2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
City of Cathedral City
Classification and Compensation Study
May 12, 2026
Mr. Georg S. Krammer
Managing Director | Public Sector, Community & Education 2121 N. California Boulevard, Suite 350
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
510.658.5633 | [email protected]
Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. | ajg.com
2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co The Gallagher Way. Since 1927.
Table of Contents
Cover Letter ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Organizational Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Project Staffing ................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Approach to the Project ................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Project Timeline ............................................................................................................................................................................. 22 References ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Contractual Considerations ......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix 1: Publications & Conference Presentations ............................................................................................................. 31 Appendix 2: FLSA Compliance Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 32 Appendix 3: Job Description Review & Analysis Process ........................................................................................................ 33 Appendix 4: Additional Services .................................................................................................................................................. 34 Appendix 5: Sample Classification Study ................................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix 6: Sample Compensation Study ................................................................................................................................. 37
Cost proposal has been provided under separate cover per the RFP instructions.
1 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co The Gallagher Way. Since 1927.
Cover Letter
May 12, 2026
Mr. Patrick Bumstead
Financial Analyst & Procurement Administrator
City of Cathedral City
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, California 92234
Dear Mr. Bumstead:
We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal regarding the services Gallagher’s Human Resources & Compensation Consulting practice can offer City of Cathedral City (City). Gallagher is highly capable and qualified to work with the City based on our extensive experience with public sector organizations across the country, including over 170 cities in California alone, as well as the City of Cathedral City itself on several occasions over the years. We would consider it a privilege to serve the City in this capacity.
It is our understanding that the City is seeking a comprehensive classification and total compensation study.
We believe we will provide the City with the most diversely experienced project team of any consulting practice in the country, which enhances the solutions and recommendations we will provide on this engagement. The questions and perspectives provided by our team help us anticipate any issues the City may face throughout this project, as well as the ongoing management of the updated classification and compensation system.
We have prepared the following proposal in response to your request. We appreciate having the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to assisting the City in this engagement.
Sincerely,
Georg S. Krammer
Managing Director, Practice Operations & Hub Leader
510.658.5633 | [email protected]
Erik Smetana
Managing Director & National Practice Leader
314.494.4849 | [email protected]
2 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Organizational Overview
Value Proposition:
The ability to deliver comprehensively structured human capital solutions to clients is Gallagher’s signature in the marketplace. At Gallagher, we want to know what makes your organization unique. We listen intently to learn about your culture and priorities and delve deeply into all the details that matter when balancing human capital needs with your bottom line. This single-minded focus on excellence — characterized by innovation and creativity — is the driving force behind every Gallagher engagement.
Company History:
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. opened its doors in 1927 and remains “growing strong” thanks to a proven ability to help clients think ahead. Founded by its namesake who was previously the leading producer for Chicago’s largest insurance brokerage, Gallagher is now one of the world’s largest human capital, insurance brokerage and risk management services firms. We have operations in 33 countries and extend our client-service capabilities to more than 90 countries through a global network of correspondent brokers and consultants.
Since 1961, we have been helping clients overcome business barriers and create new opportunities to cost- effectively attract, retain, and productively engage the best performers in their field. Gallagher started trading on the NYSE under the symbol AJG in 1984.
Company Culture & Philosophy:
The ideals, principles, and values embodied by the founder, whose name still appears on our door, are part of our corporate DNA. Gallagher’s approach to business, cultivated through three generations of family leadership, has always centered on creating relationship value as true partners to our clients. Gallagher’s interactions with you will be straightforward and candid. By earning our clients' trust, we have sustained a reputation for ethics and transparency that continues to contribute to our growth.
3 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
The high standards of conduct we have set for our external professional relationships are the same rules we follow internally.
The Gallagher Way, a one-page document outlining our 25 shared values, was written in 1984 but remains just as culturally relevant today. It speaks to the value of relationships, and several tenets set guidelines for ethical behavior. Gallagher combines innovative solutions, thoughtful advice, and honest business practices to minimize risk and help fuel your success.
Talent Practice:
Gallagher’s Talent practice empowers clients to attract talent, manage staff, develop leaders, and reward success—leveraging the power of Gallagher and the wisdom of experience to build an engaged, productive workforce. Tapping into expertise that spans the spectrum of human resources at every level, we can assemble flexible compensation and consulting solutions that improve efficiency and build bottom lines.
Our practice combines some of the most respected names in human resources and compensation consulting.
As we have expanded our services and reach, we have strengthened our ability to serve our clients – including the acquisition and integration of talented firms, consultants, and advisors from Koff & Associates (2021) and Buck (2023). Bringing together experts from compensation, performance, compliance, data and analytics, survey, search, and leadership fields, Gallagher empowers clients with tools for the entire employment lifecycle.
With an experienced team of consultants located in offices across the United States and Canada, our services include:
HR & Organizational Effectiveness
Think of us as your strategic partner and an extension of your HR and organizational change team.
Compensation & Rewards
We strengthen the employer-employee relationship by
designing equitable, competitive, and sustainable
compensation and rewards programs.
Multinational Benefits & Mobility
As Global Connectors, we provide solutions for you to manage your multinational workforce in a compliant, coordinated, strategic, administratively efficient, and cost-effective way.
Communications
A global leader in employee communication, we set the
industry standard for excellence and innovation.
People Development & Insights
We help you understand your customers and your workforce to unlock value and performance.
Public Sector, Community & Education Consulting Practice:
Gallagher’s Public Sector, Community & Education consulting practice has completed more than 1,500 classification and compensation related studies for public entities, higher education, and similarly
4 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
situated clients nationally. We have extensive experience in developing and communicating compensation philosophy, designing and implementing market-aligned pay structures and career frameworks and developing job evaluation methods to maintain internal equity. We conduct benchmark analyses, including conducting custom-tailored salary surveys (if needed), and recommend appropriate administrative and procedural guidelines to maintain the compensation system. We ensure that our clients comply with applicable laws and regulations, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) standards and have pay systems that are appropriate for their organization and market strategy.
We have served our clients for more than 40 years across an array of strategic and value-adding HR services with classification, compensation, pay equity, leadership search, and organizational design + span of control as our core specialties.
Alliances
We have a strategic alliance with the Public Sector Human Resources Association (PSHRA), the National Public Employers Labor Relations Association (NPELRA), and the Colleges and Universities Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA - HR) and have conducted a series of training seminars/workshops on compensation, classification, job evaluation, strategic HR, and employee benefits management throughout the nation in conjunction with these organizations. Gallagher Benefit Services also focuses on the higher education market.
Market Leading Thought Leadership and Strategic Direction
Our consultants have demonstrated leadership in the compensation and strategic HR fields by completing training and certifications from WorldatWork, ERI, HRCI, Human Capital Institute, SHRM, and others in addition to serving as instructors and presenters for ICMA, CUPA-HR, NAPO, WorldatWork, NACO, NPELRA, PSHRA and other regional and national associations.
Our thought leadership has been published and/or highlighted in University Business, PSHRA News, American City and County, TalentCulture, Public Management, TLNT, Corporate Report Ventures, ERE, Corporate Board Member, Benefits Planner, WorldatWork, Society of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, and others.
5 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
As your Trusted Advisor we have additional information for your consideration based on your current focus.
You can expect a trusted advisor in Gallagher, not just a vendor focusing on only one aspect of your HR offerings. While there are numerous vendors that can provide HR consulting, our subject matter expertise is brought to life in the way we partner with our public sector entities and is what truly sets Gallagher apart. Our consulting style is proactive and collaborative. We strive to provide you with relevant information and partner with you to support informed decisions and anticipate the future. As experts in providing a broad spectrum of human resource and talent management capabilities our experience has shown us that many public sector entities conducting a compensation project may also need support in these key areas:
Think of our team both as a strategy partner, and as an extension of your HR team – providing expertise and additional capacity aligned with your specific HR needs, including strategic advisory, one-off projects, and fractional on-going HR solutions.
You may encounter some cases that require communication such as sharing outcomes and findings of your needs
assessment. Our award-winning Communications Practice is a global leader in employee communications.
We will increase your business performance by amplifying the entire employee experience through world leading employee communications.
Here are some of the ways we can provide support:
• HR Policy Development
• Compliance
− I-9 Reviews & Revisions, ACA Reporting &
Compliance, Local, State & Federal Laws, Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Compliance
• Career Transition Services
• Recruiting Services
• Payroll & HRIS Technology Services
− Managed Payroll Solutions, Interim Emergency
Support, State Tax Registrations, Year-End Support
• HR Technology Selection and Implementation
• Organizational Change Management
• HR Support
− People Operations (Policies, Handbooks, JDs, Leave,
Workplace Investigations)
Let us help you with:
• Benefits (Total Wellbeing) Communications
• Compensation Communication
• Reward Communication
• Retirement Communication
• Internal Communication (IC)
• Audit and Insight – Communication Effectiveness
• Organizational Change Communication
• Digital (Communication) Experience
• Employee Value Proposition (EVP) Development and
Communication
• Personalized Portals
• Non-personalized portals
• Decision-support tools
We welcome the opportunity to further explore how we can partner with you in these critical areas.
HR & Organizational Effectiveness Communication
6 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Project Staffing
You will benefit from our team of specialists and experts, who bring a proven track record of:
• Designing and executing comprehensive compensation strategies • Performing complex classification analyses
• Evaluating pay equity to ensure fair, competitive structures • Delivering high-value strategic HR advisory services.
Many of our professionals have served as practitioners within the very sectors we support, granting us unique insight into real-world operational challenges. We combine rigorous data analytics, industry best practices, and innovative thinking to craft customized, forward-looking solutions aligned with each organization’s strategic HR goals. By drawing from hands-on experience and leveraging an in-depth understanding of market trends, we will help you meet current standards and proactively prepare for an ever-evolving talent landscape.
Gallagher fosters a commitment to excellence, professionalism, integrity, collaboration, and urgency for each of our clients. With each unique client, Gallagher combines these principles to deliver client services customized specifically to meet your needs. Your Gallagher consulting team has years of experience consulting to public sector clients, including those with unionized and represented employees with a significantly diverse employee workforce with organizations nationwide, including a long history of serving California cities, counties, and public bodies. We have worked with more than 1,000 public sector and higher education clients over the past decade. Each member of Gallagher’s public sector compensation consulting practice has achieved one or more of the following certifications and/or degrees:
• Certified Compensation Professional from WorldatWork
• Compensation Analyst Credential from Economic Research Institute • IPMA-SCP from the Public Sector Human Resources Association • PHR and/or SPHR from the Human Resources Certification Institute • SHRM-CP and/or SCP from the Society for Human Resource Management • SWP and HCS from the Human Capital Institute
• Master’s degree or above, in Human Resources, Business Administration, and/or Organizational Psychology
PROJECT LEADERSHIP & LEADERSHIP SUPPORT
Executive Project Sponsor
ERIK SMETANA, Managing Director & National Practice Leader - 25+ years of experience Erik manages operations and leads Gallagher’s Public Sector, Community & Education Human Resources & Compensation Consulting practice. Erik’s 25-plus-year work history has led him to serve in various diverse roles across human resource management, particularly in compensation and benefits, talent management and organizational development, people analytics, and employee relations and policy development. Erik has extensive experience in private and public sectors, working with an eclectic mix of dynamic organizations, including Fortune 500 companies across multiple industries, international not-for-profit organizations, membership associations, media outlets (e.g., NPR and NBC affiliates), institutions of higher education and research, and others. Before joining Gallagher, he served as the enterprise- wide Deputy CHRO and business unit CHRO with the University of Missouri System and with Vanderbilt University as the Executive Director of People & Engagement, leading, designing, and implementing compensation, employee learning, talent acquisition, and people-focused programs and initiatives. He has earned a variety of credentials over his career, including an MBA and MFA in Communication from Lindenwood University, SHRM-SCP and SPHR, SWP and HCS from Human Capital Institute, and a specialized certification in AI strategy from MIT.
7 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
As a consultant, Erik has been engaged in more than 250 client projects with organizations ranging from cities and counties to state agencies to tribal nations and more including school districts, colleges and universities, special districts and authorities, and other sector aligned entities in the provision of compensation, classification, pay equity, organizational assessment, leadership coaching, performance management, and other strategic HR advisory services.
Project Directors/Advisors
GEORG KRAMMER, MBA, SPHR, Managing Director, Practice Operations & Hub Leader – 25+ years of experience Georg Krammer brings more than 25 years of management-level human resources experience with an emphasis in classification and compensation design, market salary studies, executive recruitment, organizational development, performance management, and employee relations; in the public sector and in large corporations as well as small, minority-owned businesses. After obtaining a Master of Arts in English and Russian and teaching credentials at the University of Vienna, Austria, Georg came to the United States to further his education and experience and attained his Master of Business Administration (MBA) from the University of San Francisco. Georg started his HR career at Wells Fargo’s college recruiting department, moving on to HR management positions in the banking and technology consulting industries. After serving in the roles of HR Manager, Administrative Officer, and HR Director, he crossed over to the public sector. Georg’s wide-ranging and deep human resources experience has prepared him to serve public sector clients varied needs. He has spearheaded several hundred classification, compensation, organizational and strategic planning studies for hundreds of cities, towns, counties, and special districts throughout California. Over the last decade, Georg has shared his vast knowledge at public sector industry conferences for organizations such as CALPELRA, CSDA, IPMA, and NPELRA. He has lectured and conducted workshops on subjects such as How to Conduct Classification and Compensation Studies, Performance Management, Succession Planning, and Recruitment. He holds the SPHR certification (Senior Professional in Human Resources).
TRACY MORRIS, MBA, SHRM-CP, Senior Consultant, Practice Operations & Hub Leader - 15+ years of experience
Tracy has more than a decade of experience working in the strategic HR space with significant public sector HR and compensation consulting. Tracy holds a bachelor’s degree in applied economics and a Master of Business Administration, both from Texas Tech University, and she is a SHRM Certified Professional (SHRM-CP). She serves clients as a project manager, thought leader, and advisor – additionally, she supports and manages our process improvement and optimization efforts to ensure each of our clients has an experience that meets their needs and exceeds their expectations.
ZAK SHTULBERG, Senior Consultant, Practice Operations & Hub Leader - 15+ years of experience Since starting as an HR consulting intern at Buck (now Gallagher) in 2012, Zak has been mission-driven and passionate about collaboration with clients and partners on transformative people, compensation, and other HR initiatives that improve the lives of employees and their communities. Projects have spanned a broad spectrum, including compensation strategy design, change management and communications, workforce planning, project management, analytics and technology enablement, and organization design, among many others. With both internal and external partners, he is recognized for blending strategic and technical advice with innovative analytics and technology and has grown as a trusted partner and subject matter expert in HR and compensation. Prior to starting his career, he earned a Bachelor of Science in Industrial and Labor Relations from Cornell University.
CHELSEA FREEMAN, Senior Consultant & Search Leader - 10+ years of experience Chelsea’s professional qualifications include ten years of experience working in the public sector, mostly with the California State University system. Chelsea also has nine years working in the private sector in manufacturing. In her role as Classification, Compensation and HR Operations Manager, she was responsible for developing and implementing a compensation philosophy for staff and faculty, as well as implement process improvement efforts within the HR operations. She provided ongoing consultation to managers to assist with properly classifying and compensating employees within an union environment.
CHRISTINE NICHOLS, Operations Support Specialist - 30+ years of experience Christine joined Gallagher in 2023, bringing more than 30 years’ experience in Operations Support to the practice. Prior to joining Gallagher, she worked in the private sector for a Global staffing company. In her role as Operations Support for the
8 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
practice, Christine ensures that all administrative processes across the team run efficiently and effectively, providing seamless client experience from proposal to project closure. She plays an integral part in the contract review process, follows up on client invoices & vendor payments, pulls data from a variety of internal & external systems and coordinates communications with other Gallagher departments. Christine is responsible for managing all RFPs, web inquiries & client referrals to the practice. She also handles all the scheduling of internal & external meetings for the practice, as well as review & audit of practice expenses.
Project Managers
CATHERINE THORP, Senior Consultant & Project Manager - 25+ years of experience Ms. Thorp holds a Bachelor of Business Administration degree in Management from the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor.
Before joining Gallagher, Catherine worked as a Senior Compensation Manager at Dun & Bradstreet and in roles ranging from analyst to senior manager at McLane Company, Inc. Catherine has applied her compensation knowledge in market analysis, salary structure design, pay equity, career competencies, strategic planning, system integration, and process optimization. Catherine will complete her CCP in 2023.
DEBBIE OWEN, Senior Consultant & Project Manager – 30+ years of experience Debbie has over 30 years of experience providing classification and compensation services to public sector clients spanning local government sectors including cities, counties, special districts, and transit agencies. Prior to beginning her public sector career, Debbie worked as a Compensation and Benefits Specialist in the private sector for five years. In 1992, Debbie obtained her certification as a Certified Compensation Professional (“CCP”) from the American Compensation Association (now WorldatWork); to ensure current knowledge of compensation and benefits program trends and best practices, she maintains active membership in the WorldatWork organization. Debbie’s practitioner and project management experience has been primarily focused on the design and development of classification and compensation programs for a diverse range of public sector clients with varying project needs. For the last 20 years, Debbie has served in a project management capacity, working with clients to evaluate their classification and compensation systems and needs; she directs and reviews the work of project teams to provide clients with high quality deliverables consistent with best practices; and she prepares/delivers presentations designed to inform clients on study processes, activities, methodologies and outcomes.
