HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2007, BUS 5 - BENCHMARK COMPENSATION REPORT 2007 Council M.VG Dtl Il 61
j agenda uepoRt
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ��
FROM: Monica Irons,Director of Human Resources
PREPARED BY: Rachael Hendricks, Human Resources Analyst "
SUBJECT: BENCHMARK COMPENSATION REPORT 2007
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Receive and accept the Benchmark Compensation Report 2007, and direct staff to return to Council
in January 2008 with recommendations for implementation after further analysis and appropriate
consultation with employee groups.
DISCUSSION
Compensation Study Results
The attached Benchmark Compensation Report 2007 has been organized much like a staff report
and includes an introductory summary and other areas of discussion that explain the purpose and
core findings of the Report. Therefore, to avoid redundancy, a summary of the Report is not
provided in this staff report. Simply put, the results of the compensation study are best
understood by reading the Report.
The Study Process
In August 2006, Human Resources staff began a compensation and benefits study for general,
confidential, management, and department head job classifications. Human Resources staff
conducted the study with input from an employee committee, and under the direction of
compensation consultant, Geoffrey Rothman of Renee Sloan Holtzman and Sakai LLP who
provided guidance throughout the process. While the study was being conducted, the community
offered suggestions to include the local private sector in the survey. At that point, staff enlisted
assistance from the Personnel Board and a San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
representative who reviewed and approved the survey methodology, the local private sector
salary sources and the final report.
Next Steps
Staff plans to formulate recommendations based on the results of the Report during November
and December 2007. During this time period, the Report will also be presented to the Board of
the San Luis Obispo City Employees' Association (SLOCEA) as was committed to in the most
recent memorandum of agreement. The City will meet and confer with the association on the
impact of any proposed changes in compensation for classifications represented by SLOCEA
prior to implementation. Staff will also meet with management employees to further discuss
Council Agenda Report—Benchmark Compensation Report 2007 Page 2
November 6,2007
results and recommendations.
Staff anticipates returning to Council in January 2008 with recommendations from the
compensation and benefits study. These recommendations will be crafted to promote the
objective of attracting and retaining highly qualified employees, who, in tum deliver quality
services to the citizens of San Luis Obispo.
CONCURRENCES
The Personnel Board and a representative from the Chamber of Commerce concur with the
survey methodology and the report.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to receiving the Benchmark Compensation Report 2007.
ALTERNATIVE
Do not accept the Benchmark Compensation Report 2007, and direct staff to pursue additional
information or modify the survey approach. As outlined in the Report, the methodology used was
based on extensive study and input by a consultant, a committee of employees, department heads,
the Personnel Board, representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and others. While perhaps
not perfect(and no such study ever can be), staff believes that the data is very strong and will be
an appropriate point of departure for consultation and future recommendations. Therefore, this
altemative is not recommended.
ATTACHMENT
Benchmark Compensation Report 2007
G:Wgenda Reports\20071Comp Study 11-"7.Doc
S-z
ATTACMENT
I
i
I
Benchmark Compensation Report 2007
I
I
I
Using Benchmark Compensation Data
to Assess Our Ability
i
to Attract and Retain Qualified Employees
i
i
i
i
i
w
too
� i
I
S-.3
city of san Luis oaispo j
Compensation Report 2007
ATTACHMENT
i
OF •
i
Page
INTRODUCTION............................................:...................................................................3 j
WhyDo a Compensation Study?..............................................:.......:..................................3
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................... ......6
Summaryof the Results.......................................................................................................6
Salary..........................................................................................................................7
Employer Contributions to Health and Life Insurance...............................................8
PaidTime-off Benefits ...............................................................................................8
RetirementBenefits............................:.......................................................................9
METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................:..10
Selection of Comparison Organizations.....................................................:.............10
Selecting Public Sector Agencies.................................................................10
Selecting Local Private Sector Sources........................................................1 l
Selecting Benchmark Classifications .......................................................................12
Public Sector Benchmarks............................................................................12
Private Sector Benchmarks...........................................................................13
How Do Other Classifications Relate to Benchmarks?................................14
InternalRelationships......................................................:........................................15
Selecting Survey Data Points....................................................................................16
Salary in the Public Sector............................................................................16
Salary in the Private Sector...........................................................................17
Employer Paid Contributions to Health Insurance.......................................17
Employer Paid Contributions to Life Insurance...........................................17
Paid Time-Off Benefits.................................................................................17
RetirementBenefits......................................................................................18
I
MONTHLY SALARY AND BENEFIT COMPARISONS................... .............19
I
REM
i
Table 1. Benchmark Classifications Comparisons to Public and Private Sectors.................8
Table 2. Comparable Agencies Selected.............................................................................11
Table 3. Benchmark Classifications—Public Sector Comparisons.....................................13
Table 4. Benchmark Classifications— Local Private Sector Comparisons .........................14
Table 5. Internal Relationships...................................:........................................................15 ;
Tables 6—28. Monthly Salary Comparisons for Each Benchmark Classification
(Alphabetical Order by Benchmark Title).............................................20 - 42
Tables 29-35. Public Sector Benefit Comparisons.......................................................43 -49
— city of san lues osispo
Compens tion Report 2007
ATTACHMENT
APPENDICES
sP ,
A. Resolution Adopting Compensation Philosophy 50
B. Committee Acknowledgements and Further Information........................................52
C. Data Sources.............................................................................................................53
I
j
I
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
2 S-5
My of san Luis osispo
Compensation Report 2007
ATTACHMENT
INTRODUCTION
Why Do a Compensation Study?
Decisions about compensation for public employees are difficult and sensitive. This is
understandable — public resources should be used wisely and with accountability. And that is
why such decisions should be made based on a solid foundation of data and other analytic
information. The Benchmark Compensation Report 2007 is a major part of this necessary
analytic foundation.
However, sound data and information are not ends unto themselves. There must be an
overarching public purpose behind any review of public employee compensation, and that
purpose should be tied to one fundamental thing: service to the public. If we don't have the
right employees doing the right work in the right way, our public service duty will not be
sufficiently fulfilled.
San Luis Obispo City government has developed a strong tradition of quality municipal services.
For example, in a scientific survey of residents conducted in June 2006, about 75% of residents
surveyed rated our services as good to excellent. This same survey also showed that 95% of
respondents viewed our community as a great place to live.
The Compensation Philosophy (Appendix A) adopted by the Council in March 2007 establishes
"competitive compensation" as a necessary part of an overall strategy to attract and retain
employees who can deliver the high quality of public service our community needs and expects—
the kind of service that will help San Luis Obispo remain a great place to live.
We can start with some good news: combined with the results of recent studies for most public
safety positions, this report shows that we have salary and benefit levels that are appropriately
competitive for most of our workforce. There are, however; three key areas that are problematic
and will create service threats if not addressed in the near term:
1. Utility operations positions such as our water treatment plant, water reclamation facility,
water distribution and wastewater collection systems.
2. Professional engineering positions, such as capital project design and development
review.
3. Senior managers throughout the organization, including the Police and Fire Chiefs.
The study results are in close alignment with our attraction and retention experience: it has been
primarily in these key areas where attracting and retaining qualified employees has become
increasingly difficult in the last three years. More employment offers have been rejected by top
candidates resulting in vacancies for extended periods. These vacancies strain City resources
and disrupt service to citizens. Recent turnover data indicates a steady increase in City
employees accepting other local public sector employment.
3 S-�
city of san Luis osispo
CompenIt"A a Ir MEET
Here are three examples that reinforce the analytical results of this study in.these critical areas:
1. In 2006, the City lost three Water Treatment Plant Operators to neighboring agencies.
One of the three employees was a 17-year employee with the City. All cited higher
compensation as a reason for leaving. We have recruited seven times in five years for
Water Treatment Plant Operator because multiple offers were rejected due to
compensation. Water Treatment Operators are very important in ensuring the water we
deliver to our customers meets the highest state and federal quality standards.
