City of Montgomery - 2018 Classification and Compensation

2018 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. All rights reserved

City of Montgomery

2018 Classification and Compensation Analysis

October 22, 2018

Ronnie E. Charles

Managing Director | Public Sector

Gallagher Human Resources & Compensation

Consulting Practice

901 Marquette Ave. S., Suite 1900

Minneapolis, MN 55402

651-234-0848

[email protected]

ajg.com/compensation

©2018 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. All rights reserved.

October 22, 2018

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

Brian Heck

201 Ash Avenue SW

Montgomery, MN 56069

Dear Mr. Heck:

We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal regarding services Gallagher’s Human

Resources & Compensation Consulting practice (“Gallagher”) is able to offer the City of

Montgomery (“City”). Gallagher is highly capable and qualified to work with the City based on

our extensive experience with public sector organizations in Minnesota and across the country.

It is our understanding that the City is seeking a consultant for the purposes of providing a

classification and compensation study in compliance with the Minnesota Pay Equity Act. We

have prepared a proposal letter per your request and have organized it in the following sections:

Firm History

Approach/Methods Used to Perform the Project

Experience and Qualifications

Timeline

Cost Proposal

References

We believe we will provide the City of Montgomery with the most ethnically diverse project team

of any consulting practice in the country, which enhances the solutions and recommendations

we will provide on this engagement. The questions and perspective provided by our team

ensure we anticipate the many issues the City may face throughout this project, as well as the

ongoing management of the new classification and compensation structure.

We would consider it a privilege to serve the City in this capacity.

2 | City of Montgomery | October 22, 2018


FIRM HISTORY

History of the firm

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. opened its doors for business in 1927 and is still “growing strong”

because of a practiced 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. Headquartered in Rolling Meadows, IL, 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’ve 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.

Our practice is a combination of some of the most respected names in human resources and

compensation consulting. Bringing together experts from compensation, performance, search,

survey, and leadership fields, Gallagher empowers clients with tools for the entire lifecycle of

employment management.

With an experienced team of 185 consultants located in 13 offices across the United States and

Canada, our services include:

Compensation

Executive Compensation

HR Management

Custom Salary and Benefit Surveys (conducted by Gallagher Surveys)

Employee Engagement

Organizational Development

Search and Interim Placement

Governance Consulting

Our compensation consulting practice includes extensive experience in developing and

communicating a compensation philosophy, designing and implementing market-aligned pay

structures, 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 are in compliance 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.

Our Minnesota based team (formerly known as Fox Lawson & Associates) has provided pay

equity compensation studies since 1984 when the Minnesota Pay Equity Act was passed. We

continue to provide compensation consulting services to many of the public sector jurisdictions

throughout the state of Minnesota in compliance with this law.

APPROACH/METHODS USED TO PERFORM THE PROJECT

Our significant experience has resulted in a comprehensive understanding of the scope of work

described by the City. Below is our approach and methodologies regarding specific areas

identified by the City, followed by a description of the scope of work, and then our detailed work

plan.

Approach and Methodologies

Study Philosophy

Our philosophy for this type of classification and compensation study is based on the concept

that employees should be paid equitably according to the value of the job to the organization

and the comparable market within the financial capabilities of the organization. The concept of

market comparability should be based on base compensation provided to the employee in

relation to a comparable market for similarly situated jobs.

Our general approach is to start by defining a compensation philosophy and strategy for our

clients. This statement helps to define how classifications will be defined (broadly or narrowly),

the comparative market, and where in relation to that market the client wants to position itself

(e.g., average, lower or higher) and how it wants to balance the cost of benefits with the cost of

salary (e.g., some clients want to pay a salary that is slightly below the average of the market

because the cost of benefits is higher than the market average).

Once this strategy is defined, it is then possible to establish a classification system that is tightly

integrated with the compensation system so that employees are paid equitably in relation to



other jobs in the organization and in relation to the market. Below are our philosophies and

approaches to the major Phases of the project:

Classification

Classification is the process of understanding, verifying, and describing the nature and level of

work of each job. Normally this data would be collected by asking employees and supervisors

to describe their work, including the duties, responsibilities, knowledge, skills, physical

requirements, and working conditions required for their job. If the current job descriptions are

not up-to-date and possibly in need of considerable re-writing, we suggest that all employees

complete a Position Description Questionnaire (PDQ). We have appended a sample

Questionnaire as Attachment A.

If the initial review shows that the job descriptions are in reasonably good shape, we can avoid

the PDQ process and confirm the job duties through interviews. Gallagher typically conducts

group interviews and select employee interviews to confirm our understanding of the jobs being

studied. Group interviews have the benefit of involving many employees in the development of

the classification structure as well as aiding in employee understanding and acceptance of the

results.

Job Evaluation

The purpose of job evaluation is to establish the internal worth of all job classes. The basic

premise of job evaluation dictates that the more a job is valued internally, the more it should be

compensated. Furthermore, it is a valuable tool for slotting classifications into appropriate

salary grades when market data are not available for certain classifications, or for classifications

that are not benchmarked. Our job evaluation method is the Decision Band Method (DBM®).

For more information and examples regarding this method, please refer to Attachment B. In our

review, we will look at individual jobs as well as the relation of jobs to ensure proper internal

alignment across the City. The City will be responsible for reviewing and approving the

recommended job evaluations.

Compensation

We follow professionally accepted compensation principles and practices as outlined by

WorldatWork, SHRM, and the Department of Labor. Some of these guidelines are listed below.

We have also authored many articles on various aspects of conducting salary surveys; please

refer to our website ajg.com/compensation for these specific articles.



We utilize the following guidelines for benchmark selection:

Representation of all job families and levels throughout the organization

Highly populated jobs

Jobs found in most organizations

Jobs with recruitment or retention problems

We will review job descriptions and other job documentation to ensure we understand the duties

and responsibilities, level that the job is functioning at, and the reporting relationships so that

participating organizations can match their classifications to the benchmark jobs. We will draw

on our 30 years of salary and benefits survey experience to determine if a comparable job can

be found in the labor market. We will ask the City to clarify any questionable jobs and/or answer

any questions we may have about a particular job.

