Bloomfield City Council May 11 meeting documents

February 11, 2015

Mr. David Fuqua, City Manager

City of Bloomfield

915 N. First Street

Bloomfield, NM 87413

SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT RECAP – PAY AND CLASSIFICATION SURVEY

Dear Mr. Fuqua:

Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to provide professional services to the City of

Bloomfield. We have completed the final report on the 2014 Pay and Classification Survey.

As we traveled throughout the state for the preliminary review of the survey results, we found

some errors on some of the tables in the preliminary report. The errors have been corrected, and

the revised tables are included in this report. We also took the time to create a listing of those

employee job classifications that currently earn more than the maximum salary based on the new

pay plan. Likewise, we created a listing of those employees who currently earn less that the

minimum salary for their pay range. In addition, we created a listing of those employee job

classifications that will result in a fiscal impact to the budget, if this plan is accepted by the City.

We are providing you with a final copy of the 2014 Pay and Classification Survey. In addition,

we are providing you with an electronic copy of the survey. The corrected tables are also

included in the electronic copy. Please dispose of all previous copies of the survey that we have

provided to you in the past.

As you can see from the results of the survey, the fiscal impact to the City if this plan is adopted

will be minimal. The fiscal impact summary shown of Table 4 provides you with a snapshot of

those results. Our recommendation is that priority should be given:

a. To adjust the salaries of those employees who are currently paid less than the minimum

salary for their job classification (see Exhibit 2).

b. To adjust the salaries of those employees to the correct step in their pay band (range)

based on the number of years in their current job classification (see Exhibit 3).

The vast majority of your employees are currently compensated at or above the prevailing

market rate for their job classification. This is based on the survey results of the eight

comparable sized cities. This should be regarded as good news, in that the City has kept up with

prevailing market rates for their employees. The results of this survey constitute a baseline

compensation for each job classification. Some cities will pay higher than the baseline for

certain job classifications due to the cost of living in their community, the cost of housing, or the

difficulty of recruiting for certain positions. For example, we found that in Ruidoso the cost of

housing has increased significantly, and as a result the majority of employees reside outside the

Village. In Lovington, we found that low housing availability makes it difficult to recruit for

certain positions.

During the course of our survey, we also found a few cities that have a policy regarding the

minimum starting salary. In some cases the minimum starting salary in those cities was higher

than the minimum salary shown in this report. We recommend that the policy remain in effect if

this plan is adopted. That policy would simply precede the starting salary in this report.

The biggest challenge that most of the cities face is the competition for certain job

classifications. Larger cities tend to recruit trained employees from smaller cities, and offer

higher compensation in return. This is especially true in recruiting and retention of police

officers. Los Lunas faces retention problems when their employees are recruited by the City of

Albuquerque, or Rio Rancho. In some areas, such as Lovington and Bloomfield, it is quite

difficult to compete with the oil and gas industry for certain job classifications.

Another challenge that our cities face is with employees who are at the “top of the pay range”.

During the course of the survey, we selected the wide pay range that was adopted by the State of

New Mexico Personnel Board because it provided for a 78% growth within each of the 19 pay

bands. By adopting this salary structure, we made significant progress in limiting the number of

employees who are at the top of the pay range. A very small percentage of your employees will

now be at the top of the pay range. The job classifications are identified in one of the

attachments.

The city should consider a policy to address those employees who are at the top of the pay range.

In most cases, these are very valuable employees who are close to retirement. To freeze their

pay because they are “maxed out” can result in morale problems and loss of productivity. In our

research, we found that some cities use one or more of the following options:

a. Set increases by position in range. Continue to allocate increases to employees at the top

of the pay range (band), but give a smaller percentage than to those in or below the range.

This approach has less risk of turnover.

b. Freeze base pay and offer performance based lump sum. Discontinue base pay increases

for those employees at the top of the pay range, but offer a lump sum performance based

check that does not result in an increase in base pay.

On January 22, 2015 Donna Clifton provided us with a detailed feedback report on corrections

and editing to the preliminary report. All of those recommendations have been incorporated into

this final report. Your feedback was very much greatly appreciated. The most important

concerns centered on the correct current salaries of some of your primary staff. This has been

corrected. The fiscal impact summary has also been revised. Take a look at Exhibits 1 to 3

(attached) to see the revised figures on the fiscal impact report. Exhibit 4 summarizes the

corrections made to the final report based on the feedback from Ms. Clifton.

This letter completes the deliverables for the Pay and Classification Survey. I wanted you to

know that I will be out of state for the next few months on another major project, and as a result,

only available by email. We sincerely hope that you will be pleased with the results of this

important project.

We really enjoyed conducting this survey for your city, along with the survey for the other seven

municipalities. Thank you for your cooperation, and we trust that you will be happy with the

results. Respectfully submitted, Gustavo “Gus” Cordova Senior Vice President MERCER GROUP INC.

Exhibit 1Employee Classifications Currently Earning More Than Salary Maximum

Total %

CURRENT SALARY SALARY MAX. VARIANCE CLASSIFICATION Employees Maxed

Los Lunas 191 1.05%

$53,148 $50,307 $2,841 Solid Waste Supervisor

$35,971 $33,488 $2,483 Youth Coordinator

$5,324

Las Vegas 274 0.73%

$62,608 $50,045 $12,563 Public Housing Director

$58,260 $55,307 $2,953 Executive Assistant

$15,516

Deming

$0 $0 $0

Lovington 101 0.99%

$62,171 $55,307 $6,864 Street Supervisor

Bloomfield 117 9.40%

$48,436 $40,914 $7,522 AP Procurement Specialist

$58,513 $50,045 $8,468 Payroll Specialist

$72,927 $69,035 $3,892 Network Manager (IT Dir.)

$66,490 $61,568 $4,922 Planning & Zoning Coordinator

$33,797 $28,267 $5,530 WW Laborer

$66,872 $61,568 $5,304 Water Supply Supervisor

$35,049 $33,488 $1,561 Meter Reader

$34,412 $33,488 $924 Utility Billing Clerk

$92,000 $88,525 $3,475 PW Director

$44,723 $40,914 $3,809 Patrolman (Non-C)

$72,219 $69,035 $3,184 Lieutenant

$48,591

Ruidoso 213 4.23%

$54,808 $50,307 $4,501 Solid Waste Supervisor

$84,261 $69,035 $15,226 Wastewater Supervisor

$89,502 $88,525 $977 PW Director

$66,394 $61,568 $4,826 Sergeant

$68,058 $61,568 $6,490 Library Director

$53,019 $50,045 $2,974 Assistant Recreation Supervisor

$74,339 $69,035 $5,304 Recreation Supervisor

$76,066 $69,035 $7,031 Municipal Clerk

$84,698 $77,917 $6,781 HR Director

$54,110

Portales 128 7.03%Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 1Employee Classifications Currently Earning More Than Salary Maximum

Total %

CURRENT SALARY SALARY MAX. VARIANCE CLASSIFICATION Employees Maxed

$51,424 $50,045 $1,379 EMS Director

$42,000 $40,914 $1,086 Trans. Oper.

$52,104 $45,656 $6,448 Fire Admin. Asst.

$63,509 $61,568 $1,941 Library Admin.

$64,880 $55,307 $9,573 Building Inspector

$64,880 $55,307 $9,573 Code Enf. Supv. (Plan Admin)

$64,880 $61,568 $3,312 Plan & Zoning Coord.

$64,880 $61,568 $3,312 City Planner (Plan Admin)

$69,393 $69,035 $358 City Clerk

$36,982

Silver City 158 1.90%

$46,258 $40,914 $5,344 Museum Specialist

$49,165 $45,656 $3,509 Museum Director

$28,523 $28,267 $256 Receptionist

$9,109

Notes:

1. Excludes Municipal Judges

2. Excludes Airport Manager in Ruidoso. Maxed out by $6,053. Not included in Prevailing Rate,

Min. Salary, etc.

Page 2 of 2

Exhibit 2Employee Classifications Below Minimum Step

CURRENT SALARY Total % Table 3

SALARY MINIMUM VARIANCE CLASSIFICATION Employees Adj. Line Item

Los Lunas 191 0.5%

$25,334 $26,229 -$895 Fire Admin. Asst. 635

-$895

Las Vegas 274 2.6%

$26,209 $31,782 -$5,573 Code Enf. Supv. 284

$49,296 $50,898 -$1,602 Comm. Develop. Dir. 245

$32,344 $35,381 -$3,037 City Planner 255

$29,099 $35,381 -$6,282 Planning & Zoning Coord. 265

$41,537 $44,782 -$3,245 HR Director 155

$75,046 $77,147 -$2,101 City Manager 5

$44,657 $39,686 $4,971 Airport Manager 695

-$16,869

Deming 180 0.6%

$19,739 $21,195 -$1,456 Street Maint. Worker 735

Lovington 101 1.0%

$37,710 $39,686 -$1,976 Recreation Supervisor 315

-$1,976

Bloomfield 117

$0 $0 $0 None

Ruidoso 213

$0 $0 $0 None

Portales 128 0.8%

$23,527 $26,229 -$2,702 Admin. Asst.


$34,801 $35,381 -$580 Plan & Zoning Coord 265

$37,141 $39,686 -$2,545 Municipal Clerk 165

$33,895 $35,381 -$1,486 Water Supply Supv. 795

-$4,611

Page 1 of 1

Exhibit 3Employee Classifications Adjusted for Seniority Step

CURRENT MIN. SALARY Total % Table 3

SALARY BASED ON SENIORITY VARIANCE CLASSIFICATION Employees Adj. Line Item

Los Lunas 191 4.19%

$34,245 $34,823 -$578 Packer Operator 970

$24,806 $26,474 -$1,668 Wastewater Op. 1 900


$25,334 $27,498 -$2,164 Fire Admin. Asst. 640

$51,876 $53,949 -$2,073 Lieutenant 510

$26,391 $27,498 -$1,107 Museum Curator 440

$40,622 $40,634 -$12 Recreation Supv. 320

$31,674 $32,744 -$1,070 Admin Assistant 280

-$10,397

Las Vegas 274 4.74%

$26,312 $27,483 -$1,171 Park Maint. Worker 750

$44,657 $50,331 -$5,674 Airport Manager 700

$38,812 $41,742 -$2,930 Water Supply Supv. 795

$24,814 $25,006 -$192 Records Clerk 550

$16,328 $17,146 -$818 Museum Tech. 460

$61,859 $66,987 -$5,128 Fire Chief 565

$19,552 $19,721 -$169 Youth coordinator 340

$29,099 $35,381 -$6,282 Planning & Zoning Coord. 270

$32,344 $35,381 -$3,037 City Planner 260

$49,296 $50,898 -$1,602 Comm. Develop. Dir. 250

$41,537 $46,948 -$5,411 HR Director 160

$29,453 $32,372 -$2,919 Payroll Specialist 100

$75,046 $77,147 -$2,101 City Manager 10

-$37,434

Deming 180 2.22%

$33,488 $35,944 -$2,456 Packer Operator 970


$43,527 $43,549 -$22 Patrolman (Cert) 530

$31,928 $32,215 -$287 Accounts Payable Clerk 90

-$4,728

Lovington 101 3.96%

$41,309 $48,479 -$7,170 Senior Center Director 990

$31,595 $32,215 -$620 Youth Coordinator 410

$40,997 $48,479 -$7,482 Library Director 410

$37,710 $45,728 -$8,018 Recreation Supervisor 320

-$23,290

Bloomfield 117 2.56%

$30,593 $32,222 -$1,629 Fire Admin. Assistant 640Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 3Employee Classifications Adjusted for Seniority Step

CURRENT MIN. SALARY Total % Table 3

SALARY BASED ON SENIORITY VARIANCE CLASSIFICATION Employees Adj. Line Item

$26,817 $28,828 -$2,011 Library Assistant 370

$34,413 $35,579 -$1,166 Personnel Specialist 200

-$4,806

Ruidoso 213 0.47%

$35,235 $36,508 -$1,273 Packer Operator 970

Portales 128 3.13%

$28,240 $30,945 -$2,705 Equipment Operator 970

$53,151 $54,355 -$1,204 WWTP Chief 860

$36,050 $36,227 -$177 Water Supervisor 800

$23,527 $26,229 -$2,702 Administrative Asst. 40

-$6,788


$25,658 $25,858 -$200 Water Operator II 830

$42,666 $45,878 -$3,212 Water Operator IV 810

$33,895 $37,092 -$3,197 Water Supervisor 800

$30,110 $31,616 -$1,506 Court Administrator 660

$43,214 $44,661 -$1,447 Captain 590

$23,479 $24,422 -$943 Records Clerk 550

$67,600 $71,906 -$4,306 Chief of Police 470

$36,150 $36,430 -$280 Recreation Coordinator 330

$33,648 $34,116 -$468 Code Enforcement Lead 290

$34,801 $37,092 -$2,291 Planner 270

$37,141 $46,821 -$9,680 Town Clerk 170

$51,065 $61,359 -$10,294 Personnel Officer 160

$100,000 $102,426 -$2,426 City Manager 10

-$40,250

Page 2 of 2

Exhibit 4: City of Bloomfield Addendum The following addendum is included as part of the Recap in the Final Report for the City of Bloomfield. There were several positions that did not have a comparable match as part of the eight city survey. As a result, we identified comparable knowledge, skills, and abilities for those positions based on the job descriptions and salary comparable data. In addition, the City identified some minor salary corrections, and they are included in this addendum.

Corrections: a. Personnel Analyst: The current salary has been corrected to $48,152 on Table 2 and Table 3. b. PC Support Specialist: The starting salary has been corrected to $28,981 on Table 2 and Table 3. c. Fitness Floor Monitor: This was incorrectly placed in the library. As a result, the position has

been removed from the library, and placed in the position of Recreation Specialist in Table 3. d. Uncertified Police Officer: The starting salary has been corrected to $40,469 in Table 3. e. Fire Chief: The current salary has been corrected to $91,080 on Table 3. f. Fire Lieutenant: We are advised that this position does not exist in the department, and had

been removed from Table 3.

New Job Classifications: a. Seasonal Cashier: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 30. b. Fitness Monitor-Floater: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 50. c. Library Clerk: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 35. d. MVD Title Clerk: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 50. e. MVD Supervisor: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 60. f. Police CSO: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 60. g. Police Office Manager: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 65. h. Fire Office Manager: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 65. i. MOC Office Manager: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 65 j. Journey Mechanic: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 60. k. Community Services Director: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 85. l. Shop Foreman: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 65. m. MOC Superintendent: Based on the job description, this should be in Pay Band 70.

City of Bloomfield, New Mexico

1000 Cordova Place, # 726 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 www.mercergroupinc.com

1

Table of Contents Page

A. Executive Summary and Background Information 2

B. Survey Methodology 4

C. Survey Findings 8

D. Acknowledgements 11

E. Project Team Members 12

F. Table 1 – Selection of the Comparable Communities 15

G. Table 2 – Survey Data submitted by Participant Cities 16

H. Table 3 – Market Data Analysis 22

I. Table 4 – Fiscal Impact Summary 23

J. Table 5 – New Mexico Salary Schedule 24

K. Table 6 – New Mexico Salary Schedule with Steps 25

L. Table 7 – PERA Contributions by Participant City 26

M. Table 8 – Insurance Contributions by Participant City 27

N. Table 9 – Consumer Price Index, Last 10 Years 28

O. Table 10 – Average Annual Salaries, New Mexico Counties 29

P. Table 11 – Per Capita Income, New Mexico Counties 30

2

Executive Summary The Mercer Group was retained by eight (8) comparable sized cities in New Mexico for the purpose of conducting a salary and classification survey for their employees. The

Cities agreed to participate in the survey during the same time period as a means to reduce costs, and to see how the salaries and fringe benefits of their employees compare with

the other participant cities.

Each of the participant cities desired an independent assessment by a professional consultant to ensure that the results of the survey were prepared in an objective process. The

Mercer Group prepared a proposal and methodology for review and consideration by each of the comparable cities. Each of the cities approved the methodology, timeline, and to

submit the employee payroll data needed to complete the survey.

After consultation with each of the cities, we found that the current pay and classification plans were seriously outdated, and in some cases, there were no actual plans in place.

The feedback from the Managers and HR Directors was very positive in retaining our services to obtain the data, and develop a new pay and compensation plan.

One of the most important steps in updating a pay and classification plan is to review the current job descriptions to ensure that they reflect the employee’s most current duties and

responsibilities. Further, it is equally important that the job descriptions be signed by the employee as an acknowledgement of their responsibilities, and also signed by the

employee supervisors. Each of the cities that we surveyed agreed to task their HR Directors with the responsibility of reviewing the job descriptions as part of the survey process.

The Mercer Group agreed to conduct a follow-up review of job descriptions on selected job classifications to determine how the duties and responsibilities compared with those of

the other participant cities. HR Directors were asked to compile a list of job descriptions for review by the Mercer Group. They were:

1. Department Heads

2. Division Managers

3. Administrative Positions

4. Certified Operators

5. Public Safety Officials

After reviewing the job descriptions, we found that some cities had up to date descriptions for their employees including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. For the most part, we found that certain line departments were up to date, but others were not. The Mercer Group solicited a proposal

from a professional consulting group called HR Ganics to review and update job descriptions for the participant cities. A copy of the proposal was sent to each of the participant

cities to consider.

3

Each of the City Managers/Administrators agreed that a pay and position classification plan needed to be reviewed periodically to provide their employees with equitable and

competitive compensation. They also recognized that an updated plan was essential for the City to attract and to retain a professional workforce. The absence of an equitable

program could result in the loss of trained employees to other cities, and in the recruitment of quality employees. Most of the Managers were concerned that they were losing

trained employees. Unfortunately, the majority of employee losses are to much larger cities or private employers.