2. The Supervising Civil Engineer responsible for engineering development review resigned
in August of 2005 to accept a job in the private sector for increased salary. Given the
importance of this position to our ability to assure that proper standards are met in the
physical development of the City, we immediately recruited and developed an eligibility
list—which was thin. We made an offer to the one strong candidate from that list, which
was declined. In July 2006, we re-hired the employee who left for the private sector—he
resigned again only a few months later to accept a higher paying job at the City of Morro
Bay. We recruited again, came up with another eligibility list, made another offer, which
was declined due to our inability to come close to the candidate's current local
government pay. The Short Story: This critical position remains unfilled today.
3. In the last two years, we have lost employees to the City of Paso Robles, which as the
survey results show, consistently offers better benefits than the City. These included:
a. The Water Reclamation Plant Chief Operator recently left after 12 years of
service with the City to accept a comparable position in Paso Robles. lie cited
increased pay and benefits as the driving motivator behind leaving. This position
is a key one in meeting our environmental stewardship responsibilities by
ensuring our wastewater discharges to the San Luis Creek meet Clean Water Act
standards.
b. The Water Projects Manager, a key position with responsibility for multi-million
dollar projects like the Water Reuse project, left after four years with the City to
accept a position in Paso Robles. Again, she cited substantially greater pay and
benefits as a reason for leaving.
C. The Deputy Community Development Director left for a position with the City of
Paso Robles after 15 years with the City. The Deputy Director position oversees
all current planning in the City and is one of our most important management
positions. Pay and benefits were substantial considerations in his decision. He is
earning sizably more at the City of Paso Robles than he could have earned at the
City's director level.
Stated simply, allowing this pattern to continue without corrective action is not sustainable if we
are to provide the services our community expects and deserves. We can no longer rely solely
on our high quality of life, our healthy organizational culture, or continued good fortune in
attracting and retaining the right employees. When compensation differences are substantial
4 � _ �
ATTACHMENT city of san lues osispo
Compensation Report 2007
enough, combined with other factors like high housing prices and "trailing spouse" employment
difficulties, sought after talent will make different employment choices in the marketplace.
We are bringing to bear many strategies in meeting this challenge; however, having sound
market data is an essential part of the equation. And that's the purpose of this study: to bring
sound analytical data to the table as we develop and implement attraction and retention solutions.
The balance of this report provides market data that will aid decision makers in determining a
prudent course of corrective action in those areas where it is needed. Consistent with our
Compensation Philosophy, internal relationships, fiscal responsibility and local acceptability are
all important factors for consideration. Ultimately, recommendations will be crafted to address
these considerations and promote the objective of attracting and retaining highly-qualified
employees who, in turn, deliver quality services to the citizens of San Luis Obispo.
i
5 _�/
ATTACHME6►`�`,
crty of san tuts oaispo
Compensation Report 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Attracting and retaining qualified employees has become increasingly difficult for the City
during the last three years. The City of San Luis Obispo typically recruits from other public
sector agencies, due to the specialized nature of municipal positions. In 2006, 65% of our
newly-hired employees came from other public sector agencies. At the time of this report in
September 2007, 80% of new employees came from the public sector. More employment offers
have been rejected by top candidates, which has resulted in vacancies for extended periods.
These vacancies strain remaining City resources and disrupt service to the citizens of San Luis
Obispo. Recent turnover data indicates a steady increase in City employees accepting other local
employment. Most often employees are leaving the City for other public sector employment,
with 63% leaving in 2005, 43% leaving in 2006 and 80% leaving in 2007 for other public sector
agencies. Applicants and exiting employees frequently indicate compensation is a factor, yet
anecdotal information alone is not sufficient to initiate corrective action.
A formal study of the competitive market was necessary to provide objective and reliable data.
Human Resources staff conducted the study under the guidance of consultant, Geoffrey Rothman
of Renne Sloan Holtzman and Sakaii, LLP and with the assistance of an employee committee
(Appendix B). The data contained in this report should help the City discern to what extent
salary and benefits affect its ability to attract and retain high quality employees.
This is the first comprehensive study in over ten years that examines general, confidential,
management, and department head classifications. Public safety classifications are not included
in this report, except for the Police and Fire Chief classifications. Salary, health insurance
contributions, time off, and retirement benefit data was gathered for 23 representative
"benchmark" classifications in comparable organizations. Public sector information was more
readily available and more comprehensive than local private sector data. The public sector
salary and benefit information in this report was collected from nine comparable cities and the
County of San Luis Obispo. Local private sector salary data was obtained with the assistance of
the Human Resources Association of the Central Coast (HRACC), the State of California
Employment Development Department(EDD) and the Internet.
The information in this report should be considered in the overall context established by the
City's compensation philosophy adopted by Council in March 2007. The City recognizes that
market data alone will not drive internal changes in compensation and.benefits. Market data,
internal relationships, fiscal responsibility and local acceptability are all important factors for
consideration. Ultimately, recommendations will be crafted to support the City's objective of
attracting and retaining highly qualified employees who, in turn, deliver services to the citizens
of San Luis Obispo.
Summary of the Results
This report details the methodology used in collecting public and local private sector market
data. It reports findings for each benchmark classification as well as each surveyed benefit.
6 �-9
ATTACHMENT
city of sin lues osispo
Compensation Report 2007
Comparisons are made to market median which represents the exact midpoint of all the market
data collected, with 50% of market data below and 50% of market data above. The median is
used, as opposed to the average, because the median is not skewed by extremely high or low
values. For the purposes of this summary of findings, a simple method of generalizing how the
City compares to the market data was used. Comparisons fall into one of three categories:
competitive, lead, or lag. Competitive is defined as plus or minus five percent from the market
median. Therefore, if the City data is ten percent above the median, it is characterized as
"leading"the market.
i
Key findings follow for salary, health insurance contributions, time-off, and retirement benefits
from the comparable public sector agencies. Salary results are summarized from the local
private sector sources, as detailed benefit information was not available.
Salary
i
1. Salary appears competitive for almost 60% of the classifications included in this study.
I
2. The relationship to median (either below or above) is consistent between public and private
sector data in 13 of the 16 benchmark classifications.
3. Salary appears to lag for utilities, engineering, and senior management classifications.
i
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
7 S-�o
ATTAC H M E NT city o f san tuts owspo
Compensation Report 2007
Table 1. Benchmark Classifications Comparisons to Public and Private Sectors
%Above/Below
%Above/Below
Classification Median Public
Private SectorSector
i
Laboratory Analyst -21% -37% I
Water Reclamation Facility Operator -18%— � -7%
Police Chief -16% no match
Fire Chief -16%_ _ no match
Water Treatment Operator -14% -7%
Human Resources Director -14% -1%
Community Development.Director, _ 14% no match
blic Wo
Purks Director -12% no match
City Administrative Officer - -- -12% —--- -265%
Engineer II -11% -20%
Finance Manager -3% -2%
Engineering Technician II -2% 12%
Associate Planner -1% 26%
Tree
Tri u emll —1 % no match
vy quip ent Mechanic _ 1% _ 9%
Building Inspector 11 - 1% -18%
Parking Enforcement Officer 2% no match
Maintenance Worker II (Buildings)_ 2% 0%
Accounting Assistant II — 2% 13%
Human Resources Analyst II 3% 15%
------..—.------
Recreation Supervisor __—;_ --� 10%0 _ no match_
_ Administrative Assistant II _ 13% -3%
Information Systems Technician II _-- 19% l^ 11%
Employer Contributions to Health and Life Insurance
4. The City's contribution to the cost of family health coverage (medical, dental, and vision)
lags comparison public sector agencies.
5. The City paid life insurance benefit also lags comparison agencies.
Paid Time-Off Benefits
6. The City's sick and holiday leave benefits are competitive.
i
7. The City's vacation at hire benefit leads other public sector agencies by two days per year,
while the vacation rate after 10 years is competitive.
8. Administrative leave provided to management employees lags comparison agencies while
administrative leave provided to department head employees is competitive.