We follow guidelines for job matching (match only those jobs that match at least 80% of the

duties, responsibilities and functions as outlined in the benchmark job summary). While some

firms may claim to use a higher percentage, we believe anything over 80% may exclude data

that are good, valid matches. We do not ask participants to rate the quality of the match, as this

introduces additional subjectivity to the process that cannot be controlled.

We follow professionally accepted guidelines for defining labor markets and selecting

organizations to survey. We factor in that different jobs will have different recruiting markets, by:

Type of organization (e.g. Public vs. Private sector)

Size of organization

Geographic location

It is important to define an organization’s labor market prior to the survey rather than after the

data have been collected so that it does not appear that the labor market data are being

manipulated to support a certain conclusion. This could cause significant issues from an

employee perception standpoint as well as potentially violate Federal Trade Commission and

the U.S. Department of Labor’s Sherman Antitrust Act guidelines in regards to the analysis of

salary data.

Any published sources utilized must meet the following criteria:

Be conducted by a reputable salary survey firm

Survey data is not self-reported

Survey is conducted on a continual basis instead of a one-time event



Survey reports its data sources, the effective date of the data, and was tested to ensure accurate matches and data

We will develop a data collection form that poses questions in a fashion that is easy for

participants to answer, as well as being easy to quantify and analyze.

We follow-up with participants to ensure data quality and validity of matches and data being

reported. If there are any questions we seek job descriptions, organizational charts and other

information.

We perform several reviews of the data as well as statistical tests to identify any extreme data and to ensure the validity of the data. Items we check for and follow-up on are:

Job matches

Labor market is right for each benchmark (as it was defined in beginning of study)

The range of salaries reported for each benchmark (any abnormally high or low)

Extreme range spreads (either abnormally high or low)

Relationship of minimums and maximums (minimums not higher than maximums)

Actual salaries fall within the specified ranges (not less than minimum or significantly over maximum)

Relationship of progression in levels (e.g., a level II job should have a higher salary than a level I job)

We utilize trend factors for aging data so that all data is consistent to a current point in time.

The trend factors are derived from either the U.S. Department of Labor data or WorldatWork

Surveys.

We apply geographic differentials as appropriate and necessary to ensure that the data are

reflective of the City’s labor market and economic conditions. We use third party resources

(ERI) to identify the appropriate geographic differences. These geographic differentials will be

shown separately.

We calculate various statistics for summarizing the data (means, medians, highs, lows,

percentiles).

We follow the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Labor guidelines that 5

matches should exist per job in order to draw reliable conclusions. Therefore we do not

calculate statistics (means, medians, etc.) on jobs with fewer than 5 job matches.



Scope of Work

Provide professional services with integrative support services to complete the

following:

Review and evaluate current position descriptions and provide method for establishing

classification, ranking, and grade.

This will be completed in phases II (optional), III, and IV of the work plan. If it is determined that

City job descriptions are up-to-date and accurate, we will utilize them as the basis for our

study. If the City elects to conduct the classification phase, we will organize City jobs into

appropriate types and levels of work, and recommend title consolidation as appropriate. Upon

completion of the classification structure, we will evaluate current position descriptions using

DBM®. The resulting evaluations ensure proper internal equity and hierarchy, and are

ultimately used to assign pay grades.

Assist in revisions to position descriptions to capture general essence of the position

to ensure accurate classification, ranking, and grade based on the evaluation method.

This will be completed in phase V of the work plan. If it is determined that some or all position

descriptions require updates, we recommend utilizing PDQs and/or employee interviews to

gather current information on City positions. We can rewrite descriptions, assist in revising

current descriptions, or provide general samples for the City to use in updating them.

Classification method/system must meet the requirements to ensure internal equity

among positions and to comply with State Pay Equity laws.

This will be completed in phases II (optional) and III of the work plan. Our Minnesota based

team (formerly known as Fox Lawson & Associates) has provided pay equity compensation

studies since 1984 when the Minnesota Pay Equity Act was passed. We continue to provide

compensation consulting services to many of the public sector jurisdictions throughout the

state of Minnesota in compliance with this law.

Review existing compensation structure and recommend revisions to the current

system – the city is open to including a performance component to the structure.

This will be completed in phase IV of the work plan. We will combine external market data with

internal job evaluation ratings to develop up to three salary structure options. This allows for a



proper balance of internal equity and external competitiveness, and is also valuable for slotting

classifications into appropriate salary grades when market data are not available for certain

classifications. We will provide guidelines and best practices for utilizing the resulting salary

structure, but it is ultimately up to the City to determine how to manage employee movement

through the structure.

Conduct an external market analysis to ensure external equity with peer communities.

Provide a list of communities to be used in the market analysis before proceeding.

This will be completed in phase IV of the work plan. We will conduct a compensation survey to

include comparable peer communities. We will provide recommendations for peers to be

included in the survey, and will work collaboratively with the City to determine final peers to

include.

Provide training as necessary to key employees to assure the implementation and

maintenance of the plan are accomplished.

This will be completed in phases III and V of the work plan. We will conduct DBM® training for

key employees to ensure understanding of our job evaluation method. We will also provide

compensation guidelines for maintaining the plan.

Post contract services involving support in the review of new position descriptions and

determination of points and salary for new position and, if required, assistance with the

first state pay equity report following compensation review to assure compliance.

This will be completed upon completion of the project on an as-needed basis. We are available

to review new and updated descriptions to determine proper DBM® rating. We have assisted

many other clients with pay equity reporting, and are available to assist the City as needed.

Prepare and present written findings and recommendation to the City Council for

consideration and action.