Some of the cities have a collective bargaining agreement, so it is important for the plan to be internally and externally equitable. As a result, the plan was developed to allow the

Governing Body in each city with several options based on their own budgetary constraints. For example, the Governing Body may have the option to consider:

1. Adjusting salaries to the minimum step in the new job classification.

2. Adjusting salaries to the prevailing market rate based on seniority in current job classification, or

3. Phasing in the pay plan over a period of time.

The lack of a current plan can result in varying pay rates for similar positions thus affecting the morale of each of the departments within the city. Comparable pay for comparable

positions is an important management tool that helps in motivating employees and in improving overall performance within the department.

A review of the current position classifications shows the need to reevaluate the classifications relative to the eight comparable cities and to each other within the respective

departments so that each position is placed in the correct pay range structure. Most important, that the positions value is compared to the relative value in the labor market.

In order for the City to compare its internal equity of each department with that of all other employees within the City, the State of New Mexico Personnel Board Pay Range

Structure that was approved in July 2014 was utilized in this study. This salary schedule was developed after extensive study and adopted for use by employees of the State. By

utilizing the same salary schedule for cities in New Mexico, we add a layer of uniformity in preparing the new pay plan. The use of this structure will be limited to the use of the

salary ranges for uniformity within City government. The actual pay range assignments will be based on the data obtained from the comparable cities and the calculation of an

external midpoint for each position.

PAY PLAN SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The Mercer Group utilized the following methodology and process to obtain the most current information available from the cities that were designated as comparable cities. The

following phases were utilized in the preparation of a new pay and classification report:

Phase I. Initial Scoping Phase During the initial scoping phase, the Mercer Group met with the City Manager/Administrator and the HR Director to obtain the current job classifications, job descriptions, current

salary schedules, the dates of hire for each employee in the department, the organizational chart, and current titles of all employees assigned to the department.

4

As part of the proposal for this study, the Mercer Group selected the eight comparable sized cities based on demographics provided by the US Census Bureau, the Local

Government Division, and the New Mexico Municipal League. The Mercer Group utilized the pay and classification data and reports from those cities to come up with the market

data that was used in the preparation of this report. These comparable communities are the basis used by the Mercer Group to determine market conditions, job classifications, and

salary ranges. All of the information obtained during this initial phase was reviewed and analyzed by the contractor to establish a baseline for the remaining phases of this project.

Phase II. Fact Finding Phase During the fact-finding phase, the Mercer Group contacted eight (8) comparable cities in New Mexico that met the demographic comparison due to similar size, population,

budget, and similar operations of their respective departments. For the purpose of this study, we will refer to these cities as comparable communities.

The Mercer Group contacted each of these communities to obtain the current pay scales utilized by those cities, the current job descriptions, and other factors that could be utilized

in determining market conditions. The following cities were contacted during this phase:

1. Village of Los Lunas

2. City of Las Vegas

3. City of Deming

4. City of Lovington

5. City of Bloomfield

6. Village of Ruidoso

7. Town of Silver City

8. City of Portales

Recognizing that not all of the cities contacted in the preparation of this report would be responsive in the submission of position classification and pay plan information, we set a

goal of obtaining data from at least 90% of the comparable communities. Previous experience in obtaining information from some communities has shown that some are reluctant

to submit such information. However, we were successful in obtaining the pay and classification data from all eight of these cities. The City of Artesia and the City of Espanola

also met the comparable demographics for this study; by they chose not to participate.

Phase III. Market Data Analysis During this phase, the Mercer Group analyzed all of the data obtained from the comparable communities and created a series of tables to review the data. The tables are included

as part of this report. As mentioned earlier, the goal was to achieve internal equity by comparing the value of each job classification relative to all others within the respective

departments of the city. Our second goal was to place each position into the appropriate pay range structure based on the positions relative value in the labor market. The labor

market will be defined in this study as the results from each of the communities. The Mercer Group conducted an analysis of pay data that best reflected the classifications within

the city and within the comparable labor market. This pay data also serves as the basis to determine the city’s competitiveness in recruiting and retaining employees.

5

Each city currently recruits externally and internally for most vacant positions. Some positions are advertised internally, and for the most part are filled through promotion by

selecting the most qualified candidates from within a department. The internal promotion process for all positions beyond the entry level position have a very positive impact on

morale within departments, and provides a mechanism for a career ladder for employees. On the other hand, external recruitment has also provided new knowledge, skills, and

abilities for upper level positions.

Phase IV. Pay Structure The Cities currently hire new employees with limited or no experience in the starting step of their classification plan. More experienced applicants may be appointed at a higher

step at the discretion of the department and the City Manager/Administrator. The Mercer Group compared the current salaries of the comparable communities to establish the

prevailing market rates. The prevailing market rate is the average of the current salaries for each job classification. The prevailing market rate is then compared to the mid-point in

the State salary schedule. The mid-point salary that is closest to the prevailing rate is defined as the calculated midpoint on the pay band scale. One the midpoint is established,

the minimum salary and the maximum salary is defined for that classification.

A new employee is required to successfully complete a probationary period before becoming eligible for an increase in pay, or for retention in the classified service. To

successfully complete probation, the employee must complete the required responsibilities of their position and demonstrate initiative to meet the job description parameters.

This practice is utilized by most cities in the state, and is documented in their personnel policies and procedures. This practice also ensures that employees who do not meet the job

description standards can be removed from the classified service during the probationary period. The end result is the retention of the best qualified employees within the city.

Some positions within the city require a professional certification as a condition of employment. Some flexibility is provided in certain cases to allow the employee to achieve that

certification within a period of time as a condition of retaining their position. For example, a police officer must obtain certification from the New Mexico Police Academy within

the first twelve months of employment.

Other positions require that an employee through a continuing education program, complete additional training and certification. This certification is required before advancing to

another pay grade within the department. The certification must be maintained to keep that pay grade. For example, a Wastewater Certification in levels I through IV require

continuing education and training to retain the certification, or to advance to a higher level.

6

Phase V. Pay Range Assignments The Mercer Group reviewed each of the current job classifications including the starting, mid-point, and maximum salaries. That data was compared with the similar job

classifications in each of the eight cities as part of the survey. We then calculated the mid-point of the eight cities using the mean of the prevailing market rates of current salaries

that are being paid for each classification.

We also reviewed the Personnel Services Schedule that is submitted by each of the comparable cities as part of their annual operating budget. A review of those schedules

provided us with the data to verify the current salaries paid to individual employees. The use of current salaries provides us with the data to calculate the current market prevailing

rates for each classification.

As mentioned earlier, we used the 2014 Salary Range Structure that was approved by the State Personnel Board this past July. This structure simply defines the salary ranges, and

establishes the minimum, midpoint, and maximum salaries for each range. The use of the permanent pay structure allows us to use the same pay scale to compare the prevailing

rates. This data also allows us to establish a comparable range structure for each of the eight cities.

As a result of the study conducted by the Mercer Group, and the data provided by each of the cities, we defined the prevailing market rate, and then calculated the midpoint for

each position. Employee job classifications were then placed in the appropriate salary range based on the calculated midpoint and using the pay band structure adopted by the

State. The results of this analysis are reflected in the attached tables.

Phase VI. Implementation and Fiscal Impact The Mercer Group prepared an analysis of the city’s competitive position based on a comparison of the current pay range midpoint to the results of the survey midpoint. The

midpoint is the most objective, occupation specific and consistent component of salary structures among employers. In this case, we made changes to the salary pay ranges when

the prevailing rates were higher or lower in each classification.

We recommend that the City review its current policy in regard to the adoption of a pay and classification plan. The policy should reflect that the City adopts a pay scale that is

based on one of the options depicted in this report of prevailing rates paid for similar occupations within the labor market. This study provides the City with both pay scales, and

the fiscal impact of the adoption of either pay scale. We also recognize that this policy will need to be based on the ability of the City to pay based on the prevailing market rates

of the designated comparable communities.

The Mercer Group determined the fiscal impact of the new pay plan by comparing the cost of the recommended pay range assignments to the amount currently budgeted in the

2014-15 fiscal year budget. At a minimum, the City should have an established a goal of upgrading all current employees to the minimum step of their range in the classification

plan. The fiscal impact of that goal is described in this report.

7

The second goal is to identify the correct step in the pay range for each employee based on the number of years of service in their respective classification. In the event that an

employee has reached the maximum salary for their pay range, those employees will be identified as part of this report. This analysis will also show if an employee is in the

correct pay step based on current prevailing market rates. The fiscal impact of upgrading those employees to the correct pay step is also described in this report.

The results of both of these goals are being submitted to the City Manager and ultimately to the City Council for their consideration. The action taken by the City Council will be

based on the ability of the City to pay the prevailing market rates. It may be necessary to implement the new pay plan in phases over time with a goal of achieving pay equity

within a reasonable time period.

Survey Findings

Classified Salary Structure The State of New Mexico Personnel Board uses the Hay Group Guide Chart-Profile Method of Job evaluation to determine job classification. Each pay band for classified

employees is currently at a seventy-eight percent (74%) wide – meaning the maximum rate of pay is seventy-four percent greater than the minimum rate of pay. While this band

width is greater than typically found, it minimizes the impact of market increases upon hiring rates. Pay bands act as a control device identifying the lower and upper range of pay

rates the State is willing to pay for a particular job.

The classified salary structure consists of 19 pay bands. According to the State Personnel Board report, each pay band ranges from seventy-two (72%) compa-ratio to one hundred

twenty-eight percent (128%) compa-ratio with the midpoint value of each pay representing one hundredth percent compa-ratio. Compa-ratio is defined as a percentage of the pay

band midpoint. The range progression between midpoint values is approximately eleven and eight-tenths percent (11.8%). This means that a bay band’s midpoint is

approximately eleven and eight-tenths percent higher than the lower pay band. This can be seen in Table 5.

This classified salary structure was approved by the State Personnel Board on November 22, 2013, and effective on July 1, 2014. For purpose of uniformity, the approved salary

structure was used in the preparation of this report.

Salary Structure Adjustment based on Seniority After consultation with each of the eight comparable sized municipalities that participated in this survey, it was apparent that the salary structure needed to take into account some

credit for those employees who had served in their current job classification for a period of time. Recognizing that the midpoint in the salary structure reflects the prevailing

market rate for each job classification, any credit adjustments would be made only up to their respective midpoint salary. Based on our research, we decided to use the data from

8

the US Consumer Price Index for the past ten (10) years. This data was obtained from the University of New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research. The data can

be seen in Table 9.

The credit adjustment was calculated by averaging the percent change for each of the past ten years, resulting in a mean of 2.39%. The mean was then applied as the difference in

each of the steps between the starting salary for a job classification and the midpoint salary. Senior employees were given credit equivalent to a step increase for each year that

they served in their current job classification not to exceed the midpoint salary. The amount for each of the step increases is shown on Table 6.

Fiscal Impact Summary The fiscal impact summary shown on Table 3 reflects only the benchmark job classifications for which there was a comparable classification in the other participating

communities. This determination was made after review of the current job descriptions that were provided to the Mercer Group. It should be noted that the Mercer Group did not

review all of the job descriptions in all of the eight participating municipalities. Such a review was beyond the scope of this report. It should also be noted that those job

classifications that did not have a corresponding match in job classification in other cities were not included in the fiscal impact analysis. The reason is obvious in that a prevailing

market range cannot be established where there are few or none matching classifications. In order to determine which of these job classifications did not have a corresponding

match, we recommend that each city compare the classifications they submitted in Table 2, with those on Table 3.

Table 3 does show the estimated fiscal impact of adjusting the current job classification salaries to the correct step within the new pay bands (ranges). The fiscal impact to each of

the eight participating cities was determined by calculating the variance from the “seniority step”. The seniority step is defined as the step within the new pay range based on the

credit for years of service within an employee’s current job classification. The fiscal impact varies from city to city, however it appears that the impact will not be significant if the

plan is adopted by each participating city.

There were several job classifications in which multiple employees held the same classification. In order to determine the fiscal impact in those job classifications, we selected the

incumbent within the classification that had the greatest seniority. With few exceptions, the most senior employee within a job classification earned the highest rate of pay. As a

result, the fiscal impact data entered in a job classification for which there were multiple employees with the same classification reflects the most senior employee.

The assumption was made that if there was no fiscal impact to the city based on the highest paid employee within a job classification, there would be no fiscal impact to those

employees who earned a lower salary. We tested this hypothesis on several job classifications, and found this to be true.

We recommend that each participating city perform their own internal analysis using the current number of years in a job classification, and granting the credit adjustment

previously mentioned in this report. Only by performing such an internal fiscal analysis, can the city determine its total fiscal impact in the event they decide to adopt this new

pay plan.

9

Employees earning less than the minimum salary Whenever a new pay plan is considered by any municipality, the first consideration is to identify the number of employees who currently earn less than the minimum salary of the

new pay plan. Based on our analysis, we found that only sixteen (16) employees were currently paid less than the minimum step within the range of their new pay plan. This data

is shown on Table 4.

The cost to adjust those employee salaries to the minimum step in their new job classification was minimal, and the amounts are shown separately for each of the eight

participating cities.

Employees earning more than the maximum salary Due to the expanded salary structure shown on Table 5, the maximum salary an employee can receive was extended significantly. As a result, the number of employees who are

“maxed out” in their job classification was reduced significantly. Table 4 shows the number of employees who are maxed out. Because the number of maxed out employees were

significantly reduced with this pay plan, it should be viewed as a positive step for long term employees.

Based upon our analysis, the number of employees who are currently receiving a salary above the maximum step in their new job classification is shown on Table 4. We also

prepared Exhibits 1-3 to identify those job classifications that are less than minimum salary, more than maximum salary, and those that need to be adjusted based on seniority.

These exhibits are attached to the Final Report letter that accompanies this report.

Cities whose minimum starting salary is greater than the survey During the course of our survey, we also found a few cities that have a policy regarding the minimum starting salary. In some cases the minimum starting salary in those cities was

higher than the minimum salary shown in this report. We recommend that those cities whose minimum starting salary is greater than the minimum salary shown in this report not

change the policy, but allow it remain in effect if this plan is adopted. That policy would simply supercede the starting salary in this report.

New Mexico Salary Trends According to the data provided by the New Mexico State Personnel Board, the average classified employee salary was $41,912 as of July 2013 as compared to an average New

Mexico private industry salary of thirty-six thousand six hundred twenty-four dollars ($36,624). Nationally, as of the same time period, the average salary for private employers

was $42,577.

10

The US Department of Commerce released the Annual Average Wages for New Mexico Counties in 2012. This report also shows that the average classified employee salary in

New Mexico is approximately 12.6% higher than the civilian employee average salary in the state. Table 10 of this report shows that the average annual wages for the counties

that include the participating cities are as follows:

1. San Miguel County City of Las Vegas $30,121

2. Roosevelt County City of Portales $31,436

3. Grant County Town of Silver City $35,645

4. Lea County City of Lovington $47,455

5. Valencia County Village of Los Lunas $30,977

6. Luna County City of Deming $33,544

7. Lincoln County Village of Ruidoso $29,249

8. San Juan County City of Bloomfield $44,066

Based on this data, one can clearly see that the annual wages for New Mexico cities and counties are lower than the State and National average. The exceptions are Lea County

and San Juan County. Both counties are industry leaders in oil and gas production, and as a result have higher wages predominantly in the civilian work force.

Finally, Table 11 shows the per capita personal income in each of the counties in New Mexico. The per capita income data in this table also shows why the average annual wages

in each county are so low. In addition, Table 7 and Table 8 of this report show the PERA and insurance contributions for each of the participating cities

The Mercer Group agreed to provide the City with a copy of the final Pay and Classification Report upon completion of this project. Additional copies can be made by the City as

necessary to ensure that employees, management, and the governing body have a copy for their files. An electronic file copy will also be provided to the City so that they can

create multiple copies as they deem necessary. The timeline proposed by the contractor to complete this project was thirteen weeks from the date Notice to Proceed was issued by

the City Manager.

Acknowledgements: The Mercer Group would like to acknowledge the support it received from the following individuals who helped us obtain the information necessary in the preparation of this

report:

Elmer J. Martinez, City Manager Leette Kugler, HR Manager

City of Las Vegas City of Las Vegas

11

Aaron Sera, City Administrator Vicki Engle, HR Manager

City of Deming City of Deming

James Williams, City Manager Carol Ann Hogue, City Clerk

City of Lovington City of Lovington

Debi Lee, Village Manager Tania Proctor, HR Director

Village of Ruidoso Village of Ruidoso

Gregory Martin, Village Administrator Christine Nardi, HR Manager

Village of Los Lunas Village of Los Lunas

Alex C. Brown, Town Manager Celia Dominguez, Personnel Manager

Town of Silver City Town of Silver City

David Fuqua, City Manager Donna Clifton, HR Director

City of Bloomfield City of Bloomfield

Doug Redmond, City Manager Shelly Johnson, HR Director

City of Portales City of Portales

Study Project Team Members The Mercer Group, Inc. provides exceptionally high quality management consulting services to state and local governments, transit authorities, health care providers, utilities,

special districts, and private sector clients. Specialty practice areas include: salary and classification surveys, executive recruitment, organization and operations analysis, strategic

planning, organizational climate surveys, and general management consulting.

Our key consultants have provided professional services for hundreds of public sector organizations nationally and can offer numerous references as testimony of our work. This

important engagement will be conducted under the direction of Mr. James L. Mercer, President of the Mercer Group. Listed below are the qualifications of the project team:

12

1. James L. Mercer, President - Atlanta and Santa Fe Offices

Mr. Mercer holds a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Nevada, Reno, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Management from the same

institution. He has also received a Certificate in Municipal Administration from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is a graduate of the Executive Development

Program at Cornell University. Mr. Mercer is a Certified Management Consultant (CMC) and has more than 30 years of experience in executive search and management

consulting. He has authored or co-authored six books and has written more than 250 articles on various management topics. His experience covers the following functional areas:

executive search, organization and operations analysis, management systems, productivity improvement, seminars/training, goal setting, strategic planning, privatization, govern-

ment, and general consulting.