JAIME PARKER, Senior Consultant & Project Manager - 15+ years of experience Jaime has 15 years of experience in Higher Education with 7.5 of those years in compensation and organizational effectiveness. Prior to joining Gallagher, she worked at Kansas State University in Human Capital Services, and in the Office of Institutional Effectiveness. Before her career in Higher Education, Jaime worked in the Banking Industry as a Banking Center Manager and Customer Service Manager. Jaime is a graduate of Kansas State University with a bachelor’s degree in accounting.
MAGGIE WILLIAMS-DALGART, Senior Consultant & Project Manager – 20+ years of experience Since joining Gallagher in 2021 Maggie has been providing a wide range of consulting services, including classification analysis and development, custom salary and benefits surveys, and pay plan design for various public sector agencies, including cities, counties, special districts, community colleges, and transit agencies. Maggie provides strategic advising and understands the importance of engaging key stakeholders throughout the study. Prior to joining Gallagher, Maggie spent 20 years in human resources for local government. In addition to classification and compensation expertise, Maggie’s experience includes collective bargaining, labor contract administration and labor costing, policy development, and recruitment and selection. Maggie served as President of CalPACS from 2018 - 2021, a regional internet-based salary and benefits survey website for local agencies in Southern California. Maggie holds a bachelor’s degree in history of public policy from the University of California, Santa Barbara and a master’s degree in public administration from the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs.
MIKE HARARY, Senior Consultant & Project Manager – 40+ years of experience Mike Harary possesses over 40 years of municipal HR management experience, including serving as a Human Resources Director for two municipalities in Southern California. He has been involved in all aspects of Human Resources for the cities of La Mirada, Orange, Westminster, and Downey, including serving as Chief Labor Negotiator, managing recruitment and selection processes for all types of municipal government positions, handling employee benefits
9 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
functions, responding to labor and employee relations issues, complying with labor laws, conducting personnel investigations, and managing a variety of general human resources functions. He has also served as a consultant with Koff and Associates/Gallagher since 2019, managing numerous classification and compensation studies for multiple cities, counties, and special districts throughout California. Mike has a bachelor’s degree in business administration emphasizing in Human Resources Management from California State University, Long Beach, and a Master of Business Administration, also from Cal State Long Beach. Mike will provide managerial project support throughout this effort, including classification analysis, interviews with employees and management, compensation data collection and analysis, internal job analysis, development of recommendations, and implementation strategies.
TRAV J. WALKOWSKI – Senior Consultant & Project Manager – 15+ years of experience Before joining Gallagher, Trav honed his mastery of people operations within the consulting and tech sectors, primarily focused on startups and scale-ups. He has extensive knowledge in developing people strategies that foster employee engagement, operational efficiency and organizational evolution. Trav holds a bachelor's degree in psychology, a master's degree in psychology with an organizational specialization, and a doctorate in organizational psychology. His master's thesis explored incentive plans' effects on employee performance, and his dissertation examined the link between leader emotional intelligence and subordinate employee engagement. Trav has also achieved the Senior Certified Professional (SCP) certification, designed for those in strategic senior-level positions, from the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), Certified Compensation Professional (CCP) from WorldatWork, along with many other professional certifications.
ALYSSA THOMPSON - Senior Consultant & Client Liaison - 25+ years of experience KARI MERCER - Senior Consultant & Client Liaison - 15+ years of experience SARAH NUNES - Senior Consultant & Client Liaison - 20+ years of experience RENATE TINER - Senior Consultant & Client Liaison - 15+ years of experience SHILOH VENABLE - Consultant II & Client Liaison - 15+ years of experience CHARMAIN KOHLER - Consultant II & Client Liaison - 10+ years of experience MONICA GARRISON-REUSCH - Consultant - 20+ years of experience JANNA DINKELSPIEL - Consultant - 15+ years of experience KELLY BARNS - Consultant - 20+ years of experience
SUZY PARKER - Consultant - 5+ years of experience
CINDY HARAY - Consultant – 35+ years of experience
AMBER SHANG - Senior Associate Consultant - 5+ years of experience MARY GAUTHE - Senior Associate Consultant - 5+ years of experience CARISSA MARTO - Associate Consultant - 5+ years of experience ARIELE RODRIGUEZ - Associate Consultant - 25+ years of experience EDWARD HSI - Associate Consultant - 5+ years of experience LAUREN GRANT - Associate Consultant - 10+ years of experience KATHY ELLER - Associate Consultant - 25+ years of experience KELSI ARNEY - Associate Consultant - 8+ years of experience
PROJECT STAFF SUPPORT
10 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Approach to the Project
Our practice takes a thoughtful and collaborative approach to all our client engagements, where we work to ensure our efforts are ones which demonstrate how the Public Sector, Community & Education practice C.A.R.E.S. - collaborate/consult, advise/assess, recommend/resource, engage/endorse, and strategize/serve - about our clients and their needs. To that end, our project approach starts with our process and client communications.
Our extensive experience has resulted in a comprehensive understanding of the scope of work described by the City. Additionally, we understand the importance of this study as one of many strategies to address current human resources issues and appreciate the delicate nature of public sector spending. Below are some key considerations we have in this type of project, followed by our approach to the areas identified by the City, our detailed work plan, and the estimated project timeline.
Key Considerations:
Leadership Support: Effective compensation reform requires consistent, visible leadership commitment at multiple organizational levels. We establish a leadership accountability structure that includes executive sponsors, department champions, and implementation teams with clearly defined roles. Leaders must actively communicate the program's importance, address concerns directly, and visibly support the process through each phase. We provide leaders with focused messaging tools and data points to effectively advocate for changes. Without this multi-level support structure, even technically sound compensation systems often encounter significant resistance during implementation.
Benefit to you: This ensures leadership alignment and visible support, which are critical for successful implementation and stakeholder buy-in.
Internal Fairness and Equity: Our approach balances external market competitiveness with internal equity through comprehensive job analysis techniques. We conduct detailed comparisons across job families, reporting relationships, and responsibility levels to ensure logical compensation relationships. This includes specialized analysis of career progression paths and appropriate differentials between supervisory and non- supervisory roles. We implement specific methodologies to address compression issues, particularly between long-service employees and new hires with market-driven starting salaries. Our process identifies and remedies historical inequities while establishing defensible rationales for pay differences based on skills, responsibilities, and performance factors.
Benefit to you: This will allow us to identify and remedy historical inequities for the City, while establishing defensible rationales for pay differences based on skills, responsibilities, and performance factors.
Appropriate Timelines: We develop realistic project schedules based on organizational complexity and resources. This includes adequate time for comprehensive job documentation, employee input, leadership review cycles, and implementation planning. A typical comprehensive compensation project requires 6+ months for proper execution, including 2-3 months for thorough job analysis, 1-2 months for market research, and 2-3 months for implementation planning, noting that this work may happen concurrently across the life of
11 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
the engagement. Accelerated timelines often compromise data quality and stakeholder buy-in, leading to implementation challenges and future rework. We establish appropriate checkpoints and quality controls to ensure thoroughness while maintaining momentum.
Benefit to you: A well-paced process reduces risks, enhances data quality, and ensures engagement throughout the project.
Data-Driven with Human Oversight: Our methodology combines rigorous data collection with expert interpretation. We utilize multiple validated market sources appropriate for your sector, geographic region, and organizational characteristics. All job matches undergo multi-level validation checks to ensure accurate comparisons. This empirical foundation is then contextualized through structured consultant review panels that consider institutional history, strategic priorities, and unique operational factors as shared and iterated by our clients. We document both the data-driven recommendations and any exceptions to provide a clear, defensible audit trail. This balanced approach ensures decisions are not rigidly algorithmic while maintaining system integrity. Gallagher does not perform FOIA or similar requests in the collection of market data.
Benefit to you: This ensures data-backed decisions are tailored to your unique organizational needs, with a clear and defensible audit trail. Combining data with expert insights allows for strategic decisions that align with the City’s organizational goals.
Clear and Consistent Communication: We develop compensation structures and classification frameworks with inherent clarity, using straightforward job leveling frameworks, transparent progression criteria, and consistent application of compensable factors. Communication materials are tailored to different stakeholder needs—executive summaries for leadership, detailed implementation guides for HR professionals, and practical explanation tools for managers and employees. We create accessible resources explaining compensation philosophy, range structure, placement methodology, and future growth opportunities. Systems are designed with straightforward administration requirements that do not require specialized expertise for day- to-day management.
Benefit to you: Clear communication builds trust, ensures understanding across all the City levels, and simplifies system administration.
Compression Planning and Analysis: Our implementation approach includes detailed financial modeling that identifies potential compression scenarios before placement decisions are finalized. We analyze the distribution of current salaries against proposed ranges to identify employee clusters and gaps requiring special attention. Implementation options are developed with multi-year cost projections, including various phasing alternatives to balance budget constraints with equity requirements. Special focus is given to departments with significant longevity differences and areas with recent hiring at market rates. This proactive approach prevents creating new inequities while addressing existing compression issues within available resources.
Benefit to you: Proactively addressing compression issues helps maintain equity, improve retention, and align pay with organizational priorities.
Our Approach:
The City desires human resources assistance to conduct a comprehensive classification and total compensation study that will result in equitable, competitive and legally defensible classification and pay practices, while also creating consistencies across its five bargaining units and non-represented classifications.
The City currently employs approximately 230 full-time employees. General employees and safety employees are represented by one of four (4) labor units. Management and supervisory employees are not represented by a recognized employee organization while the City Manager is a contract employee.
12 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
We understand that the City wishes to complete the classification and compensation study for its safety labor units (CCPOA, CCPMA, and CCFA) prior to the other labor units. Our approach to the project for both groups is as follows:
The study’s first level of effort is to initially develop an updated and well-structured classification system and classification descriptions for all study positions that are legally compliant (including Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requirements), internally aligned, reflective of contemporary standards, and accurately descriptive of current roles, responsibilities, duties, and qualifications.
The classification analysis process includes orientation and briefing sessions with employees, management, Human Resources, union representation, and other stakeholders, as appropriate; the completion of a position description questionnaire by employees; and interviews with supervisors and management to address any classification issues. All participating employees will be allocated to an appropriate classification; draft classification descriptions will be developed, and sent back to the City and incumbents for additional feedback and concurrence.
A second level of effort will be to review the City’s compensation structure for the studied classifications and to conduct a compensation market survey (salaries plus benefits) using a set of appropriate comparator agencies. The identification of comparator agencies, benchmark classifications, and benefits to be collected is an iterative process that includes all stakeholders. We have found this open discussion philosophy to be critical to our success for organizational buy-in. Once the external data development is completed, we will make specific recommendations for internal equity for non-benchmarked classifications and classifications without a large enough market sampling.
The compensation study will contain specific recommendations regarding the integration of all study classifications into the City’s compensation structure, with the goal of developing a clearly designed, internally equitable format that is flexible for career opportunity and future growth. Our study will make recommendations regarding a salary structure that takes the City’s compensation preferences into consideration as well as the appropriate placement of each classification on the City’s salary schedule.
The study includes a significant number of meetings with the Study Project Team, Human Resources, employees, union representation, and the City Council, as desired. We have expertise in labor/management relations and understand the importance of active participation by all stakeholders to ensure a successful outcome. The meetings and “stakeholder touch-points” that we recommend ensure understanding of the project parameters, enhance accurate intake and output of information, and create a collaborative and interactive approach resulting in greater buy-in for study recommendations. This interactive approach has resulted in almost 100% implementation success of Gallagher’s studies.
The majority of our clients are unionized and our larger city, county, and special district clients typically have multiple unions. Due to the multitude of stakeholder groups who are affected by any classification and compensation study Gallagher conducts, our team understands the importance of accurate and validated data that withstands any scrutiny, effective and ongoing communication throughout each effort, and collaboration with the various stakeholder groups to ensure organizational buy-in to our findings and recommendations. We have developed a unique methodology of stakeholder “touchpoints” and collaboration that has made us highly successful and effective and has earned our team respect, agreement, and understanding from all stakeholders. In addition, we adjust and customize our methodology based on each individual client’s unique needs and circumstances.
We also recognize that both the City and union representatives have obligations to employees and members to ensure that any study is conducted in a fair and equitable manner. Our project work plans are designed for transparency and we strongly encourage dialog with all stakeholders on study deliverables so they in turn can express their concerns; we all have a shared goal of ensuring the process followed is fair and equitable.
This intense and comprehensive stakeholder engagement and our transparent study processes are also a mechanism of quality control. The fact that our information, data, and recommendations have to be able to
13 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
withstand utmost scrutiny by diverse stakeholders requires an in-depth multi-step quality control process for deliverables. This involves Gallagher team member validation of classification analyses and compensation data, Gallagher Project Manager review of all classification and compensation analyses, recommendations and deliverables, and finally Gallagher Principal (Project Director) review of deliverables before submittal to the client.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
Classification Objectives:
• To analyze and update the City’s classification system and study each position’s classification description and structure through a comprehensive process of job analysis and evaluation, including review of existing documentation, position description questionnaire completion, employee interviews, management interviews, analysis of existing positions and working situations, analysis of levels of duties and responsibilities, and other professional methods, as appropriate; • To recommend each study position for title change or reclassification (as appropriate), create new classifications (if applicable), eliminate outdated classifications (if applicable), and consolidate classifications assigned to similar functional areas (as appropriate); • To provide for growth and flexibility of assignment within the new classification structure, where feasible, in recognition that some job duties and responsibilities may evolve over time, as well as to provide adequate career paths and class series/job families that will foster career service within the City; • To clearly state definitions of job classifications, the typical job functions, and minimum required qualifications such as education, prior work experience, knowledge, skills, abilities, licenses, certifications, and physical demands and working conditions;
• To provide a classification structure that ensures regulatory compliance, including appropriate FLSA designation as well as meeting ADA and EEO regulations; and • To ensure sufficient documentation and training throughout the study, on methods used to determine appropriate classification and level, methods for logical progression of movement between classifications, classification concepts and distinguishing characteristics, as well as the delivery of final reports and recommendations to guide the organization in implementing, managing, and maintaining the classification system.
Compensation Objectives:
• To make recommendations regarding a list of appropriate, logical and defensible comparator agencies, benchmark classifications, and benefits to be collected prior to beginning the compensation portion of the study;
• To collect accurate salary and benefit data from the approved group of comparator agencies and to ensure that the information is analyzed in a manner that is clear and comprehensible to the Study Project Team, Human Resources, management, employees, union representation, and the Council; • To carefully analyze the scope and level of duties and responsibilities, requirements for successful work performance, and other factors for survey classes, according to generally accepted compensation practices;
• To review the City’s compensation structure and practices and develop compensation recommendations, including appropriate internal salary relationships, that will assist the City in recruiting, motivating, and retaining competent staff;
• To develop solutions that address pay equity issues and create a market adjustment implementation strategy supporting the City’s goals, objectives, and budget considerations; • To create a comprehensive final report summarizing the compensation study approach and methodology, analytical tools, findings, and recommended compensation structure; and; • To ensure sufficient documentation and training throughout the study, on methods used to determine appropriate salary ranges, methods for logical progression within the salary scale for each classification, and other practices, so that our recommendations can be implemented and maintained in a competent and fair manner.
Overall Objectives:
• To review and understand all current documentation, rules, regulations, policies, budgets, procedures, class descriptions, organizational charts, memoranda of understanding, personnel policies, wage and
14 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
salary schedules, and related information so that our recommendations can be operationally incorporated with a minimum of disruption;
• To conduct project start-up meetings with study stakeholders to discuss any specific concerns with respect to the development of classification and compensation recommendations; finalize study plans and timetables; conduct orientation sessions with management, union leadership, and staff in order to educate and explain the scope of the study and describe what are and are not reasonable study expectations and goals;
• To work collaboratively and effectively with the City and its stakeholders while at the same time maintaining control and objectivity in the conduct of the study; and • To provide effective ongoing communications throughout the duration of the project and continued support after implementation.
METHODOLOGY / WORKPLAN / DELIVERABLES
Our approach is to complete the classification and job evaluation before completing the compensation review.
The reasons for this include:
• The description of the work performed and the requirements for that work are, in the minds of the employees and their supervisors, inextricably associated with the “value of that work” or compensation, which is often a highly emotional issue. Separating the two phases of the study, even though elements of phases may be conducted concurrently, tends to produce more objective classification results. • The compensation review will be completed when there is a full understanding of the work of the City, thereby ensuring that the data developed from the labor market compared to the City’s classifications is accurate.
Given these parameters, our approach is as follows:
PHASE I – CLASSIFICATION STUDY:
Milestone A. Project Kickoff Meetings, Orientations, and Initial Documentation Review
Initial Meetings and Document Review
This phase includes identifying the City’s Study Project Team, contract administrator, and reporting relationships. Our team of Project Managers and Consultants will conduct a briefing session with the Study Project Team to explain process and methodology; create the specific work plan and work schedule; identify subsequent tasks to be accomplished; reaffirm the primary objectives and specific end products; determine deadline dates for satisfactory completion of the overall assignment; determine who will be responsible for coordinating/scheduling communications with employees, management, union representation, and the Council; and develop a timetable for conducting the same.
We will also conduct an initial meeting with Department Heads to provide information regarding study methodology, process, timing and logistics and provide them an opportunity to communicate any areas of concerns and pain points they may be experiencing with the current classification and compensation system.
Included in this task will be the gathering of written documentation, identifying current incumbents, and assembling current class descriptions, organizational charts, salary schedules, budgets, memoranda of understanding (“MOU”), personnel policies, previous classification and compensation studies, and any other relevant documentation to gain a general understanding of City operations.
