In reviewing these materials, SCERS would respectfully ask that the reader keep the following in mind:

Transcription

1 Members of the Board of Retirement James A. Diepenbrock, President Appointed by the Board of Supervisors John B. Kelly, First Vice President Appointed by the Board of Supervisors William D. Johnson, Second Vice President Elected by the Safety Members Diana Gin Elected by the Miscellaneous Members Winston H. Hickox Appointed by the Board of Supervisors Executive Staff: Richard Stensrud Chief Executive Officer James G. Line General Counsel Kathryn T. Regalia Chief Operations Officer John W. Gobel, Sr. Chief Benefits Officer Kathy O Neil Elected by the Miscellaneous Members Julie Valverde Ex Officio, Director of Finance Nancy Wolford-Landers Elected by the Retired Members John Conneally Elected by the Safety Members Michael DeBord Elected by the Retired Members The Sacramento Bee has recently reported on a compensation study that was submitted to the Board concerning the salary levels for executive staff positions (i.e., the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Investment Officer, General Counsel, Chief Benefits Officer, Chief Operations Officer and Deputy Chief Investment Officer). The attached materials are intended to provide interested parties with the information that was considered by the Board in deciding to approve the salary adjustments recommended in the compensation study. In reviewing these materials, would respectfully ask that the reader keep the following in mind: It is not easy or popular to address compensation issues in a tough economic environment, and for that reason, has resisted doing so for the last few years even though knew its salaries were falling behind competitive labor market. Unfortunately, hand is now being forced by the need to replace a critical executive team member. Without adjustments to seven year old salary ranges, will not be able to compete successfully for the professional talent the participants in want and deserve. is cognizant that the County has been facing budgetary challenges. However, the state constitution imposes fiduciary responsibility on the Board in managing the retirement system, and the fiduciary duty to participants and beneficiaries takes precedence over any other duty (Article XVI, Section 17). Accordingly, when presented with difficult decisions, must act with only one constituency in mind i.e., what is best for, its members and beneficiaries. If is not able to maintain the level of knowledge, skill and experience it has had in its key leadership positions, history of success in carrying out its responsibilities will be put at risk, to the detriment of active members, retirees, participating employers and the taxpayers. P.O. Box 627, Sacramento, CA Office (916) Toll Free (800) Facsimile (916)

2 The budget is fully funded out of the pension trust. The law that governs limits administrative budget to 21/100s of one percent of actuarial accrued liabilities. administrative budget stands at 9/100s of actuarial accrued liabilities and will remain well below the statutory cap even with the salary adjustments. In addition, actuarial assumptions regarding the cost to administer the system are built into the retirement contribution rates that combine with investment earnings to fund the pension trust. has historically administered the system at a lower cost than the actuarial assumptions and the salary adjustments will not change this. Accordingly, there will be no increase in retirement contribution rates, and no additional cost to participating employers and employees, as a result of the salary adjustments. The salary adjustments will not impact the County s budget, cause the County to cut services or result in County employees being laid off. By contrast, maintaining a strong leadership team at will help assure that continues to be well-funded and prudently managed, which will benefit all stakeholders, including the taxpayers. The County s budgetary challenges have not been caused by rising pension costs. Rather, the budgetary problems have been caused by the substantial drop in residential property values and a broad decline in tax revenue due to the faltering economy. In fact, the annual increase in pension costs over the last five years has only been 1/3 of the annual increase in costs in the five prior years. hopes the information that follows is helpful for providing the full and proper context for its compensation decision.

3 ITEM 16 Executive Staff Richard Stensrud Chief Executive Officer James G. Line General Counsel Kathryn T. Regalia Chief Operations Officer John W. Gobel, Sr. Chief Benefits Officer For Agenda of: January 19, 2012 January 13, 2012 TO: FROM: President and Members Board of Retirement Richard Stensrud Chief Executive Officer SUBJECT: Compensation Analysis for Executive Staff Positions Recommendation: That your Board: (1) Approve the recommended changes to the salary range for the positions of Chief Benefits Officer, Chief Operations Officer, Deputy Chief Investment Officer, General Counsel and Chief Investment Officer as set forth in the compensation analysis prepared by Ralph Andersen & Associates; (2) Direct that the salary range changes for all positions except the General Counsel position be implemented in two equal components in the and fiscal years, respectively; (3) Direct that implementation of the full salary range change for the General Counsel position become effective upon the retirement of the current General Counsel in March 2012; and (4) Direct the Chief Executive Officer to take the steps necessary to secure implementation of the new salary ranges. Background: As you will recall, executive staff positions (Chief Executive Officer, Chief Investment Officer, General Counsel, Deputy Chief Investment Officer, Chief Operations Officer and Chief Benefits Officer) are outside of the County Civil Service structure. As you will further recall, the authority to establish the duties of those positions, make decisions concerning hiring and termination with respect to those positions, and to set the terms of employment (including compensation) for those positions rests exclusively with your Board. This is a function of the grant of plenary authority and the assignment of fiduciary responsibility to your Board with respect to management of the retirement system under the California Constitution. It is buttressed by the fact that budget is fully funded P.O. Box 627, Sacramento, CA Office (916) Toll Free (800) Facsimile (916)

4 Executive Staff Compensation Study January 13, 2012 Page 2 of 7 by the pension trust and does not draw funds for that purpose from participating employers. Consistent with this grant of authority and assignment of responsibility, it has been the history and practice at to periodically conduct a compensation analysis to determine if the compensation plan for these executive positions will ensure that has the ability to attract and retain well-qualified employees to carry out specialized line of business. The last such analysis was presented to your Board in November The study was conducted by a respected compensation consultant (Johnson & Associates) who had conducted two previous compensation studies for, and it analyzed compensation relative to peers in the labor market i.e., public pension systems in California. The 2004 study concluded that the maximum salaries for executive positions were 9.7% to 16.5% below the median market salaries for those positions. Your Board approved the adjustment of the relevant salary ranges to bring them in line with the median market salaries, and per my recommendation, those salary adjustments were phased-in over a two year period, with the last equity adjustment occurring in executive salary ranges have not been measured against the market since executive positions have not received a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) since In all but one case, the incumbents in these positions had reached the top step in the salary range by 2008 and have not had a salary increase since that time. In addition, while not required to do so, executive staff voluntarily participated in the County furlough protocol in 2009, resulting in a pay cut for that period. During the same time frame ( ) a substantial segment of the County workforce received equity adjustments (in some cases more than one) and since 2008, a substantial segment of the County workforce has also received COLAs. This latter group includes some members of non-executive staff covered by bargaining agreements, who have received 2% to 4.9% in COLAs since It is also interesting to note that since 2008 most retirees have received 4% to 5% in COLAs. Although some people have experienced salary growth during this period, it is equally clear that it has been a very challenging economic environment for many others. The ramifications of the considerable decline in the investment markets in 2008 and 2009 have been well-documented. With respect to the County, the substantial drop in residential property values and the faltering economy have had a significant impact on County revenue, resulting in furloughs and numerous layoffs in the County workforce. Thus, while I have been concerned for a few years that was falling behind the market with respect to compensation, given this environment, I did not deem it appropriate to pursue equity adjustments or COLAs for executive staff. Unfortunately, our hand is now being forced. In March, General Counsel is retiring and we will have to go into the labor market to secure his successor. If we are forced to do this with a salary range that is effectively seven years old, we will not be able to compete

5 Executive Staff Compensation Study January 13, 2012 Page 3 of 7 successfully for individuals with the knowledge, skills and experience we want and need. And if we are not able to maintain the quality we have had at such a critical position, it will have a detrimental impact on our ability to be successful in carrying out our mission. Accordingly, with these considerations in mind, I directed that a new total compensation analysis be undertaken to determine where stands relative to the market with respect to our executive positions. A copy of this report is attached to this memorandum for your review and consideration and serves as the basis for the recommendations that follow. A representative of the compensation consulting firm Ralph Andersen & Associates will present the report at the meeting and will be available to answer any questions you might have. The firm engaged to perform the study is a respected compensation consultant, and in fact, absorbed key principals of the firm that conducted previous compensation studies (i.e., Johnson & Associates). The individual who supervised the previous analysis conducted by Johnson & Associates Doug Johnson supervised the current project for Ralph Andersen & Associates. The process and methodology used in the current analysis is also the same as that used in past compensation studies. First, the consultant established a definition of the relevant labor market taking into account criteria such as: (1) Recognizing the historical practices regarding labor market comparables (e.g., who an employer typically compares itself to); (2) Assessing the geographic size of the labor market (i.e., who an employer typically competes with for employees); (3) Assuring that employers have an appropriate size and level of complexity to provide comparable positions; (4) Assuring that the nature of services provided by employers is comparable; and (5) Assessing the impact of economic considerations on an employer s compensation plan. Based on these considerations, the consultant determined that public retirement systems in California represent the appropriate labor market. The consultant then established various parameters for assuring that the labor market positions are sufficiently comparable to the positions. Critical comparability criteria included: (1) Similar education/skill requirements; (2) Similar level of duties; and (3) Comparable level of supervisory and management responsibilities. Next, the consultant looked at all elements of compensation and not simply salary. By comparing all compensation elements, the consultant was able to determine whether and to what extent compensation elements offset each other, and how compensation as a whole compares. Then the consultant adjusted the compensation elements to neutralize the impact that higher cost-of-living locations can have on compensation levels.

