MEMORANDUM
To: SFSWMA Joint Powers Board Members
From: Randall Kippenbrock, P.E., Executive Director RLK
Date: September 14, 2026
Subject: Classification and Compensation Study: Presentation, Discussion, and Possible
Action on Recommendations (Tracy Morris, Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc.)
SUMMARY
Tracy Morris of Gallagher Benefit Services (Gallagher) will present the Board with an overview
of the attached PowerPoint presentation, including results and recommendations (Attachment 1).
Based on comprehensive market data, Gallagher concluded that the Agency's compensation is
about 6% above the median, indicating that employees' pay remains competitive.
Gallagher noted that current ranges start below market levels and extend well above them. Low
minimums complicate hiring, while high maximums mean employees take a long time to reach
those upper limits.
Gallagher recommends three actions to ensure pay is competitive, fair, and sustainable.
1. Adopt the proposed structure: a single pay structure with a $19.00 hourly floor and a
consistent 22 percent midpoint progression between grades. This improves market
competitiveness.
2. Implement the pay adjustments: Bring every employee to at least the minimum of their
proposed range, then apply a time-in-position adjustment to correct compression. This
improves internal equity.
3. Review the Plan every year: Grant increases according to market trends and available
revenue, and review the pay structure annually. This keeps the plan competitive over time.
Table 1 presents Gallagher’s proposed pay structure, with seven grades starting at $19.00 per hour
and a consistent 22 percent progression between grades.
The proposed pay ranges for union and non-union positions are provided in Attachments 2 and 3.
Gallagher recommends two actions to transition employees to the new structure, implemented in
sequence. The first action adjusts the range minimum, ensuring that each employee meets at least
the minimum of their proposed pay range. This affects seven employees (six union positions, one
non-union position) at a cost of $20,134 (0.65% of payroll). The second action is a time-in-position
compression adjustment, calculated at 1.5 percent per year based on time in the employee’s current
position. This affects five employees (four union positions, one non-union position) at a cost of
$7,489 (0.24% of payroll).

Table 1. Proposed Pay Structure.
Pay Ranges
Range Min Mid Max
SWU04 17.69 21.67 25.65
SWU09 23.18 28.44 33.70
SWU10 28.28 34.70 41.12
SWU14 34.50 42.33 50.16
SWM17 39.76 51.64 63.52
SWM20 48.51 63.00 77.49
SWM28 59.18 76.86 94.54
ACTION REQUESTED
The Agency recommends approving the proposed pay ranges for union and non-union positions,
effective September 26, 2026.
The Agency also recommends approving the two proposed actions, which would bring affected
employees to at least the minimum of their proposed range (six union positions, one non-union
position) at a cost of $20,134, and a time-in-position compression adjustment based on time in the
employee’s current position (four union positions, one non-union position) at a cost of $7,489, for
an estimated total of $27,623. Funding is available in 8100851.500110 (Landfill Operations
General Salaries) and 8100852.500110 (BuRRT Operations General Salaries).
The matter is before the Board for discussion and possible action regarding the recommendations
outlined in Gallagher’s presentation.
Attachments:
1) Gallagher’s PowerPoint Presentation – Classification & Compensation Study
2) Union Position Pay Ranges, Effective September 26, 2026
3) Non-Union Position Pay Ranges, Effective September 26, 2026
M:\Memo\Memo091426.1

ATTACHMENT 1
Gallagher’s PowerPoint Presentation – Classification & Compensation Study

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO.
Classification & Compensation Study
Santa Fe Solid
Waste Management
Agency

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 2
Engagement OverviewEngagement Overview
Santa Fe Solid Waste Management Agency ꞏ Gallagher’s Public Sector, Community & Higher Education PracticeSanta Fe Solid Waste Management Agency ꞏ Gallagher’s Public Sector, Community & Higher Education Practice
01 Study Approach & Methodology01 Study Approach & Methodology
What Gallagher did, the data sources used, and how the
market comparison was built.
What Gallagher did, the data sources used, and how the
market comparison was built.
02 What We Found02 What We Found
Classification and FLSA findings, employee pay against
market, and the current pay structure.
Classification and FLSA findings, employee pay against
market, and the current pay structure.
03 Our Recommendations03 Our Recommendations
The recommended pay structure, the pay actions that bring
employees onto it, and how it is sustained.
The recommended pay structure, the pay actions that bring
employees onto it, and how it is sustained.
04 Implementation & Cost04 Implementation & Cost
The cost to implement and the steps that follow.The cost to implement and the steps that follow.
4343
Employees in the studyEmployees in the study
Every position includedEvery position included
2828
Unique job titlesUnique job titles
100% of roles priced in the market100% of roles priced in the market
77
Pay grades reviewedPay grades reviewed
SWU and SWM seriesSWU and SWM series
0.89%0.89%
Cost to implementCost to implement
Of current annual payrollOf current annual payroll

