HomeMy WebLinkAbout33. 22-511
NOVEMBER 22, 2022 22-511 RESOLUTION
(CARRIED 6-0 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN )
PURPOSE: APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS, PAY SCHEDULE,
CLASSIFICATION ASSIGNMENT LIST, AND CORRESPONDING
ADJUSTMENTS RESULTING FROM THE CITY OF OSHKOSH
COMPENSATION REVIEW FOR ALL NON REPRESENTED
BENEFITED EMPLOYEES
INITIATED BY: CITY ADMINISTRATION
WHEREAS, the City of Oshkosh contracted with Carlson Dettmann Consulting
and initiated a classification and compensation review in 2022 which is now completed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Oshkosh that the Non Represented Compensation Review, completed by Carlson
Dettmann Consulting dated November 14, 2022, on file in the City Clerk’s Office or
available online at www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us is hereby received and filed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the attached pay schedule / classification
assignment list for all non-represented benefited classifications and corresponding
adjustments resulting from the City of Oshkosh compensation review, are hereby
approved and the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to take those
steps necessary to implement the pay schedule, recommendations, classification
assignment list and corresponding adjustments effective the pay period beginning
January 1, 2023.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that
the attached pay schedule, recommendations, classification assignment list and
corresponding adjustments supersede all previous corresponding pay schedules and
classification lists for non-represented employees.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: John Fitzpatrick, Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services
DATE: November 14, 2022
RE: Approve Recommendations, Pay Schedule, Classification Assignment List, and
Corresponding Adjustments Resulting from the City Of Oshkosh Compensation
Review for All Non Represented Benefited Employees
BACKGROUND
The City of Oshkosh retained Carlson Dettmann Consulting in 2022 to evaluate its non-
represented pay plans through a classification and compensation study and to offer
recommendations.
ANALYSIS
Included with this memo is the report developed by Carlson Dettmann detailing the background,
analysis and recommendations as well as the new proposed pay schedule / classification
assignment list for full time and part time benefited non-represented city classifications.
In summary, the recommendation is to add several pay grades to our plan and place our positions
within all grades using 50th/75th percentile market data. As a result, all employees included in the
study will receive a minimum pay increase of 4.0% and the average increase across all employees
is 4.96%. Due to market conditions which affected recruitment and retention of the Equipment
Operator job family, the pay for those employees assigned to that family was temporarily
adjusted prior to the final outcome of the study. Since those employees already received a pay
increase of at least 4.0%, only employees who are paid “in between” steps will be adjusted to the
next step in order to reconcile pay to the new pay grade, upon implementation of the study.
FISCAL IMPACT
Because the total cost for the implementation of the study is less than the adopted budget amount
of $1,274,000, remaining funds will be available for vacant positions, study appeals which occur
as a result of this process, as well as review of the seasonal and non-benefited part time pay
schedule.
2
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis conducted, staff recommends approval of the Carlson Dettmann Report
recommendations as well as the new proposed pay schedule / classification assignment list for
full time and part time benefited non-represented classifications, effective the pay period which
begins January 1, 2023.
Respectfully Submitted, Approved:
John M. Fitzpatrick Mark A. Rohloff
Assistant City Manager / City Manager
Director of Administrative Services
TECHNICAL & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Oshkosh Classification & Compensation Study
November 14, 2022
Background
The City of Oshkosh (“the City”) retained our firm, Carlson Dettmann Consulting (CDC) to systematically evaluate job
content, conduct a market analysis, and produce a new classification and compensation plan, including
implementation and plan management recommendations. The following summarizes our process, findings and
recommendations.
The City conducted its last-full-study in 2011 (implemented in 2012), and conducted market analyses in 2016 and
2018. Over the course of the last decade, the City has taken care to not only maintain competitiveness with the
marketplace, but has also adjusted individual classifications due to equity and market-based conditions. This study,
initiated in early-2022, is a planned effort to maintain an equitable and competitive wage structure for the City’s
employees.
Comparable Communities
During our initial meetings with the City, we agreed to assess the following organizations for the pool of comparable
communities and make a recommendation following a review of the market data:
Appleton; Beloit; Brookfield; De Pere; Eau Claire; Fond du Lac; Green Bay; Greenfield; Janesville; Kenosha;
La Crosse; Manitowoc; Menasha; Menomonee Falls; Neenah; New Berlin; Racine; Sheboygan; Stevens Point;
Watertown; Waukesha; Wausau; Wauwatosa; West Allis; West Bend; Calumet County; Fond du Lac County;
Outagamie County; Winnebago County
As the above list suggests, this is a comprehensive listing and it is representative of those communities that either
compete for the talent the City is seeking or are similar in size or structure. We determined benchmarks and
analyzed public-sector market data from the selected comparable communities. It should be noted that at least
twelve—and likely more—of the public sector comparable communities are either actively engaged in their own
compensation reviews, or will be in the immediate future.