City terminology and methods of current classification and compensation procedures, will be reviewed and agreed to. The Position Description Questionnaire (“PDQ”) will be discussed and customized as needed to meet the study objectives prior to distributing copies to employees. We will discuss methodology, agree to formats for class descriptions and compensation results, identify appropriate comparator agencies, benchmark classifications, and benefits to be surveyed for compensation survey purposes. We will respond to any questions that may arise from the various stakeholders.
Communications and Engagement Plan
15 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
We will develop a communications and engagement plan to foster organizational buy-in and acceptance of study outcomes and consultant recommendations throughout the project by District stakeholders including employees. The goal of the communications and engagement plan is to build positive and effective relationships with the study stakeholders, to achieve consensus whenever possible, to strive to understand and take into consideration stakeholders’ ideas, opinions, desires, and issues, and to fully address their concerns.
The variety of communication and engagement channels will help inform, consult, involve, collaborate with, and empower City stakeholders, and ensure that our methodology and “stakeholder touch-points” are followed and executed at each study milestone.
We are committed to working closely with City study advisors (Human Resources, District leadership, employee representatives, if any, and other stakeholders) to understand the needs of the mutual constituencies (employees) and to ensure that the Study Project Team, Gallagher team, management, and any employee representatives meet the highest standards of stakeholder interaction, including communicating clearly, politely, honestly, and promptly, and treating everyone fairly, equally, and with respect.
Employee Orientations and Distribution of Position Descriptions Questionnaire We will facilitate an appropriate number of orientation meetings with employees over the course of several days and distribute our Position Description Questionnaire (“PDQ”). While these meetings are not mandatory, they form the beginning of the educational process that continues throughout the study. We will discuss the importance of the employees’ involvement in the study and their participation in PDQ completion and job analysis interviews. Project processes will be explained, expectations will be clarified, and elements that are not a part of the study will also be covered. Questions will be answered and a detailed explanation and examples for completing the PDQ will be given.
In recent years, we have found that it can be a much more efficient and cost effective for our clients to conduct employee orientations virtually because this approach avoids multiple employees having to travel to a central location and potentially losing hours of productivity versus simply clicking on a video link. We can provide the City with the technological options to ensure a smooth process. Our clients have received these operational changes very positively and our client-centric approach and methodology does not change with the venue.
Milestone B. Collection and Review of PDQs and Employee/Supervisor/Manager Interviews
Collection and Review of PDQs
We recommend giving employees in the same classification the option of collaborating on completing a PDQ together, if the employees so choose. At the same time, we will invite employees to complete an individual PDQ if they prefer and if they wish to be interviewed separately. We provide an electronic version of our questionnaire so that employees can more easily complete it. Employees complete the questionnaire and then send it to their supervisor for review, comment, and signature. We typically require a second level of review by the next level of management in the reporting structure. This ensures that all staff have an opportunity to provide information as to what the nature of the job is for each job classification.
Upon receipt of the PDQs in our office, Gallagher staff will review and analyze the PDQs in detail along with other documentation to obtain an understanding of the duties and responsibilities assigned to each position.
Employee/Supervisor/Manager Interviews
Interviews will be scheduled with employees. Because this is a critical step in the information-gathering and educational process, we recommend scheduling interviews with at least a representative sample of employees in each classification that will be included in the study. Typically, we employ the following approach and interview:
• All employees in single-position classifications;
• An adequate sampling of employees in multiple-position classifications; and • Any employee who requests an interview.
16 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
We will offer employees the option to be interviewed in a group session with incumbents in the same classification or to request an individual interview if they prefer.
Interviews will then be held with supervisory and management staff (division managers, department heads, etc.), who will clarify their own responsibilities and/or confirm the information we have received in the interviews with their staff (we allow more time for these interviews).
The purpose of the interviews is to clarify and supplement the questionnaire data and to respond to potential perception differences regarding roles, tasks, scope, and supervisory responsibilities. The appropriateness of the following will be assessed:
• Work being completed and relationships of positions to each other within a division/department as well as across the organization; and
• Classification structure and reporting structure.
Milestone C. Classification Concept, Preliminary Allocation, and Draft Class Description Development
Classification Concept and Preliminary Allocation Development Prior to developing detailed class descriptions, our job evaluation will result in a classification concept and employee allocation document that will be submitted to the City for review and approval. We will compare changes in business need and operations, as well as any reorganizations, with the established classification system and job families as well as review internal relationships between classifications to define the reasons for, and effects of, the proposed changes.
Our job analysis method is the whole position analysis approach. Objective factors in the whole position job analysis methodology include:
1. Decision making/judgment
2. Difficulty and complexity of work
3. Supervisory responsibilities
4. Non-supervisory responsibilities
5. Minimum qualifications
6. Working conditions/risk factors
7. Contacts
This document will list broad class concepts and highlight where significant changes are recommended, such as creating or collapsing class series in the same functional area and/or separating or combining classifications assigned to different functional areas. We will review and analyze potential career ladders and promotional opportunities, including clearly delineated and distinguished levels within classification series. We will also review and update established titling guidelines.
A detailed, incumbent-specific allocation list for each position included in the study will be prepared, specifying current and proposed classification title and the impact of our recommendations (reclassification – upgrade or downgrade, title change, or no change).
After we have completed this process, a meeting will be arranged to review any recommended changes to the classification plan with the Study Project Team.
Draft Class Description Development
After preliminary approval of the class concepts and allocation lists, new and/or updated class descriptions will be developed for each proposed classification, following the format approved by the City. From the review of the PDQs and employee interviews, we will update duties, responsibilities, and minimum qualifications of each class specification. We will develop new class specifications if duties, responsibilities, and minimum qualifications have changed significantly, and/or if we recommend new classifications/class levels.
17 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Following EEO Uniform Guidelines, we will review, analyze, and update knowledge, skills, abilities, education and experience, position definitions, purpose, distinguishing characteristics, supervision received and exercised, position functions and special requirements including licensing and certifications.
We will also review and update physical demands based on the most typical job functions of each classification in accordance with the ADA. Finally, we will review each classification’s typical job functions and determine exempt vs. non-exempt status in accordance with “white collar” exemptions under the FLSA.
Milestone D. Facilitation of Draft Class Description Review, Finalization of Classification Plan, and Draft of Interim Report and Final Report
A draft copy of the revised/new class description will be submitted to the Study Project Team and subsequently to each manager for review to provide comments and concerns regarding any modifications to the classification structure and specifications. Our experience has been that this is one of the most critical phases of the project (as well as one of the most time-consuming). Our proactive and effective communication process at this juncture has always avoided formal appeals, adversarial meetings, or major conflicts at the conclusion of our studies.
Allocation and/or class description changes will be made as required and the class specifications will be finalized and submitted for approval. We will provide a written response to stakeholder feedback to inform stakeholders of the outcome of their concerns.
A Draft Interim Report of the Classification Study will be completed and submitted to the Study Project Team for review and comment. The report will contain:
• Documentation regarding classification methodology and process as well as all findings, analysis, and resulting recommendations for each studied position;
• The recommended allocation list, classification title changes, job family and career ladder/career growth issues, reporting relationships, and other factors; and • Classification concepts as well as methods used to determine appropriate classification and level, methods for logical progression between classifications, distinguishing characteristics and other pertinent information for implementation and continued maintenance of the recommendations.
Once we have received the City’s comments regarding the Draft Interim Report and have made any necessary changes, a Final Classification Report will be developed.
PHASE II – TOTAL COMPENSATION STUDY:
Milestone A. Determination of Survey Elements and Delivery of Market Survey
During the initial meeting with the Study Project Team, we will discuss and agree to the compensation study factors. We will confirm appropriate, logical and defensible comparator agencies that will be included in the external market survey, which will be the foundation for ensuring that the City’s compensation plan is competitively aligned with the external labor market. We will also confirm those classifications that will be surveyed in the market (i.e., benchmark classifications), with the intention of internally aligning the remaining classifications with those that were surveyed. Finally, we will determine the list of benefits that the City wants to include in the total compensation data gathering process.
1. Determination of Comparator Agencies
The selection of comparator agencies is a critical step in the study process. We typically use the following factors to identify appropriate comparators and will receive approval before proceeding with the compensation study.
Our recommended methodology is that we involve management, Human Resources, employee representation, and the City Council, in the decision-making process of selecting which comparable agencies are included, PRIOR to beginning the study. Our experience has shown that this is the most
18 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
successful approach. The factors that we typically review when selecting and recommending appropriate comparator agencies include:
• Organizational type and structure – While various organizations may provide overlapping services and employ some staff having similar duties and responsibilities, the role of each organization is unique, particularly in regard to its relationship to the citizens it serves and level of service expectation. During this iterative process, the City’s current/ previous list of comparators, and the advantages/disadvantages of including them and/or others would be discussed. In the past, when Gallagher (at the time still Koff & Associates) performed compensation studies for the City, 13 comparator agencies were surveyed. We will include those in our comparator analysis. • Similarity of population served, District/City demographics, District/City staff, and operational budgets – These elements provide guidelines in relation to resources required (staff and funding) and available for the provision of services.
• Scope of services provided – While having an organization that provides all of the services at the same level of citizen expectation is ideal for comparators, as long as the majority of services are provided in a similar manner, sufficient data should be available for analysis. When reviewing this factor, the City’s unique services would be evaluated in order to ensure that the majority of comparators provide the same services. This ensures that each comparator yields a sufficient number of matches for the City’s jobs.
• Labor market – The reality of today’s labor market is that many agencies are in competition for the same pool of qualified employees, because large portions of the workforce don’t live in the communities they serve, are accustomed to lengthy commutes, and are more likely to consider changing jobs in a larger geographic area than in the past. In addition, working-from-home opportunities and hybrid work schedules have further changed the landscape of supply and demand of talent. Therefore, the geographic labor market area (where the City is competing for talent) is taken into consideration.
• Cost of living and cost of labor – The price of housing and other cost-of-living related issues are some of the biggest factors in determining labor markets and the appropriateness of comparator agencies. When the identified survey market includes comparators that are located outside of the City’s geographic area, we analyze cost of labor to ascertain whether there are significant differences and, if so, we are able to apply geographic cost-of-labor adjustments factors to the market data to ensure and apples-to-apples comparison.
We typically recommend using 10-12 comparator agencies for all survey benchmarks in order to achieve statistical significance but are flexible and can easily use a different approach based on the City’s preferences.
2. Determination of Benchmark Classifications
In the same collaborative manner as described in Step 1 above, we will work with the City’s stakeholders to select those classifications that will be surveyed. “Benchmark classes” are ordinarily chosen to reflect a broad spectrum of class levels. In addition, those that are selected normally include classes that are most likely to be found in other similar agencies, and therefore provide a sufficient valid data sample for analysis. Internal relationships will be determined between the benchmarked and non-benchmarked classifications and internal equity alignments will be made for salary recommendation purposes.
Due to the fact that the labor market typically yields reliable data, we recommend using approximately 60- 65% of all classifications as benchmarks.
3. Determination of Salary and Benefits Data to Be Collected In addition to base salaries, per the RFP, Benefits to survey will include, but not be limited to:
• Retirement
- Defined benefit and defined contribution plans
- Formulas
- Final compensation
- Cost-sharing arrangements, etc.
19 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
• Retiree
- Medical
- Dental, Vision
• Active employees
- Medical
- Dental
- Vision
- Drug prescription programs
• Cost-sharing arrangements for each type of benefit, coinsurance, copayments, deductibles, out-of- pocket and lifetime maximums
• Life Insurance and AD&D
• Supplemental Long and Short Term Disability
• EAP, Flexible Spending Accounts, HRA’s, etc.
• Paid Leave entitlements
- Vacation
- Holidays
- Personal
- Sick
- Administrative
• Alternative Work Schedules
• Cash in Lieu
• Wellness Program
• Auto allowance
• Compensation or extra incentive pay for certifications and for which classifications • Tuition reimbursement and Training and development
• Any additional benefits such as laptops, cell phones, etc.
Data from Comparators and Preliminary Analysis of Data
Gallagher does not collect market compensation data by merely sending out a written questionnaire. Our experienced compensation analysts conduct all of the data collection and analysis to ensure validity of the data and quality control. We collect classification descriptions, organization charts, salary schedules, personnel policies, budgets, MOUs, and other information via website, by telephone, or email directly from each comparator agency. We then compare job description to job description and not just job titles, therefore ensuring true “matches” of at least 70%, which is the threshold we use to determine whether to include a comparator classification or not. As mentioned above in the classification methodology above, our job analysis method is the whole position analysis approach, which we apply here as well.
We also schedule appointments with knowledgeable individuals at each comparator to answer specific questions. We find that information collected using these methods has a very high validity rate and allows us to substantiate the data for employees, management, and governing bodies.
Data will be entered into spreadsheet format designed for ease of interpretation and use. Information will be calculated based upon average and median figures allowing the City to make informed compensation decisions. Other elements of the compensation survey report are agencies surveyed; comparable class titles; salary range maximum/control point; number of observations; and percent of the City’s salary range above/below the market values.
In addition, we will include any type of statistical representation and analysis that the City desires such as 60 th,
70th, or any other percentiles per the City’s compensation philosophy.
Benefits data will be displayed in an easy-to-read format. In addition, we are often asked to collect “additional” benefits, which we typically report on a separate spreadsheet.
20 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Milestone B. Draft Compensation Findings/Stakeholder Review and Feedback
As part of our transparent approach and communication strategy to ensure organizational buy-in to the study, we share the market survey with the organization. We first distribute our draft findings to the Study Project Team. After their preliminary review, we will meet with the Study Project Team and other stakeholders (including Human Resources, management, employees) to clarify data, to receive requests for reanalysis of certain comparators, and to answer questions and address concerns. This provides an opportunity for our team to engage with study stakeholders in a collaborative manner. If questions arise, we conduct follow-up analysis to reconfirm our original analysis and/or make corrections, as appropriate.
Milestone C. Development of Recommendations, Final Reports, and Presentations
Analysis of Internal Relationships and Alignment
To determine internal equity for all studied positions, considerable attention is given to this phase of the project. It is necessary to develop an internal position hierarchy based on the organizational value of each classification. Again, we utilize the whole position analysis methodology as described earlier.
By reviewing those factors, we will make recommendations regarding vertical salary differentials between classes in a class series, for example, as well as across departments. This analysis will be integrated with the results of the compensation survey and the City’s existing compensation plan.
The ultimate goal of this critical step in the process is to address any potential internal equity issues and concerns with the current compensation system, including compaction issues between certain classifications.
We will create a sound and logical compensation structure for the various levels within each class series, so that career ladders are not only reflected in the classification system but also in the compensation system, with pay differentials between levels that allow employees to progress on a clear path of career growth and development. Career ladders will be looked at vertically as well as horizontally.
Compensation Structure Development
We will review and make recommendations regarding the City’s salary structure (set of salary ranges, salary differentials, steps within ranges, and/or alternative compensation plans) within which the classes are allocated, based upon the City’s preferred compensation model. We will also work with the City on their compensation philosophy as it relates to market position and the formulation of their compensation plan. This analysis will result in external pay equity, solutions to address any pay equity issues, and an implementation strategy supporting City goals, objectives, and budget considerations.
Draft recommendations will be discussed with the Study Project Team and management for discussions and decisions on overall pay philosophy and the practicality of acceptance and prior to developing an Interim Report.
Final Report
A Draft Interim Report of the Compensation Study will be completed and submitted to the Study Project Team for review and comment. The report will include:
• An executive summary of the compensation study results; • A set of all market data spreadsheets;
• A proposed compensation structure;
• A proposed salary range placement document;
• A procedure to address employees whose current base pay either falls below the minimum of or exceeds the maximum of their newly assigned pay range;
• Implementation options surrounding our recommendations; and • A guide for implementing, managing and maintaining the compensation system.
Once all of the City’s questions/concerns are addressed and discussed, a Final Classification and Compensation Report will be created and submitted in the City’s preferred format. The Final Report will incorporate any appropriate revisions identified and submitted during the review process.
21 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Final Presentation
Our proposal includes multiple meetings and weekly oral and written status/progress updates to the Study Project Team. Regarding the involvement of the City Council, we recommend at least one initial meeting to confirm the comparator agencies to be included in the study, one interim study session (to discuss the initial findings of the compensation study), and one final presentation of our Final Report. Of course, we are flexible regarding having more or less interaction with the Council, based on the City’s preferences.
Expectations of City Support:
In order to conduct this study in the most timely and cost-effective manner, we ask for support in the following areas:
• Timely provision of written documentation, such as current class specifications, union contracts, organizational charts, budget documents, salary schedules, past studies, etc.; • Assistance in the notification and scheduling of initial kickoff and other meetings and the provision of adequate interview tools and resources;
• Assistance in the compilation of current descriptions with the PDQ; collection of PDQs from employees and forwarding them to Gallagher; and in ensuring that materials are completed and returned in a timely manner; and
• Meeting agreed-upon timelines.
In terms of time commitment for City staff, we understand that the City hires an outside consultant to conduct and coordinate the entire effort. Therefore, it is our goal to reduce the time commitment of City staff as much as possible and to only request assistance in the coordination of some of the steps in the process, such as scheduling meetings, disseminating information, and in general, being a channel of communication between our firm and employees.
Post-Study Consultation and Support:
We are committed to providing the City with the highest-quality product and service. Providing ongoing consultation and support after study completion is a service that is included in our professional fees and a continued relationship-building aspect of our client relationship that we highly value.
We often find that clients will call or email with follow-up questions and to discuss certain aspects of the study, ask why decisions and recommendations were made, and other important components of the study. We consider post-implementation support as part of our customer service.
