HomeMy WebLinkAboutBenchmark Compensation Report 2014_FinalATTACHMENT 1
2014 BENCHMARK
COMPENSATION REPORT
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 45,878 46,651$ 525,000$ 26.5 93.3%47.8%359
Clovis 98,632 63,983$ 255,000$ 34.1 88.6%29.5%482
County of SLO 274,804 58,630$ 415,000$ 39.4 88.9%30.8%2,509
Davis 65,993 61,535$ 455,000$ 25.2 96.0%69.5%376
Monterey 29,003 63,072$ 520,000$ 36.9 93.3%48.3%462
Napa 78,340 62,505$ 421,500$ 37.4 79.2%27.4%450
Paso Robles 30,556 57,977$ 358,000$ 35.3 85.0%20.9%185
Petaluma 58,921 76,909$ 447,500$ 40.3 89.6%36.8%308
Santa Barbara 89,639 63,758$ 880,000$ 36.8 84.8%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$ 28.6 60.6%13.7%472
Santa Monica 91,812 72,271$ 978,500$ 40.4 95.2%64.5%1,996
Ventura 107,734 66,586$ 411,000$ 39 88.4%32.4%600
15 | Page
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$ 26.5 93.3%47.8%359
Gilroy 50,660 78,842$ 495,000$ 32.4 77.1%23.8%276
Monterey 29,003 63,072$ 520,000$ 36.9 93.3%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 84.8%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$ 28.6 60.6%13.7%472
16 | Page
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$ 26.5 93.3%47.8%359
Chico 87,714 42,896$ 254,500$ 28.6 90.5%33.2%398
Davis 65,993 61,535$ 455,000$ 25.2 96.0%69.5%376
Monterey 29,003 63,072$ 520,000$ 36.9 93.3%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 Cruz 62,041 62,755$ 610,000$ 29.9 92.5%50.8%775
Santa Maria 101,459 51,675$ 263,500$ 28.6 60.6%13.7%472
17 | Page
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Report 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
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
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
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 SLO Senior 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 Barbara Accounting Assistant 4,723.05$ 1,082.88$ x 1,105.76$ 6,911.69$
Santa Cruz Accounting Assistant II 4,214.00$ 1,865.39$ x 633.32$ 6,712.71$
Santa Maria Finance 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 Obispo Accounting 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 Cruz Administrative 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 Monica Staff 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 Obispo Administrative 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.
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 SLO Building 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$
Monterey Inspector 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 Robles Senior 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 Obispo Building 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 SLO Resource 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 Obispo Code 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 SLO Engineer 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 Cruz Assistant Engineer II 6,513.00$ 1,865.39$ x 978.84$ 9,357.23$
Santa Maria no 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 Obispo Engineer 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.
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 Robles Fleet 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 Cruz Equipment Mechanic II 5,428.00$ 1,865.39$ x 815.77$ 8,109.16$
Santa Maria Equipment Mechanic II 4,832.77$ 1,103.36$ x 1,388.93$ 7,325.06$
Santa Monica Mechanic 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 Obispo Heavy 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 Barbara Laboratory Analyst II 5,823.68$ 1,094.69$ x 1,363.44$ 8,281.81$
Santa Cruz Chemist 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 Monica Water 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 Obispo Laboratory 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.
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 SLO Public 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 Robles Street 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 Maria Maintenance 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 Obispo Maintenance 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 SLO Network 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 Obispo Network 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.
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 Barbara Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator III 6,402.59$ 1,094.69$ x 1,498.97$ 8,996.25$
Santa Cruz Wastewater Plant Operator III 6,857.00$ 1,865.39$ x 1,030.54$ 9,752.93$
Santa Maria no match x x x x x
Santa Monica no 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 Obispo Water 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 SLO Water 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 Barbara Water 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 Monica Water 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 Obispo Water 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.
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 Barbara Administrative Analyst I 6,763.66$ 1,082.88$ x 1,583.51$ 9,430.05$
Santa Cruz Management Analyst 6,396.00$ 1,795.39$ x 894.37$ 9,085.76$
Santa Maria Management Analyst I 6,180.72$ 1,192.34$ x 1,801.33$ 9,174.39$
Santa Monica Administrative 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 Obispo Administrative 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 Maria Building 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 Obispo Chief 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.
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 SLO Deputy 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 Maria no 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 Obispo Deputy 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 SLO Director 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 Robles Director 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 Obispo Director 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 Barbara Accounting Manager 9,880.98$ 1,676.00$ x 2,313.34$ 13,870.32$
Santa Cruz Finance Manager 8,873.00$ 1,795.39$ x 1,192.33$ 11,860.72$
Santa Maria Accounting and Budget Manager 9,159.43$ 1,192.34$ x 2,657.41$ 13,009.18$
Santa Monica Financial 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 Obispo Finance 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.