Private-sector market data, when appropriate, was obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, PayFactors, ERI,
Towers Watson, and CompData. Our firm has taken great care over the last year to ensure that our private survey
sources remain up-to-date in order to provide the best “snapshot” of the market as possible.
The two charts that follow show the City’s current market competitiveness using slightly different approaches. The
first chart is our traditional line chart, which is useful when comparing to other market positions (e.g. comparisons to
current pay, percentiles, etc.). The second chart breaks the City’s benchmark jobs into four groupings, dependent on
job evaluation score. This approach allows us to see specifically which segment of the structure is in (or out) of line
with the market. Further, because percentages “plot out” differently for lower paying jobs, the second chart often
provides a more realistic assessment of market competitiveness.
2 | P a g e
In terms of overall market competitiveness, as it relates to the benchmark positions utilized in the study, the City is
currently paying almost dead-even with the measured median market. We use a measure called a “market index” to
compare a benchmark’s base salary to the market estimate for the benchmark position. For the City, the overall
market index is approximately 99.4%. The statistic is an average of the benchmark market indices, so there are
some jobs paid above the market and some below. However, the statistic provides us with a good measure of how
competitive the City is on an overall basis. A market index of 99.4% is an indication that the City has taken care to
maintain its structure over the years following the 2012 study, including the structural and classification
adjustments since that time. However, for reasons we will detail later in this report, there is the likelihood that the
City is further behind the marketplace than the initial metric would indicate.
Methodology
CDC consistently recommends pay plans balanced for (1) internal equity, as measured by objective job evaluation,
and (2) competitiveness, as measured by our market data. We also tailor our recommendations to the organizational
culture and affordability.
Job Evaluation
At the beginning of the project, we conducted employee orientation sessions to explain the steps we would follow in
the project and review the absolute necessity of accurate Job Descriptions. We then evaluated each Job Description
using our firm’s Point Factor Job Evaluation System. Our system breaks jobs down into specifics related to five major
evaluation factors, with sub-factors for each of the five major factors:
3 | P a g e
Our objective evaluation results in point scores that accumulate to a total point score for each job, allowing us to
compare and contrast varied jobs using a common rating method.
Departmental Input
Following our initial evaluations, we met—virtually—with each department head to review any questions we had
about their respective department and/or their jobs. Taking their collective input into account, we then revisited our
evaluations as necessary and appropriate to arrive at an initial internal hierarchy. The City engaged in an extensive
internal review process, and we then worked with the City to establish and validate proper grade placements.
Benchmark Jobs
The job documentation and departmental interviews also provided a solid basis for matching the jobs to the external
marketplace, both public and private sectors (as relevant and appropriate). Due to a variety of reasons, it is not
possible to match every position in the pay plan to a corresponding job in the selected marketplace. Instead, we
measured a set of “benchmark jobs”. Benchmark jobs have solid and reliable representation in the marketplace,
and have similar duties and responsibilities that can be found across different organizations. Benchmark jobs were
chosen to cover jobs spanning the entire pay plan, are then used to serve as the anchors in the development of a
structure which is both internally consistent and externally competitive. Either due to the lack of sufficient data
among the comparable employers, or due to the unique nature of the job, several jobs are not designated as
“benchmark jobs”. There are 86 benchmark jobs utilized for the study.
However, even if a job is not deemed to be a benchmark job, it is placed into proper grade on the wage schedule
based on its job evaluation score or, in exceptional circumstances, based on its market value or on a calculation to
relieve any compression concerns.
Analysis of the “Pay Line”
The balance between internal equity and external competitiveness is achieved by using regression analysis to
develop the recommended compensation structure. A scatter graph of job evaluation scores and market rates for
the City’s benchmarks are below. The graph shows that as the internal value of jobs increase, measured by job
evaluation scores, market pay increases, as well. As the graph indicates, the trend is very clear.
