The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem BSr4("w� AGENDA STAFF REPORT J~ C K�P DATE: November 13, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager FROM: Patrick Gallegos, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CLASSIFICATION / COMPENSATION STUDY SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council receive and file the Final Report of the Classification and Compensation Study completed by Koff & Associates. BACKGROUND: At its meeting on March 28, 2016, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Koff & Associates for a comprehensive classification and compensation study ("Study") for all full-time and part-time personnel. The City of Seal Beach last conducted a classification and compensation study in 2009. It is recommended practice, as an industry standard, to periodically review and update personnel classifications and adjust compensation levels as necessary. The Study determined whether the City's defined classification structure and compensation levels are commensurate with similarly -sized and geographically local communities. The components of the Classification and Compensation Study broadly included: • Updating the classification plan for the approximately (54) classifications representing (89) full-time and (128) part-time employees; • Developing a classification structure reflecting the City's overall classification and compensation strategy, with a clear definition of terms and the development of career ladders for full and part-time staff; • Conducting orientation and briefing sessions with employees, supervisors, managers, and department heads; • Matching labor market and benchmark classes most closely representing the City of Seal Beach; • Assigning salary ranges to each classification, reflecting the results of the market survey and analysis of internal relationships; and • Presenting the final Classification and Compensation Report to the City Council. Agenda Item 13 On April 25" and 26"' of 2016, Koff & Associates hosted an orientation for employees to provide them with an overview of the Classification and Compensation Study process and to answer any questions from staff. Following the orientation, Position Description Questionnaires (PDQs) were distributed to all employees. The PDQs were completed by each employee, reviewed by the employees' supervisors and were submitted to Koff & Associates for evaluation. In late July and early August of 2016, individual employee interviews were held over four days with Koff & Associates Project Manager Georg Krammer and his staff. These interviews were conducted to better understand the scope of work of each employee. At the September 12, 2016 City Council meeting, Koff & Associates staff engaged the City Council in the identification of the desired comparator agencies from which compensatory data would be gathered. Koff & Associates provided their best professional advice with regard to appropriately sized and similarly situated comparator agencies. Elements considered by which the comparator agencies were identified included: geographic proximity, agency population, full-time employee to population ratio, median household income, and median home price. Koff & Associates presented thirty-five (35) comparator agencies for the City Council to consider and recommended twelve (12) comparator agencies for the purposes of the Study. The City Council adopted the following twelve (12) comparator agencies: Buena Park, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Costa Mesa, EI Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach and San Clemente. Attached to the staff report is the completed Study which includes two volumes (Volume I — Classification & Volume II — Compensation). Volume I documents the classification study process and provides recommendations for the classification plan, allocations of individual positions for all City staff and class specifications. Volume II documents the market compensation survey, findings and recommendations. The Study is meant to be a tool for the City to create and implement an equitable compensation plan. Any recommendation the Study contains is not binding on the City upon acceptance of the Study. It is merely a resource document to assist the City in making classification and compensation decisions. At this time, staff is not asking the City Council to make a determination on implementation of the Study. Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Study. Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed resolution and approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this action. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the the Final Report of the Classification and Compensation Study completed by Koff & Associates S 777Patriicck Gallegos Assistant City Manager Attachments: NOTED AND APPROVED: I .Ingram, Ci nager A. Final Report of the Classification and Compensation Study, Volumes I and II, prepared by Koff & Associates Page 3 Attachment "A" Submittal date: November 1. 2017 FINAL REPORT OF THE CLASSIFICATION & TOTAL COMPENSATION STU DY Volume I - Classification City of Seal Beach Submitted by: KOFF & ASSOCIATES Georg Krammer Chief Executive Officer 2835 Seventh Street Berkeley, CA 94710 w .KoffPssociofes.com gkrommer@koffassociates.com Tel: 510.658.5633 Fax: 510.652.5633 November 1, 2017 Mr. Patrick Gallegos Assistant City Manager City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Mr. Gallegos Koff & Associates is pleased to present the final classification and compensation report for the study of all positions at the City of Seal Beach ("the City'). Volume I documents the classification study process and provides recommendations for the classification plan, allocations of individual positions for all City employees, and class specifications. Volume 11, to be sent under separate cover, documents the market compensation survey, findings, and recommendations. This first volume incorporates a summary of the study's multi -step process, which included completion of written Position Description Questionnaires, interviews with employees, supervisors and managers, and employee review and comments in the form of draft class descriptions, and class allocation recommendations. We would like to thank you and other City staff for your assistance and cooperation without which this study could not have been brought to its successful completion. We will be glad to answer any questions or clarify any points as you are implementing the findings and recommendations. It was a pleasure working with the City and we look forward to future opportunities to provide you with professional assistance. Very truly yours, �I5b._ Georg Krammer Chief Executive Officer 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 I www.KoffAssociates.com IM Final Report- Volume I Classification Study City of Seal Beach TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Background....................................................................................................................1 Goalsand Objectives................................................................................................... l Classification Study Methodology.............................................................................. l CLASSIFICATION PLAN CONCEPTS..................................................................................3 The Purpose of a Classification Plan Position vs. Classification ................... Classification and Compensation ... 3 3 4 Classification Description Format................................................................................4 Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) ..................................................................................6 CLASSIFICATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................8 Classification Structure and Allocation Factors........................................................8 Classification Allocation Recommendations..........................................................13 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................15 APPENDICES Appendix I: Recommended Position Allocation 2835 7- Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 www.KoffAssociotes.com IM Final Report - Volume I Classification Study City of Seal Beach INTRODUCTION Background In 2016, the City of Seal Beach ("the City") contracted with Koff & Associates ("K&A") to conduct a classification and total compensation study for all City classifications. All classification and compensation findings, recommendations, and options for implementation are contained in Volumes I and II of this report. The purpose of the classification review process was to ensure that: (i) classification descriptions reflect level and scope of work performed, current operations, responsibilities, duties, qualifications, regulatory requirements, and technology; (it) class descriptions are legally compliant; and (iii) the City has adequate career paths and a classification system that fosters career growth and service within the organization. Goals and Objectives The goals and objectives of the study were to: ➢ Recognize the scope and level of responsibility of various positions including designing classifications with clearly defined differences and establishing and consistently applying standards for specification language; ➢ Develop recommendations that would be perceived as equitable by management and employees alike by maintaining regular and clear communication with employees and management, making classification decisions based on work performed (rather than individual competencies and experience), avoiding using classifications to resolve compensation Issues or to reward performance, and documenting processes and procedures as appropriate; ➢ Provide for growth and flexibility of assignment, where feasible, in recognition that some job duties and responsibilities may evolve over time; ➢ Provide adequate career paths that will foster career service within the City; ➢ Develop classification descriptions that clearly state minimum requirements (i.e. knowledge, skills, abilities, education, experience, certifications, and licenses) of each classification that are consistent with experience and training that is clearly obtainable by positions immediately below on the career ladder and clarity opportunities for promotion and/or cross training; Provide a classification structure that ensures regulatory compliance, including allocation of each position to the correct classification with appropriate Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) designation as well as meeting Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations; and ➢ Develop a Classification Plan that documents the classification study methodology, findings and recommendations, and serves as a guide for the City to maintain the Plan in the future. Classification Study Methodology The following provides an overview of the classification study methodology utilized to develop the Classification Plan. A. Position Description Questionnaire (PDQ) Completion & Review 2835 7° Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 w .KoffAssociates.com Final Report - Volume 1 Classification Study City of Seal Beach ➢ Employees completed PDQforms and their supervisors and management reviewed, commented, and signed off on the forms. B. Employee and Supervisor Interviews D Employees were interviewed to clarify and supplement the PDQ data. ➢ Supervisors and management were interviewed to clarify and/or confirm the information collected in the interviews with staff and to respond to potential perception differences regarding roles, tasks, and scope. C. Classification Concept and Position Allocation Development ➢ Following the analysis of the classification information gathered, classification concepts and position allocations were developed and recommended. • Classification concept recommendations may include expanding or collapsing class series and/or separating or combining classifications assigned to different functional areas; identifying and defining classification levels and career ladders; and updating established titling guidelines for the studied classifications for appropriate and consistent titling. • Specific position allocation recommendations Include specifying current and proposed classification title and impact of the recommendations (reclassification, title change, or no change (i.e., update of classification description format and/or content only)). • Recommendations for title change and reclassification are made to more clearly reflect the level and scope being performed, as well as establish consistency with the labor market and industry standards. ➢ Appendix I contains the classification recommendations for each position studied. D. Draft Class Description Development ➢ New and/or updated class descriptions were developed for each proposed classification, updating duties, responsibilities, and minimum qualifications of each class specification. ➢ A consistent classification description format was developed includingtitle, definition, supervision received/exercised, class (distinguishing) characteristics, examples of typical functions, qualifications (knowledge and abilities, education and experience, and licenses and certifications), physical demands, and environmental conditions. ➢ Compliance with FtSA and ADA requirements was reviewed and updated. E. Class Description Review and Update ➢ Draft copies of the new classification descriptions were submitted to Human Resources staff and management to provide comments and concerns regarding any modifications, and to ensure that no factual information was overlooked and that the recommendations are fair and consistent. D Allocation recommendations and/or classification descriptions were revised, as appropriate, based on management feedback. The final classification descriptions have been delivered to the City under separate cover. F. Draft Final Report Development ➢ The Draft Final Report was developed and contained: goals and objectives, classification methodology and recommendations; classification concepts; classification plan maintenance; and classification descriptions. 