I
8
5��� I
city of san Us oaispo
Compensation Report 2007
ATTACHMENT
Retirement Benefits
9. The City's retirement formula leads comparison agencies for general, confidential,
management and department head classifications. The Fire and Police Chief classifications
receive the public safety retirement benefit, the same as all comparison agencies.
i
10. The City's contribution to retiree health insurance lags comparison agencies.
i
11. Employer contributions to deferred compensation plans are not common for general unit
classifications. The City does not contribute to deferred compensation plans for general unit
classifications. The City's contribution is competitive for management and department head j
classifications.
I
i
I
!
I
' co of san Luis osispo
Compensation Report 2007
ATTACHMENT
METHODOLOGY i
The purpose of this study is to provide objective. and reliable data; therefore following
established surveying practices was critical. The City's compensation consultant provided a
solid foundation by training Human Resources staff, senior management, and an employee
committee on the methodology outlined in detail below. This methodology was presented to the
Personnel Board, an advisory body to the Council specifically tasked with ensuring credibility of
the process and this final report before it proceeded to the Council. A Chamber of Commerce
representative also participated in the Personnel Board's review of methodology and this report.
I
The validity of comparability surveys is hinged upon three key decisions in selecting:
1. Comparison organizations
2. Benchmark classifications
3. Data points
I
The City's approach to each of these items is outlined in this section.
I
Selection of Comparison Organizations
Selecting Public Sector Agencies
Typically, comparison agencies are selected from the geographic region from which employees
are hired and the region where employees live. While City employees reside in San Luis Obispo
County, recruitment data for the City did not indicate a clear region from which employees were
hired. The immediate geographic region does not provide comparable agencies; therefore, the
survey universe was extended. Extensive demographics from over 85 California cities were
compared to San Luis Obispo's demographics. Population, median household income, median
home sales price, median age, residents' education levels, number of employees in the agency,
agency services provided, average commute time, local unemployment rate and proximity to a
university were considered.
Table 2, Comparable Agencies Selected, shows the final list of comparison full service public
sector agencies.
i
i
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
10
�- ATTACHMEN O city of San tubs oaispo
Compensation Report.2007
Table 2. Comparable Agencies Selected
Mediani
Household Median Home Median
o.of Cityj
C ity Population income Sales Price Age HS BA MA+ Employees
!
San Luis Obispo 44,174 $31,926 $640,000 26.2 91% 41% 15% 350
Chico 59,954 $29,359 $339,342 - 25.9 87% 34% 11% 409
Davis 60,308 $42,454 $568,750 25.2 96% 69% 36% 453
Monterey 30,329 $49,109 $899000 36A 91% 46% 19% 430
Napa 72,585 $49,154 $570,000 36.1 79% 23% 8% 450
Paso Robles 26,856 $39,217 $469,500 _33.0 78% X17% 60/c 174
Santa Barbara 92,325 $47,498 $1,047,500 34.6 81% 40% 16% 1049
--------------------
Santa Cruz 55,593 $50,605 $735,000 31.7 —.,89%--.--44% 18% 800+
Santa Maria 77,423 $36,541 $455,000 29.2 61% 11% 3% 450
Ventura 104,259 $52,298 $580.000 36.8 '86% 29% 11% 620
All ten of the agencies selected 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, parks &
recreation and planning.
2. Distinct regional identity separate from a large metropolitan area.
3. Major employment, commercial, cultural and goverment centers for their area.
Additionally, they share one or more of the following characteristics with the City of San Luis
Obispo:
1. Coastal (Eight of ten: Monterey, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa
Maria, Ventura and the County).
2. Proximity to a major college or university (Seven of ten: Chico, Davis, Monterey, Santa
Barbara, Santa Cruz, Ventura and the County).
3. Tourism is an important part of the agency's economy (Seven of ten: Monterey, Napa,
Paso Robles, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Ventura and the County of San Luis Obispo).
4. Midsize cities, with populations ranging from 30,000 to 100,000 (the only exception is
the County of San Luis Obispo).
Lastly, three of these agencies are in our immediate geographic area (Paso Robles, Santa Maria
and the County of San Luis Obispo).
Selecting Local Private Sector Sources
Obtaining local private sector salary and benefit data is more difficult than obtaining public !
sector information. Salaries paid by employers in the private sector are usually considered
confidential and obtained only through legal mandate or disclosed to professional survey
organizations under conditions of strict confidentiality.
ATTACHMENT - city of san Luis oaispo
Compensation Report 2007
The Personnel Board and representative from the Chamber of Commerce agreed three primary
sources for local private sector data were appropriate:
I
1. 2007 Salary Survey of San Luis Obispo Companies conducted by the Human
Resources Association of the Central Coast(HRACC).
Twenty-seven local private sector companies participated in the HRACC survey. Actual
wages paid as of May 1, 2007 were reported.
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 State of California (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 2007.
3. Information from Salary.com.
Community members suggested Salary.com as a source of local private sector salary and
benefit data. Salary.com publishes employer-reported data from multiple sources when
they are reasonably consistent. A geographic salary equivalent factor, similar to a cost-
of-living adjustment, is applied to national data. Therefore, this source provides
"localized" data, not local data. Information in this report is from July 2007.
Selecting Benchmark Classifications
The City has approximately 144 general unit, confidential, management, and department head
classifications. The majority of these are single-class positions, meaning there is only one
employee in each. Surveying 144 classifications is not feasible. Instead, 23 benchmark
classifications were selected as the basis for this study. The information retrieved on these 23
benchmarks provides a general picture of where the City stands with respect to various
occupational groups.
The 23 benchmarks selected are representative of a sizable portion of the workforce and have
consistent definition of duties among various organizations. Benchmarks are typically journey-
level, to ensure data is not skewed by entry-level or advanced-level incumbents.
Public Sector Benchmarks
i
I
Staff reviewed detailed job descriptions and organizational charts to understand duties,
responsibilities, education and experience requirements, and reporting relationships for each
agency. To achieve statistical validity, a minimum of five of the ten public sector agencies
selected needed to have comparable classifications. Table 3, Benchmark Classifications—Public
Sector Comparisons, indicates the percentage of agencies with comparable classifications is very
high.
i
I
12
5 �.� J
city of san Luis o6ispo
ATTACHMENT Compensation Report 2007
Table 3. Benchmark Classifications—Public Sector Comparisons
% of Comparable
Benchmark.Classifications Classifications ini
Public Sector
Accounting Assistant 11100%
Administrative Assistant 11 100%
Associate Planner 100%
Building Inspector 11 100%
City Administrative Oficer 1000/0
Community Development Director 100%
Engineering Tech i—1
Heavy Equipment Mechanic 100%
Maintenance Worker 11 (Bujlg§)�
in 100%
�d—
Finance Manager 90%
Fire Chief 90% J
Police Chief 90%
Human Resources Analyst 11 90%
Human Resources Director 90%
Info Systems Tech 1190%
—PW Direct—or 90%
Engineer 11 80%
Lab Analyst 80%
Recreation Sup--- --
trvisor 80%
Water Reclamation 80%
Water Treatment Operator 70%
Tree Trimmer 11 60%
Parking Enforcement Officer
Private Sector Benchmarks
City government provides different services than those found in the private sector. Comparable
classifications were not available in the local private sector sources for six of the 23 benchmarks.
The remaining 17 benchmarks were matched with less confidence than the public sector
comparisons, because only brief descriptions of duties were provided from private sector
sources.
Table 4, Benchmark Classifications— Local Private Sector Comparisons, indicate almost 70% of
the benchmarks were matched to at least two of the three local private sector sources.
13
ATTACHMENT
of san tuts oBispo
Compensation Report 2007
Table 4. Benchmark Classifications—Local Private Sector Comparisons
Benchmark Classifications % of Comparable
Classifications in
Private Sector
Accounting Assistant II 100%
Administrative Assistant II 100%
Associate Planner 100% _
City Administrative Officer100%
Engineer 11 100%
--- Engineering_Tech II -�_—__^ ----�_---^--�-� 100%
Human Resources Analyst II J — — 100%
Human Resources Director 100%
_ Maintenance Worker II(Buildings)_ 100%
__Building Inspector_II - V _ 66%
Finance Manager _ 66%
Heavy Equipment. Mechanic 66%
Information Systems Technician II 66%
Laboratory Analyst 66%
Water Reclamation_Facility Operator 66%
Water Treatment Plant Operator 66%
Community Development Director 0%
— Fire Chief 0%
Parking
_Parking Officer0%
Police Chief 0%
PW Director 0%
Recreation Supervisor___ 0% _
Tree Trimmer II 0%
How Do Other Classifications Relate to Benchmarks?