Each data point on the graph is one of the benchmark positions, representing the job evaluation score for that
benchmark and the corresponding measured market estimate. The trend line (i.e. regression line, pay line, etc.)
through these data points for the benchmark jobs is called a line of best fit, or regression line.
4 | P a g e
The regression line for the City’s benchmark positions is represented by the equation: Y (predicted pay) = {$.05505
X job evaluation points} + $1.84065.
In this regression equation, $.05505 is the slope of the trend line and means that each single job evaluation point is
worth $.05505. Therefore, if the score goes up one point, pay rises $.05505. The +$1.84065 amount is the line’s y-
axis intercept, so if the line were extended downward to y-axis of the graph (measuring market pay rates), it would
intersect that axis at +$1.84065.
The r2 = 0.9717 shown below the equation on the graph is the coefficient of determination. This coefficient of
determination is very high and can be interpreted to mean that our market model (i.e. job evaluation scores, grade
breaks, market matches, selected benchmark jobs, etc.) are reasonably predicting the variance in market pay. One
way to interpret the result is that 97.17% of the variance in pay is explained by differences in job evaluation values,
market variances, etc.; the remaining 2.83% can be attributed to other factors. The significance is that we can use
these relationships to develop a pay plan (below) for the City that is strong internally and externally.
Building a Pay Structure
Determining Grade Breaks
One of the elements in plan design is the designation of the size
and number of grades to which positions are assigned. For the
salary ranges to be manageable, the recommended pay schedule
utilizes a concise number of pay ranges so that pay remains
competitive and internal pay management is relatively easy to
accomplish. However, one of the identified shortcomings of the
prior study—as was determined over the years—was that the
number of grades the City had at its disposal was insufficient; this
study corrects that deficiency.
Jobs assigned to lower pay grades have a lower point value, and the
incremental increases associated with changes to job evaluation
ratings are also lower. Therefore, it makes sense to have a smaller
range of points for lower grades, and then expand those ranges as
the positions grow in points.
Build a Balanced Pay Structure
Using the “regression line” noted above, we can build a pay
structure that takes both internal equity and external competitiveness into account. Take Grade 10, as an example,
comprises all jobs with job evaluation scores ranging from 515 to 554. To construct the grade, we first arrive at the
middle value of Grade 10: 534.5 points. Then, by using the regression equation noted above, and substituting
534.5 for “X”, we then arrive at the “Control Point” (C/P) for Grade 10 (with some slight rounding differences).
We repeat this process for each and every grade in the proposed structure. However, there are times when market
pressures dictate a grade placement higher—occasionally lower—than what the job evaluation system would predict.
Look at Market Outliers
The external marketplace is ever-changing and increasingly competitive and, from time-to-time, there are jobs that
have clear market matches which do not align with our formulaic approach. Typically, these jobs tend to be [1] highly
technical in nature, [2] possess significantly higher risks, or [3] are in high-demand in the marketplace. In such
cases, with clear and compelling data, we will place those jobs in a grade commensurate with their market value,
and such placement should be balanced with the competitive and financial needs of the organization.
5 | P a g e
Look at Compression Concerns
Finally, there are situations when internal compression influences the placement of a job. For example, in jobs
where overtime is a regular occurrence, it may be necessary to adjust the grade placement of a supervisor to ensure
that there is not a loss in wages, or that subordinates aren’t regularly earning more than their supervisor, at the
higher level position.
Note Regarding the Proposed Wage Structure
Market Competitiveness
As this process drew to a close, the competiveness of the above pay structure was an ongoing point of discussion.
Several options were reviewed and considered. We have recently started recommending that public-sector clients
consider paying more competitively in the marketplace as a “hedge” against current/future wage growth (e.g.
continued inflation, new wage structures adopted in the next few months, etc.).
For example, with this project, it is our recommendation that the City take a blend of the 50th percentile (median)
market data and 75th percentile market data for purposes of building a revised pay structure. In doing so, the
market data still serves as a basis for building a wage structure, and the City can be reasonably certain it is able to
compete in the short-term.
This does not mean, however, that this should permanently alter the City’s philosophy of anchoring its pay structure
in the median marketplace; that can be a future strategic decision. For the time being, it is simply an approach to
respond more proactively to the immediate market conditions. Since the City does not engage in a formal annual
review of its market positioning, there is a strong likelihood that the anticipated growth in wages over the next
couple of years will result in the City’s plan realigning more closely with the median market by the time the next
market review is due.