This will be completed in phase V of the work plan. We will be available to present the final

report to City Council.

Prepare final documents of the plan including guidelines for plan implementation and

administration, such as how the plan is adjusted for cost of living adjustments and any



modifications to how staff moves through the ranges and other pertinent information.

Written and computerized/electronic data as appropriate must also be submitted.

This will be completed in phase V of the work plan. We will provide compensation guidelines

for review by the City. We provide all relevant electronic data files as part of the final report

package.

Guidance on the frequency of conducting an external market analysis to ensure the City

retains market competitiveness.


for review by the City.

Establish schedule for each of the above proposed developments.


for review by the City, which will include guidelines outlining the recommended frequency of

salary adjustments and full market analyses.

Propose contract terms, including an itemized fee schedule for work included in the

scope of work and payment schedule based on measurable deliverables.

Upon selection, we will furnish a draft contract for City review. We typically bill on a monthly

basis, but we are open to discussing alternative billing schedules with the City.



Work Plan

In the work plan below, we have described our approach and deliverables, and integrated the

scope of work requested by the City. This ensures we are addressing all the requests of the

City.

Study Phase Study Phase Activities

I. Project Administration

Organization and salary material collected.

Identification of possible barriers to implementing and maintaining change.

Discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the City’s current classification & compensation systems.

Development of City compensation philosophy and strategies.

Project timetable confirmed.

Project information meetings conducted on-site (optional).

II. Classification Study (optional)

PDQ template provided for all employees to complete (optional).

Consolidation of job titles recommended as appropriate.

Classification structure developed.

III. Job Evaluation Study

Representative samples of staff interviewed as needed (optional).

DBM® applied to all classifications.

Key personnel trained in the use of DBM®.

Draft internal ratings reviewed to ensure organization-wide equity.

Job evaluation ratings finalized with key staff after training to ensure understanding of methods and results.



Study Phase Study Phase Activities

IV. Compensation Study

Custom survey:

‒ Labor market confirmed and survey participants identified.

‒ Benchmark jobs identified and summarized.

‒ Custom survey developed and conducted.

Integrate published survey sources:

‒ Identify published survey sources.

‒ Collect market data from published survey sources.

The following activities will be performed on all data:

‒ Competitive analysis performed.

‒ Diagnostic review of current salary structures conducted to identify opportunities for simplification, reduction in pay compression.

‒ Recommended pay structure developed or existing structures updated.

‒ Transition options and next steps/costs outlined.

V. Project Finalization & Report

Draft report developed and discussed with key staff.

Quality assurance reviews conducted.

City review and feedback consolidated.

Final report and presentation.

Provide classification and compensation administrative guidelines and policies for review by the City.

Presentation of study findings and recommendations to the City Council.

Development of new or updated position descriptions (optional).

Employee appeals conducted (optional).



EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS

Our project team has worked together on over 500 similar consulting engagements. We have

worked with cities and counties throughout the country on all aspects of compensation as well

as across Minnesota, ranging from municipalities with 8 employees to over 30,000 employees.

Our studies typically include developing new classification structures and job descriptions,

evaluating jobs with a job evaluation methodology to determine the internal equity, conducting a

custom-tailored salary survey, developing a competitive pay system, recommending strategies

to implement the new compensation structure, and ensuring appropriate administrative and

procedural guidelines are in place to maintain the system.

We will have one Project Manager, Mike Verdoorn, and one staff consultant, Megan Olson,

assigned to this project. Additional staff are available as appropriate or necessary to ensure the

unique needs are met and customized solutions developed.

All of the staff as outlined above is available to be part of your project team. A sampling of staff

resumes begin below.

JAMES C. FOX, Ph.D., IPMA-SCP - Managing Director

Dr. Fox serves is a Managing Director with the firm. He has been conducting classification and

compensation studies for more than 30 years. Prior to forming the firm, he was a Partner in the

firm of Ernst & Young LLP and headed up the firm’s regional compensation practice, with

national responsibility for the public-sector compensation practice.

BRUCE G. LAWSON, CCP, IPMA-SCP - Managing Director

Mr. Lawson serves as a technical advisor on this study. Mr. Lawson has directed similar

projects for more than 30 years. He also served as City Manager in two California cities, was

the County Administrative Officer in Multnomah County (Jefferson County) Oregon, Assistant

City Manager/Personnel Director in Corvallis, Oregon, and Assistant to the City

Administrator/Personnel Director in Placentia, CA. Mr. Lawson served on the City of Phoenix

(AZ) Public Safety Employees Retirement Board for 12 years.

RONNIE E. CHARLES, SPHR, GPHR, IPMA-SCP - Managing Director

Mr. Charles is a Managing Director with the firm. He is responsible for leading Gallagher’s

Public-Sector consulting practice in the eastern region of the United States. Mr. Charles has

over 30 years of Public Sector HR experience including Chief Human Resources Officer

(CHRO) experience most recently in the City of Baltimore with additional professional stints in



the District of Columbia, State of Virginia, and City of Suffolk, Virginia. Mr. Charles has a

Bachelor’s Degree in Management from Saint Paul’s City. Mr. Charles is a member of several

professional organizations, including the International Public Management Association for

Human Resources (IPMA-HR) and currently chairs the International IPMA-HR Professional

Development Committee. In addition, Mr. Charles also currently serves as the Chair of the

Human Resources Institute (HRCI). He brings vast experience in domestic U.S., International,

and Global HR Compensation practices.

MIKE VERDOORN, MA-HRIR, CCP, IPMA-SCP - Principal Consultant

Mr. Verdoorn will lead the coordination of the project. Mr. Verdoorn has been with Fox Lawson

& Associates for 10 years, and is a former Compensation Analyst for Imation and the University

of Minnesota. He has a Master’s Degree in Human Resources and Industrial Relations from the

University of Minnesota, and has earned his CCP certification from WorldatWork.

