel to prepare testimony
• Presenting our client’s affirmative case
• Attending the presentations of opposing arguments
• Assisting counsel develop questions for cross-examination • Providing rebuttal to opposing arguments
In addition, we have provided consulting services to other labor-management committees, including:
• Adams 12 Five Star Schools and the Colorado Education Association • Boulder Valley School District (CO) and the Boulder Valley Education Association • City of Baltimore (MD) and FOP and IAFF
• City of Bristol (CT) and AFSCME
• City of Philadelphia (PA) and AFSCME, FOP and IAFF
• Cuyahoga Library District (OH) and SEIU
• Denver Public Schools (CO) and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association • Des Moines Water Works (IA) and AFSCME
• District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority and AFSCME, and AFGE
#9670196v1/97909.902 6
• Frontier Communications and the CWA
• Government of the District of Columbia and AFSCME, AFGE, SEIU and NAGE • Macomb County (MI) and AFSCME, IUOE, Teamsters and UAW • Massachusetts Department of Transportation and NAGE, AFSCME, Steelworkers, Teamsters, MOSES
• Metropolitan District Commission (CT) and AFSCME
• Prince George’s County Public Schools (MD) and Prince George’s County Education Association
• San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and AFSCME • State of Maine Judicial Branch and SEIU
• State of Rhode Island and AFSCME
• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and ATU 689 • Yale University (CT) and HERE
Collective bargaining support
Our work includes the development of bargaining proposals, economic costing models, contract language, as well as support and expert testimony at mediations and arbitrations. Our approach has always been fair-minded and objective with an aim to “win-win” outcomes.
We have provided mediation/arbitration and/or testimony for the following clients:
• Anne Arundel County (MD) and IAFF Local 1563
• City of Houston (TX)
• District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority — AFSCME and AFGE • IAFF Local 22 and City of Philadelphia (PA)
• IBEW Local 50 and Dominion Power
• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority — ATU
• Montgomery County (MD) — UFCW 1994
• State of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association • State of Washington (Corrections, State Troopers, Captains/Lieutenants) — Teamsters and WFSE
• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) — ATU and OPEIU Local 2
#9670196v1/97909.902 7
California Public Sector Experience
As one of the nation's leading independent consultants to the public sector, Segal has the knowledge, expertise and experience to understand the environment in which decisions are made by public agencies. We understand what solutions will work within the public sector and help our government clients craft those solutions to fit their specific needs.
Our Los Angeles and San Francisco offices serve dozens of public entities throughout California, including:
City of Los Angeles Orange County Employees Retirement System Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System Imperial County Employees Retirement System Los Angeles Fire and Police Plan City of Bakersfield
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power County of Kern Los Angeles Unified School District County of Santa Clara Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assoc. City of Fresno San Diego County Employees Retirement Association County of San Bernardino
#9670196v1/97909.902 8
California Benefits Benchmarking
While we work directly with a number of the largest employers and plans in the State, we also survey and benchmark a number of other public employers in California on a range of topics and issues. Our most recent analysis included:
City of Bakersfield City of Modesto
City of Fremont County of Kern
City of Fresno City of Riverside
City of Ontario County of San Bernardino
City of Oxnard City of Stockton
City of Glendale City of Tulare
City of Pasadena
#9670196v1/97909.902 9
Firm Background
About our company
Segal (www.segalco.com) has been a leading, independent firm of benefit, compensation and human resources consultants since its founding in 1939. Our clients include corporations, non- profit organizations, higher education institutions, professional service firms, public sector entities and jointly trusteed benefit funds.
Segal is an independent, employee-owned private corporation with no ties to any other companies. Our only interest is in providing unbiased solutions to clients’ total rewards needs.
Our firm is headquartered in New York and has more than 1,000 employees working in the following offices throughout the U.S. and Canada.
Albuquerque*
Atlanta
Austin*
Boston / Braintree
Chicago
Cleveland
Coral Springs, FL*
Denver
Detroit
Edmonton*
Fort Washington /
Philadelphia*
Hartford
Juneau, AK
Lansing, MI
Los Angeles
Montreal*
Minneapolis
New York
Phoenix
Princeton
San Francisco
Seattle*
Toronto
Washington, DC
Worcester, MA
* Virtual presence
For more than 80 years, we have developed cutting-edge total rewards approaches that provide quality health care, secure retirement and competitive compensation programs for our clients’ employees. Offering comprehensive total compensation and benefits packages requires governments to continually search for cost efficiencies and innovations. Many widely accepted benefit practice and cost containment solutions were originally designed by Segal.
Company history and staff
Segal was founded as the Martin E. Segal Company in October 1939, early in the development of employee benefit plans in American industry. From the beginning, Segal has been involved in developing health and retirement programs that meet the needs of employees and employers.
Through our history, we’ve built a group of brand names you’ve come to count on for truly personal actuarial, investment and human resources consulting expertise aimed at one mission:
delivering trusted advice that improves lives. Today we formally operate under one name:
Segal.
Segal, Segal Benz and Segal Marco Advisors are all members of the Segal family. While company names and logos have evolved over the firm’s 80-year history, we remain an
#9670196v1/97909.902 10
employee-owned firm known for providing unbiased consulting based on the integrity, expertise, personal investment and trusted advice of our people.
Segal is a founding member of the Multinational Group of Actuaries and Consultants (MGAC), whose member companies across the world meet clients’ needs for assistance in international benefits planning
Segal is a private corporation owned by its active officers, with no shareholder owning more than 5% of the common stock. Our firm’s chief officers are:
• Joseph Lo Cicero — Chairman
• David Blumenstein — President and Chief Executive Officer • Joseph Fristachi — Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer • Steven Greenspan — Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel Company organization chart
Segal is a completely independent organization with no ties to any other companies. Our only interest is in providing unbiased solutions to clients’ total rewards needs. Visit us at segalco.com.
Our teams help a wide range of industries. No matter who you are, we can assist you with:
Administration and
Technology
Consulting
Benefit Audit
Solutions
Compensation and
Career Strategies
Compliance
Health and Welfare
Benefits
HR and Benefits
Technology
Insurance
Organizational
Effectiveness
Retirement Benefits
Benefits Communication
Communication Strategy
Personalized Benefit
Statements
Surveys and Focus Groups
Website and Portal Design
Advisory Investment Solutions
Corporate Governance
and Proxy Voting
Defined Contribution
Consulting
Discretionary Consulting
Not any solution—your solution. Personalized advice and help.
#9670196v1/97909.902 11
Personnel
We bring to this project an excellent combination of skills and experience in public sector compensation and classification analysis and design.
The Segal project team consists of experienced consultants who are dedicated to meeting the needs of the City in a manner that is cost-efficient, timely and of high quality.
Staff Member Role
TL Cox Vice President, Client Relationship Manager
Stephen Murphy Senior Vice President, California Public Sector Market Expert Diana Sobczynski, CCP, PHR, SHRM-CP Associate Consultant, Project Manager Lauren Price Senior Associate, Senior Compensation Analyst Ethan Steinberg Senior Associate, Senior Compensation Analyst Mira Ahluwalia Associate, Analyst
Additional consultants and analysts may be added to ensure timely completion of project deliverables.
We invite you to review the resume of each team member on the following pages.
#9670196v1/97909.902 12
TL Cox
Vice President
Expertise
Mr. Cox joined Segal in August 2019. Prior to joining Segal, Mr. Cox led the public sector compensation consulting practice for another large organization. Mr. Cox has more than 15 years of combined experience in providing consulting services to public sector organizations related to human resources and information technology needs, including more than four years with The Waters Consulting Group, Inc. prior to its combination with Segal.
Clients
States, Agencies and Retirement Systems
State of California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles Committee for Public Counsel Services (MA)
State of Maine
Oregon State Legislature (OR)
Counties
Inyo County (CA)
Jefferson County (CO)
Jefferson Parish (LA)
Kalamazoo County Government (MI)
Los Alamos County (NM)
Montrose County (CO)
Seminole County (FL)
Santa Barbara County (CA)
Stafford County (VA)
Terrebonne Parish (LA)
Travis County (TX)
Webb County (TX)
Municipalities
City of Alexandria (LA)
City of Bryan (TX)
City of Carrollton (TX)
City of Charlotte (NC)
City of College Station (TX)
City of Columbia (MO)
City of Farmington Hills (MI)
City of Greenville (NC)
City of Greenville (SC)
City of League City (TX)
City of Oklahoma City and Its Trusts (OK)
City of Olathe (KS)
City of Portland (TX)
City of St. Cloud (MN)
Other Clients
Centralina Regional Council (NC)
East-West Gateway Council of Governments (MO)
Greater Vallejo Recreation District (CA)
International City/County Management Association
(DC)
Local Government Information Systems (MN)
North Central Texas Council of Governments (TX)
Regional Transportation District (CO)
Santa Barbara County Association of
Governments (CA)
San Joaquin Council of Governments (CA)
Sourcewell (MN)
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (MI)
Southern California Association of Governments
(CA)
Utilities and Water Authorities
Beaufort-Jasper Water & Sewer Authority (SC)
Colorado Springs Utilities (CO)
Denver Water (CO)
Florida Municipal Power Agency (FL)
Greenville Utilities Commission (NC)
New Braunfels Utilities (TX)
Texas Municipal Power Agency (TX)
Toho Water Authority (FL)
K-12 School Districts
Falls Church City Public Schools (VA)
Alexandria City Public Schools (VA)
#9670196v1/97909.902 13
Professional background
In addition to his work in consulting, Mr. Cox has provided project management, executive coaching, leadership development, and training to public sector organizations and various international private sector companies, also serving as Chief Information Officer for the City of Tulsa, OK.
Education/professional designations
Mr. Cox graduated from Southeastern Oklahoma State University with a B.A. in Political Science/Communications and has a Master of Public Administration from The University of Texas at Arlington.
TL Cox, Vice President
[email protected]
469.594.4664
segalco.com
#9670196v1/97909.902 14
Stephen E. Murphy, CEBS
Senior Vice President and Benefits Consultant
Expertise
Mr. Murphy is a Senior Vice President and Benefits Consultant in Segal’s Los Angeles office with more than 35 years of health benefits experience. He works with state, city and county governments as well as other public sector clients to develop and maintain their employee benefit plans. Mr. Murphy has specialized expertise in health strategy development and implementation, claim reporting and data analysis, and vendor evaluation, selection and management.
Professional background
Prior to Segal, Mr. Murphy worked at other national consulting firms where he developed and maintained total rewards programs that were tax-efficient, cost-effective and valued by participants.
Education/professional designations
Mr. Murphy holds a BS in Business Administration from the University of Southern California and a MS in Human Resource Management from Boston University. He is a Certified Employee Benefits Specialist and holds a certificate in Global Business Management from the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans.