By taking a more competitive stance in the short-term, it will allow the City to more confidently address its
recruitment and retention challenges. By doing so, the City will then have time to truly contemplate where it wants to
position itself in the marketplace in the long-term.
Our recommended approach would be to adjust the market to match the blue line on the following chart. As the
chart below illustrates, doing so will move the City in a more competitive direction. Given the current economic
times, this measured approach will assist with competitive pressures the City is seeing recruiting and retaining
talent.
6 | P a g e
Control Point (C/P)
The anchor for all of our pay structures is the Control Point (C/P), which is an approximated market rate for the jobs
in any given grade. Many confuse the Control Point as the market rate for each and every job in a grade. However, it
is a more appropriate assertion that each grade reflects an acceptable market-based range of pay for each job in a
grade and the average/median market rate would be found at or near the middle steps of a grade for any given job.
Range Spread
With the C/P in place, the minimum (87.5%) and maximum (120.0%) can be calculated. First, there are no formal
rules that require such a “range spread”. In fact, our performance-based plans often range from 80% to 120%, and
we have developed many other alternative approaches for clients.
Paying Above the Control Point (C/P)
Finally, we frequently are questioned during the course of deliberations of our pay plans as to why an employer
would pay more than the Control Point (market estimate). Using Grade 10 as an example, our intent in
recommending a 50th percentile range of pay of $27.36 to $37.52 is to make the City competitive across the
measured market. If the City were to stop the range at $31.27—the Control Point—then it only would be competitive
with the lower half of the market. Having the range reflect the breadth of the measured market will keep the City
competitive for some time without having to re-measure the market annually.
Implementation
One of the greater challenges associated with these projects is the development of an implementation plan that
balances fairness and equity with the financial limitations of the organization. In the course of our projects, we work
with our clients to devise the strategy that best aligns with their financial and strategic goals. Because the City went
through a similar process several years ago, including the implementation of a new wage structure, the cost impact
of implementation is less than if the City had not gone through the prior process (e.g. costs associated with bringing
employees onto a new wage structure, movement of jobs to higher grades, etc.). Of the implementation options
presented to the City for consideration, City staff agree with CDC suggestion regarding the 50th-75th percentile blend.
This blend is the basis for the recommended pay structure.
Progression Through the Wage Schedule
With the proposed step-based pay plan, we strongly recommend requiring performance evaluations on an annual
basis in order for an employee to progress through the entirety of the range, and not just for the performance range.
Further, we recommend that if an employee’s performance is unsatisfactory (e.g. discipline, performance
improvement plan, etc.) all wage increases should be withheld, including any “structural adjustment” (i.e. “general
wage increase”, “across the board adjustment”, “market adjustment”, etc.) approved by the Council.
It is intended that any structural adjustment will be applied to steps in the structure(s), as well as the range-
maximum. Movement through the range is based on City-established criteria.
Classification Review (i.e. Appeals Process)
Even though our firm objectively applied the Point Factor System to the documentation provided by the employees,
and the job documentation was reviewed by (and discussed with) a manager, something could have been missed or
misunderstood, or the job has changed since the JDQ was prepared. We believe it is appropriate to offer a
classification review (i.e. appeal) process following adoption of the new plan to give any employee an opportunity to
state why the new job classification is in error.
We recommend that matters subject to the appeal process be limited to errors of classification and exclude any
issues of pay plan design or implementation method as those are matters of policy reserved to the City. Our role in
the appeal process would be to analyze, evaluate and recommend, with the City Manager having final authority over
the decision.
7 | P a g e
The professional service agreement between the City and our firm anticipates an appeal process, and the fee for
such as service was agreed upon at the outset of the project. However, in order to control this expense, we strongly
urge the City submit for our review only those appeals which clearly meet the criteria for an appeal.
Ongoing Maintenance
We understand and appreciate the costs associated with a project such as this, and the effect it can have on an
organization. With proper care and maintenance, the need for this type of project—a comprehensive review of the
entire classification and compensation system—can be minimized. From our experience, employers that treat
compensation as a strategic component of its operations typically engage in the following practices:
Rigorous adherence and discipline as it relates to the underlying assumptions and principles on which the
pay plan is developed. In other words, all job changes should be documented and no reclassification
requests should be granted unless the job evaluation system indicates as such, or there is a demonstrated
market condition that would warrant such an adjustment.
To that end, we recommend a process where any employee whose duties change substantially over the
course of a year could ask for a classification review. In many instances, this coincides with the budget
process to allow for the City to plan for any increase in compensation. This differs from a management-
initiated reorganization, or new position creation, which could conceivably occur at any point in the year. As
noted above, all duties—or changes in duties—should be documented prior to being evaluated.
