Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SS1 2014 Benchmark Compensation Study
COUNCIL MEETING: O'P5 1 ITEM NO.:_ S i A q Human Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 805.781.7250 Date: August 14, 2014 AUG 1 4 2014 To: Mayor and City Council Via: Katie Lichtig, City Manager From: Monica Irons, Human Resources Director 799 Subject: August 19, 2014 Council Agenda Item SS1, 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report As stated in the Council Agenda Report for Item SS1, staff presented an executive summary of the results of the 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report to the Personnel Board at a public meeting on August 13, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. Attached are the draft minutes of the Personnel Board meeting that include a motion regarding Business Item 1, Receive and provide input on 2014 Benchmark Compensation Study. The motion included in the attached minutes was reviewed for accuracy by Personnel Board Chair Frank Guyton. PERSONNEL BOARD MINUTES August 13, 2014 5:30 P.M. 919 Palm Street Conference Room 1 CALL TO ORDER: 5:36 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson: Frank Guyton; Vice Chairperson: Deborah Lewis; Board Members: Louise Justice, Marcia Nelson, and Carol Sexton ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Monica Irons, Human Resources Director and Nickole Sutter, Human Resources Analyst OATH OF OFFICE: City Clerk, Anthony Mejia, administered the oath of office to new Personnel Board Member, Louise Justice. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment for items not on the agenda. BUSINESS ITEMS Item 1. RECEIVE AND PROVIDE INPUT ON 2014 BENCHMARK COMPENSATION STUDY (IRONS /SUTTER) Monica Irons and Nickole Sutter presented the Executive Summary of the 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report. Moved by Sexton /Gunton to recognize the quality of the study and the sound methodology used in it and recommend Council receive it as part of a solid foundation for development of labor relations objectives and for future negotiations. Public Comment: There was no public comment for this item COMMISSIONER COMMENTS No additional comments. There being no further business to come before the Personnel Board, Chairperson Guyton adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Personnel Board to be held on a date, time and place to be determined. Respectfully Submitted, Monica Irons Human Resources Director City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number FROM: Monica Irons, Human Resources Director Prepared By: Nickole Sutter, Human Resources Analyst SUBJECT: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO’S 2014 BENCHMARK COMPENSATION REPORT RECOMMENDATION Discuss and provide input on the City of San Luis Obispo’s 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report. DISCUSSION The purpose of the 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report (the Report) is to provide objective, verifiable data to help inform Council’s development of labor relations objectives that will guide negotiations with City employee groups. The Report provides a solid foundation of total compensation data for Council, employees, and the community to consider and includes the following key sections: executive summary (providing high level summary of results), authority/background, process, methodology (survey universe, classifications and data points), and detailed results. Overall, 50% of the 26 City benchmark classifications surveyed lag the market, 42% are at market, and 8% lead the market in total compensation. For the 8% of survey outcomes (or two benchmarks) where the City leads the market, no benchmark is more than 10% above the median. For the 13 benchmarks where the City lags the market in total compensation, reported outcomes vary from just over five (5%) percent to 20% below the median. Salary appears to be the primary contributor to benchmarks lagging the market. Employer contributions to health and retirement as a percent of total costs are at market depending upon health plan type. About half of the San Luis Obispo City Employees Association (SLOCEA) and unrepresented management benchmarks are at market while half lag the market in total compensation and salary. The Network Administrator, Laboratory Analyst, Water Resource Recovery Facility Operator, Water Treatment Plant Operator, Chief Building Official, Deputy Director of Public Works, and Finance Operations Manager lag the market by more than 10% in salary and total compensation. In general, Fire benchmarks lag the market, while Police benchmarks are at or lead the market, and the Police Management benchmark leads the market in salary and total compensation. All data in the report was collected as of January 2014 and therefore, Police data does not reflect the two percent (2%) salary reduction effective July 2014. The Executive Summary of the Report provides more information and the Technical Appendices provide the greatest amount of detail on total compensation, components of total compensation, paid time off, and other pay and benefit information, including some local private sector comparisons. 8-19-14 SS1 SS1 - 1 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report Page 2 Background On November 5, 2013 Council discussed and approved the general approach and methodology to conduct the City’s 2014 Benchmark Compensation Study as provided in the work program for the 2013-15 major city goal to Sustain Essential Services, Infrastructure, and Fiscal Health. The methodology utilized is in accordance with the Compensation Philosophy adopted by Council in 2011. The last compensation study was conducted in 2007. The 2014 compensation study is different than the 2007 compensation study in several ways: 1. The purpose. The 2014 Report is intended to help inform Council’s development of labor relations objectives for upcoming negotiations. The 2007 study was conducted primarily because anecdotal input indicated an inability for the City to attract and retain qualified employees and suggested the City was hampered by its lagging compensation. 2. The scope. The 2014 Report includes information on 26 benchmark classifications representing each employee group (four represented and unrepresented management and confidential) and level in the City. The 2007 study covered only SLOCEA and unrepresented management and confidential classifications. 3. The data. The 2014 Report includes total compensation defined as all employer contributions to salary, health, and retirement as well as aspects of paid time off, other pay and benefits, and private sector data. The 2007 study included some components of total compensation but did not include retirement costs or calculate total compensation. All data collected is available for review in coordination with the Human Resources Department. The Compensation Philosophy states that the City is committed to providing competitive compensation as part of an overall strategy of attracting and retaining well qualified employees who exemplify the City’s organizational values as they serve the community. It further states that in determining “competitive” compensation Council will consider: (1) financial sustainability or the City’s financial condition, competing service priorities, maintenance needs, and infrastructure needs, (2) community acceptability since taxpayers ultimately fund employee compensation, (3) the relevant labor market defined by geographic region and key markets where labor talent is found, recruited from, or lost, (4) internal relationships so that classifications with similar duties and level of responsibility, requiring similar level of skills, knowledge, and abilities receive similar compensation, and, (5) other relevant factors such as unforeseen economic changes, natural disasters, changes in City services, and regulatory or legal changes. The Report provides relevant labor market total compensation data with the relevant labor market defined primarily as municipal government and local private sector data reported to the extent available. A review of new hire data indicated a strong preference for municipal government experience. Similarly, when employees left the City for other employment, they most frequently went to other cities. Nonetheless, consistent with the Compensation Philosophy private sector data was collected and, while it may not be as germane to the data-driven analysis of the relevant labor market, the information was analyzed as part of the study. SS1 - 2 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report Page 3 Next Steps The framework for considering changes to compensation is the labor relations process. In recent years Council has established labor relations objectives or policy direction that guides negotiations regarding compensation with employee groups. More specific negotiating parameters that include more detail as to how the labor relations objectives can be achieved are provided at the beginning of negotiations with each employee group. The historical data reflected in the 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report will help informing Council’s development of labor relations objectives but other information will also be important for Council to consider such as: current and emerging trends in labor negotiations and compensation, the City’s 2015 health insurance rates, projections on CalPERS retirement costs, cost of living indicators, recent recruitment activity including any changes in the number or quality of applicants, and the City’s financial projections. With this in mind, staff is preparing information for Council’s consideration of labor relations objectives on September 23, 2014, including trends in the labor market, updates on CalPERS retirement rates, health insurance increases for 2015, and changes in the cost of living, among other information. CONCURRENCES The Personnel Board provided oversight as to the methodology used to conduct the 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report and will review the results on August 13, 2014. Any feedback from the Personnel Board will be distributed via Agenda Correspondence after their meeting. In addition, an Employee Compensation Committee was formed to provide input on the process including the selection of the survey universe, the benchmark classifications, and data points. See Attachment 2 for a complete list of Committee Members and the committee meetings dates. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to receiving the 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report as no action is being recommended to modify compensation. ALTERNATIVES 1. Direct staff to pursue additional information. In order to complete this work effort, staff would need Council’s input on specific areas to address and in what timeframe. 2. Reject the 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report. This alternative is not recommended as the methodology used is consistent with the Compensation Philosophy and was guided by an experienced compensation consultant. ATTACHMENTS 1. The 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report 2. The 2014 Employee Compensation Committee Members \\chstore6\Team\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-08-19\2014 Benchmark Compensation Study (Irons)\CAR 08_19_14 BenchmarkCompensationReport.docx SS1 - 3 ATTACHMENT 1 2014 BENCHMARK COMPENSATION REPORT SS1 - 4 ATTACHMENT 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 3 Total Compensation and Salary Trends ..................................................................................................... 4 Employer Contributions to Health Insurance ............................................................................................. 7 Retirement Contributions ............................................................................................................................ 8 USING THIS REPORT .................................................................................................................................... 9 AUTHORITY/BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 10 PROCESS ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 AN EXPERIENCED CONSULTANT GUIDED THE METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 11 AN EMPLOYEE COMMITTEE .......................................................................................................................... 12 THE PERSONNEL BOARD ............................................................................................................................... 12 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 13 SURVEY UNIVERSE ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Determining the Relevant Labor Market or Survey Universe(s) .............................................................. 13 Selecting Public Sector Agencies Reflective of Applicant Pool ................................................................ 14 The Three Survey Universes ..................................................................................................................... 15 The General Survey Universe .............................................................................................................. 15 The Police Survey Universe ................................................................................................................. 16 The Fire Survey Universe ..................................................................................................................... 17 Local Private Sector Data ..................................................................................................................... 18 SURVEY BENCHMARKS ................................................................................................................................. 19 Selecting Survey Benchmarks ................................................................................................................... 19 Public Sector Benchmarks .................................................................................................................... 20 Private Sector Benchmarks................................................................................................................... 21 How Do Other Classifications Relate to Benchmarks? ............................................................................ 22 SURVEY DATA POINTS .................................................................................................................................. 24 Total Compensation .................................................................................................................................. 25 Salary ........................................................................................................................................................ 25 Health Insurance ...................................................................................................................................... 25 Retirement Benefits ................................................................................................................................... 25 Paid Time-Off Benefits.............................................................................................................................. 27 Other Pay and Benefits and Related Information ..................................................................................... 28 Private Sector Data .................................................................................................................................. 28 APPENDIX A: TOTAL COMPENSATION ............................................................................................... 29 SLOCEA BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS TOTAL COMPENSATION ............................................................. 29 MANAGEMENT BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS TOTAL COMPENSATION .................................................... 34 POLICE AND POLICE MANAGEMENT BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS TOTAL COMPENSATION ................... 38 FIRE BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS TOTAL COMPENSATION ..................................................................... 40 APPENDIX B: SALARY BY BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATION AND EMPLOYEE GROUP.......... 41 SS1 - 5 ATTACHMENT 1 SLOCEA BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS ................................................................................................... 41 MANAGEMENT BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS ........................................................................................... 47 POLICE AND POLICE MANAGEMENT BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS .......................................................... 52 FIRE BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................... 54 APPENDIX C: EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO FAMILY HEALTH COVERAGE ..................... 56 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO FAMILY COVERAGE, HMO .......................................................................... 56 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO FAMILY COVERAGE, PPO ............................................................................ 59 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO OPT OUT ...................................................................................................... 62 APPENDIX D: EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO RETIREMENT .................................................... 65 RETIREMENT FORMULAS FOR ALL TIERS ..................................................................................................... 65 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE NORMAL COST OF RETIREMENT: TIER 1 .............................................. 67 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE NORMAL COST OF RETIREMENT: TIER 2 .............................................. 69 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE TOTAL COST OF RETIREMENT: TIER 1 .................................................. 71 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE TOTAL COST OF RETIREMENT: TIER 2 .................................................. 73 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION ................................................................. 75 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO POST RETIREMENT HEALTH ........................................................................ 78 APPENDIX E: OTHER PAY AND BENEFITS AND RELATED INFORMATION ............................. 81 BARGAINING UNIT SALARY INCREASES ....................................................................................................... 81 EDUCATION INCENTIVE ................................................................................................................................. 84 PARAMEDIC INCENTIVE ................................................................................................................................. 87 APPENDIX F: PAID TIME OFF ................................................................................................................. 88 VACATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 88 SICK LEAVE ................................................................................................................................................... 89 HOLIDAYS ..................................................................................................................................................... 90 APPENDIX G: PRIVATE SECTOR DATA ............................................................................................... 91 PRIVATE SECTOR SALARY ............................................................................................................................. 91 PRIVATE SECTOR HEALTH ............................................................................................................................. 94 PRIVATE SECTOR RETIREMENT ...................................................................................................................... 94 PRIVATE SECTOR OTHER PAY AND BENEFITS AND RELATED INFORMATION ............................................... 95 ATTACHMENT 1: COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY ............................................................................ 96 ATTACHMENT 2: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... 98 ATTACHMENT 3: DATA SOURCES.......................................................................................................... 