council budget staff report

CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY

451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304

P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM

TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651

LUKE GARROTT | DISTRICT 4 | COUNCIL CHAIR || JAMES ROGERS | DISTRICT 1 | COUNCIL VICE CHAIR || KYLE LAMALFA | DISTRICT 2 ||

STAN PENFOLD | DISTRICT 3 || ERIN MENDENHALL | DISTRICT 5 || CHARLIE LUKE | DISTRICT 6 | || LISA ADAMS | DISTRICT 7

COUNCIL BUDGET

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY

www.slccouncil.com/city-budget

TO: City Council Members

FROM: Jennifer Bruno

Deputy Director

DATE: May 21, 2015 at 3:53 PM

RE: Fiscal Year 2015-16 Department of Human Resources

VIEW MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET HERE

ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Department of Human Resources (HR) is funded by both the General Fund and Insurance and Risk Management Fund (which collects and distributes employee premiums and benefits). It consists of 22.56 General Fund FTEs, and 3.44 Risk Fund FTEs. The Department provides numerous services for all City employees. HR Department programs include: Compensation and Employment Recruiting; Benefits and Wellness Management; Insurance and Risk Management; Training and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Regulatory Compliance; Departmental Payroll and Administrators; Departmental Consultants and Administrative Support; Citizen Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) Administration and the Civilian Review Board Administration.

Note: Additional details regarding the City’s Health Insurance and Compensation can be found in separate staff reports, Insurance and Risk Management Fund and Employee Compensation.

The proposed Human Resources budget includes:

The Human Resources general fund department budget is proposed to be $2,243,307, a .1% decrease

($19,615). When including employee benefits, which are funded by the Insurance and Risk

Management Fund, the department budget is proposed to be $39.1 million, an 5.1% decrease ($2.1

million). The majority of the decrease is due to savings in the benefits program for employees. That will

be discussed further in the insurance and risk management portion of the budget.

The only changes to the general fund department budget are the standard pay, pension and benefit

increases (total is a net savings of $19,615).

For the Council’s information the following link is to the CCAC Annual Report, which was discussed

with the Council at the March 24, 2015 work session.

Project Timeline: Briefing: May 26, 2014 Budget Hearings: May 19, June 2 Potential Action: June 9 OR 16

http://www.slccouncil.com/city-budget/

http://slcdocs.com/council/agendas/2015agendas/MayorsRecommendedFY2015_2016.pdf

Page | 2

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Administration provides numerous training and development opportunities to City employees throughout

the year. Below is a report from Human Resources, highlighting some of these opportunities and reporting on

employee participation by Department (reporting period July 2014-May 2015).

Training Program Departments # of Employee Participated Orientation FMLA/EEO/Harassment

Prevention Open Government

Transparency Policy Detection & Prevention of

Fraud, Waste & Abuse Emergency Preparedness

New Hires from all departments

285 Total: 285

From Buddy to Boss Airports 20 Total: 20

Harassment Prevention

Purchasing Treasurer’s Office Public Services 911 Bureau HR

9 4 219 11 23 Total: 266

Customer/Public Services

Purchasing Treasurer’s Office Police – Records Building Permits

9 4 5 15 Total: 33

Valuing Diversity

Police Fire Public Utilities 911 Bureau

38 309 265 10 Total: 622

Handling Difficult Conversations

911 Bureau Public Services

10 92 Total: 102

Rewards & Recognition IMS 13 Total: 10

Grand Total: 1338

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 – Summary of Budget Changes

Attachment 2 – Base Purpose Statements for Human Resources (not updated for FY 2016)

Attachment 3 – CCAC Annual Report

Page | 3

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF BUDGET CHANGES

FTE's Adopted Proposed FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

Administrative Support - includes Information Systems, Compensation, and Human Resources Administration

11.26 1,257,463 1,261,585 4,122 0.33%

Department Consultants - support personnel needs of City departments.

9 752,615 728,626 (23,989) -3.19%

Benefits - Program and Administration

3.74 38,938,695 36,854,819 (2,083,876) -5.35%

Training - Employee Training and Development

1 94,108 99,052 4,944 5.25%

Civilian Review Board - provides investigative services and support. (Note: Listed Seperately from Administrative Support.)

1 158,736 154,044 (4,692) -2.96%

Total - Department of Human Resources

26 41,201,617 39,098,126 (2,103,491) -5.11%

Department of Human Resources

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE BUDGETS

Division Difference Percent Change

tp6394

Typewritten Text

Back to Staff Report

Page | 4

ATTACHMENT 2

BASE PURPOSE STATEMENTS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES (FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR)

PLANNING PERIOD: FY 2012-13 THROUGH FY 2017-18FISCAL YEAR 2013-14

BASEPURPOSESTATEMENTSFiscal Year 2013-14

Human Resources FY 2014 Base Purpose Statement Reconciliation

Department Program Cost Center FundFY 14 Adopted

BudgetFTEs

Human Resources #1 Human Resources HR Consultants

0100036, 1600070 1600091,

General Fund $1,960,071 21.26

8700871, 8710870 8710871, 8720870 8740001, 8740010 8740020, 8740030 8740060, 8740080 8740120, 8740150 8740510, 8740540 8740590, 8750870 8787870, 8787871 8787874, 8787875

Risk Mgt Fund: $36,569,428 3.74

Human Resources #2 Civilian Review Board 1600039 General Fund $146,112 1.00

Total Base Purpose Statements $38,675,611 26.00Total General Fund Adopted Budget $2,106,183 22.26

Total Insurance & Risk Mgmt. Internal Svc. Fund Budget $36,569,428 3.74Total Adopted Budget $38,675,611 26.00

Difference $0 -

tp6394

Typewritten Text




Human Resources #1

FUND: General Fund: 3%

Risk: 97%

COST CENTER NUMBERS:

0100036, 16000701600091, 87008718710870, 87108718720870, 87400018740010, 87400208740030, 87400608740080, 87401208740150, 87405108740540, 87405908750870, 87878708787871, 87878748787875

DEPARTMENT: Human Resources FTE / GF:FTE/ Risk:

21.263.74

DIVISION: Human Resource BUDGET / GF:RISK: $1,960,071

$36,569,428COST CENTER / PROGRAM:

Human ResourcesHR Consultants

G.F. GENERATED REVENUE

$0

AUTHORITY: Title II Administration and Personnel Ordinance, Chapter 2.08.025 provides for programs related to the personnel of Salt Lake City.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The Human Resources Department supports the mission and goals of Salt Lake City by providing strategic partnership, innovation and leadership concerning the most crucial element of City government – its people. Human Resources positively address the quality of life for all City employees through strategic collaboration that assures efficient and effective management of Salt Lake City’s work force.

BASE PURPOSE STATEMENTS

The Human Resources Department is responsible for directing the functions of employee relations; organizational development; employee recruitment and selection; performance management; job analysis, classification and compensation; employee benefits and leave; disciplinary actions and the administration of support staff collective bargaining contracts. The department ensures compliance with all Federal, State, and local laws pertaining to employment. HR creates and delivers staff development programs for employees by working collaboratively with City Administration and Departments.