6 Executive Staff Compensation Study January 13, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Finally, the consultant took the outcome of the external analysis and adjusted it to reflect the internal compensation relationships and guidelines that have been previously established by your Board. Those include: Salaries for executive positions should be set at the labor market median as determined by the consultant. The salaries for the Chief Benefits Officer (CBO) and Chief Operations Officer (COO) should be set at the labor market median for the CBO. The salary for the Deputy Chief Investment Officer should be set at the same level as the CBO and COO. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) should be used as the benchmark class for the Chief Investment Officer (CIO). There should be an internal equity relationship between the CEO and CIO in which the salary for the CIO is 15% below the salary for the CEO. For purposes of the current study, I requested that the consultant make an additional internal adjustment regarding the General Counsel salary. When the General Counsel position was added to executive staff in 2006, the salary for the position was set between the CBO/COO and the CIO. The General Counsel salary was not based on a formal compensation study, but did take into account the salary range then in effect for comparable positions at other public retirement systems. In addition, the salary was set with the goal of maintaining equity between the new position and the other positions on the executive team. While the professional training and experience required of the General Counsel would arguably be on a par with that required of a CIO, at the time had a long-tenured CIO and the General Counsel position was new to the organization. Out of respect for the incumbent CIO and with a measure of confidence that we could successfully fill the General Counsel position at a lower salary, the General Counsel compensation was set slightly below the CIO. Since that time, the role, responsibilities and importance of the General Counsel have been clearly established. Moreover, as previously noted, will shortly have to begin recruitment for a new General Counsel capable of meeting the expectations we now have for the position. Since the CIO position is currently vacant, it appears to be an opportune time to re-mark the General Counsel salary to the same level as the CIO. This will not only improve our chances for successfully recruiting a new General Counsel, but will also establish an internal equity relationship that reflects the comparable knowledge, skills and experience required of the two positions.

7 Executive Staff Compensation Study January 13, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Discussion: The current monthly maximum salary, the market median, the recommended new monthly maximum and the percent change in the monthly maximum for each of executive positions is set forth in Exhibit F on page 11 of the Ralph Andersen & Associates report. As you will see, the recommended changes are all in the neighborhood of 13%, except for the General Counsel position which will increase more for the reasons noted above. I am recommending that your Board approve the new salary levels presented by Ralph Andersen & Associates for all of the executive staff positions except for the CEO. I am not comfortable making a recommendation regarding my own compensation, and instead, will defer to the judgment of your Board in this regard. I am further recommending that if your Board chooses to approve the salary ranges recommended by Ralph Andersen & Associates, that for all positions other than the General Counsel, the change in salary range be implemented in two equal components, with one component implemented in the current fiscal year and the second component implemented at approximately the same point in the next fiscal year. With respect to the General Counsel position, I am recommending that the full change in the salary range be implemented upon the retirement of the current General Counsel in March. Implementing the full change at that time will enhance our ability to attract a strong candidate pool for the position. In addition, it will remove any potential criticism that the current General Counsel is receiving a late-in-career compensation spike. I have confirmed that there is sufficient funding in the current budget to accommodate the proposed first stage salary adjustment. Those adjustments will increase the salary and benefits component of the current budget by less than 1% and thus will have no discernable impact on the overall administrative budget. Accordingly, the overall administrative budget will remain at 9/100s of one percent of system liabilities, which is well below the 1937 Act administrative budget cap of 21/100s of one percent of liabilities. Future budgets will be constructed based on the new salary levels, and it is expected that the impact will be nominal. I am cognizant that the recommended salary changes could elicit criticism. However, in executing my day-to-day responsibility for managing and successfully accomplishing our mission, it is incumbent on me to advise your Board when I believe our ability to do so will be adversely impacted. Our primary legal duty as fiduciaries is to act in the best interests of the participants in our plan. If we are not able to maintain the level of knowledge, skill and experience we have had in key leadership positions in the organization, our history of success in carrying out our responsibilities will be put at risk, to the detriment of our active members, retirees and participating employers.

8 Executive Staff Compensation Study January 13, 2012 Page 6 of 7 I would also note (and in some cases reiterate) the following considerations: The proposed salary adjustments will have no impact on the funding provided by either participating employers or employees. Actuarial assumptions regarding the cost to administer the system are built into the normal cost component of the retirement contribution rates. has historically administered the system at a lower cost than the actuarial assumptions. The salary adjustments will not alter this. Accordingly, there will be no increase in retirement contribution rates, and no additional cost to the County or other participating employers as a result of adjustments. For similar reasons, there will be no impact on the funded status of the retirement system due to the proposed salary adjustments. will continue to have a strong 87% funded status. I would respectfully submit that over the last few years, executive team has done an excellent job in leading this organization s efforts to do more with less. Retirement activity has increased by more than 25%; in the last two fiscal years, the investment program has generated returns of 13.9% and 22.7%, respectively, thereby substantially reducing the impact of the market decline in 2008 and 2009; meanwhile, the administrative budget has increased only marginally. As previously noted, during the same period, executive team has had no salary growth, and even experienced a period of salary reduction. The proposed salary adjustments are not out of line with the salary adjustments that have been applied to substantial segments of the County workforce over the past five to seven years. Nor should the level of proposed adjustments be surprising given the length of time since the last salary adjustments. As previously noted, a decision to not adjust the salary levels will hamstring ability to recruit a new General Counsel with the knowledge, skills and experience we want and need. It will also leave vulnerable to having executive staff members leave to work in systems that are providing compensation at current market levels. The potential deterioration of what has been a strong executive team can have a long term negative impact on the performance of the system. Because of this risk, I am recommending that the proposed salary adjustments for all the executive positions (exclusive of the CEO, as previously noted) be implemented in one decision rather than addressed piece-meal over time. While the General Counsel position will likely be the first position where the new salary ranges will have a positive impact, the problems related to the current salary ranges extends across the executive team. For that reason, and to maintain fairness and equity internally, I am recommending approval of all the proposed adjustments. A decision to not adjust salary levels now, will only delay the inevitable. At some point, will have to re-set its compensation levels to the market if it hopes to be

9 Executive Staff Compensation Study January 13, 2012 Page 7 of 7 competitive in recruiting and retaining top tier executive staff. The longer waits to make the necessary adjustments, the larger the ultimate adjustments will be, and the harder it will be to make them. I believe that the total compensation study by Ralph Andersen & Associates presents a technically sound and clear picture of where stands relative to the market with respect to our executive staff compensation. I further believe that the salary ranges recommended in the report are fair and equitable from both an internal and external perspective. Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, and notwithstanding the criticism that may ensue, I respectfully request that your Board approve the recommended actions set forth herein. As always, I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. Respectfully, Richard Stensrud Chief Executive Officer Attachment

10 January 13, 2012 To: From: Richard Stensrud, Chief Executive Officer Sacramento County Employees Retirement System Doug Johnson, Vice President Ralph Andersen & Associates Regarding: 2011 Total Compensation Analysis and Salary Recommendations The purpose of this memorandum is to report the results of the total compensation survey recently conducted for the Sacramento County Employees Retirement System () involving five of the agency s management job classifications. This report presents the results of the total compensation survey and provides salary recommendations for the four survey classes. Key Policy Considerations The compensation plan is an important tool in recruiting and retaining staff, especially given the specialized nature of jobs. Overall, compensation plan should: Ensure that has the ability to attract and retain well-qualified employees Provide a defensible and technically sound basis for compensating employees Allow flexibility and adaptability for making compensation decisions based on changing market conditions Establish fair and equitable salary levels for jobs from an internal and external perspective. This specific study was designed to achieve the following overall objectives: Confirm compensation policies including the confirmation of labor market agencies Develop a survey data collection form and conduct a total compensation survey using the identified comparable agencies Analyze the market data and document comparisons with compensation plan Conduct an internal relationship analysis and develop internal relationship guidelines Present specific salary recommendations based on the results of the market survey and internal relationship analysis. A T r a d i t i o n o f E x c e l l e n c e S i n c e Stanford Ranch Road, Suite 410, Rocklin, California Phone: 916/ Fax: 916/ Website:

11 2011 Total Compensation Analysis and Salary Recommendations Sacramento County Employees Retirement System Page 2 The primary objective of the compensation survey and subsequent analysis is to provide a picture of wage practices in the labor market for comparable jobs. Additionally, the compensation survey documents how management classifications compare to similar employers in terms of compensation. The results of the compensation survey provide a basis for compensating employees in a consistent, equitable, defensible and competitive manner. Labor Market Definition One of the most important policy components of a compensation plan is a definition of the labor market within which must compete. There are typically five important criteria utilized in identifying those employers that comprise an agency s labor market. They are: Historical Practices Over time, an employer will develop some level of continuity regarding labor market comparables for the purposes of conducting compensation surveys. There may be a strong history of surveying a specific set of employers either by agreement or by practice. In some instances, survey agencies can be more formally defined by policy documents or memorandums of understanding. Historical practices are an important consideration if for no other reason than deviating from a long term historical practice typically requires a strong, defensible rationale Geographic Proximity Geographic proximity of potential employers is a major factor utilized in identifying an organization s labor market. This factor is particularly important because it identifies those employers that directly compete with to recruit and retain personnel. If a sufficient number of comparable agencies exist within close proximity to, the defined geographic area may be confined to a one, two or surrounding county region. If insufficient comparables exist locally, a more extensive statewide or surrounding state market may be required. Employer Size As a rule, the more similar employers are in size and complexity, the greater the likelihood that comparable positions exist within both organizations. Nature of Services Provided In order to ensure comparable jobs are found when conducting a market survey, it is important to utilize employers that provide similar services to. Recognizing that provides services that are unique to selected California counties, cities, and special districts, the selection of labor market agencies cannot be based exclusively on geographic region and employer size. This factor recognizes that employers who provide similar services are most likely to compete with one another for employees, have similar jobs, and share organizational and economic characteristics. Economic Similarity While there are a number of economic factors that can be compared among agencies, the most important factor related to compensation is cost of living or the relative differences in labor costs (wage differential). In some regions or states, living costs can vary significantly and have an important impact on how potential candidates evaluate compensation. This factor is important if labor market agencies are used beyond the local market. Using these factors, the survey agencies should focus on other employees retirement systems within the State of California.