DEEKSHA GARG, MA-HRIR - Consultant

Ms. Garg will provide staff support during all Phases of this study. Ms. Garg has a Bachelor’s

Degree in Psychology from Bangalore University, India and a Master’s Degree in Human

Resources and Industrial Relations from the University of Minnesota. She previously worked at

Nielsen Company (India) as a consultant for 2 years and later joined Basix Microfinance (India)

in talent acquisition.

MEGAN OLSON, MA-HRIR - Consulting Associate

Ms. Olson will provide staff support during all Phases of this study. She has provided job

evaluation, classification, pay equity, compensation, and related consulting support for

approximately 60 projects ranging from small compensation engagements to comprehensive

classification and compensation studies. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology from

North Dakota State University and a Master's Degree in Human Resources and Industrial

Relations from the University of Minnesota. Prior to joining Gallagher Benefit Services, she held

project based roles in the nonprofit sector and with Ford Motor Company.



TIMELINE

The following is an estimate to complete each Phase by month. We will discuss the details of

each Phase during Phase I and identify specific deadlines for the project at that time. We will

conduct frequent conference calls with the City to ensure that the schedule is monitored

throughout the project.

In today’s world, speed is very 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.

We understand the City aims to complete the study within 6 months. We believe that this study

can be completed within that timeframe, with agreement by both parties that delays on either

side will hinder our ability to complete the project within the desired timeframe.

Significant project milestones include completion of a classification structure within 2 months of

project start, and development of a new salary structure within 5 months of project start.

PHASE DECRIPTION

MONTH

1 2 3 4 5 6

I Project Administration

II Classification Study (optional)

III Job Evaluation Study

IV Compensation Study

V Final Report



COST PROPOSAL

We understand the importance of this study as one of many strategies to address current

human resource issues and appreciate the delicate nature of public sector spending. Therefore,

we have proposed a sensible fee schedule that generates project results destined to add value

to the City. The work plan proposed is designed to provide the flexibility necessary to attract,

retain, and motivate employees to provide quality services and ensure the system is not an

administrative and/or costly burden to the City now or in the future. Our fees to conduct the

project outlined for 11 classifications and 17 employees (including out of pocket expenses) are

estimated at $14,500 to $19,000

Itemized breakdown of fees

Our fees to conduct the classification and compensation study outlined above (including out-of-

pocket expenses) will not exceed $19,000 plus the cost of any appeals, job descriptions, and

future plan maintenance. The table below outlines the price per Phase.

Phase Fees

Phase I: Project Administration $1,000*

Phase II: Classification Study (optional) $3,000* (Using existing job

descriptions) $4,500*

(Using PDQs)

Phase III: Job Evaluation Study Cost includes a 30 minute phone interview with each employee

$4,000



Phase Fees

Phase IV: Compensation Study $6,000

Phase V: Final Report Cost includes development of new job descriptions and one day of final on-site presentations.

$3,500**

TOTAL COST (inclusive of all tasks): $14,500 – $19,000 + appeals and job descriptions

*These costs do not include on-site meetings. If additional on-site days are requested for

employee meetings or trainings, an additional cost of $2,000 per day will be assessed.

**This does not include development of job descriptions. The cost of a job description is $350;

thus, the total cost may increase or decrease depending upon final number of classifications.

If the City desires to conduct an employee appeals process, the cost of an appeal is $350; thus,

the total cost may increase or decrease depending upon number of appeals we are asked to

conduct.

To maintain the system in the future, our cost for re-evaluations is $350 per job. The cost to

update the salary structure according to the market is $700.

Our study costs are directly derived from estimating the number of hours needed to perform the

work and the level of the consultant charged with performing the work. Gallagher typically bills

on a monthly basis up to the maximum of each deliverable. All expenses are included in this

quote.

We would be pleased to discuss other alternatives that involve your staff to a greater degree in

the conduct of the work plan with associated cost savings, including:

Reduction in on-site meetings.

Use of current job descriptions instead of PDQs. If PDQs are not utilized, it is important to

ensure that current job descriptions are up-to-date.

Reliance on key personnel for current job information, rather than conducting 30 minute

interviews with each employee.

City updates or writes new job descriptions.

City manages the custom survey process: this would require time commitment from the City

to send out surveys and conduct follow-up to encourage survey participation.



REFERENCES

Our Managing Directors and staff have assisted several hundred public sector clients. These

projects have included from less than one hundred, to thousands of employees. Below is a

sampling of clients we have assisted with similar needs. Contact information is listed for each

project, and any of these organizations can be contacted for references. These projects are

relevant in demonstrating our ability to meet the needs of the City and show considerable

experience developing classification and compensation systems for municipal governments.

RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT, MN

We recently completed a classification and compensation study for this district. The results

included employee interviews, job evaluation and a market study. Recommended salaries and

a salary schedule was provided. Myron Jesme, Administrator, Red Lake Watershed District,

[email protected], 218-681-5800

CITY OF HOPKINS, MN

We recently completed a full classification and compensation study for all city positions through

completion of position description questionnaires, job evaluations and utilizing published survey

sources. Ari Lenz, Assistant City Manager, 952-548-6303, [email protected].

CITY OF OWATONNA, MN

In 2017, we completed a full classification and compensation study of all City positions through

completion of position description questionnaires, employee interviews, job evaluations and a

market survey. Lynn Gorski, Director of Human Resources, 507-774-7345,

[email protected].

CITY OF BLAINE, MN

We are currently working with The City of Blaine in conducting a classification and

compensation study. The study involves PDQ’s to all employees, the development of a

classification structure, new job descriptions, a market study and development of a pay structure

that is market competitive. Sheri Chesness, Human Resources Manager, 763-717-2624,

[email protected].