Annual review of the pay structure for adjustment based upon market conditions, changes in the cost-of-
living, and the City’s ability to pay for any resulting changes in base salary costs. While we understand that
an organization’s ability to increase the structure by any significant amount is limited, it is still necessary to
adjust ranges periodically to keep up with the labor market and inflation.
Periodic measurement of benchmark positions to the established marketplace. This is markedly different—
and less expensive—than a comprehensive study. Simply stated, this is an evaluation of those jobs that
anchored the compensation structure described herein. Such a review provides the assurance needed to
maintain market competitiveness, to stay on top of “hot jobs”, and to serve as a “health check” to ensure
that the pay plan is functioning as intended
To the extent that pay is dictated by performance, a solid commitment to funding the performance-based
pay. An employee should have a formal evaluation on an annual basis, and any progression through the
structure should be predicated on—at a minimum—meeting the expectations of the City. We understand that
the public sentiment for “automatic” pay increases is waning. To that end, the focus on employee
development is even more important in that the City only retains employees dedicated to furthering the
mission of the organization.
CDC is available to provide all of these services to the City. At a minimum, we recommend our clients adopt a regular
classification review process utilizing our assistance. The service works with the client submitting revised job
documentation for our analysis. We evaluate the responsibilities, rate the job, and recommend a pay grade
allocation. Doing so allows the City to maintain an unbiased review of the jobs in question.
8 | P a g e
Benchmark Jobs
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING MGR
STAFF ACCOUNTANT
PAYROLL COORDINATOR
ACCOUNT CLERK III
ACCOUNT CLERK I
ACCOUNT CLERK II
SENIOR BUYER
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER
HR GENERALIST
BENEFITS COORDINATOR
HUMAN RESOURCE ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
CITY CLERK
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
SENIOR SERVICES MANAGER
SECRETARY
INFO TECH MGR
GIS ADMINISTRATOR
NETWORK SPECIALIST
SYSTEMS ANALYST/WEB
DEVELOPER
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST
HELP DESK SPECIALIST
DESKTOP SUPPORT TECHNICIAN
CURATOR
GRAPHIC ARTIST
EXHIBIT TECHNICIAN
ASSISTANT CURATOR
VIDEO EDITING TECHNICIAN
DIRECTOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC DEVELOP SERVICE MGR
GRANTS COORDINATOR
PLANNING SERVICES MGR
PLANNER
ASSOC PLNR ZONING ADMINISTR
CITY ASSESSOR
PROPERTY APPRAISER
HOUSING INSPECTOR
PLUMBING INSPECTOR
BUILDING SYSTEMS INSPECTOR
PERMIT TECHNICIAN
POLICE CHIEF
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF
POLICE CAPTAIN
FIRE CHIEF
ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF
MANAGEMENT ANALYST
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT -FIRE
ENGINEERING MGR/CITY ENGINEER
CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR
PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
CIVIL ENGINEER
CIVIL ENGINEERING TECH II
CIVIL ENGINEER TECH I
OFFICE ASSISTANT
UTILITY LOCATOR I
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
SANITATION OPERATOR
PW FIELD OPER MGR
PUBLIC WORKS STREET
SUPERVISOR
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR
PUBLIC WORKS MECHANIC MGR
FLEET AND EQUIP MECHANIC
WELDER
FLEET AND EQUIP TECHNICIAN
ELECTRICIAN
DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
PLUMBER
PARKS MAINTENANCE WORKER
HORTICULTURIST
WW TREATMENT PLANT MGR
WW TREATMENT PLANT
SUPERVISOR
CHEMIST
INSTRUMENTATION TECHNICIAN
WW LIQUIDS OPERATOR II
WW SOLIDS OPERATOR II
WATER FILTRATION PLANT MGR
ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL TECH
WATER FILTRATION OPERATOR II
MAINTENANCE MECHANIC
CUSTOMER SERVICE CLERK
9 | P a g e
50th/75th Percentile Blended Wage Structure
Conclusion
As referred to earlier in this report, the City has taken great care to maintain its compensation and benefit
structures over the years. This care is not only a credit to the caretakers of this system in Human Resources, but
more importantly also to the elected officials who have supported the City of Oshkosh to preserve its place as an
employer of choice and public sector leader in Wisconsin.