2. Gustavo “Gus” Cordova, Senior Vice President – Santa Fe

Mr. Cordova holds a Master of Science degree and a Bachelor of Science degree from New Mexico Highlands University. He also holds a graduate diploma from the U.S. Army

Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth Kansas. Mr. Cordova is a Credentialed Manager (ICMA-CM) with the International City/County Management Association, and

has over 25 years of experience in local government management in New Mexico. Mr. Cordova served as the Regional Vice President of ICMA, and as a member of the Committee on

Professional Conduct. He has served as City Manager in Taos and in Espanola; and as the Executive Director of the New Mexico Association of Counties. He holds the rank of Colonel

with the U.S. Army Reserve, and is a veteran of over 27 years of military service. Amongst his many distinguished recognitions, he is the recipient of the Profile in Courage Award and

the New Mexico Distinguished Public Service Award. His experience includes over seven years of executive recruitment for City and County Managers and other key local government

officials through the Mercer Group. He also specializes in strategic planning and priority setting for elected officials, planning and development of municipal budgets, preparation of pay

and classification plans, organizational assessment surveys, and general consulting for local governments.

3. Vivian V. Santistevan, Taos HR Ganics, Taos

Ms. Santistevan holds a Master of Arts degree in Human Resource Management from New Mexico Highlands University. She is also a graduate of the Human Resource Management

School at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, and a graduate of the Senior Officer Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. She is the current owner and President of Taos HR Ganics which

provides professional services to small business, local governments, and non-profit agencies in employment law, human resource solutions, best practices, organizational development, and

13

business performance improvement. She has previously served as the Director of Human Resources and Training Manager in the public, tribal, and private sectors. She has over 20 years’

experience with documented success in the areas of human resources management, strategic planning, recruiting, executive coaching, training, and organizational development.

4. Diane R. Cordova, Independent Consultant, Santa Fe

Ms. Cordova holds a Master’s in Business Administration (MBA), and a BBA in Management from New Mexico Highlands University. She is the previous co-owner of CRJ and

Company, a management and Human Relations professional business services company located in Santa Fe. She is also a former Director of Human Services and Executive Management member

for First Choice Healthcare in Albuquerque. Prior to that, she was the Executive Management member and Striving Towards Improvement Coordinator for Northeastern Regional Hospital in Los

Lunas. Her expertise is in Human Relations policy development, career development, professional development training, quality improvement, self-directed work team training, and

development of personnel job descriptions and pay plans.

TABLE 1

SALARY AND CLASSIFICATION SURVEY - COMPARABLE CITIES

US Census Median Per Median LGD/DFA 2014 Approved Budget Comparable Criteria

City 2012 Estimate Value Capita Household General Fund Salaries Number of > 100 < 275 > 8000 < 15000 > $8M < $17M

Population Housing Income Income Budget Budget Employees Emp Emp Pop Pop GF Bud GR Bud

Artesia 11,301 110,000 13,911 29,529 16,646,121 200

Belen 7,289 116,391 12,990 26,754 5,201,643 75

Bloomfield 8,112 140,200 14,424 32,905 8,462,417 5,006,560 117

Deming 14,793 93,300 10,943 20,081 10,799,049 6,305,610 180

Espanola 10,240 128,900 14,383 27,142 9,921,965 181

Grants 9,182 83,925 14,053 30,652 6,910,170 92

Las Vegas 13,529 105,900 12,619 24,214 11,350,322 9,312,024 274

Los Lunas 14,933 148,900 14,692 36,240 14,879,561 7,048,378 191

Lovington 11,275 81,100 12,752 26,458 9,933,078 5,857,248 101

Portales 12,280 95,100 12,935 24,658 8,624,400 4,681,686 128

-

Ruidoso 8,029 223,600 22,721 37,107 13,047,611 9,373,126 213

Socorro 9,052 107,979 13,250 22,530 6,057,072 140

Silver City 10,273 125,400 13,813 25,881 8,808,079 5,865,699 158

Sunland Park 14,106 78,502 10,757 25,990 4,916,993 88

TABLE 2 - PAY AND CLASSIFICATION SURVEY RESPONSE WORKSHEETS

CITY OF BLOOMFIELD

Dept. Employee # Years of # Years in Benchmark Job Current Comparable Starting Current Maximum

Name Last Name Service Position Classification Job Classification Annual Salary Annual Salary Annual Salary

MANAGER'S OFFICE

Administration David Fuqua 4.2 4.2 City Manager 58,100.62 120,000.00 80,451.07

FINANCIAL SUPPORT SERVICES

Administration Bradley Ellsworth 4.1 4.1 Finance Director Finance Director (+ 1.2 Asst FD) 55,076.74 77,268.67 76,271.52

Administration Betsy Campbell 11.2 8.2 Accounts Payable Clerk A/P Procurement Specialist 35,876.26 48,436.13 49,666.66

Administration Evelyn Archuleta 34 17.2 Payroll Specialist Payroll Specialist/Assistant Finance 28,981.06 58,513.73 40,119.46

HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES

Administration Donna Clifton 2.6 2.6 Human Resources Director Personnel Analyst/Compliance Manager 39,949.73 49,115.04 55,310.11

Personnel Specialist * See Personnel Analyst 48,152.00

Administration Angela Romo 9.11 9.11 Administrative Assistant HR Administrative Assistant 30,593.47 34,412.35 42,325.92

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Administration Jamie Thomas 3.11 2.3 Municipal Clerk City Clerk 55,212.58 55,394.98 72,282.91

Administration Erikka Martinez 2.5 2.5 Administrative Assistant City Hall Admin Assistant 30,593.47 36,512.74 42,325.92

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Administration/ IT David Bell 1.5 1.5 Network Systems Manager IT Director 49,475.71 72,927.56 68,506.46

Administration/ IT Jerri Carle Computer Operations Specialist PC Support Speicalist (Part-time) 26,032.03 28,981.06 36,045.98

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Administration Teresa Brevik 3.1 1.3 Director, Community Develop. Special Projects Director 52,212.58 62,375.04 72,282.91

Administration Sharpe-Baird 2.4 2.4 Planning & Zoning Coordinator P&Z and GIS Director 49,475.71 66,490.94 68,506.46

RECREATION SERVICES

AQUATIC Stephen Gromack 8.11 8.11 Recreation Director Aquatic Director 39,949.73 56,943.74 55,310.11

AQUATIC Erin Eagle 3.9 2.6 Recreation Coordinator Aquatic Center Coordinator 35,876.26 35,876.26 49,666.66

AQUATIC Haley Hensley 2.5 2.5 Lifeguard 17,863.87 19,561.15 24,759.07

AQUATIC Martin Hickman 1.5 1.5 Head Lifeguard 23,380.03 23,380.03 32,354.40

AQUATIC Shinea Woody 2.0 2.0 Aquatic Cashier/ Seasonal 16,951.58 16,951.58 23,464.90

1 of 5 Pages


CITY OF BLOOMFIELD



CULTURAL SERVICES

Community Services Norman Tucker 20.3 10.3 Community Services Director 52,12.58 62,375.04 72,282.91

Community Service Peggy Loyd 1.9 1.9 Library Manager Librarian 49,475.71 54,079.58 68,506.46

Community Service Consuelo Gonzales 3.5 3.5 Library Assistant 26,032.03 26,817.02 36,045.98

Community Service Kathryn McAlexancer 3.3 3.3 Library Clerk 22,170.72 22,170.72 30,678.34

Community Service Linda Greider 1.5 1.5 Part-time Floor Monitor for Gym 23,380.03 23,380.03 32,354.40

Community Service Michael Frost 11.2 11.2 Part-time Floor Monitor " 23,380.03 27,114.05 32,354.40

Community Service Jenette Montoya 10 10 Part-time Floor Monitor " 23,380.03 26,329.06 32,354.40

Community Service Peggy Gunnink 8.3 8.3 Part-time Floor Monitor " 23,380.03 24,801.50 32,354.40

Community Service Paula Baca 20.5 20.5 Part-time Floor Monitor " 23,380.03 28,747.68 32,354.40

POLICE - PUBLIC SAFETY

Police Department Randy Foster 2 months 0.2 Chief of Police Chief of Police/ MVD 59,829.12 91,188.76 82,848.48

Police Department Taylor Carrillo 6 months 0.6 Administrative Assistant I Administrative Assistant 30,593.47 30,593.47 42,325.92

Police Department Cynthia Atencio 19 9.0 Administrative Assistant II Office Manager 34,009.25 41,859.17 47,099.52

Police Department Carroll Scott 15.1 6.0 Lieutenant Lieutenant 55,331.33 72,219.26 81,257.28

Police Department Randon Matthews 7.5 0.1 Lieutenant Lieutenant 55,331.33 66,087.84 81,257.28

Police Department T.J. Brown 8.6 2.3 Sergeant Sergeant 54,270.53 57,580.22 75,109.38

Police Department Robert C Barker 8 2.5 Sergeant Sergeant 54,270.53 59,298.72 75,109.38

Police Department Joshua Calder 3.5 0.1 Sergeant Sergeant 54,270.53 55,882.94 75,109.38

Police Department Darren Brown 1.10 0.1 Sergeant Sergeant 54,270.53 59,298.72 75,109.38

Police Department Brian McCarty 5.8 4.8 Sergeant Sergeant 54,270.53 55,882.94 75,109.38

Police Department Caleb Coates 1.5 1.5 Police Investigator PD Detective 44,723.33 51,809.47 61,887.07

Police Department Carlos Loomis 1.2 1.2 Police Investigator PD Detective 46,929.79 61,229.38 64,942.18

Police Department Kenneth Adair 6.3 1.9 Police Officer/Patrolman School Resource Officer 46,929.79 56,031.46 64,942.18

Police Department Andrew Darby 9.3 3.10 Police Officer/Patrolman School Resource Officer 46,929.79 54,376.61 64,942.18

Police Department Justen Darby 9.3 3.10 Police Officer/Patrolman Certified Police Officer 44,723.33 47,460.19 61,887.07

Police Department Jeremiah Whitaker 9.10 5 Police Officer/Patrolman PD Detective 44,723.33 46,081.15 61,887.07

Police Department Robert Rothlisberger 4.5 4.5 Police Officer/ Patrolman 44,723.33 46,081.15 61,887.07

Police Department Jonathan Thornton 9.5 9.3 Police Officer/Recruit 44,723.33 46,081.15 61,887.07

Police Department Greg Clark 4 2 Animal Shelter Manager Community Services Officer/Codes 34,009.25 36,088.42 47,099.52

Police Department Jose Santistevan 4 Animal Caregiver Community Services Officer/Codes 34,009.25 40,607.42 47,099.52

Police Department Teena McKinney 3.3 3.3 Police Records Supervisor Evidence Technician/ Records 30,593.47 32,418.05 42,325.92

2 of 5 Pages


CITY OF BLOOMFIELD



FIRE - PUBLIC SAFETY

FIRE George Duncan 41.11 41.11 Fire Chief 55,076.74 91,080.29 85,818.72

FIRE John Mohler 12.1 1.3 Assistant Fire Chief 54,732.87 73,556.40 75,763.09

FIRE Edward Bo Rice 9.7 5 months Fire Shift Commander Shift Fire Captain 46,929.79 51,279.07 64,920.96

FIRE Travis Olbert 6.6 5 months Fire Shift Commander Shift Fire Captain 46,929.79 46,929.79 64,920.96

FIRE Joshua Mack 5 months 5 months Fire Lieutenant Shift Fire Captain 46,929.79 46,929.79 64,920.96

FIRE Kilian Carey 1.4 5 months Fire Engineer/EMT Fire Engineer 39,949.73 39,949.73 55,288.90

FIRE Andrew Placencio 5 months 5 months Fire Engineer/EMT Fire Engineer 39,949.73 39,949.73 55,288.90

FIRE Ryan Varnell 5 months 5 months Firefighter 35,876.26 35,876.26 49,624.44

FIRE Clandy Bounds 5 months 5 months Firefighter 35,876.26 35,876.26 49,624.44

FIRE Mario Salazar 5 months 5 months Firefighter 35,876.26 35,876.26 49,624.44

FIRE Austin Johnson 5 months 5 months Fire Fighter 35,876.26 35,876.26 49,624.44

FIRE Ian Rutter 5 months 5 months Fire Fighter 35,876.26 35,876.26 49,624.44

FIRE Becky Bowden 7.7 6.7 Administrative Assistant 30,593.47 30,593.47 42,325.92

FIRE Ayme Vigil 24.1 9.0 Office Manager 34,009.25 46,547.90 47,099.52

JUDICIAL - MUNICIPAL COURT

COURT Gabriela Crane 4 2.2 Municipal Court Clerk Court Deputy Clerk 27,474.72 27,474.72 38,040.29

COURT Michelle Trujillo 12.4 4 Court Clerk Administrator Court Administrator 35,876.26 38,061.50 49,666.66

3 of 5 Pages


CITY OF BLOOMFIELD



PUBLIC WORKS AND FACILITIES

Administration Chris Darnell Starts 10/23/2014 Public Works Director Public Work Director/ City Engineer 58,110.62 92,000.00 80,451.07

MOC Adrian Garica 4.9 1.5 MOC Superintendent 49,475.71 74,871.26 68,506.46

MOC/ PW Kim Duncan 34.9 9.0 Public Works Manager MOC & P/W Office Manager 34,009.25 48,505.60 47,099.52

Parks & Recreation Melinda Gomez 4.11 3.3 Parks Supervisor Parks Co- Superintendent/Admin Asst 39,949.73 46,293.31 56,943.74

Parks & Recreation Monica Seitzinger 7.7 3.3 Parks Supervisor Parks Co- Superintendent/Foreman 39,949.73 46,293.31 56,943.74

MOC George Gurule 7.8 4.3 Crew Leader 35,876.26 41,583.36 49,666.66

MOC Troy Hethcox 10.5 4.3 Crew Leader 35,876.26 36,937.06 49,666.66

MOC Sammy Duran 3.0 3.0 Street Division Manager Crew Leader 35,876.26 42,835.10 49,666.66

MOC Daniel Mickas 6.9 1.4 Shop Foreman 37,870.56 47,969.38 52,403.52

MOC Rod Hosteen 1.3 1.3 Equipment Service Worker Mechanic 35,876.26 38,804.06 49,666.66

Parks Shirley Archuleta 6.4 6.4 Maintenance Worker - Parks Custodian 21,025.06 27,411.07 29,108.35

Parks Freddie Garcia 7.7 7.7 Parks Worker I / maint. & pool tech 30,593.47 32,418.05 42,325.92

Parks Ferlin Willie 6.2 6.2 Parks Worker I 28,981.06 28,981.06 40,119.46

Parks Brandon Callado 3.5 3.5 Parks Worker I 28,981.06 28,981.06 40,119.46

Parks Christopher Yazzie 3.6 3.6 Parks Worker I 28,981.06 28,981.06 40,119.46

MOC Harley James 2.2 2.2 Public Works Operator I 30,593.47 36,512.74 42,325.92

MOC Buddy Sanchez 34 21 Public Works Operator I 30,593.47 41,074.18 42,325.92

MOC Duane Cardenas 2 months 2 months Public Works Operator I 30,593.47 34,412.35 42,325.92

MOC Watson Bradley 2.11 2.11 Public Works Operator I 30,593.47 34,412.35 42,325.92

MOC Justin Hawkins 3.0 3.0 Public Works Operator I 30,593.47 33,393.98 42,325.92

MOC Brian Mestas 1.3 1.3 Public Works Operator I 28,981.06 38,931.36 40,119.46

MOC Troy Rightmire 2 months 2 months Public Works Operator I 30,593.47 34,412.35 42,325.92

MOC Tyler Wade 2.3 2.3 Public Works Operator I 30,593.47 35,451.94 42,325.92

4 of 5 Pages


CITY OF BLOOMFIELD



UTILITY BILLING - CUSTOMER SERVICE

Finance/ Utilities Glenda Dugger 4.5 4.5 Customer Service Lead Lead Customer Service Rep 32,269.54 39,673.92 44,659.68

Finance/ Utilities Marjorie Smith 11.2 9.1 Customer Svc Representative I Customer Svc Representative 30,593.47 34,412.35 42,325.92

Finance/ MVD Angie Vigil 32.1 25 MVD Supervisor 37,870.56 49,412.06 52,403.52

Finance/ MVD Angie Atencio 8.5 8.5 MVD Title Clerk 23,380.03 31,420.90 32,354.40

Finance/ MVD Riva Lehi 6 weeks 6 weeks MVD Title Clerk 23,380.03 23,380.03 32,354.40

Finance/ MVD Lucille Begaye 14 14 MVD Title Clerk 23,380.03 29,617.54 32,354.40

Finance/ MVD Freda Bennett 1 month 1 month MVD Title Clerk (Part-Time) 23,380.03 30,487.39 32,354.40

Finance/ MVD Yvonne John 1 month 1 month MVD Title Clerk 23,380.03 26,329.06 32,354.40

Utilities Leroy Gonzales 2.7 2.7 Meter Reader I Meter Reader Tech/ PW OP I 34,009.25 35,048.83 47,099.52

UTILITY OPERATIONS - WATER SUPPLY

Water Rubin Armenta 33.5 1.1 Water Distribution Superintendent Water Superintendent 46,929.79 66,872.83 64,920.96