Benchmarks are the basis for providing general information about how the City pays in
comparison to market. Conclusions may be drawn on other classifications depending upon their
relationship to the benchmark. Entry, journey, advanced, and supervisory classifications or
classifications requiring similar skills may be linked to the same benchmark. Table 5, Internal
Relationships, indicates the benchmark classifications in bold with related classifications below.
14 �� 17
ATTACHMEN
-- - city of san lu)s osispo '
Compensation Report 2007
Table 5. Internal Relationships
Benchmark Classifications and Related Classes
I
ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT II DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN II
ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT I CRY CLERK INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN I i
ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT 111 DIRECTOR OF PARKS&RECREATION INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANT
ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR GIS SPECIALIST II
REVENUE SUPERVISOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS GIS SPECIALIST I
DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES •G.I.S.SUPERVISOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT U DEP DIRECTOR-UTILITIESIWASTEWATER TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUPERVISOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I DEP DIRECTOR-UTILITIESIWATER RADIO SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III DEP DIRECTOR-PUBLIC WORKS/CIN ENGINEER TELEMETRY/INSTRUMENT TECHNICIAN
SUPERVISING ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DEP DIRECTOR-PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT LABORATORY ANALYST SBP
TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANT ENGINEER II BIOLOGIST
LEGAL ASSISTANT SENIOR CML ENGINEER CHIEF LABORATORY ANALYST
LEGAL ASSISTANTIPARALEGAL PRINCIPAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNER
HR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT UTILITIES ENGINEER MAINTENANCE WORKER II (BUILDINGS)
HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALST SUPERVISING CIVIL ENGINEER MAINTENANCE WORKER I
CAO EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER MAINTENANCE WORKER It-STREETS
PERMIT TECHNICIAN I ENGINEER I MAINTENANCE WORKER II-PARKS
PERMIT TECHNICIAN II ENGINEER III MAINTENANCE WORKER III-BUILDING
BUILDING PERMIT COORDINATOR CONSTRUCTION ENG MANAGER-OLD MAINTENANCE WORKER III-PARKS
WATER PROJECTS MANAGER MAINTENANCE WORKER III-STREETS
I
ASSOCIATE PLANNER BUILDING MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN
PLANNING TECHNICIAN ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II PARKS MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN
UTILITIES CONSERVATION TECHNICIAN ENGINERING TECHNICIAN I STREET MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN
UTILITIES CONSERVATION COORDINATOR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN III PARKING METER REPAIR WORKER.
SENIOR PLANNER FIELD ENGINEERING ASSISTANT HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I
HOUSING PROGRAMS MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II
SIGNAL&STREETLIGHT TECHNICIAN
BUILDING INSPECTOR II FINANCE MANAGER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
BUILDING INSPECTOR I INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER GOLF COURSE SUPERVISOR
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER PARKS MAINTENANCESUPERVISOR
ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL PW MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR-PARKS
INDUSTRIAL WASTE INSPECTOR FIRE CHIEF STREETS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
INDUSTRIAL WASTE COORDINATOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATOR
PLANS EXAMINER HEAVY EQUIPMENT MECHANIC
FLEET MAINT SUPERVISOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER PARKING MANAGER
ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST It PARKING COORDINATOR
CITY ATTORNEY SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES MANAGER
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST I TRANSIT MANAGER
DIR OF FINANCE 8 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST II
PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST POLICE CHIEF
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST.I j
DEP DIRECTOR-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC WORKS ADM SERV MANAGER RECREATION SUPERVISOR i
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL RISK MANAGER RECREATION MANAGER
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER RECREATION COORDINATOR I
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER RECREATION COORDINATOR 11
RANGER SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR
I
15 c
I
city of san lues osispo
ATTACHMENT Compensation Report 2007
Table 5. Internal Relationships
Benchmark Classifications and Related Classes
TREE TRIMMER II WTR RECLAMATION FACILITY(WRF)OPR WATER TREATMENT PLANT(WTP)OPR
TREE TRIMMER I WRF MAINT TECHNICIAN WATER TREATMENT PLANT SUPERVISOR
URBAN FOREST TECHNICIAN-ARBORIST WRF PLANT SUPERVISOR WATER SUPPLY SUPERVISOR
PW MAINT SUPERVISOR-URBAN FOREST WASTEWATER COLLECT SUPERVISOR WATER SUPPLY OPERATOR
WRF CHIEF OPERATOR WATER CUSTOMER SERVICE
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYS OPERATOR WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OPERATOR
WRF CHIEF MAINTENANCE WTP MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN
UTILITIES WORKER II WATER DISTRIBUTION SUPERVISOR
UTILITIES WORKER III WTP CHIEF OPERATOR
WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR III
Selecting Survey Data Points
i
The purpose of this study is to provide objective, verifiable data to assist the City in attracting
and retaining highly-qualified employees. Anecdotal comments from applicants and exiting
employees indicated concerns about the City's salary and benefits. Therefore, data points in four
categories were selected:
1. Monthly salary
2. Employer contributions to health and life insurance
3. Paid time-off benefits
4. Retirement benefits
The local private sector sources used in this report, included salary data only, with the exception
of Salary.com. The Salary.com benefit information is very general, making meaningful
comparisons difficult and is therefore not included in this report.
Salary in the Public Sector
In many public sector agencies progression through a 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.
I
Salary figures are effective July 2007 and are reported "net" any employee contributions to
retirement programs.
16 s=/9
city of san hus osispo
ATTACHMENT Compensation Report 2007
Salary in the Private Sector
Salary ranges are typically structured very differently in the private sector than public sector.
Placement in a salary range is often commensurate with experience and progression through a
range or to a higher-level range may be more rapid than in public sector organizations. Smaller
companies may not establish salary ranges,but pay according to market availability.
Two of the three private sector sources, EDD and Salary.com, reported percentiles based on
actual wages paid. The City selected the 75°i percentile, meaning 75% of the incumbents are
paid lower and 25% are paid higher, as comparable to top step of the City's salary range. The
City used the "actual paid high" from the HRACC survey as comparable to top step of the City's
salary range. If the actual paid high came from the government/public sector, the next highest;
non-public sector data point was selected. This ensured a local private sector comparison and
avoided comparisons with public sector agencies participating in the survey.
Employer Paid Contributions to Health Insurance
There are numerous ways to fund employee health insurance programs, making an "apples to
apples" comparison difficult. Staff read benefit information contained in Memorandums of
Agreement and called agencies to verify costs and employer contributions to comparable health
insurance plans. The majority of City employees are enrolled in the PERS Choice medical,
Delta Dental DPO, and Medical Eye Services plans. These were used to select comparable plans
at the surveyed agencies.
Some employers contribute different amounts depending upon classification. This report reflects
the percentage public sector employers contribute towards the total cost of family medical, .
dental, and vision insurance by general and confidential classifications and management and
department head classifications.
Employer Paid Contributions to Life Insurance
Similar to health insurance, employer contributions to life insurance coverage may vary based on
classification. The amount of employer paid employee life insurance by general and confidential
classifications and management and department head classifications is included in this report.
Paid Time-Off Benefits
Time-off benefits vary between public sector agencies but the majority offer holidays, sick leave, I
vacation, and administrative leave. If other leave benefits, such as personal leave, were offered
staff evaluated whether they were comparable to one of the City's paid-leave categories. The
following is a brief description of leaves studied in this report.
1. Paid holidays — the number of holidays granted to employees including floating or
personal holidays.
