HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6a. Review of the 2021 Benchmark Compensation Study Report for SLOCEA and the Unrepresented Management and Confidential Groups Item 6a
Department: Human Resources
Cost Center: 3001
For Agenda of: 2/1/2022
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
FROM: Nickole Domini, Human Resources Director
Prepared By: Brittani Roltgen, Interim Human Resources Manager
SUBJECT: 2021 BENCHMARK COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT FOR THE SAN
LUIS OBISPO CITY EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION, AND
UNREPRESENTED MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL GROUPS
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the 2021 Benchmark Compensation Report for the San Luis Obispo City
Employees’ Association (SLOCEA) and Unrepresented Management and Confidential
Bargaining Units.
DISCUSSION
The 2021 Benchmark Compensation Report (Attachment A) includes an executive
summary and an overview of the methodology and results. Therefore, a thorough
summary of the report is not provided here to avoid redundancy.
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to provide competitive compensation to
continue to attract and retain talented, qualified, and experienced employees who provide
the high-quality public services the community needs and expects. This is in accordance
with the City’s Compensation Philosophy that was adopted by Council in 2011 to guide
compensation decisions for labor negotiations and decisions . The philosophy further
states that in evaluating competitive compensation, the relevant labor market is
considered along with fiscal responsibility, community acceptability, internal relationships,
and other relevant factors. The City aims to conduct a compensation study every five
years, with the last study completed in 2014 -15. Based off of the timing of agreements
with employee groups, compensation studies have typically occurred every seven years
in practice. The City planned to complete a compensation study in 2020, but the study
was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
City Council approved the completion of a benchmark compensation study with the 2021-
23 Financial Plan. Following a Request for Proposal process, Management Strategies
Group Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, LLP was selected to conduct the study on behalf of
the City. The study includes classifications in the City’s general unit, San Luis Obispo City
Employees’ Association (SLOCEA), as well as Unrepresented Management and
Confidential bargaining units. Staff completed a compensation study and made
adjustments for Police and Fire groups in advance of their last contract expiring in 2020
and 2021.
Page 135 of 233
Item 6a
The methodology of the study is explained in detail within the report. Two key factors
critical to note include what constitutes the relevant labor market and the collaborative
process involved with internal stakeholders. The relevant labor market for the City of San
Luis Obispo was selected based on industry sector, demographic factors, and recruitment
and retention data. Based on these factors, the 2021 Benchmark Compensation Report
provides comparisons to other cities with similar demographic factors as San Luis Obispo,
special districts in some cases for Utilities Department classifications, as well as the
County of San Luis Obispo.
Throughout the study, Human Resources staff met regularly with an advisory committee
comprised of employees represented by SLOCEA and Unrepresented Management. This
committee provided input on the relevant labor market, benchmark classifications, internal
relationships, key data points, and classification matches with comparison agencies.
Summary of Findings
The full 2021 Benchmark Compensation Report provides important information and
datapoints, but the following are summary findings of the survey.
The survey included a total of twenty-two (22) benchmark classifications, including
thirteen (13) represented by San Luis Obispo City Employees’ Association
(SLOCEA) and nine (9) designated management.
Overall, the City’s base salaries compared to other surveyed employers are 8.55%
below the median. Seventeen (17) benchmarks were 5% or more below the
median.
The City’s base salaries for SLOCEA represented employees in comparison to
other surveyed employers are 9.8% below the median.
The City’s base salaries for management employees in comparison to other
surveyed employers are 6.75% below the median.
The City’s total compensation (including base salaries, retirement, and benefits
plans), overall, compared to other surveyed employers, is 7.4% below the median.
Sixteen (16) classes were 5% or more below the median.
The City’s total compensation for SLOCEA represented employees (including
base salaries, retirement, and benefits plans), compared to other surveyed
employers, is 6.68% below the median.
The City’s total compensation for management employees (including base
salaries, retirement, and benefits plans) compared to other surveyed employers is
8.5% below the market median.
As a general industry standard, a classification that surveys within 5% of the
market median is considered competitive.
Page 136 of 233
Item 6a
Next Steps
The purpose of the study is to provide objectively verifiable data that will help guide
contract negotiations with SLOCEA and conversations with Unrepresented Management
and Confidential groups whose agreements and resolutions expire on June 30, 2022.
Staff will return to Council in closed session to receive negotiating parameters for these
groups that align with Council adopted Labor Relations Objectives (Attachment B) and
the City’s Compensation Philosophy. The City’s Compensation Philosophy speaks to
many of the same themes as the Labor Relations Objectives. The Labor Relations
Objectives also speak to best practices and compliance with applicable law.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
City Council adopted a Compensation Philosophy in 2011 that provided the foundational
methodology for how the 2021 Benchmark Compensation study was conducted.
Policy Context
The Compensation Philosophy states that the City will evaluate its compensation
structure, programs, and policies to assess market competitiveness, effectiveness, and
compliance with State Law every five years.
Public Engagement
This item is on the City Council Agenda for the meeting of February 1, 2022. The agenda
packet will be posted a week in advance, and the public will have the opportunity to
provide public comment on this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in
this report because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines
Sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2021-22
Funding Identified:
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
Page 137 of 233
Item 6a
There is no fiscal impact to receiving the 2021 Benchmark Compensation Report as there
are no recommendations to change compensation contained in this report.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could choose not to accept and file the 2021 Benchmark
Compensation Report and direct staff to pursue additional information or modify
the survey approach. This alternative is not recommended by staff for two reasons. First,
the report was conducted based on the methodology outlined in the City’s Compensation
Philosophy. Second, because the City is planning to use the outcome of the 2021
Benchmark Compensation Report to inform negotiations with SLOCEA and
conversations with Unrepresented Management and Confidential groups. All three of
these bargaining groups have resolutions or memorandums of agreement expiring on
June 30, 2022. Pursuing additional compensation information or restarting the survey
could impact the timeframe in which staff can meet with these groups and reach an
agreement with SLOCEA.
ATTACHMENTS
A - 2021 Benchmark Compensation Report
B - Labor Relations Objectives
Page 138 of 233
January 2022
Total Compensation Study
City of San Luis Obispo
Page 139 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................. 1
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Compensation Survey Advisory Committee ................................................................................ 3
Survey Elements .............................................................................................................................. 4
Comparator Agencies .................................................................................................................. 4
Surveyed Classifications ............................................................................................................. 5
Current Position Count Compared to Survey Benchmarks ........................................................ 6
Surveyed Datapoints ................................................................................................................... 7
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 10
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 10
Classification Matching Methodology ...................................................................................... 10
Survey Summary............................................................................................................................ 12
Base Salary Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 12
Total Compensation .................................................................................................................. 13
Benefits ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Retirement ................................................................................................................................. 15
Internal Relationships ............................................................................................................... 15
Cost of Living ............................................................................................................................ 15
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Survey Summary
Appendix II: Total Compensation Data by Benchmark
Appendix III: Benchmarks and Associated Classes
Page 140 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
1
Executive Summary
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo conducts market compensation studies every few years to determine
their competitiveness and utilize the resulting information to help inform their compensation-
related decision-making. The City selected the Management Strategies Group to complete its
2021-22 total compensation survey.
From August through November 2021, Management Strategies Group (the ‘consultant’)
conducted a benchmark-based total compensation study for the City of San Luis Obispo (the
‘City’) job classifications. This report describes the study methodologies, study elements, and
survey findings of the total compensation study.
Summary of Findings
The following are summary findings of the survey.
• The survey included a total of twenty-two (22) benchmark classifications, including
thirteen (13) represented by San Luis Obispo City Employees’ Association (SLOCEA) and
nine (9) designated management.
• Overall, the City’s base salaries compared to other surveyed employers are 8.55% below
the median. Seventeen (17) benchmarks were 5% or more below the median.
• The City’s base salaries for SLOCEA represented employees in comparison to other
surveyed employers are 9.8% below the median.
• The City’s base salaries for management employees in comparison to other surveyed
employers are 6.75% below the median.
• The City’s total compensation (including base salaries, retirement, and benefits plans),
overall, compared to other surveyed employers, is 7.4% below the median. Sixteen (16)
classes were 5% or more below the median.
• The City’s total compensation for SLOCEA represented employees (including base
salaries, retirement, and benefits plans), compared to other surveyed employers, is 6.68%
below the median.
• The City’s total compensation for management employees (including base salaries,
retirement, and benefits plans) compared to other surveyed employers is 8.5% below the
market median.
• As a general industry standard, a classification that surveys within 5% of the market median
is considered competitive.
Page 141 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
2
The survey results are intended to provide objective information to assist in compensation planning
and should be assessed along with recruitment and retention experience, organizational needs, and
the City's fiscal condition.
Page 142 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
3
Overview
Compensation studies in the public sector typically include three elements of critical importance,
including:
1. defining the survey universe,
2. selection of the survey classes, and
3. selection of the survey data points.
The quality and value of survey outcomes are primarily a function of how well the three elements
have been defined and the quality of data collection to populate the survey.