Water Jose Serna 5.3 5.3 Water Supply Operator III Senior Operator 35,876.26 44,150.50 49,666.66

Water Joe Hubbard 2.7 2.7 Water Supply Operator III Senior Operator 35,876.26 38,061.50 49,666.66

Water Tony Gonzales 30.2 26 Water Supply Operator III Senior Operator 35,876.26 45,444.67 49,666.66

Water Lucky Gonzales 5.1 1.1 Water Supply Operator III Senior Operator 35,876.26 44,150.50 49,666.66

UTILITY OPERATIONS - WASTEWATER

Wastewater Dave Sonnenberg 12.4 1.10 Wastewater Superintendent Wastewater Superintendent 46,929.79 65,932.96 64,920.96

Wastewater Alan Watts starting 10/27/14 Wastewater Operator II WW Operator II 34,008.47 39,440.54 47,099.52

Wastewater David Kaulkarni starting 10/27/14 Wastewater Operator I WW Operator I 30,593.47 34,412.35 42,325.93

Wastewater Roxie Shreeves 1 month 1 month Laborer Wastewater Trainee 27,474.72 33,797.09 38,040.29

SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER

Community Srv. Norman Tucker 20.3 9.3 Senior Center Director Community Srv. Director 52,212.58 62,375.04 72,282.91

Community Srv. Jessica Polatty 11 11 Senior Center Director 49,475.71 55,713.22 68,506.46

Cultural Srv. Preston Haskie 5 months 5 months Senior Center Driver Senior Center Driver/ Custodian 21,025.06 21,025.06 29,108.35

TOTALS $3,955,844 $4,829,622 $5,565,576

5 of 5 Pages

TABLE 3 - MARKET SURVEY DATA - SALARY COMPARISIONS

Prevailing Calculated Salary Salary Pay

CITY MANAGER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Administrator Manager Administrator Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager 100,635 105,674 77,147 134,202 96

Starting Salary 86,074 72,004 67,790 58,101 57,000

Current Salary 103,247 75,046 109,791 91,988 120,000 125,008 79,997 100,000

# Years in Position 2 years 3 months < 1 year 1.5 years 4.2 years 5 years 1.5 years 12 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate 2,612 (25,588) 9,156 (8,647) 19,365 24,373 (20,638) (635)

Min Salary Based on Seniority 80,879 77,147 77,147 78,991 84,791 86,817 78,991 102,426

Variance from Seniority Step 22,368 (2,101) 32,644 12,997 35,209 38,191 1,006 (2,426)

Fiscal Impact to City 0 2,101 0 0 0 0 0 2,426


ASSISTANT MANAGER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Asst Manager Deputy Manager Assist Manager 81,329 79,649 58,136 101,150 90

Starting Salary 67,790 84,123 80,000

Current Salary 76,502 87,485 80,000

# Years in Position 1.5 years 1 year 0

Variance from Prevailing Rate (4,827) 6,156 (1,329)

Min Salary Based on Seniority 59,525 59,525 58,136

Variance from Seniority Step 0 0 0 16,977 0 27,960 0 21,864

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 0


EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Bud & Mgmt Anal Office Manager Admin Secretary Executive Assistant Asst to Executive 42,336 43,549 31,782 55,307 65

Starting Salary 37,554 42,931 39,270 32,773 30,219

Current Salary 38,113 58,260 46,238 34,091 34,976

# Years in Position 1 year 8 years 1.5 years 1 year 4 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate (4,223) 15,924 3,902 (8,245) (7,360)

Min Salary Based on Seniority 32,542 38,392 32,542 32,542 34,931

Variance from Seniority Step 5,571 19,868 13,696 0 0 1,549 0 45

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 0 0 0


ADMIN ASSISTANT Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Admin Assist Admin Asst Admin Asst 28,240 35,949 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 27,518 31,021 22,314

Current Salary 29,993 31,200 23,527

# Years in Position 2 years 3 months 9 months

Variance from Prevailing Rate 1,753 2,960 (4,713)


Variance from Seniority Step 0 2,495 0 4,971 0 0 (2,702) 0

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 2,702


Page 1 of 28


RECEPTIONIST Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Office Spec Receptionist Clerk 1, Range 5 Cen Receptionist Receptionist 23,903 22,265 16,245 28,267 30

Starting Salary 21,957 17,222 21,881 26,059 19,395

Current Salary 25,829 17,222 21,881 26,059 28,523

# Years in Position 1 year 0 < 1 year 0 7

Variance from Prevailing Rate 1,926 (5,043) (2,022) 2,156 4,620


Variance from Seniority Step 9,196 977 5,636 0 0 9,814 0 9,357



FINANCE DIRECTOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Finance Officer Finance Director Finance Director Finance Director Finance Director Finance Director Finance Director 73,482 69,709 50,898 88,525 85

Starting Salary 55,484 52,312 67,790 55,077 73,346 38,812

Current Salary 70,376 71,115 68,000 71,198 77,269 85,550 70,868

# Years in Position 16 years 13 years <1 year 3 months 4.1 years 0 10 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate (3,106) (2,367) (5,482) (2,284) 3,787 12,068 (2,614)

Min Salary Based on Seniority 69,709 67,576 50,898 50,898 55,941 50,898 64,458

Variance from Seniority Step 667 3,539 17,102 20,300 21,328 34,652 6,410 0

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


ASST FINANCE DIRECTOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Asst Fin Director Dep Fin Director 49,093 48,479 35,381 61,568 70

Starting Salary 52,675 36,807

Current Salary 54,704 43,482

# Years in Position 2 years 2 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate 5,611 (5,611)

Min Salary Based on Seniority 37,092 37,092

Variance from Seniority Step 0 0 0 0 0 17,612 0 6,390

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0


ACCOUNTANT Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Accountant Accountant Staff Accountant Accountant 44,627 43,549 31,782 55,307 65

Starting Salary 32,718 42,058 44,943 29,723

Current Salary 34,258 48,235 46,738 49,276

# Years in Position 1 year 1 year < 1 year 10 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate (10,369) 3,608 2,111 4,649

Min Salary Based on Seniority 32,542 32,542 31,782 40,249

Variance from Seniority Step 0 1,716 15,693 0 0 14,956 9,027 0

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 0 0


ACCTS PAYABLE CLERK Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Page 2 of 28


Participant Job Title: AP Specialist Clerk II AP Clerk AP Proc Spec AP Clerk AP Specialist Accounting Tech 33,121 32,215 23,525 40,914 50

Starting Salary 22,589 23,442 28,201 35,876 29,147 24,107 28,484

Current Salary 32,074 31,928 31,824 48,436 29,147 29,097 29,339

# Years in Position 8 19 2 8 Vacant 0 0

Variance from Prevailing Rate (1,047) (1,193) (1,297) 15,315 (3,974) (4,024) (3,782)


Variance from Seniority Step 0 3,656 (287) 7,161 20,018 5,622 5,572 5,814



PAYROLL SPECIALIST Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Payroll/HR Spec Payroll Spec Acct Tech Payroll Spec Payroll Spec Payroll/HR Spec Payroll Spec Accounting Tech 39,656 39,413 28,766 50,045 60

Starting Salary 34,062 23,732 34,216 28,201 28,981 32,773 24,107 23,817

Current Salary 45,568 29,453 34,216 38,875 58,513 34,944 34,218 41,459

# Years in Position 2 years 5 0 4 17 1 8 13

Variance from Prevailing Rate 5,912 (10,203) (5,440) (781) 18,857 (4,712) (5,438) 1,803


Variance from Seniority Step 15,411 (2,919) 5,450 7,259 19,100 5,490 280 2,354

Fiscal Impact to City 0 2,919 0 0 0 0 0 0


PURCHASING AGENT Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Purchasing Agent Purchasing Agent Proc Officer 37,124 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 29,640 34,767 33,300

Current Salary 38,542 38,483 34,346

# Years in Position 2 2 Reclassified

Variance from Prevailing Rate 1,418 (1,173) (2,778)


Variance from Seniority Step 0 11,044 0 0 0 10,985 8,117 0



PURCHASING SPECIALIST Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Purch Spec Purch Spec Asst Pur Agent Fin Spec 31,904 32,215 23,525 40,914 50

Starting Salary 37,554 21,507 29,147 24,107

Current Salary 37,554 29,182 31,782 29,097

# Years in Position 2 2 2 years 0

Variance from Prevailing Rate 5,650 (2,722) (122) (2,807)


Variance from Seniority Step 12,891 4,519 0 0 0 7,119 5,572 0



DEPUTY CLERK Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Dep Clerk Dep Clerk Dep Clerk Dep Clerk 37,598 39,413 28,766 50,045 60

Page 3 of 28


Starting Salary 34,062 30,388 34,761 29,723

Current Salary 34,569 34,424 43,430 37,970

# Years in Position 1 6 9

Variance from Prevailing Rate (3,029) (3,174) 5,832 372





CITY ATTORNEY Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Contract City Attorney Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract 100,734 105,674 77,147 134,202 96

Starting Salary 65,332

Current Salary 100,734

# Years in Position 5

Variance from Prevailing Rate 0

Min Salary Based on Seniority 86,817

Variance from Seniority Step 0 13,917 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fiscal Impact to City 0


PARALEGAL Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Paralegal 39,250 39,413 28,766 50,045 60









HR DIRECTOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: HR Manager HR Manager HR Specialist Pers Analyst HR Director Personnel Off 59,631 61,359 44,782 77,917 80

Starting Salary 52,842 39,873 55,390 39,949 73,346 31,970

Current Salary 67,643 41,537 64,688 48,152 84,698 51,065

# Years in Position 3 2 6 3 5 16

Variance from Prevailing Rate 8,013 (18,094) 5,058 (11,479) 25,068 (8,566)

Min Salary Based on Seniority 48,070 46,948 51,600 48,070 50,395 61,359

Variance from Seniority Step 19,573 (5,411) 13,088 0 82 34,303 0 (10,294)

Fiscal Impact to City 0 5,411 0 0 0 10,294


MUNICIPAL CLERK Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: City Clerk/HR Mun Clerk City Clerk Village Clerk City Clerk Town Clerk 59,051 54,355 39,686 69,035 75

Starting Salary 52,312 39,481 55,212 63,975 38,812 31,125

Page 4 of 28


Current Salary 61,984 54,330 55,394 76,066 69,393 37,141

# Years in Position 5.5 years 2 2.3 years 12 years 9 7 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate 2,933 (4,721) (3,657) 17,015 10,342 (21,910)


Variance from Seniority Step 17,323 0 12,724 13,778 23,376 20,307 (9,680)

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 0 0 0 9,680


RECORDS COORDINATOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Benefits Coord Admin Assistant 35,957 35,944 26,229 45,656 55



# Years in Position 2 years 2.5 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate (556) 556


Variance from Seniority Step 0 7,903 0 0 9,014 0 0 0



SAFETY COORDINATOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: 0

Starting Salary

Current Salary

# Years in Position

Variance from Prevailing Rate

Min Salary Based on Seniority

Variance from Seniority Step 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fiscal Impact to City


PERSONNEL SPECIALIST Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Pers / Risk Coord HR Assistant HR Generalist 37,651 39,413 28,765 50,045 60

Starting Salary 30,388 30,593 32,773

Current Salary 45,760 34,413 32,781

# Years in Position 11 9 years < 1 year



Variance from Seniority Step 8,460 0 0 (1,166) 4,015 0 0

Fiscal Impact to City 0 1,166 0



Participant Job Title: Admin Asst 23,920 22,265 16,245 28,267 30



Page 5 of 28








NETWORK MANAGER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: IT Manager Network Mgr IT Manager IT Director IT Director IT Director 57,736 54,355 39,686 69,035 75

Starting Salary 47,929 40,872 Part time 49,475 38,812 40,000

Current Salary 55,280 57,741 72,927 55,000 47,730

# Years in Position 1 year 16 years 1.5 years 5.5 years 6 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate (2,456) 5 15,191 (2,736) (10,006)


Variance from Seniority Step 14,646 3,386 0 32,293 0 10,339 2,002



NETWORK ADMIN Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Comp Spec Network Admin Systems Admin 43,860 43,549 31,782 55,307 65

Starting Salary 43,473 32,718 38,379

Current Salary 48,193 37,585 45,802

# Years in Position 1 year 1 13 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate 4,333 (6,275) 45,802


Variance from Seniority Step 15,651 5,043 0 0 0 2,597 0 0



COMPUTER SPECIALIST Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Comp Tech PC Support Spec IT Tech 37,961 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 35,766 28,981 29,723

Current Salary 43,301 28,981 41,600




Variance from Seniority Step 9,290 0 0 0 2,752 0 15,371 0



COMM DEVELOP DIR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Com Dev Dir Com Dev Dir Com Svc Dir Com Dev Dir Com Dev Dir Com Dev Dir 66,920 69,709 50,898 88,525 85

Starting Salary 61,171 48,568 52,213 63,975 50,000

Current Salary 71,936 49,296 72,883 62,375 72,987 72,042

# Years in Position 4 1 month 2 1 2 5

Page 6 of 28


Variance from Prevailing Rate 5,016 (17,624) 5,963 (4,545) 6,067 5,122


Variance from Seniority Step 15,995 (1,602) 19,523 0 10,261 19,627 0 14,764

Fiscal Impact to City 0 1,602 0 0 0 0


CITY PLANNER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: City Planner City Planner City Planner City Planner Plan Admin Plan Admin Planner 50,127 48,479 35,381 61,568 70

Starting Salary 35,766 30,388 45,073 39,481 38,812 40,000

Current Salary 41,252 32,344 54,745 54,000 64,880 53,541

# Years in Position < 1 year 8 months 1 1 month 10 11

Variance from Prevailing Rate (8,875) (17,783) 4,618 3,873 14,753 3,414


Variance from Seniority Step 5,871 (3,037) 18,518 18,619 0 0 20,073 7,663

Fiscal Impact to City 0 3,037 0 0 0 0


PLAN & ZONING COOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Econ Devel Mgr P&Z Coord P&Z Coord Plan Admin Planner 50,556 48,479 35,381 61,568 70

Starting Salary 47,929 26,208 49,475 38,812 28,199

Current Salary 57,512 29,099 66,490 64,880 34,801

# Years in Position 4 2 weeks 2 10 2

Variance from Prevailing Rate 6,956 (21,457) 15,934 14,324 (15,755)


Variance from Seniority Step 18,625 (6,282) 0 0 29,398 0 20,073 (2,291)

Fiscal Impact to City 0 6,282 0 0 2,291



Participant Job Title: Admin Sec Admin Asst Admin Sec Admin Asst Admin Asst 35,021 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 25,418 27,518 36,670 29,147 24,107

Current Salary 31,674 36,857 42,286 29,147 35,141

# Years in Position 14 13 6 0 7

Variance from Prevailing Rate (3,347) 1,836 7,265 (5,874) 120


Variance from Seniority Step (1,070) 4,877 15,179 0 0 5,622 7,387 0

Fiscal Impact to City 1,070 0 0 0 0


CODE ENF SUPERVISOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Code Enf Supv Enf Svc Supv Code Enf Supv Plan /Admin Leadsperson 44,174 43,549 31,782 55,307 65

Starting Salary 43,473 26,208 33,840 38,812 29,916

Current Salary 51,163 26,208 44,970 64,880 33,648

# Years in Position 9 years vacant 1 year 2 months 3 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate 6,989 (17,966) 796 20,706 (10,526)

Page 7 of 28



Variance from Seniority Step 11,853 vacant 0 12,428 0 0 33,098 (468)

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 0 0 0 468


CODE ENF OFFICER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Code Enf Off Code Enf Off Code Enf Off Code Enf Off Code Enf Off Code Enf Off Code Enf Off Code Enf Off 30,138 29,039 21,195 36,878 45

Starting Salary 30,896 23,732 31,948 24,947 32,773 21,550 27,654

Current Salary 31,358 25,979 36,795 27,726 35,797 24,548 28,760

# Years in Position 2 years 1 year 8 years 1 year 4 years 2 years 2 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate 1,220 (4,159) 6,657 (2,412) 5,659 (5,590) (1,378)


Variance from Seniority Step 9,138 4,277 11,192 6,024 0 12,502 2,328 6,540



BUILDING INSPECTOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Building Insp Building Insp Building Insp Building Insp Building Insp 46,211 43,549 31,782 55,307 65

Starting Salary 36,108 34,216 36,448 38,812 31,500

Current Salary 46,404 42,390 36,448 64,880 40,935

# Years in Position 3 years 7 years 0 10 years 8 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate 193 (3,821) (9,763) 18,669 (5,276)


Variance from Seniority Step 0 12,288 4,894 0 0 4,666 24,631 2,543



RECREATION SUPV Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Rec Supv Rec Manager Rec Foreman Aquatic Dir Rec Dir P&R Dir 52,478 54,355 39,686 69,035 75

Starting Salary 30,896 34,382 31,021 39,949 63,975 33,300

Current Salary 40,622 56,201 37,710 56,943 74,339 49,052

# Years in Position < 2 years 6 6 8 0 4

Variance from Prevailing Rate (11,856) 3,723 (14,768) 4,465 21,861 (3,426)


Variance from Seniority Step (12) 10,473 0 (8,018) 9,003 34,653 5,434 0

Fiscal Impact to City 12 0 8,018 0 0 0


ASST RECREATION SUPV Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Asst Rec Mgr Rec Leader Aquatic Coor Asst Rec Dir Rec Coor 41,552 39,413 28,766 50,045 60

Starting Salary 30,388 35,876 44,493 26,985

Current Salary 41,163 35,876 53,019 36,150

# Years in Position 2 years 2 years 1 year 10 years

Variance from Prevailing Rate (389) (5,676) 11,467 (5,402)


Page 8 of 28


Variance from Seniority Step 0 11,006 0 0 5,719 23,565 0 (280)