Stephen E. Murphy, CEBS
[email protected]
818.956.6726
segalco.com
#9670196v1/97909.902 15
Diana Sobczynski, CCP, PHR,
SHRM-CP
Associate Consultant
Expertise
Ms. Sobczynski is an Associate Consultant in Segal’s Compensation and Career Strategies practice, based in the San Francisco office. She has nearly 20 years’ combined experience in operations management and multiple human resources disciplines with a focus in compensation. Ms. Sobczynski has worked within the higher education and the public sector markets. Her clients have included:
States, Agencies and Retirement Systems
State of Oregon
Lane County (OR)
City of Cape Coral (FL)
City of Manassas (VA)
Fulton County, (GA)
City of Buckeye (AZ)
Wake County (NC)
Thurston County (WA)
Higher Education
University of Louisville (KY)
Pennsylvania State University
Pacific Northwest University (WA)
Denison University (OH)
Bunker Hill Community College (MA)
Pima Community College (AZ)
Delaware Community College
Alcorn University (MS)
Trinity College (CT)
Professional background
Prior to joining Segal, Ms. Sobczynski held compensation roles in higher education and the public sector. She completed projects in both sectors including market assessments, development and maintenance of compensation structures, and pay equity analysis She developed and delivered compensation trainings and presentations to staff members, human resources professionals, executives and board members.
Education/professional designations
Ms. Sobczynski has a Master’s degree in Organizational Development from Oregon State University, a BS in Business and HR from Western Governor’s University and a Bachelor’s degree in Music from Bowling Green State University. She holds a Certified Compensation Professional (CCP) designation from World at Work, a Professional in Human Resources (PHR) certification from the HR Certification Institute and a SHRM Certified Professional (SHRM-CP) from the Society for Human Resources Management.
Ms. Sobczynski was awarded the Emerging Leader Award in 2018 by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR). She has also served as President of the Oregon CUPA Chapter and as President of the Total Rewards PDX Board, an affiliate of World at Work.
Diana Sobczynski, CCP, PHR, SHRM-CP
[email protected]
541.214.3300
segalco.com
#9670196v1/97909.902 16
Lauren Price
Senior Associate
Expertise
Ms. Price is a Senior Associate in Segal’s Compensation and Career Strategies practice, based in the New York office. She works on human resource and human capital projects, assisting in development of compensation and benefits strategies and solutions for both public and private sector, as well as higher education. Her clients include:
States, Agencies and Retirement Systems
City of Charlotte – Aviation Department (NC)
Delta Diablo Sanitation District (CA)
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles (CA)
Municipalities
City of St. Cloud (MN)
Transportation
Centralina Regional Council (NC)
Libraries
Cambridge Public Library (MA)
Cecil County Public Library (MD)
Maryland State Library (MD)
Higher Education
Albany State University (GA)
Community College System of New Hampshire (NH)
University of Louisville (KY)
Worcester Polytechnical Institute (MA)
Corporate
Airlines Reporting Company (VA)
Drury Hotels Company (MO)
McCownGordon Construction (MO)
The Republic of Tea Inc. (CA)
Other Clients
Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (VA)
Henry Jackson Foundation (MD)
Sandia National Laboratories (NM)
Ms. Price’s experience includes quantitative and qualitative analysis for Compensation and Classification, Executive Compensation, Incentive Design and Performance Management studies, including job analysis, job evaluation, market analysis, compensation and incentive design, policy development and training development.
Professional background
Prior to joining Segal, Ms. Price interned at Proskauer Rose within its Labor & Employment Law practice and within the HR department at Teneo.
Education/professional designations
Ms. Price graduated with honors from Cornell University with a BS degree in Industrial and Labor Relations.
#9670196v1/97909.902 17
Ethan Steinberg
Senior Associate
Expertise
Mr. Steinberg is a Senior Compensation Associate in Segal’s Compensation and Career Strategies practice, based in the New York office. He conducts complex statistical analyses relating to compensation, job analysis and evaluation, benefits, pay equity and other human capital projects to assist in the development of custom programs to meet clients’ strategic goals and philosophies.
Mr. Steinberg’s municipal, transportation, corporate and higher education clients include:
Counties, Cities, States other Municipalities
City of Goleta (CA)
Travis County (TX)
Wake County (NC)
Corporate
Prime MSO
Seaman Corporation
Transportation Authorities
Ft. Wayne Airport Authority (MI)
Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Authority (TN)
Raleigh Durham Airport Authority (NC)
Road Commission for Oakland County (MI)
Higher Education
Marquette University
Professional background
Prior to joining Segal, Mr. Steinberg worked as a Staff Accountant for Harris Blitzer Sports & Entertainment and has interned as a Financial Analyst for multi-family investment offices.
Education/professional designations
Mr. Steinberg holds a BS from The Pennsylvania State University with a major in Finance and a concentration in Management Information Systems.
#9670196v1/97909.902 18
Mira Ahluwalia
Associate
Expertise
Ms. Ahluwalia is an Associate in Segal’s Compensation and Career Strategies practice, based in the New York office. She works on statistical analyses pertaining to compensation, pay equity, job analysis and other human capital projects. She also assists in developing compensation and benefit strategies in both a qualitative and quantitative manner. She works on a range of clients, including:
States, Agencies and Retirement Systems
City of Fairfax (VA)
Snohomish County (WA)
Higher Education
North Carolina Agriculture & Technology
Sonoma County Junior College District (CA)
Utilities and Water Authorities
Great Lakes Water Authority (MI)
Haselden Construction (CO)
Western Virginia Water Authority
Professional background
Prior to joining Segal, Ms. Ahluwalia interned at a large accounting firm in its auditing department.
Education/professional designations
Ms. Ahluwalia graduated magna cum laude with a BS in Business Administration from Purdue University and has nearly completed her MS in Human Resource Management with an emphasis in Total Compensation at Golden Gate University.
#9670196v1/97909.902 19
Project Communication
Methodology
We understand the City has not completed a comprehensive classification and compensation study in the past decade. Changes made through this period were a result of collective bargaining processes (some of which occurred during the periods of the greatest fiscal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic), limited compensation studies primarily performed in-house, staff recommended reclassifications and introduction of new classifications, and changes designed to address State minimum wage changes.
The City seeks the assistance of a consultant to complete a comprehensive citywide classification and compensation study, affecting approximately 2,000 full-time employees and 1,025 part-time employees covered by 631 unique job classifications. The labor force is primarily organized under fifteen (15) collective bargaining units represented by one of eight (8) recognized employee organizations including:
• American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, Local 2002
• Anaheim Firefighters Association, Local
No. 2899
• Anaheim Municipal Employees Association • Anaheim Police Association • Anaheim Police Management Association • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47
• Service Employees International Union • United Service Workers West and Teamsters, Local 952
Executive employees, employees in classifications meeting the definition of “confidential’ under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, certain part-time employees and Ambulance Operators are non- represented.
Specifically, we understand the scope of this study will include:
1. Planning Stage
a. Develop and present for approval by the City Manager and Human Resources Director proposed project objectives, milestones, and timeline.
b. Develop and present for approval by the City Manager and Human Resources Director a proposed communication plan that includes identification of stakeholders and methodology for gathering input from and reporting project status to each level of stakeholder. Communication plan shall include the frequency and purpose of recommended meetings with the various level of stakeholders as well as the recommended format for each (that is, in-person or virtual; individual or group.)
2. Classification Study Phase
a. Identify recommended classification specification format and content changes to ensure uniformity and compliance with best practices.
#9670196v1/97909.902 20
b. Analyze all existing classification specifications for relevancy, accuracy, and adequacy of distinguishing characteristics, essential functions, working conditions, and minimum qualification standards, as well as appropriateness of “exempt” and “non-exempt” designations under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
c. Provide recommendations for updating the City’s job architecture that identifies major job functions within the organization, identifies career paths/ladders and appropriate benchmark classifications, and is easily understood by all users. d. Assess City practices for use of separate full-time and part-time classifications. e. Provide recommendations for appropriate measures necessary to transition to the updated job architecture/classification system, recognizing the City’s obligations under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.
f. Develop a straightforward, easily understood job titling key and maintenance system for City use, addressing the jobs architecture overall, as well as the maintenance and management of individual positions within any given classification. Included in the maintenance system should be a recommendation for creating a process for future requests for individual position reviews.
g. Prepare and present to the City a draft report including a discussion of methods, techniques, and data used to develop recommendations for changes to the City position classification plan.
3. Compensation Study Phase
a. Provide recommendations for changes to City compensation system and total compensation philosophies (including paid leave and holiday) to address competitive labor market concerns, salary compaction/compression, and resources required for ongoing system maintenance.
b. Develop compensation strategies to withstand minimum wage increases while maintaining appropriate pay differentials between supervisory classifications and direct reports relative to City operations relying on part-time, seasonal and event-based staffing.
c. Provide recommendations for appropriate labor markets for analysis of determining competitive market position with various components of the job architecture. d. Assess compensation for each classification for (1) commensuration with the complexity, responsibility, knowledge, skills, and abilities required; (2) internal equity and (3) market position.
e. Provide options for the implementation of the recommended compensation strategy changes including identification of advantages, disadvantages, and a five-year forecast for the fiscal impacts of the changes.
f. Prepare a plan for the ongoing internal administration and maintenance of the recommended compensation plan, including individual position level analysis as well as comprehensive strategies to maintain competitiveness in the labor market. g. Prepare and present to the City a draft report including a discussion of methods, techniques, and data used to develop recommendations for changes to the City plan of compensation.
4. Final Phase
a. Prepare final report in format approved by the City.
#9670196v1/97909.902 21
b. If requested, participate in the presentation of report recommendations to the City Council and/or other stakeholders.
c. Provide City Human Resources staff training on the recommended methodology classification specification formatting and for assessing and evaluating market pricing of jobs.
Our proposed work plan for this assignment includes the following steps:
Step 1: Project initiation
Step 2: Compensation philosophy
Step 3: Classification analysis
Step 4: Total compensation market assessment
Step 5: Recommendations development
Step 6: Present final results
We have described each project step in more detail below.
Step 1: Project initiation
1. Initial meeting
The first task of this project will be to meet, either on-site or via video conference (depending on the City’s preferences), with the City’s Project Team and any other key advisors to the project.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
• Confirm the goals and objectives of the study
• Discuss the City’s current compensation and classification structures • Gain insight into the goals and objectives of the project • Finalize the timeline and specific dates for deliverables • Clarify Segal’s and the City’s roles in each project phase • Clarify the expected involvement of bargaining units in each project phase • Establish parameters and protocols for keeping the Project Team updated and informed • Identify data or information needed to support the overall assignment This meeting will help identify and develop a clear project strategy that will facilitate a smooth and effective working relationship, best positioning the City for a successful outcome.
2. Conduct stakeholder interviews
In addition to the initial meeting with the City’s Project Team, we propose to conduct confidential interviews with key stakeholders, such as executive staff, department directors, union
#9670196v1/97909.902 22
representatives, and potentially others. The purpose of these interviews is to understand the perspective and needs of key, influential individuals, including opinions regarding the effectiveness of the current compensation and classification system at meeting operational needs and staffing requirements.
We have found these discussions to be a very valuable step in understanding the advantages of and opportunities to improve the current classification and compensation practices, as well as to assist us with developing recommendations that the workforce is likely to be receptive of.