Compensation Survey Advisory Committee
For purposes of this survey, in addition to utilizing the expert services of the consultant, the City
relied on its Human Resources staff and an advisory committee of employees representing a wide
variety of occupations and interests. The advisory committee was formed to provide input on
selecting classifications to be surveyed (benchmarks), ensuring all classifications in the City were
adequately represented by the benchmarks, defining the relevant labor markets, selecting
comparison agencies and data points, and regularly communicating progress to all employees.
The use of an employee advisory committee substantially increases the inclusiveness of the
process. As a result of the committees ongoing involvement, the information presented here is
fully transparent, having been shared and reviewed previously. The survey is very much the
product of a collaboration between employees and management which is unique to the City of San
Luis Obispo.
Page 143 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
4
Survey Elements
Comparator Agencies
The City has previously utilized different variations of comparator markets. All of the recent
surveys included agencies from Southern California, the central coast, the central valley, Northern
California, and San Luis Obispo County. For this survey, the City revisited the most recent
comparators and removed selected cities from the central valley and the north, adding or
substituting additional cities from Southern California. These modifications recognize continuing
recruitment patterns that reflect a greater connection to Southern California. The total survey
universe declined from twelve (12) agencies in 2014 to eleven (11) in this survey. This number is
sufficient for statistical purposes. The City survey also included special districts where no local
municipal agencies provide certain utility services.
The list of the City’s comparator agencies for the non-safety classes in this survey includes the
following:
1. Burbank (new)
2. Culver City (including City of Los Angeles) (new)
3. Davis
4. Monterey (including Monterey One Water)
5. Napa (including NapaSan)
6. Paso Robles
7. Santa Barbara
8. Santa Cruz
9. Santa Maria (including Central Coast Water)
10. County of San Luis Obispo
11. Ventura
The survey universe for the Fire Chief included the cities used for Firefighter surveys to ensure
consistency between Fire service rank and file and senior management. The following were the
comparator agencies for the Fire Chief survey:
1. Davis
2. Monterey
3. Napa
Page 144 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
5
4. Petaluma
5. Pleasanton
6. Salinas
7. Santa Barbara
8. Santa Cruz
9. Santa Maria
Surveyed Classifications
The classifications selected for this survey are intended to provide a comprehensive picture of the
competitiveness of the City’s compensation program. An essential criterion for selecting and using
benchmarks is that they represent a significant number of classifications in similar occupational
groups and that reliable generalizations can be applied to other related classifications.
Consequently, the choice of classifications should reflect the distribution of classifications by
occupational groupings. The occupational grouping information is presented below.
The City has approximately 170 regular job classifications representing SLOCEA, Confidential,
and Management employees. The majority of these are single-class positions, meaning there is
only one employee in each. Surveying 170 classifications is not likely to produce sound matches,
nor would it produce statistically sound results. Instead, twenty-two (22) representative
benchmark classifications were selected as the basis for this study. The information retrieved for
these 22 representative benchmarks provides a picture of the City’s competitiveness with respect
to various occupational groups in the relevant labor market. To ensure this sampling of benchmark
classifications was representative, all City classifications were sorted primarily by occupational
groupings as reported in the table below.
Classifications that are well suited to being utilized as a benchmark are those that are relatively
common in other agencies and are representative of a sizable portion of the City’s workforce. The
Committee reviewed the benchmarks used in the prior Benchmark Compensation Study and
decided to use many of the same benchmarks but considered alternative benchmarks in cases where
job matches were not prevalent, or the quality of match varied. While journey or mid-level
classifications are typically the easiest to match, in some cases the Committee proposed the senior
level of a classification series because it was representative of a larger number of i ncumbents at
the City.
The City identified twenty-two (22) survey classifications for which to collect compensation data,
including:
1. Accounting Assistant III
Page 145 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
6
2. Accounting Manager
3. Administrative Analyst
4. Administrative Assistant II
5. Associate Planner
6. Building Inspector II
7. Code Enforcement Officer I
8. Deputy Director of Public Works, Maintenance
9. Director of Public Works
10. Engineer II
11. Fire Chief
12. Heavy Equipment Mechanic
13. Human Resources Analyst
14. Information Technology Systems Engineer
15. Laboratory Analyst
16. Parking Enforcement Officer I
17. Recreation Supervisor
18. Street Maintenance Operator
19. Street Maintenance Supervisor
20. Supervising Building Inspector
21. Water Resource Recovery Facility Operator
22. Water Treatment Plant Operator
Current Position Count Compared to Survey Benchmarks
The following table compares actual staffing by occupation with the survey benchmarks by
occupation. The table demonstrates the extent to which the survey benchmarks are roughly in line
with the actual allocation of position by occupation. Deviation between current positions and
survey benchmarks is largely attributable to the fact that there are many more positions authorized
at lower levels than at management levels.
Page 146 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
7
Current Positions
% of
Workforce Survey Benchmarks
% of
Workforce
Administrative Staff 5.45% Administrative Staff 5.26%
Clerical 9.82% Clerical 5.26%
Crafts and Trades 2.55% Crafts and Trades 5.26%
Labor/Maintenance 25.82% Labor/Maintenance 15.79%
Management/Administrative 3.64% Management/Administrative 5.26%
Professional 19.27% Professional 26.32%
Safety/Protective Services 1.82% Safety/Protective Services 10.53%
Service 3.27% Service 0%
Supervisory 12.73% Supervisory 15.79%
Technical/Paraprofessional 15.64% Technical/Paraprofessional 10.53%
Grand Total 100.00% Grand Total 100.00%
Surveyed Datapoints
Before beginning the survey, the last element requiring definition involves the specific salary (cash
to employee) and benefit (employer-paid) data collected. The following salary, retirement, and
health and welfare data were collected for each benchmark classification. The cost of these
benefits to each agency was converted into dollar amounts added to base salaries for total
compensation purposes. While employee retirement contribution levels were surveyed and
reported, they are not included in the total compensation amounts, which include only the net cost
to the employer, and do not reflect co-payments by employees.
1. Maximum Base Salary: In most public sector agencies, progression through a salary range is
based on time within the organization as well as performance. Salary ranges are typically
established with progression to top step or the maximum of the range after some years of
service, with each range having a width of approximately 20%. The monthly top step was
Page 147 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
8
surveyed for all non-Skills Based Pay (SBP) classifications to provide input as to whether the
maximum earning potential for classifications is deemed competitive. When available, Step 6
of the City’s SBP salary range was used as it represents the salary of a full journey-level
position.
2. Retirement: Includes both defined benefit and deferred compensation. The data provided
reflects the costs for the Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) tier of CalPERS
retirement plan, or its equivalent. Employees in the PEPRA tier have been hired since January
2013 or have had a break in service from a public agency for more than six months prior to
being rehired after that date. Rates for employers who do not participate in CalPERS are based
on employees who meet similar criteria as those under PEPRA. The rates for employees hired
before PEPRA (‘classic’ employees) were not surveyed or reported as virtually all new
employees, and a substantial percentage of the current staff in the City of San Luis Obispo are
subject to the provisions of PEPRA.
Three figures are reported for this data point: the employer contribution rate for PEPRA, the
employee contribution for PEPRA, and employer contributions towards deferred
compensation. As noted above, only employer costs are included in the total compensation
summary. The employee PEPRA contribution rate is provided for informational purposes only.
3. Health and Welfare: The employer-paid premiums for an employee with family coverage
were reported. A separate table in the Survey Summary section shows the percent of the total
plan premium of the comparator agencies’ most popular HMO and PPO plans that is covered
by this contribution. HMOs have become more popular over time and are the preferred option
in many localities when they are available. However, PPOs continue to be popular as well. In
most cases, the employer contribution is the same regardless of the plan selected. In these
instances, the employee contribution is usually greater or lesser depending on the underlying
cost of the chosen plan.
This survey does not include paid time off or other forms of direct and indirect compensation. Paid
time off was surveyed in prior City surveys and tends to be stable over time. Consequently, it was
not included in this survey. There are many other potential survey data points, but they tend to be
limited to particular working situations or for very specific training or skill sets. They have not
been included as they do not impact or are not available to most employees.
Finally, many of these classifications are eligible to earn overtime. In comparison to general
compensation and benefits, it is not easy to survey overtime payments for a single class. It can be
assumed that several of these classes do receive substantial compensation for overtime services.
Page 148 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
9
The impact of those payments can be considerable and may be worth analysis separately, along
with some of the other special payment types described above.
Page 149 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
10
Methodology
Data Collection
The data was collected in October and November of 2021 through internet websites, emails, direct
communication with human resources staff at each comparator agency, a review of agency
classification descriptions, memoranda of understanding, annual budgets, organization charts, and
related materials. The data was collected by the consultant’s compensation analyst and then
rechecked by the chief compensation consultant. All drafts were reviewed by City staff prior to
completion.
Classification Matching Methodology
Classification matching is one of the most challenging and sometimes contentious parts of the
survey process. The selection of matches has a direct impact on survey outcomes. There is simply
no formula for making matches. Indeed, good matching is based on extensive experience and
sound strategies. For this survey, three techniques were employed. First, all previous matches
were reviewed and reconfirmed or revised. The overwhelming majority of classifications surveyed
were also included in prior City surveys and matched at that time. Second, for all new benchmarks,
the consultant reviewed the classification descriptions along with budgets, organizational charts,
and labor agreements. Finally, following the consultant’s work, the advisory committee and the
City HR staff also reviewed the matches and identified areas where they had further questions.