The information contained in this summary is intended to preserve that history and position Oshkosh for continued
success in the future.
GRADE 87.50%90.00%92.50%95.00%97.50%100.0%Performance
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 C/P Range Max.
22 $66.36 $68.26 $70.15 $72.05 $73.94 $75.84 →$91.01
21 $61.92 $63.69 $65.46 $67.23 $69.00 $70.77 →$84.92
20 $57.75 $59.40 $61.05 $62.70 $64.35 $66.00 →$79.20
19 $53.82 $55.36 $56.90 $58.43 $59.97 $61.51 →$73.81
18 $50.15 $51.58 $53.01 $54.44 $55.88 $57.31 →$68.77
17 $46.73 $48.06 $49.40 $50.73 $52.07 $53.40 →$64.08
16 $43.57 $44.81 $46.06 $47.30 $48.55 $49.79 →$59.75
15 $40.65 $41.81 $42.98 $44.14 $45.30 $46.46 →$55.75
14 $37.99 $39.08 $40.16 $41.25 $42.33 $43.42 →$52.10
13 $35.46 $36.48 $37.49 $38.50 $39.52 $40.53 →$48.64
12 $33.06 $34.00 $34.95 $35.89 $36.84 $37.78 →$45.34
11 $30.91 $31.79 $32.67 $33.55 $34.44 $35.32 →$42.38
10 $28.88 $29.70 $30.53 $31.35 $32.18 $33.00 →$39.60
9 $26.98 $27.75 $28.52 $29.29 $30.06 $30.83 →$37.00
8 $25.20 $25.92 $26.64 $27.36 $28.08 $28.80 →$34.56
7 $23.56 $24.23 $24.90 $25.57 $26.25 $26.92 →$32.30
6 $22.04 $22.67 $23.30 $23.93 $24.56 $25.19 →$30.23
5 $20.64 $21.23 $21.82 $22.41 $23.00 $23.59 →$28.31
4 $19.38 $19.94 $20.49 $21.04 $21.60 $22.15 →$26.58
3 $18.11 $18.63 $19.15 $19.67 $20.18 $20.70 →$24.84
2 $16.98 $17.46 $17.95 $18.43 $18.92 $19.40 →$23.28
1 $15.96 $16.42 $16.87 $17.33 $17.78 $18.24 →$21.89
87.5%90.0%92.5%95.0%97.5%100.0%120.0%
GRADE TITLE MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX
22 ASST CITY MGR/DIR ADMIN SERVICES 66.36$ 68.26$ 70.15$ 72.05$ 73.94$ 75.84$ 91.01$
21 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 61.92$ 63.69$ 65.46$ 67.23$ 69.00$ 70.77$ 84.92$
20 CITY ATTORNEY 57.75$ 59.40$ 61.05$ 62.70$ 64.35$ 66.00$ 79.20$
DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
FIRE CHIEF
POLICE CHIEF
19 53.82$ 55.36$ 56.90$ 58.43$ 59.97$ 61.51$ 73.81$
18 ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 50.15$ 51.58$ 53.01$ 54.44$ 55.88$ 57.31$ 68.77$
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF
ASST DIR OF PUB WKS/UTL GEN MGR
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MGR
17 ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR 46.73$ 48.06$ 49.40$ 50.73$ 52.07$ 53.40$ 64.08$
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING MGR/CITY ENGINEER
2023 Full-Time and Part-Time Non-Represented Pay Schedule - Benefited
Effective January 1, 2023
Revised 11/15/2022
87.5%90.0%92.5%95.0%97.5%100.0%120.0%
GRADE TITLE MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX
17 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER 46.73$ 48.06$ 49.40$ 50.73$ 52.07$ 53.40$ 64.08$
16 DIRECTOR OF MUSEUM 43.57$ 44.81$ 46.06$ 47.30$ 48.55$ 49.79$ 59.75$
FIELD OPERATIONS MANAGER - PW
POLICE CAPTAIN
UTILITY OPERATIONS MANAGER
15 CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR 40.65$ 41.81$ 42.98$ 44.14$ 45.30$ 46.46$ 55.75$
GENERAL SERVICES MANAGER
PLANNING SERVICES MANAGER
PLANT MANAGER - WF
PLANT MANAGER - WWTP
14 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 37.99$ 39.08$ 40.16$ 41.25$ 42.33$ 43.42$ 52.10$
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PARKS