2835 7" Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 www.KoffAssociates.conn 2 IM Final Report- Volume I Classification Study City of Seal Beach CLASSIFICATION PLAN CONCEPTS The Purpose of a Classification Plan A Classification Plan is a systematic framework for grouping jobs into common classifications based on similarities in duties, responsibilities, and requirements. The purpose of a Classification Plan is to provide an appropriate basis for making a variety of human resources decisions such as: D Development ofjob-related recruitment and selection procedures; D Clear and objective appraisal of employee performance; ➢ Development of career paths, training plans, and succession planning; ➢ Design of an equitable and competitive compensation structure; ➢ Organizational development and change management; and ➢ Provision of an equitable basis for discipline and other employee actions. In addition to providing the basis for various human resources management and process decisions, a Classification Plan can also effectively support systems of administrative and fiscal control. Grouping of positions into an orderly classification system supports planning, budget analysis and preparation, and various other administrative functions. Within a Classification Plan, classifications can either be broad (containing a number of positions) or narrow (emphasizing individual job characteristics). Broad classifications are developed when: ➢ Employees can be hired with a broad spectrum of knowledge, skill, licenses and certifications, and/or academic preparation and can readily learn the details of the City and the position on-the- job; or ➢ There is a need for flexibility of the assignment within an organization due to changing programs, technologies, or workload. Individualized classifications are developed when: D There is an immediate need to recruit for specialty knowledge and skills; ➢ There is a minimum of time or capability for on-the-job training; or D There is an organizational need to provide for specific job recognition and to highlight the differences between jobs. The approach taken in developing the City's classification plan was to develop a combination of broader and more individualized classifications as this approach is the most practical taking into consideration the City's size, changing environment, and service delivery expectations. Position vs. Classification "Position" and "Classification" are two terms that are often used interchangeably, but have very different meanings. As used in this report: 2835 7° Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 w .KoffAssociates.com 3 IM Final Report - Volume I Classification Study City of Seal Beach ➢ A position is an assigned group of duties and responsibilities performed by one person. Aposition can be full-time, part-time, regular, temporary, filled, or vacant. Often the word "job" is used in place of the word "position." ➢ A classification or class may contain only one position or may consist of a number of positions. When you have several positions assigned to one class, it means that the same classification title is appropriate for each position; that the scope, level, duties, and responsibilities of each position assigned to the class are sufficiently similar (but not identical), and that the same core knowledge, skills, and other requirements are appropriate for all positions in the class. The description of a position often appears as a job description or working desk manual, going into detail regarding work process steps, while a classification description emphasizes the general scope and level of responsibilities, plus the knowledge, skills, and other requirements for successful performance. When positions are classified, the focus is on assigned job duties and the job-related requirements for successful performance, not on individual employee capabilities or amount of work performed. Positions are thus evaluated and classified on the basis of such factors as knowledge and skill required to perform the work, the complexity of the work, the authority delegated to make decisions and take action, the responsibility for the work of others and/or for budget expenditures, contacts with others (both inside and outside of the organization), and the impact of the position on the organization and working conditions. Classification and Compensation Classification and the description of the work and the requirements to perform the work are separate and distinct from determining the worth of that work in the labor market and to the organization. While recommending the appropriate compensation for the work of a class depends upon an understanding of what that work is and what it requires, compensation levels are often influenced by two factors: ➢ The external labor market; and ➢ Internal relationships within the organization. Compensation findings and recommendations for the City are covered in Volume II of this report. Classification Description Format The classification descriptions are based upon the information gathered from the written PDO.s completed by each employee and from information provided by employees and management during the review processes. These descriptions provide: ➢ A written summary documenting the work performed by the incumbents of these classifications; ➢ Distinctions among the classes; and ➢ Documentation of requirements and qualifications to assist in recruitment, selection, and career development. 2835 7'^ Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 www.KoffAssociotes.com 4 xewai, Final Report - Volume I Classification Study 12 City of Seal Beach Just as there is a difference between a position and a classification, there is also a difference between a position description and a classification description. A position description, often known as a "desk manual, generally lists each duty an employee performs and may also have information about how to perform that duty. A classification description normally reflects several positions and is a summary document that does not list each duty performed by every employee. The classification description, which is broader and more general and informational, is intended to indicate the general scope and level of responsibility and requirements of the classification, not detail -specific position responsibilities. The sections of each classification description areas follows: Title: This should be brief and descriptive of the classification and consistent with other titles in the classification plan and the occupational area. The title of a classification is normally used for organization, classification, and compensation purposes within the City. Often working titles are used to differentiate an individual. All positions have a similar level of scope and responsibility; however, the working titles may give assurance to a member of the public that they are dealing with an appropriate individual. Working titles should be authorized by Human Resources to ensure consistency within the City. Definition: This provides a capsule description of the classification and should give an indication of the type of supervision received, the scope and level of the work, and any unusual or unique factors. The phrase "performs related work as required" is not meant to unfairly expand the scope of the work performed, but to acknowledge that classifications change and that not all duties are included in the classification description. supervision Received and Exercised: This section specifies which class or classes provide supervision to the classification being described and the type and level of work direction or supervision provided to this classification. The section also specifies what type and level of work direction or supervision the classification provides to other classes. This assists the reader in defining where the class "fits" in the organization. Class Characteristics: This can be considered the "editorial" section of the description, slightly expanding the Definition, clarifying the most important aspects of the classification and distinguishing this classification from the next lower -and/or higher -levels in a class series or from a similar classification in a different occupational series. Examples of Typical lob Functions: This section provides a list of the major and typical duties, intended to define the scope and level of the classification and to support the Qualifications, including Knowledge and Abilities. This list is meant to be illustrative only. It should be emphasized that the description is a summary document, and that duties change depending upon program requirements, technology, and organizational needs. 2835 7"' Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 w .KoffAssociafes.com 5 IM Final Report - Volume 1 Classification Study City of Seal Beach QualificMions: This element of the description has several sections ➢ A listing of thejob-related knowledge and abilities required to successfully perform the work. They must be related to the duties and responsibilities of the work and capable of being validated under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on Selection Procedures. Knowledge (intellectual comprehension) and Abilities (acquired proficiency) should be sufficiently detailed to provide the basis for selection of qualified employees. ➢ A listing of educational and experience requirements that outline minimum and alternative ways of gaining the knowledge and abilities required for entrance into the selection process. These elements are used as the basic screening technique for job applicants. ➢ Licenses and certifications identify those specifically required in order to perform the work. These certification requirements are often imposed by an agency outside of the City that has regulatory authority (e.g., the State) and can therefore be appropriately included as requirements. Physical Demands: This section identifies the basic physical abilities required for performance of the work. These are not presented in great detail (although they are more specifically covered for documentation purposes in the PD(Xs) but are designed to indicate the type of pre-employment physical examinations (e.g., lifting requirements and other unusual characteristics are included, such as "bend, stoop, kneel, reach, and climb to perform work and inspect work sites") and to provide an initial basis for determining reasonable accommodation for ADA purposes. Environmental Elements: These can describe certain outside influences and circumstances under which a job is performed; they give employees or job applicants an idea of certain risks involved in the job and what type of protective gear may be necessary to perform the job. Examples are loud noise levels, cold and/or hot temperatures, vibration, confining workspace, chemicals, mechanical and/or electrical hazards, and other job conditions. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) A major component of the job analysis and classification review is the determination of each classification's appropriate FLSA status (i.e., exempt vs. non-exempt) from the FLSA overtime rules and regulations. As a note, although it is more common for all positions within a classification to be under the same FLSA status, potentially there could be both exempt and non-exempt positions within a classification. Thus, it is important that each position be analyzed to determine FLSA status. Data on each position's typical job functions collected from the PDQs and interviews were analyzed to determine FLSA status. There are three (3) levels for the determination of the appropriate FLSA status that are utilized and on which recommendations are based. Below are the steps used for the determination of Exempt FLSA status: 2835 7'^ Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 vvvvvv.KoffAssociates.com 6 IM Final Report - Volume I Classification Study City of Seal Beach 1. Salary Basis Test—The incumbents In a classification are paid at least $455 per week ($23,660 per year), not subject to reduction due to variations in quantity/quality of work performed. Note: computer professionals'salary minimum is defined in hourly terms as $27.63 per hour. 2. Exemption Applicability—The incumbents in a classification perform any of the following types of jobs: ➢ Executive: Employee whose primary duty is to manage the business or a recognized department/entity and who customarily directs the work of two or more employees. This also includes individuals who hire, fire, or make recommendations that carry particular weight regarding employment status. Examples:executive,director, owner, manager, supervisor. ➢ Administrative: Employee whose primary activities are performing office work or non -manual work on matters of significance relating to the management or business operations of the firm or its customers and which require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment. Examples: coordinator, administrator, analyst, accountant. ➢ Professional: Employee who primarily performs work requiring advanced knowledge/education and which includes consistent exercise of discretion and independent judgment. The advanced knowledge must be in a field of science or learning acquired in a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction. Examples: engineer, attorney, statistician, architect, biologist. D Computer professional: Employee who primarily performs work as a computer systems analyst, programmer, software engineer, or similarly skilled work in the computer field performing a) application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications; b) design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specification; or c) design, documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs based on and related to user or system design specifications; or a combination of the duties described above, the performance of which requires the same level of skills. Examples: system analyst, database analyst, network architect, software engineer, programmer. 3. Job Analysis— A thorough job analysis of the job duties must be performed to determine exempt status. An exempt position must pass both the salary basis and duties tests. The job analysis should include: ➢ Review of the minimum qualifications established for the job; ➢ Review of prior class descriptions, questionnaires, and related documentation; ➢ Confirmation of duty accuracy with management; and Review and analysis of workflow, organizational relationships, policies, and other available organizational data. Non-exempt positions work within detailed and well-defined sets of rules and regulations, policies, procedures, and practices that must be followed when making decisions. Although the knowledge base required to perform the work may be significant, the framework within which incumbents' work is fairly restrictive and finite. (Please note that FLSA does not allow for the consideration of workload and scheduling when it comes to exemption status). 2835 7- Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 w .KoffAssociates.conn 7 IM Final Report - Volume I Classification Study City of Seal Beach Finally, often times a position performs both non-exempt and exempt duties, so analysis on time spent on each type of duty should be performed. If a position performs mostly non-exempt duties (i.e. more than 50% of time), then the position would be considered non-exempt. CLASSIFICATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Classification Structure and Allocation Factors The proposed classification plan provides the City with a systematic classification structure based on the interrelationship between duties performed, the nature and level of responsibilities, and other work- related requirements of the jobs. A classification plan is not a stable, unchanging entity. Classification plans may be updated and revised by conducting classification studies that are organizational wide (review of all classifications and positions) or position -specific. The methodology used for both types of studies is the same, as outlined above. For either type of study, when identifying appropriate placement of new and/or realigned positions within the classification structure, there are general allocation factors to consider. By analyzing these factors, the City will be able to change and grow the organization while maintaining the classification plan. 1. Type and level of Knowledge and Skill Required This factor defines the level of job knowledge and skill, including those attained by formal education, technical training, on -the job experience, and required certification or professional registration. The varying levels are as follows: A. The entry-level into any occupational field This entry-level knowledge may be attained by obtaining a high school diploma, completing specific technical course work, or obtaining a four-year or advanced college or university degree. Little to no experience is required. B. The experienced or journey -level (fully competent -level) in any occupational field This knowledge and skill level recognizes a class that is expected to perform the day-to-day functions of the work independently, but with guidelines (written or oral) and supervisory assistance available. This level of knowledge is sufficient to provide on-the-job instruction to a fellow employee or an assistant when functioning in a lead capacity. Certifications may be required for demonstrating possession of the required knowledge and skills. C. The advanced level In any occupational field This knowledge and skill level is applied in situations where an employee is required to perform or deal with virtually anyjob situation that may be encountered. Guidelines may be limited and creative problem solving may be involved. Supervisory knowledge and skills are considered in a separate factor and should not influence any assessment of this factor. 2835 7^ Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 �XoffAssociates.com IM Final Report - Volume I Classification Study City of Seal Beach 2. Supervisory/Management Responsibility This factor defines the staff and/or program management responsibility, including short and long- range planning, budget development and administration, resource allocation, policy and procedure development, and supervision and direction of staff. A. No ongoing direction of staff The employee is responsible for the performance of his or her own work and may provide side- by-side instruction to a co-worker. B. Lead direction of staff or program coordination The employee plans, assigns, directs, and reviews the work of staff performing similar work to that performed by the employee on a day-to-day basis. Training in work procedures is normally involved. If staff direction is not involved, the employee must have responsibility for Independently coordinating one or more programs or projects on a regular basis. C. Full first-line supervisor The employee performs the supervisory duties listed above, and, in addition, makes effective recommendations and/or carries out selection, performance evaluation, and disciplinary procedures. If staff supervision is not involved, the employee must have programmatic responsibility, including development and implementation of goals, objectives, policies and procedures, and budget development and administration. D. Manager The employee is considered management, often supervising through subordinate levels of supervision. In addition to the responsibilities outlined above, responsibilities include allocating staff and budget resources among competing demands and performing significant program and service delivery planning and evaluation. This level normally reports to the City Manager. E. Executive Management The employee has total administrative responsibility for the City and reports to the City Council. 3. supervision Received A. Direct Supervision Direct supervision is usually received by entry-level employees and trainees, i.e., employees who are new to the organization and/or position they are filling. Initially under close supervision, incumbents learn to apply concepts and work procedures and methods in the assigned area of responsibility to resolve problems of moderate scope and complexity. Work is usually supervised while in progress and fits an established structure or pattern. Exceptions or changes in procedures are explained in detail as they arise. As experience is gained, assignments become more varied and are performed with greater independence. B. General supervision General supervision is usually received by the experienced and journey -level employees, i.e., employees who have been in a position for a period of time and have had the opportunity to be 2835 7- Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 w .KoffAssociates.com IM Final Report- Volume I Classification Study City of Seal Beach trained and learn most, if not all, duties and responsibilities of the assigned classification. Incumbents are cross -trained to perform the full range of technical work in all of the areas of assignment. At the experienced -level, positions exercise some independent discretion and judgment in selecting and applying work procedures and methods. Assignments and objectives are set for the employee and established work methods are followed. Incumbents have some flexibility in the selection of steps and timing of work processes. Journey -level positions receive only occasional instruction or assistance as new or unusual situations arise and are fully aware of the operating procedures and policies of assigned projects, programs, and team(s). Assignments are given with general guidelines and incumbents are responsible for establishing objectives,timelines, and methods to deliver work products. Work is typically reviewed upon completion for soundness, appropriateness, and conformity to policy and requirements, and the methodology used in arriving at the end results are not reviewed in detail. C. General Direction General direction is usually received by senior level or management positions. Work assignments are typically given as broad, conceptual ideas and directives and incumbents are accountable for overall results and responsible for developing guidelines, action plans, and methods to produce deliverables on time and within budget. D. Administrative and Policy Direction Administrative direction is usually received by executive management classifications. The incumbent is accountable for accomplishing City-wide planning and operational goals and objectives within legal and general policy and regulatory guidelines. The incumbent is responsible for the efficient and economical performance of the organization's operations. 4. Problem Solving This factor involves analyzing, evaluating, reasoning, and creative thinking requirements. In a work environment, not only the breadth and variety of problems are considered, but also guidelines, such as supervision, policies, procedures, laws, regulations, and standards available to the employee. A. structured problem solving Employees learn to apply concepts and work procedures and methods in assigned area of responsibility and to resolve problems and issues that are specific, less complex, and/or repetitive. Exceptions or changes in procedures are explained in detail as they arise. B. Independent, guided problem solving Work situations require making independent decisions among a variety of alternatives; however, policies, procedures, standards, and regulations and/or management are available to guide the employee towards problem resolution. 2835 7^, Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 w` n'ev.KoffAssociafes.conn IM Final Report - Volume I Classification Study City of Seal Beach C. Application of discriminating choices Work situations require independent judgment and decision-making authority when identifying, evaluating, adapting, and applying appropriate concepts, guidelines, references, laws, regulations, policies, and procedures to resolve diverse and complex problems and issues. D. Creative, evaluative, or critical thinking The work involves a high-level of problem -solving requiring analysis of unique issues or increasingly complex problems without precedent and/or structure and formulating, presenting, and implementing strategies and recommendations for resolution. S. Authority for Making Decisions and Taking Action This factor describes the degree to which employees have the freedom to take action within their job. The variety and frequency of action and decisions, the availability of policies, procedures, laws, and supervisory or managerial guidance, and the consequence or impact of such decisions are considered within this factor. A. Direct, limited work responsibility The employee is responsible for the successful performance of his or her own work with little latitude for discretion or decision-making. Work is usually supervised while in progress and fits an established structure or pattern. Direct supervision is readily available. B. Decision-making within guidelines The employee is responsible for the successful performance of their own work, but able to prioritize and determine methods of work performance within general guidelines. supervision is available, although the employee is expected to perform independently on a day-to-day basis. Emergency or unusual situations may occur, but are handled within procedures and rules. Impact of decisions is normally limited to the work unit, project, or program to which assigned. C. Independent action with focus on work achieved The employee receives assignments in terms of long-term objectives, rather than day-to-day or weekly timeframes. Broad policies and procedures are provided, but the employee has latitude for choosing techniques and deploying staff and material resources. Impact of decisions may have significant program or City-wide service delivery and/or budgetary impact. D. Decisions made within general policy or elected official guidance The employee is subject only to the policy guidance of elected officials and/or broad regulatory or legal constraints. The ultimate authority for achieving the goals and objectives of the City are with this employee. 