99 SS1 - 6 ATTACHMENT 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report provides objective and verifiable labor market data from the City of San Luis Obispo and other similar California cities, as well as local private sector compensation data. Comparison data in this report is organized in Technical Appendices providing detail of the following components as outlined in the Compensation Philosophy (Attachment 1) adopted by Council in 2007 and modified by Council in 2011: A. Total Compensation (employer contributions to salary, health insurance, and retirement) as illustrated below in Chart 1 B. Salary C. Employer Contribution to Health Insurance D. Employer Contribution to Retirement (employer contributions to defined benefit and deferred compensation plans as well as Social Security) E. Paid Time Off F. Other Pay and Benefits and Related Information G. Private Sector Data CHART 1 The relevant labor market, also defined in the Compensation Philosophy, consists primarily of municipal public sector agencies. However, local private sector data is reported to the extent available. Comparisons are made to median of the public sector data, which represents the exact midpoint of all the relevant market data collected, with 50% of market data below and 50% of market data above. The median is used, as opposed to the mean (or average), because the median is less susceptible to high or low values. San Luis Obispo is not included when calculating the median SALARY: Max monthly salary HEALTH INSURANCE: Employer contribution to family plan PPO health insurance OTHER PAY: Uniform pay or paramedic incentive RETIREMENT: Employer contribution to retirement (including EPMC, deferred comp, and social security) Components of Total Compensation 1 | Page SS1 - 7 ATTACHMENT 1 so that it can easily be compared to the market. Results from each comparison fall into one of three categories: (1) at market (plus or minus five (5%) percent from the market median); (2) leading the market (more than five (5%) percent above the market median); or (3) lagging the market (more than five (5%) percent below the market median). While some benchmarks may be close to the five (5%) percent threshold it was necessary to select some data point to make the comparison and the five (5%) percent threshold is consistent with what was used in the 2007 Benchmark Compensation Report. Compensation and benefits data was gathered as of January 2014 from 15 comparison agencies and the County of San Luis Obispo (survey universes or the “market”). Comparison agencies were chosen based on: (1) where applicants and new hires were coming from or transitioning employees were going to; (2) proximity to San Luis Obispo; (3) similar demographics; or (4) contractual obligations with police and fire associations. Data in the Report is generally presented by employee group (SLOCEA, Management, Police, Police Management, or Fire) because components of compensation may vary among employee groups. Retirement data is reported according to contractual groups (Miscellaneous, Police Safety, and Fire Safety) as defined by the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) or local retirement associations. It should be noted that the comparison agencies (survey universe) for SLOCEA, Police Management, and unrepresented employees is not the same as the universe for Police or Fire. While the universe selected and described as market in this Report for SLOCEA and unrepresented employees is based on factors included in the City’s Compensation Philosophy, the Police and Fire survey agencies are the result of previous labor negotiations and existing contracts. It is also important to note that the data for Police positions do not reflect the two (2%) percent salary decrease recently implemented in July 2014. A benchmark survey approach was used with 26 City classifications selected for study. The benchmark strategy surveys the most representative and most accurately matched classes, rather than all classes. This approach is more economical to administer, while offering a reliable assessment of market competitiveness. 2 | Page SS1 - 8 ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS Fifty percent (50%) of the 26 City benchmark classifications surveyed lag the market, 42% are at market, and eight (8%) percent lead the market in total compensation. For the eight (8%) percent of survey outcomes (or two benchmarks) where the City leads the market, no benchmark is more than 10% above the median. For the 13 benchmarks where the City lags the market in total compensation, reported outcomes vary from just over five (5%) percent to 20% below the median. Salary is a key component of total compensation (see Appendix A for details) and therefore, salary results trend in a similar manner to that of total compensation. Overall, 62% of the City benchmark classifications surveyed lag the market, 23% are at the market, and 15% lead for salary. When comparing other components of total compensation to the median, the City appears to lag the market in health contributions and lead the market in retirement contributions. However, when the employer contributions to health are put in perspective as a percent of the total cost of family health insurance coverage, the City’s contribution is generally at market for the HMO medical plan and lags the market for the PPO medical plan. Currently, more City employees are enrolled in a PPO plan than an HMO plan. Similarly, total compensation tables in Appendix A indicate the City’s total contributions to retirement trend above comparison agencies’ contributions. Again, when compared to total costs of retirement so that the employees’ contribution is recognized and the cost sharing between employer and employee is put in perspective, the City’s contribution towards retirement costs are generally at market. Local private sector data was difficult to obtain and cannot be validated. Salary data from the two sources is very disparate; in many cases one source indicates the City is at market for salary while the other source indicates the City lags market significantly. Further, while some information on health and retirement was available, it was not possible to calculate total compensation with the information available. The charts below summarize results for total compensation and salary, employer contribution to total health costs, and employer contributions to normal retirement costs by employee group. 3 | Page SS1 - 9 ATTACHMENT 1 TOTAL COMPENSATION AND SALARY TRENDS CHART 2 Salary and total compensation trend very closely for SLOCEA benchmarks, with five of 11 benchmarks lagging the market in total compensation and six lagging in salary (Maintenance Worker III – Streets shifts from at market in total compensation to lagging slightly in salary). The same three Utilities benchmarks that lagged the market significantly in 2007 are again between 13% and 20% under market in total compensation and salary. Three factors may attribute to this: 1) while salary adjustments were made in 2008 and 2009, these classifications were not brought up to the market median, 2) a shortage of certified utilities personnel appears to continue, and, 3) the survey universe used for these three benchmarks include Special Districts. -25.0% -20.0% -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% Salary vs. Total Compensation Percent from Median: SLOCEA Classifications Total Comp Monthly Salary Median 4 | Page SS1 - 10 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 3 Total compensation lags the market for five of nine Management benchmark classifications. However, only one benchmark (Administrative Analyst) is at market in both total compensation and salary. The Police Chief benchmark is at market for total compensation but lags the market in salary by 12%. The disparity between total compensation and salary may be driven by the City’s higher retirement costs. . -20.0% -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% Salary vs. Total Compensation Percent from Median: Management Classifications Total Comp Monthly Salary Median 5 | Page SS1 - 11 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 4 *The salary above does not reflect the two (2%) percent decrease for Police Officer and Communications Technician effective July 2014. All data was gathered as of January 2014. Public safety comparisons (excluding the Police Chief) indicate that Fire benchmarks lag the market by 5% to 18% for total compensation as well as salary. Total compensation and salary for Police Officer is at market, while Communication Technician and Police Sergeant lead the market by just over 5% to 10%. This chart represents different survey universes for Police, Police Management, and Fire. -20.0% -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% Fire Inspector II Firefighter Fire Captain Police Officer Communications Technician Police Sergeant Salary vs. Total Compensation Percent from Median: Public Safety Classifications Total Comp Monthly Salary Median 6 | Page SS1 - 12 ATTACHMENT 1 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS TO HEALTH INSURANCE The cost of health insurance is influenced by plan design, provider networks, and region. To put health insurance costs in perspective, the employer contribution as a percent of the total family health insurance cost was compared for Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) and Preferred Provider Option (PPO) plans. This comparison minimizes variations resulting from regional cost differences and focuses on the ratio of shared cost between the employer and employee. The City’s contribution to employee HMO insurance costs is at market for almost all employee groups and lags the market for PPO insurance costs. Fire is the only employee group that has the same contribution amount regardless of the number of dependents covered; causing it to lag the market for both HMO and PPO insurance. CHART 5 -50.0% -40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% SLOCEA Management Police Police Management Fire Health Insurance Employer Contribution Percent from Median (Family Coverage) HMO PPO Median 7 | Page SS1 - 13 ATTACHMENT 1 RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS There are many factors that contribute to retirement costs including benefit formulas, the number of retirees, age at retirement, years of service, salary, etc. To put the data in perspective, the percent the employer is contributing to the normal cost (amount needed to fully fund the benefits based on actuarial assumptions) of retirement was calculated for all comparison agencies. The City contributes less than the median to Police Safety normal retirement costs and slightly above the median towards the normal retirement costs for Miscellaneous and Fire Safety first tier retirement benefits. CHART 6 -20.0% -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% Police Safety Tier 1 Miscellaneous Tier 1 Fire Safety Tier 1 Retirement Employer Contribution to Normal Cost: Percent from Median Median 8 | Page SS1 - 14 ATTACHMENT 1 USING THIS REPORT The remainder of this Report provides background and authority on conducting the study and details about the Methodology used, including how comparison agencies (or survey universes) were selected, how benchmark classifications were determined, and which data points were utilized. The data in this Report will help to inform Council’s development of labor relations objectives and should provide a solid foundation of data for negotiations with employee groups. As described in the Survey Data Points section of this Report, the sheer volume of data can be overwhelming so consideration was given to presenting the results in a consistent format through the use of Technical Appendices and presenting the data graphically wherever possible. The Appendices are organized as follows: A. Total Compensation (employer contributions to salary, health insurance, and retirement) B. Salary C. Employer Contribution to Health Insurance D. Employer Contribution to Retirement (includes employer contributions to defined benefit and deferred compensation plans as well as Social Security) E. Paid Time Off F. Other Pay and Benefits and Related Information G. Private Sector Data At any point in the report the reader can go to the Technical Appendices to view the results or the reader may want to start with the Technical Appendices and go to the body of the report if more context on the methodology used or a definition of the data gathered is desired. In cases where data was gathered but not reported for paid time off and other pay and benefit practices, the information is available upon request. The Compensation Philosophy states that the City is committed to providing competitive compensation as part of an overall strategy of attracting and retaining well qualified employees who exemplify the City’s organizational values as they serve the community. It further states that in determining “competitive” compensation Council will consider: (1) financial sustainability or the City’s financial condition, competing service priorities, maintenance needs, and infrastructure needs, (2) community acceptability since taxpayers ultimately fund employee compensation, (3) the relevant labor market which is the information provided in this report as well as more recent and upcoming trends in compensation, (4) internal relationships so that classifications with similar duties and level of responsibility, requiring similar level of skills, knowledge, and abilities receive similar compensation, and, (5) other relevant factors such as unforeseen economic changes, natural disasters, changes in City services, and regulatory or legal changes. It is therefore, cautioned that while this Report provides extensive objective and verifiable data, it should not be taken out of context, but instead be viewed as a tool that sheds some light on what has occurred in the relevant labor market. 9 | Page SS1 - 15 ATTACHMENT 1 AUTHORITY/BACKGROUND On November 5, 2013 Council authorized staff to conduct a compensation study in accordance with the Council adopted Compensation Philosophy as provided in the work program supporting the major city goal to Sustain Essential Services, Infrastructure, and Fiscal Health. “Sustain essential services, infrastructure, and fiscal health: preserve public health and safety and provide essential services in line with residents’ priorities and sustain the City’s short and long term fiscal health by planning future revenues (including renewal of Measure Y or an alternative measure), while implementing contingency planning, efficiency measures, and cost containment strategies including implementation of the Compensation Philosophy and monitoring further pension and benefit issues.” The primary purpose of this 2014 Benchmark Compensation Study is to gather and present to Council, employees, and the community, objective and verifiable market compensation data as described in the Compensation Philosophy adopted by Council in 2007 and modified by Council in 2011. The results of this Report provide Council with the context to assess the City’s market position as provided in the Compensation Philosophy. It helps inform Council as they develop labor relations objectives that will guide negotiations with employee groups in 2014 and 2015. Council will also consider fiscal responsibility, pension and benefit costs, community acceptability, and the City’s financial condition and outlook as described in the Compensation Philosophy. Conducting the study also fulfilled a commitment to the San Luis Obispo City Employees Association (SLOCEA) as part of negotiations in 2012 that resulted in a 6.8% total compensation reduction. At that time, the City committed to conducting a benchmark compensation study that examines comparison data from local and regional cities in advance of the SLOCEA memorandum of agreement expiring on December 31, 2014. Having a common basis of objective verifiable market compensation data provides a solid foundation for negotiations with all of the City’s employee groups. Some differences should be noted between the market environment for this Report and the study conducted in 2007. In 2007, the City was experiencing significant difficulty attracting and retaining employees. The 2007 study revealed that compensation for several City classifications was not competitive and as a result, Council granted adjustments to the compensation of several City classifications. The City has not experienced the same recruitment challenges in the past few years likely due to the downturn in the economy between 2009 and 2013. Recently, however, the City has experienced challenges attracting specific classifications such as a Fire Vehicle Mechanic, an experienced City Clerk, or classifications requiring specialized certifications or technical skills. 10 | Page SS1 - 16 ATTACHMENT 1 PROCESS Human Resources staff conducted the study under the guidance of consultant, Geoffrey Rothman of Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai, LLP, the assistance of an employee committee (A ttachment 2), and oversight from the Personnel Board, a citizen advisory body to Council. A comprehensive and transparent methodology guided the study. The 2011 modification by Council to the Compensation Philosophy placing emphasis on relevant labor markets was considered as well as changes in public sector compensation such as the implementation of second and third tier reduced retirement benefit formulas. The general approach included the following: 1. An experienced consultant guided the methodology, provided training for staff and Personnel Board members, periodically reviewed the data collected, and reviewed report findings. 2. An employee committee was consulted with regard to methodology, assisted with the survey, and provided recommendations on key study decisions to the City Manager. 3. The Personnel Board was trained in the survey methodology, briefed periodically throughout the process regarding key decisions, and reviewed the results prior to Council. 4. Total compensation data across a sampling of classifications (benchmarks) across all employee groups, including public safety, was gathered. 5. Relevant labor markets were examined based on recruitment, hire, and turnover data. AN EXPERIENCED CONSULTANT GUIDED THE METHODOLOGY Geoffrey Rothman of Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai, LLP advised the City on the methodology used in the 2007 Compensation Study and was selected to assist again. He has extensive experience conducting compensation and benefit surveys in the public sector including surveys used pursuant to AB 646, legislation requiring fact-finding in dispute resolutions including when parties reach impasse during labor negotiations. His focus on providing a thorough foundation on how to conduct a compensation study to ensure objective verifiable data is gathered was greatly appreciated by staff, the employee committee, and the Personnel Board. Mr. Rothman advised throughout the study, reviewed job matches, provided input on comparison agencies and private sector data, and extensively reviewed the data and this final report prior to publishing. 11 | Page SS1 - 17 ATTACHMENT 1 AN EMPLOYEE COMMITTEE A Compensation Committee comprised of a diverse set of City employees 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. Fourteen committee members were selected from 38 volunteers. Committee members were selected from each of the City’s unrepresented employee groups (Confidential, Management, and Department Heads) as well as the City’s four represented employee associations: 1) SLOCEA, 2) The International Association of Firefighters, Local 3523 (Fire), 3) The San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association (SLOPOA or Police), and, 4) The San Luis Obispo Police Staff Officers Association (SLOPSOA or Police Management). The Committee served as advisor to the City Manager in making key decisions related to survey methodology, helped to review City job descriptions to ensure they were up to date, and reviewed job descriptions in other agencies to ensure appropriate classification matches. The Committee also focused on ensuring a transparent process through consistent communication. To that end, the committee hosted a series of “open houses” where they explained the final list of benchmark classifications, comparison agencies, and data points. They regularly communicated to employees via email, and presented final results to employees once the report was public. THE PERSONNEL BOARD The Personnel Board provided input regarding methodology and reviewed the results of the 2014 Benchmark Compensation Study prior to the report being presented to Council. The same process and role was used in 2007. On November 18, 2013 the Personnel Board received training from compensation consultant Geoffrey Rothman regarding the methodology for conducting a comprehensive benchmark compensation study. On March 13, 2014 staff presented the comparison agencies, benchmark classifications, and data points to commissioners and briefed them on the collection of private sector data. Final results were reviewed by the Personnel Board prior to this study being presented to Council. 12 | Page SS1 - 18 ATTACHMENT 1 METHODOLOGY The methodology used in this comprehensive study was guided by the City’s Compensation Philosophy and input from consultant Geoffrey Rothman. A benchmark approach to gathering total compensation data from the relevant labor market was used. Each key component to the survey methodology is described in detail below: 1) Determining the relevant labor market or survey universe(s) including private sector sources of compensation data, 2) Selecting survey benchmarks, and, 3) Selecting survey data points. SURVEY UNIVERSE DETERMINING THE RELEVANT LABOR MARKET OR SURVEY UNIVERSE(S) In order to determine the relevant labor market as described in the City’s Compensation Philosophy, staff reviewed new hire and turnover data for the past five years (2009 through 2013) to better understand the geographic regions and key markets from which non-public safety employees were hired or lost. It is presumed that the relevant labor market for public safety is other public sector agencies, providing similar services. Seventy seven percent (77%) of the City’s Management employees were hired from the public sector, primarily cities, with 62% of those coming from outside San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara counties. New hire data indicates 37% of the City’s employees represented by SLOCEA are hired from the public sector, with 29% of them coming from out of the area and six (6%) percent from local cities. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of SLOCEA new hires are hired from the local private sector and 25% from out of the area. Turnover data for the past five years indicates about 56% of employees leave the City due to retirement, 33% leave for family, personal, or other reasons, and 11% leave for other employment. Of those that leave for other job opportunities, less than one percent (1%) hire on with local private sector companies while almost 4% go to local public sector organizations. Another 2% of employees are drawn to private sector jobs out of the area and 5% obtain employment in the public sector out of the area. Overall, the data indicates a strong preference for public sector experience for new hires. This should come as no surprise as industry or sector preference is typical for most employers and the City’s “industry” is municipal government. Prior work experience in municipal government helps prepare employees at all levels in the organization to effectively serve a diverse set of customers (e.g. residents, seniors, business owners, students, children, transients, tourists, etc.) and to appreciate the responsibilities of public stewardship. Therefore, the 2014 Benchmark Compensation Report provides comparisons to other cities with similar demographics, as well as the County of San 13 | Page SS1 - 19 ATTACHMENT 1 Luis Obispo. Hiring employees who understand the demands of working in municipal government as well as the processes, laws, and regulations that guide this type of work has proven to be effective. With the City’s relevant labor market defined as municipal government, applicant data was reviewed to ensure comparison cities would reflect the regions in which the City recruits. Prior to doing the analysis on applicant hire and turnover data, staff committed to gathering private sector data to the extent possible, and therefore it is included in this report. SELECTING PUBLIC SECTOR AGENCIES REFLECTIVE OF APPLICANT POOL Applicant data for the past five years indicated the majority of applicants come from San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties (57%), with the next highest percentage from Northern (17%) and Southern California (17%), the Central Valley (7%), and Sacramento area (2%). Agencies used in the 2007 Benchmark Compensation Study were reviewed using updated demographic information as described in the Compensation Philosophy. Population, median age, residents’ education levels, median travel time to work, median household income, median home sales price, crime level, unemployment rate, whether or not the city was a county seat, general law or charter city, miles from San Luis Obispo, number of employees in the agency, agency services provided, and general fund budget was compiled. The committee also discussed each city’s proximity to a major university, whether or not the city is a tourism destination or regional retail hub, and if the city has a “cool” downtown. Chico was the only city used in the 2007 study that was not included this time because of its close proximity to Davis and because their median home sales price lowered substantially, making it less comparable. Petaluma, Clovis, and Santa Monica were added to the list to ensure a sufficient and statistically meaningful number of agencies represented the regions described above. While selecting cities to represent the Central Valley and Southern California was particularly difficult, Clovis was chosen to represent the Central Valley where we draw a portion of our applicants from and because the demographics are similar to Santa Maria, a long-standing local comparison. Santa Monica is also used by the City when benchmarking environmental, storm water, homelessness, and risk management issues. Mr. Rothman, advised the Committee to avoid including counties, special districts, the State of California, etc. because they tend to provide different services, are often much larger, rely on a dedicated source of revenues, thus driving different pay practices. This advice was supported by new hire data that indicated, on average, only one hire per year came from non-municipal government entities such as Cal Poly, the County of San Luis Obispo, or the California Men’s Colony. However, the County of San Luis Obispo was included as it is a long-standing local benchmark and limited special district data was included to ensure a sufficient sample size for two 14 | Page SS1 - 20 ATTACHMENT 1 utilities benchmark classifications as described in more detail in the Selecting Benchmarks section of this report. THE TH REE SURVEY UNIVERSES As discussed with Council on November 5, 2013, the SLOPOA and the Fire Local 3523 previously negotiated comparison cities in their respective memorandum of agreements that govern wages, hours, and working conditions for their members. Therefore, this Report contains three distinct survey universes: 1) The General Survey Universe that includes comparison agencies for unrepresented, SLOCEA, and Police Management benchmark classifications (Table 1). 2) The Police Survey Universe for SLOPOA benchmark classifications (Table 2). 3) The Fire Survey Universe for Fire benchmark classifications (Table 3). THE GENERAL SURVEY UNIVERSE TABLE 1: THE GENERAL SURVEY UNIVERSE. All twelve of the agencies in Table 1 share the following characteristics: 1) Full service agency: They all directly provide a wide range of municipal services, including law enforcement, fire protection, utilities, street maintenance, and/or parks & recreation and planning. 2) Distinct regional identity and/or separate from a large metropolitan area. 3) Major employment, commercial, cultural and/or government centers for their area. Agency Population Median Household Income Median Home Sales Price Median Age % Population High School Degree % Population Bachelor's Degree No. of City Employees San Luis Obispo 45,87846,651$ 525,000$ 26.593.3%47.8%359 Clovis 98,63263,983$ 255,000$ 34.188.6%29.5%482 County of SLO 274,80458,630$ 415,000$ 39.488.9%30.8%2,509 Davis 65,99361,535$ 455,000$ 25.296.0%69.5%376 Monterey 29,00363,072$ 520,000$ 36.993.3%48.3%462 Napa 78,34062,505$ 421,500$ 37.479.2%27.4%450 Paso Robles 30,55657,977$ 358,000$ 35.385.0%20.9%185 Petaluma 58,92176,909$ 447,500$ 40.389.6%36.8%308 Santa Barbara 89,63963,758$ 880,000$ 36.884.8%41.9%1,006 Santa Cruz 62,04162,755$ 610,000$ 29.992.5%50.8%775 Santa Maria 101,45951,675$ 263,500$ 28.660.6%13.7%472 Santa Monica 91,81272,271$ 978,500$ 40.495.2%64.5%1,996 Ventura 107,73466,586$ 411,000$ 3988.4%32.4%600 15 | Page SS1 - 21 ATTACHMENT 1 Additionally, they share one or more of the following characteristics with the City of San Luis Obispo: 1) Coastal or close proximity (Nine of twelve: Monterey, Paso Robles, Petaluma, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Maria, Santa Monica, Ventura, and the County). 2) Proximity to a major college or university (nine of twelve: Clovis, Davis, Monterey, Petaluma, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, Ventura and the County). 3) Tourism is an important part of the agency’s economy (nine of twelve: Monterey, Napa, Paso Robles, Petaluma, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, Ventura and the County of San Luis Obispo). 4) Midsize cities, with populations ranging from about 30,000 to 110,000 (the only exception is the County of San Luis Obispo). While the City of San Luis Obispo’s population is 45,878, the day-time population is approximately 75,000 during peak hours. THE POLICE SURVEY UNIVERSE Pursuant to the January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2015, Memorandum of Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the Police Officers’ Association, Article 27, General Provisions, the cities to be used for compensation comparison purposes are provided in the table below along with demographic data: TABLE 2: THE POLICE SURVEY UNIVERSE. Six of the nine SLOPOA cities are the same as those in the General Survey Universe as indicated in bold. Agency Population Median Household Income Median Home Sales Price Median Age % Population High School Degree % Population Bachelor's Degree No. of City Employees San Luis Obispo 45,878 46,651$ 525,000$ 26.593.3%47.8%359 Gilroy 50,660 78,842$ 495,000$ 32.477.1%23.8%276 Monterey 29,003 63,072$ 520,000$ 36.993.3%48.3%462 Napa 78,340 62,505$ 421,500$ 37.479.2%27.4%450 Petaluma 58,921 76,909$ 447,500$ 40.389.6%36.8%308 Pleasanton 72,338 118,129$ 750,000$ 40.595.1%55.5%522 Salinas 154,484 50,587$ 285,000$ 28.860.0%13.1%545 Santa Barbara 89,639 63,758$ 880,000$ 36.884.8%41.9%1,006 Santa Cruz 62,041 62,755$ 610,000$ 29.992.5%50.8%775 Santa Maria 101,459 51,675$ 263,500$ 28.660.6%13.7%472 16 | Page SS1 - 22 ATTACHMENT 1 THE FIRE SURVEY UNIVERSE Pursuant to the January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2015, Memorandum of Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the Fire Local 3523, Article 36, Salary Survey Cities, the cities to be used for compensation comparison purposes are provided in the table below along with demographic data: TABLE 3: THE FIRE SURVEY UNIVERSE. Six of the nine Fire Local 3523 cities are the same as the General Survey Universe as indicated in bold. Agency Population Median Household Income Median Home Sales Price Median Age % Population High School Degree % Population Bachelor's Degree No. of City Employees San Luis Obispo 45,878 46,651$ 525,000$ 26.593.3%47.8%359 Chico 87,714 42,896$ 254,500$ 28.690.5%33.2%398 Davis 65,993 61,535$ 455,000$ 25.296.0%69.5%376 Monterey 29,003 63,072$ 520,000$ 36.993.3%48.3%462 Napa 78,340 62,505$ 421,500$ 37.479.2%27.4%450 Petaluma 58,921 76,909$ 447,500$ 40.389.6%36.8%308 Pleasanton 72,338 118,129$ 750,000$ 40.595.1%55.5%522 Salinas 154,484 50,587$ 285,000$ 28.860.0%13.1%545 Santa Cruz 62,041 62,755$ 610,000$ 29.992.5%50.8%775 Santa Maria 101,459 51,675$ 263,500$ 28.660.6%13.7%472 17 | Page SS1 - 23 ATTACHMENT 1 LOCAL PRIVATE SECTOR DATA Obtaining local private sector salary and benefit data is considerably more difficult than obtaining public sector information. Salaries paid and benefits provided by private employers are usually considered confidential or proprietary and typically only obtained through legal mandate or disclosed to professional survey organizations under conditions of strict confidentiality. In speaking with local private sector professionals on this topic, many purchase industry specific private sector compensation data when reviewing their company’s compensation and benefits. Purchasing industry specific data provides them with data that is relevant to their company, its competitors, and sector. These professional surveys ensure data integrity, sufficient sample size, etc. There is no one segment of the private sector that provides comparable services to those provided by municipal government and therefore no standard professional source of data. The Human Resources Association of the Central Coast (HRCC), a volunteer professional association, conducts a survey of compensation and benefits locally every two years with the final report published in odd numbered years. The HRCC represents employers of all types and sizes locally. Survey classifications range from Account Executive (Sales) to Winery Worker, representing the diversity of the data. A second source of data was obtained through the State of California. A brief description of the two sources for local private sector data follows: 1) 2013 Compensation and Benefits Survey conducted by the HRCC. Responses for this survey were gathered from 120 organizations in the local public and private sectors representing nearly 3,000 employees on the Central Coast. All data gathered from this report is as of June 1, 2013. 2) Occupational Wage Data from the State of California Employment Development Department (EDD) Labor Market information program. Occupational wage data is reported for unemployment insurance purposes by employers to the EDD. Data is available by region, industry, and occupation. The San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles region was selected and occupation descriptions were matched to the City’s benchmark positions. The data included in this report is from the first quarter in 2013. It is important to note that public sector organizations report in both of the above sources, so neither survey consists exclusively of private sector data. 18 | Page SS1 - 24 ATTACHMENT 1 SURVEY BENCHMARKS SELECTING SURVEY BENCHMARKS The City has approximately 170 regular (not temporary) classifications. 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, 26 representative benchmark classifications were selected as the basis for this study. The information retrieved for these 26 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 grouped primarily by career ladder with a surveyed benchmark as described in Table 5. 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 2007 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 incumbents at the City. After selecting the benchmarks, departments were given the opportunity to review and update the benchmark job descriptions to ensure the skills, abilities, education, and experience necessary along with standard duties of the classification were accurately presented. Changes were reviewed and approved by the functional Department Head and Human Resources. 19 | Page SS1 - 25 ATTACHMENT 1 PUBLIC SECTOR BENCHMARKS Staff reviewed detailed job descriptions and organizational charts to understand duties, responsibilities, education and experience requirements, and reporting relationships for each agency. All classification matches were reviewed by at least two, if not three staff members as well as the City’s consultant. To ensure sufficient sample size for the General Survey Universe (matches with at least 67% of the comparison agencies) for each benchmark classification, the Committee suggested using the special district that serves the comparison agency for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Operator and the Water Treatment Plant Operator. Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) and Napa Sanitation District were used to match Water Resource Recovery Facility Operator for Monterey and Napa respectively, and Central Coast Water Authority was used to match Water Treatment Plant Operator for Santa Maria. The sample size for the Police and Fire Survey Universes, matched to as low as 56% of the comparison agencies in one case (Fire Inspector II). Unlike the situation with Utilities benchmarks, where reasonable comparisons could be made by examining the special districts providing water or wastewater services to the comparison cities, the lack of matches for Fire Inspector II had more to do with agencies defining the duties very differently. For example, some cities require Fire Inspectors to meet minimum qualifications for Firefighter and respond to large scale emergencies in a Firefighter capacity. While the limited use of special districts as well as the lower percent of comparisons may affect the quality of results, there was concurrence that this was a better practice then going with a smaller sample size. The highest level of confidence in the data occurs with 100% matches to comparable agencies and benchmark classifications as provided in the table below. In effect, the data for benchmarks with a high percent of reported matches is typically more reliable than data for a lower percent of matches. 20 | Page SS1 - 26 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 4 : BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS- PUBLIC SECTOR COMPARISONS. *SBP or Skills Based Pay classifications. **These SBP classifications include special districts to ensure sufficient matches. PRIVATE SECTOR BENCHMARKS City governments provide different services than those found in the private sector. Because only brief descriptions of duties or job titles were provided from the private sector sources, there is much less confidence in the reported private sector data than the public sector data. Data on 14 of the 26 benchmark classification is included in Appendix G. Benchmark Classifications % of Comparable Classifications in Public Sector Accounting Assistant III 100% Administrative Assistant II 100% Building Inspector II 100% Fire Captain (Suppression)100% Heavy Equipment Mechanic 100% Maintenance Worker III- Streets 100% Network Administrator 100% Chief Building Official 100% Police Chief 100% Police Officer 100% Police Sergeant 100% Director of Public Works 92% Human Resources Manager 92% Recreation Supervisor 92% Firefighter 89% Administrative Analyst 83% Senior Planner 83% Engineer II 75% Finance Operations Manager 75% Laboratory Analyst (SBP)*75% Deputy Director - Public Works 75% Code Enforcement Officer I 67% Communications Technician 67% Water Resource Recovery Facility Operator (SBP)**67% Water Treatment Plant Operator (SBP)**67% Fire Inspector II 56% 21 | Page SS1 - 27 ATTACHMENT 1 HOW DO OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS RELATE TO BENCHMARKS? Benchmarks are the basis for providing general information about the City’s competitiveness. For example, general statements about whether the City pays at, leads, or lags market overall, for a job family, level in the organization, or bargaining unit, may be made based on the benchmark data. In order to ensure all job classifications were represented by a benchmark, the committee organized classifications in job families or likely career progression. Table 5 provides the benchmark in bold and job families or likely career progression below. There are a few exceptions to this general approach where similar level classifications such as Department Head and Deputy Director classifications were grouped together. This is consistent with how these higher level benchmarks were matched to comparison benchmarks because at that level in the organization duties may vary significantly depending upon the organization’s structure and services provided. Therefore, Department Head and Deputy Director matches relied heavily on level in the organization, not a match of absolute duties. 22 | Page SS1 - 28 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 5 : INTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS ACCOUNTING ASST I HEAVY EQUIP OPR II ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ACCOUNTING ASST II MAINT WORKER I DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEV SUPERVISING ACCT ASST MAINT WORKER III-PARKS DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES MAINT WORKER II-PARKS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE & IT MAINT WORKER II-STREETS DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIVE ASST I PARKING METER REPAIR WORK DIRECTOR OF PARKS & REC ADMINISTRATIVE ASST III PARKS CREW COORDINATOR DEPUTY CITY CLERK PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR HR ADMIN ASSISTANT I RANGER MAINTENANCE WORKER ACCOUNTANT HR ADMIN ASSISTANT II STREETS CREW COORDINATOR BUDGET MANAGER LEGAL ASST/PARALEGAL STREETS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR SENIOR ACCOUNTANT SUPERVISING ADM ASST SWEEPER OPERATOR UTILITIES BUSINESS MGR BLDG & SAFETY SUPERVISOR DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST I BUILDING INSPECTOR I GIS SPECIALIST I HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II PERMIT COORDINATOR GIS SPECIALIST II HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST PERMIT TECHNICIAN I GIS SUPERVISOR PERMIT TECHNICIAN II INFO TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANT PLANS EXAMINER INFO TECHNOLOGY MANAGER GOLF COURSE SUPERVISOR NETWORK SVCS SUPERVISOR NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH MGR RECREATION COORDINATOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFCR II RECREATION MANAGER NEIGHBORHOOD SVCS SPEC WASTEWATER COL SY OPR SBP TOURISM MANAGER PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFF WASTEWATER COLLECT SUPER WATER RES REC MAINT TECH SBP WRRF CHIEF MAINT TECH ASSISTANT PLANNER CONSTRUCTION ENG MGR WRRF CHIEF OPERATOR ASSOCIATE PLANNER ENGINEER I WRRF PLANT SUPERVISOR HOUSING PROGRAMS MANAGER ENGINEER III PLANNING TECHNICIAN ENGINEER III-TRAN ENGINEER II-TRAN UNDERGROUND UTIL LOCATOR ENGINEER I-TRANS UTILITIES SERVICES MANAGER FIRE ENGINEER ENGINEERING INSPECTOR I UTILITIES SERVICES TECH ENGINEERING INSPECTOR II WATER DISTR SYS OPER SBP ENGINEERING INSPECTOR III WATER DISTRIBUTION SUPER FIRE BATTALION CHIEF ENGINEERING INSPECTOR IV WATER SUPPLY OPERATOR SBP DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF ENGINEERING TECH I WATER TRT PLNT SUPER ENGINEERING TECH II WHALE RCK RESERVOIR SUPER ENGINEERING TECH III WTP CHIEF OPERATOR FIRE INSPECTOR III PRINCIPAL TRANS PLANNER WTP MAINT TECHNICIAN SBP FIRE INSPECTOR I SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER WTR CUSTOMER SER PERS SBP FIRE MARSHAL SUPERVISING CIVIL ENG HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COORD TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANT TRANSPORTATION OPER MGR PRINCIPAL ADM ANALYST UTILITIES PROJECTS MGR SENIOR ADMIN ANALYST COMMUNICATIONS SUPERVISOR COMMUNICATN & RECORDS MGR EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN FLEET MAINT SUPERVISOR DEP DIR-COMMUNITY DEV POLICE FIELD SERV TECH BUILDING MAINTENANCE TECH DEP DIR-COMMUNITY DEV POLICE RECORDS CLERK I FACILITIES MNT SUPERVISOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MGR POLICE RECORDS CLERK II FIRE VEHICLE MECHANIC NATURAL RESOURCES MGR POLICE RECORDS SUPERVISOR MAINT WORKER II-BUILDINGS ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY PROPERTY & EVIDENCE CLERK MAINT WORKER III-BUILDINGS CITY CLERK MECHANIC HELPER PARKING COORDINATOR POLICE CADET SIGNAL & STREETLIGHT TECH DEP DIR-PW/CITY ENGINEER TREE TRIMMER I DEP DIR-UTILITIES/WASTWTR TREE TRIMMER II DEP DIR-UTILITIES/WATER POLICE LIEUTENANT URBAN FOREST SUP/ARBORIST PARKING MANAGER POLICE CAPTAIN TRANSIT MANAGER BIOLOGIST FIRE CHIEF ENVIRON. COMPLIANCE INSP. ENVIRON. PROGRAMS MGR LABORATORY MANAGER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIALHEAVY EQUIP MECHANIC SENIOR PLANNER FINANCE OPERATIONS MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCES MGR RECREATION SUPERVISOR NETWORK ADMINISTRATORBUILDING INSPECTOR II WATER TREAT PLANT OPR SBP ENGINEER II COMMUNICATIONS TECH FIRE CAPT (SUPPRESSION) CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFCR I WATER RES REC OPERATORS SBP FIRE FIGHTER FIRE INSPECTOR II LABORATORY ANALYST SBP DEP DIR-PUBLIC WORKS POLICE CHIEF POLICE SERGEANT POLICE OFFICER ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST Benchmark Classifications and Job Families ADMINISTRATIVE ASST II ACCOUNTING ASST III DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSMAINT WORKER III-STREETS 23 | Page SS1 - 29 ATTACHMENT 1 SURVEY DATA POINTS A voluminous amount of data was gathered in order to calculate total compensation and to report standard time off and incentive pay practices. This section provides a summary of the data reported in the Technical Appendices as well as a description of data points gathered in order to present the information in a useful manner. A. Total Compensation (employer contributions to salary, health insurance, and retirement) as shown below in Chart 7 B. Salary C. Employer Contribution to Health Insurance D. Employer Contribution to Retirement (employer contributions to defined benefit and deferred compensation plans as well as Social Security) E. Paid Time Off F. Other Pay and Benefits and Related Information G. Private Sector Data CHART 7 While it was simply not feasible to report all data points gathered, they are available upon request. All data in this report is presented using monthly dollar amounts and was gathered as of January 2014. SALARY: Max monthly salary HEALTH INSURANCE: Employer contribution to family plan PPO health insurance OTHER PAY: Uniform pay or paramedic incentive RETIREMENT: Employer contribution to retirement (including EPMC, deferred comp, and social security) Components of Total Compensation 24 | Page SS1 - 30 ATTACHMENT 1 TOTAL COMPENSATION Total compensation was calculated by adding maximum salary, employer contributions to a family health plan comparable to the CalPERS Select PPO, and all employer contributions to retirement plans (defined benefit, deferred compensation, and/or Social Security). (Appendix A contains R eport detail) SALARY Salary figures are effective January 2014 or as close as possible based on information available and are the maximum of the salary range except when the City’s position is designated as Skills Based Pay (SBP). Step 6 of the City’s SBP salary range was used as it represents the salary of a full journey-level position. SBP salary ranges have nine steps and therefore, there is room to progress beyond Step 6 with higher skills and/or certification. No other survey agencies have a SBP program, making these benchmark classifications more challenging to survey. 