SIX YEAR BUSINESS PLAN GOALS

Customer Service MeasuresCumulative Targets

2010-11Actual

2011-12Actual

2012-13Actual

2013-14Target

2014-15Target

2015-16Target

RECRUITMENT: Total # of job recruitments

requisitions opened

Track total count of

requisitions closed.

n/a

212 positions posted with 11007 applicants

342 positions posted with

16,748 applicants

TBD TBD TBD



Human Resources #1

EEO COMPLIANCE: Total # of EEO

complaints received.

Track number of EEO

complaints received annually.

24 complaints received;

100% resolved

28 complaints received;

100% resolved

40 complaints resolved

TBD TBD TBD

ADA Accommodations

Track total count of ADA Accommodati

on requests reviewed

21 Accommo

dation requests reviewed

6Accommod

ation requests reviewed

23 Accommodati

on requests reviewed

TBD TBD TBD

EEO TRAINING

100% of employees

receive EEO Training

Three Depts.

Completed

11 sessions for

seasonal employees

Provided in New

Employee Orientation

Three

Depts

complete

Three Depts

complete

Three Depts

complete

FMLA COMPLIANCE

Track total # of approved FMLA leave

requests

n/a504 FMLA

requests519 requests

receivedTBD TBD TBD

EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION

Implement one new

communication method each year

100%Communication HR

will receive

employee feedback through

the development of focus

groups and online

surveys, daily

meetings, bulletin boards,

etc.

Compensation &

Benefits (Total

Compensation)

Notification Letter

issued to all employeesJuly 2011. Also, HR

sponsored employee

focus group was formed

to review and

provide recommen

dations regarding

City’s Tuition

Reimbursement policy

and procedure.

HR sponsored employee

focus group was formed to

review and provide

recommendations regardingcity policies.

TBD TBD TBD



Human Resources #1

Enhance employee knowledge regarding benefits by providing

quarterly Citywide meetings

Number of employees in attendance

Open Enrollmen

t and HDHP/H

SA

100% Citywide

Open Enrollment

and quarterly

HDHP/HSA

100% Citywide

Open Enrollment

and quarterly HDHP/HSA

100% 100% 100%

Financial Health MeasuresCumulative Targets

2010-11Actual

2011-12Actual

2012-13Actual

2013-14Target

2014-15Target

2015-16Target

Department actual expenditures to be

equal to or less than expenditure budget

totals; evaluated quarterly

Quarterly report shows expenditure at < to 100%

79.7% 91% 93.99% < 100% < 100% < 100%

The Employee Benefits Committee

reviews& recommends cost-

sharing, cost efficient measures pertaining to employee health

plan(s).

Value of cost savings to the

City and employee

Implementation of

HDHP and HSA resulted

a48%

enrollment into

the HDHP

City made a

front end contribut

ion of $750 for

single coverage

and $1500 for

double and

family.

Additional 18%, equaling

66% total resulting in a reduction of

MLR (Medical Loss Ratio) to

46% in the HDHP

Additional 14%,

equaling 80% total

enrollment in the HDHP

resulting in a 5%

premium reduction.

Opened Employee

Health Clinic

TBD TBDTBD



Human Resources #1

Efficiency/Effectiveness

Measures

Cumulative Targets2010-11Actual

2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14

Target

2014-15Target

2015-16Target

Review and updateHR Policies and

Procedures annually.

Track total # of policies

reviewed each year.

Reviewed/

updated three

policies including

: Compens

ation, Drug & Alcohol

and Compens

ation Guideline

s

Reviewed 3 policies

Reviewed 1 policy

Review 3-5polici

es

Review 3-5

policies

Review 3-5

policies

Transfer employees from a manual

insurance enrollment to a web

based on line enrollment through

PEHP

Report number of on line new hire enrollments,

mid-year changes and

Open Enrollment

changes

142 employee

s made their

change through

the PEHP

website on line

enrollment

100% made open

enrollment changes and enrolled as a

new hire

100% Open Enrollment,

new hire enrollment

and midyear changes.

100% Open Enrollmen

t , new hire

enrollment and midyear

changes

100% Open

Enrollment , new

hire enrollme

nt and midyear changes

100% Open Enrollment ,

new hire

enrollment and

midyear

changes

Monitor citywide turnover.

Report turnover at least once annually. Goal to

maintain turnover at

<10%.

5.79% 6.37% 5.77% <10% <10% <10%

Maintain average pay levels for each

salary benchmark to at least 95% of

market for 100% of all salary

benchmarks.

Report the number of

salary benchmarks which are 5% or more below market & the

Five salary

benchmarks were

identified as

significan

Six salary benchmarks

were identified as lagging

slightly behind market (>5 or more). FY12-

FY13-14budget

included appropriation

for salary adjustments

for employees

TBD TBD TBD



Human Resources #1

number and degree of

benchmarks adjusted

tly below market (>10%

market); seven salary

benchmarks were

identified as 5-10%

below market.

FY12 budget

included appropriation for

salary adjustme

nts for those most

significantly below market.

13 budget included

appropriation for salary

adjustments for employees

in jobs associated with all six benchmark

groups.

in jobs associated

with benchmarks

lagging slightly behind

market.

FMLA Compliance 100% compliance

New tracking system

launched and

implement August

2011.

Track, audit & report on

FMLA utilization citywide.

Track, audit & report on

FMLA utilization citywide.

100% 100% 100%



Human Resources #1

Workforce Quality

MeasuresCumulative Targets

2010-11Actual

2011-12Actual

2012-13Actual

2013-14Target

2014-15Target

2015-16Target

Supervisor Training

100% of supervisors

receive Supervisor Training by

end of FY2013 (cumulatively

)

120 participa

nts complete

dtraining.

Fire has 20 employees

who completed Leadership Training.

70 Employees

have completed abbreviate Leadership Training. There are

currently 50 employees from other

depts. attending

the sessions.

30supervisors completed the series.

68 employees attended

part of the series.

Approx. 56potential

supervisors in Fire Dept. completed

abbreviatedsession.

TBD TBD TBD

Increase diversity of the City’s workforce by ensuring that the City’s job applicant

pool matches or exceeds Wasatch Front workforce

(WFW) statistics.

Applicant Pool

demographics will match or

exceed the available

WFW statistics for

at least 75% of all job

recruitments.

Began quarterly tracking

& reporting

to compare

race & gender

statistics associate

d with the actual number

of job applicant

scompare

d to available

WFW.

Quarterly tracking & reporting

statistics by gender & ethnicity

Applicant Pool

statistics –Caucasian,

71.7%, African

America, 2.3%;

Hispanic Latino, 12.8%; Asian/Pacific

Islander, 4.4%;

American Alaskan Indian, 4.2%;

Unknown,4.6%

Report averag

eannual statistics by

gender &

ethnicity.

Report averag

eannual statistics by

gender &

ethnicity.

Report average annual

statistics by gender & ethnicity.

Enhance department’s ability

Average # of business days

n/aAverage of 3

business Average of

1.5 business < 10 < 10 < 10



Human Resources #1

to effectively obtain the human resources

necessary to meet business needs.

required to provide

departments with a hiring

list of qualified job candidates.

Measured by the # of days

after the recruitment closing date.

days after recruitment

closed.

days after recruitment

closed.