YOUTH COORDINATOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Youth Coor Youth Coor Youth Coor Head Lifeguard Rec Aide Rec Ctr Sec 25,924 26,375 19,261 33,488 40

Starting Salary 29,424 18,096 28,201 23,380 20,671 19,000

Current Salary 35,971 19,552 31,595 23,380 21,222 23,826

# Years in Position 12 1 15 2 4 mo 6

Variance from Prevailing Rate 10,047 (6,372) 5,671 (2,544) (4,702) (2,098)


Variance from Seniority Step 10,399 (169) 0 5,220 3,187 0 1,961 1,633



LIFEGUARD Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Lifeguard Lifeguard Lifeguard 17,614 20,714 15,600 26,312 25

Starting Salary 15,600 17,580 17,863

Current Salary 15,600 17,680 19,561

# Years in Position vacant seasonal 3

Variance from Prevailing Rate (2,014) 66 1,947


Variance from Seniority Step 0 0 0 2,080 2,816 0 0 0



LIBRARY DIRECTOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Lib Director Lib Manager Lib Director Librarian Lib Director Lib Admin Lib Director 53,260 54,355 39,686 69,035 75

Starting Salary 50,326 37,024 33,840 49,475 63,975 38,812 42,954

Current Salary 60,626 38,646 40,997 54,079 68,058 63,509 46,906

# Years in Position 10 1 15 2 3 11 7

Variance from Prevailing Rate 7,366 (14,614) (12,263) 14,798 14,798 10,249 (6,354)


Variance from Seniority Step 15,819 2,419 (7,482) 16,987 30,079 17,631 5,164

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 7,482 0 0 0


ASST LIB DIRECTOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Asst Lib Director Asst Librarian Staff Lib Library Asst Library Asst Adult Svcs Lib 34,098 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 28,023 31,948 28,201 26,032 29,723 29,600

Current Salary 32,308 34,070 36,754 26,817 33,134 41,505

# Years in Position 7 5 years 15 4 4 3

Variance from Prevailing Rate (1,790) (28) 2,656 (7,281) (964) 7,407


Variance from Seniority Step 2,086 0 4,553 810 (2,011) 0 4,306 13,350

Page 9 of 28


Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 0 2,011 0 0


CHILDRENS LIBRARIAN Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Children Lib Children's Lib Youth Svcs Youth Svcs Youth Svcs 28,530 29,039 21,195 36,878 45

Starting Salary 25,563 24,947 30,905 24,107 29,600

Current Salary 28,288 25,501 33,613 24,758 30,488


Variance from Prevailing Rate (242) (3,029) 5,083 (3,772) 1,958


Variance from Seniority Step 0 4,436 0 3,799 0 6,771 3,056 8,268



LIBRARY TECH Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Library Tech Library CL Sen Library CL Sen Tech Svcs 26,600 26,375 19,261 33,488 40

Starting Salary 24,204 16,806 20,671 26,067

Current Salary 27,930 28,995 22,366 27,110

# Years in Position 7 30 2 2

Variance from Prevailing Rate 1,330 2,395 (4,234) 510


Variance from Seniority Step 5,206 2,620 0 0 0 0 2,173 6,917



LIBRARY CLERK Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Library Clerk Library Clerk Library Clerk Library Clerk Library Asst Library Clerk 26,152 24,140 17,618 30,659 35

Starting Salary 24,208 16,806 21,881 28,201 23,419 19,165

Current Salary 25,132 28,995 29,619 26,978 24,357 21,833


Variance from Prevailing Rate (1,020) 2,843 3,467 826 (1,795) (4,319)


Variance from Seniority Step 7,694 6,730 10,453 10,733 8,112 4,395 0



RECREATION LDR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Sports Spec Rec Coor Youth Coor 31,210 32,215 23,525 40,916 50

Starting Salary 29,424 26,208 28,201

Current Salary 33,248 28,787 31,595


Variance from Prevailing Rate 2,038 (2,423) 385


Variance from Seniority Step 7,996 4,700 0 (620) 0 0 0 0


Page 10 of 28



RECREATION SPEC Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Recreation Spec Rec Cont Clk Youth Aide Floor Monitor 24,080 24,140 17,618 30,659 35

Starting Salary 25,418 18,096 24,947 23,380

Current Salary 27,555 19,177 26,208 23,380


Variance from Prevailing Rate 3,475 (4,903) 2,128 (700)


Variance from Seniority Step 9,085 265 0 7,738 6,349 0 0 0



RECREATION CLERK Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Recreation Aide Wellness Clk 19,923 20,714 15,600 26,312 25



# Years in Position 1 2



Variance from Seniority Step 5,984 1,533 0 0 0 0 0 0



MUSEUM CURATOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Museum Spec Museum Cur Museum Cur Museum Dir 35,040 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 25,418 34,382 24,947 45,000

Current Salary 26,391 38,084 26,520 49,165

# Years in Position 2 1 10 mo 3

Variance from Prevailing Rate (8,649) 3,044 (8,520) 14,125


Variance from Seniority Step (1,107) 11,228 0 291 0 0 0 21,010

Fiscal Impact to City 1,107 0 0 0


MUSEUM SPECIALIST Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Museum Spec Museum Spec Museum Spec 32,980 32,215 23,525 40,914 50

Starting Salary 25,418 25,563 30,171

Current Salary 26,391 26,291 46,258


Variance from Prevailing Rate (6,589) (6,689) 13,278


Variance from Seniority Step 1,728 2,204 0 0 0 0 0 13,817



Page 11 of 28


MUSEUM TECH Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Museum Tech Museum Clk 20,268 20,714 15,600 26,312 25



# Years in Position < 1 4



Variance from Seniority Step 8,608 (818) 0 0 0 0 0 0



CHIEF OF POLICE Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Chief of Police Chief of Police Chief of Police Chief of Police Chief of Police Chief of Police Chief of Police Chief of Police 77,050 79,649 58,136 101,150 90

Starting Salary 68,615 50,756 67,790 59,829 71,356 38,812 50,000

Current Salary 80,691 73,570 72,883 73,549 91,188 96,658 60,258 67,600

# Years in Position < 1 4 2 1 2 mo 4 10 mo 9

Variance from Prevailing Rate 3,641 (3,480) (4,167) (3,501) 14,138 19,608 (16,792) (9,450)


Variance from Seniority Step 22,555 9,674 11,935 14,024 33,052 32,762 2,122 (4,306)

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,306


DEPUTY CHIEF Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Deputy Chief Deputy Chief Patrol Cpt 62,657 61,359 44,782 77,917 80

Starting Salary 59,272 45,973 57,324

Current Salary 70,368 59,946 57,657




Variance from Seniority Step 13,655 11,876 11,805 0 0 0 0 0



POLICE ADMIN ASSIST Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Admin Asst Admin Asst Admin Asst Admin Sec Admin Asst Admin Asst Admin Asst Admin Asst 32,872 32,215 23,525 40,914 50

Starting Salary 30,896 27,518 31,948 24,947 30,593 34,761 29,823 25,069

Current Salary 38,551 30,139 32,323 29,640 30,593 39,624 32,479 29,626

# Years in Position 5 10 1 2 6 mo 8 1 4

Variance from Prevailing Rate 5,679 (2,733) (549) (3,232) (2,279) 6,752 (393) (3,246)


Variance from Seniority Step 12,077 347 8,236 4,977 7,068 11,206 8,392 3,770

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


SHIFT COMMANDER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Page 12 of 28


Participant Job Title: Shift Cmdr Captain 59,146 61,359 44,782 77,917 80




Variance from Prevailing Rate (2,446) 2,446


Variance from Seniority Step 0 11,918 0 0 0 0 0 16,810



LIEUTENANT Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Patrol Lt Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant 57,293 54,355 39,686 69,035 75

Starting Salary 48,763 52,044 51,695 55,331 33,300 52,112

Current Salary 51,876 55,779 57,046 72,219 53,681 53,159


Variance from Prevailing Rate (5,417) (1,514) (247) 14,926 (3,612) (4,134)


Variance from Seniority Step (2,073) 13,179 4,356 0 26,491 13,047 12,525

Fiscal Impact to City 2,073 0 0 0 0 0


SERGEANT Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant 51,430 48,479 35,381 61,568 70

Starting Salary 38,207 44,903 45,056 36,662 54,271 51,979 47,985 42,518

Current Salary 43,084 48,441 48,987 50,617 55,883 66,394 47,985 50,047

# Years in Position 6 3 4 6 5 12 9 mo 7

Variance from Prevailing Rate (8,346) (2,989) (2,443) (813) 4,453 14,964 (3,445) (1,383)


Variance from Seniority Step 2,316 10,462 10,100 9,849 16,067 19,420 12,604 8,305



PATROLMAN (CERT) Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Police Officer Police Officer Police Officer Police Officer Police Officer Police Officer Police Officer Police Officer 44,040 43,549 31,782 55,307 65

Starting Salary 34,655 33,415 36,669 33,840 44,723 42,453 44,220 27,827

Current Salary 41,144 36,603 43,527 44,762 46,081 52,458 46,925 40,819

# Years in Position 10 5 15 5 5 14 10 mo 9

Variance from Prevailing Rate (2,896) (7,437) (513) 722 2,041 8,418 2,885 (3,221)


Variance from Seniority Step 895 837 (22) 8,996 10,315 8,221 15,143 1,509



PATROLMAN (NON- C) Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Uncertified Uncertified Uncertified Uncertified Uncertified Uncertified Uncertified Uncertified 31,453 32,215 23,525 40,914 50

Page 13 of 28


Starting Salary 31,433 29,484 33,065 28,201 40,469 26,066

Current Salary 31,433 29,484 33,065 28,201 40,469 26,066


Variance from Prevailing Rate (20) (1,969) 1,612 (3,252) 9,016 (5,387) 0


Variance from Seniority Step 7,346 5,397 8,978 4,114 16,382 0 1,979 0



RECORDS CLERK Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Police Clerk Records Clerk Evid/Records Records Clerk Records Supv Records Clk 28,930 29,039 21,195 36,878 45

Starting Salary 25,418 19,968 30,593 26,059 24,107 19,000

Current Salary 35,884 24,814 32,418 31,554 25,430 23,479

# Years in Position 15 7 3.3 15 2 6

Variance from Prevailing Rate 6,954 (4,116) 3,488 2,624 (3,500) (5,451)


Variance from Seniority Step 6,845 (192) 0 0 9,667 2,515 3,210 (943)



EVIDENCE TECH Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Evidence Tech Evidence Tech 32,592 32,215 23,525 40,914 50






Variance from Seniority Step 12,454 3,390 0 0 0 0 0 0



FIRE CHIEF Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Fire Chief Fire Chief Fire Chief Fire Chief Fire Chief Fire Chief Fire Chief Fire Chief 75,780 79,649 58,136 101,150 90

Starting Salary 59,272 62,478 67,790 55,077 73,346 38,812 62,000

Current Salary 84,712 61,859 73,840 69,347 91,080 96,658 66,740 62,000

# Years in Position 28 6 5 2 41 3 4 < 1

Variance from Prevailing Rate 8,933 (13,921) (1,940) (6,433) 15,301 20,879 (9,040) (13,780)


Variance from Seniority Step 5,063 (5,128) 8,417 8,399 11,431 34,253 2,844 3,864

Fiscal Impact to City 0 5,128 0 0 0 0 0 0


DEPUTY CHIEF Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Deputy Chief Deputy Chief Deputy Chief Deputy Chief Deputy Chief Deputy Chief Deputy Chief Deputy Chief 62,152 61,359 44,782 77,917 80

Starting Salary 51,201 39,481 54,732 50,115

Page 14 of 28


Current Salary 66,164 60,000 60,923 73,556 50,115

# Years in Position 7 <1 1 1 < 1

Variance from Prevailing Rate 4,012 (2,152) (1,229) 11,404 (12,037)


Variance from Seniority Step 13,331 0 15,218 15,071 27,704 0 0 5,333



CAPTAIN Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Captain Shift Comdr Captain Shift Comdr Shift Comdr Shift Comdr Bn Chief Captain 52,604 54,355 39,686 69,035 75

Starting Salary 44,230 31,501 38,496 39,841 46,929 50,808 33,300 34,682

Current Salary 55,671 45,915 52,707 51,730 51,279 62,368 57,949 43,214

# Years in Position 10 2 9 10 5 mo 9 7 5

Variance from Prevailing Rate 3,067 (6,689) 103 (874) (1,325) 9,764 5,345 (9,390)


Variance from Seniority Step 5,412 4,309 3,621 1,471 11,593 13,282 11,128 (1,447)



LIEUTENANT Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant 44,497 43,549 31,782 55,307 65

Starting Salary 36,388 29,544 35,963 36,662 43,699 40,322 30,867

Current Salary 45,360 44,316 36,138 42,994 52,116 47,897 42,660

# Years in Position 7 2 < 1 2 mo 8 4 8

Variance from Prevailing Rate 863 (181) (8,359) (1,503) 7,619 3,400 (1,837)


Variance from Seniority Step 7,864 10,997 2,356 11,212 13,724 12,966 5,164



FIRE ENGINEER/EMT Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Engineer/EMT Engineer/EMT Engineer/EMT Engineer/EMT Engineer/EMT Engineer/EMT Engineer/EMT Engineer/EMT 38,592 39,413 28,766 50,045 60

Starting Salary 36,388 24,225 39,949 36,662

Current Salary 40,260 36,214 39,949 37,943

# Years in Position 1 6.5 5 mo 2

Variance from Prevailing Rate 1,669 (2,378) 1,358 (649)


Variance from Seniority Step 10,806 3,068 0 0 11,183 0 0 7,786



FIREFIGHTER/EMT-i Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: FF/EMT-I FF/EMT-I FF/EMT-I FF/EMT-I FF/EMT-I FF/EMT-I FF/EMT-I FF/EMT-I 35,793 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 31,433 31,333 28,200 35,876 29,749 28,788 29,120

Current Salary 41,705 33,196 40,654 35,876 34,781 31,112 33,226

Page 15 of 28


# Years in Position 12 6 6 5 mo 8 < 1 3

Variance from Prevailing Rate 5,912 (2,597) 4,861 83 (1,012) (4,681) (2,567)





FIREFIGHTER/EMT-B Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: FF/EMT-B FF/EMT-B FF/EMT-B FF/EMT-B FF/EMT-B FF/EMT-B FF/EMT-B FF/EMT-B 32,874 32,215 23,525 40,914 50

Starting Salary 28,511 23,288 33,840 29,749 26,994 26,033

Current Salary 37,815 26,512 39,493 35,856 26,994 30,575

# Years in Position 10 4 2 9 11 mo 1



Variance from Seniority Step 8,023 656 0 14,830 0 6,759 3,469 6,488



FIRE ADMIN ASST Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Office Spec Admin Asst Admin Asst Admin Asst Admin Sec 36,124 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 21,957 27,518 30,593 32,773 29,723

Current Salary 25,334 36,940 30,593 35,651 52,104

# Years in Position 2 7 6.7 8 30

Variance from Prevailing Rate (10,790) 816 (5,531) (473) 15,980


Variance from Seniority Step (2,164) 4,718 (1,629) 3,967 16,160

Fiscal Impact to City 2,164 0 1,629 0 0


MUNICIPAL JUDGE Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Mun Judge Mun Judge Mun Judge Mun Judge Mun Judge Mun Judge Mun Judge Mun Judge 39,902 39,413 28,766 50,045 60

Starting Salary 52,000 54,953 44,000 36,000

Current Salary 54,999 80,828 43,992 14,400 25,000 44,000 20,000 36,000

# Years in Position 0 21 7 21 5 2 0 4

Variance from Prevailing Rate 15,097 40,926 4,090 (25,502) (14,902) 4,098 (19,902) (3,902)


Variance from Seniority Step 26,233 41,415 10,054 (25,013) (7,372) 13,843 (8,766) 4,384



COURT ADMIN Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Court Admin Court Admin Court Admin Court Admin Court Admin Court Admin Court Admin Court Admin 38,494 39,413 28,766 50,045 60

Starting Salary 34,062 28,912 28,808 24,947 35,876 34,761 33,300 26,770

Current Salary 37,706 48,443 38,646 34,570 38,061 34,761 45,656 30,110

# Years in Position < 1 19 9 7 4 < 1 9 4

Page 16 of 28


Variance from Prevailing Rate (788) 9,949 152 (3,924) (433) (3,733) 7,162 (8,384)


Variance from Seniority Step 8,940 9,030 3,067 632 6,445 5,995 10,077 (1,506)



COURT CLERK Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Court Clerk Court Clerk Court Clerk Court Clerk Court Clerk Court Clerk Court Clerk Court Clerk 25,997 26,375 19,261 33,488 40

Starting Salary 25,418 21,507 21,881 27,474 27,494 20,671 20,966

Current Salary 29,315 21,507 25,438 27,474 30,014 26,952 21,280

# Years in Position 1 1 2 2.2 < 1 5 1

Variance from Prevailing Rate 3,318 (4,490) (559) 1,477 4,017 955 (4,717)





PW DIRECTOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: PW Director PW Director PW Director PW Director PW Director PW Director PW Director 72,905 69,709 50,898 88,525 85

Starting Salary 61,171 49,795 58,110 73,346 38,812 37,807

Current Salary 71,046 51,521 72,883 92,000 89,502 61,117 72,265

# Years in Position <2 2 mo 1 < 1 1 3 14

Variance from Prevailing Rate (1,859) (21,384) (22) 19,095 16,597 (11,788) (640)


Variance from Seniority Step 18,932 623 20,769 41,102 37,388 6,482 1,420



PARK SUPERVISOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Parks Supv Park Supv Park Foreman Park Foreman Parks Supv Parks Supt Parks Supv 39,972 39,413 28,766 50,045 60