Management Strategies’ classification matching approach includes an analysis of each
classification description by assessing and comparing factors, including:
➢ Core work orientation
➢ Job definition
➢ Typical job tasks
➢ Task complexity
➢ Distinguishing characteristics
➢ Level within a class series (i.e., entry, experienced, journey, advanced journey,
supervisory, manager)
➢ Reporting relationships
➢ Knowledge, abilities, and skills required to perform the work
Page 150 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
11
➢ Education and experience requirements
➢ Other required licenses or certificates
Virtually no classifications match exactly between agencies. For a match to be included,
Management Strategies requires that a position’s similarity be substantial and apparent. While we
do not employ a reliability or numerical match scale, we rely on a well-established industry best
practice known as the whole job or classification methodology, which involves comparing the
factors above. When there are no substantially similar positions, the consultant reports No Match.
As a general matter, the reliability of data is greatest where the largest number of matches is
observed. Conversely, reliability tends to be lower when there are fewer matches. While there is
no consensus on an exact number, the consultant recommends that any class with fewer than five
(5) matches be considered insufficient for significance.
In addition to the consultant’s work to determine and confirm survey match classifications, the
committee also reviewed all matches to confirm the consultant’s observations and to suggest
alternatives. The committee initially identified over forty (40) matches which they questioned. The
consultant revisited all of these and agreed that a substantial proportion should be revised.
Members of the committee were particularly concerned about matches that involved the
Information Technology Systems Engineer, and the water utility-related class benchmarks.
Matching for the Information Technology Systems Engineer proved challenging. This benchmark
class was particularly hard to match, with five (5) No Matches reported in the eleven comparators.
In fact, the final list of matches reflected changes from seven (7) of the preliminary matches. These
changes followed extensive added research by the City Human Resources staff, including
consultation with incumbents, supervisors, and other experts. Given the challenges in matching
this benchmark, and considerable discussion about the accuracy of the current description, the City
may wish to assess the need to conduct a future classification study.
The water utility related benchmarks generated two core issues. First, in several survey cities,
many of the duties which correspond to the City’s classifications are contracted out to special
district staff or private providers. In those cases, similar to the strategy used in the 2014 survey,
the special utility districts were included to the extent that they were performing the surveyed
duties. Secondly, there was considerable discussion about certification levels, and how best to
recognize them accurately in the matches. Like with San Luis Obispo, certifications are often a
pay element as well as a classification factor. Rather than creating a separate classification for each
certification level, some employers provide additional compensation based on the level or
certification required and/or held. The water utility benchmark was surveyed at the equivalent of
the sixth (6th) level in the City skills matrix (SBP), which requires a Grade III Water Treatment
Certificate. All matches also require at least the same certificate level.
Page 151 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
12
Survey Summary
Appendix I of this report contains a survey report for each benchmark classification. For each
benchmark, the following is shown in Appendix I:
1. The name of the surveyed organization.
2. The title of the comparator classification.
3. The current monthly pay range maximum.
4. Annual employer retirement contribution to defined benefit pension plan (PEPRA)
expressed as a percentage.
5. The employee retirement contribution expressed as a percentage (for information only).
6. Deferred compensation.
7. Total benefits, including the employer contribution for health care plans (Family
Coverage).
8. Employer total compensation cost. The total is a summary of employer cost only.
9. The market medians for salary only and for total compensation.
10. The percentage difference between the City’s data and the market data. (Note - this
percentage is not the level required to bring a class to the median, but rather the percentage
that the class is above or below the median.)
11. Future Bargaining Unit salary increases. This column indicates both the date, if known, of
the next salary increase for the surveyed employer, and the level of increase.
Base Salary Conclusions
The market analysis for the maximum base salary for the 22 classifications is noted below.
➢ Two benchmark classifications are paid above the market median:
• Two (2) classifications are paid above the market median by less than 5%.
• No classification is paid above the market median by more than 5%.
➢ Twenty (20) benchmark classifications are paid below the market median:
• Three (3) classifications are paid below the market median by less than 5%.
• Seven (7) classifications are paid below the market median by more than 5% and
less than 10%.
• Ten (10) classifications are paid below the market median by more than 10% and
less than 20%.
Page 152 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
13
Generally, a classification falling within 5% above or below the median is considered to be
competitive in the labor market for salary survey purposes. The tolerance recognizes differences
in compensation policy and the actual scope of work and position requirements. This data indicates
that only five (5) of the surveyed benchmarks are within that standard for base pay. All others are
more than 5% below the median. On average, the market position for all surveyed benchmarks
falls 8.55% below the market median.
Total Compensation
The market analysis for the total compensation for the twenty-two (22) classifications is noted
below.
➢ One benchmark classification is paid above the market median:
• One classification is paid above the market median by less than 5%.
➢ Twenty-one (21) benchmark classifications are paid below the market median:
• Five (5) classifications are paid below the market median by less than 5%.
• Eight (8) classifications are paid below the market median by more than 5% and
less than 10%.
• Eight (8) classifications are paid below the market median by more than 10% and
less than 20%.
Again, utilizing the 5% standard, six (6) of the surveyed benchmarks are within this standard. All
other benchmarks are below this standard. On average, the surveyed benchmarks are 7.43% below
the market median. As discussed below, this improvement in competitiveness for total
compensation is largely the result of higher employer retirement costs for the City.
Benefits
Retirement – in general the City’s net employer contribution rate is higher than the survey averages
for SLOCEA classifications as they do not participate in cost sharing. Conversely, the employee
contribution to the retirement plan is lower than the market average for SLOCEA classifications.
These outcomes appear to be the consequence of the fact that bargaining units in many surveyed
cities have negotiated to pay some percentage of the employer cost, resulting in a lower employer
cost, but higher employee contribution.
Health – the survey included a supplement which offers information concerning the percentage
that the employer contribution pays toward both PPO and HMO plans. The information is provided
in the table below.
Page 153 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
14
We recognize that health insurance varies considerably as a function of location, availability of
services, and other localized factors. In setting rates, for example, CalPERS uses regional pricing.
Consequently, it can be difficult to compare plans simply by cost. The table below employs a
common metric which can be compared in differing health care markets, reflecting the percentage
of the health premium which is covered by the employer’s contribution rate.
The data shows that the City contributes 84% toward the HMO family plan. This contribution level
is just below the median. By contrast, for the PPO plan, the City offers an employer payment which
fully covers the plan premium, and which is above six of the comparators who offer a PPO plan.
Percentages shown below also reflect “cash back” policies, in which agencies offer employees that
select a health plan with a lower premium than the agency contribution the balance as cash or allow
them to apply it towards other benefits. Any agency without a cash back policy and a higher
contribution than the relevant premium will be shown as covering 100% of that premium.
Agency City
Contribution
HMO
Premium
Percent
Covered
(HMO)
PPO
Premium
Percent
Covered (PPO)
Burbank $ 1,510.00 $ 1,741.58 87% $ 1,979.20 76%
Culver City $ 1,801.00 $ 1,741.58 103% $ 1,979.20 91%
Davis $ 1,908.85 $ 2,115.46 90% $ 1,473.34 100%
Monterey $ 2,330.00 $ 2,406.56 97% $ 2,433.18 96%
Napa $ 1,795.00 $ 1,882.78 95% NA NA
Paso Robles $ 1,640.00 $ 1,881.98 87% $ 1,638.14 100%
Santa
Barbara $ 1,202.52 $ 2,659.52 45% $ 2,219.56 54%
Santa Cruz1 $ 2,831.10 $ 2,724.39 104% $ 1,953.26 145%
Santa Maria $ 1,654.59 $ 2,441.30 68% $ 1,239.99 100%
County of
SLO $ 1,310.00 NA NA $ 1,558.00 84%
Ventura $ 1,160.00 $ 1,636.10 71% $ 3,710.36 31%
Median 89% 93%
San Luis
Obispo $1,588.00 $1,881.98 84% $1,239.99 100%
1 Unable to verify whether Santa Cruz has a cash back policy
Page 154 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
15
Retirement
Retirement data shows two trends. First, we see that in many surveyed organizations the employees
are paying some part of the employer’s retirement contribution. As San Luis Obispo employees in
classifications represented by SLOCEA pay only their own mandatory contribution, the City’s cost
for retirement tends to be higher. Unrepresented employees in the Management and Confidential
groups pay an additional 3% toward the employer’s share of CalPERS retirement contributions.
Secondly, like San Luis Obispo, in some surveyed organizations management employees are
contributing a greater percent toward retirement than rank and file employees (e.g. Santa Cruz,
Santa Maria). Both of these observed patterns tend to improve the total compensation outcomes
for the City.