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 maximum of the range after six years of service. The City’s average length of service at the time of the study was just over 10 years. Consequently, monthly top step was surveyed to provide input as to whether City salary ranges are competitive. (Appendix B contains Report detail) HEALTH INSURANCE Employer contributions to a family health plan comparable to the CalPERS Select PPO were used to calculate total compensation. The same information was also gathered for plans similar to the Blue Shield Net Value HMO. In addition, health insurance premiums were captured so that the employer contribution as a percent of total family health insurance cost could be calculated. Family health insurance includes the cost of medical, dental, and vision insurance. (Appendix C contains Report detail) RETIREMENT BENEFITS The City contracts with CalPERS to provide a defined benefit retirement program to its employees. Benefits vary depending upon the contract with CalPERS and the type of employee covered. The City currently has three contracts with CalPERS; 1) Police Safety – also referred to as “sworn” employees in the Police Department including police officers, police sergeants, police lieutenants, police captains and the Police Chief. 2) Fire Safety – also referred to as “sworn” employees in the Fire Department including firefighters, fire engineers, fire captains, fire battalion chiefs, and the Fire Chief. 25 | Page SS1 - 31 ATTACHMENT 1 3) Miscellaneous – all other employees that are “non-sworn” including fire inspectors, police records clerks, emergency communications technicians, other general employees, confidential, management, and appointed officials. Employer contributions to retirement plans (defined benefit, deferred compensation, and/or Social Security) were used to calculate total compensation. When calculating the employer contributions, any amounts paid by the employee were deducted. The employer contribution as a percent of normal cost and total cost was also calculated. (Appendix D contains R eport detail) Therefore, the following data points were gathered: 1) Retirement Benefit Formula – This formula typically indicates the “normal” retirement age and percent of final compensation used to calculate a retirement benefit. Prior to the passage of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) many agencies amended their contract providing a lower retirement formula. PEPRA mandated lower formulas for new hires without prior public sector experience. To avoid confusion this report uses the following definitions: Tier 1 – The highest retirement formula available at an agency. Tier 2 – A lower formula negotiated prior to PEPRA, if applicable. Some agencies did not implement a second tier. Tier 3 – The PEPRA mandated formula. 2) Member Contribution (also referred to as “employee share”) – The percent of salary established by CalPERS or local retirement agency which varies by benefit formula that is considered the employee’s responsibility to pay. 3) Employer Paid Member Contribution (EPMC)* – The percentage the employer pays on the employee’s behalf for the member contribution (i.e. rate/cost). This practice was considered standard but is being phased-out by most employers. For those comparison agencies that still provide this benefit it is included in the retirement portion of total compensation. The City does not pay EPMC for any employee group. 4) Employer Rate: Normal Rate/Cost – The amount required to actuarially ensure that current contributions will meet future benefit requirements. This amount includes the Member cost. 5) Employer Rate: Unfunded Liability Rate/Cost* – The amount required to amortize past unfunded costs over time. Unfunded liabilities are accrued to an employer when unforeseen circumstances such as investment losses, enhanced benefits costs, or demographic changes mean that the normal costs will not be sufficient to fully fund retiree benefits. 6) Cost Sharing – The amount the employee pays toward the employer contribution. 7) Total Retirement Cost – The required member contribution and employer contribution that includes the normal cost and any unfunded liability. 26 | Page SS1 - 32 ATTACHMENT 1 8) Employer Contribution to Post Retirement Health – The amount contributed to retiree medical. If the employer participates in PERS medical plans they are required to make a minimum contribution towards the cost of PERS health insurance for retirees. 9) Employer Contribution to Deferred Compensation* – The amount contributed by the agency to any defined contribution retirement plan. 10) Social Security Contribution* – The amount contributed by agencies that participate in Social Security retirement. Only two public sector comparison agencies participate in Social Security; the City of Paso Robles and the County of San Luis Obispo. (Appendix D contains Report detail) *Elements of Total Compensation. PAID TIME-OFF BENEFITS Vacation, sick leave, and holidays are consistently provided by public sector agencies across employee groups and are reported in Appendix E. However, other paid time off practices may vary greatly among employee groups and employers. Several data points were collected and are described below, but it was not feasible to report all of them. As with any other data point the information is available upon request. (Appendix E contains Report detail) 1) Vacation at Hire*– The number of vacation hours granted to employees upon hire. 2) Vacation at 10 years of service – The number of vacation hours granted to employees after they reach 10 years of service. Most organizations increase the amount of vacation at intervals based on years of service. The majority of City employees had 10 years of service at the time of the study. 3) Vacation Cash Out (annual)* – The number of hours employees are able to cash out on an annual basis. 4) Sick Leave – The number of hours granted to employees each year for use if they are sick or if they need to care for a family member. 5) Sick Leave Cash Out (retirement)*– The maximum number of hours employees are able to cash out upon retirement. 6) Paid Holidays – The hours of holiday leave granted to employees including floating or personal holidays. 7) Holiday Cash Out* – The percent of holiday hours public safety employees are able to cash out on an annual basis. 8) Administrative Leave* – The number of hours available to Management and Department Head classifications. Administrative leave provides paid time off in recognition of extraordinary efforts, night meetings, and other required after-hours work in lieu of overtime compensation provided to non-management classifications. 27 | Page SS1 - 33 ATTACHMENT 1 9) Administrative Leave Cash Out* - The percent of administrative leave hours employees are able to cash out on an annual basis. 10) Compensatory Time Off Accrual* – The maximum number of compensatory hours an employee is able to accrue on an annual basis. Compensatory time off is time off with pay in lieu of overtime. (Appendix E contains Report detail) *Data was collected but not provided in this Report. OTHER PAY AND BENEFITS AND RELATED INFORMATION The following is a brief description of additional pay and benefit practices gathered in the preparation of this Report. (Appendix F contains Report detail) 1) Last Salary Adjustment – The last date an employee group received an across the board increase/decrease in salary. 2) Next Salary Adjustment – The date and percentage of the next scheduled salary increase/decrease. 3) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Date Range* – The date range of the current MOA for employee groups. 4) Education Incentive – The dollar amount an employee receives for having an Associate’s degree, Intermediate POST degree, Bachelor’s degree and/or Advanced POST degree. 5) Paramedic Pay – The total dollar amount a Fire employee receives for paramedic pay. 6) Uniform Allowance – The maximum dollar amount an employee receives for uniform allowance. 7) Shift Differential* – Whether or not the agency provides shift differential pay for employees assigned to a swing or graveyard shift. 8) Life Insurance* – The amount of employer paid employee life insurance was collected for various employees groups. *Data was collected but not provided in this Report. PRIVATE SECTOR DATA If the sample size was small or the maximum of the average pay range reflected government sector data, “no match” was indicated. (Appendix G contains Report detail) 1) HRCC Salary – The maximum of the “average pay range” is reported from the HRCC survey. This data point averages all of the pay range maximums reported in the survey. 2) EDD Data – The 75th percentile was used as an equivalent “top of range”. The 75th percentile indicates 75% of the incumbents are paid lower and 25% are paid higher. 3) Summary of Local Health Insurance and Other Related Information – Limited benefit information was included in the HRCC Survey and is included in Appendix G. 28 | Page SS1 - 34 ATTACHMENT 1 APPENDIX A: TOTAL COMPENSATION Total compensation is defined as all employer contributions to salary, health, retirement, or other pay regularly received by a group of employees (e.g. uniform allowance for public safety employees). Retirement contributions include all employer paid contributions for the normal cost, unfunded liability, member contribution, deferred compensation plans, and social security. The following tables are organized alphabetically by benchmark classification by employee group. SLOCEA BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS TOTAL COMPENSATION TABLE 6: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT III TABLE 7: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Principal Account Clerk 4,066.00$ 1,476.51$ x 693.29$ 6,235.80$ County of SLOSenior Account Clerk 3,700.67$ 750.58$ x 1,432.53$ 5,883.78$ Davis Senior Accounting Assistant 4,061.95$ 1,877.64$ x 858.21$ 6,797.80$ Monterey Accounting Assistant 4,602.00$ 1,704.00$ x 966.52$ 7,272.52$ Napa Accounting Technician (Entry)4,881.00$ 1,676.25$ x 958.94$ 7,516.19$ Paso Robles Accounts Payable Clerk 3,968.00$ 1,750.89$ x 1,511.60$ 7,230.49$ Petaluma Accounting Assistant II 4,759.73$ 1,868.01$ x 689.59$ 7,317.33$ Santa BarbaraAccounting Assistant 4,723.05$ 1,082.88$ x 1,105.76$ 6,911.69$ Santa CruzAccounting Assistant II 4,214.00$ 1,865.39$ x 633.32$ 6,712.71$ Santa MariaFinance Clerk II 4,029.57$ 1,103.36$ x 1,158.09$ 6,291.02$ Santa Monica Billing Specialist 5,610.00$ 2,255.16$ x 1,637.35$ 9,502.51$ Ventura Senior Accounting Assistant 4,246.63$ 714.22$ x 736.58$ 5,697.43$ Median 4,230.32$ 1,690.13$ x 962.73$ 6,854.74$ San Luis ObispoAccounting Assistant III 4,378.83$ 1,255.00$ x 1,080.87$ 6,714.70$ SLO vs Median 3.5%-25.7%N/A 12.3%-2.0% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Office Assistant 3,260.00$ 1,476.51$ x 604.49$ 5,341.00$ County of SLO Administrative Assistant II 3,194.53$ 750.58$ x 1,494.37$ 5,439.48$ Davis Office Assistant II 3,448.57$ 1,877.64$ x 728.61$ 6,054.82$ Monterey Administrative Assistant I 4,384.00$ 1,704.00$ x 924.05$ 7,012.05$ Napa Office Assistant II 4,187.00$ 1,676.25$ x 829.70$ 6,692.95$ Paso Robles Administrative Assistant II 3,968.00$ 1,750.89$ x 1,669.39$ 7,388.28$ Petaluma Office Assistant II 4,297.41$ 1,868.01$ x 622.61$ 6,788.03$ Santa Barbara Office Specialist II 3,773.51$ 1,082.88$ x 883.45$ 5,739.84$ Santa CruzAdministrative Assistant II 3,938.00$ 1,865.39$ x 591.84$ 6,395.23$ Santa Maria Office Assistant II 3,391.53$ 1,103.36$ x 974.72$ 5,469.61$ Santa MonicaStaff Assistant II 4,507.00$ 2,255.16$ x 1,325.25$ 8,087.41$ Ventura Senior Office Assistant 3,638.37$ 714.22$ x 613.51$ 4,966.10$ Median 3,855.76$ 1,690.13$ x 856.58$ 6,225.03$ San Luis ObispoAdministrative Assistant II 4,155.67$ 1,255.00$ x 1,025.79$ 6,436.46$ SLO vs Median 7.8%-25.7%N/A 19.8%3.4% 29 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 35 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 8: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR BUILDING INSPECTOR II TABLE 9: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I TABLE 10: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR ENGINEER II Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Senior Building Inspector 6,455.00$ 1,471.26$ x 1,100.64$ 9,026.90$ County of SLOBuilding Inspector III 6,191.47$ 750.58$ x 2,396.72$ 9,338.77$ Davis Building Inspector II 5,787.76$ 1,877.64$ x 1,222.84$ 8,888.24$ MontereyInspector 7,264.00$ 1,704.00$ x 1,485.10$ 10,453.10$ Napa Building Inspector 6,860.00$ 1,676.25$ x 1,327.47$ 9,863.72$ Paso RoblesSenior Building Inspector 6,153.00$ 1,750.89$ x 2,320.11$ 10,224.00$ Petaluma Building Inspector II 7,068.53$ 1,868.01$ x 1,024.09$ 9,960.63$ Santa Barbara Senior Building Inspector 6,531.59$ 1,082.88$ x 1,529.18$ 9,143.65$ Santa Cruz Senior Building Inspector 6,959.00$ 1,865.39$ x 1,045.87$ 9,870.26$ Santa Maria Building Inspector II 5,657.86$ 1,103.36$ x 1,626.06$ 8,387.28$ Santa Monica Combination Building Inspector II 7,621.00$ 2,255.16$ x 2,206.36$ 12,082.52$ Ventura Senior Building Inspector 5,559.35$ 714.22$ x 952.88$ 7,226.45$ Median 6,493.30$ 1,690.13$ x 1,406.28$ 9,601.24$ San Luis ObispoBuilding Inspector II 5,977.83$ 1,255.00$ x 1,475.57$ 8,708.40$ SLO vs Median -7.9%-25.7%N/A 4.9%-9.3% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis no match x x x x x County of SLOResource Protection Specialist I 4,784.00$ 750.58$ x 1,851.89$ 7,386.47$ Davis no match x x x x x Monterey no match x x x x x Napa Code Enforcement Officer 6,206.00$ 1,676.25$ x 1,205.68$ 9,087.93$ Paso Robles no match x x x x x Petaluma Code Enforcement Officer 5,836.13$ 1,868.01$ x 845.54$ 8,549.68$ Santa Barbara Building Inspector 5,911.49$ 1,082.88$ x 1,384.00$ 8,378.37$ Santa Cruz Code Compliance Specialist 6,330.00$ 1,865.39$ x 951.34$ 9,146.73$ Santa Maria Code Compliance Officer I 4,744.39$ 1,103.36$ x 1,363.53$ 7,211.28$ Santa Monica Code Enforcement Officer I 6,273.00$ 2,255.16$ x 1,824.94$ 10,353.10$ Ventura Code/Fire Inspector 5,056.58$ 714.22$ x 870.04$ 6,640.84$ Median 5,873.81$ 1,389.81$ x 1,284.61$ 8,464.02$ San Luis ObispoCode Enforcement Officer I 5,824.00$ 1,255.00$ x 1,437.60$ 8,516.60$ SLO vs Median -0.8%-9.7%N/A 11.9%0.6% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Assistant Engineer 6,777.00$ 1,471.26$ x 1,155.55$ 9,403.81$ County of SLOEngineer II 6,870.93$ 750.58$ x 2,659.74$ 10,281.25$ Davis Assistant Engineer 6,524.63$ 1,877.64$ x 1,378.52$ 9,780.79$ Monterey no match x x x x x Napa Assistant Engineer 7,470.00$ 1,669.40$ x 1,491.06$ 10,630.46$ Paso Robles no match x x x x x Petaluma Assistant Engineer II 7,020.00$ 1,868.01$ x 1,017.06$ 9,905.07$ Santa Barbara Project Engineer II 7,473.12$ 1,082.88$ x 1,749.61$ 10,305.61$ Santa CruzAssistant Engineer II 6,513.00$ 1,865.39$ x 978.84$ 9,357.23$ Santa Mariano match x x x x x Santa Monica Civil Engineer Associate 9,117.00$ 2,255.16$ x 2,579.65$ 13,951.81$ Ventura Associate Engineer 7,596.70$ 642.22$ x 1,403.25$ 9,642.17$ Median 7,020.00$ 1,669.40$ x 1,403.25$ 9,905.07$ San Luis ObispoEngineer II 6,985.33$ 1,255.00$ x 1,724.26$ 9,964.59$ SLO vs Median -0.5%-24.8%N/A 22.9%0.6% 30 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 36 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 11: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT MECHANIC TABLE 12: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR LABORATORY ANALYST (SBP, STEP 6) Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Equipment Mechanic 5,206.00$ 1,461.49$ x 887.68$ 7,555.17$ County of SLO Equipment Mechanic II 5,021.47$ 695.95$ 12.08$ 2,029.68$ 7,759.18$ Davis Equipment Mechanic II 4,790.01$ 1,877.64$ x 868.33$ 7,535.98$ Monterey Automotive Mechanic 5,834.00$ 1,704.00$ x 1,206.52$ 8,744.52$ Napa Equipment Mechanic 5,820.00$ 1,676.25$ x 1,133.80$ 8,630.05$ Paso RoblesFleet Maintenance Worker 4,495.00$ 1,750.89$ x 1,706.60$ 7,952.49$ Petaluma Equipment Mechanic 6,126.01$ 1,868.01$ x 887.54$ 8,881.56$ Santa Barbara Automotive / Equipment Technician 5,064.63$ 1,082.88$ x 1,185.73$ 7,333.24$ Santa CruzEquipment Mechanic II 5,428.00$ 1,865.39$ x 815.77$ 8,109.16$ Santa MariaEquipment Mechanic II 4,832.77$ 1,103.36$ x 1,388.93$ 7,325.06$ Santa MonicaMechanic II 5,631.00$ 2,255.16$ x 1,643.29$ 9,529.45$ Ventura Equipment Mechanic II 4,810.59$ 714.22$ x 829.51$ 6,354.32$ Median 5,135.32$ 1,690.13$ 12.08$ 1,159.77$ 7,855.84$ San Luis ObispoHeavy Equipment Mechanic 4,985.50$ 1,255.00$ x 1,230.62$ 7,471.12$ SLO vs Median -2.9%-25.7%N/A 6.1%-4.9% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis no match x x x x x County of SLO Water Systems Chemist II 6,971.47$ 750.58$ x 2,698.66$ 10,420.71$ Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant Lab Analyst 4,944.02$ 1,877.64$ x 1,044.57$ 7,866.23$ Monterey no match x x x x x Napa Water Quality Analyst 7,115.00$ 1,669.40$ x 1,424.96$ 10,209.36$ Paso Robles no match x x x x x Petaluma Senior Laboratory Analyst 6,262.53$ 1,868.01$ x 907.32$ 9,037.86$ Santa BarbaraLaboratory Analyst II 5,823.68$ 1,094.69$ x 1,363.44$ 8,281.81$ Santa CruzChemist I 6,107.00$ 1,865.39$ x 917.82$ 8,890.21$ Santa Maria Regulatory Compliance Coordinator 6,441.65$ 1,103.36$ x 1,851.32$ 9,396.33$ Santa MonicaWater Chemist 8,570.00$ 2,255.16$ x 2,424.87$ 13,250.03$ Ventura Laboratory Technician II 5,449.48$ 714.22$ x 934.78$ 7,098.48$ Median 6,262.53$ 1,669.40$ x 1,363.44$ 9,037.86$ San Luis ObispoLaboratory Analyst (SBP)5,275.83$ 1,255.00$ x 1,302.29$ 7,833.12$ SLO vs Median -15.8%-24.8%N/A -4.5%-13.3% 31 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 37 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 13: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR MAINTENANCE WORKER III – STREETS TABLE 14: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Senior Maintenance Worker 4,695.00$ 1,461.49$ x 800.54$ 6,957.03$ County of SLOPublic Works Worker IV 4,548.27$ 695.95$ 12.08$ 1,838.41$ 7,094.71$ Davis Public Works Maintenance Worker II 4,086.19$ 1,877.64$ x 740.74$ 6,704.57$ Monterey Senior Street Maintenance Worker 5,036.00$ 1,704.00$ x 1,051.06$ 7,791.06$ Napa Street Maintenance Worker II 4,844.00$ 1,676.25$ x 952.05$ 7,472.30$ Paso RoblesStreet Maintenance Worker 4,495.00$ 1,750.89$ x 1,706.60$ 7,952.49$ Petaluma Street Maintenance Worker III 5,471.39$ 1,868.01$ x 792.69$ 8,132.09$ Santa Barbara Senior Streets Maintenance Worker 4,818.21$ 1,082.88$ x 1,128.04$ 7,029.13$ Santa Cruz Senior Service Maintenance Worker 4,506.00$ 1,865.39$ x 677.21$ 7,048.60$ Santa MariaMaintenance Worker II 3,942.66$ 1,103.36$ x 1,133.12$ 6,179.14$ Santa Monica Street Services Worker II 5,372.00$ 2,255.16$ x 1,570.00$ 9,197.16$ Ventura Maintenance Worker II 3,805.34$ 714.22$ x 663.86$ 5,183.42$ Median 4,621.64$ 1,690.13$ 12.08$ 1,001.56$ 7,071.66$ San Luis ObispoMaintenance Worker III - Streets 4,378.83$ 1,255.00$ x 1,080.87$ 6,714.70$ SLO vs Median -5.3%-25.7%N/A 7.9%-5.0% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Senior