Starting Salary 30,896 36,108 39,270 36,662 39,949 33,300 35,256

Current Salary 38,881 42,577 43,409 34,133 46,293 36,000 38,510


Variance from Prevailing Rate (1,091) 2,605 3,437 (5,839) 6,321 (3,972) (1,462)


Variance from Seniority Step 3,302 10,205 10,263 2,517 15,415 0 421 8,353



AIRPORT MANAGER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Airport Mgr Airport Mgr GS Director 51,673 54,355 39,686 69,035 75

Starting Salary 36,108 63,975 38,812

Current Salary 44,657 75,088 58,688


Variance from Prevailing Rate (7,016) 23,416 4,333

Page 17 of 28



Variance from Seniority Step 0 (5,674) 0 0 0 27,018 3,299 0

Fiscal Impact to City 5,674 0


STREET SUPERVISOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Street Supv Street Supv Street Foreman Street Foreman Crew Leader Street Supv Street Supt Street Supv 44,854 43,549 31,782 55,307 65

Starting Salary 37,554 36,108 39,270 36,662 35,876 38,379 33,300 33,571

Current Salary 40,716 38,750 40,331 62,171 42,835 47,528 48,631 37,872

# Years in Position 2 2 1 33 3 1 4 6

Variance from Prevailing Rate (4,138) (6,104) (4,523) 17,317 (2,019) 2,674 3,777 (6,982)





PROJECT MANAGER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Proj Mgr Spec Projects 48,734 48,479 35,381 61,568 70






Variance from Seniority Step 0 6,712 12,896 0 0 0 0 0



EQUIP OPERATOR III Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Equip Oper III Equip Oper III Equip Oper III Equip Oper III Equip Oper III Equip Oper III 36,011 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 28,023 23,150 28,808 31,021 30,905 26,609

Current Salary 37,824 29,473 37,606 42,640 33,592 34,929

# Years in Position 2 2 mo 11 16 10 12



Variance from Seniority Step 10,326 3,244 3,595 6,696 0 375 106 0



STREET MAINT WKR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Maint Worker Maint Worker Maint Worker Maint Worker Maint Worker Maint Worker Maint Worker 28,052 29,039 21,195 36,878 45

Starting Salary 21,957 20,987 19,739 28,981 26,059 26,609 20,440

Current Salary 27,087 26,228 19,739 32,418 29,598 30,461 30,835

# Years in Position 13 8.5 1 6.2 2 5 9

Variance from Prevailing Rate (965) (1,824) (8,313) 4,366 1,546 2,409 2,783


Page 18 of 28


Variance from Seniority Step (1,725) 625 (1,963) 0 7,996 7,378 6,609 4,620

Fiscal Impact to City 1,725 0 1,963 0 0 0 0


PARK MAINT WKR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Maint Worker Maint Worker Maint Worker Maint Worker Maint Worker 28,219 29,239 21,195 36,878 45

Starting Salary 21,957 20,987 22,651 28,981 17,284

Current Salary 21,934 26,312 31,158 32,418 29,274

# Years in Position 1 12 25 6.2 19

Variance from Prevailing Rate (6,285) (1,907) 2,939 4,199 1,055


Variance from Seniority Step 232 (1,171) 2,119 0 7,996 0 0 235

Fiscal Impact to City 0 1,171 0 0 0


UTILITY BILLING SUPV Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Utility Bill Sup Utility Bill Sup Utility Bill Sup Utility Bill Sup Utility Bill Sup Utility Bill Sup Utility Bill Sup Utility Bill Sup 37,523 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 30,896 30,388 31,948 28,201 32,269 34,761 29,723 20,865

Current Salary 37,080 39,395 33,633 31,824 39,673 37,627 41,207 39,747

# Years in Position 3 4 3 2 4.5 4 15 18

Variance from Prevailing Rate (443) 1,872 (3,890) (5,699) 2,150 104 3,684 2,224





UTILITY BILLING CLERK Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Utility Bill Clk Utility Bill / Cust Utility Bill Clk Water Clerk Cust Rep Utility Bill Clk Utility Bill Clk Utility Bill Clk 27,574 26,375 19,261 33,488 40

Starting Salary 28,023 17,222 21,881 24,947 30,593 26,059 20,671 17,494

Current Salary 29,088 20,654 25,834 29,536 34,412 27,102 24,871 29,093

# Years in Position 3 2 8 4 mo 9 3 7 10

Variance from Prevailing Rate 1,514 (6,920) (1,740) 1,962 6,838 (472) (2,703) 1,519


Variance from Seniority Step 8,413 461 2,567 10,275 10,589 6,427 2,147 4,701



water Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Meter Reader Meter Reader Meter Reader Meter Reader Meter Reader Meter Reader Meter Reader Meter Reader 27,061 26,375 19,261 33,488 40

Starting Salary 21,957 20,467 25,979 24,947 34,009 26,059 21,097 19,000

Current Salary 22,293 26,915 33,134 26,000 35,049 28,309 21,657 23,127

# Years in Position 2 8 6 4 mo 2.7 7 1 3

Variance from Prevailing Rate (4,768) (146) 6,074 (1,061) 7,989 1,249 (5,404) (3,934)



Page 19 of 28




UTILITIES DIRECTOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Utilities Dir Utility Mgr 66,113 61,359 44,782 77,917 80



# Years in Position 5.5 1



Variance from Seniority Step 0 20,013 0 0 0 15,966 0 0



WATER SUPPLY SUPV Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Water Supv Water Supv Water Supv Water Supv Water Supv Water Supv Water Supv Water Supv 48,399 48,479 35,381 61,568 70

Starting Salary 43,473 36,108 39,270 46,929 38,379 33,300 31,653

Current Salary 50,140 38,812 52,104 66,872 60,923 36,050 33,895


Variance from Prevailing Rate 1,741 (9,587) 3,705 18,473 12,524 (12,349) (14,504)


Variance from Seniority Step 13,048 (2,930) 15,877 0 30,645 12,444 (177) (3,197)

Fiscal Impact to City 0 2,930 0 0 0 177 3,197


WATER OP IV Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Asst Water Sup Treat Plt Sup Water Op IV Chief Oper Oper IV 48,033 48,479 35,381 61,568 70

Starting Salary 35,766 36,108 44,943 33,300 23,314

Current Salary 37,127 56,160 52,062 52,151 42,666


Variance from Prevailing Rate (10,906) 8,127 4,029 4,118 (5,367)


Variance from Seniority Step 35 19,068 0 0 0 10,320 3,672 (3,212)

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 0 0 3,212


WATER OP III Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Water Op III Water Op III 41,055 39,413 28,766 50,045 60






Variance from Seniority Step 0 0 0 0 11,778 7,803 0 0


Page 20 of 28



WATER OP II Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Oper II Oper II Oper II Oper II 33,449 32,215 23,525 40,914 50

Starting Salary 22,588 27,851 31,021 20,767

Current Salary 30,908 37,211 40,019 25,658


Variance from Prevailing Rate (2,541) 3,762 6,570 (7,791)


Variance from Seniority Step 0 5,656 4,467 7,804 0 0 0 (200)



EQUIP OPERATOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Maint Tech Equip Oper Equip Oper Equip Oper Equip Oper 30,268 29,039 21,195 36,825 45

Starting Salary 29,424 22,048 31,021 30,905 22,786

Current Salary 29,864 26,000 33,509 36,005 25,962

# Years in Position 1 5 9 6 2 mo

Variance from Prevailing Rate (404) (4,268) 3,241 5,737 (4,306)


Variance from Seniority Step 8,162 2,148 0 7,294 0 11,783 4,767 0



LABORER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Laborer Laborer Laborer Laborer 21,859 20,714 15,600 26,312 25

Starting Salary 17,222 19,739 24,701 21,097

Current Salary 19,614 20,280 24,710 22,830

# Years in Position 2 2 1 4 mo

Variance from Prevailing Rate (2,245) (1,579) 2,852 972


Variance from Seniority Step 0 3,259 3,925 0 0 8,737 7,230 0



WASTEWATER SUPV Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: WWTP Supv WW Mgr WW Foreman WW Supt WWTP Mgr WWTP Chief WW Supv 56,132 54,355 39,686 69,035 75

Starting Salary 43,473 42,931 36,662 46,929 63,975 33,300 45,697

Current Salary 44,123 44,512 55,245 65,932 84,261 53,151 45,697

# Years in Position 2 1 mo 2 1 5 20 2

Variance from Prevailing Rate (12,009) (11,620) (887) 9,800 28,129 (2,981) (10,435)


Variance from Seniority Step 2,517 4,826 0 13,639 25,298 39,600 (1,204) 4,091

Fiscal Impact to City 0 0 0 0 0 1,204 0


Page 21 of 28


WASTEWATER OP IV Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: WWTP Asst WW OP IV WW OP IV WWTP OP IV 44,820 43,549 31,782 55,307 65

Starting Salary 35,766 34,382 33,840 44,943

Current Salary 41,250 38,542 46,488 52,998


Variance from Prevailing Rate (3,570) (6,278) 1,669 8,179


Variance from Seniority Step 7,134 5,223 0 2,939 0 9,793 0 0



WASTEWATER OP III Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: WWTP OP WW OP III 38,275 39,413 28,766 50,045 60






Variance from Seniority Step 4,460 0 7,183 0 0 0 0 0



WASTEWATER OP II Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: WW OP II WWTP OP II WW OP II 36,309 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 35,400 29,147 25,324

Current Salary 39,440 36,629 32,859

# Years in Position < 1 24 7

Variance from Prevailing Rate 3,131 320 (3,450)


Variance from Seniority Step 0 0 0 0 13,211 685 0 1,914



WASTEWATER OP I Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: WWTP Tech WW OP I WW OP I WW OP I WW OP I 31,612 32,215 23,525 40,914 50

Starting Salary 21,957 31,021 30,593 26,609 18,336

Current Salary 24,806 31,054 34,412 37,872 29,916

# Years in Position 5 1 < 1 8 9

Variance from Prevailing Rate (6,806) (558) 2,800 6,260 (1,696)


Variance from Seniority Step (1,668) 0 0 6,967 10,887 0 10,118 1,498

Fiscal Impact to City 1,668 0 0 0 0 0


LABORATORY TEC Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Page 22 of 28


Participant Job Title: Lab Tech Water Qual Tec Water Qual Tec 35,821 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 32,440 25,563 26,609

Current Salary 39,287 30,305 37,872




Variance from Seniority Step 6,070 2,807 0 0 0 0 6,188 0



WW LABORER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Laborer Laborer Laborer Laborer Laborer 22,656 22,265 16,246 28,267 30

Starting Salary 17,222 19,739 27,474 21,097 19,000

Current Salary 18,262 20,280 33,797 21,656 19,285

# Years in Position 1 2 1 mo 1 1

Variance from Prevailing Rate (4,394) (2,376) 11,141 (1,000) (3,371)


Variance from Seniority Step 0 1,629 3,249 0 17,552 0 5,323 2,952



SOLID WASTE SUPV Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: SW Supv SW Supv SW Foreman SW Supv SW Supt 45,720 43,549 31,782 50,307 65

Starting Salary 43,473 30,388 39,270 38,379 33,300

Current Salary 53,148 38,313 40,331 54,808 42,000

# Years in Position 3 7 1 5 4 mo

Variance from Prevailing Rate 7,428 (7,407) (5,389) 9,088 (3,720)


Variance from Seniority Step 19,032 817 7,789 19,042 10,218 0



ASST SW SUPV Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Asst SW Supv SW Lead 35,128 35,944 26,229 45,656 55






Variance from Seniority Step 8,134 6,468



RECYCLING OPERATOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Recycling OP Recy Coor 35,507 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Page 23 of 28





Variance from Prevailing Rate 127 (127)


Variance from Seniority Step 8,778 7,225



TRANSFER ST OPER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Trans St Op Trans St Op Trans Oper Trans Oper 31,897 32,215 23,525 40,914 50

Starting Salary 30,896 30,388 24,947 33,300

Current Salary 32,069 27,518 26,000 42,000

# Years in Position 3 3 2 mo 7

Variance from Prevailing Rate 172 (4,379) (5,897) 10,103


Variance from Seniority Step 6,817 2,266 2,475 14,246



PACKER OPERATOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Packer/Dvr Packer OP Packer OP Packer OP Equip OP Sanitation Dvr 34,272 35,944 26,229 45,656 55

Starting Salary 28,023 21,507 24,252 30,905 22,786 20,273

Current Salary 34,245 38,292 33,488 35,235 28,240 36,134


Variance from Prevailing Rate (27) 4,020 (784) 963 (6,032) 1,862


Variance from Seniority Step (578) 5,851 (2,456) (1,273) (2,705) 190

Fiscal Impact to City 578 0 2,456 1,273 2,705 0


SW LABORER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: SW Laborer Main Wkr Laborer Main Wkr 23,898 22,265 16,245 28,267 30

Starting Salary 21,957 20,987 19,739 24,701

Current Salary 22,293 20,841 25,625 26,832


Variance from Prevailing Rate (1,605) (3,057) 1,727 2,934


Variance from Seniority Step 5,660 3,810 4,560 8,114



SENIOR CTR DIRECTOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Sen Ctr Dir Sen Ctr Dir Sen Ctr Dir 50,667 48,479 35,381 61,568 70

Starting Salary 37,939 33,840 52,213

Page 24 of 28


Current Salary 48,318 41,309 62,375




Variance from Seniority Step 0 11,226 0 (7,170) 16,497 0 0 0

Fiscal Impact to City 0 7,170 0


ASSESSMENT COOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Assess Coor NAPIS Clerk Assess Coor 27,407 26,375 19,261 33,488 40

Starting Salary 25,563 24,947 24,701

Current Salary 26,291 31,221 24,710

# Years in Position 1 9 < 1



Variance from Seniority Step 6,570 7,954 5,449



SENIOR CTR DRIVER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Driver/Helper Driver Driver 22,844 22,265 16,245 28,267 30

Starting Salary 16,806 24,947 21,025

Current Salary 19,822 27,685 21,025

# Years in Position 2 17 5 mo



Variance from Seniority Step 0 2,791 0 5,420 4,780 0 0 0



SENIOR CTR COOK Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Cook Cook 24,315 24,140 17,618 30,659 35






Variance from Seniority Step 0 2,475 0 7,859 0 0 0 0



PUBLIC HOUSING DIR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Housing Dir. 62,608 39,413 28,766 50,045 60



Page 25 of 28


# Years in Position 6 mo






TRANSIT SUPVERVISOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Transit Supv Transit Supv 29,931 29,039 21,195 36,878 45






Variance from Seniority Step 0 10,749 0 0 0 0 2,912 0



TRANSIT DRIVER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Transit Dvr Transit Dvr 24,989 24,140 17,618 30,659 35



# Years in Position 7 8.5



Variance from Seniority Step 0 4,923 0 0 0 0 2,987 0



DISPATCH 911 MGR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Chief Opns Mgr Comm Mgr EMS Dir 39,980 39,413 28,766 50,045 60

Starting Salary 29,424 29,494 33,300

Current Salary 36,173 32,344 51,424

# Years in Position 3 2 7.5



Variance from Seniority Step 5,295 2,187 0 0 0 0 17,486 0



911 SUPERVISOR Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Cert 911 Supv Comm Supv Dispatch Sup 35,799 35,944 26,229 45,645 55

Starting Salary 29,424 38,840 26,420

Current Salary 36,173 44,803 26,420

# Years in Position 3 23 1 mo

Page 26 of 28


Variance from Prevailing Rate 374 9,004 (9,379)


Variance from Seniority Step 8,018 0 0 8,859 0 0 191 0



911 DISPATCHER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Cert Disp Comm Spec Telecom Off Comm Oper 32,977 32,215 23,525 40,914 50

Starting Salary 25,418 21,923 29,616 22,260

Current Salary 34,305 29,827 40,040 27,735

# Years in Position 3 7.5 12 2

Variance from Prevailing Rate 1,328 (3,150) 7,063 (5,242)





GAS SUPERINTENDENT Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Gas Sys Mgr Gas Foreman 53,872 54,355 39,686 69,035 75









GAS OPERATOR I Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Gas Oper I Gas Oper I 28,267 29,039 21,195 36,878 45





Min Salary Based on Seniority




GAS LABORER Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City Rate Midpoint Minimum Maximum Range

Participant Job Title: Laborer Laborer 24,117 24,140 17,618 30,659 35





Page 27 of 28





TOTALS (Estimated) $10,397 $37,434 $4,728 $23,290 $4,806 $1,273 $6,788 $40,250

Fiscal Impact to City

Page 28 of 28

TABLE 4

FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY

SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City

Number of Employees 191 274 180 101 117 213 128 158

FY 15 Total Payroll $7,048,378 $9,312,024 $6,305,610 $5,857,248 $5,006,560 $9,373,126 $4,681,686 $5,865,699

FY 15 General Fund $14,879,561 $11,350,322 $10,799,040 $9,932,078 $8,462,417 $14,467,545 $8,624,400 $8,808,679

# employees below minimum step 1 7 1 1 0 0 1 3

Cost to adjust to minimum step $895 $16,869 $1,456 $1,976 $0 $0 $2,702 $4,611

As % of Payroll 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

# employees above maximum step 2 2 0 1 11 9 9 3

Cost of those employees $5,324 $15,516 $0 $6,864 $48,591 $54,110 $36,982 $9,109

As % of Payroll 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0% 0.6% 0.8% 0.2%

# employees adjusted for seniority 8 13 4 4 3 1 4 13

Cost to adjust salaries for seniority $10,397 $37,434 $4,728 $23,290 $4,806 $1,273 $6,788 $40,250

As % of Payroll 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7%

Footnotes:

1 In those job classifications that included several incumbents, the incumbent with the most seniority was selected to determine fiscal impact.