Provide training to employees on

valuing diversity

Provided training to

554 employees

TBD TBD YBD



Human Resources #2

FUND: General Fund 100% COST CENTER NUMBERS: 16-00039

DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services

FTE / 1.00

DIVISION: Civilian Review Board

BUDGET /$146,112

COST CENTER / PROGRAM:

Civilian Review Board

REVENUE $0

AUTHORITY: (ordinance, state statute, federal regulation, basic municipal function, etc)

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:

To provide the investigative and administrative support to the appointed citizen Police Civilian Review Board.

BASE PURPOSE STATEMENTS

To audit and review all cases in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force and such other cases as the Board in its discretion may request. Such audits and review are intended to foster trust between the community and law enforcement personnel and to assure fair treatment of police officers.

To present findings to the appointed Police Civilian Review Board who, through a panel of members make final case determination which is then passed on to the Police Chief who has final decision of case.

To benchmark with existing national standards and work processes from other entities in the Country that have similar boards.

BASE PURPOSE REVENUE

N/A

SIX YEAR BUSINESS PLAN GOALS

Efficiency/Effectiveness MeasuresCumulative Targets

2010-11 Actuals

2011-12 Actuals

2012-13 Actuals

2013-14

Target

2014-15

Target

2015-16

TargetProvide maximum customer service in the course of the investigative process.

Program/Cost Center staff will be trained in customer service skills once every three years.

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

DEBRA ALEXANDER RALPH ECKER

DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF" HUMAN RESOURCE 03/\1383tt M OR

CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL SCANNED TO: ftftljt SCANNED BY~/Ja/&l, DATE: ~-/d-/5

Date Received: ;:Jt'l/Wt;. Date sent to Council: ~ J /J f Ute;

TO: Salt Lake City Council

Luke Garrott, Chair ~·

FROM: Debra Alexander, Director Human Resources Department

DATE: March 10, 2015

SUBJECT: 2015 Citizens' Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) Annual Report

STAFF CONTACT: Debra Alexander, HR Director (801) 535-6604

David Salazar, HR Compensation Program Manager (801) 535-7906

COUNCIL SPONSOR: Exempt

DOCUMENT TYPE: Annual Report

RECOMMENDATION: This report is for informational purposes. Consideration should be given during the City's annual budget review process, as it relates to employee compensation. The City Council will receive a formal presentation of the annual report by the Committee's Chair, Ms. Connie Spyropoulos-Linardakis, during a Council work session; presentation date tentatively scheduled on March 24, 2015

BUDGET IMP ACT: n/a

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This report includes information and recommendations pertaining to the total compensation for the city's elected officials and employees, as required by city ordinance (City Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.35- Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC)

451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 115, SAL.T L.AKE CITY,· UTAH 84114·5464

MAIL.ING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 145464, SAL.T L.AKE CITY, UTAH 84114·5464

TELEPHONE: BO 1·535·79DO F"AX: BO 1·535·6614

tp6394

Typewritten Text


The following recommendations and information are highlighted in this year's report-

• As funds permit, the Committee strongly recommends appropriations for market salary adjustments for employees in eight salary benchmarks shown to lag market-including first priority for benchmarks specified as significantly below market; and, second priority for benchmarks specified as slightly below market;

• Consideration of a 3.0% total salary budget to be allocated merit-based pay increases that accelerate employees' pay through their respective salary ranges.

• The Committee strongly recommends limiting pay increases for those employees whose pay rates are equal to or above established City market rates and holding the maximum pay rates at a zero increase, including those classified in 17 salary benchmarks (and their related jobs) cited in the report as being paid significantly above market;

• A recommendation to consider other pay alternatives in lieu of cost-of-living adjustments, and instead reserve limited funding available to focus on providing actual pay and salary range adjustments necessary to allow the City to remain competitive with other employers;

• Special reports on pay for: Elected Officials, Department Directors & other key city leaders; also, Fire & Police;

• Commendation on the City's success containing health insurance premium and plan costs related to implementation and administration of a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) option, which now covers a reported 88% of City employees and their eligible dependents. To sustain success and interest in the plan, the Committee encourages the City to continue to provide front-loaded, employer contributions to employee health savings accounts.

• Review of the 2014 analysis, results & findings from a third-party employee benefits market study conducted by the Hay Group.

PUBLIC PROCESS: nla

2015

CITIZENS’

COMPENSATION

ADVISORY

COMMITTEE (CCAC) Salt Lake City Corporation

ANNUAL REPORT

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

1

Executive Summary The Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) was formed with the purpose of “…evaluating the total compensation levels of the city's elected officials, executives and employees and making recommendations to the human resources department, mayor and the city council…” (City Code Title 2, Chapter 2.35.060). Each year the Committee is responsible for preparing and submitting a written report to the Mayor and City Council containing, among other things, recommendations of the “appropriate competitive position for the city relative to the compensation practices of comparable employers”, “wages and benefits of the city’s elected officials, executives and employees” and “general recommendations regarding the mix of compensation for the city’s employees, e.g., base salary, benefits, incentives” (City Code Title 2, Chapter 2.35.060.A.6) Based upon a review of current economic trends, market data and other significant considerations, the Committee now recommends the Mayor and City Council consider the following when deciding appropriate measures to be taken regarding the City’s total compensation plan:

1. As a standard, the Committee feels confident the best possible outcomes can be achieved if the City continuously strives to maintain an actual average pay position of no less than 95% compared to the pay levels of other employers with whom the City most directly competes.

2. Based upon current market comparisons of actual average pay, the Committee is confident with regard to the City’s overall pay position relative to market. For the majority of salary benchmarks surveyed Salt Lake City Corporation’s actual average base pay rates are appropriately compared to and generally match or exceed the local market. Over the past year improvement has been made in the position to market for some benchmarks, demonstrated by the reduction of jobs lagging the market from the year prior. Among the 58 salary benchmarks surveyed, actual average pay for 17 (or 29%) of the City’s benchmarks significantly lead the market by more than 10% -- compared to 20 benchmarks in this same category last year (see page 9). HOWEVER, current market data also indicates a total of eight salary benchmarks which lag the market, including four benchmarks that lag significantly, which is more than ten percent below market; and, four benchmarks that lag slightly, which is between 5-10% less than market average (see page 10). In addition, as noted with more detail in this report, the Committee also reviewed two benchmarks considered to be anomalies due to extreme differences in

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

2

survey results. These include the General Maintenance Worker IV and Paralegal benchmarks. Although both lead in comparison to other local government employers, the average actual pay rates of City job incumbents appear to simultaneously significantly lag when compared to their counterparts in the private sector. The Committee strongly encourages City officials to assess what, if any, potential attraction and/or retention issues this unique situation causes and make adjustments, as needed. As funds permit and following similar approaches by the City, the Committee strongly recommends the Mayor and City Council appropriate financial resources necessary to grant special market salary adjustments for employees in benchmark jobs identified in this report as lagging behind market. First priority should be given to those lagging significantly; second priority should be given to those lagging slightly behind market. The Committee recommends implementing market pay adjustments incrementally for incumbents in job benchmark groups designated as lagging market significantly.