6. Interaction with Others This factor includes the nature and purpose of contacts with others, from simple exchanges of factual information to the negotiation of difficult issues. It also considers with whom the contacts are made, from co-workers and the public to elected or appointed public officials. 2835 7"' Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 w .KoffAssociotes.com Final Report - Volume 1 Classification Study IM City of Seal Beach A. Exchange of factual information The employee is expected to use ordinary business courtesy to exchange factual information with co-workers and the public. Strained situations may occasionally occur, but the responsibilities are normally not confrontational. B. Interpretation and explanation of policies and procedures The employee is required to interpret policies and procedures, apply and explain them, and influence the public or others to abide by them. Problems may need to be defined and clarified and individuals contacted may be upset or unreasonable. Contacts may also be made with individuals at all levels throughout the City. C. Influencing Individuals or groups The employee is required to interpret laws, policies, and procedures to individuals who may be confrontational or to deal with members of professional, business, community, or other groups or regulatory agencies as a representative of the City. D. Negotiation with organizations from a position of authority The employee often deals with the Board of Directors, elected officials, government agencies, and other outside agencies, and the public to advance and represent the priorities and interests of the City, provide policy direction, and/or negotiate solutions to difficult problems. 7. Working Conditions/Physical Demands This factor includes specific physical, situational, and other factors that influence the employee's working situation. A. Normal office or similar setting The work is performed in a normal office or similar setting during regular office hours (occasional overtime may be required, but compensated for). Responsibilities include meeting standard deadlines, using office and related equipment, lifting materials weighing up to 25 pounds, and communicating with others in a generally non -stressful manner. B. Varied working conditions with some physical or emotional demands The work is normally performed indoors, but may have some exposure to noise, heat, weather, or other uncomfortable conditions. Stand-by, call back, or regular overtime may be required. The employee may have to meet frequent deadlines, work extended hours, and maintain attention to detail at a computer or other machinery, deal with difficult people, or regularly perform moderate physical activity. C. Difficult working conditions and/or physical demands The work has distinct and regular difficult demands. Shift work (24-7 or rotating) maybe required; there may be exposure to hazardous materials or conditions; the employee may be subject to regular emergency callback and extended shifts; and/or the work may require extraordinary physical demands. 2835 7", Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 w .KoffAssociotes.com 12 Final Report - Volume I Classification Study IM City of Seal Beach Based on the above factors, in the maintenance of the classification plan when an employee is assigned an additional duty or responsibility and requests a change in classification, it Is reasonable to ask: D What additional knowledge and skills are required to perform the duty? D How does one gain this additional knowledge and skills — through extended training, through a short-term seminar, through on-the-job experience? ➢ Does this duty or responsibility require new or additional supervisory responsibilities? ➢ Is there a greater variety of or are there more complex problems that need to be solved as a result of the new duty? D Does the employee have to make a greater variety of or more difficult decisions as a result of this new duty? D Are the impacts of decisions greater because of this new duty (effects on staff, budget, City-wide activities, and/or relations with other agencies)? ➢ Are guidelines, policies, and/or procedures provided to the employee for the performance of this new duty? ➢ Is the employee interacting with internal and external stakeholders more frequently or for a different purpose as a result of this new assignment? ➢ Have the working or physical conditions of the job changed as a result of this new assignment? The analysis of the factors outlined above, as well as the answers to these questions, were used to determine recommended classifications for all City employees. The factors above will also help to guide the placement of specific positions to the existing classification structure and/or revision of entire classification structure in the future. Classification Allocation Recommendations All class descriptions were updated in order to ensure that the format is consistent, and that the duties and responsibilities are current and properly reflect the required qualifications. Additionally, the factors outlined above were analyzed to determine the allocation of all studied City positions. Details on the recommendations can be found in Appendix I. Title Change Recommendations One change in the classification plan, as noted above, was the title change for seventeen (17) classifications (please note that not every position allocated to each of these classifications may have been retitled, only where appropriate): Current Title Proposed Title Beach Lifeguard Lifeguard Beach Operations Supervisor Senior Lifeguard Building Inspector Building Inspector 1/11 Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant Intern Management Intern 2835 7° Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 www.KoffAssociates.com 13 Final Report- Volume I Classification Study IM City of Seal Beach Lead Community Services Officer Senior Community Services Officer Maintenance Worker Maintenance Worker 1/11 Maintenance Worker Part -Time Maintenance Worker 1/11 Mechanic Equipment Mechanic 1/11 Part -Time Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant Police Aide Police Records Technician I Senior Building Technician Building Technician 1/11 Senior Community Services Officer Community Services Officer 11 Senior Community Services Officer Detention Officer Senior Community Services Officer Police Records Technician It Senior Maintenance Worker Maintenance Worker II Senior Water Operator Water Services Operator II Water Operator Senior Water Services Operator Title changes are recommended to more clearly reflect the level and scope of work being performed, to consolidate work into broader categories that could be used City-wide, as well as establish consistency with the labor market and Industry standards. Any compensation recommendations (detailed in Volume II of this report) are not dependent upon a new title, but upon the market value as defined by job scope, level and responsibilities, and the qualifications required for successful job performance. Reclassification Recommendations The study resulted in certain positions in the following fourteen (14) classifications to be reclassified, as noted in the table below. This recommendation is based on the data collected from the PDO form and interviews with incumbents and their supervisors and managers. Please note that not every position allocated to each of these classifications may have been reclassified, only where appropriate: Current Title Proposed Title Account Clerk/Water Meter Reader Accounting Assistant Account Clerk/Water Meter Reader Water Meter Reader Accounting Technician Administrative Assistant Associate Engineer Senior Civil Engineer Community Services Officer Police Records Technician II Deputy Director of Public Works/Maintenance and Utilities Maintenance Superintendent Electrician City Electrician Executive Assistant Executive Assistant to the City Manager Executive Assistant Executive Assistant to the Police Chief Management Analyst Human Resources Manager 2835 7-, Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 �.KoffAssociafes.com 14 IM I Final Report - Volume 1 Classification Study City of Seal Beach Police Aide Community Services Officer 1/11 Police Sergeant Police Lieutenant Recreation Specialist Project Coordinator Senior Accounting Technician Revenue Supervisor Senior Community Services Officer Crime/Technology Analyst Senior Community Services Officer Property and Evidence Technician Senior Maintenance Worker Electrician CONCLUSION The revised classification descriptions serve as a general description of the work performed and provide a framework of the expectations of each position for the employee. Requests for the addition of new positions and classifications and/or reclassification of an existing position should follow established City policies and procedures. Any decisions related to the addition of new positions and classifications, reclassification of an existing position, and promotion of an existing position will depend on the needs and resources of the City and the availability of work, as well as the ability of existing positions to meet the qualifications of and perform the duties of the higher-level class. Finally, as mentioned previously, a classification plan Is not a static, unchanging entity. The classification plan should be reviewed on a regular, on-going basis and may be amended or revised as required. It has been a pleasure working with City of Seal Beach on this critical project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any additional information or clarification regarding this report. Respectfully Submitted, Koff & Associates Georg Krammer Chief Executive Officer 2835 7^ Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 w .KoffAssociates.com 15 Final Report - Volume I Classification Study IM City of Seal Beach Appendix I Recommended Position Allocation 2835 7" Street, Berkeley, California 94710 1 510.658.5633 1 w .KoffAssociates.com 3g H L tail f 6a _ fPsg g@'t@L$f FI$ e $E#a5 F ppfill 48f y. 88 gg}gapg§# g55 y`yb9 a t- E F 8 t s6 ffi fiy P 5 P fi k �y P F F@ P 'jj5, is C i t E 4 E E E s E 5 y _ £ ssb } 5 d S d !, 8 5d I IL fit fill D1, Evi 11 ny E F` yaF b E6 g y gE 6 € as d 8 d � n L Q`� $p� g E a a y i p F g{ 8 'dy 4 i i i i z i 9 g i 8g 8 E s E rx¢ 0 9 Va_ � a : €�€ �;€ � �€tl 5 y�� Fe�€� g� 4p�3� eg�, p��gy� i�� t� �f p�[ a �i � ��3Y �� F�aE�� xS$ ��" ��E3-� ��€��`� ��i �'ig � ��y'a� Sa�¢��sp ��; ¢g F� Eafa;5 �. �4 a�X� €�F � xad� � a Ey6 Y$i g q�gESe€gdgs (Fse�ig&�t �� I EE�� % 3 %F 3Y �2P �a �F€ A�F� �N�_gE kk �€9e jaj FF SE E # � d sg � x 9 s 9 a � p y E € 4 EE J�� _ � $ � Y F � 3 F A i a ,z � � � yE� � 3 £ i 8 � � � � }�� 1 � � i � � � � � # }8� 3 a � 'a � 3 € s p 5 �� 5aa a as 3� 3� � � �� 2 � � € € t � � _ � � � 2 � _ � � C� c F Q y # F F� x a _ $ 44i S z 3 i F § {a 3 i Z 3@ F CC � � C (� {H g b E� d F yy 3�� 6 {F JF� � F [[� Fx p S ij s$'¢ �M FE�� EE� ��aa��a E�'� S7$$ i � a§ � Y 3 3 F � i � � � {� d I gis gig iat.[ [ffEs%& �a`€S@388 8 �gg � qgf x V a 3 3 q Bg aY 14 a�x i € 19 % is Mit fil N ig 5SC x x xF�1F €� xg€5� xiEaxEl. xxo�x E x x g 1 2tpd 1l� F�'� 2 13 6 e p p p} F tl tl tl F Y�Y p S 0 0 EaJ V £ y e c = F X� gy g g 6 F C4 E €[ E 9 161 1 gE �YYabf g{ ggyy s �`oHn 8 na aaG ' as 9 3 a 3i as 5 a H a Ai as yk IhM Y LL Yk$� Y TT Y kY T�B,�e P kTT�B CB�6 fr EpgU E�E b� � � Ear FYY{�gC�E :?aE $�93 9a :u� 3ax3a a4.8aa s2 a{F✓iy� a{{�ii `� `EiYt{E � �_F�,. 2�e y°�9 _ d d�E^E 5 6 �6 fi 6 as a as a a 8 $ g P yg { pp $g9 g Y 9 {{ E aE3Q §§} )})\| § § g! & K §) & 'lit II � ! �! )])!!= \ ! ! !, . !!! § ■ ! | | | ! | ! ) | ||{!|| }|§! ! } } | J ! ! ! ! ! ! | ! ! ! ! ! RUN, !!