Information Technology Analyst 6,799.00$ 1,471.26$ x 1,159.30$ 9,429.56$ County of SLONetwork Engineer II 7,059.87$ 975.00$ x 2,863.48$ 10,898.35$ Davis MIS Senior Systems Analyst - CONF 7,451.15$ 1,877.64$ x 1,574.28$ 10,903.07$ Monterey Network Analyst 7,442.00$ 1,704.00$ x 1,519.78$ 10,665.78$ Napa Systems Administrator 8,101.00$ 1,669.40$ x 1,608.57$ 11,378.97$ Paso Robles Information Systems Technician 6,153.00$ 1,750.89$ x 2,320.11$ 10,224.00$ Petaluma Information Technology Specialist III 7,380.53$ 1,868.01$ x 1,069.29$ 10,317.83$ Santa Barbara Network Administrator 8,175.05$ 1,082.88$ x 1,913.94$ 11,171.87$ Santa Cruz Information Technology Specialist III 6,627.00$ 1,865.39$ x 995.97$ 9,488.36$ Santa Maria Systems Analyst II 7,502.47$ 1,103.36$ x 2,156.20$ 10,762.03$ Santa Monica Network Engineer 9,750.00$ 2,255.16$ x 2,758.75$ 14,763.91$ Ventura Network Administrator 8,180.83$ 642.22$ x 1,398.84$ 10,221.89$ Median 7,446.58$ 1,686.70$ x 1,591.42$ 10,713.90$ San Luis ObispoNetwork Administrator 6,463.17$ 1,255.00$ x 1,595.37$ 9,313.54$ SLO vs Median -13.2%-25.6%N/A 0.2%-13.1% 32 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 38 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 15: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY OPERATOR (SBP, STEP 6) *Special District TABLE 16: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR (SBP, STEP 6) *Special District Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis no match x x x x x County of SLO no match x x x x x Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant Lead Operator 5,882.90$ 1,877.64$ x 1,066.45$ 8,826.99$ Monterey*Operator III 7,617.00$ 1,904.01$ x 1,197.70$ 10,718.71$ Napa*Operator III 6,905.60$ 1,908.35$ x 2,914.68$ 11,728.63$ Paso Robles Plant Operator III, Wastewater 5,597.00$ 1,750.89$ x 2,114.37$ 9,462.26$ Petaluma Water Recycling Plant Operator III 7,180.98$ 1,868.01$ x 1,040.38$ 10,089.37$ Santa BarbaraWastewater Treatment Plant Operator III 6,402.59$ 1,094.69$ x 1,498.97$ 8,996.25$ Santa CruzWastewater Plant Operator III 6,857.00$ 1,865.39$ x 1,030.54$ 9,752.93$ Santa Mariano match x x x x x Santa Monicano match x x x x x Ventura Plant Operator Grade III 5,476.73$ 714.22$ x 939.27$ 7,130.22$ Median 6,629.80$ 1,866.70$ x 1,132.07$ 9,607.60$ San Luis ObispoWater Resource Recovery Operator (SBP)5,275.83$ 1,255.00$ x 1,302.29$ 7,833.12$ SLO vs Median -20.4%-32.8%N/A 15.0%-18.5% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Water Treatment Plant Operator 5,855.00$ 1,461.49$ x 998.34$ 8,314.83$ County of SLOWater Systems Worker III 6,465.33$ 695.95$ 12.08$ 2,613.29$ 9,786.65$ Davis no match x x x x x Monterey no match x x x x x Napa Water Treatment Facility Operator 6,137.00$ 1,676.25$ x 1,192.83$ 9,006.08$ Paso Robles no match x x x x x Petaluma no match x x x x x Santa BarbaraWater Treatment Plant Operator III 6,402.59$ 1,094.69$ x 1,498.97$ 8,996.25$ Santa Cruz Water Treatment Operator III 6,621.00$ 1,865.39$ x 995.07$ 9,481.46$ Santa Maria*Water Treatment Plant Operator 6,289.00$ 1,745.06$ 27.08$ 1,447.46$ 9,508.60$ Santa MonicaWater Production & Treatment Plant Op 6,730.00$ 2,255.16$ x 1,954.25$ 10,939.41$ Ventura Plant Operator Grade III 5,476.73$ 714.22$ x 939.27$ 7,130.22$ Median 6,345.80$ 1,568.87$ x 1,320.14$ 9,243.77$ San Luis ObispoWater Treatment Plant Operator (SBP)5,275.83$ 1,255.00$ x 1,302.29$ 7,833.12$ SLO vs Median -16.9%-20.0%N/A -1.4%-15.3% 33 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 39 ATTACHMENT 1 MANAGEMENT BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS TOTAL COMPENSATION TABLE 17: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST TABLE 18: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Management Analyst 6,741.00$ 1,777.78$ x 1,149.41$ 9,668.19$ County of SLO Admin Analyst II 6,621.33$ 975.00$ x 2,685.61$ 10,281.94$ Davis Administrative Analyst I 6,290.47$ 1,877.64$ x 1,329.05$ 9,497.16$ Monterey Administrative Analyst 7,224.00$ 1,704.00$ x 1,477.31$ 10,405.31$ Napa Management Analyst I 6,651.00$ 1,669.40$ x 1,338.55$ 9,658.95$ Paso Robles no match x x x x x Petaluma no match x x x x x Santa BarbaraAdministrative Analyst I 6,763.66$ 1,082.88$ x 1,583.51$ 9,430.05$ Santa CruzManagement Analyst 6,396.00$ 1,795.39$ x 894.37$ 9,085.76$ Santa MariaManagement Analyst I 6,180.72$ 1,192.34$ x 1,801.33$ 9,174.39$ Santa MonicaAdministrative Analyst 7,352.00$ 2,255.16$ x 2,080.24$ 11,687.40$ Ventura Management Analyst I 6,082.86$ 642.22$ x 1,153.81$ 7,878.89$ Median 6,636.17$ 1,686.70$ x 1,407.93$ 9,578.05$ San Luis ObispoAdministrative Analyst 6,350.50$ 1,255.00$ x 1,631.06$ 9,236.56$ SLO vs Median -4.3%-25.6%N/A 15.8%-3.6% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Building Official 9,271.00$ 1,777.78$ x 1,580.80$ 12,629.58$ County of SLO Division Manager - Building 8,907.60$ 975.00$ x 3,612.92$ 13,495.52$ Davis Chief Building Official 10,375.37$ 1,877.64$ x 2,192.11$ 14,445.12$ Monterey Chief of Inspection Services - Building Officia 10,986.00$ 1,704.00$ x 2,210.18$ 14,900.18$ Napa Chief Building Official 10,517.00$ 1,669.40$ x 2,058.48$ 14,244.88$ Paso Robles Building Official 10,239.00$ 1,712.78$ x 4,108.39$ 16,060.17$ Petaluma Chief Building Official 8,926.67$ 1,868.01$ x 1,293.30$ 12,087.98$ Santa Barbara Chief Building Official 10,972.04$ 1,676.00$ x 2,568.77$ 15,216.81$ Santa Cruz Chief Building Official 11,624.00$ 1,795.39$ x 1,523.25$ 14,942.64$ Santa MariaBuilding Division Manager 9,494.72$ 1,192.34$ x 2,753.77$ 13,440.83$ Santa Monica Building Officer 14,666.00$ 2,255.16$ x 4,149.73$ 21,070.89$ Ventura Chief Building Official 10,785.75$ 702.22$ x 1,814.07$ 13,302.04$ Median 10,446.19$ 1,708.39$ x 2,201.15$ 14,345.00$ San Luis ObispoChief Building Official 8,937.50$ 1,255.00$ x 2,295.51$ 12,488.01$ SLO vs Median -14.4%-26.5%N/A 4.3%-12.9% 34 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 40 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 19: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR – PUBLIC WORKS TABLE 20: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TABLE 21: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR FINANCE OPERATIONS MANAGER Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Asst Planning and Development Services Director 11,154.00$ 1,777.78$ x 1,901.87$ 14,833.65$ County of SLODeputy Director - Public Works 11,547.47$ 975.00$ x 4,572.21$ 17,094.68$ Davis Asst PW Director/Operations 11,839.52$ 1,877.64$ x 2,501.45$ 16,218.61$ Monterey Assistant Director of Plans & Public Works 12,672.00$ 1,704.00$ x 2,538.63$ 16,914.63$ Napa Deputy Director of Public Works - Engineering 12,109.00$ 1,669.40$ x 2,354.94$ 16,133.34$ Paso Robles no match x x x x x Petaluma Engineering Manager 10,562.93$ 1,868.01$ x 1,530.36$ 13,961.30$ Santa Barbara Assistant Public Works Director / City Engineer 13,528.88$ 1,676.00$ x 3,167.38$ 18,372.26$ Santa Cruz Asst Director of PW/ City Engineer 11,926.00$ 1,795.39$ x 1,559.58$ 15,280.97$ Santa Mariano match x x x x x Santa Monica Assistant Director of Public Works 15,701.00$ 2,255.16$ x 4,442.59$ 22,398.75$ Ventura no match x x x x x Median 11,926.00$ 1,777.78$ x 2,501.45$ 16,218.61$ San Luis ObispoDeputy Director - Public Works 10,176.83$ 1,255.00$ x 2,613.82$ 14,045.65$ SLO vs Median -14.7%-29.4%N/A 4.5%-13.4% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Public Utilities Director 12,912.00$ 1,777.78$ x 1,814.27$ 16,504.05$ County of SLODirector of Public Works/Transportation 14,171.73$ 975.00$ x 5,473.91$ 20,620.64$ Davis no match x x x x x Monterey Deputy City Manager Plans & Public Works 14,070.00$ 1,704.00$ x 2,800.98$ 18,574.98$ Napa Public Works Director 13,917.00$ 1,669.40$ x 2,891.62$ 18,478.02$ Paso RoblesDirector of Public Works 12,814.00$ 1,712.78$ x 5,109.89$ 19,636.67$ Petaluma Director of Public Works & Utilities 12,262.43$ 1,868.01$ x 1,776.58$ 15,907.02$ Santa Barbara Public Works Director 16,109.21$ 1,718.00$ x 3,771.49$ 21,598.70$ Santa Cruz Director of Public Works/ City Engineer 14,698.00$ 1,765.39$ x 1,621.04$ 18,084.43$ Santa Maria Director of PW/ City Engineer 13,368.42$ 1,192.34$ x 3,867.07$ 18,427.83$ Santa Monica Director of Public Works/ Airport Director 22,243.00$ 2,255.16$ x 6,293.64$ 30,791.80$ Ventura Public Works Director 14,272.35$ 756.22$ x 2,538.90$ 17,567.47$ Median 14,070.00$ 1,712.78$ x 2,891.62$ 18,478.02$ San Luis ObispoDirector of Public Works 12,878.67$ 1,255.00$ x 3,436.54$ 17,570.21$ SLO vs Median -8.5%-26.7%N/A 18.8%-4.9% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Assistant Finance Director 10,832.00$ 1,777.78$ x 1,846.96$ 14,456.74$ County of SLO no match x x x x x Davis no match x x x x x Monterey Assistant Finance Director 11,334.00$ 1,704.00$ x 2,277.98$ 15,315.98$ Napa Finance Manager 10,409.00$ 1,669.40$ x 2,038.36$ 14,116.76$ Paso Robles Finance Manager 10,239.00$ 1,712.78$ x 4,108.39$ 16,060.17$ Petaluma Finance & Accounting Manager 8,363.33$ 1,868.01$ x 1,211.68$ 11,443.02$ Santa BarbaraAccounting Manager 9,880.98$ 1,676.00$ x 2,313.34$ 13,870.32$ Santa CruzFinance Manager 8,873.00$ 1,795.39$ x 1,192.33$ 11,860.72$ Santa MariaAccounting and Budget Manager 9,159.43$ 1,192.34$ x 2,657.41$ 13,009.18$ Santa MonicaFinancial Operations Manager 13,714.00$ 2,255.16$ x 3,880.37$ 19,849.53$ Ventura no match x x x x x Median 10,239.00$ 1,712.78$ x 2,277.98$ 14,116.76$ San Luis ObispoFinance Operations Manager 8,937.50$ 1,255.00$ x 2,295.51$ 12,488.01$ SLO vs Median -12.7%-26.7%N/A 0.8%-11.5% 35 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 41 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 22: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER TABLE 23: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR POLICE CHIEF Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Management Analyst 6,741.00$ 1,777.78$ x 1,149.41$ 9,668.19$ County of SLO Personal Analyst III 7,749.73$ 975.00$ x 3,143.29$ 11,868.02$ Davis Human Resources Analyst II 7,957.44$ 1,877.64$ x 1,681.25$ 11,516.33$ Monterey Benefits Manager 9,114.00$ 1,704.00$ x 1,845.50$ 12,663.50$ Napa Risk Management Analyst 7,358.00$ 1,669.40$ x 1,470.21$ 10,497.61$ Paso Robles no match x x x x x Petaluma Risk Manager 8,363.33$ 1,868.01$ x 1,211.68$ 11,443.02$ Santa BarbaraRisk Manager 9,880.98$ 1,676.00$ x 2,313.34$ 13,870.32$ Santa CruzPrincipal Human Resources Analyst 8,263.00$ 1,795.39$ x 1,118.96$ 11,177.35$ Santa MariaHuman Resources Manager 8,723.24$ 1,192.34$ x 2,532.05$ 12,447.63$ Santa Monica Sr HR Analyst Labor & Employee Relations 9,769.00$ 2,255.16$ x 2,764.13$ 14,788.29$ Ventura Principal HR Analyst 7,981.29$ 702.22$ x 1,329.13$ 10,012.64$ Median 8,263.00$ 1,704.00$ x 1,681.25$ 11,516.33$ San Luis ObispoHuman Resources Manager 7,353.67$ 1,255.00$ x 1,888.72$ 10,497.39$ SLO vs Median -11.0%-26.3%N/A 12.3%-8.8% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Police Chief 13,143.00$ 1,777.78$ 83.33$ 3,424.01$ 18,428.13$ County of SLOSheriff - Coroner 15,175.33$ 975.00$ 45.00$ 7,128.37$ 23,323.70$ Davis Police Chief 14,057.75$ 1,877.64$ 0$ 3,706.22$ 19,641.61$ Monterey Police Chief 14,632.00$ 1,704.00$ 100.00$ 4,519.25$ 20,955.25$ Napa Police Chief 15,188.00$ 1,669.40$ 46.33$ 4,670.80$ 21,574.53$ Paso Robles Police Chief 13,137.00$ 1,712.78$ 66.67$ 5,877.97$ 20,794.41$ Petaluma Police Chief 15,501.20$ 1,868.01$ 25.00$ 5,850.46$ 23,244.67$ Santa Barbara Police Chief 16,515.98$ 1,718.00$ 86.50$ 7,236.11$ 25,556.59$ Santa Cruz Chief of Police 15,346.00$ 1,765.39$ 0$ 3,510.70$ 20,622.09$ Santa Maria Chief of Police 14,540.28$ 920.64$ 33.33$ 4,178.86$ 19,673.11$ Santa Monica Chief of Police 23,871.00$ 2,255.16$ 80.00$ 12,851.76$ 39,057.92$ Ventura Police Chief 17,389.48$ 756.22$ 45.83$ 8,227.50$ 26,419.04$ Median 15,181.67$ 1,715.39$ 46.08$ 5,260.63$ 21,264.89$ San Luis ObispoPolice Chief 13,366.17$ 1,255.00$ 83.33$ 5,902.90$ 20,607.40$ SLO vs Median -12.0%-26.8%80.8%12.2%-3.1% 36 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 42 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 24: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR RECREATION SUPERVISOR TABLE 25: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR SENIOR PLANNER Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Recreation Coordinator 5,601.00$ 1,777.78$ x 955.03$ 8,333.81$ County of SLO no match x x x x x Davis Community Services Supervisor 5,841.82$ 1,877.64$ x 1,234.26$ 8,953.72$ Monterey Recreation Supervisor 7,328.00$ 1,704.00$ x 1,497.57$ 10,529.57$ Napa Recreation Supervisor 7,172.00$ 1,669.40$ x 1,435.57$ 10,276.97$ Paso RoblesRecreation Coordinator 5,597.00$ 1,750.89$ x 2,114.37$ 9,462.26$ Petaluma Recreation Coordinator 4,222.40$ 1,868.01$ x 611.74$ 6,702.15$ Santa Barbara Recreation Supervisor I 6,182.89$ 1,011.00$ x 1,447.54$ 8,641.43$ Santa Cruz Recreation Supervisor 5,847.00$ 1,779.39$ x 703.34$ 8,329.73$ Santa Maria Recreation Supervisor 5,406.20$ 1,103.36$ x 1,553.74$ 8,063.30$ Santa Monica Community Services Program Supervisor 6,202.00$ 2,255.16$ x 1,754.85$ 10,212.01$ Ventura Community Services Supervisor 6,882.23$ 642.22$ x 1,285.52$ 8,809.97$ Median 5,847.00$ 1,750.89$ x 1,435.57$ 8,809.97$ San Luis ObispoRecreation Supervisor 6,350.50$ 1,255.00$ x 1,631.06$ 9,236.56$ SLO vs Median 8.6%-28.3%N/A 13.6%4.8% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Senior Planner 8,203.00$ 1,777.78$ x 1,398.69$ 11,379.47$ County of SLO Senior Planner 6,902.13$ 750.58$ x 2,671.81$ 10,324.52$ Davis Planner 7,370.06$ 1,877.64$ x 1,557.15$ 10,804.85$ Monterey Senior Planner 8,556.00$ 1,704.00$ x 1,736.79$ 11,996.79$ Napa Senior Planner 8,246.00$ 1,669.40$ x 1,635.57$ 11,550.97$ Paso Robles no match x x x x x Petaluma Senior Planner 7,517.47$ 1,868.01$ x 1,089.13$ 10,474.61$ Santa Barbarano match x x x x x Santa CruzSenior Planner 8,873.00$ 1,795.39$ x 1,192.33$ 11,860.72$ Santa MariaPlanner III 7,234.78$ 1,103.36$ x 2,079.27$ 10,417.41$ Santa MonicaSenior Planner 9,733.00$ 2,255.16$ x 2,753.94$ 14,742.10$ Ventura Senior Planner 7,054.27$ 642.22$ x 1,313.87$ 9,010.36$ Median 7,860.24$ 1,740.89$ x 1,596.36$ 11,092.16$ San Luis ObispoSenior Planner 7,353.67$ 1,255.00$ x 1,888.72$ 10,497.39$ SLO vs Median -6.4%-27.9%N/A 18.3%-5.4% 37 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 43 ATTACHMENT 1 POLICE AND POLICE MANAGEMENT BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS TOTAL COMPENSATION TABLE 26: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN TABLE 27: C OMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR POLICE OFFICER (STEP 8) Step 8 was used for San Luis Obispo Police Officer as Step 9 is for Master Police Officer. Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Gilroy Public Safety Communicator 7,016.08$ 1,679.02$ 41.67$ 1,415.77$ 10,152.54$ Monterey no match x x x x x Napa Public Safety Dispatcher II 5,769.00$ 1,676.25$ 0$ 1,124.30$ 8,569.55$ Petaluma Public Safety Dispatcher 5,418.40$ 1,868.01$ 21.67$ 785.02$ 8,093.09$ Pleasanton Police Dispatcher 6,817.00$ 2,002.59$ 41.67$ 1,692.05$ 10,553.30$ Salinas no match x x x x x Santa BarbaraPublic Safety Dispatcher II 5,140.98$ 1,447.14$ 71.92$ 1,203.61$ 7,863.64$ Santa Cruzno match x x x x x Santa MariaDispatcher II 5,853.47$ 575.38$ 0$ 1,544.07$ 7,972.92$ Median 5,811.24$ 1,677.64$ 31.67$ 1,309.69$ 8,331.32$ San Luis ObispoCommunications Technician 6,270.33$ 1,277.00$ 0$ 1,298.18$ 8,845.51$ SLO vs Median 7.9%-23.9%N/A -0.9%6.2% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Gilroy Police Officer Entry/Lateral 7,789.92$ 1,723.67$ 100.00$ 2,473.14$ 12,086.73$ Monterey Police Officer 8,102.00$ 1,704.00$ 115.00$ 2,504.17$ 12,425.17$ Napa Police Officer 8,068.00$ 1,669.40$ 78.00$ 2,321.81$ 12,137.21$ Petaluma Police Officer 6,656.00$ 1,868.01$ 69.33$ 2,512.11$ 11,105.45$ Pleasanton Police Officer 7,994.00$ 2,002.59$ 125.00$ 2,090.35$ 12,211.94$ Salinas Police Officer 7,876.00$ 1,662.05$ 100.00$ 2,754.63$ 12,392.68$ Santa Barbara Police Officer 7,510.47$ 1,447.14$ 86.50$ 3,290.55$ 12,334.66$ Santa Cruz Police Officer 8,369.00$ 1,795.39$ 0$ 1,896.16$ 12,060.55$ Santa Maria Police Officer 6,504.16$ 754.52$ 33.33$ 2,705.89$ 9,997.90$ Median 7,876.00$ 1,704.00$ 86.50$ 2,504.17$ 12,137.21$ San Luis ObispoPolice Officer 7,960.33$ 1,277.00$ 0$ 3,117.50$ 12,354.83$ SLO vs Median 1.1%-25.1%N/A 24.5%1.8% 38 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 44 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 28: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR POLICE SERGEANT Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Clovis Police Sergeant 8,223.00$ 1,433.28$ 83.33$ 2,142.26$ 11,881.87$ County of SLO Sergeant 8,989.07$ 775.00$ 45.00$ 3,910.78$ 13,719.85$ Davis Police Sergeant 8,058.30$ 1,877.64$ 12.50$ 2,000.31$ 11,948.75$ Monterey Police Sergeant 9,898.00$ 1,704.00$ 115.00$ 3,051.51$ 14,768.51$ Napa Police Sergeant 9,915.00$ 1,669.40$ 78.00$ 2,853.34$ 14,515.74$ Paso RoblesPolice Sergeant 8,513.00$ 1,712.78$ 66.67$ 3,583.29$ 13,875.74$ Petaluma Police Sergeant 7,945.60$ 1,868.01$ 69.33$ 2,998.83$ 12,881.77$ Santa Barbara Police Sergeant 9,685.80$ 1,447.14$ 86.50$ 4,243.62$ 15,463.06$ Santa Cruz Police Sergeant 10,202.00$ 1,795.39$ 0$ 2,311.47$ 14,308.86$ Santa Maria Police Sergeant 8,222.59$ 754.52$ 33.33$ 3,407.58$ 12,418.03$ Santa Monica Police Sergeant 10,543.00$ 1,520.96$ 80.00$ 5,676.18$ 17,820.14$ Ventura Police Sergeant 9,310.60$ 700.22$ 45.83$ 4,304.93$ 14,361.58$ Median 9,149.84$ 1,595.18$ 68.00$ 3,229.55$ 14,092.30$ San Luis ObispoPolice Sergeant 9,921.17$ 1,309.00$ 83.33$ 4,183.06$ 15,496.57$ SLO vs Median 8.4%-17.9%22.5%29.5%10.0% 39 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 45 ATTACHMENT 1 FIRE BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS TOTAL COMPENSATION TABLE 29: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR FIRE INSPECTOR II TABLE 30: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR FIREFIGHTER TABLE 31: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR FIRE CAPTAIN Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Chico no match x x x x x Davis no match x x x x x Monterey no match x x x x x Napa Fire Inspector II 6,670.00$ 1,676.25$ 0$ 1,292.09$ 9,638.34$ Petaluma Fire Inspector II 8,370.27$ 1,868.01$ 106.67$ 1,212.68$ 11,557.63$ Pleasanton Fire Inspector 8,445.00$ 2,002.59$ 66.67$ 3,002.96$ 13,517.21$ Salinas Fire Inspector 5,737.00$ 1,821.86$ 0$ 1,121.30$ 8,680.16$ Santa Cruz Fire Prevention Inspector I 7,357.00$ 1,769.39$ 0$ 1,830.20$ 10,956.59$ Santa Mariano match x x x x x Median 7,357.00$ 1,821.86$ 0.0$ 1,292.09$ 10,956.59$ San Luis ObispoFire Inspector II 6,443.67$ 849.00$ 66.67$ 1,590.56$ 8,949.89$ SLO vs Median -12.4%-53.4%100.0%23.1%-18.3% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Chico Firefighter 6,461.73$ 1,023.12$ x 2,023.17$ 9,508.02$ Davis Firefighter I 6,832.43$ 1,877.64$ x 1,900.99$ 10,611.06$ MontereyFirefighter 7,270.00$ 1,704.00$ 90.00$ 2,260.61$ 11,324.61$ Napa no match x x x x x Petaluma Firefighter 7,104.85$ 1,868.01$ 809.85$ 2,681.51$ 12,464.22$ Pleasanton Firefighter 7,405.00$ 2,002.59$ 942.77$ 2,633.14$ 12,983.50$ Salinas Firefighter 6,707.00$ 1,821.54$ 938.38$ 3,071.20$ 12,538.12$ Santa Cruz Firefighter 7,961.00$ 1,769.39$ 796.10$ 1,980.46$ 12,506.95$ Santa Maria Firefighter 5,946.29$ 848.08$ 62.50$ 2,390.17$ 9,247.04$ Median 6,968.64$ 1,795.47$ 802.98$ 2,325.39$ 11,894.41$ San Luis Obispo Firefighter 6,383.00$ 849.00$ 832.63$ 2,691.26$ 10,755.89$ SLO vs Median -8.4%-52.7%3.7%15.7%-9.6% Agency Job Classification Match Monthly Salary Health Insurance Other Pay Retirement Total Comp Chico Fire Captain 8,655.56$ 1,023.12$ x 2,710.05$ 12,388.73$ Davis Fire Captain 8,643.01$ 1,877.64$ x 2,404.74$ 12,925.39$ Monterey Fire Captain 8,834.00$ 1,704.00$ 90.00$ 2,737.25$ 13,365.25$ Napa Fire Captain 9,719.00$ 1,669.40$ 858.63$ 2,796.93$ 15,043.96$ Petaluma Fire Captain 8,640.17$ 1,868.01$ 106.67$ 3,260.97$ 13,875.82$ Pleasanton Fire Captain 9,271.00$ 2,002.59$ 1,166.69$ 3,296.67$ 15,736.95$ Salinas Fire Captain 8,814.00$ 1,821.54$ 1,201.75$ 4,036.02$ 15,873.31$ Santa CruzFire Captain 9,776.00$ 1,769.39$ 796.10$ 2,431.98$ 14,773.47$ Santa MariaFire Captain 7,479.79$ 848.08$ 62.50$ 3,006.57$ 11,396.94$ Median 8,814.00$ 1,769.39$ 796.10$ 2,796.93$ 13,875.82$ San Luis ObispoFire Captain 8,077.33$ 849.00$ 832.63$ 3,405.64$ 13,164.60$ SLO vs Median -8.4%-52.0%4.6%21.8%-5.1% 40 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 46 ATTACHMENT 1 APPENDIX B: SALARY BY BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATION AND EMPLOYEE GROUP Salary is considered the monthly top step or maximum of the salary range. The following tables are organized alphabetically by benchmark classification by employee group. SLOCEA BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS CHART 8 $3,701 $3,968 $4,030 $4,062 $4,066 $4,214 $4,230 $4,247 $4,379 $4,602 $4,723 $4,760 $4,881 $5,610 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 County of SLO Paso Robles Santa Maria Davis Clovis Santa Cruz Median Ventura San Luis Obispo Monterey Santa Barbara Petaluma Napa Santa Monica Salary: Accounting Assistant III SLO % from Median: 3.5% 41 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 47 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 9 CHART 10 $3,195 $3,260 $3,392 $3,449 $3,638 $3,774 $3,856 $3,938 $3,968 $4,156 $4,187 $4,297 $4,384 $4,507 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 County of SLO Clovis Santa Maria Davis Ventura Santa Barbara Median Santa Cruz Paso Robles San Luis Obispo Napa Petaluma Monterey Santa Monica Salary: Administrative Assistant II SLO % from Median: 7.8% $5,559 $5,658 $5,788 $5,978 $6,153 $6,191 $6,455 $6,493 $6,532 $6,860 $6,959 $7,069 $7,264 $7,621 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Ventura Santa Maria Davis San Luis Obispo Paso Robles County of SLO Clovis Median Santa Barbara Napa Santa Cruz Petaluma Monterey Santa Monica Salary: Building Inspector II SLO % from Median: -7.9% 42 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 48 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 11 CHART 12 no match no match no match no match $4,744 $4,784 $5,057 $5,824 $5,836 $5,874 $5,911 $6,206 $6,273 $6,330 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Paso Robles Monterey Davis Clovis Santa Maria County of SLO Ventura San Luis Obispo Petaluma Median Santa Barbara Napa Santa Monica Santa Cruz Salary: Code Enforcement Officer I SLO % from Median: -0.8% no match no match no match $6,513 $6,525 $6,777 $6,871 $6,985 $7,020 $7,020 $7,470 $7,473 $7,597 $9,117 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Santa Maria Paso Robles Monterey Santa Cruz Davis Clovis County of SLO San Luis Obispo Petaluma Median Napa Santa Barbara Ventura Santa Monica Salary: Engineer II SLO % from Median: -0.5% 43 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 49 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 13 CHART 14 $4,495 $4,790 $4,811 $4,833 $4,986 $5,021 $5,065 $5,135 $5,206 $5,428 $5,631 $5,820 $5,834 $6,126 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Paso Robles Davis Ventura Santa Maria San Luis Obispo County of SLO Santa Barbara Median Clovis Santa Cruz Santa Monica Napa Monterey Petaluma Salary: Heavy Equipment Mechanic SLO % from Median: -2.9% no match no match no match $4,944 $5,276 $5,449 $5,824 $6,107 $6,263 $6,263 $6,442 $6,971 $7,115 $8,570 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Paso Robles Monterey Clovis Davis San Luis Obispo Ventura Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Petaluma Median Santa Maria County of SLO Napa Santa Monica Salary: Laboratory Analyst (SBP, Step 6) SLO % from Median: -15.8% SBP classifications require attainment of Step 6, or full journey level. Further advancement to Step 7-9 is possible with added skills and abilities. 