For pricing purposes, we have assumed that we will be on-site to meet with the City’s Project Team and conduct a maximum of thirty (30) stakeholder interviews organized as follows:
• City executive staff (1)
• Each of the City’s fourteen (14) operational and support departments • Representatives for each of the City’s fifteen (15) collective bargaining units Following Segal’s stakeholder interviews, we will prepare a summary report identifying key trends and findings, all of which will be used to tailor our approach to Anaheim’s unique needs and operating environment.
3. Employee communication plan
Our consulting philosophy is rooted in the notion employee communication is crucial to the success of classification and compensation initiatives. Therefore, engagement must be a vital component of the project.
Experience has taught us that the look and feel of communications activities must fit well with the City and be consistent with how you regularly involve and interact with your workforce.
Segal will work closely with the City to understand current practices and ensure that communication activities meets (and to the extent necessary, exceeds) existing approaches to help ensure the success of this project.
Planning is the most important part of the communication process. To develop a communication plan, we typically begin by identifying and gaining consensus on:
• Preferred communication vehicles, including existing ones, to support the effort • Specific stakeholder audiences that need to be targeted (and regularly involved on an ongoing basis)
• Key messages that need to be conveyed
• Logistics (e.g., timeline, responsibility, etc.)
To ensure that individuals at all levels understand the scope, structure, and deliverables of this project, as well as the opportunity they have to be involved, we suggest some or all of the following communications tools:
#9670196v1/97909.902 23
• Internal e-mail address that employees may use to ask questions regarding the project • Frequently asked questions (and answers) to be posted on the City’s intranet site or distributed directly to employees
• Periodic project updates to be posted on the City’s intranet site or distributed directly to employees
• Talking points and summary presentations for key stakeholders • Announcements sent directly to stakeholders (including bargaining unit representatives) and the workforce
• Recorded presentations, conducted by Segal, to remain accessible throughout the project Our expectations of the City for this step
For the initial meeting and stakeholder interviews, we ask the City to identify participants, coordinate the schedules of those who will participate, as well as provide a meeting room (if conducted onsite).
In addition, we ask that the City provide the following information in electronic format:
• Salary structures
• Personnel policy documents
• Current organization charts
• Collective bargaining agreements
• Up-to-date job descriptions in Microsoft Word
• Accurate employee census data
Step 2: Provide recommendations for changes to the
compensation philosophy
Segal’s approach to human resources consulting focuses on the broader Employee Value Proposition with a strategic eye on all aspects of human resources service delivery. The Employee Value Proposition defines the components of total rewards that directly impact an employer’s ability to recruit and retain talent. It is important to include the City’s Project Team (and other appropriate stakeholders) in discussions that clarify and finalize the City’s compensation philosophy.
#9670196v1/97909.902 24
Compensation Philosophy Key Elements
Based on the findings from the interviews and our discussions with the Project Team, we will provide recommendations for changes to the compensation philosophy, including one (1) formal presentation to the City’s governing body and appropriate committees (as needed).
Step 3: Classification analysis
We understand the City is requesting recommendations for changes to the classification structure, affecting approximately 2,000 full-time employees and 1,025 part-time employees covered by 631 unique job classifications, with the following goals:
• Identify recommended classification specification format and content changes to ensure uniformity and compliance with best practices.
• Analyze all existing classification specifications for relevancy, accuracy, and adequacy of distinguishing characteristics, essential functions, working conditions, and minimum qualification standards, as well as appropriateness of “exempt” and “non-exempt” designations under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
• Provide recommendations for updating the City’s job architecture that identifies major job functions within the organization, identifies career paths/ladders and appropriate benchmark classifications, and is easily understood by all users. • Assess City practices for use of separate full-time and part-time classifications.
How work and positions/jobs will be
evaluated; the balance between the
emphasis on internal versus external
factors in the job evaluation process
Total
Compensation
Philosophy
Role
of Pay
Pay
Governance
Internal/
External
Value
Pay
Communication
Comparison
Markets
Beyond
Market
Factors
Pay
Systems
The types of pay systems/delivery
vehicles that are best aligned with the
compensation philosophy and any
customization that may be needed
The comparison markets
against which the organization
will benchmark pay and
benefits. The degree to which
multiple markets are needed,
and the pay position relative to
those markets
The factors that should impact pay
(e.g., performance, service, etc.)
The degree to which the
total compensation
philosophy, systems, and
processes will be openly
communicated
How pay will be governed including
roles, responsibilities, and decision
rights for the design, approval
and management of the
pay system
The role of pay and benefits in supporting and aligning with the organization’s Mission and Strategic Plan
#9670196v1/97909.902 25
• Provide recommendations for appropriate measures necessary to transition to the updated job architecture/classification system, recognizing the City’s obligations under the Meyers- Milias-Brown Act.
• Develop a straightforward, easily understood job titling key and maintenance system for City use, addressing the job architecture overall, as well as the maintenance and management of individual positions within any given classification. Included in the maintenance system should be a recommendation for creating a process for future requests for individual position reviews. • Prepare and present to the City a draft report including a discussion of methods, techniques, and data used to develop recommendations for changes to the City position classification plan.
To accomplish these goals, we propose the following steps:
1. Develop a job description questionnaire
2. Conduct employee presentations
3. Analyze the jobs
4. Conduct employee interviews
5. Develop and document a recommended classification structure
6. Recommend individual position assignments to classifications
7. Conduct FLSA exemption analysis
8. Develop recommendations for career ladders
9. Apply Segal Evaluator™ Approach (Internal Equity)
10. Update job descriptions
Each of these steps is described in detail below.
1. Develop job description questionnaire
During this task, we will develop a customized questionnaire reflecting the needs of the City and the direction of the Project Team. The information elicited from employees and supervisors in the Job Description Questionnaire (JDQ) will provide the basis for job series distinctions, internal equity determinations, development of job descriptions, and FLSA determinations.
While we customize our JDQ to specific client projects, we anticipate that the JDQ will include questions concerning:
• Essential duties and responsibilities • Impact of action on the City and public and the level at which employees are
responsible for errors
• The knowledge, skills and abilities
associated with each essential duty or
responsibility
• Use of discretion and independent
judgement such as the ability to make
decisions that affect the overall policies of
the department or organization
#9670196v1/97909.902 26
• Supervisory or work leadership duties
including questions specific to FLSA
exemption standards
• Physical requirements of the job (including
frequency of specific physical activities and
amount of lifting/moving)
• Minimum requirements for new employees
in the job, such as education, experience
and certifications/licenses
• Working environment, including exposure
to risks, hazardous situations, etc.
• Fiscal responsibilities including making
organizational commitments which have
significant financial impact
• Supervisor’s review, which would include
comments regarding the employee’s
answers, as well as opinions regarding the
appropriateness of the current title,
comparison to other jobs within a job series
and similar issues
We will use the information collected through the Job Description Questionnaires to develop recommended changes to the classification structure and job descriptions, as well as to define the differences among jobs in career paths/ladders for internal equity alignment. It is important that the City’s Project Team carefully review the definitions and levels within the draft JDQ to determine whether it meets your expectations for these outcomes.
Segal has invested in the development and administration of an online Job Description Questionnaire that will facilitate the review process (including multiple levels, if needed) based on census information provided by the City.
2. Conduct employee presentations
Once the JDQ content is finalized, we typically conduct employee presentations to introduce the study and to
explain the JDQ process.
This will be an important time to explain the project
objectives and answer questions so that employees’
expectations can be managed. For example, it is
important for employees to know we are not evaluating
performance and that this study will not result in layoffs or salary reductions. At the same time, we will explain this study does not guarantee any pay raises or grade
increases.
We recommend conducting the employee presentations
via Zoom or Teams, which would allow employees to
ask questions in “real-time.” Additionally, we recommend the City record the presentation and post the recording on the City’s intranet for those employees who are
Employee Communication
At this stage, we recommend developing an
employee presentation (in MS PowerPoint) that
introduces the project, describes the work plan,
methodology, and schedule, and explains the JDQ
process, including instructions for completing the
questionnaire.
We also recommend developing City-wide
announcements for identified stakeholders
(including bargaining unit representatives) and
the workforce about the project, including an
overview of the goals and key milestones, as well
as what to expect in the coming months.
In addition, Segal can assist with the development
of a Frequently Asked Questions document to
be shared with all employees and posted on the
City’s intranet site.
#9670196v1/97909.902 27
unable to participate or who may want to refer back to it later. The presentation generally requires 1 hour of time, without questions.
3. Job analysis
Once the JDQs have been submitted to Segal, we will analyze the City’s jobs. We will review each JDQ within a job title and series and document distinguishing characteristics that define a particular job title within the job family. In this way we can achieve the City’s stated goal of further clarifying among levels within career paths/ladders, or developing progression that may not exist today where there is a measurable, meaningful difference in the work being performed.
4. Conduct employee interviews
After we have received and analyzed the completed JDQs, we recommend conducting employee interviews, either individually or in groups. The purpose of these interviews is to:
• Validate and clarify information contained in the JDQs • Understand employees’ views on the key distinguishing characteristics among jobs • Provide an opportunity for employees to voice their opinions and perceptions of the current classification structure
We suggest that most interviews be conducted on a group basis, with employees in the same job series. That is, employees performing similar functions and responsibilities will be interviewed together. However, single-incumbent jobs or highly specialized functions may require one-on-one interviews.
We propose to conduct two (2) consecutive days of interviews, either on-site or via video conference, as needed and identified by Segal.
5. Develop and document a recommended classification
structure
As the job analysis progresses, we will develop and document a recommended job classification structure for the City. This structure will contain at least the following:
• List of job titles, with titling guidelines (that is, standards for using terms such as “Technician, Specialist, Coordinator, Administrator, Manager, or Director” in job titles). • Recommended minimum qualifications and requirements associated with each job title (such as education, experience, and certifications/licensing). • Distinguishing characteristics among jobs within a job family or career path. For example, the key differences between a Business Information Analyst I, II, and III).
We anticipate recommending:
• Consolidation of class titles that have highly similar responsibilities and requirements. • Development of new class titles for positions that reflect new or different roles, responsibilities, or requirements.
#9670196v1/97909.902 28
• Re-wording of class titles, based on standard occupational nomenclature or for clarity. • Expansion of career paths/ladders where they may not exist today but where the work being performed is different and suitable for progression.
The outcome will be a recommended architecture that clearly defines and documents all classifications to facilitate both internal equity alignment and external market comparisons.
Segal’s classification structure is one of many deliverables that distinguishes our approach from others in the market.
Example of Job Structure Recommendations
Administrative Support Family
Proposed
Title
Current
Titles
Distinguishing
Characteristics
Current
Minimum
Quals
Proposed
Minimum
Quals
Supervisory
Role
Decision
Making &
Complexity
Technical
Skills
Physical
Activities
Working
Conditions
Administrative
Technician
Admin
Tech I
and II
Entry-level office
admin and
customer service
role.
2 years
college
1–2 years’
experience
HS/GED
<1 year
experience
Individual
Contributor
Routine
Decisions/
Low
Complexity
Standard Light Office
Senior
Administrative
Technician
Admin
Tech III
and IV
Experienced-level
office admin and
customer service
role. Assists with a
wide variety of
activities and
programs. Requires
significant
knowledge of
department/division
work and activities.