Internal Relationships
Benchmark based surveys are the basis for providing general information about the City’s
competitiveness. General conclusions about whether the City pays at, leads, or lags the market
overall, for a job family, and closely related classifications, may be made based on the benchmark
data. All non-benchmark classes are assigned to a benchmark so that the survey conclusions could
be generalized to the whole organization. The assignment and assessment of internal relationships
was not part of this study and is not presented in this report. The complete listing of classes by
benchmarks and their associated classifications as developed by the city human resources staff has
been provided in Appendix III of this report.
Cost of Living
This survey is somewhat unusual because it includes employers from four different parts of the
state rather than being limited to nearby employers. This broader survey area is the consequence
of the geographical isolation of San Luis Obispo and the resulting lack of a sufficient number of
geographically nearby similar organizations. The cost of living varies significantly among this
group of survey cities, largely due to variations in housing costs in different parts of the state,
which are a significant component in the cost-of-living analysis. There are regional indices that
provide the data for calculating these variations. However, we do not recommend using the cost-
of-living adjustment formula for this survey as they may become more disruptive than informative
given wide variations. Additionally, previous City surveys did not adjust for the cost-of-living
factor.
The table below displays the relative cost of living among the survey cities. Notably, the two cities
geographically closest to San Luis Obispo have the most significant variance below the San Luis
Page 155 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
16
Obispo cost of living. Conversely, two survey cities have a cost of living which is more than 40%
higher than the City, again driven by the high cost of housing.
As a final observation, the compensation levels surveyed do not correspond directly to the cost of
living reported below. For example, while Culver City and Santa Barbara report the highest cost
of living relative to San Luis Obispo, their compensation levels are often in the bottom half of
surveyed employers.
Survey City Cost of Living In Survey Cities Compared to SLO
Burbank +23.6%
Culver City +41.4%
Davis -0.5%
Monterey +13.1%
Napa +3.6%
Paso Robles -12.7%
Santa Barbara +40.9%
Santa Cruz +31.5%
Santa Maria -21.5%
County of SLO NC
Ventura -3.1%
Median +8.35%
Page 156 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Appendix I
Survey Summary
Page 157 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
#2021 Benchmark Classification Department Bargaining Unit Salary Results
(+/- Median)
Total Comp Results
(+/- Median)
Number of
Matches
1 Accounting Assistant III Finance SLOCEA -7.17%-6.34%11
2 Accounting Manager Finance Management -4.59%-8.49%11
3 Administrative Analyst Varies Management -12.54%-11.43%10
4 Administrative Assistant II Varies SLOCEA -2.09%-1.08%11
5 Associate Planner Community Development SLOCEA -10.05%-9.26%11
6 Building Inspector II Community Development SLOCEA -6.78%-0.42%11
7 Code Enforcement Officer I Community Development SLOCEA -9.69%-2.54%7
8 Deputy Director of Public Works - Maintenance* Public Works Management -7.81%-10.82%8
9 Director of Public Works Public Works Management -13.23%-12.58%11
10 Engineer II Public Works SLOCEA -7.38%-5.71%9
11 Fire Chief*Fire Management -12.93%-15.11%9
12 Heavy Equipment Mechanic Public Works SLOCEA -8.17%-6.04%11
13 Human Resources Analyst*Human Resources Management -11.21%-11.94%8
14 Information Technology Systems Engineer Administration SLOCEA -17.94%-15.00%6
15 Laboratory Analyst (SBP)Utilities SLOCEA -7.63%-4.87%9
16 Parking Enforcement Officer I*Public Works SLOCEA -10.68%-8.57%6
17 Recreation Supervisor Parks and Recreation Management -4.15%-5.11%11
18 Streets Maintenance Operator (SBP)Public Works SLOCEA -14.70%-6.96%11
19 Streets Maintenance Supervisor*Public Works Management 2.41%-1.25%10
20 Supervising Building Inspector*Community Development Management 3.27%0.26%8
21 Water Resource Recovery Facility Operator (SBP) Utilities SLOCEA -12.73%-10.01%10
22 Water Treatment Plant Operator (SBP)Utilities SLOCEA -12.37%-10.09%9
Average All -8.55%-7.43%
Average CEA -9.80%-6.68%
Average MME -6.75%-8.50%
Tier Percentage Count Percentage Count
More than 5% under median 77%17 73%16
Between 0% and 5% under median 14%3 23%5
Above median 9%2 5%1
Salary Total Comp
*New or revised classification since the 2014-15 benchmark compensation study
Page 158 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Appendix II
Total Monthly Compensation Data by Benchmark
Accounting Assistant III
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Account Clerk BCEA 4,808.33$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%54.17$ 6,694.51$ TBD
Culver City Senior Account Clerk CCEA 5,026.06$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%130.00$ 7,140.26$ TBD
Davis Senior Accounting Assistant PASEA 4,717.63$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 6,909.54$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Accounting Assistant GEM 5,312.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 8,122.92$ TBD
Napa Accounting Technician (Entry)NCEA 6,064.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%50.00$ 8,046.59$ TBD
Paso Robles Accounts Payable Clerk SEIU 5,415.80$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%54.17$ 7,315.93$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Accounting Technician GU 5,854.14$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 7,440.11$ TBD
Santa Cruz Accounting Technician Service 6,312.00$ 2,831.10$ 4.93%9.75%-$ 9,454.16$ TBD
Santa Maria Accounting Technician II GE 5,564.95$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 7,588.78$ TBD
County of SLO Senior Account Clerk SLOCEA 4,764.93$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 6,233.13$ TBD
Ventura Senior Accounting Assistant SEIU - G 5,097.87$ 1,160.00$ 6.76%7.00%54.17$ 6,656.65$ TBD
Median 5,312.00$ 7,315.93$
San Luis Obispo Accounting Assistant III SLOCEA 4,931.33$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 6,852.44$ TBD
SLO vs Median -7.17%-6.34%
Page 159 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 160 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Accounting Manager
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Accounting & Audit Manager BMA 13,087.17$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%75.00$ 15,548.62$ TBD
Culver City Accounting Operations Manager CCMG 10,923.62$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%346.67$ 13,469.45$ TBD
Davis Finance Manager Unrep Manage 10,720.93$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 13,273.04$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Assistant Finance Director MEA 13,334.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 16,720.18$ TBD
Napa Deputy Finance Director AMPE 13,126.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%100.00$ 15,318.83$ TBD
Paso Robles Finance Manager Nonrep 11,762.70$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%350.00$ 14,200.04$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Accounting Manager Manage. 2 11,388.35$ 1,815.67$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 13,949.95$ TBD
Santa Cruz Finance Manager Mid-Manage.11,291.00$ 2,667.99$ 3.43%11.25%-$ 14,346.05$ TBD
Santa Maria Accounting Manager Nonrep 10,598.77$ 1,071.00$ 5.14%9.00%25.00$ 12,239.02$ TBD
County of SLO Principal Auditor-Analyst Op/Staff Manage.10,666.93$ 1,250.00$ 3.32%13.50%41.67$ 12,312.74$ TBD
Ventura Accounting Manager Management 10,892.49$ 1,160.00$ 6.76%7.00%174.33$ 12,963.15$ TBD
Median 11,291.00$ 13,949.95$
San Luis Obispo Accounting Manager Management 10,772.67$ 1,588.00$ 3.76%10.00%-$ 12,765.18$ TBD
SLO vs Median -4.59%-8.49%
Page 161 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 162 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Administrative Analyst
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Administrative Analyst II BMA 7,891.02$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%75.00$ 10,004.48$ TBD
Culver City Management Analyst CCMG 8,471.78$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%346.67$ 10,928.24$ TBD
Davis Management Analyst II Management 7,956.94$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 10,343.21$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Administrative Analyst MEA 8,498.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 11,537.39$ TBD
Napa Management Analyst I AMP 8,387.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%100.00$ 10,472.30$ TBD
Paso Robles No Match
Santa Barbara Administrative Analyst I GU 7,975.54$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 9,700.46$ TBD
Santa Cruz Management Analyst Mid-Manage.8,442.00$ 2,667.99$ 3.43%11.25%-$ 11,399.38$ TBD
Santa Maria Management Analyst II Nonrep 8,300.20$ 1,071.00$ 5.14%9.00%25.00$ 9,822.42$ TBD
County of SLO Administrative Analyst II Op/Staff Manage.7,931.73$ 1,250.00$ 3.32%13.50%41.67$ 9,486.73$ TBD
Ventura Management Analyst II SEIU - S 8,060.24$ 665.00$ 6.76%7.00%151.49$ 9,421.61$ TBD
Median 8,180.22$ 10,173.84$
San Luis Obispo Administrative Analyst Management 7,154.33$ 1,588.00$ 3.76%10.00%-$ 9,010.98$ TBD
SLO vs Median -12.54%-11.43%
Page 163 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 164 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Administrative Assistant II
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Senior Clerk BCEA 5,068.94$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%54.17$ 6,972.57$ TBD
Culver City Administrative Clerk CCEA 4,782.74$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%130.00$ 6,888.07$ TBD