44 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 50 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 15 CHART 16 $3,805 $3,943 $4,086 $4,379 $4,495 $4,506 $4,548 $4,622 $4,695 $4,818 $4,844 $5,036 $5,372 $5,471 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Ventura Santa Maria Davis San Luis Obispo Paso Robles Santa Cruz County of SLO Median Clovis Santa Barbara Napa Monterey Santa Monica Petaluma Salary: Maintenance Worker III -Streets SLO % from Median: -5.3% $6,153 $6,463 $6,627 $6,799 $7,060 $7,381 $7,442 $7,447 $7,451 $7,502 $8,101 $8,175 $8,181 $9,750 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Paso Robles San Luis Obispo Santa Cruz Clovis County of SLO Petaluma Monterey Median Davis Santa Maria Napa Santa Barbara Ventura Santa Monica Salary: Network Administrator SLO % from Median: -13.2% 45 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 51 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 17 *Special Districts CHART 18 *Special Districts no match no match no match no match $5,276 $5,477 $5,597 $5,883 $6,403 $6,465 $6,857 $6,906 $7,181 $7,617 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Santa Monica Santa Maria County of SLO Clovis San Luis Obispo Ventura Paso Robles Davis Santa Barbara Median Santa Cruz Napa* Petaluma Monterey* Salary: Water Resource Recovery Facility Operator (SBP, Step 6) SLO % from Median: SLO % from Median: -20.4% no match no match no match no match $5,276 $5,477 $5,855 $6,137 $6,289 $6,346 $6,403 $6,465 $6,621 $6,730 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Petaluma Paso Robles Monterey Davis San Luis Obispo Ventura Clovis Napa Santa Maria* Median Santa Barbara County of SLO Santa Cruz Santa Monica Salary: Water Treatment Plant Operator (SBP, Step 6) SLO % from Median: -16.9% SBP classifications require attainment of Step 6, or full journey level. Further advancement to Step 7-9 is possible with added skills and abilities. SBP classifications require attainment of Step 6, or full journey level. Further advancement to Step 7-9 is possible with added skills and abilities. 46 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 52 ATTACHMENT 1 MANAGEMENT BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS CHART 19 CHART 20 no match no match $6,083 $6,181 $6,290 $6,351 $6,396 $6,621 $6,636 $6,651 $6,741 $6,764 $7,224 $7,352 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 Petaluma Paso Robles Ventura Santa Maria Davis San Luis Obispo Santa Cruz County of SLO Median Napa Clovis Santa Barbara Monterey Santa Monica Salary: Administrative Analyst SLO % from Median: -4.3% $8,908 $8,927 $8,938 $9,271 $9,495 $10,239 $10,375 $10,446 $10,517 $10,786 $10,972 $10,986 $11,624 $14,666 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 County of SLO Petaluma San Luis Obispo Clovis Santa Maria Paso Robles Davis Median Napa Ventura Santa Barbara Monterey Santa Cruz Santa Monica Salary: Chief Building Official SLO % from Median: -14.4% 47 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 53 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 21 CHART 22 no match no match no match $10,177 $10,563 $11,154 $11,547 $11,840 $11,926 $11,926 $12,109 $12,672 $13,529 $15,701 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 Ventura Santa Maria Paso Robles San Luis Obispo Petaluma Clovis County of SLO Davis Santa Cruz Median Napa Monterey Santa Barbara Santa Monica Salary: Deputy Director of Public Works SLO % from Median: -14.7% no match $12,262 $12,814 $12,879 $12,912 $13,368 $13,917 $13,994 $14,070 $14,172 $14,272 $14,698 $16,109 $22,243 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 Davis Petaluma Paso Robles San Luis Obispo Clovis Santa Maria Napa Median Monterey County of SLO Ventura Santa Cruz Santa Barbara Santa Monica Salary: Director of Public Works SLO % from Median: SLO % from Median: -8.5% 48 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 54 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 23 CHART 24 no match no match no match $8,363 $8,873 $8,938 $9,159 $9,881 $10,239 $10,239 $10,409 $10,832 $11,334 $13,714 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 Ventura Davis County of SLO Petaluma Santa Cruz San Luis Obispo Santa Maria Santa Barbara Paso Robles Median Napa Clovis Monterey Santa Monica Salary: Finance Operations Manager SLO % from Median: -12.7% no match $6,741 $7,354 $7,358 $7,750 $7,957 $7,981 $8,263 $8,263 $8,363 $8,723 $9,114 $9,769 $9,881 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 Paso Robles Clovis San Luis Obispo Napa County of SLO Davis Ventura Santa Cruz Median Petaluma Santa Maria Monterey Santa Monica Santa Barbara Salary: Human Resources Manager SLO % from Median: -11.0% 49 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 55 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 25 CHART 26 $13,137 $13,143 $13,366 $14,058 $14,540 $14,632 $15,175 $15,182 $15,188 $15,346 $15,501 $16,516 $17,389 $23,871 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 Paso Robles Clovis San Luis Obispo Davis Santa Maria Monterey County of SLO Median Napa Santa Cruz Petaluma Santa Barbara Ventura Santa Monica Salary: Police Chief SLO % from Median: -12.0% no match $4,222 $5,406 $5,597 $5,601 $5,842 $5,847 $5,847 $6,183 $6,202 $6,351 $6,882 $7,172 $7,328 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 County of SLO Petaluma Santa Maria Paso Robles Clovis Davis Santa Cruz Median Santa Barbara Santa Monica San Luis Obispo Ventura Napa Monterey Salary: Recreation Supervisor SLO % from Median: 8.6% 50 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 56 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 27 no match no match $6,902 $7,054 $7,235 $7,354 $7,370 $7,517 $7,860 $8,203 $8,246 $8,556 $8,873 $9,733 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 Santa Barbara Paso Robles County of SLO Ventura Santa Maria San Luis Obispo Davis Petaluma Median Clovis Napa Monterey Santa Cruz Santa Monica Salary: Senior Planner SLO % from Median: -6.4% 51 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 57 ATTACHMENT 1 POLICE AND POLICE MANAGEMENT BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS CHART 28 CHART 29 no match no match no match $5,141 $5,418 $5,769 $5,811 $5,853 $6,270 $6,817 $7,016 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 Santa Cruz Salinas Monterey Santa Barbara Petaluma Napa Median Santa Maria San Luis Obispo Pleasanton Gilroy Salary: Communications Technician SLO % from Median: 7.9% $6,504 $6,656 $7,510 $7,790 $7,876 $7,876 $7,960 $7,994 $8,068 $8,102 $8,369 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 Santa Maria Petaluma Santa Barbara Gilroy Salinas Median San Luis Obispo Pleasanton Napa Monterey Santa Cruz Salary: Police Officer (Step 8) SLO % from Median: 1.1% All data was gathered as of January 2014. Therefore, the City data does not reflect the two (2%) percent salary reduction for Police effective July 2014. Step 8 was used for Police Officer as it represents journey level. Officers may advance to Step 9, Master Police Officer, with additional skills and experience. All data was gathered as of January 2014. Therefore, the City data does not reflect the two (2%) percent salary reduction for Police 52 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 58 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 30 $7,946 $8,058 $8,223 $8,223 $8,513 $8,989 $9,150 $9,311 $9,686 $9,898 $9,915 $9,921 $10,202 $10,543 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 Petaluma Davis Santa Maria Clovis Paso Robles County of SLO Median Ventura Santa Barbara Monterey Napa San Luis Obispo Santa Cruz Santa Monica Salary: Police Sergeant SLO % from Median: 8.4% 53 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 59 ATTACHMENT 1 FIRE BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS CHART 31 CHART 32 no match no match no match no match $5,737 $6,444 $6,670 $7,357 $7,357 $8,370 $8,445 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 Santa Maria Monterey Davis Chico Salinas San Luis Obispo Napa Santa Cruz Median Petaluma Pleasanton Salary: Fire Inspector II SLO % from Median: -12.4% no match $5,946 $6,383 $6,462 $6,707 $6,832 $6,969 $7,105 $7,270 $7,405 $7,961 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 Napa Santa Maria San Luis Obispo Chico Salinas Davis Median Petaluma Monterey Pleasanton Santa Cruz Salary: Firefighter SLO % from Median: -8.4% 54 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 60 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 33 $7,480 $8,077 $8,640 $8,643 $8,656 $8,814 $8,814 $8,834 $9,271 $9,719 $9,776 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 Santa Maria San Luis Obispo Petaluma Davis Chico Salinas Median Monterey Pleasanton Napa Santa Cruz Salary: Fire Captain SLO % from Median: -8.4% 55 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 61 ATTACHMENT 1 APPENDIX C : EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO FAMILY HEALTH COVERAGE Family health coverage includes medical, dental, and vision for the employee and family members. The data below compares the percent the employer contributes to the total cost of family health coverage. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO FAMILY COVERAGE, HMO The following charts compare the employer contribution to health insurance costs for family coverage on an HMO plan comparable to the Blue Shield Net Value HMO for each employee group. If a comparable plan was not offered by the employer, not applicable or “N/A” is noted on the chart. CHART 34 N/A 44% 52% 56% 80% 90% 91% 91% 93% 95% 96% 98% 100% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Paso Robles Ventura Santa Barbara County of SLO Clovis Santa Maria Median Davis San Luis Obispo Santa Monica Monterey Petaluma Napa Santa Cruz Employer Contribution to HMO : SLOCEA SLO % from Median: 2.1% 56 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 62 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 35 CHART 36 N/A 43% 71% 73% 86% 91% 93% 95% 95% 96% 96% 97% 98% 99% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Paso Robles Ventura County of SLO Santa Barbara Santa Maria Davis San Luis Obispo Santa Monica Median Santa Cruz Monterey Clovis Petaluma Napa Employer Contribution to HMO: Management SLO % from Median: -2.9% 50% 69% 83% 92% 94% 95% 95% 96% 96% 100% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Santa Maria Santa Barbara Gilroy Napa San Luis Obispo Salinas Median Monterey Santa Cruz Pleasanton Petaluma Employer Contribution to HMO: Police SLO % from Median: -0.8% 57 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 63 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 37 CHART 38 N/A 44% 57% 58% 69% 78% 85% 85% 91% 95% 96% 96% 97% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Paso Robles Ventura Santa Maria County of SLO Santa Barbara Clovis Napa Median Davis Santa Monica Monterey Santa Cruz San Luis Obispo Petaluma Employer Contribution to HMO: Police Management SLO % from Median: 13.8% N/A 63% 64% 91% 95% 96% 98% 99% 100% 100% 104% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Chico San Luis Obispo Santa Maria Davis Santa Cruz Monterey Median Napa Pleasanton Petaluma Salinas Employer Contribution to HMO: Fire SLO % from Median: -35.9% Fire is the only employee group that has the same contribution amount regardless of the number of dependents covered; causing it to lag the market in family coverage. 58 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 64 ATTACHMENT 1 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO FAMILY COVERAGE, PPO The following charts compare the employer contribution to health insurance costs for family coverage on a PPO plan comparable to the CalPERS Select PPO for each employee group. If a comparable plan was not offered by the employer, not applicable or “N/A” is noted on the chart. CHART 39 30% 45% 48% 72% 74% 74% 74% 79% 84% 95% 96% 96% 100% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Ventura County of SLO Santa Barbara Santa Maria San Luis Obispo Napa Clovis Median Paso Robles Santa Monica Monterey Davis Santa Cruz Petaluma Employer Contribution to PPO: SLOCEA SLO % from Median: -6.8% The City’s contribution to PPO insurance lags the market for all employee groups. 59 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 65 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 40 C HART 41 29% 56% 67% 69% 71% 74% 82% 86% 90% 95% 96% 96% 96% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Ventura County of SLO Santa Barbara Santa Maria Napa San Luis Obispo Paso Robles Median Clovis Santa Monica Davis Santa Cruz Monterey Petaluma Employer Contribution to PPO: Management SLO % from Median: -13.8% 40% 64% 75% 79% 81% 88% 88% 95% 96% 96% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Santa Maria Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Pleasanton Napa Median Gilroy Salinas Monterey Santa Cruz Petaluma Employer Contribution to PPO: Police SLO % from Median: -14.8% 60 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 66 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 42 CHART 43 29% 45% 46% 64% 73% 77% 81% 86% 90% 95% 96% 96% 96% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Ventura Santa Maria County of SLO Santa Barbara Clovis San Luis Obispo Paso Robles Median Napa Santa Monica Davis Monterey Santa Cruz Petaluma Employer Contribution to PPO: Police Management SLO % from Median: -9.9% 50% 51% 70% 71% 79% 94% 94% 95% 96% 96% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% San Luis Obispo Santa Maria Chico Napa Pleasanton Median Salinas Santa Cruz Davis Monterey Petaluma Employer Contribution to PPO: Fire SLO % from Median: -46.9% 61 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 67 ATTACHMENT 1 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO OPT OUT The following charts compare employer contributions provided to employees that “opt out” of the employer’s health coverage with proof of other insurance. CHART 44 CHART 45 $0.00 $150.00 $200.00 $200.00 $349.11 $400.00 $428.06 $464.09 $464.09 $500.00 $514.29 $630.30 $666.67 $967.70 $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 Paso Robles Santa Monica Santa Cruz San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Clovis Santa Maria Ventura Median Napa Monterey County of SLO Davis Petaluma Employer Contribution to Opt Out: SLOCEA SLO % from Median: -56.9% $0.00 $150.00 $200.00 $200.00 $400.00 $476.63 $484.71 $492.36 $500.00 $500.00 $611.11 $806.80 $967.70 $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 Paso Robles Santa Monica Santa Cruz San Luis Obispo Clovis Santa Maria Ventura Median Napa Davis Monterey County of SLO Petaluma Santa Barbara Employer Contribution to Opt Out: Management SLO % from Median: -59.4% $1439.17 While the City’s contribution to opt out varies by employee group, the median contribution is consistently about $500 per month. 62 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 68 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 46 CHART 47 $0.00 $0.00 $200.00 $379.85 $479.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $600.00 $660.75 $989.26 $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 Salinas Pleasanton Santa Cruz Santa Maria San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Napa Median Monterey Gilroy Petaluma Employer Contribution to Opt Out: Police SLO % from Median: -4.2% $0.00 $200.00 $400.00 $462.00 $470.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $543.00 $600.00 $650.00 $656.00 $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 Paso Robles Santa Cruz Clovis Ventura Santa Maria Santa Barbara Napa Median Davis San Luis Obispo Monterey Santa Monica County of SLO Employer Contribution to Opt Out: Police Management SLO % from Median: 8.6% 63 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 69 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 48 $0.00 $200.00 $200.00 $460.00 $500.00 $500.00 $600.00 $697.83 $849.00 $989.26 $1,000.00 $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 Salinas Santa Cruz Chico Santa Maria Napa Median Monterey Pleasanton San Luis Obispo Petaluma Davis Employer Contribution to Opt Out: Fire SLO % from Median: 69.8% Fire is the only employee group that has the same contribution amount regardless of the number of dependents covered; causing it to lead the market in Opt Out contribution. 64 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 70 ATTACHMENT 1 APPENDIX D: EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO RETIREMENT Defined benefit retirement plans are standard in the public sector. The formula for such plans is typically based on age, years of service, and salary with the formula providing a salary multiplier and earliest age of retirement to avoid a reduced benefit. RETIREMENT FORMULAS FOR ALL TIERS The following tables list the benefit formulas for retirement by employee group and comparison agency in alphabetical order. For the purposes of this report and to ensure consistency, Tier 1 is the highest formula available in the agency, Tier 2 is a lower formula implemented prior to the passage of PEPRA, and Tier 3 is the formula mandated by PEPRA for employees new to CalPERS or with a break in service. If the agency did not implement a lower second tier this is indicated with an “x” in the column. The County of San Luis Obispo is not a CalPERS agency. The County benefit was approximated to the CalPERS retirement formula by using an age at entry into the County system of 36 years old which is consistent with the City’s average age at hire. TABLE 32: MISCELLANEOUS RETIREMENT FORMULAS Agency 1st Tier 2nd Tier 3rd Tier Clovis 2.7% @ 55 x 2.0% @ 62 County of SLO 2.0% @ 552.0% @ 602.0% @ 62 Davis 2.5% @ 55 x 2.0% @ 62 Gilroy 2.5% @ 55 x 2.0% @ 62 Monterey 2.7% @ 55 x 2.0% @ 62 Monterey (Special District)3.0% @ 602.0% @ 552.0% @ 62 Napa 2.7% @ 552.0% @ 602.0% @ 62 Napa (Special District)2.7% @ 552.0% @ 552.0% @ 62 Paso Robles 2.5% @ 552.0% @ 602.0% @ 62 Petaluma 2.0% @ 552.0% @ 602.0% @ 62 Pleasanton 2.7% @ 55 x 2.0% @ 62 Salinas 2.0% @ 55 x 2.0% @ 62 San Luis Obispo 2.7% @ 552.0% @ 602.0% @ 62 Santa Barbara 2.7% @ 55 x 2.0% @ 62 Santa Cruz 2.0% @ 552.0% @ 602.0% @ 62 Santa Maria 2.7% @ 552.0% @ 552.0% @ 62 Santa Maria (Special District)2.0% @ 55 x 2.0% @ 62 Santa Monica 2.7% @ 552.0% @ 552.0% @ 62 Ventura 2.0% @ 552.0% @ 602.0% @ 62 Formulas provide a salary multiplier and “normal” retirement age; the age an employee could retire without a benefit reduction. Pension reform is reducing the multiplier and increasing the retirement age. In 2012, the City and its employee groups negotiated the lowest available second tier (2% @ 60), along with a third of the comparison agencies. 65 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 71 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 33: POLICE SAFETY RETIREMENT FORMULAS TABLE 34: FIRE SAFETY RETIREMENT FORMULAS Agency 1st Tier 2nd Tier 3rd Tier Clovis 3.0% @ 50 x 2.7% @ 57 County of SLO 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Davis 3.0% @ 50 x 2.7% @ 57 Gilroy 3.0% @ 502.0% @ 502.7% @ 57 Monterey 3.0% @ 50 x 2.7% @ 57 Napa 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Paso Robles 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Petaluma 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Pleasanton 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Salinas 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 San Luis Obispo 3.0% @ 502.0% @ 502.7% @ 57 Santa Barbara 3.0% @ 50 x 2.7% @ 57 Santa Cruz 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Santa Maria 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Santa Monica 3.0% @ 50 x 2.7% @ 57 Ventura 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Agency 1st Tier 2nd Tier 3rd Tier Chico 3.0% @ 50 x 2.7% @ 57 Davis 3.0% @ 50 x 2.7% @ 57 Monterey 3.0% @ 50 x 2.7% @ 57 Napa 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Petaluma 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Pleasanton 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Salinas 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 San Luis Obispo 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Santa Cruz 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 Santa Maria 3.0% @ 503.0% @ 552.7% @ 57 The City and Gilroy have the lowest second tier among comparison agencies. The benefit begins at 2% @ 50 and may increase to 2.7% @ 55 based on age at retirement. The Safety PEPRA Tier for both Police and Fire increases the age at which you can receive maximum benefit by two years. 