CITY OF FARMINGTON, MN

We have recently conducted a job evaluation and market assessment of all jobs in this city

using the Decision Band Method®. Brenda Wendtland, Director of Human Resources, 651-280-

6806.

mailto:[email protected]





KANDIYOHI COUNTY, MN We recently completed a classification and compensation for this county. The study involves developing a new classification and pay plan. Connie Mort, Human Resources Director, 320-231-6215 Ext 2107, [email protected]. STEELE COUNTY, MN In 2014 we were asked to replace the job evaluation component of a study completed by another firm. We continue to provide on-going evaluation assistance. Julie Johnson, Human Resources Director, 507-444-7429, Julie. Johnson @co.steele.mn.us OLMSTED COUNTY, MN We originally performed a pay equity study for this county, by conducting a job analysis, writing job descriptions and performing job evaluations. Subsequently, we have reviewed job families and various jobs to maintain the system using the Decision Band™ Method. Dale Ignatius, Director of Human Resources, 507-285-8333, [email protected] NICOLLET COUNTY, MN In 2012 we conducted a classification and compensation study for this county of approximately 250 employees in 110 job classifications. The study involved updating job descriptions, job evaluation and a market study of compensation. Jamie Haefner, Human Resources Director, 507-934-0443, [email protected].




* * * * *

Sincerely,

Ronnie E. Charles

Managing Director

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. 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.” Neither Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., nor its affiliates provide accounting, legal

or tax advice.

A-1 | City of Montgomery | October 22, 2018


Attachment A: Sample Position Description Questionnaire



SAMPLE

POSITION DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE

INSTRUCTIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING YOUR POSITION DESCRIPTION

QUESTIONNAIRE (PDQ)

Position Description Questionnaires (PDQs) are being distributed to all individuals whose

positions are included within the scope of the study. As these PDQs are used to write job

classifications, it is extremely important for you to fill out the questionnaires completely and

accurately.

To make this process easier for you, we recommend you first read through the entire

questionnaire so that you understand the information we are asking for in each section. Next,

complete as much of the questionnaire as you can and then put it down for a day. On the next

day, complete the rest of the questionnaire. Finally, just before you submit it, read it again to

make sure you have not forgotten anything. We have included a checklist on page two to assist

you with tracking your progress.

1. The information you provide on the following PDQ will be used to develop the new job

classification system and determine the correct classification for your job. It is very important

that you provide accurate, detailed information about your current job duties. You may

complete your PDQ as an individual, or you may join with other employees who perform the

same type of work that you do to complete the PDQ as a group. Contact your supervisor for

specific details on how to participate through a group process.

2. The questionnaire must be reviewed and signed by your immediate supervisor and Department

Head. Objectivity is the main consideration when the PDQs are reviewed.

3. Please spend a majority of your time on the sections indicated by arrows as these are the

most important sections in determining job classifications in the new system.



4. We suggest that you keep a copy of the final document for your records. Throughout the

review process the PDQ form must be also emailed to the Human Resources Department

to ensure retention of document as well as the integrity of the process. The completed

PDQ must be submitted:

to your Supervisor by ____ (email PDQ to supervisor and HR)

Supervisors submits to Department Heads by ____ (email PDQ to employee and HR)

Department Heads submit PDQs to the Human Resources Department by ____ (email to

employee, supervisor and HR)

5. This document is set to be filled out by the employee by typing a response, checking a box, or

selecting an answer from a drop-down menu. Spaces left for response are indicated by a gray-

shaded area. Drop-down menus are indicated by the word, “select” and an arrow next to the

word when the box is highlighted. You may move between response areas simply by using the

“Tab” key.

Position Description Questionnaire (PDQ) – Overview and Checklist

Following is an overview of the PDQ. Please use the checkboxes next to each section to

monitor your progress and ensure completion.

I - Background

Employee Information: Name, title, email, department, etc.

II - Position Information

1. Position Summary: Written description of your job’s primary purpose.

2. Supervision and Organizational Relationships

a) Supervisory and Lead Worker Responsibilities: Details of supervisory responsibility,

if any.

b) Organization Chart: Titles of coworkers and subordinates.

3. Essential Duties: Major job duties and their required decisions and frequency.

4. Required Knowledge and Skills: Required knowledge and skills to perform essential

duties.

III - Education, Experience, and Equipment

1. Education: What education do you have vs. what do you need for the job?

2. Experience: What experience do you have vs. what do you need for the job?

3. Special Requirements

4. Machines, Tools, and Equipment: Necessary equipment needed to perform job.



IV - Decision Making and Judgments: Short answers regarding decision-making capacity.

V - Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements

1. Physical Factors: Standard ADA-related requirements.

2. Working Conditions: Physical working conditions.

VI - Additional Comments

VII - Employee, Supervisor and Department Head Signatures

Employee, Supervisor and Department Head Signatures



SAMPLE

POSITION DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE

DUE TO YOUR SUPERVISOR BY ____

1. EMPLOYEE INFORMATION: In this section you will provide information regarding your name, current job

title, your immediate supervisor, etc. This information will help us make sure we refer to the correct job

throughout the study.

Employee Name: Date Form Completed:

Official Job Title:

Department:

Work Phone:

E-mail:

Time in Current

Position:

years months

Immediate Supervisor: Immediate Supervisor Reports To:

Name:

Name:

Title:

Title:

Work Phone:

Work Phone:

E-mail:

E-mail:

POSITION SUMMARY- This is very important.

Please write 1 to 3 sentences that describe the purpose and major duties of your position.

Example: Computer Support Technician

Summary: To operate, maintain and repair computer equipment and to provide technical assistance to

users. Provide guidance to users on how to fix problems. Install equipment and programs. Troubleshoot

problems by researching potential solutions. Provide input on software and equipment purchases.



3. SUPERVISORY AND LEAD WORKER RESPONSIBILITIES – This is very important.

For each statement in the chart below, if the statement applies to your position, please check

the box under the “Yes” column and then indicate the number of employees for which you are

responsible to the right of the statement.