2 The assumption is that if the most senior incumbent does not create a fiscal impact, the remaining incumbents also do not create a fiscal impact.

3 Credit for service in current job classification was granted to all employees based on the new salary schedule.

4 The credit given was equal to 2.39% for each year of service up to the midpoint.

TABLE 5 - STATE OF NEW MEXICO

FY15 CLASSIFIED SERVICE SALARY SCHEDULE (EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014)

Hourly Annual

Pay Band Minimum Midpoint Maximum Minimum Midpoint Maximum

25 7.50$ 9.96$ 12.65$ 15,600.00$ 20,714.00$ 26,312.00$

30 7.81$ 10.70$ 13.59$ 16,245.00$ 22,265.00$ 28,267.00$

35 8.47$ 11.61$ 14.74$ 17,618.00$ 24,140.00$ 30,659.00$

40 9.26$ 12.68$ 16.10$ 19,261.00$ 26,375.00$ 33,488.00$

45 10.19$ 13.96$ 17.73$ 21,195.00$ 29,039.00$ 36,878.00$

50 11.31$ 15.49$ 19.67$ 23,525.00$ 32,215.00$ 40,914.00$

55 12.61$ 17.28$ 21.95$ 26,229.00$ 35,944.00$ 45,656.00$

60 13.83$ 18.95$ 24.06$ 28,766.00$ 39,413.00$ 50,045.00$

65 15.28$ 20.94$ 26.59$ 31,782.00$ 43,549.00$ 55,307.00$

70 17.01$ 23.31$ 29.60$ 35,381.00$ 48,479.00$ 61,568.00$

75 19.08$ 26.13$ 33.19$ 39,686.00$ 54,355.00$ 69,035.00$

80 21.53$ 29.50$ 37.46$ 44,782.00$ 61,359.00$ 77,917.00$

85 24.47$ 33.51$ 42.56$ 50,898.00$ 69,709.00$ 88,525.00$

90 27.95$ 38.29$ 48.63$ 58,136.00$ 79,649.00$ 101,150.00$

95 32.12$ 44.00$ 55.88$ 66,810.00$ 91,525.00$ 116,230.00$

96 37.09$ 50.80$ 64.52$ 77,147.00$ 105,674.00$ 134,202.00$

97 43.01$ 58.91$ 74.82$ 89,461.00$ 122,539.00$ 155,626.00$

98 50.06$ 68.57$ 87.08$ 104,125.00$ 142,626.00$ 181,126.00$

99 94.17$ 129.00$ 163.83$ 195,874.00$ 268,320.00$ 340,766.00$

Notes: Each pay band for classified employees is currently at a seventy-four percent wide - meaning the maximum rate of pay is seventy-four (Avg.)

percent greater than the minimum rate of pay.

This FY15 Classified Service Salary Schedule was adopted by the New Mexico State Personnel Board effective July 1, 2014.

TABLE 6 - STATE OF NEW MEXICO

FY15 CLASSIFIED SERVICE SALARY SCHEDULE WITH STEPS

< 1 Year 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8 Years 9 Years 10 Years 11 Years 12 Years 13 Years

Pay Minimum Midpoint

Band Salary Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 Salary

25 15,600 15,973 16,355 16,745 17,146 17,555 17,975 18,405 18,845 19,295 19,756 20,228 20,712 20,714

30 16,245 16,633 17,031 17,438 17,855 18,281 18,718 19,166 19,624 20,093 20,573 21,065 21,568 22,265

35 17,618 18,039 18,470 18,912 19,364 19,826 20,300 20,785 21,282 21,791 22,312 22,845 23,391 24,140

40 19,261 19,721 20,193 20,675 21,169 21,675 22,193 22,724 23,267 23,823 24,392 24,975 25,572 26,375

45 21,195 21,702 22,220 22,751 23,295 23,852 24,422 25,006 25,603 26,215 26,842 27,483 28,140 29,039

50 23,525 24,087 24,663 25,252 25,856 26,474 27,107 27,754 28,418 29,097 29,792 30,504 31,233 32,215

55 26,229 26,856 27,498 28,155 28,828 29,517 30,222 30,945 31,684 32,441 33,217 34,011 34,823 35,944

60 28,766 29,454 30,157 30,878 31,616 32,372 33,146 33,938 34,749 35,579 36,430 37,300 38,192 39,413

65 31,782 32,542 33,319 34,116 34,931 35,766 36,621 37,496 38,392 39,310 40,249 41,211 42,196 43,549

70 35,381 36,227 37,092 37,979 38,887 39,816 40,768 41,742 42,740 43,761 44,807 45,878 46,974 48,479

75 39,686 40,634 41,606 42,600 43,618 44,661 45,728 46,821 47,940 49,086 50,259 51,460 52,690 54,355

80 44,782 45,852 46,948 48,070 49,219 50,395 51,600 52,833 54,096 55,389 56,713 58,068 59,456 61,359

85 50,898 52,114 53,360 54,635 55,941 57,278 58,647 60,049 61,484 62,953 64,458 65,998 67,576 69,709

90 58,136 59,525 60,948 62,405 63,896 65,423 66,987 68,588 70,227 71,906 73,624 75,384 77,185 79,649

95 66,810 68,407 70,042 71,716 73,430 75,185 76,982 78,821 80,705 82,634 84,609 86,631 88,702 91,525

96 77,147 78,991 80,879 82,812 84,791 86,817 88,892 91,017 93,192 95,419 97,700 100,035 102,426 105,674

97 89,461 91,599 93,788 96,030 98,325 100,675 103,081 105,545 108,067 110,650 113,295 116,002 118,775 122,539

98 104,125 106,614 109,162 111,771 114,442 117,177 119,978 122,845 125,781 128,787 131,865 135,017 138,244 142,626

99 195,874 200,555 205,349 210,256 215,282 220,427 225,695 231,089 236,612 242,267 248,057 253,986 260,056 268,320

Footnotes:

1 Minimum salary applies to employees with minimal experience and less than one year of service.

2 The Assumption is made that the City Manager has the authority to appoint an employee between minimum salary and midpoint based on prior job related experience.

3 The difference between each of the steps shown above is equal to 2.39%, which is equivalent to the cost of living mean for the past 10 year period.

4 Credit is being granted to employees who have served in their current job classification that is equal to one step for each year of service up to the midpoint salary.

TABLE 7

PERA CONTRIBUTION RATES - SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

Contribution Rates %

General Employees: Employee Employer Los Lunas Las Vegas Deming Lovington Bloomfield Ruidoso Portales Silver City

Municipal Employee Plan I 7.00 7.40 8.50/7.04

Municipal Employee Plan II 9.15 9.55 9.15/9.15 6.25/13.95 10.65/9.55

Municipal Employee Plan III 13.15 9.55 13.25/9.15 14.65/9.55 12.4/11.8 3.67/20.13

Municipal Employee Plan IV 15.65 12.05

Municipal Police Plan Contribution Rates %

Municipal Police Plan I 7.00 10.04 8.50/10.4

Municipal Police Plan II 7.00 15.40

Municipal Police Plan III 7.00 18.90

Municipal Police Plan IV 12.35 13.85

Municipal Police Plan V 16.30 18.90 16.30/18.58 17.80/18.90 15.55/21.15 14.80/21.9 11.90/23.30 17.8/18.9 4.45/31.85

Municipal Fire Plan Contribution Rates %

Municipal Fire Plan I 8.00 11.40

Municipal Fire Plan II 8.00 17.90

Municipal Fire Plan III 8.00 21.65

Municipal Fire Plan IV 12.80 21.65 17.70/21.65

Municipal Fire Plan V 16.20 21.65 16.20/26.25 17.70/21.65 15.45/23.90 14.70/24.65 11.80/26.05 17.7/21.65 4.43/34.52

TABLE 8

INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION RATES - SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

Major Medical LOS LUNAS LAS VEGAS DEMING LOVINGTON BLOOMFIELD RUIDOSO PORTALES SILVER CITY

Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer

Municipal General Employees 0 100 25 75 22.5 77.5 15 85 20 80 20 80 25 75 20 80

Municipal Police Employees 0 100 30 70 31.5 68.5 15 85 20 80 20 80 25 75 0 100

Municipal Fire Employees 0 100 25 75 31.5 68.5 15 85 20 80 20 80 25 75 10 90

DentalEmployee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer

Municipal General Employees 50 50 50 50 22.5 77.5 $9.44 $9.44 20 80 20 80 25 75 20 80

Municipal Police Employees 50 50 50 50 31.5 68.5 $9.44 $9.44 20 80 20 80 25 75 0 100

Municipal Fire Employees 50 50 50 50 31.5 68.5 $9.44 $9.44 20 80 20 80 25 75 10 90

VisionEmployee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer Employee Employer

Municipal General Employees 100 0 50 50 22.5 77.5 20 80 20 80 25 75 20 80

Municipal Police Employees 100 0 50 50 31.5 68.5 20 80 20 80 25 75 0 100

Municipal Fire Employees 100 0 50 50 31.5 68.5 20 80 20 80 25 75 10 90

Other Information:

Total Number of Employees 191 274 180 101 117 213 128 124

TABLE 9

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX - LAST TEN YEARS

United States: Consumer Price Index

% change

same month

month 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2013

Jan 185.2 190.7 198.3 202.416 211.08 211.143 216.687 220.223 226.665 230.28 233.916 1.6

Feb 186.2 191.8 198.7 203.499 211.693 212.193 216.741 221.309 227.663 232.166 234.781 1.1

Mar 187.4 193.3 199.8 205.352 213.528 212.709 217.631 223.467 229.392 232.773 236.293 1.5

Apr 188 194.6 201.5 206.686 214.823 213.24 218.009 224.906 230.085 232.531 237.072 2.0

May 189.1 194.4 202.5 207.949 216.632 213.856 218.178 225.964 229.815 232.945 237.900 2.1

Jun 189.7 194.5 202.9 208.352 218.815 215.693 217.965 225.722 229.478 233.504 238.343 2.1

Jul 189.4 195.4 203.5 208.299 219.964 215.351 218.011 225.922 229.104 233.596 238.250 2.0

Aug 189.5 196.4 203.9 207.917 219.086 215.834 218.312 226.545 230.379 233.877 237.852 1.7

Sep 189.9 198.8 202.9 208.49 218.783 215.969 218.439 226.889 231.407 234.149

Oct 190.9 199.2 201.8 208.936 216.573 216.177 218.711 226.421 231.317 233.546

Nov 191 197.6 201.5 210.177 212.425 216.33 218.803 226.23 230.221 233.069

Dec 190.3 196.8 201.8 210.036 210.228 215.949 219.179 225.672 229.601 233.049

annual

average 188.9 195.3 201.6 207.342 215.303 214.537 218.056 224.939 229.594 232.957

year-year

% change 2.70% 3.40% 3.20% 2.80% 3.80% -0.40% 1.60% 3.20% 2.10% 1.50% 2.39%

(This is the mean of the 10 year period)

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Table prepared by UNM Bureau of Business and Economic Research.

Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), Not Seasonally Adjusted

All items, U.S. city average (base period: 1982-1984=100)

TABLE 10

ANNUAL AVERAGE WAGES/SALARIES PER JOB - NEW MEXICO COUNTIES

Area 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20082009

r2010

r2011

p

New Mexico $29,397 $30,393 $31,318 $32,562 $34,002 $35,503 $37,147 $38,686 $39,301 $40,069 $40,905

Chaves 24,157 25,367 25,297 26,328 27,378 28,856 29,976 31,363 31,668 32,457 33,060

Cibola 22,493 23,767 24,047 25,694 28,423 29,473 31,298 32,735 33,051 33,866 34,793

Colfax 23,099 24,402 24,601 25,580 26,750 27,974 29,493 29,804 30,528 31,010 31,184

Curry 25,975 27,594 28,074 28,999 30,646 31,971 32,929 34,176 35,863 37,409 38,921

De Baca 20,830 22,073 21,780 22,214 22,931 24,149 25,983 26,378 27,102 26,390 27,362

Dona Ana 24,238 25,538 26,633 27,752 29,063 30,285 31,792 33,164 34,593 35,094 35,281

Eddy 29,054 30,058 30,963 33,247 35,358 37,529 40,972 44,368 43,806 50,706 47,611

Grant 23,518 23,485 24,452 26,208 27,616 28,265 29,843 33,369 33,640 33,173 35,645

Guadalupe 20,976 20,502 21,873 23,425 22,894 25,939 25,571 26,830 26,880 28,547 28,231

Harding 21,106 22,419 22,059 23,165 24,522 26,831 29,145 30,198 31,640 29,365 29,376

Hidalgo 21,537 22,491 23,025 24,509 25,697 27,790 31,561 34,308 35,114 35,434 37,647

Lea 28,087 28,301 28,983 30,470 33,291 37,937 41,546 46,547 43,282 44,455 47,455

Lincoln 21,014 22,407 23,757 24,760 25,420 26,516 27,551 27,926 28,427 28,984 29,249

Luna 21,395 22,738 22,911 24,287 26,500 27,345 28,844 31,184 31,372 31,957 33,544

McKinley 26,616 27,007 27,158 27,972 28,858 29,880 30,992 30,789 31,729 32,276 33,278

Mora 22,042 22,127 23,273 24,114 25,183 26,660 28,211 29,125 29,518 29,874 30,171

Otero 26,052 27,681 27,841 28,605 29,784 31,676 32,753 33,614 35,355 37,331 38,469

Quay 23,422 24,313 25,465 25,874 26,452 27,390 28,837 29,970 30,606 30,649 31,783

Rio Arriba 22,913 23,544 24,081 24,466 26,024 27,456 28,923 29,418 30,462 30,801 31,457

Roosevelt 21,871 23,217 22,792 23,852 25,344 26,793 29,461 30,744 30,810 29,877 31,436

Sandoval 35,633 34,199 35,140 36,237 37,282 38,323 39,965 39,149 39,878 41,551 44,011

San Juan 29,407 29,639 30,715 32,524 34,137 36,584 39,143 41,838 41,081 42,084 44,066

San Miguel 21,845 22,691 23,068 24,373 25,621 27,050 28,478 29,216 30,159 30,402 30,121

Santa Fe 29,657 31,236 31,223 32,780 33,625 35,661 37,940 39,497 40,036 40,648 41,195

Sierra 20,911 22,474 22,624 23,475 24,524 25,339 26,207 27,372 28,151 28,310 28,798

Socorro 25,055 26,595 27,103 28,473 28,692 30,949 30,644 31,490 32,558 32,807 33,044

Torrance 22,586 23,377 25,029 25,746 26,533 28,095 29,408 29,849 30,485 30,336 30,710

Union 21,027 21,564 21,739 22,894 24,028 24,981 26,811 29,497 29,506 29,712 29,579

Valencia 23,623 23,929 24,521 25,639 26,535 27,492 28,850 29,871 30,003 30,475 30,977

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Data released November 2012. Prepared by UNM Bureau of Business and Econonic Research

TABLE 11

PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME - NEW MEXICO COUNTIES

County 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20082009

r2010

r2011

p

New Mexico1

$24,751 $24,977 $25,639 $27,092 $28,641 $30,209 $31,675 $33,490 $32,200 $32,940 $34,133

Catron 16,910 16,989 17,904 19,589 21,171 20,946 21,379 24,200 24,730 26,363 29,113

Chaves 22,169 21,959 22,169 23,628 24,623 26,270 28,597 30,672 27,105 29,010 30,319

Cibola 15,301 16,508 17,792 18,791 20,727 22,098 22,539 24,073 24,645 25,373 25,965

Colfax 22,851 22,730 24,079 24,929 26,171 26,872 28,563 31,346 31,099 31,730 34,359

Curry 22,995 23,156 24,267 26,358 27,625 28,636 31,560 34,711 34,103 36,710 39,844

De Baca 23,154 22,148 22,913 24,575 25,094 25,969 26,851 31,068 28,302 32,027 37,454

Dona Ana 20,086 20,746 21,235 22,587 24,017 25,075 26,772 28,325 28,436 29,431 29,963

Eddy 24,410 24,944 26,398 27,390 29,931 32,572 34,854 40,382 36,681 40,803 41,539

Grant 19,889 19,753 20,428 22,756 24,795 26,128 27,892 30,907 29,357 30,389 32,854

Guadalupe 15,131 15,044 15,637 17,311 18,428 18,647 19,182 21,515 22,556 24,436 26,426

Harding 36,237 29,004 31,765 33,566 33,882 30,842 28,501 34,335 32,196 38,986 48,067

Hidalgo 17,153 16,809 17,602 19,481 21,491 23,336 25,303 29,062 29,159 30,746 32,425

Lea 22,742 21,674 23,033 24,673 26,644 29,569 32,302 37,768 32,329 34,607 37,898

Lincoln 21,560 21,746 22,062 23,161 24,530 25,457 28,091 30,751 29,354 30,820 32,309

Luna 16,420 17,349 18,207 19,349 21,243 21,935 23,640 25,232 26,652 28,520 29,338

McKinley 15,194 16,035 17,141 18,032 19,324 19,991 21,649 22,649 23,585 23,964 24,079

Mora 16,571 17,251 18,181 19,610 20,186 20,352 21,575 24,017 25,440 26,295 27,908

Otero 19,079 20,031 20,395 21,419 22,413 23,424 24,709 26,066 27,042 29,054 30,154

Quay 20,563 19,733 20,879 22,691 24,751 25,518 27,319 29,004 29,450 31,163 33,385

Rio Arriba 19,365 20,513 21,859 23,169 24,260 24,830 25,895 27,529 27,868 28,504 28,888

Roosevelt 21,993 22,157 22,502 25,428 25,521 25,029 27,778 30,549 27,760 30,887 32,595