I
17
i
�_J ATTACHMEN a city of san Luis oaispo
Compensation Report 2007
2. Sick Leave — the number of days granted to employees each year for use if they are sick
or if they need to care for a family member.
3. Vacation at hire—the number of vacation days granted to employees upon hire.
4. Vacation at 10 or more years of service — the number of vacation days 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
slightly more than 10 years of service at the time of the study.
5. Administrative Leave — the number of days 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.
Retirement Benefits
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. Employers may also contribute to post
retirement health insurance through a variety of funding mechanisms. This study looked at three
aspects of retirement benefits.
1. Retirement Benefit Formula — This formula typically indicates the minimum retirement
age and percent of compensation with which the benefit would be calculated and may
vary based upon bargaining unit. The formulas for general unit and confidential
classifications and management and department head classifications are reported.
2. Employer Contribution to Post Retirement Health — If the employer participates in PERS
medical plans for active employees they are required to make a contribution towards the
cost of PERS health insurance for retirees. That contribution may vary and is reported
separately from other voluntary employer contributions to post retirement health
insurance.
3. Employer Contribution to Deferred Compensation Contribution - The amount
contributed by the City to any alternative retirement plan, either private or public, where
the employee's contribution is made by the City on behalf of the employee.
1
18
I
ATTACHMENT city of san Luis osispo
Compensation Report 2007
I
Monthly Salary and Benefit Comparisons
Tables 6 through 28 provide public and private sector monthly salary comparisons for each
benchmark classification in alphabetical order by benchmark title. Tables 29 through 35 provide
public sector comparisons for each benefit: health, paid time-off, and retirement.
I
I
I
I
I
19 S-�a-
ATTACHMEN) city of san Luis osispo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT II
i
I
Accounting Assistant II-Public Sector
i
I
Santa Barbara $3,988
Napa $3.966
Chico $3,-..
San Luis Obispo $3,768
Monterey $3,743
Ventura $3,730 Table 6a.
Paso Robles $3,627 The salary for the
Santa Maria $3,565 Accounting Assistant
County of SLID $3,380 II classification is 2%
Santa Cruz $3,327 above the median.
Davis 1$3.313
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500
Accounting Assistant II-Local Private Sector
I
SLO $3,768
Table 6b.
HRACC Survey $3,571 The salary for the
Accounting Assistant
II classification is
Salary.corn i $3,261 j 13% above the
median.
EDD $3,215
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000
I
20 /
S '
ATTACHMENT -` city or san tuws osispo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II
I
I �
Administrative Assistant II- Public Sector
I
I
San Luis Obispo $3,768
Paso Robles _ $3,627
Napa $3,593
Monterey $3,563
I
Ventura $3,496 Table 7a.
Davis235 The salary for the
Chico $3,,235
Santa Barbara 1$3.187 Administrative
Santa Cruz $3,108 Assistant II
Santa Maria $3,000 ! classification is 13%
County of SLO 1$2,917 above median.
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3.500 $4.000
I
Administrative Assistant II- Local Private
Sector
EDD $4,208 Table 7b.
The salary for the
HRACC Survey $3,900
Administrative
Assistant II
sLo _ $3a68 classification is 3%
Salary.com $3,754 below median.
i
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000
I I
I
I
i
21
city of san Us oBispo
ATTACHMENT Compe sat on Report 2007
I
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
Associate Planner-Public Sector
,
Paso Robles - - - $7,077
Napa _ - $6,479
Ventura $6,145
Monterey- $6,092
Santa Cruz 1$6,085
San Luis Obispo $5,859 Table 8a.
Santa Barbara 1$5,798 The salary for the
Davis - .$5,730 Associate Planner
County of SLO 1$5,722 classification is 1%
Chico j$5,567 below median.
Santa Maria ..... -. $5,429
$0 $1,000$2,000$3,000 $4,000$5,000$6,000.$7,000.$8,000
(
Associate Planner Local Private Sector
I
SLID $5,859
j Table 8b.
EOID $5,857 The salary for the
Associate Planner
HRACC Survey
classification is 26%
$4,316 �
above median.
I
Salary.com $3,984.
i
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
i
22
5-ms's
cMy of san tuts opo
� TTACHMENT Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
BUILDING INSPECTOR II
Building Inspector II- Public Sector
I
Monterey _ $6,092
Napa $5,984
County of SLO $5,657
Santa Barbara $5,461
Chico $5,434 Table 9a.
San Luis Obispo $5,421 The salary for the
Ventura $5,342 Building Inspector II
Paso Robles $5,117 classification is 1%
Davis 1$5,091
above median.
Santa Maria 1$5,005
Santa Cruz $4,995
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
Building Inspector II- Local Private Sector
Salary.com $6,422
j Table 9b.
The salary for the
EDD $6,335 Building Inspector I1
classification is 18%
below median.
SLO $5,421
I
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
I �
I
23 �I� 4
ATTACHMENT city of san Luis owspo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
City Administrative Officer- Public Sector
Ventura 1$17,138
County of SLO $17,068
Santa Barbara _ $16,966
Chico $15,708
Santa Maria - $15,433
Napa $15,004 Table 10a.
Monterey $13,723 The salary for the
San Luis Obispo $13,570 City Administrative
Santa Cruz $12,17 Officer classification
Davis -- $12,667
is 12%below
Paso Robles $12,322
median.
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10.000 $12.000 $14,000 $16.000 $18.000
City Administrative Officer-Local Private
Sector
Salary.com $76,969 Table lob.
The salary for the
City Administrative
HRACC Survey $22,100 Officer classification
is 265%below
median.
SLO $13,570
$0 $20.000 $40.000 $60,000 $80,000
24 ���
ATTACHMENT city of san Luis owspo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Community Development Director-Public Sector
Ventura
$13,723
Santa Barbara $12,623
Santa Maria $11,880
Monterey $11,840
County ofSLO $11,793 Table 11.
Napa $11,437 The salary for the
Paso Robles $11,312 Community
I
Chico $11,068 Development
Davis 1$11,048 Director
Santa Cruz 1$10,978 classification is 14%
San Luis Obispo $10,233 below median.
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000
I
There was no comparable classification
for Community Development Director
in the available local private sector sources.
I
I
i
i
I
25 �_�
J crty of San Luis OBISPO
A'rTACHMENT Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
ENGINEER 11
Engineer II- Public Sector
Ventura 1$7,304
Paso Robles $7,077 -
i
Chico $6,724
i
Monterey $6,550
Napa $6,471 I Table 12a.
Santa Barbara $6,311 ; The salary for the
County of SLo $6.283 Engineer II
classification is 11%
San Luis Obispo $5,859 below the median.
Santa Cruz $5,138
$0 $2.000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000
i
Engineer II- Local Private Sector
HRACC Survey $7,150
Table 12b.
EDD $7,029 The salary for the
Engineer II
classification is 20%
Salary.com $6,186
below median.
i
SLO $5,859
I
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000
26 � �9
ATr4CHM6NT_.1
My of san Luis osispo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
ENGINEER TECHNICIAN I1
Engineering Technician II -Public Sector
County of SLO 1$5,543
Napa ---- $4,951
Ventura $4,859
Santa Maria $4,767
Monterey $4,594 Table 13a.
Paso Robles 1$4,428 The salary for the
Santa Barbara $4,407 Engineering
San Luis Obispo $4,403 Technician II
Chico $4,337 classification is 2%
Santa Cruz 1$4,283 below median.
Davis $4,261
$0 . $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
Engineering Technician II- Local Private Sector
I
I �
i EDD $5,053
I
Table 13b. The
Salary.com $4,912
salary for the
Engineering
Technician II
sLO $4,403 classification is 12% j
below median.
HRACC Survey _ $3,293
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
i
I
27 �_?�
}
ATTACHMENT city of san Luis oaispo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
FINANCE MANAGER
Finance Manager-Public Sector
Chive 1$9,805
Monterey $9,788
Napa 1$9,096
Paso Robles $9,038
Ventura $8,724 Table 14a.
San Luis Obispo $8.483 The salary for the
Santa Barbara - - $8,470 Finance Manager
Santa Maria 1$7,860 classification is 3%
Davis 1$7.377 below median.