12 2011 Total Compensation Analysis and Salary Recommendations Sacramento County Employees Retirement System Page 3 Labor Market Survey Agencies Exhibit A presents the survey agencies that were utilized for the management classifications included in this study. These agencies represent comparable retirement systems throughout California. Exhibit A - Survey Agencies Agency Total Assets Total Membership ERI COL ERI Wage Alameda County ERA $5.2 billion 20, Contra Costa County ERA $5.2 billion 18, Fresno County ERA $2.5 billion 13, Kern County ERA $2.6 billion 16, City of Los Angeles ERS $10.4 billion 43, Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System N/A N/A Los Angeles Water & Power ERP N/A N/A Los Angeles County Retirement System $36.1 billion 156, Marin County ERA $1.4 billion 5, Orange County ERS $10.4 billion 38, PERS $228.6 billion 1,629, San Bernardino County ERA $6.1 billion 31, City of San Diego ERS $4.7 billion 20, San Diego County ERA $6.9 billion 37, City & County of San Francisco ERS $13.1 billion 51, San Joaquin County ERA $1.7 billion 11, San Mateo County ERA $1.8 billion 10, Sonoma County ERA $1.8 billion 8, State Teachers' Retirement System $154.3 billion 852, Tulare County ERA $995 million 8, Ventura County ERA $3.2 billion 15, $5.9 billion 24, Cost of living (ERI COL) and wage differential (ERI Wage) data are provided as a reference and are from the Economic Research Institute. Because the market is statewide, there will be significant differences in cost of living among some of the survey employers. Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System and Los Angeles Water & Power ERP declined to participate in the survey. Labor Market Position Considering that the recommended survey agencies represent both a comprehensive and balanced set of employers, it is recommended that all initial analyses be based on the labor market median (defined as the middle of the labor market). The median statistic will not be significantly skewed with the addition of some larger or smaller survey agencies. Ultimately, when establishing desired labor market position, some key elements for consideration will include:

13 2011 Total Compensation Analysis and Salary Recommendations Sacramento County Employees Retirement System Page 4 ability to pay Historical practices Priority of compensation versus other expenditures Recruitment and retention of qualified staff. A solid, defensible labor market position will rely on a balancing of these factors in order to meet compensation goals and objectives. Market Data Collection Process After the recommended labor market agencies and survey classes were confirmed, the project consultants collected and compiled total compensation data. To ensure reliability and completeness of data collected, survey data was collected according to a structured methodology. In conducting the total compensation survey, the following specific steps were taken: An initial telephone call was made to each labor market employer to explain the scope of the study, confirm participation and request general background information including current salary schedules, organizational charts and benefits information as available. A compensation and benefits survey packet was prepared to provide a structured method for collecting data. The information packet included: - A written profile for each survey classification - A list of the required survey information. As available, salary schedules, organizational charts and other documentation were analyzed for each survey agency in order to determine comparability issues and audit the completed surveys. Telephone interviews were conducted with each survey agency to verify, clarify and identify comparable survey classes and to ensure the accuracy of the survey data. Throughout the data collection process, careful efforts were made to document the full range of duties and requirements of all job classes as compared to corresponding survey classes. Significant time was allowed for survey participation, however, two agencies declined to participate. Establishing Job Comparabilities When conducting labor market surveys, one of the most critical objectives is to ensure that the labor market jobs are sufficiently comparable to jobs while also serving as a strong indicator of market trends. Since the purpose of the labor market analysis is to identify general wage trends with other agencies, broad comparability guidelines are used when collecting data. If the comparability guidelines are too narrow, then insufficient data will be found in the market that may not be a realistic picture of market wage trends. Critical comparability criteria typically includes similar education/skill requirements, similar level of duties, and comparable level of supervisory and management duties. It is not as critical for all job duties to be the same or for the number of employees supervised to be the same. Furthermore, it is not essential that a comparable market job use the same equipment, have the

14 2011 Total Compensation Analysis and Salary Recommendations Sacramento County Employees Retirement System Page 5 same workload, or work in an identical facility. While Ralph Andersen & Associates has been careful not to include gross comparisons, there will be some variability in the job matches. In some instances, a comparable market job may exceed the responsibilities and duties of job and in other cases the market job may perform duties at a slightly lower level. Overall, the market comparabilities are intended to provide an indication of market trends. The data sheets presented in Appendix A contain job matches that are sufficiently comparable based on the professional judgment of Ralph Andersen & Associates. Wherever possible, comparability similarities and differences are supported by survey forms and other documentation received from the survey participants. However, it should be noted that job descriptions were not used as a primary basis for establishing comparabilities due to their unreliability and the inconsistent formats used in the survey agencies. Many agencies are unable to sufficiently maintain and update their job descriptions while other agencies use job description formats that provide little insight into the actual job duties of the class. In addition, requiring public agencies to copy and send a large number of job descriptions is burdensome and costly, and some agencies refuse to provide copies to an outside consulting firm. The term has been used in the data sheets in Appendix A to indicate instances where the job does not exist within the survey agency, the level of responsibilities/duties are not sufficiently comparable, or the comparable job duties are spread among several job classifications. Statistics Used in Analyzing the Market Data The salary survey data has been analyzed using a variety of statistical measures that are standards in compensation analysis. The purpose of the statistics is to describe the data and identify data trends that can be used to describe the labor market. The three most common statistics used in analyzing compensation data include: Mean (average) This is a common statistical measure in which the market data is summed and divided by the number of agencies in which data is reported. While this is a valuable statistical measure, it is not stable for data sets of less than 30 agencies. In addition, this statistic can be significantly skewed by a significantly high or low paying agency that may not represent the entire sample. Median This statistic is based on the ranking of the data and represents the middle of the data set; as such, half of the data is above the median and half is below. This is the most stable statistical measure of the market, even for highly variable data sets, and is not skewed by unusually high or low payers. 75th Percentile (3rd quartile) This is also a rank based statistic in which one quarter of the data is above the 75th percentile and three quarters of the data are below this point. This statistic effectively captures the high end of the data set, however, it is not as stable a measure as the median. Since the relationship between the median and the 75th percentile is based both on the ranking and on variability of the data, no consistent percentage relationship exists between these statistics. All statistical comparisons are based on market control point salaries/range maximums. The data sheets presented in Appendix A provide additional statistical information as well as the minimum salary levels for reference purposes.

15 2011 Total Compensation Analysis and Salary Recommendations Sacramento County Employees Retirement System Page 6 Overall Salary Survey Results Base Pay Based on an evaluation of the survey data, general salary trends in the market place have been identified. A summary of the salary survey comparisons of comparable retirement agencies is provided in Exhibit B. This summary table includes: The class title of each benchmark class The number of observations (matches), not including data current top step salary The labor market median, based on monthly control point/top step salaries in the labor market The percentage relationship of the labor market median to the top step for classification. Exhibit B Sacramento County Employees Retirement System Summary of Labor Market Data Class Title # of Obs. Current Salary Median Percent +/- Median Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO 13 10,812 13, % Asst. Retirement Admin./COO 15 10,812 12, % Chief Investment Officer 13 12,712 16, % General Counsel 8 11,743 16, % Retirement Administrator/CEO 19 14,618 18, % Survey data was also collected for Assistant Retirement Administrator - Investments, however insufficient comparables were found in the labor market (only two larger agencies had comparable jobs). In analyzing the question of market relationship, the survey jobs were ranked from high-to-low in terms of each survey classification s salary relationship to the labor market median (i.e. percent above/below the median). Of the five survey classes, all are below the labor market median ranging from % to %. It should be noted that the data for General Counsel represents a market anomaly in that only eight of the survey agencies have an in-house job classification that serves as a match. Total Compensation Analysis In order to provide with a more accurate assessment of how its compensation plan compares with those of other retirement agencies, Ralph Andersen & Associates was asked to gather and analyze total compensation expenditures for each survey agency s comparable class. All comparisons of to the labor market agencies are based on the labor market median.