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 Barbara Risk Manager 9,880.98$ 1,676.00$ x 2,313.34$ 13,870.32$
Santa Cruz Principal Human Resources Analyst 8,263.00$ 1,795.39$ x 1,118.96$ 11,177.35$
Santa Maria Human 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 Obispo Human 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 SLO Sheriff - 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 Obispo Police 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.
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 Robles Recreation 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 Obispo Recreation 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 Barbara no match x x x x x
Santa Cruz Senior Planner 8,873.00$ 1,795.39$ x 1,192.33$ 11,860.72$
Santa Maria Planner III 7,234.78$ 1,103.36$ x 2,079.27$ 10,417.41$
Santa Monica Senior 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 Obispo Senior 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
POLICE AND POLICE MANAGEMENT BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS TOTAL
COMPENSATION
TABLE 26: COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN
TABLE 27: COMPARISON 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 Barbara Public Safety Dispatcher II 5,140.98$ 1,447.14$ 71.92$ 1,203.61$ 7,863.64$
Santa Cruz no match x x x x x
Santa Maria Dispatcher 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 Obispo Communications 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 Obispo Police 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.
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 Robles Police 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 Obispo Police 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.
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 Maria no match x x x x x
Median 7,357.00$ 1,821.86$ 0.0$ 1,292.09$ 10,956.59$
San Luis Obispo Fire 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$
Monterey Firefighter 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 Cruz Fire Captain 9,776.00$ 1,769.39$ 796.10$ 2,431.98$ 14,773.47$
Santa Maria Fire 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 Obispo Fire 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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% @ 55 2.0% @ 60 2.0% @ 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% @ 60 2.0% @ 55 2.0% @ 62
Napa 2.7% @ 55 2.0% @ 60 2.0% @ 62
Napa (Special District)2.7% @ 55 2.0% @ 55 2.0% @ 62
Paso Robles 2.5% @ 55 2.0% @ 60 2.0% @ 62
Petaluma 2.0% @ 55 2.0% @ 60 2.0% @ 62
Pleasanton 2.7% @ 55 x 2.0% @ 62
Salinas 2.0% @ 55 x 2.0% @ 62
San Luis Obispo 2.7% @ 55 2.0% @ 60 2.0% @ 62
Santa Barbara 2.7% @ 55 x 2.0% @ 62
Santa Cruz 2.0% @ 55 2.0% @ 60 2.0% @ 62
Santa Maria 2.7% @ 55 2.0% @ 55 2.0% @ 62
Santa Maria (Special District)2.0% @ 55 x 2.0% @ 62
Santa Monica 2.7% @ 55 2.0% @ 55 2.0% @ 62
Ventura 2.0% @ 55 2.0% @ 60 2.0% @ 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.
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% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Davis 3.0% @ 50 x 2.7% @ 57
Gilroy 3.0% @ 50 2.0% @ 50 2.7% @ 57
Monterey 3.0% @ 50 x 2.7% @ 57
Napa 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Paso Robles 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Petaluma 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Pleasanton 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Salinas 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
San Luis Obispo 3.0% @ 50 2.0% @ 50 2.7% @ 57
Santa Barbara 3.0% @ 50 x 2.7% @ 57
Santa Cruz 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Santa Maria 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Santa Monica 3.0% @ 50 x 2.7% @ 57
Ventura 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 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% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Petaluma 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Pleasanton 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Salinas 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
San Luis Obispo 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Santa Cruz 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Santa Maria 3.0% @ 50 3.0% @ 55 2.7% @ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Appendix 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Barbara Santa Barbara Regular & Part-Time 04/05/14 0.50%10/04/14 2.00%
Davis Davis PASEA 01/01/14 2.00%01/01/15 1.00%
Paso Robles Paso Robles City Employees' Assoc 01/01/14 3.00%
Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Treatment and Patrol 12/28/13 3.00%
Santa Maria Santa Maria General Employees 12/14/13 2.00%07/12/14 1.00%
Salinas Salinas SMEA 12/01/13 4.00%01/01/15 4.00%
Santa Monica Santa Monica MEA 07/01/13 1.00%
Santa Monica Santa Monica Teamsters 07/01/13 1.00%
County of SLO SLO County BU 01 07/01/13 1.18%
County of SLO SLO County BU 13 07/01/13 1.18%
Monterey Monterey General Employees 07/01/13 1.50%07/01/14 1.50%
Santa Cruz Santa Cruz SEIU, Local 521 07/01/13 2.00%07/01/14 2.00%
Clovis Clovis Employees Association 07/01/13 2.00%
Clovis Clovis Professional & Technical Assoc 07/01/13 2.00%
Clovis Clovis Public Works Employees Assoc 07/01/13 2.00%
Monterey MRWPCA 07/01/13 2.00%
Napa Napa Sanitation District 06/22/13 2.00%
San Luis Obispo SLOCEA 12/22/10 2.00%
County of SLO SLO County BU 02 07/01/10 2.65%
Ventura Ventura BU A 07/01/08 4.00%
Ventura Ventura BU G 07/01/08 4.00%
Ventura Ventura BU Q 07/01/08 4.00%
Ventura Ventura BU C 07/01/08 4.00%
Davis Davis DCEA 06/30/08 3.00%
81 | Page
All data gathered as of January 2014.