Should the City request any additional meetings and/or training after completion of the study and/or other specific, identifiable work efforts, such as single-position compensation reviews or conducting annual surveys, we would honor our composite hourly rate for actual hours worked. However, from experience, we expect that most follow-up support will be conducted via telephone and email and this is absolutely included in our project fee for this project.
22 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Project Timeline
The following is an estimate to complete each phase by month. We will discuss the details of each phase during Phase 1 and identify specific deadlines for the project at that time. We will conduct frequent conference calls with the City to ensure the schedule is monitored throughout the project. In today’s world, speed is particularly important. However, given the significance of this project, it is just as important for City officials, department heads, and employees to have sufficient time to review and approve the recommendations of Gallagher and to ensure proper communications occur. We have prepared a timeline to ensure the City has the work products in an expeditious manner. Our phases run concurrently; in that we do not wait until the full completion of a phase to begin another phase. We are prepared to commence the work within two weeks of receiving your authorization to proceed.
The timeline below is intended for the entire project, including all employee groups. We will work with the City to determine an appropriate timeline for the safety labor groups to ensure we will meet the City’s needs and requirements.
PHASE MONTH
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Strategic Alignment, Project Initiation, & Study
Administration
Classification & Career Framework Review + Design
Compensation, Benchmarking & Market Analysis
Implementation Strategy, Final Reports, & Sustainability Planning
Post-Project Support & Optional Ongoing Services Up to 10 hours of direct support for the 6 months following project closure
23 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
References
Contact names and phone numbers are listed for each project. These projects are relevant to demonstrating our ability to meet the needs of the City and show considerable experience in developing compensation systems for a variety of public sector organizations. Our references can attest to the timeliness, quality, and responsiveness of the services we provide, our understanding of job classification and pay equity, and our knowledge of legal issues, such as the ADA and FLSA, and our expertise in working with public organizations and sensitive personnel issues. The projects listed below were completed by members of your project team and within similar timeframes to what the City is requesting.
The work Gallagher completed for these clients is the same or very similar to what the City is requesting.
While we’re not able to provide individual work samples or sample deliverables from each client due to confidentiality of the information, we are attaching one sample classification report and one sample compensation report to this proposal.
AGENCY & PROJECT CONTACT
City of Coachella
Compensation study, completed 2025.
Several Classification and Compensation Studies in 2008, 2014, 2016, and 2017.
Ms. Castulo Estrada
Utilities Director
(760) 501-8100 ext. 232
1515 Sixth Street
Coachella, CA 92236
[email protected]
City of Corona
City-wide Classification and Total Compensation Study, completed 2022.
Ms. Angela Rivera
Human Resources Director
(951) 672-6777
29844 Haun Rd.
Menifee, CA 92586
[email protected]
Please note: Ms. Rivera is no longer with the
City of Corona and is now Human Resources
Director for City of Menifee. We provide her
information as she can provide a reference for
our services while at City of Corona.
City of Indian Wells
Classification Study currently underway, 2026.
Total Compensation Study, completed 2021.
Citywide Classification and Compensation Study, Completed 2004.
Mr. Kevin McCarthy
Finance Director
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
(760) 776-0235
[email protected]
City of Menifee
Citywide Classification and Total Compensation Study, completed 2024.
Citywide Classification and Total Compensation Study, completed 2017.
Citywide Classification and Total Compensation Study, completed 2011.
Mr. Jonathan Nicks
Deputy City Manager
(951) 723-3707
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
[email protected]
City of Moreno Valley
Natalie Potter
Human Resources Manager
24 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Classification study currently ongoing. (951)413-3043
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92553
[email protected]
City of Murrieta
Citywide Classification and Total Compensation Study, completed 2019.
Ms. Stacey Stevenson
Deputy City Manager
(951) 461-6004
1 Town Square
Murrieta, CA 92562
[email protected]
Please note: Ms. Stevenson was K&A’s
reference when she was at City of National
City. She is now the Deputy City Manager at
the City of Murrieta.
City of San Bernardino
Current classification and compensation study with targeted completion in 2026.
Genevieve Valdez
Deputy Director of Human Resources
909.998.2060 | x2062
290 North D Street
San Bernardino, California 92401
[email protected]
Coachella Valley Water District
Classification and Compensation Study, 2023.
Mr. Bill Walters
Human Resources Administrator
(760)398-2661 ext. 2372
51501 Tyler St.
Coachella, CA 92236
[email protected]
Additional references and/or case studies are available upon request to support decision-making.
Case Studies
Project 1 – City of Corona
The City of Corona (“City”) desired human resources assistance to conduct an objective analysis of the current classification and compensation practices of the City; recommend changes that result in equitable, competitive and legally defensible classification and pay practices that would enrich the attraction and retention of qualified individuals as well as enhance opportunities for growth and professional development; evaluate the current employee benefit and compensation plan against local and regional m arkets, and comparable employers; and provide recommendations for adjustments.
At the time, the City employed approximately six hundred thirty -seven (637) full-time and approximately ninety (90) part-time positions, in approximately two hundred fifty-one (251) classifications. Per the City’s website, the City had approximately 298 c lassification descriptions, indicating that some of those classifications may either be vacant or no longer in use or inactive.
The study’s first level of effort (Classification Study) was to initially develop an updated and well -structured classification system and classification descriptions for all study positions that were legally compliant (including Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requirements), internally aligned, reflective of contemporary standards, and accurately descriptive of current roles, responsibilities, duties, and qualifications. The classification analysis process incl uded orientation and briefing sessions with employees, management, Human Resources, union representation, and other stakeholders, as appropriate; the completion
25 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
of a position description questionnaire by employees; interviews with at least a representative sample of employees in each study classification; and interviews with supervisors and management to address any classification issues. All participating employ ees were allocated to an appropriate classification; draft classification descriptions were developed, and sent back to the City and incumbents for additional feedback and concurrence.
A second level of effort (Compensation Study) was to review the City’s compensation structure for the studied classifications and to conduct a total compensation market survey (salaries plus benefits) using a set of pre- established comparator agencies. The confirmation/identification of comparator agencies, benchmark classifications, and benefits to be collected was an iterative process that included all stakeholders. We have found this open discussion philosophy to be critical to our success for organizational buy -in. Once the external data development was completed, we made specific recommendations for internal equity for non-benchmarked classifications and classifications without a large enough market sampling. The compensation study contained specific recommendations regarding the integration of all study classifications into the City’s compensation structure, with the goal of developing a clearly designed, internally equitable format that was flexible for career opportunity and future growth. Our study made recommendations regarding a salary structure that took the City’s compensation preferences into consideration as well as the appropriate placement of each classification on that salary schedule.
The study’s total fee was $320,000.
Georg Krammer and Mike Harary were Co-Project Directors and the size of the study required a team of 10+ classification and compensation consultants to perform the various components of the study.
The study took approximately two years to complete due to the extenuating circumstances of the COVID -19 pandemic whose lockdown regulations were mandated within a mere few weeks from the start of the project, which delayed the completion of PDQs by employees by at least six months.
Gallagher/K&A’s relationship with the client is very positive and the City is one of our most valued references.
City of Corona Contact Information:
Ms. Angela Rivera, Chief Talent Officer
(951)279-3501
400 S. Vicentia Avenue, Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Project 2 – City of El Monte
The City of El Monte (“City”) desired human resources consulting assistance to conduct an objective analysis of the current citywide classification and total compensation practices of the City; recommend changes that result in equitable, competitive and legally defensible classification and pay practices that would enrich the attraction and retention of qualified individuals as well as enhance opportunities for growth and professional development; evaluate the current employee benefit and compensation plan against local and regional markets, and comparable employers; provide recommendations for adjustments.
At the time, the City employed approximately two hundred seventy -eight (278) full -time regular employees, in approximately one hundred twelve (112) classifications and four (4) bargaining units; there were also seven (7) executive classifications. Also to be included in the study, were approximately two hundred thirteen (213) part- time employees, in approximately thirty-five (35) classifications; the part-time employees were not represented.
The study’s first level of effort (Classification Study) was to initially develop an updated and well -structured classification system and classification descriptions for all study positions that were legally compliant (including Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requirements), internally aligned, reflective of contemporary standards, and accurately descriptive of current roles, responsibilities, duties, and qualifications. The classification analysis process incl uded orientation and briefing sessions with employees,
26 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
management, Human Resources, union representation, and other stakeholders, as appropriate; the completion of a position description questionnaire by employees; interviews with at least a representative sample of employees in each study classification; and interviews with supervisors and management to address any classification issues. All participating employees were allocated to an appropriate classification; draft classification descriptions were developed, and sent back to the City and incumbents for additional feedback and concurrence.
A second level of effort (Compensation Study) was to review the City’s compensation structure for the studied classifications and to conduct a total compensation market survey (salaries plus benefits) using a set of pre- established comparator agencies. The confirmation/identification of comparator agencies, benchmark classifications, and benefits to be collected was an iterative process that included all stakeholders. We have found this open discussion philosophy to be critical to our success for organizational buy -in. Once the external data development was completed, we made specific recommendations for internal equity for non-benchmarked classifications and classifications without a large enough market sampling. The compensation study contained specific recommendations regarding the integration of all study classifications into the City’s compensation structure, with the goal of developing a clearly designed, internally equitable format that was flexible for career opportunity and future growth. Our study made recommendations regarding a salary structure that took the City’s compensation preferences into consideration as well as the appropriate placement of each classification on that salary schedule.
The study’s total fee was $180,000.
Georg Krammer and Debbie Owen were Co-Project Directors and the size of the study required a team of 8+ classification and compensation consultants to perform the various components of the study.
The study took approximately one year to complete.
Gallagher/K&A’s relationship with the client is very positive and the City is one of our most valued references.
City of El Monte Contact Information:
Ms. Kristen Enomoto, Senior Management Analyst
(626)580-2044
11333 Valley Boulevard, El Monte, CA 91713
[email protected]
27 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Contractual Considerations
The Parties expressly agree that this Agreement allows for cooperative procurement. Any public body (health or educational) may utilize this Agreement if authorized by Gallagher in writing. Participation in this cooperative procurement is strictly voluntary. If authorized by Gallagher in writing, this Agreement may be extended to certain entities to purchase certain services provided by Gallagher at fees in accordance with this Agreement (each, a “Participating Entity”). Participating Entities will purchase services directly from Gallagher by and through this Agreement as if it were the named ‘Client’ hereunder. Gallagher shall look to the Participating Entity and the Participating Entity shall look to Gallagher in the event of invoicing, payments, and/or contractual disputes in accordance with the terms set forth herein. The named Client, nor any other Participating Entity, shall be held jointly and severally liable for any costs or damages in the event of a dispute between Gallagher and that Participating Entity. By entering into this Agreement, no Participating Entity is precluded from other agreements or competitive processes, as the case may arise.
Additionally, each Party or its Affiliates may execute a Statement of Work pursuant to this Agreement with the other Party or any of such other Party’s Affiliates, and each such Statement of Work will form a separate contract between the signatory parties thereto. Where the parties to a Statement of Work are an Affiliate of Gallagher or Client, unless context dictates otherwise, references within any provisions of this Agreement to “Gallagher” or “Company” that are incorporated into such Statement of Work shall, for the purposes of that Statement of Work, be construed as a reference to Gallagher’s or Client’s respective Affiliate that is the signatory to such Statement of Work. “Affiliate” as it relates to a Party means any entity that Controls, is Controlled by, or is under common Control with such Party. “Control” means the ability, whether directly or indirectly, to direct the affairs of another by means of ownership, contract or otherwise.
Gallagher is pleased to submit this proposal to the City. While this proposal is not meant to constitute a formal offer, acceptance, or contract, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the proposal, Gallagher is submitting this proposal with the understanding the parties would negotiate and sign a contract containing terms and conditions that are mutually acceptable to both parties.
Our legal team has provided the following exceptions to the terms and conditions outlined in this proposal. We are open to discussion on these.
• Gallagher is pleased to submit this proposal to client. While this proposal is not meant to constitute a formal offer, acceptance, or contract, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the proposal, Gallagher is submitting this proposal with the understanding the parties would negotiate and sign a contract containing terms and conditions that are mutually acceptable to both parties.
• Gallagher is not a federal contractor or subcontractor. Therefore, Gallagher cannot agree to federal contracting provisions contained within the RFP.
• Section 6 (PDF page 10); Section 20 (4 th Para) (PDF page 16) - We propose the following change to this section: Client shall own all final deliverables provided to Client by Gallagher as part of the services provided under this Agreement, provided however, Gallagher shall retain sole and exclus ive ownership of all right, title, and interest in, and to, its intellectual property and derivatives thereof which no data or Confidential Information of the Client was used to create and which was developed entirel y using Gallagher’s own resources, including any and all pre-existing or independently developed know -how, methods, processes and other materials prepared by Gallagher. To the extent Gallagher’s intellectual property is necessary for the Client to use the deliverables provided under this Agreement, Gallagher grants to Client a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to Gallagher’s intellectual property solely for Client’s use of such deliverables.
• Section 7 (PDF pages 10 - 11) - *Unless otherwise required by applicable law, Gallagher cannot agree to permit City to audit for 3 years after the agreement ends. Gallagher’s policy does allow for you to audit during the agreement.
28 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
• Section 15 (2nd Para) (PDF page 14) - Gallagher does not permit its employees to testify as subject matter expert witnesses in any client litigation, but Gallagher employees can act as witnesses to provide testimony relevant to the services being provided to the City.
• Section 16 (PDF pages 14 – 15) - Gallagher proposes the following change to this section:
Indemnification. Each party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the other party and its affiliates and their respective directors, officers, employees and agents har mless from any and all losses, liabilities, exposures, damages and all related costs and expenses, including reasonable legal fees, to the extent arising from or relating to any third party claims, demands, suits, allegations, or causes or threats of action based on the indemnifying party’s: (i) breach of any representation, warranty or covenant made by such party hereunder, or (ii) grossly negligent acts or omissions or intentional misconduct; provided, however, that the indemnifying party’s indemnification obligations hereunder shall be reduced to the extent that such losses and damages arise from the acts or omissions of the other party or its employees or agents.
• Section 16 (PDF pages 14 – 15) - A limitation of liability of fees paid needs to be added to the indemnification provision.
• Section 17 (PDF page 15); EXHIBIT "C" (PDF pages 23 – 25) - Below are Gallagher's insurance representations based on AJG Risk Management policies. These are not changed on a client by client basis:
Gallagher shall at all times during the term of this Agreement and for a period of two (2) years thereafter, obtain and maintain in force the following minimum insurance coverages and limits at its own expense:
Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance on an ISO form number CG 00 01 (or equivalent) covering claims for bodily injury, death, personal injury, or property damage occurring or arising out of the performance of this Agreement, including coverage for premises, products, and completed operations, on an occurrence basis, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence and $4,000,000 in the aggregate;
Workers Compensation insurance with statutory limits, as required by the state in which the work takes place, and Employer’s Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. Insurer will be licensed to do business in the state in which the work takes place;
Automobile Liability insurance on an ISO form number CA 00 01 covering all hired and non- owned automobiles with limit of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage;
Umbrella Liability insurance providing excess coverage over all limits and coverages with a limits no less than $10,000,000 per occurrence or in the aggregate;
Errors & Omissions Liability insurance, including extended reporting conditions of two (2) years with limits of no less than $5,000,000 per claim, or $10,000,000 in the aggregate;
Cyber Liability, Technology Errors & Omissions, and Network Security & Privacy Liability insurance, including extended reporting conditions of two (2) years with limits no less than $2,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate, inclusive of defense cost; and
Crime insurance covering third-party crime and employee dishonesty with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate.
29 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
All commercial insurance policies shall be written with insurers that have a minimum AM Best rating of no less than A-VI, and licensed to do business in the state of operation. Any cancelled or non-renewed policy will be replaced with no coverage gap, and a Certificate of Insurance evidencing the coverages set forth in this section shall be provided to Client upon request.
• Section 19 (PDF page 16) - This section will need to be modified so that no prior approval of personnel is required from the City. Gallagher will provide notice of substitutions after they occur. Gallagher can agree to a reasonable time period to provide such notice and will use good faith efforts to ensure that the City is satisfied with any replacement personnel assigned.
• Section 20 (4
th Para) (PDF page 16) - Gallagher may retain copies of its work product that contain Confidential Information for archival purposes or to defend its work product, and in accordance with legal disaster recovery and records retention requirements, store such copies and derivative works in an archival format (e.g. tape backups), provided that the information will remain Confidential as long as it is retained.
30 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
* * * * *
Thank you for this opportunity to offer our services. Please feel free to contact us at any time if you have any questions or require additional information. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Georg S. Krammer
Managing Director, Practice Operations & Hub Leader
510.658.5633 | [email protected]
Erik Smetana
Managing Director & National Practice Leader
314.494.4849 | [email protected]
31 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Appendix 1: Publications & Conference Presentations
Over the past 36 months, your Gallagher Public Sector, Community & Education consultants have actively contributed to the discourse through a variety of publications and conference presentations. These efforts underscore our commitment to thought leadership and our dedication to advancing industry practices. This section highlights our key publications and presentations, showcasing our expertise and the value we bring to our clients and partners.