16 2011 Total Compensation Analysis and Salary Recommendations Sacramento County Employees Retirement System Page 7 The total compensation data presented in Appendix B of this report is broken into four categories: Base Salary This column contains base salary range maximum data for each agency where a comparable job was identified. Cash Supplements These columns display the following cash equivalent benefits: - deferred compensation paid by the employer - education incentives for advanced degrees/training - longevity pay - car allowances - retirement pick-up paid by the employer on behalf of the employee - other cash benefits. A cumulative sub-total follows these columns that sums base salary and cash supplements for each employer. Insurances These columns show the maximum employer contribution for the following insurance benefits: - health insurance, including dependent coverage as provided - dental insurance - vision insurance - life insurance - long term disability insurance (LTD) - other health insurance costs. A cumulative sub-total follows these columns that sums base salary, cash supplements and insurances for each employer. Retirement These columns provide the employer retirement contributions to the following programs: - employer mandated portion of the retirement contribution - Social Security and Medicare contributions for participating agencies. A cumulative sub-total follows these columns that sums base salary, cash supplements, insurances, and retirement contributions for each employer. Since this sum includes all benefits, it also represents the total compensation provided to the survey class. Summary Table of Total Compensation Trends The summary information presented in Exhibit C has been extracted from the detailed total compensation data sheets presented in Appendix B. The non-shaded columns in the table present the percentage relationship between cumulative compensation for each benefit category and the median of the market agencies. The percentages provided in the non-shaded

17 2011 Total Compensation Analysis and Salary Recommendations Sacramento County Employees Retirement System Page 8 columns can be seen in each of the individual total compensation data sheets provided in Appendix B. Survey Class Asst. Ret. Admin./CBO Asst.Ret. Admin./COO Chief Investment Officer General Counsel Ret. Administrator/CEO Exhibit C - Total Compensation Summary Base Market Rel. (a) Base+Cash Market Rel. (a) Gain/ Loss (b) Base+Cash+ Insurance Market Rel. (a) Gain/ Loss (b) Base+Cash+Insur. + Retirement (Total Comp) Market Rel. (a) Gain/ Loss (b) Total Gain/ Loss -23.5% -25.8% -2.3% -23.4% 2.5% -16.1% 7.3% 7.4% -15.6% -21.1% -5.4% -14.2% 6.8% -8.8% 5.5% 6.8% -26.0% -24.3% 1.6% -25.5% -1.2% -18.6% 7.0% 7.4% -43.2% -42.3% 0.9% -39.4% 2.9% -36.7% 2.7% 6.5% -23.3% -18.8% 4.5% -20.5% -1.7% -23.5% -3.0% -0.2% Average -26.3% -26.5% -0.1% -24.6% 1.9% -20.7% 3.9% 5.6% (a) Reflects relationship to the labor market median for selected categories of total compensation (b) Reflects position gain/loss for each new category of total compensation considered Insufficient data was found for Assistant Retirement Administrator - Investments In order to provide a more meaningful summary of market total compensation trends, shaded columns have been added to show the percentage gain/loss between each compensation component. For example: The base salary relationship for the class of Assistant Retirement Administrator/Chief Benefits Officer indicates that is 23.5% below the market median. When cash supplements (deferred compensation, education incentives, longevity pay, car allowances and retirement pick-up amounts) are added to base pay, is 25.8% below the market median, which is a 2.3% loss (-25.8% minus -23.5% equals -2.3%). When insurances (the maximum an employer will pay for health, dental, vision, life, long-term disability and any other insurances) are added to base salary and cash supplements, gains market position by 2.5% (-23.4% minus -25.8% equals 2.5%). When retirement (the employers portion of retirement and other retirement costs) is added to base salary, cash supplements, and insurances, gains market position by 7.3% due to retirement (-16.1% minus -23.4% equals 7.3%). Since this sum includes all benefits, it represents the total compensation provided to the survey class. When total compensation for the Assistant Retirement Administrator/Chief Benefits Officer is compared back to base salary, gains market position by a total of 7.4% (-16.1% minus -23.5% equals 7.4%). On average, management classes gain 5.6% in market position when benefits are taken into consideration, almost all of which is due to a higher employer retirement contribution as

18 2011 Total Compensation Analysis and Salary Recommendations Sacramento County Employees Retirement System Page 9 compared to the market agencies. No significant benefit differences are apparent based on the total compensation analysis. Cost of Living/Economic Differences Since there are significant differences in cost of living across the State of California, Exhibit D provides the Adjusted Total Compensation Summary (source data sheets provided in Appendix B). Exhibit D has adjusted market data using the Economic Research Institute (ERI) Wage Differential Index (shown previously in Exhibit A). This index is used to adjust for market difference in wages and is designed for this purpose. While cost of living differences are also shown in Exhibit A, cost of living differences should not be used to adjust wages since they reflect living costs, not labor costs. Survey Class Asst. Ret. Admin./CBO Asst.Ret. Admin./COO Chief Investment Officer General Counsel Ret. Administrator/CEO Exhibit D Adjusted Total Compensation Summary Data Adjusted Using ERI Wage Differential Index Base Market Rel. (a) Base+Cash Market Rel. (a) Gain/ Loss (b) Base+Cash+ Insurance Market Rel. (a) Gain/ Loss (b) Base+Cash+Insur. + Retirement (Total Comp) Market Rel. (a) Gain/ Loss (b) Total Gain/ Loss -10.7% -15.4% -4.6% -16.3% -0.9% -9.7% 6.5% 1.0% -8.9% -15.5% -6.7% -9.0% 6.5% -7.0% 2.0% 1.9% -14.8% -13.3% 1.5% -14.4% -1.1% -6.1% 8.4% 8.8% -33.7% -32.6% 1.1% -29.8% 2.9% -27.0% 2.8% 6.7% -14.4% -12.7% 1.7% -9.8% 2.9% -12.5% -2.8% 1.9% Average -16.5% -17.9% -1.4% -15.9% 2.1% -12.5% 3.4% 4.0% (c) Reflects relationship to the labor market median for selected categories of total compensation (d) Reflects position gain/loss for each new category of total compensation considered Insufficient data was found for Assistant Retirement Administrator - Investments

19 2011 Total Compensation Analysis and Salary Recommendations Sacramento County Employees Retirement System Page 10 As indicated in Exhibit D, there is an 8.3% to 9.8 reduction in the market deviation between current salary and benefits the adjusted market data (difference in averages between Exhibit D and Exhibit C). These differences can be factored into salary setting policies, as appropriate. Salary Recommendations In addition to market data, it is equally important to consider internal salary relationships both across similar jobs and between supervisory and subordinate jobs. Recognizing the importance of market and internal equity, Exhibits E and F provide recommended salary levels for each job title included in the scope of this study. Exhibit provides salary range recommendations using non-adjusted market data while Exhibit F adjusts the market data by 9% to account for regional market differences. The objective of a market-based compensation study is to identify wage differences for selected benchmark classes. Benchmark classes are jobs that are easily compared with the pay practices of other agencies and are directly comparable to jobs. In order to establish market equity, benchmark classes are placed into a salary range based on the labor market data. Since the benchmark classes serve as the basis for any internal relationship guidelines, the entire pay plan is anchored to the labor market data. For non-benchmark classifications, salary levels are established using internal relationship guidelines among related job classes. This process not only maximizes the use of available market data but also preserves important salary relationships. For General Counsel, we have not used the market data due to the limited number of comparables. Instead, we have established a salary level based on an internal relationship tie to the Assistant Retirement Administrator job classes. Due to the insufficient data found for Assistant Retirement Administrator Investments, the salary for this job has been set using internal relationship alignment. Exhibit E - Recommended Salary Levels (no market adjustment) Job Title Current Monthly Max Market Median (Benchmarks) Recomm. Monthly Max Percent Change Explanation for Adjustment Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO $10,812 $13,356 $13, % Benchmark; set to market Asst. Retirement Admin./COO $10,812 $13, % Same as Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO Chief Investment Officer $12,712 $15, % 15% below Retirement Admin./CEO Asst. Retirement Admin./Inv $10,812 $13, % Same as Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO General Counsel $11,743 $15, % 15% below Retirement Admin./CEO Retirement Administrator/CEO $14,618 $18,022 $18, % Benchmark; set to market

20 2011 Total Compensation Analysis and Salary Recommendations Sacramento County Employees Retirement System Page 11 Exhibit F - Recommended Salary Levels (adjusted 9% for regional differences) Job Title Current Monthly Max Market Median (Benchmarks) Recomm. Monthly Max Percent Change Explanation for Adjustment Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO $10,812 $12,253 $12, % Benchmark; set to market Asst. Retirement Admin./COO $10,812 $12, % Same as Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO Chief Investment Officer $12,712 $14, % 15% below Retirement Admin./CEO Asst. Retirement Admin./Inv $10,812 $12, % Same as Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO General Counsel $11,743 $14, % 15% below Retirement Admin./CEO Retirement Administrator/CEO $14,618 $16,534 $16, % Benchmark; set to market The above report presents the results of the total compensation study and salary recommendations for the five survey classes as of June, 2011.