2 years’
college
3–4 years’
experience
HS/GED
2 years’
experience
Individual
Contributor
Procedural
Decisions/
Somewhat
Complex
Standard Light Office
Office
Supervisor
Admin
Tech V
First line supervisor
of at least 2 FTE
permanent support
staff.
2 years’
college
5 years’
experience
HS/GED
5 years’
experience
Supervisor Procedural
Decisions/
Somewhat
Complex
Intermediate Light Office
6. Recommend individual position assignments to
classifications
Once the revised classification structure has been reviewed and finalized, we will recommend placement of each employee within the structure, based on information collected from the JDQs. We will identify the most appropriate match between a position’s individual responsibilities and the job responsibilities described in the classification architecture.
The outcome will be a spreadsheet (based on payroll information provided by the City’s Human Resources staff) that identifies each position, the incumbent employee, his/her current classification title and our recommended classification assignment.
#9670196v1/97909.902 29
7. Conduct FLSA analysis
As per the City’s request, Segal can assist the City in determining the most appropriate exemption status of each classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations using Department of Labor (DOL) guidance.
The Job Description Questionnaire (JDQ) will contain targeted questions to gather detailed information on job duties that DOL has identified as key determinants of exemption status such as:
• Whether an employee “customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment.”
• Whether an employee is responsible for direct supervision of others (or whose recommendations are given “particular weight” when making personnel decisions). • Whether the job’s primary duty meets any of the DOL’s exemption tests.
Using this information, we will apply DOL “duties” tests and provide guidance to the City regarding:
1. Whether jobs should be classified as Exempt or Non-Exempt
2. If a job is Exempt, which test is applicable (Executive, Administrative, Learned Professional, Creative Professional, or Computer Professional)
Our final report will contain information on:
• Each job’s current exemption status
• Our recommended exemption status
• The applicable test(s) for those positions we think are exempt from the overtime regulations • The rationale for our recommendations, as needed
It is important to understand, however, that our recommendations regarding FLSA exemptions do not constitute a legal opinion. Our firm does not provide legal advice to our clients. We suggest that you have our recommendations reviewed by independent legal counsel.
8. Develop recommendations for career ladders
Based on the results of the job analysis and evaluation, we will develop recommended career ladders within selected occupational categories. The goal of this review will be to identify and describe appropriate levels within a specific function that would provide promotional opportunities for employees while establishing a meaningful difference among jobs.
Using the information collected, analyzed and evaluated during the JDQ process and optional employee interviews/focus groups, we will prepare options and preliminary recommendations for each series:
• Proposed number of levels
• Distinctions between the levels (responsibilities and job content) • Prerequisites or requirements associated with eligibility for each level
#9670196v1/97909.902 30
It is important to note that our firm does not design or develop skills testing instruments or similar evaluation programs. Our recommendations related to methods for demonstrating skills will be based on information gathered during the JDQ review and interviews, as well as our knowledge of the occupation and experience with other clients.
9. Apply Segal Evaluator™ approach (internal equity)
Segal offers a unique method of job evaluation called Segal Evaluator™. It provides our clients a consistent, quantifiable way of assigning positions to the compensation plan. Based on the objective analysis and scoring of the criteria defined below, (all of which is common to jobs in local government), Segal Evaluator™ will be used to augment the classification process described above.
Based on information collected through the JDQ process and optional employee interviews, ratings for each criteria will be determined, and a total value will be calculated for each position.
The final hierarchy will then reflect both sound compensation practices and the City’s collective organizational values. It is intended that this hierarchy will establish relative internal equity and that the compensation structure will be driven by market comparisons.
Compensable Factors Measurement
Formal Education Measures the minimum formalized training or education that is required for entry into the position
Experience Measures the minimum level of work experience required for entry into the position
Management/Supervision
Measures the supervisory or managerial role of the job and the degree of complexity of work performed by those being
supervised
Human Collaboration
Skills
Measures the job requirements of interaction with others outside direct reporting relationships
Freedom to Act/Impact of
Action
Measures the degree of freedom to exercise authority as well as assesses the impact of actions
Technical Skills Measures the job difficulty in terms of application of the knowledge required by the job
Fiscal Responsibility
and/or Risk Impact
Measures the accountability and participation, if any, as it relates to the fiscal accountability for one’s department or assigned area(s) of responsibility
Working Conditions Measures the surroundings or physical conditions under which the work must be performed
To summarize, Segal Evaluator™ will:
• Use specific compensable factors across departments, workgroups, and positions to create an internal hierarchy of jobs
• Provide an objective, quantitative approach that is easily understood by employees at all levels within the organization
• Determine values for each factor and calculate a total score for each position • Provide an organization-wide hierarchy that establishes internal equity
#9670196v1/97909.902 31
• Complement and co-exist with market data in structure development The outcome will be a spreadsheet that shows all job titles and our recommended grade alignment. Unless otherwise agreed to, it will be the responsibility of Human Resources to vet job evaluation scores with each respective department.
Upon completion of the project, Segal will provide the City of Anaheim with our Segal Evaluator™ job evaluation tool (in Excel format), at no additional cost. The City can continue to use the tool to adapt, modify, and change in the future as jobs are added, removed, or changed.
Example of Job Analysis Workbook
Segal
Recommended
Job Title
JE
Grade
JE
Points
Formal
Education
Work
Experience
Management
& Supervision
Human
Collaboration
Freedom
to Act/
Impact of
Actions
Knowledge &
Skills
Fiscal
Responsibility
Working
Conditions
& Physical
Effort
Senior
Management
Analyst
111 643 Bachelor's
Degree
3 to 5 years’
experience
Supervising
semi complex
work
Policy
recommendations
with moderate
impact
Limited
direction
with
moderate
impact
Moderate skills and
comprehensive
application
Moderate fiscal
responsibility
Good
conditions
with
occasional
physical
effort
Management
Analyst
109 509 Bachelor's
Degree
1 to 3 years’
experience
Occasional
direction of
semi complex
work
Policy
recommendations
with moderate
impact
General
direction
with
moderate
impact
Moderate skills and
advanced
application
Moderate fiscal
responsibility
Good
conditions
with little
physical
effort
Management
Assistant
108 458 Bachelor's
Degree
Up to 1 year
experience
None Negotiating
interaction with
moderate impact
General
direction
with
moderate
impact
Advanced skills and
standard application
Limited fiscal
responsibility
Good
conditions
with little
physical
effort
Senior
Administrative
Assistant
107 436 6 months +
training
beyond
High
School
3 to 5 years’
experience
Lead worker of
semi complex
work
Negotiating
interaction with
moderate impact
General
direction
with
moderate
impact
Standard skills and
comprehensive
application
Limited fiscal
responsibility
Good
conditions
with little
physical
effort
Administrative
Assistant III
105 360 6 months +
training
beyond
High
School
3 to 5 years’
experience
Occasional
direction of
semi complex
work
Negotiating
interaction with
moderate impact
Procedural
direction
with
moderate
impact
Standard skills and
advanced
application
Limited fiscal
responsibility
Good
conditions
with little
physical
effort
Administrative
Assistant II
103 293 High
School
diploma or
equivalenc
y
1 to 3 years’
experience
Occasional
direction of
semi complex
work
Advising
interaction with
moderate impact
Procedural
direction
with
moderate
impact
Standard skills and
advanced
application
Limited fiscal
responsibility
Good
conditions
with little
physical
effort
Administrative
Assistant I
101 194 High
School
diploma or
equivalenc
y
Up to 1 year
experience
None Advising
interaction with
moderate impact
Immediate
direction
with
moderate
impact
Standard skills and
application
None Good
conditions
with little
physical
effort
#9670196v1/97909.902 32
10. Update Job Descriptions
We understand that the City would like the consultant to prepare updated job descriptions to uniformly reflect the distinguishing characteristics, essential job functions, minimum qualifications (education/experience and knowledge/skills/abilities), working conditions (physical demands, work environment and travel requirements), and certification/licenses/registrations requirements for classification, as needed.
To support your need, we will work to determine whether you wish to maintain or modify the current format. In general, we suggest that an organization should have a consistent format for all class specifications, with an easy to read and easy to update layout, such as on the following page.
Once you have approved the basic format, we will then update the current job descriptions for all job titles using the information in the Job Description Questionnaire and employee interviews.
Naturally, we will develop new specifications for any new classes that have been added to the structure because of the classification analysis.
We will deliver draft job descriptions in Microsoft Word format so that the City can review and edit the documents easily. In order to maintain a competitive price for the project, we have assumed that we will deliver draft documents and that the City’s human resources staff will distribute the draft documents to department managers for their review and then human resources staff will make any edits or changes to the drafts based on this feedback.
#9670196v1/97909.902 33
Sample Job Description
Classification Title Accountant
Job Code
FLSA Status Exempt
Pay Grade
General Summary
Maintains payroll related accounts, including reconciliations and balancing. Prepares payroll reports, processes payroll interfaces and books payroll related accounting entries to general ledger. Etc… Essential Duties & Responsibilities
The intent of this job description is to provide a representative summary of the major duties and responsibilities performed by incumbents of this job. Employees may be requested to perform job -related tasks other than those specifically presented in this description. • Performs payroll processing, including creating pay run IDs, performing payroll calculation validation s, sending out payroll variance report and processing interfaces between systems. • Etc…
Minimum Entrance Qualifications
Education and Experience
• A Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited college or university in Accounting, Finance, Business Administration or a related field
• At least two years of increasingly responsible accounting experience. • Any equivalent combination of training, education and experience that provides the required skills, knowledge and abilities
Licenses or Certifications
• Possession of (or ability to obtain within 1 month of hire) a standard driver license Other Job Requirements
None.
Preferred Qualifications
None.
#9670196v1/97909.902 34
Competencies for successful performance of job duties
Knowledge of:
• Basic accounting and auditing principles and practices. • Principles and practices of financial record keeping and reporting. • Etc…
Skill in:
• Providing customer service.
• Accuracy and attention to detail.
Ability to:
• Communicate clearly and effectively, both orally and in writing. • Calculate taxes and other pretax deductions.
• Etc…
Work Environment/Conditions
The work environment and exposures described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
Work Environment
Seldom or
Never
Sometimes or
Occasionally
Frequently
or Often
Office or similar indoor environment x
Etc. x
Exposures
Seldom or
Never
Sometimes or
Occasionally
Frequently
or Often
Individuals who are rude or irate x
Etc. x
Physical Demands
The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
The position is generally sedentary. Employees sit most of the time, but may walk or stand for brief periods of time.