Santa Cruz $6,235
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000
Finance Manager-Local Private Sector
Salary.com $9,158
_ Table 14b.
The salary for the
SLo $8,483 Finance Manager
classification is 2%
below median.
EDD $8,072
1.
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000
I '
28
I
ATTACHMENT
city of San Luis osispo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
FIRE CHIEF
Fire Chief-Public Sector
I
Ventura $14,417 ,
Santa Barbara $14,150
Chico $13,828 -
Napa -- - $12,508
Santa Maria $12,430 Table 15. The
Davis $12.043 salary for the Fire
Monterey $11,585 Chief classification
Santa Cruz j$11,501 is 16%below
Paso Robles 1$11,312 median.
San Luis Obispo $10,729
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000
There was no comparable classification
for Fire Chief j
in the available local private sector sources. j
I
I
I
29
ATTACHMENT crty of Mn tu's oBfspo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
HEAVY EQUIPMENT MECHANIC
Heavy Equipment Mechanic- Public Sector
Napa 1$5,073
Monterey $4,891
Davis $4,651
County of SLO $4,631
Ventura $4.622 Table 16a.
San Luis Obispo $4,520 The salary for the
Paso Robles 1$4,363 Heavy Equipment
Santa Cruz 1$4,283 Mechanic
Chico 1$4.282 classification is 1%
Santa Maria 1$4,276 above median.
Santa Barbara 1$4.171
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
I
Heavy Equipment Mechanic- Local Private
Sector
I
I
Table 16b.
SLO $0.520 The salary for the
Heavy Equipment
Salary.com $4,195 Mechanic
classification is 9%
EDD $4,070 above median. i
I
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000
30 ����
city of San Luis oaispo
ATTACHMENT Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II
Human Resources Analyst II-Public Sector j
Chico $7,353
Ventura $6,617
San Luis Obispo $6.420
Santa Barbara $6,406 Table 17a. The
Napa $6,368 salary for the
Monterey $6,238 Human Resources
Davis 1$6,147 Analyst II
Santa Maria 1$6.140 classification is 3%
County of SLO 1$6,070 above median.
Santa Cn¢ $5,899
$0 $1,000$2,000$3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6.000$7,000 $8.000
i
I
Human Resources Analyst II-Local Private Sector
i
HRACC Surrey $11,525
Table 17b. The
salary for the
sl o $6,420 Human Resources
Analyst II
EDD $5.449 classification is 15%
above median.
Salary.com $5.353
I
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6.000 $8,000 $10,000 $12.000 $14,000
31
city of san Luis oaispo
ATTACHMENT Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
Human Resources Director-Public Sector
I,
Ventura - ....-- $12,743 C
County of SLO 1$11,535 j
I
Monterey - - $11,347
Chico $11,177
Napa - - $,,.00z Table 18a.
Santa Cruz - $10,265 The salary for the
Human Resources
San Luis Obispo $9.687 j
Santa Barbara $9,499 Director
Santa Maria . ' $8,307 classification is
Paso Robles $7,077
14 %below median.
i
$0 $2,000 $4.000 .$6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000
I
I
I
I I
I
I
i
I
Human Resources Director-Local Private
Sector
iSala y.com _ $14,sso Table 18b. j
The salary for the
eoo $saes Human Resources
Director
SLO $9,687 classification is 1%
below median.
I
HRACC Survey - $7,916
I
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $6,000 $10,000 $12.000 $14.000 $16.000
i
I
I I
I
32 �^3S
- ATTACHMENT. - city of San LUIS OBISPO
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN II
Information Systems Technician II- Public
Sector
San Luis Obispo $5,859
Paso Robles $5,625
Monterey _ $5,257
Napa 1$5,201 Table 19a.
County of SLO 1$4,810 The salary for the
Santa Cruz 1$4,754
Chico $4,577 Information Systems
Santa Barbara 1$4,407 Technician II
classification is 19%
Verdure $4,397
Davis $3,701 above median.
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
Information Systems Technician II -Local
Private Sector
Salary.com $5,967 Table 19b. The
salary for the
Information Systems
sto $5,659 Technician II
classification is 11%
above median.
HRACC Survey $4,459
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4.000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
I
33 ����
ATTACHMENT city of San Luis osispo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
LABORATORY ANALYST
Laboratory Analyst- Public Sector
I
i
i
County of SLO 1$6,373
Napa 1$5,744
Santa Maria $5,533
Ventura $5.236 Table 20a.
Santa Barbara - $4.869 The salary for the
Davis $4,800 Laboratory Analyst
Chico $4,733
classification is 21%
below median.
Santa Cruz $4,724
I
San Luis Obispo $4,182
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
i
Laboratory Analyst-Local Private Sector
EDD $7,070
Table 20b. '
The salary for the
Salary.com $4,408 Laboratory Analyst
classification is 37%
below median.
SLO $4,182
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3.000 $4,000 $5.000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000
34 ��?,
ATTACcity of san Luis oBispo
�MENT Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
MAINTENANCE WORKER II (Buildings)
Maintenance Worker II (Buildings)-Public.
Sector
Napa - .$4,997
Monterey _ $4,542
Davis 1$4,310
Ventura - . . $3,863 Table 21a.
San Luis Obispo $3,768 The salary for the
Santa Cruz - - " $3,764 Maintenance
I
.Paso Robles - $3,627 Worker II
County of SLo $3,574 classification is 2%
Santa Barbara $3,503 above the median.
I
i Chico $3,494
,Santa Maria $3,488
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
I
i
I
i
Maintenance Worker If(Buildings)- Local
Private Sector
HRACC Survey - $3,813
Table 21b.
I The salary for the
salary.com $3.784 Maintenance
Worker 11
SL o $3,766 classification is at
the median.
- I
EDD $3,645
I
I
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000
I
I
i
_ I
i
35
S'3�"
Ccity of san Luis oaispo
*ATTACHMENT Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
I
Parking Enforcement Officer-Public Sector
Monterey $4,125
Napa $3,870
San Luis Obispo $3,868 Table 22.
I
The salary for the
Santa Barbara $3.775 Parking
Enforcement Officer j
Davis $3.772 classification is 2%
above the median.
Santa Cru $3,473
$3,000 $3,200 $3,400 $3,600 $3,800 $4,000 $4,200
- I
i
I
I
There was no comparable classification
for Parking Enforcement Officer
in the available local private sector sources.
i
i
i
I
36 ���Q
TACH ENT
city of san Luis o8ispo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
POLICE CHIEF
Police Chief Public Sector
Santa Barbara $15,098
Ventura $14,778
Chico $13,828
Santa Maria - $13,211
Napa 1$12,631 Table 23.
Monterey $12,069 The salary for the
Police Chief
Davis $12,043 classification is 16%
Santa Cruz - $11,501 below the median.
Paso Robles $11,312
San Luis Obispo $10,846
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000
There was no comparable classification
for Police Chief
in the available local private sector sources.
I
I
j
i
I
I -
i
37 �_ya
A77ACHME
city of san lues oaispo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Public Works Director-Public Sector
Ventura $14,066
Santa Barbara $13,335
I
County ofSLO $13,327
Napa $12.311 Table 24.
Santa Maria $12,046 The salary for the
Paso Robles $11.312 Public Works j
Chico - $11,068 Director
Davis 1$11.048 classification is 12%
Santa Cruz 11$10,978 below median.
San Luis Obispo $10.729
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000
I
I
I
There was no comparable classification
for Public Works Director
in the available local private sector sources.
I
I
I
I
38 �_y�
ATTACHMENT city of san Luis osispo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
RECREATION SUPERVISOR
Recreation Supervisor-Public Sector
i
Napa $6,323
San Luis Obispo $5,926
Venture $5,849
Santa Barbara $5,769 Table 25.
Monterey $5,525 The salary for the
777
Davis - $5,739
Recreation
Supervisor
Paso Robles $5,117 classification is 10%
Santa Maria $4,783
above the median.
Santa Cruz $4,331
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
i
I
There was no comparable classification
for Recreation Supervisor
in the available local private sector sources.