21 APPENDIX A BASE SALARY LABOR MARKET DATA SHEETS A-1

22 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range maximum Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum Maximum San Bernardino County ERA Chief of Member Services $ 13,039 $ 19,559 Alameda County ERA Assistant CEO, ACERA $ 10,013 $ 16,013 Los Angeles County Retirement System Assistant Executive Officer $ 9,584 $ 14,507 City of Los Angeles ERS Assistant General Manager - LACERS $ 11,427 $ 14,197 Orange County ERS Assistant CEO, Internal $ 13,790 San Mateo County ERA Assistant Executive Officer/Benefits Mgr $ 10,900 $ 13,625 San Diego County ERA Retirement Assistant Administrator $ 9,599 $ 13,356 City & County of San Francisco ERS Manager IV $ 8,829 $ 11,267 Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO $ 8,895 $ 10,812 Kern County ERA Assistant Executive Director $ 8,844 $ 10,801 PERS Deputy Executive Officer, Benefits Admin $ 9,544 $ 10,520 Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Benefits Manager $ 7,943 $ 9,654 State Teachers' Retirement System Career Executive Assignment III $ 8,594 $ 9,476 Ventura County ERA Retirement Operations Manager $ 5,768 $ 8,076 City of San Diego ERS Fresno County ERA Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA San Joaquin County ERA Sonoma County ERA Tulare County ERA % Above/ Number of Observations 13 Market Below Variability High Value Market Labor Market Median $ 13, % 40th Percentile $ 12, % 60th Percentile $ 13, % 75th Percentile $ 14, % Labor Market Mean 34 $ 12, % SALARY PERCENTILE 34th Percentile 34th Percentile Footnotes Orange County ERS - position vacant used actual salary of Asst CEO External; range 110, ,560 Alameda County ERA - Retirement Benefits Manager Contra Costa County ERA - rprts to Retirement CEO Print Date: 1/13/2012

23 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range maximum Asst. Retirement Admin./COO Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum Maximum San Bernardino County ERA Chief of Fiscal Services $ 13,039 $ 19,559 City of San Diego ERS Assistant Retirement Administrator/CFO $ 17,328 Alameda County ERA Assistant CEO, ACERA $ 10,013 $ 16,013 Los Angeles County Retirement System Assistant Executive Officer $ 9,584 $ 14,507 City of Los Angeles ERS Assistant General Manager - LACERS $ 11,427 $ 14,197 Orange County ERS Assistant CEO, External $ 13,790 San Diego County ERA Retirement Assistant Administrator $ 9,599 $ 13,356 Marin County ERA Assistant Retirement Administrator $ 10,284 $ 12,501 Ventura County ERA Chief Financial Officer $ 8,810 $ 12,334 Asst. Retirement Admin./COO $ 8,895 $ 10,812 Kern County ERA Assistant Executive Director $ 8,844 $ 10,801 Sonoma County ERA Assistant Retirement Administrator $ 8,660 $ 10,524 PERS Deputy Executive Officer, Operations $ 9,544 $ 10,520 State Teachers' Retirement System Career Executive Assignment V $ 9,544 $ 10,520 Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Accounting Manager $ 7,943 $ 9,654 Tulare County ERA Assistant Retirement Administrator $ 6,827 $ 8,415 City & County of San Francisco ERS Fresno County ERA Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP San Joaquin County ERA San Mateo County ERA % Above/ Number of Observations 15 Market Below Variability High Value Market Labor Market Median $ 12, % 40th Percentile $ 12, % 60th Percentile $ 13, % 75th Percentile $ 14, % Labor Market Mean 36 $ 12, % SALARY PERCENTILE 36th Percentile 36th Percentile Footnotes Orange County ERS - actual salary; range 110, ,560 Fresno County ERA - Asst Retirement Admin over benefits, IT, and Accting City & County of San Francisco ERS - Chief, Financial Officer, ACERA Fresno County ERA - rprts to Deputy Retirement CEO Print Date: 1/13/2012

24 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range maximum Asst. Retirement Admin./Inv. Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum Maximum PERS Chief Operating Investment Officer $ 17,667 $ 26,500 San Diego County ERA Retirement Assistant Chief Investment Officer $ 9,031 $ 14,446 Asst. Retirement Admin./Inv. $ 8,895 $ 10,812 Alameda County ERA City & County of San Francisco ERS City of Los Angeles ERS City of San Diego ERS Contra Costa County ERA Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Los Angeles County Retirement System Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Orange County ERS San Bernardino County ERA San Joaquin County ERA San Mateo County ERA Sonoma County ERA State Teachers' Retirement System Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA % Above/ Number of Observations 2 Market Below Variability Value Market Labor Market Median I.D th Percentile I.D th Percentile I.D th Percentile I.D. -- Labor Market Mean 0 I.D. -- SALARY PERCENTILE 0 Percentile 0 Percentile Footnotes Fresno County ERA - Investment Analyst ; rprts to Retirement CIO City of San Diego ERS - Investment Officer I and II reprot to Chief Investment Officer City & County of San Francisco ERS - Investment Officer, ACERA ; rprts to Chief Investment Officer, ACERA Contra Costa County ERA - Investment Program Mgr Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System - Principal Investment Officer, LACERA Retirement Finance Officer San Mateo County ERA - Retirement Financial Officer Print Date: 1/13/2012

25 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range maximum Chief Investment Officer Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum Maximum PERS Chief Investment Officer $ 31,667 $ 47,583 Los Angeles County Retirement System Chief Investment Officer $ 21,236 $ 32,142 State Teachers' Retirement System Chief Investment Officer $ 22,917 $ 30,417 City & County of San Francisco ERS Deputy Dir for Investments, Retirement $ 20,330 $ 24,711 San Diego County ERA Retirement Chief Investment Officer $ 11,126 $ 17,796 City of San Diego ERS Investment Officer $ 17,328 Alameda County ERA Chief Investment Officer, ACERA $ 10,013 $ 16,013 San Mateo County ERA Chief Investment Officer $ 12,242 $ 15,301 Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Chief Investment Officer $ 12,098 $ 14,705 Orange County ERS Chief Investment Officer, Retirement $ 14,413 Chief Investment Officer $ 10,457 $ 12,712 City of Los Angeles ERS Chief Investment Officer $ 9,977 $ 12,396 Sonoma County ERA Retirement Investment Officer $ 8,660 $ 10,524 San Joaquin County ERA Retirement Investment Officer $ 7,975 $ 9,696 Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA San Bernardino County ERA New Position - Salary Pending Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA % Above/ Number of Observations 13 Market Below Variability High Value Market Labor Market Median $ 16, % 40th Percentile $ 15, % 60th Percentile $ 17, % 75th Percentile $ 24, % Labor Market Mean 18 $ 20, % SALARY PERCENTILE 18th Percentile 18th Percentile Footnotes Orange County ERS - actual salary; range 200, ,000 City & County of San Francisco ERS - Rprts to CEO; Investment Officer, ACERA San Bernardino County ERA - Salary Range TBD Print Date: 1/13/2012

26 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range maximum General Counsel Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum Maximum PERS General Counsel $ 17,833 $ 26,833 State Teachers' Retirement System General Counsel $ 14,167 $ 20,000 Los Angeles County Retirement System Chief Counsel, Legal Chief Counsel, Disability Litigation12,800 $ $ 19,374 City of San Diego ERS Retirement General Counsel $ 17,076 San Mateo County ERA Chief Deputy County Counsel $ 13,247 $ 16,560 Alameda County ERA Chief Counsel, ACERA $ 11,910 $ 15,688 Contra Costa County ERA General Counsel $ 10,346 $ 12,576 General Counsel $ 9,661 $ 11,743 Kern County ERA Retirement General Counsel II $ 9,578 $ 11,699 City & County of San Francisco ERS City of Los Angeles ERS Fresno County ERA Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Orange County ERS San Bernardino County ERA New Position - Salary Pending San Diego County ERA San Joaquin County ERA Sonoma County ERA Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA % Above/ Number of Observations 8 Market Below Variability High Value Market Labor Market Median $ 16, % 40th Percentile $ 16, % 60th Percentile $ 17, % 75th Percentile $ 19, % Labor Market Mean 1 $ 17, % SALARY PERCENTILE 1st Percentile 1st Percentile Footnotes San Bernardino County ERA - Salary Range TBD Print Date: 1/13/2012

27 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range maximum Retirement Administrator/CEO Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum Maximum State Teachers' Retirement System Chief Executive Officer $ 20,000 $ 26,250 City of San Diego ERS Retirement Administrator/CEO $ 24,383 San Bernardino County ERA Chief Executive Officer $ 12,000 $ 22,000 City & County of San Francisco ERS Department Head V $ 16,614 $ 21,205 Alameda County ERA CEO, ACERA $ 17,500 $ 20,833 San Diego County ERA Retirement Chief Executive Officer $ 12,310 $ 20,315 PERS Chief Executive Officer $ 14,583 $ 19,916 City of Los Angeles ERS General Manager - LACERS $ 12,787 $ 19,170 Marin County ERA Retirement Administrator $ 16,250 $ 18,911 Los Angeles County Retirement System Chief Executive Officer/LACERA $ 11,906 $ 18,022 San Mateo County ERA Chief Executive Officer/SAMCERA $ 13,909 $ 17,387 Sonoma County ERA Retirement Administrator $ 14,071 $ 17,104 Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Chief Executive Officer $ 16,210 Kern County ERA Executive Director $ 12,920 $ 15,773 Orange County ERS Chief Executive Officer $ 15,593 Retirement Administrator/CEO $ 13,259 $ 14,618 San Joaquin County ERA Retirement Administrator $ 11,957 $ 14,534 Ventura County ERA Retirement Administrator $ 10,150 $ 14,210 Fresno County ERA Retirement Administrator $ 8,197 $ 13,863 Tulare County ERA Retirement Administrator $ 10,686 $ 12,296 Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP % Above/ Number of Observations 19 Market Below Variability High Value Market Labor Market Median $ 18, % 40th Percentile $ 17, % 60th Percentile $ 19, % 75th Percentile $ 20, % Labor Market Mean 17 $ 18, % SALARY PERCENTILE 17th Percentile 17th Percentile Footnotes Orange County ERS - actual salary; range 157, ,362 Print Date: 1/13/2012