What we did and the data behind it
Study Approach
& Methodology

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 4
Study ApproachStudy Approach
How the study was conductedHow the study was conducted
The study followed three stages, each building on the last: understand the organization, price it to the market, then design and cost a structure that
can be administered consistently.
The study followed three stages, each building on the last: understand the organization, price it to the market, then design and cost a structure that
can be administered consistently.
Plan and collectPlan and collect Price the marketPrice the market
Every benchmark job matched to
published survey data on duties, not
job titles, using an 80 percent duties-
match standard.
Every benchmark job matched to
published survey data on duties, not
job titles, using an 80 percent duties-
match standard.
Design and recommendDesign and recommend
Current structure evaluated, a
proposed structure designed, and the
cost to implement modeled and
reviewed with the project team.
Current structure evaluated, a
proposed structure designed, and the
cost to implement modeled and
reviewed with the project team.
Objectives were confirmed with the
SFSWMA project team, pay and
position data collected for every
employee, and job descriptions and
organizational structure reviewed.
Objectives were confirmed with the
SFSWMA project team, pay and
position data collected for every
employee, and job descriptions and
organizational structure reviewed.

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 5
Data Sources & MethodologyData Sources & Methodology
Published survey data, quality-assured and adjusted to Santa FePublished survey data, quality-assured and adjusted to Santa Fe
Market data was screened for outliers, trended forward to a common implementation date, and adjusted for the local cost of labor so comparisons
reflect what Santa Fe employers actually pay.
Market data was screened for outliers, trended forward to a common implementation date, and adjusted for the local cost of labor so comparisons
reflect what Santa Fe employers actually pay.
Data sources and job matchingData sources and job matching
CompAnalyst and Economic Research Institute.
Only jobs matching at least 80 percent of benchmark duties
were used.
Gallagher follows DOJ and FTC guidance on job matches
before drawing statistical conclusions.
CompAnalyst and Economic Research Institute.
Only jobs matching at least 80 percent of benchmark duties
were used.
Gallagher follows DOJ and FTC guidance on job matches
before drawing statistical conclusions.
Quality assurance, aging and geographyQuality assurance, aging and geography
Extreme values excluded; 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles
calculated.
Aged to January 1, 2027 — 4.0 percent salary trend and 2.0
percent structure trend.
Normalized to the Santa Fe, New Mexico cost of labor.
Extreme values excluded; 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles
calculated.
Aged to January 1, 2027 — 4.0 percent salary trend and 2.0
percent structure trend.
Normalized to the Santa Fe, New Mexico cost of labor.
Source: CompAnalyst; Economic Research Institute; WorldatWork Administrative, Support & Waste Management Services salary trend survey.Source: CompAnalyst; Economic Research Institute; WorldatWork Administrative, Support & Waste Management Services salary trend survey.

Market & Economic Context
4%
Projected median base salary
increase for 2026
WorldatWork — Administrative, Support & Waste
Management Services
2%
Projected salary structure (range)
adjustment
WorldatWork — Administrative, Support & Waste
Management Services
$24.51
Living wage, single adult (≈ $50,980
/ yr)
MIT — Santa Fe, NM
What this means
• Market movement is steady. A ~4% pay increase with ~2% structure adjustment reflects moderate upward pressure in industry pay.
• Living wage sets a floor. A single adult in the Santa Fe metro needs ≈ $24.51/hour to meet basic needs.
• Competitiveness must be sustained. Periodic structure adjustments keep ranges aligned to a moving market between full studies.
©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 6

Market and pay structure findings
What We
Found

Market Assessment — All Market Data
Employee pay vs. market median · 28 benchmark titles
+19%
vs. market
25th %ile
+6%
vs. market
median (50th)
-6%
vs. market
75th %ile
Against all market data, SFSWMA pay is above the median by ~6%,
indicating actual pay that employees are earning is competitive with
the market.
27
1
Benchmark titles vs. market median (n = 28)
At market (85–115%) Below market (<85%) Above market (>115%)
©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 8