Date created: 02/18/19
Dates revised:
#9670196v1/97909.902 35
Our expectations of the City for this step
Task/Step City’s Project Team Role
1. Develop JDQ • Review drafts and approve final JDQ
• Provide accurate census information to facilitate JDQ workflow
• Respond to departmental questions during JDQ review
process
2. Conduct employee presentations • Send invitations/announcements to employees • Reserve room and arrange for audio-visual media
• Review and approve presentation language
• Attend presentations
3. Analyze the jobs • Provide employee census data and information on the current job title structure in electronic format
• Be available for questions and clarification
4. Conduct employee interviews • Arrange for interview rooms • Facilitate scheduling and arrangements
5. Develop and document a
recommended classification
structure
• Review draft structure and provide comments
• Approve final classification structure
6. Recommend individual position
assignments to classifications
• Be available for questions and clarification
• Approve assignments
7. Conduct FLSA analysis • Provide information on current FLSA status • Seek outside legal counsel
8. Develop recommendations for
career ladder
• Be available for questions and discussion
• Review and approve proposed career ladders
9. Apply Segal Evaluator™
approach (Internal Equity)
• Provide information on current job evaluation approach, if applicable
• Review draft and provide comments
• Approve final Segal Evaluator™ approach
10. Update job descriptions • Provide current job descriptions in Microsoft Word • Review and edit draft job descriptions, as applicable Step 4: Total compensation market assessment
We understand City is requesting a total compensation market assessment with the following goals:
• Develop compensation strategies to withstand minimum wage increases while maintaining appropriate pay differentials between supervisory classifications and direct reports relative to City operations relying on part-time, seasonal and event-based staffing. • Provide recommendations for appropriate labor markets for analysis of determining competitive market position with various components of the job architecture.
#9670196v1/97909.902 36
• Assess compensation for each classification for (1) commensuration with the complexity, responsibility, knowledge, skills, and abilities required; (2) internal equity and (3) market position.
To conduct a valid, reliable and useful market study, we propose to take the following steps:
1. Develop a market study methodology
2. Identify benchmark job titles
3. Identify comparable employers and other data sources
4. Collect and analyze the market data
5. Determine total compensation market position
6. Prepare and deliver a report detailing our findings
These steps are described in more detail below.
1. Develop a study methodology
It is important for Segal and the Project Team to gain consensus on the overall goals and strategy regarding total compensation, including the market study. We will work with the City’s Project Team to clarify and finalize the market study methodology.
Our goal is to have a common understanding of the various options for conducting the market study, as well as an understanding of the implications on subsequent design of new salary structures. This understanding will allow us to develop and conduct a market study that is consistent with the City’s compensation goals and that will support the City’s expectations.
For this project, we recommend conducting a custom-designed survey targeted to your public sector peer employers, while using published sources to represent private sector pay data. We recommend this for the following reasons:
• Custom surveys provide the most currently available data. • Custom surveys allow you to target specific geographic markets, employers and jobs. • Custom surveys allow you to collect information that is not usually available in published data sources, such as scheduled salary ranges, pay supplements, compensation policies, union status, benefits, etc.
• Published sources may be the only method of gathering private sector data, since these organizations rarely respond to market surveys from other employers.
2. Identify benchmark job titles
We understand that this project covers approximately 631 job classification titles. We will recommend a list of benchmark job titles to include in the market study. Our goal will be to identify a list of jobs that:
• Capture a broad array of occupational groups, departments and pay levels throughout the City
#9670196v1/97909.902 37
• Are readily found and matched within public sector organizations and the private sector (as applicable)
• Cover a large proportion of the City’s workforce (usually we strive for at least 50%) For pricing purposes, we anticipate that up to 100 job titles will be identified as benchmarks from the current list of approximately 631 titles.
At this phase of the project Segal will prepare a detailed benchmark analysis showing our recommended benchmark jobs and meaningful statistics about how those jobs cover different sections of the City’s workforce. Our experience has shown this analysis is unique to Segal and is especially important in collectively bargained environments and with agencies the size (and complexity) of the City of Anaheim.
3. Identify comparable employers to survey
The next step will be to determine the comparable employers to include in the study. Typically, these employers include public sector entities that are geographically proximate to the City and are likely to have matching jobs. In addition, it might also include public sector employers outside of the immediate commuting area, but that are similar to the City in terms of size, scope, population, or other characteristics (such as tourist destinations).
Naturally, we will discuss this list with the Project Team and make modifications, as necessary.
For pricing purposes, we have assumed the custom market study will be distributed to between 12-15 public sector entities and that Segal will use up to three (3) published sources to represent private sector pay data.
The integrity of private sector comparisons is another area where Segal leads the market. We leverage multiple sources, prominent in the industry, for our cross-sector benchmarking, while many consultancies rely only on a single source.
4. Collect and analyze the market data
We will also design a survey instrument for collecting the market information, which we typically develop in MS Excel. The survey instrument will include brief job summaries for each benchmark title based on the results of the classification analysis to assist the survey participants with matching jobs consistently and appropriately.
Once the Project Team has reviewed and approved the survey document, we will distribute it to the approved group of comparable employers. We make many efforts to achieve the goal of 100% participation from each invited employer, yet we cannot guarantee that we will obtain good data from each of the employers invited to participate and for all of the jobs requested.
#9670196v1/97909.902 38
Respondents will return completed surveys and supplemental materials directly to Segal. We will review and validate each survey response for completeness and reasonability, and then follow up with survey participants as necessary to clarify any incomplete or inconsistent responses.
Segal’s Excel model (mentioned above) will have the functionality to apply the adjustments needed to ensure consistent market comparisons, such as:
• Adjustments for differences in workweek hours*
• Geographic adjustments (for any entities or data sources outside the commuting area) • Aging adjustments (for any published sources with data that is more than a year old) In addition, the Excel model will include numerous tables and charts that show the City’s market position in a variety of detailed and summary formats. We will analyze the survey data to determine the City’s market position relative to the market average minimum, midpoint and maximum pay rate for each benchmark job title. We then compare these averages to the City’s pay ranges to determine the market position for each job title and occupational group. Based on industry standards that align with federal antitrust/safe harbor guidelines, benchmarks that receive less than five (5) total responses will not be included in our final report.
Our first deliverable to the City will be a set of detailed market data tables that show the matching job title and pay range information associated with each job title, similar to the example shown below. We will meet with you to review each job match and finalize the information before proceeding to the next steps.
* We recommend workweek adjustments for non-exempt (hourly) positions only.
#9670196v1/97909.902 39
Our report will include summary tables, such as the tables shown below.
Sample Exhibit 1
Detailed Market Data by Job Title
Administrative Specialist
Data Sources Matching Job Title Workweek
Pay
Range
Minimum
Pay
Range
Midpoint
Pay Range
Maximum
Public Sector
Employer #1 Administrative Officer II 40.00 $54,256 $61,792 $69,328 Employer #2 Executive Assistant 37.50 $40,168 $51,121 $62,075 Employer #3 Senior Administrative Assistant 40.00 $34,681 $43,986 $53,291 Employer #4 Specialist Administrative
Support
40.00 $35,089 $46,785 $58,481
Etc. … … … …
Client $38,242 $50,035 $61,828
Public Sector
Market Average
$38,377 $49,291 $60,205
Client as a % of
Public Market
Average
100% 102% 103%
Private Sector
ERI Salary Assessor Administrative Specialist —
Level 3
40.00 $38,707 $45,892 $55,296
CompAnalyst Administrative Support III 40.00 $41,483 $51,736 $63,494 Towers Watson Administrative Services — U3 40.00 $41,098 $52,159 $64,032 Client $38,242 $50,035 $61,828
Private Sector
Market Average
$40,429 $49,929 $60,941
Client as a % of
Private Sector
Market Average
95% 100% 101%
Client 38.75 $38,242 $50,035 $61,828
Overall Market
Average
$39,403 $49,610 $60,573
Client Market Ratio 97% 101% 102%
Client Market Gap 3% -1% -2%
#9670196v1/97909.902 40
Once you have reviewed and approved the job matches and detailed data tables, we will then prepare summary tables and charts that show the City’s market position in various forms, such as those shown below.
Sample Exhibit 2
Base Pay Market Position
By Sector
Client Pay Ranges as a Percent of the Market Average
Sector
Pay Range
Minimum
Pay Range
Midpoint
Pay Range
Maximum
Public Sector 106% 101% 97%
Private Sector 83% 80% 75%
Overall 100% 95% 90%
Sample Exhibit 3
Client Market Position by Data Source
Client as a Percent of the Average
# of Job
Matches
Pay Range
Minimum
Pay Range
Midpoint
Pay Range
Maximum
Public Sector Peer Employer
Peer Organization Name 46 116% 108% 102%
Peer Organization Name 57 124% 104% 93%
Peer Organization Name 58 101% 95% 90%
Peer Organization Name 59 113% 107% 103%
Private Sector Data Source
Data source 24 97% 98% 99%
Data source 10 91% 82% 70%
Data source 30 97% 98% 99%
Data source 54 90% 89% 88%
Overall 100% 95% 90%
#9670196v1/97909.902 41
Sample Exhibit 4
Client Overall Market Position
Client as a Percent of the Overall Market Average
Job Family and
Benchmark Title
# of Job
Matches
Pay Range
Minimum
Pay Range
Midpoint
Pay Range
Maximum
Accounting/Finance/Business
Account Clerk II 12 92% 88% 85%
Payroll Coordinator 12 113% 103% 96%
Senior Buyer 13 113% 110% 107%
Senior Financial Analyst 12 102% 97% 93%
Buildings and Facilities
Maintenance Mechanic II 13 94% 91% 88%
Building Operations
Supervisor
13 114% 110% 106%
Building Operations Manager 13 116% 109% 102%
Engineering
Senior Engineering
Technician
11 102% 100% 98%
Senior Civil Engineer 12 96% 91% 87%
Human Resources
Human Resources Analyst 10 95% 94% 92%
Compensation Manager 5 91% 87% 82%
Human Resources Director 5 99% 86% 79%
Information Technology
Applications Analyst
Programmer
14 90% 95% 98%
Senior Business Analyst 12 90% 97% 100%
Senior Network Analyst 13 89% 93% 96%
Principal Database
Administrator
12 101% 100% 98%
Information Technology
Manager
15 97% 89% 83%
Job Family XXX
Benchmark Job Title XXX 11 101% 99% 97%
Benchmark Job Title XXX 11 105% 99% 95%
Job Family XXX
Benchmark Job Title XXX 13 99% 92% 87%
Benchmark Job Title XXX 14 86% 81% 77%
Benchmark Job Title XXX 13 100% 96% 91%
#9670196v1/97909.902 42
In addition, our analysis will include exhibits showing the City’s market position for other elements of total compensation collected in the survey, such as paid leave, health benefits and retirement contributions, such as those shown below.
Sample Exhibit 5
Days of Paid Leave per Year
Combined Vacation, Sick, Holidays and Personal Days
Employer/
Data Source Sector
1 Year
3 Years
6 Years
9 Years
12 Years
15 Years
20 Years
Source #1 Public Sector 33.0 33.0 36.0 38.0 40.0 40.0 45.0 Source #2 Public Sector 37.0 44.0 47.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Source #3 Public Sector 42.0 49.0 49.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 Source #4 Public Sector 31.8 32.3 36.7 46.4 46.4 46.4 48.0 Source #5 Public Sector 37.5 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 50.5 50.5 Source #6 Public Sector 38.5 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 51.5 51.5 Source #7 Public Sector 37.5 39.5 42.5 45.5 48.5 49.5 49.5 Source #8 Private Sector 36.5 38.5 41.5 44.5 47.5 48.5 48.5 Source #9 Private Sector 38.0 42.0 45.0 49.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 Source #10 Private Sector 34.0 36.0 39.0 40.0 43.0 44.0 45.0 City 35.0 37.0 40.0 43.0 44.0 44.0 44.0
Market Average 36.6 40.3 42.6 45.7 47.1 48.7 49.5
Difference with Market Average -1.6 -3.3 -2.6 -2.7 -3.1 -4.7 -5.5
#9670196v1/97909.902 43
Sample Exhibit 6
Days of Paid Leave per Year
Combined Vacation, Sick, Holidays and Personal Days
Includes vacation/annual leave, holidays, sick leave, personal days and floating holidays.