3. In consideration of the salary budget forecast available at the time of this report, the Committee advises the City consider a total 3.0% salary budget to be allocated for merit-based pay increases. This recommendation is intended to ensure and maintain the City’s current market competitiveness, especially as it pertains to attracting and retaining high level performers and critical talent. The Committee asserts that effective implementation of budgeted salary increases should be influenced by the following considerations: a) When granting individual wage & salary increases, the Committee

strongly recommends the Administration consider the best practice of granting pay increases that accelerate employees pay through the first and second quartiles of their respective salary ranges, up to and including the City’s established control point or City market rate;

b) For those employees whose pay rates are equal to or above established

City market rates, pay increases, if any, should be limited to smaller increments (not to exceed range maximum); and,

c) For those employees whose pay is at (or above) maximum rates, the

Committee recommends a zero increase; instead, the Committee suggests consideration of lump sum awards such as a longevity bonus or other award in lieu of a base wage or salary increase.

d) Finally, except for the Police Officer and Firefighter benchmarks, potential

concerns arise when comparing the City’s actual average pay for the those benchmarks shown to significantly lead the market. Where market salary data indicate the City’s actual average pay significantly

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

3

leads the average pay offered by other employers, the Committee cautions and advises the City to reconsider its policies and any pay decisions which may compound this issue, especially when considering the value of benefits offered to City employees is at the 75% percentile as compared to other Utah employers. In these cases, the Committee strongly recommends holding the maximum pay rates of these benchmarks (and related) jobs at a zero increase until which time City market rates more closely align with other employers.

e) Considering Salt Lake City’s increasing status as one among the largest

and most relevant cities in the Mountain region, the Committee recommends City leaders also contemplate regional wage data when considering public safety pay decisions (i.e. Fire & Police). As an additional source, this information provides city officials with another perspective of current pay rates for sworn personnel, which the Committee believes should be considered along with local market data.

4. Again, the Committee strongly recommends the City consider pay alternatives

to cost-of-living adjustments (COLA), and, instead, reserve limited funding available to focus on providing actual pay & salary range adjustments necessary to allow the City to remain competitive with other employers; especially in cases where current data indicates a significant lag in actual employee pay and/or established job salary ranges.

5. Across all industries pay for performance continues to be a recognized standard and criterion for setting employee pay. Although no citywide plan or program presently exists, the Committee wishes to continue to encourage efforts to identify and implement the best practices found among other public employers.

6. For the majority of City department directors and other key city leaders, a comparative analysis with similar U.S. cities indicates that current salaries are competitive. The Committee advises the Administration to consider action, if any, for Directors where data indicates that annual salaries lag by more than ten percent. Consideration of pay increases for all others should include the same general salary increase, if any, given to all other employees.

7. The Committee finds the present salaries for the Mayor and City Council to be appropriate when compared to the salaries of elected officials in similar U.S. cities. Therefore, the only salary adjustment recommended for these officials would be the same general salary increase, if any, given to all other employees.

8. The Committee commends the City for its success containing health insurance premium and related plan costs by continuing to offer a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) option, which now covers a reported 88% of City employees and their eligible dependents. This total reflects an annual increase of 8% compared

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

4

to the number enrolled last year. To sustain and promote employee interest in this type of plan, the Committee encourages City officials to continue to provide front-loaded employer contributions to qualified health savings accounts (HSA’s) for employees enrolled in the high-deductible plans.

9. Except for those noted as lagging market, the Committee finds the City’s overall mix of wages, salaries and employer-provided benefits (known as total rewards or total compensation) to be competitive to highly competitive when compared to other local employers.

10. Furthermore, continuing to rely upon the 2014 findings and results of the City benefits market analysis conducted by the Hay Group, the Committee recommends that leaders strive to maintain a full range of benefits that is around the 75th percentile when compared in aggregate to the Utah market. Maintaining this position not only enhances total compensation for employees, but strengthens the City’s overall competitive advantage.

We are hopeful that these recommendations and the detailed information contained within this report are both helpful and beneficial to the City, its leaders, and administration during the important decision-making process ahead. Respectfully,

Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee Connie Spyropoulos-Linardakis, Chair Kerma Jones John Mathews Cori Petersen Dale Cox Frances Hume Jennifer Seelig

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

5

Introduction In conjunction with its role as a local government employer, Salt Lake City Corporation is responsible for maintaining a workforce capable of providing for the public safety and well-being of its residents, visitors and business community at large. Success in fulfilling this part of the City’s mission depends in large part upon elected officials’ and public administrators’ ability to make informed and fiscally-responsible decisions with regard to the total rewards offered in the form of compensation and benefits to City employees. This report is intended to aid City officials when determining appropriate compensation and benefit levels, including the pay practices necessary to effectively attract, motivate and retain the human resources required to carry out the City’s mission-critical goals and objectives. This Committee believes the primary mix of indicators upon which the City should rely when making these key decisions include: current economic indicators, pay trends and comparative market data analysis, as conveyed and included in the recommendations of this report. Specific sections in this report include the following:

1) City compensation philosophy 2) 2015 economic outlook, including salary budget projections 3) Market wage & salary analysis 4) Special Reports including: Fire & Police; Elected Officials, Department Directors &

Other Key City Leaders; and Employee Benefits Value 5) Appendices (including a detailed comparative market data analysis by salary

benchmark) City Compensation Philosophy Whether public or private, every employer must find ways to effectively attract, motivate and retain the human resources necessary to carry out its mission-critical goals and objectives. The degree to which an employer succeeds in this endeavor is tied directly to their decision to match, lead or lag the comparative pay levels offered by competing employers. Whether informal or deliberate, pay decisions, practices and policies formulate the basis of any organization’s compensation philosophy. Unlike private employers, City leaders are under pressure to make pay decisions that support the tenuous balance between the competitive pay fairness that employees seek and the fiscal responsibility demanded by taxpayers. To this end, this Committee is confident that the best possible outcomes can be achieved if the City strives to maintain an actual average pay position of no less than 95% compared to the actual average pay offered by other employers with whom the City most directly competes. Furthermore, when qualified human resources are both abundant and readily available from within the

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

6

local area, the Committee affirms that comparing wages and benefits of other Utah employers is most often an adequate approach. Considering the City’s present success in attracting large applicant pools (drawn primarily from along the Wasatch Front), highly competitive wages (and benefits value) and low turnover—measured during FY 2014 at 7.3%-- there is good evidence to support and demonstrate that the City’s existing compensation strategy is working. The Committee acknowledges there may be specific situations or circumstances when the City’s needs, even as a public employer, call for higher than average wages in order to attract the right talent. Factors such as a larger magnitude, higher volumes, and unique challenges associated with delivering services to Utah’s capital city may call for Salt Lake City to promote itself as a local pay leader, such as with Police, Fire and other jobs that are exclusive to the public sector. Other considerations include situations when jobs require highly-specialized or scarce skills, training, education and/or experience. 2015 Economic Outlook

Just as predicted, Utah’s economy continued to grow and remain strong throughout 2014. As of January 23, 2015, local researchers and economists declared that Utah ended last year on a “labor market high note, posting the highest year-over job growth for all of 2014.” Chief Economist Carrie Mayne at the state’s Department of Workforce Services (DWS) reported, “For the first time since the Great Recession the number of unemployed Utahns dropped below the 50,000 level.” (Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Employment Summary – December 2014, issued January 23, 2015).