| ); !! � } , � ! |! ! |! ! ) ), |! ! Submittal date: November 1, 2017 FINAL REPORT OF THE CLASSIFICATION & TOTAL COMPENSATION STU DY Volume II -Total Compensation City of Seal Beach Submitted by: KOFF & ASSOCIATES GEORG S. KRAMMER Chief Executive Officer 2835 Seventh Street Berkeley, CA 94710 www.KoffAssociates.com gkrammer@koffassociates.com Tel: 510.658.5633 Fax: 510.652.5633 Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study IM City of Seal Beach TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................1 Summaryof Findings.....................................................................................................1 STUDY PROCESS.................................................................................................................1 Benchmark Classifications............................................................................................1 ComparatorAgencies..........:.......................................................................................2 BenefitsData..................................................................................................................3 DataCollection.............................................................................................................5 MatchingMethodology...............................................................................................5 DataSpreadsheets........................................................................................................6 MARKET COMPENSATION FINDINGS...............................................................................7 BaseSalaries...................................................................................................................8 TotalCompensation......................................................................................................8 Benefits......................................................................................................:..................... 8 INTERNAL SALARY RELATIONSHIPS...................................................................................9 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................10 PayPhilosophy.............................................................................................................10 Proposed Salary Structure..........................................................................................10 Proposed Salary Range Placements........................................................................11 Options for Implementation.......................................................................................1 l USING THE MARKET DATA AS A TOOL...........................................................................12 APPENDICES Appendix I: Results Summary Appendix II: Market Base Salary, Benefit, and Total Compensation Findings Appendix III: Current Salary Schedule Appendix IV: Proposed Salary Range Placement Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study IM City of Seal Beach EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summary of Findings This report summarizes the job analysis methodologies, analytical tools, and the total compensation (salary and benefits) survey findings of the total compensation study Koff & Associates conducted for the City of Seal Beach ("the City"). The results of the total compensation study show that the City's base salaries are 4.1% below market with a variance for individual classifications of 28.4% below market to 8.7% above market. Of the 41 benchmark classifications surveyed, two (2) fall above the market median by more than 5% and six (6) fall above the market median by less than 5%; we consider +/- 5% to be competitive with the market. Seventeen (17) classifications fall below the market median. Of those, eleven (11) classes fall below the market by more than 5% and six (6) fall below the market by less than 5%. Two (2) classifications yielded insufficient market data, i.e., we were not able to identify at least four (4) comparables in the market to perform a statistical analysis. Fourteen (14) of the classifications were new and do not have a current salary thus we were not able to calculate a percentage difference between current salary and market, although we do have market data results. Total compensation results show that the City falls 7.6% below market when taking the median of all benchmark classifications combined. Overall, these differences between market base salaries and total compensation indicate that the Citys benefits package, in terms of cost, is slightly less competitive with the market since the City "loses" 3.5% competitive "advantage" when comparing base salary versus total compensation results. STUDY PROCESS Benchmark Classifications The recommended classification structure consists of approximately seventy-three (73) classifications. Of those, twenty-seven (27) existing classifications were selected in order to collect compensation data within the defined labor market. In addition, fourteen (14) new classifications were proposed and included in the survey for a total of forty-one (41) classifications that were surveyed. Survey classifications that had the most consistent and useful survey data were used as "benchmarks" in comparing the compensation plan. Benchmark classifications are those classifications that are tied directly to market salary data during the salary setting process. These classifications are used as a means of anchoring the City's overall compensation plan to the market. Survey or benchmark classifications included classes that are reasonably well known, and clearly and concisely described. They are commonly used classes such that other like classes may readily be found in other agencies in order to ensure that sufficient compensation data will be compiled. Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study IM I City of Seal Beach These survey classifications included: 1. Classification Accountant 2. Accounting Technician 3. Administrative Assistant 4. Aquatic Coordinator 5. Associate Civil Engineer 6. Associate Planner 7. Building Inspector II 8. Building Official 9. Building Technician II 10. City Clerk 11. City Manager 12. Community Services Officer II 13. Crime/Technology Analyst 14. Crossing Guard 15. Detention Officer 16. Director of Community Development 17. Director of Finance/City Treasurer 18. Director of Public Works 19, Electrician 20. Equipment Mechanic 11 21. Executive Assistant to the City Manager 22. Finance Manager 23. Human Resources Manager 24. Lifeguard 25. Maintenance Superintendent 26. Maintenance Worker II 27. Management Intern 28. Marine Safety Chief 29. Marine Safety Officer 30. Police Chief 31. Police Lieutenant 32. Police Officer 33. Police Records Technician II 34. Project Coordinator 35. Property and Evidence Technician 36. Recreation 37. Recreation Specialist 38. -Manager Revenue Supervisor 39. Senior Lifeguard 40. Water Meter Reader 41. Water Services Operator 11 Comparator Agencies Another important step in conducting a market salary study is the determination of appropriate agencies for comparison. Analysis was conducted of potential agencies to be included in the Citys labor market for purposes of comparison using objective criteria which included geographic proximity to the City, number of full-time equivalent employees, population, agency financial expenditures, cost of living, and comparable services (with an emphasis on marine safety). We collected specific data points for each of the thirty-five (35) agencies as follows 1. Geographic Proximity to the City; 2. Services Provided; 3. Number of Full -Time Equivalent (FTE) Employees; 4. Agency Financials (Expenditures); 5. Expenditures -FTE Ratio (per $1,000); 6. Population Served; 2 Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study IM City of Seal Beach 7. Population—FTE Ratio (per 1,000(; B. Cost of Living, Median Home Sales Price, and Median Household Income. With the abovementioned data collected, we grouped the information into data categories and took each agency's value, by data category, compared to the City of Seal Beach's value for the data category. The following details how the data points were combined into data categories: 1. Organizational type and structure — We typically recommend agencies of a similar size and structure providing similar services to that of the City be used as comparators. While size, number of employees, budgets, and population served are factors we evaluate, we find it more important to look at ratios of number of employees to budget and number of employees to population served, as those factors provide better indicators as to how each city uses its resources. 2. Similarity of population, staff, and operational budgets—These elements provide guidelines in relation to resources required (staff and funding) and available for the provision of services. 3. Scope of services provided and geographic location — Most of the comparator agencies included in the analysis provide similar services to the City including Public Works and Parks and Recreation services. 4. Labor market — With many agencies in competition for the same pool of qualified employees, the geographic labor market area, where the City may be recruiting from or losing employees to, is taken into consideration when selecting comparator organizations. Individuals often don't live in the communities they serve; therefore, geographic proximity and average commute times play a very important role in determining labor markets. Based on our analysis of the data categories, ranking of each potential comparator agency, discussions with the various study stakeholders, including the City Council, and the scope of work per the consulting agreement with the City, we recommended twelve (12) agencies for consideration as comparators in the compensation study, as follows: 1. City of Buena Park 2. City of Costa Mesa 3. City of Cypress 4. City of EI Segundo 5. City of Fountain Valley 6. City of Hermosa Beach 7. City of Huntington Beach B. City of Laguna Beach 9. City of Manhattan Beach 30. City of Newport Beach 11. City of Redondo Beach 12. City of San Clemente Benefits Data The last element requiring discussion prior to beginning a market survey is the specific benefit data that will be collected and analyzed. The following information was collected for each of the benchmarked classifications (the cost of these benefits to each agency was converted into dollar amounts and can be found in Appendix Iib of this report; these amounts were added to base salaries for total compensation purposes and those results can be found in Appendix Ilc): 1. Monthly Base Salary: The top of the salary range and/or control point. All figures are presented on a monthly basis. For those classifications that are part-time and/or paid on an hourly basis, salary 3 Im Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study City of Seal Beach information has been normalized to a full-time schedule for the purpose of consistency in comparisons. Base salaries only can be found in Appendix Ila. 2. Employee Retirement: This includes several figures: ➢ PERS: The amount of the employees' contribution to PERS that is paid by the employer (Employer Paid Member Contribution). D Formula: The service retirement formula (for all agencies, we surveyed the "pre -classic" tier of PERS, i.e., for agencies with multiple tiers, we reported the original tier, often called "Tier 1"). D Enhanced PERS Formula: The baseline PERS formula for our calculations Is 2%@55. There is typically a cost to the employer for offering a formula with a higher benefit than the baseline formula. For each enhanced formula, the cost to the employer is based on a percentage range calculated by PERS. We took the midpoint of the range and multiplied the percentage by the top monthly salary to calculate the cost of the enhanced formula. The percentage value for each enhanced formula is: • 2%@60: midpoint of range= -3.05% • 2.5%@55: midpoint of range= 4.95% • 2.7%@55: midpoint of range= 8.05% • 3%@60: midpoint of range= 9.80%. ➢ Final Compensation: The period for determining the average monthly pay rate when calculating retirement benefits. The base period is thirty-six (36) highest paid consecutive months. When final compensation is based on a shorter period of time, like twelve (12) months highest paid consecutive months, there is a cost to the employer. Similar to the enhanced formula, the cost to the employer is based on a percentage range calculated by PERS. We took the midpoint of the range (1.35%) and multiplied the percentage by the top monthly salary to calculate the cost of the final compensation. ➢ Social Security: If an employer participates in Social Security, then the employer contribution of 6.2% of base salary up to $612.25 per month was reported. ➢ Other: Any other retirement contributions made bythe employer. 