Yes Duty

Full-time

Equivalent

Employees

I do not officially supervise other employees (sign performance

reviews, approve timecards, conduct job interviews,

reward/discipline, etc.).

NA

I evaluate and sign performance reviews, approve timecards,

conduct job interviews, reward/discipline, etc. of other regular

employees.

I evaluate and sign performance reviews, approve timecards,

conduct job interviews, reward/discipline, etc. of part-time,

temporary or contract employees.

I assign work and provide work direction as a “lead-worker” for

other regular employees.

I assign work and provide work direction as a “lead-worker” for

part-time, temporary or contract employees



4. ORGANIZATION CHART

Complete the organization chart below. Please use titles; not names. List only those jobs for

which you officially supervise and who you report to.

Your Position

5. ESSENTIAL DUTIES - This is very important.

In the table below, please list your essential duties (those duties that make up at least 5% of your time), and the decisions you make in carrying out each duty. Provide enough detail so that someone who may not be familiar with your job will have a clear understanding of what it is that you do. For example, do not simply state “prepares reports”, but state “prepares reports such as status reports, staff reports”, or other type of report(s) you may prepare. Also, please use action verbs such as; prepares, calculates, operates, etc., to start off each statement. Avoid phrases such as “assists with” or “participates in.” Do not use acronyms. In the Frequency column, please indicate how often you perform each duty: D = daily, W = weekly, M = monthly, Q = quarterly, A = annually, or O = occasionally. In the “Percent of Time” column please indicate how much of your time you spend on each task. The total of these percentages should not be more than 100%. Example: Sally conducts property value estimates 20% of the time, it may mean she spends one day out of five on that task, or that she spends around two hours each day. These need only be estimates so do not spend a great deal of time trying to come up with an exact percentage. The percentages of your essential duties should not exceed 100%, but should account for at least 80% of your time.



Essential Duties (What you do and

how you do it.) Decisions Required

Frequency D = Daily; W = Weekly

M = Monthly; Q = Quarterly A = Annually; O = Occasionally % of Time

EXAMPLES:

(List actual essential duties below examples)

Prepares monthly newsletters by gathering information, writing copy, editing, and preparing for publication.

Articles to include, editorial changes, graphics, layouts

M 25%

Performs inventory spot checks and monthly counts of supplies in warehouse.

When to check supplies M 10%

1. Select

2. Select

3. Select

4. Select

5. Select

6. Select

7. Select

8. Select

9. Select

10. Select



6. REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS

Please list the knowledge and skills required for entry into your position, and not what you might

necessarily know or be able to do after being in your position for a number of years.

Knowledge: refers to the possession of concepts and information gained through experience,

training and/or education and can be measured through testing.

Skills: refers to proficiencies that can be demonstrated and are typically manual in nature and/or

can be measured through testing.

Knowledge and Skills

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.



7. EDUCATION - This is very important.

Identify the minimum level of education you believe is needed to satisfactorily perform your job at

entry level. This may be different from what the organization currently requires and/or from your

own level of education.

Position Requires:

Less than High School Diploma or equivalent (G.E.D.) (ability to read, write, and follow

directions)

High School Diploma or equivalent (G.E.D.)

Up to one year of specialized or technical training beyond high school

Associate degree (A.S., A.A.) or two-year technical certificate

Bachelor’s degree in

Master’s degree in

Other (explain):

What field(s) should training or degree be in?

8. EXPERIENCE - This is very important.

Identify the minimum type and years of experience required for entry into your job?

Type of Experience Minimum Time Required

years

years

years

9. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:

List any registrations, certifications or licenses that are required for entry into your position.

Do not use acronyms.



10. MACHINES, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT. List any specialized machines, tools,

equipment or software used in your work and show the time spent using each. Do not list

common office equipment and software such as Microsoft Office, e-mail applications, copiers,

faxes, personal computers, etc.

Machines, Tools, Equipment Time

Select

Select

Select

Select

Select

Select

11. DECISION-MAKING AND JUDGMENTS.

a. Describe two decisions and/or judgments you make regularly and independently in the

performance of your duties.

1.

2.



b. When making decisions do you most often (Check only one):

Routinely check with your supervisor before doing anything other than following standard

procedures.

Follow standard procedures and established practices to resolve problems using limited

discretion.

Use some discretion in your daily work and recommend new or revised policies, procedures

and standard practices, which may be implemented after being approved by your supervisor.

Create and implement new solutions not previously applied.

c. Indicate which of the following types of decisions you make regularly in the course of your

work.

I plan and schedule the work of others.

I set goals and objectives for others.

I provide training and instruction to others.

I assign work activities to others.

I establish standard procedures.

I make hiring and promotion decisions.

I provide discipline and performance counseling.

I provide advice to peers that they must consider carefully before making a decision.

I provide information to supervisors/management that they use in making a decision.



12. PHYSICAL FACTORS - Your answers in this section will not affect how your job is

classified.

Check the box that best describes the overall amount of physical effort required to perform your

job.

Sedentary Work: Exerting up to 10 pounds of force occasionally and/or a negligible

amount of force frequently or constantly to lift, carry, push, pull or otherwise move objects,

including the human body. Sedentary work involves sitting most of the time. Jobs are

sedentary if walking and standing are required only occasionally and all other sedentary criteria

are met.

Light Work: Exerting up to 20 pounds of force occasionally, and/or up to 10 pounds of

force frequently, and/or a negligible amount of force constantly to move objects. If the use of

arm and/or leg controls requires exertion of forces greater than that for Sedentary Work and the

worker sits most of the time, the job is rated for Light Work.

Medium Work: Exerting up to 50 pounds of force occasionally, and/or up to 20 pounds of

force frequently, and/or up to 10 pounds of force constantly to move objects.

Heavy Work: Exerting up to 100 pounds of force occasionally, and/or up to 50 pounds of

force frequently, and/or up to 20 pounds of force constantly to move objects.