30 35
40 45
50 55
1 Year 3 Years 6 Years 9 Years 12 Years 15 Years 20 Years Days Per Year
Public Sector Private Sector City of ______
#9670196v1/97909.902 44
Sample Exhibit 7
Employer Monthly Cost for
Medical, Dental and Vision Benefits Combined
Rank
Order
(Family)
Employer/
Data Source Sector
Employer Monthly Cost
Employee
Only
Plus
Child
Plus
Spouse Family
1 Source Name Public $657 $1,384 $1,384 $1,990
2 Source Name Public $793 $1,415 $1,415 $1,849
3 Source Name Public $681 $1,306 $1,306 $1,957
4 Source Name Public $687 $1,241 $1,241 $1,725
5 City Public $579 $1,048 $1,211 $1,736
6 Source Name Public $562 $1,068 $1,331 $1,705
7 Source Name Public $604 $1,016 $1,117 $1,606
8 Source Name Private $575 $955 $1,103 $1,617
9 Source Name Public $589 $895 $1,044 $1,449
10 Source Name Private $540 $760 $885 $1,269
11 Source Name Public $562 $1,068 $1,331 $1,705
Public Sector Average $618 $1,106 $1,185 $1,658
Private Sector Average $582 $940 $1,051 $1,496
Overall Market Average $610 $1,073 $1,159 $1,626
Dollar Difference ($63) ($88) ($8) $17
#9670196v1/97909.902 45
Sample Exhibit 8
Monthly Cost Sharing for Medical, Dental, Vision Plans Combined Family Coverage
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
T
a
b
l
$1,269
$1,449
$1,705
$1,617
$1,736
$1,606
$1,725
$1,693
$1,957
$1,849
$1,990
$588
$587
$347
$539
$443
$585
$467
$681
$417
$624
$634
Source
Name
Source
Name
Source
Name
Source
Name
City of
_____
Source
Name
Source
Name
Source
Name
Source
Name
Source
Name
Source
Name
Employee Cost Employer Cost
#9670196v1/97909.902 46
e
9 Exhibit Table 9
Defined Benefit Plan Contributions — Public Sector
Survey
Participant
Defined Benefit Contribution
Defined Contribution
Plan Contribution
Deferred
Compensation Plan
Contribution Social Security Contribution
Employee
Normal
Cost
Employee
Picked Up
by ER? Employee Employer
Maximum
Match Employer
Maximum
Match
Contribute
to SS? OSADI Medicare
Total
Employer
Contribution
Peer #1 4.10% No 3.50% 3.00% 3.00% Yes 6.20% 1.45% 17.75% Peer #2 6.02% No 9.00% N/A N/A Yes 6.20% 1.45% 13.67% Peer #3 4.88% No 6.25% N/A N/A Yes 6.20% 1.45% 12.53% Peer #4 4.61% No 5.00% 0.58% 2.50% N/A N/A Yes 6.20% 1.45% 15.34% Peer #5 13.10% N/A 4.40% 1.00% 4.00% N/A N/A Yes 6.20% 1.45% 25.75% Peer #6 6.09% No 3.00% N/A N/A Yes 6.20% 1.45% 13.74% Peer #7 1.61% No 3.00% 1.00% 2.00% N/A N/A Yes 6.20% 1.45% 12.26% Peer #8 3.83% No 6.75% N/A N/A Yes 6.20% 1.45% 11.48% Peer #9 2.66% No 7.50% N/A N/A Yes 6.20% 1.45% 10.31% Peer #10 9.20% No 3.50% N/A N/A Yes 6.20% 1.45% 16.85% Peer #11 4.48% No 6.00% N/A N/A Yes 6.20% 1.45% 12.13% Peer #12 7.20% No 3.00% N/A N/A Yes 6.20% 1.45% 14.85% Participant Average 14.72%
Client 6.44% No 5.00% Yes 6.20% 1.45% 14.09%
#9670196v1/97909.902 47
5. Determine total compensation market position
We will then determine the City’s total compensation market position. This involves identifying each employer’s annual cost for providing medical and other health related benefits, as well as retirement programs. We will compare the City’s total compensation costs to the market average, similar to the tables shown below.
Example Table 10
Total Compensation Analysis Summary
Job Title
Base Salary Annual Employer Cost of Benefits
Pay Range
Midpoint
Health
Benefit Costs
Retirement
Benefit Costs
Total
Compensation
Accounting Assistant
Client $35,000 $12,597 $2,800 $50,447
Market Average $37,758 $11,540 $2,643 $52,002
Client as % of Market 93% 97%
Finance Director
Client $130,000 $12,597 $10,400 $153,047
Market Average $145,000 $11,540 $10,150 $166,751
Client as % of Market 90% 92%
Technology Specialist
Client $52,000 $12,597 $4,160 $68,807
Market Average $55,500 $11,540 $3,885 $70,986
Client as % of Market 94% 97%
#9670196v1/97909.902 48
6. Prepare a report of our findings
Once all data have been collected, reviewed and analyzed, we will prepare a report detailing our methodology and findings. The report will include at least the following items:
• An Executive Summary, briefly describing our key findings • A description of the study objectives and methodology • The City’s competitive market position for pay, applicable to each benchmark job title and family
• The prevailing policies regarding pay progression, supplemental pay and other compensation- related practices collected in the survey
• Paid time off policies for each surveyed employer
• The prevalence and cost-sharing arrangements for medical coverage, supplemental benefits and retirement plans among the surveyed employers
• The City’s total compensation market position
• Appendices showing detailed information collected for the market study Our expectations of the City for this step
Task/Step City’s Project Team Role
1. Develop compensation strategy and
market study methodology
• Meet with Segal staff, provide direction on strategy and methodology
2. Identify benchmark jobs • Review and approve list of benchmarks
3. Identify comparable employers • Develop and approve list of comparators
4. Collect and analyze the market data • Review and approve survey document • Assist in contacting survey recipients, if necessary
• Complete survey on behalf of the City
• Review draft market data and provide comments
5. Determine market position • Be available for questions or clarification of policies
6. Prepare and deliver report • Review draft report, provide feedback and approve final report
#9670196v1/97909.902 49
Step 5: Recommendations development
Based on the findings of the market study, Segal will:
• Provide recommendations for changes to City compensation system and total compensation philosophies to address competitive labor market concerns, salary compaction/compression, and resources required for ongoing system maintenance.
• Provide options for the implementation of the recommended compensation strategy changes including identification of advantages, disadvantages, and a five-year forecast for the fiscal impacts of the changes.
• Prepare a plan for the ongoing internal administration and maintenance of the recommended compensation plan, including individual position level analysis as well as comprehensive strategies to maintain competitiveness in the labor market. • Prepare final report in format approved by the City.
• Prepare and present to the City a draft report including a discussion of methods, techniques, and data used to develop recommendations for changes to the City plan of compensation. • Provide City Human Resources staff training on the recommended methodology classification specification formatting and for assessing and evaluating market pricing of jobs.
For this step in the project, we propose the following steps:
1. Design a recommended salary schedule
2. Recommend placement of each job on the salary schedule (i.e., assign jobs to pay grades)
3. Determine cost impact
4. Assist with implementation
1. Design a recommended salary schedule
Once the market study report has been finalized, with the guidance of the Project Team, Segal will develop recommended new salary structures that are consistent with the market findings and the City’s pay philosophy.
We anticipate that the pay schedule will consist of pay grades with minimum, midpoint and maximum pay rates. Typically, we construct pay schedules to have consistent intervals between grades (usually 5% to 10%) as well as consistent range widths (typically 40% to 60%). The pay structure may include either steps or open ranges depending on the pay philosophy of the City.
We will work with the City’s Project Team to determine the most appropriate structure for your organization.
2. Recommend pay grade assignments
We will then recommend grade assignments for all jobs covered by the study. First, we will recommend grade assignments for benchmark jobs based on the market study findings.
Typically, our goal is to identify the grade that is within 5% of the market average at the midpoint.
#9670196v1/97909.902 50
Next, we will recommend grade assignments for non-benchmark jobs using the results of the classification analysis and Segal Evaluator™ approach developed in Step 2. Our recommendations will be based on job content similarities and differences that were identified in the classification structure and quantified using Segal Evaluator™, such as minimum qualifications, scope of responsibilities, supervisory role, and other considerations.
Last, we will review the grade assignments with the Project Team, highlighting situations that represent significant change from the current pay relationships. Once you have had an opportunity to review and internally vet the recommendations, we will finalize the grade assignments as part of our final recommendations.
Our goal will be to ensure the new system 1) is market based, 2) considers the comparable worth based on job duties and competencies, and 3) is easily understood and used by managers and employees.
3. Determine cost impact
We will estimate the annualized cost of implementing the new/revised classification structure and pay scales and provide a five-year implementation process for the fiscal impacts.
This will require determining rules for placing current employees within the new pay ranges.
While the prior steps determined the grade assignment for each position, this step involves determining each employee’s salary within the assigned grade of the revised pay structure on the day of implementation.
We will work with you to determine the placement criteria. These criteria could include factors such as:
• Time the employee has been in the position
• Current position in the salary range
• Desired market position for individual salaries
• Internal equity and pay compression considerations
• Results of recent performance appraisals
Based on the guidance of the Project Team regarding these criteria, we will identify each employee’s recommended salary within the applicable pay range and will then determine the first-year annual cost of implementing the new classification structure and pay schedule.
Since we understand that successful implementation may depend heavily on the cost of implementation, our recommendations include two costing models for the City’s consideration.
Depending on the needs of the City, each model may reflect the following variables:
• Changes to the classification structure and its impact on individual employees • Other factors that may impact placement of employees into the new pay structure such as:
– Pay compression
– Changes in the design of the pay structure(s) (e.g., number of grades, range width of each grade as well as minimum and maximum values)
– Timing of implementation
#9670196v1/97909.902 51
Each model will be constructed to provide the City with the ability to conduct sensitivity analysis (changes to the variables) independent of Segal.
4. Assist with implementation
Our extensive work with the public sector makes us sensitive to the importance of planning for adequate input (and in some cases formal approval) by a variety of stakeholders such as employee groups, unions, department directors, senior executives, elected officials and others.