Gallagher - Total Rewards and Trends in Higher Education Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. | February 2026
CALPELRA Conference
California Public Employers Labor Relations Association | September 2025 VAPSHRA Conference
Virginia Public Sector HR Association | September 2025
NCASG Conference
National Compensation Association of State Governments | September 2025 K-12 Emerging Trends & Risks for this School Year (Webinar) Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. | July 23, 2025
Navigating What’s Next: Revenue, Risk, and the Future of College Athletics (Webinar) Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. | May 8, 2025
FMLA Bootcamp: Leave Management Trends, Paid Time Off & Sick Banks (Webinar) myBenefits Channel | April 24, 2025
How Student-Athlete Pay Can Boost Students, Sports, and Institutional Success Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. - News & Insights | February 26, 2025 Shaping the Journey to Fair Pay for Student Athletes
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. - News & Insights · Jan 15, 2025 Competitive Compensation Structures for Higher Ed Institutions and Systems CUPA-HR presentation | September 2024
Public Sector: Trends in Compensation & HR
Public Sector HR Association (PSHRA) - Virginia Chapter - State Conference | September 24, 2024 How a Compensation Philosophy Can Boost Employee Engagement in the Public Sector Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. - News & Insights Jul 2, 2024 Driving Public Sector Excellence: The Power of Job Architecture and Career Frameworks Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. - News & Insights | May 2, 2024 Promoting Excellence and Pay Equity: The Benefits of Merit Pay in Higher Education Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. - News & Insights·| April 8, 2024 Recruitment and Retention Opportunities within the Public Sector & Public Safety National Association of Police Organizations - Retirement & Benefits Symposium | January 29, 2024 How a Coaching Leadership Style Unleashes Human Potential at Work TalentCulture | Jan 16, 2024
Does Your HR Strategy Leverage Organizational Competencies TalentCulture | June 23, 2023
Workforce and Succession Planning Can Help Stem Higher Education Employee Turnover Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. - News & Insights · May 15, 2023 Looking Beyond the "Great Resignation" and Planning for a Great Future International Public Management Association for Human Resources (IPMA-HR) | September 27, 2022 Leverage Compensation Strategies to Attract and Retain Top Public Talent (Conference Presentation) IPMA-HR Central Region Conference, ICMA
Leverage a Holistic People Strategy to Help Higher Education Employers Face the Future with Confidence Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. - News & Insights | July 15, 2022 Prepare Now for FLSA Rule Changes Coming Soon
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. - News & Insights | March 15, 2022
32 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Appendix 2: FLSA Compliance Methodology
Our 7-Point FLSA Compliance Methodology provides a structured, defensible approach to determining the appropriate exemption status of each position within your organization. This systematic framework goes beyond basic salary thresholds to ensure proper classification according to the most current Department of Labor regulations and case law interpretations.
1. Salary Basis Assessment
• Evaluation of compensation structure against current FLSA minimum salary requirements • Analysis of pay practices for compliance with salary basis test requirements • Review of compensation delivery methods and frequency • Assessment of permissible and impermissible deductions • Identification of salary basis vulnerabilities and remediation recommendations
2. Primary Duty Analysis
• Quantitative time allocation analysis across job functions • Relative importance assessment of exempt vs. non-exempt functions • Freedom from direct supervision evaluation
• Comparative wage differential analysis between positions • Documentation of primary duty determination rationale
3. Discretion & Independent Judgment Evaluation
• Assessment against standardized regulatory factors for independent judgment • Analysis of authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or implement policies/practices • Documentation of decision-making authority and constraints • Evaluation of consequences of decisions and recommendations • Comparison against DOL examples and precedents for similar positions as appropriate
4. Exemption-Specific Testing
• Targeted assessment against relevant exemption criteria:
‒ Executive exemption: supervision, hiring/firing authority analysis ‒ Administrative exemption: administrative vs. production work distinction ‒ Professional exemption: specialized education/expertise requirements ‒ Computer professional: systems analysis and programming function review ‒ Outside sales: customer location and sales activity documentation • Application of relevant regulatory interpretations and case law precedents
5. Industry-Specific Considerations
• Application of industry-specific exemptions and requirements • Analysis of specialized rules for educational institutions, government entities, healthcare, etc. • Review of collective bargaining implications, if applicable • Assessment of state-specific requirements that exceed federal standards • Documentation of industry-specific compliance rationale
6. Documentation Alignment
• Job description language assessment for exemption supportability • Identification of documentation vulnerabilities
• Development of compliant descriptive language
• Creation of audit trail documenting exemption determination process • Alignment of job documentation with actual duties performed
7. Risk Assessment & Mitigation Planning
• Comprehensive evaluation of misclassification risk by position • Financial impact analysis of potential misclassification • Prioritization of positions requiring classification changes • Development of implementation timeline for required changes • Creation of monitoring protocols for ongoing compliance
This methodology ensures that all exemption determinations are made systematically, consistently, and in accordance with current regulatory requirements. Our approach has been validated through successful implementation with hundreds of clients and has withstood scrutiny in DOL audits and legal challenges
33 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Appendix 3: Job Description Review & Analysis
Process
Systematic evaluation of job descriptions through our 15-point documentation checklist, assessing critical elements including essential functions, ADA compliance language, FLSA classification support, and competency requirements.
1. Strategic Role Alignment
Validate that the role supports the institution’s mission, strategic priorities, and organizational structure.
2. Position Title Benchmarking
Assess title consistency with internal hierarchies and external market comparators.
3. Organizational Context
Clearly define reporting lines, supervisory scope, and cross-functional interfaces.
4. Essential Duties and Responsibilities
Articulate core functions using outcome-based language that reflects operational impact.
5. ADA-Compliant Language
Ensure inclusion of physical and cognitive requirements with appropriate accommodation language.
6. FLSA Classification Justification
Provide documented rationale for exempt/non-exempt status based on duties and salary thresholds.
7. Minimum Qualifications
Specify baseline education, experience, and certifications required for role entry.
8. Preferred Qualifications
Identify additional attributes that enhance performance or succession potential.
9. Competency Mapping
Align behavioral and technical competencies with institutional competency models.
10. Work Environment and Conditions
Describe physical demands, work setting, and any unique environmental factors.
11. Work Schedule Expectations
Clarify standard hours, flexibility, travel, and remote/hybrid eligibility.
12. Performance Metrics and KPIs
Define success measures and how performance will be evaluated.
13. Technology and Tools Utilized
List key systems, platforms, and tools essential to the role.
14. Review Cadence and Governance
Establish a schedule for periodic review and stakeholder accountability.
15. Documentation and Version Control
Maintain audit-ready records with version history and approval tracking.
34 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Appendix 4: Additional Services
We are confident we have provided our most cost-effective and best approach. We have included all products and services which are necessary to provide innovation as well as the functional capabilities proposed in our response. We take pride in our creativity and track record in developing innovative solutions to compensation and benefit issues. We spend considerable time and effort researching and exploring trends and technical issues to develop and test approaches not usually considered by other consulting firms that help inform innovative compensation program solutions.
While we will train the City in its use of the recommended compensation system to ensure the City is able to answer questions and maintain the system long-term. The following services are optional and may be provided in the future:
General Consulting and Strategic Advisory Services
Billed hourly, rate varies based on level of consulting required; dependent on scope of engagement may be billed on a fixed fee basis
Includes the provision of consulting and advisory services focused on areas of human resources, compensation and classification, and related areas. Typically conducted to help develop strategic and operational approaches, support leadership decision making, or to review and/or assess current approaches and processes (e.g., performance assessment, etc.) compensation decisions (e.g. review pay decision – not facilitate a review/study – for HR leader) as a neutral third-party.
Organizational Effectiveness Assessment
Billed on a fixed fee basis based on particulars of the study Includes a review and in-depth assessment of organizational practices, structures, and operational alignment, often across multiple working units, to determine opportunities for organizational design, operational and strategic priorities, modification of mission/vision and/or how the organization delivers on those items, and to identify opportunities that may increase effectiveness and efficiency.
Deliverables include a memorandum summarizing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Span of Control Assessment
Billed on a fixed fee basis based on particulars of the study Includes a review and in-depth assessment of organizational spans and layers, often across multiple working units, to determine opportunities for organizational redesign, modification of degrees of separation to senior leadership, and to identify opportunities that may increase effectiveness and efficiency. Deliverables include a memorandum summarizing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Reclassification Review
Billed per title
Includes a review of job information through analysis of existing or new job description or Position Description Questionnaire, follow- up with HR, supervisor, or employee as appropriate to ensure understanding, and then development of memo recommendation.
Deliverables include a memorandum summarizing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Job Description Development
Billed per title
Leveraging an updated Position Description Questionnaire, Gallagher confirms the need of creation of new classification, and confirmation with client, and writing of new classification.
Market pricing
Billed per title
Client provides job information in current or new job description, Position Description Questionnaire, and Gallagher collects market data from published survey ($400) and develops market pricing worksheets and memo on the process. If the client needs market data from the local market (like custom survey), Gallagher will research or conduct individual survey, and collect market data from published survey sources to develop the market pricing worksheet and a detailed memo on the process.
35 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Annual Adjustments and Trend Data
Billed per scope of request
Collection of market salary trend data from published survey sources or local market trend data with development of a memo on process and recommendations associated to any structural adjustments.
Executive Compensation Study (Public Sector, Higher Education, Non-Healthcare NPOs) Billed on a fixed fee basis based on particulars of the study Comprehensive review of executive compensation and perquisites to facilitate compensation committee decision-making and confirm reasonability of pay packages. This may include but is not limited to research and analysis of market data, industry data (IPEDs, 990, etc.), and others to review or recommend a going-forward approach for affected executives. This type of study is recommended as an annual study.
Pay Equity Study
Billed on a fixed fee basis based on particulars of the study Comprehensive review, but not limited to actions including, performing a series of statistical tests to determine if there are any pay differences between gender and protected groups that are statistically significant. We will determine whether these differences can be explained by a factor other than gender, race, or age. Statistical analyses will be performed in accordance with standard, professionally accepted methods and those methods that are recognized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Deliverables typically include general pay breakdowns to assess the pay levels and representation for each breakout identified, perform statistical analysis to identify systemic issues, and provide detailed comparisons where necessary. This type of study is recommended as a triennial study.
Performance Management/Assessment Study
Billed on a fixed fee basis based on particulars of the study Includes the review of existing programs and approaches, stakeholder feedback collection, development of tools and resources and recommendations, and as appropriate custom peer surveying to identify and leverage best practices across region, industry (e.g. higher education), peer cohorts, role type that are supportive of the strategic and operational imperatives of the client to support employee engagement, performance management, and culture. This type of study is recommended as necessary, based on the particulars and needs of the client.
Compensation and Classification Audit
Billed on a fixed fee basis based on particulars of the study An external review of current market data collection, data sources, job matches, and salary structures. Audit delivery will validate existing processes or result in recommended alternative approaches leveraging the available data. This type of study is recommended as necessary, based on particulars and needs of the client, often coinciding with internal structure changes or revisions.
Change Management
Billed on a fixed fee basis based on particulars of the study An assessment of current change management practices and communications approaches related to organizational change to identify opportunities for enhancement, additionally as appropriate to the organizational need, training related to managing and facilitating organizational change and the development of communications tools and resources to support change may be developed and delivered to better ensure success and revised internal practices.
Leadership Search Services
Billed on a fixed fee basis based on particulars of the search Offer both full-cycle and partial-cycle executive search services, as well as recruitment for mid-management and staff-level positions. Our approach emphasizes understanding each client’s organizational culture, leadership needs, and community context to deliver high-quality candidate pools. Services include recruitment strategy development, targeted marketing and outreach, candidate sourcing, screening, interview coordination, and support through final selection, negotiation, and onboarding. The firm places a strong focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion, using bias-reducing tools, data-informed sourcing strategies, and partnerships with minority-based professional associations..
36 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Appendix 5: Sample Classification Study
KOFF & ASSOCIATES
KARI MERCER
Senior Consultant
2835 Seventh Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
www.KoffAssociates.com
[email protected]
Tel: 510.470.7413
Fax: 510.652.5633
February, 2018
Final Report
Classification Study of One Senior
Project Manager in the Community &
Economic Development Department
City of Anaheim
Classification Study of Senior Project Manager
Final Report
City of Anaheim
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1 Background .................................................................................................................... 1 CLASSIFICATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 1 Findings ............................................................................................................................ 1 Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 3 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 3
Classification Study of Senior Project Manager
Final Report
City of Anaheim
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
In December, 2017, the City of Anaheim (City) contracted with Koff & Associates (K&A) to conduct a classification study of the Senior Project Manager position encumbered by Andy Nogal allocated to the Community and Economic Development Department.
All classification findings and recommendations for this position are included in this report.
This position review process was precipitated by the incumbent’ s assertion that the preponderance of his duties and responsibilities are not aligned with the current classification allocation, and therefore the City requested that the position be studied.
The goal of the study was to:
Obtain detailed information about the position encumbered by Mr. Andy Nogal through a variety of techniques, including a written Job Analysis Questionnaire as well as interviews with the incumbent and his supervisors;
Analyze the work assigned to the position to identify the major duties and responsibilities; Analyze the City’s current description for the Senior Project Manager classification; and Make a recommendation regarding the appropriateness of the current classification allocation of the position relative to the duties performed by the incumbent.
CLASSIFICATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings
When positions are classified, the focus is on assigned job duties and the job -related requirements for successful performance, not on individual employee capabilities or volume of work performed. Positions are thus evaluated and classified on the basis o f such factors as the nature and level of work performed, the complexity of the work, the authority delegated to make decisions and take action, the responsibility for the work of others and/or for budget expenditures, contacts with others (both inside and outside of the organization), the impact of the position on the organization, and the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform the work. Narrative on some of these factors for the position is presented below. Major duties and responsibilities of the position (as detailed in the Job Analysis Questionnaire completed by the incumbent):
• Program administration (4 5% of time) – Mr. Nogal reports performing duties related to the administration of the affordable housing program totaling forty five percent (45%) of time worked. These duties include reviewing development plans Classification Study of Senior Project Manager
Final Report
City of Anaheim
2 and proposals and making recommendations to appropriate committees and commissions related thereto; analysis of projects for development including environmental reports and implementing alternatives when appropriate and necessary; identifying financial resources for affordable housing development projects; monitoring legislation relative to the area of assignment and its impact on development projects and overall program activities; and monitoring compliance with affordability rules and regulations for completed projects. The incumbent has overall programmatic responsibility ensuring compliance with City initiatives and ordinances as well as state and federal rules and guidelines. • Project management (7% of time) – The incumbent performs project management duties including managing budgets, scopes of work, and schedules for projects as well as coordinating projects with other City departments. • Third-party coordination and management (23% of time) – Mr. Nogal negotiates and implements terms and conditions of contract agreements and monitors the work and performance of third-party contractors and service providers to ensure compliance with negotiated contract provisions and project specifications as well as compliance with federal, state, and local laws and rules. • Stakeholder communication and public outreach (14% of time) – The incumbent performs a variety of duties related to commun icating information about the affordable housing program with stakeholders including governing bodies, developers, investors, other agencies, and the general public. He develops and conducts presentations; attends community meetings; participates in publi c speaking engagements related to the operational and financial aspects of the program; responds to requests for information; investigates complaints and takes corrective action when necessary; and prepares reports for governing bodies, City staff, and outside organizations.
• Administrative duties (11% of time) – Mr. Nogal performs a variety of duties related to the general administration of the program as well as in support of the department including participating in the development and administration of assigned department budgets; collaborating with other City staff on revisions to City ordinances, policies, and procedures; and attending professional conferences and workshops.
Decision making – The incumbent’s duties require that he independently make decisions regarding all aspects of the operations of the program consi stent with department policies and procedures as well as f ederal, state, and lo cal laws, ordinances, and codes which govern the work. The work requires that the incumbent take initiative to stay abreast of new and emerging legislation and revisions to reg ulatory requirements that may impact the operations of the program, division, and department and to make recommendations related thereto.
Classification Study of Senior Project Manager
Final Report
City of Anaheim
3 Contacts – The position has contacts internally with coworkers, City employees, and City management and executive staff. Externally, the incumbent has contact with contractors, third-party service providers, other agencies, developers, investors, and the general public.
Recommendation
It is our assessment that the duties and responsibilities of the position encumbered by Mr. Nogal are outside of the scope of his current classification.
A large percentage of Mr. Nogal’ s time is spent on overarching program administration versus individual project management. He has responsibility for the daily operation of the affordable housing program including the strategic planning of program projects, monitoring program procedures to ensure compliance with pertinent laws, and administering the program budget.
He has responsibility for reporting on program activities and project progress to various governing bodies including the City Council and federal and state agencies as well as providing a high level of st aff assistance to departmental management and executive staff relative to program operations. The complex nature of the work he performs as well as the overall programmatic responsibility of the position is beyond the scope of Senior Project Manager, and it is our recommendation that he be reclassified to Community Investment Manager.
CONCLUSION
This Final Report presents the process, methodologies , and findings with respect to the Senior Project Manager position allocated to the Community and Economic Development Department.
We want to thank the City and its staff for their cooperation and participation in study activities to ensure the study is a success.