Compared to the rest of the nation, DWS reported Utah’s unemployment rate was 3.5 percent in December (compared to the national rate of 5.6%), while the state’s job growth rate for same period was 3.4 percent (markedly better than the national average of 2.0 percent). “The labor market was about the last thing to recover from the Great Recession, and in the last six months it has picked up steam,” said Bill Hampel, chief economist at the Credit Union National Association (Source: Salt Lake Tribune article, “U.S. Gains 257K Jobs, etc.” by Christopher Rugaber, published 2/6/2015). Other notable signs of an improved economy include: low inflation (which rose just 0.7 percent in 2014), steady ecomomic growth that has encouraged companies to keep hiring and boosts in consumer confidence and spending.

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

7

2014-15 SALARY BUDGET PROJECTIONS – Historically, this Committee has relied upon data obtained from the employer salary budget survey conducted by WorldatWork when formulating recommendations to City leaders about annual salary budget increases. WorldatWork is a nationally recognized not-for-profit organization focused on human resource issues, which conducts the most anticipated, most respected survey of its kind in the compensation industry. In addition to collecting data on actual salary budget increases allocated by the organizations surveyed, WorldatWork also obtains information about employers’ projected salary increases during the upcoming year (expressed as a total percent increase). In its 41st edition, WorldatWork released the findings from its 2014-15 Salary Budget Survey, which included more than 2,000 responses from a wide variety of employers from all industries in all 50 states. Approximately 60% of all the survey responses were received from organizations whose workforces total between 500 – 9,999 employees (Source: WorldatWork’s “2014-15 Executive Report & Analysis,” pp. 8 & 10). The following charts provide a summary of the projected and actual increases reported by type of increase and employee category. Chart 1 – Median Salary Budget Increases, by Type of Increase

Projected 2014 Actual 2014 Projected 2015

General Increase/COLA 2.0 % 1.3 % 2.0 %

Merit Increase 3.0 % 3.0 % 3.0 %

Other Increase 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 %

Total Increase 3.0 % 3.0 % 3.0 %

Note: “General Increase/COLA,” “Merit,” and “Other” do not add to the “Total Increase” because not every organization provides all three types of increase.

Chart 2 – Median Salary Budget Increases (zeros included), by Employee Category

Projected 2014 Actual 2014 Projected 2015

Nonexempt Hourly, Nonunion 3.0 % 3.0 % 3.0 %

Exempt Salaried 3.0 % 3.0 % 3.0 %

Officers/Executives 3.0 % 3.0 % 3.0 %

All 3.0 % 3.0 % 3.0 %

The Committee notes that no differences exist when comparing nationally-based figures to the totals forecasted for Utah employers and, specifically for other governmental entities. PAY FOR PERFORMANCE -- In addition to these projected salary budget increases, there is still good evidence of a differentiation of awards offered to employees through pay for performance. Year after year, regular studies conducted by WorldatWork show that rewards for top performers consistently receive higher than average merit pay

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

8

increases compared to those given to average performers. WorldatWork notes that if merit increase projections are accurate, differentiation between middle and high performers will expand to 152 percent. The Committee recognizes that no such pay for performance program exists citywide, but is utilized by a few City departments. We believe that such programs, if administered effectively, have the potential to enhance the City’s ability to not only motivate, but also retain top talent upon which the City relies. Market Wage & Salary Analysis As a matter of regular practice, the Committee considered comparative data (wages & salaries only) obtained from two Wasatch Front-based survey groups: 1) the 2014 Salt Lake Area Survey, conducted by the Western Management Group (WMG); and, 2) Wasatch Compensation Group’s (WCG) TechNet system. The Salt Lake Area Survey included 105 participants, the majority of whom are large private or public employers with operations along the Wasatch Front. Data gathered from the Wasatch Compensation Group (WCG) comes exclusively from other Utah public employers, including local municipalities, counties and special districts, who serve populations of approximately 40,000 or more along the Wasatch Front. A complete list of all employers considered for salary comparative purposes is shown in Appendix B of this report. Where appropriate, additional salary data was also collected in special surveys conducted by the Human Resources Department for certain key positions where the City competes regionally and/or nationally, such as for City Planners. Among the City’s more than 830 individual job titles, the Committee reviewed wage & salary data for 58 salary benchmarks. The Committee reviewed a comparison of actual average pay for all benchmark jobs and focused especially on those for which data shows the City either leads or lags market. As noted in previous years, potential concerns arise when comparing the City’s actual average pay for benchmark jobs which significantly lead market. Jobs in this category are defined as those for which actual average pay is ten percent or more above market. In these cases, the Committee cautions City leaders to note that when significantly leading pay is combined with a highly competitive mix of benefits (such as the City has), the likely result is a total compensation value (i.e. the total of base pay and benefits combined) that may be considered overly excessive. Reason for such caution is especially vital in cases when the City competes for talent directly with private sector employers. With the exceptions of the Firefighter and Police Officer jobs (for which the City desires to be a pay leader), the Committee cautions and advises leaders to reconsider its

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

9

policies and pay practices which, if not readjusted or corrected, may only result in exacerbating this pay issue.

Table A: Benchmarks SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE MARKET ( > 10%)

BENCHMARK JOB

SLC Actual

Average Salary

Market Actual Average Salary

SLC/MKT

Web Producer III $75,795 $48,479 156% Wastewater Plant Operator $47,133 $36,191 130% Firefighter I/II/III $50,480 $41,144 123% Custodian II $29,838 $24,516* 122% Senior Secretary $39,114 $32,258 121% Office Technician II $40,032 $32,258* 120% Airport Operations Specialist $51,938 $43,773 119% Engineering Technician IV $52,624 $44,189 119% Police Officer I/II/III $58,148 $49,457 118% Public Safety Dispatcher II $42,817 $36,607* 117% Warehouse Support Worker $36,823 $32,046* 116% Community Programs Manager $49,470 $43,020 115% Golf Professional $73,408 $64,538 114% Real Property Agent $61,800 $54,819 113% HVAC Technician II $53,102 $47,209 112% Licensed Architect $73,195 $66,101 111% Painter II $48,568 $43,890 111%

* Market salary is based on an average of actual salaries reported in both WMG & WCG surveys. All other market salary comparisons are from one survey group only. Compared to the number of benchmark jobs shown in this category last year, the total this year includes thirteen of the same benchmark jobs and the addition of four new jobs (i.e. Web Producer, Warehouse Support Worker, Golf Professional and Painter). In contrast, market data also reveal reason for concern in cases when City pay lags market either slightly or significantly. Based on the comparative data reviewed, the Committee wishes to highlight the actual average pay levels of eight benchmarks that lag competing employers either slightly (between 4-9% less than market) or significantly (>10% less than market), as shown in Tables B & C.