I
i
I
39
S-yam
ATTACHMENT city of san Luis osispo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
TREE TRIMMER II
Tree Trimmer II-Public Sector
I
Monterey $4,224
Santa Barbara $4,213
I
San Luis Obispo $4,182
Table 26.
Davis $4,,ss I The salary for the
Santa Maria $4,112 Tree Trimmer II
Ventura $3,749 classification is 1%
above the median.
Chico $3,494
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5.000
I
I
I
There was no comparable classification
for Tree Trimmer II
in the available local private sector sources.
i
I
i
i
i
I
— —J
40
� � 1
city of san lues oaispo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY OPERATOR
Water Reclamation Facility Operator-Public Sector
l Davis - $5,712
I
County of SLO $5,335
Santa Barbara $5,300
l Paso Robles - $5,117 Table 27a.
I Ventura - $4,787 The salary for the
Water Reclamation
cniw $4,733 Facility Operator
Santa Cru $4.472 classification is 18%
Santa Maria $4,248 below median.
San Luis Obispo $4,182
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
Water Reclamation Facility Operator-Local
Private Sector
EDD $4,555 Table 27b.
The salary for the
Water Reclamation
Salary.corn $4,392 Operator Facility
classification is 7%
below median.
SLO $4,182
I
I
I
$3.900 $4,000 $4,100 $4,200 $4,300 $4,400 $4,500 $4,600
41 S-y�
ATTACHME
city of san Luis osispo
Compensation Report 2007
MONTHLY SALARY COMPARISONS
WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR
i
Water Treatment Plant Operator-.Public
Sector
County of SLO 1$5,335
Santa Barbara $5,300
Napa $5,197 Table 28a.
The salary for the
Ventura - $4,787 Water Treatment
Santa Cruz $4,749 I Plant Operator
i San Luis Obispo $4,162 classification is 14%
Santa Maria $4,112 below median.
Paso Robles $4,109
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
Water Treatment Plant Operator-Local Private Sector
EDD $4,555 Table 28b.
The salary for the
Water Treatment
i Salary.com $4.392 Plant Operator
classification is 7%
below median.
SLO $4,1a2
$3,900 S4,000 $4,100 $4,200 $4,300 $4,400 $4,500 .$4,600
� 42 ��7s
A7"1'AM -
city of san Luis owspo
Compensation Report 2007
EiNIPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONSTO i
I
I
i
Employer Contributions to Family Health Insurance
General &Confidential Classifications
Napa - - - ---- ----- -- - - -- ------------ 99%
I Davis _ _ _ 99%
Chico 90°r° Table 29a.
Paso Robles --- - — ---- 87%
Santa Cruz __ - -- _ _ 79°i° The City contributes
Monterey 75% 59%; while the median
Santa Barbara - - - 68% contribution is 77%.
I Santa Maria 61%
San Luis Obispo 59%
Ventura _ -_ - 151%
County ofSLO - -__-- 44%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
i Employer Contributions to Family Health Insurance
Management and Department Head Classifications
Napa _ 99%
Davis _ ,_ ._ 99%
i Santa Barbara - --:- -- %
i
Santa Cruz ----_-'-- --'----- —-- - 1 9 %
Chico .- — - - - 90% Table 29b.
Paso Robles -- -- __--— �.._ ---_-._. 87% The City contributes
Monterey — '72"° 59%; while the median
Santa Maria .. . ... . . - 169%
San Luis Obispo 59% contribution is 89%.
County of SLO _ �58%
Ventura 152%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
i
i
I I
1
i
i
I
i
43
- - -----"ATTACHMENT-
- - city of san Luis oBispo
Compensation Report 2007
UNIPLOYER PROVIDED LIFE INSURANCE BENEFIT
- I
General and Confidential Classifications
I j
Paso Robles _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _- _$7!,000
Ventura -_ - __ - -- $58,308 j
Chico .` - _ - - $52,044
Santa Maria - $50,000 Table 30a.
Santa Barbara $50,000 The City provided benefit
Napa -- - - $50,000 is $0 and the median
Davis - $30,000
Santa Cruz $20.000 benefit level is $50,000.
Monterey $20,000
San Luis Obispo $0I
County of SLO $0
$0 $10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000
i
I
Management Classifications
I
I
Paso Robles
__ - --- -- $"00.000
Chico - ---- _ _ _ $117,660
Ventura $104,688
Santa Barbara _ " __ -__ _ _ _ ,$101,640 Table 30b.
Davis --$100,000 The City provided benefit
Santa Maria ;$94,320 is$50,000 and the median
San Luis Obispo $50,000 1S $97,160.
Monterey _ - $50,000
Napa $50,000
Santa Cruz -$25,000
County of SLO $0
$0 $100,000 $200,000
I
Department Head Classifications
i
Paso Robles
----- ----. . ._ .. --Davis
00,000
00,000
Ventura '$164,676
Santa Barbara $151,476 Table 30c.
Santa Maria - -- $142,560 The City provided benefit
Chiu - --$132,819 is $100,000 and the
San Luis Obispo $100.000 median is $137,688.
Monterey $65,000
Napa $50,000
Santa Cruz 1$25,000
County of SLO $0
i
$0 $100,000 $200,000
44 s_ y7
ATTACHMEJ city of san Luis osfspo
Compensation Report 2007
PAID TIME OFF CENEFITS: Holidays and Sick Leavei
Holidays
I
Monterey - - ;14
Ventura - 1 13.5
Napa -- —113.5 Table 31a.
San Luis Obispo 13 The City provides 13
Santa Barbara - _ 13 holidays per year which is
County ofSLo - _-: ..x,13 competitive.
Santa Maria _ J� 12
Paso Robles 12
I
Chico 12
11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5
Sick Leave
Santa Maria _ _ 1 12
Santa Barbara -- — _ -�� 12
San Luis Obispo 12 Table 31b.
Paso Robles —� 12 ! The City provides 12
Napa 12 days per year of sick
— -- -- —
Monterey 12 leave which is
� - '� � _
Davis !1z competitive.
County of SLO - - - — -;12 j
Chico - 12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
45
i 7G
ATTACHMENT'"--, My of san luis oBispo
Compensation Report 2007
PAID BENEFITS:
i
Vacation at Hire
j
Davis _ 15
County of SLO -• - - 13
San Luis Obispo _ _ _ 12 Table 32a.
Napa 11 The City provides 12
Santa Maria 10 days per year of vacation
Paso Robles " " _ 10 at hire, while the median
Chico 10 is 10 days.
Santa Barbara 10
Monterey 110
0 2 4 6 6 10 12 14 16
I
i
Vacation at 10 Years of Service
County ofSLO - ---
20 j Table 32b.
Davis 20 The City provides 15
Napa — 19 days of vacation after 10
Paso Robles -- 18 years of service, while the j
..
Chico median is 18 days. The j
Santa Barbara — --_— - 18 City provides 18 days per
Monterey `
17
year beginning with 11
Santa Maria _ 16 years of service.
San Luis Obispo 15
0 5 10 15 20 25
I
46 �-y9
ATTACHMENT city of san tuts oaispo
Compensation Report 2007
PAID TEVIE OFF BENEFITS:
Management Classifications
i
Administrative Leave
i
Santa Maria 110
Napa �- ----------- -----� 10
Davis _ J_ , 10 Table 33a.
Santa Barbara g The City provides 6 days
Paso Robles - - 7 of administrative leave a
Chico 17 year, while the median is
County of SLo s^ 8 days.
San Luis Obispo 6
Monterey 15
I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Department Head Classifications
Administrative Leave
Santa Maria ,10
San Luis Obispo 10 j
Davis 10 Table 33b.
The City provides 10
Santa Baroara _ __._.�.- s days of administrative
Paso Robles 7 leave, and the median is
Chico 7 also 10 days.
County of SLO 6
Monterey 5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
i
i
I
47 sa
ATTACHMENT city of san lues oaispo
Compensation Report 2007
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Comparison of Public Employees'
Retirement System(PERS) Formulas
Agency PERS Formula
Chico 3% @ 60
Santa Maria 2.7% @ 55 Table 34a.