Very Heavy Work: Exerting in excess of 100 pounds of force occasionally, and/or in

excess of 50 pounds of force frequently, and/or in excess of 20 pounds of force constantly to

move objects.



For each physical activity listed below, indicate the amount of time you spend performing each

physical activity during the course of your work, and the level of importance of each physical

activity to the performance of your essential duties.

Physical Activity Time Importance

Climbing: ascending or descending ladders, scaffolding, ramps, poles and the like, using feet and legs and/or hands and arms. Body agility is emphasized.

Select Select

Balancing: maintaining body equilibrium to prevent falling when walking, standing or crouching on narrow, slippery or erratically moving surfaces.

Select Select

Stooping: bending body downward and forward by bending spine at the waist.

Select Select

Kneeling: bending legs at knee to come to a rest on knee or knees.

Select Select

Crouching: bending the body downward and forward by bending leg and spine.

Select Select

Crawling: moving about on hands and knees or hands and feet. Select Select

Reaching: extending hand(s) and arm(s) in any direction. Select Select

Standing: particularly for sustained periods of time. Select Select

Walking: moving about on foot to accomplish tasks, particularly for long distances.

Select Select

Pushing: using upper extremities to press against something with steady force in order to thrust forward, downward or outward.

Select Select

Pulling: using upper extremities to exert force in order to draw, drag, haul or tug objects in a sustained motion.

Select Select

Lifting: raising objects from a lower to a higher position or moving objects horizontally from position-to-position.

Select Select



Physical Activity Frequency Importance

Fingering: picking, pinching, typing or otherwise working, primarily with fingers rather than with the whole hand or arm as in handling.

Select Select

Grasping: applying pressure to an object with the fingers or palm.

Select Select

Feeling: perceiving attributes of objects, such as size, shape, temperature or texture by touching the skin, particularly that of fingertips.

Select Select

Talking: expressing or exchanging ideas by means of the spoken work. Those activities in which they must convey detailed or important spoken instructions to other workers accurately, loudly, or quickly.

Select Select

Hearing: ability to receive detailed information through oral communication, and to make fine discriminations in sound, such as when making fine adjustments on machined parts.

Select Select

Seeing: the ability to perceive the nature of objects by the eye. Select Select

Repetitive motions: substantial repetitive movements (motions) of the wrists, hands, and/or fingers.

Select Select



13. WORKING CONDITIONS - Your answers in this section will not affect how your job is

classified.

Check the box next to each working condition that you are subject to during the course of your

work, and indicate the amount of time you are subject to that condition. If most of your work is

in an office setting, you may select the “Does Not Apply” box below.

Does Not Apply

Condition Time

Hazardous physical conditions (mechanical parts, electrical

currents, vibration, etc.)

Select

Atmospheric conditions (fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor

ventilation)

Select

Hazardous materials (chemicals, blood and other body fluids,

etc.)

Select

Extreme temperatures Select

Inadequate lighting Select

Work space restricts movement Select

Intense noise Select

Travel Select

Environmental (challenging behaviors, imminent danger,

threatening environment)

Select



14. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Are there any additional comments you would like to make to be sure you have described your job

adequately?

EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATION

I certify that the above statements and responses are accurate and complete to the best of my

knowledge.

Signed: Date:

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. AFTER YOU OR YOUR GROUP

HAS COMPLETED YOUR PORTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE, PLEASE SUBMIT THE

QUESTIONNAIRE TO YOUR SUPERVISOR FOR REVIEW, SIGNATURE, AND COMMENT.

YOUR SUPERVISOR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO YOUR

DEPARTMENT HEAD.



TO BE COMPLETED BY THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR AND DEPARTMENT HEAD

Use this section to note any additional comments, additional duties or disagreements with any

section of the questionnaire. Do not change anything written by the individual filling out the

questionnaire and do not address any performance issues. If you disagree with any

information provided or believe some information is missing, indicate below the question

number and your comments.

Question No. Comments

Any supervisor or department head comments must be discussed with the employee.



SUPERVISOR AND DEPARMENT HEAD SIGNATURES

Please check the appropriate statement:

I agree with the employee’s position questionnaire as written.

The above modifications have been discussed with the employee, and the employee

agrees with these modifications.

The above modifications have been discussed with the employee, and the employee

disagrees with these modifications.

Supervisor Signature: _ _____________________ Date:

_ _______________

Department Head Signature: _ ___________________________ Date:

_ _____________

I have noted the modifications made by my supervisor in the comments section above.

Employee Signature: _ __________________________________ Date:

_ _____________________

B-1 | City of Montgomery | October 22, 2018


Attachment B: Decision Band Method Overview



JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM – CONFIDENTIAL – MAY NOT DISCLOSE

We recommend the use of the Decision Band® Method for job evaluation. It is described briefly

below. We recommend that supervisors sign off on their subordinate’s entire job descriptions.

DECISION BAND® METHOD

SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

The Decision Band® Method (DBM) of job evaluation is a highly effective method of objectively

evaluating the worth of a job to an organization. A sound theoretical framework serves as the

basis of the method that provides a consistent and valid approach to comparing and contrasting

jobs.

Initially developed over thirty years ago by Professor Emeritus Thomas T. Paterson, and further

refined by Fox Lawson's compensation consultants, the Decision Band® Method has been

tested in organizations throughout the world as a means of identifying rational distinctions in pay

for all jobs.

DBM® has been used successfully in both public and private sector organizations.

Organizations converting their current job evaluation plans to the DBM® framework can be

assured that their pay hierarchy will be reliable, valid and justifiable.

The basic premise of DBM® is that the value of a job to an organization is based on its level of

responsibility. Responsibility is reflected, and therefore measured, by the decision-making

requirements of the job. Because all jobs require incumbents to make decisions in order to

perform their jobs, decision-making is a logical and equitable basis on which to compare jobs

within an organization.