Davis Senior Office Assistant PASEA 4,319.38$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 6,487.39$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Administrative Assistant GEM 5,312.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 8,122.92$ TBD
Napa Office Assistant II NCEA 5,202.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%50.00$ 7,165.03$ TBD
Paso Robles Administrative Assistant II SEIU 4,782.25$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%54.17$ 6,658.28$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Office Specialist II GU 4,449.64$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 5,943.61$ TBD
Santa Cruz Administrative Assistant II Service 4,892.00$ 2,831.10$ 4.93%9.75%-$ 7,964.18$ TBD
Santa Maria Office Assistant II GE 3,953.19$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 5,870.08$ TBD
County of SLO Administrative Assistant III SLOCEA 4,279.60$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 5,731.68$ TBD
Ventura Senior Office Assistant SEIU - G 4,367.67$ 1,160.00$ 6.76%7.00%54.17$ 5,877.09$ TBD
Median 4,782.25$ 6,658.28$
San Luis Obispo Administrative Assistant II SLOCEA 4,682.17$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 6,586.45$ TBD
SLO vs Median -2.09%-1.08%
Page 165 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 166 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Associate Planner
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Associate Planner BCEA 8,446.01$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%54.17$ 10,575.81$ TBD
Culver City Associate Planner CCEA 8,305.68$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%130.00$ 10,539.42$ TBD
Davis Planner Management 8,475.00$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 10,892.35$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Associate Planner GEM 8,592.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 11,638.13$ TBD
Napa Associate Planner AMP 9,166.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%100.00$ 11,268.98$ TBD
Paso Robles Associate Planner Nonrep 7,754.37$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%350.00$ 10,039.27$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Associate Planner GU 8,095.75$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 9,828.54$ TBD
Santa Cruz Associate Planner II Service 9,726.00$ 2,831.10$ 4.93%9.75%-$ 13,036.40$ TBD
Santa Maria Associate Planner GE 7,153.10$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 9,282.30$ TBD
County of SLO Planner III SLOCEA 7,557.33$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 9,118.23$ TBD
Ventura Associate Planner SEIU - Q 8,261.74$ 1,160.00$ 6.76%7.00%151.49$ 10,131.73$ TBD
Median 8,305.68$ 10,539.42$
San Luis Obispo Associate Planner SLOCEA 7,470.67$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 9,563.31$ TBD
SLO vs Median -10.05%-9.26%
Page 167 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 168 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Building Inspector II
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Building Inspector III BMA 8,324.55$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%75.00$ 10,467.05$ TBD
Culver City Building Safety Inspector CCEA 7,010.94$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%130.00$ 9,197.49$ TBD
Davis Building Inspector II PASEA 6,590.22$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 8,894.48$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Inspector GEM 8,386.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 11,417.36$ TBD
Napa Building Inspector II NCEA 8,523.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%50.00$ 10,561.39$ TBD
Paso Robles Building Inspector SEIU 6,743.21$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%54.17$ 8,693.82$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Senior Building Inspector GU 8,349.29$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 10,098.69$ TBD
Santa Cruz Building Inspector Service 7,861.00$ 2,831.10$ 4.93%9.75%-$ 11,079.49$ TBD
Santa Maria Building Inspector II GE 6,594.84$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 8,686.99$ TBD
County of SLO Building Inspector III SLOCEA 7,607.60$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 9,170.17$ TBD
Ventura Senior Building Inspector SEIU - G 6,673.68$ 1,160.00$ 6.76%7.00%54.17$ 8,338.99$ TBD
Median 7,607.60$ 9,197.49$
San Luis Obispo Building Inspector II SLOCEA 7,091.50$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 9,158.53$ TBD
SLO vs Median -6.78%-0.42%
Page 169 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 170 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Code Enforcement Officer I
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EE Deferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank No Match
Culver City Code Enforcement Officer CCEA 6,537.59$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%130.00$ 8,706.89$ TBD
Davis No Match
Monterey No Match
Napa Code Enforcement Officer NCEA 7,710.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%50.00$ 9,729.94$ TBD
Paso Robles No Match
Santa Barbara Building Inspector GU 7,556.60$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 9,254.08$ TBD
Santa Cruz Code Compliance Specialist Service 7,861.00$ 2,831.10$ 4.93%9.75%-$ 11,079.49$ TBD
Santa Maria Code Enforcement Officer I GE 5,530.11$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 7,551.63$ TBD
County of SLO Resource Protection Specialist
II
SLOCEA 7,264.40$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 8,815.58$ TBD
Ventura Code/Fire Inspector SEIU - G 6,070.15$ 1,160.00$ 6.76%7.00%54.17$ 7,694.66$ TBD
Median 7,264.40$ 8,815.58$
San Luis Obispo Code Enforcement Officer I SLOCEA 6,560.67$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 8,591.84$ TBD
SLO vs Median -9.69%-2.54%
Page 171 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 172 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Deputy Director of Public Works - Maintenance
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Assistant Public Works Director
- Street & Sanitation
Nonrep 14,029.34$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%75.00$ 16,553.88$ TBD
Culver City Maintenance Operations
Manager
CCMG 12,434.54$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%346.67$ 15,035.45$ TBD
Davis No Match
Monterey General Services
Superintendent
MEA 12,922.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 16,278.64$ TBD
Napa Public Works Operations
Manager
AMP 13,682.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%100.00$ 15,887.44$ TBD
Paso Robles Maintenance Superintendent Nonrep 11,762.70$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%350.00$ 14,200.04$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara No Match
Santa Cruz Public Works Operations
Manager
Mid-Manage.11,692.00$ 2,667.99$ 3.43%11.25%-$ 14,760.79$ TBD
Santa Maria No Match
County of SLO Deputy Director - Public Works GM 14,436.93$ 1,250.00$ 3.32%13.50%41.67$ 16,207.90$ TBD
Ventura Deputy Public Works Director Management 14,291.82$ 1,160.00$ 6.76%7.00%174.33$ 16,592.28$ TBD
Median 13,302.00$ 16,047.67$
San Luis Obispo Deputy Director of Public
Works - Maintenance
Management 12,263.33$ 1,588.00$ 3.76%10.00%-$ 14,311.82$ TBD
SLO vs Median -7.81%-10.82%
Page 173 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 174 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Director of Public Works
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Public Works Director Executive 19,208.93$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%100.00$ 22,105.35$ TBD
Culver City Public Works Director/City
Engineer
Executive
Management
18,433.96$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%346.67$ 21,253.54$ TBD
Davis Public Works Director Exec 14,295.29$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 17,061.86$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Public Works Director Executive
Management
16,938.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 20,582.62$ TBD
Napa Public Works Director Executive Group 17,549.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%$322 20,064.19$ 12/25/21 - 3%
Paso Robles Public Works Director Nonrep 14,721.24$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%350.00$ 17,271.10$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Public Works Director Manage. 1 18,403.95$ 1,861.17$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 21,470.58$ TBD
Santa Cruz Director of Public Works/City
Engineer
Executive 18,584.00$ 2,637.99$ 2.43%12.25%-$ 21,673.21$ TBD
Santa Maria Director of Public Works/City
Engineer
Nonrep 16,283.43$ 1,071.00$ 5.14%9.00%25.00$ 18,215.59$ TBD
County of SLO Director of Public
Works/Transportation
Appointed DH 18,099.47$ 1,250.00$ 3.32%13.50%41.67$ 19,992.04$ TBD
Ventura Public Works Director Executive 17,133.15$ 1,214.00$ 6.76%7.00%270.49$ 19,775.84$ TBD
Median 17,549.00$ 20,064.19$
San Luis Obispo Director of Public Works Management 15,227.33$ 1,588.00$ 3.76%10.00%152.27$ 17,539.39$ TBD
SLO vs Median -13.23%-12.58%
Page 175 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 176 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Engineer II
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank No Match
Culver City Assistant Engineer CCEA 7,740.98$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%130.00$ 9,954.14$ TBD
Davis Associate Civil Engineer PASEA 8,714.52$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 11,146.24$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Engineering Assistant GEM 7,418.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 10,379.94$ TBD
Napa Assistant Engineer AMP 9,419.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%100.00$ 11,527.72$ TBD
Paso Robles No Match
Santa Barbara Project Engineer II GU 8,812.12$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 10,591.84$ TBD
Santa Cruz Assistant Engineer II Service 8,494.00$ 2,831.10$ 4.93%9.75%-$ 11,743.68$ TBD
