Comprehensive Compensation Study Services

The Vendor is required to provide to conduct a comprehensive compensation study for the city's 18 positions.
- A successful compensation study will:
•    Review and update the city's current compensation philosophy;
•    Conduct job analysis and market matching for all 18 city positions;
•    Evaluate and recommend changes to the city's existing list of comparator and competitor organizations;
•    Develop updated salary ranges for all 18 positions using current market data; and
•    Provide actionable implementation recommendations, including phased cost estimates.
- Objectives
•    Confirm whether the city's current philosophy of meeting the market remains appropriate, or whether a different positioning strategy better serves the city's workforce needs.
•    Assess each of the city's 18 positions through job analysis and produce defensible market matches for each.
•    Evaluate and update the city's 35-organization comparator and competitor list, with documented rationale for all changes.
•    Produce updated salary ranges (minimum, 25th percentile, midpoint, 75th percentile, maximum) for all 18 positions.
•    Quantify the fiscal impact of implementation and provide a phased approach aligned with the city's budget process.
•    Produce a revised compensation philosophy statement ready for implementation.
- Compensation philosophy review
•    Meet with the finance director (project lead), city manager, and HR director to understand the city's organizational culture, workforce strategy, and compensation objectives.
•    Review the current written compensation philosophy, including its market positioning target (currently set to meet the market), range spread methodology (50% / 40% / 35%), merit and market adjustment approach, state -ratio framework, and the current policy for placing employees within their salary range based on years of experience in their position (currently: 92% of midpoint for 1–2 years, 96% for 3–5 years, 100% for 6–7 years, and 102% for 8 or more years).
•    Benchmark the city's philosophy against best practices for municipalities of comparable size and complexity in state and the rocky mountain region.
•    Provide a written assessment identifying strengths, gaps, and recommended updates, including any suggested revisions to range spread percentages.
•    Draft a revised or affirmed compensation philosophy statement suitable for implementation.
•    Evaluate the city’s current merit increase program, including the appropriate percentage range for merit awards, how merit ceilings should differ for employees at varying act-ratio positions (e.g., whether employees above midpoint should have a lower merit ceiling than those below), and how the merit structure interacts with the range placement framework. Recommend updates that ensure the merit program reinforces, rather than conflicts with, the overall compensation philosophy.
•    Evaluate the city’s current new hire salary offer practice and recommend a formal framework that balances competitive recruitment with fairness to existing employees. The city’s current general practice is to make initial offers below 92% of the range midpoint, with a one-year adjustment to the appropriate act -ratio position based on the new hire’s total years of experience in the role or a comparable role (subject to performance). In practice, however, the city has at times found it necessary to offer above 92% — and in some cases above the range midpoint — to attract a preferred candidate.
- Job analysis and market position matching
•    Review all 18 city positions through analysis of current job descriptions, the organizational chart, and conversations or questionnaires with supervisors and/or incumbents as appropriate.
•    Match each city position to appropriate benchmark classifications in selected compensation surveys and comparator organization data.
•    Document the basis for each match, noting any positions where the match is approximate or where the city's role spans multiple benchmark classes.
•    Identify any positions that may warrant reclassification, retitling, or restructuring based on current duties and market equivalents.
- Market data collection and analysis
•    Identify and utilize appropriate published compensation surveys and databases relevant to state municipal employment. All data sources must be clearly identified in the final report.
•    Collect salary range data (minimum, midpoint, and maximum) directly from comparator and competitor organizations for each matched position, supplemented by published survey sources.
•    Age all survey and comparator data to a consistent effective date aligned with the project timeline, and blend and weight data sources in a transparent and defensible manner.
•    Incorporate total compensation context (retirement contributions, city’s health insurance premium contribution, leave policy, and other provided benefits) where feasible to supplement base salary analysis. In particular, quantify the value of act membership as a defined-benefit retirement differentiator versus both private sector employers and peer municipalities, and recommend how the city should communicate act value in its recruiting materials and compensation discussions.
- Comparator and competitor evaluation
•    Evaluate each of the city's current 35 comparator and competitor municipalities against criteria such as geographic proximity, population, general fund revenue, organizational complexity, and demonstrated labor market competition.
•    Recommend whether each current organization should be retained, reclassified, or removed, and recommend any additions with documented rationale.
•    Present a revised recommended market list and recommend criteria for the city to use on an ongoing basis when updating its list.
- Salary range development
•    Using the affirmed or recommended philosophy, approved market list, and collected data, calculate updated salary ranges for all 18 positions.
•    Present ranges showing minimum, 25th percentile, midpoint, 75th percentile, and maximum for each position alongside current ranges for direct comparison.
•    Provide a sensitivity analysis showing the fiscal impact of leading the market (e.g., midpoints at 102% of market average) versus meeting or lagging the market.