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

10

Table B: Benchmarks SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW MARKET (> -10%)

SLC SALARY BENCHMARK SLC Actual

Average Salary


SLC/MKT

Metal Fabrication Technician (Welder) $47,736 $57,586 83% Appointed Senior City Attorney $112,921 $126,215 89% Engineer IV $69,346 $78,082 90% Software Engineer $85,094 $94,696 90%

Table C: Benchmarks SLIGHTLY BELOW MARKET (-4 % to -9%)


Average Salary


SLC/MKT

Financial Analyst III $67,594 $74,357 91% Water Meter Reader II $32,661 $35,670 92% Evidence Technician II $37,244 $40,210 93% Senior Human Resources Consultant $67,974 $73,462 93%

* Market salary is based on an average of actual salaries reported in both WMG & WCG surveys. All other market salary comparisons are from one survey group only. The Committee also focused on two benchmarks considered to be anomalies due to extreme differences in survey results, including General Maintenance Worker IV and Paralegal. Although both lead in comparison to other local government employers, the average actual pay rates of City job incumbents simultaneously appear to significantly lag when compared to their counterparts in the private sector. The Committee strongly encourages City officials to assess what, if any, potential attraction and/or retention issues may arise due to this unique situation and make adjustments, as needed. Table D: Benchmarks SLIGHTLY BELOW MARKET (-4 % to -9%)


Average Salary

WCG Average Salary

SLC/ WCG

WMG Average Salary

SLC/MKT

General Maintenance Worker IV $44,544 $37,043 120% $53,185 84% Paralegal $50,471 $46,185 109% $59,716 85%

A complete summary of the 2014 SLC/Market survey results for all 58 job salary benchmarks reviewed by the Committee is shown in Appendix A of this report. In presenting this compensation survey data, we repeat our usual cautions: Due to many uncontrollable variables, salary survey results alone should be seen only as indicators, not absolutes.

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

11

To maintain a competitive compensation system, the Committee urges City leaders to also consider effective means for steadily advancing employees through their respective pay ranges, up to the City’s established market rate. Best compensation-related business practices rely on factors such as pay for performance, enhanced competency and market competitiveness when determining frequency and amounts of pay increases. Failure to implement a plan for advancing employee pay most often has negative impact and results in issues such as pay compression, loss in competitiveness and increased turnover due to employee dissatisfaction. SPECIAL REPORTS FIRE & POLICE—Previously in this report, the Committee suggested that the City consider itself a local pay leader when evaluating compensation levels for Police and Fire personnel. Although acting as a pay leader doesn’t necessarily equate to offering the highest pay, the Committee believes that operating under this philosophy better enables the City to more effectively attract and retain the most highly desired talent available from the local workforce. Further support for the idea of Salt Lake City acting as a local area pay leader includes factors such as—the City’s large downtown area and increased weekday business population; broad infrastructure; high call volumes, and the complex logistics required to protect and serve Utah’s capital city. All are traits that make Salt Lake City unique when compared to other local jurisdictions.

With a continuance of lower than average turnover rates and consistently high numbers of candidates qualified to be placed on the City’s public safety hiring registers, current Firefighter & Police Offer pay levels do not appear to be a hindrance to filling limited position vacancies. As the following table indicates, Salt Lake City is in fact in the desired pay leader position, including the highest average pay for the local area market.

Respondents used in these comparisons include other cities, counties, the State of Utah and special service districts such as Salt Lake County’s Unified Fire Authority and Unified Police Department. All are located along the Wasatch Front and serve populations of approximately 40,000 or more.

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

12

SLC Police & Fire – Local Wasatch Front Comparison (base wages only)

SLC

Average # SLC

Incumbents

Local Market Weighted Average

# Mkt Incumbents

# Mkt Respondents

SLC/Mkt Ratio

Firefighter I/II/III $50,480 37 $41,144 236 12 123%

Police Officer I/II/III

$58,148 347 $49,457 1,753 20 118%

Considering the City’s present success in attracting sufficient applicant pools (drawn primarily from along the Wasatch Front) and low turnover for sworn personnel—measured during 2014 at 5.5% and 3.2% for Police and Fire, respectively-- there is good evidence to support and demonstrate that the City’s existing compensation strategy is working. U.S. Mountain Region Public Safety Pay Comparisons In addition to reviewing comparative wage data obtained from the local market, the Committee also considered the results from a special survey conducted among a sample of 48 comparable cities from the U.S. Mountain region. These results, which included responses from approximately 50% of the total survey sample, come from cities who serve populations between 50,000 to 455,000 residents. Participants originated from cities from within the following states: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. The following table includes a quick summary with a comparison of base wages only. The wage amounts shown are non-adjusted for cost of living or labor differences between cities. SLC Police & Fire – Mountain Region City Comparison (base wages only)

SLC Average

# SLC Incumbents

Mtn Region Weighted Average

# Mtn Incumbents

# Mtn Respondents

SLC/Mkt Ratio

Firefighter I/II/III $50,480 37 $53,982 1,001 18 94%

Police Officer I/II/III $58,148 347 $66,103 3,956 23 88%

(NOTE: The specific comparative data collected as part of the 2014 special survey for this group is available through the SLC Human Resources Department). 2014 Mountain Region salary survey participants included the following U.S. cities (population size): Arvada, CO (108,000); Aurora, CO (347,953); Billings, MT (110,000); Boise, ID (214,237); Boulder, CO (100,000); Chandler, AZ (248,698); Colorado Springs, CO (446,439); Great Falls, MT (58,000); Greeley, CO (100,000); Henderson, NV (284,968); Lakewood, CO, (145,596); Las Cruces, NM (100,000); Longmont, CO (90,219); Loveland, CO (72,846); Mesa, AZ (454,981); Ogden, UT (83,000); Pocatello, ID (54,000); Provo, UT (120,000); Rio Rancho, NM (91,956); Scottsdale, AZ (224,800); Surprise, AZ (117,517); West Jordan, UT (108,270); West Valley City, UT (133,000).

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

13

Considering Salt Lake City’s increasing status as one among the largest and most relevant cities in the Mountain region, the Committee recommends City leaders to contemplate regional wage data when considering public safety pay decisions. As an additional source, this information provides city officials with another perspective of current pay rates for sworn personnel, which the Committee believes should be considered alongside local market data. Furthermore, the Committee recognizes that for Salt Lake City to become a pay leader in the Mountain region is a costly proposition. If this is, in fact, the City’s objective, then the Committee recommends accordingly that City leaders take prudent action and not attempt to make such a move in a single year. Elected Officials, Department Directors & Other Key City Leaders During 2014, the City’s Human Resources Department also conducted a special survey designed to compare salaries of Elected Officials, Department Directors and other key city leaders with their counterparts from similar U.S. cities. Responses were received from a total of 39 cities whose population size is between 100,000 to 600,000. Elected Officials Salary comparisons for Salt Lake City’s Mayor only included other full-time mayors; salary data from all cities surveyed was used to compare City Council members pay considering the fact that most, if not all, other City Councils are part-time. Data indicates that the annual salaries for both the Mayor and City Council are well within the range of salaries paid to other elected officials in the cities surveyed, as shown in the following table.

SLC U.S City Mkt Avg # Respondents SLC/ U.S. Mkt

Mayor $133,744 $131,352 11 102% City Council $24,461 $25,383 26 96%

Department Directors & Other Key City Leaders For the majority of City department directors and other key city leaders surveyed, survey results indicate current salaries are competitive or at rates that are within ten percent of their U.S. city counterparts. The Committee advises the Administration to review and consider action where data may indicate that annual salaries lag ten percent or more. (NOTE: The specific comparative data collected as part of the 2014 special survey for this group is available through the SLC Human Resources Department).