3. Insurances: The employer paid premiums for an employee with family coverage was reported. The employer paid insurances included: Cafeteria/Flexible Benefit Plan Medical Dental Vision Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) Insurances Long -Term Disability Insurance Short -Term Disability Insurance Other 4. Leave: Other than sick leave, which is usage -based, the number of hours off for which the employer is obligated. All hours have been translated into direct salary costs by using the following calculation: Top Monthly Salary/ 2080 hours per year • leave hours offered per year. 4 00004 Final Report -- Volume II Total Compensation Study IM City of Seal Beach ➢ Vacation: The number of vacation hours available to all employees who have completed five years of employment. ➢ Holidays: The number of holiday hours (including floating hours) available to employees. ➢ Administrative: Administrative leave is normally the number of paid leave hours available to Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Exempt and/or management to reward for extraordinary effort (in lieu of overtime). Personal leave may be available to augment vacation or other time off. S. Auto Allowance: This category includes either the provision of an auto allowance or the provision of an auto for personal use. If a car is provided to any classification for commuting and other personal use, the average monthly rate is estimated at $450. Mileage reimbursement is not included. 6. Deferred Compensation: Deferred compensation contributions provided to all employees of a classification without requiring the employee make a contribution is reported. 7. Other —This category includes any additional other benefits not captured above available to all in the class. All of the above benefit elements are negotiated benefits provided to all members of each comparator class. As such, they represent an on-going cost for which an agency must budget. Other benefit costs, such as sick leave, tuition reimbursement, and reimbursable mileage are usage -based and cannot be quantified on an individual employee basis. Data Collection Data was collected during the months of December 2016 through March 2017, through websites, conversations with human resources, accounting, and/or finance personnel at each comparator agency, and careful review of agency documentation of classification descriptions, memoranda of understanding, organization charts, position allocations, and other documents. Matching Methodology K&A believes that the data collection step is the most critical for maintaining the overall credibility of any study. We rely on the City's classification descriptions that were developed during the classification phase of this study, as they are the foundation for our comparison. When we research and collect data from the comparator agencies to identify possible matches for each of the benchmarked classifications, there is an assumption that we will not be able to find comparators that are 100% equivalent to the classifications at the City's. Therefore, we do not match based upon job titles, which can often be misleading, but we analyze class descriptions before we consider it as a comparator. (If an agency does not have classification descriptions available for review, we will follow-up with the agency to get a better understanding of the positions.) Our methodology is to analyze each class description and the whole position by evaluating factors such as: ➢ Definition and typical job functions; ➢ Distinguishing characteristics; ➢ Level within a class series (i.e. entry, experienced, journey, specialist, lead, etc.); ➢ Reporting relationship structure (for example, manages through lower -level staff); 5 Final Report- Volume II Total Compensation Study IM City of Seal Beach Education and experience requirements; ➢ Knowledge, abilities, and skills required to perform the work; ➢ The scope and complexity of the work; ➢ Independence of action/responsibility; ➢ The authority delegated to make decisions and take action; ➢ The responsibility for the work of others, program administration, and for budget dollars; ➢ Problem solving/ingenuity; D Contacts with others (both Inside and outside of the organization); D Consequences of action and decisions; and D Working conditions. We require that a classification's "likeness" be at approximately 70% of the matched classification to be included. When we do not find an appropriate match with one class, we often use "brackets" which can be functional or represent a span in scope of responsibility. A functional bracket means that the job of one classification at the City is performed by two (2) or more classifications at a comparator agency. A "bracket" representing a span in scope means that the comparator agency has one class that is "bigger" in scope and responsibility and one position that is "smaller," where the Cityts class falls in the middle. In all, of the forty-one (41) benchmarked classifications, we were able to collect sufficient data from the comparator agencies for thirty-five(35) of the classifications. We were notable to find sufficient matches for the following classifications: 1. Aquatic Coordinator 2. Crossing Guard 3. Detention Officer 4. Project Coordinator 5. Revenue Supervisor 6. Senior Lifeguard The fourteen new classifications included in the survey are: 1. Associate Planner 2. Community Services Officer II 3. Crime/Technology Analyst 4. Detention Officer S. Electrician 6. Human Resources Manager 7. Lifeguard g. Maintenance Superintendent 9. Police Lieutenant 10. Police Records Technician II 11. Project Coordinator 12. Property and Evidence Technician 13. Revenue Supervisor 14. Senior Lifeguard Data Spreadsheets For each benchmark classification, there are three (3) information pages: P1 Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study IM City of Seal Beach Top Monthly Base Salary Data ➢ Benefit Detail (Monthly Equivalent Values) ➢ Total Compensation Data The mean (average) and median (midpoint) of the comparator agencies, as well as the City's percentage differential from the average and median, are included on the top monthly salary and total compensation data spreadsheets. The mean is the sum of the comparator agencies' salaries/total compensation divided by the number of matches. The median is the midpoint of all data with 50% of data points below and 50% of data points above. In orderto calculate the mean and median, K&A requires that there be a minimum of four (4) comparator agencies with matching classifications to the benchmark classification. The reason for requiring at least 4 matches is so that no one classification has undue Influence on the calculations. If we were not able to find at least four (4) matches, then we reported "Insufficient Data to do Analysis." MARKET COMPENSATION FINDINGS The table below represents a summary of the market top monthly (base) salary and total compensation (base salary plus benefits [retirement, insurance, leaves, and allowances]) findings. For each benchmark classification, the percent above or below the top monthly salary market median and total compensation market median is listed. The table is sorted by top monthly salary in descending order from the most positive percentile (above market) to the most negative (below market). Police Officer 8.7% 5.7% Maintenance Worker II 7.4% 4.0% Accountant 4.7% 4.0% Associate Civil Engineer 4.2% -2.2% Administrative Assistant 3.0% 5.4% Water Services Operator 11 2.5% 2.4% Director of Public Works 1.6% -3.9% Marine Safety Officer 1.2% 5.1% Accounting Technician -0.2% -0.9% Management Intern -1.3% -64.9% Police Chief -1.9% -7.6% Director of Community Development -4.1% -10.9% Director of Finance/City Treasurer -4.1% -8.8% Recreation Specialist -4.4% -62.7% Building Inspector 11 -5.6% -3.6% Recreation Manager -6.3% -7.2% City Clerk -6.7% -12.7% Building Technician 11 -7.2%-0.4% City Manager -8.6% -11.6% Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study IM City of Seal Beach Marine Safety Chief -14.3% -7.7% Finance Manager -15.0% -13.6% Equipment Mechanic II -15.2% -66.5% Building Official -19.5% -15.7% Executive Assistant to the City Manager -23.1% -17.2% Water Meter Reader -28.4% -88.2% Aquatic Coordinator Insufficient Data Insufficient Data Crossing Guard Insufficient Data Insufficient Data Base Salaries Market base salary results show that of the forty-one (41) benchmarked classifications, two (2) classifications are paid above the market median by more than 5% and six (6) are paid above the market median by less than 5%. Seventeen (17) benchmarked classifications are paid below the market median. Six (6) classifications are paid below the market median by less than 5%, five (5) classifications are paid below the market median by more than 5% and less than 10%, one (1) classification is paid below the market median by more than 10% and less than 15%, and five (5) classifications are paid below the market median by 15% or more. Two (2) classifications had insufficient data for analysis and fourteen (14) classifications are proposed new classifications and do not factor into the above/below market median data. Generally, we consider a classification falling within 5% of the median to be competitive in the labor market for salary survey purposes because of the differences in compensation policy and actual scope of work and position requirements. Total Compensation Total compensation results show that of the forty-one (41) benchmarked classifications, three (3) are paid above the market median by more than 5% and three (3) are paid above the market median by less than 5%. Nineteen (19) benchmarked classifications are paid below the market median. Five (5) classifications are paid below the market median by less than 5%, four (4) classifications are paid below the market median by more than 5% and less than 10%, four (4) classifications are paid below the market median by more than 10% and up to 15%, and six (6) classifications are paid below the market median by 15% or more. Overall, these differences between market base salaries and total compensation Indicate that the City's benefits package is slightly less competitive than the market. Further analysis indicates that classifications are 4.1% below the market median for base salaries, while that figure changes to 7.6% below the market median when we look at total compensation, which is a 3.5% difference (i.e., the City "loses" 3.5% of competitive advantage). Benefits Further analysis of the market benefit data reveals that the City lags the market median by an additional 3.5% as compared to the base salary market median due to the percentage of classifications that are part- time and thus are not eligible for benefits. Many of those comparable classifications within the City's labor market are classifications that are eligible for benefits. When factoring out those classes that are P Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study IM City of Seal Beach part-time, the City is behind the market media for total compensation by 4.4% which Is only a 0.3% difference from the percentage lag of the base salarydata. When looking at the City's vacation and holiday accrual rates as well as health, dental, and vision premium contributions, the data shows that the City is slightly ahead of the market for individual contributor classifications while slightly behind the market for management classifications. However, for both management and individual contributor classifications the City is significantly below the market median for retirement benefits because half of the labor market offers enhanced retirement formulas, four agencies contribute all or a portion of the employees' PERS contribution, and three cities provide Social Security benefits. Since retirement and insurance are the biggest cost drivers of benefits expenses, the City's gain over the market in insurance contributions is offset by the gap in retirement benefit value relative to the market. The biggest factors in the below market results for the Total Compensation data are the below market top monthly salaries for seventeen (17) of the twenty-five (25) existing benchmark classifications coupled with the high percentage of part-time classifications within the City's compensation system. Therefore, our recommendations for salary range adjustments are based on base salaries versus total compensation market survey results. In addition, the City may want to review its benefits program and consider making additional adjustments to its total compensation package. INTERNAL SALARY REEF ' SHIPS Building from the salary levels established for identified benchmark classes, internal salary relationships were developed and consistently applied in order to develop specific salary recommendations for all non - benchmarked classifications. In the future, the City may need to utilize internal alignment practices as the staff grows and additional classifications are added. While analyzing Internal relationships, the same factors were considered that we used when comparing the City's current classifications to the labor market during the compensation study. Below are standard human resources practices that are commonly applied when making salary recommendations based upon internal relationships: ➢ Certain internal percentages are often applied. Those that are the most common are The differential between a trainee and