Respectfully submitted by,
Koff & Associates
Kari Mercer
Senior Consultant
37 | 2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Appendix 6: Sample Compensation Study
Proprietary & Confidential Information
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 2
Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................................. 4 Study Process ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Benchmark Classifications ........................................................................................................................ 4 Comparator Agencies ................................................................................................................................ 7 Salary and Benefits Data ........................................................................................................................... 8 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Matching Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 9 Data Spreadsheets .................................................................................................................................. 10 Market Compensation Findings .................................................................................................................. 10 Base Salary ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Total Compensation ................................................................................................................................ 14 Internal Salary Relationships ...................................................................................................................... 14 Compensation Plan Design ......................................................................................................................... 15 Range Structure Design and Management ............................................................................................. 15 Recommended Design ............................................................................................................................ 16 Implementation Options ........................................................................................................................... 16 Using the Market Data as a Tool ................................................................................................................. 17
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 3
List of Tables
Table 1. Benchmark Classification ................................................................................................................ 5 Table 2. Comparator Agencies ..................................................................................................................... 8 Table 3. Market Compensation Results Summary ...................................................................................... 11 Table 4. Three-Year Implementation Proposal ........................................................................................... 16
Appendices
Appendix I: Results Summary
Appendix II: Market Compensation Findings
Appendix III: Proposed Salary Range Schedule
Appendix IV: Salary Range Placement Recommendations
Appendix V: Additional Benefits
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 4
Executive Summary
Background
During the months of January through March 2024, Gallagher conducted a comprehensive Total Compensation Study for the County Transit District. All compensation findings and recommendations are presented in this report.
This compensation review process was precipitated by:
• The concern of the Board of Directors and management that employees should be compensated on a fair and competitive basis that allows the District to recruit and retain a high-quality staff; • The desire to have a compensation plan that can meet the needs of the District and its unique structure, i.e., the District, which is governed by a Joint Powers Board, consists of three distinct organizations:
and the County Transportation Authority, all of whom share the same salary resolution; and
• The desire to ensure that internal relationships of salaries are based upon objective, non- quantitative evaluation factors, resulting in equity across the District; more specifically, the District’s past practices of reliance on its factor evaluation plan for establishing salaries, rather than systematically evaluating the market trends for jobs through market surveys.
The goals of the compensation study are to assist the District in developing a competitive pay and benefit plan, which is based upon market data, and to ensure that the plan is fiscally responsible and meets the needs of the District with regards to recruitment and retention of qualified staff.
Summary of Findings
This report summarizes the study methodology, analytical tools, and the total compensation (salary and benefits) survey findings. The results of the total compensation study showed:
• The District’s base salaries, overall, in comparison to the market median are 1.2% above the market. • The District’s total compensation, overall, in comparison to the market median is -3.3% below the market. • While the District’s benefits package puts the District in a less competitive posit ion compared to the market , Gallagher recommends that salary decisions should be based on base salary market results versus total compensation, and to address separately any shortfalls in its benefits program. • Gallagher considers a classification falling within 5% of the market median to be competitive.
Study Process
Benchmark Classifications
The study included all recommended classifications resulting from the classification study which resulted in a total of 148 new classifications. One of the first steps in any study is to identify benchmark classifications; benchmark classifications are those which the District currently has, and which it is anticipated would be found in other agencies; ideally, they would also have internal relationships with other District classes since benchmark classifications are used as a means of anchoring the District’s overall compensation plan to the market . To ensure Gallagher was able to identify comprehensive trends for how these jobs are paid in the market, 117 classifications (80% of the new classification plan) were selected to be benchmarks. Other classifications not surveyed, or those with insufficient data in the market, are still included in the compensation plan through alignment with benchmark classifications using internal equity principles.
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 9
• PERS Formula: The service retirement formula for each agency’s PEPRA plan. • Employee Cost Sharing: Any portion of the employer’s contribution rate employees are paying (through payroll deductions). Of note, none of the comparator agencies require this. • Social Security: If an employer participates in Social Security, then the employer contribution of 6.2% of the base salary up to the federally determined maximum contribution of $759.50 per month was reported.
3. Deferred Compensation
Deferred compensation contributions provided to all employees of a classification with or without requiring the employee to make a contribution is reported.
4. Insurances
The employer paid premiums for an employee with family coverage was reported. The employer paid insurances included:
• Cafeteria/Flexible Benefit Plan
• Medical
• Dental
• Vision
• Other
5. Leaves
Other than sick leave, which is usage-based, the number of hours off for which the employer is obligated. All hours have been translated into direct salary costs.
• Vacation: The number of paid time off (or vacation) hours available to all employees who have completed five years of employment.
• Holidays: The number of holiday hours (including floating hours) available to employees. • Administrative: Administrative (or management) leave is normally the number of paid leave hours available to Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) exempt and/or management to reward for extraordinary effort (in lieu of overtime). This leave category may also include personal leave which may be available to augment vacation or other time off.
All of the benefit elements are those benefits which are provided to all employees in the classification. As such, they represent an ongoing cost for which an agency must budget . Other benefit costs, such as sick leave, tuition reimbursement, and reimbursable mileage are usage-based and cannot be quantified on an individual employee basis; therefore, those benefits are not included in the total compensation calculation.
Data Collection
Data was collected during the months of January 2024 – March 2024, through comparator agency websites, conversations with human resources, accounting, and/or finance personnel, and careful review of agency documentation such as classification descriptions, memoranda of understanding, organization charts, and other documents.
Matching Methodology
Gallagher believes that the data collection step is the most critical for maintaining the overall credibility of any study and relied on the District’s classification study findings as the foundation for comparison.
When Gallagher researches and collects data from the comparator agencies to identify possible matches for each of the benchmark classifications, there is an assumption that comparable matches may not be made that are 100% equivalent to the classifications at the District. Therefore, Gallagher does not match based upon job titles, which can often be misleading, but rather analyze class descriptions before a comparable match is determined.
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 10
Gallagher’s methodology is to analyze each class description and the whole position by evaluating factors such as:
• Decision making/judgement
• Difficulty and complexity of work
• Supervisory responsibilities
• Non-supervisory responsibilities
• Minimum qualifications
• Working conditions/risk factors
• Contacts
In order for a match to be included, Gallagher requires that a classification’s “likeness” be at approximately 70% of the matched classification.
When an appropriate match is not identified for one classification, Gallagher often use s “ hybrids” which can be functional or represent a span in scope of responsibility. A functional hybrid means that the job of one classification at the District is performed by two or more classifications at a comparator agency. A “hybrid” representing a span in scope means that the comparator agency has one class that is “bigger” in scope and responsibility and one class that is “smaller,” where the District’s class falls in the middle.
If an appropriate match could not be found, then no match was reported as a non-comparable (N/C).
Data Spreadsheets
For each benchmark classification, there are three information pages:
• Top Monthly Base Salary and Total Compensation Data (2 sheets per benchmark) One sheet is sorted by top monthly
One sheet is sorted by total monthly
• Benefit Detail (Monthly Equivalent Values)
The average (mean) and median (midpoint) of the comparator agencies are reported on the top monthly salary and total compensation data spreadsheets . The District’s current salary for the classification is then reported as a percentage above or below the market average and median data points in the Summary Section of each data sheet.
The mean is the sum of the comparator agencies’ salaries/total compensation divided by the number of matches. The median is the midpoint of all data with 50% of data points below and 50% of data points above.
When using survey data to make salary range recommendations and adjustments, Gallagher recommends using the median, rather than the mean, because the median is not skewed by extremely high or low salary values.
In order to calculate the mean and median, Gallagher requires that there be a minimum of four (4) comparator agencies with matching classifications to the benchmark classification. The reason for requiring a minimum of four matches is so that no one classification has undue influence on the calculations. Sufficient data was collected from the comparator agencies for 104 of the 117 benchmark classifications.
Market Compensation Findings
The following table represents a summary of the market top monthly (base) salary and total compensation (base salary plus benefits [retirement, insurance, leaves, and allowances]) findings from the 13- comparator market . For each benchmark classification, the number of matches (agencies with a comparable position) and percent above or below the top monthly salary market median and total compensation market median is listed. The table is organized in alphabetical order, consistent with the data sheets in Appendix II.
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 14
Total Compensation
Total compensation market results show that 60 classifications are paid below the market median and 39 classifications are paid above the market median. Eighteen (18) classifications resulted in insufficient market data, i.e., we were not able to obtain job matches.
# of Classifications <5% 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% 20%+ Total Below the Market Median 20 19 4 7 10 60
Above the Market Median 20 13 4 0 2 39
Generally, a classification falling within 5% of the median is considered to be competitive in the labor market for salary survey purposes because of the differences in compensation policy, actual scope of work, and position requirements.
However, the District can adopt a different standard.
Overall, the differences between market base salaries and total compensation indicate that the District ’s benefits package puts the District at a less competitive advantage. Further analysis indicates that, on average, classifications are 1.2% above the market median for base salaries, while that figure changes to 3.3% below the market median for total compensation, which is a 4.5% difference (i.e., the District “loses” a 4.5% competitive advantage when taking the cost of benefits into consideration).
Internal Salary Relationships
Building from the salary levels established for identified benchmark classes, internal salary relationships should be developed and consistently applied in order to develop specific salary placements for all non- benchmarked classifications.
In the future, the District may need to utilize internal alignment practices if the number of staff grows and additional classifications are added or classifications change. While analyzing internal relationships, the same factors analyzed when comparing the District ’s classifications to the labor market are used when making internal salary alignment decisions.
In addition, the following are standard human resources practices that are commonly applied when making salary recommendations based upon internal relationships:
• A salary within 5% of the market average or median is considered to be competitive in the labor market for salary survey purposes because of the differences in compensation policy and actual scope of the position and its requirements. However, the District can adopt a closer standard. • Certain internal percentages are often applied. Those that are the most common are:
The differential between a trainee and experienced (or journey) class in a series (I/II or Trainee/Experienced) is generally 10%.
A lead or advanced journey-level (III or Senior-level) class is generally placed 10% above the journey-level. A full supervisory class is normally placed at least 10% to 20% above the highest level supervised, depending upon the breadth and scope of supervision.
• When a market or internal equity adjustment is granted to one class in a series, the other classes in the series are also adjusted accordingly to maintain internal equity.
Internal equity between certain levels of classification s is a fundamental factor to be considered when making salary decisions. When conducting a market compensation survey, results can often show that certain classifications that are aligned with each other are not the same in the outside labor market . However, as an organization, careful
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 15
consideration should be given to these alignments because they represent internal value of classifications within job families, as well as across the organization.
For the purposes of salary decisions, the market data from the survey should be utilized for all of the benchmarked classifications, and internal equity principles should be used to make the salary placement decisions for those classifications that were not benchmarked and for those benchmarks for which the market did not yield sufficient market data. For the non-benchmarked classifications, internal alignments with other classifications will need to be considered, either in the same class series or those classifications that have similar scope of work, level of responsibility, and “value” to the District . Where it is difficult to ascertain internal relationships due to unique qualifications and responsibilities, reliance can be placed on past internal relationships. It is important for District management to carefully review these internal relationships and determine if they are still appropriate given the current market data.
It is also important to analyze market data and internal relationships within each class series as well as across the organization, and make adjustments to salary range placements, as necessary, based on the needs of the organization.
The District may want to make internal equity adjustments or alignments, as it implements the compensation strategy.
This market survey is only a tool to be used by the District to determine market indexing and salary placements.
Compensation Plan Design
In reviewing the District’s pay plan, Gallagher examined applicable practices and policies, as well as the structure and design of the current pay system. The methodology included meetings with Human Resources to elicit feedback on their experiences and thoughts on the current compensation system design. Of note is the fact that the District currently uses a banded approach to placing jobs within the pay structure; the bands are tied to the District’s point factor evaluation system; classifications are evaluated and placed in the pay plan based on the number of points assigned to that classification from the factor evaluation process.
From a structural perspective:
• Four bands are more than 50% wide
• Twelve bands are 50% wide
• Five ranges have differentials from 9.3% to 14.5% between them The remaining ranges have differentials of 10.6% between them.
Human Resources staff reported that employees can be dissatisfied when they are not able to achieve the reported maximum of the range and that they find themselves placing new hires at a higher point in the range, often the mid- point of the range or higher, to attract new talent, which can then impact current employees and create pay inequities.
Range Structure Design and Management
Range structures are designed to meet an organization’s policy and strategy on how it will deliver pay. This is generally set based on market rates for benchmark jobs, combined with a structured approach to internal alignment for non- benchmark classifications. Essentially, the range structure is the platform upon which all salary actions are implemented and recorded.
Ranges are not static – they are designed to move with market changes and should be flexible enough to support an organization’s strategy with respect to hiring practices, pay equity, and overall management of pay to the organization’s compensation philosophy and stated goals. Range structures can be built using a minimum, midpoint, maximum and/or a control point, with the control point being defined as the targeted market reference point (i.e., the market value of the job). In open ranges, movement throughout the range to the maximum is based on performance.
Ranges are typically designed “top down,” meaning that the top of the range is used to build down to the minimum of the range to achieve the width percentage; after that point, quartiles or other zones may be developed based upon
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 17
Subsequent increases would be spaced on a similar schedule (at annual intervals) based upon the remaining disparity after each adjustment.
Please note that typically, for those classes that had a market disparity of 0 to 4.99%, we recommend a 0% increase in the first year and an adjustment in the second year. Depending upon the District’s financial situation, which will have to be reviewed before each further adjustment is made, all market disparity adjustments are intended to be completed by the third year. The District may also consider a similar implementation plan over a longer period of time, like a five- year implementation plan.
Another option is to move employees into the salary range that is recommended for each class based on this market study and to the point within the new range that is the same as their current compensation. If employees’ current salaries are significantly below market so that their current compensation falls below the bottom of the newly recommended range, then larger adjustments would be needed to move those employees at least to the bottom of the new salary range.
When classifications are over market, Gallagher typically recommends Y-rating employees whose current pay exceeds the maximum of the recommended range until the market numbers “catch up” with their current salary . To Y-rate an employee means to keep the employee’s salary frozen and to provide no salary increases (including no cost-of-living adjustments) until the employee’s current salary is within the recommended salary range. This will result in no immediate loss of income but will delay any future increases until the incumbent’s salary is within the salary range.
Other options to “freezing” a classification’s salary in place until the market catches up are:
• “Grandfathering” of salary ranges: This means that the salary range for the classification is adjusted down to what the market numbers are. However, current incumbents would continue being paid at the current rate of pay (which would put them outside of the new and adjusted salary range for the class) until they separate from employment with the District. Any new hires would be paid within the newly established salary range. • Single-incumbent classes: If a class only has one incumbent, an option would be to wait until the person separates from employment with the District and then adjust the salary range for the class according to the market. • Recent hires: Some employees who have recently been hired may still be at the lower end within their current salary range. So, even if the top of their current salary range is above market, the incumbents are currently still paid below the market maximum because they are not at the top of their current salary range. In this case, an immediate salary range adjustment could be made to bring the salary range within the market . This would bring the affected incumbents either to the top of the market range or very close to it, but they would not technically be Y-rated or lose any pay.
Another option, of course, is to actually reduce salaries down to the market . However, from an employee relations perspective this may not be a viable option.
Using the Market Data as a Tool
Gallagher would like to reiterate that this report and the findings are meant to be a tool for the District to create and implement an equitable compensation plan. Compensation strategies are designed to attract and retain excellent staff; however, financial realities and the District ’s expectations may also come into play when determining appropriate compensation philosophies and strategies. The collected data presented herein represents a market survey that will give the District an instrument to make future compensation decisions.
It has been a pleasure working with District on this critical project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any additional information or clarification regarding this report.