66 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 72 ATTACHMENT 1 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE NORMAL COST OF RETIREMENT: TIER 1 There are many factors that contribute to retirement costs including benefit formulas, the number of retirees, age at retirement, years of service, salary, etc. To put the data in perspective, the ratio of the employer contribution to the normal cost (the amount required to actuarially ensure that current contributions will meet future benefit requirements) was calculated. The following charts show the ratio of the employer contribution to the normal cost of retirement benefits for Tier 1, by CalPERS contract group. CHART 49 30% 37% 41% 43% 48% 52% 55% 55% 55% 56% 57% 57% 70% 84% 99% 100% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Clovis Napa Santa Cruz Monterey Davis Salinas Petaluma Santa Barbara Median Pleasanton San Luis Obispo Gilroy Ventura County of SLO Santa Maria Santa Monica Paso Robles Employer Contribution to Retirement (Normal Cost): Miscellaneous Tier 1 SLO % from Median: 2.7% 67 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 73 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 50 CHART 51 46% 52% 52% 53% 57% 66% 67% 68% 68% 68% 68% 69% 83% 84% 90% 100% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Napa Clovis Santa Cruz Davis Monterey San Luis Obispo Petaluma Pleasanton Paso Robles Median Gilroy Salinas Ventura County of SLO Santa Barbara Santa Monica Santa Maria Employer Contribution to Retirement (Normal Cost): Police Safety Tier 1 SLO % from Median: -2.2% 46% 57% 59% 65% 67% 67% 67% 69% 70% 70% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Napa Monterey Santa Cruz Davis Pleasanton Median Petaluma Chico San Luis Obispo Salinas Santa Maria Employer Contribution to Retirement (Normal Cost): Fire Safety Tier 1 SLO % from Median: 4.4% 68 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 74 ATTACHMENT 1 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE NORMAL COST OF RETIREMENT: TIER 2 The following charts show the ratio of the employer contribution to the normal cost of retirement benefits for Tier 2, by CalPERS contract group. CHART 52 *County of San Luis Obispo contribution exceeds member rate. Additional funds placed in supplemental retirement account. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 41% 42% 55% 59% 60% 60% 60% 62% 62% 70% 105% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Santa Barbara Salinas Pleasanton Gilroy Davis Clovis Santa Cruz Napa Petaluma Monterey Paso Robles Median Santa Monica Santa Maria San Luis Obispo Ventura County of SLO* Employer Contribution to Retirement (Normal Cost): Miscellaneous Tier 2 SLO % from Median: 3.4% Until an actuarial rate can be established on Tier 2, the City is assessed the same rate as Tier 1. However, the reduced benefit also comes with a lower Member rate, making the ratio currently higher than the first tier. 69 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 75 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 53 CHART 54 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 46% 47% 60% 64% 64% 64% 66% 67% 68% 69% 83% 98% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Santa Monica Santa Barbara Monterey Davis Clovis Napa Santa Cruz San Luis Obispo Santa Maria Pleasanton Paso Robles Median Petaluma Gilroy Salinas Ventura County of SLO Employer Contribution to Retirement (Normal Cost): Police Safety Tier 2 SLO % from Median: -8.4% N/A N/A N/A 46% 55% 66% 66% 66% 66% 67% 67% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Monterey Davis Chico Napa Santa Cruz Santa Maria San Luis Obispo Salinas Median Pleasanton Petaluma Employer Contribution to Retirement (Normal Cost): Fire Safety Tier 2 SLO % from Median: 0.0% The City has a lower employer rate for Police and Fire Tier 2 and employees are contributing the same amount regardless of whether they are in Tier 1 or 2. 70 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 76 ATTACHMENT 1 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE TOTAL COST OF RETIREMENT: TIER 1 The total cost of retirement includes the required member contribution and all employer contributions (normal cost and any unfunded liability). The total cost of retirement is reported in the total compensation tables in A ppendix A. To put the data in perspective, the ratio of the employer contribution to the total retirement cost was calculated. The following charts show the ratio of the employer contribution to the total cost of retirement benefits for Tier 1, by CalPERS contract group. CHART 55 54% 60% 62% 64% 67% 68% 71% 72% 72% 74% 74% 75% 76% 78% 86% 100% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Clovis Santa Cruz Napa Monterey Petaluma Salinas Davis Median Gilroy Santa Barbara Santa Monica San Luis Obispo Pleasanton Ventura County of SLO Santa Maria Paso Robles Employer Contribution to Retirement (Total Cost): Miscellaneous Tier 1 SLO % from Median: 4.9% 71 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 77 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 56 CHART 57 62% 66% 67% 67% 72% 74% 78% 80% 80% 80% 80% 81% 85% 91% 93% 94% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Santa Cruz Napa Clovis Davis Monterey Pleasanton Gilroy Salinas Median Paso Robles San Luis Obispo Petaluma County of SLO Ventura Santa Barbara Santa Monica Santa Maria Employer Contribution to Retirement (Total Cost): Police Safety Tier 1 SLO % from Median: 0.0% 66% 67% 72% 76% 78% 78% 80% 81% 82% 84% 100% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Napa Santa Cruz Monterey Davis Median Chico Pleasanton Petaluma San Luis Obispo Salinas Santa Maria Employer Contribution to Retirement (Total Cost): Fire Safety Tier 1 SLO % from Median: 6.1% 72 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 78 ATTACHMENT 1 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE TOTAL COST OF RETIREMENT: TIER 2 The following charts show the ratio of the employer contribution to the total cost of retirement benefits for Tier 2, by CalPERS contract group. CHART 58 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 59% 60% 64% 67% 72% 72% 73% 75% 77% 78% 104% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Santa Barbara Salinas Pleasanton Gilroy Davis Clovis Monterey Santa Cruz Napa Petaluma Santa Monica Median Santa Maria Paso Robles San Luis Obispo Ventura County of SLO Employer Contribution to Retirement (Total Cost): Miscellaneous Tier 2 SLO % from Median: 7.2% 73 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 79 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 59 CHART 60 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 55% 66% 70% 70% 76% 77% 78% 80% 80% 81% 91% 98% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Santa Monica Santa Barbara Monterey Davis Clovis Santa Cruz Napa Pleasanton Paso Robles Santa Maria Median Gilroy Salinas San Luis Obispo Petaluma Ventura County of SLO Employer Contribution to Retirement (Total Cost): Police Safety Tier 2 SLO % from Median: 4.6% N/A N/A N/A 62% 66% 71% 74% 76% 80% 81% 82% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Monterey Davis Chico Santa Cruz Napa Salinas Median Santa Maria Pleasanton Petaluma San Luis Obispo Employer Contribution to Retirement (Total Cost): Fire Safety Tier 2 SLO % from Median: 12.1% 74 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 80 ATTACHMENT 1 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION The amount contributed by the agency to any defined contribution retirement plan, in addition to contributions to defined benefit plans. The following charts are organized by employee group. If the comparison agency does not make a contribution to deferred compensation it is indicated as “$0.00” and is included in calculating the median. Many employer contributions are provided as a percentage of compensation. To normalize the contribution among various agencies, the contribution as a percent of pay was calculated for all benchmark classifications within the City’s comparable employee group. CHART 61 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $17.50 $35.00 $43.33 $46.45 $59.09 $60.00 $161.67 $- $100 $200 $300 $400 Santa Maria Santa Cruz Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Petaluma Davis County of SLO Median Santa Monica Paso Robles Ventura Napa Monterey Clovis Employer Contribution to Deferred Compensation: SLOCEA SLO % from Median: N/A The City and half the comparison agencies do not contribute to deferred compensation for SLOCEA classifications. 75 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 81 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 62 CHART 63 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15.63 $54.17 $60.97 $67.78 $83.33 $119.94 $125.66 $144.44 $195.14 $372.00 $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 Santa Monica Santa Barbara Petaluma County of SLO Santa Maria Davis Median Monterey Santa Cruz San Luis Obispo Ventura Napa Clovis Paso Robles Employer Contribution to Deferred Compensation: Management SLO % from Median: 96.7% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25.00 $30.01 $35.00 $- $100 $200 $300 $400 Santa Cruz Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Salinas Pleasanton Petaluma Median Gilroy Napa Santa Maria Monterey Employer Contribution to Deferred Compensation: Police SLO % from Median: 0.0% The City contributes 1% of salary for Management and 2% of salary for Department Head classifications to deferred compensation. Employer contributions to deferred compensation are not common in Public Safety groups. The City does not make deferred compensation contributions to these groups. 76 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 82 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 64 CHART 65 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $35.00 $50.01 $- $100 $200 $300 $400 Ventura Santa Monica Santa Cruz Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Petaluma Paso Robles Napa Median Davis County of SLO Clovis Monterey Santa Maria Employer Contribution to Deferred Compensation: Police Management SLO % from Median: 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25.00 $45.00 $95.62 $- $100 $200 $300 $400 Santa Maria Santa Cruz San Luis Obispo Pleasanton Petaluma Median Davis Chico Napa Monterey Salinas Employer Contribution to Deferred Compensation: Fire SLO % from Median: 0.0% 77 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 83 ATTACHMENT 1 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO POST RETIREMENT HEALTH The amount contributed to retiree medical. Employers offering CalPERS medical plans for current employees are required to make a minimum contribution towards the cost of CalPERS health insurance for retirees. The minimum contribution increases each calendar year and is $119 per month for 2014. The following charts are organized by employee group. If the comparison agency does not make a contribution to post retirement health it is indicated as “$0” and included in the median calculation. Agencies providing “$0” can be assumed to not offer CalPERS medical plans for current employees. CHART 66 $0 $0 $119 $119 $119 $119 $121 $136 $151 $219 $318 $331 $500 $585 $- $300 $600 $900 Ventura Clovis Monterey Santa Maria San Luis Obispo Petaluma County of SLO Median Santa Monica Santa Cruz Napa Santa Barbara Paso Robles Davis Employer Contribution to Post Retirement Health: SLOCEA SLO % from Median: -12.3% The City participates in CalPERS medical plans and therefore, makes only the required minimum contribution of $119 per month for all employee groups. 78 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 84 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 67 CHART 68 $0 $0 $119 $119 $119 $127 $136 $173 $209 $290 $360 $500 $590 $653 $- $300 $600 $900 Ventura Clovis San Luis Obispo Petaluma Monterey Santa Maria County of SLO Median Santa Cruz Napa Santa Barbara Paso Robles Davis Santa Monica Employer Contribution to Post Retirement Health: Management SLO % from Median: -31.1% $28 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119 $254 $258 $319 $- $300 $600 $900 Pleasanton Santa Maria San Luis Obispo Salinas Petaluma Monterey Median Gilroy Napa Santa Cruz Santa Barbara Employer Contribution to Post Retirement Health: Police SLO % from Median: 0.0% 79 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 85 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 69 CHART 70 $0 $0 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119 $258 $264 $319 $500 $590 $- $300 $600 $900 Ventura Clovis Santa Monica Santa Maria San Luis Obispo Petaluma Monterey Median County of SLO Santa Cruz Napa Santa Barbara Paso Robles Davis Employer Contribution to Post Retirement Health: Police Management SLO % from Median: 0.0% $0 $28 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119 $192 $231 $966 $- $300 $600 $900 Chico Pleasanton Santa Maria San Luis Obispo Salinas Petaluma Monterey Median Napa Santa Cruz Davis Employer Contribution to Post Retirement Health: Fire SLO % from Median: 0.0% 80 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 86 ATTACHMENT 1 APPENDIX E: OTHER PAY AND BENEFITS AND RELATED INFORMATION This section includes incentive pays that may be provided for special skills, education, etc. to some percent of the employees, but not all. The pay practices included in this section are not included in total compensation. Further, information on past and projected across the board salary increases is also presented. BARGAINING UNIT SALARY INCREASES The following charts include any comparison agency bargaining unit that was matched to a comparable City benchmark. Date and amount of the last increase and projected increases are captured to the extent available. Projected increases are not reflected in the salary or total compensation data in this Report. TABLE 35: COMPARABLE SLOCEA BARGAINING UNIT SALARY INCREASES Table below is sorted by date of last increase. Agency Bargaining Unit Last Increase Date Last Increase Percent Scheduled Increase Date Scheduled Increase Percent Santa BarbaraSanta Barbara Regular & Part-Time 04/05/140.50%10/04/142.00% Davis Davis PASEA 01/01/142.00%01/01/151.00% Paso RoblesPaso Robles City Employees' Assoc 01/01/143.00% Santa BarbaraSanta Barbara Treatment and Patrol 12/28/133.00% Santa MariaSanta Maria General Employees 12/14/132.00%07/12/141.00% Salinas Salinas SMEA 12/01/134.00%01/01/154.00% Santa MonicaSanta Monica MEA 07/01/131.00% Santa MonicaSanta Monica Teamsters 07/01/131.00% County of SLOSLO County BU 01 07/01/131.18% County of SLOSLO County BU 13 07/01/131.18% Monterey Monterey General Employees 07/01/131.50%07/01/141.50% Santa CruzSanta Cruz SEIU, Local 521 07/01/132.00%07/01/142.00% Clovis Clovis Employees Association 07/01/132.00% Clovis Clovis Professional & Technical Assoc 07/01/132.00% Clovis Clovis Public Works Employees Assoc 07/01/132.00% Monterey MRWPCA 07/01/132.00% Napa Napa Sanitation District 06/22/132.00% San Luis Obispo SLOCEA 12/22/102.00% County of SLOSLO County BU 02 07/01/102.65% Ventura Ventura BU A 07/01/084.00% Ventura Ventura BU G 07/01/084.00% Ventura Ventura BU Q 07/01/084.00% Ventura Ventura BU C 07/01/084.00% Davis Davis DCEA 06/30/083.00% 81 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 87 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 36: COMPARABLE MANAGEMENT BARGAINING UNIT SALARY INCREASES Table below is sorted by date of last increase. Agency Bargaining Unit Last Increase Date Last Increase Percent Scheduled Increase Date Scheduled Increase Percent Napa Napa AMP 01/18/141.25% Paso RoblesPaso Robles Executive Management 01/01/143.00%07/06/142.00% Paso RoblesPaso Robles Management 01/01/143.00%07/06/142.00% Davis Davis Management 01/01/142.00%01/01/151.00% Napa Napa Executive 01/01/141.25%07/05/141.28% Santa MariaSanta Maria Mgmt & Confidential Emp 12/14/132.00%07/12/141.00% Clovis Clovis Management & Executive 07/01/132.00% Monterey Monterey Executive Management 07/01/131.50% Monterey Monterey Management Employees Assoc 07/01/131.50% County of SLOSLO County BU 05 07/01/131.18% Santa MonicaSanta Monica ATA 07/01/131.00% Santa BarbaraSanta Barbara Management Class 1 06/29/132.00%06/28/142.00% Santa BarbaraSanta Barbara Management Class 2 06/29/132.00%06/28/142.00% Santa BarbaraSanta Barbara Supervisory Employees 06/29/132.00%06/28/142.00% Santa MonicaSanta Monica Executive 07/01/123.80% County of SLOSLO County BU 28 07/01/102.98% San Luis Obispo SLO Management 07/09/091.00% San Luis Obispo SLO Management - Department Heads 07/09/091.00% Ventura Ventura BU S 07/01/084.00% Ventura Ventura BU E 07/01/084.00% Ventura Ventura BU M 07/01/084.00% Ventura Ventura BU U 07/01/084.00% County of SLOSLO County BU 07 07/01/076.34% County of SLOSLO County BU 08 07/01/076.34% County of SLOSLO County BU 09 07/01/076.34% County of SLOSLO County BU 10 07/01/076.34% 82 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 88 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 37: COMPARABLE POLICE AND POLICE MANAGEMENT BARGAINING UNIT SALARY INCREASES Table below is sorted by date of last increase. TABLE 38: COMPARABLE FIRE BARGAINING UNIT SALARY INCREASES Table below is sorted by date of last increase. Agency Bargaining Unit Last Increase Date Last Increase Percent Scheduled Increase Date Scheduled Increase Percent Pleasanton Pleasanton Gen Unit- AFSCME, Local 955 04/12/141.00%04/11/152.00% San Luis Obispo SLOPSOA-Safety 01/01/14-2.00% Davis Davis POA 01/01/142.00%01/01/151.00% Santa MariaSanta Maria Public Safety Managers 12/14/132.00%07/12/141.00% Santa MariaSanta Maria POA 12/14/132.00%07/12/141.00% Santa MariaSanta Maria Police Assoc. of Middle Mgmt.12/14/132.00%07/12/141.00% Napa Napa NCEA (dispatch)09/28/131.25%07/05/141.25% Clovis Clovis POA 07/01/132.00% Monterey Monterey POA 07/01/132.00% Santa MonicaSanta Monica POA 07/01/133.00% Gilroy Gilroy POA 06/30/132.00%2.00% Santa BarbaraSanta Barbara POA 01/12/131.50%07/12/142.00% San Luis ObispoSan Luis Obispo POA 01/01/13-2.00%07/01/14-2.00% Paso RoblesPaso Robles POA 12/01/121.00%07/06/143.00% Napa Napa POA 01/01/101.00% Ventura Ventura BU P (Safety)12/01/0812.00% Salinas Salinas POA 10/01/085.00%10/01/155.00% Agency Bargaining Unit Last Increase Date Last Increase Percent Scheduled Increase Date Scheduled Increase Percent Napa Napa IAFF, Local 3124 01/04/141.25%07/05/141.25% Chico Chico IAFF, Local 2734 01/01/141.00% Santa MariaSanta Maria Fire Employees 12/14/132.00%07/12/141.00% Napa Napa NCEA 09/28/131.25%07/05/141.25% Monterey Monterey Firefighters Assoc 07/01/131.50% Gilroy Gilroy Gen Unit- AFSCME, Local 101 07/01/132.00%07/01/142.00% Pleasanton Pleasanton IAFF, Local 1974 06/09/122.00% Davis Davis IAFF, Local 3494 07/01/11-3.00% San Luis ObispoSan Luis Obispo IAFF, Local 3523 12/22/102.00% 83 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 89 ATTACHMENT 1 EDUCATION INCENTIVE The following charts compare education incentives provided for public safety groups. The City does not offer education incentives for other employee groups. Many comparison agencies provide the incentive as a percent of salary. Therefore, the numbers reflected below are calculated based on the benchmark classifications receiving an incentive and are an approximation. In most cases an incentive is offered for either a degree or an equivalent. Occasionally, incentives are cumulative (an incentive is given for a degree and an equivalent) or exclusive (the incentive is given only for the degree or only for the equivalent). TABLE 39: POLICE EDUCATION INCENTIVE Agencies Associate's Degree or Intermediate POST Bachelor's Degree or Advanced POST Santa Barbara 396$ 603$ Gilroy 389$ 584$ Petaluma 302$ 423$ Santa Cruz 209$ 418$ Monterey 203$ 405$ Pleasanton 200$ 370$ Salinas 197$ 394$ Santa Maria 154$ 309$ Napa 100$ 285$ Median 203$ 405$ San Luis Obispo 187$ 374$ SLO vs Median -7.6%-7.6% The City’s education incentive for Police slightly lags the market. 84 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 90 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 40: POLICE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION INCENTIVE Agencies Associate's Degree or Intermediate POST Bachelor's Degree or Advanced POST Santa Monica 633$ 1,350$ Santa Barbara 420$ 656$ Petaluma 397$ 556$ Santa Cruz 255$ 510$ Monterey 247$ 495$ Ventura 233$ 466$ Paso Robles 213$ 298$ Santa Maria 206$ 411$ Davis 201$ 403$ Napa 100$ 345$ County of SLO 75$ 150$ Clovis 0$ 411$ Median 223$ 438$ San Luis Obispo 0$ 0$ SLO vs Median N/A N/A The City does not provide an Education Incentive for Police Management employees. Clovis is the only other comparison agency to not offer an education incentive for this group of employees. 85 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 91 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 41: FIRE EDUCATION INCENTIVE Agencies Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree or Equivalent Santa Maria 168$ 336$ Santa Cruz 167$ 335$ Napa 139$ 172$ Petaluma 100$ 200$ Salinas 60$ 120$ Pleasanton 50$ 100$ Chico 0$ 0$ Davis 0$ 0$ Monterey 0$ 403$ Median 60$ 172$ San Luis Obispo 100$ 200$ SLO vs Median 67%16% The City’s Fire education incentive leads the market. 