Because it is difficult to predict with any certainty exactly what kind of implementation assistance will be required for this project, our fee assumes up to eight (8) hours of consulting time that could be used for the following:
• Developing an implementation schedule that takes into consideration potential phased approaches, based on the City’s operational priorities, culture and availability of funding • Drafting a check list of the items that will need to be addressed prior to implementing the recommended changes
• Assisting the City with supporting the study results and recommendations with key stakeholders or officials
• Preparing presentation materials for decision makers
• Assisting with developing employee communication materials Our expectations of the City for this step
Task/Step City’s Project Team Role
1. Design a recommended salary schedule • Discuss objectives/goals with Segal team, provide direction and input
• Review and approve pay schedule design
2. Recommend pay grade assignments • Provide information on current pay grade assignments
• Be available for questions and discussion
• Review and approve methodology and pay grade
assignments
3. Determine cost impact • Provide employee census information • Provide information on fiscal ability and conditions
• Discuss and approve implementation criteria
• Review and approve cost model
4. Assist with implementation • Determine assistance needed • Provide direction to Segal team
• Coordinate logistics for the HR training session
#9670196v1/97909.902 52
Step 6: Present final results to the City
We anticipate presenting the final results to the City Council and/or other stakeholders. While it is difficult to anticipate at this time the exact nature of this presentation, our price proposal assumes we will develop and deliver one on-site presentation that will contain at least the following elements:
• Background and reasons for the project
• Objectives and goals of the project
• Methodology used to conduct our analysis
• Key findings and outcomes
• Our recommendations, including potential implications of those recommendations We will draft the presentation for the Project Team’s review, and then will finalize the document based on your comments and input. We anticipate that a senior member of Segal’ Team will deliver the presentation, in conjunction with a senior member of the City’s Project Team.
#9670196v1/97909.902 53
References
#9670196v1/97909.902 54
#9670196v1/97909.902 55
Samples of Work Products
The following reports, available online, provide specific examples of how our organization’s expertise and recommendations have benefited a public agency:
Client Link to Study Documents
State of Alaska http://doa.alaska.gov/dop/fileadmin/directorsoffice/pdf/segalfinalreport.pdf State of Delaware https://dhr.delaware.gov/personnel/reports/2018-total-compensation- study.pdf
State of Washington https://ofm.wa.gov/state-human-resources/compensation-job- classes/compensation-administration/state-salary-survey Bloomfield Township, MI https://www.bloomfieldtwp.org/Government/Compensation-Study/Segal- Final-Presentation-to-Board-7-13-20.aspx
City of Phoenix, AZ https://www.phoenix.gov/itssite/Documents/070008.pdf City of San Antonio, TX https://therivardreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/City-of-San- Antonio-TX-2018-Compensation-Report-FINAL.pdf
City of San Diego Police
Department, CA
http://www.sandiego.gov/mayor/pdf/sdpd_reppositions11614.pdf Macomb County, MI https://hrlr.macombgov.org/sites/default/files/content/government/hrlr/On- site%20Final%20Report%20Presentation_Feb%2014.pdf?webdesign=adap tive
Pierce County, WA https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/83114/Pierce- County---Total-Compensation-Study-Report
Southern California
Regional Rail Authority
http://metrolink.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=404
#9670196v1/97909.902 56
Segal’s compensation and career strategies client list
Category Client Name Client Name Continued
States, Agencies,
Retirement
Systems
Central Arizona Fire and Medical Authority Office of the State Auditor
Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
• Bay Transportation Authority
• Department of Transportation
• School Building Authority
• State Lottery
• Treasurer & Receiver
• Teachers’ Retirement System
District of Columbia
State of Georgia: Department of Audits & Accts Merit System State of Alabama
State of Alaska
State of Arizona
State of Colorado: Division of Human Resources
State of Delaware
State of Illinois: Board of Education
State of Maryland: Department of Budget &
Management Department of Mental Health
State of Maine
State of Minnesota Public Safety Commission
State of New Hampshire (DAS)
State of North Carolina Education Lottery
State of Ohio Public Employees Ret. System Teachers’
Retirement System, Universities Retirement System
State of Iowa
State of Oregon:
• Department of Administrative Services
• Legislative Assembly
• Lottery
State of Rhode Island
State of Texas Employees Retirement Syst.
State of Washington
Court Systems Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
State of California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles State of Colorado Judicial Branch
State of Maine Judiciary
State of Maryland Judiciary
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Trial Court
State of Minnesota Judiciary
State of New Hampshire Judicial Branch
State of New Jersey Judiciary
State of Ohio Supreme Court
State of Vermont Judiciary
State of Washington Administrative Office of the Courts Counties Albemarle County (VA)
Anderson County (SC)
Anne Arundel County (MD)
Arlington County (VA)
Barry County (MI)
Bay County (MI)
Boulder County (CO)
Campbell County (WY)
City/County of Denver (CO)
Coconino County (AZ)
Deschutes County (OR)
Fairfax County (VA)
Forsyth County (GA)
Fort Bend Central Appraisal District (TX)
Frederick County (MD)
Fulton County Government (GA)
Harris County Appraisal District (TX)
Inyo County (CA)
Isabella County (MI)
Jackson County (TX)
Jefferson Parish (LA)
Johnson County (TX)
Kalamazoo County Government (MI)
Kenosha County (WI)
Lake County (IL)
Laramie County (WY)
Laramie County Library System (WY)
Las Vegas — Clark County Library (NV)
Lee County (FL)
Lexington County (SC)
Lincoln County (SD)
Los Alamos County (NM)
Macomb County (MI)
Minnehaha County (SD)
Mohave County (AZ)
Montgomery Central Appraisal District (TX)
Oakland County (MI)
Pierce County (WA)
Pinal County (AZ)
Pinellas County (FL)
Prince George’s County (MD)
Prince William County (VA)
Rockwall County (TX)
Santa Barbara County (CA)
Seminole County (FL)
Shelby County (TN)
Smith County (TX)
Sonoma County (CA)
Spotsylvania County (VA)
Stafford County (VA)
Washington County (WI)
Waukesha County (WI)
Webb County (TX)
#9670196v1/97909.902 57
Category Client Name Client Name Continued
Municipalities City of Albany (NY)
City of Albuquerque (NM)
City of Alexandria (LA)
City of Alexandria (VA)
City of Asheville (NC)
City of Aspen (CO)
City of Aurora (CO)
City of Austin (TX)
City of Avondale (AZ)
City of Baltimore (MD)
City of Boston (MA)
City of Bowie (MD)
City of Bristol (CT)
City of Bryan (TX)
City of Buckeye (AZ)
City of Cape Coral (FL)
City of Cambridge (MA) - Public Library
City of Carrollton (TX)
City of Cedar Rapids (IA)
City of Carlsbad (CA)
City of Chandler (AZ)
City of Charlotte (NC)
City of College Station (TX)
City of Columbia (MO)
City of Dover (DE)
City of Fort Lauderdale (FL)
City of Fort Worth (TX)
City of Frederick (MD)
City of Gaithersburg (MD)
City of Garland (TX)
City of Gastonia (NC)
City of Glendale (AZ)
City of Goleta (CA)
City of Goodyear (AZ)
City of Grand Rapids (MI)
City of Greenville (NC)
City of Greenville (SC)
City of Henderson (NV)
City of Hollywood (FL)
City of Houston (TX)
City of Kansas City (MO)
City of Knoxville (TN)
City of Lansing (MI)
City of Las Vegas (NV)
City of League City (TX)
City of Livermore (CA)
City of Manassas (VA)
City of Maricopa (AZ)
City of Middletown (CT)
City of New Bedford (MA)
City of North Kansas City (MO)
City of Oklahoma City and Its Trusts (OK)
City of Olathe (KS)
City of Palo Alto (CA)
City of Phoenix (AZ)
City of Pittsburgh (PA)
City of Prescott (AZ)
City of Raleigh (NC)
City of Rehoboth Beach (DE)
City of Richmond (CA)
City of Salem (VA)
City of San Antonio (TX)
City of San Diego (CA)
City of San Marcos (CA)
City of San Marcos (TX)
City of Santa Cruz (CA)
City of Santa Monica (CA)
City of Seaford (DE)
City of Seattle (WA)
City of Sedona (AZ)
City of Sierra Vista (AZ)
City of Sioux Falls (SD)
City of Solon (OH)
City of St. Cloud (MN)
City of Surprise (AZ)
City of Virginia Beach (VA)
City of Wilmington (DE)
City of Wylie (TX)
Bloomfield Township (MI)
Terrebonne Parish (LA)
Town of Acton (MA)
Town of Buckeye (AZ)
Town of Millsboro (DE)
Town of Ocean City (MD)
Southern California Association of Governments
Spokane Regional Health District (WA)
Timberland Regional Library (WA)
Tulsa City County Library (OK)
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
#9670196v1/97909.902 58
Category Client Name Client Name Continued
Transportation
Systems
Alaska Railroad Corporation
AC Transit (CA)
Bay Area Rapid Transit (CA)
Ben Franklin Transit (WA)
Bishop International Airport Authority (MI)
City of Austin — Transportation Dept. (TX)
Central New York Regional Transp Authority
Central Ohio Transit Authority (OH)
C-TRAN (WA)
Columbus Regional Airport Authority (OH)
Denton County Transportation Authority (TX)
Des Moines Area Regional Transit (IA)
Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority (IN)
Golden Gate Bridge and Highway Transportation District (CA) Harris County Transportation Authority (TX)
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (FL)
Indianapolis Public Transportation (IN)
Jacksonville Aviation Authority (FL)
Jacksonville Transportation Authority (FL)
Kansas City Area Transit Authority (MO)
Kenton County Airport Board (KY)
Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority (PA)
Lincoln Airport Authority (NE)
Maryland Transit Administration
Metro St. Louis (MO)
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (GA)
Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Authority (TN)
Metropolitan Nashville Airport Auth. (TN)
Milwaukee County Transportation Auth. (WI)
Naples Airport Authority (FL)
National Railway Labor Commission
New Jersey Turnpike Authority
North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority (TX)
Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Transportation
Authority (AZ)
Orange County Transportation Authority (CA)
Pace, Suburban Bus Division of the RTA (IL)
Pierce Transit (WA)
Port Authority of Allegheny County (PA)
Port of Houston Authority (TX)
Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority (NC)
Regional Transit District (CO)
San Mateo County Transit (CA)
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (CA)
Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana (LA)
Transit Management of Washoe County (NV)
Valley Metro/RPTA (AZ)
Victor Valley Transit Authority (CA)
Virginia Railway Express
Washington DC Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Wayne County Airport Authority (MI)
Utilities and Water
Authorities
Beaufort-Jasper Water & Sewer Authority (SC)
Birmingham Water Works Board (AL)
Castaic Lake Water Authority (CA)
Central Arizona Project (AZ)
City of Austin — Austin Energy (TX)
City of Austin — Austin Water (TX)
Coachella Valley Water District (CA)
Colorado Springs Utilities
Columbus Water Works (GA)
Delta Diablo District (CA)
Denver Water (CO)
Des Moines Water Works (IA)
D.C. Water & Sewer Authority
Easton Utilities Commission (MD)
Florida Municipal Power Agency
Fairfax Water (VA)
Great Lakes Water Authority (MI)
Greenville Electric Utility System (TX)
Greenville Utilities Commission (NC)
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (TX)
Kerrville Public Utilities Board (TX)
Loudoun Water (VA)
Metropolitan District Commission (CT)
Narragansett Bay Commission (RI)
Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (AZ)
New Braunfels Utilities (TX)
Orange County Public Utilities (FL)
Platte River Power Authority (CO)
Prince William County Service Authority (VA)
Raleigh Public Utilities District (NC)
Texas Municipal Power Authority
Toho Water Authority (FL)
Trophy Club Municipal Utility District (TX)
Upper Occoquan Service Authority (VA)
Water Replenishment District of Southern CA
West County Wastewater District (CA)