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

14

2014 Elected Officials, Department Heads & Other Key City Leaders salary survey participants included the following U.S. cities (population size): Albuquerque, NM (555,417); Anaheim, CA (336,265); Arvada, CO (108,000); Aurora, CO (347,953); Baton Rouge, LA (440,000); Billings, MT (110,000); Boise, ID (214,237); Boulder, CO (100,000); Burbank, CA (104,000); Centennial, CO (104,811); Chandler, AZ (248,698); Colorado Springs, CO (446,439); Denver, CO (634,000); Eugene, OR (159,964); Everett, WA (104,900); Gresham, OR (106,180); Henderson, NV (284,968); Lakewood, CO, (145,596); Las Vegas, NV (619,419); Lincoln, NE (268,738); Mesa, AZ (454,981); New Orleans, LA (369,250); Oklahoma City, OK (580,000); Omaha, NE (434,353); Orlando, FL (255,483); Peoria, AZ (160,000); Portland, OR (603,650); Provo, UT (120,000); Reno, NV (220,000); Salem, OR (157,000); Scottsdale, AZ (224,800); Spokane, WA (210,000); Surprise, AZ (117,517); Tacoma, WA (200,000); Thousand Oaks, CA (128,000); Tulsa, OK (391,906); Vancouver, WA (165,500); West Jordan, UT (108,270); West Valley City, UT (133,000).

Employee Benefits Value In addition to assessing wage and salary information, the Committee is charged with evaluating total compensation of the City’s employees and elected officials. Consideration, therefore, should once again be given to the results of a benefits market analysis conducted by the Hay Group during March 2014. This is the same study which was issued as part of the Committee’s 2014 Annual Report. A review of results of this study should better enable City leaders to do the following:

- Compare the value of the City’s benefits programs with the local market; - Understand the key drivers of cost for the City and the market; - Identify market trends with regard to benefits changes; and, - Make decisions regarding the City’s compensation program in the context of total

compensation. It is important to note that this analysis compared the value of benefits for someone hired today by the City to a new hire in the Utah market (including both private and public sector employees) —ensuring an “apples-to-apples” comparison based on current market conditions. Hay Group’s analysis indicated that the City’s total benefits value is at (or above) the 75th percentile compared to the Utah market. This means that the City’s overall employee benefits offering is valued among the highest 25% of benefit programs provided by competing Utah employers. The total benefits value calculated for Fire & Police is higher than regular SLC employees due primarily to differences in the retirement benefits received. Additional highlights and conclusions regarding the City’s overall benefits value to employees include the following—

- Market position of the City’s health care and retirement benefits, the two primary

drivers of overall market competitiveness, weigh heavily in overall benefit program competitiveness and are above market median relative to the Utah market.

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

15

- Lower than average employee-paid health care contributions (equal to 5% of the total premium) and the City’s front-loaded health savings account (HSA) contributions boost the overall value of the program.

- The Tier 2 Hybrid retirement benefit for regular and Fire & Police (F&P) employees is above market (>P75), as only 18% of the Utah market provides a defined benefit plan.

- Disability and paid leave are also competitive relative to the market, while death benefits (life insurance) are less competitive relative to the market. These benefits, however, comprise a smaller portion of the total benefits program.

Perhaps, the simplest approach for applying these results and assessing employee total compensation is to use the following chart, which illustrates the City’s total benefits value compared to other Utah employers. With the market median noted on this graph as “P50,” City leaders (and employees alike) are able to first identify a specific pay level (along the x-axis), then follow the graph to find the respective benefits value (shown along the y-axis). For example, when considering a Salt Lake City employee whose gross base wage earnings are $55,000 per year, the City’s benefits value equates to approximately $30,000, for $85,000 in total compensation. Compared to an employee receiving the

CCAC ANNUAL REPORT

March 2015

16

same annual gross earnings in other Utah market employers (P50), benefits value is approximately $5,000 less, yielding a total compensation figure of only $80,000.

The Committee considers this information to be a most valuable resource, especially as it relates to employee total compensation, and strongly advises City leaders to communicate and convey the significant total rewards advantage afforded to all existing and prospective City employees.

APPENDIX A

Appendix A ‐ 2014 Salt Lake City/Market ComparisonJob Title (Job Code) SLC Actual Avg

# SLC Incumbents

WCG # Incumbents # Respondents SLC/WCG WMG # Incumbents # Respondents SLC/WMG

ACCOUNTANT III (001666) $60,820 7 $48,352 99 13 126% $65,121 156 33 93%AIRPORT OPERATIONS SPECIALIST (001514 & 001505) $51,938 34 $43,773 257 13 119%APPOINTED SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY (000185) $112,921 12 $126,215 61 12 89%ASPHALT EQUIPMENT OPERATOR (000909 & 000918) $43,265 35 $41,479 105 14 104% $37,813 73 7 114%AUDITOR (001684) $71,583 2 $70,127 18 7 102%BUILDING INSPECTOR III (000723) $57,868 8 $58,886 28 12 98%REVIEW & LICENSING PROCESSOR II (001607) $44,876 4 $40,918 12 11 110%CARPENTER II (001349) $48,568 7 $44,448 136 13 109%COLLECTIONS OFFICER (001376) $42,404 5 $38,580 42 10 110%COMMUNITY PROGRAMS MANAGER (001655) $49,470 7 $43,020 89 12 115%CUSTODIAN II (006090) $29,838 2 $23,836 105 12 125% $25,196 238 19 118%DEPT PERSONNEL/PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR (000410) $49,391 5 $46,730 12 12 106% $47,580 21 15 104%ENGINEER IV (000745) $69,346 7 $68,978 106 13 101% $87,185 21 6 80%ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN IV (000829) $52,624 14 $44,189 18 7 119%ENVIRONMENTAL & SUSTAINABILITY COORDINATOR (001755)* $67,392 1 $64,020 9 8 105%EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN II (001549) $37,244 5 $40,210 15 9 93%FINANCIAL ANALYST III (001670) $67,594 9 $74,357 187 23 91%FIREFIGHTER I/II/III (001461, 001460, 001480) $50,480 37 $41,144 236 12 123%FLEET MECHANIC I/II (000757 & 000758) $47,912 32 $44,672 136 23 107% $44,299 69 11 108%GENERAL MAINTENANCE WORKER IV (006145) $44,554 5 $37,043 175 14 120% $53,185 101 19 84%GIS SPECIALIST (000781) $55,120 5 $58,290 16 10 95%GOLF PROFESSIONAL (000940) $73,408 5 $64,538 42 18 114%HUMAN RESOURCES CONSULTANT, SENIOR (001834) $67,974 5 $73,462 45 22 93%HVAC TECH. II (006050) $53,102 8 $47,209 122 15 112%JUSTICE COURT CLERK (001495) $39,061 19 $38,889 18 8 100%JUSTICE COURT JUDGE (001601) $112,859 5 $109,171 14 11 103%LAB CHEMIST (000427) $55,515 2 $55,615 9 6 100% $53,895 18 5 103%LEGAL SECRETARY III (003136) $43,784 2 $36,649 82 14 119% $43,479 40 9 101%LICENSED ARCHITECT (000752) $73,195 1 $66,101 23 6 111%MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN IV (000168) $54,566 31 $49,857 29 10 109% $54,524 107 15 100%METAL FABRICATION TECHNICIAN (006207) $47,736 5 $57,586 44 9 83%NETWORK SYSTEMS ENGINEER II (001394) $78,445 4 $69,301 22 19 113% $75,353 54 25 104%OFFICE FACILITATOR II (001232 & 001259) $46,320 18 $42,921 63 15 108% $42,898 811 37 108%OFFICE TECHNICIAN II (001191) $40,023 17 $32,258 176 21 124% $34,770 193 14 115%PAINTER II (001347) $48,568 7 $43,890 67 12 111%PARALEGAL (000572) $50,471 7 $46,185 40 10 109% $59,716 19 10 85%PLANS EXAMINER (001546) $58,219 3 $58,493 14 8 100%PLUMBER II (000854) $51,605 5 $48,197 82 11 107%POLICE INFO SPECIALIST (001713) $33,896 26 $33,186 82 13 102%POLICE OFFICER I/II/III (001457, 001456, 001489) $58,148 347 $49,457 1,753 20 118%PRINCIPAL PLANNER (001733) $62,566 8 $64,035 108 10 98%PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST II (000534) $59,580 2 $50,460 34 12 118% $59,367 258 57 100%PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER II (000161) $42,817 47 $36,190 180 9 118% $37,024 48 9 116%REAL PROPERTY AGENT (000370) $61,800 2 $54,819 1,149 6 113%RESEARCH ANALYST/ GRANT PROG MGR (001276) $57,377 1 $53,157 130 7 108%SENIOR SECRETARY (003030) $39,114 4 $32,258 176 21 121%SOFTWARE ENGINEER II (001726) $85,094 2 $94,696 53 9 90%PARKS GROUNDSKEEPER (001813)* $26,146 10 $25,069 122 12 104%SR UTILITIES REPRESENTATIVE ‐ CUSTOMER SVC (000199) $35,696 7 $34,305 26 10 104% $35,510 265 19 101%TECHNICAL SYSTEMS ANALYST II (000584) $58,282 1 $60,871 9 5 96%TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR (000491) $57,395 2 $53,728 44 15 107%WAREHOUSE SUPPORT WORKER ‐ FLEET & AIRPORT (000390 & 002022) $36,823 3 $28,824 75 6 128% $35,268 82 16 104%WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR (000968) $47,133 6 $36,191 21 7 130%WATER METER READER II (006326) $32,661 9 $35,670 25 7 92%WATER METER TECHNICIAN (000997) $44,699 5 $45,467 7 5 98%WATER PLANT OPERATOR I (001454) $44,408 1WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE OPERATOR II (000975) $47,133 15 $44,017 23 9 107%WEB PRODUCER III (001413) $75,795 2 $48,479 15 7 156%