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
CITY ASSESSOR
CITY CLERK
CONSTRUCTION MGMT SUPERVISOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOP SERVICE MANAGER
WATER DISTRIBUTION MANAGER
13 ASST MUSEUM DIR/CHIEF CURATOR 35.46$ 36.48$ 37.49$ 38.50$ 39.52$ 40.53$ 48.64$
Effective January 1, 2023
Revised 11/15/2022
87.5%90.0%92.5%95.0%97.5%100.0%120.0%
GRADE TITLE MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX
13 ASST WATER DIST MANAGER 35.46$ 36.48$ 37.49$ 38.50$ 39.52$ 40.53$ 48.64$
ELECTRICAL TRAFFIC MANAGER
FACILITIES PROJECT COORDINATOR
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING MANAGER
GIS ADMINISTRATOR
LANDSCAPE OPERATIONS MANAGER
MECHANIC MANAGER - PW
NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR
OFC ADMINISTRATION MGR ANALYST
PARKS REVENUE & FACIL MANAGER
PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SENIOR SERVICES MANAGER
TRANSIT OPERATIONS MANAGER
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
12 CHEMIST 33.06$ 34.00$ 34.95$ 35.89$ 36.84$ 37.78$ 45.34$
CIVIL ENGINEER
FINANCIAL UTILITY MANAGER
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT COORD
Effective January 1, 2023
Revised 11/15/2022
87.5%90.0%92.5%95.0%97.5%100.0%120.0%
GRADE TITLE MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX
12 MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR - WWTP 33.06$ 34.00$ 34.95$ 35.89$ 36.84$ 37.78$ 45.34$
MANAGEMENT ANALYST
MECH AND MAINT MGR - TRANSPORT
MEDIA SERVICES COORDINATOR
PLANNER
PLANT SUPERVISOR - WF
PLANT SUPERVISOR - WWTP
SAFETY & RISK MGMT OFFICER
STAFF ACCOUNTANT
STREET SUPERVISOR - PW
SYSTEMS ANALYST/WEB DEVELOPER
11 ASSOCIATE PLANNER 30.91$ 31.79$ 32.67$ 33.55$ 34.44$ 35.32$ 42.38$
BUILDING SYSTEMS INSPECTOR
CIVIL ENG TECH PROG COORD
COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR
COMMUNITY PROGRAM COORD FIRE
CURATOR
ENV HEALTH SPECIALIST II
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
Effective January 1, 2023
Revised 11/15/2022
87.5%90.0%92.5%95.0%97.5%100.0%120.0%
GRADE TITLE MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX
11 HR GENERALIST 30.91$ 31.79$ 32.67$ 33.55$ 34.44$ 35.32$ 42.38$
INDUSTRIAL/ELECTRICAL TECH
INSTRUMENTATION TECHNICIAN
REGISTRAR
SANITATION MANAGER - PW
TRANSIT OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR
10 ARCHIVIST 28.88$ 29.70$ 30.53$ 31.35$ 32.18$ 33.00$ 39.60$
ASSISTANT PLANNER
CIVIL ENGINEER - ENTRY LEVEL
CIVIL ENGINEERING TECH II
CRIME ANALYST
ECONOMIC DEVELOP SPECIALIST
ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL TECH - WF
ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL TECH - WWTP
ELECTRICIAN
ENV HEALTH SPECIALIST I
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
FLEET AND EQUIP MASTER MECHANIC
GRAPHIC ARTIST
Effective January 1, 2023
Revised 11/15/2022
87.5%90.0%92.5%95.0%97.5%100.0%120.0%
GRADE TITLE MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX
10 HELP DESK SPECIALIST 28.88$ 29.70$ 30.53$ 31.35$ 32.18$ 33.00$ 39.60$
HOUSING INSPECTOR
LEAD MAINTENANCE MECHANIC
MARKETING & FUND DEVELOP COORD
MARKETING COORDINATOR
PAYROLL COORDINATOR
PLUMBER
PLUMBING INSPECTOR
PROGRAM SUPERVISOR
RECORDS SUPERVISOR