86 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 92 ATTACHMENT 1 PARAMEDIC INCENTIVE Most firefighters are required to be certified Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT). Some agencies provide an incentive to those firefighters who maintain paramedic certification. TABLE 42: FIRE PARAMEDIC PAY *Napa Firefighter is a not a match because it is a combined Firefighter/Fire Engineer position. **Chico, Davis, Monterey and Santa Maria do not provide Advanced Life Support/Paramedic service. Agency Paramedic Pay: Firefighter Paramedic Pay: Fire Captain Pleasanton 889$ 1,113$ Salinas 838$ 1,102$ Santa Cruz 796$ 796$ Petaluma 703$ 0$ Napa*no match 803$ Chico**x x Davis**x x Monterey**x x Santa Maria**x x Median 817$ 803$ San Luis Obispo 766$ 766$ SLO vs Median -6.3%-4.6% 87 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 93 ATTACHMENT 1 APPENDIX F: PAID TIME OFF Practices in this area vary widely among employee groups and agencies. Three paid time off methods appear consistently in all agencies surveyed and are presented in this section: 1) vacation, 2) sick leave, and 3) holidays. The charts in this section provide a comparison across employee groups of the City’s benefit and the median of the comparison agencies. VACATION The City offers all employee groups 120 hours (15 days) of paid vacation (or the equivalent based on a 56-hour work week for Fire) after ten years of service. CHART 71 120 120 120 120 168 118 120 128 128 192 0 50 100 150 200 250 SLOCEA Management Police Police Management Fire (56) Annual Hours Vacation at Ten Years: All Groups Median San Luis Obispo The City is at market for all groups except Fire, Police and Police Management where it lags the market in vacation. 88 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 94 ATTACHMENT 1 SICK LEAVE The City offers all employee groups 96 hours (12 days) of sick leave (or the equivalent based on a 56-hour work week for Fire) upon hire. CHART 72 96 96 96 96 134 83 85 96 96 139 0 50 100 150 200 250 SLOCEA Management Police Police Management Fire (56) Annual Hours Sick Leave: All Groups Median San Luis Obispo 89 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 95 ATTACHMENT 1 HOLIDAYS The City offers all employee groups 104 hours (13 days) of paid holidays or holiday leave (or the equivalent based on a 56-hour work week for Fire) upon hire. CHART 73 104 104 104 104 146 88 93 108 104 156 0 50 100 150 200 250 SLOCEA Management Police Police Management Fire (56) Annual Hours Holiday Leave: All Groups Median San Luis Obispo The City is at market in holiday leave for Police and Police Management; leads the market in holiday leave for SLOCEA and Management; and lags the market for Fire. 90 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 96 ATTACHMENT 1 APPENDIX G : PRIVATE SECTOR DATA To the extent available, local private sector salary data is provided for 14 of the 26 benchmark classifications. No matches were made to public safety benchmarks because, presumably the data reported to the EDD or HRCC would be from the public sector and therefore, not representative of local private sector data. PRIVATE SECTOR SALARY The “average pay range” is reported from the HRCC survey. This data point averages all of the pay range maximums reported in the survey. The 75th percentile was used as an equivalent “top of range” from the EDD data. The 75th percentile indicates 75% of the incumbents are paid lower and 25% are paid higher. A median was not calculated as the data is so limited. TABLE 43: SLOCEA CLASSIFICATIONS SLOCEA Benchmark Classifications HRCC EDD SLO Accounting Assistant III $3,578$3,888$4,379 Administrative Assistant II $3,657$4,489$4,156 Building Inspector II x $7,079$5,978 Engineer II $6,815$8,589$6,985 Heavy Equipment Mechanic x $5,770$4,986 Laboratory Analyst (SBP)$5,124$6,940$5,276 Maintenance Worker III- Streets x $4,481$4,379 Network Administrator $5,777$7,133$6,463 Water Resource Recovery Facility Operator (SBP)x $5,930$5,276 Water Treatment Plant Operator (SBP)x $5,930$5,276 91 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 97 ATTACHMENT 1 CHART 74 Due to the very general nature of classification descriptions provided by the EDD and HRCC, data varies significantly between the two private sector sources. $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 Local Private Sector Salary: SLOCEA EDD HRCC SLO 92 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 98 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 44: MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS CHART 75 Management Benchmark Classifications HRCC EDD SLO Administrative Analyst x $7,531$6,351 Finance Operations Manager $6,576$11,001$8,938 Human Resources Manager $7,398$9,991$7,354 Senior Planner $7,736$6,897$7,354 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 Local Private Sector Salary: Management EDD HRCC SLO 93 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 99 ATTACHMENT 1 PRIVATE SECTOR HEALTH The HRCC Survey contained some information on benefits; however, it was difficult to make side by side comparisons to the public sector data because different data points were gathered. However, a summary of pertinent points is provided below. This summary is gleaned from the HRCC Survey as well as conversations with professionals in the local private sector. 1) Approximately 74% of HRCC Survey respondents state they offer a PPO health plan. 2) Full-time employees and their dependents are eligible for coverage in employer sponsored health plans. 3) Fifty-three percent (53%) of HRCC Survey respondents state they contribute a percentage to the employee’s premium while 31% contribute a flat rate. 4) Forty-eight percent (48%) of HRCC Survey respondents contribute 100% of the cost of employee only health insurance coverage, while 47% provide between 50% and 99% of employee only coverage, and five (5%) percent state they contribute less than 50% to employee only health coverage. 5) The number of respondents indicating the percent they contribute to dependent health was very low (only 20 respondents) and therefore, the data cannot be considered reliable. However, 55% of HRCC Survey respondents state they contribute between 50% and 99%, while 41% state they contribute less than 50% or nothing, and 14% state they contribute 100% of the cost of family coverage. PRIVATE SECTOR RETIREMENT The following is a summary of information gleaned from the HRCC Survey regarding retirement benefits. 1) Sixty-four percent (64%) of HRCC Survey respondents offer a defined contribution retirement plan to their employees. 2) Sixty-nine percent (69%) of HRCC Survey respondents provide a match to the employee’s contribution to a retirement plan. 3) Fifty-two percent (52%) of respondents state they offer three (3%) to five (5%) percent as a maximum match to the employee’s contributions. Discussions with local private sector professionals indicate three to six percent to is typical but the match may vary from a percent on the dollar to a dollar to dollar match. 94 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 100 ATTACHMENT 1 PRIVATE SECTOR OTHER PAY AND BENEFITS AND RELATED INFORMATION The following is a summary of information gleaned from the HRCC Survey regarding other pay and benefits and related information. 1) Fifty-one percent (51%) of HRCC Survey respondents indicate they offer a year- end/holiday bonus or gift. Another 20% of respondents state they offer an annual bonus. 2) The range of bonuses appears to be zero (0%) to six (6%) percent. 3) Forty-three percent (43%) of HRCC Survey respondents provided traditional merit increases ranging from zero (0%) to six (6%) percent in 2013 and projections are similar for 2014. Notably, 28% of respondents stated merit increases were 10% or more in 2013 and a similar number of respondents are projecting the same range for merit increases in 2014. Local private sector professionals explain that the private sector recovery started in 2013 and significant adjustments were provided in some cases to offset reductions due to the downturn in the economy. 95 | Page All data gathered as of January 2014. SS1 - 101 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1: COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY 96 | Page SS1 - 102 ATTACHMENT 1 97 | Page SS1 - 103 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Human Resources staff would like to thank the Employee Compensation Study Committee for their hard work throughout this process. Dustin Alexander- Police Dean Furukawa- Utilities Kerri Rosenblum- Police Kate Auslen- Human Resources Gary Hale- Fire Shelly Stanwyck- Parks & Rec Bob Bisson- Fire Barbara Lynch- Public Works Tina Storton- Police James David- Administration Melissa Mudgett- Parks & Rec Jason Takagi- Finance & IT Ron Faria- Public Works Pam Ouellette- Utilities Human Resources staff would also like to thank the City of San Luis Obispo Personnel Board and Chamber of Commerce for their input regarding methodology and inclusion of private sector salary information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Please contact: Monica Irons Director of Human Resources mirons@slocity.org or Nickole Sutter Human Resources Analyst nsutter@slocity.org City of San Luis Obispo Department of Human Resources 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)781-7250 98 | Page SS1 - 104 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 3: DATA SOURCES Public Sector Data Chico, City of www.chico.ca.us Clovis, City of www.ci.clovis.ca.us County of San Luis Obispo www.slocounty.ca.gov/ Davis, City of www.cityofdavis.org Gilroy, City of www.cityofgilroy.org Monterey, City of www.monterey.org Napa, City of www.cityofnapa.org Paso Robles, City of www.prcity.com Petaluma, City of www.cityofpetaluma.net Salinas, City of www.ci.salinas.ca.us Santa Barbara, City of www.ci.santa-barbara.ca.us Santa Cruz, City of www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us Santa Maria, City of www.ci.santa-maria.ca.us Santa Monica, City of www.smgov.net/ Ventura, City of www.cityofventura.net Private Sector Data Employment Development Department http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/ Human Resources Association of the Central Coast (HRCC) http://www.hracc.net/ Other Resources Census http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html USA.com http://www.usa.com/rank/california-state--median-age--city-rank.htm California Public Employee Retirement System http://www.calpers.ca.gov/ DQ News - Real Estate News and Data http://www.dqnews.com/ Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/ EDD – Unemployment Rate and Labor Force http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/Content.asp?pageid=1006 League of California Cities http://www.cacities.org/Resources/Charter-Cities 99 | Page SS1 - 105 Attachment 2 2014 COMPENSATION STUDY COMMITTEE MEMBERS First Last Name Department Dustin Alexander Police Kate Auslen HR Bob Bisson Fire James David Admin (prev. CDD) Ron Faria Public Works Dean Furukawa Utilities Gary Hale Fire Barbara Lynch Public Works Melissa Mudgett Parks & Recreation Pam Ouellette Utilities Kerri Rosenblum Police Shelly Stanwyck Parks & Recreation Tina Storton Police Meetings Dates: 1. November 19, 2013 2. December 10, 2013 3. January 7, 2014 4. January 13, 2014 5. January 22, 2014 6. January 29, 2014 (Employee Presentation ‘Open House’) 7. February 4, 2014 8. February 11, 2014 (Employee Presentation ‘Open House’) 9. February 12, 2014 10. February 20, 2014 11. March 19, 2014 12. April 16, 2014 13. May 14, 2014 14. July 22, 2014 15. August 12, 2014 (Employee Results Presentation) 16. August 13, 2014 (Employee Results Presentation) SS1 - 106 2014 Benchmark Compensation Study August 19, 2014 Monica Irons, Director of Human Resuurues Hiekole Sutter, Human Resources Analyst � r 2014 Benchmark Compensation Study August 19, 2014 Monica Irons, director of Human Resources Nickole Sutter, Human Resources Analyst t w 4 0 2014 Benchmark ~" Compensation Study August 19, 2914 Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources Nickole Sutter, Human Resources Analyst r ' 2014 Benchmark Compensation Study Purpose: The purpose of the 2014 Benchmark Compensation Deport is to provide objective, verifiable, total compensation data to help inform Council's development of labor relations objectives that will guide negotiations with City employee groups. • Major City Coal: To Sustain Essential Services, Infrastructure, and Fiscal Health • Fulfills contractual obligation with SLCCEA Key Players Totol Compensation Componentaof Total Compensation Geoffrey Rothman Compensation Committee Personnel Board methodology The Relevant Labor Market (Survey Universe) • Survey Benchmark Classifications • Data Points rr . r Y • • - s nCy rIuyCr J • Geoffrey Rothman • Compensation Committee • Personnel Board Total Compensation Components of Total Compensation HEALTH INSURANCE: Employer contnbUt on to family plan PPO health insurance SALARY Max months salary OTHER FLAY _._._Uniform paw or paramedic incentive RETIREMENT. All employer contributions to retirement (including ErPMC. deferred comp . and social security) Methodology • The Relevant Labor Market (Survey Universe), • Survey Benchmark Classifications • Data Paints The Three Survey Universes The General Survey Universe The Police Survey Universe 1 A 17 NICE ill The Fire Survey Universe The General Survey Universe I F San Luis Obispo 45,878 $ 46,651 $ 525,000 26.5 Clovis 98,632 $ 63,983 $ 255,000 34.1 County of SLO 274,804 $ 58,630 $ 415,000 39.4 Davis 65,993 $ _61,535 $ 455,000 25.2 Monterey 29,003 $ 63,072 $ 520,000 36.9 Napa 78,340 $ 62,505 $ 421,500 37.4 Paso Robles 30,556 57,977 $ 358,000 35.3 Petaluma 58,921 $ 76,909 $ 447,500 40.3 Santa Barbara 89,639 $ 53,758 $ 880,000 36.8 Santa Cruz 62,041 $ 62,755 $ 610,000 29.9 Santa Maria 101,459 $ 51,675 $ 263,500 28.6 Santa Monica 91,812 $ 72,271 $ 978,500 40.4 Ventura 107734 $ 66,586 $ 411,000 39 93.3% 88.6 %Q 88.9% 96.0% 93.3% 79.2 %9 85.0 % 89.5% 84.3% 92.5 %9 60.6 % 95.2% 88.4 %9 47.8% 29.5% 30.8% _ 69.5% 48.3% 27.4% 20.9% 36.8 %9 41.9% 50.8% 13.7 %Q 359 482 2,509 376 462 450 185 3'08 1,006 775 472 64.5% 1,996 32.4% 600 The Police Survey Universe Sara ,Luis Obispo 45,878 ' $ 46,651 $ 525,0001 26.5 93.3% 478%. f 859 Gilroy 50,660 $ 78,842 $ 495,000 32.4 77.1% T 23.8 %' 276 Monterey 29,003 $ 63,072 $ _ 520,000 36.9 93.34/ 48.3% 462 Napa 78,340 $ 62,505 $ 421,500 37.4 79.2% 27.4% 450 Petaluma 58,921 $ 76,909 $ 447,500 40.3 89.6% 36.8% 308 � Pleasanton 72,338 $ 118,129 $ 750,000 40.5 95.1% 55.5% 522 Salinas 154,484 $ 50,587 $ 285,000 28.8 60.0% 13.1% 545 Santa Barbara 89,639 $ 63,758 $ 880}000 36.8 84.80/. 41.9% 1,006 Santa Cruz +62,041 $ 62,755 $ 610,000 29.9 92.5% 50.8% 775 Santa Maria 101,459 $ 51,675 $ 263,500 j 28.61 60.6 %, 13.7%1 472 The Fire Survey Universe FP -ow, - .San Luis Chico Davis Napa Petaluma Pleasanton Salinas Santa Cruz Santa Maria 4 N. 45,875 $ 46,651 $ 525,000 26.5 93.3% 478%' 359 37,714 $ 42,896 $ 254,500 28.6 90.5% 33.2% 398 65,993 $ 61,535 $ 455,000 25.2 96.0% 69.5% 376 29,003 $ 63,072 $ 520,000 36.9 93.3% 48.3 %, 462 78,340 $ 62,505 $ 421,500 37.4 79.2% 27.4% 450 58,921 $ 76,909 $ 447,500 40.3 89.6% 36.8% 308 72,338 $ 118,129 $ 750,000 40.5 95.1% 55.5% 522 154,484 $ 50,587 $ 285,000 28.8 601.0% 13.1% 545 62,041 $ 62,755 $ 610,000 29.9 92.5%j 50.8% 775 101,459 $ 51,675 $ 263,50{] 1 28.6 60.6%1 13.7% 472 Benc 1ass1'*ficati*ons W SLOCEA BENCHMARKS POLICE BENCHMARKS OkE BEICHMARKS .Anpumng AUS ^ari In .lam¢uory:lwy:1[�Pl comrrunicecians recur— .Fire Caplain ACmneLr.Arr�AS:senn - Awnxl•pnne usxke•m aze� •Pdfc amcer(Step a) - Firefghfer 9urtrylnrpcdcr 11NmMlAtlmneuarn• I �Ka I Rarrml.ra�rn, .Fire Insuee[w II - @roro.Trll amen CpnaA 159Y1 -Ikmry Lpipmrnl lk4ce -�'hM lrLtymeM'L7 -1 Gynalp�ru9F) Management MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKS ddmini. liiec Ar t rt • Oliet Binding QMcIW •Drpi yNr... n, MIMI, Works - DI. o1 Puhlic Works Finarnnr ]rx!rnk— Maruarr - H— RB3a.— klaiagE • Fnlrr. [:M1ir�1 - R— .., Spp—., • �i:nor planner Police Management Police Fire POLICE MANAGEMENT BENCHMARK r Police Sergeant A + j A t SLOCEA BENCHMARKS • Accounting Assistant III •Laboratory Analyst (SBP) • Administrative Assistant II •Maintenance Worker III - Streets • Building Inspector II • Code Enforcement officer • Engineer II • Heavy Equipment Mechanic • Network Administrator • Water Resource Recovery Facility Operator (SBP) • Water Treatment Plant operator *(SBP) indicates Skills Based Pay Classifications MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKS • Administrative Analyst • Chief Building Official • Deputy Director - Public Works • Director of Public Works • Finance Operations Manager • Human Resources Manager • Police chief • Recreation Supervisor • Senior Planner POLICE BENCHMARKS • Communications Technician • Police Officer (Step 8) POLICE MANAGEMENT BENCHMARK • Police Sergeant FIRE BENCHMARKS • Fire Captain • Firefighter • Fire Inspector II SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS Results organized by employee group: - s LoC EA • Management • Public safety (Police} Police Management, Fire) • Total Compensation and salary • Employer Contribution to Health •Employer Contribution to Retirement (Normal and Total Cost) • All data gathered in January 2014 SALARY AND TOTAL COMPENSATION SLOCEA $elnry Ps. Tm l Cnmpananiwn Pare•m hom M..-- PLOCEA Llau'dr.mtians �d 14 • IdR � � • dYr � • MANAGEMENT Salaryy r9. Tolal Campan;ation Paleam train IAadiw Management Classifications la[ n as 4 $ � P LOCAL PRIVATE SECTOR Lo[al P!lYdl Se:[a[Salvy: lAanaad.�nen1 PUBLIC SAFETY Salary vs. Toeal Compensanon Percent from Media n- p Al.. Se 1•ty Cla —1— t, i6 Dl f Sat i b dV •aat + ' .sat • coat - FYdkapderrll Fadaaur Fw (aR'dd Flied ilna[ fal.•v[auet hxa 5a�}w 1•m.oa 19 10 0 % 5 0% Median -5-0% - 10.0% -15.0% -20.0% -25.0% Salary vs. Total Compensation Percent from Median: SLOCEA Classifications Ik Of AA VP *Total Comp ■Monthly Salary *Includes Special Districts Cie db ■ 10 0% 5.0 °¢ Median -5-0% -10.0% - 15.0% - 20.0% Salary ors. Total Compensation Percent from Median. Management Classifications t <N *Total Comp ■ 1,Ionthly Salary IN • IN q qs ■ L Salary vs. Dotal Compensation Percent from Median: Public safety Classifications 15.0% 10.0% 5,0% NIedian -5-0% -10 0% ,� ■ ■ -15- 0% -20.0% • Fire Inspector III Firefighter Fire Captain 9 I - ,� Police Officer Con111IL111iCatians Police Sergeant Tedinician •Total Cornp ■ f,- Ionthly alary A 0� lip -IV �/ 0 Ole ff' *Total Comp m Monthly Salary LOCAL PRIVATE SECTOR Local Private Sector Salary! SLOCEA i3O,000 - 50.000 W OnD - SO 41 -91 a "o lip Local Private Sector Salary: Management EDD - HR"" 5- 0 DOO SIC) S2 GD3 so Local Private Sector Salary: SLOCEA $12000 S10 000 - $8.000 - a $6,000 - $4,000 - - - - - - S2000 SID 6F, -1 HDC H R,-- 9`11 A 09 09 610 lop 9�A Qp S 12 000 S 10 000 S8000 S6 000 S4 0010 S2000 SO 4- Pfi -a- . Local Private Sector Salary: Management K40 Oq z C* •EDD HRC -- S LO � "P �1§ HEALTH INSURANCE Health Insurance Employer Contribution Percent .ova from Median (Family Coverage) .0% lean l0% 1.0% ■ 10% SLOCEA Menn9 -t P ©Ike Police Fire Mamagemem • HMI Ck -PPC LOCAL PRIVATE SECTOR HEALTH Employee Only Health Coverage: • 48% of respondents contribute 100% • 47% of respondents contribute 50 -99 % • 5% of respondents contribute less than 5010 Family Health Coverage: • 14% of respondents contribute 100% • 55% of respondents contribute 50 -99% • 41% of respondents contribute less than 500A a F, F Health Insurance Employer Contribution Percent 20.0% � from Median (Family overage) 10.0% Median -10.0% -20.0% -30,10% - 40.0% -50.0% ■ SLOC EA 4 Fli Management Police Police Management Fire HMO 6, J LOCAL PRIVATE SECTOR HEALTH Employee Only Health Coverage: • 480/D of respondents contribute 100 % 47 % of respondents contribute 50 -99% 5 % of respondents contribute less than 50 % Family Health Coverage: • 14 % of respondents contribute 100 % 55 % of respondents contribute 50 -99 % 41 % of respondents contribute less than 50 % NORMAL & TOTAL COST Retirement Employer Contribution: Percentfrom Median f S.Ok - }n nti Nl- Wr 1, iirr 1 RETIRE RETIREE MEDICAL Employer Contribution to Retiree Medical_ Percent Prom Median 18N matt ]L6f2A Na�edmn Mn LOCAL PRIMATE SECTOR RETIREMENT 64% of respondents offer a defined contribution retirement plan 69% provide a match to a retirement plan 52% match 3% to 5% to a retirement plan 10,0% -5.0% -10.0% -15,0% - 20.0% Retirement Employer Contribution: Percent from Median Police Safety Tier 1 Miscellaneous Tier 1 Normal Cost ■Total Cost ■ Fire Safety Tier 1 15.0 5.0% Median -5.0% - 15.0 % -25.0% - 35.0 Employer Contribution to Retiree Medical: Percent from Median SLOCEA t,!.Ianagernent Police Police Fire t -Aa nacgenle nt LOCAL PRIVATE SECTOR RETIREMENT • 64% of respondents offer a defined contribution retirement plan • 69% provide a match to a retirement plan • 52% match 3% to 5% to a retirement plan SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS • Total Compensation and salary: 50% benchmark classifications surveyed lag the market, 42% are at market, and 8% lead the market in total compensation. • salary appears to be the primary contributor to benchmarks lagging the market. • Health and Retirement Contributions: Employer Contributions to Health and Retirement as a percent of total costs are at market depending upon health plan type. • Paid Time Off and Other Pay and Benefit Practices: Detail is available in Appendices F and G. NEXT STEPS The Compensation Philosopy Mates that the City is committed to providing competitive compensation. In determining "competitive" Council will consider: • Financial sustainability • Community acceptability • Relevant labor market • Internal relationships • other relevant factors •Labor Relations Objectives (September 23, 2014) - Data is a 'flashlight` that can be used by all interested parties to illuminate discussions about compensation. omit t w 4 0 2014 Benchmark ~" Compensation Study August 19, 2914 Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources Nickole Sutter, Human Resources Analyst