Santa Maria Engineer II GE 8,015.41$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 10,201.82$ TBD
County of SLO Engineer II SLOCEA 8,268.00$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 9,852.50$ TBD
Ventura Associate Engineer SEIU - S 9,119.38$ 1,160.00$ 6.76%7.00%151.49$ 11,047.34$ TBD
Median 8,494.00$ 10,591.84$
San Luis Obispo Engineer II SLOCEA 7,867.17$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 9,986.59$ TBD
SLO vs Median -7.38%-5.71%
Page 177 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 178 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Fire Chief
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Davis Fire Chief Fire Manage.16,598.45$ 2,115.46$ 13.13%13.00%-$ 20,893.29$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Fire Chief Executive
Management
18,318.00$ 2,330.00$ 13.13%13.00%100.00$ 23,153.15$ TBD
Napa Fire Chief Executive Group 19,879.00$ 1,795.00$ 6.05%17.25%322.00$ 23,198.08$ 12/25/21 - 3%
Petaluma Fire Chief Department
Directors
18,454.80$ 2,016.84$ 10.02%16.00%-$ 22,320.44$ 7/1/22 - up to 2%
Pleasanton Fire Chief Management 18,261.00$ 2,062.21$ 11.14%11.25%365.22$ 22,722.52$ TBD
Salinas Fire Chief Department
Directors
17,824.00$ 2,311.52$ 13.25%13.25%1,624.98$ 24,122.18$ 1/1/22 - 2.25%
Santa Barbara Fire Chief Fire Manage. 1 18,168.95$ 1,842.75$ 13.98%13.75%-$ 22,551.72$ TBD
Santa Cruz Chief of Fire Department Executive 19,406.00$ 2,637.99$ 8.98%18.75%-$ 23,786.65$ TBD
Santa Maria Fire Chief Public Safety
Managers
19,232.33$ 788.00$ 4.98%22.75%-$ 20,978.10$ TBD
Median 18,318.00$ 22,722.52$
San Luis Obispo Fire Chief Management 15,948.83$ 1,588.00$ 10.98%16.75%-$ 19,288.02$ TBD
SLO vs Median -12.93%-15.11%
Page 179 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 180 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Heavy Equipment Mechanic
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Fleet Maintenance Technician BCEA 6,112.97$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%54.17$ 8,086.52$ TBD
Culver City Senior Fleet Services
Technician
CCEA 6,345.99$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%130.00$ 8,508.30$ TBD
Davis Equipment Mechanic II DCEA 5,810.95$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 8,068.46$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Automotive Mechanic GEM 6,736.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 9,649.04$ TBD
Napa Equipment Mechanic - Journey NCEA 7,231.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%50.00$ 9,240.07$ TBD
Paso Robles Equipment Mechanic SEIU 5,836.09$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%54.17$ 7,752.20$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Automotive/Equipment
Technician
GU 6,122.91$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 7,726.48$ TBD
Santa Cruz Equipment Mechanic II Service 6,742.00$ 2,831.10$ 4.93%9.75%-$ 9,905.35$ TBD
Santa Maria Equipment Mechanic II GE 5,633.16$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 7,661.51$ TBD
County of SLO Equipment Mechanic II SLOCEA 6,047.60$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 7,558.38$ TBD
Ventura Equipment Mechanic II VMEA 5,774.86$ 1,196.00$ 6.76%7.00%36.83$ 7,398.07$ TBD
Median 6,112.97$ 8,068.46$
San Luis Obispo Heavy Equipment Mechanic SLOCEA 5,613.83$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 7,581.05$ TBD
SLO vs Median -8.17%-6.04%
Page 181 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 182 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Human Resources Analyst
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank No Match
Culver City Human Resources Analyst CCMG 8,471.78$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%346.67$ 10,928.24$ TBD
Davis Human Resources Analyst I Management 8,318.60$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 10,726.57$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Human Resources Analyst MEA 8,498.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 11,537.39$ TBD
Napa No Match
Paso Robles Human Resources Specialist SEIU 6,743.21$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%54.17$ 8,693.82$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Human Resources Analyst I Confidential 7,975.54$ 1,240.44$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 9,738.38$ TBD
Santa Cruz Human Resources Analyst I Mid-Manage.8,140.00$ 2,667.99$ 3.43%11.25%-$ 11,087.03$ TBD
Santa Maria No Match
County of SLO Human Resources Analyst II Op. & Staff
Management
7,933.47$ 1,250.00$ 3.32%13.50%41.67$ 9,488.53$ TBD
Ventura Human Resources Analyst I Confidential 7,484.71$ 1,160.00$ 6.76%7.00%97.33$ 9,248.00$ TBD
Median 8,057.77$ 10,232.47$
San Luis Obispo Human Resources Analyst Management 7,154.33$ 1,588.00$ 3.76%10.00%-$ 9,010.98$ TBD
SLO vs Median -11.21%-11.94%
Page 183 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 184 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
IT Systems Engineer
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Network Support Analyst III BMA 10,013.38$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%75.00$ 12,268.98$ TBD
Culver City Network Administrator CCEA 9,597.32$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%130.00$ 11,878.14$ TBD
Davis MIS Senior Systems Analyst PASEA 9,207.95$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 11,669.28$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey No Match
Napa No Match
Paso Robles No Match
Santa Barbara Network Administrator GU 9,972.34$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 11,828.05$ TBD
Santa Cruz No Match
Santa Maria Systems Analyst II GE 8,744.99$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 10,979.81$ TBD
County of SLO Network Engineer III Op. & Staff
Management
9,576.67$ 1,250.00$ 3.32%13.50%41.67$ 11,186.28$ TBD
Ventura No Match
Median 9,587.00$ 11,748.66$
San Luis Obispo IT Systems Engineer SLOCEA 7,867.17$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 9,986.59$ TBD
SLO vs Median -17.94%-15.00%
Page 185 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 186 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Laboratory Analyst (SBP)
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Water Quality Analyst BCEA 8,844.42$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%54.17$ 11,000.90$ TBD
Culver City No Match
Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant
Laboratory Analyst
DWWTPA 5,463.97$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 7,700.66$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey
(Monterey One
Water)
Laboratory Analyst I General 9,207.47$ 2,319.58 7.38%6.96%-$ 12,206.47$ 7/1/22 - 3%
Napa No Match
Paso Robles Laboratory Technician II SEIU 5,950.51$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%54.17$ 7,870.98$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Laboratory Analyst II Treatment &
Patrol
7,227.00$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 8,902.89$ TBD
Santa Cruz Chemist I Service 7,807.00$ 2,831.10$ 4.93%9.75%-$ 11,022.83$ TBD
Santa Maria Laboratory Coordinator GE 7,038.74$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 9,160.35$ TBD
County of SLO Water Systems Chemist II SLOCEA 8,394.53$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 9,983.23$ TBD
Ventura Laboratory Analyst II VMEA 6,876.43$ 1,196.00$ 6.76%7.00%36.83$ 8,574.11$ TBD
Median 7,227.00$ 9,160.35$
San Luis Obispo Laboratory Analyst (SBP)SLOCEA 6,675.50$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 8,714.43$ TBD
SLO vs Median -7.63%-4.87%
Page 187 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 188 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Parking Enforcement Officer I
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Parking Control Officer BCEA 4,991.29$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%54.17$ 6,889.72$ TBD
Culver City Parking Enforcement Officer CCEA 5,097.45$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%130.00$ 7,214.25$ TBD
Davis No Match
Monterey Parking Enforcement Officer GEM 5,684.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 8,521.60$ TBD
Napa Parking Enforcement Officer NCEA 5,507.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%50.00$ 7,476.95$ TBD
Paso Robles No Match
Santa Barbara Parking Enforcement Officer Police Non-sworn 5,287.30$ 1,489.19$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 7,122.81$ TBD
Santa Cruz Parking Enforcement Officer Service 5,469.00$ 2,831.10$ 4.93%9.75%-$ 8,569.61$ TBD
Santa Maria No Match
County of SLO No Match
Ventura No Match
Median 5,378.15$ 7,345.60$
San Luis Obispo Parking Enforcement Officer I SLOCEA 4,803.50$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 6,715.98$ TBD
SLO vs Median -10.68%-8.57%
Page 189 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 190 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Recreation Supervisor
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Recreation Supervisor BCEA 7,124.22$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%54.17$ 9,165.50$ TBD
Culver City Recreation and Community
Services Supervisor
CCMG 8,304.62$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%346.67$ 10,754.99$ TBD
Davis Community Services Supervisor PASEA 6,651.81$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 8,959.77$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Recreation Supervisor GEM 8,456.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 11,492.38$ TBD
Napa Recreation Supervisor AMP 9,044.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%100.00$ 11,144.21$ TBD
Paso Robles Recreation Coordinator SEIU 6,743.21$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%54.17$ 8,693.82$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Recreation Supervisor I Supervisory 7,529.36$ 1,473.33$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 9,495.87$ TBD
Santa Cruz Recreation Supervisor Supervisory 7,464.00$ 2,820.10$ 3.43%11.25%-$ 10,539.97$ TBD