SUMMARY OF METHOD

DBM® job evaluation involves three basic steps. First, jobs are classified into one of six different

"Decision Bands" based on the characteristics of the decisions that a job requires. This

classification process reflects the level of responsibility of the job within the organization. The

second step involves classifying the jobs within each "Decision Band" into one of two "Grades"

based on the differential supervisory difficulty and effort required of the job. Each of the six

bands is subdivided into two grades, (coordinating and non -coordinating) or subclasses,

depending on the requirements to monitor or supervise subordinate jobs. Exhibit 5 is an

overview of the DBM® Decision Structure.

At this point in the process, jobs will have been classified into a hierarchy of twelve different

classes of jobs, based on the job's level of responsibility and supervisory difficulty and effort.

The third and final step involves further subdivision of jobs within each grade into subgrades by

reference to the complexity, difficulty, and skills required of the job in relation to other jobs that

have been classified into the same Band and Grade.

Frequently, this subgrading is done within each occupational group in order to facilitate the

making of relative judgments in comparing the complexity, difficulty, and skills required of jobs

across different occupations. The subgrading process shares many characteristics with point-

factor methods of job evaluation.

Finally, the jobs are priced within the relevant labor market.

OVERVIEW OF THE DECISION BAND® METHOD

Banding

The first step in evaluating jobs using DBM® involves banding each decision-making task

according to the kind of decision required. All jobs in an organization are composed of a set of

tasks. In most organizations, job descriptions are formal documents that describe these tasks.

In order to perform all its requirements each task requires the incumbent to make different kinds

of decisions some of which may be of a higher level of greater difficulty than others. Each

decision-making task is assigned a Band and a job is classified according to the highest level of

decision required.



The Decision Bands are defined as follows:

BAND F - POLICY MAKING DECISIONSThese are decisions that determine the scope, the

direction, and the overall goals of the whole organization. They are subject to few constraints

other than those imposed by law and/or economic conditions, and they take into consideration

all the major divisions or departments, the limits of funds available to each, and the scope of

their programs. Band F decisions are the kind typically made by a Board, Council, or CEO.

BAND E - PROGRAMMING DECISIONSBand E decisions deal with the means of achieving

the goals established at Band F. These decisions are concerned with formulating or adjusting

programs for the major Functions/divisions/departments, and allocating resources (facilities,

people, money, materials) among these groups. The executives at Band E are typically in

charge of, or responsible for, advising line executives, heading up such major functions as

marketing, administration, production, and finance in private sector organizations, and major

departments in public sector organizations.

BAND D - INTERPRETIVE DECISIONSAt Band D, the incumbents are required to interpret

and carry out the programs or objectives developed at Band E. These decisions specify what is

to be done in lower Bands, and how the resources allocated by Band E are to be deployed. If

circumstances change, or if there is uncertainty about how resources are to be deployed, a

Band D decision is required to establish what is to be done in similar circumstances in the

future. Band D decisions are typically made by middle managers in various functions.

BAND C - PROCESS DECISIONS in Band C involve determining the means or process of

achieving the objectives, standards or guidelines established by Band D decisions. They are

subject to the limits imposed by the available technology and resources and to the constraints

set by Band D. Selecting the process is a decision that must precede carrying out the

operations that make up the process. A process decision specifies what is to be done at Band

B. These are typically decisions made by supervisory personnel and/or senior technical

specialist positions.

BAND B - OPERATIONAL DECISIONSThese decisions focus on how to carry out the

operations of the process specified by a Band C decision. There is, within the limits set by the

specific process, a choice as to how and when the operations are carried out, but not as to what

operations constitute the process.



BAND A - DEFINED DECISIONSBand A decisions are confined to the manner and speed of

performing the elements of an operation. There is, within the limits set by the prescribed

operation, a choice as to how the elements are performed, but not as to what elements

constitute the operation.

These Decision Bands form a continuum of responsibility within an organization. Thus, the

higher the level of decision-making required, the greater the level of responsibility.

Grading

The next step in the evaluation process is to classify the jobs according to the difficulty and

effort involved in the supervisory responsibilities, if any. Jobs which require the incumbent to

supervise or monitor other jobs assigned to the same Band (except Band A jobs) are assigned

to the higher (coordinating) of the two Grades within the Band to which his job has been

assigned. Jobs which do not supervise or monitor other jobs at the same band, but may

supervise or monitor jobs at the next lower band are assigned to the lower of the two grades

(except Band A jobs). For example, a job that is assigned responsibility at the D7 level is

responsible for supervising or monitoring jobs assigned to the D6 level. The D6 job may or may

not supervise or monitor jobs at the C5 or lower Bands/Grades in the organization. Within each

Band, there are, therefore, two Grades of jobs Coordinating and Non Coordinating.

Subgrading

By this time, if one were evaluating all jobs within an organization, the jobs would be classified

or grouped into no more than 12 different groups of jobs. All jobs classified within the same

Band and Grade are judged to be of roughly equivalent worth to the organization. However, as a

practical matter, 12 Grades are generally viewed as too few to differentiate relative worth

adequately.

Jobs are now subgraded (ranked) by Grade. As an example, between two data processing jobs

one is more difficult than another and therefore given different subgrades. By limiting the

subgrading step to within grades, the subjectivity of the evaluation process is greatly reduced.



Subgrading involves assessing the relative difficulty, complexity, and skills required of the job in

comparison to the other jobs within the same Band and Grade. Since difficulty and complexity

are stubborn concepts to apply, the Decision Band® Method provides criteria to assist in

determining the relative difficulty between decision-making requirements of jobs being

evaluated:

Time pressure

Need for alertness

Need for care and precision

Essential skills and knowledge

In unusual situations, other compensable criteria such as working conditions may be added,

depending on the occupational group and organizational characteristics.

2018 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. All rights reserved

Documents

City of Montgomery - 2018 Classification and Compensation