experienced class in a series (1/II or Trainee/Experienced) is generally 10% to 15%; A lead or advanced journey -level (III or Senior -level) position is generally placed 10% to 15% above the journey -level; and A full supervisory position is normally placed at least 10% to 25% above the highest level supervised, depending upon the breadth and scope of supervision. D When a market or internal equity adjustment is granted to one class in a series, the other classes in the series are also adjusted accordingly to maintain internal equity. There are some exceptions to this practice where the recommended adjustment was made higher or lower than usual to align a class with another class in a different series to maintain organizational standards or practices. In addition, our recommendations include some realignment of levels within classification series that follow industry best practices and standards. Pq IM Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study City of Seal Beach Internal equity between certain levels of classification is a fundamental factor to be considered when making salary decisions. When conducting a market compensation survey, results can often show that certain classifications that are aligned with each other are not the same in the outside labor market. However, as an organization, careful consideration needs to be given to these alignments because they represent internal value of classifications within job families as well as across the organization. For the purposes of this study, we were able to utilize market data to develop the salary recommendations forthirty-five (35) of the forty-one (41) benchmarked classifications and used internal equity principlesto make the salary recommendations for eighteen (18) non -benchmarked classifications, fourteen (14) new classifications, and six (6) benchmark classifications with insufficient market data. For all classifications that were not benchmarked, internal alignments with other classifications will need to be considered, either in the same class series or those classifications that have similar scope of work, level of responsibility, and "worth" to the City. Where it is difficult to ascertain internal relationships due to unique qualifications and responsibilities, reliance can be placed on past internal relationships. It is important for City management to carefully review these Internal relationships and determine if they are still appropriate given the current market data. It is important to analyze market data and internal relationships within class series as well as across the organization, and make adjustments to salary range placements as necessary based on the needs of the organization. The Citymay want to make internal equity adjustments or alignments, as it Implements the compensation strategy. This market survey is only a tool to be used by the City to determine market indexing and salary determination. RECOMMENDATIONS Pay Philosophy The City has many options regarding what type of compensation plan it wants to implement. This decision will be based on what the City's pay philosophy is, at which level it desires to pay its employees compared to the market, whether it is going to consider additional alternative compensation programs, and how great the competition is with other agencies over recruitment of a highly -qualified workforce. Proposed Salary Structure Currently, the City has one salary schedule for regular (i.e., full-time) employees and one for part-time employees. The regular salary schedule consists of grades numbered from 8 to 64 with corresponding monthly pay rates, and on the part-time schedule grades 1 to 23 with corresponding hourly pay rates. The differential between grades on the regular salary schedule is approximately 2.5% with some anomalies where the salary for a corresponding grade is not in numerical order with the grades immediately adjacent (e.g., Grade 27). On the part-time schedule, the differential between grades is approximately 5%. Each of the salary schedules consist of five (5) steps within each grade with a differential of approximately 5% between steps. For purposes of this report and recommendations, we developed one salary structure consisting of 100 ranges each with five (5) steps. There is a differential of approximately 2.5% between each range and approximately 5% between each step within a range. 10 Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study IM City of Seal Beach To develop the proposed salary structure, we use a formula that builds ranges from the top step of the City's lowest paid classification (in this case, the Office Aide on the part-time schedule). This ensures that the City has sufficient ranges on the salary structure for all of its classifications. However, using this methodology results in several of the ranges to fall below the California minimum wage since the current established rate forthe Office Aide classification consists of a step within the range that is below minimum wage. For this reason, those cells which contain rates that fall below the California minimum wage have been "greyed out." The salary structure can be found in Appendix III of this report. Proposed Salary Range Placements Appendix IV illustrates the proposed salary range placement for each classification based on the market data and an internal relationship analysis. Of note, when developing salary recommendations based on internal relationships, we use the percentage difference represented by the range number versus a calculation of the corresponding salaries. For example, the difference of eight (8) ranges with 2.5% between each range represents a 20% differential on the salary structure. However, since there is a compounding effect with each additional range, i.e., 2.5% on top of 2.5% on top of 2.5% etc., the calculated percentage differential between the corresponding salaries will be greater than 20%. However, this method of establishing internal relationships is a best practice and falls within the norms of the market. The spreadsheets found in Appendix IV also include our rationale for each recommended placement and the projected percentage change. Our recommendation is to use base salary median results to calculate the recommendations. For those classifications that are below market, we used the market base salary median findings for each surveyed classification and placed classifications into the current monthly salary schedule, based on those findings. In addition, we modified placements in certain instances where it seemed warranted based on internal relationships and/or compaction issues. A salary within 5% of the market median is considered to be competitive in the labor market for salary survey purposes because of the differences in compensation policy and actual scope of the position and its requirements. However, a closer standard can be adopted by the City. The proposed salary range placements are summarized as follows: 15 Classifications to be Y -rated • 12 Classifications to be moved up between 0.37%-4.4% • 11 Classifications to be moved up between 5.4%-8.6% • 5 Classifications to be moved up between 13.5%-16.4% 4 Classifications to be moved up between 19.3%-28.8% Options for Implementation For those benchmark classifications that are below the market median, we recommend adjusting salary ranges based on market results and implementing the increased salaries depending on how quickly the City can afford to do so based on Its fiscal situation. We recommend the same for those classifications that are internally aligned with the benchmarks and for which we are also recommending an adjustment to a higher salary range. When classifications are over market, we typically recommend to Y -rate all employees until the market numbers "catch up" with their current salary (as mentioned above). To Y -rate an employee means to keep the employee's salary frozen and to provide no salary increases until the employee's current salary is within the recommended salary range. An agency could choose to Implement cost -of -living adjustments (COLAs) to an affected employee depending on the agency's preference. Y -rating will result in no IM Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study City of Seal Beach immediate loss of income, but will delay any future Increases until the incumbent's salary is within the salary range. Any new -hires would be paid within the newly established salary range. While the City may be interested in bringing all salaries to the market median, or another standard, in most cases this goal may not be reached with a single adjustment. In this case, one option is to use a phased implementation approach. Normally, if the compensation implementation program must be carried over months or years, the classes that are farthest from the market median should receive the greatest equity increase (separate from any cost of living increase). If a class falls within five percent (5%) of the market median, it would be logical to make no equity adjustment in the first round of changes. However, if a class is more than 5% below the market median, a higher percentage change may be initially warranted to begin minimizing the disparity. Another option is to move employees into the newly proposed compensation structure, i.e., within the salary range that is recommended for each class based on this market study and to the step within the new range that is closest to their current compensation. If employees' current salaries are so far below market that their current compensation falls below even the bottom of the newly recommended range, then larger adjustments may need to be considered to move those employees at least to the bottom of the new salary range. The City may spend additional time to go through a process of deliberation and decision-making as to what compensation philosophy it should implement to attract, motivate, and retain a high-quality workforce. However, the City may want to consider adjusting those classifications' salaries that are currently below the market median as soon as possible, assuming that incumbents' performance levels meet the City's level of expectation. USING THE MARKET DATA AS A TOOL We wish to note that this report and our findings are meant to be a tool for the City to create and implement an equitable compensation plan. Compensation strategies are designed to attract and retain excellent staff. However, financial realities and the City's expectations may also come into play when determining appropriate compensation philosophies and strategies. The collected data represents a market survey that will give the City an instrument to make future compensation decisions. It has been a pleasure working with City of Seal Beach on this critical project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any additional information or clarification regarding this report. Respectfully Submitted, Koff & Assoclates Georg S. Krammer Chief Executive Officer 12 IM Final Report - Volume 11 Total Compensation Study City of Seal Beach Appendix I Results Summary �ry�jF4i�'Q Sou'• =sasssaa- Aryn. 3334 -c��'x+'!?N�'^• Sym„yr9R :��;m�i;iFi�'Y--�, 3 V$ 3jT8(� . .x_. iiza■q apn i?+ rya yqy ,.ice z(y gz '$Jz ]^1 xG,"�P.?KWaI'i, •.<?`fS9e?c S,,Gff ��t��? <'<T��I, E F F�� FBF€�g a�EgngcEE8C3��sYS @Fy` uzU�L6O��§lu Z.X Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study IM City of Seal Beach Appendix II Market Base Salary, Benefit, and Total Compensation Findings ] 4 !!R 8 Hat !f $|//-}||/}} ! ! ! vV ! LISS � f\\q ] 4 / 2$\§|2}$\\\ !__!!-_-&«, } 7 !{!! { !{ ) \\\).)\))\)#7 !|!!!!!!]i!! - f \\{/\Z£I££\u ) , ] ! -.,..... .... # !I| $§)))§)\k)f) \ :2\\}\ � ;!;l;.•lF�,> I! " _.:|...;.- --!!!,!!.!! e�al,g! - - •�|;§ {;;! _ - - -- ! ))]!] 9 !] 2 ]i \ ! \\\\\/\\{\\\\ • --- � | --------- M Q {|! j) | |&# . Q !; . § q | E • 2 © g •! ! { ! §! « . !!,.! ,! !! •_, .. ., ° !! | ! !•!! !! ! llama ! !! ! \i !,!!i!! , • � )}}}K\\f§}j � � } � ) \ } \\\\/\\!\\!\) ) ))44|)4!)))§§ |! }\\(k!!|!!|!§ !|� )\/!■¥;§;}}}\ }° f` " / \i i||!|!!!!!!!! ! | ! ! - I - \ - i !qq/|5-o5 ) was . = E \! § j § ` d « a ,. \ ) i § . . # m! B • �! || | \� • • ! . ! ! ., IS ! . _ .! , ,• | M Mill |,ll�,. ! ||! !l!!! !., ! !! ! , , �• !!,;! ! ! | .! «; !# !{! \}/E!f■!¥!!!; : ! ! $ I \2 ` A eb! . }\(!,)\�A�§ - - ) ! ! | ) \ � |! / \ } �t|!� ! t&&62zzzz|� ! \ /\/ ! ! | ) \ � �d r; uF Li s, sE L z z mez I z z •� xc "x �s C �e e98gF IS y cc b f f g f x %Z B X s" !�| � !i| � ! ! } } d� ,) ) |:&;;__;&_;&& { t $)\ !!!!f)!-6.6 , t / !\\\\{ ) ! !; ;; ; ---- • . ------ ! cE } ! laQ222Q! ) ; ...,....,._,: ( !; ! ! !. • gig - | ,:; ,. }! |} § go ! 1 ! ,a»! § g } , . . , !! }| | | ! ! !!!_316 if ! § If •! }� )| ] it ! llama ! !!: ! § !z !!! ! ) ! Ali, ! !•I!.!!. , ■ !■| !��!"!|!`i! !2}!)!2!)/! \ ( . }9) .)(\!)!!Q);§) ! u0u0 \{/\//\ ` | -.......,,..; § , !!#ldddr; !)}�- !l,::„� { { ! E moi! )/ § g ! !!!!!\ !!,!{]|!10 ONo 1). )! | | an! ! ! !! ! § : !! ! ) z ., \ ez !3 !) }! |! ! )! ]! } ! ! }! - . ;!]!t!! !! 14 |k/5 —) }k|§§$ A, --- I --- c c ! , t%1% - } | \\!\\!\\i{\i{ ] ! ........... �! !