9 ARBORIST 26.98$ 27.75$ 28.52$ 29.29$ 30.06$ 30.83$ 37.00$
BENEFITS COORDINATOR
CIVIL ENGINEERING TECH I
FINANCIAL SPECIALIST
FLEET AND EQUIP MECHANIC
GIS TECHNICIAN
HOUSING SPECIALIST
INSPECTOR
LANDSCAPE OPS LEAD WORKER
Effective January 1, 2023
Revised 11/15/2022
87.5%90.0%92.5%95.0%97.5%100.0%120.0%
GRADE TITLE MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX
9 LEAD CONSTRUCTION WORKER 26.98$ 27.75$ 28.52$ 29.29$ 30.06$ 30.83$ 37.00$
LEAD EQUIPMENT OPERATOR
LEAD PARKS MAINT WORKER
LEAD WATER EQUIP OPERATOR
LEAD WATER MAINT WORKER
LIQUIDS OPERATOR II - WWTP
MAINTENANCE MECHANIC - WF
MAINTENANCE MECHANIC - WWTP
PROPERTY APPRAISER
PURCHASING AGENT
SOLIDS OPERATOR II - WWTP
SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST
WATER FILTRATION OPERATOR II
WELDER
8 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 25.20$ 25.92$ 26.64$ 27.36$ 28.08$ 28.80$ 34.56$
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR
EXHIBIT TECHNICIAN
Effective January 1, 2023
Revised 11/15/2022
87.5%90.0%92.5%95.0%97.5%100.0%120.0%
GRADE TITLE MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX
8 FLEET AND EQUIP TECHNICIAN 25.20$ 25.92$ 26.64$ 27.36$ 28.08$ 28.80$ 34.56$
FLEET AND EQUIPMENT COORD
GRANTS COORDINATOR
HORTICULTURIST
LEAD SANITATION OPERATOR
PARKS TRADES TECHNICIAN
PROPERTY EVIDENCE CLERK
WATER MAINTENANCE WORKER
7 ACCOUNT CLERK III 23.56$ 24.23$ 24.90$ 25.57$ 26.25$ 26.92$ 32.30$
ASSISTANT CURATOR
DESKTOP SUPPORT TECHNICIAN
FLEET AND EQUIP REPAIR COORD
INSPECTION TECHNICIAN
LANDSCAPE OPS GRND SPECIALIST
LIQUIDS OPERATOR I - WWTP
SANITATION OPERATOR
SOLIDS OPERATOR I - WWTP
UTILITY LOCATOR II
WATER FILTRATION OPERATOR I
Effective January 1, 2023
Revised 11/15/2022
87.5%90.0%92.5%95.0%97.5%100.0%120.0%
GRADE TITLE MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX
7 ZOO SPECIALIST 23.56$ 24.23$ 24.90$ 25.57$ 26.25$ 26.92$ 32.30$
6 ACCOUNT CLERK II 22.04$ 22.67$ 23.30$ 23.93$ 24.56$ 25.19$ 30.23$
COURT LIAISON CLERK
HUMAN RESOURCE ASSISTANT
PARKS MAINTENANCE WORKER
PERMIT TECHNICIAN
STREET MAINTENANCE WORKER
TRAFFIC PAINTER II
UTILITY LOCATOR I
VIDEO EDITING TECHNICIAN
5 ACTIVITIES COORDINATOR 20.64$ 21.23$ 21.82$ 22.41$ 23.00$ 23.59$ 28.31$
CADET - POLICE RECRUIT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TECHNICIAN
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN
OFFICE ASSISTANT
TRAFFIC PAINTER I
4 ACCOUNT CLERK I 19.38$ 19.94$ 20.49$ 21.04$ 21.60$ 22.15$ 26.58$
CUSTOMER SERVICE CLERK
ELECTIONS SPECIALIST
Effective January 1, 2023
Revised 11/15/2022
87.5%90.0%92.5%95.0%97.5%100.0%120.0%
GRADE TITLE MIN STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CONT PT MAX
4 MAINTENANCE WORKER 19.38$ 19.94$ 20.49$ 21.04$ 21.60$ 22.15$ 26.58$
PARKING CONTROL
RECORDS AND REPORTS CLERK
REPORT PROCESSOR
TECH SUPPORT SERVICES COORD
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CLERK
UTILITY OPERATOR
3 ASSESSMENT TECHNICIAN 18.11$ 18.63$ 19.15$ 19.67$ 20.18$ 20.70$ 24.84$
ELECTIONS CLERK
2 CLERICAL ASSISTANT 16.98$ 17.46$ 17.95$ 18.43$ 18.92$ 19.40$ 23.28$
VISITOR SERVICES ASSISTANT
1 15.96$ 16.42$ 16.87$ 17.33$ 17.78$ 18.24$ 21.89$
Effective January 1, 2023
Revised 11/15/2022