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 18
Respectfully submitted by,
Gallagher, Formerly Koff & Associates
Georg S. Krammer
Managing Director
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Appendix I
Results Summary
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Appendix II
Market Compensation Findings
County Transit District
Market Compens
ation Data (sorted by Total Compensation)
April 2024
DRAFT
Next
Percentage
Increase
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
County Transit District
Market Compensation D
ata (sorted by Adjusted Top Monthly Salary)
April 2024
DRAFT
Next
Percentage
Increase
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Appendix III
Proposed Salary Range Schedule
CountyTransit District
Proposed Sala
ry Schedule
June 2024
DRAFT
lowest current salary
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
1 41,985 58,778 3,499 4,898 2 44,084 61,717 3,674 5,143 3 46,288 64,803 3,857 5,400 4 48,602 68,043 4,050 5,670 5 51,032 71,445 4,253 5,954 6 53,584 75,018 4,465 6,251 7 56,263 78,769 4,689 6,564 8 59,076 82,707 4,923 6,892 9 62,030 86,842 5,169 7,237 10 65,132 91,184 5,428 7,599 11 68,388 95,744 5,699 7,979 12 71,808 100,531 5,984 8,378 13 75,398 105,557 6,283 8,796 14 79,168 110,835 6,597 9,236 15 83,126 116,377 6,927 9,698 16 87,283 122,196 7,274 10,183 17 91,647 128,306 7,637 10,692 18 96,229 134,721 8,019 11,227 19 101,041 141,457 8,420 11,788 20 106,093 148,530 8,841 12,377 21 111,397 155,956 9,283 12,996 22 116,967 163,754 9,747 13,646 23 122,816 171,942 10,235 14,328 24 128,956 180,539 10,746 15,045 25 135,404 189,566 11,284 15,797 26 142,174 199,044 11,848 16,587 27 149,283 208,996 12,440 17,416 28 156,747 219,446 13,062 18,287 29 164,585 230,419 13,715 19,202 30 172,814 241,940 14,401 20,162 31 181,455 254,037 15,121 21,170 32 190,527 266,738 15,877 22,228 33 200,054 280,075 16,671 23,340 34 210,056 294,079 17,505 24,507 35 220,559 308,783 18,380 25,732 36 231,587 324,222 19,299 27,019 37 243,167 340,433 20,264 28,369 38 255,325 357,455 21,277 29,788 39 268,091 375,328 22,341 31,277 40 281,496 394,094 23,458 32,841 Monthly
5.00%
Pay Peri
ods per Year
26 Hours per Year
2,080
Salary Range Annual
Range Increase
FACTORS
Range E8, Maximum, Annual
$82,707.00
Range Spread
40.00%
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Appendix IV
Salary Range Placement Recommendations
County Transit District
Proposed Range Placement Recommendations
June 2024
DRAFT
Class Title Current
Maximum
Monthly Salary
% from Top
Monthly Median
Adjusted
Market
Placement
Proposed
Salary Range
Proposed
Maximum
Monthly Salary
Percent
Difference
Cost Impact
Percentage
Study
Benchmark
Rationale Note - added clarification on data used for
recommendation
DISTRICT WIDE ADMINISTRATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS
Administrative Analyst I (New classification) 13 $8,796 0.00% Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Administrative Analyst II Administrative Analyst II $10,163 6.3% $9,521 15 $9,698 -4.57% 0.00% X Benchmark; set to market Administrative Assistant $7,431 5.9% $6,996 8 $6,892 -7.25% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Administrative Support Specialist $7,431 10 $7,599 2.26% 2.26% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Administrative Assistant Contracts Analyst $12,439 13 8% $10,729 17 $10,692 -14 04% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Executive Assistant $8,453 -14.6% $9,683 15 $9,698 14.73% 14.73% X Benchmark; set to market Executive Assistant to the GM/CEO $9,197 17 $10,692 16.26% 16 26% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Executive Assistant Senior Contracts Analyst $12,439 19 $11,788 -5.23% 0.00% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Contracts Analyst
EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATION
Assistant District Secretary $9,187 -8.4% $9,958 16 $10,183 10.84% 10 84% X Benchmark; set to market Deputy District Secretary $15,224 24 $15,045 -1.18% 0.00% Internal alignment; set salary 10% below District Secretary Deputy General Manager/Chief Executive Officer $27,911 4.1% $26,778 36 $27,019 -3.20% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market District Secretary $16,842 -0.5% $16,930 26 $16,587 -1.51% 0.00% X Benchmark; set to market
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Executive Officer, Transportation Authority $22,805 -16.2% $26,504 36 $27,019 18.48% 18.48% X Benchmark; set to market
BUS OPERATIONS
Accessibility Specialist $7,791 -20.6% $9,394 14 $9,236 18.55% 18 55% X Benchmark; set to market Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator $11,244 Insufficient Data 18 $11,227 -0.15% -0.15% X Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Senior Accessible Specialist Assistant Manager, Bus Maintenance $13,761 20 $12,377 -10 05% 0.00% Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Manager, Bus Maintenance Assistant Manager, Bus Transportation $12,439 21 $12,996 4.48% 4.48% Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Manager, Bus Transportation Chief Operating Officer - Bus $25,229 5.3% $23,892 33 $23,340 -7.49% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Director, Bus Maintenance $20,613 4.8% $19,624 29 $19,202 -6.85% 0.00% X Benchmark; set to market Director, Bus Transportation $20,613 1.5% $20,304 30 $20,162 -2.19% -2.19% X Benchmark; set to market Director, Facilities Maintenance $20,613 4.8% $19,626 29 $19,202 -6.85% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Environmental Compliance Coordinator $10,163 -15.9% $11,778 19 $11,788 15.99% 15.99% X Benchmark; set to market Intelligent Transportation Systems Specialist $10,163 10.4% $9,104 14 $9,236 -9.12% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Intelligent Transportation Systems Analyst $11,244 Insufficient Data 17 $10,692 -4.91% 0.00% X Internal alignment; set salary 15% above Intelligent Transportation Systems Specialist Manager, Bus Contracts $13,761 Insufficient Data 23 $14,328 4.12% 4.12% Internal alignment; maintain current internal relationship same salary as Manager, Bus Transportation Manager, Bus Maintenance $15,224 10 5% $13,625 22 $13,646 -10 36% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Manager, Bus Transportation $13,761 -2.5% $14,111 23 $14,328 4.12% 4.12% X Benchmark; set to market Manager, Facilities Maintenance $13,761 -10.2% $15,162 24 $15,045 9.33% 9 33% X Benchmark; set to market Operations Contract Analyst $10,163 15 $9,698 -4.57% 0 00% Internal alignment; maintain current internal relationship; same salary as Administrative Analyst II Procurement Specialist $8,453 1.9% $8,294 12 $8,378 -0.89% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Strategic Initiatives Officer,Bus $22,805 Insufficient Data 33 $23,340 2.34% 2.34% X Internal alignment; set salary same as Strategic Initiatives Officer, Rail Program Manager, Accessible Services $15,224 13.1% $13,234 21 $12,996 -14.63% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Program Manager, Intelligent Transportation Systems $18,633 15.6% $15,719 25 $15,797 -15 22% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Program Manager, Training $15,224 6.6% $14,224 23 $14,328 -5.88% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market
Senior Accessibility Specialist $11,244 16 $10,183 -9.44% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Accessibility Specialist Supervisor, Facilities Maintenance $12,439 $12,439 20 $12,377 -0.49% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 20% below Manager, Facilities Maintenance Supervisor, Materials and Inventory Control $13,761 18 9% $11,155 18 $11,227 -18.42% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Transit Asset Management Analyst $11,244 -22.0% $13,713 22 $13,646 21.36% 21.36% X Benchmark; set to market Warranty Specialist $8,453 12 $8,378 -0.89% 0 00% Internal alignment; maintain current internal relationship; same salary as Procurement Specialist
COMMUNICATIONS
Chief Communications Officer $25,229 -0.1% $25,254 35 $25,732 1.99% 1 99% X Benchmark; set to market Customer Experience Specialist $7,431 -14.4% $8,497 12 $8,378 12.74% 12.74% X Benchmark; set to market Digital Communications Specialist $8,453 Insufficient Data 13 $8,796 4.06% 4 06% X Internal alignment; set salary same as Marketing Promotions Specialist Director, Communications $22,805 14.7% $19,464 29 $19,202 -15.80% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Distribution Assistant $6,892 11.0% $6,135 6 $6,251 -9 29% 0.00% X Benchmark; set to market Government and Community Affairs Officer $12,439 5 2% $11,796 19 $11,788 -5 23% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Government and Community Affairs Specialist $8,453 -1.7% $8,597 13 $8,796 4.06% 4 06% X Benchmark; set to market Graphics Specialist $7,431 -22.7% $9,118 14 $9,236 24.29% 24.29% X Benchmark; set to market Manager, Government and Community Affairs $15,224 -5.9% $16,128 25 $15,797 3.76% 3.76% X Benchmark; set to market Manager, Public Information $13,761 -13.5% $15,617 25 $15,797 14.80% 14.80% X Benchmark; set to market Market Research Analyst $10,163 -16.1% $11,795 19 $11,788 15.99% 15.99% X Benchmark; set to market Marketing Promotions Specialist $8,453 -5.4% $8,910 13 $8,796 4.06% 4 06% X Benchmark; set to market Program Manager, Creative Services $15,224 20 $12,377 -18.70% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 20% above Senior Graphic Specialist Program Manager, External Affairs $13,761 21 $12,996 -5.56% 0.00% Internal alignment; set salary 20% below Manager, Public Information Program Manager, Marketing and Research $20,613 30.6% $14,297 25 $15,797 -23 36% 0.00% X Internal alignment; set salary 20% below Direct or, Communications (also note internal alignment with Manager, Public Information and Manager, Government and Community Affairs) Public Information Officer I (New classification) 14 $9,236 Internal alignment; set 10% below Public Information Officer II Public Information Officer II $12,439 20 0% $9,957 16 $10,183 -18.14% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Senior Distribution Assistant $9,187 9 $7,237 -21.23% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 15% above Distribution Assistant Senior Graphics Specialist $9,187 16 $10,183 10.84% 10.84% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Graphic Specialist Senior Market Research Analyst $15,224 21 $12,996 -14.63% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Market Research Analyst Supervisor, Customer Experience $13,761 24.7% $10,359 16 $10,183 -26 00% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Minor adjustment from $10.359 - no impact on recommendation
Supervisor, Digital Marketing $13,761 20 $12,377 -10 05% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary same as Program Manager, Creative Services
FINANCE
Accountant I (New classification) 13 $8,796 Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Accountant II Accountant II $10,163 4.1% $9,750 15 $9,698 -4 57% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Accoun ing Specialist $7,431 -0.1% $7,436 10 $7,599 2.26% 2.26% X Benchmark; set to market Budget Analyst I (New Classification) 15 $9,698 Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Budget Analyst II Budget Analyst II $12,439 14 3% $10,656 17 $10,692 -14.04% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Chief Financial Officer $25,229 -7.7% $27,180 36 $27,019 7.09% 7 09% X Benchmark; set to market Minor adjustment from -6.4% and $27,180 - no impact on final recommendation
Claims Specialist $9,187 Insufficient Data 13 $8,796 -4 25% 0 00% X Internal alignment; set salary same as Administrative Analyst I Contracts and Procurement Analyst I (New classification) 16 $10,183 Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Contracts and Procurement Analyst II Contracts and Procurement Analyst II $11,244 -1.1% $11,370 18 $11,227 -0.15% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Data Analyst $11,244 Insufficient Data 17 $10,692 -4 91% 0 00% X Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Administrative Analyst II Director Accounting $20,613 3.4% $19,904 30 $20,162 -2.19% 0.00% X Benchmark; set to market Director, Budgets and Financial Analysis $20,613 -1.1% $20,838 31 $21,170 2.70% 2.70% X Benchmark; set to market Director, Contracts and Procurement $20,613 -1.6% $20,937 31 $21,170 2.70% 2.70% X Benchmark; set to market Fare Program Assistant $7,431 Insufficient Data 10 $7,599 2.26% 2 26% X Internal alignment; set salary same as Administrative Support Specialist Fare Program Coordinator $12,439 16 $10,183 -18.14% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary same as Supervisor, Customer Experience Financial Analyst $12,439 13 2% $10,801 17 $10,692
-14 04% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market
Insurance and Claims Administrator $12,439 8.3% $11,412 18 $11,227 -9.75% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Manager, Contracts and Procurement $15,224 0.9% $15,092 24 $15,045 -1.18% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Manager, Financial Planning, Risk Management and Fare Programs $15,224 -3.2% $15,705 25 $15,797 3.76% 3.76% X Benchmark; set to market Payroll Coordinator $12,439 28.4% $8,910 17 $10,692 -14 04% 0 00% X Internal alignment; maintain current internal relationship; same salary as Senior Accountant Principal Budget Analyst $15,224 11.4% $13,488 23 $14,328 -5.88% 0.00% X Internal alignment; set salary 15% above Supervisor, Rail Contracts and Budget Increased pay range by 1 range Principal Financial Analyst $20,613 23 $14,328 -30.49% 0.00% Internal alignment; set salary same as Principal Budget Analyst Changed to maintain parity with Principal Budget Analyst Program Manager, Fare Operations $15,244 6.4% $14,268 23 $14,328 -6.01% 0.00% X Benchmark; set to market Senior Accountant $12,439 17 $10,692 -14 04% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Accountant II
County Transit District
Proposed Range Placement Recommendations
June 2024
DRAFT
Class Title Current
Maximum
Monthly Salary
% from Top
Monthly Median
Adjusted
Market
Placement
Proposed
Salary Range
Proposed
Maximum
Monthly Salary
Percent
Difference
Cost Impact
Percentage
Study
Benchmark
Rationale Note - added clarification on data used for
recommendation
Supervisor, Accoun ing $15,224 20 $12,377 -18.70% 0.00% Internal alignment set salary 15% above Senior Accountant
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Chief, Planning and Development $22,805 -4.2% $23,763 33 $23,340 2.34% 2.34% X Benchmark; set to market Minor change from -3.0% and $23,491 - no impact final recommendation
Fixed Route Planner 11,244 Insufficient Data 14 $9,236 -17 86% 0 00% X Internal equity; set salary same as Transportation Planner I Manager, Real Estate and Property Development $20,613 15.2% $17,488 27 $17,416 -15 51% 0.00% X Benchmark; set to market Program Manager, Operations Planning 15,224 2.5% $14,837 24 $15,045 -1.18% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Program Manager, Transporta ion Planning $15,224 0.2% $15,189 24 $15,045 -1.18% 0.00% X Benchmark; set to market Project Manager, Development Services $13,761 2.1% $13,467 22 $13,646 -0.83% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Property Development Analyst $15,224 19 $11,788 -22 57% 0.00% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Budget Analyst (also Financial Analyst) Real Property Specialist 13,761 20.1% $10,995 18 $11,227 -18.42% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Supervisor, Real Estate and Property Development $15,224 21 $12,996 -14.63% 0.00% Internal alignment; set salary 15% above Real Property Specialist Transit Planning Specialist 10,163 14.49% $8,690 13 $8,796 -13.45% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Transportation Planner I 14 $9,236 Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Transportation Planner II Transportation Planner II $11,244 7.88% $10,358 16 $10,183 -9.44% 0.00% X Benchmark; set to market
PEOPLE AND CULTURE
Chief People Officer $25,229 1.30% $24,898 34 $24,507 -2.86% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Minor change from -3.0% and $23,491 - no impact final recommendation
Civil Rights Officer $18,633 28 $18,287 -1.86% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Program Manager, Human Resources Contracts and Compliance Analyst, Human Resources $9,187 17 $10,692 16.38% 16.38% Internal alignment; set salary same as Contracts Analyst Director, Human Resources $20,613 2.39% $20,120 30 $20,162 -2.19% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Human Resources Analyst I (New classification) 16 $10,183 Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Human Resources Analyst II Human Resources Analyst II 9,187 -21.41% $11,154 18 $11,227 22.20% 22.20% X Benchmark; set to market Human Resources Specialist I (New classification) 11 $7,979 Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Human Resources Specialist II Human Resources Specialist II 7,431 -15.73% $8,600 13 $8,796 18.38% 18.38% X Benchmark; set to market Principal Human Resources Analyst 12,439 Insufficient Data 23 $14,328 15.19% 15.19% X Internal alignment; set salary 15% above Senior Human Resources Analyst Program Manager, Human Resources 16,842 12.71% $14,701 26 $16,587 -1 51% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market data for Program Manager, Employee Relations Senior Human Resources Analyst $12,439 20 $12,377 -0.49% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Human Resources Analyst II Supervisor, Human Resources $12,439 $12,439 20 $12,377 -0.49% 0 00% Internal alignment; maintain current internal relationship; same salary as Senior Human Resources Analyst
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Administrator, Informa ion Technology Systems $15,224 23 $14,328 -5 88% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 20% below Manager, Information Technology Systems Chief Information and Technology Officer $25,229 4.80% $24,018 34 $24,507 -2 86% 0.00% X Benchmark; set to market Information Systems Analyst I (new classification) 20 $12,377 X Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Information Systems Analyst II Information Systems Analyst II 13,761 2.60% $13,403 22 $13,646 -0 83% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market for Information Systems Analyst II - Software Information Systems Technician 8,453 9 $7,237 -14.39% 0.00% Internal alignment; set salary 5% below Information Systems Specialist I Information Systems Specialist I (new classification) 10 $7,599 Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Information Systems Specialist II Information Systems Specialist II 10,163 16 93% $8,442 12 $8,378 -17.57% 0.00% X Benchmark; set to market Manager, Information Technology Systems 16,842 -4.34% $17,573 27 $17,416 3.41% 3.41% X Benchmark; set to market data for Manager Information Systems - Cybersecurity Senior Information Systems Analyst $13,761 24 $15,045 9.33% 9 33% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Information Systems Analyst II
SAFETY, SECURITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Manager, Safety and Security 20,613 10 25% $18,500 28 $18,287 -11.28% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Safety Officer I (new classification) 15 $9,698 X Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Safety Officer II Safety Officer II 10,163 -6.50% $10,824 17 $10,692 5.21% 5.21% X Benchmark; set to market Supervisor, Safety and Security $18,633 24 $15,045 -19 26% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 20% below Manager, Safety and Security RAIL
Chief Operating Officer, Rail $25,229 -2.53% $25,867 35 $25,732 1.99% 1.99% X Benchmark; set to market Chief, Planning and Development $22,805 -3.0% $23,491 33 $23,340 2.34% 2 34% X Benchmark; set to market Chief, Rail Development and Engineering $25,229 -8.56% $27,389 36 $27,019 7.09% 7 09% X Benchmark; set to market Director, Capital Program Delivery $20,613 -1.79% $20,982 31 $21,170 2.70% 2.70% X Benchmark; set to market Di
rector, Capital Program Management $20,613 -4.80% $21,602 31 $21,170 2.70% 2.70% X Benchmark; set to market Director, Engineering $20,613 -3.34% $21,301 31 $21,170 2.70% 2.70% X Benchmark; set to market Director, Rail Maintenance $20,613 2.93% $20,009 30 $20,162 -2.19% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Engineer I (New classification) 18 $11,227 Internal alignment; set salary 10% below Engineer II Engineer II $12,439 -1.62% $12,641 20 $12,377 -0.49% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Environmental Compliance Analyst $15,224 10.10% $13,686 22 $13,646 -10 36% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Manager, Construction Services 16,842 -3.53% $17,437 27 $17,416 3.41% 3.41% X Benchmark; set to market Manager, Infrastructure Engineering 18,633 -5.76% $19,706 30 $20,162 8.20% 8 20% X Benchmark; set to market Manager, Project Controls $18,633 12.50% $16,304 26 $16,587 -10 98% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Manager, Rail Network and Operations Planning 15,224 -32.16% $20,120 30 $20,162 32.43% 32.43% X Benchmark; set to market Manager, Rail Systems Engineering 18,633 -10.95% $20,673 31 $21,170 13.61% 13.61% X Benchmark; set to market Principal Information Systems Analyst, Geographic Information Systems $12,429 26 $16,587 33.45% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Senior Information Systems Analyst Program Manager, Business Operations $13,761 19 $11,788 -14 34% 0 00% Internal alignment; 20% above Administrative Analyst II Program Manager, Construction $11,244 18 $11,227 -0.15% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary same as Engineer I Program Manager, Environmental Compliance 18,633 14.07% $16,011 25 $15,797 -15 22% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Program Manager, Quality Assurance 18,633 7.15% $17,301 27 $17,416 -6.53% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Program Manager, Rail Capital Project Planning 18,633 8.88% $16,978 26 $16,587 -10 98% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market data for Program Manager, Rail Capital Project Planning Program Manager, Rail Maintenance $18,633 $18,024 28 $18,287 -1.86% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market data for Program Manager, Rail Vehicle Maintenance Minor change no impact on final recommendation Program Manager, Rail Technology Systems - Rail Network Engineering 15,224 -7.85% $16,419 26 $16,587 8.95% 8.95% x Benchmark; set to market data for Program Manager, Rail Technology Systems, Rail Network Engineering Program Manager, Signal and Communications Engineering 15,224 -7.50% $16,366 26 $16,587 8.95% 8 95% X Benchmark; set to market Project Controls Analyst $12,439 16.02% $10,446 17 $10,692 -14 04% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Project Director, Cal MOD 18,633 -18.53% $22,086 32 $22,228 19.29% 19.29% X Benchmark; set to market Project Manager, Engineering 13,761 -13.13% $15,568 25 $15,797 14.80% 14.80% X Benchmark; set to market Quality Assurance Analyst 15,224 18.42% $12,420 23 $14,328 -5 88% 0 00% X Internal alignment; set salary 20% below Program Manager, Quality Assurance Rail Operations Analyst $13,761 Insufficient Data 21 $12,996 -5.56% 0 00% X Internal alignment; set salary 15% below Program Manager, Operations Planning Rail Opera ions Specialist $12,439 18 $11,227 -9.75% 0 00% Internal alignment 15% below Rail Operations Analyst Senior Cost and Risk Estimator $15,224 22 $13,646 -10 36% 0 00% Internal alignment; maintain current internal relationship; same salary as Supervisor, Project Controls Senior Transportation Planner $13,761 18 $11,227 -18.42% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 10% above Transportation Planner II Strategic Initiatives Officer, Rail 20,613 -15.26% $23,759 33 $23,340 13.23% 13 23% X Benchmark; set to market Structural Engineer 13,761 $13,761 22 $13,646 -0 84% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Supervisor, Project Controls $15,224 22 $13,646 -10 36% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 20% below Manager, Project Controls Supervisor, Rail Contracts and Budget $15,224 20 $12,377 -18.70% 0 00% Internal alignment; set salary 15% above Budget Analyst II Class was aligned with Principal Budget Analyst at range 22; internal alignment with Budget Analyst II is consistent wi h other supervisory recommendations.