Santa Barbara 2.7% @ 55 The City provides the PERS
San Luis Obispo 2.7% @ 55 retirement formula 2.7% @
Napa 2.7% @ 55 55. The Fire Chief and
Paso Robles 2.5% @ 55 Police Chief participated in
Davis 2.5% @ 55 the Public Safety PERS
Ventura 2% @ 55 benefit of 3% @ 50 which
Santa Cruz 2% @ 55 '
Monterey 2% @ 55 is the same as all agencies
County of SLO 2% @ 55 ' surveyed.
Not a PERS agency,County benefit
approximated to PERS retirement formula.
Employer Contribution to Post-Retirement Health
Davis Table 34b.
Paso Robles I
Napa ® PERS Minimum
Santa Cruz contribution
Santa Barbara
Santa Maria Additional
County of SLO contribution toward
Monterey Premiums
San Luis Obispo
Ventura
Chico
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800
I
48
i
ATTAC H M EN`S - city of san Luis oBispo
Compensation Report 2007
RETIRENNIENT BENEFITS
-Employer Contribution to Deferred Compensation
j
j General and Confidential Classifications !
Napa$50
Monterey $50 Table 35a.
Paso Robles $43
Ventura ---- -- _--;$37 The City does not contribute
to deferred com enation.
! Santa Maria $0 P
i
Santa Cruz $0 Over 56%of surveyed
j Santa Barbara $o agencies did not contribute
San Luis Obispo $o to deferred compensation.
Davis $0
County of SLO $0
$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 —�
Management Classifications
Paso Robles —1$350
Ventura _ _I$151 Table 35b.
Santa Cruz I$125 The City contributes I% of
Napa I$100
San Luis Obispo $65 salary to deferred
Monterey -$60 compensation(on the j
Santa Maria $0 average$85 per month).
Santa Barbara $o The median contribution is
Davis $o - $30 per month.
I County of SLO $0
Chico $0
! I $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400
!
Department Head Classifications j
Paso Robles ____;$350 j
VenturaTable 35C. j
_- __.----------------------�$270
Davis $217
The City contributes 2% of
San Luis Obispo $215 sal to deferred
Saha Cruz $125
Napa $100 compensation(on the
Monterey $60 average $215 per month).
Santa Maria $o The median contribution is
Santa Barbara $o $80 per month.
County of SLO $0
Chico $0
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400
• r aty of san lues oaispo
Q► A�iH�E���Compensation Report 2007
APPENDIX A
RESOLUTION NO. 9885 (2007 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING ITS COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo strives to provide excellent service to the
community at all times, and supports this standard by promoting organizational values including
customer service, productivity, accountability, innovation, initiative, stewardship, and ethics; and
WHEREAS, to achieve our service standards, the City must attract and retain highly
qualified employees who exemplify our organizational values; and
WHEREAS, fostering an environment attractive to such employees depends upon many
factors, including a competitive compensation program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the City's compensation philosophy is adopted as follows:
SECTION 1. The City is committed to providing competitive compensation as part of
an overall strategy of attracting and retaining highly qualified employees who exemplify our
organizational values.
I
SECTION 2. The City's compensation philosophy is based on both internal and
external considerations, including internal relationships, the relative labor market, fiscal health,
and other relevant factors as follows;
A. "Internal relationships" refer to the relative value of classifications to one
another as determined by the City. Classifications performing comparable duties, with
comparable responsibilities, requiring a similar level of skill, knowledge, ability, and judgment,
will be valued similarly in the City's compensation structures.
B. In determining the"relative labor market," the City will consider public
sector agencies with several comparable demographic data points including but not limited to
population, median home price, median household income, median age,median education level,
services provided, and unemployment rate. In evaluating market competitiveness with the
relevant labor market, the City will consider total compensation, including but not limited to
salary, health, retirement, and time off benefits.
C. The relative labor market for certain positions will also consider local
private sector employers. i.
R9885
50 ,S �3
city of san Luis owspo
ATTACHMENT Compensation Report 2007
Resolution No. 4885(2007 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 3. At least every five years, the City will evaluate its compensation structure,
programs, and policies to assess market competitiveness, effectiveness, and compliance with State Law.
Adjustments to the compensation structure may be made as a result of this periodic evaluation and will
be done through the collective bargaining process, if applicable, or other appropriate Council-
management processes.
Upon motion of Council Member Carter, seconded by Council Member Brown, and on the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Brown, Carter, and Settle, Vice Mayor Settle and Mayor
Romero
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
I
The foregoing resolution was adopted on March 20,2007.
Mayor David F.Romero
ATTEST:
aht, ,
Audrey Ho er
City CIOW
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i
§an P.Lowell
City Attorney
city of san Luis oaispo
ATTACHMENT Compensation Report 2007
APPENDIX B
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Human Resources staff would like to thank the Employee Compensation Study Committee for
their hard work throughout this process.
I
i
Howard Brewen Barbara Ehrbar
Brigitte Elke Ron Faria
Richard Fisher Deb Linden
John Moss Kim Murry
j Paul O'Steen Greg Zocher
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
mironsa slocity.org
or
Rachael Hendricks
rhendric@a slocity.org
I
City of San Luis Obispo
Department of Human Resources
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)781-7250
I
52
I
city of san tuts oatspo
ATTACHMENT Compensation Report 2007
APPENDIX C
DATA SOURCES
Public Sector Data
League of California Cities www.cacities.org
Chico,City of www.chico.ca.us
Davis, City of www.cityofdavis.org
Monterey,City of www.monterey.org
Napa,City of www.cityofnapa.org
Paso Robles,City of www.prcity.com
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
Ventura,City of www.cityofventura.net
County of SLO www.slocounty.ca.gov
Private Sector Data
Employment Development Department http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/
Salary.com http://www.salary.com/
Human Resources Association of the Central Coast http://www.hracc.net/
Other Resources
Census http://quickfacts.census.gov/gfd/states/06/0613014.html
California Public Employee Retirement System http://www.calpers.ca.gov/
DQ News-Real Estate News and Data http://www.dgnews.com/ZIPCAR2006.shtm
Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/
Private Industry Council of San Luis Obispo http://www.jobhunt.org/
California State University http://www.calstate.edu/datastore/campus_map.shtm]
University of California http://www.universityofcalifomia.edu/campuses/welcome.html
53 ��..
RECEIVED
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce NOV 01 2007
P
1039 Chorro street•San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 SLO CITY CLERK
(805) 781-2777• FAX (805) 543-1255
David E. Garth, President/CEO
October 31, 2007 rCAO
G
10
?r CDD DIR
Members of the City Council `E FIN DIRrFIRECHIEF RED FILE
City of San Luis Obispo p/y DIR MEftTING AGENDA
990 Palm Street .@ POLICE CHF ( Z REC OIR DATE o ITEM #ate
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 UTIL DIR
HR OIR
Dear Council members: Y r.
ouare I�
X e.40
X ece"
Our Chamber was invited by city staff to review the Salary Compensation Study
process and make any recommendations we deemed appropriate. The board of
directors very much appreciated this opportunity and assigned board member Julie
Aguilar of San Luis Personnel to be our representative.
Julie met once with the city's consultant, twice with the city's personnel board and
several times with Ken Hampian and Monica Irons.
Julie reported to the Chamber board that she was very impressed with the
thoroughness of the process and with the professionalism and openness of Ken and
Monica. She also reported that the methodology of the study was sound, and that a
solid, good faith effort was made to include relevant private sector data into the study.
She did feel that including more private sector comparisons of fringe benefits could add
usefulness to any future study but acknowledged that this and other private sector data
is very difficult to obtain and not always comparable.
After discussion, the Board agreed with Julie's conclusions and recommendations. The
Board now feels-very comfortable with the Salary Compensation Study and feels it will
provide sound data that will aid the council's decisions on compensation issues.
Thank you for allowing us this opportunity for input.
Sincerely,
David E. Garth
President/CEO