28 APPENDIX B TOTAL COMPENSATION DATA SHEETS

29 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO 13 Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max Def. Comp. Educ. Incent. Long. Car Allow Other Cash Ret. Pick-up Cash Cum. Health Dental Vision Life LTD Ins. Cum. Alameda County ERA Assistant CEO, ACERA $16,013 $480 $16,493 $1,623 $124 $18,240 $2,994 $788 $22,023 City & County of San Francisco ERS Manager IV $11,267 $11,267 $660 inc inc inc inc $11,927 $2,028 $720 $14,674 City of Los Angeles ERS Assistant General Manager - LACERS $14,197 $14,197 $1,228 $54 inc $1 $15,480 $3,008 $206 $18,695 City of San Diego ERS Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Benefits Manager $9,654 $85 $483 $455 $10,677 $1,540 $59 $9 $66 $12,350 $2,539 $696 $15,585 Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Assistant Executive Director $10,801 $648 $11,449 $886 inc inc $8 $12,343 $3,102 $713 $16,158 Los Angeles County Retirement System Assistant Executive Officer $14,507 $14,507 $1,074 $95 inc $15,676 $1,828 $210 $17,714 Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Orange County ERS Assistant CEO, Internal $13,790 $896 $14,686 $1,179 inc $25 $15,891 $2,637 $200 $18,727 PERS Deputy Executive Officer, Benefits Admin $10,520 $10,520 $1,283 inc inc inc $11,803 $1,844 $709 $14,356 San Bernardino County ERA Chief of Member Services $19,559 $1,565 $330 $21,453 $1,046 $21 $12 $2 $65 $22,598 $4,068 $284 $26,950 San Diego County ERA Retirement Assistant Administrator $13,356 $1,269 $14,625 $943 inc inc $32 $25 $15,625 $3,220 $194 $19,039 San Joaquin County ERA San Mateo County ERA Assistant Executive Officer/Benefits Mgr $13,625 $889 $297 $14,811 $1,683 $97 $15 $16,606 $3,844 $754 $21,204 Sonoma County ERA State Teachers' Retirement System Career Executive Assignment III $9,476 $9,476 $1,283 inc inc $17 $65 $10,842 $1,015 $694 $12,550 Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA Retirement Operations Manager $8,076 $242 $404 $220 $8,943 $592 inc inc $7 $52 $9,593 $999 $622 $11,214 Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO $10,812 $108 $362 $11,282 $1,149 $118 inc $12,549 $1,995 $713 $15,257 Median Median $13,356 $14,197 $15,480 $17,714 % +/- Median -23.5% -25.8% -23.4% -16.1% Benefit Gain/Loss 7.4% Emp. Retir Contrib Social Security Total Comp Print Date: 1/13/2012

30 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 Asst. Retirement Admin./COO 15 Survey Agency Comparable Class Emp. Range Def. Educ. Car Other Ret. Cash Social Total Long. Health Dental Vision Life LTD Ins. Cum. Retir Max Comp. Incent. Allow Cash Pick-up Cum. Security Comp Contrib Alameda County ERA Assistant CEO, ACERA $16,013 $480 $16,493 $1,623 $124 $18,240 $2,994 $788 $22,023 City & County of San Francisco ERS City of Los Angeles ERS Assistant General Manager - LACERS $14,197 $14,197 $1,228 $54 inc $1 $15,480 $3,008 $206 $18,695 City of San Diego ERS Assistant Retirement Administrator/CFO $17,328 $17,328 $17,328 $251 $17,579 Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Accounting Manager $9,654 $85 $483 $455 $10,677 $1,540 $59 $9 $66 $12,350 $2,539 $696 $15,585 Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Assistant Executive Director $10,801 $648 $11,449 $886 inc inc $8 $12,343 $3,102 $713 $16,158 Los Angeles County Retirement System Assistant Executive Officer $14,507 $14,507 $1,074 $95 inc $15,676 $1,828 $210 $17,714 Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Assistant Retirement Administrator $12,501 $250 $12,751 $896 inc inc inc $13,647 $2,509 $181 $16,338 Orange County ERS Assistant CEO, External $13,790 $896 $14,686 $1,179 inc $25 $15,891 $2,637 $200 $18,727 PERS Deputy Executive Officer, Operations $10,520 $10,520 $1,283 inc inc inc $11,803 $1,844 $709 $14,356 San Bernardino County ERA Chief of Fiscal Services $19,559 $1,565 $330 $21,453 $1,046 $21 $12 $2 $65 $22,598 $4,068 $284 $26,950 San Diego County ERA Retirement Assistant Administrator $13,356 $1,269 $14,625 $943 inc inc $32 $25 $15,625 $3,220 $194 $19,039 San Joaquin County ERA San Mateo County ERA Sonoma County ERA Assistant Retirement Administrator $10,524 $474 $10,998 $500 $107 $17 $1 $121 $11,744 $2,117 $709 $14,570 State Teachers' Retirement System Career Executive Assignment V $10,520 $10,520 $1,283 inc inc $17 $73 $11,893 $1,126 $709 $13,728 Tulare County ERA Assistant Retirement Administrator $8,415 $1,010 $9,425 $221 inc inc inc inc $9,646 $789 $648 $11,083 Ventura County ERA Chief Financial Officer $12,334 $370 $617 $337 $13,657 $592 inc inc $7 $79 $14,335 $1,526 $735 $16,596 Asst. Retirement Admin./COO $10,812 $108 $362 $11,282 $1,149 $118 inc $12,549 $1,995 $713 $15,257 Median Median $12,501 $13,657 $14,335 $16,596 % +/- Median -15.6% -21.1% -14.2% -8.8% Benefit Gain/Loss 6.8% Print Date: 1/13/2012

31 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 Asst. Retirement Admin./Inv. 2 Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max Def. Comp. Educ. Incent. Long. Car Allow Other Cash Ret. Pick-up Cash Cum. Health Dental Vision Life LTD Ins. Cum. Alameda County ERA City & County of San Francisco ERS City of Los Angeles ERS City of San Diego ERS Contra Costa County ERA Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Los Angeles County Retirement System Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Orange County ERS PERS Chief Operating Investment Officer $26,500 $26,500 $1,283 inc inc inc $27,783 $4,645 $7,059 $39,487 San Bernardino County ERA San Diego County ERA Retirement Assistant Chief Investment Officer $14,446 $1,372 $15,818 $943 inc inc $35 $27 $16,823 $3,483 $209 $20,516 San Joaquin County ERA San Mateo County ERA Sonoma County ERA State Teachers' Retirement System Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA Asst. Retirement Admin./Inv. $10,812 $108 $362 $11,282 $1,149 $118 inc $12,549 $1,995 $6,832 $21,376 Median Median I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. % +/- Median Emp. Retir Contrib Social Security Total Comp Print Date: 1/13/2012

32 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 Chief Investment Officer 13 Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max Def. Comp. Educ. Incent. Long. Car Allow Other Cash Ret. Pick-up Cash Cum. Health Dental Vision Life LTD Ins. Cum. Alameda County ERA Chief Investment Officer, ACERA $16,013 $480 $16,493 $1,623 $124 $18,240 $2,994 $788 $22,023 City & County of San Francisco ERS Deputy Dir for Investments, Retirement $24,711 $24,711 $660 inc inc inc inc $25,371 $4,448 $915 $30,733 City of Los Angeles ERS Chief Investment Officer $12,396 $12,396 $1,228 $54 inc $1 $13,679 $2,627 $180 $16,486 City of San Diego ERS Investment Officer $17,328 $17,328 $1,025 inic inc inc $18,353 $1,594 $251 $20,198 Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Chief Investment Officer $14,705 $85 $735 $693 $16,219 $1,540 $59 $9 $100 $17,926 $3,867 $769 $22,563 Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Los Angeles County Retirement System Chief Investment Officer $32,142 $1,768 $33,910 $1,074 $95 inc $35,079 $4,050 $466 $39,595 Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Orange County ERS Chief Investment Officer, Retirement $14,413 $937 $15,350 $1,179 inc $25 $16,554 $2,756 $209 $19,519 PERS Chief Investment Officer $47,583 $47,583 $1,283 inc inc inc $48,866 $8,340 $1,246 $58,453 San Bernardino County ERA New Position - Salary Pending San Diego County ERA Retirement Chief Investment Officer $17,796 $1,691 $19,487 $943 inc inc $43 $34 $20,506 $4,291 $258 $25,055 San Joaquin County ERA Retirement Investment Officer $9,696 $194 $9,890 $2,001 inc inc $20 $11,910 $2,221 $697 $14,829 San Mateo County ERA Chief Investment Officer $15,301 $334 $15,635 $1,683 $97 $15 $6 $17,436 $4,316 $778 $22,530 Sonoma County ERA Retirement Investment Officer $10,524 $474 $10,998 $500 $107 $17 $1 $121 $11,744 $2,117 $709 $14,570 State Teachers' Retirement System Chief Investment Officer $30,417 $30,417 $1,283 inc inc $17 $210 $31,927 $3,257 $997 $36,181 Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA Chief Investment Officer $12,712 $127 $426 $13,265 $1,149 $118 inc $14,532 $2,345 $741 $17,618 Median Median $16,013 $16,493 $18,240 $22,530 % +/- Median -26.0% -24.3% -25.5% -27.9% Benefit Gain/Loss -1.9% Emp. Retir Contrib Social Security Total Comp Print Date: 1/13/2012