* = New/updated benchmark title

INSUFFICIENT DATA

Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee ‐ 2015 Annual Report

THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

APPENDIX B

2014 Wasatch Compensation Group (WCG) Participant List

All participants, except western states, are political subdivisions or special districts within the state of Utah (population size > approximately 40,000)

BOUNTIFUL SANDY

CEDAR CITY SMITHFIELD

CENTRAL DAVIS COUNTY SEWER SOUTH DAVIS METRO FIRE AGENCY

CENTRAL VALLEY WATER SOUTH DAVIS SEWER DISTRICT

CENTRAL WEBER SEWER SOUTH JORDAN

COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS SOUTH VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION

DAVIS BEHAVIOR HEALTH SPANISH FORK

DAVIS COUNTY SPRINGVILLE

DRAPER TAYLORSVILLE

HURRICANE TAYLORSVILLE-BENNION SPECIAL DISTRICT

JORDAN VALLEY WATER TIMPANOGOS SPECIAL DISTRICT

KEARNS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT UINTAH COUNTY RECREATION DISTRICT

LAYTON UNIFIED FIRE AUTHORITY

LEHI UNIFIED POLICE DEPARTMENT

LOGAN UTAH COUNTY

METROPOLITAN WATER, SALT LAKE & SANDY

UTAH COURTS

MT. OLYMPUS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY

MURRAY UTAH VALLEY DISPATCH SPECIAL SERVICE

DISTRICT

NORTH DAVIS COUNTY SEWER VALLEY EMERGENCY

NORTH DAVIS FIRE DISTRICT VALLEY MENTAL HEALTH

NORTH SALT LAKE WASHINGTON CITY

OGDEN WEBER BASIN WATER

OREM WEBER COUNTY

PARK CITY WEBER FIRE DISTRICT

PARK CITY FIRE DEPT WEBER HUMAN SERVICES

PROVO WEST JORDAN

SALT LAKE COUNTY WEST VALLEY

WESTERN STATES

STATE OF ARIZONA

STATE OF COLORADO

STATE OF IDAHO

STATE OF MONTANA

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WYOMING

61 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS

2014 Western Management Group (WMG) Participant List Greater Salt Lake Area Compensation Survey

Agreserves Hexcel Ryder Systems

Alliant Techsystems Honeywell Technology Solutions Salt Lake Community College

Amer Sports US Hoyt Archery Salt Lake County

ARUP Laboratories ICF International Sierra Nevada

Associated Food Stores IM Flash Technologies Sinclair Services

ATK Launch Systems InsideSales Southern Utah University

Atria Senior Living Intermountain Health Care Southwest Research Institute

Bard Access Systems ITT Exelis- Electronic Systems Stampin Up

Battelle JR Simplot State Farm Insurance

BD Medical Systems Jacobs Technology State of Utah

Big West Oil Johnson Controls Sunrise Senior Living

Black Diamond Equipment Jordan School District TAB Bank

Blendtec JT3 TASC

Boart Longyear L-3 Communications/Communications

Systems-West TD Ameritrade

Boeing Co. Landesk Software Tecolote Research Boise Cascade LDS Business College Textron Systems

Boise Inc Leidos Unisys/Federal Systems

Booz Allen Hamilton Lennox International University of Utah

Brigham Young University LJT & Associates URS Federal Services

Division

Browning Lockheed Martin US Magnesium

C2 Essentials Maverik USANA Health Sciences

CACI International Merit Medical Systems Utah State Courts

CH2M Hill MITRE Utah State University

Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints

Moog Aircraft Salt Lake Ops Utah State University

Research Foundation/Space Dynamics Lab

Comcast Cable Morinda Bio Actives Utah Transit Authority

Davis County Northrop Grumman Utah Valley University

Du Pont Parker Hannifin/Control Systems Verizon Communications

Easton Technical Products Penske Truck Leasing Visa

eBay Pitney Bowes Waste Management

Edwards Lifesciences Pricewaterhouse Coopers Weber State University

Energy Solutions Progrexion Wells Fargo

FBL Financial Group Questar Williams International

FJ Management R.R. Donnelley and Sons Xerox

General Dynamics/AIS Raytheon Zions Bank

General Dynamics/Information

Technology Rio Tinto Services

Health Catalyst Rockwell Collins

106 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS

451 South State Street, Room 115 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5464

(801) 535-7900

Debra Alexander, HR Director David Salazar, HR Program Manager - Compensation

Jodi Langford, HR Program Manager - Benefits

council budget staff report

Documents