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 9
The Current Pay StructureThe Current Pay Structure
Seven grades, but inconsistent from grade to gradeSeven grades, but inconsistent from grade to grade
The current structure provides formal ranges, but the steps between grades are uneven and two different range designs are in use — which makes
pay differences hard to explain and hard to administer.
The current structure provides formal ranges, but the steps between grades are uneven and two different range designs are in use — which makes
pay differences hard to explain and hard to administer.
Seven gradesSeven grades
Four SWU (union) grades and three
SWM (non-union) grades span hourly
and salaried positions, each defined
by a minimum, midpoint and
maximum.
Four SWU (union) grades and three
SWM (non-union) grades span hourly
and salaried positions, each defined
by a minimum, midpoint and
maximum.
Uneven progressionsUneven progressions
Midpoint progression between
adjacent grades ranges from 4.8
percent to 44.3 percent — some
grades sit almost on top of one
another while others jump sharply.
Midpoint progression between
adjacent grades ranges from 4.8
percent to 44.3 percent — some
grades sit almost on top of one
another while others jump sharply.
Two range designsTwo range designs
Range spreads of about 45 percent at
SWU grades and 60 percent at SWM
grades.
Range spreads of about 45 percent at
SWU grades and 60 percent at SWM
grades.
Source: SFSWMA current pay structure; Gallagher structure analysis, 2026.Source: SFSWMA current pay structure; Gallagher structure analysis, 2026.

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 10
Current Structure Compared to MarketCurrent Structure Compared to Market
Averaged across all benchmark positionsAveraged across all benchmark positions
The current ranges start below the market and top out well above it. Low minimums make hiring harder, while high maximums are costly and take a
long time for employees to reach.
The current ranges start below the market and top out well above it. Low minimums make hiring harder, while high maximums are costly and take a
long time for employees to reach.
–4%–4%
Range minimumRange minimum
vs. market 25th percentilevs. market 25th percentile
+6%+6%
Range midpointRange midpoint
vs. market medianvs. market median
+14%+14%
Range maximumRange maximum
vs. market 75th percentilevs. market 75th percentile

The proposed pay structure and pay actions
Our
Recommendations

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 12
Our RecommendationsOur Recommendations
Three actions to make pay competitive, fair and sustainableThree actions to make pay competitive, fair and sustainable
Taken together, these three actions move SFSWMA to a pay structure that is competitive in the Santa Fe market, internally consistent between
grades, and affordable to maintain year over year.
Taken together, these three actions move SFSWMA to a pay structure that is competitive in the Santa Fe market, internally consistent between
grades, and affordable to maintain year over year.
01
Adopt the proposed structure
01
Adopt the proposed structure
A single pay structure with a $19.00
hourly floor and a consistent 22
percent midpoint progression between
every grade.
Improves market competitiveness.
A single pay structure with a $19.00
hourly floor and a consistent 22
percent midpoint progression between
every grade.
Improves market competitiveness.
02
Implement the pay
adjustments
02
Implement the pay
adjustments
Bring every employee to at least the
minimum of their proposed range,
then apply a time in position
adjustment to correct compression.
Improves internal equity.
Bring every employee to at least the
minimum of their proposed range,
then apply a time in position
adjustment to correct compression.
Improves internal equity.
03
Review the plan every year
03
Review the plan every year
Grant increases according to market
trends and available revenue, and
review the pay structure annually.
Keeps the plan competitive over time.
Grant increases according to market
trends and available revenue, and
review the pay structure annually.
Keeps the plan competitive over time.

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 13
Proposed Pay StructureProposed Pay Structure
Seven grades, a $19.00 floor and consistent 22 percent progressions from one grade to the next.Seven grades, a $19.00 floor and consistent 22 percent progressions from one grade to the next.
Hourly rates. Midpoint progression is a consistent 22.0 percent between every grade; range spreads are 45 percent (SWU) and 60 percent (SWM).
Source: Gallagher proposed pay structure, August 21, 2026.
Hourly rates. Midpoint progression is a consistent 22.0 percent between every grade; range spreads are 45 percent (SWU) and 60 percent (SWM).
Source: Gallagher proposed pay structure, August 21, 2026.
Pay GradePay Grade Range MinimumRange Minimum Range MidpointRange Midpoint Range MaximumRange Maximum
SWU 04SWU 04 $19.00$19.00 $23.31$23.31 $27.62$27.62
SWU 09SWU 09 $23.18$23.18 $28.44$28.44 $33.70$33.70
SWU 10SWU 10 $28.28$28.28 $34.70$34.70 $41.12$41.12
SWU 14SWU 14 $34.50$34.50 $42.33$42.33 $50.16$50.16
SWM 17SWM 17 $39.76$39.76 $51.64$51.64 $63.52$63.52
SWM 20SWM 20 $48.51$48.51 $63.00$63.00 $77.49$77.49
SWM 28SWM 28 $59.18$59.18 $76.86$76.86 $94.54$94.54