33 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 General Counsel 8 Survey Agency Comparable Class Emp. Range Def. Educ. Car Other Ret. Cash Social Total Long. Health Dental Vision Life LTD Ins. Cum. Retir Max Comp. Incent. Allow Cash Pick-up Cum. Security Comp Contrib Alameda County ERA Chief Counsel, ACERA $15,688 $471 $16,159 $1,623 $124 $17,906 $2,934 $784 $21,623 City & County of San Francisco ERS City of Los Angeles ERS City of San Diego ERS Retirement General Counsel $17,076 $17,076 $1,025 inic inc inc $18,101 $1,571 $248 $19,919 Contra Costa County ERA General Counsel $12,576 $85 $629 $593 $13,883 $1,540 $59 $9 $86 $15,576 $3,307 $739 $19,622 Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Retirement General Counsel II $11,699 $702 $12,401 $886 inc inc $8 $13,295 $3,360 $726 $17,381 Los Angeles County Retirement System Chief Counsel, Legal Chief Counsel, Disability Litigation $19,374 $19,374 $1,074 $95 inc $20,543 $2,441 $281 $23,265 Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Orange County ERS PERS General Counsel $26,833 $26,833 $1,283 inc inc inc $28,116 $4,703 $945 $33,765 San Bernardino County ERA New Position - Salary Pending San Diego County ERA San Joaquin County ERA San Mateo County ERA Chief Deputy County Counsel $16,560 $889 $361 $17,810 $1,683 $97 $15 $19,605 $4,672 $796 $25,073 Sonoma County ERA State Teachers' Retirement System General Counsel $20,000 $20,000 $1,283 inc inc $17 $138 $21,438 $2,141 $846 $24,426 Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA General Counsel $11,743 $117 $393 $12,254 $1,149 $118 inc $13,521 $2,167 $727 $16,414 Median Median $16,818 $17,443 $18,853 $22,444 sel % +/- Median -43.2% -42.3% -39.4% -36.7% Benefit Gain/Loss 6.5% Print Date: 1/13/2012

34 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 Retirement Administrator/CEO 19 Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max Def. Comp. Educ. Incent. Long. Car Allow Other Cash Ret. Pick-up Cash Cum. Health Dental Vision Life LTD Ins. Cum. Alameda County ERA CEO, ACERA $20,833 $625 $21,458 $1,623 $124 $4 $23,209 $3,896 $858 $27,963 City & County of San Francisco ERS Department Head V $21,205 $21,205 $660 inc inc inc inc $21,865 $3,817 $864 $26,545 City of Los Angeles ERS General Manager - LACERS $19,170 $500 $19,670 $1,228 $54 inc $1 $20,953 $4,062 $278 $25,293 City of San Diego ERS Retirement Administrator/CEO $24,383 $300 $24,683 $1,025 inic inc inc $25,708 $2,243 $354 $28,304 Contra Costa County ERA Retirement Chief Executive Officer $16,210 $85 $811 $600 $764 $18,470 $1,540 $59 $9 $110 $20,188 $4,263 $791 $25,243 Fresno County ERA Retirement Administrator $13,863 $513 $14,376 $667 inc inc $19 $54 $15,116 $5,688 $757 $21,562 Kern County ERA Executive Director $15,773 $946 $16,719 $886 inc inc $8 $17,614 $4,530 $785 $22,929 Los Angeles County Retirement System Chief Executive Officer/LACERA $18,022 $525 $18,547 $1,074 $95 inc $19,716 $2,271 $261 $22,248 Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Retirement Administrator $18,911 $800 $378 $20,089 $896 inc inc inc $20,986 $3,795 $274 $25,055 Orange County ERS Chief Executive Officer $15,593 $1,014 $16,607 $1,179 inc $25 $17,811 $2,981 $226 $21,019 PERS Chief Executive Officer $19,916 $520 $20,436 $1,283 inc inc inc $21,719 $3,491 $845 $26,055 San Bernardino County ERA Chief Executive Officer $22,000 $1,760 $1,217 $959 $25,935 $1,046 $21 $12 $2 $73 $27,089 $4,576 $319 $31,984 San Diego County ERA Retirement Chief Executive Officer $20,315 $600 $1,930 $22,845 $943 inc inc $49 $39 $23,875 $4,898 $295 $29,068 San Joaquin County ERA Retirement Administrator $14,534 $727 $585 $15,846 $2,001 inc inc $20 $17,866 $3,330 $767 $21,963 San Mateo County ERA Chief Executive Officer/SAMCERA $17,387 $889 $379 $18,655 $1,683 $97 $15 $6 $20,456 $4,905 $808 $26,170 Sonoma County ERA Retirement Administrator $17,104 $770 $466 $18,340 $500 $107 $17 $1 $197 $19,162 $3,441 $804 $23,408 State Teachers' Retirement System Chief Executive Officer $26,250 $26,250 $1,283 inc inc $17 $181 $27,732 $2,811 $937 $31,479 Tulare County ERA Retirement Administrator $12,296 $1,598 $13,894 $221 inc inc inc inc $14,115 $1,153 $735 $16,003 Ventura County ERA Retirement Administrator $14,210 $426 $711 $375 $388 $16,110 $592 inc inc $7 $91 $16,800 $1,758 $762 $19,320 Retirement Administrator/CEO $14,618 $146 $450 $490 $15,704 $1,149 $118 inc $16,971 $2,697 $768 $20,436 Median Median $18,022 $18,655 $20,456 $25,243 % +/- Median -23.3% -18.8% -20.5% -23.5% Benefit Gain/Loss -0.2% Emp. Retir Contrib Social Security Total Comp Print Date: 1/13/2012

35 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO Survey Agency Alameda County ERA City & County of San Francisco ERS City of Los Angeles ERS City of San Diego ERS Contra Costa County ERA Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Los Angeles County Retirement System Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Orange County ERS PERS San Bernardino County ERA San Diego County ERA San Joaquin County ERA San Mateo County ERA Sonoma County ERA State Teachers' Retirement System Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA Median Comparable Class Assistant CEO, ACERA Manager IV Assistant General Manager - LACERS Retirement Benefits Manager Assistant Executive Director Assistant Executive Officer Assistant CEO, Internal Deputy Executive Officer, Benefits Admin Chief of Member Services Retirement Assistant Administrator Assistant Executive Officer/Benefits Mgr Career Executive Assignment III Retirement Operations Manager Asst. Retirement Admin./CBO Median % +/- Median Cost of Living and Wage Differential Analysis ERI COL ERI Wage , , ,482 Wage Adj. Wage Adj. Wage Adj. Base+ Base+ Base Cash Cash+Ins. $ $ 15,035 16,628 $ $ 9,840 10,416 $ $ 13,482 14,701 Wage Adj. Total Comp $ $ 20,076 $ $ 12,816 $ $ 17, $ 8,768 $ 9,697 $ 11,217 $ 14, $ 10,910 $ 11,565 $ 12,468 $ 16, $ 13,712 $ 13,712 $ 14,816 $ 16, $ 13,171 $ 14,027 $ 15,177 $ 17, $ 10,520 $ 10,520 $ 11,803 $ 14, $ 19,657 $ 21,561 $ 22,712 $ 27, $ 13,185 $ 14,437 $ 15,425 $ 18, $ 11,973 $ 13,015 $ 14,592 $ 18, $ 9,476 $ 9,476 $ 10,842 $ 12, $ 7,706 $ 8,533 $ 9,154 $ 10, $ 10,812 $ 11,282 $ 12,549 $ 15, $11,973 $13,015 $14,592 $16, % -15.4% -16.3% -9.7% Print Date: 1/13/2012