Santa Maria Recreation Supervisor GE 6,301.51$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 8,374.21$ TBD
County of SLO Park Operations Coordinator SLOCEA 7,247.07$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 8,797.67$ TBD
Ventura Recreation Supervisor SEIU - S 8,261.74$ 1,160.00$ 6.76%7.00%151.49$ 10,131.73$ TBD
Median 7,464.00$ 9,495.87$
San Luis Obispo Recreation Supervisor Management 7,154.33$ 1,588.00$ 3.76%10.00%-$ 9,010.98$ TBD
SLO vs Median -4.15%-5.11%
Page 191 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 192 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Streets Maintenance Operator (SBP)
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Public Works Journeyman BCEA 6,040.08$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%54.17$ 8,008.75$ TBD
Culver City Maintenance Worker II CCEA 4,974.49$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%130.00$ 7,086.81$ TBD
Davis Public Works Maintenance
Worker II
DCEA 4,839.71$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 7,038.94$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Senior Street Maintenance
Worker
GEM 5,814.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 8,660.92$ TBD
Napa Street Maintenance Worker II NCEA 6,018.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%50.00$ 7,999.55$ TBD
Paso Robles Maintenance Specialist II SEIU 4,782.25$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%54.17$ 6,658.28$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Senior Streets Maintenance
Worker
GU 5,681.54$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 7,256.20$ TBD
Santa Cruz Senior Service Maintenance
Worker
Service 5,595.00$ 2,831.10$ 4.93%9.75%-$ 8,701.82$ TBD
Santa Maria Maintenance Worker II GE 4,595.63$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 6,555.14$ TBD
County of SLO Public Works Worker IV SLOCEA 5,496.40$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 6,988.88$ TBD
Ventura Maintenance Worker II VMEA 4,568.10$ 1,196.00$ 6.76%7.00%36.83$ 6,109.73$ TBD
Median 5,496.40$ 7,086.81$
San Luis Obispo Streets Maintenance Operator
(SBP)
SLOCEA 4,688.67$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 6,593.39$ TBD
SLO vs Median -14.70%-6.96%
Page 193 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 194 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Streets Maintenance Supervisor
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Public Works Supervisor BMA 8,809.43$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%75.00$ 10,984.40$ TBD
Culver City No Match
Davis Senior Public Works Supervisor DCEA 7,680.61$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 10,050.30$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey Street and Utilities Supervisor GEM 7,066.00$ 2,330.00$ 7.17%7.00%100.00$ 10,002.70$ TBD
Napa Street Field Supervisor NCEA 7,718.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%50.00$ 9,738.12$ TBD
Paso Robles Water/Streets Supervisor SEIU 7,558.83$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%54.17$ 9,540.46$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Maintenance Supervisor II Supervisory 8,048.54$ 1,473.33$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 10,049.05$ TBD
Santa Cruz Field Supervisor Supervisory 9,192.00$ 2,820.10$ 3.43%11.25%-$ 12,327.20$ TBD
Santa Maria Street Maintenance Supervisor GE 7,622.03$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 9,782.34$ TBD
County of SLO Public Works Section
Supervisor
SLOCEA 7,146.53$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 8,693.79$ TBD
Ventura Public Works Supervisor SEIU - S 7,863.61$ 1,160.00$ 6.76%7.00%151.49$ 9,706.69$ TBD
Median 7,699.31$ 9,892.52$
San Luis Obispo
Streets Maintenance Supervisor
Management 7,884.50$ 1,588.00$ 3.76%10.00%-$ 9,768.56$ TBD
SLO vs Median 2.41%-1.25%
Page 195 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 196 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Supervising Building Inspector
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Building Inspector III BMA 8,324.55$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%75.00$ 10,467.05$ TBD
Culver City Senior Building Inspector CCMG 8,514.24$ 1,801.00$ 3.65%10.19%346.67$ 10,972.25$ TBD
Davis Senior Building Inspector PASEA 7,957.70$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 10,344.01$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey No Match
Napa No Match
Paso Robles No Match
Santa Barbara Building and Safety Supervisor Supervisory 11,327.81$ 1,473.33$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 13,543.11$ TBD
Santa Cruz Supervising Building Inspector Supervisory 9,858.00$ 2,820.10$ 3.43%11.25%-$ 13,016.03$ TBD
Santa Maria Chief Building Inspector GE 7,268.50$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 9,405.35$ TBD
County of SLO Building Division Supervisor SLOCEA 9,084.40$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 10,696.00$ TBD
Ventura Building Inspection Supervisor SEIU - S 7,863.61$ 1,160.00$ 6.76%7.00%151.49$ 9,706.69$ TBD
Median 8,419.40$ 10,581.52$
San Luis Obispo Supervising Building Inspector Management 8,694.83$ 1,588.00$ 3.76%10.00%-$ 10,609.32$ TBD
SLO vs Median 3.27%0.26%
Page 197 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 198 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Water Resource Recovery Facility Operator (SBP)
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank No Match
Culver City (City
of Los Angeles)
Wastewater Treatment
Operator III
Plant Equipment
Operation &
Repair Rep. Unit
9,930.27$ 1,787.35$ 8.93%7.00%-$ 12,604.39$ 6/19/22 - 4%
Davis WWTP Senior Operator DWWTPA 7,796.05$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 10,172.66$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey
(Monterey One
Water)
Operator III Operations
Employees'
Bargaining Group
9,909.47$ 2,319.58$ 7.38%6.96%-$ 12,960.27$ 7/1/22 - 3%
Napa (NapaSan)Operator III Teamsters Local
315 Rank & File
9,266.40$ 2,115.46$ 7.73%7.25%100.00$ 12,198.15$ 7/1/22 - TBD (Meet &
Confer/Market Adjust.)
Paso Robles Treatment Plant Operator III SEIU 6,877.43$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%54.17$ 8,833.15$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operator III
Treatment &
Patrol
7,501.65$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 9,195.53$ TBD
Santa Cruz Wastewater Plant Operator III Service 8,514.00$ 2,831.10$ 4.93%9.75%-$ 11,764.67$ TBD
Santa Maria Lead Wastewater Operator GE 5,692.33$ 1,654.59$ 6.64%7.50%-$ 7,724.61$ TBD
County of SLO Wastewater Systems Worker III SLOCEA 7,396.13$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 8,951.68$ TBD
Ventura Plant Operator Grade III VMEA 7,264.16$ 1,196.00$ 6.76%7.00%36.83$ 8,988.05$ TBD
Median 7,648.85$ 9,684.10$
San Luis Obispo Water Resource Recovery
Facility Operator (SBP)
SLOCEA 6,675.50$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 8,714.43$ TBD
SLO vs Median -12.73%-10.01%
Page 199 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 200 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Water Treatment Plant Operator (SBP)
Agency Job Classification Union Monthly Salary Health PEPRA ER NormalPEPRA EEDeferred Comp Total Comp Future COLAs
Burbank Water Plant Operator BCEA 7,617.87$ 1,510.00$ 6.70%6.50%54.17$ 9,692.21$ TBD
Culver City No Match
Davis Water Production System
Operator
DWWTPA 6,162.83$ 1,908.85$ 6.00%8.90%-$ 8,441.45$ 7/1/22 - 2%
Monterey
(Monterey One
Water)
No Match
Napa Water Treatment Facility
Operator
NCEA 8,621.00$ 1,795.00$ 2.27%11.25%50.00$ 10,661.61$ TBD
Paso Robles Treatment Plant Operator III SEIU 6,877.43$ 1,640.00$ 3.80%10.00%54.17$ 8,833.15$ 1/9/22- 1% to 3%
Santa Barbara Water Treatment Plant
Operator III
Treatment &
Patrol
8,097.66$ 1,202.52$ 6.55%6.75%-$ 9,830.58$ TBD
Santa Cruz Water Treatment Operator III Service 8,223.00$ 2,831.10$ 4.93%9.75%-$ 11,459.33$ TBD
Santa Maria
(Central Coast
Water Authority)
Water Treatment Plant
Operator
Nonrep 7,902.00$ 1,685.30$ 7.73%7.25%-$ 10,198.12$ 7/1/22 - TBD (Budget
& CPI based)
County of SLO Water Systems Worker III SLOCEA 7,396.13$ 1,310.00$ 3.32%13.50%-$ 8,951.68$ TBD
Ventura Plant Operator Grade III VMEA 7,264.16$ 1,196.00$ 6.76%7.00%36.83$ 8,988.05$ TBD
Median 7,617.87$ 9,692.21$
San Luis Obispo Water Treatment Plant
Operator (SBP)
SLOCEA 6,675.50$ 1,588.00$ 6.76%7.00%-$ 8,714.43$ TBD
SLO vs Median -12.37%-10.09%
Page 201 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Page 202 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
Appendix III
Benchmarks and Associated Classes
Bargaining
Unit Job Title Department
CEA ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT III Finance
CEA ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT I Finance
CEA ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT II Finance
CEA FINANCIAL SPECIALIST Finance
CFE PAYROLL SPECIALIST Finance
CEA SUPERVISING ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT Finance
CEA SUPERVISING UTILITY BILLING ASSISTANT Util
CEA UTILITY BILLING ASSISTANT Util
MME ACCOUNTING MANAGER Finance
MME ACCOUNTANT Finance
MME ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY I Atty
MME ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY II Atty
MME BUSINESS MANAGER Multiple
MME BUSINESS SERVICES AND ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER CSG
MME CITY CLERK Admin & IT
Page 203 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
MME DIVERSITY EQUITY AND INCLUSION MANAGER Admin & IT
MME FINANCIAL ANALYST Finance
MME PRINCIPAL BUDGET ANALYST Finance
MME SENIOR ACCOUNTANT Finance
MME SENIOR FINANCIAL ANALYST Finance
MME SPECIAL PROJECTS MANAGER Multiple
MME ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST Multiple
MME ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER Admin & IT
MME DATA ANALYST Police
MME PUBLIC COMMINICATIONS MANAGER Admin & IT
MME SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST Multiple
MME-C SUSTAINABILITY AND NATURAL RESOURCES ANALYST Admin & IT