Other Clients Baltimore County Public Library (MD)
Bexar County Juvenile Probation Department
CareerSource of Palm Beach County (FL)
Cecil County Public Library (MD)
Center for Health Care Services of Bexar County (TX)
Centralina Regional Council (NC)
Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library (OH)
Clearview Library District (CO)
Columbus Metropolitan Library (OH)
Community Behavioral Health (PA)
Cuyahoga Library District (OH)
Detroit Land Bank (MI)
Greater Vallejo Recreation District (CA)
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) King County Housing Authority (WA)
Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS)
Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute
Maryland State Library
Minnehaha County Deputies Association (SD)
Northern California UFCW
Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority
Oakland Community Health Network (MI)
Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office (LA)
San Antonio Housing Authority (TX)
San Joaquin Council of Governments (CA)
Santa Barbara County Association of Govts (CA)
Santa Monica Libraries (CA)
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (MI)
#9670196v1/97909.902 59
Category Client Name Client Name Continued
Public School
Districts
ABC Unified School District (CA)
Adams 12 Five Star School District (CO)
Alexandria City Public Schools (VA)
Arlington Public Schools (VA)
Boulder Valley School District (CO)
Chesterfield County Public Schools (VA)
Denver Public Schools (CO)
East Baton Rouge Parish School System (LA)
Fairfax County Public Schools (VA)
Frederick County Public Schools (MD)
Lafayette Parish School System (LA)
Loudoun County Public Schools (VA)
Norfolk Public Schools (VA)
Prince George’s Co Public Schools (MD)
Prince William Co Public Schools (VA)
Spokane Public Schools (WA)
Springfield Public Schools (MA)
Stafford County Public Schools (VA)
Virginia Beach City Public Schools (VA)
Public Sector
Higher Education
Bunker Hill Community College (MA)
Butler Community College (KS)
Central Piedmont Community College (NC)
Central New Mexico Community College
College of the Mainland (TX)
Collin County Community College (TX)
Colorado Community College System
Community College of Philadelphia (PA)
Community College System of New Hampshire
Delaware County Community College (PA)
George Mason University (VA)
Grand Rapids Community College (MI)
James Madison University (VA)
Maricopa County Community College (AZ)
Milwaukee Area Technical College (WI)
Morehead State University (KY)
Montgomery College (MD)
Mott Community College (MI)
Northern Virginia Community College
Northern Wyoming Community College
Palomar College (CA)
Parkland College (IL)
Portland Community College (OR)
Radford University (VA)
Texas A&M University Libraries
Thomas Edison State College (NJ)
University of Connecticut
University of the District of Columbia
Virginia Community College System
Yavapai Community College (AZ)
#9670196v1/97909.902 60
Required Forms
Attached are the following completed forms, as required by the RFP:
• Non-Collusion Affidavit
City of Anaheim, CA
Price Proposal for Classification
and Compensation Study:
Final
RFP #107-HR-04/21/2023
August 8, 2023 / TL Cox, Vice President
1 #9670196v1/97909.902
Final Fees: Classification and
Compensation Study
Segal is fully aware of the sensitivity of budget allocations for public sector employers. We believe that you will find our approach focused toward achieving the City’s objectives in the most cost-effective manner consistent with quality, accuracy, and timeliness.
Project Step Fixed Fee
Step 1: Project initiation
Assumes we will meet with the City’s Project Team and conduct a maximum of thirty (30) stakeholder interviews, as well as time associated with learning about the City’s current compensation and classification structures, policies, and practices.
Develop project announcement and employee communication templates. $30,000
Step 2: Provide Recommendations for changes to the compensation philosophy
Assumes we recommend changes to the compensation philosophy for the City $20,000
Step 3: Classification analysis
Assumes the following:
• Develop one customized Job Description Questionnaire
• Analyze 631 current job titles covering approximately 2,000 full-time employees and 1,025 part-time employees (with a maximum of 1,000 Job Description Questionnaires)
• Conduct up to four (4) hours of employee presentations via videoconference • Conduct up to two (2) consecutive days of employee interviews • Develop a recommended classification structure (one draft, one final) • Recommend assignments of individual positions to job titles • Develop Recommendations for Career Ladders
• Recommend FLSA exemption status of all titles
• Apply Segal Evaluator™ job evaluation approach
• Draft job descriptions for all recommended job titles • We understand the City is looking for the successful consultant to provide recommendations for appropriate measures necessary to transition to the updated job architecture/classification system, recognizing the City’s obligations under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. Segal’s final job architecture/classification system will be provided in MS Excel format, which should enable the City to incorporate edits and revisions necessary to ensure compliance with the Meyers- Milias-Brown Act. Should the City be looking for something more, we can discuss once identified as the finalist for the procurement.
$290,000
2 #9670196v1/97909.902
Project Step Fixed Fee
Step 4: Total compensation market assessment
Assumes the following:
• Develop a customized total compensation market survey document with up to 100 benchmark job titles, to be distributed to up to fifteen (15) public sector peer employers, as well as the use of up to three (3) published data sources to represent the private sector market
• One draft and one final report of the market study findings $125,000
Step 5: Recommendations development
Assumes the following:
• Develop pay schedule(s) to cover all jobs covered by the study • Recommend grade assignments for all job titles covered by the study • Estimate the cost of implementing the recommended pay schedule, including recommendations regarding placement of each employee within the pay ranges, as well as one revised estimate based on Project Team’s review and revisions • Assist with implementation
$50,000
Step 6: Present final results to the City
Assumes we develop and deliver one presentation, either on-site or via video conference, to City Council and/or other stakeholders
$10,000
Total Fixed Fee $525,000
The proposed fee includes charges for all professional, analytic, and administrative services, as well as all expenses associated with materials, supplies, overhead, and travel for all tasks outlined in this proposal except as otherwise noted.
Our total fixed fee will be billed at the end of each month in 10 equal invoices for $50,000 and a final invoice for $25,000 upon completion of the project.
Please note: if the information in the census file is inaccurate additional hourly fees may be charged for data correction and preparation.
Travel expenses for meetings scheduled less than one week in advance will be charged additionally. If a scheduled meeting is cancelled by the client, any non-refundable travel expenses will be billed to the client at cost.
Our proposed fee assumes only the services and on-site meetings described in the proposal.
Should the City request additional services or additional on-site meetings, we would charge the hourly rates shown below, as well as for the time and expenses associated with travel.
3 #9670196v1/97909.902
Staff Member Title/Role
2023
Hourly
Rate
TL Cox Vice President, Senior Consultant $450
Stephen Murphy Senior Vice President, Benefits Consultant $500 Diana Sobczynski Associate Consultant $305
Lauren Price Senior Associate $265
Ethan Steinberg Senior Associate $285
Mira Ahluwalia Associate, Analyst $225
Completion Date Status Notes
1.1 Segal sends data request and draft timeline to City and sets up Secure File Transfer (SFT) site Friday, August 25, 2023
1.2 City provides requested information to Segal via Secure File Transfer (SFT) Friday, September 8, 2023
1.3 Kick-off meeting with department directors and elected officials Week of 10/9/23 TBD, but no later than 10/13/23
1.4 Stakeholder interviews Week of 10/9/23 TBD, but no later than 10/13/23
1.5 Segal provides HR summary stakeholder interview findings Tuesday, October 31, 2023
1.6 Draft benchmark position analysis (based on current classification structure) Friday, November 3, 2023
2.1 Segal sends draft employee presentation and JDQ to City Friday, August 25, 2023
2.2 City provides comments and edits to the employee presentation and JDQ Friday, September 8, 2023
2.3 Segal and City finalize and test online JDQ process September 11 - October 6, 2023
2.4 Segal conducts combination of onsite and virtual employee presentations Week of 10/9/23 TBD, but no later than 10/13/23
2.5 City distributes JDQs to employees using online process Friday, October 13, 2023
2.6 Employees complete JDQs, send to supervisors Friday, October 27, 2023
2.7 First and second-level supervisory review of completed JDQ Friday, November 24, 2023
2.8 Segal closes online JDQ collection site Thursday, November 30, 2023
2.9 Segal conducts interviews with employees and managers (as necessary) TBD TBD, but no later than 1/30/24
2.10 Segal sends draft classification structure to City Friday, March 1, 2024 Can refine as we get closer, as needed. Key is to
have the final draft available mid-April for model
development.
Classification Analysis
City of Anaheim, CA
Project Work Plan and Timeline
As of 08/10/2023
Task
Project Initiation and Compensation Philosophy
Doc ID: 1
Completion Date Status Notes
City of Anaheim, CA
Project Work Plan and Timeline
As of 08/10/2023
Task
Project Initiation and Compensation Philosophy2.11 City and Segal discuss draft classification structure TBD Can refine as we get closer, as needed. Key is to
have the final draft available mid-April for model
development.
2.12 City provides feedback on draft classification structure Wednesday, March 15, 2023 Can refine as we get closer, as needed. Key is to
have the final draft available mid-April for model
development.
2.13 Segal captures feedback and provides final classification structure Friday, April 5, 2024
Can refine as we get closer, as needed. Key is to
have the final draft available mid-April for model
development.
3.1 Determine peer employers, benchmark jobs, and information to collect Friday, November 17, 2023
3.2 Segal sends City draft survey document Thursday, November 30, 2023 Job summaries for benchmark jobs to be developed
using employee completed, and
supervisor/manager/director reviewed JDQ and
revises for accuracy prior to survey distribution.
3.3 City reviews survey document and provides edits/feedback to Segal Friday, December 15, 2023
3.4 Segal sends survey document to peer employers Friday, January 12, 2024
3.5 Survey respondents complete survey Friday, February 9, 2024
3.6 Segal sends City draft detailed market data report Friday, March 15, 2024 Can refine as we get closer, as needed. Key is to
have the final market data available late-April for
model development.
3.7 City reviews draft detailed market data report, provides feedback to Segal Friday, March 29, 2024
Can refine as we get closer, as needed. Key is to
have the final market data available late-April for
model development.
3.8 Segal performs follow-up with peers per feedback received from City Friday, April 12, 2024
Can refine as we get closer, as needed. Key is to
have the final market data available late-April for
model development.
3.9 Segal sends final detailed market data report to City Tuesday, April 30, 2024 Can refine as we get closer, as needed. Key is to
have the final market data available late-April for
model development.
4.1 Segal develops recommended salary schedule and pay grade assignments and sends, along with revised compensation
philosophy, to City
Friday, May 24, 2024
Pay Structure Development, Costing, and Recommendation Development Total Compensation Market Assessment
Doc ID: 2
Completion Date Status Notes
City of Anaheim, CA
Project Work Plan and Timeline
As of 08/10/2023
Task
Project Initiation and Compensation Philosophy4.2 City provides feedback Friday, June 21, 2024 Includes City vetting of Segal's model with
appropriate stakeholders, including unions and
department directors.
Doc ID: 3