36 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 Asst. Retirement Admin./COO Survey Agency Alameda County ERA City & County of San Francisco ERS City of Los Angeles ERS City of San Diego ERS Contra Costa County ERA Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Los Angeles County Retirement System Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Orange County ERS PERS San Bernardino County ERA San Diego County ERA San Joaquin County ERA San Mateo County ERA Sonoma County ERA State Teachers' Retirement System Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA Median Comparable Class Assistant CEO, ACERA Assistant General Manager - LACERS Assistant Retirement Administrator/CFO Retirement Accounting Manager Assistant Executive Director Assistant Executive Officer Assistant Retirement Administrator Assistant CEO, External Deputy Executive Officer, Operations Chief of Fiscal Services Retirement Assistant Administrator Assistant Retirement Administrator Career Executive Assignment V Assistant Retirement Administrator Chief Financial Officer Asst. Retirement Admin./COO Median % +/- Median Cost of Living and Wage Differential Analysis ERI COL ERI Wage ,597 Wage Adj. Wage Adj. Wage Adj. Base+ Base+ Base Cash Cash+Ins. $ $ 15,035 16,628 Wage Adj. Total Comp $ $ 20, $ 13,482 $ 13,482 $ 14,701 $ 17, $ 17,106 $ 17,106 $ 17,106 $ 17, $ 8,768 $ 9,697 $ 11,217 $ 14, $ 10,910 $ 11,565 $ 12,468 $ 16, $ 13,712 $ 13,712 $ 14,816 $ 16, $ 11,053 $ 11,274 $ 12,067 $ 14, $ 13,171 $ 14,027 $ 15,177 $ 17, $ 10,520 $ 10,520 $ 11,803 $ 14, $ 19,657 $ 21,561 $ 22,712 $ 27, $ 13,185 $ 14,437 $ 15,425 $ 18, $ 10,158 $ 10,615 $ 11,336 $ 14, $ 10,520 $ 10,520 $ 11,893 $ 13, $ 8,757 $ 9,807 $ 10,037 $ 11, $ 11,769 $ 13,032 $ 13,679 $ 15, $ 10,812 $ 11,282 $ 12,549 $ 15, $11,769 $13,032 $13,679 $16, % -15.5% -9.0% -7.0% Print Date: 1/13/2012

37 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 Asst. Retirement Admin./Inv. Survey Agency Alameda County ERA City & County of San Francisco ERS City of Los Angeles ERS City of San Diego ERS Contra Costa County ERA Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Los Angeles County Retirement System Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Orange County ERS PERS San Bernardino County ERA San Diego County ERA San Joaquin County ERA San Mateo County ERA Sonoma County ERA State Teachers' Retirement System Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA Median Comparable Class Chief Operating Investment Officer Retirement Assistant Chief Investment Officer Asst. Retirement Admin./Inv. Median % +/- Median Cost of Living and Wage Differential Analysis ERI COL ERI Wage Wage Adj. Base Wage Adj. Base+ Cash Wage Adj. Base+ Cash+Ins. Wage Adj. Total Comp $ 26,500 $ 26,500 $ 27,783 $ 39, $ 14,261 $ 15,615 $ 16,608 $ 20, $ 10,812 $ 11,282 $ 12,549 $ 21, I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. Print Date: 1/13/2012

38 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 Chief Investment Officer Survey Agency Alameda County ERA City & County of San Francisco ERS City of Los Angeles ERS City of San Diego ERS Contra Costa County ERA Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Los Angeles County Retirement System Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Orange County ERS PERS San Bernardino County ERA San Diego County ERA San Joaquin County ERA San Mateo County ERA Sonoma County ERA State Teachers' Retirement System Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA Median Comparable Class Chief Investment Officer, ACERA Deputy Dir for Investments, Retirement Chief Investment Officer Investment Officer Retirement Chief Investment Officer Chief Investment Officer Chief Investment Officer, Retirement Chief Investment Officer New Position - Salary Pending Retirement Chief Investment Officer Retirement Investment Officer Chief Investment Officer Retirement Investment Officer Chief Investment Officer Chief Investment Officer Median % +/- Median Cost of Living and Wage Differential Analysis ERI COL ERI Wage , , , , ,356 Wage Adj. Wage Adj. Wage Adj. Base+ Base+ Base Cash Cash+Ins. $ $ 15,035 16,628 $ $ 21,582 22,158 $ $ 11,772 12,991 $ $ 17,106 18,117 $ $ 14,731 16,282 Wage Adj. Total Comp $ $ 20,076 $ $ 26,841 $ $ 15,656 $ $ 19,939 $ $ 20, $ 30,380 $ 32,051 $ 33,156 $ 37, $ 13,766 $ 14,661 $ 15,811 $ 18, $ 47,583 $ 47,583 $ 48,866 $ 58, $ 17,568 $ 19,237 $ 20,243 $ 24, $ 10,111 $ 10,313 $ 12,420 $ 15, $ 13,446 $ 13,739 $ 15,321 $ 19, $ 10,158 $ 10,615 $ 11,336 $ 14, $ 30,417 $ 30,417 $ 31,927 $ 36, $ 12,712 $ 13,265 $ 14,532 $ 17, $14,597 $15,035 $16,628 $20, % -13.3% -14.4% -14.0% Print Date: 1/13/2012

39 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 General Counsel Survey Agency Alameda County ERA City & County of San Francisco ERS City of Los Angeles ERS City of San Diego ERS Contra Costa County ERA Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Los Angeles County Retirement System Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Orange County ERS PERS San Bernardino County ERA San Diego County ERA San Joaquin County ERA San Mateo County ERA Sonoma County ERA State Teachers' Retirement System Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA Median sel Comparable Class Chief Counsel, ACERA Retirement General Counsel General Counsel Retirement General Counsel II Chief Counsel, Legal Chief Counsel, Disability Litigation General Counsel New Position - Salary Pending Chief Deputy County Counsel General Counsel General Counsel Median % +/- Median Cost of Living and Wage Differential Analysis ERI COL ERI Wage ,301 Wage Adj. Wage Adj. Wage Adj. Base+ Base+ Base Cash Cash+Ins. $ $ 14,730 16,322 Wage Adj. Total Comp $ $ 19, $ 16,857 $ 16,857 $ 17,868 $ 19, $ 11,422 $ 12,609 $ 14,147 $ 17, $ 11,817 $ 12,526 $ 13,430 $ 17, $ 18,312 $ 18,312 $ 19,417 $ 21, $ 26,833 $ 26,833 $ 28,116 $ 33, $ 14,552 $ 15,651 $ 17,228 $ 22, $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 21,438 $ 24, $ 11,743 $ 12,254 $ 13,521 $ 16, $15,704 $16,254 $17,548 $20, % -32.6% -29.8% -27.0% Print Date: 1/13/2012

40 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2011 Retirement Administrator/CEO Survey Agency Alameda County ERA City & County of San Francisco ERS City of Los Angeles ERS City of San Diego ERS Contra Costa County ERA Fresno County ERA Kern County ERA Los Angeles County Retirement System Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System Los Angeles Water & Power ERP Marin County ERA Orange County ERS PERS San Bernardino County ERA San Diego County ERA San Joaquin County ERA San Mateo County ERA Sonoma County ERA State Teachers' Retirement System Tulare County ERA Ventura County ERA Median Comparable Class CEO, ACERA Department Head V General Manager - LACERS Retirement Administrator/CEO Retirement Chief Executive Officer Retirement Administrator Executive Director Chief Executive Officer/LACERA Retirement Administrator Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer Retirement Chief Executive Officer Retirement Administrator Chief Executive Officer/SAMCERA Retirement Administrator Chief Executive Officer Retirement Administrator Retirement Administrator Retirement Administrator/CEO Median % +/- Median Cost of Living and Wage Differential Analysis ERI COL ERI Wage , , , , , , , ,034 Wage Adj. Wage Adj. Wage Adj. Base+ Base+ Base Cash Cash+Ins. $ $ 19,561 21,156 $ $ 18,520 19,096 $ $ 18,680 19,899 $ $ 24,366 25,378 $ $ 16,775 18,336 $ $ 14,790 15,552 $ $ 16,888 17,792 $ $ 17,530 18,635 Wage Adj. Total Comp $ $ 25,490 $ $ 23,184 $ $ 24,020 $ $ 27,941 $ $ 22,927 $ $ 22,183 $ $ 23,160 $ $ 21, $ 16,721 $ 17,762 $ 18,555 $ 22, $ 14,893 $ 15,861 $ 17,011 $ 20, $ 19,916 $ 20,436 $ 21,719 $ 26, $ 22,111 $ 26,066 $ 27,225 $ 32, $ 20,054 $ 22,552 $ 23,569 $ 28, $ 15,155 $ 16,523 $ 18,630 $ 22, $ 15,279 $ 16,393 $ 17,976 $ 22, $ 16,510 $ 17,702 $ 18,496 $ 22, $ 26,250 $ 26,250 $ 27,732 $ 31, $ 12,795 $ 14,458 $ 14,688 $ 16, $ 13,559 $ 15,372 $ 16,030 $ 18, $ 14,618 $ 15,704 $ 16,971 $ 20, $16,721 $17,702 $18,630 $22, % -12.7% -9.8% -12.5% Print Date: 1/13/2012

41 $30,000 Asst. Retirement Administrator/CBO $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 Base Salary Base + Cash Base + Cash + Ins. Total Compensation $5,000

42 $30,000 Asst. Retirement Administrator/COO $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 Base Salary Base + Cash Base + Cash + Ins. Total Compensation $5,000

43 $75,000 Chief Investment Officer $65,000 $55,000 $45,000 $35,000 $25,000 $15,000 Base Salary Base + Cash Base + Cash + Ins. Total Compensation $5,000

44 $40,000 General Counsel $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 Base Salary Base + Cash Base + Cash + Ins. Total Compensation $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 Kern County ERA Contra Costa County ERA Alameda County ERA San Mateo County ERA City of San Diego ERS Los Angeles County Retirement System State Teachers' Retirement System PERS

45 $35,000 Retirement Administrator/CEO $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 Base Salary Base + Cash Base + Cash + Ins. Total Compensation $5,000