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 14
Recommended Pay AdjustmentsRecommended Pay Adjustments
Two pay actions bring employees onto the new structureTwo pay actions bring employees onto the new structure
Adjustments are applied in sequence: pay is first brought to the range minimum, and the compression calculation is then run against the adjusted
salary.
Adjustments are applied in sequence: pay is first brought to the range minimum, and the compression calculation is then run against the adjusted
salary.
01
Adjustment to the range minimum
01
Adjustment to the range minimum
Every employee is brought to at least the minimum of their
proposed pay range.
7 employees ꞏ $20,134 ꞏ 0.65% of payroll
6 union; 1 non-union
Every employee is brought to at least the minimum of their
proposed pay range.
7 employees ꞏ $20,134 ꞏ 0.65% of payroll
6 union; 1 non-union
02
Time in position compression adjustment
02
Time in position compression adjustment
A 1.5 percent per year calculation, based on time in the
employee's current position, corrects pay compression.
5 employees ꞏ $7,489 ꞏ 0.24% of payroll
4 union; 1 non-union
A 1.5 percent per year calculation, based on time in the
employee's current position, corrects pay compression.
5 employees ꞏ $7,489 ꞏ 0.24% of payroll
4 union; 1 non-union

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 15
How the Compression Adjustment WorksHow the Compression Adjustment Works
Time in position — an internal equity correction, not a longevity rewardTime in position — an internal equity correction, not a longevity reward
This is not a reward for loyalty or years of service. It corrects pay compression — where employees with years in a role earn nearly the same as
employees newly hired into it, because starting salaries rise with the market while existing pay does not keep pace.
This is not a reward for loyalty or years of service. It corrects pay compression — where employees with years in a role earn nearly the same as
employees newly hired into it, because starting salaries rise with the market while existing pay does not keep pace.
01
Start at the minimum
01
Start at the minimum
Every calculation begins
at the minimum of the
employee's proposed pay
range.
Every calculation begins
at the minimum of the
employee's proposed pay
range.
02
Apply 1.5% per year
02
Apply 1.5% per year
1.5 percent is applied for
each full year in the
current position to build a
compression benchmark.
1.5 percent is applied for
each full year in the
current position to build a
compression benchmark.
03
Compare to actual
pay
03
Compare to actual
pay
The employee's adjusted
salary is compared with
that benchmark.
The employee's adjusted
salary is compared with
that benchmark.
04
Close the gap
04
Close the gap
If pay is below the
benchmark, it is raised to
it. If pay is at or above it,
no adjustment is made.
If pay is below the
benchmark, it is raised to
it. If pay is at or above it,
no adjustment is made.
Time is measured in the current position, not total tenure with the organization. Two employees with the same time in position may receive different amounts,
because the adjustment closes each individual gap rather than applying an across-the-board increase.
Time is measured in the current position, not total tenure with the organization. Two employees with the same time in position may receive different amounts,
because the adjustment closes each individual gap rather than applying an across-the-board increase.

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 16
Sustaining the PlanSustaining the Plan
A market-based approach to annual pay planningA market-based approach to annual pay planning
A pay structure holds its value only if it is maintained. These three practices keep the plan competitive without requiring another full study.A pay structure holds its value only if it is maintained. These three practices keep the plan competitive without requiring another full study.
Fund increases from revenueFund increases from revenue
Grant pay increases each year based
on available revenue and prevailing
market trends.
Ties pay decisions to the market.
Grant pay increases each year based
on available revenue and prevailing
market trends.
Ties pay decisions to the market.
Review the structure annuallyReview the structure annually
Review the pay structure each year
and adjust it as needed to hold a
competitive position in the local
market.
Prevents the structure drifting out of
date.
Review the pay structure each year
and adjust it as needed to hold a
competitive position in the local
market.
Prevents the structure drifting out of
date.
Move ranges at half the
increase
Move ranges at half the
increase
Best practice is to move the salary
structure by half of the pay increase
granted annually.
Lets employee pay progress faster
than the range moves.
Best practice is to move the salary
structure by half of the pay increase
granted annually.
Lets employee pay progress faster
than the range moves.