{} \}f}/}\|)}/ 0 E \ _ - 16 16 { ! u!!u!! \|\!'udU ] ! is a !! • ! !! !| ! §! , ! • . . .. !a !! ! �! �!! { \ { \ \ \ } } ! r! ,■!,({({!{. 2121T / R /§Q § ! 16 • }ki|)\!\�,; ¥ \ _A I!!!!/!!! - { ! /i\///{\fi/\i ) !i| )|!!)||\\\| ,, if==!!=•__; / / ` �• w=^o-� „ ~ � } ! . / Of |! !! | o!{! //|$\ \ }.. j {ƒ&& . ) § -o -o - o 16 2 /0u 00u I£iZ££ / 6= €! \ ! !ge ! ! ! G !\ 0Rm \ ) § \ !i fly !! ,, , all -` }!| ! !•°.; ! ;!! , ! . . ;!|!) za|t/j}j}\\/ T }}t})}U M His ^ ( } k All | � �|| !!!■!!!!!!; 2|}/HIM.. | §\V,Mk\ )} i!{!!!%!!I! - - - ) fI/g | liififi!{II!! ] } | � ) )o )/\! /\ /\ )\/!) ) — _— ) \{//\ ` ! !••!��!!! -7:1 |- ) f _ - ! ! i| \ § |!„; ! , ! !.:; !!! | ! : |! | | | ! ! ! a no !.§ )r !l } } () { E f� !g| �, { i 94 x - ! !|||l.l�=f= ! - y2w ;; ! !, -•!!!! - {{{{ /{000 ) \\\ !| !! � all !| .!n !) } ) Hall ! ! 4 ;) ! ! , !loam !;; | | j / \ § ! ! \ ©• 51 !| !! ( |!§ ! ! 11 !■ _. •: !!! ! | �, t ! |, . .. !;! • | , |. �{ Mill ! \ . ! |!!!!!!! | |!|!)l!|! !)} ! It ! \\\ ){}/f//\}}/!) _l•,.==°•_ - ■E!■!!441 ■!■a ,�■ ! . ƒ k !! !\ |9 ) - | ;!_ ,\!!) ////{/1 : | � | ...,.... .... !/| |)!!))!!) |! !)!!!!4§| !|, |Rn! la!! .,,....,. !g§BBGQ& ! � | ! ............. ) � ( /| ` A • | , ; ;! • , !: ! PIS � ( ! - �-■;;t!!! 7� \! , } \ :/ •• .� .,... !! !| _ § : �i{k${)/ - _- ! I!!!!!!!!77&# i | .- - � /qq-o Z/qGQ � ! !` }!)!)))) P©©o ! & - !.!! „ _ ! !!!!)!!!l:7;i - '!j M,2.8u- _ ! |iggq\qqi / } !` !| | !22 _. \ j|| | a- s e !| !! ! , ; 26A,.! !! „ ! ! ! ilk ] ! | ! ! ` / k ! !\!!'\}li..a� ! 16 ! ! !!!-6 -6\8 !!!! \\\/{/\///\ ) �� (\ �! - }� \ {u \ } � !)�i d- ||!!}! : I \ UU 00 f!!£ZI; ) ..� . e --:_ ( / > „ z _ ;I , , ; , �! /! ) \! !! ! !|| || _| �� }7 \ k ) {/&7##&7&&7&& ƒ § � ��-� • ,!)t!!�F - !!!l,•,..,,!! | !!!)f#\1§�)�! F | \ } | |/)&i#i;;&7&& ! "6!,615! - � | i£/£\ : . ! � F | , , E| || !! • A | .Aa !, IU ; , !�}! HIM / , | � ,1 ..!! ��. ! !!!!!!,| || \ i }\ �� } } �| §� ! Is §)/u Is m u _- § : ! IN ff!!; 16 _ E. f£\/\\\\!!\!{ / | .--- k\}k\\ EE _ _ \\\)}f ////16 ! !a. g}! - | � \!\f !f !\{{\{{ § | ; .... .. ....... § � || | . ! ! | ; ,! ! !,I , . )§/|!|m;!!• R � }! |!; ! | ! I ! ..! :;; • !! i!! ! §! I • 1,,.= I;! a E_ ! m • !! • ) \| ! § ! ! ! © m ! ! � ) )I ! | ! ! ! © » | {, !,|pf.= . ILL, � ))}! !/ !i| }) )| f \)f) )) •}{ , / \ § 6 - .;!! ; - ,,|,! |_}{ |! | ! ! E P .2 2 S. 0, {{a §_.. ! !{|» { - ° «)}� § \ \)/\{k\{\i\\{7 \ 9 ! !!;• - -�) ; -I !!!} - ) 000 {!I! ) ) !!!!f]i �E - § ! 0000 $\{\{{{ ) | -,,....w,:___ ( !©" #! !! ll..= ;I; ! | | !r |;|!!.i,HI M )!!!!!!00 - !!!!!----- } � � ! !!!; ! /��16 IS ! \000000500 \{ ) u ! - ! {� i| ___-.._•!!;! ! - § ! gag Ii!\\\\)\i / | | ............. ( u j \|§ !!a ! ! 9!! !| | § ` " • 52! a �. ! e . }! • ; , ! all ., , ... |(! ! | ! ! ! Iasi ! . r !: ! ! . . = !isms : |!| ) | ! ! ! g ]!! ! | !r 18 ! !R ! ! |!!!_ ! . . . §\bRljg4/!)§�!|\ \ � :f) }))))}}c}\)) 0((7 !{! \})§)k|$\\\\ |§!!|>! !! !! ! 3 � A ,!!): ! \ \)){§)))) . .,191 o 8.13 ,� ,!! {:ƒ!;f\\! \ �)(;)�!f!!!{ - \ 8 /\\/\\/\\\{/f ) k )cisI ! ! 1 !!|I! \§ | !£ | )) a««oker !• |� ! l - | , ! M. . ai ! {} _ , : !! : lu IU , , !{� !,}�|�! ! • � . ! l�i•ii. ! � ! Aug �f JIM � � } \} \\ � ..=..j _- ! - u\\{/{{\{{/\u \ ) | -......, .... ! ! ! ! }}�_{! ! \ t\/ `{G2cl - - ;!)|||) | | ! ! / �� !! . ! . !•! ! | ! ;{) ;| !! | ! • ._ „ | § . ; | ! §! /! 3)) §! ! ; •, !! ! | §! ! ;{ !!!! -})(! !!! !|| /| ! ! Ej {}�)S!!E ! §/ E ! !!�/!!t!!!!!7 ! f �\)\ � ! {\////\/{\{f\ / !, !-|!!!|||§f! 5 ))))))§i2 - �) {) \ {)\\)\\\\\/\\ }� ;!lf.l;ld � ■ ,�! - ! as gat \ § \�) \\\ }! || ! §! ! ! !! as !!! ! ! j jj ! | ! 2 e, E !! � „ ! � :, !!! ! ;;! • | \\\ MIS 889. \\\/W} fill Hli ! ! --{ E$ \{)!!HOD ) \ � i{i \ ! )) ; - �2!!)/ - / / \\\\\�\\\ \ ;| || ) §! ; ! ; !| !{ !9w. . , I| •z ; !!. ! ! . .., S. �| ; ,. ... § | | | ! ! � ! © a! !! ! | !r }!, § \§ \ { { Sigs , °- !! !| i ! - !G GAG e� !!!!-6.6 | _ gggg : \ } ; 16 t {{!�\!)� - 1,;G wre! C gage }| -I|| ! | ! H ! !!! | , r !| !)| § /; , � !�• ! . R !! ! !!}! . !., ! |2 Mix !|!§!!! . gage its )fo))))/) !|! } � }!!!! R ;I ; ! f)I))G'))){&&& !- | !- - .— l.�;=l., ! |! Q /!/!/ _ ! !;f/i\Z{/Z/ v !!!!)&&&&;i)= JN - !I!!!!!!!)!|| | : ! DO U-- \ ( Sil !} | • ! ;| , , , ; {| ` , ; I! , ; ! . |! I | �! !E!2 !!!! / |/\ --| ..,,, . !! -!*2§ ! ! ! I !))!),#&##7&= ! .6 !!|!!| .6 - \f\\{/\ ` | ....-�.. | .... MH 5jii ||{)|(\!|| ila ) | `! !! ; !)A I I_ - _ � ) ) ! fill . m ] § ! | ; ! se• a !! ;. j)!! § ! a ©• % !` all m !| \ g!! § ! • : � m ) ! ! & e! ! m !! ! | a • | � � §� § � �• , u } � � { \\ j m ! I / ! § !!!!!!!!!!8w - { lIZQQZQQQ / ! u !g R !i) \\))}16}16!)!!} !|� ;;#,«#«*«««1616 - ..,.. R ;i t! ! !!!!!!!I!!!!! !' |9 | 16 tl \Quou {}! ...,...,,;::_ / \ , !- !� |! !I! ! §! . _ . „ ! • •, !|! _ |! . !!! „ ! „ |! || | | - ! ! -• !! ! ! | !! \ , d !!f ))) I!| \\)\k\))))/)\ \}\) \ _ \ E ! | | ! § 9 9) ! | !!!!;!!!//!! ) �\q\GQZQq ) )�))�))) ! ! I 7 §! §) ; !�I \!\t!lft ! .!\!,!, ! !!!!i!!!!!!| ! : - !| ; al ; ! Pal : i! ! ilia ! } ,!�- .. ! • , ! �!!!!!!! } \ ge \}\/ ! ! �. p/! !!!! ! !! ƒ !-6.6 -6 -6 ! Z ! ! 0uwuuuG\ ` /= i }f))\ \) \) ` oil ! ! ) ! { - \ ! | ...,.,.. .... /= i ) \ 4 as # e !J !! \ § ! R ; #»• m , |! , ) ) ! R!! ! ! e all !! �! U2 ! j | �- ... gg - ! ! ! _ } �|-| - � (§!!i|l,;;|!! - { ! .00iO \\\{\\/ ) \\|)\ - .,1.. !|! ! ! \\{{ 0 ) JN \//\\\\{ ; .. . . ! il�I!!!. | ! | • .| � � allilgig HIP �!| )�})} {! Mal } } l;e2 �£�I• 16 - | ............. ( | ,. _•!>!,_•__`UM uu ! / ! !ZZZ -oa !!220z !' |- ! :{!15! _ \i\!!Z\ ` Ell{ ! ! • ! , , .-. .. !` lc )! ! _ !§ . . f! ) } All # ! \ e J! |} g ! B !: all !.. § Him ! m � ! - als ! ! ! a# 8 !) § } § p2! ! ! @ \! !| | /! Ala ! - f }| ,`!) . • })|!|/§|)!| } } )! §! ! � \�))\ ! ! -o z 6 ! "o : \ { i{{{//I£I!{I ) ! 19 !f) ))\\f})))) ! ! i.......... ........ - |!!!!!!!!!! \ ))))!)!!aZ. $� I !.tRHhI. - 16 \ \ k\i\{/{{{\{{! ) ..,..... !. ! .... 19 �! !| ! |! ; ; !• �« ;I! ;| !�) |; ; , � !•" • ` ;! • , , !r !: !!!! I| !|}|!}f!}! uh If) \\\\}))))\ ! ! $ I \\{))\)))) �! 16 _ 16 § ! ) !|f-_ -- --- -- --------- ! ! .} �! i/ /II//§//� - ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! f : ! ) !| ;| ) ! h ! \© a !! \ j !) !! ob (! ( ! |!ZIno § | | E ! ! © a |) )! .|! | ! | I � ,! ! . • )§�§)!§§/))§ \ k | | ! ! ; 16 _ / h)////I |{1 ----- - - -- . | - ! !- {).!\!/)( - !l•,,..,_:;;� ,!!16 6!!|| : {9GZQgly - /}) ! [ !f| )§§!§§!!§ t! !!)!}\\$! . } _ � - !!! \ §� ! !!•!!!!!!! � ! !!}!!!!!}!&&i GG ; ! [ || ` !| ;!{ i | !��! ! , .. • ! `/{i ! • . . !! !, . , !! \ 3as! g !! !,! . ! ' •,�;, ! , ! � ! I!!!. },!!!!!! � ] \ !{) )§§)§§§f) Ea E - , - 16 16 ! !\q �/qU0 / | | .,...,.. .... § \{) \ !!§ /)) ! g; ! !!'at'a ! k \\\ ! ; . ------------. ! ! , , !| ; , ; !) ; , ; !I =z _ ` ! |! !| | ! ! !t\i [ !i| | ! � !!!!!!!f=!!!! - ! ; .,,......... j [ {/) | } \ § § {{//zzzzz | | !!)!|!!§})t | } \ § ;| ! : : \ \!! \ r z \a! g !! ;| �` \}� ! §; ! , , ! ■ ., �r , of !) | !„ | - �ti!! - { )))))/)/f})\ -{i \$\))\)|})($ k; )! _ __ _ 'N � ` )§!!$/)\ -El { • ! | - "d 1616 -6 _ \ \\\ \\ � ! !|!)) ! ! ! ! _!!! !! • | \� ||| ! §! : !•!,: , !!! | ! | !. ,§g)!, �!•!!- ! ' . JU | !�! )�/) f } - �,/! ! ;§ m- ! !| ! 5 -6 16 ! //f! �-- ( / § !!§|||1 5. `! `��!!«!4!§ !� $■ , !! } } |9 | ! \ � )\\\\!///{\/{ | ! .,,..... .... ( / § ! Yon! 2121 1 § , .. ! ! . „ ! ! ! . Q !| :: | ! it ; ` ! ■!! ! llama ! 2121 ! . - |,|I!!! ! . . , ,HIM ! ;2111!!!!! | | ! 2121!! •' ! !� l!| !{! , ! _ \/!\!!!ti! ! t!!!!!!I _ _lo { ! i\!\{/\/\{{/\ \ jo i;i }\i \ ! !! !!)$ƒ)|1})z)\ _ _ ! ! I/f{$fi/\\/\ : !| , �! };||!!! { ;!!l•,r44 !) , ! , 1,,!. ! | !!| ! ! } i f � � ! - . .!/dlRHgf !!!!!!!a!6.6 _ | _ � ■|�/�/q�q : LL ! .,.......,;:_ ( § | ! uc !f| ) ! ! { |{ !§ ) |)&&y } !! | X - | § | ! , , | , _ � ! {j ! | • | �§)©� !�`!|! • � , !!| ) §! (! } \ � =7&7=& !' |' ! \ _la | !'d 16 16 !!j\!/ - /I!i££I£ : ! ! ; - ,�!„I _ !!! zi § {I • ; , !! a ! , ! } . },H -H ! |! ! | § )§!)! !|| } k § § - . 0E ! g! - !!!IdI 'd 'd \\ \ / \\\ \ � \ \ {J3: !! f| ! 1 2 )|/ / \ : • i-{ƒ!!! �!�)\ 'd 16 \ \ all, �� ! �• - ! !""�_ ! ! .: !| I) !p}§t! • ! \ e|• |J£R19|}g4/!J§)!!|� ! ! -»)i) \):3:A \ G p! IM Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study City of Seal Beach Appendix III Current Salary Schedule O O__^^^^__--^^^^_'-m'_°--mmm°RR&rpRRRrNN�FNNRRmm$� Ny O�m s�gBN$mrm8 YummA^R$C^m,°��R.$�am: ��a.�e� N O uiN NromN��mm°'°'R Nn&RRRRHNNNFANNNR�,B .��mx$:a„�„�m�� m rvrvNNmmmY4NNNNNN.�mmm _waa„np�RRnM«RF�RNNm �a�ommwq8x.9s �c��<�R a a �a.e88nm:Va$.ti Nmm--mmwwNN&FRRN«ANNNPFNN mmm ..^^__-_-^-^^__RR&LppRNryNNN�A ''na��om$`�,8�m36m8S$A<m-NqR ^e S�BN°'NBm�l�enB�NNe�R�S''° m��:mAW s5,N��m7 N - - - -- . .... .... ... .. __��^^^ _�_^ __------NNNrrHr««H�N Y RSNmR�C,,.$�$$R$ SR8G�8Fgq6m$�m��',^�m'8 Inn In 2$Ogc$^^OP��RmNmO�O�Nb�On $n0m6�0�0�n NN�ffi�IV ON Ci 8 m N$Ppp.;,'nR8$n�g�gy$y$ggSe53'B,T,,F,�_$yy�q^oq4o`Y,a $8,'a°, kY%8$aa-a �'8,8�$A$yoyyym � idSm ---------N�$`�Cim n RBm8allA8 F,NNmS2h$4mm$o$S�2�m�t$S$N�o:w4 88 mmmem: ooSIoSC$nr ^�5��4m$R��RR8Nm�$�S�mB.-��qR4 N'�r�8�$2ARRS$88S mnn 1011 W mma S ---------------------- --mm8 'MOP �- — NNNN NN rvry mmmmm mmaaaa P aNNNNNNN N^�^^^ ryNNNNry ryrvryryNm m m m mm Opvp4pPONNN i�^.- ^^N rvnNNNNry rvNNm ^ mmmmmm a avaNNN eS 3-3-------- . .. N NN.�i rvP_a'uS N n'e_ mFinn ^rvNNN nN m m OOO P N^ Wry$__cN_ m$FREm N NN rvryNNry mmmm N OPPP N^ m�rNO $ = $�R§m R a 9 siaV?em$F 8 R F 8 �FIRNnNNNNANNRR��,m$X$$;Ca$�Se:S:B xi m§ ^aSeN'�$59�88$8$;$� AN RRg g g, NN4,�`, N NSQ^. N' 888N�i8 gN Q q�g: !�"$NRR;�gg„Qq�,$A$Nm$$yR��e Qq'.<SryS pP;$j$gm ggN ARnNRNNNNNNNRNNNNmmmB$RN$mmNmSOJS�I<PO:�$$N93N $8m8 =e&mrw:r8��«'86m�8S�8mR^3$$:A� =,%NN&NRNNR�NNNNANNRBm$$AN$mRN8S:S87S ^4 S$O nB$8$C, 318 __RR&�NRrnNNNNNFr�R,$�nm'm $4m�mM�MS::Y:::::h$h�A� rm _n^•"'°^�^^^^^�««nnnrvrvNNC.NnmmmBA$RmNR'S:SBY18: inrc O Fi � aa�sa ma.�gs�$s�as��cs�aa.a$ ��a��meamem��m�saaaa$�$m$aooA .Nn«PtlPWr�FR8S�3888nxm�8m�,�r8 a3�g$m�:�e: hl^.$�8&R8^d eR6m�m$:8R��8F3:8�88m�8ma8mR3: S'm$mmA::S�m�8 H m 8S r8mm��"1.�"�.mmm:8;��A88«�88aXmS$�.-a�8�d:86i88m •,��;m�mxm�;��ea<aan<::��aa��m�aam��:m�$�a�$�,w$ �aM�°W'$m$a8��8S88�'&6W88�3 ��m� „ffi88A88�m�m8��8pF�888,6 m�,mP„mmmmmmmmmmmd.d.ddd..NNNNNNNNmmtlmtlmnnnnnmmmmm 78aA88�^.eaS88.BR�mFi�100 .8.Rm8$S88m88`d',88$S,88N"�, ^:mm�mmmml�.-�mm --NIP` 8b 6 m C q b ��Ol Oi si s^1$N O�m!mjm NY.IN�. . . t9i_pOp mm�mu�P00nyNyyynoo �nNngm. ga pO yNP.bO .YgWgl, gNg m, y„c'N_m�``rVFd`'PVmBa I ommvvvN IIMNb mm..........mmm. 6 b m$MN`,&`,T,B$9„'.,$8m88�8;n`�Y.'S,s°,%epi,om.�i3OnOm<dmD,$,nHB,aaS,n8R8F, ............ N�NN�a `ns.¢�¢gP@ippra�$ggmm,<ts!yy.aig:g��p�p,:cm$_a''v�mv�IR.d88�gR'd.m�'g$gnrisin!ry!99oax.$mmmea�s. 3 $ rv7i �i 3'vi 'JSd'�e6 fia�N me enafi$ vN"vv'an4ma omm�'m��$�$ mN n 'n e N dNNN$Nin N.NWnB Nm am... ga�'$08-P1,Si - - - - -iK'i��t91.0PN ic�"��i tai nn mmmnnnll........ --�RGmR �NNm m!m�mmm ^" '^' imsiCWmwamm��ry CmnnnnnmmmmmPOP b !� b $s$�$�m88cmmaa��BF$a�s8 �6s: VO ��NNNNmmmmmmmn nlFn�tlmmOmWPP «m �ffi mo^m in I?IE a99RE9IFWE. 9x19 AI IIF9 gNNNNNNtlmtlmtlmmnnl�nn00000mmW ” " '^ " " 'Ntlm -------------------- 'mm$$m�$mgmmrS'F��s:8mm�$r nnn�m8�m8mawwo86S��m&AAR^m<SS��3m��R�mB��„'1n�� mddm8mam$88SB��m��F �-:_ 5 -Imm��S��d$tir rme $ an mg $tl$all S 8 8 S �m p R9�� Cy$jN$b��nnnnnmg IINNNm8e$m-8m$-r H N_mll eaa-aa-ms�$aaa$$o P ymV�$$PaW�is�o��m$N ASBm-m�RgB$ao�u"'iN$1-O�aSP: ^.,nSam „meme�� B�m$mm«� n�nmam�$sam$sSOo"�m�-r�a�------ �a�x cmm ?fix m9s9Sf9Sig� m� ma 8:;d m -- O N 9XS4N$YPi ^m 0nn$am yn$`r�ro"^m%�nnnn�'m'�"�B$O"�ia^m$o$O��mNNN�i Cniv 'aa aga�aaaaa�aaasaaaaxmasa��:��emmmmammmmm$aaaaa Fi a r� �� A. m N I� d_p N p � N C O yy � N 'u °n 0 6 a IM Final Report - Volume II Total Compensation Study City of Seal Beach Appendix IV Proposed Salary Range Placement z U � o o o o �r e c c q N H C g= f - ^� E E E E & b d m c ��" ^ m �L' u m E E m E m E E 12 pp V n E FE E a E= E_ C C E t C C E C E^ f 'e E Yi E F 9^ m :'c- z oexF a 0 a a& o ttic � ^ N o a w 'R m m ^ a^ a w a < u a X a m uXi uxi z¢ z z "Su E p T qq T N F maa��apaaaa m�^ a 6y�y s z z z «9 z z az N z z z N C Ec X a ryf a a a a a a a e uxi a r a u a a \ a E n f = 4 M z i i i �X,� v i z ui w 3 n �¢ z of = z z z X w - y� V 2-P 2? 21 c n a a aa S a o e w a 3 a z ¢ z Q i z i z z z .�. i z f El o- n x fl x x v 4 cEE m 'F u ° m m s �° 8 a A A Q a c � C X c 9 n o �9 Q Q °xa0 G `o Q A 4; oet EEE ^Ex ESExu° EfP C Ei'a' �f @C E3E3 ECC o E ° y— Ey E.a c v =L t' ii i f 7�-iE=EPEE F 5�°r �vvi ism F i �wi 5'aa =W i i 3 i e i i i i S Y ry c y y o E W F E! N N N n N N N y�j c� Oq q i i i� w a X N sme ti $ V N a N a a a z z z z z z � `o a�- E N V `n cx f m E 12 u MW `°' yq s E e" m m c c c E X c cii3 i E� f i f �73�i 3 0 3 _ 0 e = a@ x. E - e e o 4 a a a s cc c n c'„„� c c n E E q m E E m" m E m E m m E E @ m E Et E e C E g E^ E E A E a E E 'c E n E E r n EFL' C C �" C s d `u E H y 2 2 n m Z z q z 2 z 2 v o E ai ^ � o ,"n a Ci a po aj ym mm N E ¢ a a a a s ¢ a y` m a a z r i i i z z ,Q F A m z g Yy{ a o'x ye i z i z i z i z z i z m L, �= eega e N V aa$ a v e� saw s g a za z a i 2 Y FF o f ) }j I ; ! }\ k k ( ! !_� | _ E2�!!� | !!;||_ | l,,t0 0 _ § . _!!!,}��!! . \} E \ \ \ \\ :! § IE }{! } ƒ } )f 2 ) �\ a2a.a� ®z !|!!! , .! ) }) :�f !|�z■!�« kE\)}\)08\\\) l,... ! $ z I , _ _ |/ \ 0 ° :/ Is f ) }j }\ \} E \ \ \ \\ :! § IE �\ , ) }) kE\)}\)08\\\) f )