Supervisor, Records Management $15,224 Insufficient Data 23 $14,328 -5.88% 0.00% X Internal alignment; maintain current internal relationship; same salary as Quality Assurance Analyst Systems Engineer, Positive Train Control (PTC) 13,761 1.17% $13,600 22 $13,646 -0.83% 0 00% X Benchmark; set to market Averages 1.31% -2.26% 3.29%
Legend for columns:
Column 1 - Classification Title.
Column 2 - Client's current monthly maximum salaries.
Column 3 - Shows the percentage difference between the District's current maximum monthly salaries and the desired market position.
Column 4 - Market placement shows the monthly market values derived from the base salary survey results.
County Transit District
Proposed Range Placement Recommendations
June 2024
DRAFT
Class Title Current
Maximum
Monthly Salary
% from Top
Monthly Median
Adjusted
Market
Placement
Proposed
Salary Range
Proposed
Maximum
Monthly Salary
Percent
Difference
Cost Impact
Percentage
Study
Benchmark
Rationale Note - added clarification on data used for
recommendation
Column 5 - Salary range number of the consultant's newly proposed salary range schedule.
Column 6 - Monthly maximum salary of the consultant's newly proposed salary ranges.
Column 7 - This percentage expresses the difference between the District's current salaries and the consultant's proposed salaries.
Column 8 - This column identifies the cost impact of the change as percentage of the current versus proposed salary; when benchmark is above market, impact is considered to be 0% Column 9 - This column identifies whether the classification was a survey benchmark Column 9 - The rationale expresses how the consultant arrived at each proposed maximum monthly salary recommendation (i.e., the proposed range placement within the newly proposed salary range schedule).
© 2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Appendix V
Additional Benefits
County Transit District
Additional Benefits
February 2024
DRAFT
Executive Management and City Manager
Five years of service and retire within 120 days of separation - hired before 1/1/13 or ten years of service if hired on or after 1/1/13. Hired before 9/1/18 contribution equal to the premium for single party coverage not to exceed the amount for CalPERS Bay Area Kaiser Premium for family coverage - City pays the PEMHCA minimum and reimburses the retiree for the remaining difference in premium amount. If reside in other higher priced regions, contribution is the same. Hired on or after Sept 1 2018 stipend shall not exceed 90% of the CalPERS Bay Area Kaiser Premium for single party coverage.
For employees who separate via a service retirement, this benefit continues until a member become eligible for Medicare. City will pay the member contribution that shall not exceed the employee cost of the Kaiser Permanente SR Advantage Plan once Medicare eligible. No reimbursement for Medicare Parts A and B.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All Employees excluding bus operators
Hired before July 1, 1983 for union employee and January 1, 1983 for administrative employees, 50 years old, 5 years of continuous service (and spouse, and eligible dependents), at district expense continuation of medical, dental, vision and prescription drug coverage for the life of the retiree, or until the retiree obtains other employment and is eligible for medical benefits with the new employer - at this time District coverage becomes secondary coverage.
In the event of death of the retiree who was 50 years old and had 20 years of continuous service, at district expense, shall be entitled a continuation of medical, dental, vision, and prescription drug coverage to the normal age limitations for children and that such coverage shall cease upon the survivor's spouse's employment or the remarriage of the survivor spouse provided is eligible for spousal coverage with the employer of the new spouse. Retirees under age 65 who are eligible for District provided retiree health benefits shall pay a contribution equivalent to the Medicare contribution for the retiree and also for the retiree's eligible spouse until the individual reaches age 65. Retirees and any eligible spouse over 65 must be enrolled in Medicare and shall pay their contribution the Medicare Part B. Medicare becomes the primary coverage and the District provided plan becomes secondary.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
Unrepresented
Retire directly from the District (service retirement) Paid dental and vision coverage for the retiree only enrolled in the District's dental and vision plan. 10 or more years of service, paid medical coverage for the retiree only enrolled in one of the District's medical plans. District will pay full cost of lowest plan available. Employees with less than 10 years of service, medical premium is prorated - 5 years of serv ice 50% with increments of 10% added for each additional year up to 10 years of service. Dependent coverage subject to a $100 per month contribution by the retiree and/or dependent. Contributions for retirees and spouses with Medicare Parts A&B - Retiree - $40, Retiree and spouse $80.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All
Employees are eligible for medical coverage if they retire and their separation date and retirement date are within 120 day of each other. Same amount is paid for retirees as active employees, which is 80% or 90% of the applicable premium, depending on the plan.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All Employees Provides payment for 95% of full family health insurance premiums for a retiree – the retiree has to pay for retiree dental and vision.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All Employees Declined to provide.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
Golden Gate Bridge Hwy & Transit District
LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Orange County Transportation
Additional Retiree Benefit Account Plan (ARBA) - Retires after 1/1/1995 and through 6/30/2023 - at least 10 years of service and at least 50 years of age at retirement, and receives a retirement benefit under OCERS within 30 days from the date of separation - benefit is equal to $10.00 per month, per year of service, not to exceed a monthly benefit of $150.00. Retirees on or after July 1, 2023 benefit is equal to $35.00 per month, per year of service, not to exceed a monthly benefit of $525.00. A 2% cost adjustment on July 1, 2024 and each July 1 thereafter. May participate in OCTA medical, dental and vision at employee cost if retire directly from OCTA.
Metrolink
North County Transit District (NCTD)
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
Unrepresented Administrative and Executive
County Transit District
Additional Benefits
February 2024
DRAFT
Bargaining Unit Benefit
Bargaining Unit Benefit
AFSCME
Defined Benefit Retiree Medical Program: a) VTA shall provide a premium allowance toward the cost of the medical plan for employees who become eligible by having 1) completed 5 years of service (1,305 days of accrued service) or more with PERS and who 2) retire directly from VTA (date of retirement must be within 120 days of separation of employment). For retirees and survivors in California: VTA will contribute up to the Kaiser Region 1 Single Party Rate for CalPERS medical plans for retirees and eligible survivors residing in California. Retirees and eligible survivors will pay the excess above the Kaiser Region 1 Single Party Rate. MOU pg. 17
SEIU
For retirees and survivors in California: VTA will contribute up to the Kaiser Bay Area Single Party rate for CalPERS medical plans for retirees and eligible survivors residing in California, effective 1/1/16.
Retirees will pay the excess above the Kaiser Bay Area Single Party rate. mou pg. 45 TAEA
VTA shall provide a premium allowance toward the cost of the medical plan for employees who: (1) Have completed five (5) years of service (1305 days of accrued service) or more with PERS (to include former Santa Clara County employees hired directly by VTA with unbroken service on or before December 31, 1996); and (2) Retire directly from VTA (date of retirement must be within 120 days of separation of employment). For retirees and survivors in California: VTA will contribute up to the Kaiser Bay Area Single Party Rate for CalPERS medical plans for retirees and eligible survivors residing in California. Retirees and eligible survivors will pay the excess above the Kaiser Bay Area Single Party Rate. MOU pg. 23
Unrepresented-admin
Retire directly from VTA, be age 52 (new members) and meet the service requirement - 5 years (1,305 days). EE's, spouses and registered domestic partners may continue at the retiree's expense.
Surviving spouses or surviving domestic partners are eligible for medical coverage paid for by VTA at the same rate it paid for the retiree - up to the Kaiser Single Bay Area rate in California, and up to the Kaiser Out-of-State living outside of California as long as survivor is receiving a pension check. At age 65 or disabled must enroll in Medicare Parts A & B and in a VTA Medicate supplemental plan. Retirees are reimbursed for the cost of the Medicare Part B monthly premium.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All employees
Sound Transit does not provide any specific retiree medical benefit. Employees are automatically enrolled in a 401(a) plan at 10% employee contribution/12% employer contribution. Sound Transit also offers a voluntary 457(b) plan.
Sound Transit – Seattle
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Hired on or after January 10, 2009 and retire within 180 days of separation from employment to be eligible for retiree health benefits. 5-10 years of service - retiree pays full premium rate and does not receive any employer premium contribution. 10-15 years of credited service, the retiree will receive 50% of the total employer premium contribution. 15-20 or more years of credited service the retiree will receive 100% of the total employer contribution.
All Employees
County Transit District
Additional Benefits
February 2024
DRAFT
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All employees Sound Transit offers a PTO plan combining vacation and sick leave - no separate sick leave accrual.
County Transit District
Additional Benefits
February 2024
DRAFT
Bargaining Unit Benefit
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All Employees
Sound Transit provides free transportation for employees with Sound Transit, King Co. Metro, Community Transit, Pierce, Everett and Kitsay Transit, West Seattle Water Taxi, Seattle Streetcar and Amtrack trains. ORCA Card.
Sound Transit – Seattle
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
The agency provides parking and/or transit Commuter pre-tax benefit account to enable employees to pay for work-related parking and/or transit costs with pre-tax dollars. Maximum contribution for parking and mass transit is $270 per month each. FT employees and their eligible dependents are eligible for transit passes - includes retirees, spouses, and surviving spouses of retirees.
All Employees
County Transit District
Additional Benefits
February 2024
DRAFT
All employees
Hybrid Work arrangements available to all eligible employees to the greatest extent possible. Work assignments that are not suitable for working remotely - work that requires the employee's immediate physical presence on site to address planned and unscheduled events and work that requires a physical presence for the performance of daily on-site work flow. There are two options work remotely on a continuous basis and has no required on site work days or work remotely on an established day or days and work on site when assignment require the employee to physically be on site. There is a formal agreement that requires the approval of the supervisor and the Section Director.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All employees Declined to provide.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
Unrepresented Administrative
Applies to eligible administrative employees. Remote work allows employees to work at home during their regular work week. It is a voluntary work alternative that may be appropriate for some employees and some jobs. It is not an entitlement, it is not a company-wide benefit, and it does not change the terms and conditions of employment with OCTA. Employee must be an administrative employee whose most recent overall performance rating is "Fully Meets" or higher. May only work from a home office location within the State of California and be within a reasonable commuting distance to the OCTA work location. Employee must be accessible by phone/internet within a reasonable time period during the agreed upon remote work schedule. The employee may be called into the office when necessary to meet operational needs. Employees must participate in a mandatory Remote Work training, complete and submit a remote work application and must have prior approval by the employee's direct supervisor/manager, the Department Manager, his/her Division Executive Director and his/her HR Business Partner. Arrangement can be discontinued at any time at the discretion of OCTA. Management's decision is final.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
Municipal Exec Assoc, Misc
Permissible under an agreement between the employee and the Appointing Officer. Allowed for two (2) days a week and coming to work in person (3) days each week. No denial for arbitrary or capricious reasons. If denied may appeal to the Director of HR. Not applicable to the grievance and arbitration procedures of the contract. Approval of more than (2) days is allowed with Appointing Authority authorization. Remote work prohibited outside the State of California.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All employees Flex-time and alternative work schedules to allow work from home or commute and work during off peak hours are available with manager approval.
Sound Transit – Seattle
Telework Program - An option that management may choose to make available to employees when appropriate as determined by management. It is not a universal employee benefit; employees do not have a "right" to Telework, and the work option may be terminated by VTA at any time.
Managers/Supervisors, with the approval of their Division Chief, may authorize employee to telework from an Alternate Worksite no more than two day per week, unless an exception is approved by their Chief and is in accordance with the Telework Policy. Employees on a Performance Improvement Plan, or under current disciplinary action are not eligible to participate. Employees participating must acknowledge in writing that they have received and read the policy and complete a Telework Agreement.
North County Transit District (NCTD)
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Orange County Transportation Authority
All employees
County Transit District
Additional Benefits
February 2024
DRAFT
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All Employees
Courses directly related to assigned work are reimbursable up to 100%. Indirectly related to assigned work are reimbursed at up to one-half of the cost of tuition and enrollment fees. Employee pays for books and supplies.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All Employees Declined to provide.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All Employees
A full-time employee who satisfactorily completed approved, work-related educational courses as defined in PSR FY 2023-24 the Educational Reimbursement Program Policy, will be reimbursed in full for eligible expenses up to a maximum of $5,250 per calendar year. Increases to the tuition reimbursement amount will not exceed the IRS tax-free amount (currently $5,250). If an employee separates employment or gives notice of separation prior to completion of the course, no reimbursement will be made. Newly hired employees may be eligible for educational reimbursement after six months of employment.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
SEIU Local 1021 Misc
Agency provides professional development opportunities benefits is a maximum of $1000.00 per fiscal year for tuition, internal/external training programs, certifications, association memberships, software, book, and subscriptions.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
AFSCME
Agency provides $3000.00 per year, for college level programs, certified programs and or continuing educational credits. The agency will pay 50% of the immediate cost and the post payment will be upon proof of enrollment. Also, 100% of approved expenses for a maximum of $3,000 per year for tuition reimbursement.
SEIU
Agency provides $3000.00 per year, for college level programs, certified programs and or continuing educational credits. The agency will pay 50% of the immediate cost and the post payment will be upon proof of enrollment. Also, 100% of approved expenses for a maximum of $3,000 per year for tuition reimbursement.
TAEA
The agency will fund up to $4,500, on a matching basis (50% employee and 50% employer) for individual professional development and for education. Also, 100% of approved expenses for a maximum of $2,000 per year for tuition reimbursement.
Non-represented
The agency will fund up to $4,500, on a matching basis (50% employee and 50% employer) for individual professional development and for education. Also, 100% of approved expenses for a maximum of $3,000 per year for tuition reimbursement.
Bargaining Unit Benefit
All Employees Up to $5,000 annually for approved tuition expenses.
Agency provides professional development opportunities benefits is a maximum of $2000.00 per fiscal year for tuition, internal/external training programs, certifications, association memberships, software, book, and subscriptions.
Sound Transit – Seattle
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Municipal Exec Assoc, Misc
North County Transit District
Orange County Transportation District
www.ajg.com
©2025 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. All rights reserved.
2026 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
Gallagher is pleased to submit this proposal to you. While this proposal is not meant to constitute a formal offer, acceptance, or contract, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the proposal, Gallagher is submitting this proposal with the understanding the parties would negotiate and sign a contract containing terms and conditions that are mutually acceptable to both parties.
This material was created to provide accurate and reliable information on the subjects covered by should not be regarded as a complete analysis of these subjects. It is not to provide specific legal, tax or other professional advice. The services of an appropriate professional should be sought regarding your individual situation.
Consulting and insurance brokerage services to be provided by Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. and/or its affiliate Gallagher Benefit Services (Canada) Group Inc. Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc., a non-investment firm and subsidiary of Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., is a licensed insurance agency that does business in California as “Gallagher Benefit Services of California Insurance Services” and in Massachusetts as “Gallagher Benefit Insurance Services. ajg.com
The Gallagher Way. Since 1927.