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 17
Cost to ImplementCost to Implement
Estimated annual payroll impact of the recommendationEstimated annual payroll impact of the recommendation
The full recommendation — bringing employees to range minimum and correcting time in position compression — adds less than one percent to
annual payroll.
The full recommendation — bringing employees to range minimum and correcting time in position compression — adds less than one percent to
annual payroll.
$3,095,174$3,095,174
Current annual payrollCurrent annual payroll
43 employees43 employees
$3,122,797$3,122,797
Proposed annual payrollProposed annual payroll
Fully implementedFully implemented
$20,134$20,134
Adjustment to minimumAdjustment to minimum
7 employees7 employees
$7,489$7,489
Compression adjustmentCompression adjustment
5 employees5 employees
Costs are estimates based on staffing at the time of the study; any change in staffing will change the cost.Costs are estimates based on staffing at the time of the study; any change in staffing will change the cost.

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 18
Next StepsNext Steps
A single recommendation, in three partsA single recommendation, in three parts
Together these move SFSWMA to a structure that is competitive in the Santa Fe market, internally consistent, and affordable at less than one percent
of payroll.
Together these move SFSWMA to a structure that is competitive in the Santa Fe market, internally consistent, and affordable at less than one percent
of payroll.
Adopt the pay structureAdopt the pay structure
Seven grades with a $19.00 hourly
floor, consistent 22 percent
progressions, and range spreads held
at 45 and 60 percent.
Seven grades with a $19.00 hourly
floor, consistent 22 percent
progressions, and range spreads held
at 45 and 60 percent.
Approve the pay adjustmentsApprove the pay adjustments
$27,623 in total — 0.89 percent of
current annual payroll — to bring
employees to range minimum and
correct compression.
$27,623 in total — 0.89 percent of
current annual payroll — to bring
employees to range minimum and
correct compression.
Commit to annual reviewCommit to annual review
Review the structure and the flagged
classifications each year so the plan
stays competitive and defensible.
Review the structure and the flagged
classifications each year so the plan
stays competitive and defensible.

©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 19
Q&A

Thank you
©2026 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO.

ATTACHMENT 2
Union Position Pay Ranges, Effective September 26, 2026

Classification (Position Title) Range Min Mid Max
Laborer SWU04 19.00 23.31 27.62
Scalemaster SWU09 23.18 28.44 33.70
BuRRT Transfer Operator I SWU09 23.18 28.44 33.70
Equipment Mechanic I SWU09 23.18 28.44 33.70
Heavy Equipment Operator I SWU09 23.18 28.44 33.70
Maintenance Worker I SWU09 23.18 28.44 33.70
Scalemaster II SWU10 28.28 34.70 41.12
BuRRT HHW Handler SWU10 28.28 34.70 41.12
BuRRT Transfer Operator II SWU10 28.28 34.70 41.12
Equipment Mechanic II SWU10 28.28 34.70 41.12
Field Service Lube Tech SWU10 28.28 34.70 41.12
Heavy Equipment Operator II SWU10 28.28 34.70 41.12
BuRRT Transfer Operator III SWU14 34.50 42.33 50.16
Equipment Mechanic III SWU14 34.50 42.33 50.16
Heavy Equipment Operator III SWU14 34.50 42.33 50.16
Maintenance Worker III SWU14 34.50 42.33 50.16
Outreach Coordinator SWU14 34.50 42.33 50.16
Santa Fe Solid Waste Management Agency
Bargaining Unit Position Pay Ranges
Fiscal Year 2027
Effective September 26, 2026
Pay Ranges

ATTACHMENT 3
Non-Union Position Pay Ranges, Effective September 26, 2026

Classification (Position Title) Range Min Mid Max
Accountant I SWM17 39.76 51.64 63.52
Adminstrative Assistant/HR Officer SWM17 39.76 51.64 63.52
BuRRT Superintendent SWM17 39.76 51.64 63.52
Environmental Health, Safety & Training Administrator SWM17 39.76 51.64 63.52
Equipment Maintenance Supervisor SWM17 39.76 51.64 63.52
Landfill Superintendent SWM17 39.76 51.64 63.52
Scalehouse Supervisor SWM17 39.76 51.64 63.52
Accountant II SWM20 48.51 63.00 77.49
Executive Director SWM28 59.18 76.86 94.54
Santa Fe Solid Waste Management Agency
Non-Union Positions
Fiscal Year 2027
Effective September 26, 2026
Pay Ranges