CEA ADMINISTRATIVE ASST II Multiple
CFE ADMINISTRATION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT Admin & IT
CEA ADMINISTRATIVE ASST I Multiple
CEA ADMINISTRATIVE ASST III Multiple
CEA COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR CSG
CEA DEPUTY CITY CLERK I Admin & IT
CEA DEPUTY CITY CLERK II Admin & IT
CFE LEGAL ASSISTANT Atty
CFE LEGAL ASST/PARALEGAL Atty
CFE MANAGEMENT FELLOW Admin & IT
CEA SUPERVISING ADM ASST Multiple
CEA TOURISM COORDINATOR Admin
CEA TRANSIT ASSISTANT PW
Page 204 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
CEA TRANSIT COORDINATOR PW
CEA ASSOCIATE PLANNER CDD
MME ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MANAGER PW
CEA ASSISTANT PLANNER CDD
MME ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Admin & IT
MME-C HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE MANAGER CDD
CEA HOUSING COORDINATOR CDD
MME HOUSING POLICY AND PROGRAMS MANAGER CDD
CEA MAINTENANCE CONTRACT COORDINATOR PW
CEA PLANNING TECHNICIAN CDD
MME SENIOR PLANNER CDD
MME SUSTAINABILITY AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICIAL Admin & IT
MME SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER Admin & IT
MME TOURISM MANAGER Admin
MME TRANSIT MANAGER PW
CEA BUILDING INSPECTOR II CDD
CEA BUILDING INSPECTOR I CDD
CEA PERMIT TECHNICIAN I CDD
CEA PERMIT TECHNICIAN II CDD
CEA PLANS EXAMINER CDD
CEA CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I CDD
CEA CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II CDD
MME CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR CDD
CEA CODE ENFORCEMENT TECHNICIAN I CDD
Page 205 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
CEA CODE ENFORCEMENT TECHNICIAN II CDD
MME NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH MGR PD
CEA RANGER MAINTENANCE WORKER I P&R
CEA RANGER MAINTENANCE WORKER II P&R
MME DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS PW
MME ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CSG
MME DEPUTY CITY MANAGER Admin & IT
MME DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEV CDD
MME DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Finance
MME DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES HR
MME DIRECTOR OF PARKS & REC P&R
MME DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES Util
MME DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS PW
MME DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/CITY PLANNER CDD
MME DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER PW
MME DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES - ENGINEERING AND PLANNING Util
MME DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES - WASTEWATER Util
MME DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES - WATER Util
CEA ENGINEER II PW
MME CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING MANAGER PW
CEA ENGINEER I PW
CEA ENGINEER III PW
CEA ENGINEERING INSPECTOR I PW
CEA ENGINEERING INSPECTOR II PW
Page 206 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
CEA ENGINEERING INSPECTOR III PW
CEA ENGINEERING INSPECTOR IV PW
CEA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN I PW
CEA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II PW
CEA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN III PW
MME SAFETY AND TECHNICAL TRAINING ENGINEER Util
MME SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER PW
MME SUPERVISING CIVIL ENGINEER PW
MME TRANSPORTATION MANAGER PW
CEA TRANSPORTATION PLANNER-ENGINEER I PW
CEA TRANSPORTATION PLANNER-ENGINEER II PW
CEA TRANSPORTATION PLANNER-ENGINEER III PW
MME UTILITIES ENGINEER Util
MME UTILITIES PROJECTS MANAGER Util
MME FIRE CHIEF Fire
MME DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF Fire
MME POLICE CHIEF Police
CEA HEAVY EQUIP MECHANIC PW
CEA FACILITIES MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN (SBP) PW
CEA MECHANIC HELPER PW
CEA URBAN FORESTER (SBP) PW
MME HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST HR
CFE HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I HR
CFE HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II HR
Page 207 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
CFE HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III HR
CFE HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM TECHNICIAN HR
MME HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER HR
CFE HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALST HR
MME SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST HR
CEA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ENGINEER Admin & IT
CEA APPLICATION SYSTEM SPECIALIST Admin & IT
CFE APPLICATION SYSTEM SPECIALIST (CONFIDENTIAL) Admin & IT
CEA CONTROL SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR Admin & IT
CEA ENTERPRISE SYSTEM DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR Admin & IT
CEA GIS SPECIALIST I Admin & IT
CEA GIS SPECIALIST II Admin & IT
MME INFORMATION SERVICES SUPERVISOR Admin & IT
CEA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANT Admin & IT
MME INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER Admin & IT
CEA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ENGINEER Admin & IT
MME NETWORK SERVICES SUPERVISOR Admin & IT
CEA SIGNAL AND STREETLIGHT TECHNICIAN PW
MME TECHNOLOGY PROJECT MANAGER Admin & IT
CEA UNDERGROUND Util LOCATOR Util
CEA LABORATORY ANALYST (SBP) Util
MME CITY BIOLOGIST Admin & IT
CEA ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTOR Util
MME ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS MANAGER Util
MME LABORATORY MANAGER Util
Page 208 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
CEA SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING COORDINATOR Util
CEA PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I PW
CEA PARKING COORDINATOR PW
CEA PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II PW
MME PARKING PROGRAM MANAGER PW
MME PARKING SERVICES SUPERVISOR PW
MME RECREATION SUPERVISOR P&R
CEA GOLF MAINTENANCE CREW COORDINATOR P&R
CEA RECREATION COORDINATOR P&R
MME RECREATION MANAGER P&R
CEA YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM ASSSISTANT P&R
CEA YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM SPECIALIST P&R
CEA STREETS MAINTENANCE OPERATOR (SBP) PW
CEA EQUIPMENT OPERATOR PW
CEA MAINTENANCE WORKER I - PARKS PW
CEA MAINTENANCE WORKER II - PARKS PW
CEA MAINTENANCE WORKER III - PARKS PW
CEA PARKING METER REPAIR WORK PW
CEA PARKS CREW COORDINATOR PW
CEA PARKS MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST (SBP) PW
CEA STREETS CREW COORDINATOR PW
CEA SWEEPER OPERATOR PW
MME STREETS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR PW
Page 209 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
MME FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR PW
MME FLEET MAINT SUPERVISOR PW
MME PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR PW
MME URBAN FOREST SUPERVISOR/CITY ARBORIST PW
MME SUPERVISING BUILDING INSPECTOR CDD
MME BUILDING PERMIT SERVICES SUPERVISOR CDD
MME DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL CDD
MME FIRE MARSHAL CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL CDD/Fire
CEA WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY OPERATOR (SBP) Util
CEA WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATOR (SBP) Util
MME WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM SUPERVISOR Util
CEA WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY CHIEF MAINTENANCE
TECHNICIAN Util
CEA WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY CHIEF OPERATOR Util
CEA WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN
(SBP) Util
MME WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PLANT SUPERVISOR Util
CEA WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR (SBP) Util
CEA WATER DISTRIBUTION CHIEF OPERATOR Util
MME WATER DISTRIBUTION SUPERVISOR Util
CEA WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OPERATOR (SBP) Util
MME WATER RESOURCE PROGRAM MANAGER Util
CEA WATER RESOURCES TECHNICIAN Util
CEA WATER SUPPLY OPERATOR (SBP) Util
CEA WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHIEF MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN Util
Page 210 of 233
City of San Luis Obispo
Total Compensation Study
CEA WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHIEF OPERATOR Util
MME WATER TREATMENT PLANT SUPERVISOR Util
MME WHALE RCK RESERVOIR SUPER Util
Page 211 of 233
Page 212 of 233
Labor Relations Objectives
Adopted by Council September 23, 2014
Revised by Council March 20, 2018
1. Maintain fiscal responsibility by ensuring that fair and responsible employee
compensation expenditures are supported by on -going revenues. (Theme –
Fiscal Responsibility)
2. Continue to make progress in the area of long-term systemic pension cost
containment and reduction, including reversing the unfunded pension liability
trend and other actions consistent with State law. (Theme – Cost
Containment/Reduction)
3. Continue to effectively manage escalating health benefit costs through balanced
cost sharing and other means while maintaining comprehensive health care
coverage for all eligible employees. (Theme – Cost Containment)
4. As necessary to attract and retain well qualified employees at all levels of the
organization, provide competitive compensation as art iculated in the City’s
Compensation Philosophy, including relevant local, statewide or national labor
markets. (Theme – Recruitment and Retention)
5. Employee labor agreements will be negotiated in good faith, in a timely manner
that avoids retroactivity provisions unless there is a compelling need. (Theme –
Cost Containment)
6. Contract provisions shall take into consideration the City’s ability to effectively
and efficiently implement and administer them using the City’s financial and
human resources systems to ensure accuracy and compliance with federal,
state, and local laws. (Theme – Best Practices and Compliance)
Page 213 of 233
Page 214 of 233
February 1, 2022
(Resolution No. 10248 (2011 Series))