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 01/18/14 1.25%
Paso Robles Paso Robles Executive Management 01/01/14 3.00%07/06/14 2.00%
Paso Robles Paso Robles Management 01/01/14 3.00%07/06/14 2.00%
Davis Davis Management 01/01/14 2.00%01/01/15 1.00%
Napa Napa Executive 01/01/14 1.25%07/05/14 1.28%
Santa Maria Santa Maria Mgmt & Confidential Emp 12/14/13 2.00%07/12/14 1.00%
Clovis Clovis Management & Executive 07/01/13 2.00%
Monterey Monterey Executive Management 07/01/13 1.50%
Monterey Monterey Management Employees Assoc 07/01/13 1.50%
County of SLO SLO County BU 05 07/01/13 1.18%
Santa Monica Santa Monica ATA 07/01/13 1.00%
Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Management Class 1 06/29/13 2.00%06/28/14 2.00%
Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Management Class 2 06/29/13 2.00%06/28/14 2.00%
Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Supervisory Employees 06/29/13 2.00%06/28/14 2.00%
Santa Monica Santa Monica Executive 07/01/12 3.80%
County of SLO SLO County BU 28 07/01/10 2.98%
San Luis Obispo SLO Management 07/09/09 1.00%
San Luis Obispo SLO Management - Department Heads 07/09/09 1.00%
Ventura Ventura BU S 07/01/08 4.00%
Ventura Ventura BU E 07/01/08 4.00%
Ventura Ventura BU M 07/01/08 4.00%
Ventura Ventura BU U 07/01/08 4.00%
County of SLO SLO County BU 07 07/01/07 6.34%
County of SLO SLO County BU 08 07/01/07 6.34%
County of SLO SLO County BU 09 07/01/07 6.34%
County of SLO SLO County BU 10 07/01/07 6.34%
82 | Page
All data gathered as of January 2014.
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 04/12/14 1.00%04/11/15 2.00%
San Luis Obispo SLOPSOA-Safety 01/01/14 -2.00%
Davis Davis POA 01/01/14 2.00%01/01/15 1.00%
Santa Maria Santa Maria Public Safety Managers 12/14/13 2.00%07/12/14 1.00%
Santa Maria Santa Maria POA 12/14/13 2.00%07/12/14 1.00%
Santa Maria Santa Maria Police Assoc. of Middle Mgmt.12/14/13 2.00%07/12/14 1.00%
Napa Napa NCEA (dispatch)09/28/13 1.25%07/05/14 1.25%
Clovis Clovis POA 07/01/13 2.00%
Monterey Monterey POA 07/01/13 2.00%
Santa Monica Santa Monica POA 07/01/13 3.00%
Gilroy Gilroy POA 06/30/13 2.00%2.00%
Santa Barbara Santa Barbara POA 01/12/13 1.50%07/12/14 2.00%
San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo POA 01/01/13 -2.00%07/01/14 -2.00%
Paso Robles Paso Robles POA 12/01/12 1.00%07/06/14 3.00%
Napa Napa POA 01/01/10 1.00%
Ventura Ventura BU P (Safety)12/01/08 12.00%
Salinas Salinas POA 10/01/08 5.00%10/01/15 5.00%
Agency Bargaining Unit
Last
Increase
Date
Last
Increase
Percent
Scheduled
Increase
Date
Scheduled
Increase
Percent
Napa Napa IAFF, Local 3124 01/04/14 1.25%07/05/14 1.25%
Chico Chico IAFF, Local 2734 01/01/14 1.00%
Santa Maria Santa Maria Fire Employees 12/14/13 2.00%07/12/14 1.00%
Napa Napa NCEA 09/28/13 1.25%07/05/14 1.25%
Monterey Monterey Firefighters Assoc 07/01/13 1.50%
Gilroy Gilroy Gen Unit- AFSCME, Local 101 07/01/13 2.00%07/01/14 2.00%
Pleasanton Pleasanton IAFF, Local 1974 06/09/12 2.00%
Davis Davis IAFF, Local 3494 07/01/11 -3.00%
San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo IAFF, Local 3523 12/22/10 2.00%
83 | Page
All data gathered as of January 2014.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1: COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY
96 | Page
ATTACHMENT 1
97 | Page
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
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