Sandoval 25,790 25,239 25,098 26,483 27,841 29,056 30,173 31,796 30,956 31,634 32,931

San Juan 21,061 20,600 21,202 22,584 24,388 26,645 28,290 31,519 29,004 29,218 31,373

San Miguel 19,301 20,061 20,994 22,463 23,550 25,074 26,807 28,847 29,532 30,523 31,366

Sierra 19,691 19,338 19,751 21,673 23,242 24,020 26,702 29,562 29,853 31,653 32,974

Socorro 17,992 19,027 19,306 21,471 23,356 24,115 25,741 27,718 27,447 29,155 30,462

Taos 21,274 22,012 23,510 25,223 27,292 28,810 29,961 30,453 29,220 29,921 31,119

Torrance 19,135 19,582 21,183 22,537 24,390 25,027 26,594 28,846 28,407 29,317 30,439

Union 28,510 27,027 25,681 26,666 29,732 27,174 24,268 28,028 26,884 23,644 25,986

Valencia 19,782 20,550 21,758 23,481 24,481 25,722 27,029 28,559 28,008 28,037 28,921

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Data released November 2012. Prepared by UNM Bureau of Business and Economic Research

marlener

Typewritten Text

Proposal for the City of Bloomfield Audit Services By Axiom CPAs and Business Advisors, LLC

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

marlener

Typewritten Text

PRICEQUOTE

CityofBloomfieldIt is with great pleasure that Axiom Certified Public Accountants and Business Advisors, LLC (“Axiom”) submits this price quote to provide audit services to City of Bloomfield (“City”). We are dedicated to planning our audits carefully, while working cooperatively with you and your staff. We are dedicated to completing your audit in an efficient and effective manner to ensure it is submitted before the deadline. AboutAxiom: Axiom, a limited liability corporation whose office is located in Albuquerque and has twenty‐nine employees including the four Partners. The four Partners of Axiom have more than 80 years of combined accounting experience. Axiom is a full service, New Mexico‐owned, Certified Public Accounting firm authorized to practice within the state of New Mexico. We pride ourselves on our reputation for integrity, quality, and reliability and always providing premier client service. The expertise and backgrounds of the individual Partners and personnel of Axiom are what makes up Axiom’s expertise in performing audits of governmental agencies including Cities. Axiom has extensive experience in providing exceptional client service and provides high quality audit services through its in‐depth knowledge of auditing standards and accounting standards applicable to governmental organizations. WHYAXIOMISTHEBESTFITFORTHECITY It is imperative that the audit function be completed correctly, completely, and submitted to the New Mexico State Auditor timely to provide the best operational benefit to the City and to meet the State Auditor’s deadlines. We commit several resources throughout the year to train our staff to be up‐to‐date on accounting and auditing standards applicable to governmental organizations which enables Axiom to complete our audits with a high degree of quality. Partner Presence at the City: Chris Garner, CPA, Partner for Axiom, will be the on‐site engagement manager for your audit. Mr. Garner will be on‐site for at least 25% of the audit process. This will help with the efficiency of audit and ensure that the City receives superior client service. Additionally, this will help us finish the audit in a timely manner to ensure that we meet the New Mexico State Auditor deadline. Auditing Experience with Governmental Entities: Our audit team’s experience, expertise, and training is from performing governmental audits As a result of our vast experience auditing governmental organizations, we understand what it takes to complete your audit. Overall, the expertise of the personnel that make up Axiom’s audit practice group is all‐encompassing. The Partner and Supervisor who would be responsible for your audit have completed over 250 audits of approximately 70 different governmental entities (including City Governments). Some of the Governments they have worked with include City of Aztec, Village of Ruidoso, City

of Roswell, Village of Los Lunas, Village of Angel Fire, City of Farmington, City of Albuquerque, City of Las Vegas, City of Portland Oregon, City of Riverside California, to mention a few. Through this experience we have developed and continue to develop great audit practices related to planning the audit to be effective and value driven, highly respectable coordination/communication of the audit with client staff personnel through a teamwork approach, and highly reputable preparation and reporting of the results of the audit. While working for a large regional accounting firm (Moss Adams), Mr. Garner did four joint audits with the New Mexico State Auditor (“OSA”) for the City of Albuquerque. Mr. Garner, along with the Deputy State Auditor, led this team and was responsible for the entire scope of the engagement. This experience working with the OSA has proved invaluable in regards to understanding the requirements of the OSA. We Deliver: You will not be waiting on us. We move directly from fieldwork to completing the report in a timely manner. It is our goal to perform the audit under a “lights out” approach that is within the required timeframe of the City and with the New Mexico State Auditor’s Office. This approach involves all work performed and reviewed in the field to improve effectiveness, timing, and communication. This is possible as the Partner in charge of your audit will be in the field on a daily basis. In 2012, we were hired as the auditors for Floyd Schools and the Village of Los Lunas. Working with both of these clients, we were able to get their audit submitted to the State Auditor by the due date for the first time in several years. Working with the City on Findings: We work with our clients on not just coming up with recommendations for improving internal controls and procedures, we work with our clients on implementing our suggestions. An example is with Valencia County. Upon completion of the fiscal year 2012 audit (our first audit with the County), we met with the County management team numerous times to address findings and prior audit issues including how to resolve the County not receiving an unmodified opinion. As a result of the numerous meetings, the County received its first unmodified opinion in at least the last 15 years. We commit to working with our clients throughout the year to help make a difference. We work with our clients not only to complete the audit but also to be a resource to address findings. See below for a copy of a reference letter from Valencia County. WHATDISTINGUISHESUSASAUNIQUEANDWELLQUALIFIEDFIRM Client Service and Teamwork: We pride ourselves in providing superior client service. We will be attentive to your every need and will do everything we can to keep you informed on the issues and areas that are of particular importance to you. Completion of value added, efficient and effective audits requires a high degree of teamwork with all individuals of the City and with Axiom. We pride ourselves on this teamwork approach. We will communicate with you regularly about the trends affecting your industry and, when needed, will provide you with in‐depth analysis and commentary.

Ease of Working with Us: Are audits fun? No. Yet, client after client will attest to our ability to address issues in a consultative and helpful manner. Our approach is productive, efficient, and not combative. If we identify issues, we will communicate them immediately and work with you to get them resolved. Contact Information: We pride ourselves on our work and dedication to providing superior client service. We would be happy to clarify any items discussed within this proposal and would be happy to provide any additional information as requested by you. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. Our contact information is listed below:

Contact Name: Chris Garner Contact Title: Partner Telephone Number: 505‐767‐7640 (o) 505‐681‐4446 (c) Email: [email protected] You will be an exceptionally important client to us. We are committed and have the adequate resources available to provide you with the highest level of client service and attention. Sincerely, Chris Garner, CPA Partner

TECHNICALEXPERIENCE Experience with Governmental Audits: The audit team that would be assigned to the City has extensive experience auditing governments. Axiom has extensive experience in providing exceptional Client service and provides high quality audit services through its in‐depth knowledge of governmental accounting standards, those standards applicable to audits performed in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget Circular A‐133 and the New Mexico Office of the State Auditor (OSA). Our audit team’s experience, expertise, and training is from performing audits in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, the New Mexico Office of the State Auditor 2015 audit ruling 2.2.2 NMAC, OMB Circular A‐133 for governments including counties, Generally Accepted Governmental Auditing Standards, U.S. General Accounting Office government auditing standards, and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As a result of our vast experience auditing governmental organizations, we understand what it takes to complete your audit. Team Leader: Your team leader will be Chris Garner, CPA, and Partner, who will be the primary contact throughout the term of the contract. Mr. Garner will be on‐site for at least 25% of the audit. This will help with the efficiency of the audit and ensure that the City receives superior client service. Additionally, this will help us finish the audit in a timely manner to ensure that we meet the State Auditor deadline. Resumes of the on‐site engagement manager, IT Audit Manager and on‐site supervisor are detailed below. All other staff members assigned to the audit engagement of the City will be independent, compliant with the GAGAS continuing professional education requirement, and qualified to work with the City on their audit. During the course of our audit, we expect the following personnel to be assigned to your engagement:

Chris Garner: Audit Managing Partner (on‐

site engagement manager)

Jim Cox: Manager (on‐site supervisor for full scope of audit)

Axiom Staff Axiom Staff

Everett Trujillo: Partner (IT Audit

Manager)

The following are the resumes of the key personnel that would be assigned to your audit: CHRISGARNER,CPAPARTNERON‐SITEENGAGEMENTMANAGER Chris Garner, Partner and Certified Public Accountant, has spent the 21 of his 24 year career serving governmental organizations, including counties. Chris has been supervising audits for more than 20 years. Prior to being one of the founding Partners of Axiom, Chris worked for a regional accounting firm, Moss Adams LLP, for eight years. While at that firm, he was a member of the firm’s Government and Not‐for‐Profit Industry Group Executive Committee. This committee was responsible for the direction of the government audits performed for the firm and was responsible to ensure that team members performing government audits remained current on auditing standards along with governmental GAAP. Chris’ experience, expertise, and training is from performing audits in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, the New Mexico Office of the State Auditor 2015 audit ruling 2.2.2 NMAC, OMB Circular A‐133 for general and special purpose governments including counties, cities, colleges/universities, and special districts, Generally Accepted Governmental Auditing Standards, U.S. General Accounting Office government auditing standards, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and governmental accounting standards. The focus of Chris’ career during the past 20 years has been auditing state and local governmental entities. He has assisted various municipal clients. Some of the clients he has served include the following: MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS

City of Aztec

City of Roswell

Village of Los Lunas

Village of Ruidoso

Village of Angel Fire

City of Albuquerque

City of Las Vegas

City of Farmington

City of Riverside, California

City of Portland, Oregon

City of Raton

City of Las Cruces

City of Alamosa, Colorado

City of Monte Vista, Colorado

COUNTY GOVERNMENTS

Santa Fe County

Valencia County

Bernalillo County

San Juan County

Guadalupe County

Los Alamos County

Deschutes County, Oregon

Benton County, Oregon

Yamhill County, Oregon

Merced County, California

Alamosa County, Colorado

Mineral County, Colorado

Rio Grande County, Colorado

Saguache County, Colorado

Chris has extensive experience with the provisions of GASB No. 34. Chris has taught numerous classes on GASB 34 while he was at Moss Adams. Chris has drafted numerous financial statements on the clients reverenced below in accordance with GASB 34. During 2011 Chris assisted numerous clients with the implementation of GASB 54 and spent time with his clients training them for the implementation of this new standard. For example, Chris prepared a presentation that he along with the Director of Finance at Bernalillo County used to help train the County Commissioners. Relevance to the City: Through the above mentioned experience, Chris is well qualified to perform the audit of the City. Additionally, his experience with auditing counties will make the audit run effectively and efficiently with minimal difficulties encountered by the City staff in relation to training audit personnel on the operations of the City. Chris is compliant with all continuing education hours required by the State of New Mexico and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants to perform an audit of governmental organizations, including meeting the requirements of Government Auditing Standards.

He is a past member of the New Mexico State Society Peer Review Committee. He served five years as the Treasurer for the New Mexico Museum of Natural History Foundation. Chris currently serves on the Board and the Finance Committee for the Albuquerque Ronald McDonald House. In summary, Chris Garner is exceptionally qualified for his role in the audit of the City considering he has performed approximately 180 audits of governmental agencies which includes Counties. He has developed a wealth of knowledge in auditing during his 20 plus year career in public accounting and has specifically become an expert in governmental accounting practices.

EVERETTTRUJILLOPARTNER Everett Trujillo, Partner, has more than 16 years of experience in various areas of state and local government. Prior to being one of the founding Partners of Axiom, Everett worked for Moss Adams LLP for more than five years. During this time he worked with various governmental agencies and non‐profit organizations. Prior to working with the regional accounting firm, Everett worked for the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department in various positions, including tax audit supervisor, computer technology auditor, and out‐of‐state auditor. While working with the state of New Mexico he performed numerous audits on governmental agencies, educational institutions, and participated on various reviews and testing of internal controls. Everett will be in the field assisting with the completion of the audit over the IT structures and systems in place at the City. Everett will complete the IT assessment

and will obtain an understanding of the design and implementation of the City’s IT environment and general computer controls. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Accounting from the University of New Mexico and an MBA in Management Information Systems. JIMCOX,CPAMANAGER Prior to joining Axiom, Jim worked for Moss Adams LLP. With his experience at Moss Adams and Axiom, Jim has gained more than seven years of public accounting and auditing experience. He has expertise in the industries of governmental entities, including counties. He is compliant with all continuing education hours required by the State of New Mexico and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants to perform an audit of governmental agencies in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, the requirements delineated in the New Mexico Office of the State Auditor 2014 Audit Rule 2.2.2 NMAC, and those standards applicable to Office of Management and Budget Circular A‐133 Audits of States, Local Governments and Non‐Profit Organizations. In the last five years Jim has experience working on the following governmental entities:

City of Aztec


City of Albuquerque

City of Raton

City of Portland, Oregon

City of Las Vegas

City of Farmington

Village of Ruidoso


Village of Angel Fire

San Juan County

Santa Fe County

Valencia County

Los Alamos County

Floyd Schools

Los Lunas Schools

San Juan Water Commission

Pueblo of Jemez

Pueblo of Isleta

NM Administrative Office of the Courts

NM Department of Health

NM Educational Retirement Board

NM Public Employees Retirement Association

NM Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department

University of New Mexico Hospitals

Relevance to the City: As noted in the above, Jim has extensive experience working on governmental audits. Such knowledge allows Jim to assist with the audit of the City with no difficulty. Throughout his career, he has assisted Clients with continued implementation of GASB Statement No. 34 and 34. In 2011, he has worked with San Juan County during the time of implementation of GASB Statement No. 54 in which he provided detailed guidance on the application and evaluation of the fund structures of the City.

In summary, Jim Cox, is qualified to perform an audit of the City. Over his seven year career in public accounting, he has performed more than 40 audits of governmental entities, including counties. He has a developed a high degree of knowledge related to government operations and control structures which allows for an efficient and effective audit.TIMELINE The table below represents our estimated timeline related to planning, interim fieldwork, final fieldwork, and reporting. We understand there are circumstances that may require alteration of the estimated timing due to City projects, readiness, etc. We plan to work closely with the City to ensure that the timing will be adequate to complete the audit by the deadline efficiently and effectively without causing intense interruption to the operations of the City. We will work with the City to ensure that their audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 and thereafter will be submitted to the OSA on time. We understand that a first year audit takes additional work on both our clients and for us. We propose that the additional work to gain our first time understanding of your internal control systems, internal control processes and you IT environment should be completed well in advance of fieldwork. This will allow us to get through the fieldwork portion of the audit in the same amount of time as it did in your previous audits. As mentioned earlier, our Partner responsible for signing off on the engagement will be in the field for at least 50% of the time. This allows us to address any questions or issues immediately and we are not waiting to keep the audit progressing. Also, this allows for the audit to be substantially reviewed at the end of the fieldwork which reduces the time between when we pull out of the field and when we go over the draft financial statements with management. The timeline below takes all of this information into consideration.

Task Axiom Estimated Time Period

Planning June/July Interim Fieldwork June/July Final Fieldwork August/September Reporting – Review of Financial Statements October Reporting – Go Over Financial Statements with Management October Reporting – Submit to State Auditor October

REFERENCESThefollowingarereferencesforworkperformedbyAxiom:

TypeofServiceProvided DatesSanJuanCounty

MarcellaBrashear,CPACFO(505)334‐4266

FinancialstatementauditinaccordancewithGovernmentalAuditingStandardsandFederalOMBCircularA‐133audit.

FiscalYears2007through2014

VillageofRuidosoRonSenaDeputyVillageManager

(575)258‐4343


FiscalYears2013and2014

VillageofLosLunasMonicaClarkeFinanceOfficer

(505)839‐3840


FiscalYears2012through2014

CityofAztecKathyLambFinanceDirector

(505)334‐7653


FiscalYear2014

SantaFeCountyMollySaizAccountingOversight&FinancialReportingManager(505)995‐2781


FiscalYears2013

and2014

GuadalupeCounty

RoseFernandezFinanceDirector(575)472‐3306


FiscalYears2013

and2014

COST

Services

Hours FY

6/30/15

Cost FY

6/30/15

Hours FY

6/30/16

Cost FY

6/30/16

Financial Statement Audit 235 $ 23,500 235 $ 23,500

Federal Single Audit 35 3,500 35 3,500

Drafting Financial Statements (Review)

20 2,000 20 2,000

Other (Travel Expense) 2,500 2,500

Subtotal 290 31,500 290 31,500

Gross Receipts Taxes 2,205 2,205

Total 290 $ 33,705 290 $ 33,705

Services

Hours FY

6/30/17

Cost FY

6/30/17

Financial Statement Audit 235 $ 23,500

Federal Single Audit 35 3,500

Drafting Financial Statements (Review)

20 2,000

Other (Travel Expense) 2,500

Subtotal 290 31,500

Gross Receipts Taxes 2,205

Total 290 $ 33,705

32500

33000

33500

34000

34500

35000

35500

13-14 14-15

35118.06

33530.91

City Hall Utilites May - May

15000

15500

16000

16500

17000

17500

13-14 14-15

17272.28

15898.39

MOC UtilitesMay -May

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

13-14 14-15

21566.71

12783.97

27043.3325589.7

Gasoline Expense

13-14 14-15

dept 42 dept 10

0.00

1,000.00

2,000.00

3,000.00

4,000.00

13-14 14-15

3,727.25

2,929.50

3706

2580.75

Sick hours used

May - Nov Dec - April

Bloomfield City Council May 11 meeting documents

Documents

Transcript of Bloomfield City Council May 11 meeting documents